Detroit Calls Emissions Proposals Too Strict

[johnnymk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/business/27fuel.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

DETROIT — Automakers said Monday that they were working toward President Obama’s goal of reducing fuel consumption, but rapid imposition of stricter emissions standards could force them to drastically cut production of larger, more profitable vehicles, adding to their financial duress.

Mr. Obama ordered the government on Monday to reconsider whether California and other states could regulate vehicle emissions to help control greenhouse gas emissions, a reversal of a position taken by the Bush administration.

The announcement came as General Motors and Chrysler are borrowing billions of dollars from the government to avoid bankruptcy, and as Toyotaprepares to report its first operating loss in 70 years. Shortly after the president spoke, General Motors said it would cut 2,000 jobs at plants in Michigan and Ohio because of slow sales.

The California regulations, if enacted today, “would basically kill the industry,” said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, an independent research organization in Ann Arbor, Mich. “It would have a devastating effect on everybody, and not just the domestics.”

But Mr. Cole said he thought major modifications to the proposed standards were likely and that action was still “a long ways off,” giving the carmakers more time to overcome their financial problems and develop the technologies needed to sell a full lineup of compliant vehicles.

Right now, carmakers say they would be able to sell only their smallest, most fuel-efficient cars — models like the Toyota Prius, a hybrid whose sales have fallen sharply since gas prices began dropping last fall — because once-popular vehicles like pickup trucks made by Ford and G.M. are not efficient enough.

“I want clean air and clean water just like the next guy,” said Erich Merkle, an independent automotive analyst in Grand Rapids, Mich. “But in the real world, there would be consumer outrage with the fact that they’re limited to maybe two vehicles and there’s nothing there that would meet their family’s needs.”

Environmental advocates who have long challenged the automakers’ opposition to the proposed California standards say such regulations will help the companies produce vehicles that consumers want.

Failing to invest in reducing emissions and increasing efficiency will only prolong Detroit’s problems, said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“I think this is the pathway to their survival,” Mr. Doniger said. “If carmakers are going to survive in a world of volatile oil prices and global warming, they have to be making more efficient vehicles. When the economy comes back and people start buying cars again, they’re going to expect that gas prices are going to go up, and they’re not going to want the gas hogs that they used to want. Consumers’ tastes have changed in terms of what’s cool.”

One concern automakers have with states regulating tailpipe emissions is that keeping up with a hodgepodge of standards would be difficult. They expressed support Monday for the ideal of cutting emissions but want their engineers to be concerned with meeting just one set of requirements nationally.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents 11 carmakers, said it favored “a nationwide program that bridges state and federal concerns and moves all stakeholders forward, and we are ready to work with the administration on developing a national approach,” in a statement from the group’s chief executive, Dave McCurdy.

G.M., the only Detroit automaker to issue its own response Monday, said it was “working aggressively on the products and the advance technologies that match the nation’s and consumers’ priorities to save energy and reduce emissions.” But the company also emphasized the need for “a comprehensive policy discussion that takes into account the development pace of new technologies, alternative fuels and market and economic factors.”

Automakers are operating in the worst market since the early 1980s. New vehicle sales fell nearly 19 percent in 2008 and are universally expected to be even lower in 2009.

Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, who has long been one of the Detroit automakers’ strongest allies in Washington, praised the president’s attitude toward global warmingand expressed hope that the administration would act only after studying the effect that “setting a patchwork of different emission standards” would have.

“President Obama and I both share the goal of energy independence and a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren,” Mr. Dingell said in a statement. “We have a unique opportunity in history to address the issue of global climate change and we must take bold and balanced action.”

Mr. Cole, the Center for Automotive research chairman, said he believed Congress would ensure Detroit would be able to live with any new standards.

[uncledaddy]

This is BS. Another display of California's holier-than-thou, cleaner-than-thou attitude. Essentially, this gives California and their pompous azzes the right to dictate the standards for the entire nation.

[Jeffbx]

Not only that, but they don't base it on anything realistic - they just throw a number out there & then legislate the mfrs to force them to comply.

I've said it before, and I still hope that they get so restrictive that one of the big mfrs has to stop selling there.

[Airencracken]

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7531/waaaahmbulancesm1.jpg

Yeah cleaner air and efficiency are horrible. :cry:

[Jeffbx]

There's nothing wrong with working toward cleaner air & efficiency, but you can't force it by legislating it.

Political regulations aren't going to chance the physical nature of internal combustion or increase the efficiency of electric motors & batteries.

Efficiency comes at a cost - today, that cost can be:

* Lower safety - by drastically lowering the size & weight of a car - remove air bags, ABS, roll cages, etc - it will be much more efficient.
* Less comfortable - remove air conditioning, power windows & locks, power seats, multiple speakers, etc. also aimed at lowering weight
* Much more expensive - hybrid & battery technology are not efficient or cheap yet. Count on a 30-50% increase in cost for the same car outfitted with a semi-efficient hybrid engine, and double the cost for totally battery powered.

Obviously, the first two options aren't feasible for consumers, and option 3 severely limits sales in this crappy economy.

It's nice for the politicians to sit there & pat themselves on the back for 'forcing companies to be responsible' when they don't have much of a clue what they're talking about.

[Nija]

So there is a law in California that says people can't buy trucks?

That's odd. And only Prius'? No Accord? No Camry? No Mini? No Malibu?

[mechmike0034]

Where are the emission regulations and controls for aircraft? Piston-engines in aircraft still use leaded fuel.

[guiseppewv]

* Lower safety - by drastically lowering the size & weight of a car - remove air bags, ABS, roll cages, etc - it will be much more efficient.
* Less comfortable - remove air conditioning, power windows & locks, power seats, multiple speakers, etc. also aimed at lowering weight
* Much more expensive - hybrid & battery technology are not efficient or cheap yet. Count on a 30-50% increase in cost for the same car outfitted with a semi-efficient hybrid engine, and double the cost for totally battery powered.


Point #1 is only half valid. You wouldn't remove air bags and ABS or roll cages. You could use lighter material like an aluminum hood and trunk or lighter rims and engine parts.

Point #2 doesn't contain much validity at all. Removing the a/c would remove weight and increase efficiency b/c the a/c is a leach on power and therefore consumes extra energy when in use. Removing power windows and locks does virtually nothing to increase efficiency. You would be better served by shrinking the gas tank by a gallon to remove ~8 lbs (about what a gal of gas weighs) from the weight of the vehicle

Point #3 hybrid is efficient in big city stop and go traffic. It is especially efficient (vs not having it) in buses, delivery vehicles, and garbage trucks.


Where are the emission regulations and controls for aircraft? Piston-engines in aircraft still use leaded fuel.

As an engineer, I am always looking for the easiest/quickiest solutions for a problem. I don't understand why we don't go after low hanging fruit like this.

Another place we could make huge improvements are with garbage trucks. They each spew (I read this somewhere) about the same amount of pollution as 300 cars. Why not fix them first? Require them all to be hybrid and/or run on natural gas and you would reduce a lot of emissions from the country. I don't understand why that isn't a choice.

We are bailing the Big 3 out, why not buy a car for everyone who has a vehicle older than 1995 (minus collector vehicles and the like) and give them a brand new focus or something like that. Talk about an instant improvement in fuel efficiency and a reduction in emissions. I just think we are going about things the wrong way with the bailout and eliminating pollution; this was just an idea that popped in my head.

[johnnymk]

There's nothing wrong with working toward cleaner air & efficiency, but you can't force it by legislating it.

Political regulations aren't going to chance the physical nature of internal combustion or increase the efficiency of electric motors & batteries.

Efficiency comes at a cost - today, that cost can be:

* Lower safety - by drastically lowering the size & weight of a car - remove air bags, ABS, roll cages, etc - it will be much more efficient.
* Less comfortable - remove air conditioning, power windows & locks, power seats, multiple speakers, etc. also aimed at lowering weight
* Much more expensive - hybrid & battery technology are not efficient or cheap yet. Count on a 30-50% increase in cost for the same car outfitted with a semi-efficient hybrid engine, and double the cost for totally battery powered.

Obviously, the first two options aren't feasible for consumers, and option 3 severely limits sales in this crappy economy.

It's nice for the politicians to sit there & pat themselves on the back for 'forcing companies to be responsible' when they don't have much of a clue what they're talking about.

:stupid:

[InfiniteNothing]

Japan doesn't seem to have much of a problem with emission standards. Even Ford has a PZEV focus.

[cheapie]

we are a different country than japan. we have different lifestyles, are more graphically dispersed, and i'm guessing have larger families to haul around.

not make excuses but we can't really try to emulate their transportation model.

[cheapie]

guiseppewv...commercial hybrid systems, while sexy, are still not economically viable in many applications if you're looking for a 3-4 year payback, especially with the current price of diesel.

we need several things to get commercial hybrids going.

1 - Continue to subsidize purchases. A commercial HEV has an average upcharge of $35-45k.

2 - Consider gvt financing for these vehicles. Many fleets cannot get financing for regular vehicles, let alone one that has a 30% premium.

3 - Battery technology is still holding the process up. Cost, expected lifetime, replacement costs, disposal, etc. are all still up in the air.

4 - The best technology for refuse applications is a hydraulic series or parallel hybrid system. There are many test units out there right now but the product isn't currently production released from any supplier. This technology has the capability of reducing fuel consumption and emissions by 50+%, even more if you go with a series hybrid system (coming out in 2-3 years).

4 - California has decided that the CARB incentives aren't going to go to diesel technology in spite of the fact that they are the most commercially available and robust option at the moment. Instead, fleet customers have to buy concept vehicles using different technology at a huge premium. This is just one reason CA sucks in this regard and has no business leading the rest of the country around by the nose.

4 - Natural gas is great in the metropolitan areas that have the infrastructure to support it. Once you get outside the major cities, vehicle will have no place to re-fuel. While I realize it's a chicken or the egg sort of thing, it's a realistic barrier to market adoption of NG solutions today.

Sorry if this is a little long. This is what I do for a living and I get frustrated seeing the talking heads on TV talking out their a$$ when it comes to this stuff.

[LPMiller]

Graphically diverse? You've heard of tentacle porn, right?

[mechmike0034]

It's nice for the politicians to sit there & pat themselves on the back for 'forcing companies to be responsible' when they don't have much of a clue what they're talking about.


This is what I do for a living and I get frustrated seeing the talking heads on TV talking out their a$$ when it comes to this stuff.
:stupid: :cheers: :stupid: :cheers: :stupid: :cheers: :stupid:

Everyone's an "instant expert" on transportation issues, from POTUS on down...

[cheapie]

Graphically diverse? You've heard of tentacle porn, right?


heh. i meant geographically dispersed.

[guiseppewv]

we are a different country than japan. we have different lifestyles, are more graphically dispersed, and i'm guessing have larger families to haul around.

not make excuses but we can't really try to emulate their transportation model.

I think you are spot on with this. I lived over there for a little while and they are completely different from us. Most of their major roads are more like back roads. They don't drive that much they have great trains, so they rely on that for their main form of long distance transportation. They also rely on bikes, buses, and walking much more than we do in the States. Comparing our transportation needs and theirs is comparing apples and oranges.

[guiseppewv]

guiseppewv...commercial hybrid systems, while sexy, are still not economically viable in many applications if you're looking for a 3-4 year payback, especially with the current price of diesel.

we need several things to get commercial hybrids going.

1 - Continue to subsidize purchases. A commercial HEV has an average upcharge of $35-45k.

2 - Consider gvt financing for these vehicles. Many fleets cannot get financing for regular vehicles, let alone one that has a 30% premium.

3 - Battery technology is still holding the process up. Cost, expected lifetime, replacement costs, disposal, etc. are all still up in the air.

4 - The best technology for refuse applications is a hydraulic series or parallel hybrid system. There are many test units out there right now but the product isn't currently production released from any supplier. This technology has the capability of reducing fuel consumption and emissions by 50+%, even more if you go with a series hybrid system (coming out in 2-3 years).

4 - California has decided that the CARB incentives aren't going to go to diesel technology in spite of the fact that they are the most commercially available and robust option at the moment. Instead, fleet customers have to buy concept vehicles using different technology at a huge premium. This is just one reason CA sucks in this regard and has no business leading the rest of the country around by the nose.

4 - Natural gas is great in the metropolitan areas that have the infrastructure to support it. Once you get outside the major cities, vehicle will have no place to re-fuel. While I realize it's a chicken or the egg sort of thing, it's a realistic barrier to market adoption of NG solutions today.

Sorry if this is a little long. This is what I do for a living and I get frustrated seeing the talking heads on TV talking out their a$$ when it comes to this stuff.

I agree. There are challenges to making the larger commercial vehicles more efficient but I think in the short term that is where we need to place emphasis. I say this because it is much easier to change 10M commercial garbage trucks than it is to change 100+M cars but it is just as effective.

NG is a challenge and so is hydrogen powered vehicles but we need to make the move at some point in time to a different energy vehicle. Garbage trucks should be able to be changed (not exiting but new production of them) easily to NG because the garbage trucks should be going around a city picking up garbage and the garbage co or govt entity running them should be able install NG "pumps" within the locale they are operating. This might require some fed $$$ to start but it is not insurmountable. Also, city and school buses would benefit from this too. I know DC already has some.

Battery tech is a ways off from making hybrids be "all they can be" but in the short term we need to start making some change to them in the commercial environment. There are some exciting battery techs that are in R&D right now which could make changes that will benefit hybrids but, unfortunately, we are going to have to wait these techs to come to fruition.

I think the financing of vehicles is an issue but I also think that companies have to be less short sighted in their planning. They need to plan for 5+ years down the road and for gas prices being $4/gal not $2/gal. Lastly, I think large cities should be leading in the move to make these fleet changes. E.g. DC should be setting goals to have all garbage trucks, street sweepers, buses, etc.... have a fleet fuel efficiency of X mpg and to reduce emissions by Y% in Z years.

[johnnymk]

Everyone's an "instant expert" on transportation issues, from POTUS on down...

The guy claims to be technologically more advanced than the last administration. He may know how to operate his blackberry, but when it comes to serious issues like alternative energy, he knows nothing more than a caveman.

[cheapie]

believe me...you're preaching to the choir. i'm just saying that there are very real infrastructure, technology maturation, and supply issues that are overlooked when people think pushing this kind of legislation down people's throats is the best way to make it happen.

i can tell you on the commercial side that the truck OEM's are working as hard as they can to make their vehicles as efficient as possible. you wouldn't believe the effort that goes into making a class 8 (tractor) vehicle 1/2 of 1% more efficient. all the low-hanging fruit is gone. solutions are going to have to come from alt fuels, a dramatic change in JIT inventory management, shipping lane changes, or ????

[johnnymk]

I agree. There are challenges to making the larger commercial vehicles more efficient but I think in the short term that is where we need to place emphasis. I say this because it is much easier to change 10M commercial garbage trucks than it is to change 100+M cars but it is just as effective.

NG is a challenge and so is hydrogen powered vehicles but we need to make the move at some point in time to a different energy vehicle. Garbage trucks should be able to be changed (not exiting but new production of them) easily to NG because the garbage trucks should be going around a city picking up garbage and the garbage co or govt entity running them should be able install NG "pumps" within the locale they are operating. This might require some fed $$$ to start but it is not insurmountable. Also, city and school buses would benefit from this too. I know DC already has some.

Battery tech is a ways off from making hybrids be "all they can be" but in the short term we need to start making some change to them in the commercial environment. There are some exciting battery techs that are in R&D right now which could make changes that will benefit hybrids but, unfortunately, we are going to have to wait these techs to come to fruition.

I think the financing of vehicles is an issue but I also think that companies have to be less short sighted in their planning. They need to plan for 5+ years down the road and for gas prices being $4/gal not $2/gal. Lastly, I think large cities should be leading in the move to make these fleet changes. E.g. DC should be setting goals to have all garbage trucks, street sweepers, buses, etc.... have a fleet fuel efficiency of X mpg and to reduce emissions by Y% in Z years.

I worked for NJDOT years ago. I was indirectly responsible for the installation of several NG pump installations and NG vehicles within the State. It has been a successful program and like T Boone Pickens states, it should be implemented in the rest of the country. Retrofitting existing cars and trucks is not complex and could be done with government incentives.

As to buying new refuse vehicles and the like, have you priced new cab/chassis lately?

[mechmike0034]

...you wouldn't believe the effort that goes into making a class 8 (tractor) vehicle 1/2 of 1% more efficient.

I would, as would anyone who looks at it from a cost-per-mile-of operation perspective...

[attgig]

seems like if any manufacturer is really going to push an alternative fuel, such as nat gas, they need to turn their dealerships into Nat Gas pumps stations as well. Gas companies are not going to start adding nat gas to all of their pumps. And if they don't do it, and if the only places i can find nat gas is a government stations (I considered nat gas, and looked around, but only found 2 commercial stations in the area and they were both 5+ miles away), nobody's gonna buy a nat gas car.

Same with hydrogen as a fuel... turn your dealerships into fueling stations, and heck, even give a discount if the car is your own brand. Getting that stuff and adding it on will hurt initially, but if your sales can be boosted because of such an initiative, i think it could be worth it in the long run.


As for California leading the charge, i think it's retarded. If California's the only state doing it, it tells me that either 1) California doesn't know anything and all the other states are being reasonable, or 2) DC is too filled with detroit lobby-ists to do anything remarkable.

[cheapie]

I would, as would anyone who looks at it from a cost-per-mile-of operation perspective...


exactly. so the people who say...just make the standards higher on the passcar segment and detroit will make the vehicles....have no clue how much work and money goes into increasing FE.

[mechmike0034]

seems like if any manufacturer is really going to push an alternative fuel, such as nat gas, they need to turn their dealerships into Nat Gas pumps stations as well.

When was the last time you bought gasoline at a new-car dealer?

[mechmike0034]

exactly. so the people who say...just make the standards higher on the passcar segment and detroit will make the vehicles....have no clue how much work and money goes into increasing FE.

Here's the other issue, while we're talking about fleets. It is ALL about cost-per-mile. Everything else is secondary, despite corporate "public statements", etc... If they can't haul it/move it/operate it at the lowest cost, they won't.

[Airencracken]

Here's the other issue, while we're talking about fleets. It is ALL about cost-per-mile. Everything else is secondary, despite corporate "public statements", etc... If they can't haul it/move it/operate it at the lowest cost, they won't.


Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.

[cheapie]

Here's the other issue, while we're talking about fleets. It is ALL about cost-per-mile. Everything else is secondary, despite corporate "public statements", etc... If they can't haul it/move it/operate it at the lowest cost, they won't.


yes and no. companies like fedex, ups, coke, pepsi, PG&E, duke energy, etc. will spend the money to get the green image. so will municipalities that get to spend the taxpayers' money.

trucker bob who owns 4 delivery trucks and two semi's.....not going to happen.

[johnnymk]

Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.


Yeh sure, regulation and legislation really helps the bottom line. Gimme a break!!

[cheapie]

Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.


there is already EPA legislation which has made exceptional strides towards this goal. and it has cost the american consumers billions of $. probably a good trade.

there's another emission level change coming up in 2010. already exceptionally clean, the newer engines will put out amazingly clean exhaust.

but is that good enough for CA? nope. they have to designate diesel as old technology and won't allow clean-diesel hybrids from being considered for CARB (The California Air Resources Board) money.

not only that, but if you own a commercial vehicle that's not 2004 engine cert compliant, you can't operate in the state . unless you want to upgrade your truck for a mere $10k.

of course, since this will be a huge burden for CA-based trucks to bear, CARB is going to subsidize some of the costs...to the tune of at least BILLION $$$ of state taxpayer money. plus, for those companies based outside CA, they have to comply as well. which means your freight rates are going up.

no wonder your state is bankrupt. :rolleyes:

[guiseppewv]

Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.

Which will put trucker Bob out of business.

[MrGreg]

Yeh sure, regulation and legislation really helps the bottom line. Gimme a break!!

Because private (or public) company profit is more important than sustainable and ethical practices?

[guiseppewv]

Because private (or public) company profit is more important than sustainable and ethical practices?

No. To require everyone to meet X standard in Y years is a little crazy espcially when you are talking about small businesses.

[johnnymk]

Because private (or public) company profit is more important than sustainable and ethical practices?

Define sustainable and ethical practices.

[Maarchk]

I'm not sure if i get it. Well, i get the argument, but maybe not fully the article.

California wanted to impose stricter emissions. Bush said no that's a government thing, and Obama is saying maybe it can be a state thing? So possibly, Only California says, you have to produce cleaner cars. Which is similar to what happens today, california cars are held to a higher standard.

So if it is a terrible idea, and no one makes cars for california, wouldn't that work out? The state will have lots of angry buyers who can't, dealers who can't, and makers, who can't. Can california will either fall back to the national standard or somewhere in the middle?

Won't the rest of the states go on with their dirty cars just fine?

And I didn't realize that working for a clean environment was Holier than Thou. I imagine not wanting to pollute is actually an act of self preservation.

[johnnymk]

And I didn't realize that working for a clean environment was Holier than Thou. I imagine not wanting to pollute is actually an act of self preservation.

Well, if a pristine environment with nobody working is desirable, then I guess that's an acceptable goal.

[Airencracken]

there is already EPA legislation which has made exceptional strides towards this goal. and it has cost the american consumers billions of $. probably a good trade.

there's another emission level change coming up in 2010. already exceptionally clean, the newer engines will put out amazingly clean exhaust.

but is that good enough for CA? nope. they have to designate diesel as old technology and won't allow clean-diesel hybrids from being considered for CARB (The California Air Resources Board) money.

not only that, but if you own a commercial vehicle that's not 2004 engine cert compliant, you can't operate in the state . unless you want to upgrade your truck for a mere $10k.

of course, since this will be a huge burden for CA-based trucks to bear, CARB is going to subsidize some of the costs...to the tune of at least BILLION $$$ of state taxpayer money. plus, for those companies based outside CA, they have to comply as well. which means your freight rates are going up.

no wonder your state is bankrupt. :rolleyes:

I'd say prop 13 is the main reason our state has budget problems. I agree that the Diesel rules are stupid and should be revised given the new technology on the market (However, it isn't just about CO2, there are particulate emissions to consider as well), but at the very least CARB is trying and has made good strides. I remember being a kid and having several smog days at school where our outisde time was limited. Those are largely gone thanks to CARB's efforts. That's despite the large amount of growth the area has experienced. That's a great thing.


Well, if a pristine environment with nobody working is desirable, then I guess that's an acceptable goal.

Cut the drama. Quit being an alarmist.

[johnnymk]

Cut the drama. Quit being an alarmist.


Oh, really!! And we are in an economy that's just rosy? Where have you been?

We are in an alarming state of emergency and things like increased fuel economy standards and cleaner air is just fluff.

I have seen the shortsighted EPA legislate steel mills and other smokestack industries out of existence in the past 30 years. It will be more and more of the same with this administration.

[Airencracken]

Oh, really!! And we are in an economy that's just rosy? Where have you been?

We are in an alarming state of emergency and things like increased fuel economy standards and cleaner air is just fluff.

I have seen the shortsighted EPA legislate steel mills and other smokestack industries out of existence in the past 30 years. It will be more and more of the same with this administration.

Fluff? Really.

Wow. This is the kind of shortsighted thinking that caused this economic debacle we're experiencing.

You know what would help steel mills and other "smokestack" industries? If we had adequate trade policies and tariffs to protect them. Since everything is about cost, that's why we get a lot of those goods from overseas. If you look at where those materials are coming from, then look at the air and environments of the nations we're buying from, I think you might see a little difference.

They could be clean and profitable with better trade policy. Other industries will be phased out of existence by y'know, progress. Just like we don't have too many stagecoach manufactures around anymore, stuff like coal will eventually be put to bed.

[MrGreg]

I still think the most efficient way to raise gas milage would be to bring our gasoline taxes in line with what the rest of the world pays. Look at what happened last year. Suddenly consumers wanted more efficient cars, and there just weren't that many options. That would bring individual economic goals in line with environmental goals.

I will admit, though, that the other effects of high fuel prices did have negative consequences, like the cost of shipping raising prices on everything. Perhaps there is a more focused tax/incentive.

[InfiniteNothing]

we are a different country than japan. we have different lifestyles, are more graphically dispersed, and i'm guessing have larger families to haul around.

not make excuses but we can't really try to emulate their transportation model.
The 8 passenger Honda Pilot is a ULEV-2

[InfiniteNothing]

I still think the most efficient way to raise gas milage would be to bring our gasoline taxes in line with what the rest of the world pays. Look at what happened last year. Suddenly consumers wanted more efficient cars, and there just weren't that many options. That would bring individual economic goals in line with environmental goals.

I will admit, though, that the other effects of high fuel prices did have negative consequences, like the cost of shipping raising prices on everything. Perhaps there is a more focused tax/incentive.

I know in many circles redistribution is a bad word but why not just tax gas to better reflect the actual environmental/ sociological cost of the product and whatever taxes you make you remove from corporate income tax or something.

[InfiniteNothing]

Define sustainable and ethical practices.
Sustainable means that we could do the same thing indefinitely. For example, oil isn't very sustainable because there's a fixed quantity.

Ethical practices are those that protect people. For example, in California when I was younger we used to have red flag days when the air was so bad we'd have to stay indoors. I'd say that society and system is unethical because it hurt kids.

[Airencracken]

For example, in California when I was younger we used to have red flag days when the air was so bad we'd have to stay indoors. I'd say that society and system is unethical because it hurt kids.

Public health in general really.

[InfiniteNothing]

I'd say prop 13 is the main reason our state has budget problems. I agree that the Diesel rules are stupid and should be revised given the new technology on the market (However, it isn't just about CO2, there are particulate emissions to consider as well), but at the very least CARB is trying and has made good strides. I remember being a kid and having several smog days at school where our outisde time was limited. Those are largely gone thanks to CARB's efforts. That's despite the large amount of growth the area has experienced. That's a great thing.

Cut the drama. Quit being an alarmist.

Also, while diesels tend to be MPG efficient, that is in part because they are more carbon dense which means more CO2 per gallon

And, while the air is much better now, there's still ~30 days a year where we exceed ozone standards or pm standards so california has good reason to keep pressing harder

[guiseppewv]

Also, while diesels tend to be MPG efficient, that is in part because they are more carbon dense which means more CO2 per gallon


Diesel contains about 15% more energy than gasoline. Usually diesel engines are about 40% more efficient per gallon than gasoline engines. This number includes the ~15% more energy per gallon, so diesel engines are about 25% more efficient than gasoline engines after discounting the "extra" energy contained in the diesel fuel. Also, diesel engines are usually heavier than gasoline engines which will make a diesel engine vehicle heavier and reduce overall efficiency of operating the vehicle.

[johnnymk]

Fluff? Really.

Wow. This is the kind of shortsighted thinking that caused this economic debacle we're experiencing.

You know what would help steel mills and other "smokestack" industries? If we had adequate trade policies and tariffs to protect them. Since everything is about cost, that's why we get a lot of those goods from overseas. If you look at where those materials are coming from, then look at the air and environments of the nations we're buying from, I think you might see a little difference.

They could be clean and profitable with better trade policy. Other industries will be phased out of existence by y'know, progress. Just like we don't have too many stagecoach manufactures around anymore, stuff like coal will eventually be put to bed.

Oh well, you are so far out in left field and LaLa Land that there is no middle ground of reasoning. And unfortunately, Congress is listening to your types.

It's really sad that in the middle of one of this nation's greatest economic disasters is that you and them just never learn.

This country is headed for the toilet and this administration is just waiting to flush it down the drain with it's silly asinine policies.

[Airencracken]

Oh well, you are so far out in left field and LaLa Land that there is no middle ground of reasoning. And unfortunately, Congress is listening to your types.

It's really sad that in the middle of one of this nation's greatest economic disasters is that you and them just never learn.

This country is headed for the toilet and this administration is just waiting to flush it down the drain with it's silly asinine policies.

States rights is an asinine policy? Come back to the thread when you've read The Constitution.

Clean air is asinine? Wow, hope you don't like breathing.

Trade policy and protection for American jobs is asinine? Ridiculous.

People that you align with are what got this country into this economic mess. People that like to repeal regulations and make things very corporate friendly. It's really sad that you and them just never learn.

[attgig]

When was the last time you bought gasoline at a new-car dealer?

never. gotta do something different if you want to do something that actually changes the industry. if not, you're doing the same sh*t all over again.



on edit: damn i missed a whole lotta convo

[InfiniteNothing]

Diesel contains about 15% more energy than gasoline. Usually diesel engines are about 40% more efficient per gallon than gasoline engines. This number includes the ~15% more energy per gallon, so diesel engines are about 25% more efficient than gasoline engines after discounting the "extra" energy contained in the diesel fuel. Also, diesel engines are usually heavier than gasoline engines which will make a diesel engine vehicle heavier and reduce overall efficiency of operating the vehicle.


Energy basis isn't quite right either since diesel has more carbon per unit of energy.

Real world comparison:
2009 Jetta TDI 140 HP: 35.5 mpg (averaged epa highway and city)
2009 Jetta SE PZev 170 HP: 25 mpg

Diesel is ~ C12H23 density of 7 lbs/gallon

So that's about 0.2 lbs of diesel / mile

Carbon is 12 g /mol so 12 of them is 144 g and H is 23 g totaling 167 g so 86% carbon by mass.

So that's 0.172 lbs of C per mile

CO2 is 44 g/mol so 12 lbs of carbon makes 44 lbs of CO2

So that's 0.63 lbs of CO2 /mile

gas is ~ C8H18 with a density of 6 lbs/gallon

0.24 lbs of gas / mile

8*12 =96+18 = 114 g/mol so 84% carbon

0.20 lbs of C per mile or

0.72 lbs of CO2 / mile or ~15% more CO2 than the diesel and ~21% more HP

Science is fun!

Now who wants to do the natural gas Civic? It should do well since there's only 1 carbon for 4 hydrogens which should mean you get most of your power from making H2O not from making CO2.

[InfiniteNothing]

Civic GX:
5.660 lbs in a GGE of Natural Gas
30 MPGe for the civic gx

0.19 lbs/mi of natural gas * 75 % carbon
so 0.143 lbs C/mi or
0.52 lbs CO2/mi

Compare to 30 mpg for a civic sedan 140 HP
0.2 lbs/ mi
0.168 lbs C/ mi
0.62 lbs CO2/mi- very close to the jetta HP and CO2 emissions. Of course the civic weighs 19% less so it will be faster.

20 % More CO2 than the GX and 24% more HP (Civic vs Civic GX)

[mechmike0034]

never. gotta do something different if you want to do something that actually changes the industry. if not, you're doing the same sh*t all over again.

on edit: damn i missed a whole lotta convo

I don't have a problem with doing something different, but consider a couple of points. I asked the question not to pick at you but to get you to think about why gasoline isn't currently sold at most new car dealers, and how that could play into your idea for growing the CNG infrastructure:

The number of new car dealers in the US is currently shrinking - not growing...
Gasoline is a loss leader at the retail level. Know why most gas is sold at convenience stores? Because the seller doesn't make any money on it - they hope to sell fuel purchasers other, more profitable items.

Also, CNG produces more CO2 (http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_114/), as noted above:


"However, CNG vehicles tend to have higher greenhouse gas emissions than hybrids. The CNG version of the Civic, for example, emits nearly 30 percent more greenhouse gases than the Civic Hybrid during a typical year of driving."

[InfiniteNothing]

Civic hybrid:
42.5 mpg
0.141 lbs gas/ mi
0.118 lbs C / mi
0.43 lbs CO2 /mi

17% less CO2 and 3% less HP than civic GX Though I suspect the GX is cleaner in other polluting emissions

Now the just need to make a hybrid CNG car ;) Oh but why would you dealer fill when you could home fill off your natural gas line?

[cheapie]

the problem with a NG hybrid is that you are combining two expensive technologies to help increase FE on a fuel sources that's cheaper than gas or diesel.

it's certainly a very sweet idea...basically the holy grail of green...but from a cost-benefit standpoint, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[johnnymk]

Now the just need to make a hybrid CNG car ;) Oh but why would you dealer fill when you could home fill off your natural gas line?

CNG hybrid. Now there is a concept I never thought about. Very interesting.

[InfiniteNothing]

CNG hybrid. Now there is a concept I never thought about. Very interesting.
At the very least try to use regenerative braking to help with bringing the gas tank back up to pressure. That's a very energy expensive compression. It would be a bit like those cars that were supposed to run off compressed air.

the problem with a NG hybrid is that you are combining two expensive technologies to help increase FE on a fuel sources that's cheaper than gas or diesel.

it's certainly a very sweet idea...basically the holy grail of green...but from a cost-benefit standpoint, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

My green holy grail is a methanol fuel cell car that gets it's methanol from a biological source. :)

Either that or a Hydrogen fuel cell with hydrogen electrolyzed using power from a Fusion power plant.

[Airencracken]

At the very least try to use regenerative braking to help with bringing the gas tank back up to pressure. That's a very energy expensive compression. It would be a bit like those cars that were supposed to run off compressed air.


My green holy grail is a methanol fuel cell car that gets it's methanol from a biological source. :)

Either that or a Hydrogen fuel cell with hydrogen electrolyzed using power from a Fusion power plant.

Electrolysis powered by solar/wind would work too.

[InfiniteNothing]

Electrolysis powered by solar/wind would work too.
Actually, no. Given that we are not totally powered by solar/wind the energy could be better used for other things. Electrolysis and compressing hydrogen for cars is rather wasteful if you don't have an abundance of energy. You'd be better off running the cars on pure electric but then you'd have to deal with sucky charge times.

[Airencracken]

Actually, no. Given that we are not totally powered by solar/wind the energy could be better used for other things. Electrolysis and compressing hydrogen for cars is rather wasteful if you don't have an abundance of energy. You'd be better off running the cars on pure electric but then you'd have to deal with sucky charge times.

Hey if you can hope for fusion power, I can hope for a totally solar/wind/hydroelectric/whatever grid. :P

Besides solar is just fusion power a couple steps removed. XD

[guiseppewv]

Energy basis isn't quite right either since diesel has more carbon per unit of energy.

Real world comparison:
2009 Jetta TDI 140 HP: 35.5 mpg (averaged epa highway and city)
2009 Jetta SE PZev 170 HP: 25 mpg

Diesel is ~ C12H23 density of 7 lbs/gallon

So that's about 0.2 lbs of diesel / mile

Carbon is 12 g /mol so 12 of them is 144 g and H is 23 g totaling 167 g so 86% carbon by mass.

So that's 0.172 lbs of C per mile

CO2 is 44 g/mol so 12 lbs of carbon makes 44 lbs of CO2

So that's 0.63 lbs of CO2 /mile

gas is ~ C8H18 with a density of 6 lbs/gallon

0.24 lbs of gas / mile

8*12 =96+18 = 114 g/mol so 84% carbon

0.20 lbs of C per mile or

0.72 lbs of CO2 / mile or ~15% more CO2 than the diesel and ~21% more HP

Science is fun!

Now who wants to do the natural gas Civic? It should do well since there's only 1 carbon for 4 hydrogens which should mean you get most of your power from making H2O not from making CO2.

Just curious, what is the point in showing the HP difference? I am assuming that you are talking about the maximum power output of an engine.

The HP gathered from fuel can depend on a multitude of things. If you were to put 100% ethanol in a regular car you would see a drop off in fuel efficiency (due to less energy in the gallon of ethanol v the gallon of gas) but if you put it in a car designed solely for ethanol (e.g. one with much higher compression) you could take advantage of the very high knock index that ethanol has to reduce the effects of having less energy in a gallon.

[mechmike0034]

CO2 is not a pollutant... (http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html)

[johnnymk]

That is so politically incorrect, mechmike. BTW, I like the links at that sight.

[mechmike0034]

That is so politically incorrect, mechmike. BTW, I like the links at that site.

Where's all the uproar about DHMO?


DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html) is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.

[JaQnAbOx]

CNG hybrid. Now there is a concept I never thought about. Very interesting.
we have about 2-3 Hybrid CNG prius in our fleet. they are out there, mostly for PR purposes.