PUNISHMENT TAXES are coming for Muscle Car Owners

[ColdwaterHotrod]

found this story over on The Mustang News website

 

Legislative Attack: States Target Muscle Cars With "Punishment Taxes"

 

Story by Sam Haymart/SEMA

 

02-16-08

As if the new CAFÉ rules signed by the President last December weren’t an egregious enough assault on the rights of the car buying public, many states are working on laws and taxes that will further punish drivers of muscle cars. While the new Federal rules will force automakers to all but drop anything with a V8 in the next decade, a collection of states are working on new laws that seek to levy high tax surcharges on vehicles with larger engines or with higher pullution levels.

 

The laws in general are geared to steer buyers into more efficient and lower polluting vehicles by targeting their pocketbook with a punitive tax or fee that can be as much as $2500, in addition to Federal gas guzzler taxes. This new movement is a response by states that want to raise the bar higher than the latest Federal rules, citing that they are not enough.

 

Regardless of how you feel about pollution, oil, or global warming, most people would agree that charging taxes does nothing to solve those issues. The policies would only serve to harm our automobile industry further, cause economic slowdown in the manufacturing and retail sectors, and limit consumer choice. If you live the states below, you need to contact your local state representatives and let them know how you feel. These laws could end up costing anyone wanting something other than a Toyota Prius, a ton of cash!

 

Hawaii: Targets Engine Size For Additional Fee

 

Legislation has been introduced in the Hawaii House of Representatives to establish a progressive fee for state motor vehicles based on engine size. These fees would be collected by the state at the time of initial vehicle registration and at subsequent renewals of registration.

 

These fees would be in addition to fees and taxes normally required for registration or renewal. The measure would tax vehicle owners with an engine size greater than 200 cu. Cm, or .2 Liters, and the fee would increase depending on engine displacement. This means that ALL cars in Hawaii will be subject to the new fees, as there are no cars with engines smaller than .2 Liters!

 

New York: Proposed Surcharge on “Gas Guzzlers”

 

Legislation has been introduced in the New York State Assembly to establish a progressive purchase surcharge for some new motor vehicles based on state calculations of carbon emissions. Depending on the vehicle purchased, this surcharge could require owners to pay up to $2,500 more for the vehicle.

 

Funds collected under the program would be used in part to fund discounts for hybrids and electric cars. If this effort is successful, the effects on a consumers’ ability to purchase the vehicle of choice, not to mention vehicle safety, could be dramatic. Seems like an automotive version of wealth distribution, robbing from the big to give to the small.

 

Washington State: Considering Taxing Vehicle Emissions

 

In an attempt to reduce motor-vehicle emissions, legislation has been introduced in the Washington State Senate to establish two separate progressive fees for state motor vehicles based on (1) engine size and (2) calculations of carbon emissions. These fees would be collected by the state at the time of initial vehicle registration and at subsequent renewals of registration.

 

If this effort is successful, the expense of driving a vehicle of choice in Washington could be substantial. The measure would tax vehicle owners with an engine size of 8.0L or more $600 at the time of registration or renewal. An additional tax of $600 would be assessed for vehicles emitting more than 362 g per mile of carbon dioxide. Smaller engine vehicles would be taxed at a lesser but still significant rate.

[hotrodric]

My question is; why can't lawmakers try incentives to motivate people They always want to penalize or tax people to get them to do something they want. Can you say revenue! In WA they should eliminate sales tax (8.9%) on cars that meet a desired effiency mark in milage or emmisions. In states with no sales tax, offer income tax credit for the same. This will help people afford the increased cost of green cars. Specific targeted tax releif will also help create more of a market (if the cost of gas isn't enough) and the more of these cars they make and sell, the cost of the technology will come down. It just me off when they always want to penalize with taxes. :mad:

[1ZVHT88S]

found this story over on The Mustang News website

 

Legislative Attack: States Target Muscle Cars With "Punishment Taxes"

 

Story by Sam Haymart/SEMA

 

02-16-08

As if the new CAFÉ rules signed by the President last December weren’t an egregious enough assault on the rights of the car buying public, many states are working on laws and taxes that will further punish drivers of muscle cars. While the new Federal rules will force automakers to all but drop anything with a V8 in the next decade, a collection of states are working on new laws that seek to levy high tax surcharges on vehicles with larger engines or with higher pullution levels.

 

The laws in general are geared to steer buyers into more efficient and lower polluting vehicles by targeting their pocketbook with a punitive tax or fee that can be as much as $2500, in addition to Federal gas guzzler taxes. This new movement is a response by states that want to raise the bar higher than the latest Federal rules, citing that they are not enough.

 

Regardless of how you feel about pollution, oil, or global warming, most people would agree that charging taxes does nothing to solve those issues. The policies would only serve to harm our automobile industry further, cause economic slowdown in the manufacturing and retail sectors, and limit consumer choice. If you live the states below, you need to contact your local state representatives and let them know how you feel. These laws could end up costing anyone wanting something other than a Toyota Prius, a ton of cash!

 

Hawaii: Targets Engine Size For Additional Fee

 

Legislation has been introduced in the Hawaii House of Representatives to establish a progressive fee for state motor vehicles based on engine size. These fees would be collected by the state at the time of initial vehicle registration and at subsequent renewals of registration.

 

These fees would be in addition to fees and taxes normally required for registration or renewal. The measure would tax vehicle owners with an engine size greater than 200 cu. Cm, or .2 Liters, and the fee would increase depending on engine displacement. This means that ALL cars in Hawaii will be subject to the new fees, as there are no cars with engines smaller than .2 Liters!

 

New York: Proposed Surcharge on “Gas Guzzlers”

 

Legislation has been introduced in the New York State Assembly to establish a progressive purchase surcharge for some new motor vehicles based on state calculations of carbon emissions. Depending on the vehicle purchased, this surcharge could require owners to pay up to $2,500 more for the vehicle.

 

Funds collected under the program would be used in part to fund discounts for hybrids and electric cars. If this effort is successful, the effects on a consumers’ ability to purchase the vehicle of choice, not to mention vehicle safety, could be dramatic. Seems like an automotive version of wealth distribution, robbing from the big to give to the small.

 

Washington State: Considering Taxing Vehicle Emissions

 

In an attempt to reduce motor-vehicle emissions, legislation has been introduced in the Washington State Senate to establish two separate progressive fees for state motor vehicles based on (1) engine size and (2) calculations of carbon emissions. These fees would be collected by the state at the time of initial vehicle registration and at subsequent renewals of registration.

 

If this effort is successful, the expense of driving a vehicle of choice in Washington could be substantial. The measure would tax vehicle owners with an engine size of 8.0L or more $600 at the time of registration or renewal. An additional tax of $600 would be assessed for vehicles emitting more than 362 g per mile of carbon dioxide. Smaller engine vehicles would be taxed at a lesser but still significant rate.

Time for another Boston Tea Party. By the feedback in the "Guns and Shelby's" forum, I'd say we would make an excellent recon force. Get in quick, hit em and get out. What better way than in Shelby. Has style to it as well. Oh and you can bet by my comments that the Big Brother snooping software will make a hit on this forum and watch for any potential organizers!!! JK I hope.

[stump_breaker]

Stupid government yet they force "renewable" fuels down our throats saying it's better for the economy and environment. The latter is a flat lie. Bio fuels produce MORE VOC's than regular fuel! VOC's (vloitile organic componds) are photoreactive molecules WHICH CAUSE SMOG!! A report was released that smog related deaths will increase if we switch to bio fuels.

 

Don't get me started on CFL's. We are being forced to go to compact flourescent lights to "save energy" yet each bulb contains about a pin heads size amont of mercury. Did you know the CFL's are hazardous waste and can not be disposed of in the trash in nearly all states? Tx considers them Universal Waste unless broken and then it becomes hazardous - you know, after the mercury has already been released. Brilliant.

 

BTW, do you know where your plastic wal-mart bag is? It's one of the largest non-biodegradable wastes with about 1 billion bags thrown away every year. Any laws on Wal-Mart bags yet? No of course not. They (lawmakers) have not figured out a way to steal money from us over the bags as of yet.

 

Can you tell what I do for my paycheck? Government. It's a scam.

[Joe G]

Stupid government yet they force "renewable" fuels down our throats saying it's better for the economy and environment. The latter is a flat lie. Bio fuels produce MORE VOC's than regular fuel! VOC's (vloitile organic componds) are photoreactive molecules WHICH CAUSE SMOG!! A report was released that smog related deaths will increase if we switch to bio fuels.

 

Don't get me started on CFL's. We are being forced to go to compact flourescent lights to "save energy" yet each bulb contains about a pin heads size amont of mercury. Did you know the CFL's are hazardous waste and can not be disposed of in the trash in nearly all states? Tx considers them Universal Waste unless broken and then it becomes hazardous - you know, after the mercury has already been released. Brilliant.

 

BTW, do you know where your plastic wal-mart bag is? It's one of the largest non-biodegradable wastes with about 1 billion bags thrown away every year. Any laws on Wal-Mart bags yet? No of course not. They (lawmakers) have not figured out a way to steal money from us over the bags as of yet.

 

Can you tell what I do for my paycheck? Government. It's a scam.

 

Glad you have all the answers.

 

 

Oh, and let me correct you on the CFL's.

- CFL's aren't perfect - but their ability to provide quality lighting at 1/4 of the energy consumption is huge. If everyone switched just 1 we'd see HUGE savings.

- the amount of mercury in each CFL is insignificant to the mercury released when we produce the energy that is needed by the incandescent it replaces. This is due to the fossil fuels used to produce electricity (esp. coal) which is the main way we produce energy here.

- concerned about mercury in landfills? Good. We should be. That's why you recycle. Simple. Cheap. Easy. Quit whining and do the right thing.

 

FAQsAboutCFLs.pdf

 

Mercury_in_CFLs_Fact_Sheet.pdf

FAQsAboutCFLs.pdf

Mercury_in_CFLs_Fact_Sheet.pdf

[stump_breaker]

Glad you have all the answers.

 

 

Oh, and let me correct you on the CFL's.

- CFL's aren't perfect - but their ability to provide quality lighting at 1/4 of the energy consumption is huge. If everyone switched just 1 we'd see HUGE savings.

- the amount of mercury in each CFL is insignificant to the mercury released when we produce the energy that is needed by the incandescent it replaces. This is due to the fossil fuels used to produce electricity (esp. coal) which is the main way we produce energy here.

- concerned about mercury in landfills? Good. We should be. That's why you recycle. Simple. Cheap. Easy. Quit whining and do the right thing.

 

FAQsAboutCFLs.pdf

 

Mercury_in_CFLs_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Quit whining?? I recycle THOUSANDS of lbs of flourescent lights every year, 10's of thousands of lbs of computers for recycling, hundreds of thousands of lbs or used oil, ~1000000 lbs of paint and paint wastes for fuel blending, about 10 tons of OCC a month, steel, wood, etc. etc. not counting the 10,000,000 gallons of water that ran through my facility last year removing toxic metals from plant industrial process waters and a plant wide VOC reduction of ~15 tons from 2006-2007 and a near total HAP elimination. This is all done with 3 guys myself included! I never said they were not more energy effecient (in the short run) I said the government forced them on the public without providing a place for them to be disposed or knowledge. Mercury in a landfill is no bueno as it will leach into underground water supplies but how many people do you know - out of 400,000,000 in the US - know how to dispose of them or even if they do, will take them to a recycling center?? How much energy do you think it takes to clean up a landfill site because of leaching metals? Been there, done that.

The point of my post was government is letting the tail wag the dog when it comes to their "environmental rules".

BTW, environment is what I do so yes I know what I am talking about. EPA, TCEQ,NTMWD, the city, TDLR, (even the FBI once) and any other regulatory agency who want to get involved all call me regularly.

Know what your talking about before spouting off....

 

I switched to CFL's about 8 years ago before the big "fad" so I'm well aware of the costsavings.

I'm pretty sure I'm doing my part, You?

[sprint200]

Glad you have all the answers.

 

 

Oh, and let me correct you on the CFL's.

- CFL's aren't perfect - but their ability to provide quality lighting at 1/4 of the energy consumption is huge. If everyone switched just 1 we'd see HUGE savings.

- the amount of mercury in each CFL is insignificant to the mercury released when we produce the energy that is needed by the incandescent it replaces. This is due to the fossil fuels used to produce electricity (esp. coal) which is the main way we produce energy here.

- concerned about mercury in landfills? Good. We should be. That's why you recycle. Simple. Cheap. Easy. Quit whining and do the right thing.

 

FAQsAboutCFLs.pdf

 

Mercury_in_CFLs_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Sorry to disagree with you on the CFL thing Joe. But the ONLY good thing about them is that they are ugly (oh yeah that's not good is it). I spend a great deal of time designing quality artificial lighting environments, and that can't be done with CFL's. You have to eliminate the word "quality" when using them. Ever try to light a painting with a CFL? Probably never noticed the difference in color rendering under CFL's either? They also "strobe" which is of concern in many workplaces; now we want that in our homes too?

 

A better way to look at environment is proactive ground-up wholistic design, not patchwork, bandaid, after the fact feel-good fixes.

 

But for houses already built, a better solution would be installing a radio frequency lighting control system with integral dimming capabilities. These can have the same energy savings effects, plus added convenience all while saving the quality of artificial lighting in the home. I say this knowing full well that 90% of the homes in the US DON'T have "quality" lighting designs to begin with But why make it worse?

 

I have had MR16 low voltage halogens in my house for over 6 years. And with the dimming system in place, I have yet to have a single bulb burn out yet.........not a single bulb.

 

Now THAT is thinking Green.....life cycle Green.

[oilman]

If any state will put this thru, it will be NY, we have taxes on taxes, fees on fees, wouldn't surprise me abit. Another reason our population is constantly declining.

[cloud9]

Time for another Boston Tea Party. By the feedback in the "Guns and Shelby's" forum, I'd say we would make an excellent recon force. Get in quick, hit em and get out. What better way than in Shelby. Has style to it as well. Oh and you can bet by my comments that the Big Brother snooping software will make a hit on this forum and watch for any potential organizers!!! JK I hope.

 

I watched the Patriot with Mel Gibson AGAIN the other night. It reminded me how much we owe to our founding fathers and the men and women that sacrificed so much so we could have liberty AND the pursuit of happiness. As tough as it was for them to decide to go to war against England, our current government's level of taxation and corresponding oppression of our liberties is 10 times worse than it was at that time......and we just continue to sit here and take it.

[cloud9]

I watched the Patriot with Mel Gibson AGAIN the other night. It reminded me how much we owe to our founding fathers and the men and women that sacrificed so much so we could have liberty AND the pursuit of happiness. As tough as it was for them to decide to go to war against England, our current government's level of taxation and corresponding oppression of our liberties is 10 times worse than it was at that time......and we just continue to sit here and take it.

 

I'm tired of these limousine liberals that have 10,000 s.f. homes with heated pools (usually more than one) fly around in private jets and then buy a token Prius, tell us how we have to consume. I choose to live in a 1600 s.f. ranch home, even though I could afford much more, and drive cool V-8 cars. I guarantee my "carbon footprint" is a hell of a lot smaller than Algore's. I just choose to spend my resources on cars and vacations and not an expensive home. That's what America is all about, the individual choosing what they want, not the government telling you what you can buy.

[SGT2666]

The Washington bill failed yesterday :happy feet: :happy feet:

[Joe G]

Quit whining?? I recycle THOUSANDS of lbs of flourescent lights every year, 10's of thousands of lbs of computers for recycling, hundreds of thousands of lbs or used oil, ~1000000 lbs of paint and paint wastes for fuel blending, about 10 tons of OCC a month, steel, wood, etc. etc. not counting the 10,000,000 gallons of water that ran through my facility last year removing toxic metals from plant industrial process waters and a plant wide VOC reduction of ~15 tons from 2006-2007 and a near total HAP elimination. This is all done with 3 guys myself included! I never said they were not more energy effecient (in the short run) I said the government forced them on the public without providing a place for them to be disposed or knowledge. Mercury in a landfill is no bueno as it will leach into underground water supplies but how many people do you know - out of 400,000,000 in the US - know how to dispose of them or even if they do, will take them to a recycling center?? How much energy do you think it takes to clean up a landfill site because of leaching metals? Been there, done that.

The point of my post was government is letting the tail wag the dog when it comes to their "environmental rules".

BTW, environment is what I do so yes I know what I am talking about. EPA, TCEQ,NTMWD, the city, TDLR, (even the FBI once) and any other regulatory agency who want to get involved all call me regularly.

Know what your talking about before spouting off....

 

I switched to CFL's about 8 years ago before the big "fad" so I'm well aware of the costsavings.

I'm pretty sure I'm doing my part, You?

 

You and I are a lot alike stump - I'll leave it at that.

 

I'm sorry I misunderstood your original message. I took it as you didn't believe there were benefits to CFLs - like when you said "save energy" in quotes.

 

No technology is perfect. There are always tradeoffs. Would we like a mercury free CFL? Of course - just can't happen right now given the current technology cost/benefit tradeoffs.

 

And about consumer recycling - I agree w/ your thoughts as well. Hellz - it's tough enough to get them to recycle paper and aluminum when curbside recycling is offered. But to make them consciously take the extra step to recycle a CFL - usually by taking them to a store or county recycling center? It's like pulling teeth! Something needs to be done to make that step easier for people to do.

 

 

Again - apologies for taking your post wrong.

[hotrodric]

The Washington bill failed yesterday :happy feet: :happy feet:

 

Great news for now, but we know they will keep trying

[Joe G]

Sorry to disagree with you on the CFL thing Joe. But the ONLY good thing about them is that they are ugly (oh yeah that's not good is it). I spend a great deal of time designing quality artificial lighting environments, and that can't be done with CFL's. You have to eliminate the word "quality" when using them. Ever try to light a painting with a CFL? Probably never noticed the difference in color rendering under CFL's either? They also "strobe" which is of concern in many workplaces; now we want that in our homes too?

 

A better way to look at environment is proactive ground-up wholistic design, not patchwork, bandaid, after the fact feel-good fixes.

 

But for houses already built, a better solution would be installing a radio frequency lighting control system with integral dimming capabilities. These can have the same energy savings effects, plus added convenience all while saving the quality of artificial lighting in the home. I say this knowing full well that 90% of the homes in the US DON'T have "quality" lighting designs to begin with But why make it worse?

 

I have had MR16 low voltage halogens in my house for over 6 years. And with the dimming system in place, I have yet to have a single bulb burn out yet.........not a single bulb.

 

Now THAT is thinking Green.....life cycle Green.

 

yeah - I'll give you the "ugly" one.

 

Again - they're not perfect. Light a priceless painting? Of course not. That's not what they do. High quality halogen kicks any discharge lamp type's butt (although, the new CMH stuff looks VERY nice IMO).

 

But given some of the huge homes you've posted.... don't you think CFL has a place in some areas?

 

Strobeing? Only if on old magnetic ballasts. High freq electronics solved that years ago - and the new generation stuff really works good.

 

CRI? Again - good quality stuff is easily in the mid-80's. That's good for most areas - no?

 

Wholeistic vs. band-aid: of course it's better to design a system right the first time. The screw in CFL's are a good alternative for many (not all) areas that have older systems. New systems can be designed correctly from the get-go.

 

Dimming is nice - but it affects life mostly. Dimming incand or halogen actually decreases its efficiency (lumens/watt). Yes you use less energy when you dim - but it's not as much as the light you loose. Again - fine for aesthetics - but it's not a true energy saving device.

 

 

If someones designing multi-million $ homes I think it's more about not wanting "ugly fluorescent" as it is anything. On the other hand - I've been involved with many high $ jobs where the client actually wants fluorescent because it's a status symbol of "being green". We've had to tell them - as you know - that they're just not right in every area, but we do our best to integrate it as it is prudent.

 

 

Just my opinions.

[albinorhino]

Great news for now, but we know they will keep trying

great news about WA for now

[1ZVHT88S]

I watched the Patriot with Mel Gibson AGAIN the other night. It reminded me how much we owe to our founding fathers and the men and women that sacrificed so much so we could have liberty AND the pursuit of happiness. As tough as it was for them to decide to go to war against England, our current government's level of taxation and corresponding oppression of our liberties is 10 times worse than it was at that time......and we just continue to sit here and take it.

Totally agree!. Time to quit rolling over.

[BCPD199]

New Jersey already has this tax. I bought my GT500 out in Indiana. I took the MSO and paperwork to DMV. The girl at the counter asked if I had the receipt for the "luxury tax". I of course gave her the "deer in the headlights look". In turns out that in NJ, any car costing more than 45K and getting less than 40 MPH gets an additional tax of .4% of the MSRP. This is in addition to the "optional" $1300 federal gas guzzler tax that listed on the window sticker! Another $208.32!

[ToddL]

Luckily, we don't have to sit and just take this. If your state enacts this, you do have options.

 

You can open an LLC in another state that has low registration fees and no carbon penalties. You can then license your car through the LLC. That way your home state not only doesn't get the carbon penality, they don't get your registration fees either.

[BLOWN]

Great Idea

 

Luckily, we don't have to sit and just take this. If your state enacts this, you do have options.

 

You can open an LLC in another state that has low registration fees and no carbon penalties. You can then license your car through the LLC. That way your home state not only doesn't get the carbon penality, they don't get your registration fees either.

 

 

You let the cat out of the bag. I am sure they ( BIG BROTHER) will fix that loop hole one way or the other.

[sprint200]

yeah - I'll give you the "ugly" one.

 

I'll take what I can get

 

Again - they're not perfect. Light a priceless painting? Of course not. That's not what they do. High quality halogen kicks any discharge lamp type's butt (although, the new CMH stuff looks VERY nice IMO).

 

Not just "priceless" paintings.....anything, well lit, looks better; even my classic mustang advertisements

 

But given some of the huge homes you've posted.... don't you think CFL has a place in some areas?

 

Garages....

 

Strobeing? Only if on old magnetic ballasts. High freq electronics solved that years ago - and the new generation stuff really works good.

 

It's just happening faster than the eye can see it now.......no?

 

CRI? Again - good quality stuff is easily in the mid-80's. That's good for most areas - no?

 

Not in my opinion (but I'm very picky). Color temperature is the most important issue there. Only once in 17 years have I had a commercial client willing to replace lamp after lamp to find the correct color to match the other incandescent fixtures in use. A residential client will NEVER buy the correct K-temp lamp at Wally World

 

Wholeistic vs. band-aid: of course it's better to design a system right the first time. The screw in CFL's are a good alternative for many (not all) areas that have older systems. New systems can be designed correctly from the get-go.

 

I was speaking even MORE wholistically; on the community/urban planning scale. Technology alone will never solve the "sustainability" puzzle. But then we start talking about what our beloved cars have done to the urban fabric.

 

Dimming is nice - but it affects life mostly. Dimming incand or halogen actually decreases its efficiency (lumens/watt). Yes you use less energy when you dim - but it's not as much as the light you loose. Again - fine for aesthetics - but it's not a true energy saving device.

 

Ahhh, technically correct. Yet, if I give you (4) 32 watt CFL's and I take (4) 50 watt MR16's and light two adjacent rooms (with equal energy usage due to dimming). Then we take 100 housewives and ask them which room "feels" better, I think I'ld win. With the fixtures available and the beam spread options of that lamp you don't NEED as many lumens because you're putting all the light right where you want it and you're not losing as much due to poor quality trim reflectors. Yes you lose some efficiency, but I say that's a necessary trade off for the "aesthetics" which should be an equal part of the equation....not just an after-thought. It IS EQUALLY important.

 

 

If someones designing multi-million $ homes I think it's more about not wanting "ugly fluorescent" as it is anything. On the other hand - I've been involved with many high $ jobs where the client actually wants fluorescent because it's a status symbol of "being green". We've had to tell them - as you know - that they're just not right in every area, but we do our best to integrate it as it is prudent.

 

That is exactly what bothers me about the way the media and the CFL industry is promoting this as a cure-all for home energy consumption. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread, but the idea of governments Mandating that all residences use CFL's is more obsurd than these proposed punitive taxes for performance cars. In general, when Big Government gets involved in anything, the outcome is less than ideal (said with much restraint).

 

I just am very passionate about creating and surrounding people with "Beauty". It is an intrinsic human need, even though my dad is in denial about it.... and fluorescents just don't get there.....yet.

 

Just one of my "hot buttons" :beerchug:

 

 

Just my opinions.

[Joe G]

I understand you completely Sprint!

 

:happy feet:

[hotrodric]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but what are your guys opinions on LED vs CFL. I think it is promising.

[sprint200]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but what are your guys opinions on LED vs CFL. I think it is promising.

I am encouraged with the strides the LED tech has made recently.

 

I used a bank of LED's to light the dome in my Italian Villa. For that location, lamp life was of EXTREME importance as access for lamp changes was not feasible. They have gotten the "white" light fairly good, but not as good as the top notch fluorescents. We struggled A LOT with having to adjust the paint colors on the walls and dome to make them look the same as the rest of the house because of the color of the white light.

 

One advantage LED's have over CFL's is the ease of dimming.

 

One big hurdle to wide spread use, in my market at least, is compatiblity with the major lighting control systems such as Lutron Homeworks. Another is the size of the fixtures and the ability to aim or focus the light as easily as other sources.

 

I also occasionally use fiber optics, but only for good reason, never as a gimmic.

 

Like Joe said, there are places where all of these sources are appropriate and places where they are not. Still the most versatile, pleasing light source IMO is the low voltage halogen, followed closely by a "high dollar" A19 fixture with good optics and deep cut-off angles (my favorite general luminaire is the Juno IC2-232 haze). If you've got money to burn, buy an Iris fixture They're great but

 

 

 

But we digress......

 

 

 

Greatly....

[Alloy Dave]

My question is; why can't lawmakers try incentives to motivate people They always want to penalize or tax people to get them to do something they want. Can you say revenue! In WA they should eliminate sales tax (8.9%) on cars that meet a desired effiency mark in milage or emmisions. In states with no sales tax, offer income tax credit for the same. This will help people afford the increased cost of green cars. Specific targeted tax releif will also help create more of a market (if the cost of gas isn't enough) and the more of these cars they make and sell, the cost of the technology will come down. It just me off when they always want to penalize with taxes. :mad:

I agree incentives are better...but I wanted to mention they DID do this. There was a hybrid vehicle tax credit in the tax code just last year. Now, you might ask why they took it out...and that would be an excellent question...from what I've read their thinking was like this....

 

Please note this is NOT MY THINKING...just what I've read about theirs. Don't shoot the messenger...

 

They figured that if they could just get a critical mass of the public to buy the "green" hybrids, then word of mouth and momentum would cause them to take off with no further credits...so the credit was seen as a temporary measure. Besides, continuing this incentive would likely not sway the decisions of a typical musclecar owner/buyer....so they likely deemed penalties were necessary.

 

Dave

[hotrodric]

I agree incentives are better...but I wanted to mention they DID do this. There was a hybrid vehicle tax credit in the tax code just last year. Now, you might ask why they took it out...and that would be an excellent question...from what I've read their thinking was like this....

 

Please note this is NOT MY THINKING...just what I've read about theirs. Don't shoot the messenger...

 

They figured that if they could just get a critical mass of the public to buy the "green" hybrids, then word of mouth and momentum would cause them to take off with no further credits...so the credit was seen as a temporary measure. Besides, continuing this incentive would likely not sway the decisions of a typical musclecar owner/buyer....so they likely deemed penalties were necessary.

 

Dave

 

Dave, I do remember the federal income tax credit, it helped create a market, but the cost of the cars is still to high. I think these state legislators that are proposing some of these penalty taxes need to consider something at the state level. A sales tax credit is instant, helps with the initial cost even more when you figure in cost of financing. For our cars (toys) the amount of miles annually is a fraction of our normal daily drivers, but I am guessing we will never see any type of exemption for collector cars. Here in the republic of WA the bill recently defeated exempted motor homes. I am guessing either the sponsors had motor homes or the motor home lobby is powerful. For my business located within the business friendly state of WA (why do you think Boeing moved its HQ to Chicago), this would be one more expense to bear that we ultimately pass on to the consumer. I expect it will be back on the table next year, same bill in new clothes, and at some point will get traction and be passed. In this state the mentality is to get us out of our cars and into public transportation. Problem is, our region is 30 years behind. I can't begin to explain the waste our local and state government has had regarding public transportation....

Ok I just got to stop, this will drive me nuts if I continue....

[ToddL]

You let the cat out of the bag. I am sure they ( BIG BROTHER) will fix that loop hole one way or the other.

 

I wouldn't count on it. "Big Brother" are the ones that use these loop holes the most. The trick is to find out how they (legally) avoid taxes, and do the same thing.

[Joe G]

I am encouraged with the strides the LED tech has made recently.

 

I used a bank of LED's to light the dome in my Italian Villa. For that location, lamp life was of EXTREME importance as access for lamp changes was not feasible. They have gotten the "white" light fairly good, but not as good as the top notch fluorescents. We struggled A LOT with having to adjust the paint colors on the walls and dome to make them look the same as the rest of the house because of the color of the white light.

 

One advantage LED's have over CFL's is the ease of dimming.

 

One big hurdle to wide spread use, in my market at least, is compatiblity with the major lighting control systems such as Lutron Homeworks. Another is the size of the fixtures and the ability to aim or focus the light as easily as other sources.

 

I also occasionally use fiber optics, but only for good reason, never as a gimmic.

 

Like Joe said, there are places where all of these sources are appropriate and places where they are not. Still the most versatile, pleasing light source IMO is the low voltage halogen, followed closely by a "high dollar" A19 fixture with good optics and deep cut-off angles (my favorite general luminaire is the Juno IC2-232 haze). If you've got money to burn, buy an Iris fixture They're great but

 

 

 

But we digress......

 

 

 

Greatly....

 

LED's are still gimmicky for most applications IMO.

 

Efficiencies still aren't anywhere near good fluorescent.

 

Life depends on keeping them cool. I've seen 50,000, even 100,000 hr life... unfortunately, it's hard to quantify (you test, find out that it doesn't meet specs 20,000 hrs in - which is 3 years - then the mfgr says "we know - we re-designed it. Test a new batch." ) If you get enough LED chips to actually produce good light qtys you also need a BIG heat sink. Don't do that, and you'll cut life in half - easily.

 

Main thing is white LED. Almost anyone can do the main colors - Red, Green, Amber, Blue etc. White (and not that blueish tinged crap) is hard.

 

You can do it with a tri-color design (put the 3 main colors next to each other to make "white") but each color degrades differently. White one day - quite a different color 1-2 years down the road.

 

Using phosphors to make white LED is better - but still not perfect.

 

OLED is improving - how about a whole sheet of light covering a surface? Comes in sheets you can cut. Remote transformers. THIS may be the real future.

 

 

But, as Sprint said, I digress.

 

[sprint200]

LED's are still gimmicky for most applications IMO.

 

Efficiencies still aren't anywhere near good fluorescent.

 

Agreed, lamp life is their best selling point.

 

Life depends on keeping them cool. I've seen 50,000, even 100,000 hr life... unfortunately, it's hard to quantify (you test, find out that it doesn't meet specs 20,000 hrs in - which is 3 years - then the mfgr says "we know - we re-designed it. Test a new batch." ) If you get enough LED chips to actually produce good light qtys you also need a BIG heat sink. Don't do that, and you'll cut life in half - easily.

 

Which speaks to my concerns about the fixture size.

 

Main thing is white LED. Almost anyone can do the main colors - Red, Green, Amber, Blue etc. White (and not that blueish tinged crap) is hard.

 

I was trying to be tactful; the Color Kinetics units we used were the "pure" white version and have an adjustment to shade it from the blue hue to what they called "warm" white.....which was still too blue. Thus our struggle with paint colors.

 

You can do it with a tri-color design (put the 3 main colors next to each other to make "white") but each color degrades differently. White one day - quite a different color 1-2 years down the road.

 

Using phosphors to make white LED is better - but still not perfect.

 

OLED is improving - how about a whole sheet of light covering a surface? Comes in sheets you can cut. Remote transformers. THIS may be the real future.

 

They're actually making TV screens out of that stuff right now! Pretty cool. Your picture glass window turns on and you watch the Rolex 24 at Daytona....

 

 

But, as Sprint said, I digress.

 

 

 

You coming down to Tulsa this year? When are we going to get a chance to meet?

[Joe G]

Yeah - we need to meet sometime.

 

Not sure about Tulsa. KCMO invited me to fly into KC and then drive down with him... I'm considering it.

 

Where are you?

[sprint200]

Yeah - we need to meet sometime.

 

Not sure about Tulsa. KCMO invited me to fly into KC and then drive down with him... I'm considering it.

 

Where are you?

I'm an Okie, born and raised. Tulsa is just 75 minutes up the 'pike. God willing, it's one event I'll never miss.....Hope to see you there! It's really a great meet!