Don't ban cars. 

"deprecated account" (savethei4s) 07/26/2017 at 10:49 • Filed to: None

4

15

Ban cows. Or just find a way to collect all that methane and use it to power... stuff and things. Seriously though, they better not ban gas and diesel. Now accepting applications for my as-yet-unformed country where there are no regulations on cars.

Dave the car guy , still here > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:03

2

Ban big ships

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Svend > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:07

1

The U.K. and France have said they will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 (and put in a tax on diesels from 2020). Existing cars would be okay. So far it’s only words and they will both have to figure out the wording to put into legislation. The thing is also as fuel cells (battery power storage) go at present it isn’t really possible.

Nothing is set in stone. Reality has a habit of changing legislation.

benjrblant > Dave the car guy , still here 07/26/2017 at 11:12

1

Once wrote a report on how terrible those things are. Heavy fuel oil is nasty stuff, thick tar-like schmoo that has to be heated to get it to flow and minimally processed to leave all those lovely compounds in it.

deprecated account > Svend 07/26/2017 at 11:15

1

Here’s hoping.

deprecated account > Dave the car guy , still here 07/26/2017 at 11:17

2

It would be awesome to have nuclear-powered cargo ships, at least until there was a shipwreck or piracy. But yeah, those things are bad news bears.

Tekamul > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:24

0

We do a little of the methane thing in VT. It’s called cow power. It’s not really catching on, though.

Dave the car guy , still here > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:28

0

I’d say at least make them engineer some sort of controls to clean up the emissions. Even a 10% improvement would be tremendous.

deprecated account > Tekamul 07/26/2017 at 11:29

0

I’m envisioning an enclosed CAFO sort of thing with a high powered air extraction system that would put the methane into tanks that would later be processed.. Don’t really know how feasible or not disgusting that would be, though.

deprecated account > Dave the car guy , still here 07/26/2017 at 11:30

1

That is true, and as laissez-faire of a guy as I tend to be, I’m really surprised nothing has already been done.

Tekamul > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:35

1

That’s more or less it. To get the most methane, you need an anaerobic digester (a pile of shit with lots of microbes and no oxygen). In VT we don’t really have CAFO, just barns with waste alleys. You plow it all down to one end with a tractor, then move it off to a digester that feeds directly to a generator.

It’s really gross, but so is most farming.

bhtooefr > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:49

1

California’s started requiring things to be done, but that just means that the ships switch to cleaner fuel while in California waters, and then go right back to the nasty shit elsewhere.

deprecated account > bhtooefr 07/26/2017 at 11:53

0

I mean, you’d think even something as simple as a particulate filter would be easy.

Future next gen S2000 owner > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:54

0

I think the problem is if one country did enact emissions, they ships would register elsewhere and not have to abide by the regs.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:56

1

Even an easy solution costs more than doing nothing, and cost is everything in the shipping industry.

bhtooefr > deprecated account 07/26/2017 at 11:57

1

The big problem with DPFs is that they’re sensitive to fuel quality, and require ultra low sulfur diesel #2 to not get fouled too quickly - even low sulfur diesel #2 causes problems for them.

The companies operating these ships don’t want to run ULSD #2, or even LSD #2, they want to run literal tar.

And, making them run even LSD #2 would improve emissions greatly, even without a DPF.