IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"

Page 2 of 4  
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:


Plus, we're suppose to trust that *all* the extra taxes collected will be put to the intended use by the **same** politicians that take my money out of my paycheck for my Social Security and divert it off to other unrelated purposes, the **same** politicians that get lottery programs voted in by the public on the promise that the profits will be used for parks and schools and fire stations and then after it is voted in by the people they say "Hey - look at all the extra money that these parks and schools and fire stations are getting from the lottery - we can reduce the amount provided by the general funds to those things by that much!" and then effectively the lottery profits end up getting spend on the usual waste! Those are the **same** politicians that I am supposed to trust with spending for the intended and promised purposes the extra money taken out of my pocket in the form of gas taxes!!!!!!!!!!???????????

Just yesterday i heard a report of a "study" (out of Cornell or something) that said that it takes *much* more energy to process biomass into biofuels - and I'm thinking "Well - they are reporting what everyone already knows, but at least they are reporting it", but *then* the same report ends up saying the same study recommends diverting the money being spend on biofuel development over to "better" programs like hydrogen fuels!! - which of course have the same problem of requiring more energy in than that gotten out!! What a shell game. Makes me beloeve in conspiracies by those spending our research dollars!!
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about some research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using compressed air to power a vehicle. They are getting something like 300 miles on a "charge", and the cost of compressing the air is miniscule and works out to a few cents per mile? Any laws of physics being violated there (to get that kind of economy)? Can anybody here do the energy conversion math on that one?
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on the size of the car, its speed, etc.

Yes. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Been done. Several years ago in France. Works quite well, too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many energy storage methods have been tried over the years. In the 70s, engineers thought that new ceramic materials might make flywheels capable of sufficient energy density. They were wrong. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tesla thought you could broadcast electricity through the air to power things. But we all know that the oil barons stamped out that idea.
Not to mention that Popular Mechanics way back when predicted atomic powered cars which could run for years on a baseball sized power source. Gosh, what the terrorists could do with that idea.
If the compressed air idea had half a chance, you could get tons of it from politicians.
Of course, methane would be a way to go... Just hook up a couple of cows. You'd have to travel in spurts, but you'd get there eventually just letting your "power plant" graze along the way.
So many bright ideas which have come and gone, and we're still depending on the dinosaurs. I think the next batch of crude will originate with present life becoming extinct, and a few million years later, cockroaches will be tooling around on people juice.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:14:36 GMT, Jim Chinnis

Spike 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Chinnis wrote:

This is seeing use. It's cheaper to compress air with an electric motor. There's no pollution, no fuel storage problems, no chemicals(batteries) - it's just two huge air tanks and a really huge version of the air engines you see in those flying toy airplanes.
That they can go that far - it's impressive. Beats all other technologies for urban use as well, since the tanks could be refilled at a "station" in minutes instead of hours like batteries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

I wonder what the $$/mile numbers work out to be on costs of compressed air at the pressures and quantities needed.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, let's see... the average US Senator or Congressman weighs X at sea level (Ted K would know about below sea level).
If they can hold as much air as they can booze, that works out to Y cubic feet
On average they get Z miles off of some lame gipper cause or other
And their salaries, perks, retirement work out to $ to the max...
Why, I think we just paid for the first manned mission to mars.
wrote:

Spike 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

$1 USD per 62 miles. 200 mile range. 70mph top speed. It's basically a stretched Smart Car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But none of those approaches has a chance while oil is cheap. So, yeah, we know what we need to do. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ease up a little.
I DID read the article. I noted that the EPA discussed Accords when they equated the hybrid vs non-hybrid. The article, unless my copy didn't all come through, was otherwise written in generalities (as usual).
Now there may be some good points to removing credits for those vehicles which do not improve mpg and/or reduced emissions. But, no company is apt to throw millions in R&D to achieve such ends if there is no return on investment, or at least some break on taxes, etc. You have to start somewhere if you want to improve things. So maybe a pro-rated schedule might be a better concept. As for gas guzzler taxes.... we've been down that road before. And, according to the latest releases, the new wave of SUVs from the US AND from overseas is going to smaller vehicles. The makers have seen the light... and the dollar signs... They know that fewer people are going to buy those hulks with the rising fuel costs.
With the rising cost of fuels, my concern is for the "little guy", and the social system... The person who can't afford a new car to meet the EPA standards or the NTSA standards, or any other standards. Yet, they have to travel further to their jobs because they can't afford to live closer to the jobs. Couple that with the added fuel costs which will drive up prices of the foods we eat, clothes we wear, and everything else. Now the lower income people can't afford to do even more. So the option becomes, strike for higher wages, which just gets passed back to the consumer, or do without, which widens the gap between the haves and the have not's ever faster. Out of that comes things like class warfare, breakdown of society, etc.
There are those "experts" who believe that the earth can support all the humans and more to come. I think it goes with the saying that "two can live as cheaply as one... for half as long". Want to fix things? Skip the tax credits and the guzzler taxes. Get rid of half the people on the planet. It can be done. Either quickly by war and disease (hopefully avoidable), or at a slower rate by doing something about the birthrate. Less people... less oil used. Less people, less resources used. Less people, less forests cut down. Less people less pollution... A better environment for all the rest.
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:58:47 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"

Spike 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have an Escape Hybrid. I agree with the state of California that it doesn't belong in the HOV lanes when higher mileage Hybrids are allowed (whether that is a good use of HOV lanes is a separate issue... I think not). I agree with Google, who will sponsor their employees' purchase of a Hybrid, but only the high mileage ones.
The Escape, at least, puts a smaller engine in the hybrid, although it is an engine that is available "naked". The Civic shrinks the engine to one that is not otherwise available.
The Accord/Highlander/RX400H, topics of the unfavorable NYT article, are a different thing altogether.
Should there be a tax credit of any sort? Why is the credit being given to any Hybrid? To subsidize development of something that Congress feels needs a subsidy. "Hybrids should be encouraged, Callahan said, because their electric components some day could be useful in an all-electric car..."
I can accept that logic, but a loophole that allows someone to take the already overpowered Accord V6 and add more power, shouldn't be closed. Someone buying an Escape hybrid should. I eliminated a 13mpg Durango when I bought my Escape, and it still tows my horse trailer.
Eventually, when hybrids become more accepted, plug-in hybrids could get us to the point that electric cars were never able to achieve, being able to replace any car, instead of a commute-only limited application. If my Escape could give a 25 mile range all-electric, it would only need gasoline on longer trips, and be all electric during the typical week, getting it's plug in recharge from my solar system at home.
Someone else suggests that all of the energy ultimately comes from gasoline in a hybrid. That's not true. Regenerative braking helps a lot.
On the other hand, on level ground, I drove about seven miles on electric, followed by a few miles where I watched my "average" plummet from 99mpg to 38mpg, as the batteries were being recharged. I calculate an average of 38mpg for 10 miles was actually 7 at 0 usage, 3 at 11mpg. Recharging the batteries was pretty costly. But I got 38mpg over the stretch, something I'd be hard pressed to do in that traffic in any other car.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

This would be true if you only drove down hill and somehow got up the hill for free. Think about it.

Not if it were specifically designed to do so as your Hybrid is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I only drove downhill, I wouldn't need an engine, but I would have to change the brakes frequently.
While going downhill, my hybrid can use the energy that would have been burned off as heat to replace the battery energy that I used going uphill. I see this every day in my Honda, which has a battery level gauge. The battery level decreases going uphill, and recovers going downhill. At some point the batteries are full, and braking is conventional. The difference is noticeable.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Clearly people knew how to get up hill for free back in the 1930s. I've listened to my father and father-in-law both talk about how they walked to school and back, both ways up hill, in the snow and barefoot. Mustr be some of that lost technology of the ancients they keep finding on Stargate. : )
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:16:47 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

Spike 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

But the energy to recharge the batteries still comes from gasoline. It takes gasoline to get to the top of the hill so that you can regeneratively charge the batteries on the way down. Yes, recapturing this energy that would otherwise be lost to heat via the brakes is a good thing, but it isn't a perpertual motion machine.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The energy spent to get the car to the top of the hill is spent to get the car to the top of the hill, not to charge the batteries. Now that the feat has been accomplished, if you want to get to the bottom of the hill, you have to dissipate some energy. You might dissipate it as heat, or you might put it into a battery.
Next time you go up a hill, some of the energy that you need can come from the batteries, and some from gasoline.
It's not perpetual motion, but it's not all lost either.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FanJet wrote:

Why not just put really long springs and struts on the rear to raise the rear of the car up about a foot. That way, the car would always be going down hill. 8^)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.