PDA

View Full Version : Is your Volvo Green?



AWD*V70XC
10-31-2004, 02:51 PM
Cars have made a great contribution to the way people enjoy their lives. Cars are practical, exhilarating, attractive and, sometimes, just plain fun. But they can also have a negative effect on the environment we share and will pass along to future generations. So at Volvo, just as we are striving to build safer cars, we’re also striving to build cars that are environmentally friendlier. That way, we can be sure we’re passing along a world that’s at least as good as the one that was given to us.

Reduction of Ground-Level Ozone
Ancient alchemists dreamt of turning lead into gold. Well, how about a car that can turn harmful ozone into oxygen? It’s no dream, but a reality, thanks to advanced Volvo engineering.

It started in 1976, when Volvo developed and introduced a 3-way catalytic converter and oxygen sensor, the first system of its type to help reduce all three of these harmful pollutants. Today, the system comes as standard on all Volvos and can reduce unwanted emissions by up to 95%.

More recently, Volvo introduced the PremAir®* radiator system, which helps clean ground level ozone as you drive. PremAir® can best be described as a coating on the radiator that actually turns ground level ozone into oxygen as air flows through it. At high temperatures, almost 75% of ozone is converted into pure, breathable - and very welcome - oxygen.

*PremAir is a trademark of Englehard Corporation

Recovery of Fuel Vapors
Vapors from a car can be as dangerous as exhaust from your car. Thankfully, Volvo is doing something about it. How? By specifying materials for fuel tanks and other components that help contain evaporation, and by developing recovery systems that capture fuel vapors and reintroduce them into the fuel supply. That way, these vapors will power your car, instead of pollute your air.

Reduction of Fuel Consumption
Everybody wants to drive, but nobody wants the carbon dioxide that comes from driving. Carbon dioxide is an inevitable by-product of all fuel combustion. And the more fuel a vehicle consumes, the more carbon dioxide it emits. Volvo has and continues to introduce refinements to engines and power trains that improve efficiency and help to reduce overall fuel consumption – improvements that may ultimately benefit not just Volvo, but the entire automotive industry.

Use of Alternative Fuels
One sure way to improve gasoline consumption is not to use any gasoline at all. So Volvo is exploring the use of alternative fuels, instead. Alternative fuels under study include methane gas (natural gas and biogas), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), alcohol (ethanol and methanol), biodiesel (DME, RME), natural gas (CNG) and hydrogen gas. Volvo’s Bi-Fuel engine runs on both LPG or CNG and switches automatically to gasoline only when needed.

Because a vehicle affects the environment throughout its entire life, environmental factors must be taken into account the instant the first design sketches are made. As part of our commitment to the environment, Volvo has embraced recycling as a way of reducing consumption of finite natural resources. Volvo recycling is facilitated by smart design at the product development stage, and then applied both at the beginning and end of the vehicle’s useful life. But more than that, Volvo has developed a life-cycle assessment tool known as Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Design (EPS) that enables us to measure the entire environmental impact of a product. The main advantage of EPS is that it enables various factors to be weighted together to derive a common Environmental Load Unit (ELU). For example, a designer faced with the decision of whether an aluminum or steel hood is preferable, in environmental terms, can resolve the problem quickly by comparing the ELU’s of the two products.

All New Volvo Models Contain Recycled Materials
Volvo, in cooperation with suppliers and the Ford Motor Company, is working to identify areas in which recycled, non-metallic materials may be used in the production of new vehicles. We currently use many recycled materials in our production process, and we pledge to continue to progressively increase the quantity of recycled materials used in new components.

Nearly All The Materials In A New Volvo Can Be Recycled
Eventually, the useful life of any vehicle – even a Volvo – will come to an end. When that time comes, our goal is that all its materials and components are either recycled or returned to the environment without harmful waste or loss of energy. Currently, the recovery rate (material recycling and energy recovery) for a new Volvo is 85% and is expected to reach 95% for 2015 models. To reach this goal, we’ve incorporated recycling strategies into our design and production process that help us:

· Avoid the use of hazardous materials and substances
· Facilitate the drainage and dismantling of environmentally hazardous materials
· Minimize resources used in production
· Design components so as to facilitate material recycling

In cooperation with other carmakers, as well as dismantling, shredding and recycling companies, we are optimizing dismantling procedures, training dismantling personnel and minimizing hazardous materials.


Courtesy of Volvo USA

vtie
11-01-2004, 04:22 AM
Ancient alchemists dreamt of turning lead into gold. Well, how about a car that can turn harmful ozone into oxygen? It’s no dream, but a reality, thanks to advanced Volvo engineering.

This is actually less magical than it sounds. Ozone is an unstable molecule (O3) that is converted into oxygen (O2) naturally if you wait a while. All this catalyser does is speed up this process. A nice idea anyway, but with more marketing than environmental value.

Tom H
11-01-2004, 04:59 AM
This is actually less magical than it sounds. Ozone is an unstable molecule (O3) that is converted into oxygen (O2) naturally if you wait a while. All this catalyser does is speed up this process. A nice idea anyway, but with more marketing than environmental value.

True, there is no magic involved but I commend Volvo for taking even a small step in reversing the normal automotive role of only adding to the polution in our environment. Yes, it's a great marketing scheme but it's also an amazing concept. It may seem like a tiny contribution now but when all the other manufacturers follow suit, and they will, it will be a measureable difference. Most importantly, it's the mindset that drives these changes that ultimately matters and Volvo is again one of the leaders attempting to do it differently.

vtie
11-01-2004, 08:10 AM
Most importantly, it's the mindset that drives these changes that ultimately matters and Volvo is again one of the leaders attempting to do it differently.
Couldn't agree more, actually. What we need is a shift in mindset, and if the customers opinion is what drives a car manufacturer in a certain direction, perfect.
However, My D5 XC70 definetely produces more O3 than it converts. On a warm day, you can actually smell the ozone hanging around the car when you stop (the same smell you get from older laser printers). I think it's something typical for diesels, because my Mercedes E 270CDI has the same, whereas I never noticed it with my Saab 9-5 aero (which is turbo-charged as well, but runs on gasoline).

Petr
01-04-2006, 08:03 AM
But more than that, Volvo has developed a life-cycle assessment tool known as Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Design (EPS) that enables us to measure the entire environmental impact of a product. The main advantage of EPS is that it enables various factors to be weighted together to derive a common Environmental Load Unit (ELU). For example, a designer faced with the decision of whether an aluminum or steel hood is preferable, in environmental terms, can resolve the problem quickly by comparing the ELU’s of the two products.

I can't understand what ELU is based on. This value is too abstract for me. Why does Fe have 84,9 ELU/kg when Ni has 160 ELU/kg.
And I can't find information about ELU. May be it based on environmental fines. I don't know.

And how can I trust when I can't understand?

wgriswold
01-04-2006, 02:31 PM
Doing what is best for the enviornment is often a very complicated decision that can seem simple. For example comparing disposable diapers to washable ones. I once read a long complex article in the journal Science that tried to come to an informed position on the matter. It was several pages long and considered everyting from manufacturing, transport, the consequences of washing, etc. The conclusion was that the effects on the enviornment were similiar. There was no green choice. I've read similiar articles on nuclear verses other power sources, plastic verses paper coffee cups and so on. The analysis gets very complicated very fast and are difficult to understand. I think any effort to distill the enviornmental impact into a relative number is a major advance and helps all us to make better decisions. Of course, we have to trust the people making the analysis for us.

griso4r
01-05-2006, 03:00 AM
The attention to ecology it’s actually one of the reasons why i got the xc70 d5.
It’s amazing how volvo with the new d5 reduced the smoke and the smell typical of the diesel engines.
the d5 it’s absolutely similar to the most advanced gasoline ones and largely exceeding the requirements of the Euro 4 anti pollution regulation.
Thinking to the clouds of smoke coming from the old D6 it’s really an incredible step forward, so thanks to volvo for the continuous efforts to lower the impact on the environment.
Unfotunately not many drivers are so sensitive to environmental problems, more interested in speed, power and image.
Ciao

Petr
01-05-2006, 08:38 AM
It was several pages long and considered everyting from manufacturing, transport, the consequences of washing, etc. The conclusion was that the effects on the enviornment were similiar. There was no green choice.

ISO 1400 requires assessing full life cycle.
I’ve read article about fuel life cycle assessment. Russian institute NAMI (http://www.nami.ru) has compared different fuels. Calculation has been made for Russian automobile VAZ-2108.
At first, pollutions for manufacturing and exploitation have been calculated. Taking into account pollutions are CO2, CH, CO, NOx, SOx, small elements. Than pollution economic damage has been calculated. Standard methodology for calculation has been used.
Calculated damages per kilometer are
$0,0230 for gasoline;
$0,0131 for petroleum gas;
$0,0268 for compressed natural gas;
$0,0101 for methanol (produced from natural gas);
$0,0141 for methanol (produced from biomass);
$0,0182 for electric power.
I clearly understand how they have calculated damage. I can disagree with their method. But I understand it.
ELU is ununderstandable for me. May be it’s used for advertising. It doesn’t have value ($, km, kg ???). It isn’t explained. What is ELU?