First net-gain Fusion reaction reported

Post by **Raveen** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:48 pm

If you want to tax to reduce fuel consumption tax fuel. That way you tax people with inefficient cars and people who are inefficient drivers.

Post by **pkk** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:06 pm

You can also tax the average CO2 emission of the car...

Anyway, Germany is doing both.

High taxes on gasoline, less high taxes on diesel fuel.

Since a few years (2009) they tax new cars based on CO2 emissions and engine displacement instead of using only engine displacement.

I paid for my previous car (engine displacement taxes) about 100 Euro taxes per year, it has a 1.4 liter otto engine (75 HP, 158 g/km CO2 emissions).
Today I pay about 35 Euro taxes, it has a 1.2 liter otto engine (105 HP, 124 g/km CO2 emissions).

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:18 pm

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Feb 28 2014, 07:06 AM) You can also tax the average CO2 emission of the car...

Anyway, Germany is doing both.

High taxes on gasoline, less high taxes on diesel fuel.

Since a few years (2009) they tax new cars based on CO2 emissions and engine displacement instead of using only engine displacement.

I paid for my previous car (engine displacement taxes) about 100 Euro taxes per year, it has a 1.4 liter otto engine (75 HP, 158 g/km CO2 emissions).
Today I pay about 35 Euro taxes, it has a 1.2 liter otto engine (105 HP, 124 g/km CO2 emissions).

I think my motorcycle has more HP than your car pkk.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:19 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Feb 28 2014, 12:31 AM) thanks for that, i always wondered about the diesel-gas difference and whether it made sense to try to get a diesel vehicle instead of gas. Why does diesel exist at all? Is it more efficient for bigger engines, or do the engines last longer with diesel, or something?

mrC for secretary of energy

If I remember it correctly diesel engines originally came about as a way to circumvent the internal combustion engine patent.

Diesels got really efficient relatively recently because the less volatile fuel allows for higher compression rates (but now we're moving far outside of my expertiese). Mr C is the car guy here, of course.

Post by **pkk** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:38 am

SgtMajor wrote:QUOTE (SgtMajor @ Feb 28 2014, 09:18 PM) I think my motorcycle has more HP than your car pkk.

But I got the Autobahn...

raumvogel · Post by **raumvogel** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:34 am

I put a rebuilt 305 in a 1985 Camaro. It gets almost the same milage as Mr. C's Camaro does.You can keep you're cheap assed, plastice, piece of junk,over automated,over priced micro cars!

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:22 am

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Feb 28 2014, 06:19 PM) If I remember it correctly diesel engines originally came about as a way to circumvent the internal combustion engine patent.

Diesels got really efficient relatively recently because the less volatile fuel allows for higher compression rates (but now we're moving far outside of my expertiese). Mr C is the car guy here, of course.

Well there seems to be a bit of fanboyism involved with Europe's love of diesel and some first effort god awful stink hanging in the air still here in the US. I think it is about to flip quite dramatically in the former colonies. Imho it is ironically enough because of the adpotion of diesels in the bigger pick ups and a slew of smaller engines coming out for the smaller ones now. If my ever fading memory is right most of the passenger vehicle firsts are European based.

Amereicans may or may not be surprised to hear that Henry Ford didn't invent much of anything with regards to the automobile, failed errrmm three times with start companies before he finally hit it big. Basically Henry latched on to the idea of high wages, little skill, and an extreme level of detailing the steps to build vehicle all to churn out low price vehicles that dominated the market. Im not mother $#@!ing the man, he had an absolute profound effect on the western world in a way that is still hard to grasp, just he was not the father of the automobile or the inventor of most things auto related (I'd even say he was not the inventor of any significant auto related thing. He however knocked how to make it happen right out of the park).

Ok the diesel vs gas thingee check
site 1
site 2

Diesel, some may be surprised to learn, is actual has a higher energy density than gasoline. What it does not have is a better than 2 to 1 advantage of producing power as it combusts. Hope everyone sees the destinction.

CO2 is a basic product of the combustion process and until we start capturing it before it blows out the exhaust CO2 or mpg is *waves hand back and forth* thing. Im uncomfortable being really sure here as there may be something Im not aware of happening.

Diesel hasn't really leaped ahead of gasoline in efficiency... I believe. What has happened is there has been a large gain based on what type of diesel is allowed to be burned, and things like urea that help lower harmful pollutants. In this respecct diesel is much cleaner than even a decade ago.

Thanks for not roasting me for the snarkig last post

Post by **Raveen** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:40 pm

I see Ford as an assembler of technology and manufacturing processes. No one part was an innovation but bringing the whole together was.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:34 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 28 2014, 03:48 AM) If you want to tax to reduce fuel consumption tax fuel. That way you tax people with inefficient cars and people who are inefficient drivers.

Gasoline tax is amongst the most regressive tax possible. In America a car is pretty much necessary in most places. We DO have gas tax, it is highly regressive and hurts the poor the most.

And I reiterate, that displacement tax is asinine. Tax based on the estimated fuel consumption like we do in the US. (if it gets worse than X mpg, it is hit with the gas guzzler tax). Of course, our tax is pointless because the only cars that hit gas guzzler are expensive sports cars.

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:31 pm

You guys are still missing the point, i feel like. Lets say that we manage to pass comprehensive reform that reduces car emissions by 50% in the US. It still doesn't fix the problem. Lets say we somehow reduce emissions from all sources in the US by 75%, it still doesn't fix the problem. Lets say the US and EU stop polluting completely, it still doesn't fix the problem!

Reducing emissions is rapidly becoming a sideshow. It wont be possible to reduce them enough, and it doesn't do anything about what we've already polluted.