4 ms·

GM, Toyota, and Fiat Chrysler are actively fighting emission rules. I will be in the market to buy a car next month and will be actively avoiding these 3 brands

by dmode 7y ago

kyrra 7y ago
I believe how many of these emission rules are written is poorly done. They are effectively quota based that apply to the quota of a given car manufacturer. Which is actually leading car manufacturers to consolidate, removing choice. What's worse, emissions are not done holistically. They rate battery-powered car as effectively having zero emissions, which does not consider how you charge you car. There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. I get the intent of these laws, but they are poorly done.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. Good thing coal is declining in the US, and likely permanently so as renewables continue to become more cost effective.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Indeed! An EV gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner, an internal combustion vehicle burns fuel its entire service life.
  - thematt 7y ago
    Coal is being replaced by natural gas, not renewables. A net benefit, but not a void being filled significantly by wind/solar yet. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- jhayward 7y ago
  > There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. There is no where in the US electrical grid where that statement is true. It's a strawman.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - kyrra 7y ago
    It was a German study, though finding it again, it looks like it was heavily criticized. Also, How is it a straw man? Coal power plants still exist. While some governments are forcing them out, it exists. If it's true, it is a real concern we should take into consideration. source of study: https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/55602/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/5...
    - nwallin 7y ago
      The title of your article is about CO2, not emissions. California enacted tailpipe emissions tests specifically to address smog in LA. California can, has, and will continue to have steep gas taxes as the primary mechanism to address climate change, and those state taxes aren't being challenged here. Switching to shitty diesel VW Jettas will make the problem worse, not better, despite the reduced CO2 footprint. Second- bullshit. Every commercially viable coal plant burns much hotter than any gasoline or diesel engine, and will have a much higher efficiency as a result. (Wikipedia "Carnot cycle") Line/conversion losses will not make up the difference. Third-we're talking about California. We don't have any coal plants. So even if we pretended physics wasn't a thing, our relatively large supply of wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and hydro production would fix it. We're trying to replace natural gas with "batteries" of some sort, but even at the worst case, natural gas plants produce very little smog, even though their CO2 production is unfortunate. Fourth- (well, three point fivesth) smog from coal plants in states that we share a grid with is their problem- winds generally blow west to east, so that smog won't end up in our cities. If the states where that smog ends up wants to enact federal smog reduction standards I'll be at the table shoulder to shoulder with you. Trump has done a lot of shit to piss me off. As a resident of the bowl that includes Los Angeles, this is probably the issue that makes me the angriest, even though its national significance is fairly small. We need air quality protections here. We can't survive otherwise, and solving this problem at the state level had worked out fairly well so far. I'd rate it of more importance to me than the housing crisis, (our fault, we're doing nothing to address it) or the wild fires. (partially our fault, we're talking steps to fix it on a global scale with the knowledge that it won't ever be enough by ourselves)
- derekp7 7y ago
  One example I've read about is that increased fuel economy requirements actually had a reverse effect in the case of the Ford Ranger. This is because the regulation was based on vehicle footprint, and in order to get the Ranger to meet the regulation it would have priced it higher than the more capable F150. So the Ranger (which got around 22 MPG) was discontinued (along with most similar sized pickup trucks), and those customers bought the F150's that got 15 MPG. BTW, someone pointed out previously that there is more to the story than just fuel regulations that killed the Ranger and similar vehicles, so take the above with a grain of salt if needed.

GM, Toyota, and Fiat Chrysler are actively fighting emission rules. I will be in the market to buy a car next month and will be actively avoiding these 3 brands

by dmode 7y ago

GM, Toyota, and Fiat Chrysler are actively fighting emission rules. I will be in the market to buy a car next month and will be actively avoiding these 3 brands

kyrra 7y ago

I believe how many of these emission rules are written is poorly done. They are effectively quota based that apply to the quota of a given car manufacturer. Which is actually leading car manufacturers to consolidate, removing choice. What's worse, emissions are not done holistically. They rate battery-powered car as effectively having zero emissions, which does not consider how you charge you car. There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. I get the intent of these laws, but they are poorly done.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
> There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. Good thing coal is declining in the US, and likely permanently so as renewables continue to become more cost effective.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Indeed! An EV gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner, an internal combustion vehicle burns fuel its entire service life.
- thematt 7y ago
  Coal is being replaced by natural gas, not renewables. A net benefit, but not a void being filled significantly by wind/solar yet. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jhayward 7y ago
> There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. There is no where in the US electrical grid where that statement is true. It's a strawman.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kyrra 7y ago
  It was a German study, though finding it again, it looks like it was heavily criticized. Also, How is it a straw man? Coal power plants still exist. While some governments are forcing them out, it exists. If it's true, it is a real concern we should take into consideration. source of study: https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/55602/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/5...
  - nwallin 7y ago
    The title of your article is about CO2, not emissions. California enacted tailpipe emissions tests specifically to address smog in LA. California can, has, and will continue to have steep gas taxes as the primary mechanism to address climate change, and those state taxes aren't being challenged here. Switching to shitty diesel VW Jettas will make the problem worse, not better, despite the reduced CO2 footprint. Second- bullshit. Every commercially viable coal plant burns much hotter than any gasoline or diesel engine, and will have a much higher efficiency as a result. (Wikipedia "Carnot cycle") Line/conversion losses will not make up the difference. Third-we're talking about California. We don't have any coal plants. So even if we pretended physics wasn't a thing, our relatively large supply of wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and hydro production would fix it. We're trying to replace natural gas with "batteries" of some sort, but even at the worst case, natural gas plants produce very little smog, even though their CO2 production is unfortunate. Fourth- (well, three point fivesth) smog from coal plants in states that we share a grid with is their problem- winds generally blow west to east, so that smog won't end up in our cities. If the states where that smog ends up wants to enact federal smog reduction standards I'll be at the table shoulder to shoulder with you. Trump has done a lot of shit to piss me off. As a resident of the bowl that includes Los Angeles, this is probably the issue that makes me the angriest, even though its national significance is fairly small. We need air quality protections here. We can't survive otherwise, and solving this problem at the state level had worked out fairly well so far. I'd rate it of more importance to me than the housing crisis, (our fault, we're doing nothing to address it) or the wild fires. (partially our fault, we're talking steps to fix it on a global scale with the knowledge that it won't ever be enough by ourselves)
derekp7 7y ago
One example I've read about is that increased fuel economy requirements actually had a reverse effect in the case of the Ford Ranger. This is because the regulation was based on vehicle footprint, and in order to get the Ranger to meet the regulation it would have priced it higher than the more capable F150. So the Ranger (which got around 22 MPG) was discontinued (along with most similar sized pickup trucks), and those customers bought the F150's that got 15 MPG. BTW, someone pointed out previously that there is more to the story than just fuel regulations that killed the Ranger and similar vehicles, so take the above with a grain of salt if needed.