Slashdot Mirror
Green Cars You Can't Buy
Geoffrey.landis writes "Auto industry blogger Lawrence Ulrich notes that Honda is now making a "Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle" (or PZEV for short) version of the 2008 Accord, an all-new vehicle that is redesigned to meet California emission standards. He notes "So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving."
But the irony is that it's actually illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states they were designed for! Apparently, anybody selling one of these ultra-green vehicles out of the correctly-designated venue — which means either California, or seven northeast-states with similar pollution laws — "could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.""
One thing to remember is that much of Europe has various cars that have diesel (and bio-diesel) engines that are not licensed for sale in the US.
And even the so-called plug-in hybrids (which I love) that will be sold by GM and Ford etc will be in such short supply that production until 2012 will be so minimal it's unlikely you'll be able to get one.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The article seems to contradict itself ...
Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500.
...
then
It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions--or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.
It DOES sound like the fault of the automaker. If they don't have to sell a cleaner car in other states why should they?
Partial zero emission vehicle means that during some portion of time while the vehicle is operating, it does not produce any emissions. Example: The Toyota Prius is a PZEV because when the engine is off and it is operating on its electric motors, it is operating and not producing any emissions. Note that not all hybrids are PZEVs because with some the engine runs constantly.
PZEV is becoming one of those buzzwords that journalists like to latch onto. It's meant to simplify what is being talked about, but taking a literal interpretation without knowing the background makes it rather confusing and a little misleading, in my opinion.
Speaking of buzzwords, I still giggle a little every time I am behind one of those Honda CRV's with the little decal that says "Real-time 4WD". As if someone wants a 4WD vehicle in which they would have to wait 30 minutes for the front axle to start pulling. "Automatic" would be a more appropriate word, but it doesn't have the buzzword effect that "real-time" does.
Right, "Green Cars Automakers Won't Sell You". Possibly the most misleading headline you'll see all week.
These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California (for example; there are several other states involved). The automakers are not allowed to sell them anywhere else. It's that simple.
If these vehicles were produced without subsidies, they'd be so expensive that no one would buy them. Lawrence Ulrich seems to think that automakers should make a highly expensive clean-burning vehicles on their own and sell them at a loss, perhaps so they can go out of business in two or three years.
At least Slashdot used a non-misleading headline instead. Kudos for that.
I always mod up spelling trolls.
Hybrids != PZEV
While the PZEVs are most likely hybrids, I don't believe all the hybrids on the market are the PZEVs. The Civic Hybrid gives out the roughly the same amount of pollution as a regular car does once it goes to running on gas.
Though, I could be mistaken. I can't remember where I was reading about it, so my head could be playing tricks on me. However, I'm fairly certain the hybrid models available on the market aren't PZEVs. I'm pretty sure some of the Volvo models for 2008 are however biodiesel hybrids (though, it might be regular diesel hybrids), which would make sense for the restriction in terms of shifting crop production.
Don't forget that diesel is denser, so you can't compare MPG with petrol really. A 50MPG diesel emits more CO2 than a 50MPG petrol car.
Laws that inhibit good and desirable behaviour, are bad laws. No other way to say it.
Dominant Meme
This is slightly misleading, in that the law only says the vehicles manufactured for special markets must be limited to those special markets (for what byzantine reason I have no idea).
There is nothing preventing the car makers from releasing the same vehicles into all the other markets; they don't because the cars cost a little bit more ($150-$400 according to the article), but still get the same MPG even if the tailpipe emissions are almost nil. They don't believe consumers will pay the premium so they don't bother.
In other words, the manufacturers are free to produce the same exact car but instead of stamping "CALIFORNIA ONLY" on it and being unable to sell it outside that designated market, they can just sell it everywhere with no problem.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There's a faint smell of sarcasm in the air, here. Just in case everyone else couldn't smell it.
If one beef packer can pay to have his product tested, so can everyone else; no unfair advantage.
If one company can make a PZEV, so can everyone else; no unfair advantage.
Some competition is more fair that other competition, in that a smaller competitor may not be able to afford certain certifications or equipment. As long as those certifications and equipment are open to them when they can afford and are not under the control of a competitor in the same market, there is nothing at all unfair going on.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This article names the states - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - and gives a bit more detail. Note that the adopters include some northwestern states as well.
i l.cfm/news_id=10492/state=PA
http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state_news_deta
I rented a Zipcar the other day, which just happened to by a Subaru Outback PZEV. Didn't even notice it until I was loading some stuff in the trunk and thought, "How can it be partially zero? Sounds like a marketing term for low ". Anyways, the car was fine, but I didn't know how rare they are. Zipcar is good service, and they always seem to be trying to get greener cars. They've got a few dozen Prius's in Boston and a few Hybrid Escapes too. Only thing I noticed (I haven't driven an outback before this) is that the car had little 'omph'. Not that any car needs it, but when I tried to push it down the Jamaica Way, it didn't kick like a Mini Cooper even would have (nor did it hold the corners) but it's a station wagon so I didn't expect it to.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
The US has one of the nastiest diesel supplies in the world- regulations on diesel here haven't kept pace with those on regular gasoline. As a result, our diesel supply has a much higher rates of contamination with sulfur and other impurities than diesel in the rest of the developed world. The poor quality of diesel fuel here results in higher emissions, and can play hell with some of the components of those nifty Eurodiesel engines. This, combined with the low quality of some of the consumer diesel autos sold in the 60-70's in the states have resulted in diesel's bad rap- you can't even buy new diesel autos legally in CA anymore. When some non-third world regulations on the diesel supply go into effect here in the states (which I think is in the works- a modest improvement, at least), then diesel may start to have a chance again.
Also bear in mind that UK gallons are much larger than US gallons!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
California receives back $0.79 for every $1.00 it sends to Washington, making one of the ten biggest net contributors to the federal budget.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html Clean Air Act provides the mentioned penalties for vehicles sold without "a certificate of conformity". So I assume that these vehicles are only legal under California's experimental "pilot test program" and have not been certified. Seeing the actual Volvo memo might answer this, of course.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
It is not illegal. This is a better article http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-09-16-cle ancar_x.htm/
You sir, are wrong. As of October 15, 2006, most on-highway diesel fuel sold at retail locations in the United States is ultra low sulfur diesel. In fact, ULSD isn't required in Europe until 2009. Currently they are required to sell 50 ppm diesel (and merely have ULSD available, nor required). The US went from a 500 ppm requirement to 15 ppm in 2006 (for most applications). You simply can't compare old diesel engines to their modern counterparts. You are talking about a mechanically driven, and poorly engineered engine to the far more advanced (electronic, high pressure common rail, effecient injection, variable geometry turbocharger, cooled EGR subsystem) diesel engine of today. The argument that current clean diesels can't propel a heavier American car is complete nonsense. Let me repeat myself, the MAIN reason that diesel engines aren't in the US is simply because they don't meet the EPA's on-highway fuel emission specs. It is that simple. You think it is coincidence that all diesel engines (aside from light duty trucks) are no longer sold in 2007 car models? The same year that the EPA requires on-highway vehicles to reduce particulate matter by 90%(.10 PM (g/hp-hr) to 1.0 PM)? I don't think so.
From driveclean.ca.gov:
ZEV
Zero Emission Vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions and are 98% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
AT PZEV
Advanced Technology PZEVs meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty, have zero evaporative emissions and include advanced technology components. For example, a plug-in hybrid or a compressed natural gas vehicle would qualify in this category.
PZEV
Partial Zero Emission Vehicles meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty and have zero evaporative emissions.
SULEV
Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 90% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
ULEV
Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 50% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
LEV
Low Emission Vehicles are the least stringent emission standard for all new cars sold in California in 2004 and beyond.
Alternatively, a vehicle run from a completely clean burning fuel would be ZEV (Zero emissions vehicle) and your average gasoline powered car falls in the LEV (low), ULEV (ultra low), SULEV (super ultra low) categories.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
That's a common misconception. There is no "the" antiderivative of an integrable function. In general, there are many. The Second Fundamental Theorem of Calculus only applies to the continuous antiderivatives.
To see why, consider the function f(x)=(x^4-3x^2+6)/(x^6-5x^4+5x^2+4), and try to compute the definite integral from x=1 to x=2.
g(x)=Arctan((x^3-3x)/(x^2-2)) is an indefinite antiderivative (try taking the derivative if you don't believe me), but it gives the wrong answer because it is discontinuous at x=sqrt(2).
On the other hand, g(x)=Arctan((x^5-3x^3+x)/2)+Arctan(x^3)+Arctan(x) is another indefinite antiderivative, which gives the correct answer.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});