Big Fines on the way from EU on a cars Co2

[jpd80]

...and cost would go up how much? $25,000 to...$30,000? $35,000? More? Less?

 

I would imagine that the reason we don't have more extensive use of aluminum, carbon fiber, and other composites in cars is because of the cost.

Why is it going to cost $25,000 more to build a car in Aluminium/Magnesium?

In an average car there's about $3,000 worth of steel.....

 

Until now, there have been no consequences for making cars heavier but when

governments start talking about seriously kerbing fuel usage, manufacturers will

suddenly come up with a new generation of car building techniques.

 

They just don't want to change unless they're really forced to - the first EPA targets in 1975 proved that.

Edited December 20, 2007 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

Why is it going to cost $25,000 more to build a car in Aluminium/Magnesium?

In an average car there's about $3,000 worth of steel.....

 

Until now, there have been no consequences for making cars heavier but when

governments start talking about seriously kerbing fuel usage, manufacturers will

suddenly come up with a new generation of car building techniques.

 

They just don't want to change unless they're really forced to - the first EPA targets in 1975 proved that.

 

I think he ment that the start price of a car will go up more...but I do agree with you about not chaging anything unless they need or are forced too.

 

But also, I'd venture to guess that say a 3600 Lb aluminum car wouldn't hold up that well against a 3600 lb steel car, since Aluminum isn't as dense as steel.

 

Another thing to consider is repair work on cars...most body shops don't know how to repair anything but steel. IIRC there aren't many shops out there that can fix alum Jags or Audis

[Edstock]

Why is it going to cost $25,000 more to build a car in Aluminium/Magnesium?

In an average car there's about $3,000 worth of steel.....

 

The materials themselves are what, 2-3 times more expensive?, and require more expensive dies, with slower stamping speeds with more expensive welding (requires inert gas)/bonding/finishing, so it costs more and takes longer, so productivity is lower.

 

But necessity is the mother of invention; maybe somebody'll figure a way.

[RichardJensen]

maybe somebody'll figure a way.

My buddy's applying for a grant.

 

His idea is that if he moves the symbol for aluminum into the spot held by iron on all the world's Periodic Tables, it will end up with the same metallurgical properties as iron, except it won't be as dense. Also, he says that we should all start calling aluminum 'iron', and maybe it will get the hint.

 

I told him that chemistry isn't like politics, but he disagrees.

[jpd80]

The materials themselves are

But necessity is the mother of invention; maybe somebody'll figure a way.

 

Agree whole heartedly, there are a lot of hurdles to overcome with alloy bodies.

Still too expensive for now but future advances could change everything.

Edited December 20, 2007 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Australia is the worlds lagest exporter of coal and until we stop exporting

$67 Billion worth of CO2 every year, any car regulations limiting CO2 are meaningless.

Edited December 20, 2007 by jpd80

[Eel]

Just wait until Madame Pelosi and Boxer hear about this. Seriously, if Old Europe does it, the current congress will want to do likewise. I predict that if current congressional leadership survives, which it probably will, we will see similar legislation within the next one or two sessions of congress.

 

This latest "energy bill" should be renamed. It does not provide for more energy, just less of it to be used. I have no problem with conservation, but it should be packaged with more energy also. The dual impact would have the effect of lowering prices.

[CarShark]

What is known about "high-tensile" steel?

 

I ask because the NCAP results are in for the Mazda2, and it's five stars! The car weighs less than 1000kg (~2200 lbs), because it uses high-tensile steel.

[suv_guy_19]

Australia is the worlds lagest exporter of coal and until we stop exporting

$67 Billion worth of CO2 every year, any car regulations limiting CO2 are meaningless.

 

 

Well, we're soon to be the largest exporter of oil. No one can understand why Canada would be against mandatory emissions....hmmm...I wonder...idiots. Yes, lets abandon all the oil projects that will make NA less reliant on middle east oil.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

This is very general, but, High-Tensile steel is just a more refined and (somewhat) more exotic iron-alloy steel that has greater resistance to bending than "traditional" steel for a given shape and size. It tends to be somewhat denser than regular steel, but, as can be seen in places where it is used, it can result in a lower product weight as it can sometimes allow more technically elegant force disipation designs be used. There's a whole lot more to it than that, but, simply put, replace high-Tensile with "more advanced" and you should be able to understand the rest.

 

On a more technical note, along with CGI, metalurgists and chemists are getting better at influencing molecular behavior in these metal production processes. By doing so, they can induce internal structures in these metals that have more favorable characterists than the previous somewhat random structures that formed in the old alloying processes. While they may never get Steel and Iron to have a better "overall strength" than aluminum per unit of mass, they can achieve significant advances that will narrow the gap. There are places in a vehicle where you just won't have enough room to use an aluminum part to provide enough structural strength for that part. This is where advanced steels can make a big difference. They can also allow more exotic shapes to their structure, allowing for greater design leeway.

[TStag]

I think Germany has a veto on this. If so you can forget this law ever making the statute books. The daft thing is that it won't really hurt the people they want to hurt. Sales of lower end SUV's and MPV's will probably go down. But if Range Rover had to add $4000 to a $100,000 sticker price, then would their customers even notice? And if you look at a car like the LRX then all they are doing in response is making a smaller SUV with expensive hybrid technology to get round the laws. The extra cost of fitting such technolgy may be acceptable to Land Rover/ BMW/ Jag/ Audi/ BMW buyers, but how will future Suzuki SUV or Ford MPV owners feel about it?

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I think Germany has a veto on this. If so you can forget this law ever making the statute books. The daft thing is that it won't really hurt the people they want to hurt. Sales of lower end SUV's and MPV's will probably go down. But if Range Rover had to add $4000 to a $100,000 sticker price, then would their customers even notice? And if you look at a car like the LRX then all they are doing in response is making a smaller SUV with expensive hybrid technology to get round the laws. The extra cost of fitting such technolgy may be acceptable to Land Rover/ BMW/ Jag/ Audi/ BMW buyers, but how will future Suzuki SUV or Ford MPV owners feel about it?

If Germany get out voted they will have to tow the line, It was the German Government that proposed the 120 g/km Co2 limits in the first place in Europe so l cant see them voting against something they put forward to the rest of Europe. You were a little bit out on your Range Rover fine, a Range Rover 4.2 V8 Co2 is 376 so Land Rover would have to pay the EU a $7084 in 2012 and a $33,702 fine in 2015 for every Range Rover they sell. I agree with you that this won't make any difference to somebody that’s stinking rich.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[TStag]

If Germany get out voted they will have to tow the line, It was the German Government that proposed the 120 g/km Co2 limits in the first place in Europe so l cant see them voting against something they put forward to the rest of Europe. You were a little bit out on your Range Rover fine, a Range Rover 4.2 V8 Co2 is 376 so Land Rover would have to pay the EU a $7084 in 2012 and a $33,702 fine in 2015 for every Range Rover they sell. I agree with you that this won't make any difference to somebody that’s stinking rich.

 

Well I still struggle to fully believe this statistic but I heard on the radio recently that 8 out of 10 Germans work in the car industry, in some way or another. Even if that figure is slightly out I can't see the Germans not using their Veto.... Hopefully the Germans will pull us back from the brink.

 

What I find really annoying about all this environmental taxation is the unfairness. Over here we have a car like the MINI Diesel which in some parts of the country will get taxed the same or more than something like a Prius. Hello, the Toyota Prius is about environmentally friendly as a Hummer in comparison

[630land]

I am willing to bet the EU will break up within 10-20 years from old nationalistic grudges. So much for 'enlightenment' from the Old World.

[RichardJensen]

What I want to know is why 120g? Why not -0-? Or at least the equivalent of how much CO2 you would exhale if you walked a kilometer--which is somewhat less straightforward calculation based on how much you weigh and (a little bit) how fast you move.

 

Maybe they should tax people based on weight, on the theory that the more you weigh the more carbon you burn for the basic necessities of life?

[mustang_sallad]

Just keep in mind that these regulations are basically a regulation on fuel efficiency. They measure fuel efficiency in the EU in terms of CO2 because, as someone said earlier, there's a direct relation between fuel burnt and CO2 produced. In fact, in EPA testing, they don't measure the actual fuel flow, or volume of fuel consumed, that wouldn't be as easy as just capturing all the tail pipe gases and calculating fuel consumption from that. So they actually convert g of CO2/mile to mpg (actually they also take into account a number of other gases which some of the fuel turns into instead of CO2).

 

So regardless of whether you think reducing our output of greenhouse gases is important or not, these European regulations are aiming to improve fuel efficiency, which has very direct and easy to see benefits.

[xr7g428]

What I want to know is why 120g? Why not -0-? Or at least the equivalent of how much CO2 you would exhale if you walked a kilometer--which is somewhat less straightforward calculation based on how much you weigh and (a little bit) how fast you move.

 

Maybe they should tax people based on weight, on the theory that the more you weigh the more carbon you burn for the basic necessities of life?

 

There have been proposals that each individual be allowed a carbon credit. You use of the credit would begin with your own respiration. Then you would apply your credits to your utilities, fuel, anything that produces CO2 when consumed. Some of the more extreme do not allow any additional credit for your children. They are considered a lifestyle choice. Once you have consumed your allowed credit, you would have to purchase additional carbon credits. So, if you have the money, the impact would be less painful. The key words are CAP AND TRADE.

 

I am anything but a conspiracy theorist, but many who are supporting the CO2 is going to cause the end of the world band wagon, really do have an alternative agenda. It has provided a powerful vehicle for their cause, all they had to do was hop on board.

 

Here is Michigan's own nut case Dingell's Proposal. Does the UAW really tell you to vote for people like this?

 

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation

Representative John D. Dingell

The earth is getting warmer and human activities are a large part of the cause. We need to act in order to prevent a serious problem. The world’s best scientists agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050 in order to limit the effects of global warming and this legislation will put us on track to do just that.

 

This is a massive undertaking, and it will not be easy to achieve, but we simply must accomplish this goal; our future and our children’s futures depend on it.

 

In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach. In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable.

 

Below you will find a summary of the carbon tax legislation I am working on. I invite you to comment on the proposal. Once I have received your comments, I will look at ways we can address the ideas and concerns brought to my attention by the American people.

 

We must remember we all have a common goal and are in this fight together. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

The legislation I am proposing would impose the following:

 

A tax on carbon content:

 

$50 / ton of carbon (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)

Coal, including lignite and peat

Petroleum and any petroleum product

Natural gas

A tax on gasoline:

 

.50/ gallon of gas, jet fuel, kerosene (petroleum based) etc…(added to current gas tax) (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)

Exemption for diesel – The fuel economy benefits of diesel surpass even its emissions benefits; it provides about a thirty percent increase in fuel economy and a twenty percent emissions reduction

Biofuels that do not contain petroleum are exempt. Biofuels blended with petroleum are only taxed on the petroleum portion of the fuel.

**The .50 gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax in the previous bullet.

 

Phase out the mortgage interest deduction on large homes. These homes have contributed to increased sprawl and longer commutes. Despite new homes in and of themselves being more energy efficient, the sheer size, sprawl and commutes lead to dramatically more energy use – or to put it more simply, a larger carbon footprint.

 

Specifically, the proposal:

 

Phases out the mortgage interest on primary mortgages on houses over 3000 square feet.

Exemptions for historical homes (prior to 1900) and farm houses.

Exemptions for home owners who purchase carbon offsets to make home carbon neutral or own homes that are certified carbon neutral.

An owner would receive 85% of the mortgage interest deduction for homes 3000-3199 square feet

70% for homes 3200-3399 square feet

55% for homes 3400-3599 square feet

40% for homes 3600-3799 square feet

25 % for homes 3800-3999 square feet

10% for homes 4000-4199 square feet

0 for homes 4200 square feet and up

See an example of how the changes in the mortgage interest deduction would work.

 

Where will the revenue go?

 

First and foremost, the Earned Income Tax Credit will be expanded. This helps lower income families compensate for the increased taxes on fuels.

 

Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit

Zero Children:

max earned income level from $5,590 to $7000

Phase-out from $7000 to $9000

One Child:

Max earned income level from $8390 to $10,000

Phase-out from $15,390 to $17,000

Two or More:

Max earned income level from $11,790 to $15,000

Phase-out from $15,390 to $18,000

The revenue from the gas tax goes into the high way trust fund, with 40 % going to the mass transit and 60 % going to roads. The revenue from the tax on jet fuel goes into the airport and airway trust fund.

 

Finally, the revenue from the fee on carbon emissions will go into the following accounts:

 

Medicare and Social Security

Universal Healthcare (upon passage)

State Children’s Health Insurance Program

Conservation

Renewable Energy Research and Development

[Ford Jellymoulds]

What I want to know is why 120g? Why not -0-? Or at least the equivalent of how much CO2 you would exhale if you walked a kilometer--which is somewhat less straightforward calculation based on how much you weigh and (a little bit) how fast you move.

 

Maybe they should tax people based on weight, on the theory that the more you weigh the more carbon you burn for the basic necessities of life?

Maybe 120g/km Co2 is the socialist governments of Europe spiteful way of banning all the cars off the roads that most right wing voters would buy and drive on the roads of Europe Richard, or the 120g/km Co2 might be a target set to cut down the on the reliance of foreign oils by forcing average Joe public into 998cc gasoline or 1600cc diesels. You could not use weight Richard because a Fiesta with 1600cc Gasoline engine would pump out a lot more Co2 than a diesel 1600cc fitted to a Fiesta.

 

List of cars that make it below 120g/km Co2

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/informati...bles.asp#petrol

 

UK Government website where you can find out the Co2 of any car

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2/

 

If this gets voted in BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar & Land Rovers etc lower end bread and butter models that keep these quality brands alive will be hit the hardest, so l think they will be forced into smaller engine hybrids or sell & build outside of Europe. Airbus are loosing out to Boeing big time at the moment, and maybe forced to build in the States or China due to the strong Euro, they are already in the process of closing down a lot of factories and putting the work out to tender due to the high cost of building in Europe at the moment.

 

Weak dollar is life threatening for Airbus

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn_2_112707.pdf

 

European Airbus may be built in the US?

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/busine...64375-20198994/

[MKII]

Weak dollar is life threatening for Airbus

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn_2_112707.pdf

 

European Airbus may be built in the US?

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/busine...64375-20198994/

 

Airbus was and has been in dire straits for sometime now, mainly because of the the A380 circus show. Which is now getting worse because of the exchange rates.

 

From an article dated 2006 as a reference

Investment in the A350, aimed at a much larger mid-size market that Boeing is currently cleaning up on with its 777 et. al., may not get off the ground. Why? Because the enormous A380 super-jumbo needs the cash to fix its ongoing problems; a move that adds opportunity cost subsidies to the massive A380 development subsidies from the European taxpayer (the A380 has already cost $12 billion equivalent to develop). All amidst a future of steadily high oil prices, in which arch-competitor Boeing sat down years ago and bet on a need for greater fuel efficiency as its key future design driver.

 

"A380 buyers are demanding financial penalties for late delivery, and investors are selling off their EADS shares."

Edited December 21, 2007 by MKII

[RichardJensen]

Once you have consumed your allowed credit, you would have to purchase additional carbon credits.

Why? That hardly seems fair.

 

If the goal is minimal impact on the environment, then why on earth allow those that have historically consumed resources with outright profligacy (Travolta's 737, Gore's mansion) to continue to do so?

 

I mean, I just get a kick out of schemes that allow you to pay to pollute. They are all, every single one of them, stinking examples of hypocrisy. Either you care enough to mandate EVERYONE pollute the same, or you just don't care if people that have money are allowed to purchase the right to pollute.

 

Think of it this way, what if Con Ed were allowed to strip all the pollution control equipment off their plants by paying for a "Sulfur Dioxide" credit, and a "Carbon Monoxide" credit and a "Soot Credit" and so on and so forth......

 

The fact that carbon credits would be bought and sold suggests that people are more interested in self-flagellation as a cure for ecological ills, than they are in doing anything useful.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Airbus was and has been in dire straits for sometime now, mainly because of the the A380 circus show. Which is now getting worse because of the exchange rates.

 

From an article dated 2006 as a reference

Investment in the A350, aimed at a much larger mid-size market that Boeing is currently cleaning up on with its 777 et. al., may not get off the ground. Why? Because the enormous A380 super-jumbo needs the cash to fix its ongoing problems; a move that adds opportunity cost subsidies to the massive A380 development subsidies from the European taxpayer (the A380 has already cost $12 billion equivalent to develop). All amidst a future of steadily high oil prices, in which arch-competitor Boeing sat down years ago and bet on a need for greater fuel efficiency as its key future design driver.

 

"A380 buyers are demanding financial penalties for late delivery, and investors are selling off their EADS shares."

I have friend who worked on the A380 wing fatigue test rig, and the wing cracked & snapped just a third of the way through its lifecycle BAE has since sold its share in Airbus. It will be interesting to see what happens after about 7 years in service. They blamed A380 delays on wiring problems.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[xr7g428]

If the goal is minimal impact on the environment, then why on earth allow those that have historically consumed resources with outright profligacy (Travolta's 737, Gore's mansion) to continue to do so?

 

I mean, I just get a kick out of schemes that allow you to pay to pollute. They are all, every single one of them, stinking examples of hypocrisy. Either you care enough to mandate EVERYONE pollute the same, or you just don't care if people that have money are allowed to purchase the right to pollute.

 

The fact that carbon credits would be bought and sold suggests that people are more interested in self-flagellation as a cure for ecological ills, than they are in doing anything useful.

 

First you have to get people to believe that CO2 is pollution.

 

There is the rub. It is not like CO2 doesn't exist in nature. It can't rightly be called pollution any more than water vapor can be called pollution. After all, water vapor is actually a larger part of the exhaust then CO2. Do the math at he molecular level C8H14 ---> 8CO2 + 14H2O. Look at how much oxygen is being tied up and then look at the changes in atmospheric oxygen. It just doesn't balance. CO2 is readily absorbed by water (2/3rds of the earths surface). Equilibrium is at about 50 to 1 meaning that water holds about 50 times the CO2 as air. To double the CO2 in air, you meed 52 times as much CO2 to be created. This exceeds the total amount of carbon bound up in all of the fossil fuel on the planet. This is just not going to happen.

 

This a the point that I am trying to make. They objective is to create a market for a phantom product: carbon credits. Al Gore is already heavily involved in carbon trading. But the money has to come from somewhere, hence the carbon tax on consumers. In order for us to buy into paying the tax we have to be frightened into believing that the world is in the balance. Read the Kyoto agreement and you will very quickly become aware that this is about money on a grand scale.

[RichardJensen]

They objective is to create a market for a phantom product: carbon credits.

Up to a point I can accept the 'pure financial motive' argument, but I also buy into two other ugly aspects of humanity:

 

"If we all work a little harder...."

 

Which is to say, that a flawed system can be fixed by working harder within the flawed system; in this case, the idea is that by buying and selling carbon credits, we are actually doing something, when in the end we're just passing money around

 

"Well, someone's got to pay for this..."

 

Which is the idea that punishment solves problems. In this case, the idea is that 'global warming' can be averted by, basically, depriving ourselves of things.

 

I mean, to be sure, there is a certain mercenary aspect to this, but these other motivators are also very effective in driving policy.