The Environment

[funhusker]

I would have to think this is a moot conversation as long as California sticks with their guns.  Like Moiraine said, this will only last 6.5 more years at worst.  Ford and GM aren't going to roll out two versions of a car for that time.  It would be cheaper to make the "more expensive' one and sell it to everybody.

 

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, methodical said:

 

Yeah, giant inefficient gas guzzlers are not the direction the industry is taking, I doubt this is something they've even lobbied for.  The future is definitely going to be electric, the performance is better, the fuel is way cheaper, and the maintenance is an order of magnitude less over hundreds of thousands of miles.  The only drawback at this point really seems to be the time you'd have to recharge on long trips.

Not entirely true. While, yes, the industry is more focused on weight savings and efficiency more than it has ever been the trend is to build trucks and SUVs for the US. Sedans and small cars are not in demand. When you can have an SUV or truck with similar mileage to within a couple mpg, the functionality greatly outweighs the extra fuel cost when gas is below $4.00 a gallon. And most OEMs have a plan to electrify the powertrain on those large vehicles too.

Edited March 30, 2018 by ZRod

[BigRedBuster]

Quote

 

The Obama administration, working with California, aimed to nearly double the fleet wide average fuel economy for passenger cars and SUVs to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025.

Automobile emissions and transportation are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

Pruitt's EPA is abandoning those goals and says it will work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set more appropriate standards at a later date.

The move puts the Trump administration on the path toward another legal showdown with California, which has said that it will keep the stricter air standards in place. The state has a federal waiver under the Clean Air Act that allows it to set its own standards for vehicle emissions. Twelve other states follow California's lead, and together they account for a third of all car sales in the U.S.

 

 

[Moiraine]

I don't get it. More miles per gallon helps the consumer, as long as they're not paying an arm and a leg for it with the car purchase. Forcing the companies to outdo each other on the miles per gallon also helps the consumer.

Removing these requirements only helps the car companies who aren't good at that.

So, as usual, Trump isn't for the little guy. If Obama was for it, he's against it. If Obama was against it, he's for it. He's a simple, small-brained man.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Moiraine

[Danny Bateman]

Also, again, Republicans are letting their rhetoric get ahead of their policy. 

Deregulation for deregulation's sake isn't good governance, despite whatever Republican doctrinaires will claim.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Clifford Franklin

[ZRod]

19 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I don't get it. More miles per gallon helps the consumer, as long as they're not paying an arm and a leg for it with the car purchase. Forcing the companies to outdo each other on the miles per gallon also helps the consumer.

Removing these requirements only helps the car companies who aren't good at that.

So, as usual, Trump isn't for the little guy. If Obama was for it, he's against it. If Obama was against it, he's for it. He's a simple, small-brained man.

The consumer does pay for it. Using new materials and technologies is typically more expensive and can result in higher scrap rates, which increases manufacturing costs and will be directly passed onto the consumer. Do you ever see cars getting cheaper? You the consumer want amazing technology in your car, and the government demands top safety. All that wiring, all those airbags; they add mass, and mass is inversely proportional to fuel economy.

 

The consumer doesn't want a 30mpg car. That's why Trucks,  SUVs, and Vans massively out sell cars.

 

That being said I think fuel efficiency standards are necessary and provide a more level playing field for all companies, but they probably need to revised as they seem extremely ambitious.

Edited April 3, 2018 by ZRod

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

The consumer does pay for it. Using new materials and technologies is typically more expensive and can result in higher scrap rates, which increases manufacturing costs and will be directly passed onto the consumer. Do you ever see cars getting cheaper? You the consumer want amazing technology in your car, and the government demands top safety. All that wiring, all those airbags; they add mass, and mass is inversely proportional to fuel economy.

 

The consumer doesn't want a 30mpg car. That's why Trucks,  SUVs, and Vans massively out sell cars.

 

That being said I think fuel efficiency standards are necessary and provide a more level playing field for all companies, but they probably need to revised as they seem extremely ambitious.

 

 

Gotcha, thanks. So basically the "as long as they're not paying an arm and a leg for it with the car purchase" part was pretty important. I don't know a whole lot about cars. I'd buy the higher mpg one to pollute less. Although if it was electric I'd look into that cost and how much the power source is polluting.

[ZRod]

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Gotcha, thanks. So basically the "as long as they're not paying an arm and a leg for it with the car purchase" part was pretty important. I don't know a whole lot about cars. I'd buy the higher mpg one to pollute less. Although if it was electric I'd look into that cost and how much the power source is polluting.

Depends what you considered an arm and a leg. Cars are pretty freaking expensive. Gone are the days when your average car buyers can walk in and pay for the car straight up in cash.

 

And no, car companies aren't going to just drastically increase vehicle prices to maintain their margins. That's a sure way to lose customers, investors, and then never make a profit be again. They will make gradual price increases, cut corners, and use cheaper materials, sometimes they will even eat part of the cost. Why do you think there is so much plastic inside cars despite that being a major customer complaint forever (it's cheap as hell)? Why is quality not great (not enough money in the budget to improve it substantially)? Why do they build some hybrids that don't even turn a profit for them (just to meet regulations and make a profit selling trucks and SUVs)? Sacrifices have to be made to meet regulations, and it may not always be apparent to the consumer where those show up.

 

You being environmentally conscious, is great, but is probably a rarity in car buyers.

Edited April 4, 2018 by ZRod

[BigRedBuster]

 

[TGHusker]

Interesting Vox article on progress made and not made on this issue.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/30/17300946/global-warming-degrees-replace-fossil-fuels

 

 

Quote

 

In the journal Nature, journalist Jeff Tollefson recently offered that magisterial overview of the climate challenge and the progress that’s been made so far. He finds, as such sweeping looks tend to, that both optimists and pessimists have a case. There is a revolution in clean energy ... but it’s not happening fast enough.

I’ve boiled it down to three key graphics, adapted from Tollefson’s piece (which you should read, seriously).

We’re currently heading for around 3 degrees of warming

 

We’re currently heading for around 3 degrees of warming

Javier Zarracina/Vox

Quote

Global average temperatures have risen about 1.1 degrees Celsius since preindustrial times. At current rates, they could exceed 1.5 degrees by 2030. And global greenhouse gas emissions, after a brief lull from 2014 to 2016, are rising again.

How close are we to replacing fossil fuels?

Quote

Not very close! As of 2015, renewable energy provided 19.3 percent of final global energy consumption. Excluding traditional biomass (burning wood for heat and cooking), it was 10.2 percent. Without hydro, that was 6.6 percent. Wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass electricity together accounted for 1.6 percent.

The most consequential climate decisions will happen in developing nations

Javier Zarracina/Vox

 

Quote

 

The big carbon story of the 21st century thus far has been China’s miraculous spurt of economic growth, fueled almost entirely by coal, and its equally miraculous plateauing of emissions in the last few years, driven by a wide range of efforts to curb coal use.

In the US and the EU, emissions have largely decoupled from economic growth, trending mildly down, mostly due to decarbonization in electricity.

But emissions are on the upswing in India, and more importantly, in “all other” countries. It is rapidly developing countries like Turkey, Indonesia, and Vietnam where key decisions about 21st-century infrastructure are being made. A growing share of global coal demand comes from those countries, though the coal boom climate hawks feared seems to be slowing somewhat.

In a nutshell, hitting Paris targets will mean both that developed nations start rapidly reducing toward net-zero emissions by mid-century and that developing nations find a different path to prosperity than the one traveled by the countries around them holding all the wealth and still, on a per-capita basis, emitting the most carbon.

 

 

[TGHusker]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/5/2/17290880/wind-power-renewable-energy-maps

 

Interesting article about the growth of wind turbine power over the last 8 years.  And also the lack of turbines in SE USA - due to --- you guest it - less wind on average.

But this lack of wind is being met with a new GE turbine in which the 'windmill' will be 853 feet tall!! The average size now is 466 ft tall.  Can you imagine one of those

in your view of the setting sun.

Our Great Plains are good for more than row crops - wind as all of us know who live from ND down to Texas

Quote

This map of average wind speeds at a height of 80 meters, or 262 feet — the height that matters for most commercial wind turbines — illustrates one big reason for America’s wind disparity:

 

 

 

Quote

The wind turbines themselves are also getting huge. Huuuuuuuge:

[RedDenver]

Based on the second image, that 853 ft wind turbine is for offshore, so you shouldn't be seeing it on the plains.

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Based on the second image, that 853 ft wind turbine is for offshore, so you shouldn't be seeing it on the plains.

You are right however I have a private island and it may get in the way of my view of the sunset. 

 

Traveling west of Salida, Ks there is a large wind farm along I-70.  I got a neat picture once of the old style farm windmill with the modern turbine in the background.  The times have changed.  The farm I grew up on in SD is the same farm my mom was raised on. They had a windmill that not only pumped water but generated electricity back in the day.  We've come full circle.

[schriznoeder]

Science is hard... 

 

 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

Science is hard... 

 

 

So... how much money did he get from the oil and gas industry?