President Trump may rescind a few EPA rules

[roflwaffle]

It's more than the fuel supply. If you study wars and battles through history, what's the first lesson? Cut off the supply lines. An army cannot fight without food or ammunition. Hybrid electric and fuel cells will only enable the army to move but not to eat.

A pallet of MREs, enough to feed 100 soldiers for 2 days is ~1k lbs, and a pallet of ammo (no clue how long that will last) is another ~1.5k pounds according to the almighty g00gl3y. On the other hand, 14 M2 Bradleys in rough terrain will suck down ~16klbs of diesel in a day, which is a lot more weight to move around.

https://www.army.mil/article/176881/logistics_forecasting_and_estimates_in_the_brigade_combat_team

The DoD is all about "More Fight - Less Fuel"

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf

 

[roflwaffle]

I have to wonder what if any environmental impact restrictions they will pratice. Seems like concern for the rain forest from those countries is very weak. I would hate to see mass destruction just for batteries to run our cars. On the other hand, I wonder how much longer lithium will be the king metal of batteries. There are many companies working on alternatives that are lighter, cheaper, hold a charge longer, and can be recharged quicker. All keys towards moving society away from ICE.

Most lithium comes from really arid regions.

https://www.ft.com/content/cde8f984-43c7-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d

Tesla might be able to get most or all of their Lithium from mines in NV.

http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/lithium-tesla-mine-nevada/
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/25/there-is-a-race-for-lithium-going-on-in-nevada.html

I guess they also don't use any REEs in the drivetrain. They still use them in other parts of the car, but so does every other manufacturer.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/extraordinary-raw-materials-in-a-tesla-model-s/

For all intents and purposes, ICEs still require a lot more in the way of resources than EVs, although EVs do require more up front. The ish over REEs reminds me of all the BS about Prius batteries, and how awful they were/would be. Toyota pays $200 for "dead" packs, and used cells (28 per pack) go for ~$30-45 each on eh4y.

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/what-happens-to-ev-and-hybrid-batteries.html

 

[nwdiver]

This push to zero emissions vehicles is not sustainable from a national security standpoint. Because the rare earths all need to come from china.

There are no 'rare earth' materials used in most EVs. Rare Earths are primarily used in permanent magnets. AC induction motors can replace permanent magnet motors and do not require rare earth elements.

The only rare material in an EV is the Cobalt used in some lithium battery chemistries. All the other material are incredibly abundant and can be sourced domestically. Even 'rare earth' materials aren't 'rare' they're just diffuse.

 

[waltzconmigo]

nwdiver---did you even read the material in your second link? do you understand the concept of "diffuse" when it comes to capital intensive investment such as mining? not saying that you are wrong but that link does not provide any information to show that mining of "rare earth" metals is viable in an economic sense anywhere but a few locations.

 

[nwdiver]

nwdiver---did you even read the material in your second link? do you understand the concept of "diffuse" when it comes to capital intensive investment such as mining? not saying that you are wrong but that link does not provide any information to show that mining of "rare earth" metals is viable in an economic sense anywhere but a few locations.

Somewhat of a moot point since they aren't any more necessary for an EV than they are for ICE but this is the key phrase in the link.

'While named rare earths, they are in fact not that rare and are relatively abundant in the Earth's crust. What is unusual is to find them in quantities significant enough to support economic mineral development.'

China is a large source for Rare Earth materials for largely the same reason they're a large source for everything else... cheap labour and they don't mind trading health for less environmental regulation. Refining tons of dirt for a few grams of material is typically not a clean process...

Reserve figures can often be misleading since those are 'economically proven'. You're typically going to look for new reserves where there's already active extraction so reserve figures are skewed toward regions that are actively expanding. This is why regional reserve numbers often grow over time even as material is mined out. While non active regions remain stagnant...

 

[Oilerlord]

But as individuals, we can at least do some tiny part to help. I just spent $120 at a local shop having my 31 year old Hoover upright vacuum cleaner reconditioned. It is an overbuilt machine that works fantastic still, was made in the USA, and while I could have just gone to Wal-mart and bought a brand new Chinasuck vacuum for $89.95 I instead chose what I feel is a more environmentally sound decision. And I'll bet this Hoover will still work after another 31 years and that new one would have long since died.

I'm sure my Hoover has no Energy Star rating (if there is such a thing on vacuum cleaners), and it probably had some paint process that the EPA banned back in the '80s, whatever, it still works. It won't end up in a land fill somewhere. I refuse to succumb to the disposable consumer goods methodology of living.

There are a lot of guys on the Bolt forum that can't wait for their current EV leases to end so they can get into a Bolt and can continue saving the planet - 3 years at at time.

Given the amount of energy, resources (including oil & petrochemicals) required in creating a new car; which individual is doing more harm to the environment?

1.) Person that drives their TDI for 9 years & 90,000 miles
2.) Person that's on their fourth EV after 9 years & 90,000 miles

Assumptions:

TDI gets 40 mpg. Uses 2250 gallons of diesel.

EV is charged from the grid. US weighted average for emissions being compared to driving an ICEV that returns 68 mpg:

Given the same miles traveled, does one car that gets 40 mpg driven for 9 years harm the planet more than 4 EV's each with the emissions equivalent of 68 mpg ICEV?

I think we should also consider that manufacturers will keep pumping out more and more cars (regardless of propulsion) to satisfy our seemingly insatiable demand for a new car. Does it make sense to lease or buy a brand new vehicle when the one we were driving still has at least 80% of it's serviceable life remaining?

When we refer to environmental terms such as reduce, reuse, recycle - Is an "environmentalist" that leases a new EV every 3 years adhering to these principals, or breaking them?

I think an argument can be made that a person that maintains their older, fuel efficient TDI is doing less damage to the environment - if not only because they buy fewer new cars.

 

[tikal]

Excellent! And let's extend this not only to EVs but to any passenger vehicle for that matter that people tend to buy/sell/trade/lease every few years (seven or less maybe?).

There are a lot of guys on the Bolt forum that can't wait for their current EV leases to end so they can get into a Bolt and can continue saving the planet - 3 years at at time.

Given the amount of energy, resources (including oil & petrochemicals) required in creating a new car; which individual is doing more harm to the environment?

1.) Person that drives their TDI for 9 years & 90,000 miles
2.) Person that's on their fourth EV after 9 years & 90,000 miles

Assumptions:

TDI gets 40 mpg. Uses 2250 gallons of diesel.

EV is charged from the grid. US weighted average for emissions being compared to driving an ICEV that returns 68 mpg:

Given the same miles traveled, does one car that gets 40 mpg driven for 9 years harm the planet more than 4 EV's each with the emissions equivalent of 68 mpg ICEV?

I think we should also consider that manufacturers will keep pumping out more and more cars (regardless of propulsion) to satisfy our seemingly insatiable demand for a new car. Does it make sense to lease or buy a brand new vehicle when the one we were driving still has at least 80% of it's serviceable life remaining?

When we refer to environmental terms such as reduce, reuse, recycle - Is an "environmentalist" that leases a new EV every 3 years adhering to these principals, or breaking them?

I think an argument can be made that a person that maintains their older, fuel efficient TDI is doing less damage to the environment - if not only because they buy fewer new cars.

 

[Oilerlord]

I focused on EV's because people typically only hold onto them for 3 years before leasing another one. The 3-year cycle continues in perpetuity. Of course this also happens with ICEV's, but with EV's; manufacturers specifically rig the game towards leasing because it makes it easier to move them, so they can hit their numbers to comply with EPA and CARB regulations.

I'm probably in the 1% of people that bought their EV used who intends to hold onto it for 8-10 years. It replaced my high mileage, 12-year old Audi.

 

[wxman]

I agree, and this is why "scrapping" otherwise perfectly functional cars (cheating TDIs) would cause more harm to the environment than just allowing the TDIs to be removed through normal attrition.

Here is the output file of emissions from manufacturing/recycling new vehicles by technology per GREET (assumes a useful life of 160,000 miles):

 

[Oilerlord]

I agree, and this is why "scrapping" otherwise perfectly functional cars (cheating TDIs) would cause more harm to the environment than just allowing the TDIs to be removed through normal attrition.

Reminds me of my provincial government's plans to shut down relatively new coal fired generating plants, and pay a $1B penalty to the poco to do so. Why not instead spend the money in sequestering and/or reducing their CO2 emissions, and replace these plants when it becomes necessary?

Some things that governments and environmentalists do in the name of saving the planet make no sense to me.

 

[GoFaster]

Your province isn't the only one having THAT problem!

 

[Oilerlord]

Your province isn't the only one having THAT problem!

THAT is for sure. I read a lot about Ontario's sky-high electricity bills.

I doubt the NDP's will get a second term in Alberta though the carbon tax rebate cheques may buy enough votes from stupid people to make it close. Strangely enough, those rebates are based solely on income...so if you earn less than $47,500; you're free to pollute as much CO2 as you wish. I invested $20K in home solar, and drive an electric car, but because my household earns more than $100K per year...no rebate for me. I wasn't aware that mother nature cared so much about how much money people make.

What is ironic is that my retired brother-in-law took his first carbon tax rebate cheque and bought truckload of wood that he's burns in his basement potbelly stove to offset the doubled cost of natural gas (due to carbon taxes). He now pollutes more, and gets paid to do so - I'm making an effort for clean air; and get penalized for it.

Rant over...at least for now.

 

[turbobrick240]

Wood is a renewable, carbon neutral resource. Many new woodstoves and gasification boilers are very efficient. Your brother in law may not have one of those, but demonizing wood heat in favor of nat gas would be silly. In my neck of the woods going after peoples wood stoves would be almost as popular as going after their guns.

 

[oilhammer]

...
Some things that governments and environmentalists do in the name of saving the planet make no sense to me.

Agree with that absolutely.

 

[oilhammer]

Wood is a renewable, carbon neutral resource. .

Except that the [global] forests could never sustain wood heat in any real volume. Wood heat is great for rural landowners like me, who can selectively harvest a few standing trees to promote faster growth of others, and more commonly harvest either standing dead trees or trees that have already fallen.

But depending on many factors, like how harsh your winters are and how efficient your heating stove is and how well the structure is insulated and its size, can determine if that is even possible to be self sufficient.

Mother Earth News (a sort of hippie magazine that I get) has had a lot of good reading on the subject. And our own Missouri Conservationist magazine has some good information. There was a chart that gave some basic ideas on how much land acreage it takes to do this, but suffice to say no suburbian house in some cul-de-sac laden subdivision is going to be able to responsibly heat itself with wood alone.

Our farm house, on the other hand, despite being over 100 years old and having no insulation can be kept heated all winter long here and there is not ever going to be a shortage of wood from the nearly 200 acres it sits on. Of course, the fuel consumed and pollutants made from using modern conveniences like a chainsaw and log splitter as well as the utility vehicle we use to get the wood out of the far reaches of the property certainly contribute in a negative way. I am not fooling anyone there. And I am not about to do this all with an axe and mules, either.

My dad's new house being built near this old farmhouse on the same property will have wood heat, but it will be a supplement to the uber-efficient ground sourced heat pump, and that will go a long way since the insulation and construction of this house is extremely good. His last house was able to stay comfortable all year round here, summer and winter, with the ground sourced heat pump that uses no more electricity that a modern refrigerator, plus it helps the water heater make hot water, so that doesn't have to work as hard.

 

[turbobrick240]

Except that the [global] forests could never sustain wood heat in any real volume. Wood heat is great for rural landowners like me, who can selectively harvest a few standing trees to promote faster growth of others, and more commonly harvest either standing dead trees or trees that have already fallen.
But depending on many factors, like how harsh your winters are and how efficient your heating stove is and how well the structure is insulated and its size, can determine if that is even possible to be self sufficient.
Mother Earth News (a sort of hippie magazine that I get) has had a lot of good reading on the subject. And our own Missouri Conservationist magazine has some good information. There was a chart that gave some basic ideas on how much land acreage it takes to do this, but suffice to say no suburbian house in some cul-de-sac laden subdivision is going to be able to responsibly heat itself with wood alone.
Our farm house, on the other hand, despite being over 100 years old and having no insulation can be kept heated all winter long here and there is not ever going to be a shortage of wood from the nearly 200 acres it sits on. Of course, the fuel consumed and pollutants made from using modern conveniences like a chainsaw and log splitter as well as the utility vehicle we use to get the wood out of the far reaches of the property certainly contribute in a negative way. I am not fooling anyone there. And I am not about to do this all with an axe and mules, either.
My dad's new house being built near this old farmhouse on the same property will have wood heat, but it will be a supplement to the uber-efficient ground sourced heat pump, and that will go a long way since the insulation and construction of this house is extremely good. His last house was able to stay comfortable all year round here, summer and winter, with the ground sourced heat pump that uses no more electricity that a modern refrigerator, plus it helps the water heater make hot water, so that doesn't have to work as hard.

Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that wood heat is the cure all for carbon emissions. Clearly it would be impractical for most urban and suburban home owners as their sole or even main heating fuel. But it does trump nat gas from a carbon perspective. Super insulation, passive solar, heat pumps(especially ground source), and modest sized homes are all conservation strategies that can make a huge difference. The typical american home is horrendously wasteful of energy compared to the typical German home for instance. For some nations, like Sweden, wood is a viable large scale energy source. The key lies in the forest management and responsible harvesting.

 

[kjclow]

Big differences in how the homes are built to give that energy improvements. The typical North American home is built with 2x4s, cladded inside and out with either sheetrock and some type of isulating board, and has insulation stuffed into the framing cavities. The typical German house is framed and insulated on the inside of a 6-18 inch thick masonry wall. many newer homes and refurbished homes also have an 2 inch insulation barrier on the outside with stucco over that. The average American moves every seven years (that number may be outdated from the 07 depression), while the German usually only buys one home in a lifetime and typically retires from the same compnay that give them their first adult job.

 

[turbobrick240]

Good points. Super insulated homes in N. America typically omit the masonry in favor of structural insulated panels and the like. Energy costs have historically been quite low here, leading to myopic construction practices. That is changing though.

 

[Oilerlord]

I wasn't suggesting that wood heat is the cure all for carbon emissions. Clearly it would be impractical for most urban and suburban home owners as their sole or even main heating fuel. But it does trump nat gas from a carbon perspective.

You are kidding, right?

 

[turbobrick240]

Nope, not kidding. That carbon in coal, petroleum, nat gas, etc. was stored over millennia. The carbon in wood was stored for perhaps 50-100 years, and will be reabsorbed by tree growth fairly rapidly. That is why wood is carbon neutral. The Swedes are far more environmentally progressive than we are, and they make extensive use of wood energy for good reason.

 

[turbobrick240]

As I said earlier, it all comes down to forest management and responsible harvesting. If large swaths are clearcut such that topsoil is eroded and the forest becomes less productive, then it is no longer carbon neutral.

 

[Oilerlord]

While it's technically true that wood is carbon neutral; in the big picture, the world isn't replacing the trees it cuts down. We lose 80,000 acres of rainforest every day.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-daily-destruction/

Notwithstanding responsible & sustainable logging for the purpose of producing paper & building products, developers and individuals tend to cut down trees and sell them scrap to be burned.

The truckload of wood that my brother-in-law bought didn't come from an imaginary sustainable fuel-source tree farm. It was the product of deforestation as a result of urban sprawl. The seller cut the trees down on his land and sold it as firewood. Those trees aren't being replaced.

 

[oilhammer]

While it's technically true that wood is carbon neutral; in the big picture, the world isn't replacing the trees it cuts down. We lose 80,000 acres of rainforest every day.
.

Yep, and THAT is exactly the point I was making in my previous post.

 

[turbobrick240]

While it's technically true that wood is carbon neutral; in the big picture, the world isn't replacing the trees it cuts down. We lose 80,000 acres of rainforest every day.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-daily-destruction/

Notwithstanding responsible & sustainable logging for the purpose of producing paper & building products, developers and individuals tend to cut down trees and sell them scrap to be burned.

The truckload of wood that my brother-in-law bought didn't come from an imaginary sustainable fuel-source tree farm. It was the product of deforestation as a result of urban sprawl. The seller cut the trees down on his land and sold it as firewood. Those trees aren't being replaced.

Deforestation is a huge problem. Very little firewood in N. America comes from imaginary tree farms- yet it is mostly carbon neutral. Nothing is really 100% carbon neutral due to fossil fuel inputs and inefficiencies. Most of the carbon from your brother in laws firewood would have been released into the atmosphere whether or not it was burned.

 

[donDavide]

Deforestation is a huge problem. Very little firewood in N. America comes from imaginary tree farms- yet it is mostly carbon neutral. Nothing is really 100% carbon neutral due to fossil fuel inputs and inefficiencies. Most of the carbon from your brother in laws firewood would have been released into the atmosphere whether or not it was burned.

More trees than ever in north america, at least in the Estados Unidos
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...an-previously-thought/?utm_term=.6bdffbab3a56

 

[donDavide]

EPA regulates wood burning stoves too.
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/list-epa-certified-wood-stoves

 

[kjclow]

not sure if it has changed, but the EPA stopped the install of all wood burning fireplaces on the front range in Colorado.

As donDavide points out, many cities are putting in more tress. In Charlotte, we seem to clear more than we plant. Almost every new subdivision is clear cut. Of course the builder puts one or two non-native trees in the yards, but that's going to take decades to even begin to replace one tree that was cut down.

 

[turbobrick240]

More trees than ever in north america, at least in the Estados Unidos
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...an-previously-thought/?utm_term=.6bdffbab3a56

Yeah, I was really thinking of the 80,000 acres of rainforest cleared per day that oilerlord referenced.

 

[tikal]

Speaking of heating/water heating our homes. My heater/water heater will probably need replacement soon (next two years or so). So if you have any suggestions for energy efficient replacement options please PM me.

 

[Oilerlord]

In Charlotte, we seem to clear more than we plant. Almost every new subdivision is clear cut. Of course the builder puts one or two non-native trees in the yards, but that's going to take decades to even begin to replace one tree that was cut down.

Same thing is happening in my city. A mile west of where I live, we had acres upon acres of undeveloped land with it's own ecosystem of trees, grasses, and animals that it inhabited. It was rezoned as light commercial and multi-family residential, and none of that exists anymore. Now we have coyotes going through garbage cans, and the city has put up signs warning of the danger these displaced animals pose. Until last year, we've never seen a coyote in our neighborhood.

We've lived in our house since 2003. When we bought the place, it had one lone, sickly tree in the yard. We've since planted upwards of 200 trees & shrubs. I feel good about that.

Turbo240, it doesn't give me any comfort knowing that carbon-neutral wood was once part of an ecosystem that someone chose to destroy. It's nice to have an academic discussion about wood being carbon neutral, but you really are missing the big picture.