You have to buy into the idea that alternatives forms of energy is a good idea.
I can buy into that idea, no problem. If for no other reason than to diversify our energy sources.
But I still think the questions stand - what do we get for $7,500 per vehicle? Is that the best way to invest $7,500 times X cars sold?
Let me turn it around to a positive statement, so you don't think I'm anti-alternatives - lets assume:
1) I want alternate energy, and I want the Govt to promote it.
2) We obviously have limited resources, and other projects competing for that money, so we agree that some fixed $X million or billion amount should be tagged for this effort.
3) Based on #1,
we want the most alternative energy for our limited $s , right?
That is why I just can't see $7,500 per vehicle - I just don't see what it gets us. You know the first X,XXX units will be sold to people who would buy them w/o the rebate, just because they would (think Hollywood and hobbyists and greenies that can't quite swing that Tesla). If that is even just 1,000 people (low, IMO), that is $7.5 Million of the taxpayers money right out the window. And I read that the rebate is limited to the first 200,000 cars sold - so that rebate will not be available for those that would have been swayed by it at the tail end. We lost twice
It's just bad economics. We could do better, but first we ought to define the goal.
Much like the CFLs. What? So much for a lightbulb? or to hang on to the Edision bulb foreever?
I buy CFLs when they make economic and ergonomic sense. I'm sitting by one now, and I use them in my outdoor lights and a few other places. There are places I won't use them because it makes more sense to use the Edison light bulb. I use the right product for the right job. And when the govt provides subsidies, all it does is make that decision an artificial one. Just like these EVS, if someone wouldn't buy one with their own money, why should I give them the money to buy it? It doesn't change the equation.
If your answer is "to save energy", then I suggest that you define that goal, and look for solutions. I believe there are far better, more effective, faster acting, and more efficient ways to save energy, than artificially pricing some specific technologies.
BTW, our CFLs are using about twice as much energy as most people think. Look at the label and calculate the Volt-Amps. It will be about 2x the watts (Power Factor of 0.5). Our power meters charge by the Watt, because it was the only practical way to measure per household. But electrical plants (think coal) really have to generate Volt-Amps, the watt rating means nothing relative to the coal burned. If you are a big commercial place, they will check your power factor, and charge accordingly. Just can't do that home-by-home, but the end result is the same, CFLs are not even half as 'green' as claimed. Couple that with the fact they take more materials and more processing (which would be expected to take more energy), and the delta shrinks. Might even be negative for all I know. I wouldn't be surprised, looking at the box of dead ones and their fancy plastic packaging that I have for recycling.
-ERD50