Talk:Zero-emissions vehicle

message: This topic certainly needs mentioning of Tesla Roadster or Tesla Model S, as one of the
most known zero-emissions car. Can anybody do it in encyclopedic manner?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlazerka (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla Motors 

message: This topic is Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), not Zero Emissions Automobiles.
Classifying Electric Trains, Trams & Subways as "competing solutions" displays a cultural bias, in the sense that in North America the automobile is thaught of as the basis of personal transport.
There is also a narrower bias in giving the impression that a ZEV is a concept created by the California ARB ZEV incentives.
Bearing in mind that electric trains, trams & subways provide ZEV transport for millions of people daily, the following statement from the current wiki article is misleading:
"The only other generally available technology considered zero emission is that used in battery electric vehicles."
The article gives the reader the perception that ZEVs are a rare and exotic form of automobile, rather than a widely used form of transport.
The article mentions pollution reduction as a motivation for ZEVs.
The primary method used to reduce smog and other pollution in densly populated areas is the promotion of electric trains, trams & subways.
I would suggest that the article is amended to follow the hierarchy type classification widely used in wiki articles.
The hierarchy could start something like:
ZEV
 Types:
  Public Transport
   Electric Trains, Trams & Subways
  Private Transport
   Bicycles
   BEVs
   Fuel Cell
 Incentives
  Subsidies for public transport
  CARB ZEV program
 Competing Solutions
  HEV
  PHEV
  SULEV
etc
etc
Parishcl 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZEV - Electric Trains, Trams & Subways 

message: The paragraph noting that zero emissions doesn't include emissions caused by the manufacture of a vehicle, or emissions from power plants used to power an electric vehicle, kind of makes the point that this article is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle. most of the examples here (particularly electric cars) should more accurately referrerd to as "different emissions vehicles". using the zero emissions tag fools people into thinking that driving an electric car (or riding in an electric train for that matter) is a way to travel without causing the emission of pollution. Murderbike 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I care overmuch, but by any rational definition the manufacture of a ZEV MUST cause more emissions than the zero emissions during use. Greglocock (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "zero" emissions 

message: Zero emission aircraft, boats, ... needs to be added (these are also vehicles).
Besides in human powered versions, electric variants are available here too (see Solar Impulse, Helios, Pathfinder and others)
Thanks
KVDP (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft, boats, ... 

message: WHy is it OK to use carbon offsets or whatever to get to true ZEV status for an electric vehicle, yet a gasoline powered vehicle run in conjunction with a carbon offset program does not qualify as a ZEV? Greg Locock (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make up the definition, CARB did. However, I can understand it as:
*everting emissions always has the preference (this has been stated by environmental organisations worldwide)
*Secondly there are also other factors involved (health factors, ...). For example if gasoline or ther ICE (ethanol, ...) cars run along in cities they tend to cause health problems (even when they work in conjunction with carbon offset programs)
KVDP (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True but irrelevant. A preference is only a preference. The second point places a greater value on th health of those in proximity to the vehicle, or its users, than others at a remoter location. NIMBYism IMO Greg Locock (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As explained above, that is the way it was defined and modified through time by CARB. If we do not like it is irrelevant, it would be our WP:OR. The article simply has to reflect the official ruling, though there is lot of sourced controversy about it, I suggest you could do an edit summarizing this controversy with all points of view, but there is no point in discussion this issue here, this is not a blog.--Mariordo (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded and reorganized the terminology section which now includes the well-to-wheels assessment and clarifies that emissions are shifted to the point of generation. I hope this resolves the NPOV issues and gives the article a more global view not limited to California or the U.S.-Mariordo (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you should omit nuclear power from the list of energy sources which lend electrical cars a truly ZE status. Nuclear power is not ZE. It produces potentially harmful emissions which may increase dramatically in case of an accident.2.247.249.164 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is intellectually dishonest

message: I would like to propose a zero emissions vehicle category (this makes it easier to group other vehicles as human-powered vehicles, electric vehicles, ... under this category).
Everyone OK by that ?
KVDP (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already made the category, the category "Human powered ground vehicle", "human powered aircraft", ... however do not yet exist. Also under the "Green vehicles"-category things are quite messy (no pages should be in this category, only subcategories)
KVDP (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero emissions vehicle category 

message: :Image:MiniCAT.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MiniCAT.jpg

message: *California Board Votes Unanimously to Toughen Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate January 27, 2012, 7:31 PM by Jim Motavalli NYT  99.181.159.67 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[California]] resource 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Zero-emissions vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100405023303/http://www.asa.org.uk:80/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/3/Renault-UK-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48291.aspx to http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/3/Renault-UK-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48291.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.segway.com/efficiency
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Zero-emissions vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524082052/http://www.ibtimes.com/press-release/20130328/now-there-one-tesla-model-s-declared-2013-world-green-car-1158695 to http://www.ibtimes.com/press-release/20130328/now-there-one-tesla-model-s-declared-2013-world-green-car-1158695
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728051830/http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/e-supdoc.pdf to http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/e-supdoc.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508155759/http://www.myelectriccar.com.au/co2.html to http://www.myelectriccar.com.au/co2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216054807/http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/greaterchina/mckonchina/pdfs/China_Charges_Up.pdf to http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/greaterchina/mckonchina/pdfs/China_Charges_Up.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305040118/http://optimalenergy.co.za/ to http://www.optimalenergy.co.za/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified