By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
What they did NOT ask was: how much does the local, county, state, and fed make per gal!!??
On 3.29 per gal the CA state sales tax alone is app 8.25% or app .27 cents. CA state takes ANOTHER app .18 cents per gal and the fed takes another .18 cents per gal for a combine total in this example of .27+.18+.18=.63 cents. When you factor in the hidden taxation upstream, governments at ALL levels; how much incentive do they have to change? Keep in mind you are hitting at governments fundamental power to effect TAXATION!!!????
Government regulators are steering us toward hydrogen!! That is very good news!! The other news is hydrogen (by weight) is 16 per gal (sans the taxation issue) To give it some comparison, that is on a Honda Civic getting 22 mpg!!!
Diesel? 50 mpg @ 3.19=.0638 cents per mile? 251 mpg !!!!????
Looks like we have a lot of R & D to get hydrogen from 22 mpg to 185 to 251 mpg just to match oil's cost per mile!!!!!!!???
horrors
as to your "cost per mile" did you figure in the cost of the US Military? Because, you know, some people think the US military spends an awful lot of time protected oil interests, so you just might internalize those costs in your analysis
oil is expensive
it costs billions to keep the Saudis on our side; to overthrow the USSR; to take over Iraq; etc. etc.
I know - it's all about FREEDOM.
Well, maybe you'd agree that SOME of the cost of the US Military should be included in the cost of oil.
Freedom? Hey I am talking about oil!! Why did the Japanese occupy China among other oil and rubber rich areas? Freedom? NO OIL!!! Germany? Again OIL!!
So thanks for agreeing with me that oil will be gone to war over (no incentive to change) !! Even if we didn't go to war over oil, again money is bet on the side of no incentive to change!? So petro costs 6/7/8 US per gal in Euro!!? Lets pull the boys and girls home, and so what if petro goes to 12/14/16 per gal and above in Euro?
So you think we have problems now!?
So if biggie oil is making .05 cents per gal and literally getting skewered for "obscene profits" and a Congressional call for so called "windfall" profits taxation, What does .63 cents mandated by governments mean in THAT context!!??? Am I to take it 12.6 to 1 has no meaning to you?
One question that we have to keep in mind is what is our goal. The law makers seem to confuse these points.
Are we trying to do save the environment, or are we tring to fuel our lives cheaply, or are we tring to become less dependant on foriegn oil. These goals are alot of times confused with one another.
Like ruking1 has stated hydrogen is extremly exspensive the way that it is currently produced. In the current system the production of Hydrogen produces tons of CO2. Lots of R&D and need to be done for hydrogen. For the most part in the current system hydrogen is produced from fossil fuel. So what part of hydrogen fits any of those 3 goals I named above.
Like alp8 I would like to see a day when our government isn't being the world oil watch dog. If we didn't care about oil, I don't think that the us cares which fly is at the top of middle eastern dog pile. As long as they leave isreal alone. Hydrogen isn't going to bring our troops home, not for many many years.
Hydrogen and nuclear power cogin plants could make that power more affordable and help save the enviroment and take us away from fossil fuels but none of the new power plant that are in consideration are cogin.
Biomass is here now, its enviromental, its less fossil fuel but its not cheap. So it only mets two of those goals. When the transport and production problems of ethonal are solved we can get it cheaper. If we all started using it demand went up it would get much worst. After it is needed in much bigger quantities the econmics of scale will take over and production can become cheaper. I don't believe that it will ever be cheaper than gas is now based on the current technology. maybe with better techniques and the use of non-food, non-fossil related feed stock. Luckly Hilary Clinton is on the job. Don't get me started on her, her only goal is a primary victory in iowa.
I don't think that there is going to be one solution that is going to do it all. It is goign to take a combination of hybrids, diesel, hydrogen, biomass, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and as much as I hate to say it more drilling and military action to fix our problems. It took nearly 20 years of NO engery policy to get in this postion and it will proabably take longer to get out.
We should be focused on developing the all of these technologies so that we can get off oil completely. Then we will figure out what to do about the petro-chem indusry.
I'd even drive 20 miles out of the way to get to a relatively limited supply point and pay a premium of 25-40% over dino fuel from the MidEast in order to keep the money here and away from the MidEast.
Please folks before you disagree or agree, do the math. Avg fleet mpg 27(hypothetical) @ .63 per gal or taxation of .02333 cents per mile
VS
50 mpg @ .0126 cents per mile TAXATION
How would the governance of transportation do right now with 46% less revenue???
Conversely, how much better would you do with a 85% transportation dollar savings or (raise)?
As to the two Japanese diesels you mention, the Honda 2.2L in-house diesel is too new to pass judgment on. Their other diesels were licensed copies. The Toyota diesel would probably be a better choice, but why would you want them? They are not popular in Japan and have barely made any in-roads in Europe (as I understand it).
I would rather purchase a good European diesel. They have been building diesels much longer than anyone else and have the best diesel engines on the planet. I drive a Jeep Liberty CRD and except for a software issue and a ruptured hose from the turbo to the aftercooler, it has been perfect and delivers better than advertised fuel economy.
Fun to drive probably, but I'm over that. I just want to know that all the parts will work every day for 10-15 yrs. In this regard all have been lacking IMO. Diesels are likely to well made but it's the rest of the vehicle that concerns me.
IMO no one is so driven to improve everything on a daily basis as is Toyota with Honda close.
I am sure it is. FDR did sign agreements with the Royal Saudi family at the end of WW2. Those had no ending date. In other words we are on the hook to protect their oil interest, which becomes our interest, Forever.
If for some reason all our oil sources from outside the US were to dry up. What do you think our friends at ADM would do with the price of ethanol? The Mega Ag companies are just as much into making money as any oil company. They are getting much larger incentives than the oil companies also.
Where does all the hydrogen currently being produced end up. Last time I researched it most of it goes into making anhydrous ammonia the main fertilizer used to grow corn. So I guess we are using hydrogen as fuel already.
Anhydrous Ammonia
Notice Alaska is the largest producer in the USA. They have lots of natural gas to make hydrogen. So we can grow corn and make ethanol that is oh so goood...
Beware of "secret" treaties?
FYI, I am opposed to higher gas taxation. Many people say "Look at the Europeans - teyh pay so much in gas costs" etc. I submit that the American taxpayer who consumes gasoline pays a higher cost for each gallon (or liter) than does any European, provided you include the cost of the US Military. There is a desire for the American public to believe that we get oil cheaply (thus making solar and other renewable energy sources look more costly than oil), but it is a myth. We don't need hundreds of tousands of troops to protect our solar panel manufacturing plants. Nor do we need as many nuclear warheads. All that military might is needed to protect international oil interests, plain and simple, and the AMERICAN taxpayer pays for that, not any taxpayer in France, Germany, etc.
I do not share the misguided assumption or notion that the American public thinks we get oil cheaply. Anyone who thinks that might like Sen Charles Rangle's notion that we should bring back the fair and equitable Military (service) DRAFT.
We truly fail to realize the high prices PAID for our freedoms and for the purposes of this discussion: oil!!
So with the dirty harry attitude as spoken by Clint Eastwood: ARE you (Americans) worth defending?
how much less money would be need for the military if we weren't guarding every oil field in the world. What if we went back to pre WWII foriegn policy. How screwed would Europe be. We wouldn't need near the tax money.
My wife would kill me if she knew I said that. Daughter of a LT cor.
your point is well taken.
If i remimber correctly BD was heavly taxed. as recently as last year. I think it was nearly 1 dollar per gallon for bathes from waste stock and 50 cent for batchs from fresh oil. My info may be completely wrong. If some one knows the numbers let me know. I am sure they have changed after the new energy policy. you can bet the govenrment is going to get theirs no mater the energy source. Except for solar and wind, How would they tax your personal solar or wind generators?
If I misjudged you please forgive me. I am only interested in the exchange of ideas here. Not making anyone not feel welcome to participate.
I don't think many of us are thrilled with the cost of doing business in the Middle East. I don't think we have much choice in the matter. We took on the role of World leader a long time ago. I actually believe we pay less taxes for what we do get than most Europeans. I have friends in Germany that pay close to 50% income tax. Add on to that gas at twice what we pay. I don't see there standard of living being better than ours. I am hoping that we can maintain a decent standard. I do believe we will have to sacrifice something to keep the cars running.
the cost of the technology is often compared to the COST of gasoline
but the cost of gasoline NEVER includes the cost of the US Military
I think you are trying to tie something together that essentially is not. So the best thing to do is NOT.
For example .65 cents of every government dollar (non military) is tied to legal/lawful entitlements. Yet you are make no nexus on the effect of that to the price of oil!!?? I don't truly think you want to hit those affected countries with the "rent a cop" bill? Or do you?
The cost of maintaining troops in the Middle East is directly connected to the oil industry.
I made this point to an Econ professor (Walter Mead) in 1980 when he was waxing poetic about how cheap gasoline is versus solar, and the guy almost had a stroke. [Mead made all sorts of side money from the oil industry, just so you understand where he was coming from.] I completely embarassed him in front of about 500 students. He deserved it. Lying sack of poop. He stammered for about 3 minutes trying to come up with a logical response, and he couldn't do it. He lost nearly everyone's respect as a result of that. I got pats on the back after class, and I wasn't even an Econ major.
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/Oil%20Import%20table.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html
Where would you like to see it show up? I believe if sources are correct Exxon paid about 90 billion in US tax last year. I imagine some of that went to the military. I also know that the State of Alaska and the Feds get a percentage of each barrel of oil that comes out of the ground in the Arctic. This is oil barrel tax separate from oil company corporate taxes. We get money each year from countries like Saudi Arabia for protection of the oil interest.
Here is my observation. The Federal government gets millions of dollars from Alaska oil and I have not seen a military force up there once in 25 years protecting that oil. So why does CA pay more for gas when much of it comes from Alaska oil that gets NO military protection.
Do you see what I am driving at. Number one Canada is our biggest oil provider. Number two Mexico is second. Neither one of them benefit much from our military presence. I am sure they sleep better with us next door to protect them from incoming scud missiles.
I am not trying to cover up the fact that much of our military budget will be to protect oil supplies. We made agreements decades ago to do just that. I am not worried that my gas is a bit cheaper because we protect the Royal Saudi family. If France or Japan or Germany had made that agreement maybe they would not be paying $8 per gallon for gas. They also pay more for just about everything else they own. We are a very fortunate country.
He had two Senitors (Democrat/Republican), Chevron's CEO and others. They talked about high gasoline, hybrids and never mentioned diesel. When these dicussions take place, very seldom, are diesel cars mentioned. It's like they don't exist.
I would like to have your thoughts.
I am glad that EXXON stills pays some taxes. That doesn't mean that your taxes and my taxes aren't making it easier for them to get their product to market. If not for you and I paying taxes, EXXON/Mobil (and other) investments in foreign countries would get seized a lot more often, wouldn't you say?
again, I am not arguing against the US doing this - only that these costs should be understood in the analysis. And NONE of these costs are needed for solar, wind, etc.
when someone says "Gas costs $4/gallon which is WAY cheaper than solar" they are not considering all the costs. And the same goes for diesel and hybrids. Steve is just wrong.
wrong
This stuff about fuel costs has nothing to do with the merits of hybrids Vs diesels.
Here I disagree. Fuel cost has everything to do with the merits of hybrid vs diesel. When I was growing up and bought my first car mileage was not a factor. I doubt my old 1947 Pontiac got 10 MPG. Even though gas was a bigger chunk of my budget then, it was not important to me. Now when it makes no difference if gas is a buck or ten bucks I get caught up in the discussion. Hybrids were built to cut CO2 and emissions, diesel cars have always been a way to save on fuel. Or in trucks give that needed torque.
For me simple practicality is the most important and diesel wins my vote. When biodiesel becomes mainstream I will use that. Hybrids are way more complex than a vehicle should be. Sadly an electric vehicle would serve most of my day to day needs. That does not look promising from where I am.
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/Oil%20Import%20table.pdf
While I think President Bush has gone overboard in describing America as "addicted" to oil, ( I take his pronouncements as graphic license) there is no vision really for the so called "sober" life unless a world without energy at all is an option.
Sorry, but I think your logic is flawed. Our lack of troops in Canada or Mexico is irrelevant to why we have troops in the middle east (and a naval presence, elsewhere). Obviously we don't need troops to keep the oil supply flowing in and from Mexico and Canada. Are you saying we don't need them to keep the oil flowing in and from the Middle East?
[again, I am not saying it is a good or bad idea.]
Maybe our troops, planes, ships, are in the Middle East to liberate the Saudi women?
HA! LOL
Maybe our troops exist to secure the human rights of the people of the world?
[tee-hee - that's a good one.]
Let's swing back to talking about hybrids and diesels please.
As I had posted earlier it MIGHT be a secret treaty between Saudi Arabia and USA by FDR (democrat) so many years ago.
Again if you look at the gov figures for IRAQ, dropping the so called "business relationship" would be a no brainer. Just give Mexico and/or Canada the biz!!!
So I reject your notion it is all/only about oil. If it is/was : GET OUT OF DODGE !!!! Sooner or later IRAN and or IRAQ will be breaking down our trade barriers to doing business!!! It happened in Vietnam. They forced us out by "winning" the war. The Philipines democratically kicked us out. Years later they want us BACK IN in both places!!!! Go figure!!
The other longer term issue is whether or not the powers that be and the environmentalists want us to do a domestic industry such as self sufficient energy production. Past environmental efforts point to not only a no but a HELL NO !!! I just think they do not want to take the blame or the heat for their FAILED policies that continues to be a fiasco wreaking havoc on our situation/s today!!!
Politically, diesels in any form are dirty and a political liability. In this country, diesels are generally viewed as uncivilized and are driven by unsophisticated persons.
There is no money to be made selling diesels in any form be it a straight design or a hybrid. They are too economical for one thing. They are also considered expensive (as an option) where as for hybrids, their cost differential is always rationalized away.
Another problem is that diesel fuel prices are being artificially inflated by the oil companies to suppress sales. There is more money to be made selling gasoline.
It's not "only" about oil. It's also about copper, tin, timber, gold, titanium.......and it's NOT only about the Middle East.
Is there any prognosis for when EPA and Cal ARB will get more open to diesels? I don't think one can say hybrids or diesels are duds, since there are people who drive each and swear by them. Choice is good for all of us.
I would even dare say Toyota Camry, Camry gasser/hybrid Camry diesel!
1951 U.S. and Saudi Arabia formalize security relationship
Under a mutual defense agreement, the U.S. established a permanent U.S. Military Training Mission in the kingdom and agreed to provide training support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assisted in the construction of military installations in the kingdom. This agreement formed the basis of what grew into a longstanding security relationship
No Secret
The cornerstone of U.S. policy for the Middle East is the understanding reached between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Sa’ud on the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal on February 14, 1945. Although Prime Minister Churchill was unaware and would have been appalled at the idea, the Quincy meeting initiated the transfer of the region from the Britishto the U.S. sphere of influence, an unruly and haphazard process that took three decades. Roosevelt’s implicit extension of a security guarantee to the Saudi monarchy, in return for preferred access to Saudi oil, has been reaffirmed by every U.S. administration since then
So what I have learned from forums like these is you can lay it out in excruciating detail and still it would not be worth the time!!
A small example, how many folks are now advancing the ideal that unleaded regular is still far cheaper than #2 diesel??
In Atkinson cycle engines, some of the air fuel charge is pushed back out through the intake valve before it closes. This reduces some of the pumping losses associated with "Otto" cycle engines. Diesel engines do not have this problem because the amount of fuel that is injected is dependent on the load put on the engine. In gasoline engines, the fuel:air ratio must be constant. A gasser that runs too lean will pollute like crazy, especially NOx, and run very poorly. Also, it will burn itself to a cinder. Diesels are lean burn engines to begin with.
Here is an interesting link that talks about Atkinson cycle engines
http://www.hybrid-vehicle.org/hybrid-vehicle-ice.html
If you look at the animation, you can see that they are a bit more complicated than your standard gasser engine.
Surely the hybrid gasser engine is more of the "highest and best use" concept for gasser motors, 49 mpg vs Honda Civic 41 mph; or in my case is it really? Because cost sooner or later ALWAYS becomes a factor.
Do we doubt this at all?
Well as I have posted before, hydrogen fuel actually works in THE real world!!! CA state EPA and Chevron are running testing!!! However hydrogen fuel is (by weight) 16 per gal and and gets 22 mpg.
So here is a brave new policy
Now I need to know what is the efficiency of the regenerative system on the Prius. In other words, driving a car is not not flying through space. Accelerate a mass in space to 50 mph and it goes 50 mph forever with No additional energy input. It different on Earth. Accelerate a car to 50 mph, remove the enery source, and the car stops. I guess due to friction and the force of gravity. I guess the regenerative system on the Prius is trying to recoup those losses. So how efficient is it? In other words, how many mpg is the regenerative system on the Prius worth?
Or use my post and do a quick and dirty of 49 vs 41 or 16%.
The problem (for me anyway) is I pay for the "efficiency" up front and the spreadsheets indicated that over a plain jane commute I can not recoup the expenditure over any reasonable time frame. What is reasonable?
So for me this is interesting for diesel has a 37% advantage over gassers (only). BUT if the diesel were indeed mated to hybrid, it still would have a 37% advantage like for like.
Hybrid gassers shut down because the ICE portion is so inefficient. The fuel air ratio is about 14.3:1 (air to gas)and must be the same no matter what load is placed on it. Diesel are not constrained in this manner. The amount of fuel injected depends on the load. So sitting at a light in neutral, a diesel might use 1/20th to 1/25th of the fuel used at full load. Atkinson cycle engines are torqueless wonders at low speeds, thus the need for electric motors. Diesels on the other hand have bountiful torque at low speeds.