Tow Vehicle Total Cost of Ownership

[jcl]

Originally Posted by kscherzi

I would calculate total cost of ownership by comparing price of Airstream less resale divided by nights camped. Of course resale is an estimate until its actually sold. With over 450 nights camped in my trailer purchased new in 2013, I'm at about $25 per night. Add in another $25 average paid for campsites and its about $50/night. Cheaper than a motel, and in many nicer places. Truck is what it is, it fits in my garage, a F150 ecoboost. Averaged 13.7 mpg on a 2,700 round trip to Arizona and back, I'm okay with that.

It was sunny with a high of 62 degrees today, think I'll drive up the hill to the snow near Tahoe and let the dog for a run while I'm in snowshoes tomorrow. Just got another foot of fresh snow. Taking the trailer to the local Indian Casino RV park in a couple weeks.

That sounds great, on all counts!

The snow came early here today so I missed my bike ride. I will ride in -4C, but not in the city in fresh snow.

[jcl]

Bosch didn’t remove all traces of their “clean diesel” campaign. This page is still around, but not updated from 2015

https://www.facebook.com/BoschCleanDiesel/

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

My deception?

The following link isn’t a scientific article. It is posted to provide historical context. Essentially, the world recognized years ago that “clean diesel” was an oxymoron. Well, most of the world, certainly the automakers, and their Tier 1 suppliers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/o...an-diesel.html

The deception was on several levels

1) Associating a vehicle total cost study to a "Clean Diesel" campaign. The two topics are unrelated.

2) Claiming the "Clean Diesel" slogan Bosch began using in 2013 and sill uses today had any part in the 2008-2015 Volkswagen TDI emissions control cheating scandal. There is no relationship. The timescale is off.

3) Claiming Bosch was found guilty of "Fraud" for their claims in 2013 of "Clean Diesel" and in 2018 claiming technology capable of producing diesel exhaust cleaner than the intake air. This is false. Bosch was fined for knowing of VW's plans to cheat emissions and supplying components with software interfaces specified by VW capable of enabling the cheat.

4) Claiming the study is somehow invalid due to guilt by association to a narrative that is false.

5) Claiming the slogan "Clean Diesel" has been abandoned by the vehicle industry, it is still in use

6) Implying modern Diesel engines are not clean. They now emit 10 times less particulate matter than gasoline engines.

[ROBERT CROSS]

Clean overweight dinosaurs, well on their way to extinction....again.

Bob
🇺🇸

[BayouBiker]

And apparently doing so all the way to the bank to deposit that savings!

[Bill M.]

Hard to predict ownership costs over 6 years because it is hard to predict the future. When I bought my diesel there was a over supply and under demand. I paid the same as I would have for a gas engine. On our first long trip (to Alaska) fuel was $5.00 a gallon or higher. The 40% reduction seemed like it meant a lot. Then diesel and gasoline dropped so much it seems it had no value. Now I expect both to go up considerably.
It seems that resale value after 6 years drives the equation. I have had my diesel 14 years now and hope it lasts a little longer.
What I do know is that it has been a great TV over that time.

[DewTheDew]

Originally Posted by jcl

The fundamental difference is that lithium is used, and not consumed. Lithium can be a component of a BEV battery pack and function for many years. Then it can be recycled. You should focus on cobalt, at least until new battery chemistries eliminate it.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are consumed. And not cleanly.

This is a point I feel is very important and not well understood (or perhaps it is just ignored). Recycling of battery materials is improving all the time so most of those materials need only be mined once and they do not go away. They are recycled and re-used. That means the mining costs and impacts will reduce with time. Thank you for bringing that up.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DewTheDew

This is a point I feel is very important and not well understood (or perhaps it is just ignored). Recycling of battery materials is improving all the time so most of those materials need only be mined once and they do not go away. They are recycled and re-used. That means the mining costs and impacts will reduce with time. Thank you for bringing that up.

I had someone bring up with me the value of some oil-based product, and say that we obviously need fossil fuels. He didn’t distinguish between using the product, which wasn’t consumed during use and lasted a long time, with burning it.

I commented that oil was too valuable to just burn it. He looked blank.

It is endemic.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Bill M.

Hard to predict ownership costs over 6 years because it is hard to predict the future. When I bought my diesel there was a over supply and under demand. I paid the same as I would have for a gas engine. On our first long trip (to Alaska) fuel was $5.00 a gallon or higher. The 40% reduction seemed like it meant a lot. Then diesel and gasoline dropped so much it seems it had no value. Now I expect both to go up considerably.
It seems that resale value after 6 years drives the equation. I have had my diesel 14 years now and hope it lasts a little longer.
What I do know is that it has been a great TV over that time.

If you got 14 years out of it you don’t need a TCO analysis. Especially if you didn’t lay a premium upon acquisition. Enjoy it.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by DewTheDew

This is a point I feel is very important and not well understood (or perhaps it is just ignored). Recycling of battery materials is improving all the time so most of those materials need only be mined once and they do not go away. They are recycled and re-used. That means the mining costs and impacts will reduce with time. Thank you for bringing that up.

It may be that is not understood or ignored by those who may be more concerned about toxic pollution from mineral salts or it could be that your perception of the sources and supplies for lithium and cobalt and other rare earth mineral is distorted.

I urge you to look at the ever growing production of these metals and minerals and compare it to the supply provided by recycling. Then I would suggest you do the same for other heavy and rare metals and minerals that were a concern in the past and where the recycling claim was also made. Platinum for catalytic converters and large scale chemical catalysis needs is a good analog. You will see that now after 35-45 years, recycling remains a very small portion of the total supply of this rare metal. Industrial gold is another good example, even copper. No matter where you look, the real world does not comport with your perception. Perhaps the problem is the perception is in error.

The same situation seems to be in play for those with the perception that fossil fuels are too valuable to use as fuel. Are the owners of that petroleum not seeing the obvious? If it has value beyond use as fuel wouldn't they be saving it and instead securing loans against that massive future value to thrive today to a far greater extent than if they simply sold it at todays low price? No, unfortunately the perception is the issue and petroleum has its highest value use to burn it today rather than save it.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

The deception was on several levels

1) Associating a vehicle total cost study to a "Clean Diesel" campaign. The two topics are unrelated.

<snip>

6) Implying modern Diesel engines are not clean. They now emit 10 times less particulate matter than gasoline engines.

Apparently you weren’t in the business, marketing diesels, clean or otherwise, in the 2010-2014 timeframe relevant for the study.

For (6), cleaner doesn’t equal clean. Particulates certainly aren’t the extent of the public health issues with diesel exhaust. But surely you know that. Certainly the manufacturers and regulators do, which is why so many of the diesels in that “clean diesel” study have been pulled from the market.

The market is itself resolving this dispute. It is only a problem when some perpetuate the false claims of 8 years ago. We are past that.

[wulfraat]

Originally Posted by DewTheDew;

This is a point I feel is very important and not well understood (or perhaps it is just ignored). Recycling of battery materials is improving all the time so most of those materials need only be mined once and they do not go away. They are recycled and re-used. That means the mining costs and impacts will reduce with time. Thank you for bringing that up.

Yup, like re-deployment as a Grid-Tie Energy Storage Systems to partially address increased grid demand in the future. Check out the research and thought leadership coming out of Dalhousie University (Dr. Lukas Swan) on this front. Good stuff from the canucks!

Since everyone here is so passionate about oil, I am sure you all read the latest news out of Shell this past week - where they announced that 2019 was their peak year for production, and that they now plan to reduce overall production by 55% in the next 10 years, while doubling the amount of electricity they sell across the same period.

This is not due to lack of natural resources, rather, economics and market demand that is shifting to electricity consumption.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g-term-decline

"End of an era" for Shell. (not my words)

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

The same situation seems to be in play for those with the perception that fossil fuels are too valuable to use as fuel. Are the owners of that petroleum not seeing the obvious? If it has value beyond use as fuel wouldn't they be saving it and instead securing loans against that massive future value to thrive today to a far greater extent than if they simply sold it at todays low price? No, unfortunately the perception is the issue and petroleum has its highest value use to burn it today rather than save it.

No, current producers are driven by the subsidies they have enjoyed. Remove those, as is apparently on the table, and the market will correct itself. Charge for the externalities, or reinstate regulations that have been gutted, or both, and watch the progress.

Loans are tougher to come by as financiers walk away. They can read the room.

Divesture works.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by wulfraat

Yup, like re-deployment as a Grid-Tie Energy Storage Systems to partially address increased grid demand in the future. Check out the research and thought leadership coming out of Dalhousie University (Dr. Lukas Swan) on this front. Good stuff from the canucks!

Since everyone here is so passionate about oil, I am sure you all read the latest news out of Shell this past week - where they announced that 2019 was their peak year for production, and that they now plan to reduce overall production by 55% in the next 10 years, while doubling the amount of electricity they sell across the same period.

This is not due to lack of natural resources, rather, economics and market demand that is shifting to electricity consumption.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g-term-decline

"End of an era" for Shell. (not my words)

We’ll see how Shell follows through, but it is an encouraging announcement.

BB scoffed at leaving oil in the ground, and in this thread asked why they are selling it cheaply now. So here is Shell saying they are last peak oil. Big news.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

Apparently you weren’t in the business, marketing diesels, clean or otherwise, in the 2010-2014 timeframe relevant for the study.

For (6), cleaner doesn’t equal clean. Particulates certainly aren’t the extent of the public health issues with diesel exhaust. But surely you know that. Certainly the manufacturers and regulators do, which is why so many of the diesels in that “clean diesel” study have been pulled from the market.

The market is itself resolving this dispute. It is only a problem when some perpetuate the false claims of 8 years ago. We are past that.

No reason to respond to this even if it were accurate as it is not relevant or responsive to the deception you attempted to try to discredit a valid study.

So we have a valid study confirming modern diesel vehicles show a lower total cost and we have additional data demonstrating they produce less polutants than the same vehicle with an equivalent gasoline engine. Diesel tow vehicles appear to be more popular than ever and there seems to be good explanations for the popularity.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by wulfraat

Yup, like re-deployment as a Grid-Tie Energy Storage Systems to partially address increased grid demand in the future. Check out the research and thought leadership coming out of Dalhousie University (Dr. Lukas Swan) on this front. Good stuff from the canucks!

Since everyone here is so passionate about oil, I am sure you all read the latest news out of Shell this past week - where they announced that 2019 was their peak year for production, and that they now plan to reduce overall production by 55% in the next 10 years, while doubling the amount of electricity they sell across the same period.

This is not due to lack of natural resources, rather, economics and market demand that is shifting to electricity consumption.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g-term-decline

"End of an era" for Shell. (not my words)

Shell is majority owned by a government committed to alternative energy so it consistent for them to be responsive to their owners.

A quick look at worldwide energy consumption will demonstrate that demand is not yet shifting to electricity production.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

We’ll see how Shell follows through, but it is an encouraging announcement.

BB scoffed at leaving oil in the ground, and in this thread asked why they are selling it cheaply now. So here is Shell saying they are last peak oil. Big news.

Shell did not announce they are planning to leave energy in the ground, once again you are changing the narrative to fit an alternate perception of the world.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

So we have a study paid for by a commercially motivated proponent of vehicles on one side of the study, reviewing 9 year old gas and diesel vehicles, that shows a lower total cost. While the study doesn’t match more recent studies using most of the same data sources we like this one.

Fixed it for you! Updates in red.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Shell did not announce they are planning to leave energy in the ground, once again you are changing the narrative to fit an alternate perception of the world.

When expansion projects are cancelled, the energy they would have produced is left in the ground. That is what not doing an expansion project means.

When current production is curtailed, and there are plans to run at a lower production level, some oil is left in the ground. That is what curtailing production means.

Is this a semantic argument that not all oil is being left in the ground, or that the wording of the announcements was different?

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

So we have a study paid for by a commercially motivated proponent of vehicles on one side of the study, reviewing 9 year old gas and diesel vehicles, that shows a lower total cost. While the study doesn’t match more recent studies using most of the same data sources we like this one.

Fixed it for you! Updates in red..

It's very rude of you to edit someone else's words even in jest.

The facts are that you agreed the study was not invalid and was not incorrect, and of course because it was peer review and the data and methods were provided so it can be replicated. This is the only study offered that was peer reviewed and the only one that can be tested and replicated. The other studies you mention used proprietary and undisclosed methods that cannot be tested independently. They also indicated two double dips in their brief introduction.

You are free to bring a testable and repeatable study to center the validated one if you wish. For now that is not the case.