[QUOTE=bbc;52425299][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40436446[/url][/QUOTE]
Of all the things that make sense to be made biodegradable, a car isn't one of them.
[QUOTE=Sled Dog;52425306]Of all the things that make sense to be made biodegradable, a car isn't one of them.[/QUOTE]
just screams planned obsolescence
[QUOTE=butre;52425894]just screams planned obsolescence[/QUOTE]
Feels more like planned garbage. I wouldn't want a $30k investment turn into a garden after 5 years.
These should be recyclable, not decomposable.
I'm not so sure I agree. Passing through New Jersey recently made me realized how much waste automobiles actually produce. Miles of junkyard, piled high with rusted chassis, stretching from the trainyards into the suburbs. And it's my understanding that those yards are a familiar sight in many Rust Belt cities.
There's little value in the metals that make up automobiles, so after a useful life of 15-25 years, they're left to rot in the dirt near Hoboken. Long-term biodegradables (bioplastics which can be broken down by bacteria, for instance, commonly used in beverage containers today) could have a tremendous effect on end-of-life waste.
We have composite biomaterials that last decades, but can easily and cleanly be disposed of when necessary. A car isn't going to be designed to melt away in the rain, but there is value in being able to compost it at the end of its lifespan.
Of course, a better solution in a vacuum would be to produce cars designed to age gracefully, and avoid the common causes of disposal. For example, rust-resistant materials in the chassis and body, and long-lasting replaceable components in the engine and drivetrain could allow a buyer to drive their cars for decades with minimal wear. Concepts have been produced, and production cars proposed to adopt some of these, but it isn't economically feasible if an automobile manufacturer wants to remain in business. Cars, like everything else, are designed to fail after an average lifespan, and will often be replaced years before then as style and technology change. If we won't produce longer-lasting cars, we can at least produce cars that don't last as long after we're done with them.
All that said, this concept looks terrible. Design is everything; people want what's familiar. If they built a standard two-door coupe or family sedan out of biomaterials, then they'd stand a chance at getting people to buy them.
[QUOTE=El Periodista;52425980]Of course, a better solution in a vacuum would be to produce cars designed to age gracefully, and avoid the common causes of disposal. For example, rust-resistant materials in the chassis and body, and [U]long-lasting replaceable components in the engine and drivetrain could allow a buyer to drive their cars for decades with minimal wear.[/U][/QUOTE]
Already available; electric cars, they have far simpler design and less components that need maintenance.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;52426166]Already available; electric cars, they have far simpler design and less components that need maintenance.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. There's some fantastic stuff going on with electric cars. Their biggest drawbacks right now are chassis/body material and battery life, but Tesla's got a great battery recycling program that's going to do a lot of good in a decade or two.
I don't think the ICE is going anywhere, though, and ICE vehicles are very much a "Drive it for 25 years and then junk it" deal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.