Ovlov Emissions Site

Here’s an interesting site…..spotted via Autoblog.

1985Gripen is currently keeping an eye out for a report that’s due quite soon into the well-to-wheel carbon output of various different fuels and production methods. Could this be a little prelude as to what might be in that?

Volvo have put together an Alternative Fuels and Powertrain site with an interesting little challenge piece.

The aim of this exercise is to see which fuel will go furthest before emitting 10kg of carbon dioxide emissions. Here are your choices. Click the image to enlarge:


So which one would you think goes furthest? The exercise is based not only on emissions from the pipe, but also takes into account the gas emitted during production etc.

Obviously, Saab’s interest is to see how E85 compares to the other fuel alternatives out there. I won’t spoil the results for anyone, but needless to say this exercise points out that E85 is not THE solution, but it’s a realistic piece of the puzzle. And a lot of the solution isn’t necessarily based on engine technology so much as fuel technology and infrastructure.

Click the link above to go and play around on the site yourself, or click through below to see the chart with all results included.

As you can see, E85 stacks up pretty well depending on the source it’s derived from. Even the worst E85 solution is around 60% better than straight petroleum.

And hydrogen’s not quite the answer either unless it’s derived from a very clean source.

Again, click to enlarge.


Our 16 year old thinks we should all strap pipes to the butts of cows. Next time someone tells you your car runs like crap, point out how much Co2 you’re saving by running it on manure!

You may also like


  1. it’d be interesting to see how E85 stacks up considering it’s the most willing/able source in the US (at least for the time being).

  2. Sure shows that fossil fuels aren’t the way forward, diesel or gas. I hope their theory/basis is sound. I don’t understand how bio methane from dry manure can go farther than hydrogen from wind power. Where does the CO2 come from? Manufacturing the windmills/cars?

  3. Swade et al:
    Folks, I understand it’s just an exercise, and the point is only to see which fuel emits the least amount of carbon dioxide, but, isn’t that an incomplete scenario?
    If we are truly trying to evaluate as a society in which direction to head, shouldn’t the test include a total cost trade-off as well?
    For instance, assume we could figure out that melting down gold and using it to power vehicles would reduce the carbon dioxide emissions to an absolute zero, but the cost/litre was still astronomical, what would that prove?
    Would we all switch to ‘AU100’?

  4. This is just straight environmental impact. If melting gold was the most efficient way to do things, no one would do it anyway because it would also be ultra-expensive. This chart (let’s assume it’s accurate) just shows what’s the best in terms of environmental impact. Besides, what costs could possibly be associated with bio-methane from dry manure? If that’s the most environmentally friendly way to go, AND it’s cheap, then more resources should be dumped (pun unintended…at first) into making that a viable fuel source. So, yeah, it’s not complete, but it’s a good starting point for research.

    If I remember right, denvernewbie, you don’t believe in global warming, which is cool (man, I’m on a roll with word choice here), but it still doesn’t hurt to look at alternate energy sources.

  5. The other side of all this choice about which fuel is, what is the visual impact of the required processing plants/farms?
    I personnally hate the visual impact that wind turbines have on the landscape, and the same goes for some of the other renewable energy generation methods. Are we willing to sacrifice the natural beauty that some of us drive out to experience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *