Motorway lower speed limit trial

M80

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
5,931
Reaction score
2,733
Location
Derbyshire
Your Mercedes
2014 639 Viano- 651, 5sp Auto. 2009 S211- 646, 5sp Auto.
Couldn't agree more but I'm not the only one in this household. The green solution in the vast majority of cases is to keep what you have.

The car we are buying probably generated around 12 tonnes of CO2 in its production and delivery. (these figures are never known but I believe 12t would be a reasonable and low ball park figure)

If our new car gets 60mpg as opposed to our last cars 45mpg
This would be a saving of 25.2 ml of diesel per mile
or equivalent to 66 grammes less of CO2 per mile

Therefor payback time would not be for 181,000 miles

Of course cars do eventually come to the end of their lives and need to be replaced, and the above figures do not take that into account, but undoubtedly the desire to have new, and the desire of economies to create demand and spending is the big producer of CO2 and global warming.

I feel fairly certain that it won't be a simple as that.

Craig not all cars are new and more efficient.
Not all vehicles are low, narrow and with a pointy end.
It doesn't matter how you rephrase it, put yer foot down you use more fuel, in fact your own statement of getting to speed uses more fuel than to maintain it is relevant. With today's congestion (feasibly blamed on increased population) it isn't often we can maintain a good cruising speed. The deceleration (and braking) followed by the desire to get back up to speed will happen.

Personally I really don't care who does what speed as long as it doesn't impact (as possible with some numpties) on my safety. I set cruise at 58 and I'm content.
Such new initiatives are usually derived from theorists who have recently been taught some earth shattering principles, that from behind a desk or in the likes of your pointless meetings sound to be planet saving.

Serious question, do palm tree plantations offer as much environmental advantages the jungles they are replacing at massive speed do?
For sure they mess with eco systems, and that might 'bite' us in ways unforeseen. A little example, years back in a part of India (sorry I can't offer the precision you do) they were sick of their farm workers getting bit by snakes (reasonably). So they set to eradicating snakes to protect the workers. Soon enough they were over run by rats, that still bite but also brought diseases that created a whole new problem.
 

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
Where are those figures from?
Those ones are taken by multiplying 24 by 9% ;)

The 24 ton figure comes from the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is an industry body. That figure is also fairly close to others I’ve seen in different studies. Either way, 20 tons, 24 tons or even 50 tons total CO2 emissions still puts the manufacturing fraction significantly below Doors’ estimate above.
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,785
Reaction score
27,420
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
So, we actually do have a situation whereby as automotive technology improves (EVs of whatever flavour), it will be “cheaper” in overall lifetime energy expenditure to actually crush an old cat and buy a newer one.
Hmm...:shock:

So manufacturers are advising it's better to crush your car (or cat :confused:) and buy a new one because it's betterer for the environment...

I'm presuming these are the same manufacturers who are in the business of selling cars and making profits for shareholders... just checking there isn't any vested interests :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,785
Reaction score
27,420
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
Those ones are taken by multiplying 24 by 9% ;)

The 24 ton figure comes from the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is an industry body. That figure is also fairly close to others I’ve seen in different studies. Either way, 20 tons, 24 tons or even 50 tons total CO2 emissions still puts the manufacturing fraction significantly below Doors’ estimate above.
So an industry body advising it's good and environmentally friendly to buy a new car...

upload_2020-9-16_10-21-27.png
upload_2020-9-16_10-18-22.png
 

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
I feel fairly certain that it won't be a simple as that.

Craig not all cars are new and more efficient.
Not all vehicles are low, narrow and with a pointy end.
It doesn't matter how you rephrase it, put yer foot down you use more fuel, in fact your own statement of getting to speed uses more fuel than to maintain it is relevant. With today's congestion (feasibly blamed on increased population) it isn't often we can maintain a good cruising speed. The deceleration (and braking) followed by the desire to get back up to speed will happen.

Personally I really don't care who does what speed as long as it doesn't impact (as possible with some numpties) on my safety. I set cruise at 58 and I'm content.
Such new initiatives are usually derived from theorists who have recently been taught some earth shattering principles, that from behind a desk or in the likes of your pointless meetings sound to be planet saving.

Serious question, do palm tree plantations offer as much environmental advantages the jungles they are replacing at massive speed do?
For sure they mess with eco systems, and that might 'bite' us in ways unforeseen. A little example, years back in a part of India (sorry I can't offer the precision you do) they were sick of their farm workers getting bit by snakes (reasonably). So they set to eradicating snakes to protect the workers. Soon enough they were over run by rats, that still bite but also brought diseases that created a whole new problem.
It isn’t as simple as that- yes totally agreed. That was rather my point. Going faster does increase emissions (nb I’m not defining “pollution”) but not necessarily in the linear fashion others have suggested, at all. My point is, the time that cars spend on the roads independent of their speeds- for ICEVs- is a significant contributorybfactor to total journey emissions.
So there’s a question. Design cars to be most efficient at high cruising speeds (requiring investment and maintenance of roads infrastructure, signage etc) or design them to use as little overall energy per trip as possible on the assumption that the roads will be more snarled up, lowering average speeds & thus increasing average journey times?

We are going down the latter route while studying the former, as things stand. The Big Hope is that intelligent drive/ connected vehicles will allow for smarter routing and reduced average journey times.
 

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
Hmm...:shock:

So manufacturers are advising it's better to crush your car (or cat :confused:) and buy a new one because it's betterer for the environment...

I'm presuming these are the same manufacturers who are in the business of selling cars and making profits for shareholders... just checking there isn't any vested interests :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Actually, all I’ve presented are the conclusions that I’ve drawn from analysis of the data. I don’t work in the auto industry now, not for a year and I certainly have no vested interests in it!
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,785
Reaction score
27,420
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
Actually, all I’ve presented are the conclusions that I’ve drawn from analysis of the data. I don’t work in the auto industry now, not for a year and I certainly have no vested interests in it!
I'm not saying you are, or that you have any vested interests at all. You're providing interesting and useful data. :)

I'm casting doubt on the impartiality of the authors of the data and subsequent conclusions...
 

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
I'm not saying you are, or that you have any vested interests at all. You're providing interesting and useful data. :)

I'm casting doubt on the impartiality of the authors of the data and subsequent conclusions...
The data is pretty solid, from what I’ve seen. I had the opportunity to look at Nissan Washington plant’s energy expenditure in one project, plus Honda Swindon and Toyota Burnaston in slightly lesser detail. They all gelled to within a few percent of each other. That confirms final assembly.
Now, the raw materials and processing costs are already well known; steels & aluminiums, plastics, float glass, all those data are open source and can be cranked out on a per unit mass basis. So the only differences become:
Where those materials are manufactured from raw to semi- finished state (country differences in energy production source- renewables etc vs fossil fuels, in particular gas vs electric arc furnaces);
The differential applications of materials/ materials types across different car brands (OEM design standards).

Vehicle emissions data is as legally reported via the CAFE regs. One can argue that this allows for some fiddling of the books, but not enough to be meaningful.

So, stressing from data I’ve seen released at source + standard engineering/ chemistry data... it all pretty much adds up. Close enough for government work anyway.
 

d215yq

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
2,664
Reaction score
702
Age
39
Location
Valencia, Spain
Your Mercedes
1987 W124 300D 280k miles
Interestign discussion- A question i don't know hardly anythign about - what about the costs of disposal of the old car - both CO2 wise but also for all the materials. Say I take my old simple W124 to a scrap yard tomorrow. What happens - I'm guessing the basic steel structure and windows can and is recycled? But what about seats, interior plastics, foam , wiring, engine, etc. The corrosive chemicals oils etc. On even an odl simply contructed car a huge percentage of it must just end up in landfill or worst. And then look at new cars with plastic covered everything and ECU chips. It's probably C02 neutral to recycle the car with the benefits from teh recycled steel/glass but I still think that it's a massive win for the environment if the W124 stays functioning in one piece and not in landfill and all the raw materials for it's replacement stay in the ground under flora and fauna where they belong. Happy to get a better understandign and maybe proved wrong though...
 

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
Again from memory, Nissan’s design standards meant that 92% of the car’s structure could be recycled into new vehicles.
Believe it or not, the ability to recycle an end of life vehicle is factored into its design.
It is cheaper in energy cost to recycle material than use virgin, however some applications have performance requirements that can only be met by some appreciable fraction of virgin material - particularly plastics.
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,785
Reaction score
27,420
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
The data is pretty solid, from what I’ve seen. I had the opportunity to look at Nissan Washington plant’s energy expenditure in one project, plus Honda Swindon and Toyota Burnaston in slightly lesser detail. They all gelled to within a few percent of each other. That confirms final assembly.
Now, the raw materials and processing costs are already well known; steels & aluminiums, plastics, float glass, all those data are open source and can be cranked out on a per unit mass basis. So the only differences become:
Where those materials are manufactured from raw to semi- finished state (country differences in energy production source- renewables etc vs fossil fuels, in particular gas vs electric arc furnaces);
The differential applications of materials/ materials types across different car brands (OEM design standards).

Vehicle emissions data is as legally reported via the CAFE regs. One can argue that this allows for some fiddling of the books, but not enough to be meaningful.

So, stressing from data I’ve seen released at source + standard engineering/ chemistry data... it all pretty much adds up. Close enough for government work anyway.
and the adverts I copied into my reply above "added up" back in the day as well...:rolleyes:

"Follow the money" - The industry is in the business of selling cars to make money for shareholders. They may very well want to do it as environmentally as possible so they can sleep at night (and also to mitigate any bad press...) but they're still in the business of manufacturing and selling new cars not saving the environment...

The BMW Advert being shown at the moment talks about how the environment is at the top of everyone's agenda right now then goes on to try and flog you a plug in hybrid 5 series. o_O:rolleyes:

The irony appears to be lost on the BMW execs who signed off that advert... or they believe the populace is too stupid to work out the mutually exclusiveness of having the environment as top agenda and making and selling cars. I expect the ad agency had a bit of a laugh and a bet over that one... I wonder if they tried to get Greta to endorse it as well... or perhaps that was reaching too far even for them...:rolleyes:
 

Doors

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
37
Reaction score
16
Your Mercedes
GLA 2020 200d
Those ones are taken by multiplying 24 by 9% ;)

The 24 ton figure comes from the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is an industry body. That figure is also fairly close to others I’ve seen in different studies. Either way, 20 tons, 24 tons or even 50 tons total CO2 emissions still puts the manufacturing fraction significantly below Doors’ estimate above.
It is a complex subject but I would be very suspicious of the motor industries own figures.
A more independent view perhaps
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car
 

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
It is a complex subject but I would be very suspicious of the motor industries own figures.
A more independent view perhaps
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car
That’s not the Independent’s view but the Guardian’s ;)

Having seen the actual data myself and having done the actual studies myself in the actual industry, having been to the actual manufacturing plants and up and down the supply chains that actually contribute to the car making industry’s own figures... I’m not suspicious at all. The data I saw all aligned about as neatly as would be expected from a series of manufacturing plants using the same basic technologies.

What I’d be suspicious of is the bias heavily likely to be present in the environmental section of a liberal left wing newspaper not exactly renowned for accuracy.
 

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
and the adverts I copied into my reply above "added up" back in the day as well...:rolleyes:

"Follow the money" - The industry is in the business of selling cars to make money for shareholders. They may very well want to do it as environmentally as possible so they can sleep at night (and also to mitigate any bad press...) but they're still in the business of manufacturing and selling new cars not saving the environment...

The BMW Advert being shown at the moment talks about how the environment is at the top of everyone's agenda right now then goes on to try and flog you a plug in hybrid 5 series. o_O:rolleyes:

The irony appears to be lost on the BMW execs who signed off that advert... or they believe the populace is too stupid to work out the mutually exclusiveness of having the environment as top agenda and making and selling cars. I expect the ad agency had a bit of a laugh and a bet over that one... I wonder if they tried to get Greta to endorse it as well... or perhaps that was reaching too far even for them...:rolleyes:
Unquestionably, carmakers are in the practice of making more money now & in the future.

However, and at the risk of repeating myself... that doesn’t detract from the data published showing the energy cost breakdown of a vehicle lifetime, which having seen firsthand- stack up pretty well.
 

d215yq

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
2,664
Reaction score
702
Age
39
Location
Valencia, Spain
Your Mercedes
1987 W124 300D 280k miles
Again from memory, Nissan’s design standards meant that 92% of the car’s structure could be recycled into new vehicles.
Believe it or not, the ability to recycle an end of life vehicle is factored into its design.
It is cheaper in energy cost to recycle material than use virgin, however some applications have performance requirements that can only be met by some appreciable fraction of virgin material - particularly plastics.

Thanks, what does the "could be" mean though - in the real world does 92% really get dismantled and seperated or do they just take the easy/profitable bits and then crush and landfill the rest? I mean what labour is required to strip down to achieve the 92% - I'm sure with lifts power tools and 3 weeks it could be done but I imagine instead the expensive/easy to remove parts are removed maybe a few steel panels recycled, the illegal to dump oils are disposed of as per regulation and the rest is just crushed?
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,785
Reaction score
27,420
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
Thanks, what does the "could be" mean though - in the real world does 92% really get dismantled and seperated or do they just take the easy/profitable bits and then crush and landfill the rest? I mean what labour is required to strip down to achieve the 92% - I'm sure with lifts power tools and 3 weeks it could be done but I imagine instead the expensive/easy to remove parts are removed maybe a few steel panels recycled, the illegal to dump oils are disposed of as per regulation and the rest is just crushed?
Not sure if it’s available on line but “Scrap Kings” on Quest is an enjoyable watch. Most are just crushed then sent to the ports to ship out to the Far East, where they’re melted down to be reused in new steel.
Not entirely convinced that crushing and shipping halfway around the world is the way it should be done but it meets the recycling requirements...
 

d215yq

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
2,664
Reaction score
702
Age
39
Location
Valencia, Spain
Your Mercedes
1987 W124 300D 280k miles
Not sure if it’s available on line but “Scrap Kings” on Quest is an enjoyable watch. Most are just crushed then sent to the ports to ship out to the Far East, where they’re melted down to be reused in new steel.
Not entirely convinced that crushing and shipping halfway around the world is the way it should be done but it meets the recycling requirements...

And once out of Europe or places without environmental regulation anything not worth recycling will be dumped in the sea anyway...

Im guessing it doesn't apply to cars (or maybe was never implemented) but there was some EU directive/idea of a directive that meant manufacturers had to receycle their products at end of life for free and thus incorporate this in the purchase price. Seemed a reasonable idea at the time and even better now and would boost domestic recycling. As long as they make it so that means recycled in Europe and not other places with less regulation. It's probably a good idea even though things will be a bit more expensive to buy which would also reduce wasteful purchases too...
 
OP
Timeandleisure

Timeandleisure

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
1,603
Location
London
Your Mercedes
SL500 2003 R230, E400d 4MATIC Coupe 2021
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #78
This is such a great discussion and I am still trying to understand how you can take time out of anything... I mean it’s all relative ;)... I have seen rates discussed which of course necessitates it.. moreover I often wonder if these trials take into account other environmental factors such aa the weather/atmospheric conditions. for pollutants ...for want of a generic term... behave differently depending on the season which is of course is situational in our case being so far up... winter being a big player where inversions of temperature and other emissions I.e.heating and for longer etc. conflate matters for vehicles even more so with everything being reversed in the warmer and longer days of the summer... hence would like them to publish more information around how this trial fits into the bigger picture and in context with all the other contributors of air pollution in the vicinity...perhaps Even compare with urban areas where you already have controls such as lower limits, pedestrianisation, good transport links in place to the motorway for any significant findings...

I am always reminded of something Sean Lock said in one of his stand-up shows when discussions around this are being had...
when talking about the environmental challenges here, compared to the US, ‘it’s like us turning up to an earthquake with a dustpan and brush’...
 
Last edited:

Craiglxviii

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
17,781
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Cambs UK
Your Mercedes
970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
Thanks, what does the "could be" mean though - in the real world does 92% really get dismantled and seperated or do they just take the easy/profitable bits and then crush and landfill the rest? I mean what labour is required to strip down to achieve the 92% - I'm sure with lifts power tools and 3 weeks it could be done but I imagine instead the expensive/easy to remove parts are removed maybe a few steel panels recycled, the illegal to dump oils are disposed of as per regulation and the rest is just crushed?
“Could be” is the way I’ve written it. The auto recycling industry is incredibly competitive; parts that can be reused in the spares trade are removed, the remainder are recycled PDQ. As I said, it’s actually cheaper to recycle than manufacture most energy- intensive materials from their raw state, so the industry isn’t stupid- they follow the profits.
There is a highly extensive car reprocessing industry all across Europe and America, it works closely with the steel mills/ glass lines etc. which in turn work closely with the carmakers. Not a totally closed loop but a genuinely efficient one.

Edit. The kit required to dismantle a car is heavily dependent on where the car ends up. A scrapper may unbolt high value add parts especially if the car is rare/ highly sought/ aspiring future classic and the parts hard to come by. That’s the sort of thing you’re thinking of. The fully industrialised process is that the car has certain elements removed (catalytic converters eh) then is crushed, shredded into tiny fragments then run down a conveyor belt where each fragment is sorted by different automated processes (magnets, air blast following UV/ IR spectroscopic identification) into a commodity group- ferrous metals, non ferrous metals, fabrics, fibres, rubbers etc. Those can then be graded using different high flow rate processes, and the end results of that are what actually gets recycled.

Phew. Does all of that make sense?
 
Last edited:

Doors

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
37
Reaction score
16
Your Mercedes
GLA 2020 200d
That’s not the Independent’s view but the Guardian’s ;)

Having seen the actual data myself and having done the actual studies myself in the actual industry, having been to the actual manufacturing plants and up and down the supply chains that actually contribute to the car making industry’s own figures... I’m not suspicious at all. The data I saw all aligned about as neatly as would be expected from a series of manufacturing plants using the same basic technologies.

What I’d be suspicious of is the bias heavily likely to be present in the environmental section of a liberal left wing newspaper not exactly renowned for accuracy.
But then again how confident are you with the figures you suggest, you say 2 to 2.5 tons and then link to the industries own figures that suggest 5.6 tons ?

heck 1.5 tons of steel stock out of the furnace already has a carbon footprint of 2.7 tons, and that is before the car facory is built along with all the machinery to turn it into a car plus all those plasticy bits

I'm sticking with my estimate of 12 tons that lies neatly between the car industries 5.6 ton and the guardians 17 ton
 
Top Bottom