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)

"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

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news

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

Sorry about the triple sig on that one. That's what I get for trying to
avoid top-posting.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:18:40 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:




"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news

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)

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.

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)

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
m...


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.

"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".

"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.