[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I fail to see how heating water and homes with electricity generated from natural gas makes any sense at all. You have conversion losses. In places where you get electricity mostly from renewable or hydro? Sure, it makes sense, and that's why homes in those situations are built that way. But it doesn't make sense to burn coal and natural gas just to turn it into electricity, then turn it back into heat.

I said fuel cell application, not in a traditional boiler. Big difference. You take advantage of the infrastructure available to you. If you have access to a new electrical grid, you're best served to use that service. If you are on an old and unstable grid, but have access to natural gas, then gas is a great option to provide some services, or convert to a solution to remove you from that grid and use it only as backup. It all depends on your situation.

I know I don't have to tell you that there are parts of the country that rely on heating oil to heat their homes and water, right? They are in regions where the grid could not handle the entire load of a switch over to purely electrical heating. To convert these homes would require major infrastructure programs to upgrade and replace the existing grid. There are also parts of the country that do not have electricity or other services. They must live off the grid and do so through energy delivery services, like propane delivery. These customers are perfect for a fuel cell system as it would provide power to every service they require.

The point is there is no single solution, so you have to work with what resources are available and have a multi-faceted approach to answering the problem.

And I disagree that consumer demand is the thing holding companies back. Its the cost and lack of technology deploy-able at large scales. These aren't easy "if you pay, they will make it" types of problems. These are really really hard to solve. If they weren't, someone would be throwing boat loads of money to make oceans of money from. The fact that a company like Tesla is throwing boatloads of money at it, and is still needing subsidies and is bleeding cash should tell you something about how hard the problem is. It's not like they are a poorly run company with a bunch of dummies. It's the smartest people in the biz struggling to make it work.

Come on, consumer demand drives everything. Without consumer demand you aren't going to see the sustainable revenues that fuel development and growth.

I really wish you would stop crying about subsidies. Subsidies keep many businesses and industries going, especially the petro-chemical and automotive industries. It is disingenuous to cry about a minimal subsidy that one industry is receiving when the subsidy to one company completely dwarfs that industry wide subsidy. Move on already. Yes, people are receiving subsidies for being an early adopter, but every automotive company in North America and oil and gas company in world gets massive subsidies that are scales of magnitude larger. You want to talk about subsidies, cry about the subsidies that farmers get for not growing crops!

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There is no 35k Tesla yet, The Bolt loses money on every sale,

There is in my market. Beautiful car.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/35000-tes...-available-now


That would be GM producing a vehicle because they receive subsidies. That car might sell better if it weren't ugly as sin and a total piece of crap. Make a good product there will be product demand. The year long waiting list for the Model 3 is proof of that.

and the Leaf starts at $30,000, which could be compared with the comparable Versa Note is $16 000. The Bolt is a similar class car. So they are almost twice the cost. I'm not even going to get into the Chinese examples. The European ones are going to have similar price discrepancies to the Leaf and Bolt. I'm not trying to push an agenda here, I'm just stating facts. BEV's are much more expensive, and it isn't changing any time soon.

Yet it is. Car manufacturers recognize this and continue to push the cost of those vehicles down to align with ICE product line.

https://autoweek.com/article/green-c...ning-cars-2025

When these vehicles become more affordable I'll probably buy one. I wired my new garage with 2 50A circuits for just that possibility. You are painting an image of me that you have made up in your head. I'm being realistic. My original point was wondering if subsidizing EV"s made sense for CO2 reduction. I then did some research and found that no, they do not. You haven't actually refuted that. Because we have limited funding, I'd rather the subsidy go to other areas where it is more effective at reducing CO2. That's all. But you have imagined that I'm some gas guzzling dinosaur. It's not the case, I'm just looknig at these things form realistic angles and trying to understand the most effective way forward. From my view that isn't subsidizing consumer BEV's.

Fair enough. When I see that Tyrannosaurus Rex behind the wheel of that snazzy new Model 3 I will immediately recognize that it is my good friend Fuzz, finally taking the leap into the deep end of EV ownership. Also recognize that I'm not some tree hugging hippie that is out to save the world one tree at a time. I recognize that large scale adoption starts at a very small scale. It takes visionaries with money to bring products to the table and find that niche that adopt and then evangelize the products. I'm definitely the later.

As snootchiebootchies pointed out, urban pollution is a big issue, but lets start with the worst of the polluters. I think replacing diesel buses with natural gas makes a lot of sense. Maybe battery powered buses as well, though costs are a bit of an uncertainty given the need for pack replacements. I'd actually like to see diesel banned or greatly reduced in cities given the particulate pollution it produces. I've seen lots of natural gas delivery vehicles in Calgary and they could probably replace many diesels. Semi trucks are a big issue as well, but that's a tough one. Given the short lifespan of these types of vehicles I think it makes sense to move to natural gas now, and maybe when batteries or hydrogen or something starts to make sense they will be EOL anyway. But lets get started on these things now, so I'd rather see subsidies help municipalities make these changes.

I agree with that, but I also want to see small scale adoption and have market forces push from the bottom as well. When you make things that are an affordable alternative to the traditional market, only then will people make the jump.

Well that's nice. Who cares what the source is, go find me one that proves otherwise. I've seen similar numbers elsewhere. The point still stands.

Because sources matter. The quality of information matters greatly. In a world where any dip#### can throw up a web site and promote disinformation the quality of information and the primary source is crucial. It is part of being a good consumer and not just one of the herd standing in line waiting to be slaughtered. There is a very good reason why that university professor demanded only primary source information in your papers. Right?