Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 03/26/2009 @ 07:51:08 PM
You know what's really been bugging me lately? Traffic lights. Absolutely ridiculous. You want to cut down on emissions and fuel consumption, setup some traffic control systems that have more brains than a 1940s switchboard. I'm very tempted to start running red lights when there isn't another vehicle in sight. Isn't the coast of Cali generally kept cool by the ocean and aren't there mountain areas that are generally cool as well. I bet that more than 50% of the time in that state cars being warmed by the sun keeps people from turning on their heaters as opposed to being so hot that they have to run the AC. So until I see the numbers, I'm going to assume that from a scientific point of view this is just dumb. Beyond that it seems logistically implausible to enforce and put to a referendum vote I highly doubt it would be passed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 03/26/2009 @ 10:06:53 PM
well, all it could really mean is they would ban the sale of them, so people who wanted a black car would just buy one out of state. I don't doubt the numbers work out, but I wonder if they had thought of just publicizing that data. If the average person just out looking for a car who didn't really care about the color the fact that a black car costs $200 more a year would probably go along way toward people not buying them as much. As it stands I'd bet 95% of people don't think of the color as having any impact what-so-ever.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/26/2009 10:07:56 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/27/2009 @ 07:24:27 AM
In Florida, people know about the color. White and light colored cars reign supreme. My wife said that in Australia, everyone has a white car because of how hot a dark car gets. All that being said, though, not all of California is hot all the time. San Francisco has a year round average of around 60-70 degrees, and it doesn't get cold in the winter or hot in the summer. It pretty much stays the same all year. The color of a car in that city wouldn't matter one bit.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 03/27/2009 7:26:03 am

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 03/27/2009 @ 09:28:16 AM
Not to mention California extends as far north as almost being at the same latitude as Chicago. (I mean I know that other things contribute to the weather, but still, there have to be many people in California that run their heat much of the year too.) In fact, here it looks like you'd almost always have the heat going, a little at least.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 03/27/2009 @ 01:17:03 PM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:51:08 PM So until I see the numbers, I'm going to assume that from a scientific point of view this is just dumb. I feel the need to clarify "the numbers". Number of hours of running the heater that are prevented by having a sun warmed dark vehicle for the entire state versus number of hours of running the AC that are specifically caused by having a sun warmed dark vehicle for the entire state. And actually I'd want those numbers converted into fuel cost numbers since it might take more fuel for one than the other. On the enforcement end, couldn't they refuse vehicle registration to darkly painted vehicles? That's probably just as easy as preventing dealers from selling them, plus it wouldn't hurt the sales of dealers near the state borders by restricting their inventory. Not registering your vehicle is one loophole, but that has legal consequences in and of itself already. The other option would be to register it in another state. I'm not really sure what the rules are on that, but registering includes fees so if lots of people started doing that then the bankrupt state of California would be losing a good source of income without accomplishing their goal (the benefits of which are still dubious in my mind anyway).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 03/27/2009 @ 01:21:40 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:28:16 AM In fact, here it looks like you'd almost always have the heat going, a little at least. If it's not below 40 you don't need the heat on, just put on a jacket. Hmm...so the opposite of that would be instead of restricting the paint color of vehicles, maybe they should restrict the amount of clothing that people can wear. If everyone had to walk around in their underwear on days where the temperature is above 80, the AC could be reduced at home, in the car, in public buildings, pretty much everywhere. Plus less clothes worn = less clothes to wash, which saves more energy as well as water. I think I need to send this proposal to Arnold.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 03/27/2009 @ 01:33:34 PM
I think it's fair to assume cooling takes more energy than heating. Your engine and all the inner workings are already hot. The heat probably uses that, to some degree, or at the very least doesn't have to compete with it.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 03/30/2009 @ 03:39:45 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/darkcars.asp		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 03/30/2009 @ 05:33:06 PM
Well, if they would've passed the 20% measure for 2016 they'd effectively ban black cars unless someone can invent new paint. So it wouldn't be banning black cars, but it would be.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/18/2009 @ 05:13:12 PM
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.