# Fatal Flaw? Electric Cars and Snowstorms?



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Audrey Jones offers conservative Heritage Foundation critique of Obama Administration's support for battery electric cars.

More...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Some excellent points.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

I honestly don't agree with that article at all. I found it extremely biased and uninformed, and I'm a fiscal conservative.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> I honestly don't agree with that article at all. I found it extremely biased and uninformed, and I'm a fiscal conservative.


What was uninformed? I read it and found it pretty spot on... If there is any exaggeration, it is Obama. 80% renewable energy and 1 million commercial made EV by 2015. He is smoking crack again.


----------



## drivin98 (May 9, 2008)

I saw "Heritage Foundation" which means I don't even have to read it. It, like all the crap they spew, is intellectually flawed and politically biased.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Sunking said:


> What was uninformed? I read it and found it pretty spot on... If there is any exaggeration, it is Obama. 80% renewable energy and 1 million commercial made EV by 2015. He is smoking crack again.


First of all, it was 80% clean energy by 2035, not 2015, so they got that piece of information wrong. Second, they made a lot of incorrect assumptions about electric cars in this scenario. 

I also cant help but notice they rail on government subsidies for EVs and talk of the free market, but conveniently forget about all the money doled out EVERY YEAR for oil subsidies. Not to mention how much is spent with our foreign policy to protect our oil interests. 

Typical neo-conservative logic, or as I like to call it, pseudo-conservative. Its also typical ignorance with regards to the performance of electric vehicles.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

drivin98 said:


> I saw "Heritage Foundation" which means I don't even have to read it. It, like all the crap they spew, is intellectually flawed and politically biased.


Since virtually nothing they said in the article was political, just basic economics, it's a shame you couldn't be bothered to read it - if even to know your enemy better- before spewing intellectually flawed and politically biased political comments.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

rochesterricer said:


> First of all, it was 80% clean energy by 2035, not 2015, so they got that piece of information wrong.


 Neither one is happening, and given how many times EVERY Administration has changed their position I have little doubt that someone is on tape as saying 2015. 



> Second, they made a lot of incorrect assumptions about electric cars in this scenario.


There were zero assumptions. They stated clearly that blizzards are one fatal flaw in the theory of pushing too quickly for EVs to replace 100% of our vehicles, which is a fact. Many people who spent 6 hours or more trapped in their cars in this recent even would have suffered from extreme exposure when their batteries would have been drained by the heater. Too, there are many other reasons - "unintended consequences" - which is why they concluded (correctly) that the free market is a better mechanism for determining how quickly they should be adopted.



> I also cant help but notice they rail on government subsidies for EVs and talk of the free market, but conveniently forget about all the money doled out EVERY YEAR for oil subsidies.


Go read all the other threads on this issue in the Chit Chat section. There are no oil "subsidies;" only political rhetoric CLAIMING there are oil subsidies. What there are is BRIBES to the industry to re-direct their investment in ways the Government prefers. A subsidy is a grant to sustain an industry that cannot make it on it's own. The products of oil companies are taxed far more than almost any other product on the market; it is from this confiscatory taxation that the BRIBES euphemistically called "subsides" by dishonest politicians are funded. However, since you cannot truly be "subsidized" by your own money, like so many other things in Washington it is simply another lie.



> Not to mention how much is spent with our foreign policy to protect our oil interests.


Do you have even a fundamental understanding of what our Federal Government was constructed to do? I sincerely recommend that you read the Constitution. Whether I agree or not on HOW our foreign policy money is spent, it is nevertheless one of the few activities our Federal government engages in today for which it was specifically chartered. 

However, you should understand that in principle your desire to see foreign expenditures reduced would be a point of *agreement *between yourself and the Heritage Foundation.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Let them pay through the nose for oil and keep their taliban fueled car. I'll take my chances with electric. It's only a matter time until we have batteries far better than we have now. I happen to agree with the government subsidies of electric vehicles. You will too when you can't afford to buy oil based fuel, your company is getting crushed because of fuel costs and every thing everyone buys goes up in price along with fuel because of the price of oil. It's coming sooner than most think. And the sad thing is, most people are CLUELESS that the worlds oil supplies are being used up faster than we're finding new sources and that new sources that are found are very hard to get, ie BP's deep water drilling, shale deposits etc. 

Enough of the ranting. I just can't believe so many people are so uninformed, especially republicans. And I'm far from a liberal.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> Let them pay through the nose for oil and keep their taliban fueled car. I'll take my chances with electric. It's only a matter time until we have batteries far better than we have now. I happen to agree with the government subsidies of electric vehicles. You will too when you can't afford to buy oil based fuel, your company is getting crushed because of fuel costs and every thing everyone buys goes up in price along with fuel because of the price of oil. It's coming sooner than most think. And the sad thing is, most people are CLUELESS that the worlds oil supplies are being used up faster than we're finding new sources and that new sources that are found are very hard to get, ie BP's deep water drilling, shale deposits etc.
> 
> Enough of the ranting. I just can't believe so many people are so uninformed, especially republicans. And I'm far from a liberal.


I agree with getting the electric car, but you might wish to re-think who it is that is un-informed (or, more precisely, mis-informed). The hardest thing to do is to acknowledge when you have been scammed.

The problem is, no matter how great a ponzi scheme sounds it is still a scam. Free-market people are not the ones uninformed and it is precisely because some people THINK they "know more" that such misinformation persists. 

Subsidies ALWAYS cost us MORE in reality than letting the free market handle it. Why? Simple. It adds one or more useless re-distributive steps/layers to the economic process that do not ADD value - therefore, it is simply waste / inefficiency at best and gross corruption at worst.

Every attempt by politicians to convince you otherwise is a scam, intended to fool you into voting for them. With the exception of some VERY short term crisis intervention (e.g. food after a disaster), it has never produced a net positive effect in history and never will. It can't, any more than Perpetual Motion can power your car.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Free market is riding the bus over the cliff.

Gov. intervention is your wife telling you to slow down before the cliff.
You may not like it, but it is good advice. 

Plenty of people die in blizzards when their car runs out of gas (or when snow builds up and traps the carbon monoxide). How is that different than a battery running down? Bottom line: CARRY A SLEEPING BAG PEOPLE!

A subsidy is a subsidy even if you call it "research". They don't give me a tax refund to "research" what I am already being paid to do. Also, isn't the bush tax break for folks who bought gas guzzlers really a petroleum subsidy? What about the lagging mpg standards? again, a giveaway. Detroit has well proven that they could make 70+mpg cars 20 years ago. (another subsidy called PNGV -look it up)

To those who say subsidies always cost more, imagine if Carter had been re-elected and the U.S. had gone crazy for "subsidized" solar panels and electric cars. The Iraq war has currently cost $772,494,064,662!! Thats a LOT of solar panels and batteries my friend.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> Neither one is happening, and given how many times EVERY Administration has changed their position I have little doubt that someone is on tape as saying 2015.


*Sigh* Sucked into yet another political debate in yet another forum. They were referencing his State of the Union speech, and he clearly stated 2035. I'm not really sure why you would choose to argue this.



> There were zero assumptions. They stated clearly that blizzards are one fatal flaw in the theory of pushing too quickly for EVs to replace 100% of our vehicles, which is a fact. Many people who spent 6 hours or more trapped in their cars in this recent even would have suffered from extreme exposure when their batteries would have been drained by the heater. Too, there are many other reasons - "unintended consequences" - which is why they concluded (correctly) that the free market is a better mechanism for determining how quickly they should be adopted.


Extreme exposure? How cold was it exactly in D.C. during this storm? One of the assumptions I was talking about is assuming the heater would need to be on the whole time for the cabin to be warm. It doesn't. You would probably be shocked how little I run my car's heater here in MN, even when its below 0 out. If the car is spending most of those hours sitting still in gridlock, it would probably use A LOT less power than you would think. Nevermind the fact that we are talking about a HIGHLY unusual situation. 



> Go read all the other threads on this issue in the Chit Chat section. There are no oil "subsidies;" only political rhetoric CLAIMING there are oil subsidies. What there are is BRIBES to the industry to re-direct their investment in ways the Government prefers. A subsidy is a grant to sustain an industry that cannot make it on it's own. The products of oil companies are taxed far more than almost any other product on the market; it is from this confiscatory taxation that the BRIBES euphemistically called "subsides" by dishonest politicians are funded. However, since you cannot truly be "subsidized" by your own money, like so many other things in Washington it is simply another lie.


I've heard similar arguments before, but I can't say I agree. However, such a debate would go WAY beyond the scope of this thread. Also, I just don't care to debate these things on yet another forum.



> Do you have even a fundamental understanding of what our Federal Government was constructed to do? I sincerely recommend that you read the Constitution. Whether I agree or not on HOW our foreign policy money is spent, it is nevertheless one of the few activities our Federal government engages in today for which it was specifically chartered.
> 
> However, you should understand that in principle your desire to see foreign expenditures reduced would be a point of *agreement *between yourself and the Heritage Foundation.


You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, considering you don't know the slightest bit about me or my political affiliations. Your assumptions about me are most likely the opposite of what I actually believe. I actually know A LOT more about the Constitution than you seem to think I do. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that waging war without a declaration is actually not constitutional. At the very least, I would say our foreign policy goes against the wishes of the Founding Fathers, and would probably be viewed as imperialistic. However, debating about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act would DEFINITELY be beyond the scope of this thread. 

I'm sorry if this seems lame, but don't expect more than a couple sentences out of me in any subsequent posts in this thread. I'm afraid I just don't care to expend the energy required in such debates on forums these days. I debate this stuff enough as a BPOU Chair and Central Committee member for the Olmsted County Republican Party.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Can we also condem ICE cars during a flood because they don't float and the engines don't run well underwater?


----------



## gojo (Feb 1, 2011)

I don't think most people get it yet. 

The comparison in the future will not be EV's versus ICE's. It will be EV's versus walking. 

The oil era is coming to an end. My forty mile range EV gets me to work, gets me to the grocery store, and gets me to the girl friends. If I have to go further, it gets me to the park and ride. I am a happy guy.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Edit. Deleted. Belongs only on the Chit Chat forum.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

So oil gets to right off investment losses and depreciation of assets like every other business?, that is not a subsidy. 

Aside from that where is the money going to come from to replace the road fuel tax every state and the fed receives from this mystery 1 million EV's. Where is the fed going to get their 1/6 royalty form every barrel of oil produced on federal lands and off shore? We are talking several hundred billion dollars every year oil pays the government, the single largest income the government has. The government will never do with less.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Sunking said:


> ..where is the money going to come from to replace the road fuel tax every state and the fed receives? We are talking several hundred billion dollars every year, the single largest income the government has.


THIS is why no gov. has substantially decreased fuel consumption.

However, it is a very silly question because WE the people pay that money PLUS the hundreds of BILLIONS in profit for the oiligarchy.

It would be MUCH CHEAPER to just pay the road tax without the extra billions in profit and the trillions in WAR spending.

Their propaganda has you thinking you need them... You don't.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

rochesterricer said:


> *Sigh* Sucked into yet another political debate in yet another forum. They were referencing his State of the Union speech, and he clearly stated 2035. I'm not really sure why you would choose to argue this.


My whole point is that the article was remarkably apolitical given the political nature of the authoring organization. Both sides exaggerate, and most likely, it was a simple typo and not worthy of discussion - the point I was trying to make, if poorly. 



> Extreme exposure? How cold was it exactly in D.C. during this storm? One of the assumptions I was talking about is assuming the heater would need to be on the whole time for the cabin to be warm. It doesn't. You would probably be shocked how little I run my car's heater here in MN, even when its below 0 out. If the car is spending most of those hours sitting still in gridlock, it would probably use A LOT less power than you would think. Nevermind the fact that we are talking about a HIGHLY unusual situation.


All we are arguing here is whether their analogy was reasonable. I believe it was. Many of those people, not knowing better (some percentage, generally around half, clearly has less than average IQ), would have left their lights and radios and heaters running; run out of juice; panicked, and gotten stuck in a snowdrift and likely died. Thus, irrespective of what conclusions we draw from such an event the article's thesis remains valid - even if they were stretching a bit to use current events to support their position.



> I've heard similar arguments before, but I can't say I agree. However, such a debate would go WAY beyond the scope of this thread. Also, I just don't care to debate these things on yet another forum.


I've done a pretty good job, IMHO, about avoiding the political and simply defining a word. If you TARGET a business and take more tax money from it than everyone else, and then turn around and offer to give some of it back if they do something - it isn't a subsidy, it is extortion. Since oil has more and larger targeted taxes than almost any other industry, this can be demonstrated to be the case - rendering arguments otherwise false.

By the way, I'm all in favor of ending all payments to oil companies defined as "subsidies." And, to everyone else. And foreign aid. But all of that is for the Chit Chat section. 



> You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, considering you don't know the slightest bit about me or my political affiliations. Your assumptions about me are most likely the opposite of what I actually believe. I actually know A LOT more about the Constitution than you seem to think I do. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that waging war without a declaration is actually not constitutional. At the very least, I would say our foreign policy goes against the wishes of the Founding Fathers, and would probably be viewed as imperialistic. However, debating about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act would DEFINITELY be beyond the scope of this thread.
> 
> I'm sorry if this seems lame, but don't expect more than a couple sentences out of me in any subsequent posts in this thread. I'm afraid I just don't care to expend the energy required in such debates on forums these days. I debate this stuff enough as a BPOU Chair and Central Committee member for the Olmsted County Republican Party.


If I drew a wrong conclusion, it was based on the few words you wrote on this article. Based on that, it appeared that you might find it offensive to be found to have views similar to the Heritage Foundation. However, I personally happen to agree with every position you mention above, and was only pointing out that irrespective of how you or I feel about it that particular expense at least falls under the CATEGORY of things which our government was chartered to do.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ruckus said:


> THIS is why no gov. has substantially decreased fuel consumption.
> 
> However, it is a very silly question because WE the people pay that money PLUS the hundreds of BILLIONS in profit for the oiligarchy.
> 
> ...


FYI

Where the money really goes.

Opinions about where best to spend our Federal Budget aside, it is worth pointing out that Military spending, including the War on Terror, is nearly at it's lowest point as a percentage of GDP (thus lowest burden to our citizens, even lower than during many times of "Peace") since WW II.

What is true is that if we do not replace gas taxes with some kind of energy tax, our government will need to either reduce spending even more (90% of gas taxes do NOT go to roads and infrastructure) or raise taxes on other things. Nothing comes from nothing.

Edit - We are moving where there is no HOA, and I do plan on an EV within 5 years whether I build or buy. I also plan on solar energy - and it will chap my backside if they start taxing the sun!


----------



## gojo (Feb 1, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> My whole point is that the article was remarkably apolitical given the political nature of the authoring organization. Both sides exaggerate, and most likely, it was a simple typo and not worthy of discussion - the point I was trying to make, if poorly.
> 
> All we are arguing here is whether their analogy was reasonable. I believe it was. Many of those people, not knowing better (some percentage, generally around half, clearly has less than average IQ), would have left their lights and radios and heaters running; run out of juice; panicked, and gotten stuck in a snowdrift and likely died. Thus, irrespective of what conclusions we draw from such an event the article's thesis remains valid - even if they were stretching a bit to use current events to support their position.
> 
> ...


I live in Minnesota. Many people here keep survival gear in their cars, and personally, I don't drive my EV in the middle of winter. I have an ICE pick-up for cold weather, hauling stuff, or going further the my EV can do. 

Right now, EV's aren't for everyone. They may be the future for most people. The fact is, people may not have a choice, and it will take years to adjust to something other then our present oil based economy. 

If we really had "free market" oil, it would be a lot more expensive when we factor in the price of the military costs, the damage to the environment, and minus our reserve currency status.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> I also plan on solar energy - and it will chap my backside if they start taxing the sun!


Well you had better toughen up your backside my friend and get ready for it. As you know electric companies charge you fed, state, and local taxes for the electricity they sell you. When and if ever solar or RE sources actually do contribute something which is highly unlikely, they will tax you for the free energy or make it up somewhere else when they experience decrease in revenues.

A good example is where I live we went to water rationing which greatly decreased water consumption and huge revenue loss for the city municipal water system. You can guess what they did to water rates right to make up for the losses? 

Check out what the state of Oregon is going to do to EV owners. 6-cents per mile when you buy your vehicle tag.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

O.K. as a fiscal conservative I have to call bullshlitz here. 

First, the only people who will have battery degrading performance in cold weather are the lead acid people.

Second, obviously the author of this article has never heard of anybody dieing in an I.C.E. car from carbon monoxide poisoning. Why do you think people have blankets in their trunk for winter use? Sitting in a snow storm in a regular car idling is a stupid thing to do. All you need to do is forget to go outside to clear out your tailpipe and poof, instant carbon monoxide poisoning.

Third, here in Ohio we have snow emergency levels. If they make it a level three, the cops can ticket us for even being out on the road. The blizzard they are talking about would easily have a level three rating.

Besides, a 1500 watt heater in an electric car with only a 15kwh battery pack would run the heat for 10 hours. If you cycled it on and off at 50% duty you would have 20 hours. How long were they planning on spending stuck in traffic anyways.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> All we are arguing here is whether their analogy was reasonable. I believe it was. Many of those people, not knowing better (some percentage, generally around half, clearly has less than average IQ), would have left their lights and radios and heaters running; run out of juice; panicked, and gotten stuck in a snowdrift and likely died. Thus, irrespective of what conclusions we draw from such an event the article's thesis remains valid - even if they were stretching a bit to use current events to support their position.


I apologize, but I'm going to have to cherry pick your post in the interest of saving myself from typing too much. The problem I have with such a caveat is that the very same argument can be made with gasoline cars, as has been alluded to by others here. I would argue that a positive side-effect of all this "range anxiety" is that people would charge the car whenever they got a chance, especially in a situation like this. So they would be less likely to run their battery down to zero with just the accessories, due to starting out with a low battery.

There is just one thing I want to bring up regarding the economic arguments used in this thread. I would simply caution you against using absolute terms like "always" in an economic debate. In general, I agree with most of your economic stances in this thread.



Jason Lattimer said:


> O.K. as a fiscal conservative I have to call bullshlitz here.
> 
> First, the only people who will have battery degrading performance in cold weather are the lead acid people.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I was curious about those numbers, but I never actually did the math(even though it is pretty simple math  ).


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gojo said:


> I live in Minnesota. Many people here keep survival gear in their cars, and personally, I don't drive my EV in the middle of winter. I have an ICE pick-up for cold weather, hauling stuff, or going further the my EV can do.


I too grew up up north, away from the city. There, the masses knew better than to head out without a full tank of gas and candles and matches and sleeping bags in the back. City folk often don't learn those lessons, until they find out the hard way.



> Right now, EV's aren't for everyone. They may be the future for most people. The fact is, people may not have a choice, and it will take years to adjust to something other then our present oil based economy.
> 
> If we really had "free market" oil, it would be a lot more expensive when we factor in the price of the military costs, the damage to the environment, and minus our reserve currency status.


The latter would be a good topic for Chit Chat - "What is the true price of Oil?" I think I started something like that once and it died a horrible death. In any event it would be devilishly tricky to track it down because it's a double-edged sword, bringing prosperity along with it's incumbent problems. Too, the trillions of tax money collected "in the name of the damage oil is doing" has been squandered on unrelated programs - that ship has sailed, and coal in Bejing is a far greater threat to us than petrol-related CO2 in LA.

I for one will be happy when oil is simply a part of our history, but I don't think Lithium Ion batteries will get us there. Which was the point of the article - you can't legislate progress and actually expect a positive outcome. However, in the long run EVs will win neither because of legislation nor because of marketing. They will win because of physics because it will simply be a better solution.


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

No oil subsidies???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In 2007 GW met with oil officials behind closed doors to craft GW's last "energy bill". In it Exxon got 10 BILLION in tax credits. And how did they thank our country for all that corporate welfare? They got rid of over 26,000 good paying, domestic jobs for Americans. AND raised gas prices to over $4 a gallon...
AND failed to properly maintain their infrastructure, which subsequently caused spills and shortages of oil.

So cry me a river about how Big Oil is somehow NOT getting subsidized!


----------

