Ban Black Cars?

[Pangloss]

This seems a little silly even by California standards. Apparently the state is considering a ban on black-painted automobiles because they allegedly produce higher CO2 emissions.

 

You know, I realize the EPA doesn't test A/C output impact on fuel efficiency, but if they're right then how come I've never seen or heard anything about this? Sure it's a logical enough guess, but it does seem to be predicated on some assumptions, and California isn't exactly Florida or Nevada.

 

Not only that, but the suggestion of the board that's making this recommendation is that other dark colors be made available as alternatives. I mean, if you're going to make a law for what sounds like a tiny improvement, shouldn't you at least make all cars pure white? Shouldn't everyone take the same pain, equally?

 

I don't know, I won't say they're completely wrong, but it seems to cross the line into really esoteric and pointless territory. What do you all think?

 

http://wardsauto.com/commentary/cool_paints_ugly_090324/

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=10076786&nav=9qrx

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_11996607

[YT2095]

isn`t that going to upset a lot of dead people though?

 

erm... Naah probably not

[insane_alien]

but it will upset the spooks(FBI, CIA, insert three letter acronymed spy agency here)

[Sisyphus]

, thoughtless and not even researched. Plus, they already have fuel economy standards. What would this ridiculous law even add? If you force them to follow through on this dubious fuel-saving method and it actually works, that just means they can be less efficient in other areas and still meet the minimum. Whose idea was this?

[Mokele]

Well, it *can* have an effect on car temperature. Ever notice that UPS vans have white tops, and they don't paint their planes brown? They do that explicitly because of heat issues.

 

However, I'm not sure how much this matters for passenger cars, which are usually unused for 90%+ of the time (and often used for commutes, which occur during times of sub-maximal light intensity). If you *constantly* kept the car cool, it could have a big effect, but just cooling it down once you get in probably isn't that big of a deal.

 

Plus, in northern areas (including Northern CA) during winter, having a car that rapidly heats up in the sun would mean not having to use the heater as much (and not leaving the car running to warm up in the morning).

[Sayonara]

I was hoping this thread would be about black cars being racist.

 

It isn't so I have lost interest.

[Mokele]

I was hoping this thread would be about black cars being racist.

 

Ever watch the recent Transformers movie? As one of my favorite webcomics put it, "...Did the black robot just die?..."

[padren]

...can I have a black car if it has no AC, or you just... turn it off?

 

What about in winter up in the mountains - black cars will need less heat than white cars. I say each community should either black or white cars, but white cars clearly should not be allowed to enter cold mountainous regions in the winter...

 

So, basically I could get a white hummer, but that black 4 cylinder geo is out of the question I guess - what was I thinking?? I must be such a selfish bastard!

[jackson33]

This seems a little silly even by California standards. Apparently the state is considering a ban on black-painted automobiles because they allegedly produce higher CO2 emissions.

 

You know, I realize the EPA doesn't test A/C output impact on fuel efficiency, but if they're right then how come I've never seen or heard anything about this? Sure it's a logical enough guess, but it does seem to be predicated on some assumptions, and California isn't exactly Florida or Nevada.

 

Not only that, but the suggestion of the board that's making this recommendation is that other dark colors be made available as alternatives. I mean, if you're going to make a law for what sounds like a tiny improvement, shouldn't you at least make all cars pure white? Shouldn't everyone take the same pain, equally?

 

 

 

I don't know, I won't say they're completely wrong, but it seems to cross the line into really esoteric and pointless territory. What do you all think?

 

It would seem, at least for auto's, banning black cars would seem silly. I'm going to assume the energy savings is in the cost of cooling the interior for short periods, which tinted glass, vinyl roofs have proved effective and auto travel time in California (work/pleasure) is one of the nations highest. However, other dark colors are nearly as costly and/or bright colors reflect near the same percentages of heat. Said another way if all those Black Cars, went to Navy Blue, Dark Brown or Purple, the savings would be negligible.

 

In the US the most popular color is silver with about 20% of National Sales being Silver, White 18% and yes Black 17%.

 

http://www.motorauthority.com/white-and-black-gaining-ground-on-silver-as-most-popular-car-color-in-us.html

 

Now Trucks, Trailers, Rail Cars, Home/Business/Factory Roof Tops are a very different story, possibly Cabs, buses and trains may be an issue. Most involved with these forms of transportation or business already have realized the savings. There are no dark colors on ANY over the road trailer, emphasis on Reefers, rail cars, even containers have some form of reflective tops and home builders take this into consideration, according to location. In Southern Arizona for instance, Snow Roofs are very popular (Rock with white/silver sealer) and required in many subdavisions, where for months every year the average daily highs are well over 100 degrees (Yuma, Phoenix, Tuscon).

[Pangloss]

I think I should have saved this post until 4/1 just to make people wonder if it was an April Fool's joke. (grin) Fun thread.

 

I liked Padren's point about how they should be better in the wintertime. Isn't Northern California pretty cold? And there are mountains too.

 

That was interesting about the percentages, jackson.

[iNow]

I'm surprised nobody has thought about the urban heat sink effect, and how even a bucket being filled with a single drop at a time will eventually overflow.

[padren]

I'm surprised nobody has thought about the urban heat sink effect, and how even a bucket being filled with a single drop at a time will eventually overflow.

 

Not quite following this, the bucket at a time part. Can you elaborate?

[Pangloss]

At risk of getting too far off track (no big deal, let's stray, it's a pretty limited topic anyway), I wonder sometimes if we should do more to reduce that urban heat sink effect. Cars are definitely part of that problem and I would presume that black ones have a bigger impact. (Whew, I skewed it back on topic.)

 

We have "retention areas" in our neighborhood, because we're on land that was reclaimed (elevated) from the Everglades (decades before my time, honest!). They're basically areas of swampland or open water, some of which are hidden from public view, others are arranged as public parks, and others are incorporated as private "lakes" inside housing developments, etc.

 

Sometimes when I leave work I will go the "back way", which entails a drive through one of the larger "retention areas" in the region. I drive a convertible, and when I pass through it with the top down I notice that the air temperature drops noticeably. It's almost like somebody reached over and angled an air conditioner vent into my face -- it's quite sudden and dramatic. This is REALLY dense vegetation on top of a watery base, and it comes RIGHT up alongside the road (they threw bodies into these things back in Miami's Cocaine Cowboy days). And then I pass beyond it and the temp goes right back up again. It's bizarre.

 

There are a lot of these retention areas around. Well here, I think I can show you guys what I mean:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=26.042594,-80.431938&spn=0.221169,0.381775&t=h&z=12

 

East of US 27 is developed; west of 27 is open Everglades. From that high perspective, look at the developed areas East of US 27 and West of I-75. The communities above Sheridan but below Griffin were developed in the 1940s and 1950s, when they didn't know (or care?) about urban heating and so forth -- it's actually LESS-densely developed, housing wise, but there are no retention areas. But below Sheridan and above Griffin you can see the more modern communities -- see how they're all carefully separated? It's almost like a fractal program.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to digress quite that far. The point I was getting at is that maybe we need to develop "retention areas" for all urban areas to try and dump some of that excess heat.

[iNow]

Not quite following this, the bucket at a time part. Can you elaborate?

 

Well, with the starting premise that black (let's say "dark" cars, since navy blue should not be an exception) retain more heat than lighter cars, it's simple fact that having more darker cars will result in more retained heat, and thus higher annual global average temperatures.

 

Following from that, the fewer darker cars you have, the less heat will be retained by these dark colored car surfaces.

 

The "drop in the bucket" comment was meant to suggest that, just because the heat contribution from each individual car seems negligible, and just because we mere humans struggle to wrap our tiny little brains around it, when you add up the contribution of all those millions of dark cars being driven around in California, the rest of the country, and the rest of the planet... the heat retention impact becomes quite real... much more noticable, and measurable.

 

We are living in a time with our climate where we really need to fundamentally rethink our approach, and no change is too minor to make if it can help us. My suggestion is that every little bit helps, just like every single drop of water will slowly fill the bucket until it eventually overflows.

[padren]

The "drop in the bucket" comment was meant to suggest that, just because the heat contribution from each individual car seems negligible, and just because we mere humans struggle to wrap our tiny little brains around it, when you add up the contribution of all those millions of dark cars being driven around in California, the rest of the country, and the rest of the planet... the heat retention impact becomes quite real... much more noticable, and measurable.

 

We are living in a time with our climate where we really need to fundamentally rethink our approach, and no change is too minor to make if it can help us. My suggestion is that every little bit helps, just like every single drop of water will slowly fill the bucket until it eventually overflows.

 

Okay, but honestly I think this is an example of how exactly not to go about it. I do understand the need to inhibit freedoms somewhat in order to reduce our impact but this just seems really suspect and heavy handed. If we give up the freedom to paint our cars black, why do we have the right to drive SUVs or even drive at all for recreation? People who like black have their color of choice taken away, yet people who happen to like SUVs continue to create far larger impacts than paint color ever could? It seems knee-jerk and ad hoc when we need real solutions. It reminds me of what Pangloss happened to say in the stimulus bill thread: Throwing a few billion at a program and saying "it can't help but create some jobs somewhere so it can only help" isn't the right way to go about stimulating the economy, especially when it can be abused.

 

Really, I think we need to be more energy aware and culturally sensitive to our impacts - not implementing random bans on various colors. If it's only in the 90s, throw on a t shirt and roll down the window instead of using the AC. Let your comfort zone expand a bit. Get a smaller car. Walk to the corner store if you can. Do we need to ban quick trips to the store if they are in walking distance, or ration how many someone can take in a week? Awareness and incentives seem to be much more in line with our culture than outright bans.

 

As an aside, if this did happen would it cause economic shifts in raw material demands, and would cause secondary shifts - would people be driving around looking for new jobs?

 

Does white paint require more primer than black paint or primers that are less carbon neutral? We put lead in white paint for a reason - it's very tough to get white to cover. I am not sure what we use now but I know you can still get lead paint in art supply stores because it does such a good job, so I would suspect the alternatives are more production expensive than primers needed for black paint.

 

How much energy is going to be spent putting this bill into motion, and how many cop cars will be idling next to idling pulled over car that were illegally painted black - where both would never have stopped if black was legal?

 

How much energy goes into processing those tickets? How many elderly people will just say "Rubbish" and keep driving their old black boats to the corner store and get pulled over?

How much energy will be spent just assessing the amount of energy that will be spent to enact this policy?

 

 

I am just very skeptical that this has been thoroughly thought out - it strikes me more as a way to feel self important and as if one is taking control of a situation which honestly is a delusion we cannot afford. We need a comprehensive plan to deal with global warming, energy consumption, and sustainable growth... sporadic knee-jerk laws only give us a momentary feeling of smug confidence that we are at least doing something and making some sacrifices, but only distracts from the reality we need a comprehensive plan.

[CaptainPanic]

I'll bite.

 

So, please raise your hands - who is really, really upset that a lot of kitchen appliances are white? You have no choice in the color. It's white!

Who is going to be really, really upset that a car no longer comes in black?

 

It might make a massive difference on short distance drives, if the airco is really turned on to cool the entire interior of the car. Why do you think solar boilers are not white?

It can make a 10 degree difference inside the car (??? I have no source). Let's say that the car's interior is 50 kg, and 10 deg C too hot? Cp value of "car" is 1 kJ/kgK? Then it would cost a whopping 0.5 MJ (Megajoule) in energy!

 

Actually, I am not sure how the airco is working (what's the efficiency). A good airco is transporting heat, but does not consume too much itself. I think that realistically, you'd need to use 0.2 MJ in energy.

 

I believe that it is the equivalent of 5 gram of diesel.

 

Ok, so it makes a "massive" impact on the really, really short drives (less than 100 meters).

 

then, let's address the sun that's continuously shining. Of course, the hot car is now cool, but the sun keeps trying to heat it up! We can get as much as a kW/m2. The interior of the car is insulated (I hope), so let's say that 0.2 kW/m2 reaches the inside. 5 m2 surface of the roof/windows means we get 1 kW/car. In 1 hour of driving, this is 1 kW*3600 s = 3.6 MJ (or 1 kWh).

That's the equivalent of a bit less than 100 g of diesel (but if you're driving continuously, you already spent about 10 liters in that hour, so fuel consumption is 1%). The color black only increases this by a fraction. So: this new law adds less than 1% to fuel efficiency.

 

(Hmm... Wasn't I supposed to be defending the color ban? Engineers always have to calculate )

 

Mods, is it allowed to calculate in the politics forum, or should we just do some civilized fighting in here?

 

Anyway... Perhaps 0.1% fuel efficiency is worth it? Are people really going to cry over this? I admit that it's a bit childish... but how bad is it really? There are so many things where you cannot choose the color.

[SH3RL0CK]

I'll bite.

 

So, please raise your hands - who is really, really upset that a lot of kitchen appliances are white? You have no choice in the color. It's white!

Who is going to be really, really upset that a car no longer comes in black? ...how bad is it really? There are so many things where you cannot choose the color.

 

Umm...there have been different color choices available for kitchen appliances for decades. Surely you recall the horrific Avacado green and Harvest gold from the 70's and 80's? Today, as then, there are many color choices available. Although most people chose white for appliances, but if people are willing to pay they can get the appliances any color they want (and if not, a can of paint will do ).

 

See for example Home Depot:

 

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?Ntk=AllProps&N=10000003+90401+502371&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&langId=-1

 

where there are at least eight different choices of color provided for the applicances: Beige/Bisque , Black, Gray, "other", Red/Orange, Stainless, Stainless Look, and of course, White.

 

Or how about Sears:

 

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/s_10153_12605_Appliances_Refrigerators_Side-by-Side#viewItems=21&pageNum=1&sortOption=ORIGINAL_SORT_ORDER&&filter=Cubic+Feet|Bigger+(22.0+-+25.5+cu.+ft.)&lastFilter=Cubic+Feet

 

where the color choices are black, metallic, off-white (biscuit, bisque), stainless steel and white.

 

Anyway, I'd suggest to these legislators that they pick the low hanging fruit first, so that the efficiency gains are more significant. These would be "smart" traffic lights (so fuel isn't wasted at a Red light when no one is coming the other way), higher efficiency standards on cars, lower speed limits, better mass transportation, etc.

[iNow]

In response to Padren... I really don't have a problem outlawing fuel inefficient vehicles like Hummers or certain trucks. I have zero problem with those vehicles if they increase their efficiency by a few orders of magnitude, but I don't have a problem outlawing a car if it gets less than 50 mpg.

 

The paint thing is a first step, as public outrage would be significant if you tried to outlaw SUVs. So, we outlaw black paint first, and then after a while through these small steps... before you know it, the frog has boiled.

[bascule]

This is silly...

 

I'd much prefer a (continually ratcheted) mandatory minimum gas mileage for ALL non-commercial vehicles. Not some silly fleet-wide average, but an absolute minimum.

 

Banning owners of Priuses from painting their car black isn't going to change the fact that mile-for-mile a Hummer uses the same gas as 8 Priuses. That's the bigger issue.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Well, with the starting premise that black (let's say "dark" cars, since navy blue should not be an exception) retain more heat than lighter cars, it's simple fact that having more darker cars will result in more retained heat, and thus higher annual global average temperatures.

 

Following from that, the fewer darker cars you have, the less heat will be retained by these dark colored car surfaces.

 

The "drop in the bucket" comment was meant to suggest that, just because the heat contribution from each individual car seems negligible, and just because we mere humans struggle to wrap our tiny little brains around it, when you add up the contribution of all those millions of dark cars being driven around in California, the rest of the country, and the rest of the planet... the heat retention impact becomes quite real... much more noticable, and measurable.

 

We are living in a time with our climate where we really need to fundamentally rethink our approach, and no change is too minor to make if it can help us. My suggestion is that every little bit helps, just like every single drop of water will slowly fill the bucket until it eventually overflows.

 

Not likely. With all these black cars it will likely evaporate.

[Pangloss]

Just to update this, the plan was dropped after public outcry.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/the-great-california-black-car-crisis-is-over-for-now-at-leastthe-california-air-resources-board-said-friday-that-it-has.html