NDP's Layton promises investments

[Wilber]

It is used by a majority of public transit but as a minority of overall fuel, it produces quite the wallop in emissions regardless.

It is also used in almost all commercial transport of any kind, land, sea or air, (jet fuel is a first cousin of diesel) all heavy machinery and most farm machinery. So what magic source of lower emitting power do you know of to replace diesel in all these roles? Please let us in on it. Better yet, sell the idea to some manufacturer. You'll be stinkin rich.

I suppose if you are advocating for all carbon to be taxed at $50 per metric tonne, you would see gas taxed 10 cents above its present rate but then you would have diesel taxed higher too.

I'm arguing against adding a penalty to a technology which emits less while you are advocating doing nothing about one which emits more. You are the one arguing for taxation.

I never said anything of the sort.

Hard to say what is happening in B.C. at the moment. Could be the carbon tax. Could be the size of the sample.

As usual you never answered the question either.

Could be the size of the sample anywhere no? So why bring it into this discussion?

[Wilber]

Back to bk59

1. People must be able to afford the diesel car irrespective of prices at the pump. This limits the number of people who can switch. So right away your problem does not impact a number of Canadians since they can't switch anyway.

So how are people going to change their ways if they can't afford new lower emitting vehicles be they gas or diesel? As I said before, over 50% of Europeans are now opting for diesel over gasoline. Somehow they are doing it.

2. The price of diesel per litre (at the pump) is currently more than the price of gasoline per litre. The people who would switch to diesel right now will do the math to see that overall, including gas mileage, their costs on fuel will be less if they use diesel. There will be people who will NOT switch right now because the price of diesel is higher per litre than gasoline; these people are NOT doing the math including the gas mileage.

Yes they will do the math and see that owning a diesel is not as advantageous as it was previously. They will be making that decision with their money, not you.

A carbon tax may reduce the incentive, but the incentive is still there.

Sez you. Do you own one and if not why not? Would jacking up the price of its fuel to a point where it may be 20 cents more per liter in total make you more likely to buy one or would you just go on emitting more with your present vehicle because the brain surgeons in your party have left the price of its fuel alone?

Taxing something will change how people behave with respect to that something. If emitting carbon dioxide costs something then people will act to emit less carbon dioxide.

And not changing the tax on the fuel that more than 90% of people use in their private cars will encourage them to change nothing.

Of course that sentence makes no sense unless you add the words "per litre" at the end.

So?

Actually we both know that even under a carbon tax these cars will be more cost effective for people. What is it you know that changes that basic math?

So why haven't people been falling all over themselves to buy them and why do you think making their fuel even more expensive will make them more likely to?

In their current form diesel cars may be better than the current equivalent gasoline cars, but you may want to rethink your use of VW as the poster boy for corporate climate change responsibility. See here.

I'm not using VW as a poster boy for anything. The Jetta and Golf are the only cars sold in North America from which a direct comparison of emissions between gas and diesel can be made except for possibly the E Class Mercedes which shows similar results. If you had European numbers, you could make the comparison for just about any vehicle because most of those which normal people drive are available with either power plant.

And yet your "don't do anything, keep business as usual" approach certainly isn't going to do anything to reduce emissions. A carbon tax may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Right back atcha, your "don't do anything, keep business as usual" approach when it comes to the fuel which powers 90% of personal transportation in this country and only adding it to lower emitting vehicles will achieve even less.

You know, as much as I like diesels, there are some things I wouldn't miss about owning one. Like not being able to find fuel at every service station, finding the only pump with diesel occupied by cars buying gasoline when there are other pumps free. Standing in the stuff and taking the odour into the car on my shoes because some service stations can't be bothered to clean up small spills. The GTI, Civic Si and Mazda 3 Speed are starting to look better the more I think about it

Edited August 18, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

It is also used in almost all commercial transport of any kind, land, sea or air, (jet fuel is a first cousin of diesel) all heavy machinery and most farm machinery. So what magic source of lower emitting power do you know of to replace diesel in all these roles? Please let us in on it. Better yet, sell the idea to some manufacturer. You'll be stinkin rich.

Electric. Can I have my money now?

John Deere is developing the electric tractor and will be mass marketing it in 2013. It is as powerful as anything in today's market.

Siemens has a patent pending on electric propulsion for ships. Some ships have used electric no emission energy for years. I think you know them as Navy ships. Commercial ships would use fuel cell technologies.

Is this way in the future? No. We are talking very quickly in 5 to 10 years.

I'm arguing against adding a penalty to a technology which emits less while you are advocating doing nothing about one which emits more. You are the one arguing for taxation.

I think I have said diesel still produces emissions and will be taxed less than gas. With better mileage than gas, it will always have a better advantage than gas. Nevertheless, it is not a zero emission product.

The fairest application of the tax is what is proposed. You are advocating for a scale on a variety of fuels that produce carbon.

As usual you never answered the question either.

The Liberal proposal doesn't include a tax on food. I don't believe it should. It taxes carbon emissions from industrial sources.

At some point, a cap and trade may involve agriculture. I don't even think the NDP and Tory plans do that yet but that day may come with large industrial farms developing all over the place.

Could be the size of the sample anywhere no? So why bring it into this discussion?

Why bring up the drop in B.C. and associate it to the carbon tax if you don't know? Certainly Decima didn't muse one way or the other about it.

The reason I mentioned the size of the sample is because the margin of error is fairly large. The best sample size is around a 1000. It will tell you voting intentions but not the reasons why unless asked.

[Wilber]

Electric. Can I have my money now?

John Deere is developing the electric tractor and will be mass marketing it in 2013. It is as powerful as anything in today's market.

Siemens has a patent pending on electric propulsion for ships. Some ships have used electric no emission energy for years. I think you know them as Navy ships. Commercial ships would use fuel cell technologies.

Is this way in the future? No. We are talking very quickly in 5 to 10 years.

I haven't been able to find anything on an all electric tractor from John Deere on their website or anywhere else. They have some E series tractors which have electrically driven accessories and PTO's but the power to run them comes from a generator driven by the diesel engine. Not to say they may not be working on such a concept however.

Siemens is working on a propulsion system. There are no all electric naval vessels (or any others that I know of) in service but the US may have an experimental one by 2012. I think maybe you labouring under a misapprehension. The electric driven ships now in service are diesel or gas turbine electric where an electric motor drivng the propellor is powered by a generator which is in turn powered by either a diesel (as in a locomotive) or gas turbine engine. A concept which is about 100 years old.

As far as fuel cells go it is the same story. Fuel cells work but the problem is the fuel. Until an economical and low energy process is found to produce hydrogen in large quantities and also a way to store it in sufficient quantities and long enough to give anything using it an decent range, as well as a distribution network to supply it, their place in the future of propulsion is far from secure and this is coming from a Ballard Power shareholder. Not many though, thank god.

I take your point but all this stuff is still in the development stage and some or all may work out at some time but eight years ago "experts" were talking about fuel cell vehicles in the showroom by 2006 and Ballard shares were $180 so don't hold your breath. So no, you can't have your money now.

I think I have said diesel still produces emissions and will be taxed less than gas. With better mileage than gas, it will always have a better advantage than gas. Nevertheless, it is not a zero emission product.

I've never maintained diesel is a zero emission product but I am maintaining that until new lower emission technologies do come on line, penalties should not be added to the technologies we have now that do produce lower emissions today. Why you would do so while at the same time not adding a penalty on those in use which produce higher emissions, I still can't fathom, unless it is purely an ideological and or political stand, instead of a practical one which could actually result in lowering emissions in the immediate future.

Why bring up the drop in B.C. and associate it to the carbon tax if you don't know? Certainly Decima didn't muse one way or the other about it.

I was just responding to your shot regarding Ontario and Quebec. The thought never occurred to me until you shot off your mouth about polls.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

I haven't been able to find anything on an all electric tractor from John Deere on their website or anywhere else. They have some E series tractors which have electrically driven accessories and PTO's but the power to run them comes from a generator driven by the diesel engine. Not to say they may not be working on such a concept however.

Here is one of the farm reports from a few years back.

http://farmindustrynews.com/mag/farming_electric_tractors_2/

There was something just recently on the news about how UQM is working with Deere to develop a series of tractors that should be on the market in 5 years. The UQM website has more on the plan.

In the mean time, Deere has been developing the E series to be less of a drain on diesel engines. The farmer will charge the battery and it will save 5% fuel consumption. The tractors come on the market next year.

This is just the start of fully electric vehicles.

I expect electric farm vehicles will be the norm very quickly in the same way that industrial lift and powerjacks are all electric in warehouses.

Siemens is working on a propulsion system. There are no all electric naval vessels (or any others that I know of) in service but the US may have an experimental one by 2012.

Nuclear carriers are converting to electrical systems this year for catapults instead of steam and hydraulic oils. It will also provide power for cooking and heat for quarters. It is just part of a program to reduce the amount of people a ship requires and to reduce wear and tear on parts by using electric and electronic substitutes. This will eventually be spread to other non-nuclear vessel to reduce their energy consumption in the same way Deere is doing for farm vehicles

Nuclear ships by their nature are usually considered to be electric ships.

The U.S. Navy did announce the development of a fully electric ship. There is a lot of interest in this for commercial application. In the meantime, it looks like the U.S. will make all the larger ships in their fleet nuclear to save fuel costs.

I think we may see some of the largest cargo ships become nuclear in the near future.

I think maybe you labouring under a misapprehension. The electric driven ships now in service are diesel or gas turbine electric where an electric motor drivng the propellor is powered by a generator which is in turn powered by either a diesel (as in a locomotive) or gas turbine engine. A concept which is about 100 years old.

I was referring to nuclear vessels primarily which are zero emission and don't need to fuel for 20 years. I was also referring to electrical systems replacing hydraulic systems in ships thereby saving energy and reducing the use of hydraulics oil.

As far as fuel cells go it is the same story. Fuel cells work but the problem is the fuel. Until an economical and low energy process is found to produce hydrogen in large quantities and also a way to store it in sufficient quantities and long enough to give anything using it an decent range, as well as a distribution network to supply it, their place in the future of propulsion is far from secure and this is coming from a Ballard Power shareholder. Not many though, thank god.

Totally agree that this is the development stage.

I take your point but all this stuff is still in the development stage and some or all may work out at some time but eight years ago "experts" were talking about fuel cell vehicles in the showroom by 2006 and Ballard shares were $180 so don't hold your breath. So no, you can't have your money now.

Ballard is certainly taken a while to get product to market. The Chinese though are now selling the hydrogen powered scooters right now.

The New York Power Authority is going to use 12 fuel cells for the Freedom Tower built on the site of September 11.

Sales of fuel cells are going to reach just $2 billion by 2012.

I've never maintained diesel is a zero emission product but I am maintaining that until new lower emission technologies do come on line, penalties should not be added to the technologies we have now that do produce lower emissions today. Why you would do so while at the same time not adding a penalty on those in use which produce higher emissions, I still can't fathom, unless it is purely an ideological and or political stand, instead of a practical one which could actually result in lowering emissions in the immediate future.

Gas does pay higher than diesel under this plan even if you don't think so.

The penalty that you are so vehemently against would be so much higher on gas and diesel if it was concentrated on just industrial polluters such as the oil companies. As mentioned here and in several reports, it would raise the cost of fuel such as diesel as much as 40 cents a litre once the cost was passed along.

Diesel goes up at less the rate of inflation. Because of its higher mileage, the money spent on fuel goes much farther and since it is taxed less, still works out to a savings over gas vehicles.

I was just responding to your shot regarding Ontario and Quebec. The thought never occurred to me until you shot off your mouth about polls.

Decima has commented about the approval of Dion's proposal in Ontario and Quebec in the last several weeks. They have not mentioned B.C. so I have no idea what is motivating movement there. It is pretty much in the margin of error for such a sample so it is difficult to judge what is happening.

Edited August 19, 2008 by jdobbin

[Smallc]

Oh good, coal powered tractors.

[jdobbin]

Oh good, coal powered tractors.

Most farms could use solar or wind power to fuel all their vehicles.

[Smallc]

Most farms could use solar or wind power to fuel all their vehicles.

Maybe you could give them the money to make the upgrade.

[jdobbin]

Maybe you could give them the money to make the upgrade.

Seems like there are a lot of private businesses who want to do that already.

[Wild Bill]

Most farms could use solar or wind power to fuel all their vehicles.

Are you claiming the battery technology already exists or is nearly here that would have enough stored watts to allow a farmer to haul a plow through the earth for hundreds of acres all day long? Or bale and truck heavy bales of hay for an entire day? Or run a combine through field after field of prairie wheat and haul it back to a silo?

The difference in scale between such jobs and scooting around town commuting to work or buying the daily groceries is of a quantum level. It is like the difference between an electric moped and one of those HUGE dump trucks they use at the oilsands sites or at open pit mines, where they all have tires taller than a house.

How do you think such machines will be powered?

As a techie this just seems totally unlikely to me, at least for the foreseeable future. A prairie wheat farmer today would need the energy output of the "Mr. Fusion" unit in that DeLorean in "Back to the Future".

A watt is a watt is a watt. The Universe couldn't care less about eco-politics.

[jdobbin]

Are you claiming the battery technology already exists or is nearly here that would have enough stored watts to allow a farmer to haul a plow through the earth for hundreds of acres all day long? Or bale and truck heavy bales of hay for an entire day? Or run a combine through field after field of prairie wheat and haul it back to a silo?

Next year's John Deere E series will run all day. It is an electric/diesel hybrid that will save 5% of fuel and requires a charge of a few hours.

UQM technologies is working with Deere to have a fully electric tractor by 2013. You can read all about if you like. It has two things that farmers want: the power and the endurance.

The U.S. Navy is working on their all electric prototype which comes on stream in the same time frame.

The difference in scale between such jobs and scooting around town commuting to work or buying the daily groceries is of a quantum level. It is like the difference between an electric moped and one of those HUGE dump trucks they use at the oilsands sites or at open pit mines, where they all have tires taller than a house.

You'll have to ask the U.S. Navy what they think. They seem convinced that electric is the way to go. Between that and nuclear, it is the one way to make sure that lack of fuel doesn't cause their fleet to grind to a halt. It has become a matter of national security for the military.

How do you think such machines will be powered?

UQM says an overnight charge from electricity will power a full size John Deere tractor. As mentioned, Deere is already improving the performance of its present E tractors with overnight electric charges and as each innovation become standard, it is introduced to more of the systems.

As a techie this just seems totally unlikely to me, at least for the foreseeable future. A prairie wheat farmer today would need the energy output of the "Mr. Fusion" unit in that DeLorean in "Back to the Future".

A watt is a watt is a watt. The Universe couldn't care less about eco-politics.

As a techie, you should read all about it.

[bk59]

Again.... diesels consume less carbon and in so doing produce less emissions. Why do you feel the need to continually ignore that.

Blah blah. I haven't ignored that at all (you may want to go back and read my last post to see that). You seem to think that if you can show a diesel car will emit less carbon dioxide in a year than a gas car then the obvious conclusion is that we should not have a carbon tax such as the current one (EDIT: such as the current one suggested in the Green Shift). One does not equate to the other.

Only because you want to change the name of an excise tax to a carbon tax which will have absolutely zip to do with reducing emissions. Ingenuous and misleading is being polite.

As diesels emit on average 30% less CO2 than gasoline engines why are you so concerned about taxing them in order to reduce emissions. It's only because you don't have the guts to deal with the real problem.

First, the plan will reduce emissions by getting people to use less of what is taxed. So not disingenuous or misleading. (FYI ingenuous means innocent or unsuspecting, straightforward or sincere. But you probably already knew that since you are an expert on everything.)

Second, no one in the world is proposing any emissions reduction scheme that would immediately tax or limit all carbon sources at a cost that accurately reflects the true cost of these emissions. (Disclaimer: no one who wants to have an economy left after the plan is implemented.) So where do we begin? The best way to implement a tax on greenhouse gas emissions is to start slowly and build up the price until it reaches an appropriate level. If the actual tax on gas does not change for the first four years, so be it. At least after four years there will be a carbon tax that covers all of those fuels at the same price per tonne of emissions. It will be a system that treats all carbon dioxide emissions equally.

So why don't you do it. Leaving the status quo when it comes to the largest source of emissions sure as hell isn't.

Oh I see. Your solution to greenhouse gas emissions is to say "your plan sucks". Maybe you should "have the guts" to propose something real (and feasible). The Green Shift is not perfect. But it's better than your preferred "solution" of screaming at everyone who suggests a real plan, "your plan doesn't do what I think it should".

So how are people going to change their ways if they can't afford new lower emitting vehicles be they gas or diesel?

By using less of what they do have. Not everyone can afford a new car every year.

As I said before, over 50% of Europeans are now opting for diesel over gasoline. Somehow they are doing it.

While I haven't seen your statistics, I'm guessing what you mean to say is that 50% of new car sales in Europe are diesels. That is not even remotely the same as saying 50% of Europeans are using diesels. (Feel free to link to a stat that shows that Europeans are using 50% diesels.)

Yes they will do the math and see that owning a diesel is not as advantageous as it was previously. They will be making that decision with their money, not you.

As long as they are the ones making the decision and not you. Don't you see how illogical your position is? What you are saying is that, before a carbon tax, a person will do the math and calculate how much diesel they will use in a year compared to gasoline (based on price per litre and mileage) and see that they will save $100 (for example). Then, after a carbon tax, the person will do the same math (using price per litre and mileage) and see that they will save $75 (for example). Now according to you they will say, "Screw that, I don't care that I'd still be saving money. I'm sticking with gas because I wanted to save $100. Since I can't save $100 I'm going to lose $75." WHO DOES THAT?

You have taken a mole hill and turned it into one big, partisan, illogical mountain.

Sez you. Do you own one and if not why not?

Do I own one what?

Oh, do you mean do I own a diesel car? No, I don't. Does that make me a bad person? Can I no longer comment about emissions reduction plans because of that?

Oh... wait... that's right. I don't own a car of any type. If I were you I would probably go on a belligerent rant at this point. Maybe even point out how unintelligent everyone else is. Except that I can realize that the question is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Incidentally, yes, I do say that the incentive would still be there. So does the math. Using your 2004 numbers for the Jettas a 7 cents per litre carbon tax on diesel would reduce the savings between diesel and gas by 17%. In order to eliminate the savings the carbon tax would have to be over five times higher (41 cents per litre).

Saving money is saving money. You have done nothing to show otherwise.

So?

So? So you are imprecise in both your use of language and the arguments you make. You are unclear with some of the things you write and then become belligerent when people point out that what you have written is not accurate. Your arguments sometimes sound good, until others realize that this huge disincentive you are talking about does not exist. Your argument contradicts itself by saying that people are currently able to rationalize switching to diesel despite a higher price per litre at the pump, but that as soon as a carbon tax is introduced they will be unable to make that same rationalization. You attempt to belittle others unnecessarily. And all this time you have yet to offer anything worthwhile as an alternative to the flaws you see in the current plan.

Right back atcha, your "don't do anything, keep business as usual" approach when it comes to the fuel which powers 90% of personal transportation in this country and only adding it to lower emitting vehicles will achieve even less.

Not quite. Your approach of do nothing will help nothing. The Green Shift will at least give an incentive to reduce emissions on the fuels it does tax.

You know, as much as I like diesels, there are some things I wouldn't miss about owning one. Like not being able to find fuel at every service station, finding the only pump with diesel occupied by cars buying gasoline when there are other pumps free. Standing in the stuff and taking the odour into the car on my shoes because some service stations can't be bothered to clean up small spills. The GTI, Civic Si and Mazda 3 Speed are starting to look better the more I think about it

Using the numbers from my example above, you definitely seem like the type to throw away $75 just because you weren't able to get $100. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Congratulations on being irrational.

Edited August 19, 2008 by bk59

[Wild Bill]

Next year's John Deere E series will run all day. It is an electric/diesel hybrid that will save 5% of fuel and requires a charge of a few hours.

UQM technologies is working with Deere to have a fully electric tractor by 2013. You can read all about if you like. It has two things that farmers want: the power and the endurance.

The U.S. Navy is working on their all electric prototype which comes on stream in the same time frame.

You'll have to ask the U.S. Navy what they think. They seem convinced that electric is the way to go. Between that and nuclear, it is the one way to make sure that lack of fuel doesn't cause their fleet to grind to a halt. It has become a matter of national security for the military.

UQM says an overnight charge from electricity will power a full size John Deere tractor. As mentioned, Deere is already improving the performance of its present E tractors with overnight electric charges and as each innovation become standard, it is introduced to more of the systems.

As a techie, you should read all about it.

I googled up UQM Technologies. Apparently that Deere tractor is a lawn and garden tractor. I wasn't aware that was what the prairie farmers use for their harvests. Perhaps their also using those new fangled Sears electric lawnmowers on their barley.

I also googled up some sites that talked about electric drive systems for the US Navy. Unless you read something completely different you really should scan a bit deeper when you do a google. Navies have been using electric drive systems in submarines for decades. Of course, you need a diesel or nuclear power plant to drive the electric generator. This is very different from what we are talking about.

I thought we were talking about totally electric vehicles to do commercial industrial and large scale agricultural tasks. Not hybrids that saved 5% of the fuel consumption.

To be fair, my google skills aren't as good as my reading skills. Maybe you could give me a link to a site that shows a near-future electric tractor that is practical for those prairie grain farmers or could win at the local Ontario plowing matches? Something that doesn't run on D cells?

[Wild Bill]

http://www.nelp.navy.mil/pdf_cases/P2_Hybr...Tow_Tractor.pdf

Surely this isn't it?

It will only operate for a maximum of two hours on a charge!

Must be something else.

[blueblood]

I googled up UQM Technologies. Apparently that Deere tractor is a lawn and garden tractor. I wasn't aware that was what the prairie farmers use for their harvests. Perhaps their also using those new fangled Sears electric lawnmowers on their barley.

I also googled up some sites that talked about electric drive systems for the US Navy. Unless you read something completely different you really should scan a bit deeper when you do a google. Navies have been using electric drive systems in submarines for decades. Of course, you need a diesel or nuclear power plant to drive the electric generator. This is very different from what we are talking about.

I thought we were talking about totally electric vehicles to do commercial industrial and large scale agricultural tasks. Not hybrids that saved 5% of the fuel consumption.

To be fair, my google skills aren't as good as my reading skills. Maybe you could give me a link to a site that shows a near-future electric tractor that is practical for those prairie grain farmers or could win at the local Ontario plowing matches? Something that doesn't run on D cells?

I am having a hard time buying that the battery power exists today that can produce the equivalent of 583 horsepower and almost 1000 ft. pounds of torque. If there is a battery out there that can pull an 84 ft. air seeder for 16 hours I would love to see that. Then there is combines, It takes a lot of power to run hydraulic pumps as well, unless they switch the hydraulic motors to electric motors which would be using a ridiculous amount of juice. Those would have to be big big machines to fit the battery in to be capable of what machines use now, I would not like to pay the hydro for keeping these machines going.

Our aeration fans and unloading augers are electric. They run on about 11 hp. Electric is more efficient and powerful than diesel when there is a 320 cord connecting it. Oh and I can run only 3 fans before I overload the breaker. Having battery powered machinery won't be feasible for around 50 yrs.

[Wilber]

In the mean time, Deere has been developing the E series to be less of a drain on diesel engines. The farmer will charge the battery and it will save 5% fuel consumption. The tractors come on the market next year.

This is just the start of fully electric vehicles.

Nothing to do with fully electric vehicles. The power plant is still the diesel. The electrical system acts as a more efficient transmission, nothing more plus you will get whatever the battery can supply to run accessories instead of the main engine, which isn't much because as soon as you unplug and start moving it is the engine that has provide the power to charge the battery. The primary reason that diesel electric is used for very heavy applications is not fuel economy but the electric motor's ability to deliver maximum torque at zero speed, a very desirable quality when trying to move a heavy weight and not possible with conventional transmissions. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to see diesel electric tractors in the future which will be more efficient than the present generation but the power plant will still be a diesel engine.

Nuclear carriers are converting to electrical systems this year for catapults instead of steam and hydraulic oils. It will also provide power for cooking and heat for quarters. It is just part of a program to reduce the amount of people a ship requires and to reduce wear and tear on parts by using electric and electronic substitutes. This will eventually be spread to other non-nuclear vessel to reduce their energy consumption in the same way Deere is doing for farm vehicles

Yes but the primary power source used to generate the electrical power to drive all those things is the nuclear reactor. Again, a more efficient use of existing power, not a new source of power. Will we see nuclear cargo ships? Maybe, the Americans built one decades ago but it never went anywhere. At present only governments can afford the cost involved in building such a thing and many countries freak at the idea of anything "nuclear" coming near them.

I was referring to nuclear vessels primarily which are zero emission and don't need to fuel for 20 years. I was also referring to electrical systems replacing hydraulic systems in ships thereby saving energy and reducing the use of hydraulics oil.

Fair enough, lets build more nukes then but hydraulic oil is not a fuel and is not consumed, it is just a means of transmitting force like a push rod or a cable. The automatic transmission in you car transmits power hydraulically through the fluid coupling in its torque converter.

Ballard is certainly taken a while to get product to market. The Chinese though are now selling the hydrogen powered scooters right now.

The New York Power Authority is going to use 12 fuel cells for the Freedom Tower built on the site of September 11.

Sales of fuel cells are going to reach just $2 billion by 2012.

Scooters, yippy. Ballard is not the only one making fuel cells, many people are trying to develop them. At todays prices 2 billion won't buy you many fuel cells in comparison to any other kind of power plant except nuclear. I think that they will be best suited for use as stationary power plants for some time yet.

Nuclear ships by their nature are usually considered to be electric ships.

That's like saying your bicycle is powered by the pedals, sprockets and chain, not by your respiratory system, legs and the food you eat.

The internal combustion engine doesn't owe its great success to its design but to its fuel. Aside from its price, nothing comes close to petroleum when it come to the amount of energy contained in a given volume or portability. All you need is a simple tank to put it in that doesn't leak.

Electric motors are great, nothing better in some applications but batteries can only contain a small fraction of the energy contained in an equal weight or volume of gas or diesel and take hours to refuel (recharge).

Fuel cells also work but at this stage are expensive and bulky for vehicle applications but costs and size will come down. Unfortunately, at this stage hydrogen is costly and requires a lot of energy to produce. Storing it in liquid form is very difficult and requires keeping it a very low temperatures. Much the same goes for LNG. The reason why the space shuttle can only be left fueled on its pad for a limited amount of time before it has to be defueled or starts venting into the atmosphere. Even in its liquid state a liter of hydrogen contains only 1/4 the energy of a liter of gasoline. Besides, internal combustion engines are quite capable of being modified to use hydrogen or LNG, we really don't need fuel cells to use the stuff. In fact there are a few transport companies which are using LNG but it is only practical in fleet applications where it is being used up rapidly. You couldn't fill your tank and then leave your car sitting in the garage for a week without a real possibility of blowing up your house.

Don't kid yourself, there are serious hurdles to be overcome before these become replacements for the internal combustion engine and petroleum. Augmenting, likely, replacing, not for the foreseeable future.

Alternate power generators are out there but to paraphrase Clinton, "it's the fuel stupid". Don't take offense, none was intended.

The penalty that you are so vehemently against would be so much higher on gas and diesel if it was concentrated on just industrial polluters such as the oil companies. As mentioned here and in several reports, it would raise the cost of fuel such as diesel as much as 40 cents a litre once the cost was passed along

There is no penalty being applied to gas, it is remaining the same, therefore nothing will change.

Diesel goes up at less the rate of inflation. Because of its higher mileage, the money spent on fuel goes much farther and since it is taxed less, still works out to a savings over gas vehicles.

For the four hundredth time, no one gives a crap about how much of the price is tax, they only care about the price they pay. The more you force the price up the less likely people are to want it.

Decima has commented about the approval of Dion's proposal in Ontario and Quebec in the last several weeks. They have not mentioned B.C. so I have no idea what is motivating movement there. It is pretty much in the margin of error for such a sample so it is difficult to judge what is happening.

Give it a rest will you. You are the one who injected this nonsense into the discussion. Time to quit because I could really care less.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

http://www.nelp.navy.mil/pdf_cases/P2_Hybr...Tow_Tractor.pdf

Surely this isn't it?

It will only operate for a maximum of two hours on a charge!

Must be something else.

That was the 1998 specs. They are using a newer type of battery that holds the charge much longer.

Two hours is for the heaviest loads they have.

As I mentioned, it is in a variety of vehicles that the U.S. military is actively experimenting in. They plan a fully electric ship for 2013.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/25/....enn/index.html

Edited August 19, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I googled up UQM Technologies. Apparently that Deere tractor is a lawn and garden tractor. I wasn't aware that was what the prairie farmers use for their harvests. Perhaps their also using those new fangled Sears electric lawnmowers on their barley.

I also googled up some sites that talked about electric drive systems for the US Navy. Unless you read something completely different you really should scan a bit deeper when you do a google. Navies have been using electric drive systems in submarines for decades. Of course, you need a diesel or nuclear power plant to drive the electric generator. This is very different from what we are talking about.

I thought we were talking about totally electric vehicles to do commercial industrial and large scale agricultural tasks. Not hybrids that saved 5% of the fuel consumption.

To be fair, my google skills aren't as good as my reading skills. Maybe you could give me a link to a site that shows a near-future electric tractor that is practical for those prairie grain farmers or could win at the local Ontario plowing matches? Something that doesn't run on D cells?

I was talking about the John Deere E series which is full size tractor. It is hybrid with diesel but it will initially save farmer's 5% on fuel costs.

As for the Navy ship, here is one of the pics:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/12/navy_dev...lectric_wa.html

The Navy has been fairly quiet about how testing is going. It might be that we will only see it unveiled when it is ready like the stealth fighters and bombers were.

UQM is looking to help Deere create the first all electric tractor for farming by 2013. I have not heard anything beyond that in terms of testing.

[jdobbin]

I am having a hard time buying that the battery power exists today that can produce the equivalent of 583 horsepower and almost 1000 ft. pounds of torque. If there is a battery out there that can pull an 84 ft. air seeder for 16 hours I would love to see that. Then there is combines, It takes a lot of power to run hydraulic pumps as well, unless they switch the hydraulic motors to electric motors which would be using a ridiculous amount of juice. Those would have to be big big machines to fit the battery in to be capable of what machines use now, I would not like to pay the hydro for keeping these machines going.

Our aeration fans and unloading augers are electric. They run on about 11 hp. Electric is more efficient and powerful than diesel when there is a 320 cord connecting it. Oh and I can run only 3 fans before I overload the breaker. Having battery powered machinery won't be feasible for around 50 yrs.

Some companies are already switching out hydraulics for electric motors. The Navy is doing that for all their carriers starting this year.

Here is what one source said about the Deere electric tractor.

http://farmindustrynews.com/mag/farming_electric_tractors_2/

Although the company hasn't talked about it much publicly, John Deere does have an electric motor program in the works with alternative energy technologies developer UQM Technologies. UQM recently announced that it has achieved a revolutionary breakthrough in the performance of an electric motor that could power large farm equipment.

10-to-1 ratio

The new development is a permanent magnet electric motor system that achieves a 10-to-1 top speed to base speed ratio, or what is commonly referred to in the industry as constant power speed ratio (CPSR). This provides both high-torque and high-speed capability in the same machine at levels greater than twice that of the electric motor industry's best-performing motor technology.

Commenting on the new system, Bernard B. Poore, manager of product technology for John Deere, says, “The majority of our vehicles require low-speed torque coupled with high-speed transport and present a particularly tough challenge for electric propulsion systems. We have been working with UQM for many years because their superior technology is well suited to the variety of demanding applications in our industry. Their achievement of 10 to 1 is a significant breakthrough and will greatly improve the performance of electric and hybrid propulsion systems. We know of no other demonstrated technology that comes close to this performance.”

This report was in 2003. Last I heard was testing was to be done after the E series was introduced next year.

[jdobbin]

Nothing to do with fully electric vehicles. The power plant is still the diesel. The electrical system acts as a more efficient transmission, nothing more plus you will get whatever the battery can supply to run accessories instead of the main engine, which isn't much because as soon as you unplug and start moving it is the engine that has provide the power to charge the battery. The primary reason that diesel electric is used for very heavy applications is not fuel economy but the electric motor's ability to deliver maximum torque at zero speed, a very desirable quality when trying to move a heavy weight and not possible with conventional transmissions. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to see diesel electric tractors in the future which will be more efficient than the present generation but the power plant will still be a diesel engine.

Anything to save fuel costs which, as you say, are going to go up over time. The E series tractors are being advertised as fuel savers.

The Navy is certainly moving to electrical systems primarily because of the issue of fuel.

Yes but the primary power source used to generate the electrical power to drive all those things is the nuclear reactor. Again, a more efficient use of existing power, not a new source of power. Will we see nuclear cargo ships? Maybe, the Americans built one decades ago but it never went anywhere. At present only governments can afford the cost involved in building such a thing and many countries freak at the idea of anything "nuclear" coming near them.

Since a lot of trade is already done between nuclear nations such as China and the U.S., the freak of a nuclear cargo vessel is probably overstated. The only hang up I would think is that security on privately owned ships will not easily be accepted with a lax Liberian registry.

I am looking forward to seeing what the U.S. Navy comes up with their all electric ship.

Fair enough, lets build more nukes then but hydraulic oil is not a fuel and is not consumed, it is just a means of transmitting force like a push rod or a cable. The automatic transmission in you car transmits power hydraulically through the fluid coupling in its torque converter.

The manufacture and disposal of many types of hydraulic fluid produce carbon emissions. It is why some companies are looking at alternatives. It is why electric is attractive in many ways because they take up less space, requires less maintenance and weigh less.

Scooters, yippy. Ballard is not the only one making fuel cells, many people are trying to develop them. At todays prices 2 billion won't buy you many fuel cells in comparison to any other kind of power plant except nuclear. I think that they will be best suited for use as stationary power plants for some time yet.

I expect we'll see fuel cells develop slower than other energy sources because the technology still needs ironing out.

Don't kid yourself, there are serious hurdles to be overcome before these become replacements for the internal combustion engine and petroleum. Augmenting, likely, replacing, not for the foreseeable future.

Alternate power generators are out there but to paraphrase Clinton, "it's the fuel stupid". Don't take offense, none was intended.

Exactly, it is the fuel. And when its costs were relatively manageable, people tended to buy bigger and more of many types of fuel burning products.

The problem is the carbon products have been identified as being our contribution to global warming.

A price has to be set for carbon one way or the other and people and businesses have to be encouraged to make changes. The market doesn't always address safety issues. Sometimes it requires legislation, regulation and taxation.

There is no penalty being applied to gas, it is remaining the same, therefore nothing will change.

I disagree. It remains a cost above what other fuels cost.

For the four hundredth time, no one gives a crap about how much of the price is tax, they only care about the price they pay. The more you force the price up the less likely people are to want it.

Which is what the intent of the tax is. To change people's behaviors.

Give it a rest will you. You are the one who injected this nonsense into the discussion. Time to quit because I could really care less.

You really do excel at being uncivil.

[Wilber]

Anything to save fuel costs which, as you say, are going to go up over time. The E series tractors are being advertised as fuel savers.

They probably are over the previous models but the energy to run them still comes from diesel. Manufacturers are trying to make all types of existing technology more efficient. They aren't needing a tax to do it either.

The Navy is certainly moving to electrical systems primarily because of the issue of fuel.

In come cases perhaps but not in the case of nuclear ships. It sure won't change the carbon footprint of one of their nuclear carriers much unless they can come up with an electric powered F-18.

I am looking forward to seeing what the U.S. Navy comes up with their all electric ship.

So am I.

The manufacture and disposal of many types of hydraulic fluid produce carbon emissions. It is why some companies are looking at alternatives. It is why electric is attractive in many ways because they take up less space, requires less maintenance and weigh less.

True but when it comes to the military you can bet the real reason isn't carbon emissions. If electric wasn't a better way to go from a function standpoint, they wouldn't have any part of it.

The problem is the carbon products have been identified as being our contribution to global warming.

A price has to be set for carbon one way or the other and people and businesses have to be encouraged to make changes. The market doesn't always address safety issues. Sometimes it requires legislation, regulation and taxation.

Change to what? Right now there is nothing else viable to change to when it comes to motor fuels, the only alternative is to use less.

I disagree. It remains a cost above what other fuels cost.

Well if you don't change the cost, why should anyone change anything and if you increase the cost of the only alternate fuel, there is even less incentive to change.

Which is what the intent of the tax is. To change people's behaviors.

What tax, you are changing nothing when it comes to gasoline, so there is no incentive to change.

You really do excel at being uncivil.

I hope we have heard the last of political polls on this thread.

[Wild Bill]

That was the 1998 specs. They are using a newer type of battery that holds the charge much longer.

Two hours is for the heaviest loads they have.

As I mentioned, it is in a variety of vehicles that the U.S. military is actively experimenting in. They plan a fully electric ship for 2013.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/25/....enn/index.html

First off, the article does not say the Navy will use fuel cells in the DD-21 ship. They say they are INTERESTED in fuel cell technology!

That's nice. Lots of people are also interested.

What the article does say is that they are going to use turbines to power electric motors. This is nothing new. Lots of ships have been doing this for decades. So have locomotives. A big turbine powers electric motors to pull the train. It is a more efficient system than having diesel engines turn a driveshaft directly and also a bit cleaner but hardly new or earthshattering.

Sorry. Just not a big deal.

[Wild Bill]

Anything to save fuel costs which, as you say, are going to go up over time. The E series tractors are being advertised as fuel savers.

The Navy is certainly moving to electrical systems primarily because of the issue of fuel.

Since a lot of trade is already done between nuclear nations such as China and the U.S., the freak of a nuclear cargo vessel is probably overstated. The only hang up I would think is that security on privately owned ships will not easily be accepted with a lax Liberian registry.

I am looking forward to seeing what the U.S. Navy comes up with their all electric ship.

The manufacture and disposal of many types of hydraulic fluid produce carbon emissions. It is why some companies are looking at alternatives. It is why electric is attractive in many ways because they take up less space, requires less maintenance and weigh less.

I expect we'll see fuel cells develop slower than other energy sources because the technology still needs ironing out.

Exactly, it is the fuel. And when its costs were relatively manageable, people tended to buy bigger and more of many types of fuel burning products.

The problem is the carbon products have been identified as being our contribution to global warming.

A price has to be set for carbon one way or the other and people and businesses have to be encouraged to make changes. The market doesn't always address safety issues. Sometimes it requires legislation, regulation and taxation.

I disagree. It remains a cost above what other fuels cost.

Which is what the intent of the tax is. To change people's behaviors.

You really do excel at being uncivil.

I'm afraid that when I read your arguments and your links from my own technical perspective I get a very different impression than yours. It's all academic wishes in early stages of research, not fully developed technologies about to be put into practice. I've been reading such things in Popular Science since the 60's!

Meanwhile, the idea of taxing us to bring about technological innovation is not in a research stage at all. Dion would like to implement it right now! The idea of how much and how long it will take to achieve these technological breakthroughs seems totally taken for granted.

It's the argument of an academic, not an engineer or a technician. Like a teacher who has never actually done something but he has read a lot of books and is sure that it would be easy.

I'm really starting to get worried. If Dion achieves power and implements his plan my kids are going to get very hungry very quickly.

As for myself, I guess I could stand to lose some weight. Just wish it was for some positive good.

[jdobbin]

They probably are over the previous models but the energy to run them still comes from diesel. Manufacturers are trying to make all types of existing technology more efficient. They aren't needing a tax to do it either.

While efficiency is great, it still doesn't take away the fact that a price set on carbon makes consumers look for even great efficiencies and alternate energies.

In come cases perhaps but not in the case of nuclear ships. It sure won't change the carbon footprint of one of their nuclear carriers much unless they can come up with an electric powered F-18.

Certainly not much change of on a nuclear carrier except for the removal of carbon hydraulic systems with the re-fits that are taking place starting this year. It is not much wonder that the Navy is looking at making more and more of their ships nuclear powered.

The rest of the military is so concerned by fuel usage that they are the one of the main research and development sources for efficiencies and alternate energies. You can thank the Iraq war in part for that because the use is 16 times greater than World War 2.

The newest tanks the U.S. are so fuel inefficient that they burn the same amount of fuel idle as they do at 30 kms. They have to be shipped to front lines because too much fuel is used to get there under there own power.

True but when it comes to the military you can bet the real reason isn't carbon emissions. If electric wasn't a better way to go from a function standpoint, they wouldn't have any part of it.

The military responds to whatever the nation thinks is a national security issue. In this case, it is the blending of two things: dependency on fuel that is not controlled by the U.S. and is declining in supply and carbon emissions which even the U.S. now says presents a danger to the the U.S.

Change to what? Right now there is nothing else viable to change to when it comes to motor fuels, the only alternative is to use less.

Or to use more efficiently through a variety of ways.

Well if you don't change the cost, why should anyone change anything and if you increase the cost of the only alternate fuel, there is even less incentive to change.

The alternates are still cheaper and will still appeal to drivers who are looking for something better.

What tax, you are changing nothing when it comes to gasoline, so there is no incentive to change.

I disagree. The tax is regressive as long as it exists and makes people look for alternates and efficiencies.

I hope we have heard the last of political polls on this thread.

Just as I hope we have heard the last of incivility.

[jdobbin]

I'm really starting to get worried. If Dion achieves power and implements his plan my kids are going to get very hungry very quickly.

As for myself, I guess I could stand to lose some weight. Just wish it was for some positive good.

Since Harper's plan is estimated cost quite a bit on passed on costs, your kids are probably going to starve right away. Gas was estimated to go up 40 cents a litre when the National Post panel was looking at it.