Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

[jpulliam1]

How does CNG Chat stand on Prop 10? I strongly feel that spending $325 mil per year is a heavy burden for Californians to invest in another fossil fuel.
Comments???

[lcovelli]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

I would probably benefit from prop 10 for the tax incentives/rebates of my 09 GX but this bill is Very Bloated and even though new GX purchasers would benefit, the end result would be higher taxes...
for me, it is the Yin Yang.

[Amfuel]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

I am so tired of hearing that natural gas is a fossil fuel. NG is produced by the degradation of biological material through a process of microbial digestion. The microbes are called methanogens and are the same anerobic microbes found in a cows gut. If you have a compost pile in your back yard, you produce CH4. I will put the waste (compost) on my garden but I won't pour oil on it. Oil is produced in theories, one of which is tectonic pressure. It can all be verified in wikipedia.

[Steve]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

Reading the Wikipedia article, it looks like gaseous fuel called natural gas refers to the fossil fuel and biogas refers to the modern fermentation product that the methanogens produce.

Although it would be an interesting site to see all the biogas being captured from cows. Just imagine what that feed lot would look like.

[jpulliam1]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

Burning CH4 will release carbon molecules into the atmosphere. Oil, gasoline, avgas, ng . . . it all has a carbon footprint.

[gringostar]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

How does CNG Chat stand on Prop 10? I strongly feel that spending $325 mil per year is a heavy burden for Californians to invest in another fossil fuel.
Comments???

Prop 10 will be good for our lungs. Period! I don't mind another 1,000,000 Californians driving CNG cars, in fact, I encourage it. Eventually, we will all have Phills or Fills. Less money to the Saudis, less C02, less N0x, etc.

[CraziFuzzy]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

I'm very against Prop 10 on multiple levels. First and foremost, I believe there are too few players that are likely to see the money (One?). Second, I don't believe my tax dollars should be required to PAY fleets to upgrade to a cheaper fuel. If Prop 10 was more focused on infrastructure, to make it more CONVENIENT for the smaller private fleet operators to upgrade, they would do so on their own, with their own money, and save a considerable amount of money in the end, with the bonus that it would clean the air (some). There is already a strong demand for the heavy CNG vehicles, as evident by the fact that every conversion shop is backed up considerably, converting Garbage and Sweeper trucks. As written, Prop 10 does NOTHING for improving the availability of CNG/LNG to anyone. It does not in any way affect the fueling insfrastructure, and does nothing to lighten CARB's stranglehold on the conversion market. I see it as zero effective return on what they are calling a 5 billion dollar investment? With no real benefit, that 5 billion dollars will return nothing, and COST 10 billion after the bonds are paid off.

[moore101]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

I personally am probably going to vote no as the state can't afford to sell 10 billion in bonds. But, if it does pass and the rebates start flowing I will be running to Curtis to get a new GX!

[CraziFuzzy]

Re: Proposition 10: Too Expensive?

I personally am probably going to vote no as the state can't afford to sell 10 billion in bonds. But, if it does pass and the rebates start flowing I will be running to Curtis to get a new GX!

Yeah, definately, THIS. I don't want it to pass, because I don't want to pay for it... however, if it does pass, you can be certain I'm gonna get my money back that they take from me (and get some they take from everyone else, for that matter). A 10,000 rebate on a civic MIGHT even convince my wife that she can be seen in a Honda... At least until the Camry CNG Hybrid arrives...