A way to improve the environment... cheap

[uscitizen]

I don't think so. I can't speak for Thailand as I've never been there. I have been to the Philippines, around the Caribbean, some of central America and Mexico and invariably they were some form of two stroke gas engine. Never saw that first propane vehicle.

I was iin China about 12 years ago. They used diesel powered (?) 2 wheel tractors that smoked like freight trains.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Certainly. Particularly if it's run by a two stroke engine. Modern engines covered under CAA regulation have combustion efficiencies well in excess of 95% where as a typical two stroke engine runs at around 65% combustion efficiency. You're 300 hours number is a lowball number that would be appropriate for a urban home owner in Chicago but not a suburban home owner in Charlotte who will have both larger yards and longer seasons so a 400 to 600 hours would be more accurate. But for the sake of argument lets use your 300 hours figure and assume that represents 1/2 gallon of fuel at todays price of around $2.50/gal. With a 30% inefficiency you can account for an initial cost of around $175. In addition these small engines represent about 25% of total emissions in urban areas for VOC's (volatile organic compounds aka hydrocarbons) NOx (responsible for ground level ozone and acid rain), carbon monoxide (a green house gas and a respiratory toxin) so your talking about a substantial reduction in the cost related to these pollutants which impact quality of life, health, agriculture, etc. Now that's just for small two stroke lawn mowers and weed wakers. The cost benefit for motor scooters and motorcycles would certainly be saved in fuel efficiencies alone.

In addition the $300 cost quoted is for retrofitting two stroke engines in small motorcycles which is arguably a difficult sell, particularly in places like SE Asia, where a working person might only be making a few hundred dollars a month but again is a cost that can be justified by increased fuel efficiencies. At the front end manufacturing of two stroke engines with direct injection is only around $5 to $7 per engine which, obviously, is easily compensated for by increased fuel efficiencies.

In the USA it's a moot point as regulation has been put in place by EPA where OEM's of small engines will be required to manufacture them with direct inject technology phasing in through 2011 and 2012 and required there after.

Just for clarification, right now Envirofit also finances the drivers who are paying for the conversion. They pay on a weekly basis out of the money they save from gas. The drivers are actually taking home more money per week despite paying the weekly cost of the conversion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Tuk-tuks of Bangkok and elsewhere are invariably run on propane and are therefore very efficient.

I think you are wrong, but if you have evidence to suggest the bulk are fun on nat gas, please provide it. I would be interested in reading it. Because from what Envirofit said, Thailand is only behind China and India in the use of these two stroke combustion engines.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

for one thing, your estimate of 25% of emissions seems both high and random....is there a source for this?......

second, I'm still trying to get a handle on the quick valuation of the diseconomy....you both seem quick to say that $300 is cheaper than the damage the engine will cause to the environment.....how do you value that damage?......can you show me a technology whereby we can eliminate YYY% of the emissions in the air for $XXX....so we can divide $XXX by your 25% and come up with a dollar amount per engine?.....

Read the first two posts of this thread. All of that data was provided.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Read the first two posts of this thread. All of that data was provided.

???...no it isn't....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

for one thing, your estimate of 25% of emissions seems both high and random....is there a source for this?......

second, I'm still trying to get a handle on the quick valuation of the diseconomy....you both seem quick to say that $300 is cheaper than the damage the engine will cause to the environment.....how do you value that damage?......can you show me a technology whereby we can eliminate YYY% of the emissions in the air for $XXX....so we can divide $XXX by your 25% and come up with a dollar amount per engine?.....

Yes, US EPA was my source for that data. As for your question it's asinine and just plain argumentative. Can you place a value on human life? Do you discount the impact on human health and safety that VOC's, NO'x CO and particulate emissions have and the financial cost related to them? Is there an exact formula to calculate that exact cost? Probably not. Do you doubt that cost exist? I assure you it does and it cannot just be measured economically.

Let me ask you this. Why would "diseconomy", as you call it, even be a consideration for regulation of such point source pollution in the first place?

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/proposal/f01025.htm

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Just for clarification, right now Envirofit also finances the drivers who are paying for the conversion. They pay on a weekly basis out of the money they save from gas. The drivers are actually taking home more money per week despite paying the weekly cost of the conversion.

That sounds like a very reasonable incentive to get them to make such a conversion as $300 is a big chunk of money to most working people in SE Asia and coming up with that kind of money to make such a conversion would be difficult for most. I think that's a great idea. Obviously the cost benefit is there from improved fuel efficiency alone.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That sounds like a very reasonable incentive to get them to make such a conversion as $300 is a big chunk of money to most working people in SE Asia and coming up with that kind of money to make such a conversion would be difficult for most. I think that's a great idea. Obviously the cost benefit is there from improved fuel efficiency alone.

Yes, the cost incentive is there. The problem thus far has been getting the drivers to come in. They have only been doing the conversions in the Phillipines thus far and it is getting the drivers to trust in the fact that it is more efficient. Like you said, $300 is a lot of money to them and thus they want to see it work for others. So the going has been slow. Which is why I think the US, China, India and the EU should put together a package to cover the costs as it benefits all of us to see these conversions take place.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

???...no it isn't....

The benefit....

1) reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 76%: equivalent of removing the carbon monoxide emissions of 3.8 billion cars

2) carbon dioxide emissions by 35%: equivalent of removing the CO2 emissions of 1.75 BILLION cars

3) hydrocarbon emissions by 89%: equivalent of removing 4.45 billion cars

4) fuel use is reduced by 35%

5) reduce oil by 50%

yes you idiot... it was... you asked for data on the emissions, the above is the data, what else do you want to whine about? Let me guess, you are taking Econ 101 right now and you think you are thus an expert on economics? If you want to keep on whining, feel free. Ignore is only a click away.

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes, the cost incentive is there. The problem thus far has been getting the drivers to come in. They have only been doing the conversions in the Phillipines thus far and it is getting the drivers to trust in the fact that it is more efficient. Like you said, $300 is a lot of money to them and thus they want to see it work for others. So the going has been slow. Which is why I think the US, China, India and the EU should put together a package to cover the costs as it benefits all of us to see these conversions take place.

Subsidizing stuff only makes it more expensive. Better off having the private sector make profits so there will be many manufacturers of the kits to drive costs down and quality up. These folks bought the vehicles themselves and can decide for themselves if its a good investment. There is already a micro-loan program that could be expanded if necessary.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

. you asked for data on the emissions y.

you see, that's the problem....that isn't what I asked for....I asked you how you value the damage.....you value things as the equivalent of "removing cars".....what is the value to the environment of removing one car in measurable terms.....is it $1 per hour?.....$3.97?.....a hundred thousand?......how do you determine it...

Yes, US EPA was my source for that data. As for your question it's asinine and just plain argumentative. Can you place a value on human life? Do you discount the impact on human health and safety that VOC's, NO'x CO and particulate emissions have and the financial cost related to them? Is there an exact formula to calculate that exact cost? Probably not. Do you doubt that cost exist? I assure you it does and it cannot just be measured economically.

yet liberals never seem to have trouble measuring it economically...."yes, it's reasonable to spend $300 to alter an engine"...."Yes, it's reasonable to change every lightbulb in the world"....."Yes, it's reasonable to change the way toilets flush"...."yes, it's reasonable to shut down coal fired electrical plants".....why?...."because you can't place a value on human life"......at least be honest and don't pretend that "reason" is your method......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yes, the cost incentive is there. The problem thus far has been getting the drivers to come in. They have only been doing the conversions in the Phillipines thus far and it is getting the drivers to trust in the fact that it is more efficient. Like you said, $300 is a lot of money to them and thus they want to see it work for others. So the going has been slow. Which is why I think the US, China, India and the EU should put together a package to cover the costs as it benefits all of us to see these conversions take place.

It will be slow. $300 is more than a months wages for a working person in the Phils. More then likely change will occur as direct inject technology becomes industry standard in the US in 2011/12. OEM's in Asia will have to implement this change in order to remain in the US market.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

you see, that's the problem....that isn't what I asked for....I asked you how you value the damage.....you value things as the equivalent of "removing cars".....what is the value to the environment of removing one car in measurable terms.....is it $1 per hour?.....$3.97?.....a hundred thousand?......how do you determine it...

How do you value the damage? Well first you identify what the damage is. The damage of primary concern is the damage to human health and safety caused by these emmisions. That impact is well documented and I can list those for you if you wish. If you want an exact formula of the economic impact of removing one two-stroke enginem well that probably doesn't exist. However economic models do exist on the cost of air pollutants. One affective model is the PM10 model (PM10 = particulate material greater than 10 microns). This is a good model because PM10 concentrations correalates directly to other forms of air pollution such as VOC's CO, NOx, SOx and ground level ozone. Also particulate matter in high concentration represents the greater health risk of these various forms of pollution. So since PM10 directly correalates to higher concentrations of other health impacting air pollutants and is itself directly proportional to increased health risk rates (increased mortality and morbitity rates) then it provides an excellent indicator to use in calculating the economic cost of air pollution through it's impact on human health and safety (i.e. mortality and morbidity rates). Utilizing this method requires three steps. First, establish ambient levels of PM10 in an impacted region (attainment zone). Second, relate these levels to mortality and morbidity rates for cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Three, apply unit economic values to calculate Total Economic Cost (TEC). You end up with this equation

TEC = Delta A x Ce-r x Pr x U, where
Delta A = change in ambient PM10 concentration
Ce-r = exposure response coefficient
Pr = the population at risk
U = economic unit cost

So there's one (there are others) economic model you can use to calculate the damage caused by two stroke engines by calculating the increase in ambient PM10 levels they cause.

yet liberals never seem to have trouble measuring it economically...."yes, it's reasonable to spend $300 to alter an engine"...."Yes, it's reasonable to change every lightbulb in the world"....."Yes, it's reasonable to change the way toilets flush"...."yes, it's reasonable to shut down coal fired electrical plants".....why?...."because you can't place a value on human life"......at least be honest and don't pretend that "reason" is your method......

There you go again. What is it where those of you on the extreme right, like you, when you can't argue factually have to demonize and marginalize others through the use of pejoratives. How many times do I have to tell one of you extremist that being to the left of a right wing extremist hardly makes one a liberal. Not that there's anything wrong being a liberal (or a conservative for that matter). But when you start out marginilizing people with out a factual basis to do so for the issue at hand, it's a very strong sign that you're on the losing side of that argument.

The problem here is you don't understand "the reason" or you chose to ignore "the reason". The problem for you is grasping the fact that environmental regulation is not based on cost benefit analysis and it would be irrational to do so. Environmental regulation is based on protecting human health and safety. If you don't think that's rational then son you have a screw loose somewhere.

Is there a place for cost benefist analysis in environmental regulation? Certainly. Eventually regulatory standards buck against the economic law of dimminishing returns where you spend more money then you benefit in return. Why are cost benefit analysis used then so sparingly in environmental regulations? It's because when those compromises are made right wing extremist use them as a wedge to completely undermine these health and safety based standards. Ussually they do so for their own narrow econoimc gain with a blatant disregard and contempt for public safety. For that reason, cost benefit based regulations are viewed very much askance and skeptically by Environmental Professionals and Regulators and rightfully so. If you want recent evidence of that the Bush administrations attempt to gut the Clean Air Act by neutering the New Source Review via the Orwellian named "Clean Skies Initiative" would be a perfect example.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

U = economic unit cost

good, that helps us narrow it down......what is the value of U.....

There you go again. What is it where those of you on the extreme right, like you, when you can't argue factually have to demonize and marginalize others through the use of pejoratives.

How many times do I have to tell one of you extremist that being to the left of a right wing extremist hardly makes one a liberal. Not that there's anything wrong being a liberal (or a conservative for that matter). But when you start out marginilizing people with out a factual basis to do so for the issue at hand, it's a very strong sign that you're on the losing side of that argument.

The problem here is you don't understand "the reason" or you chose to ignore "the reason". The problem for you is grasping the fact that environmental regulation is not based on cost benefit analysis and it would be irrational to do so. Environmental regulation is based on protecting human health and safety. If you don't think that's rational then son you have a screw loose somewhere.

well gorsh....never having been marginalized, I'm not sure how to respond......./lol.....

in short, you could have just said "I don't know" and left it at that.....