random "green" question

[bk94si]

My bikes get 40-45 mpg. My cars get between 15-25 mpg. Which is greener? The bikes have no smog equipment so probably pollute like crazy but they only burn 1/2 the gasoline. Probably a worthless question since none of them are truly green but I've always wondered which pollutes more.

[bitzz]

Unless your bike has a catalytic converter your late model car pollutes a LOT less.

[bitzz]

a LOT less

[bk94si]

That's kind of what I figured but wondered if burning only half the gas would even things out a bit. Doesn't sound like it.

[Talon]

Well, the only time I failed an emissions test was on a bike. Just saying.

[DrPMC]

This question could also be considered in bigger terms, by considering the whole total of carbon expended per mile travelled over the whole life of the vehicle. This would also take in the carbon costs of manufacture, supply and - ultimately - disposal. My feeling is that this is a much more honest and valid measure of the environmental costs entailed in a vehicle (or anything else).

Obviously the possible consequences for organic health of the emissions of a vehicle remains important but I suppose that ought also to be balanced against the positive consequences from the use value of a vehicle, providing not only the facility to move a person and their stuff around but also pleasure and even joy.

[6]

This question could also be considered in bigger terms, by considering the whole total of carbon expended per mile travelled over the whole life of the vehicle. This would also take in the carbon costs of manufacture, supply and - ultimately - disposal. My feeling is that this is a much more honest and valid measure of the environmental costs entailed in a vehicle (or anything else).

This. People love simple answers to complicated questions. Unfortunately things are never that simple.

[bk94si]

This bigger picture thing is why I have always thought that (at least with current battery technology and electricity generation) electric cars make no sense.

[ricksax]

In my study of this question, catalytic converters are useful to burn the excess gas from mixture richness necessary for start-up of a gasoline engine. Once the engine is warmed to operating temperatures, the Cat has little function, although it would burn any excess gas from sudden deceleration. A stock Hawk GT is jetted very lean to pass the EPA regulations of 1988. Most Hondas of that era are very cold blooded, and don't perform to their full power potential. California Hawks also have that air pump recirculation device which makes sure any unburned gas is recycled, back into the airbox I believe.

Modern electronic fuel injection systems are smart enough to minimize excess richness throughout the rev range, so they are cleaner, especially when equipped with a Cat.

Having said that, my Hawk is jetted rather rich, so while I am getting about the same mileage as a Prius, I probably pollute more around town, and certainly at idle.

But then again, human carbon emissions have not been the primary cause of the global warming which has occurred over the last 100,000 years. There are much larger forces at work IMHO.

[DrPMC]

This bigger picture thing is why I have always thought that (at least with current battery technology and electricity generation) electric cars make no sense.

Yes, I share your concerns on that. Knowing the high costs and short service life of batteries suggests to me that the rate at which cars will need to be replaced will be much higher than with petrol engines. I also wonder where the technicians to repair these vehicles will come from? ECU faults and the like seem to baffle many garages. As to the environmental and other costs of obtaining the rare minerals currently required for these systems - surely a colossal thing. Once all this and the huge investment in infrastructure and new production facilities has been added in I’d expect that it will be some long time before there is any net benefit.

[6]

But then again, human carbon emissions have not been the primary cause of the global warming which has occurred over the last 100,000 years. There are much larger forces at work IMHO.

Joe Rogan (not trying to start some shit here. I know there are mixed options on him and his show) JUST had a guy on, the last guest this week, who was going over the forces at work, and how little humans have to do with it.

You can discount the man's info if you would like, but the case was compelling to me. I'd recommend at least listing before discounting.

There is also a human cost to a lot of these electronic devices and electric cars.

The smart phones we are all posting from have been produced through some form of slave labor or another. That's why you get a $400 super computer yo.

The components in them are mined in horrific ways for the earth and miners. The networks they run them, the corporations that mine our data to sell.. there is a lot of fuckery at work here.

I find it interesting (read hypocritical) when people post on the internet, through cell phones, about environmental causes and human rights issues. Yes. Myself too. #1 hypocrite here...

I want to care, but apparently if it's inconvenient, I don't care. We find the easy ways to feel we do our part. It's human nature to do so, but we are all the problem and only like to try and help where it doesn't effect us and our easy lives too bad..

I'm calling out no one. Just saying when you think enough into any of these issues and causes, they don't make much sense.

[bk94si]

I do not believe in man-made global warming but I do aim to be a good steward of the planet that has been given to us. And I really, really don't want to be part of slave labor in China or child labor in Africa.

[bitzz]

In my study of this question, catalytic converters are useful to burn the excess gas from mixture richness necessary for start-up of a gasoline engine. Once the engine is warmed to operating temperatures, the Cat has little function, although it would burn any excess gas from sudden deceleration. ....

A cat needs heat to work. It gets this heat from exhaust gases.
So when you first start the car, the cat is room temp and does not function. It takes a couple of minutes for the cat to heat up and start working.
A cat is to reduce nitrogen oxides (N0 and N02) as the car runs.

[bitzz]

The world is warming. There is no arguing that.
... but this isn't the first time this has happened. The earth has gone through this before and the earth has gone through this BEFORE there were any people on earth.
One of the times the earth went through this cycle it killed off a whole bunch of animal life, that lives on carbon, which died and sank to the bottom of the oceans, then got covered in layers and layers of silt and became oil.
Then us dumb humans took that oil that took millions of years to create, and burned it and released all that carbon in 120 years.

We probably didn't CREATE global warming, but you're gonna have a hard time convincing me we're not contributing to it.

Screw it. I'm old and going to die soon. I volunteer to ram the last dinosaur into my gas tank and go for a ride (There WILL BE wheelies and tire smoke).

[BillnOroville]

I guess I look at things differently. I ride my Hawk say 2500 miles a year. My wife drives her Prius 15,000 miles a year. I think her car eco footprint is bigger.

I also think that mother earth and the solar system can get rid of us piss ant people with volcanoes, droughts, earthquakes and meteorites being a probable cause. There were millions of years it exited without us. It could do it again.