EPA and DOT to focus on CO2/Mi instead of MPG

[charrison]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.

His point is this would be far easier and cheaper target than the automotive fleet.

Emissions related to automobiles, especially congestion, is not something to overlook. I was trying to google some figures but I couldn't find anything. Cars idling get 0 mpg, that's a complete waste of energy. Doesn't matter if it's a PZEV vehicle.

Your right an idling care is a complete waste of energy, but it would far easier to put cleaner fuel and emissions control in a container ship than to retrofit hundreds of millions of cars to be hybrid or to have automatic stop/start engine(this will be in new cars soon).

Someone said something about international standards for cargo ship emissions, that's something that has to be discussed and worked on. I can't imagine the equipment dropping efficiency by that much or costing that much, for that matter.

Emission controls will effect fuel economy of the container ships, but they would still remain the most efficient means of transport. Also think of this, when something is being shipped and it is not time sensitive, they will skip going though panama or the suez as fuel can be cheaper than canal fees.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.

His point is this would be far easier and cheaper target than the automotive fleet.

Emissions related to automobiles, especially congestion, is not something to overlook. I was trying to google some figures but I couldn't find anything. Cars idling get 0 mpg, that's a complete waste of energy. Doesn't matter if it's a PZEV vehicle.

Your right an idling care is a complete waste of energy, but it would far easier to put cleaner fuel and emissions control in a container ship than to retrofit hundreds of millions of cars to be hybrid or to have automatic stop/start engine(this will be in new cars soon).

Road Vehicles don't get Retrofits. They get replaced with regularity and in far shorter time periods than Cargo Ships. It is far easier to implement changes in something like that than in something that has a lifespan of Decades.

"Cheaper" is also a moot point in this comparison. People Buy New Vehicles all the time and don't really care about the finer details of what parts they contain. They're gonna spend $X on a Vehicle, they don't care if it contains New System/Part X, they're gonna buy anyway.

Yes, Container Ships, Passenger/Cargo Aircraft, and other sources of Emissions all need to be improved. Pointing fingers at something else is a worthless distraction and not a magic bullet.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Road Vehicles don't get Retrofits. They get replaced with regularity and in far shorter time periods than Cargo Ships. It is far easier to implement changes in something like that than in something that has a lifespan of Decades.

But the point is adding emissions controls to several hundred container ships would have far greater impact than several hundres million getting stop/start systems.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Road Vehicles don't get Retrofits. They get replaced with regularity and in far shorter time periods than Cargo Ships. It is far easier to implement changes in something like that than in something that has a lifespan of Decades.

But the point is adding emissions controls to several hundred container ships would have far greater impact than several hundres million getting stop/start systems.

Both need done.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Road Vehicles don't get Retrofits. They get replaced with regularity and in far shorter time periods than Cargo Ships. It is far easier to implement changes in something like that than in something that has a lifespan of Decades.

But the point is adding emissions controls to several hundred container ships would have far greater impact than several hundres million getting stop/start systems.

Both need done.

Of course both need to be done, but one is significantly easier to accomplish.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Vic
All else being equal, CO2/Mi and MPG would be more or less identical.

And a "humongoid cargo ship" is the most efficient form of transportation ever invented.

Almost completely agreed.


However, (and I'm too tired tonight to read that long article), if they're doing CO2 per mile, then the only fair way to make a comparison between electric and internal combustion vehicles is to include the CO2 emissions at the power plant when calculating the CO2 emissions for the electric car.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Vic
All else being equal, CO2/Mi and MPG would be more or less identical.

And a "humongoid cargo ship" is the most efficient form of transportation ever invented.

Almost completely agreed.


However, (and I'm too tired tonight to read that long article), if they're doing CO2 per mile, then the only fair way to make a comparison between electric and internal combustion vehicles is to include the CO2 emissions at the power plant when calculating the CO2 emissions for the electric car.

And which powerplant, its efficiency, power source (I guess if you live in a TVA area with hydroelectric you really would be carbon neutral), etc...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Vic
All else being equal, CO2/Mi and MPG would be more or less identical.

And a "humongoid cargo ship" is the most efficient form of transportation ever invented.

Almost completely agreed.


However, (and I'm too tired tonight to read that long article), if they're doing CO2 per mile, then the only fair way to make a comparison between electric and internal combustion vehicles is to include the CO2 emissions at the power plant when calculating the CO2 emissions for the electric car.

Given the wide variety of Electrical Sources and the Regional concentrations of various sources, I think such a figure wouldn't really offer much to the end Consumer.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: marincounty
There's no such thing as a clean diesel, it's like clean coal, it's an illusion. We have particulate standards for a reason, the reason being that particulates cause lung disease and cancer. Why would we want to emulate the rest of the polluted world?

Europeans use more diesel in their passenger cars than we do and they have strict emission standards too. You obviously don't know enough about science, especially thermodynamics to comment on the benefits of diesel.

You obviously know nothing of the health effects of particulates, or you wouldn't be in favor of diesel's wider use. I'm sure the scientists at the air pollution agencies know more than you about the subject, that's why we have regulations about particulates and don't have more diesels.
And I've probably forgotten more thermodynamics than you ever knew.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: marincounty
You obviously know nothing of the health effects of particulates, or you wouldn't be in favor of diesel's wider use. I'm sure the scientists at the air pollution agencies know more than you about the subject, that's why we have regulations about particulates and don't have more diesels.
And I've probably forgotten more thermodynamics than you ever knew.

Particulate emissions can be controlled, dipshit.

Clean coal not being clean, I can buy that. Clean diesel has been used in Europe for many years, and it'll only get cleaner as newer technologies to control emissions are implemented. I have no doubt that EU countries like Germany have strict emission controls. Your garbage against diesel just shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Vic
All else being equal, CO2/Mi and MPG would be more or less identical.

And a "bicycle" is the most efficient form of transportation ever invented.

fixed

 

[ayabe]

My point is that autos in general seem to always be the focus and make the headlines.

If some sources are to be believe, the 15 largest cargo ships emit more toxins than every car in the world.

Small reductions here will pay off more than making us all drive lame ass cars that will be more expensive.

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that bigger is always better. Efficiency in a pure economic sense can't be an absolute that trumps all other concerns.

 

[rudder]

But don't forget... electric cars don't run on air. So we better dig for some more coal to keep up with extra demand on the electrical grids.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: rudder
But don't forget... electric cars don't run on air. So we better dig for some more coal to keep up with extra demand on the electrical grids.

That's where we need to devote the research for hydrogen power. Build it on a large scale first and then perfect it for small scale use later.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.

His point is this would be far easier and cheaper target than the automotive fleet.

Emissions related to automobiles, especially congestion, is not something to overlook. I was trying to google some figures but I couldn't find anything. Cars idling get 0 mpg, that's a complete waste of energy. Doesn't matter if it's a PZEV vehicle.

Your right an idling care is a complete waste of energy, but it would far easier to put cleaner fuel and emissions control in a container ship than to retrofit hundreds of millions of cars to be hybrid or to have automatic stop/start engine(this will be in new cars soon).

Someone said something about international standards for cargo ship emissions, that's something that has to be discussed and worked on. I can't imagine the equipment dropping efficiency by that much or costing that much, for that matter.

Emission controls will effect fuel economy of the container ships, but they would still remain the most efficient means of transport. Also think of this, when something is being shipped and it is not time sensitive, they will skip going though panama or the suez as fuel can be cheaper than canal fees.

I find that comment of yours amusing. Rarely would it make sense for ships to go around either Capes instead of the canals. Among other things, the traditional bad weather encountered in those higher southern latitudes slows ships down and increases fuel consumption. And canal dues are designed to keep it cheaper crossing the canals rather than the longer transit. Only big ships which cannot use the canal go around the Capes.

 

[piasabird]

It makes more sense to convert over-the-road trucks to use propane or make them hybrids, becuase it takes hundreds of cars to use the amount of fuel of one truck over the year; Maybe thousands.