Hmm, even taking that story at face value, it doesn't in any way address the
carbon issue, which is actually far more critical at this point. Vehicle
tailpipe emissions (of "traditional" pollutants) are already so low that
further improvement is merely incremental.
In areas where smog is still a problem, it is the number of emitting
vehicles that needs to be reduced, not their individual emissions (which can
scarcely be improved) -- this is another case for electric vehicles.
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
on 2/27/09 9:53 AM, Barney Gaylord at barneymg@mgaguru.com wrote:
> At 10:45 AM 2/27/2009 -0600, Paul Root wrote:
>> .... there's a lot of sticking ones head in the sand of
>> environmentalists that think a Zero emission car has no
>> environmental effect from it's use.
>> ....
>
> We all know that electric cars pollute by way of what comes out of
> the electrical power generating plant. So how about a REAL practical
> negative pollution vehicle? Some years ago when the government was
> mandating production of "zero pollution" vehicles, Honda built a
> negative pollution vehicle that runs on common gasoline, and you
> wouldn't know it from any other gasoline powered car. They put
> catalyst plating on the outside of the cooling radiator. The
> radiator then removed more pollutants from the ambient air than the
> car was emitting from the tail pipe, thus making it a negative
> pollution vehicle, actually cleaning the air as you drove.
>
> You can guess where that went. Bureaucrats with a vested interest in
> electric cars shot it down because the emissions standards only
> consider tail pipe emissions. Ignoring negative emissions of the
> catalytic radiator, is just as stupid as ignoring positive emissions
> of coal fired electric power plants.
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Mgs@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/mgs
http://www.team.net/archive
|