Global Warning/Climate Change

[Ken]

So, sort of like street cars w/o the tracks. But what is the energy source at the electricity generation plant? I can sort of see the point of it, even if the answer is 'natural gas', or even 'coal', because it "exports the pollution" out of the city, where it otherwise becomes concentrated. (I'm not trying to be secretly critical. Cities have for a long time "exported" pollution associated with the production of many of the products consumed there.)

Mostly hydropower. Zero coal or natural gas: https://www.seattle.gov/city-light/ener ... nvironment

[ken_sylvania]

So, sort of like street cars w/o the tracks. But what is the energy source at the electricity generation plant? I can sort of see the point of it, even if the answer is 'natural gas', or even 'coal', because it "exports the pollution" out of the city, where it otherwise becomes concentrated. (I'm not trying to be secretly critical. Cities have for a long time "exported" pollution associated with the production of many of the products consumed there.)

I would expect even a fossil fuel powered power plant is likely more efficient at converting fuel to power than an ICE in a vehicle would be, and particularly if the vehicle would be operating in hilly terrain. So you might get a combined benefit - reduced pollution with that pollution also exported outside the city.

[Ken]

So, sort of like street cars w/o the tracks. But what is the energy source at the electricity generation plant? I can sort of see the point of it, even if the answer is 'natural gas', or even 'coal', because it "exports the pollution" out of the city, where it otherwise becomes concentrated. (I'm not trying to be secretly critical. Cities have for a long time "exported" pollution associated with the production of many of the products consumed there.)

I would expect even a fossil fuel powered power plant is likely more efficient at converting fuel to power than an ICE in a vehicle would be, and particularly if the vehicle would be operating in hilly terrain. So you might get a combined benefit - reduced pollution with that pollution also exported outside the city.

Yes, that is true. I’m too lazy to look it up. But even electric cars running off coal fired electricity are “cleaner” than gas powered cars, both in terms of carbon emissions and particulate emissions. That is because electrical energy generation from coal or natural gas is far more efficient than internal combustion engines which keep running even when the car is idling or stopped or braking.

Better to have one big high-efficiency coal power plant than hundreds of thousands of internal combustion engines idling away in the city, many of them old and poorly maintained.

[Neto]

So, sort of like street cars w/o the tracks. But what is the energy source at the electricity generation plant? I can sort of see the point of it, even if the answer is 'natural gas', or even 'coal', because it "exports the pollution" out of the city, where it otherwise becomes concentrated. (I'm not trying to be secretly critical. Cities have for a long time "exported" pollution associated with the production of many of the products consumed there.)

I would expect even a fossil fuel powered power plant is likely more efficient at converting fuel to power than an ICE in a vehicle would be, and particularly if the vehicle would be operating in hilly terrain. So you might get a combined benefit - reduced pollution with that pollution also exported outside the city.

Yes, that is true. I’m too lazy to look it up. But even electric cars running off coal fired electricity are “cleaner” than gas powered cars, both in terms of carbon emissions and particulate emissions. That is because electrical energy generation from coal or natural gas is far more efficient than internal combustion engines which keep running even when the car is idling or stopped or braking.

Better to have one big high-efficiency coal power plant than hundreds of thousands of internal combustion engines idling away in the city, many of them old and poorly maintained.

I get that. Just one comment (Sorry, it got longer than I intended. I kept thinking of other ideas.): ICEs are more efficient and create less pollution when they are at operating temperature, and kept running. Yes, they take more fuel if just idling than if turned off and restarted, but as I understand it, they create more pollution (basically incompletely burned fuel) when started cold. But in the rural areas, most trips are farther, and there is much less just sitting in traffic. So what makes good sense for the cities isn't necessarily the best for the rural areas. Maybe if all city dwellers would be required to comply with certain standards, while the country folks could continue with what is best for their situation.

[Ken]

I would expect even a fossil fuel powered power plant is likely more efficient at converting fuel to power than an ICE in a vehicle would be, and particularly if the vehicle would be operating in hilly terrain. So you might get a combined benefit - reduced pollution with that pollution also exported outside the city.

Yes, that is true. I’m too lazy to look it up. But even electric cars running off coal fired electricity are “cleaner” than gas powered cars, both in terms of carbon emissions and particulate emissions. That is because electrical energy generation from coal or natural gas is far more efficient than internal combustion engines which keep running even when the car is idling or stopped or braking.

Better to have one big high-efficiency coal power plant than hundreds of thousands of internal combustion engines idling away in the city, many of them old and poorly maintained.

I get that. Just one comment (Sorry, it got longer than I intended. I kept thinking of other ideas.): ICEs are more efficient and create less pollution when they are at operating temperature, and kept running. Yes, they take more fuel if just idling than if turned off and restarted, but as I understand it, they create more pollution (basically incompletely burned fuel) when started cold. But in the rural areas, most trips are farther, and there is much less just sitting in traffic. So what makes good sense for the cities isn't necessarily the best for the rural areas. Maybe if all city dwellers would be required to comply with certain standards, while the country folks could continue with what is best for their situation.

Where I live, most rural dwellers basically just commute into the city or suburbs for jobs. A very small percentage are actually engaged in the rural economy doing agriculture, logging, etc. So living 10-20 miles out on your little hobby farm or view estate is just a lifestyle choice. And driving long distances into the city for work in a big truck instead of living closer and walking, biking, taking transit, or a small efficient car to work is just a choice. People should be free to do what they want, but I'm not sure it merits special treatment or exceptions to environmental rules. They are part of the same regional economy and ecosystem as everyone else.

Of course if you are talking about people living in rural North Dakota that is a bit different. Just because California decides to regulate internal combustion engines doesn't mean North Dakota or Wyoming are going to.

[Robert]

Just because California decides to regulate internal combustion engines doesn't mean North Dakota or Wyoming are going to.

The switch to automobile and need for infrastructure because of it was not regulation, but innovation.

What California is doing is regulation. If the innovation was good enough, there would not be a need for regulation. We are not there yet. This is why they had to fire up some gas power plants to deal with the load.

I really want to be at the point we can make these shifts to green technology. I am just honest enough to say we are not there yet. I am watching it and I do think we are getting much closer. I would love to have an electric vehicle. I would even suffer and drive one of those Tesla Trucks. I think they are about the ugliest thing, but I would drive it. Not out of prestige or fake front, but because it was the best decision through innovation.

Innovation will get us there. Regulation will just hurt the poorest and slow the economy.

[Neto]

Where I live, most rural dwellers basically just commute into the city or suburbs for jobs. A very small percentage are actually engaged in the rural economy doing agriculture, logging, etc.

I haven't been there recently, but the last time I was in the part of California where I was born (Fresno), there were still lots of people who lived in the smaller towns and worked in those same local areas. But then again, speaking of Fresno, I don't know whether that would be considered a large city, or what. I'll just say that the large cities in California basically control the entire state. That's what I think is wrong-headed. Pollution has been really bad in LA for as far back as I can remember. CA was, by the way, the starting place for smog pumps, already back in the mid 60's. (I suspect that it's actually much better there now than it was then. But out in the middle of Oklahoma, we didn't want that stuff. It just made the vehicles get less MPG, which obviously means burning more fuel to do the same distance.)

[Ken]

Where I live, most rural dwellers basically just commute into the city or suburbs for jobs. A very small percentage are actually engaged in the rural economy doing agriculture, logging, etc.

I haven't been there recently, but the last time I was in the part of California where I was born (Fresno), there were still lots of people who lived in the smaller towns and worked in those same local areas. But then again, speaking of Fresno, I don't know whether that would be considered a large city, or what. I'll just say that the large cities in California basically control the entire state. That's what I think is wrong-headed. Pollution has been really bad in LA for as far back as I can remember. CA was, by the way, the starting place for smog pumps, already back in the mid 60's. (I suspect that it's actually much better there now than it was then. But out in the middle of Oklahoma, we didn't want that stuff. It just made the vehicles get less MPG, which obviously means burning more fuel to do the same distance.)

So would you want to buy a “rural exempt” car that was prohibited from driving in or through any city? How would that work?

[RZehr]

Where I live, most rural dwellers basically just commute into the city or suburbs for jobs. A very small percentage are actually engaged in the rural economy doing agriculture, logging, etc.

I haven't been there recently, but the last time I was in the part of California where I was born (Fresno), there were still lots of people who lived in the smaller towns and worked in those same local areas. But then again, speaking of Fresno, I don't know whether that would be considered a large city, or what. I'll just say that the large cities in California basically control the entire state. That's what I think is wrong-headed. Pollution has been really bad in LA for as far back as I can remember. CA was, by the way, the starting place for smog pumps, already back in the mid 60's. (I suspect that it's actually much better there now than it was then. But out in the middle of Oklahoma, we didn't want that stuff. It just made the vehicles get less MPG, which obviously means burning more fuel to do the same distance.)

So would you want to buy a “rural exempt” car that was prohibited from driving in or through any city? How would that work?

Maybe then the city cars would be prohibited from leaving city limits as well.

[Ken]

I haven't been there recently, but the last time I was in the part of California where I was born (Fresno), there were still lots of people who lived in the smaller towns and worked in those same local areas. But then again, speaking of Fresno, I don't know whether that would be considered a large city, or what. I'll just say that the large cities in California basically control the entire state. That's what I think is wrong-headed. Pollution has been really bad in LA for as far back as I can remember. CA was, by the way, the starting place for smog pumps, already back in the mid 60's. (I suspect that it's actually much better there now than it was then. But out in the middle of Oklahoma, we didn't want that stuff. It just made the vehicles get less MPG, which obviously means burning more fuel to do the same distance.)

So would you want to buy a “rural exempt” car that was prohibited from driving in or through any city? How would that work?

Maybe then the city cars would be prohibited from leaving city limits as well.

Why? Do they cause more pollution or damage in rural areas?

Robert is saying that since he doesn’t drive in areas with smog problems he shouldn’t have to deal with emissions restrictions. Well, OK, that would mean creating a separate class of cars that could only be operated in rural areas.

What would be the environmental argument for prohibiting clean cars from operating in rural areas?

And, in point of fact, the cleanest emissions cars are those that burn the least fuel. So they get higher mileage not lower mileage.