Best Way to Honor the Intent of the Tax Credit?

[EaglesPDX]

How did a thread about the tax credit end up as a mud slinging contest about hydrogen fuel cells?

My fault, I was advocating for continuation and extension of the Federal Tax Credit and Federal subsidies in general for all the tech needed to end US fossil fuel use. I made an offhand reference to include hydrogen as an energy source in areas where EV tech is not practical such as airplanes and long haul trucks.

Apparently some folks have near religious opposition to hydrogen in any application and mayhem ensued.

 

[Topher]

Keep in mind this tax credit can and should have been considered when budgeting because it was made law by elected officials years ago.

And it was. And everyone's taxes were raised (or debt was incurred) to pay for it. So taxes already went up. Imagine that.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Topher]

I made an offhand reference to include hydrogen as an energy source in areas where EV tech is not practical such as long haul trucks.

Look up the Nikola 1, long distance truck, EV and natural gas hybrid. Not available yet, but at least there is a design.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Personally, I would rather the government stay out of it. Sorry, but I just don't trust them most of the time. The incentives were great and served a purpose, but EVs are now getting viable and compelling in direct competition with their ICE competitors. The technology is only going forward and the prices are only going to come down so lets let the common market work its magic and before you know it people will be asking themselves why they ever considered an ICE vehicle in the past.

Dan

 

[deonb]

Personally, I would rather the government stay out of it. Sorry, but I just don't trust them most of the time. The incentives were great and served a purpose, but EVs are now getting viable and compelling in direct competition with their ICE competitors. The technology is only going forward and the prices are only going to come down so lets let the common market work its magic and before you know it people will be asking themselves why they ever considered an ICE vehicle in the past.

Dan

As long as the common market works on equal footing. So get rid of all oil subsidies at the same time.

The one pesky thing is Hydrogen. Even though I think it's the only real sustainable option for aviation for the foreseeable future, the market will not bear the the cost of clean Hydrogen. Even without subsidies, natural gas will still be a cheaper source of Hydrogen. Not quite sure what to do with that one.

 

[JeffK]

2.2 lbs of hydrogen has as much energy as 6.8 lbs of gasoline.

Yes, hydrogen has a low mass...

You should measure by volume, because it's vastly different ballgame. Good luck storing a large amount of hydrogen on a car unless you have a huge tank.

Let's look at the Toyota Mirai as an example. It stores 10kg of hydrogen at 700 bar in a 32 gallon tank with a range of 312 miles. If a Toyota Prius had a gigantic 32 gallon tank at let's say only 40 mpg you'd get a range of 1280 miles... that's a huge win for gasoline.

 

[EaglesPDX]

YLet's look at the Toyota Mirai as an example. It stores 10kg of hydrogen at 700 bar in a 32 gallon tank with a range of 312 miles. If a Toyota Prius had a gigantic 32 gallon tank at let's say only 40 mpg you'd get a range of 1280 miles... that's a huge win for gasoline.

By that logic one would pick a gasoline car over Tesla which has LESS range than the Mirai. The idea is to not use gasoline and to promote the sustainable technology and products and to encourage people to buy them.

If the Tesla is viable at 285 miles than the Mirai is viable at 315 miles.

 

[EaglesPDX]

Personally, I would rather the government stay out of it. Sorry, but I just don't trust them most of the time.

In which case we are not having this conversation on personal computers (NASA) on the internet (DARPA).

incentives were great and served a purpose, but EVs are now getting viable and compelling in direct competition with their ICE competitors.

The tax credit incentives will have served their purpose when 253,000,000 cars and light trucks in the US are EV's, US CO2 emissions are reduced by 80% over 2000 levels, US is not importing oil or spending $600B per year on military to secure oil.

 

[Topher]

Not quite sure what to do with that one.

Tax carbon. And charge frackers for water at the same rate as other who use water FOR THE TIME USED. In other words if you pay $0.04 per gallon for water you are returning to the system in a week, then people using water for a million years should pay $2 Million per gallon.

Thank you kindly.

 

[deonb]

Tax carbon. And charge frackers for water at the same rate as other who use water FOR THE TIME USED. In other words if you pay $0.04 per gallon for water you are returning to the system in a week, then people using water for a million years should pay $2 Million per gallon.

You want me to pay $1600 per year in water for my Hot Tub?

But, but! I live in Seattle?

 

[alseTrick]

Again - just based on what they've shown so far. The first few doublings in capacity should in theory come easy. But until they've done that, they haven't done that.

It's like Elon who said a couple of years ago that Tesla can ship a 500 mile Model S tomorrow if they wanted. Sure... but again, until they're doing that, they're not doing that.

I said nothing about doubling or not doubling. I questioned your logic on simply multiplying the current setup by 200.

You don't HOPE it's unrealistic by 2017. I don't either.

No. That's not what I said. That's what you want me to say.

I don't think it's unrealistic. You do. That's what I said, and that's what I meant.

I'm assuming your "2017" was a typo.

 

[deonb]

I said nothing about doubling or not doubling. I questioned your logic on simply multiplying the current setup by 200.

Is there any other way of transporting 200 people currently using a Solar Impulse other than using 200 Solar Impulses?

Elon has this great saying about battery claims: “My top advice really for anyone who says they’ve got some breakthrough battery technology is please send us a sample cell, okay. Don’t send us PowerPoint, okay, just send us one cell that works with all appropriate caveats, that would be great. That sorts out the nonsense and the claims that aren’t actually true.”

And that applies here too. If you think you can build a BEV / solar power airliner that can carry 200 people, then build one. Until then, it doesn't exist.

I don't think it's unrealistic. You do. That's what I said, and that's what I meant.

I'm assuming your "2017" was a typo.

Yes, 2017 was a typo - thanks.

Based on what current scientific prediction or past precedent do you foresee a 1000% battery capacity increase in the next 50 years?

Over the last 4 years, Tesla was only able to show a 5% progress. Extrapolate that rate, and even compounded it shows a 80% improvement over 50 years. Now, let's say Tesla was just lazy up to this point, and they can actually make 5% progress every 2 years instead of 4. That would still only achieve 250% in 50 years.

You're talking about a 1000% improvement. There's nothing that predict that to be on the table. Thinking it will happen because people sometimes achieve cool stuff... well, you can think that, but I see that as hope, rather than reason.

 

[alseTrick]

Is there any other way of transporting 200 people currently using a Solar Impulse other than using 200 Solar Impulses?

Elon has this great saying about battery claims: “My top advice really for anyone who says they’ve got some breakthrough battery technology is please send us a sample cell, okay. Don’t send us PowerPoint, okay, just send us one cell that works with all appropriate caveats, that would be great. That sorts out the nonsense and the claims that aren’t actually true.”

And that applies here too. If you think you can build a BEV / solar power airliner that can carry 200 people, then build one. Until then, it doesn't exist.

It really doesn't.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

The tax credit incentives will have served their purpose when 253,000,000 cars and light trucks in the US are EV's, US CO2 emissions are reduced by 80% over 2000 levels, US is not importing oil or spending $600B per year on military to secure oil.

I very respectfully disagree. When 253,000,000 cars and light trucks in the US are EVs it won't be because of some federal subsidy, it will be because EVs have gotten so good and are so cheap on their own that people can't imagine why they would ever want an ICE. THAT'S when EVs will have firmly taken their place in the minds of people.

Dan

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Tax carbon. And charge frackers for water at the same rate as other who use water FOR THE TIME USED. In other words if you pay $0.04 per gallon for water you are returning to the system in a week, then people using water for a million years should pay $2 Million per gallon.

Thank you kindly.

If I might add a little to the water balance thing.....Fresh water, distilled by the rain cycle - has a value to agriculture, municipalities and can be used and reused many times with commonly available wastewater treatment plants. Frack water - that 100,000 barrels of water designed to stimulate a newly drilled oil well....is NOT of potable quality. Putting "fresh" water into a oil bearing formation that is used to having a salty environment would damage the formation. So Frack water is either water that was produced FROM that formation by a nearby producing well, or water that has been treated to be compatible with the formation (such as being salted up by adding KCL). You actually get some of this frack "load water" back as soon as the well begins producing. Then that water needs to be disposed of in a disposal well designed for that purpose. Most disposal wells are properly designed, inspected and operated to keep "salt water" from ever being near "fresh water". The salt water needs to be tucked away for a long time - it is not a supply that competes with municipal supplies.

Comparing the use of Fresh water to Frack water is not a sound apples/apples basis.
We can talk as if Frack should be done at all, but the locking up of water comparison is weak.

 

[JeffK]

By that logic one would pick a gasoline car over Tesla

If they wanted only range then yes I agree, they would pick gasoline or diesel.

If you want to reduce dependence on less efficient fuels, clean up the air, and not be wasteful of energy the only current option is BEV until supercapacitors become a viable alternative.

Gasoline/Diesel is wasteful and dirty especially for the energy it actually contains, Hydrogen is wasteful in the generation and use. The more efficient way to make Hydrogen comes from dirty sources (petroleum) and even that costs ~$50 per tank of around 300 miles. Making it cleanly using electrolysis might be even more expensive in energy costs. Plus you have to add compression and possibly transportation. Hydrogen filling stations cost somewhere from $1-3 million dollars each compared to a $300,000 Tesla supercharging station.

Consider the Toyota Mirai holds 10kg of H2 so that's 31.2 miles per kg of hydrogen. An efficient hydrogen filling station uses 68 kWh to produce 1 kg. A Tesla can go over 200 miles on that energy. Let's pretend you could afford one of these in your home and wanted to fill 10kg H2 at 700 bar and your electricity rate is 0.12 cents per kWh. That's 680 kWh * 0.12 = $81.60 per 312 mile tank of H2. Thanks but no thanks.

Using electricity straight into an inverter and into a battery is far more efficient, cheaper, and better for everyone.

 

[EaglesPDX]

I very respectfully disagree. When 253,000,000 cars and light trucks in the US are EVs it won't be because of some federal subsidy, it will be because EVs have gotten so good and are so cheap on their own that people can't imagine why they would ever want an ICE. THAT'S when EVs will have firmly taken their place in the minds of people.

It's not a matter of winning "hearts and minds". It is very specific, very necessary metrics.

1. Cut air and water pollution and cut greenhouse gases to 80% of 2000 level to mitigate disastrously accelerated global warming.
2. Eliminate US oil imports which cost the US economy $300B-$600B year in trade deficit costs.
3. Eliminate US oil imports which create national security threat of oil terrorism (ISIS, al-Queda).
4. Eliminate US oil imports which cost $600B per year in military, oil wars to secure oil and respond to oil terrorism.

If it were not for those issues, gasoline powered vehicles would fine, better than EV's.

Regarding government, if not for government regulations looking at everyone's long term best interest we would not have EV's at all. The gov't regs to cut US oil use and pollution are the only reason we have hybrids and EV's. The subsidy for EV's is part of that.

If anything the current Federal subsidy is too small as we are not making fast enough progress to those very necessary goals.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

By that logic one would pick a gasoline car over Tesla which has LESS range than the Mirai. The idea is to not use gasoline and to promote the sustainable technology and products and to encourage people to buy them.

If the Tesla is viable at 285 miles than the Mirai is viable at 315 miles.

A Tesla can be charged at pretty much any of the billions of electric outlets in the world as long as you have the right adapter. How many hydrogen fueling stations can you recharge that Mirai at? You won't be able to take the Mirai on a long distance road trip any time soon.

 

[EaglesPDX]

A Tesla can be charged at pretty much any of the billions of electric outlets in the world as long as you have the right adapter.

And have 90 hours to do a full 295 charge at those billions of 12V/12A outlets. Even with 80A dual chargers on the car and a full 80A charging station, its five hours for 295 miles. Tesla Charging | Tesla Motors Charging time, charging stations and range are still issues with EV's and that charging infrastructure is still being built out.

Range and charging time are impediments to EV sales. All the more reason to increase the Federal subsidy for EV's to make them more competitive.

 

[Topher]

or water that has been treated to be compatible with the formation Then that water needs to be disposed of in a disposal well designed for that purpose. Most disposal wells are properly designed, inspected and operated to keep "salt water" from ever being near "fresh water". The salt water needs to be tucked away for a long time - it is not a supply that competes with municipal supplies.

So the water is being purposefully polluted, so polluted that it needs to be locked away FOREVER. Lovely.

Thank you kindly.