SpocOgden, UTIn general, any time you convert energy from one form
to another there are losses incurred. This is the reason perpetual motion
schemes do not work.============ You've got it 180
degrees backwards Spoc.An internal combustion engine converts only
15% of the potential energy of the fuel into mechanical energy - the rest [85%]
is wasted as heat.On the other hand, an electric power-plant is 85%
efficient during the conversion process BECAUSE it relies on the Heat prtion,
and not necessarily on the mechanical properties.ANDAn electric
motor is 85% efficient in converting electricity into mechanical energy.So - taking all factors into consideration, Even with the losses
in tranfer over the powerlines, storage in batteries, and chraging and
dids-charging -- An electric vehicle is 3 times as ENERGY efficient as a
gasoline, CNG vehicle, and roughly twice that of a Diesel [because diesels
run at double the compresssion ratio as gasoline/CNG internal comustion
In general, any time you convert energy from one form to another there are
losses incurred. This is the reason perpetual motion schemes do not work.That being said, is it more efficient to convert natural gas directly to
vehicle motion or to convert natural gas to generator motion to electricity at
the generator to electricity transported to the user to chemical energy charging
a battery to electric vehicle motion?If it is less efficient to
drive an electric vehicle than a CNG vehicle, should the electric be taxed at a
higher rate per mile than the CNG car?
Wrong.Repubs are the ones wanting this because it takes away the
incentive for green energy cars.
@procuradorfiscal"That's why liberals like it, of course."Except liberals have strong opposition to it due to the fact that
we're environmentalists and changing the gas tax structure penalizes those
who bought a more fuel efficient car.
Those who drive fewer miles still expect the roads to be maintained and ready to
be used. It's like having a taxi wait for you, the meter still runs even if
they are not moving. A user fee, either gasoline tax or toll roads, is still
the most reasonable and easiest to collect. Politicians must resist the
temptation to divert those fees from transportation needs to the general funds.
I oppose any tax on miles driven. It has too many unintended consequences, less
casual driving or recreational driving which will hurt the fast food outlets and
recreational industry as people will constantly think of trips in terms of miles
and costs. Less miles driven means less gas purchased and less new cars
purchased as old ones last longer. And in the end, less tax money raised which
will lead to higher rates per mile. Rich people, and by that I include
congressmen and most legislators have not concept of how the rest of us live and
try to get by.Tax the total sale of gas not the gallon, and use the
tax only for roads. Do not use this tax for anything else. Let mass transit
and all the other pet projects find their own funding.
Since the author is responding to editorials about federal gas taxes, rather
than state, the idea of driving in one state vs another is moot.but
what if you drive in Canada or Mexico? Should the US tax you for driving
there?You know, I wich I had my old car back, the one with the
broken odometer. That would be GREAT for this proposal - but only if they
removed the existing federal gas tax.No, the idea of a mileage based
tax is unacceptable - too many pitfalls, too great a possibility for Big Brother
to raise his ugly Obamahead even higher.
If states can tax purchases made in other states, why not tax miles driven in
other states. To me, this sounds like a simple way for the rich and
powerful to transfer their tax load to the ordinary people. If I drive a small
car and another person drives a large luxury car the same mileage, we both would
pay the same tax. If the tax is applied to the fuel used it more
closely approaches the wear and tear on the highway. I wonder if
the people proposing this tax are republicans or democrats.
[Thinking again in the Utah-bubble]This only works if someone NEVER leaves
the State of Utah.Just like shipping cargo and freight is based on
weight, the Wear and Tear on the roads is due to weight.So,
the higher the weight, the lower the MPGs, the higher the fuel
consumption, the higher the tax.Actual Mileage covered is 100%
Re: "Mileage tax solution"What a ridiculous concept!We already have a mileage tax -- the more miles you drive, the more gas
you buy, the more tax you pay.Tracking peoples' cars has no
legitimate purpose other than controlling them.That's why
liberals like it, of course.
So now Utah is going to tax me for mileage driven in other states when I travel
across the country? I agree that this method is much more simple,
less costly, and less scary than the gps tracking by the government, but it
doesn't exactly make sure the funds for roads go to the right place.
Often times, our tax structure is designed to discourage behavior we don't
want and encourage that which we do. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed in part
to curb their use.Do we really want to disincentivize driving cars
which get better mileage?Secondly, a 2000 pound car driving 1000
miles does less road damage than an 18 wheeler driving the same distance.That is currently accounted for in the gas tax structure.Just things to consider.