How to tax electric vehicles

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

I try to find a relationship between gas prices and the quality of roads. In theory, the states with the highest price will have the most revenue from gas tax and therefore the best roads.
But it never works that way.
Your assumption is that the revenue collected is actually going to improve the roads. It's not.

No - that's not an accurate assessment of how I view the tax on fuel.

Yes, part of it does go to fund the road. But, there are also other transportation needs funded by it, and in some states things even outside of transportation.

Just because all of a tax is not used to fund roads doesn't mean that the roads could exist without that part that is.

To get a more accurate look at this you would have to see in each state what percentage of the road building and maintenance budget comes from fuel tax. I'm not naive enough to think that it all comes from fuel tax, and I'm not naive enough to assume that all fuel tax goes to roads.

[skyguyscott]

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

I'm curious, though. If everyone in California bought an EV today, where would the power come from? California hasn't built a new power plant in 20 years and they reject clean nuclear in favor of Natural Gas.

You raise many good points in your post, but as you know, fission reactors generate nuclear waste that remains lethal for thousands of years.

This issue was brought to sobering relief for me many years ago when, in college, I ran across a government study on how to warn people to stay away from a proposed nuclear waste repository (since abandoned). Such a warning would have to be clearly understood (by just humans, neglecting wildlife) for 10,500 years, the expected half-life of the radioactive decay. Now, for perspective, the Pyramids in Egypt are estimated to be between just 4000-6000 years old, and the ability to read hieroglyphics was lost for thousands of years before some clever linguists deciphered them, thanks in large part to the lucky discovery of the Rosetta Stone. (The study's best recommendation was to install towering spikes, firmly planted in the desert above the repository, as a warning to any future civilizations, although how to keep curious humans from exploring these man-made spikes was not specifically addressed)

All the tons of lethal radioactive waste already generated remain stored in vulnerable sites to this day, with no firm plans on how to dispose of it, or keep it out of the hands of nefarious actors, or secure it from the ravages of decay, natural disaster, or sabotage, let alone human neglect or accidental exposure.

So, while it is true fission generates no greenhouse gasses, it's lethal byproduct makes it, in my view, a Faustian bargain, for a species not yet ready to responsibly handle it.

[LNBright]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

You raise many good points in your post, but as you know, fission reactors generate nuclear waste that remains lethal for thousands of years.

This issue was brought to sobering relief for me many years ago when, in college, I ran across a government study on how to warn people to stay away from a proposed nuclear waste repository (since abandoned). Such a warning would have to be clearly understood (by just humans, neglecting wildlife) for 10,500 years, the expected half-life of the radioactive decay. Now, for perspective, the Pyramids in Egypt are estimated to be between just 4000-6000 years old, and the ability to read hieroglyphics was lost for thousands of years before some clever linguists deciphered them, thanks in large part to the lucky discovery of the Rosetta Stone. (The study's best recommendation was to install towering spikes, firmly planted in the desert above the repository, as a warning to any future civilizations, although how to keep curious humans from exploring these man-made spikes was not specifically addressed)

All the tons of lethal radioactive waste already generated remain stored in vulnerable sites to this day, with no firm plans on how to dispose of it, or keep it out of the hands of nefarious actors, or secure it from the ravages of decay, natural disaster, or sabotage, let alone human neglect or accidental exposure.

So, while it is true fission generates no greenhouse gasses, it's lethal byproduct makes it, in my view, a Faustian bargain, for a species not yet ready to responsibly handle it.

50 years ago, correct. Putting all in one place like Yucca Mountain, bad idea.

Today, most of the waste can be reprocessed into fuel again. Very little waste done today. Much more realistic than depending solely on solar and wind. (I'm not anti-solar, I do have issues w/ wind for raptors and bats, but, solar isn't w/o its own other costs.)

[Saluda372]

They will think of many ways !

[skyguyscott]

Originally Posted by LNBright

50 years ago, correct. Putting all in one place like Yucca Mountain, bad idea.

Today, most of the waste can be reprocessed into fuel again. Very little waste done today. Much more realistic than depending solely on solar and wind. (I'm not anti-solar, I do have issues w/ wind for raptors and bats, but, solar isn't w/o its own other costs.)

Diamond graphite batteries may be ultimate game changer. Imagine a BEV that holds it's charge for hundreds of years. Reprocessed nuke waste, good-by range anxiety, charging stations. Right now the state of the art seems to be that they only generate small amounts of electricity, if true. Then again, this could all just be another "cold fusion"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_battery

[uncle_bob]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

Diamond graphite batteries may be ultimate game changer. Imagine a BEV that holds it's charge for hundreds of years. Reprocessed nuke waste, good-by range anxiety, charging stations. Right now the state of the art seems to be that they only generate small amounts of electricity, if true. Then again, this could all just be another "cold fusion"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_battery

Hi

Until somebody actually can demonstrate one on a lab bench .... it's cold fusion all over again.

We need answers to this stuff *soon*. Fusion power has been "in the works" for 70+ years. It *might* make it to the demo stage "real soon now". That's how long this kind of thing can take. We simply do not have 70 years to mess around. Do we have another 10 years to get serious? I don't think we do.

Better to put the effort in to fixing the grid and building what we know how to build.

Bob

[drmox]

I love reading the progression of our threads, and how they evolve. This thread started out with taxes on EVs, and is now at nuclear waste and Egyptian pyramids.
At least we haven't fallen into the black hole of WD hitches and 1/2 ton truck load capacities.

[skyguyscott]

Originally Posted by drmox

I love reading the progression of our threads, and how they evolve. This thread started out with taxes on EVs, and is now at nuclear waste and Egyptian pyramids.
At least we haven't fallen into the black hole of WD hitches and 1/2 ton truck load capacities.

Patience, the thread is still young

[jcanavera]

Missouri is covering all bases with a decal which must be displayed on all alternative fueled vehicles. So this covers not only vehicles which are electrically powered but also covers other fuel sources that aren't gasoline or diesel based. This past year the decal was $75 in 2020 and is paid for during your annual registration for license plates. Starting this year (and for the next 4 years the costs will be increased by 20% each year to reach $150. The average Missourian pays about $250 a year in Missouri fuel taxes annually. I expect that price will probably not top out at $150 and fees will probably be raised even more to bring the alternative fueled vehicles closer that $250 that those of us using diesel or gasoline pay.

Jack

[RedSHED]

The EV communicates with the charger, and the chargers can/do talk to parts of the distribution system, whether it's at a house or at a charging station for anything more sophisticated than a 110v extension cord. Most of that's already in place (or can be).

Tax at point of sale, whether it's the home charger or a charging station. A 2 or 3 cent (or whatever) per kWh surcharge for EV use. Solves any issues of Canadians driving to Florida and commuters who live on the "cheaper" side of a state line but recharge/use the roads in the more expensive state.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by RedSHED

The EV communicates with the charger, and the chargers can/do talk to parts of the distribution system, whether it's at a house or at a charging station for anything more sophisticated than a 110v extension cord. Most of that's already in place (or can be).

Tax at point of sale, whether it's the home charger or a charging station. A 2 or 3 cent (or whatever) per kWh surcharge for EV use. Solves any issues of Canadians driving to Florida and commuters who live on the "cheaper" side of a state line but recharge/use the roads in the more expensive state.

The way commercial vehicles pay road tax is based on where they actually do their driving. This means that a state with a higher road tax (fuel tax) won't lose out if a driver fuels across state lines where the tax is cheaper but does all his/her driving in the state with higher taxes.

Taxing electric at the point of charging would be the opposite, and would mean that drivers near a border with a cheaper tax state could skate on paying their fair share.

[RedSHED]

The way the other ~15 million vehicles sold each year is based on where they refuel. The specific example related to commuters. Commercial vehicles - trucks and buses vs Uber and Lyft - could and likely should be handled separately, possibly including as they are now

[tjdonahoe]

We only put 7000 miles a year on our auto….about 12,000 on our airstream toter….no big deal.

[BigBlu]

Interesting question form a fellow citizen from the already high taxed state of Illinois. But to tax on mileage, as in the number of miles driven? Maybe a reasonable question. Maybe. But when it comes to towing, at this point, the best estimate I have seen is efficiency of an EV is cut by 50% when towing. In my opinion, that throws mileage out of play. However, when it comes to EV, logic and reasonableness is never really the issue, is it?

[skucera]

If the idea is road and bridge upkeep, then we could use an idea from the state of Washington. For years, all cars and trucks paid a renewal fee based on vehicle gross vehicle weight. Charging electric cars a similar fee would help. Given the wear and tear of studded snow tires, I always thought there should be a per tire fee per year too. (Yeah, studs are illegal in many states, but they're legal here in Oregon half of the year.)

My home state, Oregon, doesn't have a plan for taxing electric vehicles yet. I think there was a trial program with a GPS mileage tracker, but privacy advocates really don't like the idea of the government being able to constantly monitor citizens' locations and speeds without a warrant. Since it was a trial program for volunteers, nobody has had grounds to challenge it in court yet. I, personally, don't want one of those gadgets in any vehicle I own. Luckily, legislators are still eager to offer state subsidies to electric car buyers, and aren't eager to look at them as a revenue stream yet. That will change in the years ahead, I'm sure, as chemically fueled vehicles dwindle as a percentage of the all cars and trucks on the road.

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. I can't wait to see where it goes from here.

Scott

[skyguyscott]

Another option is to privatize the entire surface road infrastructure, as some states have experimented with. This was, indeed, how the USA initially built many of the first highways, they were toll routes. Local governments in those days were thin and lacked any expertise on roads and highways.

While I am dubious of this working out well, free market types should in theory be all over this scheme.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

Another option is to privatize the entire surface road infrastructure, as some states have experimented with. This was, indeed, how the USA initially built many of the first highways, they were toll routes. Local governments in those days were thin and lacked any expertise on roads and highways.

While I am dubious of this working out well, free market types should in theory be all over this scheme.

It didn't work out well the first time around, and it's not working out well now in the ares which are trying it again. There have been a few recent colossal failures trying to privatize toll roads and other infrastructure.

This is not like a private company which can go out of business quietly - when one of these go out of business or fail they take part of the infrastructure with them. Having a private company take over a road or bridge means that they get to take out revenue when things go well, and as soon as the costs outweigh the profits they pull out or go bankrupt and we're left with a failed project that gets rescued with tax money.

[Silvr_Bullet]

Privatization of roads and bridges? I think that’s a terrible concept. There are some services that are too important to put in the hands of Private Enterprise, roads, bridges, air space, are our nations life blood of commerce and travel beyond the reach and control of local governments ie. Politics. Anyway the bureaucracy costs would largely remain to provide standards and enforce them and then probably subsidize them financially.

[jondrew55]

Originally Posted by drmox

I love reading the progression of our threads, and how they evolve. This thread started out with taxes on EVs, and is now at nuclear waste and Egyptian pyramids.
At least we haven't fallen into the black hole of WD hitches and 1/2 ton truck load capacities.

lol. I find if you get on-topic replies in the first 4 or 5 responses you're doing good. Then it just wanders off somewhere else.

[Silvr_Bullet]

Threads sometimes do wander, I tend to think of some as conversation starters, makes it interesting. If the topic is mechanical in nature, it doesn’t wander much, but about fuel tax, then you take a bite of the [emoji519]