I think this makes sense, but not for one of the reasons the author says. Namely: improving the economic advantage of EVs. From what I've seen, most people don't even factor in the cost of their...
I think this makes sense, but not for one of the reasons the author says. Namely: improving the economic advantage of EVs. From what I've seen, most people don't even factor in the cost of their electricity when it comes to buying an EV. They just treat the power used by the car as effectively free, minus the cost of installing a high voltage circuit at their house.
I don't think that many people, in the US, are going to buy an EV that they otherwise wouldn't have if they paid $0.05/Kwh versus $0.10/Kwh. The energy costs are already so incredibly in favor of EVs that most people treat it as effectively free.
What would move the needle, in my opinion, is ending fuel subsidies on gasoline and forcing companies that sell gasoline to price in the negative externalities of climate change and environmental destruction.
It's much more visceral to stare as a pump ticks past $200 to fuel up your suburban than it is to notice you're paying $50 a month less on your power bill, which in my experience, most people don't even look at.
I always like this in theory but the reality is it just hurts the poorest in society the most. Those with means can make the switch, those without are stuck with higher prices just to get to their...
I always like this in theory but the reality is it just hurts the poorest in society the most. Those with means can make the switch, those without are stuck with higher prices just to get to their jobs. Reality is we would need some sort of support/trade in program alongside massively cheaper electric cars.
I think that progressive/negative tax rates should be the tool used for income inequality, most other things shouldn't be subsidized. So in the ideal world, yes, poor people will be paying a...
I think that progressive/negative tax rates should be the tool used for income inequality, most other things shouldn't be subsidized. So in the ideal world, yes, poor people will be paying a significantly larger portion of their income on fuel, but they'll also receive money back from the government to pay for it. Fossil fuels going for what they truly cost us would limit their use only to situations where it makes sense to use them. Right now the only reason they're as cheap as they are is because other places, mostly developing countries, are shouldering the environment costs of using so much of them.
If you can replace my 2014 gas wheelchair van with an electric one for what I still owe on it, maybe? No amount of tax break is likely to get me affording a $51k electric van + $20k in conversion...
If you can replace my 2014 gas wheelchair van with an electric one for what I still owe on it, maybe?
No amount of tax break is likely to get me affording a $51k electric van + $20k in conversion costs otherwise.
How would you suggest we use economics and legislation to make the necessary transition away from internal combustion for that class of vehicle as fairly and as equitably as other classes of...
How would you suggest we use economics and legislation to make the necessary transition away from internal combustion for that class of vehicle as fairly and as equitably as other classes of vehicle?
All I want is a tiny little Honda E, or any small and somewhat nimble two seat EV with space for one duffel bag and maybe 100 miles of range.
But ... My demographic is a tiny slice of the automotive market here in the United States when the car buying consumers have been conditioned to need as large a vehicle as possible for decades. And as a tiny demographic slice, my desires are not served by the businesses that make cars well.
Every gasoline and diesel vehicle needs to be gotten off the road as soon as possible. We'll have time to let people get their classics and their heritage cars back on the road when we are measurably reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on a monthly basis... But that's not the world we live in yet.
Some classes of vehicles will take longer to be gotten off of the road. Exceptions will need to be made - politics is the art of compromise after all. Interest groups will speak up and have laws passed on their behalves which will defend their interests. We won't make enough progress and we'll all still buy pounds of plastics at the grocery store every month, supporting the fossil fuel industry as we drive our EVs.
Forgive me, none of this is personal to you. But the way you phrased your completely fair concern struck me as a way to end a conversation rather than talk about how to solve a problem.
I'm not really trying to end conversations, I just don't have answers. And IMO most folks are willing to disregard or sacrifice disabled folks in the process of their environmental or political...
I'm not really trying to end conversations, I just don't have answers. And IMO most folks are willing to disregard or sacrifice disabled folks in the process of their environmental or political goals.
I don't have a solution other than pointing it out so maybe they'll think twice.
As an aside I'll be also be happy when we stop mimicking the MAGA phrasing for fucking everything.
I consider myself pretty nuanced overall. I recently found 50constitutions.org and decided to read my state's constitution. Holy shit I'm ready for the next violent overthrow of generations upon...
I consider myself pretty nuanced overall. I recently found 50constitutions.org and decided to read my state's constitution. Holy shit I'm ready for the next violent overthrow of generations upon generations of tyranny over me.
I have no innate right to own property, nor must I have a right to worship God as I see fit.
That shit is antiquated as fuck. And if we no longer as a society have the ability to legislate or democratically amend our constitutions, it's time for what's next.
Anywho that's all background to my real point - that my curated circle of podcasts (intelligent, thoughtful, leaning towards political most of the time) is spending more and more minutes it feels talking about how effectively we are othering each other in the US and how we truly no longer have a shared sense of identity.
Honestly, that feels like the intellectuals are just catching up to where I've been for about 12-15 years.
I don't want civil war.
But I don't want this government or country any more.
It's time for a system that is more plastic (in the medical sense of the term), and more responsive to the citizens.
In short: no, our media and our politics will not stop using Trump Slogans. And it's going to get a lot worse. A lot worse.
As a sidenote, American Experience recently put out a really really good piece of the passage of the ADA. I don't presently see a system, or a populace, that is capable of creating that type of change any longer.
I hear you, but it feels beyond what this thread is about and personally beyond what I can manage today after a new round of guidance from the attorney general came to universities. I'm just...
I hear you, but it feels beyond what this thread is about and personally beyond what I can manage today after a new round of guidance from the attorney general came to universities.
I'm just highlighting disabled people have needs and people need to consider that within their political and environmental advocacy.
There is a pretty good comment from someone in the industry on that article. I think a more zoomed-in discussion might be interesting. What would it take to cut the cost of electricity in California?
There is a pretty good comment from someone in the industry on that article.
I think a more zoomed-in discussion might be interesting. What would it take to cut the cost of electricity in California?
There are apparently “mandates” but I believe a big factor is grid upgrades for wildfire mitigation? Arguably it needs to be paid for somehow and should be considered part of the cost of...
There are apparently “mandates” but I believe a big factor is grid upgrades for wildfire mitigation? Arguably it needs to be paid for somehow and should be considered part of the cost of delivering electricity, instead of being paid for some other way.
There seem to be industry lobbying groups who want it paid for via taxes instead.
A decent part of California's electricity costs are to ensure PG&E's shareholders continue to receive dividends. The majority of power for the state is provided by a single company, and they work...
A decent part of California's electricity costs are to ensure PG&E's shareholders continue to receive dividends. The majority of power for the state is provided by a single company, and they work to make a profit.
It's true that it's a regulated monopoly and PG&E has to ask permission to raise rates. Electricity companies are supposed to make a small profit, and they're regulated so it isn't a large one....
It's true that it's a regulated monopoly and PG&E has to ask permission to raise rates. Electricity companies are supposed to make a small profit, and they're regulated so it isn't a large one.
But things aren't going so well for shareholders. PG&E has gone bankrupt twice, in 2001 and 2019.
Before 2001 it was due to market manipulation (remember Enron?) that caused PG&E to sell electricity at a loss. The wholesale electricity market has been fixed since then. Too late for PG&E shareholders, though.
Most recently due to costs due to the cost of liability for wildfires, which was $30 billion. Perhaps that money should have gone into preventing wildfires by upgrading the electrical grid? Too late now.
These are arguably the costs of government and industry screwups (due to regulation, the government played a role in them). But if it were a government-run utility that screwed up the same way, the costs would still have to be paid.
I think this makes sense, but not for one of the reasons the author says. Namely: improving the economic advantage of EVs. From what I've seen, most people don't even factor in the cost of their electricity when it comes to buying an EV. They just treat the power used by the car as effectively free, minus the cost of installing a high voltage circuit at their house.
I don't think that many people, in the US, are going to buy an EV that they otherwise wouldn't have if they paid $0.05/Kwh versus $0.10/Kwh. The energy costs are already so incredibly in favor of EVs that most people treat it as effectively free.
What would move the needle, in my opinion, is ending fuel subsidies on gasoline and forcing companies that sell gasoline to price in the negative externalities of climate change and environmental destruction.
It's much more visceral to stare as a pump ticks past $200 to fuel up your suburban than it is to notice you're paying $50 a month less on your power bill, which in my experience, most people don't even look at.
I always like this in theory but the reality is it just hurts the poorest in society the most. Those with means can make the switch, those without are stuck with higher prices just to get to their jobs. Reality is we would need some sort of support/trade in program alongside massively cheaper electric cars.
I think that progressive/negative tax rates should be the tool used for income inequality, most other things shouldn't be subsidized. So in the ideal world, yes, poor people will be paying a significantly larger portion of their income on fuel, but they'll also receive money back from the government to pay for it. Fossil fuels going for what they truly cost us would limit their use only to situations where it makes sense to use them. Right now the only reason they're as cheap as they are is because other places, mostly developing countries, are shouldering the environment costs of using so much of them.
If you can replace my 2014 gas wheelchair van with an electric one for what I still owe on it, maybe?
No amount of tax break is likely to get me affording a $51k electric van + $20k in conversion costs otherwise.
How would you suggest we use economics and legislation to make the necessary transition away from internal combustion for that class of vehicle as fairly and as equitably as other classes of vehicle?
All I want is a tiny little Honda E, or any small and somewhat nimble two seat EV with space for one duffel bag and maybe 100 miles of range.
But ... My demographic is a tiny slice of the automotive market here in the United States when the car buying consumers have been conditioned to need as large a vehicle as possible for decades. And as a tiny demographic slice, my desires are not served by the businesses that make cars well.
Every gasoline and diesel vehicle needs to be gotten off the road as soon as possible. We'll have time to let people get their classics and their heritage cars back on the road when we are measurably reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on a monthly basis... But that's not the world we live in yet.
Some classes of vehicles will take longer to be gotten off of the road. Exceptions will need to be made - politics is the art of compromise after all. Interest groups will speak up and have laws passed on their behalves which will defend their interests. We won't make enough progress and we'll all still buy pounds of plastics at the grocery store every month, supporting the fossil fuel industry as we drive our EVs.
Forgive me, none of this is personal to you. But the way you phrased your completely fair concern struck me as a way to end a conversation rather than talk about how to solve a problem.
I'm not really trying to end conversations, I just don't have answers. And IMO most folks are willing to disregard or sacrifice disabled folks in the process of their environmental or political goals.
I don't have a solution other than pointing it out so maybe they'll think twice.
As an aside I'll be also be happy when we stop mimicking the MAGA phrasing for fucking everything.
I consider myself pretty nuanced overall. I recently found 50constitutions.org and decided to read my state's constitution. Holy shit I'm ready for the next violent overthrow of generations upon generations of tyranny over me.
I have no innate right to own property, nor must I have a right to worship God as I see fit.
That shit is antiquated as fuck. And if we no longer as a society have the ability to legislate or democratically amend our constitutions, it's time for what's next.
Anywho that's all background to my real point - that my curated circle of podcasts (intelligent, thoughtful, leaning towards political most of the time) is spending more and more minutes it feels talking about how effectively we are othering each other in the US and how we truly no longer have a shared sense of identity.
Honestly, that feels like the intellectuals are just catching up to where I've been for about 12-15 years.
I don't want civil war.
But I don't want this government or country any more.
It's time for a system that is more plastic (in the medical sense of the term), and more responsive to the citizens.
In short: no, our media and our politics will not stop using Trump Slogans. And it's going to get a lot worse. A lot worse.
As a sidenote, American Experience recently put out a really really good piece of the passage of the ADA. I don't presently see a system, or a populace, that is capable of creating that type of change any longer.
I hear you, but it feels beyond what this thread is about and personally beyond what I can manage today after a new round of guidance from the attorney general came to universities.
I'm just highlighting disabled people have needs and people need to consider that within their political and environmental advocacy.
There is a pretty good comment from someone in the industry on that article.
I think a more zoomed-in discussion might be interesting. What would it take to cut the cost of electricity in California?
Isn’t a decent part of California’s electricity costs related to various taxes and fees?
There are apparently “mandates” but I believe a big factor is grid upgrades for wildfire mitigation? Arguably it needs to be paid for somehow and should be considered part of the cost of delivering electricity, instead of being paid for some other way.
There seem to be industry lobbying groups who want it paid for via taxes instead.
A decent part of California's electricity costs are to ensure PG&E's shareholders continue to receive dividends. The majority of power for the state is provided by a single company, and they work to make a profit.
It's true that it's a regulated monopoly and PG&E has to ask permission to raise rates. Electricity companies are supposed to make a small profit, and they're regulated so it isn't a large one.
But things aren't going so well for shareholders. PG&E has gone bankrupt twice, in 2001 and 2019.
Before 2001 it was due to market manipulation (remember Enron?) that caused PG&E to sell electricity at a loss. The wholesale electricity market has been fixed since then. Too late for PG&E shareholders, though.
Most recently due to costs due to the cost of liability for wildfires, which was $30 billion. Perhaps that money should have gone into preventing wildfires by upgrading the electrical grid? Too late now.
These are arguably the costs of government and industry screwups (due to regulation, the government played a role in them). But if it were a government-run utility that screwed up the same way, the costs would still have to be paid.