Turtle n Peeps wrote:ShinerBock wrote:LIKE2BUILD wrote:
I took several graduate classes in Environmental Studies and one of the professors always talked about SLOT Efficiency....SLOT= Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy (chaos) in a system, the transfer of heat (energy) and that all inputs of energy into a non-reversible system interact until it reaches equilibrium.
Basically, it means exactly what you just said. You can't just look at the EPA rating on the sticker and assume you're more efficient. You have to look at SLOT efficiency, or the entire system required to make the car plus the efficiency of each individual vehicle. Does it take more energy to create the parts of a hybrid car? Maybe. Will it last as long as a diesel or gas powered car? Does it need the same, fewer, or more inputs (replacement parts) than an equivalent combustion powered car. What are the sum total pollution outputs of each piece of the manufacturing pie to make each car, the fuels (electricity of petroleum), and the replacement parts.
A diesel locomotive is a great example. If you look at the fuel they guzzle it will boggle your mind. But, if you compare fuel useage in terms of gallons/ton/mile the locomotive is vastly more efficient than an equal number of semis needed to carry the same load the same distance. Also, when you compare vehicle maintenance, road/track maintenance and all other pieces in the puzzle the locomotive still wins. So yes, a locomotive burns a LOT MORE fuel than a semi, but when you compare how much work it does for the same amount of fuel it's a huge advantage. The road surface? concrete and asphalt can be sort-of recycled. Steel train tracks? Melt them down and get almost all the steel back into new tracks.
KJ
Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.
We were debating whether the considerable drop in fuel economy in the truck itself, more fuel needing to be transported since more is being used, DEF manufacturing and transport logistics that come with it, the manufacturing of the plastic jugs for DEF along with their environmental impact, special catalysts that require more rare earth mining, and DPF's along with their cleaning equipment worth the difference in emissions standards. From what we gathered, it would probably be better to go back to the 2004 emissions standards, but that was based on what we know and not any hard data.
2 very, very good posts that make one go; hmmmmmm! :)
rhagfo wrote:Tyler0215 wrote:
Like all Government agencies the EPA issues new regulations to justify they're existence, with out regard to common sense or need for more regs.
I believe this is the biggest reason, justify and get more money.
Yes, in the 70's they were needed we had some pretty bad air in several cities. That said there is a point of diminishing returns. that is where the common sense goes out the door.
Fleet average of 54 mpg, could mean a lot of electric or hybrid. While the car produces less emissions, what does it take to produce the car in the first place. The environmental impact of producing the batteries. How is the electricity that powers an all electric car produced. Hydro power is on the hit list, that leaves oil, gas,coal, or nuclear. Just saying there are trade offs.
Many look at diesel PU as bad, but I can move a 7,800# vehicle down the road at 20 mpg to match this a 2,600# car would need to get 60 mpg!
ShinerBock wrote:LIKE2BUILD wrote:
I took several graduate classes in Environmental Studies and one of the professors always talked about SLOT Efficiency....SLOT= Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy (chaos) in a system, the transfer of heat (energy) and that all inputs of energy into a non-reversible system interact until it reaches equilibrium.
Basically, it means exactly what you just said. You can't just look at the EPA rating on the sticker and assume you're more efficient. You have to look at SLOT efficiency, or the entire system required to make the car plus the efficiency of each individual vehicle. Does it take more energy to create the parts of a hybrid car? Maybe. Will it last as long as a diesel or gas powered car? Does it need the same, fewer, or more inputs (replacement parts) than an equivalent combustion powered car. What are the sum total pollution outputs of each piece of the manufacturing pie to make each car, the fuels (electricity of petroleum), and the replacement parts.
A diesel locomotive is a great example. If you look at the fuel they guzzle it will boggle your mind. But, if you compare fuel useage in terms of gallons/ton/mile the locomotive is vastly more efficient than an equal number of semis needed to carry the same load the same distance. Also, when you compare vehicle maintenance, road/track maintenance and all other pieces in the puzzle the locomotive still wins. So yes, a locomotive burns a LOT MORE fuel than a semi, but when you compare how much work it does for the same amount of fuel it's a huge advantage. The road surface? concrete and asphalt can be sort-of recycled. Steel train tracks? Melt them down and get almost all the steel back into new tracks.
KJ
Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.
We were debating whether the considerable drop in fuel economy in the truck itself, more fuel needing to be transported since more is being used, DEF manufacturing and transport logistics that come with it, the manufacturing of the plastic jugs for DEF along with their environmental impact, special catalysts that require more rare earth mining, and DPF's along with their cleaning equipment worth the difference in emissions standards. From what we gathered, it would probably be better to go back to the 2004 emissions standards, but that was based on what we know and not any hard data.
agesilaus wrote:
What do CAFE stds have to do with Smog anyway.
LIKE2BUILD wrote:
I took several graduate classes in Environmental Studies and one of the professors always talked about SLOT Efficiency....SLOT= Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy (chaos) in a system, the transfer of heat (energy) and that all inputs of energy into a non-reversible system interact until it reaches equilibrium.
Basically, it means exactly what you just said. You can't just look at the EPA rating on the sticker and assume you're more efficient. You have to look at SLOT efficiency, or the entire system required to make the car plus the efficiency of each individual vehicle. Does it take more energy to create the parts of a hybrid car? Maybe. Will it last as long as a diesel or gas powered car? Does it need the same, fewer, or more inputs (replacement parts) than an equivalent combustion powered car. What are the sum total pollution outputs of each piece of the manufacturing pie to make each car, the fuels (electricity of petroleum), and the replacement parts.
A diesel locomotive is a great example. If you look at the fuel they guzzle it will boggle your mind. But, if you compare fuel useage in terms of gallons/ton/mile the locomotive is vastly more efficient than an equal number of semis needed to carry the same load the same distance. Also, when you compare vehicle maintenance, road/track maintenance and all other pieces in the puzzle the locomotive still wins. So yes, a locomotive burns a LOT MORE fuel than a semi, but when you compare how much work it does for the same amount of fuel it's a huge advantage. The road surface? concrete and asphalt can be sort-of recycled. Steel train tracks? Melt them down and get almost all the steel back into new tracks.
KJ
rhagfo wrote:
Yes, in the 70's they were needed we had some pretty bad air in several cities. That said there is a point of diminishing returns. that is where the common sense goes out the door.
Fleet average of 54 mpg, could mean a lot of electric or hybrid. While the car produces less emissions, what does it take to produce the car in the first place. The environmental impact of producing the batteries. How is the electricity that powers an all electric car produced. Hydro power is on the hit list, that leaves oil, gas,coal, or nuclear. Just saying there are trade offs.
NJRVer wrote:Gdetrailer wrote:NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Guess what? They met them and they are still here.
At WHAT COST?
30 yrs ago you could buy a fully loaded top trim level 1 ton pickup truck for a mere $12K! Sure it only got 10 MPG empty but considering today you will pay in excess of $60K for fully loaded 1 Ton pickup truck and it only gets 14 MPG empty!
The Companies were forced to spend BILLIONS of dollars per year to "clean" the air and "improve" economy.. The companies cannot afford to absorb that cost so that cost IS PASSED ONTO THE CUSTOMERS!
I am not against clean air, but there ARE considerable limitations to just how much more "reduction" in pollution and increase in mileage can be had.. There are many inherent losses with Internal combustion engines that cannot be helped or "improved".. There becomes a point in time where the gains are so small compared to what the consumer can bear in costs.
One of the CHEAPEST solutions to improving the "economy" is to REDUCE or REMOVE the alcohol!..
Cutting gas with alcohol easily reduces the mileage by 10% or a bit more.. You end up using more gas overall and the alcohol process burns up a lot of energy in crops and processing..
30 years ago gas was what?....$1 a gallon? A good size house could be had for less than $100,000.
30 years ago the median income was how much?
30 years ago an electric vehicle was some weird looking thing with three wheels.
30 years ago almost nobody had a computer or "car phone".
Gdetrailer wrote:NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Guess what? They met them and they are still here.
At WHAT COST?
30 yrs ago you could buy a fully loaded top trim level 1 ton pickup truck for a mere $12K! Sure it only got 10 MPG empty but considering today you will pay in excess of $60K for fully loaded 1 Ton pickup truck and it only gets 14 MPG empty!
The Companies were forced to spend BILLIONS of dollars per year to "clean" the air and "improve" economy.. The companies cannot afford to absorb that cost so that cost IS PASSED ONTO THE CUSTOMERS!
I am not against clean air, but there ARE considerable limitations to just how much more "reduction" in pollution and increase in mileage can be had.. There are many inherent losses with Internal combustion engines that cannot be helped or "improved".. There becomes a point in time where the gains are so small compared to what the consumer can bear in costs.
One of the CHEAPEST solutions to improving the "economy" is to REDUCE or REMOVE the alcohol!..
Cutting gas with alcohol easily reduces the mileage by 10% or a bit more.. You end up using more gas overall and the alcohol process burns up a lot of energy in crops and processing..
