Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

The#1Spot wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:


Or could put a $2 tax on it for every state in stead of only 7 currently.

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html
Given differences in costs of living between states, I can't support that.  It's easier for the average New Yorker to pay $2 extra per pack than for the average North Carolinian, because New Yorkers generally get paid more.

By the same token, the average person in Mississippi gets paid even less than someone here.
True but unlike the government they would have to cut spending in one area to be able to satisfy another.
Depending on the people to cut spending might be a better prospect than expecting the government to, so this is a good point....  Touche
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6651|Disaster Free Zone
You are in an economic downturn even recession... The Government should be spending SHIT LOADS of money to stimulate the economy. This is the WORST time to cut back. In the previous 20 years of economic boom the government should have been saving budget surpluses for times like now.

Hybrid cars are nothing but a marketing plow to make the company look 'green'. If you want a real solution invest in hydrogen fuel cells. Also if you think you are losing income because of fuel efficient cars (OMFG the Lols) increase the tax on petrol don't hit those who are doing the responsible thing with extra costs.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

You are in an economic downturn even recession... The Government should be spending SHIT LOADS of money to stimulate the economy. This is the WORST time to cut back. In the previous 20 years of economic boom the government should have been saving budget surpluses for times like now.
In theory, yes.  Surpluses are definitely a nice thing to be able to fall back on when times get rough.

Since this isn't the case, however, we don't really have the option of spending shitloads that we don't have.  Granted, the government is trying to do that anyway.  It's going to bite us in the ass pretty hard though.

DrunkFace wrote:

Hybrid cars are nothing but a marketing plow to make the company look 'green'. If you want a real solution invest in hydrogen fuel cells. Also if you think you are losing income because of fuel efficient cars (OMFG the Lols) increase the tax on petrol don't hit those who are doing the responsible thing with extra costs.
Electric cars have a lot of potential.  If we can greatly improve battery technology, they could become the premiere form of transportation in the near future.  It's been done before, but there were various complications (mostly involving satellite industries).
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6518|San Diego, CA, USA
The problem with Electric Cars is:

1.  40% of the energy is lost in the transmission lines
2.  Those batteries in those cars have very exotic materials that must be mined, so unless someone can come up with a 'green' battery we're still polluting.
3.  The power plant that generates the electricity has to be 'green' or else its all for not (note 50% of United States energy comes from Coal).

There's a car called the "Air Car" that runs up to 35mph (great for cities or short errands), on compressed air.  So if you had a compressor that ran off a solar panel it would be 'green'.


Hydrogen has storage problems (H2, being the smallest molecule has a hard time being stored in gas form).  What's funny is Hydrogen gas is less volatile than gasoline yet people are scared of Hydrogen - probably because of the Hindenburg disaster in Germany.

We need a hybrid solution, something that we can generate at our homes so we don't loose energy during transmission.  Personally I think Natural Gas would satisfy us for the next 300 years.  Burns cleaner than gasoline...

Solar Panels every home should have...even lower light areas like Norway.

Wind turbines where it makes sense.

Having a home generator could create hydrogen gas for your hydrogen car.  The amount of money necessary to get a corner 'Hydrogen station' will be too costly. 

Someone made a home Methanol generator that turns Sugar and Yeast into Methanol...enough for 2 cars / week that costs $9.  @$1.25/gallon when prices of gas go up you'll get your return of $9,000 back in a couple of years.

Fuel cells are too expensive, except now they have a Nickle based catalyst that is cheaper than the Platinum one used now.  Lets hope the technology drops the price further so we can afford it.


There's no clean cut solution here folks.  Besides we have genetically altered microbes to make essentially gasoline so its going to be around for a while until the price of other technologies is competitive again.
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6510|byah

DrunkFace wrote:

Hybrid cars are nothing but a marketing plow to make the company look 'green'. If you want a real solution invest in hydrogen fuel cells. Also if you think you are losing income because of fuel efficient cars (OMFG the Lols) increase the tax on petrol don't hit those who are doing the responsible thing with extra costs.
No, fuel should not be increased to make people use a hybrid as it wont be very effective and would actually back fire. People would just drive less. Tax the engine size yearly and everything = or < 2 litre is exempt.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker
So I need to be taxed for driving a 20 year old car simply because it has a 3.8 liter engine?  Forget that.
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6461|Menlo Park, CA
As someone who went to school in Oregon (University of Oregon, GO DUCKS!!!). . . . . This horseshit happens all the time!

Oregon is split between hippy dippy idiots and flat out redneck hunting hicks. . . .  I havent seen a middle ground there.

I still love it up there, for multiple reasons excluding politics and weather. . . .

Last edited by fadedsteve (2009-01-04 09:00:33)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

The problem with Electric Cars is:

1.  40% of the energy is lost in the transmission lines
2.  Those batteries in those cars have very exotic materials that must be mined, so unless someone can come up with a 'green' battery we're still polluting.
3.  The power plant that generates the electricity has to be 'green' or else its all for not (note 50% of United States energy comes from Coal).

There's a car called the "Air Car" that runs up to 35mph (great for cities or short errands), on compressed air.  So if you had a compressor that ran off a solar panel it would be 'green'.


Hydrogen has storage problems (H2, being the smallest molecule has a hard time being stored in gas form).  What's funny is Hydrogen gas is less volatile than gasoline yet people are scared of Hydrogen - probably because of the Hindenburg disaster in Germany.

We need a hybrid solution, something that we can generate at our homes so we don't loose energy during transmission.  Personally I think Natural Gas would satisfy us for the next 300 years.  Burns cleaner than gasoline...

Solar Panels every home should have...even lower light areas like Norway.

Wind turbines where it makes sense.

Having a home generator could create hydrogen gas for your hydrogen car.  The amount of money necessary to get a corner 'Hydrogen station' will be too costly. 

Someone made a home Methanol generator that turns Sugar and Yeast into Methanol...enough for 2 cars / week that costs $9.  @$1.25/gallon when prices of gas go up you'll get your return of $9,000 back in a couple of years.

Fuel cells are too expensive, except now they have a Nickle based catalyst that is cheaper than the Platinum one used now.  Lets hope the technology drops the price further so we can afford it.


There's no clean cut solution here folks.  Besides we have genetically altered microbes to make essentially gasoline so its going to be around for a while until the price of other technologies is competitive again.
Good points...  Another option is compressed natural gas.  Out in Utah, people have natural gas pumps in their garages for their CNG cars.  CNG technology is relatively cheap, the fuel is very cost effective, and the mileage is decent.  With the proper investment in infrastructure, we could see the development of CNG markets throughout the entire country.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6651|Disaster Free Zone

The#1Spot wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Hybrid cars are nothing but a marketing plow to make the company look 'green'. If you want a real solution invest in hydrogen fuel cells. Also if you think you are losing income because of fuel efficient cars (OMFG the Lols) increase the tax on petrol don't hit those who are doing the responsible thing with extra costs.
No, fuel should not be increased to make people use a hybrid as it wont be very effective and would actually back fire. People would just drive less. Tax the engine size yearly and everything = or < 2 litre is exempt.
And there is a problem with that?

WRC cars have 2 litre engines.

The point in taxing petrol is not to get them to buy a fag mobile, but rather to make them think about how and where they drive. In the longer term I'd like to see hydrogen cars replacing petrol and think hybrid and electric battery powered cars are failed concepts that just wont work, they are a marketing gimmick nothing more.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Hybrid cars are nothing but a marketing plow to make the company look 'green'. If you want a real solution invest in hydrogen fuel cells. Also if you think you are losing income because of fuel efficient cars (OMFG the Lols) increase the tax on petrol don't hit those who are doing the responsible thing with extra costs.
No, fuel should not be increased to make people use a hybrid as it wont be very effective and would actually back fire. People would just drive less. Tax the engine size yearly and everything = or < 2 litre is exempt.
And there is a problem with that?

WRC cars have 2 litre engines.

The point in taxing petrol is not to get them to buy a fag mobile, but rather to make them think about how and where they drive. In the longer term I'd like to see hydrogen cars replacing petrol and think hybrid and electric battery powered cars are failed concepts that just wont work, they are a marketing gimmick nothing more.
Not to mention the fact that engine size isn't necessarily a direct cause of emissions issues.  Aftermarket parts can change how much pollution is emitted from various vehicles.  When it comes to pollution, the exhaust system is more relevant than engine size, and since reducing pollution is usually part of the agenda of taxing the use of cars, it would seem this approach is missing the boat somewhat.

Fuel efficiency is best dictated by the market and things like CAFE standards.  Taxation aimed at using petrol less seems a bit excessive, although it may possibly work.

The main fear I have in taking this approach is how this would affect things like shipping, which would then affect the price of just about everything else.  In an economic downturn, raising the cost of goods and services seems like an especially bad idea.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

This
The Volt can drive for 40 miles on a single full electric charge of it’s battery pack. It is a known fact that the battery pack will be allowed to drain down from 80% to 30% before the gas-generator kicks in. Since the battery pack holds 16 KWH of energy, that means 8 KWH will get you 40 miles.

The cost of a KWH from the electric grid varies considerably depending on location and time of use. Usually, off-peak hours, from 9PM to 10AM will have the lowest rates from one’s electric utility provider. This will require a special meter that not all homes have.

https://i42.tinypic.com/2qw0rhz.gif
The map above shows the average retail price of electricity in the U.S. by state in 2003. It ranges from around 6 cents/KWH to 17 cents/KWH. The U.S. average for 2007 is 10.65 cents. To see the numbers for the current year click here. If we use the average, the cost to recharge the Volt will be $0.85, and the range for 2007 will be from 48 cents to $1.34 depending where you live. Clearly for 40 miles of driving at present gas and electric prices, there will be a very significant cost savings. Of course, there is some uncertainty of where these numbers will be when the Volt arrives in 2010.

After the first 40 miles, the combustion engine generator will kick in. This will keep the battery at a 30% state of charge. This 3-cylinder 1L engine will get 50 mpg fuel efficiency. To calculate the fuel efficiency for drives longer than 40 miles use the following formula: Total MPG = 55*M/(M-40)

ENERGY DIVERSITY AND SECURITY

There is also strong energy security value for driving this car.
Certainly the renewable sector has room to grow, but overall you can see that coal, of which the U.S. has a tremendous supply, is the main source of electric energy. So in actuality, the Volt is a coal-burning car.

This may dissatisfy certain environmentalists. But widespread adoption of this vehicle will likely lead to increased consumer adoption of home-generated renewable energy such as solar panels, whose prices are dropping and efficiencies are increasing. This will allow one to drive “for free” and be independent.
+
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

=
https://i42.tinypic.com/16hncqd.jpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6192|Brisneyland
We are barking up the wrong tree here. There are a significant number of overweight people around the world and we can convert their Fat into fuel for cars.

Wheels mag wrote:

A leading US plastic surgeon has caused an uproar by boasting that he used fat removed from his patients to fuel two SUVs.

According to Forbes magazine, Dr Alan Bittner (pictured below) even set up a website dedicated to what he called Lipodiesel.com. He claimed most of the patients at his clinic knew he was making biofuel from their blubber.

"The vast majority of my patients request that I use their fat for fuel – and I have more fat than I can use," Bittner said on the site. "Not only do they get to lose their love handles or chubby belly but they get to take part in saving the Earth."
Solution to peak oil I think.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6780|Nårvei

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Noobpatty wrote:

GG at helping the environment, great idea.
After all money is more important than the environment you live in, right?
Actually, it has been proven that hybrids are worse for the environment than cars with combustible engines.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editoria … NewsID=188
That myth has been debunked by Toyota and also by scientific groups.
Check here and here
It's even been debunked on this forum ... linking to an really old article debunked 1 year 9 months ago is very poor research deeznutz1245 ... shame on you
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Combustible engines? I hope not.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker
I'll take internal combustion no problem, but combustible would not be good at all.
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6417|Chicago, IL
Hybrids...

That electricity they use to power their cars is still coming from coal burning power plants, which are far less efficient than an internal combustion engine.  until all of our power is nuclear, hybrids are pointless.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard