Moratorium against the "clean" green or organic car

[Christophe]

Sorry for the capital letters of the title but I have some fed up, fed up, fed up ... to hear about clean cars, eco-friendly or eco-friendly engines, Ecological SUV, even worse: from organic car...

Speaking and selling cars, supposedly, clean (at what technological cost elsewhere, but that's another story) but especially that are far from clean: not only are we clearly deceiving the consumer, but worse, in his head, the use of the "clean" car is legitimized.

"As it is clean I will not hesitate to use it !!"

The best example of this is probably the Prius for the city. Admittedly the hybridization is less worse but in its current form it is very far from being clean but a driver of prius will be able (will?) To use his car in town to the maximum! Besides, the best way to make a Prius profitable is to use it as much as possible in town ... Paradoxical, isn't it?

A clean car becomes, by magic, clean with 120 g of CO2 ... at 150 g it is really dirty ... reduction between the two 20% ... barely ...

Neither environmental, consumer, nor government associations have yet lifted a finger against these abusive trade names...In other cases there would already be lawsuits in progress ...

So here I launch a reflection on the subject, knowing of course that its impact will be limited or even zero ... It is however a problem as serious as that of GMOs.

[jean63]

The best example is probably the Prius for the city. Admittedly the hybridization is less worse but in its current form it is very far from being clean.

You changed your mind !! I'm kidding, but I think you were anti-Prius not so long ago?

At the moment I keep my GPL, there is much worse.

[Christophe]

I'm still reading the above:

you legitimize the use of your car

(implied in town via the example of the Prius)

But you're right, it's not very clear ...

[Remundo]

Ooh there Christophe, it's bad for your heart "the clean car".

For the car to be clean, at least its fuel must be clean. So, to have sufficient autonomy, taking into account current technologies, an electric / hydrocarbon hybrid WITH:
- electricity produced on renewable.
- hydrocarbon produced on renewable.

In both cases, the sun, the wind and the water are our allies.

@+

[Christophe]

In both cases, the sun, the wind and the water are our allies.

Right, but in both cases this is still a sweet dream... then talk about 0 emissions (implied: direct) about the fuel cell car I don't mind ... but that's "all" ...

Now if consumers (basically: all of us) like to roll in the flour and be taken for idiots, it's up to them to make decisions for that to change, right?

[Remundo]

Yes, the summerscon (I work in the 93 ... it distorts ) can't do everything either. They take what is there and the feedback loop with the industrialists and the State does not have a very strong influence, apart from a few sporadic media shots.

It is profit that guides everything and, for the moment, oil is not expensive enough to profoundly change habits and lifestyles.

[Christophe]

Okay, but I don't know if it's so much a question of crude oil prices as ...of margins that different "persons" (natural or legal) make on oil ...

Vega, vesta, Eco2000 ... all these prototypes of the 80s were buried alive more than 20 years ago ...

If they had survived where would we be now? 2 or 3L on average?

[Remundo]

Yes, it is certain that there is a whole chain of intermediaries who grease themselves ... and who are hostile to the development of econological projects. But I think this is not a main blocking point, rather a brake. The "pilot parameter" seems to me to be the price per barrel. It is he who determines the viability of the chain. And there is a few decades for it to really break.

[bowman1]

The point is that we all need a car to go to work or to tinker, take the children to judo or the MJC, etc ...
I was driving LPG thinking I was doing well (9,5l / 100km) I switched to the Prius (5,7l / 100km) is it better or worse? I also have a 4X4 diesel, a very big polluter will tell everyone, except that I only do 3000 km per year and it is used to transport the wood that heats the house. I am waiting for the release of the compressed air car but there it recharges thanks to the electricity fairy but produced in nuclear or thermal power stations !!! So what is the solution?

[Christophe]

So what is the solution?

For transport, I fear that there is none ... because by not drastically changing our society (at all levels)

But there are other "points" on which it is easier to intervene to limit consumption and rejections. I am thinking above all of heating, you say heating with wood, very good because you have to largely compensate for the 3000 km you do with your 4x4.

Example of a paradoxical belief of individuals

People are not aware of the rejection of their oil or gas heating because they simply finance their energy costs less, so they have the impression of consuming less quantity.

A fairly modern, well-insulated 4-person house of 120 m² consumes 150 kWh EP (primary energy) per year. Oil heating. Annual consumption: 1800 L.

To make 1800L with a car, even a 4x4 that consumes 12L, you have to drive 15 km. With a car that makes 000L (probably close to the average of the hdi sold) you have to drive 6 km per year.

Your 3000 km, assuming you consume 12L also correspond to 360 L of fuel oil, a little less than 2 cubic meters of wood... It is also 15 days of heating for some less well insulated fuel oil ... (see https://www.econologie.com/forums/surconsomm ... t4761.html )

Example of paradoxical behavior of governments

The reduction in km costs for going to work and the equipment premiums for renewable energies.