Washington State WVO R U Legal - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

bgkast · #31 12-07-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebird

Hello all,
I have contacted my local Senators and Representatives about exempting WVO users from paying road use taxes, they have drafted a bill and will introduce it in Janurary 2008. They have asked if I and others would testify if needed, I am willing and so I am asking if anyone else that lives in Washington state would be willing to testify.

What representatives have you been dealing with? I am interested in contacting them too.

#32 12-07-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAdams4458

I'm just spitting things out as they pop in to my head. Nothing I've said is really a hard and fast opinion, so don't jump me too hard, folks. I'm trying to inject a little humour, as well. These alternative fuel threads always end up so heated after a while.

I'm not trying to defend the logic of some small time politician who's willing to get behind WVO, but not BD. I'm just assuming that there are political realities at work that make backing WVO "safer" than BD. I'm also assuming that this effort is going no-place except into a couple of campaign speeches as an example of supporting "green" causes.

When/if commercial BD actually becomes cost effective, we will all be buying it from exxon/mobil anyway. WVO will never leave the fringe, so it is "safe."

GREASY_BEAST · #33 12-07-2007, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm not trying to defend the logic of some small time politician who's willing to get behind WVO, but not BD. I'm just assuming that there are political realities at work that make backing WVO "safer" than BD. I'm also assuming that this effort is going no-place except into a couple of campaign speeches as an example of supporting "green" causes.

When/if commercial BD actually becomes cost effective, we will all be buying it from exxon/mobil anyway. WVO will never leave the fringe, so it is "safe."

Yet you still hear about people like Mr. Wentzel, an 80yo man from Illinois? who was charged up the a$$ for burning WVO in his Rabbit... essentially penalized for doing the right thing... I mean the president goes on TV and says "I fully support alternative fuels" and the like then they target this guy for actually DOING IT. Thats where this legislation comes in, and this is why its important... In the post-9/11 world people (ESPECIALLY COPS) are AFRAID. And anything abnormal sparks this fear.. Including a WVO tank and fuel cans in the back of a 300TD. Believe me, I have talked myself out of trouble more than a few times... It would be nice to not be targeted anymore.

#34 12-07-2007, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREASY_BEAST

If you haven't had your head under a rock for the past 5-10 years it should be pretty apparent that oil supplies are dwindling while oil demand increases, therefore a general "warming" trend in the prices

... sooner or later the fuel tax laws won't be applicable because people are gonna be burning everything from coal gas to home-distilled moonshine to wood chips in a steam engine... if the trend continues... I welcome the day. So doesn't it make sense to anticipate and change the laws accordingly? Basically facilitate a diverse energy market?????

Sure, I've been listening to this since gasoline was $.30 per gallon about 35 years ago. What's "dwindling" is cheap oil, there is plenty of expensive oil available. In 5-10 years we will be paying $7-8/gallon and we will still be driving too much and complaining about it, some things never change. One of the things that will not change is the fact that we will be paying tax on anything that is being used by more than about 1% of the population to make energy. There will always be a fringe group who thinks they are going to change the world, good for them. I just can't help poking a little fun at them when they start taking themselves seriously.

BTW, I agree that the U.S. needs a coherent energy policy (oil is only one piece of the larger issue), but the issue has become so politicized that I don't see a rational policy in the foreseeable future. Instead, we get a lot of impractical "feel good" noise from one side and "drill more oil" from the other side. Neither is very helpful.

GREASY_BEAST · #35 12-07-2007, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Sure, I've been listening to this since gasoline was $.30 per gallon about 35 years ago. What's "dwindling" is cheap oil, there is plenty of expensive oil available. In 5-10 years we will be paying $7-8/gallon and we will still be driving too much and complaining about it, some things never change. One of the things that will not change is the fact that we will be paying tax on anything that is being used by more than about 1% of the population to make energy. There will always be a fringe group who thinks they are going to change the world, good for them. I just can't help poking a little fun at them when they start taking themselves seriously.

BTW, I agree that the U.S. needs a coherent energy policy (oil is only one piece of the larger issue), but the issue has become so politicized that I don't see a rational policy in the foreseeable future. Instead, we get a lot of impractical "feel good" noise from one side and "drill more oil" from the other side. Neither is very helpful.

I agree with you 100% here, except on one minor technicality. I think that as energy prices rise, more people will apply their minds towards thinking outside the box as far as pushing their vehicles down the road is concerned, and therefore more people will be burning untaxed fuel, or driving electrics (same thing as far as the law is concerned), or putting sails on their motorhome, or whatever. The point is that when it becomes too expensive to burn gasoline or refined diesel fuel, people will find something else because it will become worth their time. Its straight economics (marginal utility). Personally, I'm not interested in changing the world... I mean I am, thats why I'm studying Mechanical Engineering. Its not why I burn WVO. I burn WVO because it saves me a ton of money that I don't have, and it seems to add up in terms of the science of climate change, the carbon cycle, and the the overall health and well-being of the environment, including air quality... not to mention the politics and economics of burning domestically-produced fuel. Its a symbolic gesture at best. The main reason is that its free. So if its only 1% of the population that do it (and it is less than that, I can assure you), why are we even being looked at by the cops and the IRS and the rest? Why do people CARE???

thesst · #36 12-07-2007, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Sure, I've been listening to this since gasoline was $.30 per gallon about 35 years ago. What's "dwindling" is cheap oil, there is plenty of expensive oil available. In 5-10 years we will be paying $7-8/gallon and we will still be driving too much and complaining about it, some things never change. One of the things that will not change is the fact that we will be paying tax on anything that is being used by more than about 1% of the population to make energy. There will always be a fringe group who thinks they are going to change the world, good for them. I just can't help poking a little fun at them when they start taking themselves seriously.

BTW, I agree that the U.S. needs a coherent energy policy (oil is only one piece of the larger issue), but the issue has become so politicized that I don't see a rational policy in the foreseeable future. Instead, we get a lot of impractical "feel good" noise from one side and "drill more oil" from the other side. Neither is very helpful.

but least helpful of all is doing nothing but sitting around complaining about how nothing changes.

#37 12-07-2007, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREASY_BEAST

... I mean the president goes on TV and says "I fully support alternative fuels" and the like then they target this guy for actually DOING IT.....

I think you are doing a very good job of making my point. This is nothing but the usual noise, there will be no legislation. Protecting this little guy was not in anyone's interest.

When the adults finally decide that there is real money to be made reprocessing this stuff into fuel, it will happen. The exxon/mobil's of the world will obtain the supplies, quality standards will be written, infrastructure will be built, engine manufactures will endorse the use of this fuel, the price will be controlled by the existing energy market, and it will be fully taxed. There will be plenty of PR about it being an "american product" and the usual players will make a ton of money. In other words, it will be just like E85.

Austin85 · #38 12-07-2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebird

My post asked if anyone from Washington State was willing to testify. The bill as I have been told is for WVO personal use only not for Bio Diesel homebrew.
I asked for a method to pay the Road Use Tax or to exempt us from having to pay, they decided to exempt those of us that are using alternative fuels i.e. WVO.
The reason I use WVO is to get off foreign/petroleum oil, that is reason enough for me and apparently my Senators and Representatives.

Forced Induction why do you no longer have an Alda or EGR system on your Benz arn't you breaking the law by doing so? You stand on your soap box expousing your negative messages without any soultions, just business as usual. I have worked in the Oil industry in Lousianna and this is why I am doing what I am doing. Have you done anything to minimize your environmental foot print on this planet? Compact Florscent bulbs, Solar Panels, Solar Hot Water, planted a tree, anything?

Dude If you ever run for office let me know!!!! I will help run your campaign.

AA

#39 12-07-2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesst

but least helpful of all is doing nothing but sitting around complaining about how nothing changes.

I'm not complaining, I'm just watching with mild amusement.

#40 12-07-2007, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREASY_BEAST

I agree with you 100% here, except on one minor technicality. I think that as energy prices rise, more people will apply their minds towards thinking outside the box as far as pushing their vehicles down the road is concerned, and therefore more people will be burning untaxed fuel, or driving electrics (same thing as far as the law is concerned)...

I agree that the only thing that will drive change is price. That was the case 30 years ago when the U.S. had the last serious push to make vehicles more efficient (when I was a ME student). The result was a significant increase in efficiency and a zillion other ideas that were not cost effective at that time. As the price continues to climb, some of these technologies will be put in practice. However, few of the useful innovations will come from individuals, the majority of them are already sitting on the shelf someplace. Remember, we don't have to guess about a world with $7/gallon fuel, we just have to look at europe (small efficient cars, decent public transportation, etc.). I do think there will be a method developed for taxing electric vehicles when they become widely available, and I'm assuming that other "alternative fuels" will also be taxed when they become common enough to bother with. I don't think there will be a trend to exempt individual "alternative fuel" projects, I think it makes more sense to give tax breaks/credits for applicable R&D and commercialization of large scale projects. You will also see quite a few energy/environmental grant proposal requests if you take a look at DOE's web sites.

#41 12-07-2007, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREASY_BEAST

EDIT: To answer Forced, you don't need to do an emissions test to determine that WVO is better for the environment. Pick up an ecology textbook and read about the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle is pure BS. Tailpipe emissions is what matters. Go downtown and look at the brown cloud.

Everyone can be carbon negative and it won't matter one single bit when you get asthma or lung cancer from the smog.

RichC · #42 12-07-2007, 05:04 AM

.

Life cycle of fuels ....

Case number 1, fossil fuels.

Drilled and pumped out of the ground.
Trucked to a refinery
Refined into fuel
Trucked to a distributor
Trucked to a filling station
Bought by you and burned in your vehicle.

Case number 2, Waste Vegetable oil

Picked up at a local dumpster
Taken to my house
Filtered
Put in the tank and burned in my vehicle
Someone grows more soybeans (taking smog back out of the air)

Which one of these cases releases more hydrocarbons ???

Every time you think you know it all, someone shows you a bigger picture.

Have Fun !!
RichC

.

#43 12-07-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Case number 2, Waste Vegetable oil

Picked up at a local dumpster
Taken to my house
Filtered
Put in the tank and burned in my vehicle
Someone grows more soybeans (taking smog back out of the air)

Result of Case number2

Your engine dies a slow and painful death. We sit back and watch what we knew would happen to it.

GREASY_BEAST · #44 12-07-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Result of Case number2

Your engine dies a slow and painful death. We sit back and watch what we knew would happen to it.

As far as I know, the slow and painful deaths are from improperly heated, improperly filtered, and improperly de-watered fuel... I have yet to hear of an engine that died a slow and painful death or even an abrupt and painless death on WVO that was processed properly and a system that was designed properly. Can you qualify your statement with some evidence?

GREASY_BEAST · #45 12-07-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

The carbon cycle is pure BS. Tailpipe emissions is what matters. Go downtown and look at the brown cloud.

Everyone can be carbon negative and it won't matter one single bit when you get asthma or lung cancer from the smog.

What exactly do you mean by "the carbon cycle is pure BS"? There are reams of peer-reviews scientific literature, millions of dollars worth of research, published textbooks, as well as other works that state exactly the opposite. What smoking-gun revelation do you possess that discredits all of it? Surely not the 3 or 4 "scientists" that "oppose" climate science as if it were a political issue...

Its a known fact (do the research) that vegetable oil and biodiesel put out far fewer carcinogens than diesel fuel when burned.

Saying things more often doesn't make them any more true. You need to back then up.