Chủ Nhật, 25 tháng 12, 2016

Best Way to Honor the Intent of the Tax Credit? part 2

  • Jun 13, 2016
    S'toon
    Incorrect. The source of the carbon from the production of hydrogen isn't from the electricity. The source of the electricity is a minor source compared to the fact that 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.
    Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming | Department of Energy

    Hydrogen production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So, when you make 95% of hydrogen from natural gas, you get CO2 as a byproduct. Hydrogen isn't a clean storage of electrical potential.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    I think you are missing the point that solar powered hydrolysis to manufacture hydrogen uses no fossils fuels.

    The reason for using hydrogen fuel in planes and long range trucks is that hydrogen is much more transportable energy source than electric batteries. Liquid hydrogen is fairly dense fuel and light. Powering jet aircraft with hydrogen has already been demonstrated.

    "Despite criticism and early technical failures, the taming of liquid hydrogen proved to be one of NASA's most significant technical accomplishments. . . . Hydrogen -- a light and extremely powerful rocket propellant -- has the lowest molecular weight of any known substance and burns with extreme intensity (5,500�F). In combination with an oxidizer such as liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant."
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    deonb
    Sure, but you CAN make Hydrogen from 100% renewable sources if you want to, and willing to pay 3 times as much.

    Unfortunately, it is pretty much the only viable renewable aviation fuel for the foreseeable future.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    Solar produced hydrogen is 3 times as much as what?
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    deonb
    Hydrogen produced from natural gas via steam reforming.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    Since there is no fuel cost, solar produced hydrogen would be cheaper.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    deonb
    Divide the cost of your solar installation by your expected lifetime of your installation. Then divide that by kWh per year you get out of it.

    Thats your cost. Its not free.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    Red Sage
    When it comes to government policy, requirements, regulations, etc... There is typically a Stated purpose, Obvious purpose, and then a Hidden purpose behind them. If Tesla Motors were to 'Honor the Intent' of CARB, CAFE, and EPA specifications...? They would create the same types of [PAPA OSCAR SIERRA] 'alternative fuel' vehicles that we see from traditional automobile manufacturers. Tesla Motors instead honors the Stated purpose of those requirements to the letter, and to their natural result.

    No. If I remember correctly, while running for the Presidency of the United States of America, then Senator Barack Obama at one time stated he would like to see around 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 electric vehicles on US roads by 2020. The collective traditional automobile manufacturers either laughed at him heartily, hung their heads in doubt, or shook their heads in a knowing fashion. Somehow, he was unaware that the actual, Hidden purpose of alternative fuel vehicle programs was to show that the traditional automobile manufacturers were 'trying real hard' but that it was 'impossible to do any better'. In this manner, they could satiate the insignificant but vocal population of longhaired, barefoot, unwashed, hippie treehuggers 'out there' in California, and still go on with building gas guzzlers that 'Americans REALLY wanted'. Meanwhile, Tesla Motors was founded from the outset with the notion they could prove those presumptions wrong, and that it was possible to build compelling, long rage mass market electric cars at a profit.

    Wait... Hunh? What?!? No it isn't! The $7,500 Federal EV Tax Credit is there as a CRUTCH to support unlikely sales of the handful of low range compliance cars that traditional automobile manufacturers put on the market with an MSRP 100% higher than the econobox ICE vehicles they are based upon, and at best 1/3rd the range. They claim that 'no one wants' EVs at all, and attempt to prove it by offering cars no one should bother with... And they insist without 'help' from Big Brother no one in their right mind would buy the damned things. This is an incentive to buy, not a means to increase production. That's why no one has significantly increased the availability of their compliance cars to even match the annual output of the Prius.

    What are you talking about? The Federal EV Tax Credit existed for years, long before the Model ? was even revealed. It was not conceived with any type of real manufacturing capacity in mind at all. Multiple companies that build on the order of 10,000,000 ICE vehicles per year barely offer even as many as 30,000 electric or 'electrified' vehicles per year. That is done on purpose.


    [HECK] NO! Elon Musk has already said the Model ? will be the single best vehicle on the market for $35,000. There is no reason to lower its price, when by late 2017 all of its direct competitors, including the lowly BMW 320i, will cost MORE. No one is guaranteed the equivalent of a $7,500 discount on their cars. Elon has been clear since at least 2013 that NO ONE should expect to receive any type of incentive at all on Tesla Generation III vehicles.
    NO. That sounds all kinds of WRONG. If, by some miracle of miracles, Tesla Motors is able to release the base version with a 100 kWh capacity battery pack, then there is the outside chance that perhaps 18-to-24 months later they'd release a 70 kWh version for $27,500. That would not be to extend the incentives. They would be long gone already. It would be to shut up the Naysayers who would claim the Model ? was just another 'Toy... for the RICH!' But in truth, if Tesla Motors cannot include 'FREE for LIFE!' Supercharger access within the base price of the Model ?, then there is no way it will have a 100 kWh battery pack at that price.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    S'toon
    Why fuel cell cars don't work - part 1 - mux' blog - Tweakblogs - Tweakers

    Why fuel cell cars don't work - part 2 - mux' blog - Tweakblogs - Tweakers

    Why fuel cell cars don't work - part 3 - mux' blog - Tweakblogs - Tweakers

    Why fuel cell cars don't work - part 4 - mux' blog - Tweakblogs - Tweakers
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    deonb
    These are all about cars.

    An Airplane is not a Car. You don't have regen opportunities, and weight is everything. So unless battery technology evolve to the point where we have EV's with a 5000 mile range, batteries simply don't work on airplanes. I don't see it work within the next 50 years either.

    So what is the solution to that - keep burning JET-A1 and 100LL and just hope someone comes up with an order of magnitude better battery before we destroy ourselves?
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    Red Sage
    ~*SIGH*~

    Here we go again. It seems that those who don't realize how much of a dead end hydrogen fuels are can't get over taking note of 'possible' means of producing it, rather than the actual, real world PROBABLE means that are used to make it. Sure. It is possible to use a solar powered electrolysis process to create Hydrogen fuel from water. Sure. It is possible to use animal droppings to produce the Methane that is stripped of Hydrogen to create fuel. But, it is most PROBABLE that Hydrogen Fuel that reaches vehicles en masse will 99.999999998765% of the time be created by stripping Hydrogen atoms from Methane that was obtained from Petroleum. And, whether that process uses Methane from animal feces or Petroleum, it still creates Carbon Dioxide, the very greenhouse gas that alternative fuel vehicles are supposed to eliminate, as a byproduct. And, the amount of energy that is expended in order to create that Hydrogen Fuel is so high relative to the amount of electricity that is produced in a Hydrogen Fuel Cell that you would have been better off using that Methane as Compressed Natural Gas to power the vehicle instead. Not to mention the fact that Hydrogen does not exist on its own in nature, is very hard to keep contained under pressure, and insidiously breaks down metals as it makes its way toward escape due to the small size of its atoms. Plus, studies show that hopefully, one day, someone might be able to get the price of Hydrogen Fuel down to almost as low per unit as the highest cost for gasoline in the US by 2020 or so, if they are lucky.

    Here the thing is, though... When people speak of the ways it is 'possible' to create electricity for use in battery electric vehicles, they don't stop with the mere 'possibilities'. They move on to the actual, solid, proven, useful REALITIES that exist. Among these are: Wind Turbines, Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Tidal, and Solar systems. All of these work, and for some people at least three can be used in their back yard.

    Hydrogen on the other hand...? There is a reason why Air Liquide and The Linde Group are Members of the California Fuel Cell Partnership. You can't make Hydrogen Fuel at home, and you probably won't even be allowed to store it there. You have to get it from someone else, and many of their stations are co-located with traditional gasoline service stations. Oh, never mind that big, RED, numeral '4' that appears on NFPA placards by the pumps. That can't possibly be too bad a thing... Can it?

    [?IMG]
    [?IMG]
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    S'toon
    RTFA.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    alseTrick
    Agree on wanting to end our need for and use of fossil fuels.

    Agree to disagree on the extent of the implementation of the tax credit. There are many expansion ideas I would likely agree with, but you seem to be implying we need to keep the credit going until 100% adoption is met.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    alseTrick
    A solar panel-powered plane just flew across the US and Pacific, though it wasn't a direct flight and it was relatively slow compared to contemporary aircraft. It doesn't seem unrealistic at all to think it could happen in the next 50 years.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    deonb
    I did.

    So instead of swearing like a 12 year old teenager, can you point out the parts in your "Why fuel cell cars don't work" article that applies to aviation?


    FWIW: I agree that it's one of the dumbest idea ever to put a FC in a car. But an airplane is not a car.
    �
  • Jun 13, 2016
    deonb
    It's bigger than a 747 and carries 1 person... The battery & solar technology they use is state of the art, but it needs to quite literally become 200 times better than that.

    Over the last 50 years we were only able to achieve about a 10-fold increase in energy density.

    Can you foresee a Model S with a 40'000 mile battery pack? Or to put a solar cell the size of a satellite dish on your roof and that servicing all of you electrical needs for your house? That's the order of magnitude of invention that is required here.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    You can purchase home H2 generators on eBay.

    Gasoline is a much more dangerous fuel and we store it at home.

    So you are wrong on basic facts. The rest of the message was more politics.

    In this case, the discussion was of hydrogen as fuel for planes where electric storage makes it impossible due to weight. H2 is great rocket fuel. It can be produced economically and in huge quantities by solar.

    Hydrogen -- a light and extremely powerful rocket propellant -- has the lowest molecular weight of any known substance and burns with extreme intensity (5,500�F). In combination with an oxidizer such as liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant.

    The arguments against solar generated hydrogen are the same as against solar generated electricity and Musk with Solar City and the Tesla (along with current technology) has made a hash of those largely political arguments. And the arguments against solar electric and hydrogen invariably leave out the economic, environmental and national security costs of fossil fuels.

    Musk points out that for passenger cars, EV's makes more sense than hydrogen but there is a role for hydrogen as a fuel in 21st century.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Dan Detweiler
    How did a thread about the tax credit end up as a mud slinging contest about hydrogen fuel cells?

    Just sayin'

    Dan
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    No, hydrogen in the amount required to equal the energy density of gasoline is very dangerous. First, you need a lot more hydrogen compared to gasoline. Storage is complex and dangerous. Hydrogen easily leaks due to its very nature and is very flammable.

    I'm going to disregard your rocket propellant comment because first stage (the one that does the heavy lifting) is usually liquid oxygen and kerosene, not hydrogen. Hydrogen is the fuel that gets lifted by the first stage and ignites for the second stage. Hydrogen is used because it's not heavy.

    Let's say you don't generate hydrogen with petroleum based products and use electrolysis of water in your home.
    • First: you'd be using drinkable water, which there is a limited supply on the planet at the moment. (This is actually a huge problem in the world)
    • Second: a byproduct is oxygen which is flammable.
    • Third: you'd lose a significant amount of energy separating the water molecules which needs to come from the electrical grid, then you need energy to pump it into a tank.
    • Forth: The fuel cell itself is not 100% efficient so you'd lose energy there too.
    • Fifth: You'd further lose energy with normal electric motor operation.
    In sum, it's dangerous, less efficient, and will ALWAYS be far more expensive. There are no politics about it. These are facts. Can it be cleaner than burning gasoline? Sure. Yet, that's not the point.

    Trading gasoline for fuel cells is like trading heroin for cocaine.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    I think the thread lead to fuel subsidies which can lead the less sciency types to chime in about hydrogen, thorium, zero point energy, and crystal power.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Chopr147
    Unless of course your conclusions decide whether or not you get to keep ya job
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Tiberius
    Is that a joke or real comment? It doesn't make sense without more context.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Max*
    Alright, so it wasn't only me. I read it three times, didn't get it, and moved on.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Winston Wolf
    Also, don't tax returns count as income? I know you're required to list any tax returns from the previous year on the following year's return, I'm just not sure if it gets counted as "income". (This is why I pay for someone else to do them). If so, that fat $7500 return is probably going to come with a price of $2000 against your taxes the following year.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    No tax returns are not income. They are the amount you overpaid in taxes from the previous year. That money was already taxed.

    You might benefit next year from doing your own taxes. Not only will this save you money but you'll understand it better. Only one time I went to H&R block... My return was $210 and my cost for them to do my taxes was $200... so they gave me this difficult to use gift card for ten whole dollars. Yay.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Winston Wolf
    You beat me to my delete. I just looked it up and found the same info. I'm happy to be wrong here :)
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Max*
    No. The $7,500 is a federal CREDIT, it's not a refund. I can adjust my withholdings and get the credit, but get no refund.

    Not exactly. You're supposed to list any state tax refund you receive, and there are ways your state refund will be taxable. This article gives a breakdown: Is My State Tax Refund Taxable and Why?

    <-- not a cpa
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    No, it do not count as income.
    Your return is simply <taxes paid> - <taxes due>.
    The Federal tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit: it provides a reduction of up to $7.5k in <taxes due> but it cannot make <taxes due> be negative.

    There are times where you have to declare some tax payment or receipts on the following return, but your basic Federal balance is not one of them.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    182RG
    In some cases, State and Local income tax refunds are taxable on your Federal return the following year. (1099-G)

    It's not a refund. It's a credit, applied against your tax liability.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    I always do the standard deduction so it's not taxable
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Chopr147
    If a scientists conclusions do not mesh with the GW money being thrown about and publicizes his findings he is immediately labeled a nut, disgruntled, not legit etc..... That's what I meant. But disregard, I do not want to get into some climate debate. It leads no-where but name calling etc....
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Max*
    GW?
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Tiberius
    Don't bother. That's going nowhere (and wayyyyyy off topic).

    [?IMG]
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    S3XY
    Global Warming
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Chopr147
    Duh
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    alseTrick
    Where do you get your "200 times better" figure from?
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    A typical commercial airliner carry 200 or more passengers. This one can carry one.

    Note that Solar Impulse isn't a particularly good example of sustainable aviation though. I was just showing the folly with interpreting the results of this experiment.

    You can actually have a viable BEV-only GA airplane at a point when you have a energy density of about 1 kWh / lbs (2200 Wh / kg). So if for 700 lbs of batteries instead of 500 lbs of 100LL and 200 lbs reduction in engine weight, you can have 700 kWh, which will last about 5.5 hours at the equivalent of 168 HP.

    It will be a fairly low-end plane, but it's usable.

    But 2200 Wh/Kg is still a factor of 10 off from where we are now.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Topher
    Unless you think that SPENDING is also reduced by $7,500 then, yes, your rebate costs other taxpayers money.

    Which it did. That is the difference between the 10,000 unit $70,000 Model S, and the 500,000 unit $35,000 Model ?. Tesla already did this math.

    You keep saying this, and even ignoring the faulty math (which since on one agrees with it, no one is using to determine whether they can afford the car), it is still fundamentally wrong. When Elon announced in the reveal, that the pre-orders had exceeded 115,000, anyone who subsequently put in a reservation assumed that they would not be getting a tax credit. Those initial pre-orders plus cars will have made by the time of release meant that credits would expire before anyone else saw their car. At the time, it was assumed that production would be in the 40,000 per year range, so in best case 10,000 more people would get a full credit after they expired. An additional 250,000 people put in a reservation, they all should have expected no credit, and so were expecting to pay total price. Elon then announced the advanced ramp up, and increased the production, in the time frame of the credit ramp down to 100,000 cars.

    This ramp up in production is unprecedented, and believed by many to be impossible. If you want to be more delusional than Elon Musk, the white-coated-ones may well come for you. Tesla is doing things doubted to be humanly possible to get as many people as possible into a Model ?, and get them the tax credit. Don't ask more.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Topher
    Elon disagrees. He thinks air travel on batteries is possible with a doubling of current energy density.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    alseTrick
    So you literally just multiplied it by 200 based on passengers? Ok then...

    I don't think it's unrealistic that it happens by 2070. You do. Cool.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    Again - just based on what they've shown so far. The first few doublings in capacity should in theory come easy. But until they've done that, they haven't done that.

    It's like Elon who said a couple of years ago that Tesla can ship a 500 mile Model S tomorrow if they wanted. Sure... but again, until they're doing that, they're not doing that.


    You don't HOPE it's unrealistic by 2017. I don't either.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    Regardless of government spending, taxpayers do not pay more in a given year just because I paid $7500 less... Gov't spending can be an entirely separate thread and I'm sure people from every country can chime in stories about their own governments.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    With that argument, why not just give everybody back $7500?

    Except... we still need the money. So let's say we give everybody else $7500 and make it up from those whose name start with a 'J'. Sounds fair?
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    It's not an argument or opinion... it's a fact.
    We do still need the money, that's true, but that makes no difference to what taxpayers have already paid for the year.

    I also feel that Govt's shouldn't spend what they don't have, but it's a little late for that now.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    It does make a difference to the taxpayers who has to pay down the debt over the next 30 years.

    Yes... spending it a different thing altogether.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Topher
    One is lifting all of it, so it doesn't matter. Hydrogen is used from some rockets and not others. It is an engineering decision.

    No. If you use drinkable water (and you don't have to), you get drinkable water out, after you fuel cell or burn it. Actually even if you don't start with drinking water, you get drinking water out.

    Technically it is an oxidizer, but, releasing it into the atmosphere is fine, there is already about 20% there already. And as mentioned it will be combined with the hydrogen at the end, to make the water it came from.

    The simple point is that hydrogen is less efficient than batteries, and so moronic for cars. The energy density is not sufficiently better to make it an obvious win over batteries in airplanes. Neither is currently viable.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Topher
    So you believe that you not paying $7,500 neither reduces services, nor increases debt, nor increases others' taxes. So where does it come from?

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    It comes from the taxes that I've paid in or would otherwise owe. If I lost my job on the 1st day of the year the gov't would still be out the same potential money. If I made less money per year then the govt would also be out that potential money. Please try to understand what a tax credit is and how income taxes work in general with regards to Govt spending.

    Keep in mind this tax credit can and should have been considered when budgeting because it was made law by elected officials years ago.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Red Sage
    [BORSHT]. There was nothing wrong about what I wrote. No one, anywhere, produces Hydrogen from water and solar power in sufficient quantities to power a fleet of 500,000 new cars per year as capable as the Tesla Model 3. That isn't a political opinion, but a direct observation of fact.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    If you lost your job, you don't stop consuming public services. You still get protected by police, fire & military. You still get to drive on roads, and buy gas at $2 per gallon - or at the very least buy groceries that have been transported by trucks at $2 per galon. Your kids still get to go to public school for free. You still have clean water and air.

    Except when you become unable to pay for that, I become the one paying for that. And I don't have any problem with that whatsoever - because the same social safety net extends to me. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem if you ARE able to pay for that and you don't.

    There are a lot of very good reasons to have the tax credit. And there are some dumb but still valid reasons to have the tax credit. But "It's my money dammit", is not one of them.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    Always remember who instituted the tax credit and why.
    The tax credit Nevada gave to Tesla is not a bad thing and the tax credit the US gives to consumers for EV purchases is also not a bad thing... It is also not a handout!
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    EaglesPDX was advocating for cars to drive on Hydrogen? Where??
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    I don't disagree with that.

    But you're advocating it costs nothing because it's money you didn't pay yet. Therein lies the rub.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    Exactly, it's not food stamps. It's not free money, it's money you actually earned.

    With food stamps other taxpayers are paying you. A tax credit is not the same thing.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    By that rational you can argue nobody should pay any taxes, and everything will remain the same.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    Not at all... a limited tax credit for 200,000 per manufacturer plus the year after hitting 200,000 is not going to break the bank and should have been accounted for in budgeting.

    If not, then the those in the govt are sucking at their jobs.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    Well, that's the argument for "it's ok to steal from a rich person because they have a lot of money".

    If Tesla gets their roll out right, Tesla owners are going to get about $3 billion in this credit when all is said and done. That is $10 per man/women and child that will not be collected, and instead added to the national debt that someone will have to pay of some day.

    So really, each one of us taking the tax credit means 750 other people will be paying $10 each more in taxes over their lifetime.


    I personally justify that in two ways:

    a) I'm still paying about $100'000 off in my personal share of Military debt that came as a result of a series of wars that never would have happened if Reagan weren't so scared about a worse case doomsday scenario that would have had worldwide oil prices triple to a then-"shocking" $35 per barrel. So I think it's better for everybody if we make darn sure that we never get into a situation like that again. But not everybody feels like that.

    b) Tesla exports about 50% of their vehicles. If they can do that for 250'000 vehicles per year this means a trade surplus of $10 billion per year. The yearly indirect public revenue from that will absolutely dwarfs the tax credit now. But it hasn't happened yet, and until the point that it does the debt of the credit is still added to the books. I happen to think it will be absolutely worth it. But again - not everybody agrees, and a LOT of people think Tesla will be bankrupt before they contribute anything to the economy.


    I just think when you're asking/really forcing someone else to go into debt for you, even if it is for little money and for a good cause, you shouldn't be so flippant about it.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    It's not added to the national debt at all... it's simply not used to pay down the national debt.
    I'm thinking you might still not understand how a tax credit works.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    I'm thinking you don't understand how money works.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    By ever measure gasoline is much more dangerous than hydrogen. Hydrogen is less dangerous because it vaporizes instantly, rises and dissipates while gasoline stays largely liquid but has both volatile vapors and liquid form.

    2.2 lbs of hydrogen has as much energy as 6.8 lbs of gasoline.

    So you are incorrect on your two main points.

    Or waste water thereby recycling it. But it's a bit of red herring. Hydrogen would generated commercially in large solar installs in the ocean. I simply pointed out that home H2 generators exist now. You seemed to think it was impossible.

    So for transportation in which EV is not practical such as aviation, hydrogen would be an excellent fuel.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    My fault, I was advocating for continuation and extension of the Federal Tax Credit and Federal subsidies in general for all the tech needed to end US fossil fuel use. I made an offhand reference to include hydrogen as an energy source in areas where EV tech is not practical such as airplanes and long haul trucks.

    Apparently some folks have near religious opposition to hydrogen in any application and mayhem ensued.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Topher
    And it was. And everyone's taxes were raised (or debt was incurred) to pay for it. So taxes already went up. Imagine that.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Topher
    Look up the Nikola 1, long distance truck, EV and natural gas hybrid. Not available yet, but at least there is a design.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Dan Detweiler
    Personally, I would rather the government stay out of it. Sorry, but I just don't trust them most of the time. The incentives were great and served a purpose, but EVs are now getting viable and compelling in direct competition with their ICE competitors. The technology is only going forward and the prices are only going to come down so lets let the common market work its magic and before you know it people will be asking themselves why they ever considered an ICE vehicle in the past.

    Dan
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    As long as the common market works on equal footing. So get rid of all oil subsidies at the same time.

    The one pesky thing is Hydrogen. Even though I think it's the only real sustainable option for aviation for the foreseeable future, the market will not bear the the cost of clean Hydrogen. Even without subsidies, natural gas will still be a cheaper source of Hydrogen. Not quite sure what to do with that one.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    JeffK
    Yes, hydrogen has a low mass...

    You should measure by volume, because it's vastly different ballgame. Good luck storing a large amount of hydrogen on a car unless you have a huge tank.

    Let's look at the Toyota Mirai as an example. It stores 10kg of hydrogen at 700 bar in a 32 gallon tank with a range of 312 miles. If a Toyota Prius had a gigantic 32 gallon tank at let's say only 40 mpg you'd get a range of 1280 miles... that's a huge win for gasoline.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    By that logic one would pick a gasoline car over Tesla which has LESS range than the Mirai. The idea is to not use gasoline and to promote the sustainable technology and products and to encourage people to buy them.

    If the Tesla is viable at 285 miles than the Mirai is viable at 315 miles.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    In which case we are not having this conversation on personal computers (NASA) on the internet (DARPA).

    The tax credit incentives will have served their purpose when 253,000,000 cars and light trucks in the US are EV's, US CO2 emissions are reduced by 80% over 2000 levels, US is not importing oil or spending $600B per year on military to secure oil.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    Topher
    Tax carbon. And charge frackers for water at the same rate as other who use water FOR THE TIME USED. In other words if you pay $0.04 per gallon for water you are returning to the system in a week, then people using water for a million years should pay $2 Million per gallon.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    You want me to pay $1600 per year in water for my Hot Tub?

    But, but! I live in Seattle?
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    alseTrick
    I said nothing about doubling or not doubling. I questioned your logic on simply multiplying the current setup by 200.

    No. That's not what I said. That's what you want me to say.

    I don't think it's unrealistic. You do. That's what I said, and that's what I meant.

    I'm assuming your "2017" was a typo.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    deonb
    Is there any other way of transporting 200 people currently using a Solar Impulse other than using 200 Solar Impulses?

    Elon has this great saying about battery claims: �My top advice really for anyone who says they�ve got some breakthrough battery technology is please send us a sample cell, okay. Don�t send us PowerPoint, okay, just send us one cell that works with all appropriate caveats, that would be great. That sorts out the nonsense and the claims that aren�t actually true.�

    And that applies here too. If you think you can build a BEV / solar power airliner that can carry 200 people, then build one. Until then, it doesn't exist.


    Yes, 2017 was a typo - thanks.

    Based on what current scientific prediction or past precedent do you foresee a 1000% battery capacity increase in the next 50 years?

    Over the last 4 years, Tesla was only able to show a 5% progress. Extrapolate that rate, and even compounded it shows a 80% improvement over 50 years. Now, let's say Tesla was just lazy up to this point, and they can actually make 5% progress every 2 years instead of 4. That would still only achieve 250% in 50 years.

    You're talking about a 1000% improvement. There's nothing that predict that to be on the table. Thinking it will happen because people sometimes achieve cool stuff... well, you can think that, but I see that as hope, rather than reason.
    �
  • Jun 14, 2016
    alseTrick
    It really doesn't.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Dan Detweiler
    I very respectfully disagree. When 253,000,000 cars and light trucks in the US are EVs it won't be because of some federal subsidy, it will be because EVs have gotten so good and are so cheap on their own that people can't imagine why they would ever want an ICE. THAT'S when EVs will have firmly taken their place in the minds of people.

    Dan
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    If I might add a little to the water balance thing.....Fresh water, distilled by the rain cycle - has a value to agriculture, municipalities and can be used and reused many times with commonly available wastewater treatment plants. Frack water - that 100,000 barrels of water designed to stimulate a newly drilled oil well....is NOT of potable quality. Putting "fresh" water into a oil bearing formation that is used to having a salty environment would damage the formation. So Frack water is either water that was produced FROM that formation by a nearby producing well, or water that has been treated to be compatible with the formation (such as being salted up by adding KCL). You actually get some of this frack "load water" back as soon as the well begins producing. Then that water needs to be disposed of in a disposal well designed for that purpose. Most disposal wells are properly designed, inspected and operated to keep "salt water" from ever being near "fresh water". The salt water needs to be tucked away for a long time - it is not a supply that competes with municipal supplies.

    Comparing the use of Fresh water to Frack water is not a sound apples/apples basis.
    We can talk as if Frack should be done at all, but the locking up of water comparison is weak.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    JeffK
    If they wanted only range then yes I agree, they would pick gasoline or diesel.

    If you want to reduce dependence on less efficient fuels, clean up the air, and not be wasteful of energy the only current option is BEV until supercapacitors become a viable alternative.

    Gasoline/Diesel is wasteful and dirty especially for the energy it actually contains, Hydrogen is wasteful in the generation and use. The more efficient way to make Hydrogen comes from dirty sources (petroleum) and even that costs ~$50 per tank of around 300 miles. Making it cleanly using electrolysis might be even more expensive in energy costs. Plus you have to add compression and possibly transportation. Hydrogen filling stations cost somewhere from $1-3 million dollars each compared to a $300,000 Tesla supercharging station.

    Consider the Toyota Mirai holds 10kg of H2 so that's 31.2 miles per kg of hydrogen. An efficient hydrogen filling station uses 68 kWh to produce 1 kg. A Tesla can go over 200 miles on that energy. Let's pretend you could afford one of these in your home and wanted to fill 10kg H2 at 700 bar and your electricity rate is 0.12 cents per kWh. That's 680 kWh * 0.12 = $81.60 per 312 mile tank of H2. Thanks but no thanks.

    Using electricity straight into an inverter and into a battery is far more efficient, cheaper, and better for everyone.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    It's not a matter of winning "hearts and minds". It is very specific, very necessary metrics.

    1. Cut air and water pollution and cut greenhouse gases to 80% of 2000 level to mitigate disastrously accelerated global warming.
    2. Eliminate US oil imports which cost the US economy $300B-$600B year in trade deficit costs.
    3. Eliminate US oil imports which create national security threat of oil terrorism (ISIS, al-Queda).
    4. Eliminate US oil imports which cost $600B per year in military, oil wars to secure oil and respond to oil terrorism.

    If it were not for those issues, gasoline powered vehicles would fine, better than EV's.

    Regarding government, if not for government regulations looking at everyone's long term best interest we would not have EV's at all. The gov't regs to cut US oil use and pollution are the only reason we have hybrids and EV's. The subsidy for EV's is part of that.

    If anything the current Federal subsidy is too small as we are not making fast enough progress to those very necessary goals.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    MorrisonHiker
    A Tesla can be charged at pretty much any of the billions of electric outlets in the world as long as you have the right adapter. How many hydrogen fueling stations can you recharge that Mirai at? You won't be able to take the Mirai on a long distance road trip any time soon.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    And have 90 hours to do a full 295 charge at those billions of 12V/12A outlets. Even with 80A dual chargers on the car and a full 80A charging station, its five hours for 295 miles. Tesla Charging | Tesla Motors Charging time, charging stations and range are still issues with EV's and that charging infrastructure is still being built out.

    Range and charging time are impediments to EV sales. All the more reason to increase the Federal subsidy for EV's to make them more competitive.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Topher
    So the water is being purposefully polluted, so polluted that it needs to be locked away FOREVER. Lovely.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Dan Detweiler
    I completely understand where you're coming from and admire your desires for immediate change.

    Unfortunately, it has been my experience that when things are mandated and shoved down people's throats, all it does is make those that are inherently opposed to those mandates feel unfairly targeted and hate what is being mandated that much more.

    People, for the most part, aren't stupid. If given a product that is undeniably superior in every way they will make the change. EVs, while gaining ground very quickly, are not superior to ICE vehicles in every way yet. Especially to those opposed to their development from the start.

    Patience here will yield much better long term acceptance and adoption. At least that is my view. I certainly respect those that have different ones.

    Dan
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    That is more an ideology vs. an experience. Subsidies force nothing on anyone. One can take the subsidy or not. Consider US railroad system was built with massive government subsidies.

    Think of it as the Manhattan Project in response to national security threats to environment, economy and public safety. Everyone will benefit from the survival aspects of the results.

    There is pressing time factor in all aspects of the threat of oil use. Laissez Faire in not an option.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Dan Detweiler
    I was referring to the German government mandate.

    Dan
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Topher
    So you instead advise removing all the oil subsidies, and instituting a carbon tax equal to the harm that the carbon does? Sounds good to me.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Dan Detweiler
    I prefer there be no corporate tax. Create an environment where companies can thrive and bring jobs back to this country that have fled our shores for more amicable environments in which to do business.

    OK, now this is starting to sound like a political rant so I need to sign off on this one. I will leave with the statement that if the tax credit is available when I take delivery of my Model 3 I will take it. If it is not I won't get too upset about it as I was not budgeting for it to be available anyway.

    Dan
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Topher
    So corporations should be put on welfare and given all of the services that governments provide while paying nothing for them, while being able to bribe public officials for increasing those benefits, with no limits on those 'contributions'. I can't imagine anything going wrong with that plan.

    Thank you kindly.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    Wow. You must not have an EV if you think that the only benefit of an EV is for environmental reasons.

    I love LED lightbulbs. I've been buying them before Incandescents went out. I could care less about their environmental benefit - I just don't like to get up on a ladder every month to change all of my lightbulbs.

    Same with my Tesla & Leaf. I could care less about the environmental benefit - I just don't want to go to a gas station every week to fill up a car anymore, or go and sit in a Jiffy Lube every few months for an hour waiting to get an oil change.

    EV's and LED bulbs improves my life. Not anybody else. Not the planet for the children I don't have. But mine. That's why I have them.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    You tax dividends. Or sales tax.

    But taxing corporations directly in a multi-national connected world is suicidal. We effectively now have a policy that reads: "You don't have to pay any taxes, as long as you promise not to reinvest your revenue back into the U.S".
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    Oh? Depends upon who you ask, it seems. Take a look...
    [?IMG]
    [?IMG]
    [?IMG]
    [?IMG]
    Sorry, I couldn't find a separate NFPA rating for Compressed, Liquefied Hydrogen Gas, which would be more accurate for Hydrogen Fuel. I did find this photo, taken at an actual Hydrogen Fueling station, though...
    [?IMG]

    Sure. Right about the same time I get to become the pilot of THUNDERBIRD 1 or driver of the MACH V. Complete and total fantasy. There are today, within the next five years, within the next twenty years, exactly ZERO of these 'large solar installs' designed to produce Hydrogen Fuel in large quantities. The money required to do so would be utterly tremendous. Energy companies (AKA Petroleum firms) use the path of least resistance, and lowest cost, to produce fuels. Hence, why Hydrogen Fuel is 'Always... The FUTURE!' Just the way Detroit likes it.

    Hydrogen Fuel dispensers have been theorized, conceptualized, thought about... But each of the traditional automobile manufacturers that said that could be done have backed away from the notion. Including Toyota, one of the biggest proponents of the incredibly stupid idea.

    Once again, no matter the type of vehicle, it would be both less expensive and more efficient to operate it using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG, Methane) than Hydrogen Fuel. I was able to find CNG/LNG Airplanes...

    Take a look at some natural gas-powered airplanes

    [?IMG]
    [?IMG]
    [?IMG]

    But only the one example of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell 'demonstrator' airplane... Oooh! a SINGLE seater!
    [?IMG]
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    I have a logical opposition to proposed 'solutions' that in fact, solve NOTHING. The idea behind Hydrogen Fuels and Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology is AWESOME. The reality is entirely different. Let me know when 'The FUTURE!' arrives, and stuff. I guarantee it will do so for electric vehicles long before it does for HFCEVs.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    By that considerable lack of logic, it would be a great idea for Tesla Motors' competitors to create gasoline powered hybrids that achieve 80, 90, or 100 MPG. The Model S 85 had a 250+ mile range and had the relative energy capacity of 2.5 gallons of gasoline. Thus, if an ICE vehicle had a 25 gallon capacity, it would be able to travel over 2,500 miles on a single fill-up.

    You want to talk about 'The FUTURE!'...? When the capacity of a standard issue battery pack in a Tesla Motors product provides only the energy equivalent of 10 gallons of gasoline, it will leave any version of the Toyota Prius in the dust. And that battery pack will still have a lower overall volume than the tank in the back of a Mirai.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    I think I clearly listed reasons for EV and why it should be subsidized.

    1. Cut air and water pollution and cut greenhouse gases to 80% of 2000 level to mitigate disastrously accelerated global warming.
    2. Eliminate US oil imports which cost the US economy $300B-$600B year in trade deficit costs.
    3. Eliminate US oil imports which create national security threat of oil terrorism (ISIS, al-Queda).
    4. Eliminate US oil imports which cost $600B per year in military, oil wars to secure oil and respond to oil terrorism.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    Getting MPG up and eliminating 50% of US oil use cuts emissions, eliminates the $300B year oil trade deficit and eliminates need to import oil and the $600B year military costs to secure the imported oil. So hybrids help to reach the necessary goals. We are talking about the need for the tax subsidy to push EV's. I would give similar progressive subsidies for hybrids based on their EV capability.

    Idea is to eliminate gasoline use so hybrids are excellent and we already have some (Volvo V60 AWD Diesel/EV/Hybrid) that get 120 mpg. For those not ready for pure EV, better to have them in 100+ mpg hybrids.

    The idea is to eliminate fossil fuel use. Natural gas is bridge fuel but as this graphic from Union of Concerned Scientists note, we really have to aim for more sustainable power from solar and wind electric. The EV subsidy helps us get to that goal.

    [?IMG]

    But we are talking about the need for the tax subsidy to push EV's. I would give similar subsidies for hybrids based on their EV capability.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    Yeah. That's how I feel about the proposal for Hydrogen Fuel infrastructure that is generated entirely by renewable power sources. The great idea that has been 15-to-20 years away for the past 40 years... And is still 15-20 years away.

    I always go by what I've heard said by JB Straubel. He has noted that there is roughly a doubling of energy capacity in battery technology every ten years or so. I would expect that improvements to battery technology will probably improve by 1,000% within the next 50 years (it might not be Lithium-ion, of course). Though I admit I hadn't thought quite that far out just yet.

    Let's see... If a certain volume/weight of battery cells holds 100 kWh today... And that doubles every ten years...
    100 ... Today
    200 ... 10 years
    400 ... 20 years
    800 ... 30 years
    1,600 ... 40 years
    3,200 ... 50 years?
    So, you'd be able to hold 3,200 kWh in the same space after 50 years. That is well over the 1,000% improvement mark. Yes?

    My opinion is that for ground vehicles it won't take that much at all for BEV to take over from ICE. Even before 85 kWh to 100 kWh can be held in a volume/weight that is only 1/4 the size of the Generation II battery packs, it will be a done deal. I figure we'll get there by 2030 or so.

    I don't know the relative energy efficiency ratings for aircraft. I expect it is quite a bit worse than the best ICE ground vehicles, and probably a little better than the theoretical Warp Drive from Star Trek. I was rather surprised when it was revealed on Star Trek: The Next Generation their Warp Drives used something like 98% of the energy generated by their Dilithium Matrix for containment alone. So, everything else in the ship was run on only 2% of the energy they had available. That was pretty friggin' inefficient, a rather brute force manner of using technology. The tricky part with aircraft is that their range is typically computed with an assumption of the overall vehicle weight going down during transit, as fuel is burned. With batteries, the whole weight of the vehicle is basically the same for the whole trip, complicating the matter somewhat.

    Once again, I stick to what JB Straubel says. I believe that Tesla Motors keeps their major improvements in battery technology locked behind closed doors, in testing, with the intent to release them with each new generation of vehicles. JB noted a 40% improvement in energy density between the announcement of the Tesla Roadster in 2007, and the release of the Model S in 2012. He expects a similar improvement for Model ? in 2017. Go to the 8 minute mark in this video:


    I have theorized elsewhere that Tesla Motors is being rather cagey with their commercial releases of battery capacity upgrades for Model S and Model X. I believe that the Tesla Generation II cars will each max out at either 120 kWh or 165 kWh prior to the release of Model S 2.0 around 2020 or so. Most Tesla Enthusiasts insist that I am an over-the-top optimistic fanboy and stuff, and don't expect to see more than a 100 kWh capacity in Model S or Model X. Thus, they scoff at my expectation of a 120 kWh to 135 kWh capacity or so for a Performance variant of Model ?. We'll see what happens before too long.

    I believe that Elon Musk would not mind getting into some type of aircraft distribution at some point. It might not be branded as either Tesla or SpaceX, but possibly another new company that uses their expertise. With that in mind, I would guess they would probably want to start at perhaps 500% improvement or so in battery technology instead. Might not be able to manage a 200 passenger vehicle, but could probably put together a really nice 8-to-24 passenger plane with superb range.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    Well #1 isn't going to get you anywhere with half the electorate not believing in it. And the ones who DO believe in it, don't vote.

    #2 to #4 is not a dependency. It never was. The U.S. can be self-sufficient on oil if it wants to be. Imports are just cheaper. Even in Reagan's time when he had the bright idea to go and protect the Gulf, it had more to do with stabilizing the global price of oil while still allowing for a free market traded oil price. He could have just instituted trade protections instead. And you can still do that - or if you still want a free market, if the oil companies want access to gulf oil, have them pay for the protection.


    I'm of the opinion that the way to get people to buy EV's, is to build one that they want to buy. Elon actually agrees with this - he doesn't want subsidies either - he just wants them to be removed from his competitors as well.

    In fact, his secret master plan:
    The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)

    predates the EV credit by 2 years, and that's exactly what Tesla is still executing on even today. It's not like they pivoted anything to get hold of more credits. If the 2008 housing crises didn't happen, Tesla would be exactly where it is today without any government help.

    The market can actually work, if people would stop rigging it.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    It is like asking if people "believe" in evolution or Earth revolving around the sun. Dangerously accelerated global warming is a matter of science not belief. Musk started Tesla based on issue of global warming.

    As for the "market". Global warming is not something the "market" will address it is an example of why intelligent government is required to make the long term interest of everyone the priority vs. the short term interests of a few. Same for oil trade deficit, oil wars, oil debt, oil terrorism. These are matters of national security and it is the government's job to take the long view and deal with them.

    Subsidizing EV's is one way to do that. Mandating EV infrastructure, zero emissions vehicles, loans to new tech developers and mfgs are other methods.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    All of the hybrids that have plugin capability already benefit from the very same Federal EV Tax Credit. None of these are 'subsidies'. It is an incentive to purchase.

    And there aren't any. Also, there aren't likely to be any. Hybrid technology has gone as far as it can, without also exempting them from air quality controls. That was the point of my post.

    This is the statement that I will file under 'DUH'. Switching to Hydrogen Fuel, anytime within the next 20 years (and possibly the next 100 years) WILL NOT ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUEL USE.

    Once again, there is no [MULTIPLE EXPLETIVES DELETED] 'subsidy' at the Federal level for electric vehicles at all. The Federal government happily cuts checks to farmers, under multiple different programs, to NOT plant crops. The Federal government will NEVER cut a check to you or anyone else for buying an electric car. In some States, there may be a Rebate for an EV purchase that generally amounts to less than the Sales Tax and Registration Fees for the vehicle.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    Just one point... I'm pretty sure that was President George Herbert Walker Bush, who had been Vice-President during the Reagan Administration, not President Ronald Reagan, who made that decision regarding the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait. Otherwise, well stated.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    The ball was already rolling at that point. The initial military buildup and protection of the Gulf in the first place was set in place by Reagan in 1984 after he saw the following presentation on the potential for Oil Disruption in the Gulf:

    http://www.wpainc.com/Archive/Reagan%20Administration/WFM%20Papers%20from%20Reagan%20Archives/Iran-Iraq/Presentation%20on%20Gulf%20Oil%20Disruption%205-22-84.pdf

    It's worth a read, if you've never read it before. (May have to tilt your head or rotate the presentation :)).
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    Scientists don't run the country. Believers do. Unless you think Al Gore is going to stage a military coup, scientific fact makes absolutely zero difference to public policy. If there was ever any doubt in your mind to that, you can look as far as the presumptive GOP nominee.

    If you're waiting for government to make a proactive stance on this, well, then you won't even have to worry about global warming since you'll die of CO2 asphyxiation first.

    Leave saving the world part to the captains of industry. Elon is doing this exactly right - people just need to stay out of his way. And with that - government can help.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    Does it really double, or does it add 100wh/kg every 10 years? Sure the Roadster was at 117wh/kg, and we might be at 230wh/kg in 2 years.

    But keep in mind a 115wh/kg battery was already possible in 1993 - it was just expensive. The problem is that we don't currently have in our hand a 460wh/kg battery that we just don't know how to produce yet. Bit different than the situation we faced in the past.

    But yeah, coming back - I do think we'll get to a 130kWh battery within the next 20 years or so and at that point the case for BEV is done and HFC in cars is dead. Beyond that... I'm not so sure.


    That is a bit optimistic. Tesla has never released a battery chemistry that wasn't on the market before. They test different chemistry for sure to look for longevity, but in the end it's like "oh, cool - they picked that one". I don't believe they have a secret chemistry that nobody knows about. At least, that's not how they've ever done things in the past.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    Ford Fusion EV/Hybrid (20 miles EV, 38 mpg gasoline/hybrid), using average commuters 50 mile per day round trip commute would get 65 mpg daily. So hybrids can make a big contribution to the goal of reducing oil use. Getting to just 50% reduction on oil use saves the US close to $1T per year ($300B oil trade debt and $600B of military budget) in addition to cutting greenhouse gases.

    Increasing the EV capability of the hybrids will further reduce it so, for those who won't buy full EV for time/range issues, hybrids are a big help to meeting our national goals. Increasing and extending the tax credit form of subsidy is something we should do. Doing it similar to earned income tax credit for lower income people is a good idea also.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    I think scientists have done a good job of educating the public, that and actual events, have lead to a change in public perception.

    Record 65% Blame Human Activity for Rising Temperatures

    That finding relates to another record broken in the new poll -- the 65% of Americans now saying increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century are primarily attributable to human activities rather than natural causes. This represents a striking 10-percentage-point increase in the past year and is four points above the previous high of 61% in 2007.

    Government already has takes a proactive stance. Loans to help Tesla get started are one example. Tax credit subsidy to people who buy EV's are another example. US government agencies from NASA to NOAA to Academy of Sciences are all educating the public. Increased fuel efficiency standards. Pollution standards. Appliance efficiency standards. Government policy to end coal use and promote solar, wind, geothermal and other sustainable power sources.

    History tells a different story. Musk will tell you that government support is essential for his Solar City, Tesla and SpaceX projects. We need to increase the government support from regulation to subsidies.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    Oh, that's what you meant. Meh. The Summary reads as if it were written by Vice President Bush. The US learned 'Gunboat Diplomacy' from the UK. They always had guys sailing in circles around The Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean back then. My point was that for all the sabre-rattling, the US didn't ever put boots on the ground (officially) until President Bush was in office. Before then, it was just a bunch of 'advisors' (AKA CIA dudes) teaching 'freedom fighters' (AKA future terrorists) how to raise hell, and stuff. :D
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    But Reagan specifically decided after that that Kuwait was an ally and need to be protected. Instead of saying - oh it's probably not a good idea to base the U.S's economic policy on the happenings in the Middle East.

    If the U.S. isolated itself back in the 80's and said: "No more oil imports or exports", it would have made very little difference to the U.S. economy (only 3% imports at the time), and Iraq's actions would be treated with stern dirty looks instead - ala today's North Korea policy.

    As it was, Bush was pulled into the first war almost by treaty. Well, not quite, but Kuwait got used to the U.S. defending it, and we relied on Kuwait to power our Toyota Cressida's.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    The Ford Fusion Energi is a nice car. It still doesn't go as far as it should. I doubt it actually sells as many units as even the Chevrolet Volt, which has a good bit more fully electric range, and still trails the Toyota Prius in overall range. Heck, according to Inside EVs, they both trail the Tesla Model S in sales this year.

    Their contribution can and should be bigger. As it is, they just manage to improve modern vehicles, which are overweight and oversized, to the rough fuel economy that was possible in smaller vehicles two or three decades ago. 25 years ago it seemed that companies such as Honda were on a path to build cars with 70+ MPG within 10-to-15 years. Adding hybrid technology to those designs would have put those over 100 MPG. Instead, the techniques Honda used to build a Midsize car that simultaneously met the CARB Zero Harmful Emissions, EPA CAFE, and NHTSA Crash Test standards were all made illegal. The result is that unless you have a hybrid, or a dangerously small three wheeler vehicle (AKA Weirdmobile), nothing with a gasoline motor has a hope of exceeding 50 MPG.

    If someone were to build a Midsize plugin hybrid with a real, usable 100 mile fully electric range, and a 15 gallon fuel tank, all would be well. No one does it because they know it would outsell everything else on the planet. And, as is always the case, once anyone gets a car with any fully electric range, all they want is MORE fully electric range.

    Dude. Still NOT a subsidy.

    There were 18 traditional automobile manufacturers that sold at least 300,000 units in the United States during 2015. That is well over 5.4 million cars, and nearly 17.5 million new vehicles were sold that year. Yet not even 1% of that amount, 116,099 cars (or 0.66%), were plugins of any type. And if you count only the fully electric vehicles, it is well under that amount.

    So, how's this for an idea... Those companies that are actually building a substantial number of electric vehicles, anything over 5% of their fleet... Get to extend their eligible vehicle count by the number of plugins that each other company falls below 5% each year. That way, you know the program has worked when only a minority of manufacturers is below 5%.

    So, for instance... The Chrysler Brand moved 324,846 vehicles last year. If maybe 0.6% of those were EVs, that would come to 1,949 compliance cars... If they had built 5% of their cars as fully electric/plugin hybrid, that would have been 16,242 cars. That is a difference of 14,293 cars. Since Tesla Motors is the only company that offered more than 5% of their cars as plugins, they would be allowed to have 14,293 of the cars they sold in the US to --NOT -- count toward the 200,000 limit per manufacturer. Heck, even if the cutoff were only 1% or 2%, it would effectively extend Tesla's eligibility by a wide margin. Naturally, as each company met the threshold, the pool of 'extra' eligible cars would be diminished, split between those that met the mark.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    1. Reagan/Bush were supporters of Saddam (war on Iran) and Bin Laden (war against Russians in Afghanistan)
    2. Reagan/Bush ran massive deficits building up US military specifically for Middle East oil war. Pentagon's No. 1 rated strategic threat to US.
    3. Bush I gave ally Saddam green light to invade Kuwait.
    4. Bush I double crosses ex-ally Saddam and US occupies Kuwait and Saudi with military built for that purpose.
    5. Cheney takes $40M payoff from Halliburton, sets US to invade Iraq as pay back which takes focus off al-Queda and results in 911. See Richard Clarke testimony before Congress about anti-terrorisn resources redirected to Iraq vs. known threat of al-Qaeda prior to 911.
    6. Cheney than uses 911 as excuse to invade Iraq for non-existent WMD. Iraq oil is supposed to pay for it but it all goes South.

    25 years later oil wars continue, US military spending of $1.3T per year is 70% of US discretionary budget, $600B of that for oil war attrition.

    It is that $600B in yearly spending and the terrorism that US devastation of Middle East generates that we can end by eliminating US oil imports via converting US cars from gasoline to EV.

    The $300B year in oil trade deficit would also be eliminated for huge economic and national security boost to US.

    Those are the economic and national security benefits of subsidizing EV's in the US to replace gasoline vehicles. Can't happen fast enough which is why increasing and extending the EV tax credit subsidies is policy US should follow. It is part of current presidential election.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    Yes. A reason to increase the tax credit subsidy for plug in hybrids and EVs.

    What is a 'Subsidy' A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

    Keep in simple. Double the tax credit subsidy. Extend it indefinitely. Allow it to carryover until used. Add it to earned income tax credits subsidy for those who qualify. Corporate tax breaks based on number of plug in hybrids and EV's sold. Tesla would pay zero corporate taxes. Immediate depreciation write off for all plug in/EV R&D and manufacturing capital equipment. This makes all the subsidies for EV's (and other zero emissions vehicles) predictable for business and consumers.

    Goal is replacing all US passenger vehicles with EV's.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    ImEric
    You assume that the incentive is meant only to drive down prices. I think that the actual stated intent of the incentive is to spur adoption of zero-emission vehicles. It's been doing that. People who otherwise wouldn't have bought an EV bought an EV. People who bought Teslas probably spent more than they otherwise would've spent on them, meaning that Tesla had more money to spend on developing the Model X, the Model 3 and the charging infrastructure much more quickly.

    If the Federal government wants to increase EV sales as quickly and as soon as possible, then Tesla pumping out more cars faster fits right in line with that goal. This is an example of a government program working just as it was designed. Lots of people want to be first in line for the 3 to get that extra 7500-13000 off, and Tesla is going to make it happen because there is an economic incentive to getting as many of those pre-orders filled as quickly as possible. I stood in line for the 3 partially because I didn't want to be left out of the incentive. Normally, I would want to wait at least about 6-10 months before buying a new model.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    ImEric
    The Model S outsells other cars in its class. Not just in the US, but even in Germany now. Why shouldn't the Model 3 be able to hold a similar appeal? And remember, $35k for a BMW 3 series is more expensive than $35k for a Model 3 when you factor in the cost of fuel. It might actually be more akin to buying a $28k car already. It is my assumption that, while the tax incentive plays into peoples' decisions, it is not the deciding factor for whether or not they get the car. For instance, as I've already stated, the incentive moves my timetable up 6 months (I've been waiting about 10 years for this already, so I would've been willing to wait 6 more months without the tax credit). The other thing that the tax credit does is incentivize me to get more bells and whistles than I otherwise would've gotten. But it is by no means the deciding factor for me (or anyone else I know who's getting one... just a bonus that makes us get a more expensive one, or get it slightly earlier).
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    alseTrick
    The government is already in it and rightfully so.

    I think we can ALL agree that there wouldn't be an EV revolution going on now without government loans and tax credits. Tesla probably would've crashed and burned long ago, and the long-time automakers would still be focused on 15mpg SUVs and trucks (oh wait, they're STILL focused on those).

    I much prefer the government "guiding", "incentivizing" or "regulating" industry rather than letting industry go all laissez faire on the consumer. We've seen repeatedly how things turn out when industries dictate the terms they want at the expense of the federal government and its citizens.

    That said, the government - at least in this scenario - only needs to be the spark that ignites the EV fire. I'm not sure if there is an actual fire burning yet, or just some hot embers. I think it'd probably be best to expand the tax credits to 500,000 or 1,000,000. And I'm not saying that because it'll ensure I receive the full $7,500 on my Model 3. But say 15 carmakers (however many there are) all reach 1,000,000 sales in the next 10 years. That's 15,000,000 cars (obvi). That would only be around 5% of the current number of vehicles in the US. I obviously don't know what the critical mass is to make a transition to EV/alternative fuel inevitable, but it has to be larger than 1% of the total marketplace, right? Because as of now that's what the 200,000 car figure will create.

    Regardless, I'd never propose government intervention on 100% of sales. It's not that that's too much government "intervention" (which it may or may not be). It's that there is NO NEED for government intervention when nearing 100% marketplace saturation. That's just wasted federal tax dollars.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    alseTrick
    Is that true?

    Because generally speaking, Democrats believe in manmade global warming and Republicans don't. For a constituency that doesn't vote, the Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes for President.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    deonb
    I meant young people.
    �
  • Jun 15, 2016
    Red Sage
    That is no reason for Ford, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai, or Kia to create plug-in hybrids. They do so because of CAFE and CARB regulations. Those regulations allow them to get away with building an extreme minority of the cars they sell as Zero Emissions Vehicles, while getting a maximum benefit from offering those compliance cars. That is the part of the system that needs to be turned upside down. Traditional automobile manufacturers must be forced to build an increasing majority of their cars as ZEVs -- not to receive Subsidies -- so much as to avoid harsh Penalties. THAT will work.

    I keep coming real close to giving your posts a 'Like'... But then you fill them with the word 'subsidy'... A cash payment may be a subsidy. A tax reduction is not.

    Still not quite simple enough. No tax credit. No rebate. No waiting. No income restrictions. A direct reduction in the cost of the car to the Consumer. Make it an actual subsidy. That would do the trick.

    I Am Not A CPA... So I have no idea of the affect of these proposals.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    alseTrick
    Ok. Younger people are less reliable voters than older. That's true. But not your other comment, I don't think.

    But I'm not sure what that has to do with "believing" in manmade global warming though. It's not like asking whether someone believes in unicorns, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, werewolves, vampires, or whatever. There is actual scientific evidence that it exists and it's agreed upon by nearly all scientists who study it.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    EaglesPDX
    Fuel efficiency, emissions regs are excellent means to an end. If GM can build a zero-emissions car that runs on something other than electricity, that is the goal. The Federal Tax credit is not actually for EV's but for zero emissions. It is working but not fast enough so take what is working and increase it. Increase the subsidies for zero emissions with mfg's and consumers.

    Chuckle...that's why I posted the definition of a subsidy above which included a tax reduction. Subsidies come in many forms from tax credits to direct payments to loans to land grants, it is economic assistance to achieve a goal.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    Dan Detweiler
    For us EV fans, yes. The federal tax credits are a plus. What I am saying though is that we are a very, very small minority (about a half a percent according to last year's new car sales). What we want to happen is to have that number up around 50% or more. That is not going to happen until the products stand alone all by themselves. Elon himself even said that if a technology is going to compete with the established products it is going to have to be better than what is available...and not a little better, it will have to be a lot better. Those are his words, not mine. The special perks, as nay sayers see them, like tax incentives, etc. are just driving a bigger wedge between the two factions.

    In the long run I think these types of programs continuing going forward will only hinder the acceptance of EV vehicles by the masses not speed them up. I think they are to the point of being counterproductive.

    Of course, many will disagree. Especially on this forum which, by its nature, is preaching to the choir. But...it is a very, very small choir when looked at globally.

    As always, submitted with the utmost respect for those with a different view. Just my $.02.

    Dan
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    cpa
    I am going to go out on a limb here by stating that Tesla has lost money every year since it was incorporated in the early part of the millennium. Tesla's corporate income tax returns for those years will show losses each and every year. Businesses (and that includes individuals who are self-employed) can elect to "carryforward" income tax "net operating losses" (NOL) for twenty years. Then they expire as worthless.

    NOLs are used to offset a current year's profit, effectively wiping out any federal income tax due when Tesla starts becoming profitable. Corporate alternative minimum tax rules only allow 90% of AMTI to be offset by NOL carryforwards, so when Tesla begins to show "taxable income before NOL deduction," Tesla will be paying something via the AMT. However, AMT paid in this scenario will generate an AMT credit against future regular tax once Tesla exhausts its NOL carryforwards.

    This is a long-winded explanation to say that 15 years or so of tax losses will more than offset future taxable income for many more years once Tesla turns the corner.

    You can see the federal NOL carryforwards for yourself in the notes to Tesla's financial statements, as they are a mandatory item for disclosure.

    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    deonb
    Sigh. This again. Telling someone that you're not allied with someone else is not the same as giving them a "green light" to invade them.

    Cuba is not a U.S. ally either. Did I just give you a "green light" to invade Cuba?

    Look, I'm no fan of Bush. 1 or 2. Nor Reagan. But I am a fan of history and accurate facts.
    �
  • Jun 16, 2016
    jgs
    No. In other fields it's called "being tax-efficient". It's good sense.
    No.
    Without a lot more data, you can't show the majority of those buyers have $7500 in tax liability to allow them to take advantage of the credit. Item, there is a tax credit. Item, there is demand. But is item one responsible for item two? As we have all heard about a million times now, correlation is not causation.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)