Green new deal equals magical thinking

[billvon 2,380]

16 hours ago, airdvr said:

You're assuming a race...I'm assuming a cross country trip (real world).  You're both required to obey traffic laws.  Care to revise your estimate?

 

Sure.  In many cities the EV is going to be able to use the HOV lanes, which is going to give it a significant advantage in traffic.  Would that offset the extra 17 minutes every 2-3 hours?  Again, hard to say.  If much of the driving was city then it would likely turn the advantage towards the EV.

This is getting fairly far from the original discussion of whether people buy EV's because they are faster (which they often are, in terms of 0-60 times.)  You can always come up with a scenario where one will win over the other, like the Pikes Peak race.

Quote

You mentioned this mythical $35,000 Model 3.  Can you point me to where one might buy one?

You call them up and order it.  Half a dozen people at my company have ordered one.

Quote

Tesla is still such a white elephant that the car shopping sight cars.com doesn't even offer Tesla as a manufacturer on it's website.

Around here they are pretty common.

[billvon 2,380]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m pretty sure we (the taxpayer) are paying and the incentives run into the thousands.  I just don’t understand, if EVs are so awesome, why do we need to incentivize their purchase?

Same reason we need to incentivize fossil fuels, I imagine.  Because we think the advantages outweigh the costs.

Quote

Because the tax revenues from fossil fuels are much much more than $20 billion.

And the economic advantages to 1) being the leader in a new and rapidly growing technology and 2) reducing overall pollution and fuel consumption are worth the far lower cost of EV subsidies.

Quote

It is undeniable that a larger carbon footprint correlates to greater longevity and a higher standard of living.

Just as it is undeniable that a large carbon footprint will, in the long run, reduce our standard of living.

Want to live the good life?  Burn all you can.  Want your kids and grandkids to have a similar life?  Burn as little as you can.  I guess it's all in what is important to you.

[billvon 2,380]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

And while I have my MBA hat on.....any financial burden imposed on fossil fuel production will just be passed on to the consumer, a de facto regressive tax on the poor.

A good reason to push EV's, hybrids, fuel efficiency and CAFE.  CAFE = lower driving cost for the poor.  Fuel efficiency and EV's = lower demand = lower cost for anyone who drives a gas car.

[billvon 2,380]

17 hours ago, millertime24 said:

What are these incentives and where do they come from?

 

The big one is the federal $7500 tax credit. There are also state incentives like the California $2500 subsidy.  Both are phasing out as car manufacturers hit their limits.

Quote

I guess another question I have is what do routine MX replacement parts cost on EV (not tires brakes etc. I'm talking parts comparible to, say, a water pump, alternator etc.)?

Brakes pad replacement is generally greatly reduced since much of the braking comes from regen.  Generally EV's require tire replacements, cabin air filters, wipers and washer fluids, and that's about it.  Early cars like the 2011-2013 Leaf needed early battery replacements (at the 5 mile point) but modern EV's are looking at 100-500,000 miles on the battery.

[brenthutch 383]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Just as it is undeniable that a large carbon footprint will, in the long run, reduce our standard of living.

There is zero EVIDENCE for that.  All of the hyperbolic claims of impending doom are nothing more than wild speculation, while the benefits of fossil fuels are widespread and tangible.

[millertime24 8]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

The big one is the federal $7500 tax credit. There are also state incentives like the California $2500 subsidy.  Both are phasing out as car manufacturers hit their limits.

Brakes pad replacement is generally greatly reduced since much of the braking comes from regen.  Generally EV's require tire replacements, cabin air filters, wipers and washer fluids, and that's about it.  Early cars like the 2011-2013 Leaf needed early battery replacements (at the 5 mile point) but modern EV's are looking at 100-500,000 miles on the battery.

100-500k on mileage before battery replacement is quite impressive, but you never answered as to how much they cost to replace. So I'm guessing by your reply that the motors, servos, relays and sensors last a long time. That's pretty cool.

If they can make it economically viable to make a cross country trip with no detours to charge I can kind of get on board. Again though, my state offeres no subsidy for buying an EV. There is also a huge lack of places to charge the car without going out of my way.

I'm curious now about the charging part. How does payment work for that? Is it similar to how you are charged for your electric bill for your house?

[PhreeZone 14]

16 hours ago, millertime24 said:

I'll ask again, what are these incentives and where do they come from? 

Federal tax credits. Same ones that every car maker is using right now for their electric vehicles - they started at $7500 and now for Tesla are reduced to 3500 and will phase out in another year or two. Few other makers have created enough volume that they have dropped to the 3500 level. Its the same place that credits like the $13800 adoption credit is coming from, or the 30% towards a solar system for residential use. Same with the $2000 saver credit towards an IRA for some people per year or the $2000 Lifetime Learning Credit or the $2500 American Opportunity Credit for taking a school course. The legislature has created incentives to drive certain behaviors - one in years past is was "Cash for Clunkers" to drive people to ditch old inefficient cars and spend money to buy new cars at a time that the auto industry was having major issues and was facing the elimination of massive numbers of jobs if they did not find a way to sustain demand in a poor economy.

At the state level some states were giving credits too but again that no different than some of the other credits like the $4.5 Billion dollars to Foxconn or the $550 Million Amazon got in VA plus the 23 Million in credits from the hotel taxes. Taking that 4.5 billion out of the state coffers means that everyone else gets to cover that loss of income and everyone from the local cities, to the highway department to the schools are all now going to have to go with out that income in the years to come.

[PhreeZone 14]

54 minutes ago, millertime24 said:

I'm curious now about the charging part. How does payment work for that? Is it similar to how you are charged for your electric bill for your house?

Depends on the charging system you use. If you have a home charger its just another KW that gets used and put on your electric bill. If you had bought into a Tesla fairly early (Pre 2018) you usually were granted access to their network of SuperChargers for free. In essence they would pay to provide the power to the super chargers and you can use it for free. There are some third party charging networks out there also that you can have access to for either a set free per recharge ($5-7 usually) or a usage rate of about .08-$.15 per kw used. That generally means a full recharge for about $3-4. Lots of places of business have free chargers also to encourage people to come to their location and spend money shopping while their car charges. One of my local malls has 20 charging spaces for free.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, millertime24 said:

I'm curious now about the charging part. How does payment work for that? Is it similar to how you are charged for your electric bill for your house?

In Poland, each EV is incentivized with it's own windmill.

[kallend 1,621]

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Because the tax revenues from fossil fuels are much much more than $20 billion.

BTW when conducting a cost benefit analysis, one must account for the benefit as well as the cost.  It is undeniable that a larger carbon footprint correlates to greater longevity and a higher standard of living.

1) Not remotely an explanation.

2) Not only unproven, but false in the long run.

[Coreece 189]

6 minutes ago, Coreece said:

1 hour ago, millertime24 said:

I'm curious now about the charging part. How does payment work for that? Is it similar to how you are charged for your electric bill for your house?

In Poland, each EV is incentivized with it's own windmill.

So I looked up this concept just for shits and giggles and here's the first article I found:

https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/01/strap-this-wind-turbine-to-your-electric-car-and-you-can-drive-forever/

Turns out it was written by a guy named Liszewski.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

47 minutes ago, PhreeZone said:

... Lots of places of business have free chargers also to encourage people to come to their location and spend money shopping while their car charges. One of my local malls has 20 charging spaces for free.

Local to me, the power company has a few 'charging spaces' that are free. They are located right near downtown, so they are encouraging EV owners to come downtown. 

[brenthutch 383]

47 minutes ago, kallend said:

1) Not remotely an explanation.

2) Not only unproven, but false in the long run.

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2017/04/experts-link-wealth-with-higher-carbon-emissions

The wealth/health connection is well established, however, I will walk you through it if you need me to.

what IS unproven is a causal link between CO2 and climate calamity 

[DJL 232]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

There is zero EVIDENCE for that.  All of the hyperbolic claims of impending doom are nothing more than wild speculation, while the benefits of fossil fuels are widespread and tangible.

And in all your time on these boards you have yet to show credible evidence to back this up.

 

54 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

what IS unproven is a causal link between CO2 and climate calamity 

Here's a challenge for you.  You're familiar with the phrase "the elephant in the room", right, that there's something unspoken that should be big and glaring but everyone is ignoring it.  The next time you're in a conversation with your friends about climate change I'd like you to see what happens when you ask "Where is the data that shows at least an equal argument against a causal link between CO2 and climate change?"  Not a single website where some guy just says it's not true or someone has a little bit of data but that big fucking elephant in the room that on one side is the entire globe of independent research that is coming to the same conclusion while on the other side that IF THERE IS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S NOT CORRELATION THEN THERE SHOULD ALSO BE A VERY LARGE SCIENTIFIC BODY WHO CAN BACK UP THIS CLAIM.  

[kallend 1,621]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2017/04/experts-link-wealth-with-higher-carbon-emissions

The wealth/health connection is well established, however, I will walk you through it if you need me to.

what IS unproven is a causal link between CO2 and climate calamity 

So correlation = causation when it suits you, but not when it doesn't suit you.

[billvon 2,380]

4 hours ago, millertime24 said:

100-500k on mileage before battery replacement is quite impressive, but you never answered as to how much they cost to replace. 

The Leaf battery is about $5K.  But each mfr is going to be different.

Quote

If they can make it economically viable to make a cross country trip with no detours to charge I can kind of get on board. Again though, my state offeres no subsidy for buying an EV. There is also a huge lack of places to charge the car without going out of my way.

Well, with a Tesla, there's a network of chargers on major highways that makes that pretty easy: https://www.tesla.com/findus?v=2&bounds=52.86502662918058%2C-64.88288237851958%2C22.891421693270654%2C-137.96393706601958&zoom=5&filters=supercharger

For other EV's you have to rely on non-Tesla fast chargers.  Right now there are a few routes that you could do cross country, but on I-80 for example there are a lot of gaps.  https://www.plugshare.com/

In some areas (California, Florida, NY) there are a lot of chargers.  But in some areas there's not much in the way of charging, and it's a chicken and egg problem - no one will put in EV chargers until there are a lot of EV's, and no one will buy an EV until there are a lot of EV chargers.  For places like that PHEV's make more sense, so you can use gas when you can't find a charger.

It's worth noting that all you really need is an outlet.  Right now the EVSE (what people think of as a "charger") is expensive and hard to install, but outlets are very easy, and come in lots of flavors.  We've started switching from EVSE's to outlets here at work because it's just plain cheaper.

Quote

I'm curious now about the charging part. How does payment work for that? Is it similar to how you are charged for your electric bill for your house?

Payment for early Teslas is part of the original purchase price; you get free charging forever.  Nowadays there's a subscription.  There are a few fast-charge networks out there - Tesla, Chargepoint, Blink, EVGo etc.  You get a subscription on line, they send you a card, and you scan the card when you charge.  Fast charging is from 20 to 35 cents a minute, and they charge at about 150-200 miles per hour.  (2-3 miles a minute.)  That example is from EVgo.  Normal rate charging (3-10kW) is a lot cheaper.

When charging at home you end up paying about 3 cents a mile.

[billvon 2,380]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

There is zero EVIDENCE for that.  All of the hyperbolic claims of impending doom are nothing more than wild speculation, while the benefits of fossil fuels are widespread and tangible.

I don't think I said anything about "impending doom."  Why are you making things up?

There is no question that at some point we will run out of fossil fuels; none at all.  That's not wild speculation, that's a fact.  The question is - do you want your kids/grandkids to deal with that problem, figuring "as long as I get mine, I don't care about anyone else?"  Or would you rather start working on the solutions now?

Right now there are plenty of solutions.  EV's are just one of them.  But to build EV's we need energy, because EVERYTHING that we do requires energy.  Right now energy is cheap.  That represents the ability to do work and make change.  We should be spending that energy on the future, not on a bigger boat, a thicker steak or a bigger SUV.

If we wait until your grandkids have to deal with it, energy will no longer be as cheap, and everything will be harder.  They won't be able to buy that really big SUV AND they may not be able to afford to go with one of the other solutions that cheap energy make possible now.

Plus which, if we do really release all that fossil fuel as CO2, temperatures will be higher.  Crops will grow in different places.  Sea levels will be higher.  They may not be able to buy that really thick steak because Canadian cattle aren't doing as well with the rapid changes in temperature their pasturage/feedlot is seeing.

That's not "doom."  Deciding that you don't care if your kids can afford what you can doesn't sentence them to death, just a different way of life.  I think it's worth doing some work now to avoid that as much as possible - so the transition we will eventually have to make is easier on them.  But that's a moral position, not a scientific one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

That's not "doom."  Deciding that you don't care if your kids can afford what you can doesn't sentence them to death, just a different way of life.  I think it's worth doing some work now to avoid that as much as possible - so the transition we will eventually have to make is easier on them.  But that's a moral position, not a scientific one.

Well, depending on where someone lives, climate change in a few hundred years may well 'sentence them to death'.

A foot or so of sea level rise will make some areas much, much more prone to flooding in storms (Bangladesh is a good example, they've lost tens of thousands in past hurricanes). 
If temps rise (and not by a whole lot) a lot of 'lower latitude' land that is currently arable will not be so. If you think the African famines of the 80 were bad, these will make them look like a picnic. 

But those are all 'shithole countries, so most Trump supporters could not care less if those people survive. I'd guess some of them would cheer on the death of those 'brown people'.

[billvon 2,380]

5 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, depending on where someone lives, climate change in a few hundred years may well 'sentence them to death'.

A foot or so of sea level rise will make some areas much, much more prone to flooding in storms (Bangladesh is a good example, they've lost tens of thousands in past hurricanes). 
If temps rise (and not by a whole lot) a lot of 'lower latitude' land that is currently arable will not be so. If you think the African famines of the 80 were bad, these will make them look like a picnic. 

But those are all 'shithole countries, so most Trump supporters could not care less if those people survive. I'd guess some of them would cheer on the death of those 'brown people'.

Well, just having a few hundred years pass will sentence everyone to death!  But - 

Climate change will certainly make a lot of people's lives more miserable in the future.  In general, people have adapted to the world as it is - the strengths of storms, the lengths of droughts, the heat of summers, the growing season, the pandemics etc etc.  Changing that may in some cases help people, but more often will hurt people, since their reliance on such things is complex and not likely to improve by changing things at random.  People without the resources to (for example) get food shipped in may well die; Africa is a good example there.

Or we might be able to feed them if our own crops are doing well.  But that means cost and a change to more plant-based diets to accommodate all the additional calories.  That's part of the cost.  Or we might say 'shithole country, let them die' - which is the human cost.

In first world countries the changes will be less severe at first, and people living in Denver may notice very little change.  This will enable them to say "See?  No problems with climate change!  I can still get my latte."  And as the changes become more severe the more wealthy will be able to adapt with little problem. 

But even in the US, many people won't be able to adapt.  Climate change will invariably hit the poorest people hardest, the people who can't afford to move primarily.  They won't be able to move closer to work, or away from the shore, or to a cooler climate.  And again, paying for them to move (or letting them drown/die) is a cost.

[johnhking1 70]

With all the salt they use on the roads in upstate New York and some other states, all the wiring, batteries, motors and electronics will need to be sealed really well or there will be problems.

Also, what would the discussion be if the global temperature were dropping and we were headed into another ice age.  It has happened several times in past history, no reason to think it won't happen again.

https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

[billvon 2,380]

16 minutes ago, johnhking1 said:

Also, what would the discussion be if the global temperature were dropping and we were headed into another ice age. 

We would probably be thinking of ways to reverse that trend, including releasing things like sulfuryl flouride into the upper atmosphere, burning more coal, covering glaciers with carbon black, orbital mirrors etc.  And there would be a small contingent of deniers saying "there's no such thing as global cooling!  It was warm yesterday.  There's no proof.  We can't affect the climate.  Besides, cold will be good for everyone - ever heard of skiing?"

Quote

With all the salt they use on the roads in upstate New York and some other states, all the wiring, batteries, motors and electronics will need to be sealed really well or there will be problems.

Yep. True of all cars, not just EV's.  No modern car is going to run if it loses electrical power.

 

 

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

Yes climate change is so devastating that folks are fleeing New York for Florida and Texas.  Again your fears are imaginary.

Edited April 23, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

Seriously though, the urgent need to adapt renewables is predicated on two notions, both of them false.  

The first is that we are going to run out of fossil fuels.  Peak oil is a prediction that has never failed to fail.  Given the recent discoveries in Guyana, Pakistan, India etc. etc. as well as the developments in the Permian Basin, it will continue to do so. First WE were going to run out, then our children were going to run out, now we are up to our grandchildren and soon it will be our great, great, great grandchildren. LOL.

The other false narrative is that unless we took drastic measures to immediately reduce CO2, we would "destroy the planet."  The hyperbole around this notion is as comical as it is imaginary.  Destruction is always JUST around the corner yet never seems to arrive.

The solution?  Society must muster the resolve and intelligence to do nothing.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The first is that we are going to run out of fossil fuels.  

Do you think the supply is infinite?

We are going to run out of cheap oil.  That's a fact.  The only question is when.

Quote

Peak oil is a prediction that has never failed to fail.

Like a doctor who tells you that you have to quit smoking or you are likely to develop lung cancer, he will be wrong for a long time.  Until he isn't.

Quote

The other false narrative is that unless we took drastic measures to immediately reduce CO2, we would "destroy the planet."

Nope.  The planet will be just fine no matter what we do; we don't have the power to destroy it. We do, however, have the power to make some of humanity pretty miserable. It seems wise to NOT pursue that path as hard as we can.

[kallend 1,621]

Meanwhile, in Greenland:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-decades-scary-greenland-ice.html