I own a family car (signum) with a vvt but non-turbo petrol engine (1.8, 140bhp).

It’s a terrible combo. It is geared low in order to be in the power band, so 70 is more than 3000rpm. The economy is 36mpg over the last 30,000 miles, very little of which is in city. To get it to go quickly you need to use all 7500 rpm, which in a car with kids in the back makes you look like a moron.

Turbo petrols solve a lot of these problems, but don’t wish for na. The engine would be nice in something small and light, in this application there’s not a single advantage other than simplicity

You forgot to include pics of major oil spill for balance, Steve, along with refinery explosions, oil shale wastelands and so on.

I didn’t forget …. my point is that the two should be compared end to end… from mining/drilling for the power to disposal and recycling … and from mining iron, smelting and creating the cars, engines, motors to their use, pollution during use and eventual disposal.

It’s easy to look at say an electric car .. you plug it in and it has no emissions but that is a long way off the whole story…. we need to look at how the power is generated AND how the car and batteries are manufactured and how long it lasts and the environmental impact when it needs to be disposed of.

The same logic needs applying to recycling …

nd as a ex-environment officer I’ve seen every fish in a river killed by milk and farm slurry in different incidents. Things can be done without making a mess but some people still make a mess.

I have seen every fish and every plant in a stream killed by pollution however as an ex-environmental officer you wouldn’t have look at this because the pollution came from a paper recycling plant and paper recycling plants were (and unless it’s changed still are) absolutely free to dump as much pollution as they wish.

(Not only was the vegetation IN the stream killed but the vegetation within several feet of the stream was dead… and worse (and specifically a problem for the local water company) it also contained high PCB concentrations.

The problem is investigating pollution caused by recycling is a dead end … be that academic or government it’s a taboo subject because recycling is the panacea for producing more waste and more waste drives more consumption and our economy is driven by consumption. Recycling causes pollution but that pollution is deliberately ignored because when you tell consumers they are helping the environment by CREATING more waste and pollution they feel good about spending.

As a society we need to stop or reduce our waste and consumption be that building disposable cars, washing machines or whatever and look at the full life cycle…. At a rough estimate 90% of the paper comes through my door is unsolicited advertising and unneeded packaging.

Mention this and you are shouted down… my son’s school had managed to give him the impression that the more waste we recycle the better for the environment to the point he thought more waste was better .. he’s not stupid he just listened to his teachers who continually go on about collecting more recycling because it’s good for the planet … it could well be his teacher believes that as well.. what none thought to do was explain that not creating the waste is way better than creating waste and recycling it…

When we go back to cars exactly the same philosophy is applied… whatever percentage of the car is recyclable… indeed it is partly recycled so don’t del bad about scrapping the perfectly good car with 30,000 miles on the clock because you’re helping the environment… (and the economy)

Maybe we are closer than we thought?

That and the other schemes are about increas ing sales in a tanking UK market rather than improving the enviroment.

Essentially just discounts.

Steve – lithium may be being mined badly in some countries, but surely that’s the fault of that country’s environmental legislation rather than the fact they are mining?

I think it’s stretching it to say many countries have environmental legislation at all but there are reasons behind that just as there are reasons why people die in sweat shops in Bangladesh making cheap and disposable clothing.

Apportioning blame is probably not productive but in any case complex.
Is it better for a country to have millions of deaths a year because they have no access to clean drinking water or 10,000 deaths because some clean drinking water gets polluted ?

What when the question is sell some resource at cheap world market prices and build some hospitals with the proceeds or drill some water wells etc. ? What if this year 1 million die from drought but next year 10,000 die from contaminated water but only 500,000 die from drought.

Of course in many cases most of the money doesn’t find its way to building the hospital but into the pockets of corrupt officials.

Ultimately it is the consumers buying the products … it doesn’t take much digging about to find the conditions cheap to produce clothing is made under yet Primark et al don’t seem to be empty… if you follow the money it is consumers that ultimately buy but consumers who are more than happy to remain as uneducated as possible about the consequences of their purchases but just as importantly people seem unconcerned where legislation actually prevents them gaining information on which to make sensible decisions.

If we completely disregard any concern for the environment and simply published figures on fuel consumption of COLD diesel engines … then how many less diesels would be used today for the 2 mile school run … if we didn’t offer tax and other incentives to do this…. the economics would be enough for most.

The current changes to tax diesel usage on motorways is IMHO equally misguided but that is mainly just from a common sense POV that using less fuel and burning it more efficiently produces less pollution and that the specific pollution of NoX is much less a concern when its in the middle of nowhere…
Manufacturers are actively solving other issues but doing a 180 will just lose this.

Such as, Trailrat. According to the director of a new recycling plant for lithium batteries in France they recover better than 70% of the lithium. Unlike lead or NiCad,

An excellent example of deliberately misleading information … You see 70% recycling and that makes it all sound great … you forget about the other 30% for a start then forget about all the other components (other than lithium)

Lithium is not in the EU’s most toxic categories so disposal of the untreatable material isn’t an issue.

That’s a non-sequiter unless you are only interested in how much money you can make from lithium.
The EU does not recognise lithium as a toxic material and ignores the accociated toxins … so if you wish to make money it’s fantastic… it’s the same as paper recycling… make as much mess as you like and we will prevent legislation from interrupting it… and if you give a nice cut to the right people they will even fund research to discredit any facts that get uncovered until you have a nice wedge of cash…

(This isn’t an EU issue this is common in any legislative system since Roman times and doubtless before)

Steve, you write a lot, but it’s all whataboutery. You are pointing out all the problems of which most thinking people are already aware.

So how about some constructive posts? The way forward? How to make small gains, to improve matters?

I think you missed the bit about the residue after the 70% has been recycled being used to make concrete, Steve.

As with solar panel manufacturers such as Solarworld, electric car manufacturers such as Tesla and Renault are acutely aware that potential customers will have to be convinced by the eco-credentials of their manufacturing and recycling processes.

In the case of Renault the batteries are first used in cars, then in domestic power walls or as buffers in Renault’s solar energy plant. They then get recycled in a plant featured in a TV programme.

Tesla do the same in Europe, here’s their link

the energy expended in its production being far greater than the fuel you will burn in its lifetime.

I’ve seen various figures for the embedded energy in cars but never one in which the embedded energy is greater than the energy used by the car in it’s life time, please provide a link.

My boss ordered a petrol touran st the beginning of the year, the dealership apologises when they couldn’t get one for hi. To test drive. The salesman said they’d he’d never sold a a petrol one before.

When he went to pick it up a few months later the dealership said that there had been a complete reversal and no-one was ordering oil burners anymore. I think DPFs and Ad-blu are putting people of especially for cards primary used for the school run and short commutes. Plus the worry of having a worthless car when it’s time to switch if the legislation changes against desiel.

Not just the touran. The T6 van/kombi/lifestyle mobile is now available here with the 2L TSI engine in a couple of different outputs.

Good time to buy a nearly new Euro6 tdi?

Stainypants – Member

My boss ordered a petrol touran st the beginning of the year, the dealership apologises when they couldn’t get one for hi. To test drive. The salesman said they’d he’d never sold a a petrol one before.

When he went to pick it up a few months later the dealership said that there had been a complete reversal and no-one was ordering oil burners anymore.

There is the possibility that the salesman was full of shit. I did some serious legwork round the garages before buying and one salesman said anyone with a petrol on the yard was just losing money and that they never sell. One large independent had two petrol cars out of 300+.

So, damage caused by Hurricane Harvey due to send petrol prices soaring over the next few days.

There’s going to be a few confused punters at the automobile Q3 sales close I bet.

Obviously Trump will ensure the petrol flows – even if pesky things like repairing homes and hospitals has to wait.