Porsche Macan Forum banner

421 - 440 of 463 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,810 Posts
I see the smiley but surely you know its much deeper than a laughing matter.

This forum is a small segment of the greater Macan community of buyers. To even know of its existence, you must have some kind of automotive interest, even if to come ask a question or get advice. Core members are obviously enthusiasts. I dont know the age demographics but my guess is many came to Porsche because the owned a sports car and are older, have some experience. Others came from Sports Sedans. And then there are those who came for the brand but they did so because of the heritage, the reputation of Porsche sports cars. What do you expect to happen? If you think the pushback is bad now when nothing has happened yet, go read RL and to THIS DAY, the pushback going from air cooled to the water cooled 911s. You haven't seen anything yet because the electric Porsches aren't here yet. And why? Do you really believe electric cars is going to change anything in the world? What percentage of CO2 comes from cars worldwide? 15% and thats ALL transportation including truck, ships, boats, planes? What percent is cars? 10%? What about the other 90%?

Look at this "strike". You got activists posing as journalists pushing to CHILDREN. To CHILDREN, :oops: They are going to die. They won't get to live. How disgusting. Those who use children as pawns, as props?? Spreading FUD?

Do a google search on "Young women won't have children because of climate change". Article after article discuss how young women won't bring a child into the world because they will die. Just one example "we’re too afraid really to bring a kid into that future" What? ? There are people who believe all this. And now its spreading to children.

Predictions are very hard to make, very difficult. "They" can't even predict if its going to rain tomorrow never mind what will happen in 100 years. Yet the screeching gets louder and louder. Afraid to have children? Are they brainwashed? What kind of hysteria is this? In the end, they will get what comes with FUD. "They" will die out because they didn't have children. Darwin. CYA. How sad. So here's is a prediction. Barring a Gamma Ray Burst or giant asteroid hit, the Earth WILL be here in 11 years. Little will change other than what always changes. It will be here in 1,000,000,000 years too.

The Earth WILL be here in 2031. I side with the ex-President reported to be buying a $15M house on an island at elevation about 15'. If he's putting his money on not getting flooded on an island, he must know more than me.

Pushback? How about bringing some sanity into all this instead of screeching and instilling fear into young people?
This post (above) ought to be a sticky .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
I've never met anybody who likes gas stations. And I've met a lot of people.
I guess you have never traveled through Texas and stopped at a Buc-ee's? They are huge and have anywhere from 60 -125 gas pumps and their restrooms are best known for their pristine cleanliness. Their restrooms have several dozen urinals and toilets and have several associates assigned just to the restrooms 24/7 to maintain their cleanliness. One of their locations was even awarded Best Restrooms for Convenience Stores by Cintas, a corporate restroom supplier.

The good news is they are slowly expanding outside Texas and now have a location in Daytona Beach, Florida and Madisonville, Alabama and have plans for more locations.

If you ever stop at one, be prepared for lots of vehicle traffic, crowds, and plan to spend some time and money while there.

They would also be an excellent location when you need to charge up you EV while traveling. :geek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
I guess you have never traveled through Texas and stopped at a Buc-ee's? They are huge and have anywhere from 60 -125 gas pumps and their restrooms are best known for their pristine cleanliness. Their restrooms have several dozen urinals and toilets and have several associates assigned just to the restrooms 24/7 to maintain their cleanliness. One of their locations was even awarded Best Restrooms for Convenience Stores by Cintas, a corporate restroom supplier.

The good news is they are slowly expanding outside Texas and now have a location in Daytona Beach, Florida and Madisonville, Alabama and have plans for more locations.

If you ever stop at one, be prepared for lots of vehicle traffic, crowds, and plan to spend some time and money while there.

They would also be an excellent location when you need to charge up you EV while traveling. :geek:
Love me some Buc-ee’s!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Cheap gas? Gas is cheap today. The oil industry didn't kill the dominant Electric vehicles. The consumers did. They made a CHOICE. They chose gasoline. The oil companies made money. But you can take this one to the bank. If they were profit in continuing with electric vehicles, someone would have jumped all over it, innovated and made a fortune. It was the time of industrial giants. They didn't. Why not? In the end, the buyers always decide.
History repeats itself. We don't live long enough to witness many transitions before us, EV is just one of the examples that will diminish itself based on consumer's popular choice. There is something EV industry is not telling us, perhaps about the health, toxic rare earth, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
History repeats itself. We don't live long enough to witness many transitions before us, EV is just one of the examples that will diminish itself based on consumer's popular choice. There is something EV industry is not telling us, perhaps about the health, toxic rare earth, etc.
Short take: Consumers tend to have short term thinking. Thankfully Porsche's corporate owner has a longer outlook. You know that Porsche will offer both gasoline and electric vehicles for decades to come. It's nice to have choices.

Long take:
There are many reasons the VW Group has chosen to embark on aggressive electrification, and those reasons go well beyond the overblown diesel scandal. VW has wisely chosen not only to offer economical electric city cars, but also to leverage Porsche's engineers to challenge Tesla. They are slowly but surely making EVs as capable in ways that matter to future buyers as the gasoline buggies. Yes, despite the Musk worship and overblown hype of all things touchscreen, we know that for the next several decades VW will offer both gasoline and electric vehicles because there are some things that gasoline ICE does better or cheaper ... for now. Remember nobody had heard of a "smartphone" before 2007. 13 years later only senior citizens bother to look at cheap flip phones, and their primary reason for using the flip phone is either being cheap or proud ignorance. I am disgusted to hear a Porsche owner use the same logic in the automotive space.

The transition to EVs may not be as rapid but it is wise and profitable to iron out EV technology in the real world before the day comes when gasoline is no longer cheaper than water. We have no indication whatsoever that future Macans will be offered as electrics only -- it's almost certain that Porsche will offer both gasoline and EV models until the price of oil jumps. Those who say that "the market has chosen gasoline" are looking backwards. Turn around and look at the next generation -- you know, the kids with their eyeballs glued to flat screens all the time. They are the future, and their love for gasoline is significantly less than yours. What's Porsche going to sell to them, especially when their commutes to work are increasingly congested and ... oh look at the news. Oil market instability.

Pro-oil administrations in western nations for the last 40 years have attempted to help people forget how quickly an oil-dependent economy can be brought to its knees. That's not a correct or incorrect decision, it simply is what industrial inertial has led us to prefer, the relatively easy to understand portable liquid fuel that has been used for ~140 years to move our derrieres. But not without risk. Hitler lost WW2 for many reasons, but one of main reasons was because his blitzkreig machine was entirely dependent on oil. The Allies wisely turned off the spigots long before launching the D-Day invasion. Turns out Panzers weren't so effective without fuel. Nothing has changed since then -- the most exciting Porsche invariably becomes less exciting if the fuel to power it is dispensed at the end of a long rationing line. Those who forgot about the Iran oil embargo of the early 1970's, don't think it can't happen again -- perhaps worse if Iran has access to more potent weapons now. A cornered animal can inflict great damage. Even the most capable military in the world wasn't capable of guarding all the oil wells all over the planet -- though clearly the US has attempted to do so, with a record growing federal debt and a US fleet of oversized gas guzzling SUVs on the road to show for it. What will happy SUV drivers do when their local Shell station charges them $4 or $5 per gallon, which is normal in Europe??? I'll tell you: US consumers will seek cars like you see Europeans driving, and they will want them immediately.

Having all the eggs in one basket is a bad corporate and bad security strategy. Gasoline will never be entirely obsolete, but it can't be the only energy storage for transportation. In some environments, gasoline is actually a poor choice. EVs already play a very good role, especially in urban areas where the young population is migrating. That's the future, and no matter how super the thermal efficiency of gasoline may be, nobody in big cities likes idling their CO2 dispensers at badly timed traffic signals and breath smog. That is pure waste with severe and obvious health costs. Current state of battery technology may not be acceptable for everyone but the advances are clear. Teslas have thoroughly embarrassed BMW sedans and F150 pickups. For those who don't drive more than 200 miles per day, they now have viable alternate choices. We all know that decoupling transportation from the volatility of oil pricing is a good investment for the future.

"But gasoline is cheaper!" some say. Well it certainly has been for a long time. Will it always be? Despite the claims that the US produces more oil than it needs, the market is global. US crude oil prices jumped 5% friday to $64 per barrel after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promised revenge (actually 13 revenges) against the US missile strike that took out Qassem Soleimani. Nobody knows the intensity of hornets nest that has been stirred up or where the next sting will hit. But we should all know that oil prices can shoot up quickly if escalation of this confrontation ensues. Iran does have the capacity to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, which is the shipping lane for about 90% of Saudi Arabian oil exports and about 20% of total global oil production, much of it headed to China, the biggest market for Porsche and the Macan. Darn right VW wants to ensure it has EVs to sell there.

It could be that the bizarre foreign policy recently acted out by the US will accelerate the global switch to EVs faster than any other single factor, directly the opposite effect that the US administration seemed to have been promoting until now. It will be very nice to have choices in the future. May you live in interesting times.....
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,465 Posts
Porsche will offer both gasoline and electric vehicles for decades to come. ...
We have no indication whatsoever that future Macans will be offered as electrics only
We have no indication whatsoever that future Macans will be offered as electric only? So the Deputy CEO of PAG doesn't count? Your statement directly contradicts the recent comments from the Porsche Deputy CEO. Do you have insight into PAG corporate strategic plans that Lutz Meschke hasn't chosen to tell the public? Source


Discussion


Porsche will keep selling the “old” combustion-engine Macan for a couple years after the electric model is introduced, just to prevent any major shock to its cash cow. Considering the current Macan has already received a facelift, it’s unclear if the model will undergo anymore bodywork updates now that it has to stretch out past the introduction of its newer, electric twin in 2021.

Meschke suggested the overlap for internally combusted and full-electric Macans will be “a couple of years”
What do you know that Mr. Meschke does not?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,465 Posts
Hitler lost WW2 for many reasons, but one of main reasons was because his blitzkreig machine was entirely dependent on oil. The Allies wisely turned off the spigots long before launching the D-Day invasion. Turns out Panzers weren't so effective without fuel.
Generally true except Hitler knew they had no oil. Germany invented the process of turning coal into oil, and peak processing occurring in early 1944 with some 25 factories producing over 90% of the Luftwaffe’s aviation fuel and 40% for those tanks. But generally speaking, the concept is correct. Cut off the resources, and they die. This is the exact reason energy independence has been achieved for the US, since 1973 irritated the nation. Now no one can cut off the energy supply.

Now explain what the EU is doing. The EU has no oil fields, lithium, cobalt, graphite, REE, or nickel to speak of. Come the next invasion of that land mass, would not their next enemy employ the exact same tactics as the Allies against Germany and cut of their imports? Sounds to be to be a very poor strategy to just move from dependency from one source to a dependency on five different sources. :unsure: You think China will gladly hand over all those rare earths when they are at war with China? "Oh sorry, lets have a truce, I'll ship you over to Brussels a few tons, then we can start fighting again. ":rolleyes:

What will happy SUV drivers do when their local Shell station charges them $4 or $5 per gallon, which is normal in Europe???
You need to view this from a level playing field, adjusted for inflation. All the numbers are out there.

Average Gas Prices in the U.S. Through History | TitleMax
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec9_6.pdf

Adjusted, the price of gas dropped from 1949 to 1972 at its lowest, then the Embargo, then 1979. Those were shocks to the system. The last peak was in 2012 at $3.64. That equates to $4.14 today. So if gas goes to $4 today, they will do the same as they did in 2012, buy some Prius or equivalent, and Japanese econoboxes. So what? If $3.64 sounds low and you use Premium, that's your problem. Only 16% of cars use premium. Then you chose a car that doesnt use Regular. If your state taxes are high, well 3.64 is an average. That means in 2012 there were other states selling at maybe $3.20. Choices are good. Choose a regular car in a state with low state taxes.

Don't equate global oil prices with US internal gas prices. If the US doesn't import oil, if that happens, then the global price isn't as meaningful. Look at this chart from the DOE Fact #915: March 7, 2016 Average Historical Annual Gasoline Pump Price, 1929-2015

It shows the cheapest gas in 1972, huge peak around 1980 and another peak around 2012. But now? Heading down. And this was before the current shale oil boom and ANWR leases. Oil is no longer an issue. Its not 1973, or 1979 anymore.

If you want to worry about something, worry about where the REE is coming from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
What do you know that Mr. Meschke does not?
Selective hearing, grim????

The insight you refer to was Meschke responding in a Feb 2019 interview, he was not making an official announcement. The flurry of automotive press after this interview predicted that the first electric Macans would be arriving in 2021, which is possible but also not guaranteed. Given that Porsche just launched the GTS model, this essentially proves that the gasoline variants will be produced at least until 2024 (and given its current sales record, the gas Macan will be refreshed and sold for another full model cycle beyond that).

You yourself admit Meschke clearly conveyed that Porsche would offer both electric and gas powered in parallel -- what you conveniently omit is that Meschke did NOT commit to cutting off production of gas powered Macans. Porsche's stated corporate goal is that half of all Porsche vehicles feature an electric or hybrid drive system by 2025. That has been publicly stated repeatedly by several Porsche executives. The transition period, like all corporate transitions, will be informed by market conditions going forward. Talking Taycan with the head of the product line, Porsche's Stefan Weckbach Stefan Weckbach clarified that Porsche would offer gasoline and hybrids in addition to pure EVs "for the next, at least, 10-15 years". Nobody at Porsche has committed to hard dates for product cutovers to pure electrics.

Porsche has subsequently announced that it will be using its hybrid technology to create a new performance tier above the "Turbo", starting with the Cayenne. The new 911s also appear to be destined for a new hybrid top-tier variant in a few years. This proves that gas as is still needed to hit Porsche's total vehicle performance goals. They know that electric charging infrastructure won't appear overnight. The Taycan line and its variants aren't going to absorb the Macan going forward.

Finally, the next generation electric Macan would be hard pressed to meet the price points that the current gas Macan achieves. If the next generation electric variant shares the Taycan platform, then it will be priced at about the same tier as the Taycan. Based on current vehicle sales trends at Porsche and elsewhere, it only makes sense that a gas vehicle will remain the entry level Porsche for the next decade at least. If you listen to everything Porsche says, that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Generally true except Hitler knew they had no oil.
You started off with an incorrect statement and went afoul from there...

At its peak, the Luftwaffe only had ~2700 airplanes, a relatively small component of wartime gasoline consumption. So even if as you claim synthetic oil from coal conversion may have supplied 40% of the Luftwaffe's needs for a short time, the output of the synthetic plants (only NINE were ever completed) was woefully inadequate to supply ground vehicles. Production of synthetic oil never met expectations (to 36 million gallons per year in 1943, out of a total of 71 million gallons of fuel from all sources). Likewise domestic production couldn't be adequately increased either, though geographic expansion brought up domestic oil production. The reason the synthetic fuel appeared in the end to be a large percentage of total fuel used by the Nazi regime was because imported oil was cut off quickly. But from late 1940 onward, Germany had perennial fuel shortages. While it was hoped that access to eastern European coal fields could fill the gap, it was soon apparent that synthetics could not be brought online in sufficient quantity to power the war machine. "A High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941." The role of synthetic fuel in World War II Germany - implications for today by Dr. Peter W. Becker

Had the UK fallen and thus given Germany access to basically all the middle eastern oil it held, then Russia may well have remained out of the war and the map of Europe may have turned out very different. Hitler was too stupid to realize that Britain was also running on fumes and wouldn't have held out if the Battle of Britain had persisted with actual strategic purpose. The point is, if a nation's economy relies on imported gasoline, then your economy is also subject to supply constraints, even today. The USA is not immune to oil price shocks, it is not "energy independent" in transport fuels (the natural gas boom has made the USA a net hydrocarbon exporter, but it remains reliant on oil imports for transportation). Moreover as we have seen before, the consumer tastes can flip if sustained oil price volatility occurs. No automaker can afford to ignore this reality any longer.

To this day, liquified fuel from coal remains an economic, ecologic, and thermodynamically ludicrous means of fuel production. Coal is dead.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,465 Posts
The insight you refer to was Meschke responding in a Feb 2019 interview, he was not making an official announcement.

This article is dated Oct 11, 2019. It references Autocar talking to Julian Baumann at Frankfurt. Frankfurt was in Sept, 2019.

" confirmed that the existing, internal combustion-engined Macan will remain on sale alongside the new Macan during a transitional phase."

That confirmation refers back to last Feb.

"Additionally, Porsche deputy chairman Lutz Meschke told Autocar ... Meschke suggested the overlap for internally combusted and full-electric Macans will be “a couple of years”."

These are the word of Porsche executives. Not speculation, their discussion with Autocar. The fact they expect 30 - 40% to be electric in 5 years is ALL Porsches, not the Macan.

Given that Porsche just launched the GTS model, this essentially proves that the gasoline variants will be produced at least until 2024 (and given its current sales record, the gas Macan will be refreshed and sold for another full model cycle beyond that).
PAG has not said that. That's your prediction. I guess you can predict anything you want. I'll believe what the official says. The annual report will be out next month. You can read more than.

Re: GTS, that's just a marketing gimmick. You suck up the base and S sales, then give a small HP bump and get more buyers. Its means nothing more, certainly not guaranteeing another generations.

You do realize the 95B.2 is the First generation. The EV will be the second generation. There will be not Second Generation Macan as you predict. PAG and VAG cannot afford to have these cars sold. The EU fines will kill them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,465 Posts
You started off with an incorrect statement and went afoul from there...

At its peak, the Luftwaffe only had ~2700 airplanes, a relatively small component of wartime gasoline consumption. So even if as you claim synthetic oil from coal conversion may have supplied 40% of the Luftwaffe's needs for a short time, the output of the synthetic plants (only NINE were ever completed) was woefully inadequate to supply ground vehicles. Production of synthetic oil never met expectations (to 36 million gallons per year in 1943, out of a total of 71 million gallons of fuel from all sources). Likewise domestic production couldn't be adequately increased either, though geographic expansion brought up domestic oil production. The reason the synthetic fuel appeared in the end to be a large percentage of total fuel used by the Nazi regime was because imported oil was cut off quickly. But from late 1940 onward, Germany had perennial fuel shortages. While it was hoped that access to eastern European coal fields could fill the gap, it was soon apparent that synthetics could not be brought online in sufficient quantity to power the war machine. "A High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941." The role of synthetic fuel in World War II Germany - implications for today by Dr. Peter W. Becker

Had the UK fallen and thus given Germany access to basically all the middle eastern oil it held, then Russia may well have remained out of the war and the map of Europe may have turned out very different. Hitler was too stupid to realize that Britain was also running on fumes and wouldn't have held out if the Battle of Britain had persisted with actual strategic purpose. The point is, if a nation's economy relies on imported gasoline, then your economy is also subject to supply constraints, even today. The USA is not immune to oil price shocks, it is not "energy independent" in transport fuels (the natural gas boom has made the USA a net hydrocarbon exporter, but it remains reliant on oil imports for transportation). Moreover as we have seen before, the consumer tastes can flip if sustained oil price volatility occurs. No automaker can afford to ignore this reality any longer.

To this day, liquified fuel from coal remains an economic, ecologic, and thermodynamically ludicrous means of fuel production. Coal is dead.
I wasn't arguing with you about the philosophy of cutting off the resource flow. I was agreeing. Now explain what the EU is doing. The EU has no oil fields, lithium, cobalt, graphite, REE, or nickel to speak of. Come the next invasion of that land mass, would not their next enemy employ the exact same tactics as the Allies against Germany and cut of their imports?

Back to Hitler, Godwins Law, From the DOE Early Days of Coal Research

"More than 92 percent of Germany's aviation gasoline and half its total petroleum during World War II had come from synthetic fuel plants."

"At its peak in early 1944, the German synfuels effort produced more than 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants.

If you want to argue with the DOE, go right ahead. DOE says 25 plants.

I have no idea why you are upset about coal. I agree. Cut off the supply of energy, you die. Now explain what happens when China cuts of the REE, and so forth for the other 4 chemicals for batteries.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,465 Posts
it is not "energy independent" in transport fuels (the natural gas boom has made the USA a net hydrocarbon exporter, but it remains reliant on oil imports for transportation).
Jan, 2020


"The United States exported more oil than it imported for the first time in history last year,"

"In September 2019, the U.S. exported 89,000 barrels more of petroleum per day – including crude oil and petroleum products – than it imported, per data from the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA), for the first time since the EIA’s records began in 1973.

That marked a dramatic shift from a decade ago, records show, when the U.S. was importing 10 million more barrels per day than it exported."

Yes, gas is in there but the trend is clear and from the DOE. Actual Oil production is only going to get better. Just wait until ANWR opens up nm off shore drilling.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
Those who say that "the market has chosen gasoline" are looking backwards.

"But gasoline is cheaper!" some say.
Good points in what you wrote, with a few correct corrections by grim. I selected two sentences from your post, above, to note that gasoline has remained cheap in the USA with a lot of help in the form of tens of billions of dollars ANNUALLY in US governement subsidies to the oil industry, for a very long time. If we could somehow cut these subsidies to zero, I'll bet that gas prices would soar. If the younger Dems can somehow take control of the White House and Congress in the coming years, this oil/gas subsidy may stop, with a very concerted move toward EVs as is happening in Europe (and also in China, to a lesser extent).

As far as the Macan, it has indeed been stated that the Macan BEV will come out for MY2022, in 2021, and we may see some prototypes displayed at auto shows later this year. There are also lots of indications that there will be a Macan E-Hybrid introduced at the same time. You also made a comment about "exciting Porsches", but I don't know that I've seen a more exciting Porsche than the Taycan; I saw and sat in a Taycan Turbo S a week ago at a local dealership, and it is absolutely stunning in a way that I've never thought of any other Porsche. The interior instrument panel and computer screens are the best I've seen in any car, and this is all supposed to be coming to the Macan BEV. I cannot wait to see the Macan BEV, and it'll be much less expensive to buy than the Taycan, along with large federal and state credits/rebates. Speaking of Porsche execs, at least one has said recently that the only Porsche to have an ICE only (i.e., no electric motor) by 2030 will be the 911, so they are indeed planning to phase out ICE-only vehicles across the 4-door lines in the coming decade (though will surely still be Porsche hybrids in 2030).

I, for one, know that I've bought my last ICE-only Porsche; the future for me is all plug-in Porsches. I see nothing in "Porsche ICE land" that excites me, but these plug-in Porsches are really exciting. And I'll add that no other non-Porsche BEVs or PHEVs really excite me, either. Porsche is doing it right. Should we be surprised at that?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,465 Posts
gasoline has remained cheap in the USA with a lot of help in the form of tens of billions of dollars ANNUALLY in US governement subsidies to the oil industry, for a very long time. If we could somehow cut these subsidies to zero, I'll bet that gas prices would soar.
From EESI, about: "Our primary goal is to accelerate the transition to a new, low-emissions economy based on energy efficiency and renewable energy.”

Fact Sheet: Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs | White Papers | EESI

“subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industry were designed to lower the cost of fossil fuel production and incentivize new domestic energy sources.”

That ensure the transportation needs of the nation are met. The listed statutes are tax breaks and accounting. Would eliminating them cause the price of retail gas to rise? Not according to some:

https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop5.pdf

"The federal government has subsidized the production of fossil fuels through the tax code for a century. … elimination of subsidies for U.S. fossil fuel production could provide meaningful deficit reduction benefits without increasing energy prices"

Would it stop climate change? Not according to some.

New Study Finds Cutting Oil Subsidies Will Not Stop Climate Change

Removing fossil fuel subsidies will not reduce CO2 emissions as much as hoped

The subsidies are to ensure 1973 never happens again. Do you want to wait in line? Do you want to have fuel prices triple overnight again? Do want to spend endless lives in endless wars worrying about who controls that oil?

Did you read about the run on the selective service website the other night because kids thought they were going to get drafted? :rolleyes:


Do you want the nation to be dependent upon foreign countries for transportation fuel? Isn't that a bit insane since the US has about achieved independence and the amount of oil to be produced in the future will continue to rise?

Give the same tax breaks to the US companies mining. Maybe it’s a good idea? Oops. So sorry, no or little domestic resources to speak of :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
We are fast approaching a state where BEVs can be mass produced to meet all demands for passenger vehicles -- within a decade or two. For the reasons that you state, grim, about independence, therefore, we should stop all subsidies of oil, as oil should ultimately only be needed for aircraft in another generation or so (and maybe for some manufacture of essential non-transportation items). If you can defend subsidizing oil for national security, surely you can therefore also defend a move toward subsidizing electric vehicles INSTEAD of subsidizing oil. Ultimately (once coal and natural gas and oil are done away with) we'll be able to power everything with renewable resources (wind, hydro, solar, etc.) -- yeah, maybe we're a century away, but we should be starting the move now. You give great arguments (perhaps unintentionally), in fact, as to why governments across the world should be subsidizing BEVs and not subsidizing oil, for national and international security and environmental improvement.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,465 Posts
For the reasons that you state, grim, about independence, therefore, we should stop all subsidies of oil, as oil should ultimately only be needed for aircraft in another generation or so (and maybe for some manufacture of essential non-transportation items). If you can defend subsidizing oil for national security, surely you can therefore also defend a move toward subsidizing electric vehicles INSTEAD of subsidizing oil.
I said that exactly:
Give the same tax breaks to the US companies mining. Maybe it’s a good idea? Oops. So sorry, no or little domestic resources to speak of :rolleyes:
There are already subsidies for alternative energy. I, for one, could not care if every electric plant turned from coal to fission plants to the wind blowing or fusion plants one day. Go for it. Do it. Here's a proposed bill to do so


Maybe we are talking two different languages. You are speaking about the means for generating electricity. I agree. Do it. I'm talking about the fuel tanks. Today's cars fuel tanks are made of steel, aluminum, some from plastic, basically an unlimited supply of the raw materials. NOT TRUE for batteries. Read it and weep. These are fundamental elements required for batteries from the US geologic service.

https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs-2019-lithi.pdf
https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/atoms/files/mcs-2019-cobal_0.pdf
https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs-2019-nicke.pdf
https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs-2019-raree.pdf
https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/atoms/files/mcs-2019-graph.pdf

There are over 270,000,000 cars on the road to day and 17,000,000 sold a year. Now tell me where the US is going to get that graphite, REE, etc. come the next war? Are you going to invade China for some rare earths? Have the Marines take the cobalt mines in Africa? Is this not exactly the same argument @roule presented with Hitler having no oil?

Funny how Godwin's Law always applies :)

Build all the wind farms and nuclear plants you want. I'm all for that. I like Nuclear Plants. I like dams, etc. I like free things.

Tell me about the raw material for the fuel tanks. Explain how that works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Current battery technology will continue to be expensive, scarce and environmental unfriendly (recycle scenario) no way around it until something similar to N. Telsa's free energy idea comes along if it works at all.

EV cars should have cost less than ICE counter part, due to battery, R&D, etc. These are unavoidable cost passing onto early adopters. Wouldn't mind EV when auto industry solved charging infra and cost concern in a few decades. Until then, people will enjoy ICE Macan or other Porsche model as long as it's available. Remember in the old days when Plasma TV used to cost an arm/leg as compared to 4k/8k TV to date!
 
421 - 440 of 463 Posts
Top