Post by: Harold Tuttle on March 15, 2007, 03:51:09 PM
March 7, 2007
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate green car is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Priuss EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldnt be writing this article. It gets much worse.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the dead zone around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalists nightmare.
The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesnt end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Wait, I havent even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Priuss arch nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called Dust to Dust, the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
Post by: Sindawe on March 15, 2007, 04:26:41 PM
Post by: RocketMan on March 15, 2007, 04:29:42 PM
One of my neighbors just bought a new Prius, and the I can see the smug cloud forming already. Maybe I should print this out and tuck it under his windsheild wiper tonight. <Big Evil Grin>
<Big evil laugh!>
Post by: Declaration Day on March 15, 2007, 04:36:13 PM
45mpg? Bah. My Hyundai Accent has achieved up to 44mpg on the freeway, and was $10,500 new.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 15, 2007, 04:37:56 PM
1) Mileage
A hybrid is designed to be used in a city, where the vehicle undergoes frequent stops and moves at a low average speed. A petrol car is wasteful in such a regime, because the engine idles at every red light, while all the energy of braking is dissipated into heat. By contrast, a hybrid does not idle the petrol engine while braking involves transferring the energy into battery power. Notice that the hybrid has better mileage in a city than on the freeway.
Where the hybrid is nothing special is the freeway, because essentially constant speed is maintained for prolonged periods and so the hybrid scheme does not help. Moreover, the petrol engine has to lug around the batteries which are heavy.
2) Environmental damage in production
Batteries are indeed impactful. However, this is a one-time investment that has to be ballanced against many years of continuous service. Comparing the total impact will reveal the Hummer is worse due to the lower mileage.
3) Cost per mile
This is a closed box of a calculation and thus cannot be checked or refuted. Something to note though is the curious statement of 100,000 miles ceiling for the hybrid. Where does this come from? Is it just the battery life or is the entire car supposed to be scrapped? It sounds highly dubious, especially since economy cars, particularly Toyotas, are operated well beyond 200,000 miles.
Post by: Bigjake on March 15, 2007, 04:42:15 PM
My F250 now idles around the clock to compesate for whatever greenhouse gasses they miss.
Post by: Ben on March 15, 2007, 04:58:24 PM
Quote
Batteries are indeed impactful. However, this is a one-time investment that has to be ballanced against many years of continuous service.
Actually I'm not sure they'll be a one time impact. It appears the battery arrays need to be replaced every 5 years or so. I suppose we'll have to wait till enough Priuses (Priusi? What the hell is the plural of Prius?) reach 5 + years, but the concentrated HAZMAT created and disposed of at least twice over the average life of the vehicle could add up to a lot more pollution than what you'd get over the life of an equivalent sized gasoline vehicle.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 15, 2007, 05:23:34 PM
Quote
A petrol car is wasteful in such a regime
Never knew Cannoneer was a Limey. Over here, we call it "gasoline", even in the Deepest South.
My Suburban-owning stepson will love the printout of the above article, even if it is Greenpeace-derived.
Nobody's made mention of the replacement cost and environmental impact of disposing of those nickel-metal-hydride batteries after they've exceeded their useful life (see the 5-year comment by BenW). It's also why folks are hesitant to purchase used hybrids to date.
Post by: Sindawe on March 15, 2007, 06:22:41 PM
Quote
Nobody's made mention of the replacement cost and environmental impact of disposing of those nickel-metal-hydride batteries after they've exceeded their useful life (see the 5-year comment by BenW). It's also why folks are hesitant to purchase used hybrids to date.
Too true. A friends roommate inherited a Honda Insight hybrid from her father. The friend coughed up close to $3,000 for a new battery pack on the thing since she has no money and at that point in time no car to get to work to earn more money.
Post by: French G. on March 15, 2007, 06:23:44 PM
Post by: JimMarch on March 15, 2007, 08:26:32 PM
Series hybrids don't have dual-drive-systems. An internal combustion engine is used purely as a generator, which drives a modest battery pack, which drives an electric motor turning the rear wheels.
This setup is far simpler (in fact it's easy to homebrew) but doesn't accelerate as fast as the dual-drive setups unless you use a real monster of an electric motor. Doing so would add expense but wouldn't cost fuel efficiency.
The big fuel savings come by running the internal combustion motor at exactly it's perfect fuel/performance curve. It works OK with a gas engine but really comes into it's own with a diesel, which has a much narrower powerband. A typical semi-tractor redlines at between 1,800 and 2,100 rpm and hence needs 9 to 18 gears in order to function. Smaller diesels used in cars can be made with a somewhat wider powerband but once you go to a series hybrid, there's no need.
Diesel-electric submarines and locomotives are all series hybrid.
Post by: Northwoods on March 15, 2007, 09:00:35 PM
Post by: 280plus on March 16, 2007, 12:58:07 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on March 16, 2007, 04:31:45 AM
Post by: K Frame on March 16, 2007, 04:39:40 AM
Other than me, who really keeps a car for a decade these days?
Post by: Werewolf on March 16, 2007, 04:53:59 AM
I believe that both Honda and Toyota warranty the battery packs for 10 years, 100k miles.
Other than me, who really keeps a car for a decade these days?
10 years - not many but a lot of folks keep 'em for 100K+ miles which means that 10 years thing is just so much hot air coming out of the marketing departments of Honda and Toyota because that warranty is an either or deal.
Other than me, who really keeps a car for a decade these days?
Post by: MechAg94 on March 16, 2007, 05:11:26 AM
I am afraid the above is full of half-truths spun to an obvious bias to produce a factually abysmal article.
1) Mileage
A hybrid is designed to be used in a city, where the vehicle undergoes frequent stops and moves at a low average speed. A petrol car is wasteful in such a regime, because the engine idles at every red light, while all the energy of braking is dissipated into heat. By contrast, a hybrid does not idle the petrol engine while braking involves transferring the energy into battery power. Notice that the hybrid has better mileage in a city than on the freeway.
Where the hybrid is nothing special is the freeway, because essentially constant speed is maintained for prolonged periods and so the hybrid scheme does not help. Moreover, the petrol engine has to lug around the batteries which are heavy.
2) Environmental damage in production
Batteries are indeed impactful. However, this is a one-time investment that has to be ballanced against many years of continuous service. Comparing the total impact will reveal the Hummer is worse due to the lower mileage.
3) Cost per mile
This is a closed box of a calculation and thus cannot be checked or refuted. Something to note though is the curious statement of 100,000 miles ceiling for the hybrid. Where does this come from? Is it just the battery life or is the entire car supposed to be scrapped? It sounds highly dubious, especially since economy cars, particularly Toyotas, are operated well beyond 200,000 miles.
1. I don't know where you live, but in Houston, you cannot get around town without getting on the freeway and driving at least 60 or more MPH. Including some highway miles in the calculation is reasonable. Not to mention that a lot of those greenie types like to get out in the country on occasion. I used to commute about 35 or 40 miles in Houston. Half or more of my commute was at 60 MPH plus. The other half was slower and stop-n-go. 1) Mileage
A hybrid is designed to be used in a city, where the vehicle undergoes frequent stops and moves at a low average speed. A petrol car is wasteful in such a regime, because the engine idles at every red light, while all the energy of braking is dissipated into heat. By contrast, a hybrid does not idle the petrol engine while braking involves transferring the energy into battery power. Notice that the hybrid has better mileage in a city than on the freeway.
Where the hybrid is nothing special is the freeway, because essentially constant speed is maintained for prolonged periods and so the hybrid scheme does not help. Moreover, the petrol engine has to lug around the batteries which are heavy.
2) Environmental damage in production
Batteries are indeed impactful. However, this is a one-time investment that has to be ballanced against many years of continuous service. Comparing the total impact will reveal the Hummer is worse due to the lower mileage.
3) Cost per mile
This is a closed box of a calculation and thus cannot be checked or refuted. Something to note though is the curious statement of 100,000 miles ceiling for the hybrid. Where does this come from? Is it just the battery life or is the entire car supposed to be scrapped? It sounds highly dubious, especially since economy cars, particularly Toyotas, are operated well beyond 200,000 miles.
2. According to the article, they did account for the total environmental impact and the Hummer was less. Doesn't mean you buy a Hummer to save the environment, it only suggests that a fuel efficient gas/diesel only car might be a better choice today.
3. Yes, economy cars are driven beyond 100,000 miles. A Prius is not the average economy car though. As I said above, in today's market, the better environmental car might just be a 40+ MPG gas/diesel only car. Hopefully, that will change. The calculation appears to be total cost of the vehicle, fuel, maintenance over the life of the vehicle divided by the miles. One of those gas only cars with a long warranty and cheap price would likely beat the Prius in that calc. The technology for gas engines is mature. It will take some time for electric cars to become truly better.
What caught my eye more was the discussion of that plant in Canada. I thought only the US was the polluting country where evil corporations destroy the environment in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Where is Captain Planet when you need him?
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 16, 2007, 06:38:53 AM
Quote
A petrol car is wasteful in such a regime.
Never knew Cannoneer was a Limey. Over here, we call it "gasoline", even in the Deepest South.
Never knew Cannoneer was a Limey. Over here, we call it "gasoline", even in the Deepest South.
In certain cases I prefer British English to avoid confusion. Most people say "gas" when they mean "gasoline"; well, air, nitrogen, oxygen are also "gas" at normal conditions. Also, there is little "gassy" about "gasoline". Since the primary component is benzene, maybe that's what we should call it. "Petrol" is pretty clear. Also, hybrids are also known as "petro-electric cars", so a gasoline-only car makes sense to be called "petrol car".
In any case, Jim March is right about the new hybrids. A fuel-cell car would probably be even more efficient.
Post by: Art Eatman on March 16, 2007, 06:45:05 AM
Sorry, CAnnoneer, but that sort of environmental damage is unacceptable, to me. And it's no one-time event, given that most cars go through several owners before being scrapped. Used car lots, remember? You devolve from the world of low-mileage "Pre-owned" on down, finally, to "Honest Joe's No Down Payment" junkers at $25/week.
The cost per mile numbers are scary. I'd been at about $0.14 per mile on Lil Toy, my 1985 Toyota 4WD PU for its 290,000 miles. I just spent some $3,500 on a refurbishment, or 1.25 ¢ per mile added. So, for drill, call it some 16 cents per mile since new, total of all costs. But a buck-ninety-five for a stupid Hummer? Yikes! Three-some-odd for a silly little Prius? Estupido mejor!
I'd rather have a Civic.
Art
Post by: 280plus on March 16, 2007, 08:57:23 AM
Quote
Other than me, who really keeps a car for a decade these days?
I call attention to my 1990 Plymouth Acclaim. ~89,000 miles and my 1995 F-150 ~96,000 miles. Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on March 16, 2007, 11:20:18 AM
Yes, you should!
45mpg? Bah. My Hyundai Accent has achieved up to 44mpg on the freeway, and was $10,500 new.
Hey! Mine too! I have a 2007 GS, what do you have?
45mpg? Bah. My Hyundai Accent has achieved up to 44mpg on the freeway, and was $10,500 new.
Post by: crt360 on March 16, 2007, 11:56:11 AM
Post by: Declaration Day on March 16, 2007, 12:45:02 PM
Yes, you should!
45mpg? Bah. My Hyundai Accent has achieved up to 44mpg on the freeway, and was $10,500 new.
Hey! Mine too! I have a 2007 GS, what do you have?45mpg? Bah. My Hyundai Accent has achieved up to 44mpg on the freeway, and was $10,500 new.
Mine's an '01 GS, I bought it slightly used for $4,600. The Prius may get marginally better mileage, but at a much higher cost and much greater complexity.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 16, 2007, 12:46:58 PM
Quote
45mpg? Bah. My Hyundai Accent has achieved up to 44mpg on the freeway, and was $10,500 new.
Yeah, my 1.6L, 16-valve 2003 Accent did quite well on the Interstate between Florida and Wisconsin, too. I remember getting 38mpg at 80mph. My wife drove the return leg, and she throttled back to 65-70mph, which got her 42mpg.
We traded it in for a 2005 Elantra, 2.0L. Still good gas mileage, but not quite as thrifty as the Accent.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on March 16, 2007, 12:51:18 PM
Average works out to 28-31 depending on how I drive.
Post by: Brad Johnson on March 16, 2007, 01:03:54 PM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=3178
Brad
Post by: Art Eatman on March 18, 2007, 06:46:12 AM
But if the reason for a Prius is to reduce environmental impacts and reduce energy consumption, you either look at all impacts and energy uses, or ignore a big bunch of reality.
Leachate from mining of iron, copper or nickel does Bad Things. The Prius equals other small cars for steel and wire, but uses hellaciously more nickel.
I wish I knew more about the energy consumed in production of exotic batteries. It certainly takes more for processing nickel than it does lead.
Without regard for the first owner, the total cost of a Prius, seems to me, should include the second and third batteries as the car moves on through the chain of used-car owners. With a conventional engine, if you're rational about changing oil and filter and valve adjustment, and use distilled water in the radiator, 300K miles with no major repairs isn't difficult to achieve. I won't talk about auto-trans, though.
I dunno. I've done a whole bunch of wrench-bending and bought and sold a helluva lot of cars, these last fifty years. I'm always suspicious of "band wagons" about what's good.
Art
Post by: HiroProX on March 18, 2007, 07:57:43 PM
Quote
Batteries are indeed impactful. However, this is a one-time investment that has to be ballanced against many years of continuous service.
Actually I'm not sure they'll be a one time impact. It appears the battery arrays need to be replaced every 5 years or so. I suppose we'll have to wait till enough Priuses (Priusi? What the hell is the plural of Prius?) reach 5 + years, but the concentrated HAZMAT created and disposed of at least twice over the average life of the vehicle could add up to a lot more pollution than what you'd get over the life of an equivalent sized gasoline vehicle.
Nevermind that the cost of replacing such a high capacity battery pack will only add to the TCO. And having purchased large NiCad and NiMH battery packs before, the cost would nearly be on par with replacing the Hummer's engine at the 300,000 mile mark.
Post by: Tallpine on March 19, 2007, 09:46:53 PM
Quote
Other than me, who really keeps a car for a decade these days?
Well, one of our vehicles is 16 years old and the other is 31
Both are big hunks of American iron
I also have a Case tractor that was built in 1950.
Post by: Art Eatman on March 20, 2007, 06:05:02 AM
Hmmm. 1890-something Krag. 1900 Schutzen rifle. 1911 Luger. 1920s Mauser and Walther pistols. 1952 Model 70. 1970 Weatherby and 1970 Sako.
They all work just fine.
Post by: AJ Dual on March 20, 2007, 06:19:45 AM
Then I realized it was all just a marketing ploy.
I bet if you confronted all hybrid owners with the TCO and total energy investment in their production 90%+ would just go into denial, and of that, if you pressed them hard with the numbers, they'd fall back to a position of "It'll help in the long run, I'm helping drive new technology with my consumer dollars.."
GM is about to finally come out with a "series hybrid" instead of the "parallel hybrids" that are all the rage today.
Series hybrids don't have dual-drive-systems. An internal combustion engine is used purely as a generator, which drives a modest battery pack, which drives an electric motor turning the rear wheels.
This setup is far simpler (in fact it's easy to homebrew) but doesn't accelerate as fast as the dual-drive setups unless you use a real monster of an electric motor. Doing so would add expense but wouldn't cost fuel efficiency.
The big fuel savings come by running the internal combustion motor at exactly it's perfect fuel/performance curve. It works OK with a gas engine but really comes into it's own with a diesel, which has a much narrower powerband. A typical semi-tractor redlines at between 1,800 and 2,100 rpm and hence needs 9 to 18 gears in order to function. Smaller diesels used in cars can be made with a somewhat wider powerband but once you go to a series hybrid, there's no need.
Diesel-electric submarines and locomotives are all series hybrid.
Series hybrids don't have dual-drive-systems. An internal combustion engine is used purely as a generator, which drives a modest battery pack, which drives an electric motor turning the rear wheels.
This setup is far simpler (in fact it's easy to homebrew) but doesn't accelerate as fast as the dual-drive setups unless you use a real monster of an electric motor. Doing so would add expense but wouldn't cost fuel efficiency.
The big fuel savings come by running the internal combustion motor at exactly it's perfect fuel/performance curve. It works OK with a gas engine but really comes into it's own with a diesel, which has a much narrower powerband. A typical semi-tractor redlines at between 1,800 and 2,100 rpm and hence needs 9 to 18 gears in order to function. Smaller diesels used in cars can be made with a somewhat wider powerband but once you go to a series hybrid, there's no need.
Diesel-electric submarines and locomotives are all series hybrid.
Post by: Tallpine on March 20, 2007, 06:28:31 AM
9N Ford tractor from around 1950. 1954 Fiat-Allis road grader. 1978 Case 580C backhoe. 1980 GMC 9000 dumptruck. 1985 Toyota 4WD PU. 1994 Pontiac sedan.
Hmmm. 1890-something Krag. 1900 Schutzen rifle. 1911 Luger. 1920s Mauser and Walther pistols. 1952 Model 70. 1970 Weatherby and 1970 Sako.
They all work just fine.
Hmmm. 1890-something Krag. 1900 Schutzen rifle. 1911 Luger. 1920s Mauser and Walther pistols. 1952 Model 70. 1970 Weatherby and 1970 Sako.
They all work just fine.
And you bought all of those brand new when they were first made, right?
Post by: Strings on March 20, 2007, 10:42:36 AM
Post by: Ben on March 20, 2007, 01:22:39 PM
Post by: Art Eatman on March 20, 2007, 02:11:54 PM
Sorta like me. Art
Post by: tokugawa on March 25, 2007, 04:15:51 PM