CA Emissions rules would cut smog

It's about damn time! When I first moved to Los Angeles in '79, the air was really bad. First stage SMOG alerts almost daily in the summer.
Now 30+ years later, and many new anti SMOG laws passed, I can not remember the last time we had an alert.
Something must be working.
This will only help make things even cleaner and better.

SMOG SUCKS

 

How can car manufacturers complain?

The new standards would require 15 percent - or about 1 in 7 - of new cars and small trucks sold each year in California to run on batteries, hydrogen fuel cells or other zero-emission technology within the next 13 years. Plug-in hybrids that can run for at least 10 miles on electricity would qualify.

That's pretty much Toyotas Prius plug in technology here today (almost), let alone 13 years time. If they can extend that to cover 15% of their sales then job done.

Perhaps the Volt to be adapted to comply too, though 15% of sales would be a hard job.

Now this being America, the manufacturers will commence massively expensive lawsuits that will waste time and money and make lots of lawyers rich, rather than invest that same money on r&d.

 

California, long a national leader in cutting auto pollution, pushed the envelope further Friday when state regulators approved a suite of rules designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and put far more more pollution-free vehicles on the road in coming years...

...The requirements are expected to drive up car prices. The board staff predicts that the advanced technologies needed to meet the new smog and greenhouse gas emission standards will add $1,900 to the sticker price of a new car in 2025. But that would be more than offset by $6,000 in estimated fuel costs over the life of the vehicle, according to the staff...

 

This notion of CARB compliant states is more complicated than on-board or not. All of the 14 states are compliant with the tailpipe pollutants standard, while a smaller number of states also signed up for California's ZEV program.

I am a strong advocate of CARB in general, but I do not really see how the mandate to produce X % of cars as ZEV is going to fly. Who is going to buy them, at USD 40k a pop ?

 

I do not have any problem with California acting to solve its smog problem, caused by the mountain ranges trapping in the air.

But the statement about the same requirements sweeping the rest of the nation is where I depart. We do not have the same situation, for one thing, we burn coai to make elec, so going to 100% zero tail pipe just means we are getting more junk in the ambient air. California only burns coal to the extent it is out-of-state imported power. In that case, zero tail pipe makes some sense, but only becuase the prevailing winds go west to east (to me).

 

Well, I hope there's progress on reducing fossil fuel use. If this winter is any indication of things to come, it's going to get bad. It's like fricken Spring here. 56% normal rainfall in the wettest area. Snow pack is a joke. Skiing is out. Heard even Colorado snow is lousy this year. So, we'll see what plays out.

Meanwhile, you've got the good 'ole boys (the R's) that want to abolish the EPA and drill baby drill. Of the four scenarios, the worst thing to do would be - do nothing at all and it's (agw) happening.
One heck of a thing to blow off your planet in the name of industry and money.

I just know the commercials I see during good 'ole sunday football games are for cars with plenty of power, not ATV's (adv tech veh).

 

This is a return to what jump started the first generation of EVs, especially the EV-1. So if we look at what happened the first time, we can see the following effects:
1) The car manufacturers had a reason for an EV to succeed, rather than fail, so they marketed the EV positively, often making lease terms very favorable to the consumer.
2) The cost was amortized over the whole industry, otherwise the choice was to not sell cars in CA. Not much of an option there, and the percentage factor was pretty straightforward. If you wanted to be a major player, then trying to sidestep the ZEV mandate was self defeating. Beating the competition was the best path for profitability (which was no change where no change should be made).
3) The mandate was for ZEV, so the car makers could market whatever technology met the requirement. Obviously, every single one picked electric vehicles.

All in all, when the car industry wanted to market 50k SUVs for short drive urban commuters, they found a way to do that.

Now, this does not mean this will work as intended, but previous history shows when the auto industry does get the motivation for EVs to succeed, then they find ways to overcome the hurdles they originally claimed were insurmountable.

 

This is true, but only on a time scale of a few decades, not many decades or centuries. Just recently, a full analysis of what it takes to reduce air pollution (CA and worldwide) made a very clear point. We have to start with a huge chunk of the transportation options becoming electric. That's because a lot of different technologies are possible for generating (air) pollution free electricity-Nuclear, Sequestering Coal Plants, Solar, Geothermal, Wind, etc.(?). The technologies for pollution free cars is vastly more limited (electric, H2, etc.(?)) and you have to make 100+ millions of them.

 

Hmm... I've only skimmed the article but I'm not sure the GHG emission rules will fly. I suspect automakers, oil companies, and other bodies will fight tooth and nail against that similar to what happened with California low-carbon fuel regulation ruled unconstitutional by judge.

I find the quote below funny

You know... as usual, voters want something but won't necessarily vote w/their wallet and vehicle choices. I see an INSANE number of monstrosity class land barge SUVs in my area almost always driven solo or w/minimal cargo and passengers.

 

...but 2011 was a tipping point of sorts. Nuke power is sort of back to the drawing board, and sequestration fell away due to softened Congress position on carbon regs. California is still in decent position to pursue green elec due to wonderful solar, wind, geothermal, hydro resources and of course importation of elec from other states (and countries?). For the rest of us, believe cars like Prius solve smog problem and do not necessitate mandated EV use.

 

Who will buy EV's?
Maybe you didn't notice, but all of the Nissan Leafs that are being delivered, are being sold (over 20,000 & counting). I might understand your belief that they won't sell, if in fact they weren't ... but they are. If EV's were languishing on the dealer lots ... month after month (the way the Hummer was, prior to GM killing it) then one might presume that folks can't afford them, and/or don't want them. Facts speak louder than words. For example, Bob Lutz's words said the Prius was just a PR stunt and theres no way Toyota can make money on them - years ago. Sales facts said differently. People keep saying, "who'll buy EV's?!? ... and they keep getting sold. Same thing.

I've lost the source, but Honda has already gone on record that they will fight it. Toyota (so far) has not jumped on the anti-legislation bandwagon ... nor has GM. Maybe that's one good thing about the Fed's owning GM.

 

Yeah, sure Leaf supply is fairly limited, but it doesn't seem that limited given that some So Cal dealers on MNL on late December were posting that they had a whole bunch of orphans. At My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - Preferred Pricing For Forum Members Only At FONTANA NISSAN, FontanaNissan currently says (in a post last edited 1/20/12):

Sure, they're not piling up in numbers that you'd see of other cars, but if there were really strong demand, I doubt that even 11 could accumulate and the situation would be more akin to Priuses in 04-06 where there were wait lists, there was no inventory, etc. I had to wait at least 1.5 months for mine, which I picked up in mid to late January 06.

ABG posted some stats today: A word on Nissan Leaf sales, orders and reservation numbers [w/poll]. In the meantime, the American car buying public still continues to buy large numbers of land yachts (http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2012/0101Deliveries.pdf, e.g. Yukons, Tahoes, Escalades, Suburbans, etc.)

It'll be very interesting to see how Leaf sales are in 2012 given it'll be available in way more states.

 

No question that the Prius is a huge step in the right direction, but I would not say it "solves" the problem, but addresses a big part of the problem. As for the CA mandate, I'd like to reiterate that it does not mandate anything on the consumer (directly). That's why I think it is one of the better approaches to pollution, it regulates the problem directly and forces the really big money into solving the problem in the most economically viable approach possible. (Rhetorical Question - Did the intense fight Detroit mounted against pollution controls in the 1970s help or hurt their business?)

 

I noticed that LEAF sales in the US are a tiny fraction of the mandate.

 

lol. The two plaintifs there were both corn ethanol lobbys. They were against the seed to wheel analysis. The rule would help some oil companies and hurt others, so their lobby wouldn't be involved with low carbon fuel, and auto companies would only be involved because it would raise the price of gasoline. The were against ab132, that hurt all oil companies and car companies. Its interesting who the players are.

This is why most of these things fail. To be fair, Nissan, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are all supportive of the new rules, so they do have a chance.

I've seen more leaf's locally, now that they are shipping them to texas. They haven't caught up to volts yet. Let's be fair. The new law won't come into full effect until we get second generations of these cars are out. If costs and prices come down it has a chance to succeed. If costs of oil go up, it has even a better chance of working. 15% seems like a high number, but this will at least make sure there are cars on the supply side if demand materializes.

 

Lets see now. Its 2081. Your great great, or maybe great great great? grandchildren just got fined 31 million dingises for violation of the 23 gas emmissions act of 2069, by the family, dog and horse for not eating only enseasoned approved low gas emmissions greens imported from china and not paying the 60 % import tax. to the province of LA. Are they not sooo fortunate that the Historical Hero California Legislators had the foresight to plan for the future of everyone.

 

Yep, and I drag race my Mustang engined dragster every Saturday night at Bubu's drag strip and my Mustang engine is actually a V12 out of a 1944 P-51 Mustang. All that smoke when you fly over is from Bubu's barbeque every Saturday night, but it lingers a while until at least the middle of the next week. Smells better than LA.

 

i never cared for the smell of florida. it reminds me of retirement homes (jk)

LA air isn't all that bad. i thought it would be a lot worse. i moved down here and i really don't mind it. most of the time i can see out north to the mountains. there are only a few actual smoggy days out of the year. most of the time it's the colder marine layer covering everything.

now... the san francisco bay area... wonderful air. there are a lot of excellent places in california.

you also have to take in account what wjtracy said above. it's not about our air polution (if you look on nasa's database we don't produce what we used to) it's about our mountain ranges which block everything in. it's a north to south barrier. we are responsible enough to look at the problem and try to solve it before it gets carried over to the rest of the states. we'll put in giant air filters if we have to.

i blame asia... if you look at nasa's readings, their air pollutants swirl around in the ocean and get held up here.

all rules change when we have wild fires though.... i guess that's about 1/3 of the year... hehe.. j/k again.