July 20, 2006
Subsiding the Rich(er)
Does the PA government really need to be involved in this business?
- The state will give $500 to Pennsylvania residents who buy a hybrid electric vehicle.
State Sen. Jake Corman said it's the second round of funding through the Hybrid Electric Vehicle program.
The initial rebate program issued $1.5 million in rebates in fewer than 10 months.
Let's call it what it is, a handout to the rich.
Hybrid owners make on average $100,000 per year.
An average family's income? $70,700
Oil and Energy Pennsylvania Posted by AlexC at July 20, 2006 4:25 PM
well a part of that is wrong. Smug people who brag about own hybrids make over 100k.
a prius is no more then a accord, camry, legacy or maxima.
average income of these car owners are middle america at 45-70k.
Posted by: steve f at July 20, 2006 8:09 PMIf i had the money for a Prius i'd prolly put some LIthium polymer batteries in at. If your comute is under 150 miles round trip youd burn 1 gallon of gas.
for some dumb reason it wont let me post about e85.
E85 is pointless. Here is why. Its subsidized by the state and federal goverment .
here is how much 60-80 cents a gallon.
its generally 20-30 cents a gallon cheaper.
What happens if we remove all the subidations?
Well gas around here is $3.20 a gallon we dont get e85 here so lets jsut take off 25 cents a gallon and be in the middle of the raod
Okay so that makes E85 2.95 a gallon here. Lets remove the goverment kick backs state and federal 70 cents a gallon.
so now E85 is $3.65 a gallon. But theres more goverment pork barreling going on here. on raw corn. its very high corn is one of the indursties where you make money throwing the crap out. So if we remove that it would ad about 15 cents a gallon.
so now E85 costs $3.80 a gallon. so it costs 60 cents a gallon more.
But sadly there is even more. E85 has 20% less BTUs then gas. So now you gotta buy 1.2 gallons of e85 to go the same distance on gas.
That now makes gas $4.56 a gallon to go the same distance.
Now here are problems. E85 cant be put in a pipeline it collects water so it must be shipped via rail and truck. So if it was to be offered anywhere out of the Mid west then it would go up about another 50 cents if a refinery wasnt with in about 500 miles of you.
Now for those who like in smog state where the MTBE was replaced with 10% ethanol. This is a reason why your gas is abotu 20 cents a gallon above the national average. Since ethanol has less energy then gas whats the impact on your MPG?
just about nothing. Here is how you can figure it out. e85 85% ethanol 15% gas. yet it takes 1.2 gallons to get the same energy as gas.
So take 1.2 and devide by 85% thats the impact of each percent of ethanol has on the BTU value of gas since the goverment requirs 10% ethanol in 15 states thats 1.4% less MPG then pure gas.
Why does the govermetn make us get it?
Good question back in the day it would trick the car into running lean so it wont pollute as much.
This has been made obsolete with the invention of the o2 sensor. yes its been obsolete since modern electronic fuel injection IE 20-25 years ago.
So what good does ethanol do? Even with the engery needed to produce it. Its carbon nuetral which means it takes the same amount of carbon from the earth when its made as co2 as it makes
Posted by: steve f at July 20, 2006 8:26 PMsteve
Steve. Thanks for the comments. I am especially interested in O2 sensors’' obsolescing oxygenated fuels. We have a 10% mandate in the Colorado Front Range. If you have a link to any information on that, I'd love to read it. I'll Google a bit.
Regardless of the income and pricing, there are two huge flaws with this. One, you are asking people who cannot afford a new car to pitch in $500 for someone who can. And two, you are interfering with market innovation mechanisms. Pennsylvania will be sending $500 checks to hybrid owners long after better technology is available.
Posted by: jk at July 21, 2006 9:55 AMYou know, I should buy a hybrid just to get my state income tax back. Spite, it's what's for dinner!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 21, 2006 11:43 AMGood for Yoooooou!!! (with a South Park "thumbs-up")
In all seriousness, I don't see it at all wrong to accept a tax break even if you disagree with it. You pay enough taxes with which you don't agree.
Posted by: jk at July 21, 2006 11:57 AMJK, I'll put in an unsubstantiated thought on oxygenated fuels, according to a CU professor that my buddy used to work with (part of my vast liberal left network), all the testing was done at standard temperature and pressure. This is common for chemical experiements, but it was instituted before the effects could be proven here at 5200 ft.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 22, 2006 12:45 PM | What do you think? [6]