[quote=AN]1. Agree. Was just saying that not all who got solar have been subsidizing other for years. I gave example of people in my age group. We went from being subsidized for using little to being subsidize for going solar because we either got a SFR or EV.
2. Agree.
3. Again, we shouldn’t continue to repeat the crony capitalism. More crony capitalism isn’t the solution. We should remove the subsidies from the oil and gas industry.
4. I’ll disagree. They both have their advantage and disadvantages. However, I think FC is a better solution than BEV.
5. I don’t understand the argument. Current system, you live close and you’re rewarded with a smaller fuel bill. Which mean the gas tax you’re paying might not cover the cost of maintenance of the road. Those who drive further pay more gas tax, which more than cover their share of maintenance. As for Big Oil having too much pull, I agree and that’s the crony capitalism I’ve been talking about. But adding more cronyism isn’t the solution. You’re assuming condo is cheaper than SFR. That’s not always the case. I think what you mean is, expensive home owners get more mortgage deduction. Which is true. But my point being, if your goal is reducing carbon footprint per person, then we should take money from SFR owner and give tax credit to condo owners. We should take money from people who live further away from work and give credit to those who live closer to work. That will reduce carbon footprint as well.
6. Your link show it’s not CO2 free. But again, I think we haven’t fully thought through the cost to the environment when we need to dispose of inefficient batteries. If our goal is to reduce CO2, we should penalize those who live 30 miles away and incentivize those who live closer to work in smaller homes. Just as you want us to do for solar and EV.
7. Again, this comes down to you thinking BEV is the right solution. I disagree.
Keep in my we actually reduced our carbon footprint recently due to natural gas. I want everyone to have reliable energy like we have enjoyed here. I think to that goal, natural gas is a better short to medium term solution. I don’t think excess CO2 is a good thing, just as much as I don’t think you believe people who don’t have reliable energy is a good thing. But I think it’s a necessary evil to raise the living standard of people who live in the 3rd world where reliable energy is an amazing thing.[/quote]
3. if there is a level playing field, I agree. the problem is Big Oil is so entrenched that it is impossible to remove the oil subsidies. so what do you do?
4. Why is using energy to create a new form of energy storage that is then burnt to generate energy, therefore losing energy twice in the process, the right process?
5. I agree, if we can minimize commute, it would definitely help reduce carbon footprint overall. but the infrastructure is already therefore suburban lifestyle. you are better off helping the owners of these homes to generate their own energy, store their own energy, and use their generated energy to commute.
6. I meant it as an EV from a solar home. in that scenario it is CO2 free. as for the degraded batteries, there’s a lot of example of reused and repurposed batteries everywhere.
