Well I am no engineer but the easiest way to reduce CO2 is by increasing gas mileage a lot of this is making your particular class of vehicle lighter or smaller. Also increase the efficiency of things like your air conditioning. Using super light wheels like those developed for the EV1. etc.etc.

What "existing technologies" do the politicians expect the auto industry can use to reduce CO2 by that 30% in ten years?.... There's other details missing from this post, too. 30% reduction of CO2 equivelent? Does this mean it can come from other areas than just combustion? Is this an across the board requirement, meaning each and every individual model/engine? Or is it a fleetwide average?

What I'd really like to know is: "Are these regulations technically feasable for a reasonable cost?" Fuel cells are still horribly expensive, yet the politicians expect that they'll somehow be affordable in just a few short years.

The post says it can be achieved with existing technology and/or alternative fuels.

The first link in the Resource list elaborates:
"When California has fully phased in the greenhouse gas requirements by 2016,
new vehicles must emit an average of 30% less carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2E), which is a measure of greenhouse gas emissions.3 The targeted results
are expected to be achieved using existing technologies or alternative fuels.
Those technologies include turbo charging, cylinder deactivation, variable valve
lift and timing, low-leak air conditioning, continuously variable transmissions,
direct fuel injection, and electric power steering.4"

Basically, it sounds like your standard basket of things already being done by automakers. The term "CO2 equivalent" is simply a metric to normalize greenhouse gas emissions, since different gases have different global warming potentials (GWP).

As for cost, your upper boundary is going to be defined by current hybrid and clean diesel premiums, which are $4K and dropping. To give a concrete example from current models, the Civic Hybrid emits 33% less CO2 equivalent than a standard Civic, and an E85 Tahoe has 18% lower CO2 equivalent emissions than a standard gas version of the vehicle (even though it gets far worse fuel economy).

A very realistic target, IMO, considering the cost curves for these technologies.

In reducing CO2, another big help, or, it could be a touch down, is for the auto makers to begin producing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) with E85 gas or bio diesel engines. Exchanging an average 20 mpg car (producing 12,000 lbs of CO2/yr, for one that can get 100+ mpg. (low estimate if engine is bio capable) would begin a paradigm shift away from oil for auto transportation! This will take time, but it can happen.

At the same time, we need to encourage the electric utilities toward more renewable sources such as, wind, solar, wave, and tidal. Giving all customers a choice in which source of power generation to use would be another great step, as some areas allow today. The renewables are much cleaner, but may cost the customer more in the short run.

The same way they did it last time. To sell a car people dont wana buy.. you make it dirt cheap and sell to the poor. See the consumer decides what we buy not politicians. But car makers can sell anything to the poor... if its cheap enough.

The question I have is: is this where environmentalism stops?

We see so many of these maps, and they almost always look like this. Sometimes New Hampshire agrees to play ball, and occasionally Maryland and/or Delaware are colored.

But why can't we extend off the Pacific and Northern Atlantic? Which states are "next"? Nevada? Pennsylvania? Virginia or West Virginia? New Mexico? Minnesota or Wisconsin? Hawaii?

I wouldn't expect Michigan to jump in this game with automobiles, and I'm not holding my breath for real GOP areas with massive pollution like Florida, Georgia, or Texas. But, it seems like there are some blue and some purple states that could get in on this, and yet it doesn't happen.

Why not?

Note: the following relates to Europe rather than the US because of the data I found. The methodology and conclusions should be roughly applicable elsewhere as well, though.

---

Cars also emit GHGs via their a/c (typical modern refrigerant R134a, GWP = 1300), because mechanically driven systems cannot be hermetically sealed. Leakage rates are estimated at ~8-13% per year, when you consider that 50% of old European cars are exported to third world countries where the remaining refrigerant is (most likely) vented during scrapping. That translates to roughly ~90g R134a emitted per year and vehicle, equivalent to ~177 kg CO2. These emissions are evaporative and occur even if the a/c is not used (cp. HC from gasoline tanks of parked vehicles).

http://www.oekorecherche.de/english/berichte/volltext/MAC-LOSS-2001.pdf

For reference, average distances driven in Austria are 15,000km/year for new gasoline and 20,000km/year for new diesel cars. New vehicle market share is 66/34 in favor of diesel, so average distance is ~18300 km/year at ~150 g CO2/km based on NEDC certification. The latter number is below the EU average due to the extreme skew toward diesels here. This translates to ~2750 kg CO2 per year and vehicle with the a/c always switched OFF.

However, actual a/c usage requires 0.3-0.6l/100km additional fuel depending on vehicle size, roughly 5%. Assuming ~20% of total distance is driven with the a/c switched on, that adds another 25-30kg CO2 per year. Ergo, total emissions due to a/c are 177+27.5 = ~200kg CO2 equivalent per year, or ~7% over and above the advertised tailpipe emissions. Given the uncertainties in the inputs, perhaps claiming a range of 5-10% would be more appropriate.

Unfortunately, ACEA's voluntary commitment does not address GHG emissions from a/c systems at all, even though some 90% of European cars produced since 2000 do feature a/c systems.

http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/getBin?name=6D75E63635EE4D69F6466B580462CCDD1137167979538.pdf

ACEA members are on track to switch to high-pressure a/c systems based on R744 (CO2, GWP = 1), e.g. in the upcoming Audi Q7.

http://www.all4engineers.com/index.php;site=a4e/lng=en/do=show/alloc=3/id=3377

Finally, note that it may one day become feasible to replace compressor-driven a/c systems and the associated extra fuel with small ruggedized absoprtion chillers powered by the engine coolant.

http://www.itt.uni-stuttgart.de/~schaal/index.en.html

Driving less, (or promoting a vehicle technology that most contributes toward this goal), is perhaps the most important tribute to the Plug-in Hybrid. Their large battery pack only affords a zero-emission, battery-only driving range of 10-40 miles, depending on vehicle weight and class. Greater range is not necessarily an advantage because ultimately, T is correct, the only way to reduce emissions is to drive (and transport goods) less. So, having a vehicle that provides zero emission a reasonably limited driving range encourages short trips, which builds local economies and the development of more destinations accessable without having to drive. Walking and bicycling become safer, and mass transit more practically arranged. The Plug-in Hybrid will allow millions of people to tell their bosses where to stick it. :)

The CO2 reduction requirements are just as feasible as were seat belts, unleaded gasoline and air bags, and the car companies will piss and moan just as loudly about them. My Prius gets 45 MPG in city driving with the A/C going full blast and dusting kids at the stop lights. Suck on that, Detroit.

The beauty of using a "CO2 equivalent" is that it decouples emissions from fuel economy. A fat ass truck getting 16 MPG on pure ethanol more than meets the requirement because there's no *net* release of CO2. Anyone worried about the high price of fuel ethanol should lobby their Congressanimals to repeal the $0.54 per gallon import duty. Brazil made 10 million tonnes of the stuff last year relatively cheaply.

If GHG release from unsealed A/C compressors is a problem, then use sealed electric-drive A/C compressors.

"Dusting kids at the stop lights"??? With the slow acceleration of the Prius my guess is that you *thought* you were racing somebody and driving overly aggressive while they were just driving normally. I see at least 1/2 of the prius owners around here taking off from stop lights as fast as they can...and I thought the idea was to achieve better fuel economy?

Patrick:
Prius has instant and high rate of acceleration from stand still (and rolling acceleration too) because of high and instant torque curve of permanent magnet electric motors and Infinitely Variable Transmission. It actually feels much more powerful then it is.
Also the beauty of hybrid drivetrain is that you can drive very aggressively, and still regenerative braking return most of the energy produced during sharp acceleration back to the battery. So, unlike regular car, aggressive driving in hybrid increases fuel consumption only by small degree.

45mpg is excellent compared to the average vehicle...but when the EPA cycle states 55mpg combined cycle getting 45mpg due to aggressive driving is just shameful.

Andrey- are you implying that an aggressive acceleration from a standstill in a Prius will NOT use the gas engine at all?

Hey CARBocrats...

Do any of you knotheads realize that you have just ruled out hydrogen fuel cell cars? The only emission in such a vehicle is water.

But water is some 16 times as strong a "green house gas" as CO2, you dorks!! So that makes a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle some 16 times the polluter of any carbon fueled vehicle, in CO2 Equivalent.

Now having decided that CO2 and H2O are pollutants, who is assigned the job of draining the Pacific Ocean??

And where do you "sequester" it? Or is that no concern to you, and industry will just have to go figure out how to do it?

Work expands to fill the time available for bureaucrats. It never occured to these knotheads that they have achieved what they set out to do. They succeeded in tgeir task of the forced engineeering of a clean ground transport vehicle.

They can't just Declare Victory! disband, close up shop, and go home. No sirreee!

They have to get into a NEW REASON FOR BEING!