"What Obama stuff can we roll back today?"

"Well... we could roll back anti-pollution standards... but that would probably kill people..."

"Who cares about killing people?! The important thing is to undo everything that that Kenyan ever did!"

"What Obama stuff can we roll back today?"

not much obama stuff left.

but im sure we will find something to fulfill your request

cheers

A Reckless Scheme on Auto Emissions

The Trump administration’s decision to try to weaken President Barack Obama’s landmark 2012 agreement to increase fuel efficiency and decrease global warming emissions from automobiles is dismaying on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin.

The proposal from the current administration would freeze the average fuel economy after 2021 at about 37 miles per gallon; the Obama-era rule would have required automakers to hit an average of about 54 miles per gallon by 2025. The Trump plan would also revoke a waiver that the federal government granted to California, which allows the state to set stricter standards because of its particular air pollution problems.

Cars and trucks are currently the largest source of planet-warming emissions in the United States.

The proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation sets up a protracted legal fight with California and the 13 other states, including New York and New Jersey, that have chosen to follow its stronger standards. The state’s waiver was authorized under the 1970 Clean Air Act and has been renewed dozens of times by the E.P.A. It is one more nail in the coffin of Mr. Obama’s climate strategy, and further increases the already long odds of reaching Mr. Obama’s pledge at the 2015 Paris summit on climate change to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by more than a quarter below 2005 levels by 2025.

Of the Trump plan, Gov. Jerry Brown of California said in a statement : “Under his reckless scheme, motorists will pay more at the pump, get worse gas mileage and breathe dirtier air. California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible."

To justify the unjustifiable, the Trump administration is deploying a series of bogus arguments that freezing the Obama standards would prevent nearly 13,000 traffic fatalities. That number stands in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s conclusion that its standards would lower fatalities by 100.

The Trump administration uses three dubious assumptions to reach its conclusion. First, it asserts that people who buy more fuel-efficient cars would drive more — about 1.3 trillion miles more than previous estimates — because it would be cheaper to do so and they would, thus, be at greater risk of accidents. This is what experts call the rebound effect, but few researchers say the effect is this strong. One scholar, Kenneth Gillingham, a Yale economist, whose work the government relied on to come up with its numbers, told The Times that the administration ignored more recent work that showed a much smaller effect.

Next, the administration says that because more fuel-efficient cars would be more expensive, fewer people would buy them and they would choose to keep driving older cars that tend be less safe than newer models. This argument is belied by the fact that car sales have been strong in recent years, even as fuel economy improved to 25.1 miles per gallon in 2018 models, from 21.8 miles per gallon in 2011, according to the Consumer Federation of America . On average, Americans bought 17 million cars annually over the last five years while about 13 million older models went off the road.

Finally, Trump officials claim that automakers would have to make their vehicles lighter to meet the Obama standards, which would make them less safe. This is bunk. Lighter-weight aluminum, which many automakers have turned to as a replacement for steel, protects motorists better because it crumples and absorbs the impact of crashes better than heavier materials, said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for Auto Safety . Further, newer models tend to have more sophisticated safety features, like automatic braking and lane-departure warnings, that over time should make American roads safer.

On a global level, at a time when the rest of the world (and even many American industries) is investing in newer, cleaner forms of energy, the administration’s policy change would put American companies further back in the race to build more efficient and less polluting vehicles.

And it ignores, as have President Trump’s other actions, the rock-solid scientific consensus that without swift action to limit fossil fuel emissions, like those from cars, the consequences of climate change — rising seas, devastating droughts, wildfires and floods, and widespread species extinction — will get steadily worse.

Of course, none of this was unexpected from a man who once described climate change as a hoax invented by the Chinese to hurt American businesses and who has surrounded himself with officials who, in many cases, owe their political success to the largess of oil, gas and coal companies. Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris treaty on June 1 of last year, less than five months into his presidency, by which time he had already ordered the demolition of nearly all of Mr. Obama’s policies to reduce greenhouse emissions.

The Clean Power Plan, aimed at closing old coal-fired power plants, is stuck in the courts while the E.P.A. devises a largely meaningless substitute. Proposals to reduce emissions of methane, a short-lived though very powerful greenhouse gas, from natural gas facilities are under challenge in the Interior Department. An international treaty to phase out another powerful heat-trapping gas, the hydrofluorocarbons widely used in air-conditioners, languishes on Mr. Trump’s desk.

But of all these rollbacks, perhaps the most galling is the weakening of the fuel-economy standards, which seems a betrayal of history. Just a few years ago everyone seemed to be on board. In 2007, after years in which the fuel economy of the American car fleet had stagnated, Congress asked for improvements. Soon after taking office, Mr. Obama announced a new and much improved set of fuel-economy standards based on greenhouse gas emissions. At a Rose Garden ceremony, he was flanked by officials from 10 automakers and their unions, as well as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California — an unusual and hopeful display of partnership.

In a sense, the automakers had little choice: A federal bailout had rescued two of them, General Motors and Chrysler, from the brink of collapse. Further, without California’s participation in the deal , the entire industry would have faced the unwelcome prospect of two sets of fuel-economy standards — something that is much more likely now.

Though it took several years to iron out details, the net result was an agreement to roughly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles while saving drivers billions of dollars at the pump, reducing carbon emissions and oil dependence and easing the way for a transition to a new fleet of cleaner and safer vehicles able to compete anywhere in the world.

Mr. Obama, in short, forged the kind of deal that the Great Dealmaker in the White House likes to boast about. Now that very same dealmaker is trying to kill it with a plan that has only losers.

The New York Times Editorial Board

What the EPA’s proposed fuel standards could do to your gas mileage

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday announced a plan to weaken fuel-economy standards put in place under the Obama administration.

The new plan would freeze standards at 2020 levels through the year 2025 and beyond. Under the Obama administration, automakers were required to reach a fleetwide average fuel economy for all cars and light trucks of 51.4 miles per gallon by 2025. The Trump administration’s proposal instead freezes that figure at its 2020 level of 36.9 miles per gallon.

But the EPA’s standards refer to testing under laboratory conditions, not the mileage we get when driving our cars on the road. To know how the new standards would affect real-world gas mileage, researchers need to take the further step of modeling how real-world use differs from laboratory conditions.

Simon Mui, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that opposes the change to the fuel standards, calculates that the change would have the net effect of reducing the average real-world fuel economy of American automobiles by about eight miles per gallon in 2025 relative to what it would be if Obama-era standards were kept in place. Mui assumes that real-world driving would result in about 80 percent of the fuel efficiency measured in laboratory testing. He cautions that as the EPA provides more information about its new proposed standard, those calculations may change.

Under the Obama rule, passenger cars and light trucks would see a real-world average of 37.4 miles per gallon by 2025, according to Mui’s calculations. Under the Trump administration’s preferred proposal, that would drop to 29.6 miles per gallon, a reduction in nationwide fuel efficiency of about 21 percent.

The NRDC assessment relies on certain assumptions about the difference between laboratory and real-world conditions, and analyses making different assumptions may calculate larger or smaller decreases. But critics and supporters of the move generally agree: Under this proposal, average real-world gas mileage would probably be significantly lower in 2025 than it would be if the Obama-era rules stayed in place.

Under the Trump administration’s proposal, fuel economy would continue to increase through 2020. But at that point the two rules diverge, with the Obama-era rule mandating continued increases in efficiency.

The difference between the two standards could amount to several hundred dollars a year in increased fuel expenditures for the typical motorist. Under the Obama rule, by 2025 the average vehicle would go through roughly 401 gallons of gasoline to drive a typical distance of 15,000 miles in one year. Under the Trump proposal, that would increase to about 507 gallons. Assuming, strictly for illustration purposes, a gasoline price of $3 per gallon, that would result in an increased annual fuel expenditure of about $318.

The Trump administration says that expenditure would be offset by reductions of several thousand dollars in the cost of new vehicles. It further argues that those reduced costs would allow more consumers to purchase newer, safer cars, which it says would save up to 1,000 lives annually . Many independent experts are skeptical of those claims .

“The law requires fuel economy standards in order to save fuel, and yet this proposal does just the exact opposite,” Shannon Baker-Branstetter, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, said in a statement. “Thanks to emissions and efficiency rules, consumers have saved billions of dollars on fuel over the last 5 years and pollution has dropped. Rather than capitalize on this progress and continue with plans to strengthen fuel efficiency and cut pollution, this move by regulators will ultimately leave consumers footing a higher bill.”

Christopher Ingraham, Wonkblog

Overpopulation is multiplying this problem along with all others

Trump EPA to Roll Back Back Obama-Era Gas Mileage Standards

.

Fortunately for America and unfortunately for Trump the EPA policies are governed by certain rules so many of the EPA rollbacks, (meant to allow more leeway for companies to pillage and poison), are being held up in court because the Trump EPA haven't been able to justify what they're trying to do so the Courts have been stopping many of the proposed EPA changes.

Seems that Trumps' EPA is finding out that they can't just change the rules to please the company that sent over the most hookers or the one who rented the most rooms at  Mar-a-Lago but, instead, they have to proved some well researched, science backed reasons for their proposed changes.

This millage standards roll back announcement is just another example of Trump's people doing their usual, " Ready, SHOOT!, Aim ", kind of crap. 

Much of EPA’s work is governed by statute , so dismantling most environmental regulations requires an arduous rule-making process that requires public comments, as well as new rules to comply with the law. The whole endeavor is inevitably beset by lawsuits at every step. “In order to roll back rules, you have to not just have a different policy inclination,” said former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who worked under President Barack Obama. “If you have a final rule, you actually have to find a flaw with the rule, you have to justify it.”

.

Pruitt did it. Here's why he's loosening the car rules

The agency pointed to industry concerns about motorist safety, technology lapses and the unpopularity of cleaner cars in its justification for rolling back Obama-era standards meant to make passenger vehicles go 54 miles on a gallon of gas by 2025. (Real-world estimates put that number at 36 mpg.)

Those arguments, which echo the concerns of the auto industry and its allies, were often challenged for being inaccurate by agency specialists under the past administration and by environmentalists.

The 38-page document released yesterday sharply contrasts to a years long technical analysis by EPA staff released two years ago. It found that car companies had the technology to meet the rules for model years 2022 to 2025 (Climatewire, July 19, 2016).

"It reflects the ignorance of this administration with regards to science and the degree it will go to reject the skills of its own high-quality employees," said Jim McCargar, a former senior policy adviser on EPA's car program. "It's just flat-out wrong."

The agency's paperwork yesterday marks the start of a new rule making process that's expected to take months. Officials with EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which shares regulatory oversight on fuel economy, will hammer out a detailed proposal for cars made between 2022 and 2025.

.

California, 16 other states sue EPA over auto emissions rollbacks

Trump's environmental rollbacks are hitting major roadblocks

'Sloppy and careless': courts call out Trump blitzkrieg on environmental rules  

If Obama's name has anything to do with anything, the Trump attacks.

This EPA alleged new policy is more Trumpian diversion and nothing more.

Besides, what about that Trumpian Health Care plan that was supposed to be so beautiful?   Like everything else Trumpian, hot air balloon with a hole in the bag.

'Red tide' blamed as whale shark, turtles, dolphins wash up dead on Florida beaches

Updated yesterday at 11:52pmFri 3 Aug 2018, 11:52pm

Photo: A whale shark washed up on Sanibel Island in south-west Florida. (Facebook: Matt Devitt)

Dolphins, manatees and even a whale shark have washed up dead on the Gulf of Mexico beaches because of what locals call the Florida "red tide".

locals call the Florida "red tide".

Pollution needs to be TACKLED now, not doing so will cost more then $$$$ !!

cost more then $$$$

Key points:

• Social media is inundated with images of dead animals
• Toxic bloom washes up on the Gulf of Mexico beaches across Florida
• 160.9 kilometres of coastline has been affected so far, CNN says

Pollution needs to be TACKLED now

I agree and I think actually it should have been more of a priority long ago. Unfortunately, I do not see tackling pollution in this administrations future. (Unless it's very profitable for someone close to or in power) In fact I expect the opposite, more pollution. Saving the environment usually seems to cost profit, today thats a no no. Unfortunately, it seems some humans philosophy is, "Let tomorrow's world deal with it, I want more money now !!"

"Let tomorrow's world deal with it, I want more money now !!"

E.A  Yes that IS the mentality of " The Blind Leading the Blind " But   the old adage " a Stitch in time saves Nine " If more aprop, and there is NO saving $$$ is Tardiness!

 See Exxon Oils Spill in the North, BP in the Gulf, some might think that those Companies made $$s from exploiting their OWN pollution by Selling the Clean up Chemicals, but in the long run, they " killed " themselves and their Customers, no Customers means NO Business!

Variable Compression Ratio Coming to New Infiniti Four-Cylinder Turbo

A practical means of varying an engine’s compression ratio has been a goal of automakers for ages. How hard the air—and sometimes fuel—is squeezed before ignition plays a crucial role in overall efficiency. Varying the compression ratio in a running engine is daunting because the ideal ratio changes with speed and load. One expedient now in wide use is combining the Atkinson cycle—which separates the effective compression ratio from the expansion ratio—with variable intake-valve timing. But the current rise in global mileage standards is forcing every maker to search for additional means of curbing fuel consumption.

E.A  While this is NOT^ what I Meant by " Pay Per Cylinder use " on New truck it does make a point to this erroneous comment Names withheld for " Gun Happy Moderators! "

Many Trucks have a Program that allows the same Engine to be Tunned and detuned to what one pays, how environmental is that!

Where do you get this nonsense? It is obvious that you don't understand the technology. 

==== Now for those that have Not heard of Engines with " Internet of things " running and detuning, I will allow some time for some worth while research to how that is now common amongst some heavy vehicles

  To Be Continued -----

E.A  While this is NOT^ what I Meant by " Pay Per Cylinder use " on New truck

E.A  Basics for those " Know it all "::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2ld2u2lKQ

Eaton’s engine cylinder deactivation new technology

Posted on: 06-5-2017 by: Romain Nicolas

Eaton Cylinder Deactivation – CDA system is the most direct way to reduce CO2 emission, and at the same time improve fuel economy through driving cycle. It overcomes the obstacles of designing a high performance engine that is optimized for fuel efficiency. CDA deactivates the cylinders of the engine whenever full power is not needed. In that way, remaining, active cylinders run in higher efficiency mode, increasing fuel efficiency.

Eaton is knowledgeable in engine air management. As such, they offer a variety of cylinder deactivation solutions for Type 2 (roller finger follower) valvetrains including:

• Hydraulic Lash Adjuster-based
• Roller Rocker Arm-based
• Roller Lifter-based
• Camshaft-based

Eaton has focused its Cylinder Deactivation System offer mainly to the gasoline engines with Type II valvetrain. While typically applied to Type II engines mainly, they can also be designed for Type I (direct acting) and Type III (center pivot) valvetrains, often used for Medium and Heavy Duty Diesel engines. For Gasoline Type II engines with odd number of cylinders (3-cylinders) Eaton Dynamic Cylinder Deactivation systems allows large field of utilization of CDA function: up to 50% of engine load and up to 4000 rpm.

Eaton Cylinder Deactivation function could be incorporated (based on) different valvetrain components:

Hydraulic Lash Adjuster-based:
Latch Pin under HLA keeps part as solid if cylinder is activated. To deactivate a cylinder, the pin is withdrawn and when the cam presses on the RRA, the HLA collapses into its housing, rather than moving the valve.

Roller Rocker Arm-based:
Latch Pin holds the RR/A as one solid piece. To deactivate a cylinder, the pin is withdrawn and the RR/A becomes two concentrically pivoted pieces. When the cam presses on the roller, the roller arm pivots around the valve. Rocker arm and valve do not move.

Roller Lifter-based:
Developed for, larger displacement, gasoline engines with pushrod type valvetrain.

Camshaft based:
Axial Cam-Shifting based, dynamic or traditional CDA.

cylinder deactivation new technology

2019 Chevy, GMC Trucks Get Smarter Fuel-Saving Cylinder Deactivation

January 17, 2018 AT ‎2‎:‎36‎ ‎AM By Bengt Halvorson 13 Comments

Delphi’s Dynamic Skip Fire (DSF) technology is making its production debut in some versions of the fully redesigned 2019 Chevrolet Silverado with 5.3- and 6.2-liter V-8 engines, in which it will be called Dynamic Fuel Management.
For GM, it marks the most significant upgrade the technology has received since it was introduced in its current form in 2005. Chevrolet hasn’t talked Silverado-specific improvements, but Delphi said that, in general, the new technology could boost fuel economy by 5 percent compared with existing deactivation systems that shut off specific cylinders or entire cylinder banks during cruising or coasting.
Cylinder-deactivation systems have been under the hood of a wide range of U.S.-market vehicles for decades—even the V-12 Lamborghini Aventador and the new Mercedes-AMG S63—but the common criticism is that engines so equipped are less refined in their cylinder-cutoff modes and that their transitions on and off are quite noticeable. This new dynamic system could do away with the harsh transitions and vibrations that can accompany such systems.

cylinder deactivation new technology

To prove this concept, last year Delphi installed the technology—called eDSF when it’s joined with a 48-volt mild hybrid system—in a current-generation Volkswagen Passat with a turbocharged 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine and a six-speed automatic transmission. At this year’s CES, Delphi took the car a step further by adding an electric turbocharger, which it calls an e-charger. The e-charger doesn’t replace the existing turbocharger but instead supplements it—enabling a supercharger-like kick of torque off the line, as well as quickened throttle response to help when the engine is restarted and to make up for the slight lag that it and the other components can introduce.

has a mild hybrid option

E.A Yes Hybrids do away with " Range Anxiety " But the real solution is what I mentioned about Induction Driving and Charging, that is using the existing power lines, as most Roads and Streets already have them, and have the Battery Back up for off road use or when one has to go along  in areas that do not have power lines!

As shocking as it sounds, when I retire, I intend to buy a new hybrid.

E.A   LOL I am sure we get over the SHOCK 

How long before you are due to retire?

an unforeseen health or injury issue have no intention of doing that.

E.A Sounds Great one has to keep " Eye on the Prise " and " Look Forward when ploughing " so as not to get off track, so you planning on having PV panels and a Couple In Roof wind turbines to generate you own power and be independent?

If so, then an Electric Vehicle will not only be Free, as the cost of purchase and running will be paid by the Home power system, but all travel will also be free if you will generate more power then you consume and have Credits that can be used on long drives, a great way for a win win for the Pocket AND the environment!

I really enjoy what I do

E.A That sounds great all round, as for Me I think that by the time those eight years ( 8 ) come about, most councils will have electric Ride sharing vehicles, so instead of having one parked in the Driveway or Garage, I be ably to call a self driving one to come pick me up take me to where I want to go and Vise Versa, so no need to waste my " Hard earned savings " on a Parked metal wheel carrier :-)

EA, I will give you credit for showing some of the technologies that are now in play for ICE power plants.

For the sake of clarity for anyone reading along there are a couple errors, I'll just point out the 2 that could get someone down a wrong path is they tried to act on them.

1. Both the video and the Eaton write up refer to a rocker arm in an (D)OHC cam arrangement. For clarity sake, this is wrong. When (D)OCH system are NOT direct acting they do NOT use rocker arms, instead they use what is called a cam follower, or just follower.

2. The Infinity variable compression turbo engine. What you excerpted from that 2 year old article is not representative of what that engine is.

What you presented was a description of what Toyota Motor Corp, renamed and sold to the world as an Atkinson cycle engine, when in fact it is not. Toyota took and renamed one of Ralf Miller's designs and patents then applied the label "Atkinson Cycle Motor". No.

Although Toyota's rip off of Ralf Miller accomplishes pretty much the same effect as what James Atkinson designed and patented both use 2 entirely different methods.

Ralf did it by altering valve timing. One method was to open the intake valve way late relative to crank shaft rotation the other was to close the intake valve way late relative to crankshaft rotation.

James Atkinson's method was to use an intermediate connecting rod between the crankshaft and the piston connecting rod.

This is somewhat similar to what the Infinity engine design employes. However, the Infinity engineers added the ability to alter the length of the intermediate connecting rod which is in fact the component which alters the compression ratio.

For those reading along:

Now, how does the ability to vary compression ratio help this engine?

It's a turbo motor. Turbo motors are famous for being turds at low boost. A lot has been done to improve that. This is another one of those things. At low boost the ECU cranks in a bit from compression ratio and bingo better engine performance at low boost

If you found the part of the article you posted, just read a little further. It's old news but still good to talk about.

EA, I will give you credit for showing some of the technologies that are now in play for ICE power plants.

If you found the part of the article you posted, just read a little further. It's old news but still good to talk about.

E.A Thank You, and Please do!

As I pointed out that was just for the " scoffers " and the " know - it - all " showing that tech is ever changing, the " Cylinder deactivation " was more to what I was Getting, and that now Vehicles are deliver with ONE engine but with Many options as to how many Cylinders are activated by the " Internet of things " being as to what one PAYS for as to what one gets, do you have an opposing view to that?