Just how do they do a zero tolerance day in San Diego? I could maybe picture this on a rural interstate, but having driven in NJ and the Boston area I don't see how it can be effective in an urban area.
Yes I've seen 4 or 5 cop cars have 10 cars pulled over or so, but meanwhile a hundred yards later everyone's flying again. And in real heavy traffic I don't see how cops are even going to get anyone's attention to pull over. I sure don't want to see high-speed chases because everyone' has decided to drive 10 mph over the speed-limit.
BTW: a new car that's about to hit the market, and has piqued my interest is the Volvo C30. It's supposedly good for 30+mpg, has 227hp, decent room for 2, and should be safe (isn't any Volvo).
The only problem is that air quality is improving, and has been for the last two decades.
There also seem to be some holes in these studies. For example:
Wilhelm acknowledged that the number of deaths from respiratory disease was still very small despite the heavy air pollution in Los Angeles, considered one of the smoggiest places in the country. (emphasis added) Still, "the potential for disease prevention through further air pollution abatement may be substantial since millions of infants are exposed to similar or greater air pollution concentrations worldwide," she said.
Dr. Rachel Moon, a pediatrician and SIDS specialist who's familiar with the study, questioned whether other factors could affect the respiratory health of the infants, such as whether they spent time outdoors or were exposed to cigarette smoke. "That would have a huge impact on their pollution exposure, (but) none of this was measured," said Moon, of the Children's National Medical Center, in Washington, D.C. (emphasis added)
As for the seemingly higher risk of SIDS, Moon said researchers already knew that tobacco exposure is a major risk factor, possibly due to tiny particles that get into the lungs.
Tobacco use is an entirely different issue than automobile emissions.
In the final article, we get this:
A separate study by USC researchers, also published in the same medical journal, found that children living close to freeways in Southern California had a far higher risk of developing asthma. "It adds to a growing body of literature that air pollution can cause asthma," the study's lead author, James Gauderman said.
Except that higher levels of asthma are occurring with LOWER levels of pollution. Which leads to the logical conclusion that there is something else going on here (and I say this as a person with asthma).
Also note that none of these articles dispute my original contention - that air quality is improving. And if air quality is so bad, why are people living longer than ever before?
Mr. Shiftright: air quality is not "getting better". In some places it is better, in some places worse, in some places holding its own.
No. In the United States, it is getting better. If often seems as though it is getting worse, but often that is because the standards are getting stricter.
For example, in Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently noted that several counties will fall out of compliance for ozone standards, as measured by the Clean Air Act.
So the air quality got worse?
No....the air quality is still improving, but the standards got tougher. But all counties within the state will be compliance with the stricter standards by 2011. So, across the state - which includes urban, suburban and rural areas - air quality is improving.
Mr. Shiftright: The reasons seem clear enough...there are cleaner cars now, but a lot more of them, and people are driving them more---so it makes sense that you can have both cleaner cars and a worsening situation at the same time...depending on where you live, climate conditions, population density, etc.
New vehicles are so much cleaner, that even with more of them, air quality is still improving. This has been documented in urban areas across the nation.
When zero tolerance days are announced, it is splashed on the TV & Radio. Most of the freeways in the San Diego proper area are posted 65 MPH. They just start ticketing anyone doing 66 MPH or over. It does slow traffic down. I have only seen them do this a few times in the last 5 years. Then they will sometimes get out on the freeway and put on their lights and wander from lane to lane at 65 MPH with a huge pile up of cars behind them. Of course no one passes them. All seems silly to me. I doubt seriously that either method results in saving any fuel or slowing traffic for more than the announced days.
bluzv1: Higher gas prices change driving behavior and car purchasing behavior. What don't you understand?
Considering that I advocate allowing the free market (i.e., allowing higher prices to drive consumer behavior) to take care of this situation, I obviously understand how it works.
You are the one who has advocated government intervention (reduced speed limits, etc.), and ridiculed my suggestions that allowing higher prices to influence consumer behavior would be sufficient. Now you ask why I don't understand the workings of the free market.
One of us is confused about how the free market really works, and it's not me. Or else you're the Sybil of Edmunds.com, and two of your personalities are periodically posting here, but using the same name.
bluzf1: Come on, if everyone else was going 65 so could you.
You divined this just from reading my posts on on an internet site? Amazing.
I guess you've never heard of CB radios and radar detectors.
bluzf1: I personally don't give 2 sents how fast you drive.
Yet, in a later post, you advocate a $300 fine (which is a lot more than 2 cents) for anyone exceeding the 65 mph speed limit.
There seems to be some confusion on your part.
bluzf1: I do know that we,as a country,could save huge amounts of oil by just reducing the speed limit to 65 and driving more economical cars.
We could save even more by lowering it to 45 mph. You could save fossil fuels by turning off your computer, and lessening the demand from your local utility (which probably uses fossil fuels to generate electricity).
I've got a better idea - let everyone decide for themselves how to best save gasoline when the price rises.
Some may decide to drive less by consolidating trips, or even walking more. Some may bicycle to work. Some may decide to drive less, but keep driving 80 mph when they do.
This is how the free market works. People will decide on their own how to handle higher gas prices. Just because they aren't doing what you think they should, doesn't mean that the free market isn't working, or that the government needs to "do something."
As someone who works in the environmental field I can assure you that the air in the US is getting better every year. I have been a regulator, consultant and employed in private industry and the media does a good job of scaring people for no good reason. When is the last time you heard of a "could of death" decending on a city? Not since the 70s. The EPA is probably the most sucessful govenment agency in the history of the US.
There are fewer non-attainment areas in the US then there ever were in the past. Go look it up. A non-attainment area is an area (usually a county or grouping of counties) where the air quality does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for NOx, SO2, CO, PM10 or Ozone. You will probably be seeing a lot of "you air is unsafe" stories in the press soon because the EPA is lowering the NAAQS for ozone. This will cause a lot of areas to go non-attainment, but that is not because the air is worse. The standard just got lowered.
Higher soot levels in the East are linked to an increase in electricity generated by heavy polluting power plants.
But in the very first paragraph, the Lung Association says this:
The number of counties scoring an A grade for ozone levels increased from 82 in 2000 to 145 this year, but particle pollution levels show an ominous trend, with F grades nearly doubling in just one year, according to American Lung Association State of the Air: 2007.
In other words, the increased particulate pollution is from one year to the next. It is not a long-term trend.
“The good news is that there’s less ozone everywhere. Yet, we remain concerned because the science shows that millions are still at risk from ozone that exceeds acceptable levels,” Dr. Weaver said.
Which supports what I said - ozone pollution levels are improving.
Of course, the most important paragraph is found at the end of the article:
With the generous support of the public, (emphasis added) the American Lung Association is “Improving life, one breath at a time.”
In other words, keep those donations flowing.
If the situation is improving, that decreases the motivation of citizens donate to the American Lung Association. Which threatens the existence of the American Lung Association, which has to pay its staff, too.
Corporations aren't the only ones with an economic stake in this equation.
I would suggest that people google "Donora, Pa." and learn what happened there in the 1940s. People really DID drop dead from the air pollution. Hasn't happened since.
Phoenix was once the place to go if you had asthma. It is not the cars that ruined it for asthma sufferers. It is the agriculture and the massive amounts of pollen blowing around in that dry desert air. Of course the dust from all the construction does not help. From a healthy paradise to an unhealthy city in just a few years. Many of the cars today according to the EPA are putting out exhaust cleaner than the air they take in. The filth in our air in San Diego is mostly from the endless construction.
I have a hard time believing that high PM10 levels in the East are due to local power plants. That small of particulate size (smaller than 10 micron effective diameter) that is emitted from power plant stacks in excess of 400 feet tall will not settle out locally. That stuff will travel hundreds or thousands of miles before reaching ground levels.
A more likely culprit is the seemingly endless series of wildfires in the Southeast and West. I spoke to my mom a couple of days ago (she lives in Florida) and she said that the smoke is so thick it is creating a fog. Now THAT will mess with your asthma. Don't know much about what to do about that other than put out the fires.
From an environmental standpoint, I would be more concerned about groundwater than the air.
You obviously don't know how a free market works if you think a .50 gas tax increase would have no effect on consumption. Oh,maybe you didn't get the memo, we already gasoline taxes and posted speed limits. 2 sents means you personally since you personally are an incorrigible speeder. Same,same w/ $300 tickets reducing the speed at which people drive.
I was doing a report a couple of years back on Logistics,and did a little investigation on the effect of international shipping.
I believe that over 50% of the air pollution in the L.A. basin was from ships that may idle for weeks while waiting to be unloaded, the cranes and other harbor facilities (tugs, fork-trucks), and of course the endless stream of trucks hauling containers away. These diesels for the most-part are not clean-burning diesels! And guess what when you hear imports are up, you can imagine the number of ships and trucks is going up too. Not to mention the oil usage.
Perhaps they are referring to power plants in the Midwest. I remember a few years ago that some eastern states - and I think that Pennsylvania was among them - launched a lawsuit to force tighter standards on Midwestern sources.
I would wait for a Honda diesel if it was months away, and wasn't years away.
I squeaked by a NH winter with my car (Firebird) this year, but really had to watch the weather and not go on sideroads certain days. I want more capability this year. Maybe I need to go to Europe and bring a diesel back (don't think that's legal).
That is exactly correct. That flow of dirty air from the Long Beach Harbor driven by offshore winds lays up against the San Bernardino mountains. San Bernardino area is like a dead zone. Always a brown thick haze covering the city. yuck
blufz1: You obviously don't know how a free market works if you think a .50 gas tax increase would have no effect on consumption.
Never said that, and, for the record, proposing a tax increase is NOT letting the free market work. That's called governmment intervention in the market, as the government is artificially raising the price of gasoline.
This seems to be a source of confusion for you. Perhaps you spend too much time bass fishing, and not enough time stuyding economic systems? It isn't helping the coherence of your posts.
And, last time I checked, gas prices, over the long haul, have risen by more than .50 cents a gallon. So your point is moot.
blufz: Oh,maybe you didn't get the memo, we already gasoline taxes and posted speed limits.
And maybe you need to do some research, as many states have speed limits posted higher than 65 mph. Which is why lots of people have no intention of toddling along at 65 mph.
blufz1: 2 sents means you personally since you personally are an incorrigible speeder.
Might do you good to get out some more. Visit me, and we'll take a ride on several local highways in Pennsylvania - I-81, I-83 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Though the official speed limit is 65 mph, most people drive at 75-80 mph.
So most drivers are, according to your definition, "incorrigible speeders," and they appear to be doing just fine.
blufz1: Same,same w/ $300 tickets reducing the speed a which people drive.
You're again displaying your confusion about how the free market works. Let people decide for themselves how to save gas, without the threat of fines, or heavy-handed, unrealistic and ultimately unenforceable laws. There is no need to reduce our speed.
Yes they did. I believe it led to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) that forces powerplants to reduce NOx and SO2 emissions. The CAIR rules are nation-wide and effect all large powerplants. They went after NOx because it is a precurser to both ground-level ozone and PM2.5 (a newly regulated pollutant). I think SO2 is also a precurser to PM2.5, but I am not sure on that one.
While we are on the subject of pollution, did you guys know that about 40% of the air pollution in the US comes from mobile sources? That's right, planes, trains and automobiles are a MAJOR source of air pollution. Also, ethanol is not as environmentally friendly as you might think. Sure, tailpipe emissions are lower than with gas, but it takes 10 megawatts of energy to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol. Now why are all those new powerplants going in? :confuse:
it takes 10 megawatts of energy to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol
Many of the new power plants are coal fired as that is abundant in the areas that ethanol plants are being built. So yes, ethanol is adding to the pollution it was supposed to be reducing.
That also does not include the heat recovery boiler that each plant has. My math is a little fuzzy on this, but I think a 100 MMgal plant will have a boiler rated at around 100 MMBTU/hr. They are usually natural gas fired, but some are starting to use coal and the DDGS (Distillers Dried Grain something) that is a byproduct of the corn-ethanol process.
Overall, I think ethanol is a dead-end as a viable alternative energy source. You are, basically, turing the BUTs from coal/natural gas into BTUs for liquid fuel. Every time you convert energy, you lose some. Now if you could breed a bug that would convert sugar or cellulose to ethanol at a low temperture, then you would be on to something.
"This forecast may be revised this afternoon if conditions deteriorate. Sensitive individuals may want to consider postponing strenuous activities until air quality improves. The following actions are recommended to reduce air pollution during this period:
• Limit driving.
• Combine trips and errands.
• Don't burn outdoors.
• Fill your gas tank and mow your yard in the evening after temperatures cool down."
People won't burn because it's too easy to get caught. I doubt that many will pay attention to the first two recommendations (and probably wouldn't even if gas was $4 a gallon here).
I think you are confusing the coherence of my posts with your inability to understand them. I'm just helping the free market along as I previously stated. I don't think 65 is "just toddling along". I get out plenty. When is the last time you caught a bass? One thing is for sure tho,you never have to dim your headlights.
Don't think so. Some places are definitely getting worse. Depends on what you wish to measure about air quality of course. Many studies now include particulate matter and ozone.
Here's just one of many hits you'd get: (This is New York)
While we are on the subject of pollution, did you guys know that about 40% of the air pollution in the US comes from mobile sources? That's right, planes, trains and automobiles are a MAJOR source of air pollution. Also, ethanol is not as environmentally friendly as you might think. Sure, tailpipe emissions are lower than with gas, but it takes 10 megawatts of energy to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol. Now why are all those new powerplants going in?
I remember hearing years ago, that something like 20% of pollution comes from light cars and trucks (basically, private automobiles for the most part) while another 20% came from heavier-duty sources, like buses, big trucks, trains, and airplanes. So I guess that 40% hasn't changed much over the years?
BTW, I like your posts. They're really informative and seem to have a lot of cold, hard truth in there. Ugly truth, that the government might not want made public. So just watch yourself, man, if you start finding the black helicopters buzzing around you!
Also, how "clean" are coal-fired power plants these days? Have they improved much in recent years? I just looked up an FAQ for my electric company, and it looks like they use nuclear for about 61% of their electricity production, with coal accounting for about 35%. Oil only accounted for 0.2%!
That sounds about right for oil as it is not too popular for power generation. What blows my mind is that France generates around 2/3s of its power from nuclear plants. I mean come on if the French can do that then why can't we?
Do you think that the airlines should slow down their planes? I'm not being facetious. The airline industry uses a sizeable chunk of our fuel. If you can significantly reduce consumption by slowing down your automobile from 75 to 65 think how much an airliner could save by slowing down from 450 kts to 350 kts.
I remember flying in to some airport south of LA back in 1992. Due to some noise restrictions, they made the pilots throttle back the planes and slow 'em down. I thought it was pretty scary. It's like, here you are, just flying along, and then suddenly you hear nothing. What'd they do, Midasize the danged thing? Made me feel like a bandmember in Lynrd Skynrd! :surprise:
In reality though, I wonder if any kind of savings in making them slow the planes down might be lost by increased delays at the airports as flights get backed up? I'm sure it would cause some kind of problem.
Ehh and turbine engines don't work anything like a piston engine in a car.
They have fairly narrow parameters where they operate at peak efficiency. Those parameters are high in the sky and fairly fast. All jets have a max cruise throttle setting where they are getting the best endurance for their pay load. Going any slower then that won't get any better fuel economy.
I used to fly C-130's in the Navy and can tell you that there is an optimum speed that you should fly at if your primary goal is to maximize range. It's been awhile but I seem to remember the maximum range speed was around 245 kts. If you fly faster or slower than this you won't be able to travel as far. So when it comes to airplanes, flying slower doesn't necessarily mean using less fuel. However I also know that most if not all the airliners in operation today fly above their maximum range speed. So they could save fuel by slowing down. But that's not why people get in a plane. They want to reach their destination as quickly as possible. And that's also not the reason the automobile was invented. Again, people wanted to get to their destination more quickly than the previous mode of transportation. The idea of slowing down is contrary to the primary objective.
it's not easy to make you guys think, so mission accomplished. on a more somber note, i work with a bunch of russian guys. one of them sent me a link to a bunch of pictures take in chernobyl. this is pretty much it:
wow, thanks for helping us dummies out :confuse: BTW the link you mention was debunked a long time ago as fake; although the pics are real her story isn't (but feel free to send money)
I regularly drive through some of the most crowded corridors on the west coast (I-80 between Richmond and the Bay Bridge, 101 between SF and San Jose, I-80 between Fairfield and Sacramento) and always now drive the speed limit (65 mph in all those areas), so I don't buy the cliche argument that one can't do it, or one would be run off the road. What's really going on is one is in a hurry and doesn't want to save $5 on the next fill-up, and as prices increase, $6 on the one after that, then $7, then $8...
;-)
There is even a stretch of highway north of the Golden Gate that has a 55 mph limit for the first 10 or 12 miles. When I cruise that, I stick to the right lane and hold to 55. Do it very regularly, have never been run off the road yet, not even close. And the gas savings? Ohhh, the gas savings! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
How clean are coal plants? Not very, but thay are a heck of a lot cleaner than they used to be.
They will be even cleaner soon. Especially the new ones. Most older power plants just have an ESP (ElectroStatic Precipitator) to reduce particulate emissions. Think of an Ionic Breeze the size of a McMansion between the boiler and the big stack. Those are about 90-95% efficient at removing particulate matter. Does nothing for SO2, NOx, CO or anything else except Mercury. It will reduce that a little bit.
Many plants have installed low-NOx burners. Those work pretty well but cause an increase in CO emissions. It is a good trade-off because NOx is so much worse for you than CO and CO is not a precurses to any other pollutant.
That is about it for the typical power plant. With those controls the plant will still emit tens of thousands of tons of pollution a year, depending on size. You think that is bad? It is nothing compared to a big portland cement plant. Tons and tons of pollution per hour out of those suckers and they run 8760 hours a year. It is truely staggering.
In about 10-15 years power companies will spend hundreds of billions of your dollars to put on other controls to reduce SO2, NOx and Hg (and particulate as a side effect) nation-wide. The Hg controls will reduce Hg emissions by about 80% and it will also reduce particulate because it involves a baghouse (most of the time). For SO2 control they will install some sort of scrubber that will reduce SO2 emissions by 90-95% (it will also reduce PM a little bit too). The NOx controls will reduce NOx by about 80-90%.
After all is said and done, your emissions footprint from the power sector will drop 50-75%. Not too shabby.
Why don't we use more nuke plants? You got me. :confuse: Probably a big NIMBY backlash if you tried to put one anywhere except the deep desert in the SW. A lot of fear to overcome because when they fail they fail BIG. :surprise:
And if they did slow down, some fraction of the fliers would switch to cars, possibly eliminating any energy savings. Like when they were going to require infants to have tickets to save lives - more families drove, more total accidents/deaths.
at least nothing on the level of TMI That's the perception, but no deaths ever resulted. The pollution from coal plants does result in a goodly number of 'excess deaths' each year, just like any other major pollution source. People don't pay attention, though, because it's one at a time, not through any single disaster. Going nuclear would undoubtedly save lives and drop CO2 emissions in a major way.
Probably a big NIMBY backlash if you tried to put one anywhere except the deep desert in the SW.
Like Las Vegas? That place already glows in the dark. :shades:
Take all these plug in cars people want to see. Guess where the juice is going to come from to recharge the batteries? Or will they have solar panels built into the roof?
Anyone else remember buying "coal oil" (kerosene) when they took apart their Sturmey-Archer 3 speed hub to clean the ball bearings?
I think slowing down air flights is way more complicated than just driving 65. The airlines work on such thin margins I would think that they have the fuel economy close to optimum. Just my .02.
Back in the 1990s, some engineer who racked up a lot of frequent flier miles for his job conducted his own study of flying vs. driving. He factored in ticket cost, time spent driving to the airport, checking in, waiting on delayed planes, etc.
He found that any trip of 500 miles or less was better done in a car. And that was before 9/11. It's likely that a 700-800 mile trip favors a car these days.
The main reason I drive rather than fly is the freedom it offers. I leave on my own schedule, I stop on my own schedule. I eat when I want to, and I can change my itinerary any time.
Plus, no lost luggage and no sour attitude from airline employees.
Take all these plug in cars people want to see. Guess where the juice is going to come from to recharge the batteries? Or will they have solar panels built into the roof?
Are you serious? One of the many benefits of plug-in cars is that they will primarily be charged at night when there is plenty of excess grid capacity. In fact 80% of the current fleet could suddenly become EV or PHEV and the grid could handle it if this charging was done at night. The utility companies love the idea because this excess nightime capacity currently represents an untapped resource, which costs them money because they still have operating expenses at night and they can't simply shut down their generators. The nightime charging would represent a form of load levelling and the thought is that it might actually drive down the cost per kWh because the utilities would be selling more of their product and doing it more efficiently. I'm somewhat skeptical about seeing a price drop but the idea that the grid can't handle an influx of EVs is a misconception. On top of that it will be many, many years before EVs represent more than a low single digit percentage of our fleet. By that time there probably will be significantly greater use of solar energy. So any way you look at it this is not an issue.
Well at my wake I don't want someone saying, "He was a quiet man, who lived a quiet life, and saved resources". I would prefer something like "He was a wheelin' dealin, jet setting, skirt chasin son-of-a-gun".
Enjoy life - you can't take it with you, you only live once, in heaven there is no beer, yada, yada, yada. When we run out of gasoline I'll still be running around on a mustang!
Are you serious? One of the many benefits of plug-in cars is that they will primarily be charged at night when there is plenty of excess grid capacity.
Just out of curiosity, how many watts (or kilowatts, if it takes that much) would it take to charge up a typical plug-in?
From a purely environmental standpoint, the electric car is VERY good. Because of the economy of scale of a large powerplant vs. an engine in your car, the powerplant can generate electricity far more efficiently than an engine. Powerplants will also have more elaborate controls to further reduce pollution. Will more powerplants have to be built? Sure, but it is easier to regulate and monitor the impacts from a powerplant than thousands of cars.
As far as the kW usage of an electric car goes, I have no idea.
Comments
Yes I've seen 4 or 5 cop cars have 10 cars pulled over or so, but meanwhile a hundred yards later everyone's flying again. And in real heavy traffic I don't see how cops are even going to get anyone's attention to pull over. I sure don't want to see high-speed chases because everyone' has decided to drive 10 mph over the speed-limit.
BTW: a new car that's about to hit the market, and has piqued my interest is the Volvo C30. It's supposedly good for 30+mpg, has 227hp, decent room for 2, and should be safe (isn't any Volvo).
There also seem to be some holes in these studies. For example:
Wilhelm acknowledged that the number of deaths from respiratory disease was still very small despite the heavy air pollution in Los Angeles, considered one of the smoggiest places in the country. (emphasis added) Still, "the potential for disease prevention through further air pollution abatement may be substantial since millions of infants are exposed to similar or greater air pollution concentrations worldwide," she said.
Dr. Rachel Moon, a pediatrician and SIDS specialist who's familiar with the study, questioned whether other factors could affect the respiratory health of the infants, such as whether they spent time outdoors or were exposed to cigarette smoke. "That would have a huge impact on their pollution exposure, (but) none of this was measured," said Moon, of the Children's National Medical Center, in Washington, D.C. (emphasis added)
As for the seemingly higher risk of SIDS, Moon said researchers already knew that tobacco exposure is a major risk factor, possibly due to tiny particles that get into the lungs.
Tobacco use is an entirely different issue than automobile emissions.
In the final article, we get this:
A separate study by USC researchers, also published in the same medical journal, found that children living close to freeways in Southern California had a far higher risk of developing asthma. "It adds to a growing body of literature that air pollution can cause asthma," the study's lead author, James Gauderman said.
Except that higher levels of asthma are occurring with LOWER levels of pollution. Which leads to the logical conclusion that there is something else going on here (and I say this as a person with asthma).
Also note that none of these articles dispute my original contention - that air quality is improving. And if air quality is so bad, why are people living longer than ever before?
No. In the United States, it is getting better. If often seems as though it is getting worse, but often that is because the standards are getting stricter.
For example, in Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently noted that several counties will fall out of compliance for ozone standards, as measured by the Clean Air Act.
So the air quality got worse?
No....the air quality is still improving, but the standards got tougher. But all counties within the state will be compliance with the stricter standards by 2011. So, across the state - which includes urban, suburban and rural areas - air quality is improving.
Mr. Shiftright: The reasons seem clear enough...there are cleaner cars now, but a lot more of them, and people are driving them more---so it makes sense that you can have both cleaner cars and a worsening situation at the same time...depending on where you live, climate conditions, population density, etc.
New vehicles are so much cleaner, that even with more of them, air quality is still improving. This has been documented in urban areas across the nation.
American Lung Association State of the Air: 2007
Sounds like air quality has a ways to go, whether you blame cars, power plants or tobacco. Bummer about the asthma.
Considering that I advocate allowing the free market (i.e., allowing higher prices to drive consumer behavior) to take care of this situation, I obviously understand how it works.
You are the one who has advocated government intervention (reduced speed limits, etc.), and ridiculed my suggestions that allowing higher prices to influence consumer behavior would be sufficient. Now you ask why I don't understand the workings of the free market.
One of us is confused about how the free market really works, and it's not me. Or else you're the Sybil of Edmunds.com, and two of your personalities are periodically posting here, but using the same name.
bluzf1: Come on, if everyone else was going 65 so could you.
You divined this just from reading my posts on on an internet site? Amazing.
I guess you've never heard of CB radios and radar detectors.
bluzf1: I personally don't give 2 sents how fast you drive.
Yet, in a later post, you advocate a $300 fine (which is a lot more than 2 cents) for anyone exceeding the 65 mph speed limit.
There seems to be some confusion on your part.
bluzf1: I do know that we,as a country,could save huge amounts of oil by just reducing the speed limit to 65 and driving more economical cars.
We could save even more by lowering it to 45 mph. You could save fossil fuels by turning off your computer, and lessening the demand from your local utility (which probably uses fossil fuels to generate electricity).
I've got a better idea - let everyone decide for themselves how to best save gasoline when the price rises.
Some may decide to drive less by consolidating trips, or even walking more. Some may bicycle to work. Some may decide to drive less, but keep driving 80 mph when they do.
This is how the free market works. People will decide on their own how to handle higher gas prices. Just because they aren't doing what you think they should, doesn't mean that the free market isn't working, or that the government needs to "do something."
There are fewer non-attainment areas in the US then there ever were in the past. Go look it up. A non-attainment area is an area (usually a county or grouping of counties) where the air quality does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for NOx, SO2, CO, PM10 or Ozone. You will probably be seeing a lot of "you air is unsafe" stories in the press soon because the EPA is lowering the NAAQS for ozone. This will cause a lot of areas to go non-attainment, but that is not because the air is worse. The standard just got lowered.
Higher soot levels in the East are linked to an increase in electricity generated by heavy polluting power plants.
But in the very first paragraph, the Lung Association says this:
The number of counties scoring an A grade for ozone levels increased from 82 in 2000 to 145 this year, but particle pollution levels show an ominous trend, with F grades nearly doubling in just one year, according to American Lung Association State of the Air: 2007.
In other words, the increased particulate pollution is from one year to the next. It is not a long-term trend.
“The good news is that there’s less ozone everywhere. Yet, we remain concerned because the science shows that millions are still at risk from ozone that exceeds acceptable levels,” Dr. Weaver said.
Which supports what I said - ozone pollution levels are improving.
Of course, the most important paragraph is found at the end of the article:
With the generous support of the public, (emphasis added) the American Lung Association is “Improving life, one breath at a time.”
In other words, keep those donations flowing.
If the situation is improving, that decreases the motivation of citizens donate to the American Lung Association. Which threatens the existence of the American Lung Association, which has to pay its staff, too.
Corporations aren't the only ones with an economic stake in this equation.
I would suggest that people google "Donora, Pa." and learn what happened there in the 1940s. People really DID drop dead from the air pollution. Hasn't happened since.
A more likely culprit is the seemingly endless series of wildfires in the Southeast and West. I spoke to my mom a couple of days ago (she lives in Florida) and she said that the smoke is so thick it is creating a fog. Now THAT will mess with your asthma. Don't know much about what to do about that other than put out the fires.
From an environmental standpoint, I would be more concerned about groundwater than the air.
I believe that over 50% of the air pollution in the L.A. basin was from ships that may idle for weeks while waiting to be unloaded, the cranes and other harbor facilities (tugs, fork-trucks), and of course the endless stream of trucks hauling containers away. These diesels for the most-part are not clean-burning diesels! And guess what when you hear imports are up, you can imagine the number of ships and trucks is going up too. Not to mention the oil usage.
I squeaked by a NH winter with my car (Firebird) this year, but really had to watch the weather and not go on sideroads certain days. I want more capability this year. Maybe I need to go to Europe and bring a diesel back (don't think that's legal).
Never said that, and, for the record, proposing a tax increase is NOT letting the free market work. That's called governmment intervention in the market, as the government is artificially raising the price of gasoline.
This seems to be a source of confusion for you. Perhaps you spend too much time bass fishing, and not enough time stuyding economic systems? It isn't helping the coherence of your posts.
And, last time I checked, gas prices, over the long haul, have risen by more than .50 cents a gallon. So your point is moot.
blufz: Oh,maybe you didn't get the memo, we already gasoline taxes and posted speed limits.
And maybe you need to do some research, as many states have speed limits posted higher than 65 mph. Which is why lots of people have no intention of toddling along at 65 mph.
blufz1: 2 sents means you personally since you personally are an incorrigible speeder.
Might do you good to get out some more. Visit me, and we'll take a ride on several local highways in Pennsylvania - I-81, I-83 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Though the official speed limit is 65 mph, most people drive at 75-80 mph.
So most drivers are, according to your definition, "incorrigible speeders," and they appear to be doing just fine.
blufz1: Same,same w/ $300 tickets reducing the speed a which people drive.
You're again displaying your confusion about how the free market works. Let people decide for themselves how to save gas, without the threat of fines, or heavy-handed, unrealistic and ultimately unenforceable laws. There is no need to reduce our speed.
While we are on the subject of pollution, did you guys know that about 40% of the air pollution in the US comes from mobile sources? That's right, planes, trains and automobiles are a MAJOR source of air pollution. Also, ethanol is not as environmentally friendly as you might think. Sure, tailpipe emissions are lower than with gas, but it takes 10 megawatts of energy to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol. Now why are all those new powerplants going in? :confuse:
Many of the new power plants are coal fired as that is abundant in the areas that ethanol plants are being built. So yes, ethanol is adding to the pollution it was supposed to be reducing.
Overall, I think ethanol is a dead-end as a viable alternative energy source. You are, basically, turing the BUTs from coal/natural gas into BTUs for liquid fuel. Every time you convert energy, you lose some. Now if you could breed a bug that would convert sugar or cellulose to ethanol at a low temperture, then you would be on to something.
10:34 a.m. -- DEQ issues yellow air quality alert today; outdoor open burning is banned (Idaho Statesman)
"This forecast may be revised this afternoon if conditions deteriorate. Sensitive individuals may want to consider postponing strenuous activities until air quality improves. The following actions are recommended to reduce air pollution during this period:
• Limit driving.
• Combine trips and errands.
• Don't burn outdoors.
• Fill your gas tank and mow your yard in the evening after temperatures cool down."
People won't burn because it's too easy to get caught. I doubt that many will pay attention to the first two recommendations (and probably wouldn't even if gas was $4 a gallon here).
Here's just one of many hits you'd get: (This is New York)
http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/407721.php?contentType=4&contentId=458469
L.A. is also struggling, also Boise Idaho, many other cities are measuring "slippage" or more "exceedent" days.
I remember hearing years ago, that something like 20% of pollution comes from light cars and trucks (basically, private automobiles for the most part) while another 20% came from heavier-duty sources, like buses, big trucks, trains, and airplanes. So I guess that 40% hasn't changed much over the years?
BTW, I like your posts. They're really informative and seem to have a lot of cold, hard truth in there. Ugly truth, that the government might not want made public. So just watch yourself, man, if you start finding the black helicopters buzzing around you!
Also, how "clean" are coal-fired power plants these days? Have they improved much in recent years? I just looked up an FAQ for my electric company, and it looks like they use nuclear for about 61% of their electricity production, with coal accounting for about 35%. Oil only accounted for 0.2%!
LOL, I had to think for a second...what does "Too Much Information" have to do with anything? :P But then it hit me, eventually.
I don't think France has ever had a serious problem at a nuclear plant or at least nothing on the level of TMI.
I mean FRANCE is beating us. That is just not right.
In reality though, I wonder if any kind of savings in making them slow the planes down might be lost by increased delays at the airports as flights get backed up? I'm sure it would cause some kind of problem.
What the French don't get from nuclear mostly comes from hydro.
They have fairly narrow parameters where they operate at peak efficiency. Those parameters are high in the sky and fairly fast. All jets have a max cruise throttle setting where they are getting the best endurance for their pay load. Going any slower then that won't get any better fuel economy.
on a more somber note, i work with a bunch of russian guys.
one of them sent me a link to a bunch of pictures take in chernobyl. this is pretty much it:
exclusion zone pics
save gas.
Now that was easy wasn't it? ;-)
I regularly drive through some of the most crowded corridors on the west coast (I-80 between Richmond and the Bay Bridge, 101 between SF and San Jose, I-80 between Fairfield and Sacramento) and always now drive the speed limit (65 mph in all those areas), so I don't buy the cliche argument that one can't do it, or one would be run off the road. What's really going on is one is in a hurry and doesn't want to save $5 on the next fill-up, and as prices increase, $6 on the one after that, then $7, then $8...
;-)
There is even a stretch of highway north of the Golden Gate that has a 55 mph limit for the first 10 or 12 miles. When I cruise that, I stick to the right lane and hold to 55. Do it very regularly, have never been run off the road yet, not even close. And the gas savings? Ohhh, the gas savings! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
How clean are coal plants? Not very, but thay are a heck of a lot cleaner than they used to be.
They will be even cleaner soon. Especially the new ones. Most older power plants just have an ESP (ElectroStatic Precipitator) to reduce particulate emissions. Think of an Ionic Breeze the size of a McMansion between the boiler and the big stack. Those are about 90-95% efficient at removing particulate matter. Does nothing for SO2, NOx, CO or anything else except Mercury. It will reduce that a little bit.
Many plants have installed low-NOx burners. Those work pretty well but cause an increase in CO emissions. It is a good trade-off because NOx is so much worse for you than CO and CO is not a precurses to any other pollutant.
That is about it for the typical power plant. With those controls the plant will still emit tens of thousands of tons of pollution a year, depending on size. You think that is bad? It is nothing compared to a big portland cement plant. Tons and tons of pollution per hour out of those suckers and they run 8760 hours a year. It is truely staggering.
In about 10-15 years power companies will spend hundreds of billions of your dollars to put on other controls to reduce SO2, NOx and Hg (and particulate as a side effect) nation-wide. The Hg controls will reduce Hg emissions by about 80% and it will also reduce particulate because it involves a baghouse (most of the time). For SO2 control they will install some sort of scrubber that will reduce SO2 emissions by 90-95% (it will also reduce PM a little bit too). The NOx controls will reduce NOx by about 80-90%.
After all is said and done, your emissions footprint from the power sector will drop 50-75%. Not too shabby.
Why don't we use more nuke plants? You got me. :confuse: Probably a big NIMBY backlash if you tried to put one anywhere except the deep desert in the SW. A lot of fear to overcome because when they fail they fail BIG. :surprise:
That's the perception, but no deaths ever resulted. The pollution from coal plants does result in a goodly number of 'excess deaths' each year, just like any other major pollution source. People don't pay attention, though, because it's one at a time, not through any single disaster. Going nuclear would undoubtedly save lives and drop CO2 emissions in a major way.
Like Las Vegas? That place already glows in the dark. :shades:
Take all these plug in cars people want to see. Guess where the juice is going to come from to recharge the batteries? Or will they have solar panels built into the roof?
Anyone else remember buying "coal oil" (kerosene) when they took apart their Sturmey-Archer 3 speed hub to clean the ball bearings?
He found that any trip of 500 miles or less was better done in a car. And that was before 9/11. It's likely that a 700-800 mile trip favors a car these days.
The main reason I drive rather than fly is the freedom it offers. I leave on my own schedule, I stop on my own schedule. I eat when I want to, and I can change my itinerary any time.
Plus, no lost luggage and no sour attitude from airline employees.
Are you serious? One of the many benefits of plug-in cars is that they will primarily be charged at night when there is plenty of excess grid capacity. In fact 80% of the current fleet could suddenly become EV or PHEV and the grid could handle it if this charging was done at night. The utility companies love the idea because this excess nightime capacity currently represents an untapped resource, which costs them money because they still have operating expenses at night and they can't simply shut down their generators. The nightime charging would represent a form of load levelling and the thought is that it might actually drive down the cost per kWh because the utilities would be selling more of their product and doing it more efficiently. I'm somewhat skeptical about seeing a price drop but the idea that the grid can't handle an influx of EVs is a misconception. On top of that it will be many, many years before EVs represent more than a low single digit percentage of our fleet. By that time there probably will be significantly greater use of solar energy. So any way you look at it this is not an issue.
Enjoy life - you can't take it with you, you only live once, in heaven there is no beer, yada, yada, yada. When we run out of gasoline I'll still be running around on a mustang!
Just out of curiosity, how many watts (or kilowatts, if it takes that much) would it take to charge up a typical plug-in?
As far as the kW usage of an electric car goes, I have no idea.