Electric vehicles of all kinds

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, I should have re-read it before I posted. It should have read:

It's hilarious that the the pollution created by fossil fuels used for charging EVs is considered a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. 

 

Do you have a general breakdown of the fossil fuel subsidies? I thought not.

 

Better? 

Do you have any figures for what percentage of fossil fuel generated power is used be EV's?

I thought not.

[Yellowtail]

23 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Stop deflecting. This issue is subsidies. 81 billion dollars worth in that particular year. 

I've looked at the 81 billion, and it looks like just another big lie from the intelligentsia.

 

Hey, you guys are still using the old 97% lie, and when was that phony study, 20 years ago? And it STILL 97%, how funny is that? 

 

Please, provide a breakdown of the 81 billion given in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. 

 

What year did you get your Ed.D.? 

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you have any figures for what percentage of fossil fuel generated power is used be EV's?

I thought not.

Apparently this means something to you.

 

About 80% of the electricity in the US is generated using fossil fuels, yes? So I'm guessing about 80% of the power used to charge EVs come from fossil fuels.

 

What's funny is that (per the intelligentsia) the money paid for the fossil fuel, the environmental impact of the buyers burning the fossil fuels, and all the tax-deductions the companies producing and selling fossil fuels qualify for are all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, even when the power is used to charge EVs. 

 

And once the $8.7B in EV charging stations are brought online, because these will be powered by fossil fuels, these will also be considered fossil fuel subsidies, yes? 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Yellowtail
clarity

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, I should have re-read it before I posted. It should have read:

It's hilarious that the the pollution created by fossil fuels used for charging EVs is considered a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. 

 

Do you have a general breakdown of the fossil fuel subsidies? I thought not.

 

Better? 

Courtroom attorneys are always advised not to ask witnesses questions they don't know the answers to. But no one would bother to advise an attorney to provide an answer to a question they don't know the answer to because who would be that foolish? Oops.

Here's that data you asked for. You know, the info that you concluded I don't have.

It's the IMF report on fossil fuel subsidies around the world

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#A Global Picture of Energy Subsidies

And they actually provide a link on the page so you can download a detailed analysis of fossil fuel subsidies in Excel format. The link is located under Data and Diagnostic Tools

Break out the confettii and start crunching those numbers.

 

And do you have a breakdown for what percentage of total world fossil fuel power is used by EV's?

 

And I see that you still have no relevant answer for the huge subsidy provided by the US Defense Dept tp the world's oil industry.

 

 

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I've looked at the 81 billion, and it looks like just another big lie from the intelligentsia.

 

Hey, you guys are still using the old 97% lie, and when was that phony study, 20 years ago? And it STILL 97%, how funny is that? 

 

Please, provide a breakdown of the 81 billion given in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. 

 

What year did you get your Ed.D.? 

The last refuge of some when they are confronted with data is to call it a lie.

 

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Apparently this means something to you.

 

About 80% of the electricity in the US is generated using fossil fuels, yes? So I'm guessing about 80% of the power used to charge EVs come from fossil fuels.

 

What's funny is that (per the intelligentsia) the money paid for the fossil fuel, the environmental impact of the buyers burning the fossil fuels, and all the tax-deductions the companies producing and selling fossil fuels qualify for are all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, even when the power is used to charge EVs. 

 

And once the $8.7B in EV charging stations are brought online, because these will be powered by fossil fuels, these will also be considered fossil fuel subsidies, yes? 

 

 

 

 

 i didn't ask what percentage of power to EV's comes from fossil fuel sources, Read the question again:

"And do you have a breakdown for what percentage of total world fossil fuel power is used by EV's?"

[placeholder]

48 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Apparently this means something to you.

 

About 80% of the electricity in the US is generated using fossil fuels, yes? So I'm guessing about 80% of the power used to charge EVs come from fossil fuels.

 

What's funny is that (per the intelligentsia) the money paid for the fossil fuel, the environmental impact of the buyers burning the fossil fuels, and all the tax-deductions the companies producing and selling fossil fuels qualify for are all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, even when the power is used to charge EVs. 

 

And once the $8.7B in EV charging stations are brought online, because these will be powered by fossil fuels, these will also be considered fossil fuel subsidies, yes? 

 

 

 

 

One of the biggest myths about EVs is busted in new study

Even EVs that plug into dirty grids emit fewer greenhouse gases than gas-powered cars 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585682/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-lifecycle-assessment

[Yellowtail]

57 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Courtroom attorneys are always advised not to ask witnesses questions they don't know the answers to. But no one would bother to advise an attorney to provide an answer to a question they don't know the answer to because who would be that foolish? Oops.

Here's that data you asked for. You know, the info that you concluded I don't have.

It's the IMF report on fossil fuel subsidies around the world

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#A Global Picture of Energy Subsidies

And they actually provide a link on the page so you can download a detailed analysis of fossil fuel subsidies in Excel format. The link is located under Data and Diagnostic Tools

Break out the confettii and start crunching those numbers.

 

And do you have a breakdown for what percentage of total world fossil fuel power is used by EV's?

 

And I see that you still have no relevant answer for the huge subsidy provided by the US Defense Dept tp the world's oil industry.

 

 

I never concluded you didn't have it, I concluded you didn't understand it. If you really understood it you could provide a quick breakdown, and not have to post the same link over and over.  

 

When you posted the link before I reviewed it, that's how I know the pollution generated by charging and manufacturing EVs are considered subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. You know this to be true as well if you looked at it.  

 

So per the intelligentsia, when they fly in a private jet, they are not responsible for the pollution they generate, but rather that pollution is the fault of the fossil fuel industry, and as such, the "damage" they cause is considered a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. This is the same logic the intelligentsia use when they blame guns rather than gunman for gun related homicides.  

 

So can you provide a quick breakdown or not? 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

One of the biggest myths about EVs is busted in new study

Even EVs that plug into dirty grids emit fewer greenhouse gases than gas-powered cars 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585682/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-lifecycle-assessment

Are you not able to formulate even the simplest argument with posting a link? 

 

I don't doubt EVs produce less CO2 than ICEVs, but we are discussing the FACT that the pollution caused what charging EVs is considered a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, and you previous post supports that. 

 

Can you in any way show that what I have said is not true? 

 

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never concluded you didn't have it, I concluded you didn't understand it. If you really understood it you could provide a quick breakdown, and not have to post the same link over and over.  

 

When you posted the link before I reviewed it, that's how I know the pollution generated by charging and manufacturing EVs are considered subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. You know this to be true as well if you looked at it.  

 

So per the intelligentsia, when they fly in a private jet, they are not responsible for the pollution they generate, but rather that pollution is the fault of the fossil fuel industry, and as such, the "damage" they cause is considered a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. This is the same logic the intelligentsia use when they blame guns rather than gunman for gun related homicides.  

 

So can you provide a quick breakdown or not? 

 

 

I'm under no obligation to predigest that information for you. Still, the page I linked does provide a quick breakdwon.. 

As for your nonsense about the intelligentisa and the fossil fuel industry. What are you on about? This is about subsidies, a point you raised. The point is that the fossil fuel industry is far more heavily subsidized than renewables. You're the one that's going on about how it's EV's couldn't compete against ICE vehicles except for subsidies. I'm pointing out that there are far heavier subsidies that make ICE vehicles far more affordable than they should be.

[Bandersnatch]

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

About 80% of the electricity in the US is generated using fossil fuels, yes? So I'm guessing about 80% of the power used to charge EVs come from fossil fuels.

Many EVs including mine are charged from solar

 

[Bandersnatch]

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And once the $8.7B in EV charging stations are brought online, because these will be powered by fossil fuels, these will also be considered fossil fuel subsidies, yes? 

 

https://electrek.co/2021/04/27/tesla-power-all-superchargers-with-renewable-energy-this-year/

 

 

[KhunLA]

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

About 80% of the electricity in the US is generated using fossil fuels, yes? So I'm guessing about 80% of the power used to charge EVs come from fossil fuels.

Thailand, it's 55% from Natural Gas, 18% from Coal, 12% from renewable (hydro / wind), leaving minimal from oil, and doesn't even get a 1% on the graph.  14% imported, and if from Myanmar, that's hydro & natural gas.  From Laos, it would be hydro produced.  Aside from coal, Thailand is kind of clean, when it comes to energy production.

 

And as pointed out, many homeowners are going solar, since now quite affordable.  Myself included, total solar, next month or abouts.

 

Now get rid of the ICE vehicles, and there wouldn't be oil spills this week in the Gulf.  OK, dreaming, but it would be nice.

[Klonko]

Good Cat Ultra with updated software and decent range. Remaining concerns for me long charging time and stiff ride. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THaKC-TOlbY

 

Interesting video on Norway vs Thailand and BEV (apologies if already linked in an earlier post). > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JF9qLoWBG0. Not everything is bad in Thailand ????

 

 

 

[kwilco]

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

About 80% of the electricity in the US is generated using fossil fuels, yes? So I'm guessing about 80% of the power used to charge EVs come from fossil fuels

This point was first made several years back and kinda misses the point.

The overall energy consumption of EVs comes MOSTLY but not entirely  from the national grid of that country they are in.

Many countries are becoming less reliant on fossil fuels....Germany for instance is capable òn a good day of producing 90% from non-fossil..

ICES are on the other hand totally dependant on fossil fuels.

So as countries turn away from fossil fuels they take EVs with them.

The next benefit is that the energy generated for EVs comes from single, concentrated sources that are easier to manage.

Finally in dense urban situations and high traffic scenarios, EVs contribute nothing in the form of pollution to the local environment.

Cities like Bangkok stand to gain immensely from electrification.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by kwilco

[kwilco]

8 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Thailand, it's 55% from Natural Gas, 18% from Coal, 12% from renewable (hydro / wind), leaving minimal from oil, and doesn't even get a 1% on the graph.  14% imported, and if from Myanmar, that's hydro & natural gas.  From Laos, it would be hydro produced.  Aside from coal, Thailand is kind of clean, when it comes to energy production.

 

And as pointed out, many homeowners are going solar, since now quite affordable.  Myself included, total solar, next month or abouts.

 

Now get rid of the ICE vehicles, and there wouldn't be oil spills this week in the Gulf.  OK, dreaming, but it would be nice.

Not right either. Fossil fuels are fir the huge petrochemical  I dustries in that area...not charge motor vehicles....they are used in plastics, paints metal production and thousands of other ways..

 

[Yellowtail]

39 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Germany for instance is capable òn a good day of producing 90% from non-fossil..

Where did get the 90%?

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Yellowtail

[KhunLA]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Where did get the 90%?

 

I think Norway is just about fossil free energy, mostly with their hydro electic production.

[Yellowtail]

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

I'm under no obligation to predigest that information for you. Still, the page I linked does provide a quick breakdwon.. 

As for your nonsense about the intelligentisa and the fossil fuel industry. What are you on about? This is about subsidies, a point you raised. The point is that the fossil fuel industry is far more heavily subsidized than renewables. You're the one that's going on about how it's EV's couldn't compete against ICE vehicles except for subsidies. I'm pointing out that there are far heavier subsidies that make ICE vehicles far more affordable than they should be.

And I'm pointing out that per your link, the cost of the fossil fuels, and the pollution produced both generating the electricity used to charge EVs, and the electricity used to produce EVs is considered a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. That's all I've said, and again, you have said nothing to dispute it. 

 

I don't doubt the accuracy of the data, but rather the conclusions drawn from the data. Again, per your link, people flying in private jets are not polluting, it is only the evil fossil fuel industry they buy their fuel from that is polluting. That is what I am calling the $81B a lie. It is similar to the 97% lie where phony conclusions were drawn from what I assume was accurate data. 

 

That's what I'm on about, what are you on about?

 

Hey, you never did say what year you got your Ed.D..

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Yellowtail
sp

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

 

https://electrek.co/2021/04/27/tesla-power-all-superchargers-with-renewable-energy-this-year/

 

 

Yes, well Tesla's marketing department will likely not be in charge of the $8.7B the fed is spending.

 

I think solar is great, but the roof of that charging station would likely not provide enough current to quick-charge more than one car or two cars. 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Yellowtail
ww

[placeholder]

46 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And I'm pointing out that per your link, the cost of the fossil fuels, and the pollution produced both generating the electricity used to charge EVs, and the electricity used to produce EVs is considered a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. That's all I've said, and again, you have said nothing to dispute it. 

 

I don't doubt the accuracy of the data, but rather the conclusions drawn from the data. Again, per your link, people flying in private jets are not polluting, it is only the evil fossil fuel industry they buy their fuel from that is polluting. That is what I am calling the $81B a lie. It is similar to the 97% lie where phony conclusions were drawn from what I assume was accurate data. 

 

That's what I'm on about, what are you on about?

 

Hey, you never did say what year you got your Ed.D..

 

 

 Given that there is a huge installed base of fossil fuel provided power, it's inevitable that some part of that subsidy will benefit the electric power industry.  And that means that whatever the percentage of power is used by EVs will benefit EVs. Even if it's only a tiny fraction. But what you don't seem to understand is that new power plant production is dominated by renewable energy. So, as time goes on, the percentage of power provided by renewables should rise rapidly. In 2020 wind and solar accounting for at least 72% of all new power provided by new plants.

 

World Adds Record New Renewable Energy Capacity in 2020 

"According to data released today by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) the world added more than 260 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity last year, exceeding expansion in 2019 by close to 50 per cent.

IRENA’s annual Renewable Capacity Statistics 2021 shows that renewable energy’s share of all new generating capacity rose considerably for the second year in a row. More than 80 per cent of all new electricity capacity added last year was renewable, with solar and wind accounting for 91 per cent of new renewables."

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-Adds-Record-New-Renewable-Energy-Capacity-in-2020

 

And the point is of course, that over time, the percentage of fossil fuel electricity used by an EV will decline. Whereas, no matter how much that usage declines, ICE vehicles will still be 100% dependent on burning fossil fuels.

Edited January 29, 2022 by placeholder

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

 

Many countries are becoming less reliant on fossil fuels....Germany for instance is capable òn a good day of producing 90% from non-fossil..

South Australia has that beat by a long shot.

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

South Australia has that beat by a long shot.

To bad the same can't be said for the other states / provinces:

"Australia's primary energy consumption is dominated by coal (around 40 per cent), oil (34 per cent) and gas (22 per cent)"

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

To bad the same can't be said for the other states / provinces:

"Australia's primary energy consumption is dominated by coal (around 40 per cent), oil (34 per cent) and gas (22 per cent)"

I'm sure you'll be relieved to learn that's for all energy consumption not just electricity.

 

"The 2021 Australian Energy Statistics for electricity generation shows that 24 per cent of Australia’s electricity came from renewable energy last year, up from 21 per cent in 2019.

This increase with driven by a boom in solar installation. Solar is now the largest source of renewable energy at 9 per cent of total generation, up from 7 per cent in 2019, with one in four Australian homes having solar – the highest uptake in the world."

https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/2021-australian-energy-statistics-electricity#:~:text=The 2021 Australian Energy Statistics,a boom in solar installation.

Edited January 29, 2022 by placeholder

[Bandersnatch]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

think solar is great, but the roof of that charging station would likely not provide enough current to quick-charge more than one car or two cars. 

In the report I quoted it states “Elon Musk said that Tesla plans to add solar and batteries to all Supercharger stations and eventually disconnect most of them from the grid.”

 

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

I'm sure you'll be relieved to learn that's for all energy consumption not just electricity.

 

"The 2021 Australian Energy Statistics for electricity generation shows that 24 per cent of Australia’s electricity came from renewable energy last year, up from 21 per cent in 2019.

This increase with driven by a boom in solar installation. Solar is now the largest source of renewable energy at 9 per cent of total generation, up from 7 per cent in 2019, with one in four Australian homes having solar – the highest uptake in the world."

https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/2021-australian-energy-statistics-electricity#:~:text=The 2021 Australian Energy Statistics,a boom in solar installation.

Yes, so we want to burn fossil fuels for heat, and use our "renewable" electricity to charge EV batteries. 

 

Would it not make more sense to use electricity for heat and use fossil fuel to run ICEVs and get rid of the batteries? 

[JustAnotherHun]

Promoting EVs in the existing infrastructure of most countries is a very good idea:

In GB from May 2022 on all new private charging stations will be disconnected from 8-11 am and 4-10pm.

Reason: They fear, the net will be overstrained by too many charging EVs at the same time.

GB now has about 400.000 EVs. What will happen, if there are a few millions?

Edited January 30, 2022 by JustAnotherHun

[Yellowtail]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

 Given that there is a huge installed base of fossil fuel provided power, it's inevitable that some part of that subsidy will benefit the electric power industry.

So I was right, thanks. 

 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

And that means that whatever the percentage of power is used by EVs will benefit EVs. Even if it's only a tiny fraction. But what you don't seem to understand is that new power plant production is dominated by renewable energy.

Why do you assume I do not understand that? When the government mandates new plants be renewable, you will get more renewables. And again, if renewable were truly cheaper, there would be no need for mandates or subsidies, all the power companies in the US would have already been converted. 

 

And if renewable are truly cheaper, why do rates continue to rise? 

 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

So, as time goes on, the percentage of power provided by renewables should rise rapidly. In 2020 wind and solar accounting for at least 72% of all new power provided by new plants.

Yes, again, when governments mandates new plants be renewable, you will get more renewables. 

 

What percentage of total energy production does that represent anyway? In any event, this is just electricity. As you move away from fossil fuel for heating and transportation you're going to need a LOT more electricity, yes? 

 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

World Adds Record New Renewable Energy Capacity in 2020 

"According to data released today by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) the world added more than 260 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity last year, exceeding expansion in 2019 by close to 50 per cent.

IRENA’s annual Renewable Capacity Statistics 2021 shows that renewable energy’s share of all new generating capacity rose considerably for the second year in a row. More than 80 per cent of all new electricity capacity added last year was renewable, with solar and wind accounting for 91 per cent of new renewables."

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-Adds-Record-New-Renewable-Energy-Capacity-in-2020 

It is interesting (telling?) that the report in your link focuses  only on the "...the maximum net generating capacity of power plants and other installations that use renewable energy sources to produce electricity."

 

They do not seem to be at all concerned with whether or not the electricity that is actually used is generated. Do you not wonder why that is? 

 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

And the point is of course, that over time, the percentage of fossil fuel electricity used by an EV will decline. Whereas, no matter how much that usage declines, ICE vehicles will still be 100% dependent on burning fossil fuels.

So the plan it to burn fossil fuel to generate electricity to charge batteries to provide electricity to  to drive a vehicle, rather than burning fossil to drive a vehicle, but at some point in the distant future, all the electricity will be generated using renewables, correct?

 

Would it not make more sense to get the renewable electricity online first? 

[Yellowtail]

17 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Promoting EVs in the existing infrastructure of most countries is a very good idea:

In GB from May 2022 on all new private charging stations will be disconnected from 8-11 am and 4-10pm.

Reason: They fear, the net will be overstrained by too many charging EVs at the same time.

GB now has about 400.000 EVs. What will happen, if there are a few millions?

What about the huge increase in renewable energy production?  

[JustAnotherHun]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What about the huge increase in renewable energy production?  

Renewable energy is not a stable one you can count on.

If it was, GB would not have to limit the charging station hours after a handfull EVs (in relation to the fuel burners) are sold and depending on the net.

 

I don't know about the situation in GB. In Germany, the upcoming lack of electricity due to crazy "green" politics is not the only problem. The net is just not strong enough to handle a large increase, even if there would be enough electiricty over all.

Edited January 30, 2022 by JustAnotherHun

[Bandersnatch]

1 hour ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Promoting EVs in the existing infrastructure of most countries is a very good idea:

In GB from May 2022 on all new private charging stations will be disconnected from 8-11 am and 4-10pm.

Reason: They fear, the net will be overstrained by too many charging EVs at the same time.

GB now has about 400.000 EVs. What will happen, if there are a few millions?

Anybody wanting to read the background to this https://insideevs.com/news/537120/ev-chargers-switched-off-uk/

 

To quote from the article above:

"The government argues that the new legislation could help drivers of electric vehicles save money by pushing them to charge their EVs during off-peak night hours, when many energy providers offer “Economy 7” electricity rates that are far below the 17p ($0.23) per kWh average cost.

 

In the future, Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology is also expected to mitigate strains on the grid in combination with V2G-compatible smart chargers. Bi-directional charging will enable EVs to fill gaps in power when demand is high and then draw power back when demand is extremely low."

 

I am an active member of a UK based EV forum. The price of UK electricity has doubled over the last 10 years and is expected to increase by 50% in April. Many on the forum are considering adding solar and certainly everybody seems to be very aware of time or use rates so I doubt if it will be much of a problem as very few EV owners would be stupid enough to charge at peak rate prices.