Tesla Model 3

[FlyerInHi]

How about conservation? We can change our habits, update equipment/housing and save 2/3 energy.
Example: most people run their kitchen lights all day. 6 lamps at 100w each. I cringe when I see that.

Fix leaky/dripping toilets, faucets etc… I’ve visited enough homes to notice that people don’t fix things.

Drive smaller cars. No, it’s not cool driving around in a hummer or escalade.

[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]How about conservation? We can change our habits, update equipment/housing and save 2/3 energy.
Example: most people run their kitchen lights all day. 6 lamps at 100w each. I cringe when I see that.

Fix leaky/dripping toilets, faucets etc… I’ve visited enough homes to notice that people don’t fix things.

Drive smaller cars. No, it’s not cool driving around in a hummer or escalade.[/quote]

+1

[ocrenter]

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables

Pfund said, “All new energy industries — timber, coal, oil and gas, nuclear — have received substantial government support at a pivotal time in their early growth, creating millions of jobs and significant economic growth,” adding, “Subsidies for these ‘traditional’ energy sources were many, many times what we are spending today on renewables.”

[ocrenter]

More on how we even got the $7500 EV subsidy figure:

“In 2008 the Bush administration was thinking of doing an EV subsidy, so they asked the Government Accountability Office to figure out how much gasoline was subsidized. The answer was $2/gallon; or at average mpg and lifetime miles for vehicles at the time, about $12,000 per car. (Source: http://www.amazon.com/JOLT-Impending-Dominance-Electric-America/dp/159932220X)

Note that that calculation was ONLY for hard petroleum subsidies (though it’s the common definition of subsidy, which includes things like tax credits). It did not includes wars in oil-producing countries, 20k annual deaths in the US from health effects, pollution mitigation, the $85B a year to patrol the Straight of Hormuz, etc.

That $12k was spread over the life of the car, so they figured an equivalent net-present-value amount would be $7,500. That’s why we have that for a tax credit on EVs.”

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]Your first paragraph is contradicted by your second paragraph. Again, who doesn’t love the banner of fighting crony capitalism? But under that exact banner, the end result is the status quo and solidifying of the established entrenched energy monopoly. You mentioned you want to roll back subsidies, I agree with you, but the billionaires have a bigger voice in government and they will make sure government will bend to their will. Why do you think congress agreed french fries and kitchup are vegetables?

I don’t want to stop drilling. I want enough market place support for nascent tech until they become self sustainable and they will bring the current energy monopolies to their knees.

Solar is a great example. Prices have come down just absolutely dramatically. Solar use to be President Carter’s pet project in the White House. Reagan ripped that thing out and ridiculed it. Now solar makes so much sense that even red blooded republicans are for solar energy. How did this happen? By not having any subsidies and allowing the electric companies to run the show while telling the public we are protecting them from crony capitalism?[/quote]
Not contradicting at all. Just because I don’t want government to spend more of our tax dollar on helping companies doesn’t mean I want your tax dollar to go fighting against billionaires. Why not let Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc do the fighting? Why does the government have to get involved? Especially when that money is coming from the middle class.
I’m not arguing for status quo at all. But you have to realize that there are many competing technology. I don’t want tax $ going directly into companies. If we want to support fledgling tech, give that money to universities. Once the tech mature in the academic environment, the professors and researcher can then partner up with private capital. We already have Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Bank, I don’t think we need another “Big…”. If you create “Big Solar” then that will impede the next tech advancement just as Big Oil as you say is impeding on the advancement of solar/BEV.
Funny you say that you want nascent tech to bring the energy monopolies to their knees. Why do we need to spend tax dollar to do that? Especially when I don’t believe our government will know which tech is the right nascent tech. I rather have the free market do that. As for breaking up monopolies, it’s pretty easy to do and government do it all the time. Think Ma Bell, Microsoft, and now even Google is under their microscope. As for Big Oil, all the government have to do is increase the CAFE and maybe the best tech win. No need to spend tax $ on companies like Solyndra. I rather have that $ go toward the poor and needy in our society, not to another rich Millionaire/Billionaire.
Solar price have came down because of the Chinese, not because of the government subsidies to companies like Solyndra. Again, you prove my point, I don’t think solar is the be all end all of energy. I was a lot more excited about Bloom Energy than solar before I got my solar. But because government poured a lot more subsidies into solar, it make it more affordable. If they pour the same amount of incentives into Bloom Energy and other Fuel Cell companies, I would have not gotten solar. I’m still excited about companies like Bloom Energy and probably will probably go Fuel Cell when they’re available. I have solar for a few years now and I’m fully aware of the advantage/disadvantage. I can’t go off grid unless I spend a lot more $. Last night, I went without power for over 8 hours. If I have Fuel Cell, I can be completely off the grid and wouldn’t have that problem.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables

Pfund said, “All new energy industries — timber, coal, oil and gas, nuclear — have received substantial government support at a pivotal time in their early growth, creating millions of jobs and significant economic growth,” adding, “Subsidies for these ‘traditional’ energy sources were many, many times what we are spending today on renewables.”[/quote]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. All of these subsidies have been around for a long time and it only get bigger. Now, people are complaining we need to add more for the next industry. 50 years from now, we will need to give even more to the next industry. When will it end? We don’t even have money to help our homeless. Why not start with that first. I don’t want to continue to feed this beast called crony capitalism. You say you’re against crony capitalism but you’re advocating to keep on feeding the beast.

[svelte]

[quote=ocrenter]More on how we even got the $7500 EV subsidy figure:

“In 2008 the Bush administration was thinking of doing an EV subsidy, so they asked the Government Accountability Office to figure out how much gasoline was subsidized. The answer was $2/gallon; or at average mpg and lifetime miles for vehicles at the time, about $12,000 per car. (Source: http://www.amazon.com/JOLT-Impending-Dominance-Electric-America/dp/159932220X)

Note that that calculation was ONLY for hard petroleum subsidies (though it’s the common definition of subsidy, which includes things like tax credits). It did not includes wars in oil-producing countries, 20k annual deaths in the US from health effects, pollution mitigation, the $85B a year to patrol the Straight of Hormuz, etc.

That $12k was spread over the life of the car, so they figured an equivalent net-present-value amount would be $7,500. That’s why we have that for a tax credit on EVs.”[/quote]

Wow, that’s very interesting. I had no idea that is how it originated!

[joec]

It’s too bad the tax credits are non-refundable. For people who are not as high income, the benefits are not worth as much as for higher income folks…

For people with say some assets to do solar, but limited income, that’d help balance the tax break which currently primarily benefits the wealthy.

(as does EV vehicles in general as pooa people rent apartments and can’t plug in cars).

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. All of these subsidies have been around for a long time and it only get bigger. Now, people are complaining we need to add more for the next industry. 50 years from now, we will need to give even more to the next industry. When will it end? We don’t even have money to help our homeless. Why not start with that first. I don’t want to continue to feed this beast called crony capitalism. You say you’re against crony capitalism but you’re advocating to keep on feeding the beast.[/quote]

we are kinda going around in circle.

I don’t mind not having any subsidies for new alternative energy sources at all.

but how do you achieve a level playing field when gas subsidies are valued at $2 per gallon. how do we remove these subsidies tomorrow?

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]Your first paragraph is contradicted by your second paragraph. Again, who doesn’t love the banner of fighting crony capitalism? But under that exact banner, the end result is the status quo and solidifying of the established entrenched energy monopoly. You mentioned you want to roll back subsidies, I agree with you, but the billionaires have a bigger voice in government and they will make sure government will bend to their will. Why do you think congress agreed french fries and kitchup are vegetables?

I don’t want to stop drilling. I want enough market place support for nascent tech until they become self sustainable and they will bring the current energy monopolies to their knees.

Solar is a great example. Prices have come down just absolutely dramatically. Solar use to be President Carter’s pet project in the White House. Reagan ripped that thing out and ridiculed it. Now solar makes so much sense that even red blooded republicans are for solar energy. How did this happen? By not having any subsidies and allowing the electric companies to run the show while telling the public we are protecting them from crony capitalism?[/quote]
Not contradicting at all. Just because I don’t want government to spend more of our tax dollar on helping companies doesn’t mean I want your tax dollar to go fighting against billionaires. Why not let Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc do the fighting? Why does the government have to get involved? Especially when that money is coming from the middle class.
I’m not arguing for status quo at all. But you have to realize that there are many competing technology. I don’t want tax $ going directly into companies. If we want to support fledgling tech, give that money to universities. Once the tech mature in the academic environment, the professors and researcher can then partner up with private capital. We already have Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Bank, I don’t think we need another “Big…”. If you create “Big Solar” then that will impede the next tech advancement just as Big Oil as you say is impeding on the advancement of solar/BEV.
Funny you say that you want nascent tech to bring the energy monopolies to their knees. Why do we need to spend tax dollar to do that? Especially when I don’t believe our government will know which tech is the right nascent tech. I rather have the free market do that. As for breaking up monopolies, it’s pretty easy to do and government do it all the time. Think Ma Bell, Microsoft, and now even Google is under their microscope. As for Big Oil, all the government have to do is increase the CAFE and maybe the best tech win. No need to spend tax $ on companies like Solyndra. I rather have that $ go toward the poor and needy in our society, not to another rich Millionaire/Billionaire.
Solar price have came down because of the Chinese, not because of the government subsidies to companies like Solyndra. Again, you prove my point, I don’t think solar is the be all end all of energy. I was a lot more excited about Bloom Energy than solar before I got my solar. But because government poured a lot more subsidies into solar, it make it more affordable. If they pour the same amount of incentives into Bloom Energy and other Fuel Cell companies, I would have not gotten solar. I’m still excited about companies like Bloom Energy and probably will probably go Fuel Cell when they’re available. I have solar for a few years now and I’m fully aware of the advantage/disadvantage. I can’t go off grid unless I spend a lot more $. Last night, I went without power for over 8 hours. If I have Fuel Cell, I can be completely off the grid and wouldn’t have that problem.[/quote]

remember the Chinese subsidized their solar industry, which then led to dumping into the US market.

if the US government unilaterally decide to cut off all subsidies to alternative energy, plenty of other governments will continue that effort and we’ll end up as importer of alternative energy tech, instead of being innovators.

meanwhile, the elephant in the room is still the ginormous oil and gas subsidies stifling new tech.

as for Solyndra. Solyndra is that minor league player that we drafted and payed a hefty signing bonus for but ended up with a torn rotator cuff. all of the old veteran players now point to Solyndra and say, “see, should just keep playing us the big bucks instead of trying to discover new talent, you see how much of a waste that was, don’t you?”

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. All of these subsidies have been around for a long time and it only get bigger. Now, people are complaining we need to add more for the next industry. 50 years from now, we will need to give even more to the next industry. When will it end? We don’t even have money to help our homeless. Why not start with that first. I don’t want to continue to feed this beast called crony capitalism. You say you’re against crony capitalism but you’re advocating to keep on feeding the beast.[/quote]

we are kinda going around in circle.

I don’t mind not having any subsidies for new alternative energy sources at all.

but how do you achieve a level playing field when gas subsidies are valued at $2 per gallon. how do we remove these subsidies tomorrow?[/quote]I answered you a few post back. Just increase the CAFE value and you can achieve the same result without needing more subsidies. I’m sure if you increase it to 50mpg, you’d kill the gasoline industry very quickly.

Anyways, I think I’ll end our discussion with, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. We just have different views as to what’s urgent and important.

[an]

[quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.

But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.

In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.

[FlyerInHi]

AN as we know, things life are not holistic. We do things piece meal, one at a time, in a market, or policy approach.

Things are about momentum, gaining competitive advantage, image and optics, etc..

A city that is all electric auto will get world status. Research and development as well as corporate headquarters will follow. The end result will be more riches.

And Escoguy is right, quieter cars will result in rising real estate near thoroughfares.
We’ve seen this happen along rail lines already.

[afx114]

[quote=AN]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.

In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]

The argument ignores one of the main benefits of EV: it centralizes power generation at the plant. It is much easier to replace a single CO2 plant (or install carbon scrubbers/storage on them) than it is to replace millions of cars.

It also ignores the efficiency of EVs. Electric motors are about 80% efficient, compared to about 20% for combustion engines. So even if EVs are burning CO2 at the plant, they’re burning a *lot* less of it.

The equation only improves with time as CO2 plants get replaced with renewables. Meanwhile, those combustion engines will just continue to spew CO2.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.

But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.

In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]

But you are not counting the 6 kWh of electricity and a gallon of water needed to refine a gallon of gasoline.

In the 1920’s it took energy from 1 barrel of oil to generate 100 barrels of oil.

Now that barrel yields 20 barrels, and for the tar sand, it is a 1:5 ratio.

[Author]

Posts