Next Gen Prius Plug-in Battery Speculation

Let's try to find out what are the savings. Is it emission? Nope. 52 MPG Prius or 47 MPG Malibu hybrid that don't get any incentives are cleaner in most states.

It can reduce oil import for sure but at a cost of higher emission (debatable).



When the incentive of the battery is 3x the cost ($417/kWh incentives vs $140/kWh cost), someone need to call foul.

If it was done to grow the battery industry, then why only for plugin cars? Why not the home battery backup system, etc?

Even for the plugin cars, there should be minimum MPG if it has a gas engine. Why do tax payers need to pay the incentives if it has 20 MPG gas engine?

 

doesn't hydrogen get any taxpayer money?

 

It does. What if a H2 station that cost $1 million to build gets $3 million in incentives? Wouldn't someone raise a red flag?

This is happening with plugin incentives and everyone seems to be happy.

 

usb, a few points after viewing the chart above...

1) Grid is getting cleaner every year. Wind has advanced in my state since 2012.
2) EV's charged from home solar not factored in?
3) EV's tend to make sense for short trips where even a Prius gets bad mpg
4) EV's tend to sell to those who can best use them
5) Government & power companies can/should do more to advance clean, sustainable energy sources

 

Here is my take:

1) Why not roll out plugins when the grid is clean enough? Or do in stages as states/regions become clean enough? A better choice is to roll out nationwide but provide incentives only in the states with "clean enough" electricity.

2) Electricity emission figures in the chart, include all renewable energy. I have 7.8 kW rooftop solar panel. My direct consumption in the summer was about 50%. The other half came from the grid. Now, majority of my power comes from the grid. I don't have a year round figure but I would say 25% from direct consumption. I can claim I am 25% cleaner than my neighbor.

3) This is a very good point. You are right but you have to be very careful because there shouldn't be efficiency/emission penalty for "longer" trips. PiP's gas engine is 1 MPG higher than a regular Prius on the highway. It also avoid short trips penalty. Other plugin hybrids on the market has gas efficiency hit for the long trips. As a result, Gen1 Volt is not as clean as a regular 50 MPG Prius, despite it's EV range.

4) Yes, but do as as I suggest in #1.

5) Agree 100%. There are incentives for solar and wind at the source of production. Why provide separate incentive for car battery (at the source of consumption) assuming all of it's electricity would come from renewable? If that's the case, tie them together. Plugin car buyers must buy renewable electricity to get the tax incentives.

 

Based on that map, only ~20% of the population would see higher GHG emissions with a PHEV/EV, the other ~80% would see lower GHG emissions. It's probably a good idea for someone in those states to roll their own renewable electricity before the get a PHEV/EV, but I don't see that as disproving a benefit of the current tax credit.

There're also reductions in local pollution and healthcare costs, reductions in battery (and probably battery related) costs, reductions in oil prices (more favorable price elasticity of demand), an increase in domestically produced energy, and so on...

Whether or not the current level of the tax credit is justified depends on many factors. It may be, or it may not be.

 

Per the full report, 66% of the population would see lower emission with 2012 grid data. However, with 2009 grid data, only 45% of the population would. Remember, the plugin tax credit started back in 2009.

In the case of PiP2 and Gen4 Prius, if both have the same emission level, is it justifiable for only PiP2 to receive tax credit, simply because it can plug in?

I don't think so. I think the incentives should be shared between the two. Perhaps more toward PiP2 because it could use domestic fuel.

 

if the government wants plug ins? sure. if they want hybrids, which can never get us off fossil fuels, no.

 

I doubt government wants a plugin that emit more than the regular hybrid tech.

It is not like a plugin that also emit less is impossible. Why not push for those that achieve both goals? That's all I am saying.

 

i'm not disagreeing, but government is more about overall policy, than specific goals.

 

ironic since the incentive is specific about the battery at specific sizes.

 

yes, maybe they couldn't think of a way to get more ev on the road, aside from battery size.

 

Given that half of all PEVs are registered in CA, and that something like 75% of all EVs are registered in states with electricity at ~90mpg equivalent as of 2012, it's probably not accurate to assume that PIPs have the same emissions levels as a normal Prius, at least in real world use.

California leads the nation in the adoption of electric vehicles - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Besides lower GHG emissions, there are many other factors to consider if you're looking at whether the PHEV/EV tax credit is justified.

 

imagine if all states had cali incentives.

 

When the incentive was penned and started, the cost per kWh for the batteries were at least twice the $417 of the incentive. I think Toyota said they were paying $1200/kWh at that time.

With the incentive at or near the current cost of batteries, and will be higher than cost in the future, is just evidence that the incentive structure was successful for the goal of reducing traction battery costs for cars. The costs simply dropped faster than expected, but there is already a sunset clause written into the law of 200k cars per manufacturer. It could be changed to reduce the amount that the companies that sat on the sidelines of making plug ins can benefit, but they'll cry foul, and the money spent is less that other things our government pay for.

The incentive was never tied to emission reduction. Instead, incentives for green energy(tax credits for home solar) and penalties for dirty(excise tax on coal) were part of the large bill that the plug in credit was a small part of.

A successful BEV will need a minimum range that buyers are comfortable with, and range is directly tied to battery size. Range can be increased with improving efficiency, as in the i3, but that will also add cost. A KISS approach is best for laws, and the major hurdle to plug in sales and adoption is the battery cost. To make it worthwhile for battery companies to invest in lower cost units means providing a market for more batteries.

I guess the incentive could have been tied to EV range, but I think that would have involved more paperwork and debate on what the minimum range should be and how much for surpassing that number, without much change in the outcome we have now.

 

i suppose there are a few different ways it can be done, it depends on objective. some maybe thinking about reliance on fossil fuels, others, importing oil, still others, carbon. who knows?

 

There were also sales in Colorado where grid emissions were the worse. The state offer additional incentive ($6,000) that totals $13,500 combined.

Things could've turned worse but besides the point, legislation was written badly.

The point is, it should. Why should the emission be increased for the sake of driving on the battery?

We know because our president told us.

In 2008, the President set an ambitious goal of putting 1 million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015 – which would reduce dependence on foreign oil and lead to a reduction in oil consumption of about 750 million barrels through 2030.​

2015 is ending and the total US sales are going to be about 320,000 plugin sales. So, we've achieved about a third of the goal.

In attempt to reduce oil import, we overlooked the emission -- we shouldn't. That would be as silly as promoting coal powered vehicle to reduce oil import.

Toyota said they did what they should, not what they could when they designed PiP with a small battery.

EVs are indirectly coal powered vehicle with a mix of natural gas since that's what majority of our electricity was produced with.

 

Look at DC...holy mackeral...I tentatively calculate a Tesla Model S could cost $40000 less in DC than nearby here in northern Virginia (where we have a car tax that really slams expensive cars), assuming the owner holds the Model S 8yrs. If we assume 4-yrs double the $40k NoVA tax whammy.

DC- Sales taxes credit $6000
DC- BEV Discount $19000

NoVA Sales Tax $4000
NoVA Car Taxes $15000 (8-yrs)

 

That's true, CO does have worse GHG emissions. But in the aggregate, GHG emissions are still better than a conventional Prius per the report you linked (U.S. average (EV sales-weighted): 68 MPG), and they're getting better as time goes by.

In terms of the legislation itself, I think it was written well based on the economic outcomes (lower gas prices, better fuel security, more domestic energy production, fewer GHG emissions, far less local pollution, lower healthcare costs, etc...) that we wanted. It's probably not optimal, but if the trade-off for an optimal bill is a much larger chance of a sub-optimal outcome, I think that's an example of being penny wise and pound foolish, especially compared to the tax breaks wand subsidies we have written into law for various FF companies.

 

i think we should overlook pollution to reduce imported oil. or at least come up with a plan that won't worsen it. hopefully both can be accomplished. we need more clean energy incentives, and less dirty energy incentives.