Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

Cariboocoot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/virginia-hybrid-fees_n_2727142.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Make of it what you will.

NorthGuy

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

Wait. They will install meters into the electric cars which wirelessly transmit usage data to the tax center and then charge you the tax according to the usage. Of course, you will have to pay $2000 fee for the meter. And for hybrid cars, you will need a $4000 meter, because it must be able to accurately determine when the hybrid uses gas (which is already taxed) and when it uses electric (which needs to be taxed by the meter).

And, in Canada, you will have to pay $800 extra brokerage fee for collecting GST/HST on the installed meters.

peakbagger

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

Pay per mile is getting closer.

The state of Maine tried to pass a waiver on the annual excise tax for hybrid vehicles, it got rejected as many voters regard hybrids as rich folks toys. The typical prius needs to be parked during mud season due to low ground clearence and they arent even very good in snow unless equipped with real snow tires.

In NH, Maine VT and others with high yearly excise taxes, the extra annual cost for registering a more expensive hybird is a continuing cost that a lot of folks didnt factor in when the bought the car.

niel

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

greedy politicians you can always count on having to factor in regardless of what the subject matter is. shame. enuf said.

stephendv

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

In the UK cars with emissions of less than 100g/km are completely exempt from road tax.
Central london has a congestion charge of $15 per day during office hours, except cars that produces less than 100g/km of emissions, which are exempt.

If you produce less than 2500 litres of biodiesel from used cooking oil, then it's exempt from duties, more than that and you're expected to register with the tax office and pay tax on it; no idea how they enforce this.

waynefromnscanada

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

I knew it was only a matter of time. Fuel taxes supposedly go to road building and repairs, roads on which plug-in electric cars for example would be getting a "free" ride. It wouldn't last, couldn't last and I strongly suspect, will turn many buyers away from these vehicles.

stephendv

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

waynefromnscanada wrote: »

I knew it was only a matter of time. Fuel taxes supposedly go to road building and repairs, roads on which plug-in electric cars for example would be getting a "free" ride.

At the same time those driving gas/diesel cars are getting a free ride because their emissions aren't taxed, whereas those who spent more on an electric vehicle are effectively paying for other road users' emissions. But of course until emissions are actually taxed, no one cares about them.

The time to subsidise electric cars through tax credits or straight off subsidies is now. There should be clear incentives to get us off the fossil fuel teat; and once electric is as ordinary as gas/diesel and the prices of cars has dropped, then they can start thinking about equal road taxes for all.

NorthGuy

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

stephendv wrote: »

At the same time those driving gas/diesel cars are getting a free ride because their emissions aren't taxed, whereas those who spent more on an electric vehicle are effectively paying for other road users' emissions. But of course until emissions are actually taxed, no one cares about them.

Most eletricity is produced by burning coal. Since efficiency of coal->electricity->motion pathway is much less than gasoline->motion, electric cars actually produce more emissions than gasoline ones. Unless, of course, you feed your electric car with your own solar power.

solar_dave

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

NorthGuy wrote: »

Most eletricity is produced by burning coal. Since efficiency of coal->electricity->motion pathway is much less than gasoline->motion, electric cars actually produce more emissions than gasoline ones. Unless, of course, you feed your electric car with your own solar power.

I frequent the gm-volt forum (not affiliated with gm) and you would be amazed at how many people are installing or considering solar because of the Volt. Many observe that their utilities are making the move off coal, primarily not for environmental reasons but for price reasons because Nat Gas is so cheap, side benefit is they reap the environmental gains too. Even the big train users and manufacturers are head there for cost reasons to get off diesel.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/ge-races-caterpillar-on-lng-trains-to-curb-buffett-cost.html

Edit: Of course both of our Volts are Solar Charge off a system that has met its ROI.

Drive for free - No OPEC Fee! :-) 8)

Eric L

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

Since efficiency of coal->electricity->motion pathway is much less than gasoline->motion, electric cars actually produce more emissions than gasoline ones.

I don't think this is accurate. There have been several studies of this, including this one published last year. The upshot of this study, which looked at total emissions in different parts of the country, was that electric cars are moderately better with respect to emissions than normal gasoline cars, even hybrids, after grid power generation is factored in. However, it also found that in certain areas (the Rocky Mountain region, in particular), they are slightly worse than efficient hybrids. This mostly has to do with the grid power composition and emissions intensity of the grid region at issue.

I have seen claims (like this one) that in European countries with strict grid emissions targets, electric cars could eventually be worse than gasoline. Although even this author admits that they are generally better, even after production emissions are factored in.

mike95490

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

It's easy to put a 400' high smokestack on a power plant, and send the emissions into the jet stream for dilution, but much harder to do it to 20,000 cars in downtown. So the EV's are emission shifters, at best, they relocate the emissions, at worse, relocate and increase. (except for the rare PV charged exceptions, then the PV mfg emissions need to be factored in too).

Eric L

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

So the EV's are emission shifters, at best, they relocate the emissions, at worse, relocate and increase.

At best they relocate and decrease. :cool:

The evidence from that study above says they do decrease in most locations, relative to hybrid gasoline vehicles.

mike95490

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

the increase is from transmission line losses, which in power shipped from CA to ca, can be 50% loss, or increased emissions to make up for the losses. The downtown city air gets better in all cases, but somebody's air suffers. So Los Angeles gets clean air, and the coal plant in Arizona fouls the air in Colorado. (yes, LA city owns coal plants in AZ, to export the pollution)

solar_dave

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

mike95490 wrote: »

the increase is from transmission line losses, which in power shipped from CA to ca, can be 50% loss, or increased emissions to make up for the losses. The downtown city air gets better in all cases, but somebody's air suffers. So Los Angeles gets clean air, and the coal plant in Arizona fouls the air in Colorado. (yes, LA city owns coal plants in AZ, to export the pollution)

YEp and they own part of the Palo Verde nuc output as well.

Eric L

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

the increase is from transmission line losses, which in power shipped from CA to ca, can be 50% loss, or increased emissions to make up for the losses. The downtown city air gets better in all cases, but somebody's air suffers. So Los Angeles gets clean air, and the coal plant in Arizona fouls the air in Colorado. (yes, LA city owns coal plants in AZ, to export the pollution)

The UCS report included a transmission loss multiplier in their calculation, although the values certainly aren't as high as 50% (more like
6%). The multiplier was taken from eGRID data which incorporates transmission, consumption, and net fuel import losses.

To be clear, I have no horse in this race. But people here keep asserting one thing when the empirical studies I'm seeing show the opposite.

Cariboocoot

Re: Another "green vs. revenue" incident.

Dread the day when "PV" comes to mean "Pollution Value"; an indexing system for comparing the over-all contribution to world pollution of every thing we use.