What you were not told about hybrids
11-24-13, 10:49 PM
#1
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you were not told about hybrids
Interested in what you guys think about my writeup
I am an environmentalist, and I am entirely for the preservation of our home planet. That is why I make sure to do so in a smart way, constantly questioning the posed arguments regarding measures that various companies or individuals want to take in order to "save the planet", as they claim. Yet, in this case, many people do in fact go online and begin to skim through a few websites that provide basic information about Hybrid vehicles Yet, the information that they find may not always be the truth. Consider this scenario: A man and his wife enter a local Toyota dealership in order to purchase a Prius. A salesman approaches them, asks them if they need any assistance and continues on with the standard sequence. Prior to arriving at the dealership, the couple did an “extensive” research on the web about the effects of these cars on the environment and on their bank accounts. They discovered that these vehicles have lower CO2 emissions when compared to a gasoline vehicle, and in the long run, these cars will save them an X amount of dollars. The salesman goes on to tell them about the MPGs and the offers they have for a specific car, and that navigation unit that comes with a leather package, and finally convinces the couple. What the salesman (and the web for that matter) did not reveal to this couple is a chart consisting of numbers that present the CO2 emissions during the production of these vehicles.
Instead, the couple is presented with a chart that compares the emissions of the specific hybrid vehicle to a rivaling gasoline vehicle as a single unit. This means, they may take a hybrid Honda Civic and compare it to the gasoline version of the same car. The data they present is by no means invalid, and a Toyota Prius is in fact cheaper to maintain over an X amount of time than a rivaling gasoline or a diesel powered vehicle. The charts that a dealership presents possibly resemble those found in various research reports. One such report was conducted by OLR in 2004. Paul Frisman, the Associate Analyst, states that “Hybrid passenger cars would reduce the amount of smog-forming gases they generate by between 10% and 15% … Therefore we would estimate that hybrid passenger cars would reduce VOC emissions by 4.5 tons to 6.8 tons per day… Total smog-forming emissions from hybrid passenger cars would therefore be reduced between 8.8 and 13.3 tons daily”[1] (Frisman 2004). Here, Frisman presents factual evidence based on research, which displays the long term effects on the environment of hybrid vehicles[2]. What Frisman did not present, however, is the long term effect of the production of these vehicles on the environment.
A 2011 study conducted by Ricardo, a British engineering company mostly known for developing the transmission found in the Veyron, “found that some of the CO2 savings made during the use of low carbon vehicles is offset by increased emissions created during their production, and to a lesser extent disposal” [3](Ricardo 2011). A chart posted on the Ricardo website demonstrates the jaw-dropping numbers of CO2 released into the atmosphere during production (see below).
In this chart we see that the hybrids and plug in hybrids will produce a combined estimate of 13.2 tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere during production. This number is more than twice the emissions released by gasoline powered cars during their production.
This situation introduces a rather interesting alternative- the electric vehicle. Where hybrids use an electric motor which drives a petrol-powered motor, electric vehicles use an electric motor to drive the wheels directly. The gasoline engine in the hybrid cars is no different from many four cylinder engines found in small sized sedans, thus combined with the electric assist from the motor the emissions are naturally lower. However, the production emissions quickly catch up to the numbers that are posted by gasoline powered cars in the same size family. With electric vehicles, however, the story is different. Because they use electric motors to drive the vehicle’s wheels, the amount of CO2 emissions is significantly lower than that of Hybrid vehicles. Yet they are not the most affordable cars on the road today. Nissan, Honda, Scion, Mitsubishi, Ford and Chevrolet making these cars readily available to the public for under 30,000 dollars. For the same amount of money, one could purchase a mid-size Honda Accord with majority of the available options present in the car. If one's funds are more limited than that, they could look into purchasing a brand new Volkswagen Golf or a Jetta for just around 24,000 dollars, with a turbo-diesel engine that will do right around 40 miles to the gallon.
This then brings us to the diesel car. Diesel cars of today can be easily converted to biodiesel, which runs on vegetable oil with the assistance of a converter. The conversion process is by no means complicated, and the engine’s structure and design do not have to be altered at all. Driving a diesel car on daily basis is equivalent to doing a favor to mother earth. According to the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York, “well-designed diesel engines with computer controls limit the smoke and pollutants to very low levels without the catalytic converters and complicated emissions reduction equipment necessary on gasoline engines” [4]. Diesel automobiles can have a range of up to 700 miles per tank. Even though the price of diesel fuel is almost the same as that of gasoline, a single tank of diesel fuel could last you twice the distance than the rivaling gasoline car within the same price range. Converting your engine to biodiesel will provide further gains in EPA while significantly reducing the already ultra-low emissions.
If you are not a fan of diesel for one reason or another, there are always natural gas vehicles. In the U.S., the only car manufacturer that offers NGVs is Honda. General Motors only recently announced their plans to release a natural gas vehicle by 2015. Since the engines are very similar in design to gasoline engines, the production process is not too different. This means that the emissions during production are just about the same, yet the total emissions are significantly lower due to the low amount of production of these engines from the factory. According to a Alternative Fuels Data Center of the United States Department of Energy, “natural gas emits approximately 6% to 11% lower levels of GHGs than gasoline throughout the fuel life cycle”[5]. The only drawback with natural gas vehicles is the capacity of the gas tanks. Car and Driver’s Michael Austin test drove the 2012 Honda Civic NGV. He noted that “single tank travel distances beyond 200 miles to be possible, but that was only when we knew a filling station was close enough to exploit the lower end of the fuel gauge without worry” [6](Austin 2012). Yet, if you plan on using within the city, this shouldn’t be an issue for you. Not to mention, natural gas is less expensive when compared to the gasoline sold at your local Chevron.
Throughout the progress of this rather lengthy post, I’ve provided more than enough sufficient statistical data in order to present my point: going from a gasoline powered car to a hybrid vehicle is not necessarily better for the environment, and in case of hybrid vehicles, it is slightly worse. One could argue that electric vehicles would be the next best choice, and the argument would be valid. Yet, one forgets the availability of natural gas, electric and bio-diesel vehicles which provide great fuel economy and produce as little emissions as certain hybrids. Not to mention, the cost of production of these cars to the environment is not much different from that of producing a gasoline powered car. By purchasing a hybrid car after reading this post, one would lie to themselves if they argued that they were purchasing it because they desire to preserve the environment.
References:
[1] “Effect of replacing conventional vehicles with hybrid vehicles” last modified July 8 2004, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0523.htm
[2] We must note that these numbers have significantly decreased as the hybrid technology evolved in the past nine years since this research was conducted.
[3] “Ricardo study demonstrates importance of whole life vehicle CO2 emissions” last modified June 8 2011, http://bit.ly/w4JG8T.
[4] “Diesel Engine Impact on Air Quality” last modified date unknown http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8572.html
[5] “Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions” last modified 23 October 2012 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/...emissions.html
[6] “2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas” last modified March 2012 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...as-test-review
Instead, the couple is presented with a chart that compares the emissions of the specific hybrid vehicle to a rivaling gasoline vehicle as a single unit. This means, they may take a hybrid Honda Civic and compare it to the gasoline version of the same car. The data they present is by no means invalid, and a Toyota Prius is in fact cheaper to maintain over an X amount of time than a rivaling gasoline or a diesel powered vehicle. The charts that a dealership presents possibly resemble those found in various research reports. One such report was conducted by OLR in 2004. Paul Frisman, the Associate Analyst, states that “Hybrid passenger cars would reduce the amount of smog-forming gases they generate by between 10% and 15% … Therefore we would estimate that hybrid passenger cars would reduce VOC emissions by 4.5 tons to 6.8 tons per day… Total smog-forming emissions from hybrid passenger cars would therefore be reduced between 8.8 and 13.3 tons daily”[1] (Frisman 2004). Here, Frisman presents factual evidence based on research, which displays the long term effects on the environment of hybrid vehicles[2]. What Frisman did not present, however, is the long term effect of the production of these vehicles on the environment.
A 2011 study conducted by Ricardo, a British engineering company mostly known for developing the transmission found in the Veyron, “found that some of the CO2 savings made during the use of low carbon vehicles is offset by increased emissions created during their production, and to a lesser extent disposal” [3](Ricardo 2011). A chart posted on the Ricardo website demonstrates the jaw-dropping numbers of CO2 released into the atmosphere during production (see below).
In this chart we see that the hybrids and plug in hybrids will produce a combined estimate of 13.2 tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere during production. This number is more than twice the emissions released by gasoline powered cars during their production.
This situation introduces a rather interesting alternative- the electric vehicle. Where hybrids use an electric motor which drives a petrol-powered motor, electric vehicles use an electric motor to drive the wheels directly. The gasoline engine in the hybrid cars is no different from many four cylinder engines found in small sized sedans, thus combined with the electric assist from the motor the emissions are naturally lower. However, the production emissions quickly catch up to the numbers that are posted by gasoline powered cars in the same size family. With electric vehicles, however, the story is different. Because they use electric motors to drive the vehicle’s wheels, the amount of CO2 emissions is significantly lower than that of Hybrid vehicles. Yet they are not the most affordable cars on the road today. Nissan, Honda, Scion, Mitsubishi, Ford and Chevrolet making these cars readily available to the public for under 30,000 dollars. For the same amount of money, one could purchase a mid-size Honda Accord with majority of the available options present in the car. If one's funds are more limited than that, they could look into purchasing a brand new Volkswagen Golf or a Jetta for just around 24,000 dollars, with a turbo-diesel engine that will do right around 40 miles to the gallon.
This then brings us to the diesel car. Diesel cars of today can be easily converted to biodiesel, which runs on vegetable oil with the assistance of a converter. The conversion process is by no means complicated, and the engine’s structure and design do not have to be altered at all. Driving a diesel car on daily basis is equivalent to doing a favor to mother earth. According to the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York, “well-designed diesel engines with computer controls limit the smoke and pollutants to very low levels without the catalytic converters and complicated emissions reduction equipment necessary on gasoline engines” [4]. Diesel automobiles can have a range of up to 700 miles per tank. Even though the price of diesel fuel is almost the same as that of gasoline, a single tank of diesel fuel could last you twice the distance than the rivaling gasoline car within the same price range. Converting your engine to biodiesel will provide further gains in EPA while significantly reducing the already ultra-low emissions.
If you are not a fan of diesel for one reason or another, there are always natural gas vehicles. In the U.S., the only car manufacturer that offers NGVs is Honda. General Motors only recently announced their plans to release a natural gas vehicle by 2015. Since the engines are very similar in design to gasoline engines, the production process is not too different. This means that the emissions during production are just about the same, yet the total emissions are significantly lower due to the low amount of production of these engines from the factory. According to a Alternative Fuels Data Center of the United States Department of Energy, “natural gas emits approximately 6% to 11% lower levels of GHGs than gasoline throughout the fuel life cycle”[5]. The only drawback with natural gas vehicles is the capacity of the gas tanks. Car and Driver’s Michael Austin test drove the 2012 Honda Civic NGV. He noted that “single tank travel distances beyond 200 miles to be possible, but that was only when we knew a filling station was close enough to exploit the lower end of the fuel gauge without worry” [6](Austin 2012). Yet, if you plan on using within the city, this shouldn’t be an issue for you. Not to mention, natural gas is less expensive when compared to the gasoline sold at your local Chevron.
Throughout the progress of this rather lengthy post, I’ve provided more than enough sufficient statistical data in order to present my point: going from a gasoline powered car to a hybrid vehicle is not necessarily better for the environment, and in case of hybrid vehicles, it is slightly worse. One could argue that electric vehicles would be the next best choice, and the argument would be valid. Yet, one forgets the availability of natural gas, electric and bio-diesel vehicles which provide great fuel economy and produce as little emissions as certain hybrids. Not to mention, the cost of production of these cars to the environment is not much different from that of producing a gasoline powered car. By purchasing a hybrid car after reading this post, one would lie to themselves if they argued that they were purchasing it because they desire to preserve the environment.
References:
[1] “Effect of replacing conventional vehicles with hybrid vehicles” last modified July 8 2004, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0523.htm
[2] We must note that these numbers have significantly decreased as the hybrid technology evolved in the past nine years since this research was conducted.
[3] “Ricardo study demonstrates importance of whole life vehicle CO2 emissions” last modified June 8 2011, http://bit.ly/w4JG8T.
[4] “Diesel Engine Impact on Air Quality” last modified date unknown http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8572.html
[5] “Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions” last modified 23 October 2012 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/...emissions.html
[6] “2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas” last modified March 2012 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...as-test-review
Last edited by DaveGS4; 11-25-13 at 04:10 AM.
11-25-13, 01:37 AM
#3
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! That's a lot of crap put together...
Especially liked that one: "Driving a diesel car on daily basis is equivalent to doing a favor to mother earth."
Priceless!
Too bad, I have witnessed myself too many brand new diesel vehicles producing clouds of black smoke on the Autobahn. Not to mention the 5-10 years old ones.
Especially liked that one: "Driving a diesel car on daily basis is equivalent to doing a favor to mother earth."
Priceless!
Too bad, I have witnessed myself too many brand new diesel vehicles producing clouds of black smoke on the Autobahn. Not to mention the 5-10 years old ones.
11-25-13, 01:48 AM
#4
Moderator: LFA, Clubhouse
11-25-13, 11:23 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
These are the two basic hybrid types, but, of course, some offshoots have been developed, like the Lexus systems where you have multiple-electric motors both with the gas engine and at each rear wheel, and the older GM system where an elecgric motor simply stoopped and started the gas engine at idle shut-offs. That old GM system of course, could not be considered a true "hybrid".............simply a gas-engine shut-off for added economy.
And, recently, "Extended-Range", Plug-in" Hybrids have been developed (which, IMO, are generally overpriced) that are essentially semi-electric vehicles that, on a full battery charge, can go for 30 or 40 miles without the gas engine running. They are, of course, plugged in at night and recharged like true electrics, but don't have the same range limitation because the gas engine will run as needed to recharge the battery on the road (or, simply to keep itself warm and lubed if it hasn't run for awhile). They have expensive lithium-ion battery-packs, which cost more than the nickel-hydride batteries in conventional hybrids, but still, IMO, that doesn't necessarily justify their high sticker-prices.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-25-13 at 11:31 AM.
Trending Topics
11-25-13, 01:42 PM
#8
Nothing against Hybrids, I always take a GS450h to lunch. Splendid all around(er). But I need more performance from these to consider one. I've always felt it was a slap in the consumers face to buy a RX450h with 295 total system horsepower. Really.. You couldn't reach that magic 300 number? lol
11-25-13, 02:07 PM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
look at Infiniti with 360 from their hybrid Q50. WAY more power .
I have always read that the added price of the hybrid will only break even if the car is kept for 6-7 years. I dnt keep mine that long and I am also weary of the battery production process that I understand can be toxic and does create pollution . In the end I am sticking with gas engines until the technology is cheaper
I have always read that the added price of the hybrid will only break even if the car is kept for 6-7 years. I dnt keep mine that long and I am also weary of the battery production process that I understand can be toxic and does create pollution . In the end I am sticking with gas engines until the technology is cheaper
11-25-13, 02:56 PM
#10
look at Infiniti with 360 from their hybrid Q50. WAY more power .
I have always read that the added price of the hybrid will only break even if the car is kept for 6-7 years. I dnt keep mine that long and I am also weary of the battery production process that I understand can be toxic and does create pollution . In the end I am sticking with gas engines until the technology is cheaper
I have always read that the added price of the hybrid will only break even if the car is kept for 6-7 years. I dnt keep mine that long and I am also weary of the battery production process that I understand can be toxic and does create pollution . In the end I am sticking with gas engines until the technology is cheaper
11-25-13, 04:27 PM
#11
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "drives the electric motor" portion is an over-simplified expression, and it is meant to be so since the people reading the post on the blog might not be all that knowledgeable about cars in general.
11-25-13, 04:51 PM
#12
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 12,045
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes
on
42 Posts
Oh i misread the chart above at first. So this says that hybrids and battery powered cars are still cleaner even after taking into account the production emissions.
anyway, what we should really all do is invest in solar energy. I do not understand why we are not utilizing empty space on roof tops. Every roof top should be made useful, be it a living roof or solar panels. If we did, then the CO2 released during the life of a battery powered car would be confined only to production.
anyway, what we should really all do is invest in solar energy. I do not understand why we are not utilizing empty space on roof tops. Every roof top should be made useful, be it a living roof or solar panels. If we did, then the CO2 released during the life of a battery powered car would be confined only to production.
11-25-13, 07:20 PM
#13
Lexus Champion
You cannot add Hybrid Vehicle and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle numbers and say that "[t]his number is more than twice the emissions released by gasoline powered cars during their production". The numbers in the table and from such a study have been normalized: each category stands on its own and you can compare each category to each other category, but you cannot add the numbers from any 2 categories and compare it to only 1 other category.
Gasoline vehicle: 24 (lifetime emissions) +5.6 (production emissions) = 29.6 tonnes CO2
Hybrid vehicle: 21+6.5 = 27.5 tonnes CO2
Plug-in Hybrid vehicle: 19+6.7 = 25.7 tonnes CO2
Battery-Electric vehicle: 19+8.8 = 27.8 tonnes CO2
From this table, a standard gasoline vehicle may produce the least amount of CO2 during production of the components (5.6 tonnes) but still produces the MOST CO2 over the life of the vehicle, from initial production of its components to end of vehicle life.
By interpreting the data in the table correctly, if you purchase your vehicle by considering CO2 emissions, your best bet is to purchase a Plug-in Hybrid vehicle, not the Battery-Electric vehicle, which has a gigantic battery that consumes a lot of resources -- and emits much more CO2 -- during the production of its components (everything else being equal, that would be the battery).
I believe that you (or the author of the study you quote) are wrong about diesel engines. It is not completely correct that "well-designed diesel engines with computer controls limit the smoke and pollutants to very low levels without the catalytic converters and complicated emissions reduction equipment necessary on gasoline engines"; that is looking at one side of the story only. Because of lower fuel consumption compared to standard gasoline vehicles, diesel vehicles do produce less CO2.
But certain components of diesel emissions are known carcinogens (causes cancer). Other components of diesel emissions require different emission controls. Diesels require particulate filters to trap the soot. Some filters must be ocassionally removed and thrown away; others trap and then burn away the soot with the help of a catalyst. To reduce nitrogen oxides, larger diesel engines require the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction. SCR uses liquid urea, with the aid of a catalyst, to reduce nitrogen oxides (a component of smog) in a chemical reaction into nitrogen and water. The urea must have its own storage tank, which gasoline vehicles do not need. The urea is consumed in the chemical reaction so must be replaced ocassionally, again which is not needed on gasoline vehicles; if allowed to run empty the diesel engine may be prevented from running. Again, you do not have this problem with gasoline vehicles.
Gasoline vehicle: 24 (lifetime emissions) +5.6 (production emissions) = 29.6 tonnes CO2
Hybrid vehicle: 21+6.5 = 27.5 tonnes CO2
Plug-in Hybrid vehicle: 19+6.7 = 25.7 tonnes CO2
Battery-Electric vehicle: 19+8.8 = 27.8 tonnes CO2
From this table, a standard gasoline vehicle may produce the least amount of CO2 during production of the components (5.6 tonnes) but still produces the MOST CO2 over the life of the vehicle, from initial production of its components to end of vehicle life.
By interpreting the data in the table correctly, if you purchase your vehicle by considering CO2 emissions, your best bet is to purchase a Plug-in Hybrid vehicle, not the Battery-Electric vehicle, which has a gigantic battery that consumes a lot of resources -- and emits much more CO2 -- during the production of its components (everything else being equal, that would be the battery).
I believe that you (or the author of the study you quote) are wrong about diesel engines. It is not completely correct that "well-designed diesel engines with computer controls limit the smoke and pollutants to very low levels without the catalytic converters and complicated emissions reduction equipment necessary on gasoline engines"; that is looking at one side of the story only. Because of lower fuel consumption compared to standard gasoline vehicles, diesel vehicles do produce less CO2.
But certain components of diesel emissions are known carcinogens (causes cancer). Other components of diesel emissions require different emission controls. Diesels require particulate filters to trap the soot. Some filters must be ocassionally removed and thrown away; others trap and then burn away the soot with the help of a catalyst. To reduce nitrogen oxides, larger diesel engines require the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction. SCR uses liquid urea, with the aid of a catalyst, to reduce nitrogen oxides (a component of smog) in a chemical reaction into nitrogen and water. The urea must have its own storage tank, which gasoline vehicles do not need. The urea is consumed in the chemical reaction so must be replaced ocassionally, again which is not needed on gasoline vehicles; if allowed to run empty the diesel engine may be prevented from running. Again, you do not have this problem with gasoline vehicles.
11-25-13, 07:42 PM
#14
Pole Position
Sounds to me like an article written by a diesel apologist.
11-25-13, 08:06 PM
#15
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot add Hybrid Vehicle and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle numbers and say that "[t]his number is more than twice the emissions released by gasoline powered cars during their production". The numbers in the table and from such a study have been normalized: each category stands on its own and you can compare each category to each other category, but you cannot add the numbers from any 2 categories and compare it to only 1 other category.
Gasoline vehicle: 24 (lifetime emissions) +5.6 (production emissions) = 29.6 tonnes CO2
Hybrid vehicle: 21+6.5 = 27.5 tonnes CO2
Plug-in Hybrid vehicle: 19+6.7 = 25.7 tonnes CO2
Battery-Electric vehicle: 19+8.8 = 27.8 tonnes CO2
From this table, a standard gasoline vehicle may produce the least amount of CO2 during production of the components (5.6 tonnes) but still produces the MOST CO2 over the life of the vehicle, from initial production of its components to end of vehicle life.
By interpreting the data in the table correctly, if you purchase your vehicle by considering CO2 emissions, your best bet is to purchase a Plug-in Hybrid vehicle, not the Battery-Electric vehicle, which has a gigantic battery that consumes a lot of resources -- and emits much more CO2 -- during the production of its components (everything else being equal, that would be the battery).
I believe that you (or the author of the study you quote) are wrong about diesel engines. It is not completely correct that "well-designed diesel engines with computer controls limit the smoke and pollutants to very low levels without the catalytic converters and complicated emissions reduction equipment necessary on gasoline engines"; that is looking at one side of the story only. Because of lower fuel consumption compared to standard gasoline vehicles, diesel vehicles do produce less CO2.
But certain components of diesel emissions are known carcinogens (causes cancer). Other components of diesel emissions require different emission controls. Diesels require particulate filters to trap the soot. Some filters must be ocassionally removed and thrown away; others trap and then burn away the soot with the help of a catalyst. To reduce nitrogen oxides, larger diesel engines require the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction. SCR uses liquid urea, with the aid of a catalyst, to reduce nitrogen oxides (a component of smog) in a chemical reaction into nitrogen and water. The urea must have its own storage tank, which gasoline vehicles do not need. The urea is consumed in the chemical reaction so must be replaced ocassionally, again which is not needed on gasoline vehicles; if allowed to run empty the diesel engine may be prevented from running. Again, you do not have this problem with gasoline vehicles.
Gasoline vehicle: 24 (lifetime emissions) +5.6 (production emissions) = 29.6 tonnes CO2
Hybrid vehicle: 21+6.5 = 27.5 tonnes CO2
Plug-in Hybrid vehicle: 19+6.7 = 25.7 tonnes CO2
Battery-Electric vehicle: 19+8.8 = 27.8 tonnes CO2
From this table, a standard gasoline vehicle may produce the least amount of CO2 during production of the components (5.6 tonnes) but still produces the MOST CO2 over the life of the vehicle, from initial production of its components to end of vehicle life.
By interpreting the data in the table correctly, if you purchase your vehicle by considering CO2 emissions, your best bet is to purchase a Plug-in Hybrid vehicle, not the Battery-Electric vehicle, which has a gigantic battery that consumes a lot of resources -- and emits much more CO2 -- during the production of its components (everything else being equal, that would be the battery).
I believe that you (or the author of the study you quote) are wrong about diesel engines. It is not completely correct that "well-designed diesel engines with computer controls limit the smoke and pollutants to very low levels without the catalytic converters and complicated emissions reduction equipment necessary on gasoline engines"; that is looking at one side of the story only. Because of lower fuel consumption compared to standard gasoline vehicles, diesel vehicles do produce less CO2.
But certain components of diesel emissions are known carcinogens (causes cancer). Other components of diesel emissions require different emission controls. Diesels require particulate filters to trap the soot. Some filters must be ocassionally removed and thrown away; others trap and then burn away the soot with the help of a catalyst. To reduce nitrogen oxides, larger diesel engines require the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction. SCR uses liquid urea, with the aid of a catalyst, to reduce nitrogen oxides (a component of smog) in a chemical reaction into nitrogen and water. The urea must have its own storage tank, which gasoline vehicles do not need. The urea is consumed in the chemical reaction so must be replaced ocassionally, again which is not needed on gasoline vehicles; if allowed to run empty the diesel engine may be prevented from running. Again, you do not have this problem with gasoline vehicles.
SCR's are found in large engines (as you've stated as well), and not in an average golf tdi, thus that isn't something you worry about either.