I guess you can think what you want. I only spent 19 years as a ME working in the diesel power business in North America, Europe and Asia. So it stands to reason that I wouldn't know anything about any of it.
--
Chris
-
BS Chris. The Employment Prevention Agency (EPA , for those in WI) has done every thing they can do to BLOCK diesel vehicle sales in the USA sales with ever increasing restrictions. WAKE UP DUDE.
I mean who in their right mind would want something like a Honda Accord with all the Bells & Whistles that gets 50 to 60 mpg?
Certainly not Chris from WI.Leave a comment:
-
What gross subsidies? The only subsidies I'm aware of are USDA "programs" that are designed so the government can control planted acres and food prices by manipulating the commodity markets. They have never worked, and nobody I know participates in them. We call it "farmin' the government" and anybody in their right mind knows that the less you have to do with the government the better your life is.
We bought up 1,920 acres here, about half it wooded. And we run some beef cattle but there is not a single dime of it "subsidized" by anybody but us.
Your statement that diesels are not common in the US because of EPA is demonstrably false. The Euro 4 -6 and Stage standards are more stringent, or are in line with, EPA and Tier standards here. The problem in the US is CARB, not EPA.
--
ChrisLeave a comment:
-
-
There has been several small diesel cars and pickups sold in the US over the years. And every one has been a failure in the marketplace. The only ones that have been successful is GM, Chrysler and Ford's 3/4 and one-ton diesel pickups. People see the higher price of diesel fuel vs gasoline and they won't buy one unless they're using one of the above mentioned trucks for heavy hauling. Even though the economics of the diesel might turn out to be better (higher resale, lower fuel consumption and cost per mile, longer life), people still won't buy it simply because it costs $8 bucks more to fill 'er up and the diesel costs more to buy.
Of course. But it's relative. Energy in the US is cheap. Energy in Europe is easily double the price. This is what I said before, and is the main reason Europeans will be quick to adopt energy efficient technology, while Americans don't care. The relative price difference between gasoline (petrol) and diesel fuel will drive the automotive market. Gasoline is cheaper than diesel fuel in the US - guess which fuel is the most common for personal transportation? Diesel fuel is cheaper in the EU than petrol - guess which fuel is the most common for personal transportation? And that's also why you European folks have a much greater selection of diesel powered vehicles to choose from than we do. And your fleet average fuel economy is much higher than ours.Typically US taxes will be lower in all areas
The US government has figured out that they charge higher taxes on the fuel that powers the economy because it's going to be burned anyway as long as the industrialized world is running - so they got a guaranteed income source to fund the nonsense. They can make gasoline cheaper than diesel fuel, and make it up on volume. When the price of gas goes down, people burn more of it and the government gets more money because the excise taxes on it are fixed per gallon. It's in the government's interest to keep the price of gas low, and have people burn lots of it, because they get more money for the Big Christmas Party.
If you convert a diesel to run on vegetable oil or B100 here in the US, and drive it on the road - you face a $10,000 fine because you are using a non-taxed fuel. In our state there are 8 different Federal and State permits and licenses you have to obtain to legally use B100 fuel in an on-road vehicle - and every permit and license insures that the government tracks every gallon you produce so they can get their money from it. In my wife's home country of Sweden you can convert a diesel to run on bio or veg oil - no questions asked.
--
ChrisLeave a comment:
-
This still gets back to what I said yesterday about Europeans willing to spend more money on energy efficient technology. Diesels are more expensive here too because they're more expensive to manufacture. But Europeans will buy them - most US buyers won't.
The relative expense for fuel is related to other factors. I did not say that fuel was cheaper in the EU. What I said was that the taxation scheme is the exact opposite of the US - and the result is the higher adoption of diesel power in Europe for personal transportation.
No. Actually my biggest complaint is that I'm forced to fund it. And my bigger complaint yet is that there seems to be no way to force the government to spend it responsibly.Sounds like your biggest complaint is that you were left out?
--
ChrisLeave a comment:
-
While they shouldn't, I think they have since the concept of government and money was invented. In Europe, they put higher tax on gasoline than on diesel fuel, and no tax on biodiesel, to promote the use of diesel power for transportation. This has worked, for the most part, as roughly 50% of Europe's auto fleet is diesel - with the correspondingly higher fuel efficiency that goes with diesel power.
Here in the US it is different. The government does not really want high fuel efficiency because they make a lot of money off highway fuel and federal excise tax on fuels. The entire industrialized world runs on diesel power. From the food you buy at the supermarket, to a car or toothbrush, it is all grown, raw materials mined or recycled, and transported with diesel power. So the US has excessively high federal excise tax on diesel fuel and states have higher road tax on diesel fuel than on gasoline which gives them a bigger slush fund for the Christmas Party.
A few years back here in Wisconsin they diverted $7.2 million of the highway fuel tax fund to the DNR for doing a migratory bird study in the Horicon Marsh. And they diverted another $2.5 million of the fuel tax fund to put radio collars on the elks in the North Woods. And then somebody hit a elk on highway 27 north of Hayward. Can't have people killing the government-owned elk herd without a permit. So they diverted another $4.7 million of the highway fuel tax fund to putting in lighted barricades that drop across the road when a elk with a radio collar is near the road - with flashing yellow lights and a sign on it that says "STOP - elk crossing road". The one on the northbound lane lasted until a 18-wheeler was wingin' it north to Cable and that barricade dropped across the road in front of him. He took 'er right off at the post and then they figured that maybe wasn't going to work. So they abandoned it.
Nobody that I know approved any of this nonsense. The government just does it. Imagine if you could just set on your ass and pass rules that force everybody everywhere to send you money that you can spend on whatever you want. The only work you have to do is hold meetings with your buddies to figure out how to spend all your money - and you get paid a six figure income to do this. That's government.
--
ChrisLeave a comment:
-
hahaha! good story,Here is one for you. Much of my land (along with others) in northern Michigan is wetland which makes it against the law to build anything on most of it. It was not always wetland, the government built a dam to raise the water level in the local lake to encourage development and of course increase property values, so they could raise tax revenues.
The increased water level caused by the dam turned countless acres of land into wetlands. But now that wetlands are protected, development has essentially stopped and property values have dropped to just about nothing. You can buy a half acre lot in the planned development for as little as 8 or 9 hundred dollars. Duck hunting is much better however
It gets better. Since property values have dropped, they raised the tax rates to offset the lower property values. So now property owners are just walking away from their property (which they can't do anything with anyway) and letting the county take the property on tax forfeiture.
Now since the county needed the money, they let the folks that own the local quarry expand their limestone pit. Don't ya know that they expanded the quarry so much that the lake is now draining into the pit, and water levels are dropping to below what they were before the dam was built. Who would have thunk.
Very much a true story. It took the better part of 50 years to get to this point, but that is the way these things work. Unintended consequences of the government getting involved in areas they have no business getting involved in.
Have much the same story down here with the guvment draining of Kissimmee river basin for ranching/cattle, then the reclaiming of swampland for water filtration, all the while big landowners getting rich off taxpayer money.Leave a comment:
-
Here is one for you. Much of my land (along with others) in northern Michigan is wetland which makes it against the law to build anything on most of it. It was not always wetland, the government built a dam to raise the water level in the local lake to encourage development and of course increase property values, so they could raise tax revenues.
The increased water level caused by the dam turned countless acres of land into wetlands. But now that wetlands are protected, development has essentially stopped and property values have dropped to just about nothing. You can buy a half acre lot in the planned development for as little as 8 or 9 hundred dollars. Duck hunting is much better however
It gets better. Since property values have dropped, they raised the tax rates to offset the lower property values. So now property owners are just walking away from their property (which they can't do anything with anyway) and letting the county take the property on tax forfeiture.
Now since the county needed the money, they let the folks that own the local quarry expand their limestone pit. Don't ya know that they expanded the quarry so much that the lake is now draining into the pit, and water levels are dropping to below what they were before the dam was built. Who would have thunk.
Very much a true story. It took the better part of 50 years to get to this point, but that is the way these things work. Unintended consequences of the government getting involved in areas they have no business getting involved in.Leave a comment:
-
-
-
-
I disagree, I don't believe the government should be involved in driving markets one way or the other. That includes both the supply and the demand side. Generally speaking it is government interference that encourages people to be less efficient with their own resources. Government interference to correct problems caused by government interference does not usually make things better in the long run. Just my two cents.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: