4 ms·

Why do you say that tax breaks to renewable energy or letting greener vehicles use the diamond lane is irrational? I'll note two things, by the way 1. O&G com

Why do you say that tax breaks to renewable energy or letting greener vehicles use the diamond lane is irrational? I'll note two things, by the way 1. O&G companies also get tax subsidies. 2. The Republican led government of Texas approved giving electric cars the right to use the HOV lane with one person in the car, so you must thus acknowledge that they are at least as irrational

drewcon 7y ago
Subsidies? Not really. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#3ac1a96c6e1c https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunki...
- Spooky23 7y ago
  When you open that argument with “what about the widows and orphans depending on MLP dividends”, I stop reading.
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
Are hybrids greener? They emit less NOx so I am in favour but is their total lifetime carbon lower than a pure ICE?
- ebrewste 7y ago
  H ybrids "sort of" appear to be ahead in lower lifetime CO2. They key thing is that they higher GHG emmisions from the eletric grid, regionally, the less good hybrids look. But considering the trend of how fast wind, solar are lowering in cost, where coal isn't, I think the picture is getting better re: GHG emmisions for hybrids and electric, where gas IC engines are not, at least not as fast. https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits2.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-m... Original paper referenced above. https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/argonne_phev_evaluation_report.pdf https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/argonne_phev_evaluation_r... In the conclusion: "The primary conclusion is that electrification of transportation significantly reduces petroleum energy use, but GHG emissions strongly depend on the electricity generation mix for battery recharging. "
  - reitzensteinm 7y ago
    If you place more load on a grid that's purposefully transitioning away from fossil fuels, the entirety of the extra load should properly be accounted under the carbon emissions of the dirty plants you're shutting down, because that will be delayed. In other words, the marginal emissions caused by the extra load is the actual consequence, not the emissions proportional to that load. But PHEVs in my opinion have an overlooked utility for demand dispatch and battery to grid transfers, even when compared to BEVs. The entirety of a PHEVs battery can be used for either task. A long range BEV that you use to commute may be put in a mode where the power company is free to decide when to charge the battery once it's above a user set minimum. This allows off demand to be shifted to follow renewable production. But for a PHEV, that minimum is zero. While the battery isn't as big as a BEV, the portion set aside for this purpose may be as large. During a heat wave, they don't have to pull anything from the grid, and can in fact contribute. Dirty power, but much less impactful than building power stations for a few days a year. The net result is a vehicle that acts as a BEV for commuting, is able to travel long distances without a supercharger, and allows the grid to tolerate higher renewable mixes. I think it makes a ton of sense today. But the market is shifting so quickly, it may only for a short window.
  - D_Alex 7y ago
    >Hybrids "sort of" appear to be ahead in lower lifetime CO2... I think that this is unnecessarily cautious, to the point of being misleading. The right answer is "Hybrids ARE lower than ICEs when it comes to GHG emissions" - this is true in general and of all hybrids collectively. It may not be true in some rare individual cases, where the hybrid is not particularly efficient and the electricity is generated from coal (see figure ES1 in the Argonne paper you linked above).
JudgeWapner 7y ago
I can get a tax rebate for purchasing an Oil-powered vehicle, or are you deliberately misreading what I posted? Tax rebates for "going green" is irrational because it defies its own purpose! If EV's are great, they're great because they emit less NOx, and that should be the impetus to switch. If Democrats are the Superior party, and they know best, they won't need financial incentives (read: bribery) to promote the Superior Choice. But really by "incentivizing" various things, they are proving what they're actually about: pay-for-play.
- kadoban 7y ago
  People do not make choices based on all global facts. If everyone in the country bought a car that pollutes less, we're all better off. If only I buy a car that pollutes less, and everyone else does whatever, I am poorer but not healthier. Thus it makes sense to incentivize individual choices that benefit society. Additionally, entrenched markets can be difficult to enter. If solar would win a fair race against petroleum, but it's starting centuries later, it may have no chance without initial subsidies.
- ajross 7y ago
  > Tax rebates for "going green" is irrational because it defies its own purpose! If EV's are great, they're great because they emit less NOx, and that should be the impetus to switch. "Impetus" is an issue of opinion, not rationality. Some people are incentivized by different things. But if the government as a whole wants less gas used, it can use money as a carrot. I mean, if you want to call that "irrational" then basically all government spending or credits are irrational. Sales tax is irrational. Farm subsidies are irrational. The mortgage interest rate deduction is irrational. Military spending is irrational. Parks are irrational. Sports stadiums are irrational. Public universities are irrational. The term loses its meaning. Everything is "pay for play" (as you put it) in a real economy. We, as represented by our elected government, pool our resources to get things that we can't get by individual action. This is like government 101, dude.

drewcon 7y ago

Subsidies? Not really. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#3ac1a96c6e1c https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunki...

Spooky23 7y ago
When you open that argument with “what about the widows and orphans depending on MLP dividends”, I stop reading.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

Are hybrids greener? They emit less NOx so I am in favour but is their total lifetime carbon lower than a pure ICE?

ebrewste 7y ago
H ybrids "sort of" appear to be ahead in lower lifetime CO2. They key thing is that they higher GHG emmisions from the eletric grid, regionally, the less good hybrids look. But considering the trend of how fast wind, solar are lowering in cost, where coal isn't, I think the picture is getting better re: GHG emmisions for hybrids and electric, where gas IC engines are not, at least not as fast. https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits2.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-m... Original paper referenced above. https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/argonne_phev_evaluation_report.pdf https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/argonne_phev_evaluation_r... In the conclusion: "The primary conclusion is that electrification of transportation significantly reduces petroleum energy use, but GHG emissions strongly depend on the electricity generation mix for battery recharging. "
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  If you place more load on a grid that's purposefully transitioning away from fossil fuels, the entirety of the extra load should properly be accounted under the carbon emissions of the dirty plants you're shutting down, because that will be delayed. In other words, the marginal emissions caused by the extra load is the actual consequence, not the emissions proportional to that load. But PHEVs in my opinion have an overlooked utility for demand dispatch and battery to grid transfers, even when compared to BEVs. The entirety of a PHEVs battery can be used for either task. A long range BEV that you use to commute may be put in a mode where the power company is free to decide when to charge the battery once it's above a user set minimum. This allows off demand to be shifted to follow renewable production. But for a PHEV, that minimum is zero. While the battery isn't as big as a BEV, the portion set aside for this purpose may be as large. During a heat wave, they don't have to pull anything from the grid, and can in fact contribute. Dirty power, but much less impactful than building power stations for a few days a year. The net result is a vehicle that acts as a BEV for commuting, is able to travel long distances without a supercharger, and allows the grid to tolerate higher renewable mixes. I think it makes a ton of sense today. But the market is shifting so quickly, it may only for a short window.
- D_Alex 7y ago
  >Hybrids "sort of" appear to be ahead in lower lifetime CO2... I think that this is unnecessarily cautious, to the point of being misleading. The right answer is "Hybrids ARE lower than ICEs when it comes to GHG emissions" - this is true in general and of all hybrids collectively. It may not be true in some rare individual cases, where the hybrid is not particularly efficient and the electricity is generated from coal (see figure ES1 in the Argonne paper you linked above).

JudgeWapner 7y ago

I can get a tax rebate for purchasing an Oil-powered vehicle, or are you deliberately misreading what I posted? Tax rebates for "going green" is irrational because it defies its own purpose! If EV's are great, they're great because they emit less NOx, and that should be the impetus to switch. If Democrats are the Superior party, and they know best, they won't need financial incentives (read: bribery) to promote the Superior Choice. But really by "incentivizing" various things, they are proving what they're actually about: pay-for-play.

kadoban 7y ago
People do not make choices based on all global facts. If everyone in the country bought a car that pollutes less, we're all better off. If only I buy a car that pollutes less, and everyone else does whatever, I am poorer but not healthier. Thus it makes sense to incentivize individual choices that benefit society. Additionally, entrenched markets can be difficult to enter. If solar would win a fair race against petroleum, but it's starting centuries later, it may have no chance without initial subsidies.
ajross 7y ago
> Tax rebates for "going green" is irrational because it defies its own purpose! If EV's are great, they're great because they emit less NOx, and that should be the impetus to switch. "Impetus" is an issue of opinion, not rationality. Some people are incentivized by different things. But if the government as a whole wants less gas used, it can use money as a carrot. I mean, if you want to call that "irrational" then basically all government spending or credits are irrational. Sales tax is irrational. Farm subsidies are irrational. The mortgage interest rate deduction is irrational. Military spending is irrational. Parks are irrational. Sports stadiums are irrational. Public universities are irrational. The term loses its meaning. Everything is "pay for play" (as you put it) in a real economy. We, as represented by our elected government, pool our resources to get things that we can't get by individual action. This is like government 101, dude.