Norway horrified as new rates make EV charging prices higher than petrol

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

How is this different from today? All of those records already exist and "are subject to subpoena". I have no privacy, and neither do you.

 

Sure I do.   I have cancelled my E-Z pass.  If I need to go on a road or area where there are snooping cameras, I attach a thin-film fresnel lens made of clear plastic over the marker plate, it distorts the image when seen at an angle and no camera can take a recording.  It shows fine from the rear, but you are not being cameraed from street level, only from above.  I refuse to use one of those android phones, I only use a flip phone and I take the battery out when travelling.  If I am in a city with street cameras and walking, I wear an eye-patch to distort and frustrate the facial recognition technology, and wear a wide-brimmed hat, including sometimes a Stetson.  You can guard your privacy from the bums if you make a little effort.  I even do other things but they are presumably outlawed, but in my view, catching before hanging, so too bad, so  sad,  bureaucrat authoritarians!    I loathe those guys. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

18 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, the state is not going to haul you into court for driving over to someone's house and spending the evening.  

No, but your wife will.  You can bet on it. And if the other woman is married, you can bet her husband will! 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Clearly, it's not "totally flawed". It has a flaw, and you just pointed it out. it's trivially fixable by adjusting the weight multiplier.

Fine, you people in California go do that, I will stay away.  Problem solved. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sure I do.   I have cancelled my E-Z pass.  If I need to go on a road or area where there are snooping cameras, I attach a thin-film fresnel lens made of clear plastic over the marker plate, it distorts the image when seen at an angle and no camera can take a recording.  It shows fine from the rear, but you are not being cameraed from street level, only from above.  I refuse to use one of those android phones, I only use a flip phone and I take the battery out when travelling.  If I am in a city with street cameras and walking, I wear an eye-patch to distort and frustrate the facial recognition technology, and wear a wide-brimmed hat, including sometimes a Stetson.  You can guard your privacy from the bums if you make a little effort.  I even do other things but they are presumably outlawed, but in my view, catching before hanging, so too bad, so  sad,  bureaucrat authoritarians!    I loathe those guys. 

HaHa! That is hilarious. My cousin works in military security IT. They keep a list of people like you. Your information black hole sticks out like a sore thumb. Also note that many police cars are using cameras on their roof so your license can be read from street level and then cross referenced with pole mounted cameras that can't read your plate. This attempt at hiding your plate is what will get you on their special list real fast.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

No, but your wife will.  You can bet on it. And if the other woman is married, you can bet her husband will! 

Yes, but that wasn't the scenario you presented.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, but that wasn't the scenario you presented.

Sure it is.  Go back and read my post. I was not inferring that the State was going to prosecute anyone for "adultery;" if that were the scenario, they would have to go arrest 85% of the city inhabitants!  Hey, it is New York. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

14 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Fine, you people in California go do that, I will stay away.  Problem solved. 

HaHa again! San Francisco is the first city in the US to ban the police from using facial recognition. Do you have that protection in your state?

San Francisco is the first major city to ban local government agencies’ use of facial recognition, becoming a leader in regulating technology criticized for its potential to expand widespread government surveillance and reinforce police bias.https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/14/18623897/san-francisco-facial-recognition-ban-explained

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHa! That is hilarious. My cousin works in military security IT. They keep a list of people like you. Your information black hole sticks out like a sore thumb. Also note that many police cars are using cameras on their roof so your license can be read from street level and then cross referenced with pole mounted cameras that can't read your plate. This attempt at hiding your plate is what will get you on their special list real fast.

And guess what, I can (and do) defeat that.  Nothing I  would describe in a public forum, however. 

What you are showing is a "city plate," designed for use for nabbing overdue markers and outstanding parking violations.  Those machines can process 16,000 plates a second and they run down the city streets at 25 mph referencing the plates against their data-bases, waiting for a Ping.  B ut if you know what you are doing (and I do), then you can obviate the ping.  Sorry, chum, for eve3ry overbearing government spy and cop snoop, there is always a way to defeat them.  And I put a lot of work into defeating them, not because I am a scofflaw, but because I find that so offensive.  Liberty first; let the cops go back to nabbing burglars, and leave the tax stuff alone. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sure it is.  Go back and read my post. I was not inferring that the State was going to prosecute anyone for "adultery;" if that were the scenario, they would have to go arrest 85% of the city inhabitants!  Hey, it is New York. 

In your first scenario you said the state will haul you into court. In the second you said your wife would haul you into court. Those are very different things.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sure I do.   I have cancelled my E-Z pass.  If I need to go on a road or area where there are snooping cameras, I attach a thin-film fresnel lens made of clear plastic over the marker plate, it distorts the image when seen at an angle and no camera can take a recording.  It shows fine from the rear, but you are not being cameraed from street level, only from above.  I refuse to use one of those android phones, I only use a flip phone and I take the battery out when travelling.  If I am in a city with street cameras and walking, I wear an eye-patch to distort and frustrate the facial recognition technology, and wear a wide-brimmed hat, including sometimes a Stetson.  You can guard your privacy from the bums if you make a little effort.  I even do other things but they are presumably outlawed, but in my view, catching before hanging, so too bad, so  sad,  bureaucrat authoritarians!    I loathe those guys. 

I actually do understand your sentiments, and I still have a knee-jerk tendency to resent my lack of privacy. However, there is no right to privacy in public places. Anonymity has been under attack by technology since record-keeping began. The level of anonymity you desire would, among other things, pretty much kill any attempt to track criminals including illegal emigrants. (I'm not making a value judgement here, just making an observation.)

Your behavior pattern will make you stand out as society becomes increasingly infested with cell phones and cameras, to the point where a vehicle with no active cell phone and no readable license plate will trigger human monitoring, and a pedestrian with no cell phone will also trigger human monitoring. (Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm just acknowledging that it is inevitable.) If  you drive into a jurisdiction and the camera cannot resolve your license number, the car's picture will be tagged and the "unidentified car" will be tracked from camera to camera in real time while a nice police dispatcher will keep an eye on you. Within ten years, the same will be true for a pedestrian with no cell phone.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Do you have that protection in your state?

Rural States do not spend their preciosu and very limited tax funds on that techno-crap.  And the pub lic here would not stand for it.  You get that garbage in the big Demo States, places like NY and Jersey. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In your first scenario you said the state will haul you into court. In the second you said your wife would haul you into court. Those are very different things.

I give up with you.  Go read whatever you like into my post, see if I care. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I actually do understand your sentiments, and I still have a knee-jerk tendency to resent my lack of privacy. However, there is no right to privacy in public places. Anonymity has been under attack by technology since record-keeping began. The level of anonymity you desire would, among other things, pretty much kill any attempt to track criminals including illegal emigrants. (I'm not making a value judgement here, just making an observation.)

Your behavior pattern will make you stand out as society becomes increasingly infested with cell phones and cameras, to the point where a vehicle with no active cell phone and no readable license plate will trigger human monitoring, and a pedestrian with no cell phone will also trigger human monitoring. (Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm just acknowledging that it is inevitable.) If  you drive into a jurisdiction and the camera cannot resolve your license number, the car's picture will be tagged and the "unidentified car" will be tracked from camera to camera in real time while a nice police dispatcher will keep an eye on you. Within ten years, the same will be true for a pedestrian with no cell phone.

My "unidentified car" has been on the road now for eighteen years, never been stopped.  You can make it invisible if you know what you are doing. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 3/22/2020 at 8:25 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Agreed that electric vehicles are both more expensive and more environmentally damaging than advocates believe. 

Also agreed that governments will plug their budget gaps by taxing EVs.  They may not tax the fuel, but they'll tax something about them.  I believe one state instituted a $200 annual registration fee. 

Playing devil's advocate though:
1)  The best use case for EVs is commercial vehicles.  The vast majority of these will be charged at the owner's facility at low rates.
2)  The vast majority of miles driven will be recharged in the owner's homes at low rates.
3)  Reduced EV maintenance often saves as much or more money than reduced fuel expenditures. 
4)  EVs are a technology in its infancy; there's plenty of room for improvement.  ICEs are approaching the end of their development. 
5)  "Electrification" doesn't just mean pure EVs.  It also includes various shades of hybrids, which is a good strategy.  ICEs and electric motors pair well with each other. 

Expanding on #4: ICEs are improving - but that improvement is coming at ever greater cost.  The complexity of modern engines is a manufacturing and maintenance nightmare that mostly negates the fuel savings.  In the near future, ICEs will reach their pinnacle, and EVs will close the gap. 

If we take all of that together, I would argue that EV advocates are celebrating prematurely.  They are not, however, entirely off the mark. 

I still cannot imagine battery powered large vehicles taking over when you already have great technology using practically free natural gas CNG or LNG readily available and practically free. The existing vehicles can also be converted to natural gas if desired. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

My "unidentified car" has been on the road now for eighteen years, never been stopped.  You can make it invisible if you know what you are doing. 

This system works with any camera and does not need to see your license plate to track your car. Just because you haven't been pulled over doesn't mean anything. btw- Do you recognize which rural red state this photo is from?

Edited May 25, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

My "unidentified car" has been on the road now for eighteen years, never been stopped.  You can make it invisible if you know what you are doing. 

If you have are not doing anything wrong, there is no reason to stop your car, "invisible" or not. Unless you are in law enforcement or know someone in law enforcement, you cannot know if your behavior pattern has caused any additional manual monitoring.

18 years is forever. You have probably encountered more surveillance in the last year than you did in the first ten years.

Again, please understand that I am not advocating for any more surveillance than we already endure.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The problem is that the fuel tax has been with us for a century, and it no longer matches reality. It used to be an equitable way to pay for roads.

The road portion of fuel taxes should be replaced by a ton*mile tax on all vehicles equally, EVs gas,  diesel, or whatever. This would level the playing field. The heavier your vehicle, the more you pay. The more you drive, the more you pay.

To the extent that the voters think is appropriate, diesel and gasoline should incur a destination pollution tax, paid on fuel. Here in California, our geography causes us to have the worst air pollution in the nation, so we would probably vote for this.

To the extent that the voters think is appropriate, fossil fuel producers or importers (NG, oil, and coal) should pay a carbon tax. This hits all fossil fuel direct and indirect consumers equally.

EV electricity should be the same cost as all other electricity. Time-based or dynamic off-peak rates should apply equally to EVs and all other electricity use.

Will the politicians accept your ideas on fair taxation or just use what brings the most revenue for road maintenance, construction, and everything else they want? Your vehicle electricity will still end up coming primarily from natural gas for the next decade or two. Maybe a lot longer. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Norway is not that big a country. Those charges only apply to for-profit charging stations, but most charging will be done at home. Europeans tend to travel long-distance by train, not car.  Taken all together, this means that these extortionate rates will apply to only a tiny percentage of the EV mileage.

The taxmasters have been planning on charging by the mile and remote reading your odometer for years. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

If you have are not doing anything wrong, there is no reason to stop your car, "invisible" or not. Unless you are in law enforcement or know someone in law enforcement, you cannot know if your behavior pattern has caused any additional manual monitoring.

18 years is forever. You have probably encountered more surveillance in the last year than you did in the first ten years.

Again, please understand that I am not advocating for any more surveillance than we already endure.

 

If you want to live in a free society, then there is no basis for "surveillance."  Period.

Does that mean that some scofflaws or criminals might get away?  Maybe.  That, in my view, is the trade-off for living in a free society.  If you want to live in a surveillance state, then try China or the UK cities, lots of surveillance there.  Me, I choose not to live like that.  The people in Northern New England seem to agree.  We don't do "surveillance."  Besides, it costs money. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

38 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHa! That is hilarious. My cousin works in military security IT. They keep a list of people like you. Your information black hole sticks out like a sore thumb. Also note that many police cars are using cameras on their roof so your license can be read from street level and then cross referenced with pole mounted cameras that can't read your plate. This attempt at hiding your plate is what will get you on their special list real fast.

Scary indeed! They can also check your walking gait facial measurements etc. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

30 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

However, there is no right to privacy in public places.

Sure there is.  You have the perfect right to walk around in any public place and refuse to identify yourse3lf to anyone  - specifically, to any policeman.  And that includes the notorioous "Border Patrol" who have developed this cute idea that they can stop and search anyone within one hundred miles from any B order- including the Atlantic Ocean in North Carolina, since the Ocean is a "border."  Are their ideas patently absurd?  But of course.  It is classic police and bureaucrat overreach, or Abuse for the sake of being Abusive.  And I refuse to stand for it. 

I have my own way of dealing with that, of course, which I shall not describe here, but trust me, it is creative.  In any event, I would counsel anyone to just stand mute and say absolutely nothing.  You have the perfect right to say nothing at all.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

34 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHa again! San Francisco is the first city in the US to ban the police from using facial recognition. Do you have that protection in your state?

San Francisco is the first major city to ban local government agencies’ use of facial recognition, becoming a leader in regulating technology criticized for its potential to expand widespread government surveillance and reinforce police bias.https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/14/18623897/san-francisco-facial-recognition-ban-explained

It will be interesting to watch the future of San Francisco. The Fisherman's Wharf just burned down. One of the biggest attractions. Probably an insurance fire. 

The human poop patrol officers make over $60,000 a year I hear. BART too. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Scary indeed! They can also check your walking gait facial measurements etc. 

So, just wear a plastic Nixon mask, that should do the trick......

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Will the politicians accept your ideas on fair taxation or just use what brings the most revenue for road maintenance, construction, and everything else they want? Your vehicle electricity will still end up coming primarily from natural gas for the next decade or two. Maybe a lot longer. 

Most state legislatures are infested with auto dealers. These guys are rabidly opposed to EVs and tend to oppose anything that makes them easier to buy or cheaper to run. They like to tax them when they can and however they can. I don't know how to stop this except by voting against them. Here in California, we also have ballot initiatives, so when things get too crazy we can force the issue.

Yes we still use electricity from NG. It's a lot cleaner than ICE, for many reasons. Many of us can charge our vehicles in off hours when the peakers are off line, so the generators (wind and CCGT) are more efficient. Some of us can charge at midday when solar is on line.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yes we still use electricity from NG. It's a lot cleaner than ICE, for many reasons. Many of us can charge our vehicles in off hours when the peakers are off line, so the generators (wind and CCGT) are more efficient. Some of us can charge at midday when solar is on line.

Get yourself a little 3-cylinder Kubota diesel and a close-coupled alternator for 220-volts, and go re-charge your electric car off diesel fuel. Cheap enough these days.  The hell with those crazy people and their abusive, overbearing ways.