2 ms·
Thanks for that info. Out of curiosity, is there any accounting for the other emissions involved in making the fuel, though? Full transport and refining is ener
by abakker 11y ago
Thanks for that info. Out of curiosity, is there any accounting for the other emissions involved in making the fuel, though? Full transport and refining is energy intensive. on-vehicle emissions controls are also costly, and also use energy to make. Finally, petroleum is a finite resource.
I am all for emissions controls on vehicles if they genuinely reduce net emissions. If the reduced fuel economy doesn't equal out though, then at best, we're simply moving the emissions out of cars and into refineries/shipping/factories instead.
- hapless 11y agoI have a hard time believing that we're moving the emissions. 1. The efficiency/emissions tradeoff is almost entirely a diesel problem. For intrinsic reasons, gasoline engines suffer much less from emissions controls. The relevant systems are both much less complicated and much less intrusive. There is very little efficiency gain available by e.g. removing your catalytic converter. (The vapor reclamation requirements can be very complicated, but those parts do not intrude on the function of the engine, so they are not making the system less efficient) 2. The math doesn't work out on the back of a napkin. Emissions controls can reduce total tailpipe pollutants by as much as 99%. Even if it caused 2x the fuel consumption, how on earth would that result in a 100-fold increase in emissions in the distribution chain?