Electric cars worth the (Public) cost?

I've not seen that anyone else had posted this so I thought I would. This article was posted online by an opinion writer for the Washington Post last night. Although the issues are not new, the writers take is a little more damning than I've read before. Any thoughts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/government-has-spent-a-lot-on-electric-cars-but-was-it-worth-it/2016/01/06/359bd25c-b496-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html?postshare=3571452138357232&tid=ss_tw

The piece isn't so much "damning" as "bitching." It's quite true that we've (not me personally, though - I have numerous EVs) fallen far short of announced goals, but between the very weak efforts (often net negatives) at promotion by the auto industry, low gas prices, and the scarcity of good sub-$15k EVs, the result isn't all that surprising. The fact that the author feels the need to use purple prose even to declare victory in his little bet says that this is the result that makes him happy, and the environment be damned.

LeftieBiker said:

The fact that the author feels the need to use purple prose even to declare victory in his little bet says that this is the result that makes him happy, and the environment be damned.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you about the tone of the article, I do wonder about his more thoughtful (but without the first bit of empirical support) that the same money would have had a much bigger/better environmental impact if it had been invested in converting coal fired electric plants to natural gas or the building of more modern nuclear power plants. If the real goal is improving the environment, wouldn't we want the most public good for our public dollars?

I have no idea if the argument is valid, but its interesting to think about.

Most definitely!

Are gas cars worth:
The cost of the lives of our troops?
Tens of thousands of premature deaths due to car exhaust?
Billions/year in subsidies to oil companies?

I'd say no.

The author creates a false dichotomy: there is no fixed pool of money that has to be spent either on converting power plants (but no nuclear power, thanks all the same) or on EV subsidies. We could easily do both, and to a certain extent we are doing both.

All he talks about is the economics of an EV and then decides he wants a BMW?
Not really practicing what he preaches :roll:

jpadc said:

I do wonder about his more thoughtful (but without the first bit of empirical support) that the same money would have had a much bigger/better environmental impact if it had been invested in converting coal fired electric plants to natural gas or the building of more modern nuclear power plants.

Click to expand...

In the wake of Three Mile Island and especially Fukushima Daiichi, there is no way you can build or even remodel a nuclear plant today in the US.

Here in LA right now we are dealing with our own natural gas-supplied environmental disaster (Google "Porter Ranch gas leak"). A co-worker of mine and his family have been living in a hotel room because of this.

Given the cost of advanced batteries, which has not come down as swiftly as EV boosters assumed, most EVs are still very expensive.

Click to expand...

This is the linchpin of his argument, but blatently false unless one wishes to conjure up some crazy notion of what "EV boosters assumed". The general consensus as I recall was an average 7% per year improvement in cost per kWH. It seems that has been far exceeded during the 2010-2015 timeframe.

http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-ev-battery-cells-down-to-145kwh-and-still-falling/

He's right about one thing, people are anxious about range. I think *some* of those people irrationally so, given their daily driving or existing ownership of 2nd ICE vehicle.

However, to bring up Federal subsidies for electric vehicles without covering the fed and state subsidies given to automakers and petroleum producers is disingenuous at best. To also bring in the idea of nuclear power plants is even worse when it comes to subsidies.

Public funding of EV's is akin to a pauper's funeral in comparison.