IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"

Ah - but there's a problem with that math. It's parts per million.
That means it's in relation to how much fuel is being burnt, and
if the one vehicle uses 2/3 the fuel, that's 2/3 the net effect
over time. So ist comes in at closer to 5 and 5 if you adjust for
the amount of fuel being consumed.

 

But that's not really how it works and the point of the article.

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, transportation costs in the societies in most developed
countries
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
gallon
tomorrow via tax. That isn't going to curtail the "necessary" driving such
as
commuting to work, and buying groceries. Instead it's going to kill the
recreational driving for vacations, and other non-essential driving. So
while
the economies of the cities aren't going to take it in the shorts, just
about
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
work,
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
unwanted
side effects (fish kills) or are too terribly inefficient, or there aren't
enough
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
wears out.

Ted

 

Or much more simply - you make the vehicle lighter. Which means
making it smaller.

But we are getting away from the topic of discussion. The issue wasn't
whether
hybrids are better or not. The issue is that the tax credit was originally
intended to encourage the development and sale of the next generation of
economy cars with the assumption that the only way the market would
accept an economy car again was by doing a hybrid. Giving the tax credit to
non-economy cars that just happen to have a hybrid design is contrary to
the original intent of the credit, and is a loophole, and should not be
allowed.

Ted

 

That might be OK if what was happening is that everyone who would normally
be
buying a V8 bought a V6 hybrid. But because of the way that they are
positioning
these cars in the market, what is happening is that people that would
normally be
buying a V6 are looking at a V6 Hybrid so they can have more power. Then
when they get the more power they are of course going to use it, so they end
up
consuming just as much fuel with a V6 hybrid as if they got the V6
non-hybrid.

When I see the Corvette shipping with a hybrid V6 instead of the V8 then
I'll buy
your argument.

Ted

 

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')

 

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')

 

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')

 

Actually, an answer is already slated to be available in Canada:

http://www.smartcar.com/

why isn't this available in the US - Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler,
Anyone?

 

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.

 

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

Yes.

 

But none of those approaches has a chance while oil is cheap. So,
yeah, we know what we need to do.

 

It's here.
http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-news/25-int/8693/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/

Daimler-Chrysler is selling them in Canada, and not the US.
Independent importers, led by ZAP, will sell them in the US.

High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter has a
Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg overall,
but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering and
Automatic.

 

Would that be the Honda Civic HX compared to the Honda Civic Hybrid?
E-VTEC engine, CVT transmission, lighter car.
HX 30/34mpg, 9/9 Emissions. Hybrid 47/48mpg, 9/10 Emissions.

Or would it be the Escape 4cyl verses Escape Hybrid?
Standard 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:6, 19/22mpg, Greenhouse:4
Hybrid 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:9.5, 33/29mpg, Greenhouse:8

There are manufacturers squeezing whatever they can out of conventional
engines, and they've done a remarkable job compared to cars 30 years ago.
Hybrid is the tool for today that's available to the masses. I think a
plug in hybrid is the next step.

 

The smart car is entirely different. At least the Canadian model. It has
very smart ABS, A/C, a decent heater and all the other things North American
users might want. Certainly not a Metro and, if you're hauling 2 people,
much better and cheaper than a Civic hybrid. BTW, there are plenty of Metros
around with PS, A/C and automatic transmissions.

 

Manufacturers could do a lot more but there's no financial incentive from
anywhere to do so, so they don't. It's really that simple. Pushing
improvements of this sort is one of the areas we pay the Federal government.
Too bad they've been bought and paid for.

If they were available at equivalent prices. For now, hybrids are expensive
gadgets.

 

A Metro with A/C, P/S, and automatic transmission is not going to get
anywhere near the same mileage. For 1998, the 5 speed is 44/49, the
automatic is 30/34. No mention of A/C.

Granted, the smart car might be a nicer car than the Metro, and that
remains to be seen, but it is smaller still. Why is there no high mileage
Mini, instead of a Cooper-S model?

You think a Smartcar will be better than a Honda Civic Hybrid for hauling
two people? By some definitions, maybe, but I can't believe it will be
better overall. What about a Honda Insight? Higher mileage, two
passengers.

What is the smartcar mileage with two people? My Civic remains unchanged
with one or two people, and I'm not sure I notice with three.
Passenger miles per gallon might be important.

 

I won't be able to argue with FanJet anymore.
The fix is obviously in.