Help me win a bet about Co2 please..
Discussion
Evening all - crikey its been a long while since I dropped a post into PH..feels pretty good.
What makes this site special is that there are some clever old sorts on here and I know that the PH collective can come up with some serious answers ( and amusing ones ) to serious questions...
Anyhow, a question for you.
What is better in terms of CO2 output ?( lets just assume that CO2 is important for the purposes of this )
To buy an electric hybrid thingy - brand new and the source of huge amounts of CO2 in its manufacture
OR
Any old V8 where the carbon has already been used up in making it
In other words, is this cobblers on global warming better solved if people simply stopped buying new cars ( and causing massive C02 output in their manufacture ) and instead kept the ones we have, however thirsty and Co2 emitting they may be?
Thanks chaps - I have a greenie colleague to win a tenner from, as I have sworn to him that more Co2 is used making a hybrid car than you'll ever use if you simply kept the old car you have....
I hope I'm right !
What makes this site special is that there are some clever old sorts on here and I know that the PH collective can come up with some serious answers ( and amusing ones ) to serious questions...
Anyhow, a question for you.
What is better in terms of CO2 output ?( lets just assume that CO2 is important for the purposes of this )
To buy an electric hybrid thingy - brand new and the source of huge amounts of CO2 in its manufacture
OR
Any old V8 where the carbon has already been used up in making it
In other words, is this cobblers on global warming better solved if people simply stopped buying new cars ( and causing massive C02 output in their manufacture ) and instead kept the ones we have, however thirsty and Co2 emitting they may be?
Thanks chaps - I have a greenie colleague to win a tenner from, as I have sworn to him that more Co2 is used making a hybrid car than you'll ever use if you simply kept the old car you have....
I hope I'm right !
toppstuff said:You are, i'm sure someone like turbobloke will be along with the numbers.
I hope I'm right !
When you have won your bet, try your freind with another to fry his brain, like luxury cars or 4X4's being more environmentally freindly than a bus to move the same number of people from A to B.
Average bus occupancy 8
Average MPG 7
Average CO2 3800
Bentley Arnage seats 4 (not including chauffeur)
Average MPG 14
Average CO2 495
So basically using two Bentleys instead of one bus is cleaner and greener, takes up less road space, and they would be cheaper to buy and run for the bus company than the bus if they bought at say two years old £75K a piece compared to £160K for a new double decker.
Balmoral Green said:
I hope I'm right !
When you have won your bet, try your freind with another to fry his brain, like luxury cars or 4X4's being more environmentally freindly than a bus to move the same number of people from A to B.
Average bus occupancy 8
Average MPG 7
Average CO2 3800
Bentley Arnage seats 4 (not including chauffeur)
Average MPG 14
Average CO2 495
So basically using two Bentleys instead of one bus is cleaner and greener, takes up less road space, and they would be cheaper to buy and run for the bus company than the bus if they bought at say two years old £75K a piece compared to £160K for a new double decker.
Do buses only get 7mpg?
That's not combined I hope... ben
RobDickinson said:
Do buses only get 7mpg?
ben
They get 7-8 mpg with the CAT removed, otherwise it'd be 3-4mpg.
Blimey! I didn't realise how much diesel they burnt.
I read somewhere that the larger diesel bus engines released far more carcinogenic compounds than cars. Anyone know if that's true? Just that I spend far too much time under the sun in Russell Sq, which is probably one of the more polluted squares in London, with all the buses that circle around it...
ben
Balmoral Green said:
I hope I'm right !
When you have won your bet, try your freind with another to fry his brain, like luxury cars or 4X4's being more environmentally freindly than a bus to move the same number of people from A to B.
Average bus occupancy 8
Average MPG 7
Average CO2 3800
Bentley Arnage seats 4 (not including chauffeur)
Average MPG 14
Average CO2 495
So basically using two Bentleys instead of one bus is cleaner and greener, takes up less road space, and they would be cheaper to buy and run for the bus company than the bus if they bought at say two years old £75K a piece compared to £160K for a new double decker.
They would need to pay two drivers though about £25K+ each according to ads on the back of the bus looking for drivers (a lot more than I earn! hmmm
)
d off.to answer the original question; there are loads of studies that prove your point. type in "lifetime energy costs" into google. many 'normal' small cars have better lifetime energy costs than hybrids, at the moment.
it is blindingly obvious that choosing a secondhand "gas guzzler" is far better for the environment than buying a brand new hybrid, even though fuel consumption and emmisions are worse. real environmentalists should drive classic sports cars with high compression engines !
it is blindingly obvious that choosing a secondhand "gas guzzler" is far better for the environment than buying a brand new hybrid, even though fuel consumption and emmisions are worse. real environmentalists should drive classic sports cars with high compression engines !
toppstuff said:
Evening all - crikey its been a long while since I dropped a post into PH..feels pretty good.
What makes this site special is that there are some clever old sorts on here and I know that the PH collective can come up with some serious answers ( and amusing ones ) to serious questions...
Anyhow, a question for you.
What is better in terms of CO2 output ?( lets just assume that CO2 is important for the purposes of this )
To buy an electric hybrid thingy - brand new and the source of huge amounts of CO2 in its manufacture
OR
Any old V8 where the carbon has already been used up in making it
In other words, is this cobblers on global warming better solved if people simply stopped buying new cars ( and causing massive C02 output in their manufacture ) and instead kept the ones we have, however thirsty and Co2 emitting they may be?
Thanks chaps - I have a greenie colleague to win a tenner from, as I have sworn to him that more Co2 is used making a hybrid car than you'll ever use if you simply kept the old car you have....
I hope I'm right !
It depends on how many miles you are going to do and 100 other things. Don't believe anyone that comes on here giving you "the answer". Also, one of the points of electric cars is to keep pollution out of cities.
From the road tests i've seen, the most MPG the hybrids get (the usuable sized ones) is about 45MPG... compare that with the diesel, and even if you take into account the emmisions are lower on the hybrid, I bet the total emmisions taking into account the differences in consumption will at best be even for the hybrid.
There's also the issue of grades of pollution over the total lifetime - an old inefficient guzzler will mainly pollute with CO2. However the manufacture of a new hybrid vehicle involves the production of lithium batteries, and I'd bet that the type and quantity of pollution produced in manufacture is not pleasant.
Total energy use over lifetime favours keeping older cars as already stated. However the pollution footprint of a car isn't just energy usage and CO2 output, but the other waste products generated during manufacture.
Total energy use over lifetime favours keeping older cars as already stated. However the pollution footprint of a car isn't just energy usage and CO2 output, but the other waste products generated during manufacture.
Check ILEA Linky out - energy use over a typical 14 year lifecycle is dominated by fuel use. Fuel use generates primarily CO2.
Pollution in general is dominated by manufacturing, but this will not be primarily CO2 but other components injurious to humans and the planet.
Therefore we can deduce that the majority of CO2 output over the car's lifecycle is produced by fuel usage, sorry mate... however on an ecological basis I'm more concerned with the pollution from manufacture - CO2 isn't a big deal compared to industrial pollution.
Pollution in general is dominated by manufacturing, but this will not be primarily CO2 but other components injurious to humans and the planet.
Therefore we can deduce that the majority of CO2 output over the car's lifecycle is produced by fuel usage, sorry mate... however on an ecological basis I'm more concerned with the pollution from manufacture - CO2 isn't a big deal compared to industrial pollution.
OK, some numbers to play with (based on interest rather than any particular bias):
On Manufacturing the car:
[url]This source|www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.[/url] estimates that the energy required to manufacture a car (example used: a 1990 Ford Taurus) is 119,755 MJ
Let us assume that the energy came entirely from a gas fired power station. In terms of CO2 production, such a station sits broadly between low carbon sources (e.g nuclear and renewable) and high sources (coal fired power station, diesel in all the transportation). A gas-fired power station produces 1.25 kg of CO2 per kwh. That equals 0.347kg of CO2 per MJ. I've lost the source for this, but it is commonly repeated across environmental websites.
Therefore, the CO2 cost of building the car is 41,555kg of CO2.
*Note; I doubt energy figures have changed dramatically since 1990. I would also suggest that a hybrid uses more energy to produce, partly because there is more 'stuff' going in, partly because more of that 'stuff' is high energy material (copper, lead), and partly because i presume the batteries would need to be replaced within the vehicles life cycle).
On Use Of The Car:
Petrol produces about 20kg of CO2 per gallon (sources traceable)
But what matters is the marginal improvement created by the new car over the old car. So let's use a (perhaps generous) assumption that the new car (which we will assume is of a similar size to your old car) delivers an average 20mpg better, going from 25mpg to 45mpg. Or turned over, that's 0.018 less gallons per mile.
We need to make another assumption. Both cars are petrol (though once you think about it, the same logic applies if the new car is a petrol hybrid, gaining all its energy from the petrol and none from the mains). Therefore the new car is producing 0.356kg per mile less CO2.
Therefore we can say that when this new car has done 116,750 miles (that's the CO2 production cost of 41,555kg divided by the CO2 saving of 0.356kg/mile), then your new car will be delivering a net CO2 saving.
If we alter the assumption, and say the new car deliver 25mpg improvement (50mpg over 25mpg) it is saving 0.02gallons per mile. That means 'break-even' would be at 103,000 miles. The numbers are fairly easy to work out.
So what does this mean?
Now 100,000 miles to break-even seems a long time, and for the sake of your bet, you may want to ignore the next bit, because it gets complicated!
You now need to consider the lifecycle of the car, not just your time with it. By buying your new car, your old car has presumably been passed down the chain. Ultimately, some old banger will drop off the chain and be crushed. As an aside, that means our assumption of 20mpg improvement is more realistic. But it is also likely that cars lower down the chain are being used less frequently.
I am not aware of the figures, but I believe that the average lifecycle for a car is around 14 years, and maybe 200,000 miles (mind you, I have my doubts, because I'm not convinced these estimates include cars that are crashed or in some way removed from the system prematurely). Therefore, the average car would deliver a benefit, but it would take something around 5 years to do so. Even if there are some significant errors in the assumptions, I can't see the break-even getting below 50,000 miles, which I find surprisingly high.
But averages are irrelevant to your bet/argumant. The bet is about your car. You imply that it's a bit of an old nag. It's mpg is probably a bit low, but it's also probably doing less than average mileage. You would need to redo the numbers specifically for your situation.
I've just worked this through for my own interest, and have no axe to grind either way. I've considered the same question as to whether it would be justifiable to trade in my 12 year old (and only 1,500 miles per annum) Fiat - apparently the answer would be a resounding no. Perhaps someone else could go through my workings to see whether the assumptions and maths are correct?
Edited for one small error, and can't understand why my ILEA linky doesn't work!
>> Edited by HiRich on Tuesday 16th May 16:25
On Manufacturing the car:
[url]This source|www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.[/url] estimates that the energy required to manufacture a car (example used: a 1990 Ford Taurus) is 119,755 MJ
Let us assume that the energy came entirely from a gas fired power station. In terms of CO2 production, such a station sits broadly between low carbon sources (e.g nuclear and renewable) and high sources (coal fired power station, diesel in all the transportation). A gas-fired power station produces 1.25 kg of CO2 per kwh. That equals 0.347kg of CO2 per MJ. I've lost the source for this, but it is commonly repeated across environmental websites.
Therefore, the CO2 cost of building the car is 41,555kg of CO2.
*Note; I doubt energy figures have changed dramatically since 1990. I would also suggest that a hybrid uses more energy to produce, partly because there is more 'stuff' going in, partly because more of that 'stuff' is high energy material (copper, lead), and partly because i presume the batteries would need to be replaced within the vehicles life cycle).
On Use Of The Car:
Petrol produces about 20kg of CO2 per gallon (sources traceable)
But what matters is the marginal improvement created by the new car over the old car. So let's use a (perhaps generous) assumption that the new car (which we will assume is of a similar size to your old car) delivers an average 20mpg better, going from 25mpg to 45mpg. Or turned over, that's 0.018 less gallons per mile.
We need to make another assumption. Both cars are petrol (though once you think about it, the same logic applies if the new car is a petrol hybrid, gaining all its energy from the petrol and none from the mains). Therefore the new car is producing 0.356kg per mile less CO2.
Therefore we can say that when this new car has done 116,750 miles (that's the CO2 production cost of 41,555kg divided by the CO2 saving of 0.356kg/mile), then your new car will be delivering a net CO2 saving.
If we alter the assumption, and say the new car deliver 25mpg improvement (50mpg over 25mpg) it is saving 0.02gallons per mile. That means 'break-even' would be at 103,000 miles. The numbers are fairly easy to work out.
So what does this mean?
Now 100,000 miles to break-even seems a long time, and for the sake of your bet, you may want to ignore the next bit, because it gets complicated!
You now need to consider the lifecycle of the car, not just your time with it. By buying your new car, your old car has presumably been passed down the chain. Ultimately, some old banger will drop off the chain and be crushed. As an aside, that means our assumption of 20mpg improvement is more realistic. But it is also likely that cars lower down the chain are being used less frequently.
I am not aware of the figures, but I believe that the average lifecycle for a car is around 14 years, and maybe 200,000 miles (mind you, I have my doubts, because I'm not convinced these estimates include cars that are crashed or in some way removed from the system prematurely). Therefore, the average car would deliver a benefit, but it would take something around 5 years to do so. Even if there are some significant errors in the assumptions, I can't see the break-even getting below 50,000 miles, which I find surprisingly high.
But averages are irrelevant to your bet/argumant. The bet is about your car. You imply that it's a bit of an old nag. It's mpg is probably a bit low, but it's also probably doing less than average mileage. You would need to redo the numbers specifically for your situation.
I've just worked this through for my own interest, and have no axe to grind either way. I've considered the same question as to whether it would be justifiable to trade in my 12 year old (and only 1,500 miles per annum) Fiat - apparently the answer would be a resounding no. Perhaps someone else could go through my workings to see whether the assumptions and maths are correct?
Edited for one small error, and can't understand why my ILEA linky doesn't work!
>> Edited by HiRich on Tuesday 16th May 16:25
Sorry toppstuff, missed this one and only found it by accident searching the threads today... must go and do something less useful than PH so you might like to Google on CNW Marketing + Dust to Dust (or similar) for the original work.
Research shows that lifetime costs are higher
Toyota Prius: hybrid debate hots up
The debate over the effectiveness of hybrid-powered vehicles at delivering anything other than lower mileage figures has just heated up. A US marketing company has released research showing that when you take the whole life costs of such a vehicle into account, they're not better for the planet after all.
Hybrid petrol electric vehicle advocates trumpet the environmental benefits of the petrol-electric vehicles, but, according to the results of an exhaustive two year study, the overall energy picture for hybrid vehicles isn’t as favourable as it seems. Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research said that, when the total cost of hybrids to the environment is calculated, including factors like original production and then recycling of batteries and electric motors, into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure, hybrids come up short against conventional powered vehicles which where thought to consume more of the world’s energy.
"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles," said company boss Art Spinella. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage taking into account the energy needed to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from concept to scrappage some high economy vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime."
Hybrids are not so "green".
CNW’s "Dust to Dust" survey studied hundreds of variables but to make it easy for the consumer to understand, developed an energy cost per mile driven figure. While some of the vehicles referred to aren't sold in the UK or Europe, the overall thrust of the research makes sense.
Topping the league with the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, VW Phaeton at $11.213 and Rolls-Royce Phantom at $10.660 while the thriftiest is the Scion xB at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile, ahead of the Ford Escort at $0.568 and Jeep Wrangler at $0.604. However, the research brings into question the whole concept of hybrids as "energy-saving", at least for the planet as a whole.
The industry average of 312 vehicles was $2.281, yet all the hybrids cost more than this. Compact family hybrids like the Toyota Prius ($3.249) and Honda Civic hybrid ($3.238), cost more than a full size SUV Land Rover Discovery ($2.525) or Lincoln Navigator ($2.617). By comparison, America’s best selling car, the mid-size Toyota Camry, cost $1.954 and the similar Nissan Altima only $1.381. Hybrids on the other hand cost more over their lifetime due to the extra complexity and production and recycling costs: the Hybrid Honda Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the regular version’s is $2.18. A regular Honda Civic costs $2.420.
"This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions were true in the real world."
If you can find that list in full toppstuff you might well get your tenner...
Research shows that lifetime costs are higher
Toyota Prius: hybrid debate hots up
The debate over the effectiveness of hybrid-powered vehicles at delivering anything other than lower mileage figures has just heated up. A US marketing company has released research showing that when you take the whole life costs of such a vehicle into account, they're not better for the planet after all.
Hybrid petrol electric vehicle advocates trumpet the environmental benefits of the petrol-electric vehicles, but, according to the results of an exhaustive two year study, the overall energy picture for hybrid vehicles isn’t as favourable as it seems. Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research said that, when the total cost of hybrids to the environment is calculated, including factors like original production and then recycling of batteries and electric motors, into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure, hybrids come up short against conventional powered vehicles which where thought to consume more of the world’s energy.
"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles," said company boss Art Spinella. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage taking into account the energy needed to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from concept to scrappage some high economy vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime."
Hybrids are not so "green".
CNW’s "Dust to Dust" survey studied hundreds of variables but to make it easy for the consumer to understand, developed an energy cost per mile driven figure. While some of the vehicles referred to aren't sold in the UK or Europe, the overall thrust of the research makes sense.
Topping the league with the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, VW Phaeton at $11.213 and Rolls-Royce Phantom at $10.660 while the thriftiest is the Scion xB at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile, ahead of the Ford Escort at $0.568 and Jeep Wrangler at $0.604. However, the research brings into question the whole concept of hybrids as "energy-saving", at least for the planet as a whole.
The industry average of 312 vehicles was $2.281, yet all the hybrids cost more than this. Compact family hybrids like the Toyota Prius ($3.249) and Honda Civic hybrid ($3.238), cost more than a full size SUV Land Rover Discovery ($2.525) or Lincoln Navigator ($2.617). By comparison, America’s best selling car, the mid-size Toyota Camry, cost $1.954 and the similar Nissan Altima only $1.381. Hybrids on the other hand cost more over their lifetime due to the extra complexity and production and recycling costs: the Hybrid Honda Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the regular version’s is $2.18. A regular Honda Civic costs $2.420.
"This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions were true in the real world."
If you can find that list in full toppstuff you might well get your tenner...
There's also the consideration of what to do with the old gas guzzler if you do purchase a Prius type car.
Sell it? Well it'll still be used by it's new owner so all you've done is add to the amount of energy used/co2 produced for your new car.
Scrap/recycle the materials? Lots more energy use/co2 producing going on there to reduce it to usable raw materials.
Park it in the street and forget about it? The local kids will just vandalise and set fire fire to it releasing all kinds of nasty chemicals. (we could always take a leaf out of the Americans in Florida and dump it in the Solent to become a new coral reef...)
We'd be better off just carrying on using it.
Sell it? Well it'll still be used by it's new owner so all you've done is add to the amount of energy used/co2 produced for your new car.
Scrap/recycle the materials? Lots more energy use/co2 producing going on there to reduce it to usable raw materials.
Park it in the street and forget about it? The local kids will just vandalise and set fire fire to it releasing all kinds of nasty chemicals. (we could always take a leaf out of the Americans in Florida and dump it in the Solent to become a new coral reef...)
We'd be better off just carrying on using it.
turbobloke said:
Sod work - here's your files toppstuff.
Dust to Dust Survey from CNW Marketing
Thanks for those turbobloke. Do you know of any European analysis along similar lines?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff