Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Ford Shows Off Recyclable Car 205

Posted by michael from the drives-itself-to-the-junkyard dept.
Opspin writes "MBDC (who wrote the book Cradle to Cradle) write in their January Newsletter about a Ford Concept Car that includes Bluetooth technology as well as Cradle-to-Cradle design strategies. Read the MBDC press release, and the Ford Motor Company press release."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ford Shows Off Recyclable Car More

Ford Shows Off Recyclable Car

Comments Filter:

  • Disposable cars (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ponty ( 15710 ) <awc2 AT buyclamsonline DOT com> on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:02AM (#5135042) Homepage
    I'd like to have the opportunity to throw away a Ford Focus. Sure it probably has all of the proper bullet points, but there are lots of very nice cars out there with the right price/feature ratio that actually have a _soul_!

  • Mr. Fusion! (Score:2, Funny)

    by punkball ( 240859 )
    Now if we could just get a Mr. Fusion to power them!

  • Cars have been recyclable for quite a while. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Unless it hasn't been possible to melt down old cars and make new products out of them until now?

    • Re:Cars have been recyclable for quite a while. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Inda ( 580031 ) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:48AM (#5135450) Journal
      Unless it hasn't been possible to melt down old cars and make new products out of them until now?
      When I worked for BMW Rover Body and Pressings I saw a lot of waste metal. There is even a scrap metal merchant next door who would probably go bust if the plant was to shut down. Most of the scrap metal is used to make central heating radiators if I remember correctly. NONE of it goes back into making cars though - the quality of it is just too poor.

    • PCBs, lead, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mmol_6453 ( 231450 )
      There's a lot about a modern car that's very difficult to recycle. Printed Circuit Boards have lead, plastic, and a myriad of other toxic things. Some kinds of plastic are expensive to recycle, and plastics with coloring agents are almost useless for reusing in the same type of product.

      You also run into health issues (Like, did the previous owners let mold grow in the seats?)

  • Just keep buildin' and buyin' and throwin' away... keep the economy ticking over, keep the boys employed, keep suckin' up those natural resources... mm.

  • Ugly thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hether ( 101201 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:04AM (#5135064)
    I must say that it's a great concept, but my first impression is that the thing is really ugly. I wonder how many people rank the look of their vehicle in the list of priorities for buying. If they do, will the look of this one negatively affect its sales?

  • Google Cache (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:04AM (#5135065)
    Photos in Google's cache can be found here [google.com].
  • Of all the cars I've ever had - the Ford was the worst. What's so new about his one?
    • No, they were biodegradable. Disposing of them was still a hassle. Bought a new Ford in the mid-70's sent it to the scrap heap at 60,000 miles.

      And with the emphasis this year on horsepower, it just goes to show that history does repeat itself - the "big three" still don't get it - "it's the (fuel) economy, idiot!"

  • "GM Reports Record Sales of New Disposable Car"

    Called the Cheverolet "Whim" if I recall correctly. The article's not on the website right now unfortunately. Go buy the books. :)



  • I read bot the MBDC and Ford releases [ford.com] -- not much in the way of specs. Certainly nothing about maximum and minimum speeds. Maintenance requirements and/or torque/pulling power.

    I mean, I like the idea of supercharged hydrogen (Hindenburg accidents excluded) -- but I would think these are issues Ford would want to publish as it markets this 118hp vehicle against one of its own 590hp monsters [ford.com].

  • Just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suman28 ( 558822 ) <suman28NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:09AM (#5135104)
    In all honesty, how many people do you think actually recycle? Fine, a new disposable environmentally friendly car is developed. But, last I checked, most recyclable items still ended up in trash and ultimately in land fills. I can't imagine what would happen if you could throw away a car that often

    • That's not the point of "life-cycle" or "cradle-to-grave" design: no one is going to ask you to take a Sawzall to your Saturn and seperate out the colored plastic from the gray, the glass, the aluminum, and the iron for curbside recycling. Rather, the manufacturer takes the used goods (through buy-back or trade in incentives, or possibly by only leasing the vehicle) and makes proper use of them.

    • Re:Just what we need (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dhovis ( 303725 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @12:00PM (#5135550)
      I believe that 80% (by weight) of cars are recycled. There is too much valuble material that is very easy to recover. Auto recycling is one of the better success stories for the concept of recycling. Some of the resistance of using composite body panels (a la Saturn), is that those body panels are not as easily recycled as steel (both at the manufacturing end, and the post-consumer level).

      For that matter, you may also not realize that your car is largely made from recycled materials too. I toured Ford's casting plant in Cleveland a few years ago, and they had a five story high pile of scrap metal that they melt down to make engine blocks. They just melt some of it down, check the chemistry, adjust the chemistry, and cast the blocks. If they needed to lower the carbon content, they would throw in some old railroad rails (which are steel and lower in carbon).

      By the way, I'm personally of the opinion that nobody should be driving a car >10 years old. The improvements in emisssions technology and safety have been dramatic, and your old car can be recycled and turned into new ones.

      • By the way, I'm personally of the opinion that nobody should be driving a car >10 years old. The improvements in emisssions technology and safety have been dramatic, and your old car can be recycled and turned into new ones.

        And how, may I ask, is someone supposed to pay for this newer car? Don't tell me I can afford a 9 year old car, either, because in a year, you'll just say, "you should trade that in for a newer car, cause now it's ten years old". Your opinion seems to come from the luxury of making a decent living, while many people can't even save $500 in a year because of living expenses and bills, let alone buy a 5 year old car every five years...
        • He's right, I really want to trade in my paid for 1993 Geo Tracker for a 2003 Escalade. I'm sure the car payment, insurance hike, and taxes would be more than offset by the increased fuel economy. Err.. wait...
        • Thank you! I completely agree. Not everyone can afford a car, much less a newer car.

          Only car I've ever had was a 12 year old minivan that burned oil like there was no tomorrow. Yeah, I don't like the pollution that causes. So I drove it as little as possible. But I still needed the car - and since it died a year ago, I've been stuck with a bike instead.

          Arg. Cars...so.. expensive..!!

      • Re:Just what we need (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jmenezes ( 100986 )
        By the way, I'm personally of the opinion that nobody should be driving a car >10 years old. The improvements in emisssions technology and safety have been dramatic, and your old car can be recycled and turned into new ones.

        Sure, safety and emmisions might have gone up.
        But even my 71 Super beetle runs MUCH better then most 6-7 year old cars i see driving around, burning a quart of oil every ten feet.

        In addition to that, i bet you that that very same 31-year old car (her birthday is coming up in 2 weeks) will still be around 10 years from now, where as your brand new SUVs will already have been thrown away, as the trend seems to be much closer to disposing cars every 3-6 years at most to buy a brand new one.
        Strange to sound like an old-timer (esp as i am only 21) but they just dont make cars like they used to.
        and sadly, probably never will.

        • Do you have any numbers to support your crazy claims?

          My 1966 was a pos compared to my 1988, which doesn't compare at all to
          my 2000. My 2000 has had zero repairs. The only thing wrong with the
          2000 is the right speaker sometimes buzzes when it is cold. There is
          never a drop of oil under my 2000, it is quiet, it has an operating
          catalytic converter, it gets ~32 MPH, the oil when changed every 5kM
          is still clear, the ABS will stop the car much faster than brakes in
          the 66 or even the 88. When recycled, the 66 and 88 could be turned
          into 6 new cars.

          I've had old cars. They work better than expected, but not better
          than new cars.

          Joe
          • Its called exageration.
            but even then, i have reason why i said what i said.
            If i'm in a fender-bender in my super, my fender might have gotten some impact, fine. i can hammer it all out, and bring it back at least close to proper shape.
            With most of these new cars, your either stuck with a crapload of bondo, or buying a new fender from the manufacturer (which is generally NOT cheap)
            so my car will actually survive, instead of having if forcibly retired because it would just cost too damn much to replace all that fiberglass.
            Sure, its lighter, but it'll actually last.
            Now, as far as cars working much better....
            Brake technology has improved IMMENSELY over the years, theres no doubt about that.
            ive already upgrded my super's front brakes to discs, and am considering moving up to vented discs from a Porsche.
            and im glad to hear that your car is working great.
            But if you read other posts, you'll hear lists of problems with Ford focus cars...
            in the RAMVA newsgroup, just yesterday there were dozens and dozens of posts of people commenting on the new beetles, burnign a quart of oil every 1000 miles, and the dealers sayin thats normal for the 2.0 engines....
            and thats not even taking into account the many cars i see here in San Diego, which u can see them coming a few blocks away by the smoke plume that follows them.
            and these arent far and few between either.
            and a well-tuned beetle engine will polute MCUH less then some of the gas-guzzler SUVs around, and will last 10 times as long too
            • Pinto. Need I say more? The best of what was is better than the junk of today, the the best of today is much better that the best of yester year.

              For the record, I was comparing apples to apples to apple pie. My 2000 Miata has had zero problems after 45k, while my 88 Chevy truck has had a fuel pump, brakes, condensor, and alternator in 80k (155k - 235k) and it burns oil. My 66 Chevy truck had everything that could be changed with a wrench in a parking lot changed with 45k (?20k - ?65k) and burned lots of oil.

              I rear ended a minivan in the '66. I broke a $1.50 headlight while doing >$1500 in damage to the back of the minivan. I understand your frustration, but i think in the bigger picture, it is better for everyone if I drive the new miata instead of the old truck.

              If I'm in a front end collision with the Miata I probably have a better chance of survival than with the '66. The Miata has airbags, ABS and a collapsable stearing column. I'll buy a new fender with what I save in medical bills.

              Joe
        • Boy, when did I advocate SUVs? If you ask me, most people should drive wagons and hatchbacks. Sedans and SUVs are rediculous.

          They don't make computers like they used to either. Funny that. I mean, I've got an old Apple II that still runs like a dream. I see 3-4 year old PCs that are falling appart.

          If your Beetle runs so much better than a modern car, maybe we should bring back leaded gasoline too.

          It is all relative. My father has a 1990 Ford Tempo that runs smooth and doesn't burn any oil. Does that mean Tempos were good cars? Besides, I doubt that your '71 Beetle has made it 30+ years without an engine rebuild. Furthermore, I doubt you can say you'd rather be in an accident in your Beetle as compared to a modern car (even a POS). Those Beetle's are well known as death traps.

          BTW, for cars sold with a PZEV rating, the emissions system must be warrentied for 10 years.

  • Pet projects to placate enviro types (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:09AM (#5135107)
    All the car manufacturers are showing off green vehicle projects, but thats all they are, projects. The car companies are trying to buy some good karma with enviro freaks and government types while they continue to produce gas-guzzling behemoths for the public.

    It doesn't help that the President now wants to provide tax incentives for certain types of SUV owners. Face it, beneath the green rhetoric, the US is a society that lives on pig iron and fossil fuels.

    • All the car manufacturers are showing off green vehicle projects, but thats all they are, projects.
      Agreed; concept cars like this, or GM's Hy-Wire, are interesting, but when vehicles like the Th!nk or the EV-1 are destroyed once their leases are up (without options for leasers to hang onto the vehicles), it's hard to take Detroit very seriously.

      OTOH, I am pleased that Toyota and Honda continue to actually manufacture and ship the greenest vehicles we can buy [epa.gov] (Toyota Prius, Toyota RAV4 EV, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Insight).

      Unfortunately, all the green vehicles in the world won't do a bit of good if nobody buys them. Actual average fuel economy of all cars bought in the U.S. is currently as low as it was in 1980. [epa.gov] To turn this around we either have to mandate better economy by raising the CAFE standards, or push it economically by raising the cost of gasoline with taxes, and then offset them by giving tax breaks to people who buy more fuel-efficient, less-polluting vehicles.

      • OTOH, I am pleased that Toyota and Honda continue to actually manufacture and ship the greenest vehicles we can buy [epa.gov] (Toyota Prius, Toyota RAV4 EV, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Insight).

        Whoops - looks like you spoke too soon. The RAV4 is being discontinued. [toyota.com] Meanwhile, Honda rejects Mozilla, suggesting I 'upgrade' to IE or Netscape 4.x...

        Unfortunately, all the green vehicles in the world won't do a bit of good if nobody buys them. Actual average fuel economy of all cars bought in the U.S. is currently as low as it was in 1980. [epa.gov] To turn this around we either have to mandate better economy by raising the CAFE standards, or push it economically by raising the cost of gasoline with taxes, and then offset them by giving tax breaks to people who buy more fuel-efficient, less-polluting vehicles.

        Or, rather than trying to force people to buy cars which - by definition - they don't want (otherwise, why do you need to force them?), try persuading them. Make an attractive hybrid car (the RAV4 looks nice, apart from the small detail of being discontinued...) and I'll buy it. Hopefully, my next car will be an SUV - probably gasoline-burning despite the fuel consumption/pollution, because fuel-cell or hybrid versions aren't there yet.

        Instead of trying to modify the public to fit your preferred car, modify the car to fit the public: it'll be much more popular that way. I actually WANT a 'clean' car - but I won't drive a Honda Civic, however clean it might be.

        • Re:Pet projects to placate enviro types (Score:4, Informative)

          by tbmaddux ( 145207 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @12:35PM (#5135845) Homepage Journal
          Honda rejects Mozilla...
          I'll admit I don't visit auto manufacturer websites very often. Try InsightCentral. [insightcentral.net] While it's mostly about the Insight it has some Civic Hybrid information too.
          ...rather than trying to force people to buy cars... try persuading them.
          Consumers have clearly shown that they are not interested in higher mileage, lower-polluting cars, instead buying up low-mileage polluting cars with lots of horsepower. So unfortunately, we (as a society) need protection from our (as a society) preference for low-mileage, polluting cars. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

          A higher tax on gasoline would force us to pay the true cost (including the externalities of pollution) for burning it. Consumers could still choose to pay more and pollute more, nobody would be forced. Or they could choose to buy a cleaner car, and get rewarded for it. It'd be like pollution trading schemes that the Bush administration has suggested.

          • For my next purchase, I am very interested in fuel efficiency. However, the higher prices of the HEVs far outweigh the apparent savings of being more fuel-efficient. I would have to drive the car 10 years to break even. And I have yet to find any good numbers on general maintenance and repair costs of HEVs. Are the batteries even good for ten years, or will they have to be replaced every few years, and at what cost? Financially, I have been unable to justify purchasing a HEV instead of a regular car.

            This is the same reason I haven't had solar cells installed on my house. It would take 30 years for the savings to balance the cost, and the cells are rated for only 20 years before they need to be replaced.

            • For my next purchase, I am very interested in fuel efficiency. However, the higher prices of the HEVs far outweigh the apparent savings of being more fuel-efficient.
              Yes. Because the full cost (including externalities like pollution, or the cost to society of having to bomb/invade something in the Middle East every 10 years) of burning gasoline in our engines are not borne by us when we pump it into our cars, the apparent savings of fuel efficiency are low.

              Still, I had better luck with the numbers than you did... A feature-similar Civic EX (I wanted airbags, ABS, A/C) would cost about $2k less than the Insight (at the time there was no Civic Hybrid and I personally didn't like the Prius). I didn't need the extra seating or space that a Civic (hybrid or no) would provide. I get about 2x the mileage (73 mpg over 53k miles so far), saving me about 2 cents a mile (1.5 $/gal * 1/75 gal/mi), which I could get back in ($2000 * 50 mile/$) 100,000 miles. You can tweak the numbers this way and that... save $4k over 200k miles, or maybe gas gets more or less expensive, etc. It's not unreasonable to expect to drive a Honda for that far or long. For me, the numbers worked out close enough, plus I was thrilled enough with how the car drove that I was sold. I'm happier giving the money to Honda engineers than to oil pumpers, as well.

              Repair-wise, the batteries in the Honda Insight are in a pack of 120 nickel metal hydride 1.2v D cells (yes, D cells). The car carries an extra factory warranty on all the IMA-related equipment (DC motor, batteries, controller) for 5 years or 80k miles. I think people estimated it would cost a couple grand to replace those batteries, but the estimate is rather old (last I talked with someone about this was nearly 2 years ago).

    • The car companies are trying to buy some good karma with enviro freaks and government types while they continue to produce gas-guzzling behemoths for the public.

      I agree. The first thing that entered my mind when I read this was, "when will it stop being a concept car?" (the second being how ugly it is, as others have posted). I'm far from being a granola, but I'd like to see at least some balance in companies' lineups.

      And for those saying that the auto industry is just "answering a need": The market difference between a green car and a power SUV is virtually nil. In both cases, you've created the demand through endless hype and ads. Taking the easy out in marketing, I'm sure that a "green" car could be sexy, too (c.f. all those reviewers talking about electric cars' near-instant acceleration).

      I thought I'd head the name of this consultancy before: Wired had an article on MBDC [wired.com] last year. It spotlights their work with Ford, so I'm guessing that Ford has at least some actual intent to put their money where their mouth is. At least, until the government gets even softer on pollution regulation...
    • It says a lot of the market here (or what Ford & GM think of the market) that Ford is greener in the EU than in the US. There's a 50+ mpg Ford Focus selling in the UK, there's a Volvo (owned by Ford) diesel sedam/stn wagon that has more oomph than the most poerful gas version with 40+ mpg, and Merc and BMW have hotrod diesel sedans in regular production over there. Think about it, a doubling of fuel efficiency of they'd sell the same thing here, with no war, no pain, no massive infrastructure changes, almost nothing. OK, maybe $1k more for the more expensive engine, but consider how we'd all pay more for a V6 vs an inline 4 cylinder.

      DIsposable cars, I mean isn't this a prblem waiting for a solution? Cars recycle better than most things right now, the major component steel, becomes structural steel for buildings.

      In this respect I have to say Toyota and Honda are the most serious about improving our environmental impact. While they pay all due homage to hydogen fuel cell and interchangeable bodies and other "cool" concepts, they're selling practical highly efficient vehicles like the Prius and the Impact (there's a 5 door version out now, don't know what they call it). Of course, there's always been the 50 mpg Jetta if you really look. And all 3 companies have not a trace of US ownership.
    • Ford's current management seems to be sincerely interested in the environment. They're sinking huge amounts of cash into environmental clean-up of their factory sites, including taking comprehensive assessments of their environmental impact. Standard Detroit practice has been to never make an impact assessment that isn't required by law, because it opens you up to liability suits. Knowing you're making a mess is more legally dangerous than "accidentally" making one.

      Ford is also spending tons of money on redesigning their factories to have low environmental impact in the long-term. They really are going out on a limb to address environmental concerns in a number of ways.

      That's not to say they're flawless, but they should be praised in the cases where they're doing the right thing. This car design looks very significant to me. I might be more cynical if it were a different car company, but I think Ford has shown some sincerity on this subject.

  • you can always... (Score:5, Funny)

    by csguy314 ( 559705 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:09AM (#5135108) Homepage
    From the article:
    - Corn-based roof canvas
    - Bio-materials, including soy-based foam and tailgate, sunflower seed-based oil, corn tire filler

    if you run out of other uses for it, you can eat it too!

  • Germany already has laws for Auto Recycling (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StCredZero ( 169093 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:11AM (#5135119)
    They are quite progressive about this subject. Here [american.edu] is a research paper on the German law [american.edu].

  • An excellent expansion of . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by privacyt ( 632473 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:11AM (#5135125)
    . . . an already-ongoing policy. Ford's "Model T of the 21st century" is evolutionary, not revolutionary. So while I salute Ford, don't take the corporate press releases at complete face value. :)

    For decades the automobile has been the most recycled consumer product. First a discarded automobile is stripped of its vauable parts. Ever attend a 'all-you-can-carry' day at an automotive salvage yard? A huge crowd of people disassembling autos for the parts they need. Doors, hoods, dashboards, engines, alternators, seats, anything....

    Also note, that the majority of stolen cars are stolen for their parts.

    After striping, depending on the car and its arrival condition it can be anything from a stripped shell to pretty much intact. At this point the car is crushed.

    The crushed car is then put through a shredder, then through various processes the metals are separated and depending how advanced the facility, the plastics and other materials.

    BTW, under consideration in europe for auto recycling has beena dismantling approach. Where the automaker takes the car back and actually diassembles it, rather than using a crusher and shreadder.

    Even if one is displeased with the actual amount of automotive recycling, the fact remains, it is higher than other consumer products.

    • Re:An excellent expansion of . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:45AM (#5135432) Homepage
      Excellent points all around. Your thinking argues for an entirely different strategy.

      You want true automotive recycling? Pursue greater modularity and standard across automakers. Decrease black-boxiness of parts (make them mechanic repairable as they once were).

      Of course these goals, as always, are probably at cross purposes with others.
    • Though the straight reuse of car parts is an excellent way of extending the useful life of something manufactured, to satisfy the folks at MBDC Ford would have had to go much further (which it appears they did). "Cradle to Cradle" explicitely addressed the issue of cars, and what it said was that even when the materials are melted down and "separated" the separation is limited and the materials are always of far lower quality than when they went into the car. True recycling means no loss of quality between cycles, and it means a reasonable amount of energy is required. As a general rule, neither of those conditions is satisfied when metals are "recycled".

      Recycling is only part of the whole point anyway. What's also at issue here is the process used to create the car, in how it effects the natural environment, the workers, and the end users of the product. Regardless of how recyclable a material is, MBDC doesn't like it if it exacts too high a cost to produce. Hence the car roof made out of simple biomaterials. They also don't like materials that off-gas potentially toxic chemicals -- for example, "new car smell", an enticing mix of plastics, glues, solvents, etc.

    • Also note, that the majority of stolen cars are stolen for their parts.

      This is not because the parts are more valuable than the whole, at least not in the obvious way.

      By stripping a stolen car for parts, the stolen materials become that much harder to track. The vehicle's VIN might be stamped on the engine block and the dashboard, but the muffler and the seats and the tires and the catalytic converter probably don't have any unique identifying marks at all. Once those are sold, the owner of the car has NO chance of recovering them.
  • Somehow I don't think that's what they meant.

    a Ford Concept Car that includes Bluetooth technology as well as Cradle-to-Cradle design strategies

  • Who is this for anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tarnin ( 639523 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:20AM (#5135219)
    Seems that a car like this should be more geared twords business or people who buy on a leese. For the general buyer, a throw away car will not be all that hot of an idea. Having monthly payments on a limited income is what you try to avoid. While this idea really isnt new, im suprised that Ford is one of the first to actually come out and say "Hey, this car wont last x yrs and its not made to." One other thing, how enviromently friendly is a car like this anyway? Ya, it cuts down on emitions and fuel consumption but havning an entire car get retired and destroyed after a short period of time isnt all that great. The car will still have to be gutted, crushed, recycled back to workable material, all this generating waste and other nice byproducts. Looks like we might just be creating the same amout of toxins and waste just in another area.
    • That is a good point. What they need to do is focus on a reliable car, that will last for a few decades (Much like the older diesel Mercedes have, older VW Bugs, Hondas, etc...) that get good mileage and is easily recyclable once the car reaches the end of it's useful life.

      Of course that goes against the American mentality of "I have to have a brand new huge SUV every two years". I think if people really want to help the environment they would buy something like a Civic and keep that until it falls apart instead of buying something that is huge and unneccesary for them.
      • Actually, the "new SUV every two years" mentality is better for the environment that your suggestion that people keep their 20-year-old cars. The emissions on a new SUV are vastly better than those on a 1980 diesel Mercedes.

        We're not talking about disposable stereos or computer monitors here -- the environmental damage caused by junking cars (which as noted above by other posters are recycled at a rate of over 80%) is far less than the damage caused by letting old dirty 7 MPG (that's no joke) Galaxie 500s drive around.
        • the environmental damage caused by junking cars (which as noted above by other posters are recycled at a rate of over 80%) is far less than the damage caused by letting old dirty 7 MPG (that's no joke) Galaxie 500s drive around.

          I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Up until last year, I had a 1957 Ford Custom 500 with well over 100,000 miles on it. With the 312ci engine (5.1 liters for everyone outside the US) and a 3 speed manual transmission, I routinely got 15-20mpg. And I drove it like a maniac, so its not like I babied the thing. I currently have a 1979 Mercedes 450SEL6.9. It's got a 6.9 liter V8 (418ci for everyone in the US) and right around 300 horsepower. The car has just over 100,000 miles on it, and I get around 15mpg in that. My mom used to have a 1978 diesel Mercedes with over 300,000 miles on it. It routinely got around 30mpg.

          My wife has a 2001 Focus with under 30,000 miles. It routinely gets 15-18mpg, and leaks oil like you wouldn't beleive. All of the other cars I have (And have had in the past) get nearly as good or better mileage as the new Focus, and they dont leak oil.

          So, my old cars get as good mileage as the Focus, are much more reliable reliable, don't leak oil, and cost me a whole lot less to own and operate. So how is owning that nice new Suburban that gets 11mpg [fueleconomy.gov] better for me or the environment than my old cars?
          • There's a lot more to emissions than MPG -- the technology that filters out the bad stuff is improving exponentially. So while the 11MPG Suburban will cost you more to fuel than the 30MPG diesel Mercedes, the Mercedes is spewing far more toxic chemicals into the air than the new Suburban.
    • Exactly where does it say it is desgiend to last for a short period of time? It is not a throw away car - it's a car designed to have a lower environmental impact during manufacture, operation and finally when it gets scrapped.
      • Right at the beginning, it says FORD. LOL

        Honestly, there is a severe "new every 2" mentality at work here. Your success as a person is measured by the age of your SUV, or so it seems. And if product lifecycles decline because of market forces, then the manufacturer can design the cars cheaper and for end-of-life recycling.

        Compare it to disposable cameras... One use, recycle. Two years, recycle...

  • Ford Sucks (Score:5, Informative)

    by inc01 ( 628920 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:24AM (#5135249)
    Don't forget that Ford really sucks. [fordreallysucks.com]
    • And here... http://www.fordfocusbrakeproblems.com [fordfocusb...oblems.com]

      I've got one of these little death traps, and besides it being on it's thrid set of brake pads (Front AND rear!) with 30,000 miles on the car, its transmission is going out, fuel pump was going out and causing the car to stall on the freeway, seatbelts undoing themselves, several rattles, and a shock absorber in the front that came loose. Not to mention the 7 safety recalls it has had. Ford should work on building a reliable car instead of one that is meant to be thrown away.

  • Already been done (Score:4, Insightful)

    by will592 ( 551704 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:28AM (#5135282)
    They've been building recyclable cars since the 30's. Take a trip to a local hot rod or collectible car show. It may come as a shock to some people, but auto manufacturers used to build cars that you could actually repair. It wasn't even that long ago that you could actually take a piece of sheet metal and fabricate a body panel for your car. Take a look at some collectible car catalogs; there are some cars you can build entirely by ordering parts out of a magazine. My point being cars aren't necessarily disposable commodities. The auto manufacturers are more interested in selling people brand new pieces of garbage every year than making money selling replacement parts. What was it Henry Ford said, he'd give away a car to every American if only he could sell replacement parts. Iron can be recast, engines can be rebuilt. What's the big story here?

    Chris

  • Manufacturers come up with outlandish concept cars like this all the time, and this one is nothing special. Where in the press release is the promise that ANY of this recycleable technology will be in the showrooms?

    Did the /. editors really fall for the 'new model-T' tag line that Ford wheels out for a large portion of it's press releases?

    Even the headline "Hydrogen ICE plus Hybrid Electric Powertrain" isn't much of a breakthrough, you can already buy half a dozen different cars that are more encomical than this one would be if it ever went beyond the 'mock up and press release' stage.
    • cars have been mostly recycleable for awhile. they're stripped of useable parts and then salvaged for metal. I think I read somewhere that they're the most recycled consumer product.

      this isn't so much an outlandish concept car as it is a furthering of vehicle evolution. now, not only will the car run fairly clean, but it'll be entirely reclaimable. it's got promise and will attract a lot of people who "think green".

      The main drawback I see with it is that people won't buy it. a car made out of organic waste just doesn't sound durable. I'm sure it is, but perception drives the public's purchase dollars. and if it's perceived as being a lump of garbage on wheels, no one's going to touch it.
      • > cars have been mostly recycleable for awhile. they're stripped of useable parts and then salvaged for metal. I think I read somewhere that they're the most recycled consumer product.

        The point of cradle-to-cradle design is that the quality of the materials doesn't degrade with reuse. So you can make them into cars again, rather than using them in less demanding applications. McDonough says of typical recycling that it's really "down-cycling". The materials lose quality with each cycle, and are still headed for landfill. They're just taking a slightly longer time to get there.

        In contrast, cradle-to-cradle design plans for zero landfill, by using materials that don't lose value during manufacturing or recycling. That's what is meant by "technical nutrient" -- a raw material that can be completely reclaimed and reused essentially forever.

        This has a lot to do with whether the manufacturing techniques are reversible. If your materials have to be conditioned by mixing with things you can't easily remove, it's not recyclable, even if you can melt it down and use it for radiators, or guitar picks, or something, before it finally ends up in a dump.

  • Never mind recyling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chocolate Teapot ( 639869 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:35AM (#5135340) Homepage Journal
    How about making a car that didn't need to be recycled? For years car manufacturers have been making cars from steel, which requires expensive anti-corrosion treatment. Even then, a slight scratch leaves the thing vulnerable to attack from the elements. How many ten-year-old cars do you see with immaculate original bodywork?

    It's about time they started making the things from carbon fibre (or even glass fibre), which is easily repaired, lightweight (therefore more fuel efficient), and totally immune to corrosion. The attitude that a car is a disposable commodity, to be tossed in the trash every couple of years is daft. I would rather see manufacturers offering upgrades to existing vehicle as an alternative.

    • Re:Never mind recyling (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @12:15PM (#5135674)
      Would you really want to be in a fibreglass car when some asshole hits you going at 50mph in a 2 Ton SUV due to jumping a red light whilst talking on his cellphone.

      • Exactly! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Lowca ( 464465 )
        Damn, I wish I could mod this guy up.

        Better yet, it might be wise to bring back the days when cars were built almost entirely out of steel, not out of plastic and sheet metal like they are today. Those old cars could withstand collisions with just about anything short of a tractor/trailer (lorry for you Brits), and sometimes even then. You could actually walk away from a 20mph crash, instead of having to call for an ambulance.

        If you can make a new car as crash-resistant as an old one, without using steel, that'll be great. If not... well, I care more about my safety than I do about miles per gallon. I agree that most people don't need gas guzzlers such as SUV's, but the sacrifice of auto safety on the altar of the environment has been going on for way too long.

        • Re:Exactly! (Score:3, Informative)

          by glwillia ( 31211 )
          Better yet, it might be wise to bring back the days when cars were built almost entirely out of steel, not out of plastic and sheet metal like they are today. Those old cars could withstand collisions with just about anything short of a tractor/trailer (lorry for you Brits), and sometimes even then. You could actually walk away from a 20mph crash, instead of having to call for an ambulance.

          Sorry, but that's a common fallacy. See, when you have a collision between two objects, the kinetic energy has to be dissipated somewhere. In older cars, the body/chassis of the car didn't deform, which meant that the kinetic energy was (in many cases) transferred to the people inside. Modern cars crumple on impact so the people inside don't. Hence, if you were in a car from 1960, the car would have a dent while the people would be gravely injured, while the same accident in a 2000 -model car would probably total the car, but the occupants could walk away.

          If you can make a new car as crash-resistant as an old one, without using steel, that'll be great. If not... well, I care more about my safety than I do about miles per gallon. I agree that most people don't need gas guzzlers such as SUV's, but the sacrifice of auto safety on the altar of the environment has been going on for way too long.

          SUVs are not safer for the driver/occupants, and significantly more dangerous for other people on the road. Hence, each large SUV bought is a net decrease in total road safety, as well as fuel economy. If everyone drove Japanese/European passenger sedans, the roads would be significantly safer than they are now, since those cars routinely score the highest on IIHTS/NHTSA crash tests and don't endanger other drivers/passengers.
        • Composites are in use in quite a few high performance (and lower performance, such as the old Renault Espace), and the vehicles are safe.

          The science of crash safety is complex. Rigid vehicles cause occupants far more injury than those with well designed safety cages and deformable crumple zones - one reason why SUVs involved in single vehicle collisions often result in more serious injuries. New cars provide far better protection to occupants than older cars, but the damage to the actual vehicle may look more severe.

          (Why do computer geeks assume that since they know and understand computers, they know about totally unrelated disciplines? (BTW that is not a dig at the parent poster, just a general observation)

          The biggest reason for the damage an SUV causes in a collision with a normal car is the disparity in bumper height. Look carefully at normal cars: notice how the front and rear bumpers all line up? That's due to regulation - regulations which the SUVs don't have to conform to.
        • Yes, more crash resistant cars would be nice. Even if they used lots of steel. However, the auto industry would find probably that distasteful, as it would lower new car purchases. Don't expect a change until/unless there's legislation involved.

          If not... well, I care more about my safety than I do about miles per gallon. I agree that most people don't need gas guzzlers such as SUV's, but the sacrifice of auto safety on the altar of the environment has been going on for way too long.

          I honestly hope you weren't implying that SUV's are safer than other vehicles. There's plenty of articles [sfgate.com] that state otherwise [alternet.org].

      • Re:Never mind recyling (Score:4, Informative)

        by Chocolate Teapot ( 639869 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @12:42PM (#5135913) Homepage Journal
        Sure I would. With a properly designed safety cage I would feel no less safe in a glass/carbon fibre car than in a tin can. The motor sport world has known for many years that the monocoque design is the way to go if you want to want to walk away from an accident. The actual material used for the body shell is irrelevant. Having seen more road accidents than I would care to remember, many of which involved the car occupants being trapped in their cars while the rescue crews cut away the twisted metal, I for one do not view 'modern' car construction with a warm cosy glow. The driver ran away from this [bartonfirtop.co.uk] and jumped in another car three minutes later. It's all about construction, not just materials.
        • When your talking about Carbon Fiber monocoque construction I assume your talking about F1 cars? These cars cost millions to build and the process that they use to create the carbon fiber strong enough to support the car is extremely expensive and can not be easily automated because of the precision which the carbon fiber needs to be created with (read: there are many different grades of carbon fiber. The one Honda Boy has for his hood is waaaay different than that used in aerospace/motorsport applications). Also, these are purpose built race cars with roll cages a couple of inches from your head. The drivers wear a burn suit/helmet/neck restraint. For all of these reasons, a race car on the street is NOT a better way.

          • Re:Never mind recyling (Score:5, Informative)

            by Chocolate Teapot ( 639869 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @01:16PM (#5136190) Homepage Journal
            I agree with all the above points, and am not advocating "a race car on the street". The requirements for a family car are obviously very different from those of a 200mph+ F1 car. My point was that the classic steel contruction of road-going vehicles is not intrinsicly safer than composite construction. A robust safety cage will save your life even if the cosmetic/aerodynamic body shell is made of bubble wrap. People need to get away from the idea that steel is stronger than plastic and therefore safer. That is a myth.
            • Steel is stronger than plastic, and more importantly 4 layers of carbon fiber layed together with honeycomb skeletons and epoxy is 4x stronger than steel. This is strength across the board too, not lacking in one area but great in another like ceramics.
    • It's not that simple young Jedi,

      Firstly,
      Cost
      Carbon Fiber is Still WAYYYY out of budget for automanufacturers - if they like be economically competitive. - Not only the cost of the Material, but the cost of Manufacturing. Stamped steel is very inexpensive - even with stamping dies that cost tens of thousands of dollars.

      Safety
      This is the big one. Fiberglass & Carbon Fiber don't have the energy absorbing characteristics that steel has. Crumpling steel in an accident absorbs a lot of energy in an accident - while brittle materials like carbon fiber & Fiberglass shatter.

      Aluminum is being investigated seriously, but even that has it's problems. The cost of the material is obviously higher, but so are the manufacturing costs. Aluminum isn't as welder friendly as steel. Most designs assemble aluminum body parts with rivets - which pose additional problems. Another consideration: Because of dissimilar metal corrosion, you can't just bolt an aluminum body panel to the first piece of steel you see. Lastly, Aluminum loses it's weight advantage over steel once the loss in strength is taken into consideration. - The material isn't as strong as steel, so more needs to be used.

      Don't think for a minute that Auto Manufacturers haven't looked the alternatives. In our current cut-throat market, we're all desparately seeking an advantage over our competitors.

    • A quick search for 'built-in obsolescence' on Google turned this [morrisminors.co.uk] up. I like the idea of this (OK, I was always rather fond of the old Morris Minor). Check out some of the technical features [morrisminors.co.uk]
  • Hopefully better than those old bio-degradable cars!

    Dang, I left it in the rain JUST ONCE! And off I have to go to the dealership again.
  • If this sounds familiar, this [archive.org] may be why. (pointing to archived site as theonion.com seems to have done some housecleaning....

  • The Devil is in the Details (Score:4, Informative)

    by goingincirclez ( 639915 ) <goingincirclez@NosPam.msn.com> on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:44AM (#5135424)
    This is a concept intended as "proof of concept", and not for production.

    If it were intended for production, there would be a lot more refinement of processes, materials, and even design elements involved, and a lot more details fothcoming about such elements. If it were intended for production, there would at least be focus groups involved in such things as its marketability in its current form (such as it is). Not to mention lobbying for the infrastructure necessary to get a car like this produced and feasably useable (hydrogen-refill stations, for one).

    Instead, this seeks to prove that something, in theory, COULD be done. Recyclable body panels are nothing new (Ford had an aluminum concept several years ago, and the new Jaguar X-type owes its many production delays toward the use of aluminum). Even subassemblies can be salvaged. And Hydrogen fuel cells have been in limited use and testing for over a decade.

    What's interesting about this, is the use of new materials for fluids (arguably the most cancerous of all automotive components) and plastics. I'm not a chemist, but the testing of new corn and soy-based polymers for everything from interior materials to fluids is fascinating to me. At the very best, if pursued such processes could finally wean the US (and manufacturing in other sectors outside of the auto industry) off petroleum-based plastics and fluids, which would be a gigantic leap forward for industry, without question.

    The "modular interior/ exterior" BS is all just marketing of design concepts. That's there to show that designs can lead themselves toward being more eco-friendly in a subtler fashion. Going back to the salvage industry: It's a lot easier to find salvage parts from platform-sharing cars Cougar/Thunderbird/MarkVII, Cavalier/Sunfire, Chrysler K-car, etc etc etc) than it is for one-offs. This concept I think seeks to carry over that mentality on a larger scale, tho with the public's demand for unique vehicles I doubt we'll ever see swappable parts on a grand scale.

    It will be years if not decades before something like this can be driven off the lot, but it's good to know that the ideas are being tested. This concept should be good for new materials processing if nothing more. The only trick will be to keep Ford and other companies pursuing this, as opposed to saying "Great, we know it's possible, now go mothball that POS in a barn somewhere and let's forget it ever saw the light of day".
  • Get an old car, mid to late 80s, for example. It will be really cheap. When it breaks, get bits from the scrapyard and fix it yourself, or get your mate who knows about fixing cars to do it and buy them beer.

  • What does it say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Viceice ( 462967 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @11:55AM (#5135507)
    ...about car manufacturers who boast about their cars being easily recycled instead of their cars being engineered to last a lifetime?

  • Need to add a new recycle bin on the curb (Score:4, Funny)

    by docbrown42 ( 535974 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @12:04PM (#5135581) Homepage
    Paper
    Plastic
    Glass
    Unleaded

  • Cost Savings (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pdrome4robert ( 532173 )
    This is more than just appeasing environmentalists. By designing and building a car that is easier to recycle, they reduce the cost of recycling. Which reduces the price of recycled materials. Which reduces the price of making new products from the recycled materials. If the US requires auto companies to take back and recycle their products, Ford has already reduced their cost of complying. There are already products in the US that manufacturers are require to take back for recycling.
  • ...from Ford: "New! 10 year, 100,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty!" Now *that* would be real news. Fords are alerady disposable. I'd love for a really, really good (ie: able to compete with Toyota's and Hondas) American car to be built. Unfortunately, I really, really doubt that I'll ever see that in my lifetime.
    • You think that they couldn't build a reliable car? Why havn't they taken apart a 1990 civic and figured out how Honda does it? The truth is that America can't afford to build engines/cars with the same precision and to the exacting tolorances that Japanese cars are built. Why is this you say? It is because of the strength of the Auto. Unions in the United States. In Japan the workers take pride in their work, not their paycheck. Flame me for this if you want. However, remember this, my friend comes from the "rich" section outside of Detroit where the car executives live and 8/10 of the American car company execs. drive foriegn cars. Apparantly the car of choice for American car execs. now is the Audi A8 with its heated steering wheel and aluminum body.
      • Oh, I agree completely. You can't even begin to compete if you have to pay your employees 3-4 times what employees make with other companies. It's physically impossible. At the very least, Ford & GM could move their production overseas where they could get reasonable priced labor interested in doing a realy *quality* job, and then sink some of that money into engineering. Until that happens, American car companies don't even cross my mind when I think of getting a new vehicle. Either I pay $20K for an American car and it lasts 5 years with multiple trips to the shop (costing not only cash, but lost work time) and resells for next to nothing, or I fork over $25K+ for a foreign car that lasts much longer with much less repair & maintenance that is still sellable several years later. It's a no-brainer in my book. Fuck the "recycleable" car. How about a "reliable" car?
  • You know Bud's going to end up with that Dodge.

    Or is that reuse?

  • Hemp! (Score:2)

    by jpmkm ( 160526 )
    Back in the day, Henry Ford built a hemp-based car. Most of the body was made of hemp fiber, and it ran on hemp-based fuel. I say screw these new recyclable fibers and just use hemp. It's cheap, strong, and renewable.
  • Cradle to Grave perhaps?
    • He did not stutter, the concept is in fact called Cradle to Cradle. It's a concept presented in a book by the MDBC founders called, Cradle to Cradle [slashdot.org] [slashdot], in which they claim, rather reasonably, that you're not -really- recycling unless the product you produce is of equal or greater material quality than the product you started with.

      If you take petroleum, and make soda bottles, and then you take soda bottles and make them into seat cushions and polyfill for coats, blankets, etc, you've recycled the material only once, but you can't recycle polyfill into anything useful, so it goes into the landfill when you're done with it.

      You've recycled the material once, doubling its lifetime. In a perfect world, you're reducing the waste stream by only half, by making every coat from recycled material, and new bottle with new material. Cradle to Cradle says, let's make that soda bottle out of a plastic that can be broken down and made back into feedstock for making soda bottles, and coats out of material that can be made out of coats. In other words, returning it to the Cradle. Assuming some wear and tear on the materials, you still could expect to recycle more than 95% of the bottle back into another bottle. Now, in a perfect world, 19 of every 20 bottles is made from recycled material, ditto for coats.

      Cradle to Grave just means someone is responsible for the eulogy, which will eventually be ours if we don't stop dumping high-grade materials into holes in the ground.

  • Nevermind the fact... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @12:35PM (#5135847) Homepage Journal
    that most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, and recycling takes energy...and there's also the tiny detail that the price of a disposable car isn't going to be much, if at all, less than a normal car made of real parts due to R/D costs and the fact that there aren't convenient hydrogen stations across the nation lining our highways.

    So unless something magically makes Ford decide to get with the oil companies and convert the stations while swapping their pricing model to something a little cheaper (say, 2 to 6 thousand dollars US), then I am quite sure that Henry Ford is rolling in his grave as they compare this to his Model T, because the Model T was nothing if not successful and affordable.

    So until this all comes to pass, I think I'll stick with my Crown Vic, content with the fact that it doesn't keel over and die when I pass 100,000 miles on the odometer and the fact that I have only had to do non-preventative maintenance once.

  • Check out German cars for recycling.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by zlexiss ( 14056 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @12:41PM (#5135901)
    Because of the European take-back regulations, BMW and other automakers have been designing their cars to be taken apart and recycled faster and easier for several years now.

    Back in one of my environmental engineering classes, we saw a film on one of these take-back plants. It took a couple people just an hour or so to strip a BMW from all its recyclable parts, including stuff like draining (and saving) the fluids, pulling off all plastic parts, etc.

    And BMW is always watching and feeding back into the design process. They've reduced the types of plastics used to have less bins and sorting involved. They've reduced the use of gluing, welding, and riveting of parts on and replaced with mechnical fasteners (screws, bolts), making it easier to take apart. Instead of a taillight assy having two types of plastic (lens, backshell) being glued or rivetted together, now its one type that may snap together.

    German car fetishists may voice concern that stuff like this may reduce the quality or performance of their favorite vehicles, but to me that means they aren't as purist as they claim, they don't trust the same engineers that designed their favorite cars in the first place.

  • Bluetooth? Yikes... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @01:14PM (#5136176) Homepage
    It's bad enough that PC users are seeing their neighbor's keystrokes [theregister.co.uk] on their own screen due to imperfectly-designed wireless keyboards... it's bad enough that Fast Lane toll transponders are going dead because certain digital cell phones activate them and run down the batteries...

    The possible unintended consequences of allowing components within an automobile to perform wireless communication boggle the mind. Backseat driving is one thing... accidentally driving a car next to you in an adjacent lane is another.
  • Back in 1989 or 1990 or so, I read in one of the car mags (I subscribed to several, so it was either Road & Track, Car & Driver, Autoweek or Automobile) of one of Chrysler's then-latest concept cars.

    It was a 99% recyclable car called the Neon, which lo and behold was released upon the world four years later. Does anyone know how much of that held true about the recyclability (is that a word?) of this car?

    siri
  • The recyclable car is great, but the overall design is still more or less conventional. Personally, I am more excited by the potential represented by another concept car, GM's Hy-Wire [gm.com].


    The Hy-wire name comes from the fact that it is a fuel-cell vehicle (therefore nominally "hybrid") with an entirely computerized control system (i.e. drive-by-wire). But what is exciting is that the Hy-wire is a real "back to the drawing board" resdesign of the automobile. Most of the features you see in a conventional car are gone. Instead the entire power train and fueling system is contained in a 12" thick "skateboard" chassis to which many different styles of body can be attached. Since the control cluster is connected to the rest of the car only by wires, it can be placed litterally wherever you want. The upshot is a car that is totally reconfigurable, with the potential for 100% visibility and improved crash protection. And, while the car is very "high tech", it is actually simpler than a conventional car and should be more reliable: compared to a conventional car, there are almost no moving parts to wear out or break. And although the Hy-wire concept car is not specifically designed for high recylceability, this same fundemental simplicity should make it a whole lot easier to design for recycling.


    More Hy-wire information here [google.com].

  • From the newsletter:

    The goal was to create the Model T of the 21st century--a new type of vehicle specifically designed to be good to you and good for the world.

    The 20th century Model T was by no means "good for the world". They were polluting and inefficient at best. Let's hope that they fail the goal of making this like the Model T, then.

  • Doesn't anyone know that Ford stands for:

    Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge

    They've been recycling stuff for years [avoids rotten tomatoes].

  • My favorite part is the corn based tires.

  • Why hydrogen internal combustion engine? (Score:3, Informative)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Thursday January 23, 2003 @12:54AM (#5141365) Journal
    There is absolutely no reason for this when you have fuel-cell.

    Notice they only talk about "Carbon dioxide emissions are nearly zero" - but that's not the whole story...

    There are three major components to car emissions: Hydrocarbons, CO2, and NoX (CO should not be emitted at all)

    Hydrogen, last i checked, burns hotter than gasoline; remember now that they are not carrying an onboard oxygen tank, so there are other crap that gets sucked into the combustion chamber - this includes the Oxygen that we need, a little bit of CO2, and a whole mass loads of Nitrogen.

    the higher the combustion temperature, the more likely the nitrigen will become NoX (oxides nitrogen, IIRC - including NO2 NO3 etc, hence the X).

    NOX is a major contributor to acid rain and the like - however since there are no more hydrocarbon emmissions (or, very little - CO2 needs a whole lot of energy to break apart) - the catalyc converter can't do jack about the NOX; so instead of worrying about global warming, we will simply have something else to worry over.

    Two ways out of this:
    1) use fuel cell - painstaking and difficult, but probably the most environmentally friendly. besides if you get it right electric motors have more torque anyhow - and real drivers know that torque = acceleration, horspower doesn't
    2) carry some liquid oxygen onboard (yeah right) - infrastructure won't support it unless something serious changed - but would be very cool... I will see amature rocketry explode because you can get liquid O2 and H2 at refuelling stations now! =)

    still better (CO2 side) than using reformers, but damn... not there yet. gotta wonder though - if they already went with a hydrogen tank, might as well just go with a fuel cell - that was probably the biggest prob w/ fuel cell in the first place

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close