New cars in Europe may have to cut carbon emissions by one-third

EurActiv ^ | 12 July 2012 | Fiona Harvey for the Guardian, part of the Guardian Environment Network

[Olog-hai]

New cars and vans in the European Union will produce one-third less carbon dioxide within eight years, under proposed new rules set out on Wednesday (11 July) in Brussels.

By 2020, the average emissions from new cars will have to be no more than 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer driven (5.4 oz/mile), a cut of more than 40 grams from today's levels and of 35 grams per kilometer compared with the 2015 target, if the proposed new regulations are accepted.

Connie Hedegaard, climate chief of the European commission, said the goals were "ambitious but achievable" and would benefit consumers through fuel cost savings, and help the EU's car-making industry compete with overseas manufacturers.

She said: "What we are proposing is a fair and balanced regulation."

The proposals will now have to be accepted by member states and the European parliament, if they are to come into force. That process could be tricky as car companies are continuing to lobby politicians on the goals. …

[RoosterRedux]

New cars in Europe may have to cut carbon emissions by one-third

Yeah, but how are they with big gulps and transfats.

BTW, trees like carbon oxides...aren't we starving the trees?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Olog-hai.

No problem — restrict the number of miles people are allowed to drive, probably via rationing fuel. Plllt! Problem solved.

[hosepipe]

Cut carbon emissions by one-third to satisfy the global warming boondoggle..
Of course the greatest boondoggle is Hussein Obama being elected as President of the most naive nation on earth..

Where black americans generally and literally vote because their selected candidate IS BLACK..
Has nothing to do with his political ideas, accurate history, or proven honesty..

Merely because he is partially black.. not even american black but Kenyan black.. with a white mother..

I want to trash the Europeans but I can’t the american system is so thoroughly corrupted.. even European systems are better.. extremely flawed.. but better..

Looks the American Political Structure is so corrupted only the most naive can quote what it used to be..
The American political corruption seems to match the corruption of the american people..

I really really hate to admit this.. but it seems to be true..
A few spoiled apples have indeed spoiled the whole american political system..

**; John Roberts is merely scant evidence of the corruption.. and the other Bush selection is being watched very closely, by me..

[P-Marlowe]

Since European cars, especially French, Italian and English, spend about 1/3 of their lives on blocks, all they need to do is calculate the time they spend in the repair shops into the total life of the car and they will automatically be considered to have cut their emissions by 1/3.

[exDemMom]

Decreased CO₂ emissions can only be achieved by increasing gas mileage (less gas burned = less CO₂). I wonder how close to the physical limit of fuel efficiency they are, already? The closer they get to the limit, the more expensive it will be to achieve greater fuel efficiency.

[Secret Agent Man]

It is hardly fair and balanced. They need to be confronted saying lies like that.

[mamelukesabre]

They can switch to natural gas for fuel. Natural gas has very little carbon content compared to other petroleum derived fuels.

[exDemMom]

I think it’s a bit more involved than that. How does the energy content of natural gas compare to that of petroleum gas?

Each hydrocarbon burned produces CO2 in proportion to its molecular size. Its energy content is also proportional to its molecular size.

[mamelukesabre]

no it’s not more involved than that. its all about the ratio of hydrogen to carbon in the molecule.

[exDemMom]

What does the ratio of hydrogen to carbon do?

Of course, the number of CO2 molecules produced is a direct function of the number of carbons in the fuel molecule.

[musicman]

Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[mamelukesabre]

well duh. You just answered your own question.

[exDemMom]

No, I probably wasn’t clear about the question.

Whether the carbon is in the form of 20 methanes or of two decanes, the number of carbons and thus, CO2 produced from burning is the same. But the methanes have 80 hydrogens total while the decanes have 44 total hydrogens.

I wanted to know how that affects energy content. Which holds more energy per carbon, the 20 methanes or the two decanes?

[mamelukesabre]

seriously??

OBVIOUSLY if you compare two molecules with equal number of carbons and one has more hydrogens than the other, then OBVIOUSLY there is more energy in the molecule with more hydrogens. So like I said before...its all about the carbon to hydrogen ratio.

I’m not going to look it up for you, but there is a known amount of BTUs released for breaking a hydrogen bond and a known amount of BTU’s released for breaking a carbon bond. Oxidizing carbon produces more energy than oxidizing hydrogen. But those hydrogens are not zero. They contribute to the total amount of energy released.

Carbon content of fuels goes something like this(with lowest carbon content first)

hydrogen
methane
propane
butane
gasoline
diesel/kerosene/jet fuel
heating oil
bunker C
tar
asphalt

obviously pure hydrogen has zero carbon content.

[mamelukesabre]

seriously??

OBVIOUSLY if you compare two molecules with equal number of carbons and one has more hydrogens than the other, then OBVIOUSLY there is more energy in the molecule with more hydrogens. So like I said before...its all about the carbon to hydrogen ratio.

I’m not going to look it up for you, but there is a known amount of BTUs released for breaking a hydrogen bond and a known amount of BTU’s released for breaking a carbon bond. Oxidizing carbon produces more energy than oxidizing hydrogen. But those hydrogens are not zero. They contribute to the total amount of energy released.

Carbon content of fuels goes something like this(with lowest carbon content first)

hydrogen
methane
propane
butane
gasoline
diesel/kerosene/jet fuel
heating oil
bunker C
tar
asphalt

obviously pure hydrogen has zero carbon content.

[exDemMom]

OBVIOUSLY if you compare two molecules with equal number of carbons and one has more hydrogens than the other, then OBVIOUSLY there is more energy in the molecule with more hydrogens.

No, it's not obvious, or I wouldn't have asked. I'm a biochemist, not a "pure" organic chemist, so some things that might seem obvious to a pure chemist aren't obvious to me.

Thanks for answering, anyway. Even if your tone *was* a bit snippy.