When the subsidy is removed, the greenies will howl that it is those evil Republicans! The facts of $17 trillion debt will not enter any logical thinking. The unprecedented $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities won't phase their reality. Only the fact that the subsidy was ended, irregardless of monetary reasons, will be the onerous for their shrieking.
Nothing against electrics or hybrids, but why does the tax payer have to subsidize it? If, as many on this site are fond of explaining, the vehicle is such a good deal, then the buyer should pay for it.
Even with the incentives in place we are seeing the manufacturers have to pile on additional $$$$. What is it on the Volt...$5K?
The early adopters are in but the product is apparently not gettting mainstream traction. The question in my mind is whether the current market is getting saturated. That is, have the bulk of the buyers that can afford/ are interested in / justify for their current needs the present products already bought one?
I suspect, baring unexpected technical advances, that these projected peaks will be lower and earlier.
Personally I would love a quiet commuter vehicle that runs on pennies, my 35 mile a day commute is ideal. The cost of buy-in and the limited capabilities at other use tiems are the kiss of death. At the present time.
I also wonder how many posts before someone starts snarling that Charles is "anti-electric". Clue time kids, he doesn't use the moniker "Capt. Hybrid" because he hates "eco-friendly" vehicles.
But, to a zealot any rational discussion of the hurdles ahead is blasphemy. "Burn (electricute?) the heretics!" There, I feel better now. ;^)
Chuck, we have had several years of EV sales now. Gasoline prices have not come down in that time, but the sales of EVs are only as much as a sports car, the MG B, were in the 1960s and 1970s. This is in absolute terms. In percentage terms, EV sales are much less. I use the MG as an example becuase I had one. I use it also becuase it was basically a luxury. They cost as much as a family sedan but only carried two people and little luggage. They also got great gas mileage compared to other cars generally available. They were not subsidized, though. I fully epect that the EVs will not get to the 200,000 level for any particular model. You do include the Volt in this category, but it has an ICE for charging. The others do not. If you limit yourself to pure EVs, then the picture is even less favorable.
Considering our deficit, and considering the progress in economy cars with ICEs available today, why would we continue to subsidize a technology that is not ready for prime time?
Subsidies and build industires and they can crush industries. When we moved from the Carter Administration to the Raegan Administration, solar subsidies dried up. That set back the solar industry about 30 years. Of course cheap oil, gas, and coal did damage to solar as well.
Good point Butner. There is probably a small specific market of buyers who are willing to pay a hefty pemium to drive a car that is environmentally friendly. That limited market is probably tapped now. Take away the subsidies and that market will probably shrink as the non-subsidized premium rises.
Rob, cheap oil, gas, and coal damaged solar? What! Solar damaged solar, as I recall the Carter years were in the midst of an OPEC hostage of gas. It may seem cheap by today's prices, but it was not considered cheap back then.
Your premise is that the benevolent government has the ability to project winners and losers. Just look at the USPS or Detroit to understand how government really works. You are a good poster, but do not try and defend subsidies of a financially losing product. When the technology meets the market requirement, then no one has to incentivize the sales of the EV product. Stop wasting my tax money!
GTOlover, you got me wrong. Just because I noted that the lack of solar subsidizes hurt solar doesn't mean I supported government initiatives to prop up a struggling industry. My feelings are mixed on the subject. And yes OPEC drove prices up, which launched the solar industry in the first place. But those prices came tumbling down when increased exploration flooded the market with new oil. That's when the solar industry dried up.
A new service lets engineers and orthopedic surgeons design and 3D print highly accurate, patient-specific, orthopedic medical implants made of metal -- without owning a 3D printer. Using free, downloadable software, users can import ASCII and binary .STL files, design the implant, and send an encrypted design file to a third-party manufacturer.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.