lol thanks for the physics lesson. Are you disagreeing with anything that I said? It doesn't seem so.
Tesla Model 3 unveiled...
- Thread starter WVUCOOPER
- Start date
Fair enough, but does charging an electric vehicle cause more or less pollution than driving a car with an internal combustion engine? I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I think that's the key stat that you need to have this conversation.
No, govt incentivize something and then they find out, hey, we made a mistake. Let's tax it to make up for it. Just another way when govt does something, there are unintended consequences. Does it make sense to let them write off something and then levy a surcharge to make up for the priviledge to use it that govt encouraged?
Depends on where your energy comes from and how much infrastructure would be required to carry the extra load.
Not to mention disposal of the batteries at the end of their life. My understanding is this is already a problem. maybe a job for southern WV in the abandon coal mines. Battery disposal.
Battery disposal is going to be an issue, but let's not pretend that disposing of automobiles is an environmentally friendly thing. For that matter, disposing of the oil from cars is a pain in the rear while you're still maintaining them. It's a trade off. We have more infrastructure for getting rid of used oil right now, mostly because almost everyone has to do it. I'm sure the battery issue will find it's solution as it becomes a more prevalent problem.
Just like solar power and other forms of energy would find it's solution if given the time and right conditions. But the libs want to cut our nose off in spite of our face with cap and trade and other stupid regulations that aren't needed.
If you don't want "the libs" solution to climate change to be put in place then start proposing your own solutions.
Per a presentation by Elon Musk, in the worst case scenario (i.e. totally coal-powered electricity) an EV would still only produce 35% the emissions of a gasoline fueled vehicle.
The new battery factory that Tesla is building in Nevada will include a recycling center.
First, there's no such thing as Climate change. It's called weather and it's dependent on the sun. People are so egotistical that they think they are the cause for everything. The earth is 3-5 bill years old and we hae 150 years of accurate temps here in the US and less around the world. That's not even statistically relevant. I want a clean planet but I don't believe in cutting my nose off inspite of my face. We've had ice ages and warming times. 21,00o years ago, Chicago was under a mile of ice. Did mankind warm the planet up and thaw it? Of course not. Seas rise and seas retreat. It's weather.
Sure it does. One has nothing to do with the other. And BTW, the feds aren't levying a surcharge, are they?
No, it's a states thing. Give the feds time, they will think of something too.[winking]
They need to. Our roads and travel infrastructure suck. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since early Clinton. We'll probs move to a toll based system.
I wouldn't presume to say Musk is lying (or else isn't telling the truth)......and it hardly takes a Chem E to acknowledge/recognize that electric vehicles are far lower emitters than gas.......but I myself honestly wouldn't view his as an especially-persuasive position on this particular subject (given his personal stake in the overall discussion).
I saw a tv segment featuring an all electric car which described how long the car was plugged into to get a full charge, how much that cost (a couple $), how far that would take you, etc. as compared to a similar gas vehicle. His % is about what they found in the demo I described.
I believe in the long run, it might be Elon Musk's batteries that will have the lasting effect on the world. Used in conjunction with natural gas / hydrogen generators they could in 10 to 20 years start to drastically change the landscape and the power grid.
Let the free market decide what works. It does a better job and you don't get admins giving money to it's friends, conservative or liberal, who in turn give it right back in the form of campaign funds.
More govt mandated gas economy backlash from decreased gas sales. More taxes are never the answer. In fact, you can argue that the more taxes are increased, the less you get of it. We need a more pro-business economy that turns the engine loose and more goods get shipped, more gas gets bought= more tax dollars.
In the 93-94 timeframe, there were about 200 million automobiles registered in the US. As of 2013, there were over 255 million cars registered. If your idea of not increasing taxes bringing in more money worked, it should be working in this case. More cars should mean more tax revenue collected in the form of the gas tax. It's not working. In case you think hybrids are killing it for us, hybrids peaked in 2013 at about 3.2% of all new car sales. So, over 50 million more cars, and revenues are down.
Also, shipping goods is difficult if you can't maintain the roads.
You aren't shipping anything if you have a socialist for a president who keeps throwing water on the fire that is the US economy. The question should be, why aren't people driving more? Or, if they are, why aren't they using more gas? More gas consumed=more tax dollars since the tax is the same. Can't be any more simple than that.
People still have to buy groceries. People are still buying goods no matter what happens, and the economy isn't what it was in late 2008. People are making purchases, and cars are some of those purchases. So goods are being shipped.
I'd be guessing at why people aren't driving more. I think part of it is that newer cars are generally more efficient than they were a couple of decades ago. Is that difference enough to equalize the tax revenue if people are still driving about the same amount on average? It's possible if you take into consideration the kinds of cars on the road today versus the early 90's. It's only a guess. Another possibility is that some people were trading their Suburbans in on smaller SUVs, and they are using a lot less gas in the process. Technology is helping in the fuel efficiency area too. I get better gas mileage out of my 2007 V6 Accord than I did out of my 1990 Chevy Cavalier with a 2.0L 4 cyl, and that one was better mileage than my 1985 Cavalier, also with a 2.0L.
If I'm not mistaken, SUV sales are up. A lot more product is shipped by rail,too. My 72 vega GT got great gas mileage as did our 67 VW.[cheers]
They got great mileage for the time. I remember my dad's old Super Beetle that got in the mid to high 20's on a drive from south of Buckhannon to Jane Lew. My car has over 5 times the horsepower of that car, and I get better mileage.
SUVs include the smaller class of SUVs now. We recently replaced my wife's Nissan Xterra with a Subaru Forester. On a bad day, the Subaru gets in the high 20's miles per gallon. On it's best day, that Xterra got 19 miles per gallon. We also looked at a Mazda CX-5 and the Ford Escape both of which got about the same kind of gas mileage.
And without govt incentives, these advancements would have taken much longer to come about.
I'm not in favor of throwing money away but right wing nuts like airport doesn't understand anything along the lines of macro economics with public policy.
I understand govt intrusion into our lives that do not make it better but brings about another govt class of people taking money from us to give to another to benefit them and get their vote. You call me a wingnut, are you are liberal ***** who wants to date Caitlyn to show how much you are in touch with yourself? How much govt incentive were there in the iphone?
You are what is wrong with condescending liberals. We know what's best. Let's mandate something and then complain about the consequences. Let's get better gas mileage, less safety by putting in plastic, then complain that we don't sell enough gas so lets raise the taxes on gas. Liberal ********.
My stated opinion is, don't give them. For anybody. Let the companies keep more of their profit but absorb the expense. It's a matter of philosophy. How do you like the govt policy that keeps Apple from bringing it's overseas money home? Just another stupid govt tax policy. It's already been taxed overseas so lets make it even dumber for them to bring it into the US.
Do you think that cars are less safe now than 20, 30, 40 years ago? Statistics don't back up your claim.
Lmao. With the nonsense and racist bs you post and the problem is i make fun of fools like you. Yup.lmao
No, my stated position is govt needs to quit providing quid pro quo. Companies don't need incentives other than keeping more of their profit for taking risks to develop products. We will give congress money in exchange for favorable tax laws. It just never ending.
They are safer. Probably wrong analogy with the plastics put into auto's now. Probably helped the steel industry to slow down.