CARB: Black paint is OK (always was)
OK, so the reality was never as simple as the headlines made it sound. While the simplest way to explain what the California Air Resources Board was trying to do was that they were going to ban black cars, the reality (as we explained in our original post) was that CARB was thinking of requiring automobiles to be painted in colors that were at least 20 percent solar reflective by 2016. To make black paint meet that level would change it from the original color to "mud-puddle brown." Simplify that down to the Internet level, and, boom, "banning black cars" became a thing last week. Now, CARB' spokesman Stanley Young has clarified the proposed rule to the LA Times by saying, "We are by no means interested in banning or restricting car colors" and said that the board has dropped the paint discussion for now. CARB is still interested in reflective glass (which isn't window tinting) to help reduce air pollutants, and is accepting public comments on the idea.
[Source: LA Times, Autoblog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ShaunneyCakes 8:22PM (3/29/2009)
No surprise, I mean really, did anyone ACTUALLY suspect them to BAN the color black? That has political stupidity written all over it...
Reply
jharlan 9:20PM (3/29/2009)
Another knee jerk nonsense edict dropped by public demand. What were they thinking? They just can't keep from trying to tell everyone else what to do. You really have to watch these jackasses.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 10:43PM (3/29/2009)
Here's the original ABG article (it shares no keywords with this article, oddly);
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/
I dare anyone to try to reconcile the assertion in this article that ABG assertion that
'the reality (as we explained in our original post) was that CARB was thinking of requiring automobiles to be painted in colors that were at least 20 percent solar reflective by 2016.'
with the first two sentences of the original post:
'In yet another case of Regulators Gone Wild, California legislation may soon restrict the color options for your next car. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: black.'
The original post sounds like ABG is saying that California is going to ban colors, while the new post says ABG never said that.
ABG:
Why did you feel it was helpful to post this inflammatory article and become part of the problem when you could have instead posted a more reasoned article and interpretation? ABG could have been part of the solution, and had a scoop by being the first auto site to accurately report what the proposal said instead of following the path well paved by Rush Limbaugh (among others) of being reactionary to CARB?
Reply
House of Mirth 11:38PM (3/29/2009)
I agree; the headline and beginning of that post does seem attention-grabbing and jumping to conclusions.
The sad thing is that some people will take away those conclusions as the truth (see above), and the level of public discourse is lowered yet again.
GenWaylaid 2:41AM (3/30/2009)
Oh no, I understood the issue, and I still think it's phenomenally stupid. How much energy does 20% solar reflectivity actually save? Well, a large car sitting in direct, overhead sun will intercept about 9000 watts of solar power. Reflecting 20% of that saves 1800 watts, or around 2.5 horsepower. Bear in mind that that is the absolute worst case. Nor is it clear that this energy is actually "saved" because not all of it enters the car as cockpit heat that has to be expelled by the A/C.
I suspect you could save a similar amount of energy in California by putting a limit on the maximum output of car stereos. This is CARB standing on a whale of fuel usage and fishing for minnows. I still say they should go plant trees until they come up with a genuinely useful idea.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 3:07AM (3/30/2009)
CARB did the math. It's a lot more than car stereos, but there are probably other things which are more important. That's why this is a proposal, and not an adopted requirement (so far).
If it saved as much energy as you said, it'd save roughly $400 worth of electricity per car per year. That'd be a ton. It's not that much.
Paul 8:56AM (3/30/2009)
ABG didn't go out of its way to quiet the clamor. Why? Economics. ABG is first and foremost interested in pageviews. Pump a little hydrogen into the fire and pageviews go whoosh.
ABG let everyone vent (and pageviews soared). Then sprinted to get back in front of the parade. New media, old media, whatever. It's all media. At least they ain't killing trees to sell it.
Reply
Matt 9:39AM (3/30/2009)
I don't know guys, I drive a black car; in Alabama. I can attest that a black car with no special reflective goo gets more than hot. You know those old video store VHS warnings that said not to leave in direct sunlight... well, they didn't have to be in direct sunlight to melt like that, I had more than one melt in a shaded part of my vehicle. I've also lost a cell phone and several ball point pens. Black cars get hot. White cars also get hot, but not anywhere close to the scale that black ones do.
Anyway, you can't measure energy in Watts or Horsepower; those units of power. If a given vehicle sits in the sun for a prescribed amount of time it will have stored a certain number of Joules or Calories or What-hours of energy. You can't store "power". That said, a car will radiate heat, releasing some energy at an increasing rate until the temperature inside reaches equilibrium. The energy coming in equals the energy coming out. Now, if a black car tends to absorb more heat per Watt of power that hits it than a white (or chrome?) car does, the energy stored inside the vehicle may not be directly proportional to the energy absorption rate, meaning that it could be exponentially hotter.
If you want my opinion, and I know you don't, we should park our cars under buildings or under solar panels. Parking under a nice big solar shade that charges your vehicle via trickle charge would not only keep it cooler, but it would save your battery (because of the slow charge) and it would save your car from UV and other harmful rays. If you don't have an electric car, I'm sure you can find other things to do with that electricity, and your car will still be cooler when you get in.
Reply
jharlan 1:10PM (3/30/2009)
We have always lived in a sunny climate, and the great majority of people avoid black cars. White is popular. Actually most people have this thing figured out. Some like the looks of a black car and are willing to put up with having everything cook on the inside. Even with a white vehicle, we'll walk 2 blocks so we can park in the shade, and leave the windows down just a crack in the summer. That makes a remarkable difference.
Reply
white is right 10:14PM (3/30/2009)
So the plot of the white saleen mafia thickens with their latest push to have all black cars banned. It is a known fact that a couple of members live in the california area and one of the godfathers goes by the name of hulk.
While it's members have been spotted as far away as ohio and one of their main guys goes by "cliffy"
Reply
alistair 5:08AM (3/31/2009)
Roughly half the energy from sunlight is in the infrared potion of the spectrum. There are commercially available IR reflective black coatings that absorb less energy than some lighter pigments that are absorptive in the infrared. Visual blackness is an artifact of human vision, which is only sensitive to part of the energy in daylight. White paint will generally perform best, but visual brightness is not always a good indication of total reflectance (particularly since the human eye is far more sensitive to greens and yellows than blues or reds). I think that establishing minimal reflectance standards for paints is not without merit, especially since it need not exclude black.
However, it's a bit of a red herring. The real gains are to be made with reflective roof coatings for buildings. The total square area of roofs is far larger than all the cars out in the sun. There's a decent argument for dark roofs in colder climates, but in warmer locales an IR reflective roof is a really cheap way to save a lot of money on air conditioning. We painted the roof at my workplace last summer, and the change in interior temperature was immediately noticeable.
Reply