02GF74
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 01:54 PM |
|
|
sick and tired ...
... of hearing ZERO emission cars 
Again, on the news, new Nissan electric car, that will be built in Sunderlandshire, is said to be a ZERO emission car.
What a load of tripe.
Unless it is solar powered or runs solely on air, which it don't since it is electric,  then there will be emissions at the power plant which
generates the electricity.
GGGrrrrrr......................
Nissan said the Leaf hatchback would be the world's first affordable, mass-produced, zero-emission
car. B*ll*cks is it
[Edited on 18/3/10 by 02GF74]
|
|
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
what quantity of emissions does the car output itself again?
Craig
|
|
|
Breaker
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 01:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
... of hearing ZERO emission cars
What a load of tripe.
Unless it is solar powered or runs solely on air, which it don't since it is electric, then there will be emissions at the power plant which
generates the electricity.
GGGrrrrrr......................
[Edited on 18/3/10 by Breaker]
|
|
|
matt_claydon
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 01:59 PM |
|
|
Unless your power source is nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric etc etc.
Which of course in the UK, it won't be, as we seem to be unable to have the balls to build a Severn Barrage and a load of new reactors and would
rather continue chucking coal onto a load of big fires and pretending electric cars are 'Zero Emission'.
|
|
|
marcjagman
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 01:59 PM |
|
|
I completely agree, the electric generation source does create emmisions so even though the car itself is emmision free the power it needs creates
emmisions.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
what quantity of emissions does the car output itself again?
16.8
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
what quantity of emissions does the car output itself again?
16.8
good answer
Craig
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:05 PM |
|
|
Don't forget the emissions for building the car in the 1st place and as for making the batteries!!!!!!!
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
Breaker
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by matt_claydon
Unless your power source is nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric etc etc.
But then you can ask yourself, what was the CO2 emmision to build these things?
Digging up raw material, welding, making of tools, people driving to the factory to build these windmills etc....
In the end it comes to keep the economy running (f.e. scrapping cars and building new ones).
|
|
|
boggle
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:10 PM |
|
|
whats the co2 emission of a person???
just because you are a character, doesnt mean you have character....
for all your bespoke parts, ali welding, waterjet, laser, folding, turning, milling, composite work, spraying, anodising and cad drawing....
u2u me for details
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
splitrivet
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:15 PM |
|
|
Best not build em then, just let all those geordies go on the jam roll.
We'll tell em all it was your idea.
Cheers,
Bob
I used to be a Werewolf but I'm alright nowwoooooooooooooo
|
|
|
vinny1275
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
We should all eat Kangaroo meat instead of beef. Cows emit methane, which released unburned into the atmosphere is 5 times worse than CO2 (burned
methane, on the other hand is better). Roos don't emit methane, whereas cows and sheep do, and also take less energy (in terms of transportation
and feeding, etc.) per kilo of meat than cows. And it tastes nice 
Then, we can drive whatever cars we want!
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
So we should all be driving kangaroos*? Yay!!
*not those Renault Kangoo. They emit bits of themselves wherever they go....
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
AdamR
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:43 PM |
|
|
It's definitely a bit of a stretch to refer to any car as having "zero emissions"... but that aside the marketing chaps have their
hearts in the right place.
After all there is huge potential for clean electricity via nuclear, wind, tidal, micro generation etc etc, whereas internal combustion engines will
always be unsustainable. So by moving to electric cars we get a moderate benefit now in terms of emissions and running costs, and the potential for
huge benefits in the future. By increasing the demand for electricity we also provide drivers to develop better ways of creating it.
Just my 2 pence.
[Edited on 18/3/10 by AdamR]
|
|
|
Miks15
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vinny1275
We should all eat Kangaroo meat instead of beef. Cows emit methane, which released unburned into the atmosphere is 5 times worse than CO2 (burned
methane, on the other hand is better). Roos don't emit methane, whereas cows and sheep do, and also take less energy (in terms of transportation
and feeding, etc.) per kilo of meat than cows. And it tastes nice
Then, we can drive whatever cars we want!
But by eating them were reducing the number there are! Ok wed stop breeding if we didnt eat, but then where would the milk come from? HHMMMM might
need a bit more thinking that just simply stop eating
Plus we have cows... and they taste gooooood!
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:45 PM |
|
|
I have seen that it will be a bargain  at £20,000. Cant see mr Average swapping it for his sensible family Hatch at that price.
Also, the car comes without the batteries and you have to Lease them from Nissan.
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
and also take less energy (in terms of transportation and feeding, etc.) per kilo of meat
You're missing the CO2 emmissions from Australians driving around in Jeeps trying to catch the buggers!
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 02:57 PM |
|
|
But by eating them were reducing the number there are! Ok wed stop breeding if we didnt eat, but then where would the milk come from? HHMMMM might
need a bit more thinking that just simply stop eating
Plus we have cows... and they taste gooooood!
We don't normally eat milk cows - they are usualy too old and thin for our taste so are converted to pet food when not viable for milk
production - it's the huge herds of beef cows that are the problem.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 03:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AdamR
After all there is huge potential for clean electricity via nuclear, wind, tidal, micro generation etc etc, whereas internal combustion engines will
always be unsustainable.
I don't know the exact figure but I suspect the electricity in the UK that is generated by non gas or coal fired stations - same emissions as
internal combusiton engine is probably 10% or less.
Then you forget all the resources and thus emissions to make all this stuff.
What I object to is the way the emissions to power the car i.e. power station are not mentioned.
|
|
|
matt_claydon
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 03:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by boggle
whats the co2 emission of a person???
Virtually nothing when compared to a car.
According to Google, on average during a day it would be no more than about 0.1 m^3 per hour.
A cubic metre of CO2 has a mass of about 2kg so that's 200g per hour.
During vigorous activity this figure could be between 2 and 4 times higher.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 03:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by boggle
whats the co2 emission of a person???
very little in comparison.
a person can cycle from London to Birmingham on a Mars bar, compare that to a car, you'd be looking at a few B&Q buckets of petrol for the
smae journey.
that is why there are so many fat people around.
also a car weighs 10x that of a person, (not a Mars guzzling fatso.)
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 03:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by AdamR
After all there is huge potential for clean electricity via nuclear, wind, tidal, micro generation etc etc, whereas internal combustion engines will
always be unsustainable.
I don't know the exact figure but I suspect the electricity in the UK that is generated by non gas or coal fired stations - same emissions as
internal combusiton engine is probably 10% or less.
Then you forget all the resources and thus emissions to make all this stuff.
What I object to is the way the emissions to power the car i.e. power station are not mentioned.
Heared a similar thing echoed at work earlier, if my visit to radcliffe power station is anything to go by then they are significantly more efficient
per kilo of fuel than individual internal combustion engines.
Craig
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 03:41 PM |
|
|
Does that statement take into account the enormous transmission losses of electricity plus the resources required to beef up the electricity
infrastructure??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 03:45 PM |
|
|
Zero emissions cars are to reduce local air pollution (i.e. in cities) that is why the government is supposed to be pushing them. Mortality rate is
reduced by particulates (i.e. from smoky engines) for example by a few years (i.e. we on average live 1-2 years less than we could) , this is the
argument for Zero emission cars...
You can read my very sort report on particulates and human health p8-p11 if your interested.
linky
Other gas species emitted by internal combustion engines also have bad effects on health (NOx for example).
It has little do do with climate change.
Dan
[Edited on 18/3/10 by Bluemoon]
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 18/3/10 at 04:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by AdamR
After all there is huge potential for clean electricity via nuclear, wind, tidal, micro generation etc etc, whereas internal combustion engines will
always be unsustainable.
I don't know the exact figure but I suspect the electricity in the UK that is generated by non gas or coal fired stations - same emissions as
internal combusiton engine is probably 10% or less.
Then you forget all the resources and thus emissions to make all this stuff.
What I object to is the way the emissions to power the car i.e. power station are not mentioned.
Heared a similar thing echoed at work earlier, if my visit to radcliffe power station is anything to go by then they are significantly more efficient
per kilo of fuel than individual internal combustion engines.
What about where the coal comes from...?
I vsisted Didcot coal fired power station a few years ago and was truly truly blown away to learn that the coal is mined in south america, trained to
the coast, shipped to south wales and then trained to a power station in the very centre of the UK....! All 1,000 tonnes a day of it
Zero emissions my arse
|
|
|
