4312Re: More pollution from slower traffic
- Feb 6, 2002--- In carfree_cities@y..., Mark Jaroski <mark@g...> wrote:
> Frankly, it's simply not true at all. Yes, an engineYou're half-right. Yes, engines have an optimum RPM, FOR
> has an optimum running speed, but it's measured in rpm
> (rotations per minute) *NOT* km/h.
A FIXED LOAD. But the load depends on the speed and the
car. That doesn't answer the question of how to make a
trip in an automobile with minimum pollution. And if you
ask THAT QUESTION, then it depends on the car as well as
the engine. And for most cars, the answer is that you
achieve minimum pollution per mile by driving at a steady
rate, near highway speeds. The "steady rate" is the more
important part of the answer. A car driven at a constant
30 mph will use less gas and pollute less than one driven
stop-and-go, though sometimes up to higher speeds. In
fact, stop-and-go driving has a lot of harmful effects,
not only in pollution, but also in wear and tear on the
car, increase in accidents, etc.
Now: there's always the issue of how important that
fact is in relation to the variety of concerns at hand.
But please, don't deny a fact just because it's
inconvenient. It only hurts your credibility when you
raise those other concerns.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>