I've had a couple of emails back and forth with Mark. He continues to harp on the subsidies that EV owners and PV systems get.
His first response to his article was:
Thanks so much for your comments Mr. Becker.
Just a few points in response:
How economical do you think your roof-top system and your plug-in car would be without subsidies of other peoples' tax money?
My guess is you wouldn't have opted to pay full price for either your solar or EV set ups.
But if you would be willing, why not return the subsidies?
At your service in Christ . . .
My response was:
How do you like having your gasoline subsidized by my tax money to support the military? Excuse the flip answer because I really want to shed light where there is heat. Fareed Zakaria had an interview with a recently retired Navy Admiral who stated that there were four reasons for our involvement in bringing stability to the Middle East and the first was OIL. You may not be aware but we Americans are sending over $1 Billion dollars per day to foreign countries for their oil. So for this example, I would think that any family that has lost a loved one protecting our supply of oil would be happy to subsidize my electric vehicle as an alternative. When Nixon created the 55 mph speed limit during the oil embargo of 1973, we were importing 1/3 of the oil we use. Today that number is 2/3 (between 13 and 14 million barrels per day). Thus, you can see why I take objection to a rather lopsided reporting of EVs. Regarding how economical the EV is, let me walk you through my analysis.
First of all, I am encouraging my Congressmen to only subsidize EVs for the next 5 years. The reason for that is that some people like yourself have not done the math regarding EVs and only look at first cost, not to mention pollution benefits, imported oil benfits, etc. Thus, they need that extra push to entertain driving an EV as a second car.
We traded in a 2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser in March of 2011 for our 2011 Nissan LEAF. The LEAF has a battery warranty of eight years at which time the battery can be recycled or, because it has anywhere from 70 - 80% capacity remaining, some utilities are looking at using that capacity for banks of them to store energy at night and to supply energy during peak times. In the case of the PT Cruiser, we paid $25,000 for it new and added about $1,000 in trim upgrades when we bought the car. When we traded it in we had to threaten to walk out of the dealership based on the trade-in value. They came up to $3,400 which was $600 less than we wanted but we acquiesced. I raise that point because after eight years any car is going to be worth very little in comparison with purchase cost. Thus, the argument about replacement batteries is ill informed. First, those batteries do have additional uses. Second, the batteries are recyclable and third, you can just trade it in for a new EV without losing much versus trading in an ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle.
The PT Cruiser got 20 mpg in the city and around 24 mpg on trips. Because the LEAF is an urban car I've used 20 mpg and an 8 year life for both vehicles. Driving 12,000 miles per year, I would use 4,800 gallons of gas at $3.86 per gallon (premium, it had the high HP engine) for a total life cost of $18,528. That does not include oil changes, filter changes, tune ups, etc. For the LEAF, in our case because of our PV set up we don't pay for the electricity. But to put it more like the average homeowner without PV, I'm factoring in the cost of electricity. Our LEAF currently is showing 4.7 miles per kWh. To make this more conservative I'll use 4.0 miles per kWH. Driving 12,000 miles per year equals 3,000 kWh or 24,000 kWh over the life of the car. Using night time rates, our utility charges $0.05 per kWh. These time-of-use (TOU) rates are at night when the utilities have excess generation capacity. You may be aware of how electricity is "tiered" so that a constant demand is satisfied by the cheapest method of generation and that peak periods use more costly methods of generation. Thus, the lifetime cost of the electricity would be $1,200.
Now the LEAF cost $35,000 and the PT Cruiser cost $26,000. Once I subtract the savings of the cost of fuel of the LEAF ($18,528 - $1,200) which is $17,328, it turns out that despite the LEAF costing $9,000 more, it is $8,328 cheaper to own over the life of the car. AND THIS IS WITHOUT SUBSIDIES OF ANY KIND! My career was in finance, so yes I would purchase the LEAF without any subsidies. It just makes economic sense.
The battery technology is forecast to double the range of the vehicle in 4 to 5 years (statement by Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan) which should make these cars even more attractive to the general public. Between that increase in volume and the cost of ownership numbers I've just presented, a subsidy should not be needed. BUT WE NEED IT NOW BECAUSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF THESE ADVANTAGES, especially after reading articles such as yours. That's why I'd like to see you perhaps have a follow up article giving some of the other side of the story.
Regarding photovoltaics, the Federal Government recognizes the need for infrastructure modernization of our electrical grid. More transmission lines need to be built. And in many cases with great resistance by individuals that don't want a 400,000 volt line anywhere near them. Also, because of our grid short comings we are told that we need to create a "smart" grid for an additional expense. Then, there is the cost to electrical users of the health consequences of more coal fired electrical generation. We're warned about mercury and other toxic substances that coal generation means. And finally, Dr. Richard B. Alley is an American geologist and Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at the Pennsylvania State University. He has some interesting empirical evidence about global warming and the "tipping point" we may be approaching regarding climate. I could go into detail but what he has done is hard science, not "gut feel". Thus, the question becomes, how do we want to pay for all of this?
My PV system generates more than enough energy for our use. That energy does not have to travel scores or hundreds of miles to reach me, hence I am not a burden on the overtaxed grid. When I do purchase power from the utility it is at night when the grid is lightly loaded. The energy I produce is when the utility needs the energy the most during the day. Next, the extra energy that I produce doesn't travel miles and miles, but travels right next door to my neighbor for their use. The utility pays me $0.023 per kWh and charges my neighbor $0.10 per kWh. The energy produced is pollution free. It neither contributes to global warming due to CO2, nor does it generate large quantities of excess heat that must be sent into the atmosphere.
One last point is that by subsidizing distributed power generation, jobs are created for the small business man in selling and installing PV equipment.
The point I am making is that you may object to my taking advantage of something that is good for me, good for the country, and good for the environment but the taxpayer and consumer will ultimately pay in one way or the other regardless if I install these renewable items. Finally, I believe that it is better for the government to put these benefits directly in the hands of regular consumers than to "bail out" or subsidize some large company like they did with the banks and the auto industry. Wouldn't it be better to subsidize a taxpayer rather than a big business, especially when it is good for the country and the environment?
I once heard that everyone's personality is shaped by the time they are five years old. I said that once to a guy that was wise way beyond his education when he responded by saying "and they spend the rest of their life justifying their position." Thus, I don't know if I've changed your mind at all, but at least you have some understanding why I took exception to your article.
He then wrote back:
Dear Mr. Becker,
When you contact your congressman, please tell him to return my tax money to me, rather than spend it on you.
Here's why I take exception to your points.
As for subsidies, let's get rid of all of them and see what the market really prefers. With the money you save in taxes you might still be able to afford solar/EV et al.
At your service in Christ . . .
My second response was (pay attention to the last line - these guys aren't guided by logic):
You are playing right into the hands of OPEC and the Saudi's. I'm beginning to wonder who's side you're on. Recently I saw a CNN interview by Fareed Zakaria who was interviewing a Saudi Prince. Forbes had this guy listed as the 26th most wealthy individual in the world. His statement was that OPEC would like to see the cost of a barrel of oil to range between $70 to $80 per barrel rather than the $100 per barrel that it currently is at. The reason was that at $100 per barrel the West would find alternatives. If you had read Alan Greenspan's book or John Hofmeister's book you would realize that OPEC has the ability to control the price of oil by the volume that they release to the market. The only thing that is keeping it elevated at the moment is the speculation that is going on in the market. What I am trying to do and the rest of us that know the value of EVs is to lessen our need for foreign oil.
I might also point out that the U.S. Government subsidized the very media we are communicating on. The Internet was spawned by the government. You're probably too young to know that the U.S. Government started the computer age. The very first computers were built for the U.S. Military to be able to calculate shell trajectories. They showed how valuable a programmable calculator could be and gave it its start.
You're argument is one of passion, not logic. You aren't well enough read to continue this discourse. I don't expect a reply.
