Fuel tax up again 1st April
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
Perhaps they should electrify the roads and we can drive dodgem cars
It's not a bad idea. The inside lane of a motorway could have overhead cables added at relatively little cost. Then trucks could have pantographs added and become electric (improve efficiency) with relativity little capital outlay.
Like the bus in the foreground of this image:
http://citytransport.info/PhotoCD/4552_81a.jpg
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
When I was in Melbourne I found the tram system absolutely fantastic. So much so that if I lived there, I simply wouldnt use my car for city journeys.
Instead when we build tram networks, we make them pretty much like railway lines, which is rubbish.
Instead when we build tram networks, we make them pretty much like railway lines, which is rubbish.
How are batteries any worse than hyodrogen?
Hydrogen requires electricity to not only make it but also compress it. Electric can go directly to the battery and overall is more efficient.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 275
Batteries are big and heavy, hydrogen is not.
Right - The process to get energy into the car is still more efficient via batteries.
You still need a tank to store it in which needs to be high pressure and hence heavy. Hydrogen really needs Nuclear to be viable and if your nuclear then electricity is cheap enough to just charge the batteries directly.
The charging time. We won't put up with anything more than the length of time we're prepared to stand at a forecourt station renewing our ability to travel vast distances.
Both have disadvantage I admit. My boss has one of the Mini E trial vehicles, with a 415v supply at his house I think it charges in about 4 hours
Hydrogen represents the most acceptable form of energy transfer that we know about today. It simply replaces diesel/petrol, we carry on driving conventional looking cars with familiar refilling habits. The general public don't care what is more efficient, they want something which is affordable and just works without a change to their current routine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
True, Hydrogen's energy density by volume or mass is very high. Much much higher than hydrocarbon fuels, with engines running at greater efficiency along with water as the combustion by-product.
Love it how there are people jutifying why it will rise to 120p. This is exactly why it will rise, and continue to rise - because theres those who jutify why the government is doing what its doing... If everyone stuck together a point could be made. However it won't happen because the 'weak ones' are too busy justifying why the government is right all the time.
By volume or mass? Which do you mean, they are VERY different things!
By volume H is rubbish, as a liquid you only get 10 MJ/L, as a highly (700 bar) pressurised gas you only get around 5.5 MJ/L and as a gas at STP around 0.01 MJ/L.
Petrol is around 34 MJ/L
No one is considering storing liquid H in a car, so we talking a fuel some 6 times LESS dense than petrol. Your standard 45L tank would need to be close to 300L to hold the same amount of energy.
Due to fuel cell's higher efficiency, maybe call it 100-150L for a similar range on the vehicle. Hydrogen is not "Much much higher than hydrocarbon fuels" in any way applicable to transport, its low energy density is a problem.
I honestly think it's in the country's long term economic interest to have increasing fuel prices through increasing taxation. It buffers us from market volatility, it encourages more efficient vehicle fleet, it encourages shorter commutes, it reduces our trade deficit...
America and Australia are in a worse place than Europe and Japan due to their policy of low fuel taxation.
If I was in charge, I'd scrap road tax and increase fuel duty so it raised the equivalent revenue. I'd tempted to take it further and increase fuel duty to raise additional revenue to provide 'free' 3rd party insurance to everyone - a state (via fuel duty) funded 3rd party insurance scheme.
great ideas there. Ive always gone with scrap the road tax, pay more fuel tax idea, but the insurance thing is a new one, which, sounds pretty good, at least everyone would be insured then?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,223
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
You need 60KWh of electricity to creat 1kg of hydrogen and then go around 50-55 miles in a battery buffered fuel cell car.
60KWh in a electric battery car would yield around 200miles...
Electricity at 10p per KWh would mean £6 to do 50miles and the government haven't yet taxed it or 'oil' companies taken there cut.... and this is featuring in a price of petrol thread as some some of cheap alternative?
Essentially a Focus FCX carrying 4kg (240Kwh) has a similar range to a plug in Prius with a 39KWh battery.
In reality charging the batteries fast enough really isnt the main concern for mass adoption, its the draw on the grid at such power demands that really needs attention.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 275
Yes but standards of driving may lower as people don't have to worry about increasing premiums when ragging their run around corsa and hitting people...
I prefer paying for insurance how it is now, means your insurance would depend on how much fuel you use, younger drivers would probably use less but be more of a risk, also if loads of claims are made in a year fuel prices go up people complain more
Alternatively, we could acknowledge our fuel taxes are unreasonably high and implement your proposal without raising fuel taxes. Ring fencing fuel tax for this purpose would easily yield enough revenue.
Sin taxes should not be used to raise revenue or alter behaviour, but only to address harm caused by the sin.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
Of course you're right. Rereading that, I wasn't very clear. I was referring to LH2 gravimetric energy density. Responding to the comment about battery weight. As you say LH2 range is a major drawback. I take your point though. In practical terms a litre of Petrol actually has more Hydrogen in it than a litre of LH2.
Last edited:
In my opinion...
Moaning about the cost of fuel tax is simply complaining that taxes are painful. Is the country rolling in money? Are the people setting and collecting the taxes fabulously wealthy? Well it would appear not.
The people who drive for a living get paid for millage. As the fuel goes up, the compensation/allowance for traveling increases. Generally pottering about costs are barely affected - if it costs £5 to drive to Sainsburys today its going to cost me say £5.10 on April the first, big deal, I'm still going to drive to Sainsburys.
Long distance commuters are hit the hardest. And perhaps these people should be - they regularly drive at peak times, use more than their fair share of the oil reserves and pollution contribution. Why should I have a limited supply of oil because my neighbour wants to drive 100 miles to work and back each day so he/she can get richer?
We need to break the current trend of regular high speed, comfortable, long distance commuting.
If we really want to continue our upward trend of longer, regular journeys, then we will have to pick more suitable vehicles.
There are plenty of small diesel cars out there at the moment which offer 60mpg+, but people prefer to sit in their luxurious high performance vehicles and moan about the cost of fuel. Make your choice, performance, comfort or economy.
ps. I'm pedaling to work and I'm loving it. If you are within 10 miles, your employer offers changing facilities and secure bike lockups, give it a go. 30 minutes exercise and thinking time at the beginning and end of a day on a bike is good for the body, the mind, road congestion and your pocket. It is truly a win-win.
pps. I'm not an eco-warrier. I enjoy driving in non-traffic jams and have two vehicles tucked away in the garage, one averages 14mpg and one does 25mpg. I'm just not complaining about the cost of fuel.
Moaning about the cost of fuel tax is simply complaining that taxes are painful. Is the country rolling in money? Are the people setting and collecting the taxes fabulously wealthy? Well it would appear not.
The people who drive for a living get paid for millage. As the fuel goes up, the compensation/allowance for traveling increases. Generally pottering about costs are barely affected - if it costs £5 to drive to Sainsburys today its going to cost me say £5.10 on April the first, big deal, I'm still going to drive to Sainsburys.
Long distance commuters are hit the hardest. And perhaps these people should be - they regularly drive at peak times, use more than their fair share of the oil reserves and pollution contribution. Why should I have a limited supply of oil because my neighbour wants to drive 100 miles to work and back each day so he/she can get richer?
We need to break the current trend of regular high speed, comfortable, long distance commuting.
If we really want to continue our upward trend of longer, regular journeys, then we will have to pick more suitable vehicles.
There are plenty of small diesel cars out there at the moment which offer 60mpg+, but people prefer to sit in their luxurious high performance vehicles and moan about the cost of fuel. Make your choice, performance, comfort or economy.
ps. I'm pedaling to work and I'm loving it. If you are within 10 miles, your employer offers changing facilities and secure bike lockups, give it a go. 30 minutes exercise and thinking time at the beginning and end of a day on a bike is good for the body, the mind, road congestion and your pocket. It is truly a win-win.
pps. I'm not an eco-warrier. I enjoy driving in non-traffic jams and have two vehicles tucked away in the garage, one averages 14mpg and one does 25mpg. I'm just not complaining about the cost of fuel.