How will we deal with environmentalism as auto-enthusiasts?

"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer) 10/13/2019 at 21:40 • Filed to: None

0

43

It’s evident that the automobile is becoming a bigger, and bigger target in the fight against climate change. For good reason in most cases. I wonder how the community will deal with that. S ome aren’t dealing with it in the best way....

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 21:53

5

I would assume coal rollers will be more obnoxious

BlueMazda2 - Blesses the rains down in Africa, Purveyor of BMW Individual Arctic Metallic, Merci Twingo > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 21:54

1

Those 992s sure look and  sound great.

BlueMazda2 - Blesses the rains down in Africa, Purveyor of BMW Individual Arctic Metallic, Merci Twingo > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/13/2019 at 21:55

2

Are we sure that’s possible?

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > BlueMazda2 - Blesses the rains down in Africa, Purveyor of BMW Individual Arctic Metallic, Merci Twingo 10/13/2019 at 21:58

3

d

Spanfeller is a twat > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/13/2019 at 22:00

0

Maybe

Spanfeller is a twat > BlueMazda2 - Blesses the rains down in Africa, Purveyor of BMW Individual Arctic Metallic, Merci Twingo 10/13/2019 at 22:01

1

Coal rollers are always  the most obnoxious. 

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > BlueMazda2 - Blesses the rains down in Africa, Purveyor of BMW Individual Arctic Metallic, Merci Twingo 10/13/2019 at 22:05

1

I mean they could always have it tuned for super rich

NKato > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:15

6

Instead of straight piping my car, I’m keeping most emissions systems. When/if I do an engine swap, I'll try to retain all of the Mustang's emissions systems. 

facw > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:16

4

My feeling is put a price on carbon (I’d do it via a cap and trade, but a well managed carbon tax would do just as well). There are problems with that of course, notably it’s a regressive tax, so I’d like to send as much as possible back out as an energy stipend or whatever.

There was an article (I think in the Post?) recently talking about a study saying that the rate would need to be about $75 ton of emissions (this was presented as an extreme number, far in excess of current carbon credits), which works out to about a 20% increase in the price of gas (~$0.65/gallon by my calculation). That’s not at all ruinous. I’m sure it would strain some people, but we’ve had gas prices significantly higher than that without tanking the economy.

Let people pay for the damage they are causing and do what they want otherwise. A progressive tax might be better but obviously that’s harder to do.

Obviously there are a whole host of environmental issues related to cars beyond global warming, but in my mind it is the big one (in part because we already do a decent job with smog, toxic fluids, etc.)

wafflesnfalafel > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:17

3

I’m a bit of a tree hugger - but I am confident humans (and a bunch of other species) are just kinda screwed. Nothing I do makes any difference. I’m about 300' above current sea levels so I’m good short term . I feel for all those coal rollers kids and grand kids. Gre ta is right but that doesn’t matter one bit .

punkgoose17 > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:17

2

We buy stationwagons instead of SUVs and crossovers.

punkgoose17 > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:20

3

I don't get why EPA and Euro are pushing emissions on cars and small engines and not larger industiral engines. Those engines last for 40 years and burn millions of gallons of fuel.

Under_Score > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:34

2

I like hybrids. My parents have never gotten one because they’re always afraid of battery failure (despite countless examples of long-lasting batteries), but I’d love to have one as my next vehicle. 40+ MPG with my flooring and high RPM’s? You bet I’m on board.

There are lots of people like my parents, though, which is why hybrids are never more successful than their gas counterparts. But I’d love to see hybrids have a bigger role in society. 

smobgirl > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:50

2

There will always be industries doing way more damage than the automotive industry. Until we deal with those, I’m not too focused on cars as a target.

coqui70 > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 22:52

1

We need technology to scrub the atmosphere of all pollutants. If people won’t change their habits we gotta fix the problem.

Or in about 100 years Earth becomes unable to support human life.

Parhaps a competition with a large cash payout? About $1B USD for whomever designs, builds and successfully tests a scalable system will do.

Utility companies can be setup to operate the atmospheric scrubbing system and individuals/corporations can buy credits to cover the costs of removing the pollutants they generate.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Under_Score 10/13/2019 at 23:08

1

I know a lady with a Prius and the battery failed and she got it swapped out with a remanufactured one and a warranty for around $1700. Quick and clean, though those 2nd gen prii use oil and knacker their engines.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > wafflesnfalafel 10/13/2019 at 23:10

1

Yes, and you are to be mocked and scorned and shunned if you are worried about it. 

wafflesnfalafel > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 10/13/2019 at 23:14

0

I think I’ll go pour some Roundup down my storm drain.

glemon > Spanfeller is a twat 10/13/2019 at 23:19

1

I am probably somewhere around the middle of the road, I am usually pro environmental protection type policies, but admit to driving around in a 50 year old collector car on occasion, and not feeling particularly guilty about it.

I drive a 2002 Lexus IS that gets shitty gas mileage, my wife drives a 2007 Fit that does pretty well (actually we both drive both, she prefers to drive the Lexus, but has a small business that includes driving as part of her services, and between the lower MPG and premium fuel, Lexi is twice as much to run). Figure I am saving something by keeping the “old” cars running and not scrapping them and paying somebody for making a new one and accompanying use of resources and pollution from manufacturing.

I think the gargantuan trucks and SUVs they make these days are ridiculously large and wasteful. But I don’t really like them for a lot of reasons, so it is pretty easy for me to say “yeah and they are wasteful too”. Then again I like the idea of sticking bigger engines in smaller cars, and I know that makes me a hypocrite, but once again, doesn’t make me uncomfortable in my own skin.

Lastly electric cars, I don’t have a big chip on my shoulder like some enthusiasts do, I am cheap and love the idea of saving big on fuel costs, and would think maintenance and reliability should be much better too.

However, electric car owners...some seem to have the idea that the power that they use is like air, plentiful and free, and it often is now, but it if everybody or even a significant portion of the population starts driving electrics it will create its own issues. Brown outs from charging cars  like we used to have on hot summer days, not enough in frastructure to carry all the juice needed. Environmental impact of mining more coal for electrical power. Footprint of charging stations which the owners moan about not having enough of now, takes longer to charge, even if they up technology, will the modern 16 stall super gas station and quickee Mart be replaced by 48 stalls and an even bigger quickee marts? Maybe better for the environment than all cars sipping on dino juice, but by no means is widespread electric without its own issues.

Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street. > punkgoose17 10/13/2019 at 23:24

0

The larger stationary engines tend to be far more efficient, especially when the actual work done is taken into account. The world’s largest diesel engine burns 5 gallons of fuel per minute, but moves 11,000 containers at 30 knots doing so. If you estimate that each container carries just 2 0,000lbs of cargo on average, this turns into roughly 22 million LBs of cargo moved a mile per gallon used. That is a mighty impressive figure, even though the fact that it burns a massive 300 gallons per hour sounds abhorric. If you took a Prius moving a 200lb guy, and getting 40MPG at 60MPH, it's just 120,000lbs/mile/gallon. Roughly 1/20th as efficient. 

Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen > Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street. 10/13/2019 at 23:55

0

On the one hand yes, on the other hand the abso lute nu mbers are still pretty high - the global shipping fleet moves a lot of tonnage ove r a lot of distance.

Accordin g to the res pec tive wikipedia articles (yes, I know, but this isn’t a scholarly paper) shipping and aviation each account for similar CO2 emissions at about 4% of globa l total ( well below cars, but still non-trivial).

T he other big problem with heavy eng ines is they burn crap: usually ultra-high-sulphur crap. Shipping is the  major global contributor to both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, which ar en’t a greenhou se problem but are nasty in other ways.

CB > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 00:29

1

How will we deal? The auto enthusiast will change. I can be enthusiastic about electric cars. Hell, I’d love a Polestar 1. I’d drive the hell out of it!

atfsgeoff > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 00:35

6

It’s not an auto enthusiast problem, it’s an energy problem. Most of the world operates on energy derived from fossil fuel combustion. We already have a viable solution in nuclear energy, but right now it’s cheaper to build fifty natural gas power plants than a single nuclear plant, not to mention higher operating costs due to greater complexity and more stringent safety regulations.

The other option is to drastically reduce power consumption around the world, but that is not politically, economically, or socially viable. The ability to travel great distances and be comfortable in our climate controlled homes, eating grocery store-bought food while purchasing very cheap goods made on the other side of the planet, all depend heavily on cheap and plentiful energy.

So the pragmatic solution for TODAY is to reform nuclear energy regulations to make it more economically viable for nuke plants to compete with coal and gas plants to provide most electricity, and continue refining solar, wind, hydro to be more efficient while chasing the ever-elusive goal of nuclear fusion energy.

RallyWrench > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 01:21

1

An excellent question, with no satisfactory answer . I grapple with this personally and have forever, because cars put food on my table and have just been an integral part of me since childhood. But I also care deeply about the health of our world and what we’re handing the next generation. I can’t fully reconcile it, but the way I find (tenuous) balance is by living a life otherwise low in environmental impact and cycling to work whenever possible. Within a few years, money willing, I’ll have an electric car for a daily driver, a step I’m happy to take . I’ve spent my life keeping other people’s machines running at their best, cleanest, and most efficient. I figure that maybe all that stuff earns me a few gallons for fun now and then, in old cars that have paid their dues and aren’t terribly inefficient. I do wish to find work in another field , somehow, which would further help the mental equation of car enthusiasm vs environmental conscience.

Greta’s message is real and urgent. Her speech at the UN was fiery and powerful, and I hope the world listens. But I suspect she would paint us (car enthusiasts) with a broad brush as “bad guys”, when really, we’re just convenient scapegoats now. Are there bad car people, like that shithead in the picture above? Too many. I could argue that they’re not really “ car people,” just people with cars who use them as a conduit for fuckery. The conspicuous consumers, the coal rollers... They will and do react poorly, and that’s all the world will see.

gmctavish needs more space > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 01:22

1

I don’t feel much guilt about burning more gas than I have to. It doesn’t matter, in the big picture , if I drive less, or take transit instead. Really any changes that people make personally don’t make much, or any difference. Putting the onus on regular people is insane when there are what, 100 corporations responsible for 70-something percent of greenhouse gas emissions?

I buy food and goods produced as close to be as possible, within reason. No reason to buy eggs or butter or anything shipped from halfway across the country when there are options available from ~50km away. If not my region, I try to buy things that are Canadian made, or at least north american made.

All that said, if there was a reasonably priced electric, or Volt or i3 style hybrid available, I’d buy one as a commuter. I like burning fuel in old and/or fun cars, but electricity makes the most sense for a commuter. 

Spanfeller is a twat > punkgoose17 10/14/2019 at 01:36

0

Stricter regulations for industrial applications are certainly important... I wouldn’t go as far as saying they’re less efficient than tiny ICE engines in cars, but I guess the EPA and European authorities have different motives.

Firstly, it’s a lot easier to regulate the exhaust from industrial processes, individual cars go and pollute everywhere... in the middle of london, of LA, Mexico City...

All of that is really bad for the health of people, specially since people can quickly go away from cars in many situations (Not claiming all of course), so it just makes a bit of sense...

(I don’t doubt however that there is a malicient reason behind it... ie; they don’t have the backbone to regulate industry)

Spanfeller is a twat > Under_Score 10/14/2019 at 01:37

0

I think automobiles in general are targeted. In north america we have more conservative policies, but in some european cities they’re talking about banning cars altogether. 

Spanfeller is a twat > facw 10/14/2019 at 01:39

1

I think that in some countries we have the challenge of how the cities were designed; some cities in North America are just not navegable without a car...  which is what makes a carbon tax a bit regressive. But I agree that a well managed one with possible exemptions could work. 

Spanfeller is a twat > RallyWrench 10/14/2019 at 01:43

0

Loads of human activities are wasteful... I think that perhaps the issue with cars isn’t that we like them... it’s that we need them. Ya don’t see people walking around the street with golfing shoes.

If it was possible to make cars only for enthusiasts, and increase the dependance on public transport, I think it would reduce the impact of the car, and by extent how much cars are targete d.

Spanfeller is a twat > atfsgeoff 10/14/2019 at 01:44

0

I am a fan of nuclear energy... and if we do increase dependance on renewables we need to have some stable source for the base load.

Spanfeller is a twat > glemon 10/14/2019 at 01:49

1

Electric cars do face an interesting challenge as far as the grid goes... but I think there’s a great opportunity... We often ask “Where does the electricity for an EV come from?” to tease electric car owners...

But you can ask the same about the gasoline in your car... that system is also quite inefficient and it also really emits a lot of green house gases...

Personally, my bet is still on hydrogen long term... but we’ll have to find out later on. 

Spanfeller is a twat > coqui70 10/14/2019 at 01:50

2

I guess it could help... but preventing tends to be better than fixing the problem once it gets out of control .

But I wouldnt be surprised if we wound up having to do that. 

bhtooefr > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 07:20

3

Here’s the solution to regressive carbon tax, IMO:

Put the revenue from the carbon tax into two pools.

One pool is put into a fund to support a negative income tax bracket , and reduce income taxes on brackets up to, let’s say, 400% of the federal poverty level. This pool is also put towards updating IRS systems to support automatic taxation, as well as monthly refunds.

The second pool is put into a fund to support development and operation of programs to reduce carbon emissions and environmental carbon . Mass transit, cycling infrastructure, higher -density affordable housing, trade-in programs to encourage replacing fossil-fueled vehicles with EVs, up to and including carbon capture and storage.

The first pool directly offsets the regressive nature, the second pool makes it easier and cheaper to not be forced into emitting more in the first place.

Under_Score > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 08:20

0

It’s hard for me if I go a day at home without using my car. 

haveacarortwoorthree2 > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 09:01

0

I ride my bike to work 3 days a week. Does that make up for driving my 13mpg car at excessive rates of speed on the weekend? lol

Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle > facw 10/14/2019 at 12:08

0

You could avoid some of the regressiveness of a carbon tax by making it deductible for people under a certain income.

coqui70 > Spanfeller is a twat 10/14/2019 at 20:43

0

I think we crossed that bridge about 20 years ago.

coqui70 > Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen 10/14/2019 at 20:45

0

Just wait until you have to dispose of all those hybrid battery packs.

Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen > coqui70 10/14/2019 at 21:13

0

Lot easier to recyc le something that’s in a packaged lump than to pull tons of chemicals back out of the air.

Though I’m personally not a huge believer in hybrids as the solution: my po int above is that it wouldn’t be all that hard to impose at least basic emissions control on shipping, and it’d make a hu ge differe nce to air quality in ge neral, whatever you think of global warming.

Maxima Speed > Spanfeller is a twat 10/15/2019 at 20:15

0

Im going to ignore it. I loved everything in this video.

coqui70 > Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen 10/15/2019 at 22:57

0

Oh yeah need to do that - but we have to undo the damage that’s been done. I’ve always wondered why all these big ass ships aren’t nuclear powered. Granted nuclear waste disposal is another prob lem but the emissions savings are huge.

Then again ... solar energy beam satellites could target heat accumulators on the ships to drive steam turbines (water vapor is super-clean). You could charge battery arrays on the ships for night-time use (or nevermind as the satellites could get solar energy and relay/reflect the beam for 24x7 coverage).

Heck - you could do normal powerplants this way.

I think I also heard of a car radiator that cleaned the air ... here it is: https://jalopnik.com/how-volvo-once-used-a-catalyst-coated-radiator-to-remov-1831438959

Think about solar-powered airships with this tech!

Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen > coqui70 10/15/2019 at 23:32

0

Problem with nuclear is when it goes wrong it goes * really* wrong.

The scif fi (or steampunk) option I fancy for ships is modern versions of a return to sail. Doesn’t work all the time - you’d still need engines - but it’s low cost, low risk,   and clean as it gets.

https://www.skysails.info/en/

https://www.marineinsight.com/green-shipping/top-7-green-ship-concepts-using-wind-energy/

coqui70 > Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen 10/15/2019 at 23:43

0

Shit forgot sails! Yes, actually there are some modern ones that work really well.