…from the Obama administration. Well, it is Government Motors, after all. Gotta look for the union label when it comes to paying off your supporters with taxpayer money.
32 thoughts on “Energy Lunacy”
Comments are closed.
…from the Obama administration. Well, it is Government Motors, after all. Gotta look for the union label when it comes to paying off your supporters with taxpayer money.
Comments are closed.
The man seriously pitched a $40,000 Volt as the solution for “an aging SUV whose gas price is too much to handle” today.
Who is John Gault? Could we have a better parallel to what’s happen right now?
Interestingly enough, both Nissan and Mitsubishi are bringing fully battery electric vehicles to the markets worldwide on their own. Yes, a lot of governments are providing incentives for the technology, so they are subsidized to some degree..
Mitsubishi has sold more than 5000 units worldwide, to date. Several countries are implementing DC fast charge networks ( Japan has it deployed in hundreds, Norway just signed up for deployments .. ) that can provide 80% of charge for Leaf’s and MiEVs in ~15 minutes.
MiEV in US markets will be priced at $20,490, Leaf is priced at $26,220, both after federal $7500 tax break. The prices will be lower in some states providing their own tax breaks..
If the cars were economically viable, they wouldn’t need a $7500 tax break or other government subsidizies for things like building the recharging infrastructure. Did the government subsidize the construction of gas stations?
>>Did the government subsidize the construction of gas stations
Yes. Its also still subsidizing oil companies. It also subsidized the transition from horseback riding to cars by building a lot of the things that became known as “highways”
Not sure I believe this but;
“”Volt owners drove an average of 800 miles between fill-ups since the Volt launched in December, and in March they averaged 1,000 miles,” said Cristi Landy, Volt marketing director. “When the majority of miles driven are electrically, gas usage decreases significantly.””
http://www.wmbb.com/Global/story.asp?S=14488631
Seems there are other stories out there that don’t support this.
Yes. Its also still subsidizing oil companies. It also subsidized the transition from horseback riding to cars by building a lot of the things that became known as “highways”
Almost all of the original gas stations were privately owned and not subsidized. As for the roads, they were paid for by fuel taxes and/or tolls. Those pure electric cars aren’t paying fuel taxes and high mileage vehicles may not be paying enough to cover their usage of the highways. That’s yet another subsidizy that everyone else has to pay for.
In the meantime, the implementation of EV charing stations is being heavily subsidized.
ECOtality is the project manager of The EV Project and will oversee the installation of 15,000 commercial and residential charging stations in 16 cities and major metropolitan areas in six states and the District of Columbia. The project will provide an EV infrastructure to support the deployment of 8,300 EVs. The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through a federal stimulus grant of $114.8 million, made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The grants are matched by private investment, bringing the total value of the project to approximately $230 million.
As for the oil companies, they get a lot of tax breaks but they also pay a lot of taxes. Why should I or anyone else have to help pay for someone to buy an electric car?
Why are you paying any taxes at all ? Most of what you pay gets spent on someone else. Those evil pure electric cars will get taxed in no time, as soon as there are significant numbers out there.
Meanwhile, you can think of the electric car buyers doing you a favor, when not idling in front of you in a traffic jam in an old clunker spewing bluish fumes. Or not waking you up starting a V8 next door at 6AM. Tiny price, tiny favors.
The reason to go electric ? To efficiently decouple energy production from energy consumption. That’s the fundamental reason on electrifying transportation.
It creates the opportunity to optimize both sides of the equation independently, while the technology improves. Also giving more freedoms choosing on where your energy comes from.
“Meanwhile, you can think of the electric car buyers doing you a favor, when not idling in front of you in a traffic jam in an old clunker spewing bluish fumes. Or not waking you up starting a V8 next door at 6AM. Tiny price, tiny favors.”
False choice and implicit non sequitur. I seldom encounter these things already, and the introduction of expensive electrical vehicles is not going to do anything to get more clunkers off the road.
“To efficiently decouple energy production from energy consumption.”
I’m just going to let you off with a warning this time: we obey the laws of physics at this site. Next time, you will have to be issued a citation.
I seldom encounter these things already,
So do i, thats why i said “tiny favor”. It still happens though, and i dont mind paying $0.1 in annual taxes to reduce the likelihood.
Next time, you will have to be issued a citation.
Yeah, i wasn’t clear with what i meant. Both chemical batteries and gas, or generally hydrocarbon fuels, are means of energy storage.
Gas is an incredibly inefficient one though, especially when the stored energy is released through conventional internal combustion engines.
When i said “decoupling” i meant separating the release of stored hydrocarbon energy from the place where its consumed for the transportation.
“Well-to-wheels” efficiency of EVs even with currently predominantly coal-powered grid, transmission losses and charge discharge efficiency etc factored in, still beats even the most efficient diesels.
reader, gasoline has a very high energy density and the infrastructure for its use already exists. The losses in the transportation of the fuel are negligible compared to power line transmission losses.
Just because a law has mandated MPG double industry-wide on a short timetable doesn’t mean it will happen. Watch for GM to get an exemption at the deadline and everyone else to go out of business.
… and I’m beginning to think that this is the desired outcome.
General Motors has never understood the small car market or how to build cars that get good MPG. Its just not part of their culture.
And as I noted before, the government should had let GM go under and let the better managed firms,and investors, pick over the remains. Their diesel, locomotive, and heavy truck divisions are good performers. They would had survived as independent units. So would the Cadillac and light truck units. Its their non-luxury automobile division that pulls them down and should be liquidated.
gasoline has a very high energy density and the infrastructure for its use already exists.
Infrastructure for stagecoaches also existed a hundred years ago. Whats your point ? Have you noticed that installation cost of a charging plug in your garage are basically minuscule ?
High energy density of gas and hydrocarbon fuels is offset by incredibly low efficiency of burning them in conventional internal combustion engines.
The losses in the transportation of the fuel are negligible compared to power line transmission losses.
Are you kidding me ? Check your facts. How was Deepwater horizon for “transmission losses” ?
Again, well to wheels, battery electric vehicles beat ICE hands down in efficiency, all losses factored in.
Look, im not saying EVs are the final solution to energy independence , but they have certain unarguable uses and advantages in some transportation segments.
reader says: “Have you noticed that installation cost of a charging plug in your garage are basically minuscule ?”
Uh, the fast charging stations are $2000; that alone is hardly a minuscule cost. That doesn’t include the installation costs. And the gov’t isn’t just gonna let you off the hook that easy with the install. The electrician will probably have to pull the building’s permit which means the city inspector will have to come out and inspect the work as well. A city inspection will likely uncover some other violation that will have to be addressed (more money) before the permit can be signed back over into good standing.
I have a “fast charging” solution for my current car — it’s called a $10 gas can. And it doesn’t even need a garage to house and protect it. Which means even someone living in an apartment complex can use one.
Furthermore, all switching to electric cars is gonna do is shift the demand to new suppliers of rare earth metals and lithium sources forming new cartels to replace the oil producers. Funny that when cars were first made that all these “revolutionary” choices were available to consumers to pick and decide from and gasoline powered vehicles clearly came out on top. It is because decisions like this incorporate a wide variety of competing needs and wants and no single dataset is purely relied upon to come to any conclusion.
Reader, you wrote:
Check your facts. How was Deepwater horizon for “transmission losses” ?
Deepwater Horizon was insignificant. You just don’t understand how much oil is shipped.
Ed Minchau Says:
April 22nd, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“The losses in the transportation of the fuel are negligible compared to power line transmission losses.”
Likely enough. But, that isn’t the whole story, either. Power stations also must have their fuel transported to them in some way.
How much energy is needed to create and dispose of an electric vehicle compared to an ICE one?
And, what about the cost of hauling around the weight of all those batteries?
I have yet to see a satisfactory end-to-end energy balance drawn up between the two competitors which clearly shows that ALL the energy inputs and outputs have been taken into account. If anyone can direct me to such an analysis, I would be much obliged, but I have been unable to find it on my own. Most analyses I have seen leave something out.
There may be an overall efficiency improvement with electric vehicles, but I suspect it is not all that much if there is. I have driven hybrid rental cars, and their accelerations were extremely wimpy. I bet if you were actually comparing apples to apples, a 50 mpg ICE vehicle with similarly wimpy acceleration, for example, there would be virtually no difference.
I think there is a clear advantage, though, when you start deriving your electricity from a virtually limitless, ultra-high energy density source such as nuclear power. But, building masses of electric vehicles before we have that infrastructure is a little cart-before-horse. Maybe, though, if electric vehicles drive demand for electricity through the roof, we will have greater impetus to move in that direction.
Karl Hallowell Says:
April 23rd, 2011 at 1:10 pm
“Deepwater Horizon was insignificant. You just don’t understand how much oil is shipped.”
Or, the volume of water in the Gulf. The volume of water in the Gulf is 643 quadrillion gallons. The oil spill was a total of 206 million gallons. Overall percentage: negligible.
The batteries in electrics are extremely toxic and they don’t have a long life. They also don’t hold a charge well in cold weather.
Having said that, it would be nice if we didn’t have to rely on crazy people in the ME for oil.
“it would be nice if we didn’t have to rely on crazy people in the ME for oil.”
Westerners developed the technology to extract that oil from the desert sands. That stuff sat in there lands for decades after the advent of gasoline powered vehicles and they could never figure out on their own what to do with it. They leased the oil rich lands out to foreign countries for years before they even had a clue what the economic and political ramifications of what their lynch pin in world power had to do with it. Then, they nationalized all of it and took it away from us. All that technology, all that innovation put into developing the oil production of the Middle East is really ours. We’d be just as fit to take it all back if we really wanted to and it would be all right in my books. No productive effort on the Muslims part to bring productive knowledge to fruition. No impact in terms of effective integration into widespread infrastructure. They let others set up the whole cartel for them and then they just snuck off with it and made it there own. Talk about a Ayn Rand experiment that comes to life if there ever was one.
I think it’s really sad to argue and distort the facts about electric cars vs gasoline cars just because you oppose the government intervention in the establishment of a new market. If you’re skeptical of the facts, attack the facts. If you’re ideologically opposed to government intervention, attack the intervention. Stop attacking one to attack the other.
I have yet to see a satisfactory end-to-end energy balance drawn up between the two competitors which clearly shows that ALL the energy inputs and outputs have been taken into account. If anyone can direct me to such an analysis, I would be much obliged, but I have been unable to find it on my own.
Search for Michelin Challenge Bibendum reports. Very detailed analysis of all the alternatives.
Start here and dig into “Rio 2010” reports.
There is so much other stuff in this thread that is just plain wrong, to anyone with half a clue .. “batteries in electrics are extremely toxic” … how do you even respond to that ?
Actually, Rio report isnt most detailed, past years have been better with more data presented, recommend digging back further.
‘There is so much other stuff in this thread that is just plain wrong, to anyone with half a clue .. “batteries in electrics are extremely toxic” … how do you even respond to that ?’
By explaining how reports such as this are wrong, if you can.
For the other, yeah, there’s always significant detail missing. As I said, my judgment is that the benefit, if there is any, is not terribly significant (I don’t get very excited by order of 10% more or less improvement, and I don’t think the comparison is generally being made between equally capable vehicles), unless we can derive the electricity from a better mix of resources than that which currently makes up our generating capacity.
reader, you wrote:
“batteries in electrics are extremely toxic” … how do you even respond to that ?
By shutting up. I work at a company where such batteries would be treated as recyclable but very hazardous waste. Maybe if you read some (and actually fulfilled the promise of your name), then you’d be able to confidently talk about battery recycling and the other issues which seem to stymie you so much.
>>By explaining how reports such as this are wrong, if you can.
Did you even bloody read it ?? “As of the moment, lithium-ion cells have the least environmental impact in the battery family.”
No current automaker is looking at anything but Lithim-ion, mostly lithium iron phosphate battery packs. Its about as toxic as dihydrogen monoxide. Karl, how about that STFU ?
least environmental impact ~= no environmental impact
FTA: “the electrolyte can be made out of many materials, but LiPF6 in carbonate solvent is the most common. Lithium carbonate can be a toxin to humans and animals, while LiPF6 can react with water to produce hydrofluoric acid, which is a major pollutant and contact poison.”
Examples of materials which were thought safe to use and turned out to cause major environmental problems are legion (asbestos, lead, CFC’s, etc…) How about we look a little before we leap? What happens when these materials are used on a massive scale? How much harm is done to the environment in the extraction process?
There is no emergency here. Indeed, the point at which use of electric vehicles becomes a net benefit is a long way off, however you slice it. Chill out.
reader, I see that you still haven’t taken my advice.
Its about as toxic as dihydrogen monoxide. Karl, how about that STFU ?
No. It’s not as toxic as water. Read up on the MSDS for lithium iron phosphate-based batteries.
If you bother, you’ll also read a lot of instructions on how to store these batteries and put out fires that involve these batteries. It’s not water. Also, lithium iron phosphate is a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant.
Some of the other trolls learn to google rather than make stuff up. Then they don’t look as much like idiots. Given your record of dismal failure in this particular thread, including your latest post, I still think it would be a good idea for you to shut up.
Given your record of dismal failure in this particular thread, including your latest post, I still think it would be a good idea for you to shut up.
Also, reader, I speak above in support of your interests not mine. I personally enjoy reading your little hiccups of prose. I don’t mind at all, if you can’t close that mouth.
Karl, you are joking right ? Claiming something “is extremely toxic” is not the same as saying “its an eye and respiratory irritant”. Like i already said, DHMO is a well known respiratory irritant ..
And yes, i have put out Lipo battery fires, whats your point ? Nobody is using Lipos on a fullsize personal transportation.
All things combined, there is _less_ dangerous materials in any battery electric car with a sane battery choice, than an average ICE powered car.
Actually, lets be frank here. The poster above has heard or read something about nicad or regular old lead-acid battery toxicity and left a knee-jerk comment about “extreme toxicity”, without knowing much about whats actually being put in the new cars.