> According to the current Scientific American, the EPA projects that
> electric
> powered cars will cause more CO2 emissions than gasoline powered cars
> in most US locations, depending on the projected fuel mix used to
> generate the power.
I think there is often too little emphasis on the technology
development benefits when discussing subsidies and other policy
measures.
The prime reason why electric cars or photovoltaics are supported
today is to provide a market for these products so that technology
development occurs. It's not the immediate emission reduction.
Politically possible and in my opinion sensible CO2 prices will induce
very little private technology development activity in these areas,
because entrepreneurs now investing will not catch much of the
benefit. The knowledge they generate just diffuses away to
competitors, or is only useful in conjunction with knowledge created
by competitors, or would only be useful in 30 years by which time any
patents have run out, or may not even be patentable.
So, if the US governemnt were to spend a 100 billion on PV or electric
cars, the million cars on the road by 2020 might very well give a cost
of a 1000 Dollars per tonne CO2 while marginal fuel switching from
coal to natural gas would come in at 10 Dollars per tonne CO2. Or
maybe, as you say, depending on the fuel mix, they'd save nothing at
all in 2020.
But these million cars may bring technology development benefits that
in 2040 or 2050 enable huge savings of a hundred billions tonnes of
CO2, so that the real cost per tonne of CO2 taking a long view is more
like 1 Dollar per metric tonne of CO2 or even lower.
Or indeed the cost per tonne might be negative, because in addition to
the emissions reductions benefits in 2040 and beyond there might be
financial benefits of the technology development.
These are mights, but buying options or insurance has value even when
the chance of getting something out of it is not 100%.