Is BITOG an endangered species?

[97prizm]

The way I look at it and hopefully ice will continue, but. Digital watches are almost universally more accurate than mechanical watches. From se

Not only that but lithium batteries are not the source of energy, just the storage device. Hydrogen produces electricity, it doesnt store it, in fact hydrogen vehicles have much smaller scaled down lithium batteries to store some energy from the fuel cell producing the electricity. Seems to be certainly more "earth friendly" for the tree huggers than electricity produced by utility power plants. Never mind the mind blowing savings on the environment and mind blowing costs of upgrading the national electric grid will not be needed with Hydrogen.
This is one area of kudos I can give to CA ( I dont do that often) , H2 fueling stations, heck there are 3 Shell stations in Sacramento and fair amount in SanFrancisco and SanJose.
Germany leads the world right now with 80 H2 stations open.
I dont think for one second the fuel industry is going to just sit back and close up 150,000 gas stations in the USA and stop selling a product that is far superior to tying your EV to an extension cord for electricity. Not going to happen Hydrogen is the future. The current model way of charging your EV is the stepping stone.
The only issue right now is the chicken and egg thing. You need the vehicle to create the demand for H2 but you need the H2 stations to exist to fill the demand. Where as with the current EV the electric grid is there.

One last thing, Hydrogen vehicles ARE EV's just the same as current Lithium EVs. It is just a matter of where the electricity comes from.
Ok, one other thing *LOL*
Utility companies are in competition with Hydrogen because with Hydrogen you are producing your own electricity and you do not need the utility company. It actually can be a direct threat in the future as well because small fuel cells can also power a home, or a central fuel cell can power a community ... but they is way to far in the future but maybe a reason for utility companies to try to stamp out H2\

Yeah, I think to much ...
and now if you excuse we I have to go to the doctors office to have some blood taken out of my veins. *LOL*

The problem that you haven't mentioned with hydrogen is that A) it isn't free standing. It takes alot of energy to break ot free of its bonds from other elements. B) It tends to float to the highest points in the stratosphere again, it's not just around at ground level in high concentrations. C) Hydrogen vehicles are only about 40% efficient. Gasoline vehicles are close to that, some are slightly above that in terms of efficiency.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The same capitalist profit model that pays for any new manufacturing facilities to meet any new demand for any product. Electricity isn't special in this regard.

No one needed to worry about who would build and pay for the increased demand for oil refineries when ICE vehicles began to boom. Nobody needed to worry about who would build out electric generating capacity when electric heat and appliances began to push out gas and oil for those uses. The oil companies and power utilities saw those things as a business opportunity, not a crisis. This is no different.

I think it's pertinent to mention here that I myself no longer have any skin in this game. My electric power comes from my roof, and I scaled the system with enough capacity to allow for a future EV purchase someday. At worst I might have to add one or two more panels. I'm still connected to the grid, but my net usage from the grid is negative.

The basic point is that EVs will not be immune, be it from some kind of taxes on the cost of EV charging power, or anything else related to their operational costs like road use, etc. Things will change as more and more EVs replace ICE on the roads.

If ICE vehicles are charged a gas tax at the pump to operate on the roads, then EVs will naturally follow with some kind of "charging power tax" or other types of "road use tax" to cover the funds used for such infrastructure cost and maintenance. People who do not own and charge EVs will not put up with taxes based on EV use when they don't even own them. People who don't own or drive an ICE don't pay gas tax ... if they had to, they wouldn't be silent very long. That's the main point.

 

[Rmay635703]

The thing is roads are already built using mostly general funds anyway. (Aka people who don’t even drive pay in a bunch)

So your road tax argument doesn’t hold much weight.

Further all areas in the US charge extremely high municipal substation taxes to utilities that are passed on silently in your bill.

These substation taxes can make up 30-40% of your per kwhr rate.

Rhode Island consumers pay in addition to other taxes on average $50 a month of substation taxes.

This is far higher than the typical gas taxes paid by an individual and because they are charged to the supply side you likely don’t even realize your paying them.

Our problem is not funding but actually having willpower to properly budget for roads which rarely happens. Making new taxes is expensive, inefficient and unnecessary, if those elected want to fix roads it’s in their power to budget regardless.

If new taxes are made that aren’t fuel taxes specifically (aka registration or inspection fees or even mileage tracking) it is extremely unlikely they are needed and even less like to be devoted to pay for roads either.

My Chevy Cobalt burns enough gas to pay about $35 a year on gas taxes. The 6500 EVs in the state averaging 5000 miles a year frankly weren’t worth the $5million the state paid to implement a tax on them
Most people seem to overestimate how much gas tax they pay, many people don’t drive far and get demolished by fixed fee taxes.

 

[dwasifar]

The basic point is that EVs will not be immune, be it from some kind of taxes on the cost of EV charging power, or anything else related to their operational costs like road use, etc. Things will change as more and more EVs replace ICE on the roads.

If ICE vehicles are charged a gas tax at the pump to operate on the roads, then EVs will naturally follow with some kind of "charging power tax" or other types of "road use tax" to cover the funds used for such infrastructure cost and maintenance. People who do not own and charge EVs will not put up with taxes based on EV use when they don't even own them. People who don't own or drive an ICE don't pay gas tax ... if they had to, they wouldn't be silent very long. That's the main point.

No offense, but you've moved the goal posts.

The question you asked, and I answered, was "who will pay for building more power plants?" And now your response to that answer is to say you were talking about road funding and taxes, which is an entirely different issue.

You're right that roads need to be funded, but I think you're wildly overestimating what will happen if the tax structure changes. As Rmay points out, above, most road funding comes from general funds, not specifically from gas taxes. So the impact from declining gasoline tax revenues will be minimal, hardly enough to start a public revolution among people who "won't be silent." If that were the case, and people actually cared enough to learn the details of what funds come from where and go where, we'd have seen that revolution already from people who pay into the general fund and don't get their money's worth out of their limited road use. Or people currently without children who are taxed to pay for schools. Or parks, for people who don't go to parks. Or public transit, for people who don't use that. Or any of hundreds of other things that everyone is taxed for but not everyone uses. People may complain that their taxes are too high - everyone thinks that, all the time - but they're very unlikely to specifically go on the warpath against EVs because of it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

No offense, but you've moved the goal posts.

The question you asked, and I answered, was "who will pay for building more power plants?" And now your response to that answer is to say you were talking about road funding and taxes, which is an entirely different issue.

Who knows what the state revenue seekers will make happen in the future if and when EVs over take ICE on the roads. I simply started this discussion by saying that someday there may be a "charging power tax" on EVs charging power similar to how the states charge a "gas tax" on gasoline used in ICE vehicles. If the vast majority of people are then charging their EVs at home, then it's not really a huge stretch to imagine some kind of tax for EV charging power vs the power going to your TV set. It may be used similar to how "gas tax" is used now, or it may also be used to help build and maintain the electrical grid if it's a tax from the power company directly, or even federally mandated someday ... anything could happen. Just because it's done a certain way now doesn't mean it will be done the same way 25+ years from now if EVs become the majority.

You're right that roads need to be funded, but I think you're wildly overestimating what will happen if the tax structure changes. As Rmay points out, above, most road funding comes from general funds, not specifically from gas taxes. So the impact from declining gasoline tax revenues will be minimal, hardly enough to start a public revolution among people who "won't be silent." If that were the case, and people actually cared enough to learn the details of what funds come from where and go where, we'd have seen that revolution already from people who pay into the general fund and don't get their money's worth out of their limited road use. Or people currently without children who are taxed to pay for schools. Or parks, for people who don't go to parks. Or public transit, for people who don't use that. Or any of hundreds of other things that everyone is taxed for but not everyone uses. People may complain that their taxes are too high - everyone thinks that, all the time - but they're very unlikely to specifically go on the warpath against EVs because of it.

It might be many many years from now, but it's entirely possible that home EV charging systems are controlled and taxed somehow. As the gas tax slowly goes away there will certainly be some new ways to keep bringing in that kind of money for roads, etc. If it's not a "charging power tax" then it will become something else. Yes, we can agree that taxes are often "unfair" to who might benefit from them or not.

 

[alarmguy]

The way I look at it and hopefully ice will continue, but. Digital watches are almost universally more accurate than mechanical watches. From se

The problem that you haven't mentioned with hydrogen is that A) it isn't free standing. It takes alot of energy to break ot free of its bonds from other elements. B) It tends to float to the highest points in the stratosphere again, it's not just around at ground level in high concentrations. C) Hydrogen vehicles are only about 40% efficient. Gasoline vehicles are close to that, some are slightly above that in terms of efficiency.

Good post, but just 3 things to think about.

The electricity generated and sent to the location where you charge your car is only about the same 40% efficient as the numbers you are saying for h2.

I have read it takes a lot of energy to produce h2 but it doesn’t mean that will not improve, also one needs to compare the cost to produce all types of energy not just h2.
How about the energy cost of mining and impact of huge lithium batteries on the environment compared to EVs without huge lithium batteries in h2 vehicles?
Don’t forget the energy cost of producing fuel to power the utility creating electricity to charge the battery in non h2 vehicles.
One can argue h2 is very efficient as the electricity powering the EV is created right in the vechicle by the fuel cell.
You can’t single out one type of vehicle in this case an h2 without comparing the non h2 power source which is utility produced power stored by lithium batteries in a non h2 EV.
I’m unsure the reason of the comment on h2 floating high into the stratosphere.

 

[64bawagon]

Fuel taxes here in MI get used as a slush fund for everything but roads, our last increase in fuel tax went to pay for the states increased costs for Obama care. Somehow our tags doubled a while back around the same time the state shifted the paperwork for plates and titles off to the dealers thus generating the "document fee" which is simply a tax shift.
The budget people used to work in NY city doing this thing with 3 shells and a pea... or something along those lines.

 

[bunnspecial]

Not only that but lithium batteries are not the source of energy, just the storage device. Hydrogen produces electricity, it doesnt store it, in fact hydrogen vehicles have much smaller scaled down lithium batteries to store some energy from the fuel cell producing the electricity.

I'd argue that hydrogen IS a form of energy storage at least if it were to go into widespread use.

In our now typical EV, power is made in a power plant, dumped into a battery, and then drawn out of the battery to power the motors.

Of course there are a lot of hydrogen sources(that's one of the beauties of it) but the simple and easy way to get a lot of it quickly is to use electricity to turn water into hydrogen(electrolysis). Electricity is effectively turned into hydrogen, where it can be transported and then finally end up in a tank in a car where it's then fed into fuel cells(producing water in the process, which is where we started) and powering the motors.

For that matter too fossil fuels are energy storage, although on a billion-of-year time scale. Biofuels are the same, although on a somewhat shorter timescale.

I'm not saying all of this as anti-hydrogen, as I think it's a promising alternative to BEV. Even with the above cycle(electricity->hydrogen->electricity) and the inevitable losses(if you've ever worked with hydrogen-and I do a lot-you know it leaks from EVERYWHERE and there comes a point where you have to concede that you may not be able to find and/or fix every leak), you're still not toting around a half ton of batteries in your car(Tesla Model 3 long range is 1060lbs in a quick search). Filling the tank on your car may not be quite as fast as gasoline, although if tanks could be standardized there's also no reason why we couldn't do swap-outs not unlike what many people do with their grill tanks.

I'm a big proponent of hydrogen, although the political/consumer momentum doesn't seem to be there for it. The last I looked into it, Toyota had done small-scale production hydrogen vehicles, but no one else has really gotten there.

From a bigger standpoint, though, I'm already reading here in Illinois(not including Chicago) about possible brown-outs/black-outs this summer. I don't remember if there are actually any coal plants remaining in the state or not, but the ones still here are on borrowed time. They still officially have ~20 more years of being allowed to operate, but the regulations and such on them are that many utilitiies are voluntarily shutting them down. I know of at least two in the past 3 years.

 

[Pew]

Btw, "Bob" is now "Robert". He's come full circle in life; "Robert is the electrician"

 

[kschachn]

Of course there are a lot of hydrogen sources(that's one of the beauties of it) but the simple and easy way to get a lot of it quickly is to use electricity to turn water into hydrogen(electrolysis). Electricity is effectively turned into hydrogen, where it can be transported and then finally end up in a tank in a car where it's then fed into fuel cells(producing water in the process, which is where we started) and powering the motors.

Decomposing a stable oxide is thermodynamically the worst method of production.

 

[Vikas]

EVs are a great car in at least one niche - local use and reasonable length commutes. You can charge an EV for pennies on the dollar in your own garage and there is (seemingly) much less maintenance required. I don't know how any other type of vehicle can compete in that niche.

But can EVs do everything? Maybe, but maybe not. As much as I like EVs (I own a Tesla Model 3) there are definitely places where a conventional power train seems more logical.

Now if the auto makers would only offer what many of us would like to buy. I'd like to buy a brand new 2000 BMW 528i (a 530i would be okay too) M-Sport, 5 speed manual with a real spare tire on an alloy rim, that has a dipstick for motor oil. I got well over 30 MPG (Imperial gallons) on mine. Offer them for $70,000 (Canadian) or less and they would sell. In fact I'd buy one today.

Instead they offer us technology we don't want, like irritating stop-start technology, electronic only oil level monitoring, unreliable CVT transmissions, tiny engines with all sorts of new problems .... and I'm only getting started.

I think ICE vehicles will be around for a long time. You only have to look to Cuba. They're still running '50's iron as their daily drivers.

I do not believe there is such a huge disparity between cost of gasoline vs electricity, at least where I live. Best case would be 50% savings on comparable gas vs EV. And I am Tesla Model 3 owner.

 

[ecotourist]

I do not believe there is such a huge disparity between cost of gasoline vs electricity, at least where I live. Best case would be 50% savings on comparable gas vs EV. And I am Tesla Model 3 owner.

Our gasoline currently costs $2.219/liter for regular. Our Honda Accord V6 is rated at 10.6 liters/100 km overall. That works out to $.235/ km (Cdn).

Our average cost for electricity is $0.1238 /kWh (Cdn). Our Model 3 is averaging 137 W/km overall in mixed but mostly urban driving. That works out to $.153/km.

Not as much savings as expected, but still a 35% reduction. Or looking at it the other way, our gasoline car costs 54% more for fuel.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I do not believe there is such a huge disparity between cost of gasoline vs electricity, at least where I live. Best case would be 50% savings on comparable gas vs EV. And I am Tesla Model 3 owner.

Hey Vikas... Pushing $7 per gallon for CA wannabe premium 91*.
Solar panels to charge the car, run the AC, TVs, computers, etc.

 

[bunnspecial]

My Chevy Cobalt burns enough gas to pay about $35 a year on gas taxes.

Some math for me...

My MKZ gets average 25mpg.

My work schedule I realize is weird, but for 34 weeks a year I go in 4x days a week, and it's a 60 mile round trip for me. For 8 weeks, I go 2x/week. That's 152 days a year, which we'll round off to 9,000 miles. I'll call it 10,000 miles a year, which accounts for my other odd days I go in to work(usually 15-20 of them a year) plus of course all my other driving to go other place. I'll leave it at 10K, but I'd say it's not a stretch to think I actually do more like the 12-15K supposed "average."

10K miles at 25mpg(probably generous, but again let's go with it) is 400 gallons a year.

Federal gasoline tax is 18.4¢/gallon. That means I'm paying the Feds $73.6/year in gas taxes.

The State of Illinois takes 59.56¢/gallon, the second highest in the country behind California. It was supposed to go up by a penny this year, but(avoiding politics) it was decided to delay the 1¢ increase until January(and it will be bigger than 1¢...). On 400 gallons a year, that means I'm paying the state a little over $238/year.

Combined I'm paying $311.84/year in gas taxes. There are a not insignificant number of people who pay as much as I do if not more.

 

[Vikas]

My point was it was not "pennies to dollar" if you are purchasing electricity from the utility, at least where I live. Now I do understand that there are some places in country where electricity is significantly cheaper but still don't think it is going to an order of magnitude difference.

 

[ecotourist]

Our gasoline currently costs $2.219/liter for regular. Our Honda Accord V6 is rated at 10.6 liters/100 km overall. That works out to $.235/ km (Cdn).

Our average cost for electricity is $0.1238 /kWh (Cdn). Our Model 3 is averaging 137 W/km overall in mixed but mostly urban driving. That works out to $.153/km.

Not as much savings as expected, but still a 35% reduction. Or looking at it the other way, our gasoline car costs 54% more for fuel.

Here's an interesting thing. Over the winter months there has been virtually no difference in our electricity consumption since buying the Tesla and we have only charged our Tesla at home. We heat our house with a heat pump so we use quite a bit of electricity. And strangely enough, our higher use increases our cost/kWh. We don't have access to natural gas in this neighbourhood.

The difference in fuel economy would be somewhat greater comparing the Tesla with our BMW, which used premium fuel and didn't get quite as good mileage as the Accord. And the Tesla replaced the BMW.

We live in an expensive jurisdiction, both for fuel and for electricity (and for food, and for housing, and for pretty much everything else).

 

[BigJohn]

Heard a quote today on the boob tube that Elon Musk has been quoted in saying..... "EV's will not be mainstreamed until.... at the earliest 2035."


................

 

[Cruisin'n5thgear]

Bitbug?

I like the sound of Bit Bog

 

[JHZR2]

Even if EVs became 100% of the new fleet tomorrow, we would still be thinking about auto maintenance, hinges, tires, brake calipers, detailing, and who knows what else. Lawnmowers and boats and legacy vehicles would still need lubrication. It doesn’t just go away.

 

[Slow Car Sport Mode]

"No, something with a little more kick. Plutonium!"



As to the whole topic of EVs.. yes, ditto on how the "electric at all costs" mantra 1. Will likely be reversed, just about all of it, in a return to reality... 2. Is polluting much more than just normal regular cleaner ICE would be.. like pollution from other countries massively dirtying the air with pollution to make these "clean" solutions... and nobody seems to care?? 3. Crippling our energy in the meantime.

Think about what "Net zero" means. It means zero as in nothing... I now yield to the "experts."

It's just obvious.. trade one for another, and. No..

Oh and my opinion of Toyota has changed, having worked there, BUT even Toyota bailed on hydrogen. They may be scammy but they ain't dumb...

It doesn’t appear to be widely understood by those who have been listening to these messages either. The flaw is basically caused by the laws of physics. For hydrogen to be completely green, it must be produced by electrolyzing water, which splits this into the H2 and O that it is made of. You can produce H2 from fossil fuels (usually methane), but this creates either “grey” hydrogen (which still produces lots of CO2) or “blue” hydrogen (which captures 90% of the CO2 and stores it, merely delaying the problem). Only electrolyzing hydrogen from water using electricity generated from renewable sources makes the fuel entirely green.

This is an inefficient system that wastes energy. According to a frequently cited study by Transport & Environment, the process of electrolyzing hydrogen already loses 30% of the energy from the process of splitting the H2 from the O. You then have another 26% loss of the remaining energy from transporting the hydrogen to the fuel station, meaning you’ve already lost a total of 48% of the energy before any hydrogen makes it into a vehicle. You can save some of this by making hydrogen on site, but electrolysis plants cost millions, so they will more likely be centralized. In comparison, the typical loss from transferring electricity over wires to a charging station is just 5%, so you still have 95% left.

Why Are We Still Talking About Hydrogen?

Hydrogen is still being pitched as the miracle fuel to solve all our environmental issues with transport. But it has a major flaw that must mean it will never be the ideal choice over batteries for personal vehicles.

www.google.com

Electric vehicles aren't the answer, either, but that's not something anyone wants to hear until Q3 or Q4 2024. Hopefully.

As to being an endangered species.. can't speak for all of BITOG, but, yes, only myself and roaches will survive a nuclear world apocalypse. Maybe some others on this board, too. Adapt.. learn from roaches.