Electric cars - perfect fit for Hawaii

Great article, Sam. Thanks for the information.

thanks sam they would be there

Thanks, guys, cheers!

Perfect fit is right -- it fits Hawaii to a T. I hope this project is completed as soon as possible -- my wife and I are still nursing a dream of retiring there some day.

WOW!What a wonderful concept for the people of Hawaii!

Just one question about a line in your second paragraph, Sam:
"Shell plans to develop....."
Does "Shell plans" refer to conceptual ideas ("shell" is an adjective to describe the noun "plans"~ such as an architectural drawing or a research document) or does it refer to "Shell plans" ("shell" in a proper name meaning "Shell Oil" and "plans", an action verb meaning to do it?)

Just curious.

As the price of oil increases and the cost of other sources of energy decreases there will come a day when energy from other sources will be cheaper than energy from oil. Shouldn't we be putting our emphasis and investment in alternative energy forms, especially "green" ones? Drilling for oil just makes a mess. I know. I am from West Texas and have oil field relatives.

Electric cars in the urban enviroment would sell like hot cakes.

Good article. Hawaii is small enough, and doesn't have cars driving in from other States, so any talk about electric cars not having enough range is moot.

It is Shell, the big global group of energy and petrochemicals companies, Aunt Boni. I merely added this detail to show that even Big Oil is interested in developing wind farms on Hawaii. Wind energy and electric cars fit hand in glove, since wind turbines produce a lot of electricity at night when demand is low. This electricity could easily be used to recharge the batteries of electric cars at night.

While other states do not have the isolation that makes this a confined project, it may serve an interesting laboratory that helps develop a profitable larger model.

Yes, it's time that Hawaii started to use the many renewable resources it has to power cars as well.

In 2007, Hawaii residential consumers paid the highest electricity rate (24.13 cents per kilowatt hour), because the primary fuel used to generate electricity in Hawaii is oil, which is more expensive than coal, nuclear and gas that is mainly used elsewhere. The U.S. average residential retail price of electricity was 10.64 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2007.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/electricity.cfm

Given the rise in oil prices since 2007, of all places, renewables should be price-competitive in Hawaii.

very good points about Hawaii being able to do such both economically and feasibly. Given the costs of energy shipments to the islands and the relatively short distances most people drive there, electric aided cars are ideal. The place is a nightmare to drive in but there are soo many cars there, its scary. Hope this takes off without mandates however!

To impose additional taxes on a people already paying some of the highest costs of living on the planet would be down right criminal.
I have worked with people on the big island who bought homes an hour away because those closer to work were just to costly, adult children working two jobs and still living with their parents because rent is to high, what you spend in the grocery store add a third or maybe a half more then top that off with a ten percent additional tax?
Hawaii is a paradise but those who live there have to work harder and spend more to live there.
Just before we moved in June the local utility added a 15 cent per kwh fuel surcharge which puts electricity prices at well over 30 cents on the big island and you would add another 10% on to that?
Sam, your fee bates would drive the poor further into dispair.

But yes Hawaii has great potential concerning alternative energy and from an economics standpoint I never could understand why there was not more photovoltaics in operation.

One of the more interesting forms of energy production being researched on the bigisland is OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,
"OTEC systems use the ocean's natural thermal gradient—the fact that the ocean's layers of water have different temperatures—to drive a power-producing cycle."
"http://www.otecnews.org/whatisotec.html"

Dan: "To impose additional taxes on a people already paying some of the highest costs of living on the planet would be down right criminal."

The news is that Hawaii received a $1.7 million grant, which should be welcome news. My recommendation for a feebate approach combines fees with rebates, which will make renewable energy cheaper.

Dan: "Just before we moved in June the local utility added a 15 cent per kwh fuel surcharge which puts electricity prices at well over 30 cents on the big island and you would add another 10% on to that?"

I'm not sure why your local utility added a surcharge, but the fees I propose should be imposed on fossil fuel, not on renewable energy. In fact, the proceeds should be used to fund rebates on clean energy, such as solar and wind power. The cost of wind energy is about 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining. Wind is a low-cost renewable energy source that is less expensive than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation.

A feebate could impose a fee on gas guzzlers, to fund rebates on clean cars. That would further facilitate the switch to electric cars. Using wind power, car batteries could be recharged at night when demand for electricity is low, and those batteries could feed a surplus back into the grid to help keep the cost of electricity low at times of peak demand.

Dan: . . . yes Hawaii has great potential concerning alternative energy and from an economics standpoint I never could understand why there was not more photovoltaics in operation. One of the more interesting forms of energy production being researched on the bigisland is OTEC".

Yes, the OTEC concept is fascinating, Dan, and the funding that would come available as a result of a feebate approach would help such developments. Hawaii should be a driving force in the progress of renewable.

Sam,
I know what your fee bates are all about and your continuing reiteration will not change the fact that they will hurt the members of our society who can least afford to be hurt, the poor and the elderly.
The fact is we don't need any other incentives into alternatives, the industry is growing astronomically all we need is for the government to get out of the way, which with the "bail out" bill just passed the government gave alternatives what they needed to keep up this explosive growth.
We don't need to punish our society with additional taxes to help alternatives along.

"The cost of wind energy is about 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining. Wind is a low-cost renewable energy source that is less expensive than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation."

One thing that the Hawaii wind power history brings to light is that these wind turbines will eventually reach an end to their useful life and need to be replaced, an expense not factored in to most cost figures.
Case in point the big island of Hawaii south point wind farm built in 1986 decommissioned in 2006 (many of the turbines were not operational at the time of decommissioning)
My calculations utilizing these sources;
http://www.cielowind.com/related_links.htm#FAQ4
http://www.windustry.org/how-much-do-farmers-get-paid-to-host-wind-turbines
http://www.windustry.org/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost
and relying on a 30 year life span, is that the cost per kwh is close to 3.75 cents NOT taking into consideration maintenance and down time for that maintenance and interconnection fees and transmission line costs.
P.S. those costs are for the potential power possible from a turbine NOT a real world senario of maybe the wind doesn't blow for a few days a month so the real world cost of producing wind power would be higher.

But as you said geothermal on the big island is producing substantial amounts of energy but considering the potential, why not more?
Considering Hawaii's quality heating source geothermally produced power should cost closer to the bottom of the range of 5.5 cents per Kwh.
http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/powerPlantCost.asp
which would be competitive with wind but much more reliable, and solar could make up the daytime increase in demands at least on the sunny side of the island.

Dan: "I know what your fee bates are all about.."

Then why do you keep referring to it as a tax? Feebates mean that that polluters will pay more, and that proceeds help those who use cleaner alternatives. That will help the poor and the elderly who could otherwise hardly pay for such alternatives. If there's a 10% fee on gas guzzlers, that means that someone buying a luxurious polluting car will pay a lot in fees. The poor and elderly don't buy luxurious cars, Dan, so if they can scrape together money for a small car that doesn't emit much greenhouse gases, then they'll welcome some support in the form of rebates.

Dan: "The fact is we don't need any other incentives into alternatives, the industry is growing astronomically all we need is for the government to get out of the way, which with the "bail out" bill just passed the government gave alternatives what they needed to keep up this explosive growth."

Government bears much responsibility for the mess we're in. To remedy the undeserved support the government has given to the fossil fuel industry and the nuclear industry over many years, we need a feebate approach, which is the most effective way to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Dan: "We don't need to punish our society with additional taxes to help alternatives along."

We need to impose fees on pollution, with the proceeds funding local rebates on better alternatives. That's the most effective way to respond to global warming. Furthermore, it's better in many other respects, it will give us more energy security, independence from imports, more jobs, more local investments and it's more healthy in many ways. As we've also discussed before, more distributed facilities to produce and store energy will also lead to a more democratic society.

Regarding the cost of wind power, those figures come from GE, I provided a link above. I suggest you take it up with GE if you dispute those figures. To cater for times when there's little wind, supply could always be topped up with oil, which is the primary fuel in Hawaii right now anyway, so that shouldn't make the overall picture any more expensive. But of course, it makes much more sense to store surplus electricity from wind turbines at night in the form of hydrogen and pumped-up water, and in car batteries, which can then be fed back into the grid to help out at times of peaks and when there's little wind. In the case of Hawaii, there's also plenty of solar, geothermal and wave power which will continue to supply energy when there's little wind. Hawaii could easily be powered entirely by renewable energy and I'm convinced that this will result in cheaper energy, more local jobs, etc, etc. As you say, given Hawaii's abundant geothermal resources, electricity should cost closer to the bottom of the range of 5.5 cents per Kwh. What I suggest is that market mechanisms can best sort out which technologies should benefit from rebates, as long as they are clean and safe.

"Then why do you keep referring to it as a tax?"
Again Sam,
A rose by any other name.

"The poor and elderly don't buy luxurious cars, Dan, so if they can scrape together money for a small car that doesn't emit much greenhouse gases, then they'll welcome some support in the form of rebates."

If only that was the way the real world worked Sam, but it isn't.
The way it works is that Grandma and Grandpa are driving that old 1996 park Avenue and can't afford to buy a 20+K economy car because they are living a fixed income.
Right now the best value that a young poor family can buy is one of those used gas guzzler that some well to do person traded in to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, most of the time they have been well maintained and are reliable so you don't have to worry so much about them breaking down on the way to work of daycare like you might if you spent the same amount of money on a used economy car.
Your fee bates would add unnecessary additional costs to both the elderly and the poor.

You are trying to 'reason' your way around this problem of the poor and elderly being hurt by your plan, but it doesn't work Sam, I'd really like to see an attempt by you to address this problem rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.

Dan: "A rose by any other name."

So, you haven't understood the difference. Taxes are to increase the government's consolidated revenue that funds all its expenditure. Fees and rebates target specific products or activities. In the case of feebates, fees are linked with rebates in that the proceeds of such fees are also used for the specific purpose of funding rebates on alternatives.

Dan: "The way it works is that Grandma and Grandpa are driving that old 1996 park Avenue and can't afford to buy a 20+K economy car because they are living a fixed income."

A Buick Park Avenue is an odd choice for an elderly couple, why would they buy a large car? They would have been better off buying a more fuel efficient car, like a Honda Civic, which is likely to be cheaper when buying it second hand and which is cheaper to drive in terms of fuel economy. A feebate policy would help such a couple making a better choice. Of course, fees on gas may not make much difference to someone who only drives short distances and who really loves such a car, but a feebate policy will help people think twice next time they buy a car.

Dan: "Right now the best value that a young poor family can buy is one of those used gas guzzler that some well to do person traded in to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, most of the time they have been well maintained and are reliable so you don't have to worry so much about them breaking down on the way to work of daycare like you might if you spent the same amount of money on a used economy car. Your fee bates would add unnecessary additional costs to both the elderly and the poor."

A Honda Civic is a pretty reliable car too, Dan, and it will save you a lot of money if you drive a lot. So, a gas guzzler isn't the best value for a young family. Moreover, in your view of what car was best value, Dan, you haven't pictured in the harm done by gass guzzlers. Electric cars have less moving parts, which makes them more reliable. There's no doubt that we have to move to electric cars and rebates will help make them more affordable.

Another option is conversion. which could also benefit from rebates. If a family drives a lot, a conversion to electric will pay for itself, while it will increase the car's value, so they can better trade it in next time they buy a car.

Dan: "You are trying to 'reason' your way around this problem of the poor and elderly being hurt by your plan, but it doesn't work Sam, I'd really like to see an attempt by you to address this problem rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug."

The feebates that I propose don't target any specific demographic or socio-economic groups, Dan, instead they seek to reduce emissions. But female and male, both young and old, and both rich and poor people will benefit from such feebates if they switch to better alternatives. Since the poor have less room to move financially, they will be the first to make the switch, so I expect the poor to benefit more from such feebates than the rich, but as said the objective of the feebates I propose is to reduce emissions.

Moreover, Dan, what's your 'reasoning' behind your view that the poor wouldn't benefit from the creation of more local jobs, from reducing deficits and national debt, from more local investment, from more energy security and independence, from better health, improved environment and less control over their lives by oil executives and oil speculators? Do the poor particularly benefit from the US sending more troops to secure supply of oil for the world? Which families have most casualties, the rich or the poor?

There's some truth to Dan E's argument that Grandma and Grandpa will be driving the Park Avenue. Same goes for the poor young couple; if you are cash poor, the old beater may cost you more to run in the long term but you can swing the upfront cost today. The person who buys the used inefficient gas hog isn't looking at the fuel cost over the lifetime of the vehicle, he's looking to get to work tomorrow. It's sort of like buying new light bulbs, the energy efficient florescent bulbs costs $15.00 and an incandescent bulb costs $.50. If you have $40 dollars to last the week and you need light in your apartment, food to eat and gas to get to work, you'll buy the cheaper incandescent bulbs.

To encourage people to move away from using less efficient vehicles we may have to provide incentives to make saving energy more attractive -- first cost.

Baby J.: "There's some truth to Dan E's argument . . . To encourage people to move away from using less efficient vehicles we may have to provide incentives to make saving energy more attractive -- first cost."

No, Dan doesn't have an argument, he doesn't even have a point. Feebates can do even more than provide financial incentives, they can provide BOTH financial incentives to buy better cars and cheaper power (electricity, rather than gas) AND financial disincentives to discourage people from buying more gas guzzlers and burning more fossil fuel. This is what makes feebates so effective. Furthermore, a feebate policy can be budget-neutral, it can be implemented locally and is less prone to create wasteful bureaucracy. There are more advantages; I hope someone in Hawaii takes note!

Sam C,

How would feebates work with the used vehicle market? I can see it being an incentive when purchasing a new vehicle. Would it be a tax based on a vehicle's MPG?

As I said above, one option is converting a used car to electric, and this could benefit from rebates offered locally. I remember this article in Suburban Journals which describes how Ron Erb's brother-in-law had a Ford Ranger that had just stopped running, but the body was still in good condition. Ron converted the truck into an electric vehicle for $7,700. A rebate program offered by the state of Illinois, called Green Fleets, gives rebates of up to 80% of the conversion cost up to $4,000. So it looks like Ron has got himself an electric vehicle for about $3,500. If Ron has a business, he may have additional tax advantages, while he'll also make savings on the cost of driving and on maintenance, so over time he'll have a good, clean truck practically for free, with a good resale value if he decides to buy another car. Alternatively, if Ron works with a company, a growing number of employers now give financial assistance to staff purchases of or conversion to electric cars.

If one drives a lot, a conversion to electric will pay for itself, while it will increase the car's value, so one can better trade it in next time one buys a car. In my view, local communities should decide what kind of feebates they implement and rebates on conversion of old cars to electric should definitely be considered.

Hawaii already has some innovative projects going, such as the Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project and projects at the the University of Hawaii in the area of rapid charging of electric vehicles. On Oahu there now are eleven 60kW Aerovironment PosiCharge rapid chargers, and with eighteen more to come, the island has already built much of the infrastructure to make electric vehicles feel at home. Note that Aerovironment can also supply bigger chargers, such as this 250kW one. Edison, EnerSys, Epyon, and Norvick are all in the fast charger business.

Have a look at the cars BYD is launching. The e6, a 5-seater with a range of 186 miles, gives you a taste of what's coming further down the line. The batteries of these cars can be charged at special charging stations to 80% of their capacity in fifteen minutes, and to 70% in ten minutes.

A very high powered charging station may cost $125,000 today. In 1999 prices, a 60kW Aerovironment charger cost $40,000; a 120kW one costs $80,000; a 35kW Norvick Minit Charger cost $35,000; and a 250kW Norvick Minit Charger cost $125,000. That may sound like a lot of money, but building a typical 8-pump gas station will set you back some $1-2 million dollars. Such a station should pay for itself given the economics of gas versus electricity even when there are just a few electric vehicles on the streets.

Above details provided courtesy of Karen Pease at Ecolocalizer

Baby J.
Thanks,
Sam,
Day one, your FeeBate program goes into effect, a 10% "tax" is imposed on all fossile fuel related products.
Grandma and Grandpa who are driving their Park Avenue it costs them 10% more to put gas in their Park Avenue, it costs them 10% more to heat their home this month because they use oil to heat their home, the process of higher prices for everything delivered by a petroleum powered vehicle are set into effect.
Where is their relief on day one?
Answer there is no relief for them on day one.... they have to suffer through your feebates until some time into the future when the benefits kick in (if ever).

The simple fact is that your feebate program is as bad as any other TAX! Especially since we don't need them! The alternative industry needs no such support in todays market.

Dan: "Day one, your FeeBate program goes into effect, a 10% "tax" is imposed on all fossile fuel related products."

Again, Dan, feebates are quite different from taxes. Feebates include fees that are imposed on specific products and the proceeds fund rebates on better local alternatives. Polluting products will go up in price, while cleaner alternatives will go down in price. This encourages people to choose better products, which will be financially more attractive to them and which will also be beneficial to society as a whole.

Dan: "Grandma and Grandpa who are driving their Park Avenue it costs them 10% more to put gas in their Park Avenue, it costs them 10% more to heat their home this month because they use oil to heat their home, the process of higher prices for everything delivered by a petroleum powered vehicle are set into effect."

Feebates discourage people from choosing polluting products and they encourage people to choose better alternatives, Dan. So, people who who drive electric cars and heat their home with solar power will be better off, while society as a whole will also be better off as a result as well. At the same time, feebates optimize consumer choice - people who drive very little can consider keeping their old car, despite its low efficiency.

Dan: "Where is their relief on day one? Answer there is no relief for them on day one.... they have to suffer through your feebates until some time into the future when the benefits kick in (if ever)."

I advocate that local communities decide on the details of their feebates. If needed, an overdraft could be arranged to ensure that rebates can be paid out from day one. Such rebates will make it possible for firm to supply products such as solar panels and electric cars at low prices. Furthermore, the savings that people make on energy will enable them to finance the balance with no upfront cost. I thought that you were familiar with such schemes, such as offered by citizenre.com in Hawaii, Dan.

Electric cars could be supplied on a similar basis. The Reuters article Fancy a free (electric) car? describes Better Place's plans to offer buyers of electric cars a contract whereby if they pay the same per month as they would to run a gasoline car, the dealer would keep some of the difference in running costs -- which would be enough to cover the vehicle purchase. There are some reports about BetterPlace setting up battery swapping stations in Hawaii, such as this AP report.

Alternatively, one could buy an EV with a larger battery or with a fuel cell, or use electric rental cars as planned in France and charging stations, such as described in the following articles:
Infrastructure to Support Electric Vehicles in Whole of France by 2011
Berlin Announces Plans for World's Largest Community Electric Car Infrastructure
Japan Post gets electric cars

Dan: "The simple fact is that your feebate program is as bad as any other TAX! Especially since we don't need them!"

As I have explained repeatedly, feebates are quite different from taxes. Your comment "especially since we don't need them" makes me wonder if there is any sincere concern for the poor and elderly behind your post, which sounds even more destructive than the proposals by this McCain/Palin duo that you keep flashing on your icon.

"If needed, an overdraft could be arranged to ensure that rebates can be paid out from day one."
Still doesn't help Sam,
Grandma and Grandpa are still driving the Park Avenue and even if you pre rebate economy cars years before you start collecting your tax Grandma amd Grandpa are living on a fixed income and can't afford to buy another car. And the rebate to convert to alternative energy they won't be able to afford either because they again are on a fixed income and can't afford even the reduced cost. So here we have Poor old Grandma and Grandpa slipping thru the cracks of your great plan having to decide which they pay for this month food or fuel.

Even those who persist in driving in polluting cars will be better off, Dan, everyone benefits from a cleaner world. Regarding gas prices, the shift to cleaner energy will reduce demand for oil, so I expect little or no immediate rise in gas prices. Gas prices may well fall if oil companies start oversupplying the market.

Feebates are best implemented locally and they can be implemented independent of the dominant ideology in the area. Safety nets can be provided in different ways. Some places may predominantly tax the rich, to top up pensions, other places may put more buses on the road, to help people who cannot afford cars. Other places may decide to issue more taxi licenses, in efforts to make taxis more affordable to the poor. This all depends on the ideological choices people make in the respective place.

A feebate policy is ideology-neutral, in that it facilitates one specific change, such as in this case a shift to a cleaner world. In a cleaner world, some rich people may be better off, while some other rich people may be worse off. Similarly, some poor people may be better off, other poor people may be worse off. Such feebates don't aim to enrich a specific group of people, the aim is to facilitate the shift to a cleaner world, which ultimately benefits everyone.

America will specifically benefit in many ways, such as by the creation of many new jobs, the creation of new investment opportunities, by securing energy, improving our health, the environment, the balance of trade and the national debt, without sending troops to secure oil in the Middle East. Because feebates are so effective, they achieve the desired shift with minimum waste. The overall economic improvements mean that everyone will gain, whether or not they are on a fixed income.

Sam,
Your continued lauding of the perceived benefits of your plan doesn’t change its shortcomings or your unwillingness to in any way effectively address those shortcomings.

Dan: "Sam, Your continued lauding of the perceived benefits of your plan doesn’t change its shortcomings or your unwillingness to in any way effectively address those shortcomings."

It would be a shame to keep people addicted to oil in a place like Hawaii where there's so much potential for clean energy. We have to reduce emissions and such feebates are the most effective way to reduce emissions, Dan, so I don't see shortcomings in such feebates. I suggest to let the people of Hawaii decide how to handle things.

"It would be a shame to keep people addicted to oil in a place like Hawaii where there's so much potential for clean energy."
Well Sam,
I guess that is up to the people of Hawaii isn't it? Neither you or I have a say in how they decide to power their state.
The potential of alternatives has existed in Hawaii for years and they have not taken advantage of them to any great extent.

"I don't see shortcomings in such feebates."

The poor who will face higher energy prices that they can not afford are not a problem to you?
This is the problem with grandiose plans, it's just to easy to overlook the little people who get hurt because when you are looking out to the future, you are not looking at them and their needs.

Dan: "I guess that is up to the people of Hawaii isn't it? Neither you or I have a say in how they decide to power their state. The potential of alternatives has existed in Hawaii for years and they have not taken advantage of them to any great extent."

The biggest reason why Hawaii and all of us are in trouble is because the Bush administration has been sabotaging efforts to move to cleaner energy. That will change after the elections.

Dan: "The poor who will face higher energy prices that they can not afford are not a problem to you? This is the problem with grandiose plans, it's just to easy to overlook the little people who get hurt because when you are looking out to the future, you are not looking at them and their needs."

Feebates don't target poor or rich people. Feebates encourage a shift we need, and since feebates are the most effective way to make that shift, we'll all be better off. If we don't make the shift, we'll all be in big trouble, both rich and poor. These rebates allow people to make changes who could not otherwise afford to do so.

"The biggest reason why Hawaii and all of us are in trouble"
What trouble Sam?
If the Bush administration has been "sabotaging efforts to move to cleaner energy" they haven't been doing a very good job of it, considering that last year alternatives garnered a greater degree of federal subsidies than any other energy sector in the nation and that with this new bailout bill the alternative energy subsidies will likely eclipse all energy subsidies combined and that the alternative energy industries as a whole has grown at a remarkable pace in our country.

"Feebates don't target poor or rich people."
Yes they do Sam I gave you an example of your plan hurting the poor. You have not replied with any reasonable explanation that my scenario is not valid or a solution to solve the problem with your plan.
Your denial of the problem doesn't change it's existence.
Besides your plan is not needed, and there would be no reason for a society to implement a program that would have detrimental effects to a part of society unless it were an absolute necessity which it is not.

Dan: "What trouble Sam?"

Addiction to fossil fuel.

Dan: "..alternatives garnered a greater degree of federal subsidies than any other energy sector in the nation.."

The US government has a long history of keeping people addicted to oil. Just look at the cost of keeping troops in the Middle East to secure oil supply. It's not just oil. The US nuclear industry is estimated to have received more than $115 billion in direct subsidies from 1947 through 1999; Government subsidies for wind and solar energy for the same period totaled only $5.49 billion.

The Republican Party has a long record of sabotaging renewable energy. In 1991, a veto by Republican Governor Deukmejian caused a worldwide halt in the construction of solar thermal power plants. Republicans have sabotaged better ways to produce energy ever since.

The sad result of these destructive policies is that solar and wind energy produce only a fraction of energy in the US. McCain would subsidize nuclear with billion of dollars, while McCain's position on wind and solar is: "I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine." Fortunately, it has all the looks that Obama will be the next president and I'm sure the poor and elderly will benefit from this.

Dan: "Yes they do Sam. I gave you an example of your plan hurting the poor."

No Dan, the poor will benefit from feebates, since feebates will make it easier for people to switch to cleaner alternatives who could not otherwise afford to do so.

Dan: "You have not replied with any reasonable explanation that my scenario is not valid or a solution to solve the problem with your plan. Your denial of the problem doesn't change it's existence."

Overall, everyone (rich and poor) will benefit from feebates. Even those who persist in driving in polluting cars will be better off, Dan, since the shift to cleaner energy will reduce demand for oil, so gas prices may well fall, especially if oil companies start oversupplying the market.

Dan: "Besides your plan is not needed, and there would be no reason for a society to implement a program that would have detrimental effects to a part of society unless it were an absolute necessity which it is not."

You're putting yourself in the extremist lunatic corner with your denial of global warming, Dan. Not even this failed McCain/Palin duo that you keep flashing in your icon supports such extremist views, while this duo has no intention to improve the situation of the poor and elderly. Your concern for the poor therefore sounds insincere, Dan. If you're only adding comments with the intention to flash more icons of this disastrous duo, then I suggest you do so elsewhere.

"The US government has a long history of keeping people addicted to oil"
No they haven't Sam that's just your perverted perception. If it was not for oil as a cheap fuel for many years, our society including the advances in alternative energies would not be what they are today, the ability to move products and goods to market inexpensively is what enabled our economy to grow and expand and our society to advance as it has.

Sam I know you think oil is evil but it has been a boon to our society and if it was not for oil and other fossil fuels our forests would be virtually non existant.

"Government subsidies for wind and solar energy for the same period totaled only $5.49 billion."
2007 renewables received 3.97 Billion in subsidies. 1999 renewables received 1.4 billion.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Alternative energy has been receiving direct consumer tax rebates since 1978 in an effort to boost their sales in the market place.

"In 1991, a veto by Republican Governor Deukmejian"
A Governor? you've got to be kidding me! You think a Governor can halt the world wide advancement of any technology? Exactly who is in the lunatic corner?

"Overall, everyone (rich and poor) will benefit from feebates"
(interpertation) The poor gets thrown under the bus for now but that's O.K. because under my plan they'll be better off later, and everyone needs to sacrifice.
Right Al, uh... I mean Sam?

"with your denial of global warming"
Not me Sam,
I'm not a global warming denier, I believe it is well and good proceeding as a part of the cyclical nature of our planet, it's just that C02 doesn't have that much of an impact on the warming of the planet, if C02 worked as you global warmists have been saying it works for so many years now, begining in 2007our planet would not be experiencing the coldest year and almost a half in decades eventhough we have been producing record amounts of carbon.

Dan: "..the ability to move products and goods to market inexpensively is what enabled our economy to grow and expand and our society to advance as it has."

The cost of importing oil is one of the main causes of the trade deficits over the past few years and this has indebted the US to unsustainable levels. The US government has given huge and undeserved support to the fossil fuel industry over many years, which has come at the expense of the safe and clean ways to produce energy that should have been developed instead. Had Al Gore been electred president instead of Bush, we'd now have a better economy, more jobs, a better car industry, etc, etc.

Dan: "Alternative energy has been receiving direct consumer tax rebates since 1978 in an effort to boost their sales in the market place."

As I said, Dan, the Republican Party has taken every effort to sabotage growth in solar and wind energy. The disastrous Duo McCain/Palin would just continue the same line of politics.

Dan: "You think a Governor can halt the world wide advancement of any technology? Exactly who is in the lunatic corner?"

In 1991, Republican Governor Deukmejian vetoed the bill passed by both houses of the Legislature which applied to companies building thermal solar plants in California by Luz Limited International (LUZ) in the late 1980s. Deukmejian's veto resulted in the bankruptcy of LUZ and a worldwide halt in the construction of solar thermal power plants for fifteen years. Those lines come from Wikipedia, not from some lunatic webpage like the ones you're using to back up your views.

Dan: "The poor gets thrown under the bus for now but that's O.K. because under my plan they'll be better off later, and everyone needs to sacrifice. Right Al, uh... I mean Sam?"

No, Dan, the poor will benefit hugely from the rebates, which is particularly attractive to people who could otherwise ill afford the shift to clean products.

Dan: "..if C02 worked as you global warmists have been saying it works for so many years now, begining in 2007our planet would not be experiencing the coldest year and almost a half in decades eventhough we have been producing record amounts of carbon."

As said, you're in the lunatic corner on global warming, Dan, and this explains why you (and so many other republicans) seek to continue to sabotage the development of safer and cleaner ways to produce, use and store energy. I maintain that Hawaii would be far better off shifting away from oil and instead developing its abundant sources of clean and safe energy. As the article further explains, Hawaii's geographical containment and the relative small distances make electric cars a perfect fit. A framework of feebates is the most effective way to facilitate this shift.

Above a picture of the Hyundai Santa Fe EV, courtesy of Greencar.com. It's a shame that Hyundai has been the sole participant in the Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Program that’s been running since 1993, with successful field tests of the AeroVironment PosiCharge rapid chargers for several years now.

Nissan Motors recently announced plans to bring an affordably priced electric car to the U.S. market by 2010. Mark Perry, of Nissan's North America, stresses that Nissan's first EV will cost "considerably less" than the $40,000 pricetag that the GM Volt is expected to have.

Note also that electric cars can be produced at low prices, just look at this solar electric car which is sold for US$5,560 in China. I'm convinced that - once mass-produced - electric cars will become cheaper than gasoline cars, because electric cars contain less parts. Regarding the batteries, look at what has been achieved over the years with mass production of Lithium-ion batteries for devices such as cell phones, computers, MP3-players and photocameras. BYD, the world's largest manufacturer of such batteries, looks set to become a big player in the car market, not only as battery supplier, but also as car manufacturer.

Nissan has some further interesting developments, such as an inverter using silicon carbide diodes that is currently being tested in a Nissan X-Trail FCV fuel cell vehicle and that can also be applied to all-electric and hybrid gas/electric vehicles.

Toyota is planning to launch plugin hybrids, as well as all-electric and fuel cell cars, Mitsubishi is planning to launch an all-electric car, while Honda has been testing the Clarity hydrogen car in the US since 2007 and has displayed the Insight hybrid, scheduled to be introduced in 2009.

Electric cars receive much support in France and in Japan, while Better Place is making progress in Israel, Denmark and Portugal. I just hope that Detroit will be waken and shaken up by these developments.

Good article, Sam, and good comments!

On December 2, Hawaii endorsed a plan to build a network of battery-swap and recharging stations. Gov. Linda Lingle said the program would help Hawaii meet its goal of slashing fossil fuel use 70% by 2030.

Lingle said the state doesn't expect to spend any money to facilitate the network. However, she said the state may need to offer tax breaks or other incentives to encourage people to buy electric vehicles when they are first offered.

Better Place will build the car recharging stations and provide recharged batteries for electric cars. The company will purchase renewable energy — such as wind power — from Hawaiian Electric Co., the state's largest utility.

Better Place plans to have the stations open for the mass market by 2011. It expects to build between 50,000 to 100,000 charge spots — in parking lots, downtown streets, and neighborhoods — across the state by early 2012.

Shai Agassi, Better Place's founder and chief executive officer, said the electric cars will cost the same as gasoline powered vehicles. Over time, however, they will be cheaper to make because they will use half as many parts as cars with internal combustion engines.

Better Place won't use oil, and aims to have a "zero carbon footprint." For example, Agassi said Better Place plans to recharge its batteries at night with power from Hawaii's wind farms. That power normally goes unused because of Hawaii's low nighttime energy needs.

Hawaii to be 1st state with electric car stations - AP