[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.”

[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]

[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]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I don’t think a quantity and time limited consumer centric incentive will recreate the Big Oil monster. And what is your proposal on how to fight people like the Koch brothers pledging and planning millions of dollars to fight alternative energy source?

Lithium mining will likely keep up with demand, if it doesn’t, then like you mentioned, market forces will work that out.[/quote]
Whether the subsidies size will be as big as the oil industry will remain to be seen. What I’ve seen in the past though is, once you’re on the government gravy train, you’ll get lobbyists to help you keep them coming.

I don’t propose anything because I don’t want to fight the Koch brothers anymore than I want to fight any other billionaires. They have the right to use their money however they see fit. Just like I do. Just because you don’t agree with how they spend their money doesn’t deminish their right to their money. Same can be said about any other people, rich or poor. George Soros also pump millions into causes that I don’t care for. But it’s not my place to dictate how he use hois money.

Whether Lithium mining will keep up or not remain to be seen. Time will tell. But I don’t want my tax dollar going toward crony capitalism. I rather that money go toward the poor who really need help. Of course market forces will work itself out. So, why waste tax dollar trying to manipulate the market?

I’m pretty sure the tax subsidies that oil company uses to buy their equipments are the same tax subsidies that other companies like GE take advantage of as well. Not to mention small businesses as well. It’s just that those rigs are very expensive, so their subsidies are big. That’s the problem with government trying to manipulate market. There will be unintended side effects. Not to mention the the fail investments of companies like Solyndra. This is why I want to roll back subsidies not add more.

I like to pose some questions for you. How quickly do you want us to stop drilling? After we stop, what will replace jet fuel, diesels for heavy machinery, what will replace plastics, lubricants, and other products that we current depend on that is made from oil? Do you lump coal and natural gas in with the same group as oil as well?[/quote]

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?

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]Everyone is anti-crony capitalism. So propose a way to make the fight a fair fight and we are all good. And that includes finding a way to prevent the Koch brothers from launching their multi-million attack on EVs.

As for battery recycling, the tech for lithium recycling is here and present, it is doable.[/quote]1st step would be, not help creating the next “Big Oil” and expand even more crony capitalism.

If you really hate oil, you should be encouraging fracking and have natural gas replace coal and also support Fuel Cell to use that natural gas to generate electricity. I think between just those two things will make a much bigger dent on CO2 than BEV ever can.

As for Lithium… http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/04/14/tesla-tech-icons-scramble-lithium-prices-double/83034300/
Supply is already at a constraint and BEV aren’t even scratching the surface yet.[/quote]

I don’t think a quantity and time limited consumer centric incentive will recreate the Big Oil monster. And what is your proposal on how to fight people like the Koch brothers pledging and planning millions of dollars to fight alternative energy source?

Lithium mining will likely keep up with demand, if it doesn’t, then like you mentioned, market forces will work that out.

[ocrenter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Everyone is anti-crony capitalism. So propose a way to make the fight a fair fight and we are all good. And that includes finding a way to prevent the Koch brothers from launching their multi-million attack on EVs.

As for battery recycling, the tech for lithium recycling is here and present, it is doable.

[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.

[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=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.

[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.

[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.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]That $550B annual, is that the subsidy that that US government give them?

1. I and many people in my age group don’t apply. I only pay in tier 4 for about a year or two, then I went solar.

2. Telsa Model X is heavier than most cars/trucks. Model S is heavier than most cars. Nissan Leaf is heavier than all the cars in its size. However, regardless of how much damage it make to the road relative to other cars, it still make damage and it’s not paying their fair share to maintain the road.

3. I don’t like either of these type of subsidies.

4. That’s only because EV/Hybrid are a small small % of all cars. What would happen to all the batteries when every car is EV/hybrid? There won’t be enough need to reuse all of those batteries. Then tell me what happen when those battery degrade <30-50%? Which will happen. Do you think it will never be disposed?

5. I totally understand. I'm not arguing that ICE car is cleaner than EV. However, there are many variables. Such as distance driven. My commute is 6 miles one way. My ICE car produce less CO2 than a EV if the owner commute 30 miles one way.

6. Yes, the evidence is everywhere. Just look how many people are lifted out of poverty because of it. Along with the many other benefits. I can't imagine the world w/out airplane, cargo ships, plastic, electricity, etc.

7. Agree. But it doesn't make it any less unfair. Yes, EVs are limited to the rich. Tell me how you're supposed to charge your EV if you live in an old apartment?

Let me put it this way, IMHO, the benefit of fossil fuel up to this point far out weigh the increase in CO2 emission. Of course that doesn't mean we should find way to reduce CO2. I just think when you're dirt poor, having reliable electricity is a BIG deal. I grew up in an area where there wasn't reliable electricity and I feel like many people here don't understand how big of an impact it is because we take reliable electricity for granted.[/quote]

Here's the breakdown on the fed subsidies:
http://cdn.oilprice.com/images/tinymce/ada2753-min.jpg

1. You have to look at how long SDGE has had the 4 tier system to jack up the high utilizers to see how much and how long this group has subsidized the rest of the customers.

2. I think you misunderstood when I mentioned trucks, we are talking delivery trucks and up. As for paying fair share, that will come as EV % increases overall. Believe me, politicians will find a way to tax and levy fees.

3. New tech needs time to mature and grow, think solar panels. This is the reason for the renewable subsidies. Why do we still need fossil fuel subsidies? You would think that technology has matured sufficiently to get off the government's dime.

4. Energy storage is going to be absolutely transformative to the entire grid. the need for battery storage will expand so much that even at 30-50% capacity, we will still find old EV batteries to be very useful. As for after that, recycling of batteries is an existing tech and certainly new tech to recycle will exist as well.

5. Again, not looking at individual, but more on a macro level with co2 production per say 100,000 miles driven.

6. Not saying there has not been benefit from fossil fuel. Just that this continued dependency is not possible. Just like sugar and salt are essential for life, but in excess can be very problematic.

7. The government needs to help improve the charging infrastructure.

Eventually the benefit of fossil fuel will tilt. It was fine when just N.America and Europe were using fossil fuel with one person per car. Then you have the BRIC countries, then soon enough all of Africa and rest of the world... It isn't sustainable.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]It’s funny you feel that gasoline is over subsidized. I feel that green energy is over subsidized. I’m not complaining, because it’s benefiting me and I’m taking full advantage of it. However, I’m also aware of the amount if subsidy that people like me get. I.E. people with solar are not paying to maintain the grid, yet we use it. People with EV don’t pay gas tax, which is used to maintain the road, yet EV driver use it. Not to mention the obvious tax credit as well. We’re talking about $10k/car if you’re living CA.

I don’t think your example regarding food is a good analogy because I don’t think it’s as black and white as your food analogy. Yes, EV car itself doesn’t emit CO2. However, it has other harmful effect to the environment that ICE car doesn’t. Such as the disposal of battery once it reaches its life span. What will you do with it? You can melt down an ICE engine’s metal and reuse it. Can’t really do that with battery. Then there’s the question of where you’re getting the energy from. Keep in mind that most of US’s electricity is still coming from coal, which is much more dirtier than an ICE engine. How about the heavy equipment that are used to mine the rare minerals that are needed to create those battery.

Also, keep in mind that these subsidies are going to the top 10% of the population. Which I think is unfair in and of itself. I don’t think the bottom 90% of the people should have to subsidize something that only the top 10% can afford to get.[/quote]

“Fossil fuels are reaping support of $550 billion annually, according the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organisation that represents oil- and gas-consuming countries, more than four times those given for renewable energy. The International Monetary Fund’s estimates are substantially higher. It said in May that countries will spend $5.3 trillion subsiding oil, gas and coal in 2015, versus $2 trillion in 2011.” Economist July 2015

you go to different organizations and depending on which site you go to, you’ll get a different spin based on who is backing that website. But I would say the Economist is a pretty decent source.

1. on the grid issue, majority of solar customers were tier 4 customers that have been subsidizing the rest of the customers for ages. some temporary reprive from supporting the grid until the electric companies figure out how to bill solar customers is not what I would consider a major subsidy.

2. majority of roadway damages are caused by heavy trucks. most EVs are not the heavy enough to cause damage. in addition, a very small fraction of the overall fleet to really consider as a major subsidy. eventually this will change when EVs are more popular.

3. most of the gasoline subsidies are at the production end where it ends up in the pocket of Big Oil. whereas the tax credits are for the individual. So we should eliminate the tax credits for the individual but keep granting billions of subsidies for Big Oil????

4. EV batteries are not disposed. They are reused. After degradation down to 70%, it can be repurposed as electricity storage units. Have you seen pictures of bunch of old Prius batteries repurposed for a remote off grid ranger station that relies solely on solar, and use the repurposed batteries for energy storage? pretty cool example of things to come.

5. regarding electricity vs gas CO2 emission, go to this website: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/ev-emissions-tool#.VwwB-pwrI-U
remember too that the regions that produce the dirtest electricity are also the red states that barely have any EVs on the road.

6. lithium is actually very abundant, it is just that demand is new, therefore the production capacity is new as well. as for the environmental impact of a gasoline driven world? I think the evidence is everywhere.

7. most of the subsidies are typically going to the top. something related to this site, mortage subsidies is one of the biggest one of them all at well over $100 billion. that is exceptionally unfair. but EVs are not limited to the rich, it is just that the rich/educated class are the ones buying them.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]You’re right, Prius is more expensive.

That’s the problem isn’t it? the poor folks who count every cents won’t be living in a house, so a Leaf would be useless to them, since they can’t charge it (no garage). Maybe that’s why the depreciation on the Leaf is so huge. You’re right, those who count every penny won’t be turning on the AC in the peak time because they’re working.

I don’t think the Leaf will ever be a useful car for the lower socioeconomic groups. I don’t think it’s lack of information and knowledge. I think the main reason is what I stated above. Those in the lower socioeconomic groups won’t be living in a place that allow them to charge an electric car. The only way EV would reach that group of buyers is if they can fix the charging problem (20-30 min for a supercharge isn’t good enough, it needs to be at 2-3 minutes). Once they fix that, then every gas station can sell electricity as well as petroleum.

Majority of people don’t live in a single family home. How do you expect them to charge their EV? This is why I think until the fix the charging problem, the lowest socioeconomic group EV can reach down to is the middle class who live in a SFR.[/quote]

you are right, tech is moving but in addition, this is why the way the math is calculated needs to change.

right now gasoline is over subsidized and the wasted energy to refine and transport gas, gas wasted in traffic, as well as the CO2 emissions are all not counted into the equation.

Right now we are looking at a cup of Prego spaghetti sauce (with 1000 mg of sodium and enough sugar to fulfill one’s daily allowance) and comparing it to a cup of freshly made spaghetti sauce without the added sodium and sugar. And right now consumers are making the conclusion that the Prego is a much better choice due to the price point. But if we factor in the increased risk for hypertension and diabetes from the Prego into the equation, the conclusion may be very different.

[ocrenter]

[quote=spdrun]^^^

Not only. Poorer people tend to disproportionately rent apartments and street-park. Makes charging a bit harder than if you own a house + carport or garage.[/quote]

That is true, plus home ownership % is less as well, making it less practical to install EVSEs.

[Author]

Posts