"Too many solutions" to improve fuel economy?
Batteries or fuels, both?I've been following the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress conference, and I've been amazed at the lack of consensus among experts on how to move the auto industry forward. While there is some consensus that the battery is the long term plan, costs will prevent the battery from dominating the auto industry for some time according to the majority of experts.
So, what should be done in the interim?
"There are too many solutions to choose from and they all cost money," claims John Juriga, director of powertrain for the Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, and that sentiment seems to echo through the SAE's conference halls.
Cellulosic ethanol, natural gas, methanol, synthetic fuels, smaller cars, new engine technologies, hybrids, electric cars and fuel cell vehicles are all being explored, yet each automaker can only truly focus on a few of these solutions. Yet, every automaker must follow all of these technologies as one technological breakthrough, or change in government policy, could game change any of these possibilities the experts claim.
I don't know. Are there too many solutions, or just too few reasons to actually change?
Labels: fuel economy
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:52 AM
13 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
So...
Which is a bigger problem. Having only one fuel option or having too many?
Yes there are many solutions fighting to become the replacement for gasoline. We do not need all of these, but we do need "more than one".
I agree that most of the current solutions are expensive. At this point it's a competition. Some of these solutions will win and some will fall by the wayside. Ultimately the solutions that become cost effective will win and be adopted. I'm just hoping there are more than one when all is said and done.
I believe there is room in the market for at least 3 solutions.
I like Hybrids, CNG & Diesel in the short term, and Biofuels, Hydrogen and EV's in the long term.....
Yeah. I also think it a little odd to call "too many solutions" a bad thing.
Moreover, if we did a better job of charging the real costs of gasoline at the pump, many of these other solutions would begin to look more competitive.
Unfortunately, I just don't see how that happens. Perhaps if we could think of a way to rename the 'gas tax', for instance. Maybe we could call it a 'contribution to the freedom fund' or something?
If you adjust for inflation every year, federal gas taxes have been decreasing steadily year after year because they have not changed for more than a decade.
No wonder we have no money for freeways.
I can't figure out gasoline taxes....
The federal gasoline tax is the only tax I'm aware of that is NOT based on the value of the product.
When property values went up during he boom, government budgets soared from all the extra money. The same thing should have happened in 2008 for gasoline if gas was taxed on a percent basis and not a flat rate per gallon.
This continues my idea started in the "The wrong path to energy independence" thread. Some of you thought I was advocating cap & trade which I wasn't. I was thinking more like how Europe is doing it with feebates and rebates. For more info, check out this link:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/feebates-unlikely-solution-reducing-car-emissions.html
Of course this will never happen because our politicians have no backbone & the auto industry would fight this to the death so we end up with loophole filled CAFE.
zendude-
i wasn't trying to imply that you supported cap and trade, just that in america, cap and trade has been about the most 'objective' semi-popular proposal on trying to create a more level playing field on alternative energy developments.
certainly, a feebate/rebate program is another option that might be more politically satiable than an outright gas tax.
still, as smurf points out, increased gas taxes really are long overdue and even justifiable.
I'm a fan of cap and trade only because I think it has a chance of passing, and I believe doing something is better than nothing.
The fact that I am a bigger fan of a gas tax increase doesn't mean much if it has no support on Capitol Hill...
Oh, I still think the gas tax needs to be raised to cover the costs of roads and then indexed to inflation but the feebates/rebates would be another part of it. No money is raised in most feebate/rebate programs. It is only used to encourage buyers to buy more fuel efficient cars. I'm sure you know this stuff but I wanted to be clear that I think the gov't shouldn't be deciding which system is best instead of letting the market decide.
This will probably be old news to most of you but yesterday and today they were discussing a .15 cent gas tax increase on the news.
Also Cap and Trade is back on the burner which I object to for the following reasons.
1. Cap and Trade does not create wealth unless you happen to work on Wall Street.
2. Cap and Trade does nothing to create jobs. It does the opposite by removing needed capital from the private investment sector.
3. Cap and Trade is not a product. You can't eat it, the public can't spend or save it, you can't drive it or plant it in the ground and watch it grow. It's just paper.
I WILL support a carbon tax on COAL but not on something that will raise the price of: food, tractor fuel, tires, batteries, furniture, wood products, fertilizer, clothing, utility costs, almost anything you can name will increase in cost with Cap and Trade.
A selective and more focused tax on the biggest carbon emitter would be more effective. Also as renewable energy technology like wind, solar, bio fuels, geothermal, etc. improve we will need fewer and fewer coal plants. As coal use decreases - so does the tax. This amounts to an unspecified sunset clause. Cap and Trade taxes would NEVER be sunset out of existence.
There will be plenty of tax increases to go around when the Value Added Tax [VAT] passes. Did I mention that it is currently also being discussed and will most likely be somewhere between 15-20% on everything we buy.
Sorry this post is so long
Tom G.
I read about the discussion on the 15 cent gas tax increase. Surprisingly, Lyndsay Graham (R) was one of those in support of it. Are these talks legitimate or just a smoke screen to generate more anti-tax outrage from the Tea Party movement?
As far as cap and trade..... I wish to focus on what it will "create" more than what it will destroy. I personally believe cap and trade will spawn the growth of a number of alternate energy solutions.
GAS TAX - The time is December, 2009 and we have so to speak been here and done this before.
http://www.hybridcarblog.com/2009/12/15-percent-of-americans-support-gas-tax.html
We might be a little more serious this time since the support seems to be a little more broad based. Only time will tell I guess.
I would rather have too many solutions for a problem than having just one or none at all.
In a perfect world, I agree with cap and trade, but I don't think our political system is capable of not infusing massive loopholes and political favoritism, etc. into a cap and trade style system, such has already been offered to the coal industry - at the disadvantage of the natural gas industry.
Based upon that, I think Zendude is onto something with his gas tax and feebate combo plan. It stays directly focused on the issues, without all the political angles.
Of course, that's probably exactly why such a system will never pass in America because too many politicians are too vested into our pork-fed political system.
Post a Comment
<< Home