California to require sun-blocking car windows
July 6, 2009 By Pat BrennanNew cars sold in California must include windshields that block or absorb the sun's rays beginning in 2012, the state's Air Resources Board recently ruled.
The new regulation is meant to keep cars cooler, cutting the need for air conditioning, saving energy and reducing emissions that contribute to global warming, the agency says.
To meet the new rules, car windows will have to block 33 percent more of the sun's heat-producing rays than cars windows do today. Because the rays being blocked are in the infrared part of the spectrum, the windows would not require tinting, and will look no different from present-day car windows, said air board spokesman Stanley Young.
"It uses a very microscopic sputtering of metal particles that act as tiny invisible mirrors," Young said.
With more of the sun's heat blocked, cars interiors should be about 14 degrees cooler, SUV or pickup interiors about 12 degrees.
The reduction in use of air conditioning is expected to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 700,000 metric tons by 2020 -- the equivalent of taking 140,000 vehicles off the road for a year, the agency says.
The two-step regulation requires cars sold for the first three years to block 45 percent of the sun's heat-producing energy, windshields at least 50 percent; in 2016, car windows must block 60 percent.
The agency says it will cost an average of $70 for the first three years to comply, and $250 after 2016.
It's one of several measures adopted by the agency to cut greenhouse gas emissions, including a low-carbon fuel standard and a requirement that smog-check and other maintenance facilities check tire pressure.
___
(c) 2009, The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.).
Visit the Register on the World Wide Web at http://www.ocregister.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
May 19, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
But California? Texas? Florida? Heck yes. Makes you wonder why they haven't been doing this before in those regions.
Check the website of any "low-e" replacement window manufacturer. Here is a link that is semi useful: http://www.askthe...s_.shtml
the legislation against window tinting tends to be regarding the degree of tinting, not the presence of it, and anyways the article says that the IR (heat) blocking aspect doesn't require tinting the windows - different wavelengths.
1) If you don't heat your car while parked, the battery(ies) either stop working completely, or don't work well. This means that you have to constantly heat the car while parked. This drains the battery, which in turn requires fuel to recharge after the car is turned on.
2) Engines do not immediately heat up when started in a cold climate. It takes ~15 minutes for the engine to get warm enough to start heating the vehicle (longer for a diesel). During that time you're either having no heat at all, or you're using a secondary heating source, which requires fuel to run. Given that nearly the entire population of the world drive less than 40 kilometres a day on average (work and back, or store(s) and back), that 15 minutes constitutes the vast majority of the driving time.
3) Electric engines produce *very* little heat in comparison to an internal combustion engine, and electric cars require secondary heaters in cold climates.
So, uh, you're just flat out wrong in everything you said.
Agreed and well aware, however, there are many that are so general as to leave automakers in a position where they cannot legally tint any window except the rear. So would it be cheaper to make vehicle for all 50 states, or make vehicles for sale in one state with interchangable windows.
As usual, California is putting the squeeze on the auto industry for something that will have a neglible result on end use.
The immediate pun here would be to ask how you could see anything if all sun light was blocked...
On the other hand, why would they block IR from getting into the car? It's UV that causes the warming.
Because they want the car to be cooler.
There's nothing magical about UV. Whatever UV, visible and IR radiation that gets into the car and does not get reflected back out of the car will cause heating.
If you look at which wavelengths the sun's power output is in, very little is UV: http://www.nas.na...e2.3.gif
In addition, soda-lime glass will block significant parts of UV A and essentially all UV B and UV C.
Put these crazies in check before they start banning air conditioners, or making us pay extra for them, or some other kind of rubbish.
UV-B and UV-C are blocked (UV-C is blocked most all by the atmosphere, anyway). Some of the shorter wavelengths of UV-A are also blocked. However, the longer wavelengths of UV-A are not, and those are also contributory to skin aging, damage, as well as the heating of the vehicle.
Holy crap! This does not look a like a parody. I just looked at some data and a presentation on the subject. They look like they are also going to specify what kinds of window glazing vehicles can have on them as well as the types of paint with solar-reflective compounds will be compliant. Black definitely appears to be on the outs.
Sorry, but I like black cars. Glad I moved out of that insane state in a nick of time!
What is going to be really funny is that when they have done all they have and there is little to no change they are going to be scratching their heads trying to figure out what went wrong and why they crippled the economy for nothing...
http://www.docsto...ion31209
They've backed off on that:
http://latimesblo...ban.html
In the same vehicles a percentage of visibility was lost as well, and irritating patterns could be seen in the windows as a result. These also could create a distraction while driving. I certainly hope that they get their acts together and do a little more intense study before mandating such coatings.