The Honest Graft of Tesla Motors
Even Elon Musk can't make it without his hand in your wallet.
-
Tools:
Mr. Elon Musk, who founded the Tesla electric automobile company among many other business enterprises, has led a life full of fascinating ideas and almost science-fictional levels of innovation. It's no surprise that he is one of today's most famous and honored inventors and entrepreneurs.
With all the interesting things he's done, it's too bad that his automobile and solar energy companies rely so heavily on government subsidies. Everyone who buys one of his cars gets an immediate federal tax credit of $7,500 which is justified by the fiction that electric cars help Save the Planet - but that's just the beginning.
California law requires that all car companies show acceptable pollution levels across all the cars they sell. The pollution created in the power plants which make the electricity that runs the cars doesn't count, so Mr. Musk's "fleet average pollution" is quite low. He sells his excess credits for not polluting to other car companies to the tune of millions of dollars per year. These aren't a tax subsidy, but they're still a subsidy: a forced subsidy from everyone who cannot afford a Tesla and has to buy, say, a Ford.
The Wall Street Journal pointed out how hard Mr. Musk works to keep government subsidies and regulatory benefits flowing:
He attacked a government agency, the California Air Resources Board, saying its members "should damn well be ashamed of themselves" for not arranging for more lucrative zero-emissions credits for Tesla.
When federal regulators were investigating Tesla battery fires three years ago, he darkly warned that their actions could "delay the advent of sustainable transport and increase the risk of global climate change, with potentially disastrous consequences worldwide."
His claim that Teslas are zero-emission and will help avoid ecological catastrophe is preposterous. Rich people who drive Teslas bask in feeling good about saving the planet while collecting tax rebates, discount parking, HOV use, and free battery charging. But British researchers have shown that this is an illusion:
In China, because their coal power plants are so dirty, electric cars make local air much worse: in Shanghai, pollution from more electric-powered cars would be nearly three-times as deadly as more petrol-powered ones.
It gets worse when you take manufacturing into account.
Over a 150,000 km lifetime, the top-line Tesla S [in Britain] will emit about 13 tonnes of CO2. But the production of its batteries alone will emit 14 tonnes, along with seven more from the rest of its production and eventual decommissioning.
Compare this with the diesel-powered, but similarly performing, Audi A7 Sportback, which uses about seven litres per 100km, so about 10,500 litres over its lifetime. This makes 26 tonnes of CO2. The Audi will also emit slightly more than 7 tons in production and end-of-life. In total, the Tesla will emit 34 tonnes and the Audi 35. So over a decade, the Tesla will save the world 1.2 tonnes of CO2.
Reducing 1.2 tonnes of CO2 on the EU emissions trading system costs £5; but instead, the UK Government subsidises each car with £4,500.
In short: green regulations are merely schemes for transferring money from middle-class taxpayers to rich greens who want to feel virtuous regardless of the facts. They don't do anything whatsoever to Save the Planet, even if you believe that it needs saving of this sort in the first place.
The British aren't the only ones who've caught on. Channel News Asia reported that the nation-city of Singapore charges a Tesla owner a large "inefficient vehicle tax" because of the environmental cost of generating the electricity it needs.
It's Not Graft, It's a Subsidy
Strictly speaking, the money Mr. Musk takes from the taxpayers isn't bribery; it's a tribute to his ability to take advantage of the absurd but politically-correct notion that anything "green" has to be subsidized massively by taxpayers.
Indeed, unlike many government-subsidized fiascoes like Cape Wind and Solyndra, Mr. Musk's firm actually produces something of value - people ride around in his cars with great pleasure, albeit at ridiculous public expense.
In that, he's like Tammany politicians of old who practiced what they called "honest graft." Unlike today's Democrats whose greed knows no bounds, the denizens of Tammany Hall knew better than to become an all-consuming economic destroyer.
Yes, they fleeced the taxpayers by overcharging for construction of public works with kickbacks all up and down the chain. Yes, they tried to personally buy up land on which they knew the government was planning to build something, so as to sell it on to the government for twice its value.
But while inflating costs to several times what was really required, they made sure that the work was well thought through and of top quality. Much of the infrastructure and many buildings built in the Tammany days are in use today. The saddest aspect of this is that today's Democrats skim off or waste so much that they can't afford even to maintain the infrastructure their ancestors built from scratch while making themselves rich at public expense.
For all that Mr. Musk's cars cost their buyers a lot less than they cost with we taxpayers making up the difference, his raids on the treasury do provide some tangible benefits, unlike nearly every other government program. We only wish we were rich enough to afford to collect some of the benefits for ourselves.
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
Power plant emissions are not the same as car emissions. While it is true that power plants produce carbon emissions, it is far more efficient to create one large combustion at a centralized plant then distribute the energy through an existing grid, than to continuously poke holes in the ground and build new pipeline gas and oil infrastructure all over the map to distribute to millions of mini little power plants (your car engines are tiny power plants).
The internal combustion engine is an antiquated machine from 17th century design, the way we propel automobiles have not changed in 200 years. It cannot be improved upon anymore. The auto industry is sluggish and fat, un-innovative and unproductive. They are like fat bureaucratic governments, too big to fail and need to be bailed out at the slightest of economic crises.
The incentive for electric vehicles is not for feel-good about cancelling out emissions, but to pave way for innovation, even if we're not there yet. The government subsidized the space program with tax payer dollars - and the result was technology and innovations trickled down to all industries from healthcare to computing. NASA program is currently operating at half a penny of your tax dollars and steadily dropping. Who is sponsoring the future of space exploration in USA? Privately funded space manufacturing and exploration service companies. Visionaries like Elon Musk (SpaceX) and Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) are privately funding breakthroughs in science and technology. The EV subsidies pale in comparison to the limits of these private companies' investment in the future of science and technology in USA.
All other American car companies have failed, and exist solely on the crutches of corporate welfare ($80B bailout). There is no reason why this old technology should be carried into the next millennia. While Tesla received a loan from the Energy Dept during the recession, they were the first automaker to have fully repaid with all interests like 10 years ahead of schedule.
For all the every subsidy that Tesla receives, other American auto makers either receive the same or insanely more in government support. The $7,500 federal tax credit applies to all EVs not just Tesla. Ford Focus EV, Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt etc. Plus tax credits also go to hybrid gas-electric vehicles of other makes, and steadily phased out.
One day, years from now, our children will look at combustion engines the way we look at horse drawn carriages - quaint and nostalgic.
I noticed you cited Channel News Asia reporting on the taxes on Tesla in Singapore. You must not know Singapore very well, other than it is a wealthy tiny nation state. They hate car owners of every stripe, they hate cars, they are super aggressive in combating city pollution and emissions. Only 12% of Singaporeans own cars, and the car ownership come with hefty taxes and fees.
A $20,000 car is easily $120,000 in Singapore. That's how much a Toyota Prius costs. BMW 6 series - $300,000. Therefore, the Tesla non-efficient-vehicle surcharge of S$15,000 (approx USD 11,000) is really a drop in the ocean, and yet another government measure to curb car ownership in this tiny, congested city. If you can afford "A" car in Singapore, you have money to spend on taxes and astronomical fees and already signed off your first born and your spleens over to the Singaporean government.
It is ironic that you cite Singapore as a model country for tacking on fees for electricity generation for EVs, because Singapore taxes and fees for fuel cars even more. If Tesla owner's get tacked with S$15k, you don't even want to know the taxes and fees gas and diesel car owners pay (hint: petrol duty is one of them).
Furthermore Singapore (and other congested Asian cities like Jakarta, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong) are rapidly expanding the electrification of public transportation in addition to electric rail and expanding to electric buses and taxis, to reduce pollution and emissions. Singapore's policy as an example is actually a win for EV side in the emissions debate.
I noticed you cited Channel News Asia reporting on the taxes on Tesla in Singapore. You must not know Singapore very well, other than it is a wealthy tiny nation state. They hate car owners of every stripe, they hate cars, they are super aggressive in combating city pollution and emissions. Only 12% of Singaporeans own cars, and the car ownership come with hefty taxes and fees.
A $20,000 car is easily $120,000 in Singapore. That's how much a Toyota Prius costs. BMW 6 series - $300,000. Therefore, the Tesla non-efficient-vehicle surcharge of S$15,000 (approx USD 11,000) is really a drop in the ocean, and yet another government measure to curb car ownership in this tiny, congested city. If you can afford "A" car in Singapore, you have money to spend on taxes and astronomical fees and already signed off your first born and your spleens over to the Singaporean government.
It is ironic that you cite Singapore as a model country for tacking on fees for electricity generation for EVs, because Singapore taxes and fees for fuel cars even more. If Tesla owner's get tacked with S$15k, you don't even want to know the taxes and fees gas and diesel car owners pay (hint: petrol duty is one of them).
Furthermore Singapore (and other congested Asian cities like Jakarta, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong) are rapidly expanding the electrification of public transportation in addition to electric rail and expanding to electric buses and taxis, to reduce pollution and emissions. Singapore's policy as an example is actually a win for EV side in the emissions debate.
Thanks for the correction, Malaysian Driver. You're sure that this wouyld be less than the gasoline taxes?
So there seem to be several possible answers to make a Tesla actually reduce CO2:
Use nuclear power (always a crowd pleaser). Of course this will requires some new power plants, and making that much cement does make some CO2, but over-all this should reduce total emissions. Now the big questions are how many do we need and were do we put them. I think the answer to the first is a few for each major market, and for the second I suggest they should be as close to the consumers as possible to reduce line loss.
Force the owners to only be able to power them with Solar City supply solar cells (and preferably from cells only on their won property). Musk would love that, until people realize how many cells they need, and how limited their driving range would be. Making and installing the solar cell assembly does produce some CO2, but it should still be a reduction over-all.
But the best answer involves all the paperwork which Musk has also caused to be created. Each Tesla owner should be required (at their own expense) to print all of it out, in triplicate of course, then ensure it is buried in a landfill designed so that the paper will never rot (at their own expense of course). Paper is made from trees, and trees are made from the carbon in the CO2 they pull from the air. When the tree dies and burns or rots ALL of that carbon goes back to the atmosphere as CO2, returning atom for atom the very carbon that came from the air. But if they never rot, then it does not go back to the air. Note also that only in this way do trees produce any net Oxygen, so that too is a 'win' for the 'greens'. Of course, these landfills should be located as close to the Tesla owners as possible to reduce transportation costs; preferably in their back yards, or even in the front yard as a status symbol next to the Tesla in the driveway. Anything else would not be 'green'.
@Modest Proposer - you have a good point about nukes. Scragged pointed that out some yeears back with respect to hydrogen cars. Hydrogen can be stored, so we can run the nuke plants at optimum power levels, storing the hydrogen when electricity demand is lighter.
http://www.scragged.com/articles/energy-conservation-in-india-and-in-china
Spot on. I love to love Musk and Tesla, but the government subsidies and loans give me pause. Would he/they have made it without that? :-/