Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Yes, or it will never be done
Side Score: 40
|
 |
Not with my tax dollars!
Side Score: 40
|
|
We should, and we must, if we're ever going to see electric vehicles become mass-produced, with a network of charging stations. Battery-powered vehicles have been around for a hundred years, and modern batteries have capacities to fulfill most commuter needs. However, the patents to these batteries have been purchased by the oil industry (Chevron et al), and our tax dollars instead being diverted to Hydrogen Fuel Cells and other vaporware. The California Air Resources Board passed legislation to this effect, and it was fought tooth and nail and eventually rescinded. I think if we ever hope to see an electric vehicle, it will have to be done by force, as the interests of industry are too entrenched and moneyed to overcome otherwise. 541 days ago
You see more and more electric cars everyday. The government isn't forcing use, it's just that technology has advanced enough to where batteries are becoming more powerful and cheap. As an example, Toyota and Honda recently cut their battery prices in half. Furthermore the incentive to go electric is already there. According to electric producer Tesla Motors, running their new electric car will cost about one cent per mile driven. Compare this to well over 20 cents to run a gas car. As battery prices drop, electric cars will become an accepted form of transportation. No government incentives needed. 533 days ago
The concept of an electric vehicle has been around for ages(around the 1830's[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 540 days ago
Well you may think that government should defiantly intervene to subsidize electric cars but I might wonder why the government would be defying anyone or why. Electric cars are in essence little cleaner than oil powered vehicles. In the end the increased demand for electricity will lead to only a slight lessening of environmental impact. Government should subsidize other alternatives to oil. Hydrogen and solar power both come to mind as excellent power sources. In the end both alternatives use electricity to power the vehicle, but when one refers to "electric vehicles" generally the image invoked is a rechargeable battery. With the advent of improved solar panels, thanks to new techniques (Link 1), solar power is likely to become a major source of electric power for vehicles and home use. However hydrogen fuel cells (Link 2), are just as promising and may in fact be a better alternative. What is just as likely is a combination of the two, using solar power to assist in the production of hydrogen; perhaps even from the water given off by the fuel cell itself creating an enclosed system increasing mileage significantly by reducing waste. Additionally hydrogen is a readily available resource and is easily renewable through many, many different methods as hydrogen is a byproduct of countless processes. In short I do think that the government should provide funding for alternative fuel sources, but the projects funded should be more radical and far reaching than simple electric power. 540 days ago
Correcting your opponents spelling don't make your argument stronger. That said, Electric cars are far cleaner than petroleum fueled vehicles. Electric motors are much more efficient. Even if the power to charge them comes from coal plants (which have gotten much cleaner in the past couple decades). Hydrogen fuel cells have been tried many times, they're at least 40 years away. We've already got very good battery technology and commercially viable cars. We've got the ability to do it right now, but they refuse, and, like you, want to distract us with other things we can throw our money away on, rather than the solution at hand. Deduction? A solution isn't wanted. Electric cars haven't progressed because the power capacity of older batteries simply wasn't there. In fact, until the Lithium-ion battery, capacity to drive long distances on electric cars was simply unrealistic. Furthermore, battery technology hadn't moved forward in years. It was just until recently that battery manufacturers began realizing the demand high-capacity and fast-discharge would have due to hybrid electric vehicles. Because of this, you will see major advancements in battery technology and mass adoption should follow suite. 533 days ago
If you don't have money, why should I (through tax dollars) help you buy an electric car? Why don't you get a good job, save money, and buy one yourself like every other responsible individual? Heck, that's what I have to do. If the government begins susidizing electric cars, why not subsidize homes too. Why not subsidize flatscreen TV's and bottled water while you're at it? Government subsidies just distort true supply and demand. They try and fix one problem but only cause others. Look at corn-based ethanol. They subsidized ethanol and now corn is 200% more expensive. Mexicans rioted last year because they couldn't afford the tortilla's which are a staple of their diet. American subsidies distorted the true supply and demand fundamentals of that market. They tried to fix a problem (dependance on oil) and caused another one instead (more expensive food) 533 days ago
Not worth my tax dollars? what, like subsidies for auto makers and oil companies? or maybe we shouldn't spend tax money on clean air and water. of course, it's a pointless venture, because electric cars run on electricity that comes from.......oil, coal, gas, and nuclear power anyway. 536 days ago
|
I think the taxes should be spent more wisely on public transportation than on privately owned electric vehicles. Or, if they are to cheapen vehicles via tax revenue to stimulate the market, they should do it with something more worth while to everyone involved, the bicycle. They are cheap to manufacture, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and have been proven time and time again to be one of the most efficient modes of transportation ever created. Calorie per mile spent is less than that of any other mainstream means of transportation. It is also healthy for you, but not physically demanding on joints. America would have a win win situation if they did this... too bad people are too stubborn to try something old. 540 days ago
Alternative fuel doesn't specifically mean ELECTRIC. I don't think we're doing all that well though. If you look at the problem, and I mean really look at it... how dependent we are on fossil fuels and how complicated all of this is, I don't know how we could ever walk away from this mess without having a train wreck. 540 days ago
Yes I do think we are doing fine. The "first" isn't a good judge of progress, because often the "first" of things is just a prototype and is created when there is little demand for it. There are primitive batteries dating back over 2000 years for example. 20 years ago buying an expensive inefficient electric car would be stupid with the gas prices at that time. Only in the last 7-8 years has there been a really strong incentive to get quality electric or hybrid cars on the market at a cheap price. In that we've been awesome. So awesome that hybrids are as affordable as most regular midsized cars. Other technologies are growing too. GM is producing a great and affordable hydrogen car for 2013, mostly in response to recent concerns over gas prices and pollution. That is stunning response time. 540 days ago
Not "electric pollution". Lithium (the primary type of battery used in electric cars) is extremely hazardous to the environment, its not recyclable, it just ends up in landfills. The only way to "recycle" it is to make it into meth... and I don't think we need any more of that in the world 535 days ago
The biggest thing people overlook with electric/hybrid vehicles is that we're trading one type of pollution for another. Sure, getting rid of or shrinking down internal combustion engines will reduce our air pollution, but what do you think the battery waste will do to our ecosystems? Batteries are extremely hazardous to the environment. Especially the huge lithium batteries that are used in electric and hybrid cars. No battery lasts forever, rechargeable or not, and not only are they extremely harmful, they're also insanely expensive to the point it could nearly offset the price you save on gas in a hybrid by the time you have to replace it. C'mon THINK people! Hydrogen is the future, NOT electric. Hybrid and electric is a short term solution and nothing more. 535 days ago
Batteries are not ideal, but electric cars are definitely the future. Have a look at current Ultracapacitor technology that will soon replace batteries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEstor The problem with hydrogen is it's density. Compressing hydrogen to a liquid costs 30% of the energy it contains. We must find a better way of moving ourselves as our current demand shows no signs of slowing. Technologically, there are few reasons that electric cars are not thriving and profitable. It is political will and profit by few that drives the industry today. TED Talks | Amory Lovins: We must win the oil end game
535 days ago
|
