>>
>> A break even analysis shows that an [internal combustion engined vehicle] would need to consume
>> less than 3.9 L/100km to cause lower [environmental impacts] than a [battery car] ... Consumptions
>> in this range are achieved by some small and very efficient diesel [cars], for example,
>> from Ford and Volkswagen.
>>
>> Actually quite a lot of the new diesels are in the better-than-battery ballpark, according to
>> UK government figures. The notional battery car considered by the EMPA analysts was a Volkswagen
>> Golf with its normal drivetrain replaced by a battery one: but it seems that you
>> would be doing slightly better for the environment to buy an ordinary new Golf with
>> a 1.6 litre "BlueMotion" injected turbodiesel - which would be a lot cheaper. That would
>> consume 3.8 l/100km, not 3.9.
>>
>> So would a new Mini Cooper D hatchback or a new Ford Focus, actually. And
>> if you could bear to go for something a little smaller - VW Polo rather
>> than Golf - you'd be streets ahead on the environmental front, down as low as
>> 3.4 l/100km with more than 15 per cent of the car's in-service emissions clipped off
>> compared to the 3.9 l/100km battery-car baseline. As the Swiss boffins tell us, it's the
>> in-service energy use and emissions which count most.
>>
Come back to the real world Zero, not the government/manufacturers statistics
Look at road tests for mpg figures, they are more realistic.
There isn't an automatic, diesel or petrol, car that will come anywhere near a Prius on mpg. The Prius flying up the motorway at 90mph is still getting 45-50mpg and running an atkinson cycle engine, produces less emissions than a miller cycle engine.
|
