There are lists which provide “green” ratings for new cars and models. Usually, these are based on the lack of pollution during operation. I am wondering about the lifetime toxic cost of an automobile, including operation and the disposal of batteries, electrical components, and the like. One might use the average disposal time for automobiles or a set time, such as 12 years, to compute this. Is computing such an index practical? Is it meaningful?
Lary Jones,
Bluffton, SC
AIUI the greenest thing you can do is use the same car for its entire life, 10 or 15 years (with the option of replacing it from time to time with a similarly old car). This practice dwarves any greenness you get from running a Prius or whatever.
Diesel jetta.
I get a dependable 43 miles to the gallon [no idea what that is in km/l, I am an ignorant american]
NO rare component batteries so I have a vehicle that has no environmental burden on the manufacture nor disposal of the industrial products inherent in making the batteries.
I do not have to have any special anything, it is a bog standard diesel. I can run it on biodiesel if I so choose with no modifications needed.
If maintained properly, it is also on par with any other internal combustion motor with respect to air pollution.
My cheap little jetta is also 2/3 the price of a hybrid, a lot less than a full electric and is cheaper to insure as it is not high on the STEAL ME list, nor does it have any new and strannge components that need to be replaced, there are millions of jettas around so used spare parts are available if you roll that way.
It’s very difficult. For one thing, it requires different types of “environmental cost” to be measured using the same scale. How do you decide how many tons of CO2 is equivalent damage to 1 gram of airborne mercury or lead, for example? How do you compare groundwater contamination from a nickel mine with smog in LA or oil spill in the Gulf?
It also depends on where you use the car, and how. If your area depends on coal for electricity, an electric car may produce even more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car. But if your area relies on nuclear power, you can reduce CO2 emissions by switching to an electric car. (But then you need to ask whether nuclear waste is worse than CO2.)
My greenest car was a 1984 Honda CRX. It burned unleaded gas, and wasn’t any hybrid either. It was the 1.3 liter engine with 5-speed manual. It actually did better than the sticker by a wide margin as long as you babied it. The EPA sticker said 51 mpg city and 67 mpg highway. Keep in mind, this was for the 55 mph speed limits though. I nearly always got over 60 city, and my best on the highway was 69.4 mpg, but again that was driving 55 mph with no air conditioner running. I only had it a couple of years, and didn’t take that many road trips in it, but with any good strong tailwind, I’m sure I could have went past 80 mpg. Many did. Started developing fuel problems, otherwise, I would have kept that car forever.
This is a very well-put summary of what I would guess is the biggest problem with life-cycle analysis of anything. You end up comparing apples not only to oranges but also to kneecaps.
Another significant problem, especially with something as complex as a car, is that there are so many elements involved, many of which end up being extremely hard to assess. For instance, in a car, parts come from all over the world, and don’t always come from the same suppliers. Some suppliers are in places in the world not known for reliable revelation of the relevant environmental data. The raw materials for those parts add another layer of complexity and doubt.
Several years ago, I tried doing a life-cycle analysis of disposable vs. cloth diapers for a friend of mine in LA. It was more instructive about how difficult such analyses are than about what diapers to use. Many unexpected unspecifiable factors turned out to be significant, like how many users of a diaper service there are in your neighborhood or how far your garbage is trucked to the dump.
I am confused about the (lack of good) marketing for those Jettas in the U.S. My ex-wife just bought a new one. It is a nice regular sedan with incredible gas mileage and none of the downsides of older diesel cars. That would seem to be problem semi-solved right there but you here remarkably little about them in the U.S. Everyone is screaming Prius!, Prius!, Prius! type things when you can buy something better for less even if it doesn’t wear eco-bumper stickers as well.
If you want to see something truly delusional and pathetic, compare a Smart Car with a diesel Jetta and see what wins in every category except for parking ability and one is a real car and the other is a toy. I don’t get it.
If you limit the analysis in such a way, you are unfairly penalising cars that last longer.
Your are incorrect on your pricing information. Checking cars.com, the MSRP for the base model new Prius is $21,400, while the cheapest diesel Jetta is $22,830. The Nissan Leaf is ~$33,000, but gets a $7,500 federal tax credit, bringing the price down to $25,500 or so, right in the neighborhood of a diesel Jetta with a decent options package.
For most countries, the metric equivalent is liters/100 km. To convert either way between the two, divide 235.2 by the number in question. So 43 mpg gives (235.2/43) 5.47 L/100km.
Diesel engines produce much more fine particulate polution than gas engines.
Quoth scr4:
Actually, you don’t need to ask that, since coal power plants produce more nuclear waste than nuclear plants, too. You’re not comparing apples to oranges; you’re comparing apples and oranges to a smaller number of oranges.
And if we’re willing to stretch the definition of “car” somewhat, then a bicycle has them all beat by far, and can still fill most of the needs of many Americans.
Those were great. My first husband and I wanted to get one, but we couldn’t find one when we were ready to buy, so we actually got an 84 Ford Escort diesel. Sucker got 50 MPG. Unfortunately first hubby kept it in the fivorce =(
They don’t sell diesel manual smart cars in the US as far as I know, which is a shame because they are very efficient. They are amazingly popular in europe. I swear Amsterdam ws carpeted with smart cars [and scooters and bikes. Damn scooters can appear out of nowhere instantly. I think they have a teleport module on them.]
Sorry, that was the price range when I got mine. I can’t help prices changing =) however I don’t have to change out my batteries in 5 years. And my jetta will last 20 years without expensive work done on it - just routine maintenance. I actually had a 74 beetle that we were driving up until a couple years ago [when some jerk totalled it out in a parking lot :mad:]
Nuke plants are actually very economical and safe, TMI and Cherynoble are very unusual accidents. Compared to industrial accidents in non nuke plants, the safety records for nuke plants is pretty good.
We are going to have to convert to nuke soon anyway, coal is a limited resource as is petroleum and I seriously doubt that wind, geothermal, hydro or solar will be able to keep up with demand.
I don’t know of an index for cars yet, but I know that generally, industry is looking now and researching into, how to reduce energy and toxin amount during production, and how to use “smart” materials that can be easier seperated and recycled afterwards. For example, using materials that have one form in one thermic state, but can be shaped into another form for use. When the car is taken apart, you just heat it with a blow-dryer, and the components snap back into their old form.
Greenpeace and other organisations could provide info.
That doesn’t really matter in the big picture. As long as you’re not setting your used cars on fire or something, that old car will continue to be used for transportation purposes by whoever you sell it to.
All this boils down to is: “Destroying things that required manufacturing to create is not environmentally friendly.”
That’s true . . . so maybe the more accurate caveat is “Avoid prematurely destroying your car.” I’d guess that would include driving defensively (so as not to crash and total it) as well as doing appropriate preventive maintenance.
Sure it does. The more used cars on the markets, the cheaper they become. When someone with a busted old car does the math on whether to fix it or whether to junk it, the cheaper the replacement, the more likely the old car gets junked.
Not true. Nuke plants already operate at almost 100% output 24/7 and cannot “ramp up” further to meet additional demand. Wind, solar, and hydro also do not have “ramp up” capability. Pump storage hydro is pumped up by coal usually.
So…additional demand is almost certainly filled by a carbon producing source.