Are charger subsidies really needed?

Aptera Community Aptera Discussions Are charger subsidies really needed?

Aptera Community Aptera Discussions Are charger subsidies really needed?

  • Are charger subsidies really needed?

     kerbe2705 updated 1 week, 3 days ago 14 Members · 21 Posts
  • Curtis Cibinel

    Member
    July 31, 2022 at 11:29 pm

    I’m struggling to understand why the government needs to subsidize ev chargers. If it costs $100,000 to install a charger, it’s used 2 hours per day average (at 100kw), and the wholesale power costs $0.25 less than they bill at then it pays for itself in 5.4 years ($50 profit per day). Even factoring maintenance cost maybe 7 years. Am I missing something? This seems like very lucrative business. Any business (especially resteraunts) should want chargers around because they create captive audiences.

  • Bart Cunningham

    Member
    August 1, 2022 at 2:24 am

    And that is exactly where the chargers need to be, everywhere we spend time doing something while the vehicle just sits there.

    • Dennis Swaney

      Member
      August 2, 2022 at 7:32 pm

      One of my favorite restaurants in Prescott just put in 2 charging pedestals, each capable of handling 2 cars at a time. The owner supposedly owns a Tesla and asked for Tesla connectors, but it looks like the utility doing the install put in J1772s. Oh, and even though the slots are heavily marked for electric vehicle charging only, when I was there last week three of the slots had non-evs in them!

  • Vernon SINNOTT

    Member
    August 1, 2022 at 5:58 am

    Governments should concentrate on improving infrastructure. Fairy dust won’t charge electric vehicles, although Aptera will be close.

    • John Voules

      Member
      August 1, 2022 at 8:10 am

      I believe part of improving infrastructure for battery operated vehicles is making it possible for them to have some place to charge.

      The market is about to explode with new electric vehicles. Naysayers will be the 1st to point out that there aren’t enough charging stations for them to buy an electric vehicle.

  • Joshua Rosen

    Member
    August 1, 2022 at 8:05 am

    I wish they would do away with subsidies altogether, let the market sort things out. There is no demand problem for EVs only a supply problem. The only thing in the Inflation Acceleration Act that makes sense is that they’ve tied subsidies to the origin of the batteries. With oil we’ve been at the mercy of Saudi Arabia, with batteries we run the risk of being totally dependent on China, an even worse regime than Saudi Arabia. However I think it would be much easier to just put a tariff on batteries and materials (by themselves or in cars) that come from unfriendly countries (i.e. China).

    As for subsidizing chargers, maybe limited subsidies to get them in places where they aren’t economically viable on there own but for the most part that should be handled by the market also.

    BTW did you notice that they are favoring the least efficient EVs in the proposed subsidies. The price cap for a car is $55K, for a truck or SUV it’s $80K. Why does Congress want people to be driving 2 mile per KWh trucks instead of 4 mile per KWh cars. Electricity has an environmental cost, less is better. Batteries have an environmental cost, smaller is better. Congress did this before, when the first imposed emission standards they made them less strict for trucks which at the time were seen as work vehicles. The auto companies reacted by turning what was a utilitarian vehicle into an expensive luxury vehicle. Moving buyers from the old land yachts to the even worse pickup truck and monster SUV. Now they are repeating their mistake.

    • Jonah Jorgenson

      Member
      August 1, 2022 at 8:29 am

      Once again, only your personal opinions. Here is an opposing personal opinion.

      The subsidies are good as a stimulus to get things started quickly. We have relied on the market to this point and don’t have enough charger infrastructure and it is slow in coming.

      If you believe the market is good enough to effectively mediate supply and demand then we shouldn’t have tariffs either. (Artificial constraint on market dynamics) The general population does not want the market to mediate supply and demand. Gas prices come pretty close to market mediation right now and every ICE driver is clamoring for the government to do something about gas prices. Keynesian Economics with its traditional supply and demand curves and the proposition that economic decisions are made by a rational decision maker was outdated before I entered college and I am pretty young. Neither government nor industry econometric models use those assumptions anymore

      Also wise to limit the effective price to receive an incentive so well off buyers who would buy an EV anyway don’t take advantage of the incentive for their purchase. The purpose of the incentive is to make EVs more affordable to people with lower incomes to increase the overall number of EVs on the roads.

      • Joshua Rosen

        Member
        August 1, 2022 at 9:40 am

        The subsidies were good 10 years ago when EVs needed help getting started, they are just a boondoggle now. The waiting list to buy an EVs is a year, the F150 is three years. Credits won’t help to build one more EV. They’ve even added a credit for used EVs, those are cars that are already on the road.

        As for tariffs, I’m talking about China. I’m opposed to tariffs between friendly countries, I’m all for NAFTA and I’d like to see complete free trade with the EU, Australia, UK, Japan, South Korea, Israel, every democracy. But China is a threat. You only have to look at Germany’s dependence on Russia for gas to see how dangerous that is. China makes 90% of the worlds batteries. I don’t mind Chinese companies building plants here, I’d welcome CATL building plants in the US. But we can’t be at the mercy of Chairman Hu.

        • Jonah Jorgenson

          Member
          August 1, 2022 at 2:01 pm

          So then you have exceptions to your “Market should determine” position! Why can’t there be an exception for incentives then?

      • Philip Sandiford

        Member
        August 2, 2022 at 10:20 pm

        What Jonah said. ⬆️

    • Dennis Swaney

      Member
      August 2, 2022 at 7:34 pm

      Actually they are favoring UAW built vehicles!

  • Russell Fauver

    Member
    August 1, 2022 at 8:27 am

    I’d rather they spend the money on improvements to the grid and leave the end-user products up to the market.

  • Selvan Poothamby

    Member
    August 1, 2022 at 3:18 pm

    Directed toward the resurfacing of ALL roads where I live would be money better spent.

  • Peter Jorgensen

    Member
    August 2, 2022 at 8:08 am

    I could use one right now… I’m renting and had to move recently – I paid to install a charger at the previous rental. But this new one is old (1967) and looks like my best shot is to use the dryer outlet but even that isn’t up to code so all that has to get replaced. Then I’d have to use a neocharge splitter ($500) and run it out the basement window across the yard to the garage. It’s really not ideal. The local rebates were just changed from 75% of cost to $200. At this point it looks like I won’t doing anything due to cost except 120v unless that blows the breaker all the time… So unless that siemens meter piggyback upgrade is cheap it isn’t happening.

    Maybe it’s time I build that off grid solar trailer – but that would cost me $6k.

    • Curtis Cibinel

      Member
      August 2, 2022 at 4:06 pm

      I guess I should have been more clear in the title/explanation. subsidies for people to install level 2 charging equipment is a different issue.

      These billions of government dollars to pay companies to install level 3 chargers is what I question. The profitability of these chargers seems like it will be justified very quickly and the free market could handle the supply/demand on their install. Businesses providing infrastructure which would pay for itself quite quickly would be very lucrative.

      • kerbe2705

        Member
        August 2, 2022 at 5:41 pm

        @Curtis Cibinel The Federal Government is in the business of distributing tax dollars to states to implement programs it thinks are important: Take, for example, the national electricity grid or the interstate highway system. The government isn’t buying charging equipment, nor is it installing charging equipment: It’s granting funds to states to hire contractors to create charging infrastructure along Federal Interstate highways. This will provide jobs locally, both in installation and long-term maintenance, and increased revenue for the electrical utilities that provide the power to the charging stations. Any of the grant money that states don’t need to use for this purpose can be used to build-out charging infrastructure on state highways.

        At this point in time only two companies have invested in building charging infrastructure: One, Tesla, because they were smart and the other, Volkswagen, because they were guilty of fraud. Even though they’ve both done an amazing job, there are still a few parts of this country that a Tesla cannot cross and MANY parts that a non-Tesla can’t even consider. Take, for example, I-20: It crosses Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia and is the direct route between Dallas and Atlanta, touching Shreveport, Jackson and Birmingham along the way. At present, there is no non-Tesla charging infrastructure between Fort Worth and Birmingham – a distance of 671 miles.

        The Federal transportation budget is $354.8B – approximately 4% of the national budget. The $5B spent on the charging infrastructure program is less than 1.5% of that amount. Last year the fossil fuel industry received some $6T in Federal subsidies – that’s 6000 Billion dollars spent on something that’s burned: How does that compare to 5 Billion dollars spent on something that’s going to last – and generate revenue – for decades?

        • Harry Parker

          Moderator
          August 2, 2022 at 6:37 pm

          Good perspective there.

        • Dennis Swaney

          Member
          August 2, 2022 at 7:52 pm

          kerbe, I just mapped it at https://tinyurl.com/3fsuv8ha limiting it to J1772, CCS, & Chademo connectors and it gave me the below map. Admittedly the chargers may be a mile or two off the Interstate.

          • kerbe2705

            Member
            August 2, 2022 at 11:08 pm

            @Dennis Swaney The Federal program doesn’t include Level 2 charging – it’s about installing CCS1 DCFC charging. You see, I live here and I know this route well: When you map it just looking for existing CCS you get the map below – but what the map doesn’t tell you is that the one CCS charger in MS is at a Kia dealership and is only for the use of customers. When you get into AL, the sites on the map are all under construction: They are gas stations that received state money a few years back to install one or two 50 kW DCFS dispensers and are just now starting to get around to it. Missing from the map is an Electrify America charging location at a Walmart about 11 miles south of Birmingham – and then nothing until you hit Atlanta.

        • Dan Stevens

          Member
          August 2, 2022 at 10:06 pm

          Not sure I believe the $6Trillion number. I did find it on google but it is sort of an environmentalist made up number.

          The actual subsidies are about $20Billion. This is what the US government actually spends on these subsidies. The $6Trillion is what isn’t spent (and the story thinks it should be, therefore, its a subsidy). That is also a worldwide implied number.

          I only mention this because I think a lot of people hear the $6T number and dismiss it. The actual $20B number is more like a ‘hey…. what…. why do we do that???’ and it seems more real.

          The one thing that I learned from the pandemic was the earth has a pretty good way to clean up our mess if given half a chance. With people driving cars less, the air got a LOT cleaner, much faster than people thought it would. Aptera will help pave the way for cleaner air. I’m on board.

          • kerbe2705

            Member
            August 2, 2022 at 11:02 pm

            @Dan Stevens – the $6T is all fossil fuels – the $20B is just oil.

Viewing 1 - 7 of 7 replies

or to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now