Prime or Tesla 3

I'm currently paying cash for my wife's med school tuition at a rate of $10k every 3 months, or $40,000 per year. Actually, I'm paying with a 2% credit card and then auto-paying the balance when the statement arrives. Frugal living is what allows me the comfortable lifestyle and the ability to pay off her previous $10k school debt, her $3k credit card debt, ring, wedding, honeymoon, mortgage, $13k used PiP, etc. I only make $40k per year, so obviously I anticipated the possibility of getting married a while ago, and saved accordingly.

I consider the used PiP to be an extravagance, along with my used Acura.

I could live comfortably on minimum wage in most regions of the U.S. The simple solution to not being able to afford living in NYC or other high cost of living area is to not live there, or "live in a van down by the river".

Most people have a spending problem, not an income problem. Their definition of "need" is corrupt, and their sense of entitlement is inflated by advertising and media. Often poor life decisions lead to financial difficulty, and like me, they have to start over from zero. In a minority of instances, an unlikely catastrophe or unusual life circumstance leads to financial problems.

When I have children, they will be told that they will have to pay their own way through school, although I'll likely surprise them with some form of assistance. They will not be raised with an inflated sense of entitlement, and will know the value of working hard to achieve things for themselves.

 

All right, I know this is OT, however...
I'm not sure when you went to college, but the idea of working your way through college is basically dead.

From How much you’d need to earn in wages to work your way through college in each state, mapped | BDN Maine

I applaud frugal living, but be careful not to let your kids give up on college because the financial burden is so high.

 

many state universities are the best bargain in the education world. and other than some connections that a small minority get through the ivy's, there is no reason to attend private college.

 

I think this OT is worthy...

Part of the reason higher education has exponentially and unsustainably increased is expanded lending and assistance programs. Many people are now able to "afford" school with heavy borrowing.

I don't know exactly how I will assist with college, but my kids should be able to make their way through their first 2 years of core classes at a community college, and/or obtain scholarships and grants. Perhaps I'll pay for the following 2 years of university if they put some skin in the game by completing junior college on their own.

I'm not going to present college as the only path to financial success and happiness, as there are many alternatives such as vocational school, entrepreneurship, and other occupations that don't require a degree, or require certificates instead. There are too many people with fancy degrees working at Walmart. A diploma is no guarantee of success now that the labor market is flooded with over-educated candidates.

... and I agree that I should not let my children give up on higher education merely for financial reasons.

 

starbucks barrista. no ffense intended.

 

Heck, one of my many dream jobs is to be a bartender. I wouldn't want to do it forever, but I like people and I enjoy promoting happiness.

I might be playing mister mom if I don't take the initiative to earn a higher income. My wife will be earning quite a bit better than my $40k when she completes her medical training.

 

Bullseye. Every other approach fails. History is unambiguously clear on this point.

 

What history is that based upon? When I look at how Ozone destruction, Acid Rain reduction, Clean air standards, etc. I see subsidies being a minor to nonexistent part of those solutions. When pollution controls were put on 1970s cars, I don't remember getting any subsidies. Use history as a guide, not gut feel.

 

Assuming the continued use of fossil fuels, you would need attach a CO2 "sequestration" or capturing device to every smokestack and tailpipe. In many cases this was possible with smog-forming pollutants which could be easily filtered or catalyticly converted into other molecules. Unlike those pollutants, it is much harder to filter or capture and store CO2. Thus, we must stop using carbon-combusting fuels. Hybrid cars can significantly reduce CO2 by improving gas mileage but we need to entirely stop pumping long-stored carbon from underground and emitting it into the atmosphere.

Ozone destruction was another case like CO2 where we couldn't just filter and had to stop emitting ozone-destroying chemicals into the atmosphere. Fortunately, we have been able to find and use reasonably priced substitutes. Also, I think Ozone naturally regenerates much faster than atmospheric CO2 is naturally and persistently recaptured and stored by or under the crust. We don't yet have cheap hydrocarbon energy substitutes that we can easily switch to using in cars. We need to switch to a completely different powertrain and it's more expensive but quickly coming down in price. Subsidies can help grow volume faster than a free market and bring closer the date at which something might have otherwise happened on a slower pace. With climate change and CO2 we don't have that much time to waste.

 

Total agreement that the solution is going to take decades to make big progress. The regulations involved must be crafted carefully. The enforcement methods must be viable. The economics of the whole setup must be fair and productive. None of this things really benefit from US government or state government incentives. Getting India and China onboard is not accomplished with any US incentive system, nor needed. What makes fantastic sense is to get solar, wind, and other renewable technologies on an honest economic equality with all the carbon burning technologies. Dumping CO2 into the atmosphere for free must become history.

 

That's not entirely accurate. My kid brother works for Kansas City Power and Light. They definitely get subsidized by the Federal Gov't because its a capital expenditure to install and maintain scrubbers on their coal fired plants to keep sulpher exhaust down which keeps acid rain from destroying our rivers and lake here in the Northeast. They get an accelerated capital cost deduction.

 

but they are also mandated, not just subsidized, no? the subsidy is probably to protect the rate payer.

 

Ah but that's where it gets interesting and its just the tip of the iceberg. Because its a mandate they don't have to foot the entire bill upfront, so they have access to federal loans if they can prove hardship. They then go out and get a cheaper private bank loan to cover the usually more expensive federal loan that they claim as collateral. Now they claim the interest off of both loans against their income tax. Is that cool or what? So the rate payer doesn't really end up footing the bill - we tax payers do in the long run.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that and timing is a big part of it.

 

Prior to the hard mandates, the utilities just invented reasons and massive lobbying efforts not to install scrubbers. It was only direct legislation solving acid rain, not the financial incentives. I fully understand the monetary arrangements seem to make a difference, but history keeps showing that these financial gifts follow the key legislation, they do not precede it.

 

I totally agree with that but meanwhile if we can't get that but we can get battery subsidies to bring forward quicker battery innovation and volume scale cost reductions then I'm all for doing that. In politics and democracy there is no one simple answer. The battery subsidies appear to have worked out quite well so far.

 

It's impossible to know how the battery subsidy accelerated growth in the EV industry, but it would have developed regardless. Elon started Tesla before the credit was available, and always had plans to bring an affordable car to market. The credits will be phased out for Tesla soon after the Model 3 launches.

The amount of CO2 reduction that results from the battery subsidy is vanishingly small. Only 14% of all anthropomorphic (human) CO2 is due to transportation (includes aircraft, ships, etc). The US is responsible for about 16% of the world production of CO2, so that means transportation in the US might be responsible for 2% of global emissions. So, the subsidy addresses the smallest portion of vehicles that fall into the 2% of world CO2 production, and most of that electricity still comes from fossil fuels. Source

Even if the US were to go 100% EV, and somehow managed to get that energy from non-fossil fuel sources, all that would accomplish is to lower demand for oil and drive down prices, which has the effect of increasing consumption in other markets such as China.

It's not easy for me to admit that the subsidy is not a wise use of money because I'm an efficiency and technology advocate, but the US has more immediate problems that would be better addressed by throwing money at it. Problems such as the prison industrial complex, drug addiction, disease, poverty, crime, poor education... these are more worthy causes because they directly impact people, and money is more effective at addressing these issues.

To effectively reduce CO2 emissions, global limits must be imposed on all nations with laws that are enforced. Unfortunately, enforcing law requires the threat of violence or economic sanctions. What portion of the population would be in favor of utilizing these means of enforcement on nations that breach their CO2 quotas?

Meaningful CO2 reduction will not happen due to proactive regulation and subsidy, but instead be mostly due to a natural evolution of technology. Whale oil was the most common source of light at one point in time. Consumption of whale oil didn't cease because we ran out of whales, or passed laws prohibiting whale oil extraction. Instead, it ceased due to discovering a cheaper alternative (fossil fuels). In the same way, fossil fuel consumption will be curbed by discovering cheaper alternatives.

 

It's complicated.

Innovation in technology often comes from economic pressure (such as those induced indirectly by subsidies) You are right that the technology to make a positive change ultimately has to exist and be priced right. That is exactly why the battery subsidy was important. By bringing forward in time battery technology and cost reductions it enables all uses of large battery technology everywhere to help get rid of fossil emissions sooner rather than later.

So the resulting improvement is not limited to 2% calculated by you as just 14% (transport emissions?) of 16% (US emissions). Large stationary batteries will also play an important roll in enabling the electric utility sector to rapidly adopt wind and solar energy sources efficiently.

Transportation and electricity production combined accounts for just over half of all global CO2 emissions according to the EPA source you cited. The use of the new battery tech and cost reductions are not somehow limited to the US but apply globally. The direct cost of batteries (excluding subsidies) has dropped dramatically in the last few years as a result (in part) of the subsidy program's effects.



In order to meaningfully counteract growing temperatures it is estimated that we need to stop something like 80% of human-caused CO2 emissions by 2050. This is a huge change and to achieve it we need to be leveraging every angle we have and battery technology and production cost reduction is a key enabler in making that happen globally.

 

Sorry for furthering the OT issue, but how does one reconcile these charts with the numerous articles that (in effect) state the following;

COWSPIRACY: The Sustainability Secret
51% ? That's more than the 3 smaller slices of the pie chart combined.
.

 

My guess is they add up the GHG involved in planting and harvesting the corn/feed, the cost of growing the livestock (buildings), the cost of transporting said livestock, then slaughter, then transport, then distribution centers, then grocery stores, then transport to home, then again for storage, then cooking.

Or, maybe they are saying 51% of the agriculture share?

 

Growing meat in the lab for mass consumption will hopefully come in the future. That would really take the burden off of farms and animals, and be done in a much more efficient and clean manner. Every steak could be a perfect steak.
On a side note and back to this thread's main topic, seems the diesel scandal is helping hybrids, Toyot's in particular.
Diesel ban effect: Toyota sees spurt in hybrid car sales | Business Line