The fun police are at it again!

[stephen low]

Further linkage to the draft regs. being put out there for Euro 5/6 emissions ADR's.

Comments Sought on Proposed Emission Reduction Standards
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has released the Draft Regulation Impact Statement for Review of Euro 5/6 Light Vehicle Emissions Standards (December 2009), which details the costs and benefits of a new regulatory standard that seeks to "cut emissions from all new cars, 4WDs and Utes sold in Australia by as much as" 90%. According to Mr Albanese, the proposed new standards, as compared to the current regime, will reduce a new vehicle's maximum emissions of:

• "[h]ydrocarbon by up to 50%;
• [o]xides of nitrogen by up to 70%; and
• [p]articulate matter by up to 90%".

Comments on the draft Regulation Impact Statement should be sent to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG) by 1 March 2010.
Further information from the DITRDLG
Transport Minister's media release (8 January 2010)
(Source: Transport Minister; DITRDLG)


Hope the combined builders group gets the 5L option back on the table before this.

[Merv and Sharon]

Diesel and Hybrid Cobras?

[*Cobber*]

My first car was a pedal car and it looks like my last car will be a pedal car....

[Rob. Smith]

I assume Albanese is a push bike commuter

[Merv and Sharon]

It says "all new cars, 4WDs and Utes sold in Australia". Are Cobras "sold" when new?

[Zedn]

I thought there was talk of changing emmisions requirements because the gas analysers were not precise enough to measure to the current standard?

Someone told me that, but I cant remember who.

[Rob. Smith]

Originally Posted by Zedn

I thought there was talk of changing emmisions requirements because the gas analysers were not precise enough to measure to the current standard?

Someone told me that, but I cant remember who.

I have a mate that drove his cobra into the penrith testing station and the "evacuate building" alarm went off....this car is on dedicated LPG it's got cats and under car exhaust. The emission standards are a crock.

[Ron61]

Sounds as if your Govt. is trying for zero emissions. I know that ours is going to soon if the country survives as an independent country for another year. I have nothing against cleaning up the emissions, but it has to be done logically and not with the knee jerk reactions we have had going on here for the past few years.

Ron

[BMK]

Ron 61

Ron,

Good morning buddy.



Yawn it's 5.00am here and I am heading off to work as I have contractors and McDonald 's people in today. Damn alarm woke me a little early and I thought I would fill in some time and check out the site...

Yes, we are heading rapidly towards SB100 here or even worse - Senate Bill 100 California emissions.

I'm still trying to get my head and thinking around my neighbours 2 stroke grass trimmer that puts out more emissions in a quarter hour on a Sunday morning than I would for six months in the GT40.. Mmmm not to mention the craters and volcanoes in New Zealand or our cows....

Have a good one in 2010 Ron.

Stay safe.

Bernie

[*Cobber*]

Just to put this into perspective here is an article that was sent to me this morning on coal fired power stations. Long but worth the read.

> This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.
> Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty,
> able to contact him by phone.
> This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians
> or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia 's Coal driven
> power houses.
>
> Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid
> him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the
> local press.
>
> Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.
>
> Written By Terence Cardwell <terrycar@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:terrycar@iinet.net.au>>
>
> The Editor
>
> The Morning Bulletin.
>
> I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put
> forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations
> and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
>
> Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about
> global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The
> condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that
> comes out of any kettle.
>
> Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon
> emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is
> supposedly doing to our planet.
>
> Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the
> deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace
> fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon
> credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
>
> And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a
> clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting
> ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no
> knowledge of.
>
> First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up
> the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and
> the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat
> the air and water before entering the boilers.
> The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and
> CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the
> precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is
> heat through boiler wall convection.
>
> Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat
> loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can
> generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and
> cost wise that is very low.
>
> The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of
> fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major
> production cost.
>
> As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of
> coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk
> power generation.
>
> We have, like, the USA , coal fired power stations because we HAVE the
> raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is
> laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of
> our raw materials and independence.
>
> The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they
> don't have the coal supply for the future.
>
> Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk
> supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a
> genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.
>
> Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world
> but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
> The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be
> attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of
> wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient
> wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but
> usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below
> maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they
> are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
>
> The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately
> 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro
> Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only
> available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can
> pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
>
> Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric
> generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also
> have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a
> small amount of total power generated.
>
> Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable
> power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
>
> As for solar power generation much research has been done over the
> decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar
> Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts
> of electricity.
>
> Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have
> the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads
> out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not
> going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
>
> We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our
> planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic
> utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a
> banner and being a general pain in the backside.
>
> Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness
> the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
>
> According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to
> .038% in air over the last 50 years.
>
> To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
>
> If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1
> mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x
> .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
>
> Australia emits _1_ percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the
> government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by
> _.2_ percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.
>
> _What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?_
>
> By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to
> .038% in 50 years.
>
> Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by
> .004 percent.
>
> Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing
> -but stay with me).
>
> Of that because we only contribute _1_% our emissions would cause CO2 to
> rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
>
> Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by
> 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year
> they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
>
> That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small
> pin.!!!
>
> For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar
> and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc,
> etc.
>
> How ridiculous it that.
> The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple
> and even closing some smaller business.
>
> T.L. Cardwell
>
> _To the Editor _ I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the
> Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the
> various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station
> near Newcastle . I would be pleased to supply you any information you
> may require.__

[BMK]

Mmm very interesting.

I have also recently read an article that refers to the 1 kilometre example and from memory our contribution as humans is literally an inch or 16mm. Someone may have a link to that example also.

There is a lot of information out there and it appears that a lot of it is not factual, but a beat up by greenies..

[Merv and Sharon]

I think there are beatups from all parties on this issue. I am not convinced that these so called 'greenies' are out to destroy our world. I work with several respected professors in areas of forest management, carbon trading and emissions reduction. They have some quite compelling and different perspectives

Probably we should be in the middle somewhere - and I am not going to stop driving my Cobra just yet!

[Rob. Smith]

I work in a major NSW power station and we used to be 'attacked' by green peace and rising tide several times. We then contacted those groups and explained that when they attach themselves to our coal conveyor belts and cause us to reduce load. (their goal). The load / power demand has to be met... so Victorian power stations, who burn that filthy brown (peat) coal and make much more C02 muck than our station, take up the demand and pump more stuff into the atmosphere. Also the government dictate that we run at a lower output to 'just' meet demand and market prices which makes the boilers work at an inefficient rate.......I could rant for ages...T.L Cardwell said it all.

[Ron61]

Originally Posted by BMK

Ron 61

Ron,

Good morning buddy.



Yawn it's 5.00am here and I am heading off to work as I have contractors and McDonald 's people in today. Damn alarm woke me a little early and I thought I would fill in some time and check out the site...

Yes, we are heading rapidly towards SB100 here or even worse - Senate Bill 100 California emissions.

I'm still trying to get my head and thinking around my neighbours 2 stroke grass trimmer that puts out more emissions in a quarter hour on a Sunday morning than I would for six months in the GT40.. Mmmm not to mention the craters and volcanoes in New Zealand or our cows....

Have a good one in 2010 Ron.

Stay safe.

Bernie

Bernie,

I hope that you don't get to the point that California has with the 500 numbers per year. They completely ignore the fact that people don't drive these vehicles daily and put 50,000 miles a year on them. I would bet that the huge majority of them don't see over 3,00 miles per year and a lot more less than that. They base the emissions on the same standards as a new car which is driven daily so far as figuring out how much they put into the air. My lawn tractor and trimmer both have the California Approved Emission stickers on them. Guess I should be able to register the tractor since it meets their standards.

Ron

[Merv and Sharon]

And Ron that is the Republican administration. Imagine the Democrats!

Most of Europe is now 4 stroke only with garden machines.

[Ron61]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

And Ron that is the Republican administration. Imagine the Democrats!

Most of Europe is now 4 stroke only with garden machines.

If you are referring to California as Republican, only since Arnold got in. This is and has been a Democrat controlled state since the Reagen years. Arnold got into office because Davis, Democrat, stole and wasted so much money he had driven us from a big surplus to a debt than now may never be overcame. Davis was recalled during his term. We gave the world Pelosi, Fienstien, and Boxer. I think California has done it's part in contributing to the destruction of the world.

Ron

[OZCOBRA]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

It says "all new cars, 4WDs and Utes sold in Australia". Are Cobras "sold" when new?

Well I'd certainly consider hiring a good Barrister to argue the SOLD /NEW Reference...

[Paul F]

While I'm in favor of moderate to somewhat aggressive environmental regulation, all of these regulations are like pissing in the wind if the world population is not controlled. We could cut our pollution in half and in less than 40 years, we will have the same pollution levels as our population not only doubles every 40 years (may have that number wrong), the per capita pollution likely goes up as emerging countries like China become larger consumers.

My message to everyone is to talk to these numb-nut environmentalists and regulators that they are wasting their time unless they get population under control. Crowded roads, pollution, water shortages, urban sprawl, all because of population.

Best of luck keeping the Cobra hobby alive and well in Oz.

[Merv and Sharon]

I fully agree Paul. That is the key. I don't see any credible argument that global warming is not happening - the question is why. We could say that more 7 billion people, with their domestic animals (cows, sheep and goats) using ever more oil, coal and cranking out pollutants gaseous and solid - has no effect at all. But that would be a short-lived fantasy land, from my reading on this.

So the next question is what can we do and this is where the politicians come in to it with 'solutions' that relate more to their policy positions rather than to the common good. I also agree with reasonably tight environmental regulation if we even want to retain much of what we have today, but like you I don't see a rosy future as long as India, China and others major contributors continue to produce ever more ...

(Note to self: never talk about politics, religion and now the environment!)

Heck I am off to drive the Cobra to work today while I can!