Electric cars are running on empty promises
If government actually could mandate innovation, we could all fill up our cars with garden hoses. But even Washington can't turn water into automotive fuel and that's why federal subsidies premised upon technological breakthroughs — such as those for electric cars — are a waste of money.
What we drive says a lot about us. What an electric car says about its owners is that they either don't have children or have no reasonable hope of ever having any.
Electric cars simply don't provide families with the right combination of price, size and range for their needs.
Children are very expensive, with the average cost of raising a child the first 18 years now over $240,000. Add college tuition to that and the cost of each child can easily exceed $340,000.
At the same time, the higher one's income — and the more likely one can afford higher-cost electric cars — the less likely one is to have children. The bottom fifth of wage-earners are nearly 50 percent more likely to have children than the top fifth.
Electric cars don't deliver the value families need. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the lifetime cost of an electric hybrid car is $12,000 more than a conventional vehicle, so subsidies have to be at least 60 percent higher than the current maximum federal subsidy of $7,500 to overcome the cost disparity.
But no amount of federal action can resolve other problems.
• These cars are too small, as space is sacrificed for technological needs and to minimize vehicle weight to extend the range.
• The typical all-electric car has an under-100-mile range between charges.
• Charges can take hours and leave one vulnerable to the increasingly unreliable power grid.
Electric-gas hybrid cars are a better alternative, but are more expensive and less spacious.
Range is a huge issue for families. As the automotive evaluation firm J.D. Power and Associates notes, electric cars are best for “drivers with predictable, unwavering daily driving requirements.”
Kids' schedules are many things, but reliable isn't one of them. As anyone who has children can attest, kids have unscheduled band, choir, soccer, football and dance practices. They occasionally get sick and need to be taken home. They even, from time to time, get detention and must stay late.
The $7.5 billion we'll spend over 10 years promoting electric cars will accomplish only one thing: propping up a niche product.
J.D. Power says electric car owners “most often cite environmental friendliness as the most important benefit” of such cars. But even here, electric vehicles fail.
A Journal of Industrial Ecology report found that manufacturing electric vehicles produces over double the carbon dioxide emissions of building conventional automobiles. Furthermore, electric vehicles are charged with electricity generated from conventional fossil fuels and require batteries containing toxic chemicals. Environmental benefits are marginal at best.
It was 116 years ago that the first commercially available electric car went on the market. Electric cars have been running on empty promises ever since. When it comes to federal subsidies, it's time to pull the plug.
David A. Ridenour is president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Jerome Bettis to be enshrined in hall of fame
- Tennessee quarterback Peterman considers transfer to Pitt
- Familiar Downtown Pittsburgh presence lost arm, leg to train
- Snow, freezing rain, bitter cold coming to Western Pa.
- Suggestions are aplenty on what Penguins need to break through
- Gulls fleeing frozen Great Lakes fill skies over Pittsburgh’s Point
- Voters opt for ‘Don’t Know’ in 2016 presidential race, poll finds
- CMU software eases task of mining prostitution ads
- Penguins minor league notebook: Rookie Wilson emerges as 3rd-line NHL prospect
- Starkey: Pitt needs this version of James Robinson
- Penguins notebook: Malkin could return Wednesday at Edmonton