QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics?
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck. Hybrids save fuel by allowing regenerative braking to produce electricity for storage which can be drawn on later, that is their big feature. Other than that, the system of batteries being recharged by the prime mover when needed really doesn't save that much over direct drive systems. An over the road truck will spend as much time in regenerative braking as any other vehicle.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck. Hybrids save fuel by allowing regenerative braking to produce electricity for storage which can be drawn on later, that is their big feature. Other than that, the system of batteries being recharged by the prime mover when needed really doesn't save that much over direct drive systems. An over the road truck will spend as much time in regenerative braking as any other vehicle. OK, you're close on how they work, but way off on good applications. All the hybrids I know of are direct drive with an electic motor assist. In some, the engine runs all time while some can run "straight electric" under certain conditions. In all, the engine can provide power directly to the wheels. Energy expended in over the road operation is almost entirely overcoming air resistance (plus some grade resistance on hilly routes). Only a miniscule fraction of the total can be recovered when braking. A trucker can drive all day and only step on the brake a couple of times to buy fuel or eat. Urban/suburban driving has a much higher % of recoverable energy. A good application of hybrid techology to trucking would be school busses, garbage trucks and UPS package cars. It would be just plain silly in an over the road semi tractor.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck. Hybrids save fuel by allowing regenerative braking to produce electricity for storage which can be drawn on later, that is their big feature. Other than that, the system of batteries being recharged by the prime mover when needed really doesn't save that much over direct drive systems. An over the road truck will spend as much time in regenerative braking as any other vehicle. OK, you're close on how they work, but way off on good applications. All the hybrids I know of are direct drive with an electic motor assist. In some, the engine runs all time while some can run "straight electric" under certain conditions. In all, the engine can provide power directly to the wheels. Energy expended in over the road operation is almost entirely overcoming air resistance (plus some grade resistance on hilly routes). Only a miniscule fraction of the total can be recovered when braking. A trucker can drive all day and only step on the brake a couple of times to buy fuel or eat. Urban/suburban driving has a much higher % of recoverable energy. A good application of hybrid techology to trucking would be school busses, garbage trucks and UPS package cars. It would be just plain silly in an over the road semi tractor. Apparently you've never driven over Western two lane highways. The up and down profile of these roads, combined with slow speed RV's slowing down traffic every 20 minutes or so and having to slow down for every podunk town along the way, would provide a good testing ground for a hybrid semi. Try driving from Great Falls MT to Lewiston ID sometime with all the truck traffic between the two cities. You'll see what I mean.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: [i] "Externialities" are much HARDER to define, identify and assign as to cost/benifit. That's why I don't trust them. I do accept the polution example. The air and water were free and were consequently used reclesly. I don't get your tollway example. It seems in both your options the benifits are going to the toll payers - which is the good match that elimates externality. So no, I don't think that state level funding is necessarily right. (I'm certain that national funding isn't right.) In Rhode Island it would be good. But a citizen in western Pennsylvania shouldn't be taxed to pay for the NE corriodor, since his/her benifits will be insignificant at best. This emphatically means that the trains through Montana should be paid for by the people who use the trains, no one else. LA, New York, Chicago - we can think about it. If I take toll money from autos and pay RRs with move trucks thru the city and get them off the highway, I've violated the "Free market fairness" rule. Highway users are paying for RR service for trucks! And, if it's not fair for W. PA to pay for service on the NEC, then it also isn't fair for NJ to pay as much per gallon in Fed gas tax as PA since NJ has many many fewer interstate and US highway miles, right (I80 in PA alone has more route miles than all the free interstates in NJ)? In fact, the whole interstate system should have been paid 100% out of state revenues - no federal match? And, if Kansas, Nebraska, SD and ND opted out???
QUOTE: [i] "Externialities" are much HARDER to define, identify and assign as to cost/benifit. That's why I don't trust them. I do accept the polution example. The air and water were free and were consequently used reclesly. I don't get your tollway example. It seems in both your options the benifits are going to the toll payers - which is the good match that elimates externality. So no, I don't think that state level funding is necessarily right. (I'm certain that national funding isn't right.) In Rhode Island it would be good. But a citizen in western Pennsylvania shouldn't be taxed to pay for the NE corriodor, since his/her benifits will be insignificant at best. This emphatically means that the trains through Montana should be paid for by the people who use the trains, no one else. LA, New York, Chicago - we can think about it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: [i] "Externialities" are much HARDER to define, identify and assign as to cost/benifit. That's why I don't trust them. I do accept the polution example. The air and water were free and were consequently used reclesly. I don't get your tollway example. It seems in both your options the benifits are going to the toll payers - which is the good match that elimates externality. So no, I don't think that state level funding is necessarily right. (I'm certain that national funding isn't right.) In Rhode Island it would be good. But a citizen in western Pennsylvania shouldn't be taxed to pay for the NE corriodor, since his/her benifits will be insignificant at best. This emphatically means that the trains through Montana should be paid for by the people who use the trains, no one else. LA, New York, Chicago - we can think about it. If I take toll money from autos and pay RRs with move trucks thru the city and get them off the highway, I've violated the "Free market fairness" rule. Highway users are paying for RR service for trucks! And, if it's not fair for W. PA to pay for service on the NEC, then it also isn't fair for NJ to pay as much per gallon in Fed gas tax as PA since NJ has many many fewer interstate and US highway miles, right (I80 in PA alone has more route miles than all the free interstates in NJ)? In fact, the whole interstate system should have been paid 100% out of state revenues - no federal match? And, if Kansas, Nebraska, SD and ND opted out??? Got to disagree -- and I've never heard of the "Free market fairness rule". Tolls are not taxes. They are only levied on the people who use, and thus benifit from, the tollroad. These are the very people who would benifit from the lessened congestion so having them, and only them, pay for it makes perfect sense. An important thing to remember is that the toll payment is entirely voluntary - no one has to use the tollway. If someone doesn't perceive the benifiit to be worth the toll they can take a different route. Gas taxes are also "user fees", like tolls. If someone uses the road they have to help pay for it - and it relates to how much they use the roads and benifit from them, not how much road there is. The problem with using national taxes to support Amtrak is that the money is confiscated from people who can't/don't benifit from Amtrak. Some external benifit to the "general population" from passenger trains can possibly be shown in built up, congested areas of the country. But a Chicago - Seattle train can't possibly benifit anyone who doesn't directly use the train. So no one else should be forced to help pay for it. I can't answer you on what if Kansas declined to participate in the Interstate System. It's so inconcievable that the Jayhawks would harm themselves in that manner that a rational answer is not possible.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.