VW Vs EPA drama ?

[_R_J_K_]

I'd say this thread is causing more hot gas and pollution than VW, volcanoes, and cows combined.

 

[Dirbatua]

pretty sure taco tuesday is more of a problem for emissions in the world anyway.

 

[Noeleter]

Don't think anyone on here knows the difference between NOx, CO2, methane, particulates etc.

 

[_R_J_K_]

Don't think anyone on here knows the difference between NOx, CO2, methane, particulates etc.

Or unbiased fact/sources and opinions.

 

[Dirbatua]

I think alot of us are just waiting for VW stocks to drop to buy up more then anything other then that most of us don't give a #### either way.

 

[Skydrol]

Go to this link and read


Read my previous post about NOx. Not going to repeat all of it but is known fact that Diesel engines produce less NOx than Gasoline. That is one of the reasons of why no Catalytic Converters were used. Also, less heat is produce that if you want one you have to use Palladium, not Platinum like gassers do.

Diesels are multi-fuel, for all greenies is big. Bio Diesel is renewable and environmental friendly fuel.

Some came to my attention today.... the top dog (Allen Lyons) in CARB and the EPA killed the GM EV1, look it up, is all in the web. They changed the rules as they went to kill the Electric Car. Now, the US current admin gives tax breaks to Hybrids and Electric cars; well is about to expire. The state of Georgia did, people are pissed because the hybrids cost more to manufacture. Google, Apple and Tesla, all based in California and pitching all their electric cars. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is based in Menlo Park that is in Silicon Valley. They are the biggest contributor of the so called NGO that did the test. Is all on the tax form, be diligent and read.

My take is... without Gov backing the electric car is doomed. They need cash soon, VW TDI has a better fuel efficiency (less fuel=less pollution) and is a very cost effective car. So they picked a bone on it and made up a test tougher than is required by law. VW did pass the test as required; how you pass, is irrelevant, the law says pass the test ( the EPA test only 15% of the vehicles, testing 100% is not cost effective, same as fuel consumption is done at 55 MPH on a oval track)! Is like you taking a test and pass and because the teacher hates you, makes another test and tougher, until you fail. The test is done on a machine and controlled environment. They drove it and we all know, we have seen shitty drivers. If you pump the throttle, you will make the vehicle fail. Humans were driving the car, atmosphere pressures changes and ambient temps. Shoot, as far I know, they could used a poorly maintained car with tons of miles on the clock and leave it on 1st gear through the whole 2,000 miles they claimed. Nobody seen how the test was done.

I believe, this test, gave an unintended consequence. Was to fine VW for the greenies. Now blew pretty high in Europe and we are not talking one car company, is several and infrastructure involved. These idiots will not retract their claim, because if this was a test to fail.... you get the point.



This is our journalism at its best...

Watch this and tell me what you think. Just a small example of the veracity of the reports and news in general.

And here is another wonderful piece... Manufacturing the Audi Scare

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, DECEMBER 18,1989

If you're the kind of driver who sometimes has trouble finding the brakes in your car, you should be driving an Audi. Last month, in 35mph crash tests of an airbage-quipped Audi 100, the mannequin in the driver's seat suffered the lowest crash force ever recorded by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, in this kind of test.

And yet, according to the Center for Auto Safety--a self-styled public interest organization that sells its research to plaintiffs' lawyers--the Audi 100's predecessor, the Audi 5000, was as deadly as the Audi 100 is safe. It exhibited "sudden acceleration," a fatal propensity to take off at full speed even as the terrified driver rammed the brake pedal to the floor.

CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a devastating expose of the Audi 5000. Audi customers fled. Lawyers cashed in. The American public was saved, yet again, from the perils of technology gone awry. Only one little noticed footnote remains at the end: There was nothing wrong with the car.

The Audi story is by now, dismally familiar. "Sudden acceleration" accidents occurred when the transmission was shifted out of "park." The driver always insisted he was standing on the brake, but after the crash the brakes always worked perfectly. A disproportionate number of accidents involved drivers new to the vehicle. When an idiotproof shift was installed so that a driver could not shift out of park if his foot was on the accelerator, reports of sudden acceleration plummeted.

"60 Minutes," in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket.

I drove that car, my dad had an 85 5000S; not a single drama.

 

[Skydrol]

Here some about Aircrafts, let us use the Concorde as an example.

Environmental[edit]Before Concorde’s flight trials, developments in the civil aviation industry were largely accepted by governments and their respective electorates. Opposition to Concorde’s noise, particularly on the east coast of the United States,[239][240] forged a new political agenda on both sides of the Atlantic, with scientists and technology experts across a multitude of industries beginning to take the environmental and social impact more seriously.[241][242] Although Concorde led directly to the introduction of a general noise abatement programme for aircraft flying out of John F. Kennedy Airport, many found that Concorde was quieter than expected,[59] partly due to the pilots temporarily throttling back their engines to reduce noise during overflight of residential areas.[243] Even before revenue flights started it had been claimed that Concorde was quieter than several aircraft then in service.[244] In 1971 BAC's technical director was quoted "It is certain on present evidence and calculations that in the airport context, production Concordes will be no worse than aircraft now in service and will in fact be better than many of them."[245]

Concorde produced nitrogen oxides in its exhaust, which, despite complicated interactions with other ozone-depleting chemicals, are understood to result in degradation to the ozone layer at the stratospheric altitudes it cruised.[246] It has been pointed out that other, lower-flying, airliners produce ozone during their flights in the troposphere, but vertical transit of gases between the layers is restricted. The small fleet meant overall ozone-layer degradation caused by Concorde was negligible.[246] David W. Fahey, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that to produce a drop in stratospheric ozone of 1 to 2% would require a fleet of 500 supersonic aircraft to be operated. Dr. Fahey stated that this would not be a limiting factor for further supersonic transport development.[247]

Concorde’s technical leap forward boosted the public’s understanding of conflicts between technology and the environment as well as awareness of the complex decision analysis processes that surround such conflicts.[248] In France, the use of acoustic fencing alongside TGV tracks might not have been achieved without the 1970s controversy over aircraft noise.[249] In the UK, the CPRE has issued tranquillity maps since 1990.

Here some for the greenies and tree huggers; get your Science straight.


By the way, whoever came out with the CO2 bullshit need to stop. Every living creature Exhale CO2, plants needs CO2, Sodas, Beer, Dry Ice, anything that ferments (decomposition, yeast, etc...) produces CO2.

Why they are NOT bitching, pissing and moaning about CO?

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT Carbon Monoxide (CO).

Carbon Dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth.

Carbon Monoxide is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, but highly toxic

.


You are getting taxed/penalized on CO2; right?

Catalythic Converters

These "two-way" converters combined oxygen with carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). In 1981, two-way catalytic converters were rendered obsolete by "three-way" converters that also reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx);[1] however, two-way converters are still used for lean-burn engines.

Based on the Greenies science/logic.
My advice to the Greenies.... Stop Breathing and Breeding; you are killing the planet !

 

[Noeleter]

Here some about Aircrafts, let us use the Concorde as an example.




Here some for the greenies and tree huggers; get your Science straight.


By the way, whoever came out with the CO2 bullshit need to stop. Every living creature Exhale CO2, plants needs CO2, Sodas, Beer, Dry Ice, anything that ferments (decomposition, yeast, etc...) produces CO2.

Why they are NOT bitching, pissing and moaning about CO?

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT Carbon Monoxide (CO).




.


You are getting taxed/penalized on CO2; right?

Catalythic Converters



Based on the Greenies science/logic.
My advice to the Greenies.... Stop Breathing and Breeding; you are killing the planet !

True but very misleading. Both can be naturally produced but CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. CO is deadly but short lived after emission.

 

[Skydrol]

Just another piece on how the CARB/EPA racket and extortion works.

Tesla Is No Free Market Champion

Some conservative types have been extolling the electric car company Tesla's fight against archaic and anti-consumer laws that prevent direct-to-consumer car sales. But Phil Kerpen, writing in National Review Online, cautions that Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) is hardly a model of free-market capitalism.

In fact, he says, the company wouldn't last long without massive government subsidies.

First, Tesla buyers get a $7,500 federal tax credit, plus a $2,500 rebate from several states. Then there are the environmental credits that California hands out to companies selling "zero emissions" cars.

A Tesla Model S, for example, gets four credits for each one that moves off the lot, which Tesla then sells -- at $5,000 apiece -- to other car companies that can't meet the state's zero-emissions sales mandate. In 2013, these credits netted Tesla $129.8 million

It's not as though Tesla is pretending otherwise. It says right in the company's 2014 annual report that its growth "depends in part on the availability and amounts of government subsidies and economic incentives."

Kerpen has a better way of putting it: "Tesla has effectively socialized its costs through subsidized loans, tax credits, abatements, and regulatory schemes while privatizing its gains."

 

[Skydrol]

True but very misleading. Both can be naturally produced but CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. CO is deadly but short lived after emission.

That is not true. Do some research; Dr John Coleman cannot say it better.