Hello Bus Folks,
This week I read an article which reported that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will require that all mass transit buses in California to be fully electric by the year 2029. It was also reported that there are 12,000+- mass transit buses in California. The idea of trashing 12,000 buses so the state can go green does not sound green at all!
The LA Times reports that the test electric buses that do exist are plagued by "stalls, stops, and breakdowns." San Francisco officials are worried that electric buses may not have enough "oomph" to get a full load of passengers up its famously steep hills.
I don't see how an electric bus can run its powertrain, AC, lights and doors constantly without shutting down the bus to recharge. In city bus systems when a driver's shift ends, a replacement driver is put on the same bus. Will cities be required to increase the number of their fleets to allow for shutting buses down to recharge?
Here in California we have already witnessed the fantastic Crown buses sent to the junk yards because they were deemed a threat to clean air. The Crown body was built to last for decades!
I checked out CARB's website to search for any mention of eliminating the emissions exemption for privately owned Rvs, but there was no update on their current position. One has to wonder if the days of bus conversion owners being allow to run two stroke Detroit Diesels here are numbered.
I don't have a two stroke conversion yet, but I question the wisdom of buying one just to have California refuse to register the coach.
Mike
They are exempt and because of FMCA political presents will be to at least 2029 but will still be an Antique Bus conversion at that point and still able to operate. They don't care about old buses as they call them.
This was started by Jerry Brown as his leaving Legacy and then Gavin as of January and he is going to be worse or as bad as JB. They say things like by 2029 all vehicles will be electric. Really are you going to pay for new cars for everyone? Won't happen. Its just as always like the money they grabbed from fixing the roads in California which they never did. They just look for things they can tax for money grabs for all their little programs.
Now they want to tax texting and the people here are already going "YA RIGHT"
PS Sf has always had electric Buses they just are attached to overhead lines!... :)
Perhaps a good example of political over reach? Ten, (10) years may not be enough time. Tech does march on. Batteries may greatly improve. Charging stations may multiply. Or ... some appointed idiots may grow a brain. Maybe we can teach the horse to sing? :(
Nashville has some type of electric bus system. Not sure of all the details, but on a recent visit I did see a few 'fast charge stations'.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/05/16/nashville-mta-awarded-electric-buses/84457578/
If changes are to be made, someone has to start the process and start setting deadlines. I don't know enough to say if this will end well or not, but it's not just California doing this.
Could they not easily implement all future Federally (or State) funded sponsored purchases will only be granted if the new purchase is all electric. That could easily be implemented next year so that by 2029 attrition will do the conversion gradually and a little more painlessly. They could also put a restriction on rebuilds if they were a funded purchase in the first place. Although that one may be tough to implement. It could also be controlled by applying a levy (yeah ... more tax) to insurance policies of petrochemical powered units on an increasing (by age) scale. This would be simple incentive for transit companies to get with the program.
It would be a bit of a burden on the service departments during that transition stage having to maintain two different drive systems but it usually goes that way whenever a newer version of technology comes online. Perhaps that would be better to gradually bring it in finding bugs on a small number of units or charging station systems than converting a 200-1000 count fleet.
Our Provincial (State) owned insurance company already prohibits the re-sale of any written off vehicle older than 1995 from being put back on the road after proper repair by deeming it "irreparable" therefore effectively taking old smog producers (yeah, I know) off the road.
The best news I've heard lately is that Trump wants to do away with CARB and cut back on the EPA future guidelines.
Here's more details that make it far more realistic
https://www.electrive.com/2018/12/16/california-requires-all-new-buses-to-be-electric-by-2029/
Phase in starts in 2029 and fully implemented by 2040. Much like the CARB regs on moving from 2 strokes to four strokes which has taken nearly 20 years.
Just keep in mind the world WILL run out of oil. Just how long it'll take is the big question. World consumption of oil keeps increasing as more under developed countries advance and have more automobiles using more gasoline. Eventually, a barrel of oil will price will increase enough as supplies dwindle to price the ability to operate a bus conversion out of practicality. Enjoy it while you can. Electric items run by batteries appear to be more feasible every year. The cost and capacity of batteries are improving every year.
California seems to be more wacko every year, but the world still watches their plans and measure their successes and failures. Just don't live there.🎪
Said by a guy that goes by Chessie and you call us nuts? :o LOL
Geoff, Its a state run deal so "The Donald" can't take any action on CARB. 8)
If these buses are so bad then answer me this. How are they going to produce enough electric to power all these electric things and stop using oil and coal? ??? Solar ain't gona do it yet.
Its like these do gooders that got rid of plastic bags, what about all the other plastics, like things from fry's that are tightly wrapped in plastic bubbles etc.
And if we were saving trees as the tree huggers want, then why does everything from Amazon come in 2 to 3 boxes that are way to big for the product bought. Just sayin... :)
Quote from: Dave5Cs on December 16, 2018, 06:52:07 PM... Geoff, Its a state run deal so "The Donald" can't take any action on CARB. 8)...
Not the President, any President, but it's not right to say that. Currently, the Federal Clean Air Act says that no state can enforce any standards other than the Federal standard -- except for California, which has an exemption. If they take that (and all other) exemptions away, then that's the end for CA exhaust emissions. I'm not sure how that applies to purchase of vehicles, etc.
Taking away the exemption must be done by Congress, through a bill that's passed by both houses and then signed into law by the President. But "the President" can't do it alone.
In practicality, I think it will never happen.
Quote from: windtrader on December 16, 2018, 04:34:19 PM
Here's more details that make it far more realistic
https://www.electrive.com/2018/12/16/california-requires-all-new-buses-to-be-electric-by-2029/
Phase in starts in 2029 and fully implemented by 2040. Much like the CARB regs on moving from 2 strokes to four strokes which has taken nearly 20 years.
The first site pictures buses with overhead wire connections, which means batteries might not be involved, but these kinds of buses and trolleys have been around for a while, and requires a wire grid to be strung up. Dayton, Ohio, had these for decades, but now they are switching to CNG powered buses. Could it be that California is lagging behind? ???
Agree Bruce but,
He said CARB and Trump. Any president can only take away the exemption by Congressional Vote like you said which then would stop CARB in that process but he can not just wave his wand and take away CARB like was stated.
Just to point out that transit buses are in many ways the most prime candidate for electrification of any type of vehicle there is - not only do they primarily operate in urban areas (where reducing emissions of diesel particulates is hugely desirable) but transit buses usually have highly structured routes and timetables and usage profiles (low speed and lots of stops and starts) that both suit the characteristics of electric motors and make it relatively easy to schedule battery top-ups. Ultimately you'll have things like inductive charging loops buried in the road surface at popular bus-stops, and buses that run continuously without ever needing to be plugged-in to a charger at at all
And, yes, city-centre trolley buses or trams are definitely part of the picture too - it's amazing how many cities here have built new tram systems from scratch in the last 10 years or so, usually having previously pulled one up back in the 1920s and 30s.
Jeremy
Even if California's emission standards were totally removed, things would not change that much in the long run.
As the markets become even global than they already are, auto production will be done to meet the global markets. There are other countries already with standards like California has now, so my guess is that production will continue to meet the most strict standards around. (With the exception of vehicles that are exclusively sold in countries with no or limited standards, and I'm not sure I'd want to drive any of them.)
It will be interesting how 100% skoolies will hold up being that all 3 major skoolie builders are beginning to offer them now. As was stated, the tough cycle of a transit bus will require much power so how realistically will the battery last before the bus will konk out going up one of those famous hills thereby stranding people and cause them to wonder why they voted for these lefties to run their cities and state in the name of symbolism as opposed to what has worked so well forever. Electric vehicles will improve to the point where they are as reliable and have the same or better range or power than it's gasoline or diesel counterparts. But we're not there yet and until that day, a hybrid seems to be a good fit for transit.
This is California that you base the story and then you add Midwest(where I live) and east coast winters and really see how long these school and transit buses will last on a charge.
Strangely enough, the school divisions around here are switching back to gasoline powered buses rather than diesel. Probably due to all the problems with the new(er) diesel engine emission problems that they suffered with over the last 7-8 years.
Because of their relatively short run time (around here anyway) present electric powered vehicle technology would probably be well suited for school buses from an eco benefit point of view but for the same reason, may not be justified for the cost.
The electric versions will likely be great for short trips around town but perhaps not so much for longer distance and/or much expressway travel. For instance a field trip several miles out or a weekend charter.
Yes gasoline engines are coming back in skoolies for reasons you give.
THOMAS does not at this time but perhaps they are working on it. IC and BLUEBIRD has offered them for awhile now.
BLUEBIRD uses the FORD V10 and IC a PSI 8.8L V8.
After WW-II Japan instituted a taxation program that increases the taxes for vehicles annually. Crazy? No, they did it to force new development. I'm not saying it is a good plan, it does mean that anyone who owns a vehicle is pretty well forced to buy a new one about every five years. Maybe with the increased durability of new vehicles they have modified the timeline, I don't know. Essentially after a few years it becomes too expensive to keep the old car. Seems backwards and upside down, most definitely a government taking and I don't see any way Americans would stand for it, but maybe it's something they could make use of in California... He, he, he.
Jim
Quote from: Jim Blackwood on December 17, 2018, 08:22:55 AM
After WW-II Japan instituted a taxation program that increases the taxes for vehicles annually. Crazy? No, they did it to force new development. I'm not saying it is a good plan, it does mean that anyone who owns a vehicle is pretty well forced to buy a new one about every five years. Maybe with the increased durability of new vehicles they have modified the timeline, I don't know. Essentially after a few years it becomes too expensive to keep the old car. Seems backwards and upside down, most definitely a government taking and I don't see any way Americans would stand for it, but maybe it's something they could make use of in California... He, he, he.
Jim
Backwards and upside-down is correct, and I'm sure it's far more to do with economic stimulation (employment and taxes from new car production) as it is to do with encouraging technological advancement. And I shout at the TV whenever some environmental campaigner talks about how new cars are so much better for the planet than old ones, whilst being deliberately blind to how hugely bad (energy and resource-consuming) new car manufacture is for that self-same planet, not to mention the criminal wastefulness of unnecessarily scrapping existing cars.
We don't have taxes that rise as cars get older here, but we do have ever-more stringent annual roadworthiness tests ('MOT tests') that force many perfectly sound cars off the road. There was a big jump in the stringency of the MOT test again this year, but they did at least sugar the pill by simultaneously introducing a new scheme that exempts vehicles over 40 years old from both the MOT and road tax
Jeremy
Electric does not necessarily mean primarily battery based. Could be hydrogen power cells, maybe some sort of embedded road induction, or a combination of those technologies plus battery, maybe even higher efficiency solar on the bus roofs (in combination with everything else).
We can all poke holes in this and say why it won't work. Necessity (or great reward) has always been the mother of invention, 10 years is a long time these days.
In 10 years we went from barely able to launch a basketball into orbit to walking on the moon. If it's a problem we really want to solve, i think we can.
Regarding the hydrogen option - I was reading the other day that there is now so much PV solar capacity here (due to hugely expensive but indisputably successful Government schemes to subsidise private solar installation) that they are now frequently 'storing' the excess electricity produced by using it to generate hydrogen. I was amazed by that because electrical hydrogen production (ie. electrolysis) is incredibly inefficient - but that is apparently what they are doing, and presumably lots of new hydrogen production will make it a much more attractive option for vehicles.
Not that carrying around large and very heavy (crash-capable) tanks containing very flammable hydrogen under very high pressure strikes me as being any more attractive than carrying-around large, very heavy and very flammable li-on batteries mind you..
Jeremy
re; Hydrogen Safety - When you think about it, riding around in 2-part napalm cages (Gas tank + Foam and upholstery) doesn't sound super safe. We also have propane powered vehicles already, I'd think the production problem is far larger than storage.
With that said as a young man i recall one of those science programs on TLC or Discovery Channel, back when they were not Reality TV channels, it was showing the possibility of dissolving hydrogen in a solid powder. This tank containing the dissolved gas was shot by a bullet and nothing happened,not even explosive decompression. I can't for the life of me find anything on it anymore, I could have dreamt it or something too.
That is a distinct possibility, hydrogen will bond with many things, some much more loosely than others so that your ideal powder would only require a moderate change in pressure. Consider acetylene for instance. It is universally dissolved in acetone for storage, resulting in much greater density and moderate pressures.
But acetylene and other common fuel gasses are composed of a much larger molecule than hydrogen, which is the smallest molecule that exists. Even paired it is extremely small. So small it can migrate through the empty spaces between the molecules of most other materials. Can you ever truly say a gas like that is safe?
Jim
I'm telling ya, Trump wants to dump CARB, and he has been keeping his promises. I don't think it is going to take an act of Congress, just an Executive Order. CARB is out of control.
Quote from: Geoff on December 17, 2018, 12:46:01 PM
I'm telling ya, Trump wants to dump CARB, and he has been keeping his promises. I don't think it is going to take an act of Congress, just an Executive Order. CARB is out of control.
You may be right, but for all our sake I pray he doesn't dump the standards altogether. Anyone that's old enough to remember the rivers catching fire and the smog so bad people were getting sick would understand the need for some type of controls. Industry has shown it is unable/unwilling to take control on their own. A balance is needed, not a free-for-all.
I'll stop now before this starts to sound even more soapbox like than it already does.
Definitely "take it to the extreme" ponderings. Read my first post on this thread.
Where you said He wants, not, that he is? LOL and We would have to actually find an Executive in the WH first, LOL, Not LOL
Why do all you guys from other states care about CARB so much if you don't even live in California?
It's funny that you keep giving the same answer. Well it will come here next, because California makes all these stupid laws and it always moves across the country to our states?
Don't you vote in your own states. Because if you get those laws you don't like, then you must be a Nancy, snowflake, lefties, or whatever you call them, state too, LOL :)
The reason for starting this thread was to point to the trend here in California with regard how our two stroke buses/conversions may be viewed in the future by CARB. Even though it my opinion that the bus conversions I read about on this forum are amazing machines and I really do want one, my concern is what CARB may have up its sleeve.
I enjoyed reading about Windtrader when he went to considerable effort to find and bring in a nice MCI from out of state. Since then it is very likely Don planned and improved the coach to make it to his own preferences and desires.
Let me tell you how CARB handled the truck/tractors owned by many of my owner operator friends. When CARB made its decision of which trucks they no longer wanted on California roads, CARB made its decision even though trucking organizations and large fleet owners protested. My owner operator friends who owned the offending trucks had to sell their trucks out of state at low than typical prices, put on expensive exhaust filters, and some scrapped their trucks. These trucks were not black smoke belching infernos; they were decent trucks.
It would be disturbing to read on this forum that someone like Windtrader and other California bus conversion owners would be required to sell their coaches. That would be a tragedy, but I doubt CARB cares even a bit!
I don't have a coach, but I may be interested. Would registering the coach outside of California be a solution to keep the coach off the radar from CARB? Montana? Just thinking....
QuoteThe reason for starting this thread was to point to the trend here in California with regard how our two stroke buses/conversions may be viewed in the future by CARB.
The time for CARB to snag our old 2 stroke non-commercial bus conversions has long passed. For whatever reason back then CARB specifically excluded bus conversions. My feeling is they snared 99% of the target trucks/buses and added the exclusion for bus-RV conversions just to cover all cases.
It is inconceivable that CARB will bother with old bus conversions as we are off the radar since the targeting of commercial 2 stroke trucks/buses is complete. It is far more likely over the coming years, qualified service pros for these old two strokes will become virtually extinct; not a stretch as it is already a tough situation.
The older buses were regulated out just the same as the trucks your friends were driving.
If you do purchase a bus, think twice before providing alternative reality when securing vehicle insurance. Titling/registering in another state than where you live and keep the bus just gives the insurance company a valid reason to reject any claims you might submit.
Don
What windy said and unless you are active military I would not even consider registering out of state. You come back and are still living in Cali then get caught with out of state plates which right now is a big thing, they will get you for trying to get around your home state law which states 30day to change registration after moving here. If you live here and do it IRS and/or state tax department gets involved and that's not pretty.
I did a simple search on Trump and EPA/CARB so everybody could read for themselves:
Trump wants to get rid of CARB
Copy and paste on Google
That would be great but he can't always act unilaterally.
We know he has a few screws loose but how can he get rid of California ARB which is basically a states rights issue, adding onto the federal level regulations??
I believe he's trying to do away with the bit of law that allows CA to set its own standards.
Quote from: richard5933 on December 18, 2018, 11:07:29 AM
I believe he's trying to do away with the bit of law that allows CA to set its own standards.
Exactly. CA was allowed to make their own EPA standards because they claimed they were more polluted than other states. Trump wants to put them back on the Federal EPA Standards and reduce some ridiculous future year standards for the EPA in general.
Not only was it claimed that there was a problem - it was reality.
https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/las-smoggy-past-in-photos
(Added bonus - there are bits about buses in this article)
There is no denying that a problem existed, and that a problem had to be enacted. The question to me is whether this is the time to try running without the protections that have been enacted since the problem was at its worst. I don't have the answer - it's possible things will continue to be okay, and it's possible that the situation will quickly revert to what it was before the fix was put in place.
If the decision is made to remove protections based on sound research about the consequences I don't see a problem. If the decision is being made as a political one, then look for things to fall apart.
I don't know why anyone is thinking that freezing future EPA standards is going to be retroactive. Not in the least. I've been in England and Europe in general and they are a lot of diesel cars getting great fuel milage that can't be imported here.
EPA and CARB are two different things.
If California loses the ability to set its own standards, then only the Federal EPA standards will apply. Many of the current regulations in place in California will be removed. This could be considered retroactive.
England and the EU both have emission standards. They also have safety standards. Many of the vehicles that cannot be imported to the US don't comply with our standards, but that doesn't mean that they don't comply with any standards. The EU standards are different than ours, and my understanding is that it's not a question of the US having better/tougher standards but rather a question of different standards. Some manufacturers build vehicles that meet all the standards, and some only build to meet one set.
Quote from: richard5933 on December 18, 2018, 12:03:33 PM
EPA and CARB are two different things.
If California loses the ability to set its own standards, then only the Federal EPA standards will apply. Many of the current regulations in place in California will be removed. This could be considered retroactive.
England and the EU both have emission standards. They also have safety standards. Many of the vehicles that cannot be imported to the US don't comply with our standards, but that doesn't mean that they don't comply with any standards. The EU standards are different than ours, and my understanding is that it's not a question of the US having better/tougher standards but rather a question of different standards. Some manufacturers build vehicles that meet all the standards, and some only build to meet one set.
I don't consider bringing California ARB in with the rest of the states as being "retroactive"-- I consider it to be bringing the state in with Federal standards, which are good enough, or overbearing already.
Quote from: Geoff on December 18, 2018, 12:31:40 PM
I don't consider bringing California ARB in with the rest of the states as being "retroactive"-- I consider it to be bringing the state in with Federal standards, which are good enough, or overbearing already.
Call it what works for you - retroactive or a correction.
My concern is still the same - whether or not making this change will result in things getting better or worse. We all can have our own priorities with regard to this, but I hope that we can all agree a return to a situation like existed decades ago with rampant smog and pollution is not the answer.
I don't know if electric buses are the answer. I don't know what the answer is. But I do have a general sense that something has to be done so that we can leave things better than we found them.
Quote from: richard5933 on December 18, 2018, 12:03:33 PM
The EU standards are different than ours, and my understanding is that it's not a question of the US having better/tougher standards but rather a question of different standards.
As an example of that I believe one difference - which at first sight is almost inconsequential and yet causes European manufacturers an immense amount of grief - is about how dashboard switches are labelled:-
Because Europe consists of many countries and many languages it is normal for European cars to use symbols on dashboard switches rather than words, and a standard set of symbols that everyone uses and understands has been in place for decades. But US regulations apparently require dashboard switches to have text / words on them rather than symbols, which frequently requires the switches to be physically bigger, with knock-on effects for the rest of dashboard design - cue majorly expensive redevelopment work for no actual benefit whatsoever other than meeting some fairly pointless technical regulation
Jeremy
Windy, A few screws loose? LOL
Geoff, You did a simple search on Trump? How is that done these days?lol
It may be ridiculous for Arizona where you have nothing but dust, dust and sand, but California, fires and all has things to see and relax under trees and breath clean air. LOL
Being California is the 3rd largest state we have to protect ourselves from the rest of the country who dirty the air and just don't care. ;)
Richard you are welcome here... :)
Quote from: Dave5Cs on December 18, 2018, 09:06:34 PM
Richard you are welcome here... :)
Thanks!
Never could understand how human beings, so seemingly intelligent, sometimes can't figure out that it's best not to pee into our drinking water (meant both metaphorically and literally here.) We had horses for a few years, and they seemed to understand that it's best not to pee on the good grass and hay. Dogs will instinctively leave their nest to take care of business. Humans? Seems we prefer easy & cheap and will happily drop our discharge hose into the lake right next to where our city's drinking straw is. Then we all look around wondering why people get sick.
These should all be state laws. There are areas that understand this but I live in Milwaukee where our stupid mayor dumps poop in Lake Michigan and that's our source of drinking water. This was years in the making but he does nothing to try to fix it just wet his pants over a street car that goes in a big loop at < 10mph.
I think until California votes for people with common sense, they can continue to expect restrictions on all vehicles. After all, they are the same people that complain about the lack of drinking water when they are next to the largest body of water on God's earth. Salt water can be converted to fresh.
That's not common sense.
It's called progressive thinking and preparing for things that are going to happen not Business as usual because I don't have to do anything and all is good if it stays the same.
It's like people who say they don't believe in Climate change. Well mostly because they invest in oil and they know that might mean it will hit them financially. Well if they don't pay attention it may hit them in more ways that will cost them dearly. Most other country's are paying attention and doing things to help slow it down and helping so that we leave this earth better for the next generation.
Kind of like our Buses someday they will be outlawed and then we can be thankful we had them and all the fun that went with them and then drive them into a lake of the ocean for fish habitat, Cool!
Or we can just sit on our Butts and complain and drink beer and piss in the lake and tell our kids , "Sorry bout the lake but Grampa had fun hope you can find something to drink now". Oh don't go in the lake it will make you sink oh ya and put on your sunblock # 2500 wouldn't want to get burned up now would you. LOL
I don't know how it progressive on my part to expect states to handle their own problems?
I don't expect California or any other state to take care of Milwaukee's sewage problems.
Who wants dirty air and water? I don't want the solutions to chase jobs away.
Individual, local and state responsibility is what gets things done not some federal program.
I'm put off by those that seem to disparage oil and how much better other countries are than us.
The good old USA is still the greatest country on earth despite what our enemies and former president say.
Thanks you just made my point, LOL ;)
Glad to help. :)
Quote from: CrabbyMilton on December 19, 2018, 09:30:50 AM
I don't know how it progressive on my part to expect states to handle their own problems?
I don't expect California or any other state to take care of Milwaukee's sewage problems.
Who wants dirty air and water? I don't want the solutions to chase jobs away.
Individual, local and state responsibility is what gets things done not some federal program.
I'm put off by those that seem to disparage oil and how much better other countries are than us.
The good old USA is still the greatest country on earth despite what our enemies and former president say.
Not sure which side of this you're on...
In one post you say that states should take care of their own problems. In another you appear to say that California is doing this wrong at the moment. If you're in favor of states handling this on their own, then that's exactly what CARB is - California taking charge of their situation.
Of course, unless we can stop one state's pollution from washing downhill into another state, there has to be some type of coordination between states. That's why we have a Federal government.
I agree, greatest nation on earth. But, at the moment some parts of this great nation are suffering from amnesia of how bad things were in the middle to end of the last century - you know, the whole rivers catching fire thing... We've come a long way since then and I would like to see the improvements continue.
I too live in Wisconsin, the state that brought Earth Day to the world and used to be a world leader in all things environmental. There's a veritable fortune to be made in the new industries coming on board, from electric vehicles to solar energy to high speed trains. We've got an enormous infrastructure in Wisconsin/Milwaukee that could be put back in service manufacturing products for these industries and it can be done in a way that is financially feasible and environmentally safe.
I'm on the side where the states should take charge of their own.
I just make the observation since California is always running to the feds to solve their problems.
Yes things have improved and people have a vested interest and have taken charge to correct the problems.
But the green wackos go too far and that costs jobs.
As far as high speed trains are concerned, let the private sector and free market determine that.
The government already spends tons of money on Amtrak and it still loses money.
If there was a demand, the freight haulers would offer passenger service on their lines.
Typical "The Green Wacko's" sounds like someone we all know lately. California doesn't run to the Feds. That is the way the Governments are set up, States can only do so much and by the way California pays a lot of the countries Taxes and so has the rights to use them as do other states.
Maybe we should all just Rake the forests as they do in Finland, LOL ;)
I dunno, but California had massive Forest fires this year because of the tree huggers. A lot of people died, a lot of people lost their houses.
Quote from: Geoff on December 19, 2018, 03:20:03 PM
I dunno, but California had massive Forest fires this year because of the tree huggers. A lot of people died, a lot of people lost their houses.
Please provide some evidence that 'tree huggers' were somehow to blame for the fires. So far, the only cause cited in the news is possibly something that went wrong with power company equipment.
Rush uses the term envrionmental wacko but I came up with Green Wacko so feel free to use that. :)
CA. still can't grasp the idea of converting salt water into fresh but they want to build a high speed train that won't make any money.
Nuff said.
Quote from: CrabbyMilton on December 19, 2018, 03:37:19 PM
...but they want to build a high speed train that won't make any money...
Making money is required now for public works projects?
How many airports make money for the municipalities that pay for them? (most lose money) Or highways? (most are fully supported by taxes) Any National parks making a profit? What about state parks?
Sometimes we decide, as a society, that some things are necessary and/or desirable. Then we pool our resources and build them. That vast network of freeways and interstate highways we enjoy traveling over in our buses make no profit and cost millions a year to maintain, yet I doubt that any of us want to go back to the days before they existed.
Quote from: richard5933 on December 19, 2018, 03:29:57 PM
Please provide some evidence that 'tree huggers' were somehow to blame for the fires. So far, the only cause cited in the news is possibly something that went wrong with power company equipment.
My God, the power lines may have started the fire due to overgrowth rubbing on the lines, but it was the lack of clearing the forests and cutting trees that was the problem. Here in Arizona, we have bush clearing and designated tree cutting to ease the fire danger, I don't see that in CA. Just think about how much pollution was dumped with these forest fires, a lot more than converting to all electric transit buses.
Quote from: Geoff on December 19, 2018, 04:51:29 PM
My God, the power lines may have started the fire due to overgrowth rubbing on the lines, but it was the lack of clearing the forests and cutting trees that was the problem. Here in Arizona, we have bush clearing and designated tree cutting to ease the fire danger, I don't see that in CA. Just think about how much pollution was dumped with these forest fires, a lot more than converting to all electric transit buses.
Have you got any evidence that this was not being done or that the fire was caused by poor forest management? Or more specifically, that action of 'tree huggers' had some role to play in whatever was the cause of the death/damage done?
Sorry, but it does get kind of old when people throw around phrases like 'tree huggers' - seems like the intention is nothing more than to raise hackles.
On a side note, the majority of the forest land in California is under management of the Federal govt, not the State of California.
Here where we reside in heavily forested Florida (Ocala National Forest) there are perpetual "control burns" by the US Forest Service all year long to control undergrowth & fuel in general. On our 7 acres alone there are two "spans" of high voltage lines feeding our transformer & a neighbors transformer. When we purchased the property - part of the land deed wording mandatorily grants the supplying power company approved access to the land for "vegetation control". Our electric coop just recently spent a full day marking trees for either pruning or complete removal for the safety of their grid system. That includes stump grinding at the land owners request. During hurricanes - w/o this practice its futile to keep the power on. When we built our home we elected to have underground service from the last overhead power pole to the structure (about 300') so as not to have that "vegetation control" (3rd party tree service contractors) come anywhere close to the home. This occurs about every three years - we've been here since 83. Buy the way vegetation grows extremely fast in Florida - this is "our" wettest year on record at 73" & counting. Not wet all the time though, our fire class rating is 10 being the worst from 1 thru 10 & it was a miracle to find a company that would underwrite a homeowners insurance property for a log home...
Richard, one of the core functions of any level of government is roads.
Parks are set aside for our enjoyment but passenger rail ought to be in the private sector.
I'm talking about longer distance not localized commuter type to avoid misunderstanding.
Private airlines make money and say what you want but it's a proven model that the free market determined to be the preferred mode of cross country travel.
Yes cars and buses make up the balance.
QuoteSalt water can be converted to fresh
If this was done at scale, the Earth would be uninhabitable as it takes mucho heat (energy) to desalinate ocean water.
Nobody likes more regulations but it becomes forced as the residents of Earth are too stupid to speak up when big problems are brewing. The example Richard offers where rivers have to catch fire before action is take to clean them up, really? The majority of residents are just too f...ng lazy and exercise their civic duty to get engaged with the issues affecting everyone.
California is unique as it is huge yet a US state so it has the political ability to enact legislation to address large scale issues early on. As is often stated, "As California go, so goes the nation". California is the canary in the coal mine for many issues facing people as we progress.
Looking forward, China is leading the charge in many areas for obvious reasons. It's a dual edge sword but the ChiComs can effect change a whole lot faster when desired.
That is true about the Federal land and state land but to tell the truth 80 percent was State lands in the Camp Fire don't know about the Malibu fire or the Wooley fire.
Actually P.G. & E. Is suppose to clear any trees that are close to their lines and had failed on that note but they also admit to sending down the line through Paradise what is called a reverse power surge through the lines to test for any problems and they sparked right over the forests in that town and is under investigation by both the State and PG&E. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.
It is just that everything for a nasty fire was in place. We had many years of Drought as well as over 2 million tree killed from Bark Beattle infestation ( put that into google and see the comparisons over a two year period).
Which brings up the problems of trying to get all the dead trees out which was just overwhelming to clear out over 100's of miles in the sierras and the Butt county mountains.
Geoff, true that the Sierra Club has made a mess of deforestation by getting laws passed that you can not take out downed trees anymore. Their thinking was it disturbed the natural habitat, which to a point is true but they also didn't take into account the above conditions that were not happening when the law was passed. And let me tell you a lot of us fought it hard back then but northern California does not have as much control of the airwaves as southern California has.
But Climate change does have a lot to do with it also weather you believe what well "he who shall not be named" or not. Less water in the ground, a lot hotter summers in the west, dryer winters. They are saying now that fresh water supplies are getting more salt in them now higher up our rivers.
And they do actually have a testiing facility in Santa Barbara California that can chage salt water into fresh water but it is very labor some.
And as far as Rush, Seriously we threw him out of California many years ago for his bigotry and misinformation. You can read that on line if you look him up in Sacramento union newpaper and SF radio KFBK.
Quote from: CrabbyMilton on December 19, 2018, 06:19:35 PM
Richard, one of the core functions of any level of government is roads.
Parks are set aside for our enjoyment but passenger rail ought to be in the private sector.
I'm talking about longer distance not localized commuter type to avoid misunderstanding.
Private airlines make money and say what you want but it's a proven model that the free market determined to be the preferred mode of cross country travel.
Yes cars and buses make up the balance.
I don't think we're all that far apart on these things, but I have to make a couple of corrections...
Can't find roads anywhere in the Constitution. For a few early years in Milwaukee they tried to have the roads privately built/run. It was called the plank road system (almost all the diagonal roads were plank roads at one time) - ended up a total failure that the government had to take over.
Private airlines do make money. Lots of money. Then why is it that our tax dollars are used to support the airports? If it's all about profit, then have the profit-making companies carry the full cost of the airports and not the general public. I don't fly - that's why we have a bus. Why should my tax money go to support an airport? Answer - because we're all better off when the airports function and people can come and go. Heck, Milwaukee's airport is a prime example of a government run piece of infrastructure that works. Contrast that with the privatized parking spots, bridges, and roads in Illinois, where all the money spent goes to shareholders instead of back into the infrastructure.
The high-speed train infrastructure would ideally go coast-to-coast. Just like the highways were built with federal dollars and then private companies run trucking across them, the high-speed train system could go that route once the infrastructure is in place and running. Also like using tax dollars to build airports so that private airlines can operate. Could you imagine if every trucking company had to build their own roads? Or every airline an airport? Build the train lines, then lease them out to private carriers to operate the trains. These public/private enterprises have operated in many places like this with success.
Folks, I'm as much to blame for taking the original topic too far.
I propose taking it over to the off topic section.
It's a great debate and civilized as well.
What do you say folks?
Agreed. We can pick it up in the off-topics area at a latter time if anyone wants.
What the heck does these last comments have to do with electric busses. Why was this tread highjacked. Disgusting the way it has happened. Mu 2 cents worth.
Ed we all got off topic gee like that never happens around here LOL. So CM moved it over to off topic. But hey feel free to get it back to Electric Buses.
Thanks Dave I have been accused of being off topic or is that kilter more than once. Hope to see you guys in Quartzsite we will be camping up off La Parosa ( miss spelled) road with our Pahrump 4 wheel drive group, course we will be down to see all of our bus people also.
China is already doing it: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/dec/12/silence-shenzhen-world-first-electric-bus-fleet
John
San Francisco already has electric buses-course with the ugly overhead wires to feed the buses, and only on certain routes.
Strange how everyone thinks electric is the answer. When it takes a lot of energy and chemicals just to make the batteries. Let alone the energy to charge them. Then having to replace them periodically and recycling the batteries. Having induction charging at every (or so) bus stop is a good answer-much like Disneyland's submarines recharge by induction when at dock. Personally-I think Diesel is just fine. The tree huggers are not going to admit it, but Diesels are going to be around for many, many more years. And so far we don't know when the oil supply will run out-so far now it is well beyond 100 years away. Good Luck, TomC
Exactly Tom. There's no way around it but unless you go 100% nuclear, you will use fossil fuels such as coal and others to power these electric buses.
Besides, these new diesel powered buses are so clean and quiet it's just amazing.
Gone are the days of steam locomotive type smoke coming from the exhaust pipe.
Quote from: CrabbyMilton on December 19, 2018, 11:31:43 AM
I just make the observation since California is always running to the feds to solve their problems.
Oh ? Other than disaster relief (that all states enjoy) what does California ask of the Federal gubbamint ?
Quote from: CrabbyMilton on December 26, 2018, 10:13:17 AM
Exactly Tom. There's no way around it but unless you go 100% nuclear, you will use fossil fuels such as coal and others to power these electric buses.
Not really:...
(https://busconversionmagazine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmagazineexchange.co.uk%2Fcw%2FMagEx_Design%2FFossil_Fuels_Graph.gif&hash=876a4ed6ae040c3133b030b84a0dfd0a391c7230)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/06/uk-renewable-energy-capacity-surpasses-fossil-fuels-for-first-time (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/06/uk-renewable-energy-capacity-surpasses-fossil-fuels-for-first-time)
This graph doesn't show the contribution of nuclear of course, but it nonetheless does illustrate that the point that you shouldn't swallow the idea that something is impossible just because a politician tells you so.
Jeremy
Gas prices in UK. and Japan are close to $5.00 or higher per gallon. A lot of that money subsidizes rail use. How long will rv's or conversions be around at that price.
Quote from: chessie4905 on December 29, 2018, 02:00:21 PM
A lot of that money subsidizes rail use. How long will rv's or conversions be around at that price.
Where are you getting that from? Rail services here are run by private companies and have nothing to do with taxes on road fuel
Regarding RVs - why should they suddenly start to disappear? The last fuel crisis (shortages / rapid price inflation) was 40 years ago (1979) and since then the supply has been stable and price changes gradual. Fuel prices right now are really quite low comparatively-speaking, even ignoring the effect of inflation - petrol is currently around 125p per litre at the moment compared to almost 150p per litre back in 2012-13
On the subject of private bus-into-motorhome conversions incidentally - such things don't really exist in the UK other than in the hands of a few oddballs like me - there are plenty of commercial bus conversions around of one sort or another though
Jeremy
79? We had soaring prices in early 2000's Just about killed bus conversions. Just now starting to recover. And the recessions didn't help either. Even if the rail services are privately run, the high price of fuel encourage their use. And we're talking about a smaller area than the US. For rail service to be profitable here it has to serve thousands of passengers in a limited area. Like NE or high density areas in California.
One artical mentioned that early on Japan went with rail service because they were concerned a build up of airlines might not be viewed upon well after WWII. Could have been suggested by our military, during occupation right after the end of war, although that is just speculation.
Jeremy -
Don't know if you're aware, but you can take all of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and Ireland and drop them into California and they'd only take up a little over 60% of the size of the state.
The Irish think that a 175 km trip from Belfast to Dublin is so far, they stay overnight. In CA, that's a two hour drive from Fresno to Bakersfield on the motorway - easily round-tripped in a day.
Point being that it's extremely difficult to compare travel between the UK & EU with the States, simply due to the vastness of the country and the different population densities. There's also no way that HSR (the politician's favorite acronym for High Speed Rail, aka Bullet Train) can compete with an airplane for trips like LA to Seattle, or SF > NYC. Heck, the CA politicians can't even comprehend that their "baby" HSR from SF>LA cannot compete with an airliner, so they continue to blow the taxpayer's money on the "train to nowhere. . ."
FWIW & HTH. . .
;)
Yes I'm aware the UK is small, and I also wasn't trying to make any kind of wider point about the merits of train travel.
The point I WAS trying to make was that you can go badly wrong if you only consider something (eg. the price of fuel in another country) from your own perspective. In European terms fuel in the UK is comparatively cheap (Italy, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, Portugal etc etc are all more expensive), but compared to the US the reverse is true - but to make an intelligent comparison you need to compare prices in real terms (ie., affordability) by factoring-in family incomes, taxes paid, benefits received, and a whole bunch of other stuff as well
When comparing with the US specifically - and without making any political points either way - it's fair to say that European counties take a much more 'tax and spend' approach to things - so that for example a UK family will pay much more tax when buying fuel but will also get much more back in the form of free healthcare and child support and stuff like that, which I assume (correct me if I'm wrong!) isn't the case in the States. I'd also guess that the physical amount of vehicle fuel bought and consumed by a UK family each week/month/year is typically much lower than would be the case for an equivalent US family.
And of course all the above is completely outweighed by the most important factors of all, which are simply the expectations and experiences of the person paying for the fuel. If you are used to paying $1 per gallon and you hear on the TV news that the price is about to go to $1.50 you're going to feel like the world is coming to an end and that you may as well push both the TV and your bus off a cliff. But if you were already paying $5 a gallon and the TV says the price is going to $5.50 then that exact same price increase 'seems' much less important and you just sigh and change channel.
Jeremy