|
I've heard it said that the energy used in the actual construction of a car, including processing of raw materials used to make it, is about 12% of the total energy it will use during average running. What's the truth? Obviously there will be variations, but in general?
|
I thought it was nearer 50% but I guess someone will know the true figure.
I think the Prius has a rather large carbon footprint before it hits the showroom
|
|
|
I've heard it said that the energy used in the actual construction of a car including processing of raw materials used to make it is about 12% of the total energy it will use during average running. What's the truth? Obviously there will be variations but in general?
I can't remember the reference and it's not quite the same question, but I seem to recall the SMMT quoting that the amount of CO2 produced during manufacture is 5% (yes 5, not 50) of the total that the car will produce during its life.
|
>>recall the SMMT quoting
They would say that, wouldn't they?
As ever, the result depends strongly upon the assumptions you make; which sources of CO2 you choose to include or exclude.
|
They would say that wouldn't they?
Of course they would. With these sort of things I usually assume that both sides of the debate will suffer from vested interests counting the statistics in a manner most beneficial to their case. On this question the lowest I've seen is 5% and the highest is 50%. I would tend not to believe either extreme since some non-objective effort will have gone into generating both of those numbers.
|
|
|
|
I think it depends how you measure it, and how far the components travel.
You have do a full life cycle analysis for the true carbon footprint of a car to be worked out.
I believe IMechE did an article based on a report which said that the Hummer is actually one of the least polluting cars in manufacture (ironically) but I don't think that was even as low as 5%.
|
I'm not sure we'll ever know the true figure, or even agree on what a true figure is?
You count the raw materials, but what about the cost of getting the raw materials out of the ground and to the supplier? What about all the people driving to work to get the raw materials and process them, should we count their pollution too? If a car has 20-30000 components which all have raw materials, processing and shipping then that's the pollution of a lot of people driving to work to make them.
I suppose the only place this data can come from is the manufacturers themselves and following it right down the supplier chain. How interested are they in coming up with the complete figure....?
EDIT: Beaten to it by N_C and his speedy fingers!
Edited by Garethj on 18/03/2009 at 13:12
|
|
Beware: I've seen one source using the word "assembly" to cover the fixed costs. Assembly is of course but a part, and possibly a small part, of the total impact of the manufacturing process.
|
|
|
|
I believe IMechE did an article based on a report which said that the Hummer is actually one of the least polluting cars in manufacture
That wasn't the IMechE! It was done by a US Marketing company if I remember correctly and I wonder if they didn't do it for the reaction of the headline rather than scientific advancement?
|
|
Does it matter ?
|
Does it matter ?
Not particularly, unless perhaps the government is using it as an excuse to get the car manufacturers out of trouble.
|
Who really gives a toss about carbon emissions.
Sooner or later the majority of the fossil fule resources are going to be depleted - may as well get it over with now rather than wait another 100 years to reach the same point.
The faster they are depleted, the faster we will be forced to develop more 'green' technology.
Stop using it as a stealth tax and burn, burn, burn, baby!
Necessity is the mother of invention - tax and scaremongering keeps us in a dark-age.
|
Who really gives a toss about carbon emissions.
Well, I do, and lots of other people do - that's why huge resource is going into lessening it. QED.
The faster (fodssil fuels) are depleted the faster we will be forced to develop more 'green' technology. Necessity is the mother of invention - tax and scaremongering keeps us in a dark-age.
Those statements are connected - the price goes up, alternatives are found. Fossil fuel for transport needn't run out for a very long time - hundreds of years - however, the price will increase, one way or another.
Alternatives to "things" are also be found as normal technical development progresses.
Both price and normal development are contributing towards alternatives right now, this minute!
|
I have no doubt that alternative energy tech advancement would be much faster if there was a real or perceived lack of future in oil/coal.
Similar to wartime, when there really is a need tech advancement is 10 times that of 'peacetime' when the status quo is not such a problem.
There will come a time when the majority of the fossil fuels are depleted - at that time the greenhouse effect will be the same, however long it takes to get to that point.
Preventing climate change is like trying to stop a recession - pointless.
Alternative energy will take off when it can compete on an even playing field as fossil fuel - thinking that simple "Won't someone please think of the planet?" ideation will wash with Russia, China and the US is cloud-cuckoo land.
Why cripple our own economic advancement by taking the higher moral ground stance when that will leave us industrially enfeebled by nations who spew out 5-10 times the carbon we do.
What's the worst that will happen? London gets sunk and Birmingham becomes the capital of the UK? Well that's going to happen anyway with or without carbon output rising.
|
What's the worst that will happen? London gets sunk and Birmingham becomes the capital of the UK?
Think globally, rather than locally.
|
|
|
|
>> I believe IMechE did an article based on a report which said that the Hummer is actually one of the least polluting cars in manufacture That wasn't the IMechE! It was done by a US Marketing company if I remember correctly and I wonder if they didn't do it for the reaction of the headline rather than scientific advancement?
Or was it the Jeep?
They started advertising themselves as the greenest manufacturer a year or so ago, on the basis that Toyotas only last about 3 years, whereas their products go on for ever. Ahem....
|
|
|
|
|
