# New Study Revels Diesel Vehicles Cleaner Than Electric Vehicles



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

Based on the latest version of Argonne National Laboratory's GREET model (GREET_2015), and the current U.S. electric generation mix (January - July 2015) per EIA, the following is a graphical representation of the full life-cycle emissions of a generic 2016 diesel vehicle vs a generic 2016 EV...










VEH = emission from the manufacture of vehicle
PTW = emissions from vehicle operations
WTP = emissions from the processing and distribution of the "fuel"


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

My argument that fossil fuel production (oil and coal) is heavily subsidized seems to be pretty strong: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fossil-fuel-subsidies_5643dd87e4b045bf3dedc2d9
Hard to say what the result of Well-To-Wheel and Powerplant-to-Wheel analyses would say if we could "remove" the subsidies as a factor. Whould they cancel each other out? Favor coal? Favor oil?

HuffPo is hilarious, if you don't read it. But it's also has a lot of articles highlighting the environmental (and other "leftist" issues) viewpoint.

FYI, the article comes from Reuters, apparently out of the UK: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...20151112?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews
bbc.com is awesome - much broader coverage than any US-based news agency/bureau.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Why bother with facts if you have "all the news you need to know" Huffington Post: http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2013:



> Between FY 2010 and FY 2013, the share of tax expenditure in total financial interventions and subsidies declined while the share of direct expenditures grew, driven mainly by the elimination of the alcohol fuel exemption on the one hand and significant increases in outlays for ARRA Section 1603 grants for electricity-related renewables on the other.





> The changing mix of direct expenditures between FY 2010 and FY 2013 was primarily driven by ARRA's Section 1603 grant program. Between FY 2010 and FY 2013, the renewable share of direct expenditures increased from 37% to 65%, while the end-use technologies share dropped from 41% to 27%. Total direct expenditures decreased 13% from $14.8 billion to $12.9 billion.


At least in the USA, tax breaks and project funding are going in the right direction: towards renewables, and apparently renewables are getting more than half of the government encouragement. Government support for the energy sector is a lot like support for the airplane building business: competition is not from other capitalist ventures but from big government supported monopolies s.a. Saudi and Russian Oil, state-owned oil reserves etc. Its no secret that Exxon is minuscule when compared to "third world" and "rogue nation" crony-run monopolies in energy.

Some commentators well known for their more moderate views (the left calls everyone they disagree with as "conservative") are actually proposing a "carbon tax" which would levy a VAT style cost on goods and services that are supported by the use of fossil fuels. It would be great for countries like China that forgo any environmental safeguards just to undercut their international competition. That is what some view as unfair and rightly so.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

It's pretty clear that subsidies - in every direction - are huge. Noticed this from OZ, notes that AU subsidies to coal are $41B (presumably AU$), and quotes an IMF study trying to quantify worldwide subsidies: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/r...-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150724-gijsvh.html

Of course, economists like to quote "lost opportunity costs", and other similarly hard to quantify costs, but still, $6.6T is a big number.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the VW crisis is fading out of the public consciousness due to lack of media buzz.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

*"Subsidies" are projected environmental costs/Pigouvian "taxes"*



floydarogers said:


> It's pretty clear that subsidies - in every direction - are huge. Noticed this from OZ, notes that AU subsidies to coal are $41B (presumably AU$), and quotes an IMF study trying to quantify worldwide subsidies: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/r...-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150724-gijsvh.html
> 
> Of course, economists like to quote "lost opportunity costs", and other similarly hard to quantify costs, but still, $6.6T is a big number.
> 
> Meanwhile, back in the real world, the VW crisis is fading out of the public consciousness due to lack of media buzz.


Most readers think "subsidies" are direct payments to the producers/suppliers. This is not true for what is discussed in these articles, it seems. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf



> Consumer subsidies arise when the price paid by consumers is below a benchmark price. For pre-tax consumer subsidies the benchmark price is taken as the supply cost, whereas for post- tax consumer subsidies the benchmark price is the supply cost plus a Pigouvian tax for internalizing environmental externalities and a consumption tax to contribute to revenue objectives.





> Pigouvian taxation
> When the consumption of a good by a firm or household generates an external cost to society, then efficient pricing requires that consumers face a price that reflects this cost. In the absence of a well-functioning market for internalizing this cost in the consumer price, efficiency requires the imposition of a Pigouvian tax equal to the external cost generated by additional consumption. This issue is especially pertinent for energy consumption since the consumption of fossil fuels generates a range of external costs including:
> *Outdoor air pollution from fine particulates that result from fossil fuel combustion (either produced directly or indirectly from atmospheric reactions of other emissions), the main
> environmental damage of which is elevated risks of mortality for populations exposed to the pollution.
> ...


The resource used to calculate "subsidies" states that "producer subsidies" are "very small" - here is an example of what appears to be very fuzzy math:



> Producer subsidies are drawn from the OECD, which provides estimates of producer support. These estimates are only available for 2011 and are kept constant as a share of GDP for later years. Different items of producer subsidies from the OECD could potentially overlap with each other. In the event that some of the producer subsidies are passed to consumers as lower consumer prices, these producer subsidies could also overlap with consumer subsidies. Since producer subsidy estimates appear to be very small, these issues should have little effect on our estimates.


There is a word for what it appears the environmentalists are doing with these articles. "Lying."

Its amazing that there is no calculation of environmental damage, nor any mention of availability (they do mention a price, however, which is significantly higher than conventional energy), of renewable energy in the form of wind, solar, and nuclear (and hydroelectric). Current estimates of how much is needed to be produced, factory pollution and all, batteries, windmills, dams, solar panels (including the mining of rare earth minerals) , back-up power when the sun isn't shining or wind blowing etc. isn't mentioned. Even if its better, we won't know from the authors, it seems. Sort of reminds me of how bad diesel is, until you compare it to everything else.... Of course, the consumer, geopolitical power, etc. are not in the equation. An old MIT study (2000) mentioned that if everything that was possible was done to stop global warming, we would essentially decrease the acceleration of global warming by 20% - this after the world economies go bankrupt. I'm sure tech is the answer and things are a bit better, but the point was clear.

Please see http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

PL


----------



## jfxogara (Oct 26, 2012)

Pierre Louis said:


> There is a word for what it appears the environmentalists are doing with these articles. "Lying."PL


Great post -- thanks!


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

Pierre Louis said:


> ...
> There is a word for what it appears the environmentalists are doing with these articles. "Lying."


Just want to point out that there is lying from both sides: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

I'm sorry that you resorted to an ad hominem attack by implying I know nothing about statistics.

Seems this thread has reached a dead end; won't post again. Will continue driving my 335d for another 100K.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

floydarogers said:


> Just want to point out that there is lying from both sides: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
> 
> I'm sorry that you resorted to an ad hominem attack by implying I know nothing about statistics.
> 
> Seems this thread has reached a dead end; won't post again. Will continue driving my 335d for another 100K.


Nothing of the sort. I just find it in my mind how deceptive the propaganda and misleading published information is.

PL


----------



## jfxogara (Oct 26, 2012)

floydarogers said:


> Just want to point out that there is lying from both sides: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-fundingSeems this thread has reached a dead end; won't post again. Will continue driving my 335d for another 100K.


This Guardian article reads like the Tim Robbins spech in Team America: World Police. Which is an excellent movie by the way.

Floyd, way to keep driving the car!


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

jfxogara said:


> Great post -- thanks!


You're welcome. Its still bad news that the environmentalist movement implies we are all "subsidizing" civilization by not using their favored energy sources. In effect, all energy use "subsidizes" human activity, according to their logic, and is therefore "bad."

PL


----------



## jfxogara (Oct 26, 2012)

Pierre Louis said:


> You're welcome. Its still bad news that the environmentalist movement implies we are all "subsidizing" civilization by not using their favored energy sources. In effect, all energy use "subsidizes" human activity, according to their logic, and is therefore "bad."PL


The envonmental movement has an unbroken string of erroneous predictions dating back to Paul Erlich (the "population bomb") and predictions of widespread resource scarcity by 1980. In fact, when Exxon was supposedly cynically ignoring warnings of global warming 30 years ago the environmentalists were seized with the exact opposite -- the specter of "nuclear winter." The consistent thread in their theories, aside from error, has been a) man as despoiler of the planet leading to b) a catastrophe.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

jfxogara said:


> a) man as despoiler of the planet leading to b) a catastrophe.


My mother-in-law thinks this way  just on a smaller scale....


----------

