Green Cars

wildmoustache

scotland is the world's windtrap ... and I don't just mean the buffoons at Downing St.

wildmoustache

Eau Rouge wrote:

It's not as if the whole thing is just man-made, is it?.

I take your point, but isn't there a good argument that a major component of it is man-made?

biondino

If there were much less CO2 in the atmosphere we'd have another ice age so it's a good thing there are natural sources. Unfortunately if there's too MUCH then we're screwed, and that's where mankind comes in. Nature is one big balancing act, simply because nature by definition deals with whatever changes happen. What we're doing is causing major changes to happen at enormous speed and a lot of bits of nature, us included, won't be able to deal with what's happening. But after we're gone, life will carry on. Thing is I'd ratehr people were part of that life.

itboffin

jashburnham wrote:

Meh, the phrase "green" car was something dreamt up by the marketing department, mainly so they can sell stupid Honda Prius' (Prii?) to stupid hollywood actors and ecomentalists who love a bit of "green" tokenism. It's all about image these days - that's why we have in creasing number of on-shore windfarms - pointless things that will never recoup the carbon cost of their construction.

Rather than waste money on daft schemes, green cars, electric charging stations etc - I'd like to see more money thrown at hydrogen fuel cell research; we know it works, now we need to work on bringing the costs down.

The most ridiculous green car is the G-Whiz. It's not even classed as a car so does not have to conform to the Euro NCAP test nor the 31 mph Dept of Transport UNECE Regulation 94 test. I wouldn't climb into one in a hurry.

At least the green lobby are starting to accept the need for nuclear.

Well said JB

BTW you'd never be taken in by a bit of slick marketing now would you

Katenika

Thanks to every one for your comments on 'Green' cars. I appreciate your interest. It has stimulated a lot of discussions which will be relevant to my dissertation.

Best regards

Katenika

Jay dubbleU

Any battery powered car including the Honda Pious relies on nickel for its batteries - most Ni is mined in Canada and the extraction process is probably one of the most polluting of any mineral type - involves sulphuric acid etc. Having extracted the Ni it is first shipped to Europe for refining and then to Japan - huge carbon footprint. The petrol engine in the Pious is not the most efficient and has to drag round the weight of the batteries thus further reducing its efficiency - surely of lightweight diesel engine is much more effective and has a smaller carbon foot print that a so-called 'green' car.

The point of global warming that most people seem to have missed it the time lag - the effects in the atmosphere now relate to the carbon dioxide which was being released into the atmosphere ten years ago - pollution from coal fired power stations in India and China are on the increase and still to take full effect.The added effect of methane - a far more effective contributor to global warming than carbon dioxide being released from permafrost has yet to be fully assessed.

Ironically the collapse of the banks and consequent reduction in emission level may have a positive effect on the process of global warming from the point of view of mankind - the planet of course will carry on with or without us - Friends of the Earth are kidding themselves - they are Friends of Mankind - might improve their recruitment levels if they changed the name.

I cycle for the same reason most people do - it keeps me fit and I enjoy it - I don't think I've ever thought of it as 'saving the planet'

biondino

JW, is your logic really telling you that if we have a ten-year pollution lag (is this actually true? I have no idea) we shouldn't bother cutting back now as it'll take 10 years to have any effect? :shock:

Lucky whisky makers don't have such a short-sighted viewpoint.

Sewinman

biondino wrote:

JW, is your logic really telling you that if we have a ten-year pollution lag (is this actually true? I have no idea) we shouldn't bother cutting back now as it'll take 10 years to have any effect? :shock:

Lucky whisky makers don't have such a short-sighted viewpoint.

The effects are from CO2 emitted ten years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 2 weeks ago etc. Carbon was under the ground locked away as fossil fuels for millions of years and we are releasing it back into the atmosphere at a rate quicker than it can be absorbed back into carbon sinks. We are causing a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause climate change.

the_hundredth_idiot

My best friend is a motoring journalist (he earns a fraction of what I do, but his day job involves a motor manufacturer flying him first class to some exotic location where he gets to hoon around in cars all day before being wined and dined in the best local bars and retaurants before being put up in a very smart hotel whereas my job very, very rarely involves anything like as much fun. You pays your money, ...)

He did some "research" recently where they got a professional* driver to drive around a fixed course in a variety of different cars. They kept changing certain things - for example, adding a roofbox, filling the boot full, having a full petrol tank vs a near empty tank. Basically, all the things the magazines tell you to do (or not do) in order to maximise fuel economy. This had the surprising result of making (virtually) sod all difference to fuel consumption. Each car had it's own fuel consumption level - the only thing that made a difference was how the car was driven.

Perhaps not strictly relevant to the OP's question but I found it quite interesting. Make your car a lot more "green" simply by driving it more sedately - accelerate gently, brake gently, anticipate ahead to avoid having to brake sharply, lower your top speed, and so on. But don't worry about carrying junk in your boot or taking the roof box off if you're not using it for a few weeks.

* professional drivers being very consistent in their driving to avoid distortions caused by your average driver being in the wrong gear, braking at different times and so on.

MrChuck

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

He did some "research" recently where they got a professional* driver to drive around a fixed course in a variety of different cars. They kept changing certain things - for example, adding a roofbox, filling the boot full, having a full petrol tank vs a near empty tank. Basically, all the things the magazines tell you to do (or not do) in order to maximise fuel economy. This had the surprising result of making (virtually) sod all difference to fuel consumption. Each car had it's own fuel consumption level - the only thing that made a difference was how the car was driven.
.

Don't see how this can be true- more weight means more work needed to move it, surely? And I'm sure there's plenty of other non-scare-quoted research to say different!

roger_merriman

cars tend to be very heavy so unless your carrying a lot of weight it's unlikely to make much if any differance,

at motorway speeds bike racks etc might well make a difference, fairly small though i'd guess i've never noted it to be honest.

cygnet

jashburnham wrote:

So what about requiring all new builds to incorporate solar panels and stricter legislation with regard to insulation - for example.

If you look up 'Code for Sustainable Homes' you'll see that legislation is being introduced on these lines. The problem is that new builds are a small percentage (and getting smaller) of the total housing stock.

nwallace

biondino wrote:

It's be amazing if, as countries like Kuwait, Venezuela and Scotland (lol) have got rich on the back of oil, places like Mongolia, Chad and Mauritania might be superpowers of the 22nd century as the world's suntraps.

Scotland never got rich off of oil, and neither did the UK Treasury that Scotland shares with England and Northern Ireland.

The Norwegian government wasn't skint when North Sea oil was found and have made a lasting legacy of a massive bank account on which the interest can keep them going.

The UK Treasury on the other hand had a bit of a deficit and a loan from the IMF to pay off.

Oil saved the UK from financial disaster.

In theory the engineering legacy of the oil rigs should help avoid jobs melt down when the inevitable happens, but then why does everything like that get screwed up in the UK?

The problem with wind turbines is to be viable they really need to generate more energy than they took to build, apparently the margin is a bit on the narrow side.


Funny that the Prius turned up, bear in mind that VW have made the Polo use a lot less fuel according to DIN standard tests than Toyota, without hybrid technology.

The Din standard for "Town" driving is apparently accelerating up to 50knh and then braking to a stop, repeat. To simulate the inefficiencies of town driving.
The 100kmh test I think is consistent speed, so doesn't represent poor driving between corners (e.g. ragging it and slamming on the brakes)

Jay dubbleU

biondino wrote:

JW, is your logic really telling you that if we have a ten-year pollution lag (is this actually true? I have no idea) we shouldn't bother cutting back now as it'll take 10 years to have any effect? :shock:

Lucky whisky makers don't have such a short-sighted viewpoint.

No other way round Zuul/Blondy - what I'm saying is that as usual the politicians have done too little too late and I suspect that we have reached or will shortly reach a tipping point :x

The logic behind the 10 year time lag is that it appears to have taken the post-war re-industrialization period (1950-60) around 10 years to have affected the atmosphere

fossyant

roger merriman wrote:

cars tend to be very heavy so unless your carrying a lot of weight it's unlikely to make much if any differance,

at motorway speeds bike racks etc might well make a difference, fairly small though i'd guess i've never noted it to be honest.

3 bikes on the roof of my car over a 140 mile round trip at Motorway speeds hit's my MPG by 10-15 mpg - medium sized saloon, but aerodynamic - the bikes mess it up big style.

Must say my wife's petrol Yaris is better on fuel than her dad's Prius....... and about half the price, and lots less 'life cost'

the_hundredth_idiot

MrChuck wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

He did some "research" recently where they got a professional* driver to drive around a fixed course in a variety of different cars. They kept changing certain things - for example, adding a roofbox, filling the boot full, having a full petrol tank vs a near empty tank. Basically, all the things the magazines tell you to do (or not do) in order to maximise fuel economy. This had the surprising result of making (virtually) sod all difference to fuel consumption. Each car had it's own fuel consumption level - the only thing that made a difference was how the car was driven.
.

Don't see how this can be true- more weight means more work needed to move it, surely? And I'm sure there's plenty of other non-scare-quoted research to say different!

That was the point - received wisdom is that all these things makes a big difference to fuel consumption. Their research showed it made minimal difference which is why I referred to it as "surprising". I used "scare quotes" because I'm inherently sceptical of claims made that aren't absolutely proven - I don't doubt that my friend and his colleagues tried to be rigourous in their approach but I accept that someone might be able to point out a factor which invalidates the result. I'd also have used quotes if I'd referred to research which showed the opposite unless I was absolutely convinced the research was rigourous.

But, as Roger says, a boot full of junk doesn't weigh a huge amount compared with the car itself. Roof boxes tend to be quite streamlined these days so don't increase drag by much (unless you go at very fast speeds) - I don't think they tried strapping bikes to the top so can't comment on that one. And the engine itself is far below 100% efficient so that soaks up a lot of the fuel consumption as well, before the car has even started moving.

roger_merriman

fossyant wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

cars tend to be very heavy so unless your carrying a lot of weight it's unlikely to make much if any differance,

at motorway speeds bike racks etc might well make a difference, fairly small though i'd guess i've never noted it to be honest.

3 bikes on the roof of my car over a 140 mile round trip at Motorway speeds hit's my MPG by 10-15 mpg - medium sized saloon, but aerodynamic - the bikes mess it up big style.

Must say my wife's petrol Yaris is better on fuel than her dad's Prius....... and about half the price, and lots less 'life cost'

i very rarely go on that long drives with the bike, plus it's a boot rack rather than a roof one and i tend to be slower smoother as i don't want to loose the bike, so it ends up being close to zero really.

simon_e

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

they got a professional* driver to drive around a fixed course in a variety of different cars. They kept changing certain things - for example, adding a roofbox, filling the boot full, having a full petrol tank vs a near empty tank. Basically, all the things the magazines tell you to do (or not do) in order to maximise fuel economy. This had the surprising result of making (virtually) sod all difference to fuel consumption. Each car had it's own fuel consumption level - the only thing that made a difference was how the car was driven.
...
Roof boxes tend to be quite streamlined these days so don't increase drag by much (unless you go at very fast speeds)

I'm not sure they are that low drag. Even an empty roof rack makes a detectable difference, and I can recall wind tunnel tests that showed an open window adds 2% to drag. Isn't that why most cars are designed to be more 'slippery' these days?

If adding weight makes no difference how come adding 2 adults (or 1 adult and 2 small children) makes such a difference to my car's acceleration? This is admittedly more obvious with less powerful cars. I suspect weight has less of an effect at steady speed around a test circuit. It's more of an issue if you're slowing & speeding up, or going up hills in the real world.

I would have thought that individual changes may make a small difference, but adding several things together (roof box + low tyre pressures + full tank and so on) will definitely make a difference. Any extra drag is magnified by speed, so there should be greater impact on longer journeys at higher speed.

The greenest car is the one left at home while you use alternative (preferably non-fossil fuel based) methods.

the_hundredth_idiot

Not "no difference" but very little difference.

I've asked my friend to send me a link to the article. He's driving home from the Geneva motor show at the moment (and he calls that a job :roll: ) so might be a day or so.

Katenika

Hi all,

The link for my survey has changed to the following - http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=o ... ypbw_3d_3d

Thanks for all your help.

Also wanted to say - We drove to Italy last summer for a cycling holiday. We had the bike rack and two bikes on the top on the way to Italy. That reduced the fuel efficiency: Normally it is 37mpg, while with the bikes and the rack it was around 33mpg. I think it is a noticable difference.

Cheers
Katenika