Just ran across this article that goes into the 'true' costs of owning
an electric vehicle that I thought might be of interest to you.

The upshot of the article is that owning an EV equates to about
$17/gallon. Though there is some reason to be skeptical of the results
since the group behind the study is against green energy. Either way
it's definitely the case that EVs aren't the saviors that many seem to
think of them as being.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/study-finds-the-true-cost-of-owning-an-electric-vehicle-equates-to-17-per-gallon/ar-AA1kpS9b

An October report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that,
after accounting for all of the hidden costs involved in owning an EV,
that price becomes much more significant than an internal combustion
engine vehicle.

The group's report adds up the costs of government subsidies, charging
equipment and the added strain on the electric grid, claiming that the
"true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33
per gallon of gasoline."

When ICE owners pay for a gallon of gasoline, the report says, they
are paying for the "entire infrastructure to refine, transport and
market that gasoline."

"When an EV owner connects to the electric grid, how much are they
paying for the extra generation, transmission, and distribution costs
that they are imposing on the grid, and will those embedded costs rise
over time?"

On 11/24/2023 10:48 AM, shawn wrote:
> Just ran across this article that goes into the 'true' costs of owning
> an electric vehicle that I thought might be of interest to you.
>
>
> The upshot of the article is that owning an EV equates to about
> $17/gallon. Though there is some reason to be skeptical of the results
> since the group behind the study is against green energy. Either way
> it's definitely the case that EVs aren't the saviors that many seem to
> think of them as being.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/study-finds-the-true-cost-of-owning-an-electric-vehicle-equates-to-17-per-gallon/ar-AA1kpS9b
>
> An October report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that,
> after accounting for all of the hidden costs involved in owning an EV,
> that price becomes much more significant than an internal combustion
> engine vehicle.
>
> The group's report adds up the costs of government subsidies, charging
> equipment and the added strain on the electric grid, claiming that the
> "true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33
> per gallon of gasoline."
>
> When ICE owners pay for a gallon of gasoline, the report says, they
> are paying for the "entire infrastructure to refine, transport and
> market that gasoline."
>
> "When an EV owner connects to the electric grid, how much are they
> paying for the extra generation, transmission, and distribution costs
> that they are imposing on the grid, and will those embedded costs rise
> over time?"
>

It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:03:29 -0800
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 11/24/2023 10:48 AM, shawn wrote:
> > Just ran across this article that goes into the 'true' costs of
> > owning an electric vehicle that I thought might be of interest to
> > you.
> >
> >
> > The upshot of the article is that owning an EV equates to about
> > $17/gallon. Though there is some reason to be skeptical of the
> > results since the group behind the study is against green energy.
> > Either way it's definitely the case that EVs aren't the saviors
> > that many seem to think of them as being.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/study-finds-the-true-cost-of-owning-an-electric-vehicle-equates-to-17-per-gallon/ar-AA1kpS9b
> >
> > An October report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that,
> > after accounting for all of the hidden costs involved in owning an
> > EV, that price becomes much more significant than an internal
> > combustion engine vehicle.
> >
> > The group's report adds up the costs of government subsidies,
> > charging equipment and the added strain on the electric grid,
> > claiming that the "true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV
> > owner paying $17.33 per gallon of gasoline."
> >
> > When ICE owners pay for a gallon of gasoline, the report says, they
> > are paying for the "entire infrastructure to refine, transport and
> > market that gasoline."
> >
> > "When an EV owner connects to the electric grid, how much are they
> > paying for the extra generation, transmission, and distribution
> > costs that they are imposing on the grid, and will those embedded
> > costs rise over time?"
> >
>
> It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.

Plenty of experts have looked into hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles
but there is a HUGE and $COSTLY$ infrastructure that would have to be
built to support it.

One of the biggest problems is that containing hydrogen is extremely
difficult since the atoms are so small that containers are essentially
porous to the hydrogen. Even the very best containers lose major
percentages of the hydrogen. That's a huge safety concern given that
hydrogen is flammable. I'm sure you've seen footage of the famous
Hindenberg catastrophe in the 1930s; the Hindenberg was using hydrogen
as fuel and when that hydrogen caught on fire, many people died.

There's lots of research into feasible ways to make EVs and some of it
is bound to pay off EVENTUALLY. But the "activists" are convinced that
the catastrophe of climate change is upon us and we must act NOW, well
before all the research is done. They end up hanging their hats on
lithium batteries or hydrogen or solar panels, NONE of which are truly
up to the job yet. But they're demanding we act now before the research
has finished so we're inevitably going to see a hodgepodge of half
measures, none of which are going to work very well and all of which
are horrifically expensive to implement.

--
Rhino

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.

Why do you think there aren't tradeoffs? There are huge energy costs to
produce it, with air pollution. Basically, you want whatever consumes
the least energy in production and storage so that it can be readily
consumed. Hydrogen ain't it.

Not to mention it blows up reel gud. It's physically impossible for the
fuel lines not to leak as it's nature's smallest molecule.

Cold fusion will be a consumer product shortly, right?

On 11/24/2023 11:53 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.
>
> Why do you think there aren't tradeoffs? There are huge energy costs to
> produce it, with air pollution. Basically, you want whatever consumes
> the least energy in production and storage so that it can be readily
> consumed. Hydrogen ain't it.
>
> Not to mention it blows up reel gud. It's physically impossible for the
> fuel lines not to leak as it's nature's smallest molecule.
>
> Cold fusion will be a consumer product shortly, right?
>

I read this article yesterday -
https://www.inlander.com/news/switching-americas-freight-fleet-to-electric-may-be-too-expensive-hydrogen-fuel-could-be-the-answer-27002629
- that suggests hydrogen might be a better alternative to gasoline or
electric.

In article <ujqs21$1ud1i$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
wrote:

> On 11/24/2023 10:48 AM, shawn wrote:
> > Just ran across this article that goes into the 'true' costs of owning
> > an electric vehicle that I thought might be of interest to you.
> >
> >
> > The upshot of the article is that owning an EV equates to about
> > $17/gallon. Though there is some reason to be skeptical of the results
> > since the group behind the study is against green energy. Either way
> > it's definitely the case that EVs aren't the saviors that many seem to
> > think of them as being.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/study-finds-the-true-cost
> > -of-owning-an-electric-vehicle-equates-to-17-per-gallon/ar-AA1kpS9b
> >
> > An October report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that,
> > after accounting for all of the hidden costs involved in owning an EV,
> > that price becomes much more significant than an internal combustion
> > engine vehicle.
> >
> > The group's report adds up the costs of government subsidies, charging
> > equipment and the added strain on the electric grid, claiming that the
> > "true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33
> > per gallon of gasoline."
> >
> > When ICE owners pay for a gallon of gasoline, the report says, they
> > are paying for the "entire infrastructure to refine, transport and
> > market that gasoline."
> >
> > "When an EV owner connects to the electric grid, how much are they
> > paying for the extra generation, transmission, and distribution costs
> > that they are imposing on the grid, and will those embedded costs rise
> > over time?"
> >
>
> It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.

It's time to start mining dilithium crystals!

Or khyber crystals, either one will do.

In article <ujquvq$2ekg5$4@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
> >>. . .
>
> >It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.
>
> Why do you think there aren't tradeoffs? There are huge energy costs to
> produce it, with air pollution. Basically, you want whatever consumes
> the least energy in production and storage so that it can be readily
> consumed. Hydrogen ain't it.
>
> Not to mention it blows up reel gud. It's physically impossible for the
> fuel lines not to leak as it's nature's smallest molecule.

I've never understood how those compressed natural gas vehicles aren't
just bombs waiting to happen in a highway collision. *Any* gas,
flammable or not, will explode if it's under pressure and its container
ruptures. Now put a flammable gas under pressure and run it into
something at 70 miles per hour and I don't see how you get anything
other than a mini-Hindenburg.

On 11/24/2023 11:03 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 11/24/2023 10:48 AM, shawn wrote:
>> Just ran across this article that goes into the 'true' costs of owning
>> an electric vehicle that I thought might be of interest to you.
>>
>>
>> The upshot of the article is that owning an EV equates to about
>> $17/gallon. Though there is some reason to be skeptical of the results
>> since the group behind the study is against green energy. Either way
>> it's definitely the case that EVs aren't the saviors that many seem to
>> think of them as being.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/study-finds-the-true-cost-of-owning-an-electric-vehicle-equates-to-17-per-gallon/ar-AA1kpS9b
>>
>> An October report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that,
>> after accounting for all of the hidden costs involved in owning an EV,
>> that price becomes much more significant than an internal combustion
>> engine vehicle.
>>
>> The group's report adds up the costs of government subsidies, charging
>> equipment and the added strain on the electric grid, claiming that the
>> "true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33
>> per gallon of gasoline."
>>
>> When ICE owners pay for a gallon of gasoline, the report says, they
>> are paying for the "entire infrastructure to refine, transport and
>> market that gasoline."
>>
>> "When an EV owner connects to the electric grid, how much are they
>> paying for the extra generation, transmission, and distribution costs
>> that they are imposing on the grid, and will those embedded costs rise
>> over time?"
>>
>
> It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.

Solar powered desalination and H2O cracking. Both of which have their
own problems.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

> suzeeq
> > shawn
> >
> > The group's report adds up the costs of government subsidies, charging
> > equipment and the added strain on the electric grid, claiming that the
> > "true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33
> > per gallon of gasoline."
>
> It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.

I was talking with my buddy's brother yesterday and he was wondering
why more effort isn't being put into hybrid gas-electric vehicles, as he's
got a Ford Maverick hybrid pickup and loves it, says it gets well over
30mpg without the problems of an all electric vehicle.

https://mavericktruckin.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/ford_2-5_hybrid-1.png

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>I was talking with my buddy's brother yesterday and he was wondering
>why more effort isn't being put into hybrid gas-electric vehicles, as he's
>got a Ford Maverick hybrid pickup and loves it, says it gets well over
>30mpg without the problems of an all electric vehicle.

>https://mavericktruckin.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/ford_2-5_hybrid-1.png

He's absolutely right.

And yet my local commuter rail agency is trying to buy battery
locomotives for one line's branch, a total distance of 16.5 miles. There
are no such locomotives manufactured for main line American railroads.

For those who aren't aware, locomotives are diesel-electric. They're
already hybrid!

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:34:17 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>There's lots of research into feasible ways to make EVs and some of it
>is bound to pay off EVENTUALLY. But the "activists" are convinced that
>the catastrophe of climate change is upon us and we must act NOW, well
>before all the research is done. They end up hanging their hats on
>lithium batteries or hydrogen or solar panels, NONE of which are truly
>up to the job yet. But they're demanding we act now before the research
>has finished so we're inevitably going to see a hodgepodge of half
>measures, none of which are going to work very well and all of which
>are horrifically expensive to implement.
>
Could be worse - our local municipality within the past year has
authorized building of a hydrogen plant next to to an existing
chlorine plant. Both are served by the same rail line and both are
located within 1/4 mile of one of Vancouver's largest bridges.

While I have no doubt both the chlorine and hydrogen plants are safe
enough on their own grounds, they can't guarantee that nothing will
ever go wrong with the hydrogen and chlorine tanker cars that will and
do serve them.

Rhino probably remembers the Mississauga disaster in the late 80s
(hint: at the time it was the biggest North American evacuation EVER
- it was surpassed by Katrina) which was due to a chemical tanker car
collision - and despite my reminding our city council in person on
exactly the above points, they approved it anyhow. As I told them,,
I'd have been happy to have the hydrogen plant in our community but
not given who their next door neighbor would be...

On 11/24/23 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ujquvq$2ekg5$4@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>
>>> It's time to look into hydrogen fuel.
>>
>> Why do you think there aren't tradeoffs? There are huge energy costs to
>> produce it, with air pollution. Basically, you want whatever consumes
>> the least energy in production and storage so that it can be readily
>> consumed. Hydrogen ain't it.
>>
>> Not to mention it blows up reel gud. It's physically impossible for the
>> fuel lines not to leak as it's nature's smallest molecule.
>
> I've never understood

Wouldn't it be a lot less verbose if you would only cite when you are
able to understand something?

how those compressed natural gas vehicles aren't
> just bombs waiting to happen in a highway collision. *Any* gas,
> flammable or not, will explode if it's under pressure and its container
> ruptures. Now put a flammable gas under pressure and run it into
> something at 70 miles per hour and I don't see how you get anything
> other than a mini-Hindenburg.