Author: Emissions

Last updated on March 21st, 2018

There is an enormous amount of information available where environmentally friendly vehicles are concerned, however, choosing one of these little sparks over your gas guzzler may just cause a different type of damage.

ETHANOL

Virtues

– Readily available as it is made of corn crops

– You have the option of using a 15% mix or 85% mix. This means you either have 85% lead-free gasoline or 15% lead-free gasoline in the mix, which in turn means fewer toxic emissions

– Ethanol is biodegradable

Vices

– You would need to purchase a Flexible Fuel Vehicle

– Ethanol burns a lot quicker than ordinary gas, which makes it a lot more expensive when you calculate fuel efficiency

– Depending on the availability, it can be more or less expensive than ordinary gasoline

– Dependency on crops for fuel may cause a deficit in food production, increasing not only the cost of ethanol but also the cost of food

 

BIO DIESEL

Virtues

– This is a renewable energy source, mainly from plant oils and animal fat

– It emits low emissions, and then what it does emit, the plant life grown to sustain it reduces it back to an almost carbon-neutral source of energy

– It mixes with ordinary diesel, for a 5-20% biodiesel mix

– No changes to the vehicle will have to be made

Vices

– The sustainability is doubtful if demand increases

– It can damage rubber pipes in an engine, and filters will need to be cleaned out regularly as it loosens dirt in the engine

– More expensive than fuel

 

HYBRIDS

Virtues

– The number one choice where environmentally friendly vehicles are concerned by consumers

– They are economically built, which requires less fuel to run them on

– Less dependency on fuel and more dependency on electric capacity, which means fewer carbon emissions.

Vices

– The production of hybrid vehicles is not as streamlined as that of regular vehicles we know today, and the cost of manufacturing these vehicles is still high. the high demand versus the slow production makes it very expensive and puts it in the same price league as a luxury vehicle, without all the bells and whistles

– Maintenance of the vehicle is also very pricey as the parts are not as readily available as regular gasoline vehicles

– There doesn’t seem to be as much power in a hybrid vehicle, which makes acceleration slow and sluggish

– The potential for fatality is huge should you be in a head-on collision, due to the battery pack. Drivers tend to forget that a considerable amount of voltage is required to run a hybrid vehicle

– The light build of the vehicle, compared with the weight of the battery could make the vehicle a bit difficult to handle

.The size of the engine alone means a lot less space inside the vehicle, which is not great news for road tripping

Last updated on March 21st, 2018

If you have a head for figures and emissions cause you frustration and heartache, the following might just get you to appreciate the effect of the Hydrail. The greenhouse gases produced in the process of generating Hydrogen, which is used as propulsion for the Hydrail, is a minuscule 0.069% of the emissions caused by one gallon of gasoline.

By far, one of the biggest topics of conversation is the Hydrail, and according to Stan Thompson, the US’s Hydrogen Economy Advancement Team Chairman, the Hydrail will be a reality as soon as 2050. Not only is thus deemed as one of the greatest advancements in modern railway technology, it is also believed to have an incredible effect on the transportation system the world over.

Even though the Hydrail seems to be the answer the world seems to be looking for, would its arrival estimate about 35 years from now be soon enough? Already the warning signs are there that an urgent solution to our earth’s natural resources needs to be found or at least a worthy interim solution. Hydro, electric and diesel trains seem to be getting the much-needed support they deserve, however, what gets the world sitting on the edge of their temporary-solution-chairs, is the effects of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Not only does this stand out as great alternative where fossil fuels are concerned, the demand is not yet high enough for it to be expensive, and currently it is about 12% the cost of ordinary gas, which would make it a very affordable option for many, including transportation companies, couriers, and even the average Joe. Not only is it a cost-effective option, it also reduces carbon and nitrogen emissions by 30% and 70% respectively. So why is everyone not throwing their money into this and insisting on keeping this as a permanent solution?

LNG is not a long-term solution as it still emits toxic gases into the air. It is not the easiest fuel to process and can leave some pretty nasty bi-products. Possibly the most important reason, why this is not a long-term solution, is the fact that it is not a renewable energy source, thus it will eventually reach depletion. Even though the gas itself is cheap compared to other fuels, the actual cost to produce and distribute makes it very expensive to manage. This is partly the reason major companies have not really thrown in their hats with this, is the reward does not seem to be as big as with fossil fuels. The fact that it also does not have a very good fuel consumption ratio, is partly the reason people aren’t going out in droves to get their hands on some LNG.

Last updated on March 21st, 2018

No one will argue the fact that we are all enjoying the lower gas prices at the moment. In addition, the economy appears to be recovering, perhaps too slowly for some, but definitely in the right direction. Unfortunately, there is a downside to be considered. According to recent numbers released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), fossil fuel emissions have risen 2.39 % during 2013 and over 7.45% in 2014. This ends a 5-year streak of steady declines. Once again, greenhouse emissions are on the upswing. With gas prices down to 2009 pricing, people have once again started using their vehicles more freely and consuming more gas.

Some energy analysts will argue that they expected and projected this turn of events. They are attributing the decline in CO2 emissions to the recession with many companies suspending production, causing their energy consumption to plummet. Additionally, the energy efficiency enhancements in the electricity market, as well as the efforts in implementing renewable energy resources, were also contributing factors;  although not to the same degree as the recession. Arguably, they associate the recent increases in population growth as well as technological power-mongers, i.e. smartphones and tablets.

The increases in greenhouse emissions are across the board – electric power, residential, industrial, transportation and commercial; residents took the biggest hit, transportation the smallest (introduction of biofuels).

Forecasts are indicating that the increases in CO2 emissions will slow down by 2020, projecting a 1% overall increase. Additionally, the CO2 emissions are expected to plateau in the next year or two due to the increase in smart appliances, smart cars, and other innovative energy-efficient products. The conservative projection for decreases between 2014 and 2030 is estimated at 7 percent.

In one report, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) concluded that emissions can cut lifespans up to 12 years.  The Global Burden of Disease database has a metric called “Years of Life Lost”. “…1,641,050 years of life lost [were] attributed to particulate matter, against 1,873,160 years of life lost to road injuries…”

In a risk-filled world, emissions rank as just another risk conveniently ignored and not as dramatic as road deaths that make for a stronger platform for reforms.

The deaths are attributable not only to particulate matter in air pollutants but also to ozone concentrations of auto emissions.  One city, London, has taken big steps in moving towards lowering emissions. They have levied additional taxes on vehicles with heavy emissions and are “charging drivers for the true cost of their social impact”.

We can pay with our lives or pay the surtaxes. Somewhere, somebody has to pay. Hopefully, as more people get on board with the idea of reducing our carbon footprint and make efforts towards a greener, healthier planet, we will once again watch the pendulum swing the other way as our fossil fuel usage declines and our planet – and our health – starts to recover once again.

Last updated on March 21st, 2018

>What is an electric car?

Based on its name, electric cars use electrical energy stored in batteries to function. This is in stark contrast to the conventional vehicles, which rely on gasoline or diesel fuel.

Why consider an electric car?

First, an electric car is quiet and very smooth. What surprises most people about the electric car versus the conventional car are its high torques. When one steps on the accelerator, there is power immediately to the wheels.  Second, an electric car offers the convenience of home charging. All you have to do is to plug them into your garage or driveway and it will charge the car batteries.  The next morning, expect it to be fully charged and ready to go another 80 to 100 miles. Third, electric cars incur lower maintenance costs because there is no need for oil changes and other engine work needed for a fuel-powered car.  To maintain an electric car, you just need to rotate your tires and keep them properly inflated – that is it. In addition, if you live in a state where electricity is cheaper than petroleum, driving an electric car will be cheaper to operate. Studies show that the cost per mile to fuel an electric vehicle is approximately one-third to one –quarter the costs of gasoline. Fourth, electric cars help reduce air pollution for they do not emit tailpipe pollutants, as they do not compost fuels.  Examples of tailpipe pollutants include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and soot.

Finally and more importantly, purchasing an electric car is cheaper because of the federal and state tax credits and insurance discounts offered.  For instance, buyers benefit from a federal tax credit of $2,500 to $7,500, depending on battery size. On the low end of the spectrum, cars with four kWh battery packs for a $2,500 tax credit. The credit maxes out at $7,500 for cars with a 16 kWh battery pack. Some states also offer tax credits, so best that you check with the state where you live. Moreover, several insurance companies offer discounts of 5 percent or more for owners of electric vehicles.

Why not to go on with the purchase?

Now, for the other range of the spectrum, these are the things to consider before settling on an electric car:
First, electric cars have a limited range. As mentioned above, most affordable electric cars only have about 80 to 100 miles. This may sound too many miles but not for long distance commuters.  Hence, if you have a long commute, electric cars are not for you. Given the limited range of the vehicle, you need proper planning for your trips. Proper planning ensures that you still have enough battery charge to get to where you are going and get home (or get to a charging station).  Second, electric cars could also prove to be inconvenient because it takes a long time to charge (usually overnight). Electric cars add 20 to 25 miles an hour of charge. This is minimal compared to adding a few hundred miles in five to ten minutes at a gas station using fuel powered vehicles.  Thirdly, owning an electric car can also lead to big expenses like at-home charging station or replacement batteries. Purchasing any of these could easily set you back a few thousand dollars. Lastly, there are only 20 or so electric vehicles in the market.  Unfortunately, the style of electric vehicles is polarizing – you love it or you hate it. If you hate it, then you can wait a few years, as more automakers will be manufacturing electric vehicles. Eventually, you will find a style that you will like.