- 3,070
- Norway
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Ecology and vehicles
- Thread starter Neddo
- 62 comments
- 2,918 views
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
I'm aware. But in terms of nuclear powerplants' contribution of water vapor compared to, y'know, nature, it's completely insignificant.
You've also cut off my post at the point where I mentioned "and other emissions", since non-greenhouse emissions from coal plants are significant.
They're getting better (at least in developed countries), as operators attempt to trap emissions from coal generation, but still considerably greater than that from nuclear plants.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
Judging by that video the bar is set pretty low for the rest of them. The few salient (but completely unoriginal) points made in that video were so hidden under tinfoil hat nonsense it was hard to take any of it seriously.
I'd imagine the most vegan car is one that uses both the least quantities of natural materials and is built by a developing world labour force that doesn't have the same disposable income for meat-heavy western diets. Probably something like a Tata Nano. Small, light, easy to transport in bulk, low effort to build. The least will be at the opposite end of the scale: probably built in Europe or the US, using large quantities of leather, wool and so-on. Probably a Bentley or similar, though in terms of quantity of labour force I'd expect maybe an Escalade or other big SUV/truck, built in relatively large numbers.
---
I'm struggling to follow this thread though. The subject matter is potentially interesting and worthy of debate, but it seems more like an excuse for @Neddo to scattergun wildly different concepts into one place from a selection of slightly dubious sources, like the video above.
The "ecology and vehicles" concept can be broken down into one relatively simple point: The best way of being ecologically sound in relation to vehicles is simply using them less. Walk or cycle wherever possible.
If that's not possible, public transport is the next option. If that isn't possible, then choosing a vehicle that has required fewer raw materials to build and uses fewer to run (yet has a potentially long, low-maintenance life and can be almost entirely recycled when it does expire) is best.
Of those, the latter is marginally the most important, since a car's ecological impact is greater in use than it was in construction. Modern vehicles use considerably less fuel than those of a few generations ago, so after only a handful of years it's more ecologically sound to drive one than it is to hang onto an old smoker that's long since eclipsed the impact of a new vehicle's construction.
However, longevity is still important, since an unreliable vehicle, or a heavy one that wears through tyres, brakes and other consumables at a high rate, will require greater the continual production of replacement parts throughout its life.
And construction materials matter too of course. Components made from previously-recycled substances, reclaimed materials, and parts made from plant-related extracts are better than brand-new metals and oil-based plastics or natural materials like leather and wool, which require farming, which has a massive environmental impact on its own.
I could go on... but only if this thread gains any real direction.
Only if members of this site could talk about it. Many are sceptics or simply don't want to see darker side of cars and vehicles. I'm not an expert on this matter. It could gain a direction if i wasn't me reviving it it would be dead
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
Many people judge a car by its cylinder count. I would have no problem with a cross plane V8 engine that was only 1.5 liters or smaller. It would sound like a V8, the same could be done with a V12.
Less displacement should not mean being locked into 4 cylinders or less. Add lightness to the rest of the vehicle and the current performance expectations will still be met, well top speed will drop, I would not mind one bit though.
It may not be the way forward, but I think it would be a fantastic compromise until the alternative methods mature.
Less displacement should not mean being locked into 4 cylinders or less. Add lightness to the rest of the vehicle and the current performance expectations will still be met, well top speed will drop, I would not mind one bit though.
It may not be the way forward, but I think it would be a fantastic compromise until the alternative methods mature.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
While I'd love to agree, there's a very good reason why cylinder numbers decrease with displacement: friction.
As you can probably imagine, the surface area of eight pistons in a 1.5 litre would be massive compared to say, a four-cylinder 1.5. Then there's the friction of bearings for eight cylinders too, and more camshafts, and I suspect there would be some strength compromises in building say, eight small conrods rather than four larger ones.
Friction is why cylinder counts aren't going up, but down - for most small engines now, three cylinders are becoming the norm (BMW's engines are now a modular design with 500cc per cylinder - meaning their 1.5-litre is a 3-pot). Fiat has even tried a twin, in a 900cc design.
Then there's build cost and maintenance - twice the cost for spark plugs, injectors, valve gear - and packaging (ask @Famine about changing the cam belt or rear spark plugs on the 1.8-litre V6 in a Mazda MX-3 compared to the average four-cylinder...).
Basically, all those factors conspire to making multi-cylinder small engine designs economically and ecologically unviable.
- 17,419
- United Kingdom
My sister's a vegan, she's now bought two Peugeots on the trot, a 208 and 308, because they were the only cars she could find that didn't have leather in the trim, specifically it was the steering wheel covering that tripped up numerous other cars that were otherwise leather free, she's normally quite sensible. Mum and Dad on the other hand, wouldn't buy a Kia, because "they eat dogs in Korea"... not sure if that counts a vegan point-of-view.
On the topic at hand, I've read good points made that the most ecological 'friendly' vehicles are those that have the longest service life, the Defender being the typical example. Though I've no idea if that's accurate there is some logic to it.
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
I know it doesn't make the best case for friction and emissions, but, 15,000 rpm and stuff...
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
I didn't even think about things like a leather steering wheel. So hard to avoid those today (not that a non-vegan would, because they feel vastly nicer in the hand than plastic).
I do wonder how realistic the "eat dogs in Korea" thing is any more. Maybe they do, but it's not like they serve dog in McDonalds. I expect you have to go pretty far into the sticks to find that sort of thing now.
The Defender's lifespan is admirable, and I believe they use aluminium panels (don't they?) which reduce waste through reduced need for replacement, since they don't rust. Though the chassis does and they're not the most reliable of vehicles, so I expect they make up for that in other ways...
But Defenders are, to a vehicle, woefully inefficient in terms of fuel consumption, and fuel consumption is by far and away the greatest environmental impact of a car over its lifespan*. Particularly so if that car lasts far longer than average, and even if that car weighs about two tons and has therefore taken more raw materials to build in the first place.
* I really need to bookmark this link as the subject comes up a lot, but basically the report referenced in that article puts 75 per cent of a vehicles lifetime carbon emissions down to burning fuel, and a further 19 per cent down to the energy needed to extract and refine that quantity of fuel. Those figures are changing however because cars are getting more efficient - and the less fuel a car uses over its lifetime, the larger the proportion played by manufacturing.
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
The Mercedes 300E and Volvo 240 have that reputation here too, GMT800 trucks with the 4.8 or 5.3 are also proving to be very hard to kill here.
For the life of me I don't get the love affair with the Toyota 22RE. I have yet to see one eclipse 500k miles without something internal needing attention.
I have a customer with a 1992 Ford F450, 7.3L non turbo diesel. It has needed head gasket replacement twice, but the engine has 2.7 million miles on it without the bottom end ever being apart.
That is the most miles I have ever witnessed. And I drove what you would call a Lorry for 3 years...
For the life of me I don't get the love affair with the Toyota 22RE. I have yet to see one eclipse 500k miles without something internal needing attention.
I have a customer with a 1992 Ford F450, 7.3L non turbo diesel. It has needed head gasket replacement twice, but the engine has 2.7 million miles on it without the bottom end ever being apart.
That is the most miles I have ever witnessed. And I drove what you would call a Lorry for 3 years...
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
Very much so, and your dad's example is far from being the only one that's been able to cover that sort of mileage.
Lots of contributing factors: Toyota built them well in the first place. The drivetrain is (despite the perception) quite simple - a four-cylinder gasoline engine, an electric motor, and a planetary gearset connecting them (no complicated gearbox or potentially unreliable CVT). The engine is under-stressed because the electric motor helps it, and the batteries don't really degrade as people expect because the nickel design that Toyota uses is fairly stable - that, and the battery management never fully charges or discharges the pack, processes which can cause heat and stress for batteries.
I suspect there are other factors at play too, such as the Prius not being a car that encourages fast or aggressive driving, though when I used to write for a green car site (the one linked in my last post), we did a few articles on Ford Escape Hybrid taxis in New York that had covered big mileage without issue. If those cars can survive New York traffic/roads/drivers, day-in, day-out, they must be fairly tough.
- 17,419
- United Kingdom
Looks like an interesting read. I admit that at this stage I haven't read it in detail as my phone is farting around... but I wonder if VW uses real world CO2 emissions, or test cycles, and did they take into account first, second and third tier suppliers carbon foot print...?
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
There are two different sets of figures in there. The first, and one I quoted above, is from a study done in 2000, and as such it's more appropriate when older vehicles are being discussed. The second is VW's which is more relevant to newer cars as they've done it based on their own vehicles.
I strongly suspect VW's study didn't take into account real-world consumption and CO2 (which would probably result in figures more like the first study, strongly weighted away from production impact). Less clear whether they took into account the impact of suppliers, though if they're taking into account the impact of the production of a whole car, they're presumably including things like tyres and electronic systems that they outsource.
The concept it boils down to is that usage has significantly more environmental impact than production, and it's a fallacy for all those people out there claiming they're being "green" by running a 20-year old car just because it scrapes 30mpg on a run. Unless of course they bought it to replace a 30-year old car that only did 25... which is where things can get complicated.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,105
- Mile High City
The world's 15 largest ships produce more pollution than all cars. I know that it's not as sexy to talk about cleaning up shipping as it is to drive around in a prius feeling smug, but if the goal is to reduce pollution globally, and we're going to be rational about achieving that goal, going after passenger vehicles makes no sense. It might make some people feel good to push the mpg requirements from 35 to 40 or whatever they are these days, but it's pointless for achieving the goal.
- 6,291
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
We need more Mclarens and Porches with crazy hybrid stuff because it makes things even faster than a regular petrol motor. 800 horsepower with a petrol motor? Give it a few batteries and make it 1000. I don't see anything wrong with having tonnes of hybrid supercars.
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
Realistically every hyper car ever built contributes very little to environmental damage, even if every super/hypercar used 8 Weber carbs '60s style and no emissions equipment the contribution would be minor.
Coal rolling diesel trucks I really can't stand. Some of the diesel crowd around here will add 2 stroke oil just to get a little more smoke...
But even their contribution is very little big picture wise.
Coal rolling diesel trucks I really can't stand. Some of the diesel crowd around here will add 2 stroke oil just to get a little more smoke...
But even their contribution is very little big picture wise.
- 6,291
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
- 17,419
- United Kingdom
The supply chain for Automotive is massive though, from first hand experience I do not see anyway a car manufacturer can take everything into account. An off-hand example, there could easily be about 15 companies semi-directly involved in manufacturing/supplying the badge stuck on the boot-lid of a car, and that doesn't include taking it back to the level of Polymer production. That's 15 process, 15 lots of shipping something.. those all have environmental impacts. Having sat somewhere in such a supply chain, I don't see the relevant information moving up the supply chain in order for the end user to have any idea of the total figure... even though I'm sure they can tell you how much CO2 the power consumption of the Kuka robot that actually sticks the badge on the car in their factory is.
The only way that I see they could realistically do it, is with wildly general averages, and let's be honest, it's not in their interest to be green by not selling you a car, it's in their interest to sell you a new one that is greener.
Last edited:
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
In an effort to hold off on tier 4 epa regs Norfolk Southern railroad is rebulding locomotives on a massive scale. While rebuilding is nothing new, pulling 20 year old rolling stock out of mothballs is.
I am at work, sourcing is not really something my ancient cell phone can do, it barely does this. But it's easy enough to dredge up the info.
I am at work, sourcing is not really something my ancient cell phone can do, it barely does this. But it's easy enough to dredge up the info.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
Is it not fair to assume that a manufacturer like VW might have taken that into account? I imagine it has a fairly good handle on its own supply chain, and I expect a lot of it is fairly well integrated. Probably overstating things a little with boot badges too - if the badges were as big as entire cars then the "shipping" cost (and I imagine for VW they're probably made on-site, from materials sourced, if not relatively locally, then probably not on the other side of the globe) would be significant. But I imagine you can squeeze quite a few badges into a crate the size of the average VW Up...
I can understand what you're getting at, but I can't imagine those hidden figures would change the overall picture very much - it will take vastly more energy to construct that car from its component parts and ship that around the world than it will to say, construct a Bosch ABS unit that goes into it.
I went to Wolfsburg the other month to see VW's factory. It's unimaginably vast and I don't for a second doubt its environmental impact or that of the supply chain - but the fact remains unchanged that usage, rather than construction, is by far a car's biggest environmental impact through its lifespan.
Every single one of those millions of cars they produce won't just sit there in its own production carbon footprint, they'll spend twenty years or more burning thousands of gallons of fuel (at 10k miles a year and 40mpg, 20 years of driving would burn through 5000 gallons), plus whatever oil, tyres, parts, other fluids etc it needs over that time. The impact of that original set of tyres seems a bit insignificant if the car goes through a set every couple of years for two decades...
And that interest just happens to be backed by facts. If anything, the picture is less rosy in VW's own study than it was in the earlier 2000 one - VW is literally saying that the more frugal its cars get, the greater the relative environmental impact from the production process.
If you read the studies you might find out. I did provide handy links a few posts back...
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
Speaking of emblems, in 2007 I had a load of F150 emblems, 53' trailer, 1 pallet weighing 225lbs total. A 700 mile dead head essentially. I usually enjoyed running light, but there were high winds and tornado warnings, bad weather the whole trip. Still that was a really peculiar load...
- 17,419
- United Kingdom
As I say, I don't know how they would. Simply from my experience, I've indirectly supplied VW, along with Jaguar, Nissan, Land Rover, Kia, Lotus, Ford, Hyundai, Suzuki, Alfa Romeo, LDV, Triumph, Bentley, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Subaru, Tesla and Mclaren, as well as some stuff that I don't know where it ends up to companies like Delphi, Lear, Univar and Faurecia.... We are/were not particularly local to these companies (in some limited cases not even on the same continent), and most of the materials and tooling we use/used do not originate from the UK. We've never once been asked any questions that would allow those manufacturers to establish any idea of the ecological effect of us doing so, outside of regulatory issues.
The key element is how much the car manufacturers actually manufacture, and how much is bought in parts. My gut feeling is that at least half of the effort that goes into making a car does not happen within the control of the car plant. And the car plants are huge, but they are supplemented by hundreds of private companies/factories, all using their own energy, consuming their own water, pumping out their own emissions, and I severely doubt those kind of studies accurately take such things into account.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion, but I have to question the method by which it was reached, that's all.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
Fair enough - though you are applying anecdotal knowledge to a situation that has presumably been researched to some degree by a multinational corporation.
Of course, the other angle to assuming there's something missing begins to lead down a real rabbit hole of confusion.
If we're to assume there's missing data from suppliers, where to we stop at any stage in the process? The impact of fueling these vehicles has also been calculated, well-to-wheels, but where does that stop?
Do you then calculate the impact of the energy consumed by people going to work at an oil refinery? Or the energy that went into producing and fueling the trucks that supplied the food that the families of the oil refinery workers eat each night?
Or the fuel used by people going to work in the factories that produced the trucks that supplied the food... etc.
- 17,419
- United Kingdom
"Rabbit hole" was the very phrase I used in an un-posted iteration of a previous post that also included a diagram! It very much is a rabbit hole, and the reason why I only responded to one line of your post is for that reason. It's a massive task to unravel a major manufacturers supply chain. Automotive news Europe provide some pretty good jumping off points, although the modern online versions are not as good as those in print from 20 years ago.
It's a valid question... "where do we stop?". For me, its a question of "does that resource usage still exist, if a car is not produced". So... people will always eat, whatever their job is, and they will have to travel to work, whatever their job is. Will they use 96 grams of polyethylene foam to produce 1 of 6 moulded parts that comprise an NVH seal around an LR Discovery's A-pillars if that car wasn't produced? No. Is that part produced by JLR, no. Is that part held in with fixings produced by JLR, no. Is that part applied to the vehicle by JLR, yes. Is it/and should it be included when JLR is asked, "What is the ecological impact of JLR producing a Discovery?", if so how would JLR know what went into making it (given that it is not produced by them).
I'm rambling now, but I'm halfway through a bottle of pinot and I'm trying to stay occupied until the Olympics kick off tonight...
Just for your own interest, or to put my anecdotes in perspective.
We supplied a part that goes into this:
You can't see the bit we made.
Specifically to produce this part; We bought materials from Belgium, and the UK. The Belgium supplier (I believe) would have around 4 sources for their raw materials, mostly European I think. The UK supplier sources their materials from (I think) Italy, and South America. They process their materials and supply them to us. One is a Fortune 500 company with a very large global manufacturing presence, the other is in the Cotswolds. We took these materials, did what we do in our factory, and supplied them to another UK company, who (at best) supplied our bit, with their bit, to one other company, before it was supplied to Jaguar. In order to make our bit, we specifically had to purchase tooling from a company in Essex, and a company in Ireland. 1 of the 2 materials we use is made to meet FORD SKM 3G 9521 A2, WSK M3G 184 A1, and WSK M11P51A specifications. The other was general purpose. Of the two tools we use both are obviously specific to this job, one is created with a high powered laser, the other via spark erosion and lots of Infrared ovens. Our machines are general purpose (for that kind of thing), and we use three different ones to make this.
.. so my question is, Where the **** do you start trying to figure out the environmental impact (be it large or miniscule) of that lot, which is ONE part (that you can't even see) of the assy above... (which probably has 20+ other components in it), in relation to the manufacture of one vehicle, that probably includes thousands of parts such as ours?
Fun fact: Even after a decade I sport the work related injury that I sustained producing a different component (no one will ever see) for that car... so there's a couple of jobs, out of hundreds (thousand+) that will always stick in my head.
Fun fact 2: The fact that I'm used to such a back and forth around Europe of parts and materials is one of the reasons I ranted so passionately about Brexit.
Anyway... I'm even boring me now. I have funny stories about how many cars Rover had to scrap because the paint thickness was outside of Honda's tolerances if anyone wants to hear... or how a <0.1p part for a Kia is better than a £50+ part on a Saudi Princes Mercedes...? Anyone... man... my Friday nights are lonely!.
Just for your own interest, or to put my anecdotes in perspective.
We supplied a part that goes into this:
You can't see the bit we made.
Specifically to produce this part; We bought materials from Belgium, and the UK. The Belgium supplier (I believe) would have around 4 sources for their raw materials, mostly European I think. The UK supplier sources their materials from (I think) Italy, and South America. They process their materials and supply them to us. One is a Fortune 500 company with a very large global manufacturing presence, the other is in the Cotswolds. We took these materials, did what we do in our factory, and supplied them to another UK company, who (at best) supplied our bit, with their bit, to one other company, before it was supplied to Jaguar. In order to make our bit, we specifically had to purchase tooling from a company in Essex, and a company in Ireland. 1 of the 2 materials we use is made to meet FORD SKM 3G 9521 A2, WSK M3G 184 A1, and WSK M11P51A specifications. The other was general purpose. Of the two tools we use both are obviously specific to this job, one is created with a high powered laser, the other via spark erosion and lots of Infrared ovens. Our machines are general purpose (for that kind of thing), and we use three different ones to make this.
.. so my question is, Where the **** do you start trying to figure out the environmental impact (be it large or miniscule) of that lot, which is ONE part (that you can't even see) of the assy above... (which probably has 20+ other components in it), in relation to the manufacture of one vehicle, that probably includes thousands of parts such as ours?
Fun fact: Even after a decade I sport the work related injury that I sustained producing a different component (no one will ever see) for that car... so there's a couple of jobs, out of hundreds (thousand+) that will always stick in my head.
Fun fact 2: The fact that I'm used to such a back and forth around Europe of parts and materials is one of the reasons I ranted so passionately about Brexit.
Anyway... I'm even boring me now. I have funny stories about how many cars Rover had to scrap because the paint thickness was outside of Honda's tolerances if anyone wants to hear... or how a <0.1p part for a Kia is better than a £50+ part on a Saudi Princes Mercedes...? Anyone... man... my Friday nights are lonely!.
Similar threads
