EU 'should ban inefficient cars'

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Beet and Wheat aren't the only plants with a high starch content :roll:

 

And it's not difficult to plant a few more seeds than normal is it?!

 

Bush has allocated massive plots of land to grow E85, so it's just a matter of talking the oily bastards round.

 

Saab already have Bio cars and Dave Walker at Emerald mapped his Porsche 924 Turbo to run on it and it made loads more power.

 

If you've got a standalone, you can run it now :-)

 

Here's a list of stations selling it. One's down the road from me, how handy :-)

 

http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk/default.asp?docId=13115

[NormanCoal 0]

There's one thing that I havent seen mentioned in here (unless I missed it), and that is that cars are not the highest producers of gases that are harmful to the planet. Perhaps this is going slightly off topic, but all my readings around the subject regarding the most powerful of cars now produced, they are so small in % terms when viewed as part of the car industry, that there is little or negligable effect from them.

 

Personally, I would like to see our Government move Road Fund licence away from a payable fee and onto petrol as has been mentioned. Also, regarding the MOT and it being easy to identify those that are not legally on the road from this standpoint, it cannot be hard to adopt a system similar to that used by the Germans that is easily identified on both the front and rear plates. A good by-product of this would be to stop all the stupid plates that are more and more common, spelling (or not as is more common) words etc

[Kevin Bacon 5]

But motorists are the easy target to lay the finger of blame on. We're just cash cows with woolly fleeces, easily led and pillaged by the powers that be.

 

The police already can do emissions spot checks in this country, but choose not to. Probably costs too much.

[davidwort 0]

Can't hold off any longer... :)

Crop based fuel is already a problem, the EU is starting to realise that policies on alternative fuels are contributing to deforrestation around the world to plant fuel crops.

Personally I think we should keep using all the dino oil till its gone and then look for something else :wink:

All this hybrid and electric car rubbish really p155e5 me off too, all that's happening is the pollution is being transferred elsewhere like the coal fired power station or the battery manufacturing plant and yet you've got people like the ex-BP/Shell (can't remember which) boss driving around in one telling everyone what a good example he's setting, there's a hypocrite for you!

Main problem is there's just too many of us, we're all doomed...

Tell you what though, banning patio heaters is bound to save the planet :roll:

-- end of random outburst.

[dr_mat 0]

Yep, crop-based fuels are the new bad guy.

 

- The grain mountain has already gone because governments stopped investing in research that would increase crop yields (since we had a glut). Now it will take another 10 years research to get any useful increases..

- Deforestation caused by the need for more land to grow crops on has caused massive CO2 emissions (or rather, a loss of CO2 absorption) already.

- Demand for crops has increased to the point where bread in developed countries has actually gone UP in price for the first time in many of our lifetimes. (And in the UK, the big supermarkets drive the profit margins so low that we'd be the last place that would be expected to happen.)

 

Research shows that in order to satisfy the growing population AND the growing use of "bio-fuels" we need to grow 2-3% more crops annually, year on year. Currently yields are only growing at about 1.5%, so that gap is causing price inflation.

 

So yes, burn dino-oil till we get fuel cells right, or dilithium crystals, or..

 

It's true that private motorists aren't the biggest contributor to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, at least, not directly. But private consumers have the power to choose which companies they support - and that's the only way that industry will be persuaded to change it's methods for the better.

[Yandards 0]

Nah, Flux Capacitors and Mr Fusion's are the way forward.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Or wind up rubber band power?

 

Deforestation for crop growing. Hmmm.... sounds like a feeble red herring from the oil companies to me.

They are deeply threatened by E85 and are doing there best to stifle it's progress.

 

The timber and building industries have been cutting down trees for eons. I don't think a few more for growing E85 is going to cause too much concern for what we'll get in return. Besides, there are plenty of areas across the globe that aren't populated by trees and can sustain crop growing.

 

Half the problem about the entire Global Boring issue is the factual and critical information is strategically drip fed to the public. The real problems may never be revealed.

[Jim 1]

I know you think its hypocritical of me to suggest that something needs to be done, but similarly its pretty wrong to just ignore the problem.

 

I'm not criticizing any individual for the cars they drive or the lifestyle choices they make - i'm well aware just how thirsty and un-eco my car is, but at the same time I acknowledge that humankind need to address the situation before its too late. The only reason I don't want to change my car is because there is no incentive to do so - if EVERYONE was in the same boat however and 54 litre 16 turbo V16's were made illegal, and everyone had to potter about in 500cc diesels, at least we'd all be on a level playing field and i'd willingly accept it.

 

Anyone see the recent story on BBC news about fitting huge sails onto cargo ships? There is a prototype out there already working pretty well. Funny how we've come full circle really!

[Kevin Bacon 5]

"The circle of life" :lol:

 

So long as flares don't become fashionable again, I'm fine with it!

 

I agree that something needs to be done about pollution, but not if it's driven by political agenda. If done purely for the good of humanity with no financial influences, then I'm all for it. I honestly don't believe the intentions of a lot of the people involved are genuine. Governments have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted, and what better way to win the hearts of the people than pretending they give a rat's arse about the environment? The environement they polluted in the first place.

 

I am happy to run my car on Bioethanol right now, cause I'm shallow and want the extra grunt, but the infrastructure for it just isn't in place yet.

 

Car manufacturers are rising to the challenge of making more efficient engines and have done for some time, though. There's the 3 cylinder A2 TDI that does 68mpg, but why did they kill it off? 3 pot Lupos etc. Audi have just announced a performance diesel engine for the R8..... but there's more to it than just making diesel more appealing. For a start it's very smoggy compared to burnt petrol, it's putrid stuff. Nasty when it goes in, nasty when it comes out the back.

 

No, I think the future is 'clean' fuels....alcohol, Hydrogen, electric etc etc....

[dr_mat 0]

Car manufacturers are rising to the challenge of making more efficient engines and have done for some time, though. There's the 3 cylinder A2 TDI that does 68mpg, but why did they kill it off? 3 pot Lupos etc. Audi have just announced a performance diesel engine for the R8..... but there's more to it than just making diesel more appealing. For a start it's very smoggy compared to burnt petrol, it's putrid stuff. Nasty when it goes in, nasty when it comes out the back.

 

No, I think the future is 'clean' fuels....alcohol, Hydrogen, electric etc etc....

 

The small engines were good ideas, but unfortunately the buying public likes big numbers. They want a 2GHz computer, with a 20inch screen, and they like to drive around in a 2 litre car with 200 horsepower that weighs ~2 tons.. (The power of 2?) The Bugatti Veyron production run *will* consume less fuel in their collective lifetimes than the 1.8 Golf Mk 5 will (by sheer numbers). But the Bugatti Veyron's mere existance will fuel (sic) the public's perpetual desire for "more, bigger, faster".

 

I think the future is a completely different beast from the internal combustion engine altogether though. It's time has been and gone. It's a crap design, let's face it. It turns only about 30-40% of the energy it burns into forward motion. If power stations were that inefficient we'd have run out of coal 20 years ago. The diesel is better, but even that's pretty poor. At the moment the only viable alternative motor seems to be the electric traction motor, but we will see what the future brings. All that reciprocating motion crap has to stop though, it's rubbish.

[Yandards 0]

Car manufacturers are rising to the challenge of making more efficient engines and have done for some time, though. There's the 3 cylinder A2 TDI that does 68mpg, but why did they kill it off? 3 pot Lupos etc. Audi have just announced a performance diesel engine for the R8..... but there's more to it than just making diesel more appealing. For a start it's very smoggy compared to burnt petrol, it's putrid stuff. Nasty when it goes in, nasty when it comes out the back.

 

No, I think the future is 'clean' fuels....alcohol, Hydrogen, electric etc etc....

 

The small engines were good ideas, but unfortunately the buying public likes big numbers. They want a 2GHz computer, with a 20inch screen, and they like to drive around in a 2 litre car with 200 horsepower that weighs ~2 tons.. (The power of 2?) The Bugatti Veyron production run *will* consume less fuel in their collective lifetimes than the 1.8 Golf Mk 5 will (by sheer numbers). But the Bugatti Veyron's mere existance will fuel (sic) the public's perpetual desire for "more, bigger, faster".

 

I think the future is a completely different beast from the internal combustion engine altogether though. It's time has been and gone. It's a crap design, let's face it. It turns only about 30-40% of the energy it burns into forward motion. If power stations were that inefficient we'd have run out of coal 20 years ago. The diesel is better, but even that's pretty poor. At the moment the only viable alternative motor seems to be the electric traction motor, but we will see what the future brings. All that reciprocating motion crap has to stop though, it's rubbish.

 

Actually the most efficient engine is the gas turbine but it's a little too complex to run in a mass market car.

 

I really do think in the grand scheme of things making cars more efficient does not really solve any problems. What is required is a change of attitude, why anyone who lives in London decides to drive a car is a little beyond me, it has been proven time and again that it is quicker going by other forms of transport. If they really invested some decent sums of money into the system then more people would use it.

 

There are also plenty of other ways of 'saving the planet' as the tree huggy types like to put it. The only reason we now have more recycling facilities is because councils got money to set them up and will have money taken off them if they don't meet quotas. I know my electric bill dropped a lot when I swapped the light bulbs over and started turning stuff off instead of leaving it on standby. Building insulation is still pretty rubbish; a lot of new builds will fail the standards they are suppossed to meet if tested. That's just the domestic home market and it is again reasonably well documented that industry uses more fuel/power than homes.

 

Oh and the other thing would be to ban soaps from the TV, dont watch Eastenders, Corrie etc and save a tree ;)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I think the future is a completely different beast from the internal combustion engine altogether though. It's time has been and gone. It's a crap design, let's face it.

 

Yeah it's really crap. It changed the world completely. Crap things tend to do that don't they?

Get a grip, the reciprocating engine is a masterpeice of design. So much so it's basic design has barely changed. A few alternatives came along, sure, but they were either too expensive / complicated, or even less efficient.

It's one device that's so much more than the sum of it's parts as it brings so much pleasure to the world, well, except you it seems :lol:

 

It turns only about 30-40% of the energy it burns into forward motion. If power stations were that inefficient we'd have run out of coal 20 years ago.

 

What, like steam power? Which was the alternative before Dr Diesel came along.

 

The diesel is better, but even that's pretty poor. At the moment the only viable alternative motor seems to be the electric traction motor, but we will see what the future brings. All that reciprocating motion crap has to stop though, it's rubbish.

 

Ah well if you love traction motors so much, get your arse on the trains more often and sell the Corrado.

[dr_mat 0]

Ah well if you love traction motors so much, get your arse on the trains more often and sell the Corrado.

 

Actually my VR6 does less than 3500 miles per annum, so though I'm only filling up with 99 octane once per month, I have thought many times of selling up ..

 

Hardly sensible to claim the internal combustion engine is so great "because it's better than what we had before".. well yeah, otherwise it wouldn't have replaced what we had before! ;)

 

But it has had it's time, we should be moving on. It's pretty clear that improvements in efficiency are just not happening; car manufacturers are increasing specific output rather than improving overall efficiency. The few that are trying to improve efficiency are the little-loved lean burn engines (VW FSi, Ford SCi and others), and (at least in the Ford case) they make the cars unpleasant to drive, so they're not really gaining any traction with the public.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but I think we should be looking harder ...

[Jay2 0]

Canal Barges & Horses?