The thing that this method totally lacks is the ability to get old cars off the road that are burning "clean", as far as the standards of their day, but are bad polluters. The tests are done for the pollution allowances of the age of the vehicle, so as long as it meets those (very minimal) standards it's still on the road.

An incentive program would directly target those vehicles, not the ones that are badly maintained and not able to pass the emissions inspection. These people usually have maintained their vehicle well, and thus are not likely to get rid of it, unless encouraged to do so by way of incentive. The target vehicles would otherwise stay on the road much longer, polluting much more than if they were traded in for a newer vehicle.

I think there are many things the government could do to encourage people to clean up, but the government isn't really interested in any such thing, it's pretty clear they are puppets of corporations, enhancing profits and securing resources are it's primary functions, these days.

2001 Prius Photos       2005 Prius Photos
1992 Mitsubishi Delica Diesel-WVO Hybrid Photos

"Bad" is a relative term. No my old Dodge was not a SULEV car, but it was rated TLEV & passed those restrictions during testing.... which is 90% cleaner than a 1970s-era non-catalyst car.


I consider 90% cleaner = good, and don't see any reason to remove that car from the road.

troy

Also, I'd hate to see any kind of ban on antique collector cars just because of tailpipe emissions.

Old smokey junkers yes......Mr. Z's '52 Ford no.

Efficient drivers do it better.
1003 miles a tank personal record. 74MPG calculated. HCH1 CVT

Also, it's not enough to just look at the car. There's a whole cycle to consider. Which is dirtier?

(a) To continue driving a car that still passes as TLEV levels (90% cleaner than 1970s cars).

(b) To junk that car & spend ~30,000 miles worth of energy building a new one that is SULEV (99% cleaner than 1970s cars).




Option (a) would be much, much better for the environment, because you don't waste the ~30,000 miles worth of energy & pollutants, building a new one.

troy

I have no idea if your numbers are valid, but they seem to mean that the break-even point is 30K miles. Considering that most cars are on the road some 150 - 250K miles, your conclusion should be just the opposite, at least from a pollution perspective.

And that is assuming that your old car is junked, rather than displacing an even dirtier one. Probably more often not the case.

R2-E2, 2G Prius.
Highway/City/Husband/Wife MPG: 56.5, as of 12/2005, 26K miles

Jac Nasser, Ford President: "We are planning to launch a hybrid version of
this car [P2000] within this year [1998]. We will also make FCEV available in
2004."

That's not what I said. Let me break it down:

(a) Continue driving your old 100,000 mile TLEV car = 5 grams/mile... or about 500 kilograms of pollution between 100K and 200K on the odometer.

(b) Buy a SULEV car = 1 gram/mile, which is 100 kilograms over the same 100Kmiles. But building it is equivalent to burning 30,000 miles in the average 25mpg car, or 1200 gallons of gasoline.

But that gasoline is burned in *non-regulated* construction equipment, diesel locomotives, and manufacturing plants. i.e. Roughly equal to 30,000 miles of a non-regulated 1970 car = 50 grams/mile, or 1500 kilograms.



TOTAL:
(a) Keep the TLEV for another 100,000 miles = 500 kilograms
(b) Build a SULEV & use same 100,000 miles = 1600 kilograms



Option (a) is better for the environment, when you look at the WHOLE cycle. (Source: http://www.insightcentral.net/KB/compare/emissions.html )

troy