Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
April 1, 2010 – Canada, U.S. unite on car emission standards […] Until now, California was seen as the bellwether of emissions standards…
April 1, 2010 – California’s last auto plant shuts its doors
Related – “Taxpayers spent $60 billion to bailout GM. They own 60 percent of the company. And now they’re buying its cars.”
Thanks cons! I’d take choking fumes over choking government any day.
Yes Cyto and you will have choking poverty as well since no one will be able to work.
Prentice is a kook.
And so what is everyone planning to do with the gobs of money we will be saving from 2016 onward when this new utopia arrives?
Will we vote them in again so we can get more savings?
/sarc off
It’s almost like reading the historical demise of British leyland. Bloody sad. If anyone who has one knows a Toyota Matrix or a Pontiac Viabe was a well liked small vehicle.
Down here in OZ everyone just shakes their head and wonders…
Atlas shrugged?
Pelosi must be proud of her home state!
Selling a car in South Africa means driving at high speeds in reverse by young business types in white shirts and ties…
Stay alert for the surprise ending… and try not to laugh.
http://tinyurl.com/yk9r5tc
Anything you can do…..
Buy a Ford and sleep with a clean conscience!
Prentice is a AGW quack and a GD embarrassment as a Tory. Another ‘CINO’ in the mushy Harper cabinet.
Joe Citizen.. Didn’t you know?
buy a Ford and when you least expect it the vehicle will self ignite and give you a real thrill.
We saw a Ford do exactly that approaching the Future Shop parking lot on Boxing day.
Odd how Ford has kept this from going viral as Toyota’s trouble has done.
As Ive said before, the fascist left wants the car exterminated for individual use.
To a Medusa like Pelosi. This would be chimes to her ears. She probably popped some bubbly tonight in celebration.
These people in Power, are the definition of insatiable cut outs of ambition. Any real humanity or life, departed them long ago. To Obama ,Reid, Emanuel, Pelosi. Nothing else matters. Control at any cost.
The cost of course we pay for never them.
JMO
California was always the odd man out on emissions regs. With the arch leftists in power in Washington, making the rest of the US conform with California was an easy sop to their enviro-wing.
Canada could not afford to go it alone and stay with the current regs any more than Texas could.
Jim Prentice is a walking, talking example of a political truism that I read about a few years back. I don’t remember the article or who wrote it but I recall the message. It was that most politicans, as soon as they are elected, stop learning. They are so buried in official dreck that they have no time for independent reading and thus no time to keep up with evolving knowledge. They are thus unequipped to challenge bureaucratic bumf.
This is acutely so for a federal Cabinet minister. When he opined yesterday that higher standards for car emissions would help Canada fight climate change, Prentice revealed just how out of touch he really is. His briefings come from his department where the enviro weenies hold sway and they are not about to kill the climate programs that employ them by alerting Prentice to the rapidly unravelling “science” of human-induced global warming.
To those of us who follow this issue closely, Prentice sounds like a fool every time he opens his mouth. He could have said tougher emissions standards are needed to help clean up the air we breathe but he didn’t. He justified the changes as necessary to fight climate change.
The changing landscape of climate science is an issue Jim Prentice, the minister of the environment, should be on top of but clearly he is not. On Planet Prentice, the media revelations about IPCC sloppiness, CRU data manipulation and NASA temperature cherry-picking do not exist. Jimmy is just too damn busy with his briefing papers to actually know what is going on.
There were those on this very site that mocked California emission standards when they were introduced. Now the Harper government, which so many of you are so fond of has adopted similar emission targets. Can a carbon tax or cap and trade be that far away. Think before you reply. Remember, you never thought Harpo would even go this far.
DanBC…beware the limousine liberal. Nancy Pelosi is most proud because the constituents she caters to despise California’s growth, her crowded freeways and the mushrooming oceans of tract houses seen from those limousines, No, Democrat politics is best understood from their eyes. You should live with less, you should want less, you should expect less. You, not us, of course. Revnant Dream is right on.
And a most willing army of pliant eager staff at below minimum wage is an added bonus. Doña Nancy and her friends have allowed California’s history to come full circle….The Estancias are back bigger than ever and the Missions have been replaced with “civic centers” filled with Government services to aid and comfort los peónes, the rest of us.
CO2 is not involved with smog or resperatory issues.
This climate nonsense from Prentice can still be a function of the reality that a critical mass is still under the AGW dome.
I’m not happy with it but it is the lessor of two evils—-the other being the coalition troika.
I recall the 70’s when fuel efficiency was sacrificed on the altar of emmisions……
Reality is like cancer treatments…it is emerging that chemo is only effective 2-4% of the time and may kill more folks than the cancer it is meant to control….the cure as bad as the disease.
Welcome to my world……
It is interesting how the politicians think.
Prentice established that the …2016 model-year…fuel efficiency…35.5 miles per gallon — or 6.6 L/100 km.
Now when you think about it, the wise guys know and have written about it, there is a limit to the energy of 1 liter of gasoline. It is what it is, try as you may, you can’t get any more than what it is.
You can reduce the weight of a vehicle, though there is a limit to that also. You can make the frame, the body of light weight polymers, you loose on strength of the vehicle structure. What about the “safety”?
There will some minor improvements, though all this talk about …reduce greenhouse gas emissions…25 per cent… does that sound realistic?
There will be propaganda that it works and such. Consider electric cars that are all the rage. Where do the plebeians think the electricity come from? Of course there is nothing to it all you have to do is put a plug on any wall and you got power. Isn’t that nice?
Most of the power is generated by coal then you have natural gas and sometime oil, so you don’t see it on the road. It is away somewhere, no see, no hear, no smell,… no exist.
Works like magic, don’t it?
Re fuel efficiency targets
It is entirely possible that if those targets become too onerous manufacturers will sell cars in pairs – one with the size and power to meet the needs/wants of the buyer and a second microcar that it is extremely fuel efficient but that noone would find desirable to drive.
In fact already something similar happens as chrysler dealers are required to take a certain number of thrifty neons on order to get the popular bigger vehicles.
Lev, the secret is ‘in the name of safety and the children’ add enough useless, high maintenance items to each vehicle so most people cannot afford to own one. Second, prevent exploration and refining so the price of fuel restricts the use of those on the road. Problem solved, emissions reduced, planet saved, please vote for us.
Washington will “purchase the first 100 plug-in electric vehicles
Codespeak for no sales orders ha ha.
And a BIG thank you to the Canadian gov’t for throwing money @ GM so that it could lay off it’s FREE work force and reduce it’s market penetration. Why not just turn the assets over to Toyota & Nissan right now and get it over with?
Gord good thought. Sell a car, throw in a bicycle and take the combined. I read an article the other day that was having a devil of a time doing CO2 output from biking but concluded it was not much different than a car but it would get a zero..from the ecos.
Prentice is an idiot who is costing us a lot of money. The PC party is full of liberals. Even Harper is a traitor to conservatism. The country has become all liberal all the time….
Is there restrictions on after sale add-ons? If not then design a vehicle with a regulation compliant micro-engine that can be easily popped out and replaced with a more powerful one.
GM Zero Percent Financing! How much TARP is that going to cost the Taxpayers via GMAC?
What is really troubling , that there is very little consideration to possible negative effects and limitations when an idea is taken to far. Take for example today’s “eco-friendly” dishwashers that does not clean dishes very well.
“State officials are pursuing federal grants to help those impacted by the closure. ”
This is a surprise! I get it now,California’s the “Quebec” of the U.S.!
What Bill and JMD said.
Show me someone who would buy a GM or Chrysler product after this massive bailout, and I’ll show you a fool with no pride.
Just another case of the little folks with no political influence, bailing out the Big Bastards who have it.
Mark these words.
Prentice will either be fired from his cabinet post or be replaced by his constituents.
T at April 2, 2010 9:42 AM…..says..
[Quote]
There were those on this very site that mocked California emission standards when they were introduced. Now the Harper government, which so many of you are so fond of has adopted similar emission targets.
[/Quote]
Harper, as ever, the Conservative economist working on the bottom line, may know that pollution caused lung disease causes more than twice the deaths and medical costs than traffic accidents ever cause.
Nothing wrong with reducing the poisons we breath while Sun flares and volcanoes will take care of global warming.
View any city on a sunny day from high up and you will see a light brown cloud of poisons people live in. Example; check Vancouver from Grouse Mountain.
I left Vancouver for a V.I. village 40 years ago.
So Prentice has a choice of going along with the US so the Canadian manufacturers can sell into the US or Canada can go it alone and sell only cars in Canada.
I think we should fire Prentice and Harper for going along with the US so we can set our own standards and shut down all car manufacturing in Canada!(sarc)
Related:
“Green? Stick this up your tailpipe and smoke it”
Mark
Ottawa
The economic realities of living next to the US are well known. IMO, though, Prentice and the conservatives do not seem to be reluctant participants in AGW regulations, auto bailouts or stimulus spending. Any protests by the CPC about practicing fiscal or regulatory restraint have been weak and half-hearted, at best.
Tony G:
One Ford burneth while millions driveth!
Joe,
That’s what most people think and it is completely wrong!
I posted a link here at SDA showing hundreds of statements by those who have had their garages and houses burned by parked Fords that ignite hours after returning and parking hot.
So Joe, you think Toyota is far worse when the opposite is true? Why? Do you not check? Do you swallow the MSM swill? Caution..
I prefer to root for Ford, but reality is getting in the way.
This link is for the [insider] on new the CAFE standard.
http://tinyurl.com/yzhyobv
PS:
My friend Don has a new Ford Escape. I tell him to park it in the spot two slots away from his garage. Safety first.
I honestly don’t understand the motivations or thought processes of some posters here.
First, California is a larger automotive market than all of Canada. Saying we WON’T build cars to their emissions standards is simply biting off our noses to spite our collective faces. Write off a huge segment of the North American market, which the Japanese and Germans will rush to fill? What did those old Guinness ads say? “Brilliant!”
Second, I know there are many engineers on this site. Would any of you disagree with me that the only advantages a mobile internal combustion engine (ICE) has over an electric (EM) one are the energy density of its power source (gas/diesel vs battery) and ubiquity, where the ICE has a very considerable advantage in density, ease of refill, and infrastructure.
However, electric motors offer the following advantages:
More efficient energy conversion (the best DC brushless motors are about 90% efficient, whereas ICE’s are subject to the limitations of the Carnot cycle)
More efficient use (1): while stalled in traffic, an electric engine uses very little energy, while an ICE wastes gas at 0 mpg at 1200 rpm.
More efficient use (2): when stopping an ICE powered vehicle, conventional brakes convert kinetic energy into waste heat. In addition, as brakes heat up, they lose efficiency (“brake fade”), which is why trucks going down steep inclines shift into low gear to avoid burning out their brakes. Electric cars can recapture some (not all, of course) of this energy through regenerative braking, and feed that back into the battery.
More efficient use (3): DC brushless motors run much cooler than ICE’s, reducing or eliminating the need for components such as radiators, water pumps, etc. In a true hybrid, such elements cannot be completely dispensed with, but they can be made smaller and lighter, thus improving the overall “payload” efficiency (weight of payload/weight of payload and car). In simple terms, you’re not wasting as much energy moving support components instead of your family.
Fewer emissions: I don’t want to get into the endless “where did the electricity come from?” arguments. In Ontario, if electric cars are recharged at night, where I have frequently shown here there is tremendous unused capacity, the power comes almost solely from nuclear and hydro power. I understand that in, say, Alberta, where fossil fuels still contribute the majority of electricity, this issue might not be so cut and dried. However, it is indisputable that at the tailpipe, a true hybrid produces far fewer emissions than an ICE powered vehicle.
Kate has posted here links to studies which say the health effects of airborne pollution are greatly exaggerated, and I’m in no position to dispute them. However, to say the effects are exaggerated and to say there are NO effects are two different things. Again, as an engineer, my ultimate goal is more efficiency, fewer resources used to achieve a goal, and less pollution. Can anyone seriously suggest that MORE air pollution is a social good we should pursue?
I still think for the vast majority of North Americans, a hybrid – a car that uses an electric motor for its main source of power, but has an ICE on board to provide power when the batteries are low – is by far the most efficient and sensible approach. I’m not talking about farmers who need tractors and pickups to do their work, or contractors, etc. who need to haul around lumber and bricks. I’m talking about the guy I share a house with, who has an F-150 that he uses to drive to his office job – about 6 miles each way – and then parks it before he drives home at night. I’m talking about all the moms who drive SUV’s to pick up the kids at school and go grocery shopping.
Anyone who reads my posts here knows I’m loath to suggest coercive solutions. I hate them. (Example: I used to wear my seatbelt religiously when it was optional. The day it was made law, I stopped wearing it – which is personally stupid, of course – because I’d be damned if I’d let some nanny state tell me what to do. It was only a few tickets and the resultant increase in my insurance rates that made me reluctantly change my ways.)
But people are changing. Over at Infectious Greed,
(paul.kedrosky.com), Paul shows a chart showing an enormous increase in hybrid sales in Japan, where sales have more than tripled in the past year, and have actually overtaken the number of units sold in the US on an absolute basis. This could be the start of a huge move down the learning curve, and a tremendous reduction in the price difference between conventional and hybrid vehicles. People may not have noticed, but oil is now well over $80/bbl, and I don’t know anyone who suggests a serious backup from current levels; a price rise is much more certain.
To repeat: I seriously don’t understand why so many people are vehemently opposed to a more efficient, less polluting, and more sustainable technology. From my perspective, it seems like the same “bloody mindedness” portrayed by British unions fighting every single technological improvement proposed by management. We’ve seen the results of that in Britain; are there really so many here who want to see it replicated in Canada?
To repeat: I seriously don’t understand why so many people are vehemently opposed to a more efficient, less polluting, and more sustainable technology.
~KevinB
According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12
* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s “probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.”13
From Ace of Spades HQ linked from somewhere else.
All resistance possible must be rallied against the Communist lead Environmental Juggernaut.
No compromise is acceptable while their goal is the destruction of our entire way of life.
Don’t let reach-across-the-aisle E-bike riding parasitic types such as KevinB fool you, the goal of Environmentalists is total hegemony and then the forced extinction of huge swaths of mankind.
Leading environmentalists like Al Gore and David Suzuki have said as much in no uncertain terms.
KevinB
I worked in Arena’s for 18 years in Edmonton with electric Zamboni’s. They stink, & every year it cost 10,000 to replace the rows of batteries. No staying power for maintenance. I might add that our boots had to be replaced more often since the battery acid would leak on the floor. It could even be smelt in the air.
The guy who bought them where fired & we couldn’t wait for them to wear out before using propane powered machines. Electric has light tears to go.
JMO
Actually, there is no one, apart from some that don’t get the concept, that opposes cleaner, cheaper, efficient and safe vehicle.
No one would oppose if somebody came up with an engine where you could pour water in your tank and drive around (this is not meant to sound as stupid as it perhaps sound).
This is not a protest against clean running engine. However until a wise guy sometime, somewhere comes up with it, things will remain much as they are.
Electric car is not the worst idea, however if you are an engineer, which I’m not, you can see certain limitations. From experience one can see that batteries don’t work well at all in the Canadian winter.
As mentioned Alberta, Saskatchewan and perhaps some other provinces and a lot if not most of the world runs their turbines by coal generated steam. Being involved in design of coal fired power generation in Alberta it can be said that today it is much cleaner than yesterday, however it is not hydro power or nuclear power. If anybody knows about the intimidating power of environ-mentalists on Alberta politicians, it is wonder that they can build anything at all, be it coal, nuclear or hydro.
To say that there is opposition to electric car is not accurate, it is more accurate to say that at this time it’s a luxury that a plebeian can not afford. It can alaso be said that you can, if you stretch it somewhat, commute in the centre of the universe, you get out of town and you are toast.
KevinB:
When electrics can match the performance in any weather conditions and cost as much as my gasoline-fueled 300C AWD, I will gladly buy one – not before.
And I will resist any initiatives for large amounts of research on gettng to that point until someone can provide a solid timeline to getting to that point. That is what was done with putting a man on the moon and it is the minimum requirement for something as pedestrian as commercializing electric vehicles.
Oz: An almost ten year old study based on stats that reach back nearly twenty years is hardly persuasive. Modern cars have cages, crush zones, and crumple zones. Get back to me when you have something relevant.
And, if you’d bother to read and understand my post, I’m not trying to force anyone to use electric anything, so calling me some kind of environmental hegemonist is just plain stupid. I use an electric bike because it’s very cheap, it’s almost as fast as a car in my congested traffic, and it’s fun. YMMV, which is why I’m not suggesting that everyone get one.
RevDream:
Gee, lead-acid batteries are not the solution for electric cars? Who knew?
Um.. just about everyone? GM’s Volt will use lithium ion batteries. Ford, Honda, and Toyota all use nickel-metal hydride batteries. There isn’t a single serious producer of hybrid vehicles that is using lead-acid batteries as the power source. Nice straw man, though.
Lev:
Well, it’s still Good Friday, so I’m not going to say “Jesus H. F***ing Christ, did you even bother to read my post?!”.
You driveled:
it is more accurate to say that at this time it’s a luxury that a plebeian can not afford.
As I noted in my post, the huge increase in hybrid sales likely means a reduction in the price differential between hybrids and conventional cars. Rising gas prices, which are coming, will reduce the payback. Apparently, the meaning of these two facts is lost on you.
It can also be said that you can, if you stretch it somewhat, commute in the centre of the universe, you get out of town and you are toast.
Again, your lack of reading comprehension skills is amazing. I’m suggesting HYBRIDS, not solely electric cars. Do you understand that a hybrid has a conventional gas motor in it? That you can fill up a regular gas tank with regular gas, and drive until you reach the next gas station? That you can use your electric engine more efficiently in urban traffic, not wasting energy while you are stopped at lights or by traffic, and have the ICE engine kick in only when your battery gets low?
I’m still waiting for a persuasive argument why anyone purchasing a new car would not consider a gas/electric hybrid. Yes, they have a bit higher sticker price, but for the vast majority of North Americans (80%) that have daily commutes of 40 km or less, you’ll save substantially on gasoline. At $2.40 US per gallon, various sources cite 6-9 year paybacks for the extra upfront cost. We’re paying about $1/litre (~ $4 US/US gallon) here in Canada, which suggests to me the payback is even quicker now, and again, it seems the price differential between hybrids and conventional cars is dropping.
I’ll say again, hybrids aren’t for everyone, but they’re certainly suitable for most. I’m still waiting for an intelligent argument against hybrids.
KevinB,
The problem with hybrid/electric vehicles is that there is no sweet spot (money wise). If you don’t do a lot of miles why change (and take a loss) and if you do a lot, it just isn’t practical. A Prius is what – about 30k? … 500 a month interest free over 5 years. Why would your bud get rid of the f150 … $100 for gas vs $500 in payments?
A BTW: Moms like SUVs because they fell safer for their kids and themselves … and, well, ah, I have no problem with that … because I do also.
Actually I don’t drivel.
KevinB
There is really need to get worked up about what other people write if you don’t agree.
This of course is your right to do. It just seems overboard.
KevinB: “I’m still waiting for an intelligent argument against hybrids.”
Nobody wants them … 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
What’s half of 814,173?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius
or, what is .16% … everyone is stupid but you.
CO2…
I take Kevin’s side here. He and I are not preaching GW bullshit, but simply efficiency.
He’s an engineer. I’m not, but at least throwing something worthwhile out with the GW bathwater is obviously silly.
There are new model EVs coming out well under the $30K price level. Look up the Nissan Leaf. Get informed.
Now let’s figger this out like real engeneer wizards…
Electric Vehicle with 10 year warranty on the battery pack, no worries about hoses, pumps, oils, ignition systems, injectors…etc etc etc.. And NO GAS TO BUY…
My $400 monthly gas money would pay for the EV… What more do you want?
BTW CO2, The best argument against hybrids is that they can’t move without gasoline or diesel. An oil boycot means..NO GO at ALL.
Did you hear about the refinery that blew recently? Ever heard of NO GAS in 1973?
No, the pure electric vehicle is the freedom way to go.
LEV, Batteries don’t work in Canadian winters? I don’t want to label your intellect level, you just have a sort of feeling, I guess.
You realize all vehicles in this country start up and go to work from a single lone battery on cold mornings… eh? Well an EV has a battery pack that retains heat over time.
Testers of the GM Volt in Canada kept GM EVs in a 30 below condition and while cold had a small effect, it was nothing to worry about at all. In fact your question brings on laughter from those in the know.
REV Dream, Electric Zambonies are old tech using lead acid batteries. Not applicable.
Poorly designed Zambonies mean nothing. Millions of well designed forklifts have been in use for 30 years. No monoxide in warehouses.. ever notice that?
Those Zambonies need Nickle based cells to run clean and longer.
OZ… City smog kills over twice as many people as traffic accidents do.
Last.. Government of BC and hydro websites state that over 2 million EVs could easily recharge overnight on the BC grid with no additional upgrading at al.. except for a 220V socket in your garage.
Better bone up on EVs. These arguments are far below the normal SDA standard.
http://green.autoblog.com/
oo2:
Why do you think the Prius is the only hybrid sold in the US? You do realize that Honda, Ford, and Chevrolet all sell hybrids as well? Currently there are 2.5 million hybrids registered in the US of A, or more than 1% of all passenger vehicles. As noted in my earliest post, hybrid sales tripled in Japan in the last year, and are expected to hit over 1 million units per year worldwide in 2010. That’s about 5% of the new car market. I also noted in another thread that the average time an American holds on to their car has increased from 4 years in 2001 to more than 5 years last year, so the turnover in the US market is slowing, which means it will take even longer for hybrids to reach a significant share of the installed base, although accelerating gas prices may help. (Hybrid sales in the US have fallen along with pump prices in the last two years.)
You also wrote:
If you don’t do a lot of miles why change (and take a loss) and if you do a lot, it just isn’t practical. A Prius is what – about 30k? … 500 a month interest free over 5 years. Why would your bud get rid of the f150 … $100 for gas vs $500 in payments?
I’d like to understand the second part of your first sentence. Why is a hybrid NOT practical if you do a lot of miles? You’re still going to use less gas than if you used a conventional car.
And if my bud had a brand new F150 sitting in the driveway, I’d agree with you. But it’s twelve years old, he’s been having problems with it, and he’s making noises about getting a new vehicle. So, if he’s going to spend $450/month on a new F150, and $200 a month on gas, why not spend $500 a month on a hybrid, and $100 a month on gas?
Tony G – thanks, I’m glad you get it.
I think you know the reason, Kevin B. People are not opposed to the technology but government intervention via taxes, subsidies and regulations? I resent the government meddling in energy and auto market to force consumers to purchase the “appropriate” products. I don’t want to pay more for gas or a green car for the privilege of conforming to politically-approved purchasing programs.