Confed999

BTW, I don't use vehicles that size either. Heck, I didn't believe there were any non-diesels that big, until Ironduke pointed to some.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Trooth

History has shown that competition in the market promotes its own R&D. R&D still has to make a product, which won't happen until something turns a wheel, lessons are learnt etc.

I am not entirely sure fair comes into this. Our usage of oil isn't fair, nor are the lengths we go to to ensure a supply.

Confed999

Hybreds won't significantly reduce our need for oil.

Trooth

You need to define something in that statement. Such as significant and a time period. Also i would argue that need itself might need to be defined.

Confed999

Main Entry: sig·nif·i·cant
Pronunciation: -k&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin significant-, significans, present participle of significare to signify
1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE <a significant glance>
2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>

Main Entry: 1need
Pronunciation: 'nEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ned, from Old English nIed, nEd; akin to Old High German nOt distress, need, Old Prussian nautin need
1 : necessary duty : OBLIGATION
2 a : a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful b : a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism
3 : a condition requiring supply or relief
4 : lack of the means of subsistence : POVERTY

Trooth

Thanks. I know what the words mean but what would be their application in the context of Hybrid cars and their impact on the usage of and dependance upon Oil?

Confed999

Significant - having meaning. A few inefficent hybreds aren't going to change things. Currently the weight to power ratio of electric motors is abysmal. The current battery life to weight to price ratio is barely above abysmal. Both are antiquated technologys. Both are something I deal with, as an electrician, everyday.

Need - requirement. Since hybreds use oil, both to run and in production, with only limited savings, in oil but not price or maintainence, the benefit would be limited. The power plants, plastics, lubricants, cleaners, makeup, etc. made from oil would still be a major requirement as well.

Time period would be the same ammount of time putting the tax breaks into R&D to produce a more efficient product, as putting the tax breaks into a few consumer's pockets. I don't believe giving tax breaks for consumption would make the investments into R&D bigger faster than putting the tax breaks into the R&D itself. Plus anything R&D produces could be used to reduce the power plants need for oil to run the many electric motors in everything from vacuumes to the power plants themselves. As well as reducing the strain of the toxic materials to be put into our landfills. I just don't see a point in giving breaks for a half effort, and I don't like to give breaks for consumption.

More helpful bro?

Trooth

a 40% improvement in fuel consumption is quoted for one of the cars here.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_news.shtml

I don't know if 40% counts as significant because you haven't defined it in this context .. But i will give you a figure - what about 40% is that signifcant?

Granted they use oil, but they use less. Therefore the more of them that are in use, require less oil. Thus our need for oil is reduced because the same amount can go further. Our need for oil will never be removed. But it can be reduced to a far more manageable level.

The problem with investing in R&D is that it produces ever more sophisticated systems that are expensive to produce due to small volume. Unless you can define what makes an acceptable hybrid vehicle, people are going to be researching themselves up the wazoo.
The best way to drive costs down is to get something to market. The tax break is the catalyst to overcome market inertia (exactly what happened to the SUV). Once the cars roll off the forecourts, the auto makers will be able to eye up a market and produce cyclic R&D exactly as they do now for "conventional" cars. Remember that the tax break for SUV owners fuelled the market which drove down the cost of the SuV, meaning those that didn't get the tax break still benefited.

Also, lets remember that cars of 50 years were dirtier, slower, less safe, less efficient, less packed with toys and features and more expensive. It wasn't one off R&D that produced modern cars with a gap of 50 years, it was the competition in the market.

Always mate.

Confed999

40% is significant in 1 car, when deducted from the millions of cars, and all of the other uses, it's nothing. The Geo Metro gets about the same mileage, as the cars on that page, with a gas engine, should it get tax breaks too?
Actually electric motors have become less technical, require less maintainance and often cost less, deducting inflation, than the ones produced 10 years ago. Sadly this was about the last time any real breakthroughs were made, and it was done with new technology used to create smaller wire, that was, if I remember correctly, created under a research grant at a college here in the states. The story goes that they sent a sample to a Japanese college that was working on the same thing, just to show off. The Japanese college used a special water drill to drill a hole through it lengthwise and create the worlds smallest copper tubing. They sent it back to the States, just to show off. (That has nothing to do with anything, but it's a fun story.)
Actually, it was a tax break for the rich, those vehicles can't be afforded by normal people.
Here the price of SUVs has gone up at about the same rate as any other car, and there is relatively no difference in the tech used.
Exactly my point, it took 50 years to get this far, and it took the government forcing stricter fuel efficency standards to do it. Bad thing is, with hybreds, the auto manufacturers, the ones making the money, don't know anything about electric motors or high technology batteries. They will just buy ones for their hybreds, and even if 100,000 are sold a year, it will barely touch the current motor/battery market. Also remember most of these companies are cutting costs in an attempt to keep up with profit margins, the first thing cut is R&D, one of the reasons motors have stagnated in the free trade world.

I would just rather see any tax breaks, which is the same as government spending, to go into old ladies pension funds through investment, instead of giving someone, who allready has money, $200 for a car they would have bought anyway.
I love your accent.

Trooth

OK, lets take the other extreme. All mid range cars get a tax break making them the most attractive cars in that class. All such cars get a 40% improvement in mileage. Wouldn't that have some impact and reduce some need? The succuessful manufacturers of those cars are then able to gobble up more market share, and thus fund other hybrids.

Perhaps but is showed that the effect can stimulate part of the market.

I am not arguing that this is showing favouritism to a certain group of people. But it is indirect. The intent is to show favouritism to a certain kind of behaviour (tha tof using less oil).

Alternatives are :-

1) Continue our unchecked dependancy on oil and correspondiingly more pollution. The quest for oil will have direct impact on wars and the environment
2) As the above gets worse the natural market price will go up. Since there is no mass alternative around, people will get hit harder as they cannot afford oil
3) Tax the oil now, get the price high to get people used to it, and use the money to fund the R&D you want (or the tax break i want).

"BBC English" over here, dear boy

Confed999

Bah, we're just rehashing the same argument over. Lets just say that both ways would work and you support one, and I support the other. I simply cannot support an unfair tax, for any reason, because "all men are created equal".

Let me change the subject a little. One of the main reasons I don't like hybreds is that they still use oil. I tend to think it's just delaying disaster, and not by very long. So, what do you think about other alternatives? Hydrogen (fuel cells included) is promising, but extraction methods are currently either environmentaly unsound, or use more power than they produce. Plant fuels (alcohol included) would make a good supplement, but they too are enviornmentally unsound in production and consumption. Thermal/pressure oil production is very promising, but it's in the early stages of development, and it doesn't help air polution much, just a little in the refining process, since oil is still the fuel. (I think thermal/pressure production should be fully implemented anyway, at least enough to dispose of all the non-radioactive toxic/bio-hazardous wastes.) There are others that escape me at the moment, feel free to mention anything I missed.

Personally I think hydrogen is the one that should be getting the most attention. It is the most common element in the known universe, and it's industrial applications are immense. Not to mention it's perfect for space exploration, Jupiter and Saturn are giant filling stations.
Anytime I hear "BBC" I think of my favorite TV show, "Red Dwarf". You like that one? It's about the only TV show I'm a fan of.

Trooth

Actually its been a few years since someone last came up with the "successful cold fusion" hoax. So we could throw that in too.

I agree with hydrogen based fuels, but as you say extracting the hydrogen is the tricky bit. What we need are large Bussard colelctors in orbit . Burning plants is ok, as long as any Nitrous Oxides etc are removed form the exhaust. Stuffing carbon dioxide into the air that has only been removed from it for a few years doesn't harm anything.

Here is a discussion on some of the alternatives.

http://www.greencar.com/index.cfm?content=features2

One of the major problems, of course, is the refuelling infrastructure. Petrol is readily available everywhere. None of the others are, and the local filling stations will either require extra tanks, or have to give up petrol space for the other fuels. And of course pumping a gas takes different equipment to pumping the liquid fuels.

But, hey, we know this problem si coming!

I loved Red Dwarf - Craig Charles is from the same part of the world as me. There as been talk for a long time of a Red Dwarf movie, but it keeps falling through - mainly over the nationality of Lister!

Confed999

I didn't even think of fusion. I may have been disappointed too many times to remember it.
Well, we do have alot of experience with supplying natural gas, so I think that could be overcome.
I know about the movie. I've been keeping my fingers crossed...

Jay

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations.

So concludes a British economist, whose calculation is intended to highlight the difficulties of achieving a truly green hydrogen economy.

"This calculation is useful to make people realize what an enormous problem we face," says Andrew Oswald, an economist from the University of Warwick.

The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

Rest @ http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0410...041004-13.html

Trooth

Good post. Because it does indeed highlight how we should reduce our depndancy on offisl fuels as soon as possible.