Is this just a cynical ploy to sell more cars?
www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/67138/pound200_a_day_to...l
Building a car causes far more pollution than it ever outputs in its lifetime.
If the SMMT lend money to New Labour's next election campaign they'll probably get the legislation through.
|
|
I would have thought it impossible or contrary to natural justice to ban a vehicle, which is in all respect legally roadworthy, from driving anywhere on the public roads. I was in Inverness station on Sunday morning and there were 6 diesel trains sitting there, all with their engines running, and nothing leaving for 45 minutes. The stench and fumes were so bad I had to get out in the open air. More pollution there than a few 8+ year old cars driving around!
|
Who exactly decided that when a vehicle gets to 8 years old that it suddenly is spewing filth? Surely there's 2-3 year old vans and taxis in worse shape than well-cared for 10 year old examples?
Isn't the MOT test supposed to root out poor emissions? If a vehicle is roadworthy and passes all exhaust tests, what's the problem?
Hopefully, this nonsense will never happen, and if it does someone will legally challenge it and soon have it overturned...
|
Exactly! I'm probably setting myself up for a fall now but I look after my car which is getting on for 7 years old now.
Waltzes the MOT every time. Gets serviced on the dot. Gets looked after and as a result - it drives perfectly. I'd say as good as new but obviously I've grown used to it over the years.
Having seen what's happening to my mate with regards to his car finance, I'm more determined than ever to keep it until it starts giving me trouble which to date, it never has.
::Frantically runs around trying to touch some wood::
|
... and bear in mind that all petrol-engined cars have been fitted with catalytic converters for the past 13 years.
If they wanted to discourage the use of pre-93 cars I could understand their point.
|
|
I don't know why they have chosen cars over 8 years as 9 years would have made more sense. Any car registered after 1st January 1997 would have had to have complied with Euro II emission standards which demanded a 50% reduction in Carbon Monoxide from the previous Euro I standard.
|
Well, my daily hack is now 14 years old, but it is catalysed, it has never failed an emissions test and I reckon it is now well into credit on the environmental front. And I'll defend my right to choose to drive it.
Nobody will ever convince me that polluting the environment and wasting resources by mindlessly going on producing more new cars than the western world can cope with is right.
Maybe London would like to consider making the airliners that fly over it (whatever age they are) pay something - at last - towards dealing with the environmental damage they cause?
|
|
|
|
Building a car causes far more pollution than it ever outputs >> in its lifetime
>>
can you provide a link to find scientific proof of this statement, please?
|
can you provide a link to find scientific proof of this statement, please?
Here you go: www.greenspeed.us/electric_bicycle_manufacture.htm
|
Here you go: www.greenspeed.us/electric_bicycle_manufacture.htm
"Source: www.carbusters.org" - it is just possible that this is not an independent source.
|
|
|
|
|
I think he really means that manufacturing a car produces more CO2 than than will ever come out of the car's exhaust. I have no link to this although there was an excellent article on this subject written by the motoring editor of the Daily Telegraph and published a while back. It was an excellent article and should be re-printed in my opinion
|
snipurl.com/q0v4
"Ford, Volvo and Volkswagen say that production of a car accounts for between 10 and 13 per cent of the energy it uses throughout its life - of that figure, 12 per cent goes on equipment and four per cent on electricity; chassis production takes 18 per cent, body production 11 per cent, powertrain production 19 per cent and assembly 14 per cent.
"Between 88 and 90 per cent of the total energy consumed is in vehicle use - of that figure, fuel accounts for 69 per cent, fuel supply 12 per cent, maintenance 11 per cent and the infrastructure provisions of road signs, road maintenance and street lighting another 8 per cent. Recycling can save up to 20 per cent of the total energy used."
English, A (24/08/2002) The Daily Telegraph
|
>>Ford, Volvo and Volkswagen say ...
They say exactly what you might expect them to say to safeguard their own interests.
Number_Cruncher
|
|
Probably, but it sounds a lot more plausible to me than 50%+. As someone below points out, they do conveniently ignore disposal, but then so do people that think the Prius is a panacea.
|
|
|
|
""Ford, Volvo and Volkswagen say that production of a car accounts for between 10 and 13 per cent of the energy it uses throughout its life"
This suggests that it doesn't include extracting ore, mining, smelting, transportation of these etc.... very energy consuming activities, isolation of some of the rare elements (solids, liquids and gases) used in car parts today doesen't seem to be included,, not the disposal of the vehicle at the end of it's life.
I once read that to make from scratch a Modeo Mk1 took the equivalent energy of driving it 250,000 miles, and the most enironmentally freindly vehicles ever made were old Mk11 or MkI landrovers, the sole reason being that so many are still in use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this just a cynical ploy to sell more cars?
www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/67138/pound200_a_day_to...lBuilding a car causes far more pollution than it ever outputs in its lifetime.
The problem is that the majority of pollution comes from a minority of older vehicles. I.e. there is diminishing returns in making newer vehicles ever cleaner.
My problem with this proposal - like the congestion charge - is not just the cost, but the parasitic bureaucracy that will be set up to police it.
|
What possible innocent reason could the SMMT have for supporting this proposal?
Indeed, why should it be anything to do with them at all?
Its no different from the major drug companies lobbying the EC to effectively ban alternative/herbal remedies.
|
If my math is correct then according to the car manufacturers this means that over the life of a car 62% of the energy used is in fuel.
My points are:
1 - The information is provided by car manufacturers, therefore i assume that it is biased and assumptions have been made. Just like the electirc bike website figures are biased the other way.
2 - The disposal of the car has not been considered.
I have two cars, one is now 7 years old (A4 1.8), the other is 22 years old (Celica 2.8). They are both maintained to a high standard. The newer car averages 32mpg, the older one averages around 28mpg. I accept that the older car does not have a cat, but with an annual mileage of 10k miles I don't think that few mpg is making much difference.
My view is that an older well maintained car (preferably one with an engine smaller than 2.8!) is the one that has the least impact on the environment. Keeping an old car on the road is the ultimate in 're-use'.
As mentioned in another post I see many 'new' cars that chuck out disgusting amounts of smoke. if it's really about saving the environment then ANY car should be banned as most city centres have tubes/trams/buses etc.
|
Applies to buses and lorries first.
"At this stage, the rules are expected to only apply to buses, coaches and HGVs."
Good . That's London Transport closed for a start. And no more builders' vans. No more dustcarts. No more self employed tradesmen.
The word to describe it is "muppetry"
(or The Law of Unintended Consequences)
Londoners get spoilt rotten:-)
madf
|
|
|
according to the car manufacturers this means that over the life of a car 62% of the energy used is in fuel.
>>
the source i personally would rather believe for these enrgy comparisions is from about half way down and furhter below the page at:
www.ptua.org.au/myths/energy.shtml
....
Burning one litre of petrol in a car releases around 34MJ of energy. Based on the average fleet efficiency of about 12 litres per 100 kilometres (see our efficiency page), it follows that driving 1km in a car uses around 4.1MJ. The 'high' figures in the table assume an average car occupancy of 1.1, as is observed for real traffic in peak hour. The 'low' figures assume occupancy of 1.5, which is the average taking into account all off-peak and leisure travel. (Long-distance family holidays help raise the average here.) .....
......
The manufacture of vehicles uses substantial amounts of energy, and this should be taken into account when assessing the efficiency of various modes of transport. The following calculations are based on the estimate that to manufacture 1kg of metal, plastic and other raw material for vehicles requires 100MJ of energy. Figures comparable to this are found in many sources, including the RTA study mentioned above. ....
|
Some years ago the University of Heidelberg publlished some research on this.
They concluded that for a mid-sized European car, with a cat, doing about 30mpg, 10000 miles per year, with a 10 year lifespan, about half of the total pollution produced by the vehicle was produced during manufacture. They also listed the exact quantities of pollutants liberated. I have all the details somewhere, if anyone is really interested.
|
Some years ago the University of Heidelberg publlished some research on this. They concluded that for a mid-sized European car, with a cat, doing about 30mpg, 10000 miles per year, with a 10 year lifespan, about half of the total pollution produced by the vehicle was produced during manufacture. They also listed the exact quantities of pollutants liberated. I have all the details somewhere, if anyone is really interested.
If this is the case I suggest it is more a reflection on the efficiency of a modern car rather than a detrimental comment on the production process. Afterall if cars were half as efficient only 30% of the total polution produced by the vehicle would be in manufacture.
It is actually a modern miracle that a 5 gallon can of diesel that I can lift with one hand can take my family and I, our luggage and the weight of the car 250 miles in airconditioned luxury proving entertainment and light when required, this is highlighted to me when I struggle to push the car a few meters on the drive unaided.
|
RE: "Some years ago the University of Heidelberg publlished some research on this. They concluded that for a mid-sized European car, with a cat, doing about 30mpg, 10000 miles per year, with a 10 year lifespan, about half of the total pollution produced by the vehicle was produced during manufacture."
Did they take account of the pollution when the car was scrapped, though?
|
|
And what about all the spare parts an older car will need? These have to be manufactured and transported around before they even get fitted.
|
|
Spare parts - well all cars need spare parts new or old. Owners of older cars tend to make more use of second hand parts rather than new. Both of my cars use the same amount of parts, you shouldn't make the assumption that an old car needs a constant supply of spare parts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
£200 a day? They have not thought hard enough!
Example 1:
How are some of the elderly, who may have bought a car 8 years ago and cannot afford a newer one, going to move around their city now? They will be housebound and angry, and probably a long way from their nearest hourly bus stop!
Example 2:
My car is 17 years old. On average I get 44mpg out of a tank, over the past 2.5 years. There is no way a car that does 30mpg emmits less CO2 than my car. HC and CO yes, but these are marginal by comparison.
Example 3:
Plenty of small fleet operators, whether it be buses or vans, cannot afford to run newer vehicles. The bus industry will become run only by the big names. Before anyone mentions the DDA, remember that the low floor bus is 8 years old this year.
There was an interesting article last month in IMechE's PE mag, which looked at LCA for some cars. They concluded something like that from cradle to grave a Hummer is less poluting than a Hybrid! Don't forget R&D energy costs also, especially for smaller volume production cars.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
|
I wouldn't get too wound up about that article. The SMMT routinely put out these sort of 'proposals', for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
