independence from coal

[richravizza 28]

Great point,
But the Base price with the electric(Hybred) will still put it out of reach for most Americans, and without the Gov't subs makes it even more expensive.
Why not give the subsidy to a NG only vehical,and make the tech more accsessible to the median America.

The fuel is clean,Cheap and domestic a Great selling Point Most Americans would buy into, because of instant savings.

America wants a vehicle/ fuel that makes a meaningful impact on their Finances, then the environment.

I think we're still in the time frame of ;
What comes first the Chicken or the Egg.

[rehmwa 2]

richravizza

Great point,
But the Base price with the electric(Hybred) will still put it out of reach for most Americans, and without the Gov't subs makes it even more expensive.
Why not give the subsidy to a NG only vehical,and make the tech more accsessible to the median America.

"the cost puts it out of reach without subsidies" - I contend that with subsidies then the cost puts it on the shoulders of everyone else. It's not really a contention, it's just how it works.

love it - discussing who should get the subsidies


here's a neat idea - the tech isn't ready for the free market until it's actually ready for the free market. How about let the NG companies fight it out for the first (truly, not artificially) affordable offering before we throw a bunch of money at them for failing to figure out the cost part of the design?

I'm sure I'll be told how I'm not a deep thinker when it comes to the topic of "accsessible Hybred vehicals"


maybe instead of subsidies, we just penalize everyone with a conventional vehicle - wait a second, ...........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[richravizza 28]

As a Free market capitalist at heart,
I couldn't agree with you more.
I'd love to remove ALL the subs. and let the true market price, and demand, prevail.
We could then compare apples to apples.
But that aint the USA we now live in.
edit/
What Do you guys think of Paying Tesla $5000 a car,so the owner of a $100,000 Car;
get to pay Less and the Co.makes more?

[billvon 3,114]

>But the Base price with the electric(Hybred) will still put it out of reach for most Americans

There are already two hybrids out there that save money within two years. As time goes on this number will increase - and as gas prices increase the breakeven time will decrease.

>The fuel is clean,Cheap and domestic a Great selling Point Most Americans would
>buy into, because of instant savings.

Agreed, it's a good solution.

>America wants a vehicle/ fuel that makes a meaningful impact on their Finances

Yes, and both hybrids and natural gas (even some diesels) are a way to do that.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>But the Base price with the electric(Hybred) will still put it out of reach for most Americans

There are already two hybrids out there that save money within two years. As time goes on this number will increase - and as gas prices increase the breakeven time will decrease.

>The fuel is clean,Cheap and domestic a Great selling Point Most Americans would
>buy into, because of instant savings.

Agreed, it's a good solution.

>America wants a vehicle/ fuel that makes a meaningful impact on their Finances

Yes, and both hybrids and natural gas (even some diesels) are a way to do that.

I love my little Red VW Bugly Convertible ...TDI 50+ MPG

[richravizza 28]

7-10 Yrs?
I been sitting on my biggest LOSER (-40%)since O got Elected the First time. On the hopes of a National Transportation Energy Policy.

I was Wrong, and (CLNE) Clean Energy Fuels was my play, I hope it doesnt take another 7-10 yrs.Damn the ___PAIN!!!

IT'S BEEN Costly,without profit and SLOW ENOUGH,
but understand...

Boone Pickins is the Leading Proponent of this,and there is some serious Bad Blood.
Aint no Way O and his tree huggers, are going to Get in Bed with Boone.

Until we get some leadership on Both sides, and Hand Shaking.
Both Sides will cut off their own nose, in Spite of the other.

I'm hanging out for the long haul,
Sooner or Later they'll come together, I hope...

[DanG 1]

Quote

The premium on a new Honda Civic NG vehicle is quite low. MSRP on a Civic NG is $26k, a Civic Sedan Si is $22k.

And a Prius c is $19k, but according to rick, that's out of the reach of most American consumers. So much for NG cars. Too bad.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,114]

>And a Prius c is $19k, but according to rick, that's out of the reach of most American consumers.

It's only within reach if it's a big pickup truck that gets 21mpg.

[richravizza 28]

Bill , you like?
I found this Hope for us future Retirees.
Jobs, infrastructure,national strength security,environment

Not a Dime of Tax money, Capitalism is a Wonderful thing.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/26/the-641-billion-opportunity-that-could-put-your-re.aspx?source=itxsitmot0000001&lidx=3

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

I've been digging around in my limited spare time re: this figure, and came across this particular article (amongst many others). It's about what I expected. The "science" regarding the magnitude of the impact is far from "settled". Apparently, even the section in the latest IPCC report written by modellers emphasizes their lack of understanding, and that their estimate of climate sensitivity will most likely decrease going forward.


Climate Cultists
Has the desperate global warming crusade reached its Waterloo?

Quote

Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election. Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles. But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, two-thirds of the articles expressed no opinion about the human causation of climate change, while the one-third that did were twisted by Cook into a simpleminded tautology: Among all the scientists who agree with the “consensus” are all of the scientists who agree with the consensus. Cook, incidentally, refused to share how he and his graduate students coded the 11,000 abstracts, which is reminiscent of the East Anglia cabal and their withholding of tree ring data. But as with the East Anglia group, someone at the University of Queensland left the data on the Internet, where blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. The predictable happened: The University of Queensland claimed that the data had been hacked, and sent Shollenberger a cease-and-desist letter. Nothing bespeaks confidence and transparency like the threat of lawsuits.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,114]

Here's where it comes from:
=============
IOP Science

Environmental Research Letters

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
OPEN ACCESS

John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Received 18 January 2013, accepted for publication 22 April 2013
Published 15 May 2013

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
==============

[billvon 3,114]

>One thing I have posted here many times is the fact, yes, a fact that, for every
>megawatt of solar and wind generation, you MUST have a matching amout coming
>from coal, nuke or gas, period

>This efectively doubles the capital investment needed to provide power

Recent study showing this is not true:
=================
New Study Shows Solar’s Value to Grid

Rhone Resch
July 09, 2014

If you listen to many utility executives, distributed solar energy has the potential to destabilize electrical grids and result in huge cost shifts for many American consumers. Well, as the Irish are fond of saying: blarney!

A new, independent study prepared for the Nevada Public Utilities Commission estimates that the grid benefits of rooftop solar systems installed in the state through 2016 will outweigh costs by more than $36 million, confirming that solar energy can provide real savings for both solar and non-solar customers alike.

According to San Francisco-based Energy + Environmental Economics (E3), the state’s net energy metering (NEM) program – which gives Nevada residents full credit on their energy bills for the clean electricity they deliver to the utility grid – has “no substantial cost shift to nonparticipants…given the current and proposed reforms to the program.” What’s more, accounting for the cost savings of avoided distribution upgrades, E3 estimates a net benefit of $166 million over the lifetime of solar systems installed through 2016.
==================

http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PDF/AxImages/DOCKETS_2010_THRU_PRESENT/2013-7/39428.pdf

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>One thing I have posted here many times is the fact, yes, a fact that, for every
>megawatt of solar and wind generation, you MUST have a matching amout coming
>from coal, nuke or gas, period

>This efectively doubles the capital investment needed to provide power

Recent study showing this is not true:
=================
New Study Shows Solar’s Value to Grid

Rhone Resch
July 09, 2014

If you listen to many utility executives, distributed solar energy has the potential to destabilize electrical grids and result in huge cost shifts for many American consumers. Well, as the Irish are fond of saying: blarney!

A new, independent study prepared for the Nevada Public Utilities Commission estimates that the grid benefits of rooftop solar systems installed in the state through 2016 will outweigh costs by more than $36 million, confirming that solar energy can provide real savings for both solar and non-solar customers alike.

According to San Francisco-based Energy + Environmental Economics (E3), the state’s net energy metering (NEM) program – which gives Nevada residents full credit on their energy bills for the clean electricity they deliver to the utility grid – has “no substantial cost shift to nonparticipants…given the current and proposed reforms to the program.” What’s more, accounting for the cost savings of avoided distribution upgrades, E3 estimates a net benefit of $166 million over the lifetime of solar systems installed through 2016.
==================

http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PDF/AxImages/DOCKETS_2010_THRU_PRESENT/2013-7/39428.pdf

Actully, to a degree, I have way less issue with solar as opposed to wind

Distributed privately owned solar makes some sense to me
That said, it should now survive on its own
Time to drop the tax breaks and see if it can stand alone

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi rush,

Quote

Time to drop the tax breaks and see if it can stand alone

A lot of industries get tax breaks. Would you support 'dropping' all tax breaks for all industies?

I'm just curious,

JerryBaumchen

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

Time to drop the tax breaks and see if it can stand alone

A lot of industries get tax breaks. Would you support 'dropping' all tax breaks for all industies?

I'm just curious,

JerryBaumchen

Yes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Including these:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies

- Dan G

[Stumpy 284]

That would be awesome. According to that, coal currently gets more than 10 times the subsidy that renewable energy gets. Would be nice to see the playing field levelled.

Of course - prices would likely go up.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Including these:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies

Yes
All of them
Including farm subsidies

It is not the govs roll to pick winners and loosers
By doing so it distorts the market
However
they will not stop
The congress critters make too much money from providing them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Stumpy

Of course - prices would likely go up.

Maybe at the start
But getting the gov out of the mess will utlimatly lower costs to compaies and in the end will lower prices

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

>But getting the gov out of the mess will utlimatly lower costs to compaies and in
>the end will lower prices

All those government programs that right wingers hate - CAFE and efficiency standards, incentives for hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles - have resulted in our oil demands not growing for a decade now. That reduces gas prices. (Reduced demand = lower prices.)

Sure, you could deregulate. You'd be paying a lot more due to simple economics.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Don't forget that all those subsidies encourage competition. We went through the unregulated monopoly thing (and it's increased costs) over a hundred years ago.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo