Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government Power The Almighty Buck Transportation

New York State To Launch Electric Vehicle Rebate (foxnews.com) 119

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
An anonymous reader shares an AP report: New York state will soon launch a rebate intended to make electric vehicles more price competitive with traditional cars. Officials said they'll launch the initiative by April 1. The rebate of up to $2,000 will be available for zero-emission and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles. It's part of an effort to reduce automotive carbon emissions, the state's largest climate change contributor. "We want to make electric vehicles a mainstream option," said state Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, a Westchester County Democrat who leads the Assembly energy committee. "They are becoming more affordable and we need to encourage them." Environmentalists supported the rebate when it was approved by lawmakers in 2016 and have been eagerly awaiting the launch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York State To Launch Electric Vehicle Rebate More

New York State To Launch Electric Vehicle Rebate

Comments Filter:
  • >> They are becoming more affordable and we need to encourage them.

    Well...which is it?

    • Both.

    • We need to give tax money rebates to the rich people who can afford a Tesla, and we need to have more special taxes on these cars while we are at it since they don't pay the road taxes that are built into the purchase of gasoline. And while we are at it we might as well force big brother GPS systems on people to report wen and where they go because, well, there must be some good reason and besides we can.
      • Yup, more benefits for those who don't need it at the expense of the poor. Anyone that can afford to pay $30K+ for a car doesn't need this help. There is already a generous federal tax credit that is also only accessible to the well off.
  • The working man now only owes $38,000. Environment and affordability problems solved. Praise the lawmakers.

    • But how much of a rebate would most people need?

      I couldn't afford a $40K electric car unless there was a $39K rebate on it.

    • Manufacturers reduce costs with economies of scale. Short term subsidies like this are what helps manufacturers to ramp up mass production to that end.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by scourfish ( 573542 )
        When the manufacturers ramp up production to the point that a new or used electric vehicle will be sub-$15,000, this would be great, albeit unnessecary at that point. At the current price of electric vehicles, this is just a rebate for the upper class.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 )

          Not only will a rebate at that point be pointless, but long before then the govenment will be slapping an annual tax on electric vehicles because, you know, roads must be paid for and gas isn't keeping up the tax base anymore.

          This happened in the Netherlands 30 years ago when you could convert your car to dual-burn also natural gas, which was way way cheaper. You had to drive about 20,000 km a year to break even over the tax.

        • You don't get rich by spending your money. You get rich by spending other people's money.

          • A subsidy for you is a tax on everyone else. It's not like the Government of NY produces money, everyone else in your State pays for it.

            • A subsidy for you is a tax on everyone else. It's not like the Government of NY produces money, everyone else in your State pays for it.

              And...?

        • When the manufacturers ramp up production to the point that a new or used electric vehicle will be sub-$15,000, this would be great, albeit unnessecary at that point. At the current price of electric vehicles, this is just a rebate for the upper class.

          And air travel used to be affordable to the upper class only.

      • Short term subsidies like this are what helps manufacturers to ramp up mass production to that end.

        Subsidies are an extremely inefficient way of accomplishing that. Car companies only spend about 5% of revenue on R&D, so 95% of the subsidy is going elsewhere. It would be far more efficient to just directly fund the necessary R&D.

    • This is on top of the Federal Tax Credit of $7,500. So you'd owe 38,000 and then also owe $7,500 less in taxes at the end of the year. (Depending on whether the car manufacturer has hit their cap yet)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Don't forget the almost-$4k of sales tax you'd incur in NYS... So $40k car turns into $44k car just by being bought in NYS.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You hit the nail in head. This is a tax cut for the wealthy disguised in environmentalism BS.

    • The working man now only owes $38,000.

      Or about the price of a Ford F-250.

    • $38,000 for a car isn't that much. my CR-V was $30,000 when i bought it 6 years ago. the subaru my wife wants is like $35,000. and i see a lot of $40,000 cars around here

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Actually, the working man is still out 40k since the working man is also the one paying for the rebate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bozzy ( 992580 )
      No, they still owe $40K. The original $40K price is raised to $42K before the rebate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Electric cars are not $40k. Maybe list price, but only idiots pay that. I bought a new Nissan Leaf in December for about $20,000, top spec Tekna model. Even without the tax break it would only have been about $24k.

    • The working man now only owes $38,000. Environment and affordability problems solved. Praise the lawmakers.

      The average USA new car price is $34000. Yes the lawmakers actually moved you 25% closer.

  • It's projected that the average car or truck will be cheaper in the fully electric or plug in electric long-range hybrid mode by somewhere between 2020 and 2022.

    An easier way of doing this would be to remove the fleet vehicle deductions and expensing for business if they aren't all-electric.

    However, since the time horizon is just a few years, a short subsidy will help.

    • phev rebates are a joke. they cause just the phev system to be subsidized. due to how cars are now taxed in most of the world by co2 tests, the phev gets cheaper as well.

      the thing is, pretty much nobody plugs them in and the added weight causes them to have worse mileage than a 1995 honda civic making it all kind of silly and pointless.

      yeah the phev is mostly popular due to it dropping the co2 in the test. it's the ultimate circumvention device really. for the consumer it's pretty much +- zero.

  • Taxpayers should not be subsidizing other people's new cars.

  • Really? To lower pollution? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chubs ( 2470996 ) on Monday March 06, 2017 @02:37PM (#53986821)
    I would love to own an electric car. However, I'm not going to kid myself and say it's helping the environment. With current processes for extracting Lithium from the ground resulting in 0.02% lithium and 99.8% dirt that is now contaminated by the toxic chemicals used to extract the lithium and the resource depletion on local water sources as water is shipped to lithium mines in salt flats, plus the fact that electricity to charge the cars likely comes from burning fossil fuels anyway, I'm going to guess the net environmental impact of an electric vehicle over the course of its life is only nominally better than a combustion engine. People have this idea that if the pollution isn't directly coming out of their tailpipe, they aren't causing it.

    • Burning fossil fuels in power plant is a lot more efficient than in individual combustion engines. Also, power plants can be outside cities. Global warming is a problem but local air pollution in big cities is another.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Assuming you get your electricity from clean burning natural gas and not dirty coal here's the math.

        Gas turbines are +/- 60% efficient right now but the electric grid isn't "smart" and about 5-6% of generated electricity is wasted in transmission. So overall you have 54% efficiency in delivering energy from the burnt natural gas to the battery. But here's where the fun begins. Batteries are not 100% efficient in storing charge. Even lithium ion batteries are only about 99% efficient and that's when they are

        • Is your car powered by natural gas? No? Then why are you comparing it to natural gas power plant? Oil power plants are much dirtier.

        • Also ICE idling in the traffic is 0% efficient.

      • Plus you don't have to use electricity from fossile fuels. Use wind-, solar or hydro power to go emission free! Maybe not everyone does, but at least electric cars have the option. Try filling the tank of your average gas-guzzler with solar power...

    • Re:Really? To lower pollution? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Stoertebeker ( 1005619 ) on Monday March 06, 2017 @03:17PM (#53987131)
      Lithium isn't mined, you insensitive clod. It's extracted from mineral springs or salt flats. Byproducts are calcium potassium and other salts that are no more harmful than the original brine in said salt flat.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        These days a lot of lithium is recycled from batteries. EU directives require retailers to take used batteries for free and the ones with any value, like the lithium cells, are recycled.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You don't seem to understand how lithium is produced. It's produced by pumping underground lithium brines (water with high concentrations of lithium salts, in particular lithium chloride) into evaporation ponds and then letting the sun do the rest of the work to separate the salts from the water. Those salts are then chemically separated using such horrible chemicals as soda ash (i.e. a common household cleaner!). There's no massive production of contaminated dirt like you claim. Hell, in addition to lithiu

    • In addition to the other responses: you get to use your lithium battery thousands of times. You only get one use from a gallon of gas.

      Also, many people have the option of getting electricity from a green supplier or purchasing their own solar panels to charge the battery.

      Here's a study discussing mortality rate effects of the various forms of vehicle power: http://www.pnas.org/content/11... [pnas.org]

      Two highlights: Battery production does cause some mortalities, but charge the battery from a natural gas pow

    • It is way easier to mass produce clean energy in a power plant (if needed in future swap a coal plant with clean energy plant) than replace all inefficient engines in all cars (ask Volkswagen).

    • ...plus the fact that electricity to charge the cars likely comes from burning fossil fuels anyway...

      That depends entirely on there you live. In the jurisdiction I live in, 87% of all electricity is hydroelectric, with most of the rest being biomass, wind, and a very small amount of natural gas. We have no coal or oil generation whatsoever. In such an environment, an electric vehicle makes a lot of sense.

      If where you live the majority of your electricity is produced by coal, driving an electric vehicle isn't necessarily going to add to emissions at the plant level. Coal plants are typically run as bas

    • With current processes for extracting Lithium from the ground resulting in 0.02% lithium and 99.8% dirt that is now contaminated by the toxic chemicals used to extract the lithium and the resource depletion on local water sources as water is shipped to lithium mines in salt flats, plus the fact that electricity to charge the cars likely comes from burning fossil fuels anyway, I'm going to guess the net environmental impact of an electric vehicle over the course of its life is only nominally better than a combustion engine.

      According to studies (google is your friend) it all depends on the country.

      - In countries that rely very little on greenhouse gazes-emitting power production (e.g.: lots of central and northern european countries) : pollution generated by the manufacture of battery and production of electicity is still a lot smaller than the pollution generated by the production of fuel and burning it in ICE.

      - In countries that rely more on greenhouse gazes-emitting electricity generation (e.g.: US - so including NY mention

    • the fact that electricity to charge the cars likely comes from burning fossil fuels anyway

      And you would be wrong! Even back in 2006, nationwide, about 30% of electricity is generated by non-fossil fuel sources. [wikipedia.org] Though if were talking about just the state of New York, in 2013 it was greater than 50%. [wikipedia.org]

    • So you have the wrong process for extracting lithium, combined with the fact that lithium in batteries is recyclable, and combined it with a very outdated and studied to death view of the cleanliness of EVs (spoiler: You're wrong, they don't even approach ICE cars even if you run them on coal power).

      The only thing you're kidding yourself about is your knowledge on the topic.

  • I got mine (a 2014) used with less than 10K miles for a really good price. It's probably the nicest car I've owned. The instant torque of the electric drive is fantastic for city driving and commuting. I've had a series of four cylinder commuter cars over the years and the electric drive is by far the best "solution" to the typically gutless four cylinder engine I've found. My last car was turbocharged and while that was fun after the thing spooled up, it was by no means instant response. It was also not al

    • I was thinking about a 2014 Volt myself, until I sat in one. The view out is very limited, compared to my current 29mpg Civic. The Volt would probably only save me 120 gallons a year, so I'm holding off in the hope that some newer EVs have better visibility.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by enjar ( 249223 )

        If the range isn't a big issue, Nissan is nearly giving away the Leaf right now. IIRC I saw some people talking about how they got it out the door for $13K (including incentives, so more like $23K without). The Leaf got shot down for our household since there are enough times we needed the extra range on the Volt. I work with plenty of Leaf owners who pretty much use it as a commuter / around town car and have a second vehicle for long trips. Aside from tires and wipers there's pretty much zero maintenance.

  • Like most major cities I imagine cars cause a great deal of air pollution and noise. An electric or even a hybrid I imagine would help that situation as less oil burned means less localized pollution which does a great deal of harm.

  • This is how money is transferred from the lower classes to the upper classes. Buy an expensive car, get a check from the state. That's not going to help poor people, but it'll help people who already have money.

    • A reduction in air pollution means a reduction in pollution related health problems, which means a reduction in health care costs for 80-90% of the population, and an increased quality of life for those suffering from the health problems. We lose $120 to $280 billion a year on health care and loss of life due to fossil fuel-caused air pollution. That's $500 per year for every man, woman, and child. Reducing air pollution also means a reduction in future weather related property damage, which again is someth

  • Here's a study discussing mortality rate effects of the various forms of vehicle power: http://www.pnas.org/content/11... [pnas.org]

    Two highlights: Battery production does cause some mortalities, but charge the battery from a natural gas power plant and your total mortality rate is less than half the mortality rate of a gasoline vehicle. Charge with Wind, Water, or Solar, and you cut the mortality rate 80%. Charging from a coal plant would be a poor choice, however.

  • "We want to make electric vehicles a mainstream option,"

    Make a land yacht - something about the size of a Crown Victoria - that is within the reach of ordinary individuals. Get it to start around $20-25k and you have an option that people would want.

    The only way the golfcarts are attractive is that they're all but forced into existence.

  • If you are driving total electric car you aren't paying fuel/road tax. A gasoline vehicle has to pay every time it fills up for road repairs bridges etc. It comes out of the tax received from tax at the pump. If you never visit the pump how are you paying your share of the road tax? If you get your propane to run your car from the big storage tank out back of your house [using a wet leg device] you are paying no road tax. Ask the farmers caught at the local livestock auction caught by state revenue people f
  • You could probably make this work in downstate urban NY where it is more temperate and the distances are closer. It does not seem to work too well for the rest of NY where commutes are longer and brutal battery draining cold can be the norm for a longer part of the year.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close