> There are a number of places currently where the government will subsidize electricity used for cars.

You can hardly call subsidies "free". Everyone pays them in the end.

That is also true for the higher environmental costs of fossil fuels and health costs of exhausts fumes.

True. But let's not forget how electricity is generated. In the US 68% is generated from fossil fuels (coal and gas). One also (indirectly) burns fossil fuels when driving an electric car.

>There are a number of places currently where the government will subsidize electricity used for cars.

So both the car and electricity are subsidized by hard working tax payers? Well, that can't last forever, so what's the REAL cost here? I think when we remove the welfare the cutsey "OMG GAS COSTS MONEY" argument will be dismissed as hyperbolic nonsense it truly is.

I think the "electric is cheaper" argument is complete bunk without government welfare. The real cost of that giant Lithium-Ion battery and energy is non-trivial. Lets remember we're talking about a $100,000 Tesla here. That's not affordable by most.

Not to mention, the money vs time cost. When I take a roadtrip or a long drive I can drive 300+miles, no issue, and refill in a couple minutes. With an electric I need to stop often and spend god knows how long getting a full charge, then go again. Imagine the costs here associated with long range trucking, delivery vehicles, etc. Or just time cut from my precious vacation time. Unless there's a massive breakthrough in battery cost, you're actually paying a lot more than an ICE car for day to day driving.

Gasoline is so energy dense, so plentiful, and so easy to work with, its going to be VERY difficult getting off it. I pity the electric guys. They know its a uphill battle and lodging themselves into the luxury high end for economic survival is very telling. The "low" end is still a $35k+ car with quarter the range of the Tesla, which is terrible from pretty much any rational metric.

All energy forms receive massive subsidies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States

Hear hear. According to these stats, in 2013 renewable energy was receiving subsidies of about $7 billion per year and fossil fuels about $3 billion, but over the previous 6 decades fossil fuels received an average of $9.9 billion per year in 2010 dollars (with oil being 62% of that). Whether or not you believe in government subsidies, it can be argued that they have been the norm over the past half century regardless of whether you're talking about fossil fuels or alternatives.

Give me those stats per kWh.

Yes, but note from the linked wikipedia article:

"Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies"

It seems disingenuous to directly compare taxing someone less than you theoretically could have vs the "direct federal expenditures" on renewable energy.

Also, "many of the 'subsidies' available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses"

That's more than made up for the fact that fossil fuels receive enormous subsidies in the form of being allowed to pollute without paying anything close to the costs generated by that pollution. If you actually charged the fossil fuel industry for their externalities, the subsidies listed here would fade into insignificance by comparison.

I really feel like you're getting to the point though, where the word subsidy has no meaning. (via the wikipedia entry and the discussion here, it seem's that any time the government isn't taxing you 100% and seizing all your assets you are getting a "subsidy").

In that light, I'd like to see the numbers a different way. How about the difference in direct cash injections. I have no idea where to find it, but it might show a different story.

Also, when it comes to externalities that are hard to measure, isn't there a good chance that the enormous increases in human quality of life due to abundant and relatively cheap access to energy are greater than the costs generated by pollution.

I think it would be useful to have words that distinguish direct "government writes you a check" subsidies from the more subtle kind. But it's useful to discuss the more subtle kind too, and I don't know what else to call it.

I don't think looking at direct cash injections is useful here, because they tell such a small part of the story.

For an example, consider the case where the government takes your money and gives it to some company. That's an obvious subsidy.

Now consider the case where the government doesn't take your money themselves, but rather declares that the company has the right to come into your house and help themselves to $AMOUNT. It's no longer explicit, but it's still pretty clearly a subsidy.

Now let's say that they're in the business of disposing trash, and the government has declared that they can dump trash on your lawn for no compensation, when normally it would cost $AMOUNT. Ultimate effect is the same as above.

Now let's say they're in some other business, that just happens to generate a lot of trash. The government declares that they can dump trash on your lawn for no compensation when normally it would cost $AMOUNT, making their other business much more cost effective. Again, it's ultimately the same as above.

This last one is the fossil fuel situation. The government has decided that certain waste generated by burning fossil fuels can be disposed on other people's land, air, and water without compensation. The costs involved are enormous, but the users of fossil fuels don't pay. The end result is that fossil fuel prices are effectively subsidized by the population at large.

I'm sure the enormous increase in the human quality of life has more than compensated for this damage. But that's not an argument for ignoring the externalities. If it's a net benefit then the total benefit will exceed the total cost including externalities. If the total benefit does not exceed that total cost then it's not a net benefit.

It's especially important now when we're looking at transitioning to other sources of energy. If fossil fuels are only cheaper because of these externalities, then that means the net benefit to humanity is higher with alternatives.

> the enormous increases in human quality of life due to abundant and relatively cheap access to energy are greater than the costs generated by pollution.

I dare you to write down that thought, seal the envelope and tell your children to open it in 40 years.

Try this one weird trick; Future generations hate us!

As a small investor in an oil company I'd be surprised if there was any net subsidy of the oil industry. If you tax a company $10 but then give back $2 in allowances you are not subsidising it by $2, you are taxing it $8. In the UK of what you pay at the pump for petrol about 60% goes in tax.

The USG is not giving me $10,000 to buy a ICE Ford (between fed and state, this is what I would receive). Your argument is fairly disingenuous considering the massive EV tax breaks in existence to today, that are temporary and have done nothing to lower the cost of high capacity Lithium-Ion batteries.

We're 12 years in with thie absurd corporate welfare and still no cheap EV car that can remotely compete with ICE. I'm getting a little sick of hearing "Elon will figure it out in the next 18-24 months." EV enthusiasts have been saying that for YEARS now.

I'm all for letting Tesla try to compete as-is. They've eaten enough corporate welfare. They clearly cannot compete with ICE. Luxury electrics should not be subsidized by the working poor, middle class families, etc.

> "have done nothing to lower the cost of high capacity Lithium-Ion batteries."

What's the evidence for this claim? What I see is expansion availability of Lithium Ion batteries for average consumers in the form of the recently announced PowerWall, and EVs other than the Tesla. Could I have bought a 10kWh battery for $3,500 ten years ago? Five?

It's possible, of course, that this would have happened without the subsidies, but given the rapid growth of this industry in the last few years, I think the burden is on you to offer some evidence that it's totally unrelated to the subsidies.

They probably do increase ratio of electric cars, which in turn increases supply of infrastructure, which will lead to increased demand for electric cars even when the subsidies run out.

It's called subsidizing a positive externality, and it actually creates utility and eliminates deadweight loss. It's not "government welfare", it's the economically wise thing to do!

http://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfai...

I have a Nissan Leaf. It retails at $29k, before the tax incentive. They can be leased with no down payment for $250/mo. It's fun to drive, well-made, I absolutely love it.

Teslas are expensive, but if you want an electric car there are many affordable options.

You pay for it with range though in the less expensive options. Even as a second car, 80 mile battery range is pretty much useless for me. Yeah, I could run some local errands or commute to my office but I couldn't even drive in to the city for dinner or some other evening activity (a bit over 40 miles each way).

If you can charge while you do your evening activity (becoming pretty common these days) then it would be practical for that.

I don't mean to argue that this makes the EV perfect, but it's something to consider just on the off chance that you'd otherwise want to buy one.

Not really an option. It's typically street parking. I'd seriously consider an affordable and nice to drive EV but my range threshold is probably 200 miles--at least 150. Otherwise, there would be too much "Do I have enough range?" fiddling for my common use cases--especially once the battery degrades a bit.

I'm pretty much with you. If and when the prophesied $30,000 200-mile EV happens, it'll really change the game.

I do see a lot of Leafs charging around here in various places, so it does seem like a reasonably practical alternative for many. I get nervous if I have to charge away from home, myself.

I have a sporty 2-seater Honda del Sol that gets great gas mileage (but which was apparently too impractical for the typical Civic buyer and not enough of a sports car for the typical Miata etc. buyer). An EV would be a perfect replacement if it holds out long enough. But the range needs to be able to cover all my local area drives even if I'm willing to forgo using it for longer drives out to the mountains in favor of my SUV.

Why was this post downvoted anyway?

Probably because his tone is hyperbolic, yet many of his points are flat out wrong. Not a good look.