Are Hybrid More Hazardous to The Environment Than Regular Cars?

Come on, 009, should we repeat 1,000 times? Please release the LF-A spy video post instead.

— SupraNeverBack (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 1:55:32 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I wrote better English papers when I was in college.

Half of this PDF also rehashes the same CNW "research" that showed a Hummer being more environmentally friendly than a Prius "over the entire lifespan" of the vehicles that has already been disproved.

— Will_ (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 2:05:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

Is it safe to infer that we would all be better off buying a hummer than a hybrid or can I conclude that this is another bunch of people that offer a plethora of problems with no solutions. Its still a fairly new technology when it comes to revolutionary changes. Who thinks the first 10 (or even 100 years) of the internal combustible engine didn't have its EXTREME shortcomings that undoubtedly negatively impacted the environment. There are a ton of other examples that I don't have the desire nor time to list.

Also, this news was posted several other times before and the title was clearly named to start another war on this site. Agent009, you do fairly good work and post decent and informative articles for the majority of the time but is it really necessary to start another war that only brings the uneducated and often ignorant masses to spew their opinions on things they know nothing about. This is not news and offers no alternative (except possibly that when considering saving $$ on gas mileage, turn away from hybrid technology and praise Hummer). Can we give credit where credit is due and observe the growth of hybrid technology to see what its true potential is before we throw in a doomsday report and call it a failure.

— justbrown (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 2:07:25 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

The ultimate solution would be a total environmental footprint from vehicle inception add that to estimated running impact and then estimated disposal impact to give an overall rating.

This rating system could then be used to assess the overall environmental impact of a vehicle.

The first two figures are already there to a degree, they simply need to quantified and then tallied to gain an overall figure. Disposal cost would rated according to current technologies. The variable in theory would alway show the worse impact and as methods improve the environmental impact would only be lessened.

Only then would we know the full impact of any road going vehicles.

Any better ideas out there?

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 2:25:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Agent009, you should have asked that question, at year of grace 2003. Because, according to this report you 're four years late to the party... :)
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf

— silent_power (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 2:26:25 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

This proves Toyota is only good at marketing a perception and not building good cars?

— kpaxx (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 2:48:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

TheSailor, you make a very good point as to why we should get rid of airbags and seat belts as well as hybrids ;)

*Most people on this website don't actually know what sarcasm is so I've provided a link below*

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

— justbrown (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 3:12:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

^lol.

I'm bookmarking your link.

— Will_ (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 3:30:18 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

good points, Sailor. 65% of nickel goes to stainless steel production. Toyota buys a small fraction of Sudbury steel for batteries. And how many tankers are needed to transport oil for Hummers? Much less I presume than the container ships needed to transport a bit of nickel. And how many nickel transporting ships capsize and spill their content over thousands of square miles?

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 4:03:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Hmmmmm.....

You obviously did not read my post closely, I was agreeing with you.

My point is that I also cannot think of one container ship that has capaized, while many oil tankers have. And yes, container ships are an efficient form of transport, transporting the nickel being miniscule compared to the amount of shipping that goes on daily. How did you not get that from what I said?

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 5:56:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Are serious? This paper released four years ago. Where is the marketing?

— silent_power (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 3:01:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

There you go again, 009.

Does anyone still believe you to be unbiased. You repeat the same claims over and over, copying the right wing Fox playbook. (If you repeat something enough times, it must be true.) CNW is the only source making these preposterous claims, and you just sit back and post them every once in a while to stir things up.

I tooka mere 5 seconds to search yesterday, to find a counter argument, and just chose the first one that pops up. It's thate asy to find sources debunking the CNW b.s. But of course, you are unwilling to find one credible source to back up CNW's ridiculous claims. Instead you just post the same crap, packaged in a different story.

THESE ARE LIES!!!!!!!!!!!

The assumptions that a Prius consumes more enrgy to build than a Hummer is the first lie, based on the idea that the Prius is a stand alone model, when in fact its technology is spread among many models, with more to come.

There is also the faulty assumption that the disposal is damaging to the environment, when everyone knows that there is a recycling program in place for the batteries. Meanwhile, once the batteries are recycled, you need only dispose of half the vehicle of a Hummer.

Also, as CNW proved yesteday, they know nothing about life expectancies, again basing their research on faulty assumptions. Priuses are lasting much longer than CNW "predicted."

Then there is another issue you refuse to accept, as does CNW. Most of the environmental damage of a car is done during the DRIVING phase, where the Prius, of course, excels.

I am quickly losing all respect for you, 009. The little snide anti-Toyota headlines are no longer an amusing quirk of this site. You are showing your true colors. I hope others are seeing through you as I am.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 3:18:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

Toyota is the "Green" company. They spend huge amounts of money for the environment.
Go check.
http://www.toyota.eu/01_Latest_News/index.aspx

— silent_power (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 3:20:50 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Are Hybrid Cars more hazardous to the environment than regular cars? The quick answer is "no". If you are worried about the battery, it can be recycled.

So what is the big deal? It all stems from a tiny marketing outfit in Oregon that tried to claim than the Hummer is better environmentally than the Prius. A BIG LIE. But Rush Limbaugh and the wannabees loved it. So, so sad.

I think you can look at at Hummer H2 and figure out for yourself that almost anything else is better for the environment.

If not, you are just unable to deal with reality.

***

— CoolCars (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 3:37:18 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Better ask which companies own their suppliers?!

— silent_power (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 4:02:58 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Sport the link you provide shows CO2 cars emissions in Europe. Not world total LCA activities.

— silent_power (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 4:16:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

My answer to all these questions is to just not worry about any of it until there is better evidence our CO2 production really has a significant impact on climate! In the mean time we all buy the cars that get our heart beating and right foot twitchy, so long as we can afford them and the gas for them! I think the people who want to stop global warming know better than anyone that they can't anyhow. It's just a big boondogle of sorts. If it is more effiency for purposes of energy independence I am all for it. If it is extra cost on my car to somehow keep it from exhaling CO2 I am not. May as well make me breath through some device that makes sure none of the CO2 I exhale gets added to the atmosphere in that case! Everyone else ready to start wearing their CO2 suppression masks?

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 5:47:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

"Greenhouse effect and global warming and such are now starting to renig on the idea that humans are causing the warming as more and more data from all sorts of research gets compiled." Cite that source please.

"Warming is basically just the warming of the artic and antartic zones. The tropic and subtropic tempertures won't change much at all" Cite that source please.

"The CO2 and warming thing is a theory and that is it." MOst of science is based on theories, theories that have nee tested over and over again, modeled, studies, analyzed. Global Warming theory may still be a theory, but so is much of what we understand in this world. There are few truths and laws in science.

"They claim a period of adjustment happens and then the CO2 levels normalize" Who are they? Come on, you can do better than that.

"but the media and IPCC want the public to think everything is well understood when it really isn't at all" A vast media conspiracy that benefits the environment over corporations? What world do you live in?

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 6/20/2007 7:46:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

To my knowledge, CNW Marketing Research has never released the full study including all their data and info on their methodology and assumptions. In other words, they're not interested in peer review, which is a rather unscientific way to release what purports to be a scientific study.

The CNW report is also contradicted by research from MIT, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Argonne National Laboratory according to this article http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html.

Regarding global warming and climate disruption, there is broad and deep scientific agreement on three basic points:

1. Global warming and climate disruption are happening.

2. Human activities are primarily if not entirely responsible.

3. The risks are grave enough to warrant action now to substantially reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.

How do I know? Because the preeminent scientific organizations in the world have said so publicly. Two prime examples:

"Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change," released 2 years ago by eleven national scientific academies from around the world including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

American Association for the Advancement of Science Board Statement on Climate Change, which was approved in December: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

— johnkurmann (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 12:39:20 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

jasaero, if you pick & choose the data you believe, or limit your source of information to your few favorites, then you don't learn a damn thing -- and then you can go through life claiming EVERYTHING is a theory, a mystery, or black magic. If you objectively listen to someone with another point of view and self-question your own assumptions, you might actually have a better understanding of complex issues.

Global warming, as any well-read scientist knows, is almost certainly accelerated by human activities. it's STUPID to hope that Siberia someday will become the breadbasket of the world, because if the polar ice caps melt, then vast portions of the inhabited world - including entire countries -- will be under water. Equatorial zones, already suffering from unpredictable weather extremes, are showing little evidence of improving crop yields. The Sahara Forest was clearcut into a desert, and humans have not been able to turn it into a productive piece of land. The Brazialian rainforest is now suffering the same fate, only at a faster rate. By far the worst years for hurricane damage has occurred in the last decade. The question is not whether humans are causing climate change, but how much and if it can be reversed. All of us can change our lifestyles to reverse our negative impacts locally as much as possible. Economists and business leaders, including giant corporations like General Electric -- and even conventional fuel producers like Shell and BP -- now believe that "going green" is the only way to sustain profitability in the future, and we must support leaders who can coordinate global activities toward sustainability. The human race must stop using more resources than it regrows/regenerates/reuses/recycles.

Put your head in the sand if change scares you, but the rest of us will try to clean up our planet before we exhaust its natural resources and completely pollute it. Part of that work must involve diversification of fuel and powertrain options. Cheers to Honda and Toyota for leading the way in providing consumers alternatives.

— moto (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 1:35:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

The biggest problem in the climate debate is that the economic implications of policy changes could be much worse than what might happen if policy is left alone. The human race has a very adept ability to adapt to changes anyhow. Why try and adapt to something that has yet to become a real problem and that we don't even know will ever be a real problem? The worse problem I have ever heard from climate change scare tacticians is the sea level rise. Even that would happen so slow it can't really be considered an extremely scary change. The worse theory is that it would throw us into another ice age earlier than the next one is expected. That would cause the most devistation of any sort of climate change. But we apparently really good at warming the planet so even that shouldn't last long right?

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 4:45:08 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Sudbury and CNW, what else is new?

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 11:50:42 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Sorry, but so many aspects of their methods and their assumptions are sloppy, incorrect, or both. I posted two critiques a few months ago, and that was months after the report first appeared.

One critique focused on their estimates of the "dust-to-dust" cost per mile. For most cars, it comes to over $20,000 per year. Sorry, but hardly anyone pays nearly that much to operate a car, even indirectly. And no one's heavily subsidizing the costs of car ownership, either.

In the second piece, I noted a couple of very weak assumptions by CNW. Among them, they divide all development costs by the number of cars that have been produced so far, not the total number that are likely to ever be produced, both past and future. As a result, cars that rely on new technology and/or new designs--like the Prius--have wildly inflated "costs."

Why didn't I post these critiques sooner? I didn't think anyone would take such an obviously shoddy report seriously.

In that, I was wrong.

Michael Karesh
TrueDelta

— mkaresh (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 7:06:44 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Here is the deal. The earth is going to be here even if we are not. We are not trying to save the Earth from us, we are trying to save it for us. But there really is no great tell all info on what the future is. Next week they might say that having sex is releasing CO2 from our bodys at 100 times the normal rate. Then what we are all suppose to stop doing that. Then think about everything that has CO2 in it.. thats everything. Something dies it releases CO2. Huge fire, its releasing CO2. Shoot a paintball gun guess what its uses. Most CO2. Its a very comnon gas. While everyone wants cleaner cars, what is being done about HVAC systems. Every home has one. I know people that have heaters that are 20 yrs old. And as long as they work they are not replacing them. So why is it, that everything that goes wrong with our air is a cars fault. They always say we need to have cleaner cars. But yet never talk about cleaning up the factorys, electical plants or even our homes.

— austintyson (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 10:15:48 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Oh forgot. IF you add up all the factorys shopping malls and houses they put more junk in the air than cars. So why are they only targeting cars? WHy not say, if you have a HVAC systems older than 10 yrs old it has to be replaced. Because people will complain that its to big of a cost.

— austintyson (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 10:19:53 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I just registered on this site, and low and behold, I read this article about the Hummer being more earth friendly than the Prius. Question: did I hit the wrong key-strokes and am now in the Twilight Zone? "Rod Stewart, Rod Stewart, come in, come in. Are you there, Rod? Over!!!

— shigley (View Profile)

Posted on 6/21/2007 11:28:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

The nickel in the batteries is nothing compared to the rare metals in the motors.
Plus all the copper in the power feeds.

I was very pro-hybrid in the 1980s when they were research items, but the problem is HOW the hybrid is implemented, not the concept.

The PROBLEM is that Toyota went after "lowest fuel consumption" in operation, rather than targeting a "green solution", which factors in more than fuel consumption.

For example, if Chevy were to put a big motor/generator connected to each front wheel of their full-size pickups, and use old-school lead-acid batteries (which we already have the technology to recycle), then you'd save have fuel than getting a Matrix or Corolla customer to buy a Prius instead.
And when i say "big motor", i mean one with common materials, not going with the exotic materials used in the HSE drive-train, which do save weight, which saves fuel, but kills people, plants, and animals in the 3rd world countries where the rare elements are mined and smelted.

— DieselRules (View Profile)

Posted on 6/24/2007 6:23:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

The European equivalent of the Sierra club rated vehicles based on "full lifecycle environmental impact".
Best family sedan:
The VW Passat TDI turbo-diesel.
They took into account everything, including factors like VW's use of water-based paints, which are non-toxic.
Toyota and many other automakers won't use those because they cost more (at least not until they are mandated by law).

Mercedes was the first automaker to mark every plastic part with information needed for sorting for recycling.
This did not help them sell cars.
But its an indication of a corporation looking beyond the bottom-line.

— DieselRules (View Profile)

Posted on 6/24/2007 6:31:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

According to the study, the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles while the Hummer costs $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.
"Toyota claims that not one has required a battery replacement due to malfunction or 'wearing out.' The only replacement batteries sold--at the retail price of $3000--have been for cars that were involved in accidents. Toyota further claims that the nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery packs used in all Prius models are expected to last the life of the car with very little to no degradation in power capability.

"According to Toyota, the life of the Prius battery pack is determined more by mileage than by time, and it has been tested to 180,000 miles. Supporting this are first- and second-generation Prius taxis in Canada that have reportedly traveled more than 200,000 miles without suffering any battery problems."

Source: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-batteries-none-the-worse-for-wear-cga.htm


"Toyota have lab data showing the Prius battery can do 290,000km of normal driving with absolutely no degradation of the battery’s performance. To give some real life examples, there is a Taxi driver from British Columbia, Jatinder Parhar, who has done over 410,000km in his Prius Taxi and has had to do nothing to his Prius other than standard servicing."

Source: http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/faq-prius


The study that claims Hummers were greener than Priuses was done by CNW Marketing Research. The study did not have any peer review and had no support from mainstream scientific papers. The results of the CNW Marketing Research firm contradict data from MIT and the Argonne National Laboratory (see the Pacific Institute paper).

According to Gleick from the Pacific Institute, "A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs."

See http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

The Prius taxi in Canada clocked 410,000km, but I don't know anyone who drives a car until 410,000km. When the RACV does analysis on car operating costs they use 15,000km per year as the number of kilometers done by the average driver. So if we assume that the Prius taxi in Canada is representative of all Priuses then a Prius should last you over 27 years (=410000/15000).

Also see

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

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=1

— norak (View Profile)

Posted on 6/25/2007 8:16:39 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1