Tough emission rules for new cars

[EFFalcon]

Originally Posted by jpd80

One question for all the bright sparks, If we could completely replace petrol, diesel
and LPG with electricity, what would the government tax to replace lost revenue?

Work that one out and tell me what all of you think...

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

Electricity is already going up in price, more demand = higher price.
add the 'carbon tax' and the power producers cough up their fair share of the price.

not that i agree with it

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by jpd80

One question for all the bright sparks, If we could completely replace petrol, diesel
and LPG with electricity, what would the government tax to replace lost revenue?

Work that one out and tell me what all of you think...

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

Wouldn't solve the problem since electricity still has to be generated.

Renewables cannot generate enough, and the government refuses to consider Nuclear, which means we will keep using coal.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Wouldn't solve the problem since electricity still has to be generated.

Renewables cannot generate enough, and the government refuses to consider Nuclear, which means we will keep using coal.

My point is this:
Governments need a certain amount of revenue or tax income to function,
if fossil fuels are not used then the tax has to come from another source.
So, regardless of the energy source used you're gonna get taxed...

And, if everyone's car gets more efficient, two things will happen:
- the government will need to increase fuel excise to maintain revenue
- oil companies will raise the price of fuel to maintain their revenue.

Therefore the nett effect of any monetary savings on more fuel efficient vehicles is zero.....

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Common sense says that governments keep raising the bar to improve the way of life in cities, of course they have technical advisors on whether the goals they set/standards are achieveable.

Whether they go as far as setting the rules so high so that only running an internal combustion engine on hydrogen could achieve it, dont know, there will still be issues with NOx even on hydrogen.

Personally, if the internal combustion engine goes the way of the dodo bird for my daily ride, couldnt care less.

Its inefficient, heavy, bulky, noisy, maintenance hungry.......compare with an electric motor for similiar output.

and once all cars are electric the ever controlling governments will bring out new standards to try and limit the amount of power the electric motors use. Its a never ending cycle.
As inefficient as the internal combustion engine is we wouldn't be an advanced society we are today without it.
I think its stupid how cars get blamed for pollution purely because people can obviously see where the emissions leave the vehicle. One coal mine produces more harmful emissions then all the cars in Australia combined. How many coal mines are there in Australia?

[Angeldust]

Therefore the nett effect of any monetary savings on more fuel efficient vehicles is zero.....

this.. ^^

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by BigCav

1.5 billion dollars saved in public healthcare because of dirty air?

where in australia do we get dirty air like china etc?

Maybe not as bad as china, but take a trip 80 - 100km out of the major cities on a still day and have a look. Many days Im heading into Melb and cant belive the brown haze covering the city. We have some of the biggest, car dependent cities in the world.

[kaniSS]

Bloody hell, soon we will be driving one big CAT with wheels stuck on it...

I hate how we must always comply to anything Euro...It's discusting.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by jpd80

One question for all the bright sparks, If we could completely replace petrol, diesel
and LPG with electricity, what would the government tax to replace lost revenue?

Work that one out and tell me what all of you think...

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

There is this strange idea out there that if our governments dont get revenue from speeding fines, fuel taxes etc that they will go broke and stop providing the services we need

Will just turn to other areas to get revenue that is required, whether its a tax on chocolate bars, higher company taxes, more income tax, whatever, and yes we'll have all the money we'd of not spent on fuel taxes to contribute with.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by jpd80

And, if everyone's car gets more efficient, two things will happen:
- the government will need to increase fuel excise to maintain revenue

.....

They dont have to, they can increase taxes in other areas, they can do whatever they see fit.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

I think its stupid how cars get blamed for pollution purely because people can obviously see where the emissions leave the vehicle. One coal mine produces more harmful emissions then all the cars in Australia combined. How many coal mines are there in Australia?

Cars are not blamed for "all the pollution". Fact is that any haze over a city in a developed country is due to car pollution, like it or not.
Another fact is that having an internal combustion engine ticking over is the most pollution causing activity that any of us can be involved in, about 23kg of CO2 per hour while on the highway.

Originally Posted by ray38l

One coal mine produces more harmful emissions then all the cars in Australia combined. How many coal mines are there in Australia?

Yes, you make a good case to get coal mines closed, though I think it is actually the burning of the coal at the power stations where the emissions become huge.

[Polyal]

Ah but Sudszy what is going to power your computer when the mine shuts?...Come on be real.

Its like hippies protesting..then grabbing out their iphones so they can tweet how stupid they are being. Cant have it both ways.

If its the city dwellers that are the issue then find a way to deal with it there, but its all to easy to blanket everyone with a tax and generate more revenue.

[BHDOGS]

Another thing to consider is that with more technologically advanced cars servicing and replacement part costs aswell as the time paid for by these computer wizard mechanics will also increase in future.

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Another fact is that having an internal combustion engine ticking over is the most pollution causing activity that any of us can be involved in, about 23kg of CO2 per hour while on the highway.

you will have to explain to me how a car burning 8 L/100k's can create 23kg of co2 an hour. It doesn't seem to make sense.
Considering water weighs 1 kilo per litre im assuming fuel weighs around the same. How can burning roughly 8 kilos of fuel create 23kg of co2?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

you will have to explain to me how a car burning 8 L/100k's can create 23kg of co2 an hour. It doesn't seem to make sense.
Considering water weighs 1 kilo per litre im assuming fuel weighs around the same. How can burning roughly 8 kilos of fuel create 23kg of co2?

mate, there's a whole internet out there for you, why not use it?http://timeforchange.org/what-is-a-c...int-definition

1 litre of hydrocarbon fuel(petrol)produces 2.2-2.4kg of CO2(slightly more if its diesel, less if its lpg) , its the oxygen it picks up from the atmosphere that creates the additional mass.
Working on a consumption of 10L/100km, my 23 kg is right on the money.

nb, oil floats on water, petrol is ~ 730grams/litre, water 1000grams/litre.

[ray38l]

Sounds like greenies/labor propaganda bs to me.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

Sounds like greenies/labor propaganda bs to me.

It would appear that anything you don't want to hear/know is propaganda bs?

Unbelievable , if you can find any source of info that disputes the figures supplied, other than yourself or "hillbilly/redneck, world is flat" sites, let the world know!

[ray38l]

I didn't even bother looking at the link you posted because being called timeforchange.org is surely going to be biased.
I still don't see how 1 kilo of fuel can create 2.2 to 2.4 kilos of co2. Surely its direct emission's of co2 before oxygen is added cant be more then the initial mass.
If someone who has less of a pro government agenda then sudszy can explain it then im happy to be proven wrong.

[mik]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yeh motoring enthusiasts carried on about how the sky was going to fall in when leaded petrol was banned too.

The quest for less and less emissions is 'moving forwards", perhaps some of you aren't old enough to realise even cities such as melbourne and sydney had terrible smog problems in the 70s and 80s due to auto exhausts. Now there is basically four times as many vehicles on the road and smog is almost a thing of the past.....if we got rid of carbon belching diesel trucks.

also there`s a hell of a lot of industry around Melbourne, there`s not to many big diesel belching trucks around these days, compared to the old days, it costs too much to run an inefficient big diesel to have masses of unburnt fuel going out the pipes, funnily enough you see some really dirty small diesels wizzing around.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

I didn't even bother looking at the link you posted because being called timeforchange.org is surely going to be biased.
I still don't see how 1 kilo of fuel can create 2.2 to 2.4 kilos of co2. Surely its direct emission's of co2 before oxygen is added cant be more then the initial mass.
If someone who has less of a pro government agenda then sudszy can explain it then im happy to be proven wrong.

Is that the way things work in your world, you cant understand things, therefore you must be right?

As I said before its a fairly simple concept, petrol is a hydrocarbon, its predominatly carbon, the hydrogen doesnt weigh much. When you combust it the oxygen in the air attaches to the carbon, two oxygen for every carbon, and combined with the fact that oxygen is 33% more massive than carbon the resulting molecule is a lot heavier than the fuel you burnt.

Im assuming you didnt do high school chemistry, but for the real proof should you demand it:

Here's the basic reaction for the combustion of petrol, no petrol isnt pure octane(c8h16), but for the purpose here, good enough:

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

in the balanced reaction, for every molecule of octane there is 8 co2 molecules produced.

One molecule of octane is 114 mass units, one molecule co2 is 44 mass units.

8 x 44 = 352, mass co2/octane = 352/114 = 3.1

so .73kg of petrol(l litre) produces 2.3 kg of Co2? 2.3/.73 = 3.1, same ratio, who'd of thought.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by mr smith

Maybe not as bad as china, but take a trip 80 - 100km out of the major cities on a still day and have a look. Many days Im heading into Melb and cant belive the brown haze covering the city. We have some of the biggest, car dependent cities in the world.

I see that all the time, but hey I don't spend my time in the city so I don't care, lol.

If you want to live/work in those areas then put up with it, thats what the city folk say to us about our issues.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by kaniSS

Bloody hell, soon we will be driving one big CAT with wheels stuck on it...

I hate how we must always comply to anything Euro...It's discusting.

We don't, we are adopting the UNECE Regulations instead; (Global Technical Regulations for land transport).

Europe plays a part in developing that 'stuff' and so does "the rest of the world team" via WORKING PARTIES.

The stuff that UNECE adopt from ECE (EU) regulations, is stuff that has passed International scrutiny at "UNECE" level,- to become international law. EU has very high standards, owing their regions high-speeds and the lessons learned from all that. EU in turn now works with the UN body instead, and adopts from that, for its region.

These transport working parties at UN level have set, specific topical tasks. They work on something, amend it, and then reach consensus; where a new technical rule is made.

Contracting STATES PARTIES then adopt same - for national consumption.

ALL basic fundamental rules of the road - are UN in source;- have been since the days of the League of Nations circa 1922. That said, this aspect is something some younger public servants *everywhere* often 'forget', and so you get the situation where a country, OR even State or Territory of a country creates effectivally - a unique to the world road-rule, or road traffic sign.

A few State/Territory mis-representations of the 'speed derestriction' sign (//) are an example of this.

EU, the yanks, Russie, Japan, India - all the big nations AND no so big - are involved in creating uniform road rules and vehicle technical regulations.

As you have seen on TV and in print of late - re emissions, is that national (or state et al) governments then take credit for something they have had very little conceptual design in, other than having their staff contract the latest - on an ongoing yearly basis!

Told VIC once that if its staff wish to create 'something' for Victorians or Australia for that matter, - its best placed to do so by being involved in the UNECE process. That would miff Canberra a bit, though they and us (the states),- try and work together:-)

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

We don't, we are adopting the UNECE Regulations instead; (Global Technical Regulations for land transport).

Europe plays a part in developing that 'stuff' and so does "the rest of the world team" via WORKING PARTIES.

The stuff that UNECE adopt from ECE (EU) regulations, is stuff that has passed International scrutiny at "UNECE" level,- to become international law. EU has very high standards, owing their regions high-speeds and the lessons learned from all that. EU in turn now works with the UN body instead, and adopts from that, for its region.

These transport working parties at UN level have set, specific topical tasks. They work on something, amend it, and then reach consensus; where a new technical rule is made.

Contracting STATES PARTIES then adopt same - for national consumption.

ALL basic fundamental rules of the road - are UN in source;- have been since the days of the League of Nations circa 1922. That said, this aspect is something some younger public servants *everywhere* often 'forget', and so you get the situation where a country, OR even State or Territory of a country creates effectivally - a unique to the world road-rule, or road traffic sign.

A few State/Territory mis-representations of the 'speed derestriction' sign (//) are an example of this.

EU, the yanks, Russie, Japan, India - all the big nations AND no so big - are involved in creating uniform road rules and vehicle technical regulations.

As you have seen on TV and in print of late - re emissions, is that national (or state et al) governments then take credit for something they have had very little conceptual design in, other than having their staff contract the latest - on an ongoing yearly basis!

Told VIC once that if its staff wish to create 'something' for Victorians or Australia for that matter, - its best placed to do so by being involved in the UNECE process. That would miff Canberra a bit, though they and us (the states),- try and work together:-)

thanks for the info Keepleft, do you know whether the AS code for
LPG vehicles is being replaced/harmonized with the ECE version?

I work in QA and notice that this is becoming a common practice these days...

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by jpd80

thanks for the info Keepleft, do you know whether the AS code for
LPG vehicles is being replaced/harmonized with the ECE version?

I work in QA and notice that this is becoming a common practice these days...

Well, the most obvious answer would be an unqualified 'yes', as in the late 1990's we updated our contract at UN level with the Global Technical Regulations for motor vehicles,- seeking "ongoing harmonisation" with those regs. Mild example of late is ISOFIX under ADR.

Slowly - we are becoming_the_same.

I'll seek further info next week to your specific Q, thinking along the lines of timeframe, AND IF anyone in AUS is helping UNECE WP develop those regs..

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

I didn't even bother looking at the link you posted because being called timeforchange.org is surely going to be biased.
.

Yes, I suppose me pointing anything else out to you would be a waste of time, after all, Im one of those idiots that believes real science......

Originally Posted by ray38l

I still don't see how 1 kilo of fuel can create 2.2 to 2.4 kilos of co2. Surely its direct emission's of co2 before oxygen is added cant be more then the initial mass.
If someone who has less of a pro government agenda then sudszy can explain it then im happy to be proven wrong.

Anyway found a link that maybe you'd happy with http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/...chResults.aspx, where it gives the grams of CO2 per km, ie it lists 290grams CO2/km or 29kg/100km combined cycle which corresponds to a fuel consumption of 12.3L/100km, right in the range of 2.2-2.4kg Co2 /Litre petrol burnt.

Oh, but its a government website, and its got the word green in it.......but remember, this isnt actually info the government has created or tested, it is provided directly from the car manufacturer.

[2011G6E]

More demand equals higher electricity bills? Apparently not in my state...

Here in Queensland they've told us, hand on heart, that it's the consumers fault that electricity has risen so much...we listened to the government and cut back our use trying to be more efficient and green, and haven't been using enough power, so they have to raise prices...
The government has actually told us (really) that next summer we should turn on our air conditioners more, to use more power, which will keep power prices lower.
That sound is the noise several hundred thousand consumers heads exploding trying to get around the logic of that...

There was a proud article in the paper the other day which said that more and more taxi ranks are going away from LPG powered cars to hybrids.
In Rockhampton I see an awful lot of Pious's (not a misprint), and they're fine I suppose...until you actually try to fit a few big blokes in them...especially if one of them is a massive Kiwi...

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes, I suppose me pointing anything else out to you would be a waste of time, after all, Im one of those idiots that believes real science......



Anyway found a link that maybe you'd happy with http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/...chResults.aspx, where it gives the grams of CO2 per km, ie it lists 290grams CO2/km or 29kg/100km combined cycle which corresponds to a fuel consumption of 12.3L/100km, right in the range of 2.2-2.4kg Co2 /Litre petrol burnt.

Oh, but its a government website, and its got the word green in it.......but remember, this isnt actually info the government has created or tested, it is provided directly from the car manufacturer.

i never said i didn't believe it i said it didn't sound right. I admit i don't know everything which is why i said im happy to be proven wrong.
Unlike some people i.e you, i know i don't know everything and am willing to question things if they don't seem right. Im also able to concede when im wrong something i have never seen you do on these forums

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

i never said i didn't believe it i said it didn't sound right. I admit i don't know everything which is why i said im happy to be proven wrong.
Im also able to concede when im wrong something i have never seen you do on these forums

Gracious of you to concede you were wrong.
Not so gracious, having a go at me for going to the trouble of putting the information in front of you in 3 different forms.

Originally Posted by ray38l

Unlike some people i.e you, i know i don't know everything and am willing to question things if they don't seem right. Im also able to concede when im wrong something i have never seen you do on these forums

Mate, I certainly dont know everything, I restrict my posts to subjects I know about, suggest you do the same rather than its "all bs because Im too lazy to research anything".

Originally Posted by ray38l

Im also able to concede when im wrong something i have never seen you do on these forums

Well, I have to be wrong first.

[Bossxr8]

If Ford could get an exemption for the I6 for an extra 2 years, which I think was allowed last time for Euro 4, it would allow the I6 to stay in production until 2015.

Cause they would not want to spend more money on the I6 making it Euro5 campatible, even though it can be. Euro 6 would kill it, it will be the excuse Ford will use to switch to the global V6.

[2011G6E]

I remember the old 3.3 liter Holden Black Motor being killed off because the cost of re-engineering it for unleaded would have been massive, so they went for a Nissan motor in the VL.

Wonder what Ford will put in the Falcon (if it still exists) in place of the venerable I6?

[Bossxr8]

The 3.7 litre Duratec V6 more than likely, would go ok if it was the hipo version from the Mustang. 227 kw I think.