Jump to content

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction.


car crazy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am in hopes this question doesn't disintegrate into a debate about differing philosophies, that's not the intent- but it's a very important question for the collector car hobby.

The US has declared it's intent to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2030, and is voting on bills today to fund this. Is anyone aware of any parts of the legislation that could be detrimental to our collector car hobby?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are not enough of what are considered 'old' cars being driven every day to be a significant contributor to greenhouse gases.   People don't barbeque burgers and steaks on their outdoor grille every single day of the week, either.

 

The only concern will be the availability of proper grades of fuel and other lubricants to keep them properly running and on the road.

 

Craig

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's New York Times has an article that says trading in your gas car on an electric may not reduce world-wide pollution, because your old car may be exported to a third world country with a need for cheap cars and lax, or no, environmental regs.  There's a movement to ban importation of cars that don't meet standards.  I suspect not many collector cars get exported to Burundi, but it may behoove us to be sure any international regs make suitable exception for really old cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, oldcarfudd said:

Today's New York Times has an article that says trading in your gas car on an electric may not reduce world-wide pollution, because your old car may be exported to a third world country with a need for cheap cars and lax, or no, environmental regs.  There's a movement to ban importation of cars that don't meet standards.  I suspect not many collector cars get exported to Burundi, but it may behoove us to be sure any international regs make suitable exception for really old cars.

I suppose there are some current daily drivers that will become collectable in the future. Certainly my 1933 Plymouth was nothing but low end basic transportation until it aged enough to become an old car worth maintaining as a hobby.

 

But the basic idea behind this article seems to be bogus to me.

 

First point, regardless if it is here or shipped to some other part of the world, a daily driver is going to remain on the road until the cost to maintain it exceeds its market value. If a government wishes to accelerate the retirement of older cars they can offer more than the open market value for them (cash for clunkers). But basically a car that is on the road today will stay on the road somewhere until it is no longer economical.

 

The reduction in green house gasses due to private vehicles will only come from the manufacture and sale of new vehicles that have lower total emissions. At present that seems to be EVs from the studies I have seen.

 

Gas or electric, new cars are being manufactured and sold. The question for people buying a new car is which kind to buy.

 

If you want to reduce your personal green house gas footprint for transportation (and like most of us, you need a car) then getting an EV for your next car instead of a gas car will do it. If your old car still had some life left in it, then it will still be on the road someplace. Probably replacing some even older more decrepit car that has become uneconomical to continue running.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the greatest damage comes from the tidal wave of propaganda that states as a fact that I.C. vehicles are killing the planet / only by buying an EV are you saving Mother Earth. 

A huge chunk of young people are buying into this at best 1/2 truth and as a result it is only a matter of time before there are only a tiny number of old car hobbyists left. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, prewarnut said:

That would require reading the bill....In all seriousness (actually that was serious) we should also consider that VOCs are an emitter and I believe these are being looked at too. Eventually paints and coatings may be effected further.

Seems every few years they reduce the VOC's, so you end up putting on twice as much product for half as much life.  So if you figure total package I bet we are going backward, but that's just my personal experience yours may vary. Of course sounds good on paper because the initial numbers look better when only looked at from one angle.  Kind of like Ethanol gas as opposed to regular nonethanol.  Seems you lose the exact percentage of ethanol you put in,  so it's like cardboard filler in dog food.  Looks like you get more until you run the numbers of actual nutrition. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

Seems every few years they reduce the VOC's, so you end up putting on twice as much product for half as much life.  So if you figure total package I bet we are going backward, but that's just my personal experience yours may vary. Of course sounds good on paper because the initial numbers look better when only looked at from one angle.  Kind of like Ethanol gas as opposed to regular nonethanol.  Seems you lose the exact percentage of ethanol you put in,  so it's like cardboard filler in dog food.  Looks like you get more until you run the numbers of actual nutrition. 

Absolutely. I've used Benjamin Moore Satin Impervo oil for interior trim on my homes (flipped a few). Before 2006 one coat would do it. In 2008 I needed 3 coats on my doors (which I took off the hinges and put on saw-horses so the paint would level). So 3 coats, both sides times.....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2021 at 4:32 AM, car crazy said:

The US has declared it's intent to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2030, and is voting on bills today to fund this. Is anyone aware of any parts of the legislation that could be detrimental to our collector car hobby?


Considering the portion (part 1) that was approved so far ($1Trill), only $7.5 billion went towards the electrical car invesment side and $39B to state and local govs to invest in low to zero emission buses,  so I'd say it will have little effect on our hobby. But make no mistake, this an attempt to build a foundation to one day supplant everything IC,  however, I personally think it will be many, many years from now if ever realized.... Curious to see what's baked into the other parts they have yet to vote on though ...

 

What I'm more concerned about is the language of punishment and fees to organizations, entities and communities who do not or cannot abide by any climate change unrealistic agendas. I think once we see that in every element of law and regulation then you'll need to start worrying. I just don't think we are there yet... 


Here's a good summarization of part 1:

Roads, transit, internet: What's in the infrastructure bill | Govt-and-politics | oanow.com

 

I think part 2 will have more climate change language in it.

(still trying to locate everything in all the related bills due to limited time, if you find it please post a link or two)

 

If anyone needs some sleep material this is a good start.

All Info - H.R.3684 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

"Summaries" of the language are not posted yet for some of the bills so that is concerning......

 

 

 

Edited by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

Remember the way things are currently going,  they can always change the definition of a word ,  like they have in the recent past, to make anything fall in line with what they really want.  Crazy times.  

 

True, HR 3097 was a good example and somewhat real time look into that process and we know lawyers are cunning craftsman, especially in the last minute...

 

It's not how it currently impacts our hobby that concerns me though,  it's once these lawyers are finished laying down any judgement in the language... that's what concerns me as an enthusiast and a free market thinker, both short and long term. Like the saying goes, never underestimate the capabilities of others. 

 

 

Edited by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted down a proposition for the right to clean air water and soil of any person in NY.  Mainly because i saw it as a window for someone to deny my right to anything I want to do with my car or property because it could then be vaguely determined to affect someone else's right to any of these,  even if they didn't live in my town or part of the state.  

Seems to be alot of rain lately and we are on very steep slopes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 11:11 AM, auburnseeker said:

I voted down a proposition for the right to clean air water and soil of any person in NY.  Mainly because i saw it as a window for someone to deny my right to anything I want to do with my car or property because it could then be vaguely determined to affect someone else's right to any of these,  even if they didn't live in my town or part of the state.  

Seems to be alot of rain lately and we are on very steep slopes. 

it still passed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ted sweet said:

it still passed

Unfortunate.  Sounds good on the surface but we all know the candy coating wears off real fast with time and we get to see the ugly intent neatly wrapped inside.  

The first proposition was also worded in a way that seems highly illegal.  It said you are voting to change the unconstitutional process or mandate,  I don't remember the exact word,  but it struck me odd that an official ballot could have that wording.  That is clearly coercing people into thinking that it should be changed because they are saying it's unconstitutional.   Seems if it was truly unconstitutional it would have had to gone to court and be determined if it was or wasn't.  If it was ,  then it should have been struck down at that point ,if not,  then they can't use the word unconstitutional.  Seems that entire proposition could be thrown out on that basis alone.  Who writes this stuff if some layman like me that has so little knowledge of law and legal terminology can pick up on something like that.  It's not even deep legal speak which is where most people get lost in definition of words. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, mike6024 said:

The battery alone is 3,000 pounds.

That's crazy,  not even thinking of the recycling aspect of handling that thing but the loss of payload capacity.  Add 4 adults and light gear to go camping and you will exceed the GVW.  I don't know what that might be,  but few people want that trade off in loss of payload.  How long does it take to charge a 3,000 battery? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 11:11 AM, auburnseeker said:

I voted down a proposition for the right to clean air water and soil of any person in NY.  Mainly because i saw it as a window for someone to deny my right to anything I want to do with my car or property because it could then be vaguely determined to affect someone else's right to any of these,  even if they didn't live in my town or part of the state.  

Seems to be alot of rain lately and we are on very steep slopes. 

 

All that proposal does is allow more people to demand free water, etc.. because they have a "right" to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2021 at 11:52 AM, 1912Staver said:

I think the greatest damage comes from the tidal wave of propaganda that states as a fact that I.C. vehicles are killing the planet / only by buying an EV are you saving Mother Earth. 

A huge chunk of young people are buying into this at best 1/2 truth and as a result it is only a matter of time before there are only a tiny number of old car hobbyists left. 

 

Basic rule of physics.  It takes so much energy to move an object a certain distance. Just tell me what form of energy you would like to use.  

 

Even solar and wind have their costs in the pollution chain.  Both up stream and down stream.

 

Look at this on windmill blade disposals in case you have not see this.  Enjoy the pictures.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=decommissioned+wind+turbine+graveyard&tbm=isch&client=opera&hs=Ovu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjExtPT5KD0AhWLRc0KHRM9BBEQrNwCKAB6BQgBENwB&biw=1243&bih=626

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I recently learned that these new batteries require a couple of minerals - lithium and (?), Which is causing open pit mining in the tropical rainforest in the Philippines, for one - destroying the trees. Then you have the energy used to manufacture. Doesn't sound very friendly to the environment to me.

Edited by Willy (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Willy said:

I recently learned that these new batteries require a couple of minerals - lithium and (?), Which is causing open pit mining in the tropical rainforest in the Philippines, for one - destroying the trees. Then you have the energy used to manufacture. Doesn't sound very friendly to the environment to me.

Currently most lithium comes from mines in Australia. Lithium is not all that rare and it is found in a large number of places in the world. There is currently development of lithium deposits in the US. In the Imperial Valley of California one such development is attempting to extract lithium from the waste brine of a geothermo electrical plant. If it works out, they predict that one area could produce all the lithium needed to for all the batteries for all EVs planned to be built in the US.

 

The big issue with lithium at the moment is the processing of the raw material in to a state needed for batteries is mostly located in China. But that is changing as companies (and countries) would rather not be totally dependent on China for strategic materials. Battery and battery material refining plants are being built all over the world.

 

Cobalt and nickel are two other metals used in many current EV batteries. Those are a bit more rare than lithium and some sources do have environmental and social problems. That translates into cost problems which is something business is rather good at dealing with. For example, the new production non-extended range Tesla Model 3s are switching to lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. I believe that iron and phosphate are common enough that there should not be a big supply problem. With newer battery manufacturing and battery management systems these batteries can still give very usable range with a cost savings on production.

 

The metals used in batteries are pretty much fully recyclable. There are a number of pilot projects using various technologies to take automotive lithium ion batteries and make quality raw material for new production. From what I read the biggest hang up is that there aren’t all that many batteries worn out to the point where they are being scrapped so the recycling plants don’t have enough material to scale up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...