Mileage based tax

[Recoil45]

This is not a problem. We very well know how to expand the grid and, even better, the cheapest way today is with renewables. The market will handle this. Regardless of how desperate the fossil fuel interests try to fight, they'll lose every bidding war against renewables with no downstream fuel costs.
We need to focus on solving problems not making things into problems that aren't or making enemies of those who could be our friends.

So what has prevented CA from doing so if it is so easy?

This summer will be worse for residents there. No action has been taken despite the pain last summer.

I also doubt the fossil fuel industry has an clout in CA.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Earl]

So what has prevented CA from doing so if it is so easy?

Have you been around CA, TX, MN, IA, WY, or CO recently? There are wind and solar farms springing up everywhere and houses and stores with rooftop PV are everywhere. It isn't quite as easy to access renewables in these places as the PNW with its abundant hydroelectric resources but the wind and sun are being harnessed at an incredible rate.

This summer will be worse for residents there. No action has been taken despite the pain last summer.

Climate change (drought) is certainly taking its toll on CA but, other than the political issues around blaming power companies for sparking the tinder boxes that were already waiting for them, energy really isn't much of a problem.

I also doubt the fossil fuel industry has an clout in CA.

Interesting that of the states I mentioned, CA and TX are both massive oil producers and WY is a coal state; but there is heavy investment in renewables in them. Remember also, that Tesla is building batteries in NV and TX and EVs in CA on a scale never-before imagined. The CA roads are filled with EVs. Thats where the new money is going as the old money desperately clings to its dwindling legacy.
I don't want to sound too upbeat as it would belie my pessimistic and skeptical nature. It would be great if it went faster but we can't get everything exactly the way we'd want it. We still have much work to do.

 

[R P]

This is not a problem. We very well know how to expand the grid and, even better, the cheapest way today is with renewables. The market will handle this. Regardless of how desperate the fossil fuel interests try to fight, they'll lose every bidding war against renewables with no downstream fuel costs.
We need to focus on solving problems not making things into problems that aren't or making enemies of those who could be our friends.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. But I don't see it happening. Yes, there has been massive development of solar and wind, but yet it is a drop in the bucket of our grid capacity. And very inconsistent/unreliable as well. Look at what happened to Texas this winter, which is ongoing in CA every summer. We need to do much, much better if we are to meet the grid capacity demands of all the new EVs coming. And that means changing the incentives needed to increase the grid renewables capacity. Otherwise, we are just going to burn more fossil fuels, and a lot more. I can even see the US going backwards in emissions, despite the newly stated 2030 goals. Yes, it is that bad. Unless the mindset changes dramatically... Instead of just fantasy talk, meaningful, realistic actions are necessary.

Maybe you should look up north and see what Quebec and BC have done to prepare for the future. We are near 100% renewables with our grid, and a lot more coming online in the next few years. We are ready for EVs. You are not.

And the EV manufacturers recognize this, too.
https://mobilesyrup.com/2021/04/16/volkswagen-id-4-canada-price-relase/
US (not even CA) probably won't get it until late 2022.
https://carbuzz.com/news/official-cheaper-volkswagen-id-4-coming-to-the-us

 

[ENirogus]

First of all, the EV fleet is going to increase at a rate that is not going to be a problem with grid capacity. Smart nighttime charging can alleviate peak demands.

Second wind power is going to continue growing as it now competes with gas and is cheaper than coal. While it has its issues, battery storage is being built now.
Both California and Texas have problems with their deregulation strategy wrt electricity

 

[Earl]

Texas blew it by not buying stuff that could handle cold weather and a polar wind hit them, just as some climate models predicted was more likely given the Gulf of Mexico warming up.
CA has many problems but EVs are not one of them.

the EV manufacturers recognize

ROFL! You actually quote VW as if their word is worth anything? Sorry. You need credible sources, not the word of pathological liars and cheats that were forced to shift from their beloved diesel to BEVs. They have vested anti-EV interests throughout most of their their organization. They and the rest of the ICE industry have been creating and trumpeting fictitious reasons why EVs will fail, pretty much since their beginnings. Tesla, through showing them reality, of course has been proving them wrong.
A study commissioned by a local public power company showed best and worst cases that EV adoption would have on the power companies. The worst case showed slight benefit to the power companies, the best case showed huge benefit. EVs are great for the grid since they create a revenue stream when there is little demand. The added revenue side greatly exceeds the added cost side => a total win.
I mentioned previously the the pacific northwest situation above.
I also think you may be confused between whether the grid can handle EVs and whether it is sustainable with renewables.
While both important, these are separate issues.
The US grid is fine for EVs, however, that is with the current dependance on fossil fuel (mostly natural gas)
The intermittent nature of wind and solar make it a little harder for much of the US than hydroelectricity but renewables are still on the steep growth path and EVs, as a shed-able, night-time load will only make it easier for them to grow. Renewables are steadily replacing legacy fossil fuels.

 

[R P]

The US grid is fine for EVs, however, that is with the current dependance on fossil fuel (mostly natural gas)
The intermittent nature of wind and solar make it a little harder for much of the US than hydroelectricity but renewables are still on the steep growth path and EVs, as a shed-able, night-time load will only make it easier for them to grow. Renewables are steadily replacing legacy fossil fuels.

Well, if you are fine with burning a lot more fossil fuels, yeah you can support more EVs. But how is that helping the planet? And wind and solar are not the best for night charging...

Today, wind and solar in the US accounts for only about 11% of your total grid capacity. How are you going to get that up to even just 50% in 10 years, to reduce your burning of fossil fuels?
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/dat...echart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0
And then you will still need more fossil fuel capacity to handle the times when the sun isn't shining (ie night time) and when the wind isn't blowing. If you increase EV adoption without fossil fuel grid capacity reduction, you are not accomplishing much.

 

[Earl]

Well, if you are fine with burning a lot more fossil fuels, yeah you can support more EVs. But how is that helping the planet? And wind and solar are not the best for night charging...

Today, wind and solar in the US accounts for only about 11% of your total grid capacity. How are you going to get that up to even just 50% in 10 years, to reduce your burning of fossil fuels?
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/dat...echart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0
And then you will still need more fossil fuel capacity to handle the times when the sun isn't shining (ie night time) and when the wind isn't blowing. If you increase EV adoption without fossil fuel grid capacity reduction, you are not accomplishing much.

I'll say again: EV adoption is an improvement irregardless of the power generation source. This is because an EV, even powered off of coal, is no worse than an ICE. This is because a stationary power plant is so much more efficient than a small, mobile ICE, and EV is so much more efficient than an ICE, the grid is so much more efficient at transporting energy than we can by carrying coal or oil, and there is so much energy required to crude oil into gasoline which is needed for a car.

Any improvements to the grid beyond pure coal (even Natural Gas) puts EV emissions (including CO2) well ahead of ICE.

You're still confusing grid capacity with renewables. We need both. Don't pit them against each other.

1) We need to swap out ICE for EV as soon as possible and let nothing get in our way.

at the same time:

2) We need to work to migrate our generation from coal and natural gas to renewables as fast as we can.

Both of these should be done in parallel and as fast as possible. We will likely disagree upon what approach will get there faster as well.

Your suggestions that we should withhold progress on one before we accomplish the other is just plain misguided and dangerous for our planet.

 

[R P]

Yeah, but don't you think it would be smarter to expand your total grid capacity before mandating EV adoption beyond what it can handle? You are clearly out of grid capacity in CA, and look what is happening there now. It will get a lot worse in the next few years. TX had a little problem this winter, hope they get that fixed. But because the grid goes across state boundaries, everyone is going to get hit, once the full mandated EV expansion ramps up in the next few years in all states.

There are some good solutions possible, but seems you folks are more interested in putting the cart before the horse. And with NO planning whatsoever.

 

[Earl]

before mandating EV adoption beyond what it can handle

I don't subscribe to mandating EVs at all so you'll get no argument from me on that. EVs are better than ICE and the cat is out of the bag. You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
You're missing the whole picture.
As I and others have said: The grid can handle EVs. The grid in CA will have trouble in hot dry weather (when they shut down the feeder lines due to fire risk) with or without EVs. TX will have trouble if the temperature gets below 10F (-12C) with or without EVs. Remember that, in Houston, when all is nominal, there's free electricity at night to charge your EV due to the abundance of wind power from West Texas at night - at least until this year's debacle to that pricing scheme.

 

[R P]

And just to be clear, I'm all for EVs, had them ever since 2014. But I am also for renewable energy, and reducing fossil fuel usage. That is continuing to happen where I live. And we have more than enough renewable energy (with more coming) to support more EVs in the future. You don't. And a mileage based tax won't help you get there. But there are other incentives that I have suggested that will. But if you choose to stick your head in the sand, the grid problems will continue to get worse, and fossil fuel usage will continue to increase. And energy costs will also continue to go up, esp with the planned reduction or halt of NG fracking.

Good luck,... is all I can say!!

 

[Earl]

I'll apologize to all who are interested in mileage base taxes for helping to derail this thread, however, a particular naive member felt it necessary to derail it by spouting dangerous nonsense and I felt the need to (once again) try to balance the message.

And energy costs will also continue to go up, esp with the planned reduction or halt of NG fracking

This, while not the optimal path that we'd like to see, actually works in the favor of renewables, especially in CA and TX:
- fracking made natural gas cheaper which drove the first nails into coal's coffin all over. Weakened, cheap coal (100% CO2 generation/unit of energy) plants are being decommissioned. Elimination of fracking will increase the cost of natural gas, forcing the utilities to re-examine and re-invest in their generation - about this time when renewables are the economical and environmentally popular option!
- CA's bandaid fixes to pollution by moving all of their generation away from their cities left them dependent on transmission lines through fire-sensitive forest areas. They have been filling their barren deserts with solar and wind collection that still must transport electricity over the forest, meaning the cities will want local electricity storage for those hot windy days when transmission lines are shut down. Storage enables the intermittent renewables.
- TX's cheap skimping on weather-proof natural gas plants will force them to re-look at whether to upgrade the gas plants or seek alternatives. Again, opening the door for renewables, which become clearly the better solution for many reasons. Also, keep in mind that if we can reduce the demand for petroleum for transportation, wells can be capped and there will be less 'waste' natural gas available, thus making it even less competitive to renewables.
My biggest concern is in the heartland of America. NIMBY interests are opposing wind turbines and cooking up lame reasons to justify their opposition. Farmers should be able to make extra money from the wind blowing over their fields.
Down in the southern part of North America, hydro-electric isn't as easy as it is in the PNW, therefore, renewables will take a little cleverness but they are still the best answer, are doable, and are happening. Please don't suggest putting the brakes on EVs while waiting through. They are always better.
. . . and we've driven most of our miles electric since 1999 (with an unpleasant hiatus with only a gas guzzling gasoline hybrid from 2004 to 2008) and solar since 2002. We've been pushing and pioneering the path to make it possible for others to follow. Our foresight has historically been spot on.
You can't just sit around whining and counting on the government to compromise and study their way to drive revolutionary change. You must do something yourself.

 

[R P]

More good rationalization points. I applaud your perseverance. And I would love to agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. Too bad you are so closed minded to other ideas that might help more to achieve your (ours) goals. Instead of attacking me, why not focus on my proposal and tell me what is wrong with it.

 

[R P]

Norway is another example of doing it right. As we know they are the world leader with EV adoption with 54%+ of all new cars sold today are BEVs. And their grid is near at 98% renewables and are continuing to expand that. They subsidize EV adoption both at the charging level and the buying level. That has been my proposal, which you have scoffed at, but never told me exactly what is wrong with it.

 

[bwilson4web]

Operating costs:

• $2.75 / 100 miles (urban not counting 25% free charging) our 2019 STD Rng Plus Model 3 with 40,000 miles
• $3.00 / 100 miles our 2014 BMW i3-REx with 43,000 miles

So I’m fairly sanguine about the power source. My expectation is to get a Tesla solar roof and power wall next year. Low operational cost is how achieve low CO{2}.

Bob Wilson

 

[Recoil45]

I don't subscribe to mandating EVs at all so you'll get no argument from me on that. EVs are better than ICE and the cat is out of the bag. You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
You're missing the whole picture.
As I and others have said: The grid can handle EVs. The grid in CA will have trouble in hot dry weather (when they shut down the feeder lines due to fire risk) with or without EVs. TX will have trouble if the temperature gets below 10F (-12C) with or without EVs. Remember that, in Houston, when all is nominal, there's free electricity at night to charge your EV due to the abundance of wind power from West Texas at night - at least until this year's debacle to that pricing scheme.

The request to not do daytime charging of EVs from the power utilities and Tesla in CA last summer had nothing to do with fires and feeder lines. That was an unrelated issue at a different time. Do not attempt to re-write history here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[turtleturtle]

Don’t worry everyone! Washington state solved the problem.

I just got to renew my Clarity PHEV and the state added $225 in addition to the regular renewal fees because I can plug it in.

$75 is supposed to go towards building public chargers, but every public charger in our area was installed 10 years ago. All new ones are private.

My napkin math shows I would need to spend $2000 on fuel to pay the equivalent gas tax.

 

[Esprit1st]

Your napkin math just showed that a tax hike on gas is more than needed. I hate paying more for stuff but it's just what needs to happen. Gas is too cheap.

 

[turtleturtle]

Your napkin math just showed that a tax hike on gas is more than needed. I hate paying more for stuff but it's just what needs to happen. Gas is too cheap.

That much gas would take my sedan around 20k miles. If the average driver does 12-15k miles a year, it’s conservatively high in the State’s favor.

Oregon is doing mileage based, though it appears participation is <2% for the pilot.