Extra License Fee for Electric Cars?

The danger of that happening is not too likely in the near future.

Careful, AH, all bets go out the window when gasoline hits $5.00. There will be electric cars in road testing this summer that generate their power on board with a high-efficiency turbine generator burning straight denatured 130-proof ethanol as fuel. Batteries will ony be needed to start the turbine. Since we focus on non-food feedstocks for ethanol, we are backing one of them. We anticipate that the government will respond with a mixture of two options, both of which we can support. One option is toll roads, currently in use in several locations with tolls set by axle count. The other option is to make the road use tax apply to whatever fuel is used. With the advent of an all-electric vehicle generating its own power on board, we may not see very many battery-powered "Plug-n-Drive" units in use. If that option does develop, we may need to look at assessing a road use tax added to the annual (or biennial, in some states) license renewal fee. The renewal fee addition could be based on the vehicle's maximum range per recharge. The owner can decide whether to pay the road use tax as they go (with the turbogen) or with an annual charge (with "Plug-N-Drive").

You wrote, "Careful, AH, all bets go out the window when gasoline hits $5.00."

It has been proven time and time again that you can buy an awful lot of gasoline for $20K, $30K, or more, even at $5 or $10 per gallon.

A used car can be had for a few thousand dollars. A new EV costs an order of magnitude more.

Europe already exists under such high taxed gasoline that they pay much more than $5 per gallon. Still, the internal combustion engine rules, albeit in more economical versions than found in the US (as a whole).

There simply is no empirical evidence to suggest that gasoline cresting $5 will significantly change the number of EV versus gasoline powered cars. Critics point out all the wonderful attributes that make EVs superior to their counterparts, but the public still favors gasoline cars.

While I am a fan of EVs, you have to be smoking some seriously good hope to think that selling 321 Volts in one month represents a tidal wave in sales compared the 220,000 regular vehicles sold by GM in that same month.

Apparently, some of our legislators are already smoking hope, too.

We have run test demonstrations making ethanol from cellulose for 80 cents per gallon when the feedstock cost 40 cents per gallon and labor was estimated at 10 cents per gallon. At $5.00 gasoline, that makes our E-85 cost us $1.43 per gallon and our 130-proof cost us 52 cents per gallon. Leave the E-85 out of the discussion for now, there are millons of FlexFuel vehicles in use currently burning $3.39 gasoline. Simple question: how much are you willing to pay for an EV that does not have heavy batteries that need periodic replacement and that gets close to 50 MPG on a fuel that can be locked in at a $1.30 per gallon on a semi-annual contract? That $1.30/gallon is $54.60/barrel (retail). and our margin is 78 cents per gallon. We make money, your cost goes down, our farmers gross returns are around $2,000 per acre, and the auto maker makes a little, also.

Re: our 130-proof cost us 52 cents per gallon

I don't see how you got that?

(Question mark added to make it clear (to anyone who might have trouble with the concept) that even though phrased as a statement, I'm trying to ask a question. (I guess I would have saved typing by just rephrasing it as a question ;-) )

Re: our 130-proof cost us 52 cents per gallon

I don't see how you got that?

Since our primary product at this time is E-85, we are required to make 200 proof ethanol for blending. Our process costs us 80 cents per gallon of 200 proof. We add water to bring the concentration to 65% ethanol/35% water, to make the 130 proof. The cost of the water is negligible, the ethanol in the 130 proof costs (80 X .65 = 52) cents. Once we phase away from E-85 we can use a much cheaper distillation process to just get the 130 proof directly from a single pass still.

Thanks!

That seems obvious now--somehow I got the idea in my head that the 130 proof was based on "dilution" with gasoline.

So, is that 130 proof then mixed with gasoline to make some "lower" gasoline / alcohol mixture? (Like E-50 or something--I know I've seen some designation of a mixture with more alcohol, less gasoline, but I can't remember what that was).

If not, what is the 130 proof used for?

If the 130 proof is used to make a grade of gasohol, is this then a way of burning water in an IC engine? ;-) (Meaning that those guys who sold means to inject water into an IC engine might have been right all along ;-)

So, is that 130 proof then mixed with gasoline to make some "lower" gasoline / alcohol mixture? (Like E-50 or something--I know I've seen some designation of a mixture with more alcohol, less gasoline, but I can't remember what that was).

If not, what is the 130 proof used for?

Let's get back to basics. Back in the '70s when the price of oil skyrocketed us to gasoline prices of $1.00 per gallon (gasp, gasp), Brazil and the USA both switched to ethanol blends in gasoline, Brazil to 90/10 (ethanol/gasoline) and USA to 10/90 (gasohol). The decision in the USA came out of the recommendation of a panel of oil and beverage ethanol producers.

My uncle, Louis Fitzgerald, was a vice-President of Schenley, the whiskey people, and was a member on the panel. When I asked him later why they had gone with the higher gasoline ratio, he said it was simple economics: the oil industry did not want cheap gasoline, the beverage industry did not want wide-spread ethanol producers siphoning off beverage grade ethanol.

At that time, the only commercial production of ethanol from cellulose was in Europe, where a plant in Tavda, Russia, has been doing it since 1941. So the conversion of food crops to energy production became another point in the argument. Since corn is a relatively high-input crop in terms of water, fertilizer and pesticides (although not nearly as bad as some vegetables) and has a limited production potential for ethanol (less than 1,000 gallons/acre/year), the argument against corn as an energy crop is valid.

Ethanol/gasoline blends do not tolerate much water (methanol/gasoline will tolerate more water, but the vapors are toxic), which is why we have to make 200 proof for our blending. This also complicates the use of the current petroleum pipeline infrastructure for transportation. There is also a probem with transporting a cellulosic feedstock over long distances. Although the BtU/ton is much higher for those crops, the BTU/cu ft is terrible. And shipping costs relate to the product volume. So distributing the distilleries out closer to the feedstock source reduces hauling cost for the feedstock and eliminates the dependency on easily sabotaged pipelines.

So if we do not use the 130 proof as blending stock, what do we do with it? The next generation of vehicles will be electrics that generate their energy on board using high-efficiency turbine/generators burning one of several potentially available fuels. We are backing one of these new companies, intending to use the 130 proof as a direct fuel witih no petroleum product. That was the key to the phasing out of the E-85 in the earlier post.

As for the comment about using direct water injection, the military was doing that back in WW II with aircraft needing to take off from short runways. The D model of the T-29 (Convair 440) that was used at Harlingen Air Force Base, Texas, (where I took navigator training) used it, and could really set you back in your seat. The instructor told us about 1 gallon of water making 1700 gallons of steam. Our 130 proof, with its 35% water, does the same.

Ethanolics Unanimous

We are in the same book but not on the same page, yet. I will be in touch once my time allows for discussing new technologies in detail. This could include an injector I have been working on since years. It solves the problem of water injection be it with the direct injection or the use of Ethanolics, Diesel, Petrol (gasoline) or anything that burns, ignites under pressure.

Patent? Who needs a patent, its like asking for cancer when there is nothing wrong with you. I have been doing this research and R&D for years, with own funds and only a few know what I am exactly doing. They are not some youngsters but men that have been slaving away at ICE's for decades. They are the fuel which allows me to go further, if only in theory.

I lift my hat for what you guys are and have been achieving. I wish we were not so far away from each other, I mean the tyranny of distance not the difference in approaching this solvable "problem" of using duel fuels and making it work.

Very encouraging, Ky.

Sorry, I forgot that this is about tax. Well, someone has something coming because that is the last thing I am concerned about.

GA.

Anyway, since the electric vehicles buyers are given financial incentives to buy them, we should start by removing those.

But, knowing governments, they might simply levy a tax on the incentives. That would add a few more lines on your income tax declarations...

Don't cut the 'Powers' that be' short. You can bet there are teams of innovative personell working on this vary loss of revenue. The savings to the Govt. would be tremendous. To see them lighten the load on poor' ole joe', it's not going to happen. The hand is not going to come out of the public pocket. If it did I could, buy more, sell more, ship more, hire more and may even afford a vacation and spend more..

"Experts have written that the use of electricity would double when a user switches from gas to an all-electric car. DOn't forget that your state is already taxing electricity! So we will switch the revenue from the feds to the states (which is what most conservatives want, after all).

Since Excise taxes on fuel go to road maintenance and construction....and electric vehicles pay none....they should be hit with a surcharge.

Why?

There are orders of magnitude more bicycles on the road that collectively do more road wear than the few thousands of EVs that are running nationwide around on the road.

I think if you look at the proportion of gasoline powered cars versus EVs you will see that the loss income from EVs is inconsequential.

Also, if you apply the same logic you are applying to EVs, then hybrids and other high mileage cars should be forced to pay additional taxes to bring them to parity with the gas guzzlers.

It's only fair.

Only fair they all be the same price too bicycles included.

And a shoe tax, too.

There are orders of magnitude more bicycles on the road that collectively do more road wear than the few thousands of EVs that are running nationwide around on the road.

Than's comparing apples and oranges, AH. Road wear is a function of vehicle weight that is not a linear function across platforms. (1000 lb moving over the road 1 time does significantly more wear than 1 lb movinig over the road 1000 times) Go back to my first answer to you above: The EV's are going to be assessed a road use fee needed to keep the roads in shape. As the market for electrics develops, those that generate electricity on board will be taxed on the fuel used for generation. Those that use the "Plug - and - drive" battery packs will be assessed an additional fee as they renew their registrations. The fee will be based on vehicle weight and recharge range. There is no way to determine where the "Plug - and - drive" will be plugged in for the equivalent of refueling.

Try an experiment. Let one EV run over your foot. Wait for it to heal. Now let 10,000 bicycles roll over the same foot one after the other and report back. ;-)

The only way that EVs will be taxed will be if there are a significant number of them displacing gasoline fed vehicles.

Sales data to date points to that being an unlikely scenario for some time to come, so the conversation is really moot.

Even more insane is the idea of the government subsidizing huge percentages of the EV cost for the buyer in the form of tax payer money (to induce sales), then accessing the buyer to pay a tiny fraction of that subsidy back in the form of some non-fuel tax.

This amounts to shoving a stick up a carrot so the government has something to entice you to come over while they turn around and beat you with the same instrument.

Try an experiment. Let one EV run over your foot. Wait for it to heal. Now let 10,000 bicycles roll over the same foot one after the other and report back.

I have already performed some of the second part of the experiment on several occasions (unintentionally) which is part of the reasoning behind my post. I can already verify the fact that area of contact has a major influence: if I repeat the experiment, I will make sure that the bicycle has those big fat balloon tires, not those skinny racing tires. But none of my interactions to date has resulted in broken bones. A friend of mine is a mechanic who lost a foot when a pickup slipped off a jack and landed on it.

But the thread here is about how we are going to maintain our hiway system. I think I pointed that out already, the mechanism is already in place: tolls for roadway access, fuel taxes (for vehicles using liquid fuels), and registration add-ons for battery power. I agree with you about the problem with government subsidies, Washington wants us to happily give them all our money and let them parcel it out as they see fit.

We subsidize the growers who provide our biomass crops through a food/fuel/fallow cropping cycle system without needing government subsidy. Our system ensures that food production and energy production can be synergystic, not antagonistic. Our business plan shows no returns from subsidies, just a footnote that the government subsidies currently available will add to the revenues shown until they are phased out. You don't really expect me to turn down an offer to give me back some of my own money, do you? But I do support the phasing out of ALL government subsidies, and a repeal of the taxes needed to support them. NOTE: Social Security is not a subsidy except for the payments to those who did not contribute into it.

Your timing for phasing out the current vehicle systems may be accurate if it only relies on deployment by the major auto manufacturers. There are a number of entrepreneurs with EV designs that will make major impacts on the automotive scene, and they are beginning to get funding. We support some of them, and intend to use some of GM's strategy in their deployment. Check out Thomas Midgley, the guy who developed TEL for gasoline and Freon for air conditioning, a GM employee.

You wrote, "But the thread here is about how we are going to maintain our hiway system."

Actually, is was about EVs and owners not paying their fair share. Maintaining roads is another matter. The premiss that EVs are (or are about to) cut into government revenue is a farce, particularly if the government is spending far more of tax payers' money to entice people to buy them.

I think you should take a good look at the total number of vehicles sold in the US on a monthly basis. Once you see how big that number is you will get a better idea of how futile EV market penetration is and will be with the current generation and technology available. This has been hashed out many times in the past here and other forums.

There is still a long road to go before technology can offer a car that replaces existing vehicles in new car sales. Then you have all the existing legacy cars on the road that need to be phased out. This will not happen in a few years, but will take decades.

The truth is, government revenue from existing gasoline sales is not threatened by the current generation of EVs, but by the public reducing the number of miles they drive with their currently owned cars. Taxing EVs will not fix that and it is silly to even think that it will make a difference.

If you have data that shows otherwise, feel free to present it.

The truth is, government revenue from existing gasoline sales is not threatened by the current generation of EVs, but by the public reducing the number of miles they drive with their currently owned cars.

Right on target concerning the reduction in revenue from reduced consumption. Back when Lake Lanier almost dried up and the citizens of Atlanta, Georgia were asked to reduce their water consumption to emergency use only, they succeeded in reducing their tax revenue below the amount required to pay the interest on the bonds previously issued for work on the reservoir. The citizens ended up paying a conservation surtax until rains replenished the lake.

That is why the tax exemption on ethanol based fuels must end, and the EV's, both hybrid and "Plug - n - Drive" will have to pay the road repair tax. Or we could achieve the same goal by eliminating the tax altogether and put tollgates on all roadways. That would also provide the ability of "Big Brother" to monitor when you went where to do what and verify what your cellphone is already telling him.

Trucks pay a road tax based on weight transported and miles driven to compensate for wear and tear of the roadways. Why should electric car driver get a free ride.

Thats how a free interstate road system works. everyone pays their share based on fuel usage. Don't think a Government installed GPS that charges you by the mile driven would be real popular.

After all when the roads are falling apart and new ones aren't built because Electric car users and others with untaxed fuels of any type aren't paying their share.....then who has any excuse to complain when the roads look like something you would expect in rural Afghanistan. And getting worse.

You wrote, "Why should electric car driver get a free ride."

They don't, but if you look at the data, trucks do 99+% of the road damage (according to a Michigan study), yet pay proportionally less than their share. So why does the trucking industry get a free ride?

So, what do you hope to achieve by taxing a few thousand EVs compared to millions of cars and trucks?

Put some perspective on this! There are (according to a 2007 DOT study) 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States. There are probably less than 40,000 EVs (public, military, and government) in existence in the US. At those numbers cars and trucks outnumber EVs by 6,360 to 1.

Even more interesting is that EVs tend to weigh less and therefore do somewhat less damage than a passenger car. However, the real road killers are the commercial trucks and those that are above 10,000 lbs. Road wear is not a linear scale per weight.

Another myth is that user fees (road tolls and fuel taxes) pay for our highways. In reality, only about 50% of those taxes and fees pay for roads. The rest are paid by non-users and bonds. Gasoline taxes (state and federal) only contribute about 33% of highway funds. This means that a few EVs on the road do not significantly alter the funding pie.

While the argument may sound good as "common sense", there are no numbers to support the claim.

Despite you resorting to logic - shouldn't any EV 'extra tax' go to the grid upkeep?

Aren't electric companies publicly traded companies (at least in the US)?

Why does the government need to step in?

^{_{Are you suggesting privatizing the highways?}}

₍₎

Actually, they are!

Here in Florida they are selling sections of roads to foreign companies and governments. Other states are doing the same thing.

So...not paying any taxes that go to road upkeep or contruction ISN'T a free ride? If they pay no fuel taxes...and there is so special assesment, they ARE getting a free ride. They are contributing to the wear and tear, to traffic...and contributing nothing in return.

How so? If I put untaxed diesel fuel in my pickup truck, or My Diesel Jetta I would get a HUGE fine in the THOUSANDS. Those do no more damage to the roads than an electric vehicle does. And in fact...my lead acid batteries are infinately recyclible....the Lithium Ion or NiCads are full of toxic materials. And more dangerous.

Nothing wrong with parity....

Why should electric vehicles be exempt?

You missed it. Gasoline taxes (both federal and state) account or pay for only 33% of all highway and roadway budgets.

50% of all highway funds are paid by non-users already. They consist of stocks, bonds, and general taxation not directly related to transportation.

The remaining 50% is split between gasoline taxes, registration fees, tolls, etc.

Your car, its registration, and fuel consumed only pay a portion of the total share (50%), so you are also sort of riding for free now.

However, if that disturbs you, just write a check to the DOT as a donation. ;-)

Think of it this way. You go to a concert and pay full price for your ticket. The guy behind you gets a senior citizen discount. He pays less. Are you going to choke him? Actually, it is even more trivial if, like the ratio of EVs to gasoline vehicles, only 1 out of every 6,000 people attending get a discount. That level of of revenue loss is inconsequential in the bigger picture.

EV owners still pay tolls, still must register their cars, and if they drive a Volt still need some premium gas anyway. They also pay state and federal taxes, of which a portion goes to the DOT. So what?

So...you fail to justify WHY they EV owners shouldn't pay their fair share yet.

Only excuses why they should be "special" and not bear the same burden other vehicles have to bear.

Yeah it IS spread around a bit...BUT every dollar an EV owner weasels out of paying is a dollar less than the rest of the public that drives on the road has to pay for the same privledge. And a uck less the state has to put towards easing traffic situations the EV owners are contributing to....the repairs the EV owners are contributing to needing done...and everything else that money would be going towards. And that means someone else is going to be forced to bear a greater burden to make up for the difference.

How about looking at it this way;

Every gallon of gas EV's don't consume, means more for you to burn. And if there is less demand, the price will not go up as fast - so you are the one benefiting.

Really, All those Prius's in the HOV lanes going 80 mph aren't using ANY gasoline? They certainly aren't doing it on batteries. And they aren't doing it getting better mileage than a Diesel Gold or Jetta will.

And incidently.....exactly where do you think the electricity used to charge and EV comes from. Most likely COAL.

Funny how people think THEY are entitled to a free ride, but get upset when someone else gets that free ride.

Oh, I'm not bitter.....I'm just sick and tired of arrogant Hybrid drivers that jam up HOV lanes while driving ALONE, and worse driving like idiots most of the time. And from personal observations while those numbers aren't 100%, an easy 80-90% of those drivers easily fit that description.

One Prius driving 80 mph with one occupant...ISN'T any GREENER than a Diesel Jetta or Golf with one person much less 2,3 or 4 occupants.

And there are very few true....pure EV's on the road.

If one vehicle is expected to contribute towards road construction and maintenance....ALL cars should be expected to. In one way or another. Be it fuel tax or Surcharge.

Otherwise....you end up having to charge EVERYONE for every mile they drive.

And if you think thats a great idea as a city dweller....Keep in mind, everything, from your milk to your mail comes via road. Enjoy your $20 gallon of milk, your $10 loaf of bread etc. Those things DO get passed on.....Just something to think about.

EV owners don't live in a vacuum.

Okay, so you are an EV bigot.

Just take a breath and relax a little.

Hybrids are another story, anyway.

And I agree, no one likes someone that has bad driving skills and that doesn't matter to me if they drive a Ferrari, Prius, or a Ford Excursion.

You wrote, "And there are very few true....pure EV's on the road."

Which was exactly my point! The loss of contributions through gasoline taxes is insignificant in the larger picture. EVs will drive milk to $20/gal - NOT.

If anything, I find it more disturbing that Volt buyers and other EV buyers get a big government incentive (which comes out of your and my pockets) because no one really wants them.

While in some cases such incentives make sense, usually free market demands create a self correcting environment. In this case the public may have a morbid curiosity about EVs, but the public has just been yawning when it comes to actually stepping up to the plate to buy them.

So, EVs are not a real threat to your driving pleasure and I don't think they will be for some time to come. Just relax a little and enjoy the forum.

By the way - welcome to CR4.

A Chevy Volt isn't a pure EV either....It still has a gasoline engine in it. Yeah it WILL go a lot further than a Prius or the other Hybrids before it comes on. But a Volt really is a hybrid. Not an EV. And actually is far more practical than a Nissan Leaf is as a result.

When your batteries go dead on an EV...you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle until it can spend hours at a charging station.

Thanks, that's a good point!

I also look at it these ways:

• right now, it is in everyone's interest to reduce the consumption of gas and oil
• so, for the time being, the government is trying to encourage the use of alternate fueled vehicles
• while the government is trying to encourage the use of alternate fueled vehicles, you can consider the tax exemption (we're talking about) as part of the incentive the government is using
  
• when there is no longer a need to encourage the use of alternate fueled vehicles, or when tax revenue from traditional fueled vehicles falls too far, a tax on electric vehicles will (surely) be instigated

I think all these points were made elsewhere in the thread, I just wanted to pull them all together in one place.

You really are a bitter person, aren't you?

You call it Bitter...I call it being tired of paying for other peoples free rides.

I believe in EVERYONE paying thier share. Not trying to push that share off onto someone else them have to pay. And SOMEONE will have to pay more in exchange for every free ride someone else gets. Thats how it works.

Work long enough and pay taxes long enough....you are going to understand that point too. One day it will be YOU thats expected to pay a bigger share so someone can get away without paying their share. Its alway seems like a great idea as long as its SOMEONE ELSE, thats paying the bill. And it always is like being robbed when YOU are the one that has to pay it.

If you want a Mercedes but can only afford a KIA Rio....You drive a KIA Rio.....you aren't entitled to have a Subsidised Mercedes S550.

You wrote, "I believe in EVERYONE paying thier share. Not trying to push that share off onto someone else them have to pay."

Let's hope you don't live in the USA. ;-)

Actually I do live in the USA.....and it happens WAY too often. And thats why I am tired of it. When the guy I'm forced to subsidize can afford more than I can, there is something really wrong.