News from California 11

[zdas04]

California passes new auto emission rules

This article is AMAZING. The regulators in California have mandated that 1.4 million electric cars be on the roads of the state by 2025. I tried to count the number of times electric cars were called "zero emissions" in the article and got to 8 before I lost count. One of the comments after the the article hit the nail on the head by saying "Electricity comes from coal and natural gas, why don't they call these cars 'coal fired vehicles'?".

Why do regulators insist on pretending that they can ignore the laws of nature?

David

 

[FeX32]

Unless of course there is a breakthrough with fuel cells. Or BMW keeps developing it's Hydrogen 5 Series


Fe (IronX32)

 

[beej67]

Nissan Leaf is also 100% electric.

I think electric cars are great, regardless of the whole CO2 thing. If you can get some of the energy from renewable sources (or nuclear) then all the better, but if you can't, they're still worthwhile for two big reasons:

1) Air quality,
2) Foreign oil dependence.

The more we in the US can disassociate our economy with the fluctuating prices of crude oil, the better we can weather a dollar-crash scenario.

The only thing I don't get about the Fruits and Nuts initiative, is how they plan on enforcing it. The devil is in that detail.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

41% of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal (not California, they've distorted their supply mix with regulation which didn't get rid of any coal-fired capacity, it just shifted the non-coal generation to California at a premium price). No one sees that mix changing dramatically over the next 20 years (certainly not over the next 13 years).

Gasoline contains around 114,000 BTU/gallon. Electric cars are heavy and you would expect a small sedan of the same weight to get around 20 mile/gallon so 5700 BTU/mile. At 50 miles/hour that would be 342,000 BTU/hr. That is 100.2 kW each hour. My last home electric bill showed home power in my area to be $0.12/kW-hr, so at today's prices an electric car would cost me $12/gallon-equivalent distance.

On the other hand is the zero-emissions assertion. Most electric cars will be plugged into home electric circuits. That power is generated somewhere (with a thermodynamic effeciency just slightly better than today's internal combustion engine). Then it is transported over wires with a non-trivial transmission loss. Then the voltage is stepped down in several steps, each of which convert some amount of the electricity to heat. Finally something like 50% of the power generated gets to the plug. Central power plants are more effecient both in terms of usable power out per unit of input energy and in terms of mass of pollutants per unit of input energy, but not twice as good. Net result of electric cars is significantly more pollution per mile driven than with a gasoline vehicle of the same size and weight driven similar distances.

Not quite the "zero emissions" that the lawmakers are looking for.

David

 

[moltenmetal]

Ontario's electricity situation arose partially out of good luck (having Niagara Falls in your backyard doesn't hurt). Some of it cost us a lot of capital (all those Candu nuclear plants, most of which are either nearing or beyond their design life with no plans for replacement). So it's no picnic. As far as replacing transport fuels with electricity, in this locale there is no doubt that it will yield environmental benefit.

The Leaf is the ONLY fully electric production car on the North American market. The Volt is an extended range hybrid, which operates the gas engine at highway speed as a means of energy management. The best I could hope for on my commute, which is part highway part city, is about 1.5 L/100 km with the Volt. Unfortunately, the Leaf is VERY expensive, even with signficant government subsidy to help fund the purchase. And with only a 4-5 yr life for the battery packs (I'm figuring 1000 full charge/discharge cycles being the most you're likely to get, no different than a laptop battery), battery pack replacement rather than electricity becomes the major operating cost. But improvements are inevitable over time.

 

[CastMetal]

As for the 4-5 year battery life on these current electric vehicles, The Nissan Leafs' battery can only be leased, for around 200$/mo. Even when buying the vehicle the battery itself is never purchased. So at the end of the three year lease agreement it is assumed a new lease agreement is written for a new battery. Chevy market research found that people viewed this model unfavorably and would rather pay one upfront price. This inevitably will result in many unhappy volt customers 4-5 years after purchase facing a 4000$-7000$ battery replacement bill but such is the wisdom of marketing.

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

 

[jmw]

Carter didn't need to put a dime on gas as I recall, and though this wasn't the 60s, the decade many people cannot remember and when they destroyed lots of their own brain cells, age is creeping up which will do much the same thing for your entire life and I could be wrong, but I seem to remember near civil war when the US deregulated gas prices.
As the then largest consumer they were able to regulate what they paid for imported gasoline much as supermarkets can dictate prices to their suppliers.
This kept the price at the pumps low.
Deregulation meant a hike in prices as they finally paid the market value - though it then became a seller's market with OPEC as practically the only legal "ring" allowed to "fix" prices.

But did this happen or do I misremember it?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

If I remember correctly, Goverment Motors is no longer making the Hummer, and the land of Fruits and Nuts tried something like this a few years ago with Hydrogen cars.

I also believe there are restrictions on oil drilling, which would, if allowed, reduce our current import of oil.

But if we are exporting oil products, and importing oil, isen't there some pass through that may not be reported or accounted for correctly? It would seem to me that if we are exporting oil products, then we really are not consuming all that we are importing.

 

[JohnRBaker]

The so-called restrictions on oil drilling is much over-hyped. Actually the problem could be solved if the oil companies would simply start to drill using the domestic leases which they already have. Something like 40% of the off-shore and 60% of the land-based leases (these numbers could be reversed) are currently sitting idle. The oil companies which 'own' these leases are not going to exercise them until they feel the price of oil reaches the point where they can make the return that want. Besides, as soon as they start to drill, the 'rent' on the leases goes up so as long as they sit on them it's costing them almost nothing. A proposal was recently made to put a time limit on how long that a lease could be left undeveloped before it would have to be returned to the government making it available for someone else to purchase and develop but as you would expect the 'friends of the oil companies' in Congress defeated this bill as they are perfectly happy with the status quo. So while this idea of opening up more land for oil leases sounds like a good idea, and trust me the oil companies would love that to happen as that would allow them to lock-up even MORE land so that someone else can't drill on it, I suspect that even if we leased 100% of the land where we know oil to exist, I doubt it would really change all that much in terms of the price at the pump, or for that matter, the amount oil coming from foreign sources, which BTW is already at historical lows.

Besides, if one wanted to take a pure Machiavellian view of this, perhaps we should STOP ALL domestic oil production, using ONLY foreign crude so that once the world passes the point of 'peak oil', which some say may have already occurred, that the US could then eventually become the 'cartel' which controls to whom and for how much will oil be sold.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[zdas04]

John,
I don't know where to start.

Average return on capital in the Oil & Gas industry is around 5%. Yeah, companies occasionally make a LOT of money, but it takes a LOT of capital to do it. It is not uncommon for a deep offshore well to take $20 billion dollars and 15 years to get from engineering design to first delivery. Quite a drain on the bottom line for a really long time. If a movie company (for example) ever got as low as 5% return on capital top management would be fired the day the numbers were published. Similar risk profiles, but very different expectations.

The much reported export of gasoline is proof that complicated concepts should not be reduced to sound bytes. Crude moves to excess refining capacity. U.S. refineries are REALLY old and no one really knows how much longer they can last, but while they last they are quite effecient at turning certain crude oils into marketable products. There are refineries in the world that do a better job for certain kinds of crude, so that kind of crude is exported to those refineries. Other kinds of crude fits the capabilities of U.S. refineries and it is shipped here (shows up as an import) refined (shows up in the GDP), and shipped home (shows up as an export). The refinery gets a processing fee. These values are netted out on the U.S. import/export balance and the net is 75% of U.S. consumption is imported. All of these movements are efforts to make the global supply/demand balance as effective as possible.

Undrilled acreage is another concept that shouldn't be reduced to a sound byte. I live in the San Juan Basin of Northern New Mexico. In this basin there are nearly 40,000 wells. Some formations are fully drilled. Some aren't. One formation that has huge drilling potential (in terms of number of undrilled blocks) is called the "Dakota". The Dakota formation is very resistant to flow (we call that "tight") and a good Dakota well will make 100 MCF/day--the wells cost $1-1.5 million to drill and equip. If gas is $2/MCF (which is where the EIA says prices are heading) then it will take 13 years for that well to pay off. Most companies see that kind of a return as unacceptable and don't drill them. If the government expired those leases it would be unlikely that they would sell again. That is the reality. There is not a queue lined up to get Dakota leases.

You make the insinuation that the industry is somehow evil for taking advantage of legal tax loop holes. Congress writes the tax code. One example of a "loop hole" is the Section 179 tax credits. This program was created in 1988 and said that since unconventional gas production contained a very high risk (because no one knew how to operate it), it was not economic to drill it at $0.80/MCF prices currently in effect. The tax credit said that if the industry would take the risk, then we could deduct an amount about equal to current sales price from our taxes. Heck of a good deal. It caused companies to reconsider drilling CBM, and tight gas. By the time the tax credits expired in 1998, we had learned enough about these tough plays that we could start looking at Shale Gas with a reasonable expectation of success. Today unconventional gas makes up over 50% of U.S. natural gas supply. Without the Section 179 tax credit we would not have learned how to develop these resources (with the tax credit we had to start over about 4 times after going down dead-end paths, without the tax credit most of us would have stopped at the second or third failed attempt).

Congress writes the tax code to manipulate the economy into directions that Congress desires. If people follow the tax code how the hell do they become villains. If Congress is so weak spirited (and they are) that they are susceptible to influence, then why do we hate the people who legally try to educate them instead of the Congressmen themselves? I think the villains in Washington are the people we've elected.

David

 

[JohnRBaker]

Perhaps, but at the moment Congress appears to be "manipulating the economy into directions" that the lobbyist and campaign contributors would like it to go rather than the people who actually voted for the members of Congress. People seem to forget, that while it is true that candidates need money to be elected/reelected, all the money in the world means nothing if you don't get the most votes, so perhaps they should start to consider exactly WHO really put them into office and who's paying their salary, and NOT those who paid for the 60 second adverts or their campaign website.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[CastMetal]

Does everyone believe that the people by virtue of voting bestow ultimate knowledge of the inner workings of the economy and any industry upon the elected? That the elected merely ignore this perfectly clear, concise mandate of the people in the interest of campaign contributions?
Elected officials are human, as such they are imperfect, with limited knowledge. Lobbyists serve to bring the views of a group to the attention of a policy maker with all of the deeper understanding that group has on an issue. Are lobbyists always truthful?, always give the unadulterated facts?, No. Yet they still play an important role in our governance.

Anyone running for office who says they have all the answers, doesn't.

Back to the OP, America's lifestyle, in particular, is unlikely to change before our fuel options do. What is wrong with some government intervention spurring electric vehicle adoption? It creates a market for the infrastructure that needs to be built, speeds up advances in the technology, softens the losses early developers of the technology will likely suffer. It sounds eerily similar to your defense of O&G tax breaks.


Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

 

[KENAT]

When I heard this on the radio all I could think was 'ijits'.

Ca has been down this road before of specifying how many battery powered vehicles had to be allowed but as I understand it technology didn't keep up with the dreams of the fruits and nuts. I guess true believers can't even learn from their mistakes.

Why all this talk of battery power and hydrogen cells.

Perhaps if they'd focused on encouraging NG use in vehicles they'd have done more to actually improve the air quality.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[zdas04]

It is clearly appropriate government policy to encourage actions that they consider beneficial (using whatever criteria makes sense) and to not encourage actions that they consider harmful. That is what the tax credits I mentioned above did in spades. But companies that didn't feel that unconventional gas could be a reasonable proposition even with the tax credit (i.e., nearly 90% of the companies in the industry) didn't have to play, and they didn't play. The ones that had lease positions in unconventional gas areas that didn't want to play, sold their leases. This government policy was a really good example of a carrot and carrot cake.

The regulation that started this thread is saying that 1.4 million electric vehicles WILL be on the road by the deadline. If the people of California don't want to purchase that many electric vehicles then auto manufacturers will be fined. This looks like an example of a stick and a bigger stick.

As to Congressmen becoming all-knowing by virtue of a beauty contest, that is just nonsense. Voters have no reason to expect omniscience. They do have a right to expect that the Congresscritter will attempt to represent the will of his constituents and will vote that way. Folks in DC say "my district is divided on the subject so "I'm voting my conscience".

My representative did that. On one major piece of legislation, four different polls said that around 72% of his constituents were against it. His mail was running 4 to 1 against so the polls were pretty well matched with his mail--a clear mandate to vote "NO". The leader of the Democrat party was pushing for the bill. My invertebrate congressman voted "yes". And then he got reelected. Since reelection he has not voted in line with his constituents a single time--why should he? There is no recourse for ignoring us, and going along with the party is soooo easy.

David

 

[JohnRBaker]

Perhaps if they'd focused on encouraging NG use in vehicles they'd have done more to actually improve the air quality.

Do you actually live in California? If not, do you visit here often?

I ask because with your last comment you seem to think that we haven't been doing anything to "improve the air quality". My wife and I have been here nearly 32 years and I can assure you that the air quailty, at least here in SoCal (LA and Orange Co), is MUCH better today than it was 32 years ago. Back then it was not uncommon to have 3 or 4 'Smog Alerts' during the Summer and into the Fall. Right now I can't recall the last time we had one (it's got to have been 10 years or so). When we first moved here, it was 6 months before we realized that there was ANOTHER mountain range BEHIND the one we could actually see from our house. The smog had obscured it. Now I would say if you went a week without being able to see the mountains it would be considered unusual and probably only happens now if it's cloud cover from a lingering weather system and not the air quality itself which would prevent us from seeing the mountains for longer than a few days at a time.

As for NG powered vehicles, they are all over the place. Virtually every municipal bus, garbage truck, airport shuttle, public utility owned vehicle, etc are already running on Natural Gas (or in the case of the electric company, many of their vehicles are either plug-in hybrids or pure electric). There are NG refueling stations located in several places around the area and more and more private vehicles are seen on the road with an 'NG Powered' decal on the rear fascia.

While we can do a lot more to improve the air quality here in SoCal, it would be wrong to think that we haven't already taking steps to do so or that we've not made significant progress based on those steps already taken. In fact, it may be the progress that HAS been made in the last 30 year or so which is motivating public officials to propose even bigger and more controversial steps since we now know that even over a short period of time, policies change can and do have an effect.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[KENAT]

Yes I live in CA thanks John.

Sure things have improved, but a day trip to Bakersfield can still have my wife coughing and wheezing for a few days.

(Yes I know there's more than vehicle pollution to that.)

However, my point about NG stands. From a CO2 point of view it's not a big big winner. However, for other pollutants given you can burn it in the kitchen I'm guessing it must have advantages.

My point wasn't NG V everything they've done, it was NG v their obsession with 'zero emission vehicles'.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[zdas04]

John,
I was born in Long Beach 59 years ago. Moved out when I was 13. Moved back with the Navy in 1973. Left again in 1977. Now I visit 3-4 times a year. The difference in the air quality between the mid-60's and mid-70's was a pretty marked deterioriation. The difference between the mid-70's and now is a huge improvement. It still shocks me to come out of San Bernadino and drive into the muck, but the muck is much thinner than 1973.

There definately have been good results. Any idea what actions had the biggest impact? Is it the allowable particulates in diesel? Getting rid of lead in gasoline? Banning coal-fired power plants (I don't think there were any in the LA Basin, but maybe)? Mass transit? Carpooling (it looks to me like virtually every car on the freeway has one occupant, but I know that isn't true)? Something else?

David

 

[beej67]

So yeah.

What happens if they miss their target? Nothing?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

Something else?

One thing that can't be discounted is the number cars that have been taken off the road in the past 32 years which were equipped with little or no emissions controls. Even though the number of vehicles on the road has increased in those same 32 years, the AVERAGE emissions per mile driven has got to be down by an order of magnitude, if not multiple orders. This fact alone has got to have had a significant impact on the overall air quality.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[zdas04]

My mom bought a 1957 Cadillac in 1963 and had to do an emissions test on it before she could license it. That was the first year that you couldn't sell a new car in California that didn't have a catylitic converter (or seat belts, but that is a different discussion)--49 years ago. The standards for used cars were pretty tough and it was an annual test. Not sure that retiring the aging fleet is really the answer because that process had been underway for 10 years when I returned to the muck that I saw in 1973.

David

 

[JohnRBaker]

Was that 57 'Caddie' originally purchased in California as a new car or was it 'imported' from another state?

While all cars, once you've owned them for more than 5 years, must be smog-checked every 2 years, if the car was originally sold in California and it has not been 'tampered' with then as long as you can continue to pass the normal tests you're OK (BTW, the pass/fail standard for that test is set based on what was required at the time the vehicle was sold as new, not what a car sold today would have to pass). Only when a car reaches a certain age, it used to be 25 years old but it could be longer now, you had the option to register it as an 'antique' or 'classic car' and it would either be exempt or moved to a lower standard.

Also, if you could find figures on the rate at which the emissions were being reduced based on the cars being taken off the roads, I suspect that this would not be a linear curve, but perhaps something more exponential, at least for the period from the late 70's and well into the 90's.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.