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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
fireater > wrote in part:
>the >average businessman driving to work in a 30 storey building needs to pay >a guzzler tax... dont ask me how to incorporate it but still it needs to >be done. Gas guzzlers are sometimes the only way to do a job and sometimes are just plain wasteful. The regulatory doofuses will keep imposing credits and oddball special rules (like CAFE) until our "leaders" face the facts and phase in a large tax on oil and gasoline. Then people can just make their own decisions re cars based on their needs and costs. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
John Horner wrote:
> As usual, our government is being far more complex and tricky than is > neccessary or sufficient to achieve the desired goals. > > If the goal is to dramatically reduce petroleum consumption, simply tax > the heck out of it. This is working with cigarettes. > > CAFE, hybrid tax-credits, special car-pool lane privledges and all the > rest are the kinds on answers lawyers, accountants and politicians love > .... but they are not the kind of answers which get the job done best. > > Keep It Simple, Stupid ... raise the gasoline and diesel taxes by > $.25/quarter over a three year period of time to give people time to > adapt. At the end of that time you would have $3.00/gallon of > additional tax revenue to spend on next generation transportation > infrastructure and the users would change their behavior accordingly. > > Sadly, simple, effective solutions rarely get implemented! > > John And when companies and their owners start holding on to every penny even harder than they are now in response to health insurance premiums escalating and coverage decreasing at every contract renewal, how stagnant do you think the economy will become? And what will happen when the returns in taxes aren't there because the economy has stagnated as a direct result of the tax that was supposed to have the opposite effect? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney > wrote in part:
>And when companies and their owners start holding on to every penny even >harder than they are now in response to health insurance premiums >escalating and coverage decreasing at every contract renewal, how >stagnant do you think the economy will become? And what will happen >when the returns in taxes aren't there because the economy has stagnated >as a direct result of the tax that was supposed to have the opposite effect? Uh...the tax should be offset by a decrease in other taxes, of course. The point is to use the tax to reduce a severe dependence on a foreign resource and the related environmental damage. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
N8N wrote:
> FanJet wrote: >> Jonathan Race wrote: >>> Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to >>> increase fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce >>> emissions. Since the most emissions are generated in slow speed >>> stop-and-go driving, the use of an electric motor for that type of >>> movement reduces emissions on these vehicles to somewhere between >>> 1/2 and 1/3 of the amount a non-hybrid version of the same vehicle >>> produces. >>> Cheers - Jonathan >>> >>> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> What a ripoff to we taxpayers who pay extra taxes so tax giveaways >>>> are given to rich people who buy expensive hybrids that actually >>>> guzzle more gasoline than regular cars you and I are destined to >>>> purchase! Write your Congressperson today and tell her/him just >>>> how you feel about getting the shaft without the benefit of K-Y >>>> Jelly. If a hybrid doesn't get at least 15% better gas economy, >>>> than it >>>> does with its battery removed, tax it double for extra damage it >>>> does to the economy and Nation by using a lot of >>>> contaminating elements in it's battery pak. >> >> Lemee see, there's only *one* source of energy for these vehicles. >> Anyone surprised at the real outcome? BTW, one doesn't run around >> town on electric power for long before the gasoline engine is needed >> to charge the batteries that are powering the electric motor. There >> ain't no free lunch. > > Well, if the hybrid uses regenerative braking, it's entirely possible > that it will get better economy in stop and go driving. > > nate How's that? To use regenerative braking, the car needs to be moving. Gasoline is required to get the car moving either from a gasoline charged battery or directly from the gasoline powered engine. There are considerable losses involved in converting gasoline to electricity and the reverse. If the manufacturers really are saving energy with Hybrids, they could do exactly the same thing with gasoline only powered vehicles. In fact, they should be able to do better since these vehicles wouldn't be carting extra batteries, a heavy electric motor and assorted control doodads around. I think Hybrids buyers are being had. On the other hand, they are probably funding some research that may prove useful in the future so it might not be all bad. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nomen Nescio wrote: > What a ripoff to we taxpayers who pay extra taxes so tax giveaways are > given to rich people who buy expensive hybrids that actually guzzle more > gasoline than regular cars you and I are destined to purchase! We do this all the time with other things, to get the public to start using new technologies. Let me guess - the last refirgerator or water heater you bought you decided to NOT get the rebate from the energy company? Lol. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
John Horner wrote:
> Jonathan Race wrote: >> Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to >> increase fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce >> emissions. Since the most emissions are generated in slow speed >> stop-and-go driving, the use of an electric motor for that type of >> movement reduces emissions on these vehicles to somewhere between >> 1/2 and 1/3 of the amount a non-hybrid version of the same vehicle >> produces. Cheers - Jonathan > > > I doubt that the reduction in emissions is any greater than the > improvement in fuel economy. The logic seems to be fundamentally > flawed. Burning fuel is where emissions start in the first place. If > you aren't burning significantly less fuel, how are you generating > significantly fewer emissions? > > John It's as though adding a bunch of batteries, an electric motor/generator & all the electronics to run them results in a significant saving that wouldn't be realized if an equivalent effort were made to the gasoline engine only vehicle. Really doesn't make much sense. Basically, it takes X amount of energy to get a vehicle moving and then to keep it moving. Whether gasoline engine only or today's 'hybrid', all of that energy comes from gasoline. The only possible savings must come from an increased efficiency of the hybrid. No doubt, the same increase in efficiency could be realized, and just as easily, from a gasoline engine only powered vehicle. Not as glitzy though and, of course, no "free" federal $$ involved. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:
> How's that? To use regenerative braking, the car needs to be moving. Brakes produce heat. That's wasted energy. During normal braking, a Ford Escape Hybrid doesn't use the brakes at all for the majority of the braking. What would be wasted as heat is captured to the batteries. Cars.com: "To test this claim, I poked my finger through the spokes and touched the discs after 30 minutes of stop-and-go driving. The front ones were cold to slightly warm. The rear discs were searing hot, though, which makes sense because the rear wheels don't perform regenerative braking." When the dam was built at Lake Shasta in the late 40's, the downhill conveyor belts used to haul excavated rock from the dam site down to the onsite concrete plant were slowed by conventional brakes which burned out frequently. These were replaced with motor generators that in turn power most of the construction project. The school bus in Point Arena, CA, had a bank of resistors at the front of the bus, tied to generators on a PTO. Going downhill, the PTO generated heat, wasted out those resistors, and didn't use the brakes at all. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Credit Card Scam -- should I cancel my card?? | Dan | Chrysler | 1 | March 1st 05 04:25 AM |
Credit where credit's due | Scott Adams | Saturn | 0 | January 28th 05 10:41 PM |