Are electric cars powered by coal-based electricity any benefit?

[AlanKlein]

I never said the government invented any of those things.

To clarify, the government is attempting to get green technology established by offering incentives. Private sector tax incentives are provided to all. Private sector incentives are designed to make new green technologies as affordable as older cheaper less energy efficient and dirty technologies. All people directly benefit from clean air, clean water and clean soil.

Please provide concrete examples and data supporting your unsubstantiated claims and I will either agree or I will disagree and post examples and data to substantiate my disagreement(s).

You just contradicted your post#55 where you said:

"I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil. In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents"

The part bolded by me shows that you think government creates new technologies and it's up to government to push private business to create products. My argument against that is the concrete examples of the telephone, cameras, film, airplanes, and so many other products developed by private industry against the established products of their times. Anyone who has flown in a plane, driven a car or used the phone doesn't need any more proof.

 

[limr]

I am surprised no one has mentioned another hidden environmental cost of electric cars: nickel mining for the batteries as well as the toxicity of piles of dead batteries.

 

[petrochemist]

I am surprised no one has mentiones another hidden environmental cost of electric cars: nickel mining for the batteries as well as the toxicity of piles of dead batteries.

The toxicity of the batteries been mentioned at least a couple of times, none specifically mentioned nickel because it's only used in a fraction of the battery options.

 

[Overread]

Alan I think the key with green developments is not that private companies need help bringing new products to the market; but that many green alternatives are often more expensive/complex/require new developments/investment et c... Ergo they are often a more involved process, so most private companies are more inclined to go with cheaper/more affordable alternatives.

There's also the aspect that going green isn't actually adding new things to society but changing how we deliver current services/products. So its a more expensive approach going against an already established line of products that deliver the same/more for less cost. This is without considering the costs of changing infrastructures; which all other things being equal is a huge cost for companies on mass production.

So it makes sense that governments would issues grants and the like to encourage the market to flourish or at least allow it to compete so that you get private companies taking it up. The only other option would be the government developing and producing such assets on its own.


Also don't forget laws and the government have helped loads in the past with regard to new products and inventions.

 

[smoke665]

There's no doubt that looking for alternative energy sources makes sense. We seriously considered a solar grid when we built our house, but the payback on the system wasn't feasible. We have an excellent spot for a wind unit but unfortunately the "sustained" wind isn't available. Ultimately we did go with a very simple energy efficient home with a passive solar design. One end of the house is two stories of insulated low e glass situated to catch most of the sun travel. In the winter when the sun is lower we get heat (UV) in the summer when the sun is higher it reflects the heat (UV). So far we have no complaints. Our all electric, utility bill has yet to hit $300 in the heat of summer or cold of winter.

As I have an abundance of trees available I've seriously considered building a wood gas fired generator, using a conventional 4 cylinder auto engine. Cheap and easy to build, but given that our monthly bill is so reasonable I can't justify even that.

Micro hydro plants for those who have the location, can and do perform great. We almost bought a home site that had a year round spring capable of powering a hydro plant that would have provided 100% of our needs plus extra to be sold, but the property location was just to far from anything.

Coastal locations have another source of energy. Wave action powered generators. No noise, relatively easy to construct. Given the interest in electric vehicles I'm surprised that hydrogen fuel cell technology hasn't moved ahead faster.
5 Fast Facts about Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

The point to my ramblings is that it doesn't have to be a "one size fits all" mentality.

 

[astroNikon]

I am surprised no one has mentiones another hidden environmental cost of electric cars: nickel mining for the batteries as well as the toxicity of piles of dead batteries.

Any heavy metal mining may have ecological consequences. That's why there is (hopefully will continue to have) a lot of regulation.

You may hear of rivers of weird color; especially in China these days where the land and water are poisoned with heavy metals.
examples ==> China cracks down on heavy metal pollution

and speaking of wind turbines ==> In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Daily Mail Online

This used to be the way in Mexico too when manufacturing shifted to Mexico due to low cost labor and minimal regulation.
example ==> Tijuana's Toxic Waters

battery recycling - well, just watch the History Channel enough and you can see some of the battery recycling, but of course that isn't 100%. I'd hate to even guess how low a % it is for batteries globally.

I cannot recall which state/river it was out west, but the new gov't recinding/held up regulation which would affected the cost of cleanup for the companies creating waste into the local rivers of other heavy metals. A river of Red as I recall the last couple years when I read of the ecological impact. Such as this ==> 230 Colorado mines are leaking heavy metals into state rivers – The Denver Post

 

[astroNikon]

There's no doubt that looking for alternative energy sources makes sense. We seriously considered a solar grid when we built our house, but the payback on the system wasn't feasible. We have an excellent spot for a wind unit but unfortunately the "sustained" wind isn't available. Ultimately we did go with a very simple energy efficient home with a passive solar design. One end of the house is two stories of insulated low e glass situated to catch most of the sun travel. In the winter when the sun is lower we get heat (UV) in the summer when the sun is higher it reflects the heat (UV). So far we have no complaints. Our all electric, utility bill has yet to hit $300 in the heat of summer or cold of winter.

As I have an abundance of trees available I've seriously considered building a wood gas fired generator, using a conventional 4 cylinder auto engine. Cheap and easy to build, but given that our monthly bill is so reasonable I can't justify even that.

Micro hydro plants for those who have the location, can and do perform great. We almost bought a home site that had a year round spring capable of powering a hydro plant that would have provided 100% of our needs plus extra to be sold, but the property location was just to far from anything.

Coastal locations have another source of energy. Wave action powered generators. No noise, relatively easy to construct. Given the interest in electric vehicles I'm surprised that hydrogen fuel cell technology hasn't moved ahead faster.
5 Fast Facts about Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

The point to my ramblings is that it doesn't have to be a "one size fits all" mentality.

My house is open to the sky on the east, south and some west.
So I looked into the local electric company who had ads for "free" Solar. They actually came out to my house trying to sell me their system. Nice system, but their payback is based on the system, during the day when I'm not home, sending power back onto the grid (which they aren't accepting any more) to lower my monthly costs. My current electrical costs are sometimes under $30 a month up to $80 in the summer with A/C. The $20k system had a 20 year payback which they calculated would be the money put back into the grid (except the grid wasn't accepting any new chargeback power).

I didn't go with it. I wanted battery power too for backup to another hobby.

I've been dabbling in solar and will be expanding my 300w solar panels, which I use marine batteries to maintain a power system for emergencies. There are times in the area when we lose power. Granted I probably won't ever have enough battery power to run the A/C, but I will probably be able to run the furnace from time to time, once it's built up enough. Until then at least a couple LED light bulbs when there's no power.

but once you add up the total cost, maintenance cost, and replacing batteries in a 3-5 year cycles, it's not economical. It's just a neat hobby. This to support the AmatuerRadio in case of local municipality emergencies; which actually doesn't take much. The radios from 20 years ago pale in comparison to the miniturization we have today. My radio is small by comparison back then. The antenna system is the thing that can take some power.

 

[smoke665]

@astroNikon We were at the max point during construction, having already exceeded our budget, but I really wanted to put in a Geothermal HVAC, http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/17/10-myths-about-geothermal-heating-and-cooling/ in conjunction with a small lake. We may still convert to that in the future. The pay back is pretty attractive.

 

[pendennis]

In the mid-1800's, the U.S. government inserted itself into the transcontinental railroad project. The government chose the two railroad companies to connect "east and west". The cost overruns were horrendous, land costs outlandish, and the meeting at Promontory Point was a staged event, as the competitors built parallel lines, which never really met.

Compare that to the construction of the Great Northern Railroad, which was privately funded and built. The owners paid fair prices for land, and still turned a fair profit.

 

[AlanKlein]

Every time someone suggests the government provide incentives to get private industry to do things, I think of a couple of a couple of examples.

The "oil depletion allowance" is one. This was an incentive to get oil companies to drill more oil wells and compensate them for loss of production. The concept was that since wells deplete as the oil is pumped out, Congress granted the big oil companies tax deductions for each barrel pumped. Of course, when everyone realized that the companies were just going to dig new oil wells anyway, they finally stopped the deduction. Seems kinda of silly now. Exxon, Texaco, Sunoco and others loved it and wish for the good ole days.

Another one is the 10% ethanol requirements in gasoline created from growing corn. The idea was to reduce the need for oil which also burns dirtier. Of course, the corn growing states pushed the idea as it;s a boon for farmers. The downsize everyone didn't think of was that the cost for feed that cows and pigs eat goes up raising the cost of food for poorer people and everyone else. We still have this silly law because the corn states wield a lot of power in Congress. The law of unintended consequences at work.

Now they offer rich people tax credits to use green energy for Tesla cars and solar panels made by the Chinese paid for by poorer people's taxes who can't afford these systems. We really should shut Washington down. They cause more problems and spend more of our money than they're worth.

 

[waday]

I am surprised no one has

I've been trying to stay out of the discussion, because it makes my brain sad. I never understood why certain discussions turn into government bashing. In addition, there are far too many anecdotes in this discussion for my liking.

We really should shut Washington down. They cause more problems and spend more of our money than they're worth.

While the gov't has done some pretty stupid things, it's also done some pretty great things.

While corporations have done some pretty great things, they've also done some pretty stupid things.

To indicate that problems would be solved by shutting the government down ignores the fact that new problems would arise from having no government.

 

[Gary A.]

I never said the government invented any of those things.

To clarify, the government is attempting to get green technology established by offering incentives. Private sector tax incentives are provided to all. Private sector incentives are designed to make new green technologies as affordable as older cheaper less energy efficient and dirty technologies. All people directly benefit from clean air, clean water and clean soil.

Please provide concrete examples and data supporting your unsubstantiated claims and I will either agree or I will disagree and post examples and data to substantiate my disagreement(s).

You just contradicted your post#55 where you said:

"I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil. In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents"

The part bolded by me shows that you think government creates new technologies and it's up to government to push private business to create products. My argument against that is the concrete examples of the telephone, cameras, film, airplanes, and so many other products developed by private industry against the established products of their times. Anyone who has flown in a plane, driven a car or used the phone doesn't need any more proof.

"The part bolded by me shows that you think government creates new technologies and it's up to government to push private business to create products."

It most certainly does not! In no way do I say that government creates new technologies.

But governments do fund new inventions. I was speaking to engineers working for Rockwell and Litton regarding space exploration. They stated that a schedule of inventions required to set a man on the Moon was actually calendared into the project timeline. As in, we need to invent something that does this by June, something that can do that by September.

How about Tang? How about an atomic bomb? Ad infinitum ... Governments, across the eons and around the world have underwritten the development thereof and directed created new inventions. Are governments the only source of new inventions ... no. But I was not speaking to inventions, I was speaking to government offering incentives in order to make a level monetary playing field between old, established, dirty, less efficient products and new, unestablished, clean, more efficient products.

Tesla, as an example, with the help of government is now able to offer electric vehicles at a significantly lower price making them more attractive and affordable for the middle class ... not just the rich.

 

[smoke665]

How about Tang? How about an atomic bomb?

Tesla, as an example, with the help of government is now able to offer electric vehicles at a significantly lower price

Not sure I can disagree with you on the Gov. subsidies for research, but at the same time - have you ever tasted Tang??? That stuff is gross? and the atomic bomb??? Not sure that was such a good thing. And Tesla - I'm not sure that an equal amount of investment in established auto makers wouldn't have been a better choice to spend the money.
Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Course an even better solution would be for Gov. to simply cut the taxes in the first place rather than thinking they are better at choosing where the money should be spent, but that's another story for another time.

 

[Gary A.]

How about Tang? How about an atomic bomb?

Tesla, as an example, with the help of government is now able to offer electric vehicles at a significantly lower price

Not sure I can disagree with you on the Gov. subsidies for research, but at the same time - have you ever tasted Tang??? That stuff is gross? and the atomic bomb??? Not sure that was such a good thing. And Tesla - I'm not sure that an equal amount of investment in established auto makers wouldn't have been a better choice to spend the money.
Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Course an even better solution would be for Gov. to simply cut the taxes in the first place rather than thinking they are better at choosing where the money should be spent, but that's another story for another time.

As we seem to addressing the United States government ... with democratically elected representatives ... all the spending of tax dollars can be construed as a direct interpretation of the will of the people. Again, if we are speaking of the United States, like it or not, you cannot separate government spending from the voter. An argument can be made that Tang was a step towards the International Space Station, (albeit a very small step). If you speak to WWII veterans, soldiers and Marines who were deployed to attack Japan ... I suspect nearly every single one of them and their families think that the invention of 'the bomb' was a blessing. (During WWII, "Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.) Additionally, the government investment into an atomic weapon was the foundation for all later nuclear technologies, including energy and medicine, et al.

(While I am not a proponent of atomic weapons ... and I am a proponent of a nuclear weapon free world ... I do think that nuclear technology, if used responsibly can be a very good think.)

 

[AlanKlein]

How about Tang? How about an atomic bomb?

Tesla, as an example, with the help of government is now able to offer electric vehicles at a significantly lower price

Not sure I can disagree with you on the Gov. subsidies for research, but at the same time - have you ever tasted Tang??? That stuff is gross? and the atomic bomb??? Not sure that was such a good thing. And Tesla - I'm not sure that an equal amount of investment in established auto makers wouldn't have been a better choice to spend the money.
Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Course an even better solution would be for Gov. to simply cut the taxes in the first place rather than thinking they are better at choosing where the money should be spent, but that's another story for another time.

Thanks for the link to Tesla. Reading the article gives some interesting facts. The incentive to buy that costs the nation's taxpayers $7500 per Tesla car plus an additional $2500 in California. Meanwhile the typical buyer makes $320,000 a year and is in the top 1% of earners, maybe even higher. Musk is worth $10 billion mainly at the bequeath of state and federal money paid by gullible taxpayers who've been sold a bill of goods that the rich need an electric sports car to park in one of their three garages in their million dollar homes because it's going to stop global warming and keep the seas from rising. We're all a bunch of saps.