Toyota is right about EVs after all...

Velocity173 said:
Well if it doesn’t solve climate change then why push for an all EV transportation? Just because it might help? Give me break. Just let the public decide what they want to drive.
Click to expand...
Markets don't work for pollution. So, yes, the government pushing for things that will help is necessary.
 
172andyou said:
Markets don't work for pollution. So, yes, the government pushing for things that will help is necessary.
Click to expand...
Well if you’re talking air pollution, the air we breath is cleaner now than it’s been in over 50 years. We didn’t need EVs for that to change.
 
SoonerAviator said:
You keep talking about copying works and patent law. That's an entirely different discussion that has nothing to do with gov't picking winners and losers with policy decisions and subsidies. I'm not arguing against patent law/etc. It's a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. It picked content producers as winners. It picked inventors as winners. It did so because, like with EV subsidies, markets would otherwise pick the cheapest available option, even at the expense of the midterm and long term penalties to be paid.

SoonerAviator said:
The FDA is a perfect example of thumb on the scale for dubious reasons. The FDA was against cannibis for many years and would not approve drugs in that family despite convincing scientific/medical research that it was beneficial for a variety of treatments. It was prohibited due to purely political reasons. Same goes discouraging/prohibiting blood donation from declared homosexual individuals, despite mandatory blood pathogen testing already being in place for all donations. They also have the effect of greatly increasing the cost of US drugs due to the nature of how their approval process functions, and helps insulate US pharmaceutical companies from external manufacturers. I'm not saying the FDA is entirely unnecessary, or that it doesn't do more good than harm. I'm saying that there are always unforeseen/negative consequences that happen when the gov't decides it "knows best."

The Federal Reserve helped propagate the worst financial recession/depression in US history. Thumb on the scale.
Click to expand...
The FDA didn't fight cannabis, congress did. For generations.

As for HIV, I'm not sure what you're talking about this makes it sound like a screening test became available in Dec 1984 and was approved for use in blood banks by the FDA in March 1985. That doesn't seem all that long.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well if you’re talking air pollution, the air we breath is cleaner now than it’s been in over 50 years. We didn’t need EVs for that to change.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the specific pollution in question in this case is CO2. And the air is not cleaner than it has been in 50 years from that perspective. But, yes, the government mandating constant improvements in engine technology has resulted in a massive reduction in other kinds of pollution.

1708620861619.png
 
172andyou said:
Sure it does. It picked content producers as winners. It picked inventors as winners. It did so because, like with EV subsidies, markets would otherwise pick the cheapest available option, even at the expense of the midterm and long term penalties to be paid.


The FDA didn't fight cannabis, congress did. For generations.

As for HIV, I'm not sure what you're talking about this makes it sound like a screening test became available in Dec 1984 and was approved for use in blood banks by the FDA in March 1985. That doesn't seem all that long.
Click to expand...
Blood collecting organizations, such as the American Red Cross, have policies in accordance with FDA guidelines that prohibit accepting blood donations from any "male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once". The inclusion of homo- and bisexual men on the prohibited list has created some controversy,[63] but the FDA and Red Cross cite the need to protect blood recipients from HIV as justification for the continued ban.[64] Even with PCR-based testing of blood products, a "window period" may still exist in which an HIV-positive unit of blood would test negative. All potential donors from HIV high-risk groups are deferred for this reason, including men who have sex with men. The issue has been periodically revisited by the Blood Products Advisory Committee within the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and was last reconfirmed on May 24, 2007. Documentation from these meetings is available to the public.[65]

However, in 2006, the AABB, America's Blood Centers and American Red Cross recommended to the FDA that the deferral period for men who had sex with other men should be changed to be equivalent with the deferral period for heterosexual's judged to be at risk.[66] The FDA chose to uphold the blood ban. Female sexual partners of MSM (men who have sex with men) are deferred for one year since the last exposure. This is the same policy used for any sexual partner of someone in a high-risk group.[67] The intent of these policies is to ensure that blood is collected from a population that is at low risk for disease, since the tests are not perfect and human error may lead to infected units not being properly discarded. The policy was first put in place in 1985.[68]

In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.[70] The supporters of medical cannabis legalization criticized the FDA's statement as a politically motivated one instead of one based on solid science. A group of congressmen led by Maurice Hinchey wrote a letter to FDA's commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, expressing their disapproval of the FDA's statement and pointed out the FDA's rejection of medical cannabis was inconsistent with the findings of the Institute of Medicine, which stated cannabis does have medical benefits.[71] While the FDA has not approved marijuana it has approved THC (a compound found in cannabis) as an active ingredient for medicinal use.[72] Critics argue that this approval is a politically motivated attempt to allow special interest groups to have patents over the substance,[73] perhaps because the patents on previously patented competing substances have expired.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Blood collecting organizations, such as the American Red Cross, have policies in accordance with FDA guidelines that prohibit accepting blood donations from any "male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once". The inclusion of homo- and bisexual men on the prohibited list has created some controversy,[63] but the FDA and Red Cross cite the need to protect blood recipients from HIV as justification for the continued ban.[64] Even with PCR-based testing of blood products, a "window period" may still exist in which an HIV-positive unit of blood would test negative. All potential donors from HIV high-risk groups are deferred for this reason, including men who have sex with men. The issue has been periodically revisited by the Blood Products Advisory Committee within the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and was last reconfirmed on May 24, 2007. Documentation from these meetings is available to the public.[65]
Click to expand...
Ah, testing as distinct from partner history. I gotcha. Ok, that's a fair point.

SoonerAviator said:
In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.[70] The supporters of medical cannabis legalization criticized the FDA's statement as a politically motivated one instead of one based on solid science. A group of congressmen led by Maurice Hinchey wrote a letter to FDA's commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, expressing their disapproval of the FDA's statement and pointed out the FDA's rejection of medical cannabis was inconsistent with the findings of the Institute of Medicine, which stated cannabis does have medical benefits.[71] While the FDA has not approved marijuana it has approved THC (a compound found in cannabis) as an active ingredient for medicinal use.[72] Critics argue that this approval is a politically motivated attempt to allow special interest groups to have patents over the substance,[73] perhaps because the patents on previously patented competing substances have expired.
Click to expand...
I think we're still on different pages. I agree that the FDA hasn't blessed anything, but I don't think that's because they are wrong. It's because there was a near perfect vacuum of studies done for a really long time because of congress and the war on drugs. In any case, at best all this would do is put the error on congress instead of the FDA and since your point/claim is that the government is imperfect I'm not sure it really matters which branch the finger is pointed at. And, to be clear, I don't even disagree with that. My point is that markets don't work for pollution and that governments are necessary because markets alone were never going to fix the problem. I'm not arguing that markets should be done away with because they are imperfect. I'm not arguing that governments are perfect. I'm also not arguing that government should be done away with because it's imperfect.
 
Bob Noel said:
Mortage interest on apartment building loan aren’t tax deductible?
Click to expand...
Not from a renters perspective.

My point was there are many things that are tax incentivized to drive specific behaviors. Marriage, having children, home ownership, and a myriad of business and investment deductions.

Most folk seem to enjoy and claim the ones that benefit their personal interests.
 
StraightnLevel said:
The problem is that government is not populated by engineers and scientists. As such, they often select the wrong solution, or at best an incomplete solution.
Click to expand...
Visit the FDA, EPA or DoE sometime and tell me they aren't filthy with engineers and scientists.

But, yes, I agree that there are *also* political issues. I personally would prefer that congress be populated by engineers and scientists. Unfortunately, we have a system that is incapable of making that happen.

For the CFL argument, FWIW, the 2007 law that required CFLs didn't require CFLs, it required better energy efficiency and specifically called out CFLs and LEDs as ways to achieve it. However, back in the day, LED lights were very new and very expensive, so CFLs won in the short term as a stop gap. As LED technology matured, it's become the new leader. Who knows what might come next.
 
172andyou said:
Obviously, the specific pollution in question in this case is CO2. And the air is not cleaner than it has been in 50 years from that perspective. But, yes, the government mandating constant improvements in engine technology has resulted in a massive reduction in other kinds of pollution.

View attachment 125741
Click to expand...
And that CO2 is going to stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years. You’d have to stop all CO2 (not gonna happen) today and even then the effects on climate are irreversable for a thousand years. Going all EV won’t make a dent in climate change.
 
StraightnLevel said:
It doesn't have to. Reforestation returns CO2 to plant life and into the soil.


No, we don't. We just have to change the source from fossil fuels to recycled carbon compounds.
Click to expand...
Well sure for the lower levels the majority of CO2 is scrubbed by the oceans and vegetation. But what NOAA has stated is that there are levels of CO2 in the upper troposphere that’ll be there for hundreds if not thousands of years. Those levels of CO2 are rising and are creating irreversible effects of climate change. Just hit the 1.5 degree C threshold recently and it ain’t gonna be long before we pass the “can’t go back now” 2 degree C threshold.

I’m not saying to give up, be we have to be realistic about our energy needs and the sacrifices needed to make a difference.
 
Velocity173 said:
Just let the public decide what they want to drive.
Click to expand...
I think Elon would agree with that.

He bought into the then start-up Tesla because he wanted to make an EV that people would want. An EV that would be more fun to drive than a gasoline sports car. At the time, the existing EVs were slow and uninspired. He want to build, and now has built, cars that people want to drive, not because they are electric, but because they are better cars.

Elon is pushing electrification because he believes it is important to do so for ecological reasons. I don't think its as dire a problem as he does but cleaner, all else being equal, is certainly better.

The advantage of electric power, for any energy need, is that, over time, we can change the source of the electrical energy to whatever makes the most sense. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. The grid can move in whatever direction we need it to move.
 
Larry in TN said:
I think Elon would agree with that.
Click to expand...
He would certainly say he does. Then he would collect hundreds of millions in subsidies, well timed contracts and other incentives.

(hint: Neither of those is speculative. He has said outright that he doesn't support subsidies. He has taken hundreds of millions in tax incentives at Tesla and billions in contracts that came at just the right time to prevent SpaceX from failing.)
 
Larry in TN said:
The advantage of electric power, for any energy need, is that, over time, we can change the source of the electrical energy to whatever makes the most sense. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. The grid can move in whatever direction we need it to move.
Click to expand...
If the grid is up, that is. California's is notoriously fragile. I recall too well the great Northeast blackout, which took 55 million people off the grid in 2003. I was on a train from Boston to Newark when it stopped, and it took me 4 DAYS to get home. More recently, Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy cut power to my neighborhood for 10 and 11 days, respectively. So I view electric as a valuable tool in the toolbox, but it is NOT the be-all, end-all solution.

I would never give up my gas generator. My family could do just fine with one EV and one internal combustion vehicle, but I would never make us an all-EV household.

I just finished reading Ted Koppel's "Lights Out". It's a well-researched, sobering account of how fragile our electical grid really is.
 
Larry in TN said:
I think Elon would agree with that.

He bought into the then start-up Tesla because he wanted to make an EV that people would want. An EV that would be more fun to drive than a gasoline sports car. At the time, the existing EVs were slow and uninspired. He want to build, and now has built, cars that people want to drive, not because they are electric, but because they are better cars.

Elon is pushing electrification because he believes it is important to do so for ecological reasons. I don't think its as dire a problem as he does but cleaner, all else being equal, is certainly better.

The advantage of electric power, for any energy need, is that, over time, we can change the source of the electrical energy to whatever makes the most sense. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. The grid can move in whatever direction we need it to move.
Click to expand...
Well Elon can be wishy washy in his statements but he has stated in the past he wants all future vehicles to be EVs. No real choice for the consumer there. He has also stated recently that we need more oil and gas production because civilization would end without it. Also a fan of nuclear which I’m big on as well.
 
Some good deals on Teslas right now on Hertz car sales.

Used Tesla Cars & SUVs for Sale - Hertz Certified

Shop a Hertz Certified Tesla today. We offer a quality selection, incredible prices, a warranty, a buy back guarantee and more. Schedule a test drive online!
www.hertzcarsales.com www.hertzcarsales.com
 
StraightnLevel said:
In the short term? Every additional MW of peak demand is going to be served by spinning reserve powered by fossil fuels. In China, that's coal (60% of their total); in the US it's now mostly natural gas.
Click to expand...

Total US electrical usage has been mostly flat since, judging from this chart, around ~2007. We have more people, but we are using more efficient electrical devices. The trend has continued through 2023, hovering right at the 4000 mark. This while putting about 2.5 Million EVs on US roads during that period.

With EVs, it's also very easy to shift their electrical demand to the times of day when the grid has the most excess capacity. All EVs can easily be set to charge during the desired hours. We can use this to increase the generally-cleaner baseload production and reduce the dirtier peak-load production. Hawaii recently shut down their last coal-fired Peaker plant with the installation of a grid-level battery backup system that acts as a Peaker plant, shifting renewable production from when it is producing to when it is needed.

1708634993378.png
 
Larry in TN said:
All EVs can easily be set to charge during the desired hours. We can use this to increase the generally-cleaner baseload production and reduce the dirtier peak-load production.
Click to expand...
@eman1200 good news, nocturnal emissions are eco-friendly.
 
Larry in TN said:
Total US electrical usage has been mostly flat since, judging from this chart, around ~2007. We have more people, but we are using more efficient electrical devices. The trend has continued through 2023, hovering right at the 4000 mark. This while putting about 2.5 Million EVs on US roads during that period.

With EVs, it's also very easy to shift their electrical demand to the times of day when the grid has the most excess capacity. All EVs can easily be set to charge during the desired hours. We can use this to increase the generally-cleaner baseload production and reduce the dirtier peak-load production. Hawaii recently shut down their last coal-fired Peaker plant with the installation of a grid-level battery backup system that acts as a Peaker plant, shifting renewable produc
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit easier said than done. While it is easy to tell an EV car's software to "not charge until midnight", that assumes that everyone is operating on the same schedule of travel needs and that they'll act accordingly to limit their charging to only when it best suits the local power capacity. If people are driving EVs that don't have home access to L2 chargers, then they are plugging-in immediately when they get home because they don't have the luxury of charging rates that can be delayed multiple hours each night. It's not a small task.

Additionally, while we are using "more efficient devices", we've been adding MORE devices than ever before. Now EVERYTHING is drawing power that didn't draw power before. Smart plugs, lights, home hubs, washers/dryers etc. all have SmartHome functions that sip a little bit of power in order to stay connected. More phones, more tablets, more tvs. Overall power capacity needs aren't going to shrink much, if at all.
 
SoonerAviator said:
While it is easy to tell an EV car's software to "not charge until midnight", that assumes that everyone is operating on the same schedule of travel needs and that they'll act accordingly to limit their charging to only when it best suits the local power capacity.
Click to expand...
Power systems with peak capacity issues all ready have time-of-day metering. Make it cheaper to charge during non-peak times and most people will charge during non-peak times.

Some DC fast charging installations are installing battery megapacks. If they are time-of-day metered, even more will. They'll time-shift cheaper electricity to times when the rate is higher.

Additionally, while we are using "more efficient devices", we've been adding MORE devices than ever before. Now EVERYTHING is drawing power that didn't draw power before. Smart plugs, lights, home hubs, washers/dryers etc. all have SmartHome functions that sip a little bit of power in order to stay connected. More phones, more tablets, more tvs. Overall power capacity needs aren't going to shrink much, if at all.
Click to expand...
Yet we've added about 2.5 Million EVs to the American roads and electricity usage is flat.
 
The best selling car in the world is the Tesla model Y. Considering it’s price point that is a amazing accomplishmen.
 
Larry in TN said:
Power systems with peak capacity issues all ready have time-of-day metering. Make it cheaper to charge during non-peak times and most people will charge during non-peak times.

Some DC fast charging installations are installing battery megapacks. If they are time-of-day metered, even more will. They'll time-shift cheaper electricity to times when the rate is higher.


Yet we've added about 2.5 Million EVs to the American roads and electricity usage is flat.
Click to expand...

I'm totally with you on how easy it is to get most people to charge at best time. That's non issue really. I think @SoonerAviator point was that in past 10 years efficiency of devices went up significantly. That, as your graph showed, offset the increased number of devices(including EVs). Problem is that efficiency improvement are finite - there is a limit to it and we may be close to it. Big power hungry appliances typically last 10-15 years, so most old inefficient stuff has been replaced already. Or at least improvements will become more and more gradual. Unless there is some significant technological jump. While the number of devices is also probably limited by number of people, the EV part is at its infancy. 2.5Mil cars represent 0.86% of total cars on the road in USA.
 
Personally, my ideal solution is to completely be disconnected from power grid. Solar, batteries, EVs, ground loop, propane for cooking and really cold days and backup generator, 1 gas car for long trips and backup. I can't do this now for various reasons. Maybe I will never be able to justify it, but that's what I want to be able to do if it is cost effective.
 
genna said:
but that's what I want to be able to do if it is cost effective.
Click to expand...
It will never be cost effective, if you're already supplied with grid infrastructure. That's not how economies of scale works.
 
Last edited:
genna said:
I'm totally with you on how easy it is to get most people to charge at best time. That's non issue really.
Click to expand...
It certainly is.

The grid has significant excess capacity overnight and we can easily move the majority of EV charging to those periods. That gives us quite a bit of time to expand the grid as the grid has always been expanded. There is no looming crisis. The grid issues, when they occur, are caused by the uses that can't be shifted to off-peak hours such as air conditioning during heat waves.

Increasing EV adoption can help balance grid demand allowing an increased use of baseload plants and reduced reliance on peaker plants.

The grid is also changing with the installation of grid-level backup plants. Tesla Energy's Megapack production is running about two years behind the demand. They are being installed as quickly as they can be built. This will efficient use of more renewable sources as well as shifting production from times of excess capacity to the peak times.
 
genna said:
Personally, my ideal solution is to completely be disconnected from power grid. Solar, batteries, EVs, ground loop, propane for cooking and really cold days and backup generator, 1 gas car for long trips and backup. I can't do this now for various reasons. Maybe I will never be able to justify it, but that's what I want to be able to do if it is cost effective.
Click to expand...
I'm off grid. Hate it. Would never do it by choice. Fingers crossed that this will be the year that utility power comes to my neighborhood.
 
Half Fast said:
If people enjoy EVs, have a good use case, whatever, fine. Enjoy. But my tax dollars shouldn’t help pay for their personal choice.
Click to expand...
Good point. We should stop all federal subsidies for oil and gas production, as well as on gasoline, and watch the price soar to over $10/gallon.

The tax credits on EV's aren't even a blip in the federal budget compared to what the subsidies on the vertical chain of oil production looks like.

The US has always invested heavily in transportation as cheap transportation is one of the many things our government does to push our economy to be so strong. Gas and EV alike. Quit yer bellyaching, and tilting at windmills, it's gotten old.
 
I charge when I need to charge. I don’t revolved around when it’s best for the grid. Just like I get gas when I need gas.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Good point. We should stop all federal subsidies for oil and gas production, as well as on gasoline, and watch the price soar to over $10/gallon.

The tax credits on EV's aren't even a blip in the federal budget compared to what the subsidies on the vertical chain of oil production looks like.

The US has always invested heavily in transportation as cheap transportation is one of the many things our government does to push our economy to be so strong. Gas and EV alike. Quit yer bellyaching, and tilting at windmills, it's gotten old.
Click to expand...
Well this administration and many governments around the world are trying to do just that. It’s the argument of transitioning to renewables will drive the economy in opening up new sectors where O&G will be lost.

With record profits, I don’t think cutting subsidies would hurt O&G. They know if they raise the price of a gallon of gas, it’ll just speed up the adoption of EVs.

 
Rich Holt said:
Why is the quarter panel black on all of them again?
Click to expand...
Same thing they did with the Subaru Solterra. I don’t care for the look. Last time I was at Subaru a salesmen said they weren’t exactly selling like hotcakes. Other than Tesla, a lot of these EV SUVs look the same to me.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Good point. We should stop all federal subsidies for oil and gas production, as well as on gasoline, and watch the price soar to over $10/gallon.

The tax credits on EV's aren't even a blip in the federal budget compared to what the subsidies on the vertical chain of oil production looks like.

The US has always invested heavily in transportation as cheap transportation is one of the many things our government does to push our economy to be so strong. Gas and EV alike. Quit yer bellyaching, and tilting at windmills, it's gotten old.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on what subsidies you're referring to?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
It will never be cost effective, if you're already supplied with grid infrastructure. That's not how economies of scale works.
Click to expand...
you should be right, but "economies of scale" is not how energy is now managed. At least not in my state. Political goals have a lot to do with costs than anything else. And I'm beginning to get tired of this constantly adjusting my cost.

"Completely disconnected" is probably too much, but I want to be not reliant on public utility for anything but extreme cases.

Of course, my "goal" being cost effective depends on underlying technologies getting cheap(mainly solar panels and batteries) and effective(mainly solar panels) enough. And that may never happen.
 
rwellner98 said:
I'm off grid. Hate it. Would never do it by choice. Fingers crossed that this will be the year that utility power comes to my neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Genuinely curious. What(and where) is your setup and why do you hate it?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Good point. We should stop all federal subsidies for oil and gas production, as well as on gasoline, and watch the price soar to over $10/gallon.

The tax credits on EV's aren't even a blip in the federal budget compared to what the subsidies on the vertical chain of oil production looks like.

The US has always invested heavily in transportation as cheap transportation is one of the many things our government does to push our economy to be so strong. Gas and EV alike. Quit yer bellyaching, and tilting at windmills, it's gotten old.
Click to expand...


Given my druthers, I'd stop all forms of tax subsidies and credits, quit using taxation as an ersatz form of regulation, dump the entire tax code morass, and simply go to a straight national sales tax.

But that ain't likely to happen and further discussion along these lines will likely lead to a thread lock.
 
Half Fast said:
Given my druthers, I'd stop all forms of tax subsidies and credits, quit using taxation as an ersatz form of regulation, dump the entire tax code morass, and simply go to a straight national sales tax.

But that ain't likely to happen and further discussion along these lines will likely lead to a thread lock.
Click to expand...
Well, I can appreciate the consistency, whereas I thought it was targeted and specific.
 
genna said:
Genuinely curious. What(and where) is your setup and why do you hate it?
Click to expand...
Here's where it is: https://airbnb.com/h/casa-isa

I have 14kw in panels and 40kwh in batteries. I'm running lead acid batteries, because sometimes you have to buy what's available and understood by local suppliers and maintenance people. My electronics are from Outback Power.

Batteries are just awful. They are the single most expensive part of an off grid setup. They have a half life and need to be replaced. We have found a program from the federal government to bring power into rural areas, like ours, and have a meeting setup in two months. Hopefully we qualify for that and will get utility power sometime this year. If so, Mexico currently does net metering, which would mean that my panels will be able to bank tons of credits pushing power into the grid and the grid will act as a perfectly lossless battery.
 
Half Fast said:
Given my druthers, I'd stop all forms of tax subsidies and credits, quit using taxation as an ersatz form of regulation, dump the entire tax code morass, and simply go to a straight national sales tax.

But that ain't likely to happen and further discussion along these lines will likely lead to a thread lock.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you on my libertarian ballot? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top