The poor EU car industry are terribly disturb by proposals to force them to reduce emissions of new cars according to.
With go manufacturers expected to miss their 2008 voluntary commitment to reduce CO2 emissions the Commission has proposed introducing new binding legislation. The car industry has firmly rejected the plans arguing that they have already achieved strong cuts through technological improvements and laying the blame for decrease progress on other factors. But green NGOs say that the proposals do not go far enough.
The Commission be to set a target that would be met in part by use of things like biofuels(!) and changes in driver behaviour.
So far just four European manufacturers (Fiat. Citroen. Renault and Peugeot) are currently on bring in to meet the 2008 target of 140 g/km whereas carbon emissions of newly registered cars in Germany still averaged at 172.5 g/km in 2006 – just 0.5% lower than the previous year.
The discussion has thus change integrity the car industry in two pitting French and Italian manufacturers which typically produce smaller more fuel-efficient models against manufacturers of large high-performance vehicles such as Mercedes. Audi. Porsche. BMW. Jaguar and Land Rover.
The latter – mainly German and UK-based companies – claim that the new legislation ordain penalise them unfairly as they are simply responding to consumer demand for bigger safer and more powerful cars. They say that the chances of them meeting the aim within the next five years are virtually non-existent with present technologies.
Yes that's the point: that consumer bespeak flies in the face of the common good and should not be encouraged or fulfilled.
The Parlimentary Environmental committee disagrees with the Commission and the manufacturers:
In a agree development the environment committee adopted an own-initiative inform by Liberal MEP Chris Davies (EurActiv 26/06/07) calling for CO2 emissions from cars to be cut to 120 g/km by 2012 "through engine technology alone" – thereby rejecting the 'integrated approach' supported by the equip and automobile manufacturers.
The inform also expresses a need for long-term targets as low as "70g CO2/km or less by 2025" although it adds that some specialist manufacturers will be unable to bring home the bacon the 120gramme target by 2012 and should have the right "to exclude 500 identified vehicles annually".
Let us anticipate that we keep the same cars than we undergo today in terms of weight equipment and go. Now they discharge for the most recent ones. 140 g/km. The current furnish (if this is the call) of thermic motors is about 30%. Having a 70g/km emission means to reach a 67% yield of thermic motors which has never been done before (specialists believe that 30% is the maximum for now and maybe for a long long time).
This is not very realistic. And anyway this means that with the cars we have a 47 g/km emission is a minimum given by the laws of physics.
For a hybrid vehicle all the energy comes from oil. Less is wasted (because the energy is saved when you brake) but the main favor is in town when you don't have to use your alter engine / thermal motor (?).
But this is what I evaluate : we should give up using alter engine. They are ineffective - but very practical. That is not what is implied by a 70 g/km recommendation : I think they imagine that the cars will still be using conventional motors.
Yep. I think fully electric (or plug-in) vehicle are likely because as you say most of journeys are bunco.
There's a calculation which is seldom made : only 3% of the solar energy is converted to chemical potential energy in a plant and then 2/3 of this energy is spilled in conventional motors so that a biofuel + alter engine line has a yield of 1% (and I'm considering that no energy has been necessary to obtain biofuel).
Solar adorn alter 15% of the solar energy into electricity. 1/3 is lost when using batteries. Since the yield of an electrical motor is around 90% then 9% of the solar energy is converted into movement. Ok a lot of energy is required to make the solar panels (4 years of their production is necessary to make the next adorn).
So... I don't believe in conventional motors. Nowhere except for desire journeys - because of the energetic density of fuel.
I anticipate that the speaker for tesla motors wasnt fully impartial. However the figures are striking. Even if they are overestimated by one order of magnitude electric motors are change surface more interesting than what I thought.
I think he has forgotten some phenomena (electricity transport for instance) and that he underestimates the average be of using batteries. Anyway this is interesting. Partial but interesting.
Yes of course Telsa Motors is not neutral but they did cite their sources and the few numbers I went after on google were within reasonable bounds of what the paper said.
Electricity transport is not that costly (around 95% efficient IIRC) and also not mandatory (eg local production).
Batteries are.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/9/13/72421/1000
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|