View Single Post
Old 08-10-2012, 05:18 PM   #23 (permalink)
NachtRitter
NightKnight
 
NachtRitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 1,594

RippinRoo - '05 Subaru Legacy Wagon 2.5 GT
Subaru
90 day: 21.16 mpg (US)

Helga - '00 Volkswagen Jetta TDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
Diesel
90 day: 53.91 mpg (US)

Olga - '03 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon
90 day: 46.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 303
Thanked 311 Times in 186 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455 View Post
The question is, is it better to buy a more fuel-efficient car that brings with it an increase in pollution from the mining, refining, and transport of rare earth metals, or buy a less fuel-efficient car that emits more particulates, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other gases?
Not to mention the mining, refining, and transport of the fossil fuels, of which a disappointingly tiny amount can be recycled (and even smaller amount is!).

I agree, there really is no "magic bullet"... no one solution that is so superior in all aspects that it is the clear successor to fossil fuel. But I do believe there are several solutions that can exist in parallel which are improvements over the current situation. Yes, improvements (aero and engine) to straight ICE vehicles are one approach... but being able to double (or more!) the FE by adding battery and electric motors just might be worth the additional technology... especially if, at the end of their life, the batteries can be recycled (I think current numbers are in the range of 95% of the material can be recycled).
  Reply With Quote