Kubota Electric Tractor Survey

[mcmxi]

There are ALREADY battery-powered excavators.

This Electric Caterpillar Excavator Is the Tesla of Heavy Construction Equipment

Pon Equipment plans to deliver eight of the excavators to EV-crazed Norway.

www.thedrive.com

From my engineering point-of-view: (simple math can be used to calculate electric-usage by converting diesel fuel usage into KiloWattHours) [1 Horsepower = 746 Watts]

• The amount of power needed to do this kind of work all day long simply is not available from batteries.
• The amount of power to RECHARGE in a reasonable time is rarely available. (high amperage 220v)
• Fast-charging batteries shortens their lifespan.
• electric-power is not always available where this kind of equipment is used.
• Electricity has always been one of the most expensive forms of power. (Diesel is one of the least-expensive along with Natural-Gas...both of which are used to GENERATE electricity)
• Replacing the batteries will be expensive (including the recycling costs which have not been standardized as of yet)

Dont get me wrong. I like my battery-powered push-mower. It lasts about 20 minutes and that is all I need. (I do have to keep the blade RAZOR sharp after every use... lest it does not cut well)

In the end--- we need a breakthrough in battery-technology before EV can be truly mainstream....even then, the COST of electricity will remain higher than any other energy form.

Inherently, any battery which can store MASSIVE amount of power in small space will be dangerously explosive. (battery failure, short circuits...etc) Imagine a tankfull of gasoline releasing all of its power at once!!

By far the best post in this thread.

An accurate assessment of the benefits of electric vehicles vs. fossil fueled vehicles, whether it's environmental implications or user costs, needs to consider everything from the cradle to the grave rather than cherry pick a few data points.

If there's an increase in cost associated with a cleaner planet then that's ok, but don't sell it as being better and cheaper in every measurable way when it's not.

As for the original question, I don't have any interest in an electric Kubota tractor. I'll keep my '02 F250 7.3L, MX6000 and GL7000 generator as long as I can buy diesel. When I can't buy diesel any more I'll have to look into making it I suppose.

 

[Jchonline]

Not aware of any incentives given to coal companies

Not aware of any incentives to oil and coal companies other than depleation allowance, which is identical to depreciation of any asset available to any business.

SDT

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

They are pervasive and go back decades. Do your own research, it took me about 30 seconds to find them.

A quote: “Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually.“


Show me something that refutes it and I am happy to listen. I am not looking for sides just facts.

 

[Jchonline]

By far the best post in this thread.

An accurate assessment of the benefits of electric vehicles vs. fossil fueled vehicles, whether it's environmental implications or user costs, needs to consider everything from the cradle to the grave rather than cherry pick a few data points.

If there's an increase in cost associated with a cleaner planet then that's ok, but don't sell it as being better in cheaper in every measurable way when it's not.

As for the original question, I don't have any interest in an electric Kubota tractor. I'll keep my '02 F250 7.3L, MX6000 and GL7000 generator as long as I can buy diesel. When I can't buy it I'll have to look into making it I suppose.

Videos on trade show demos already. Volvo has one. Pretty slick.

 

[greg86z28]

Im surprised and not surprised by the Debbie downers and negativity in this thread. I find it interesting that people can’t be open the potential and the possibilities of new technologies and only can think negatively. With narrow mindsets like that we’d still be using horses on dirt paths.

 

[Elliott in GA]

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

They are pervasive and go back decades. Do your own research, it took me about 30 seconds to find them.

A quote: “Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually.“


Show me something that refutes it and I am happy to listen. I am not looking for sides just facts.

The characterizations in the linked piece are at best inaccurate. Essentially, fossil fuel companies are given some favorable tax/accounting treatment to allow and encourage increased production, and this increased production increases supply and reduces the cost to the consumer.

If the green industry was only given those types of benefits, it would be fine. However, the green industry is given tax credits (a direct transfer of tax dollars - not a deduction against profits). See my prior post #134.

 

[nbryan]

I'm in Northern Ontario and I still remember the summer that we had a complete blackout for 3 days because too many people in Southern Ontario turned their air conditioners on.

So what is going to happen when everyone has their vehicles plugged in too?

I'm in Northern Ontario and I still remember the summer that we had a complete blackout for 3 days because too many people in Southern Ontario turned their air conditioners on.

So what is going to happen when everyone has their vehicles plugged in too?

They're working on that. Electric vehicle batteries can and are being put to use as backup or surge supply power storage for local power generation as needed. With enough electric vehicles plugged into a modified grid system there would be no power more outages in your area.
The problem lies with power companies monopolizing access to generate power supplies other than their centralized system of huge remote power plants.

 

[Jchonline]

The characterizations in the linked piece are at best inaccurate. Essentially, fossil fuel companies are given some favorable tax/accounting treatment to allow and encourage increased production, and this increased production increases supply and reduces the cost to the consumer.

If the green industry was only given those types of benefits, it would be fine. However, the green industry is given tax credits (a direct transfer of tax dollars - not a deduction against profits). See my prior post #134.

You arent thinking history. Early on in the oil and gas industry they were given major benefits by governments. They no longer have them because they are mature. I think if you compare Oil/gas in its first 30 years to wind/solar now you will see similar favoritism. Not saying I agree with any of it. I am not a fan of any government subsidies.

I still havent seen any links/articles/evidence to refute oil and gas industry was not given historical subsidies. All you say is the link I posted is inaccurate, but you offer no alternative. I did read your post above, but again I think you are comparing oil/gas of today with solar/wind of today. I dont think that is a fair comparison.

Again I am open to being wrong but you can't just "say" it. We all need proof so we can learn.

 

[Jchonline]

They're working on that. Electric vehicle batteries can and are being put to use as backup or surge supply power storage for local power generation as needed. With enough electric vehicles plugged into a modified grid system there would be no power more outages in your area.
The problem lies with power companies monopolizing access to generate power supplies other than their centralized system of huge remote power plants.

Ford is doing just that with the Lightning. 100kwh of battery storage that can be tied back to your home for battery backup. Of course you would loose the ability to drive anywhere.... but shelter in place is probably a better option in most scenarios.

Who knows in 20 years I might entertain a EV truck..we will see where the tech matures. Basically it needs to haul as much as far (or farther) in the same environment as my F250 diesel...then I will consider it. Right now its a huge no.

 

[Elliott in GA]

You arent thinking history. Early on in the oil and gas industry they were given major benefits by governments. They no longer have them because they are mature. I think if you compare Oil/gas in its first 30 years to wind/solar now you will see similar favoritism. Not saying I agree with any of it. I am not a fan of any government subsidies.

I still havent seen any links/articles/evidence to refute oil and gas industry was not given historical subsidies. All you say is the link I posted is inaccurate, but you offer no alternative.

Again I am open to being wrong but you can't just "say" it. We all need proof so we can learn.

Your article describes past/current these subsidies/incentives, and they take the form of favorable tax treatment (usually accelerated deduction against profits). Again, I would be fine with this type of treatment for the green industry as I would for any potentially useful industry.

However, the Green industry receives tax credits (not deductions). Tax credits are a direct transfer of money from tax payers to the recipient - not a deduction against profits. The difference should be obvious.

The implication of the difference should also be patent. The normal business incentives of favorable tax treatment are insufficient for the green industry; the green industry requires a very different and much, much more valuable incentive at the expense of tax payers. In the long run, fossil fuel producers pay taxes (to the extent corporations pay taxes) on all of their profits - no net loss to the treasury/tax payers. With tax credits, this loss to the treasury/tax payers is never recouped.

 

[Deleted member 47704]

Im surprised and not surprised by the Debbie downers and negativity in this thread. I find it interesting that people can’t be open the potential and the possibilities of new technologies and only can think negatively. With narrow mindsets like that we’d still be using horses on dirt paths.

The move toward electric vehicles is a knee jerk reaction to a natural occurrence.Its a political move.If you take away the tax incentives and start charging road tax on electric cars, no one would buy them.
The issue is carbon, the idea is to tax carbon not eliminate it. Carbon capture will eliminate it making the electric car obsolete.

Its been proven humans can not handle nuclear power. Its dirty and expensive. No one has learned from Three Mile Island,Chernobyl and Fukushima.

 

[Rdrcr]

Who knows in 20 years I might entertain a EV truck..we will see where the tech matures. Basically it needs to haul as much as far (or farther) in the same environment as my F250 diesel...then I will consider it. Right now its a huge no.

And, be able to get a full charge in a matter of minutes…and for the battery to last as long, or outlast the life of the vehicle…and be somewhat safe for the environment when the vehicle and battery is retired.

Mike

 

[Jchonline]

Your article describes past/current these subsidies/incentives, and they take the form of favorable tax treatment (usually accelerated deduction against profits). Again, I would be fine with this type of treatment for the green industry as I would for any potentially useful industry.

However, the Green industry receives tax credits (not deductions). Tax credits are a direct transfer of money from tax payers to the recipient - not a deduction against profits. The difference should be obvious.

The implication of the difference should also be patent. The normal business incentives of favorable tax treatment are insufficient for the green industry; the green industry requires a very different and much, much more valuable incentive at the expense of tax payers. In the long run, fossil fuel producers pay taxes (to the extent corporations pay taxes) on all of their profits - no net loss to the treasury/tax payers. With tax credits, this loss to the treasury/tax payers is never recouped.

This looks like tax credit to me.

Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.

 

[Jchonline]

And, be able to get a full charge in a matter of minutes…and for the battery to last as long, or outlast the life of the vehicle…and be somewhat safe for the environment when the vehicle and battery is retired.

Mike

Batteries can be replaced...I am not worried about them lasting as long as the vehicle..but current Lithium batteries will last up to 15 years. They will get better.

These are deep cycle for off grid use, but they are LFP so they can be adopted to vehicles.

https://www.blueplanetenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Blue-Planet-Energy_Blue-Ion-HI_Spec-Sheet_EMAIL.pdf

 

[Elliott in GA]

This looks like tax credit to me.

Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.

This tax credit was to stimulate the energy production from non-traditional sources (oil shale, tar sands, coal liquefaction and etc.); it was not a tax credit for traditional coal production.

However, you are correct it was a tax credit, and I am opposed to it. Thankfully, it was short lived and relatively modest in size.

It does serve an important function; it shows the futility/waste of such tax credits. It did not accomplish anything useful, and the ever improving technology exceeded all of the goals of this tax credit after it expired. Funding research with grants can be a good thing, but just issuing tax credits is a very poor/inefficient way to make progress.

A small example of government stupidity towards the fossil fuel industry does not change the fact that the entire current USA green industry is built on this type of mistake.

 

[Jchonline]

This tax credit was to stimulate the energy production from non-traditional sources (oil shale, tar sands, coal liquefaction and etc.); it was not a tax credit for traditional coal production.

However, you are correct it was a tax credit, and I am opposed to it. Thankfully, it was short lived and relatively modest in size.

It does serve an important function; it shows the futility/waste of such tax credits. It did not accomplish anything useful, and the ever improving technology exceeded all of the goals of this tax credit after it expired. Funding research with grants can be a good thing, but just issuing tax credits is a very poor/inefficient way to make progress.

A small example of government stupidity towards the fossil fuel industry does not change the fact that the entire current USA green industry is built on this type of mistake.

I agree with everything you are saying, but I am in no way giving the fossil fuel industry a break. There are many, many examples of favoritism and I am sure I can dig up pages of other tax credits/ financial incentives that amount to government handouts over the past 70 years.

 

[DaveFromMi]

Well here is what California thinks of nuclear energy. Their last plant going offline soon.

The nuclear option can keep the lights on in California

Reevaluating the future of Diablo Canyon is the obvious place to start.

www-ocregister-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Deleted member 47704]

Well here is what California thinks of nuclear energy. Their last plant going offline soon.

The nuclear option can keep the lights on in California

Reevaluating the future of Diablo Canyon is the obvious place to start.

www-ocregister-com.cdn.ampproject.org

They need more Geothermal generation.

 

[DaveFromMi]

Not sure what California's plan is, but near future rolling blackouts at dusk will be the reality.
It seems that this is the plan.

 

[NHSleddog]

...
Its been proven humans can not handle nuclear power. Its dirty and expensive. No one has learned from Three Mile Island,Chernobyl and Fukushima.

LOL patently false.

There are over 400 active nuclear plants around the world TODAY making power at full scale RIGHT NOW.

And you listed 3 accidents that a TON of things were learned from that won't/can't happen again in the same way.

3 mile island built in 1968 (52 years ago before computers before solid state PLCs) ran until 1979 when it had a valve failure causing the reactor containment to fail. The three other plants using the same valve configuration re-engineered and replaced them. That is a specific lesson learned on your first example.

Chernobyl built in 1977 had a combination of failures that led to the disaster. Not that russian vodka and nuclear power don't mix, but really, I don't think they mix. If the plant were built to todays standards the same event could not occur the same way again.

Fukushima built in 1971 had a generator below sea level on a coast of a country that gets periodic tidal waves. Honestly, this one should have been seen in advance, however still the lesson was learned.

A couple quick facts.

Last year more people died from.
Solar power,
Wind power,
Coal power,
NG power.
Than died from Nuclear power. Fact - look it up.



Nuclear: In an average year nobody would die. A death rate of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour means it would take 14 years before a single person would die.
If you remove the transmission line related deaths directly around the nuclear plants, the number goes even lower.

Take a few minutes and watch this, it has a lot of enlightening information in it.

 

[Deleted member 47704]

LOL patently false.

There are over 400 active nuclear plants around the world TODAY making power at full scale RIGHT NOW.

And you listed 3 accidents that a TON of things were learned from that won't/can't happen again in the same way.

3 mile island built in 1968 (52 years ago before computers before solid state PLCs) ran until 1979 when it had a valve failure causing the reactor containment to fail. The three other plants using the same valve configuration re-engineered and replaced them. That is a specific lesson learned on your first example.

Chernobyl built in 1977 had a combination of failures that led to the disaster. Not that russian vodka and nuclear power don't mix, but really, I don't think they mix. If the plant were built to todays standards the same event could not occur the same way again.

Fukushima built in 1971 had a generator below sea level on a coast of a country that gets periodic tidal waves. Honestly, this one should have been seen in advance, however still the lesson was learned.

A couple quick facts.

Last year more people died from.
Solar power,
Wind power,
Coal power,
NG power.
Than died from Nuclear power. Fact - look it up.



Nuclear: In an average year nobody would die. A death rate of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour means it would take 14 years before a single person would die.
If you remove the transmission line related deaths directly around the nuclear plants, the number goes even lower.

Take a few minutes and watch this, it has a lot of enlightening information in it.

Nukes are a terrorists dream.One sabotaged reactor would kill hundreds of thousands in one shot.
We are running out of room for spent fuel.

Clean energy has to be cradle to grave clean, nuclear is far from it.You can clean up carbon you can't clean up radiation, we don't have Nukeaway to clean it up.

You can remove a dam and in 20 years you would never know it was there.Can't do that with nukes.
and no one knows the the damage done by the above accidents, the cancer and mutatations from it is unknown and conveniently swept under the rug.

The current push for electric vehicles is political.Its not needed.