Hybrid Car Tax Deduction

[Gawain 0]

Quote

A pure electric vehicle would be way more efficient, and with a removable/rentable Coleman generator, would have as much range as a gas car.

While it would work, since the majority of the power plants in the world are powered by oil and coal, plugging these cars in for recharging on a daily basis would load the power grid to meltdown and the power plants would increase their emissions (which are not as clean). On top of that, the "batteries" or cells cannot be built to provide the durability required. The auto industry has all but abandoned the pure electric vehicle.

Remember, practical application. That means not paying a $3-9K premium for a natural-gas or alternative fueled car. Bush's proposal for $1.2B is good, but understanding Moore's law, why not pour $3B into it. Advance the technology faster, and you can achieve a real life application.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>While it would work, since the majority of the power plants in the
> world are powered by oil and coal, plugging these cars in for
> recharging on a daily basis would load the power grid to meltdown
> and the power plants would increase their emissions (which are not
> as clean).

And that's exactly my point with the hydrogen car thing. If we don't have the extra energy to recharge electric cars, where are we going to get the energy to make hydrogen? Due to the inherent inefficiencies of hydrogen production, you'd need 2 to 3X the power to generate enough hydrogen as you would to charge electric cars.

On the plus side, both EV chargers and hydrogen generators can be run at night, when extra power from clean sources like nuclear power plants is available.

>Remember, practical application. That means not paying a $3-9K
> premium for a natural-gas or alternative fueled car.

?? Alternate fuel Ford trucks (FFV's) cost no more than regular cars. Biodiesel can be used in ordinary diesel vehicles, so no extra cost there. Right now in Honda's lineup there is a hybrid that's $2K more than the equivalent gas car and a natural gas car that's $3K more. I don't know of any commercially available car that's $9K more for the hybrid or NG version.

The best way to get these out there is to have people just do it; in an ideal world, the average consumer would just decide that it was worth an extra $2K to avoid another war and see american servicemen get killed. But from what I can tell, it's a lot easier and more satisfying to put a little decal of Calvin peeing on Bin Laden on your truck than actually put your money where your mouth is, which is why government intervention would seem to be required.

>Bush's proposal for $1.2B is good, but understanding Moore's law,
> why not pour $3B into it. Advance the technology faster, and you can
>achieve a real life application.

I have a real life application in my driveway. Hybrids and natural gas vehicles are here; it would only take incentives (in the form of tax breaks etc) to up their quantities to the point that economies of scale take over. I suppose we could pour more money into research, but at this point it would seem to make more sense to pour money into application. The basic research has been done.

[Opie 0]

Bill, What's your thoughts on ethanol? Moving to a higher 80% blend rather than the typical 10% offered now would be much easier and quicker to do in the auto industry than develop hydrogen or electric vehicles, reduces pollution, and decreases our dependence on foriegn oil?

[billvon 3,120]

I'm not that big a fan of ethanol the way it's made now. They take corn and ferment it, but it takes nearly as much energy to fertilize the land, grow and irrigate the corn, harvest it and ferment it than you get out of it. It's not really a way to get energy, just a way to change other energy into ethanol.

[dresherr 0]

Have any of you guys ever drove a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The power is constant unlike todays cars. Imagine having the torque of first all the way to the top end. Hydrogen cars would only have one gear too by the way. It's just the way they're set up. All of it is pretty neat. They even have Hyd. fuel cell battery thing-a-ma-jigs in hearing aids. That's how small they can be.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Due to the inherent inefficiencies of hydrogen production, you'd need 2 to 3X the power to generate enough hydrogen as you would to charge electric cars.

Hey, even nuclear power was first developed for a completely different purpose. Gas autos used to get terrible mileage. Batteries didn't last for squat (still don't IMO) and pure electricity has its limits too. This research may reveal ideas that were unthinkable 10 years ago.

Quote

?? Alternate fuel Ford trucks (FFV's) cost no more than regular cars. Biodiesel can be used in ordinary diesel vehicles, so no extra cost there. Right now in Honda's lineup there is a hybrid that's $2K more than the equivalent gas car and a natural gas car that's $3K more. I don't know of any commercially available car that's $9K more for the hybrid or NG version.

The $9K was my fat finger, I meant $6K, but as it happens, some items below show that $9K wasn't too far off the mark anyway.

FYI: FFV = Flexible Fuel Vehicle. FFV engines can operate on gasoline or any mixture of gasoline and up to 85% ethanol. While these engines are available to anyone, at no extra cost by Ford, they are usually packed with Fleets, as large companies have the resources and money to provide their own fuel mixes (i.e. ethanol).

Per Edmunds.com, TMV Pricing of traditional fueled cars versus alternative fuel:

Honda Civic EX Sedan vs. Civic GX: $17053/$19718

Ford Crown Victoria (trad/NGV): $23251/$29560

---

Hybrids have a static MSRP because they are already being subsidized by the government to bring their prices down to where they are. Without these subsidies, they would cost $2-5K more.

Toyota Prius vs. Corolla: $20480/$13-15K
Toyota Prius vs. Echo: $20480/$11000
Honda Insight: $19540-21740 (depending on whether you want AC and an automatic trans.)
Honda Civic Hybrid: $20010-21010 (auto tranny) versus a Civic DX: $14000

There is a premium paid up front for this technology.

Quote

I have a real life application in my driveway. Hybrids and natural gas vehicles are here; it would only take incentives (in the form of tax breaks etc) to up their quantities to the point that economies of scale take over. I suppose we could pour more money into research, but at this point it would seem to make more sense to pour money into application. The basic research has been done.

The tax deductions are not available unless you buy the car (as opposed to lease) new. Used car buyers get no break. The cars work great, but their current platform is practical for commuting, and light trips. They are not for the average American, 3 kids, and a whole lotta luggage for the trip to Disneyland or San Francisco from, say Las Vegas. The Insight, Prius, Civic GX and Hybrid is a very good start. But as long as gas remains cheap, and provides better overall performance with bare micrograms of environmental difference, the new technology must surpass these benchmarks, it must be a better mousetrap.

Car and Driver did an excellent article about a year ago, and may be available on their web-site www.caranddriver.com. The current technology does not have the support of the auto industry or the marketplace. It doesn't have much of the support of the government either.

A previous example I cited: Cell Phones. This used to be a premium technology, and service, costing thousands of dollars per month. Now, it's all you can eat minutes, internet, picture sharing, text messaging, pick a cool phone that uses very little energy while still reminding you to call mom and anyone can get one.

The next leap in fuel/auto technology must make a similar leap.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

> Imagine having the torque of first all the way to the top end.

Yeah, it's essentially an EV, and EV's are cool in that you get a very flat torque band all the way from zero to motor base speed. No IC engine can come close to that; a 100hp electric motor will blow away any 100hp IC engine.

[AggieDave 6]

Glancing over the posts, I don't think it was brought up/ansered: Is there an alternative fuel car/truck out there that can match the power my 5.7L 350 V-8 has in my truck? 350lbs of torque and about 280 horsepower. Although I don't always need that power, I still use it quite a bit, seems like every other week I'm hauling a load of something somewhere or pulling a trailer, or even getting my 5,000lbs truck through some serious mud.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,120]

> Gas autos used to get terrible mileage. . . .
>This research may reveal ideas that were unthinkable 10 years ago.

Right, but what drove the development of cheap cars? Government funded research? No, market pressures. What drove the development of cheap fuel injection systems? Market pressure responding to pollution limits on vehicles. What drove high mileage cars? Market pressure responding to CAFE limits. Not government money, but the free market simply responding to normal pressures and regulations places on them.

Heck, what made DVD players dirt cheap? There are some absolutely incredible optics, transports and high speed digital processing going on in there. And what drove it? Nothing more than people wanting DVD players, and willing to pay for them.

>Honda Civic Hybrid: $20010-21010 (auto tranny) versus a Civic DX: $14000

The Civic Hybrid has a level of trim similar to the EX, which runs around $17000. (alloy wheels, ABS, side impact airbags) At least from what I saw when I looked around the showroom.

>The cars work great, but their current platform is practical for commuting,
>and light trips. They are not for the average American . . .

The average american spends most of his time commuting. Replace just the commuter's cars and you've covered 75% of driven passenger miles in the US.

>3 kids, and a whole lotta luggage for the trip to Disneyland or San Francisco
> from, say Las Vegas.

Why would a Ford Escape hybrid, or a biodiesel powered RV be a bad choice for such a trip?

>But as long as gas remains cheap, and provides better overall performance with
>bare micrograms of environmental difference, the new technology must surpass
> these benchmarks, it must be a better mousetrap.

Unless, of course, all Bush's words about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the air actually mean something, and we as a country are willing to do what it takes, rather than just pass the problem on to our children (and our military.) It might cost 10% more to buy our cars, but if we want to do it because the results are worth it, we will.

If, of course, it's just all an act, then we need do nothing. We'll save 10%!!

>A previous example I cited: Cell Phones. This used to be a premium technology,
> and service, costing thousands of dollars per month. Now, it's all you can
>eat minutes, internet, picture sharing, text messaging, pick a cool phone
>that uses very little energy while still reminding you to call mom
>and anyone can get one.

Hmm. Which massive government-funded research program made this massive leap to cheap cellphones possible?

[billvon 3,120]

>Is there an alternative fuel car/truck out there that can match the power
> my 5.7L 350 V-8 has in my truck?

Sure; a Cummings Diesel running on biodiesel. I believe you can get one in a turbocharged version in the Dodge Ram 3500 - 250hp and over 500 ft-lbs of torque. You can buy them now.

Eventually a hybrid with a 50hp diesel and a 200hp electric assist will blow away any IC truck on the road; this will take a few years. Dodge was going to do something like that with their hybrid Durango but they gave up.

[jfields 0]

Quote

I'm hauling a load

Quit eating so many Freebirds burritos.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Quit eating so many Freebirds burritos

Have you seen my ass? I definately need a big truck!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jfields 0]

Quote

Have you seen my ass? I definately need a big truck!

You just have to look in the right place.

http://www.terex.com/main.php?obj=prod&action=VIEW&id=15

However, it is hard to drive when your ass will only fit in the dump bed.

[AggieDave 6]

Man, that'd be fun to drive in Houston traffic...

*crunch* "sorry"

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sharpfive 0]

I know someone who bought the Toyota Prius.
She got a $2000.00 deduction, paid no sales tax, and can drive in the HOV lanes with no passengers in the car. She did say she's getting 37 mpg instaed of the advertised 50, but she's very happy with the car.

[wmw999 2,589]

I test drove a Prius a couple of years ago; the pickup was more than adequate for city and freeway traffic. I've certainly driven cars that had less pickup.

Room was OK, but not awesome. For travel it's a little small, simply because the trunk space isn't real big. But quiet, comfortable, all the amenties you expect in a car.

Whenever I buy (I didn't then), I'll probably get one. And that was before I found out about the tax deduction!

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sharpfive 0]

Now, if they would come up with hybrid Otters, we'd really have something. Imagine getting a tax deduction for every skydive?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Unless, of course, all Bush's words about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the air actually mean something, and we as a country are willing to do what it takes, rather than just pass the problem on to our children (and our military.) It might cost 10% more to buy our cars, but if we want to do it because the results are worth it, we will.

I'm sure he's completely serious about the solutions he proposed that are 12-15 years down the road. If he really wanted to make a difference during his presidency, there are plenty of things he can do now to reduce emmissions, but they all piss off the oil companies.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

I know someone who bought the Toyota Prius.
She got a $2000.00 deduction, paid no sales tax, and can drive in the HOV lanes with no passengers in the car. She did say she's getting 37 mpg instaed of the advertised 50, but she's very happy with the car.

I would be a bit concerned that there may be something wrong with the car. 37mpg sounds a bit low. I don't own one, so I cannot say one way or the other. Just sounds a bit off.

[jfields 0]

Quote

If he really wanted to make a difference during his presidency

Only enough to get re-elected and guarantee his post-presidential consulting fee rate.

[billvon 3,120]

>I'm sure he's completely serious about the solutions he proposed
> that are 12-15 years down the road.

But . . . but . . . he said that we "will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. We will confront them with focus, and clarity, and courage."

Hmm.

[Opie 0]

Quote

I'm not that big a fan of ethanol the way it's made now. They take corn and ferment it, but it takes nearly as much energy to fertilize the land, grow and irrigate the corn, harvest it and ferment it than you get out of it. It's not really a way to get energy, just a way to change other energy into ethanol.

Actually current studies show a 34% net gain in energy. This is including the production of the corn and the energy needs of dry mill ethanol production plants currently in use. More efficient fermenting proccesses and possible other biomass products are expected to increase this in the future. For an updated report check out the link below.

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/usda_ethanol_report.pdf

edited to add link

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Right, but what drove the development of cheap cars?

The gas crisis.

Quote

Government funded research? No, market pressures.

"Market pressures" was really "Competition" from the Japanese.

Quote

What drove the development of cheap fuel injection systems? Market pressure responding to pollution limits on vehicles.

The "cheap" fuel injection systems were also a result of the technology getting less expensive to build (Moore's Law in development, translates to the opposite in the marketplace) and maintain. It also simplified engine designs, increased durability, and allowed for greater power delivery.

Quote

What drove high mileage cars? Market pressure responding to CAFE limits. Not government money, but the free market simply responding to normal pressures and regulations places on them.

You think the government didn't hand over some hefty checks to the American auto makers to ensure they were able to meet the CAFE requirements? Never mind the government that forced Honda, Toyota, Nissan, to build plants here in the USA. Would've been a nice dream.

Quote

Heck, what made DVD players dirt cheap? There are some absolutely incredible optics, transports and high speed digital processing going on in there. And what drove it? Nothing more than people wanting DVD players, and willing to pay for them.

The first DVD and video disk players cost a fortune. How much did you VCR cost 10 years ago? $250? How much does it cost now? $120? $99? Why? Not because of "market" pressures, but because the technology components, manufacturing tooling and labor and everything else costs less.

Compare a fully functional, and capable Pentium III computer (new) with a Pentium IV counterpart. Capacity is not the only driver of cost, but the methods and technologies used by Intel to design and build the chips. Market pressure would just assume that the chips cost less, but economic decisions for recovering development costs prevent that, thus, more expensive "new" components.

Quote

The Civic Hybrid has a level of trim similar to the EX, which runs around $17000

Again, even the most kind-hearted environmentalist, who has to watch their pocket-book (or the cost conscious skydiver) is not going to pay a $3000 premium (that could be another $60/mo payment) and compared to the DX, it's not an attainable goal. The tax deduction may be nice, but those that really pay attention try to net zero on that too.

Quote

Why would a Ford Escape hybrid, or a biodiesel powered RV be a bad choice for such a trip?

They wouldn't. Personally, I would like to see to see Volkswagen drive this in the US. They have, in my opinion, the most perfectly executed line of diesels anywhere. I would want the Golf GTi TDI (6 speed). However, these neat engines (and neat cars) are not available in the US.

Quote

Unless, of course, all Bush's words about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the air actually mean something, and we as a country are willing to do what it takes, rather than just pass the problem on to our children (and our military.) It might cost 10% more to buy our cars, but if we want to do it because the results are worth it, we will.

Maybe they are serious, and maybe they are realistic? It's not 10% Bill. In the case of the Honda it's 18%, in the Ford Crown Vic, at least 20%. A hippie with a thin wallet may be salivating for a Toyota Prius, but can only afford the Echo (saving an 80% premium).

In SoCal, I am not willing to drive a car that cannot attain the speeds of the flow of traffic (about 80mph around S. Orange Cty at any given time) in more than 4-8 seconds off the on-ramp. Yes, it is, in fact, dangerous.

Quote

Hmm. Which massive government-funded research program made this massive leap to cheap cellphones possible?

The A-Side and B-Side licenses which were given, freely to McCaw and the other original incumbent providers. That saved billions. Also, see my note about cheaper technology (my Motorola V60 cost me over $200 a year ago, now, $99! $#&@@(!). Finally, the original "cell phones" were called "Cellular Radios" in their early days (IIRC) and those were developed by the US Government (my history could be off with that last fact). Government funding doesn't always equal a "check payable to: XYZ Corp." This allowed providers to partner with companies like Nortel, Nokia, Motorola, Qualcomm and in turn subsidize equipment to the consumer (how much does your cell phone cost without a subscription? $400-500?).

The "government" funding for cheap cell phones was not my point, my point was that the auto/energy industries will have to make those kinds of leaps in accessible technology. From a limited access desire, to a common-get-all-you-can commodity.

The benefits are plain to see, yes, our economy will flourish because of it, I think. But not if the market smells a rat (and battery/electric cars are a rat).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Dragging up an old thread to add this news . . .

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6073725.htm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

Interesting. I agree with them but for a different reason - I suspect the oil or natural gas we will need to use to create hydrogen will have a far more deleterious effect on the environment than leaking that same hydrogen.