Electric cars may not be so green after all (greenhouse gases, heaters, fertilizer)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by plwhit

Additionally, it does nothing for energy independence because the US produces almost no lithium needed for the batteries.

But guess who does? Right, China.

I don't know what the deal is on the lithium but I'd imagine it's the same thing that happened with the "rare" earth minerals. The Chinese were dumping on the market a decade ago putting these mines out of business here, now they control the market. The mines here can start up again but it's not an overnight process, even in a fair market the Chinese still hold the upper hand because of lax environmental regulations, cheaper labor etc.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Philip T

But would love any opposing discussion based on reality.

This from the guy claiming zero cost on the fuel.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Spoken like a true salesman, if I buy a wood stove to heat my house I can get "free" wood off my land. I don't use wood.... LOL.

Just numbers. That is the way these are at the present. If folks are too good for free, someone will always be willing to charge them a couple hundred dollars a month so they feel better about the deal. All joking aside, that is what happens on the Lease side of things.

You still have the initial investment and since they are taxpayer and the costs of products they buy are effected by electric rates they are in sense still a ratepayer too. While there costs might be minimized with subsidization they still are not paying zero.

A Zero Net user (when Net Metered) does not really turn out to be a rate-payer -- usually pays a connection fee for the house or business connection. But as far the investment costs -- When there is the right combination of grants and rebates the projects are fully funded.

If the free market did this they call it a ponzi scheme.

Keep in mind, I know both sides of the industry -- IF there were a free market with costs truly loaded the way they go . . . Coal would already be going bye-bye, and Oil would have been gone some years ago. If all subsidies and support were pulled out from the whole energy sector, we would already be heading deep into renewables, with a lot less grief.

The gasoline tax while not perfect is one of the more fair taxes because larger vehicles that do more damage to the road pay more because they use more fuel. As electric cars and more fuel efficient cars come on the market the revenue decreases but the costs to build and maintain roads do not. We could increase the gasoline tax but that doesn't address electric cars. The fairest way to levy these taxes would be based on formula using the weight of the vehicle and the miles driven. The Chevy volt is listed at almost 3800 pounds which is in the upper range of your average mid sized sedan in that 22mpg fuel economy range.

Personally I do not really care on the details of how they want to do the mess. You know I fully agree at the end of the day, things should be fully paid for.

For me, I would grid power the roads and let the various levels of .gov help pay their bills from the retailer level (since they own the roads) power bills that would pay through them. More than cover the roads and help pay for other .gov functions, as well.

In the meanwhile start bumping the fuel taxes, to pay off the true costs of the wars, pollution, land destruction/recovery, and the rest of the mess the Oil / Carbon Era has brought US, while easing US off Oil.

Spending other peoples money is always cheap.

Not always.

The Iraqicide showed different.

[DCforever]

Strawman alert. No one is trying to take the US off oil entirely anymore than we are trying to take the 300 pound obese person off food entirely.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Philip T

A Zero Net user (when Net Metered) does not really turn out to be a rate-payer

Everyone is ratepayer in one sense or another, if my electric bill goes up I have to charge more for my services. These costs are passed onto the consumer.

When there is the right combination of grants and rebates the projects are fully funded.

...by the taxpayer and ratepayer.

Keep in mind, I know both sides of the industry -- IF there were a free market with costs truly loaded the way they go . . . Coal would already be going bye-bye, and Oil would have been gone some years ago. If all subsidies and support were pulled out from the whole energy sector, we would already be heading deep into renewables, with a lot less grief.

You don't know ****, there is difference between thinking you know and actually knowing. Now if we want to get down to facts we could reference what the numbers are. For example we could reference this 2007 IEA document, the IEA is arm of the DOE that provides analysis and statistics. The document is dated a little but I like to use this document because its brief yet concise and lists all the subsidies in nice easy to understand format.


>>>Source<<<: Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007
[/quote]

1. Table ES1
2. Coal, Natural Gas, Petroleum & Nuclear
   • $6.718 Billion
3. Renewables
   • $4.875 Billion

These number as we know have increased dramatically since 2007 for renewables, hence the reason you have job selling snake oil. At this point in time the ethanol subsidy alone will exceed all the funds given to solar in 2007.

• Table ES5
• Coal
  • Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 1,946
    Subsidization : $854 million
    Cost per megawatthour of generation $0.44
• Refined Coal
  • Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 72
    Subsidization : $2,156 million
    Cost per megawatthour of generation: $29.81
• Nuclear
  • Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 794
    Subsidization : $1,267 million
    Cost per meggwatthour of generation: $1.59
  
  
  
  
  • Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 1
    Subsidization : $14 million
    Cost per meggwatthour of generation: $24.34
• Wind
  • Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 31
    Subsidization : $724 million
    Cost per megawatthour of generation: $23.37

FYI, most of the coal subsidy is for R&D, it doesn't support production which is very important point.


It gets worse.........

• Table ES6.
• Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids
  • FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 55.78
    Subsidization : $1,921 Million
    Subsidy per million Btu: $0.03
• Ethanol/Biofuels
  • FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 0.57
    Subsidization : $3,249 Million
    Subsidy per million Btu: $5.72

I'll put this into real world numbers for, that's about 50 cents a gallon for ethanol and fractions of penny for the petroleum.


Now if you want to continue this discussion and have any credibility in your assertions cite your sources and please use a credible source....... like the EIA.

[plwhit]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Now if you want to continue this discussion and have any credibility in your assertions cite your sources and please use a credible source....... like the EIA.

The poster has never given any factual data to back up his wild claims, what makes you think he will start now?

He has been asked on numerous occasions and all with the same results, ignores them and just rants on........

BTW, thanks for that URL, good, solid, factual information

[thecoalman]

It's also important to know why subsidies are in place. If you take the petroleum subsidies while any company can take advantage of it's there for the small time operations that need it. If Exxon drills a bad well they can absorb the cost and move onto the next one, if the small time operator drills one they go bankrupt. Removal of it is not going to effect the cost of gasoline other than possibly driving it up because of less competition but it will drive a lot of people out of business as they get run over by bohemoths like Exxon. It's very easy to say remove it without considering the consequences.

If you examine the coal subsidy about 2/3's of it goes to R&D.... Removal of it has no effect on the market. I'm not really concerned if my electric bill goes up 20 cents each month.

With renewables its for one thing and one thing only. It's to make the product profitable across the entire industry. It would collapse without them and the mandates.

[DCforever]

The big subsidy for the coal industry is the right to pollute for free. The big subsidy for the oil industry is our use of the US military to defend their business interests. Both of these dwarf what renewable energy gets.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by DCforever

The big subsidy for the coal industry is the right to pollute for free.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html




The coal industry faces ever increasing reductions on pollution which cost them and the consumer money and it is still by far the cheapest way to make electric. Within a modern society we have to accept there is going to be a certain amount of pollution and we can always work towards elimination of that with practical measures. Here's a stark fact though, even if we were eliminate all coal use in the US within 5 years China will add that amount to their annual consumption. There is reason they fuel their economy with coal.


As far as the military goes I guess you could amke that argument but all the more reason for us to get our heads out of our ass and start using domestic resources like coal which we have plenty of.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by DCforever

Strawman alert. No one is trying to take the US off oil entirely anymore than we are trying to take the 300 pound obese person off food entirely.

Probably true enough.

I figure the long view is sort of like horses. We still have plenty around. Where we have landed in Texas is sort a My-Little-Pony-Pretty-Princess-Land. We have 5 horses in the backyard, and the place we are setting up as the first build-site for the Electric Farming project is a horse farm, as well.

But given the alternative -- automobiles -- the horses are not real practical, and tend to be very expensive. Same way Oil is playing out for transportation. In the long run Oil is not real practical and very expensive.