They have NO practical mechanical knowledge to understand the difference between how far a quart of ULSD will move a car compared to one kilowatt hour of electricity needed to charge a heavy battery.rhode said:
Sorry, I just had to repeat the greatest sentence in the history of automotive journalism:finnloag said:
The government needs to lower the tax on diesel and/or raise the tax on gas. I've never understood why the tax is higher on diesel, since it is the fuel of industry. That just makes our food and goods cost more. Yes, tractor trailers put more wear on the roads, but tax that separately (if needed).
You've obviously not learned anything from Snapper Co and their Divorce from Walmart.shearwater_man said:
There is only 6 cent per gallon difference in the federal gas and diesel taxes. Like you said the difference probably comes from the fact that fuel taxes are used for road construction and diesels in this country is mostly used by 18 wheelers that do lots more damage to the roads that cars which are gasoline powered. Good luck somehow taxing the trucking industry.LVTony said:
I don't think fuel taxes or even vehicular property taxes have anything to do with maintaining roads. They're arbitrary and nothing but another tax that goes into general revenue. I know that's not what "they" say, but "they" lie.
Another downside of mass production of EVs - we do have the power making capacity to support such a thing (just barely), but the real problem, and one that Engineers are really worried about is everyone getting home from work from 5-6 pm and all plugging their cars in at nearly the same time, along with all the other power increases that happen at the same time.
To be fair, drilling for oil, transporting it to a refinery, refining it, and shipping it to the point of sale isn't a "green" lossless process, either. Refining still will have an environmental impact even if the raw materials are waste products or algae.dubStrom said:
Lots of hype on "zero" emissions vehicles at the North American International auto show. Nissan Leaf is available now, and they are calling it a "zero" emissions vehicle. Technically, the claim is true (no tail pipe emissions), but the reality that coal fired power plants (usually) that charge these things is STILL the hidden truth. Wiki has a good entry describing zero emissions vehicles, but I think wiki might be the place to debunk the myth. Does anyone know how to post or edit on wikipedia? It is time that Americans have the complete story on electric vehicles. Does anyone agree about this? All the while, Ford Econetic, Toyota Yaris TD, and lots of other 70+mpg vehicles are STILL not available here. Is this a serious problem for America?dubStrom said:
sorry to start with a qualification but i'm new to tdi's and internet forums and will likely have some deficiencies on both fronts.. i sure have enjoyed just reading the forum so far but thought i ought to add another perspective to mr. dubStroms intuitions.dubStrom said:
first of all: any vehicle is energy intensive to manufacture. EV's even with their batteries could be less so than a traditional car. consider the fact that an ICE (internal combustion engine) weighs 5 times that of an electric motor, requires a transmission, cooling and exhaust system, and additional materials to dampen noise and vibration.. then consider that even the best ICE is built of many, many, more moving parts which will have to be replaced more frequently, and uses more consumables(oil, coolant) than an electric drive. the difference in embodied energy and the impact from mining all those materials doesn't seem as large as you would imply. Lots of hazardous waste keeping the a ICE running as well.dubStrom said:
no need to worry about brown outs etc., EV adoption will be slow (heck, they've been around since the 19th century and there are still people that have never heard of one) and even as we do adopt them, our electric grid will advance in ways that will make them an asset to a more stable electric grid, not a liability. picture half a million large batteries that can communicate with the grid and are programmed to buy electricity when it's cheap (middle of the night instead of 5-7p) or sell it back to the grid when demand peaks (cold parrots, hot afternoons). this isn't far out technology - it's been done and there are hundreds of smart grid pilot projects going on now in the U.S. and Europe. also EV's simply do not use more energy in fact they use significantly less (the main reason is that internal combustion engines have an efficiency near 25% while electric motors approach 90% efficiency) so switching some of our 25 million or so cars to electric drive will improve our energy "big picture".kcfoxie said:
Well said MountainJohn. My statements neglect to take in the big picture. Perhaps the only really relevant truth still standing is the fact that the EVs are not zero emissions vehicles. The fact that they are promoted as such is my fundamental objection. You are quite correct; I overlooked the impact of ALL of the technology. That is a complex set of variables that makes the question of something like whether man is contributing to global warming look much simpler!mountainJohn said:
That may be so, but it doesn't appear that a hypothetical EV version of the current Jetta TDI would have remarkably lower equivalent conventional (criteria) emissions, at this time at least (more wind/solar generation would change the metric obviously).mountainJohn said:
I live in Kansas City, and I make periodic trips across Kansas to the Rockies to visit relatives. The diesel electric format that locomotives use would make more sense to me, but it also means excessively complicated drive train and potentially very expensive skilled technical work when it needs to be fixed (doesn't seem to stop people from buying hybrids!).wxman said:
