In addition to the excellent points that samclem has made....
These analogies don't make sense to me.
Even most early adopters are unlikely to spend an extra $8,000 for a car that currently has few advantages...
Then they shouldn't. And I don't want to chip in for them to get the $8,000 to feed their personal desire to own something that has fewer advantages than they are willing to pay for. If it isn't good to enough for them to spend their own money on, why should it be OK to spend MY money on it? That makes no sense to me.
There was a point in time when PV panels costs thousands of dollars per watt, so they were only used for very niche markets (satellites, isolated off-grid areas). Subsidizing the difference between that and a more reasonable $1/Watt would be a very poor use of taxpayers money. If something isn't competitive, it isn't competitive. It does not make sense to invest dollars in it. Shifting the cost to someone else does not modify that equation.
Even before there were $1,800 VCRs, there were (I'm guessing) $50,000 VCRs used in commercial studios. It is all a progression, based on technological advancement. That might be pushed (or hindered) by govt subsidies, but it sure seems like a poor ROI to me. Far too indirect.
However, I can think of some advantages to giving the credit to the buyers. One advantage is that the market will be deciding who benefits from this infusion of cash, not the government. Would you really rather have the government decide who gets the R&D money?
But this is exactly part of my opposition. The govt *is* deciding. How come hybrids and/or EVs get a subsidy, or use of special lanes or parking spaces when a higher mpg non-hybrid does not? A van with 6 people in it is using energy far more efficiently per person than a hybrid or an EV with one person in it.
You need to ask yourself - what problem are we trying to solve here (if any)? Then, if we think there is a need, try to solve that problem. I know we've been around the loop on this one before - if you think we should be using less fossil fuel, then tax it and let the market figure the solutions. There is a difference in an EV powered by coal versus one powered by hydro or nukes - so let that be reflected in the market choice, rather than some overly-simplistic - 'it's electric - it doesn't use gasoline!' (but it does use coal).
Let the market compete for the most optimum solution per passenger mile after those taxes are in place - then any solution can compete, it doesn't need the 'blessing' of Congress. And that solution is different for different people ( the soccer mom routinely driving 6 kids around, the construction supervisor who occasionally needs extra capacity, the city commuter, etc, etc,) which is tough to accommodate with one-size-fits-all legislation.
Saying "one more incremental sale" spins it as inconsequential, but a credit that makes an electric car cheaper than an alternative gas car could easily double sales.
OK, double sales. No change from my intent. If that means 100,000 extra vehicles, then we are talking about 100,000 x $7,500 - and that is a lot. And we still don't have a clear idea of how much of anything was saved after going 3/4B dollars deeper in debt. . How many are bought by Hollywood stars to be seen driving to some PR event, and sit in the garage for weeks or months unused? No way to measure the savings, but it's OK to throw around $7,500 per vehicle? I just don't think that makes sense.
I do appreciate the challenge to my viewpoint, but I must say that in this case, you have only strengthened my resolve. These subsidies are stupid, and I resent the govt using my money this way. And yes, I've written my congress people and have received stupid answers in return.
OK, I just took a deep breath - life is good! But the subsidies are still stupid!
-ERD50