I've been following a discussion among professional ecologists concerning shifting from older cars to newer cars. The general argument favoring new cars is that they are more efficient in nearly every sense and pollute less than older cars.

I think that's a good first approximation solution to both energy conservation and pollution reduction. But then I started wondering about a second approximation. In the second approximation I was thinking about the energy used to build a new car from ore extraction to refining for all parts (metal, plastic, leather, paint, etc), to parts production including energy for transportation and finally, energy for assembly and distribution. Then I realized you'd have to work in constant dollars (my new Datsun 710 wagon in 1974 cost about $3,000, a similar car now would cost $20,000). Also, you'd have to depreciate it. I chose a method that took into account the scrap value, initial value, and takes the first derivative as the depreciation at any given time.

Then you'd have to look at the fuel efficiency of both cars and take the difference over time to determine the intersection point of both independent curves.

Then do the same for carbon production and NOx. (And SOx if diesel).

Does that sound right? has it been done? Damned if I want to reinvent the wheel (again!).

If you're trying to compare the harm to the enviornment caused by the older vehicle versus the harm to the environment caused by the production of the newer vehicle and the operation of the newer vehicle, it would appear that this is an unfair comparison.

Why does the older vehicle get a pass on the harm caused to the environment during it's production? I suppose you could argue that it was 20 years ago, and therefore, irrelevant to the harm caused today.

If the question is whether to continue operating the old vehicle versus a new vehicle, the environmental cost of building the new vehicle will certainly weigh on the overall output to the environment. In looking at the cost of a new vehicle, I'd probably hazard a guess that the environmental cost of producing it might be substantial and that the time required to recoup that benefit might be considerable.

What about the third approximation? In this scenario, the older car clearly has the advantage, assuming of course, a number of things.

First, you must ride your bicycle to the parts store whenever it breaks down, no matter how far.

Second, when it does break down, you can't have it towed to a convenient place to fix it either(flat-beds are real gas guzzlers). You'll just have to fix it on the spot. And you'll have to make sure that you don't cause any traffic tie-ups. You know, stop-and-go driving, etc.

Next, when performing routine maintenance in your garage or driveway, the use of a droplight is a big no-no. Same thing for your radio. And if you plan on using any pneumatic tools, you must have a solar powered compressor, and don't even think of using a battery charger!

Last of all, you might as well just cut the A/C belt and get it over with(P/S is optional). Those old, non-variable compressors are real deal-breakers!!!

Well, routine maintenance is necessary for new cars too.. And our 2000 Oldsmobile has broken down more times than my 81' Benz since I've had it..

__________________
Ich liebe meine Autos!

1991 Mercedes-Benz 560SEL | Megasquirt MS3-Pro | 722.6 transmission w/ AMG paddles | Feind Motorsports Sway Bar | Stinger VIP Radar | AntiLaser Priority | PLX Wideband O2 | 150A Alternator | Cat Delete
1981 Mercedes-Benz 300SD | Blown engine, rebuilding someday...
1981 Mercedes-Benz 300SD | Rear ended, retired in garage.
2009 Yamaha AR230HO | Das Boot

Excessive speeding? It ain't excessive till I redline!

Or based some recent threads, the energy consumed by having to commute to your second job in order to earn the money to pay for what used to be routine cheap and easy.

Like 2 to 3 hours labor to change the now 12 sparkplugs in the M112 engine!

Steve

Yep, the older car has a pollution/production-energy tag with it, also. Additionally, there should be some sort of way to discount the raw materials price due to recycling -- like the steel, for example.

I chose what I thought would be an easy target, a car. My thinking was that everybody is interested in cars, therefore the mfr inputs from ore mining to labor to scrap should be easily found. Wrong! Turns-out just getting all of the units of measure to the same system is a PITA. I guess due to my education, I find SI the most intuitive. But the oil industry ain't there. But when you get to combustion products it is all SI. Except sometimes you get SI for this or that and then energy in BTU's. WTF is a BTU? ( uh, that's rhetorical).

Anyway, it is really, really complicated. I thought I was just going to look it up using Google but either I am missing one hell of a key word or nobody has done this before. I'm still hoping somebody who knows manufacturing has already done the work and I just can't find it. But I don't think so.

Assuming I did an adequate search, why hasn't this analysis been done?

We all talk as if we know that recycling is good, buying a new car is good for the environment, that hybrid cars are better. However, without some fundamental proof I think it's all smoke and mirrors.

What do you think?

Some European cars have had the "recycled" moniker for a while. You might check EU/green sources. It would be easier to find studies done and then critique their methodology.

Oh, I see, True Cost of Ownership data. That's great. Maybe you could get a job in Washington. Sounds like you know how to "spin" pretty well. It's not neccessary to lie to make one's point, just be selective in the truth that you tell.

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

Economics?

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

This is definitely in the class of problems called NP-complete, non-deterministic polynomial complete.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman