The CRX was light enough that it didn't need a power rack and I don't know that the US models ever had it. IIRC, the HF also had a upshift light to goose the EPA numbers a bit.
Friend of mine had one of those CRX HF models, fun but a bit slow, didn't use 5th gear much, it was such an overdrive. But good mpg. Most folks now wouldn't like the compromises on safety and performance.
Before the 2008 model year, the EPA tested without A/C running at all, if you can believe it! They would test every engine/tranny variant, to the point that it was sometimes hard to figure out which is which when you go to the website.
In the suburbs, the distance between residential and commercial areas is too great to walk or bike.
Oh, I dunno. This past June I pedaled from the shores of the Pacific ocean in San Diego to the shores of the Atlantic near Savannah, GA (Tybee Island). I'd say there is no distance too great to get to on a bicycle if you have the time to get there.
Anyhow, I've been through many metropolitan areas that are obviously not designed to accomodate anything other than motor vehicles. However, the city of Davis, CA is absolutely the best cycling friendly community I've ever visited anywhere in the world.
They say Florida is the worst. Maybe because of all the retirees? I probably won't ride to work if I lived in Miami.
I'd say there is no distance too great to get to on a bicycle if you have the time to get there.
That is exactly right. I just got an email from a friend that is now between Mexico City and Oaxaca on his journey to Tierra del Fuego. We met Takayuki on his first leg in Prudhoe Bay Alaska. He had ridden from the airport in Anchorage after flying in from Japan. That was 2 1/2 years ago. He spent 10 days with us. He was taken into our camp and given a place to stay and more food than he realized existed. I thought he was going to stay so late that winter would get him going down through Canada. He was a very nice young man and we learned some Japanese as he learned English. Pictures taken in from of our office in Prudhoe bay. He left with his 200 + lb loaded bike on 7/28/05. So, Yes, with enough time you can go by bike.
Wow, that sounds like fun. I'd love to do something like that, if I had the time. And the ambition. And knew my job would still be waiting for me when I got back.
He is doing it as a series in a Japanese magazine. It is a long time to be out on the road with only the friends you meet along the way. He is an adventurer.
I would offer the opinion that scooters and mopeds are easily the most dangerous, much more so than motorcycles or bicycles. Why?
One reason is the way some people ride them. I see people on bikes running stop signs, cutting out into traffic and generally riding in an unsafe manner.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Why not open our coast up? It can be done in an environmentally sound way. The government puts it off-limits and at the same time calls for energy independence. What sense does that make?"
It does make a kind of sense, but it is unintentionally, I'm sure. The last place you want to be in terms of energy independence is where Japan is - dependent on oil with no domestic sources. Opening all our reserves now just means we get to where Japan is faster. Long term energy independence has got to be done through a combination of alternate energy sources and improved efficiency.
Long term energy independence has got to be done through a combination of alternate energy sources and improved efficiency.
I agree, more drilling is not a solution. At best it may delay the time when we have to face the inevitable.
I read today that a federal judge upheld CA's right to regulate greenhouse gasses. This means that CA can go ahead with their mandate to force car manufacturers selling vehicles in that state to reduce GHG emissions 30% by 2016. The only way to do that is to increase mileage by 30%, which has been the basis of this whole dispute. The auto manufacturers were claiming that only the feds had the authority to set mileage standards. Once the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 could be classified as a pollutant that changed everything. States can definitely set their own pollution standards.
In addition to CA there are at least 8 other states that have followed their lead and adopted CA's standard. So I guess they can now all proceed. What's interesting is that the feds are set to pass an energy bill that will raise CAFE to 35 mpg by 2020. Well what these states are doing independently will make that meaningless. The current CAFE is 27.5 mpg. A 30% increase is 35.75 mpg and it will be 4 years sooner. I'm not a big advocate of CAFE but I do like it when the states make the feds look ridiculous.
I am all for states rights. However it does create a problem when every state has a different set of regulations on new vehicles. Or a different formula for gasoline. In the end it costs the consumer a lot more money than it should. I don't think the issue that came before the Supreme Court was to determine if GHG is a pollutant. I thought it said the EPA should take another look at CO2 as a pollutant.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
I don't see that giving CARB any authority to regulate CO2.
I thought there was some sort of interstate commerce clause that prohibits states from interfereing with other states. I am not a lawyer, so I am not so sure.
The ruling that came out today was not from the Supreme Court but it was from a federal judge. It specifically ruled in favor of CA's right to regulate CO2.
I think that very quickly most of the other states will adopt CA's standards. So there won't be the negative impact to the consumers resulting in all these different standards.
Interestingly enough Toyota was right up there with the domestics in trying to get this mandate overturned. You'd think with their "green" image and dominance in the hybrid market higher mpg standards would strengthen their competitive edge.
Historically most states have followed California's lead and most are quite interested in doing so. Not EVERYTHING California does, of course, (thank god) but ever since 1966, California has been the laboratory for these sorts of regulations. The rest of the country gets to see what works and what doesn't. Now with Arctic ice melting at a hitherto unprecedented rate, and much faster than predicted, everyone's ears seem to be up and more tuned into the concept at least, of stricter emissions regulations and stricter CAFE standards. With higher gas prices and visual evidence of nature gone awry, a lot of people who didn't used to be concerned are starting to be concerned.
You'd think with their "green" image and dominance in the hybrid market
I think the hybrids are still low profit high maintenance vehicles that are there only because of the green image. The Prius is selling well. The rest of the hybrids only so so. I would bet my next SS check that Toyota would rather sell a Tundra than a Prius. So the new rules would be a problem with their lineup of gas guzzling cars, trucks and SUVs. All of which are money makers. Same as with the Big 3.
Hybrids are past their novelty stage and people are sobering up to the fact that they aren't that much better than a regular car. The people who like them and need them the most are the city folks, older folks.
I was thinking about this yesterday when a Prius passed me on the freeway. I was doing 82 mph. Now what kind of fuel mileage do you think they are getting? I bet LESS than the car I was driving. This is the wrong car for that type of driver.
The ruling still has to be approved by the EPA. That is not a given.
In a major defeat for automakers, a federal judge in Fresno ruled Wednesday that California could set its own standards on greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles. But the state still needs permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the rules.
State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, though enthusiastic about Wednesday's ruling, expressed concern that the EPA could drag its feet indefinitely in making a decision on the state's waiver request, which has been pending for nearly two years. In November, California sued to force an EPA ruling. "Dragging it out would be a disaster and a gross dereliction in duty," Brown said.
A spokeswoman for the EPA said the Fresno ruling shouldn't affect EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson's pledge to issue a ruling on California's waiver request by the end of the year. EPA lawyers, however, are reviewing the ruling to determine whether "there are any relevant ramifications" for how the agency decides on the matter, the spokeswoman said.
I would say the biggest selling point in CA was the HOV pass with the Prius. It also carries that look at me how green I am, image that so many people have gone for. If the Prius is driven moderately in a long commute, it would probably be beneficial. As they start to age, the current Prius has barely been on the market 4 years, you will see a lot more failures of the high priced components. Toyota will be strapped with the battery warranty for 10 years. That is a long time for a battery to maintain its pizazz.
The EPA and CARB have been at odds over jurisdiction forever. I would think the EPA would like to see a comprehensive plan. Rather than some emotional hodge podge conjured up in Hollywood. I would love to see CARB slapped around a bit. They are the enemy in my book. When they banned small diesel cars & PUs to try and look good. They went onto my S-List.
I would think it would be politically dangerous to not grant the waiver.
I definitely agree. Especially going into an election year. Reading that article is a good reminder of just how pathetically convoluted and cumbersome our federal bureaucracy has become. That being the case it's disturbing that the feds are constantly trying to reduce the states power to self govern.
The bottom line is CA is not telling the auto manufacturers that they have to increase their fuel efficiency. I suspect some very expensive system could be developed that would actually capture and store CO2 coming out of a tailpipe. Isn't that what coal fired power plants are trying to do? It just happens that improving fuel efficiency is probably by far the easiest way to accomplish this CO2 reduction.
I was thinking about this yesterday when a Prius passed me on the freeway. I was doing 82 mph. Now what kind of fuel mileage do you think they are getting? I bet LESS than the car I was driving. This is the wrong car for that type of driver.
I had a similar incident with a Prius driver coming into work yesterday. I had just pulled onto my street, and as I got to the point where the road goes from 2 lanes to 4, a Prius came over the hill. Now this is a road with a 30 mph speed limit. Prius was about 1/8 of a mile behind me when I first saw it, and I was doing about 30. I decided to try a little experiment. I decided to speed up a little to see if the driver was going to be one of those "I HAVE to be in front of you" types, or if they'd just get to a set speed and stay there.
That Prius gained on me fast. Passed me on the left. I actually got up to about 50 mph, and it STILL gained on me! I didn't want to go any faster because, well, the car was still warming up and there was a school zone up ahead, but I imagine she took the next hill at around 60 mph! Still, 30 mph zone.
Wonder what kind of fuel economy she was getting in her hell-bent quest on being "first"? Oh well, if nothing else, maybe she gained some energy back in regenerative braking when she suddenly had to slam on her brakes from 60 mph when she came to the stop sign. :P
An even easier way is to restrict the number of PU and SUV sales in the state. If the state mandates a CAFE-type standard on the vehicles SOLD in the state (the only way you can do it without confiscating cars) the automaker just has to do a simple calculation of what percentage of sales can be PU and SUV and put a cap on the sales. Then let the bidding war begin! Well, let the bidding begin until people just go out-of-state to buy PUs and SUVs.
Something like this would not work unless it is federally mandated.
CA could refuse to register the car you bought out of state for a certain amount of time, forcing you to register it in Nevada, etc. This would discourage most people.
EPA is under great pressure these days to do the right thing. EPA is a mess, run into the ground these last few years. They are totally demoralized I think, like Justice. Cooperating with CA would be a bonus for them.
Of course all this presumes that the economic impacts are carefully studied. I like decisions that factor in economic realities. What do we gain, what do we lose, what's the balance sheet on that?
Something like this would not work unless it is federally mandated.
It could definitely work. For one thing most of the surrounding states will be adopting CA's standards. For those that don't CA could impose an extremely punitive registration fee on recently purchased out of state vehicles.
I suspect some very expensive system could be developed that would actually capture and store CO2 coming out of a tailpipe. Isn't that what coal fired power plants are trying to do?
From a chemical thermodynamic perspective cpaturing and storing CO2 actually requires extra fossil fuels to be combusted and extra CO2 to be generated. It doesn't really matter whether this would occur at the auto, or the powerplant, though the amounts and technology would probably differ. How is this so? Well imagine the powerplant produces 100 units of energy/hr. Now we want to capture that CO2 and store it somehow (dissolve in water, pump underground, or compress and bottle are some options). Well all those options require pumps and motors - maybe 10 units?. So now the powerplant has to be run faster producing 110 units of energy/hr, to produce the 100-energy you originally want.
Since gaseous CO2 is so light we're talking about a lot of volume to move. If you compress CO2 to liquid, that is very energy intensive too.
And I really don't see the ground r water being much of a barrier to the CO2 eventually coming back to the surface and into the atmosphere.
For one thing most of the surrounding states will be adopting CA's standards.
I have not read anything where AZ or NV was interested in joining the CARB states? I think if CA imposed higher taxes on cars coming in from other states you would see more out of state plates. I bought my 99 Suburban in June 1998. Licensed it to my work address in Alaska. Drove it back from Idaho to San Diego. Drove it in CA for 7 years till I sold it with Alaska plates. Never was stopped for out of state plates. Did the same in the 1980s with our 1978 Honda Accord. It had expired MN plates for 5 years in San Diego. My ex wife was never stopped.
What do we gain, what do we lose, what's the balance sheet on that?
One of the main reasons I like CA's mandate is that I think it will accelerate the development and adoption of EVs. The American motorist is not going to suddenly prefer small, underpowered vehicles. The only way for the auto manufacturers to give the consumer the performance and size that they desire while still significantly reducing CO2 is through EVs. I think the overall economic impact will be positive due to new job creation. I think CA is already seeing this job creation as a result of their solar initiative. Putting EVs on the road will require CA to further expand it's clean energy capacity.
I don't know about NV but I'd be very surprised if AZ didn't adopt CARB standards. Weren't they one of the few states that GM sold the EV-1?
Let's say NV doesn't adopt the CARB standards. If a person wanted to maintain a residence or job in NV he could get away with not registering his vehicle in CA. If he wanted to just take the risk that he'd never get caught he could also do that. I suspect that in today's modern age with all the databases that cops have ready access to it wouldn't be that easy. If the penalty is severe most motorists won't attempt it.
I think CA is already seeing this job creation as a result of their solar initiative.
I again checked into installing PV cells on my south facing roof. The cost has gone up dramatically over the last 5 years. There is a large CA incentive. It does not bring it down to an economic break even for us. When I told my wife it would not work when the power is down, her response is what good is it. The only ones that are making out are the sellers of PV systems at this time. Maybe some day it will be practical. Same for EVs
If a person wanted to maintain a residence or job in NV he could get away with not registering his vehicle in CA.
You have hit on one of the exceptions to the rule. My sister lived in So Lake Tahoe, CA and worked at Harvey's She bought her car in Reno and licensed it in NV. She got nailed in less than a month in CA. I guess it was a common practice. The cops scoured the neighborhoods l guess looking for residence with out of state license plates. AZ was very restrictive if you worked in AZ. Every state has their own little quirks and laws.
The American motorist is not going to suddenly prefer small, underpowered vehicles.
Since almost everyone is a motorist, then do you logically think people will vote for politicians who would force us into those small, underpowered vehicles? The American public and people in general have a lot of self-control issues.
I'm sure we can similarly sit here and agree the solution to obesity, is to exercise for an hour or 2 per day, and eat 3 medium meals.
A solution that few want, despite the consequences, is not a solution.
If somebody could send me a link or describe a CO2 capture/control device that is actually installed anywhere and operates on an industrial scale, please do so. And also list the installation and operating cost in $(US) per pound (or ton) removed if you can.
As far as I know there are no comerically available means to remove CO2 from gas streams in any way that makes economic sense. For other combustion pollutants there are chemical or physical means of removing them that is fairly economical.
This leaves reducing hydrocarbon consumption as the only viable means of reducing CO2. Believe me, I am all for higher mpg cars. I have stated many times that congress should have ratcheted up CAFE standars long ago. I would have gotten a hybrid SUV/CUV/minivan in a heartbeat if one existed anywhere near my pricepoint. I just don't think a few states doing it in isolation is going to cut it.
Nevada won't buy in. The state motto for Nevada should be "Yeah, You Can Do That Here".
Well NV better start caring about these trivial issues like pollution. Have you been to Las Vegas lately? Their air quality is going downhill so rapidly you're probably better off smoking a pack of cigarettes than spending a day on the strip.
The only ones that are making out are the sellers of PV systems at this time. Maybe some day it will be practical. Same for EVs
I agree that globally the current level of incentives for PV systems has actually created a situation where the demand is outstripping the supply. Somewhat similar to why the Toyota dealers were originally able to sell the Prius at above MSRP. So, as you stated, right now the primary beneficiaries are those people/companies selling and installing these systems. But the manufacturers are aggressively increasing their capacity and hopefully the consumers will see the prices start falling in the next few years.
"If somebody could send me a link or describe a CO2 capture/control device that is actually installed anywhere and operates on an industrial scale, please do so."
There is a huge push in the power/petroleum industry to work through the issues. There is nothing about mobile (car) capture, that's not an option. Here's another link to a company that's using captured CO2 to increase oil production DenburyProject
Also: Yes, it's very expensive to capture CO2 because of the large volumes involved and the high cost (and addition CO2 production) for compression. They're even considering extracting the O2 from the air before combustion, so that they have an almost pure CO2 stream to deal with. The $$ costs are huge, as you might guess.
Yes, it's very expensive to capture CO2 because of the large volumes involved and the high cost (and addition CO2 production) for compression.
Yes and that cost is partly due to the extra fossil fuels that have to be burnt (for electric, or natural gas) to compress or transport the CO2! That means you create more CO2 in the process of capturing and using the CO2!
And if you read how the "CO2 moves thru the rock" to help get more oil, what causes the CO2 to stay in the ground afterwards? In a week, month or year, isn't the CO2 going to move to the surface and into the atmosphere? It is still a light gas that wants to rise, or will come out with the oil.
Using CO2 to remove oil might be very effective, and it sounds all well and good to put CO2 underground, but do you really think it'll stay there long? Or does someone have a plan to stretch an impermeable membrane over the ground for a few thousand sq. miles?
There is no solution for the sort of large-scale CO2 storage that works, and does not create extra CO2 formation. If I had abundant solar, nuclear or other non-fossil energy source, yes we could get rid of CO2. The best thing we can do to minimize CO2 is plant more trees and other vegetation, and allow that vegetation to use solar energy to chemically convert and store the CO2. The natural solution here is best.
"what causes the CO2 to stay in the ground afterwards?"
Actually, that's not a big problem when it's put into old oil and gas fields. The oil and gas was trapped there for millions of years by the impermeable rock (typically shale) above the reservoir. Problem is, we generate a lot more CO2 than we have oil oil and gas fields to put it. The problem of containment exists for the deep salt water aquifers that are the next best candidate, and that problem's going to be examined with several tests.
I think it will stay down there for a long time. Methane (CH4) is a much lighter gas and we have to go and get it for natural gas pipelines. The problem with CO2 is that it is a very chemically stable compound that is hard to convert to "something else" to get rid of.
The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to stop burning things. To do that we need a radical shift in the transportation and electric utility sectors. Not exactly something that happens overnight. Efficiency is only a stop-gap.
If any one is "sobering up to the fact that they aren't much better than a regular car" then that person did not drink enough punch.
Hybrids are far better in comparable versions than their gasoline counterpart. They pollute less. They allow you to spend less on fuel. They hold resale value better. They allow you to feel "all warm and fuzzy" about your car-buying choice, which is something that is invaluable monetarily. They have spurred invention and innovation like the upcoming Volt and the fuel-cell cars of the future.
Even a Prius doing 82 mph is getting 40+ MPG. I have gotten 40 MPG at 70 MPH in my 2007 Camry Hybrid (on flat ground for all you smarty-pantses) so I know the Prius can do better. A Corolla can't do that.
But yes, a Prius is the wrong car for a leadfoot. The good thing is that very few "leadfeet" are customers for that particular car. Maybe that driver was just late for something and normally does not speed like that. I know in my Camry hybrid I have gone fast on occasion but that is not my norm.
And as far as who "needs" a hybrid? Soon the choices will be so great that it will not matter what you need because there will be a hybrid to fill that bill (maybe with the exception of a 3-ton pickup truck.)
Any expectations that hybrids would be a fad, a niche vehicle, or a short-term phenom are gone now. So far 10 years and the sales are still climbing and the choices expanding year by year.
Toyota will be strapped with the battery warranty for 10 years. That is a long time for a battery to maintain its pizazz.
That's a long time to warranty anything. What's that all about anyway? No other part of a vehicle needs to be guaranteed for 10 years so why this higher standard for battery packs?
I had a 1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse. In 1993 the timing belt snapped damaging the engine to the point that it needed to be replaced. Luckily it was under warranty but had it happened a year later I would have been out around $3500. My point is if the battery pack requires a 10 year warranty why not every other component that could result in costly maintenance?
Yeah, any hybrid at any speed gets better mpg than any standard car at the same speed. The WORST mpg my Civic Hybrid ever got was 43, and that was a long road trip at 75 mph. I routinely average 50 mpg, as you can see:
Leadfoot or miser, a hybrid will yield better mileage than any other car.
As for California's stringent auto regulations; they can get away with them because 10% of all cars sold in the U.S. are sold in CA. The state represents a sales gorilla to the auto industry, so it does whatever it wants, and the automakers comply.
"My sister lived in So Lake Tahoe, CA. She bought her car in Reno and licensed it in NV. She got nailed in less than a month in CA. The cops scoured the neighborhoods l guess looking for residents with out of state license plates."
Several years ago in Las Vegas, police cracked down on all the residents with Oregon plates on their cars. Vegas has very high taxes and registration fees. Oregon has very low fees. So a bunch of people used fraudulent Oregon addresses to reg. their cars while they lived full-time in NV.
The cops even caught some public employees using the scam; one was a high-ranking county employee. That was very telling -- people who make their living off tax money, and who are forever advocating tax increases, don't want to pay THEIR taxes.
Of course, that scandal pales in comparison to the federal bribery case that sent four Clark County (L.V.) commissioners to prison last year. But that's another thread.
You are right. California cops are *very* hip to out ot state license plates sitting on California streets for a length of time.
NV will never join in, IMO. The state seems to have an outlaw mentality. Lots of people have second homes there to dodge taxes, and I'm not sure how legal that is either.
But I don't care what people do to dodge taxes. I do care what they do to my air, however.
Well, where is the hybrid (bio)diesel? I'd buy that... Or better yet, that hybrid E85? I'd also buy that....
My wife and I have made up our minds that we will not buy a new vehicle unless we can feel good about buying it. We get the same gas mileage in our Quest minivan as our Subaru Legacy.
We do find ourselves driving less. And when we buy a home, it will be very close to our workplaces. Not only do you have to look at the vehicle, but, a change in lifestyle. The days of driving 100 miles to work on long commutes are almost over as nobody can afford it.
Don't guess we'll see any of this until their is a fundamental change in our energy policies. If a country such as Brazil can switch to totally E85 in such a short time, we can too. But, instead of building this sorely needed energy foundation, we speed trillions elsewhere to 'protect' this shrinking resource.
I'd rather work a 2nd job for a few hours a week than drive a slow, boring, emasculated car like that. Do you have to wear a pocket protector in that thing? :P BTW thanks for saving gas, so I can burn it. And the Chinese say thank you too. And my neighbor will have some extra gas for his 1 mpg boat.
"I'd rather work a 2nd job for a few hours a week than drive a slow, boring, emasculated car like that. Do you have to wear a pocket protector in that thing?"
What makes you think hybrids are emasculated? Have you ever driven one? I know first hand that the Prius has more than adequate acceleration for normal driving. Electric motors can deliver a lot of torque at 0 RPM.
"BTW thanks for saving gas, so I can burn it. And the Chinese say thank you too. And my neighbor will have some extra gas for his 1 mpg boat."
One responsible person and one irresponsible person is better than two irresponsible people.
Comments
Oh, I dunno. This past June I pedaled from the shores of the Pacific ocean in San Diego to the shores of the Atlantic near Savannah, GA (Tybee Island). I'd say there is no distance too great to get to on a bicycle if you have the time to get there.
Anyhow, I've been through many metropolitan areas that are obviously not designed to accomodate anything other than motor vehicles. However, the city of Davis, CA is absolutely the best cycling friendly community I've ever visited anywhere in the world.
They say Florida is the worst. Maybe because of all the retirees? I probably won't ride to work if I lived in Miami.
That is exactly right. I just got an email from a friend that is now between Mexico City and Oaxaca on his journey to Tierra del Fuego. We met Takayuki on his first leg in Prudhoe Bay Alaska. He had ridden from the airport in Anchorage after flying in from Japan. That was 2 1/2 years ago. He spent 10 days with us. He was taken into our camp and given a place to stay and more food than he realized existed. I thought he was going to stay so late that winter would get him going down through Canada. He was a very nice young man and we learned some Japanese as he learned English. Pictures taken in from of our office in Prudhoe bay. He left with his 200 + lb loaded bike on 7/28/05. So, Yes, with enough time you can go by bike.
http://www.mediasion.co.jp/dream_by_cycle/
PS
The only gas he uses is for cooking.
One reason is the way some people ride them. I see people on bikes running stop signs, cutting out into traffic and generally riding in an unsafe manner.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well there is the old saying that goes "Any place is walking distance if one has the time".
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It does make a kind of sense, but it is unintentionally, I'm sure. The last place you want to be in terms of energy independence is where Japan is - dependent on oil with no domestic sources. Opening all our reserves now just means we get to where Japan is faster. Long term energy independence has got to be done through a combination of alternate energy sources and improved efficiency.
I agree, more drilling is not a solution. At best it may delay the time when we have to face the inevitable.
I read today that a federal judge upheld CA's right to regulate greenhouse gasses. This means that CA can go ahead with their mandate to force car manufacturers selling vehicles in that state to reduce GHG emissions 30% by 2016. The only way to do that is to increase mileage by 30%, which has been the basis of this whole dispute. The auto manufacturers were claiming that only the feds had the authority to set mileage standards. Once the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 could be classified as a pollutant that changed everything. States can definitely set their own pollution standards.
In addition to CA there are at least 8 other states that have followed their lead and adopted CA's standard. So I guess they can now all proceed. What's interesting is that the feds are set to pass an energy bill that will raise CAFE to 35 mpg by 2020. Well what these states are doing independently will make that meaningless. The current CAFE is 27.5 mpg. A 30% increase is 35.75 mpg and it will be 4 years sooner. I'm not a big advocate of CAFE but I do like it when the states make the feds look ridiculous.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
I don't see that giving CARB any authority to regulate CO2.
I think that very quickly most of the other states will adopt CA's standards. So there won't be the negative impact to the consumers resulting in all these different standards.
Interestingly enough Toyota was right up there with the domestics in trying to get this mandate overturned. You'd think with their "green" image and dominance in the hybrid market higher mpg standards would strengthen their competitive edge.
I think the hybrids are still low profit high maintenance vehicles that are there only because of the green image. The Prius is selling well. The rest of the hybrids only so so. I would bet my next SS check that Toyota would rather sell a Tundra than a Prius. So the new rules would be a problem with their lineup of gas guzzling cars, trucks and SUVs. All of which are money makers. Same as with the Big 3.
I was thinking about this yesterday when a Prius passed me on the freeway. I was doing 82 mph. Now what kind of fuel mileage do you think they are getting? I bet LESS than the car I was driving. This is the wrong car for that type of driver.
In a major defeat for automakers, a federal judge in Fresno ruled Wednesday that California could set its own standards on greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles. But the state still needs permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the rules.
State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, though enthusiastic about Wednesday's ruling, expressed concern that the EPA could drag its feet indefinitely in making a decision on the state's waiver request, which has been pending for nearly two years. In November, California sued to force an EPA ruling. "Dragging it out would be a disaster and a gross dereliction in duty," Brown said.
A spokeswoman for the EPA said the Fresno ruling shouldn't affect EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson's pledge to issue a ruling on California's waiver request by the end of the year. EPA lawyers, however, are reviewing the ruling to determine whether "there are any relevant ramifications" for how the agency decides on the matter, the spokeswoman said.
8 hours ago
The EPA and CARB have been at odds over jurisdiction forever. I would think the EPA would like to see a comprehensive plan. Rather than some emotional hodge podge conjured up in Hollywood. I would love to see CARB slapped around a bit. They are the enemy in my book. When they banned small diesel cars & PUs to try and look good. They went onto my S-List.
I definitely agree. Especially going into an election year. Reading that article is a good reminder of just how pathetically convoluted and cumbersome our federal bureaucracy has become. That being the case it's disturbing that the feds are constantly trying to reduce the states power to self govern.
The bottom line is CA is not telling the auto manufacturers that they have to increase their fuel efficiency. I suspect some very expensive system could be developed that would actually capture and store CO2 coming out of a tailpipe. Isn't that what coal fired power plants are trying to do? It just happens that improving fuel efficiency is probably by far the easiest way to accomplish this CO2 reduction.
I had a similar incident with a Prius driver coming into work yesterday. I had just pulled onto my street, and as I got to the point where the road goes from 2 lanes to 4, a Prius came over the hill. Now this is a road with a 30 mph speed limit. Prius was about 1/8 of a mile behind me when I first saw it, and I was doing about 30. I decided to try a little experiment. I decided to speed up a little to see if the driver was going to be one of those "I HAVE to be in front of you" types, or if they'd just get to a set speed and stay there.
That Prius gained on me fast. Passed me on the left. I actually got up to about 50 mph, and it STILL gained on me! I didn't want to go any faster because, well, the car was still warming up and there was a school zone up ahead, but I imagine she took the next hill at around 60 mph! Still, 30 mph zone.
Wonder what kind of fuel economy she was getting in her hell-bent quest on being "first"? Oh well, if nothing else, maybe she gained some energy back in regenerative braking when she suddenly had to slam on her brakes from 60 mph when she came to the stop sign. :P
Something like this would not work unless it is federally mandated.
EPA is under great pressure these days to do the right thing. EPA is a mess, run into the ground these last few years. They are totally demoralized I think, like Justice. Cooperating with CA would be a bonus for them.
Of course all this presumes that the economic impacts are carefully studied. I like decisions that factor in economic realities. What do we gain, what do we lose, what's the balance sheet on that?
It could definitely work. For one thing most of the surrounding states will be adopting CA's standards. For those that don't CA could impose an extremely punitive registration fee on recently purchased out of state vehicles.
Oregon will, though, definitely.
From a chemical thermodynamic perspective cpaturing and storing CO2 actually requires extra fossil fuels to be combusted and extra CO2 to be generated. It doesn't really matter whether this would occur at the auto, or the powerplant, though the amounts and technology would probably differ. How is this so?
Well imagine the powerplant produces 100 units of energy/hr. Now we want to capture that CO2 and store it somehow (dissolve in water, pump underground, or compress and bottle are some options). Well all those options require pumps and motors - maybe 10 units?. So now the powerplant has to be run faster producing 110 units of energy/hr, to produce the 100-energy you originally want.
Since gaseous CO2 is so light we're talking about a lot of volume to move. If you compress CO2 to liquid, that is very energy intensive too.
And I really don't see the ground r water being much of a barrier to the CO2 eventually coming back to the surface and into the atmosphere.
I have not read anything where AZ or NV was interested in joining the CARB states?
I think if CA imposed higher taxes on cars coming in from other states you would see more out of state plates. I bought my 99 Suburban in June 1998. Licensed it to my work address in Alaska. Drove it back from Idaho to San Diego. Drove it in CA for 7 years till I sold it with Alaska plates. Never was stopped for out of state plates. Did the same in the 1980s with our 1978 Honda Accord. It had expired MN plates for 5 years in San Diego. My ex wife was never stopped.
One of the main reasons I like CA's mandate is that I think it will accelerate the development and adoption of EVs. The American motorist is not going to suddenly prefer small, underpowered vehicles. The only way for the auto manufacturers to give the consumer the performance and size that they desire while still significantly reducing CO2 is through EVs. I think the overall economic impact will be positive due to new job creation. I think CA is already seeing this job creation as a result of their solar initiative. Putting EVs on the road will require CA to further expand it's clean energy capacity.
Let's say NV doesn't adopt the CARB standards. If a person wanted to maintain a residence or job in NV he could get away with not registering his vehicle in CA. If he wanted to just take the risk that he'd never get caught he could also do that. I suspect that in today's modern age with all the databases that cops have ready access to it wouldn't be that easy. If the penalty is severe most motorists won't attempt it.
I again checked into installing PV cells on my south facing roof. The cost has gone up dramatically over the last 5 years. There is a large CA incentive. It does not bring it down to an economic break even for us. When I told my wife it would not work when the power is down, her response is what good is it. The only ones that are making out are the sellers of PV systems at this time. Maybe some day it will be practical. Same for EVs
You have hit on one of the exceptions to the rule. My sister lived in So Lake Tahoe, CA and worked at Harvey's She bought her car in Reno and licensed it in NV. She got nailed in less than a month in CA. I guess it was a common practice. The cops scoured the neighborhoods l guess looking for residence with out of state license plates. AZ was very restrictive if you worked in AZ. Every state has their own little quirks and laws.
Since almost everyone is a motorist, then do you logically think people will vote for politicians who would force us into those small, underpowered vehicles? The American public and people in general have a lot of self-control issues.
I'm sure we can similarly sit here and agree the solution to obesity, is to exercise for an hour or 2 per day, and eat 3 medium meals.
A solution that few want, despite the consequences, is not a solution.
As far as I know there are no comerically available means to remove CO2 from gas streams in any way that makes economic sense. For other combustion pollutants there are chemical or physical means of removing them that is fairly economical.
This leaves reducing hydrocarbon consumption as the only viable means of reducing CO2. Believe me, I am all for higher mpg cars. I have stated many times that congress should have ratcheted up CAFE standars long ago. I would have gotten a hybrid SUV/CUV/minivan in a heartbeat if one existed anywhere near my pricepoint. I just don't think a few states doing it in isolation is going to cut it.
Well NV better start caring about these trivial issues like pollution. Have you been to Las Vegas lately? Their air quality is going downhill so rapidly you're probably better off smoking a pack of cigarettes than spending a day on the strip.
I agree that globally the current level of incentives for PV systems has actually created a situation where the demand is outstripping the supply. Somewhat similar to why the Toyota dealers were originally able to sell the Prius at above MSRP. So, as you stated, right now the primary beneficiaries are those people/companies selling and installing these systems. But the manufacturers are aggressively increasing their capacity and hopefully the consumers will see the prices start falling in the next few years.
Here's more than you probably want to know:Futuregen Initiative
There is a huge push in the power/petroleum industry to work through the issues. There is nothing about mobile (car) capture, that's not an option. Here's another link to a company that's using captured CO2 to increase oil production
DenburyProject
Yes and that cost is partly due to the extra fossil fuels that have to be burnt (for electric, or natural gas) to compress or transport the CO2! That means you create more CO2 in the process of capturing and using the CO2!
And if you read how the "CO2 moves thru the rock" to help get more oil, what causes the CO2 to stay in the ground afterwards? In a week, month or year, isn't the CO2 going to move to the surface and into the atmosphere? It is still a light gas that wants to rise, or will come out with the oil.
Using CO2 to remove oil might be very effective, and it sounds all well and good to put CO2 underground, but do you really think it'll stay there long? Or does someone have a plan to stretch an impermeable membrane over the ground for a few thousand sq. miles?
There is no solution for the sort of large-scale CO2 storage that works, and does not create extra CO2 formation. If I had abundant solar, nuclear or other non-fossil energy source, yes we could get rid of CO2. The best thing we can do to minimize CO2 is plant more trees and other vegetation, and allow that vegetation to use solar energy to chemically convert and store the CO2. The natural solution here is best.
Actually, that's not a big problem when it's put into old oil and gas fields. The oil and gas was trapped there for millions of years by the impermeable rock (typically shale) above the reservoir. Problem is, we generate a lot more CO2 than we have oil oil and gas fields to put it. The problem of containment exists for the deep salt water aquifers that are the next best candidate, and that problem's going to be examined with several tests.
The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to stop burning things. To do that we need a radical shift in the transportation and electric utility sectors. Not exactly something that happens overnight. Efficiency is only a stop-gap.
Hybrids are far better in comparable versions than their gasoline counterpart. They pollute less. They allow you to spend less on fuel. They hold resale value better. They allow you to feel "all warm and fuzzy" about your car-buying choice, which is something that is invaluable monetarily. They have spurred invention and innovation like the upcoming Volt and the fuel-cell cars of the future.
Even a Prius doing 82 mph is getting 40+ MPG. I have gotten 40 MPG at 70 MPH in my 2007 Camry Hybrid (on flat ground for all you smarty-pantses) so I know the Prius can do better. A Corolla can't do that.
But yes, a Prius is the wrong car for a leadfoot. The good thing is that very few "leadfeet" are customers for that particular car. Maybe that driver was just late for something and normally does not speed like that. I know in my Camry hybrid I have gone fast on occasion but that is not my norm.
And as far as who "needs" a hybrid? Soon the choices will be so great that it will not matter what you need because there will be a hybrid to fill that bill (maybe with the exception of a 3-ton pickup truck.)
Any expectations that hybrids would be a fad, a niche vehicle, or a short-term phenom are gone now. So far 10 years and the sales are still climbing and the choices expanding year by year.
That's a long time to warranty anything. What's that all about anyway? No other part of a vehicle needs to be guaranteed for 10 years so why this higher standard for battery packs?
I had a 1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse. In 1993 the timing belt snapped damaging the engine to the point that it needed to be replaced. Luckily it was under warranty but had it happened a year later I would have been out around $3500. My point is if the battery pack requires a 10 year warranty why not every other component that could result in costly maintenance?
http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40031
http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37754
Leadfoot or miser, a hybrid will yield better mileage than any other car.
As for California's stringent auto regulations; they can get away with them because 10% of all cars sold in the U.S. are sold in CA. The state represents a sales gorilla to the auto industry, so it does whatever it wants, and the automakers comply.
.
Several years ago in Las Vegas, police cracked down on all the residents with Oregon plates on their cars. Vegas has very high taxes and registration fees. Oregon has very low fees. So a bunch of people used fraudulent Oregon addresses to reg. their cars while they lived full-time in NV.
The cops even caught some public employees using the scam; one was a high-ranking county employee. That was very telling -- people who make their living off tax money, and who are forever advocating tax increases, don't want to pay THEIR taxes.
Of course, that scandal pales in comparison to the federal bribery case that sent four Clark County (L.V.) commissioners to prison last year. But that's another thread.
.
NV will never join in, IMO. The state seems to have an outlaw mentality. Lots of people have second homes there to dodge taxes, and I'm not sure how legal that is either.
But I don't care what people do to dodge taxes. I do care what they do to my air, however.
Or better yet, that hybrid E85? I'd also buy that....
My wife and I have made up our minds that we will not buy a new vehicle unless we can feel good about buying it. We get the same gas mileage in our Quest minivan as our Subaru Legacy.
We do find ourselves driving less. And when we buy a home, it will be very close to our workplaces. Not only do you have to look at the vehicle, but, a change in lifestyle. The days of driving 100 miles to work on long commutes are almost over as nobody can afford it.
Don't guess we'll see any of this until their is a fundamental change in our energy policies. If a country such as Brazil can switch to totally E85 in such a short time, we can too. But, instead of building this sorely needed energy foundation, we speed trillions elsewhere to 'protect' this shrinking resource.
What makes you think hybrids are emasculated? Have you ever driven one? I know first hand that the Prius has more than adequate acceleration for normal driving. Electric motors can deliver a lot of torque at 0 RPM.
"BTW thanks for saving gas, so I can burn it. And the Chinese say thank you too. And my neighbor will have some extra gas for his 1 mpg boat."
One responsible person and one irresponsible person is better than two irresponsible people.