Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every vote counts !!! Sign up for the 'RPM Act"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • njboy
    replied
    Originally posted by dreeves View Post
    This doesn't make any sense. You want more nuclear power? Great - it generates electricity, which is what EVs use. EVs and nuclear are totally complementary - but unless we're going to run them on wires like electric trains and trolley buses, we're going to need batteries to provide a reserve of electricity.

    And I don't think you'l find too may people concerned with climate change who don't also want to preserve wildlife and conserve land. But doing that might mean devoting some land toward solar power. In Washington, they've been taking down some hydro dams, which are great electricity generators, because they kill fish. It's a balancing act.


    What I’m referring to is the use of e-fuels or synthetic fuels. With abundant and hopefully someday cheaper nuclear power we could manufacture energy dense petroleum hydrocarbons. These fuels are carbon neutral since they use the CO2 in the atmosphere. Batteries using their current chemistry will never be used for long haul trucking, large construction and jumbo jets. I envision battery cars for commuting, luxury sedans and poser truck owners.

    Leave a comment:


  • dreeves
    replied
    This doesn't make any sense. You want more nuclear power? Great - it generates electricity, which is what EVs use. EVs and nuclear are totally complementary - but unless we're going to run them on wires like electric trains and trolley buses, we're going to need batteries to provide a reserve of electricity.

    And I don't think you'l find too may people concerned with climate change who don't also want to preserve wildlife and conserve land. But doing that might mean devoting some land toward solar power. In Washington, they've been taking down some hydro dams, which are great electricity generators, because they kill fish. It's a balancing act.

    Originally posted by njboy View Post
    I agree.
    Also there is this one narrative, climate change. No concern for land conservation, wildlife preservation, or concerns of other forms of pollution that come from solar panels and especially batteries.

    Also EVs are a step backwards with regards to energy density. We should be moving forward to more energy dense sources like nuclear. Not away. Through history man has progressed from burning wood and dung, to coal, to fossil fuels and then we should go nuclear. Batteries is a step back from gasoline and diesel.

    Leave a comment:


  • dreeves
    replied
    100% agree - well said.

    Originally posted by idickers View Post
    A counter argument would be that we all need to make some effort towards clean air. In reading through some of the proponents arguments, they seem especially angered by diesel guys de-smogging their trucks. I don't know if this is a reflection of the whole "rolling coal" trend, but diesels do seem to put out a lot of soot if they don't have those ammonia canisters. But either way, we are trying to compromise our love of performance with everyone's love of breathing. I grew up in Southern Cal in the 60's and 70's, and the air is orders of magnitude better now after CA enacted stricter emissions standards. So I have no problem with meeting tailpipe specs, I think that is reasonable. But I don't think visual inspections need to be there; just shove a probe up my exhaust and see if I'm polluting. How I get to spec is irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • pauliecarzz
    replied
    Originally posted by Lumanikus View Post
    This is about organizations, political clout, and public perception. If you look at the planet as a product, there are far more impactful ways to add value. This ham fisted approach will most likely cause more harm than good. But once again, it's not about facts, it's about perception. And to that point, will this ever happen or is it lip service on at least some level, to spur industry, steer oppinion and establish a real agenda.

    In business, it's never really about, what it's "about" and make no mistake, this is business.
    110%! they have their hands in the pot and are deeply invested! there's a war against oil industries only because of who's invested in the alternative. "Environmentally" EV's have big downsides as well but at the end of day money is what drives ones determination and of course an E30 M3 !

    Leave a comment:


  • Lumanikus
    replied
    This is about organizations, political clout, and public perception. If you look at the planet as a product, there are far more impactful ways to add value. This ham fisted approach will most likely cause more harm than good. But once again, it's not about facts, it's about perception. And to that point, will this ever happen or is it lip service on at least some level, to spur industry, steer oppinion and establish a real agenda.

    In business, it's never really about, what it's "about" and make no mistake, this is business.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironhead
    replied
    Originally posted by njboy View Post
    I agree.
    Also there is this one narrative, climate change. No concern for land conservation, wildlife preservation, or concerns of other forms of pollution that come from solar panels and especially batteries.

    Also EVs are a step backwards with regards to energy density. We should be moving forward to more energy dense sources like nuclear. Not away. Through history man has progressed from burning wood and dung, to coal, to fossil fuels and then we should go nuclear. Batteries is a step back from gasoline and diesel.
    I agree that nuclear power, of all our options, has the fewest downsides. It can meet our needs, with available technology. As I said though, it is vigorously opposed by all the unicorn riding utopians because it doesn't fit their version of reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • njboy
    replied
    I agree.
    Also there is this one narrative, climate change. No concern for land conservation, wildlife preservation, or concerns of other forms of pollution that come from solar panels and especially batteries.

    Also EVs are a step backwards with regards to energy density. We should be moving forward to more energy dense sources like nuclear. Not away. Through history man has progressed from burning wood and dung, to coal, to fossil fuels and then we should go nuclear. Batteries is a step back from gasoline and diesel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironhead
    replied
    What irks me, is that they are trying to make feel-good political policy into iron-clad law, while completely disregarding the actual reality of the situation.

    Our current power grid is completely inadequate to handle millions of new electric cars on the road. Are electric cars going to be supplied by coal fired plants? Probably not. The same political camp pushing this sort of crap will vigorously oppose any fossil fuel power, fight the construction of new dams, nuclear is a non-starter. Anyone who believes solar and wind energy can now or ever meet this need is dreaming.

    Same 'ol shit. They only acknowledge reality as they want it to be, not as it actually is.

    Leave a comment:


  • pauliecarzz
    replied
    Originally posted by njboy View Post
    Just wait until California, Massachusetts, and NJ outlaws fuel sales altogether. Bad times maby coming for people like us who like classic cars.
    Cali is all over that right now!

    California Senators Push Biden to Set End Date for Gas-Car Sales (caranddriver.com)

    My personal feeling... I'll never drive electric crap and yes I've driven almost all of it. NO THANKS!

    Leave a comment:


  • njboy
    replied
    Just wait until California, Massachusetts, and NJ outlaws fuel sales altogether. Bad times maby coming for people like us who like classic cars.

    Leave a comment:


  • idickers
    replied
    "Exactly, that's excessive, furthermore one regulation does not fit all. Just because California needed to go on a strict diet to lose some weight dosen't mean every population should undergo the same."

    Except in this case, the smog doesn't stay in LA; that air ultimately moves across the country/world. So we all breathe the same air in the end. For the sake of my kids' and grandkids' lungs I wouldn't mind a national emissions standard. Just one that is more reasonably enforced.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lumanikus
    commented on 's reply
    "But I don't think visual inspections need to be there; just shove a probe up my exhaust and see if I'm polluting. How I get to spec is irrelevant."

    Exactly, that's excessive, furthermore one regulation does not fit all. Just because California needed to go on a strict diet to lose some weight dosen't mean every population should undergo the same.

  • idickers
    replied
    A counter argument would be that we all need to make some effort towards clean air. In reading through some of the proponents arguments, they seem especially angered by diesel guys de-smogging their trucks. I don't know if this is a reflection of the whole "rolling coal" trend, but diesels do seem to put out a lot of soot if they don't have those ammonia canisters. But either way, we are trying to compromise our love of performance with everyone's love of breathing. I grew up in Southern Cal in the 60's and 70's, and the air is orders of magnitude better now after CA enacted stricter emissions standards. So I have no problem with meeting tailpipe specs, I think that is reasonable. But I don't think visual inspections need to be there; just shove a probe up my exhaust and see if I'm polluting. How I get to spec is irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lumanikus
    replied
    This is what it means and I honestly think it's just the first step towards a bigger picture. Only petrol heads gaf about mods and our love of the car isn't in the majority. Most people are buying and "driving" disposable "reliable " transport.
    we'll get you there is all that matters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Westopher
    replied
    Not being able to have those parts on your car =/= “wiping all race track activities”
    As I said, I agree with MOST of these proposals being ridiculous.
    I’m not in a state. I’m in Canada. Trust me I’ve had my life made difficult due to modifications even though my car is 100% compliant with the MVA.
    My plates were taken, car was towed and forced inspection until it could be reinsured, which it passed as is.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X