Electric Vehicles

[kiddiedoc]

Fueling electric vehicles costs roughly the equivalent of $17 a gallon: Study

A new study found that fueling electric vehicles costs roughly $17 per gallon. In its paper "Overcharged Expectations: Unmasking the True Costs of

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The funny thing is that everyone I know with an EV basically never uses a "charging station."

As always, be careful of what you read online

 

[CobbVol]

The funny thing is that everyone I know with an EV basically never uses a "charging station."

As always, be careful of what you read online

In the study, charging stations made up a small amount of the $17+. The main culprit were government subsidies, mandates, and regulations.

 

[kiddiedoc]

In the study, charging stations made up a small amount of the $17+. The main culprit were government subsidies, mandates, and regulations.

Oh, sweet, so nothing that costs me a damn thing.

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

Fueling electric vehicles costs roughly the equivalent of $17 a gallon: Study

A new study found that fueling electric vehicles costs roughly $17 per gallon. In its paper "Overcharged Expectations: Unmasking the True Costs of

www.washingtonexaminer.com

You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till the taxpayers have to pay to INSTALL and MAINTAIN charging stations in every public parking spot and multiple charging stations in every low income household in the U.S.

 

[rekinhavoc]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Orangeslice13]

Oh, sweet, so nothing that costs me a damn thing.

“You serious Clark?”

Do you believe the government should be subsidizing any of this?

 

[kiddiedoc]

“You serious Clark?”

Do you believe the government should be subsidizing any of this?

Nope. But I'm gladly taking my $7500 back this tax season. The less of my money they keep, the better.

 

[kiddiedoc]

There's no perspective there. At that rate, it only takes a few minutes for a full charge. Here is my past month's consumption:

 

[NorthDallas40]

There's no perspective there. At that rate, it only takes a few minutes for a full charge. Here is my past month's consumption:

View attachment 595656

Nope you completely missed the point. It isn’t about singular you spending a few minutes to charge your singular car. It’s about the grid power required to supply those public super chargers. It isn’t sustainable if EVs were to actually wind up as a large percentage of the population and utilize public recharging. If instead you’re suggesting we delete the public superchargers and just use level 2 home chargers as you do I’ll get on board with that right now.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Nope. But I'm gladly taking my $7500 back this tax season. The less of my money they keep, the better.

Well, I’m all for normal people getting there’s back from “our” government. It’d be a shame if the government did its job instead of thinking they get to reward and punish children with the tax code.

Edit: *theirs

 

[kiddiedoc]

Nope you completely missed the point. It isn’t about singular you spending a few minutes to charge your singular car. It’s about the grid power required to supply those public super chargers. It isn’t sustainable if EVs were to actually wind up as a large percentage of the population and utilize public recharging. If instead you’re suggesting we delete the public superchargers and just use level 2 home chargers as you do I’ll get on board with that right now.

Oh, I don't think there's any question that home chargers are far more feasible. I consider supercharging an "emergency" or rare circumstance option, only. They are far more expensive to use, also. That's why I have said that EVs are not currently a viable option if you plan on traveling long distances with any regularity.

 

[LouderVol]

Well, I’m all for normal people getting there’s back from “our” government. It’d be a shame if the government did its job instead of thinking they get to reward and punish children with the tax code.

they provide plenty of subsidies for the oil industry too.

 

[hog88]

they provide plenty of subsidies for the oil industry too.

Like what?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Oh, I don't think there's any question that home chargers are far more feasible. I consider supercharging an "emergency" or rare circumstance option, only. They are far more expensive to use, also. That's why I have said that EVs are not currently a viable option if you plan on traveling long distances with any regularity.

Don’t disagree with any of that. That’s a completely reasonable approach. But if the idiots in government are successful and actually manage to get a significant percentage of the vehicles to be electric and them using superchargers they are gonna break the grid. That’s all. It’s just an all around screwed up approach and not well thought out.

I can think of one singular advantage for mass EVs in application. In high density population areas to help with air quality. Then even though you have the electricity sourced by fossil fuels the vehicle emissions are at least still not in the dense population areas and the energy likely comes from fairly clean natural gas.

That is a fairly specific rational on why EVs could help. Now you have to get those people in those high density areas to be able to buy EVs and they need to have their own chargers. That becomes very problematic in I’d guess most inner city areas.

So instead you get “we need EVs to save the world because… reasons”. Most people just tune out.

 

[LouderVol]

Like what?

The biggest, but it doesn't count as a subsidy is tying the dollar to oil. It keeps our prices relevant on the world stage. they have also fought several wars to guarantee that favorable trade position.
Another not-a-subsidy but still pulling favorites is when the prices get high and they cut the taxes. except for school supplies I can't think of anything that gets that deal.
Fracking and drilling on public land also receives favorable, not market, rates. The recent kerfuffle with Biden just capped that favoritism, it didn't remove it.
$4 billion in tax breaks a year:

otherwise, according to this it is 40 billion:

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year?

As President Obama and Congress look for budget cuts, some experts say federal energy subsidies are ripe for trimming. Among oil companies, nuclear power, and coal, who gets what from US taxpayers?

www.csmonitor.com

"Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government."

oh and that article brings up something I didn't even think of: ethanol.

 

[hog88]

The biggest, but it doesn't count as a subsidy is tying the dollar to oil. It keeps our prices relevant on the world stage. they have also fought several wars to guarantee that favorable trade position.
Another not-a-subsidy but still pulling favorites is when the prices get high and they cut the taxes. except for school supplies I can't think of anything that gets that deal.
Fracking and drilling on public land also receives favorable, not market, rates. The recent kerfuffle with Biden just capped that favoritism, it didn't remove it.
$4 billion in tax breaks a year:

otherwise, according to this it is 40 billion:

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year?

As President Obama and Congress look for budget cuts, some experts say federal energy subsidies are ripe for trimming. Among oil companies, nuclear power, and coal, who gets what from US taxpayers?

www.csmonitor.com

"Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government."

oh and that article brings up something I didn't even think of: ethanol.

That article doesn't support the "subsidy" argument. Sure oil companies get to deduct expenses for preparing a site for drilling, just as a manufacture gets to deduct expenses (depreciation) for new equipment/facility ext. And for the ethanol "subsidies" yeah that's BS, the .gov mandates an additive that no one wants be used so they subsidize the farmers growing the main ingredient. Then the favorable lease agreements is laughable, who else but energy or logging interests are going to lease land in the middle of nowhere, build out the infrastructure and then restore it when done?

Most of these so called subsidies are available in one form or another to most all businesses.

 

[LouderVol]

That article doesn't support the "subsidy" argument. Sure oil companies get to deduct expenses for preparing a site for drilling, just as a manufacture gets to deduct expenses (depreciation) for new equipment/facility ext. And for the ethanol "subsidies" yeah that's BS, the .gov mandates an additive that no one wants be used so they subsidize the farmers growing the main ingredient. Then the favorable lease agreements is laughable, who else but energy or logging interests are going to lease land in the middle of nowhere, build out the infrastructure and then restore it when done?

Most of these so called subsidies are available in one form or another to most all businesses.

the deducted expenses were just 4 of 41 billion a year. the land subsidies were not even covered under that, and just because no one else uses it doesn't mean they aren't receiving a market benefit. pretty sure people have complained about "donating" land to solar or wind farms, so it would track if the same complaint carried over to oil.

 

[AM64]

The biggest, but it doesn't count as a subsidy is tying the dollar to oil. It keeps our prices relevant on the world stage. they have also fought several wars to guarantee that favorable trade position.
Another not-a-subsidy but still pulling favorites is when the prices get high and they cut the taxes. except for school supplies I can't think of anything that gets that deal.
Fracking and drilling on public land also receives favorable, not market, rates. The recent kerfuffle with Biden just capped that favoritism, it didn't remove it.
$4 billion in tax breaks a year:

otherwise, according to this it is 40 billion:

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year?

As President Obama and Congress look for budget cuts, some experts say federal energy subsidies are ripe for trimming. Among oil companies, nuclear power, and coal, who gets what from US taxpayers?

www.csmonitor.com

"Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government."

oh and that article brings up something I didn't even think of: ethanol.

The other side of that would be that if government didn't get in the way by declaring war on oil, it would make sense for US refineries to build new or reconfigure existing refineries to take advantage of the increase in US oil production. That would remove a lot of the reason we would want the dollar tied to oil. It would also remove massive amounts of crude being shipped all over the globe which both wastefully uses oil and increases engine emissions and waste dumped in the oceans. There's a lot of common sense missing in the dem and environmentalist war on oil. In the end we also don't have the electrical infrastructure to manage full scale transfer to EVs whether they are charged at home or elsewhere.

The modular reactor plant just planned for construction fell through which means we will remain reliant on burning fossil fuels (just more NG at this point) to power any transition to EVs. There has to be baseload generation and someday maybe the "renewables" addled crowd will figure out renewables aren't that. I'd go so far as to say that renewables are a highly disruptive force blocking the path to a sane energy policy.

 

[hog88]

The other side of that would be that if government didn't get in the way by declaring war on oil, it would make sense for US refineries to build new or reconfigure existing refineries to take advantage of the increase in US oil production. That would remove a lot of the reason we would want the dollar tied to oil. It would also remove massive amounts of crude being shipped all over the globe which both wastefully uses oil and increases engine emissions and waste dumped in the oceans. There's a lot of common sense missing in the dem and environmentalist war on oil. In the end we also don't have the electrical infrastructure to manage full scale transfer to EVs whether they are charged at home or elsewhere.

The modular reactor plant just planned for construction fell through which means we will remain reliant on burning fossil fuels (just more NG at this point) to power any transition to EVs. There has to be baseload generation and someday maybe the "renewables" addled crowd will figure out renewables aren't that. I'd go so far as to say that renewables are a highly disruptive force blocking the path to a sane energy policy.

I read about that modular reactor project. I think it said the project has been in planning and permitting for almost 20 years or something close to that. No wonder it fell through, nobody is going to keep dumping cash into a project that takes decades to complete let alone start producing revenue.

 

[AM64]

Exactly. That's why we are where we are with antiquated energy infrastructure and no new nuclear generation in progress. It's the same for construction of new refineries and modification of existing refineries - only the dems also piled on that one. Markets are all about two things now - quick profit taking and retirement investment. From start to finish a nuclear plant can take longer from the conceptual stage to operation than careers, and that just doesn't work with the current vision on investments.

 

[hog88]

Exactly. That's why we are where we are with antiquated energy infrastructure and no new nuclear generation in progress. It's the same for construction of new refineries and modification of existing refineries - only the dems also piled on that one. Markets are all about two things now - quick profit taking and retirement investment. From start to finish a nuclear plant can take longer from the conceptual stage to operation than careers, and that just doesn't work with the current vision on investments.

Over regulation is why our infrastructure is crap and we can't have nice things.

 

[LouderVol]

The other side of that would be that if government didn't get in the way by declaring war on oil, it would make sense for US refineries to build new or reconfigure existing refineries to take advantage of the increase in US oil production. That would remove a lot of the reason we would want the dollar tied to oil. It would also remove massive amounts of crude being shipped all over the globe which both wastefully uses oil and increases engine emissions and waste dumped in the oceans. There's a lot of common sense missing in the dem and environmentalist war on oil. In the end we also don't have the electrical infrastructure to manage full scale transfer to EVs whether they are charged at home or elsewhere.

The modular reactor plant just planned for construction fell through which means we will remain reliant on burning fossil fuels (just more NG at this point) to power any transition to EVs. There has to be baseload generation and someday maybe the "renewables" addled crowd will figure out renewables aren't that. I'd go so far as to say that renewables are a highly disruptive force blocking the path to a sane energy policy.

not arguing otherwise. just pointing out that that non-renewables haven't been left out on their own to struggle and develop on their own. they were given every benefit we have seen for renewables. they want us to believe they struggled up hill both ways and have been fighting DC since day 1, while in reality they have had DC in their pockets since day one, and now that the pork has to be shared, suddenly its a problem to subsidize energy.

The one exception would be the requirements placed on automotive makers to require they make a certain percentage of vehicles via EV over ICE. I don't know of a similar requirement for ICE. the public transit "scandal/plot/scheme" would be the closest. there were a lot of electric options previously but those got killed by the government pushing less efficient systems (busses vs trains mostly) that relied on ICE. but that electrical demand was still met by fossil fuels so in this context not much of a change, but it would have been an issue at the time with the government favoring one system over another.

also not sure how to count the strategic reserves of oil in this whole argument.

 

[Orangeburst]

Exactly. That's why we are where we are with antiquated energy infrastructure and no new nuclear generation in progress. It's the same for construction of new refineries and modification of existing refineries - only the dems also piled on that one. Markets are all about two things now - quick profit taking and retirement investment. From start to finish a nuclear plant can take longer from the conceptual stage to operation than careers, and that just doesn't work with the current vision on investments.

Remember Peak Oil. They have been trying to get rid of oil for decades. Remember Keystone Pipeline where they said it will take 10 years to be implemented? Well 10 years passed and it would be online now.
Something tells me they just want control of power industry so they can get their meathooks in the cash.

 

[AM64]

not arguing otherwise. just pointing out that that non-renewables haven't been left out on their own to struggle and develop on their own. they were given every benefit we have seen for renewables. they want us to believe they struggled up hill both ways and have been fighting DC since day 1, while in reality they have had DC in their pockets since day one, and now that the pork has to be shared, suddenly its a problem to subsidize energy.

The one exception would be the requirements placed on automotive makers to require they make a certain percentage of vehicles via EV over ICE. I don't know of a similar requirement for ICE. the public transit "scandal/plot/scheme" would be the closest. there were a lot of electric options previously but those got killed by the government pushing less efficient systems (busses vs trains mostly) that relied on ICE. but that electrical demand was still met by fossil fuels so in this context not much of a change, but it would have been an issue at the time with the government favoring one system over another.

also not sure how to count the strategic reserves of oil in this whole argument.

That's true. A lot of the nuclear power development was a direct spin off from government funded Naval nuclear propulsion work, and there were probably some other incentives early on with respect to the processing of uranium to fuel. Certainly the national labs were instrumental in the development of nuclear power. The other side is that government has placed a lot of regulatory restrictions in the path of energy producers, and most notably coal and nuclear generation. Just getting the permits to build and to own/develop a site for a nuclear plant can take a decade or more. On the other hand even after a career in the nuclear power industry, I would not say that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should go away ... and I have had plenty negative to say about those people over the years.

I guess I'd have to say with respect to a lot of the power generation world that the government both give and takes, and I'd be hard pressed to say that what is given equals what is taken by legislation and regulation. Another aspect of that is unions are a big part of the power generation - construction, transportation, fuel mining and processing, operations and maintenance, etc; and government almost exclusively backs unions in their war against corporations. Just one small change - applying antitrust regulations to unions the same way they are applied to corporations would make a huge difference.