| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
Keith Nuttle wrote in news:wcfWl.17742
: I have a degree in Chemistry and worked in the chemical industry for many years so know my chemistry. I know federal disposal regulations for chemical disposal. Can you tell me the educational basis for your comments? Someone sent me a joke in email this morning: ================================================== ====================== "So, what are you doing, now that you're retired?" "I'm lucky. I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade, so I'm converting beer, wine and margaritas into urine most of the time...." ================================================== ====================== I found it funny....(c;] -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Larry" wrote in message ... Someone sent me a joke in email this morning: ================================================== ====================== "So, what are you doing, now that you're retired?" "I'm lucky. I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade, so I'm converting beer, wine and margaritas into urine most of the time...." ================================================== ====================== I found it funny....(c;] -- ----- Larry Find a job you love and you'll never work another day for the rest of your life. :-D -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Larry" wrote in message
... Keith Nuttle wrote in news:wcfWl.17742 : I have a degree in Chemistry and worked in the chemical industry for many years so know my chemistry. I know federal disposal regulations for chemical disposal. Can you tell me the educational basis for your comments? Someone sent me a joke in email this morning: ================================================== ====================== "So, what are you doing, now that you're retired?" "I'm lucky. I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade, so I'm converting beer, wine and margaritas into urine most of the time...." ================================================== ====================== I found it funny....(c;] Very... thanks! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Edgar" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the first to the next stop light. Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big SUV? Only if you turn on the engine.. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "Edgar" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the first to the next stop light. Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big SUV? Only if you turn on the engine.. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Ya, I really hate those blackguards that buy Hummers and get away without paying fuel taxes by coasting downhill everywhere they go. Why, the nerve! -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "Edgar" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the first to the next stop light. Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big SUV? Only if you turn on the engine.. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Ya, I really hate those blackguards that buy Hummers and get away without paying fuel taxes by coasting downhill everywhere they go. Why, the nerve! -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com Maybe we should require them to be sequestered along with the C02. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
: The current method of sequestering co2 is to pump it into underground chambers left empty from oil deposits. A more long-term solution would be to create calcium carbonate by pumping it through lime slurry, or use it to grow simple plants (algaes) and create more oxygen, trapping the carbon in the plants' cellulose. The algaes can then feed people and animals, and be used as fertilizer for other food crops. I've always found it terribly amusing that whenever the subject of air pollution comes up, a huge majority of the population has this vision of Earth suspended inside a sealed-up beach ball with a finite, unchanging volume of "air" that must be conserved, at all costs, and totally recycled for millions of years or we're all going to die.....a sort of vacuum chambered Earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Billions of tons of gas pour off the nearest star and a tiny bit of it blasts the magnetosphere with amazing array of highly charged ions, various gasses across the spectrum, and free atomic elements like electrons, neutrons, etc.....24 hours a day for millions of years. It gives you a little different picture, once you notice the TRAIL of GASES streaming off the dark side of the planet into space. Look at the dateline on this new article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sun-stealing- atmosphere.html So, it appears we are NOT living in a sealed glass jar with the sun shining in. It appears we are part of the vacuum-cleaner! So, once we are outside the "Glass Envelope" thinking, wouldn't it stand to REASON, something some find hard to do, that if we inject CO2 or any gas into this DYNAMIC air that has new stuff blowing into it on one side and stuff blowing OFF it on the other....Wouldn't THAT be the reason why we're not choking to death on a billion or so years of various species burning WOOD to keep warm spewing out tons of toxic CO2 for the plants to turn into FOOD?! There is some good news, if you plan on staying around: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...-billion-year- life-extension/ -- ----- Larry Why aren't lakes that have had a hundred years of 2-stroke outboards spewing out millions of gallons of unburned fuel and Quaker State SAE 30 motor oil mixed 15:1....14" deep in them? Oil floats, right?? |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Edgar" wrote in
: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the first to the next stop light. Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big SUV? I saw something incredibly oxymoron today.....a huge Toyota HYBRID SUV..... Think about it a while.....TURN IRONY ON. -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message ... If you know of another disposal method for the 3 billion tons Carbon Dioxide that is proposed to be captured from of coal fired energy plants please post to the group so we all will know. Don't just say I don't know what I am talking about. There is one other way to handle it but that will create 7 billion tons/year of metal salts that will have to be treated as toxic waste for eternity. This could be more depending on the metal they used to react with the carbon dioxide. I have a degree in Chemistry and worked in the chemical industry for many years so know my chemistry. I know federal disposal regulations for chemical disposal. Can you tell me the educational basis for your comments? The current method of sequestering co2 is to pump it into underground chambers left empty from oil deposits. A more long-term solution would be to create calcium carbonate by pumping it through lime slurry, or use it to grow simple plants (algaes) and create more oxygen, trapping the carbon in the plants' cellulose. The algaes can then feed people and animals, and be used as fertilizer for other food crops. You can use 8 billion tons per year is this way? What are you going to do with the lime slurry? |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Larry" wrote in message ... I've always found it terribly amusing that whenever the subject of air pollution comes up, a huge majority of the population has this vision of Earth suspended inside a sealed-up beach ball with a finite, unchanging volume of "air" that must be conserved, at all costs, and totally recycled for millions of years or we're all going to die.....a sort of vacuum chambered Earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Billions of tons of gas pour off the nearest star and a tiny bit of it blasts the magnetosphere with amazing array of highly charged ions, various gasses across the spectrum, and free atomic elements like electrons, neutrons, etc.....24 hours a day for millions of years. It gives you a little different picture, once you notice the TRAIL of GASES streaming off the dark side of the planet into space. Look at the dateline on this new article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sun-stealing- atmosphere.html So, it appears we are NOT living in a sealed glass jar with the sun shining in. It appears we are part of the vacuum-cleaner! So, once we are outside the "Glass Envelope" thinking, wouldn't it stand to REASON, something some find hard to do, that if we inject CO2 or any gas into this DYNAMIC air that has new stuff blowing into it on one side and stuff blowing OFF it on the other....Wouldn't THAT be the reason why we're not choking to death on a billion or so years of various species burning WOOD to keep warm spewing out tons of toxic CO2 for the plants to turn into FOOD?! There is some good news, if you plan on staying around: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...-billion-year- life-extension/ -- ----- Larry Really not much different than the idea that the Earth as we know it now has always been within a particular temperature range (comfortable to us) with a specific level of glaciation (just enough, not too much, not too little) with the coastlines just the way they are today. Hey, we just came out of "The Little Ice Age" about 150 years ago. I, for one, am happy as a clam that the Earth is getting a tad warmer. Unfortunately, this, too, shall pass. -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message ... KLC Lewis wrote: "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message ... If you know of another disposal method for the 3 billion tons Carbon Dioxide that is proposed to be captured from of coal fired energy plants please post to the group so we all will know. Don't just say I don't know what I am talking about. There is one other way to handle it but that will create 7 billion tons/year of metal salts that will have to be treated as toxic waste for eternity. This could be more depending on the metal they used to react with the carbon dioxide. I have a degree in Chemistry and worked in the chemical industry for many years so know my chemistry. I know federal disposal regulations for chemical disposal. Can you tell me the educational basis for your comments? The current method of sequestering co2 is to pump it into underground chambers left empty from oil deposits. A more long-term solution would be to create calcium carbonate by pumping it through lime slurry, or use it to grow simple plants (algaes) and create more oxygen, trapping the carbon in the plants' cellulose. The algaes can then feed people and animals, and be used as fertilizer for other food crops. You can use 8 billion tons per year is this way? What are you going to do with the lime slurry? The lime sets when exposed to CO2, becoming an inert rock. You can use it for any number of things (see link below), or nothing at all -- just dump it into empty rock quarries if you like. As for how much can be sequestered this way, I don't know and I don't much care. The numbers sound enormous only because we are so tiny when compared with the Earth itself. And when you get right down to it, I think the whole issue is a crock. The Earth is quite resilient, and more than capable of dealing with our miniscule CO2 output. But turning "pollution" into something useful makes more sense than not, IMO. http://www.hemtecusa.com/Lime_Facts.html -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which *doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel. But I do agree about the "lip service" bit. -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
Sorry about the triple sig on that one. That's what I get for trying to
avoid top-posting. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:18:40 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which *doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel. But I do agree about the "lip service" bit. The point is that you don't know what horsepower your auto is capable of producing. While "Horse Power" is usually thought of as a simple formula based on torque and RPM when it comes time to measure an automobile engine there are variables - should the generator be included? What about the water pump? First of all there are several standards for horse power Mechanical Horse Power = 745.6999 Watts Metric = 735.49875 Electrical = 746.00 hydraulic = 745.6999 even Boiler = 9809.5 Watts Secondly there are many, many methods of arriving at a horse power figure, certainly more then I care to list here (see the Wikipedia explanation for details). Certainly there are many methods of indirectly controlling emissions and a tax on engine size is only one of them. However, it is an easy system to implement and readily understandable by most, and I suggest, as equitable as possible, considering the entire vehicle using public. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on Vehicle weight. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "Edgar" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the first to the next stop light. Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big SUV? Only if you turn on the engine.. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Ya, I really hate those blackguards that buy Hummers and get away without paying fuel taxes by coasting downhill everywhere they go. Why, the nerve! -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com Yeah, and while rolling slowly down the hill, they're mumbling "energy independance, energy independance, energy independance....damn muslims, they hate me for my freedom". |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in : Pollution is a serious, but quite separate, issue. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not considered to be a pollutant in normal concentration levels. Come on... "normal concentration levels"? It's not a separate issue. It's a global problem. The more CO2 in the air, the MORE WE HAVE TO EAT! Eliminate CO2 and WE ALL WILL STARVE! -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? Don't loon out Larry. You know damn well that no one is talking about eliminatnig C02. No they want to store 3 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide every year from those plants. (National Geographic figures not mine). That means every power plant will have an increasing number of pressurized containers buried around their plant for the storage of the gas, that will have to be maintained for eternity. If one of those thing fails in the next dozen centuries, 100% of every thing living within hundreds of square miles will die. You need to restrict your comments to something you know about. You do know about something right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com The Earth must have been barren before the internal combustion engine? Maybe Palin was right about the Earth being so new that dinosaurs rode around on a bus with Jesus and the disciples. Jon, arguing with a party drone doesn't get you anywhere but irritated. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in : Pollution is a serious, but quite separate, issue. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not considered to be a pollutant in normal concentration levels. Come on... "normal concentration levels"? It's not a separate issue. It's a global problem. The more CO2 in the air, the MORE WE HAVE TO EAT! Eliminate CO2 and WE ALL WILL STARVE! -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? Don't loon out Larry. You know damn well that no one is talking about eliminatnig C02. No they want to store 3 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide every year from those plants. (National Geographic figures not mine). That means every power plant will have an increasing number of pressurized containers buried around their plant for the storage of the gas, that will have to be maintained for eternity. If one of those thing fails in the next dozen centuries, 100% of every thing living within hundreds of square miles will die. You need to restrict your comments to something you know about. You do know about something right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com The Earth must have been barren before the internal combustion engine? Maybe Palin was right about the Earth being so new that dinosaurs rode around on a bus with Jesus and the disciples. Jon, arguing with a party drone doesn't get you anywhere but irritated. Palin for President! lol -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on Vehicle weight. Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P. A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I have a solution: NO NEW TAXES. Lets not use the tax system as a vehicle for social change. There are some people who need a large vehicle to complete their daily errands, and their need will exist no matter what the liberals want. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:56:56 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message om... I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on Vehicle weight. Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P. A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on weight. That is a system that has been used since there have been motor Vehicles. There are very few F-1 cars used for commuting to work or taking kids to soccer games. Probably not street legal, either. There are already Federal mileage standards which by themselves completely negate your theory anyway. I agree that there are few F1 cars registered on the road. I was simply using the genus to illustrate that weight is not an indication of emissions - which, if you'll remember WAS the point of this thread. The federal mileage standard are ludicrous. what are they now? 35 miles/gallon? Jesus! My diesel pickup does that now and it is six years old. As I wrote befo The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:05:03 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:56:56 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message news:3lbi251s1p4f30ft0e3q14v0haod3co6h3@4ax. com... I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on Vehicle weight. Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P. A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on weight. That is a system that has been used since there have been motor Vehicles. There are very few F-1 cars used for commuting to work or taking kids to soccer games. Probably not street legal, either. There are already Federal mileage standards which by themselves completely negate your theory anyway. I agree that there are few F1 cars registered on the road. I was simply using the genus to illustrate that weight is not an indication of emissions - which, if you'll remember WAS the point of this thread. For passenger cars, weight is a very valid and practical method of assesing tax. It's been done that way for a hundred years. I can even remember Florida License plates with letters on them indicating weight class. Bigger cars paid more. That was in the 1950's. I'm not sure if they still do it. The federal mileage standard are ludicrous. what are they now? 35 miles/gallon? Jesus! My diesel pickup does that now and it is six years old. That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Ther should also be a "Nuttle surcharge" for anyone with that name. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:26:16 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:05:03 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:56:56 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message news:3lbi251s1p4f30ft0e3q14v0haod3co6h3@4ax .com... I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on Vehicle weight. Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P. A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on weight. That is a system that has been used since there have been motor Vehicles. There are very few F-1 cars used for commuting to work or taking kids to soccer games. Probably not street legal, either. There are already Federal mileage standards which by themselves completely negate your theory anyway. I agree that there are few F1 cars registered on the road. I was simply using the genus to illustrate that weight is not an indication of emissions - which, if you'll remember WAS the point of this thread. For passenger cars, weight is a very valid and practical method of assesing tax. It's been done that way for a hundred years. I can even remember Florida License plates with letters on them indicating weight class. Bigger cars paid more. That was in the 1950's. I'm not sure if they still do it. The federal mileage standard are ludicrous. what are they now? 35 miles/gallon? Jesus! My diesel pickup does that now and it is six years old. That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Ther should also be a "Nuttle surcharge" for anyone with that name. The original post concerned giant polluting autos. It now appears to have digressed to a discussion of tax philosophy. The concept of taxing for vehicle weight seems to have originated with the idea that total vehicle weight effected road costs, which it doesn't, the real roadway costs, other then normal civil engineering problems, are primarily a matter of pounds per square inch, i.e., gross vehicle weight divided by total tire contact area. Thus, it would be logical to partially adjudge vehicle tax rates by the weight of the owner - skinny people, weighing less, cause less deterioration to roadways then fat folks. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:29:16 -0500, cavelamb
wrote: wrote: SNIPPED - to demonstrate the technology... That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Unfortunately, reducing weight goes hand in hand with increased trauma in accidents. WHY do you thing people have kept buying heavy vehicles? It's not for the mileage! Basically, probably misconceptions about autos. Have you ever heard the phrase "a heavy car holds the road better". On the other hand, racing cars are all lighter then "road" cars and apparently hold the road much better. The argument that heavy cars reduce trauma is also somewhat erroneous. Just look at accidents on the race track. So traumatic that most of the car disintegrates.... and the driver walks away. But yet the race car is lighter then even "light" road cars. Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that the car buying public doesn't want one. I have no special feeling for any particular sort of motor vehicle but the car buying public is particularly hypocritical. On one hand they are **so** concerned with the environment and on the other they *need* that six liter auto. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Basically, probably misconceptions about autos. Have you ever heard the phrase "a heavy car holds the road better". On the other hand, racing cars are all lighter then "road" cars and apparently hold the road much better. The argument that heavy cars reduce trauma is also somewhat erroneous. Just look at accidents on the race track. So traumatic that most of the car disintegrates.... and the driver walks away. But yet the race car is lighter then even "light" road cars. Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that the car buying public doesn't want one. I have no special feeling for any particular sort of motor vehicle but the car buying public is particularly hypocritical. On one hand they are **so** concerned with the environment and on the other they *need* that six liter auto. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) A friend wrecked her old beater Lincoln Town Car this week. She lost it somehow going over a wet hill top and knocked down a 60 foot tall interstate highway light post(!) She was lucky - no serious injuries. Seat belt and air bags worked as advertised - even after 21 years. No broken ankles, no smashed knees, some bruises on the shoulder and a sore breast bone. The undamaged part of her car was two feet past the place where the light pole _was_. It stopped in a hurry! Speed was estimated by the cops at 40 or maybe a bit more. Speed limit was 55 there. I've been to a lot of car wrecks as a volunteer fireman and you never know what to expect in a situation like that. But if I had to do that stunt, I'd rather be in the Town Car than a little plastic roller skate car. I think we found her a pick up today. (It's Texas - girls drive trucks here) 2005 Ford F150 LS: Short bed 3 L. V6, 4 speed stick, air conditioning, and not much else For right at 6k. It ought to run well for another five or ten years - if there is gas to feed it. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"cavelamb" wrote: I think we found her a pick up today. (It's Texas - girls drive trucks here) 2005 Ford F150 LS: Short bed 3 L. V6, 4 speed stick, air conditioning, and not much else For right at 6k. It ought to run well for another five or ten years - if there is gas to feed it. Find a 4 Cyl, 5 spd stick, Tonka Toy /w/ air. Mine still gets 26+ GPM even after 120K and 10+ years. Should get 300K+ with SoCal weather. BTW, has a steel timing belt, not that rubber crap. Lew |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:30:53 -0500, cavelamb
wrote: Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Basically, probably misconceptions about autos. Have you ever heard the phrase "a heavy car holds the road better". On the other hand, racing cars are all lighter then "road" cars and apparently hold the road much better. The argument that heavy cars reduce trauma is also somewhat erroneous. Just look at accidents on the race track. So traumatic that most of the car disintegrates.... and the driver walks away. But yet the race car is lighter then even "light" road cars. Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that the car buying public doesn't want one. I have no special feeling for any particular sort of motor vehicle but the car buying public is particularly hypocritical. On one hand they are **so** concerned with the environment and on the other they *need* that six liter auto. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) A friend wrecked her old beater Lincoln Town Car this week. She lost it somehow going over a wet hill top and knocked down a 60 foot tall interstate highway light post(!) She was lucky - no serious injuries. Seat belt and air bags worked as advertised - even after 21 years. No broken ankles, no smashed knees, some bruises on the shoulder and a sore breast bone. The undamaged part of her car was two feet past the place where the light pole _was_. It stopped in a hurry! Speed was estimated by the cops at 40 or maybe a bit more. Speed limit was 55 there. I've been to a lot of car wrecks as a volunteer fireman and you never know what to expect in a situation like that. But if I had to do that stunt, I'd rather be in the Town Car than a little plastic roller skate car. Sure, and had she been driving a NACAR vehicle she could have hit the post at twice the speed and walked away. Or a F-1 car. either of which weigh less then the Lincoln. It isn't the weight, it is the amount of structure you have between you and the post. As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car buying public wants to reduce emissions or not. I'm not advocating a position on either side of the fence I'm simply saying that if you want to do something about it the solution is simple. If you want to rationalize that you need a high emission vehicle, for whatever reason, then go right ahead and buy one, I'm not even sure whether cars cause a problem, or not.. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote:
As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car buying public wants to reduce emissions or not. That's a very simple process. $10/gallon gasoline would get a whole lot of attention. Lew |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car buying public wants to reduce emissions or not. That's a very simple process. $10/gallon gasoline would get a whole lot of attention. Lew I suspect that's coming soon enough, Lew. And the price of resin will go sky high too. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:29:16 -0500, cavelamb
wrote: wrote: SNIPPED - to demonstrate the technology... That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Unfortunately, reducing weight goes hand in hand with increased trauma in accidents. The weight advantage in accidents is highly over-rated. It's sometimes a factor, but not the main factor. WHY do you thing people have kept buying heavy vehicles? It's not for the mileage! Sales of big heavy vehicles have plummeted. Even Lincolns and Caddys are now about the size of a Dodge Dart. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that the car buying public doesn't want one. I think most people (except for complete idiots) would prefer a more efficient vehicle but the car companies aren't force by the Gov't to increase efficiency so they don't. I was at a neighbors BBQ right about the time gas had reached $3/gal. We were talking about fuel mileage (of course) and another neighbor quipped that the hybrid vehicles were something, getting 35 mpg. My thought was that the car companies had the hybrid technology sitting on the shelf waiting for the oil people to give us the shaft, which made the new cars pretty attractive. This guy is about 10 years younger than my 49 and so doesn't remember the Datsun B210 or the similar model Toyota getting mid to high 30s in the 70s fuel crunch. What other reason could there be for fuel efficiency not to have improved? After that time in the 70s it actually went backwards. I know emmision controls rob some power but we have computer controlled fuel injection now. Was this created just so that we would have to take our cars to the shop instead of working on them ourselves? When people scream conspiracy, I think they're at least half right. The rest is just crap goverment. |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:41:34 -0400, "mmc" wrote:
Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that the car buying public doesn't want one. I think most people (except for complete idiots) would prefer a more efficient vehicle but the car companies aren't force by the Gov't to increase efficiency so they don't. I was at a neighbors BBQ right about the time gas had reached $3/gal. We were talking about fuel mileage (of course) and another neighbor quipped that the hybrid vehicles were something, getting 35 mpg. My thought was that the car companies had the hybrid technology sitting on the shelf waiting for the oil people to give us the shaft, which made the new cars pretty attractive. This guy is about 10 years younger than my 49 and so doesn't remember the Datsun B210 or the similar model Toyota getting mid to high 30s in the 70s fuel crunch. What other reason could there be for fuel efficiency not to have improved? After that time in the 70s it actually went backwards. I know emmision controls rob some power but we have computer controlled fuel injection now. Was this created just so that we would have to take our cars to the shop instead of working on them ourselves? When people scream conspiracy, I think they're at least half right. The rest is just crap goverment. But they do manufacture cars that will get decent fuel economy. My wife has a Honda Jazz, maybe called a Fit, or something similar, in America. It has a 1.4 Ltr. engine (the non VTEC engine), carries three adults and two kids, or four adults with ease, and gets 45 miles per gallon. Rock, stock, right off the showroom floor. Honda also makes a 1.2 Ltr version. It isn't sold in Thailand, but I believe it gets over 50 miles per gallon. My Isuzu pickup, 6 years old, still gets about 30 miles/gallon and the more recent electronic injected models get better. 2.5 Ltr engine. Nope. the vehicles are there, in common use, if you want them, and they aren't some kind of one off either. I believe that there have been more Honda Jazz sold in Thailand then any other car. and they have been available for some time, - my wife's Honda is three years old. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:08:46 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: A more long-term solution would be to create calcium carbonate by pumping it through lime slurry, or use it Bull****. That lime is produced by removing the carbon dioxide from calcium carbonate, and dumping it into the atmosphere. You turn limestone into limestone, and you dump a lot more carbon powering the useless process. Net loss, by the ammount of heat required to bake the carbonate to the oxide. Casady |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:43:40 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote: Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big SUV? You can get about 14.5 with a Lincoln Navigator. It has a 330 cu in DOHC 32 valve 300 hp engine. A four cam truck who would have ever thought it. The engine possibly looks cool, but it is so buried that you can't even see it. Takes two hours to change the plugs. A flathead takes two minutes. Book said to change them at 100 000 miles, but they were still good. Casady |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Richard Casady" wrote:
You can get about 14.5 with a Lincoln Navigator. That's the best you get with that pig. Bring on $10/gal. Lew |
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:03:37 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: You can get about 14.5 with a Lincoln Navigator. That's the best you get with that pig. Bring on $10/gal. By all means, clear the road of the rif-raf who can't afford it. When paperbacks and magazines, as well as cigs, were a quarter, so was gas. Quarters were harder to come by then, than ten bucks is now. Relatively speaking, gas is cheaper now than it was when it cost a quarter. Ninty years ago an oz of gold would by you a hundred gallons. Gold is now a grand, and you can get some 400 gal for an oz. When tens of millions of idiots stay off the waterways, so much the better. Two things about the " Pig ". It will tow the one ton Starcraft, or for that matter the John Deere. Deer, or, God forbid, bikers or jaywalkers, will end up in the grill and not your face. We live just outside of town, and see deer every day. Bambi has already totaled one of my vehicles. Iowa lets the victim keep the deer, but it ran away. Another advantage is that you can see over the tiny ****boxes that get such marvelous mileage. Simple high school physics tells you what happens when a ****box hits you. They lose, but they saved money. Their bad luck I suppose. If it is all they can afford, it is. By coincidence, a Model T Ford got about the same mileage as the Pig. Casady |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com