End of EV Subsidies?

[jaycee + 348]

35 minutes ago, DA? said:

I may come over as a religious fanatic, but if that is what a person is that cares about the environment and the world his son is growing up in then I am one. It makes little difference if I'm intelligent or not, the world is changing, that's not propaganda it's reality. Is that another shot that I'm actually a bot programmed by the looney left tree hugging conspirators? I'm just the reflection in the mirror of some here. 

We all care about the world but some of us are a bit more practical about what can be done and the consequences of doing it. You seem to assume the positive outcome in all cases which puts you in the religious fanatic group for me.
Regards the bot stuff you act more like a troll if you ask me but bot is similar in that you continuously post on the same subject on a website that generally has people of the opposite persuasion, a few questions fine but continuously is just tedious and troll like especially since you dismiss all answers are wrong.

[Auson + 123]

2 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I might remind you this question in a few years if we're all still here. The only thing one big car company, namely VW, can compete on with Tesla is grand statements by the boss. What was it Diess said recently, that they can make a direct competitor for the Model 3 that will sell at half the price? Yep, that was it. It cracked me up and not just me.

Hedge funds shorting Tesla got second-degree burns after the Q3 results, no?

Marina Schwartz,

I think VW can compete with Tesla on some other things like profit for example.

Tesla EBIT for 2017 -$1.547 Billion ( thats negartive $1.5 billion dollars )

VW Earnings after tax $ 4.932 Billion 

and this https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/audi/102970/new-all-electric-audi-e-tron-gt-concept-wows-at-la

or this https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/porsche/taycan/92807/new-2019-porsche-taycan-specs-and-details-of-porsches-electric-car

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Unquestionable but the topic is EVs. In terms of financial performance Tesla is a toddler and VW is a grandpa but this is not the topic of conversation here, is it? I shall now forget I even saw the words "Porsche Taycan", thank you. Call me when they start mass production, prototypes are for shows. And they will start mass production, I have no doubt about it. Then they can talk about taking on Tesla and we can discuss who's doing better.

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, Auson said:

DA,

We've gone over this before caring about the environment is great and I also do. But you have stated on here that consumption can be ok and everyone on the planet can consume like we do in the developed world as long as its EV and renewable.

THIS IS NOT TRUE. Rampant consumption, consumerism and capitalism is bad. We enjoy such a good standard of living because we exploit other countries people and natural resources. While the dictators and corrupt governments of such countries get rich and watch their people starve. Wake up and look smell the coffee. We have children working in sweat shops in the far east and India making clothes and iPhones for us and miners working in dangerous conditions to mine the minerals for our consumption. My problem here is that EVs require more minerals and energy to manufacture that means more oil usage. If I was being selfish this is ok as I like you want to see $100 Brent soon and the way I see it the mass adoption of EVs will see us get there.    

I don't think I made myself clear on consumption. The way humans consume materials, energy and the environment isn't OK. But the reality is people want to and changing that is near impossible, so we have to work in the frameworks of reality. This means we have to work on finding solutions were people can carry on without disruption and make their actions more sustainable. Not sure why you seem to express the idea that even present day EV's let alone in the future why EV's are worse for the environment. The USA market shows when a viable EV comes to the market it out competes other similar ICE's, sales may be only 2% today but that's rapidly changing.

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, jaycee said:

We all care about the world but some of us are a bit more practical about what can be done and the consequences of doing it. You seem to assume the positive outcome in all cases which puts you in the religious fanatic group for me.
Regards the bot stuff you act more like a troll if you ask me but bot is similar in that you continuously post on the same subject on a website that generally has people of the opposite persuasion, a few questions fine but continuously is just tedious and troll like especially since you dismiss all answers are wrong.

I hope for a positive out come and I have become more positive that we will get there over the past few years. Technology is the key to this change, sciencedaily.com is a great site to see some of this.

Well if some of the people keep repeating the same old trash they need to be told. I dismiss much as it's just opinions based on some other persons opinion based on bull.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, DA? said:

I don't think I made myself clear on consumption. The way humans consume materials, energy and the environment isn't OK. But the reality is people want to and changing that is near impossible, so we have to work in the frameworks of reality. This means we have to work on finding solutions were people can carry on without disruption and make their actions more sustainable. Not sure why you seem to express the idea that even present day EV's let alone in the future why EV's are worse for the environment. The USA market shows when a viable EV comes to the market it out competes other similar ICE's, sales may be only 2% today but that's rapidly changing.

My own view is oil & gas is more environmentally friendly and more environmentally sustainable than the strip mining used for mining the minerals needed for a huge increase in large batteries for EVs, coupled with the power generation required to make huge new amounts of electricity.  Even the materials required to manufacture huge amounts of solar panels for so-called "green" solar energy require a large environmental footprint.

My preferred energy of the future is natural gas.

Clearly, we will not agree on this.

And I'm fine with that.

If someone can come up with a better solution, please do feel free to present it, along with the entire carbon footprint required to bring it to the masses on a global scale.

[DA? + 301]

11 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

My own view is oil & gas is more environmentally friendly and more environmentally sustainable than the strip mining used for mining the minerals needed for a huge increase in large batteries for EVs, coupled with the power generation required to make huge new amounts of electricity.  Even the materials required to manufacture huge amounts of solar panels for so-called "green" solar energy require a large environmental footprint.

My preferred energy of the future is natural gas.

Clearly, we will not agree on this.

And I'm fine with that.

If someone can come up with a better solution, please do feel free to present it, along with the entire carbon footprint required to bring it to the masses on a global scale.

It's a view not really based on facts. Yes as I've stated before every action has an environmental reaction. But even though we have only just really started to see renewables and EV's begin to mature as a technology they are already the least damaging way forward. As the electrification of everything takes hold it becomes even better. Companies are already working and trying out ways of recycling solar panels, batteries and so forth. Then of course it'll soon be time to stop most of the mining on earth, give it a couple of decades and metals will start falling out of the sky.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 minutes ago, DA? said:

It's a view not really based on facts. Yes as I've stated before every action has an environmental reaction. But even though we have only just really started to see renewables and EV's begin to mature as a technology they are already the least damaging way forward. As the electrification of everything takes hold it becomes even better. Companies are already working and trying out ways of recycling solar panels, batteries and so forth. Then of course it'll soon be time to stop most of the mining on earth, give it a couple of decades and metals will start falling out of the sky.

How does electricity get generated? Unicorn farts?  I'm only half joking here.

Massively increasing electricity generation in order to offset energy from using hydrocarbons requires alternate industrialization, along with a corresponding increase of environmental footprint to generate additional electricity, along with the envinomental footprint of manufacturing the industrial sized batteries to temporarily store the electricity.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Generating electricity has an environmental footprint.  Full stop.

Generating huge additional amounts of electricity requires a corresponding huge environmental footprint.

Nuclear power would be wonderful, except for that niggling bit about nuclear waste.

[Auson + 123]

32 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

How does electricity get generated? Unicorn farts?  I'm only half joking here.

Massively increasing electricity generation in order to offset energy from using hydrocarbons requires alternate industrialization, along with a corresponding increase of environmental footprint to generate additional electricity, along with the envinomental footprint of manufacturing the industrial sized batteries to temporarily store the electricity.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Generating electricity has an environmental footprint.  Full stop.

Generating huge additional amounts of electricity requires a corresponding huge environmental footprint.

Nuclear power would be wonderful, except for that niggling bit about nuclear waste.

Yes Tom there is no such thing as a free lunch. 

So making electricity sending it down a line to store in an 800kg  battery so it can be transported around in a 2 ton high performance vehicle to transport one 75kg adult from place to place while virtue signalling to others in a $100k shiny new vehicle full of copper, cow hides and Lithium is not and never will be efficient use of the earths finite resources. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 12/4/2018 at 10:04 AM, Auson said:

DA,

EVs as you say will no doubt be a feature in our future but I feel you massively underestimate the huge drain in energy ( oil and gas ) and resources required to replace the 2 billion ICE vehicles with EV. More over the impossible mission of upgrading the grid and electricity generation and charging systems. In my view this task is not achievable.

Without the subsidies EVs are currently uneconomic. 

Why - do cars built now last for ever? 

I would assume the replacement is gradual with EV's progressively taking over from ICE year on year. No significant overall increase in the use of materials other than Lithium (or comparable metals - Sodium is another possibility without the supply chain constraints of Li). 

As for upgrading the grid - an impossible mission? 

Is this comment for real? The vast majority of EV charging will be done overnight at home spread out over the week. Home charging will be limited to 3-6KW so spread out over the night which will put little pressure on the system at peak demand times - especially if consumers are incentivised to charge off peak. 

The estimates for the UK are that a complete replacement of ICE with EV's for cars and vans will require about 80TWH a year. What can provide that?

10GW of CCGT running as 24/7 baseload at 90% capacity factor

10 GW of Coal running as 24/7 baseload at 90% capacity factor

10 GW of modern pressurised water reactor nukes at 90% capacity factor

23 GW of offshore wind turbines at 40% capacity factor

76 GW of solar at 12% capacity factor

The reality is that a mixture of the above will provide. There is a fair degree of investment required but its quite achievable. 

From a US perspective - remember it spent $1,000,000,000,000 ish on Operation enduring carnage (Afghan and Iraq). The equivalent investment for a gradual conversion over to EV's would be chump change in comparison with fewer body bags😉

 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Unquestionable but the topic is EVs. In terms of financial performance Tesla is a toddler and VW is a grandpa but this is not the topic of conversation here, is it? I shall now forget I even saw the words "Porsche Taycan", thank you. Call me when they start mass production, prototypes are for shows. And they will start mass production, I have no doubt about it. Then they can talk about taking on Tesla and we can discuss who's doing better.

That's our demon.  Dose of reality.

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

How does electricity get generated? Unicorn farts?  I'm only half joking here.

Massively increasing electricity generation in order to offset energy from using hydrocarbons requires alternate industrialization, along with a corresponding increase of environmental footprint to generate additional electricity, along with the envinomental footprint of manufacturing the industrial sized batteries to temporarily store the electricity.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Generating electricity has an environmental footprint.  Full stop.

Generating huge additional amounts of electricity requires a corresponding huge environmental footprint.

Nuclear power would be wonderful, except for that niggling bit about nuclear waste.

As I wrote is the post you are replying to I agree everything thing has, but it's finding the sustainable the least harming technology. It is a massive project to change over but it makes economic and environmental sense. Batteries are only part of the answer to make renewables work.

There are ways to relatively easily store nuclear waste in the very long term but that's more of a political issue, the real problem with nuclear is it's just of dammed expensive and it's not getting cheaper it's getting more expensive. 

[jaycee + 348]

15 minutes ago, NickW said:

The reality is that a mixture of the above will provide. There is a fair degree of investment required but its quite achievable. 

Totally, however add in the cost of a smart grid, the fact most people cannot charge a car at night at home as they don't have drives, the cost of all the charging points to be installed all round the UK and the small factor of how to recoup the £billions that tax on petrol gives the treasury and all of a sudden you are taking real money. No project comes in on budget either, I refer you to Crossrail for a start, and this one is going to be expensive so the public will have to pay at a time the UK is going to be going through vast change due to Brexit.The only ones to benefit will be those selling the new tech, funny that.

It should be noted the French were feeling Green until the bill came in.

Edited December 6, 2018 by jaycee
last line added

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Auson said:

Yes Tom there is no such thing as a free lunch. 

So making electricity sending it down a line to store in an 800kg  battery so it can be transported around in a 2 ton high performance vehicle to transport one 75kg adult from place to place while virtue signalling to others in a $100k shiny new vehicle full of copper, cow hides and Lithium is not and never will be efficient use of the earths finite resources. 

Sodium is a viable alternative and there is approx 12Kg in every m3 of seawater on the planet

A proportion of that copper wiring could be replaced by Aluminium (the most common metal on the planet) 

Furthermore you are not comparing like with like. Tesla is the EV equivalent of the upper end of the Merc / BMW range - it doesn't represent the typical car driven by joe public. A fairer comparison would be against vehicles such as the Bolt, Leaf etc which are less than half that price before government incentives. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, jaycee said:

Totally, however add in the cost of a smart grid, the fact most people cannot charge a car at night at home as they don't have drives, the cost of all the charging points to be installed all round the UK and the small factor of how to recoup the £billions that tax on petrol gives the treasury and all of a sudden you are taking real money. No project comes in on budget either, I refer you to Crossrail for a start, and this one is going to be expensive so the public will have to pay at a time the UK is going to be going through vast change due to Brexit The only ones to benefit will be those selling the new tech, funny that.

Most people? Its a minority and I believe here is the place for PHEV / Hybrids. 

As for tax - switch that to a charge per vehicle mile driven- the technology exists to easily map this now. 

[jaycee + 348]

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

As for tax - switch that to a charge per vehicle mile driven- the technology exists to easily map this now. 

So you agree EVs are not being priced correctly and that extra costs need added? Where is the incentive to change for Joe Bloggs?

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, jaycee said:

So you agree EVs are not being priced correctly and that extra costs need added? Where is the incentive to change for Joe Bloggs?

The government and I guess much of the population view EV's as a good thing. The predominant cost barrier are the batteries which is falling rapidly. In the meantime there need to be financial incentives for people to convert over to EV's 

Also EV's have much lower external costs even if the source of electricity is fossil fuels because the combustion of the fuel takes place well away from populations.Its the proximity of exhaust fumes to the population that give rise to most health effects. This is another justification for the price differential. 

[NickW + 2,714]

24 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Totally, however add in the cost of a smart grid, the fact most people cannot charge a car at night at home as they don't have drives, the cost of all the charging points to be installed all round the UK and the small factor of how to recoup the £billions that tax on petrol gives the treasury and all of a sudden you are taking real money. No project comes in on budget either, I refer you to Crossrail for a start, and this one is going to be expensive so the public will have to pay at a time the UK is going to be going through vast change due to Brexit.The only ones to benefit will be those selling the new tech, funny that.

It should be noted the French were feeling Green until the bill came in.

The French are taxed to the hilt already. 

A better approach would be a tax neutral one where a Carbon tax replaces other taxes that directly effect the consumer.

[jaycee + 348]

16 minutes ago, NickW said:

The government and I guess much of the population view EV's as a good thing. The predominant cost barrier are the batteries which is falling rapidly. In the meantime there need to be financial incentives for people to convert over to EV's 

Also EV's have much lower external costs even if the source of electricity is fossil fuels because the combustion of the fuel takes place well away from populations.Its the proximity of exhaust fumes to the population that give rise to most health effects. This is another justification for the price differential. 

You missed the point as many others do. The infrastructure costs plus the lost revenue from petrol sales has to be be paid for, in the latter case that is not a one of cost. EVs maybe cheaper now but that is because they are not being taxed as petrol cars are somebody, ie the motorist, has to pay in the future for the lost taxes on petrol whether it be by per mile road charges or higher taxes on electricity. There is not going to be an overall saving its wishful thinking so that the project is adopted then the extra charges will sneak in, I again refer you to Crossrail and any other large project that happens in the UK or any where else for that matter.

Another typical example the UK government wanted more people to use diesel as it was allegedly less polluting, more people use it the price goes up, also they find the claims to be less polluting are lies but too late there are loads of diesel cars out there. Sounds like what will happen with EVs.

Edited December 6, 2018 by jaycee
added example

[DA? + 301]

23 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Totally, however add in the cost of a smart grid, the fact most people cannot charge a car at night at home as they don't have drives, the cost of all the charging points to be installed all round the UK and the small factor of how to recoup the £billions that tax on petrol gives the treasury and all of a sudden you are taking real money. No project comes in on budget either, I refer you to Crossrail for a start, and this one is going to be expensive so the public will have to pay at a time the UK is going to be going through vast change due to Brexit.The only ones to benefit will be those selling the new tech, funny that.

It should be noted the French were feeling Green until the bill came in.

There are costs associated with setting up the infrastructure to deal with EV's and renewables. The electricity companies see this as an opportunity to sell more, so investing makes sense. As NickW says the external costs of ICE is massive, but also coming with EV's is self driving. The amount accidents cost just about every country in the world is staggering when all costs are taken into account. Self driving technology will more than easily cover the lost taxes on ICE dumb cars. The only ones that won't benefit are those invested in the continuation of ICE and fossil fuel, although they will have better health.

[DA? + 301]

2 minutes ago, jaycee said:

You missed the point as many others do. The infrastructure costs plus the lost revenue from petrol sales has to be be paid for, in the latter case that is not a one of cost. EVs maybe cheaper now but that is because they are not being taxed as petrol cars are somebody, ie the motorist, has to pay in the future for the lost taxes on petrol whether it be by per mile road charges or higher taxes on electricity. There is not going to be an overall saving its wishful thinking so that the project is adopted then the extra charges will sneak in, I again refer you to Crossrail and any other large project that happens in the UK or any where else for that matter.

I refer you to my previous answer, so some people don't get upset with me repeating myself.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

The French are taxed to the hilt already. 

A better approach would be a tax neutral one where a Carbon tax replaces other taxes that directly effect the consumer.

Now you're talking.  Keep that going and maybe we can move forward.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, jaycee said:

You missed the point as many others do. The infrastructure costs plus the lost revenue from petrol sales has to be be paid for, in the latter case that is not a one of cost. EVs maybe cheaper now but that is because they are not being taxed as petrol cars are somebody, ie the motorist, has to pay in the future for the lost taxes on petrol whether it be by per mile road charges or higher taxes on electricity. There is not going to be an overall saving its wishful thinking so that the project is adopted then the extra charges will sneak in, I again refer you to Crossrail and any other large project that happens in the UK or any where else for that matter.

No I didn't I got entirely your point. 

EV's are a relatively small part of the vehicle fleet so can be carried for the time being - so yes there is a cross subisidy from ICE to EV which can partly be justified by the lower externality costs of EV's. As they form a larger part then the government will need to introduce alternative taxation for EV's - that is inevitable. A charge per mile is probably the best option because a crude tax on electricity will be particularly regressive against the poor. 

We have heard similar arguments concerning revenue from tobacco along the lines of if people give up they won't be able to afford to run the NHS etc........

[jaycee + 348]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

The French are taxed to the hilt already. 

A better approach would be a tax neutral one where a Carbon tax replaces other taxes that directly effect the consumer.

You are not getting the basic accountancy here. If there is a reduction in tax take for the government it has to be recouped in some other way. Reduce tax take on vehicles and you have to raise taxes elsewhere. I suggest EVs will have to take up the slack and therefore the cost saving will be minimal. Also where does the lost tax on NS oil get covered?
 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Another typical example the UK government wanted more people to use diesel as it was allegedly less polluting, more people use it the price goes up, also they find the claims to be less polluting are lies but too late there are loads of diesel cars out there.

Are you serious about this?  They actually made people believe that diesel was cleaner?  Wow, I'm an engine guy and I just don't see how they sold this, unless there were incentives, which would mean people switched for financial and not environmental reasons.