New CAFE Standards: 42 MPG Cars, 26 MPG Trucks by 2016

[FNKNSTN]

Originally Posted by bigralph

I'm sick and tired of the global warring what eve it is called. Cattle emit more co2 then a car. http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rs-427843.html

How much CO2 and Methane are all these illegals in California emitting????

How much more CO2 does a marathon runner emit in comparison to the average person?

[One Mean Chevy]

Originally Posted by LadiesMan217

What do I drive? A car?

Car: NO
An SUV that can Transformer to do Truck duties:YES

[diddiyo]

*edit*
aaaah i have to stop arguing on teh interwebs. it's just not worth it. see avatar.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

What don't I understand about the laws of physics to make a 100 mile battery operated car? I think you need to read a little more: http://www.teslamotors.com/. And they are getting better very quickly due to all the research being put into large batteries right now.

As far as stimulating the economy with an unfunded mandate , so there's a hint of sarcasm there. An unfunded mandate means the feds says the state has to make this happen, then they (the US) DOESN'T spend any money. Then the states work out charging stations with contractors using tax breaks and fee schemes. Then more powerplants get approved because they have to be. <----"small boon" to the economy.

There's a huge problem with whizz-bang new CAFE regs.

I just heard that California is now psyched up to get down to work on what the NEXT round of regulations kicking in after 2016 will be!

I don't live there, and I can vote on these people or the people that appointed these people on the California Air Resource Board. How can THEY pick and choose what happens in MY state?

On the other hand, why does California want electric cars for? They HATE all forms of inexpensive electricity production. They sit on VAST amounts of oil and natural gas but can't drill it. They hate nuclear, hydro, and coal. That leaves them with Wind and Solar which they can't produce much of and nobody wants those "eyesores" blocking their view... SO THEY IMPORT THEIR ENERGY FROM NEIGHBORING STATES!!!!

I say let them mandate electric cars and then have the surrounding states CUT THEM OFF!

No Electricity for you!

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by FNKNSTN

How much CO2 and Methane are all these illegals in California emitting????

How much more CO2 does a marathon runner emit in comparison to the average person?

I wonder how much carbon was emitted during the manufacture and distribution of all those "Inconvenient Truth" DVDs. While we're at it, how much carbon is emitted ever time someone powers up their TV and DVD player to watch it?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Zeus

You know what his wife drives?

Her and their son together own a racing team of some sort. I think they do drift competitions too.

[One Mean Chevy]

Originally Posted by Zeus

You know what his wife drives?

No, What?

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by One Mean Chevy

No, What?

race cars

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by diddiyo

*edit*
aaaah i have to stop arguing on teh interwebs. it's just not worth it. see avatar.

Yes it is...

[Scotsman]

Sounds promisiing....that's for sure...

Sometime in the next decade, you might be able to enjoy some of the benefits of a diesel without driving one.

A technology called HCCI improves fuel economy 15 percent and releases fewer emissions by using a combustion process similar to what is used in diesel powerplants.

General Motors continues work on the project, which could be applied across a range of engine sizes and used with other advanced fuel-saving technologies to help the company comply with the proposed new mileage and emissions targets announced Tuesday by President Barack Obama.

The timetable is fairly vague, meaning look for it after the Chevrolet Volt, but before fuel cells. Daimler and Volkswagen also are among the automakers that have been developing the technology.

HCCI stands for “homogenous charge compression ignition.” It works by igniting the mixture of air and fuel inside the engine’s cylinders without using a spark-generated flame. That’s similar to how a diesel works, but HCCI runs on regular gasoline or E85. The combustion process uses less fuel and more air to generate the same power as a regular engine.

GM cleared a major hurdle by getting the technology to work at idle, and its top speed has been boosted from 55 mph to 60 mph. Still, HCCI faces challenges in coming to the market, as controlling the process can be tricky in extreme temperatures and high altitudes. And it requires a traditional spark ignition when the engine is cold.

GM also has to figure out a way to apply it and make consumers aware of its benefits. HCCI could be paired with turbo, hybrid or diesel technologies in an effort to increase fuel savings, said Uwe Grebe, executive director of GM Powertrain advanced engineering. The company also would need to retool existing facilities to accommodate production.

Then there’s the name issue. “HCCI” sort off rolls of the tongue, but Grebe admitted it sounds borderline militaristic, and the combustion process isn’t exactly Madison Avenue material.

“I think consumer products need to be easy to understand,” Grebe said. “I want this to be boiled down for what is relevant for the customer. Fuel consumption--you can feel it in the wallet.”

Driving an HCCI vehicle is similar to a car powered by a conventional engine. We took a brief test run in a Saturn Aura mule outfitted with the technology, working with a 2.2-liter Ecotec engine, and it responded agreeably. All told, about two-thirds of our time behind the wheel was spent running in compression ignition.

GM appears to be at the forefront of the technology, but it is far from alone in considering its potential. Daimler developed an engine called “DiesOtto,” and it was shown in the Mercedes F700 concept in 2007. VW has also prototypes of a similar engine.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/905209982

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Sounds promisiing....that's for sure...



http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/905209982

60 mph???


Thats not NEARLY fast enough to get me on 'Cops'

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by FNKNSTN

What land of make believe to you live in? This was a decision made by the government, not the general public. Do you really think that the public would protest outside the capital with signs saying that they want to smog their cars, and if they didn't pass, they wouldn't be allowed to drive them?

What are you talking about? Did the citizens not elect their local government? I actually spend a lot of time in California and I'm the first to admit that the coast and inland are almost two separate states, and I appreciate you defending your state- but what you are saying doesn't make sense.

And how is the helmet law not a smart law? Name one down-side to wearing a helmet. Tell me how it might negatively affect your health while you're going 75mph on the highway.

Personal freedoms issue

And if it's not about emissions... then why do you morons keep bringing it up? Lack California is some whack-job state or something. Get over yourselves and join the party.

Morons? nice ad hominem. Two separate laws with many coincident results. Since the results coincide, you can't discuss one without discussing the other.

You know what would work best for California? It would work best if there was no age of consent law. I say that if you put a bag over a 13 year old girl's head, covering that baby face of hers... and if she's so physically developed that you cannot tell that she's only 13 years old, then she should be LEGAL. But only because that's what's best for the state. Let the marijuana offenders and statutory rapists out of jail, save on some tax money.

Intellectually dishonest argument and you know it. Your state does let the marijuana offenders out. Some states do and some don't. It should be a state decision, not a federal one. Statutory rapist laws do vary by state. I don't think you understand the whole point many people are trying to make.

And you're right. Those old clunkers are disappearing for good! And pretty much any new car you buy will get twice the mileage of your old clunker.

Yes, in the boonies, the concentration of vehicles is less. Maybe if everyone in California spread out (it's a big phuckin' state) then we could all pollute more than we do now... right?

Again, an intellectually dishonest argument. And here we go back to the "California Lifestyle". After WWII, suburbs went nuts. There were 2 basic layouts for subdivision- The Levittown and the California Lifestyle suburb. Levittown was the Northeastern philosophy of smaller homes in compact lots near grocery type shops. The California Lifestyle suburbs featured home separated by long distances from both shopping and work. This caused cities designed this way to pollute more because they needed cars to get everywhere and dispersing the population so that rail and other mass transit wasn't very effective. This was advertised in the 50's and 60's as California Lifestyle or 'Lifestyle' housing and it dominates from the Mississipi to the Pacific Ocean. The pinnacle of this prior to the housing bubble burst was the McMansion subdivision. Western states have been trying to figure out how to fight this for years now.

Also, because of California's oppressive tax structure, and it's overpriced housing market for middle class Californians, many sold their modest property by California standards and moved to other western states. Arizona, Colorado, and Idaho had large numbers of Californians move in and start new McMansion type subdivisions because $500,000 goes a lot further in these other housing markets.

So you see, Californians DID spread out and pollute more. I've been on a P&Z advisory committee for a few years, you don't realize what kind of havoc this has caused in other places. It's slowed down quite a bit since 2005, but it was out of control for a while.

"Suffer from the Sunshine State Tax"? Who's suffering? I'm not. My 33 year old 10mpg getting Silverado passes smog with flying colors. Last I looked, it was only people from the other 49 states on here complaining about these CAFE standards and California's supposed influence on the whole thing.

California had set their own version of CAFE and their own pollution controls (CARB) separate of the rest of the country. However because the California market is so large, every producer either had to create 2 vehicles (adding cost) or adopting California's standard for everywhere else. CARB has been particularly hard on construction equipment, particularly small to medium contractors are having to retrofit their equipment that they bought when it was smog-legal and now isn't and they can't afford to. So then the equipment goes to auction where they are seeing huge losses on equipment value putting them out of business. California's rules have made new high economy diesels particularly tough to get into this country too, hurting everyone's ability to shop for high mileage vehicles.

I never knew of any MPG standard in California? All I know is that when gas prices went up in California (where demand is highest, and cost is highest - but I can afford it even in my 10mpg truck), people started selling their Silverados and F-150's and started buying Japanese Hybrids. So does it now make sense that Obama wants to push American car companies to increase their mileage standards? To compete with the Japanese maybe? I know a ton of you guys HATE Toyota... so what's wrong with Obama wanting to make an American company more competative so it can survive on its own in the future?

America actually already was pushing for higher mileage vehicles and the CAFE standard was in place prior-however it was set for 2020 and it gave more credits for development instead of punishments. Your opinion on whether or not its a good thing for the Government to push this faster is based upon your opinion on what the Government's role is. Whether GM can compete with Toyota should be up to GM in many people's view.

And what's this bullsh*t about California being limited on the styles of cars they can buy? This whole CAFE thing only says that American car companies have to offer cars which - in their class - average a certain MPG. If 35 was the magic number, that would mean a company could make two mid-size sedans. One that gets 50mpg, and one that gets 20mpg (like the 2010 SS maybe? - depending on your driving style and conditions).

California IS limited and has limited the US in their choice of automobiles. The clearest example is European Diesels. You have to have an engine certified as clean diesel in order to sell it in California. If you have a 3.0 and a 3.6 of what is basically the same engine-you have to certify each separately. It's very expensive and time consuming to do this. Therefore, manufacturers with good clean diesels are either skipping the process altogether or only certifying 1 or 2-limiting availability.

I like how all these dipsh*ts on here talk about California like they're residents.

And you talk about California as if you know something about your state and the rest of the country. Beyond the weather and the directions to Safeway, what do you know about your state? Spent any time in Sacremento? (hint: that's your state's capital).



Costly? How?

I like how everyone everwhere else thinks that we're suffering. And how they feel like they're suffering hahahahahahahahaahh Ahhhhhhhhhh sucks for you! I'm staying in Cali.

Enjoy!

I don't mean to get personal on you, but calling other people d*pshits when you have no clue ...well it's frustrating. Plus who appointed you to be the defender of all things California- do you honestly think your state is perfect? I know my state has issues and I don't think I need to spend my time defending the state. You also need to realize your State's leadership has taken a driving role over many things that people in 'flyover states' have deep issues with. That doesn't mean we have an issue with YOU. Well, maybe now we do- but I just think you felt you got your hackles up because you love your home.

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by diddiyo

*edit*
aaaah i have to stop arguing on teh interwebs. it's just not worth it. see avatar.

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Yes it is...

LOL, you're right. I should have read these before my diatribe. I am hereby banning myself from this thread.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by FNKNSTN

But you're mis-informed about trees 'litterally cleaning the air'. They merely convert CO2 to O2. [...]

This isn't about air quality anyway. This is about the mythical 'Global Warming' and and dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Yes, converting CO2 to O2 is exactly what I meant by "cleaning the air"...and it's exactly what global warming alarmists are worried about.

Do you think that the fed's would step in if the all-powerful and influencial California wanted to lower the age of consent to 12? Because a 12 year old girl with D-cups and a baby face should be legal, right?

Where did she get D-cups? Someone call Chris Hansen...

I believe the federal government does sometimes step in on California's marijuana legalization (medical or recreational, I can't remember)...and they're not even pushing that one on other states.

Since when is hydrogen not an energy source? Buy a small tank of hydrogen, open the valve and take a match to it....

That's a fuel, not an energy source. The energy you're getting there is the energy that was used to produce the hydrogen through electrolysis, or the energy that was stored in methane before it was steam-reformed into hydrogen.

No danger? I'm sure you remember hearing about the Hindenberg when is went up in flames.

If I implied that hydrogen has no danger, I apologize. I was merely not too concerned about addressing that danger, because there were more fundamental issues regarding practicality of hydrogen that would need to be addressed before it became an issue.

Can't be mined? Yes it can. From extraterrestrial sources where it occurs naturally as a liquid, or in hydrogen rich compounds that could later be refined on Earth.

Good luck mining it from other planets. I don't have a starship and can't contribute to the effort. Well, my parents do have a Jefferson Starship album somewhere, but I don't think it will help.

Originally Posted by FNKNSTN

Isn't that the whole point????

The trick is to capture the Hydrogen in one tank and the CO2 in another.

CO2 is compressed, liquified, and sold just like Hydrogen, Helium, and Oxygen.

I'm at work right now... in a chemical plant... and we are using CO2 that was delivered via tanker truck yesterday.

The "whole point" is to fuel cars. If you're going to use methane to fuel cars, why bother with all the effort and wasted energy of extracting H out of it when you could just feed it directly into the engine? As a bonus, it will require less technology development in the engine, since existing engines are almost right to run it the way they are, and it's probably less dangerous to carry around than H.