Toyata's contribution to climate change debate
Discussion
I received a Toyota range brochure last week. So what? Well in the back where the fuel consumption and CO2 figures are listed, it says at the bottom of the page...
Is this wording mandated by nanny Prescott, or is it just Toyota missing the point completely? Either way, there is so much disinformation swilling around the debate that it's no wonder that "normal" people who don't follow the science are completely taken in by the propaganda.
It's also interesting that the Yaris diesel puts out only about 10% more CO2 than the Prius (104g vs. 117g), and is pretty much as economical (65.7mpg vs. 64.2mpg). So much complexity for so little gain. But the image boost is the main benefit!
Toyota brochure said:
CO2 is the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming.
Is this wording mandated by nanny Prescott, or is it just Toyota missing the point completely? Either way, there is so much disinformation swilling around the debate that it's no wonder that "normal" people who don't follow the science are completely taken in by the propaganda.
It's also interesting that the Yaris diesel puts out only about 10% more CO2 than the Prius (104g vs. 117g), and is pretty much as economical (65.7mpg vs. 64.2mpg). So much complexity for so little gain. But the image boost is the main benefit!
electric cars are one of the best examples of excellent marketing i've ever seen.
Even the green lobby is taken in with them.
Imagine if electric cars had come first (they may have done actually)
Coal - heat - steam - turbine. 30% efficient?
national grid transmission losses - 95% efficient?
local substation - user premisses - 98% efficient?
charging circuitry - 70% efficient?
battery charge losses - 60% efficient?
battery leakage - small but continuous
Car control system losses - 85% efficient
car transmission losses - 85% efficient
so, for 100% energy in we have about 8.5% actually getting to the wheels.
The Green solution - Carry the fuel about with you!
oh, we already do that don't we!
Even the green lobby is taken in with them.
Imagine if electric cars had come first (they may have done actually)
Coal - heat - steam - turbine. 30% efficient?
national grid transmission losses - 95% efficient?
local substation - user premisses - 98% efficient?
charging circuitry - 70% efficient?
battery charge losses - 60% efficient?
battery leakage - small but continuous
Car control system losses - 85% efficient
car transmission losses - 85% efficient
so, for 100% energy in we have about 8.5% actually getting to the wheels.
The Green solution - Carry the fuel about with you!
oh, we already do that don't we!
Take a look at this website: www.co2science.org. It covers global warming very well.
Some quotes:
I think we should ban most sports. Exercise should be encouraged because it makes us more efficient -- less CO2 emissions for the same amount of exertion -- but sport is wasteful. It's pointless and simply causes people to exhale more CO2 than necessary. Cycling, for example, results in huge amounts of extra CO2 for no purpose; walking is more eco-friendly and "4's plenty" after all.
Some quotes:
CO2science website said:(www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N42/EDIT.jsp)
...air contains some 40,000 parts per million (ppm) of water vapor compared to a mere 370 ppm of CO2 and even less of the other gases. He also rightly notes that "humans have no control over water vapor emissions," and, hence, that they have little control over the strength of the atmosphere's greenhouse effect...
CO2science website said:(www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/questions/1999/cars.jsp)
Question:
How much CO2 is produced in a year by a car traveling 10,000 miles and by an average person breathing
Answer:
As a rough estimate, the burning of one gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2. Hence, if you drive 10,000 miles and your car averages 25 miles per gallon of gasoline, it will liberate approximately 8,000 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere: (10,000 miles) * (1 gallon of gas / 25 miles) * (20 pounds of CO2 / gallon of gas) = 8,000 pounds of CO2. If your car travels at 50 miles per gallon of gasoline, however, it would liberate only half as much CO2, or 4,000 pounds, in travelling 10,000 miles.
Also,as a rough estimate, a person exhales about 2.2 pounds of CO2 per day; so over a year, a person would exhale approximately 800 pounds of CO2: (2.2 pounds of CO2 / day) * (365 days) = 803 pounds of CO2.
I think we should ban most sports. Exercise should be encouraged because it makes us more efficient -- less CO2 emissions for the same amount of exertion -- but sport is wasteful. It's pointless and simply causes people to exhale more CO2 than necessary. Cycling, for example, results in huge amounts of extra CO2 for no purpose; walking is more eco-friendly and "4's plenty" after all.
sean5302 said:
Do you know, Toyota and Ford were the 2 main companies in the 70s who did something different to improve exhaust emissions?
Both had "lean burn" engines. These used much more air/ much less fuel than the stoichiometric ratio of 17 to 1.
nope, actually it was Honda with their CVCC engine. Ford & Toyota bought the technology from Honda.
twister said:
where does the extra CO2 come from?
From vehicle A using diesel, not petrol...
Both fuels approximate to (CH2)n. Same mass of fuel in = same mass of CO2 out. Differences are trivial.
sean5302 said:
Do you know, Toyota and Ford were the 2 main companies in the 70s who did something different to improve exhaust emissions?
Both had "lean burn" engines. These used much more air/ much less fuel than the stoichiometric ratio of 17 to 1.
They both wanted to progress this technology, but were forced by the government to abandon it, in favour of catalytic converters.
A cat needs much more fuel to operate and lean burn was unsuitable. The result? Vastly more CO2.
17:1 is max economy, stoichiometric is 14.7:1.
Cats not only use more fuel, they require significant quantities of expensive platinum-group metals. And they provide the oil companies with an excuse to moan to the government about how it's more expensive to get the octane rating up without TEL and thereby wangle lower tax on unleaded so more of the price of a gallon goes into their pockets.
It's bugger all to do with the environment, it's all about big business lining their pockets and using the environment thing as a smokescreen.
Pigeon said:
where does the extra CO2 come from?
From vehicle A using diesel, not petrol...
Both fuels approximate to (CH2)n. Same mass of fuel in = same mass of CO2 out. Differences are trivial.
Think you may need to reconsider, as mpg relates to the volume (not mass) of fuel consumed. Factor in diesel density at (say) 0.83kg/litre as opposed to typical unleaded at (say) 0.73kg/litre, and you'll see that the difference is significant.
Pigeon said:
Both had "lean burn" engines. These used much more air/ much less fuel than the stoichiometric ratio of 17 to 1.
They both wanted to progress this technology, but were forced by the government to abandon it, in favour of catalytic converters.
A cat needs much more fuel to operate and lean burn was unsuitable. The result? Vastly more CO2.
17:1 is max economy, stoichiometric is 14.7:1.
Presumably 17:1 was just for idle?
I thought when on power, all engines run richer than stoich ie. 13.5:1 , the rich mixture keeping combustion temps down, so as not to detonate or melt the pistons. My rotary runs no weaker than 12:1, tut tut
deeps said:
Presumably 17:1 was just for idle?
Also for part load / light throttle. The lean-burn technology is pretty cool, and dependent on some really neat combustion chamber trickery (valve disablement, swirl control etc) to generate a stratified charge or to otherwise enable tenable flame front propogation. I am given to understand that some of Honda's senior engine guys (such as Nishizawa-san, prior to his involvement in the F1 programme) developed the technology and applied it to the Honda VTEC engine, which would run acceptably at an equivalence ratio of 0.66 (ie. very lean) with a significant saving in brake specific fuel consumption and acceptable NOx emissions.
twister said:
where does the extra CO2 come from?
From vehicle A using diesel, not petrol...
I hadn't thought of that one.
I think the (general) main reason is that the standard test for CO2 and the standard test for MPG are different.
This is important because the CO2 is made of fuel and air. No more and no less. MPG and g/Km/CO2 should ALWAYS be directly related. And if they want to impose a 'carbon tax' then fuel duty is as accurate as it can ever get.
The idea of charging new band G VED on a big car that does 1,000 miles per year while charging band A VED (=£0) on a small car that does 100,000 miles per year is plainly barking.
A bit Pius coming from the manufacturers of the P(r)ius, which has the worst ecological balance of ANY car.....due to the non-existant recycling of the batteries which have to be replaced every 2 years........ May well be banned from german roads for just this reason.......
hopefully these pius Prius drivers will learn when hammered with a HUGE bill for disposing of non-recyclable dangerous waste....HAHAHA!!!!
hopefully these pius Prius drivers will learn when hammered with a HUGE bill for disposing of non-recyclable dangerous waste....HAHAHA!!!!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff