Other than going to get my bike checked for emissions, that link seems to sum it up.

Looks like saving parking spaces, little wear on the roads, reducing congestion, and big gas savings is not enough for the energy efficient power brokers.

I'm still not sure if they don't want to include us as energy savers because of our bike oxides, or they just can't stand giving us recognition.

Thanks

 

As already stated, they are comparing apples and oranges. Is it pollution they want to reduce, or is it 'greenhouse gasses' (aka. CO2)?

Plus, you have to look at these two elements on a per person per mile basis. In addition, there are associated costs (both in dollars and environmental).

The facts are that on a *per gallon* basis, the motorcycle (without a cat) will pollute more than a car. But the side effect of this is that there will be less CO2.

Pollution, in this case, is defined as NOx, CO and unburned hydrocarbons. The catalyst *aids* in converting these three items into CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), N2 (Nitrogen) and H2O (Water). Note that a newer engine will directly reduce the unburned hydrocarbons through tuning of the engine (FI with O2 sensors) although newer carberttors can come reasonably close. Well tuned engines have a reduced soot content in both a cat and a non-cat system. Indeed, soot problems are a specific issue for cat systems; modern engines have significantly reduced soot content, extending both engine life and cat life.

As such, catalysts will increase the CO2 component of the emissions - but that's actually OK in reality since CO2 is a harmless gas.

As far as a *per mile* basis, obviously the dollar cost is going to be lower, motorcycles being much more efficient as a mode of transportation, CO2 content is also going to be significantly less but the 'pollutants' will be slightly higher (numbers escape me at the moment). This is the 'at the pipe' cost.

When you factor in the refining, transportation and wear costs, you are going to be better off - on the whole - with a more efficient vehicle than with a cleaner 'guzzler'.

The truth is, you don't get something for nothing. Singling out motorcycles because they are more 'polluting' demonstrates an ignorance of the whole process, and ignoring the fairly basic technique of addressing the 'worst offender' before any other. That is, spending effort to reduce a few pounds of motorcycle pollution each year when you routinely dump tons of harmful chemicals in the trash cans each day demonstrates a woefully negligent behavior.

Edit: also comparing car and motorcycle is an impractical situation - basically, it becomes irrelevant: the reality is, we are looking at a TCO (dollars and environmental) issue. We don't look at the choice between a 1970 carburetored 2-stroke motorcycle and a 2010 Toyota Prius - we are looking at either commuting in a 2001 Minivan or a 2010 motorcycle. The actual environmental issues become a lot more blurred.

Usually, these comparisons are designed to make one side look bad - well, we can all play at that game: by definition a Prius is a useless piece of junk - not many winning nascar races, are there? The point is, the playing field must be level to make a comparison, with weightings for each aspect that encompass all aspects. Clearly, it is an impossible task.

Edit Number 2 ('cos I forgot): Ironically, as the EPA mandates CO2 as a 'pollutant', then, by definition, motorcycles are far less polluting than almost any car. Stick that in yer green pipe and smoke it. If this is so, that they deem CO2 a pollutant, then it demonstrates that the EPA are clueless to what a pollutant is!