Electric cars are a pipe dream

[adoucette]

It and other farm subsidies make food exports more competitive with those of other countries like Brazil - compensate for Brazil's longer growing seasons and lower labor cost. If they did not exist, more US crops would be sold in the US and the greater supply would make price of food in the store less. So Joe Tax payer has higher taxes to pay with net effect of making his grocery bill higher.

More discussion in my old thread "How DUMB can US voters be?" - More illustration that the rich have lobbied Congress to get richer. The US has a government "Of the rich, by their lobbyist, and for their corporations."

NOPE

These are the total subsidies:

$261.9 billion in subsidies 1995-2010.

And only $167.3 billion was in commodity subsidies though.

$39.2 billion was in crop insurance subsidies. (Farmers take out insurance on crops)

$35.0 billion in conservation subsidies. (Farmers are paid to put land aside for conservation reasons)

$20.5 billion in disaster subsidies. (Farmers are compensated for losses due to Federally declared disasters (such as having to kill 36 million Turkeys to possibly prevent the spread of Avian Flu))

But ignore those legitimate other subsidies and still the total is only $15 Billion per year which is almost nothing compared to the total Farm output per year over that time frame of ~$250 Billion per year

Now let's compare that to taxes for "Joe Tax Payer"

The top 25% of the households pay 87% of the income tax.

So "Joe Tax Payer", the bottom 75%, pays 13% of the taxes.

Or 13% of that $15 billion or ~$2 Billion per year.

There are ~130 million households in the US, which means the "Joe Tax Payer" share is ~100 million of them and so spreading that $2 Billion per year across 100 million households comes to the OUTRAGEOUS cost of $1.60 per month.

OH WOW!

Joe Taxpayer has been SCREWED AGAIN.

LOL


http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0840.pdf

 

[Billy T]

To adoucette
Your post 2423 does correctly show that the monthly cost of the screwing of Joe Tax payer for the benefit of the wealthy "1%ers" is less than $2 (if you neglect Joe's greater grocery bill due to a greater part of US food production being exported).

That is like saying it is OK to cut off Joe's little toe as it is small part of Joe.

There is no justification for even a little screwing of Joe to benefit the already very rich, like the Cargill family.

 

[adoucette]

No Billy, the top 25% pay 87% of the tax that goes to stabilize our farm output and isolate it from harmful fluctuations that would slowly raise the price of our farm products, so the 75% who make up Joe Taxpayer benefits from this.

As for Cargill, so far the only money we can find that they got was 17 million, which was not a commodity subsidy but was from the Disaster Insurance they paid for and they were paid because they had to liquidate 36 million turkeys to reduce the danger from the Avian Flu.

That is like saying it is OK to cut off Joe's little toe as it is small part of Joe.

Nope, at $1.60 per month per household, that's more akin to trimming a finger nail.

 

[universaldistress]

I suppose the trucking industry and the car industry have never been subsidised? I suppose the railways weren't and still aren't subsidised? The fact the electric car industry is subsidised means what exactly? It will continue to be subsidised as railways and IC cars will continue to be when needed.

 

[universaldistress]

Once the tech improves and governments hike-up restrictive tolls on ICVs in cities, then EVs and different types of hybrids will be more attractive. This will happen.

If I could afford a spanking new EV I'd go for it. When I can, I will.

 

[adoucette]

Once the tech improves and governments hike-up restrictive tolls on ICVs in cities, then EVs and different types of hybrids will be more attractive. This will happen.

Only if we allow it.

And given the rising CAFE standards coupled with current pollution controls there is no justification for doing so.

 

[adoucette]

If I could afford a spanking new EV I'd go for it. When I can, I will.

LOL, and there in lies their biggest problem.

And that's with all their subsidies.

Which can't continue.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192

 

[billvon]

I think you refer to corn based ethanol here, but not to sugar cane based ethanol

Nope. Corn based ethanol will dwindle as subsidies end. The future lies with (US made) cellulosic ethanol and (imported) cane sugar alcohol.

The US could be too if it grew and imported sugar cane ethanol.

We can't effectively grow cane sugar here. There are very few places it will grow. But I agree, we can import ethanol.

It and other farm subsidies make food exports more competitive with those of other countries like Brazil - compensate for Brazil's longer growing seasons and lower labor cost. If they did not exist, more US crops would be sold in the US and the greater supply would make price of food in the store less. So Joe Tax payer has higher taxes to pay with net effect of making his grocery bill higher.

Agreed. And Joe Farmer keeps his job, his farm and his hired help. He keeps growing food, ethanol and cattle feed crops and continues to avail himself of US seed, fertilizer and weed control suppliers.

As always there are no perfect solutions.

More discussion in my old thread "How DUMB can US voters be?" - More illustration that the rich have lobbied Congress to get richer. The US has a government "Of the rich, by their lobbyist, and for their corporations." One thing the people could do, if they ever did get control of the government,* would be to eliminate the lower tax rate on capital gains as that is large part of why the rich pay about half the effective tax rate on their income that the salaried worker does.

Would be an excellent thread to start in the Politics forum, since it has nothing to do with electric vehicles.

 

[Billy T]

... The future lies with (US made) cellulosic ethanol and (imported) cane sugar alcohol. We can't effectively grow cane sugar here. There are very few places it will grow. But I agree, we can import ethanol. ...

Several years ago (>3) I invested in the leading cellulosic ETOH producer which got BP support to complete the engineering design of its commercial scale production plant (and eventual distribution of product) based on the data they got from their pilot plant operations (first in US with 1000gal/day capacity, as I recall). They also had long-term, large-acreage, contracts for some sort of grass as feed stock.

I sold at a loss two or so years ago and have not followed this field much since. I bought them early as liked the fact they got naturally optimized enzimes from termite guts to learn how to efficiently break down the cellulose and did sell to others some enzimes they made - used in cattle feed to make it more efficient as I recall.

Has there been any reason to think cellulosic ETOH can ever be economically competitive (by any of the three paths being explored)? I have great doubts as unlike converting the crushed sugar cane, which is already at the the distillation plant into cellulosic ETOH, other cellulose sources have additional transport or harvesting costs plus possibly thermal energy for destructive decomposition costs, if enzimes are not used.

Even cellulosic ETOH from crushed sugar cane may not be economically competitive with simple burning of the sun dried crushed cane for electric power. There is much more thermal energy released than the distillation of the fermented cane juice requires - Brazil gets nearly 10% of its electric power from burning the dried cane not needed for distillation heat.

I suspect that genetic modification of the sugar cane for growing in Southern US swamp land etc. is an easier nut to crack than making cellulosic ETOH economically competitive with importing sugar cane ETOH from tropical lands of very little cost per acre with very low labor costs. I also think that ETOH fueled cars will destroy battery powered car markets as much cheaper and does not require economically significant changes to either the existing gas stations, fuel distribution trucks, or the IC engines.

 

[billvon]

I have great doubts as unlike converting the crushed sugar cane, which is already at the the distillation plant, into cellulosic ETOH other cellulose sources have additional transport or harvesting costs plus possibly thermal energy for destructive decomposition costs, if enzimes are not used.

Most of the cellulosic ethanol I have seen proposed has been using waste material that has already been harvested (like corn plants/husks, wheat chaff/stalks etc.)

I suspect that genetic modification of the sugar cane for growing in Southern US swamp land etc. is an easier nut to crack than making cellulosic ETOH economically competitive with importing sugar cane ETOH from tropical lands of very little cost per acre with very low labor costs.

Perhaps, but that's not an insignificant effort. That sugar cane has already been modified for centuries to maximize yield; it's unlikely to provide similar yields in areas with less sun/water.

I also think that ETOH fueled cars will destroy battery powered car markets as much cheaper and does not require economically significant changes to either the existing gas stations, fuel distribution trucks, or the IC engines.

We have ethanol now; it hasn't destroyed gasoline powered cars. And people are still making battery powered cars.

 

[Billy T]

... We have ethanol now; it hasn't destroyed gasoline powered cars. And people are still making battery powered cars.

Yes, but corn based ETOH is not competitive if its total cost is added up, so it probably it will never be a significant part of US car fuel except ~10% as an anti-knock additive to gasoline.

AFA battery powered cars are concerned, I don't think they will ever be 5% of the cars - too many cheaper competitors, CNG and sugar cane based alcohol to name two. While sugar cane has not "destroyed the gasoline powered car" in Brazil, is has made >85% of all new ones sold dual fuel - any mix of ETOH with gasoline: zero up to 100% ETOH.

Currently the cost advantage per mile driven with ETOH has vanished in Brazil. In part due to demand for ETOH exceeding supply, so many dual fuel cars are again using gasoline. Part of the demand is due to chemical uses of ETOH as feed stocks for production of plastics, etc.

 

[universaldistress]

Only if we allow it.

And given the rising CAFE standards coupled with current pollution controls there is no justification for doing so.

Already happening in London. They just need to increase the costs to the motorist.

LOL, and there in lies their biggest problem.

Therein lies the hope.

 

[adoucette]

Already happening in London.

Luckily I don't live in the UK, so I don't care what you do.
Besides it's a congestion charge, the fact that they granted an exemption to alternate fuel vehicles was NOT a reason for the charge and indeed if AFV catch on, then they will have to be charged as well if the stated PURPOSE of the Congestion charge is to be met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

They just need to increase the costs to the motorist.

Yeah, more taxes, that's the ticket.

Therein lies the hope.

Nah, your call for rising taxes will likely kill that hope.

 

[billvon]

Yes, but corn based ETOH is not competitive if its total cost is added up

Right - and it's not even competitive when subsidized. At least with current gas prices. However, it's a pretty safe bet that gas prices will go up in the long run.

AFA battery powered cars are concerned, I don't think they will ever be 5% of the cars

"Pure" BEV's? That's probably close. (I'd guess closer to 10-15% in the long run, but 5% is not that far off.)

However, battery powered PHEV's and HEV's will be a significantly larger chunk of that, since they are cheaper and not subject to the range restrictions of pure BEV's.

 

[universaldistress]

Luckily I don't live in the UK, so I don't care what you do.
Besides it's a congestion charge, the fact that they granted an exemption to alternate fuel vehicles was NOT a reason for the charge and indeed if AFV catch on, then they will have to be charged as well if the stated PURPOSE of the Congestion charge is to be met.

The exemption is a pressure on ICVs nontheless. Pressure towards reducing pollution. Also we charge higher car tax on less economical cars . . . go figure our previous administration's thought process.

Yeah, more taxes, that's the ticket.

Taxes are taxes. Just need to tax in the right places to pressurise numb-nuts.

Nah, your call for rising taxes will likely kill that hope.

My call for higher taxation on numb-nuts (I reckon gas guzzlers need to be hit REALLY hard) will have zero effect, after all, I am only one man. Any government that takes pollution seriously gets my vote however.

 

[adoucette]

Taxes are taxes. Just need to tax in the right places to pressurise numb-nuts.

And that might make sence if EVs were interchangable with IC cars as to capability and cost, but they are not. They don't have nearly the same capability and they are far more expensive.

 

[kwhilborn]

I commented long ago here that "cold fusion" might make electric cars very feasible shortly. This is the wrong term as it is not exactly cold fusion that is occurring but something called Beta decay that is producing the excess heat experienced by many cold fusion researchers.

NASA announced yesterday publicly that they feel they can now replicate consistently a process known as LENR to produce excess heat from the mix of Hydrogen/nickel/carbon. This energy is green and very cheap.

1kg of nickel = 200 000 barrels of oil.

Nickel is the 5th most common element on our planet.

Here is the NASA official announcement. We have seen a lot of noise from NASA in regards to LENR, but this is the first exciting official press release.

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
(pasted this link 5 times because it is a great and historic day imho.)

Break out the champagne..

So soon we will see cars that are either
a) steam powered
b) electrically powered with on board generation. This means large cars will make a comeback. With low fuel costs everybody will drive their Winnebago to work. You'll need the washroom on board after all the corner gas stations vanish.
c) Hydrogen can be created on board or at "gas stations". Little modification would be needed to convert your current gas car to a hydrogen car. This may be a preferred method for transitioning this technology.

Either way. Unless you think N.A.S.A. is full of _____.

We won't be using gas for too much longer.

 

[michael_taylor]

make sence if EVs were interchangable with IC cars as to capability and cost, but they are not. They don't have nearly the same capability and they are far more expensive.

Not for everything, no.

Just like one IC car isn't interchangeable with another IC car for every case. I think it would be a mistake to generalize from one (carefully chosen) usage case to the feasibility of a technology in all cases.

The cost of the vehicle is similarly more involved an issue than you're pretending. It's impossible to support the claim that an ICE is always cheaper than an electric motor, because counterexamples have existed for decades.

The issue is one of compromise, where you have a range of interrelated variables and have to find a balance between costs and benefits.

 

[michael_taylor]

1kg of nickel = 200 000 barrels of oil.
[...]

Little modification would be needed to convert your current gas car to a hydrogen car.

Factually inaccurate. Wildy so. Inaccurate beyond the ability of simple bias to explain it. Either you've been purposefully mislead, or you are intentionally lying.

We won't be using gas for too much longer.

Naive. Even if it came to market tomorrow, the amount of inertia embodied by the oil and auto industry is vast.

Just look at what happened when diesel engines became more suitable for locomotives than steam engines: Absolutely nothing.

For the best part of a century we carried on using steam because that's where all the manufacturing capacity, capital investment, support systems, fuel suppliers, engineering experience and economies of scale were.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Michael Taylor,
You are obviously not up on the new LENR technology. I think many people would drive their $100/month fuel cost car into a lake if an option to buy an e-cat car was there.

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
(This is real NASA media release. NASA Scientist, NASA logos, NASA website, it is not youtube.)

I predict all gas cars will be off the road within 10 years. Probably faster. Now that NASA is standing behind LENR the media will soon follow.

Oil companies can be sad if they wish.