Talk:Zero-emissions vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Green vehicle  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Tesla Motors[edit]

This topic certainly needs mentioning of Tesla Roadster or Tesla Model S, as one of the most known zero-emissions car. Can anybody do it in encyclopedic manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlazerka (talkcontribs) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Joke[edit]

Was bicycle supposed to be a joke? If so, congratulations to the writer. I think I read that three times before it hit. Liastnir 13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it gave bicycle as an example of a muscle-powered vehicle. However, muscle-power does produce emissions. While we can control or capture waste such as urine and digestive by-products (feces), methane emitted at flatulence remains a pollutant which is vented directly into the atmosphere. There is also the exhaled CO2, another greenhouse gas. --MarkGT (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ZEV - Electric Trains, Trams & Subways[edit]

This topic is Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), not Zero Emissions Automobiles.

Classifying Electric Trains, Trams & Subways as "competing solutions" displays a cultural bias, in the sense that in North America the automobile is thaught of as the basis of personal transport. There is also a narrower bias in giving the impression that a ZEV is a concept created by the California ARB ZEV incentives.

Bearing in mind that electric trains, trams & subways provide ZEV transport for millions of people daily, the following statement from the current wiki article is misleading: "The only other generally available technology considered zero emission is that used in battery electric vehicles."

The article gives the reader the perception that ZEVs are a rare and exotic form of automobile, rather than a widely used form of transport.

The article mentions pollution reduction as a motivation for ZEVs. The primary method used to reduce smog and other pollution in densly populated areas is the promotion of electric trains, trams & subways.

I would suggest that the article is amended to follow the hierarchy type classification widely used in wiki articles. The hierarchy could start something like:

ZEV

Types:
 Public Transport
  Electric Trains, Trams & Subways
 Private Transport
  Bicycles
  BEVs
  Fuel Cell
Incentives
 Subsidies for public transport
 CARB ZEV program
Competing Solutions
 HEV
 PHEV
 SULEV

etc


etc

Parishcl 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"zero" emissions[edit]

The paragraph noting that zero emissions doesn't include emissions caused by the manufacture of a vehicle, or emissions from power plants used to power an electric vehicle, kind of makes the point that this article is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle. most of the examples here (particularly electric cars) should more accurately referrerd to as "different emissions vehicles". using the zero emissions tag fools people into thinking that driving an electric car (or riding in an electric train for that matter) is a way to travel without causing the emission of pollution. Murderbike 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- it's a marketing term. Not really accurate. What really gets me is the claim that CO2 isn't considered pollution. (Sure, we emit it ourselves, but we emit other things too that are even more ... noxious.) dougmc 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

hello, the nomenclature "zero emissions" is a blatant misnomer and must be recognised as such. one could go as far to say that it's just marketing weasel words. rather than incessantly repeat the fact tailpipe emissions are nil, the article should clearly state that emissions during manufacture of all the vehicle components are completely ignored. as it currently reads, someone could actually take this "zero emissions" brand-name literally. unless there are any objections, i might have a go at rewording this and so it's at least up in the moderation queue. 123.255.47.36 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Second half of the last sentence of the summary is incorrect ("...although more emissions are created during manufacture than during a vehicle's operating lifetime"). Source 5 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car) is a blog post doing back of the envelope calculations, not an actual study. Source 6 (http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/39408) states the opposite of the last sentence, effectively saying that lifetime vehicle emissions are greater than emissions from vehicle production. Source 7 (http://www.epiphergy.com/uploads/es702178s-file004.pdf) is a dead link. RECOMMEND: remove second half of last sentence or modify to state "...more emissions are created during a vehicle's operating lifetime than during manufacture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.26.81.15 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I care overmuch, but by any rational definition the manufacture of a ZEV MUST cause more emissions than the zero emissions during use. Greglocock (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft, boats, ...[edit]

Zero emission aircraft, boats, ... needs to be added (these are also vehicles). Besides in human powered versions, electric variants are available here too (see Solar Impulse, Helios, Pathfinder and others)

Thanks KVDP (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


This article is intellectually dishonest[edit]

WHy is it OK to use carbon offsets or whatever to get to true ZEV status for an electric vehicle, yet a gasoline powered vehicle run in conjunction with a carbon offset program does not qualify as a ZEV? Greg Locock (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not make up the definition, CARB did. However, I can understand it as:
  • everting emissions always has the preference (this has been stated by environmental organisations worldwide)
  • Secondly there are also other factors involved (health factors, ...). For example if gasoline or ther ICE (ethanol, ...) cars run along in cities they tend to cause health problems (even when they work in conjunction with carbon offset programs)

KVDP (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

True but irrelevant. A preference is only a preference. The second point places a greater value on th health of those in proximity to the vehicle, or its users, than others at a remoter location. NIMBYism IMO Greg Locock (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why if most electricity is generated by the burning fossil fuels do electric vehicles earn the title "zero emission"? 74.96.8.55 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, that is the way it was defined and modified through time by CARB. If we do not like it is irrelevant, it would be our WP:OR. The article simply has to reflect the official ruling, though there is lot of sourced controversy about it, I suggest you could do an edit summarizing this controversy with all points of view, but there is no point in discussion this issue here, this is not a blog.--Mariordo (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I expanded and reorganized the terminology section which now includes the well-to-wheels assessment and clarifies that emissions are shifted to the point of generation. I hope this resolves the NPOV issues and gives the article a more global view not limited to California or the U.S.-Mariordo (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero emissions vehicle category[edit]

I would like to propose a zero emissions vehicle category (this makes it easier to group other vehicles as human-powered vehicles, electric vehicles, ... under this category). Everyone OK by that ?

KVDP (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Already made the category, the category "Human powered ground vehicle", "human powered aircraft", ... however do not yet exist. Also under the "Green vehicles"-category things are quite messy (no pages should be in this category, only subcategories)

KVDP (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental technology template[edit]

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Forest as a habitat[edit]

The head paragraph, stated a forest as something that the ethic is trying to preserve. Conservation doesn't strive to preserve forests. Conservation strives to conserve the natural processes of life, INCLUDING if a forest were to change into a swamp (for example) as long as humans didn't have anything to do with it. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WARNING (to the editor): There are some problems with the added paragraphs in the introduction: >>> 0px|High energy advertising in Shinjuku, Japan.]] Text is incomplete at the end: "Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more e" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talkcontribs) 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MiniCAT.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:MiniCAT.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

California resource[edit]