CAFE standards... rolled back

[sgtsandman]

I don't have a problem of the idea of solar farms, just their placement. Around here, they been putting them in perfectly good farm land. It seems to me that there are plenty of buildings with flat roofs, like walmarts and big box stores where they could be using otherwise not used space. Especially in locations where there is a lot retail stores, like Cranberry, Chippewa, and Robinson Township. If they really wanted to think outside the box, all of those retail locations have massive parking lots. They could make use of that area by putting solar panels as roofing, making it nicer for the customers and for the retailers since there would be less area that would need snow clearing. My point is, use the land that is already dead and not growing anything or being used as pastureland.

Windmills, on the other hand are a different animal since they insist on using those giant monstrosities. There is probably a reason for it that I'm just not seeing.

 

[pentode]

Solid state batteries are soon being used.

Toyota aims to launch the 'world's first' all-solid-state EV batteries

Toyota is doubling down on the “holy grail” of EV tech — all-solid-state batteries. Its first EV could arrive as...

electrek.co

Yes, if this materializes it'll be a game changer. I just hope they're able to pull it off as they've been working on the tech a long time and have had several delays. They're famously conservative though, so I imagine they won't bring it to market until they know they have it right. (Current V6 problems notwithstanding - seems everyone's having those)

 

[oldgeek]

There is probably a reason for it that I'm just not seeing.

$$$$

 

[Rick W]

I don't have a problem of the idea of solar farms, just their placement. Around here, they been putting them in perfectly good farm land. It seems to me that there are plenty of buildings with flat roofs, like walmarts and big box stores where they could be using otherwise not used space. Especially in locations where there is a lot retail stores, like Cranberry, Chippewa, and Robinson Township. If they really wanted to think outside the box, all of those retail locations have massive parking lots. They could make use of that area by putting solar panels as roofing, making it nicer for the customers and for the retailers since there would be less area that would need snow clearing. My point is, use the land that is already dead and not growing anything or being used as pastureland.

Windmills, on the other hand are a different animal since they insist on using those giant monstrosities. There is probably a reason for it that I'm just not seeing.

A different perspective from a property owner and a commercial real estate broker…

When you start talking about Walmart buildings, Kroger buildings, skyscrapers, etc. the most expensive maintenance item is the roof. All, and I mean all every single one, solar installation of any size are government subsidized, A LOT! So there’s a lot of pressure on the real estate owners to put them on their big flat roofs.

To put them on the roofs, you have to have an army of people running back-and-forth, anchoring those panels down, marching back-and-forth in army boots, running wires everywhere, etc., etc. The government subsidizes the purchase and installation, but they don’t do anything about the warranty on the roof.

Commercial roofs, the majority nowadays, are HDPE membranes that can last for 30 years or 40 years with maintenance, if you don’t damage them. The replacement on the average Walmart is probably an excess of $300,000- $400,000 plus. The government doesn’t pay for any of that if you have to do it in 10 years instead of 30 years. Everybody who puts in the solar panels gets paid within 18 months of when they’re put in, but there is no relief for the property owner when the roof fails early.

And, BTW, the property owner is not Walmart. The property owner is some sucker who built the building and was lucky enough to get Walmart to go in there. Walmart loves it, and it is a catastrophic death to the people who own the building, we’re all always the bad guy…

 

[19Walt93]

Does this mean that the next time i take my 98 Ranger to an oil change place, they won't tell me it needs 5w-20 colored water? My oil filled cap says 10w-30. Owners manual talks 10w-30, 10w-40 and 20w-50. I ran the latter most of the 28 years I've owned it. Currently running 10w-40 due to noisy start up when it's frigid outside.

I took it to a Valvoline joint a mile away a couple years ago. Told them to put 20w-50 in it. They refused and told me it had to have 5W-20. I told them they could fvck right off. Change it myself now. What happened to "The customer is always right"?

Several years ago Ford issued a TSB saying to use 5w30 in everything mid 90's and earlier. My 351 Ranger runs Motorcraft 5w30 and seems to like it. 5w30 and 10w30 both have upgraded additives than 10w40 doesn't have. My friend, our old body shop manager, has had to replace the cam phasers in his 3 valve 4.6 F150 multiple times- I think because he insists on 10w40 and they effectively run dry on cold starts.
"Multi viscosity" oil oil isn't really, the viscosity is just more stable. 5w30 gets no thicker when cold than a 5 weight would and no thinner when hot than a 30 weight oil. Oil that's too thin lubricates poorly when hot, thick oil like 20w50 makes the oil pump work harder and adds parasitic drag, as well as lubricating poorly on start up.

 

[00t444e]

The whole CAFE standards deal is a complete scam and nothing but government overreach. The consumers need to decide how fuel efficient they want their vehicles to be not the government. If they made a new Ranger like the 2011 and older ones with a basic V8, manual transmission, and manual shift 4x4 I would buy it, even if it only gets 14-15 MPH that wouldn't bother me at all. Reliability and power are way more important to me than fuel efficiency.

 

[Shran]

Several years ago Ford issued a TSB saying to use 5w30 in everything mid 90's and earlier. My 351 Ranger runs Motorcraft 5w30 and seems to like it. 5w30 and 10w30 both have upgraded additives than 10w40 doesn't have. My friend, our old body shop manager, has had to replace the cam phasers in his 3 valve 4.6 F150 multiple times- I think because he insists on 10w40 and they effectively run dry on cold starts.
"Multi viscosity" oil oil isn't really, the viscosity is just more stable. 5w30 gets no thicker when cold than a 5 weight would and no thinner when hot than a 30 weight oil. Oil that's too thin lubricates poorly when hot, thick oil like 20w50 makes the oil pump work harder and adds parasitic drag, as well as lubricating poorly on start up.

I like running 5w30 in just about everything. I have a couple oil changes worth of 10w30 left that I'm going to use up but I think 5w will be my new standard for most of my fleet after that. My wife's car is supposed to have 0w-20, that's all I've used so far. Seems pretty thin at room temp... almost like water when it's drained at operating temp.

We ran 20w50 in the 302 in the old offroad race truck because it would dang near lose oil pressure during races. It was pretty common for that engine to spend a lot of time at 220-240 degrees. IIRC we tried 5w and 10w oils and the oil pressure was fine before it got really hot. It was way happier with 20w50. I imagine a very well used, worn out engine & oil pump probably was the main issue.