Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How exactly does the government subsidizes oil companies? Be specific and these should be things that don't just apply to all businesses.
So here is a list of items from House bill "H.R.8411 - End Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Act of 2020" - this was intended to eliminate some special tax breaks for the industry as follows:
"This bill limits or repeals certain fossil fuel oil and gas subsidies for oil companies. Specifically, it
increases to seven years the amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures;
repeals the tax credits for producing oil and gas from marginal wells and for enhanced oil recovery;
repeals the tax deduction for the intangible drilling and development costs of oil and gas wells;
repeals percentage depletion;
repeals the tax deduction for tertiary injectant expenses;
repeals the passive loss exception for working interests in oil and gas property;
denies the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities for oil and gas activities;
prohibits the use of the last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting method by major integrated oil companies;
limits the foreign tax credit for dual capacity taxpayers (i.e., taxpayers who are subject to a levy of a foreign country or U.S. possession and receive specific economic benefits from such country or possession); and
expands the definition of crude oil for purposes of the excise tax on petroleum and petroleum products to include any oil derived from a bitumen or bituminous mixture (tar sands), and any oil derived from kerogen-bearing sources (oil shale)."
That's like, you're opinion,man, but it's not a factual thing. A zippy little hatchback that squirts through traffic, has a low CG for balanced handling, and instant throttle response, IS a fun car to use as a daily driver. It's as fun as a MINI Cooper S hardtop or a GTI or Hyundai Veloster, or anything of that ilk.
Well, that's like your opinion too, man. And mine is quite factual as I've driven older GTIs, a 2005 Cooper S, a Fiesta ST and a Tesla Model 3. The GTIs sucked hard (all watercooled VWs are trash and always have been), the Cooper S was ok, nothing too special and that was before they became so bloated. The ST was quite fun. The Tesla... it was a total piece of soulless junk trash in every way. Very much like like its creator. Just computer with 0 emotion, feeling or anything else. It was not fun to drive (minus acceleration), it was horribly designed and made and felt like cheap trash that it is. If other electric cars are going to be like that (and they will) then you can keep them and I'll keep my gasoline car for as long as I can.
Quote:
And if you're pining for the crude 4 cyl sound of an Accord or Camry, you're doing it wrong. MOST cars could be replaced with EVs and no one would pine that their rough sounding 4 and V6 engines are gone.
Sounds like you have no clue what a proper 4 is. There is a lot more to life than Camcords. Try a high-revving Honda plant from K-series like the ones they installed in S2000. I've owned an Integra with a B18C1 previously (8100rpm redline) and it was a hoot! I currently own a Beetle with a proper flat-4 which is tons of fun to play with. My Subaru has a turbo flat-4 - also a very fun powerplant. And you being familiar with Porsches I don't have tell you about the aircooled flat-6s, right?
Quote:
Anthropomorphizing cars is not a factual thing. Gas cars are as much machines as EVs and can't feel anything either.
Of course they can't. But gas cars, especially the old ones are fully mechanical and they provide a connection to the road that no electric car can for a whole slew of different reasons. From lack of power steering (find me an EV without it, I dare you) to a manual transmission with a full mechanical linkage, etc. EVs simply cannot compete with any of that any way you slice it. It's basically a computer on wheels. You're not driving the car, you're telling the computer what you want it to do. And the computer will tell you how far you can get on doing that. If it doesn't like your input for whatever reason it *will* reel you in whether you like it or not.
Now, I have a CS degree and I've spent working in SQA for many years. I'm well familiar with the IT industry and I have a pretty good idea about how the computer aspect of it works. And the only way it works in this case is just one way - the most amount of money for the manufacturer with the least amount of effort. This isn't a crafted object like some cars used to be. This is just another electronic gadget that's been put together for maximum profit with planned obsolescence built right in. If you think it's anything different, you're purely delusional.
Quote:
I've always loved cars, had proper sports car and musclecars. Everything from MGBs to Porsches to big block Mustangs and about everything in between. I hand built my Ford 302 (well, 306, as I overbored it and upped the compression ratio) powered RX7 that ran 11s and pulled over 1.2 Gs laterally.
Well, then you should know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not big on American cars (with exception of C2 Corvettes and Corvairs) but I get it. On the other hand it sounds like you're a major EV fanboi.
Quote:
And I LOVE modern EVs and EV conversions, like EV west does to Porsches, VWs, and BMWs. And I've even taken to customizing them, like my Volt mild custom:
So by your rationale we should take all the multi-million dollar Ferraris, Lambos, etc and convert them too. I mean history means absolutely nothing so why not? At least they'll be more efficient because efficiency uber Alles!
Quote:
I still have an 8.1 liter big block Suburban 2500 for towing, and my MINI Cooper JCW Roadster for top down weekend fun. But an EV converted MGB would be as much fun (and contrary to your claim, there's a lot of EV hot rodding being done. Rich Rebuilds built a $3000 MINI Cooper EV using a used 300 hp motor, the stock gearbox, and used motor controller and a pair of used Volt batteries to make a VERY quick, cheap fun car). Please don't sound like those guys that said hot rodding was over when electronic fuel injection and ignition started coming stock on cars...
I totally admire the Rich. He's converting Tesla to LS1 + 6MT setup. Now that's doing God's work right there. That conversion deserves a medal in my book. Other way around - not so much. I think it's a gimmick that's around because it's something new right now. But it will die down unless the government enforces a complete ICE ban (which they probably will if current party stays in power). That aside, classic cars should stay classic. There is nothing worse than violating an old car with this soulless trash of an electric drivetrain.
Quote:
It's not environmentally unfriendly to recycle the batteries, and when they get to the end of their automotive life, you can use them as commercial battery backup systems. They are less dirty than drilling for oil and burning it in the individual car.
You do realize that eventually the battery will become junk and wear out completely, right? I mean it's not going to serve forever no matter how you slice it. And that means you'll have to recycle it chemically which means more damage to the environment. Also, there is a lot more to it than that. A battery can explode or become damaged in many various ways before it reaches a proper end-of-life. Meaning you'll still have to recycle it and it's still dirty as hell.
Quote:
Well, that is a lot of the point. Take pollution away from the individual point sources in the areas of congestion. Individual point sources that are getting dirtier every year you use them, BTW. And replace them with regulated, centralized sources of energy that are getting CLEANER every year. And the EV is source agnostic, so as cleaner sources of electricity are developed, your used EV gets cleaner as a result.
That's extremely marginal at best. The main source of pollution is (once again) the battery. And your battery is NOT going to get cleaner until they invent batteries that can be built without producing tons of CO2 and using tons of rare earth metals. That would be decades from now if ever.
Quote:
This is simply not factual. Same with the rejoinder that they are useless in the cold.
According to Google EV batteries lose up to 40% of their capacity in the cold. Are you calling google a liar? Or perhaps you're not being very factual yourself? I wonder which one it is...
Quote:
Right now, at present solar panel efficiencies, 5000 square miles of solar panels would provide half the energy needs of the US (the study done in 2006 that everyone cites says 20,000 square miles to cover the entire US needs, but, we can chop that in half to cover half our needs, and chop it in half again, because when that study was done, solar panels were 10-12% efficient. They are now 20%+ efficient and getting better al the time). That could easily be spread out over the flat rooftops of commercial buildings, warehouses, stores and parking lots. And even if you only did it in the southern states and not even on private homes, you could easily reach that number. Add in all the private homes as far north as Maine and Michigan and you can generate even more of our needs just with solar. Yes, you need storage for night time use, but if you left modern power plants to cover overnight use, we'd still need a lot less power generation from them to meet our needs.
If this was so simple 15 years ago why didn't they put up 20K sq miles of solar panels up already and throw away coal, nuclear, oil, water, wind and other powerplants? I mean it's not even that much space considering the whole US territory. I just have a feeling that's slightly more complicated than what you're talking about. Something you may consider - I live in California, a state with lots of sunshine. Despite all of the good weather, a major green push from our moronic government, tons of installed solar panels, etc we still experience major blackouts in many parts of the state for a whole slew of reasons.
Now imagine we take millions of current gasoline cars and throw them all out. We do it your way and take the historic cars out too (they pollute the most with no cats and all) and go completely electric on everything. That's about 15M cars we're talking about here. Can you imagine what that do to the already absolutely horrible California electric grid? It would simply die and not recover for years with a permanent blackout in most of the state. Of course in real life it would be more gradual but the point is - there is a LOT more to real life implementation of all this greenie crap than some 15yo study states. From funding, to politics, marketing, engineering, etc. So spare me.
Weird, even my 1st gen Volt, pictured above, got 320 miles of range when combining EV and gas use (and I've tested that at 75 mph going up to upstate NY). The 2nd gens had even longer EV range, so their gas and EV combined range should be higher yet. And both of them had 8 gallon tanks.
And how big are you? The 2nd gens are bigger than the 1st gens, and even my first gen was plenty big inside in the front seats.
I am 5'10, my friend is 6'. High beltline, curved A pillar made it cramped (the top of the windshield was near my head). Not that easy to get in. Forget about the rear seat.
You will get more miles in urban driving because you are using the battery. When you go on the highway, especially up hills, the engine runs continuously to keep the battery charged. In fact, I think he told me when he went up a very long hill, the car loses some power because the system wants to keep a minimum amount of charge in the battery so it manages the battery draw. I remember the conversation because I was surprised the range was so low. Maybe he only used 6 of the 8 gallons because you don't want to get stuck without gas and run battery only without engine backup.
Last edited by Vic Romano; 03-12-2021 at 11:15 PM..
I am 5'10, my friend is 6'. High beltline, curved A pillar made it cramped (the top of the windshield was near my head). Not that easy to get in. Forget about the rear seat.
You will get more miles in urban driving because you are using the battery. When you go on the highway, especially up hills, the engine runs continuously to keep the battery charged. In fact, I think he told me when he went up a very long hill, the car loses some power because the system wants to keep a minimum amount of charge in the battery so it manages the battery draw. I remember the conversation because I was surprised the range was so low. Maybe he only used 6 of the 8 gallons because you don't want to get stuck without gas and run battery only without engine backup.
Sounds like he didn't use Mountain Mode properly. It reserves 40% in the battery so that you don't lose power on hills.
How exactly does the government subsidizes oil companies? Be specific and these should be things that don't just apply to all businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutdoorLover
So here is a list of items from House bill "H.R.8411 - End Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Act of 2020" - this was intended to eliminate some special tax breaks for the industry as follows:
"This bill limits or repeals certain fossil fuel oil and gas subsidies for oil companies. Specifically, it
increases to seven years the amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures;
repeals the tax credits for producing oil and gas from marginal wells and for enhanced oil recovery;
repeals the tax deduction for the intangible drilling and development costs of oil and gas wells;
repeals percentage depletion;
repeals the tax deduction for tertiary injectant expenses;
repeals the passive loss exception for working interests in oil and gas property;
denies the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities for oil and gas activities;
prohibits the use of the last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting method by major integrated oil companies;
limits the foreign tax credit for dual capacity taxpayers (i.e., taxpayers who are subject to a levy of a foreign country or U.S. possession and receive specific economic benefits from such country or possession); and
expands the definition of crude oil for purposes of the excise tax on petroleum and petroleum products to include any oil derived from a bitumen or bituminous mixture (tar sands), and any oil derived from kerogen-bearing sources (oil shale)."
Oil and gas companies have very specific industry related tax breaks as listed above that exceed deductions granted to other industries. The shortened depreciation and amortization periods are a huge deal.
Well, that's like your opinion too, man. And mine is quite factual as I've driven older GTIs, a 2005 Cooper S, a Fiesta ST and a Tesla Model 3. The GTIs sucked hard (all watercooled VWs are trash and always have been), the Cooper S was ok, nothing too special and that was before they became so bloated. The ST was quite fun. The Tesla... it was a total piece of soulless junk trash in every way. Very much like like its creator. Just computer with 0 emotion, feeling or anything else. It was not fun to drive (minus acceleration), it was horribly designed and made and felt like cheap trash that it is. If other electric cars are going to be like that (and they will) then you can keep them and I'll keep my gasoline car for as long as I can.
Sounds like you have no clue what a proper 4 is. There is a lot more to life than Camcords. Try a high-revving Honda plant from K-series like the ones they installed in S2000. I've owned an Integra with a B18C1 previously (8100rpm redline) and it was a hoot! I currently own a Beetle with a proper flat-4 which is tons of fun to play with. My Subaru has a turbo flat-4 - also a very fun powerplant. And you being familiar with Porsches I don't have tell you about the aircooled flat-6s, right?
Of course they can't. But gas cars, especially the old ones are fully mechanical and they provide a connection to the road that no electric car can for a whole slew of different reasons. From lack of power steering (find me an EV without it, I dare you) to a manual transmission with a full mechanical linkage, etc. EVs simply cannot compete with any of that any way you slice it. It's basically a computer on wheels. You're not driving the car, you're telling the computer what you want it to do. And the computer will tell you how far you can get on doing that. If it doesn't like your input for whatever reason it *will* reel you in whether you like it or not.
Now, I have a CS degree and I've spent working in SQA for many years. I'm well familiar with the IT industry and I have a pretty good idea about how the computer aspect of it works. And the only way it works in this case is just one way - the most amount of money for the manufacturer with the least amount of effort. This isn't a crafted object like some cars used to be. This is just another electronic gadget that's been put together for maximum profit with planned obsolescence built right in. If you think it's anything different, you're purely delusional.
Well, then you should know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not big on American cars (with exception of C2 Corvettes and Corvairs) but I get it. On the other hand it sounds like you're a major EV fanboi.
So by your rationale we should take all the multi-million dollar Ferraris, Lambos, etc and convert them too. I mean history means absolutely nothing so why not? At least they'll be more efficient because efficiency uber Alles!
I totally admire the Rich. He's converting Tesla to LS1 + 6MT setup. Now that's doing God's work right there. That conversion deserves a medal in my book. Other way around - not so much. I think it's a gimmick that's around because it's something new right now. But it will die down unless the government enforces a complete ICE ban (which they probably will if current party stays in power). That aside, classic cars should stay classic. There is nothing worse than violating an old car with this soulless trash of an electric drivetrain.
You do realize that eventually the battery will become junk and wear out completely, right? I mean it's not going to serve forever no matter how you slice it. And that means you'll have to recycle it chemically which means more damage to the environment. Also, there is a lot more to it than that. A battery can explode or become damaged in many various ways before it reaches a proper end-of-life. Meaning you'll still have to recycle it and it's still dirty as hell.
That's extremely marginal at best. The main source of pollution is (once again) the battery. And your battery is NOT going to get cleaner until they invent batteries that can be built without producing tons of CO2 and using tons of rare earth metals. That would be decades from now if ever.
According to Google EV batteries lose up to 40% of their capacity in the cold. Are you calling google a liar? Or perhaps you're not being very factual yourself? I wonder which one it is...
If this was so simple 15 years ago why didn't they put up 20K sq miles of solar panels up already and throw away coal, nuclear, oil, water, wind and other powerplants? I mean it's not even that much space considering the whole US territory. I just have a feeling that's slightly more complicated than what you're talking about. Something you may consider - I live in California, a state with lots of sunshine. Despite all of the good weather, a major green push from our moronic government, tons of installed solar panels, etc we still experience major blackouts in many parts of the state for a whole slew of reasons.
Now imagine we take millions of current gasoline cars and throw them all out. We do it your way and take the historic cars out too (they pollute the most with no cats and all) and go completely electric on everything. That's about 15M cars we're talking about here. Can you imagine what that do to the already absolutely horrible California electric grid? It would simply die and not recover for years with a permanent blackout in most of the state. Of course in real life it would be more gradual but the point is - there is a LOT more to real life implementation of all this greenie crap than some 15yo study states. From funding, to politics, marketing, engineering, etc. So spare me.
I tried several times to explain what you just have, but decided to stop because some of the posters don't understand that to produce a battery it takes a lot of time and resources.
For example:
a. More than likely the people who mine the metals needed to built a battery drive to work in ICE vehicles.
b. More than likely ICE mining equipment (dozer, crafters, dump trucks, track-mounted backhoes, very very large front-end loaders, pumps, conveyor belts, and so on). At the end of the mining the metals are separate from the rock and soil by high-temperature heating. Mining operations require the use of lots of electrical power and fuel (diesel, gasoline, natural gas if available), and this power is generated on site. The power plants run on diesel and other fuels.
Please understand that my comments are not directed toward you, but toward the people who don't understand what it takes to produce EV batteries. I gave it a try before, but finally gave up.
There are generations of Americans living in the cities who don't realize that the electricity at home is not produced by the outlet, nor that the food at the supermarket does not come from the shelves. They don't even realize that even when the toilet is flushed the wasted has to be processed and then disposed of (transported) at remote locations using ICE equipment. In fact, a lot of people don't even realize that every product at home (roof, floor, walls, water, toilets, showers, heating/cooling, appliances, dishes, tools, computers, medicines, furniture, curtains, clothing, beverages, food, cafes maker)...every little thing we are surrounded by at home requires a huge amount mining, transportation, production, plus labor.
Please understand that I am not trying to create arguments about green technology versus the rest. This is a very interesting article relating to what it takes to produce EV batteries, and the government mandates about green technologies. Please take the article for what it is. If you disagree with it, argue about it with the author of the article. Finally, the article pertains to the US, not to the UK nor any other country: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...-reality-check
Please understand that I am not trying to create arguments about green technology versus the rest. This is a very interesting article relating to what it takes to produce EV batteries, and the government mandates about green technologies. Please take the article for what it is. If you disagree with it, argue about it with the author of the article. Finally, the article pertains to the US, not to the UK nor any other country: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...-reality-check
This was mentioned before, maybe in other threads, but the argument that EVs are cleaner does not mean that it requires zero energy expenditure, emissions, pollutants, or waste. Like I said earlier, it's good that there is so much emphasis placed on trying to do a total accounting of things--that's something that should have been happening a long time ago and to have common sense policy that brings in what were or are currently negative externalities that are expensive to governments and peoples into the pricing for the goods or the businesses making the goods. It is not that renewable energy sources and EVs are completely free of these issues, only that they do not generally generate as much of these for the same utility value. It is okay to distinguish between paper cuts and flesh wounds. It is actually advisable to do so in a lot of situations.
I've read that specific writing and others by Mark Mills including his own paper he quotes though it bears mentioning that the Manhattan Institute derives much of its funding from very specific private interests. I do like the tracking down of the waste and emissions of the renewable energy and EV industries because it's important to know such in terms of comparisons and making optimal choices. I think what is a bit misleading is that while he charts the initial production expense for comparison among renewable power sources and fossil fuel plants or battery production emissions in mining, he is oddly willing to eschew analysis of actual operations of these which for power plants and vehicles can go well over a decade. This is a pretty glaring omission which wouldn't be so odd if the writing were *only* about initial production emissions, but it is odd when it skips over such things in order to talk more about things like end of life cycle waste. These are strewn through the article even in smaller points like talking about how pipelines are so incredibly efficient in terms of natural gas distribution, but then somehow forgetting that with solar, for example, the fuelstock delivery of rays of sunlight to the solar panel doesn't really require all that much more work on people, companies, or government's part. That constant willingness to make a comparison, but then skip over parts to me seems a bit odd and maybe a bit disingenuous as well.
Regardless, I don't think US consumers for the most part are that strongly motivated by conservation, ecological awareness, or longitudinal planning beyond their own lifespans in their purchases. It's going to ultimately be about utility value and convenience. The OP's posted article is predicating that tipping point at the price of battery capacity dipping further down to $100 per kWh or even lower and that makes sense to me because as I mentioned before, there are a couple of things that lowered battery prices affect in regards to range, charging speed, and longevity:
Quote:
After all, a lower price per kWh for batteries lends itself to a few things. The likely direction for the US market at least for the next few years is to push for more range by having a greater amount of kWh capacity for any given price. With that greater capacity generally comes with it more power that can be output or input. The latter is maybe the more useful part for most people (rather than just even more ludicrous performance which is more of a flashy sideshow) because that means faster top charging speeds and regenerative braking limits can be raised higher for even more power recovery and less brakewear. It also means that the number of miles you get per duty cycle of the battery then becomes even higher so you have greater longevity for your vehicle's battery. You see this with the aforementioned Leaf where the original Leaf with 73 miles of range go through 500 charging cycles for a standard US driver within just a few years. With the current Bolt though, 500 charging cycles for a standard US driver extends into a decade.
I'd add to that two more things.
One is that a lot of cost reductions for these batteries have come through using less material for each kWh of capacity--e.g. more energy dense batteries so you get more capacity within the same weight or volume which is great as that means that it can either be a lighter pack for the same capacity or a larger capacity pack for the same weight.
The other is that the concerns about range loss in cold greatly diminish with larger capacities. If you read the various tests for cold range loss, the severe percentage losses are mostly for short trips in short range vehicles. The first part about short trips is because making up that initial temperature differential is what's most energy-intense while maintaining that temperature isn't. That remains the same no matter how large the battery pack is. However, why it makes that larger difference in short range vehicles is because that interior cabin space takes about a set amount of energy to make up that difference. That amount of energy it takes to warm that same cabin space is independent of how large the battery pack is, so the larger your battery pack's capacity, the smaller the overall percentage loss you have. Losing 10kWh on what you thought was a full pack in extremely cold weather on a first-gen Nissan Leaf with a 24kWh renders that vehicle unusable for anything but the shortest hops. Losing 10kWh on what you thought was a full pack in extremely cold weather on a vehicle with 100kWh isn't going to change things much.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-13-2021 at 11:02 PM..
Oil and gas companies have very specific industry related tax breaks as listed above that exceed deductions granted to other industries. The shortened depreciation and amortization periods are a huge deal.
id be curious to see what that works out as a rate per the energy produced. its always been my understanding that "subsidies" for oil production may appear to be a decent dollar amount but wouldnt add up to a lot when you look at it as a rate. in the past, a lot of people who supported alternative energy would use the costs of the wars in the middle east to bulk up that "oil subsidy" number but i always found that ridiculous since the purpose of the wars was to increase to consumers cost of oil not decrease it.
at this point in time though, i havent looked at the subsides for any form of energy. so i would be curious to see an honest comparison.
I am 5'10, my friend is 6'. High beltline, curved A pillar made it cramped (the top of the windshield was near my head). Not that easy to get in. Forget about the rear seat.
You will get more miles in urban driving because you are using the battery. When you go on the highway, especially up hills, the engine runs continuously to keep the battery charged. In fact, I think he told me when he went up a very long hill, the car loses some power because the system wants to keep a minimum amount of charge in the battery so it manages the battery draw. I remember the conversation because I was surprised the range was so low. Maybe he only used 6 of the 8 gallons because you don't want to get stuck without gas and run battery only without engine backup.
Probably true to an extent with the Volt. The gas motor is a bit less powerful than in the Prius. With four adults plus backpacking gear I've run the Prius out of battery on long inclines. It's not crawling up the mountain at 40 mph, but flat out about 65 to 70 was the most it could do up around 9,000 feet up a good incline. An extra 50 hp for passing would have been nice. It's a bigger problem with something like an i3 with the 30 odd hp engine. But still, point a 4,000 lb vehicle with 80 to 90 hp up a mountain and it's not a great result.
But that's why the Volt comes with mountain and hold modes. It's something different to think about, but user error is user error. And even with user error 80 hp will still get you up it in a 4,000 pound vehicle without any major drama where 30 odd hp does fall into the drama category. The Volt is no performance car, but the combined 150 hp is pretty standard for your typical ecobox and the weight isn't massively more. E.g., Corolla 140 hp, 3,000 lbs vs Volt 150 HP, 3,500 lbs. Use the mountain mode and the Volt probably does better than Corolla at altitude. It saves 40 percent of the battery. Run it to empty and it does worse. It's there for a reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
