My question is this...
If California is the home state of technology and electronics...
Why not develop solar powered blimps with catalyst/filtration systems? Or is that too much like common sense? It's 2017 going on 2018... not 2017 going on 1917... the technology to do great things exists, yet it's more regulate this ban that to push an agenda...
That's why I can't take the EPA or CARB serious. They're a bureaucracy that makes regulations. In the name of environmental issues... yet... do not do anything proactive other than
and issue fines/ridiculous rules/restrictions.
I thought progressives the key word was progress, to move forward... not backwards into a dystopia...
The landmass of the state is enormous.
They would need a ridiculously expensive infrastructure to support the implementation of an entirely electronic vehicle transit system.
You're talking power stations, a power grid, whether above or below ground...
There's the toxic batteries issue, which to be honest, isn't economical at all, even if lithium ion, to recycle lithium is 5x more expensive than mining...
Can post all the tesla beating this vehicle that vehicle in a drag race. What about trucking? How are you going to move freight? What about farming/harvesting implements? I worked at a place that had LP gas CNG and diesel forklifts. They replaced the diesel ones with electric. They lasted for 6 hours before they came to a crawl and required recharging which took 8-14 hours.
For large cities I could see electric cars as feasible. Buses? Nope. Trolley cars sure. But battery operated buses no way. Taxis? Sure. Cars? Sure. Although stop and go presents an issue. Battery drain, electric is most efficient when in a highway situation with a constant draw. Golf karts are good example even though they have standard lead acid batteries. They would last longer with a steady load/draw, than stop accelerate, stop accelerate.
I know it sounds like blasphemy but really that 30/35% efficient internal combustion gasoline small block V8 is far more practical. So is that evil diesel.
Which seems more practical
1. Abundant fossil or synthetic fuels
2. Finite conductive metals to support an electrical vehicle and corresponding grid?
OR
3. Develop implements that filter the air?
That's why I can't take the EPA or CARB serious. I cant. I'd much rather see, the development of a good year blimp with a big catalyst to go around filtering the air. Not mandating vehicles emit cleaner emissions than the air they inhale.
Like diesels. I built many high performance power stroke powered trucks when I lived in NY. Delete the emissions control devices, utilize proper tuning, place those trucks on a chassis dyno with an exhaust gas analyzer, the tail pipe emissions were not a significant change to warrant the use of a catalyst DPF/after treatment system, or EGR system. Bad tuning would yield rolling coal. Higher hydrocarbon emissions and higher C02 emissions. N0X was lower.
Proper tuning, not sucking abrasive soot into the intake stream, re routing crankcase ventilation vapors into a catch can. Cleaning up the intake charge. Tuning that manipulated the operation of the VGT solenoid to build more boost quicker, changing the ignition dwell or timing/duration, yielded the same C02 count, slightly elevated N0X count, reduced hydrocarbon count as you were getting a cleaner more complete burn. Think about it. EGR is used to inhale exhaust gas to lower the combustion temperature to lower N0X emissions. At the same time, increases hydrocarbon count as a less efficient burn took place. Catalysts were used to clean that up.
So it came as no surprise when a 6.0 6.4 6.7 went from getting an average of 12-17mpg increased to low to mid 20mpg in a 3/4 or 1 ton capacity crew cab short box truck. Cleaner intake charge = cleaner exhaust output. Altered injection dwell = more efficient burn. But the EPA and anti diesel crowd don't want people knowing that. They issue fines for altering and ditching those implements. And want the masses to believe diesels spew rolling clouds of cancer and run on the blood of toddlers unicorns and puppies.
When VW scandal came to be, I applauded VW. They basically tuned their cars to go around utilizing emissions control devices that caused longevity/reliability issues, and catastrophic failure. They were smart. Not smart enough unfortunately and got popped. You look at the old 80s diesel powered cars they had. Pre emissions implements. Those things would get 60 70mpg highway like a champ. Same with Mercedes Benz. Those old 300D would get phenomenal mileage for what they were. Compare it to the diesels they offer today with all of the emissions control devices, the MPG is negligible due to inefficiency caused by emissions control devices. Old big rigs pre emissions control devices would run for 100s of thousands of miles before needing an overhaul.
Now. Pfft. 2 friends of mine work for big truck shops back in NY. These things are getting towed in suffering from a nuisance failed EGR valve causing the truck to stall and die, to catastrophic failures that I see on ford F250s-F550s. Melted pistons, ruptured egr coolers leading to popped head gaskets, fouled turbos, plugged up particulate filters leading to burnt exhaust valves from excessive back pressure, all sorts of issues that never used to be. Used to be bad fuel caused an injector/pump failure, mechanical wear of camshafts lifters bearings etc.
I say ditch the emissions, call upon engineering firms to develop implements to filter the air, use vehicle registration and tax revenue collected on fuel sales, to design and operate, and maintain said implements. Problem solved. Otherwise bureaucracy will mandate it's will onto the consumer.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
