Environmentally Friendly Motoring

P. Breathnach

[This post is triggered by my having spent over €300 on my car yesterday on replacing a failed part and buying tyres.]

I accept that motoring places a burden on the environment, so the header is something of an oxymoron. But if we are going to use cars, I think we should try to keep down the environmental impact.

There are two things I do that reduce my fuel consumption
- eliminate unnecessary journeys (okay, let's be honest: reduce the number of unnecessary journeys);
- drive gently -- no sharp acceleration, travel at moderate speeds, use brakes only when needed.

But the big issue for me is the car itself. I drive a car with 1600cc engine that is 9 years old and in very good condition -- partly because I spend a bit on it from time to time, as I did yesterday. With the large number of unsold s/h cars on the market, if I traded it in it would probably result in one more unit being scrapped and replaced by the manufacture of one new car. Even if I bought an "environmentally friendly" car, I think it would be a bad deal for the environment. That may change some time in the future if and when my car deteriorates significantly. Until then, I think the best choice is to use it and spend some money maintaining it.

So what should I be driving: a nine-year old Passat or a new Prius?

Cookie_Monster

Keeping cars as long as possible is what we should be doing. And then breaking them for part rather than squishing them ideally.

However the "must keep up with the Jones' attitude" (plus a variety of other reasons) means it will never happen i think.

Don't ever buy a Prius, they are one of the most enviromentally damaging cars ever made.

P. Breathnach

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Don't ever buy a Prius, they are one of the most enviromentally damaging cars ever made.

Well, I'm not thinking of buying one at the moment.

I have heard the claim that, on balance, the Prius is environmentally damaging. But I have also heard the counter-claim that the comparisons with other vehicles were questionable or dishonest. Does anybody know which version I should believe?

Cookie_Monster

P. Breathnach wrote: »

. But I have also heard the counter-claim that the comparisons with other vehicles were questionable or dishonest.

What you mean by that?


AFAIC, the mpg is not much better than many similar sized cars and way lower than smaller ones or diesel

From toyoa website (so probably higher than actual real world)

45 MPG HIGHWAY EST.
48 MPG CITY EST

My 1.5 almera gets about 38 city and 45+ motorway. mainly cos it lighter I'd say.

plus the manufacture and disposal of the batteries is very "carbon heavy"

Metal for the batteries (Nickel?) mined in Canada, shipped to Eu for processing then to China and turned to battery then to Japan to be put in car and then back to EU/US etc markets...

Macha

Well it all comes back to embodied energy in a new car. The metals, in particular, used to make a new car take up a huge amount of energy. I would stick with the Passat if I were you.

Eco-driving also includes measures such as checking your tyres once a week. This link has a few more tips (& an intro by Arnie!!there's sound):

http://www.ecodrivingusa.com/

As you already mentioned, you can cut down on unnecessary trips by linking trips (ie picking kids up & doing shopping on the same outing), changing mode (using bike/bus/legs instead) and by linking modes (ie drive to park n ride, use train).

List of materials & their relative embodied energies:

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/asf/perspectives_sustainibility/measures_of_sustainablity/measures_of_sustainablity_embodied.htm

P. Breathnach

Cookie Monster, what I meant by my comment was that I read somewhere online (where exactly, I can't remember) that American experts had determined that over the life of a vehicle, some 4WD was more environmentally friendly than a Prius. It seems that they allowed the 4WD twice the lifespan of a Prius! Some environmental activists might be a bit blinkered, or intolerant, or preachy, or a bit wrong-headed. I don't think they are nearly as bad as many of their opponents, who seem willing to play fast and loose with the facts in order to make profits.

Yes, I see stonking great batteries as a problem -- their production, the energy cost of driving them around, and their disposal.

I have seen better figures claimed for the Prius. Might you have looked at a US site, with US gallons?

taconnol, I agree that environmentally friendly motoring is a lifestyle issue. Walking a bit more is also good for health and sense of well-being. I try not to let the smugness show.

I confess that I have not been as good at checking tyre pressures as I should. Now I have a new ingredient to put into my formula.

I was quite confident that keeping my Passat was the right option: good for the environment, and good for my pocket.

Cookie_Monster

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Cookie Monster, what I meant by my comment was that I read somewhere online (where exactly, I can't remember) that American experts had determined that over the life of a vehicle, some 4WD was more environmentally friendly than a Prius. It seems that they allowed the 4WD twice the lifespan of a Prius!

I see

I would say they would have 2x times the life of a prius (but i've nothing to back that up, just an opinion).

TheGrabbingHand

I wish someone would explain this to our beloved minister so he can stop screwing all of us owners of older cars on motor tax

TheGrabbingHand

TheGrabbingHand wrote: »

I wish someone would explain this to our beloved minister so he can stop screwing all of us owners of older cars on motor tax

I did ,several times, his letters were "unsympathetic".
If you agree then email or write to him also.

derry

P. Breathnach wrote: »

[This post is triggered by my having spent over €300 on my car yesterday on replacing a failed part and buying tyres.]

I accept that motoring places a burden on the environment, so the header is something of an oxymoron. But if we are going to use cars, I think we should try to keep down the environmental impact.

There are two things I do that reduce my fuel consumption
- eliminate unnecessary journeys (okay, let's be honest: reduce the number of unnecessary journeys);
- drive gently -- no sharp acceleration, travel at moderate speeds, use brakes only when needed.

But the big issue for me is the car itself. I drive a car with 1600cc engine that is 9 years old and in very good condition -- partly because I spend a bit on it from time to time, as I did yesterday. With the large number of unsold s/h cars on the market, if I traded it in it would probably result in one more unit being scrapped and replaced by the manufacture of one new car. Even if I bought an "environmentally friendly" car, I think it would be a bad deal for the environment. That may change some time in the future if and when my car deteriorates significantly. Until then, I think the best choice is to use it and spend some money maintaining it.

So what should I be driving: a nine-year old Passat or a new Prius?

Some basic info

One ton of Steel will need 5 tons of oil to make
each ton of oil will make 2 to 3 tons of CO2 say 2.5 tons

A old car could be 1 ton of steel

Plastic requires 1.5 tons of oil to make 1 ton of plastic

modern cars can be 20% plastic parts

A car that goes 100,000 miles at 20 MPG will use 5000 gallons of petrol or ~20 tons of oil
That means the total CO2 will be 25 tons of oil *2.5~= 62 tons of CO2
Assuming a average pine tree say 50 feet is 1/2 ton we need 130 trees to fix and recycle the CO2


Now if somebody makes a car that uses 80MPG or 5 tonns of oil to go 100,000 miles there can be a striong case to change cars

However a car that does 20MPG will probably new version do 25MPG and so incentive to change is reduced as there is the intial 3 to5 tons of oil to consider

A fully 80% plastic car would be interesting in it low oil manufactuering content which with its lighter weight could use a lot less fuel

Swing and round abouts for the case to keep the old or buy the new

this post on this thread has more info
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55652908&postcount=5

derry wrote:

Given unlimited budget and expensive solutions 100mpg could happen sooner but
to understand the problem its to do with where the biggest losses are

First car engine with the petrol fuel is ~30% efficient so ~60% fuel is wasted for starters or gets thrown out the exhaust stack as heat noise vibration mechanical losses whatever

In steady state driving at 55mph on the highway

There is drag from air drag
and from brakes always wearing against the disks
coupled with mechanical losses through gear box
rolling friction from tyres
and other factors
and the half of the engines ~30% efficiency is lost

so now the car is 15% efficient maxuim
( in what we called global efficiency where we look at all the factors)

~15% is best case on a good day with a following wind and is more often likely to be ~12% efficient

Throw in traffic accelerating stopping etc and ~6% efficiency is easy in most city driving so meaning a car that does half in highway and half in city would come in at ~10% efficiency best case expect les

so 90% the fuel is wasted somewhere and we arrive at a 10% global efficiency

.....continued ...on the post #5

taken from this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055269247



Info on conserving fuel on this post #36 thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57189331&postcount=36

taken from this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055209646


and more info on using Bio fuel E85 which works for lots of non flex fuel cars even without modification kits

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055369646

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055377204


Derry