How to Sell Electric Vehicle/Solar Power?

[Badbeams3]

Ok, here is my sales pitch...First...move to where the sun shines a lot...Florida. Second...move to Lazy Electric City...here...in LEC...life is great! First off...the solar stuff doesn`t cost that much...you save on the roof...no wood to be eaten by termites...no shingles to be replaced every 15 years. Solar panels are the roof with strong 6 inch foam backing. These homes are designed from the ground up with cheap carefree living in mind. No wood studs (0 termites, there metal. Heavy insulation, energy effecient air/heat, solar hot water and pool heating. Energy star ratings on every thing...refrige, washer/dryer...floresant/led lighting...LCD TV ect. Grid tie...with small power out inverter/batt back up (enough for a day). The builder has purchased bulk solar...and your lucky day...is passing the saving on to you. As you enjoy a cruise, trip to Europe, your solar home will be earning you money ever day with help from the Florida sun. Enough about these fantasticly affordable homes...lets look at your new friendly "town/city".

Encompassing around 20 miles of beatifuly landscaped golf courses, lakes stocked with fish, you will find smooth golf cart trails winding through ever changing senic veiws. A few miles to the west you will find the sun drenched Gulf of Mexico with miles of clean white sandy beaches. In the center of your new community you will find town center. All kinds of resteraunts, theaters ect. A few miles to the north you will find every thing you need, Super Wallmart, Target, grocery stores, Radio Shack, Best buy, Computer city, Home Depot, Lowes...and Flashlight World.

Enjoy boating and fishing? Rent one the solar electric boats for a trip through crystal clear spring fed rivers and inter-connected lakes. For longer trips try one of the fully equiped solar house boats for a memerable vacation with your family. Of course you can bring your own, but only electrics are allowed.

No reason to pay for car insurance, car payment, mantainance or gas...you won`t need a car (up to a $400 a month savings). In fact, with your home purchase, the builder will include a 5 seat golf cart (we like to call them "fun cars") capable of traveling 20~30 mph. You can be any where in your new city in less than 15 minutes...or take an hour or two drive through the winding paths to simply enjoy. Smart chargers are located through out the city so you can charge while you shop should you need too.

Need a gas car? We got you covered! Your membership includes deep dicounts at any of our car rental places.

Still want to work? We got you covered...our electric commuter trains can get you into three major cities in less than a half hour and operate from 6 am till 11pm mon~fri.

Ok, thats my pitch. EV and solar could be practical...in cities of the future.

Ken

 

[ikendu]

Sounds great. Post a link.

 

[Darell]

This thread is great guys. I'm keeping a bit more quiet than usual for a couple of reasons.

1. I already know what I have to say. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
2. I'm enjoying the discussion without my input.
3. I'm just barely getting caught up with everything from my last trip and preparing for the next one.

As expected, Brock and Ikendu have expressed many of my thoughts. Ikendu's last post especially made the bigger points I had hoped to make.

Folks often only want to speak of the almighty dollar in these things. And justifiably so. The problem is that there are so many aspects that are difficult or impossible to quantify. The added burden of health care for people effected by air and water pollution. The money spent on guarding our oil supply with military personnel. How about the people who die because of today's traditional energy sources? I can't figure out what price to put on that. Money makes the world go 'round. But what of being proper stewards of our earth, and our moral obligation to future generations? What price do we put on that? Impossible questions to answer.

The peak-shaving business is a bigger one than is being given credit for. Power plants are built to peak needs. If we can't supply peak power, then we've failed. So for maybe 90% of every day we have more capacity than we need, and we've paid to build it, and we pay to waste the energy from it when it is at "idle." Solar does a fantastic job of supplying local (and that local part is a big deal too, since there are no line losses) during PEAK times. So if you compare kWh to kWh between solar and, say, a coal-fired plant, you're looking at large benefits in the solar column that go beyond the easy, simple production/pollution numbers. When we speak of grid power costing 10c/kWh, we ignore the fact that those using lots of peak power are being heavily subsidized by those of us who use little or no peak power.

So, how do we sell the PV/EV idea? Simple - hire the guys who have convinced the motoring public that H2 FCVs are the thing to strive for as our holy grail. How have "we" been convinced that a product that can never be as cheap as BEVs, that uses fuel 75% LESS efficiently than a BEV, that we won't see for 10, 15, maybe 20 years... will be our salvation? Who ever they are, hire them. The SAME companies that have said EVs are too expensive to make are now saying that they're fully behind this FCV idea. Something ain't right. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

As an aside, I just drove in a parade today with FOUR FCVs. Three Toyota Highlanders and a Nissan SUV. There I was in my little electric Rav surrounded by no less than $4 MILLION in FCV's /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Darell]

Great stuff, Muppet!

[ QUOTE ]
Muppet said:
Gasoline has just incredible, unimaginable energy density compared to more-or-less any alternative we have right now and it's incredibly cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]"Cheap at the pump" to be more accurate. Gasoline is NOT cheap, though it is of course energy dense. WE pay far more for gasoline than you'll ever see at the pump. And that is part of the tragedy.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read http://smallisprofitable.org/ - it's Amory Lovin's latest book, and it's a long analysis of where renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, can actually be profitable. Usually by the time you factor in grid maintainence costs and peak load factors, renewables are much, much better performers than if you just rate kWh costs.

[/ QUOTE ]I have not read it, but now have it on my to-read list. Thanks! Yes, the not-so-obvious costs the energy and power we use today is important, and almost always overlooked when we compare kWh costs. It does sound like a good read, but might make me even more obnoxious when I have more info under my belt. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks again!

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
CNC Dan said:
Lets not forget that alt. energy will allow us to tell the middle east to go f*** themselvs.

[/ QUOTE ]And that, as the popular Visa commercials will attest, is priceless.

 

[BB]

Hi Guys,

There is a reason that I look at the 2x as a "nice" increase in economy--because it is just at the edge of making a difference that everyone can agree on.

Look, right now, gasoline may double in price in about 1 year--and if history is any guide, it will drop back down to a similar level that it was last year. It is just the law of supply and demand. As supply drops, demand and prices increase, people open (or re-open) wells as they pump more crude at the higher price, then the market gets flooded, and the price starts to drift back down (while the rest of the goods ratchet up in price due to inflation)...

Right now folks are spending roughly 50% more for a car that gets 60-50 mpg vs one that gets 32-40 mpg today with a much simpler drive train (Toyota Prius vs Corolla). Heck, back in 1970, my dad got 36-40 mpg in our family Corolla (after he "fixed" the smog controls).

IMHO, hybrids are just a stop-gap that don't even double the mileage on a plain old Corolla. Again, I am happy for the fuel use reduction... but it will still not be a fundamental shift in the way we do business... To a degree, a somewhat more fuel efficient car will allow folks to drive more that they would have before (I am certainly guilty of this--I drive a 30 mpg car much more that I would the 16 mpg pick-up truck)--so my fuel usage was not cut in half when I got the car with a better mpg rating. The better mileage ratings allow me to go father on the same tank of gas (and all of the negatives that go along with that).

At this point in time, diesels are still 10x worst at polluting vs a "very clean" gasoline car. I cannot even buy a new VW diesel in California (last I checked). The MSNBC link still documents pollution issues, for now. Lots of hard work may change this next year, or 10 years from now. (by the way, I could not get the 2002 Bio-Diesel link to work in IE--maybe it is my spam/spyware protection?). But I do not want to go backwards in other areas just for a small increase in fuel mileage (and according to my personal criteria I have posted in this thread, a 10x increase in pollution is a huge deal).

Ikendu--sorry I could not get the link Bio-Diesel Presentation to work (I see chapter headings only), but a rough back of the envelope calculation: If we use roughly 150 (120-160?) Billion Gallons / Year of Gasoline and Diesel, and we get 10,000 gallons per acre from algae farms (640 acres/sq. mile). We would need about 23,000 sq. miles (or roughly 13% of every existing body of water in the US--181,500 sq. miles) to be converted to algae farms. And if they are off by a factor of two on their conversion efficiencies, we would need to cover 25% of every body of water with Bio-Diesel farms. And this is only for 27% of the total energy consumed in the US per year. Clearly, this would be a significant impact on the environment of the US (again, sorry that I cannot read the link--I am probably missing some important details--again, I am just trying for approximate numbers--not exact solution at this point).

Numbers from:
PDF: Energy Highlights for the US (150 bgal of gas/diesel is from other sources, but is pretty close wrt to this PDF summary).
World Facts and Figures
Ikendu Link (chapter heading: Algae Farms for BioDiesel? 10,000+ gal/acre?)

Also, if we believe that an increase in CO2 levels are a bad thing, then Bio-Diesel still only is a 20%-30% reduction over a gasoline powered car (plus or minus).

I am also looking at the long term issues outside of the US and Europe--When China, India, and others try to have a US/European level of "comfort"--those extra few billion people, even if they are 60 mpg cars, are going to simply suck-up and swamp any savings that we may have created here. If I had something that used 1/10 (or less) of the amount of oil, then there is a chance that others will also be able to improve their quality of life without damaging the environment as much.

Lastly--regarding Bio-Diesel, I am probably not going to install oil heat and electricity in my home (I am not even sure that I would want to convince my local city/environmental folks to let me bury a fuel oil take in my front yard).

The above reasons are why I am leaning heavily towards a solar installation. Don't get me wrong, engineering improvements are a series of incremental improvements--and changing something by 25-50% is no easy feat. But, if we (I) are to be convinced to spend some serious money over and above a "conventional" solution, then it should be, hands down, a much better something (reduced oil, less pollution, prettier colors, something).

I will be more than happy to spend time in the Bio-Diesel thread--but I would really like to look at the Solar/EV's here for now. Again, because it is something that I can do today (even if the EV is a used/conversion or possibly a smaller golf-cart type vehicle for around town).

I think that trying to discuss B.D. (or even the pros and cons of time of use/demand metering of electricity) is going to drown the intent of the thread--which was to try and sell Solar/EV's to the mass market. The 2x solutions (I don't really want to discuss here) vs the 10x solutions (which I am very interested in discussing here) was the dividing line that I am trying to follow.

If we look at 2x solutions, then we are going to be looking at hybrids and conservation--and miss an opportunity to really change the whole way we deal with energy in the world.

I am sorry if I sound like a broken record--But the above back of the envelope discussions I was hoping to have about Solar Panels and EV's.

Sincerely,
-Bill

 

[ikendu]

BB said: ...I am leaning heavily towards a solar installation.

Great! I think Darell's reasoning is quite sound about the peak electricity thing. Locally installed solar panels make a lot of sense, especially in California (sun and tax incentives?).

I'm reading two books on electric conversions right now:
Convert It ...Michael Brown
Build your own electric vehicle ...Bob Brant

I've finished the first and starting on the second.

My intended project is a Mazda Miata. To make that work, I must have high density batteries that will work well in cold weather (lithium ion or lithium polymer). Although, I think if you really wanted an electric commuter vehicle today, you could probably convert something like an S10 truck (with decent load capacity) and use lead acid golf cart batteries. The golf cart batteries are "mass produced" with well developed, commerical recycling available.

I want to either find or do my own calculations of the 200,000 mile operations/maintenance cost for an EV based on the golf cart battery technology. Meanwhile, though, while I am reading, researching, thinking and posting...I'm driving my "pure solar" BD car every day. Now that it is warmer, I filled up on pure, 100% non-petroleum fuel just yesterday! ...got my vehicle "off the lot" and I will have great resale when and if I ever sell it! This morning I've been invited to speak at a church on the theme of "Earth Stewardship" ...and BioDiesel! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

BTW...for the points you've raised about BioDiesel, I've got researched answers for them all! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you really want to explore that, look up one of my biodiesel threads, post a summary of your points and I will be very happy to answer them all (and research any for which I don't have answers). For example, there are enough "McDonalds fryers" around right now (@ 3 billion gallons of waste oil/yr) to provide annual fuel for 8,797,653 vehicles like my 2003 VW Golf TDI (@ 341 gallons/yr). That's just to get us started.

So...as far as solar panels & EV, great idea! Go for it!

In the end, I don't think it will be "one thing" that gets us from here to there. If Solar and EVs seems like a great idea for you, by all means...get on with it and join the club! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

I've been websearching on EVs and especially the Dodge Ram HEV...

I must be reading very old info. Most stuff I'm reading talks of small cars going 100 miles MAX.

The Dodge is not a step far enough forward for me to even DREAM of trying to finance one. I think the way the Prius operates is more of a target for HEVs.

Do I have a hope of a pure EV based on a big pickup, that can go at least 150 miles on a charge (or 100 with quick charging)?

Aww, who am I trying to fool? Financially I am LIGHT YEARS from HEV or Pure EV anyway.

 

[Brock]

Here you go. Now if only it had a bit more range in all electric and a bit more room for my family, maybe next years model.

http://www.l3research.com/vehicles/enigma/specifications.htm

Darell do you have info on this? Have you heard of them?

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
Brock said:
Darell do you have info on this? Have you heard of them?

[/ QUOTE ]Was just pointed to them myself, actually. Of note is that they use the best controller on the market - the ACP unit. This is the dream technology, certainly!

Playboy - a 150 mile EV truck is not unreasonable. If the ZEV mandate had remained in effect, I dare say we'd have them today. If we can do a 300-mile sports car (check) we can do a 150 mile truck certainly. I don't know if you'd like it though. Might have too much torque. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif None of this stuff will be reasonably priced until we start to embrace the technology. Today's hand-built units simply can't compete.

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
PlayboyJoeShmoe said:
I must be reading very old info. Most stuff I'm reading talks of small cars going 100 miles MAX.

[/ QUOTE ]The 1999 NiMH EV1 was easily going 150 miles (on ten-year-old battery technology, mind you) and several folks were topping 200 miles/charge. My Rav is rated at 130 miles/charge. If I only drive around town or in stop-and-go freeway traffic, I can see 150 miles. High-speed is what kills me in this car though because of the barn-door aerodynamics. Still, at constant freeway speeds, I regularly do 100 miles.

[ QUOTE ]
The Dodge is not a step far enough forward for me

[/ QUOTE ]The American makers aren't taking much of a step at all, are they? So called "mild hybrids" are about the minimum you can do to proudly display the "hybrid" placard, I guess. Sad.I can already read the writing on the wall: Well, we made the "hybrids" and nobody wanted to spend the extra $3,000 for the 0.023 mpg gain. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif Now, who wants a V12?

 

[Darell]

OK, as expected, I got a bit more info on the (water) pollution that might occur in the production of PV cells.
------------------------------------------
From: http://www.homepower.com/files/HP100_32.pdf - pasting the relevant part here so it is easier to find.

Myth: Solar-electric module production is toxic to the environment.

A while back, there was a media barrage claiming that
photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing was extremely hazardous
to the environment. PV manufacturing does require the use
of chemicals that are designated as toxic by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Employee safety is
paramount during the manufacturing process, and
chemicals used must be disposed of in an environmentally
sound manner.

The federally funded National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) researched the media claims and
concluded, "By using well-designed industrial processes
and careful monitoring, PV manufacturers have
minimized risks to where they are far less than those in
most major industries. All of these risks fall well within
the range already protected by OSHA and similar
regulations."

A thorough analysis of the environmental impact that
various energy sources have on the environment must
take into account the net effect of a given source over the
source's operational lifetime. When you compare the
environmental impact of PV technology to traditional
energy sources like coal and nuclear energy, PV comes out
on top, hands down.

Nukes produce nuclear waste, and even after spending
billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars, no acceptable
disposal solution has been brought to the table. Fossil-fuelbased
energy sources like coal produce air pollution over
the power plant's entire operational lifetime—as long as it's
running, it's polluting. Burning coal releases sulfur dioxide,
which results in acid rain; nitrogen oxide, which results in
smog; carbon dioxide, which results in global warming;
particulates, which result in lung damage; and an array of
heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and mercury, which result in
birth defects and brain damage.

On the other end of the spectrum, PVs produce no
emissions and require no use of finite fuel sources. PVs
manufactured today are expected to be producing energy 50
years from now. PVs offset all the energy used to manufacture
them (embodied energy) in two to four years in most locations.
Fossil, nuclear, or solar—which energy source would you want
in your backyard?

—Joe Schwartz • [email protected]

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

Sigh. Like I said before. My Next vehicle will be a Cummins Turbo (probably 4 valve) diesel powered Dodge Ram. Of course I would prefer the new common rail Cummins, but dislike that I couldn't get a supercab instead of a 4 door if I paid double!

I need that much truck to haul my Knapheide Service Body and TommyLift around. And I can work better out of a cab with rear opening back doors. And I should get at least 35% better mileage with the Dodge.

MAYBE the vehicle after that (or in addition to) will be an EV. I could probably do 70 - 80% of my job with a mini truck (or station wagon car). And we are looking at moving out into the boonies one day in the not too distant future. Perhaps I'll be able to put in solar then.

I am still fascinated by this subject, and REALLY hope to be driving a pure EV one of these days!

Thanks to all who are participating in this and the other threads!

 

[BB]

Coal is a pretty nasty fuel--it is unfortunate in a way, that the US has some 500 years worth of coal deposits available to burn.

Just to get an idea of the amount of coal we burn in the US... ~1.1 billion tons per year for electricity or about 7,000 lbs for every man, woman, and child in the US... For my family of four, that is 28,000 lbs (13,000 kg) of coal stacked up in the back yard per year.

Why do "we" put up with the huge amount of coal and coal by-products? Here is an interesting DOE Factoid:

[ QUOTE ]
Except for a post-oil-embargo price spike that peaked in 1975, real (inflation adjusted) coal prices have generally fallen over the last half-century. The average price in 1999 was 47 percent lower than it was in 1949. Even before the steep price runups for natural gas and crude oil in 2000, coal was the least expensive of the major fossil fuels in this country. In nominal dollars, 2000 production prices for coal were 80 cents per million Btu compared with $3.24 per million Btu for natural gas and $4.61 per million Btu for crude oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a 4x to 6x price difference per BTU, "people will move mountains" (of coal and ash that is).

-Bill

 

[ikendu]

Yes...

Too bad Coal is so cheap and "out of sight, out of mind".

We've had Compact Flourescent Light (CFL) bulb technology (uses a quarter of the power) for years, but hardly anyone uses them. Why? Electricity is cheap enough that even though you'd save money, it just isn't a priority for people.

The "other costs" of coal are hidden and remote.

...more CO2 in our air (it IS invisible after all)
...mining deaths/illness
...destruction of vast areas of ecosystem (where?...no where WE look)
...other chemical pollutants (sulfur, etc.)

We've succeeded in making energy cheap enough (gasoline cheaper than bottled water?) that energy use has become unimportant for most people. But the "hidden costs" are still there (and quite real) and the energy dependencies are just as dangerous even though not as apparent. After all, when President Bush #1 was asked if we were going to the first Persian Gulf war for oil his answer was...

"No, not oil, it is for jobs, jobs, jobs."

It was a lame answer, and not true at all, but virtually everyone "looked the other way" rather than at the truth. As a society, we don't want to believe we are killing other people in their own native land for energy. We don't want to see it. So...it remains "hidden" like the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

Although, "apparently cheap" energy has enabled a wonderfully high standard of living for those of us in the U.S. It is just too bad that we waste energy so freely.

We have a law on the books called the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standard ( CAFE ). It presently sits at 27.5 mpg (hasn't changed since 1985). Light trucks have a different standard and heavy trucks (including SUVs) have NO standard (when I was trying to research mileage of large trucks with the Cummins diesel engine...I had a hard time finding any stats...nobody has them...'cause they don't have to)

We now have the Ford Escape SUV that gets something like 38 mpg.

But...even with that, auto manufacturers have resisted changing the CAFE standard even a little bit (and...so we have not changed it).

 

[BB]

[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
We've succeeded in making energy cheap enough (gasoline cheaper than bottled water?) that energy use has become unimportant for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we stop quoting that? I just purchased a couple of cases of bottled water (Costco: Item #290929 - Arrowhead Spring Water, 28/24 oz bottles) for something like $8 (or maybe even $6 something on sale--I don't remember exactly). At $8 per case, that works out to $1.52 / gal (plus CRV). I have not paid $1.52 a gallon for gas in the SF Bay Area for quite a while.

And in any case, I am a really smart guy. I would simply take the water hose from my house and fill the car with it-- is it only $0.0028 per gallon ($2.00 per hundred cubic feet). Actually, I did try to do this when I was five years old--but my Dad had locking gas caps so I tried to fill it up through the tail pipe instead. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
After all, when President Bush #1 was asked if we were going to the first Persian Gulf war for oil his answer was...

"No, not oil, it is for jobs, jobs, jobs."

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not find that quote anywhere using Google???

By the way, I am trying to have this not be a political thread about Solar and EV's... I really wanted to focus on costs, positive benefits, and any possible stumbling blocks that would prevent Solar/EV's from being widely used and accepted. The "old" arguments have not gotten us very far yet... I wanted to make a compelling reason, both financially and technically sound, as to why more people should make similar decisions that Darrell and Brock (and Ikendu) have made to get off of fossil fuels...

-Bill

 

[Darell]

Fortunately for you guys, I'm once again preparing to leave town for a week. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think that one huge factor in making alternative energy more attractive is in removing all the subsidies from traditional energy sources. We are NOT on a level playing field here. It has been pointed out before, in passing, but I think this needs more attention. What we pay at the pump is not indicative of what Americans pay for that gallon of gasoline. By some accounts, it isn't even close to the actual cost. Electricity is similar in that off-peak customers are subsidizing the on-peak customers. Often what your bill shows is NOT what the product really costs. And how about power customers who use coal (or other nasties) as the main energy source? Do they pay directly for the down-stream air pollution? For the health care of the folks who are negatively effected? The fact of the matter is that we do not individually pay for the costs that we incur. So comparing new energy sources to these old ones is a difficult task indeed. The magical 10X benefit may be there, but it is so mired in politics and tax laws so as to be almost invisible. When was the last time somebody really thought about how much that gallon of gas was costing them? People look at the pump price and assume that's what it costs. Doesn't work that way, unfortunately. Hard numbers? Almost impossible to come by. Best estimates are that it costs Americans between $5 and $15 per gallon of gas right now. We only pay a very small percentage of that at the pump however.

The comparison to price of water was a sound one. Here you've purchased the cheapest brand of bottled water at arguably the cheapest place that sells it. And by Bill's metric of 2X not being significant, that water cost the same as gasoline! The same! Step up to something imported (like much of our oil?) and suddenly you could actually see something close to that magic 10X step that you've mentioned. For water. If anybody here thinks that it costs the same to create and distribute gasoline as it costs to harvest and distribute water.... woooh boy, do I have a bridge to sell you! This water-to-gas comparison is quite valid and should not be swept under the rug. And unfortunately politics is (are?) just as important. I agree that finger-pointing doesn't get us very far, but these discrepancies in price didn't happen from market demand alone.

Bottom line - we simply can't compare the price of gasoline that we pay at the pump, to the price of alternative energy sources.

Next we seriously need to take away the energy-hog loop holes. That full-size trucks and SUVs are exempt (by weight measurement alone) from CAFE standards is a crime. New SUVs are now being built to purposefully surpass weight limits so they don't count in the CAFE numbers. Some Suburbans have been pushed over 8,000 pounds, I believe the new VW SUV is 6,001 pounds. Not by accident, but to circumvent the rules. Ironincally, in order to sell more inefficient cars, automakers just need to make some of them substantially less efficient by increasing their weight, and presto, they get a free ride.

You guys are aware that the heaviest, most polluting new vehicles can today be purchased at HUGE tax savings, right?

Tax loophole 1
Tax loophole 2
Tax loophole 3
Tax loophole 4

A Hummer H2 now can cost about the same as I paid for my Honda Civic. Did I mention that politics has something to do with this little "problem" we have here?

 

[BB]

Oh Come-On Darrell--

If I purchased gasoline in 28oz bottles, I would expect to pay more. Gas out of a hose vs water out of a hose ($2/$0.0028)= a 714:1 ratio. Not even close. The price of the water in those bottles is virtually nothing--the cost is all in the packaging and handling (and taxes).

$15/Gallon x 150 billion gallons of Gas and Diesel / yr for the US = $2.25 Trillion

The entire US Federal Budget for 2002 is $2 Trillion Dollars.

Darrell, if you are saying that the entire US Federal Government (or roughly 1/2 the Fed and 1/2 the States) budgets are part of the price of Gasoline--Then, if we go Solar, we should be able to shut down the entire Federal Government... Hmmm--a very interesting proposal (I keep the military--they are less than 20% of the Federal Budget).

I, however, would argue that even if we were somehow 100% Solar, the politicians are not likely to slash their spending to zero--but figure-out, someway, to keep taxing us and spending our money.

If giving a 100% write-off to some business man that chooses to buy a Hummer is bad--then giving $10,000 to somebody that spends $20,000 on Solar--and make it 100% property tax free--is also a distortion of the market place (as well as a transfer of wealth). And that "Hummer" taxloophole is the same one that many small businesses use to purchase any new capital equipment (my wife used it years ago for her business to buy computer equipment). And remember, you have to have $100,000 in profit to deduct this from.

Darrell, I know that you are not suggesting the above arguments... But, when are dealing with such big numbers--I am very careful about making such huge claims. They may be true--but without context they many times don't make sense. And if they are complex arguments--they won't map down into a clear reason to buy solar (but really, your gasoline is costing you $15 dollars per gallon, not the $1.50 per gallon you are paying at the pump, that is why you should pay $20,000 for this solar installation and $30,000 for this mediocre Electric Car).

-Bill

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
If I purchased gasoline in 28oz bottles, I would expect to pay more. Gas out of a hose vs water out of a hose ($2/$0.0028)= a 714:1 ratio. Not even close. The price of the water in those bottles is virtually nothing--the cost is all in the packaging and handling (and taxes).

[/ QUOTE ]Well, the argument has always been one of buying bottled water vs. Gasoline. I'll present it another way - if you think that individual 28oz packaging costs the same as producing a gallone of gasoline, I'll sell you that same bridge.

[ QUOTE ]
$15/Gallon x 150 billion gallons of Gas and Diesel / yr for the US = $2.25 Trillion

[/ QUOTE ]I guess it is good that we aren't actually charged for human lives lost. Otherwise we'd be in a big hole.

[ QUOTE ]
The entire US Federal Budget for 2002 is $2 Trillion Dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]The Fed gov spends approximately $1 billion ever eight hours. Doesn't change the real (unknown) price of gasoline though.

[ QUOTE ]
I, however, would argue that even if we were somehow 100% Solar, the politicians are not likely to slash their spending to zero--but figure-out, someway, to keep taxing us and spending our money.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, you've just made two of my points. 1) that this has everything to do with politics, and 2) You can't put a realistic price tag on any of this stuff, so finding the cost equity of two forms of energy is almost impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
If giving a 100% write-off to some business man that chooses to buy a Hummer is bad--then giving $10,000 to somebody that spends $20,000 on Solar--and make it 100% property tax free--is also a distortion of the market place (as well as a transfer of wealth).

[/ QUOTE ]OK. Not sure what the point is. Yes, giving that write-off is "bad" in that it offers a huge incentive for business owners to drive one of the most destructive passenger vehicles on the road. And yes giving solar incentives "distorts" the market - but to the benefit of everyone. "Transfer of wealth?" I can afford to be part of the solution... I'm not sure that's so bad. I can also afford to buy a Hummer, but I don't. Which transfer of wealth would be best for us, and why, oh why, are we comparing these in this context?

[ QUOTE ]
And that "Hummer" taxloophole is the same one that many small businesses use to purchase any new capital equipment (my wife used it years ago for her business to buy computer equipment).

[/ QUOTE ]No, the loophole part is only the part added for the heaviest vehicles. The rest of it has many benefits. This particualr part, that allows dentists, real estate agents and jewelers to purchase these vehicles at a discount is the only "loop hope" part of it. There was a reason for this provision (farm vehicles). Other capital equipment is NOT part of the loop hole.

[ QUOTE ]
Darrell, I know that you are not suggesting the above arguments... But, when are dealing with such big numbers--I am very careful about making such huge claims. They may be true--but without context they many times don't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]Bit confused here. My main point is that we don't have the context of the numbers we're batting about. The cost of gas and the cost of electricity. My point was that we all need to be careful about these numbers, but they're brought up as the actual costs of these products - they are not. And I do now have the numbers. Did I say somewhere that I knew the actual cost of these items? I'm trying to be even MORE careful. Did I miss the mark?

[ QUOTE ]
And if they are complex arguments--they won't map down into a clear reason to buy solar

[/ QUOTE ]And there is the point I'm trying to make. It IS very complex, and won't map down into a clear reason unless we truly know all the expenses involved. We can guess, and speak of numbers we don't have substance for. But where does that get us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey look. I think we might be back (almost) on topic! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[BB]

Darrell,

Believe it or not, I am really trying to figure out how to convince my wife to do Solar Power (and perhaps a solar vehicle--even it if is not of a Rav4/EV-1 type vehicle).

Retail production price of Gasoline--I have posted that before. It is on the order of $0.50 per gallon from well to the pump nozzle. Price of bottled water at Costco from well to the point of sale... $1.52 / Gallon. Cost of water from well to hose end at my house $0.0028 per gallon. If we don't want to argue dollars and cents--fine.

In the end, we have to put some numbers in context. The Solar Panel manufacturer is not going to give me the panels for free, nobody is going to work for the manufacturer for free [unless we outsource to someplace like N. Korea /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ], nobody is going to give the manufacturer raw materials for free, nobody is going to install it for free, sell spare parts for free, etc.

But yet, we all think it is all well and good for our government to give our money away for free. I argue.. that long term, tax rebates are not sustainable--They may help start an industry--but I believe that the "excess" taxation required to first collect the "taxes" (with 50% of the money going to government overhead) has probably a bigger negative effect on businesses overall.

At this point, I don't think we really need to even discuss the Solar Panel part of it. Either you have the space to install it (and the weather to make it worth while) or not. I have posted a link for a solar calculator and the price of electricity vs grid power is probably close or within my 2x factor. If you include tax rebates--it most likely is.

The part that appears to be not available commercially is the highway capable vehicle right now. 100 miles range, ability to go 45-65 miles per hour for "short" ranges--an EV-1 or Rav4 EV type would work just fine. And at $30,000 (again, after tax rebates) for the Rav4 EV is probably a commercially viable product (even if Toyota says otherwise--one would be able to assume that mass production will drive down prices significantly).

The golf car type vehicles probably don't make as much sense as, from what I understand, they are limited to roads posted at 40 (or is it 35) mph or less. And a fair number of main roads in my area are 40-45 mph, or would be much quicker to take a couple of freeway miles for the trip.

In the end, it is my money that needs to be put in context, and the utility of the EV to me. Telling me that my $2.11 / gallon regular gasoline really costs me $5-$15 is pretty meaningless. I will be very happy to buy gas (or water) at $2 and sell it to you at $5-$15 per gallon. That is my bridge for you. You can pay the "real price" for the gasoline, and I will make a nice profit. I will even give a portion of the profit to our governments and hire somebody to deliver it to you in nice 28 oz bottles.

I guess, the above kinds of summarizes why I think taxes themselves are so highly counter productive. The government raises taxes to make gasoline be its "true" price ($5-$15 per gallon). And very soon, there will be millions of families with their 28,000 lbs of coal in their back yards. And using general taxes (income/property/other) to "cover" the cost of gasoline--Now, I have no motivation to cut my gasoline use--because I am not paying the "true" costs, only the subsidized costs. If, however, the oil companies were responsible for mitigation, habitat repair, chemical recycling, etc. and now the price of gas was $5/gallon and I paid it to them--well that is a good thing. I stop using gasoline and I won't have to pay the high prices anymore. Government, will not get the taxes to spend in some other unrelated area (welfare--whether corporate or for the poor), and I will have been directed towards that solution that has the least amount of impact on the environment.

By the way, here is an interesting article on, what are now becoming, throw-a-way cars:

[ QUOTE ]
Last fall, a brand new BMW 3-series car rolled into the Old Dominion Carstar Collision Center in Eugene, Ore. - literally. A teenager was "driving dad's car," says shop owner Patty McConnell, and rolled it over - with little apparent structural damage. The teen walked away, and normally the damage wouldn't have been hard to repair. But the BMW had so many air bags "it looked like a balloon," recalls Ms. McConnell. The new car, worth more than $30,000, was totaled.

Costly air bags, expensive electronics, and lightweight body materials are driving up the cost of fixing new cars. Not only do many more parts have to be replaced rather than repaired, but fewer and fewer body shops can afford the special equipment and training required to do the work."We're moving closer and closer to the disposable car," says Dan Bailey, an executive vice president at Carstar, the largest auto-body repair franchise in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless we are careful to look at the full life cycle costs of these new EVs (and even regular cars)--we run the risk that insurance costs are going to skyrocket because of the costs to repair high-tech bodies and electronics.

-Bill