GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[turbguy + 1,391]

36 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Diesel should be (mostly) replaced by natural gas. All ICE vehicles can be converted to natural gas, including the present stock. It is far cleaner than diesel.

...and it atomizes so much better than a liquid, too!

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

3 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

CO2 is not a pollutant. 

Compare the lifespan of Southern Californians to the rest of the world. 

Diesel should be (mostly) replaced by natural gas. All ICE vehicles can be converted to natural gas, including the present stock. It is far cleaner than diesel.

100% agree that Co2 is not a pollutant but essential for life on earth.

The other things that come out of an ICE vehicles tailpipe arent, and they do kill over time. Just try breathing benzene in for a couple of minutes.

Smogs in cities were/are commonplace particularly when high pressure weather dominates, due to pollution from ICE vehicles and FF plants, that is undeniable. In my opinion the quicker we can stop pollution the better and that means moving away from ICE vehicles. I'm not against NG powered vehicles by the way.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history

An extract below

"It was not until the early 1950s that it became clear the automobile was the main culprit. That’s when Dr. Arie Haagen-Smit discovered the nature and causes of photochemical smog. He made the discovery while on a one-year leave of absence from Caltech, where he was a bioorganic chemistry professor. Working in a specially-equipped Los Angeles air district laboratory, he determined that two chief constituents of automobile exhaust – airborne hydrocarbons from gasoline, and oxides of nitrogen (NO_x) produced by internal combustion engines – were to blame for smog. His research, highlighting the reaction of sunlight with automobile exhaust and industrial air pollution, became the foundation upon which today’s air pollution regulations are based.

As someone who used to live in California I'm sure you're well aware of the issues and why smogs had to be addressed.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

China is rapidly increasing its dependence on coal and coal is now the fuel of choice for future energy needs.

There will be a gradual replacement of polluting technology by the more recent coal burning technology which will deal with any pollution issues.

Even when it’s sitting in storage, coal threatens human health

https://theconversation.com/even-when-its-sitting-in-storage-coal-threatens-human-health-80865

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-and-water-pollution

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069618302523

Its not just the burning of coal Eco, promoting using coal is and always will be a way of promoting pollution which is harmful to all life.

[notsonice + 1,063]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

China is rapidly increasing its dependence on coal and coal is now the fuel of choice for future energy needs.

There will be a gradual replacement of polluting technology by the more recent coal burning technology which will deal with any pollution issues.

China is rapidly increasing its dependence on coal and coal is now the fuel of choice for future energy needs?????

China is just building peaker plants and pumped storage to kick in when solar/wind are not in full swing.....

China recession is being led by steel slowdown....Coal consumption is now down...Met coal and Steam Coal prices taking hard hits....

China is rapidly switching to renewables....China coal powered Electric generation utilization factors are moving down..

More coal plants does not mean more coal consumed ...Just the ability to power up when it is super hot out...otherwise those new plants in China....have no demand.

 

Pay attention to China's steel output and the amount of China steelmakers losing money...not a pretty time to be in the steel business in China

 

coal and Iron ore are taking hard hits

China steel prices hit three-year low on demand woes

Reuters

May 26, 20236:20 AM MDTUpdated 5 days ago

A worker walks by steel rolls at the Chongqing Iron and Steel plant in Changshou, Chongqing, China August 6, 2018. Picture taken August 6, 2018. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj/File Photo

• Summary
• Companies

• Spot rebar prices at lowest since April 2020
• Summer construction lull adds to headwinds
• Demand recovery not seen until Sept at the earliest

Edited May 31, 2023 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,063]

4 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

CO2 is not a pollutant. 

Compare the lifespan of Southern Californians to the rest of the world. 

Diesel should be (mostly) replaced by natural gas. All ICE vehicles can be converted to natural gas, including the present stock. It is far cleaner than diesel.

CO2 is not a pollutant...but excess CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the Greenhouse effect......

Water is not a pollutant....however too much water in rivers is the cause of flooding........so no one should build in floodplains

same as noone should think that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing...unless you like higher sea levels and Florida underwater..

All ICE vehicles can be converted to natural gas??? not practical at all

nope all ICE vehicles at a minimum should be hybrids.....

only way to get rid if ICE vehicles powered with oil with Mileage rating less than 25 MPG is to CASH FOR CLUNKERS 

 

Ever been to Argentina???? nat gas taxis  are everywhere......

they can only store enough nat gas for 150 miles at best.....nat gas tanks have to be spherical ended...IE they are real bad fits for passenger vehicles....they have half the range of EVs . Open the trunk and you have no room for anything.......as the NAT Gas cylinder takes up all the space   

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

18 hours ago, NickW said:

You can add to that a range of aldehydes such as formaldehyde which is carcinogenic and a respiratory irritant. Various acids and other substances. 

Again, the quantities of these emissions is practically zero for the new technology.  You need to get your act together.

CO2 does not demonstrably impact earth temperature, sorry.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

15 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, the quantities of these emissions is practically zero for the new technology.  You need to get your act together.

CO2 does not demonstrably impact earth temperature, sorry.

Is my car bad for the environment? A guide to vehicle exhaust emissions

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/vehicle-exhaust-emissions-what-comes-out-of-your-cars-exhaust/

You are correct that filters and minimum standards in "some" parts of the world are having a positive effect on vehicle pollution but they do still pollute.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/euro-emissions-standards/

"Additionally, the EU has said that “the air pollutant emissions from transport are a significant contribution to the overall state of air quality in Europe”, with industry and power generation being the other major sources.

The aim of Euro emissions standards is to reduce the levels of harmful exhaust emissions, chiefly:

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
• Carbon monoxide (CO) 
• Hydrocarbons (HC)
• (Particulate matter (PM)

These standards are having a positive effect, with the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders), claiming: “It would take 50 new cars today to produce the same amount of pollutant emissions as one vehicle built in the 1970s.”

In 2017, the SMMT quoted the following figures in support:

• Carbon monoxide (CO): petrol down 63%, diesel down 82% since 1993
• Hydrocarbons (HC): petrol down 50% since 2001
• Nitrogen oxide (NOx): down 84% since 2001
• Particulate matter (PM): diesel down 96% since 1993

Because petrol and diesel engines produce different types of emissions they are subject to different standards. Diesel, for example, produces more particulate matter – or soot – leading to the introduction of diesel particulate filters (DPFs).

The EU has pointed out, however, that NOx emissions from road transport “have not been reduced as much as expected…because emissions in ‘real-world’ driving conditions are often higher than those measured during the approval test (in particular for diesel vehicles)”.

According to Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) stats from 2018, transport still accounted for 33% of all carbon dioxide emissions, with most of this coming from road transport. 

However, BEIS estimates current emissions from road transport have fallen back by around 8.5% over the last decade to levels last seen in 1990, having previously peaked in 2007."

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Is my car bad for the environment? A guide to vehicle exhaust emissions

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/vehicle-exhaust-emissions-what-comes-out-of-your-cars-exhaust/

You are correct that filters and minimum standards in "some" parts of the world are having a positive effect on vehicle pollution but they do still pollute.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/euro-emissions-standards/

"Additionally, the EU has said that “the air pollutant emissions from transport are a significant contribution to the overall state of air quality in Europe”, with industry and power generation being the other major sources.

The aim of Euro emissions standards is to reduce the levels of harmful exhaust emissions, chiefly:

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
• Carbon monoxide (CO) 
• Hydrocarbons (HC)
• (Particulate matter (PM)

These standards are having a positive effect, with the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders), claiming: “It would take 50 new cars today to produce the same amount of pollutant emissions as one vehicle built in the 1970s.”

In 2017, the SMMT quoted the following figures in support:

• Carbon monoxide (CO): petrol down 63%, diesel down 82% since 1993
• Hydrocarbons (HC): petrol down 50% since 2001
• Nitrogen oxide (NOx): down 84% since 2001
• Particulate matter (PM): diesel down 96% since 1993

Because petrol and diesel engines produce different types of emissions they are subject to different standards. Diesel, for example, produces more particulate matter – or soot – leading to the introduction of diesel particulate filters (DPFs).

The EU has pointed out, however, that NOx emissions from road transport “have not been reduced as much as expected…because emissions in ‘real-world’ driving conditions are often higher than those measured during the approval test (in particular for diesel vehicles)”.

According to Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) stats from 2018, transport still accounted for 33% of all carbon dioxide emissions, with most of this coming from road transport. 

However, BEIS estimates current emissions from road transport have fallen back by around 8.5% over the last decade to levels last seen in 1990, having previously peaked in 2007."

 

Mr Plant your pollution is derived from tanker pollution. Note this article is a most 25 yrs old, I believe if you run the numbers the combined pollution of over 150000 fleet shipping world wide is 4000 times more pollution than all the autos in the world.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

But it burns marine heavy fuel, or ‘bunker fuel’, which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease.

James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.

Part of the blame for this international scandal lies close to home.

In London, on the south bank of the Thames looking across at the Houses of Parliament, is the International Maritime Organisation, the UN body that polices the world’s shipping.

For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/pollutants-and-contaminants/sulfur-dioxide#:~:text=These gases%2C especially SO2%2C are,existing heart and lung conditions.

Sulfur dioxide

 

 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2), a foul-smelling toxic gas, is part of a larger group of chemicals called sulfur oxides. These gases, especially SO2, are emitted by the burning of fossil fuels or other materials that contain sulfur.

Sulfur dioxide can damage trees and plants, inhibit plant growth, and damage sensitive ecosystems and waterways. It also can contribute to respiratory illness and aggravate existing heart and lung conditions.

Sources

SO2 is in emissions from power plants, metals processing and smelting facilities, and vehicles. Diesel vehicles and equipment were a major source of S02, but federal regulations to reduce the sulfur in diesel fuels has significantly lowered emissions. Like nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide can create secondary pollutants, such as sulfate aerosols, particulate matter, and acid rain, once released into the air.

Human health and environmental concerns

Acid rain can damage trees and plants, inhibit plant growth, and damage sensitive ecosystems and waterways. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to the formation of thick haze and smog.

Sulfur dioxide contributes to respiratory illness by making breathing more difficult, especially for children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions. Longer exposures can aggravate existing heart and lung conditions.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ron Wagner + 642]

14 hours ago, notsonice said:

CO2 is not a pollutant...but excess CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the Greenhouse effect......

Water is not a pollutant....however too much water in rivers is the cause of flooding........so no one should build in floodplains

same as noone should think that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing...unless you like higher sea levels and Florida underwater..

All ICE vehicles can be converted to natural gas??? not practical at all

nope all ICE vehicles at a minimum should be hybrids.....

only way to get rid if ICE vehicles powered with oil with Mileage rating less than 25 MPG is to CASH FOR CLUNKERS 

 

Ever been to Argentina???? nat gas taxis  are everywhere......

they can only store enough nat gas for 150 miles at best.....nat gas tanks have to be spherical ended...IE they are real bad fits for passenger vehicles....they have half the range of EVs . Open the trunk and you have no room for anything.......as the NAT Gas cylinder takes up all the space   

SUVs, trucks with racks, vans, large trucks, and buses all have plenty of room. Sedans have as much range as they need for around town just like mild hybrids. Are you up to date on modern compressed gas tanks? 

Ships and trains can run off of LNG, but it can also be used on large road vehicles. 

https://www.qtww.com/product/q-lite-lightest-cng-tanks/ Diesel gas efficiency is DGE. There is plenty of information out there. Natural gas is as clean as it gets aside from hydrogen which is generally made from natural gas but it can be blended into natural gas. This could help wind and solar that is otherwise wasted. 

I am open to electric vehicles, but it is not able to presently meet the needs of larger vehicles. Natural gas is a wonderful thing for energy, especially for heating. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[Ron Wagner + 642]

15 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

100% agree that Co2 is not a pollutant but essential for life on earth.

The other things that come out of an ICE vehicles tailpipe arent, and they do kill over time. Just try breathing benzene in for a couple of minutes.

Smogs in cities were/are commonplace particularly when high pressure weather dominates, due to pollution from ICE vehicles and FF plants, that is undeniable. In my opinion the quicker we can stop pollution the better and that means moving away from ICE vehicles. I'm not against NG powered vehicles by the way.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history

An extract below

"It was not until the early 1950s that it became clear the automobile was the main culprit. That’s when Dr. Arie Haagen-Smit discovered the nature and causes of photochemical smog. He made the discovery while on a one-year leave of absence from Caltech, where he was a bioorganic chemistry professor. Working in a specially-equipped Los Angeles air district laboratory, he determined that two chief constituents of automobile exhaust – airborne hydrocarbons from gasoline, and oxides of nitrogen (NO_x) produced by internal combustion engines – were to blame for smog. His research, highlighting the reaction of sunlight with automobile exhaust and industrial air pollution, became the foundation upon which today’s air pollution regulations are based.

As someone who used to live in California I'm sure you're well aware of the issues and why smogs had to be addressed.

Very true. I used to have lung pain on bad days. Then came the PCV valve and many other improvements. You may not remember that I am a strong advocate of natural gas in all ICE vehicles. That is a far superior fuel that is common in nature and can be made from biological waste. I have accumulated many thousands of references on it. Any current ICE vehicle can be converted to natural gas. California has one of the largest network of natural gas fueling stations but there are sufficient stations in all but the most remote places like Montana and North Dakota and very large rural areas away from the major interstates.  https://ngvamerica.org/fuel/ngv-station-map/#/find/nearest?fuel=CNG, LNG

[Ron Wagner + 642]

15 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Even when it’s sitting in storage, coal threatens human health

https://theconversation.com/even-when-its-sitting-in-storage-coal-threatens-human-health-80865

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-and-water-pollution

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069618302523

Its not just the burning of coal Eco, promoting using coal is and always will be a way of promoting pollution which is harmful to all life.

Many people live near or around natural coal deposits. In my area there are dozens of abandoned tunnels that were used for coal mining. One new house in a tract sunk into the ground. We have a radon issue that must be remediated or checked upon the sale of a house new or old. I think the health problems are not so much from natural coal deposits as from tailings and ponds. We had a large hill of tailings not far from us. They wanted to cover it and make it into a ski run but it got turned down. 

I have been an advocate of natural gas to replace coal and still am working at it. I also work for it to replace diesel and gasoline in that order. Please don't try to tell me there is not enough natural gas on the planet. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/05/30/definitive-36-page-report-150-ways-the-biden-admin-democrats-have-made-it-harder-for-u-s-to-produce-oil-gas/

Definitive 36 Page Report: ‘150 Ways the Biden Admin & Democrats Have Made it Harder for U.S. to Produce Oil & Gas’

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.cfact.org/2023/05/31/offshore-wind-may-not-reduce-co2-emissions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=offshore-wind-may-not-reduce-co2-emissions&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=offshore-wind-may-not-reduce-co2-emissions

 

Offshore wind may not reduce CO2 emissions

By David Wojick |May 31st, 2023|53 Comments

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Is my car bad for the environment? A guide to vehicle exhaust emissions

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/vehicle-exhaust-emissions-what-comes-out-of-your-cars-exhaust/

You are correct that filters and minimum standards in "some" parts of the world are having a positive effect on vehicle pollution but they do still pollute.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/euro-emissions-standards/

"Additionally, the EU has said that “the air pollutant emissions from transport are a significant contribution to the overall state of air quality in Europe”, with industry and power generation being the other major sources.

The aim of Euro emissions standards is to reduce the levels of harmful exhaust emissions, chiefly:

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
• Carbon monoxide (CO) 
• Hydrocarbons (HC)
• (Particulate matter (PM)

These standards are having a positive effect, with the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders), claiming: “It would take 50 new cars today to produce the same amount of pollutant emissions as one vehicle built in the 1970s.”

In 2017, the SMMT quoted the following figures in support:

• Carbon monoxide (CO): petrol down 63%, diesel down 82% since 1993
• Hydrocarbons (HC): petrol down 50% since 2001
• Nitrogen oxide (NOx): down 84% since 2001
• Particulate matter (PM): diesel down 96% since 1993

Because petrol and diesel engines produce different types of emissions they are subject to different standards. Diesel, for example, produces more particulate matter – or soot – leading to the introduction of diesel particulate filters (DPFs).

The EU has pointed out, however, that NOx emissions from road transport “have not been reduced as much as expected…because emissions in ‘real-world’ driving conditions are often higher than those measured during the approval test (in particular for diesel vehicles)”.

According to Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) stats from 2018, transport still accounted for 33% of all carbon dioxide emissions, with most of this coming from road transport. 

However, BEIS estimates current emissions from road transport have fallen back by around 8.5% over the last decade to levels last seen in 1990, having previously peaked in 2007."

 

Again, this ignores the question of current toxic emissions. You are lumping new and old technologies together to disguise the real numbers.

Not surprised at the evasion here.

 

[specinho + 439]

22 hours ago, notsonice said:

CO2 is not a pollutant...but excess CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the Greenhouse effect......

Water is not a pollutant....however too much water in rivers is the cause of flooding........so no one should build in floodplains

same as noone should think that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing...unless you like higher sea levels and Florida underwater..

All ICE vehicles can be converted to natural gas??? not practical at all

nope all ICE vehicles at a minimum should be hybrids.....

only way to get rid if ICE vehicles powered with oil with Mileage rating less than 25 MPG is to CASH FOR CLUNKERS 

 

Ever been to Argentina???? nat gas taxis  are everywhere......

they can only store enough nat gas for 150 miles at best.....nat gas tanks have to be spherical ended...IE they are real bad fits for passenger vehicles....they have half the range of EVs . Open the trunk and you have no room for anything.......as the NAT Gas cylinder takes up all the space   

Kuala Lumpur has a fleet of those running in town and out of town e.g. to Genting Highlands, more than 15 years ago.

One of the drivers casually informed the passengers that it cost ~ 1/3 the original price of petrol per tank. Back then it was rm 1.20 per litre. Full tank ~ rm 40 to 70.. Therefore, 1/3 of rm 40 ~ rm 10 to 20... Total range ~ 250 km, sufficient to go all the way to genting and back, with extra... 

Despite the advantages, the pick up wind using gas has been slow somehow... Possibly due to official car manufacturers are adamant on petrol powered cars or such that they are familiar with; not willing to split market share of car manufacturing, gas station or such; or other possible concerns which not known to outsiders. 

If they allow this alternative, would flaring of gas be reduced and made useful? 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

11 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Mr Plant your pollution is derived from tanker pollution. Note this article is a most 25 yrs old, I believe if you run the numbers the combined pollution of over 150000 fleet shipping world wide is 4000 times more pollution than all the autos in the world

EWO where at all does it refer to shipping?? The RAC stands for the "Royal automobile club" it only refers to on road vehicles, you clearly didnt read the article at all.

The first article was written 24th Jan 2023 the second 5th may 2023 it clearly states that on both articles!!!

You are eyes wide shut me thinks!

Edited June 1, 2023 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, this ignores the question of current toxic emissions. You are lumping new and old technologies together to disguise the real numbers.

Not surprised at the evasion here.

 

Eco so youre saying that only new cars are acceptable on the roads from a pollutant perspective???

Dont you accept that there are far more old cars whithout this new technology and filters on the roads?

You keep telling us all that the used car market is huge compared to the new car market which is absolutely true, and then in your next breath tell us not to include those vehicles in the "mix" when talking about car pollution.

Double standards indeed, so yes I will "lump the old and new technologies together" as thats whats on the roads!

The "evasion" is all yours not mine.

They arent "my" numbers either they are from an automobile web site if you check.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Rob Plant

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Eco so youre saying that only new cars are acceptable on the roads from a pollutant perspective???

Dont you accept that there are far more old cars whithout this new technology and filters on the roads?

You keep telling us all that the used car market is huge compared to the new car market which is absolutely true, and then in your next breath tell us not to include those vehicles in the "mix" when talking about car pollution.

Double standards indeed, so yes I will "lump the old and new technologies together" as thats whats on the roads!

The "evasion" is all yours not mine.

They arent "my" numbers either they are from an automobile web site if you check.

Even most used cars have acceptable pollution reduction capability or can be upgraded.

Sure, eliminate the really old ones which contribute the vast majority of pollution issues. Not a huge problem.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Here is where the problem really lies, with mindless climate agitators who insist on an anti-scientific approach to fossil fuels.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Norways-Wealth-Fund-Sides-With-Activists-Against-Exxon-Chevron.html

• The year 2021 proved to be a watershed moment for oil and gas companies in the global transition to clean energy, with Big Oil losing a series of boardroom and courtroom battles in the hands of hardline climate activists.
• Norway’s giant sovereign wealth fund announced it will support proposals by ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. shareholders at their annual general meetings (AGMs) on Wednesday to introduce emissions targets.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

EWO where at all does it refer to shipping?? The RAC stands for the "Royal automobile club" it only refers to on road vehicles, you clearly didnt read the article at all.

The first article was written 24th Jan 2023 the second 5th may 2023 it clearly states that on both articles!!!

You are eyes wide shut me thinks!

Ya Don't Say. Sulphur dioxides are overwhelming your country and you bring up automotive  gasoline emissions. Now that is truly a eye popper.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ron Wagner + 642]

11 hours ago, specinho said:

Kuala Lumpur has a fleet of those running in town and out of town e.g. to Genting Highlands, more than 15 years ago.

One of the drivers casually informed the passengers that it cost ~ 1/3 the original price of petrol per tank. Back then it was rm 1.20 per litre. Full tank ~ rm 40 to 70.. Therefore, 1/3 of rm 40 ~ rm 10 to 20... Total range ~ 250 km, sufficient to go all the way to genting and back, with extra... 

Despite the advantages, the pick up wind using gas has been slow somehow... Possibly due to official car manufacturers are adamant on petrol powered cars or such that they are familiar with; not willing to split market share of car manufacturing, gas station or such; or other possible concerns which not known to outsiders. 

If they allow this alternative, would flaring of gas be reduced and made useful? 

Thanks for your information. Los Angeles has run all of its buses on natural gas for decades but the greenies are now demanding electric buses. I think the upfront costs will be far greater than the taxpayers would like to pay for. Some of those buses travel great distances daily. When I was a child they had street cars with overhead lines and tracks. They were unsightly but worked well. 

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demise

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/where-to-find-remnants-of-l-a-s-red-car-system

[notsonice + 1,063]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Even most used cars have acceptable pollution reduction capability or can be upgraded.

Sure, eliminate the really old ones which contribute the vast majority of pollution issues. Not a huge problem.

most used cars have acceptable pollution reduction capability or can be upgraded????

upgraded???? please explain how a used car can be upgraded for pollution reduction???? CASH FOR CLUNKERS....works great better just to scrap the 15 year plus old cars and buy a new hybrid or EV that will result in a huge pollution reduction.

 

 

[notsonice + 1,063]

Just now, Ron Wagner said:

Thanks for your information. Los Angeles has run all of its buses on natural gas for decades but the greenies are now demanding electric buses. I think the upfront costs will be far greater than the taxpayers would like to pay for. Some of those buses travel great distances daily. When I was a child they had street cars with overhead lines and tracks. They were unsightly but worked well. 

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demise

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/where-to-find-remnants-of-l-a-s-red-car-system

Los Angeles has run all of its buses on natural gas for decades....buses have a life if around 12 or 250,000  miles years at which they are need to be replaced...LA just doing its usual upgrade to better and better

Your BS comments about Greenies demanding shows you really are a sore loser in that NAT GAS vehicles really never caught on ..keep pumping outdated tech , it is all you have

[notsonice + 1,063]

20 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

SUVs, trucks with racks, vans, large trucks, and buses all have plenty of room. Sedans have as much range as they need for around town just like mild hybrids. Are you up to date on modern compressed gas tanks? 

Ships and trains can run off of LNG, but it can also be used on large road vehicles. 

https://www.qtww.com/product/q-lite-lightest-cng-tanks/ Diesel gas efficiency is DGE. There is plenty of information out there. Natural gas is as clean as it gets aside from hydrogen which is generally made from natural gas but it can be blended into natural gas. This could help wind and solar that is otherwise wasted. 

I am open to electric vehicles, but it is not able to presently meet the needs of larger vehicles. Natural gas is a wonderful thing for energy, especially for heating. 

Are you up to date on modern compressed gas tanks? yes they are not a good fit for passenger vehicles

unless you like to drive around in something like this..again a trunk full of cylinders not a good seller is it?????

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/05/30/definitive-36-page-report-150-ways-the-biden-admin-democrats-have-made-it-harder-for-u-s-to-produce-oil-gas/

Definitive 36 Page Report: ‘150 Ways the Biden Admin & Democrats Have Made it Harder for U.S. to Produce Oil & Gas’

 

THOMAS J. PYLE of the Institute for Energy Research May 23, 2023 report: 

Biden & Dems target U.S. domestic energy by 'canceling'...'banning'...'prohibiting'...'taxing'...'executive orders' & 'restricting' using 'moratoriums'...'executive orders'...'ESG'...'green energy codes'...'increased fees and royalties'...'environmental justice enforcement'...'red tape'...revoking 'oil & gas leases'...forcing 'bankruptcies'...'fuel efficiency standards'...'social costs of carbon'

All while the Biden Admin has been "begging OPEC+ (OPEC plus Russia) to produce more oil."

On April 16, 2021: At Biden’s Direction, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland revoked policies in Secretarial Order 3398 established by the Trump administration including rejecting 'American Energy Independence' as a goal."

 

By: Admin - Climate DepotMay 30, 2023 8:51 AM

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/150-ways-the-biden-administration-and-congress-have-made-it-harder-to-produce-oil-gas/

BY THOMAS J. PYLE

President Biden and the Democrats in Congress have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase. Since Mr. Biden took office, his administration and its allies have taken over 150 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America. A list of those actions, which includes a few high-profile actions taken in states like New York and California, appears below. A list of those actions appears below. A PDF of the full list is available to download here.