Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FrodeMk3 on May 01, 2007, 11:54:38 AM
-
Has anyone else seen this today?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/wl_nm/venezuela_nationalization_dc
Wonder what kind of impact it's gonna have on the market. Oil's way up there already. Plus, I wonder if it will have any impact on our operations in the Gulf region. I'm thinking that it will be a factor in deciding whether we stay or go in Iraq, Since secured oil reserves are hard to come by.
-
that means Venezuela will get no more foreign investment.
-
that means Venezuela will get no more foreign investment.
And more illegals swarming our border.
-
Time for the Ameribarbarians to invade another oil rich country I suppose. Try not to mess this one up.
-
The Chinese oil industry will step in.
shamus
-
Yeah, it worked out so well for us Ameribarbarians last time.
-
I say we should send him a present in the form of:
(http://peacenowar.net/newpeace/images/stories/nuke.jpg)
-
Didn't the Saudis kick out all of the oil companies in the '70s?
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Didn't the Saudis kick out all of the oil companies in the '70s?
There was an oil embargo and we had lines at gas pumps that lasted for hours just to get 10 gallons of gas!
There is no shortage. I worked in refineries for 10 years and its all a ploy to get more money from consumers because they know we will spend it.
If you would like more info just google 70's oil crisis.
-
Well they better hope that the oil never runs out or a replacement isn't found...
Otherwise they'll want/need "open investment" once again.
-
Time for the Ameribarbarians to invade another oil rich country I suppose.
====
Our Motto: Everything we do, we do for YOU :D
-
And the Leadership in the United States, Europe, China, and Japan continue to depend on depleting oil reserves from less than stable parts of the planet for the majority of their energy needs with only token lip service and meager funds given to developing alternatives.
The 70's didn't teach us anything.
The early 90's didn't teach us anything.
Today doesn't teach us anything.
More blood and treasure for oil!
-
I really think we better kick alternative energy research into high gear. Besides all the economic and political problems that foreign dependency on oil brings, I think oil is just too useful as a raw material to be burning it as a fuel.
Sting, please look at you recommendation to nuke Venezuela as a response to them nationalizing a valuable natural resource and then reread your quote about common sense and liberals.
tedrbr - your comments seem to me to always ring true.
-
Not to worry,
They will still sell there oil to the French, everything will be fine, the sun will come up in the morning, and everyone will hate America because WE made the French buy there oil.
The're all morons.
(good thing to me I aint one.)
-
You know, a funny thing...
I think we don't realize the total reliance the world has on oil/Petrochemicals.
Most people think right off the bat, that it's use is for fuel in one form or another. What most don't consider, is how much we use in lubricants, cleaning solvents, Asphalt, roofing materials, and a big one now, Plastics and synthetic rubber. We could actually cut down on Petrochemical use if we went back to buying products that were finished in wood and steel, instead of plastic. Take for example modern firearms. Alot of Semi-auto's out on the market now have Poly(read, plastic) Frames. Alot of rifles have plastic stocks and furniture. Hell, they're making ammo with plastic cases.
But where you are seeing the biggest usage is in either Automobiles, or the home. In the Home, you see quite a bit of plastic furniture such as childrens' beds, outdoor chairs, TV cabinets, etc. In automobiles, you see quite a bit of body parts and interior pieces made of plastic...Which was just a little bit of a typical '60's or '70's american car.
Now, where this has relevance to the topic at hand, is that Heavy Crude, Such as what Venezuela produces, is where a large part of other-than-fuel usage is made from. It's more diffacult to refine Hvy. Crude into fuel, so alot more of it finds it's way into other usage than would say, Light sweet crude(Such as what comes from Saudi Arabia.)
Since this just barely happened, It will be kind of interesting to watch developements over the next few days.
-
It's a shame I wasn't one of those CEO's of the oil companies. I'd have burnt my operations to the ground before ever handing them over to socialists. Literally. I'd be the one with a can of gasoline and a match.
-
According to Bill Bradley we could eliminate all OPEC imports by raising the CAFE to 45 mpg.
-
A CAFE of 45?
Let's see... do any car companies in the entire world currently meet that standard?
I suspect not. That may be beyond or technological capabilities planet wide.
-
Originally posted by Toad
A CAFE of 45?
Let's see... do any car companies in the entire world currently meet that standard?
I suspect not. That may be beyond or technological capabilities planet wide.
Back in the 70's early 80's the VW diesel Rabbit could get 49 mpg/ hwy and 43ish mpg/ hwy with a/c based on first hand experiance. Granted their ugly as sin and dont pin ya to the seat with ultra fast supersonic acceleration or slot car handling, but the technology was there then and I'm sure it is now. I'm sure other companies probably have an unsavory model that meets that type of criteria.
Course this day in age I kinda wish I had one of them unsavory models, cause my wallet isnt very big. :(
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Back in the 70's early 80's the VW diesel Rabbit could get 49 mpg/ hwy and 43ish mpg/ hwy with a/c based on first hand experiance. Granted their ugly as sin and dont pin ya to the seat with ultra fast supersonic acceleration or slot car handling, but the technology was there then and I'm sure it is now. I'm sure other companies probably have an unsavory model that meets that type of criteria.
Course this day in age I kinda wish I had one of them unsavory models, cause my wallet isnt very big. :(
any 4 banger with a overdrive can get 45mpg if they want it to.
-
Yeah, there are a few cars that meet those standards in every automakers lineup I suppose.
However, we're talking Coporate Average Fuel Economy. The entire corporation's lineup has to AVERAGE 45 mpg.
I don't know of any companies with a lineup like that.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Time for the Ameribarbarians to invade another oil rich country I suppose. Try not to mess this one up.
If we do, I hope we use enough firepower to wipe them out completely, then colonize.
New Rule: In the next European war, the loser MUST keep France.
-
Originally posted by Toad
A CAFE of 45?
Let's see... do any car companies in the entire world currently meet that standard?
I suspect not. That may be beyond or technological capabilities planet wide.
CAFE is an American construct, not a world wide standard, which is why you'll see "CAFE-equivalent" when talking about other countries.
Compare the overall average fleet vehicle fuel mileage among U.S., Canada, China, Japan, all the European Union counties, and Australia, and the U.S.of A. comes in dead last with the worst fleet fuel averages.
You can also look to Brazil who uses far more biofuels as a percentage of total use than most countries. China has higher fuel economy standards (since 2003) and are leaning toward diesel fuels as opposed to gasoline as the standard for even better fuel economy (with China, fuel economy is tied with pollution, which is a major concern they are trying to deal with due to it's high medical related costs in it's crowded cities, and not so much about the environment). China is also encouraging the import of hybrids.
Those nations all have higher standards than the U.S. Why are American automotive manufacturers losing large segments of the world vehicle market to everyone else? They can't compete in fuel mileage (and a perception that they are unreliable compared to most).
Don't think for a moment that the U.S. Auto Industry is on the cutting edge of the technology. They are not.
Me: I drive a low mileage, well maintained '03 Toyota Tundra that gets about 20mpg at best, and motorcycles that average 40-50mpg -- unless I'm really flogging it---. Next will probably be a hybrid or diesel car, or trade the Tundra in on a hybrid-powered Tundra if/when they are available in the U.S.
-
Yet if we use ethanol, corn will become pricey....and millions of Mexicans wont be able to afford tortilias!
So, Curval the Barbarian, what are we to do? Starve the already starving further?
:)
-
I averaged 35 mpg on the highway in my '96 Camaro.
I sure do miss that car.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
If we do, I hope we use enough firepower to wipe them out completely, then colonize.
New Rule: In the next European war, the loser MUST keep France.
:aok :lol
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Yet if we use ethanol, corn will become pricey....and millions of Mexicans wont be able to afford tortilias!
So, Curval the Barbarian, what are we to do? Starve the already starving further?
:)
let them eat cake.
but seriously, you don't need corn, all the biodiesel you need can be made from algae.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I averaged 35 mpg on the highway in my '96 Camaro.
I sure do miss that car.
My 98 Firebird 3.8 V6 gets about 32MPG on the highway with two adults and luggage for a week. At 75-80 MPH. I'm thinking about a PaceSetter header kit and a Flowmaster exhaust system. It might pick up a little.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I averaged 35 mpg on the highway in my '96 Camaro.
I sure do miss that car.
my 94 V6 5spd camaro gets anywhere from 30-40 mpg highway
usually depends on how fast i drive :)
-
Yeah, that's why I said 'averaged'. Mine was a 5-speed with a K&N F.I.P.K. and a Borla cat-back. One of the things that made it get better milage was switching from 91/93 octane to 87. handsomehunk me thought it'd run better on the higher oct but the opposite was true with mine.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Yet if we use ethanol, corn will become pricey....and millions of Mexicans wont be able to afford tortilias!
Other sources than corn can work for various biofuels. Corn is the often touted one, due to large lobby groups in D.C. and many states. Last I checked, there was still a 100% tariff on ethanol from Brazil imported to the U.S. (they use sugar, much easier and cheaper than corn to produce ethanol) in order to protect the U.S. corn growers in the nascent ethanol markets here. So, Brazilian exported ethanol goes to Japan.
With Venezuela's recent actions, and ongoing threat of U.S. pullout of Iraq (and what that could mean for that oil region), I wonder how high gas prices will get this week. American Tourists and Restaurant markets probably already looking at a very bad season ahead.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Yet if we use ethanol, corn will become pricey....and millions of Mexicans wont be able to afford tortilias!
So, Curval the Barbarian, what are we to do? Starve the already starving further?
:)
Actually, we'd be better of to use the massive amount of farm land lying fallow to grow sugar cane. There are other things that can be grown that you can get ethanol or better yet methanol from that offer a better yield than corn.
There are several problems with ethanol or methanol as fuel. Fortunately, racing has solved most of them.
1. Alcohol contains half the energy of gasoline. The stoichiometric mixture for gasoline and air is 14.7:1 where alcohol is around 7.2:1. So fuel mileage will drop by around 50%. The saving grace here is that alcohol can use a much higher compression ratio due to its octane rating. With the correct compression ratio, about 10-15% of the lost mileage can be regained. As an added bonus, a properly tuned alcohol combination makes around 20% more torque. Currently, racing methanol (99.99% pure) is about 1/2 the price of VP C-12, which is comparable in octane. So the price per BTU is fairly comparable.
2. Alcohol is dry, meaning it removes the lubrication in the top of the engine. Racing methanol (as sold by VP for example) has top lube blended in.
3. Alcohol is very corrosive, as well as hygroscopic. Water MUST be kept out of the system, both storage and in the vehicle. The fuel system for alcohol needs to be stainless steel and alcohol resistant rubber. Racing can help with the fuel system, but the storage system is a problem.
4. Burning alcohol produces aldehydes (yes, like formaldehyde) that's what makes your eyes water and your nose run when you are around an alcohol race engine. There are additives to take care of that.
5. The esters in synthetic motor oils are alcohol based. Alcohol fuels will break them down. However, some of the synthetic oils are impervious to alcohol. Of course, you could always use mineral based oil, but that sort of defeats part of the purpose.
-
Lose the oil dependency, and get space industry going.
It's high time to lose some population ballast.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
CAFE is an American construct, not a world wide standard, which is why you'll see "CAFE-equivalent" when talking about other countries.
Maybe you can direct me to an international car company that has an average of 45mpg when the entire line of vehicles is considered and taken as a whole?
My statement was that I don't know of ANY company that could make that claim. Do you?
-
The problem is this: the cars that DO get that sort of mileable are thugly looking. So when the gov't and tree huggers tell companies to make an efficient car, it doesnt always produce profitable sales.
From the car makers point of view, its a danged if you do, danged if you dont. They make the cars people want, tho not the soaring mileage...they make a profit. Make the uber-mileage cars....and they wind up not selling so good.
Honestly, I think you need to let the free market decide what is in demand.
-
Originally posted by moot
Lose the oil dependency, and get space industry going.
It's high time to lose some population ballast.
Space industry: be it solar power satellites in orbit or on the lunar surface beaming energy to earth receiving stations as microwaves, then converting it back to electricity and using it to power the grid;
or mining 3He from Luna, Mercury, or the gas giants for use to fuel terrestrial fusion power plants - which may themselves be dependent on technology and materials developed in the zee-gee, high vacuum environment of space (for highly efficient electro-magnetic bottles and high temperature superconductors);
is a much longer term solution to Earth's energy and resource needs.
We need interim solutions between oil and fusion. Several solutions would be better than a single one as well. And, if we don't develop those alternatives, I don't see mankind ever becoming a fusion powered society at all.
Emigration off world will never make a dent in the population of the Earth.
Over 6 billion now. Probably be over 8 billion by the time a reasonable space faring society has been created. That's 8,000,000,000+ and no where to emigrate to that would not have to be constructed first, not to mention the logistical impossibility to transport a sizable chunk of that 8 billion to make any difference.
Education, empowering women and their own reproduction choices, and a higher standard of living for the general population would take the pressure off given enough time,......
...... but my money is on the four horsemen. They'll cull the herd.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, we'd be better of to use the massive amount of farm land lying fallow to grow sugar cane. There are other things that can be grown that you can get ethanol or better yet methanol from that offer a better yield than corn.
There are several problems with ethanol or methanol as fuel. Fortunately, racing has solved most of them.
1. Alcohol contains half the energy of gasoline. The stoichiometric mixture for gasoline and air is 14.7:1 where alcohol is around 7.2:1. So fuel mileage will drop by around 50%. The saving grace here is that alcohol can use a much higher compression ratio due to its octane rating. With the correct compression ratio, about 10-15% of the lost mileage can be regained. As an added bonus, a properly tuned alcohol combination makes around 20% more torque. Currently, racing methanol (99.99% pure) is about 1/2 the price of VP C-12, which is comparable in octane. So the price per BTU is fairly comparable.
2. Alcohol is dry, meaning it removes the lubrication in the top of the engine. Racing methanol (as sold by VP for example) has top lube blended in.
3. Alcohol is very corrosive, as well as hygroscopic. Water MUST be kept out of the system, both storage and in the vehicle. The fuel system for alcohol needs to be stainless steel and alcohol resistant rubber. Racing can help with the fuel system, but the storage system is a problem.
4. Burning alcohol produces aldehydes (yes, like formaldehyde) that's what makes your eyes water and your nose run when you are around an alcohol race engine. There are additives to take care of that.
5. The esters in synthetic motor oils are alcohol based. Alcohol fuels will break them down. However, some of the synthetic oils are impervious to alcohol. Of course, you could always use mineral based oil, but that sort of defeats part of the purpose.
Just take the tarriff off of imported sugar,,,,,,
I still wonder why Cuba is not the biggerst ethanol plant that the US has ?
-
Milo, you know we can't do that until Castro has the courtesy to go ahead and die.
-
Originally posted by john9001
let them eat cake.
but seriously, you don't need corn, all the biodiesel you need can be made from algae.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Biofuels great, but requires handeling of nasty stuff.
WVO , also known as Waste Vegetable Oil, only needs to be filtered.
I just bought my wife a WVO converted '91 Mercedes 350 sdl turbo.
I have 2 barrels out for oil, and need to take one to the local race track where I instruct.
It runs good on the WVO, the only difference is it dose'nt smell like diesel :)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
The problem is this: the cars that DO get that sort of mileable are thugly looking. So when the gov't and tree huggers tell companies to make an efficient car, it doesnt always produce profitable sales.
From the car makers point of view, its a danged if you do, danged if you dont. They make the cars people want, tho not the soaring mileage...they make a profit. Make the uber-mileage cars....and they wind up not selling so good.
Honestly, I think you need to let the free market decide what is in demand.
Economics of scale. The development time, dollars, and expertise is directed toward what sells. The hybrids and economy cars get little attention compared to the SUV market.
American automotive sales in the world market have fallen off dramatically over the years. The only market for the gas guzzlers in mostly in the American market, and even there, the American companies have been losing market share steadily. And every time gas hits $3 a gallon or more, the sales of the larger vehicles collapses, and the manufacturers and dealers are stuck with overstock. This is a cycle that can only end badly. That can be the justification for the government to step in and at least demand average fleet fuel economies should approach those of the top 5 nation's fuel economy standards. We are lagging behind.
We keep claiming to be the world leader, but in what category, other than size of the military, are we leading in and expect to continue to do so?
Does anyone know of any efforts to produce a diesel-electric hybrid car? That would seem to be the next logical step, if a diesel can be made to put up with the on-again, off-again demands of the engine to the battery. Certainly would have even better mileage than gas-electric hybrids, if there were no engineering roadblocks.
-
Granted these are from Wiki...so accuracy isnt guranteed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis
Interesting reads and conclusion on the '73 one
You almost have to wonder if the Saudis are pumping the support behind us NOT exploring our coasts, etc for our own energy resources.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
According to Bill Bradley we could eliminate all OPEC imports by raising the CAFE to 45 mpg.
My BIKE doesnt even get 45 mpg
-
Yes, Ted, that's why it must be started now. F=MA, similarly the earlier it starts, the least effort/time is required for a same result X years from now.
Population growth in countries further down the evolution ladder is unrelated to space developments or anything else internal to 1st world countries, and as there are only so many resources on the planet, the latter will more likely be outpaced by the former than not. Especialy considering initial inertias in getting off the oil dependencies like Oil Snake co's, general corruption in politics wasting time and money in Wars du Jour and Global Warming and porous immigration borders, etc.
Off hand, total population only hit 1B in 1800s or so, and passed 6B since.
It is better to start now that it is still possible to do it cheaply and relatively slowly, than to rush it later when resources and deadlines will be tighter.
Bush's Vision for Space was cut back in the proposed 2007 budget.. something like 660M$/year in the next 4 years.
http://planetary.org/programs/projects/sos/testimony_20070424.html
What for? Alternative energy development?
-
Moot, the Oil company's, among other special-interest groups, have too strong a lock on the government to do let it do anything for the long term good. Rather than find an alternative energy source, It's long-odds that they'll have everyone drive until the last barrel of oil is sucked out of the ground, then suddenly say "Oh No, we have a crisis, now what do we do?"
An honest government would have been taking steps to protect it's Citizens and economy already. They should be making plans, encouraging developement of alternative fuels and vehicles for them, and helping set up both Federal and Private enterprise to function in the post-oil environment.
-
Originally posted by moot
Bush's Vision for Space was cut back in the proposed 2007 budget.. something like 660M$/year in the next 4 years.
http://planetary.org/programs/projects/sos/testimony_20070424.html
What for? Alternative energy development?
Ah, a believer. Sorry, but Bush's vision, as the vision of the last few Presidential Administrations, has been all pretty graphics, no commitment, and little action. They try to inspire with pretty pictures and grand visions, but nothing comes of any of it. Got copies of the last couple reports around here somewhere in fact. Very pretty pictures.
NASA and the space program have been changed from the search for knowledge to a government subsidy program for aerospace companies. The small programs tend to get the axe in favor for the big sky programs for much less return on investment. It's more pork than science.
ISS is the great white elephant and a exercise on how not to build a space station whose original idea in the 80's would have taken 8 launches and $8 billion dollars to build, to include the OTV (which got axed) -- anyone at Boeing even remember the S.O.C. design? The Shuttle-C design would have been better too, instead we get ISS courtesy of the U.S. State Department.
The planned follow on to the space shuttle is a syndicated version of Apollo: expendable stages and an economic dead end to opening space to commercial or ongoing development beyond earth orbiting satellites. The plane to go to the moon is as flawed as the ISS program ever was. I suggest reading the stuff from G.H. Stine and Max Hunter on space transportation systems, or the old SSX designs, and compare that to what NASA has planned next to replace the Shuttle.
Space development for resources and energy needs is very important for continued human growth in the long term, and should be pursued even now on it's own merit (and far more intelligently than is being done so now), but there is no way at this time that space development (especially as a government program of all things in the current bureaucratic mess around NASA and related industries and agencies) is in any way an answer to the oil based economy and it's inherit problems. Even existing international space law is totally inadequate to deal with the idea space development. Bring back NACA! Bring back (Space) Prizes! Give Burt Rutan $1 billion and leave him alone for 5 years.
It's important, it's just not what's next, nor will it solve the looming peak oil problems.
----
And FrodeMk3 is right. A responsible government looking to their citizen's and country's best interests would already be doing something. Oil Industry is the single largest special interest group you'll ever come across, and they can't seem to look past the the current fiscal year.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Time for the Ameribarbarians to invade another oil rich country I suppose. Try not to mess this one up.
The CIA has already overthrown the gov in Chili once, Chileans didn't like that. Then we funded Regan's "vandals", AKA The Contras in Nicaragua... by today's standards the Contras would be terrorists, who like torture. And then of course there were the dozen or so attempts to murder Castro, and the taking out of Noriega
Chavez is uber paranoid because he knows hes next, so why not act out and poke the US with a stick for awhile? its something to do before the CIA comes calling.
-
I am all for anyone fighting a damned communist anywhere, anytime.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Our Motto: Everything we do, we do for YOU :D
I'm sure there is a song in there somewhere...
-
oboe... how do we push for alternative fuel solutions? What would you suggest? that we mandate em like we mandated smog devices in the 70's and had a decade of crap cars and worse smog before tech caught up?
There might be so much pressure that the democrats will have to stop making it impossible to find new oil and allow offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska.
The EPA and democrats might have to loosen restrictions on building new refineries and then fuel prices will stableize.
In the meantime.. we can see our tech move forward on it's own like is will inevitably do.
and tedbr... the engine that the automotive world thinks is the best engine this year is the LS7 vette motor at 525hp.. I guess we may not be too far behind on the engineering front.
lazs
-
Talk about your revisionist history. I don't know where you were in the '70s lazs, but you certainly don't remember the air back then compared to today. It started getting better as soon as the law began mandating change. No one was going to voluntarily clean up, especially the big car and oil companies.
Anyone who says a CAFE of 45 is impossible is being pretty short sighted.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
My BIKE doesnt even get 45 mpg
You need to pedal slower.
-
mt... are you saying that the mandates made the 70's cars put out less pollution? a car that got 20 mpg got 10 after the law.. retrofit smog devices were so bad that your car wouldn't start to drive it home from the mechanics.
Cars would run for 5 minutes after they were shut off.
What improved air quality were two things, neither of which had anything to do with the smog laws... first came catalytic converters and then came computer controlled fuel injection..
Smog laws may get some minor credit for catalytic converters (even tho they were invented before the laws) but not for computers getting small and cheap enough to run fuel injection.
What the laws did was destroy the American auto industry. It was only possible to meet the demands made by politicians if you turned a V8 into a 100 hp dog that got 10 mpg or.... if you had a small 4 cyl engine that was driving a small car. That was the only way to meet the standards without fuel injection.
America was not geared to build 4 cyl engines or the cars that housed them.. or the drivelines that they powered.
They wasted billions trying to get where the japs already were and then... computers caught up... fuel injection loved it and cars ran clean... laws or no laws. by then.. the American auto industry was bleeding from major arteries...
laws or no laws... cars would be running clean today.
lazs
-
Well, lazs. Unfortunately, making stuff up to suit your agenda doesn't mean you have a winning argument, just an interesting one.
According to the ARB analysis, the annual amount of unhealthy air pollution-declined 50 percent in the South Coast Air Basin, home to one-third of the state's population, between 1981 and 1991. During the same time, the highest, peak urban smog (ozone) levels were reduced 25 percent.
The ARB analysis also noted that the air quality improvements were not confined to any one area, but were documented throughout the basin from the coast to the desert.
"Contrary to trends in some other parts of the country, these figures speak for themselves and show that California's effort to improve air quality is well-founded scientifically and is making more progress than other regions of the country," said James D. Boyd, ARB executive officer in releasing the study.
Now I wonder what California had at this time that other States didn't have? Oh yeah! Stricter smog controls for cars!
But here are the facts:
Chronology of events regarding air quality (http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm?PF=Y)
Just a couple of highlights....
1965 Reliable measurements of ozone concentrations began to be recorded. The maximum one-hour ozone concentration for the year in the South Coast Air Basin was 0.58 ppm.
1970 CA's population reached 20 million people. Total registered vehicles exceeded 12 million and vMT was 110 billion. Cumulative CA vehicle emissions for NOx and HCs were 1.6 million tons/year.
1971 ARB adopted the first automobile NOx standards in the nation.
1975 The SCAQMD's maximum one-hour ozone concentration recorded was 0.39 ppm. The area exceeded Stage 1 smog alerts (0.20 ppm) on 118 days. The first two-way catalytic converters came into use as part of the ARB's Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program
1976 The South Coast Air Quality Management District was formed. It included portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. ARB limited lead in gasoline.
1980 CA's population reached 24 million people. Total registered vehicles surpassed 17 million and vehicle miles traveled is 155 billion. Cumulative CA vehicle emissions for NOx and HC remain at 1970 levels of 1.6 million tons/year despite a rise of 45 billion in VMT over these 10 years.
-
they'll keep pushing the envelope when it comes to that morphine drip they have us on.
-
Dont forget the gas you use out in Cali. Its the cleaniest burning version of gasoline in the world. And as a result of its comlpexity in formulating/producing it....you pay the most.
-
And anyone who thinks that market pressures would have lead us to using that more expensive gasoline is probably sniffing it.
-
mt.. how am I making stuff up? the most strict regulations were in the 70's and by 1981, when you start the real showing of results.. people had switched to tiny little four cyl cars and some of the tech for v8's was getting a little better.
In 74 a 454 cubic inch motor got 8 mpg and created a whopping 175 hp... By 81 the tech had caught up to the point that a 350 got 190 hp and about 16 mpg.
The biggest improvement is in the mid 80's as you point out.
What significant thing happened in the mid 80's to reduce smog? more regulation? more democrats in power? nope...
computer controlled fuel injection became common.. in just a few short years.. it took over and carbs became almost unheard of. even cars with carbs were computer controlled... v8's rose from 150 hp to 300 or more and got upwards to 25 mpg.
It was too late for the car makers tho because the japs had a big headstart in our economy since they ruled from the 70's and early eithties..
Now... japs are building cars that weigh more than 70's chevy station wagons and have 300 or more hp and get 20 mpg. They are got to evolve slowly while US manufacturers were almost regulated out of existence.
If there had been no regulation at all... the 70's and early 80's cars would have put out less pollution per mile and the late 80's cars would have been just as clean due to computer controlled fuel injection.
lazs