[damo_in_sale]

I have no idea. Some say yes, some say no.

http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/...green-cars.asp
http://www.independent.co.uk/living/...cle1959451.ece


Cheers,

Damo

[damo_in_sale]

Ok chaps, I'll start you off then...

Originally Posted by Nutter_1

No it isn’t

Originally Posted by Nutter_2

Yes it is

Originally Posted by Nutter_1

No it isn’t

Originally Posted by Nutter_2

Yes it is and your stupid

Originally Posted by Nutter_1

No it isn’t and your stupid

Originally Posted by Nutter_2

Yes it is, your stupid and your evil

etc.

PS If anybody actually has those usernames, then I heartily appologise.

It's ideal for taking the rubbish that the council wont collect to the dump.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by stratagem

It's ideal for taking the rubbish that the council wont collect to the dump.

[MikeTV]

There are no green cars.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

There are no green cars.

[alaniho]

Jeep Wrangler, Climate change friendly??!!

It isn't even driver friendly !!!!

[Jonstone]

It is an interesting point though and one that gets so regularly overlooked in green issues.

You really do have to take the overall impact of a product on the environment rather than just its immidiate fuel usage.

The energy for elctric cars has to be generated somewhere as well so unless you can guarentee none of the electricity you put into it was generated by fossil fuels it will still have an environmental impact running it.

The batteries in hybrid cars also only have a limited lifespan and have a considerable environmental impact.

We had a similar situation with another product recently, disposable nappies. The government has been spending money for years trying to get people to go back to reusable nappies, only for their own research to conclude recently that the impact on the environment of washing all those nappies with all the energy and chemicals that entails was as big an issue as the waste cause from disposables.

[johntheexpat]

The last time I looked at the 'posh car' section of The Sunday Times, I was amazed at how little mileage cars like top of the range Maseratis Ferraris and Aston Martins actually did. Presumably, they are too expensive to drive. So, on a 'dust to dust' analysis, they must come out pretty well. Probably take a lot to build, but not too much as have a large 'hand made' content which should drop the carbon footprint. As they don't do high mileages, overall their footprint should be amongst the best (lowest) going.
Is this the solution to CC? We should all aim to drive a top of the range car

I'll have an Aston Martin DB9 coupe in Ghillies Green as my contribution to saving the world

http://www.astonmartin.com/configura...d=ER&x=11&y=6#

[andykn]

Originally Posted by stratagem

It's ideal for taking the rubbish that the council wont collect to the dump.

You seem to be confusing a privately owned Jeep Wrangler (storage space minimal) with a local private hire vehicle (proper boot).

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

It is an interesting point though and one that gets so regularly overlooked in green issues.

You really do have to take the overall impact of a product on the environment rather than just its immidiate fuel usage.

The energy for elctric cars has to be generated somewhere as well so unless you can guarentee none of the electricity you put into it was generated by fossil fuels it will still have an environmental impact running it.

The batteries in hybrid cars also only have a limited lifespan and have a considerable environmental impact.

We had a similar situation with another product recently, disposable nappies. The government has been spending money for years trying to get people to go back to reusable nappies, only for their own research to conclude recently that the impact on the environment of washing all those nappies with all the energy and chemicals that entails was as big an issue as the waste cause from disposables.

Trouble is, its very difficult to quantitatively reconcile different environmental criteria. What's good for global warming may be bad for landfill.

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

The last time I looked at the 'posh car' section of The Sunday Times, I was amazed at how little mileage cars like top of the range Maseratis Ferraris and Aston Martins actually did.

I read yesterday that some city guy in London forgot to tax his £45K Maserati, it was taken to the pound and it was just too much trouble for him to go down and pay the £80 or so to bail it out, so it's up for auction if you want it.

Originally Posted by andykn

You seem to be confusing a privately owned Jeep Wrangler (storage space minimal) with a local private hire vehicle (proper boot).

Personally, I wouldn't touch a Wrangler with a barge pole, however it's fair to say most of the vehicles I see at the local recycling centre are large 4x4's and estates, the last count in front of me was 5 4x4's, 2 people carriers, 2 vans and a scooter oddly?

I often wonder what people with tiny cars do, make more trips?, don't bother?, or perhaps they don't have lawns, hedges, trees, etc.

[Corey USA]

Only green car is your own two feet in the grave........

Ok bad joke Greenest can be, is to walk. Next would be bike and that depends on how and what it is made of.

I been warning people about this kind of thing. The need to look at this from a total cost perspective. I think I even have brought it up here before but ya all wrote me off as ranting.

Actually the total cost has been floating around sustainability an green groups for quite a while. don't blame this on environmentalist in that they been fighting Industry tooth and nail in that they say industry must use total cost approach when factoring if something is truly green or not.

That is one reason why I been saying avoid biofuels especially cash crop based. "Total Cost"

It is Also why green, conservationist, and sustainability groups have been pressing for reduction in consumption and efficiency. This is the biggest impact we can make. Industry does not want reduction in consumption in that it will impact there profit books.

Have you heard of the slogan "simplify"? This is the environmental slogan going around. By simplifying it becomes less complex thus less energy intensive to make 3 leg wood stool made of raw timber vs high tech ergo flex chair. get my point?

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by stratagem

I often wonder what people with tiny cars do, make more trips?, don't bother?, or perhaps they don't have lawns, hedges, trees, etc.

they share with someone who already has the utility vehicle to cut down on the production of an extra vehicle resources. instead of buying an extra one for themselves that just sits there not being used.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

they share with someone who already has the utility vehicle to cut down on the production of an extra vehicle resources. instead of buying an extra one for themselves that just sits there not being used.

Best tell them they're breaking the law then, unless the person with the utility vehicle has a current Enviroment Agency licence to transport waste and you're happy to pay it's disposal at a trade facility.

We've been over this before under WEEE.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by stratagem

Best tell them they're breaking the law then, unless the person with the utility vehicle has a current Enviroment Agency licence to transport waste and you're happy to pay it's disposal at a trade facility.

We've been over this before under WEEE.

I thought this was about wranglers and the environment, when did weee make INTO THIS TOPIC? The wrangler could be used to move household things to not related to waste. (like moving.) keep in mind that I am In the USA where we do not have restrictions of moving non hazarded waste so long as you meet the weight requirement limit. like moving a bed.

weee we were discussing waste I don't remember off top of head if that included moving furniture and other house hold items for the home (from one home to another).

note the post I quoted in whole (#13) does not mention weee or waste. when responding a mini car owner borrowing of wrangler.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

I thought this was about wranglers and the environment, when did weee make INTO THIS TOPIC? The wrangler could be used to move household things to not related to waste. (like moving.) keep in mind that I am In the USA where we do not have restrictions of moving non hazarded waste so long as you meet the weight requirement limit. like moving a bed.

weee we were discussing waste I don't remember off top of head if that included moving furniture and other house hold items for the home (from one home to another).

note the post I quoted in whole (#13) does not mention weee or waste. when responding a mini car owner borrowing of wrangler.

1. I said Wrangler good for taking rubbish to the dump
2. I said I often see 4x4's at the dump
3. I said how do people with tiny cars do this
4 You said share someone else's utility vehicle
5. I said this is illegal as we discussed in WEEE thread.

Check it out.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by stratagem

1. I said Wrangler good for taking rubbish to the dump
2. I said I often see 4x4's at the dump
3. I said how do people with tiny cars do this
4 You said share someone else's utility vehicle
5. I said this is illegal as we discussed in WEEE thread.

Check it out.

When you said recycling center Thought yo were referring to a used junk car recyclers that recycles cars for used parts.

I was not paying attention to "ALL" of your post in that I thought this topic was about wranglers being environmentally friendly and such. I did not realize that WEEE bleed over to this topic in that I did not read all of your posts back to back to relized that you were on another subject etirely. but since you mention several points form several posts then I realized you were refering not to just one post.
sorry chap.

Forgiven..

[toycollector]

The Jeep comes top of the green pile because CNW moves beyond the usual C02 emissions figures and uses a "dust-to-dust" calculation of a car's environmental impact, from its creation to its ultimate destruction. Thus CNW takes account of just about everything - research and development, manufacture, cost of scrapping and recycling, fuel used and so on. Thus hybrid cars with their unusual componentry (battery packs, electric motors) and the expense and resources the car companies expend in designing them, score badly. The Wrangler, presumably, is pretty simple, doesn't cost much to make and, like a number of supposedly evil SUVs, should have a very long life ahead of it because of its rugged construction.
Just goes to prove that their is no such thing as facts.
Only ways of proving your point!

[njp]

Originally Posted by toycollector

Just goes to prove that their is no such thing as facts.
Only ways of proving your point!

On the contrary, I've always maintained that whole lifecycle costs are what matter, and are often unjustly neglected in the pursuit of "green-ness".

OTOH, it may not be entirely fair to include research and development resource costs when considering a vehicle intended to have less environmental impact, because those costs would be far less significant if the vehicles were made in large volumes (which presumably is the aim). Batteries do look like a really big problem, however...

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by njp

On the contrary, I've always maintained that whole lifecycle costs are what matter, and are often unjustly neglected in the pursuit of "green-ness".

OTOH, it may not be entirely fair to include research and development resource costs when considering a vehicle intended to have less environmental impact, because those costs would be far less significant if the vehicles were made in large volumes (which presumably is the aim). Batteries do look like a really big problem, however...

Agree and same here I have mentioned time and again "total cost"


I am no electrician but I wonder about capacitors. If they could offset the battery to a degree so as not to need such big batteries.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

I am no electrician but I wonder about capacitors. If they could offset the battery to a degree so as not to need such big batteries.

There used to be a guy who stalked the sci.physics newsgroup with his idea for a super capacitor which was going to solve the world's energy problems. Since capacitance is directly proportional to the surface area of the plates and to the dielectric constant of the medium between them, and inversely proportional to their seperation, he was convinced that nano-technology would allow you to fabricate a capacitor of practically unlimited capacity. There's a grain of truth in this - you can now get electrochemical capacitors up to about 3000 farads, and they do have some uses in hybrid vehicles and some distinct advantages over batteries in terms of the power density, recharge time and durability. But the energy density is much lower than the alternatives, and this seems unlikely to change, for good physical reasons. And unlike an ideal battery, the voltage on a capacitor changes with its state of charge, so you need more complex circuitry to deal with that.

So, a useful adjunct to other power storage technologies - but no panacea.