OP
OP
Quite right. The UK is even more irrelevant.
UK to Ban Sales of New Petrol Fuelled Motorcycles from 2040
- Thread starter Fawlty
- Start date
diferg
Dan & Ingrid
So non petrol motorcycles are fueled by R-134A?
rwthomas1
Site Supporter
"Carbon output" isn't only tied to population, its tied to industrial output. Killing industrial output in a 1st world country, to reduce that countries emissions, and then moving that same industrial output to a 3rd world country, where the environmental laws are more lax, with the additional help of reducing the average pollution per person due to the much higher population, does absolutely nothing. Well, it does virtue signal nicely.
Sadlsor
Site Supporter
You will own nothing, and be happy.
1234yf and 134 can't be intermixed, oils are different, 1234yf machines have identifiers. So if some has a problem with the a/c and one some added 134 to a yf system and didn't tell you and your using a old 134 converted machine that you recover freon Now your converted machine has a contaminated tank of 1234. It will work for a while but what will be long term cost of repair? How many vehicles did you contaminate with that tank? That's the difference between a back yard hack and a professional.
Why take thing out of context never said That has nothing to do with taxing the poor. actually the government trying to oppress poor people
"that is just you being lied to by mechanics about how much something costs" you just paid $80 for an 8 oz can, so in your world shops aren't allowed to make money? "Currently refrigerants entering the country are subject to a tax of around 210% percent. " If they are taxed so high why are they still coming in, because freon manufactured here are also heavily taxed or as the government says "enviormental fees".
Last edited:
Grasping to vague concepts that don't track to anything tangible is virtue signaling.
35% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the US are from electricity production. 20% of electricity production is renewable (wind, hydro, and solar; not nuclear), and 20% is coal. If just that coal moves to renewables, then that wipes out more than 50% of the total carbon footprint of US electrical production. An 18% reduction in carbon output that has zero impact on the industrial sector.
38% of the carbon emissions are from transportation; literally tailpipe emissions. Breaking that out, rail accounts for 1.7% of transportation emissions, air transit for only about 2.5%, commercial trucks contribute 23.4%, and passenger cars 58.5%. The remaining 14% is predominantly ocean shipping vessels.
If the average fuel economy of commercial trucks can go up from 7.5 MPG to 15, be it with hybrid drivetrains or electric long-hauls or electric short-haul fleets, that's a 5% carbon reduction overall. If the average fuel economy of passenger cars bumps up to 50 MPG by the same concepts (further electrification, hybrids becoming the standard offering like Toyota has shifted to with the Sienna and Camry, etc), that's an 11% reduction in overall carbon. 16% reduction just by making vehicles use less gas.
So if the US can reduce carbon emissions by 34% by phasing out only coal and making vehicles less expensive to operate per mile, and the infrastructure ramp-up to build batteries and wind turbines and charging stations adds to the industrial sector, the suggestion that reducing carbon output results in "killing industrial output" is farcical at best.
This "there's no perfect option so let's keep going with the absolute worst since it's meaningless anyway" mentality pains me because it's decisions for how I'm going to spend my forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies being made by people that will have long before become "worm bait", as @the Ferret so eloquently put it yesterday. We're talking about policies for 2040.
Let me look at the very next line after the one I quoted in that comment...
You can't recover R-1234yf into a R-134a machine. The fittings are threaded in reverse from one another and the vehicle-line-side valves are a different size.
Sadlsor
Site Supporter
Carbon dioxide is not the problem it's purported to be. You don't like trees or plants? This debate goes on and on, but no minds are ever changed.
The entire "killing the planet" diatribe is hyperbole, and the recent comment about 3rd world countries out-polluting the US and Canada is valid, IMO. We've already been taxed, regulated and penalized past the point where our industry and economy have suffered, and negatively impacted the world economy. According to the designs of Klaus Schwab and the WEF.
I maintain it's all for the purpose of global wealth redistribution, and very little to do with "saving the environment." But they won't tell us that.
Just like they won't tell us about the "carbon footprint" resulting from mining the minerals for EV batteries (not to mention the disposal problem), nor the non-recyclable massive wind turbine blades, nor the used-up solar panels which are mostly solid waste.
Thing is, dissent is usually argued against, and only more rarely actually discussed and considered.
line side adapters are easily available. My bad, misread but you have to have identifiers with 1234 that have to be change frequently. I take it you never used a 1234 yf machine.
It only helps the tree/plant situation if we aren't also actively deforesting like crazy. That has slowed, but it's still a net loss.
Grass has minimal carbon capture, as does algae.
"IMO" as an argument against direct stats is, frankly, laughable. Your opinion doesn't make and shouldn't make an impact in what is actually happening: sea levels are higher, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher, mean surface temperatures are higher, mean seawater temperatures are higher, and the occurrence of record-setting weather events in all parts of the world is on an annual rather than a centennial trend for the first time in history. The temperature increase in the last hundred years has been higher than any ten thousand year period in the last hundred million. But your opinion that some cabal is making this up to drive wealth inequality for some reason when oil companies with a vested interest of 8% of the US economy benefit from not moving away from oil consumption is wild.
The "carbon footprint" of mining raw materials for EV batteries is well-documented and an active point in discussion with regard to environmental intent in sourcing new lithium. Saying "they won't tell us" about it just means you've decided not to look. Again, your opinion isn't factual. (By the way, mining enough lithium for one EV results in about 15 tons of CO2 emitted. This is primarily the electricity profile of extraction from lithium carbonate, which is solved by moving away from coal electricity production. Diving further into that, a gallon of gas when burned lets off 20 lbs of CO2 and the production of a gallon necessitates 6 kWh of electricity, which at current domestic electricity source spread produces another 12 lbs of CO2, so the carbon footprint of one gallon of gas is 32 lbs of CO2. The NHTSA holds that average driven mileage per year is 13,500 miles, the EPA currently estimates the average MPG of passenger vehicles on the road at 26.2 MPG, and that gives an annual carbon footprint per driver of 8.15 tons. If you live somewhere that solar, wind, or hydro is your grid source, and you drive an EV, you hit carbon neutral against a gasoline car in under two years and then have lifetime reduction. If you live in an area with entirely anthracite coal, the timeline is 4 years.)
There's no "disposal" problem for EV batteries. 99% of the lithium and 99.7% of the cobalt are extracted in recycling processes. These processes are only carbon-emitting if their electricity is produced from coal or gas.
The wind turbine blades aren't specifically recyclable because they're large and difficult to transport. It's also the case that the ones we're seeing disposed are 30 years old at this point; the makeup of the blades has shifted away from strictly fiberglass in the decades since, and even still, they've started being shredded and used as aggregate in concrete pours rather than quarrying fresh limestone.
The solar panel situation sucks, but also, we're getting 30+ years out of them. They aren't recycled because of cost; not because they can't be. And levying a criticism that they just go to landfills so that's no better than burning the oil products misses the mark, once again. The materials that go into a solar panel get 30 years or so of constant use. The gasoline is burned, once, and then stops doing anything.
"...regulated and penalized past the point where our industry and economy have suffered..." Nope. That's literally nothing to do with it. The industrial sector in America has higher industrial production than ever. You're not seeing the effects of globalization and outsourcing and political deafness; you're seeing the result of combines population growth and automation. In 1980, it took 10.3 man-hours to produce a finished ton of steel. In 2020, it was down to 1.7. Man hours per ton of coal has dropped 50% in the last 50 years. In the oil and gas sector, productivity per man hour has halved in the last five years as horizontal mining increases yields per well shaft. We're producing several times more industrial goods per person than we were 30 years ago. There just aren't jobs attached to it because we can automate vehicular welding apparatus and blast furnaces and injection molding; ever consider the fact that every automaker used to have an entire team of machinists repairing and making dies in each factory, that have now been replaced with one engineer running CNC mills on ten dies at once?
"I maintain it's all for the purpose of global wealth distribution..." Great. And this isn't going to change your mind, because it suits a narrative you've been spoon-fed from echo chambers for decades. That "green" is fake, that it's a ploy to make blue collar workers suffer, that it's sending money away to China and India, that it's hurting the economy. Manufacture of infrastructure for "green" energy solutions is currently the only sector of the western economy that is seeing growth in blue collar employment. It's going to do a lot of harm to push back against it to the point that the only options for sourcing equipment and infrastructure and engineering solutions are imports. And in the meantime, the oil companies that actually have skin in the game, that actually have enough financial strength to lobby for policy changes, will continue to rake in money; will continue to make record profits as they tell us that political factors are the reason for high gas prices and electricity rates and so on.
Well said!
I'm almost 70 and I probably won't be here when bad decisions made today begin to negatively impact my life, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that decisions we make now will affect future generations even beyond today's young people like you. I'd like to think that long into the future people will be glad that we considered them. I'm not hopeful because it has rarely happened before.
That one ”direct stat” proved your whole argument for premise, frankly, laughable…
Tom
If a tech is using line-side adapters to pull 1234yf through a 134a RRR machine that isn't certified by the manufacturer to be compatible with both and provides a decontamination regimen, they're already in violation of their Section 609 licensure. The fact that YF is flammable and 134a equipment isn't necessarily manufactured with that consideration would have me steer away from it.
The identifier doesn't have to be changed at all; the Nuerotronics Mini ID is the standard for YF and the filters are only $70 when they get oil-fouled. Yeah, it's $800, but the 134a ones are about $500 and the filters cost about $70 so it's an extremely minimal cost variation.
If a shop is trying to save a buck by avoiding a second recovery machine, that's no different than the ones that avoided getting OBD2 computers and tried getting by on jumper wired between pins for CANBUS diagnostics. Shortcuts only go so far.
I haven't used the RRR machine for 1234yf yet; I've done straight recovery though and it's really no different.
Mark B
Site Supporter
You guys need to go ride your motorcycles!!!!
Sadlsor
Site Supporter
I shall withdraw from this less- than- useful cataclysmic, doomsday fantasy of yours, as I don't wish to be responsible for your aneurysm or stroke.
But as I said, and as I expected, no minds have been changed here.
For every *cough!* "expert scientific" white paper or government- funded grant- written "study" you produce, I can find one to refute it.
The earth has been changing since the dawn of time, and will continue to change, with or without our help.
Probably the smartest comment on all this is...
You guys need to go ride your motorcycles!!!!
the Ferret
Daily rider since May 1965
The motorcyles that burn gas and oil or the electric sport touring ones?
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
- Messages
- 1,156
- Age
- 64
- Location
- Coquitlam British Columbia Canada
- Bike
- 2009 ST1300
my understanding of the new refrigerants [particularly the aforementioned, and for automotive at least] is that they're a bit like 134a, which was a lot like R12, and while I haven't looked into it too much, when I was retrofitting supermarkets with R507; a zeotrope, HP62 was an option, and the first real product from dupont. Allied chemicals came up with 507, it evaporated proportionately so I stuck with that [after HP80 and MP39 which were horrible blends with terrible temperature glides, and the rest of the mysterious stuff like 408 and 409.]
It's all behind me now, but what I find very interesting is that [and I won't mention any names or companies] but some mechanics who's opinions I regard with great consideration couldn't give a fidler's bow if they mixed 507 with 62 or vise versa; position being that they're so close in all aspects critical to performance and chemistry within the refrigeration system.
I've heard the same with some of these esoteric / exotic replacements for 134a; and I think if one looks closely at the corresponding compressors, line sizes, valves and accumulators, they approximate sizes and flow rates were already used to with 134a and not far off R12.
After a while it all starts to look a bit like the orange antifreeze in my Jeep. Like Steve Martin said... "they're shooting at these cans!!! It's the cans!!!"
It's all behind me now, but what I find very interesting is that [and I won't mention any names or companies] but some mechanics who's opinions I regard with great consideration couldn't give a fidler's bow if they mixed 507 with 62 or vise versa; position being that they're so close in all aspects critical to performance and chemistry within the refrigeration system.
I've heard the same with some of these esoteric / exotic replacements for 134a; and I think if one looks closely at the corresponding compressors, line sizes, valves and accumulators, they approximate sizes and flow rates were already used to with 134a and not far off R12.
After a while it all starts to look a bit like the orange antifreeze in my Jeep. Like Steve Martin said... "they're shooting at these cans!!! It's the cans!!!"
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
- Messages
- 1,156
- Age
- 64
- Location
- Coquitlam British Columbia Canada
- Bike
- 2009 ST1300
Which brings me to my next question... If I mix the orange with the green... will I go to hell?
Amazing how a false claim has morphed in to a perceived notion that is causing such craziness.
No one is showing the exponents.
You need to just go do the math to see that Co2 has insufficient capacity to do anything to our climate's temperature.
Co2 is a gas. It has 10-6 (1 in a million) ability to change our temperature and that can only happen at the boundary layer where it touches the earth. All the Co2 and air above looses heat at 3.5 degrees per 1000 feet. So all the upper atmosphere is colder and cannot heat the earth.
The earths surface is heated by both the sun and geothermal energy from the core. This last part is left out of the discussion since it will wipe out the fear. The heat in the top layer of soil and water is that which controls our climate. The air is warm because of the constant radiation from the ground/ocean. Not from a microscopic trace amount of Co2. Geothermal energy is the regulator that will keep us from any thermal runaway. Well bore hole data shows how this works and was throw out as not useful in 2001. Shutting down fossil fuels fixes nothing. Electric vehicles are a great solution for half of us. The other half will still need gas/diesel for the long heavy haul....
Co2 does not harm the environment it helps the plants.
DO NOT believe me! Go open some real science books and do you own research. Look for what is missing.
I did some research on this and wrote a short paper. Which will some day come to light.
But the blind are still leading the blind off a cliff.
Now you know the rest of the story.
Time to go ride, make some Co2, to feed the plants.
No one is showing the exponents.
You need to just go do the math to see that Co2 has insufficient capacity to do anything to our climate's temperature.
Co2 is a gas. It has 10-6 (1 in a million) ability to change our temperature and that can only happen at the boundary layer where it touches the earth. All the Co2 and air above looses heat at 3.5 degrees per 1000 feet. So all the upper atmosphere is colder and cannot heat the earth.
The earths surface is heated by both the sun and geothermal energy from the core. This last part is left out of the discussion since it will wipe out the fear. The heat in the top layer of soil and water is that which controls our climate. The air is warm because of the constant radiation from the ground/ocean. Not from a microscopic trace amount of Co2. Geothermal energy is the regulator that will keep us from any thermal runaway. Well bore hole data shows how this works and was throw out as not useful in 2001. Shutting down fossil fuels fixes nothing. Electric vehicles are a great solution for half of us. The other half will still need gas/diesel for the long heavy haul....
Co2 does not harm the environment it helps the plants.
DO NOT believe me! Go open some real science books and do you own research. Look for what is missing.
I did some research on this and wrote a short paper. Which will some day come to light.
But the blind are still leading the blind off a cliff.
Now you know the rest of the story.
Time to go ride, make some Co2, to feed the plants.