New EPA regs coming phaseout gas engines

[sk47]

EPA sets strict new emissions standards on heavy-duty vehicles (msn.com)

Hello; Yes a travesty if allowed to go ahead.

Sponsored

 

[TeeLew]

EPA sets strict new emissions standards on heavy-duty vehicles (msn.com)

It's amazing that articles like this are considered journalism (by some). This is just a press release. These rules are absolutely crippling. If they were to actually be implemented, it would be a race to see if the power grid or the entire trucking industry would collapse first.

 

[Hack]

Seems they are starting to see the light and realize you can't just shove unproven expensive tech down people's throats and expect it to be well received:

https://www.wardsauto.com/industry-news/biden-admin-softens-both-doe-and-epa-bev-rules

If he's re-elected this will change immediately.

It is an election year…..

Yes exactly true.

 

[TeeLew]

If he's re-elected this will change immediately.

Which "he" are we talking about?

 

[CrazyHippie]

My in general comment was more along the lines of they’re fine and can stick around for those that want them. I agree, they’re fine for short commutes, city driving, etc. Range, towing and infrastructure are major issues though

I've got a friend who bought a Toyota RAV 4 Prime. No extras, and the low-end 12-hour 110V charger. 300HP and 47 miles electric-only before it turns into a hybrid. The crazy thing is that the charger will plug into a standard electric outlet, wherever one is located. And he takes advantage of that whenever he can get permission (he always asks before plugging in). Hotels, restaurants, etc. Most folks allow it. It's an awesome setup.

 

[sk47]

Which "he" are we talking about?

Hello; You are trying to bait a fellow member into banned territory. Such a common and low tactic.

 

[sk47]

I've got a friend who bought a Toyota RAV 4 Prime. No extras, and the low-end 12-hour 110V charger. 300HP and 47 miles electric-only before it turns into a hybrid. The crazy thing is that the charger will plug into a standard electric outlet, wherever one is located. And he takes advantage of that whenever he can get permission (he always asks before plugging in). Hotels, restaurants, etc. Most folks allow it. It's an awesome setup.

Hello; I may be mistaken but have gathered even the pure EV's can plug into standard outlets. The big downside being it can take maybe days to charge a pure EV. With a plug in hybrid the charge is not so critical. You only get a bit of charge at any one plug in session but the ICE engine is always around to keep you going.

 

[TeeLew]

Hello; You are trying to bait a fellow member into banned territory. Such a common and low tactic.

Lololololololololol

 

[TeeLew]

The crazy thing is that the charger will plug into a standard electric outlet, wherever one is located. And he takes advantage of that whenever he can get permission (he always asks before plugging in). Hotels, restaurants, etc. Most folks allow it. It's an awesome setup.

It's great when others pay for your energy use, no question. These people are going to figure out very quickly that energy, no matter which type, is not free.

Yes, he is taking advantage of fools. I doubt this will continue to happen long term.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Saw a news cast today about Bill Gates. Seems he owns a huge acreage of farmland. In the same segment was a video bit of him talking how bad cows are for the environment. The methane thing again.
I suspect flawed thinking with regard to this notion that doing away with cows might "fix" emissions. I do not think so for a few reasons. First is the notion that cows not grazing on suitable land will reduce emissions a great deal. I suspect not much if any at all.
If cattle are not eating the grasses something else will graze on it or the grasses will be allowed to grow wild. Not clear to me grazers other than cattle, say wild stocks of deer, bison, elephant, rhino, goats, and whatever else will not wind up emitting. Some have a digestive system similar to cattle. Something wild will eat lots of the grass.

If the grass is allowed to grow wild the stems above ground will die back during winter or dry seasons. That dead plant material will have actions upon it. Much will decay and my take is decay bacteria can & do release emissions as part of their digestive by-products. In many areas the grasses can be harvested by termites with large releases of methane. Termites as a population represent a gut multitudes more enormous than perhaps even all the cattle. Of course the inconvenient truths with regard to nature tend to be ignored.

Try this sometime. Mow the grass in a lawn. Pile up some of the clippings and leave them a few weeks. Works best if it rains some. I noticed this after scraping away the buildup from under my mowers into a pile. After a while that pile of clippings will smell much like horse manure. Decay byproducts.

Of course it takes a good amount of time for wild grasses to decay. In a winter area or a dry season area the standing dead stalks get dried out. Picture a pasture grown up past knee high in very dry stalks. It may not get to decay. It may just be tender for a big fire.

I do not know if Gates plans to allow all the land he owns to lie fallow in order to keep cattle from grazing.

Last point. Some land is just not suited for growing food. Too steep. Too rocky. Too dry. Maybe some other reasons apply. But a lot of such land can be grazed which provide food for people.

 

[Gregs24]

Sure. Has been for over a century, after cooling for centuries, after rising for centuries. 100,000 years ago, the spot where I am sitting was under a mile of ice. 2000 years ago, the Romans grew grapes in Britain. 1000 years ago, the Vikings farmed Greenland. Welcome to climate variability.


No. Speculation rising from inaccurate models.



Big swing and a miss from someone who clearly does not understand the difference between correlation and causation.



Completely unsupported. Learn the difference between weather and climate.



Falls in the category of "No s***, Sherlock". CF Greenland food production.

Again, EVIDENCE, not BELIEF. Try to learn the difference.



You do realize that you're the one tossing the word "denier" around, don't you, Sparky? Your lack of knowledge of the implications of using it is telling. Why not learn where that term comes from?

Odd how Climatologists don't agree with your 'opinions'.

I know who I trust!

 

[Gregs24]

I respect your right to disagree. I wish we as a society would do more of that. Science is based on disagreement and testing hypotheses. All that goes out the window with climate research as scientist who don't agree, don't get funding. Anyhow, I do have one question. Why do you own a mustang and not a Mach E?

Not correct. Evidence is also very clear.

We have indeed changed our approach to energy consumption. We have solar panels to power our PHEV car and power our house. The Mustang does relatively low mileage.

We can all reduce our impact on the planet in many different ways, but need to do it in a way that is sustainable and realistic. To many of the anti climate change brigade seem to think making changes means living in the dark in a cave and walking to work - it doesn't. It means making sustainable, realistic changes that benefit us all.

 

[Gregs24]

I completely cop to being an ignoramus. That's me through and through.

First, lets set tone. This is not a rant. This is just me talking even keel. I'll share my thoughts and you can respond accordingly. I don't expect to change your mind and I doubt you'll change mine. This is fine. I want to find the common ground we both believe and then see where things depart. I think we often fail to do this and end up shouting past each other. There's no need or benefit from that.

--------------------------------------------------------------


You didn't answer the question of how many shots you've had. You should have 10. If you don't have 10, then you're not following The Science. Are you following The Science? We should all follow The Science. The nice man on the glow-box told me so. I think the parallels between our safe and effective response to the pandemic and our safe and effective response to Climate Change are easily drawn. Perhaps you disagree?

As a medical professional NOBODY should have had 10 doses of the COVID vaccine. There is NO scientific or logical reason for this. 'Following the science' as you like to call it would indicate 3 or 4 doses depending on what vaccine you were using and your personal medical situation.

The rest is very much a rant

 

[VoR]

2 shots per year for 5 years = 10. The best "vaccines" only were supposed to last 6 months before needing a booster if my memory is correct. The shitty vaccine only lasted like 3 months or so they said.

 

[Gregs24]

2 shots per year for 5 years = 10. The best "vaccines" only were supposed to last 6 months before needing a booster if my memory is correct. The shitty vaccine only lasted like 3 months or so they said.

5 years? We are only 4 years since Covid started and only 3 since the first vaccine came out. How on earth do you get to 5 years?

The duration of immunity is complex, but certainly is longer than 3 months. Antibodies for 3 months maybe, but other cellular immunity is much longer. The 'shitty' vaccine as you described it saved hundreds of thousands of lives when the more pathogenic strains were circulating in 2021. There is nothing about the current strains of Covid that would suggest a need for further vaccination other than those with an especially compromised immune system.

Anyway this is hugely off topic and not in any way relevant to the discussion

Sponsored