Quote:
Originally Posted by 2004LB7
(Post 188537)
In the US. The emissions laws are geared more for reducing nox and allows for more co2 & co. In Europe, it is mostly the other way around. Since diesel commonly produce more nox and less co2 & co then there gas counterparts it makes it harder in the US the meet the emmissions standards. But in Europe, it is easier for diesel.
As for taking emissions seriously, that is debatable as the "science" differs on which one is more important depending on who is paying for the research.
Since we know that co is poisonous to us and other animals. The nox takes more time and quantity to have an ill effect. I would say diesel is better for the environment then gas. Because of this i think Europe wins.
|
As long as those animals aren't in an enclosed garage with a running car, they'll be fine.;)
NOx is a precursor for smog, which causes negative health and quality of life impacts for large populations. The chemistry of smog production can get complicated. In some US cities the main cause are VOCs, and more NOx might reduce the smog levels.
Trucking is a big source for NOx. In 2018, IIRC, the glider loophole will be closed. Currently, the emission certifications of a large commercial truck are linked to the engine alone. So trucking companies would buy a new glider, the truck sans engine and transmission, and just install an older, rebuilt engine, that doesn't meet current emission regs. When the loop hole is closed, the emission certs will be tied to the glider.
So the US is addressing its pollution, perhaps not at a rate some like, but it is.
CO2 emission from cars is purely a function of fuel type and economy. Diesel emits more per gallon than gasoline, but makes up for some of that by being more efficient. The higher CAFE targets will reduce the CO2 emissions here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDB
(Post 188546)
Hey, we're working on it. We're putting up wind farms hither and yon to kill as many raptors and migrators as possible, oh, and yeah, it'll produce a speck of power that won't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things but it will allow the likes of Gore, Obama etc. to make all sorts of wild claims and siphon off all sorts of funds.
|
Texas' power grid had 9% wind power back in 2014. It has and is growing. A windy 17 hours had the wind farms powering 40% of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
Texas Sets New All-Time Wind Energy Record - Scientific American Blog Network
The bird kill was an issue of older wind farms. The wind mill blades spun faster, and the farms were sited without knowledge of migratory paths. We now know better, and new designs and sites take this into account. Birds will still die, but at lower rates, and new wind mills won't reduce the number of raptors getting fried on power poles. If they replace coal, they'll reduce the amount of mercury fish eating birds and people are exposed too.