Remember a few years back the fedral govt is going to give us money to scrap our old cars.........all pushed though by the greens.Quote:
Originally Posted by frantic
Printable View
Remember a few years back the fedral govt is going to give us money to scrap our old cars.........all pushed though by the greens.Quote:
Originally Posted by frantic
As for the emissions on older cars it is not straight forward and many different answers can be had.Quote:
Originally Posted by frantic
Energy and emissions of making a car, plus the emissions of making the energy to produce the car must be looked at .
Type of usage, expected life of the vehicle and the type of fuel used.
Expected road surfaces the vehicle will be running on would need to be taken into account.
Emissions to transport a new vehicle to the dealership etc.........no simple answer.
How is vehicle is made, say in a third world country or a German robotic factory with a Nuclear energy power source etc is a big factor.
Transport and manufacture of replacement parts, servicing needs, durability of the design of the vehicle.
No simple answer and depending if all the figures are added up or left out you will get different answers.
I think a old single cylinder Wolsey overhead valve was tested awhile back and was found to run extremely clean, but a old vehicle with a T shape cylinder head could be a different story..........design is another factor.
Ron
Actually according to Toyota I am correct.;) but they would never fudge stats and figures to sell a few more cars would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
Buy a New Car or Keep the Old: Which is Better for the Environment?
Manufacturing a car creates as much carbon as driving it | Environment | theguardian.com
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/...cle/news/39408
Now do a model to model comparison lets run a crummydore from 79 for 35 years compared to scrapping it every 10-12.
So if you scrap a car every 10 that is between 17-28%(63% according to one source!) extra emissions to build a new crummydore that you have to save over that vehicles life to justify building the next one. VB 79 com was getting 9-12 country city and weighed 1200-1400kgs the new commodore uses 7-12 country city and weighs 1700-1866 kgs:eek:.
So on the freeway its 20% more economical but having used identical fuel around town and around 40% more raw materials to make we don't need a 162 page uni blurb to tell us the outcome.
Lets do the same for the world biggest selling car C-rolla: 1979 6.5/100k's country and 9.1 city, weight 875kg's New corolla is 6.1 country and 9.7 city with a weight of 1270-1325:eek:
Again same outcome, worse in the city and almost 50% more raw materials used!
Why am I highlighting the raw materials, if there is a roughly set rate for raw materials to finished product emissions(extraction, conversion, tooling, cutting shaping etc.) and you use 40-50% more, it corresponds that emissions will increase by that amount. So for every 2 corollas made today you could have made 3 with the same raw materials and emissions in 1979.
1979 Toyota Corolla 1300 fuel economy review (since middle 1979 for Europe )
Toyota Corolla News and Reviews | Find All the Toyota Corolla Range on Drive
The car buyback was a 100% stimulus drive that the greens got suckered into.
If you really want to throw a spanner in the works what happens when you re-motor the classic 30+ year old car with a new motor and emissions gear? 150-250kg of new motor, far better emissions and reduced consumption but no need for the other ton+ of bling, factory re-tooling, transport, mining etc
Sorry, you are still misunderstanding. It is not just about energy and fuel consumption, the GHWP of the additional pollutants (e.g. VOCs) emitted by older cars is what makes the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by frantic
I posted a PhD thesis, and you give me few dodgy web links... :D
the text in that second article was from a published book . Look up their sources v yours ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1846...mdsc'dsc=1
And guess who else mentions/uses the Toyota 2004 study the IPCC but as you said Toyota and the IPCC would know far less about building a car than a uni student. :twisted:
5.3.1.4 Well-to-wheels analysis of technical mitigation options - AR4 WGIII Chapter 5: Transport and its infrastructure
And I think this is the Toyota study but hard to open On my phone :https://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&s...BCM0zPW2z-xziQ
The problem with getting an answer to which is "right" is that any study has to make so many assumptions that by choosing quite reasonable assumptions you can get pretty much any answer you want to. Just as a simple example, the emissions in producing a tonne of steel will depend significantly on how much of the input is recycled scrap, how much is newly mined and what source of energy was used for the processing. This becomes even more important if you take a tonne of aluminium. You have to input numbers for these, but whatever numbers you use, there are others that could be equally valid. Do you look at the numbers for a particular model from a particular factory at a particular time? Or do you take averages? In almost every case, a mixture will be used, whatever figures the author can get hold of, often where he/she can get more than one, they pick the one that will tend towards the desired answer! (And usually there are assumptions, particularly about usage, that will be wildly inaccurate for any specific example.)
John
What I want to know is why members of a Four wheel drive community are subscribing to Climate science claptrap..........
It's about accepting the reality of the situation, that majority of politics have subscribed or give lip service to climate change(long after science told them) BUT that many of the "solutions" in reality do little or nothing to help the environment that they say needs help.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony66_au
This thread's got way off topic
Sounds pretty normal to me :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 33chinacars