By on February 22, 2011


Though it appears that it may take even more government stimulus to achieve President Obama’s goal of putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, online auto juggernaut Edmunds has come out against existing EV tax credits in a commentary by CEO Jeremy Anwyl. Anwyl’s argument is rooted in the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy‘s finding that the tax credit-qualifying Chevy Volt is only the 13th-greenest vehicle on the market while its greenest, the natural gas-powered Honda Civic GX, remains unsubsidized. Anwyl argues

The problem is this:  When the government picks a technology, it crowds out development of other, potentially promising alternatives, like the natural gas engine used in the Honda Civic GX (above). LNG is not a new technology.  I had friends who converted their vehicle to natural gas back in the Seventies.  But how much are we hearing about it today? Or what about hydrogen fuel cells?  A few years back, they were the stars of the major auto shows.  Were any fuel-cell vehicles on display at the recent Detroit auto show? No. Every automaker was busy touting EVs.

A second problem is that there is a Cash for Clunkers-like aspect to these tax credits.  Consumers buying Leafs and Volts right now are not that price sensitive. They are EV enthusiasts, early technology adopters. In other words, we are forking over deficit-funded dough to stimulate sales of vehicles that would be sold anyway. (Or in some cases, not sold.) Sure, at some point EVs are still too expensive to go mainstream. But is this the government’s (i.e. taxpayers’) problem?

Anwyl admits that he thinks EVs are “cool,” but his second argument is especially damning. Already, the proposed 2012 budget would make EV tax credits available as a discount at the point of purchase, a move likely to enhance the “Cash-for-Clunker-like aspect” considerably. But then, the President hasn’t promised the nation a million natural gas cars, has he?

Nor does Anwyl address the minor issue of the Nissan Leaf’s apparent tie with the Civic GX for “greenest car,” leading one to wonder whether the ACEEE’s list contains other, non-green pure-electric vehicles. Or how EV “greenness” can even be calculated on a non-local basis. But even if we take for granted that the ACEEE’s ability to rank vehicles “based on official emissions and fuel-economy tests, and other specifications reported by auto manufacturers” is solid, and that natural gas vehicles and plug-in vehicles are equally “green,” EVs do have the potential to become “greener” as “greener” electricity sources (including, say, natural gas) replace dirtier ones.

Still, natural gas cars are a viable option in many areas, and they highlight the real issue with federal EV credits: they don’t recognize the importance of locality any more than the ACEEE appears to. Here on the banks of the dam-draped  Columbia, the electric car makes a far more compelling “green” case for itself than the natural gas car; in Oklahoma, Wyoming or Texas, the calculation might be quite different. Killing all green car subsidies seems unlikely in the face of the President’s pledge, but this seems like a good time to at least rethink them.  And since Anwyl offer much beyond the vague implication that plug-in tax credits should be cut, here’s another, possibly more politically-viable suggestion: instead of a national, dealer-level plug-in subsidy, simply make “green car” subsidy funds available to states, with the mandate that incentives could go towards the most locally-effective options. This model offers both better-targeted stimulus, and more competition between technologies… which, in theory, makes everyone happy. Right?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

39 Comments on “Edmunds Comes Out Against EV Tax Credits...”


  • avatar
    carve

    Agreed.  I can understand promoting a goal, but not a particular technology to achieve that goal.

    For instance, incandescent bulbs.  I’ve replaced most of mine, but they’re still preferable in some seldom-used areas, or when a particular quality of light is desired.  If efficiency is the goal, don’t ban CFL; just have an efficiency standard, with an equivelent of an energy-guzzler tax.

    (Technically, I prefer a completely free-market driven tech base, but even if your goal was high efficiency, you do it by mandating high efficiency- not penalizing or promoting particular pet technologies. This is guaranteed to limit our options and is a target for corruption and misallocation of resources)

    • 0 avatar

      Incandescents are very useful for heating things. For example, our family has a lamp in our water pumphouse. In the winter, we turn on the lamp, and it keeps the pipes warm. You can’t do that with a CFL.
       
      (I think you mean “Don’t ban incandescents and require CFL’s”, though, since CFL stands for Compact Fluorescent.)
       
      Here in New Mexico, I would say CNG would be better than electric, since we sure have a ton of natural gas. However, to get CNG for cars we’d need to upgrade the infrastructure a bit. In the recent cold crunch, there was a particularly bad natural gas shortage here caused when natural gas pumping stations in Texas were shut down. We weren’t prepared and ended up with lots of people freezing in their beds at night. Just like with electric cars, CNG cars would eat up available amounts of widely-used energy; natural gas is used in these states for everything from cooking to heating, just as electric is in many other areas. It would put more strain on the infrastructure of natural gas pipeline currently installed. Both new technologies (CNG and electric) require infrastructure upgrades to make them viable, regardless of whether Volt is the 13th greenest vehicle or the CNG Civic is the greenest or any other permutation of such.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      The Luigiian,
      Living in Cali, I always install CFLs wherever I move, specifically to avoid the darned things heating my place more than necessary :)

  • avatar
    tparkit

    “This model (of state-level subsidies for locally-suitable technologies) offers both better-targeted stimulus, and more competition between technologies… which, in theory, makes everyone happy. Right?”

    Um, no. All greenscam subsidies make me distinctly unhappy. Think of them as ethanol-by-other-means.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Amen to that.  Here in The Capital of the Free World, the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt are going to be running on coal.  (well, only part of the time for the Volt)
    Last time I checked, coal was not green.

    • 0 avatar
      Robbie

      The idea here is that the energy from a coal plant is generated is a much cleaner way than the energy is generated in your car. The pipes of a coal plant look bad, but are much cleaner than a car on a KWh basis.

  • avatar
    prattworks

    Why not just make incremental increases in the gas tax?  Let the technologies fall where they may in light of increased petroleum costs.  A major flaw with any and all incentives is the perception of uncertainty.  Automakers, researchers and suppliers can’t make strategic, long-term plans or investmens when the political and incentive landscape keeps changing.  My problem with EVs is that they seem inefficient when compared to walking, cycling or public transportation for so a decent percentage of commuters.  We may get rid of the carbon, but will likely see ever-increasing traffic and parking problems and externalities.

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      Why not just make incremental increases in the gas tax?

      Because in the current American political climate, raising any tax, much less the gas tax, is to hand your opponents a club to beat you with. It makes no difference how fair or sensible it might be, taxation is the “third rail” of politics now.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    I can assure you that if GM made a CNG or LNG car, we would see that technology eligible for subsidies.
     
    On the bigger issue, the last time I checked, the US is $14 trillion in the hole.  Pray tell, why are we spending tax dollars on this when we’re bankrupting ourselves.  We’re acting like the proverbial couple about to go into bankruptcy and buying a new Viking refrigerator.

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      GM probably makes somewhere on this Earth natural gas cars so i doubt what you say is true. There is also the problem that a natural gas car is simply a gasoline car with instead of a gas tank a real gas tank. Technology wish it isn’t exactly difficult to master and as such doesn’t need the subsidies to make it work

  • avatar
    G35X

    Being an ICE Honda’s NG engine wastes as much as 70 to 80 percent of the thermal energy produced by combustion.  There is a better approach, though still not very economical, for more efficient use of NG:
     
    - Expose NG (CH4) to high temperature to separate H2 from CH4 (reformation).
    - Feed the H2 to a fuel cell such as the one used for Honda Clarity (100kW)
    - Charge EVs with the electricity thus generated. 
     
    The Clarity cell should be able to recharge 15 to 20 EVs at the same time fully in 2 hours or so. Price of the fuel cell is coming down. The latest Panasonic model (750W) costs about $30,000 including an NG reformation system.  Efficiency from NG to electricity to vehicle propulsion should be somewhere around 40 percent without taking the byproduct heat into consideration.  The heat can be used to produce hot water.
     
    NG is piped into many households and is cheaper than the grid electricity.  Last month my household used 23.4GJ (6500kWh) and paid $272 or a little more than 4 cents/kWh. Suppose if I had a 5kW NG-to-electricity system (which is a piece of cake compared to the Clarity system), I could have been able to power all my electric appliances, electronics and an EV.  Had I used the byproduct heat to produce hot water for kitchen and bath, the overall efficiency would have been somewhere around 50 percent or more.  
     
    NG is abundant and locally available.  Other than the energy needed to maintain pressure NG distribution does not have inherent loss like electricity (resistance*current^2, about 5 percent of the total grid energy).  Stoppage of NG supply is much less frequent than the grid electricity, a great advantage in the Pacific Northwest where I live.  I think we should be looking at the household NG-to-electricity system before worrying about FC automobiles.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Thanks for that writeup.
       
      Are the cells you are describing very picky about the purity of the NG you put in, or will they run on pretty much anything?
       
      30 large ones for 750 Watts isn’t exactly competitive with diesel generators yet, but it isn’t “military only” pricing, either.
       

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      NG distribution has exactly the same inherent loss that electricity has, resistance.

  • avatar
    zigpenguin

    “But is this the government’s (i.e. taxpayers’) problem?”
     
    Unrest in the Middle East pushed up oil prices yesterday. There are already the usual articles about higher oil prices hurting the economy. Tax revenues are entirely dependent on the state of the economy. If high oil prices hurt the economy, then tax revenues will decrease and the deficit will increase. Replacing gasoline use with natural gas or electricity would reduce our economy’s dependence on oil prices (and thus the risk associated with conflict in various parts of the world). I think that reducing the risk of high oil prices stalling US economic growth is worth an investment in non-petroleum energy for transportation.

    • 0 avatar
      tparkit

      “I think that reducing the risk of high oil prices stalling US economic growth is worth an investment in non-petroleum energy for transportation.”

      To solve this problem in a way that actually works, I’d prefer an investment in drilling the Gulf and ANWR. Private investment, that is. I’d throw in drilling offshore California, but that can’t happen until the Left Coast has an unrescued economic and social meltdown

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      Opening those areas wouldn’t lead to a situation in which the US would become an oil exporter and as such don’t work because the US price of oil would still rise with the global price.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    How reVolting – 12 cars are ‘greener’ than the Volt, most gallingly the Cruze.  Too bad the Volt can’t make up its mind about what it wants to be.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      Not surprising, as the Volt turns its Acura-esque nose up at all forms of conventional classification or measurement. It goes its own way. Anyone who’s driven it, from Messrs. Niedermeyer and Karesh to Dan Neil and Gene Weingarten, as said it pretty much works, for what it is.

      Mind you, it loses here by one metric, this initially-mystifying “ACEEE Green Book Score.” And just six points of separation between thirteen vehicles isn’t exactly make this a rout. One set of statistics can neither redeem nor damn any car.

      The dad of an elementary school classmate of mine worked at the gas company, and their family always drove around in CNG vehicles. This was in the early nineties. I’m still baffled that so many years later, the Civic GX is the only production car that runs on the stuff.

  • avatar
    HoldenSSVSE

    Well, how about some truth in how the data on the ACEEE is collected in their, ehem, formula?
     
    For example the Volt scores lower than the smartfortwo, even though it was better fuel economy even in gasoline only mode.  Wait a minute?  Why is THAT? Well, the Volt seats four and is heavier, so even though it is more efficient, even without the electric component, nope – penalty.
     
    I find huge irony that the Cruze makes the list in the middle of the pack, despite the never ending whining about it being too heavy and having “bad” fuel economy. The Cruze, according to their math is as efficient as a Yaris or a stripper Mini Cooper.

    Where is the VW diesel love? A Golf TDI is a heck of a lot more efficient that a smartfortwo – oh that’s right, it seats four and is heavier – shame on you VW, SHAME!
     
    So is the fact the Volt is at the bottom of the list shameful? Or is it shameful that the Cruze is just a tick less efficient than a Honda Insight hybrid?  *snicker*

    For the record – pro natural-gas in cars, anti-government subsidy, but this chart and their methodology is a joke, and that is being kind.

  • avatar
    don1967

    When the government picks a technology, it crowds out development of other, potentially promising alternatives

    Amen.  When does government meddling ever produce anything but the least efficient solution?   While Obama sets artificial targets for fashion-accessory hybrids and EVs, more good will be done for the planet by ordinary Elantras and Cruzes sold in the free market.

    • 0 avatar
      aspade

      When has the federal government ever had any interest in efficiency?  These aren’t decisions made by engineers.  Or scientists.  Or even by accountants.  This is patronage to the lobbyists and campaign donors.  That’s how Washington works.
       
       

  • avatar
    George B

    There is no doubt that government incentives distort the market for alternative fuel vehicles.  As a consumer what I want is to spend less money on driving a nice car, not spend more to save the planet while driving an overpriced economy car.  Hell, I’d drive a car powered by fuel refined from baby seals, polar bears, cute fuzzy bunnies, and lignite coal if it cost less than gasoline.  What I want is a normal car that can use cheap natural gas and not be rendered useless by the lack of CNG refueling infrastructure.  A bi-fuel CNG/gasoline mid-size with soft touch plastics and leather seats would be significantly more attractive to me than the most green Honda Civic GX government fleet vehicle.
     

  • avatar
    shaker

    The reason that the government is subsidizing EV’s over CNG vehicles is that they’re looking into the far future, when solar, wind and even fusion power will become more widely available, especially when pushed by the demand for electricity created by EV’s.
    To “cop out” by supporting a temporary technology based (once again) on fossil fuels would be shortsighted.
    This is about the future of our country, an investment “for our grandchildren” if you like, but the shortsighted look at these investments (yes, that’s what they are) in the future are equated to some sort of robbery – maybe so to those who “…want it all, want it all, and want it now.”

    • 0 avatar
      Philosophil

      I agree. Obama tends to bring a broad historical perspective to this thinking, and I suspect that he is looking long-term here and is already seeing this as his potential legacy as it were (assuming things turn out the way he envisions). Of course many people have a hard time seeing beyond the end of their noses, so this kind of perspective will likely seem alien and ridiculous to them. As you say, people want it all and they want it now, something that is continuously encouraged by the current expectation for immediate gratification and our disposable/replaceable lifestyle. Hell people get upset now if they have to wait longer than a minute for their food or more than 30 seconds for their computer to boot up. Crazy stuff.
       
      Technologies like this tend to bring with them very broad, systematic developments that help to maintain and support the lifestyle that such technologies enable. By pushing EV’s Obama is hoping to give a boost to the development of the broader systematic technological, structural, and institutional frameworks that would be needed to make EV’s part of a real, viable, alternative future. Technologies rarely, if ever, enter society as isolated instruments, but come instead with a broad system of structures, institutions, attitudes, and so on that they both enable, and that are necessary for supporting and maintaining their use.
       
      Obama’s program is actually far more ambitious than most people realize, and if he even comes close to realizing his vision here, it could very result in a major shift in North American culture and lifestyle that has the potential to be historical in its importance. I suspect that this is exactly what Obama has in view here, however vague and indeterminate our current vision of this future might be.

    • 0 avatar
      FleetofWheel

      So Obama is a visionary and automotive experts (and the populace) are too dim witted and primal to understand his brilliance?
      Did you get a tingle and then faint while you wrote that hagiography?
       
      Obama embraced ethanol for political purposes and revoked GWB’s stated goal for a manned mission to Mars and other near space exploration.
      Smart guy, yes but still a conventional left of center Democrat.
      If you don’t believe it, read his books.
       
       

    • 0 avatar
      Philosophil

      No tingles and no faintness here, and I certainly don’t think Obama is a saint.
       
      I simply think that Obama is looking far beyond his stated ‘EV’ dates with his current program. He is anticipating (rightly or wrongly) that by providing secure, institutional support for the development of this particular automotive goal, he will stimulate a host of other widespread and parallel efforts in research, development, and entrepreneurial enterprise that build upon and from the institutionally supported production of EV’s. He’s trying to ignite another period of educational and industrial growth, to fuel a renewed drive for research and development, and to re-awaken a new entrepreneurial spirit by setting up a secure target that all can see and that all can trust to be backed institutionally by the long term support of government.
       
      I have no idea whether Obama’s vision will be realized, but I do think most people don’t fully appreciate the scope of what he is trying to do here, or the possible implications this might have for the future direction and character of North American society (if it actually accomplishes those aims). There’s no hagiography here, only an attempt to spell out what I see as some of the possible motives behind Obama’s plan, as well as potential implications it might have.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      If you look at the how the stock market going down and oil prices going up (which over the long-term will raise the price of *everything*) due to the crisis in Lybia, I think it’s a laudable goal to decouple our economic future from fossil fuels from that troubled and volatile region. But, since that goal is being advanced by Obama, it’s a tough sell, even to those who agree to these goals in their hearts.

      Philosophil: An eloquent take (and improvement) on my point… 

    • 0 avatar
      carve

      Their are many problems with the government doing things like this.

      1) Highly susceptible to lobbywhists or fantastical whims.  Just look at ethanol.
      2) Distorts the free market
      3) Limits investment into alternate solutions, reducing competition
      4) Redistributes wealth (why were hybrid driving CA residents getting kickbacks, when you could drive an equally efficient conventional car and get nothing?)

      How about instead, taxes and regulations are reduced.  Then, the car companies will have more money to invest in their own tech.  They’ll put a lot of research into whatever tech. looks like it’ll have the greatest cost benefit for their forcasted future energy sources.  If they pick wrong, they’ll suffer the economic consequencse for their incopetence, and their competitor who picked right will reap the benefits (see Prius.  It was developed on Toyota’s dime when gas was cheap, and ready for mass market just as it got expensive.  Now Prius is synomous with hybrid, as is Toyota). 

      Further reducing taxes on people will give them more money to spend on whatever technology best suits them at the moment.

      The free market, with buyers and sellers determining the prices this way, is the only way developed so far to efficiently allocate resources.

      It would be poetic though if wars in the middle east were paid for with increased gas taxes, to reflect the true cost of gas. That would spur demand for alternatives.

    • 0 avatar
      Philosophil

      1) Any government action is subject to lobbying, including maintaining the status quo. I see no argument here.
       
      2) Of course it distorts the free market, but I would counter that the so-called free market exists only in theory, never in practice. There are all kinds of conditions that distort the market and some of them are actually helpful in mitigating the harmful effects of the market in advancing the good of all.
       
      3) It definitely limits investment into alternatives, there’s no question about that. But why should we assume that a process of ‘market selection’ is necessarily better in all circumstances than a process of ‘deliberate selection’ based on some broadly understood ideal that we would like to have as a target for future life? (Conversely, we should not always assume that ‘deliberate selection’ is necessarily better than ‘market selection’ either. It depends upon the context.)
       
      4) I see nothing inherently problematic about redistributing wealth away from the current ways in which wealth is distributed. There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly just, fair or desirable about the ways in which the distribution of wealth favors those who have control of the fossil fuel related industries (or arms industries, or pharmaceutical industries, and so on). If you could show me that the current manner of distributing wealth which, as related to the automobile industry, favors those who control elements of industry related to fossil fuels, is better than the one being proposed, then this would be a point worth listening to. As it stands, however, Obama’s proposal would seem to entail a mere horizontal distribution of wealth from one group to another, with no net loss of gain one way or the other. Further, when you take into account the possible long-term benefits of the program that Obama is pushing (assuming it plays out the way envisioned), then there seem to be more arguments in favor of such a change than against it.
       
      You claim that the free market is the best way to efficiently allocate resources. Even if that is true (which I would challenge), that doesn’t mean that the free market is the best, that is, the fairest, most just, way of allocating resources. The equitable allocation of resources is a matter of justice in its broadest sense, and just as we don’t let questions of criminal or civil justice be handled by the marketplace, so too we should be wary of letting all questions relating to the equitable distribution of resources (or goods) be decided by the marketplace either.
       
      The market is a great way of distributing, and producing many if not most kinds of goods, but it is not the universal solution to all issues relating to the distribution or production of what is best or good.
       

    • 0 avatar
      Mikemannn

      @carve –
          I agree with all four of your points… But as far as leaving it up to the corporations to come up with a solution all on their own, well it just isn’t going to happen.  The free market wants cheap and easy, and for the time being and the near future, gasoline is the cheapest and easiest.  
         All that really matters in (big)business at the end of the day (or quarter) is the bottom line.  The manufacturers just won’t look far enough down the road on their own to find a solution unless they’re pushed.  I just don’t see that push coming from the average consumer, otherwise we’d have people beating down the doors of their local EV dealerships right now instead of buying Hummers and F150s to go to soccer practice… (to that end, they’d be demanding locally grown and processed foods instead of hitting up McD’s too..)
         The Corps are thinking about picking what the right technology is for Today and Tomorrow  not Next Week or Next Year, so they don’t suffer any, more immediate “economical consequences”.  Which must be really frustrating for all the businesses that have already gone bankrupt over the last few decades trying to promote ICE alternatives only to have their ideas fall on deaf ears and closed chequebooks. 
      Not to say His way is neccessarily the right way to feed innovation, but I do think it has to be mandated at some level.

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      Carve,
      If you mean on Toyota’s dime money from the Japanese government than you are right as it gave big subsidies to develop and market

  • avatar
    NN

    Some simple math:
    A google search tells me that the US consumed 140 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004.  Makes sense if you try and run the numbers yourself.
    A $0.05 per gallon increase in gas tax, every year for next 10 years, would result in $7 billion in additional tax revenue the first year (mere pocket change) and $70 billion per year by year 10, assuming # of drivers and miles stays the same, which we know it will not.  The combined income over a 20 year period is over a trillion dollars.  Now that might help pay some bills.
    Plus, $0.05 per year is a small adjustment that most people won’t notice and will allow them over time to replace their vehicles with more efficient choices, if they care to.
    If some big name politician just did a damn Ross Perot graph to show people how much sense this makes, the American people would probably accept it.  But no one gets past the ideological screaming.
    I firmly believe we need to make massive cuts in government and I applaud what the Wisconsin republicans are trying to do now, as well as what Chris Christie of NJ has done.  But we’ve got to be real about our deficit, and this is a fair, rational tax raise that makes sense in more ways than any other tax likely will.
     

    • 0 avatar
      FleetofWheel

      Do you agree that consumers have a finite amount of money to spend and that if they have to spend $xx more per year on gas then will spend a mirror image $xx less on other consumables, most of which are also taxed?
       
      Your idea would bring more money into the gas tax collection bucket while reducing the amount in the electronics, clothing, dining, repair, and sundry tax collection buckets.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Does anyone find it ironic that the Volt ranks 13th in this list?  The Volt didn’t even make it in the top ten!  Has anyone noticed where the Prius ranks in this list? Why would anyone with a rational mind choose to buy a Volt if they want an EV when there are so many other, better choices available that cost less? If I lived in the big city where I would have use for an EV, my first choice would be the Prius.  It’s been around for more than a decade and has proven itself reliable. That EV tax credit doesn’t mean squat if you don’t pay taxes or if the taxes you do pay are less than the credit.  Better to buy the Prius and use the money you save for something else.

    • 0 avatar
      Steven02

      First, the Prius isn’t an EV, at least not yet.  There isn’t a plug version available.
       
      The methods of determining this list are sketchy at best.  In mpg, the Volt beats have the list if you don’t account for its battery at all.  When you account for the battery, it should be at or near the top of the list.  The list doesn’t mean anything IMHO because information on how the list was made isn’t available.

  • avatar
    stuki

    With oil prices rising, and ever cheaper gas from shale deposits in the US, perhaps we’ll become a “green” country the old fashioned way, by making adjustments in response to market price fluctuations.. No wonder those making their living off of Euro envious guilt tripping, are all in favor of promoting less easily achievable technologies.

  • avatar
    protomech

    He seems to either ignore or is unaware that the Civic GX has a $4000 federal tax credit available. That’s a bit less than the (up to) $7500 federal tax credit for BEV/PHEV, but it’s a bit conspicuous in the absence of mention.

    • 0 avatar
      Steven02

      Excellent point.  I think the tax credit is gone now, but it definitely had one.
      http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/tax-information.aspx
      Also not mentioned in the articles is that hybrids had their own share of tax credits as well.  Both of these might have expired, but they did exist and customers took advantage of them.

  • avatar

    EV tax credits are a perfect sample for politics going mad.
    If the goal is to reduce the amount of oil/gasoline burned in order to safe the world, why is it, that car drivers are the target number one?
    If electric energy is so efficient, why not mandate that every household has to have electric heating (EH)? Let’s start with a million households by 2015. No range anxiety with that, for sure. Problems with power networks in rural areas? Too expensive, compared to other methods? Don’t care. Go ahead. At least, you are doing something, however silly.
    I’m afraid that the energy problems involved are definitely not going to be solved by politicians subsidizing the EV.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India