Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
On Aug 17, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: > > But in full disclosure, I am a solar junkie, and if I remember correctly, > you are a hydrogen lobbyist paid to undermine EV's in favor of the > fool-cell hydrogen economy. You do NOT remember correctly: - I am not a lobbyist. - I have a long history of supporting, not undermining, battery electric vehicles. (and don't forget, fuel cell electric vehicles (careful your spelling) EVs, too). In fact, my paid work involves recommending funding the purchase of battery electric vehicles and their infrastructure. - I also am a strong supporter of fuel cell electric vehicles (you got that right) > Your painting of EV's with the coal brush > undermines your credibility too. I wasn't referring to your credibility, and I wasn't painting anything with a coal brush. I merely pointed out that in an area where coal is a major part of electricity production, when the issue gets raised, an advocate would be better served to say that "yes, a lot of electricity here comes from coal, BUT: - you can cost-effectively charge it with solar; or - you can purchase RECs; or - (insert your favorite reason why buying a BEV is still a good option)" If you don't think that's a better strategy than denial to get more solar and BEV users, that's fine. Use whatever works for you. I think you misinterpreted my earlier comments, but that no reason for a personal attack. (And yes, I'm a strong solar supporter, too, and have spent my own time pressing for better policies and programs.) > > Bob > -Original Message- > From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 4:34 PM > To: Robert Bruninga; Electric Vehicle Discussion List > Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot > > I think I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that if coals provides > most power, it *is* an issue, and a matter of credibility if you don't > acknowledge it. > > Sure, if there are options to avoid that, by all means, point those out. > In fact, it doesn't really matter what % is using those options. > > I don't think I said anything about condemning EV owners. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 17, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV > wrote: > >>> I agree, but in some areas a lot of the energy *is* being produced by >>> coal. So there's a need to avoid understating that. >> >> I disagree completely. Electricity can be 90% coal in some areas, but >> if 83% of EV owners are putting up solar or subscribing to wind power >> then there is no need to condem all EV owners for coal when only 17% >> of them are using it and intend to continue to use it. >> >>> Fortunately, the amount of electricity produced by coal will be >>> dropping fairly quickly. >> >> But for 83% of us, it has dropped to Zero NOW. We aren't waiting. >> >> I'll be darned if I am going to be condemned for burning coal when I >> don't. Just like I don't like the implication that if 20% of >> Americans smoke, then on average, I smoke 4 out of every cigarette in >> every pack of 20. I don't smoke any and I don't use ANY coal for fuel > for my EV. >> >> Bob, WB4APR >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:05 AM, EVDL Administrator via EV >>> wrote: >>> >>> Who would have thought even a decade ago that FORD would be issuing >>> apparently pro-EV news releases? >>> >>> That said, IMO we need to be a little more careful how we use the >>> Ford survey data. It doesn't say that 83% of EV owners are charging >>> their EVs with PV. It says that 83% of them HAVE or ARE INTERESTED >>> IN GETTING PV capacity. That's a pretty substantial difference. >>> >>> Regrettably I can't find a web resource that breaks out the have-its >>> from the wanna-have-its. So, this number doesn't really tell us >>> anything about how many current EV owners are charging with >>> alternative >> energy. >>> >>> What it does suggest is a strong correlation between EV ownership and >>> environmental consciousness. >>> >>> In terms of selling and promoting EVs, you can view this in two ways. >>> One is that promoters should "fish where the fish are," and continue >>> pushing EVs "green cred" or even increase these efforts. The other >>> is to say that the way to increased EV adoption is to edge toward >>> prom
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
I think I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that if coals provides most power, it *is* an issue, and a matter of credibility if you don't acknowledge it. Sure, if there are options to avoid that, by all means, point those out. In fact, it doesn't really matter what % is using those options. I don't think I said anything about condemning EV owners. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: >> I agree, but in some areas a lot of the energy *is* >> being produced by coal. So there's a need to avoid understating that. > > I disagree completely. Electricity can be 90% coal in some areas, but if > 83% of EV owners are putting up solar or subscribing to wind power then > there is no need to condem all EV owners for coal when only 17% of them > are using it and intend to continue to use it. > >> Fortunately, the amount of electricity produced by coal >> will be dropping fairly quickly. > > But for 83% of us, it has dropped to Zero NOW. We aren't waiting. > > I'll be darned if I am going to be condemned for burning coal when I > don't. Just like I don't like the implication that if 20% of Americans > smoke, then on average, I smoke 4 out of every cigarette in every pack of > 20. I don't smoke any and I don't use ANY coal for fuel for my EV. > > Bob, WB4APR > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:05 AM, EVDL Administrator via EV >> wrote: >> >> Who would have thought even a decade ago that FORD would be issuing >> apparently pro-EV news releases? >> >> That said, IMO we need to be a little more careful how we use the Ford >> survey data. It doesn't say that 83% of EV owners are charging their >> EVs with PV. It says that 83% of them HAVE or ARE INTERESTED IN >> GETTING PV capacity. That's a pretty substantial difference. >> >> Regrettably I can't find a web resource that breaks out the have-its >> from the wanna-have-its. So, this number doesn't really tell us >> anything about how many current EV owners are charging with alternative > energy. >> >> What it does suggest is a strong correlation between EV ownership and >> environmental consciousness. >> >> In terms of selling and promoting EVs, you can view this in two ways. >> One is that promoters should "fish where the fish are," and continue >> pushing EVs "green cred" or even increase these efforts. The other is >> to say that the way to increased EV adoption is to edge toward >> promoting their dollars-and- cents value. >> >> Which is the right EV promotion strategy? To determine that, we >> should look at the reasons that owners bought gas-only "hybrids" 10-12 >> years ago, vs why they buy them today. If we see a substantial >> increase in Prius and other non-pluggable "hybrid" sales among >> cost-conscious buyers over that decade, that might suggest that at >> some point (though maybe not yet) we should swing toward promoting >> EVs' economic benefits. If the majority of non-plug "hybrid" buyers >> still buy them for their "greenness," that argues in favor of the first > strategy above. >> >> Either way, we have a big job ahead of us to counter the growing >> negative PR being dispensed by the traditional energy providers. They >> have way more media clout than we do, and seem to be doing very well >> at sowing FUD about EVs supposedly "increasing pollution" with >> trumped-up, bogus data about coal fired powerplants. >> >> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA >> EVDL Administrator >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL >> Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not reach me. >> To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the >> webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> >> ___ >> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub >> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org >> For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA >> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
But in full disclosure, I am a solar junkie, and if I remember correctly, you are a hydrogen lobbyist paid to undermine EV's in favor of the fool-cell hydrogen economy. Your painting of EV's with the coal brush undermines your credibility too. Bob -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 4:34 PM To: Robert Bruninga; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot I think I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that if coals provides most power, it *is* an issue, and a matter of credibility if you don't acknowledge it. Sure, if there are options to avoid that, by all means, point those out. In fact, it doesn't really matter what % is using those options. I don't think I said anything about condemning EV owners. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: >> I agree, but in some areas a lot of the energy *is* being produced by >> coal. So there's a need to avoid understating that. > > I disagree completely. Electricity can be 90% coal in some areas, but > if 83% of EV owners are putting up solar or subscribing to wind power > then there is no need to condem all EV owners for coal when only 17% > of them are using it and intend to continue to use it. > >> Fortunately, the amount of electricity produced by coal will be >> dropping fairly quickly. > > But for 83% of us, it has dropped to Zero NOW. We aren't waiting. > > I'll be darned if I am going to be condemned for burning coal when I > don't. Just like I don't like the implication that if 20% of > Americans smoke, then on average, I smoke 4 out of every cigarette in > every pack of 20. I don't smoke any and I don't use ANY coal for fuel for my EV. > > Bob, WB4APR > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:05 AM, EVDL Administrator via EV >> wrote: >> >> Who would have thought even a decade ago that FORD would be issuing >> apparently pro-EV news releases? >> >> That said, IMO we need to be a little more careful how we use the >> Ford survey data. It doesn't say that 83% of EV owners are charging >> their EVs with PV. It says that 83% of them HAVE or ARE INTERESTED >> IN GETTING PV capacity. That's a pretty substantial difference. >> >> Regrettably I can't find a web resource that breaks out the have-its >> from the wanna-have-its. So, this number doesn't really tell us >> anything about how many current EV owners are charging with >> alternative > energy. >> >> What it does suggest is a strong correlation between EV ownership and >> environmental consciousness. >> >> In terms of selling and promoting EVs, you can view this in two ways. >> One is that promoters should "fish where the fish are," and continue >> pushing EVs "green cred" or even increase these efforts. The other >> is to say that the way to increased EV adoption is to edge toward >> promoting their dollars-and- cents value. >> >> Which is the right EV promotion strategy? To determine that, we >> should look at the reasons that owners bought gas-only "hybrids" >> 10-12 years ago, vs why they buy them today. If we see a substantial >> increase in Prius and other non-pluggable "hybrid" sales among >> cost-conscious buyers over that decade, that might suggest that at >> some point (though maybe not yet) we should swing toward promoting >> EVs' economic benefits. If the majority of non-plug "hybrid" buyers >> still buy them for their "greenness," that argues in favor of the >> first > strategy above. >> >> Either way, we have a big job ahead of us to counter the growing >> negative PR being dispensed by the traditional energy providers. >> They have way more media clout than we do, and seem to be doing very >> well at sowing FUD about EVs supposedly "increasing pollution" with >> trumped-up, bogus data about coal fired powerplants. >> >> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA >> EVDL Administrator >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL >> Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not reach me. >> To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the >> webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> >>
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
On Aug 17, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: > But for 83% of us, it has dropped to Zero NOW. We aren't waiting. In addition to this very important point, there's another equally-important point to be made. Coal is nasty, yes. But so is petroleum. And even those EVs that are powered primarily by utility-scale coal-fired generators are to be preferred over those powered by gasoline. The greater thermodynamic and mechanical efficiencies work out on a per-mile basis in favor of EVs, for one...but even if they didn't...well, we've got lots more coal than we do petroleum, and we need the petroleum for plastics and fertilizer and lubricants and all sorts of other things that civilization would collapse without. Just shifting the personal transportation fleet from petroleum to coal would be more than reason enough to endorse EVs. That we're shifting from petroleum not to coal but to solar is very good! But shifting away from petroleum to anything else is as important in the short term as shifting from anything else to solar is in the long term. b& ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
> I agree, but in some areas a lot of the energy *is* > being produced by coal. So there's a need to avoid understating that. I disagree completely. Electricity can be 90% coal in some areas, but if 83% of EV owners are putting up solar or subscribing to wind power then there is no need to condem all EV owners for coal when only 17% of them are using it and intend to continue to use it. > Fortunately, the amount of electricity produced by coal > will be dropping fairly quickly. But for 83% of us, it has dropped to Zero NOW. We aren't waiting. I'll be darned if I am going to be condemned for burning coal when I don't. Just like I don't like the implication that if 20% of Americans smoke, then on average, I smoke 4 out of every cigarette in every pack of 20. I don't smoke any and I don't use ANY coal for fuel for my EV. Bob, WB4APR Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:05 AM, EVDL Administrator via EV wrote: > > Who would have thought even a decade ago that FORD would be issuing > apparently pro-EV news releases? > > That said, IMO we need to be a little more careful how we use the Ford > survey data. It doesn't say that 83% of EV owners are charging their > EVs with PV. It says that 83% of them HAVE or ARE INTERESTED IN > GETTING PV capacity. That's a pretty substantial difference. > > Regrettably I can't find a web resource that breaks out the have-its > from the wanna-have-its. So, this number doesn't really tell us > anything about how many current EV owners are charging with alternative energy. > > What it does suggest is a strong correlation between EV ownership and > environmental consciousness. > > In terms of selling and promoting EVs, you can view this in two ways. > One is that promoters should "fish where the fish are," and continue > pushing EVs "green cred" or even increase these efforts. The other is > to say that the way to increased EV adoption is to edge toward > promoting their dollars-and- cents value. > > Which is the right EV promotion strategy? To determine that, we > should look at the reasons that owners bought gas-only "hybrids" 10-12 > years ago, vs why they buy them today. If we see a substantial > increase in Prius and other non-pluggable "hybrid" sales among > cost-conscious buyers over that decade, that might suggest that at > some point (though maybe not yet) we should swing toward promoting > EVs' economic benefits. If the majority of non-plug "hybrid" buyers > still buy them for their "greenness," that argues in favor of the first strategy above. > > Either way, we have a big job ahead of us to counter the growing > negative PR being dispensed by the traditional energy providers. They > have way more media clout than we do, and seem to be doing very well > at sowing FUD about EVs supposedly "increasing pollution" with > trumped-up, bogus data about coal fired powerplants. > > David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA > EVDL Administrator > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL > Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > = = = = = = = = = = = = = > Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not reach me. > To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the > webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
I agree, but in some areas a lot of the energy *is* being produced by coal. So there's a need to avoid understating that. Fortunately, the amount of electricity produced by coal will be dropping fairly quickly. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:05 AM, EVDL Administrator via EV > wrote: > > Who would have thought even a decade ago that FORD would be issuing > apparently pro-EV news releases? > > That said, IMO we need to be a little more careful how we use the Ford > survey data. It doesn't say that 83% of EV owners are charging their EVs > with PV. It says that 83% of them HAVE or ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING PV > capacity. That's a pretty substantial difference. > > Regrettably I can't find a web resource that breaks out the have-its from > the wanna-have-its. So, this number doesn't really tell us anything about > how many current EV owners are charging with alternative energy. > > What it does suggest is a strong correlation between EV ownership and > environmental consciousness. > > In terms of selling and promoting EVs, you can view this in two ways. One > is that promoters should "fish where the fish are," and continue pushing EVs > "green cred" or even increase these efforts. The other is to say that the > way to increased EV adoption is to edge toward promoting their dollars-and- > cents value. > > Which is the right EV promotion strategy? To determine that, we should look > at the reasons that owners bought gas-only "hybrids" 10-12 years ago, vs why > they buy them today. If we see a substantial increase in Prius and other > non-pluggable "hybrid" sales among cost-conscious buyers over that decade, > that might suggest that at some point (though maybe not yet) we should swing > toward promoting EVs' economic benefits. If the majority of non-plug > "hybrid" buyers still buy them for their "greenness," that argues in favor > of the first strategy above. > > Either way, we have a big job ahead of us to counter the growing negative PR > being dispensed by the traditional energy providers. They have way more > media clout than we do, and seem to be doing very well at sowing FUD about > EVs supposedly "increasing pollution" with trumped-up, bogus data about coal > fired powerplants. > > David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA > EVDL Administrator > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not > reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my > email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
I see "economics" as being much less of a motivator than "green environmentalism". Although I'm a 100% pro EV and Pro environment guy, I do have to admit that operating an EV is not convenient and is just generally a challenge. And I LOVE that challenge. But if you try to sell EV's on economics, those people who buy on economics alone will soon tire of the charging, and other challenges we find so rewarding. Besides, it is the fact that continuing to burn gas simply is not sustainable and is ruining us. Some people might not like hearing that, but it's the truth and only people that believe it are going to be motivaed to do something about it. Some ride bikes, some walk, some drive EV's. But selling EV's entirely on "its cheaper" is not a winning strategy in the short term especially with the cheaper gas for a while. Driving an EV is simply "the right thing to do" (if it fits your driving needs) and its fun. Bob -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of EVDL Administrator via EV Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:06 AM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot Who would have thought even a decade ago that FORD would be issuing apparently pro-EV news releases? That said, IMO we need to be a little more careful how we use the Ford survey data. It doesn't say that 83% of EV owners are charging their EVs with PV. It says that 83% of them HAVE or ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING PV capacity. That's a pretty substantial difference. Regrettably I can't find a web resource that breaks out the have-its from the wanna-have-its. So, this number doesn't really tell us anything about how many current EV owners are charging with alternative energy. What it does suggest is a strong correlation between EV ownership and environmental consciousness. In terms of selling and promoting EVs, you can view this in two ways. One is that promoters should "fish where the fish are," and continue pushing EVs "green cred" or even increase these efforts. The other is to say that the way to increased EV adoption is to edge toward promoting their dollars-and- cents value. Which is the right EV promotion strategy? To determine that, we should look at the reasons that owners bought gas-only "hybrids" 10-12 years ago, vs why they buy them today. If we see a substantial increase in Prius and other non-pluggable "hybrid" sales among cost-conscious buyers over that decade, that might suggest that at some point (though maybe not yet) we should swing toward promoting EVs' economic benefits. If the majority of non-plug "hybrid" buyers still buy them for their "greenness," that argues in favor of the first strategy above. Either way, we have a big job ahead of us to counter the growing negative PR being dispensed by the traditional energy providers. They have way more media clout than we do, and seem to be doing very well at sowing FUD about EVs supposedly "increasing pollution" with trumped-up, bogus data about coal fired powerplants. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
Who would have thought even a decade ago that FORD would be issuing apparently pro-EV news releases? That said, IMO we need to be a little more careful how we use the Ford survey data. It doesn't say that 83% of EV owners are charging their EVs with PV. It says that 83% of them HAVE or ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING PV capacity. That's a pretty substantial difference. Regrettably I can't find a web resource that breaks out the have-its from the wanna-have-its. So, this number doesn't really tell us anything about how many current EV owners are charging with alternative energy. What it does suggest is a strong correlation between EV ownership and environmental consciousness. In terms of selling and promoting EVs, you can view this in two ways. One is that promoters should "fish where the fish are," and continue pushing EVs "green cred" or even increase these efforts. The other is to say that the way to increased EV adoption is to edge toward promoting their dollars-and- cents value. Which is the right EV promotion strategy? To determine that, we should look at the reasons that owners bought gas-only "hybrids" 10-12 years ago, vs why they buy them today. If we see a substantial increase in Prius and other non-pluggable "hybrid" sales among cost-conscious buyers over that decade, that might suggest that at some point (though maybe not yet) we should swing toward promoting EVs' economic benefits. If the majority of non-plug "hybrid" buyers still buy them for their "greenness," that argues in favor of the first strategy above. Either way, we have a big job ahead of us to counter the growing negative PR being dispensed by the traditional energy providers. They have way more media clout than we do, and seem to be doing very well at sowing FUD about EVs supposedly "increasing pollution" with trumped-up, bogus data about coal fired powerplants. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
it is also possible for the % of EV owners who have solar panels to drop and for dirty energy to also drop, for example, if 100% of people drove electric but only 25% of them have solar then the % of dirty energy would drop since so many people are now using renewables. while that might be an extreme scenario, the fact is as more and more people put up solar panels the % use of dirty energy will drop thus even if the % of EV owners putting up solar drops becuase we will still be using less dirty energy. but as many pointed out i also think % of solar of by EV owners will go up, solar is cheaper than grid [but it requires an initial investment] but the credit you get from buying an EV will cover a PV system that will provide more power than your EV needs harry Albuquerque, NM current bike: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1179 current non-bike: http://evalbum.com/1000 On Sat, 8/15/15, tomw via EV wrote: Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot To: ev@lists.evdl.org Date: Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:02 AM /"You may power your EV from the dirty power in your state, but studies in 2012 showed about 50% of EV owners charged their cars from 100% renewable solar or wind."/ I didn't say I powered my EV from the grid, you just made that assumption and acted on it without bothering to check if it was correct. Actually, I installed solar in 2008 the year before I converted the car, and supply the grid with 6kWh/day on average in addition to supplying the house and car. Most of the people in the local ev club do not have solar so I give the representative case, and also mention mine gets power from solar. /"Now just last week (2015) the Ford survey found that 83% of EV purchasers charge from 100% renewables or will when they can. So quoting the grid mix is doing a disservice to 83% of EV owners..."/ Is that survey of Ford EV purchasers a representative sample of all EV purchasers? Ford has sold a small proportion of the total number of EVs sold. How many in the survey were in the "will when they can" category, and how do you know they actually will? You are very quick to make assumptions that serve your case. -- View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EV-facts-coal-and-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot-tp4677154p4677170.html Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
/"You may power your EV from the dirty power in your state, but studies in 2012 showed about 50% of EV owners charged their cars from 100% renewable solar or wind."/ I didn't say I powered my EV from the grid, you just made that assumption and acted on it without bothering to check if it was correct. Actually, I installed solar in 2008 the year before I converted the car, and supply the grid with 6kWh/day on average in addition to supplying the house and car. Most of the people in the local ev club do not have solar so I give the representative case, and also mention mine gets power from solar. /"Now just last week (2015) the Ford survey found that 83% of EV purchasers charge from 100% renewables or will when they can. So quoting the grid mix is doing a disservice to 83% of EV owners..."/ Is that survey of Ford EV purchasers a representative sample of all EV purchasers? Ford has sold a small proportion of the total number of EVs sold. How many in the survey were in the "will when they can" category, and how do you know they actually will? You are very quick to make assumptions that serve your case. -- View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EV-facts-coal-and-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot-tp4677154p4677170.html Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
It is because of the EPA enacted the cross state air pollution rule forcing states to reduce emissions. The cost of the upgrades makes natural gas plants more profitable so they quit building cole plants Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Ben Goren via EV wrote: > > >> >> there's no longer a business case for utilities for new construction of >> anything other than dirty coal, > > Coal is dead in this country already. Name the last new coal plant announced. > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Ben Goren via EV wrote: > > there's no longer a business case for utilities for new construction of > anything other than dirty coal, Coal is dead in this country already. Name the last new coal plant announced. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
Even though we have cheap gasoline for now, the replacement cost is in the $3 to $4 a gallon range using for example, Bakken and Eagle Ford shale oil at a breakeven price of $60 to$ 80+ per barrel. If electric rates are near $0.10/kwhr, then it cost about $1.00 to go 30 miles whereas an ICE cost about $3 to $4 in gasoline. The difference can pay off either a PV array faster or be put toward making an EV competitive with an ICE on a fuel plus maintenance plus battery pack basis. I think we may see a large uptake with 2017 models EVs with purported 200 mile ranges or so. On 8/14/2015 11:46 AM, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote: You may be correct, but as EVs become ubiquitous, and not just the early adopters, the % of those using solar must decline. That is, unless solar becomes significantly more ubiquitous than EVs. Better to be conservative with the numbers. (IMO, of course) Sent from my iPhone On Aug 14, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: I also have gotten the coal claim, which I correct, giving the power generating mix in my state, but I get the impression they don't believe it. You may power your EV from the dirty power in your state, but studies in 2012 showed about 50% of EV owners charged their cars from 100% renewable solar or wind. Now just last week (2015) the Ford survey found that 83% of EV purchasers charge from 100% renewables or will when they can. So quoting the grid mix is doing a disservice to 83% of EV owners and is dead wrong by a factor of FIVE, because it IGNORES the fact that most of the people buying EV's are also buying 100% clean electricity. You are doing EV's a disservice by quoting the dirty grid mix. Get a show of hands in your local EV club. In ours, 2/3rds of the EV owners also have solar to charge them. It is NO COINCIDENCE that most people who buy EV's also want to do it with clean energy. Using the grid mix is damning the future by the sins of the past. Or its like saying that because 18% of Americans smoke that I have an 18% chance of dying of lung cancer (But, I don't smoke)! And even if the grid mix is 40% coal, if 83% of EV drivers charge from 100% renewables then simple math shows that the -average- percentage of coal electricity for EV drivers is then 40% * 17% or under 7%. A far cry from the "grid mix" you are quoting. Plus, the use of coal since 2008 has gone DOWN by over 20% and keeps going down! Bob, WB4APR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
What is often overlooked is that as EV grow in popularity, electricity saving devices also become more popular. I think the two trends may balance out the total home electricity use, at least to some extent. LED light bulbs, energy efficient TV's (remember CRT's and projection type big screens?) energy efficient appliances, better home insulation, heat-pumps, etc. all act to reduce our electrical use. EV's will become more popular, and will cause residential electrical consumption to increase, but that increase will be offset, perhaps in large part, by reductions in electricity consumption due to the purchase of more efficient appliances, lights, heating, etc. It is important to look at the entire "advances in technology" landscape, rather than one small piece in isolation. Bill Dube' ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:00 PM, Cor van de Water via EV wrote: > Coal power is history. It is not > because of more strict regulations (even though "the polluter pays" would > have been nice for so many people suffering from the results of decades of > burning coal) but simply the business case for coal is worse than for > investing in clean power, so why bother? So long as the coal miners and power plant operators have the option to socialize the costs of pollution from their operations whilst maintaining the private capitalization of the profits, coal continues to be the cheapest utility-scale power generation option. But, especially with Tesla's recent utility-scale battery announcements, utility-scale solar is now, at least on paper, cheaper than everything else other than dirty coal. It will take some time for everything to ramp up, but there's no longer a business case for utilities for new construction of anything other than dirty coal, solar, and quick-response peaking supplement plants. And it won't be that much longer before dirty coal loses out to solar, as well, from two fronts: first, because of increasing political pressure to stop subsidizing the private profits from public pollution from dirty coal; and, much more importantly, because solar is continuing to get cheaper whilst coal, even dirty coal, is on an irreversible upward price trend. Even once the solar and dirty coal price graphs cross, we'll still be stuck with all the existing facilities. It'll be much, much longer before it'll be cheaper to build a new solar plant and decommission an existing coal (or nuclear or gas or whatever) one still in good condition. But these facilities have limited lifetimes, so we're essentially now approaching the upper limit for the total number of non-solar power production facilities humanity will ever have. Utilities are especially paranoid about solar, though, because it's so cheap that you can put it on your own rooftop at a price competitive with grid-sourced non-solar power production. Your grid connection comes with a lot of overhead rooftop solar doesn't, including capital and maintenance for the power plants and transmission facilities and all the salaries and what-not; rooftop solar just needs the initial capital expense and damned little else, meaning you pocket all the difference, even if you have to front the capital yourself. Finance the capital the same way you finance the capital for the house itself or a car, and the utilities don't have much left to compete on. As such, there's a lot of incentive to defect from the grid...and every such defection drives up the average per-customer cost fro those left, creating an ever-increasing spiral of incentive to defect from the grid. As such, I predict that we'll eventually see coal plants shutting down because their operat ors have been put out of business by rooftop solar. Cheers, b& ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
Since it appears that the number of EVs powered by renewable energy has gone from 50 to 80% in just a few years, why do you promote to be "conservative" with the numbers? That is only doing EVs a disservice, since both EVs and solar are becoming more and more ubiquitous so much so that solar installing companies, even though they are growing fast, they will not take any jobs that are a bit more challenging since there is such a big and continuously growing market for them. So, no need to be conservative. Coal power is history. It is not because of more strict regulations (even though "the polluter pays" would have been nice for so many people suffering from the results of decades of burning coal) but simply the business case for coal is worse than for investing in clean power, so why bother? And for home owners it still pays off to go through the trouble of having solar installed on their roof, especially if charging the EV will push them into the expensive high tiers. So, almost everyone buying an EV will consider "how do I fuel it" and ends up with a cheaper solution when adding solar in the mix, so I see no reason to change the message that the vast majority of EVs run on 100% renewable. Personally I do not (yet) have solar on my home (long story) but I do use 100% renewable energy by paying a few bucks every month to Arcadia (if you are interested - feel free to use my referral: https://myenergy.arcadiapower.com/referral/by/cornelis0519 So even though I have no installation on my own home, I do get 100% green electricity for my EV. This means that even apartment dwellers can fuel their EV with green power if they choose to, obviously without the benefit of saving on their bill, it is only helping in the "I do my part in reducing my carbon footprint". Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.comPrivate: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water XoIP: +31877841130 Tel: +1 408 383 7626Tel: +91 (040)23117400 x203 -Original Message- From: EV on behalf of Mark Abramowitz via EV Sent: Fri 8/14/2015 8:46 AM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot You may be correct, but as EVs become ubiquitous, and not just the early adopters, the % of those using solar must decline. That is, unless solar becomes significantly more ubiquitous than EVs. Better to be conservative with the numbers. (IMO, of course) Sent from my iPhone On Aug 14, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: >> I also have gotten the coal claim, which I correct, >> giving the power generating mix in my state, >> but I get the impression they don't believe it. > > You may power your EV from the dirty power in your state, but studies in > 2012 showed about 50% of EV owners charged their cars from 100% renewable > solar or wind. Now just last week (2015) the Ford survey found that 83% > of EV purchasers charge from 100% renewables or will when they can. > > So quoting the grid mix is doing a disservice to 83% of EV owners and is > dead wrong by a factor of FIVE, because it IGNORES the fact that most of > the people buying EV's are also buying 100% clean electricity. > > You are doing EV's a disservice by quoting the dirty grid mix. Get a show > of hands in your local EV club. In ours, 2/3rds of the EV owners also > have solar to charge them. > > It is NO COINCIDENCE that most people who buy EV's also want to do it with > clean energy. > > Using the grid mix is damning the future by the sins of the past. Or its > like saying that because 18% of Americans smoke that I have an 18% chance > of dying of lung cancer (But, I don't smoke)! > > And even if the grid mix is 40% coal, if 83% of EV drivers charge from > 100% renewables then simple math shows that the -average- percentage of > coal electricity for EV drivers is then 40% * 17% or under 7%. A far cry > from the "grid mix" you are quoting. > > Plus, the use of coal since 2008 has gone DOWN by over 20% and keeps going > down! > > Bob, WB4APR > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EV facts, coal and shooting ourselves in the foot
You may be correct, but as EVs become ubiquitous, and not just the early adopters, the % of those using solar must decline. That is, unless solar becomes significantly more ubiquitous than EVs. Better to be conservative with the numbers. (IMO, of course) Sent from my iPhone On Aug 14, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: >> I also have gotten the coal claim, which I correct, >> giving the power generating mix in my state, >> but I get the impression they don't believe it. > > You may power your EV from the dirty power in your state, but studies in > 2012 showed about 50% of EV owners charged their cars from 100% renewable > solar or wind. Now just last week (2015) the Ford survey found that 83% > of EV purchasers charge from 100% renewables or will when they can. > > So quoting the grid mix is doing a disservice to 83% of EV owners and is > dead wrong by a factor of FIVE, because it IGNORES the fact that most of > the people buying EV's are also buying 100% clean electricity. > > You are doing EV's a disservice by quoting the dirty grid mix. Get a show > of hands in your local EV club. In ours, 2/3rds of the EV owners also > have solar to charge them. > > It is NO COINCIDENCE that most people who buy EV's also want to do it with > clean energy. > > Using the grid mix is damning the future by the sins of the past. Or its > like saying that because 18% of Americans smoke that I have an 18% chance > of dying of lung cancer (But, I don't smoke)! > > And even if the grid mix is 40% coal, if 83% of EV drivers charge from > 100% renewables then simple math shows that the -average- percentage of > coal electricity for EV drivers is then 40% * 17% or under 7%. A far cry > from the "grid mix" you are quoting. > > Plus, the use of coal since 2008 has gone DOWN by over 20% and keeps going > down! > > Bob, WB4APR > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
