Carbon footprint % - manufacturing vs use

T-Maxx

A few weeks ago it was stated on the Matt Cooper show that approximately 20% of a car's total lifespan carbon emission is caused during the actual manufacturing process.

Is this true?

peasant

I have no idea, but if you look at all the components in a car these days I wouldn't be at all surprised if the figure was actually higher than 20%

scaldybelt

I heard a few years ago when the hybrids were being mooted as our saviours that the old petrol Jeep Wrangler is the most friendly to the environment over its lifetime. The reason being that no new energy was wasted in improving the design/engine (imagine the computers used by engineers, the lighting in their offices, the energy in producing prototypes etc). And that was taking into account the increased fuel used in the 2.5 or 4.0ltr engines it can have.

Max_Damage

scaldybelt wrote: »

I heard a few years ago when the hybrids were being mooted as our saviours that the old petrol Jeep Wrangler is the most friendly to the environment over its lifetime. The reason being that no new energy was wasted in improving the design/engine (imagine the computers used by engineers, the lighting in their offices, the energy in producing prototypes etc). And that was taking into account the increased fuel used in the 2.5 or 4.0ltr engines it can have.

I heard that aswell.

Also, isn't it true that most of the Land Rover Series/Defenders that were made in the past 60 years are still in use? Surely that's better for the environment, even if most of them do have uneconomical diesel or Rover V8 engines.

zilog_jones

Life cycle assessment of the Toyota Prius (only one I know of done for a car):
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf

There might be a more detailed/serious paper regarding this around somewhere. Problem with LCAs is that they're almost always made by the manufacturer, for the manufacturer, not peer-reviewed or anything.

JHMEG

Cars last a fair length these days, so I'd be surprised if it was as much as 20% in the manufacture.

It's also a bit of a myth that keeping an old gas guzzler on the road is better than a new small efficient car. After a few years the smaller car will have broken even with the gas guzzler and from there on in it's winning. Other thing is the old gas guzzler, if it meets any emissions standards at all they will be very poor. Basically any pre 1994 car can put what it wants into the air.

There was a nutball paper published by a marketing company a while back showing a Hummer to be more environmentally friendly than a Prius. It's been pretty much dismissed by anyone with more than half a brain. I think GM have also dismissed it.

Victor

Note that a reasonable percentage of the steel going into cars is recycled, although a lot of the plastics will be virgin.

peasant

JHMEG wrote: »

Cars last a fair length these days

In theory, yes ...in practice and on average they still are consumables and will be doing well if they last more than ten years / 200.000 miles (whichever comes first)

EDIT: this is even more true for modern cars, as they become worthless / uneconmical to repair once a minor obsolete electronic component fails.

JHMEG

peasant wrote: »

In theory, yes ...in practice and on average they still are consumables and will be doing well if they last more than ten years / 200.000 miles (whichever comes first)

How many 1997 cars do you know that have been scrapped over a minor component?

peasant

Sorry, should have explained better.

1997 cars (of the common garden variety) are / will be scrapped because they have become worthless and repairs are getting too expensive in relation to the value of the car.

2007 cars will get scrapped in 2017 ot thereabouts for the above reason also ...and because you can't get the chip for the ECU / ABS / rain sensing wipers/ auto headlamps any more

JHMEG

peasant wrote: »

Sorry, should have explained better.

1997 cars (of the common garden variety) are / will be scrapped because they have become worthless and repairs are getting too expensive in relation to the value of the car.

2007 cars will get scrapped in 2017 ot thereabouts for the above reason also ...and because you can't get the chip for the ECU / ABS / rain sensing wipers/ auto headlamps any more

You didn't answer the question.

There is very little that can go wrong with a 1997 car that makes it not worth repairing. If there is more than one problem then yes. But not many 1997 cars would be scrapped because of one of the things you mentioned.

15 years is more realistic for typical cars. Some will last more, some will last less.

peasant

And you didn't understand my posts in the first place

JHMEG

peasant wrote: »

And you didn't understand my posts in the first place

How many ways can this statement be interpretted?

in practice and on average they still are consumables and will be doing well if they last more than ten years / 200.000 miles (whichever comes first)

I think you're making throw-away statements now, rather than answering the question.

peasant

I' m talking about averages here

Yes there are certain cars (collectors items, taxis, etc) that will well exceed the 10 year / 200.000 mile barrier.
Most cars are technically capable of doing so. The problem is that in a consumer society an old car with a fair bit of mileage is next to worthless.
If the owner now has to expend the value of the car for one repair (say a new clutch or a new head gasket) and knows that other components will follow suit soon, most owners just draw a line in the sand and throw the car away ...even though, technically speaking, it would be perfectly serviceable for another few years. It just doesn't make econmic sense anymore as a slightly younger car with less wear and tear can be got for less money then the repairs would cost.

This problem is going to become worse on most recent cars, as niggly electrical component failures will be almost unrepairable as the components have become obsolete.

JHMEG

peasant wrote: »

I' m talking about averages here

So am I and I said 15 years not 10. I asked you have you seen any 1997 cars that have been scrapped over one of the reasons you mentioned, and I can only assume you haven't...

peasant

You can assume whatever you like.

Personally, I find having a discussion with you about as enjoyable as haemmorhoids, therefore I'm going to end my part of it.

Max_Damage

JHMEG wrote: »

So am I and I said 15 years not 10. I asked you have you seen any 1997 cars that have been scrapped over one of the reasons you mentioned, and I can only assume you haven't...

Well, if it makes any difference, I was in a scrapyard there the other day getting parts for my car, and the majority of cars there were late 90's / early 00's.

JHMEG

peasant wrote: »

You can assume whatever you like.

Personally, I find having a discussion with you about as enjoyable as haemmorhoids, therefore I'm going to end my part of it.

Since you refuse to answer the question I am left to conclude that you are making up stuff to back up your argument. So I understand your decision.

JHMEG

Max_Damage wrote: »

Well, if it makes any difference, I was in a scrapyard there the other day getting parts for my car, and the majority of cars there were late 90's / early 00's.

The vast majority I assume were crashed and bodywork is prohibitively expensive. Not saying all cars 10 years old are still on the road, just the vast majority.

zilog_jones

My car's 10 years old and still on the road - FACT
However, there's low compression in one of the cylinders and if it turns out to be from something serious like camshaft wear I don't know how much longer that will last. Then again I could probably just get another engine cheap enough (1.3 pushrod lol)...

I know people who've given up on 15+ year old cars because of things like the clutch, alternator etc.

Max_Damage

JHMEG wrote: »

The vast majority I assume were crashed and bodywork is prohibitively expensive. Not saying all cars 10 years old are still on the road, just the vast majority.

About 50-50 actually. Most I reckon had some sort of engine failure.

Max_Damage

zilog_jones wrote: »

Then again I could probably just get another engine cheap enough (1.3 pushrod lol)...

What car do you have? My Escort is a 1.3L pushrod aswell. No problems so far!

Timmaay

JHMEG wrote: »

Cars last a fair length these days, so I'd be surprised if it was as much as 20% in the manufacture.

It's also a bit of a myth that keeping an old gas guzzler on the road is better than a new small efficient car. After a few years the smaller car will have broken even with the gas guzzler and from there on in it's winning. Other thing is the old gas guzzler, if it meets any emissions standards at all they will be very poor. Basically any pre 1994 car can put what it wants into the air.

There was a nutball paper published by a marketing company a while back showing a Hummer to be more environmentally friendly than a Prius. It's been pretty much dismissed by anyone with more than half a brain. I think GM have also dismissed it.

For my final year I had to do a tech essay on the life cycle of a hybird, and looked at all this stuff. My conclusion was that the fuel used during the life of a vehicle on average accounted for 90% of all the energy used over the life of vehicle. This included materials manufacture, assembly, disassembly, recycling etc.

So without doubt it is worth replacing your rusty gas guzzler with a more modern more efficent car every so often. If we were all driving around in '50s land rovers, we'd be far more up sh!t creak with smog/pollution etc.

I came across that marketing BS report during my research also, they put some effort into the report (460pages), but took some stupid assumptions. I suppose they were only marketing muppets anyway, an engineer wouldn't have put his name to something like that.

From their wiki page:
"CNWMR's publication "From Dust to Dust" [1] claims that a Hummer is more efficient than a Prius, despite the fact that a Prius is one-third the weight of a hummer and gets between four and six times better mileage. CNWMR claims that their efficiencies are based on Priuses lasting only 109,000 miles whilst Hummers run for more than 300,000. Arguments against the claim call the methods of analysis that produced these figures questionable"

JHMEG

Timmaay wrote: »

I came across that marketing BS report during my research also, they put some effort into the report (460pages),

The very fact that CNWMR won't reveal several sources reeks of fish. Must have been a slow news day... can be the only reason the media jumped on it. (Or big oil was behind the scenes)

zilog_jones

Max_Damage wrote: »

What car do you have? My Escort is a 1.3L pushrod aswell. No problems so far!

A '98 Fiesta (76k miles), so it's the same engine. There's a significant gap in the service history so one of the previous owners may have neglected it - and these engines don't seem to take a lack of oil changes very well. Valve and cam follower wear (is that just a fancy name for tappets or are they slightly different things?) seem to be common enough issues with them.

Due to my current financial status (just out of college, temp job etc.) I'd be more inclined to get it fixed or swap the engine, but if I get a job soon that involves a lot of travelling or a company car its days may be numbered...

Clare_Guy

According to a VW-sponsored report, manufacturing accounts for 27-30% of a car's total CO2 footprint. And that figure disregards electricity used in production which would surely add significantly to the figure...

zilog_jones

How long are they assuming the car lasts though?