By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Also, in regards to other posts, I don't think there has been a coal-fired plant built in CA for decades. All the new ones are NG. While it may be legal, in a technical sense, to build a coal plant in CA no sane person would attempt it. It would be stalled, sued, protested and regulated to death. Because of the number of NG plants, I would also guess that the $/kWh cost of electricity in CA is much higher than in the Midwest where there is more coal. NG is expensive and subject to wild swings in price while coal is stable and relatively cheap.
I do agree with Shifty in that CARB serves a purpose in directing public policy with radical stances on things. You can't change the status quo without taking radical stances. Firstly, it raises the issue in the minds of people. Gets them talking. Many will think they are loons, but they start to agree that we (as a people) can do SOMETHING about an issue. Then a more moderate compromise is reached.
Another thing I can't stand is when people stick their nose in the air and make a statement like "Well, I like clean air and water." implying that everyone who doesn't agree with them wants everyone to live with polluted air and water. It is a cheap tactic that does not fly with me. The air and water have always been "polluted' since the dawn of time. Unless you can wave a magic wand and eliminate volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wild fires, cow farts, etc... there will always be "dirt" in the air. With pollution there is always a level that is good enough. To me it seems that the logical "good enough" level is when the ambient levels of pollution are lower than the threshold for having a significant impact on human health. If you lower the levels any lower than that you are wasting money for no good reason. I don't think we need an EPA that ratchets environmental standards tighter and tighter for no good reason other than "I like clean air and water. So cleaner is always better."
Well, there's a really good reason to ban diesels. Don't say that out loud, gagrice! I am rooting for the 50-state diesels to arrive ASAP and be all that they promised.
But if I took my gas-fueled car and "ripped all the exhaust crap off", I would fail the smog check the very next time out. The problem with diesels is that so far they have not been regulated in the same manner.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well with more and more vehicles and powerplants burning more gas and generating more electricity if you don't keep ratcheting up the standards then what's clean enough today won't be tomorrow. I'm sure everyone has their own standards on what is clean enough when it comes to air quality. I know that I grew up near the LA basin in the 60's and early 70's and there were days where it hurt to take a deep breath. My personal standards are that isn't clean enough. Thankfully the air quality in LA is significantly better. That's not the case in places like Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Maybe they need to ratchet up their standards a little higher.
What does it matter?
1) First whether you have NG or coal or oil burned, it creates CO2.
2) The pollution control equipment on U.S. plants is far superior to those on Chinese electrical power plants, where a new coal plant is coming on-line each week. The air-pollution from China does reach the U.S. So who would you rather have burn the coal?
3) Oil, coal, and natural gas are all 1-pool of carbon-based energy here on Earth. Just for discussion sake lets say we have 200 years worth Total energy from these fuels at current usage rate. Whether you use the NG mostly first, and then the oil, and then the coal, makes no difference what order. IT ALL GETS BURNT AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD. The CO2 from those fuels eventually get into the atmosphere.
If the world runs out of oil and then NG, we will burn the coal. The only solution to the world burning up each and every fossil-fuel is a new energy source.
It does not matter so much how much of each is used for autos, or homes, or industry; all that matters is the Total amount we're drawing-down that pool of fossil fuels. Until we have a viable replacement for fossil fuels, the world is on an undeviable course that will use all the fossil fuels. The billions of people on this Earth will not a) give up their dream to have a nice lifestyle, or b) give up their nice lifestyle.
All we will do with Kyoto is to more evenly distribute the burning of the fuels. All conservation will do is change the run-out date of those fuels a number of years ( a small number relative to the history of mankind).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What does that mean? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The military has prop planes, as you put it, like C-130s and P-3s but the engines driving these props are turbines. The military's helicopters have rotors that are all driven by turbines. The fuels that can drive a turbine engine are more diverse than what can be used in an ICE or reciprocating engine.
Jet aircraft put out large amounts of NoX & GHG. What has CARB done to stop that pollution?
I agree that commercial aircraft are a large contributor in regards to GHG emissions. I'm not sure if they have much of an impact in terms of NOx except for when they are landing and taking off. Regardless, is your position that if you can't address all sources of pollution then you shouldn't be addressing any? That rational doesn't make any sense to me. So if you can't solve the entire problem there is no reason to even try or contribute?
I was born and raised in CA. I left about 20 years ago due to a military transfer but I still consider myself a Californian. For some strange reason I take a sense of pride in seeing that CA is assuming a leadership role in terms of environmental protection. Unless things have changed dramatically I don't believe that CA is being driven by a bunch of tinsel town, moonbeam whackos. Although when someone disagrees with CA's position that seems to be the convenient, knee jerk retort.
I mean, my town has a Surfing Museum for goodness sake. Aside from skiing, it's one of the few old fart sports left. (they are the church elders, of course :P )
If you want a short violent political death, campaign against the environment in California. It's one of the very few points of view that brings together all kinds of diverse political animals. Just whisper "off shore drilling" to those wealthy Republican ladies in Santa Barbara. Good luck in the afterlife!
Where is that surfing museum?
I started surfing in So. CA when I was 8 years old. That was 1967. Back then it was a regular occurence for my feet to be covered in some black tar-like oil sand that I was walking on due to offshore drilling. The California Coastal Commission put an end to that. The beaches are now very nice in So. CA. Yeah maybe drilling out there could provide a few hundred thousand barrels of oil per day to keep the behemoths rolling down our highway. I'm sure some people think that's the way it should be. My perspective is that is not the way it should be.
Charles Darwin was asked if he believed in God. His response was yes but he called it Nature.
It means planes with propellers, like this
which had piston driven engines and can conceivably use diesel.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Or radial engines like this:
Most used a type of gas very similar to what cars used.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The experimental test flights were conducted starting with a blend of jet fuel and biodiesel. The engine data was measured and the performance was evaluated and found acceptable for continued use, eventually resulting in the landmark flight using 100% renewable biodiesel fuel. According to Chief Pilot Carol Sugars who wrote and conducted the test program, “As we gradually increased the amount of biodiesel in the fuel blend, the data confirmed that the aircraft continued to perform well, giving me the confidence to transition to 100% biodiesel.” Flight tests were conducted up to an altitude of 17,000 feet showing no significant difference in performance compared to conventional jet fuel.
“This test program between Green Flight International and Biodiesel Solutions was a unique and exciting opportunity to show what can be done in renewable fuels.” said Rudi Wiedemann, president of Biodiesel Solutions. “The very idea of using 100% biodiesel to fly a jet aircraft makes a compelling statement about the possibilities for the future of renewable energy and a healthier planet.”
Out of concern for our global environment, Green Flight International was conceived by Douglas Rodante in April 2006 to serve as a platform for future development in the use of environmentally-friendly fuels in aviation and elsewhere. “It is imperative that the global community take immediate steps to reduce our carbon footprint, because we can no longer afford to wait while our environment continues to degrade.” said Rodante. “By implementing even a small amount of bio-degradable fuel in our transportation system we can significantly reduce the CO2 (greenhouse gasses) and NOx (the precursor to smog) that contribute to global warming.”
http://www.greenflightinternational.com/pr.htm
By 1996, NASA scientists using GOES-8 satellite measurements reported that "in certain heavy air traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20 percent." In its May 1996 study, "Atmospheric Effects of Aviation," NASA estimated that subsonic flights in the NAFC had increased atmospheric soot by 10 percent, sulfur oxides (SOx) by nearly 10 percent and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from 10 to 100 percent.
Fry the Friendly Skies
Transatlantic jets burn between 2.5 and 3 tons of fuel per hour. In 1988, commercial aircraft consumed an estimated 70 percent of all jet fuel (with military and business craft accounting for another 24 percent). The world's aircraft currently produce about 3 percent the carbon dioxide (CO2) gases attributed to human activity.
During takeoff, a jumbo jet can devour 2 million liters (528,344 gallons) of air per second. In the first five minutes of flight, a commercial airliner can burn as much oxygen as 49,000 acres of forest produce in a day. According to Department of Transportation figures, flying a Boeing 747-400 from Washington, DC to San Francisco burns 17,232 gallons of jet fuel. (Fuel efficiency: 6.7 mpg). A Boeing 747 averages 32 minutes taxiing, taking off and landing. During this time, it can generate 190 pounds of NOx — equal to the amount produced by driving a car 53,500 miles.
In addition to producing vapor trails that can stretch thousands of miles across the sky, jet exhaust also triggers the formation of artificial clouds by "seeding" the atmosphere with cloud-forming aerosols — droplets of sulfuric acid and particles of soot.
While NASA's tests of jet engines at ground level found that less than 1 percent of the sulfur produced left the engines in the form of cloud-forming sulfuric acid droplets, researchers were startled to discover that, at jet cruising altitudes, acid droplets accounted for at least 10 percent of the sulfur emissions.
The NOx ejected by jet engines contributes to global warming by helping to create ozone clouds that trap heat in the troposphere. In 1996, aircraft generated nearly half the NOx found in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 26,000 and 40,000 feet, according to estimates cited by Ulrich Schumann of the DLR Institute in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany.
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=219&journalID=47-
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course the little guys are unorganized and have little money. The big guys are organized and have plenty of money to toss around.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I guess my concern about all this is the limited real impact of CARB CO2 regs on cars, given the large air and sea transportation sources and the skyrocketing world output associated with coal use. CARB could cause all kinds of headaches for automakers for very limited benefit, given the already-approved new CAFE regs.
Also I found that there are still piston driven engines in production planes today (mostly small single engine planes).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Headaches for automakers translate into higher priced cars for consumers. With so little gain. With the new emissions ratings the difference between ULEV, SULEV & PZEV are so small it can hardly be measured. I am sure it was one of the compromises between the EPA and CARB. In the meantime thousands of monster jets take off from LAX every day dumping more NoX and GHG than all the cars in California. If CARB can stop VW & MB from selling little diesel cars that would improve our overall CO2 emissions, why don't they limit air travel? Sue the airlines and shipping companies along with the automakers. The reason is economic impact. Suing the automakers has little impact on CA. Michigan should counter sue CA for the Big 3. Add Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky all states that will suffer because of the ignorance of CARB and an old misguided politician, Jerry Brown.
Someone tried justifying Jerry's position with his living in an apartment while Governor. That cost the taxpayers more as we had to still maintain the mansion along with his apartment. He was not a good governor. He may still have hopes for the Presidency with his grandstanding to keep in the spotlight.
It is not an issue of us wanting to get rid of the military as San Francisco did. We like the Navy and Marines here.
What about the guy driving his RV? Or his PU? Or what about all those recreational boats and vehicles?
I have no problem with creating an environment where every driver is as concerned about his fuel bill as the airline industry.
A person driving a Hummer, or a large V-8 or V-12 already knows what sort of fuel bill they'll have and either are concerned and drive limited miles, or have enough income that they don't worry about the fuel bill. The cost of gas going up $1-2/gal probably is not going to scare someone who bought a $50K+ vehicle (payments about $950/month?).
Higher fuel prices and higher CAFE numbers will simply hurt the low income driver and get them into small vehicles, and the manufacturers will still make Hummers and V-12's in small numbers for those who have the money and wish to spend it on such vehicles.
I can even see it now to meet the new CAFE numbers - PU's, SUV's and sports cars will come with 3 and 4 cyl. engines to get high CAFE numbers. The new owner takes it for a spin around the block, pulls back into the dealer service area and gets an aftermarket V-8 put in it.
That's a lot of fuel. But remember that the -400 series seats 416 people, so it's efficient transportation if the plane flies at or near capacity.
If 400 people each drove Toyota Priuses from DC to SFO, they'd collectively burn 25,200 gallons of gasoline (2,800 miles @ 45 mpg). Instead, they all get there on 17,300 gallons of kerosene. So the plane is fuel-efficient.
Plus, they get there by plane in 5 hours, instead of by car in 4 days. So the plane is time-efficient.
Planes are only inefficient when, for instance, politicians like Nancy Pelosi use large military aircraft to fly a few family members and several lobbyists from D.C. to San Francisco. Then, the ratio of fuel per person gets ugly.
But the average commercial flight represents an efficient mode of transportation.
.
Whether air-travel is efficient or not relative to autos is not so much the issue. The issue is that a significant amount of fossil fuel is burned. Now if that fuel is burned to take a planeload of people to Orlando, it may be more efficient, but was it necessary to have the trip at all?
Similarly if someone tells me to conserve on my auto, yet has an "efficient" (above-average) recreational power-boat ... they can stuff it.
It is also contradictory for the government on one-hand to save conserve fuel, and then other branches of the government to encourage everyone to fly or drive to their state for tourist purposes.
Here's my thoughts on energy consumption: if you have the money and feel like spending on fuel or energy of any sort - do it. let your personal finances decide. Don't tell others what to do.
Let's face it, many human beings operate in their own self-interest, or even if they are generous, sometimes they operate out of ignorance of the consequences of what they are doing.
Now I do agree that it is the job of SCIENCE, not politicians, to show people when they are being ignorant, and be able to PROVE it.
Or, similarly, if you notice dead birds all over your front lawn and that your creek is on fire, maybe you don't need science but your own common sense.
How do you tell your neighbor his wood burning is polluting the air we breath? Wood burning fireplaces & stoves are very unhealthy for us.
Depends if your city, geography, climate, etc. supports/needs such a ban or not. I doubt this is a problem in rural Kansas.
I think there was some issue about having nuclear weapons parked in the middle of a city of 1/2 million, some silly thing like that. :P (just kidding, I really don't know except that the port facilities are totally obsolete).
That is just half-baked lazy thinking. Do you have a dishwasher? How about a clothes dryer? The electricity that powers the computer you are pounding on comes from somewhere doesn't it? Come on! Almost every activity that humans engage in generates waste (even eating
To tie this into cars, look at the Subaru ads that tout that they have zero landfill footprint manufacturing plants. A commendable accomplishment. Well, depending on how it is done. I could probably take an old GM plant and reduce it's landfil footprint fairly easily. I could just incenerate all the waste and dump the residual ash into ash ponds for settling and eventual discharge into a river. Better for the environment? Probably not, but it looks good on paper that you don't send anything to a landfill. I'm sure Subaru is not doing this, but I would be interested in how they do it. I'm sure it involves a lot of recycling. That is a good thing. The best and easiest way to deal with waste is not to generate it in the first place, but there is always some.
They're probably buying carbon credits.
Actually does anyone know what they are doing? :confuse:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Subaru Press Release
The PR doesn't mention carbon credits.
Here's the factory web site.
Sure we do. Pollution as you refer to it, is a consequence of life. Everyone pollutes. And we do have a few laws written such as emissions equipment, which are written on a selective few topics. But there's no restrictions if I want to turn on my oil-heat to 90F and open all the doors, or fly in circles in a plane everyday. I'm sorry to hear you believe that Socialism is something we should embrace here in the U.S. I certainly won't support it over freedom and individual rights.
I had a wood-burning stove in my last house, and it ran from the beginning of Oct. thru May. I thought I was doing good by using a renewable fuel.
If someone wanted to tell me to shut it down, they could call the local oil-dealer and pay for my year's heating oil. I wouldn't have minded then.
My point is your point. We all pollute to some extent. My eating beans and producing methane is part of the GHG that is making the planet warmer :sick:
Maybe when gas hits $1.79.9. :shades:
Everyone values freedom and individual rights. However we do live in a society and we must be aware of how practicing our individual rights might adversely effect others within the society. If everyone possessed a reasonable level of common sense and courtesy there would be no need for laws. Obviously that's not the case. You mention that you have the right to set your thermostat at 90 degrees. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that but let's take it to a greater extreme. What if I had the wealth of Bill Gates and decided that I wanted to buy up all the gasoline and food in a certain area for the purpose of simply disposing of it. Hey, I'm simply exercising my individual rights and freedom. This would never be allowed. An individual does not have the right to act in a blatantly anti-social manner. We all inflict ourselves on each other to varying degrees. That's unavoidable and acceptable up to a point. Reasonable people will decide what that point is.
http://lungaction.org/reports/sota05_cities.html
I'm 85 miles south of San Fran and we are in the top ten cleanest cities in America.
Maybe you were thinking Sacramento? They have a lot of pollution and it blows toward SF sometimes. This is why Sacramento has such strict emissions laws.
Thats a sign that you need to feed your cat more.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D