"Hybrid" Cars

[geoffrey]

Very regressive.

Only richer people can afford less GHG intensive investments like expensive front loading dryers and hybrids (though there are cheap low consumption vehicles, the Cobalt and Civic are two that come to mind). But even then, I figure there is a large chunk of the Canadian population that can't spring for a brand new Civic or Cobalt.

I figure those that would pay the highest in a consumer focused carbon tax would be those too poor to buy their way out of the taxes. Reducing Income taxes to compensate essientially throws a massive transfer from the poor to the rich, the only thing I possibly could hate more than a rich to poor transfer.

[gc1765]

Very regressive.

Only richer people can afford less GHG intensive investments like expensive front loading dryers and hybrids (though there are cheap low consumption vehicles, the Cobalt and Civic are two that come to mind). But even then, I figure there is a large chunk of the Canadian population that can't spring for a brand new Civic or Cobalt.

A lot of poor people (including me) take the bus.

I figure those that would pay the highest in a consumer focused carbon tax would be those too poor to buy their way out of the taxes. Reducing Income taxes to compensate essientially throws a massive transfer from the poor to the rich, the only thing I possibly could hate more than a rich to poor transfer.

If you're worried about it being regressive, would you rather cut the lowest income bracket(s) to compensate (and leave the upper income brackets alone)?

[geoffrey]

If you're worried about it being regressive, would you rather cut the lowest income bracket(s) to compensate (and leave the upper income brackets alone)?

Sure, you could do that. But it doesn't really address my point above. The rich guy that can afford the upgrades and more efficient alternatives pays less carbon tax than the poor guy that can't. The poor man essientially subsidizes the rich guy's fancy washer and dryer, fancy stove, fancy car.

Another whole part of the issue that people haven't looked at is carbon tax avoidance. How can one track how much carbon one is to use? If we are talking about another VAT on our products, that's going to be a massive administration, to determine what percentage rate each product that exists in Canada should be carbon taxed at.

It's a nightmare. It's a terrible idea in every possible way.

Hard caps in emissions over a long-term time frame is the best approach. What August is proposing is reducing Canada's consumption, and that's not a reasonable solution to anyone.

We need cleaner (burning and produced) fuels and products, not less of them.

[Charles Anthony]

Hard caps in emissions over a long-term time frame is the best approach. What August is proposing is reducing Canada's consumption, and that's not a reasonable solution to anyone.

How would YOU administer or enforce hard caps in emissions over a long-term time frame?

[Wilber]

No where in Canada has the transmission or generation capacity to even come close to powering everyone's ride to work anyways.

Yup, when everyone gets home from work, plugs in their electric car, turns on their TV, computer etc, where is all that power going to come from? Electric cars will have their place but I get the impression that some who are promoting one in every garage think electricity comes from a plug in the wall like some other folks think milk comes from a shelf in a store.

It could be a zero emission way of powering vehicles but only in places where power is produced by polution free means such as hydro electric or nuclear and charging is limited to times when other demand is low.

[Leafless]

I think more diesels are definately in the future. My 04 Jetta goes 16,000 Km between services and people don't know they are riding in a diesel car untill you tell them. I've kept mileage records since new and have maintained just over 50 miles per imperial gallon. The diesel pickups built since Jan 01 are not only cleaner but more powerfull than the engines they replaced. The new Bluetec Mercedes E320 diesel meets the latest emission standards, is rated at 31 mpg city 48 mpg highway and is faster 0 to 100Km than a E350 gas. Not bad for a fairly large luxury sedan. Diesels are just getting started.

Diesel vehicles produce more particle matter (PM) soot, and more nitrogen oxides because of the higher temperature combustion process. This contributes to serious respiratory illnesses from poor air quality.

This is of course excludes other types of air pollution produced like hydro carbons, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide.

Diesel engines use more AIR.

Gasoline engines use an air-gas ratio of 14.7:1.

Diesel engines not working hard, air-diesel ratio, varies from 60:1 to 100:1.

That's a lot of air.

I think the most economical and practical way to look at this is smaller gasoline engines.

[blueblood]

Silly mistake by the Greenies.

I once saw a commerical, unsure who it was made by, some awareness thing... that showed some lady plugging in all these devices and the power plant outside her window polluting more and more.

When you plug your car in, your getting coal power in most of Canada. Burning coal in our cars essientially is a terrible route to go down.

No where in Canada has the transmission or generation capacity to even come close to powering everyone's ride to work anyways.

I am no greenie. I thought that charging a battery doesn't take that much power, its not like im running an aeration fan or something. Maybe that's more of a solution if we could ever get off of coal fired plants. I'd have to see a chart or something about how many cars equal a coal plant in terms of pollution and how much power it would take to justify charging all those batteries. I see your point, but if it did end up working out that less pollutants were emitted in the grand scheme of things and the cost/benefits was reasonable then this isn't a bad idea. Also there are other means of power generation other than coal (most of which pollute as well).

I'm not sure trees underwater release CO2 as I'm pretty sure stuff that's underwater won't rot as a lot of stuff that decomposes needs air to do it. I've seen on Discovery where they were salvaging 200 yr. old logs from the bottom of the lake that were perfectly preserved and they bury mine tailings underwater so no O2 can get at it.

The difference in emissions is negligable too. Small cars are not much less fuel efficent, check out the ratings if you don't believe me. 5% isn't a big difference, not for $21,000... I can plant hundreds times more trees then I'd need to offset for that price.

Something more ridiculous is how a V8 300 hp. Chevy Impala which gets close to 30mpg hwy. and for around 30 grand where a Civic is a 4 cyl. and gets close to 40 mpg hwy. and sells for around 20 grand. You get twice the car if your going for the Impala.

[stevoh]

I once saw a commerical, unsure who it was made by, some awareness thing... that showed some lady plugging in all these devices and the power plant outside her window polluting more and more.

When you plug your car in, your getting coal power in most of Canada. Burning coal in our cars essientially is a terrible route to go down.

No where in Canada has the transmission or generation capacity to even come close to powering everyone's ride to work anyways

There are other alternatives to coal fired power plants. Hydro electric (which admittedly has its own issues), solar, wind, and others. We don't HAVE to produce tons of emissions to produce electricity, it can be done many other ways.

AND, you can now purchase solar panels for your home. These are usually used for cottagers "off the grid", but they could also be used to charge your car. This would be an ideal 0 emissions solution.

Its not lack of technology. Its lack of will.

I'm not sure trees underwater release CO2 as I'm pretty sure stuff that's underwater won't rot as a lot of stuff that decomposes needs air to do it. I've seen on Discovery where they were salvaging 200 yr. old logs from the bottom of the lake that were perfectly preserved and they bury mine tailings underwater so no O2 can get at it.

Trees do capture more CO2 than they release. That is a major part of what coal IS. Its decomposed plant matter greatly compressed over time, mostly carbon. So, when we burn the carbon, we are re-releasing into the atmosphere CO2 that was long since absorbed by the original plant.

Thats why the "carbon cycle" is cause for concern. We are taking carbon trapped in plants by millions of years and releasing it through combustion in a short period of time. Trees are a "carbon sink", they absorb more CO2 than they ever release. Unless of course you burn them, or burn one of their eventual states (oil, coal) to re-release it into the atmosphere.

[geoffrey]

I'm not sure trees underwater release CO2 as I'm pretty sure stuff that's underwater won't rot as a lot of stuff that decomposes needs air to do it. I've seen on Discovery where they were salvaging 200 yr. old logs from the bottom of the lake that were perfectly preserved and they bury mine tailings underwater so no O2 can get at it.

I saw that one too, pretty neat stuff. They make a killing too, each log is worth tens of thousands of dollars.

But it's not just the emission from the rotting trees I'm concerned about (in fact, many trees are cut down before hydro dams so they don't get loose and plug up the dam). It's the loss of a massive carbon sink.

[blueblood]

I'm not sure trees underwater release CO2 as I'm pretty sure stuff that's underwater won't rot as a lot of stuff that decomposes needs air to do it. I've seen on Discovery where they were salvaging 200 yr. old logs from the bottom of the lake that were perfectly preserved and they bury mine tailings underwater so no O2 can get at it.

I saw that one too, pretty neat stuff. They make a killing too, each log is worth tens of thousands of dollars.

But it's not just the emission from the rotting trees I'm concerned about (in fact, many trees are cut down before hydro dams so they don't get loose and plug up the dam). It's the loss of a massive carbon sink.

One question though is how much coal and oil is saved vs. how much CO2 is absorbed? Which is the lesser of two evils?

[geoffrey]

One question though is how much coal and oil is saved vs. how much CO2 is absorbed? Which is the lesser of two evils?

No doubt that hydro is the lesser evil, as long as your not into ecosystems or anything like that.

My point though is if your going to try to tax emissions and deal with them, then all contributions to GHG have to be taxed in order for it to be fair. Destroying a forest increases net GHG produced by Canada.

The lumber industry would also be effected, and our house prices would have to go up to reflect how our living establishments hurt the environment by destroying carbon sinks. It's actually quite easily to do with the lumber industry because we aren't dealing with emissions in perpituity.

It takes x years before the replanted trees get to full size again, it would be easy to calculate the damage to the carbon sink by logging and so a price could be affixed to your lumber in your house.

This carbon tax must be sounding less tasty day by day.

[Remiel]

Pffft. Nuclear. I was never absolutely convinced that nuclear was ultimately a bad idea until I heard that if we were to produce all of the worlds energy on nuclear, our fuel would last only 15 years. Basing the future of energy on consumption of finite resources is a bad way to go. We should be trying to maximize the efficiency of users infinite source energy.

Err... on the tree thing... if plants are a carbon sink, what are the most efficient plants? The ones that grow the fastest? Another idea I had... what if you forested vast areas with these trees, and then when they outlived their space efficiency, you chopped them all down, turned 'em into woodchips and stuffed them in expended coal mines, and planted new ones? Nevermind, reading further down the Wikipedia entry, someone already beat me to it. There is the interesting idea though of carbon-neutral/positive construction though...

[Wilber]

Diesel vehicles produce more particle matter (PM) soot, and more nitrogen oxides because of the higher temperature combustion process. This contributes to serious respiratory illnesses from poor air quality.

This is of course excludes other types of air pollution produced like hydro carbons, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide.

Diesel engines use more AIR.

Gasoline engines use an air-gas ratio of 14.7:1.

Diesel engines not working hard, air-diesel ratio, varies from 60:1 to 100:1.

That's a lot of air.

I think the most economical and practical way to look at this is smaller gasoline engines.

The new Bluetec technology is greatly reducing particulates and other pollutants, ULSD fuel is making a big difference in sulphur dioxide emissions and diesels were already producing substantially less CO2 And CO than gas engines. For the first time in years diesel cars are meeting 50 state standards. There is still plenty of development left in diesels to further reduce emissions. Higher combustion temperatures help reduce emissions not raise them, that is why exhaust gas recirculation is used in gas engines and catalytic converters operate at such high temperatures.

Perhaps you have it backwards. Air is not a pollutant, fuel is. Instead of saying that's a lot of air, you should be saying, that's not much fuel.

I certainly don't think gas engines are on the way out, just that we will be seeing more diesels.

[geoffrey]

Pffft. Nuclear. I was never absolutely convinced that nuclear was ultimately a bad idea until I heard that if we were to produce all of the worlds energy on nuclear, our fuel would last only 15 years. Basing the future of energy on consumption of finite resources is a bad way to go. We should be trying to maximize the efficiency of users infinite source energy.

Not to mention we'd have tonnes and tonnes of radioactive waste that we'd need to keep somewhere for ummm a few hundred million years.

Nuclear is a terrible bandaid solution.

Err... on the tree thing... if plants are a carbon sink, what are the most efficient plants? The ones that grow the fastest? Another idea I had... what if you forested vast areas with these trees, and then when they outlived their space efficiency, you chopped them all down, turned 'em into woodchips and stuffed them in expended coal mines, and planted new ones? Nevermind, reading further down the Wikipedia entry, someone already beat me to it. There is the interesting idea though of carbon-neutral/positive construction though...

That's pure craziness, but people can plant more trees in their yards and stuff, that'd help.

--

One thing that definitely needs to be done in Canada is to create more roadways that work with bikes. Sure, it's difficult to ride all year in a country that gets cold. But in the summer, on those hot smoggy days, taking many thousands of cars off the road would certainly help, and people would be more active which would also benefit society.

[Leafless]

Diesel vehicles produce more particle matter (PM) soot, and more nitrogen oxides because of the higher temperature combustion process. This contributes to serious respiratory illnesses from poor air quality.

This is of course excludes other types of air pollution produced like hydro carbons, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide.

Diesel engines use more AIR.

Gasoline engines use an air-gas ratio of 14.7:1.

Diesel engines not working hard, air-diesel ratio, varies from 60:1 to 100:1.

That's a lot of air.

I think the most economical and practical way to look at this is smaller gasoline engines.

The new Bluetec technology is greatly reducing particulates and other pollutants, ULSD fuel is making a big difference in sulphur dioxide emissions and diesels were already producing substantially less CO2 And CO than gas engines. For the first time in years diesel cars are meeting 50 state standards. There is still plenty of development left in diesels to further reduce emissions. Higher combustion temperatures help reduce emissions not raise them, that is why exhaust gas recirculation is used in gas engines and catalytic converters operate at such high temperatures.

Perhaps you have it backwards. Air is not a pollutant, fuel is. Instead of saying that's a lot of air, you should be saying, that's not much fuel.

I certainly don't think gas engines are on the way out, just that we will be seeing more diesels.

You have misunderstood.

When I say for instance, the air-gas ratio of an internal combustion engine is 14.7 to 1, that means for every gallon of fuel burnt you use 14.7 gallons of air.

IOW we are depleting earths air supply and at the same time creating global warming.

Diesel is a lot worse concerning depleting the earths air, if you look at my previous posted air-diesel oil ratio's.

You can talk all you want about new technology but basically all your doing is creating more water vapour (by way of catalytic converter) earths #1 greenhouse gas.

[Wilber]

You have misunderstood.

When I say for instance, the air-gas ratio of an internal combustion engine is 14.7 to 1, that means for every gallon of fuel burnt you use 14.7 gallons of air.

IOW we are depleting earths air supply and at the same time creating global warming.

Diesel is a lot worse concerning depleting the earths air, if you look at my previous posted air-diesel oil ratio's.

You can talk all you want about new technology but basically all your doing is creating more water vapour (by way of catalytic converter) earths #1 greenhouse gas.

I think you have misunderstood, pollution comes from the fuel, not from air. It doesn't matter how much air you pump through an engine the amount oxygen used to provide combustion is directly proportional to the amount of fuel you add. Assuming that a gas engine used all the O2 in 14.7 gallons of air for each gallon of gasoline consumed, for a diesel using a 100:1 ratio to consume all the oxygen in 100 gallons of air it would mean that a gallon of diesel would have to contain 100/14.7=6.8 times as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. We know that isn't true. Comparing fuel air ratios means nothing, it is just a function of the different ways these engines work. A diesel has no throttle plate in its intake system so there is always a lot of air going through it, the amount of power produced is controlled purely by adding fuel. It doesn't matter how much air goes through an engine, if there is no fuel there is no pollution. Another reason gas engines need a 14.7 ratio is that they are spark ignition engines and cannot run too lean. A diesel is a compression ignition engine, it doesn't care very much about lean mixtures.

Catalytic converters are used with all engines now, diesel or gas and diesels produce 20% less CO2 and much less CO than comparable gas engines.

[na85]

You can't "deplete" earth's air unless you convert it to some other substance. Internal combustion engines don't deplete earth's air, they merely dirty it.

That being said, the throughput of an engine (60 gal vs 15 gal) does not determine its eco-friendliness. The new diesel engines have particulate filters that can reduce the total particulate emissions to less than 1 part per billion.

It's eminently possible for a diesel engine to puff out 60 gallons of air that is cleaner than the 15 gallons puffed out by a gasoline engine.

Merely reducing the size and displacement of the engine does nothing; instead we should be looking to improve the emissions from the existing engines, and for ways to further refine and clean up the fuel we use.

[geoffrey]

There are other alternatives to coal fired power plants. Hydro electric (which admittedly has its own issues), solar, wind, and others. We don't HAVE to produce tons of emissions to produce electricity, it can be done many other ways.

AND, you can now purchase solar panels for your home. These are usually used for cottagers "off the grid", but they could also be used to charge your car. This would be an ideal 0 emissions solution.

Its not lack of technology. Its lack of will.

I think I missed this comment.

Few refutations of your points:

1) Wind can't make up more than 10%ish of any power grid because of reliability issues. In Alberta for example, we can't add more wind as it would make our supply too risky.

2) The process to manufacture solar panels is highly GHG and toxic pollutant intensive and the panels cannot be safely disposed of after their useful life. If we all loaded our houses with solar panels, we'd likely reduce GHG, but in 10 years when they all pass their useful life, we have a massive toxic waste problem on our hands. Solar is too expensive and dangerous to the environment to take seirously.

What else do you want to use? I'm open to hearing some good ideas here.

[na85]

Photo-voltaic cells are the product of a dirty process, yes, but there are other solar solutions. Parabolic mirrors in a large array can focus enough light onto a single point to raise the temperature to ~9000 degrees C.

Beyond solar, nuclear has potential if the waste could be managed properly.

Personally, I think they should just heap all the waste onto a rocket and launch it into the sun.

[Wilber]

Almost 80% of France's electrical power is generated by nuclear plants.

[blueblood]

Almost 80% of France's electrical power is generated by nuclear plants.

Where do they put the waste? I wonder if they could drill a hole past the mantle and chuck the waste down there. I'm not sure how radioactive waste reacts to extreme temperatures.

[na85]

Almost 80% of France's electrical power is generated by nuclear plants.

Where do they put the waste? I wonder if they could drill a hole past the mantle and chuck the waste down there. I'm not sure how radioactive waste reacts to extreme temperatures.

I'd be worried if they did that, what with seepage problems. Plus, drilling all the way through the crust would be enormously expensive. I'm sure it could be done, but the magnitude of such a project boggles the mind.

As for burying it in the mantle, you'd need an environment where the temperature was high enough to dissociate the waste into its component elements. The melting point of Uranium is 1132 degrees C, whereas the average temperature of Earth's mantle (at the interface with the crust) is somewhere on the order of 600 degrees C.

As you can see, it would probably be necessary to drill almost to the core, which is something like six thousand km deep.

[geoffrey]

Beyond solar, nuclear has potential if the waste could be managed properly.

Alot less resource potential in nuclear, we don't have a massive supply of reactor grade Uranium. It'd make Canada really rich though, since we are one of the leading producers.

[na85]

Agree. Another plus is that the CANDU reactors require less refining of their fuels than do their contemporaries. It makes them a lot more attractive on the market. There is still a fair amount of potential, however. Nuclear safety and reactor technology are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were 20 years ago.

[geoffrey]

Agree. Another plus is that the CANDU reactors require less refining of their fuels than do their contemporaries. It makes them a lot more attractive on the market. There is still a fair amount of potential, however. Nuclear safety and reactor technology are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were 20 years ago.

At the end of the day though, the glowing piles of control rods and uranium aren't leaps and bounds ahead of where they were 20 years ago. Nuclear is a very irresponsible option long-term.