Do you want to make combustion engines in cars illegal!?

[TenEightyOne]

I say no but I have a feeling they will but will do it gradually which is kinda disappointing.

Why is it disappointing?

 

[WhiterunGuard]

NOTICE: I would like to answer (at least for myself) the above question with the following...I hope you don't mind TenEightyOne

This is why it would be greatly disappointing...no more K10 Silverado Shortbeds. I love that truck, they ride nice, sound great and look great and have the potential to be great offroaders...and that exhaust...which smells like most old
engines...

Spoiler: I would miss these a lot.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I would too but I'm also keen to see what decent petro-alternatives the future holds. I very much doubt that petrol will cease to be available, I think we'll simply see a day when there are no longer new petro-cars on the market.

The price of available petrol will be naturally higher, but then owning a loved classic (which your K10 will be by then) is never a cheap business.

 

[WhiterunGuard]

I'm also keen to see what decent petro-alternatives the future holds.

I too like to see innovations in methods of powering vehicles as long as we get to keep our classics...I just don't like most current hybrids and EVs simply because the electric part doesn't have the range to serve its purpose properly.

 

[niky]

As is ocean acidification, which isn't great for algae.

This is one of those things people don't take into account when they think "CO2"... most of us are still fixated on the Daisyworld model, when there are more things to consider besides daisies and algae.

The possible decline or wholesale death of coral and shellfish, as well as a general decline in fishery output is no small matter.

Science points to algae possibly thriving in that environment, however... so it's not all bad. Not unless you like to eat fish.

Of which there will be less.

 

[Imari]

Of which there will be less.

Of which there may be less.

You just in the same post referenced Daisyworld as an example of how a population responds to changing environmental conditions, and then you're ignoring that in fish species.

It's possible that the fish simply can't cope in a more acid ocean. It's also possible that some members of the fish population can, and that the acidifications will lead to a shift in the majority fish population from those who thrive in a low pH environment to those who thrive in a high pH environment.

Everything is more complicated than we think it is when talking about global systems.

 

[Com Fox]

Why is it disappointing?

Just the fact that I really do like todays cars and late-90s and early-00s.

However if it does gradually become instinct and/or illegal I guess I won't be as much disappointed since there is time to prepare for changes.

 

[niky]

Of which there may be less.

You just in the same post referenced Daisyworld as an example of how a population responds to changing environmental conditions, and then you're ignoring that in fish species.

It's possible that the fish simply can't cope in a more acid ocean. It's also possible that some members of the fish population can, and that the acidifications will lead to a shift in the majority fish population from those who thrive in a low pH environment to those who thrive in a high pH environment.

Everything is more complicated than we think it is when talking about global systems.

Whether or not they can cope with acidification, there will be less. That is a given, thanks to industrial fishing. When you take biomass completely out of a given ecosystem (fishing), it's gone (until it leaches back into the ocean through soil run-off... of which the ocean is not lacking, anyway)

Those stocks will not recover unless we regulate fishing to allow them to replenish stocks.

-

We are currently over-fishing many ocean stocks, and even when those stocks have declined to numbers which preclude industrial fishing, their recovery may be severely impaired by other environmental concerns.

-

We won't be able to kill off all the fish. But we're destroying entire oceanic ecosystems wholesale (through trawling), and the biodiversity preserves that we rely upon to rebuild those populations, such as coral reefs, are the ones most endangered by acidification.

-

Long story short: We're killing off fish faster than they can reproduce. The small populations we leave behind may not have the genetic diversity and flexibility to survive environmental changes.

 

[Pseudopod]

I too like to see innovations in methods of powering vehicles as long as we get to keep our classics...I just don't like most current hybrids and EVs simply because the electric part doesn't have the range to serve its purpose properly.

What is in this case its purpose?

The purpose of the electric motor in a hybrid is to lower emissions for short range driving. I can't see how it doesn't serve this purpose perfectly already. The electric motor in a hybrid's purpose was never to drive 400 miles on electricity alone.

Heck, even the electric motor in a Nissan Leaf's purpose wasn't to drive 400 miles on one charge. It was designed as a short-range car. Nissan's CEO or whatever even explicitly states this, that they aren't making the Leaf for those who want or need enormous range on a single charge.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why is it disappointing?

Because it would be through force and not organic change.

 

[WhiterunGuard]

Okay, I should say that they do not currently serve it well enough to replace the combustion engine yet...however within a decade I could see a few emerging...but I will concede that you are correct...but I haven't slept in 38 or so hours...still not an excuse for stating something that is wrong though.

 

[Imari]

Long story short: We're killing off fish faster than they can reproduce. The small populations we leave behind may not have the genetic diversity and flexibility to survive environmental changes.

Sort of a different thing though, right? Daisies can cope with changes in sun output, but they can't cope with changes in sun output AND sudden widespread lawnmowers.

I agree with everything you say, but people tend to phrase the argument as "ocean acidification will kill all the fish". When really, it's "ocean acidification along with all the other terrible things that humans do to the ocean will create an environment which the fish cannot be expected to survive".

Pointing the finger solely at ocean acidification is myopic, especially in light of all the things we already do to destroy fisheries. Just because one straw broke the camel's back, doesn't mean you should ignore the whole bale of hay that got you to that point in the first place.

Realistically, the removal of one or more of any number of factors that affect the ocean environment adversely will improve the likelihood of fish populations remaining high. Ocean acidification is only one of those, and arguably not even the most important one.

 

[Omnis]

This is like the worst thread ever.

"Do you want to make the combustion engine illegal?" Of course not.

What you want to do is make the combustion engine obsolete.

 

[montez34]

I dont know why manufacturers make cars so large japan has those kei cars and they still have to meet japans safety standards for new cars.

I need my truck because of where I live and what I do, I'm not going to tow 6,000 lbs with a kei car or drive through a foot of snow.

 

[Connoissuer]

HELL TO THE NAW.

Your avatar makes the comment even more funnier

 

[Danoff]

This article suggests that EVs actually emit more pollution while being driven than gasoline powered cars - due to the fact that, according to the article, exhaust emissions are only 1/3 of the "operating" emissions from the vehicle.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._pollution_that_internal_combustion_cars.html

 

[MatskiMonk]

This article suggests that EVs actually emit more pollution while being driven than gasoline powered cars - due to the fact that, according to the article, exhaust emissions are only 1/3 of the "operating" emissions from the vehicle.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._pollution_that_internal_combustion_cars.html

Interesting idea..

Highlights

•A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions.
•Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts.
•Electric vehicle PM emissions are comparable to those of conventional vehicles.
•Non-exhaust sources account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 from traffic.
•Future policy should focus on reducing vehicle weight.
Abstract

Particulate matter (PM) exposure has been linked to adverse health effects by numerous studies. Therefore, governments have been heavily incentivising the market to switch to electric passenger cars in order to reduce air pollution. However, this literature review suggests that electric vehicles may not reduce levels of PM as much as expected, because of their relatively high weight. By analysing the existing literature on non-exhaust emissions of different vehicle categories, this review found that there is a positive relationship between weight and non-exhaust PM emission factors. In addition, electric vehicles (EVs) were found to be 24% heavier than equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). As a result, total PM10 emissions from EVs were found to be equal to those of modern ICEVs. PM2.5 emissions were only 1–3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. Therefore, it could be concluded that the increased popularity of electric vehicles will likely not have a great effect on PM levels. Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic. These proportions will continue to increase as exhaust standards improve and average vehicle weight increases. Future policy should consequently focus on setting standards for non-exhaust emissions and encouraging weight reduction of all vehicles to significantly reduce PM emissions from traffic.

 

[huskeR32]

This article suggests that EVs actually emit more pollution while being driven than gasoline powered cars - due to the fact that, according to the article, exhaust emissions are only 1/3 of the "operating" emissions from the vehicle.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._pollution_that_internal_combustion_cars.html

Considering that those extra non-exhaust emissions are mostly from increased brake and tire wear on heavier vehicles, and that a 2016 Prius weighs about the same as a gas-powered 2016 Ford Focus, I don't think this is much of an indictment of EVs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This article suggests that EVs actually emit more pollution while being driven than gasoline powered cars - due to the fact that, according to the article, exhaust emissions are only 1/3 of the "operating" emissions from the vehicle.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._pollution_that_internal_combustion_cars.html

The paper says less, just that the difference isn't as dramatic as one might think. The focus for improvement is, say Achters and Timmers, lowering mass of both ICEVs and EVs.

The headline "exhaust emissions are only 1/3 of the 'operating' emissions from the vehicle" that's been recycled through many blogs today fails to give the non-combustion proportion for ICEVs, of course.

In terms of bias it's worth noting that many of the blogs are picking this up either from each other or from the UK paper (The Times) published by Rupert Murdoch. To avoid confusion that is the same Rupert Murdoch of oil company Genie Oil.

 

[Danoff]

Considering that those extra non-exhaust emissions are mostly from increased brake and tire wear on heavier vehicles, and that a 2016 Prius weighs about the same as a gas-powered 2016 Ford Focus, I don't think this is much of an indictment of EVs.

As far as I know, Prii are not EVs. Hybrids as a whole may be heavier than non-hybrid versions. Let's take a vehicle for which a hybrid and non-hybrid option exists.

2015 Civic
1,177–1,260 kg (2,595–2,778 lb) (coupe)
1,183–1,270 kg (2,608–2,800 lb) (sedan)
1,294–1,304 kg (2,853–2,875 lb) (hybrid)

So the average for the sedan range is 2704. The average for the hybrid range is 2864. For a difference of 6%. I'd guess EV vs. non-EV would be a larger difference.

 

[eran0004]

This article suggests that EVs actually emit more pollution while being driven than gasoline powered cars - due to the fact that, according to the article, exhaust emissions are only 1/3 of the "operating" emissions from the vehicle.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._pollution_that_internal_combustion_cars.html

The study actually says that the particle matter (PM) emissions are more or less the same between EV's and ICEV's. The EV's are heavier, so the non-exhaust PM emissions are slightly higher, but since the ICEV's have PM emissions from the exhaust as well, the end amount is pretty much equal between the two types of cars. The EV's are slightly lower when it comes to PM2.5 particles, but equal to the ICEV's when it comes to PM10 particles.

The Daily Caller article however totally misinterpreted the study, when they say:

In fact, electric vehicles actually emit 90 percent of particulate emissions, while traditional vehicles push out 85 percent of particulate emissions in traffic.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/15/e...l-fuel-burning-cars-says-study/#ixzz48wqKgF4V

That is not what the study says (not surprisingly, as that Daily Caller quote is just gibberish - it doesn't mean anything). The 90% and 85% figures are for both EV's and ICEV's, it simply refers to different particle size. 90% of PM10 particles are accounted for by non-exhaust emissions, while 85% of PM2.5 particles are accounted for by non-exhaust emissions.

To conclude: While EV's might be a viable strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, it won't reduce PM emissions - which is what causes a lot of the health issues in the cities. So other strategies are needed to combat the PM emissions.

 

[huskeR32]

As far as I know, Prii are not EVs.

Quite right, my mistake. I just took the first vehicle that came to mind that was burdened with heavy batteries.

Good thought looking to the Civic instead. Looks like the upcoming Chevy Bolt is going to have a similar weight penalty over its gas-powered cousin, the Sonic.

Welp, looks like I've got some reading to do...

 

[Danoff]

The paper says less, just that the difference isn't as dramatic as one might think.

The study actually says that the particle matter (PM) emissions are more or less the same between EV's and ICEV's.

I hadn't read the paper, just the article, which implied more but may have been referring to non-exhaust emissions. It's so often hard to tell with sloppy articles what they're getting at.

I wonder how much of this is from tires (as opposed to the road or braking). I do love a good tire compound. I'd hate for emissions standards to start creeping into which tires I'm allowed to run. It's an interesting calculation for a utilitarian - how do you save the most lives? harder tires (lower emissions, greater stopping distances) or stickier tires (higher emissions, lower stopping distance).

 

[VBR]

My first response was to get angry & say NO! But then you mentioned all the people who die, & it reminded me of this stat; about 9,500 people die every year in London UK from Diesel polution (ironic that it's called Diesel huh). Source. I live in London, & have Asthma as well as various other allergies, & would prefer not to die prematurely.

Hmmm...what's more important; having fun with cars, or people not dying? I think I'll go for the latter & vote yes!

 

[eran0004]

I hadn't read the paper, just the article, which implied more but may have been referring to non-exhaust emissions. It's so often hard to tell with sloppy articles what they're getting at.

I wonder how much of this is from tires (as opposed to the road or braking). I do love a good tire compound. I'd hate for emissions standards to start creeping into which tires I'm allowed to run. It's an interesting calculation for a utilitarian - how do you save the most lives? harder tires (lower emissions, greater stopping distances) or stickier tires (higher emissions, lower stopping distance).

When it comes to saving lives, rather than restricting tyres I think it's mainly a matter of changing traffic patterns: directing the traffic away from city centers and residential areas. Making people take the bicycle to work if they live near enough to their workplace, etc. Although, I guess it's more dangerous to ride a bike than to drive a car, PM's included?

My first response was to get angry & say NO! But then you mentioned all the people who die, & it reminded me of this stat; about 10,000 people die every year in London UK from Diesel polution (ironic that it's called Diesel huh). Source. I live in London, & have Asthma as well as various other allergies.

Hmmm...what's more important; having fun with cars, or people not dying? I think I'll go for the latter & vote yes!

Well, if it's all about fun then we can ban diesel straight away

 

[Imari]

It's an interesting calculation for a utilitarian - how do you save the most lives? harder tires (lower emissions, greater stopping distances) or stickier tires (higher emissions, lower stopping distance).

It's not even that simple. It's entirely possible that the harder tyre compound produces more small particulates because it's more brittle. A soft and sticky tyre compound may degrade in large enough chunks not to be as much of a problem. The marbles on the side of race tracks aren't contributing to air pollution.

Save lives and go faster by mandating that everyone put R888s on their cars.

 

[niky]

Considering that those extra non-exhaust emissions are mostly from increased brake and tire wear on heavier vehicles, and that a 2016 Prius weighs about the same as a gas-powered 2016 Ford Focus, I don't think this is much of an indictment of EVs.

I know it's been answered, but it must be said: The Focus is a porker.

The Prius can and should actually be compared to the Corolla, which is similar in size and capacity and built by the same manufacturer.

-

Well... we could easily save a lot of gas, curb pollution and drastically reduce road wear if people bought cars based on what they actually need rather than based on the maximum usage they think they might put them to, whether that maximum usage be once a month, once a year or just... once.

-

Nobody actually needs a 2,700 lb car to get around. A 1,000 lb car will get a single person anywhere they need to go in perfect comfort.

But then nobody wants that. hence 3,500+ lb electric compacts with heated seats and more cupholders than seatbelts.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Nobody actually needs a 2,700 lb car to get around. A 1,000 lb car will get a single person anywhere they need to go in perfect comfort.

But then nobody wants that. hence 3,500+ lb electric compacts with heated seats and more cupholders than seatbelts.

Unless... somebody focuses on making an electric compact that weighs 800lbs less than that, still has heated seats, and plenty of cup/mobile phone/keyring/haribo holders...<cough> i3 </cough> which I think is at least the direction that report is suggesting the industry and legislation go.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I know it's been answered, but it must be said: The Focus is a porker.

The Prius can and should actually be compared to the Corolla, which is similar in size and capacity and built by the same manufacturer.

Well... we could easily save a lot of gas, curb pollution and drastically reduce road wear if people bought cars based on what they actually need rather than based on the maximum usage they think they might put them to, whether that maximum usage be once a month, once a year or just... once.

Nobody actually needs a 2,700 lb car to get around. A 1,000 lb car will get a single person anywhere they need to go in perfect comfort.

But then nobody wants that. hence 3,500+ lb electric compacts with heated seats and more cupholders than seatbelts.

I don't know about you but I don't want to be sitting in that 1000 lb car when you make a driving mistake and I accidentally run into you with my 6000 lb truck

 

[FoolKiller]

Nobody actually needs a 2,700 lb car to get around. A 1,000 lb car will get a single person anywhere they need to go in perfect comfort.

This is crazy talk and I'll have none of it.

Seriously though, I think a bigger issue is that few people are buying cars with just transporting a single person in mind. We have families and group outings. Sure I can save gas by buying a motorcycle for daily work commutes, but then if I need to get my daughter after work I need a second vehicle that is larger. If it is unexpected then I waste time and gas driving home first to switch cars. If it is an emergency then my daughter is screwed.

If all I had to worry about was me, then I'd be on board with the idea. Even then, I'd be screwed if all my friends were the same and someone had too much to drink.

There is a convenience and feasibility issue that makes a single, larger car make more sense. I can't be bothered or afford to have a different vehicle for each need. Instead I have one that fits all my needs and also any new ones that may come up.