It's started

[Seasoned Oak]

Their demo has shifted from car enthusiasts, to those who just want a pretentious badge on the most cheaply configured car.

Car enthusiasts are still alive!
What will a future Car Show ,Drag Race, Cruise night look like? Sure we will see the latest tech, but there are too many Car guys and gals that just are not giving up their Big Cu.In. toys any time soon. The sound ,the look ,the nostalgia will not be completely replaced by an electric motor and a battery . Granted many of us are boomers on our way out but were not going out with a whimper. Im planning my first muscle car purchase in 40Yrs.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Im planning my first muscle car purchase in 40Yrs.

You gotta follow your heart!

And the good news for enthusiasts is that "muscle cars" are likely to continue to drop in price. Cars that were once "unobtanium" to your average person will be available and affordable en masse. I think the incredible performance of modern cars, first by pushing performance using modern ICE technologies like EFI, VVT, DI, etc., now with even faster BEV's coming out, have caused some of the potential muscle car purchasers questioning just what it means to be a "muscle car". Because what it used to mean is you were first off the line and nobody could touch you. And that was cool. The muscle car reigned supreme, the evolution of depression era bootleggers whose strategy when hassled by the law was to simply speed away. Untouchable. Same with being harassed by bad people. See ya! And, on any Sunday at the local track, those with the fastest cars could awe and inspire. But now, when they're slow off the line and get beat in a 1/4 mile by a BEV, I think people are re-questioning the desirability of a machine that doesn't do anything well, let alone the purpose they were designed for, to be high performance.

So this is all very good news for those who don't care if a "muscle car" actually has muscle.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

You gotta follow your heart!

So this is all very good news for those who don't care if a "muscle car" actually has muscle.

Sort of like selecting a wife Woody . Your not looking for the most efficient one are you? Sometimes its the fun factor. I guess that can apply to the wife as well . Actually its the wife that wants the muscle car but im fine with that!

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Exactly!

 

[georgepds]

Kind of obvious, no?

But, yeah. Gas stations were very scarce in the early days of the automobile too. That changed VERY quickly as gasoline car sales exploded. Gas stations quickly became the hottest new mom/pop businesses. A similar thing will happen with electric charging stations but it will be small businesses and chain stores/restaurants who will use electric charging to bring customers in.

Until that time you'll be stuck on the side of highway with nothing but a charge cord in your hand


(Lord help me I was so tempted to say pecker, but the better angels prevailed)

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Highbeam, you are a man of extremes. I see you in nothing less than a NextEv Nio EP9.

http://www.nio.io/ep9

The price is steep, but perhaps we can get Jags to build us one.

Holy carp! That is crazy. Something tells me it's not available yet.

But that is a real supercar if the specs are to be believed!

 

[NateB]

There is no happy or sad just facts. The fact of the matter is government should not be involved business, and business should not be involved in government. Unfortunately no side (government, fossil, solar/wind) is looking for a solution to the energy demand. Instead everyone is clutching on to there side saying this is the only answer, or this is the best way for me to maintain power. However the amount of money and power involved will insure a good solution to the energy demand will never happen. The facts you rely on are most likelyhalf truths. Don't let your emotions cloud your search for truth.

I was just kidding with you on the last response.

I will be out splitting wood. It seems the best first step to meeting my energy demand.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

There is no happy or sad just facts. The fact of the matter is government should not be involved business, and business should not be involved in government. Unfortunately no side (government, fossil, solar/wind) is looking for a solution to the energy demand. Instead everyone is clutching on to there side saying this is the only answer, or this is the best way for me to maintain power. However the amount of money and power involved will insure a good solution to the energy demand will never happen. The facts you rely on are most likelyhalf truths. Don't let your emotions cloud your search for truth.

Wow! That is a depressing perspective! And one not supported by the hard work of brilliant minds and I see developing new technologies every day to address market needs in a cheaper and cleaner way. With over 7 billion people on this planet, all needing some form of energy, the rewards of hitting the sweet spot are already substantial. The good solutions are constantly moving to the top of the pile. And they keep getting cheaper and better. That's what I'm seeing.

Yes, big oil doesn't want to let go. But to think they will prevail and that a good solutions to energy demand will never happen is short-sighted and ignores what I have learned about the world we live in. You will miss out on the biggest economic revolution in modern history. A world view that is so rigid, so ingrained, that it refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized than renewables is not productive to creating prosperity. Because the biggest rewards are available to those who see the world accurately, for what it really is.

Now, you tell me, whose world view is based on their emotions?

 

[NateB]

Interesting
I just can't see batteries, solar panels, and rare earth magnets as the clean solution to energy demand. And I have never seen subsidized anything create opportunity for prosperity. I have seen it pick who wins. I am not saying oil is not subsidized. What I am saying is that your "Facts" are debatable, but it is not worth while debate, because the solution is not more subsidies (taxpayer dollars) to this group or that group, but a fair competition of ideas for the creation and conservation of energy.

The reason solar houses are popular now is because the government has legalized stealing from your neighbors to put solar on your house. If you get a kick back from the government to do anything, you are saying I am ok with stealing from my neighbor to better myself.

I am not mad, depressed, or emotional, and I highly doubt you know what my world view is.

 

[georgepds]

Interesting
... And I have never seen subsidized anything create opportunity for prosperity. ....

How about NACA and the american aviation industry? The tables of airfoil properties by Abbot and von Doenhoff come to mind

Or how about the world health organization and small pox eradication?

Does air travel and a pox free life create opportunity for prosperity?

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

I am not mad, depressed, or emotional, and I highly doubt you know what my world view is.

I know your world view well enough to know that you believe solar is more highly subsidized than oil or coal! Even though cold, hard facts show otherwise.

 

[NateB]

I know your world view well enough to know that you believe solar is more highly subsidized than oil or coal! Even though cold, hard facts show otherwise.

I don't care who gets more handouts. I think the solution is to eliminate the handouts. I don't think you and I have the same definition of world view.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

I don't care who gets more handouts. I think the solution is to eliminate the handouts. I don't think you and I have the same definition of world view.

Yes, but realize this.

By installing a source of electricity (solar panels) that are subsidized at a lower rate than the alternative (fossil fuels), you are actually reducing government subsidies and putting more money back into the pockets of American taxpayers.

I am in favor of all energy subsidies being eliminated because that would increase the competitiveness of solar vs. oil. But good luck getting big oil to give up the sweetheart deals they've been getting by sucking off the government teat. And every time you drive that gas guzzler, just take a moment to reflect how you're getting a handout from hard working American taxpayer who are redistributing their wealth right into that tank of yours!

 

[Seasoned Oak]

It may be time to start eliminating subsidies. Now that we no longer have to protect the entire middle east oil supply or are we still doing that?

 

[woodgeek]

It may be time to start eliminating subsidies. Now that we no longer have to protect the entire middle east oil supply or are we still doing that?

I think we are still doing that AND we still need to. After the fracking revolution, the US is only importing 30% of the oil it needs (net), instead of the 60% figure in 2005.

 

[semipro]

I think we are still doing that AND we still need to. After the fracking revolution, the US is only importing 30% of the oil it needs (net), instead of the 60% figure in 2005.

Or we could invest more in developing domestic sources and increasing efficiency.
If we truly move to a more electric transportation as many are predicting the 30% imported may be greatly reduced.
And, though I like the sustainability aspects of increasing renewable output, I really feel that the greater benefit may be national energy security.

 

[woodgeek]

Or we could invest more in developing domestic sources and increasing efficiency.
If we truly move to a more electric transportation as many are predicting the 30% imported may be greatly reduced.
And, though I like the sustainability aspects of increasing renewable output, I really feel that the greater benefit may be national energy security.

The bigger issue is stamina. We could develop more, by for example subsidizing the frackers even more than we are. And maybe get close to 100%...and sustain it for 5-10 years? Renewables are forever, man. That's security.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

It may be time to start eliminating subsidies. Now that we no longer have to protect the entire middle east oil supply or are we still doing that?

Keep in mind, The huge Defense budget is not a direct subsidy to the oil industry, it's an indirect subsidy which wasn't even under discussion. Indirect subsidies are not included in any analysis I've seen comparing renewable subsidies to fossil fuel subsidies.

In other words, even if the military took the inadvisable step to stop protecting Middle East oil, that wouldn't change the fact that fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized (by far) than renewables.

 

[georgepds]

The numbers in Wikipedia on fuel subsidies are all over the place, but,in general , fossil fuels got about the same as renewable ( not including the indirect subsidies of keeping the sea lanes to the mideast supply open). Nuclear got as much as the other two combined



"In the United States, the federal government has paid
US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for
nuclear power ($50 billion) and
fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.

During this same timeframe, renewable energytechnologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

The numbers in Wikipedia on fuel subsidies are all over the place, but,in general , fossil fuels got about the same as renewable ( not including the indirect subsidies of keeping the sea lanes to the mideast supply open). Nuclear got as much as the other two combined



"In the United States, the federal government has paid
US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for
nuclear power ($50 billion) and
fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.

During this same timeframe, renewable energytechnologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion.

Subsidies go far beyond R&D subsidies. The article I linked to cited a study that only counted "direct production subsidies". R&D subsidies would be in addition to that.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies

 

[semipro]

Renewables are forever, man. That's security.

I couldn't agree more.
If anything, we should "subsidize" the future rather than the past.

 

[begreen]

As a society we subsidize the oil and other industries in many ways that are not immediately apparent. Plastics for example, have become ubiquitous in the past 50 yrs.. This has been an astounding boon to the oil industry. But who pays for the single-use plastic container after it has been used? We do, for landfill costs, recycling costs and in the rapidly mounting environmental costs. Same goes with the pollution created by the ICE. It has been a marvel to the industrialized world, but not without very significant health costs, none of which are paid for by the oil industry.

Several European countries have dealt with this head on and now have placed cradle to cradle or cradle to grave responsibility for materials created back on the creator. That takes a great deal of the after use costs of these materials and places them squarely where they belong, back to the creator of the product.

 

[Ashful]

The numbers in Wikipedia on fuel subsidies are all over the place, but,in general , fossil fuels got about the same as renewable ( not including the indirect subsidies of keeping the sea lanes to the mideast supply open). Nuclear got as much as the other two combined



"In the United States, the federal government has paid
US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for
nuclear power ($50 billion) and
fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.

During this same timeframe, renewable energytechnologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion.

That's good data, but I suspect entirely irrelevant, as it represents a time spanning 44 years ago up to 14 years ago. I think the accusation made by others here was that the renewable energy subsidies have increased dramatically, AFTER the time represented by your data.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

That's good data, but I suspect entirely irrelevant, as it represents a time spanning 44 years ago up to 14 years ago. I think the accusation made by others here was that the renewable energy subsidies have increased dramatically, AFTER the time represented by your data.

The article I linked to cites three studies, all using very recent data. The following quote is referring to ONLY 2016 data:

The primary federal tax supports for renewable energy — the investment and production tax credits, respectively — are not permanent. They are set to phase out over the next five years, and are politically vulnerable in the meantime. But if you include them, Stephen Kretzmann of OCI confirmed for me over email, permanent fossil tax breaks still win, at $7.4 billion to $5.6 billion

Direct oil subsidies are huge and well established. Indirect oil subsidies like the ones Begreen mentioned are astronomically HUGE. So huge that these recent studies don't even try to account for them or quantify them.

 

[peakbagger]

I noticed that the proposed tax plan reportedly removes the $7,500 EV credit. I expect that could impact the short term penetration.