Can someone explain electric cars to me? *UPDATED*
Bookworm on May 20 2012 at 6:41 pm | Filed under: Climate change
People hostile to American consumerism (that would be the AGW/Green crowd), as well as vegetarians and PETA people (often the same people as the AGW/Green crowd), like to point out that Americans, by buying their meat neatly packaged at the grocery store can ignore the living, breathing animal behind that ready-to-cook slab of meat. They can also ignore the slaughtering process, and the slicing and dicing that follows slaughter. American consumers are also mercifully separated from the pollution that the whole meat industry creates, whether at the farm end or in the abattoir.
With that in mind, can someone explain to me cars that are entirely electric, such as the Chevy Volt or the Nissan Leaf. Hybrid cars create their own electricity, but these 100% electric cars need to be plugged into an outlet, in exactly the same way as that energy sucking computer or electric dryer.
Sure the cars run clean at the car end, but aren’t they the car equivalent of packaged meat? The electricity that powers them has to come from somewhere and, unless you can tell me otherwise, I’m assuming it comes from coal or fuel burning power plants. Likewise, I understand that the process of making these cars’ batteries is pretty darn dirty, not to mention so expensive that the only way rich people can afford to buy them — or are willing to buy them — is with hefty government subsidies.
So, what’s the difference between a Volt and a nice slab of this:
UPDATE: Having read everybody’s contributions, I’ve concluded that government machinations preclude an accurate answer to this question.
Email This Post To A Friend
156 Responses to “Can someone explain electric cars to me? *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Interesting analogy. The electricity unfortunately does not come from the Electricity Fairy, so it comes from our standard electricity sources, which are roughly: 45% coal, 22% natural gas (increasing fast), nuclear 20%, hydroelectric 7%, and oil 1%. Wind, solar, etc are minimal.
There *are* a few advantages of electric power, if it could be made to work decently (mainly overcoming the range limitation and the battery costs)….there are (a)very little oil is used for electricity generation in the US, so from an energy independence standpoint it would be a Good Thing, (b)large-scale generation facilities in power plants are far more efficient than those operating under the space and weight constraints of an individual car, and (c)an electric-powered vehicle is “omniverous”, in a sense, since the electricity can be supplied by any of a number of sources.
However, people have been working on improving battery technology for a century now, and the limitations are still pretty painful.
In most cases, I’m afraid that support for electric cars is just what you’ve said: out of sight, out of mind.
So, what’s the difference between a Volt and a nice slab of this?
Chevrolet’s Volt: $40,280, Nissan Leaf: $32,780, Tesla Roadster: $109,000
If my math is correct, you can eat a really yummy and huge steak @$20.00 pp everyday for the next five years or you can take your chances, buy the Volt, park it in the garage, leave the meat in the car and the Volt will sear the steak and parts of your home, if it’s an attached garage.
p.s. David, the battery replacement is a whopper. The snip below from The Telegraph last year:
Andy Palmer, Nissan GB’s senior vice-president, told the paper that the lithium ion battery is made up of 48 modules. He said that each would cost £404 to replace, making £19,392 for the entire battery pack. He said that most owners would not need a new battery for at least ten years because electric vehicles should mainly be used for short journeys.
Well played, Book. I hadn’t considered that aspect of the ‘green vehicle’ movement, but it appears the analogy is apt. I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who buy electric cars think the electricity is generated from renewable resources. Many utilities offer ‘green energy’ plans, which allow customers to sign up for renewable energy. There’s no wire running from a wind turbine to the house, of course, so the customer’s annual electricity use is subtracted from the installed renewable capacity. The implication is that there’s a limited number of these plans available.
Electric cars have been around since the turn of the last century. There are very real limitations to how much energy you’re going to get out of any current or foreseeable battery technologies. There is no way an electric car is going to be able to cruise for 400 miles at highway speeds (with the A/C running), and then ‘fill up’ in a matter of minutes. Most people expect their cars to do that no matter what the price, and certainly for $40,000.
Because the current generation of electric cars is fairly new, battery replacement hasn’t really been an issue. In a few years batteries are going to need replacing, and as people find out what the cost of that is, the market value of used electric cars will plummet. I also expect that there are going to be some hefty end-of-life costs to dispose of those cars and their toxic batteries.
“If my math is correct, you can eat a really yummy and huge steak @$20.00 pp everyday for the next five years or you can take your chances, buy the Volt, park it in the garage, leave the meat in the car and the Volt will sear the steak and parts of your home, if it’s an attached garage.”
There is a reason why one of my favorite fantasies involves suddenly coming into a $1 billion fortune and using part of it to buy SADIE a penthouse, hire a devilishly handsome houseboy with massage capabilities to keep it clean, and give her hot-and-cold-running whatever she wants.
Electric cars were heavily marketed in the early 1900s, and much of the marketing focused especially on women. I linked an interesting article on this in my post sex, marketing, and electric cars.
Well, I can see that since an internal combustion engine in the 1910s would take your arm off if you weren’t careful. Interesting, electric car range has not improved since the 1910s. The extra energy in modern batteries is used up for amenities, computers, and such.
As for the electric car being different, well, I suspect if you asked most would simply tell you electricity comes out of the wall, having no clue as to how it gets there. Otherwise, they wouldn’t want to get rid of those coal plants the EPA is putting out of operation.
BTW, I came across this talk by Richard Feynman that explains but will be ignored by the warmist. Really, you can ignore of of the great Nobel Prize winners, he’s wasn’t a “climate scientist”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N1pIYI5JQLE#t=193s
He also has another segment on social science and how it isn’t science since they never discover any laws. It occurs to me that while the social disciplines took up “science” to legitimize themselves in the face of the success of real science, now, most evident in climate science, some real science fields have taken up the failed methods of social science.
JKB, I have degrees in both social and hard sciences. Richard Feynman is absolutely right! Nutrition, a subset of Biochemistry and Physiology, is especially rife with scientific fraudsters.
I will need to look at more Richard Feynman videos.
Book, re. the economic and environmental calculus for electric cars: you also have to factor in the horrendous environmental damage that is done in building the batteries in the first place, as well as the ecological damage associated with their disposal (a hurdle that we will need to address in a few years).
However, environmentalism is not about economics and it is not about science. It is a faith-based ideology, so all rules of nature can be discarded.
Is there anything more symbolic of environmental insanity than giving wind farms a pass to kill eagles and other rare birds with no consequences…in the name of the “environment”?
In California, the eagles in the Bay Area are being wiped out by Altamont Pass and other local wind farms, as their death rate exceeds their reproductive capacity.
Until room temperature super conductors are developed in order to store electricity with no loss, making batteries store a lot of power is like burning up your house for heat. Yeah, it’ll work, for a time, but in the long term, people have wasted a lot of energy doing nothing. This energy lost is also paired with the byproduct of waste. Even if it is nuclear power providing that energy, waste byproducts are still a concern. And guess who is going to be living on top of a radioactive sludge pile? It won’t be Democrats or people who voted for Democrats, I can tell you that.
Concurrent with what Feynman says, a lot of people are pretty lazy on the internet with their tl;dr non sense. They have information at their finger tips, yet they refuse to put in the work to seek out the truth of this reality.
Feynman is correct in observing that a lot of people in the modern world simply don’t have the dedication and work ethic to be able to discover truth through experimentation and research. This is true in the martial arts, in the self defense in industry, in the military, and in politics. It’s a flaw of human nature. Back when people lived on starvation diet, dedicating your life to research meant something. Now a days, it means living like a noble, owned by the King Obama, and told what to research and produce.
Ymarsaker says “Until room temperature super conductors are developed in order to store electricity with no loss, making batteries store a lot of power is like burning up your house for heat”.
Hmmm, you’ve given me an idea, YM:
The eco-friendly to heat your home in winter, in three easy steps:
1) Park electric car in garage
2) Keep garage door open
3) Wait for electric car to catch fire
Electric cars are neat.
Yes, the government is pushing them before the technology has caught up with the concept, and yes the range of an all electric vehicle is about the same as it was 100 years ago, but they will have a practical application as a commuter vehicle. Since LA isn’t going to abandon it’s freeways the electric car is perfect for those hours long commutes in stop and go traffic, since the electric motor is very happy idling at 0 rpm.
The electric motor has gobs (scientific term) of torque, which makes shifting less necessary.
The electric vehicle transfers where the pollution is created, from the tailpipe of the vehicle to the smokestack of the electrical plant, which is a good thing depending on your point of view. It’s why if we’re serious as a country encouraging electric vehicles we should be promoting nuclear electric production.
The battery is the problem, since the current flavor, Lithium is fairly expensive and relatively scarce. I did read about some research using aluminium, which is plentiful and cheap.
I’ve got an compact pickup truck sitting behind the garage that I’m going to convert to an electric vehicle someday. Conversions cost about $4-6K, and while I’ll never get a positive ROI from it, I still think they’re cool.
They’re not particularly practical at this point, but some people just like having something different. Shoud the government be subsidizing them at this point? Probably not, since a practical battery is several years away. Though if the government is going to subsidize research, I wouldn’t have a problem with pure research grants exploring different storage solutions.
By the way, the Volt is a hybrid, though with a different spin than the Prius. The Leaf is a true all electric car.
Danny, that might create a heavy metal cloud smoke in the air and kill everyone in the neighborhood. Wouldn’t want to be around that.
Government subsidies means that you are paying for your neighbor’s car, essentially. How’s them apples for “fairness”.
Driving an electric car is another means to cheap grace. To my extreme shock and surprise, the Seattle Times recently published an article about how buying organic food makes you a meaner person. The equation, which I think we have all read about elsewhere, is if I buy organic, I am more virtuous which gives me license to treat people like garbage in other parts of my life.
It’s exactly the same phenomenon with electric cars, given the state of the technology. If I buy an electric car and it doesn’t burn down the house (and really, even if it does, I am more virtuous than those of you still using an internal combustion engine so I can be as nasty as I want to be elsewhere and elsewhen.
It’s what they have to do to justify themselves.
The Left often acts like a corrupt Roman Catholic Church before the reformation. Sell forgiveness for sins to rich people. If you pay the money, your sins will be forgiven by “carbon credits” or the Pope’s “guarantees”.
Just a side note, the Chevy Volt, or Dolt if you prefer, is actually not a true electric. I know you find it hard to believe that Government Motors would try to deceive anyone but the Volt has a gas engine that runs to recharge the batteries while driving, after the initial charge has been dissipated.
I actually prefer the Chevy Oy GeVolt.
Electric cars just shift the burden of power generation from your engine to your electric company, they aren’t really a “clean” alternative. The dirt’s just somewhere else.
That said, I drove a Tesla roadster not long ago, and I have to say that’s the closest anyone’s yet come to reasonable practicality. It delivers 200+ miles to a charge, much more usable than the Volt or the Leaf, and there is something to be said for putting your foot down and discovering that you’re doing 60 by the end of the block. (Nothing that cops or city drivers like to hear, of course, nonetheless, something to be said.) The acceleration is fiendish, and I don’t think there’s much of anything that can beat it from 0-60. (Admittedly, there’s a limited need to go from 0-60 in under four seconds, but it’s kind of fun that it can.) City driving is tricky at first, because it responds instantly, so you have to get used to feathering the throttle, as a light foot is called for.
It’s also, the body being a first cousin of a Lotus Elise, not bad to look at. Most of the hybrids and electrics bear a strong family resemblance to some species of dung beetle, so it’s nice to have one with good lines, that looks like it means business – and turns out to actually do so. I liked it. It isn’t going to lug a lot of stuff around for you, so tends to the impractical – but so do Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Nobles, Maseratis, and Lotuses (it should be “Loti”) themselves.
I guess what I like most about it is that it works. The news is filled with the failings, cost overruns, burst-into-flames problems of Fiskers, Volts, etc. – but you rarely see mention made of the Teslas. The news cycle doesn’t seem to like them, because they don’t burst into flames, they deliver reasonable range – they just, you know… work. How uninteresting. But I find it very interesting that a bunch of guys from Silicon Valley decided to build the car, and they really went at it as more of a demonstration project than as an actual business venture. They did it, and they did it better than anyone has thus far; and they did it with their own dough, no help from anybody. They didn’t really plan to go into the car business, because they knew the thing would cost a bomb (which it does: $109,000), but the reception their product was accorded, and the willingness of people to pay the price sort of pushed them there.
The problem they’re currently working on is that it is possible to run the batteries so flat they’ll no longer accept a charge. (The batteries will reach that point anyway, of their own accord, but this is premature flat-lining.) When that happens, you’re the proud owner of a lovely paperweight: the thing locks down and you can’t do anything with it. You have to replace the batteries, and that runs around $40,000 – the cost of a Volt. And, of course, none of this addresses the sad fact that an electric anything may indeed make the air in your immediate vicinity a bit cleaner, but the power plant’s still required to work to make that possible.
“a corrupt Roman Catholic Church”
How many corrupt Roman Catholic Churches were there? Or is this just a thought experiment?
The Roman Catholic Church was not corrupt. The corruption resided in some of the individuals.
The buck stops here, as some leaders were willing to admit.
The Roman Catholic Church was and still is a hierarchy. Every Catholic still must obey or at least pay lip service to the dogma given by the Pope or Holy doctrine. The Reformation would never have happened if only some loose cannons were corrupt in the Catholic hierarchy. The selling and buying of get out of hell free cards existed. That is truth. Face it or not, that is the truth. People got rich off of it. This money then went into enriching the exterior surfaces and gilt of churches. Whether the Pope approved of it or not is immaterial, since it happened under his command. And the Pope is responsible for certain things in the Catholic Church, especially back in the day of the Reformation.
Suffice it to say that there are some things in this world people don’t want to pay attention to. Because the truth of the matter is, some things people would rather not know because it either scares them or they’re just uncomfortable with the subject. When living one’s life speaking about the “truth”, one gets into pointless arguments all the time. And the reason is simple. There is no truth for a person that does not have true belief. It’s not possible.
Just saw that California has approved the Volt for zero emission status. Very funny, because if I recall correctly, Ca. ruled around 2010 that any car with a gasoline engine installed, did not qualify. Could politics be in play?
The USN submarine force probably knows as much about battery supported electric propulsion systems as anyone in the world. It may or may not be relevant that they do not now operate any battery powered subs. It should also be instructive that the USN, which has been operating nuclear powered ships for over 50 years has, to the best of my knowledge, never had a nuclear accident. Also, to the best of my knowledge the nuclear powered submarines that were lost due to other causes, did not disseminate any harmful radiation.
Ymarsakar:
You are right, the Pope is responsible for certain things in the Catholic Church, at any time.
One thing he is not responsible for is the free-will choice of other people, whether they are under him in a hierarchy or not.
Jesus was probably only a boy when he first noticed the money changers in the temple, but did some necessary teaching before he threw tham out.
Anybody selling indulgences could have been excommunicated at any time, just like Henry 8th for his multiple marriage issue. The Reformation might have gone differently had such a power been used. Certain individuals only make sense up until one realizes the entire hierarchy is backing those individuals. Many people believe similar things about the Left, that it isn’t an organization but just a few Democrats that are the problem makers. Christians believed that about Catholicism for a long time. Until all their attempts at reforming the Church failed. And then they took action on their own.
BW: The most obvious difference between the two is that NOBODY will ever slap a volt on the grill for dinner!
But you knew that.
Nor a Volt!
Ymarsakar:
God, through Moses, told the Israelites how much of their grain and animals to offer for the expiation of sin. Most of the food was consumed by the Levites (priestly tribe), with the best-of-the-best finally offered to God by complete consumption by fire on the altar. Just like a paid indulgence.
Centuries later, Judas Maccabeus instructed his surviving soldiers to pray for the expiation of the sins of his dead soldiers, the same thing that the Catholic indulgences were sold for.
If I look into my “inner truth” and find that money donations were used in the same manner, please explain to me why my inner truth is wrong and yours is right.
Martin Luther (and Henry VIII) was not the cause of the Protestant (not Catholic) Reformation, but only a trigger. If not him, then someone else very soon, such as Calvin.
Are you saying that Pope John Paul II was masterminding the molestation of children? Or perhaps just signing off on the memo?
The Protestant Reformation did not reform the Roman Catholic Church. After the Protestants abandoned the Church and left, the Church cleaned up itself, without throwing out the core teaching and authority of the Church, or its implementation.
Saying that all attempts at reforming the Church failed is like saying all Americans/residents, including you, are completely corrupt because some Americans are corrupt.
Bookworm:
“So, what’s the difference between a Volt and a nice slab of this:”
The difference is that the slab of meat does not necessarily have to be cooked on something that plugs into the breaker box.
“Sure the cars run clean at the car end, but aren’t they the car equivalent of packaged meat?”
That is an excellent way of looking at it!
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/21/listen-to-chickens
speaking of borrowed grace, if you’re a big honcho at CNN and have a lot of carbon credits, then maybe it’s forgiven to dislike gays and pull pranks like this.
[...] original post here: Bookworm Room » Can someone explain electric cars to me? ← Midwest cities planning for electric vehicles « Midwest Energy News Public Investments [...]
There are many comments here that are based on incorrect information. The modern EV with LiIon batteries is a wonderful technology that will eliminate most of the need for liquid fuels for ground transportation. The batteries do not create much pollution from their manufacture and virtually none at the end of life since after they are no longer useful in the car, they will be used for energy storage. After several years use for that, they’ll be recycled.
As for the energy that moves them, it’s quite easy and cost effective to install solar PV to generate energy for your house and car. I installed a 3 kW system on my house in Santa Monica in 2002. Shortly after, I bought my first electric car, a Toyota RAV4 EV. For almost ten years, I’ve run my home and car on sunlight. My electric bill average a mere $100 per year. I’ve driven over 105,000 miles on sunlight, and the oil companies haven’t received a dime from me in all that time.
My car is now a Nissan LEAF (disclosure, I now sell the LEAF and solar energy). These cars are amazing! It’s very fast, quiet as a bicycle, and needs virtually no maintenance. I routinely get over 100 miles on a charge. I can charge at home, or at work, and there are new charge stations being installed all over town. When I go grocery shopping, to a movie, shopping mall or to most parks, my car is charging while I am there. This “convenience charging” allows me to get well over 100 miles in a day. I recently drove over 160 miles one day last week with no trouble. We are no seeing the Level 3 fast chargers being deployed. These will charge the LEAF’s battery from 0-80% full in 25 minutes. Using fast charging allows for regional driving. Anything further than that, I’ll fly.
The Tesla Roadster is a great car, as one commenter already posted, but Tesla’s Model S will be shipped starting June 22nd, and this car has a range of 300 miles, 0-60 in 5.6 seconds(!) and seats 5 adults and two children. It’s also a beautiful car.
Many of you seem to harbor enmity toward electric vehicles. I’m not sure why since for every EV that replaces a gas burner, your air gets cleaner, your economy stronger and your nation safer. Our country needs these cars. Even if you don’t want one for yourself, you should still want others to buy them. Please don’t trash a car that you haven’t even driven. That just makes you look, well, stupid.
You’re welcome, PaulScott….I mean for my contribution to your electric car and all of the infrastructure that supports it.
I don’t hate electric cars — I hate being robbed to pay for other people’s electric cars.
No one had to subsidize the Model T, because it was a technology that was developed to the point that EVERYBODY wanted one, and the price came down to the point that virtually everyone could afford one.
Enjoy your electric car, my friend….but when you post here, maybe you can restrain yourself from insulting the folks who are making it affordable for you. It makes you look, well, ungrateful.
Hey, I apologize for the final comment. I shouldn’t have gone there. But I’m glad you brought up subsidies because that’s a big deal for me.
You seem to not want tax money to pay for EVs. I can appreciate that. However, you and I need to come to terms about “subsidies” and “externalities” for oil, coal and natural gas.
I say this with all respect because your response was well written and I sense you are fair and rational. I’ll make what I feel is a rational argument for these subsidies.
All carbon based fuels are considered dirty energy by definition because of the effluent released when the fuel is combusted and the damage done through extraction and refinement. Renewable energy is clean(er) by definition because the energy source (sun, wind, waves, geothermal) is essentially unlimited and comes at no cost other than the technology to harvest it plus maintenance.
The internal cost for the renewable energies is inherently higher than that for dirty energies. You can build a GigaWatt sized coal plant for relatively less money per kW, China is building one right now outside of Beijing, but it takes a lot of solar panels or wind mills to generate a constant GW of power.
However, the external costs of the dirty energies are enormous and are not borne by the utilities or the oil, coal and natural gas companies. Therefore they are not paid by the consumers of this energy. It seems fair that these external costs begin to be internalized into the price at the pump and the price of a kWh.
Let’s stop here and you tell me if we’re on the same page, if so, I’ll go to the rest of the argument. If not, we discuss why.
Earl – I really got a “charge” from your response. Of course, we all know electricity grows on a monkey’s arse and no one has to pay for it – it’s FREE, didn’t ya know. And now for something less convenient…
more here
Sadie, this is exactly what I’m talking about with Earl. So, do you agree with what I wrote about external costs for dirty energy?
PaulScott
There is no one on this planet that can forecast nor project the cost of any new energy source. The price of fuel can’t even be projected. Analyists were calling for $5.00 gallon for the month of May – close but no cupie doll.
Whatever China is building, they’re not hiring union workers or jumping through EPA hoops and your local Sierra Club. Sun, wind, waves and geothermal all have variables.Turbine wind mills are killing off birds of prey, which upsets the balance of nature. So, what are you saying build more wind mills and increase the rodent population, which will affect the food chain. Tell me, who can control the water (I know of someone who parted it once upon a time, but he had the help of G-d).
“comes at no cost other than the technology to harvest it plus maintenance”
How much exactly does “other than” cost?
Paul Scott wrote:
> As for the energy that moves them, it’s quite easy and cost effective to install solar PV to generate energy for your house and car. I installed a 3 kW system on my house in Santa Monica in 2002. Shortly after, I bought my first electric car, a Toyota RAV4 EV. For almost ten years, I’ve run my home and car on sunlight. My electric bill average a mere $100 per year. I’ve driven over 105,000 miles on sunlight, and the oil companies haven’t received a dime from me in all that time.
> You seem to not want tax money to pay for EVs. I can appreciate that. However, you and I need to come to terms about “subsidies” and “externalities” for oil, coal and natural gas. [...] All carbon based fuels are considered dirty energy by definition because of the effluent released when the fuel is combusted and the damage done through extraction and refinement. Renewable energy is clean(er) by definition because the energy source (sun, wind, waves, geothermal) is essentially unlimited and comes at no cost other than the technology to harvest it plus maintenance.
Some thoughts:
It may be possible, as long as the number of EV drivers is low, for the energy sources you named to provide enough energy. What happens when 50% of the vehicles in use, and 50% of the driving done, is by EV drivers? I notice you did not include nuclear energy in your list of energy resources. Why not? You will need mass-produced energy to supply enough for the large number of EV cars that would be driven.
As others have noted similarly, I have no complaints about people who purchase and drive EV vehicles. But the rest of us should not have to subsidize them. If the technology is ready, it’s ready.
It would be interesting to see a study done of the total costs – including all of the subsidies at all the various “layers” that are involved in your effort. What is the real cost associated with your home installation of your solar energy system. Cost to purchase, install and use – adding in any and all subsidies. The cost of public charging at the convenience “stations” – including generation of energy by coal. (And what percent of the energy would have to be delivered by coal were the number of such cars to rise to, say 50%?) The true cost of the car.
I guess I am hostile to the whole discussion of externalities, because of the games that were being played with ‘cap and trade’. Al Gore’s “trading” comes to mind. Plant a few trees, trade it for excess energy consumption! It became ridiculous. If you want to create a defensible model, then you pay for the externalities inherent in what you USE… PERIOD. If Al Gore wants to jet around the country, he’ll pay for the use (and the generation of and the burning of) all that airplane fuel. If your EV car is charging at a public station powered by coal, you pay for the externalities based on the amount of energy you pull. PERIOD. Your problem would be in convincing people that your model is valid for managing the costs of ameliorating effects of negative “externalities”. We’ve already seen the desecration of science to the altar of global warming models that were garbage to begin with. If we had to fight over another set of badly flawed models in a new area – that of pseudo-scientific externaltiies models – and the same thing were to happen again, the current environmental movement would be so badly discredited by such a second disaster surrounding “externalities and sustainaibility”, that it probably wouldn’t survive. Allowing politics and political money into the process of science is immeasurably corrosive and poisonous.
PaulScott: Some thoughts.
Does your car only charge on nights and weekends, even when you are out and about every day?
Will everybody else be that considerate?
How does your dealeership charge up the cars, and at what times?
If you’ve been running around all day and need an urgent charge during working hours, what do you do?
If it has been overcast and stormy for several days, do you start taking days off from work so that you can keep your refrigerator working?
If you’re recharging for whatever reason during a weekday working hour, and the utilities declare rolling blackouts, are you going to just sit there where you are until the end of the workday?
If you are out all day and recharge at home from solar cells instead of the power grid, what kind and how much of an energy storage system do you need at home?
I’m not against electric cars. I am against them or any other mode of transportation being forced on everybody as a cure-all.
PaulScott, thank you for bringing up the topic, and your discussions on it.
One of the things the Democrats tout is increasing taxes on the rich. Not mentioning whether Obama the millionaire pays taxes enough, I wonder how the federal government redistributing money from the middle class to subsidies on hybrid cars afforded by the upper class works. Is that really taxing the rich or is that just taxing the middle class and paying off their government controlled Green portfolios?
On a business model, brainwashing people into thinking certain energies are “dirty” has a concurrent effect on the government owned and subsidized Green industries. At the same time that electricity demand goes up with hybrids and electric cars, the total electricity produced and the total gas produced in the Gulf or in Alaska, is being destroyed by the Leftist alliance. This would normally wreck havoc economically, except that the government prints money and collects taxes to equalize the market conditions for such cars. Eventually there will be a supply bottleneck on electricity and energy. The only people that will be allowed to use electricity are the “clean” voters. The “dirty” voters will be fined for the use of more energy.
There’s a certain gap that allows Senators to make more on mutual funds than private citizens. The Green industry and their alliance with big government is part of that reason. If you could make laws that favor one industry over another, it gets really easy to make cash via your mutual fund investments.
How are subsidies a big deal for Paul S here? It’s not like he can refuse to benefit from them. The same way a person cannot refuse to benefit from a pyramid scheme. The money isn’t theirs to begin with, so once it is routed from the bottom to the top, you have no choice but to take it from others if you continue to participate in the pyramid scheme.
The Left functions on a zero sum paradigm. That means all of their machinations have this cause and effect at the root. You can be certain that if someone pays 100 dollars for electricity from solar panels in a year, the cost is being redistributed to other people who don’t live on mercury or other people who lack certain political connections.
Ron19, I mostly charge my car at night during off peak hours. During the day, my PV system generates more energy than the house uses, so I’m offsetting the peak energy grid which is mostly coal, nukes and NG. The credits the utility gives me for my excess clean energy are then used to cover my night time energy use. According the the Dept. of Energy, there is enough excess capacity at night to power over 180 million EVs without adding any new capacity.
In the past three years, we’ve added 27 GW of wind energy to the grid and 3 GW of solar. That’s enough clean, renewable energy to power over 25 million EVs. Also, in the past three years, we’ve gone from 53% coal on the U.S, grid to a mere 36% today. Some of that is due to the recession, some is due to efficiency, but a lot of it is due to coal plants shutting down because they don’t want to spend the money it takes to install the latest pollution control equipment. Some plants shut entirely, others switched to NG because of its dramatic price drop.
Also, due to efficiency programs sponsored by the feds and state governments, in 2010, we saved 112 TWh (terawatt hours) of energy. That’s enough energy to drive my EV over 400 billion miles, or 13% of the total three trillion miles driven in 2010. This is the very definition of low hanging fruit.
Mike Davx, EVs don’t use that much energy. I can drive over 5 miles on a kWh in my LEAF. Most Americans who live in single family homes waste more energy than they’d use in an EV to do all of their driving. I sell both electric cars and solar energy, so I get to see people’s energy bills all the time. When I compare their use to mine, it’s usually 2-3 times as much electricity as I use, and I live a normal life with all the toys and appliances as everyone else, I just don’t leave anything on that’s not needed.
If you drive 12,000 miles/year, about the national average, you could generate that much energy with a 2 kW solar PV system. Installing such a system would cost you about $8,000 with no subsidies. Of course there are subsidies, so the actual cost to you is less. The PV systems are guaranteed for 20 years, but in effect will last for 40-50 years. The PV that was installed in the 70s when they first came out are still working.
The total miles driven in the U.S. is about three trillion. At a conservative 4 miles per kWh, that works out to about 750 TWh of electricity or a mere 17% of the total 4,400 TWh of electricity generated in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Production_by_country
Now, we need to talk about subsidies. Many of you have brought up the fact that my car and my solar system were subsidized by the government. True, but we’re now going to talk about the subsidies for dirty energy.
According to the World Health Organization and the American Lung Association, tens of thousands of Americans die prematurely every year due to the effects of pollution from the burning of coal and oil in internal combustion engines. A recent study by USC Cancer Research found that cancer rates skyrocket adjacent to freeways and downwind from refineries.
When you buy a kWh from coal, or a gallon of gas, you pay for none of this.
The environmental damage from the Gulf oil spill and thousands more like it, devastate our environment and cost thousands of jobs. The method of coal mining known as mountaintop removal wreaks havoc with the surrounding rivers and ground water which sickens the people who rely on that water for their lives. There is environmental destruction every step of the way when oil is extracted, shipped, refined, delivered and finally burned in cars and trucks.
When you buy those kWh and gallons of fuel, you pay for none of this.
The RAND Corp., a conservative think tank, studied how much we spend for military protection for our access to the world’s oil. It turns out we’re paying $80 billion every year and this is exclusive of the wars for oil. That works out to 55 cents a gallon, BTW. The war in Iraq was fought because they have a lot of oil. Even the military leaders agree to this statement. We’ve spent $1.5 trillion and thousands of dead soldiers, tens of thousands of wounded soldiers whose care we’ll be paying for the rest of their lives, estimated at another trillion plus.
When you buy gas, you pay for none of this.
If you look into the direct government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, you see that we’re giving them upwards of ten billion per year there. This to an industry that is the most profitable in the world.
So, given all of the above, it seems reasonable and right that our government allow those who choose not to participate in those negative outcomes to keep more of their own money instead of paying it in taxes.
If and when these external costs of dirty energy are internalized in the price of a kWh and a gallon of fuel, then, and only then should the subsidies for clean alternatives be removed.
What a conversation; I had to chip in!
I drive an electric car; actually, we ditched our gas cars for a pair of them. All electrics, not hybrids.
The good news is that the coal mix across the US generation is down to near 1/3rd against mostly gas then nuclear then renewables. EVs are so efficient that on coal alone they’re better than a Prius, anything else and it just gets better and better.
What’s the difference between the meat and the EV? Well, what’s the same? You pay top dollar for quality beef, top dollar for quality cars – they’re surprisingly refined, quiet, really quick and leave your garage smelling of new car instead of oil! We’re about 2,500 miles a month for less than $100 of ‘fuel’ – cool eh?
Ping me if you want to learn more about living with them.
Michael
So Paul’s solution to subsidies is to give the government more power to punish those evil, dirty coal companies that have been subsidized. That’s almost like Eric Holder saying right wing militias are endangering the border so we need to crack down on 1st Amendment fanatics and gun shops selling arms to Mexicans.
“If and when these external costs of dirty energy are internalized in the price of a kWh and a gallon of fuel, then, and only then should the subsidies for clean alternatives be removed. ”
Only when the right wing militias stop patrolling the border in military strength and selling arms to Mexican drug lords will the UN gun control legislation be lifted from Americans. Something tells me the real answer to that deadline is “never”.
Ymarsakar – Why are you avoiding my question? Are you afraid of the answer? Just tell me why the dirty energies should not pay their own way. You don’t like clean vehicles and clean energy getting subsidies, but I just outlined hundreds of billions of external costs and tens of billions in direct subsidies for oil, coal and NG and you have nothing to say about them? Wow, pretty lame. There are some Marines down the road at Camp Pendelton who would take serious issue with your position on this. They lost buddies in the Iraq war and they know we fought that war because of oil. You disparage their service by neglecting to admit the connection of oil to that war.
The list and order of top 15 U.S. oil source countries has been remarkably stable over those six years, but it is possible to discern certain trends. So we can see, for example, that the portion of U.S. oil coming from Canada has been increasing, while Venezuela has exported less and less oil to the United States during this period. At the same time, the portion of oil being imported by the United States from these top 15 countries has increased relative to the other 99 countries from which the United States has imported at least some oil since 2005.
(Click here or on the chart to enlarge it.)
DOE list
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
PaulScott 41:
“When you buy gas, you pay for none of this.”
When I buy gas at the gas pump, I pay taxes for the material, the process, and the people all along the way back to the hole in the ground.
Plus the taxes, etc., I pay to earn the money for the gasoline.
So I do pay for “this.”
When you use your photovoltaic system way beyond its expected lifetime, or get a refund or discount from the electric utility, how much in taxes do you pay for “this?”
“The war in Iraq was fought because they have a lot of oil.”
Does this same logic also explain our involvement in Afghanistan?
Can I choose not to have tax money taken from me to subsidize electric cars if I “don’t want to participate?”
PaulScott has thrown so much into the mix that I can’t begin to address it all.
First, there’s a blanket statement that the Lilo (Lithium ion) car battery industry does not pollute and that there will be no disposal problem because they will be recycled. As far as I know, the rare earth metals used in manufacture of batteries come with their own share of pollution, but this is usually borne in India, China and 3rd world countries (out of sight, out of mind). Lithium requires enormous electrical resources to produce and there just isn’t that much of the stuff around.
Here’s a report that addresses the environmental problems associated with Lithium production. http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf
Here’s a rather balance summary from a Stanford physics course paper re. pollution from car batteries.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/nie1/
With regard to recycling, there are plenty of plans on the books but none that have been tested, yet. It’s all hypothetical.
Re. WHO and other studies claiming that so-many people in the U.S. die from air pollution, I’ve looked at such studies and found them to be just bad science – unwarranted correlations rife with statistical hypotheticals designed to elicit a desired outcome. They aren’t based on hard data. Sure, if you live near the refineries in Newark, NJ you will likely have a higher cancer rate and more lung problems. Can you think of any other factors that could be responsible for this? Have you ever been in those neighborhoods? Also, the Gulf Oil disaster did NOT devastate the environment. That was the big story that the MSM missed, overlooked, covered-up or whatever. Accidents have and will always happen in the energy sector. What was amazing is how quickly the Gulf recovered…naturally.
Solar panels – we have good examples of how economically sound that industry is with the recent examples of Solyndra, etc. Do we really need to belabor the point?
The Tesla? My brother-in-law bought a Tesla. Loved it. Fast acceleration and it looked super-cool. Then, for no reason, it stopped on the highway at high speed. It didn’t glide to a stop, it stopped dead. Fortunately, the seat belts held. The nice people from Tesla came out, fixed it, and it promptly did the same thing again. Oh, and another thing – when it stops dead on the highway, you can’t call a tow truck, because it doesn’t glide – you need a crane to lift the car onto a flatbed. Needless to say, they returned it and will never go electric again. I won’t tell you how much they paid for it. Let’s just say, it’s not for the middle class. It’s a rich person’s curiosity, nothing more.
Then, there is wind-power. Just the wind turbine alone costs about $1.5-3.0 million each plus the cost of connecting to the grid and continued maintenance costs. And (oh, the irony), they need back-up gas generators to provide energy during down times. One turbine, at full capacity, provides energy for about 400 homes. However, they only work when the wind is blowing and they are mechanically ship-shape, so their actual efficacy, even in windy areas, is only about 10%, so…$1.5-3.0 million-plus to power …40 homes on an annual basis? Oh, and their purported lifespan of 30-40 years also appears to be hypothetical.
Plus, wind turbines are horrendous on wildlife. Notwithstanding the promotional claims of the industry (based on very small initial samples), the turbines slaughter bats and raptors that depend upon the wind corridors for migrations. For example, the wind turbines in the SF Bay Area are killing golden eagles at a faster rate than they can reproduce. If I killed a golden eagle, I would go to jail and pay a huge fine, of course. Not so the wind industry…these “environmentalists” receive Federal indulgences for their sins. And, can you actually say that a wind farm does not despoil the view?
http://baynature.org/articles/web-only-articles/a-day-with-the-eagles
Bottom line, though, solar and wind energy is failing economically everywhere – in EUrope and the U.S. – because it isn’t economical. Once the subsidies are taken away, they are over.
PaulScott, I appreciate your fervor but I fear that you are living in magic land created from the dreams of eco-utopians. These technologies may eventually prove themselves but they aren’t there, yet. Until then, perhaps it is better to improve upon the tried and true. Otherwise, these new technologies are just setting themselves up for horrendously expensive economic and environmental disasters (such as with the solar energy industry in Germany and the U.S. and the wind energy industry in Denmark and Spain).
Oil, gas and coal and (in the future) methane hydrates can be mined with minimal environmental impact. Ironically, as we get to smaller and smaller carbon molecules (e.g., ethane), we actually are transitioning to a more hydrogen-driven energy system. Oh, and by the way, we do pay the costs for the environmental impacts of energy mining. the coal and oil companies do have to pay the environmental costs of reclaiming the landscape after extraction. All that gets factored into the fuel bills.
Sadie, what is your point?
Ron19, you pay nothing for the $80 billion in military costs protecting out access to the world’s oil. You pay nothing for the cost of the Iraq war and all the dead and wounded soldiers. You pay nothing for the environmental and health costs of oil. In addition, the purchasing of oil sends around $400 billion out of our economy every year. This is a full 45% of our trade deficit.
You are a pig at the trough and you won’t even admit it.
Your quote, “When you use your photovoltaic system way beyond its expected lifetime, or get a refund or discount from the electric utility, how much in taxes do you pay for “this?” makes no sense. I paid sales taxes on the purchase of the system. Are there other taxes you think I should pay? Sounds fishy to me.
The war in Afghanistan had to do with the attack on our country by followers of Osama Bin Laden. He was on record as saying he attacked us because we were in Saudi. We are in Saudi because of oil. I won’t lay blame directly on oil for that war, but I think it can be argued oil played a role. I’m not going to let you sneak away from the big question of the Iraq war. That was a war of choice by the Bush team, and it had a lot to do with oil. Even the military leaders admit as much. That’s why all of the top military leaders today are solidly behind the transition to electricity from oil for our transportation. They understand that we will have to fight more wars over oil in the future, and with China buying up all the oil contracts around the world, it’s likely they will be involved in the next oil war. We can’t even beat the Taliban in Afghanistan, so I doubt we want to tangle with the Chinese.
Paulscott 48:
“Ron19, you pay nothing for the $80 billion in military costs protecting out access to the world’s oil. You pay nothing for the cost of the Iraq war and all the dead and wounded soldiers. You pay nothing for the environmental and health costs of oil.”
If you refuse to see where that $80 billion, etc., comes from, there is no longer any basis for discussion.
Oh, I know the $80 billion comes from our taxes, but you aren’t paying for it when you buy gas, that’s the subsidy. You expect everyone to chip in on that cost instead of those who directly benefit. This is the very definition of a subsidy. I don’t buy gas, but I have to help you pay for your cheap gas.
You are also polluting my air. I haven’t given you permission, nor are you paying me for the privilege. If your neighbor started throwing his garbage in your yard because he didn’t want to pay for garbage service, would you be OK with that? This can’t be that hard to understand.
PaulScott, nevermind my point, it was lost on you. It’s obvious that you’re not here to discuss energy, but to lecture. I think the thoughtful comments and links provided to you would be a sign of a solid good faith discussion.
In your own words, “It makes you look, well, ungrateful.”
And with these words, to quote you, once again, is self-explanatory:
“You are a pig at the trough and you won’t even admit it.”
“In addition, the purchasing of oil sends around $400 billion out of our economy every year. This is a full 45% of our trade deficit.”
However, we have hundreds of years value in fossil energy resources in North America that our current administration is trying to lock-up forever. Go figure!
As far as why the Muslim (not just the Arab and Persian) world has a problem with America, it’s not about oil! It’s about religion. They have the same problem with Nigeria, Thailand, Kenya, South Sudan and other infidel countries. Please!
Danny Limmeux, I checked the link for the battery pollution study and all it is is a poorly written report from a student who didn’t provide any information about what pollution there is from batteries Fail! California does not consider LiIon batteries to be hazardous and even allows them to be deposited into landfills, not that any will end up there. Utilities are studying the use of spent batteries for energy storage after they are no longer used in cars. As for recycling them, the PbA batteries which are in all 800 million cars in the world are recycled at a rate of 98% in the U.S. They are the most recycled consumer product in the country. The LiIon packs in EVs will have a much higher value as scrap than those batteries, so the expected recycling rate will be pretty much 100%.
You claim there is no study that shows a direct correlation between pollution an deaths or disease, so your blithely dismiss pollution from internal combustion and refining out of hand. What gall! I suggest you climb into your car, drive into a garage and leave the engine running, then close the garage door and see how long you last. People die from pollution every day and for you to claim otherwise just shows what a poor human you are.
Then you have the nerve to claim there was no damage to the eco system from the Gulf spill, saying, “Accidents have and will always happen in the energy sector.” Wow, what a statement! First of all, millions of fish and animals were killed by the poisons from the oil and the dispersants, the oil is STILL leaking and poisoning the Gulf, and thousands of people lost their jobs. You can claim otherwise all you want, but the truth is pretty damn clear to any rational person.
All you can say about solar is “Solyndra”? That was one company that had a great product that lots of venture capital found worthy of millions in investment help. When they were first coming to market, lots of people thought it was viable, but what they didn’t know if that the Chinese were about to dump PV panels on the market at a price point so low that it rendered the higher priced Solyndra technology too expensive by comparison. The good news is that the lower priced Chinese panels enable the cost of installed systems to drop fast and thousands of Americans bought and lease systems. This boosted the employment of thousands of Americans who do the sales, engineering and installing of these systems. We now have over 100,000 Americans directly employed in the solar business. Solar is quite viable, thank you.
You r understanding of the wind industry is laughable. The efficiency is 30% not 10%. Wind is the fastest growing source of energy on the American grid. We’ve installed 27 GW in the past 3 years alone. NG is used for peaking plants and some base load, but individual wind towers do not need back up NG plants. I have no idea how you came up with that.
We are 99% reliant on oil for transportation. This is a strategic nightmare given who controls the lion’s share of oil. We can’t wait for “magic” to come along and pull us out of this mess. We need to transition as fast as possible to clean, renewable electricity to power our cars. It’s easy and economic. You conclude saying that all the environmental costs are included in the cost of fuel, but there is zero evidence of that, quite the opposite.
Danny – In the words of the great Frenchman, Yogi Berra, “Déjà vu all over again”
Sadie, I am trying to explain to you how the world works, but you prefer to live in a utopia where hydrocarbons are plentiful and do no harm.
Oil will continue to be more expensive, in real and external costs, and you’ll be paying more for gas every year. I, on the other hand, will keep driving for free on kWh I generate from sunlight falling on my roof.
You’ll pollute my air, but I won’t pollute yours.
Our military will continue fighting wars over an ever dwindling supply of oil, and you’ll continue not paying for it in the price of your precious gasoline. And so it goes…
I think, Paul, that we are arguing from very different factual premises here. I’ve got to run and pick up children, but let me just weigh in on two points.
Point one, we at this blog respect our environment, and would like to leave a clean, well-functioning world for our children. However, we do not believe that human activity is responsible for global cooling, global warming, or climate change. This means that we have a less panicky sense of what needs to be done NOW.
And point two, I, and possibly others, cannot agree with your claim that we fight wars over a dwindling supply of oil. America is awash in available oil. To the extent that we’re fighting wars over Muslim/Arab oil — a contention that I consider false — we’re doing so because the environmentalists/Democrats refuse to allow America to tap into its own vast resources.
Incidentally, I appreciate that, while this debate has become heated, it’s managed not to be root nor has anyone stooped to personal attacks or invective. I think that speaks well of all of you.
Thank you, Bookworm, for the comment.
I won’t argue the climate change issue, we’ll just agree to disagree on that one. However, there is a significant pollution problem from criteria pollutants that others on this list seem to either ignore completely, or claim cause no harm in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. Numerous scientific studies have concluded that thousands of Americans die prematurely every year from internal combustion pollution as well as that from the burning of coal. I can’t understand how people who purport to be intelligent, rational humans can just blithely ignore this elephant in the room.
As to your point that America is “awash in available oil”, I’d sure like to see the evidence. I read reports from the EIA and other sources all the time, and best case scenarios are that, at present usage rates, we can last maybe ten years before we’re tapped out. To be advocating the use of this oil when there are good alternatives, is just not a good strategic move. If we open up all oil, gas and coal fields, our environment will be devastated, and we’ll use up all of our oil quickly. As soon as we increase our production, the Saudis will curtail theirs to keep the global price high, our oil companies will continue to sell to the highest bidder (China, South America, Europe) and we’ll continue paying higher and higher prices for gas until all of our oil is gone. Of course, since we took your position of doing this and not transitioning to electric cars, we will not have anything to fall back on, and the middle east will control most of what’s left.
This is a horrible strategic move. If you follow the people at Set America Free (http://www.setamericafree.org/) and the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (http://www.iags.org/saf.html), you’ll see that they agree with my position on this matter.
We need to get efficient as a country and stop wasting energy as we currently do. We built this country on cheap and plentiful energy and resources. We no longer have either. To ignore that fact is to walk straight off the cliff into oblivion. Personally, I’m not going without a fight.
SADIE, yup…abc, zach…we’ve been there, done that.
More later, but, in the meantime, PaulScott, we’re willing to listen and learn. But, PLEASE share with us your detailed information and laser-precis dissection. For example, please come up with one of those studies that shows actual evidence of people dying from the exhausts of internal combustion engines in daily life. I mean real evidence, not those vague, statistical musings that pluck wild premises out of thin air!
Be aware, though, that this Bookworm Room crowd is a tough bunch…we’ve been through these types of arguments before and have sent more than one hubristic heffalump into foetal therapy by the time we got through dissecting their arguments (your arguments have yet to fall under the steely gaze of the aptly named Monsieur Charles the Hammer, yet), the technical erudition of BrianE or the special-effects sturm und drang of JJ…oh, you lucky, lucky person). Thus far, you’ve only had to deal with us weenies. The best way to convince us is to present cogent data and arguments, not fallacious appeals to authority.
As far a your estimates of available hydrocarbon resources, I suspect that you pretty well behind …years behind…in your readings. Not to worry, though – we are already evolving away from coal and oil toward natural gas, of which there is even more in the ground than oil — natural gas is already a hydrogen fuel, as it contains four molecules for every molecule of carbon. Very clean burning. it’s the future, it does not have to be subsidized and it is here!
Billions in “direct subsidies” to oil companies are simply business deductions and tax credits of the sort that are common to business in general, not the handing-out of pots of money to companies whose investors are your big donors, a la Solyndra (and others).
The electricity that you “sell” back to the electric company has a price that is politically determined through regulations on the industry requiring them to pay a higher price than they would otherwise be willing to pay. This represents another large and generally “under-the-radar” subsidy to solar, wind, etc.
But….I’ve found that there’s no real point in arguing with people about their religion. I have beliefs that I’ve chosen, and I stick to them even when things look a bit “iffy” because I have faith that time and more information will clear them up. It doesn’t matter a lot whether one’s religion is a traditional one, or a shiny new green one….the result is much the same. A lot of hot air is produced in argument, and no one’s mind is changed.
Just as an exercise, maybe someone could find and provide links to 1/2 as many similar “subsidies” (payouts of taxpayer money via “loan guarantees” or other dodges) to traditional energy companies as are listed in this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html
Danny Lemieux, I’m game to play. I’ll start with one very easy one, and depending on your answer, I’ll try another.
According to RAND, (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG838.html), we are spending $80 billion per year in military costs protecting our access to oil. Roughly, that’s about 55 cents per gallon. It’s my opinion that cost should be internalized at the pump.
It’s a real cost, and it’s currently adding $80 billion to our deficit. I think everyone agrees we should lower the deficit, and since this is clearly because of oil, those who use oil should pay this cost.
Do you agree or not?
Earl, it’s funny you can say with a straight face that billions to the oil companies “are simply business deductions” while also insinuating that a taxpayer getting to keep his or her own money is somehow bad.
I know you threw the Solyndra thing out there as a smoke screen, I’m familiar with that tactic because Fox News uses it al the time. I want you to acknowledge that what we’re really talking about is the comparison of oil companies getting ten billion dollars for exploring for and developing oil fields, to thousands of individuals who have taken the step to remove themselves from adding pollution to the environment. Our federal government wants to encourage oil exploration and production, but they also want to encourage the use of renewable energy. If you think it’s OK for the oil companies to get those subsidies, please explain why you don’t think you and your neighbors shouldn’t get it.
I have to quote you here, because I want everyone to be very clear why you are wrong. You say,
“The electricity that you “sell” back to the electric company has a price that is politically determined through regulations on the industry requiring them to pay a higher price than they would otherwise be willing to pay. This represents another large and generally “under-the-radar” subsidy to solar, wind, etc.”
You’re damn straight we used the government to help us negotiate that price. That’s what the PUC is for. I don’t know why anyone would want to go back to the days when your utility could charge anything they wanted. It’s not like you can switch to another one. And besides, the energy we sell is worth the higher price. Solar almost perfectly coincides with peak energy pricing on the spot market. The utilities have to pay extremely high prices for energy during peak hours when demand surges. What we get for our extra kWh is the exact price we would pay if we were buying it. This is often less than what the utility pays for energy from peaker plants. It’s completely fair to me that I get to sell for that price, and I’m glad to have had the power of my public utility commission to help negotiate it.
I am going to enjoy catching up on this discussion over the weekend. Been busy.
One thing to remember: It’s impossible to construct a complete defense or criticism on an issue as large as this. Be comfortable with the partial explanations offered on each side. You won’t resolve the argument here in one comment thread! But we’ll all add to our knowledge and especially our understanding of the objections of “the other side”. It’s educational, and worth hearing directly “from the other side” – for both sides!
I give Paul Scott credit for coming in here and doing a good job explaining his position. It can’t be fun being the lone defender against many different lines of criticism.
Otherwise, these new technologies are just setting themselves up for horrendously expensive economic and environmental disasters
That’s the goal. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Paul, do you understand what I’m saying? What I am saying is that you, and the Left, are the cause of both the pollution, in the world and in the US, plus the environmental catastrophes produced by “Green” energy. Green meaning green backs, that is, for the rich and powerful like Al Gore.
So don’t come over here talking about how I’m “scared” of the light being exposed on oil companies. You and all of the rest of your kind are the cause of all of it, crony capitalism, robber baron corporate towns, and dirty energy to begin with.
I’m not aware that the government has EVER handed an oil company a pile of tax dollars. Feel free to educate me if I’m mistaken here. I’m not aware that the government has EVER guaranteed a loan taken out by an oil company in order to do its exploration. Again, if I’m mistaken, I’m willing to be educated.
The most the oil companies get is a tax deduction for spending their own money on the exploration. That money is at great risk, and the government has decided that they’ll get their tax money when the oil company makes a profit selling the oil they find. This is not materially different than what they do for manufacturers who spend money looking for property for their factory, building the factory, buying equipment, etc. Entrepreneurs have been getting tax deductions for these activities ever since the income tax system was set up.
Far from being a smoke-screen, the Solyndra example is one where the government DID use tax money to guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in loans taken by Solyndra to build a plant for producing their solar panels. And when it all went bad because their panels couldn’t compete in the market, the government arranged things so that the taxpayers took second place to the crony capitalists who arranged the loan guarantee in the first place. So, instead of the investors taking a bath — and offering a warning to others — it was the taxpayers who got hosed. And if Fox News is the only one reporting this, then the shame is on the other networks.
OK, PaulScott. I, too, have a regular job so my ability to reply is somewhat constrained
Let’s look at that link you provided (the 2009 Rand study). To summarize the summary, the report addresses: U.S. reliance on imported oil; indicates that energy issues have no relevance to terrorism (which is reason for much of our military outlays); links oil issues to global security issues (i.e., our security depends upon global energy security, not just our own), and recommends the following:
1) support international oil markets.
2) evaluating the policy prohibitions on new oil field development (drill, baby, drill!)
3) enhance the efficiency of permitting and licensing for new oil field development
4) impose excise taxes on oil to reduce consumption (already done!)
5) increase R&D to prove energy efficiency and alternate forms of energy development.
So, what’s not to like? It sounds like the “Bush Doctrine”.
For perspective and with particular relevance to recommendation (4), consider this:
1) Although the U.S. still imports 40-50% of it total CRUDE oil consumption, about 40% of that comes from Mexico and Canada, so it is not a geopolitical issue. In some cases, crude oil exports are offset by exports, because of geographical issues. Overall, U.S. reliance on imported oil is declining rapidly.
2) There have been huge developments with respect to the amount of recoverable oil in the U.S. Current estimates are that the U.S. See the report below – key takeaway: 1) the U.S. is estimated to have 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil; 2) the U.S. uses only 7 billion barrels per year. Add to that huge deposits of natural gas and methane hydrate. In sum, THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE oil and other fossil fuel consumption.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/05/01/technically-recoverable-oil/
In fact, the U.S. has now become a net exporter of petroleum products (in $-terms):
http://205.254.135.7/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5290
In fact, one of the best geopolitical policies the U.S. could adopt is the open up all oil development and crash the world price. This would deny the Middle East and North African countries the ability to fund terrorism as well as stymie Russia’s geopolitical policies against the U.S. It will also help address our huge debts and deficits if we can become dominant energy exporters.
As far as alternate energy R&D is concerned, no problem! I would love to see more extensive use of natural gas in transportation (cleaner burning) and fusion energy to produce electricity. To think that technologies such as bioethanol, wind and solar can just be spirited out of R&D and turned into profitable and eco-friendly businesses using taxpayer money, however, is “magical” thinking. Sadly, all those billions of taxpayer funds wasted on the Solyndras of the world (I use that as an illustrative example…there is a whole string of such failures) will be sitting in the banks of Democrat cronies instead of being applied to real, productive energy research and development.
Regarding your comment to Earl regarding energy company subsidies…are you serious? Do you really consider writing off business expenses from revenues to determine taxable profit a government subsidy? Please tell me this isn’t so.
Ymarsakar says,
“Paul, do you understand what I’m saying? What I am saying is that you, and the Left, are the cause of both the pollution, in the world and in the US, plus the environmental catastrophes produced by “Green” energy. Green meaning green backs, that is, for the rich and powerful like Al Gore.”
Since I asked a simple yes or no question and got this response in return, I don’t think you guys are worthy of my time. I have a lot of work to do getting people to switch to electric cars from internal combustion, so I’ll go back to doing that. You guys can talk among yourselves. I’ll take solace in the fact that all of you will be driving plug-in cars eventually. Once you try one and see how good they are and how efficient and low cost they are to operate, you’ll come to understand why they will be the preferred choice. Whether you think that now is irrelevant.
Good luck and good bye.
Ahh…the life of a missionary can be challenging.
http://youtu.be/MKZSqd5Y8nA
So much for “Game on!”
I noticed that he didn’t even answer any of my replies, including the one to his own link.
Ah well, abc…Zachriel…PaulScott, the list keeps growing.
Add another “shrimp” to the barbie” – he was not here for a discussion, as I pointed out – only to lecture. Assign him another set of initials…p.s. as he now is just another post script to thankfully, a short list of mad hatters.
Well, Paul’s response is approximately mine when someone wants to argue about the Trinity…..the difference is that I’m not trying to convince them that my religious beliefs are somehow robustly supported by all the empirical evidence and THEIRS are devoid of any support whatever.
There are none so blind as those who will not see……and we’ve just had another example of the species.
On the subject of the current economic viability of alternative power sources, it’s worthwhile noting that, even with huge chunks of taxpayer money, major purveyors of alternative power have gone broke. Obama, of course, could just have gambled on the wrong companies in the right industry, but these failures do not bode well for economically self-sustaining alternative energy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html
I love how smug you guys are. I’ve been driving on electricity for almost a decade now and paying very little for the privilege. Every time you guys go to the gas station and pay the man, I want you to think of me and my EV driving past without ever having to fill up with that poisonous garbage. As the price of your gas goes up, have fun paying for it.
Oh, and thanks for sharing your tax money so I can get all this stuff for free! You’re the best!
:~)
We do not live in a totalitarian country, yet, where someone like you, Scott, have the authority to command answers from me. Nor do I have any duty to answer your taunts or minor curiosities.
Let me remind you again of what you as of yet do not understand. Your utopia, Leftist and Green backed in nature, has yet to come to full fruition. It occupies no position of real dominance. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
The fact that you cannot handle a mere lack of interest in your self devoted utopian ideals, tells me that you lack something called moderation. You see that as a challenge, the fact that you cannot bait me into doing as you please. Well, the real world is like that. And until you bring an army with you, I’ll continue doing things my way and not your way.
I’ve been driving on electricity for almost a decade now and paying very little for the privilege.
You see, this is how aristocrats and totalitarian cannon fodder think. They’re not working the land, but they’re living it up, like Ayers, somehow. Based off the taxes on the peons and serfs, that is. The fact that the aristocrat thinks the food on their plate appears magically and has no idea of how the 99% of people live outside his mansion/castle, is a cliche. But it’s still a real problem in human affairs. A real problem environmentalist fanatics are the cause of, not the solution for.
The Left is evil because they were given a choice for profit and luxury at nobody else’s loss, but they chose instead to loot, rape, kill, and torture others for fun and mere profit. They enjoy seeing you suffer. They enjoy making you pay for their aristocratic fetishes and luxuries.
But let me tell you this. They lack the courage to face any of you personally. They’d prefer to work through their henchmen. Paul here feels relatively safe on the internet, because he can easily escape the consequences of his actions. If he had tried this junk against me in real life, the consequences would have been of far more immediate impact.
“I have a lot of work to do getting people to switch to electric cars from internal combustion, so I’ll go back to doing that.”
Btw, fair warning. I’ve invited Jehovah’s Witnesses in when they came to my door step. When someone like you comes to my door step trying to sell your government backed religion, you won’t like my response at all.
Ymarsakar, the funny thing is that you’ll be driving an EV eventually. I know it’s going to be a tough thing for you to do, given your miserable attitude about EVs today, but you’ll come around. Everyone will. And no one will “make” you do it, you’ll buy the car of your on free will.
I’m sorry you feel as you do about the subsidies, but you clearly don’t mind making me pay for your military actions on behalf of oil, and those are far more costly. You seem to be able to justify those with no problem, so maybe you can see how I justify using those same tax dollars for what I consider important technologies.
Came across this handy-dandy “green” list and wanted to share it. DOE can be substituted for D’oh!
Nevada Geothermal Power
Solyndra,
Ener1
Beacon Power
A123
Tesla Motors
Abound Solar
Iberdrola Renewables
Vestas Wind Systems
First Solar
Evergreen Solar
Spectrawatt
Solopower
Bright Source Energy
SunPower, after receiving $1.5 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs.
First Solar, after receiving $1.46 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs.
Solyndra, after receiving $535 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Ener1, after receiving $118.5 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Evergreen Solar, after receiving millions of dollars from the state of Massachusetts, filed for bankruptcy protection.
SpectraWatt, backed by Intel and Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Beacon Power, after receiving $43 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Abound Solar, after receiving $400 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Amonix, after receiving $5.9 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company), after receiving $178 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
A123 Systems, after receiving $279 million from DOE, shipped some bad batteries and is barely operating. It cut jobs.
Solar Trust for America, after receiving a $2.1-billion loan guarantee from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Nevada Geothermal, after receiving $98.5 million from DOE, warns of potential defaults in new SEC filings.
LightSquared – received a $267 million loan from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development Utilities Program to provide wireless broadband to 500 communities in 17 states. It was the largest loan in USDA history at the time,
It’s not subsidies I’m against. I’m against the existence of PS and the existence of PS’s allies. Let’s clear up that little misunderstanding first. Comprende Amigo boyo?
What, you want me to be dead? So ethical of you. What a sweetheart! You’re so funny. You want me dead, but you still want your subsidies. Typical Neanderthal thinking. You probably believe in a god, too.
Post #68
“Good luck and good bye”
Not only rude and a bore, but a liar as well.
Not quite like meat. 49% of the US electricity production is generated by coal. However, even when driving an electric car using electricity produced 100% by coal, the entire system (referred to as “well to wheel”) produces less green house gases then the average american gas powered car (24 MPG). In several regions of the country, the mix of energy production sources is quite clean. In the pacific northwest 80% of our power comes from hydro power, wind and solar…that number will go to 100% as the last remaining coal fired plant is shuttered. Additionally, electric cars get cleaner with age as more and more coal plants are converted to natural gas and other cleaner approaches to generating electricity. I have owned and driven my LEAF (net cost $23K after tax incentives) for a year…16K miles. $0.022 per mile vs my gas car at $0.24 cents per mile…10X cheaper on the fueling and the EV has essentially no maintenance…that save another $500 per year on average.
Here is a great study done by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html
Well, Paul Scott in #74 gave us the big raspberry kiss off.
See ya! Talk about low class. He started out well. Ended VERY poorly.
What can you say? People here in Book’s domain are not only very opinionated, but we’ve thought a great deal about our issues and we don’t budge very easily. I have to say, as well as I thought he started out, I am really disappointed at the way he ended. I’d like to chalk it up to frustration, but I’m afraid not. He let loose with a few little one liners even in the beginning – which he quickly apologized for; but those one liners appear to be his TRUE colors. By the end there, he’s got his full smug-on going, spreading insults like cowpies, telling us all what neanderthal knuckle-draggers we are.
If I were to visit Huffington Post or Daily Kos and defend my conservative, contrarian ideas… and I got fed up with so many people disagreeing with me, I hope that I would exit with more class.
Buh-bye, Mr. Scott!
*chuckles* it took him this long to figure it out? What a joke. He should have responded to Danny if he wanted to waste people’s time.
Devx, unfortunately the Left are like roach infested parasites. Even if you think they are gone, they aren’t. They keep coming back and can never stop. No such thing as a permanent farewell. Totemo zanen
Wow. A lot of posters already have their mind made up, including strong opinions about what kind of people drive an electric vehicle. (And somehow those opinions seem a little, well, condescending.) I can’t possibly address all the misinformation I see above, it’s simply too much.
First, a little context:
I drive an electric vehicle. I wasn’t planning on getting an electric vehicle, I simply fell in love with how they perform.
Yes, I am a liberal … and I pay my taxes, I vote, I own a gun, I’m eat meat, I’m patriotic (meaning, I believe in all the rights spelled out in the Constitution, not just the ones that happen to align with my beliefs), I pay my own bills with money that I’ve earned myself, I’ve helped dress a deer on more than one occasion, and I’m not a particularly smug person. And I’m not unusual.
Electric cars ARE cleaner. You can throw out the long-tailpipe theory, the coal-burning plants, etc. as why electric vehicles are just as bad as an ICE vehicle … but it’s simply not true. It SOUNDS good to say that, but it isn’t true. Plenty of well to wheel studies demonstrating that. And many people are becoming more and more self-sufficient (ahem, not just conservatives) and make their own power. Like me.
Oil is subsidized far more heavily than electric vehicles. No, you don’t get a tax credit for buying a gas car like I did for buying an electric vehicle. But my taxes would be much lower if I didn’t have to help pay for the costs this nation pays to bring gasoline to gas stations. It’s not even close to an even playing field. I’m not complaining about it – just pointing out the obvious.
I’m sure we can all agree that our dependency on foreign oil leaves us weaker. And hopefully we can all agree that oil is a limited resource. Unlike sunshine, we can’t ‘just make more’. Eventually we will use it up. So that brings me to a question…
Why does anyone CARE that I drive an electric vehicle? I am stunned by the number of people who feel that I’m attacking them and their way of life by driving electric. I happen to like electric. Gas engines aren’t going away. When you consider the money we all pay for oil subsidies, you know that I’m not getting a free ride (!). I wonder why the need for the posts I see above, for a little not particularly well thought out *musing* comparing EV drivers to people who only want to see their meat nicely packaged. (Seriously?? This whole thing started out by a condescending analogy and then people wonder why anyone with a differing view is defensive.)
There’s room on the road for multiple technologies. Something new is not an attack. Why is the conversation so polarized?
I think I’m missing something, are you guy Tea Party people?
Ymar, #74 read to me like someone’s ‘final word’ on the subject, though he didn’t actually say, “I’m done with this debate.”
I wondered why he refused to consider nuclear energy a viable and acceptable source of energy. In # 74 he refers to “poisonous garbage” energy sources, which tells you everything you need to know about where he stands.
The friend of mine who debates me in emails has moved over the years ever left, as I have moved ever to the right. What is amazing is that we can’t budge each other an inch. It can be frustrating. But he’s still the same kind and decent guy he’s always been. We just both firmly believe in our world-views and none of the arguments are convincing enough to cause movement. I can’t demonize the guy, not interested. He helps me understand that core 30% out there who aren’t manipulative and deceptive, but simply believe in a set of economic and cultural principles that I don’t. He’s not going to change; I’m not going to change.
Michael Thwaite, I don’t know that any label easily applies to Book nor to those of her readers who comment here. I’d say we enjoy reading Book’s posts and commenting because we are all generally in agreement with Book’s philosophy and viewpoints. My guess is that for about half of us, economic conservativism is more important; for the other half social and cultural conservatism is more important. But if you wanted to apply a label, we’d probably all say that, yes, we’re conservative. And we’d leave it at that.
It’s interesting that there appears to be a need to put a label on the Bookworm Groupies, as if, once that is done, everybody’s point of view can be neatly categorized into a box.
I read the article and have a number of issues with it. First off I am fully aware of the so-called pollutants related to energy product. Everything has environmental costs associated with it. I get my energy through a combination of nuclear and thin-film solar cells.
For those who are unaware and are criticizing coal power- I can almost guarantee that something in your house is made from the left over coal plants. It’s drywall (They use calcium hydroxide to scrub out the CO2). Now adays coal plants are relatively pollution free compared to older ones. If you have a chance, tour one built in the 2000′s.
The same can be said about people with gasoline. Most people don’t care, nor do they understand the environmental impacts of gasoline (Sans the gulf oil spill or Valdez spill- people not close to it tend to forget it in a year or two). If you asked a normal person on the street, or even a non-science person, they wouldn’t know about oil. or the response would be- “It’s drilled from the ground, dirt is removed and I pump it into the gas tank”
At the same point, go to a refinery- they are pretty dirty places to say the least. Just google earth one. They are like a zone of death. I have toured quite a number, and there aren’t really any trees, grass, or green growing in the refinery. Working as an engineer and having colleagues in the oil field, I have heard stories that are kind of WTF moments (spraying a highly carcinogenic substance on the rattlesnakes to get them away from the reactor, chlorine gas leaks, even one guy dissolved after an explosion- he fell into a sulfuric acid tank, etc). I can think of one plant in another country off the top of my head, they had too much Sulfur so they were dumping it in a pile- the wind took it and blew it in the ocean and more or less poisoned the beach. I google earthed it and all I have to say is WOW, you can literally see a change in the water color around the plant. That is the best/most striking example of dispersion I have ever seen. I can appreciate it from a math perspective, but am also horrified by it as a scuba diver.
I would say that in general EVs do run cleaner, minus some really cherry picked data (if you take a volt and compare it to a Prius in a old plant coal generating regions). The point is your catalytic convertor on your car is not as good as a large, well engineered and maintained pollution prevention equipment at a power plant. The CC on a car is meant to convertor NOX, CO and incomplete reactions to N2 and CO2. CO2 still leaves the tailpipe. If you really, really wanted to make a coal plant clean, you could scrub the crap out of the exhaust so only water vapor leaves and sell the calcium carbonate to other places. The capability is there to make electrical plants cleaner, but you can not have a large amount of regular car NOT emit CO2, it’s chemically and mechanically impossible
“Jolt! The Impending Dominance of
the Electric Car and Why America Must Take Charge,” Jim Billmaier.
• We shouldn’t subsidize their adoption.
Billmaier estimates that there are still $12,000 in subsidies related to every gas- powered car sold. “I believe in capitalism, but in order for capitalism to work, you have to have a level playing field. You don’t have a level playing field right now,” he says.
I’m pleased I found this link. It’s a assessment of the total tax relief on the gasoline consumed by the average US car. It’s higher than the $7,500 currently available and still less than the proposed $10,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Billmaier
That’s great guys. However, how about instead of a generalized link to studies you provide some analysis thereof as well. For example, don’t just talk about $12,000 in subsidies per car sold, tell us what those subsidies are. In addition,
I recommend that you provide perspective to help make your case.
For example, we know that refineries are dirty. Some economic activity will be dirty, even if they get cleaned over time. The question is whether that kind of pollution can be contained and diminished over time, as it has. The environment today is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago and will continue to get cleaner as new and proven technologies come on line.
However, in balance, you should also address the dirt that is associated with the so-called “clean” technologies. To say there isn’t any is magical thinking. We addressed the issue of lithium production above. One of the points made is that there aren’t enough rare earth metals in the world to power all the batteries that would be needed for electric car fleets. Also, there is the pollution caused by wind turbine and solar panel production in China. Or, is that out of sight, out of mind?
http://www.earthtimes.org/green-blogs/green-living/chinese-solar-panel-plant-shut-pollution-protests-21-Sep-11/
MichaelThwaite, your link is to a wiki entry for a businessman in the electric car industry. No other information is given.
One recent commentator tried to make the case that expense write-offs for mining and drilling were “government subsidies”. That kind of fuzzy thinking doesn’t work here.
Bonnie, we really don’t care whether or not you drive an electric vehicle. Go for it! Just don’t impose your druthers on others. Electric cars, right now, are very heavily subsidized and we and many other taxpayers object to that.
However, some people at this blog have claimed that conventionally powered vehicles are also heavily subsidized. Now, that may be true for Obama’s Cash for Clunkers program and GM bail-out, but when Liberals and Eco-utopians are asked to itemize how conventional vehicles are subsidized, we just get vague generalities or complete mischaracterizations (e.g., operating cost deductions amount to “government subsidies). So, be specific.
There’s a reason why the Prius is named the “Pious”.
As has been pointed out before, when conservatives and libertarians prefer to be vegetarian, drive electric cars or stop smoking, they just do it. When Liberals prefer to be vegetarian, drive electric cars or stop smoking, they insist on imposing their values on everybody else.
Oh, and one more point: how in the deuces can anyone claim that gas consumption is subsidized when close to $0.50 per gallon (on average) is state and federal tax?
I see the reinforcements have arrived. A little bit late, however, although that might be due to the zealousness of their boss.
Somebody linked your B post to an environmentalist base, Book, and now they’re coming in and scouting us out. I find such tee toddler like semi-military behavior amusing. If you can’t win the public debate with one guy, switch him out with another guy. Maybe they’ll be nastier and more intimidating, like that internet clown, or maybe they’ll appear to be “reasonable” so as to do the union trick of “either deal with me, the reasonable one, or deal with the mad dog Black Panther over there”.
I like this analogy of meat to electric cars. Here is how I see it:
You are free to eat meat or not (assuming you can afford it)
You are free to drive an EV or not (assuming you can afford one)
You are free to consider the source of the meat (local, free-range, grass feed, kosher) or just buy the cheapest.
You are free to consider the source of the electricity (wind, solar, geothermal,…) or just buy the cheapest.
Maybe we have very justifiable reasons for my decisions, or maybe we just make them because I feel like it. Either way they are our own to make and there is no need to justify them to anyone.
“With that in mind, can someone explain to me cars that are entirely electric, … need to be plugged into an outlet, in exactly the same way as that energy sucking computer or electric dryer.”
Since you asked, as pointed out above electricity does not come from magic pixie dust and neither does gasoline. Both of these have sources that you are free to consider or not. Choice is a great thing. Do you attack people for using “energy sucking computers or electric dryers”, of course not; so why not allow them to use it for anything they want? Assuming they pay for it, I don’t see why it would upset anyone.
Mike Devx/Danny, I’m not surprised. Nor am I amazed. Even if you could convince these individuals of what you speak and they tried to take action, what action do you expect them to be able to do? They have no power amongst the Left and certainly no influence either. If the Left could be changed from its course from the bottom up, it would already have happened when Book, Neo Neocon, and a whole bunch of other former Democrats realized what was really happening. It hasn’t happened yet, because the Left as an organization is very good on counter-measures against counter-revolutionaries.
Thus internet debate is meaningless even if you win. Because “winning” does nothing to stop the Left. “Winning an argument” does nothing because the Left is compartmentalized in such a fashion that it doesn’t matter whether their people at the bottom are compassionate or not. They can use either kind to fuel the fires of greed and war. Losing an internet argument does nothing to demoralize the social groups enthrall to Democrat or Leftist money. Perhaps if you did so in front of a crowd, physically like Breitbart did, you would have a greater effect, but the good thing about the internet is precisely the fact that you and they cannot exert their wills on each other.
But we’re not living on the internet. We’re living in a real life soon to be totalitarian nation. And that’s a cake of a whole different color.
This discussion should not be about political affiliation or anything of that matter or if people are environmentalists or not. Where I stand is as a libertarian and a well chemical engineer who has experience in quite a number of different types of industries and it’s good to keep up to date on current technology. Kind of teaches you to be a jack of all trades.
The whole premise of the article is that people buying EVs don’t know where their energy is coming from, that is false. There are 5 types/markets for EV buyers, currently we are not past the early adopter phase for EVs so it’s pretty easy to pin point them
1. Very wealthy (buy the cars just cause)
2. People who squeeze every penny when it comes to money
3. High-tech type people (early adopters/nerd/geeks, etc)
4. Environmentalists
5. People who want something different than a regular car due to a reliability failure or whatnot (extremely small amount of people)
Out of these 5 groups, 3 are most likely to have some sort of renewable energy. 2 out of 5 will know where their exact energy is coming from that instant (there’s an app for your Iphone- sad that I know that), 3 out of 5 may have a kill switch for electricity installed in their house.
Out of these, who would care about the rebate? Not the very wealthy, not the environmentalists, and not the techies. For those 3 it’s hell or high water.
With that being said, there are advantages to subsidizing EVs using the following logic.
1. We can agree that no significant amount of refineries have been built in the US in the last 30 + years, upgrades, but not new ones
2. The refineries only have a finite capacity (you can’t put 3 gallons in a 2 gallon container- same goes for multi-ton refinery equipment)
3. The US population has increased- gone up 38% since 1980
4. The amount of fuel per car has been pretty stagnant since 1980 (about 700 gallons per year)- don’t know the reason why, could be driving more, who knows. Actually fuel economy has gotten 6.5% better for the same cars
So say- made up numbers mind you. 100 million gallons and 50 million cars are used per day in 1980, so present day you have 100 million gallons and 69 million cars and you take a car out and replace it with an EV, with enough EVs on the road, that puts less pressure on the refineries to run at 100% capacity. Any little pebble, hurricane, computer virus, act of god, etc, etc makes it so that the cost of gasoline spikes. If enough EV are on the road, it should lower gas prices and allows wiggle room for the refineries so that if a few go down for a hurricane, the others can pick up the slack- right now each refinery is running at 95%-100% capacity.
It’s really enlightened self interest to get OTHER people to purchase EVs. No one is forcing anyone to get one, but if you have a F350 supercab, and your neighbor drives a towncar 20 miles to work each day, it would be in your best interest to convince that person to buy an EV, because it means more gas for you. I did the math, it’s less then 1 penny per tax payer per EV and over the course the EV saves 3,600 gallons of gas
Speaking about running at capacity, If you really want to see what happens and how dangerous it is when you run at 100% all the time, put futuremark on your computer and run it 24/7 for 363 days a year (typical refineries may shut off 2-3 days).
There’s no real future in arguing with religious folks. I made the point above using my own personal religious commitments, and I’ll repeat myself….someone with a religious commitment is not going to abandon it because of any sort of empirical argument. If things start looking bad for them, many folks in that category just get mad, call names, make condescending statements, go away, etc. (see #68).
Not telling anyone what to do, of course….just making an observation, so you don’t carry false hopes into the battle.
P.S. Dan5: Care to share the reason that U.S. industrialists haven’t built any new refineries in the last 30+ years? That’s ANOTHER reason the “green religion” (combined with state power) makes those of us with a different religion a little crazy.
“ No one is forcing anyone to get one, ”
That’s what they said about national healthcare. If you like your plan, you can keep it. In reality, government power and taxes means the government “is” “forcing” “people” to get one.
People don’t want to understand this because they support the politicians that are forcing people to buy from their cronyist capitalist thugish pals circulating around DC. They don’t call em Beltway Bandits for nothing.
Ymarsakar 97:
When we debate somebody like these on the internet, mostly nobody wins.
When you practice in your martial arts classes, nobody “wins.”
What you and the debaters do get, however, is practice and exposure to new information and techniques; in that way we and you do win.
And sometimes we make an impression on a fringe leftie, who may start to wonder. We might even get another Bookworm.
When I was much younger, I was slightly left without realizing, or caring. Over the years, the more I learned from all sides, I sorted out and thought about what I heard and read, and moved to a more definite position, in my case more conservative and more sure of my position.
Y, go with G-d.
I have far better sources of information than random environmentalists popping up at a blog.
The days when arguing with Leftists was considered by me to be an educational experience is 10 years gone and past. There’s only so much one needs to know about human vices before one can pretty much figure out the rest without looking at the daily vice squad tally.
Dan5 – that was an excellent, thoughtful response.
I have to echo Earl, though. It sounds as if the issue that you are highlighting is one of refinery capacity. So why not expand? Or, at least, get rid of these ridiculous EPA-driven regional blend requirements that are one of the big reasons why refinery capacity is so strained?
Obama is the one that decides where to expand and which company gets to expand to, not Dan5 or Dan1 or Dan51.
Basic, simple, Occam’s razor here.
The big issue with building more refineries is the “unknowns” or volatility of the raw materials.
With gasoline prices there seems to be high resistance around $4.50/gallon and on the flip side the business is not profitable when gasoline is $1/gallon (at that point it’s not the raw materials that make up the cost, but the refinery and worker costs). Ideally you would want gasoline in the $3/gallon range in the US for the refinery to be a “good” investment. I know certain refineries in 2007/2008 that were losing money due to the run up on oil. Right now, with current gasoline prices and oil prices, one of the refineries scheduled to be built does not make economic sense (payback period is a long time, it costs 3 billion). It is also a very long process in order to have an oil refinery built (regardless of the paperwork BS), the physical act of building one can take 5/8/10 years depending on how big refinery is designed to be. Alot can change in 5 years (who knows, maybe cold fusion will be a breakthrough, the sun could explode, aliens could invade… joking about aliens, you get the point)
There are other reasons besides the EPA regulations. Refineries are typically multi-billion dollar projects and require a just right location; near a large river or ocean, not too cold, ample transportation infrastructure, large area of undeveloped acreage, population to distribute, no bridges or other things to inhibit water traffic, preferably in a non-natural disaster prone zone, etc, etc. The issue is finding such an area. The “best” area would be the east coast, south of NY, but north of SC. The issue is finding ocean front property in that area WITHOUT having residents complain. There is a general “Not in my backyard” philosophy when it comes to building any industrial equipment.
Also comparing EVs to healthcare is not a good analogy. Health care has to be provided for humanitarian reasons, for good or worse. No one “needs” a car to survive.
If someone is having a heart attack the hospital can not refuse service if the person does not have the means to pay, or stiffs the bill. This causes the hospital eat 100 K in costs, but there are also other abuses that people do that screws over hospitals. My thing is if you don’t have insurance or the means to pay you should not go to private hospital ABC, which I believe is where we are headed. I think in the end the government health insurance may cause a schism in terms of healthcare (hospitals accepting government healthcare (poor care), private hospitals/private insurance (good care), concierge doctors/cash (great care)
Also just some more info on the DOE loans to the car companies Tesla took 12 times less than Ford and Tesla , as per Bloomberg news, is scheduled to pay back the loan on schedule and have sold more 50 times more EVs and plug in EVs than Ford. I believe people are buying Teslas because of the performance, space, and looks- most would buy it anyway, it just happens to be an EV also
Also Poster 79, Sadie cites Tesla as a bad DOE loan. I disagree. I think you should put in Ford instead of Tesla. At least Tesla made a ground up EV with a range comparable to a normal filled gas tank.
Here’s a summary of the car companies , loan amounts and sales, and range and dollar amount per mile
Ford, 5.9 Billion, 12 EVs sold, 350 semi-confirmed, 73 mile range… $230,000 loan per/mile of battery
Nissan, 1.6 Billion, about 10,000 EVs sold, 70 mile range…..$2,285 loan amount per mile of battery
Fisker, 550 Million, about 1,000 plug-in hybrids sold, 32 mile electric range…8,000 loan amount per mile of battery
Tesla 465 Million, 2,000 roadsters sold + 14,000 semi-confirmed (each putting at least 5 to 40 K down), 300 mile range….$96 loan amount per mile of battery
I also may add the Focus EV built by Ford, in which the took out Billions in loans for is NOT a ground up EV like Nissan, Mitsubishi, Tesla, or Fisker. Ford took 5.9 Billion dollars and they offered a car that costs 40 K. Any skilled ECE/Mech E engineer could do that to a normal Focus for less money; even without getting a rebate (battery and motors for that are about 20 K, a normal focus costs around 20 K, – 8K for resale value of engine and other ICE components, brings the grand total to 32 K. People have been doing what ford did for years without a DOE loan- actually since the 1960′s.
Also their C-Max energi is a joke, and just there for the rebate. 20 mpg plug-in, then clicks on the gas engine. Apparently people at Ford have not done any research. Back in 2006ish, people where doing that without any incentive to their Prii and getting 30-40 mile plug in range (it was a hymotion system, a 10 K aftermarket system- which I may add a Prius with that system gets better gas mileage, longer plug in range and costs less than the projected C-max energi costs). Unfortunately Hymotion was bought out by A123, but they still could sell it if they wanted to.
Government Motors, Ford, or Tesla, the point isn’t which is better. The point is that in a totalitarian society, controlling people’s economic options on what they can or cannot buy, is an assumed policy. It’s not up to a vote. It’s not decided based upon popularity.
Dan5: “There are other reasons besides the EPA regulations.”
You’re correct that nothing happens (or doesn’t happen) for a single reason. But the facts are pretty plain: BEFORE the EPA regulations, refinery capacity in the U.S. rose with demand. Since “green” and “government” got together, we have no new refineries, no new nuclear plants, increasingly stifling regulation, etc.
One of these things, maybe two, could be explained in terms that don’t seem paranoid, but when one thing after another gets piled on….and all of them pushing us in the same direction, then we’re justified in looking at the results – more taxes, less hydrocarbon fuel, more expensive electricity, etc. – as intended, not simply a by-product of the various rationales we’re offered.
As for Ford, it appears to me (after a pretty cursory overview) that none of that $5.9 Billion would have been necessary except for Federal regulation — especially the one requiring that CAFE be raised to 35 mpg BEFORE the natural advance of technology makes it possible.
If the politicians weren’t making decisions they have no right to make — choosing this industry over that, and new technology over the tried and true — we’d all be paying less money for our gasoline and electricity, “early adopters” of electric vehicles would be paying more money, and our country would be a lot more like what the Founders had in mind.
Most of that stimulus money actually goes to pay the unions. The unions are Democrat backers. Obama and Democrat politicians benefits. They divert tax money to the unions. The unions divert the paychecks of their slave workers to Democrat campaign funding. Everybody wins. Except you, the taxpayer that don’t get a say in anything.
Against the backdrop of history, the conservative side doesn’t come out too well. Just ask Copernicus and Galileo. Heck, if conservatives had their way, there never would have been a Renaissance. Flat-earthers? Not much traction there. Fast forward to the 18th century and the American Revolution. If you were a conservative, you supported the crown. My favorite founding fathers were absolute, balls-out progressives. In more recent times- how about those women getting the vote. Good conservatives agree that most of our modern problems began the day women got the right to vote. And if there’s something else I hate, it’s that damn eight-hour workday, forty-hour workweek, and workplace safety regs. We all know that being able to work people to death and killing them on the job is what real freedom is all about, right? But back to EVs. Been driving them and running my house off PV for about ten years. What got me started was shortly after I had my dream truck engine built by Hollywood Machine in Pasadena, my kid got sick with the asthmatic bronchitis. I soon learned that kids growing up in the LA basin have a 15% decreased lung capacity due to the bad air here (that’s from the American Lung Association). One day I saw my kid standing at the back of the truck, hacking his lungs out, and I noticed that the exhaust pipe was almost big enough for him to stick his head in. At that moment my lifelong love of the internal combustion engine died, and NOBODY loved the 350 V8 more than me. Sure, I knew the ICE engine wasted 85% of the energy in the fuel, but I guess I was blinded by my American exceptionalism. Much better to waste that energy creating heat and noise instead of actually moving stuff, right? Ask any physicist what the most efficient way to convert energy to motion is, and he will tell you “the electric motor”. Even if there’s no compelling argument to curtail (or even conserve) energy, which seems to be the opinion here, please tell me why wasting something is good? Real conservatives know that, in the long run, conservation ALWAYS saves money.
In ten years, the only maintenance my cars have required is new tires, and windshield-wiper fluid.
My fuel cost is .03/mile.
Finally, my favorite former CIA director, Jim Woolsey, is on record saying, “The electrification of the U.S. transportation sector has become a matter of national security”.
But I’m sure y’all think he’s a left-wing wacko for saying so.
Never a dull moment, but lots of dim ones with the EPA.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today denied the American Petroleum Institute s (API s) request to eliminate mandates for biofuels that do not exist, and the agency continues to fine refiners for not using them.
EPA s mandate is out of touch with reality and forces refiners to pay a penalty for not using imaginary biofuels, said API Director of Downstream and Industry Operations Bob Greco. EPA s unrealistic mandate is effectively an added tax on making gasoline.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine the mandated volume of cellulosic biofuels each year at the projected volume available. However, in 2011 EPA required refineries to use 6.6 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels even though, according to EPA s own records, none were commercially available. EPA today denied API s 2011 petition for reconsideration of the mandate and continues to mandate these nonexistent biofuels this year.
The fact that EPA continues to mandate these biofuels that do not exist is regulatory absurdity and bad public policy, Greco said.
API represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies, leaders of a technology-driven industry that supplies most of America s energy, supports 9.2 million U.S. jobs and 7.7 percent of the U.S. economy, delivers more than $86 million a day in revenue to our government, and, since 2000, has invested more than $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives.
So long as the Green electric vehicle riding aristocracy get their daily allotment of Sugar from Obama and the feds, they don’t care, Sadie. That’s the aristocratic fetish people have forgotten about.
It’s like I said….everyone was afraid of the Catholic church becoming an established religion. Who guessed that it was the “green theologians” who would be the first to capture the coercive mechanisms of the Federal government?
What else but religious fervor explains a requirement for an ingredient which DOES NOT EXIST!?
[...] have been following with interest the running comment thread on my post asking about whether electric cars are actually cleaner, or if they just shift pollution outside of the consumer’s view. Very quickly, and probably [...]
I am biding my time to properly respond to Dan5, who deserves a well-thought out response.
But, Gasoline, you just ain’t there yet, my man. Your caricatures of conservatives are somewhat…cartoonish! It’s beyond gullible. I am sure that you can do better than that.
Yeah, we’re going to dig up Dead People and put them on the witness stand as our expert testimony. Sounds like something the Chicago PAC does to increase voter turnout…
The thing I noticed about Gasoline’s comments in #112 is that all of his decisions were by his own free choice. Is he an advocate, then, of forcing the rest of us to follow in his path? Government force, rather than persuasion and free choice? His comments are unclear on this.
As Danny said in #117, his stereotypes of conservatives is cartoonish. Some examples:
> Against the backdrop of history, the conservative side doesn’t come out too well.
Au contraire! For every valid progressive idea such as the women’s right to vote, there are a hundred other progressive ideas that should never have seen the light of day. Conservatives generally argue prudence and caution against unintended consequences. Gasoline is cherry picking.
> Sure, I knew the ICE engine wasted 85% of the energy in the fuel, but I guess I was blinded by my American exceptionalism.
What a strange sentence. What is he saying about himself – about the man he used to be? What an incredible level of self-loathing and hatred of his former self to express, isn’t it? The disdain is incredible. And now he is on his high horse, extending that hatred to everyone who continues to believe in the things that he used to believe in. We’re used to seeing that smug arrogance among the left though – we document it here all the time.
> Finally, my favorite former CIA director, Jim Woolsey, is on record saying, “The electrification of the U.S. transportation sector has become a matter of national security”
A deeply unconservative statement. I’d have to read other statements of his to rank him, but THAT comment is among the most disgusting I’ve ever read. I believe in freedom and liberty, and what Woolsey is talking about is taking all choice and freedom away from us. In the name of national security. The logical result of such arguments is the police state.
Make no mistake: I would be thrilled to see our use of oil and coal end, in favor of other forms of energy. But at this point, none of those other forms of energy that are available can provide the kind of mass-produced energy that 350 million people civilized people want.
So the solution is for all of us to be forced to live more poorly? I proclaim: Screw every person who intends to force that upon me. I have no intention of going gently into that dark night for humanity, where we deliberately regress backwards in any way from civilization towards barbarism. Never! Never! And why do most of those advocating forced restrictions such as these also tend to advocate drastic world depopulation? There is a deep hatred of humanity at work here that must be fought.
Gasoline doesn’t go that far in his comments, but his bitter toss-off about ‘American Exceptionalism’ comes from that movement’s philosophic background.
Who is the conservationist when it came to building their residence, George W. Bush or Al Gore? Anyone who examines that finds the answer with utmost ease. And it isn’t Al Gore, whose every personal habit is the polar opposite of conservation. And he wants to force all the “proles” to bend to his will in so many ways in forced lifestyle changes, while he changes not one thing, except for planting a few trees and “trading carbon credits” against the massive energy expenditures of his own everyday life. What a disgusting hypocrite.
I prefer to keep my A/C at 82. But there are days I dial it down to 78, or even lower, because I simply want, on those days, the additional comfort, and I’m willing to pay for it. Anything wrong with that?
I use kitchen flourescents and the one light I keep on at night is a CFL. But I read a LOT, and when I read, I switch on the incandescents because I vastly prefer the “flavor and warmth quality” of that light compared to the CFL, even though the heat that they generate irritates me. Again, it’s a trade-off, and it’s my choice. By the way, the CFL disappears in the winter, when I don’t mind the heat generated by my favorite light bulbs. It does irritate me to run the dryer and the oven in the summer.
If I were to derive great pleasure from owning and driving a 65 Mustang, and waste the gas for the unadulterated joy of tooling around town in that car – if that were my primary joy – who is ANYONE to say I’m wrong or to criticize me? I don’t – but I also don’t criticize someone who does. There are many things about life that aren’t just about cost-value analysis, and to the extent that each of us gets to take pleasure in things purely for their pleasure, I say more power to you. (Yes, that pun was deliberate)
I love french fries, but I can eat them only rarely due to diabetes. When I do, I want the real thing. If I lived in Mayor Bloomberg’s New York City, I couldn’t have the real thing. Why not? It’s a taste treat for me and I should be able to get the real thing when I want it. There isn’t one acceptable reason to me why I shouldn’t be able to.
And on I could go. Much of this is not directly related to Gasoline’s comments, but to the underlying idea that we should all be forced to live restricted lifestyles for our own good. Screw that, and to all those who believe that, screw you. I believe in progress. There has been progress, and there will continue to be progress. One day we will look upon oil the way we look upon whale oil. But that day is not today, nor is it tomorrow. We’re not there yet.
Explanation:
Ideology trumps.
Dan5 – some questions: why the requirement for “large rivers or oceans” for refineries? You don’t need much water for the refining process and the historical reason for location near bodies of water was transportation (there are many, many refineries located on inland waterways, btw). Today, pipelines are used to transport refined petroleum products.
Here’s a good article that addresses why a large refinery complex in the Northeast is shutting down: none of the problems cited in the article refer to problems that can’t be fixed (including low demand resulting in low profitability or regulatory requirements for blending of fuels).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/04/120404-northeast-us-refinery-closures-gas-prices/
Regarding “unknowns”…there are always unknowns but petroleum refining has far fewer unknowns than electric car manufacturing, simply because we’ve been doing it longer. In an earlier post, I cited the problems associated with lithium mining, for example.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on using natural gas to power vehicles.
I detect a lot of fear here, and I wish I could do something about it because when people are scared, they make very poor decisions. A lot of people here rail against “the government”. It’s your government. It’s a reflection of you. If it’s a bad one, that’s what you deserve due to your failure to engage in the process. If you really prefer no government interference, you should move to Somalia. RE: Consumption VS. “Forced To Live More Poorly”- This is a false argument. I posit that this country could cut consumption by about 20% easily, with no drop in our standard of living whatsoever, but some people are willing to fight for the right to be stupid. You can rail against the socialism (that, curiously, has not taken hold though I’ve been warned about it for about fifty years now) and all the other boogeymen that FOX and the RNC feed to you, but when all is said and done, consumption will not fill your void- despite what your teevee is telling you.
Gasoline, what on earth are you going on about?
Well, Gasoline, you proved my insights correct in #122, as to where you really were coming from.
In particular you said in 122:
> It’s your government. It’s a reflection of you. If it’s a bad one, that’s what you deserve due to your failure to engage in the process. If you really prefer no government interference, you should move to Somalia.
In truth, it’s not my government, nor is it yours. At least not individually. I respect the result of the vote, no matter how misguided I think the current majority may be. I tell people all the time – here and elsewhere – that Obama is merely a symptom. I really do prefer no “government interference”, but I’m not moving to uncivilized Somalia. My definition of government interference would not match yours. I do see a place for government regulation and a fair free market playing field. But I would advocate a far more limited government than you.
You see fear. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with fear. You do not value your individual freedom and dignity, granted to you either by Nature or by God, the way that I do. It’s a fundamental difference between us. It is why you see fear where there is no fear. I do not fear your Statism. I do detest it.
Actually, to Gasoline’s point, the U.S. (and its antecedent colonies) have experimented with socialism and/or its variants before: the Puritans, the Wilson Administration, Hoover & FDR administrations, the Carter Administration and, now, the Obama Administration.
Before Obama, each experiment was an unmitigated disaster which, when reversed, resulted in economic booms. In fact, I cannot think of any country that prospered under socialism. I don’t know whether the Obama experiment will end in 2013 or not, but the end-result – stagnation, dispair, degradation and decay – will be no different than has happened under any other socialist model.
Next on Gasoline 122:
> I posit that this country could cut consumption by about 20% easily, with no drop in our standard of living whatsoever, but some people are willing to fight for the right to be stupid.
It is interesting to me that you say “this country” could cut consumption by 20%. The word choices that people make indicate their philosophy. You do NOT say that every person in this country could cut their consumption by 20% with no cut in their standard of living. You DO say “the country” could. Consider the difference.
I agree that the people of this country COULD cut their consumption (on the average) by 20% with – possibly – no decrease in their standard of living. Perhaps a minor decrease is more likely. But that would require them to apply an intense amount of RIGOR to every aspect of their daily lives. And they are simply focused on other things. And you call them “stupid”. No, they are not stupid. They simply have other priorities than engaging in such an intense campaign.
And I would add, they might not suffer a decrease in their standard of living, but they would most likely have to deal with a number of changes. I suspect you would have them raise their A/C in summer and lower the thermostat in winter, and accomodate that with changes in the clothing they wear. (That is what I do.) Well, that is a CHANGE in lifestyle. It may not mean a drop in their standard of living; but it is change nevertheless. You would likely have them plan fewer trips in the car, to be more efficient. (That also is what I already do.) Again, we are talking about significantly increased planning – a change. Perhaps you are talking about doubling all the insulation in the house, adding more efficient venting; perhaps you would have the kids bicycle to all events rather than having the SUV Mommy Van drive them everywhere. I’m not sure of your specifics. But they likely all involve significant CHANGE.
I’ve no objection at all to such advocacy! I object to the government force involved in the idea that because such policies have energy benefits, then we must force them upon everyone. The benefits do not outweigh the costs in the loss of natural human freedom and dignity. As you can tell from my prior posts, I resent the loss of natural human dignity and freedom mightily. There is no utilitarian benefit that is worth their loss.
@Mike Devx,
Perhaps a 20% reduction in oil consumption does not involve a significant change in lifestyle.
Consider a small example with a 2009 Toyota Corolla. You can buy this vehicle with a 1.8 L engine and get combined efficiency of 30 mpg, or you can get the “upgraded” 2.4L engine with 25 mpg. So the smaller engine is 20% more efficient, and, I would argue, does not involve a significant change in lifestyle. The acceleration in both vehicles is less than 10 seconds 0-60 mph.
If one accepts that argument that we burn too much oil in the USA (for issues ranging from pollution to balance of foreign trade), than it might make sense to encourage people to buy the smaller engine.
Unfortunately, the marketers have managed to position the larger engine as an “upgrade” and people feel that it is the better one to buy. This idea of “upgrade” may stem from experiences in the 1970′s when the “average” 0-60 acceleration was 14 seconds and some cars required 20 seconds from 0-60. So under that condition, the larger engine might rightly be seen as an upgrade. But the American marketplace has long settled in on sub 10 seconds 0-60 as been the right level of acceptability.
So should there be any effort to encourage people to be 20% more fuel efficient? There seems to be very little down side in this example. In fact, the small engine is less expensive and people may be buying the larger engine based on bad information.
Later
John C. Briggs
In addition to John Brigg’s comment, most folks could achieve a 15%-20% efficiency savings by employing hypermiling techniques. I drive this way all the time and I get over 5 miles per kWh with my LEAF. This is the equivalent of about 170 miles per gallon. The best description of hypermiling I’ve ever seen is here: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/gastips/hypermiler.asp.
These are common sense techniques for the most part, but a couple of additions I teach are to always allow plenty of time to get where you are going. This enables you to drive calmly so you don’t feel pressured to speed, etc. Also, it’s important to ignore those who tailgate you as they are trying to intimidate you into driving faster than you intend. As long as you are driving within the posted speed limit, equal to, or faster than the minimum and less than the maximum, no one can tell you to drive differently. They will go around you eventually.
Driving this way is much safer, too. Most crashes occur from a combination of speeding and tailgaiting. Whenever there is a crash, thousands of other drivers are then impacted by having to stop and sit in a huge traffic jam as things get sorted out. If more people hypermiled, there would be fewer crashes and therefore everyone would drive their commute at a higher over all average speed, but with much more efficiency.
@Paul Scott,
Thanks for the support here.
However, I was trying to think of examples of energy saving that required “zero” change in lifestyle. I am afraid that driving slower will be seen as a significant change in lifestyle.
Of course, this all begins with whether or not people agree there is a “problem to solve.” If people don’t think there is a problem to solve, the improvements are moot. There is no point in trying to fix something that is not a problem.
Later,
John C. Briggs
John Briggs, I understand that people don’t want to change their lifestyles, but unfortunately, this is necessary in order to reduce the waste we see in our country. Our vehicle fleet is grossly inefficient to begin with, and we compound this problem by driving inefficiently. As you state, there are things that can be done to eliminate waste without changing your lifestyle, but some acknowledgement of lifestyle as being the problem would help a lot.
To be clear, when I hypermile, it does not seriously impact the time I spend in my commute. If traffic is heavy, there is no impact on time, but if traffic is light on the freeway, it might take me an extra 3-4 minutes to go the 14 miles to work. Since I allow for that time, it’s not a big deal.
You are absolutely correct that if a person doesn’t see that they are part of the problem, then there is very little to be done. But, given the cost of gas, more people are at least looking into how they can save, and this is a particularly easy way of doing so.
@Paul Scott,
I take your points, but there are other things that help as well.
If the shape of the car is changed so that the drag coefficient is decreased from 0.30 to 0.25, then the aerodynamic efficiency is increased by 20% with no change required by the driver. That is a big win and one that more and more manufacturers (Mercedes-Benz being one of them) are working hard to grab that advantage.
The only possible compromise, might be the look of the vehicle. But otherwise the vehicle and its operation remains the same.
So, should we be encouraging manufacturers to produce vehicles with lower drag coefficients? If so, what form should that encouragement take?
Later
John C. Briggs
The hypermiling link has some good information, PaulScott, Thank you. I’d mark many suggestions there merely as “efficient driving”, and they seemed like generally good ideas. Some of the others are actually very unusual and deserve to go under the more esoteric title of “hypermiling”: Going above and beyond.
I’ve always wondered about A/C vs rolled down windows while highway driving. A few years ago I saw arguments that the A/C was more efficient. Seems that the correct answer now is, it depends.
I’ve already said my piece concerning statements such as “this is necessary to reduce the waste we see in our country.” I’ll just say the shortest repetitive response I can: “Frugality is admirable but nothing is *necessary*. Don’t tread on me! My freedom is more precious than your utilitarian desire for government force.” We could be allies if you’d give up your desire for force; or maybe if I gave up my desire for freedom and dignity. I don’t think either of us will give up what we value, however.
@John Briggs, you are correct that aerodynamics (coefficient of drag) is important. So is light weighting. Between the two, we can save a lot of energy. Driving characteristics aside, this is the lowest of low hanging fruit. Of course, a rational, civil society would be full of people demanding efficient vehicles and driving them efficiently, but we don’t have that, so we do the best we can with the people we have.
I would add that long term, I continue to hold great hope for nuclear fusion power – not fission – as the next big civilization-changing event. It will be up there with the invention of agriculture and the printing press as a civilization-changing event.
It may be a pipe dream, but I don’t believe so. God would I love to still be alive when we unleash our technological mastery of fusion power. To be a living witness to the transformation would be incredible.
If we solve it, then the concept of energy as a scarce, costly commodity will cease to exist. EVERY other energy generation technique will become a small, niche market suitable only for specific unusual conditions. Within fifty years, every person’s use of energy will quadruple – or go up 10X, or 20X? – and we won’t think a thing about it or be troubled in the least at all.
There is nothing evil in the use of energy. If the cost of energy were to drop by 90% or 95%, the transformational effect on our civilizations across the world would be nearly beyond imagining.
Current estimates are that we in the USA have enough oil, gas and coal energy for 100 years of supply, easily. Some estimates are as high as 200 years, even not accounting for unexpected technological invention and progress in just those areas. Augment that with nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, anywhere it makes sense, and you’re probably fine. Does anyone really think we’ll still be using oil and coal 100 years from now?
Though I don’t think so, perhaps I am a wild-eyed optimist.
@Mike Devx,
Fusion does have amazing potential.
But I wonder, given the relatively negative reaction of the posters here to government involvement in things, is it a good thing that the government has spent millions of dollars in fusion research? Or is that a bad thing?
Later
John C. Briggs
“John Briggs, I understand that people don’t want to change their lifestyles, but unfortunately, this is necessary in order to reduce the waste we see in our country.”
How European we have become when we begin to see the world around as defined by limitations rather than opportunities. You see “waste” all around us necessitating forced changes in lifestyles. What limitations?
I’ve been around long enough to know that every time some group bewailed that we were nearing the limit of our resources and that the end was near, human beings found better, more efficient ways around those limitations. Let’s see, in my lifetime alone, we’ve been confronted by claims that we were imminently running out of a) petroleum, b) forests, c) landfill space, d) paper, e) clean water and f) food. Somehow, we always managed to avoid those imminent disasters, though the prophets of doom just got more shrill with time (Paul Ehrlich, Jacques Cousteau, Lester Thurow, Linus Pauling, Lester Brown…).
I propose that what you accept as fact about limited resources is rather an untested premise, or what the economist Thomas Sowell refers to as, “an argument without an argument”. If lifestyles need to be changed, the marketplace will do that, but in order to understand why it will do that you have to understand how it works in the first place.
@Mike Devx, I don’t recall ever saying that you “had” to do anything. But I stand by my statement that “this is necessary to reduce the waste we see in our country.”
It doesn’t mean that you have to do anything, but IF you want to save energy systemwide, then we need to have a lot of people become more efficient. You may, of course, keep on wasting energy all you like.
John Briggs, you haven’t been at this blog for long, so you would be forgiven for not knowing that nobody at this blog has ever maintained that the government should not be involved in research.
The government has long had a role in sponsoring research, be it for military purposes (since the Revolutionary War) or for agricultural purposes (the Land Grant University system). My career is in technology development and commercialization. I personally believe that government can play a major role in early-stage technology development (where the risks of success are too high for private industry to invest), but there is a very important step where government needs to hand R&D off to industry, because government is singularly incapable of commercialization.
The arguments on this blog have generally been about a) the degree of government investment into basic research and whether it is properly monitored and controlled and b) the point at which government should cede development to the market, where technologies rise or fall on their own merits. Most posters here would probably be adamantly opposed to the government playing with start-up capital, an idea that have pretty much failed everywhere that it has been tried (the EUros provide many case studies in why this fails).
Don’t fall for the rather cartoonish views that the Left entertains of conservatives, libertarians and just about anybody that doesn’t agree with them. You’ll miss out of too many good discussions here.
I’m commenting with too much frequency right now, apologies. One last reply, to PaulScott in #137,
Perhaps the ambiguity of the written word without verbal and body communication is the issue here, surrounding the word “necessary”.
For me, if something has become “necessary”, it means that I’ve lost all choice in the matter.
Perhaps when you say “this is necessary to reduce the waste we see in our country”, you’re using “necessary” to mean something else, a phrasing I might put as: “If we truly do want to reduce the waste in this country, one required thing that has to occur is that everyone must become more energy efficient.”
The idea of the “necessary thing” that would have to occur for A to lead to B, does not in and of itself imply government force.
Now I’m done. Best wishes for y’all to have a great Memorial Day evening!
I wonder why PS the Salesman here is still here. Honor is not something parasites abide by or even know what it means.
Danny, the reason they failed in the past is because they never achieved a critical point culturally or politically such that they could dominate the entirety of American policy. This power allows them to force a shortage in resources, when such shortages either do not occur naturally or are counter-acted by human technological progress.
@Danny,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
Government spending can be wasteful whether it is research or product development focused. Fusion research has gotten huge research dollars, compared to renewable energy anyway, and I have always questioned this use of tax dollars. It has a huge potential, so a large investment sounds good, but how large, and for how long?
Another interesting area is Hydrogen Fuel cells which has been pushed by successive administrations as the transportation energy solution. Whether this is classified as research or development depends on which program you look at and how the distinction is drawn between R and D. However, large amounts of tax dollars have gone in to supporting hydrogen and, so far, it looks like very little will come out of it. In the case of hydrogen, I supported these efforts in the beginning, but, the more it progressed, the more it became clear that it was a bad bet. So if any good came out of this government effort it was an acceleration of the time when it became clear that hydrogen was not going to be the answer. In many ways, it was a well managed and targeted program, but perhaps backing the wrong technology.
In general, I too believe in government funded basic research, but there is still the question of How Much? and In What Area?.
Later
John C. Briggs
@Paul Scott
RE:“this is necessary to reduce the waste we see in our country.”
I think this comes back to the point I have made before. First it is necessary to believe that consumption of oil is a problem in terms of pollution or foreign trade or something. If there is no agreement on there being any problem, then discussion of solutions is premature.
If oil is abundant and its consumption does no harm, then there is no problem.
Later, John C. Briggs
Actually that was one of the plants I was referring to. There are whole bunch of plants in that area that can only processcertain types of crude, and either through theinfinite design wisdompie cost cutting, they never factored in using different types of oil. If you put sour oil through a plant designed for sweet you cause multi- million dollars worth of damages. The catalyst used in refining is the main concern. The reason I said the ideal is near waterways is because of raw oil from overseas or somewhere wherepup pipeline of oil is not economically viable. The normal MO is to use the pipeline and pipe it to ships to transport it to a specific refinery. To my knowledge there is no pipeline (large multi well) from any wells to a specific refinery.
With regards to Compressed natural gas, methane, or hydrogen cars, they make little or no sense. On a lb/lb basis the fuel economyIda marginally better than a similar car, at best. There is no infrastructure for them, and you can not charge at home ( need high psi) . Not to mention that propane is typically a gasoline byproduct, methane can be mined/ made/ refined in a variety of ways as can hydrogen, but the main issue and concern with those is safety. At the place I used to work, I have seen what a 3000 psi tank can do, if there is an accident and a tank rupture, I really don’t want to be anywhere near that car. You do need a lot of energy to compress methane and hydrogen though, which makes them not make much sense from an energy perspective, There are cars that do not use tanks though, but they are ungodly expensive ( use of precious metals as a tank per se). I do see why some car manufacturers are making them, more or less a modified regular engine so they do have some expertise in internal combustion engines.
The following is the lay of the land so far:
Gasoline- established infrastructure,flammable liquid, decent fuel economy, medium cost to operate
Electric- infrastructure in every home, potential for electric shorts, highfuel economy, low cost to operate
Propane- low infrastructure ( need a industrial compressor to fill up at your house), flammable gas, high pressure, medium fuel economy
Methane- no infrastructure, flammable, high pressure, higher fuel economy than propane.
Hydrogen- no infrastructure, ,high pressure, flammable, slightly high fuel economy that propane.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve got more clarity now than before.
John C. Briggs said: “If oil is abundant and its consumption does no harm, then there is no problem.”
I won’t speak for everyone here, but based on what we’ve learned over the last 30-40 years, I’d say that A. oil IS abundant; and B. its consumption does minimal harm, certainly in this country.
The environmental community won’t agree with me, of course, but it’s my observation that they’re committed to pursuing the last fragment of pollution in each of its many forms, far beyond the point where the economic and harm analysis justifies it. This is why I see the “greenies” as religious zealots.
As a for instance, we have good statistics on the relationship of vehicle weight and passenger deaths in accidents. The number of people killed in accidents with the lightweight cars required to meet the (pie-in-the-sky) requirements of the EPA, far exceeds the estimated number of deaths from the pollution produced by our current fleet.
Another example: human deaths from heat waves and so on are far fewer TODAY than are deaths from exposure, sickness caused by being chilled, etc. Warming up the earth – if that’s actually happening – will not increase deaths, it will reduce them…at least if we consult the empirical data currently available. If one insists on using computer models, then all bets are off. The most recent place I’ve seen this discussed is at Powerline:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/announcing-the-pl-green-weenie-award.php
Finally, Mike Devyx — no need to apologize…you were doing GREAT!! Good stuff, man – keep at it.
Regarding pollution, it is difficult to believe in something that you can’t see or experience. However, if it gets bad enough, it is much easier to relate to.
Personally, I am a big believer in Compressed Natural Gas buses compared to Diesel buses. We can argue theoretical pollution, but when a bus leaves the curb, you can tell right away if it is CNG or Diesel. I spend a lot of time waiting at the curb at airports and fortunately most of the buses are CNG. Because when a single Diesel buses accelerates from the curb, but local pollution is overwhelming. It is plain and obvious that the CNG buses are cleaner.
Also, I don’t know how many of you have experienced an “inversion” like I have in Utah’s Salt Lake valley. In the summer, atmospheric conditions prevent air from passing over the Rockies and an overcast brown sky appears overhead for weeks. It becomes difficult to breathe and people keep their kids in doors. I have little doubt that this pollution is caused by burning fossil fuels (coal and oil) and that the situation would be better without so much combustion (nuclear, renewables, energy efficiency).
But now that I sit in Boston, with strong breezes, it is difficult to see any immediate impact of pollution except on hot days for people with respiratory problems.
Later
John C. Briggs
Yes, John Briggs. I’ve experienced inversions in the Ohio Valley, the Denver bowl and LA. Not fun! They have been getting better over time, though, as more pollution controls have come into play. Not sure what the optimum solution is.
Dan5 – I’m not as sure as you that natural gas isn’t practical for vehicles. There are already quite a few local vehicles in cities that use natural gas and their safety record isn’t quite as “explosive” as you have indicated. Your points about existing infrastructure are very good ones.
Do you have any insights into how the U.S. developed a road and gas station infrastructure when motor vehicles first came along? I’ve wondered about that.
It’s not simply stupid anymore….it’s getting dangerous.
The Pentagon, in the midst of what the Secretary says is too-enthusiastic budget cutting, is committing $2 Billion next year, to “energy-efficient equipment and efficiency programs, and research and development for green technology.”
Read it and weep: http://theothermccain.com/2012/05/23/remember-the-vasa-were-going-for-the-aerial-version-it-appears/
This is what an “established (Green) church” looks like.
Dan5 in 144 says,
> The reason I said the ideal is near waterways is because of raw oil from overseas or somewhere wherepup pipeline of oil is not economically viable.
If that is demonstrably true – that pipeline use is not economically viable, generally, then that’s a big disappointment to me. I think it was you who brought up the NIMBY factor concerning refineries, and that is a point few would argue with. I certainly agree with you about the NIMBY factor being a powerful agent against the development of new refineries. It may perhaps be the most powerful factor. No one wants to live next to a refinery.
I was thinking it should be easily possible to place the refineries in locations few people are currently living, yet still within a reasonable distance of coastlines, and put in pipelines to deliver the oil from a coastal offloading point to large storage tanks, and deliver the crude to the refinery via pipelines. With a clean, simple and clear regulatory environment in place that would indicate to the lawsuit bringers that, as long as the companies involved met the obvious regulatory requirements, no lawsuit could EVER possibly win, it seems economically defensible to me. But I’m ignorant about the costs of developing such a tank and pipeline infrastructure, so I could be way off base here.
Having a requirement that a supertanker be able to “marry right up next to” a refinery imposes severe constraints that may not be solvable any more. You’ve got the LA Coastal Basin, the New Orleans area, the Houston Channel… and I’m sure there are some places on the East coast that have geographically worked. And we’ve managed inland refineries on major rivers in the past. But all in all, not that many new locations fit the bill. Is there a way pipeline delivery TO refineries could be done?
At Danny- the vehicles that are used for major cities are typically large vehicles. There are some smaller “test: vehicles being used, but these people are general cautious when it comes to driving. It’s no more explosive/or marginally more explosive than gasoline, but if you wrap a hydrogen car/natural gas around a pole and rupture a 10,000 psi tank (latest spec of the Mercedes one with a suitable range), it causes the car to go in the opposite direction of the rupture. Every type of fuel source has issues with fires/explosions
If you rear-ended a 1970′s Pinto or 2000 Ford police cruiser they would explode, if you ruptured a cooling system on the Volt and let it sit for weeks it would explode, if you ruptured a high pressure tank of CNG/methane/hydrogen it would explode, if you somehow manage to short circuit an ultracapacitor (alternative to batteries in EVs) it’s a really big explosion
At the start of the gasoline “age” drug stores and various other places had the gasoline. The problem with trying to go for a new technology is that people do not want to be inconvenienced. The advantages to a car over a horse was you didn’t have to feed it every day, could carry more people, and was faster over a longer period of time. There is really no competitive advantage for CNG, Methane or hydrogen cars in that sense. People just see it as an inconvenience to have to drive farther in order to fuel. EVs don’t really have that issue since almost everyone, at least in the US has a power outlet available.
@Mike
Yes, you could deliver the pipeline directly to the refineries, but having 100′s of miles of pipeline from the well to the source is not viable. To put in to perspective, to construct the 800 miles of the Alaskan pipeline in today’s money would cost around $40 billion. More or less, it’s like 50 million per mile + pumping costs + heating costs + having someone inspect the pipeline on a regular basis. It is possible in short distances. The farthest I’ve seen the storage tanks from a refinery is about 1-1.5 miles. For liability purposes, chemical plants try to avoid placing their feedstock tanks and plant separated by residential areas- that’s one of the big things that came out of the Bhopal disaster in the 80′s. If you propose a plant location even remotely close to a residential area, that’s a sure way to get your project killed
The gas infrastructure, it kind of sprang up organically (Before my time though, but I remember my father telling me about that). More or less, the gas “stations” were formed from pharmacies and other local stores, groups of people with cars got together to get discounts on the fuel, bought in bulk, needed some place to store the fuel and account for the use and that’s how they formed. The gas suppliers got involved and started making businesses out of it.
I think it’s going to be hard to form such an organic distribution network for any type of alternate fuel now. The only one I can think of is Co-ops concerning bio-diesel (free feedstock for used grease). It would be highly difficult to do it with natural gas simple because of the laws and licenses required (John Q Citizen purchasing a truck full of propane may set off some flags with the police, FBI, CIA, and DEA), not to mention the place to store it. Also, if you got it from your local gas supplier, if you “filled” up your storage tank one month, when they submit the bill they may think there’s a huge leak. 100 years ago no one really cared and there weren’t zoning laws related to gasoline. Also gasoline can’t be used for other stuff like LNG can be (precursor to certain drugs).
As for roads, some roads were built privately, some publicly some toll, some free. The roads were already there from the horse and buggy days and just expanded- at least until the 40′s and 50′s. I remember driving my car on some cobblestone roads.
[...] few weeks ago, I asked just how energy efficient electric cars really are because it seemed to me that, as is the case with pre-packaged meat at the supermarket, all the [...]
Tonestaple 13:
You sure got that one right!
Ymarsaker #14:
Your analogy is comparable to saying that all martial arts schools are collections of homocidal maniacs led by crazed power hungry cannibals.
Please, more research before you make statements like that.
All Martial Arts schools didn’t cause a bloody rebellion called the Protestant Reformation. Obviously “somebody” got pissed off in a day and age where you and I had yet to be born yet, Ron. Maybe that’s the history you need to do more research on.
Of course.
I should do more research before you post a comment.