Electric cars are a pipe dream

[jpappl]

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.

How am I being a pessimist ?

I never said the world is going to hell, in fact I think that if we can make the shift that we will be in a better place in 30 years and so on. I think that technological advances will dramatically help lower costs/needs in the future. For example, breakthoughs in efficiencies can reduce the demand for oil/gas and other forms of energy.

I also believe that you see progress differently than me. I appreciated Stoniphi's comments because we are so focused on materialism, and that is of course due to the demands of our system, sell sell sell, I am in sales so I understand this is also a reality, but our focus is almost become a disease.

Most would agree that stuff can only get you so far in life, most people know who Britney or Beyonce are but not who the VP or for that matter the Pres.

Do you think the people in this country are prepared as a work force for the coming trends ?

If it had to change quickly would we be ready ?

Hopefully, it will move slow enough for the adjustments to be made. I do believe that we can and will adjust, not sure about the pain involved.

But what we were talking about is the effect that oil cost increases can have, that if the true cost of the gas at the pump were realized then it will force change and potentially a significant change depending on the increase to the consumer. This could be a good or bad thing depending on how it turns out.

Also realize, that I am not opposed to oil. My point is more that if we were Solar based and the sun was dying then the writing is on the wall. The writing is on the wall with oil. At least unless a tech breakthrough or find changes the game.

Regardless we are paying far more to ensure that we have it than the price at the pump. If that were to be changed, say tomorrow the ripple effect would also occur.

It's one thing to be a pessimist or an idealist. But I prefer to be realist.

There is no sense in fighting facts.

The problem is that we as a country are ignoring them, passing the costs on and on and on.

 

[jpappl]

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

They do those things, I never disputed that.

But you are not admitting the other costs from the taxpayer.

You seem to think that I am an oil hater. It appears to me that you are so focused on defending them or your position that you aren't willing to look at the reality of the relationship between the oil companies and the government.

They are subsidized. I provided you with many links.

But here is the final one I will go out of my way to provide.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/big_oil_spigot.html

The funny thing is that the oil companies lobbyist themselves are arguing my position.

But the Senate’s action makes clear that doing so will require Congress to overcome lobbyist arguments that killing subsidies will harm the economy. Profitable and powerful oil companies, such as BP and ExxonMobil, pay lobbyists millions of dollars to scare lawmakers into believing that ending subsidies to oil companies will wreak havoc on the American economy. These arguments are advanced by trade organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute, and they suggest that eliminating subsidies “could mean less U.S. energy production, fewer American jobs,” and higher oil prices.


and here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

more precise

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=oil+industry+subsidies&d=4503977754493122&w=f8d8457c,44c0041c

within that here:

Recent Studies: Management Information Services, Inc., and Green Scissors

Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI), conducting a study of the cumulative effects of energy subsidies, found that by 1997 Federal subsidies for energy had amounted to $564 billion (1997 dollars) over the last five decades, roughly half of which went to the oil industry in the form of tax expenditures. (84) MISI considered eight categories of Federal activity (85) and quantified subsidies in six. In contrast to other findings, MISI found that subsidies to renewable sources ($90 billion) outpaced those to natural gas ($73 billion), coal ($68 billion), or nuclear energy ($61 billion). (86) MISI itemized Federal research and development spending for nuclear, coal, and solar sources, reporting 1997 figures of $130 million, $227 million, and $259 million, respectively. MISI concluded that since renewable sources have contributed only marginally to the Nation's energy supply, solar research and development subsidies are disproportionately large and should be redirected to nuclear and fossil energy research.

Check the last few lines, and I partly agree, we should be going nuclear with thorium.

http://environment.change.org/blog/view/thorium_nuclear_energys_clean_little_secret

 

[F-X]

Electric Buses, now there's a pipe dream

No wait

http://inhabitat.com/south-korea-unveils-worlds-first-commerical-electric-bus/

Hmm ....

 

[Billy T]

... We are NOT subsidizing the price of oil. ... Arthur

I think oil companies do get a tax break called the "depletion allowance."

 

[Billy T]

... Europeans live just the same today as they did two decades ago. {have not adjusted life styles} ...Arthur

That is true. It is the Americans who changed life styles after WWII ended. To a large extent cause by the construction of "Levit Towns" - mass production of 100s of nearly identical houses marching over the rural farms to become "suburbs."

This (and gas-hog cars) was made possible in part by fact that US gas taxes were less than half those in Europe but also by the fact that in Europe there was nothing like the birth explosion that produced the Baby Boomers. I.e. in the US there was a great migration from urban centers to the new suburbs. In Europe the destroyed cities were rebuilt instead as there was not a large fertile mid west to supply food. (They could not destroy their local food supply.) So now the food on a US table travels about 1200 miles, on average, to get there. That also will hurt the US more than Europe when gas is more expensive.

 

[Billy T]

Electric Buses, now there's a pipe dream. No wait:
http://inhabitat.com/south-korea-unveils-worlds-first-commerical-electric-bus/ Hmm ....

They may help, but if we want to do it right they should be super-flywheel buses. (Super flywheels run in vacuum and have "no contact" magnetic bearings so essentially zero friction loss.)

Sweden had a steel flywheel bus and spin boosting stops with electric power for its motors that spun up the flywheel about 30 years ago. I believe it had variable speed, mechanical, linkage to the drive wheels. That is not the way to go.

A super flywheel can store much more energy per pound than lead-acid batteries. With in-wheel electric motor generators (for recovery of braking losses as well as drive torque) and energy extraction and recharge of the flywheel by one central motor/generator, "on board" of course, most urban bus routes would need only a few minutes recharge at one end of the route.* Flywheels basically have no limit on the recharge rate, except the power capacity of the electric source and re-spin motor. As most could sequentially use one high power source at their main terminal, that could economically be with 1000 kW capacity - I.e. dump 1,000,000 joules into the flywheel every second. - A full spin up in less time than the driver needs to take a "leak" is possible but it would be more economical to let the driver have a cup of coffee and five minutes more to relax while a 10 minute full spin is done.

Six buses with hour long round trip routes between "passenger exchange buses" terminal points in a crudely hexagonal pattern is a convenient mass transit design. The out bound route could be 20 minutes and the different return route of 30 minutes, with 10 minute margin for heavy traffic would give full coverage of the city. Brief recharge at the "other" passenger exchange terminal are possible if needed. Even "power transfusion" from one bus to another are also possible in emergencies. If I were King, there would be significant toll charge for driving your car inside the central city and the buses would be free** (paid in your city tax). I.e. mainly bus traffic and thus very rare the bus was not on schedule. Thus compared to a rush hour trip, your time loss would be at least cut in half and there is zero cost for parking your car, plus city air is fit for humans to breath.
-----------
* The AC frequency of power taken from the flywheel would decrease as energy is removed, but that is no problem as DC in wheel motors are to be preferred anyway and modern cheap electronic can convert the recovered braking energy into the flywheel current frequency re-charge requirements.

** In Sao Paulo buses and metro are free to all over 60 years of age and students pay greatly reduced price. On the side of the bus, it states: "Transport is citizen's right and a government duty." (after my translation from Portuguese) I don't own a car, but wife does. Many major route have a lane only for buses and taxis with a passenger. During rush hour it is at least twice as fast to take the bus as to drive your car. To an American living here it amazing to see the use of buses - Once I counted 13 head to tail with nothing in between! They are color coded for different parts of the city so you can more quickly and surely get on the right one

 

[Stoniphi]

...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.

30 some - odd years ago I drove about 23,000 miles a year. When the oil embargo drove the price of gasoline up, I completely changed the way I did business. Now, I drive less than 7,500 miles a year, work from home and a PO box, built direct gain solar heat onto my home.

Every time the price of gas goes up, my neighbors get laid off from their jobs in the US auto industry. We here in MI never came back out of that recession the rest of you dimly remember - it is still right here in our faces.

If the price of gasoline goes up a few bucks it will very much impact me and everyone I know. Change is the only constant here. No, the world will not end if that price goes up, but it will indeed get different for all of us.

So do you actually work for the oil industry, own a lot of oil stock or do you just love the sound of a big high - compression IC engine rumbling down the road and the smell of burned hydrocarbons wafting on the breeze?

 

[adoucette]

They are subsidized. I provided you with many links.

And the reputable links (the ones that don't include DOD spending as an energy subsidy for instance) don't agree with you.

Well with one caveat, I should point out that with our tax codes being as broad and diverse as they are, that some analysis would always find some tax credit for the energy industry.

BUT you have to compare the amount of incentives to the amount spent, which is what you were originally claiming that gas would be ~double in price without the incentives, and that is simply not true.

So, from your EIA link:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/executive_summary.html

Federal Government intervention in energy industries has generally declined over the past two decades. Price controls for domestic oil and natural gas production were largely eliminated by the mid-1980s. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced or eliminated many tax expenditures, several of which figured prominently in earlier studies. ....

The total value of Federal subsidies to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power is estimated to be $2.8 billion in 1999 (Table ES1), compared with wholesale spending of $127 billion (1999 dollars) (4) in 1998 for purchases of those fuels and total retail expenditures of $363 billion (1999 dollars) in 1995. (5)

Or total Federal Subsidies of LESS THAN 1 PERCENT of the retail cost for ALL those fuels/energy sources.

Thus the Federal Subsidies for gasoline (and fossil fuels) are far less than you are claiming.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

30 some - odd years ago I drove about 23,000 miles a year. When the oil embargo drove the price of gasoline up, I completely changed the way I did business. Now, I drive less than 7,500 miles a year, work from home and a PO box, built direct gain solar heat onto my home.

Every time the price of gas goes up, my neighbors get laid off from their jobs in the US auto industry. We here in MI never came back out of that recession the rest of you dimly remember - it is still right here in our faces.

If the price of gasoline goes up a few bucks it will very much impact me and everyone I know. Change is the only constant here. No, the world will not end if that price goes up, but it will indeed get different for all of us.

So do you actually work for the oil industry, own a lot of oil stock or do you just love the sound of a big high - compression IC engine rumbling down the road and the smell of burned hydrocarbons wafting on the breeze?

No, I design computer systems.

I work from my home and have done so for about 15 years.

I've got a 10 year old truck with less than 70,000 miles on it, my daughter has a new car that gets about 35 mpg and she puts about 10,000 miles per year on it (she's attends a local university). I live in an area with cheap electricity (water and coal) and I rely primarily on electricity for my energy needs and thus the price of oil doesn't affect my energy bills (though I have spent money to increase insulation, better windows etc, I've investigated PV solar and even with the 30% subsidy is still out of the question as far as saving any money)

The net is we'd do fine at $10 gallon and it would make no change in our lifestyle. Like I said, if you can't handle an increase of several hundred dollars per month, you are living too close to the edge already and you can't then blame the price of oil on your financial troubles.

Similarly Michigan's actual problem has nothing to do with the price of oil, but with tax policies, union policies and short-sighted design/profit goals.

Is Toyota hurting? NO
Is Hyundai hurting? NO

Arthur

 

[jpappl]

adoucette,

The net is we'd do fine at $10 gallon and it would make no change in our lifestyle. Like I said, if you can't handle an increase of several hundred dollars per month, you are living too close to the edge already and you can't then blame the price of oil on your financial troubles.

And you and I don't account for everyones situation.

Again, what percentage of the populace is in the situation you describe above ?

Just because you and I and some would not be that affected by a large increase in the price at the pump, as a whole, the ripple effect would be dramatic.

It's not about being pessimistic on the subject just facing some realities which you clearly are unwilling to do.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/WhatIfGasCost10DollarsAGallon.aspx

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/03/7-a-gallon-gas-needed-to-meet-government’s-co2-cuts/

The conservative and liberal commentary in the links above both agree on such a ripple. Only you do not.

Put your head back in the sand if you can't stand to look.

 

[Search & Destroy]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...rsAGallon.aspx

good article. Oil is hovering right below 90 at the moment.

 

[jpappl]

adoucette,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
They are subsidized. I provided you with many links. ”

And the reputable links (the ones that don't include DOD spending as an energy subsidy for instance) don't agree with you.

Oh the ones you don't agree with. Tell me why DOD costs to protect and ensure the supply of imported oil not be considered a subsidy ? These costs are paid by us in the form of taxes and are not at the pump. It's a subsidy no matter how you slice it. Call it what you want but everything that we spend to ensure the oil that is not included in the pump price is still an expenditure.

Whether it's hidden or not, it's still not reflected in the price.

So no matter how you slice it the price at the pump is not the real price.

per my original link # 934

"According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the economic penalties of America's oil dependence total $297.2 to $304.9 billion annually. If reflected at the gasoline pump, these “hidden costs” would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline to over $5.28. A fill-up would be over $105. "

$ 5.28 isn't double by the way. Gas where I live is $ 3.15 to $ 3.25 a gallon.

Here is a link to the national defense council.

http://www.ndcf.org/

Tell me why you find them to not be reputable.

 

[jpappl]

adoucette,

The one point I want to make is that you seem to need it to be an all or nothing argument. Taking the position that everything will be roses. Which is unrealistic.

My position is that such increases will have dramatic effects in the short term but that we will adjust and come out fine in the long run.

Some of us like yourself and I will have an easier time of it because of our situation but that doesn't apply to most, and we would still see an immediate effect. Although our situation allows for little pain or change, some would be devastated and would have to completely change the lifestyle, jobs, locations etc.

You mentioned that you are mostly on electricity for heat etc. What if the price of electricity doubled in your area, or tripled ?

Just because you personally would not be hurt doesn't mean it applies to others, but that should be obvious and it apparently is not.

The OP is about electric cars being a pipe dream, this conversation is related but maybe it should get back to the op. This is really the subject of another thread and it should also include other energies that are subsidized and consider this when discussing their value.

 

[adoucette]

$ 5.28 isn't double by the way. Gas where I live is $ 3.15 to $ 3.25 a gallon.

Here is a link to the national defense council.

http://www.ndcf.org/

Tell me why you find them to not be reputable.

Too bad for you, it's ~$2.80 where I live.

And as to the NDCF, very simple, they include the cost of the Iraq war as part of the supposed "hidden cost of oil", but it's not.

They also include items like "loss of domestic employment and related economic activity that results from the huge capital outflow required to pay for our import dependence...of $117.4 billion".

Which might have some truth to it (very little), but even so, loss of domestic employment is NOT a subsidy.

They also include "the energy industry has had one of the highest rates of reinvestment. As a result, the reduction in investment capital that results from our dependence on foreign oil is significantly higher than would be the case with some other industries. In 2006, NDCF estimated that the lost of investment ... to an estimated $394.2 billion."

Again BS, they are saying if we didn't invest in THE ENERGY INDUSTRY (not oil specifically) we would have more money to invest in other industries.
Again something that might have a shred of truth (very little, as during this time they are mentioning there was a surplus of credit and no lack of investment), but even so, the fact that money is invested in oil is NOT a subsidy.

They even include loss of tax revenue of $42.9 billion per year because the oil comes from overseas and we don't get to tax the producers. On that basis, everything we buy that is imported causes a loss in tax revenue. Which again has a smattering of truth (again very little), but even so, the fact that we don't get direct tax revenue from imported oil is NOT a subsidy.

In contrast, the EIA report you linked to was quite clear about the actual Federal Subsidy and it is TINY.

Less than 1 percent.

You just don't like the real answer and prefer one which is totally bogus.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

adoucette,

The one point I want to make is that you seem to need it to be an all or nothing argument. Taking the position that everything will be roses. Which is unrealistic.

No, I said we would get through it.
I do presume that the price would rise at a rate that would allow significant amount of adaption over time.

You mentioned that you are mostly on electricity for heat etc. What if the price of electricity doubled in your area, or tripled ?

I'd install a PV system and life would go on as usual.
Currently a solar PV system is not justifiable as grid electricity is cheap.
Double the price and I'd have the installers out the next weekend and then my price rises would halt.

Just because you personally would not be hurt doesn't mean it applies to others, but that should be obvious and it apparently is not.

I didn't say that it wouldn't affect people and that some would be hurt, I just mentioned that if they weren't living on the edge that most would get by just fine. Those living on the edge always feel pain before others do, that's why it's not encouraged.

Even your article, which presumed that gas jumped to $10 per barrel, thus not allowing for adaption came to this conclusion: "It would be a large recession, not a depression," says Michael Englund, the chief economist for Action Economics in Boulder, Colo. That would mean tight budgets and unemployment until the economy adapted and growth returned.

Note the last sentence though, if the price rose at a reasonable rate the economy would adapt along the way.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Arthur

 

[jpappl]

Adoucette,

It is you who doesn't like the answer. The answer in it's entirety. You want to separate each cost and claim it is not REALLY a subsidy.

Take all of those costs and place them right at the pump, then we will see the real price.

Apparently, it would be at least $ 5.28 a gallon.

Doesn't matter what you want to call it, we aren't paying the true cost at the pump.

In the end it doesn't matter, because we pay the real cost anyway, just not entirely at the moment we pump the gas.

 

[jpappl]

adoucette,

No, I said we would get through it.
I do presume that the price would rise at a rate that would allow significant amount of adaption over time.

That's the hope, sure. We both agree on this. But that is not what we were discussing or maybe there was some confusion there. I was saying if the price went to $ 6 or $ 10 tomorrow or changed rapidly.

I'd install a PV system and life would go on as usual.
Currently a solar PV system is not justifiable as grid electricity is cheap.
Double the price and I'd have the installers out the next weekend and then my price rises would halt.

But many can not afford PV systems. Then of course they are also subsidized.

I didn't say that it wouldn't affect people and that some would be hurt, I just mentioned that if they weren't living on the edge that most would get by just fine. Those living on the edge always feel pain before others do, that's why it's not encouraged.

Even your article, which presumed that gas jumped to $10 per barrel, thus not allowing for adaption came to this conclusion: "It would be a large recession, not a depression," says Michael Englund, the chief economist for Action Economics in Boulder, Colo. That would mean tight budgets and unemployment until the economy adapted and growth returned.

Not at first.

Here was your initial reaction to the question posed.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Can you not imagine what $ 6 a gallon of gas would do to our lifestyle ? ”

"Yeah, it would be barely noticible." post 951

So if you mean't to say that if $ 6 a gallon occurred over a long enough period of time, then yes, but that would not be the case if it happened rapidly.

Note the last sentence though, if the price rose at a reasonable rate the economy would adapt along the way.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Sure, as have I.

 

[adoucette]

Need help moving those goalposts around?

You started this with:

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 ?

And yes you portrayed people FLEEING the suburbs, the malls and restaurants and retail shops closing down as the suburbs become a ghost town.

Until I pointed out that going from $3 to $6 is only ~$140 per month, which won't cause any mass exodus from the suburbs, even if the change in prices is relatively sudden. Most suburban familys (IMHO) could easily handle an extra expense of ~2,000 for say five years as they make changes to reduce that expense by buying a more efficient car or fiind someone to car-pool with, or start driving to the local bus/train station instead of all the way to town.

So even though we aren't even looking at $6 per gallon gasoline anytime soon, and the auto industry and new CAFE standards are already prepping for $4.00 gasoline (meaning the adaption is underway as we write these posts), you then upped it to $10 per gallon, and now you want to make that a sudden change, but NOW you are way outside of reality.

Face it, we aren't in dire straits because of gas prices today, and we aren't likely to be in the future either as we are already adapting to escalating gas prices and we will continue to do so, and the higher they go, the more we will adapt.

Arthur

 

[Stoniphi]

The solar I designed, fabricated and installed is a direct gain passive heating system. That and the R - 60 ceiling insulation I installed (myself) at that time cut our winter natural gas heating bill by 1/3.

Rooftop PV systems are cost - effective if you fabricate and install them yourself. They can be cheap even without the subsidy.

My son is at the local u and I would really rather pay his tuition to get a degree to earn a living than to squander that money on more expensive gasoline.

If you do not think the G.W. Bush Iraq invasion was over Bush family oil holdings and in the interest - and insistence - of the Saudis (along with the direct link to US oil imports), than you are either incredibly naive or remarkably uninformed.

 

[jpappl]

adoucette,

Need help moving those goalposts around?

You started this with:
“ 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 ? ”

And yes you portrayed people FLEEING the suburbs, the malls and restaurants and retail shops closing down as the suburbs become a ghost town.

Until I pointed out that going from $3 to $6 is only ~$140 per month, which won't cause any mass exodus from the suburbs, even if the change in prices is relatively sudden. Most suburban familys (IMHO) could easily handle an extra expense of ~2,000 for say five years as they make changes to reduce that expense by buying a more efficient car or fiind someone to car-pool with, or start driving to the local bus/train station instead of all the way to town.

You are only talking about the increase to the consumer for the price of gas for the tank. Not all of the other ripple effects in the economy that occur from that. It is much more complicated.

If the large increase occurs rapidly, it will be a big problem.

If it occurs over a long or longer period of time, it will be less of a burden.

I never said they would turn to ghost towns, I am pointing out that the increase affects everything, at least to some degree.

If you buy a house in the burbs for 500,000 and 5 years later the price of gas doubles and nobody wants to buy out there anymore because they have to consider other issues like the drive in and that house now has a market value of 400,000 that was a huge impact/loss to that family.

Face it, we aren't in dire straits because of gas prices today, and we aren't likely to be in the future either as we are already adapting to escalating gas prices and we will continue to do so, and the higher they go, the more we will adapt.

Yes we will. As long as it happens slowly and methodically enough we will adjust. I am not questioning whether or not we can or will adjust, I am stating that the pain will be far worse if it occurs rapidly.

This we are in agreement.

My point about the real cost of things is that we have to pay for them somewhere, somehow. Those additional expenditures don't just vanish.

Currently we are passing them on, artificially keeping costs to the consumer lower. There is very good reason for this.

If they go up rapidly, for example we decide to pay the true costs ourselves and not continually add to the debt, then people will change their lifestyle which will definitely effect the economy.

Those who stand to lose the most don't want that to happen.

The status quo is very important to them.

So it won't change.