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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FanJet wrote: > 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. It's real simple. In a gasoline powered car the energy used to accelerate a vehicle to whatever speed it achieves is basically lost forever, as when the vehicle coasts down or brakes the kinetic energy is converted into heat. With regenerative braking, some of it (theoretically all, but minus various losses and inefficiencies) gets converted back into electricity and stored in the batteries. Not a perfect system, but better efficiency-wise than a pure gasoline engine. In fact, it's city driving where hybrids can really shine. In steady state highway driving, it's a wash, with a slight advantage to the pure gasmotor due to lighter weight. nate |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
N8N wrote:
> FanJet wrote: >> 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. > > It's real simple. In a gasoline powered car the energy used to > accelerate a vehicle to whatever speed it achieves is basically lost > forever, as when the vehicle coasts down or brakes the kinetic energy > is converted into heat. With regenerative braking, some of it > (theoretically all, but minus various losses and inefficiencies) gets > converted back into electricity and stored in the batteries. Not a > perfect system, but better efficiency-wise than a pure gasoline > engine. In fact, it's city driving where hybrids can really shine. > In steady state highway driving, it's a wash, with a slight advantage > to the pure gasmotor due to lighter weight. > > nate It's not really all that simple and that is the basis for my gripe with the manufacturers. For example, you ignore the inefficiencies involved with converting the DC derived from the batteries to the AC required by the electric motor. Then additional inefficiencies when the AC is converted to mechanical energy by the electric motor. These inefficiencies generate heat which is wasted. Then there's the viable possibility of using a less expensive version of regenerative braking on a gasoline engine only powered car. Equipped with an ECU controlled alternator clutch, regenerative braking could be used to charge the car's battery. Using relatively simple technology, heat from the brakes could be used to assist in heating the passenger space too. There are many possibilities and some far less expensive than those used by current hybrids. However you look at it, none are as simplistic, clean, or effective as the manufacturers would have us believe. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
FanJet wrote:
> > > 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. > > And, the extra weight of the battery packs, electric motor and controllers all works against improved fuel economy. One also has to wonder how much more energy is consumed in the production process for all that extra complexity and how much pollution is created in the production process. John |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Race" > wrote in message ink.net... > Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to increase > fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce emissions. Wrong! Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to increase fuel economy more than a few MPG, but rather to INCREASE POWER, espically 0-60 accelleration. The fuel economy in MPG is the same, ful consumption is the same, you just get a higher rated HP. You didn't read No-man's article, I quote: "The Environmental Protection Agency puts the hybrid and non-hybrid Accords in the same emissions category." Next time read what your replying to. And yes, No-Man is correct, the tax credit needs to be revoked for these "green turbocharged" vehicles. Ted |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Jonathan Race" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to > > increase > >>fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce emissions. > > > Wrong! Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed > to increase fuel economy more than a few MPG, but rather to INCREASE > POWER, espically 0-60 accelleration. The fuel economy in MPG is the > same, ful consumption is the same, you just get a higher rated HP. > > You didn't read No-man's article, I quote: > > "The Environmental Protection Agency puts the hybrid and non-hybrid > Accords in the same emissions category." > > Next time read what your replying to. And yes, No-Man is correct, > the tax credit needs to be revoked for these "green turbocharged" vehicles. > > Ted > > i just think a larger gas guzzler tax needs to be invoked for these large suv's.... .. what needs does a person living in the city have for a huge expedition when a winstar does the same thing in town. I could see if you lived in a rural area or a contractor farmer etc but 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. |
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 |