We have a Toyota Prius at work and it does 45-50mpg between fill-ups. I have a 1998 Civic 1.4, with nodding dog, flat cap and an extra blanket on the parcel shelf, guess what, it does 45-50mpg between fill-ups (if you drive carefully)
Why should a hybrid be excused the congestion charge?
Are politicians pulling our legs?
Is there any point in all the additional complexity and cost?
How can a 2 tonne hybrid Lexus 4x4 possibly be seen as environmentally friendly?
Nick
|
Why should a congestion charge vary according to the model of the vehicle in any case.
If it's a congestion charge then one vehicle takes up on road space.
End of story.
Differences in CO2 output are nicely taken care of by the fuel consumption: the more fuel you use, the more CO2 you produce and the more fuel duty you pay.
Similarly the more congested roads you choose (or are forced) to drive on, the more fuel you use and the more fuel duty you pay.
Simple really (except to a politician).
|
Horses for courses!
Hybrids make sense in an urban setting. They can run on the 'leccy motor and there's no local polution in an area where lots of people may be found.
Diseasels make sense on major trunk roads. They use little fuel, put out lowish CO2 and there are no pedestrians to breath the nasty particulate emissions.
PS It's silly to compare a Lexus hybrid to a Civic. The Lexus hybrid isn't all that environmentally friendly, but it is when you compare it to a non-hybrid version of a similar luxury car.
|
|
Re diesel emissions. IIRC, there is no firm evidence that particulates from diesel are any more harmful than other particulates, including those from petrol. Lean burn DI petrol engines produce quite a lot of ultra-fine emissions, as well as much larger amounts of benzene (known, not surmised, carcinogen) as well as CO. You can't kill by asphyxiation from diesel, but petrol engine fumes are sometimes used for suicides. The difference? Diesels will have particulate filters, but petrol engines continue to pollute with the VOC's and other contaminants regardless.
Edited by nortones2 on 07/07/2008 at 20:14
|
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if you drove the Prius with a nodding dog etc.?
It does seem silly to me. They are probably OK in stop start traffic, but probably not environmentally friendly for high speeds eg. motorways.
I think the congestion charge is to reduce the pollution in cities, but the problem is that most of what petrol engine emit is harmless to humans. CO2 is all around us and doesn't cause many problems. Diesel engines can be VERY harmfull to people though, dispite being taxed much lower etc. It's diesels that should be kept away from cities.
I can't see how the Lexus 4x4 is environmentally friendly.
|
If you want a petrol automatic, they make sense, why does nobody ever get this fact? Show me a Focus petrol auto that does 45-50 mpg and ill change my mind. Huge number where I live driven by OAPs who seem to love them along with the Honda hybrid too.
Few diesel autos are any more economical either.
|
OK then - who is right - Nortones or P3t3R?
Which is most harmful?
|
OK then - who is right - Nortones or P3t3R?
Nortones is right.
|
|
|
|
CO2 is all around us and doesn't cause many problems.
Correct, in fact the CO2 output of a vehicle is used as a measuring stick to measure the CO output, which is harmful. The more CO2 produced, the more CO is present (I assume CO2 is easier to measure than CO).
|
Correct in fact the CO2 output of a vehicle is used as a measuring stick to measure the CO output which is harmful
Err ... no.
CO is easy to measure (indeed every MOT station has the equipment). Its just one by-product of combustion which is unhealthy for humans, alongside various particulates etc. CO levels produced by modern cars are lower than in years past as the cars have become 'cleaner'.
The major output of combustion is CO2 - loosely the carbon in the fuel combining with Oxygen to make a carbon-oxygen compound. Therefore, CO2 is a reasonable proxy for fuel consumption - lower amounts of fuel burned leads to less CO2. If this had fallen as fast as CO reductions we'd be in the era of the 200mpg+ car.
|
|
Modern cars should produce almost no carbon monoxide - that's what the catalytic converter is there for, to catalyse the conversion of carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide.
|
Going back to the OP's original point, surely the answer is that without the R&D in these early generation green vehicles then the automotive industry and it's consumer market will never progress to a really, proper, working, viable solution to the problem of the ever declining availability of fossil fuels...
so personally I'm more than happy for someone else to buy the expensive - and arguably ineffective - Prius type vehicles if it means that we are bridging the gap to eventually find something that really does work and really is conducive to the needs of our world. Actually if i could afford to waste, sorry I mean invest money in a hybrid I probably would.
But I'd get an Aston too of course.
BTW for the record I also agree with rewarding low emmisions cars with a tax break although what happens when the CC area is fully congested with low emmisions cars? who pays then? (retorical - I have a pretty good idea)
|
BTW for the record I also agree with rewarding low emmisions cars with a tax break
To reiterate BrianW's point elsethread, they already get a hefty (and IMO extremely effective) tax break in the most directly emissions-based way possible, by burning less fuel per mile and therefore paying proportionately less fuel duty per mile than high emissions cars. This tax system even accounts for the fact that, depending on driving style and road conditions, a particular individual may burn more fuel or less fuel than the manufacturer's figure - a rather important point that seems rarely, if ever, to get a mention.
But none of that has anything to do with congestion. On the other hand, according to the all-knowing internet, the OP's Civic would appear to be 3% shorter than the company Prius so choosing the Civic over the Prius would help reduce congestion.
|
|
|
|
|
