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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
What the government should be eliminating is the tax credit for
the production of ethanol. Recent studies have proved that it
requires 24% to 54% more energy to produce ethanol than the
energy produced by ethanol. If adding alcohol to gasoline is
going to reduce pollution then the oil companies should be
allowed to make if from the methanol that they now must burn off
as a byproduct of oil production. Mental can be produced less
expensively and will not need an tax credit to do so.
Be careful what you wish for or suggest....
California forced the issue of low emission fuel additives. Then they
found that the fuel ruined engines. Then they tried to repeal the
mandate and get rid of the fuel which had already been produced.
That's when the Feds stepped in and refused to allow California to get
rid of it. They could store it or use it, but not dispose of it. This
resulted in the financial loss to companies and individuals for the
repairs and or replacements... which impacted shipping costs across
As for taxes and credits, one thing everyone should have noticed is
that once in place, a tax, just like government programs and agencies,
is nearly impossible to terminate. Politicians and special interests
usually find a reason to extend the tax, or to use it for some other
purpose. They reason that the public has become used to paying it, so
if it remains in place, or is used for some other purpose for "the
public good", nobody will mind continuing to pay it. That's IF it ever
was used for the intended purpose for which it was instituted in the
Take away the credits, and the companies claim no reason to invest
corporate funds in R&D/Production. They aren't in it for the clean
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:03:35 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address
New DOMESTIC hybrids coming on line you mean? There were many
in congress that did no like the fact we were subsiding an import
hybrids, like the Prius, for a company that does not pay a penny
in US federal corporate income taxes and for dealers that did not
pass the discount on to the buyers, but demanded over MSRP before
they would sell the vehicle.
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
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.
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
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!
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?
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
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
Unfortunately, transportation costs in the societies in most developed
today are pretty fixed. Taxing them is going to have unwanted side effects.
For example let's say that we raise the price of fuel in the US to $4.00 a
tomorrow via tax. That isn't going to curtail the "necessary" driving such
commuting to work, and buying groceries. Instead it's going to kill the
recreational driving for vacations, and other non-essential driving. So
the economies of the cities aren't going to take it in the shorts, just
every small town in the country that makes it's primary income off tourism
is going to tank. So you end up throwing a lot of seasonal people out of
and a lot of others that depend on them out of work. Thus income tax and
sales tax revenue go down, and the net result is that you obtain no more tax
money than before, and you have restructured the economy so that people
end up spending their vacations at home in their backyards and that small
town economies become mostly unviable, migrating all those people to
the cities, which have to expand to accomodate them, which consumes
fuel, and you end up no better off than before.
The other problem is that a lot of oil consumed in the US isn't used to
make gasoline. It's used to make heating fuel, it's used to fuel electric
generating plants, it's used to make plastics.
At any rate, we already know what we need to do to the economy to
reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need to migrate the economy
to renewable power sources. And there are not many of them. Wind
power is really one of the few available that has enough energy to
run the economy. Nuclear is another if you can accept the waste problem
(most people can't) The rest of them, such as damming rivers, direct
photovoltiac conversion, geothermal, biofuel and so forth, either have
side effects (fish kills) or are too terribly inefficient, or there aren't
of them, to provide sufficient energy.
And once we get all that wind generating capacity online, we then need
to phase out all the fossil fuel uses. That means no more liquid fueled
ground transporatation, also we convert everyone to electric furnaces,
and pretty much elimination of interstate trucking in favor of rail. And
of course all railways will have to be converted over to be electric. Your
talking a huge additional power distribution network.
Such a thing can happen but it's going to be gradual. For example a
fuel tax on home heating oil could be easily enacted that would make it
cheaper to run electric or natural gas heat, thus people would replace
oil furnaces But, they aren't going to do it until the existing oil furnace
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.