Notices
All Other Vehicles Concepts and non-Toyotas...

Hummer greener than Prius? That's a good one!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 19, 2008 | 04:51 PM
  #1  
GetCaughtDead's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 716
From: Dulles, VA
Default Hummer greener than Prius? That's a good one!

We've all heard the accusations that the Prius isn't quite as green as it's made out to be. That's partly true, but to say that a Hummer is somehow greener? That's just silly. I read a great article on the matter this morning from slate.com's The Green Lantern column. Click the link to read the rest of the article. http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/

Originally Posted by The Green Lantern
Tank vs. Hybrid
Is it possible that a Hummer's better for the environment than a Prius is?
By Brendan I. Koerner
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008, at 7:39 AM ET

The Hummer-beats-the-Prius talking point began with this report (PDF) from CNW Marketing Research. The report, titled "Dust to Dust," was cited in a March 2007 editorial in the Recorder, a student newspaper at Central Connecticut State University. That editorial, in turn, was praised by Rush Limbaugh, thereby guaranteeing its eternal life in blog comments, online forums, and the musings of George Will.

The skeptics' basic argument is that the Prius' battery is irredeemably un-green, mostly because of its high nickel content and complex manufacturing process. As a result, "Dust to Dust" contends that a Prius will consume $3.25 worth of energy per mile over its cradle-to-grave lifetime. A Hummer H2, by contrast, will use $3.03 per mile and the Hummer H3 just $1.95.

Such a contrarian conclusion is manna to those who sneer at Prius owners as effete or snobbish. It's also unsubstantiated bunk. As numerous learned folks have pointed out, the 458-page "Dust to Dust" makes zero sense, and not just because it betrays its scientific shortcomings early on by referring to "gigajeulles" of energy. For starters, the report automatically penalizes the Prius by prorating all of Toyota's hybrid research-and-development costs across the relatively small number of Priuses on the road. New technologies obviously require massive upfront investment, so this puts the Prius deep in the energy hole right off the bat. (CNW Marketing defends this decision here.)

Second, "Dust to Dust" makes a gaggle of inexplicable assumptions, such as claiming that a Prius will last only 109,000 miles, well below the stated "industry straight average" of 178,739 miles—not to mention the whopping 379,000 miles ascribed to the Hummer H1. CNW says that Prius owners simply drive less than their peers, but it's impossible to tell where that data (as well as virtually everything else in the report) come from. In at least seven states, Toyota offers a 150,000-mile warranty on the Prius' hybrid components, including the battery—it's tough to fathom the company's actuaries agreeing to such a warranty if that 109,000-mile figure was correct. (More nutty assumptions are highlighted here.)

...

None of these critiques should obscure that fact that the Prius represents a step in the right direction—innovation designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions and that the market (abetted by tax breaks) seems to be rewarding. Will the car slow climate change all by its lonesome? Of course not, but no one has ever suggested as much. Will it soon be eclipsed by newer technologies? Quite likely, and quite hopefully. But attacking the Prius for not being perfect—especially with lame scuttlebutt masquerading as science—strikes the Lantern as dangerously inane.
Old Mar 19, 2008 | 05:13 PM
  #2  
draxcaliber's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,141
From: Maryland
Default

uhm...actually, hybrids are extremely bad for the environment for several reasons,

one, they take way more energy to manufacturur than the traditional internal combustion engines.

two, their bateries are made from nickel, and we all know how god nickel mining is for the environment.

three, those hybrid batteries with their nickel plates are extremely carcinogous.

so all that for just a slight increase in MPG?

and yet in europe, they have pure diesels that get 70 mpg, so stuff that in your hybrid high horse.
Old Mar 19, 2008 | 05:35 PM
  #3  
GetCaughtDead's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 716
From: Dulles, VA
Default

Originally Posted by draxcaliber
uhm...actually, hybrids are extremely bad for the environment for several reasons,

one, they take way more energy to manufacturur than the traditional internal combustion engines.

two, their bateries are made from nickel, and we all know how god nickel mining is for the environment.

three, those hybrid batteries with their nickel plates are extremely carcinogous.

so all that for just a slight increase in MPG?

and yet in europe, they have pure diesels that get 70 mpg, so stuff that in your hybrid high horse.
Don't tell me you didn't bother to read the rest of it. It's OK, I'll paste some more for you here.

Originally Posted by The Green Lantern
"Dust to Dust" also posits that the vast majority of a car's cradle-to-grave energy gets expended during production. That assertion runs contrary to virtually every other analysis of vehicular life cycles, including those conducted by MIT (PDF) and Argonne National Laboratory. ... The Lantern is, to say the least, unconvinced, especially since CNW refuses to reveal its methodology—about as bright a red flag as you could ever hope to see....

Another major part of the anti-Prius meme is that the car's battery uses 32 pounds of nickel, mined in Sudbury, Ontario. The skeptical e-mails often state that Sudbury is an environmental wasteland that resembles "a surrealistic scene from the depths of hell." That assertion might have been true about three decades ago, long before the Prius. Nickel mining is by no means a clean endeavor, but Sudbury's conditions have improved in recent years. On top of that, all cars contain nickel in their frames—the Hummer's frame, for example, has twice as much nickel as the Prius'. Also, nickel is 80 percent to 95 percent recoverable during the recycling process....

All that said, Toyota acknowledges that manufacturing a Prius is more energy intensive than making a nonhybrid car. Argonne's scientists estimate that producing a pound's worth of a hybrid car requires 38,650 British thermal units, 23 percent more than that required to build a pound of a traditional car. But the Prius' fuel savings can make up that difference rather quickly, at least compared with the average car, which gets a measly 22.9 miles per gallon.
And one more time for good measure...

Originally Posted by The Green Lantern
None of these critiques should obscure that fact that the Prius represents a step in the right direction—innovation designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions and that the market (abetted by tax breaks) seems to be rewarding. Will the car slow climate change all by its lonesome? Of course not, but no one has ever suggested as much. Will it soon be eclipsed by newer technologies? Quite likely, and quite hopefully. But attacking the Prius for not being perfect—especially with lame scuttlebutt masquerading as science—strikes the Lantern as dangerously inane.
The only arguement I can give you is your last point, in that Europe has been building far more efficient cars for years. It's a shame we're so behind the times.
Old Mar 19, 2008 | 05:47 PM
  #4  
greybox's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,300
From: Lake Oswego, OR
Default

There was a TDi VW golf a few months ago in VW Performance that was chipped and the turbo was redone and it still got great mileage but had 265hp (or so) and 450 ft pnds trq (crazy)-that should accelerate crazy fast.

I still hate the sounds and smell of diesels but they are getting to be a whole lot better.

The Prius is butt ugly too. Top gear did a report on it that is so funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_wKM...eature=related
Old Mar 19, 2008 | 05:51 PM
  #5  
CarbonXe's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
teamNJCT
Fresh Crew
SL Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,638
From: Parsippany, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by draxcaliber
uhm...actually, hybrids are extremely bad for the environment for several reasons,

one, they take way more energy to manufacturur than the traditional internal combustion engines.

two, their bateries are made from nickel, and we all know how god nickel mining is for the environment.

three, those hybrid batteries with their nickel plates are extremely carcinogous.

so all that for just a slight increase in MPG?

and yet in europe, they have pure diesels that get 70 mpg, so stuff that in your hybrid high horse.
RTFA.

Wait until the automotive industry gets their hands on Nano batteries. They will be the ultimate end to any fuel powered vehicle.
Old Mar 22, 2008 | 02:56 PM
  #6  
Dmitry82's Avatar
Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 49
Default

................
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
evolving_machine
Scion tC 2G Drivetrain & Power
17
Oct 21, 2023 01:16 PM
scsteven
Scion xB 2nd-Gen Aero & Exterior
3
Jan 25, 2015 01:06 AM
kingofthecrate
PPC: Wheels / Tires
0
Jan 21, 2015 09:28 PM
scionboxrox
Off-topic Cafe
0
Nov 24, 2014 06:38 PM
eric_m
Scion xA/xB 1st-Gen Drivetrain & Power
79
Mar 17, 2013 12:21 AM




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 PM.