A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hybrid car cost of ownership



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 7th 05, 06:23 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

B. Peg wrote:

> Mostly because American buyers want large vehicles (fat people can't fit
> well in small cars, ya know) and to haul large (take it anyway you want)
> families around. If they made a hybrid SUV, then they will come - and kick
> the price of gas to $4-5 gallon too.



I've said all along that Toyota and Honda blew it by introducing hybrid
small cars first. The Ford Escape hybrid is a step in the right
direction, but its still too small. Something the size of a Durango or
Tahoe is the perfect vehicle for a hybrid to have the maximum advantage
over a conventional drivetrain. Any bigger, and the battery pack would
dominate the whole vehicle, any smaller and the advantage over
conventional just doesn't justify the cost (as was CLEARLY the case with
the first-gen the Prius- the contemporary Echo got better mileage with
the A/C running than the Prius did.)

Ads
  #22  
Old March 7th 05, 06:27 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Del Rosso wrote:


> Is their plan to tax gas more if the vehicle has high mileage??? That seems
> backwards even for them.
>
>


Of course, didn't you see that coming? It happens all the time:

Tax the fire out of cigarettes to "discourage" smoking and rake in
reveue.... then the amount of people who smoke really DOES go down and
"whoops! Not enough tax revenue, gotta open a new revenue stream."

Tax the snot out of gasoline, people go buy efficient cars, and "whoops!
Not enough gasoline tax revenue, better start charging people by how
many miles they drive to recover revenue."
  #23  
Old March 7th 05, 06:29 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JazzMan wrote:

> Bob Paulin wrote:
>
>
>>Of course. now that it has been established that hybrids will use less fuel
>>- thus pay fewer fuel/road taxes - Big Brother has proposed that ALL cars
>>be equipped with spyware - er, monitoring devices - which will determine
>>how many miles have been driven in order to tax the car owner by-the-mile.
>>
>>Of course, "absolutely nothing else" would ever be monitored - such as
>>speeds driven, locations driven to, etc., etc......
>>
>>One has to wonder why the government is so enthuisiastic about hybrids.
>>When was the last time YOU heard ANY politician praise a program which will
>>result in fewer taxes collected?
>>
>>Could such monitoring of the general population be but a single reason?

>
>
>
> What's really funny is that because the CAFE standards have
> been frozen at 1980's levels and with the burgeoning sales
> of gas-sucking SUVs the actual amount of taxes being collected
> per vehicle mile are higher now than they ever have been. So,
> where's all the extra money going? It's being siphoned off to
> pay for invasions of other countries and trying to make up
> the shortfalls caused by the massive tax cuts awarded the
> wealthiest people in the country.


<coughBULL****cough>

  #24  
Old March 7th 05, 06:56 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



JazzMan wrote:

> What's really funny is that because the CAFE standards have
> been frozen at 1980's levels and with the burgeoning sales
> of gas-sucking SUVs the actual amount of taxes being collected
> per vehicle mile are higher now than they ever have been. So,
> where's all the extra money going? It's being siphoned off to
> pay for invasions of other countries and trying to make up
> the shortfalls caused by the massive tax cuts awarded the
> wealthiest people in the country. Follow the money, that's
> the key, and the money goes to the hydrocarbon fuels industry.


From http://www.house.gov/mica/projhwygastax.htm :

"From December 1990 until October 1997, and in response
to large federal budget deficits, Congress returned a
portion of the gasoline excise tax to general revenues.
This meant that funds from the gas tax were being spent for
purposes other than transportation.

"Congress passed the Transportation Efficiency Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998. This landmark
legislation "locked in" the Highway Trust Fund, meaning that
the federal gas tax revenues can only be spent on highway
and transit needs rather than on a myriad of other spending
items through the general fund.

"Currently the federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4
cents per gallon. One tenth of one cent (0.1 cents) per
gallon is dedicated to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund. 2.86 cents per gallon (about 15%) is allocated
for mass transit purposes and is earmarked to the Mass
Transit Account within the Highway Trust Fund. The balance,
15.44 cents per gallon, is earmarked to the Highway Account,
which is also within the Highway Trust Fund.

"Since fiscal year 1997, federal gasoline taxes have
generated over $20 billion per year for the Highway Trust
Fund. Through a formula set by Congress, a portion of the
Highway Trust Fund is returned to each state each year for
various transportation and infrastructure projects."

Ed
  #25  
Old March 7th 05, 08:19 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pete C. wrote:

> More comments below...
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>A few comments below...

>>
>>>Other that then environmentally clean but paranoia inducing power
>>>produced by nuclear plants, the remaining bulk of US power production is
>>>coming from pollutant belching coal fired plants.

>>
>>The bulk of pollution coming out of coal plants these days is CO2 which
>>is of importance to the greenhouse effect. But the pollution controls on
>>coal plants today are very serious. Much better maintained that what's on
>>a typical car.


Yes, the biggest single emission from a "clean" coal plant is CO2,
however even the cleanest coal plant puts out oxides of sulfur and
particulates in the range of many TONS per year. And a little-known bit
of trivia is that the average coal plant releases more radioactivity
directly into the environment each year than a nuke plant (naturally
occuring radioisotopes are found in coal deposits and aren't normally
separated, and they get out in the particulates that get through the
scrubbers, as well as being present in the fly-ash captured by the
scrubbers, which must be disposed of itself).

I'm worried that we're sneaking up on a quiet power crisis in the US.
Right now, about 20% of the US power grid is supplied by nuclear plants.
The last nuclear plant to go on-line did so over 20 years ago. The
oldest nuke plants are coming up on the age where they simply have to be
shut down, or else heavily re-invested and the enviro-nuts won't allow
new construction or heavy re-investment in nuclear power. So even if
demand were to hold constant (it won't its growing) that means that
greenhouse gas production will ramp up by order of 20% as the nukes are
taken offline. Wind power is the only alternative that's made anything
of a dent, because the same enviro-nuts that would rather breathe coal
fumes than have a new nuclear plant will not accept new dams for
hydroelectric power, and in fact want to tear down several of the most
productive hydroelectric plants in the US as well.


  #26  
Old March 7th 05, 08:46 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Steve wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > More comments below...
> >
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >>"Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>A few comments below...
> >>
> >>>Other that then environmentally clean but paranoia inducing power
> >>>produced by nuclear plants, the remaining bulk of US power production is
> >>>coming from pollutant belching coal fired plants.
> >>
> >>The bulk of pollution coming out of coal plants these days is CO2 which
> >>is of importance to the greenhouse effect. But the pollution controls on
> >>coal plants today are very serious. Much better maintained that what's on
> >>a typical car.

>
> Yes, the biggest single emission from a "clean" coal plant is CO2,
> however even the cleanest coal plant puts out oxides of sulfur and
> particulates in the range of many TONS per year. And a little-known bit
> of trivia is that the average coal plant releases more radioactivity
> directly into the environment each year than a nuke plant (naturally
> occuring radioisotopes are found in coal deposits and aren't normally
> separated, and they get out in the particulates that get through the
> scrubbers, as well as being present in the fly-ash captured by the
> scrubbers, which must be disposed of itself).
>
> I'm worried that we're sneaking up on a quiet power crisis in the US.
> Right now, about 20% of the US power grid is supplied by nuclear plants.
> The last nuclear plant to go on-line did so over 20 years ago. The
> oldest nuke plants are coming up on the age where they simply have to be
> shut down, or else heavily re-invested and the enviro-nuts won't allow
> new construction or heavy re-investment in nuclear power. So even if
> demand were to hold constant (it won't its growing) that means that
> greenhouse gas production will ramp up by order of 20% as the nukes are
> taken offline. Wind power is the only alternative that's made anything
> of a dent, because the same enviro-nuts that would rather breathe coal
> fumes than have a new nuclear plant will not accept new dams for
> hydroelectric power, and in fact want to tear down several of the most
> productive hydroelectric plants in the US as well.


I've heard larger numbers than 20% from nuke currently.

Either way I stand by my point that from a
reality/technology/practicality standpoint we need to replace the
coal/oil/NG plants with current generation nuke plants to buy some time
and then start to replace the old nuke plants with renewable sources as
practical.

By the time the current generation nuke plants are coming to the end of
their useful life hopefully the renewable source technologies will be
advanced and debugged enough to take up the slack.

Also to add something on the original topic, the fundamental problem to
be overcome with electric and hybrid vehicles is that even if brought up
to full production levels they will still cost more for a less capable
vehicle compared to conventional technology.

A second and somewhat related issue is that there needs to be tax and
insurance reform to allow people to have a second high MPG vehicle to
use for general commuting without a cost penalty.

I have a large pickup that I *need* for various hauling tasks, I
certainly don't need to use it for grocery runs or general commuting
however the additional cost in taxes and insurance to have a second high
MPG vehicle for those tasks would vastly exceed any gas cost savings
even if gas prices were to triple.

Pete C.
  #27  
Old March 8th 05, 04:20 AM
JazzMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pete C. wrote:
>
> The paranoid anti nuke folks will of course try to hype anything they
> can to get attention, but that does not make the terrorist threat any
> more legitimate than most of their other arguments.
>
> I'll note that in all the decades of nuclear energy production there has
> only been one truly significant accident in the entire world - Chernobyl


Don't forget these:

http://www.nci.org/i/ib10499.htm
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10179.html

A few others:
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch.../accident.html

I like that "...there has only been one truly significant accident
in the entire world...", except for the others, that is. LOL! There
have been thousands of smaller accidents that resulted in little
to no radiation release to the envirnment, but to ignore those is
the exact same thing as ignoring the shuttle tiles that were damaged
by foam in the years before Columbia. Nothing made by man is perfect.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********
  #28  
Old March 8th 05, 05:13 AM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



JazzMan wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > The paranoid anti nuke folks will of course try to hype anything they
> > can to get attention, but that does not make the terrorist threat any
> > more legitimate than most of their other arguments.
> >
> > I'll note that in all the decades of nuclear energy production there has
> > only been one truly significant accident in the entire world - Chernobyl

>
> Don't forget these:
>
> http://www.nci.org/i/ib10499.htm
> http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10179.html
>
> A few others:
> http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch.../accident.html
>
> I like that "...there has only been one truly significant accident
> in the entire world...", except for the others, that is. LOL! There
> have been thousands of smaller accidents that resulted in little
> to no radiation release to the envirnment, but to ignore those is
> the exact same thing as ignoring the shuttle tiles that were damaged
> by foam in the years before Columbia. Nothing made by man is perfect.


And that is exactly incorrect. If there was little to no radiation
release it just proves that the safety systems *did* work. Just because
it feed someone's paranoia does not make it a significant accident.

The accidents are not ignored either, the lessons learned from them are
incorporated into the next generation reactor designs. This is no
different than the lessons learned from aircraft accidents and auto
accidents with exception that in those accidents people get killed.

To imply that because there were accidents the whole idea of nuclear
energy should be scrapped is utterly ridiculous and just the mentality
of the paranoid anti nuke loonies. If the same illogic were applied
elsewhere we would have no aircraft, no cars, etc.

Half a dozen planes crashed, lets ban them all! A hundred cars crashed,
lets ban them all! Total nonsense...

Planes crash, the causes are studied and changes are incorporated in
other planes to prevent the same accident from occurring again. Cars
crash and the causes are studied and changes are incorporated to help
prevent them. The shuttle blew up twice and both times the causes were
studied, changes made and the shuttle flew (or will fly) again. This is
how progress is made.

Pete C.



>
> JazzMan
> --
> ************************************************** ********
> Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
> Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
> ************************************************** ********
> "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
> supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
> live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
> ************************************************** ********

  #29  
Old March 8th 05, 05:18 AM
y_p_w
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Pete C. wrote:

> Technically true although a relatively small factor, also the OP was
> implying that a power plant located far away from a city would somehow
> be less polluting.


That wasn't quite what I was getting at. City centers and suburbs
are polluted as it is. A remotely located powerplant can relocate
the pollution to a place that's less impacted. Of course now with
suburban sprawl, there aren't that many places that aren't reasonably
impacted by pollution.
  #30  
Old March 8th 05, 05:24 AM
y_p_w
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Steve wrote:

> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
>
>> Is their plan to tax gas more if the vehicle has high mileage??? That
>> seems
>> backwards even for them.
>>
>>

>
> Of course, didn't you see that coming? It happens all the time:
>
> Tax the fire out of cigarettes to "discourage" smoking and rake in
> reveue.... then the amount of people who smoke really DOES go down and
> "whoops! Not enough tax revenue, gotta open a new revenue stream."
>
> Tax the snot out of gasoline, people go buy efficient cars, and "whoops!
> Not enough gasoline tax revenue, better start charging people by how
> many miles they drive to recover revenue."


It was kind of strange how it worked with regulated energy utilities.
They created customer credits and incentives to purchase more efficient
electrical appliances, and as a result were allowed to increase rates
to make up for a lower demand for power.

Of course that went all batty when California deregulated its power.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lowest cost per cubic foot cargo space in passenger vans = Chevy Express Van [email protected] General 0 January 13th 05 03:59 PM
Factors to consider when ordering Accord Hybrid? stillsman Honda 13 January 4th 05 06:56 AM
Civic Hybrid [email protected] Honda 8 December 12th 04 05:38 PM
Lower total ownership cost? (USA) Mark Carroll General 0 November 24th 04 06:25 AM
Hybrid autos don't make economic sense lgcharlot General 3 October 16th 04 02:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.