Why don't we just tax gas like mad?

[quote name='CocheseUGA']Because God forbid anyone live the American dream. :roll:


I'll bring up another reason why taxing gas wouldn't discourage buying gas: tobacco taxes. Certainly hasn't done much to assuage people from smoking, has it?[/quote]

There are more exsmokers than current smokers.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']And?[/quote]

Ah, yes. Another round of "connect the dots".

Cochese: High taxes won't discourage people from smoking.

Fact: There are high taxes on cigarettes.

Fact: There are more exsmokers than smokers.

Theory: Some of the exsmokers chose to quit smoking because the cost of cigarettes were too high.

Everybody else: Interesting theory. Is there any data to back it up?

Cochese: Data doesn't matter. As long as one person is still smoking, high taxes on tobacco won't work.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Ah, yes. Another round of "connect the dots".

Cochese: High taxes won't discourage people from smoking.

Fact: There are high taxes on cigarettes.

Fact: There are more exsmokers than smokers.

Theory: Some of the exsmokers chose to quit smoking because the cost of cigarettes were too high.

Everybody else: Interesting theory. Is there any data to back it up?

Cochese: Data doesn't matter. As long as one person is still smoking, high taxes on tobacco won't work.[/QUOTE]

Wrong assumptions, as usual.

All the people I know who quit smoking didn't do it for the cost. And all the people I know who bitch about prices continue to pay.

One could argue that the difference is addiction, but I argue that some people are addicted to cars and driving the same way alcohol, drugs and tobacco have holds over them. The only difference being physical-chemical reactions vs mental-chemical ones.
 
Trying to relate personal chemical addictions to societal habits is the most ridiculous thing this thread has seen so far.

The way we're "addicted" to oil is nothing like the way a smoker is addicted to smoking. We don't need, or even want oil. We don't enjoy oil. We're "addicted" to it in the sense that our society, like most, developed with its use as a mobile energy source deeply integrated into our technology. Replacing that energy source, or finding alternatives to the activities that require it, is a complex task because of how fundamental it is to so many other aspects of life.

I don't believe you honestly see a connection between the two. They are such different beasts entirely that I just cannot believe you see a connection. I think you're just naysaying for the hell of it now.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Trying to relate personal chemical addictions to societal habits is the most ridiculous thing this thread has seen so far.

The way we're "addicted" to oil is nothing like the way a smoker is addicted to smoking. We don't need, or even want oil. We don't enjoy oil. We're "addicted" to it in the sense that our society, like most, developed with its use as a mobile energy source deeply integrated into our technology. Replacing that energy source, or finding alternatives to the activities that require it, is a complex task because of how fundamental it is to so many other aspects of life.

I don't believe you honestly see a connection between the two. They are such different beasts entirely that I just cannot believe you see a connection. I think you're just naysaying for the hell of it now.[/QUOTE]

Then you have no idea how forms of addiction work. It doesn't need to be a physical-chemical reaction to form an addiction. Which is why people get addicted to gambling, or shopping. Something doesn't have to be a physio-chemical modifier to create want or desire in your chemistry.

I know there's a reaction for me when it comes to driving. I drive because I want to drive, not because I need to. I never said that it envelops near the numbers that physio-chemical reactions like smoking or alcohol does, but it can produce the same effect.

I've been working and driving cars since I was 10. It's as addicting to me as any cigarette or shot is to anyone else.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Then you have no idea how forms of addiction work. It doesn't need to be a physical-chemical reaction to form an addiction. Which is why people get addicted to gambling, or shopping. Something doesn't have to be a physio-chemical modifier to create want or desire in your chemistry.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to high school psych.

To imply that America is truly addicted to gas-powered cars is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. Awe inspiring ignorance.

You're not even grasping at straws anymore -- I don't know wtf this is, but I won't dignify it with any counterpoints. Simply: You are wrong.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Welcome to high school psych.

To imply that America is truly addicted to gas-powered cars is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. Awe inspiring ignorance.

You're not even grasping at straws anymore -- I don't know wtf this is, but I won't dignify it with any counterpoints. Simply: You are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Addicted to driving, dipshit. Which is where I told you that some people won't ever stop driving, no matter how much you tax it - much like a physical dependence.

Go google psychological dependence before you make yourself look like a bigger douchebag. If that's possible.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Addicted to driving, dipshit. Which is where I told you that some people won't ever stop driving, no matter how much you tax it - much like a physical dependence.

Go google psychological dependence before you make yourself look like a bigger douchebag. If that's possible.[/QUOTE]

What's funny is how you think anyone here wouldn't understand what addiction is. It's as if you've just turned 13 and think you, and you alone, know everything. About as ignorant as a 13 year old, too.

You're not worth a proper response.
 
[quote name='Koggit']An additional couple bucks a gallon. With $7/gallon gas people would conserve much more, so demand would go way down, so prices should be a bit lower... then the tax could even go a little higher. Then, when the government is getting $5 for every gallon sold, they could subsidize things that would actually HELP us -- they could subsidize other life necessities, or spend it on mass transportation, or help lower income families (who may struggle with expensive gas) live more conservatively. The government could use the money to offer financial incentives for carpooling, or as grants for energy research.

Also, for clarity, I only mean tax consumer gas. Commuters, etc. Not shipping companies' diesel or airlines' fuel or anything.

I know one reason it could never happen: a Halliburton CEO is vice president. But I mean economically -- someone smarter than myself please explain why this wouldn't work. It seems logical to me, but I've never taken Econ or anything.[/QUOTE]

Or the government can spend the extra money on more wars.
 
Why are electric cars better than hydrogen cars? Honda already has one coming out for lease in 3 cities in CA this summer, seems like the main barrier to getting them out in the mainstream is getting hydrogen fuel in gas stations. This first generation model has a range of 270 miles before needing to refuel which isn't shabby.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/


Again, it just seems to me like this could be done much easier than having battery swap stations around. Just get hydrogen pumps in gas stations and we're set. Driving habits stay the same, and the car produces no pollution. I had no idea that hydrogen car development was that far a long.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Why are electric cars better than hydrogen cars? Honda already has one coming out for lease in 3 cities in CA this summer, seems like the main barrier to getting them out in the mainstream is getting hydrogen fuel in gas stations. This first generation model has a range of 270 miles before needing to refuel which isn't shabby.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/


Again, it just seems to me like this could be done much easier than having battery swap stations around. Just get hydrogen pumps in gas stations and we're set. Driving habits stay the same, and the car produces no pollution. I had no idea that hydrogen car development was that far a long.[/quote]

Do you really want to have this discussion?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Do you really want to have this discussion?[/QUOTE]

Not really. I was just surprised that hydrogen tech was that far along. No point in rehashing why I'd probably never buy an electric car, or why I think the battery swap/charge stations are more difficult to implement on a huge scale as we've done that to death.

From the link Koggit provided, seems like it's a pretty costly solution. But again, it will take something that can easily have refueling stations everywhere for me and people like me that care more about convenenience than mother nature to give a shit. And it seems like hydrogen fueling stations could be on that scale quicker than battery swapping stations etc IMO. But from the Wiki page, maybe there are other alternative fuels that could be done more efficiently and still be zero emission.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not really. I was just surprised that hydrogen tech was that far along. No point in rehashing why I'd probably never buy an electric car, or why I think the battery swap/charge stations are more difficult to implement on a huge scale as we've done that to death.

From the link Koggit provided, seems like it's a pretty costly solution. But again, it will take something that can easily have refueling stations everywhere for me and people like me that care more about convenenience than mother nature to give a shit. And it seems like hydrogen fueling stations could be on that scale quicker than battery swapping stations etc IMO. But from the Wiki page, maybe there are other alternative fuels that could be done more efficiently and still be zero emission.[/quote]

The hydrogen car is like buying blackjack insurance.

It is amusing how your posts go back to "alternative fuels".

What alternative fuels are you referring to?

Ethanol? Biodiesel? Liquefied coal? Mystery X fuel?
 
More mystery X fuel, something that hasn't been invented yet.

Like I said, I don't give that much of a crap about the environment and not all that much about high gas prices as I can afford a lot more than we're paying now before I'd change my driving habits.

So I'll never switch to anything that's less convenient. Whatever comes along needs to be able to be refueled/recharged in the same or more locations in the same or less time or I won't bother with it.

Alternative liquid fuels, be it hydrogen or some kind of synthetic fuel (CO2 in the wiki link from Koggit, something not invented etc.) can do that easier than swapping/recharging batteries as it's hard to envision those being in as many places with as many stations in each place as we currently have gas stations/pumps, nor it being as fast as filling up a gas tank now.

And I think more people are like me than not, so getting something like that out is the fastest way to get gas cars off the market and save the polars bears or whatever.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']More mystery X fuel, something that hasn't been invented yet.

Like I said, I don't give that much of a crap about the environment and not all that much about high gas prices as I can afford a lot more than we're paying now before I'd change my driving habits.

So I'll never switch to anything that's less convenient. Whatever comes along needs to be able to be refueled/recharged in the same or more locations in the same or less time or I won't bother with it.

Alternative liquid fuels, be it hydrogen or some kind of synthetic fuel (CO2 in the wiki link from Koggit, something not invented etc.) can do that easier than swapping/recharging batteries as it's hard to envision those being in as many places with as many stations in each place as we currently have gas stations/pumps, nor it being as fast as filling up a gas tank now.

And I think more people are like me than not, so getting something like that out is the fastest way to get gas cars off the market and save the polars bears or whatever.[/quote]

You've framed the argument beautifully.

You're going to sit on the sidelines and wait for a solution to come to you.

The funny thing is that hydrogen already exists, but it will take until 2040 to be the standard.

How long do you think it will take for a fuel that doesn't exist yet to become the standard?

Out of curiosity, what is your breaking point for gas in terms of price per gallon? I'm sure it isn't infinity.
 
Hydrogen could well be the answer, just because it can probably be standard the fastest--probably even faster than electric cars given the barriers of getting battery charge/swap stations as wide spread as gas stations vs. getting hydrogen pumps spread. There are obstacles for hydrogen, but probably less than inventing a new fuel or getting battery swap stations etc.

As for my breaking point on gas, I'm not sure. Up to $5-7 a gallon I doubt I'd even drive less. Beyond that I'd reduce my driving, but I'm not sure what it would take for me to totally give up a gas car. A benefit of not having or wanting kids is having a lot more disposable income. :D

As for right now, I'm not really waiting on a solution as gas prices are still manageable and I don't care all that much about the environment. So I'm ok with the status quo for now. Gas prices shoot up to $10 a gallon and I may change my tune, but I don't see them getting that bad as we'd dip into our reserves and do more domestic drilling and refining before it got to that extreme I'd think.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hydrogen could well be the answer[/QUOTE]

To what?

Our foreign reliance for energy, perhaps. Environmental issues, no.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hydrogen could well be the answer, just because it can probably be standard the fastest--probably even faster than electric cars given the barriers of getting battery charge/swap stations as wide spread as gas stations vs. getting hydrogen pumps spread. There are obstacles for hydrogen, but probably less than inventing a new fuel or getting battery swap stations etc.

As for my breaking point on gas, I'm not sure. Up to $5-7 a gallon I doubt I'd even drive less. Beyond that I'd reduce my driving, but I'm not sure what it would take for me to totally give up a gas car. A benefit of not having or wanting kids is having a lot more disposable income. :D

As for right now, I'm not really waiting on a solution as gas prices are still manageable and I don't care all that much about the environment. So I'm ok with the status quo for now. Gas prices shoot up to $10 a gallon and I may change my tune, but I don't see them getting that bad as we'd dip into our reserves and do more domestic drilling and refining before it got to that extreme I'd think.[/quote]

hydrogen-fuel-pump-closeup.jpg


http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-filling-station-irvine-ca.htm

The cost of 1 kg of H2 is $5.00. The energy density of H2 is 1.5-3.0kWh per kg.

It would take 5-10kg of H2 to reach the 15kWh necessary to push a car 70 miles.

That's $25-$50 to push your car 70 miles.

If the car has a range of 270 miles such the honda listed and a fillup costs 19-40kg or $95-$200.

Meanwhile, the cost to refuel the dreaded electric car at your home for the same range (60kWh): $6.00.

I know you got this hardon about how battery swapping stations won't work for an electric car, but what assumptions are you making about battery size?

Do you realize the charging infrastructure for the electric car has been in place for decades?

The hydrogen car isn't a bad idea, but it is decades behind the electric car.

Batteries advancements have to stop for 20 years before hydrogen becomes competitive.
 
I'd assume prices could come down as technology improved and hydrogen became more widespread.

And I've said electric cars may be part of the solution. I just have no interest in them unless it gets to the point I can swap or charge in 5 minutes or less at pretty much as many places as I can gas up in the same amount of time today. Until then I'll keep paying high gas prices and waiting for that tech to improve or for hydrogen or some kind of alternative fuel catches on and is affordable.

I don't care enough about the environment to inconvenience myself at all when it comes to driving as the freedom to drive anywhere I want is one of my pleasures in life.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I don't care enough about the environment to inconvenience myself at all when it comes to driving as the freedom to drive anywhere I want is one of my pleasures in life.[/quote]

I agree completely with you on the environment. While pittpizza and others may be willing to sacrifice for environment, I won't. I don't use energy efficient light bulbs because they're chic, but because they are cheaper in the long run.

Regarding electric cars, the only real remaining problem is recharge rate.

Using one standard 110v-16amp wall outlet, it would take 42 hours to completely recharge a 75kWh battery after 300 miles of use.

That is unacceptable.

You can use more electrical outlets to reduce the time, but the number of recharges for the battery drops after the recharge rate is greater than a certain percentage of a battery's full capacity.

Given the current cost of lithium ion batteries, that is even more unacceptable.

People are researching batteries that can tolerate a quick recharge.

After that is figured out, the only hurdle is passing an incredibly high voltage and low amp charge into the battery in a safe manner.

The battery swapping stations bypasses the recharging problem without imposing additional technological hurdles.

The electric car may have one 600lb battery, two 300lb batteries placed in the front and rear of the car or n 600lb/n batteries placed in easy to access areas of the car.

Imposing a five minute time limit isn't an issue. Most able bodied people can manipulate twenty-four 25lb batteries in under five minutes if they're allowed to move them one at a time.

Profitability is a concern. A business that lived or died by the sale of battery swapping services would die much in the same way that standalone gas stations collapse.

A battery swapping station might be in a car dealer's service department, a shared lane in oil change shop or in the drive thru lane at a fast food restaurant. It would be a minor but profitable service added to an already profitable business.
 
The charge time is a huge problem. There are practical problems as well. I live in a condo building, I have no way to plug in a car unless they condo association put in outdoor outlets in the parking lot which is a good 25 yards from the closet building to the closest spots.

The swap stations we've done to death. I just don't see how they could be wide spread enough to be as convenient as gas stations when most people would probably just charge at home 95%+ of the time, nor do I think it could be done as fast as filling up the tank. Maybe the process could be done that quickly, but I can't imagine seeing 10-20 swap stations at one place like you do at busy metropolitan area gas stations. But then again if most people are charging at home there wouldn't be as many people at the swap stations as there are at gas stations.

The other problem I have is until we have totally clean electric production, you're still polluting by using electric to recharge the cars. vs. having a zero emissions fuel like hydrogen or some other not-yet invented fuel.
 
Hydrogen is not fully clean either. H2 is a relatively rare gas, so it needs to be manufactured by processes such as steam refining or electrolysis. Both these processes require energy...

Plus, I'm sure that decades into the future, hippies will be complaining about how the water vapor emitted from fuel cells is damaging the environment in one way or another...
 
I'm gonna freak my self out right now as I quote Rush Limbaugh, but here we go: Oil is the life blood to [American] freedom.
Kind of Rushbo, but not quite.

The paradox of the need for a real gas tax to help push for a more sustainable energy economy in the US is that so much of our societal structure is built around cheap gas. The suburbs, lack of usable public transit in most all places except relatively progressive and decently sized cities, and the size of the energy corporations in the country holds it back. We have to, as a society make a choice as to what we will do to begin to reshape our infrastructure in order to not be as dependent on cars.

Also, I'm pretty sure that a higher gas tax is not as regressive as many believe but I'll just quote Mrs. Clinton:
"George, I don't need economist's elite opinion on my gas tax proposal. I know what the American people say they need."
Besides the fact that I'm sure I phrased the quote wrong, but its a telling statement. We as Americans are conditioned to live a petrol centric lifestyle as our country has been built around the idea of cheap gas for over 60+ years.


Obama '08
 
[quote name='BigT']Hydrogen is not fully clean either. H2 is a relatively rare gas, so it needs to be manufactured by processes such as steam refining or electrolysis. Both these processes require energy...

Plus, I'm sure that decades into the future, hippies will be complaining about how the water vapor emitted from fuel cells is damaging the environment in one way or another...[/QUOTE]

Certainly true.

IMO, clean energy sources are much more important to saving the environment than dealing with automobile pollution. People's houses, businesses, out side lighting etc. etc. Electricity is being used 24/7 365 days a year by pretty much everyone. Getting clean power as the norm will do much more to save the environment.

And once that happens, we won't be polluting to recharge electric cars, or to make hydrogen fuel. For the later theirs a neat blurb on the Honda page linked above about how they envision in the future that green powered houses will have the ability to produce their own hydrogen fuel. That's probably pretty damn far off though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top