"Michael D. Porter" wrote:
>
> I remember, with regard to California air quality, that in the mid-`80s,
> the industry said that gases coming out of the tailpipe were cleaner
> than the air going into the air cleaner, because of improved emissions
> controls. And yet, southern California is further away from attaining
> air quality standards now than in the past, largely because of the
> number of cars on the roads, and the fuel consumption of those cars.
Michael, I beg to differ. I live in the LA smog basin, and can report
from first-hand experience that the air quality here is far improved
over what it was in the 80's. When I moved here in 1978, 1st stage smog
alerts were quite common. AFAIK we haven't had a single one since about
1992 ! If we are further from meeting standards, it's because the
standards have gotten tougher.
It's also not at all clear to me that car exhaust is the primary reason
for the poor air quality here. I used to work near a Mobil refinery,
and it was very obvious they emitted a great deal of pollution. Even
the vegetation they planted to hide the refinery grew funny ! We're
talking yellow flames hundreds of feet high, visible for many miles even
in the smog. Fallout that stained car paint so bad they had to be
repainted. Don't forget, SoCA supplies refined gasoline and asphalt to
much of the southwest, including northern Mexico. There are 3 major
refineries in just the 20 miles or so that I drive to work ...
There is a lot of other industry here as well, much of it at least
intermittently dirty. For example, a few years back I saw a fire at a
wheel refinishing place, that emitted a bright orange cloud of smoke
that extended 10 or 20 miles ! Don't know what it was, but it was so
toxic that they shut down the freeway it blew across and evacuated homes
in the area. My guess it was some sort of NOx compound, the fire was
caused by leaving aluminum wheels in nitric acid too long.
Until fairly recently, the power plant not far from where I work burned
petroleum fuel. Not the 'sweet' stuff from Saudi that we car owners are
forced to pay for, but the local high-sulfur oil. They've installed
stack scrubbers now, but only in the last year or so.
There was also a landfill in the area that emitted so much methane it
fed 4 large flames (3-ft diameter pipes !) continuously for at least 10
years or so ...
Plus, SoCA is naturally smoggy ! The Indians (sorry, native Americans)
even called it the "Land of the Smokes". Not just smoke from brush
fires (although brush fires are so natural here that some native plants
require fire to reproduce !) but actual hydrocarbon smog from the many
oil seeps and natural gas vents. The La Brea tar pits are not an
isolated incident, merely the most famous of the oil seeps (and they are
still active today).
> SUVs have accounted for a larger market share of sales than any
> other model.
They also have not had the strict emission control limits that cars do,
at least until recently. I'm not sure but what the CO, HC and NOx
limits are still higher
for 'trucks' than for cars.
> Odd, then, that GM is reportedly sitting on $8 billion in cash at the
> moment, but can't manage to develop such vehicles for everyday use.
I haven't studied them a great deal, but I see far more EV-1s on the
road here than the Honda equivalents. AFAIK I've never seen a Toyota
hybrid ...
> I had an opportunity to look at a Prius a few weeks ago, and it is,
> frankly, a marvel. If everyone in this country had one in the garage,
> we'd have no need to play political games in the middle East. We
> wouldn't need their oil.
Some 30 years ago, there was a home-made hybrid written up in one of the
mags (Popular Mechanix ?). Probably was plenty dirty, the owner/builder
was going for gas mileage, but as I recall he claimed over 50 mpg, and
about a 15 sec 0-60 in a fairly large car. Not bad considering it was
powered by a 15 hp Wisconsin ! (and a dozen or two marine batteries)
Somewhere, I've also seen photos of a hybrid built commercially (more or
less) back about 1915 !
Anyway, I actually agree with the majority of your argument, and realize
that the preceding was just laying the basis for it. My perception is
that the people in favor of the various 'smog crusher' bills are not so
much targeting racers as a group (let alone Triumph owners), but rather
car hobbyists as a whole. In their mind we are the people who defeat
all the smog control devices on our cars ...
Haven't done the research yet, but I definitely plan to fire off a
letter (possibly partially plagiarized from your post) to my
congressmen.
Cheers
Randall
|