Electric cars are a pipe dream

I have been under the impression that Texas license plate (registration) fees are determnined by vehicle weight. Don't have a clue as to how other states determine them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That seems nearly reasonable to me as heavy vehicles* do more damage to roads, but those paying little of the "road taxes" in the gasoline charge should pay more to compensate also seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a non-GPS way to charge EVs more would be special tax on the tires as their wear would be a crude measure of the use. I.e. some tires would have "For EVs" added to the information already stamped in the side wall data showing they had paid the EV tax and EV owners get a fine if not using those tires, when stopped by cop in adition to the illegal driving he stopped them for.

* Some new fee system will be needed as heavy trucks switch to natural gas instead of diesel. I don´t know if still done, but years ago in US farmers et al using gasoline "off roads" did not need to pay the road use tax. Their gasoline had a dye in and if put in road using car, the dye would mark that fuel system, to make fining them for illegally avoiding the road tax easy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And just how would that work with hybrid cars? They all still use gas, they just get much better gas mileage. Should they pay more, because they get better mileage?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, they would pay more because they are heavier. (setting registration fees based on weight)

 

While weight should be a consideration. Total miles driven needs to be a part of the equation. I might only drive about 2000 miles this year, so why should I pay the same as the guy who drives 20,000 to 30,000 per year?

 

Good point. Odometer reporting is already required when transferring registrations; perhaps requiring as part of the normal registration process would allow adjustment based on miles driven.

 

But how tamper proof can they make odometers? Give people enough reason and they will find a way.

 

Right now people don't tamper with them too much even though they cause loss of value and higher insurance rates. I don't think it would be a big problem, but I guess you might see a bit more tampering.

 

Perhaps the most simple way is to include some "road use" tax in the tires - You may never need to buy a new set, but the guy adding ~25,000 per year will at least every couple of years.

Possibly remove all "road use" tax from gasoline and put it ONLY in the tires. Last time I looked, EVs still use tires.

 

Hello retreads!

 

Should it? I pay my registration in advance - I'm paying for the use of the roads in the upcoming year.

 

Currently the registration covers your yearly fees and your gasoline taxes covers your mileage. But what happens when the majority of vehicles no longer use gasoline? The states still need money for new roads and road maintenance. Where is this money going to come from?

 

No reason why they could not be subject to the road tax too, unless you can do them yourself. Much easier to make "bath-tub gin" to avoid taxes than a retread, but not enough of that done to dilute the alcohol taxes revenue government collects.

 

Electronic tolls. These are already quite common in Japan, particularly if you want to take the 15 min short cut through a mountain versus a 45 min drive around the mountain on sub-par roads. Toll roads, toll parking lots, toll bridges, toll ferries, etc... A couple days ago I saw a "Free" electric charge car port next to two motor bike electric charge ports for "Free" in Kyushu - to encourage the purchase of fully electric vehicles. And, this is the same Japan that had the nuclear meltdown and is supposedly short of electricity.

 

Yes, but tolls are in addition to the money we already pay. But who knows maybe neighborhood tolls will catch on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There needs to be a way of fairly charging people for their actual usage of the highway and road infrastructure. The more miles you drive the more you should pay. But there will most likely be a long transition period where electric and hybrid car owners will get away with not paying their fair share for their mileage.

 

The best way to solve this problem is through free-market enterprise. If people are allowed to trade in transportation infrastructure then it's really impossible to know what sort of interesting ideas will arise. Internet uses lots of shared infrastructure as an example. It's not like me, sitting in Kobe, paid for the direct building of your electric lines, yet, here I am writing a message and using them to send it to you.

The evidence suggests that if rent seeking is overcome that a free market will produce the best outcome at the lowest resource consumption. IOW cheap great roads that are used fairly by everyone.

 

Worked for Standard Oil when it came to railroads!

 

The end of all pipe dreams...

I agree that electric cars are a pipe dream. In addition to the insurmountable technical hurdles (i.e. laws of physics), there is the upcoming apocalypse nightmare which will end this particular pipe dream. The apocalypse will end perhaps 90+% of all dreams.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133084-Apocalypse-Soon

Sleep well.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There isn't anything wrong with electric cars in themselves. A problem with cars in general is that instead of using technology to make something as vital as transportation more affordable and convenient, the technology has mainly resulted in cars becoming more complicated.

 

Good article on the less helpless approach:

=======================
A Solar Grand Plan

By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on
foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis


KEY CONCEPTS
■ A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
■ A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
■ Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
■ A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
■ $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

Excerpts:

Although it is not possible to project with any exactitude 50 or more years into the future, as an exercise to demonstrate the full potential of solar energy we constructed a scenario for 2100. . . . Under these assumptions, U.S. energy demand could be fulfi lled with the following capacities: 2.9 terawatts (TW) of photovoltaic power going directly to the grid and another 7.5 TW dedicated to compressed-air storage; 2.3 TW of
concentrated solar power plants; and 1.3 TW of distributed photovoltaic installations. Supply would be rounded out with 1 TW of wind farms, 0.2 TW of geothermal power plants and 0.25 TW of biomass-based production for fuels. The model includes 0.5 TW of geothermal heat pumps for direct building heating and cooling. The solar systems would require 165,000 square miles of land, still less than the suitable available
area in the Southwest. In 2100 this renewable portfolio could generate 100 percent of all U.S. electricity and more than 90 percent of total U.S. energy.

The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative— and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan.