That sounds like a great deal to bad your wife would not get on board. Sound like something my wife would resist. I was looking to buy her a hybrid but it being new technology she did not like the risk it not working well and having to replace the batteries at some time beyond the warranty (we keep our cars forever).
Steps before taking action on AGW:
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is warming.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the warming is due to the influence of human beings engaged in production use of Fossil Fuels.
Make reasonable strong predictions about the effect of more co2 in the air.
Get economists to prove beyond a reasonable doubt about the economic costs and benefits that accompany those global predictions.
Get economists to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is better to act.
Get economists to make a reasonable prediction as to when it is bets to act.
Have politicians make a reasonable plan that looks like it will work (politicians are very tricky so it must be a simple plan).
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those policies will be implemented in such a way that they will do more good than harm.
I am OK with a CO2 but not with cap and trade or the subsidies that we have for green tech.
Redshoe77 you should apply the skepticism in this comment:
"blueflame, ... You should ask yourself who paid for your report. I can't find any other source that agrees with it.
To this comment:
"Then, there's the sorry condition of the electrical grid. When the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the power grid for maintenance"
The American Society of Civil Engineers tends to always grade all infrastructure low for obvious reasons. We all tend to biased in our own favor which is generally fine but needs to kept in mind.
He is hardly an object voice but he does highlight a potential problem, one that we have discussed here before. That is that rapid charging would require cheap stationary batteries (maybe flow batteries.) but:
1. We will not need them for quite a while as PHEVs could cut petrol consumption by 90% so why go to 100% and a family's second car need not be used for long trips.
2. If they existed charging station batteries would be ideal for evening out grid demand.
“Cap-and-trade is a hidden regressive tax, benefiting the select few who have managed to get themselves written into the … bill…. Think revolving door between the government and Wall Street. Think revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.” James Hansen
"We think it's only going 50 miles on electricity only."
I would think even with a co2 tax big enough to bring us to balance (equal amounts of co2 going into the air as is taken out) the cost for those extra miles would be insignificant for the typical driver. Long hall trucks might be a little different.
We get a much different tone if instead we look at Smith discussing climate-change policy. For example, in June 2014, Smith wrote a Bloomberg piece on five ways to fight global warming. In the interest of brevity, let me simply quote Smith’s concluding paragraph:
If we do these five things, then the US can still save the world from global warming, even though we’re no longer the main cause of the problem. And the short-run cost to our economy will be very moderate. Saving the world on the cheap sounds like a good idea to me. (emphasis added)
Clearly, there is a chasm in the rhetoric between Smith’s two Bloomberg pieces. When discussing the TPP, it’s an honest disagreement between experts over a trade agreement that Smith thinks is definitely worthwhile, but in the grand scheme is not that big a deal. In contrast, government policies concerning climate change literally involve the fate of the planet.
At this point, most readers would wonder what the problem is. After all, isn’t man-made climate change a global crisis? Why shouldn’t Smith use much stronger rhetoric when describing it?
I am making this comparison because according to one of the pioneers in climate-change economics, William Nordhaus, even if all governments around the world implemented the textbook-perfect carbon tax, the net gain to humanity would be … drumroll please … $3 trillion. In other words, one of the world’s experts on the economics of climate change estimates that the difference to humanity between (a) implementing the perfect carbon-tax policy solution and (b) doing absolutely nothing was about the same difference as DeLong estimated when it comes to the TPP.
"It's understandable that the public has no idea of the real state of the literature on climate change policy, because even professional economists use utterly misleading rhetoric in this arena. To show what I mean, first, let’s quote from a recent Noah Smith Bloomberg article, which urges left-liberals to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal:
One of the bigger economic issues under debate right now is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the multilateral trade deal that would include most countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the US. Many people both here and abroad are suspicious of trade deals, while economists usually support them. This time around, however, the dynamic is a little bit different — the TPP is getting some pushback from left-leaning economists such as Paul Krugman.
Krugman’s point is that since US trade is already pretty liberalized … the effect of further liberalization will be small.… I’m usually more of a free-trade skeptic than the average economist.… But in this case, I’m strongly on the pro-TPP side. There are just too many good arguments in favor.
University of California-Berkeley economist Brad DeLong does some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, and estimates that the TPP would increase the world’s wealth by a total of $3 trillion. Though that’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, it’s one of the best reforms that’s feasible in the current polarized political situation. (emphasis added)
To summarize the flavor of Smith’s discussion, he thinks the TPP is “one of the bigger economic issues” today, and that its potential windfall to humanity of $3 trillion is “not a big deal in the grand scheme of things” but certainly worth pursuing if attainable. Krugman disagrees with Smith’s assessment, but their differences are clearly quibbles over numbers and strategies; it’s not as if Smith thinks Krugman is a “Ricardo denier” or accuses Krugman of hating poor Asians by opposing the trade deal.
BTW I would support a simple co2 tax but I am not under any illusion that the likes of the Koch brothers would pay much of the tax. the tax incidence would fall primarily on the consumers. That is the whole purpose of the tax.
“I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.”
Seems like you opt for more more chance to participate in it.
If you tax business more or say you tax CO2 emissions and distribute the money to the bottom 10% of earners so they can consume more, who do you think consumes less in the short and long run? (This is called tax incidence the study of who really pays.)
BTW I have a very low income friend who owns some shares of VTI.
Great reply jj. Look at the ethanol programs a certain type of green pushed for it and the results have terrible but it is still going.
So where can I get a thorough, honest estimate of total cost and total pollution produced of PV solar per kwh over the entire life of the system?
redshoe77 the PHEVs you doubted:
The following are all recent titles from greencarcongressDOTcom
"Mercedes-Benz unveils V-Class concept plug-in hybrid MPV at Geneva; 78 mpg US"
"Volkswagen introduces the Sport Coupé Concept GTE PHEV at Geneva; 118 mpg US"
"Audi introduces Q7 e-tron quattro diesel PHEV SUV at Geneva; 138 mpg US"