I'm so tired of every roadmap calling for tax incentives, bonuses, and guarantees for personal transportation. Instead of investing public dollars in private transportation, why not:

1. Charge *more* for private transportation. Want people to switch to EVs? (a) Have gov'ts buy 'em, and (b) tax gasoline much more. That'll move the market.

2. Take that extra taxes, and use it to (a) subsidize the near-term added cost to gov't purchase of these vehicles, and (b) dump more money into mass transit, thereby reducing miles driven (and hence oil demand, GHG emissions, and need to expand roads in the first place).

Some heavy EV hitters back this roadmap, but Stomy makes sense as well.

Major changes rerely come without pain to many.

The well being of the majority often hurts the current gainers.

Wall Street dealers and Bankers do not want changes to the current financial structures because they like the current $$$B going their way.

Oil and ethanol lobbies to do want e-vehicles for visible financial reasons.

Coal and coal fired energy plants lobbies do not want wind mill turbines and solar power for well known reasons.

Why do so many want to continue driving V-8 ICE monsters instead of reasonable size HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs? They have given into the power of PR campaigns and are convinced that they really need a 3 1/2 tonnes gas guzzler to drive to work.

This type of acquired addiction to false needs is not easy to cure. Hated taxes (+ selective ban) to cure a bad acquired habit worked with tobacco smoking. Would it work as well with junk food and ICE monsters?

Harvey, taxes would probably work great. They do in Europe. They're probably the only thing that really would work. But I think the chances of us collectively deciding to stick a 2, 3 , or $4 a gallon tax on auto fuel in the US are about zero.

I would also agree with stomv. I would like to see more funds go towards public transit. For long distance family trips, a mid-size station wagon with a modest size engine would do the trick over a gigantic SUV. High speed rail would work great too, but even in Europe, where they have great high speed rail, lots of people still use their cars for family trips on the weekends (while it sits in the garage and they take public transit to work during the week).

It is surprising that Europe has not chosen to lead in electrification given they have a strong incentive to do so. At $7.50 a gallon for fuel you'd think at least on automaker would introduce an EV by now.

Apparently the use diesel instead of a renewable fuel meets most Euro environmental expectations.

Why a complete neglect of FCV's? FCV's will be mass-produced by 2015 by many major auto mfg's. H2 produced from renewable energy sources or domestic NG or coal will be just as petroleum-sparing as BEV's. The problem with 75% of LDV's to be BEV's has to do with lithium supply and the public acceptance of BEV's, especially in larger vehicles wherein the cost and weight of the battery pack are still issues. A well-designed FCV will offer the range and rapid fill-up just like an ICE-vehicle, and will have more chance of public acceptance.

I have a question: why is GOVERNMENT always the answer?

What makes these guys telling government to "do something" any different from the cartels that run the oil, banking, and other robber-baron industries?

I have an idea: get government OUT of the market. Stop incentivizing one thing over another and let the market incentivize its damn self.

Remove the taxes, tariffs and other barriers and let the entrepreneurs and innovators do their thing!

I'm tired of everyone saying the government needs to FORCE US to do something or the government has to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

When will people realize that every time government does anything, it does so by pointing a gun at someone and enslaving them. That's what taxes are, people. Forced labor - the very definition of slavery.

Now I'll await the usual garbage attacks from people about how free markets supposedly ruined everything for us and capitalism is to blame for all our ills.

@MacAron

It's a simple economics class problem:
Having the environnement destroyed is a negative externality. The only way for the market to move away from this, is to force it to internalise the cost of the negative externality. Now you can have long debates on how to measure the importance of pollution, how to point out who does what between cars farmers industry.... but the point is somewhere you need a tax because the environnement, although it is absolutely necessary for all of us, does not cost anything, does not sue you if you pollute it etc...
That's where governments are supposed to step in: guided only by the better good of the nation, they put just the right tax so that the (altered, yes) market guides consumers to buy what is socially optimal for them, the others and the environment.
Or the government can be lobbied, representatives can only think about reelection and it all ends up with an awful proposal that is good neither for consumers or the environment....
I was just explaining the theory and why when speaking of the environment, the government has to step in.

Simodul,
Excellent rebuttal. MacAaron, those aren't garbage attacks. How else do you explain the recent recession? Free markets are great, up to a point. Then govt has to step in and bail them out.
Yes, i prefer free market to soviet style economy. But only with restraints (regulations).
Free markets treat the environment as a garbage can. Unfortunately, we actually have to live in that environment.
Big oil is not operating in a free market. They manipulate the market and control govt and get tax breaks and priviledges.
We all know that it's cheaper to continue using ICE's, for the short term. It's the long term that needs to be looked at.

Repost to correct math error (40¢ x 2,500 = $1,000 not $2,000).

Mahonj,

Your point about congestion is well taken. As the congestion and sometimes gridlock that is being experienced in Europe and other major population centers increases and spreads throughout the rest of the world, alternatives to the automobile need to be developed for population centers. These alternatives include improved mass transit and telecommuting.

However, I view Europe’s move to diesel as temporary. A Prius-sized BEV would get about 5 miles per kWh, which costs round 15¢ in Europe, while small diesel getting 50 mpg would use up 75¢ worth of fuel for this same 5 miles – a differential of 60¢ for each kWh cycled into and out of a battery. Within several years, I expect batteries to be available for $500 per kWh and be capable of 2,500 deep-discharge cycles, i.e., a cost of 20¢ per kWh -cycle. The net savings of 40¢ per kWh over 2,500 cycles totals $1,000 - 2 times the initial battery cost of $500 per kWh of storage capacity.

If these savings occurred over a ten-year period, then the ROI on the $500 would be 15%. Include the maintenance savings of a BEV over a diesel on brake jobs, tune-ups and oil changes and the ROI becomes even more lucrative. In 10 years, a $30,000, 100-mile range BEV with $10,000 in batteries would provide savings of $20,000. At the end of this 10 years, you replace the batteries for $5,000, change the wiper blades and tires, get a brake job and paint job and you have virtually a new car with a bit more power and range. Oh yeah, a BEV is much cleaner and quieter than a diesel, which I thought would be valued in Europe.

In the US, with $2.50 gas and 10¢ per kWh electricity, the net savings of 15¢ per kWh over 2,500 cycles would be $375, less than the battery cost of $500 per kWh of storage capacity.

I would advise the US government to turn down this plea for further corporate welfare from these captains of industry and let the Europeans bear the brunt of the cost of developing the market for large format automotive batteries. After all, the Europeans are doing a pretty job of supporting the nascent solar and wind industries.

Also it wasn't too long ago that the pump price hit near $5/gallon in the US. If that happens again the net savings of 15¢ per kWh over 2,500 cycles would be $750, more than the battery cost of $500 per kWh of storage capacity.

Fair point Jay Dubs but you should be more concerned about CO2 pollution from gasoline. The impact on the planet and our society is far greater.

Battery plants are regulated to treat emissions and not release contaminants into the water table. If they are responsible and conform to legal requirements there should not be a serious concern.

Unless you are making batteries in China. Maybe they only worry when more than 10,000 people start growing a third arm.

@ Carlos Fandango
Where do you think most of these cells will be coming from, the east of course, where environmental regulations are still far off. We were going to produce many gallons of toxic water for every cell produced, and these chemicals can be harsh. Each EV vehicle has thousands of cells. Air is accessible to clean and convert it's gas constituents if it comes to that, our water supply is not.