Fuel Economy Conspiracy - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 21st, 2012, 12:23 PM   #41
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FORD FLARESIDE View Post
I just have one "BIG" question, with a subquestion.

Who, sets the emissions regulatory rates, and capacities for pollutants, and who's data is proof positive for cause and effect of life on this planet?

........this is just so I can rationalize more of my civil liberties being regulated and removed to be more parallel with the socialist state encorporated by the regulatory authorities thereof.
There are two agencies: The EPA and CARB.

As for data, well, you got me. All I know is that the retards in California won't be happy until we're all driving electric cars.

Even though those idiots are too short-sighted to see the power plant emissions are much higher that the equivalent petrol car and that the country's electrical infrastructure doesn't have the capability of supporting 100% electric fleets.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 21st, 2012, 12:38 PM   #42
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,988
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Red View Post
Are you saying if we used less fuel overall we would not need to make as many shipments of oil from the Middle East to America on ships that burn fuel and pollute. Then once it is here we would not need as many trucks delivering the refined oil to the gas stations burning fuel and polluting? Are you trying to imply that a point could be reached within reason as to the amount of pollution released by the delivery of the gas would be less than the pollution released by the general public in commuting if we focused on MPG improvements rather than tighter emission standards?
well yes, those things, and overal oil used in general, and whatever pollutants are created during the refinery, drilling, and delivery processes of a gallon of gas.

since i am emissions dumb, let's just say that to create 1 gallon of useable automotive gasoline creates 40 parts pollutant. (drilling, transporting, refining, transporting, pumping into said car etc)

And let's say the burning of 1 gallon of gasoline in the average car creates 1 part pollutant.

Now if we could allow said car to get double the mpg, or maybe 1.5 the mpg(for sake of argument , much less restrictive emissions, less mass (as scoots pointed out), and it's easy math) which I think is reasonably possible.

So since the math is easy, let's now say that said cars on the road now create twice the pollutant per gallon of gas, but travel twice as far.....we've broken even there. (it used to take 2 gallons and 2 pollutant parts to travel 60 miles, but now we create 2 pollutant parts and only burn 1 gallon of fuel to go 60 miles) we still create 40 pollutant parts per useable gallon (drill transport, refine, deliver), except we've cut our demand in half.....Nearly cutting our emissions in half.

I don't doubt my math, (as it is all hypothetical) and my theory has plenty of holes in it, but I have to wonder if there is any sort of possiblity to this train of thought at all.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 12:49 PM   #43
Coyote Red
Senior Member
 
Coyote Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-24-11
Location: Chelsea, MI
Posts: 1,049
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
well yes, those things, and overal oil used in general, and whatever pollutants are created during the refinery, drilling, and delivery processes of a gallon of gas.

since i am emissions dumb, let's just say that to create 1 gallon of useable automotive gasoline creates 40 parts pollutant. (drilling, transporting, refining, transporting, pumping into said car etc)

And let's say the burning of 1 gallon of gasoline in the average car creates 1 part pollutant.

Now if we could allow said car to get double the mpg, or maybe 1.5 the mpg(for sake of argument , much less restrictive emissions, less mass (as scoots pointed out), and it's easy math) which I think is reasonably possible.

So since the math is easy, let's now say that said cars on the road now create twice the pollutant per gallon of gas, but travel twice as far.....we've broken even there. (it used to take 2 gallons and 2 pollutant parts to travel 60 miles, but now we create 2 pollutant parts and only burn 1 gallon of fuel to go 60 miles) we still create 40 pollutant parts per useable gallon (drill transport, refine, deliver), except we've cut our demand in half.....Nearly cutting our emissions in half.

I don't doubt my math, (as it is all hypothetical) and my theory has plenty of holes in it, but I have to wonder if there is any sort of possiblity to this train of thought at all.
I don't doubt that this is possible, but is it a reasonable possibility that intrigues me. With simple numbers it does seem as though it can work and work well but this is all hypothetical. I thought you had a very valid point and wanted to be sure I was seeing thins the same way you were.
Coyote Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 12:51 PM   #44
FORD FLARESIDE
Hockey, it is what it is!
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,320
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
There are two agencies: The EPA and CARB.

As for data, well, you got me. All I know is that the retards in California won't be happy until we're all driving electric cars.

Even though those idiots are too short-sighted to see the power plant emissions are much higher that the equivalent petrol car and that the country's electrical infrastructure doesn't have the capability of supporting 100% electric fleets.

I run into major regulations in the Civil field as well...............The regulations on arsenic for one, have been extremely modified during my career.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesr...enic/index.cfm
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 12:52 PM   #45
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,988
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Default

Simple numbers are the only way to illustrate the point, clearly it would get more complicated than this, but the point remains.

However there has to be a point somewhere, where getting better mileage, allowing more polutant, has a breaking point, but MAYBE that point is so far off it is not worth it?
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 01:02 PM   #46
Coyote Red
Senior Member
 
Coyote Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-24-11
Location: Chelsea, MI
Posts: 1,049
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
Simple numbers are the only way to illustrate the point, clearly it would get more complicated than this, but the point remains.

However there has to be a point somewhere, where getting better mileage, allowing more polutant, has a breaking point, but MAYBE that point is so far off it is not worth it?
That they do. I tried simple numbers on the VW vs. Taurus but then some guy named ScOoTeR came along and slapped me in the face with hard numbers, and the realization that the only time that point comes is when the VW gets 110 MPG.
Coyote Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 01:04 PM   #47
FORD FLARESIDE
Hockey, it is what it is!
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,320
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default



intellectual debating at its finest.



Now, can someone bring up a discussion on pretzels, RC's and Pizza?
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 01:07 PM   #48
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,988
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FORD FLARESIDE View Post


intellectual debating at its finest.



Now, can someone bring up a discussion on pretzels, RC's and Pizza?
well, would it have been better for me to profess to know what I was talking about and make up a bunch of bullshit?

I don't know the answer, but we have some pretty smart dudes that may know more about it, or know why my theory is total bunk
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 01:11 PM   #49
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,585
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
(and Obama is behind it)
I blame Bush.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 01:36 PM   #50
FORD FLARESIDE
Hockey, it is what it is!
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,320
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
well, would it have been better for me to profess to know what I was talking about and make up a bunch of bullshit?

I don't know the answer, but we have some pretty smart dudes that may know more about it, or know why my theory is total bunk

You've always been an intellectual in my book.

I see right through your ............"pretending to be stupid" routine.
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 02:04 PM   #51
Klumpper
Fuck Cancer!
 
Join Date: 08-26-09
Location: Howell
Posts: 460
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
.......Even though those idiots are too short-sighted to see the power plant emissions are much higher that the equivalent petrol car and that the country's electrical infrastructure doesn't have the capability of supporting 100% electric fleets.
Hit the nail on the head with that one.

We can go back to the massive power outage of 2003 in the north east/midwest where power was out for 2 days, which from my understanding, was a result of a few failed lines and the system was already near maximum capacity and poor management of resources. I'm sure the management stuff has improved, but aside from a few small windfarms and other minor stuff to improvement the supply of power, which wouldn't be enough, even if we had 25% adoption of electric vehicles, what has been done about power transmission?

I'm sure they could set stuff up where cars can only charge off peak hours, but that requires more in infrastructure, something that few (if any?) want to bear the cost burden for.
Klumpper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 02:34 PM   #52
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,050
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klumpper View Post
........

I'm sure they could set stuff up where cars can only charge off peak hours, but that requires more in infrastructure, something that few (if any?) want to bear the cost burden for.
Then no complaining about gas prices
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 02:42 PM   #53
Klumpper
Fuck Cancer!
 
Join Date: 08-26-09
Location: Howell
Posts: 460
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smasheromalley View Post
Then no complaining about gas prices
I don't (at the moment, so long as we stay below what my counterparts in Europe pay), I just keep telling myself I drive too much. My pickup carries a bottle of lube for the occasion and I try to drive the beaterbox as often as possible, 100 miles a day racks up regardless of what you drive!
Klumpper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 02:58 PM   #54
BlooMule
Jet powered
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 26,561
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Default

Gas costs what it costs, and the only way that electric cars could pay off is if you owned your own method of generating power, whether wind, solar, or hydro.

Then your grandkids might finally see the break even point.



What about returning to the external combustion engine?
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 04:43 PM   #55
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Red View Post
I lied when I said my thoughts and comments were over.

Now if I am reading what you posted correctly there will be a tipping point where the pollutant level of the VW will be equal or less than that of a Taurus. That point will only come when the fuel savings of a VW will be 5.5x greater than the Taurus.

From my SWAG numbers of MPG earlier and some calculations just now at no point will the VW pollute less since the difference in MPG is less than of 5.5X what the Taurus gets for MPG. I used 5.5 since that was what the highest difference between the two emission standards you posted. The only way for the VW to achieve that tipping point would be if the MPG was at least 110MPG. Correct in my thinking or no.

Well, sort of - and I'm not the guy to give you a 100% "yes or no" answer. Car's "emissions performance" is rated with a series of standardized tests that have been developed starting back in the early seventies. They have been updated and revised, but still don't reflect everyone's usage - so depending on the driver, these cars could perform quite differently than the emission standards they certify to.

Clear as mud? I also have no idea what secondary pollutants are created while refining these fuels - so I can't speak to that.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 09:20 PM   #56
dougstephvoor
Supreme Chancelor!
 
dougstephvoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-21-10
Location: Saranac/Michigan
Posts: 2,232
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default RC's

Quote:
Originally Posted by FORD FLARESIDE View Post


intellectual debating at its finest.



Now, can someone bring up a discussion on pretzels, RC's and Pizza?
Do you mean Crown Royal, and Royal Crown?
dougstephvoor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2012, 09:30 PM   #57
dougstephvoor
Supreme Chancelor!
 
dougstephvoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-21-10
Location: Saranac/Michigan
Posts: 2,232
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default emision controls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
do you understand anything about emissions?
I understand that my 99 cummins diesel truck would get 20.9 MPG driving respecably down the highway.

My 2004 ford would get 13.9 same driving

My 2010 ford gets 12.4 same driving

I realize I have shift manufacturers here, however the emission controls added to the vehicals have substantially increased the over all consumption of fuel. The weight of these trucks are relatively the same, they have the same gearing in the rears etc.

I agree with all of Scooters discussionary comments, however my point is, the more fuel you buy the more revenue gernerated for the gubment to create more regulations. I wonder if they add enough emision control where all vehiccals will get 1 mile to the gallon, while poluting very little, will every one feel satisfied as they are refining, trucking shipping, taxing, the shit out of the fuel into "Peak oil" production.
dougstephvoor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2012, 09:30 AM   #58
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougstephvoor View Post
I agree with all of Scooters discussionary comments, however my point is, the more fuel you buy the more revenue gernerated for the gubment to create more regulations. I wonder if they add enough emision control where all vehiccals will get 1 mile to the gallon, while poluting very little, will every one feel satisfied as they are refining, trucking shipping, taxing, the shit out of the fuel into "Peak oil" production.

Dude - not gonna happen. The emission regs are getting tighter and CAFE (corporate avg fuel economy) requirements are getting increasingly stupid.

The formatting on this will suck, but here goes:

Table 1. Estimated Average Required Fleet-Wide Fuel Economy (mpg) under Proposed
Footprint-Based CAFE Standards
.
.....................2016
_____________base___2017___2018___2019___2020___20 21___2022___2023___2024___2025
Passenger Cars 37.8___ 40.0__ 41.4___ 43.0___ 44.7___ 46.6 __48.8 ___51.0 ___53.5 ___56.0
Light Trucks __28.8 ___29.4___ 30.0___ 30.6___ 31.2___ 33.3__ 34.9___ 36.6___ 38.5 ___40.3
Combined Cars
& Trucks _____34.1___ 35.3___ 36.4 ___37.5___ 38.8___ 40.9__ 42.9___ 45.0 ___47.3___ 49.6



So, you can see from the info above (hopefully) that the government is also making manufacturers strive for higher fuel economy while also continuing to reduce emissions.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2012, 10:37 PM   #59
cerial
Senior Member
 
cerial's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-06-08
Location: Caledonia,MI
Posts: 1,776
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Dude - not gonna happen. The emission regs are getting tighter and CAFE (corporate avg fuel economy) requirements are getting increasingly stupid.

The formatting on this will suck, but here goes:

Table 1. Estimated Average Required Fleet-Wide Fuel Economy (mpg) under Proposed
Footprint-Based CAFE Standards
.
.....................2016
_____________base___2017___2018___2019___2020___20 21___2022___2023___2024___2025
Passenger Cars 37.8___ 40.0__ 41.4___ 43.0___ 44.7___ 46.6 __48.8 ___51.0 ___53.5 ___56.0
Light Trucks __28.8 ___29.4___ 30.0___ 30.6___ 31.2___ 33.3__ 34.9___ 36.6___ 38.5 ___40.3
Combined Cars
& Trucks _____34.1___ 35.3___ 36.4 ___37.5___ 38.8___ 40.9__ 42.9___ 45.0 ___47.3___ 49.6



So, you can see from the info above (hopefully) that the government is also making manufacturers strive for higher fuel economy while also continuing to reduce emissions.
Man I'm glad I live in a state that only has noise restrictions.

Looking at diesel, DEF, the idling restrictions, and the apu's used (which do not have emissions equipment) and the changes over the last 5 years. I shutter to think how the government expects to move goods around the country while retaining a emissions cap like that.

We don't need better mpg we need to stop bending over and go with a different fuel. Natural Gas comes to mind as a low cost/gallon way to reduce emissions that could be put in place (slowly) without nearly as much screwing around with trying to make electric work.
cerial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2012, 11:41 PM   #60
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,585
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cerial View Post
Man I'm glad I live in a state that only has noise restrictions.
Those are federal regulations.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.38474 seconds with 81 queries