Adblue lowers the amount of nitrogen oxide in exhaust fumes, but it has to be moved around by trucks, diesel vans and probably even ferries.
So, how great is the reduction of NOx from adblue compared to the increased emissions from moving it about?
and…
When you include the shipment emissions with the manufacturing and all the emissions of the people going to work to make it does it really work out to be that great?
I remember reading a few years back some American student proving that his dads 65 Mustang was more environmentally friendly than a Prius for some school project.
He even proved that the prius would have to last for 150 years before its carbon footprint became lower than the Mustang.
Clunk:
I remember reading a few years back some American student proving that his dads 65 Mustang was more environmentally friendly than a Prius for some school project.
He even proved that the prius would have to last for 150 years before its carbon footprint became lower than the Mustang.
Clunk:
I remember reading a few years back some American student proving that his dads 65 Mustang was more environmentally friendly than a Prius for some school project.
He even proved that the prius would have to last for 150 years before its carbon footprint became lower than the Mustang.
The same with emissions generally. mpg is compromised to get emissions down, lower mpg = more fuel burnt = more fuel to be drilled, refined & transported. The numbers cannot add up, but then I heard it takes something like 50 years for a big wind turbine to generate enough energy to offset what was used in building and getting it operational in the first place.
DPF filters on cars and vans are exactly the same.
They don’t reduce emissions.
They trap the carbon/soot in the filter while you’re tooting around town, then burns it off when flying up the motorway.
So it doesn’t reduce the emissions at all, it just spreads the emissions out.