Quote:
Originally Posted by autoteach
Well, what would I want electrics to be, or politicians? I think I will go with the hybrid/electrics...I just dont think that the savings in fuel over a well designed vehicle outweigh the pollution of production. I am talking about the chain from mining to driving. It is displaced pollution, and unregulated.
|
I doubt that. The extra embodied energy of a hybrid versus a comparable car
are very small (page 26), something like a couple percent increase in energy use and about half that in GHG emissions because not all the energy industry uses is Carbon based on large stationary generators tend to have greater average efficiency than smaller mobile ones. If hybridization only reduced emissions by a couple percent, then yeah, it wouldn't be worthwhile, but as it stands it's definitely worthwhile from the POV of emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by autoteach
Ok, you make a great point on the new civic with uncorrected numbers (unfortunately I dont know what the correction rates are). You also support my arguments, its bigger, heavier, accelerates faster, has more "creature" comforts... What is necessary? GPS, heated seats, or a car that is more efficient?
|
The data is
here. The newer files are a bit easier to read than the older ones but everything is there. Manufacturers build cars w/ more features because people are willing to pay for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by autoteach
And you are right, there aren't many that meet the 50, let alone 40mpg w/o being hybrids. Should that be the case? I dont think so.
|
I'm inclined to agree, but realistically w/ a vehicle fleet at ~25mpg, getting to ~35mpg will get better savings than going from ~35mpg to ~50mpg. Ultimately it will depend on gas prices. If the price of oil goes up or if we increase the gas tax then we'll see a lot more people interested in more fuel efficient cars.