Sorry Dave, I should have said Rob.

Noel

38 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

.  More sources if you need them but I suggest you avoid the climate change aspect unless you want to get this thread shutdown.  As far as I know, discussion of Energy subsidies isn't yet an AVSIM taboo topic, unless that has changed (hard to keep up with what is and isn't allowed to be discussed these days)? 

 

Any subject, if beaten to death, can become a taboo subject or if it involves the Govt. in any manner, it then can become very political is a short amount of time.  The mild debate that is going on now s OK as long as it doesn't get caustic.

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Absolutely false, all energy is heavily subsidized, oil by far the most subsidized.

I see.  Well, maybe you don't understand this, but a lot of what your source calls "subsidies" are actually tax breaks, or what some like to call, misleadingly, tax "expenditures".  It's a clever semantic game that politicians love to use when they don't want to tell the whole truth.  It's not as if billions of dollars of taxpayer money are being appropriated and given to oil companies.  You might try to say that it amounts to the same thing, but it's not really.  I believe that taxes on all producers should be much lower than they are, so for me the breaks are justified and appropriate.  My only requirement is that they be equally applied, but alas, the govt. never does anything fairly or equally.

Yes, the fossil fuel industry does get tax breaks, just like many, many other things the govt. picks and chooses in our society.  The tax breaks are an incentive to produce in our own country rather than be beholden to other countries for our oil.  It is also a national security issue, as being dependent on other countries for essentials is a really bad idea.  Just ask Germany, for example.

You can agree or disagree with producing oil, but the fact remains that we need it badly whether you like that or not.  You like to vilify the oil industry because you don't like it, and that's your prerogative to do that if it makes you feel better.  Keep in mind, though, that petroleum has propelled the world forward in so many ways I can't even list them all here.  You can thank oil for your comfortable lifestyle, as well as that of your parents and grandparents. 

Anyway, the govt. should provide the same tax breaks for renewable energy. 

Dave

11 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Anyway, the govt. should provide the same tax breaks for renewable energy. 

 

That would take some doing. 

The fossil fuel industry received 5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020. 

 

Edited March 17, 20224 yr by martin-w

15 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

It would seem to me that suppressing facts and permitting false information is not good for a community at any level.

This is the second or third time that you've advocated censorship of people who don't agree with you.  Many so-called "facts" have been disproven over time.  What one considers the "truth" today, will sometimes be proven false after time passes and more is learned about the issue.  Calling for censorship and restricting people who say things you don't agree with is very dangerous for a free society.

I am all for electric vehicles.  I've said that several times.  I actually *like* them.  I just think their drawbacks should be publicized.  You've had good experiences with yours and that's great, but others have not.

I am certain that within a decade or so electric vehicles will become much more practical, affordable, and popular.  I'll be glad to see less pollution spewing from tailpipes and less smog in cities.

I think that 50% of the cost of an EV should be tax deductible BTW, and for lower wage earners there should be a tax credit of up to $10,000 when you buy one on top of that.

Dave

 

There is no road tax for EVs in the UK.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

This is the second or third time that you've advocated censorship of people who don't agree with you.

How on earth did you so misinterpret what Rob actually wrote?  Essentially, he agrees with your point of view with regards to censorship and supression of facts.

Quote

It would seem to me that suppressing facts and permitting false information is not good for a community at any level. 

 

11 minutes ago, n4gix said:

How on earth did you so misinterpret what Rob actually wrote?  Essentially, he agrees with your point of view with regards to censorship and supression of facts.

Not just me that thought that then?

The federal government allows a 7500 dollar tax credit for purchasing an electric car.

At the federal level, under the Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit taxpayers can claim up to 26% of qualified expenses for investing in a solar system for a home you own and live in. Eligible costs include labor on site, assembling and installing the system, and the cost of all related piping and wiring.

Noel

12 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 Calling for censorship and restricting people who say things you don't agree with is very dangerous for a free society.

 

 

Nobody is restricting you but if you make claims that aren't true or are exaggerated then you will get a response from others.

 

Quote

I am all for electric vehicles.  I've said that several times.  I actually *like* them. 

 

Is that why you have exaggerated the negative aspects and argued vehemently against us? 

 

Quote

I just think their drawbacks should be publicized.  

 

Well you've certainly done plenty of that, to a degree that seems unusually extreme for someone who "likes them". 

 

Quote

I am certain that within a decade or so electric vehicles will become much more practical

 

They are "practical" now for most people, Unless you happen  to be a person who does 500 miles trips regularly, in a location that isn't served by charging stations then they are practical now. The multitude of people who have purchased EV's didn't say to themselves "this is a highly impractical car, awesome, I'll buy it then". 

59.4% of journeys less than 6 miles.

17.3% 6-10

8.4% 11-15

5% 16-20

4.9% 21-30

4.9% 30+

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-were-less-six-miles

 

 

22 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Back to EVs.  Some other benefits of EVs are:

• Lower CG (center of gravity) because you can fit batteries in considerably more locations in a vehicle and manufactures design them to be housed lower in the car.  Lower CG provides for better road handling, braking, etc.  ICE based vehicles suffer from higher CG increasing roll rate (even more so with Trucks/SUVs).
• Because batteries can be placed in many locations across the cars structure perfect weight distribution is attainable (50/50 split) which makes the car turn better, more responsive, better brake balance, more traction, and overall more stable.

The CofG is lower but the total weight is a LOT higher, so ultimately braking will be worse and road holding will be worse compared to an ICE vehicle unless the tyres are sized up. This seems to be something everyone overlooks, my country's roads are already falling to pieces and I dread to think what all the additional mass and wider tyres will do. Stupid "performance SUVs" (there's an oxymoron!) with roadroller rear tyres already annoy me!

50:50 weight distribution is attainable in ICE vehicles (although admittedly not usually found in typical FWD family hatchbacks), BMW have been doing it for years across most of their models. My car has 50:50 weight distribution and is only 1047 kg (2300 lbs) including a full tank of petrol, I don't believe EVs with 300+ mile range will get near those figures for a long time. Reducing weight improves everything dynamically about a car, it's why a 2.0L 290hp Alpine A110 will beat laptimes of a 4.0L 500hp C63 AMG S.

All the above is not to say I'm against EVs, but everyone seems to state the CG argument without mentioning the total weight is a lot heavier. I can reduce my CG if I wear concrete boots, but I won't be running an assault course faster!

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Unless you happen  to be a person who does 500 miles trips regularly, in a location that isn't served by charging stations then they are practical now. The multitude of people who have purchased EV's didn't say to themselves "this is a highly impractical car, awesome, I'll buy it then".

Unfortunately this isn't really the case. In my town centre only one charging station works, all the rest are broken and have been for many months, although outwardly they appear functional they don't do anything when you connect to them. This is the case across the UK, the official figures don't look too bad but anecdotal evidence suggests unusable chargers are widely underreported. The UK network is small too, as of January 2022, less than 30,000 public chargers and only 5,000 are the rapid type you would need during a longer journey.

EVs are great for commuting and trips under 250 miles return where you can charge at home IF you have driveway parking (many households do not). But for any longer trips EVs are a gamble because there is a fair chance the charger you plan to use will be either occupied or none functional. Most EV owners I know here also have access to an ICE vehicle, the EV is normally a secondary car. People generally won't swap to something less practical than what they already have, even if they only use the additional functionality rarely.

Again, I'm not against EVs they make more sense than ICE from many perspectives (easier to drive, quieter, no tailpipe emissions, mechanically far simpler so more reliable and easier to maintain), but let's not kid ourselves that our charging infrastructure is anywhere near the level it needs to be to allow them to mostly supplant ICE vehicles and probably won't be for a decade or more. We don't really seem to have given much consideration to how we can electrify HGVs. We're also painfully short on electric generating capacity in the UK, we're already importing electricity to meet current demands.

Edited March 18, 20224 yr by ckyliu

13 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Absolutely not ... I was advocating the exact opposite. 

My mistake.  I jumped to conclusions and thought you were criticizing AVSIM for "permitting false information".

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Dave

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Is that why you have exaggerated the negative aspects and argued vehemently against us?

Who is "us"?

I haven't exaggerated anything.

Believe what you want to believe.  Do what you want to do. 

Live and let live, I say, but the problem is that you folks won't let others live the way they want.  It's your way or nothing. 

Dave

OK, Naming names!  Dave, Rob, Martin!  The bickering back and forth accusing each other of exaggerating or posting false info stops now! 

58 minutes ago, charliearon said:

OK, Naming names!  Dave, Rob, Martin!  The bickering back and forth accusing each other of exaggerating or posting false info stops now! 

Oo! I like it when you talk dirty. 😄