NationStates Jolt Archive

<yeah right>

Y'all need to check this one out....

[qoute]
Gradually the petrol industry has become larger and more dangerous to the environment through anti-toxins and carbon monoxide. However the diesel releases less toxins and little carbon monoxide. The diesel industry should be made to increase its production and exportion to become dominant over petrol.
[/quote]

Now, here's some one who doesn't get it :)) Um... dude.... gasoline (petrol) and diesel, as well as kerosine and other fuel oils(including JP) and lubrications and hydraulic oils all come from the same place, oil refinaries. There's no such thing as seperate "diesel" and "petrol" industries.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

What are you talking about? Diesel exhaust smells like roses! *sniff* ACKACHCHACHACHACHA!!!! *collapses*

In the real world the EU privilegs Diesel by imposing less taxes on it than on gasoline. I don´t see why this is justified.
It only seems to be an alternative to the overhigh gasoline prices. In the EU the tax makes up most parth of the price. The amount is different from country to country but the tax makes up up to 80% of the price of gasoline, while on Diesel it just makes up up to 60%.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

In the real world the EU privilegs Diesel by imposing less taxes on it than on gasoline. I don´t see why this is justified.
It only seems to be an alternative to the overhigh gasoline prices. In the EU the tax makes up most parth of the price. The amount is different from country to country but the tax makes up up to 80% of the price of gasoline, while on Diesel it just makes up up to 60%.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

I would guess the reason is for overall economics reasons, diesel drives industry. In the RL USA, the EPA was considering imposing a higher tax on diesel, which immediately failed for pretty much the following reason, stuff people buy in stores, supermarkets etc. gets there by tractor-trailer (aka big-ass lorry), tractor-trailers use diesel, increasing the price on diesel, increases the transportation costs to supply the products to the consumers, and therefore drives up the price consumers pay to buy all sorts of products. What's odd is most of what the first post said was true, diesel does have less toxic emmissions problems then gasoline. I myself have a diesel pickup for a couple of reasons, 1) when I'm not pulling a load I can get Miles-Per-Gallon ratings close to that of a small automobile, and secondly, the thing has dual 47 gallon tanks, so I can, once again, if not pulling anything make trips upto half way accross the U.S. without refueling. Not to mention the average diesel price in my area is about 2/3 that of gasoline. Diesel also has the advantage over gasoline, in that, higher loads cause less of a MPG decrease. Also, diesel engines hardly burn ANY fuel when idling (a big thing dealing with high trafffic regions).

I've also noticed, at least from testing, that the U.S. is going to be rulled heavily by diesel-eletric hybrids in the future (Chrysler is already testing a Diesel-Electric hybrid Dodge Ram pickup)

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Well, yeah, but you can encourage those industries to concentrate on diesel more than petrol.

You don't see the justification? Er, apart from the environmental difference that was just mentioned?

Well, I don't know too many innards to E.U. politics in general. Being in the U.S. and all... ALL of our fuel prices, diesel or gasoline are cheaper. I myself would say that the justification in diesel would definitely lay in both economy and enviroment, diesel-compression engines produce far less enviromental toxins per unit that gasoline, and making hybrid diesel-electric would just improve the situation even more. That is assuming you're using refined diesel and not bio-diesel. Bio-diesel has even more enviromental impact then refined-diesel, yes bio-diesel has 1/2 the CO2 emisions as diesel, they admit that much, what they conviently ommit is the fact that it produces 4 times the ammount of NO2, which is about also a green-house gas, and about a 14 times more potent green-house gas then CO2.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

It also assumes you're producing your electricity cleanly. Little point in switching to electric vehicles if that just means your power stations have to burn more oil.

Diesel-electric hybrids, ie a diesel-engine used to drive a generator to charge a battery that then runs electric motors in the wheels. The diesel is started and stopped automatically for the purpose of either providing enough driving power when needed, or charging the batteries. They aren't plugged up, they are just combining the efficiency of an electric vehicle, with the existing fuel technologies to decrease their fuel consumption. So far the testing has shown, especially in smaller vehicles to almost double their fuel economy. As for power generation, in the U.S. that varries more by the power company then anything else, in most of Virginia and North Carolina, power is provided by Dominion Electric Co. most of it is nuclear, and they have two hydroelectric dams. If I remember correctly, totally, Dominion power covers 1/2 of North Carolina, almost all of Virginia, 1/2 of New York state, all of connecticut, all of Rhode Island, and is able to reliably provide power to that region with 3 Nuclear Power stations, and 2 hydroelectric dams.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

@Tekania,

we doubt that Diesel is less harmful to the environment. They are not only carbon dioxide emmissions, they are other emissions that need to be taken into account as well. Some of those other emissions are even more harmful to environment and especialy the health of people (may cause cancer). We don´t see it as justified to impose less tax on diesel(or more tax on gasoline - depending the way you look at it) if the justification for this isn´t proven. We also think that it is manipulating the market: due to the lower tax on diesel (and therefore the lower price) diesel cars make up 20-30% of cars in the EU while in the US it is less than 10%.
We believe in free markets and think the market should decide on that and not the government through imposing taxes. The government may differentiate taxes but only on a solid scientific basis and not only on an assumption.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

It's not a cars issue I was initially bringing up about the justification, but the economics issue, the primary use and consumption of diesel is for heavy-load transportation, IE moving goods from warehouses to stores/supermarkets. My scenario above illustrates, you have household needs, food, toilet paper, soap, etc..... you get them from stores/supermarkets..... they get to the supermarkets via heavy-load transports (ie tractor trailers) from the warehouses. You hike diesel-prices by plopping on more tax on it, it then effects the transport costs for getting those goods to the stores, the stores, then needing to offset the higher costs, hike the prices on the goods. This means you're paying more for all your needs, which causes a significant increase in the cost of living. Also remember freight trains are diesel-electric. Short of the diesel-electric hybrid technology being perfected, there just isn't, at present, a viable alternative to diesel. It's just not economically feasible to do so at present.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

@Tekania,

we understand and know that: high energy prices and high fuel prices are damaging the economy. We think that the energy prices are already too high and that the tax policy of governments play the main role (since tax makes up 60-80% of the price of gasoline and even in the case of Diesel almost 60%). We are not recommending raising the tax on diesel - that would be very, very damaging indeed - most goods are transported by trucks who run on diesel - but we are questining the policy of imposing higher taxes on gasoline.
WE ARE AGAINST THIS HIGH TAX POLICY OF THE EU AND OF THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THE GREENS IN EUROPE.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

I would agree to that concept.......

Being U.S. like I said, I'm not technically privvy to the inner politics of the E.U. The U.S. generally pays little for "petrol" and the like compared to say, France (Hold up a red picture of France), or Germany (Hold up a red picture of Germany) or indeed this little section of the world (Hold up a picture of the world with all the nations in red except the U.S. ).. But, then again, we're out there "protecting" all those oil fields, so I guess we deserve the "employee discount". (Taken from the "Daily Show" on Comedy Central)

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

@Tekania,

"Being U.S. like I said, I'm not technically privvy to the inner politics of the E.U. The U.S. generally pays little for "petrol" and the like compared to say, France (Hold up a red picture of France), or Germany (Hold up a red picture of Germany) or indeed this little section of the world (Hold up a picture of the world with all the nations in red except the U.S. )."
We know the daily show although we haven´t watched this one. As a matter of fact: The actual oil price is the same for all countries. Actually: the price in New York trade is actually even slightly higher than in London.
The price differs for the consumer due to the different tax policy of the governments.

"But, then again, we're out there "protecting" all those oil fields, so I guess we deserve the "employee discount". (Taken from the "Daily Show" on Comedy Central)" - hihihi.
Well, that´s right. Without the US in the Middle East the energy supplies for the world wouldn´t be even more in danger than they are now. Thank you very much.
However I have to say that the Iraqi supplies aren´t secured yet. Iraq is exporting much less than before the war, due to the bad shape of the infrastructure and INCREASING guerilla warfare in Iraq and growing attacks against not only the coalition but also against the pipelines and the oil infrastructure. If we differentiate between terrorism and guerilla-style warfare the difference would lay in the fact that terrorism is more causing fear and paranoia than actuall damage (however it does that as well) while guerilla-style warfare is more causing actual damage. In Iraq the situation has developed in a way that it can be called guerilla-style warfare. Historic experiments prove that such wars can not be won. Therefore a political solutions is needed, better sooner than later.

Regarding the oil security: I hope Saudi-Arabia is able to protect their fields. After all: up until now there was no successful attack on those facilities in contrast to the coalition controlled Iraq.
I doubt that the terrorist are really capable of really attacking the highly protected oil fields and oil harbours of Saudi-Arabia. They are rather chosing soft targets like last time, which is however also making markets nervous. But it isn´t going to lead to a real crisis in oil supplies like in the early 70s.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia