Politics Question

[Park Kraken]

Something just occured to me, and I wanted to run it by our more politically saavy members for confirmation. If a goverment increases welfare spending without increasing taxes on the rich, doesn't that just make it to where the middle to poor classes are paying for the middle and poor classes without jobs?

[Dasquian Belargic]

Uh, maybe? I guess it would depend on the way that the welfare system in this hypothetical situation works.

[Yog]

Something just occured to me, and I wanted to run it by our more politically saavy members for confirmation. If a goverment increases welfare spending without increasing taxes on the rich, doesn't that just make it to where the middle to poor classes are paying for the middle and poor classes without jobs?
Well, if you don't raise the taxes to pay for the spending, you're going to end up with a deficit. This type of fiscally irresponsible policy where you have one's cake and eat it too is something that happened in many countries recently, resulting in a huge debt.

As for the question itself, that depends on what you mean by welfare. If you mean welfare that only benefits the unemployed, then yeah sure. In Norway, when we talk about the "welfare state", we refer to everything the Government spends money on, including roads, health care, schools, police etc. And these are benefits that are relevant for the vast majority of people.

But a tax system that doesn't tax the rich is a bad idea idea, because it is A. unfair and hits poor / middle class people more than it should and B. does not make any sense, and most importantly because C. the vast majority of the wealth is held by a small percentage amount of the populace. In terms of efficiency, you want taxes to be as progressive as possible, yet keeping a linear scale of profitability.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Do you mean not raising taxes on the rich, or not taxing the rich? Theoretically all tax funds go into one pile and then are budgeted out, so no matter what you do a portion of the taxes of the rich will go into the 'welfare' pot. Right?

But if the majority of tax money is coming from the middle class (which I think would be true anyway because 'the rich' is a pretty small percentage of any society yes?) then the middle class would be paying for a majority of the welfare.

I'm not sure what your question is. Is this sort of like lottery monies going towards paying for gambling addiction treatment so that people who play the lottery/gamble are paying for their own treatment?

[Darth Turbogeek]

The "Middle" class wouldnt have to pay as much tax if the rich didnt tax dodge and buy lobbists to stop the 1% from paying what probably is much fairer.


Something just occured to me, and I wanted to run it by our more politically saavy members for confirmation. If a goverment increases welfare spending without increasing taxes on the rich, doesn't that just make it to where the middle to poor classes are paying for the middle and poor classes without jobs?

This is Republican / Regean economic theory all in one sentance, except they cut taxes to achieve the mythical "trickle down" effect.

Think about this - assholes like Murdoch earn billions a year. They get tax less than 1% of that earnings. Now look at your own tax assesment and ..... yeah I think you see the problem now.

[Dasquian Belargic]

But if the majority of tax money is coming from the middle class (which I think would be true anyway because 'the rich' is a pretty small percentage of any society yes?) then the middle class would be paying for a majority of the welfare.

Well, that depends on the relative porportion of their earnings that people are being taxed, surely? Like Mark said, rich people could pay the same percentage of tax but realistically have it be a fraction of their earnings, compared to someone on a lower income who would be sacrificing a greater chunk of their paycheck. For example, UK income tax:

£0-£37,400 - Basic rate: 20%
£37,401-£150,000 - Higher rate: 40%
Over £150,000 - Additional rate: 50%

So, I earn £15,500 a year. I get taxed 20% of my wages. If I get promoted a couple of times and end up on £40,000 a year, I get taxed 40% of my wages. Obviously, there will be more people giving up 20% of their wages than 40% as there is always going to be more lower paid workers than higher, but the higher paid workers are - in theory - giving up more of their money to the state than I am. Even if they are still left over with more money, after taxing, they are still footing a larger part of the money than I am personally.

[Droo]

I've always found the tax bracket increments a bit baffling to be honest. If I earn £37,000 a year, my income after tax is £29,600, however, if I earn £38,000 a year, I only take home £22,800. Where is the sense in that? Why strive for promotion at all? There need to be a greater number of tax brackets and more common sense injected into the system.

[Yog]

I've always found the tax bracket increments a bit baffling to be honest. If I earn £37,000 a year, my income after tax is £29,600, however, if I earn £38,000 a year, I only take home £22,800. Where is the sense in that? Why strive for promotion at all? There need to be a greater number of tax brackets and more common sense injected into the system.
There is no sense in that, of course. That is why I talked about linear scale of profitability.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Right - £37,401-£150,000 to is way too large a bracket, it should be a more gradual increase.

[Pierce Tondry]

I actually see the other side of this fence. Granted I work with Virginia state income tax and not federal (and certainly not another country's income taxes), but I know a great deal of people at the lower rungs of the income ladder do not wind up being charged any tax when they file. There are multiple ways they are relieved of their income tax burden, legitimately, through the mechanics of their tax calculations.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I don't think that is a possibility here.. unless you earn less than £6,475, or are just doing work for cash in hand (in which case good luck to you not getting caught.)

[Pierce Tondry]

Perhaps. How familiar are you with your country's tax law?

[Dasquian Belargic]

Only on a basic level to be honest, but being as we use the Pay As You Earn system - whereby tax and national insurance contributions are automatically deducated from your pay packet - rather than 'filling' taxes.. you can't exactly avoid being taxed. Unless, like I said, you're doing work for cash in hand.

[Pierce Tondry]

"Pay as You Go" is one of the more straightforward versions of taxation up front, but I can't help but wonder if there are "back end" entitlement/allotment programs that either negate or mitigate the impact of the tax burden on lower income brackets. For example, "Fair Tax" proponents would prefer a national sales tax to an income tax with periodic payouts for homes that fall under certain income thresholds to (roughly) reimburse the tax they paid on basic necessities. No one really "avoids" the tax on goods they buy in that circumstance, however people still wind up with reimbursement for the tax they pay. Not counting the time value of money, it winds up being close to even.

The U.S. tax filing system is about 50% individual, 50% income distributor when it comes to filing responsibility. Realistically speaking, even if an individual does not file their taxes at the end of a given year, audit programs are extremely likely to generate tax assessments for those individuals that they will have to deal with through either filing or payment. There's an increasing level of automation in the way taxes are filed and paid, and while I don't think a massive switch to pure "Pay as You Go" is imminent, I think it is becoming closer to the way business is done.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

My sister hardly pays any taxes at all, but that's due to the child tax credit.

[Pierce Tondry]

Hahaha, doesn't she have like 5 kids or something?

It's funny - if you look really hard and read between the lines a bit, US Tax law encourages you to get married and have 2.5 kids. Financial incentives for social behavior.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Oh, lord... don't get me started on the ridiculous financial incentives for single parents here in the UK.

[Pierce Tondry]

I actually would love to do just that, assuming you're willing. :) The tax employee in me wonders how things work and the economist in me loves to see how the machinery creates incentives (and hidden disincentives/unfair costs).

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Hahaha, doesn't she have like 5 kids or something?

It's funny - if you look really hard and read between the lines a bit, US Tax law encourages you to get married and have 2.5 kids. Financial incentives for social behavior.

13 actually.

Its sort of hilarious how people think that 5 kids is a lot and/or ridiculous.

[Pierce Tondry]

Historically speaking, people had a lot of kids to help man farms, raise militias, and so forth. That agrarian culture is just so far away from where the US is now it's hard for people to envision. I've made a very small study (non-statistical, mind) of Indian culture, which is the closest modern thing I can find to that past way of life. Both ways make a lot of sense, albeit they make the most sense to those who find themselves in the circumstances that generate them.

Personally I'd like three kids, but I think my future wife is due a say in that.

I am getting away from the subject.

[Dasquian Belargic]

5 kids is a lot in the UK. I don't know many families who would comfortably be able to support that number of children. In fact, the only people who I have seen with this many are the aforementioned single/lone parents. The highest number I've ever seen in that instance was 8.

What I talk about incentives, Brian, it's that there is very little in it to motivate a single parent to get back to work. For example: the way the system currently works, if your youngest child is aged ten or younger, you are entitled to Income Support (at a basic rate of something like £65/$100 a week). You could say that isn't a lot - but what you also get along with this is housing benefit (your rent paid), your council tax paid, additional child tax credits, free school lunches, free medication and a very lenient approach to trying to get you back into work.

The cut off age is being dropped to 7 from October this year, but so long as you have one child younger than that age, you can continue claiming all of the above and be under no pressure to actively seek employment. In many cases, it hasn't been worth it to actually take a job, because doing so will cancel out any of your entitlement to the additional perks that come along with Income Support.

Naturally, single parents have certain hours that they want to exclude from the working week, so a full-time job is out of the question. Therefore only a lower paid, part-time job is open to them, and the money they would make from that would rarely balance out the benefits they receive.

[Darth Viscera]

I've always found the tax bracket increments a bit baffling to be honest. If I earn £37,000 a year, my income after tax is £29,600, however, if I earn £38,000 a year, I only take home £22,800. Where is the sense in that? Why strive for promotion at all? There need to be a greater number of tax brackets and more common sense injected into the system.

That tax system is retarded! Nobody should make less money as a result of making more money, because that disincentivises making more money. People should always want to make more money so they'll have more money. Some politician probably said "let's make the tax code simpler by just taxing people who make x quid an increasing percentage without having all these tax brackets", and didn't realize that when you do that, wages stagnate or even decrease the more money you make. Hell, I figured it out in an hour and started again from scratch.

I was fantasizing about more efficient forms of progressive taxation one day a few months ago and came up with a tax code that is far superior to the existing US tax code, and is based on the idea that the people with 95% of the money should be paying >=95% of the taxes. It gives enormous tax breaks to the lowest earning 99% of Americans in order to encourage growth among the middle class, who have had stagnant wages for the last 40 years. It taxes the top 1% of wage earners (who have had their wages increase 700% in the last 40 years) at the highest rate since 1981, 65% on all income over $5,000,000. Big corporations are given high tax rates, but they should be able to reduce them by hiring more workers, thus generating new jobs. On the other hand, they should face stiff tax penalties for outsourcing jobs to sweatshop countries with low labor and safety standards. Small businesses are given massive tax breaks. I made it into an excel sheet! (see attached)

In the US, the top 400 earners (who are all billionaires) pay an average of 17% tax, rather than the 35% (38% now) that they're supposed to be paying. So, my system is heavily dependent upon cracking down on tax evasion, sine qua non. You might have to put in taxes on luxury items to get them started on paying their fair share. For instance, a 65% tax on monocles, top hats, caviar, fancy wine that is less than a year old, rather than the crap that Joe Schmoe Public has to drink that's decades old and has probably gone bad by now, limousines, classy ladies, zeppelins, snuff, opium and British accents (received pronunciation, of course. Guttersnipe Londonese is tax-exempt).


Something just occured to me, and I wanted to run it by our more politically saavy members for confirmation. If a goverment increases welfare spending without increasing taxes on the rich, doesn't that just make it to where the middle to poor classes are paying for the middle and poor classes without jobs?
Yes. This is why systems of taxation should be progressive, not regressive, like ours. Ideally you want the rich to be paying a much higher tax rate than the poor or the middle class, because they can afford it.

I also believe that people who make <=400% of the federal poverty level (400% is $43,320/year + $14,960 per person in your household) should be given "tax free" cards. When they go up to the cashier, they swipe their tax free card, and voila, they don't have to pay sales tax. Or a tax rebate card, where you make a purchase, swipe your tax rebate card, and it records how much sales tax you paid, and at the end of the year when you're paying your taxes you input the tax rebate card info, and if your income is <=400% of the federal poverty level, then all the sales tax you paid over the year that the card has been tracking will be returned to you in the form of a tax rebate. In general, I think that the flat sales tax is a horrible idea, especially in Europe where it's 25%, I mean holy shit. I think that even sales tax should be progressive, so that poor people pay no sales tax, middle class people pay reduced sales tax, and rich people pay high sales tax, it's just a matter of implementing it correctly in order to avoid the googolplex of ways that all tax systems are abused.

[Morgan Evanar]

That's probably the best post I've ever seen.

[Jan Claasen du Toit]

I've generally come out smelling like roses in the case of federal taxes every year I've filed. I always get a hefty credit. On the flip, I usually pay state a small pittance.

I haven't tightened this up at all, true, but I've had bigger fish to fry for the past few years honestly.

[Darth Viscera]

Still, the American taxpayer should really be getting more bang for their buck. We should be getting cradle to grave medical care through a National Health Service, a free college education, and electricity that costs 5 cents / kwh with no brownouts. We should have a national ISP that has wired the country with a mixture of fiber optics and wireless (for people in rural areas, with LTE when it comes out) and shares the lines with every company under the sun (for a modest fee, of course) to foster competition, with 1gbps internet for $26/month, phone service for $3 more, and TV service for $6-$12 more, just like they have in Hong Kong, in communist china, the land of toothpaste that's made out of antifreeze. It would cost us around $400 billion. Amortize that over 10 years, and that's about $11/month for every person in America, and much less when you share those lines with other companies to recoup a great deal of the cost. Sounds like a wise investment in our future to me.

But no. We haven't even gotten the northeast corridor wired, and it's one of the most densely populated stretches of land on the planet, right behind the Taiheiyo Belt in Japan. Our "high speed train" goes from Washington D.C. to Boston at 62mph (~100kph), as if we're cavemen or hobbits or something, oblivious to the new innovations in the wider world. And to make matters worse, it costs even more than a ticket on a bloody jetliner, making it doubly useless. When you go out to buy a new car, a federal program should chip in to give you a free upgrade to a hybrid.

Instead, 58% of our tax revenue is going to defense-related expenditures. Yippee.

[Darth Turbogeek]

. When you go out to buy a new car, a federal program should chip in to give you a free upgrade to a hybrid.

You should have said free upgrade to diesel. Hybrids are utterly terrible technology and a dead end, loading a car with too much dead weight shit for no actual benefit that a direct injection petrol engine couldnt have done. Diesels on the other hand genuinely are more fuel economical (Why do you think Europe has millions of small diesel hatchbacks that make a Prius a sick joke) and also quite capable of high speed running.

The fact there are so many big hulking 4WD's being bought is the real problem. 4WD's should be taxed to death for urban use and tax free for people that genuinely need them, like tradies, rural residents etc. But noooooooo they are sold for Park Avenue mommies who take the brat to soccer and school, when a small hatchback would have been much better and safer.

Oh that's right, small cars actually have better safety standards and dotn fucking tip at the drop of a hat when attempting a corner.

[Darth Viscera]

Ok then, a free upgrade to a hybrid or a diesel car if you fill it with biodiesel.

Does your dislike of hybrids extend to plug-in hybrids like the upcoming Chevy Volt as well? I think the ability to drive 40 miles all-electric and not have to buy costly fuel most of the time is fantastic.


The fact there are so many big hulking 4WD's being bought is the real problem. 4WD's should be taxed to death for urban use and tax free for people that genuinely need them, like tradies, rural residents etc. But noooooooo they are sold for Park Avenue mommies who take the brat to soccer and school, when a small hatchback would have been much better and safer.

I agree.

[Darth Turbogeek]

Does your dislike of hybrids extend to plug-in hybrids like the upcoming Chevy Volt as well? I think the ability to drive 40 miles all-electric and not have to buy costly fuel most of the time is fantastic.

Yes, even those hybrids are shit. Because in reality all you are doing is moving the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack. The electricity has to come from somewhere and unless you are using solar, wind or nuclear, you are creating a big fuckoff cloud of CO2, land waste and radioactivity.

Yes, coal which is the main baseload has far more radioactivity coming off it than nuclear. Fly ash is one serious big time pollution problem.

Hybrids are the biggest con job the car industry has done in the last decade. They are a terrible solution to a real problem and in NO way fix anything. What you should be waiting for is hydrogen fuel cell cars, backed by nuclear power to crack water to get hydrogen. Fuel cells are an actual solution - as hydrogen when burnt simply resolves to water.

Nuclear baseload is also the actual safest solution as well - the owrst thing the green retards have ever done is demonise the cleanest and most plentiful fuel we have for ... well... anything. Lets check the facts?

a) More people are killed per year mining coal than ever was by nuclear

b) Nuclear actually is renewable by breeder reactors

c) 4th generation nuclear reactors are defaulted to shut down in case of accident, Chenobyl can NOT ever happen. And in fact Chenobyl is a case study in human stupidity, not a failure of nuclear power. Compare to the recent well rupture on the Gulf Coast that is probably goign to destroy the eco system much more effectively than Chenobyl ever managed.

d) What's better, a case of nuclear waste that can be reprocessed or easily buried or millions of tons of fly ash and massive air pollution?

e) There is no shortage of nuclear fuel. There is 5000 years of known resources with more being discovered. And if you really want to get technical, there is enough uranium in seawater to fuel ANYTHING we want until the sun causes thermal death on the plane.t So say about a billion years.

f) France has the cleanest air in Europe. It's 70-80% nuclear.

So until we go nuclear baseload - solar, wind and waves are not a viable alternative to the sheer power a nuclear reactor can supply - hybrids are simply a load of bullshit. And if we went nuclear... electric cars become suddenly very attractive as a genuine zero emissions alternative.

[Figrin D'an]

It makes me sad to think how much better off things would be right now if nuclear power had continued to develop and grow into the primary power source in the US that it was on track to become back in the 70's. One of the worst decisions every made was to cave to the fearmongering bullshit of the eco-tards.


Something else I find annoying is the complete lack of interest in natural gas as a transitional fuel source. Some of the largest NG reserves in the world are sitting under high plains states (Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, etc). Natural gas isn't a perfect solution, as it still will produce CO2 when burned. But it's a hell of a lot better than burning coal and petroleum products, and would go a long way to weening the US of it's foreign oil dependence, and be a way to at least cut back somewhat on carbon dioxide emissions as we try to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources. If your going to burn crap to produce energy, might as well make it the least nasty stuff available.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Oh my GOD don't get me started on the nitwits who chased one LNG (liquid natural gas) business away from Oregon and are starting on the second one who wants to put a station on our coast to help provide a new LNG source for the NW. Lower prices? Cleaner energy? (like you said, Fig, its cleaner, not necessarily clean) NO WE DON'T WANT IT.

Apparently we don't want dams producing hydro power, or wind (well unless its where we can't see it or hear it) power, or wave power (eye sore! Ruining our coastline! Destroying blahblahblah) or... well anything. The green power people praise one kind of energy with one side of their mouth and then tell us we can't use it anywhere with the other side of their mouth. Consequently we've torn down hydropower providing dams to 'restore rivers blahblah' I'm sure its important, really, without giving us an alternative to that power.

So, we end up leaning more on our coal plants. Its nonsense. And the price for power goes up. grrr!

And I agree completely with the nuclear thing. Its so stupid that we don't do more/everything with this.

[Darth Turbogeek]

I will give the Eco-tards one thing. Hydro and dams are ridulously bad for the enviroment and stream flows, which are utterly critical for the enviroment and ground water to florish.

That being said..... I also just do not believe how the eco-tards want us on say wind and then OMG RARE BIRD ARRRRRGH solar OMG UGLY RARE EARTH POLLUTION. I'm sure they want us to just live in the 18th century or some shit, without acknowledging you CAN have a sustainable lifestype that doesnt torch the planet. Politicans are just going to have to nut up and just simply a) ignore lobbyists and b) NIMBY's. Problem is, the first line the pockets, the second votes and can be extremely noisy.

China for instance where they dont have to give a shit about both is progressign with one of the biggest and most aggressive expansions of nuclear power on the planet. With that kind of expansion and money being poured in, the speed where the theoretical Gen IV plant will exist is closer, just because the funding is there to create it. Nuclear power plants admittedly take a lot of time and resources to build but these are actual good solutions to power requirements, not digging a shitload of coal out of the ground.

It's sad the actual "greenest" solution has been NIMBY'ed and Eco-tarded to such a degree.


Something else I find annoying is the complete lack of interest in natural gas as a transitional fuel source

Cost, transport and storage. Natural Gas isnt as cheap as coal and you cant store it in a huge pile, nor can you easily ship it. If you have a look at the huge LNG ships that transport gas to China from the NW shelf of Australia, it's a complex business. They talk about two lastest projects costing 100 billion, which in reality only China can afford.

[Darth Viscera]

Yes, even those hybrids are shit. Because in reality all you are doing is moving the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack. The electricity has to come from somewhere and unless you are using solar, wind or nuclear, you are creating a big fuckoff cloud of CO2, land waste and radioactivity.

Yes, coal which is the main baseload has far more radioactivity coming off it than nuclear. Fly ash is one serious big time pollution problem.

Hybrids are the biggest con job the car industry has done in the last decade. They are a terrible solution to a real problem and in NO way fix anything. What you should be waiting for is hydrogen fuel cell cars, backed by nuclear power to crack water to get hydrogen. Fuel cells are an actual solution - as hydrogen when burnt simply resolves to water.

Nuclear baseload is also the actual safest solution as well - the owrst thing the green retards have ever done is demonise the cleanest and most plentiful fuel we have for ... well... anything. Lets check the facts?

a) More people are killed per year mining coal than ever was by nuclear

b) Nuclear actually is renewable by breeder reactors

c) 4th generation nuclear reactors are defaulted to shut down in case of accident, Chenobyl can NOT ever happen. And in fact Chenobyl is a case study in human stupidity, not a failure of nuclear power. Compare to the recent well rupture on the Gulf Coast that is probably goign to destroy the eco system much more effectively than Chenobyl ever managed.

d) What's better, a case of nuclear waste that can be reprocessed or easily buried or millions of tons of fly ash and massive air pollution?

e) There is no shortage of nuclear fuel. There is 5000 years of known resources with more being discovered. And if you really want to get technical, there is enough uranium in seawater to fuel ANYTHING we want until the sun causes thermal death on the plane.t So say about a billion years.

f) France has the cleanest air in Europe. It's 70-80% nuclear.

So until we go nuclear baseload - solar, wind and waves are not a viable alternative to the sheer power a nuclear reactor can supply - hybrids are simply a load of bullshit. And if we went nuclear... electric cars become suddenly very attractive as a genuine zero emissions alternative.

I agree that having CO2-generating power plants is stupid, and I believe that we should be moving seriously towards replacing our entire power grid with 100% renewable plants. It should be part of the stimulus package. I have no problem with nuclear power plants. For the cost of the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts, we could have replaced every coal power plant in America with nuclear power plants six times over. If we could get both emissionless cars and power plants, that would cut our C02 emissions by 70%. Our grandchildren would thank us for not leaving them underwater, and we'd save a lot of money on gas.

I think that in order to bring about widespread adoption of 100% electric cars, we need to solve the issue of range. That means making batteries more efficient so they can store more juice, putting chargers in parking lots, having those stations where a robot switches out your depleted battery for a fresh one in under a minute, and building some sort of smart roads that recharge the battery as you drive using fancy electrical doodads and thingamajigs.

If we could sort out the emissionless power grid, then we could build algae biodiesel plug-in hybrids, that would provide us with 100% emissionless transportation at both short and long ranges, until we solved the range issues with electric cars so you could use it for city driving AND take it on a road trip.

I think hydrogen fuel cell cars are also a ways away. Last I heard about those, the car cost $1 million and the fuel cost the same as gas. Hopefully in the future it will become practical.

[Yog]

You know DT, can't believe I'm about to argue with a car geek. May I suggest you're wrong?

Where do I even start? First counterpoint (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/8/pSdnycHfLnQ).


Yes, even those hybrids are shit. Because in reality all you are doing is moving the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack. The electricity has to come from somewhere and unless you are using solar, wind or nuclear, you are creating a big fuckoff cloud of CO2, land waste and radioactivity.
This is wrong, because even accounting for an entirely coal powered energy grid, and increased weight of a hybrid engine, electric powered vehicles result in less CO2 emissions than gasoline powered automobiles. Read this (http://www.myelectriccar.com.au/co2.html).

But it's also wrong for other reasons. Electric batteries can be recharged during off peak hours. US grid already has the capacity to charge 85% of the entire car park if they were to switch from petrol to electric.

What makes electric / plug in hybrids even more appealing is, it can simultaneously solve the problem of spinning reserve. It can balance the entire energy grid and save a lot of money for the energy companies, hell, it could earn people money, because they could sell some of the excess energy back to the grid. Invest in some nano sheet solar panels on your rooftop, and you make your own fuel AND electricity. With energy certificates, this becomes even more lucrative.

Hydrogen has none of those benefits, which brings me to my next point..



What you should be waiting for is hydrogen fuel cell cars, backed by nuclear power to crack water to get hydrogen. Fuel cells are an actual solution - as hydrogen when burnt simply resolves to water. So, do you have 10 million USD around to buy a Honda FCX Clarity? Hell, it's not even for sale. If you're lucky, you might be able to get one for $1M. This is the REAL scam of the car industry today, the diversion tactics by showcasing gimmick fuel cell cars, when there are more viable alternatives around already. The technology is so expensive, it will at minimum take decades before it's feasible to buy for normal consumers, if ever. 7,000 psi carbon fiber tanks are sort of expensive, as is platinum catalysts. And I am not even getting into the many trillions of dollars required to build infrastructure, transport and production capacity.

Hydrogen also has a very low volumetric energy density, and to turn it into liquid requires cooling to −252.87°C. Why go through all that trouble when you can feed energy directly from the electric grid? All of those hoops just to get 1/4 of the energy efficiency of an electric car. It makes no sense.



Yes, coal which is the main baseload has far more radioactivity coming off it than nuclear. Fly ash is one serious big time pollution problem. This I do agree with though. Coal is dirty. I strongly encourage building nuclear, because it is one the safest and cleanest ways of making cheap energy today. It's probably not the golden bullet of energy (due to nuclear proliferation), but together with solar and wind, nuclear is an excellent transitional technology until we get commercial fusion reactors in about 30 years or so.



You should have said free upgrade to diesel. I agree Diesel is a good alternative. Because they already run cleaner, and can use biodiesel, which is something with great future potential (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/biofuel/4213775).

[Darth Turbogeek]

I agree that having CO2-generating power plants is stupid, and I believe that we should be moving seriously towards replacing our entire power grid with 100% renewable plants. It should be part of the stimulus package. I have no problem with nuclear power plants. For the cost of the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts, we could have replaced every coal power plant in America with nuclear power plants six times over. If we could get both emissionless cars and power plants, that would cut our C02 emissions by 70%. Our grandchildren would thank us for not leaving them underwater, and we'd save a lot of money on gas.

Truth



I think that in order to bring about widespread adoption of 100% electric cars, we need to solve the issue of range. That means making batteries more efficient so they can store more juice, putting chargers in parking lots, having those stations where a robot switches out your depleted battery for a fresh one in under a minute, and building some sort of smart roads that recharge the battery as you drive using fancy electrical doodads and thingamajigs.

If we could sort out the emissionless power grid, then we could build algae biodiesel plug-in hybrids, that would provide us with 100% emissionless transportation at both short and long ranges, until we solved the range issues with electric cars so you could use it for city driving AND take it on a road trip.

It wont happen with anything like the technology we have on hand or even remotely in the future. Batteries, especially high efficiency ones use lots of rare earth metals. A Tesla Roadster, the best pure electric car uses a half ton of Lithium Ion batteries and has a ridulous recharge time, plus a shorter range than they like to admit.

I have to say tho, if you ARE serious abbout a hybrid, diesel is the way to go, not petrol.



I think hydrogen fuel cell cars are also a ways away. Last I heard about those, the car cost $1 million and the fuel cost the same as gas. Hopefully in the future it will become practical.

You have a fair bit to catch up on :)

THere are fuel cell cars running around right now. A Mazda RX8 (rotary) will run hydrogen, right NOW with little mods apart from the fuel tank and costs considerably less than a million. Honda have a fleet of Acura hydrogen fuel cell cars in Califorina now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity

Germany there is BMW Hydrogen cars.

Fuel cells and Hydrogen cars are frankly doable right now and within a couple of years as production ramps up you will see even more cost savings. The real issue is fuel delivery and availibility

HOWEVER....

that beign said, Australia has one way to quickly cut emissions and reduce costs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas

LPG as an alternate fuel is extremely common. It easily retrofits and also easily set up at existing stations for fuel delivery. LPG injection to diesels als has some remarkable pollution killing and increased fuel economy aspects.



LPG injection for diesel vehicles

The performance, economy and emission profile of diesel engines can be improved by injecting a small quantity of LPG into the inlet manifold. It is claimed that the LPG increases the burning efficiency of the diesel fuel from typically 75-85%, to 95-98%.<sup id="cite_ref-dga_tech_3-0" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas#cite_note-dga_tech-3)</sup>
The systems typically operate by metering a small quantity of LPG, at a pressure slightly above atmospheric, into the intake manifold, where it enters the combustion chamber and is ignited with the diesel. LPG flow is regulated to ensure smooth operation, and will typically only deliver LPG under power.
It is claimed that such a system can result in a 10% to 20% increase in power and torque,<sup id="cite_ref-dga_tech_3-1" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas#cite_note-dga_tech-3)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas#cite_note-4)</sup> and a reduction in overall fuel costs. Any actual savings are dependent on the relative cost of diesel versus LPG. In Australia, where diesel costs substantially more than LPG, savings of 10 to 20% are claimed.<sup id="cite_ref-dga_econ_5-0" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas#cite_note-dga_econ-5)</sup>
The above systems add small quantities of LPG with the primary aim of improving economy, but much larger quantities of LPG can be injected in order to increase power. Even at full output a diesel engine runs about 50% lean of stoichiometric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio) to avoid black smoke production, so there is a substantial amount of oxygen in the intake charge which is not consumed in the combustion process. This oxygen is therefore available for the combustion of a substantial addition of LPG resulting in a large increase in power output.


Imagine retrofitting that to the entire USA truck fleet.



A lot of this stuff tho will take a politican with balls to force it in.

[Darth Turbogeek]

You know DT, can't believe I'm about to argue with a car geek. May I suggest you're wrong?

Where do I even start? First counterpoint (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/8/pSdnycHfLnQ).
This is wrong, because even accounting for an entirely coal powered energy grid, and increased weight of a hybrid engine, electric powered vehicles result in less CO2 emissions than gasoline powered automobiles. Read this (http://www.myelectriccar.com.au/co2.html).


Allright, it's on :)

Sorry mate, that's a splerger's blog. It does not account for powr transmission losses or the outright ieffiencies of power generation, nor does it compare actual similar cars.

Sorr,y the science there is flawed. Badly.



But it's also wrong for other reasons. Electric batteries can be recharged during off peak hours. US grid already has the capacity to charge 85% of the entire car park if they were to switch from petrol to electric.

{citation required}



What makes electric / plug in hybrids even more appealing is, it can simultaneously solve the problem of spinning reserve. It can balance the entire energy grid and save a lot of money for the energy companies, hell, it could earn people money, because they could sell some of the excess energy back to the grid. Invest in some nano sheet solar panels on your rooftop, and you make your own fuel AND electricity. With energy certificates, this becomes even more lucrative.

Those numbers are highly dubious mate. Solar is also not a reliable power source - even in a country liek mine where solar is worth a look due to the sheer radiance we get.




What you should be waiting for is hydrogen fuel cell cars, backed by nuclear power to crack water to get hydrogen. Fuel cells are an actual solution - as hydrogen when burnt simply resolves to water. So, do you have 10 million USD around to buy a Honda FCX Clarity? Hell, it's not even for sale. If you're lucky, you might be able to get one for $1M. This is the REAL scam of the car industry today, the diversion tactics by showcasing gimmick fuel cell cars, when there are more viable alternatives around already. The technology is so expensive, it will at minimum take decades before it's feasible to buy for normal consumers, if ever. 7,000 psi carbon fiber tanks are sort of expensive, as is platinum catalysts. And I am not even getting into the many trillions of dollars required to build infrastructure, transport and production capacity.
[/quote]

See above for my last post on this. Sorry, the FCX is a good deal less than 1 million. MAzda RX8's run hydrogen RIGHT NOW, literaly buy a tank, it'll run. Flex fuel cars too, which are beginning to appear.






Hydrogen also has a very low volumetric energy density, and to turn it into liquid requires cooling to −252.87°C. Why go through all that trouble when you can feed energy directly from the electric grid? All of those hoops just to get 1/4 of the energy efficiency of an electric car. It makes no sense.

PUlling power off the grid for cars only makes sense if you have nuclear power due to the just simply moving the pollution from one place to another.



This I do agree with though. Coal is dirty. I strongly encourage building nuclear, because it is one the safest and cleanest ways of making cheap energy today. It's probably not the golden bullet of energy (due to nuclear proliferation), but together with solar and wind, nuclear is an excellent transitional technology until we get commercial fusion reactors in about 30 years or so.
Fusion is not going to happen in our lifetimes, unless someone wins a lot of Nobel prizes and advances technology by years. Fusion has been "coming in 10 years time" for my entire life - and we are hardly even in the experimental "Will it even work???" stage. The problems are huge. It's still 10 years away and it will stay that way.

I have to draw an exception to the proliferation thing. Nuclear fuel is not weapons grade by a looooooooooooong shot. It takes a shit load of processing to get near usable - it's a bogeyman the eco-tards are waving about to scare us. What, states like Iran have the bomb? I have no fear of that. Terrorists might get nuAHAHAHAHAHA yeah right, that's a fantasy from 24.

Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with a few guys and a bunch of craft knives. Terrorists dotn need nukes and they know it.

[Yog]

Allright, it's on :)

Sorry mate, that's a splerger's blog. It does not account for powr transmission losses or the outright ieffiencies of power generation, nor does it compare actual similar cars.
It may well be a splerger's blog, but the conclusions there are pretty much universally accepted by a multitude of studies. This is really common knowledge, unless you're talking about the older generation Prius which is not even a Plug-in, and yes those cars are really inefficient. The kWh/km are known factors for the Chevy Volt and other plug in hybrids. Once you factor in the energy use and account for off-peak hour use of electricity, it's really a matter of mathematics.

You're really focusing too much on the vehicle efficiency when what you really should be looking at is unused electricity in the grid.




{citation required} If you watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/8/pSdnycHfLnQ) I linked to, it's 4:44 in, with exact quote.

Google "impact assessment of plug-in hybrid vehicles"




Those numbers are highly dubious mate. Solar is also not a reliable power source - even in a country liek mine where solar is worth a look due to the sheer radiance we get.
Solar got a lot more reliable and cheaper over the years, both for use at home and commercial wide scale. For commercial energy production, look up what they are doing with thermal solar collectors such as the Nevada Solar One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One) in Arizona, for example. Hell, next generation facilities will even be able to run over night, by retaining the heat in liquid salt and absorbing infrared. In fact, both wind and solar are now approaching cost parity for nuclear, especially when you start talking about breeder reactors, which are far more costly to build and operate than traditional reactors. Solar is also starting to become cheaper for home use, with latest generation nano technology.

As for dubious numbers, here is a real world example about cost of operation for private use and the potential benefits of green certificates. I talked to Visc about this one month ago (unfortunately, his house is shadowed by tall trees, so it is not viable in his case, but the numbers are interesting still)


when you generate solar power, you not only save money on your energy bill, you also generate solar certificates, which are worth money. these certificates are required by law to be generated, and it is required by law that the power company buys them. with a 10,000w solar system, you would generate 12 solar certificates a year, and each of them is worth $400. if i understand it right, when a power company buys your solar certificates, that means that it's buying up your solar generation capacity for that year, but not the power that you produce with them, so that it can say to the government "you know how i'm required by law to have 2% of my energy generation be solar? well Walter's house is solar, we're generating 10,000 watts a month at walter's house, and here are the certificates to prove it."

they're paying you for the energy you produce, and then in addition to that, they're paying you again for producing solar energy

it's a huge, huge huge huge fiscal incentive to go solar

...

i would have gotten a 100% ROI in 2 years, and generated $71,500 in profit in the subsequent 11 years
If I had a house with good sun conditions and not obstructed by trees, I'd be all over this like a womp rat on crack. :)

For Americans reading this, enter your zip code check it out for yourself:
http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=rightforme&subpage=




See above for my last post on this. Sorry, the FCX is a good deal less than 1 million. MAzda RX8's run hydrogen RIGHT NOW, literaly buy a tank, it'll run. Flex fuel cars too, which are beginning to appear.
The FCX fuel cell alone is a half million dollars, and over half of that cost is for the platinum (yes, the stuff used in jewelry. Needed to make the fuel cell function properly). And don't get me started on the carbon fiber pressure tank, or the rest of the car. There is a reason only 10 been produced so far, and only available by leasing. It's a PR stunt.

As for building one yourself, I hope it is safer than the Hindenburg. Hydrogen has high potential to explode, especially in confined spaces such as garages. You can either compress the hydrogen as a gas (hydrogen is volumetrically inefficient unless you have a high pressure tank) and decent pressure tanks are expensive, or you store it as a -250C liquid, in which case you need some insane insulation. Then there are the fuel cells themselves, which don't tolerate the cold too well, and are prone to failure. I guess you could mock something together in a somewhat inexpensive fashion, but I doubt it would be reliable in the long run.

The BMW Hydrogen 7 is really a luxury car, and it is far from environmental friendly (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448648,00.html). The petrol powered version the 760Li sedan has a price tag of $124,100. Lord knows what the price will be with fuel cell / tank.




PUlling power off the grid for cars only makes sense if you have nuclear power due to the just simply moving the pollution from one place to another.
But hydrogen also pulls power. And it does so at 1/4 the efficiency. Of course, 100% clean power would be best, and nuclear is infinitely better than coal. I'm just pointing out that even with dirty coal as source, electric transmission is superior to high miles per gallon petrol engines both in terms of operating cost and CO2 emissions. And let's not forget, most of the power would have gone to waste anyway, because cars can charge their batteries at night.



Fusion is not going to happen in our lifetimes, unless someone wins a lot of Nobel prizes and advances technology by years. Fusion has been "coming in 10 years time" for my entire life - and we are hardly even in the experimental "Will it even work???" stage. The problems are huge. It's still 10 years away and it will stay that way.
I always thought the claims of 10 years away were crazy, and yes, there are major technical obstacles, but they are definitely not insurmountable at this point. It's a lot closer now than you think. There have been tremendous breakthroughs lately. Ignition already achieved, and net energy output.

The ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) reactor is scheduled to be completed in 2018, and is expected to have 5-10 times the output energy in form of heat than input. The first prototype of a commercial reactor is expected to be operational in early or mid 2030s (and we're now talking 30-50x the output), and wide spread use of commercial reactors in early 2040s or so. We could achieve this at a faster rate, but that depends on investing in the research. Maybe we should spend more money on fusion power research than on mobile ring tones.



I have to draw an exception to the proliferation thing. Nuclear fuel is not weapons grade by a looooooooooooong shot. It takes a shit load of processing to get near usable - it's a bogeyman the eco-tards are waving about to scare us.
Dude, a common bi product from reactors is plutonium.. especially breeder reactors. Once you have material enriched enough, put two large enough pieces of that together, and you achieve critical mass. If North Korea can do this, you can bet Iran is able to do the same, if they want to. The other problem is securing fissile material such as plutonium that is currently treated like waste.

[Figrin D'an]

I always thought the claims of 10 years away were crazy, and yes, there are major technical obstacles, but they are definitely not insurmountable at this point. It's a lot closer now than you think. There have been tremendous breakthroughs lately. Ignition already achieved, and net energy output.

The ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) reactor is scheduled to be completed in 2018, and is expected to have 5-10 times the output energy in form of heat than input. The first prototype of a commercial reactor is expected to be operational in early or mid 2030s (and we're now talking 30-50x the output), and wide spread use of commercial reactors in early 2040s or so. We could achieve this at a faster rate, but that depends on investing in the research. Maybe we should spend more money on fusion power research than on mobile ring tones.




Maybe I'm a bit behind the most recent developments on this, but until I see a complete description of how exactly ITER plans to capture the heat produced from the fusion reaction (meaning mechanisms of heat transfer, what medium (or media) they plan to use and estimated heat transfer coefficients thereof, what efficiency loss they are reasonably expecting, etc.) and translate it into electricity, I will remain skeptical of seeing commercial fusion power reactors in my lifetime.

I mean, it was only just last year that scientists at Lawrence Livermore were able to, for the first time, use the NIF laser to create a controlled fusion reaction that generated more heat energy than was initially required to ignite it. That's a big step, of course, but it's a long way from what we're talking about hopefully seeing. It's not like they haven't been trying for very long either. I took a course in supercomputer applications from the guy in charge of LLNL's supercomputer network, and he was talking about the systems needed for it at that time, and this was 1994 when I took said class.

I really hope fusion becomes viable in my lifetime, I really do. But it should not even be remotely considered as part of a legit future energy policy until there are tangible results.

[Park Kraken]

There is another advantage to going all nuclear for a power grid - Electric Commuter Trains! Although I would stick with Diesel-Powered Electric power for Freight for the time being, it's clean as heck now anyways thanks to the very tough regulations imposed by EPA, just replace the current mainline power fleet with GEVOs and the switcher/local fleet with GENSETs and we'll be good to go.