• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

What is (are) the best way(s) to eliminate the deficit?

  • A balanced budget amendment

    Votes: 20 24.7%

  • A line item veto amenndment

    Votes: 14 17.3%

  • replace income tx with a national retail sales tax

    Votes: 9 11.1%

  • Raise taxes on the rich

    Votes: 30 37.0%

  • Raise taxes on the middle-class

    Votes: 5 6.2%

  • Raise taxes stealthily in the form of fees, a federal lottery, etc.

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia

    Votes: 10 12.3%

  • Cut federal spending

    Votes: 56 69.1%

  • Sell services to prizate industry at a profit, privatize then tax them

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • other

    Votes: 23 28.4%
  • Total voters
    81
ReformCollege said:
I understand the gravity of the Japan situation, but lets be practical. They got hit by a record setting earthquake followed by a record setting tsunami, and still no one has died from the nuclear disaster. To me, that is quite an accomplishment.
Click to expand...
According to a June 2012 Standford University study, the radiation released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimate being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths.

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
ReformCollege said:
Perhaps Japan simply isn't the best place to put a nuclear reactor due to geography, but we do not have that sort of problem here in the United States.
Click to expand...
You don't have earthquakes in the United States?
 
Karl said:
If you stop invading the suicide bomber's country, he will quit suicide bombing you. That may be a difficult concept for some . . . . . .
Click to expand...

So all the suicide bombers in Iraq have been Iraqi's?
 
DVSentinel said:
I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy. [...]
Click to expand...
So, in RightWingWorld, pollution is good, eh?
 
ReformCollege said:
I realize you are just one person but do you think you could convince the rest of your liberal friends that nuclear power is the best way to meet our energy and ecological needs at the same time? [...] Sure waste is a problem when it comes to nuclear power, [...]
Click to expand...
A problem that you seem to dismiss. How long do you think spent nuclear fuel is deadly, and how much do you think it costs to safely and securely store it for that period of time?

ReformCollege said:
Not to mention the unlimited amount of cheap electricity we could generate from a large expansion of nuclear power could be an enormous catalyst for a booming electrical car industry, further reducing oil consumption.
Click to expand...
Four or five solar panels on the roof of your home can charge your electric car; no containment building needed, no 160,000 year radioactive half-life.
 
Karl said:
A problem that you seem to dismiss. How long do you think spent nuclear fuel is deadly, and how much do you think it costs to safely and securely store it for that period of time?


Four or five solar panels on the roof of your home can charge your electric car; no containment building needed, no 160,000 year radioactive half-life.
Click to expand...

but solar won't do it quickly, and solar won't run your fridge or your AC unless you have a LOT of panels....and a battery bank for night time use...
 
DVSentinel said:
I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy.
Click to expand...

Karl said:
So, in RightWingWorld, pollution is good, eh?
Click to expand...

So the economic impact of Obama's energy policies haven't had the above stated effect? Is that a yes or a no? :notlook::tomatofac
 
Karl said:
So, in RightWingWorld, pollution is good, eh?
Click to expand...

What does pollution have to do with enviromentilist? Heck, they kill efficiency and create even more of it through their stupidity. And no, it is not good in rightwingworld, at least I don't think it is, you will have to ask the right wingers, not me. The solution is creating and marketing products to replace existing ones, not lobbying and banning without first providing alternatives. Also they need to embrace and support stepped improvements, such as natural gas for cars instead of fighting against anything but their dreamed of ideal. Evniromental laws also need to be tempered and balanced with economic needs.
 
Karl said:
A problem that you seem to dismiss. How long do you think spent nuclear fuel is deadly, and how much do you think it costs to safely and securely store it for that period of time?


Four or five solar panels on the roof of your home can charge your electric car; no containment building needed, no 160,000 year radioactive half-life.
Click to expand...

No, just piles and piles of useless used batteries leaking crap into the ground. However if we took that 160,000 year radioactive half-life, captured the free electrons and taught them to flow (hint, nuclear battery) then we could have an electric car that ran for centuries on the same battery and not have have chemical left overs from the production and disposal of solar panels and batteries.
 
ReformCollege said:
Well, Obama isn't really liberal, he's center left. But he shut down Yucca Mountain, which puts the future of nuclear energy very much in doubt. Not to mention, environmentalists hate nuclear because they see it as taking away resources from solar and wind power.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of state's rights?

"The Yucca Mountain controversy involves fundamental issues of a state's right to determine its economic and environmental future and to consent or object to federal projects within its borders."

The State's Position:

"State leaders believe the current high-level nuclear waste dump program is fatally flawed, and because of this have found it necessary to oppose the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository for a variety of reasons:

* Much evidence shows that Yucca Mountain is not safe for nuclear waste disposal in that it is geologically and hydrologically active and complex.

* Radioactive substances could leak from the dump and create serious long-term health risks to the citizens of Nevada.

* Large-scale radioactive releases could occur through a variety of possible scenarios caused by volcanos, earthquakes or hydrothermal activity at Yucca Mountain.

* Accidents happen. Nuclear waste transportation could result in accidents harmful to Nevada's and the nation's citizens and seriously hurt Nevada's image as an attractive place to visit, live, or locate a business.

* There are no back-up or alternative sites being evaluated along with Yucca Mountain; thus, there are no other sites for comparison.

* It is unrealistic to expect DOE to spend $6.5 to $8 billion "characterizing" Yucca Mountain and then simply walk away after serious flaws are found. Besides, State leaders are convinced that the DOE is attempting to build a dump rather than merely "studying" the site, as it claims."

Why Does the State Oppose Yucca Mountain?



The president pledged $8 billion dollars for new nuclear construction, more than any administration in history.

"Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Fukushima, Green-Lights First New Reactors in 34 Years"

"The US government has already pledged over $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to cover construction of the Georgia reactors, since without the government backstop, no private financial institutions will invest in such a high-cost, high-risk project."

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Fukushima, Green-Lights First New Reactors in 34 Years | capitoiletteNuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Fukushima, Green-Lights First New Reactors in 34 Years | capitoilette
 
Catawba said:
Not a fan of state's rights?

"The Yucca Mountain controversy involves fundamental issues of a state's right to determine its economic and environmental future and to consent or object to federal projects within its borders."

The State's Position:

"State leaders believe the current high-level nuclear waste dump program is fatally flawed, and because of this have found it necessary to oppose the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository for a variety of reasons:

* Much evidence shows that Yucca Mountain is not safe for nuclear waste disposal in that it is geologically and hydrologically active and complex.

* Radioactive substances could leak from the dump and create serious long-term health risks to the citizens of Nevada.

* Large-scale radioactive releases could occur through a variety of possible scenarios caused by volcanos, earthquakes or hydrothermal activity at Yucca Mountain.

* Accidents happen. Nuclear waste transportation could result in accidents harmful to Nevada's and the nation's citizens and seriously hurt Nevada's image as an attractive place to visit, live, or locate a business.

* There are no back-up or alternative sites being evaluated along with Yucca Mountain; thus, there are no other sites for comparison.

* It is unrealistic to expect DOE to spend $6.5 to $8 billion "characterizing" Yucca Mountain and then simply walk away after serious flaws are found. Besides, State leaders are convinced that the DOE is attempting to build a dump rather than merely "studying" the site, as it claims."

Why Does the State Oppose Yucca Mountain?



The president pledged $8 billion dollars for new nuclear construction, more than any administration in history.

"Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Fukushima, Green-Lights First New Reactors in 34 Years"

"The US government has already pledged over $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to cover construction of the Georgia reactors, since without the government backstop, no private financial institutions will invest in such a high-cost, high-risk project."

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Fukushima, Green-Lights First New Reactors in 34 Years | capitoiletteNuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Fukushima, Green-Lights First New Reactors in 34 Years | capitoilette
Click to expand...

Headquarters for the Sierra Club and Green Peace would be much better storage sites.

What does Japan have to do with Georgia, hardly the same geology.
 
UtahBill said:
but solar won't do it quickly, and solar won't run your fridge or your AC unless you have a LOT of panels....and a battery bank for night time use...
Click to expand...
There was no specification that the electric car be charged quickly, so you have moved the goalpost. The installation I described would complete the charge in 10 hrs or thereabouts, meeting the criteria of a standard overnight charge (yes, batteries would be needed... does this make you prefer a fissionable alternative?).

Buddy of mine runs a fridge and a freezer from six 135W panels (and a battery bank / inverter for overnight use). However, this, nor A/C, was specified in the original exchange (which involved charging an electric car), so you have again moved the goalpost and possibly introduced a strawman (or at least a red herring).
 
DVSentinel said:
Karl said:
DVSentinel said:
I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy. [...]
Click to expand...
So, in RightWingWorld, pollution is good, eh?
Click to expand...
What does pollution have to do with enviromentilist? Heck, they kill efficiency and create even more of it through their stupidity. And no, it is not good in rightwingworld, at least I don't think it is, you will have to ask the right wingers, not me. [...]
Click to expand...
It is your argument, so you tell me. However, since you don't think pollution is good, then I'm satisfied and will leave you to ponder what it is that environmentalism is really all about.

en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist

noun

2. any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.

Environmentalist | Define Environmentalist at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
There was no specification that the electric car be charged quickly, so you have moved the goalpost. The installation I described would complete the charge in 10 hrs or thereabouts, meeting the criteria of a standard overnight charge (yes, batteries would be needed... does this make you prefer a fissionable alternative?).

Buddy of mine runs a fridge and a freezer from six 135W panels (and a battery bank / inverter for overnight use). However, this, nor A/C, was specified in the original exchange (which involved charging an electric car), so you have again moved the goalpost and possibly introduced a strawman (or at least a red herring).
Click to expand...

the goal posts were knocked down the first time the thread was derailed....
thread is about deficit....

I was at a party the other day and a guy was saying he was going to make a couple panels and get off the grid, something he got off the internet....I informed him that if he covered his entire roof in panels, he couldn't get off the grid.
There is a mentality on energy issues today that is a lot like the 200mpg carburetor of the 70's...
 
DVSentinel said:
[...] What does Japan have to do with Georgia, hardly the same geology.
Click to expand...

[...] the historical record of earthquakes in Georgia (Figure 1) makes it clear that earthquakes and their associated seismic hazards exist. Damages from the great eastern United States earthquakes are largely forgotten because the last great earthquake was over 100 years ago. The 1886 Charleston, S.C., earthquake killed nearly 60 people and devastated the city. Although large earthquakes are less frequent, some seismologist argue that earthquakes cause damage over much larger areas in the eastern United States than earthquakes of similar size in the western United States. Also, the greater population density in the eastern United States increases the damage potential of eastern United States earthquakes over western United States earthquakes. Hence, in Georgia, as in most of the eastern United States, calculations of seismic hazard indicate that large distant earthquakes are likely to cause as much damage in Georgia as earthquakes of any size with epicenters within Georgia.

Emergency Managers Guide to Earthquake Hazards in Georgia
Click to expand...
The only U.S. nuclear power plant ever to be automatically shut down by an earthquake received federal approval Friday to restart operations after nearly three months of inspections. Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna plant in Mineral, Va., the first U.S. nuclear facility to be shaken by a quake more than it was designed to handle, got the green light from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The magnitude-5.8 earthquake on Aug. 23 rattled the East Coast and automatically shut down North Anna's two reactors 11 miles away from its epicenter. [...]

The NRC said its inspections, as well as those by Dominion, showed only minor damage that did not affect safety systems. The earthquake, however, caused 25 of 27 spent-fuel storage casks -- each weighing about 115 tons -- to shift 1 to 4 inches. It was the first time nuclear storage casks moved as a result of an earthquake in the USA.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...power-plant-shut-by-quake-gets-ok-to-restart/ (11/11/2011)
Click to expand...
Ignorance is no excuse.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
[1] the goal posts were knocked down the first time the thread was derailed.... thread is about deficit....

I was at a party the other day and a guy was saying he was going to make a couple panels and get off the grid, something he got off the internet....I informed him that if he covered his entire roof in panels, he couldn't get off the grid. [2] There is a mentality on energy issues today that is a lot like the 200mpg carburetor of the 70's...
Click to expand...
1. Using your logic, then if one person lies it is okay for everyone to lie. Lovely.

2. Yes, that mentality involves making ridiculous claims with no substantiation. As exhibited in your post above. For example, the average roof could likely fit 31 panels of 235w capacity each at 5.4' x 3.2' size each (this would take the southern half of a roof that is total 28' x 40', or mere 1,120 sq. ft.). This 536 sq. ft. of panels would provide a gross 7.3kW of output power, or 120v at 61 amps.

Why are you telling everyone that, after adjusting for charge controller efficiency, 58 amps of 120v service would be insufficient to get a house that size off the grid? Or even 52 amps after adjusting for inverter efficiency? It may be a tad light from usual subdivision construction, especially all-electric, but with natural gas for heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying it should be eminently doable. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
the goal posts were knocked down the first time the thread was derailed....
thread is about deficit....

I was at a party the other day and a guy was saying he was going to make a couple panels and get off the grid, something he got off the internet....I informed him that if he covered his entire roof in panels, he couldn't get off the grid.
There is a mentality on energy issues today that is a lot like the 200mpg carburetor of the 70's...
Click to expand...

There is really no need to get off the grid. I am installing a hybrid solar panel system that will not require storage. So when we get an electric car we will charge it at night from the grid, but replace that power through our solar cells during the day. We will be able to charge the car without any additional total usage from the grid.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
It is your argument, so you tell me. However, since you don't think pollution is good, then I'm satisfied and will leave you to ponder what it is that environmentalism is really all about.
Click to expand...

I have no problem understanding what environmentalism is about, never said I had a problem with it, other than it needs to be balanced against economic needs and the need to advance technologically.

You give a definition of what an environmentalist should be, not what they are today in practice. However, today, enviromentalist have become a polictical faction and are placing polotics above real science. They have, in the recent past been caught using discredited data in scientific pressentations, spying and have refused to alter testing methods when those methods are questioned, instead prefering to attempt to discredit those asking the questions so that those in charge of funding don't start limiting their funds. Also, in the case of many government "conferences" on enviromental issues, they have actively blocked presentation of material and persons questioning their "science".

Case one: Enviromentalist, through various incarnations of the EPA have attempted to put limits on "pollutants" and "green house gasses" emitted by internal combustion engines, specifically those use in personal transportation by gasoline or diesel. To measure these polutants, they use a parts per million test. However, testing parts per million only tests the ratio of pollutants or Air Quality, not the volume. The theory is apparently that if you put out "cleaner" air, then you get "cleaner" air in the atmosphere and if you reduce the ratio of CO2, you reduce CO2. But this presents problems.

Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. (Yes, these numbers are abritrary, but I do not have actual data at present, but they serve to demonstrate my point.) Obviously the first car puts out more pollutants, however, "enviromentalist" ensist that the parts per million measure is an accurate measure for pollutants and CO2.

Problem 2: If gasoline is burned with oxygen at 100% efficiency, the only byproducts are Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio, or parts per million of CO2 must increase with an increase in the efficiency of the process. Limiting the parts per million of CO2 can only lead to decreased efficiency. A more efficient vehicle could put out above the alloted parts per million of CO2 on an emissions test but actually produce less CO2 per minute or mile driven.

Problem 3: Indroduction of "pollutant" reducer into gasoline/fuel. Ethanol is the most common of these "pollutant" reducers. When measured by an emissions test using the parts per million formula, it does indeed reduce the ratio of undesirable pollutants. However, since the introduction of 10% Ethanol into gasoline reduces efficiency (mpg) by around 15%, even if the 10% Ethanol blend reduce pollutants by 10%, the overall pollution emitted, measured in particles per mile, would increase because you are using more fuel and the reduction of pollutants is not equal to the reduction in efficiency.

Case 2: Enviromentalis insist that CO2 emmissions from man-made sources is causing Global Warming. However, they either do not calculate in all factors or they refuse to release those other factors in their "scientific" reports.

Even before man learned to control fire, glaciers were retreating. Those retreating glaciers uncovered more land and water. Since land and water reflect or emit more heat into the atmosphere than the ice of the glaciers did, the atmosphere warmed, melting more ice, exposing more land and water, causing the atmosphere to heat, etc, ect...Global Warming advocating enviromentalist refuse or do not have data showing how much deglacierization affects the warming process or how much declacierization is actually caused by man, they blame it all on us.

High CO2 levels are blamed on man-made sources. Enviromentalist tests emissions from natural sources, such as volcanoes, by various methods but mostly from ground stations. When geologist questioned their testing methods, attempts were made to discredit geologist because "they all work for polluting oil companies) and no actual changes in the testing methods were initiated. If their methods are so accurate and dependable, why would enviromentalist not try a different testing method to quiet dissent instead of trying to discredit the dissenters?

These are just some of the problems with enviromentalist today. Enviromental "science" has been corrupted by politics. Policies based upon this politically motivated "science" costs jobs and increase the deficit. One way to reduce the deficit would be to get the real science, based upon accurate and correct measurements and proper use of the scientific method, then balance that against economic needs.

I am against these politicized enviromentalist and the 'true believers" of these enviromentalist, not against achievable enviromentalism balanced with economic needs.
 
DVSentinel said:
I have no problem understanding what environmentalism is about, never said I had a problem with it, other than it needs to be balanced against economic needs and the need to advance technologically.

You give a definition of what an environmentalist should be, not what they are today in practice. However, today, enviromentalist have become a polictical faction and are placing polotics above real science. They have, in the recent past been caught using discredited data in scientific pressentations, spying and have refused to alter testing methods when those methods are questioned, instead prefering to attempt to discredit those asking the questions so that those in charge of funding don't start limiting their funds. Also, in the case of many government "conferences" on enviromental issues, they have actively blocked presentation of material and persons questioning their "science".

Case one: Enviromentalist, through various incarnations of the EPA have attempted to put limits on "pollutants" and "green house gasses" emitted by internal combustion engines, specifically those use in personal transportation by gasoline or diesel. To measure these polutants, they use a parts per million test. However, testing parts per million only tests the ratio of pollutants or Air Quality, not the volume. The theory is apparently that if you put out "cleaner" air, then you get "cleaner" air in the atmosphere and if you reduce the ratio of CO2, you reduce CO2. But this presents problems.

Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. (Yes, these numbers are abritrary, but I do not have actual data at present, but they serve to demonstrate my point.) Obviously the first car puts out more pollutants, however, "enviromentalist" ensist that the parts per million measure is an accurate measure for pollutants and CO2.

Problem 2: If gasoline is burned with oxygen at 100% efficiency, the only byproducts are Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio, or parts per million of CO2 must increase with an increase in the efficiency of the process. Limiting the parts per million of CO2 can only lead to decreased efficiency. A more efficient vehicle could put out above the alloted parts per million of CO2 on an emissions test but actually produce less CO2 per minute or mile driven.

Problem 3: Indroduction of "pollutant" reducer into gasoline/fuel. Ethanol is the most common of these "pollutant" reducers. When measured by an emissions test using the parts per million formula, it does indeed reduce the ratio of undesirable pollutants. However, since the introduction of 10% Ethanol into gasoline reduces efficiency (mpg) by around 15%, even if the 10% Ethanol blend reduce pollutants by 10%, the overall pollution emitted, measured in particles per mile, would increase because you are using more fuel and the reduction of pollutants is not equal to the reduction in efficiency.

Case 2: Enviromentalis insist that CO2 emmissions from man-made sources is causing Global Warming. However, they either do not calculate in all factors or they refuse to release those other factors in their "scientific" reports.

Even before man learned to control fire, glaciers were retreating. Those retreating glaciers uncovered more land and water. Since land and water reflect or emit more heat into the atmosphere than the ice of the glaciers did, the atmosphere warmed, melting more ice, exposing more land and water, causing the atmosphere to heat, etc, ect...Global Warming advocating enviromentalist refuse or do not have data showing how much deglacierization affects the warming process or how much declacierization is actually caused by man, they blame it all on us.

High CO2 levels are blamed on man-made sources. Enviromentalist tests emissions from natural sources, such as volcanoes, by various methods but mostly from ground stations. When geologist questioned their testing methods, attempts were made to discredit geologist because "they all work for polluting oil companies) and no actual changes in the testing methods were initiated. If their methods are so accurate and dependable, why would enviromentalist not try a different testing method to quiet dissent instead of trying to discredit the dissenters?

These are just some of the problems with enviromentalist today. Enviromental "science" has been corrupted by politics. Policies based upon this politically motivated "science" costs jobs and increase the deficit. One way to reduce the deficit would be to get the real science, based upon accurate and correct measurements and proper use of the scientific method, then balance that against economic needs.

I am against these politicized enviromentalist and the 'true believers" of these enviromentalist, not against achievable enviromentalism balanced with economic needs.
Click to expand...

We've got a ways to go in environmental protection to reach a balance. In fact our environmental efforts have the potential to also better our economy through jobs and a healthy environment that all of us depend upon for our livelihood.
 
DVSentinel said:
I have no problem understanding what environmentalism is about, never said I had a problem with it, other than it needs to be balanced against economic needs and the need to advance technologically. [...]
Click to expand...
Really? Let's review:

DVSentinel said:
I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy. [...]
Click to expand...
 
DVSentinel said:
[...] The theory is apparently that if you put out "cleaner" air, then you get "cleaner" air in the atmosphere and if you reduce the ratio of CO2, you reduce CO2. But this presents problems.

Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. [...]
Click to expand...
No, it can't. Unless the first automobile is emitting 10 times more exhaust volume than automobile number two, which is extremely unlikely (effectively, auto #1 would need to have a 10 liter engine while auto #2 would need to have a 1 liter engine).

However, since you said your figures were only examples, I can see where a 5.7 liter engine in a sports car would generate some three times as much exhaust volume, at the same RPM, as a 1.9 liter engine in an econobox. But that is irrelevant since it is a scale issue... if EPA allowable emission of CO2 (to continue with your example) is reduced from 100ppm to 50ppm, and if both automobiles above originally emitted 100ppm, then bringing both autos into compliance would cut the emission of CO2 in half with respect to those two autos. Where's the problem?
 
Karl said:
No, it can't. Unless the first automobile is emitting 10 times more exhaust volume than automobile number two, which is extremely unlikely (effectively, auto #1 would need to have a 10 liter engine while auto #2 would need to have a 1 liter engine).

However, since you said your figures were only examples, I can see where a 5.7 liter engine in a sports car would generate some three times as much exhaust volume, at the same RPM, as a 1.9 liter engine in an econobox. But that is irrelevant since it is a scale issue... if EPA allowable emission of CO2 (to continue with your example) is reduced from 100ppm to 50ppm, and if both automobiles above originally emitted 100ppm, then bringing both autos into compliance would cut the emission of CO2 in half with respect to those two autos. Where's the problem?
Click to expand...

LOL, in the early 1970s, there were "smog" pumps on automobiles. What they did was simply pump fresh atmoshere into the exhaust stream. When measured by parts per million, this of course caused the measurements to decrease, however, since it was introduced directly into the exhaust and not the combustion process, it actually did not change the total amound of pollutants being emitted.

Take a glass, put in 1 oz of coke. You now have 1 million particles per million of coke. Now add 1 oz of water, now you have 500k particles of coke and 500k particles of water. If you measure, like the EPA, strictly on the ratio of particals, then you have reduced the amount of coke in the glass to half of what it was at first. That is how the EPA regs are written, that is how they measure. Most everyone else will tell you that you still have 1 oz of coke in both measurements. This clearly demonstrates that measurements based upon only parts per million actually gives you no measure of the total number of particles or the actual volume of particles.

In your example above, both cars end up emitting 50ppm (parts per million), but both use more gas than at 100ppm and car 1 uses twice as much gas as car two per mile, are you telling me that you truthfully believe they are both putting out the same amount of emissions? What you are saying with your argument is that the EPA is right and volume of emittants and number of particles don't really matter, only the parts per million matter.

Wow, and some people wonder why people with common sense wouldn't trust the EPA and environmentalist backing them.
 
DVSentinel said:
[...] Problem 2: If gasoline is burned with oxygen at 100% efficiency, the only byproducts are Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio, or parts per million of CO2 must increase with an increase in the efficiency of the process. Limiting the parts per million of CO2 can only lead to decreased efficiency. A more efficient vehicle could put out above the alloted parts per million of CO2 on an emissions test but actually produce less CO2 per minute or mile driven.
Click to expand...
Two-stage problem with your thesis: 1. If the engine burns gasoline more efficiently, then it will use less fuel.

2. The only CO2 regulation I could find relating to automobiles is California, which is not regulating CO2 on a ppm basis, but on a total emission per energy produced basis -- "On April 23, 2009, CARB approved the specific rules for the LCFS that will go into effect in January 2011.[19][20] The rule proposal prepared by its technical staff was approved by a 9-1 vote, to set the 2020 maximum carbon intensity reference value to 86 grams of carbon dioxide released per megajoule of energy produced.[18][21]" (Wikipedia). Therefore in your hypothesis less fuel is used, less energy is consumed for the same motive force (greater efficiency), and any 'ppm' increase in CO2 emission due to the increased efficiency may well become a zero sum issue since while more 'ppm' is generated per gallon of fuel, fewer gallons are used due to the increased efficiency of the engine. In any case, since the wording of the regulation is "energy produced", not energy "consumed", efficiency does not apply. For example:

50% efficient engine generates 100ppm CO2 and 1 megajoule of energy.
99% efficient engine generates 200ppm CO2 and 2 megajoules of energy (it is twice as efficient; assumption is that the same amount of fuel is consumed).
Each engine generates 100ppm CO2 for each megajoule of energy produced. Zero sum (assuming the ppm ratios are correct, and I have no idea -- this is just a linear extrapolation). That the 99% engine generates double the CO2 from the same amount of fuel consumed is irrelevant in this scenario (if you know of ppm CO2 regulations, then by all means post 'em up... I didn't look beyond CA, which I took to be 'worst case').
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
[...] are you telling me that you truthfully believe they are both putting out the same amount of emissions? [....]
Click to expand...
No, I was truthfully telling you that in the example that I provided, both automobiles halved their emissions. I was also truthfully telling you that the large engine was emitting three times the pollution of the small engine (both before and after the halving).

Where did I fail in conveying that info?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom