Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Also keep in mind FE = emissions and emissions = FE. In Europe the equivalent to CAFE is CO2. At the tailpipe they are exactly the same thing.
|
Only if you define emissions as CO2. I personally don't consider to CO2 to be a "pollutant" like CO, NOX, hydrocarbons, and things like that that actually "pollute" and lead to health problems and smog.
And with that definition of emissions, FE and emissions have little correlation. A new V8 powered pickup today is much cleaner than a Honda Civic 15 or 20 years ago was.
And in the 1970s, FE and emissions worked against each other. In the 70s, emissions regulations meant low octane gas, low compression ratios, and large, inefficient air pumps, all of which torpedoed efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
You said Shale Oil. Who is actually making Shale Oil into Oil in any reasonable amount? Even Tar Sands cost more money to make oil. Shale is even more expensive than that.
|
Perhaps Shale oil isn't exactly the right terminology. It is my understanding that oil companies are figuring out how to use fracking to produce oil similar to what began with natural gas a few years earlier. The basic process has been know for decades, but only recently has the technology become advanced enough, and the price of oil high enough to make the economics of it work.
These sources are indeed more expensive than conventional oil, but at today's prices, they are still very profitable. Production from places like North Dakota is sky-rocketing (hence the need to build new pipelines), and could be in the millions of barrels a day in just a few short years.