Total emissions over a car's lifetime?

[fleabag]

My sister really likes the Tesla Roadster and all electric cars and while I support the sale and development of electric cars and think their use is especially useful for city driving, I can't help but feel I should point out the pifalls and "pollution savings" that hybrids and electric cars have or don't have. Now some would say that it's debunked that the hummer is more environmentally friendly than the Prius but what about a used car vs a new electric car? I mean if you're in a neutral position in the purchase of a car, you either get an electric car or you can get a used car, wouldn't a fuel efficient used car have less emissions overall? Let's go to the extreme and assume that for the lifetime of the electric car, it is charged by solar panels, how many MPG would a conventional new car have to get in order to equal that of a new all electric car that is powered by solar panels its entire life?

The way I see the issue is that while she and others are very excited by the idea of an electric car and are aware of the inefficiencies of an ICE, I can't help but point out AND wonder, would a car with an ICE that gets 80mpg and isn't a hybrid of any sorts be similar or more efficient overall than the currently produced electric cars?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Even old coal plants are vastly more efficient at turning burning carbon into energy than a car's engine and if you're using energy from nuclear power it's vastly more efficient still.

Used cars, at least really old ones, pollute more (IIRC it took something like 10 Ford Excursions to equal the quantity of pollutants from one early 1970's car) than new cars even if they get better mileage. For example, a 1970 VW Beetle may well get 30+ mpg on the freeway but it will be spewing far more pollution per mile than a brand-new 10 mpg Ferrari or F-350 pickup. A lot of people think they're doing a good thing by continuing to drive cars from the 1980's that get good mileage, but they don't realise that those cars pollute more per mile than newer cars with poorer mileage.

ZV

 

[punjabiplaya]

Just because it uses more fuel, doesn't mean it pollutes more. You could have a giant engine in a heavy car that is very efficient (relatively) vs a terrible engine in a lightweight car. Catalytic converters have vastly improved in recent years.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Even old coal plants are vastly more efficient at turning burning carbon into energy than a car's engine and if you're using energy from nuclear power it's vastly more efficient still.

Used cars, at least really old ones, pollute more (IIRC it took something like 10 Ford Excursions to equal the quantity of pollutants from one early 1970's car) than new cars even if they get better mileage. For example, a 1970 VW Beetle may well get 30+ mpg on the freeway but it will be spewing far more pollution per mile than a brand-new 10 mpg Ferrari or F-350 pickup. A lot of people think they're doing a good thing by continuing to drive cars from the 1980's that get good mileage, but they don't realise that those cars pollute more per mile than newer cars with poorer mileage.

ZV

Okay... What about comparing a 90s subcompact to a new hybrid of today? You're comparing a Fuel Injected vehicle to a carbureted VW beetle? How about you try comparing a ford excursion to a 1975 CVCC Honda Civic! PPM is a bullshit measurement, what they need to change it to is GRAMS PER MILE!

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Just because it uses more fuel, doesn't mean it pollutes more. You could have a giant engine in a heavy car that is very efficient (relatively) vs a terrible engine in a lightweight car. Catalytic converters have vastly improved in recent years.

I have to disagree to an extent. For one thing, vehicles with larger displacement engines on a whole will put out more NOX, CO, and HC than one of a lower displacement. Part of the problem is that the EPA or at least California goes by PPM and NOT Grams per mile. If they started to recalculate the pollution, you'd see these tiny subcompacts from the 90s NOT pollute more than the SUVs of today but pollute LESS, far less.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Even old coal plants are vastly more efficient at turning burning carbon into energy than a car's engine and if you're using energy from nuclear power it's vastly more efficient still.

Used cars, at least really old ones, pollute more (IIRC it took something like 10 Ford Excursions to equal the quantity of pollutants from one early 1970's car) than new cars even if they get better mileage. For example, a 1970 VW Beetle may well get 30+ mpg on the freeway but it will be spewing far more pollution per mile than a brand-new 10 mpg Ferrari or F-350 pickup. A lot of people think they're doing a good thing by continuing to drive cars from the 1980's that get good mileage, but they don't realise that those cars pollute more per mile than newer cars with poorer mileage.

ZV

Okay... What about comparing a 90s subcompact to a new hybrid of today? You're comparing a Fuel Injected vehicle to a carbureted VW beetle? How about you try comparing a ford excursion to a 1975 CVCC Honda Civic! PPM is a bullshit measurement, what they need to change it to is GRAMS PER MILE!

CVCC is still carbureted. And yes, even a CVCC Civic will produce more pollutants per mile than an Excursion.

My post explicitly said PER MILE, not parts per million; if you're not going to bother to read what I reply with, I'll simply stop bothering to try to help you out.

ZV

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Even old coal plants are vastly more efficient at turning burning carbon into energy than a car's engine and if you're using energy from nuclear power it's vastly more efficient still.

Used cars, at least really old ones, pollute more (IIRC it took something like 10 Ford Excursions to equal the quantity of pollutants from one early 1970's car) than new cars even if they get better mileage. For example, a 1970 VW Beetle may well get 30+ mpg on the freeway but it will be spewing far more pollution per mile than a brand-new 10 mpg Ferrari or F-350 pickup. A lot of people think they're doing a good thing by continuing to drive cars from the 1980's that get good mileage, but they don't realise that those cars pollute more per mile than newer cars with poorer mileage.

ZV

Agreed. Efficient, well-maintained mid-90s compacts produce a lot more pollution than the equivalent current models, even at roughly the same MPG. So I think in theory, these government programs for trading in older vehicles are a good idea. The details about pricing, MPG, etc. are debatable though.

To address the OP's point about electric cars, I think you need to look at the total environmental cost of electric or hybrid vehicles as compared to ICE vehicles. For example, there is significant energy involved in producing and recycling batteries. I've read some studies which say the Hummer and Prius are roughly equal in total lifetime emissions, and some which say the Hummer is actually better in the long run. So I think the jury is out on that one.

I read an article recently about lithium supply. If there is a large-scale conversion to electric vehicles, using current lithium-ion battery technology, we are in trouble. There is a fairly limited supply, the extraction process is energy intensive, and most of it is located in Bolivia. Western democracies, especially the US, don't have the most amicable relationship with Bolivia, so working with the country on lithium exports could prove difficult and expensive.

Now, if another battery technology emerges which is more efficient or requires less raw material, electric vehicles could become a better option.

 

[LTC8K6]

CARB brags that "SULEVs will only emit a single pound of hydrocarbons during 100,000 miles of driving-about the same as spilling a pint of gasoline."

From a Car and Driver article....

 

[LTC8K6]

So a ULEV would be what? About 2 pints?

Not total, I know, but it's still amazing how much less pollution comes out of a modern car.

 

[fleabag]

Who really cares about particulate matter, HC, NOX etc. when CO2 emission levels remain the same. I mean what is the benefit of cutting what is already a small amount of HC, NOX, CO in half when maintaining or even worse doubling the amount of CO2 emissions. They spend all this effort in reducing pollution from cars when we still have two cycle motors being used in every day applications, which are by far the dirtiest of all, I'd say 10X more dirty than a 1920's 4 stroke carbureted engine.

 

[DivideBYZero]

What are people talking about in this thread when they say 'Pollution'? The issue pretty much comes down to CO2 per mile. That is a MUCH better gauge than MPG for how efficient a vehicle is and applies, in most cases, to electric vehicles and Hybrids, too.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
What are people talking about in this thread when they say 'Pollution'? The issue pretty much comes down to CO2 per mile. That is a MUCH better gauge than MPG for how efficient a vehicle is and applies, in most cases, to electric vehicles and Hybrids, too.

Well, yeah, that's far more accurate and in fact how the EPA figures out the MPG rating of a car.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
What are people talking about in this thread when they say 'Pollution'? The issue pretty much comes down to CO2 per mile. That is a MUCH better gauge than MPG for how efficient a vehicle is and applies, in most cases, to electric vehicles and Hybrids, too.

Well, yeah, that's far more accurate and in fact how the EPA figures out the MPG rating of a car.

Eh? CO2 per mile isn't analogous to MPG. One car may get 23Mpg and crap out 400gr per mile, vs another producing the same MPG and only 320gr.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
What are people talking about in this thread when they say 'Pollution'? The issue pretty much comes down to CO2 per mile. That is a MUCH better gauge than MPG for how efficient a vehicle is and applies, in most cases, to electric vehicles and Hybrids, too.

Well, yeah, that's far more accurate and in fact how the EPA figures out the MPG rating of a car.

Eh? CO2 per mile isn't analogous to MPG. One car may get 23Mpg and crap out 400gr per mile, vs another producing the same MPG and only 320gr.

Co2 is perfectly analogous to MPG. There is a FIXED AMOUNT of carbon in a gallon of gasoline, collecting all of the CO2 from the tailpipe after a given distance is the very most accurate way of determining the MPG of a car. Sure you could say, but what if it all turned into NOX or HC? Well then that car would surely fail any reasonable smog test and therefore be inadmissable anyway, not to mention the fact that if it's spewing 100% HC, then it isn't going to be going anywhere as that means it didn't burn a single drop of gas, but simply sucked it in and blew it out of the tailpipe.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: fleabag
Who really cares about particulate matter, HC, NOX etc. when CO2 emission levels remain the same. I mean what is the benefit of cutting what is already a small amount of HC, NOX, CO in half when maintaining or even worse doubling the amount of CO2 emissions. They spend all this effort in reducing pollution from cars when we still have two cycle motors being used in every day applications, which are by far the dirtiest of all, I'd say 10X more dirty than a 1920's 4 stroke carbureted engine.

The small displacement 2-stroke engines do not contribute a large part of our air pollution, especially CO2. And they are being legislated out of existence in most areas.

A much bigger problem, IMHO, is the unregulated diesel trucks and cars, which are spewing tons of lung-clogging soot into our air every day.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: fleabag
Who really cares about particulate matter, HC, NOX etc. when CO2 emission levels remain the same. I mean what is the benefit of cutting what is already a small amount of HC, NOX, CO in half when maintaining or even worse doubling the amount of CO2 emissions. They spend all this effort in reducing pollution from cars when we still have two cycle motors being used in every day applications, which are by far the dirtiest of all, I'd say 10X more dirty than a 1920's 4 stroke carbureted engine.

The small displacement 2-stroke engines do not contribute a large part of our air pollution, especially CO2. And they are being legislated out of existence in most areas.

A much bigger problem, IMHO, is the unregulated diesel trucks and cars, which are spewing tons of lung-clogging soot into our air every day.

That's true, 2 stroke engines have low CO2 emissions relatively speaking but are high in other pollutants. Which unregulated diesel trucks and cars do you speak of? Off road vehicles/race vehicles? The thing that pisses me off about Nascar is the fact they stick with Carbureted engines which is fricken weak. Stock cars my ass, these cars are so lame, if they want to make the competition more than a bunch of drunk rednecks watching people crash all day, then they'll permit fuel injected engines and just limit the displacement, leading to some real innovation, but NOOOO...

 

[LTC8K6]

Evinrude E-TEC 2 strokes are very clean, IIRC.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: fleabag
Who really cares about particulate matter, HC, NOX etc. when CO2 emission levels remain the same. I mean what is the benefit of cutting what is already a small amount of HC, NOX, CO in half when maintaining or even worse doubling the amount of CO2 emissions. They spend all this effort in reducing pollution from cars when we still have two cycle motors being used in every day applications, which are by far the dirtiest of all, I'd say 10X more dirty than a 1920's 4 stroke carbureted engine.

The small displacement 2-stroke engines do not contribute a large part of our air pollution, especially CO2. And they are being legislated out of existence in most areas.

A much bigger problem, IMHO, is the unregulated diesel trucks and cars, which are spewing tons of lung-clogging soot into our air every day.

That's true, 2 stroke engines have low CO2 emissions relatively speaking but are high in other pollutants. Which unregulated diesel trucks and cars do you speak of? Off road vehicles/race vehicles? The thing that pisses me off about Nascar is the fact they stick with Carbureted engines which is fricken weak. Stock cars my ass, these cars are so lame, if they want to make the competition more than a bunch of drunk rednecks watching people crash all day, then they'll permit fuel injected engines and just limit the displacement, leading to some real innovation, but NOOOO...

those engines are probably some of the most efficient engines on the planet if you use power and fuel consumption. you obviously have never built an engine, and do not know the amount of R&D that goes into them. diamond coated full floating wrist pins? yup. titanium valves and lifters? yup. perfectly balanced internal rotating assemblies? yup. etc...

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: fleabag
Who really cares about particulate matter, HC, NOX etc. when CO2 emission levels remain the same. I mean what is the benefit of cutting what is already a small amount of HC, NOX, CO in half when maintaining or even worse doubling the amount of CO2 emissions. They spend all this effort in reducing pollution from cars when we still have two cycle motors being used in every day applications, which are by far the dirtiest of all, I'd say 10X more dirty than a 1920's 4 stroke carbureted engine.

The small displacement 2-stroke engines do not contribute a large part of our air pollution, especially CO2. And they are being legislated out of existence in most areas.

A much bigger problem, IMHO, is the unregulated diesel trucks and cars, which are spewing tons of lung-clogging soot into our air every day.

That's true, 2 stroke engines have low CO2 emissions relatively speaking but are high in other pollutants. Which unregulated diesel trucks and cars do you speak of? Off road vehicles/race vehicles? The thing that pisses me off about Nascar is the fact they stick with Carbureted engines which is fricken weak. Stock cars my ass, these cars are so lame, if they want to make the competition more than a bunch of drunk rednecks watching people crash all day, then they'll permit fuel injected engines and just limit the displacement, leading to some real innovation, but NOOOO...

those engines are probably some of the most efficient engines on the planet if you use power and fuel consumption. you obviously have never built an engine, and do not know the amount of R&D that goes into them. diamond coated full floating wrist pins? yup. titanium valves and lifters? yup. perfectly balanced internal rotating assemblies? yup. etc...

Yeah real efficient uh huh yeah sure, so are you speaking of the Direct Injected 2 stroke motors or not? If not, then who reall cares about diamond coated full floating wrist pins, it's still a dirty PIG! No lipstick is going to fix these engines short of a major modification.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: fleabag
Who really cares about particulate matter, HC, NOX etc. when CO2 emission levels remain the same. I mean what is the benefit of cutting what is already a small amount of HC, NOX, CO in half when maintaining or even worse doubling the amount of CO2 emissions. They spend all this effort in reducing pollution from cars when we still have two cycle motors being used in every day applications, which are by far the dirtiest of all, I'd say 10X more dirty than a 1920's 4 stroke carbureted engine.

The small displacement 2-stroke engines do not contribute a large part of our air pollution, especially CO2. And they are being legislated out of existence in most areas.

A much bigger problem, IMHO, is the unregulated diesel trucks and cars, which are spewing tons of lung-clogging soot into our air every day.

Wow, even after several of us pointed out long ago that you keep using the wrong info about diesel cars, you keep up with the same crap.

Diesel cars and light trucks (I don't believe there are any in production of the latter) are regulated and follow the same rules as gas engines. That is why you can't buy diesels in any state using CA emissions. The federal standard, which most states that have emissions tests, fall back on and they have sucked for a long time. They're getting better though.

Commercial vehicles are another story though, which you kept using as examples when the rest of us were talking about cars, for some reason.

 

[LTC8K6]

Jeep had to discontinue the CRD Liberty in the US because the diesel engine could not meet the latest strict emissions regs. The engine was clean, but still not clean enough.

Rest assured that diesel emissions are regulated in the US.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
What are people talking about in this thread when they say 'Pollution'? The issue pretty much comes down to CO2 per mile. That is a MUCH better gauge than MPG for how efficient a vehicle is and applies, in most cases, to electric vehicles and Hybrids, too.

Well, yeah, that's far more accurate and in fact how the EPA figures out the MPG rating of a car.

Eh? CO2 per mile isn't analogous to MPG. One car may get 23Mpg and crap out 400gr per mile, vs another producing the same MPG and only 320gr.

Co2 is perfectly analogous to MPG. There is a FIXED AMOUNT of carbon in a gallon of gasoline, collecting all of the CO2 from the tailpipe after a given distance is the very most accurate way of determining the MPG of a car. Sure you could say, but what if it all turned into NOX or HC? Well then that car would surely fail any reasonable smog test and therefore be inadmissable anyway, not to mention the fact that if it's spewing 100% HC, then it isn't going to be going anywhere as that means it didn't burn a single drop of gas, but simply sucked it in and blew it out of the tailpipe.

Post on hold.

 

[SparkyJJO]

CO2 is not a pollutant! <bangs head on wall>

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
CO2 is not a pollutant! <bangs head on wall>

Fill your bedroom with it and post in the morning.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
CO2 is not a pollutant! <bangs head on wall>

Fill your bedroom with it and post in the morning.

insert anything that isn't 02 into your statement and get the same result.