I submit that an EV is a fossil fuel vehicle when charged off the US grid
- Thread starter LoneRanger
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Don't get me wrong; I completely believe that there are benefits to "personal" photovoltaic systems if done properly (and not focused on charging your EV as its primary goal)... wiring it so that the system is able to supply the residence during times of grid power loss is great and will prevent much individual suffering and loss. But some of the interconnects make this difficult to impossible. Grid-tied systems do benefit the local power company, and in a small way the end owner (as JeffK has shared his results). Small wind turbines are likely a boost as well, as there is a private one amidst the wind farm on my way to work, and it is always humming away at probably 80-100rpm every time I see it. My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
how do you feel about the 20 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? (and that's a conservative estimate--which doesn't even touch the military budget used in part to assure stable oil supply from the middle east).
When you're talking about something the scale of energy production and transportation, it seems that governments can accomplish some things that even the largest company can't on its own. It seems like public/private partnerships have some value here.
Don't get me wrong; I completely believe that there are benefits to "personal" photovoltaic systems if done properly (and not focused on charging your EV as its primary goal)... wiring it so that the system is able to supply the residence during times of grid power loss is great and will prevent much individual suffering and loss. But some of the interconnects make this difficult to impossible. Grid-tied systems do benefit the local power company, and in a small way the end owner (as JeffK has shared his results). Small wind turbines are likely a boost as well, as there is a private one amidst the wind farm on my way to work, and it is always humming away at probably 80-100rpm every time I see it. My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
how do you feel about the 20 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? (and that's a conservative estimate--which doesn't even touch the military budget used in part to assure stable oil supply from the middle east).
When you're talking about something the scale of energy production and transportation, it seems that governments can accomplish some things that even the largest company can't on its own. It seems like public/private partnerships have some value here.
Originally Posted by Saabist
I would not buy a house with solar panels on the roof, nor will I install them on my existing house. (You could not pay me enough to live in CA either.)
I remember meeting a guy who was one of the first to go with a solar hot water heater. It costs him 10k at the time to install the system and he was trying to recoup his costs when he was trying to sell the house. But he's got a long way to go. Hot water heaters at the time could be installed in the $600-$800 range and the average cost of gas was about $10 a month for hot water. So after 10 years, he saved about $1200 in gas and still had a long way to go. Never really ran into anyone who had the system. The numbers never really worked.
I would not buy a house with solar panels on the roof, nor will I install them on my existing house. (You could not pay me enough to live in CA either.)
I remember meeting a guy who was one of the first to go with a solar hot water heater. It costs him 10k at the time to install the system and he was trying to recoup his costs when he was trying to sell the house. But he's got a long way to go. Hot water heaters at the time could be installed in the $600-$800 range and the average cost of gas was about $10 a month for hot water. So after 10 years, he saved about $1200 in gas and still had a long way to go. Never really ran into anyone who had the system. The numbers never really worked.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
A good read. The rate of degradation might be more of an issue for solar farms rather than residences.
That's a pretty pro-solar site thought
This is another good read on the topic: https://www.computerworld.com/artic...rever-and-degradation-varies-wildly.html
Seems to be "it depends" and I think we'll see once these things get some age on them how they actually hold up. I'm sure climate plays a significant role.
Yep. It depends on the climate and the manufacturer like everything else.
Here's an anecdotal.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
A good read. The rate of degradation might be more of an issue for solar farms rather than residences.
That's a pretty pro-solar site thought
Seems to be "it depends" and I think we'll see once these things get some age on them how they actually hold up. I'm sure climate plays a significant role.
Yep. It depends on the climate and the manufacturer like everything else.
Here's an anecdotal.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by JOD
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Don't get me wrong; I completely believe that there are benefits to "personal" photovoltaic systems if done properly (and not focused on charging your EV as its primary goal)... wiring it so that the system is able to supply the residence during times of grid power loss is great and will prevent much individual suffering and loss. But some of the interconnects make this difficult to impossible. Grid-tied systems do benefit the local power company, and in a small way the end owner (as JeffK has shared his results). Small wind turbines are likely a boost as well, as there is a private one amidst the wind farm on my way to work, and it is always humming away at probably 80-100rpm every time I see it. My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
how do you feel about the 20 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? (and that's a conservative estimate--which doesn't even touch the military budget used in part to assure stable oil supply from the middle east).
When you're talking about something the scale of energy production and transportation, it seems that governments can accomplish some things that even the largest company can't on its own. It seems like public/private partnerships have some value here.
This is a complex subject but the "20B in subsidies" are not really directly related to oil imports because he US imports almost no oil from the ME. In actuality the subsidies make everything we buy in the US cheaper than it otherwise would be. Why? The US commitment to the ME insures that oil is traded in USD($) and that almost all global trade is denominated in USD, and that investors continue to buy assets in the US by either financing govt spending (US Treasuries) or via private projects. Basically without US dollar hegemony everything we buy would be more expensive, whether that be solar panels, EV's, ICE vehicles, etc. etc. Basically the rest of the world finances our comparatively low cost of living.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Don't get me wrong; I completely believe that there are benefits to "personal" photovoltaic systems if done properly (and not focused on charging your EV as its primary goal)... wiring it so that the system is able to supply the residence during times of grid power loss is great and will prevent much individual suffering and loss. But some of the interconnects make this difficult to impossible. Grid-tied systems do benefit the local power company, and in a small way the end owner (as JeffK has shared his results). Small wind turbines are likely a boost as well, as there is a private one amidst the wind farm on my way to work, and it is always humming away at probably 80-100rpm every time I see it. My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
how do you feel about the 20 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? (and that's a conservative estimate--which doesn't even touch the military budget used in part to assure stable oil supply from the middle east).
When you're talking about something the scale of energy production and transportation, it seems that governments can accomplish some things that even the largest company can't on its own. It seems like public/private partnerships have some value here.
This is a complex subject but the "20B in subsidies" are not really directly related to oil imports because he US imports almost no oil from the ME. In actuality the subsidies make everything we buy in the US cheaper than it otherwise would be. Why? The US commitment to the ME insures that oil is traded in USD($) and that almost all global trade is denominated in USD, and that investors continue to buy assets in the US by either financing govt spending (US Treasuries) or via private projects. Basically without US dollar hegemony everything we buy would be more expensive, whether that be solar panels, EV's, ICE vehicles, etc. etc. Basically the rest of the world finances our comparatively low cost of living.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
![[Linked Image from comicallyincorrect.com]](https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ev-credit-dt-600.jpg "[Linked Image from comicallyincorrect.com]")
Your simpleton diagram to me shows a considerable less amount of net energy used in terms of refining, transporting to fuel depot and then on fuel trucks to a station.
No one seems to ever answer that question on net energy by source.
Your simpleton diagram to me shows a considerable less amount of net energy used in terms of refining, transporting to fuel depot and then on fuel trucks to a station.
No one seems to ever answer that question on net energy by source.
-------
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I remember meeting a guy who was one of the first to go with a solar hot water heater. It costs him 10k at the time to install the system and he was trying to recoup his costs when he was trying to sell the house. But he's got a long way to go. Hot water heaters at the time could be installed in the $600-$800 range and the average cost of gas was about $10 a month for hot water. So after 10 years, he saved about $1200 in gas and still had a long way to go. Never really ran into anyone who had the system. The numbers never really worked.
Yes, aside from the fact that solar panels are ugly, make working on the roof an expensive nightmare, cause problems for firefighters in the event of a fire during daylight hours, and require the cutting down of shade trees for best results, it takes a long time to realize any real savings. I may well not live long enough for that. As far as emergency power for blackouts that is best provided by a standby generator if desired.
I have no interest in electric cars either until such time as a much better battery or other source of mobile electric power is developed. Until then they are not competitive either in cost or overall functionality as compared with conventional gasoline-powered vehicles except perhaps in niche areas. So whether they wind up being powered by coal, atomic energy, natural gas, solar, wind, or magical faerie dust at the generating station end of the power outlet is not of any concern to me.
I remember meeting a guy who was one of the first to go with a solar hot water heater. It costs him 10k at the time to install the system and he was trying to recoup his costs when he was trying to sell the house. But he's got a long way to go. Hot water heaters at the time could be installed in the $600-$800 range and the average cost of gas was about $10 a month for hot water. So after 10 years, he saved about $1200 in gas and still had a long way to go. Never really ran into anyone who had the system. The numbers never really worked.
Yes, aside from the fact that solar panels are ugly, make working on the roof an expensive nightmare, cause problems for firefighters in the event of a fire during daylight hours, and require the cutting down of shade trees for best results, it takes a long time to realize any real savings. I may well not live long enough for that. As far as emergency power for blackouts that is best provided by a standby generator if desired.
I have no interest in electric cars either until such time as a much better battery or other source of mobile electric power is developed. Until then they are not competitive either in cost or overall functionality as compared with conventional gasoline-powered vehicles except perhaps in niche areas. So whether they wind up being powered by coal, atomic energy, natural gas, solar, wind, or magical faerie dust at the generating station end of the power outlet is not of any concern to me.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Originally Posted by Saabist
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I remember meeting a guy who was one of the first to go with a solar hot water heater. It costs him 10k at the time to install the system and he was trying to recoup his costs when he was trying to sell the house. But he's got a long way to go. Hot water heaters at the time could be installed in the $600-$800 range and the average cost of gas was about $10 a month for hot water. So after 10 years, he saved about $1200 in gas and still had a long way to go. Never really ran into anyone who had the system. The numbers never really worked.
Yes, aside from the fact that solar panels are ugly, make working on the roof an expensive nightmare, cause problems for firefighters in the event of a fire during daylight hours, and require the cutting down of shade trees for best results, it takes a long time to realize any real savings. I may well not live long enough for that. As far as emergency power for blackouts that is best provided by a standby generator if desired.
I have no interest in electric cars either until such time as a much better battery or other source of mobile electric power is developed. Until then they are not competitive either in cost or overall functionality as compared with conventional gasoline-powered vehicles except perhaps in niche areas. So whether they wind up being powered by coal, atomic energy, natural gas, solar, wind, or magical faerie dust at the generating station end of the power outlet is not of any concern to me.
...And the moment that breakthrough in battery storage revolutionizes EV's, every single EV with the pre-breakthrough battery loses major resale value unless the breakthrough batteries can be retro-fitted into a used EV for cheap and the pre-breakthrough battery being replaced can be disposed of free-of-charge by the EV owner. Not likely, though. I'm sure due to the disposal situation with current battery technology that you would have to pay a fee to have it disposed/recycled.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I remember meeting a guy who was one of the first to go with a solar hot water heater. It costs him 10k at the time to install the system and he was trying to recoup his costs when he was trying to sell the house. But he's got a long way to go. Hot water heaters at the time could be installed in the $600-$800 range and the average cost of gas was about $10 a month for hot water. So after 10 years, he saved about $1200 in gas and still had a long way to go. Never really ran into anyone who had the system. The numbers never really worked.
Yes, aside from the fact that solar panels are ugly, make working on the roof an expensive nightmare, cause problems for firefighters in the event of a fire during daylight hours, and require the cutting down of shade trees for best results, it takes a long time to realize any real savings. I may well not live long enough for that. As far as emergency power for blackouts that is best provided by a standby generator if desired.
I have no interest in electric cars either until such time as a much better battery or other source of mobile electric power is developed. Until then they are not competitive either in cost or overall functionality as compared with conventional gasoline-powered vehicles except perhaps in niche areas. So whether they wind up being powered by coal, atomic energy, natural gas, solar, wind, or magical faerie dust at the generating station end of the power outlet is not of any concern to me.
...And the moment that breakthrough in battery storage revolutionizes EV's, every single EV with the pre-breakthrough battery loses major resale value unless the breakthrough batteries can be retro-fitted into a used EV for cheap and the pre-breakthrough battery being replaced can be disposed of free-of-charge by the EV owner. Not likely, though. I'm sure due to the disposal situation with current battery technology that you would have to pay a fee to have it disposed/recycled.
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
...And the moment that breakthrough in battery storage revolutionizes EV's, every single EV with the pre-breakthrough battery loses major resale value unless the breakthrough batteries can be retro-fitted into a used EV for cheap and the pre-breakthrough battery being replaced can be disposed of free-of-charge by the EV owner. Not likely, though. I'm sure due to the disposal situation with current battery technology that you would have to pay a fee to have it disposed/recycled.
The other issue is of course the low-end market and the used market. Not everyone has the cash burning a hole in their pocket for an electric car, or wants to go deeply in debt for one. (I hate car payments myself and stick with vehicles I can buy for cash.) There are several sub-$20K new gasoline powered cars that are fine for someone that just needs something reliable to get around in. Closest thing to that is a Nissan Leaf starting around $32K - that's double the cost of the Versa, which is equivalent aside from the powertrain.
For that matter it is going to be a very long time before the electric equivalent of the 10-15 year-old Toyota Corolla that can deliver years more of reliable service and be had for several thousand dollars will be available.
Another problem of course is that many people do not have a garage or even a driveway for home overnight charging. Today's electric cars cut low-end buyers out of the market.
...And the moment that breakthrough in battery storage revolutionizes EV's, every single EV with the pre-breakthrough battery loses major resale value unless the breakthrough batteries can be retro-fitted into a used EV for cheap and the pre-breakthrough battery being replaced can be disposed of free-of-charge by the EV owner. Not likely, though. I'm sure due to the disposal situation with current battery technology that you would have to pay a fee to have it disposed/recycled.
The other issue is of course the low-end market and the used market. Not everyone has the cash burning a hole in their pocket for an electric car, or wants to go deeply in debt for one. (I hate car payments myself and stick with vehicles I can buy for cash.) There are several sub-$20K new gasoline powered cars that are fine for someone that just needs something reliable to get around in. Closest thing to that is a Nissan Leaf starting around $32K - that's double the cost of the Versa, which is equivalent aside from the powertrain.
For that matter it is going to be a very long time before the electric equivalent of the 10-15 year-old Toyota Corolla that can deliver years more of reliable service and be had for several thousand dollars will be available.
Another problem of course is that many people do not have a garage or even a driveway for home overnight charging. Today's electric cars cut low-end buyers out of the market.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Yep. It depends on the climate and the manufacturer like everything else.
Here's an anecdotal.
Agreed. That unit he tests seems to have been of very high quality. I can't read the full article (not a subscriber) but would have been interesting to see how it actually performed when new versus the "paper" specs for it, which it was likely significantly above, given the apparent lack of degradation.
Yep. It depends on the climate and the manufacturer like everything else.
Here's an anecdotal.
Agreed. That unit he tests seems to have been of very high quality. I can't read the full article (not a subscriber) but would have been interesting to see how it actually performed when new versus the "paper" specs for it, which it was likely significantly above, given the apparent lack of degradation.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, we have to have leaders. Subsidies can enable progress. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.
In sunny CA, new housing developments are required to have solar panels (there are exemptions such as wooded areas with little sunlight). The incremental cost is minimal due to economy of scale.
The net benefit is huge. Imagine entire communities using solar energy from the get go...
And what do they use when it's snowing or night? An "entire community" won't run on solar. It can have some, or even all, of its daylight usage suppressed by PV, true, but there are significant gymnastics for other periods unless everybody in that community buys an obscene amount of storage. In reality, they are exporting excess during the day and still relying on the grid for much of the rest of the time. This has significant impacts on the economics of the plants required to do the acrobatics to prop such a scenario up due to the "duck curve" created and creates a niche for higher emitting fast-acting single-cycle "peaker" style plants.
PV becomes a problem for a grid once the power it displaces starts dipping into baseload territory. A utility simultaneously needs to dump or curtail capacity while making it available in the event that weather or some other event suddenly results in demand popping back up. However, wind is far worse, as it can disappear for weeks at a time and typically produces out of phase with demand. It is even more ridiculous if the baseload that gets displace is already ultra low emissions like nuclear or hydro, both of which have lower emissions than PV per the IPCC.
I'm not opposed to (unsubsidized) PV as a peaker mitigation mechanism coupled with a reasonable level of storage to reduce gas usage. I am however opposed to crafting mandates based entirely on ideology and ignoring the engineering, operation and design aspects of grids.
In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, we have to have leaders. Subsidies can enable progress. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.
In sunny CA, new housing developments are required to have solar panels (there are exemptions such as wooded areas with little sunlight). The incremental cost is minimal due to economy of scale.
The net benefit is huge. Imagine entire communities using solar energy from the get go...
And what do they use when it's snowing or night? An "entire community" won't run on solar. It can have some, or even all, of its daylight usage suppressed by PV, true, but there are significant gymnastics for other periods unless everybody in that community buys an obscene amount of storage. In reality, they are exporting excess during the day and still relying on the grid for much of the rest of the time. This has significant impacts on the economics of the plants required to do the acrobatics to prop such a scenario up due to the "duck curve" created and creates a niche for higher emitting fast-acting single-cycle "peaker" style plants.
PV becomes a problem for a grid once the power it displaces starts dipping into baseload territory. A utility simultaneously needs to dump or curtail capacity while making it available in the event that weather or some other event suddenly results in demand popping back up. However, wind is far worse, as it can disappear for weeks at a time and typically produces out of phase with demand. It is even more ridiculous if the baseload that gets displace is already ultra low emissions like nuclear or hydro, both of which have lower emissions than PV per the IPCC.
I'm not opposed to (unsubsidized) PV as a peaker mitigation mechanism coupled with a reasonable level of storage to reduce gas usage. I am however opposed to crafting mandates based entirely on ideology and ignoring the engineering, operation and design aspects of grids.
Your answer, madRiver, is that through increased domestic production, the net energy to deliver gasoline has dropped quite a bit over the past 10 years. Domestic production is up almost 250% over 2008 levels, so that is an additional strike against the "EVs are the greatest thing ever" farce by focusing on net energy.
There's a reason why politicians love statistics; if you know what you're doing, you can make them say anything you want... when you cherry pick a small, unrepresentative set vs. using the whole kit and kaboodle for the analysis.
![[Linked Image from cdn.statcdn.com]](https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/17859.jpeg "[Linked Image from cdn.statcdn.com]")
There's a reason why politicians love statistics; if you know what you're doing, you can make them say anything you want... when you cherry pick a small, unrepresentative set vs. using the whole kit and kaboodle for the analysis.
Originally Posted by PimTac
I thought sodium had some issues like running hot?
Biggest thing is safety - sodium, like the rest of the alkali metals are reactive. Mg is the exception to the rule since it forms an oxide later upon exposure to the atmosphere(otherwise it wouldn't be used in engines and Ford wouldn't use a magnesium alloy core support in the F-150).
However, it does look like a Na-Ion battery can be safer than a Li-Ion battery. Li-Ion batteries use a volatile electrolyte and the negative electrode in one is carbon-based, and abuse/overcharging a Li-Ion/Li-Polymer can trigger a thermal event which in worst-case scenario can lead to a fire.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/a-battery-technology-worth-its-salt/3010966.article
I thought sodium had some issues like running hot?
Biggest thing is safety - sodium, like the rest of the alkali metals are reactive. Mg is the exception to the rule since it forms an oxide later upon exposure to the atmosphere(otherwise it wouldn't be used in engines and Ford wouldn't use a magnesium alloy core support in the F-150).
However, it does look like a Na-Ion battery can be safer than a Li-Ion battery. Li-Ion batteries use a volatile electrolyte and the negative electrode in one is carbon-based, and abuse/overcharging a Li-Ion/Li-Polymer can trigger a thermal event which in worst-case scenario can lead to a fire.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/a-battery-technology-worth-its-salt/3010966.article
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JOD
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Don't get me wrong; I completely believe that there are benefits to "personal" photovoltaic systems if done properly (and not focused on charging your EV as its primary goal)... wiring it so that the system is able to supply the residence during times of grid power loss is great and will prevent much individual suffering and loss. But some of the interconnects make this difficult to impossible. Grid-tied systems do benefit the local power company, and in a small way the end owner (as JeffK has shared his results). Small wind turbines are likely a boost as well, as there is a private one amidst the wind farm on my way to work, and it is always humming away at probably 80-100rpm every time I see it. My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
how do you feel about the 20 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? (and that's a conservative estimate--which doesn't even touch the military budget used in part to assure stable oil supply from the middle east).
When you're talking about something the scale of energy production and transportation, it seems that governments can accomplish some things that even the largest company can't on its own. It seems like public/private partnerships have some value here.
This is a complex subject but the "20B in subsidies" are not really directly related to oil imports because he US imports almost no oil from the ME. In actuality the subsidies make everything we buy in the US cheaper than it otherwise would be.
Basically without US dollar hegemony everything we buy would be more expensive, whether that be solar panels, EV's, ICE vehicles, etc. etc. Basically the rest of the world finances
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it
Based on his response he fully supports a $20 billion dollar oil subsidy since oil is a corporate legacy product but fully opposes the $200 million dollar EV credit because its new and benefits individuals and not corporations
I guess why do we need an oil subsidy any more than an EV subsidy, non-market is non-market and one dwarfs the other
What's more amusing is that there really isn't an EV tax credit when the state taxes the living $$$$ out of a plug in every year,
$665 title + registration vrs $85 which do you choose?
And there is talk of doubling it again, your $7500 loan will get paid back in no time.
Then we have the $1 a gallon biodiesel subsidy that came out of the EV credit fund, good trade.
Originally Posted by JOD
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Don't get me wrong; I completely believe that there are benefits to "personal" photovoltaic systems if done properly (and not focused on charging your EV as its primary goal)... wiring it so that the system is able to supply the residence during times of grid power loss is great and will prevent much individual suffering and loss. But some of the interconnects make this difficult to impossible. Grid-tied systems do benefit the local power company, and in a small way the end owner (as JeffK has shared his results). Small wind turbines are likely a boost as well, as there is a private one amidst the wind farm on my way to work, and it is always humming away at probably 80-100rpm every time I see it. My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
how do you feel about the 20 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? (and that's a conservative estimate--which doesn't even touch the military budget used in part to assure stable oil supply from the middle east).
When you're talking about something the scale of energy production and transportation, it seems that governments can accomplish some things that even the largest company can't on its own. It seems like public/private partnerships have some value here.
This is a complex subject but the "20B in subsidies" are not really directly related to oil imports because he US imports almost no oil from the ME. In actuality the subsidies make everything we buy in the US cheaper than it otherwise would be.
Basically without US dollar hegemony everything we buy would be more expensive, whether that be solar panels, EV's, ICE vehicles, etc. etc. Basically the rest of the world finances
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it
Based on his response he fully supports a $20 billion dollar oil subsidy since oil is a corporate legacy product but fully opposes the $200 million dollar EV credit because its new and benefits individuals and not corporations
I guess why do we need an oil subsidy any more than an EV subsidy, non-market is non-market and one dwarfs the other
What's more amusing is that there really isn't an EV tax credit when the state taxes the living $$$$ out of a plug in every year,
$665 title + registration vrs $85 which do you choose?
And there is talk of doubling it again, your $7500 loan will get paid back in no time.
Then we have the $1 a gallon biodiesel subsidy that came out of the EV credit fund, good trade.
Last edited:
Business deductions are not "subsidies". Carbon credits to an electric vehicle manufacturer are subsidies, as are any tax credits or other government favoritism shown electric car owners.
Electric vehicles should compete in the marketplace on their own merits. Today for most people they fail. In the future as the technology improves and costs decrease there will come a time when that changes. No reason to force it.
Electric vehicles should compete in the marketplace on their own merits. Today for most people they fail. In the future as the technology improves and costs decrease there will come a time when that changes. No reason to force it.
Originally Posted by Saabist
Business deductions are not "subsidies". Carbon credits to an electric vehicle manufacturer are subsidies, as are any tax credits or other government favoritism shown electric car owners.
Electric vehicles should compete in the marketplace on their own merits. Today for most people they fail. In the future as the technology improves and costs decrease there will come a time when that changes. No reason to force it.
https://www.fuelfreedom.org/oil-company-subsidies/
When the federal government backs you paying for your unrelated expenses
without expectation of repayment it's a subsidy .
No other industry save certain farms get the same kid glove financial assistance at every turn
No different than farm subsidies
Business deductions are not "subsidies". Carbon credits to an electric vehicle manufacturer are subsidies, as are any tax credits or other government favoritism shown electric car owners.
Electric vehicles should compete in the marketplace on their own merits. Today for most people they fail. In the future as the technology improves and costs decrease there will come a time when that changes. No reason to force it.
https://www.fuelfreedom.org/oil-company-subsidies/
When the federal government backs you paying for your unrelated expenses
without expectation of repayment it's a subsidy .
No other industry save certain farms get the same kid glove financial assistance at every turn
No different than farm subsidies
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, we have to have leaders. Subsidies can enable progress. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.
In sunny CA, new housing developments are required to have solar panels (there are exemptions such as wooded areas with little sunlight). The incremental cost is minimal due to economy of scale.
The net benefit is huge. Imagine entire communities using solar energy from the get go...
And what do they use when it's snowing or night? An "entire community" won't run on solar. It can have some, or even all, of its daylight usage suppressed by PV, true, but there are significant gymnastics for other periods unless everybody in that community buys an obscene amount of storage. In reality, they are exporting excess during the day and still relying on the grid for much of the rest of the time. This has significant impacts on the economics of the plants required to do the acrobatics to prop such a scenario up due to the "duck curve" created and creates a niche for higher emitting fast-acting single-cycle "peaker" style plants.
PV becomes a problem for a grid once the power it displaces starts dipping into baseload territory. A utility simultaneously needs to dump or curtail capacity while making it available in the event that weather or some other event suddenly results in demand popping back up. However, wind is far worse, as it can disappear for weeks at a time and typically produces out of phase with demand. It is even more ridiculous if the baseload that gets displace is already ultra low emissions like nuclear or hydro, both of which have lower emissions than PV per the IPCC.
I'm not opposed to (unsubsidized) PV as a peaker mitigation mechanism coupled with a reasonable level of storage to reduce gas usage. I am however opposed to crafting mandates based entirely on ideology and ignoring the engineering, operation and design aspects of grids.
Yes, they are on the grid, like I am. Storage is getting more popular due to the PGE outages. Quickly.
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, we have to have leaders. Subsidies can enable progress. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.
In sunny CA, new housing developments are required to have solar panels (there are exemptions such as wooded areas with little sunlight). The incremental cost is minimal due to economy of scale.
The net benefit is huge. Imagine entire communities using solar energy from the get go...
And what do they use when it's snowing or night? An "entire community" won't run on solar. It can have some, or even all, of its daylight usage suppressed by PV, true, but there are significant gymnastics for other periods unless everybody in that community buys an obscene amount of storage. In reality, they are exporting excess during the day and still relying on the grid for much of the rest of the time. This has significant impacts on the economics of the plants required to do the acrobatics to prop such a scenario up due to the "duck curve" created and creates a niche for higher emitting fast-acting single-cycle "peaker" style plants.
PV becomes a problem for a grid once the power it displaces starts dipping into baseload territory. A utility simultaneously needs to dump or curtail capacity while making it available in the event that weather or some other event suddenly results in demand popping back up. However, wind is far worse, as it can disappear for weeks at a time and typically produces out of phase with demand. It is even more ridiculous if the baseload that gets displace is already ultra low emissions like nuclear or hydro, both of which have lower emissions than PV per the IPCC.
I'm not opposed to (unsubsidized) PV as a peaker mitigation mechanism coupled with a reasonable level of storage to reduce gas usage. I am however opposed to crafting mandates based entirely on ideology and ignoring the engineering, operation and design aspects of grids.
Yes, they are on the grid, like I am. Storage is getting more popular due to the PGE outages. Quickly.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, PGE is a disaster, no argument there.
- Status
Similar threads
