Remember how the California Air Resources Board was contemplating banning black cars because air conditioning uses so much C02 (or not)? Well, the madness is over, as The Detroit News reports that California’s proposed “Cool Car” rules are dead. What killed them (besides common sense and the laws of diminishing returns)? Law enforcement, for one, which warned that
the new standards, requiring window glazing to keep car interiors cool, could degrade signals from cell phones and ankle monitoring bracelets worn by felons in rural or mountainous areas.
CARB’s glazing standards also would have been incompatible with toll booth “EZ-pass” technology and could have interfered with cell-phone transmissions.
But don’t think that the CARB will just ignore the .7 million metric tons per year of C02 (by 2020) that they weren’t able to eliminate. According to a statement by the board’s executive officer,
And what, pray, does that mean? Spokesman Stanley Young tells the LA Times that OEMs auto will still have to meet a standard for a specific drop in the interior temperature of vehicles
but they are free to draw on any technology to achieve it. This could be through advanced windows that keep the sun’s heat out, but also heat-reflecting paints, different upholstery, or even fans that circulate air and keep the car cool while it is standing in the sun.
Costs for the abandoned standard were estimated to cost manufacturers between $39 and $128 per vehicle, and it’s interesting that increased cost apparently wasn’t a factor in the decision to walk away from “cool cars” rules. Will the “performance-based” standard help control those costs? Meanwhile, will folks in climates where air conditioning isn’t widely used have to pay for the cost of California compliance as well? CARB helped push national emissions standards forward, and clearly relishes its role as the rogue-agent vanguard of vehicle regulation, so don’t expect cool-car standards to simply disappear.
Posted in Fuel Economy, Government, Green, News Blog
Tagged as CARB, Fuel Economy, Government, Green, HVAC, Regulation
Tagged as CARB, Fuel Economy, Government, Green, HVAC, Regulation
The looney left never sleeps!
LMAO, exactly the responses I expected.
Yeah, remember how certain online automotive publications freaked out and posted sensationalist headlines because a government body tasked with reducing air pollution was “contemplating” (not implementing) ways to reduce air pollution?
And now, that same online automotive publication, and many of its commentators, are blaming their own sensationalizing on the air resources board, rather than looking in the mirror at the problem.
CARB is *supposed* to contemplate ways to reduce air pollution. They did. They got feedback that the means were unfeasible. They shelved them. The process worked.
You guys are the ones who are running around like Chicken Little, claiming that people are going to take your pretty cars away, then claiming that the people doing research were engaged in “madness”.
Contemplation is not madness. Thinking is a good thing. Dissent is part of a good thought and vetting process.
The loony right seems to think that the only good decisions are knee-jerk reactions and platitudes, and that any thought process is broken by virtue of it being a thought process. I thought TTAC was better than that.
I hope that this doesn’t lead to an end in black leather interiors. Living in FL I know how hot that black leather gets during the day, and I’ve had times where the steering wheel has been too hot to touch until the ac vents cooled it down, but it looks good and doesn’t show wear nearly as bad as light leather. It’s annoying that automakers are already going to neutral colored headliners no matter the color of the rest of the interior, but I don’t want to lose options for what kind of seats I have because California fancies itself having the authority to mandate policy on a national level.
Remember how the California Air Resources Board was contemplating banning black cars because air conditioning uses so much C02 (or not)?
While it made great headlines to say that California was banning black cars, that wasn’t what they were doing. They were mandating reflectivity on the grounds that, yes, having a car that’s not a heat-soak does help the car stay cool, requires less AC use, and accordingly less fuel.
Bait alert: I know the right-wing really resents being told be responsible and, oh, I don’t know, think a little, but this wasn’t at all a bad idea. California has a lot of people, a lot of cars, and a serious energy use problem: chopping fuel use by even a percent or two would go a long way, especially leveraged over tens of millions of people.
It’s also worth noting that California has to confront issues of climate, population and geography that rural red-states will never, ever see. It’s all well and good to armchair-quarterback from Podunk, but realize that things are a little different in LA.
Well said, +1 !
The problem is that the reflectivity that would have been mandated would have made it impossible (at least according to the auto paint makers) to make a truly black car, the closest you could get was sort of a dark mottled gray.
I’m far from right wing, I believe we should model our healthcare system after Canada’s and that gay marriage, abortions and marijuana should all be (or remain) legal, I will, however, call out anyone who tries to tie acceptance of the loss of freedom to irresponsibility.
If I choose to buy a car that takes more fuel to keep cool I will shoulder the responsibility of having to pay for more fuel. Given how starved for income California is, those extra gallons and extra tax revenue would actually be beneficial.
Yes, the challenges that face L.A. and CA in general are not necessarily the same as those faced by other cities and states, but that is even more reason to resent CA pushing legislation that they know good and well will effect the rest of us living in places that aren’t CA. At the end of the day the special circumstances can only count for so much. We’ve become a country too afraid of stepping on each others toes, willing to defer and back down and give up life’s pleasures at the remote chance of inconveniencing someone else.
If L.A. has too much smog and you’re tired of your power going out then move someplace else. Yes you may take a paycut, and may have to deal with less idyllic weather, but you can’t have your cake and eat it to.
I’ll rise to the bait. Who is not being responsible?
I look at this a different way than psarhjinian. Regarding the treated glass, you have one state organ, CARB, at odds with others, the penal people and the toll both trolls. Could you not devise an unobtrusive external device that would transmit the signals, just as old fashioned cell antennas did? Which I guess would solve your cell reception issue, too.
At the time TTAC brought this up, it seemed that the paint was a lousy idea based on CARB’s own presentations – presentations thoughtfully dredged up by one of TTAC’s commenters. The treated glass was, IIRC, 7X as effective as the paint. The only paint likely to count is that attached directly to the passenger compartment – heat is not going to jump like magic across the hood and fender parting lines; ditto for the trunk. In a hot soak, the firewall and rear seats provide pretty decent insulation, too. Considering the view factors for radiation heat transfer, it looks like the roof is much more important than the doors and it might be worthwhile/cost-effective investigating a radiant barrier treatment or another type of insulating layer integrated with the headliner.
Also, with reformulated paint there was the possibility that early versions would soon turn as leprous-looking as the first water-based low VOC paints were when they were introduced.
Another half-assed government proposal. Shame about the glass idea, that may have had some promise. It would have been more responsible to have a better thought-out proposal.
OK, then let’s think a little. IIRC, the study CARB used to justify the law showed that for the vast majority of afternoon trips, i.e. commuters leaving work after 3pm or so, the new rules would have had no effect, as the car had already cooled to the desired. Also, they don’t account for people keeping their interior cooler by manually putting up sunshades.
If they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, they’d do something like synchronize traffic lights, or add more “left turn if safe” lights. Or get rid of the limited-access carpool lanes in SoCal (in favor of constant access lanes), so every lane of a freeway doesn’t slow to a crawl as carpoolers frantically make their way from the carpool lane to their exit.
There’s so many things CARB could do that have a benefit commensurate with their cost. I don’t think this is one of them.
Enough with the vapid political hogwash, D.B. Cooper.
-1
You can’t champion personal responsibility when you promote just the opposite. If your side believed in it, it wouldn’t have the trial lawyers as its chief political contributor.
Just cowboy up and forgo the AC.
Good to see someone else took the 5 minutes to read the powerpoint from CARB. It took a lot of spinning to turn that short blurb about black cars and reflectivity into “California bans black cars” and it’s very frustrating to see.
“I know the right-wing really resents being told be responsible and, oh, I don’t know, think a little”?? Spare me. I’m slightly left-of-center politically, and even I think this was a patently ridiculous idea. The political left comes up with as many dumb ideas as the right does, and each of them is guilty of reacting badly to each others ideas. I know that California, especially the LA Basin has geographical problems that increase their pollution problems, but I don’t live in California, and I don’t want my choices as a consume dictated by California, and I don’t want my investments, primarily in my retirement plan, adversely affected by their loony-tune suggestions.
Automotive air conditioning is probably the lowest-hanging fruit of fuel economy. Why should it take as much cooling capacity to cool a mid-size car as a 1200 square foot house in a warm climate such as Virginia?
In both cases about 24,000 BTU/hr.
Performance-based standards are a very good idea.
Do you let your house reach 100deg and then expect cool down in minutes?
Is your house painted black? Is your house surrounded on all sides (including the floors) by 100deg air?
Autos have a large amount of solar gain (it’s called windows as in visibility for driving) compared to most homes. Inserting materials into the tint of the windows changes the solar gain – this is what the California folks were mandating – better reflecting materials to lower the solar gain.
Expectations for auto air conditioning is higher than for homes.
On the other hand, why does a car have to get hot enough to bake cookies in the time it takes to buy groceries? Ventilation on request, with solar power to reduce battery drain, would help with stops of a few hours or less. Starting from 100-110 degrees instead of 140 would be a big help.
Cooled seats could also reduce the need for extremely high cooling capacity. The use of massive cooling capacity is just mindless, and has also been a big driver behind increased vehicle horsepower.
You could just skip the air conditioning altogether. Sometimes the ambient temperature isn’t so comfortable.
There are studies that have discovered that opening the windows induced more drag than keeping them closed – therefore the “cooling” ventilation must be done by air intakes/exhaust in the proper places for not causing drag.
But the initial goal of lowering solar gain – through windows – and via absorption in the car color is and admirable one. That is the surface area of the car and reductions in receiving heat from solar sources via this route is the place to lower the load.
The impact to overall MPG by air conditioning in a modern vehicle is negligible. In many vehicles the AC compressor is running constantly as part of the climate control system. The power robbing impact of running the AC is also a myth. This has been tackled in the laboratory and on shows like Myth Busters (who also proved that a light colored car isn’t all that much cooler than a dark colored car).
I do agree that having a solar running vent system as an option would make sense, considering that Mazda had it as option back in the 1980s!
NulloModo:
You state that you should be able to drive/purchase a car that may require more fuel to keep cool and take responsibility for paying for your gas. That statement does not address the pollution your hypothetical car would emit. I have just as much right to want your car and my car to emit less pollution so I can breath a little easier and hopefully have a better long term impact on the environment.
You have the right to choose a car for yourself that emits less pollution, you have no right to choose anything about my car.
Florida, though it has its faults, at least has no emissions checks or vehicle inspections. If I wanted, I could buy an old crown vic, shoehorn a bigass V8 under the hood, and remove all of the emissions equipment, yet still be able to register an drive it legally. I won’t do that because I’m not a total asshole and I don’t want to pollute for the sake of pollution, but I damn well do want the right to do it if for some reason I wake up and decide that is the route I want to go.
We all share a common ecosystem, yes, and our personal decisions and choices can effect others, I agree. The trick is to finding how far is too far in giving up personal freedoms for the good of society as a whole. To me, giving up complete choice of the color of my car is way too far into the too much loss of freedom category.
I still stand by my post. My point is this: Your right to drive a hypothetical polluting Crown Vic that affects me or the environment negatively does not trump my right to have you not drive said vehicle. Similarly, If your Crown Vic had straight pipes, by your logic, you should be able to sit in your driveway and rev it up anytime you want, because hey, no one is going to tell me what to do!. However, because what you are doing is negativity affecting others, my right to have you not do that is equally important.
Just so I’m clear, it is not my intent to say who is right or wrong here concerning our posts. I am merely trying to demonstrate that each person has rights or wishes, and ones rights should be equally considered as anthers. Unless we’re talking about a car rental company that feels it has a right to give you a Chevy Aveo because its similar to Nissan Versa… :-D
I see a key difference in revving a car with straight pipes all hours of the night – there are already noise regulations that make that illegal. As it is, I choose to live in a state that doesn’t place too many restrictions on personal freedoms. I am not forced to recycle, I am not forced to have my vehicles emissions checked, and I’m not forbidden from smoking in an actual bar or casino. Moreover, I choose to live in a house rather than in a condo or an apartment, and in a non deed-restricted or HOA community, because I am unwilling to give up the freedom to watch a movie with the sound system turned up high at night, paint my home whatever color I see fit, or park my vehicle in the driveway as opposed to the garage.
California, and the voters who live there, are free to enact whatever kind of regulations and restrictions upon themselves that they see fit, but the problem is that when it comes to the auto industry, the way California goes ultimately ends up having repercussions on those who are not willing to put up with the restrictions on daily life that come from living in the golden state.
CARB has been responsible for a lack of diesel passenger cars in the US, for emissions systems have have kept plenty of European vehicles from being available here, and for cars like the Pontiac G8, which was pretty cool, not being cost effective to keep on the table.
Since there are already federal guidelines for emissions standards I do not believe that California should have the right to enact legislation that effectively limits the choice in vehicles that the rest of the country would otherwise have.
NullModo:
Is a non deed-restricted community the same thing as living in an area that has a homeowners association that restricts certain activities? Just curious, as I had not heard that phrase before. Thnx!
I’m with NulloModo on this. People drive what they want, but mind their own business and stay out of my purchasing and driving decisions. Period. If they feel that my decision impacts them in a negative way, deal with it.
Never finished engineering school, but it seems to me that the passenger compartment of a car would be heated more by radiant energy (i.e.,sunshine) passing through the glass in the greenhouse than by the color of the paint on the roof of said car. If I’m wrong, let ‘em mandate white vinyl tops on all cars and we’ll party like it’s 1979! :)
This is ridiculous because there were only CONCERNS that reflective window coatings might block cell phone and EZ Pass signals. No one actually said they had EVIDENCE of it, only fears and worries.
(And yes, Green Destiny, they know the greenhouse is more important and that’s why they were considering mandating reflective window coatings.)
How about installing automatic solar powered cooling fans that vent that heat to the engine compartment? If the sun’s shining, then the fans are going!
Continuing this line of thought, then why aren’t there rooftop solar panels to charge hybrids?
I still like Volvo’s concept of a small flexfuel motor charging the hub mounted electric motors that will both spin and regenerate on braking. Check this You Tube video for more about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJwQ18I0vgY
…CARB’s glazing standards also would have been incompatible with toll booth “EZ-pass” technology…
It’s all about the Benjamins.
Law enforcement, for one, which warned that
the new standards, requiring window glazing to keep car interiors cool, could degrade signals from cell phones and ankle monitoring bracelets worn by felons in rural or mountainous areas.
CARB’s glazing standards also would have been incompatible with toll booth “EZ-pass” technology
Notice how CARB didn’t care when the public complained, but when government agencies said that the proposed rules would make it harder to keep non-public employees under control, and harder to generate income streams for those agencies and keep salaries and pensions of public employees generously high, well then CARB complied.
CARB doesn’t care how taxpayers are affected, but if tax eaters feel the pain, well, that pain must be alleviated.
We have two classes of Americans now. Those who create wealth, and those who live off of the wealth creators.
CARB is completely unaccountable to the people of California. They can’t be voted out of office.
I live in CA, and I’m not a fan of CARB. However, CARB isn’t the entire problem here.
The US EPA mandates various air quality metrics, and when a region/city/metro-area consistently violates them, that area gets special attention. CA has several such regions, including (IIUC) Riverside county (east of L.A.) and Sacramento.
Basically, EPA says “Clean up or lose Federal dollars (or get fined)!” CARB is free to do whatever it wants, as long as it get results.
For example: CA has its own special blend of gasoline (“CA Phase II RFG”) designed to lower smog. Of course it’s more expensive than the gasoline in most other states. CARB swears it keeps our air cleaner…
IMHO the dark-paint-prohibition pales in comparison to the MTBE