Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[oobflyer]

The author of this article, Eric Peters, seems to hate all things electric:

http://spectator.org/articles/59437/electric-crack-pipe

The comments after the article are all vitriolic - posted by people with an obvious, angry bias. I'm not sure exactly what I stepped in here, but I posted this response:

Wow - I stumbled onto this article by accident - has any one of you that made comments here ever ridden an electric motorcycle?
I am an experienced rider with over 40 years of riding under my belt. I bought my first electric motorcycle in 2008 when gas was $5/gal. (and yes, before the federal tax incentives). The bike is American made (jobs, jobs, jobs anyone?) and has already more than paid for itself in gas-savings (also no oil-changes, tune-ups, etc.) I burn only domestically-produced American electrons.
Oh - and it's fun to ride - especially when I ride by the gas stations and see that gas prices are going up yet again.
How about we keep a bit of an open mind and try it before we judge?
While it's true you can't (yet) hop on an electric bike and ride across the country - that is the only disadvantage and there are many advantages to going electric.

[AustinSZF8.5]

Wow. Just wow. I had to drop my own comment in. I upvoted yours before I did though. 

I suppose that these people aren't exactly the target market for EVs, and they never will be from what I read both in the article and the comments. All I can say is, "their loss."

[NoiseBoy]

Wait a second. I read the article but I can't see any mention of him actually riding an electric bike? What a twonk.

Also I don't think the quarter mile time is correct. At the last motoring festival here we ran a 2013 S against a Tesla Roadster in a quarter mile sprint. It did it in 13.15 seconds with an inexperienced rider on a closed public Road. The SR has to be faster.

Is this American Spectator a bona fide publication? We should challenge the editor to get his contributor to try an SR.

P. S. Comparing the performance to a quarter-ton pushrod twin... What a moron.

[oobflyer]

Responding to the topic of subsidization:

There have been efforts in congress to stop corporate welfare (subsidization), but they have been blocked every time. Much more money comes out of our pockets and goes directly to the richest, most powerful companies on the planet (the oil//coal industry) than goes to start-up companies. The oil companies don't need subsidization - they are the most profitable companies in the history of the world.
Small start-up companies, on the other hand, do need help to get started.

For truly "Free Enterprise" one of two things must happen:
- All government subsidies must stop for all companies, or
- Subsidies should be distributed fairly and equally.

Believe me, I hate the fact that my hard-earned money is being taken from my paycheck and handed over to the oil industry - just as much as you do when tax funds are used to help start-up companies.
Since I don't use gasoline - why should I be forced to send money to the oil companies?

[Richard230]

I just hope the EV haters don't start burning electric motorcycles like the H-D guys used to do with "Japanese Junk" during the 1970's and 1980's.  I think this kind of thinking has something to do with worry about being left behind as new technology is introduced and as the world changes.  A lot of people don't like change (like me), but sometimes you just have to get with the program and give it a try.   

Or it could be just about oil company employees worried about losing their jobs and expressing their thought-out-in-a-bar opinions.   

[bigd]

@Oob "I hate the fact that my hard-earned money is being taken from my paycheck and handed over to the oil industry". So many like to say this, however, it is totally false. The oil companies do not receive any money from the federal govt (your money) with the exception of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Do you really want to abolish that program?   Now they do receive tax breaks, and every company I know of receives tax breaks (even Zero :-). Now your hard earned money does go out in direct payment to solar, wind, and other natural energy source subsidies (think Solyndra). Also, "Since I don't use gasoline - why should I be forced to send money to the oil companies?" There is a big argument now about EV not paying road taxes (payed when we buy gas). The argument could be made, why should you get to ride on the roads I am paying my hard earned money for. In conclusion, for those like Frodo that struggle with reading, I am not arguing, just trying to relay a few facts. No, you really are not paying for the big bad oilman. If we are going to promote electric we need to only focuses on the positive and not always make it a big bad oilman vs solar power. We will lose that one on facts alone. The best reply is from Protomech and that is just how we have to discus it. Point out the positives and not make it an EV vs ICE (remember ice has a BIG head start. LOL)

[benswing]

I wouldn't worry much about the "Spectator".  Seems like a hate-filled blog that tries to pass itself off as a news source. 

For example, here is what they had to say about Maya Angelou:
"Her greatest performance wasn’t in the miniseries Roots or on the album Miss Calypso. It was playing the character Maya Angelou. There’s a P.T. Barnum quality to Maya Angelou. Convincing the world of your greatness requires a greatness. This is especially true of the mediocre."

There are plenty of ignorant corners of the internet and this one seems to be people simply yelling to each other in a very small corner.

[oobflyer]

bigd

Didn't think it was controversial...

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress...

From:

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Whether it comes from tax breaks or direct subsidies - you and I are paying.

benswing

I'm sure you're right - I should never have followed that link! For some reason I get defensive when I find people hating on EVs...

:-)

[bigd]

"Whether it comes from tax breaks or direct subsidies - you and I are paying." Nope, (not in an argumentive tone), the govt would receive more money to waste without incentives. I will say that is why I am for a progressive flat tax with no subsidies. That said, when the govt is able to function in a responsible manor and balance a budget (I know, wishful thinking) it can give money for research on batteries or other solar energy if that is what they wish to research. However, the only reason I brought it up is when we use that as an argument it loses the ones who are informed. Do you really believe that the oil companies would not raise the price to compensate for the lose of revenue If the govt tax incentives were taken away. That should tell you the quality of the link you referenced. When I read that I discarded the article into file 13.

[protomech]

The oil companies will charge whatever the market will bear. It's possible they would increase prices in the absence of subsidies, but as long as we maintain our oil addiction there's not a lot of consumer price sensitivity.

[oobflyer]

Do you really believe that the oil companies would not raise the price to compensate for the lose[sic] of revenue If the govt tax incentives were taken away

Of course they would - thus the incentives. People across this country are already screaming, "We don't want to be like Europe with their high gas prices and tiny cars!" What they don't understand is that we are paying to keep gas prices low through subsidization/tax incentives/middle-eastern wars... which then creates an unfair advantage to the oil industry, which is why electric vehicle start-up companies have a difficult time competing (which is why we need tax incentives for alternative energy). It's a vicious cycle.

President Obama said it succinctly, "We should be subsidizing the energy of the future, not the energy of the past".

Perhaps the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office would suffice as a valid source:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf

In any case - I didn't mean to bring up a controversial topic - as I said initially I didn't even know that the fact that the federal government is subsidizing fossil fuels was controversial (the controversy is whether or not we should be doing it).

What kind of electric bike do you have, bigd? Just curious.

[bigd]

" which then creates an unfair advantage to the oil industry, which is why electric vehicle start-up companies have a difficult time competing" (I am assuming you meant alternative rather than oil) This is from your link "By 2008, fossil fuels accounted for only 33 percent of the total cost of energy-related tax incentives." Do you think it its the high cost and short range rather than any unfair advantage? When the technology is there then the electric will take off. Patience patience. If The Zero R was $6000 -- even if gas was $2.50 a gallon and same range, I think they would sell like hotcakes. I am not been controversial, just pointed out a fact that so many miss speak about (I don't think it is intentional) Oil companies receive money from the govt. When you say I don't like my money going to the oil.... A lot of people who are knowledge stop listening because they know it isn't true. This is from your link "Energy-related tax preferences account for a small percentage of the cost of all federal tax preferences,".They do have tax incentives (called preferences in your link) as all companies do. Really the main point is we need to refine the argument and point out all the positives of electric motorcycles and stop bashing the oil if you really want to promote it. I don't have one yet, I have been very plain on that point. At one time I was very excited and working to get one.

[WindRider]

I have experienced EV hate a few times now since I have owned and ridden a 12 Zero DS and my current 13 FX for the last couple of seasons. 

Some people just really hate the bikes because they aren't as mechanical and they don't make noise.  I think that the root of this is that if they don't understand it and it is different they just default to hating it. 

My favorite is the Harley riders who equate noise to power.  They are in in disbelief when their hopped up open pipe Harley is left behind in the silent wake of my disappearing FX.   Doesn't compute for them.   

[Pprior]

Many of us are fed up with bogus global warming claims being used as an excuse to pillage the taxpayer. There are no taxpayer subsidies like the solyndra debacle to oil companies, there just aren't. Let EV vehicles stand on their own and the market support them. I also won't ever buy a GM product and I despise the big banks that sucked my money in bailouts so I'm consistent.

[protomech]

Pprior - that's true to an extent. There are few direct subsidies granted to the oil industry, unlike most of the alternative-fuel subsidies.

Take a look at the back and forth between bigd (who also posts here) and myself about a year ago:
http://brammoforum.com/index.php?topic=2009.msg15900#msg15900

A few take-away points:
- oil industry receives somewhere in the ballpark of $7B/year in indirect subsidies (mostly special oil-specific tax breaks) .. in a VERY mature and profitable industry
- carbon fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) don't pay for downstream effects

Personally, I'd rather get rid of all subsidies - both for carbon energy industry and alternative fuels - and price the downstream effects into the energy in question. We'd see a very rapid shift towards renewable and alternative fuel systems.

It'll never happen, but I can dream.