From the BBC news website......

Another move may anger motorists, though.

Some people have spent thousands of pounds converting their cars to Liquid
Petroleum Gas (LPG), but it now plans to "gradually increase the duty rate
for LPG over the next three years".

"Me" wrote in message
...
From the BBC news website......

Another move may anger motorists, though.

Some people have spent thousands of pounds converting their cars to Liquid
Petroleum Gas (LPG), but it now plans to "gradually increase the duty rate
for LPG over the next three years".


So we get to find out the actual figures in the budget. Great.
Robin

The relevant text:-
Road Fuel Gases 7.35
The duty on road fuel gases has not increased since Budget 2001, in line
with the
Government's commitment to freeze these duties until 2004 at the earliest.
Budget 2003
announced a consultation on how best to ensure that future support for road
fuel gases
continues to reflect environmental and other policy objectives. Following
this extensive
consultation, the Government has decided that the environmental benefits
offered by
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) no longer justify the level of duty
differential it currently
receives, while the long period of high duty support has allowed the
necessary infrastructure
to be developed. The Government will gradually increase the duty rate for
LPG over the next
three years, setting duty differentials on a path towards a level
commensurate with the fuel's
environmental benefits. Consistent with the Government's commitment to give
three-year
certainty on duty differentials for alternative fuels, future differentials
for the next three
years will be announced in Budget 2004.

Me wrote:

From the BBC news website......

Have you got the URL for this? I've had a quick look and failed to find it.

Ta,
Paul

--
Paul Everett
repton at repton dot org
http://www.repton.org

"Paul Everett" wrote in message
. ..
Me wrote:

From the BBC news website......

Have you got the URL for this? I've had a quick look and failed to find
it.

Ta,
Paul

--
Paul Everett
repton at repton dot org
http://www.repton.org


"Following this extensive consultation, the Government has decided that
the environmental benefits
offered by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) no longer justify the level of duty
differential it currently
receives"

Gee, we couldn't have predicted that wheeze could we? Its the same scam
they did with Diesel back in the 90s when, after a decade of saying "dirty
diesel", they told us it was now Greener than ever before with better
consumption, less harmful for the environment etc. Then, when a lot of
people had switched to diesel cars they upped the duty until it outstripped
petrol!


Back in 2001, the then Parliamentary Under Sec for Transport said this:

"My hon. Friend raised the issue of liquid petroleum gas, which is better
known as LPG, but that is only part of the Government's agenda. I welcome
the opportunity briefly to outline that agenda and its underpinning
strategy. The components are to secure the maximum take-up of today's
environmentally friendly fuels, bring forward the next generation of green
fuels and lay the foundations for the United Kingdom to benefit from the
longer-term prospects for fuel-cell propulsion and the low-carbon economy.

That means using the right mix of measures, including, as my hon. Friend
mentioned, appropriate taxation of the different fuels and types of vehicle,
in line with the Government's statement of intent on environmental taxation.
The strategy includes grants to provide incentives and support for motorists
and businesses in buying green vehicles, action to promote information and
awareness of new fuels, and partnership with other players such as the
vehicle and fuel industries, local government and others to break the
logjams and make things happen.

I have briefly described the structure and sinews of the strategy, but I
want now to fill out the picture. As my hon. Friend said, LPG is here now
and is already delivering. That success follows the action taken by the
Government, who have put in place the low duty for LPG and compressed
natural gas, or CNG. The rate is 6p per litre, compared with 45p for petrol
and diesel, which means a pump price of about 40p. We have established the
Powershift grant and promotion programme, and increased the scheme's funding
substantially in the 2000 comprehensive spending review, giving it a firm
three-year forward budget of £30 million.

The oil companies have responded with impressive forecourt investment. As my
hon. Friend said, there are now more than 750 LPG outlets and the number is
growing daily. We have a strong and high-quality conversion industry. The
car companies are now starting to offer LPG models as standard,
off-the-assembly line options, so that buyers do not have to arrange
separate conversion. That further establishes LPG as a mainstream vehicle
option"


Now it would appear, they've changed their mind.

And they wonder why people don't bother to vote anymore. Robbing, lying
*******s, the lot of them!

J

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:14:10 -0000, "jb"
wrote:

Now it would appear, they've changed their mind.

And they wonder why people don't bother to vote anymore. Robbing, lying
*******s, the lot of them!

But at the mo they can't tell duty free domestic propane form duty
paid autogas LPG. Unlike diesel and cooking oil or red stuff it's
also a bit more technical to get a sample from the tank. Hopefully
beyond the wit of the customs and excise laddies.

--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

On or around Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:43:16 -0000, "Robin"
enlightened us thusly:

So we get to find out the actual figures in the budget. Great.
Robin

The relevant text:-
Road Fuel Gases 7.35

bloody gits.

so what's the next magic solution, Hydrogen I suppose. which is a LONG way
from being the magic pollution-free fuel that everyone keeps dreaming of.

I reckon that with serious investment, you might get a substantial amount of
genuinely-renewable hydrogen (not produced, for example, from methane but
cracked from water by renewable electricity) in oh, about 20 years.

even then, it requires a radical rethink of the way the whole system works -
you start working out the volume of fuel which is used currently for
transport of all kinds, and it's a truly big number.

Granted that high-efficiency PV solar panels have been made and demonstrated
and work, and you can get H out of the H2O with such, the sheer volume of
the problem is such that this ain't gonna be practical in the short or even
really medium term, and governments only look at most 3 years ahead anyway.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)

On or around Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:11:35 +0000, Peter Hill
enlightened us thusly:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:14:10 -0000, "jb"
wrote:

Now it would appear, they've changed their mind.

And they wonder why people don't bother to vote anymore. Robbing, lying
*******s, the lot of them!

But at the mo they can't tell duty free domestic propane form duty
paid autogas LPG. Unlike diesel and cooking oil or red stuff it's
also a bit more technical to get a sample from the tank. Hopefully
beyond the wit of the customs and excise laddies.

you can bet yer life that if there's serious evasion going on, the necessary
systems will suddenly appear to allow of sampling and testing.

also, they can no doubt track where you're getting gas. automotive use
requires much more volume than typical domestic use, and I daresay the
suppliers have to keep records.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)

Because there's more to the internet than hits alone, Austin Shackles
wrote:

On or around Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:43:16 -0000, "Robin"
enlightened us thusly:

So we get to find out the actual figures in the budget. Great.
Robin

The relevant text:-
Road Fuel Gases 7.35

bloody gits.

so what's the next magic solution, Hydrogen I suppose. which is a LONG way
from being the magic pollution-free fuel that everyone keeps dreaming of.

I reckon that with serious investment, you might get a substantial amount of
genuinely-renewable hydrogen (not produced, for example, from methane but
cracked from water by renewable electricity) in oh, about 20 years.

even then, it requires a radical rethink of the way the whole system works -
you start working out the volume of fuel which is used currently for
transport of all kinds, and it's a truly big number.

Granted that high-efficiency PV solar panels have been made and demonstrated
and work, and you can get H out of the H2O with such, the sheer volume of
the problem is such that this ain't gonna be practical in the short or even
really medium term, and governments only look at most 3 years ahead anyway.


Actually I don't think it's going to change much in the foreseeable
future. Petrol and diesel will continue to rule the roost, with some
attention to other fuels, mainly just to confirm that oil is the
future.

That's in terms of road transport fuel. And it would seem that there
are enough oil reserves to keep us going for a while yet; certainly
beyond the terms of office of any current or prospective
administration. And at a cost.

But things will need to change. Energy consumption only ever goes up;
this can't go on forever. More and more electric consumer devices are
produced that we never knew we needed - breadmakers, DVD players,
pressure washers, in fact half of the Argos catalogue (spit).... More
and more things are becoming 'elecronified', with an electronic
version of what was once a mechanical device - bathroom scales, shop
tills, watches, light switches.... Low energy light bulbs sound like a
good idea, but the average modern kitchen has more lightbulbs in it
than a whole house of 10 years ago.

I'm not convinced that renewable energy sources are an answer. I think
they will just consolidate and encourage our greater fuel use. Many
people wouldn't care if the open countryside became filled with those
delightful wind farms; personally I find that an awful prospect, and
see it as a reflection of our desire to consume more rather than live
better.

The final (interim) solution is going to be even harder than simply
making everyone use less polluting cars more. We will have to
re-appraise our needs for transport, product and energy consumption
and communication. And given that so much industry and infrastructure,
as well as our everyday lives, is dependant upon our present modes of
energy use, it is going to be extremely difficult to make any changes
that will allow us to sustain an 'energy future' that doesn't
compromise our 'amenity future'.

Maybe this is the way forward:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...813090-9187034

I may order a copy over the internet, to be delivered by courier, and
read with electric light in a centrally heated room with a cup of tea
to hand. Tomorrow I'll start work on a personal methane digester.


--

Stewart Hargrave

I run on beans - laser beans


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

Austin Shackles wrote:

so what's the next magic solution, Hydrogen I suppose. which is a LONG way
from being the magic pollution-free fuel that everyone keeps dreaming of.

Yep. Been reading about it for quite a while. The compressed hydrogen
vapour doesn't have enough energy density to be useful. The liquefied
hydrogen has to be refrigerated, requiring the use of energy just to
keep the fuel in the tank. IIRC, BMW are using a fuel cell to power
the refrigeration of the hydrogen in the tank - the fuel cell uses fuel
out of the tank, meaning that eventually, the tank will self-empty!
The focus of their research is to minimise the rate of fuel usage in
the fuel cell, thus extending the "standby" time.

IIRC, Methanol is able to be directly used in certain designs of fuel
cell. It is a liquid at normal temperatures and atmospheric pressure,
and has an energy density about half that of petrol... Much more
logical as a fuel, particularly considering that _any_ fuel that works
in a fuel cell is fully reacted - methanol through a fuel cell will
produce _no_ pollutants.

I reckon that with serious investment, you might get a substantial amount of
genuinely-renewable hydrogen (not produced, for example, from methane but
cracked from water by renewable electricity) in oh, about 20 years.

LOL. Renewable energy. Don't make me laugh...

BTW, methane is a more renewable than electricity... Methane can be
produced from a range of decomposition processes. IIRC, it can even
polymerised into butane and propane, but this would be more expensive
than current butane and propane sources...

even then, it requires a radical rethink of the way the whole system works -
you start working out the volume of fuel which is used currently for
transport of all kinds, and it's a truly big number.

Granted that high-efficiency PV solar panels have been made and demonstrated
and work, and you can get H out of the H2O with such, the sheer volume of
the problem is such that this ain't gonna be practical in the short or even
really medium term, and governments only look at most 3 years ahead anyway.

Have they yet manufactured a PV cell that produces more electrical
energy during its economic life than the gross energy required to make
the cell in the first place? Last time I checked, they were close but
hadn't broken even.

Economic life of wind turbines was similar last time I checked - the
energy required to make the parts, assemble and install the whole
thing and maintain it through its lifespan was more than the amount of
electrical energy produced...

--
Athol
http://cust.idl.com.au/athol
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

On 13 Dec 2003 05:49:28 GMT, athol wrote:

Have they yet manufactured a PV cell that produces more electrical
energy during its economic life than the gross energy required to make
the cell in the first place? Last time I checked, they were close but
hadn't broken even.

It is open to debate but I think so
http://www.homepower.com/files/pvpayback.pdf
http://www.titansolar.com/pvfaq.html

Of course these people are enthusiasts.

One does not question the energy cost of a dry cell battery, yet is
has sufficient utility to be worthwhile using one, even when the
financial cost is measured in GBP/kWhr.

Man's use of energy historically had nothing to do with efficiency, so
that industrialists were quite happy to trade burning coal to produce
1/4% of its heat as motive steam power against employing manual
labour. From that point increasing efficiency gained a competitive
edge.

At the moment this has balanced out at a trade of fossil heat versus
electrical power of from 3:1 to 2:1 depending on capital spend, there
is no reason to suppose it will stay that way.


Economic life of wind turbines was similar last time I checked - the
energy required to make the parts, assemble and install the whole
thing and maintain it through its lifespan was more than the amount of
electrical energy produced...

Again I doubt this, though I was surprised to see their working life
put at around 20 years. Of course the whole drive for these is highly
dependant of the renewable obligation payment levied on fossil fuels.

AJH