You are currently browsing the forum as a guest which gives you limited access. To make use of all forum features such as posting to topics, reply to other postings, starting polls and using the Private Messaging System (PM) you are invited to register. Registration is free and simple. All you need is an e-mail address and a password and you are ready to go! Sign up and join the Green Car Network today!
Should you have problems with the registration process, please contact us.
What do you consider to be a green car?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Written on: 16 December 2007 [12:53]
|
|
|
ecoadmin
Administrator
Topic creator
registered since: 20.07.2007
Posts: 583
|
Add Mitsubishi to the list of carmakers going to Thailand to make green cars. Mitsubishi will spend 20 billion yen (US$179 million) to produce some 100,000 cars cars a year with small engines, high MPG and low CO2 emissions (this means engines that are 1.3 liters or smaller, vehicles that get 20km per liter (56.6 MPG) and emit less than 192 grams of CO2 per mile (120 g/km)). This text can be found on an entry on autobloggreen.com. I wonder what makes a car using 5lt/100km (56.6 MPG) so green? While (too) many cars use a lot more than that, I would not classify such a car to be 'green'. It's no secret that cars can be produced cutting the above figures in half. It might be a step into the right direction, but doesn't really convince me...Sounds more like a PR campaign for Mitsubishi... What criteria must a green car fulfill in your opinion? Twike 890
 |
|
Written on: 03 July 2008 [15:53]
|
|
|
Yardonn
 
registered since: 22.08.2007
Posts: 160
|
To go to the extrem, a car can only be green, if it's energy it totally created by regenerativ sources. So in my opinion every car can be made green if you do enought to pay for its negative consequences. But in reality very few people will be able to pay for the compensation for a car with low MPG. On the other hand even a electrical powered car is not green, if the electricity is for example produced by a coal/oil/gas powerplant. the non green component is just shiftet "out of sight" So if you just replace the combustion-engines with e-motors, you will not gain much, because the increase need of electricity will lead to more polution at the sites of the Powerplants. Of couse, most e-powered cars use less energy than there combustion-pendantes, because of reduced power and the demands of limited battery-capacity. So the reduction of the energy-need is the "greenes" option we have today. Correctly saying, these "green" cars ar not green, but "more green". My example of a green car: Electrical powered vehicle with regenerative Powered (solar/wind/water...) charging-Station. And don't forget that the production of vehicle and charging-station has to be also "green". Today quite difficult (expensive...) to realise. Quite impossible for a car with 5l/100km. Can you imagine to regenerativ procude the energy for such a car? even if there are already today possibilities to synthesise fuel, the need of approcimately more than 10 kWh per liter would soon exceed the availible amount of regenerative energy. If you only drive 10000 km per year, you would need more than 5.000 kWh (in Germany approcimately the energy produced by 60m² solar-cells, costs approcimately 25.000€ plus installation). Alleweder 4
http://www.akkurad.com allmost full weather protection for one person at 0 - 1.5 kWh / 100 km CityEl as secondary E-Car |
|
Written on: 06 July 2008 [06:23]
|
|
|
Lensman
 registered since: 31.05.2008
Posts: 75
|
The label "green" is, unfortunately, being used as an advertising ploy to allow customers to feel good about their purchase, pretending it's environmentally friendly when it's not. Like "low fat" used on food labels, it's pretty meaningless because there's no hard-and-fast definition of what it means. But if we're gonna pick on one car for exaggerated claims of being "green", I think you've picked a poor example. 51 MPG is very high for automotive gas mileage; that's more like motorcycle mileage. If you're gonna pick on something, I nominate the minimal "hybrids" being sold in the U.S. which barely improve mileage over the standard model. Worst offender: Ford's Escape hybrid SUV: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Right now, government incentives rarely distinguish among hybrids. To qualify, a vehicle simply must be equipped with both an engine and electric motors for propulsion. Period. This was acceptable so long as a hybrid was a high-efficiency car. The hybrid Honda Civic and Toyota Prius met this standard. The Japanese companies transformed modestly efficient vehicles into outstandingly efficient ones. But the introduction of the Ford Escape ushers in the era of low-mileage hybrids. The vehicle's overall fuel economy is about half that of the Prius or Civic. When GM’s new hybrid trucks, the Sierra and Silverado, arrive in 2005 they may get little more than 20 mpg. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/09/09_201.html And I agree with Yardonn; the correct label isn't "green" or "not green", but rather "more green" or "greener" versus "less green"... or in some cases, "much less green". [This article was edited 2 times, at last 06.07.2008 at 06:34.] |
|
Written on: 06 July 2008 [10:51]
|
|
|
ecoadmin
Administrator
Topic creator
registered since: 20.07.2007
Posts: 583
|
Lensman wrote: And I agree with Yardonn; the correct label isn't "green" or "not green", but rather "more green" or "greener" versus "less green"... or in some cases, "much less green". ..which makes me think whether the title or slogan of our website is correct!  - Green Car Network- ??I absolutely agree with you Yardonn and Lensman. A car cannot be a 100% green, as planning, construction, driving, road-network and associated businesses all consume energy in one way or the other. The title is therfore a in a way wrong and certainly not applicable to all vehicles discussed on this forum. Compared to a low mileage car such as a SUV or similar, most cars on here have a much higher efficiency and are therefore 'greener'. Would be 'Greener Car Network' a better title? Does the present title irritate? Or should the 'Green Car' be our vision/goal and thus the title appears correct ? Your opinion is much appreciated. Wish you all a sunny and energy-efficient day  Twike 890
|
|
Written on: 06 July 2008 [21:44]
|
|
|
Lensman
registered since: 31.05.2008
Posts: 75
|
ecoadmin wrote: ..which makes me think whether the title or slogan of our website is correct! - Green Car Network- ??Mmmm... sorry, I hadn't thought about the question in relation to the forum's title. Well, "Green Car Network" is a lot easier to say and write than "Forum for People Who Want to Talk about How to Work Towards the Goal of a Really Really Green Car, and How to Make Their Current Cars Greener"  ecoadmin wrote: Or should the 'Green Car' be our vision/goal and thus the title appears correct ? That was my interpretation. The idea of "green" seems to me to be somewhat idealistic, in that it's an important and perhaps "noble" goal we should all aspire to and work towards, but will be very difficult to completely achieve. Sometimes-- as in this case-- idealism is the right approach. So the name certainly doesn't irritate me. Anyway I was just expressing my opinion, I certainly didn't mean to suggest the name of the forum should be changed! |
|
Written on: 10 July 2008 [10:14]
|
|
|
childress
Administrator
registered since: 14.08.2007
Posts: 140
|
To me a green car or ecocar embodies the 'Cradle to Grave' concept, meaning that green principals were in there from the start. I like to see a factory that gets as close to Passive Haus standards as possible, to keep the energy required to build the vehicle low. Plus a low embodied energy. Parts sourced as locally as possible to keep CO2 costs low. An easily recyclable vehicle when you're done with it. Zero-to-low emissions, if it's petrol, it's extremely high MPG... dunno if I consider anything under the MPG of a Prius to be 'green' -- it's just the way cars are going to be built from here on out as far as Toyota's concerned. There's -nothing- green about an SUV even if it is a hybrid -- they wear out the roads faster (heavier vehicle) and they're still typically LOV's -- low occupancy vehicles, ie, one passenger, the driver, and 4 or more empty seats. I want it to be fueled as locally as possible. Yes I have high standards, but I do put my money where my mouth is  BUT, I've said it once and I'll say it again, the first auto manufactuer that comes out with a plug-in diesel-hybrid minivan in the US that gets 20 miles on electric only before the engine kicks in is going to make a mint! Commute suck? Twike it; You'll like it!
http://www.uiuc.edu/goto/twike |
|
Written on: 27 February 2009 [09:24]
|
|
|
drift101
registered since: 26.02.2009
Posts: 4
|
i love Honda cars especially the one that runs on H2O... |
|
Written on: 28 February 2009 [01:24]
|
|
|
iamian
registered since: 23.02.2009
Posts: 110
|
I agree... greenness is a scale ... not black and white ... so a H1 is Greener than a Tank... allot of SUVs are greener than an H1... allot of normal cars are greener than SUVs... allot of HEVs are greener than normal cars... PHEVs are greener than HEVs.... EVs are greener than PHEVs... E-Bikes are greener than EVs ... Bicycles are greener than E-Bikes. And then you can complicate it more... but using a more green fuel in your combustion engine... or building your normal car with recycled materials and getting your energy from green sources. Ideally you would combine all of these things... toward making the greenest vehicle... but it would still be a scale of greener than what. For me solely gasoline powered vehicles I think the lightest shade of green starts then you get 50% or more MPG above the national average... which would currently be around ~45 MPG as a life time MPG number... not a single isolated freak trip. For instance I consider my Honda Insight to be greenish because my life time average MPG over ~125,000 miles is ~61 MPG... better in the summer worse in the winter ... better on the highway worse in the city... single trips don't count or I would claim my ~88MPG ~120 Mile ~55 MPH trip.... But I want to be more green so I am building a PHEV mod for my Insight... and for shorter trips we are considering something like a Twike... as it is now... my E-Bike is only good for short distances and only in good weather ... an enclosed vehicle like the Twike or the Aerorider would allow me to use it a larger % of the year for a larger % of trips... than my PHEV Insight would be used less... maybe just for those longer road trips. RE & Efficiency enthusiast
|
|
Written on: 01 March 2009 [13:57]
|
|
|
insight
 registered since: 26.04.2008
Posts: 34
|
Ian how would running a basic simple car for lets say fifty years and maintaining it yourself compare to the latest high tek green cars when rating enviro impact. The vehicle would be something like a Citroen 2 CV ,basic,indestructible,50 mpg Imperial, and when new was cheap to produce with minimal materials,energy and has long since paid for its birth. In the quest to go green Is there an argument for keeping vehicles longer rather than changing every few years? |
|
Written on: 01 March 2009 [22:03]
|
|
|
iamian
registered since: 23.02.2009
Posts: 110
|
insight wrote: Ian how would running a basic simple car for lets say fifty years and maintaining it yourself compare to the latest high tek green cars when rating enviro impact. The vehicle would be something like a Citroen 2 CV ,basic,indestructible,50 mpg Imperial, and when new was cheap to produce with minimal materials,energy and has long since paid for its birth. In the quest to go green Is there an argument for keeping vehicles longer rather than changing every few years? It would depend on the specifics of the situation. A greener vehicle produces less environmental impact per year than the less green vehicle does. But there is the initial environmental impact of making the greener vehicle... but that depends on the specific vehicle... for instance if all the energy for the greener vehicle came from a solar power facility it would have less initial environmental impact than if the initial energy to make it all came from old dirty coal power plants. If it is made of environmentally less harmful materials than that also reduce the initial impact of the newer vehicle. There is a tipping point where the newer / greener vehicle passes up the older vehicle even with its initial impact included. Exactly at what point this happens depends completely on the specifics of the situation.... It could be 1 year or less with the newer / greener vehicle ... or it could take 100+ years... it will depend on the specifics to know exactly where in between the situation falls. Just remember financial impact is not the same as environmental impact... for this reason the Citroen is never free of the initial impact of its creation... or the environmental impact that eventually has to come from the end of the service life... that is part of the environmental impact of that vehicle or any vehicle... what is the total impact from that vehicle to make, to use, and what do you do with it when it is at the end of its life. If you want to compare the Citroen 2 CV to the greenest vehicle option available today... you would be up against a Bicycle that used 100% renewable energy in its initial creation made from 100% recycled materials, that you pickup from the factory so there is no packaging or shipping ... keeping your Citroen instead would have a larger / worse environmental impact in a very short period of time... like a few days , maybe weeks at most. On the other hand if you traded in your Citroen for a Aptera while the Aptera is a greener vehicle it will take much longer to recover the initial environmental impact of the Aptera's creation... but putting off the end of life impact of the Citroen does not remove that impact... the end of life impact for that vehicle is already part of that vehicle... just the longer your use it the more usage impact you have added to the vehicles total impact. ----- So in short it looks like this... All vehicles have a total environmental impact... including creation , usage , and disposal. Creation impact is set at the time of creation... disposal impact is inevitable but the amount of that impact can change over time as technology improves... you add in the usage impact from all of the miles and years you operate the vehicle to get that vehicles total impact.... you compare that total impact to some other vehicles total impact... then you can know which is the greener option. at least my 2 bits anyway. RE & Efficiency enthusiast
|
Portal information:
At the moment there are 8 users online, thereof 0 registered users and 8 guests.
Today 4 registered users and 284 guests were already online.
Now online
ecocarforum.com has 707 registered user, 606 topics and 1205 answers. On the average 1.09 posts are written per day.
Today 4 registered users and 284 guests were already online.
Now online
ecocarforum.com has 707 registered user, 606 topics and 1205 answers. On the average 1.09 posts are written per day.