Another example of an unusual assumption and choice of data is the reported distribution of energy across the different phases of vehicle life. The CNW results suggest that the majority of energy is consumed during the production of the vehicle. These results are at odds with every other study weâ(TM)ve seen on the energy life-cycle costs of automobiles. Other studies independently conclude that the vast majority of energy is consumed during âoevehicle operations,â with lesser quantities used during materials acquisition, fabrication, and vehicle disposal. For example:
â A report produced by a British research firm concluded that more than 90% of all energy used in the motor industry went to vehicle operation; less than 10% went to manufacturing and production.
â The British auto industry trade group estimated in their 2006 sustainability report that life cycle CO2 emissions â" a strong proxy for energy â" are allocated 10% to manufacturing; 85% to use; and 5% to disposal.
â The Center for Sustainable Systems of the University of Michigan, which pioneered and refined the tool of life-cycle assessment, conducted a joint project with Chrysler, Ford,General Motors, the Aluminum Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the American Plastics Council. They analyzed the life-cycle energy costs of the 6 systems, subsystems, and 644 discrete parts and components composed of 73 different materials comprising a typical North American mid-sized car and concluded that more than 85% of all energy is the result of using the car, not making, assembling, repairing, or disposing of it.
â A comprehensive energy life-cycle analysis of a Volkswagen Golf Mark 3 concluded that 73% of total energy is consumed during the use and disposal phases, 11% in materials production, 8% in vehicle manufacturing, and 8% in fuels manufacturing.
â The MIT study, âoeOn the Road in 2020,â reported on a comprehensive energy life-cycle analysis and found that 80% to 90% of all energy was used in the operation stage; 7% to 12% in the materials production stage, and the remainder in vehicle assembly, distribution, and disposal.
â A 2006 study from Argonne National Laboratory concluded that around 75% of all hybrid and internal combustion vehicle energy use comes from the operation of the vehicle. The rest comes mostly from producing the fuels and the manufacture and disposal of the vehicle and its materials.
http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/games/ says: "Note: If you are going to Mirror these sources or place them onto your own site, please have the respect and courtesy to include with them - Source: www.atarimuseum.com as these wouldn't exist if I hadn't of climbed into a filthy dumpster at 3am in the morning behind the old Atari building in Sunnyvale and salvaged them and restored them from their diskettes."
I have a Kill-A-Watt and love it. It's a great gadget. People who just throw around wild guesses about power consumption (w/o actually measuring, esp. of their own devices help spread misinformation.
My PPC 1.25 ghz G4 Mac Mini draws ~14W at idle and ~31W when its CPU is maxed about by distributed.net RC5 client. I measured this w/my Kill A Watt (http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html).
It's scary that such ignoramuses are part of making policy for the US, esp. technology related policy. So, to the OP, do you have politicians making policy who are so ignorant about the subject matter?
Think of all the companies that have been spawned out of people from Stanford, some of which happened while they were still going to school there. Examples: Google, Yahoo, SUN (Stanford University Network), MIPS
Go ahead and put in greater than 5% biodiesel, esp. from unapproved sources not meeting petroleum industry standards. If you have an fuel, engine or emissions control failure caused by it and you want to claim it under warranty, VW will almost certainly refuse to cover it.
Yep, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20050426/FREE/504260702&SearchID=73230581548062 has mentions "Smart, which has never been profitable and which DaimlerChrysler considered closing, will undergo a turnaround strategy that will cost $1.56 billion. Schrempp now promises the brand will break even in 2007, with a lineup reduced to the two-seat ForTwo and the larger ForFour model..."
Unfortunately, the FAQ the vw.com used to have up regarding biodiesel and B5 is gone. Essentially it said, for the purposes of the engine and emissions warranty (IIRC), you may not use any more than 5% biodiesel from approved sources and that it must meet petroleum industry standards. Fuel where the source is unknown doesn't qualify.
VW reliability is far below average and many of their vehicles are the least reliable in their classes.
Where do you get the idea that running on soybean oil (or biodiesel) in general produces "zero net pollution"? Running on that still produces pollution and even the guys at http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/ emissions.pdf acknowledge there's still pollution, just a reduction compared w/regular diesel in most cases.
VW's also have terrible long term reliability and your warranty is only valid if you run on no more than 5% biodiesel (B5). See http://media.vw.com/article_display.cfm?article_id =9561. Unfortunately the FAQ that went into more detail on vw.com is gone now.
However, per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, using the new MY 2008+ ratings, the Corolla you speak of is EPA rated 28/37, 31 combined vs. 48/45, 46 combined. That's a deficit of about ~21% for highway and 48% combined. Not that close in my book.
It seems like you're just hand waving. Combustion consumes oxygen and ends up producing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, particulate matter, etc. You can read about what these do at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutan ts/index.htm.
Vehicles produce non-zero amounts of the above. The Bluetec Mercedes E320 produces far higher levels of the above than many passenger cars and also wasn't clean enough to be sold in California and the other CARB states. So, you're telling me this dirty car is cleaning the air?
That's total BS to claim that you're CLEANING the environment by driving any car. I guess you've never bothered to look up actual emissions nor the meanings of air pollution scores. Per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, the 07 Mercedes E320 Bluetec emits 8.1 tons/year of greenhouse gases. It's greater than 0 or negative. FWIW, the Prius is estimated to emit 4 tons/year.
I'm actually impressed by some of the mileage improvements that automakers can still manage despite increasing size and weight. I used to have a 91 Toyota Camry V6: 2.5L 156 hp V6, curb weight of 3087 lbs and EPA rating of 18/24. I replaced it w/a 2002 Nissan Maxima: 255 hp 3.5L V6, curb weight of 3218 lbs, EPA rated 20/26. That's pretty impressive to me: a much larger car that weighs 131 lbs more, has 99 hp more yet is EPA rated 2 mpg better for city and highway.
The 07 328i is EPA rated 18/28 w/a manual per the new MY 2008+ ratings and 20/30 per the MY 2007- ratings. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm. It seems unlikely you're getting in the high 30s (assuming US gallons and not Imperial gallons) unless you're hypermiling or you're basing it on a trip computer which maybe way inaccurate. (My former 02 Nissan Maxima's trip computer usually read 2-3 mpg too high, sometimes as much as 4 mpg high.)
I know... this is nuts that there such a needless proliferation of standards. Some have hypothesized is that one a particular format becomes cheap enough and commoditized, the powers that be (flash memory card makers) have to come up w/a new standard so that they can turn profits again (to make $ on the higher initial standards).
So far, for memory cards, we've had PCMCIA, CF, SmartMedia, MMC, SD, XD, miniSD, microSD, the various Memory Stick formats and now this??? A lot of the oddball SmartMedia camera makers went w/another oddball, XD.
The summary that's been posted is also just flamebait. The EPA rating for ALL vehicles are changing for model year 2008 and beyond, not just hybrids. The cars themselves ARE NOT changing. The inherent mileage they get IS NOT changing. Changing the numbers that go on a sticker has NOTHING to do w/cost effectiveness or lack of as the cars HAVE NOT changed.
Consumer Reports has their own mileage testing and found "Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models... The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."
On my former 02 Nissan Maxima, I've exceeded the highway rating of 20/26 before (from manual calculations, not its 2-4 mpg too high trip computer). However, when I lived in an area where I did lots of shorts drives and city driving, I was mostly in the 16 to 17 mpg range. Example of an above shortfall, 1.8L 06 non-hybrid AT Civic is EPA rated 30/40, 33 combined. CR got *18*/43, 28 combined per http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/hon da/civic/model-overview-4748-5732.htm (you need a subscription to see it).
Why? They use the test procedure below (for 07 model year and earlier) - run it on a dyno (not on a real road) in specific conditions, don't run any accessories and measure carbon in the exhaust and not fuel usage. The figures are then adjusted downward 10% for city and 22% for highway, then that number goes on your sticker. For 2008, they're adding some additional tests that make the numbers more realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
You're probably paying attention to the CNW "junk science".
To quote from http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf:
Another example of an unusual assumption and choice of data is the reported distribution of energy across the different phases of vehicle life. The CNW results suggest that the majority of energy is consumed during the production of the vehicle. These results are at odds with every other study weâ(TM)ve seen on the energy life-cycle costs of automobiles. Other studies independently conclude that the vast majority of energy is consumed during âoevehicle operations,â with lesser quantities used during materials acquisition, fabrication, and vehicle disposal. For example:
â A report produced by a British research firm concluded that more than 90% of all energy used in the motor industry went to vehicle operation; less than 10% went to manufacturing and production.
â The British auto industry trade group estimated in their 2006 sustainability report that life cycle CO2 emissions â" a strong proxy for energy â" are allocated 10% to manufacturing; 85% to use; and 5% to disposal.
â The Center for Sustainable Systems of the University of Michigan, which pioneered and refined the tool of life-cycle assessment, conducted a joint project with Chrysler, Ford,General Motors, the Aluminum Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the American Plastics Council. They analyzed the life-cycle energy costs of the 6 systems, subsystems, and 644 discrete parts and components composed of 73 different materials comprising a typical North American mid-sized car and concluded that more than 85% of all energy is the result of using the car, not making, assembling, repairing, or disposing of it.
â A comprehensive energy life-cycle analysis of a Volkswagen Golf Mark 3 concluded that 73% of total energy is consumed during the use and disposal phases, 11% in materials production, 8% in vehicle manufacturing, and 8% in fuels manufacturing.
â The MIT study, âoeOn the Road in 2020,â reported on a comprehensive energy life-cycle analysis and found that 80% to 90% of all energy was used in the operation stage; 7% to 12% in the materials production stage, and the remainder in vehicle assembly, distribution, and disposal.
â A 2006 study from Argonne National Laboratory concluded that around 75% of all hybrid and internal combustion vehicle energy use comes from the operation of the vehicle. The rest comes mostly from producing the fuels and the manufacture and disposal of the vehicle and its materials.
http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/games/ says:
"Note: If you are going to Mirror these sources or place them onto your own site, please have the respect and courtesy to include with them - Source: www.atarimuseum.com as these wouldn't exist if I hadn't of climbed into a filthy dumpster at 3am in the morning behind the old Atari building in Sunnyvale and salvaged them and restored them from their diskettes."
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23 has some hints. They also have specific articles for some cars like the Prius. See http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1224.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers.html is an article about a hypermiler (Wayne Gerdes) who achieves 59 mpg in his non-hybrid 05 Honda Accord.
Gerdes was part of a team of who set a record (which has been since beaten) of ~110 mpg in a Prius over 1397 miles on a single tank.
There are some other tips at http://www.hypermiling.com/.
I have a Kill-A-Watt and love it. It's a great gadget. People who just throw around wild guesses about power consumption (w/o actually measuring, esp. of their own devices help spread misinformation.
From http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=296699, the Apple TV seems to draw 17-22 watts. http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=4408276#4408276 says that it's 13.8 to 19 watts.
My PPC 1.25 ghz G4 Mac Mini draws ~14W at idle and ~31W when its CPU is maxed about by distributed.net RC5 client. I measured this w/my Kill A Watt (http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html).
As I posted earlier:/ 03/0643238
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE
It's scary that such ignoramuses are part of making policy for the US, esp. technology related policy. So, to the OP, do you have politicians making policy who are so ignorant about the subject matter?
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/ 03/0643238
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE
I first heard of this craziness on the TWiT podcast ~1 year ago.
As http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/06/how_to_kick_si l.html points out "If I had to point to the single biggest reason for Silicon Valley's existence, it would be Stanford University--specifically, the School of Engineering"
Think of all the companies that have been spawned out of people from Stanford, some of which happened while they were still going to school there. Examples: Google, Yahoo, SUN (Stanford University Network), MIPS
Per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSi deBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=7733, the most efficient 91 Tercel (in terms of highway mpg) was one w/a 4 speed manual, rated at 33/37. It had a curb weight of ~1950 to 2050 lbs. from looking at http://www.edmunds.com/used/1991/toyota/tercel/883 0/specs.html and autos.msn.com along w/a whopping 82 hp.
s _full_specs.asp?ModelName=Civic+Sedan&Category=4) and has 140 (!) hp.
In comparison, a 2007 Honda Civic is EPA rated 30/40 w/auto, weighs 2690 to 2807 lbs (depending on trim per http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specification
Go ahead and put in greater than 5% biodiesel, esp. from unapproved sources not meeting petroleum industry standards. If you have an fuel, engine or emissions control failure caused by it and you want to claim it under warranty, VW will almost certainly refuse to cover it.
d =9561.
Too bad the FAQ entry is gone. The only thing I can find on their site that discusses this is http://media.vw.com/article_display.cfm?article_i
Yep, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20050426/FREE/504260702&SearchID=73230581548062 has mentions "Smart, which has never been profitable and which DaimlerChrysler considered closing, will undergo a turnaround strategy that will cost $1.56 billion. Schrempp now promises the brand will break even in 2007, with a lineup reduced to the two-seat ForTwo and the larger ForFour model..."
Unfortunately, the FAQ the vw.com used to have up regarding biodiesel and B5 is gone. Essentially it said, for the purposes of the engine and emissions warranty (IIRC), you may not use any more than 5% biodiesel from approved sources and that it must meet petroleum industry standards. Fuel where the source is unknown doesn't qualify.
s -gain-major-ground-in-consumer-reports/ and http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pre ssrelease.asp?ID=2006133 for example.
VW reliability is far below average and many of their vehicles are the least reliable in their classes.
See http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/10/domestic-model
Where do you get the idea that running on soybean oil (or biodiesel) in general produces "zero net pollution"? Running on that still produces pollution and even the guys at http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/ emissions.pdf acknowledge there's still pollution, just a reduction compared w/regular diesel in most cases.
d =9561. Unfortunately the FAQ that went into more detail on vw.com is gone now.
VW's also have terrible long term reliability and your warranty is only valid if you run on no more than 5% biodiesel (B5). See http://media.vw.com/article_display.cfm?article_i
However, per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, using the new MY 2008+ ratings, the Corolla you speak of is EPA rated 28/37, 31 combined vs. 48/45, 46 combined. That's a deficit of about ~21% for highway and 48% combined. Not that close in my book.
It seems like you're just hand waving. Combustion consumes oxygen and ends up producing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, particulate matter, etc. You can read about what these do at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutan ts/index.htm.
Vehicles produce non-zero amounts of the above. The Bluetec Mercedes E320 produces far higher levels of the above than many passenger cars and also wasn't clean enough to be sold in California and the other CARB states. So, you're telling me this dirty car is cleaning the air?
Per http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=of f&q=5.5+liters+per+100km+in+mpg&btnG=Search, 5.5 litres/100 km is 42.7 miles per US gallon.
It's crazy that the parent has been modded from 4 to 5 in the last few hours. His post is inaccurate BS and should be modded down.
That's total BS to claim that you're CLEANING the environment by driving any car. I guess you've never bothered to look up actual emissions nor the meanings of air pollution scores. Per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, the 07 Mercedes E320 Bluetec emits 8.1 tons/year of greenhouse gases. It's greater than 0 or negative. FWIW, the Prius is estimated to emit 4 tons/year.
- diesel-fails-to-meet-50-state-emissions-requiremen t/ mentions it failed to meet Tier 2 Bin 5. You can lookup the meaning of that on page 1 of http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf vs. the PZEV (9.5 score that CARB spec Priuses get) on page 3. You'll see that for Tier 2 Bin 5, the allowed emission limits for all pollutants except one are MANY times higher than that of a PZEV car. Again, both of these are non-zero values.
The air pollution score for the Merc for some reason is unavailable, but http://www.trucks.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/bluetec
Stickerboy is right. Look up the size and curb weights of your 91 Civic vs. a current one. The articles below cover the topic of bloat.
e ring-column-minicars-i-dont-see-no-stinking-minica rs.html/ 20070604/AUTO01/706040309/1148/AUTO01
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11310/the-ste
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=
I'm unsure after glancing thru your journal, but if you're in the UK, I hope you realize that Imperial gallons are larger than US gallons.
1 Imperial gallons = ~1.2 US gallons
46 miles per Imperial gallon is about 38.3 miles per US gallon.
The cars you speak of are likely MUCH lighter and smaller than their current versions.
e ring-column-minicars-i-dont-see-no-stinking-minica rs.html/ 20070604/AUTO01/706040309/1148/AUTO010 3.htm
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11310/the-ste
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s060
I'm actually impressed by some of the mileage improvements that automakers can still manage despite increasing size and weight. I used to have a 91 Toyota Camry V6: 2.5L 156 hp V6, curb weight of 3087 lbs and EPA rating of 18/24. I replaced it w/a 2002 Nissan Maxima: 255 hp 3.5L V6, curb weight of 3218 lbs, EPA rated 20/26. That's pretty impressive to me: a much larger car that weighs 131 lbs more, has 99 hp more yet is EPA rated 2 mpg better for city and highway.
The version we're going to get had better be a HUGE improvement over the version that was reviewed below.
f irst-look-2006-smart-fortwo-406/index.htm- test/budget-cars-12-06/smart-fortwo/1206_car_smart _fortwo.htm?view=Print. html
t -acceleration-4-07/overview/0704_best-worst-accele ration_ov.htm.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/smart/index
It was also the slowest in 0-60 times by FAR out of all the vehicles they tested at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/best-wors
The 07 328i is EPA rated 18/28 w/a manual per the new MY 2008+ ratings and 20/30 per the MY 2007- ratings. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm. It seems unlikely you're getting in the high 30s (assuming US gallons and not Imperial gallons) unless you're hypermiling or you're basing it on a trip computer which maybe way inaccurate. (My former 02 Nissan Maxima's trip computer usually read 2-3 mpg too high, sometimes as much as 4 mpg high.)
I know... this is nuts that there such a needless proliferation of standards. Some have hypothesized is that one a particular format becomes cheap enough and commoditized, the powers that be (flash memory card makers) have to come up w/a new standard so that they can turn profits again (to make $ on the higher initial standards).
So far, for memory cards, we've had PCMCIA, CF, SmartMedia, MMC, SD, XD, miniSD, microSD, the various Memory Stick formats and now this??? A lot of the oddball SmartMedia camera makers went w/another oddball, XD.
You must be doing mostly highway driving...
n da/civic/model-overview-4748-5732.htm (you need a subscription to see it).
s html
The summary that's been posted is also just flamebait. The EPA rating for ALL vehicles are changing for model year 2008 and beyond, not just hybrids. The cars themselves ARE NOT changing. The inherent mileage they get IS NOT changing. Changing the numbers that go on a sticker has NOTHING to do w/cost effectiveness or lack of as the cars HAVE NOT changed.
Consumer Reports has their own mileage testing and found "Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models... The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."
On my former 02 Nissan Maxima, I've exceeded the highway rating of 20/26 before (from manual calculations, not its 2-4 mpg too high trip computer). However, when I lived in an area where I did lots of shorts drives and city driving, I was mostly in the 16 to 17 mpg range. Example of an above shortfall, 1.8L 06 non-hybrid AT Civic is EPA rated 30/40, 33 combined. CR got *18*/43, 28 combined per http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/ho
Why? They use the test procedure below (for 07 model year and earlier) - run it on a dyno (not on a real road) in specific conditions, don't run any accessories and measure carbon in the exhaust and not fuel usage. The figures are then adjusted downward 10% for city and 22% for highway, then that number goes on your sticker. For 2008, they're adding some additional tests that make the numbers more realistic.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.