SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US Appeals Court Says California Can Set its Own Low Carbon Fuel Standard:
Late last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit published an opinion (PDF) stating that California's regulation of fuel sales based on a lifecycle analysis of carbon emissions did not violate federal commerce rules.
Since 2011, California has had a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, which requires fuel sellers to reduce their fuel's carbon intensity by certain deadlines. If oil, ethanol, or other fuel sellers can't meet those deadlines, they can buy credits from companies that have complied with the standard.
California measures "fuel intensity" over the lifecycle of the fuel, so oil extracted from tar sands (which might require a lot of processing) would be penalized more than lighter oil that requires minimal processing. Ethanol made with coal would struggle to meet its carbon intensity goals more than ethanol made from gas.
Plaintiffs representing the ethanol and oil industries have challenged these rules in the court system. Most recently, they challenged California's 2015 version of the rules. (In September 2018, the state's Air Resources Board announced new amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard rules, but those are not discussed in the 9th Circuit's most recent opinion.)
[...] The opinion noted:
The California legislature is rightly concerned with the health and welfare of humans living in the State of California... These persons may be subjected, for example, to crumbling or swamped coastlines, rising water, or more intense forest fires caused by higher temperatures and related droughts, all of which many in the scientific communities believe are caused or intensified by the volume of greenhouse gas emissions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:35PM (52 children)
Companies can simply not sell fuel in California. Seems like they want to return to the stone age anyway.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:39PM (29 children)
Enjoy your cancers and environmental destruction while we cruise around in our futuristic electric vehicles while enjoying good food from around the globe. Yup, sure is teeerrrible over here in commiefornia!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @08:27PM (27 children)
And just where do you think your electric power comes from, smart boy ?
Some of it comes from places that are FAR from benign in environmental terms.
Idiots like you who think electric vehicles are a panacea are ample proof that the gene pool needs cleansing.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 24 2019, @08:37PM (4 children)
And yet even a coal-fired power plant has lower carbon emissions than a typical automotive engine, even after factoring in electrical transmission losses. Just one of the benefits of economies of scale and a regular maintenance schedule to keep fuel costs down.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:08PM (3 children)
That isn't true. Did you mean to say something else? Perhaps, "An electric vehicle charged by electricity from a coal-fired power plant has lower carbon emissions than a typical internal combustion engine"?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Immerman on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:17PM (2 children)
You're right - I should have added "per kWh" in there somewhere. Obviously even a small 1MW coal-fired plant has more total emissions than a single car engine.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:33AM (1 child)
Not my car engine. #RollingCoal
(Score: 2) by Kalas on Friday January 25 2019, @02:38AM
One of these days I'll learn not to be so curious. That's so goddamn stupid.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @08:51PM
Hey genocidal maniac, we're in process of switching to solar and win. Your point is valid up until the energy is no longer coming from burning coal and gas.
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/ [wired.com]
But go ahead, continue being a violent moron.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:06PM (20 children)
It all ultimately comes from the sun. You just want your energy from the sun in a more indirect but convenient way.
Clue: that fossil fuel is destroying the environment and there is a limited supply of it. It will be harder and harder to find (eg, more expensive) despite artificially low prices.
But go ahead. Bury your head in the sand and think it can go on forever. Or maybe you know it can't, but you just don't care about future generations.
Electric vehicles, like any technology, have their problems. But we will have to switch sometime. It won't be easy no matter when the switch happens. Such a change doesn't happen overnight, just like the switch from horses and buggies didn't happen instantly. The sooner we start changing how we power automobiles, the longer we have to perfect the technology, make it cheaper, and more efficient while it is not yet a crisis.
If we don't switch, as you say, the gene pool will definitely get some clensing eventually. But go ahead. Bury your head in the sand and everything will seem alright.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:41PM (5 children)
Actually, now that you bring it up, Horse and Buggy would be really good for the environment. The byproduct of driving helps make more fuel for later. Talk about renewable, the horse can just make new copies of itself even.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:08PM (4 children)
What you say about biological energy efficiency and self manufacturing is true.
But you fail to mention even one of the significant drawbacks.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:43PM (2 children)
It's a mute point, streets in California are already covered in shit in most large cities.
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:51PM
Not even close to true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:08AM
You mean "moot point" and yeah, you're more full of shit than the streets of SF. The shit isn't everywhere, but when you encounter human shit it leaves a lasting impression.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday January 25 2019, @01:59PM
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:52PM (13 children)
*cough* Nuclear *cough*
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:33PM (6 children)
And how is it that this planet coalesced from a cloud of dust and gas, including the fissionable material we use for nuclear power? It was a consequence of the formation of a certain object. Hmm...what could that be? Gee, that's a hard question isn't it?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:57PM (5 children)
The nuclear energy comes not from planetary formation nor from energy produced by the sun. The energy stored in fissionable material was likely produced in some other star's collapse and explosion, where it was scattered into space dust, etc.
Saying this energy comes FROM the sun would be very odd indeed.
There is energy produced by planetary formation -- the heat inside the earth, some of which is used for geothermal heating. But the energy stored in nuclear material was not created that way, nor did that material (or energy) have a source in the sun.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @12:11AM (2 children)
All true. However, my point was that without the collapse of the gas cloud resuling in the formation of the sun, those atoms of fissionable material (as well as everything else that makes up this planet) would be just a cloud. As such, while fissionable materials (as well as all elements heavier than iron) were originally formed in supernovas long before the birth of our star, we would not have usable nuclear energy (or anything else, including us) without the sun.
Broadly speaking, the sun is responsible for the formation of our planet and the aggregation of everything upon it. Perhaps you think that's not a tight enough connection to make the claim I did. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 25 2019, @01:45AM (1 child)
I did understand your point the first time. I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. But that doesn't mean that the parent you were originally replying to didn't have a point too.
This thread was originally about the source of "power," which is energy produced over time. The literal source of that energy is (as you note) likely the energy of supernovas, stored for billions of years and now released again.
That's different from almost all other energy produced by humans on earth. I'm not saying the sun didn't have a role in making nuclear plants possible. I'm just saying it literally isn't the source of the energy released in nuclear power.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @02:17AM
Absolutely. On all counts.
But I'm a fanboi.
Hooray for the sun god! He sure is a fun god! Ra! Ra! Ra! :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 25 2019, @12:53AM (1 child)
When Brian May was interviewed on Fresh Air, he commented that "we are stardust" is literally true.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @05:04AM
The first time I heard that quote was from Carl Sagan in the 1980's Cosmos series.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:33PM (2 children)
Also came from a star :D
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday January 25 2019, @12:08AM (1 child)
The death of a star, yep. But not the daystar.
Also geothermal if you don't like nuclear, although some percentage of that is from nuclear decay as well.
We can ignore fusion power, which is now only 30 years away :-)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 25 2019, @04:09PM
No matter which star's death, they can still be buried along side other hollywood stars.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 25 2019, @12:31AM (2 children)
Well, one could argue that uranium is merely condensed supernova energy, I suppose.
But the real drawback to nuclear energy is that nobody is planing on paying to handle the waste. And plant managers cut costs in ways that are unsafe...which with the residual long term effects isn't acceptable. Perhaps fusion will be better.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:44AM (1 child)
1/ High level stuff - either burn it for more power or encase it in synrock and stack it in the desert somewhere. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc [wikipedia.org] )
2/ Low level - Separate out what can be used for power and stack the rest in the same desert.
3/ Liquids - Separate out whatever is making it radioactive. Goto 1/ or 2/. If it is tritium then that both has uses and a 12 year half life. Not a problem.
(Score: 4, Touché) by RandomFactor on Friday January 25 2019, @01:49AM
Reprocess fuel and use breeder reactors? That's crazy talk!
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 25 2019, @01:54PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:51PM (15 children)
Entire industries have been built trying to chase California's infamous regulations and the dollars of that mythical California market.
I have never seen an entire industry walk away from that market because the cost of business was too high. There may be a 49 state and a California model, instead of a 50 state model (which just means that everyone is getting dragged behind California anyhow), but there is always a California model (where possible). This isn't to say industries always enjoy those regulations and don't challenge them, but they never seem to pick up and just sell elsewhere. I doubt this will be the day that changes, but if it does it will be a hell of a ride.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday January 24 2019, @08:00PM (14 children)
For the same reason car companies realized that opposing safety measures in cars was pointless.
All companies face the same costs. Thus, costs go up similarly for all suppliers, and with it retail prices. There is still a functioning market, but the base price just rose.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:10PM (13 children)
The cost of safety measures required by government regulation add approximately nothing to the cost of a new car. The additional cost is negligible.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:18PM
Depends on how you look at it. I think ESC and ABS have probably significantly reduced the purchase of new cars. The car companies would count that as a cost.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:34PM (9 children)
Seatbelts and airbags have negligible costs?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:35PM (5 children)
Compared with the value in saved lives and fewer injuries? I'd say so.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 25 2019, @12:50AM (4 children)
But that wasn't the point.
Yes, there is value to society in fitting seat belts and airbags. But, in the case of these safety initiatives, it took government regulations for widespread adoption. Adopting these technologies cost real money. Now, of course, no one would buy a car without them, even if they were not required by regulations, but that wasn't initially the case.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @01:08AM (3 children)
In that case, whoosh!
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. What seemed unnecessary sixty years ago isn't really relevant, is it? Or am I missing something?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 25 2019, @01:53AM (2 children)
Just read the thread already.
I was refuting this claim:
It has nothing to do with value and everything to do with cost.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @02:13AM (1 child)
Point taken. I don't know how much additional cost airbags and seat belts add to the manufacturing process. Given the materials involved, I imagine those costs would be a pretty small fraction of the cost to manufacture a car.
That said, it's unclear (at least to me) whether or not the cost is "negligible." I guess it depends on what the cost difference would be (not that you can do so, at least in the US) to purchase a car without those features and one's own relationship with, and access to, money.
From a philosophical standpoint, I have to disagree that
Value (at least to me) is of paramount importance. Cost is a consideration only to determine if sufficient value is being provided.
However, I guess that's a different (although significantly more important,IMHO) topic.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @05:11AM
Given the high cost to replace deployed airbags and the tendency for disreputable car repair shops to remove them from unsuspecting car owners' vehicles and reselling them, I'd say that airbags probably add a significant cost.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday January 27 2019, @06:56AM (2 children)
Compared to the other costs involved in producing a car, yes, seat belts and airbags have negligible cost.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday January 28 2019, @06:36PM (1 child)
You are wrong.
It's that simple.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Friday February 01 2019, @07:02AM
No you.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:00PM (1 child)
We can even go further than that, we can take a "fairly" accurate historical comparison.
a 1964 1/2 Mustang has a base price of $2,368 or according to usinflationcalculator.com $19,181.33 today
a 2019 Mustang has a base price of $26,395
In those 55 years we have seen the rise of robotic manufacturing (which by all accounts lowers costs), and the rise of safety and emissions tech.
The Mustang is still a compact FR sport coupe. More or less equivalent to what you would have gotten in 64 1/2. It is true the base is now an i4 making 310hp/350ftlb on 21/31mpg, vs an i6 (or bigger) at 105hp/156ftlb on let's just say considerably worse fuel economy. You also get airbags (and airbags for your airbags almost anymore), ABS, aforementioned environmental controls (platinum in every car), AM/FM radio (no simple AM for me), better crash survivability, better handling, LED lights. But it really is the same car we are talking about. Sources are wikipedia for gen1 Mustang and ford.com for modern.
In that same 55 years, we have went from having "smog days" where you didn't go outside if you could help it, to such a thing being unthinkable again in about a generation. We went from 5.36 fatalities per million vehicle miles in the US to right around 1 (latest stat shown is 2017 at 1.16) according to the stats on wikipedia.
It is trivially obvious that emission controls add significant expense (hence why we have people chopping catalytic converters off cars to harvest that platinum). The question then, is 55 years of tech progress, and safety equipment, and environmental equipment worth a ~30% price increase (based on CPI)?
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday January 27 2019, @06:58AM
I was talking about the cost of safety measures being negligible. Emissions control is not what I had in mind, but as you pointed out, it is unlikely that emission controls are the main element driving the increased cost of a new car.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday January 24 2019, @08:24PM (5 children)
It is amazing how no claim of businesses running away from profit because of regulations has ever materialized. Ever.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by VLM on Thursday January 24 2019, @08:44PM (3 children)
The purpose of regulation is to punish smaller more nimble competitors while benefiting status quo large competitors.
Under that concept, the purpose is to reduce competition in the market and increase prices by forcing everyone out except the big players, who coincidentally donate the most to election campaigns.
Carbon not being free, you'd think "the market" would take care of this. I can turn two barrels of diesel in my tank into one barrel of biodiesel in your truck with an enormous about of environmental damage along the way, or I can turn two barrels of diesel in my tank into two barrels of diesel in your truck; either my production is twice as high, or
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:00PM (1 child)
And herein lies the problem with idiots, they hear one sound-bite that gets them all emotional and they stop using their brains.
Regulation existing solely to punish small business is about as accurate as all white males being inherently evil and racist.
Yes, some regulation is crafted by lobbyists to protect their industry but most regulation is about protecting people/places/things.
PS: your last paragraph is unfinished nonsense.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 25 2019, @06:49AM
This is *VLM* we're talking about. Go read his, ahem, scientific justification for his racism sometime; it makes about as much sense and is based on about as much reality as his "regulations are about punishing SMBs" idiocy. The guy's irredeemable; the sooner the earth opens up and swallows him the better.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:12PM
Depends on the regulation. In ideal terms, the purpose to regulation is, in the corporate race to the bottom, to raise the bottom. Whether that damages smaller companies more than larger companies depends on how close to the floor said companies were operating. In the real world, of course, regulations can be abused, like anything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:26AM
Of course business don't run away from profit. They do run away from losses, though. At some point, the successive layer of regulation makes doing business, in a location or an industry, no longer profitable. At that point, the business simply stops. It can move, stop doing the regulated activity, or go bankrupt.
Perhaps this regulation will not stop the fuel producers. It probably won't. Nor will the next one. Probably not even the one after that. But there is a point at which it will no longer be profitable to produce a particular blend demanded by California -- and they will have to stop producing it.
But I'm sure they'll have all the solar panels and windmills they need by then. Won't be a problem. Don't worry about it.