3 ms·

You are right about the costs and margins. However, a large portion of the cost disparity is because diesel fuel costs incorporate a lot of taxes to fund road m

by bumby 3y ago

You are right about the costs and margins. However, a large portion of the cost disparity is because diesel fuel costs incorporate a lot of taxes to fund road maintenance. The electric costs do not, and I suspect that will have to change. Road maintenance funds will have to come from somewhere, and most states are reluctant to take from other tax areas.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
24 cents per gallon of diesel aren't a significant portion of fuel costs nor do they come anywhere close to paying for the roads.
- bumby 3y ago
  I'm guessing you're just reading federal taxes. There are a barrage of taxes applied to fuel. California shows over $1.24 per gallon in total. Nationally it's over 64 cents/gal. That's tens of billions of dollars nationally, and more than we spend on the energy & environment in total. One of the major problems with infrastructure spending is that these numbers have barely budged in decades. Combine that lack of political will with improvements in fuel mileage and increase in EVs means big budget shortfalls. That money has to be made up from somewhere and I can all but bet it won't come from cutting entitlements. A 'mileage driven' tax seems like a reasonable solution.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Fuel taxes collect $50B/year and road maintenance is $200B/year. Significant, but obviously not a roadblock.
    - bumby 3y ago
      By that same notion, we could eliminate the $50B funds to energy and the environment, no big deal. $50B is a lot and it doesn't help to trivialize it because it sounds good. Thats double what was spent on Medicare. More than double what was spent on education and social services, Dept. of Education, NASA, etc. Over 10x what was spent on the Dept. of Transportation. The point is, it's a lot of money and that money has to come from somewhere. Most economists would say it makes the most sense to get that money from the people who most use the roads. That sounds like a mileage tax, tolls, or some other mechanism. I don't see why EVs would get a (literal) free ride here.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      If California Fuel tax is $1.24 per gallon in total (20%), which is about $0.15 per mile revenue. Tesla semi is supposably about 2kwh/mile. PG&E commercial vehicle electric rates for off peak are about $0.20 per Kwh, which translates to $0.40/mile. If California wanted to collect similar revenue, that 0.15 would be about 35% of the operational fuel cost.
      - bumby 3y ago
        Appreciate the breakdown. The part that I would question is whether it's reasonable to expect all long-haul truckers to charge off-peak. I think electric will (over time) still be considerably cheaper, but I also don't think it will be as good as the back-of-the-envelope calculations people tend to tout.
        bryanlarsen 3y ago
        Using off-peak electricity during on-peak hours means installing a stationary battery at the charger. They'll do it if saves money. It'll be more likely if a high amperage grid connection is also expensive at the charger location. A battery and a low amperage connection can replace a high amperage connection for an infrequently used charger.
        bumby 3y ago
        A lot of your arguements seem to hinge on "if". "If a tractor-trailor converts to electric" and "if infrastructure is built to support it" and "if we fund infrastructure from something other than fuel taxes" and "if truckers recharge off-peak" and "if chargers have a stationary battery" and... The more conditionals that get levied the farther off the solution seems to be and the less of a slam dunk electrification appears. They're solvable, but I think it's reasonable to expect a cost and timeline for each of those before we start touting electrification as a great solution just on the horizon. The original claim was: out of planes, trains, and automobiles, the only one that's a problem are planes. Short answer: It's solvable, but a heck of a lot more complicated than that statement lets on.

by bumby 3y ago

bryanlarsen 3y ago

24 cents per gallon of diesel aren't a significant portion of fuel costs nor do they come anywhere close to paying for the roads.

bumby 3y ago
I'm guessing you're just reading federal taxes. There are a barrage of taxes applied to fuel. California shows over $1.24 per gallon in total. Nationally it's over 64 cents/gal. That's tens of billions of dollars nationally, and more than we spend on the energy & environment in total. One of the major problems with infrastructure spending is that these numbers have barely budged in decades. Combine that lack of political will with improvements in fuel mileage and increase in EVs means big budget shortfalls. That money has to be made up from somewhere and I can all but bet it won't come from cutting entitlements. A 'mileage driven' tax seems like a reasonable solution.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Fuel taxes collect $50B/year and road maintenance is $200B/year. Significant, but obviously not a roadblock.
  - bumby 3y ago
    By that same notion, we could eliminate the $50B funds to energy and the environment, no big deal. $50B is a lot and it doesn't help to trivialize it because it sounds good. Thats double what was spent on Medicare. More than double what was spent on education and social services, Dept. of Education, NASA, etc. Over 10x what was spent on the Dept. of Transportation. The point is, it's a lot of money and that money has to come from somewhere. Most economists would say it makes the most sense to get that money from the people who most use the roads. That sounds like a mileage tax, tolls, or some other mechanism. I don't see why EVs would get a (literal) free ride here.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    If California Fuel tax is $1.24 per gallon in total (20%), which is about $0.15 per mile revenue. Tesla semi is supposably about 2kwh/mile. PG&E commercial vehicle electric rates for off peak are about $0.20 per Kwh, which translates to $0.40/mile. If California wanted to collect similar revenue, that 0.15 would be about 35% of the operational fuel cost.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Appreciate the breakdown. The part that I would question is whether it's reasonable to expect all long-haul truckers to charge off-peak. I think electric will (over time) still be considerably cheaper, but I also don't think it will be as good as the back-of-the-envelope calculations people tend to tout.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        Using off-peak electricity during on-peak hours means installing a stationary battery at the charger. They'll do it if saves money. It'll be more likely if a high amperage grid connection is also expensive at the charger location. A battery and a low amperage connection can replace a high amperage connection for an infrequently used charger.
        bumby 3y ago
        A lot of your arguements seem to hinge on "if". "If a tractor-trailor converts to electric" and "if infrastructure is built to support it" and "if we fund infrastructure from something other than fuel taxes" and "if truckers recharge off-peak" and "if chargers have a stationary battery" and... The more conditionals that get levied the farther off the solution seems to be and the less of a slam dunk electrification appears. They're solvable, but I think it's reasonable to expect a cost and timeline for each of those before we start touting electrification as a great solution just on the horizon. The original claim was: out of planes, trains, and automobiles, the only one that's a problem are planes. Short answer: It's solvable, but a heck of a lot more complicated than that statement lets on.