Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Ba-Dump Tissssh - Memes


Pat Riot

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Buckshot Bob

    4903

  • Pat Riot

    2824

  • Alpo

    2264

  • Subdeacon Joe

    1818

2 hours ago, DocWard said:

 

 

2000 Tundra, 20 mpg maybe if it was a 2WD.

 

Yep, 2WD V-8.

Can we agree at some point that there is a place for Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion Vehicles?

Exactly.  Long commutes, very rural areas, towing personal trailers are not conducive to EVs, 


I have no desire to have an EV, because it would limit much of what I do. I really have no desire to see charging stations when I am out in the middle of nowhere camping. And right now my truck does pretty well at pulling a horse trailer when necessary. A friend has a Tesla that is insanely fast, but you lose so much of the driving experience without a shift knob in hand. The paddle shifters on my Outback Wilderness are a substitute, but still pales by comparison to the real thing.

I do sometimes miss a stick, but that was true with the Tundra with its automatic transmission. Charging stations aren't all that obtrusive.  If you stay at,  e.g. a KOA or similar, what's the difference between that and the utility hookups?


If I just wanted a commuter vehicle, I would strongly consider an EV.

Exactly. Commutes, local driving for pleasure.  I could make it across the country in the EV I have, longest stretch, according to various charging station aps, would be about 140 miles, which would make me nervous since I have a low end Leaf.  But it's great for day trips.  


Having said that, I still say Hydrogen is the better option.

No argument there.   But you then have the issue of setting up the high pressure hydrogen infrastructure, and, of course, you would still get the memes showing hundreds of rail cars loaded with coal and the caption. "LOOK!  Another load of hydrogen fuel!"

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Alpo said:

Got an email from my electric company, day or so back.

 

(etcl)

 

I don't know. It just looks like electric is a bit more expensive.

 

8 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

I drove a 2000 Tundra. In March 2021 it was costing about $75/week to fuel just for going to work (at around $3.59/gal), church, and shopping (shopping was only about 5 miles a week round trip).  

 

(etc.)

 

So, I don't care what math you use, but call it $20 to $25 per week is a lot less than $125 to $150 per week.  So, no, it's not more expensive to drive an electric than an internal combustion vehicle.  Even if your daily round trip is 200 miles and you charge exclusively at commercial fast charging stations it's cheaper, unless you have an internal combustion that gets 50mpg or better.

 

 

There is no way to accurately compare the true costs of running EV vs. ICV because the 'renewable' side of the market has been thoroughly corrupted by government taxpayer funding, as well as through burdensome regulations that appear intended to deliberately stymy consumer choices.

 

While it is true that the out-of-pocket costs for consumers can be fairly closely approximated, when I as a taxpayer hear someone talking about how wonderfully economical it is for them to buy and run an EV, I feel like I should at least get a nice big kiss on the back of the ear.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buckshot Bob said:

image.thumb.png.6634655dd08408b517f4c979710072bf.png

 I wish that was all it cost to fill my truck.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

There is no way to accurately compare the true costs of running EV vs. ICV because the fossil fuel side of the market has been thoroughly corrupted by government taxpayer funding,

 

Fixed it for you.   https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/sen-whitehouse-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-we-are-subsidizing-the-danger-
 

Quote

 

You tally up the harms, and the IMF estimates it at a $5.4 trillion annual subsidy worldwide.  In the United States, it’s $646 billion – every single year.  

 

 

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.


Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.

 

 

 

Tell us again how there is no subsidy of the petroleum industry.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Charging stations aren't all that obtrusive.  If you stay at,  e.g. a KOA or similar, what's the difference between that and the utility hookups?

 

A KO What? Seriously, I camp to get as far away from people as possible. Whether dispersed camping, Going to places I know of far back in the hills of Eastern Kentucky, or exploring more areas of the sort--what might pass for "overlanding." I tend to not stay at campgrounds, and then, only for specific reasons.

 

10 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

No argument there.   But you then have the issue of setting up the high pressure hydrogen infrastructure, and, of course, you would still get the memes showing hundreds of rail cars loaded with coal and the caption. "LOOK!  Another load of hydrogen fuel!"

 

There are numerous ways to produce hydrogen. To my understanding, it is still the most energy effective way to produce a fuel source compared to electricity and petroleum. In addition, it can be used in both internal combustion engines and as the fuel source for EVs. It is faster to refuel than electric, and more. It does have it's downside, including, as you mention, infrastructure.

 

I do believe that a certain amount of propaganda in favor of electric vehicles, along with the tendency of the average person to not look behind the curtain (seeing coal powered plants, warming of waters behind hydroelectric dams, etc...) have pushed the popularity of EVs, while a lack of understanding about the actual safety of hydrogen has done it harm.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DocWard said:

I do believe that a certain amount of propaganda in favor of electric vehicles, along with the tendency of the average person to not look behind the curtain (seeing coal powered plants, warming of waters behind hydroelectric dams, etc...) have pushed the popularity of EVs, while a lack of understanding about the actual safety of hydrogen has done it harm.

 

One of the attractions of the EV for many people is home charging,  I don't seen Hydrogen being pumped into every home.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For at least a century natural gas was pumped into homes.

 

A home hydrogen plant would be simple and cheap.

 

Look at hydrogen fuel cell tech

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Fixed it for you.   https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/sen-whitehouse-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-we-are-subsidizing-the-danger-
 

 

 

Tell us again how there is no subsidy of the petroleum industry.  

From your article:

 

"In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry.

 

So I'll see your internet reference and raise you one:

 

Annual U.S. revenue from fossil fuel taxation: $138 billion.

 

The U.S. gets almost seven times back in revenue from the $20 billion subsidy.

 

What does the U.S. get back in revenue from the money it dumps into EV? (besides, of course, campaign contributions).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

From your article:

 

"In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry.

 

So I'll see your internet reference and raise you one:

 

Annual U.S. revenue from fossil fuel taxation: $138 billion.

 

The U.S. gets almost seven times back in revenue from the $20 billion subsidy.

 

What does the U.S. get back in revenue from the money it dumps into EV? (besides, of course, campaign contributions).

 

 

What "interest reference" did you pull the fossil fuel tax number from?

 

Edited by Subdeacon Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.