Greenest / Cleanest cars (life analysis)

[theaveng]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

My bet is their first fail is to use EPA numbers, then they probably fail to penalize things they like that are harmful like added batteries and their replacement

You make a lot of weird assumptions. (1) Using EPA numbers is not a "fail"..... they are the result of a standardized test in a controlled lab environment, run again-and-again.

(2) They do penalize cars that have batteries. It's one reason they scored the Tesla less clean then a diesel Jetta or Passat. They take into account the pollution created to manufacture the batteries.

(3) Also the perfect score is 100 (no pollution). No car comes anywhere near that. The best is only 59% clean. The Tesla EV only received 37% clean.

Their scoring system is quite harsh.

[theaveng]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

giving too high a weight to NOx emissions. That's probably a historic legacy, from back when urban smog was thought to be the only problem.

Not really historic..... the CARB-compliant states have banned any car that makes too much NOx. Like my 2006 Volkswagen diesel which (when I bought it) was only available in 45 states and banned in the other 5.

Even now for 2015 cars, NOx reduction is the reason several modern diesels carry urea (else they'd be banned in CARB states). It isn't history. It's the present limit. NOx creates poisonous air..... that's why it is strictly regulated as close to zero as possible.

I am amazed you didn't know that, but frankly I'm tired of NOx hovering over cities. You're not supposed to See air.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

You quoted Backpacker33 who made the claim of mid 30's.

I'm sorry, but I am not responsible for your choice to read more into a statement than I intended to put there.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theaveng

Not really historic..... the CARB-compliant states have banned any car that makes too much NOx.

It's 'historic' in the sense that it derives from the urban air pollution problems of the '60s and '70s. Today we know that CO2 is the far greater problem, and affects everyone, not just urbanites.

I am amazed you didn't know that, but frankly I'm tired of NOx hovering over cities. You're not supposed to See air.

Then don't live in or near a city.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

It's 'historic' in the sense that it derives from the urban air pollution problems of the '60s and '70s. Today we know that CO2 is the far greater problem, and affects everyone, not just urbanites.



Then don't live in or near a city.

And your statements assume smog stays put. Why don't you make mention of the bodies of water turned acidic by the precipitation of NOx? Many of them were miles down wind from the NOx source.

And, many valley centers are affected by city emissions by virtue of geography. Controlling the air quality within an area means controlling "visiting" pollution sources - vehicles. The cost to police each vehicle is prohibitive and thus it is easier and much more economical to make each vehicle emissions compliant across the whole country.

The problem of pollution is a large and complex animal and your sweeping statements don't begin to cover it.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I'm sorry, but I am not responsible for your choice to read more into a statement than I intended to put there.

Then what exactly did you mean in post #27 where you quoted and then agreed with the quote? Never mind, at this point what difference does it make?

I'm just glad you are sorry, and you ABSOLUTELY are responsible for all my choices to what I read into things you post. Just so you know I'm now reading in some sexual tensions here...

I think I better stop reading this thread before things get any more serious.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

"Unclean at any speed," is an opinion piece. It takes from many factual resources and comes to the conclusion that reducing fossil fuel use is the fastest and best short term answer to clean up the environment.

+1

All the facts in the world are useless if you're too stupid to use them to form an opinion (and an opinion that is not based on facts is proof of stupidity) that guides your actions. Calling something an opinion piece doesn't mean it's full of $#*+ like the politicized things presented as facts on cable news channels with a thin disclaimer of "opinion" like #notintendedtobeafactualstatement.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And your statements assume smog stays put. Why don't you make mention of the bodies of water turned acidic by the precipitation of NOx? Many of them were miles down wind from the NOx source.

Because acid rain is primarily caused by SULFUR dioxide emissions, which come mainly from power plants* - hence it is a major problem in the northeast, which lies downwind of all those midwestern coal plants. Nitrogen oxides (which are produced in significant quantities by natural processes such as lightning) are fairly quickly converted to nitrates, and become plant fertilizer.

Thus NOx emissions are, at worst, a short-term and localized problem. Stop using IC engines &c, and they go away in short order. CO2 is a persistent and accumulating problem.


*Because most of the sulfur is removed from petroleum before it becomes gasoline or diesel.

[theaveng]

Originally Posted by backpacker3

in order to build those hybrids you have to employ mining methods that are terrible for the environment to get many of the things you need for the battery packs. Plus once a hybrid ends up in a junkyard the battery is usually unusable.

Jeremy Clarkson, is that you? You sound just like 'im.

There was just a thread on here showing what kind of mpg you need to get to be just as efficient as a fully electric car due to the amount of emissions produced by power plants in the area and in some places it was as low as the mid 30s. It seems to me that an efficient gas car, perhaps even a pzev model, that can be completely recycled when it dies would be much more Eco friendly.

Yes EVs are dirty in the midwest but exceptionally clean in New York and California (equivalent to 100 MPG gassoline cars) because of their clean energy policies.

And PZEV cars do rank high on greenercars list, but PZEV cars have a lower city MPG rating than a hybrid, so the PZEV cars rank just a few points below hybrids.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

*Because most of the sulfur is removed from petroleum before it becomes gasoline or diesel.

You might know, many power plants, just like those transoceanic ships, run on crude oil. A few attempts to decrease their sulphur-related emissions have been done by LNG-enhancement.