Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Billy T]

Lynas, among five companies with proven Australian deposits, according to www.australianrareearths.com, will next year shift some 11,000 tonnes from a new plant in Malaysia, doubling output to 22,000 tonnes a year by end-2012. ...

Your link on Lynas also said:
"Lynas owns the richest known deposit of rare earths outside of China, at Mount Weld in Western Australia, and the company is progressing well to be in a position to commence production in Q3 (the third quarter) 2011."

Thus I don't understand the "shift some 11,000 tonnes from..." do you? I suspect they are speaking of 11K tonnes of the RE rich ore, not the REs themselves, and that the plant in Malaysia refines the ore but does not separate the still mixed REs. I vaguely recall reading about a year ago that is what it does. If correct, there will not be any separated -i.e. usable REs from Australian mines for several more years.

 

[jpappl]

adoucette

Too bad, but you simply ignore the fact that ~45% of our oil comes from our own production followed by our two biggest suppliers; Canada and Mexico and that the countries of the Persian Gulf have to sell their oil as it is still about their only source of revenue.

And you are ignoring the fact that it doesn't effing matter where the oil comes from if we are subsidizing it.

We are subsidizing it and the true cost is artificially being depressed. That's all I stated. No argument of why we are subsidizing it is going to change the fact that currently we are.

What "habits" do you expect to change in the US?

The real cost of these things would definitely change the way we live. From where we live to the food we eat to whether we drive personal cars or take public transportation and on and on.

Can you not imagine what $ 6 a gallon of gas would do to our lifestyle ?

What about our food purchases ?

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html

Is our primarily suburban based lifestyle a "habit" and if so, how fast do you think we could change it?

Not itself, but all that goes along with maintaining it. Lawns to mow and water, longer distances to work and shopping etc.

Not very fast, which is why the sooner we move to a long term sustainable lifestyle the less pain will occur to any one generation.

This may simply mean that we find a better way, a long term sustainable way to power our cars for example.

My main point is that we shouldn't be artificially keeping costs down so that we can live a lifestyle that is unsustainable or beyond our means.

Certainly if we can find ways to maintain it sustainably then were good to go. I am also ok with us temporarily subsidizing to get the numbers and efficiency to the point where the subsidy is no longer needed.

Consider that from 1990 to 2000, in our top 50 Metro areas the population went up by ~24 million and 20.5 million chose to live in the suburbs vs only 3.4 million in the cities.

The houses that were built for them will easily last 100 years.

Understood. I said nothing about personal desires to live a certain way. But if things cost what they truly cost then either most would choose to live in city or they would be willing to pay the extra amount to maintain such a lifestyle.

Good point about how long the houses will last, which is an example of what I mean't by pain.

For example. What if the price of gas goes up, a lot, say to $ 6 a gallon, and we don't have another alternative that we can bring on line fast. As people flee the suburbs because they can't afford it, who's going to buy those homes ? What's going to happen to the value of those homes ? What's going to happen to the Home Depots and suburban malls, restaurants and grocery stores ?

I don't see it changing because we just don't have the political leadership in the US to take us in the right direction and becuase we are spoiled with our lifestyle and will kick and scream to keep it, which is also why we don't have the leadership we need.

Anyone who tells it as it really is doesn't get elected. So IMO we will need to experience the pain before we consider changing on a large scale.

 

[Billy T]

The US is going to re-open the Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine in California in order to meet it's demand for rare Earth metals. ...
http://tinyurl.com/295bdu9
http://tinyurl.com/23b662h

Your second link is not very interesting (after your $ data posted) Here is some interesting text from your first link:
"...Molycorp plans to restart a California mine in the second half of 2011 and produce about 20,000 metric tons of rare earth oxides by the end of 2012,...
The U.S. needs to promote training of engineers and scientists on rare earths and their use, Sandalow said. ... While thousands of scientists and engineers are studying rare earths in China, only dozens are doing so in the U.S., he said. ..."

I.e. the US may get ore in two or three years, but not much in the way of useful separated metallic REs in less than five, if even then.

 

[Stoniphi]

Today I purchased a full tank of "gasoline" for $3.189 a gallon. It is, like pretty much all retail gasoline, 10% ethanol by volume. It is OK with me that $.46 a gallon was tax and that $.15 was handling. I am real clear that I am buying it cheap for the time being.

The article I linked to proposed the use of 15% butanol per gallon of "gasoline" instead of 10% ethanol, for the other reasons mentioned above.

Butanol is $3.75/gal and ethanol is $2.50/gal, so the actual price difference would be not so much, actually. Not when Europeans are paying as much as $8/gal - regardless of why it is that price, how much of it is ethanol or butanol and what the individual price components are.

If butanol can be manufactured efficiently enough to be profitable - especially if it utilizes landfill grade discard to do so - then it is well worth doing.

 

[Billy T]

... it doesn't effing matter where the oil comes from if we are subsidizing it. We are subsidizing it and the true cost is artificially being depressed. ...
The real cost of these things would definitely change the way we live. From where we live to the food we eat to whether we drive personal cars or take public transportation and on and on. ...
My main point is that we shouldn't be artificially keeping costs down so that we can live a lifestyle that is unsustainable or beyond our means. ... Good point about how long the houses will last, which is an example of what I mean't by pain...
I don't see it changing because we just don't have the political leadership in the US to take us in the right direction and becuase we are spoiled with our lifestyle and will kick and scream to keep it, which is also why we don't have the leadership we need. Anyone who tells it as it really is doesn't get elected. So IMO we will need to experience the pain before we consider changing on a large scale.

Unfortunately, I have long agreed:

China is making modern energy efficient housing, not wasteful urban sprawl.

It may not appeal to you now, but when Gasoline is $20/ gallon it will. …

part of July 2009 post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2300194&postcount=158

But I made the same points about how US's much lower taxes on gasoline, etc. had built “suburban infrastructure” that would be very costly and painful to the US – much more so than to any European country when oil is no longer cheap. (Too much trouble to go back and find those older posts – the picture made finding this one quick as I knew it was in the BRIC news thread.)

BTW also documented in the BRIC+ news thread is fact that China now has OPERATIONAL more high speed rail* than rest of the world's total (US has none, not even firm budget for one!) and keeps breaking its own earlier world speed records every few months.
------------
* All of it, I think, is electrically powered and China is now negotiation or placing orders for 245 new nuclear power plants at a total cost of more than half a trillion dollars. Unlike the US which is continuing to prepare for the past, China is preparing for the future.

 

[jpappl]

Unfortunately, I have long agreed:
part of July 2009 post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2300194&postcount=158

But I made the same points about how US's much lower taxes on gasoline, etc. had built “suburban infrastructure” that would be very costly and painful to the US – much more so than to any European country when oil is no longer cheap. (Too much trouble to go back and find those older posts – the picture made finding this one quick as I knew it was in the BRIC new thread.)

Agreed, they by having higher gas pricing for some time have adjusted their lifestyle accordingly.

Less can be more in many ways.

 

[adoucette]

And you are ignoring the fact that it doesn't effing matter where the oil comes from if we are subsidizing it.

And you are apparently don't understand what the word SUBSIDY means.

We are NOT subsidizing the price of oil.

Refineries buy oil at the global market price and they sell it at a profit + ~15%Federal/state markup in taxes.

What we budget for our DOD is NOT a subsidy.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Agreed, they by having higher gas pricing for some time have adjusted their lifestyle accordingly.

No they haven't.

Europeans live just the same today as they did two decades ago.

They do have the advantage of a much denser population and a higher percent of city dwellers, but they have made no significant changes in how they live.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Can you not imagine what $ 6 a gallon of gas would do to our lifestyle ?

Yeah, it would be barely noticible.

Gas is basically a small part of the typical suburban dwellers budget.

A driver who averages 15,000 miles per year on their car (a bit above US average) would spend a WHOPPING total of $140 per month more if gas went from $3 to $6 per gallon.

WHOOPIE

Are you that poor?????

Would spending $140 per month be that big of a deal to you?

Even if you consider the ripple effect and the price hikes from the cost of gasoline cost you $300 per month, would that REALLY affect your life that much?

Do you live that close to a hand to mouth existence?

Is that why you are crying the blues about the price of gasoline?

Arthur

 

[F-X]

Every time I see this topic I think of this

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1042380_g-wiz-the-electric-car-that-started-a-revolution

It's amusing that some people want to sell you on the idea that electric cars can't/don't work. Even when they do, some people just seem to have, for some reason, a need to convince you of something that just isn't true.

 

[jpappl]

And you are apparently don't understand what the word SUBSIDY means.

We are NOT subsidizing the price of oil.

Refineries buy oil at the global market price and they sell it at a profit + ~15%Federal/state markup in taxes.

What we budget for our DOD is NOT a subsidy.

Arthur

Yes I do, the only difference is that I am willing to call it what it is.

http://cleantech.com/news/node/554

"The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

•Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
•Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
•Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
•Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
•Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
•Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
•Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
•The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
•Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
•Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
•Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

Without these the oil companies would either 1) make a lot less or 2) charge the consumer more for the oil.

What do you think they are going to do ?

Here's more, or just google it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicle_impacts/cars_pickups_and_suvs/subsidizing-big-oil.html

http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm

 

[adoucette]

Oh horsepucky

The industry pays for cleaning up its spills. BP is paying BILLONS to clean up the gulf spill and the US is charging them for the costs the US gov incurred.

Fuel taxes are 15%, which are much higher than sales taxes and YES they go to pay for the road system so NO there isn't a subsidy there either.

Calling industry average tax rates of 11% a subsidy is too stupid to even argue about.

The rest of your list is to VAGUE to even chase down.

Like calling the fact that we have a strategic petroleum reserve a subsidy just shows you don't understand what the word SUBSIDY means.

Arthur

 

[jpappl]

Yeah, it would be barely noticible.

Gas is basically a small part of the typical suburban dwellers budget.

A driver who averages 15,000 miles per year on their car (a bit above US average) would spend a WHOPPING total of $140 per month more if gas went from $3 to $6 per gallon.

WHOOPIE

Are you that poor?????

Would spending $140 per month be that big of a deal to you?

Even if you consider the ripple effect and the price hikes from the cost of gasoline cost you $300 per month, would that REALLY affect your life that much?

Do you live that close to a hand to mouth existence?

Is that why you are crying the blues about the price of gasoline?

Arthur

Apparently you are an idiot.

What happened when the price went from $ 2 to $ 3 ?

Is $ 6 a gallon not enough for you to see the trend. Let's make it $ 10 a gallon. Is your pocketbook affected now ?

I make around 80k per year. I have a 3 mile commute. I would not be that affected by the gas cost personally. But at 6 or 10 a gallon it wouldn't matter how I positioned myself.

For someone who is barely getting by and for many who are living close to beyond their means, then yes it would be a real problem.

Can you not imagine the ripple effect that would occur in the economy.

Everything that the price of oil affects would go up.

How important is oil to our economy ?

Maybe you can figure it out for yourself from here.

 

[adoucette]

Apparently you are an idiot.

What happened when the price went from $ 2 to $ 3 ?

Is $ 6 a gallon not enough for you to see the trend. Let's make it $ 10 a gallon. Is your pocketbook affected now ?

I make around 80k per year. I have a 3 mile commute. I would not be that affected by the gas cost personally. But at 6 or 10 a gallon it wouldn't matter how I positioned myself.

For someone who is barely getting by and for many who are living close to beyond their means, then yes it would be a real problem.

Can you not imagine the ripple effect that would occur in the economy.

Everything that the price of oil affects would go up.

How important is oil to our economy ?

Maybe you can figure it out for yourself from here.

I'm not an idiot.

As you pointed out yourself you don't make that much per year and yet you don't really care what the price of gasoline is.

Yeah, for people barely getting by it might be a problem, but then so would one unexpected large bill.

Yes, there is an immediate effect when gas prices surge, but people fairly quickly adapt their spending and life goes on much the same as before.

The fact is we are doing fine at $3 gallon and would do fine at $6 per gallon.

Yes, some people would have to make changes, but the country as a whole would get by just fine.

Which is my point.

Get over it, the world won't come to an end if gas hits $10 a gallon.

Arthur

 

[jpappl]

Oh horsepucky

The industry pays for cleaning up its spills. BP is paying BILLONS to clean up the gulf spill and the US is charging them for the costs the US gov incurred.

Fuel taxes are 15%, which are much higher than sales taxes and YES they go to pay for the road system so NO there isn't a subsidy there either.

Calling industry average tax rates of 11% a subsidy is too stupid to even argue about.

The rest of your list is to VAGUE to even chase down.

Like calling the fact that we have a strategic petroleum reserve a subsidy just shows you don't understand what the word SUBSIDY means.

Arthur

The subsidy is the offset cost that we pay in taxes to support the industry.

You are not getting the fact that the price we pay at the pump is not the true cost of the gas.

Would you agree that we subsidize agriculture/farming ?

It's the same thing with oil. The fact that you can not accept this tells me that you are choosing to delude yourself on the subject.

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

"A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. Most subsidies are made by the government to producers or distributors in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry (e.g., as a result of continuous unprofitable operations) or an increase in the prices of its products"

 

[adoucette]

You are not getting the fact that the price we pay at the pump is not the true cost of the gas.

You're right, we pay MORE than the true cost of the gas.

About 15% more via state and federal taxes on each gallon of gas sold (much more on aviation fuel).

Then we tax the oil companies on their profits as well (sorta like double dipping, the totally opposite of a subsidy)

And NO, we DON'T pay the oil companies a subsidy on the price of a barrel of oil like we do farmers to maintain the price of certain crops, indeed we CHARGE them for the leases on the tracts of land that we allow them to drill on and on the profit they make on every barrel of oil sold.

If they spill oil, we make them pay to clean it up and then we fine them at least $1,000 per barrel of oil spilt.

Arthur

 

[jpappl]

adoucette,

Yeah, for people barely getting by it might be a problem, but then so would one unexpected large bill.

And what percentage of the country is in this situation ?

Yes, there is an immediate effect when gas prices surge, but people fairly quickly adapt their spending and life goes on much the same as before.

Yes, and spending less or changing the lifestyle would be the ripple effect.

Can you not imagine what that ripple would do to the economy ?

The fact is we are doing fine at $3 gallon and would do fine at $6 per gallon

No we aren't. We are 10+ trillion in debt and everybody is living on credit cards. They don't have money in the bank, aren't saving enough for retirement etc etc.

But, yes otherwise, we are living better than previous generations but we are doing it off the backs of the future generations at this point.

Which is my point.

Get over it, the world won't come to an end if gas hits $10 a gallon.

I agree, the world won't end and oil isn't a requirement for life. But it would be devastating to the economy.

 

[jpappl]

You're right, we pay MORE than the true cost of the gas.

About 15% more via state and federal taxes on each gallon of gas sold (much more on aviation fuel).

Then we tax the oil companies on their profits as well (sorta like double dipping, the totally opposite of a subsidy)

And NO, we DON'T pay the oil companies a subsidy on the price of a barrel of oil like we do farmers to maintain the price of certain crops, indeed we CHARGE them for the leases on the tracts of land that we allow them to drill on and on the profit they make on every barrel of oil sold.

If they spill oil, we make them pay to clean it up and then we fine them at least $1,000 per barrel of oil spilt.

Arthur

Yes, those poor oil companys always beein taken advantage of by the Goberment

Done.

 

[adoucette]

Then we simply have a difference of opinion, and I'm just not nearly as pessimistic as you appear to be.

Of course I've been listening to people like you proclaiming gloom and doom for over 4 decades since I became an adult and each and everyone has been proven wrong.

But hey, suit yourself.

Convince youself that life sucks and the world sucks and we are all going to hell in a handbasket if you want, but what I've learned over my lifetime is each and everyone of you pessimists, from Malthus on down, have been shown to be totally wrong.

 

[adoucette]

Yes, those poor oil companys always beein taken advantage of by the Goberment

Done.

Oil companies aren't poor, but they do pay their share of taxes and fees.

The oil companies pay to lease the land they drill on (doen't matter if they actually find oil) and they pay to clean up the oil they spill, they also pay a fine for each barrel they spill and they are taxed on their profits.

Put up evidence that any of that is wrong.

Saying they should be taxed more or should be charged more for their leases to drill on or they should be fined higher for the oil they spill is NOT the same as a subsidy.

Arthur