California May Reduce Carbon Emissions By Banning Black Cars 685
Legislation may by 2016 restrict the paint color options for California residents looking for a new car. Black and all dark hues are currently on the banned list. The California Air Resources Board says that the climate control systems of dark-colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings — especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours.
Article is WRONG... (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't a ban on black cars. It is a requirement that at least some fraction of all solar radiation be reflected so cars don't heat up that much.
A car with "black" paint, as long as that paint reflects UV and IR, and at least scatters some light (You want a glossy paintjob anyway), combined with UV/IR reflective window treatments, will meet the requirement.
And true, it may cost $50/car to $150/car more, but on the other hand, the cars won't get so miserably hot when sitting in the sun. So it would actually benefit most consumers.
The Golden State... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they should call California the Green State and make green the official state color. Plus I don't have to change the paint job on my car.
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is a great point. The windows. They let in a lot of heat, you can tell this because the trunk of a black car is still not nearly as hot as the rest of the car. So we should really have white interiors, and heavily reflective or tinted windows that allow us to still see out. Actually I wonder if this wouldn't be a good application of LCD windows that would turn mostly opaque when the car was off and be clear when the car was running so that cops can still peek inside and you won't have a hard time driving. Those windshield blocking things really do help, but are such a pain in the ass. If we could do that automatically, that would help a lot, I would think.
L
Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard a representative of the concrete industry on NPR a couple months ago (and double-checked here [concreteresources.net]) saying that the city of Atlanta reduced its average temperature by six degrees, just by switching to lighter-colored concrete instead of darker-colored asphalt. That will affect the cooling requirements of buildings, even without any change to the buildings themselves.
Re:W-T-F (Score:4, Interesting)
Compressors turn off while you're accelerating hard, so you don't notice.
It's a really annoying feature in America's southwestern deserts: in the summer, jump on the accelerator and you catch a blast of heat in the face for your trouble. Maybe they should disable the ventilation fan at the same time to mitigate the annoyance?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not just ban inefficient cars? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why ban either? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the question should be what the right thing to ban is with the presumption that "We gotta ban something!" There are better solutions...
And they've tried them. When CA mandated better fuel economy the Federal Government (read: Bush Administration) took them to court claiming that only they could dictate fuel standards. And the Feds won. (Ever notice how when the Feds don't have the money to pay for something they're in favor of states' rights but as soon as the states do something the lobbyists in DC don't like the Feds hate states' rights?) My point is that CA has been trying to do other things, and this is but the latest in a long string of attempts. Please don't disingenuously try to claim this is their only effort towards energy savings.
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Interesting)
Rule of thumb is you lose a cylinders worth of power, and I don't think people will give up their air conditionair
Re:Black cars. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
Re:W-T-F (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Interesting)
And this, friends, is a prime example of why government should NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES attempt to legislate a solution to a technical problem, no matter how tempting it will be. We're on track to have all vehicles be electric or hybrid within probably a decade. At that point, heating systems will be electric and will drain power just like air conditioning systems.
Once we are mostly electric, for every day when you would have used your heat, you are losing just as much extra energy from the extra reflection as you saved during the time when you would have used your A/C. For much of California, this change would be a net loss at that point. And this, of course assumes that every vehicle uses a reversing heat pump for the heating. For vehicles that don't come with an A/C at all, the heat would be in the form of resistance heating, which would make it a HUGE net loss to block the sun.
It's just like the notion of saving energy by forcing everyone to stop selling incandescent light bulbs, and for precisely the same reason. (Not to mention lots of other reasons.)
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Interesting)
A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp, at most
Look at a power curve for engines some time. At typical RPMs you use not driving aggressively, car engines can only make well under 100hp.
Also, it's a lot more than 5hp; 10-15 is a better estimate.
Still, this pisses me off to no end. CA already has civil-rights-violating emissions laws. You can be stopped and searched at any time for illegal engine modifications, "illegal" being anything that isn't CARB certified. Virtually everything concerning the engine is involved. Air filters, which have fuck-all to do with emissions. Exhaust systems, which provided they are after the catalytic converter, also have fuck-all to do with emissions. If you refuse to consent, you're arrested and your vehicle is impounded.
Meanwhile, Obama opened up the door for per-state emissions instead of setting better federal standards and telling the states to fuck off. I'm all for saving the environment, but not through creating an absolute nightmare of a patchwork of emissions regulations for automakers (not to mention making it impossible to take your vehicle with you if you move from one state to another.)
Yet another example of the Junior Senator From Illinois leaping without thinking.
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Interesting)
I would agree. And I would also say that it's not limited to the liberals in California. The Conservatives are just as if not more unpragmatic as the left. Hence the complete impass they've currently reached where neither side is doing anything because of the other.
That being said California has led the way on lots of legislation that both sides take for granted now.
Re:Why not just ban inefficient cars? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Overboard (Score:3, Interesting)
Congratulations. I'm halfway down the comment page, and you're the first commenter who seems to have actually RTFA.
I can't wait to see how Fox is going to spin this one....
It's also funny to watch the states-rights conservatives twitch whenever California tries to pass some sort of innovative or unusual legislation (which they've historically tended to do quite a lot of).
Lame (Score:3, Interesting)