FutureCanadian

A device without the communication and games aspects would be a huge win in the classroom. Hell, I know I mostly used mine for games or texting. Not a lot of attention being paid there. Haha.

MOAR

No name calling. What's wrong with Timmy, Timmy? I'd say that the REAL environmentalists (who are few and far between) act like that, but they don't differ much IMO from staunch apologists for the fossil fuel industry and "the free market". Neither will budge or compromise. Luckily neither compose large shares of the public. Even greater is the fact that both can suck one for all I care and take one for the greater good if an actual leader could shape the debate and get a solid transition away from coal. That's not only doable and noble, but not costly financially or environmentally.

Not really. Poor Timmy and his companion sources continue to ignore what not only this report but every report of a similar nature (which there are quite a few relating to state-level assessments here in the US) maintains: it's not only a "massive undertaking" but one that doesn't assume ease nor leaves out transient technology or production of fossil fuels. I mean that guy's blog and Timmy keep pushing nuclear like its an actual cost-effective measure. Lulz. FWIW, I think it's ridiculous (and the fault of stakeholders and most importantly politicians for failing to properly shaping the debate as a win-win) that environmentalists AND pragmatist don't see the benefit of and agree upon LNG replacement. It's a net reduction in emissions (assuming it displaces coal) for the "hippies" and its a cheaper, relatively equal reliable source of production. Bam. Everybody wins. In my country, I'd be ecstatic (as I do consider myself an equally pragmatic and treehugging "hippie") with the thought of LNG displacing coal. We use a lot of it. I don't see why there is a such a big deal over intermittency in Canada anyways when hydro is such a large share of production.

I've never seen such a hard-working apologist. You are determined Timmy.

A carbon tax that is structure with a revenue neutral income tax rebate seems like a no-brainer. You're taxing something you don't like and cutting taxes on something you do like.

Amazing how similar Canada is to the US on some things. Pretty similar breakdown here as well. Tougher regulations, higher cost of living states like California, New York etc. versus less stringent regs, lower cost of living states like Texas. Some local variations though. More touristy areas usually have higher excise taxes on gas to get visitors paying in.

Tell that to any luxury car maker. I guess there in it for "nothing" since there sales are about the same if not usually less than any EV model. You need to stop thinking so linearly.

I'm glad you're getting hung up on the FUTUE of one segment of a growing and diverse market. Were you also one of those people who thought shorting $TSLA was a sure bet eight months ago. Lulz. EV sales still growing YOY by double-digits, but its so "dead".

On my part? All that bolded word says is that its more complex that the general figures state. Makes sense given the various levels of difference in potential, regulations and mandates, distance to market for transmission and supply etc. Must be why they included a minimum and maximum data set as well. Again: ALL WITHOUT SUBSIDIES INCLUDED which is the main point

Did you miss the part where subsidies weren't included? Oops.

And it sold almost as many EVs in seven months as the article mentioned? Imagine that. By the way, their cheaper model is coming out in a few years at a much lower price point (~35k). Given that it has the range of a mediocre combustion engine while using cheap electricity and garners a rave reviews, I'd say it will sell even better. Damn that "dead" technology.

Considering that Tesla alone has sold 342 Model S in Canada alone in the first seventh months of 2013. I'd say its a bright future.

Forgive me again because I'm not used to doing research using Canadian institutions, but is the US EIA considered wind industry propaganda? I already stated that I'd be ok with a deadline.

Does anyone know the enegy conversion of natgas into how far on how much a car can go? Is it similar to gas? What about the price of nat gas if cars also needed it for a fuel source? I doubt it would be as cheap as it is now if that was the case, but would it matter if it was still cheaper relative to gas?

What does one call someone who keeps doing the same thing expecting a different result? Wind is already viable and more cost competitive than every source but natural gas. Residential solar on a regional scale is as well. Utility is not. Intermittency is not a huge problem if the mix is correct and capacity is compensated for. You can keep banging your fists on the table in Denali, by its not only the right solution, its not really that difficult or expensive as you believe. And you still continue to ignore this misplaced notion of the market for electricity production l, but what competition and viability really entails. By the way---and just like the trend of renewables---EV sales are small but growing with a positive market potential. Just like renewables, the cost and efficiency of EVs are improving as demand increases. There's your economics brah. I still can't decide whether your incontinence is just a logical reaction based on a financial or lively investment in some fossil fuel. Did you short mobile telephones too because of the DynaTAC?

Alright boss. Whatever you say.

No offense, but that is asinine logic to rationalize as a "subsidy". Hate to break it you, but these mandates are decided and these prices and profits allowed. You mean besides accelerating demand that will mean increased efficiencies and lower price points due to greater economies of scale. That's inevitable. It's going to happen. Solar panels are getting cheaper and more efficient. Wind turbines are doing the same thing.

FWIW. I dont think its anymore necessary to have coal replaced with natural gas and renewables where it works, especially for Canada who get so much hydro. Everyone wins. Cheaper and cleaner than previous mixes that included coal.

So it's based off perceived demand. Thanks for taking the long route to that. FIT is only a production subsidy if its greater than than the given rate of electricty. Renewable mandates, if binding, have nothing to do with the production on the manufacturing side. This isn't some consumer item we are talking about or a naturally occurring market. We are talking about legally allowed AND highly regulated monopolies for utilities that are given their market and profits by the people of the municipality they serve. People have decided they'd rather not have coal. People have decided that residents that have rooftop systems don't have to go off the grid. How does it prove your point? Make a graph and line up the data. There is a point in the future where the intersection occurs. Depending on the source and location, its already happened and if it hasn't it will. Probably within the next ten years. Heck, Germany has already set its limit and will reach it soon. If you are so concerned about cost, why are you pushing nuclear? It isn't cost competitive AT ALL.

And these production numbers are based on projections of what? I'll wait. Besides the PTC, what other subsidy is based on production? I think it's pretty obvious that subsidies end when they are cost competitive without them. That is a point in the future. I literally have zero understanding of how you think renewables are "dead". Literally zero.

And can I ask that you must also be opposed to all subsidies that involve "commercialization" (which I assume is a code-word for demand/production), correct?

How does one even consider "plausible cost reductions due to economies of scale" without reciprocal demand? That's pretty much the point of the subsidies. Nudge along that process that efficiencies and cost reductions that increased production brings. Are you assuming these subsidies to continue ad infinitum? If so, why is it so outrageous for society to decide that said technology deserves merits based on its extenuating circumstances. We aren't discussing some mainstream consumer staple here.

Ignore that last quote, I'm getting a little muddled in all these different price points. I still think it is patently absurd to think that the soft costs won't come down at all. The article you link even said that it occurred in Germany. Any drop in costs, whether it be module or soft, equates to ROI reaching a lower limit. I also think its unfortunate that people would rather pay cheaper electricty up front without understanding true costs. I mean it is logical. I don't personally think the technology is that far away and even if we disagree philosophically about the role of government, it could still be less "intrusive" in the market but still help by doing R&D (e.g. ARPA-E in the US), improve permitting process, use government rooftop space to lease out and at least marginally reduce costs for us taxpayers.

It is if you lease. It's easier to look at if you just measure costs as price plus installation into an installed cost. I've seen installed costs as low as $3.50/watt. Any drop in price will equate to a quicker ROI. What about indirect costs to consumers that aren't included into fossil fuels? Talk about market distortion. :-) If its a part of the utility's own mix and that utility is a legal monopoly, then its not really as controversial from a "screwing the production guy" as the other situation assumes. I don't think a mix is impossible nor impractical if its properly implemented. Like I said earlier, it is entirely possible to not have intermittency if there is the proper mix and proper capacity. Would it be necessarily cheaper? I can't say exactly. That's really another discussion in its own right about the philosophy of democratic determination in relation to municipal-owned or legally allowed utility monopolization etc.