VW rejects hybrids for better combustion engines..

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
VW rejects hybrids for better combustion engines and fuels to meet emissions targets - report

Source: just-auto.com editorial team
Full article here: http://www.just-auto.com/news_detail.asp?art=42906




According to Automotive News Europe, Volkswagen's Franz-Josef Paefgen said VW isn't developing a hybrid because it doesn't feel its needs the technology, although he admits VW and other car makers may be forced to develop hybrids, if emissions standards that are taking hold in California are adopted elsewhere.

...

VW thinks the development of better combustion engines and cleaner burning fuels are the ways to meet tougher emissions rules.

The European car industry has a voluntary commitment to reduce fleet CO2 emission from a current average of 165 grams per kilometre to 140g/km by 2008.

"But I am afraid that the industry won't meet this target because most of our gains in this respect have been eaten up by heavier car constructions," Paefgen said. "But with the aid of specially designed fuels we will be able to reduce other emissions.

VW's research focuses on optimising the internal combustion engine, with the help of synthetic fuels. "You can design your own fuel so that even existing diesels are 5 to 10% more fuel efficient while simultaneously reducing particulate emission by 50%," he said. "Eventually we will see a single engine type, combining diesel and petrol combustion principles, which will meet stringent emission and consumption goals."

Synthetic fuels can be produced from natural gas, or from biological matter such as plants.

"The supply of natural gas is nearly unlimited," Paefgen said. "And when produced from bio-mass, you have a near-sustainable energy source."

Specially designed fuels improve the combustion process, and can reduce NOx emissions.
 

GotDiesel?

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 11, 2000
Location
Pacific NW
TDI
2001 Jetta GLS
I don't know how he can say this:

"The supply of natural gas is nearly unlimited," Paefgen said.

The supply is pretty much maxed out in North America at least for the foreseeable future.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/testimony/2003/20030610/default.htm

Perhaps it is a different story in Europe and in other overseas markets, but it doesn't look like an economically feasible hope here anytime soon.
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
[ QUOTE ]
"Eventually we will see a single engine type, combining diesel and petrol combustion principles, which will meet stringent emission and consumption goals."

[/ QUOTE ]

A reference to HCCI?
 

Lug_Nut

TDIClub Enthusiast, Pre-Forum Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 20, 1998
Location
Sterling, Massachusetts. USA
TDI
idi: 1988 Bolens DGT1700H, the other oil burner: 1967 Saab Sonett II two stroke
I've already taken my TDI to 33g/mi (20.6g/km) of CO2 emissions from fossil carbon sources running on B100. The fossil carbon is from the methanol used in the transesterification. SVO or WVO won't have that fossil carbon source.
Why are we still searching for a viable solution?
 

GoFaster

Moderator at Large
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Location
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
[ QUOTE ]
wxman said:
[ QUOTE ]
"Eventually we will see a single engine type, combining diesel and petrol combustion principles, which will meet stringent emission and consumption goals."

[/ QUOTE ]

A reference to HCCI?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't think so. For various reasons, I think HCCI in the form that it's being developed in the laboratory today is dead in the water as far as a production system is concerned, although some of the research might be used for other things. A practical real-world engine that has to operate "robustly" over a wide range of ambient temperature, speed, and load has to have a defined and controllable ignition event, and with HCCI, that ain't happenin'. You can still use some of its concepts, but you need that defined ignition event.

The Mitsubishi GDI (and Volkswagen FSI ... Mitsubishi was first!!) is a step in the direction he mentions - direct injection for the gasoline engine. There have been other engines developed in the past that used direct injection with a diesel-like arrangement, but retaining the spark ignition.

Plasma-jet ignition is something that has been played with in the past. It's capable of igniting lean mixtures. That might be one piece of the puzzle.

Take the mechanics of a diesel engine with common-rail injection, and now you can inject fuel at any time in the cycle that you want. Add some type of lean-firing ignition system, and some type of valve timing control so that you can control how much air goes in without throttling, and then you can emulate practically any type of combustion process you want and you can run it differently under various conditions of speed and load, and you can control detonation by playing with injection and ignition timing. I think that's where he's heading.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
"But I am afraid that the industry won't meet this target because most of our gains in this respect have been eaten up by heavier car constructions," Paefgen said.

There is a self explanatory solution if I ever saw one. I mean, COME ON. Higher weight cars, and they want to fix this by pioneering some process to make a designer fuel so that the car can run leaner and cleaner? Take off some of the weight and you won't have to go to the trouble.
 

Pat Dolan

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Location
Martensville, SK
TDI
2003 A4 Variant, 2015 Q7
Wow, about 10 different issues in one thread, all close to my heart.

There is a LOT more methane reserve than first appears. The problem is when an assessment determines that a reserve is a) proven and b) actually the right hydrocarbon to fit the mould of the assessment. In may parts of the world, you can drill a hole just about anywhere, and sooner or later you will run into a structure that has methane. The problem is much of it is very deep, expensive drilling, not yet "discovered" or "proved up", so doesn't "exist" from a formal assessment, but it is there. The other kinds of things that often escape general calculations is the amount recoverable from coal seams (HUGE), what lies on the floor of the ocean (also HUGE) and what is under the ocean (HUGE).

Even petroleum hydrocarbon stocks seldom include any allowance for heavy oils in shales and sands, even though these are now commercially produced (20% of all of Canada's HC energy comes from unconventional heavy crude). Finally, when a field is "dry" by current standards, it often contains 60 to 80% of the original oil in place. Energy self sufficiency for the US is just a matter of using enhanced recovery techniques in existing fields. A further 20 - 30% of OOIP is available with current technology - it just costs more to produce. I wouldn't be ordering that electric and solar pannels just yet.

I applaud VWs persuit of pure ICEs over hybridization - Lord knows cars are far too full of things that don't need to be there now. Not just designer fuels, but particularly designer AQUEOUS fuels are one viable route. Plasma jet ignition is also a proven technology that the incredibly conservative spark-ignition engineers aren't yet prepared to embrace (read about some at www.smartplugs.com). This is something you can do NOW in your very own garage if you are interested - and you could easily make a fairly crude setup that will perform at near zero NOX.

Bio-d, same thing. Not pie-in-the-sky, but proven, available technology. Unfortunately, the morons involved in government are still starrey-eyed over high-tech BS, and think that pure nonsense like hydrogen fuel cells are somehow going to rush into the limelight and save us all from what I don't know. If you ever wonder how we end up with trillion dollar deficits, wars, etc., just think about how well bio-d (and clean diesel engines) and ethanol is actually percieved by regulators.

That takes me to the second part - our current A4 Variant weighs a full 1/2 ton more than our A2 sedan, and THAT is a porker compared to an A1. Is it just the numbskull, fat, greedy, dubma$$ lazy consumer or have manufacturers consciously moved the $4,000 economy car into the $20,000 basic mini luxo-pig just for a better profit???

That's enough pontification for now, so I'll leave the floor to others.

Pat
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
[ QUOTE ]
wxman said:
[ QUOTE ]
"Eventually we will see a single engine type, combining diesel and petrol combustion principles, which will meet stringent emission and consumption goals."

[/ QUOTE ]

A reference to HCCI?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah yes, the intriguing, exciting and altogether unrealistic HCCI engine. Maybe in a series hybrid, but thats about it. However, I think VW is actually referring to combining a diesel and gas engine in one, literally incorporating features from both to provide the best of both worlds. Complicated, but possibly feasible. Difficult to conceive of practically, but the concept is tempting.

PS: Throttling by any other name is still the same, whether its BMW's throttle-plate-free valvetronic or whatever. Unless you reduce the effective piston swept volume, you got throttlin' boy! /images/graemlins/wink.gif
 

SwimmerDave

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Location
Decatur, GA
TDI
2014 JSW 6MT
[ QUOTE ]
Pat Dolan said:
Bio-d, same thing. Not pie-in-the-sky, but proven, available technology. Unfortunately, the morons involved in government are still starrey-eyed over high-tech BS, and think that pure nonsense like hydrogen fuel cells are somehow going to rush into the limelight and save us all from what I don't know. If you ever wonder how we end up with trillion dollar deficits, wars, etc., just think about how well bio-d (and clean diesel engines) and ethanol is actually percieved by regulators.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually prefer to think that Gee-dub and (most of) the rest of Washington is not moronic, but is rather looking out for their own interests. Our president has vast oil connections and well knows that hydrogen will never work as intended, certainly not in the next few decades (for various reasons discussed in other threads). Thus, he protects his oil interests while shutting up the environmentalists and the energy independentalists (I made that word up). The other side of the same motivational coin applies to biodiesel. That is, it is precisely because the people in power know that biodiesel could easily (and might eventually) replace petroleum diesel that it does not receive more support. Biodiesel is true petroluem competition.

Contrast biodiesel with ethanol. Ethanol actually receives quite a bit of government support, ranging from corn and direct ethanol subidies all the way to laws requiring the blending of ethanol into gasoline. Billions of gallons of government-subsidized and mandated ethanol gets produced each year in the U.S.. The only reason, I believe, that Washington supports it is that it does nothing to reduce our petroleum usage. It has such a horrible energy balance (~1:1), that it takes right around as much petroleum to produce ethanol as it saves/displaces. Thus, ethanol is not and will probably never be a true petroleum competitor.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
It has such a horrible energy balance (~1:1), that it takes right around as much petroleum to produce ethanol as it saves/displaces. Thus, ethanol is not and will probably never be a true petroleum competitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we have a winner! NOT!

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf
We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34.
------------------------------------------------------------

Just call me the fact checker, eh. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

RED

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2000
Location
NC, USA
TDI
2012 TDI 4dr GOLF 6sp MAN
I am not big on hybrids myself but the one thing I like about them is the regenerative braking.
There is one design that has caught my attention and that is the Hyperdrive system.
http://www.paice.com/index.html
There is no transmission which saves some weight. I know that the vehicle will be much heavier with this system than without. And I don't know about their claims. I find it an interesting idea. Some mix of batteries and ultra capacitors may help this type of system.
 

Pat Dolan

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Location
Martensville, SK
TDI
2003 A4 Variant, 2015 Q7
Dave:

Yeah, I didn't bother to qualify my ethanol comments, but your explanation is the reason I include ethanol policy in the list of dumbass energy policy. To that you can add CO2 production at the site of production.

Pat
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
[ QUOTE ]
wxman said:
[ QUOTE ]
"Eventually we will see a single engine type, combining diesel and petrol combustion principles, which will meet stringent emission and consumption goals."

[/ QUOTE ]

A reference to HCCI?

[/ QUOTE ]


Here is a reference, from a VW website, to what they are talking about:

http://www.sunfuel.de/kss_engl/top_ks.html

Literally, a combination of diesel and spark-ignition combustion processes.

There is an interesting video there demonstrating some sort of partial homogenous combustion process - pretty cool, but not much info is given(I think its a Flash video only(?)).
 

Beowulf

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2000
Location
Lovettsville, VA, USA
TDI
A3 Jetta, 1998, Green
[ QUOTE ]
SwimmerDave said:
Thus, he protects his oil interests while shutting up the environmentalists and the energy independentalists (I made that word up). The other side of the same motivational coin applies to biodiesel. That is, it is precisely because the people in power know that biodiesel could easily (and might eventually) replace petroleum diesel that it does not receive more support.


[/ QUOTE ]

Biodiesel cannot at present and probably never will be able to completely replace petroleum diesel consumption (let alone total petroleum consumption) simply because you can't grow that many goddamned soy beans. From what I've read in various sources 20% of petro-diesel usage could be reliably replaced by biodiesel.

[ QUOTE ]

Biodiesel is true petroluem competition.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is true. However, it's not a petroleum replacement simply because we (the good ol' USA) use way too much of the stuff.
 

Pat Dolan

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Location
Martensville, SK
TDI
2003 A4 Variant, 2015 Q7
And, as long as the price remains so ridiculously low, you (and "we") will CONTINUE using way too much.

When the half-wits drive up to the pumps in their bloat-pig sport utes and have the unmittigated gall to complain about the price of petro-fuel and then willingly shell out a buck a quart for freakin' tap water.........

Pat
 

SwimmerDave

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Location
Decatur, GA
TDI
2014 JSW 6MT
[ QUOTE ]
Beowulf said:
[ QUOTE ]
SwimmerDave said:
Thus, he protects his oil interests while shutting up the environmentalists and the energy independentalists (I made that word up). The other side of the same motivational coin applies to biodiesel. That is, it is precisely because the people in power know that biodiesel could easily (and might eventually) replace petroleum diesel that it does not receive more support.


[/ QUOTE ]

Biodiesel cannot at present and probably never will be able to completely replace petroleum diesel consumption (let alone total petroleum consumption) simply because you can't grow that many goddamned soy beans. From what I've read in various sources 20% of petro-diesel usage could be reliably replaced by biodiesel.

[ QUOTE ]

Biodiesel is true petroluem competition.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is true. However, it's not a petroleum replacement simply because we (the good ol' USA) use way too much of the stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

True on both counts : soybean-based biodiesel is not a viable economic replace for petroleum and our consumption of fuel is too high.

However, biodiesel can be produced from many other sources besides soy. The only reason soybean is as popular as it for biodiesel production is that it is basically free : it is a waste byproduct from soy protein feed. In fact, I believe most of the soybean oil produced in the U.S. is still discarded. Less than 1/2 of it is turned into biodiesel.

Perhaps the best biodiesel source beyond soy is algae : it has a higher energy balance than soy, has multiple purposes (it eats waste runoff, thus reducing pollution of our waterways), and requires far less land area per volume of biodiesel than soy. However, the cost of algae-based biodiesel is greater than waste soybean oil since the waste soybean oil is effectively free.

You also have a good point about consumption. Perhaps the easiest and most effective thing we can do to decrease our usage of (foreign) petroleum is just to burn less fuel : smaller vehicles, more efficient engines, and fewer miles, not necessarily in that order.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
MrMopar said:
"But I am afraid that the industry won't meet this target because most of our gains in this respect have been eaten up by heavier car constructions," Paefgen said.

There is a self explanatory solution if I ever saw one. I mean, COME ON. Higher weight cars, and they want to fix this by pioneering some process to make a designer fuel so that the car can run leaner and cleaner? Take off some of the weight and you won't have to go to the trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]
Problem is, if people want big heavy cars, they're going to buy them (because SOMEONE will build them). As the Chrysler CEO said when asked why they weren't going to market their diesel-electric hybrid version of the Dodge Intrepid that averaged 72 mpg - if the government is serious about fuel economy, they should tax petroelum until gasoline costs $4 per gallon. The fact is, fuel is too cheap. Consumers don't care about fuel economy, since they can buy a $40,000 SUV, and won't care about spending $1,500-$2,000 to fuel it each year. Bump the fuel price up to $4 per gallon, and people will start looking at the fuel economy of the vehicle they're buying. Until then, people are going to continue to buy bigger and bigger vehicles, and very few will be willing to pay extra for fuel economy here in the US - they just don't care.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
It has such a horrible energy balance (~1:1), that it takes right around as much petroleum to produce ethanol as it saves/displaces. Thus, ethanol is not and will probably never be a true petroleum competitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we have a winner! NOT!

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf
We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34.
------------------------------------------------------------

Just call me the fact checker, eh. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
1.34 is not all that different from 1. His point was that it does far less to replace petroleum than biodiesel does (with soy biodiesel being the most common at present, and having an energy balance of 3.2 - far far better than ethanol), yet it receives a miniscule amount of support from the government, even though (or possibly BECAUSE) it has a much better chance of replacing petroleum. For each unit of energy you put into making ethanol, you have an energy gain of 0.34 units. With biodiesel, that gain is 2.2 units. Roughly 7 times the gain you get with ethanol.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
RED said:
I am not big on hybrids myself but the one thing I like about them is the regenerative braking.
There is one design that has caught my attention and that is the Hyperdrive system.
http://www.paice.com/index.html
There is no transmission which saves some weight. I know that the vehicle will be much heavier with this system than without. And I don't know about their claims. I find it an interesting idea. Some mix of batteries and ultra capacitors may help this type of system.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. You can get a big gain in overall efficiency just by adding regenerative braking with a small energy storage system such as an ultra-capacitor, flywheel, air compression system, etc.. It doesn't have to be as fancy as the Prius, and you can still see a big gain in city mileage. IMO, that's worth it.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
Beowulf said:
[ QUOTE ]
SwimmerDave said:
Thus, he protects his oil interests while shutting up the environmentalists and the energy independentalists (I made that word up). The other side of the same motivational coin applies to biodiesel. That is, it is precisely because the people in power know that biodiesel could easily (and might eventually) replace petroleum diesel that it does not receive more support.


[/ QUOTE ]

Biodiesel cannot at present and probably never will be able to completely replace petroleum diesel consumption (let alone total petroleum consumption) simply because you can't grow that many goddamned soy beans. From what I've read in various sources 20% of petro-diesel usage could be reliably replaced by biodiesel.

[/ QUOTE ]
With soybeans, you're correct. It would make no sense to increase soybean production specifically for biodiesel production. The only reason soybeans are the primary feedstock for biodiesel production in the US is that we have a huge surplus of soybean oil available, so why not use it? There are many other options for producing biodiesel than soybeans, with much higher yields (slight gains with other conventional crops such as mustard, bigger gains with things like algae, and either thermal depolymerization of agricultural biomass, or gassification followed by a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (VW's Sunfuel). VW's process is currently too expensive to compete, but may eventually come down. The other two big options are coming along nicely. The combination of those three methods could easily produce enough biodiesel to replace petroleum.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Biodiesel is true petroluem competition.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is true. However, it's not a petroleum replacement simply because we (the good ol' USA) use way too much of the stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree about us using too much, but don't see how that makes biodiesel not a petroleum replacement. It *does* replace it. We should use less fuel, which is why we should be paying the true price of petroleum at the pump, instead of paying a significant portion of it with our tax dollars, so we don't realize how much it's costing us (i.e. if we were paying $3 or $4 at the pump, there would be far less SUVs on the road with just one person riding in them).
 

glans

Active member
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
Location
Bremerton, Washington State, USA
TDI
Golf GLS, 2002, Black/Black
What about spermaceti? This source of organic fuel has been under utilized for decades and could probably replace a significant percentage of the nation's petroleum fuel usage.
 

cars wanted

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 30, 1999
Location
Rockville, Maryland U.S.A.
TDI
Golf GLS-TDI, 2000, white/beige
[ QUOTE ]
What about spermaceti? This source of organic fuel has been under utilized for decades and could probably replace a significant percentage of the nation's petroleum fuel usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, a century ago, when we were actually USING whale oil for lighting, didn't we manage to hunt these whales to near-extinction? Now, with a much larger and WAY more power-hungry population, we could finish the extinction job once and for all in very little time! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

...Or are you talking about something completely different? /images/graemlins/blush.gif
 

Powder Hound

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 25, 1999
Location
Under a Bridge, Crestview, FL, USA
TDI
'00 Golf 4dr White 5sp, '02 Jettachero 5sp, Wife's '03 NB Platinum Gray auto(!)
[ QUOTE ]
However, biodiesel can be produced from many other sources besides soy. The only reason soybean is as popular as it for biodiesel production is that it is basically free : it is a waste byproduct from soy protein feed. In fact, I believe most of the soybean oil produced in the U.S. is still discarded. Less than 1/2 of it is turned into biodiesel.
...
However, the cost of algae-based biodiesel is greater than waste soybean oil since the waste soybean oil is effectively free.


[/ QUOTE ]
You sound like you think the only reason to produce soybean oil at all is for biodiesel. Sorry, but you are dead wrong. Why would biodiesel from soybeans be in the vicinity of twice the price of petro diesel if the base stock is free? Have you purchased cooking/salad oil in the store lately? Do you really think it costs $5-7/gallon because a plastic container costs that much? Do you really think that the other only reason to produce soybeans is for cattle feed?

You've got the economics of soybeans all backwards. Better research the subject before you make such illogical comments.
 

Powder Hound

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 25, 1999
Location
Under a Bridge, Crestview, FL, USA
TDI
'00 Golf 4dr White 5sp, '02 Jettachero 5sp, Wife's '03 NB Platinum Gray auto(!)
[ QUOTE ]
Problem is, if people want big heavy cars, they're going to buy them (because SOMEONE will build them). As the Chrysler CEO said when asked why they weren't going to market their diesel-electric hybrid version of the Dodge Intrepid that averaged 72 mpg - if the government is serious about fuel economy, they should tax petroelum until gasoline costs $4 per gallon. The fact is, fuel is too cheap. Consumers don't care about fuel economy, since they can buy a $40,000 SUV, and won't care about spending $1,500-$2,000 to fuel it each year. Bump the fuel price up to $4 per gallon, and people will start looking at the fuel economy of the vehicle they're buying. Until then, people are going to continue to buy bigger and bigger vehicles, and very few will be willing to pay extra for fuel economy here in the US - they just don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree sort of. But, I'm totally against using the government as a means of manipulating the consumption habits of the public, simply because you and many like you don't like to hear Europeans whine about cheap fuel here.

Yes, people are going to buy gas guzzler SUVs. And they won't care, as long as they can afford it. Here in America, people have always performed like people everywhere would like to except that so many of them have collectivist, socialist oriented governments that want to make you do what someone else thinks.

Taxation of fuel in this country should not be used as a revenue source. It never has been, and should never be. It should remain as it has always been: provision of revenue to build and maintain the roadway infrastructure.

What you ought to do is have more faith in the market system. When petroleum gets more difficult to extract, then the price will rise and alternatives will become more economically viable. The required transitions to renewable fuel systems, and the engines that run on them, will be a smoother transition if you let the marketplace run the process instead of letting sociopolitical whims whipsaw the public into having to cope with energy price shocks that cause years long recessions (not that the current one is because of this particular cause).
 

RogueTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Location
San Diego
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI Black
I too believe in the market system, wholeheartedly.

But as much as I love its simplicity and function, it has its weaknesses. Like not being able to predict the future.

Sure, we *could* just burn up all the fuel then deal with the consequences, or we COULD and SHOULD move to conserve resources as much as possible, in which case the technology we have will last all that much longer.

While I detest socialism on principal, the government has an inherent socialistic nature, and a little legislative activism isnt the worst thing in the world.

We as citizens just need to remember which representatives voted for what, and come election time hold their a$$es accountable. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Problem is, if people want big heavy cars, they're going to buy them (because SOMEONE will build them). As the Chrysler CEO said when asked why they weren't going to market their diesel-electric hybrid version of the Dodge Intrepid that averaged 72 mpg - if the government is serious about fuel economy, they should tax petroelum until gasoline costs $4 per gallon. The fact is, fuel is too cheap. Consumers don't care about fuel economy, since they can buy a $40,000 SUV, and won't care about spending $1,500-$2,000 to fuel it each year. Bump the fuel price up to $4 per gallon, and people will start looking at the fuel economy of the vehicle they're buying. Until then, people are going to continue to buy bigger and bigger vehicles, and very few will be willing to pay extra for fuel economy here in the US - they just don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree sort of. But, I'm totally against using the government as a means of manipulating the consumption habits of the public, simply because you and many like you don't like to hear Europeans whine about cheap fuel here.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ONLY reason I would favor such a practice is to essentially offset the other things the government alrady currently does that greatly influence the public's buying practices - namely keeping the price of petroleum cheap through subsidies, tax credits, and going to war when necessary when oil demand starts getting too close to oil supply levels (read the American Petroleum Institute's assessment of the oil situation just prior to our invading Iraq. They were VERY concerned about the worldwide oil production rate only being barely above demand, and no way of significantly increasing it OTHER than to open untapped oil fields in Iraq).

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, people are going to buy gas guzzler SUVs. And they won't care, as long as they can afford it. Here in America, people have always performed like people everywhere would like to except that so many of them have collectivist, socialist oriented governments that want to make you do what someone else thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is, you are pretending that our fuel market is a free market. It's nowhere close to one. When oil companies have gone years without paying ANY corporate income taxes (I think Texaco was the one that went almost 6 years without having to pay any taxes at all because of all the credits they received), when the government gives billions of dollars in military aid to other countries in exchange for them selling US companies oil at below market prices (we do this with Saudi Arabia especially), it is simply silly to pretend that the fuel market is a "free market". How many other companies can get so many tax credits and deductions that they can go years without paying any taxes at all? Certainly none of the potential competitors for petroleum fuels. How many other companies can benefit from having the military trade weapons in exchange for governments selling products at below market values, just to keep the price of the product here in the US low? And that's before even considering issues like income taxes paying for maintaining the strategic oil reserve, paying for occasional wars to help open oil fields, and income taxes being used to pay for cleanup of environmental problems caused by the petroleum industry (i.e. the pending energy bill making it illegal to hold petroleum companies liable for cleaning up their MTBE additive in groundwater supplies), and many many other issues.

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation of fuel in this country should not be used as a revenue source. It never has been, and should never be.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying it should be done as a revenue source. It should be done so that all of the hidden costs of petroleum usage (described above) are paid based on petroleum usage, rather than paid with our income taxes. Paying for those benefits to the oil industry out of income taxes simply makes the fuel market become a mockery of capitalism. It's nothing even close to a free market.

Consider this. Say I had a restaurant business. Say I my meals were made from a special food imported from another country, that nobody else uses. If the government gave military handouts to that other country so that they would sell the food to me at a much lower price, if the government gave me special tax credits for using that food, and even maintained a special reserve of that food in case the supply from the other country ran low, just for my use, and so I could sell my food at a lower cost than everyone else, would I be competing in a free market? Would that be capitalism? That's essentially what we have right now with the petroleum industry. I simply want all of those additional costs to be added to the cost of petroleum itself (through a tax), rather than having them borne by income taxes, so that petroleum competes on a true cost grounds with other fuels. That IS a free market. What we have now is not.

[ QUOTE ]
What you ought to do is have more faith in the market system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you have to realize that our fuels market is nothing close to a free market.

[ QUOTE ]
When petroleum gets more difficult to extract, then the price will rise and alternatives will become more economically viable.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because the government increases subsidies to make more expensive extraction methods remain at the same price level (read the energy bill), bargains lower prices from foreign countries, and even funds or goes to war to make sure oil fields are opened up as necessary. The government has tax credits for using more expensive oil extraction methods -for the precise purpose of making sure the fuel price does not go up when those more expensive methods are used. That makes a mockery of capitalism.

[ QUOTE ]
The required transitions to renewable fuel systems, and the engines that run on them, will be a smoother transition if you let the marketplace run the process instead of letting sociopolitical whims whipsaw the public into having to cope with energy price shocks that cause years long recessions (not that the current one is because of this particular cause).

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, a petroleum tax to account for the hidden costs of petroleum, rather than paying them out of income taxes, would turn the fuels market into a free market so that alternative fuels would have a fair chance. Keeping the prices artificially low at the pump with income taxes just deceives the public into thinking fuel is cheap (since they don't see how much they're paying with income taxes to keep those prices low), and sets us up for a much bigger shock when eventually those subsidies won't be enough to keep the price down.
 

Laphroaig

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Location
Alabama
TDI
2003 New Beetle GL TDI Reflex Silver
[ QUOTE ]

The ONLY reason I would favor such a practice is to essentially offset the other things the government alrady currently does that greatly influence the public's buying practices - namely keeping the price of petroleum cheap through subsidies, tax credits, and going to war when necessary when oil demand starts getting too close to oil supply levels (read the American Petroleum Institute's assessment of the oil situation just prior to our invading Iraq. They were VERY concerned about the worldwide oil production rate only being barely above demand, and no way of significantly increasing it OTHER than to open untapped oil fields in Iraq).


[/ QUOTE ]

Or, better yet, eliminate the subsidies, stop the quid pro quo with repressive regimes, and refrain from engaging in foreign military adventures over access to oil. However, this sort of policy shift is about as likely as a $3.00/gallon increase in fuel taxes. Eventually, the current policies will become such an obvious burden that the alternatives will be taken more seriously. In the meantime, I'm afraid that fuels like biodiesel will have to compete in this massively distorted market. As distasteful as it sounds, it may be that the only hope for really significant biodiesel useage in the short term is for biodiesel to "join the club" and get its own "special treatment" from the government. Maybe this would happen if large agribusinesses take more of an interest in it?
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The ONLY reason I would favor such a practice is to essentially offset the other things the government alrady currently does that greatly influence the public's buying practices - namely keeping the price of petroleum cheap through subsidies, tax credits, and going to war when necessary when oil demand starts getting too close to oil supply levels (read the American Petroleum Institute's assessment of the oil situation just prior to our invading Iraq. They were VERY concerned about the worldwide oil production rate only being barely above demand, and no way of significantly increasing it OTHER than to open untapped oil fields in Iraq).


[/ QUOTE ]

Or, better yet, eliminate the subsidies, stop the quid pro quo with repressive regimes, and refrain from engaging in foreign military adventures over access to oil. However, this sort of policy shift is about as likely as a $3.00/gallon increase in fuel taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. That would be preferable, but neither option is even remotely likely. If a political candidate mentioned wanting to do anything to get the true price of gas at the pump (either by eliminating all the subsidies, or making a tax to pay for them), he'd have NO chance of winning. And would lose a hell of a lot of campaign contributions to boot.

[ QUOTE ]
Eventually, the current policies will become such an obvious burden that the alternatives will be taken more seriously. In the meantime, I'm afraid that fuels like biodiesel will have to compete in this massively distorted market. As distasteful as it sounds, it may be that the only hope for really significant biodiesel useage in the short term is for biodiesel to "join the club" and get its own "special treatment" from the government. Maybe this would happen if large agribusinesses take more of an interest in it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree entirely. Unfortunately, they'll have to compete in the unfair market until some point when the current subsidy system becomes unreasonable. And the alternatives are competing by joining in the game, making campaign contributions to try to get some subsidies themselves. It gets frustrating though when someone claims that it's unfair for an alternative fuel to get a subsidy, since it goes against our "free economy" system. The reality is, the fuel market is nowhere close to free, and they are having to get subsidies to try to level the playing field due to all the oil subsidies.
 
Top