Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

[Oilerlord]

The objective of a Carbon Tax isn't to 'reward' people that have Solar Panels and EVs. It's to internalize the external costs of fossil fuels. The primary argument against a carbon tax is that it disproportionately hurts people that cannot reduce their use of fossil fuels with Solar Panels and EVs. Shifting the revenue from a carbon tax to low income people is meant to address this argument.

I have no problem compensating low income individuals for the added tax on gasoline, but the $300 quarterly cheque they receive assumes they are paying tax on the equivalent of over 1700 gallons of gasoline every three months. To me, I'd simply like to call this for what it is: Wealth transfer. Taking from the rich & giving to the poor (if you call someone who earns nearly $4,000 per month "poor") may indeed be a noble cause, but it does not lower CO2 PPM.

And yes, why not recognize people with solar, and reward them for doing good for the environment with a carbon rebate cheque? At least these people are doing something to deserve it. Annual personal income is irrelevant.

 

[Oilerlord]

The old low income discussion. That's generally just vote buying.

I am retired and have no taxable income. We live off pre-taxed savings, pay NO state or federal TAXES, drive a big gas guzzeling truck, heat with oil and throw away aluminum beer cans. Under that scenario, we would get the rebate in Canada. Really funny stuff.

Why not support the government that gives you and your wife a $450 bonus every 3 months - just because? More beer = more votes. That's all it is. Carbon tax revenue does pay for trucks to drive around and help people install LED light bulbs though. Welcome to Alberta, where the government has to teach people how to screw in light bulbs. More sad than funny.

 

[bhtooefr]

And yes, why not recognize people with solar, and reward them for doing good for the environment with a carbon rebate cheque? At least these people are doing something to deserve it. Annual personal income is irrelevant.

People with solar aren't paying the carbon tax on electricity they consume if they're generating it. Also, apparently Alberta's mandated that solar exported to the grid be purchased by the utility at retail rate, so there's your solar rebate arguably.

 

[kjclow]

I would imagine that the Billions of dollars car manufactures are now pumping into Battery R&D is going to help accelerate things a bit. It would have been nice if they had started doing that in earnest ~15 years ago.

What makes you think they weren’t? Ok, maybe the car manufacturers weren’t working on new battery technology, but it was being done. As mentioned, Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither has battery technology changed overnight.

 

[nwdiver]

What makes you think they weren’t? Ok, maybe the car manufacturers weren’t working on new battery technology, but it was being done. As mentioned, Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither has battery technology changed overnight.

Point was that we should have kept accelerating the 'construction of Rome' from 2000 - 2010 instead of slowing down / stopping....

This should have happened ~15 years ago....

 

[kjclow]

Model S and X can be afforded by more than 1% of the population. Assuming a sale price of $100,000, a family would need to make $200,000, which is more like 7% of U.S. households. Still the top tier, but not as exaggerated as your statistic of 1% would suggest.

Using the 20/4/10 rule of car affordability, a $35,000 Model 3 would be affordable to households making $72,000 and up. That's about 40% of U.S. households. A reasonably optioned $45,000 Model 3 would be affordable to households making $92,000 or more. That's about 30% of U.S. households.

And that's just new Tesla vehicles. Used vehicles will be available to people with lower incomes. In addition, many of the major auto makers are coming out with affordable EVs of their own - EVs with 200+ mile ranges, not the little city cars that you and I currently own. If they start at $25,000, that makes them affordable to households making $50,000 or more, or about 57% of U.S. households.

To put these numbers in perspective, a $15,000 base model car (Versa Note, Yaris, whatever) would require an annual household income of nearly $40,000. For the sake of discussion, let's round down to $35,000, which makes it affordable to 70% of U.S. households. More importantly, it means that 30% of U.S. households cannot reasonably afford to buy a new vehicle.

This is also looking about five years out. Beyond that, I expect that we'll see even less expensive electric vehicles. As GoFaster said, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Let’s put that in a real world comparisons: a family making $200,000 probably has a mortgage in the 300-400,000 range. Getting a loan to buy that $100,000 car won’t happen. I can tell you that I’m much closer to that first paragraph and there’s no way I’m ever qualifying for that high of car loan. Let alone trying to figure out how to pay for it. We have a hard time justifying spending more on a new car than we did on our first home, $30,000 in 84. Let alone justifying spending more than our current mortgage.

 

[kjclow]

Ontario to introduce rebates to boost electric truck demand:



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ontario-introduce-rebates-boost-electric-160000328.html

While many countries are stopping the hybrid and electric incentives because they realize it’s costing them too much to support a niche market.

 

[nwdiver]

While many countries are stopping the hybrid and electric incentives because they realize it’s costing them too much to support a niche market.

It's a chicken/egg problem. It's a niche market until it gets enough investment... which is what VW and other are FINAAALLY doing....

 

[turbobrick240]

Yeah, I see the incentives as temporary- a jump start to get the EV market firing on all cylinders(maybe a poor metaphor). The government can do miraculous things when they really want to. Look at the Apollo space program. A lot of those engineers were crunching numbers with slide rules, yet they got men on the moon.

 

[nwdiver]

It... it wasn't a joke... Elons Roadster is headed to Mars orbit.... or it's getting blown to bits next month...

 

[migbro]

Really...have you been there, or is the picture you're attempting to paint of Norway limited to the size of a 15" laptop screen? Their "weird" economy is oil based. They have the resource, and fund their country from it. Not sure where you find the weird in that.

The weird part is Norway is not so much a country as an oil industry with a population. The oil distorts everything. I have a customer in Norway and he explained it all to me at length at one point, it's more or less a wealthier-than-average communist country with very high taxes and a lot of forced equality. Alaska plus communism and don't even think about buying a vehicle with a big engine.

 

[migbro]

Yeah, I see the incentives as temporary- a jump start to get the EV market firing on all cylinders(maybe a poor metaphor). The government can do miraculous things when they really want to. Look at the Apollo space program. A lot of those engineers were crunching numbers with slide rules, yet they got men on the moon.

I've seen the movie and it was three black women, can't fool me.

 

[turbobrick240]

It... it wasn't a joke... Elons Roadster is headed to Mars orbit.... or it's getting blown to bits next month...

I never doubted he meant it. I predict it will become. the fastest car ever. Faster than the gen 2 Roadster.

 

[Oilerlord]

People with solar aren't paying the carbon tax on electricity they consume if they're generating it. Also, apparently Alberta's mandated that solar exported to the grid be purchased by the utility at retail rate, so there's your solar rebate arguably.

In Alberta, individuals don't pay carbon tax on electricity.

Just as the power company paid to build their power generation infrastructure, I paid for my solar power generation infrastructure (with my own money, and no incentives or rebates). As part of the microgeneration agreement I have with the utility, I buy kWh's from them, and they buy them from me. There are no "rebates" involved.

 

[migbro]

In Alberta, individuals don't pay carbon tax on electricity.

Just as the power company paid to build their power generation infrastructure, I paid for my solar power generation infrastructure (with my own money, and no incentives or rebates). As part of the microgeneration agreement I have with the utility, I buy kWh's from them, and they buy them from me. There are no "rebates" involved.

I'm guessing they buy from you at a price higher than their own generation cost. Someone is picking up the tab for the difference.

I'm thinking of building my own backyard oil refinery and selling gasoline to Mobil at retail price.

 

[Oilerlord]

I'm guessing they buy from you at a price higher than their own generation cost. Someone is picking up the tab for the difference.

Actually, no. I buy & sell electricity from the utility at exactly the same price per kWh.

On the surface, that sounds like a fair deal but it isn't. While I do get paid the base rate for electricity - when I buy it from the utility, I pay base rate + transmission fee + distribution fee + local access fee + admin fee + tax. So, I'll get paid 5 cents, but with fees & taxes; the price I pay is about 7.5 cents.

Other municipalities do it differently. They merely bank the kWh's you export to the grid that you can use at a later time like overnight, or when the sun is otherwise not shining. That's a fair system, but isn't how it's done in Alberta.

 

[meerschm]

it seems to me that this system is fair.

there is a supply cost, and a distribution cost. the distribution cost would seem to be there no matter the source.

but if the supply cost was priced in real time, you would likely be ahead of the game, since most places have peak use during daylight hours, this would be a good match for solar.

and this extra cost would let you make a cost-based case for home battery storage.

 

[bhtooefr]

You may not be paying a line item for "carbon tax" in your electric bill, but is the generation provider paying a carbon tax that they then pass on to their customers?

 

[Oilerlord]

You may not be paying a line item for "carbon tax" in your electric bill, but is the generation provider paying a carbon tax that they then pass on to their customers?

Albertans do not pay carbon tax on electricity, and generation providers cannot bill for it, or otherwise hide or pass on the tax on natural gas or coal feedstock used to generate electricity to their customers. This may change in the future, however fees on electricity haven't changed since the carbon tax was implemented last year.

 

[Oilerlord]

it seems to me that this system is fair.

there is a supply cost, and a distribution cost. the distribution cost would seem to be there no matter the source.

but if the supply cost was priced in real time, you would likely be ahead of the game, since most places have peak use during daylight hours, this would be a good match for solar.

and this extra cost would let you make a cost-based case for home battery storage.

I get that there is a cost to maintain the grid, to transmit and distribute kWh's. There is also a cost of administrating the grid. It makes sense that customers that buy that electricity need to pay transmission & distribution fees.

So, why should it be any different for my microgeneration site? The investment in my power generation is solely my responsibility. The cost of all the PV, micro inverters, wiring, sub panels, racking, labour, permits, etc...that's all on me.

I don't get to charge the utility for administration, distribution, or transmission when they buy MY (absolutely clean) kWh's. That doesn't stop them from turning around and collecting distribution, transmission, local access, and administration fees on my generated electricity. They have no investment in the power I generate - but they get to collect those fees on electricity I generate to their customers. In fact, they will sell my generated electricity a "green" premium to customers that choose to pay more for electricity generated from renewable sources, but none of that revenue makes it back to me. Do you think that's fair? I don't.

We don't have Time of Usage billing in Alberta. We pay the same rate at 3AM as we do at 6PM.

I've looked into battery storage systems as a way to store excess kWh's during the day and use them overnight so I can avoid paying fees & taxes on kWh's I consume. The problem is that if fees & taxes amount to about 2.5 cents per kWh - there's no way I can make an ROI on battery system make sense.

 

[DPM]

can you divert daytime excess into hot water?

 

[turbobrick240]

I'd just collect the utility payment for the time being. Battery storage will become much more affordable before long.

 

[meerschm]

I get that there is a cost to maintain the grid, to transmit and distribute kWh's. There is also a cost of administrating the grid. It makes sense that customers that buy that electricity need to pay transmission & distribution fees.

So, why should it be any different for my microgeneration site? The investment in my power generation is solely my responsibility. The cost of all the PV, micro inverters, wiring, sub panels, racking, labour, permits, etc...that's all on me.

I don't get to charge the utility for administration, distribution, or transmission when they buy MY (absolutely clean) kWh's. That doesn't stop them from turning around and collecting distribution, transmission, local access, and administration fees on my generated electricity. They have no investment in the power I generate - but they get to collect those fees on electricity I generate to their customers. In fact, they will sell my generated electricity a "green" premium to customers that choose to pay more for electricity generated from renewable sources, but none of that revenue makes it back to me. Do you think that's fair? I don't.
.

cost does not equal price.

you are entitled to your opinions, the only thing I wanted to say is that it is not realistic to expect to be paid both the generation and distribution costs for excess power which you provide on your schedule, not in response to the needs of the other customers.

instead of KWH, what if we were talking green beans? if you had a contract for green beans, and also an option to grow and provide beans back to the store, what would the appropriate prices be?

 

[CraziFuzzy]

In so cal, my solar agreement is simply a net usage bill. The meter records how much energy i import, and how much i export, and subtracts them. That number is then multiplied by both the delivery rate ($0.08173/kWh), AND the generation rate ($0.07477/kWh) to determine my charge or credit for the month. The charges and credits for the month are tallied for 12 months when i pay an annual bill.

This means that I am getting paid for edison's delivery charges for kWh I export, which means they are buying my electricity for twice what they would buy it from the power plant for, which is not really fair. I think it makes perfect sense if they only subtracted the generation rate for my exporting.

 

[Oilerlord]

cost does not equal price.

it is not realistic to expect to be paid both the generation and distribution costs for excess power which you provide on your schedule, not in response to the needs of the other customers.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather be credited for kWh's exported, not paid for them. Several municipalities have it set up that way, essentially using the utility as a UPS. That in itself may not be viewed as "realistic" by some, but it's the way it is now in a lot of areas. It encourage more people to install solar, and be part of the "solution" that so many of us advocate for.

I'm not against supporting the grid through fees - only that most of the fees are consumption-based. I don't think it's fair to have to pay fees & taxes on the kWh's that I just exported to the grid hours ago. One of the reasons it made sense for me to go with an EV is so that I can store those kWh's instead of giving them away for peanuts. They have much more value to me in my car than they do as a 3.3 cents per kWh credit on my power bill.

 

[Oilerlord]

In so cal, my solar agreement is simply a net usage bill. The meter records how much energy i import, and how much i export, and subtracts them.

That's exactly how I'd like it to work in Alberta, but it doesn't. Here's my bill from June:

Had the utility merely subtracted my exported kWh's, I would have had 334 kWh's going forward, and continued to bank those kWh's into December.

 

[john.jackson9213]

Oilerlord,

Frankly, I think you have a good deal. I think of your $38.18 bill as very cheap to use the Electric Grid as your battery. From that point of view, you have a good deal.

 

[migbro]

Actually, no. I buy & sell electricity from the utility at exactly the same price per kWh.

That was my point.

The utility is not selling electricity to you at their cost so when they buy from you they're paying a higher price than they would if they bought electricity elsewhere.

All that's really happening is you're getting your power at a reduced cost while many other users are paying a little more to subsidize you.

 

[meerschm]

.....

All that's really happening is you're getting your power at a reduced cost while many other users are paying a little more to subsidize you.

And I am fine with this.

there are risks associated with homeowner rooftop solar installs, and we should be happy to help incentivize the installation with enhanced benefits.

 

[Oilerlord]

All that's really happening is you're getting your power at a reduced cost while many other users are paying a little more to subsidize you.

Are you kidding me?

I'm on a spot plan. Every Albertan has the choice of buying electricity on the spot market, and will pay exactly the same rate I do - regardless if they have solar or not. No one "subsidizes" me. Further, on days that are windy and/or sunny, the extra inflow of electricity to the grid helps fill demand - and lowers the electricity pool price. So to the point, wind & rooftop solar installations helps power rates to be lower for all Albertans.

The utility pays me about $0.01 more than they can generate power on their own - however they didn't have to come up with with the $2B to build a new power plant and have ZERO capital investment in my generation.

As a registered microgeneration site, they will resell my clean electricity to to others for a "Green" premium for up to $15 per month.

I get no royalty, rebate, or subsidy for that either. I guess in your view, this is perfectly reasonable.