International News Thread

[Which Tyler]

What's lithium mining like these days?

 

It's been a while since I last looked, but isn't it just about the most polluting thing we do to our planet?

Last time I looked, the life-time environmental impact of an electric car, fuelled entirely by renewable energy was barely better than the life-time environmental impact of an ICE car. Better, but not by a huge amount.

 

Equally, I'm pretty confident that economies of scale since then should have improved things for electric cars - probably significantly.

[Rippounet]

15 hours ago, Altherion said:

In principle, I agree with you -- but creating better energy options is hard and the path to them is uncertain whereas making existing options more expensive is easy and straightforward (at least when a party interested in doing so is in power). The problem with the French tax is that it does this in a really ham-handed way. The price of gas in France is already roughly double what it is in the US (mostly due to taxes) and this tax would raise it even higher. And while it is technically possible to get around without a car in much of France, it's often not pleasant.

Building on that, most of the demonstrators live in rural areas and have no alternative to driving. That's how the movement started.

Then there's the fact that very little of the money collected through this tax hike will go to sustainable development.

One might also add that Macron has been pushing to reform and privatize the national railway system, which most people believe will make the train even more expensive than it already is (those bullet trains ain't cheap).
Not to mention the hospitals, schools, and various public services that are closing throughout the country because of his austerity programs, making traveling increasingly necessary for many things.

Add to that the fact that there's been a tax reduction for the wealthiest and on financial assets... 'cause, neo-liberalism! Yeah!

So, yeah, fuck Macron.

Seriously though, I don't see how this tax hike is linked to cleaner energy. That's the official line, but it makes no fucking sense to raise gas prices if you don't offer people decent alternatives and/or work toward providing solutions to transportation issues.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

The thing is that the electric grid needs to green up or the electric cars are still running on electricity that is still predominantly fossil fuel based.  Electric cars are only as clean as the source they're plugged in to 

Arguably worse, because there is energy waste between burning coal/oil to make electricity and then distribute the electricity around the grid, compared to directly burning the fuel to run the vehicle.  Probably a marginal saving in the distribution of the fossil fuel as it is distributed to fewer locations when being used for electricity production.

Probably easier to install CO2 scrubbers in electricity plants than in vehicles though. So carbon capture can be an option even if fossil fuels are being burned to generate electricity.

Also, what's with the hard on for Tesla / Musk with some people, as if it/he's the only game in town when it comes to electric vehicles? We have several mass market models of electric car on our market, and none of them are Tesla.

EVs are still over-priced compared to comparable sized / powered ICE cars, and the used EV sector is still in its infancy. So for the moment it's only people above a certain income bracket who can afford to drive green.

[TrueMetis]

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

According to this EV are greener than ICE cars even in the worst grids in the US. You'd need something that manages greater than 35MPG to do better. This doesn't really surprise me, cause even with the not insignificant loss of efficiency of transmission I would still expect power generation using power plants to be more efficient than power generation using 100's of individual ICE's.

[Altherion]

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Arguably worse, because there is energy waste between burning coal/oil to make electricity and then distribute the electricity around the grid, compared to directly burning the fuel to run the vehicle.  Probably a marginal saving in the distribution of the fossil fuel as it is distributed to fewer locations when being used for electricity production.

Probably easier to install CO2 scrubbers in electricity plants than in vehicles though. So carbon capture can be an option even if fossil fuels are being burned to generate electricity.

It's almost always both more efficient and less carbon intensive to use electricity. First, fuel also needs to be widely distributed (it's harder to move oil from where it is refined to a local gas station than electricity to a local outlet). Second, very few countries get all of their electricity from fossil fuels and not all fossil fuels are equally bad. Third, it's not just a matter of CO2 scrubbers: automobile engines must make tradeoffs because they need to be small and self-contained enough to be mobile, tolerate all sorts of accelerations and behave reasonably well in collisions. The average power plant is significantly more efficient than the average automobile engine.

37 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Also, what's with the hard on for Tesla / Musk with some people, as if it/he's the only game in town when it comes to electric vehicles? We have several mass market models of electric car on our market, and none of them are Tesla.

Which ones? As far as I know, Tesla was the first to make a purely electric car that is normal-sized, can match the speed and acceleration of gas-powered cars and can go more than 200 miles between charges. They're also the most recognizable and numerous purely electric (i.e. not hybrid) brand worldwide. Basically, it's not the only game in town, but it's certainly the coolest one.

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Add to that the fact that there's been a tax reduction for the wealthiest and on financial assets... 'cause, neo-liberalism! Yeah!

I hadn't heard of this. How did they manage that? It sounds a bit suicidal...

[The Anti-Targ]

23 minutes ago, Altherion said:

 

Which ones? As far as I know, Tesla was the first to make a purely electric car that is normal-sized, can match the speed and acceleration of gas-powered cars and can go more than 200 miles between charges. They're also the most recognizable and numerous purely electric (i.e. not hybrid) brand worldwide. Basically, it's not the only game in town, but it's certainly the coolest one.

 

Ah, the rule of cool. I don't much care for it personally. Though I will acknowledge that Tesla making EVs cool does benefit the EV sector as a whole. If you want to get the masses enthusiastic about a product you have to make is the desirable thing, and not just the moral / ethical thing. It is good to be sustainable, but it's even better if you look cool while doing it.

There isn't a single Tesla model available in our market that is accessible to anyone who is not among the very wealthy. So Tesla is not a mass market brand here. And therefore it isn't (at this point in time) the practical solution in the green transport revolution. Looks like the Model 3 could get closer to the upper end of the mass market price, but by the look of exchange rate and significantly higher prices we pay here, even that car will be well outside of the mass market price range, and we don't have a fixed date for it being available through local dealers. You're not going to defeat global warming if only the 1% can afford to be green

The best price for features pure EV here would probably be (unsurprisingly) one of the Japanese brands or Hyundai. They are still not truly mass market in price if new, but they are a helluva lot closer than current Tesla models. And they are mass market in price ($10-$20K) on the used market.

I don't really put much stock in mileage per charge. What is more important is driving time per full charge. And charging time. When I'm driving across country my typical driving time is 8 hours, and in bigger countries people think nothing of driving for 10-12 hours in a day. So it's nice to have a bigger number, but even the highest mileage Tesla isn't really a long distance vehicle. Until rapid charge times can get you 12 hours of driving with less than 1/2 hour of in-journey charging time (i.e. equivalent to 2-3 petrol stops on your journey, the mileage metric for EVs isn't really worth talking about. They will remain around town vehicles, and 100 miles/charge is perfectly adequate for that purpose.

 

[Altherion]

18 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There isn't a single Tesla model available in our market that is accessible to anyone who is not among the very wealthy. So Tesla is not a mass market brand here. And therefore it isn't (at this point in time) the practical solution in the green transport revolution. Looks like the Model 3 could get closer to the upper end of the mass market price, but by the look of exchange rate and significantly higher prices we pay here, even that car will be well outside of the mass market price range, and we don't have a fixed date for it being available through local dealers. You're not going to defeat global warming if only the 1% can afford to be green

This is always the nature of new technology. The first ones are curiosities for the very rich, then more are available and it becomes affordable for the upper-middle class and only then does it become cheap enough for the masses. The current version of the Model 3 is about halfway to the third stage. And yes, despite the wonders of modern shipping, most stuff initially becomes affordable in the nation where it is produced and only later in small nations on the other side of the planet.

25 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't really put much stock in mileage per charge. What is more important is driving time per full charge. And charging time. When I'm driving across country my typical driving time is 8 hours, and in bigger countries people think nothing of driving for 10-12 hours in a day. So it's nice to have a bigger number, but even the highest mileage Tesla isn't really a long distance vehicle. Until rapid charge times can get you 12 hours of driving with less than 1/2 hour of in-journey charging time (i.e. equivalent to 2-3 petrol stops on your journey, the mileage metric for EVs isn't really worth talking about. They will remain around town vehicles, and 100 miles/charge is perfectly adequate for that purpose.

I don't understand your distinction between mileage per charge and driving time per charge; unless the car is very inefficient at common speeds or the battery drains itself when standing still, they should be very nearly the same. The mid-tier Model 3 can handle an 8 hour trip with just a single half-hour stop at a supercharger. For 12 hours with a total half-hour of stops for charging, you'll have to wait a couple of years more for better batteries and better chargers, but driving like that is really difficult.

We have a few of the cheaper electric cars in the US too, but in addition to the lousy range, for the most part they're fairly small and lacking in both acceleration and maximum speed. The Nissan Leaf is probably the best of these (it's certainly the most popular of them), but it's already obvious that this is not the future.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

I hadn't heard of this. How did they manage that? It sounds a bit suicidal...

'twas last year, but believe me, no one has forgotten that, and no one will:
https://www.ft.com/content/3d907582-b893-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852

 

Edit: damn paywalls...
http://en.rfi.fr/economy/20171012-macron-plan-slash-frances-wealth-tax-clears-key-hurdle

[SweetPea]

It always amazes me when people make these argument like "but we use fossil fuels to produce electricity, therefore electric cars are just as bad for the environment, or even worse".

Elon Musk is a self-made billionaire who's succesfully founded Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and various other smaller companies. But you think he is so stupid that he hasn't considered this argument and done the calculations? It just baffles me.

As for the cost of a Tesla, it was never meant to be affordable by everyone in 2018. We are slowly advancing towards that, with each new model becoming slightly more affordable. But Tesla is a new company, they simply couldn't produce so many cars anyway. 

It doesn't matter. The main goal of Tesla has already been achieved. It was meant to prove the validity of electric cars, to prove that they are viable, not just a pipe dream. It was meant to create a market demand for electric cars. Musk has achieved this. He's not only proved electric cars viable, he's made them cool. And that's the most important thing, people want to buy electric cars now. 15 years ago, pretty much nobody wanted one. Before Tesla, none of the major car manufacturers even had electric cars to sell. Now there is a huge demand for it, and practically every manufacturer has been forced to develop electric cars of their own. Tesla could go bankrupt tomorrow, and it would still have been a success.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

It always amazes me when people make these argument like "but we use fossil fuels to produce electricity, therefore electric cars are just as bad for the environment, or even worse".

Elon Musk is a self-made billionaire who's succesfully founded Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and various other smaller companies. But you think he is so stupid that he hasn't considered this argument and done the calculations? It just baffles me.

As for the cost of a Tesla, it was never meant to be affordable by everyone in 2018. We are slowly advancing towards that, with each new model becoming slightly more affordable. But Tesla is a new company, they simply couldn't produce so many cars anyway. 

It doesn't matter. The main goal of Tesla has already been achieved. It was meant to prove the validity of electric cars, to prove that they are viable, not just a pipe dream. It was meant to create a market demand for electric cars. Musk has achieved this. He's not only proved electric cars viable, he's made them cool. And that's the most important thing, people want to buy electric cars now. 15 years ago, pretty much nobody wanted one. Before Tesla, none of the major car manufacturers even had electric cars to sell. Now there is a huge demand for it, and practically every manufacturer has been forced to develop electric cars of their own. Tesla could go bankrupt tomorrow, and it would still have been a success.

And that ties back to my original point. Which is that you should make alternatives to fossil fuels attractive, not force people to downgrade through penalties and taxes.

Only the enviro fanatics are willing to drive electric golf carts to save the climate. The majority of us want the same options we have now or better, but would be fine to get that while also going electric to save the environment. A win-win situation.

And that’s what Tesla has grasped, and achieved. Now it just needs to achieve the economies of scale to make it affordable for the middle class.

[mormont]

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And that ties back to my original point. Which is that you should make alternatives to fossil fuels attractive, not force people to downgrade through penalties and taxes.

They're not mutually exclusive. If you don't think both are necessary, you aren't appreciating the scale of the problem.

[SweetPea]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

They're not mutually exclusive. If you don't think both are necessary, you aren't appreciating the scale of the problem.

They're not mutually exclusive, that is true. But the penalties and taxes should only come into play when the better alternatives are already available and affordable for most people, to help speed up the process of switching over. If you do the first without having the latter, you're just pissing off people, it's not a very good solution.

I'm not saying you are advocating for that, by the way, just pointing it out to those that think it's a good approach.

[Tijgy]

The problem in France is probably bigger than just the taxes on fuel. Yesterday they said on Flemish television that the list of demands is actually very varied and sometimes even contradictory. They are even threatening each other.

And the protests/riots are spreading to Belgium (especially Wallonia - Flanders is now more busy with Marrakesh Agreement and killing the federal government), the Netherlands and Germany(?). 

 

[Altherion]

15 hours ago, mormont said:

They're not mutually exclusive. If you don't think both are necessary, you aren't appreciating the scale of the problem.

They're not mutually exclusive, but they draw upon the same political capital and have the same natural redistributive tendency (i.e. away from the poor) so one has to prioritize and, in many countries, it is only possible to do one well. The idea of subsidizing new technology as, for example, in Norway and to a lesser extent in the US, appears to be less politically toxic and more effective than punitive taxes on people who have no options.

21 hours ago, Rippounet said:

'twas last year, but believe me, no one has forgotten that, and no one will:
https://www.ft.com/content/3d907582-b893-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852

 

Edit: damn paywalls...
http://en.rfi.fr/economy/20171012-macron-plan-slash-frances-wealth-tax-clears-key-hurdle

Yeah... that's definitely suicidal.

On the bright side, they seem to have given up on the gas tax for now.

[Mindwalker]

On 12/4/2018 at 6:51 PM, Tijgy said:

And the protests/riots are spreading to Belgium (especially Wallonia - Flanders is now more busy with Marrakesh Agreement and killing the federal government), the Netherlands and Germany(?). 

 

Nope.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 12/4/2018 at 6:51 PM, Tijgy said:

And the protests/riots are spreading to Belgium (especially Wallonia - Flanders is now more busy with Marrakesh Agreement and killing the federal government), the Netherlands and Germany(?). 

Unlikely, to say the least. There are several reasons for it.

A.) France has a different protest culture. B.) Gas is already taxed (you can argue whether that is high enough) C.) The German treasury's coffers are getting filled on a pretty good level, so big raises in taxes are unlikely.

The only thing that seems to rile up the German sufficiently are refugees, and they are kept under lock and key by Erdogan, or are stored away in Greece (and Italy).

[Mindwalker]

Most importantly, those reforms that incited the French protests (tax cuts for the super rich, amongst others) have already been done here ages ago, and widely promoted, er, accepted as necessary and "alternativlos" (without alternative).

[Loge]

Tax on Diesel fuel is still substantially lower in Germany than on normal gasoline. For all the outrage about Dieselgate, the German government used to promote the Diesel as a means to lower carbon dioxide emissions, and still does. France also used to promote the Diesel, though more for protectionist reasons. It was a way of keeping the Japanese manufacturers out of the European market. I'm not so sure how the German public would react if that tax advantage was taken away. On the other hand, we swallowed Merkel's VAT raise by three percentage points without any protests...

[Altherion]

Despite the French government caving on the fuel tax, the protests are back and possibly even larger than before. The authorities even brought out some armored vehicles this time around.

[Rippounet]

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

Despite the French government caving on the fuel tax, the protests are back and possibly even larger than before. The authorities even brought out some armored vehicles this time around.

For anyone who can read French, this analysis by Hayat from the CNRS is very interesting:

https://samuelhayat.wordpress.com/2018/12/05/les-gilets-jaunes-leconomie-morale-et-le-pouvoir/?fbclid=IwAR3uC8jRY3O08pxI2ZxiOXFpycrV1s9LDU0SnDiM5Fnaxa55ZWz1lHbAzsY

Long story short, by expressing open disdain for the working classes (both in policies and in speech) Macron broke a tacit covenant between rulers and people that rulers should always keep the common interest in mind.
Macron has openly sided with the rich and finance when most heads of state at least pretend to have the interests of the common man at heart (heck, even Trump might have been a better communicator on this one) ; now people from the working classes are angry, very angry.
And ordering the CRS to make us of unprecedent force against demonstrators is not going to help.

There's also the fact that Macron has been using the national debt to say that you can't have public spending anymore. But now a lot of people are questioning... the very legitimacy of that national debt and analysing closely the reasons why it exploded in the last 45 years.
In other words, Macron has unleashed a beast that he may find himself unable to control. If he doesn't act quickly and efficiently there's a real chance that he finds himself with a general strike on his hands.
Because let's not forget... He only got about 25% of the vote in the first place... In the second round of the election most people who voted for him were trying to prevent the far-right from winning...

On 12/5/2018 at 5:18 AM, Altherion said:

Yeah... that's definitely suicidal.

Yes. And at the same time, does he care?
There was an excellent analysis in Le Monde Diplomatique a few years back about Hollande's "socialist" party and how it committed electoral suicide by embracing neo-liberalism and betraying the left.
Now we have Macron who until recently was Hollande's finance minister (and thus directly responsible for Hollande not seeking re-election, very ironically).
I don't think these people genuinely care about re-election anymore.
They know the French don't want neo-liberalism. In the last presidential election, a solid majority (55%) of voters chose a candidate who on some level or the other was vocally against neo-liberalism ; and it's not clear that the remaining 45% really voted for neo-liberalism (and not for something else).
Macron got elected because people believed neo-liberalism was still a bit better than neo-fascism. But he is making many people reconsider this assumption. I think he's perfectly aware that very few people will vote for him again and that he'll have to rely on the threat of the far-right to get re-elected anyway, so why the fuck would he care? He got there because he had the support of the rich and he's implementing their agenda. The rest is all smoke and mirrors...