Solve 4 Biggies
  ~  by reducing income taxes & increasing energy taxes

                          
   
New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
  (& sometimes in between)

- Contribute to this online
  public conversation -





   1 - Global warming

   2 - Dependence on
        foreign energy

   3 - Trade deficit

   4 - Pollution from non-
        renewable fuels

"...he only managed 74 miles per gallon...."

Print the article

This entry was posted on 8/15/2007 11:40 PM and is filed under efficiency,Energy Conservation.


The title is an actual quote from an article in The Capital Times on Hybrid 'Hypermilers' - http://www.madison.com/tct/archives/index.php?archAction=arch_read&a_from=search&a_file=%2Ftct%2F2007%2F07%2F23%2F0707230299.php

"Jerad Parish.....last year he only managed 74 mpg in his 2005 Toyota Prius.  This year, with some new techniques under his belt, he won his division with 110 mpg."

This is a commercially available vehicle.

So this is what's possible when there is an incentive.  In this case the incentive was a contest.  What if the incentive was gasoline at $5.00 or $6.00 per gallon?  A lot more people in the U.S. would be getting a lot better mileage.

The best way to increase your mileage on the highway...slow down.  (I didn't say it would be popular with most.)  Wind resistance increases by the square of your speed.  The difference in wind resistance between 60 mph and 70 mph?  60 x 60 = 3,600 ; 70 x 70 = 4,900.  The increase = 36%.  Yes, there goes your mileage down the tubes.  So you're getting where you're going 17% faster, but your wind resistance is up by 36%.

For those bicycle riders that can go 21 mph, but would like to go 24 mph -- the price?  Overcoming 30% more wind resistance.  Makes me appreciate the power that professional cyclists and triathletes can generate.  By the way, even the top pros can't generate anywhere near 1 horsepower for a sustained period.  But, I digress... 

Here's a great quote from Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist.

     Americans have every right to shop for groceries in vehicles built for hunting elephants, but then they should stop whining about the inevitable oil price crunch that follows.

He is a proponent of higher gasoline taxes.  Unfortunately, I've never seen him mention the regressive nature of energy taxes and that we'd need to address that for the nation's poor.  I don't think he cares.....

*******************************

Would we rather slow down and/or drive smaller vehicles to pay less for energy (including new energy taxes) OR have global warming?  Slow down/drive smaller vehicles OR be at war over oil?  I recognize it's not that simple, but raising energy taxes and returning that money in the form of lower income taxes is a significant step in the right direction.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 9/15/2007 12:33 PM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      Improved gas mileage is good, and higher gasoline prices (and taxes) will result in moving in that direction.

      But such small steps in that direction will not adequately deal with either climate change or US oil addiction. Bigger steps are needed to have an real impact. Plug-in hybrids are a first step, not so much because of better mileage, but because they shift the power source from gasoline to electricity. Initially for the first 40 miles or so, but eventually to most, then all miles driven.

      Electric cars deal with the "oil addiction" problem: how much it effects the "climate change" would depend on just how the electric power was generated.

      Notice that the Madison Capital Times on Friday, Sept 14 printed a letter claiming that "ethanol is the answer."
      But it says nothing about the petroleum used to produce that ethanol.
      Factor that in, and it is clear that the US is converting petroleum (as well as topsoil) to ethanol. Is there an energy gain in this conversion? The answer is either NO (Cornell study), or Yes, but only maybe 30% (Minnesota study).

      Either way, ethanol from corn is not the "answer".
      Reply to this
      1. 9/15/2007 10:21 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        Agree.  We need an incentive to use less energy that all American's can relate to - whack us all right in the wallet.  Lower federal income taxes and make up the revenue by increasing non-renewable energy taxes.  As this tax shift is phased-in it will make entire tiers of renewable energy project cost effective.

        Agree again.  Ethanol is not the answer.  I saw that letter too.  It started out something like,"I've learned in life that........"  My reply:  I've learned in life that a good place to start in a debate is by asking the question, "Who's got a 'horse' in the race?"  As the executive director of the Ethanol Association, he's got an incentive to be a bit biased.

        If, after the HUGE subsidies are removed, ethanol from corn is an overall winner (including economically), let the market decide.  The other part I didn't like about his letter....of course using corn for ethanol is going to increase corn prices.  I believe he said that down the road 16% of U.S. corn may go toward ethanol production.  OF COURSE this will result in increased prices - data is showing this occurring already.  And, people are starving in the world -- is us driving bigger vehicles than we need to, for example, worth pulling all of this corn of the market? 

        We've got to stop agreeing like this.

        Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.