That is an outstanding point that is often over-looked.
Particularly since most of the particulate in diesel are heavier than air. So although they can hang in the air for considerable amounts of time (they are not much heavier than air) since most cars and light-duty trucks drop them around 2 feet above the ground, most of those emissions settle and become dirt rapidly.
Lets not forget that with all the current limits on the use of diesel in the passenger vehicle sector, it is the limits on the number of passenger cars in total (with diesel being a paltry 2-3%) that reduce metro smog levels.
I would disagree with that assessment. My guess is that polluting at 38,000 feet is far less damaging to humans than polluting at ground level where people can breathe the particulate matter directly into their lungs. That "up-high" pollution is scattered over hundreds if not thousands of miles and it is severely de-concentrated by the wide dispersal.
I commute on my Segway every day 40 minutes each way, and a trip does not pass where I don't get 1-5 different strong whiffs of diesel exhaust. Yucky, Stinky, and enough of it gives me a headache.
I'm pretty sure if I was standing under an airplane that passed over me at 38,000 feet I would neither get a whiff nor get a headache. Ya Think?
You might wish to google for the science behind what I have asserted. Unabated air travel, among others is a far greater and more insidious contributor to over all pollution.
A couple serious holes in your arguments. First why do you put a price limit on cleaning the pollution from jets, ships and trucks and say that no cost is too high for cleaning the exhaust of cars. I say we have reached the point of diminishing returns on cleaning the pollution from our cars. It is quite easy to regulate other countries vehicles in our waters, on our roads and in our airspace. It is politics that prevent us from regulating much of the major pollution. Have you seen trucks coming across our borders spewing black smoke? I have. Nothing to stop them from hauling goods from Mexico in Mexican trucks with Mexican diesel. I am sure they do not want to fill up in CA where the price is currently over a dollar more per gallon. Last I checked a person can drive across the border and fill up with diesel for about $1.80 per gallon. We had the same situation in the 1970s. People taking 55 gallon drums down and filling up with cheap diesel. I blame that on the EPA. They are supposed to regulate our fuel across our country. They prey on the weak, and act like they have done something. To me bragging that I spent 20% or more of the cost of my new vehicle on pollution control is not real bright. The gains are not justified by the higher cost....PERIOD
Those that pray at the AT-PZEV alter are part of the same cult that believe all the political hype about global warming. A lot of hot air with a smattering of science.
Yes the other disengenuous thing is those very same "foreign " vehicles (cars, boats, planes, etc.) are probably from countries that signed the Kyoto Accords.
'I'm pretty sure if I was standing under an airplane that passed over me at 38,000 feet I would neither get a whiff nor get a headache'
You are confusing the pollution you see coming out of a truck with the polution that hangs over cities. Yes, at the ground level you directly feel the impact of the tractor trailer. However you are also directly feeling the impact of container ships (if you are on the coast), aircraft and power stations- you just can't see it. The dispersal from the aircraft is certainly great at 30,000 ft (the impact on global warming gases- which I absolutely believe to be a factual problem- is far worse when the emissions are at that altitude) but the emisssions when the aircraft are taking off, when they are burning the greatest amount of fuel, is concentrated at the sight they are taking off from. That is typically in a city.
Hey, Gary, you gotta give the world a chance to catch up !!
Mexico is not governed by the EPA. Their fuel will clean up in time.
And you say "it is quite easy to regulate other country's vehicles in our etc etc " but apparently it is not, since we don't do it. If it was EASY, we could and would already BE doing it.
Regardless of how "clean" at PZEV car is, its undeniably (with science backing it) cleaner that a non-PZEV car.
And if I want to spend an extra $5K on my car to be able to know it's super clean and to be able to say it's one of the cleanest cars on the road, that is not my right? If I justify it in my own mind is it still "a non-justified gain?"
What you spend your hard earned money on is your business. I expect that same consideration if I decide I want to buy a vehicle without what I consider wasteful gadgetry. Unless I am reading you wrong you believe that the government should have the right to make one entity comply with a given pollution standard and not all. That is my complaint about the EPA and especially CARB. If you want to have a ZEV go for it. I am too practical to be chasing some holy "PZEV" grail no matter what the cost. I still contend the guy that keeps a car for 15 years is polluting less than the turkey that buys a new car every 3-5 years for the latest in emissions control. No matter how you would like to justify it. Not to mention wasting all the money on interest to some banker. Gotta go. I am looking at a S600 a friend needs to sell. Nice car I love it.
PS We do not have to let them across the border spewing black soot. We chose to do that for POLITICAL reasons.
gary says, "Unless I am reading you wrong you believe that the government should have the right to make one entity comply with a given pollution standard and not all."
Well, that's SORTA what I think. I believe the government, with the intent of PROTECTING THE POPULACE, should be able to regulate business to the point of making gains toward keeping the environment clean and TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the economic cost of such requirements.
In other words, don't put a vital business (such as trucking, shipping, rail, air) OUT OF BUSINESS by requiring them to meet some pie in the sky environmental goal. But DO strike a balance and allow them to do things in STAGES which allows businesses to use their engineers and smart folks to incorporate those changes into the business processes WITHOUT driving the company's finances into the red.
And yes, unfortunately, in this world, POLITICS takes precedence at times when it is not a good thing. Such is life. :shades:
The only one raising the strawman issue of "the mongols are at the gates" save the calvary (old hollywood b/w tv mechanism) aka, regulatory agencies is you.
What we are really saying is; what we have already said!
..."requiring them to meet some pie in the sky environmental goal. "...
So why do you advocate the requirement of passenger vehicle fleet (owners) to ?
Again this is disengenuous to the absolute over the top maximum. Again, who is polluting more? 1 gal at 15 ppm totally mitigated within the law vs 1 gal 3000/4000 ppm totally UNMITIGATED which happens to BE the law? If for some reason this does not compute, what would you say if I drove a diesel that ran 3000/4000 ppm diesel fuel?
To even up the pollution values that means the 15 ppm fuel has to burn a min of 267 gals to equal one gal of 3000/4000. The reality is precisely in the absolute reverse!! MORE of the 3000/4000 ppm is burnt! Again one docking ship entering the Port of Long Beach (actually pick a port any port) equals 30,000 to 40,000 cars all day!!
You have hit what I am saying on the head. Why go for some pie in the sky AT-PZEV standard when most cars will never achieve that goal. Most of the hybrid models are not AT-PZEV rated. Only two of the six from ToyLex are AT-PZEV. Does that make them inferior hybrids? I just think the whole emissions control has been politically motivated with little thought for the cost to the consumer. In all your rantings you never worry about the consumer only the big business guy that would be hurt by tough pollution standards. How about the working guy and gal?
The other thing that gets totally ignored is the corollary of what you said about the switch from LEADED regular to UN leaded regular and also the lower sulfur. But this has also happened under the 2006 mandate which should have happened in the 1970's on the DIESEL side. Of late, the diesel products for the passenger diesel fleet has gone from 500 ppm to 15 ppm. This literally means that on the unmitigated side the out put dropped 33x's. This drop is absolutely HUGE.
In CA it actually went from 140 ppm to 15 ppm so the drop has not been AS HUGE (9.3 x's)
> Why go for some pie in the sky AT-PZEV standard when most cars will never achieve that goal. Most of the hybrid models are not AT-PZEV rated.
100% of the Toyota/Lexus hybrids are SULEV rated or better.
My support for SULEV made you crazy... knowing how just realistic that goal actually was. So you kept trying to steer the discussion to PZEV instead.
Automakers simply aren't interested in delivering a non-hybrid diesel SULEV rated. That adds too much to the price... which makes the "full" hybrids even more appealing.
Stop fighting change. Hybrids, both gas & diesel, are the future. A new minimum of SULEV is realistic. Deal with it.
Sorry John but you are wrong as usual. Hybrids are nothing but a stop gap band aid and in a few years they will be gone. Kaput. Those like you who bought in will be exposed for your foolishness and bad judgment.
Sorry John, I am not willing to pay the added cost of SULEV. I am not even convinced we need to build cars that are at the LEV emissions rating. I can go back where you have insisted that all cars should be AT-PZEV when the Prius was one of the few with that rating. Now that your buddies at ToyLex cannot build a bigger hybrid and achieve AT-PZEV it is OK to just have them rated SULEV. Why not be a real zealot and insist on ZEV and not drive a car until that goal is achieved? Would you rather settle for the mediocrity of AT-PZEV when ZEV is out there? Life is full of compromises. I prefer to have a simple diesel vehicle that saves fuel and is reasonably clean with ULSD or biodiesel.
I would disagree with that assessment. My guess is that polluting at 38,000 feet is far less damaging to humans than polluting at ground level where people can breathe the particulate matter directly into their lungs. That "up-high" pollution is scattered over hundreds if not thousands of miles and it is severely de-concentrated by the wide dispersal.
While you may be right that car pollution at ground levels may enter your lungs faster...I have to agree with Ruking and others that airplane pollution at the 38,000 feet is a great contributer to global warming. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when all flights were stopped for a few days, university scientists noted that air pollution levels decreased and skies cleared quickly.
Dumping CO2 greenhouse gases directly high up in atmosphere , may be more harmful , than say , dumping them at sea level, and at least having plants mitigating thier effects....
But you are right, car pollution also needs to be decreased...
WHile I think it is great to produce cleaner burning vehicles....I do think that diesels that burn fuel more efficiently are better than spending tons of resources at the beginning of the car cycle, producing 2 engines and lots of batteries, and maybe not have the longevity of some existing vehicles...like those darn diesels ?
Biodiesel fuels are good, and according to yesterdays SF Chronicle front page news...its use is increasing....but it is just an extender for now....unless we can implement the technology of extracting biodiesel from algae....
One problem is that the majority of the world is using vehicles that pollute too much, and industry that is comparatively very polluting. Check out those factories in Mexico, China, and all other countries.... !
I like diesel vehicles because they are much more flexible in thier fuel usage....
No I think you're way off base here. What you are missing is that the 'hybrid' technology can migrate to any fuel system. It's simply an electro-mechanical multiplier.
It improves every other power system by various factors. In the case of gasoling engines it's 50-100% improvement.
The Big Three now in hybrids are T/F and soon GM. Toyota's position is well known. Ford has other issue to resolve first. GM has just jumped into the pool with both feet and will have multi-models available in the near future.
Huge companies don't make these types of investments and commitments without seeing where they want to be 10-20 years down the road. This isn't a 'stop gap for a few years' it a strategic move by three of the largest manufacturers in the world.
I agree with you that all the carmakers want in on the hybrid craze. It is a money maker over the long haul for sure. The profit margin on computer modules alone that will need replacement makes Microsoft profit look piddly. It took some automakers longer to see the potential that Toyota knew from the get go. Good luck on your quest for 250k trouble free miles in that Prius. You will need it.
I think the oems have found a better modern way to encourage, enforce the AGE OLD "NEW EVERY TWO" PHILOSOPHY.
It almost makes NO cost effect sense: i.e., a Civic hybrid that gets 48 mpg vs a 38-42 mpg Civic with prices of 20,000/13,000= 7,000 respectively. I have almost no issues with running the gasser to 305,000 (three belt changes), sans the higher rate of consumption on consumeables vs the VW Jetta TDI. Let me know when you hybrid folks start to hit 250,000 miles. Inquiring minds REALLY do want to know! You can wax on and on about like for like, but as you well know we are talking (engine and power train) = performance and what can it be purchased for. I really do not need keyless entry and all the other techie gee whiz stuff for a one person daily commute.
"Stop fighting change. Hybrids, both gas & diesel, are the future. A new minimum of SULEV is realistic. Deal with it. "
The market IS dealing with it. No fight was ever started. It is also a no brainer, if you look at the passenger vehicle fleet. The percentage of "sulev" vehicles in the fleet is percentage wise, literally not measureable as less than one half of 1%. That is also being almost wildly optimistic.
Honda InsightExamples of hybrid vehicles delivering SULEV emissions performance include the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius.
A conventionally powered example is the Ford Focus SULEV variant. In 2005, General Motors' 3800 Series III V6 engines became the industry's first gasoline V6s to carry the SULEV rating and can be found in the Pontiac Grand Prix (optionally supercharged), Buick LaCrosse, and the Buick Lucerne as well as the Hyundai Elantra .
Honda's 2006 Civic is another example of a SULEV vehicle, in addition to getting almost 50 miles per gallon. Honda was one of the first car makers to offer SULEV vehicles, starting with certain 2000 model year Honda Accords.
The Toyota Prius gets a real world average of 45-50 MPG, and plug in HEV's get around 100.
It should be noted that many SULEV vehicles are only available in LEV-II states. These include California, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Massachusetts."...
So again if you look at 16/17M vehicles in ALL 50 states, it will take longer for the SULEV products to make it into the passenger vehicle fleet than it will for diesel to surpass sulev. Essentially the effect affect will be unmeasurable at almost any population % wise and volume wise to measure in the real world. As an analogy it will be like trying to identify the effects of grains of sand on a miles of a sandy beach.
..."Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power"...
Patrick Moore, the co founder of Greenpeace. "A green case for nuclear power" P secton, pg 1, Perspective, San Jose Mercury News, Feb 25,2007.
I have known this since I was 12 years old. I started the reseach when I was 11 years old. We didn't have internet then. You actually had to go to public libraries and order research as nuclear power at that time was a VERY arcane topic. It only took the leadership of Greenpeace 44 years (since I was 12) to finally come around.
But due to this type of leadership (misguided for years in my view) all the effective barriers to progress have successfully been erected and have been field tested and proven to work extremely well!!
But wait there is more in the SWAG... we haven't can't built a refinery in the USA for literally DECADES. What do you think that would mean for a new nuclear power plant?
What do you mean the vehicle has a "bulls eye" painted on it.......? I did see a disproportionate amount of Prius with minor damage, but with salvage title , on ebay. I even bid on a few....but the resellers who fixed them up wanted $20K for a 2004 with only 3000 miles, but salvaged after a relatively minor collision....
Well, good luck , and I hope to see your Prius with more than 300,000 miles also. THat would be nice for you and the environment.
No, sorry to deflate your hopes. It runs fine still getting 45-48 mpg in cold weather carrying the scars of the two latest hits while waiting for the body shop to fit me in ( next week ).
I have just posted in BMW Series 1 Forum (Poster #630) here in Edmunds the reported features of new BMWs to be launched in May. No bad at all! :surprise:
Actually a good lead in for why diesels will become more of common knowledge and advantage. I have been having wonderful luck with my gasser Honda Civic, but it seems that the fuel mileage in the greater population (actually on Edmunds.com Honda Civic Real World MPG Numbers) is in issue with a pretty high % of folks. Of course the new (10-20%) lower EPA's mpg ratings are not exactly welcomed news; for a whole host of reasons.
A 20-25% diesel advantage, I think would be of value in even that this group, which places a premium on mpg as well as well as other parameters. Some have a very hard time believing the Civic is REALLY capable of getting, i.e.,what I get 38-42 mpg.
As I posted on the New EPA Regs board the EPA has done something that maybe no other govt agency has been able to do... made everybody happy.
Drivers now for the most part can state that they regularly exceed the EPA estimates. ( 45 - 51 here with a 48 mpg avg. ) The manufacturers no longer have to hear about drivers wanting to 'sue' them for false advertising. Dumb. The EPA no longer has to hear about it using testing methods that are 30 years out of date.
Heck I looked and for my Buick Park Ave both the OLD and NEW epa figures are wrong. My highway mileage is 5-7mpg or so better than what they say.. I have checked it a dozen times over the years..
Strange, for my car both old and new numbers are off, but city and highway are off in different directions. Perhaps due to the fact that my city traffic is mostly stop and go, my real mpg is worse. My highway mpg, however, is *much* better than stated (it says 28, and I get measured 34-35 in steady long-distance highway driving, even though it is between 70-75 mph. Weird.
My highway numbers were closer to the stated when the car was new. Perhaps that's what they're looking at? A car that has not been properly broken in yet?
Did a little research and if there is one thing hybrids suffer from, it is too much weight, blubber from their supposedly wonderful drive trains. All of this data is available on the internet.
TCH vs TC (4 cyl auto) +533 pounds for the TCH THH vs TH (V-6 4X2 auto) +421 pounds for the THH Ford Escape Hybrid vs non hybrid (4X2, auto 4 cyl) +247 pounds for the hybrid version Nissan Altima Hybrid vs Altima 2.5S (auto) +308 pounds for the hybrid version.
All vehicles that I compared were as closely matched in engine and drive train as I could find them. Since there is no Prius as a non-hybrid, I would have to guess that the HSD system adds at least 250 to 300 pounds to the weight of the car. That is an awful lot of weight to schlep around for only a little bit of extra fuel economy and a significant lightening of the buyer's wallet.
To be fair, I looked at some diesel models too.
MB E320 CDI vs E320 gas +165 lbs for the CDI VW Jetta TDI vs Jetta gas (5 cyl) +11 pounds for the TDI. For the Passat, the TDI was 24 pounds heavier. Jeep Liberty CRD vs Jeep Liberty (V-6, auto, 4X4) +181 lbs for the CRD
Yes, the diesels are heavier, but not as porky the hybrids.
To cover one of the better fuel economy(gasser) cars, Civic, the Civic is app 500#'s lighter vs Jetta TDI. While the EPA mileage is good at 29/38 and my real commute mileage is between 38/42, the comparison against the Jetta TDI is in order: epa of 42/49 and the (same) commute the figures are app 47-52. So I wonder how much better (or worse) the TDI engine would do in a Civic.(WEIGHT)
If that's your only complaint about the hybrids, their "porkiness," then that complaint will be null and void in about 3 years max, at least for the Toyota hybrids
As you may or may not have heard, Toyota has challenged their engineers to cut 50% of the size and the cost of the hybrid systems for each car.
So that would reduce the porkiness down to near-diesel levels and winter2 will have something else to not worry about.
Well no. Since you are the owner of a hybrid, perhaps you would chime in on the following scenario. Since the Civic (gasser) is app 500#'s lighter than the VW Jetta. How do you think it would affect the Honda Civic on the normal performance cmparos, if the Civic were run side by side with a Jetta with 4 people in the CIVIC vs 1 person in the Jetta TDI?
If memory serves me correctly, that challenge went out to Toyota engineers about 4 years or more ago. Have they cut any pork in that time period?
I also find it hard to believe that a car having an additional 400 lbs of dead weight could handle better than its counterpart. I did not find handling a plus with the Camry I rented for a week. My cousin does not like her new Camry. It does not handle as well as her 1999 Camry. It looks like Toyota is losing ground on the handling. Poorly distributed pork is a detriment to handling on any vehicle.
Everything is done on a model by model basis. For Production reasons once a model is set, back in 2003, it's fixed like that for the entire model life of about 5 years.
In any event major changes like this in any automotove design for any vehicle takes at least 5 years to implement.
New Yorkers are getting dosed with dirty air during their daily commute -- no matter how they travel.
High levels of diesel ultra-fine particles are invading commuters' lungs along the highways, buses and commuter rails, according to a Clean Air Task Force study released Wednesday.
"The bottom line is commuters shouldn't have to breath this," said Peter Iwanowicz, spokesman for the American Lung Association of New York State. "You spend six percent of the day commuting but have 50 percent of your daily diesel exposure then."
..."Let me say that after about 10K miles on my TCH, I have not yet once said, "Dang this sucker will NOT hold the road!!"
Handling as the benefit for a family car is overrated. Most "family haulers" are not taking 55 MPH curves at 80 MPH.
"Road feel" is not high on the list of family car buyers, nor of hybrid owners as far as I know."
Yes, I would tend to think this is a practical reaction AFTER the choice of ANY vehicle (i.e., hybrid) has been made.
Since I live with a Civic/Jetta I have to make almost daily situational adjustments to each. Is the issue high on my list of priorities? On one level, YES. On one level, NO.
YOU already know the answers!!! Especially given the past documented discussions on this VERY ISSUE!!!
I think this is more of a rhetorical question on your part rather than a real question given your almost total acceptance and explanation of the disingenuous application of EPA regulations.
Well I think it is more than obvious that NYC/STATE does not see it as economically feasible, now does it? Now keep in mind this is one of the premier economic centers of the USA if not the WORLD. Tragically even OSAMA knew this.
Inherent in the past discussion, (to those new to the discussion, and to those who would laugh as) NYC has been a PORT CITY for a very very LONG LONG TIME.
(SHIPPING using UNMITIGATED 3000/4000 PPM HIGH SULFUR FUEL OIL!!?? Airports?)
Comments
Particularly since most of the particulate in diesel are heavier than air. So although they can hang in the air for considerable amounts of time (they are not much heavier than air) since most cars and light-duty trucks drop them around 2 feet above the ground, most of those emissions settle and become dirt rapidly.
Lets not forget that with all the current limits on the use of diesel in the passenger vehicle sector, it is the limits on the number of passenger cars in total (with diesel being a paltry 2-3%) that reduce metro smog levels.
I commute on my Segway every day 40 minutes each way, and a trip does not pass where I don't get 1-5 different strong whiffs of diesel exhaust. Yucky, Stinky, and enough of it gives me a headache.
I'm pretty sure if I was standing under an airplane that passed over me at 38,000 feet I would neither get a whiff nor get a headache. Ya Think?
Those that pray at the AT-PZEV alter are part of the same cult that believe all the political hype about global warming. A lot of hot air with a smattering of science.
You are confusing the pollution you see coming out of a truck with the polution that hangs over cities. Yes, at the ground level you directly feel the impact of the tractor trailer. However you are also directly feeling the impact of container ships (if you are on the coast), aircraft and power stations- you just can't see it. The dispersal from the aircraft is certainly great at 30,000 ft (the impact on global warming gases- which I absolutely believe to be a factual problem- is far worse when the emissions are at that altitude) but the emisssions when the aircraft are taking off, when they are burning the greatest amount of fuel, is concentrated at the sight they are taking off from. That is typically in a city.
Mexico is not governed by the EPA. Their fuel will clean up in time.
And you say "it is quite easy to regulate other country's vehicles in our etc etc " but apparently it is not, since we don't do it. If it was EASY, we could and would already BE doing it.
Regardless of how "clean" at PZEV car is, its undeniably (with science backing it) cleaner that a non-PZEV car.
And if I want to spend an extra $5K on my car to be able to know it's super clean and to be able to say it's one of the cleanest cars on the road, that is not my right? If I justify it in my own mind is it still "a non-justified gain?"
PS
We do not have to let them across the border spewing black soot. We chose to do that for POLITICAL reasons.
Well, that's SORTA what I think. I believe the government, with the intent of PROTECTING THE POPULACE, should be able to regulate business to the point of making gains toward keeping the environment clean and TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the economic cost of such requirements.
In other words, don't put a vital business (such as trucking, shipping, rail, air) OUT OF BUSINESS by requiring them to meet some pie in the sky environmental goal. But DO strike a balance and allow them to do things in STAGES which allows businesses to use their engineers and smart folks to incorporate those changes into the business processes WITHOUT driving the company's finances into the red.
And yes, unfortunately, in this world, POLITICS takes precedence at times when it is not a good thing. Such is life. :shades:
What we are really saying is; what we have already said!
..."requiring them to meet some pie in the sky environmental goal. "...
So why do you advocate the requirement of passenger vehicle fleet (owners) to ?
Again this is disengenuous to the absolute over the top maximum. Again, who is polluting more? 1 gal at 15 ppm totally mitigated within the law vs 1 gal 3000/4000 ppm totally UNMITIGATED which happens to BE the law? If for some reason this does not compute, what would you say if I drove a diesel that ran 3000/4000 ppm diesel fuel?
To even up the pollution values that means the 15 ppm fuel has to burn a min of 267 gals to equal one gal of 3000/4000. The reality is precisely in the absolute reverse!! MORE of the 3000/4000 ppm is burnt! Again one docking ship entering the Port of Long Beach (actually pick a port any port) equals 30,000 to 40,000 cars all day!!
kcram - Pickups Host
In CA it actually went from 140 ppm to 15 ppm so the drop has not been AS HUGE (9.3 x's)
100% of the Toyota/Lexus hybrids are SULEV rated or better.
My support for SULEV made you crazy... knowing how just realistic that goal actually was. So you kept trying to steer the discussion to PZEV instead.
Automakers simply aren't interested in delivering a non-hybrid diesel SULEV rated. That adds too much to the price... which makes the "full" hybrids even more appealing.
Stop fighting change. Hybrids, both gas & diesel, are the future. A new minimum of SULEV is realistic. Deal with it.
JOHN
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Since I never did, you've now got a credibility problem on top of the reality that much cleaner emissions (the SULEV rating) are indeed realistic.
JOHN
I would disagree with that assessment. My guess is that polluting at 38,000 feet is far less damaging to humans than polluting at ground level where people can breathe the particulate matter directly into their lungs. That "up-high" pollution is scattered over hundreds if not thousands of miles and it is severely de-concentrated by the wide dispersal.
While you may be right that car pollution at ground levels may enter your lungs faster...I have to agree with Ruking and others that airplane pollution at the 38,000 feet is a great contributer to global warming. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when all flights were stopped for a few days, university scientists noted that air pollution levels decreased and skies cleared quickly.
Dumping CO2 greenhouse gases directly high up in atmosphere , may be more harmful , than say , dumping them at sea level, and at least having plants mitigating thier effects....
But you are right, car pollution also needs to be decreased...
h
Biodiesel fuels are good, and according to yesterdays SF Chronicle front page news...its use is increasing....but it is just an extender for now....unless we can implement the technology of extracting biodiesel from algae....
One problem is that the majority of the world is using vehicles that pollute too much, and industry that is comparatively very polluting. Check out those factories in Mexico, China, and all other countries.... !
I like diesel vehicles because they are much more flexible in thier fuel usage....
It improves every other power system by various factors. In the case of gasoling engines it's 50-100% improvement.
The Big Three now in hybrids are T/F and soon GM. Toyota's position is well known. Ford has other issue to resolve first. GM has just jumped into the pool with both feet and will have multi-models available in the near future.
Huge companies don't make these types of investments and commitments without seeing where they want to be 10-20 years down the road. This isn't a 'stop gap for a few years' it a strategic move by three of the largest manufacturers in the world.
It almost makes NO cost effect sense: i.e., a Civic hybrid that gets 48 mpg vs a 38-42 mpg Civic with prices of 20,000/13,000= 7,000 respectively. I have almost no issues with running the gasser to 305,000 (three belt changes), sans the higher rate of consumption on consumeables vs the VW Jetta TDI. Let me know when you hybrid folks start to hit 250,000 miles. Inquiring minds REALLY do want to know! You can wax on and on about like for like, but as you well know we are talking (engine and power train) = performance and what can it be purchased for. I really do not need keyless entry and all the other techie gee whiz stuff for a one person daily commute.
The market IS dealing with it. No fight was ever started. It is also a no brainer, if you look at the passenger vehicle fleet. The percentage of "sulev" vehicles in the fleet is percentage wise, literally not measureable as less than one half of 1%. That is also being almost wildly optimistic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Ultra_Low_Emission_Vehicle
"...Examples
Honda InsightExamples of hybrid vehicles delivering SULEV emissions performance include the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius.
A conventionally powered example is the Ford Focus SULEV variant. In 2005, General Motors' 3800 Series III V6 engines became the industry's first gasoline V6s to carry the SULEV rating and can be found in the Pontiac Grand Prix (optionally supercharged), Buick LaCrosse, and the Buick Lucerne as well as the Hyundai Elantra .
Honda's 2006 Civic is another example of a SULEV vehicle, in addition to getting almost 50 miles per gallon. Honda was one of the first car makers to offer SULEV vehicles, starting with certain 2000 model year Honda Accords.
The Toyota Prius gets a real world average of 45-50 MPG, and plug in HEV's get around 100.
It should be noted that many SULEV vehicles are only available in LEV-II states. These include California, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Massachusetts."...
So again if you look at 16/17M vehicles in ALL 50 states, it will take longer for the SULEV products to make it into the passenger vehicle fleet than it will for diesel to surpass sulev. Essentially the effect affect will be unmeasurable at almost any population % wise and volume wise to measure in the real world. As an analogy it will be like trying to identify the effects of grains of sand on a miles of a sandy beach.
..."Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power"...
Patrick Moore, the co founder of Greenpeace. "A green case for nuclear power" P secton, pg 1, Perspective, San Jose Mercury News, Feb 25,2007.
I have known this since I was 12 years old. I started the reseach when I was 11 years old. We didn't have internet then. You actually had to go to public libraries and order research as nuclear power at that time was a VERY arcane topic. It only took the leadership of Greenpeace 44 years (since I was 12) to finally come around.
But due to this type of leadership (misguided for years in my view) all the effective barriers to progress have successfully been erected and have been field tested and proven to work extremely well!!
But wait there is more in the SWAG... we haven't can't built a refinery in the USA for literally DECADES. What do you think that would mean for a new nuclear power plant?
Gee, in another 44 years I will be 100.
Well, good luck , and I hope to see your Prius with more than 300,000 miles also. THat would be nice for you and the environment.
I've been hit 4 times, sorta.
Regards,
Jose
kcram - Pickups Host
A 20-25% diesel advantage, I think would be of value in even that this group, which places a premium on mpg as well as well as other parameters. Some have a very hard time believing the Civic is REALLY capable of getting, i.e.,what I get 38-42 mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
Vehicle Old mpg New mpg Difference
Toyota Prius 55 46 -16.4%
Honda Civic hybrid 50 42 -16.0%
Toyota Camry hybrid 39 34 -12.8%
Ford Escape hybrid 34 30 -11.8%
Saturn Vue 29 26 -10.3%
Here's the complete article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...ids-usat_x.htm
Well, all figures for MPG are being lowered to reflect the real world....
But somehow, my VW tdi diesel still gets over 45 mpg....
__________________
As I posted on the New EPA Regs board the EPA has done something that maybe no other govt agency has been able to do... made everybody happy.
Drivers now for the most part can state that they regularly exceed the EPA estimates. ( 45 - 51 here with a 48 mpg avg. )
The manufacturers no longer have to hear about drivers wanting to 'sue' them for false advertising. Dumb.
The EPA no longer has to hear about it using testing methods that are 30 years out of date.
Heck I looked and for my Buick Park Ave both the OLD and NEW epa figures are wrong. My highway mileage is 5-7mpg or so better than what they say.. I have checked it a dozen times over the years..
My highway numbers were closer to the stated when the car was new. Perhaps that's what they're looking at? A car that has not been properly broken in yet?
TCH vs TC (4 cyl auto) +533 pounds for the TCH
THH vs TH (V-6 4X2 auto) +421 pounds for the THH
Ford Escape Hybrid vs non hybrid (4X2, auto 4 cyl)
+247 pounds for the hybrid version
Nissan Altima Hybrid vs Altima 2.5S (auto) +308 pounds for the hybrid version.
All vehicles that I compared were as closely matched in engine and drive train as I could find them. Since there is no Prius as a non-hybrid, I would have to guess that the HSD system adds at least 250 to 300 pounds to the weight of the car. That is an awful lot of weight to schlep around for only a little bit of extra fuel economy and a significant lightening of the buyer's wallet.
To be fair, I looked at some diesel models too.
MB E320 CDI vs E320 gas +165 lbs for the CDI
VW Jetta TDI vs Jetta gas (5 cyl) +11 pounds for the TDI. For the Passat, the TDI was 24 pounds heavier.
Jeep Liberty CRD vs Jeep Liberty (V-6, auto, 4X4) +181 lbs for the CRD
Yes, the diesels are heavier, but not as porky the hybrids.
TCH vs TC 4c
THH vs TH V6
Both hybrids are significantly quicker in handling than the ICE siblings.
As you may or may not have heard, Toyota has challenged their engineers to cut 50% of the size and the cost of the hybrid systems for each car.
So that would reduce the porkiness down to near-diesel levels and winter2 will have something else to not worry about.
I also find it hard to believe that a car having an additional 400 lbs of dead weight could handle better than its counterpart. I did not find handling a plus with the Camry I rented for a week. My cousin does not like her new Camry. It does not handle as well as her 1999 Camry. It looks like Toyota is losing ground on the handling. Poorly distributed pork is a detriment to handling on any vehicle.
In any event major changes like this in any automotove design for any vehicle takes at least 5 years to implement.
We'll see in Oct 2008.
Let me say that after about 10K miles on my TCH, I have not yet once said, "Dang this sucker will NOT hold the road!!"
Handling as the benefit for a family car is overrated. Most "family haulers" are not taking 55 MPH curves at 80 MPH.
"Road feel" is not high on the list of family car buyers, nor of hybrid owners as far as I know.
Too much diesel exhaust in the air
New Yorkers are getting dosed with dirty air during their daily commute -- no matter how they travel.
High levels of diesel ultra-fine particles are invading commuters' lungs along the highways, buses and commuter rails, according to a Clean Air Task Force study released Wednesday.
"The bottom line is commuters shouldn't have to breath this," said Peter Iwanowicz, spokesman for the American Lung Association of New York State. "You spend six percent of the day commuting but have 50 percent of your daily diesel exposure then."
Handling as the benefit for a family car is overrated. Most "family haulers" are not taking 55 MPH curves at 80 MPH.
"Road feel" is not high on the list of family car buyers, nor of hybrid owners as far as I know."
Yes, I would tend to think this is a practical reaction AFTER the choice of ANY vehicle (i.e., hybrid) has been made.
Since I live with a Civic/Jetta I have to make almost daily situational adjustments to each. Is the issue high on my list of priorities? On one level, YES. On one level, NO.
I think this is more of a rhetorical question on your part rather than a real question given your almost total acceptance and explanation of the disingenuous application of EPA regulations.
Inherent in the past discussion, (to those new to the discussion, and to those who would laugh as) NYC has been a PORT CITY for a very very LONG LONG TIME.
(SHIPPING using UNMITIGATED 3000/4000 PPM HIGH SULFUR FUEL OIL!!?? Airports?)