Got offered $1,000 to junk my bronco from the bay area air quality instead of registe

[DirtDonk]

My Problem with this "electric car" thing is don't people understand that the electric has to be generated somewhere??????
Generating electric, Takes energy, Pushing it across wires to your location, there is loss in transmission, then plug in your car, Batteries that have heavy metal and acids need to be made, and then at end of life disposed. Also batteries lose energy by just sitting then add all that weight to a car. Boy to me that sounds really efficient! Hug your trees!

My neighbor just took me for a ride in his new Tesla.
After the ride he took it home and plugged it into the power being supplied by one of our coal fired power plants here in Utah,

My point exactly! Emissions are coming from a tailpipe or a smokestack!

You've got all valid points, to a point. But it's not the same for everyone everywhere. Just like most other things.
Here in CA electric cars of one form or another are quite popular, and work very well for those that use them. You don't see pure electrics much among the long-range commuters (75 miles each way type), but among the locals that have just a few miles to commute, their company has charging spaces, and that have a gas vehicle to do all the other duties, they make total sense.
That's because here we don't use coal for electricity. I actually thought we still had three or four coal-fired plants, but could not find them on the map, so maybe they're now just for backup?
A full 16% of our electricity is generated by wind and solar now. A larger chunk is hydro with some nuclear thrown in, with the bulk still being natural gas I believe. Might be wrong on the percentages, but it's very little, to no coal anymore.
So we still burn something to get much of our juice, but it's generally considered "cleaner" than other type of burn-generating.

And that does not take into account the fact that a high percentage of electric car owners charge them on their own roof-top solar setup now too.
It's essentially free to charge. And if I'm not mistaken, at least some of the public, and most of the private charging spaces in parking lots are free of charge still too.
A Tesla owner gets free charges for a time at all the SuperCharger stations across the country. You can haul ass to your next pee break and not pay a dime to "fill up" on your trip from here to there.
Sure, it's not as fast a pitstop as gas is, but hey, if you've got the time, stretch your legs a bit and enjoy the view. And talking to others doing the same thing. Maybe trade sandwiches out of the lunch pail your mom for the trip made as a way of making new friends.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that for some, the HOV lane get-out-of-jail-free decal is worth the price of admission.
Lots of people don't like that subsidy either, but a lot of people are able to take advantage of it on their commute.

Wow that took long time for coal to show up and what about nuke power. Whats getting destroy to make new car parts , lots of parts are made offshore no rules there . Have no good answers just hanging on to my my old cars as long as i can .

Me too. I've always felt that, as good as new cars are (and they're VERY good!) something is getting dug up, processed, synthesized, plundered or generally used up to make them. I think we're all doing our part to conserve just by keeping our old trucks.
Even those of us that do have newer vehicles are doing something by keeping the old up and running in good shape. Often better than original.

But in reality, it's not my car I'm worried about. It's the car behind me on the interstate that's registered in Tennessee that is going 75 with the cords showing on their tires brake pads down to the metal, digging into the rotors with a shower curtain duct taped to the door for a window. That's who I'm worried about.
Really don't know what that has to do with the current discussion, but thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

I think it fits right in some how, some way! Thumbs up!
It's how I felt when they started allowing big rigs from Mexico over the border without, I believe, having to meet the standard requirements for safety and emissions that we're all required to meet. Was it NAFTA that did that? I don't remember, but I remember being pretty PO'd because someone who didn't think regulations were good for business thought we could get more cheap goods from south of the border if our trading partners didn't have to meet the same onerous requirements.
And that definitely fits into this discussion of government requirements and dictates and dam regulations.

But hey, I do love my Mexican Coke!
So what do I care if they have some unsafe, smokin' Joe trucks on the road. Doesn't effect me behind my computer and I'll just avoid highways when there are accidents.
Stay home and drink my Coke.

Paul

 

[kyle]

So what about the power that comes from the coal plant in Oregon? The transmission lines head south towards Sacramento and the coal comes out of Montana. California buys more out of state generated power than any other state. Who pays for all the “free” stuff you’re talking about?

 

[DirtDonk]

Thanks for the links. I'd seen one in my search and not the other.
I'll check it out when I take a break from typing long enough to start thinking clearly again.

...As an example, why should an EFI converted Early Bronco fail a smog test when it blows cleaner than the original engine simply failing because of visual?

Completely agree. Even when these checks first started that was something I was baffled by. And each time the requirements were modified and they didn't change that aspect too, I had a lot of WTF's going through my head.
As with so many things, it was written by someone that either didn't understand the underlying issue, was trying to get even with someone, or was doing a favor for a buddy somewhere.
Can you say inept corruption? Or corrupt ineptitude?

...As another example, the state did not come down on Socal Gas when it's facility leaked gas down near LA for months on end. Whose sister is a board member of Socal Gas, if I remember correctly.....Moonbeam Brown's?!?!

Nobody got spanked for that debacle?!? Sounds like someone skated where they should not have.
I remember the happening, if you're talking about the one that had people having to move from their homes? What actually ended up being the cause and fix?

Don't get me wrong, I am for clean air, but I am also for common sense and non heavy handed approach.

...Private industry drives innovation and improvements. Private industry innovation has given us the cleaner burning cars we have now.

You had me with "clean air but common sense" part!;D
But I say no way private industry would have gotten us to where we are today without at least in part being forced to by Fearless Leader, and the gummint. And good old Ralphy boy thrown in there as well.

I say it was the combination of emissions laws and then later the extreme wake-up call in the form of competition from Japan (mainly) that got things going.
Yes, there were always incremental improvements made. After all, we all needed more power and gas was .39 cents a gallon, so what the heck.
But I said it in another thread that we've got 400hp 3.0L V6's and 800hp V8's and what, 350hp I-4's that burn super efficiently, run on pump gas, run for 200k miles and have 10k mile oil changes spew out 90% fewer smelly things (and are actually fun to drive) while getting 30-40 miles per gallon, all because they were forced to make them burn cleaner. Otherwise it would never have passed the cost-and-effect number crunchers.
And then we the customer said we didn't want to be clean without more power of course. Then Japan made them cheap and small, and fuel efficient and cool looking and reliable all at the same time.
Then we realized that while we were ok with fewer emissions, and still wanted more power, we sure did like using less gas when it got to .50 cents, then .70 a gallon!

I agree with you in part then, and think we'd have gotten much of that by private inventiveness eventually. Just not as quickly.
And in fact it was the manufacturers and engineers, young and old alike, that did the work. It just took a lot of pushing by regulations that didn't allow them to skate along and use cost/profit as the ONLY criteria for their designs.
I could be off on all of that of course. But I really don't think so.

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

If I agreed with this, which I don't, wouldn't any responsible and reasonable adult think this is right ONLY IF the state wasn't broke? I wouldn't offer to pay to clean up my neighbors junk when I'm paying my bills on the MasterCard. A day of reckoning is coming to all these under funded governments.

Your logic is sound. But who's broke?
And what's the cost of sending out mailers vs some other methods that they were able to think of? And only cars that didn't pass their last smog inspection qualify, so that reduces the number of vehicles they'll pay for even farther.
Maybe there are better ways of getting older, dirtier cars off the road, but maybe they're just not able to figure those ways out. It still seems a reasonable method to me.
After all, for every $1000 to $1500 payment they eke out, it's very highly probable they'll get that much or more back in taxes IF the person who got rid of their older car actually goes out and buys a newer one. It only takes the purchase of a $15,000 used car for the state to recoup the payout and then some.

It's small potatoes in the scheme of things. How many do they pay out anyway I wonder. Couldn't find the info with a quick search. Anyone know?
I'm sure some of the citizenry work the system and just don't go out and buy a new, or even a used car right off. But I bet a lot do. Or maybe they already had and just needed to get rid of the old one and don't feel like hassling with selling it to someone on Craigslist they don't know or trust.

But broke we ain't. Not that $19-billion is a lot in the overall scheme of things, or that they can be trusted to spend it wisely. Or even save it wisely either, but right now we're looking at a decent surplus for next year.
That leaves $8-billion left over (after squirreling the required amount away for a rainy day) for sending out "give us your junk" flyers and buying back old cars.
Maybe it's a net loss. But then again, maybe not.

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

So what about the power that comes from the coal plant in Oregon? The transmission lines head south towards Sacramento and the coal comes out of Montana. California buys more out of state generated power than any other state.

Yep, it's still there when we can't cover use from our own generation. Just like it always has been. And some of what we buy is produced by coal. Never said it wasn't. Just said we don't produce any (or much) here any longer because we're trying to clean up our act a bit.
We generate less and less from coal (zero reported for 2016, but I'm not sure when that zero was achieved) and use less and less or yours every year too maybe. If we can control how what we purchase is produced that is.
And reduction is what it's all about.
And don't you also produce an absolutely massive amount of hydro-electric power that is part of what we buy as well? I didn't check, but am curious.

The amount of coal-produced electricity that we use is lower and lower every year, to the point that we just don't use that much anymore. At least as far as is easy to track.
According to the charts, and if my calculating ability is correct, for 2016 it was less than 2% of our overall use.
Should we just give up and go back to coal because we have not achieved zero coal yet? Hope not.

Who pays for all the “free” stuff you’re talking about?

In post #38 I said "nothing is free, as your tax dollars pay for it at some point" or words to that effect. Which free comment specifically were you asking about.

Paul

 

[Jakedog]

I don't think the op expected this thread to get so political, but since it has.....

A lot of people in California love electric cars. Especially pg&e. I live in the central valley and we pay some of the highest rates in the state for electricity. Recently our worthless governor Brown signed the "PG&E bailout bill". It allows pg&e to raise their rate to help them recover the cost spent on wildfires THEY were responsible for.

California is currently spending $23 billion a year on illegal immigration. Which is paid for by our high rate of taxes. We pay approximately 65 cents in tax per gallon of gas. So if you buy 20 gallons of gas, $13 of it is taxes.
I just read that there are 14.5 million registered cars in California. Think about how many of those cars fill up per day. That is a lot of money!

I'm just going to stop right there.

 

[No Hay]

Ha! I think these days one can turn any topic political ;D Where is the "easy button"?

I clawed my way up from nothing to a good position in the middle class as a union electrician, and am happy to spend a little more to attempt to have cleaner air. The videos from the old days of air quality, or today in other countries with no regs cannot be ignored as examples. I can see both sides though, as I register 5 vehicles and race dirt bikes and quads on a 50" wide dirt path which the Greenies hate.

Now, choosing not to have kids, don't get me started on what percentage of my taxes go to education, and what I'm getting for my money there %)
I can see the air getting cleaner, but there sure seems to be a large group of humans graduating from school seem to be getting less educated for the cash I'm giving them.

BTW, I've heard Bonneville Dam sends so much power to CA, the new wind turbines can be idle, or spin without being connected to the grid most of the time.

 

[sykanr0ng]

Ha! I think these days one can turn any topic political

A thread about a GOVERNMENT program turned political?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

 

[Nothing Special]

.... I've never needed to burn, so I'm very interested in hearing what all goes on, and why.
Can it go back into the earth, or does it have to go away?

Thanks

Paul

I'm no expert, but I've always heard that most if not all of the nutrients do go back in the ground when plant matter is burned. I know that burning is a commonly used technique for improving (desired) plant growth in prairie restoration. I suspect that some of that is from helping get rid of the unwanted plants, but I'm pretty sure it also helps "fertilize".

No getting around the effects of the smoke from burning, so I'm not saying it's an entirely "green" practice. But I'm pretty sure it's not as black as city folk sometimes think it is either.

 

[DirtDonk]

And to politically correct myself...
I was probably wrong on the tax vs return percentage for the program. I was basing that on all the tax from the sale going to the state. But I'd only be guessing on how much went to the state, vs the county, vs the city, etc.

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

I don't think anyone was worried about the remaining burned matter (other than if it was toxic waste that is) and knew/assumed it was good for the soil if it then got spread around after the burn. I never noted the aftermath and where it went, if anywhere other than the pile's location.
And we also assumed it was a necessity for the property owner. Even if we didn't all know exactly why. It was just the byproduct (smoke) that bothered most I'm pretty sure.

At least for those of us that grew up watching the big piles go up in smoke on every other farm/ranch/homestead that's how it was.
Just hard to breathe sometimes was all. So it wasn't the burn that bothered, it was the after-burn.

Paul

 

[Timmy390]

My uncle has a country place that no one knows about. He says it used to be a farm before the motor law..........

Sing it brother.........

Tim

 

[Jakedog]

Here's one for ya.

After a nice rain and after the clouds move out, the air is fresh, mountain views here are beautiful......
It's at this time they allow ag burns.

 

[Dirtroadjunkie]

Damn, this thread has gone totally sideways! I get that you pavement guys don't understand what defensible space is. Lately I meet with multiple clients that have lost their homes with the recent fires. They are all totally devastated and mostly uninsured. From tract houses in the burbs to custom homes that I am helping to rebuild. I love fresh air as much as everyone else, but if you can understand the acreage and work necessary to create defensible space for structures you might have a heart. Honestly the way this thread has gone I'm debating to let CB kick rocks.

 

[Jakedog]

Damn, this thread has gone totally sideways! I get that you pavement guys don't understand what defensible space is. Lately I meet with multiple clients that have lost their homes with the recent fires. They are all totally devastated and mostly uninsured. From tract houses in the burbs to custom homes that I am helping to rebuild. I love fresh air as much as everyone else, but if you can understand the acreage and work necessary to create defensible space for structures you might have a heart. Honestly the way this thread has gone I'm debating to let CB kick rocks.

If that was directed at me, I am not talking about clearing brush to keep fire hazards to a minimum. I'm talking about farm land where I live. They burn anything and everything they find on their property. Tumbleweeds. Burn`em! Dead tree. Burn it! Tires. Burn`em! Garbage. Burn it!
You can see the smoke for miles.

 

[markw]

I've been around long enough to have seen how ag burn pollution has changed. From smudge pots in the orange groves of Riverside (when they had orange groves) to burning rice fields in our area to wind machines and flooding fields. I doubt burning ag waste will be eliminated in my lifetime but I always thought they have it backwards. Pick the crappiest, hottest and smoggiest day, pull out the diesel and torch and let the burn piles rip. How much worse would it be? Let the nice days be nice! Bad ones are nasty no matter what.