Obviously he thinks he know better than all scientific studies.
Typical oil company shill.
As expected, empty claims and no data to back it up. Must be nice to write an article and say whatever you feel like.
I'm not clicking on it. Don't want to feed these FUD'sters who write this nonsense.
I could not even make it through this incredibly biased hit piece by oil company shill. Utterly false and worthless!
This will go on for a while until the transition is so far along it will be pointless to pretend it's not happening.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Mahatma Gandhi
They ignored the Tesla roadster. They laughed at Elon Musk's quixotic crusade to build the Model S and the Model X with his cute little hippie car company. The laughing stopped with 455,000 orders placed for the M3 and now they are fighting.
Sales have started up the slope of the hockey stick. Governments all over the world are turning against ICE products. They scared and angry and this is the empire striking back just as big tobacco did after the health risks of their product became known and how the auto industry did when the dangers of leaded gas were exposed. EVs will win, but we're now at the bloody stage of the fight.
Here are the signs victory is at hand:
1) Plug-in EVs attain/pass 10% of worldwide passenger vehicle sales
2) A competitor signs an agreement with Tesla allowing its customers to access Tesla's supercharger network
3) New lithium mines open. (one will start selling lithium at a new mine in Nevada in 2020, located 150 miles from Tesla's gigafactory).
4) Competitors actually order a new gigafactory.
5) The Model Y enters production.
6) An ICE manufacturer devotes enough production capacity to turn out more than 20,000 or so PEV cars that it makes. (Nope, the Bolt and iPace do not yet qualify).
7) A longstanding ICE manufacturer finds itself on the ropes from being late to the party.
There will always be some carping but it will gradually die down Even the most ardent naysayers eventually come around. It just takes a long, long time.
He should suck on a tailpipe and see what happens.
I think he has been sucking on a tailpipe.
I read the article. All of you should take notice of the fact that it came from Politico. That is not exactly a right-wing organization. The article was well-written and many valid points were made. I can tell many of you here are covering your eyes ands ears, and going "lalalalalalalalalalala."
True, Jonathon Lesser doesn't know diddly squat about Tesla and how much their owners love their cars. But that does not mean that everything he said in the article is absolutely false. In fact, I didn't see anything that he said that was obviously wrong. He made a point that I have been making for the past few years. And that point is that raising the price of electricity will defeat the incentive for owning a BEV. Lesser stated that California's electricity cost is 50% above the national average. California's BEV perks certainly help counter the high cost of electricity. But not every state in the union will have the BEV perks California has. And promoting environmental regulations nationwide that increases electricity prices, will only hurt the sales of BEVs.
Another thing, modern day gas cars are burning much cleaner than they used to. Replacing a 30-year old smoke belching Oldsmobile with a BEV is certainly a plus environmentally. But for brand new ICE cars today, there really is not that much of an environmental advantage to replace them with BEVs due to the electrical grid source of energy. Natural gas and coal are still the main grid source, and switching from ICE to BEV today is at best an even wash environmentally.
One thing Lesser did leave out was how much more efficient BEVs are than ICE vehicles. But just because he left out some of the major plusses of owning a Tesla does not mean that his article was completely faulty. It wasn't faulty. But it was one-sided.
The main point to be made is that BEVs are not as good for the environment as what is often touted by the greenie weenies. From my perspective, there are many other GOOD reasons for owning a Tesla. The environmental reason should be put on the back burner.
Fuck yourself Welfare Mitch bump
Hey, hey, the language!
@MitchP85D I don’t think the environmental case is as weak as you state, coal grid power is increasingly getting turned off for increasing numbers of days in the UK partly due to increasing solar installations. I seem to recall reading that some countries ( think Australia was mentioned) are no getting a bit concerned about the large numbers of households going off grid because of their own solar installations making them autonomous.
Those of us with EVs are doing our bit for the community by supporting our local power companies!
Just one data point, but I live in NC where we still use quite a bit of coal so not the greenest power. I checked out my zip code at some clean power website (forget which one - was posted on another thread here) and it told me my MS got the equivalent of 77 mpg from an emissions perspective based on my power grid. Not as good as the national average for MS, but still quite a bit better than any 2018 model ICE car, not to mention those that can do 0-60 in 4s. And that number will only get better as more coal plants are shut down and switched to gas or wind/solar.
This claim that EV's have to be compared to 30 year old ICE cars is BS.
What's the matter 60cc SamO SaSoT Butt? Did I step on your New Age Religion yet again?
I don't even read your posts. Anyone who does ends up stupider at the end.
California's power mix is down to one 63MW coal fired plant (as of 2016). Not sure if it is still working in San Bernardino or not. I think I saw something that CA is coal free for generation a couple months ago. For me in Sacto, SMUD runs 0% coal and 43% renewable and getting larger, based on 2016 data. I am 70% home solar and then the 43% of my remaining 30% is renewable, totalling 85% renewable overall. Nowhere close to anything gas powered when it comes to pollution. A BEV is still better than the vast majority of ICE cars people have any interest in buying. How many ICE vehicles truly get more than 50 mpg and how many want to drive it?
OK California. Knock yourselves out with your renewables. Maybe the rest of America will follow. Maybe not. It is not up to you California SaSoTs to make that decision for the rest of America!
@SamO - I wondered what was happening to me.
@Mitch - the rest of America probably won’t. But I wouldn’t be proud of that.
@weathermoron. If your neighbor sets his grass on fire would you ignore it? If your neighbor continues to burn stinky stuff that blows into your yard would you ignore it? If some jerk lights a cigar at the table next to you in an expensive restaurant would you ignore it? I wouldn’t. I also don’t ignore my idiot neighboring states and other countries who burn fossil fuels and destroy the planet for the rest of us.
actually plenty of other states follow CA's lead on environmental laws, especially when it comes to cars.
But many don’t
California is the 6th largest world economy. Much bigger than Texas or New York. When we switch over to renewables and won't let auto makers sell their garbage in our state, they'll change or die. Just like dried-up, over-the-hill, shit for brains weathermen.
How's that Houston water table? High enough yet?
@SO . . . yea, I don't block him, but I just skip through the regurgitated anti-logic.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” - DPM
Hey Goebbels Apprentice, you say that stupid crap about your neighbor burning stinky stuff. Yet, California imports nearly half of its electricity it consumes from those states that you deride! You Californians only generate a little over a half of the electricity that you consume!
Oh, you think Forbes is just some right-wing rag? OK. How about the California Energy Commission?
In 2017, 206,336 GWh of electricity was produced by California. But you imported 85,703 GWh from the Northwest and Southwest import areas. I don't know how much you Californians import from Texas, but I reckon its a lot!
And, here is another fact I bet will shock you California SaSoTs. 43.4% of your in-state power generation comes from natural gas! That shocked me. I had no idea! Second is large hydro at 17.89%.
See how hypocritical you California SaSoTs are when you slam your neighboring states for polluting the air, yet you are dependent on us to provide your electricity for you!!!! And furthermore, you have to burn a lot of natural gas to generate the electricity that you do produce. Specifically, you generated 89,564 GWh worth of natural gas that you consumed in 2017. You also imported 11,364 GWh worth of coal generated energy to help supply your excessive demand for electricity. You slam us for burning coal, yet you buy it from us!!!!
You California SaSoTs are a bunch of goofy, dumbass hypocrites! The proof is in the numbers!
SMUD power content: https://www.smud.org/-/media/Documents/Corporate/Environmental-Leadershi...
Texas - also note #1 for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxidehttps://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/Texas/
Your quote "You Californians only generate a little over a half of the electricity that you consume!" Yet you also say :
"206,336 GWh of electricity was produced by California. But you imported 85,703 GWh from the Northwest and Southwest import areas. I'm sorry but 85 k of total 206k+86k is only 29%, not "almost half." Again, the proof is in the numbers, if you know how to use them.
A lot of CA import of electricity comes from Oregon and Washington, both cleaner states than Texas.
Oregon - They are 35th to 41st on those same 3 toxins and they get 25% of their electricity from Hydrohttps://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/Oregon/
Washington - Also hydro as largest source. and 34th to 39th on those same 3 toxins. https://www.eia.gov/state/
California ranks #49 for energy use per capita, meaning lowest usage. Only Rhode Island beats CA in being more efficient per capita. Texas, #6 at 2.5x as much per capita as CA. https://www.eia.gov/state/
Natural gas and renewables including hydro account for almost 1:1 split. Natural gas is much cleaner burning than all the other things used in Texas. Not perfect, but the power content is continuously improving towards renewables and away from even natural gas.
Great data. The signal to noise ratio was elevated considerably. California is planning 100% renewables by 2045. SB100 accelerates California’s timeline for implementation, calling for the state’s utilities to procure 60% of their power from renewables by 2030, instead of the current 50%.
The writing is on the wall, and you can't stop the progress of renewable energy.
Hey weathermoron. Read what Sam0 says. And i stand by what i said earlier. You claim you have every right to pollute your environment. But you are indeed polluting mine as well. Stop crapping on your lawn and stop burning your stinky trash. You are stinking up my neighborhood.
All these fossil fuel-funded scumbags are dead men walking. It's like the Big Short only times 1000. The fraud, waste, and pollution surrounding this industry are going to make dieselgate look like a slap on the wrist.
No sleepy one, you are watering down the numbers to make it not look as bad for you silly California SaSoTs. In 2017, California produced 206,336 GWh of energy. But you imported 85,703 GWh of energy to meet your energy demand. The imported energy in California is 41.5% of what you produced. This is one of the reasons why your electricity is more expensive than elsewhere. Now, look at the columns under "Northwest Imports" and "Southwest Imports." At the bottom you will see 39,873 GWh for Northwest Imports and 45,830 GWh for Southwest Imports. Now think about this. What kind of energy would you get from the Southwest? You certainly get more from there than the Northwest.
There is something else kind of peculiar. Under the "Northwest Imports," you will see 22,385 GWh of UNSPECIFIED POWER SOURCE. That sure is an awfully big number! What in the hell is that? I have to work today, so I don't have time to research that. Maybe you California SaSoTs can find out what that is.
@Mitch, Quote: “And that point is that raising the price of electricity will defeat the incentive for owning a BEV. Lesser stated that California's electricity cost is 50% above the national average. California's BEV perks certainly help counter the high cost of electricity. But not every state in the union will have the BEV perks California has.”
That’s a self limiting system, though. If electricity prices go too high, it’s a tipping point where it makes obvious economic sense to just get a solar panel system to cut off the ongoing high price of electricity. I live in a state where electricity costs about 8 cents per kWh. Electric cars make a lot of sense here with no state incentives at all, but because the electricity was so cheap, it was hard to justify the cost of a solar panel install.
Quote: “Natural gas and coal are still the main grid source, and switching from ICE to BEV today is at best an even wash environmentally.”
No—you don’t just get to say false things unchallenged. I have read the papers from those studies. It’s a little better than a wash if the source is 100% coal. Any grid generation mix better than that gives an even bigger advantage to electric cars.
For starters, the Continental Economics consists of one person, Jonathan Lesser. He is a legitimate PhD. His ties run deep with the right wing crowd. He has also been hired on many occasions to serve as a front man for utilities and other fossil fuel companies. Lesser consistently opposes any efforts to move to toward renewable energy. His primary tactic is to cite some data and then twist it to suit his purpose, which is always to burn more fossil fuels and give up on renewables. Lesser is also closely tied to the ultra conservative Manhattan Policy Institute that over the years has championed: the Laffer Curve theory of economics, privatization of government services, charter schools over public schools, broken windows policing techniques, and had ties with Rudolph Guilliani from the time he was mayor of New York City.
For example, Vermont has moved aggressively to adopt clean energy. Lesser makes the "when the sun doesn't shine" argument in an article he wrote about that. His works consistently take the side of fossil fuels over wind, solar, hydro, and thermal power generation. Lesser was on stage to fight against Ohio's move (yes, Kassich was governor) toward cleaner power generation. He is not popular in Ohio at all.
Look, if you love the extreme right wing view of the world, Lesser is your guy. If you don't he's to be ignored.
"OK California. Knock yourselves out with your renewables. Maybe the rest of America will follow. Maybe not. It is not up to you California SaSoTs to make that decision for the rest of America!"
so basically conceding that you're wrong but you still don't want america to do something that would benefit it greatly
@2018wesm. Yes it is. Read what I wrote to Mitch.
And I quote
"If your neighbor sets his grass on fire would you ignore it? If your neighbor continues to burn stinky stuff that blows into your yard would you ignore it? If some jerk lights a cigar at the table next to you in an expensive restaurant would you ignore it? I wouldn’t. I also don’t ignore my idiot neighboring states and other countries who burn fossil fuels and destroy the planet for the rest of us"
2018wesm, I don't care what the other states do. Not my business. I only care what Texas does!
@weathermoron. But you are happy to take our tax money when you flood
I pay taxes too Goebbels Apprentice, which goes to your wildfire, earthquake, and mudslide relief! AND I pay flood insurance premiums, which supports the program that assists with the natural disasters in our neck of the woods.
You obviously are more concerned about WHO gets relief from a natural disaster than you are about the program that deals with the problem. And this is only one of the reasons why I call you Goebbels Apprentice!
In other words you are quite happy with the system. You pay taxes which likely do not cover as much as you take out of the system. Libertarian hypocrite.
More ammo to support "Goebbels Apprentice."
"You pay taxes which likely do not cover as much as you take out of the system."
You don't have the faintest frigging idea how much I've paid in taxes over my lifetime! I've made some insurance claims in my lifetime. But those are backed up by a lifetime of paying insurance premiums. My flood event is the one and only I've ever had in my life. How in the hell can you determine how much of my flood claim is paid for by the Federal Treasury vs. the premiums paid by those of us who pay into the National Flood Insurance Program?! The answer is you can't!
Here is something else Goebbels Apprentice hasn't thought of. How much of my flood insurance premiums I've paid into "the system" over the past 10 years goes to those who have not paid a cent into the NFIP??!!!!
I repeat, Goebbels Apprentice is more concerned about who gets relief from the National Flood Insurance Program than the actual program itself! Deceitful Socialist Bastard!
Michigan gets smog from Chicago.
Lake Michigan gets Asian carp infestation from other states and crap from Wisconsin.
And now we can look forward to this:
I do care what my neighbors are doing. Any sane person should. To say you don’t care what your neighbors are doing is extremely narrow minded.
(In another state)
Just another fossil fuel flunky spouting unsupported drivel but, hey! If Johnathan Lesser of Continental Economics and Politico are so interested in cutting off subsidies, why not start with the over $20 BILLION fossil fuel producers get every year?:
Or what about the ICE car manufacturers like, say, GM? They've gotten over $56,674,826,190 in federal and state subsidies:
(You can check just about EVERYONE'S subsidies through "Subsidy Tracker": https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker/)
That money, all of those BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars, would sure do a lot of good were it applied elsewhere like, say, upgrading and repairing our antiquated and crumbling infrastructure.
The fact of the matter is that Tesla Motors has received on a fraction of what the "Big 3" ICE auto manufacturers and the Oil industry has received, bare thousands compared to the BILLIONS and BILLIONS they've gotten over the years and even annually, which makes this condemnation of Tesla's subsidies laughable at best, asininely ludicrous and pathetic at worse.
FWIW, here's a listing companies that have gotten the most in/largest subsidies, and how much, since 2000:
He SoSo, do y'all have a court system up there Michigan? Make your case against Illinois and Wisconsin.
Hey allusion, that is why I am for a flat tax with NO deductions. All of those subsidies you don't like result from an over-complicated Progressive Income Tax you democrats support!
I am not a Democrat....
@MitchP85D - great deflection about the courts!
BTW, Republicans just made the tax code more complicated.
The first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, and replaced the Revenue Act of 1861 as a means of financing the Civil War...
Care to guess which political "Party" both monetized and favors war?
You do know that Texas is the state most prone to natural disasters (254 since 1953). Love how you have to single out California, the 5th largest economy in the WORLD to make yourself feel better.
@weathermoron. Besides your FEMA welfare cheese you forget about the interstates that the government t pays for. You do use roads in many states don’t you. You also need to pay for the military. Unless you want Trump to dissolve the military. You need to pay for ICE that you love for preventing Hispanic people from entering the US and kidnapping their children. And of course many other things. Why don’t you calculate whether you are truly paying your fair shareZ
Sccrendo- Aren't people in CA who buy Teslas getting free state issued cheese in the form of additional tax deductions for electric vehicles?
Arent you going against Bernie by giving tax breaks to the rich who can afford Teslas while not reducing the state gas tax on the little guy who cant afford a new car?
EV tax credit in CA is limited by income.