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.

Forum » Eco Car Forums » Tech Log

What do you consider to be a green car?

Author	Message
Written on: 16. 12. 07 [12:53]
ecoadmin Administrator Topic creator registered since: 20.07.2007 Posts: 301	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?
Written on: 03. 07. 08 [15:53]
Yardonn registered since: 22.08.2007 Posts: 12	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 A4 http://www.leichtfahrzeuge.de allmost full weather protection for one person at 1 - 1.5 kWh / 100 km
Written on: 06. 07. 08 [06:23]
Lensman registered since: 31.05.2008 Posts: 55	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. 07. 08 [10:51]
ecoadmin Administrator Topic creator registered since: 20.07.2007 Posts: 301	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
Written on: 06. 07. 08 [21:44]
Lensman registered since: 31.05.2008 Posts: 55	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. 07. 08 [10:14]
childress registered since: 14.08.2007 Posts: 55	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

Powered by mm_forum v0.1.5