I submit that an EV is a fossil fuel vehicle when charged off the US grid

[Saabist]

"Fuel Freedom Foundation"? Sorry, reading their mission statement they are just another oil-hating group of a particular political persuasion. Anything such a group has to say about the oil industry and alleged "subsidies" is highly suspect, to say the least since they have a big axe to grind.

Oil is a great fuel, great lubricant, and provides the basis of many products - and we have plenty of it. There is no critical need to "end our dependence" on such a useful resource.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Yes, PGE is a disaster, no argument there.

You have no idea... And the current FEMA is playing games with payouts.
FEMA is saying if they can't get partial reimbursement out of the PGE $13.5B settlement they may try and take it from some of the fire victims who get settlement money.

 

[P10crew]

And here comes the entitlements!
Lock time is approaching!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Yes, PGE is a disaster, no argument there.

You have no idea... And the current FEMA is playing games with payouts.
FEMA is saying if they can't get partial reimbursement out of the PGE $13.5B settlement they may try and take it from some of the fire victims who get settlement money.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Yes, PGE is a disaster, no argument there.

You have no idea... And the current FEMA is playing games with payouts.
FEMA is saying if they can't get partial reimbursement out of the PGE $13.5B settlement they may try and take it from some of the fire victims who get settlement money.

It's not as bad as it sounds. In the cases where FEMA paid fire victims for their damages and PG&E paid again for the same damages (double paid) in the settlement, FEMA reserves the right to collect that portion of their payouts back. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Yes, PGE is a disaster, no argument there.

You have no idea... And the current FEMA is playing games with payouts.
FEMA is saying if they can't get partial reimbursement out of the PGE $13.5B settlement they may try and take it from some of the fire victims who get settlement money.

It's not as bad as it sounds. In the cases where FEMA paid fire victims for their damages and PG&E paid again for the same damages (double paid) in the settlement, FEMA reserves the right to collect that portion of their payouts back. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.


Ahhh, OK, yeah, that's not as bad as that sounded originally.

 

[DennisR]

The power grid is a very complex network of different types of power generation plants ranging from solar to nuclear that are connected together. So saying EV's are coal powered 100% is not true. The power grid is broken down into regions in the united states where some are a combination of combined cycle natural gas and nuclear and others could be a combination of coal, hydro, and combined cycle natural gas as a mix. So the power from the grid needed to charge an EV is a mixture of different power generation types all put together. That's the beauty of electricity, being able to source from so many different power generation sources at any given time to meet the demands of consumers.


Lithium is not pit mined, that would be cobalt, which is also in some lithium battery chemistries. However, newer chemistries use more silicone to offset the usage of cobalt, like those in tesla vehicles. Personally, I think the tesla cars are test mules for space buggies that will one day roam around on the surface of other planets since oxygen deprived atmospheres will not allow combustion engine buggies to work. He owns spaceX and a solar panel company, so I don't see why Tesla tech would not be used in a dune buggy for getting around on another planet. The cyber truck does have that buggy like look to it like it belongs in space.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by DennisR
Personally, I think the tesla cars are test mules for space buggies that will one day roam around on the surface of other planets since oxygen deprived atmospheres will not allow combustion engine buggies to work. He owns spaceX and a solar panel company, so I don't see why Tesla tech would not be used in a dune buggy for getting around on another planet. The cyber truck does have that buggy like look to it like it belongs in space.


What? Spirit and Opportunity were roving around on Mars years before Tesla.

All those contracts are put out to bid and he could submit one like anybody else. The current project going to Mars later this year won't get there til 2021 and it already has a rover. That was started back in 2012. They are also using plutonium dioxide for a power source so it's not a battery powered vehicle although it does have a few batteries for supplemental power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_2020

But if you look at the rovers and a Tesla, they are nothing alike.

 

[DennisR]

Ones that carry people. Like the early lunar buggy when we landed on the moon. They could adapt their designs to a buggy that uses plutonium dioxide thermal generators, too.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by DennisR
Ones that carry people. Like the early lunar buggy when we landed on the moon. They could adapt their designs to a buggy that uses plutonium dioxide thermal generators, too.


It's going to be a while. Next possible window for Mars is 2037. Will Tesla be in business then? There's also a shortage of plutonium dioxide, who knows how much they can scrape up at that point. Anyway those rovers only need that for a power source so they can run all the time even in the winter. For a buggy that gets occasional use, probably not needed.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by DennisR
Ones that carry people. Like the early lunar buggy when we landed on the moon. They could adapt their designs to a buggy that uses plutonium dioxide thermal generators, too.


It's going to be a while. Next possible window for Mars is 2037. Will Tesla be in business then? There's also a shortage of plutonium dioxide, who knows how much they can scrape up at that point. Anyway those rovers only need that for a power source so they can run all the time even in the winter. For a buggy that gets occasional use, probably not needed.


My WAG about Mars: The ship will have to be constructed in space because the required radiation shielding will make it too heavy to launch from earth. Unless of course the passengers don't mind dying prematurely from cancer.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted by Nick1994
So, someone answer this for me.

If I have an electric car, and I plug it in to charge, is the power plant generating station polluting more now that I plugged in my car?


Yes. The power plant also pollute more now that you are spending time in front of a computer complaining about it too, and when you eat a sandwich, and when you check your email, and when you take a hot shower, and when you are alive.

Now I'm not suggesting that we human should commit suicide to save the world (not a popular option but certainly is the most straight forward one), I'm trying to say that we have to compare the impact to the alternative. What is better than the other choices. To a lot of people cheaper is the better choice, national security is the better choice, world climate is the better choice, polluting your backyard instead of mine is the better choice, you out of a job instead of me is the better choice, etc.

 

[UncleDave]

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.




Sure it is. Section 179 is one of the major reasons half tons sell like they do, and the biggest gift yet bestowed on US automakers.

Anything that reduces your tax rate is a subsidy.

Some definitions from 3rd parties -

A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. ... The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.

Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates). Furthermore, they can be broad or narrow, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.


Should everything compete on its own merits ? Or just EV's?

UD