Both compare hybrids (HEVs), plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), BEVs and conventional cars (CVs or ICEs).

3 hours ago, d.tsakiris said:

Here's a list. It reflects well what I've seen on other websites.

Study from 2016, Analysis from 2020

Uh oh.  You upset the apple cart with that IEA comparative vehicle greenhouse gas emissions chart.  The wrath of the climate alarmists/EV pushers/solar & wind electricity only/humans are bad crowd will soon descend upon you.  The IEA must be fossil fuel industry funded.

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

You mean like the $20 billion US subsides to the fossil fuel industry every year. Or the $5.2 Trillion globally every year?

Completely agree.  Fossil fuel subsidies are absurd and should be ended, with the exception of natural gas.

Yes, the U.S. has very high per capita CO2 emissions and we should continue to work to reduce that number.  Our per capita emissions were around 20 tons from 1990 to about 2010 and we have since reduced that by 25% to about 15 tons, so we are improving.  Also, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2004 and have been decreasing ever since even though our population has grown.  The Europeans do a better job than the Americans when it comes to energy conservation, but one must realize that this comes at a cost, e.g. very high gasoline/diesel taxes, high utility costs, generally very small vehicles, generally much shorter travel distances which in addition to requiring less fuel also makes mass transit more viable and practical, and generally much smaller houses which use less energy for cooling & heating. 

Moreover, there are a number of reasons why CO2 output per capita in the U.S. and other countries is so high relative to countries like China, India, and Russia, the main one being that there aren't nearly as many people living in poverty in the U.S. 

If one's goal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, then the focus should be on the actual amount of pollution produced as that is what affects the atmosphere, and China is the worst offender, yet they aren't required to take any steps to reduce their pollution until 2030, and I doubt that they will honor any agreements they have made in that regard.

Dave

 

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Was that a dig at me David? Because you know I live in the Channel Islands. Hope not.

I thought you said you were just there visiting your daughter?

Dave

43 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I thought you said you were just there visiting your daughter?

Dave

 

No Dave. I permanently live here. As I mentioned last time we spoke. We reside together. 

Edited December 18, 20205 yr by martin-w

16 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

 

Completely agree.  Fossil fuel subsidies are absurd and should be ended, with the exception of natural gas.

 

 

 

The thing is, new forms of energy generation usually require subsides. This is normal. But the fossil fuel subsidies have been around since 1950 I recall and have now escalated to an unimaginable level. And the fossil fuel industry has been round since the 1800's. Hardly a new industry. But when it comes to renewable energy, a young industry, suddenly the politicians wave their arms in the air and deem renewable energy subsides a bad thing, and demand they are phased out. Not surprising though when we consider the legalised bribery that goes on, with politicians being funded by the fossil fuel industry. 

I'm curious, why do you think natural gas should retain subsidies?

 

Quote

The Europeans do a better job than the Americans when it comes to energy conservation, but one must realize that this comes at a cost, e.g. very high gasoline/diesel taxes, high utility costs, generally very small vehicles, generally much shorter travel distances which in addition to requiring less fuel also makes mass transit more viable and practical, and generally much smaller houses which use less energy for cooling & heating. 

 

Oh yes, as someone from the UK, I'm well aware of high fuel duty. But why do you regard smaller vehicles as a negative. Most of us, including the US, don't really require super large vehicles do we? And to be honest, there are plenty of large vehicles in the UK and Europe. Don't know if you've visited our shores, but the roads are full of sizable vehicles. Not as many as the US of course, but they certainly aren't in short supply here. 

Yes, your houses in the US are much bigger than ours. But again, do you guys in the US NEED such big houses? Given the US addiction to large vehicles, huge houses, I'm not surprised you emit more CO2 than we in Europe. Not just in terms of CO2, but pollution in general, do you think that the US and indeed the world as a whole would be better off if you guys in the US were a bit more modest with such things?

 

Quote

Moreover, there are a number of reasons why CO2 output per capita in the U.S. and other countries is so high relative to countries like China, India, and Russia, the main one being that there aren't nearly as many people living in poverty in the U.S.

 

Fair point.

 

Quote

If one's goal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, then the focus should be on the actual amount of pollution produced as that is what affects the atmosphere, and China is the worst offender, yet they aren't required to take any steps to reduce their pollution until 2030, and I doubt that they will honor any agreements they have made in that regard.

 

Not sure I'd agree with that. We can expect China to emit so much when they have a population of 1.4 billion people. As opposed to the US population of 328 million. This is why I would regard per capita as a better measure. The "actual amount of produced" is the issue, you are correct, but it's world wide that's the issue, as a global quantity. 

 

Quote

yet they aren't required to take any steps to reduce their pollution until 2030

 

Actually, China is leading in renewable energy figures. Its the worlds largest producer of wind and solar energy. Plus the largest investor in renewable energy. 

13 minutes ago, martin-w said:

I'm curious, why do you think natural gas should retain subsidies?

What many refer to as "subsidies" are likely actually tax breaks, which in my mind are quite different than outright payments.  Govts. give tax breaks to many kinds of activities, and I think that natural gas production is a good thing and should be encouraged.  Natural gas is very clean and can be a bridge between coal & crude oil and alternative renewable energy sources.

 

17 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Oh yes, as someone from the UK, I'm well aware of high fuel duty. But why do you regard smaller vehicles as a negative. Most of us, including the US, don't really require super large vehicles do we? And to be honest, there are plenty of large vehicles in the UK and Europe. Don't know if you've visited our shores, but the roads are full of sizable vehicles. Not as many as the US of course, but they certainly aren't in short supply here. 

Yes, your houses in the US are much bigger than ours. But again, do you guys in the US NEED such big houses? Given the US addiction to large vehicles, huge houses, I'm not surprised you emit more CO2 than we in Europe. Not just in terms of CO2, but pollution in general, do you think that the US and indeed the world as a whole would be better off if you guys in the US were a bit more modest with such things?

Well, my motives are a bit selfish here as I like my big truck.  It gets 22 miles/gallon (9 kilometers/liter), which I know isn't great, but it is a huge improvement over older large vehicle mileage.  I'm fine with paying more for the extra gasoline.

House size in the U.S. is large compared with Europe, but it is shrinking.  I recently bought a 1500 sq ft(139 sq m) house, which for many here is considered small.  I've seen many new homes that are 1200-1300 sq ft(111-120 sq m).  So, we are gradually downsizing.  Many homes built before the 1990s were minimum 1800 sq ft(167 sq m) and often closer to 2000 sq ft(186 sq m), or larger.  It also bears noting that many Europeans would like to have larger houses, but there simply isn't a lot of build-able space in Europe like there is in the U.S., making land much more expensive, so small apartments or row houses are much more affordable and prevalent in Europe.  There are a lot of apartments and row houses in large, crowded U.S. cities as well BTW.

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

139 sq m) house, which for many here is considered small.  I've seen many new homes that are 1200-1300 sq ft(111-120 sq m).  So, we are gradually downsizing.  Many homes built before the 1990s were minimum 1800 sq ft(167 sq m) and often closer to 2000 sq ft(186 sq m), or larger. 

 

I think the average size house in the UK for a 3 bed traditional (1950's) semi detached house is about 1033 square feet.  Age comes into, with older homes generally being much bigger than modern build, with much bigger gardens.

Detached traditional houses are about 1582 square feet. But then on the other hand there are one bedroom first time buyer, modern build, houses at 656 square feet. 

Its shrinking here too, and to be honest, many modern build first time buyer homes are minuscule. 

True enough re availability of land. Even less where I am of course, with land that I saw recently, with planning permission for a 4 bed house, at £350,000. That's  just for the plot. Was 0.7 acres though. Build cost for say a medium size 2-3 bed house would be just over £100,000. 

How much would 0.7 acres be in your locality? 

 

Edited December 18, 20205 yr by martin-w

I live in the most expensive city in Canada in which to buy a house: the average cost of housing in Metro Vancouver is close to $1.5 million and is projected to increase to $1.7 million next year (reference). Most of the lots are relatively small in Greater Vancouver: for instance, my 15 year old detached house sits on a 3445 square foot lot (0.079 acres) and my house is worth a little more than $1 million.

A home on a 0.7 acre lot would be much, much, much more than $1.5 million: for example, a house on the waterfront in Vancouver that sits on a 30,593 square foot lot (0.7 acres) was valued last year at just shy of $65,000,000. No, that's not a typo. Now, the house is in a highly desirable neighbourhood on the west side of the city of Vancouver and has beautiful views of the water and the mountains, but you get the idea. Property is expensive in Greater Vancouver in general.

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

I think the average size house in the UK for a 3 bed traditional (1950's) semi detached house is about 1033 square feet.  Age comes into, with older homes generally being much bigger than modern build, with much bigger gardens.

Detached traditional houses are about 1582 square feet. But then on the other hand there are one bedroom first time buyer, modern build, houses at 656 square feet. 

Its shrinking here too, and to be honest, many modern build first time buyer homes are minuscule. 

True enough re availability of land. Even less where I am of course, with land that I saw recently, with planning permission for a 4 bed house, at £350,000. That's  just for the plot. Was 0.7 acres though. Build cost for say a medium size 2-3 bed house would be just over £100,000. 

How much would 0.7 acres be in your locality? 

 

Yep, many older houses in Italy(my wife's home country) are also much larger than newer houses.  Her family grew up in a 3 bedroom apartment built in the 50s that was about 1600 sq ft.  Many newer single bedroom apartments in Italy are 500-650 sq ft in size - pretty small.

The cost of an acre of land in my area costs anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 depending on the location, i.e. lots in nice developed subdivisions closer to town cost a lot more vs lots further out of town.  Most house lots are from .25 to .75 acre in size.

Dave

 

Most of London consists of Victorian Terraces which  have no space for parking  so you must park on the street. There are no rights to park in front of your own property and so you usually have to park some distance away.   I cannot see how people will charge their vehicles without either introducing rights to park outside your own house OR a massive investment in public recharging points every 10m.   

This is not an untypical urban scene

london street parking terrace - Bing images

 

Edited December 18, 20205 yr by SteveFx
added picture

On 12/17/2020 at 2:59 PM, Fielder said:

Of course electric cars are more expensive to drive, considering all the costs. At least for the first few years until the technology improves a lot. Buy a gasoline car today while you still can, and let the true believers get stuck with an electric. In 5 years, trade it and go electric. In time we all will drive Teslas etc. When their prices come down and their practicality makes it worth our while.

Cost isn't the issue. The survival of the planet is the issue.

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

What many refer to as "subsidies" are likely actually tax breaks, which in my mind are quite different than outright payments.

Why? Money is fungible. If the government gives you $1000 directly or reduces your tax bill by $1000, the effect to you and the Treasury is identical.

Cheers!

1 hour ago, Luke said:

Why? Money is fungible. If the government gives you $1000 directly or reduces your tax bill by $1000, the effect to you and the Treasury is identical.

Cheers!

I understand your point, but there is indeed a difference.

With a tax break every company engaged in the activity gets the break equally, whereas with subsidies such as govt. contracts or outright financial support, the govt. chooses who to give the money to, a concept which I do not support.  For example, the U.S govt. chose to bail out General Motors with a huge loan using taxpayer money, which was unfair to all the other automobile producers who ran their businesses better and did not need a govt. loan.

Dave

I don't think you understand the economic impact to this country had the gov't. let GM go under. It's not just GM that's at stake. It's also all the suppliers, dealers, truckers, warehousemen, box manufacturers and a host of others who would also have gone under. IMNSHO that move to save GM was the smartest thing our govt. did in that whole economic crisis. The loan was paid back 100%, there was no cost to the taxpayers, and hundreds of thousands of jobs were saved. What's so wrong about that?

America's renown inventor assures electric cars are practical and sure to soon replace the gasoline cars!