Prius VS Hummer

[MDimitri]

Great Article, click on the link for the original: (Good tie in with PARAGON's Post: http://www.elcovaforums.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=10582)

Editorial & Commentary

March 7, 2007

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer


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 Prius’s 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 wouldn’t 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 environmentalist’s 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 doesn’t 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 haven’t 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 Prius’s 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.


Cheers!

[Boar-Ral]

I believe that this is a summary article regarding a previous study. We referred to the original study when contacted by CBC. They had heard of the study prior to that and were going to discuss it to an extent when the episode airs. Should shoot a few holes in the hybrid myths.

Ever seen the nickle mine they speak of in Ontario? It is as desolate as the article describes it.

[Boar-Ral]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Sorry, but if this is the CNW study then it's BS. They've clearly engaged in some untenable discussions.

My critique:

http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

I loved the statement, "Compared to the Prius, a hyper-pricey, gas-swilling Porsche Cayenne is allegedly less wasteful."

So because someone has the money to purchase a more expensive vehicle, they are hurting the environment. I fail to see the connection between vehicle cost and environmental impact. Based on that logic, purchasing a 20-year old Lada for $100 is more environmentally friendly than purchasing a hybrid.

Couple that with the statement, "Let?s assume these cars will be driven 12,000 miles per year. Then that Malibu costs $23,544 per year. Own two similarly mid-level cars? Then apparently you?re paying about $46,000 each year to buy them and keep them going. How can CNW issue a report with these numbers, and keep a straight face?" it becomes clear that you are confusing the environmental costs that this report produced with the cost to own these vehicles. This is a "dust to dust" comparison and is a measure of environmental impact, not what it costs to own and operate said vehicle. It takes into account the energy cost and environmental impact and combines them to create a lifetime cost and then divides it by the expected life expectancy of the vehicle. It is the cost of the vehicle on the environment, not of the owners' pocketbooks.

I am not claiming that the report is 100% accurate, but I think that your understanding of it is incorrect and is leading you to believe it is claiming something that it is not.

I will consider all factors when purchasing a vehicle, including environmental impact. That is why I am looking at "daily drivers" ranging from a VW Jetta to a Honda Civic to a Toyota Prius. Unfortunately, most environmentalists tend to take a hardline stance with blinders on and will not even consider something contrary to their beliefs. This is a shame, because they do bring many good points to the table, but when it nears a religious fervor, most people become uncomfortable and try to distance themselves from this.

[Huck BB62]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Sorry, but if this is the CNW study then it's BS. They've clearly engaged in some untenable discussions.

My critique:

http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

You're quoting yourself to prove your own point? Brilliant! (reminds me of the awkward Austin Powers moment "I'd like to introduce.... myself."

I think you're ignoring the main points of the above article. Sum total, the hybrids don't make sense. I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone that driving a 10mpg vehicle is the best way to handle things but by the same token, the hybrids aren't the answer for the above givens too. The fanaticism and piousness of the ignorant Pious drivers drives many people bonkers. Every time I see a Pious owner cooking down the highway in the fast lane at 80mph, I chuckle at their hypocrisy.

The hybrid scam is over, evidenced by the 0% financing to try to unload them.

Or just buy an H3, right size for many of us.

[Boar-Ral]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Where do you read environmental impact into these figures? They supposedly represent the sum total of the energy used to develop, manufacture, operate, and dispose of a vehicle, converted into a dollar figure based on the cost of energy.

But it does not indicate in any way that this is what an owner would be expected to pay per year. That is the only issue I have with your rebuttal, because it sounded like we should ignore the entire article because it suggested we pay such an outrageous amount of money per year, which is obviously false, so the article and research was false. But since that isn't what it is proposing, I thought that it should be mentioned.

[Prelector]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Where do you read environmental impact into these figures? They supposedly represent the sum total of the energy used to develop, manufacture, operate, and dispose of a vehicle, converted into a dollar figure based on the cost of energy.

The price of the Porsche is relevant because prices will reflect the amount of energy used to develop and manufacture a vehicle, which is the subject of the report. If you buy a low volume vehicle, the energy used to sustain the engineers and designers who developed the vehicle (one of the things allegedly measured by the CNW report) is divided over fewer units. Ditto a vehicle that requires many labor hours to manufacture. Both are true of the Porsche.

The environmental impact is in reference to hybrid owners statements that hybrids are better for the environment, because they use less energy. Based on the study, they don't use less energy, therefore they are LESS environmentally friendly. It's merely turning their own logic back on them...

As to your second point regarding developmental and manufacturing costs: I would disagree that the MSRP cost of a vehicle affects volume of sales. The Yugo was a very cheap vehicle, but didn't sell very much. (as an example only). I would agree though that units sold DOES affect the development and manufacturing costs as amortized in the study.

But, saying that just supports the study! The hybrid vehicles haven't had a large sales base yet, so all that development and manufacturing cost is divided across a comparitively small sales base, as compared to the other vehicles. Now, might these figures change as more hybrids are sold, and development of the technology continues? probably. But, that's in the future, not today. TODAY, the total cost of the vehicle is cheaper for a conventional combustion engine than for a hybrid "synergy" engine. That's what the report is showing.

I'm all for alternative energy technologies in vehicles, and I don't have a problem with initial technologies costing more, to fund future research... But don't tell me that your first generation Hybrid vehicle is better for the environment today, than my H3 is, and then bash me for my vehicle choice...

Finally, I don't see the point of bashing these folks for trying to put some perspective and research around the true numbers... how many Blogs have you done bashing the "Green" comments and arguements? For years, we've been "taking it" from the green zealots, suffering looks, gestures, and worse, because they fell for the "cult of gaia" BS, and are too mindless to do their own research. I, for one, am glad to see someone trying to put some facts and study into the "real picture".

[Alan06SUT]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I'm not bashing anyone for their vehicle choices.

I just get annoyed when people measure the quality of research based on whether it agrees with their point of view. This happens often, especially within big business and government, sometimes with disastrous results.

I see your point about how they might have allocated all the costs of developing hybrid technology to those hybrids already on the road. But, as you also note, this isn't a productive point of view, because these costs will clearly end up being spread across hundreds of thousands, even millions of future vehicles.

But even this cannot explain the findings of their research, for it does not explain how the "energy cost" of everyday cars are allegedly so high.

I don't disagree that looking at total energy cost could be informative. But CNW has clearly done a very poor job of it.

Your argument and the repiles expose your ignorance. The dust to dust cost is a total of all energy costs associated with the vehicle over its life cycle, not just the cost to the consumer. Keep driving your prius and feel good about how your are "saving the environment". What are you going to do with your batteries? We all know that gas is not the future source of energy. Economics will drive the transition to the next type of fuel. PERIOD. So wheter you drive a hummer or a prius, both will be dinosaurs within the next 25-50 years. And the price of gas, or the alternative fuel will drive the transition, and the speed of the transition, not a bunch of leaf lickers who didn't give a rats ass about pollution until the gas prices rose! Actually, you should be happy that gas prices are high because it gives viable alternatives a better shot at the market.