TDIClub Forums

TDIClub Forums (http://forums.tdiclub.com/index.php)
-   TDI News/Tech (http://forums.tdiclub.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Volkswagen exec reaffirms commitment to diesel: ‘Now it is absolutely clean’ (http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=501301)

turbobrick240 February 4th, 2020 05:46

Yeah, the average consumer isn't particularly savvy. My experience with dealers(and others) indicates that most buyers are more interested in the monthly payment amount than the total cost of the vehicle. This is why govt. needs to step in occasionally to steer people in the right direction.

oilhammer February 4th, 2020 05:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbobrick240 (Post 5569663)
Yeah, the average consumer isn't particularly savvy. My experience with dealers(and others) indicates that most buyers are more interested in the monthly payment amount than the total cost of the vehicle. This is why govt. needs to step in occasionally to steer people in the right direction.

Yeah, like banning the sale of a bunch of 50 mpg cars that are actually nice to drive. :rolleyes:

I do not necessarily place any blind trust in the gov't to make choices for me, thanks. They've proven time and time again (and if you happen to unfortunately see any of the news lately) they continue this almost daily.

turbobrick240 February 4th, 2020 06:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilhammer (Post 5569668)
Yeah, like banning the sale of a bunch of 50 mpg cars that are actually nice to drive. :rolleyes:
I do not necessarily place any blind trust in the gov't to make choices for me, thanks. They've proven time and time again (and if you happen to unfortunately see any of the news lately) they continue this almost daily.

Is our govt. perfect? Absolutely not. I'm disgusted by the imperfections on a daily basis. But we should be extremely grateful to live in one of the great democracies of the world. I'll take it over thunderdome any day. ;)

kjclow February 4th, 2020 06:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbobrick240 (Post 5569440)
That chart does not represent "overall environmental footprint". It is supposed to represent human health impacts. It's a fairly crude estimation based upon LCA's that do a fairly poor job of accounting for human exposure. E.g.- 10 kg of lead in a car battery generally poses much less of a health hazard than 10 kg of lead in the paint inside a home.

The falicy in your arguement is that there is no lead based house paint on market anywhere in the world today. Lead based consumer paints have not been on market in the US and Canada since 67/68. They were outlawed in 73. The risk of lead exposure from a lead acid battery is therefore much higher than lead exposure inside any building painted and properly maintaned since the mid 70s.

turbobrick240 February 4th, 2020 06:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjclow (Post 5569673)
The falicy in your arguement is that there is no lead based house paint on market anywhere in the world today. Lead based consumer paints have not been on market in the US and Canada since 67/68. They were outlawed in 73. The risk of lead exposure from a lead acid battery is therefore much higher than lead exposure inside any building painted and properly maintaned since the mid 70s.

That was merely a very simplified example I was using to make a point about the shortcomings in many life cycle assessments that look at health impacts. Exposure to pollutants is a very important element that isn't adequately (or at all) modeled in many LCA's. The Europeans are way ahead of us with their modeling. The ReCiPe database is a good example of that.

Btw- lead paint is still an issue in many areas. I know it's still common in the older homes here in New England. It's often the most vulnerable groups that have the most exposure.

kjclow February 4th, 2020 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbobrick240 (Post 5569676)
That was merely a very simplified example I was using to make a point about the shortcomings in many life cycle assessments that look at health impacts. Exposure to pollutants is a very important element that isn't adequately (or at all) modeled in many LCA's. The Europeans are way ahead of us with their modeling. The ReCiPe database is a good example of that.

Btw- lead paint is still an issue in many areas. I know it's still common in the older homes here in New England. It's often the most vulnerable groups that have the most exposure.

The only reason lead paint is still an issue is due to poor maintenance. The best, easiest, and proper way to remedy exposure to lead paint is to paint over it. But now I am sidetracking the thread.

wxman February 4th, 2020 07:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbobrick240 (Post 5569676)
That was merely a very simplified example I was using to make a point about the shortcomings in many life cycle assessments that look at health impacts. Exposure to pollutants is a very important element that isn't adequately (or at all) modeled in many LCA's. The Europeans are way ahead of us with their modeling. The ReCiPe database is a good example of that.

Btw- lead paint is still an issue in many areas. I know it's still common in the older homes here in New England. It's often the most vulnerable groups that have the most exposure.

Do you have a reference for that database? First I've heard of it.

The European LCA studies I've seen aren't remarkably different from my results (I used the 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use" as a basis for my methodology).

For example, the European Environmental Agency issued a report in 2018 highlighting the lifecycle impacts of EV and ICEV car technologies ("Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives, TERM 2018: Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) report." EEA Report No 13/2018, November 2018, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publicatio..._download/file). The LCA analysis there looked at not only air emissions but also contamination of surface water, groundwater, and soil.

Another is a study by Beltran et al. ("When the Background Matters: Using Scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models in Prospective Life Cycle Assessment." Journal of Industrial Ecology, November 2018, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/jiec.12825). This also look at contamination of all environmental media.

Generally speaking, BEVs have lower AGW and fossil depletion impacts, but higher human and ecological toxicity impacts according to those resources based on current technology.

turbobrick240 February 4th, 2020 08:04

There are so many variables in a good assesment, it's mind boggling. Like what is the projected vehicle useful life- 100k km, 150k km, etc. The more miles a BEV accumulates the more it offsets the relatively high production/manufacturing impacts. Is a second life for BEV batteries as grid storage factored in? Is battery recycling factored in? What grid mix is used to not only charge but manufacture the vehicles? Is the changing nature of our grid mix fully accounted for? What battery chemistry is being used, and what is the quantity of elements like cobalt in that chemistry? Modern BEV's are just in their infancy and the environmental impacts related to production and use are improving at a very rapid pace. Some things are also very difficult to quantify- especially with purely monetary metrics. Like the synergies between BEV's and renewable energy. Or the value of human health, clean air etc.. I'll see if I can find a good link to the ReCiPe modeling.

https://www.dovepress.com/advances-a...t-article-EECT

my d sel February 4th, 2020 08:53

Well said oilhammer

flee February 4th, 2020 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilhammer (Post 5569668)
Yeah, like banning the sale of a bunch of 50 mpg cars that are actually nice to drive. :rolleyes: (snip)

In the interest of accuracy, few if any of the recent 'banned' TDI's were getting 50 mpg.
My A3, one of the worst examples of fuel usage, never even got near 40 mpg.:(

wxman February 4th, 2020 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbobrick240 (Post 5569710)
There are so many variables in a good assesment, it's mind boggling. Like what is the projected vehicle useful life- 100k km, 150k km, etc. The more miles a BEV accumulates the more it offsets the relatively high production/manufacturing impacts. Is a second life for BEV batteries as grid storage factored in? Is battery recycling factored in? What grid mix is used to not only charge but manufacture the vehicles? Is the changing nature of our grid mix fully accounted for? What battery chemistry is being used, and what is the quantity of elements like cobalt in that chemistry? Modern BEV's are just in their infancy and the environmental impacts related to production and use are improving at a very rapid pace. Some things are also very difficult to quantify- especially with purely monetary metrics. Like the synergies between BEV's and renewable energy. Or the value of human health, clean air etc..

Yes to virtually all of those questions with regard to GREET. The changing electricity grid mix is why I continue to update the NAS results:


http://lmarzccm.com/images/NAS_2030_EDX.png


I'm aware of the rapid changes with respect to battery chemistry. GREET is current as of 2019. GREET assumes 20% recycling of battery materials. I've seen that could be as high as 75% or more in the future, but it's speculation at this point.

GREET_2019 assumes 183,383 miles useful life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbobrick240 (Post 5569710)
I'll see if I can find a good link to the ReCiPe modeling.

That would be great. Thanks!

oilhammer February 4th, 2020 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by flee (Post 5569723)
In the interest of accuracy, few if any of the recent 'banned' TDI's were getting 50 mpg.
My A3, one of the worst examples of fuel usage, never even got near 40 mpg.:(


I was not limiting this to Dieselgate cars. There are loads of other cars that are available in other markets that we cannot get. Name just about anything that isn't some high performance sports coupe, and there is a diesel engine offering for it that WAY bests any gasoline version we get here.

Also, your A3 was an automatic. However, even my 2010 Jetta that was also so-cursed, was able to tag 52-56 with reasonably careful highway driving. Post delete, it got 60, and is still on the road today 1/4 million miles and climbing.

However, I do not feel deleted cars should be included. But there are still plenty that are able.

But to get to the broader point of "banned", it is more to do with what regulations they required, despite it not being as bad as they would have led people to believe (regarding NOx).

Did you know there are Bluemotion VAG products capable of getting 70+ mpg? Do you know there was a VAG product capable of getting over 80 mpg? And that was well over a decade ago.

wxman February 4th, 2020 09:44

@turbobrick - if you are really interested what's included in GREET, I invite you to download the model from https://greet.es.anl.gov/ . It's free; just requires registration. Both the "Fuel-Cycle model" and "Vehicle-Cycle model" need to be downloaded. Many of your questions are addressed in the tabs in the respective models (Excel based).

A list of documentation associated with the GREET model is available at https://greet.es.anl.gov/list.php .

atc98002 February 4th, 2020 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by flee (Post 5569723)
In the interest of accuracy, few if any of the recent 'banned' TDI's were getting 50 mpg.
My A3, one of the worst examples of fuel usage, never even got near 40 mpg.:(

My '14 Passat was averaging overall 38 MPG, with little freeway driving. I did take it on a nice trip down to the Oregon coast for a couple of days. That trip was 52 MPG. And I was doing 70+ when traffic (and the speed limit) allowed.

Lightflyer1 February 4th, 2020 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by tikal (Post 5569661)
Very good points. I am pretty sure if you go out online and search for large used passenger vehicles that would average not more than 15 MPG you find so many in good shape, relatively low miles and below $5000. Why bother buying a Toyota Corolla/Honda Civic/etc. or a Kia Soul EV/Nissan Leaf/etc. for let's $10,000 or more when you can buy a GM Suburban type vehicle for $5000 or less?

Yep just bought a 2002 suburban for $1,200. One owner vehicle and excellent shape no issues with it at all. I don't know why anyone spends $50 or $60,000 for a big vehicle like this when there are decent older ones around that are perfectly usable. I don't use mine as an everyday driver just as a every now and then go-getter. Dealer said they would only give them $750 for it trade in.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017

Page generated in 0.09511 seconds with 8 queries
[Output: 29.15 Kb. compressed to 27.99 Kb. by saving 1.16 Kb. (3.99%)]