RAISE the tax on petrol now!
25 September 2000, 03:12 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alterboy
Strange name
Firstly 'Smarten yourself up'!!
Why don't you try an 'Eat bacon its good for you' headline on a Jewish BBS. You might as well.
You have come onto a driving enthusiasts site and headed a thread raise tax on fuel with a poor reason.
I doubt you'll find any support.
We have the lowest cost of fuel pre tax in Europe.
We have the highest cost of fuel post tax in Europe.
The country has shown how defiant they are against Tax on fuel. You are way out of touch!!
I agree that enviromental issues are important, the tax we have on fuel now should be used and them some to investigate what your looking at.
This would probably get a better response on the GreenPeace site.
Hydrogen my ****.
[This message has been edited by Scott J Davies (edited 25 September 2000).]
Strange name
Firstly 'Smarten yourself up'!!
Why don't you try an 'Eat bacon its good for you' headline on a Jewish BBS. You might as well.
You have come onto a driving enthusiasts site and headed a thread raise tax on fuel with a poor reason.
I doubt you'll find any support.
We have the lowest cost of fuel pre tax in Europe.
We have the highest cost of fuel post tax in Europe.
The country has shown how defiant they are against Tax on fuel. You are way out of touch!!
I agree that enviromental issues are important, the tax we have on fuel now should be used and them some to investigate what your looking at.
This would probably get a better response on the GreenPeace site.
Hydrogen my ****.
[This message has been edited by Scott J Davies (edited 25 September 2000).]
25 September 2000, 03:19 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine words Alter Boy - can't help thinking though that there are certain large companies and several Arab countries who would have a vested interest in keeping products like this from the market.
I seem to remember there being a lot of press coverage for hydrogen powered cars a few years ago and then it all died.
A few years ago, my brother-in-law was visiting a large metal producer for an insurance claim. He was shown parts of their R&D facility - part of this was developing ceramic engines - not for production, just so that they could hold the patents and stop the products coming to market!
Hydrogen does sound like a good alternative - so why isn't our governement promoting this as an alternative fuel (er.. did someone mention north sea oil revenues??)
Chris
I seem to remember there being a lot of press coverage for hydrogen powered cars a few years ago and then it all died.
A few years ago, my brother-in-law was visiting a large metal producer for an insurance claim. He was shown parts of their R&D facility - part of this was developing ceramic engines - not for production, just so that they could hold the patents and stop the products coming to market!
Hydrogen does sound like a good alternative - so why isn't our governement promoting this as an alternative fuel (er.. did someone mention north sea oil revenues??)
Chris
25 September 2000, 03:21 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope he's got a good flame suit. 
If alternative fuels were a viable alternative then more would use them. They need to be heavily subsidised (sp) before take off. Plenty of re-fuelling sites, LPG has too few. I could go on .....yardy yardy yardy, blahh blahh blahhh, Tax, etc.
P.
P.S. Chris L got his reply in before me. He is bang on with what he says regarding oil revenues etc.
[This message has been edited by Sith (edited 25 September 2000).]
If alternative fuels were a viable alternative then more would use them. They need to be heavily subsidised (sp) before take off. Plenty of re-fuelling sites, LPG has too few. I could go on .....yardy yardy yardy, blahh blahh blahhh, Tax, etc.
P.
P.S. Chris L got his reply in before me. He is bang on with what he says regarding oil revenues etc.
[This message has been edited by Sith (edited 25 September 2000).]
Trending Topics
25 September 2000, 04:07 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be negative
1 - I don't see why research should be funded by fuel tax - we pay enough already - I should have thought that was pretty clear
2 - Hydrogen is awkward stuff - expensive and energy consuming to produce - and extremely difficult to store, requiring enourmous pressure to keep a reasonable quantity in a practicably small car fuel tank.
Also it leaks quite easily, because of the small atomic size.
No Forget it
JD
1 - I don't see why research should be funded by fuel tax - we pay enough already - I should have thought that was pretty clear
2 - Hydrogen is awkward stuff - expensive and energy consuming to produce - and extremely difficult to store, requiring enourmous pressure to keep a reasonable quantity in a practicably small car fuel tank.
Also it leaks quite easily, because of the small atomic size.
No Forget it
JD
25 September 2000, 04:14 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: so much to see, so little time!
Posts: 16,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't forget the Hindenburg! 
Chris
OK I can't spel!
[This message has been edited by CharlieWhiskey (edited 25 September 2000).]
Chris
OK I can't spel!
[This message has been edited by CharlieWhiskey (edited 25 September 2000).]
25 September 2000, 04:20 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alterboy
Good argument....if the existing tax revenue was spent wisely to begin with instead of on half-ar5sed peabrained tinpot schemes organised by dictatorial Tony's b*m chums.
I've a better idea - spend 2p of the EXISTING fuel tax revenue on research into green fuels. Won't happen though as fat boy has probably allocated it all to ridiculous PC schemes to placate some minority or other whilst ignoring the majority. It's the most bizarre form of Government I've ever seen.
Now I know why revolutions start.
Nick
Good argument....if the existing tax revenue was spent wisely to begin with instead of on half-ar5sed peabrained tinpot schemes organised by dictatorial Tony's b*m chums.
I've a better idea - spend 2p of the EXISTING fuel tax revenue on research into green fuels. Won't happen though as fat boy has probably allocated it all to ridiculous PC schemes to placate some minority or other whilst ignoring the majority. It's the most bizarre form of Government I've ever seen.
Now I know why revolutions start.
Nick
25 September 2000, 04:33 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not use methanol?
ok its about 50% power to volume compared to petrol, but the CART boys seem to make good power out of it, plus as far as I know the exhaust is totally safe
only prob is it burns with a clear flame, so you wont be able to see your flameouts!
robski
ok its about 50% power to volume compared to petrol, but the CART boys seem to make good power out of it, plus as far as I know the exhaust is totally safe
only prob is it burns with a clear flame, so you wont be able to see your flameouts!
robski
25 September 2000, 04:35 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't be bothered to go to that URL but are we talking hydrogen power as in the fuel cells used in space vehicles ??
Personally I'd love a 'MAIN B BUS UNDERVOLT' warning light on my dash - very Apollo 13 !!
Does the hydrogen engine conversion come with optional LEM lifeboat ??
Is it imperative to check the relative guages before stirring the tanks ???
Etc.....
Neil.
Personally I'd love a 'MAIN B BUS UNDERVOLT' warning light on my dash - very Apollo 13 !!
Does the hydrogen engine conversion come with optional LEM lifeboat ??
Is it imperative to check the relative guages before stirring the tanks ???
Etc.....
Neil.
25 September 2000, 04:39 PM
#13
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nickw:
<B> I've a better idea - spend 2p of the EXISTING fuel tax revenue on research into green fuels. [/quote]
2p? That won't buy much research will it?
Geezer
<B> I've a better idea - spend 2p of the EXISTING fuel tax revenue on research into green fuels. [/quote]
2p? That won't buy much research will it?
Geezer
25 September 2000, 05:37 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer, glad you put the smiley. 2p buys a lot, given the amount of petrol that I alone use .
The thing that *really* annoys me is that there's shedloads of money being generated by this, and how much is going into providing better transportation?
Apparently, it's being used to fund the NHS and schools. So the tax being there to make us more environmentally friendly is, erm, bunkum.
(I'm trying to watch my language now)
.The thing that *really* annoys me is that there's shedloads of money being generated by this, and how much is going into providing better transportation?
Apparently, it's being used to fund the NHS and schools. So the tax being there to make us more environmentally friendly is, erm, bunkum.
(I'm trying to watch my language now
)
25 September 2000, 05:39 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alterboy:
If hydrogen is wonderful, consider this.
You mention that it is produced by electrolysis. Where's the energy come from to electrolyse water? And how much energy is liberated from burning hydrogen to produce water as a by product?
If it releases more energy than it takes to electrolyse water, haven't you just re-written physics?
Forgive the ignorance, I'm genuinely intrigued.
If hydrogen is wonderful, consider this.
You mention that it is produced by electrolysis. Where's the energy come from to electrolyse water? And how much energy is liberated from burning hydrogen to produce water as a by product?
If it releases more energy than it takes to electrolyse water, haven't you just re-written physics?
Forgive the ignorance, I'm genuinely intrigued.
25 September 2000, 06:14 PM
#19
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not like taking tax money will actually get the stuff to market faster. Look at Ballard Systems (the guys who made that hydrogen fuel cell). They had a prototype ready for market, it had been test run in buses in numerous cities across north america, and then boom, bought out by mercedes. No one has heard anything from them since. The problem isn't that there aren't alternatives, there are. The problem is the alternatives are being developed by small companies that just can't compete against the big cash the car conglomerates can throw at it to keep them from achieving anything. The oil producers just have no sense of competition from outside there own industry. I think what we really need is an anti-trust suit (a la microsoft) against the big oil companies and the car companies.
25 September 2000, 09:07 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although it sounds mad it may not be quite that mad. For instance, there are initiatives to move away from petrol worldwide and some are starting to take effect in some inner cities. These initiatives have been set by the governments (country or local).
I agree that the government paying for the research isnt such a bright idea.
For the government to do that everyone would broadly have to be agreement with it. The government are spending some of the money (well a lot probably) on the NHS and Schools and people dont seem to like now even though the government pledged to invest in it prior to election. So if people wont like spending their money on the NHS and Schools they sure aint going to want to spend it on a research project.
How feasible the hydrogen project really is I have no idea but it sounds scary.
bkar
( PS Scoot Davies - your comment "The country has shown how defiant they are against Tax on fuel. You are way out of touch!!" is amusing. You are wrong - truckers were defiant. When it came to negotiations with the government, cheap fuel wasnt for everyone wasnt what they were interested in - cheap fuel for truckers is what they wanted. Truckers dont give a flying f*ck about Joe public)
I think you all ought to vote Tory next election. Tories will give you this and give you that. Jeez Tories must clever - they can make money out of thin air. They even pledge to reduce the cost of petrol by a whole 2pence - a fat lot of good thats going to do but thats when the farmers initially said. Oh, I forgot, they can say want they like coz they aint in government ..... LOL
[This message has been edited by Bright Kar (edited 25 September 2000).]
I agree that the government paying for the research isnt such a bright idea.
For the government to do that everyone would broadly have to be agreement with it. The government are spending some of the money (well a lot probably) on the NHS and Schools and people dont seem to like now even though the government pledged to invest in it prior to election. So if people wont like spending their money on the NHS and Schools they sure aint going to want to spend it on a research project.
How feasible the hydrogen project really is I have no idea but it sounds scary.
bkar
( PS Scoot Davies - your comment "The country has shown how defiant they are against Tax on fuel. You are way out of touch!!" is amusing. You are wrong - truckers were defiant. When it came to negotiations with the government, cheap fuel wasnt for everyone wasnt what they were interested in - cheap fuel for truckers is what they wanted. Truckers dont give a flying f*ck about Joe public)
I think you all ought to vote Tory next election. Tories will give you this and give you that. Jeez Tories must clever - they can make money out of thin air. They even pledge to reduce the cost of petrol by a whole 2pence - a fat lot of good thats going to do but thats when the farmers initially said. Oh, I forgot, they can say want they like coz they aint in government ..... LOL
[This message has been edited by Bright Kar (edited 25 September 2000).]
26 September 2000, 12:28 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alterboy ( I have to say that name disturbs me )
Why aren't you lobbying Government to have Public vechiles chaned to Hydrogen, after all Busses 10 times more pollutive than cars. Under a loaad ie accelarting away, buses produce one of the most toxic substances none to man.
Surely this would be a better place for your comments.
Why aren't you lobbying Government to have Public vechiles chaned to Hydrogen, after all Busses 10 times more pollutive than cars. Under a loaad ie accelarting away, buses produce one of the most toxic substances none to man.
Surely this would be a better place for your comments.
26 September 2000, 02:10 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come reducing pollution from cars has become so topical and yet reducing pollution from other sources is almost never mentioned?.
Modern cars have become very clean and release less than 10% of the hydrocarbons and nox compared with cars from 10 years ago.The amount of CO2 has risen because it is an unavoidable by-product of combustion, but it is still only a small proportion of the man-made total.
Electricty generation is responsible for producing more CO2 than car use and yet probably half of what is produced is used to power luxury or labour saving devices that we could easily do without.
What about the emissions created during the energy intensive manufacture of all the products we use in the course of living our lives and how many of these products are absolute necessities?
Wall to wall central heating produces about half the CO2 of an average car over a year, obviously central heating is a necessity for certain sectors of the community but I,ve got mine on now because I'm a tiny bit cold.It's a luxury for most of us,just think how many houses had it 20 years ago!.
What about the CO2 produced by air travel,how much of this is essential?
I could go on and on.
If we are not under any pressure to reduce emissions and compromise our lifestyles in the above examples why should we be when it comes to car use?.
And how come people think alternative fuel cars are greener than a normal car.They are NOT they just release their pollution else where and often require a hole host of nasty chemicals in their manufacture.
I think Alterboy is very blinkered if he thinks alternate fuel cars will make any measurable difference to the impact our 'all consuming society' has on our enviroment.
Andy
Modern cars have become very clean and release less than 10% of the hydrocarbons and nox compared with cars from 10 years ago.The amount of CO2 has risen because it is an unavoidable by-product of combustion, but it is still only a small proportion of the man-made total.
Electricty generation is responsible for producing more CO2 than car use and yet probably half of what is produced is used to power luxury or labour saving devices that we could easily do without.
What about the emissions created during the energy intensive manufacture of all the products we use in the course of living our lives and how many of these products are absolute necessities?
Wall to wall central heating produces about half the CO2 of an average car over a year, obviously central heating is a necessity for certain sectors of the community but I,ve got mine on now because I'm a tiny bit cold.It's a luxury for most of us,just think how many houses had it 20 years ago!.
What about the CO2 produced by air travel,how much of this is essential?
I could go on and on.
If we are not under any pressure to reduce emissions and compromise our lifestyles in the above examples why should we be when it comes to car use?.
And how come people think alternative fuel cars are greener than a normal car.They are NOT they just release their pollution else where and often require a hole host of nasty chemicals in their manufacture.
I think Alterboy is very blinkered if he thinks alternate fuel cars will make any measurable difference to the impact our 'all consuming society' has on our enviroment.
Andy
26 September 2000, 10:16 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndyMc,
I couldn't agree more - cars form an ever smaller percentage of our overall CO2 output.
Surely a more effective approach would be to increase efficiency of energy use in other sectors of the economy. What ever happened to home improvement grants for home cavity wall and loft insulation for example?.
Many industries would derive a competetive benefit from investing in more energy efficient production processes which reduce their overheads.
Tony Blair's whining about the harm that would be done to public services such as the NHS explodes the myth that high petrol taxes primary purpose is to protect the environment. What bothers me most is the lack of honesty about the reasons for imposing this tax and what the revenue is used for - how stupid does the Government think we are?.
From a personal perspective, indirect taxation such as fuel tax is preferable in that I have a choice about whether to consume or not - I do accept that others would feel differently as they may not be able to choose freely, hence their strong feelings.
Cheers,
Alex
I couldn't agree more - cars form an ever smaller percentage of our overall CO2 output.
Surely a more effective approach would be to increase efficiency of energy use in other sectors of the economy. What ever happened to home improvement grants for home cavity wall and loft insulation for example?.
Many industries would derive a competetive benefit from investing in more energy efficient production processes which reduce their overheads.
Tony Blair's whining about the harm that would be done to public services such as the NHS explodes the myth that high petrol taxes primary purpose is to protect the environment. What bothers me most is the lack of honesty about the reasons for imposing this tax and what the revenue is used for - how stupid does the Government think we are?.
From a personal perspective, indirect taxation such as fuel tax is preferable in that I have a choice about whether to consume or not - I do accept that others would feel differently as they may not be able to choose freely, hence their strong feelings.
Cheers,
Alex
26 September 2000, 01:57 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is a willingness to discuss new technologies etc. None of us want to be thought of as 'ruining' the planet. BUT.... we live in the present and there are many issues with todays technology that need sorting in parallel with research into new fuels etc. We also have to run with 'present technology' before the new takes over.
Public transport is mentioned above. Why is public transport exempt from emmisions controls for example? Could it be, perish the thought, that it would mean the government would have to fit the bill to get it fixed?? Cynical old me..
Pollution - diesel engines are more polluting (lorries etc) than modern cars. And unleaded petrol is extremely carceogenic. But our wonderful goverment lets us breathe in the fumes when we fill up - why doesn't it insist on re-breather fillers like the US?
Global warming? Doesn't exist except as a means for social engineering by our beloved politicians. See:
26 September 2000, 02:51 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alterboy
suggest you take a trip to the real world. if tax on fuel actually went on public transport infrastructure, development of alternative fuel sources etc etc, we could have a reasoned discussion. by and large, people tolerate taxes if they can see revenue being applied appropriately. people by and large would live with a reasonable fuel levy because they could get to see some improvements where they matter.
but it doesn't. it goes into the HM treasury black hole with pitiful re-investment: this is the travesty and the main problem with arrogant, incompetent public servants. so nothing ever changes. so suggest you think about treating cause before you open your gob about symptom.
think about this sensibly then write to your MP and do something positive rather than talk garbage on this bbs.
suggest you take a trip to the real world. if tax on fuel actually went on public transport infrastructure, development of alternative fuel sources etc etc, we could have a reasoned discussion. by and large, people tolerate taxes if they can see revenue being applied appropriately. people by and large would live with a reasonable fuel levy because they could get to see some improvements where they matter.
but it doesn't. it goes into the HM treasury black hole with pitiful re-investment: this is the travesty and the main problem with arrogant, incompetent public servants. so nothing ever changes. so suggest you think about treating cause before you open your gob about symptom.
think about this sensibly then write to your MP and do something positive rather than talk garbage on this bbs.
26 September 2000, 03:06 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and another thing...
how's this for environmental impact: my scoob registered 0.00% on its CO emission test at MOT and 3 parts per million on hydrocarbons, both at 2750 revs.
so low the tester thought he had a diagnostics error on the computer.
the legal limits for an MOT pass are a maximum of 0.3% on CO and 200 ppm on hydrocarbons. i'd like to see any diesel beat that: car, van or truck.
how's this for environmental impact: my scoob registered 0.00% on its CO emission test at MOT and 3 parts per million on hydrocarbons, both at 2750 revs.
so low the tester thought he had a diagnostics error on the computer.
the legal limits for an MOT pass are a maximum of 0.3% on CO and 200 ppm on hydrocarbons. i'd like to see any diesel beat that: car, van or truck.