GCC: CARB approves zero-emission airport shuttle rule
- Thread starter GRA
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Nubo
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
The merit of the shuttle rule doesn't depend on the answer.
Nubo said:
In an earlier post you said
You have an axe to grind, and it is blinding you to the obvious: CARB is not perfect by any means but they are head and shoulders above everybody else. As for the airports, every EV in use is a success, and the CARB focus on pollution dense areas not only directly speaks to their mandate, it is also politically astute.
Give this a rest. You opinion has been heard ... and rejected.
WetEV
Well-known member
Nubo said:
Not silly. Look at the exposure side of the equation. It is not just how much, it is where the pollution is released.
A dirty shuttle in the middle of Montana exposes few people to the poisons it puts into the air. And not for long. Few people, far apart. A shuttle from Stanford Airport in Montana to the only hotel in town, the Sundown Motel, if such a thing existed, could be a coal burning steam engine and not have much impact on health.
California airports are crowded with people. The impact of the NOx, PM2.5 released at an airport is higher than the average release in California because there are far more people exposed.
I wish Seatac airport had such a rule.
Nubo
Well-known member
We agree!SageBrush said:
Nubo
Well-known member
WetEV said:
Yes airports are crowded with people, and the air in busy CA airports is atrocious from airport activities and tremendous motor traffic. That's why legislating a handful of vans would be like citing me for farting in the Harris Ranch feedlot.
Anyone who has driven CA I-5 through Coalinga knows what I'm talking about
GRA
Well-known member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DrayageNubo said:
As for bunker oil in port (I think they may use normal diesel #2 for their gensets, but am not sure), that's why CARB is requiring them to use shore power (or reduce emissions in other ways), and providing the hookups for same:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm.
Internationally, the use of cleaner, low-sulphur DFM at all times is mandated a few years in the future, but many areas including California already require its use within national waters:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/ogv.htm
GRA
Well-known member
But of course it's not just a handful of "vans", it's also the aircraft as well as the various other ground vehicles (mainly diesel-fueled) that work at or service the airport that CARB is requiring be cleaned up, not to mention all the private cars that visit it (via the ZEV sales mandates). As far as the ground vehicles go, heavy diesel vehicles generate an out-sized amount of DPM, and just like cleaning up the relatively small numbers of ag equipment (which CARB is also requiring), cleaning those up will have an out-sized effect on local air quality.Nubo said:WetEV said:
Yes airports are crowded with people, and the air in busy CA airports is atrocious from airport activities and tremendous motor traffic. That's why legislating a handful of vans would be like citing me for farting in the Harris Ranch feedlot.
Anyone who has driven CA I-5 through Coalinga knows what I'm talking about
And I have driven past Harris Ranch and other feedlots, and CARB is moving to regulate them more tightly than they already do:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/dairy/dairy.htm
Rulemaking will follow.
