Tesla Model 3

[an]

1. Subsidizer or paying their fair share. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
2. I don’t believe BEV will ever replace this group of vehicles. So they should be used to compare. You should compare Apple to Apple.
3. I don’t believe government should pick winner and loser. Just because there were past crony capitalism with the oil industry doesn’t make it OK for crony capitalism for industry you like. If the technology is good, there will be plenty of money available. Just thinking k Facebook, Uber, etc.
4. Again, you’re assuming battery is the right technology long term. I don’t believe it is. I believe fuel cell, nuclear and fusion is better long term. But that’s just MHO. Maybe 10 years from now something else even better will be discovered. We don’t know. What happened. To those battery when that new technology get discovered?
5. It would take me 6x longer than those who have 30 miles one way commute. But my point is, if you’re OK for subsidizing for EV because it will lower a person’s carbon foot print, should I get subsidy for reducing my carbon foot print by living closer to work? Should those who live in larger houses pay subsidy to those who live in smaller homes? Should people in SFR pay subsidy to those who live in condo due to their increase carbon footprint? Should those with kids pay subsidies for those who don’t have kids? Since having kids increase the total carbon footprint of our society. I’m sure you get my point.
6. I agree. However, I don’t want to be those people who drink 6 cans of diet coke a day either, just because it has less sugar. That’s similar to those who have EV but live 30 miles away from work in a 3000+ sq-ft house.
7. Agree. But which infrastructure? Which technology?

Why isn’t it sustainable and who are we to say those other poor countries can’t have a cheap and reliable source of energy? The same energy source that enable us to live in the luxurious life we enjoy and allow our economy to prosper.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]1. Subsidizer or paying their fair share. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
2. I don’t believe BEV will ever replace this group of vehicles. So they should be used to compare. You should compare Apple to Apple.
3. I don’t believe government should pick winner and loser. Just because there were past crony capitalism with the oil industry doesn’t make it OK for crony capitalism for industry you like. If the technology is good, there will be plenty of money available. Just thinking k Facebook, Uber, etc.
4. Again, you’re assuming battery is the right technology long term. I don’t believe it is. I believe fuel cell, nuclear and fusion is better long term. But that’s just MHO. Maybe 10 years from now something else even better will be discovered. We don’t know. What happened. To those battery when that new technology get discovered?
5. It would take me 6x longer than those who have 30 miles one way commute. But my point is, if you’re OK for subsidizing for EV because it will lower a person’s carbon foot print, should I get subsidy for reducing my carbon foot print by living closer to work? Should those who live in larger houses pay subsidy to those who live in smaller homes? Should people in SFR pay subsidy to those who live in condo due to their increase carbon footprint? Should those with kids pay subsidies for those who don’t have kids? Since having kids increase the total carbon footprint of our society. I’m sure you get my point.
6. I agree. However, I don’t want to be those people who drink 6 cans of diet coke a day either, just because it has less sugar. That’s similar to those who have EV but live 30 miles away from work in a 3000+ sq-ft house.
7. Agree. But which infrastructure? Which technology?

Why isn’t it sustainable and who are we to say those other poor countries can’t have a cheap and reliable source of energy? The same energy source that enable us to live in the luxurious life we enjoy and allow our economy to prosper.[/quote]

1. I would simply add that SDGE’s backtracking to a 2 tier system is essentially acknowledging their prior charge regime overcharged the tier 4 customers.

2. never tried to compare BEVs with delivery trucks. LOL!!! The point made at the very beginning was overwhelming damage on the road is caused by heavy delivery trucks and up. That’s all. The most equitable way of taxing may be by vehicle weight.

3. if you have an industry supported by trillions in its war chest that is continuing to be fed by tax payer dollar having essentially a monopoly in the arena of fuel, how does new tech brake in? Facebook did not have to face a government subsidized behemoth monopolizing social media.

4. fuel cell is energy inefficient. we need to use energy to generate the liquid hydrogen, then use the liquid hydrogen to generate electricity. This is just as inefficient with gasoline, where electricity and water are needed to refine the gasoline that is then burnt to generate the energy to power cars. nuclear and fusion will generate energy but you still need to store that energy in order to minimize the need to keep the power plants running even during low power use times. having energy storage is a win win regardless of the type of generation. Just like the HIV epidemic allowed for the blossoming of treatments for hepatitis B and C, the need for high density energy storage created by BEVs will lead to a whole new way to store electricity and for us to manage our energy resources.

5. whereas right now, gasoline is subsidized by the government, therefore, people with longer commutes and driving gas guzzlers are rewarded disproportionately as they are consuming more of a subsidized fuel. that has been and will continue to be because Big Oil has too much pull within the government. As for SFR vs condo, that’s happening right now, the mortgage deduction will benefit someone that buys the pricier SFR instead of that cheaper condo.

6. problem here is people are going to live 30 miles away regardless, you might as well make that 60 mile round trip commute CO2 free by getting these guys to put up solar and get an EV.

7. I’m talking charging infrastructure with installation of EVSEs.

fossil fuel use and CO2 generation is not sustainable if all of the world is to follow our lead and live the way we do. unless you feel excess CO2 is a good thing.

[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.

[spdrun]

Assuming people emit more CO2 when their standard of living is raised, wouldn’t a cynic say that we should NOT raise the standard of living in developing countries?

Also, developing countries have less infrastructure and more access to solar power (being generally located in warmer/sunnier climates). Perhaps they’re a chance to start building clean infrastructure from scratch where it doesn’t already exist.

[ocrenter]

[quote=spdrun]Assuming people emit more CO2 when their standard of living is raised, wouldn’t a cynic say that we should NOT raise the standard of living in developing countries?

Also, developing countries have less infrastructure and more access to solar power (being generally located in warmer/sunnier climates). Perhaps they’re a chance to start building clean infrastructure from scratch where it doesn’t already exist.[/quote]

hopefully tech developments would allow the developing world to leapfrog, best example being phone service in Africa. Essentially bypassing land lines altogether and simply move directly into cellular.

we see the same with solar in Africa as well, bypassing traditional power plants and grid completely.

if we worry about N.America/Europe not wanting to store electricity using used EV batteries, there’s no question there’s a market for them in Africa.

[spdrun]

I disagree. Solar actually works best with a grid. A grid allows for pumped-storage hydroelectric, which is a lot cleaner and more reliable than thousands of battery banks. A grid also allows transfer of power from areas that are sunny to areas that are cloud-covered.

The goal should be to build out grids in Africa powered by clean power, whether it’s solar, wind, hydro, or modular nuclear.

Contrary to popular belief, cell phones actually require a “grid” and a lot of infrastructure. Range of digital phones is very limited, so you need a lot of antennae and terrestrial wiring to cover an area.

[ocrenter]

[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.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Assuming people emit more CO2 when their standard of living is raised, wouldn’t a cynic say that we should NOT raise the standard of living in developing countries?
[/quote]
No, we can all reduce our carbon footprints.

[quote=spdrun]
Also, developing countries have less infrastructure and more access to solar power (being generally located in warmer/sunnier climates). Perhaps they’re a chance to start building clean infrastructure from scratch where it doesn’t already exist.[/quote]

That’s exactly it.
Resources/energy acquisition was driving the west’s foreign policy which created instability and dictatorships.

with technology providing alternatives to resources extraction, emerging markets become business opportunities for us to invest in infrastructure in higher growth markets; and we help lift people out of poverty at the same time. In turn, those people become consumers in the global economy

[spdrun]

Goal should be to raise standards of living, but reduce population and thus consumption everywhere. Gaia can’t take it much longer, clean energy or not. Limiting people to one kid per couple would be a good start.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]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.[/quote]
3. Add more crony capitalism will only create the next “Big Oil”. I don’t want another “Big Oil”. I want to remove “Big Oil”.

4. First, you’re assuming Hydrogen Fuel Cell is the only type of Fuel Cell. Think http://www.bloomenergy.com/. Now that we abundant clean and renewable electricity, we can use that clean and renewable energy in many ways. We can use it to fuel up super capacitors, or to split hydrogen from H2O, or the many other ways we can solve this storage problem. Battery is not the only problem. If we solve the production problem, then storing Hydrogen is A LOT cleaner than BEV and a lot better for the environment long term. It won’t add to the land fill. Battery eventually will lose all of its efficiency and need to be discarded. Which is bad for the environment. The storage tank used to store Hydrogen can be repaired of damaged or recycled.

5. Infrastructure is there for now, but need to be maintained. New infrastructure also need to be created as we add more suburbs. So, you’re better off helping the environment if you disincentivize long commutes and incentivize walk-ability. Just because we’ve done a bad thing doesn’t mean we have to continue to incentivize that bad behavior.

6. Again, repurposed batteries is only applicable for a finite period of time. Eventually, you will still need to chuck it. You also need heavy machinery to mine for the minerals that’s need to make battery. If we solve the production of electricity problem, where we can produce it cleanly and indefinitely, then we can use that electricity to split hydrogen from H2O, which will give us clean energy and fuel indefinitely with nothing to fill up our landfill.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Goal should be to raise standards of living, but reduce population and thus consumption everywhere. Gaia can’t take it much longer, clean energy or not. Limiting people to one kid per couple would be a good start.[/quote]
LoL, I’m pretty sure Gaia will last long after the human race is gone. Think the dinosaur.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]
3. Add more crony capitalism will only create the next “Big Oil”. I don’t want another “Big Oil”. I want to remove “Big Oil”.

4. First, you’re assuming Hydrogen Fuel Cell is the only type of Fuel Cell. Think http://www.bloomenergy.com/. Now that we abundant clean and renewable electricity, we can use that clean and renewable energy in many ways. We can use it to fuel up super capacitors, or to split hydrogen from H2O, or the many other ways we can solve this storage problem. Battery is not the only problem. If we solve the production problem, then storing Hydrogen is A LOT cleaner than BEV and a lot better for the environment long term. It won’t add to the land fill. Battery eventually will lose all of its efficiency and need to be discarded. Which is bad for the environment. The storage tank used to store Hydrogen can be repaired of damaged or recycled.

5. Infrastructure is there for now, but need to be maintained. New infrastructure also need to be created as we add more suburbs. So, you’re better off helping the environment if you disincentivize long commutes and incentivize walk-ability. Just because we’ve done a bad thing doesn’t mean we have to continue to incentivize that bad behavior.

6. Again, repurposed batteries is only applicable for a finite period of time. Eventually, you will still need to chuck it. You also need heavy machinery to mine for the minerals that’s need to make battery. If we solve the production of electricity problem, where we can produce it cleanly and indefinitely, then we can use that electricity to split hydrogen from H2O, which will give us clean energy and fuel indefinitely with nothing to fill up our landfill.[/quote]

3. if we can actually remove all subsidies to Big Oil I would personally fly back to DC and hand deliver my solar and my EV rebates directly back to the IRS with a big bow on top.

4. That’s great, thanks for the link. I’m open to any alternative to fossil fuel. Any idea when the production version of solid oxide fuel cell will be hitting the streets? As for battery, battery density is getting incredibly good in extremely short period of time. As for degradation, aside from the first gen LEAFs in extreme weather locations, degradation has been minimal.

5. Agree about incentivizing walkability, much healthier and will help with the obesity epidemic. Not only that, cities don’t have to pay for maintenance of huge number of roads. Once the oil subsidies are gone, we would have plenty of funds to consider the all of the above strategies.

6. If there comes a time when the batteries are fully exausted, as in down to less than 30% capacity, the lithium is recyclable.

[ocrenter]

[quote=spdrun]I disagree. Solar actually works best with a grid. A grid allows for pumped-storage hydroelectric, which is a lot cleaner and more reliable than thousands of battery banks. A grid also allows transfer of power from areas that are sunny to areas that are cloud-covered.

The goal should be to build out grids in Africa powered by clean power, whether it’s solar, wind, hydro, or modular nuclear.

Contrary to popular belief, cell phones actually require a “grid” and a lot of infrastructure. Range of digital phones is very limited, so you need a lot of antennae and terrestrial wiring to cover an area.[/quote]

Of course in best case scenario you want a grid.

I’m looking at mud hut villages that’s still burning kerosine oil for lighting. Get a few solar panels up, an used EV battery for storage, and there’s light and electricity to use when the sun goes down.

As for the cellular example, you are still looking at less wiring to go with cell tower grid vs hardwiring phone lines to individual houses.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]3. if we can actually remove all subsidies to Big Oil I would personally fly back to DC and hand deliver my solar and my EV rebates directly back to the IRS with a big bow on top.

4. That’s great, thanks for the link. I’m open to any alternative to fossil fuel. Any idea when the production version of solid oxide fuel cell will be hitting the streets? As for battery, battery density is getting incredibly good in extremely short period of time. As for degradation, aside from the first gen LEAFs in extreme weather locations, degradation has been minimal.

5. Agree about incentivizing walkability, much healthier and will help with the obesity epidemic. Not only that, cities don’t have to pay for maintenance of huge number of roads. Once the oil subsidies are gone, we would have plenty of funds to consider the all of the above strategies.

6. If there comes a time when the batteries are fully exausted, as in down to less than 30% capacity, the lithium is recyclable.[/quote]
3. It’s funny you say that, but then you fully support the creation of the next “Big Oil”. As we’ve seen, once money have been doled out, it’s hard to close the spigot.
4. I saw them on 60 minutes many years ago. They at the time were promising residential units, but I think for financial reason, they’re concentrating on business first. Although as you can see, I hate crony capitalism, but if we must dole out government subsidies, I rather it be dump into these Fuel Cell companies to help them reduce the size and have these units be put in every home. That would make a much bigger dent in CO2 emission than BEV IMHO. This is why I don’t believe in crony capitalism. I want want one possible new technology to get unfair advantage over another, when we don’t really know which technology is the right technology. Maybe they all are and all are needed at different time for different purpose.
5. Totally agree.
6. Studies have shown a 70% capacity battery have about 10 years life served as grid storage. We’re talking about about 15-20 years life span. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are better for recycling because of the Nickel. The advanced lithium batteries in most plug-in cars today are more difficult to recycle, in part because automakers use various chemistries, and the several chemical components have different recycling values. However, lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries found in many modern plug-in cars are better because of the nickel. But I don’t think the lithium, manganese, and cobalt are easily recyclable.

[spdrun]

I’ve read that fuel cells have a limited life span and also use rare elements that are in limited supply.

[Author]

Posts