OT/MISC Electric autos, a Cultural Left Wetdream.

Because power will be a scarce resource (Deliberate) it will have to allocated so.

First 100 miles 1 cent tax/ mile.

Next 100 5 cent tax/mile

Next 100 10 cent /mile

You get the picture. Every auto will have a chip that connects to Central Control.

So Joe saves up his miles so he can go fishing. Only to find the car won't go there

Joe's auto is only authorized to travel within a certain area and his fishing spot is not one of them.

After bitching for a 100 yrs, the CL will finally get a handle on the American Auto.

From Google Queries:

According to the US Department of Transportation (DOT), men on average drive 550 miles a month more than women. The most recent DOT statistics show men of all ages driving an average of 1,400 miles per month, and women driving an average of 850 miles per month.

Click to expand...

Assuming men and women have equal access to the automobile, the average driver drives about 1125 miles per month.

So the average tax would be 1(100) + 5(100)+10(100)+15(100)+20(100)+25(100)+30(100)+35(100)+40(100)+45(100)+50(100)+55(25) =

100+500+1000+1500+2000+2500+3000+3500+4000+4500+5000+1375=28975 cents or $289.75/month or $3477 annual.

Or at that mileage tax of 25.7 cents per mile.

Federal deduction of Business mileage is 56 cents/mi.

So it will become a choice of eating or driving to work.

Joe stays in the Whitehouse basement - and has people prepare his pudding cups for him.

Dobbin

That is the cost to drive it. Wait till they get to pay the charging fees. Those electric cars won't be as cheap to run as they thought.
Mike

None of this can/will happen, because there simply isn't enough electricity.

Instead, you will walk or ride a bike. Anything beyond that you simply will never see/visit. Unless you're an elite of course.

bbbuddy said:

None of this can/will happen, because there simply isn't enough electricity.

Instead, you will walk or ride a bike. Anything beyond that you simply will never see/visit. Unless you're an elite of course.

Click to expand...

You got it. The goal is to get the Lesser Classes away from their autos. As usual, they will not ban them, just make them impossible for the LC's to own because of expense. But the decision to not own will be by the LC's. After all, they could support an auto by not eating.

One more generation will do it. It is already locked in and would take an tremendous effort to unlock it.

As the power market USED to be with gas at say $3 a gallon and electric at say $0.15 per KWHR, driving a car totally electrically is about half the cost of gasoline - that is - for the FUEL.

Of course mostly you don't get the same performance, handling, payload, or availability (charging times/refuel convenience.)

You do get longer life as electric motors generally have one moving part. Battery life is the usual limitation - and they're getting better.

BUT - You don't see many early 20th Century Baker Electrics on the road for a reason. Even at the time it was considered an "Old Ladies' Car."
Jay Leno in his...


And surprisingly, the available Baker Electric battery mileage/capacity is not too much less than today's electric cars. Things are better/faster but not by a whole lot - yet.

NEVER considered in the electric automobile equation is the "power shift" from a gasoline transport economy to an electric transport economy - and the additional power plants/fuel/concentrated environmental impact that a non-diverse power supply will have.

ANOTHER non-consideration is the capital loss on non-use of refining capacity. While a sunk cost, these costs invariably will be passed on to the fuel consumer - making what gasoline is sold more expensive AND making No. 6 (Bunker C) fuel oil more expensive too (despite several steps less in the refining process for oil.)

ANOTHER non- consideration is the general "losses" required to transmit power from a remote generator TO your waiting battery. "Line Losses" of central power grids AVERAGE about 25 percent loss. Add to this the inefficiency of power generation (generally considered a 70 percent loss) and you get only about 25 percent of the thermal energy contained in coal or oil as electricity. Add to this about 85 percent battery loss and you're lucky if you get 20 percent of the fuel you burn in the power plant as transportation.

For lighting you put up with the losses as for lighting there are few options other than candles. And it still beats (generally) solar and alternative energy options.

Electric costs HAVE to go up.

Of course Joe Biden will get his 10 percent cut on the Lith-ion batteries made in China - of which he and his son Hunter are major stake-holders.

It is all about the money. Not your money but the money in Joe Biden's Pocket.

Dobbin

Dobbin said:

From Google Queries:



Assuming men and women have equal access to the automobile, the average driver drives about 1125 miles per month.

So the average tax would be 1(100) + 5(100)+10(100)+15(100)+20(100)+25(100)+30(100)+35(100)+40(100)+45(100)+50(100)+55(25) =

100+500+1000+1500+2000+2500+3000+3500+4000+4500+5000+1375=28975 cents or $289.75/month or $3477 annual.

Or at that mileage tax of 25.7 cents per mile.

Federal deduction of Business mileage is 56 cents/mi.

So it will become a choice of eating or driving to work.

Joe stays in the Whitehouse basement - and has people prepare his pudding cups for him.

Dobbin

Click to expand...

Yeah the men might drive more, but the women are riding in the passenger seat.

The Main Man in No. Korea banned bikes in certain areas of country. They gave too much freedom for the Lesser Classes to move around the country.

What the Left would have you drive.




Dobbin

The Baker Electric and similar cars of the era used lead-acid or - in fewer cases, nickle-iron batteries - and were very reliable.

Despite people recoiling in horror at the word "lead," lead-acid batteries are completely recyclable and economical. Everything in a lead-acid battery, to include the lead, case and acid, can be easily recycled to produce new batteries. A huge part of the cost of new electric vehicles are their exotic batteries. The newer generation batteries are much, much more expensive and not easily recycled. Additionally, they don't give really exceptional performance compared to the old lead-acids.

IMHO, a basic, lead-acid battery-powered car, much like the Baker in the photo, but with modern refinements, could be produced for a reasonable cost.

Best
Doc

Dobbin said:

From Google Queries:



Assuming men and women have equal access to the automobile, the average driver drives about 1125 miles per month.

So the average tax would be 1(100) + 5(100)+10(100)+15(100)+20(100)+25(100)+30(100)+35(100)+40(100)+45(100)+50(100)+55(25) =

100+500+1000+1500+2000+2500+3000+3500+4000+4500+5000+1375=28975 cents or $289.75/month or $3477 annual.

Or at that mileage tax of 25.7 cents per mile.

Federal deduction of Business mileage is 56 cents/mi.

So it will become a choice of eating or driving to work.

Joe stays in the Whitehouse basement - and has people prepare his pudding cups for him.

Dobbin

Click to expand...

Actually, by my calculation above, this would be the tax for ONE MONTH.

In reality, the tax damage continues to cascade all year long - all the way up to the average annual mileage number of 13,500 miles.

As in: the next month begins at 55 cents a mile, and continues to compound monthly. Like your last mileage tax payment for the year driving is computed at $6.60 per mile? Those last 100 miles will cost you $660.

By the end of the year, your total tax could be more than your net worth.

Owner has a HP-41CV calculator. This from the 1990s. It can be programmed up to about 500 steps.

I bet he could write a program which given an annual mileage, can give you back your tax?

According to what I see, you may all be walking like the Illegal Aliens at the end of the year.

Maybe that's the REAL point?

Dobbin

bbbuddy said:

None of this can/will happen, because there simply isn't enough electricity.

Click to expand...

Troke said:

First 100 miles 1 cent tax/ mile.

Next 100 5 cent tax/mile

Next 100 10 cent /mile

You get the picture. Every auto will have a chip that connects to Central Control.

So Joe saves up his miles so he can go fishing. Only to find the car won't go there

Click to expand...

They're setting us up to charge by mile among others things to control nearly every area of our lives (GR 2030)...

Joe Biden on electric cars: "When you buy an electric vehicle, you can go across America on a single tank of gas figuratively speaking. It's not gas. You plug it in."
RT 1min
View: https://twitter.com/TheFirstonTV/status/1453754986253410305?s=20

A fools wet dream bound to fail. We simply do not have the electrical infrastructure to facilitate all these anticipated electric vehicles. Never mind the battery technology is far away from being good enough. These federally subsidized schemes will end in predictable failure. All for a chicken little fear of CO2, which is a trace gas and never a pollutant.

Meadowlark said:

A fools wet dream bound to fail. We simply do not have the electrical infrastructure to facilitate all these anticipated electric vehicles. Never mind the battery technology is far away from being good enough. These federally subsidized schemes will end in predictable failure. All for a chicken little fear of CO2, which is a trace gas and never a pollutant.

Click to expand...

Well . . . thinking back (early-late1980s) when flying into/out of LAX - particularly when taking off from the airport - as the plane gained altitude, **SUDDENLY** the jet would break through the pollution cloud covering the LA basin area, and BRIGHT sunshine and clear blue skies would become the dominating view - as the plane climbed above the pollution cloud, one could clearly see the brown color of this cloud.

Also true in the Washington, D.C. area - particularly west of D.C., in Virginia, when taking off from Dulles Airport in NoVa on a hot summer day.

How much of that pollution consisted of CO2? Don't know, but such clouds hovering over city areas, below, were/are considered hazardous enough that health advisories would be issued for those areas.

Bear in mind that the anti-pollution systems on vehicles are causing them to produce more CO2 than earlier - and the number of cars in a given urban area have increased dramatically, over the last couple of decades.

CO2 was certainly one component of those past pollution clouds. Exactly WHAT amount of current air pollution consists of CO2 can be looked up, but not generally well known nor understood by J6P - and, such data at present is likely questionable and politicized.


intothegoodnight

intothatgoodnight said:

Well . . . thinking back (early-late1980s) when flying into/out of LAX - particularly when taking off from the airport - as the plane gained altitude, **SUDDENLY** the jet would break through the pollution cloud covering the LA basin area, and BRIGHT sunshine and clear blue skies would become the dominating view - as the plane climbed above the pollution cloud, one could clearly see the brown color of this cloud.

Also true in the Washington, D.C. area - particularly west of D.C., in Virginia, when taking off from Dulles Airport in NoVa on a hot summer day.

How much of that pollution consisted of CO2? Don't know, but such clouds hovering over city areas, below, were/are considered hazardous enough that health advisories would be issued for those areas.

CO2 was certainly one component of those pollution clouds.


intothegoodnight

Click to expand...

CO2 is an invisible trace gas. You cannot see "clouds of CO2". What you were seeing was layers of photochemical smog, which have greatly diminished with more stringent EPA internal combustion engine emission requirements. Todays biggest EPA pollution concern in most urban areas is ozone due to stagnant airflow.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

A cultural left wet dream - like gun control??

intothatgoodnight said:

Well . . . thinking back (early-late1980s) when flying into/out of LAX - particularly when taking off from the airport - as the plane gained altitude, **SUDDENLY** the jet would break through the pollution cloud covering the LA basin area, and BRIGHT sunshine and clear blue skies would become the dominating view - as the plane climbed above the pollution cloud, one could clearly see the brown color of this cloud.

Also true in the Washington, D.C. area - particularly west of D.C., in Virginia, when taking off from Dulles Airport in NoVa on a hot summer day.


intothegoodnight

Click to expand...

The Geography of certain cities does not complement industry, commerce or combustion emissions from millions of vehicles. The mountain ranges directly behind many california cities reduce air current and create these botanical garden like circumstances. Its like going into a smart car and farting, everyone is going to suffer.

Tripod said:

That is the cost to drive it. Wait till they get to pay the charging fees. Those electric cars won't be as cheap to run as they thought.
Mike

Click to expand...

They will already be charged. You just get off the plane and hop in. With a ap on your 1000 dollar phone. No muss no fuss.

Hertz orders 100,000 Teslas, the single-largest EV purchase ever, with Tom Brady campaign (electrek.co)


Bloomberg writes:

The electrification plan, which eventually will encompass almost all of Hertz’s half-million cars and trucks worldwide, is the company’s first big initiative since emerging from bankruptcy in June. And it signals that Hertz’s new owners, Knighthead Capital Management and Certares Management, are intent on shaking up an industry dominated by a handful of large players who are typically slow to change.

Click to expand...

Meadowlark said:

A fools wet dream bound to fail. We simply do not have the electrical infrastructure to facilitate all these anticipated electric vehicles. Never mind the battery technology is far away from being good enough. These federally subsidized schemes will end in predictable failure. All for a chicken little fear of CO2, which is a trace gas and never a pollutant.

Click to expand...

This, EXACTLY.
We are not even close with capacity. And with NIMBY, where are they going to build all these plants?

Typical Demoncratic thinking

intothatgoodnight said:

Well . . . thinking back (early-late1980s) when flying into/out of LAX - particularly when taking off from the airport - as the plane gained altitude, **SUDDENLY** the jet would break through the pollution cloud covering the LA basin area, and BRIGHT sunshine and clear blue skies would become the dominating view - as the plane climbed above the pollution cloud, one could clearly see the brown color of this cloud.

Also true in the Washington, D.C. area - particularly west of D.C., in Virginia, when taking off from Dulles Airport in NoVa on a hot summer day.

How much of that pollution consisted of CO2? Don't know, but such clouds hovering over city areas, below, were/are considered hazardous enough that health advisories would be issued for those areas.

Bear in mind that the anti-pollution systems on vehicles are causing them to produce more CO2 than earlier - and the number of cars in a given urban area have increased dramatically, over the last couple of decades.

CO2 was certainly one component of those past pollution clouds. Exactly WHAT amount of current air pollution consists of CO2 can be looked up, but not generally well known nor understood by J6P - and, such data at present is likely questionable and politicized.


intothegoodnight

Click to expand...

Delete this it makes you look like a fool.

Dobbin said:

What the Left would have you drive.

Citicar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dobbin

Click to expand...

That's the luxury version.

Southside said:

This, EXACTLY.
We are not even close with capacity. And with NIMBY, where are they going to build all these plants?

Click to expand...

We have been pondering/discussing this lack of electricity production capacity, here, on TB2K, for several years.

SEEMS to be a conundrum - or is it?

Pending battery tech improvements could be part of the future energy mix solution - along with other types of improvements/upgrades. (large industrial-scale battery farms to store energy, which could be used to satisfy on-peak electric needs?)

This whole lack of present-generation energy production capability/planning smacks of the possibility of "something(s) else," that will help to resolve the issue of seemingly NOT enough present power production capability versus likely future needs.

YMMV.


intothegoodnight

Meadowlark said:

CO2 is an invisible trace gas. You cannot see "clouds of CO2". What you were seeing was layers of photochemical smog, which have greatly diminished with more stringent EPA internal combustion engine emission requirements. Todays biggest EPA pollution concern in most urban areas is ozone due to stagnant airflow.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Click to expand...

My point is that there is a "soup" of visible and invisible, man-produced, particulates and gases - particularly in the air of certain urban city areas. WHAT the SPECIFIC ratio of the various particulate/gas components are, that make up this "soup," can vary, to be sure.

I have no idea of WHAT those numbers are, generally. Do you?

I do know that the mix of what comes out of the tailpipe of a gas powered vehicle has been changing over the recent decades - and, IIRC, CO2 is still a concern, while acidic/destructive NO2 has been reduced.

The air pollution problem is still pressing, and of concern, because while tailpipe emissions have been significantly improved, the dramatic increase in the number of vehicles on the road over the last couple of decades have increased remarkably, as well.

A balloon with a "bulge problem" - press the bulging area IN, and "the problem" will emerge/bulge at another location on the balloon.


intothegoodnight

Double_A said:

Delete this it makes you look like a fool.

Click to expand...

Uh . . . OK - so I "look like a fool" to you - am I to pay attention to the idea that you (and perhaps others) believe I look like a fool?

Really?

This is a discussion and learning board, after all - would you agree?

Snark teaches nothing of any redeeming value.

Take the time to counter-argue each point of my allgeged "fool" posting, so that we can ALL learn.


intothegoodnight

intothatgoodnight said:

Uh . . . OK - so I "look like a fool" to you - am I to pay attention to the idea that you (and perhaps others) believe I look like a fool?

Really?

This is a discussion and learning board, after all - would you agree?

Snark teaches nothing of any redeeming value.

Take the time to counter-argue each point of my allgeged "fool" posting, so that we can ALL learn.


intothegoodnight

Click to expand...

I have experienced some of this the last couple years. Only it was called prescribed burns.

China's air pollution is so bad solar panels no longer work (fastcompany.com)


China’s air pollution is so bad that solar panels don’t work anymore
China’s pollution-caused smog, particularly in its larger cities, is infamously awful, and it’s making green alternatives difficult.
[Photo: Holger Link
BY MELISSA LOCKER1 MINUTE READ
Solar power is one of the great hopes for clean energy, but in order for solar panels to work, they can’t be where the sun doesn’t shine. That’s why China’s efforts to green up its energy supply are hitting a roadblock. According to a new study, the country’s air pollution has gotten so bad that the sun can’t reach the solar panels—and it’s affecting the solar panels’ output.

The research, published Monday

If the leftists really wanted to reduce air pollution from vehicles - and don't get me wrong, they don't and never did, this is not the purpose- they would provide big tax incentives for every employee of a company that is working from home. Lets lock in the trend now while we can, before companies reverse it. COMMUTING to the big cities is the biggest waste of gas there ever was. This incentive alone would do more good towards reducing car miles in america than anything else ever proposed!

intothatgoodnight said:

A balloon with a "bulge problem" - press the bulging area IN, and "the problem" will emerge/bulge at another location on the balloon.

Click to expand...

Of course the EPA did away with tetra-ethyl lead for reasons of lead pollution alongside major highways.

It was replaced with Ethyl Alcohol. (Oxygenator) which gets to the same anti-knock condition.

It was sold as "an environmental alternative to TEL" and everyone thought that substituting a "natural" renewable fuel was a good idea. The legislation went through Congress like soup through a dinner-horn.

Problem is - gas mileage DROPS with Ethyl Alcohol. It simply does not have the BTU value that gasoline does. So you burn MORE gas to get from point A to point B AND you burn Alcohol.

Of course Alcohol in the US is primarily produced with corn. Farmer grow corn, the corn is fermented and the sugars are converted to alcohol. To make that alcohol useful as a fuel, the mash has to be distilled by boiling (more fuel, likely petroleum) and then condensed in a still. Not only that, but corn is a "heavy feeder" and the only way to consistently maintain output and not deplete the land is to artificially fertilize - and the only fertilizer available in mass quantity is derived from - you guessed it - petroleum.

In effect, your air is cleaner (oxygenation in the combustion process) but you burn (estimated) half again as much petroleum as you might if you simply ran the engine. And although the air is "cleaner" in definition, its equally dirty because you're introducing 1.5 times as much fuel to combustion.

Net wash - nothing - except that farmers get "subsidized" by rule of law - and reliant upon the government teat.

Sad world. Complete loss of objectivity.

Dobbin

Dobbin said:

Of course the EPA did away with tetra-ethyl lead for reasons of lead pollution alongside major highways.

It was replaced with Ethyl Alcohol. (Oxygenator) which gets to the same anti-knock condition.

It was sold as "an environmental alternative to TEL" and everyone thought that substituting a "natural" renewable fuel was a good idea. The legislation went through Congress like soup through a dinner-horn.

Problem is - gas mileage DROPS with Ethyl Alcohol. It simply does not have the BTU value that gasoline does. So you burn MORE gas to get from point A to point B AND you burn Alcohol.

Of course Alcohol in the US is primarily produced with corn. Farmer grow corn, the corn is fermented and the sugars are converted to alcohol. To make that alcohol useful as a fuel, the mash has to be distilled by boiling (more fuel, likely petroleum) and then condensed in a still. Not only that, but corn is a "heavy feeder" and the only way to consistently maintain output and not deplete the land is to artificially fertilize - and the only fertilizer available in mass quantity is derived from - you guessed it - petroleum.

In effect, your air is cleaner (oxygenation in the combustion process) but you burn (estimated) half again as much petroleum as you might if you simply ran the engine. And although the air is "cleaner" in definition, its equally dirty because you're introducing 1.5 times as much fuel to combustion.

Net wash - nothing - except that farmers get "subsidized" by rule of law - and reliant upon the government teat.

Sad world. Complete loss of objectivity.

Dobbin

Click to expand...

I might add that, before ethyl alcohol, it was MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) which was the oxygenator additive of choice - and also had an unfortunate tendency to end up in the ground water - something to do with its chemical makeup/nature.


intothegoodnight

Who would ever buy a car that with one “update” could park 90 degrees on any road at one time in mass? Imagine the problems.