Hybrid Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage

[SUBMAN1]

I talked about this months ago, but here it is in print.

By the way, so far I have yet to see a technology outside of Hydrogen that is more friendly to the environment that good old gasoline. Sad to say though, hydrogen still remains as the only fuel source that can possibly cause less environmental damage than what we use today. Every other technology from Biofuel to Ethonol is much more destructive.

-S


March 7, 2007
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro

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.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

[Psycluded]

Buy a motorcycle. Best gas mileage available, and fun to boot.

[SUBMAN1]

Buy a motorcycle. Best gas mileage available, and fun to boot.

Safety - I find a motorcycle perfectly fine if there are no SUV's with cell phone addicted wife's around running their kiddies to soccer practice. I can't count how many times I have been run over by these idiots.

-S

[Camaero]

I love when stuff like this happens to those kind of people. They think anyone who drives something other than their little sissy car is pure evil and look.:nope:

Speaking of motorcycles, I really want a 60s Triumph!

[SUBMAN1]

I love when stuff like this happens to those kind of people. They think anyone who drives something other than their little sissy car is pure evil and look.:nope:

Speaking of motorcycles, I really want a 60s Triumph!

My father had a 6-'s Triumph. Some soccer mom had a red light but still turned in front of him. he flipped up and over her car, and to cut the story short, the hole that was made in his foot because of this accident still bothers him almost 50 years later. Hence what I write above.

-S

[Camaero]

Yeah, those cell phone soccer mom idiots are pretty dangerous to motorcycle riders. I always make sure to give anyone on a motorcycle plenty of room when I am driving near them. It is just common courtesy to be more cautious around someone on a bike.

I live in a pretty small area though, so the main thing you have to worry about are deer, which are quite deadly themselves.

[JSLTIGER]

I love when stuff like this happens to those kind of people. They think anyone who drives something other than their little sissy car is pure evil and look.:nope:

Speaking of motorcycles, I really want a 60s Triumph!
My father had a 6-'s Triumph. Some soccer mom had a red light but still turned in front of him. he flipped up and over her car, and to cut the story short, the hole that was made in his foot because of this accident still bothers him almost 50 years later. Hence what I write above.

-S
Kind of irrelevant, but there's a professor here who drives a 50s-60s'ish Triumph Convertible (I think it might be a 1960s TR-4).

[Hitman]

hydrogen still remains as the only fuel source

Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source. It is an energy storing method, and not the most efficient BTW. Since hydrogen is not attainable directly, it must be either got from water through electrolisis, or from natural gas. The energy needed for getting that hydrogen is way more than the one the hydrogen releases when burning. However, hydrogen is a way to store energy produced by non-continuous energy sources like wind or sun. The electricity generated by those sources can be used to get hydrogen from electrolisis and thus store the energy somehow.

[Letum]

Yup, Hydrogen is far from a green fuel unless it is split using green power sources. (wind, wave, nuclear solar etc).
Electric cars are more efficient than hydrogen, but don't always perform well due to heavy batteries.
Bio-fuel cars are in theory "carbon neutral" because they take carbon from the air to make the fuel, but they leave other pollutants in the air (NOx SO2 etc).
LPG cars are slightly less polluting than higher octane fuels, but not really "green".

All of these are less damaging than most traditional fuel cars, but none are ideal.
I use petrol in my motorbike, because I have to and it's cheep with 2 wheels.
I use LPG and occasionally petrol in my van because it is easy to get here and much cheaper.

I doubt I would make any changes to help the environment unless it was also of some benefit to me, but I would support any government initiatives to encourage greener transport.

[SUBMAN1]

hydrogen still remains as the only fuel source
Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source. It is an energy storing method, and not the most efficient BTW. Since hydrogen is not attainable directly, it must be either got from water through electrolisis, or from natural gas. The energy needed for getting that hydrogen is way more than the one the hydrogen releases when burning. However, hydrogen is a way to store energy produced by non-continuous energy sources like wind or sun. The electricity generated by those sources can be used to get hydrogen from electrolisis and thus store the energy somehow.

That is why the Icelanders have it figured out. Their pumping stations take water, and use solar energy to convert it. It is a win win for everyone!

[SUBMAN1]

Yup, Hydrogen is far from a green fuel unless it is split using green power sources. (wind, wave, nuclear solar etc).
Electric cars are more efficient than hydrogen, but don't always perform well due to heavy batteries.
Bio-fuel cars are in theory "carbon neutral" because they take carbon from the air to make the fuel, but they leave other pollutants in the air (NOx SO2 etc).
LPG cars are slightly less polluting than higher octane fuels, but not really "green".

All of these are less damaging than most traditional fuel cars, but none are ideal.
I use petrol in my motorbike, because I have to and it's cheep with 2 wheels.
I use LPG and occasionally petrol in my van because it is easy to get here and much cheaper.

I doubt I would make any changes to help the environment unless it was also of some benefit to me, but I would support any government initiatives to encourage greener transport.
You forget that Biofuel requires palm oil, so you have Indonesia getting down all their forests to make plantations to produce palm oil. For Ethonol, you can't grow enough corn for it to make much difference, and you take food from the plates of the poor to do it, and you get different pollutants thrown into the atmosphere, and you have less power output from it than it takes to convert it from the corn itself, causing even more pollutants!

So I state again, petrol is still the least polluting fuel possible until we go with the Icelanders route of solar power hydrogen fueling stations.

[OddjobXL]

As much as the Connecticut State University's student newspaper is considered the paper of record in this nation, and refering to people sincerely interested in environmental issues as "fanatics" is a sure sign of solid journalistic integrity, I'd be wary of instantly embracing this kind of story as the gospel truth. Here's a more balanced look at the situation.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/337qu7

[Letum]

So I state again, petrol is still the least polluting fuel possible until we go with the Icelanders route of solar power hydrogen fueling stations.

Despite not being 100% green, electric and hydrogen are still more E.F. than petrol, as is LPG. Neither are ideal tho.

[SUBMAN1]

So I state again, petrol is still the least polluting fuel possible until we go with the Icelanders route of solar power hydrogen fueling stations.
Despite not being 100% green, electric and hydrogen are still more E.F. than petrol, as is LPG. Neither are ideal tho.
Isn't that the truth. No power source, including the human body, is E.F.

Our one biggest problem is population - there are just too damn many of us, and we can be green the world over but still nothing we do will stop what is starting I think. As was stated on CNN a year back or so - You would not want to live here. Their point being is that the Earth can not clean up after more than 2 Billion people. What are we at now? almost 7? Nice. We are a dying planet anyway, and all our green tech is just slowling the inevitable.

Just my 2 cents on it.

-S

[Ostfriese]

The energy needed for getting that hydrogen is way more than the one the hydrogen releases when burning.

This goes for just any fuel. You'll never get the energy out that got in.

So I state again, petrol is still the least polluting fuel possible until we go with the Icelanders route of solar power hydrogen fueling stations.

Only if you dramatically limit your point of view. Carbondioxide causes far more damage than the products of burning hydrogen does, as well as spilling petrol and its derivates.
And I haven't even started about all those fools and idiots who waste huge amounts of petrol.

And you're wrong in term of producing ethanol as well. It doesn't necessarily require corn, wheat, rye or barley. You can use basically any biological material containing starch and/or sugars to produce alcohol. You wouldn't want to drink it (doesn't tase like vodka), but it's good enough as fuel.

[SUBMAN1]

Only if you dramatically limit your point of view. Carbondioxide causes far more damage than the products of burning hydrogen does, as well as spilling petrol and its derivates.
And I haven't even started about all those fools and idiots who waste huge amounts of petrol.

And you're wrong in term of producing ethanol as well. It doesn't necessarily require corn, wheat, rye or barley. You can use basically any biological material containing starch and/or sugars to produce alcohol. You wouldn't want to drink it (doesn't tase like vodka), but it's good enough as fuel.
As I stated - Hydrogen is the best fuel source in my opinion (if it ever catches on). Until that time, petrol is better than the environmental damage done by its alternatives - except hydrogen. Most people forget about the refining process and the damage the alternatives do and only worry about what comes out of the tailpipe. This is hiding half the facts.

-S

PS. Even electric is going to be powered by coal burning power plants that are probably one os the most polluting things on this planet, no matter how clea you try and make it. If people started building clean energy like nukes, then this wouldn't be so much of a problem.

[Ostfriese]

As I stated - Hydrogen is the best fuel source in my opinion (if it ever catches on). Until that time, petrol is better than the environmental damage done by its alternatives - except hydrogen. Most people forget about the refining process and the damage the alternatives do and only worry about what comes out of the tailpipe. This is hiding half the facts.

-S

Just as you forget the oil refining process ;) You're just doing the same thing

[SUBMAN1]

As I stated - Hydrogen is the best fuel source in my opinion (if it ever catches on). Until that time, petrol is better than the environmental damage done by its alternatives - except hydrogen. Most people forget about the refining process and the damage the alternatives do and only worry about what comes out of the tailpipe. This is hiding half the facts.

-S
Just as you forget the oil refining process ;) You're just doing the same thing

Refining oil is not anywhere near as damaging, and it is an exact science now. Nothing is wasted in its production either since its byproduct wastes are turned into plastics and even petrolium jelly.

-S

[Ostfriese]

Refining oil is not anywhere near as damaging, and it is an exact science now. Nothing is wasted in its production either since its byproduct wastes are turned into plastics and even petrolium jelly.

-S

You are wrong. There's a lot of stuff you can't use even after cracking longer carbohydrates, and any oil refinery produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way: This is my job - techical chemist in the oil refining business, so please don't tell me there's no damage cause by oil refining.

[SUBMAN1]

You are wrong. There's a lot of stuff you can't use even after cracking longer carbohydrates, and any oil refinery produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way: This is my job - techical chemist in the oil refining business, so please don't tell me there's no damage cause by oil refining.
I hear ya. I am not saying there is no damage, I am saying it is 'less' damaging than its alternatives. Carbon dioxide by the way is good for plant life. If you say tons and tons Carbon Monoxide, then there is a bigger problem. Also, CO2 is the same thing you expell every time you breath.

-S

[Ostfriese]

Carbon dioxide by the way is good for plant life.

This is, as well, too simplistic. A certain amount is needed, but not the huge amounts we produce. There IS a reason why the carbon dioxide amount in the atmosphere has dramatically increased over the past 50 years.
But I see where this leads (again). Some American armchair hero tells me that I don't know anything about the job I've been doing for years and that I get paid for quite well...:shifty:

[SUBMAN1]

Carbon dioxide by the way is good for plant life.
This is, as well, too simplistic. A certain amount is needed, but not the huge amounts we produce. There IS a reason why the carbon dioxide amount in the atmosphere has dramatically increased over the past 50 years.
But I see where this leads (again). Some American armchair hero tells me that I don't know anything about the job I've been doing for years and that I get paid for quite well...:shifty:
Man - I didn't say that! I am saying that what you are helping to produce is better than it's alternatives. Too much CO2 obvioulsy has negative effects because it is a greenhouse gas - we all know that. I am not going to attack you personally, and I bet you know a great deal more about refining petrol than I will ever know, but that still doesn't change the facts that it is a better alternative than something like Ethonol. Take 2 secondes to research negative effects of Ethonol for example, and it doesn't take long to find how it does more harm than good. Here is one example:

Ethanol may cause more smog, more deaths, study says

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Switching from gasoline to ethanol _ touted as a green alternative at the pump – may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog-related deaths, a new study says.


Nearly 200 more people would die yearly from respiratory problems if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020, the research concludes. Of course, the study author acknowledges that such a quick and monumental shift to plant-based fuels is next to impossible.


Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.


"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds. It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."


His study, based on a computer model, is published in Wednesday's online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology and adds to the messy debate over ethanol.


Farmers, politicians, industry leaders and environmentalists have clashed over just how much ethanol can be produced, how much land it would take to grow the crops to make it, and how much it would cost. They also disagree on the benefits of ethanol in cutting back fuel consumption and in fighting pollution, especially global warming gases.


In January, President Bush announced a push to reduce gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years by substituting alternative fuels, mainly ethanol. Scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that could mean about a 1 percent increase in smog.


Jacobson's study troubles some environmentalists, even those who work with him. Roland Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that ethanol, which cuts one of the key ingredients of smog and produces fewer greenhouse gases, is an important part of reducing all kinds of air pollution.


Jacobson's conclusion "is a provocative concept that is not workable," said Hwang, an engineer who used to work for California's state pollution control agency. "There's nothing in here that means we should throw away ethanol."


And Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, the largest Washington ethanol lobby group, said other research and real-life data show "ethanol is a greener fuel than gasoline."


But Jacobson found that depends on where you live, with ethanol worsening the ozone problem in most urban areas.


Based on computer models of pollution and air flow, Jacobson predicted that the increase in ozone _ and diseases it causes _ would be worst in areas where smog is already a serious problem: Los Angeles and the Northeast.


Most of those projected 200 deaths would be in Los Angeles, he says, and the only place where ozone would fall is the Southeast because of the unique blend of chemicals in the air and the heavy vegetation.


The science behind why ethanol might increase smog is complicated, but according to Jacobson, part of the explanation is that ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun.


Also, the ethanol produces longer-lasting chemicals that eventually turn into hydrocarbons that can travel farther. "You are really spreading out pollution over a larger area," he said.


And finally, while ethanol produces less nitrogen oxide, that can actually be a negative in some very smoggy places. When an area like Los Angeles reaches a certain high level of nitrogen oxide, that excess chemical begins eating up spare ozone, Jacobson said.


Hwang agreed that that is a "well-known effect."


While praising Jacobson as one of the top atmospheric chemists in the nation, Hwang said he had problems with some of Jacobson's assumptions, such as an entire switch to ethanol by 2020. Also, he said that the ozone difference that Jacobson finds is so small that it may be in the margin of error of calculations.


Jacobson is also ignoring that ethanol _ especially the kind made from cellulose, like switchgrass _ reduces greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. And global warming will increase smog and smog-related deaths, an international scientific panel just found this month, Hwang said.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sciencetech/homepage/article_1660665.php

Take it or leave it. Everything has its pluses and minuses. Petrol to me is so far the best fuel for our current day. Hydrogen is where i would like to see things go however - byproduct is water!

[Skybird]

Carbon dioxide by the way is good for plant life.

This is, as well, too simplistic. A certain amount is needed, but not the huge amounts we produce. There IS a reason why the carbon dioxide amount in the atmosphere has dramatically increased over the past 50 years.
But I see where this leads (again). Some American armchair hero tells me that I don't know anything about the job I've been doing for years and that I get paid for quite well...:shifty:
IPCC and other reports have made it clear that the benefit of CO2 for plants life is only within a relaitvely limited timeframe. After that, the negative consequences starts to eat up the initial positve gains, and soon reach extremely hurting levels.
The argument is old, often used by constant climate-change-deniers, and is often abused as a way to sneak in a quick score on the fly, nevertheless it is wrong and can be mistaken for the truth only if ignoring the longterm context.

I gave at least two according links in discussions this year. Obviously they were ignored.

[Ostfriese]

Man - I didn't say that! I am saying that what you are helping to produce is better than it's alternatives. Too much CO2 obvioulsy has negative effects because it is a greenhouse gas - we all know that. I am not going to attack you personally, and I bet you know a great deal more about refining petrol than I will ever know, but that still doesn't change the facts that it is a better alternative than something like Ethonol. Take 2 secondes to research negative effects of Ethonol for example, and it doesn't take long to find how it does more harm than good. Here is one example:


First of all: It's ethAnol, with an 'A' in the middle. And your quoted article writes a lot about products from incomplete burning processes. Yes, this happens to burning alcohol if there's not enough oxygen about (and this is the normal situation, as we have only some 20% oxygen in the air). But again: This happens to petrol just as well. It's actually even worse, as petrol contains longer chains of carbon (usually six to eight carbon atoms (hexane to octane) in petrol and even more in diesel fuel, while ethanol has only two carbon atoms). That's what you need catalytic converters for.

[SUBMAN1]

I found some numbers by the way:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/6929/gasvsethrr0.gif

[SUBMAN1]

First of all: It's ethAnol, with an 'A' in the middle. And your quoted article writes a lot about products from incomplete burning processes. Yes, this happens to burning alcohol if there's not enough oxygen about (and this is the normal situation, as we have only some 20% oxygen in the air). But again: This happens to petrol just as well. It's actually even worse, as petrol contains longer chains of carbon (usually six to eight carbon atoms (hexane to octane) in petrol and even more in diesel fuel, while ethanol has only two carbon atoms). That's what you need catalytic converters for.
Now that you've answered that, tell me how much energy is required to make 1 gallon of petrol vs. one gallon of ethanol? From what I understand, it takes more energy to make 1 gallon of ethanol than the energy released when it is used as a fuel.

-S

[Ostfriese]

Now that you've answered that, tell me how much energy is required to make 1 gallon of petrol vs. one gallon of ethanol? From what I understand, it takes more energy to make 1 gallon of ethanol than the energy released when it is used as a fuel.

-S

No, this is definitely wrong. You get ethanol by agitation and just need to distill it once in a simple process (requires some 85°C / 185°F). Petrol comes from crude oil, and you need to distill it in a more complicated way (fractional distillation), using higher temperatures as well. And we didn't even start about cracking processes, which requires high temperatures and/or low pressures.

And your table is VERY strange and I highly doubt the values it presents. Burning ethanol doesn't create nitrogen oxides - there is no nitrogen in ethanol, and ethanol doesn't burn hot enough to make nitrogen in the air react with oxygen.

[SUBMAN1]

No, this is definitely wrong. You get ethanol by agitation and just need to distill it once in a simple process (requires some 85°C / 185°F). Petrol comes from crude oil, and you need to distill it in a more complicated way (fractional distillation), using higher temperatures as well. And we didn't even start about cracking processes, which requires high temperatures and/or low pressures.

And your table is VERY strange and I highly doubt the values it presents. Burning ethanol doesn't create nitrogen oxides - there is no nitrogen in ethanol, and ethanol doesn't burn hot enough to make nitrogen in the air react with oxygen.

Interesting. I will have to research this more than. By the way, every site I come across state an increase in NOx as part of the burning process as one side effect, so it must be in there. I'll post a few here in a bit.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This is a problem:

Ethanol burns fossil fuels during harvesting of the crops and turning crops into ethanol. Ethanol has a higher octane rating (giving a car more power) but burns twice as fast as regular unleaded, which means cost-wise and emissions-wise there's little improvement.

Add in there the increased carbon from a gallon, and that doesn't look too good.

-S

[August]

This is a problem:

Ethanol burns fossil fuels during harvesting of the crops and turning crops into ethanol. Ethanol has a higher octane rating (giving a car more power) but burns twice as fast as regular unleaded, which means cost-wise and emissions-wise there's little improvement.
Add in there the increased carbon from a gallon, and that doesn't look too good.

-S

What if you add the fuel and environmental costs of drilling and pumping the oil out of the ground as well as the the costs to ship it by tanker half way around the world? How's it look then?

[SUBMAN1]

Here is another one that states an increase in ozone surrounding ethonol:

Could Ethanol Cars Be Worse Than Gasoline?


s one of our potential fuel replacements, Ethanol, actually worse for human health than petrol?


Follow on here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/219012/could_ethanol_cars_be_worse_than_gasoline.html

-S

[Heibges]

I think the real issue is just the total number of cars on the road. Until we reduce this it won't matter what the cars are powered by.

We should have been going balls to the wall on mass transportation for the last 30 years.

[XabbaRus]

So to sum up we're fu**ed. :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

So to sum up we're fu**ed. :rotfl:

Yep!

[NEON DEON]

You are wrong. There's a lot of stuff you can't use even after cracking longer carbohydrates, and any oil refinery produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way: This is my job - techical chemist in the oil refining business, so please don't tell me there's no damage cause by oil refining.
I hear ya. I am not saying there is no damage, I am saying it is 'less' damaging than its alternatives. Carbon dioxide by the way is good for plant life. If you say tons and tons Carbon Monoxide, then there is a bigger problem. Also, CO2 is the same thing you expell every time you breath.

-S

Dont worry about the Prius poluting the environment even by that silly articles standards.

In mid 2008 Toyota ditches the nickle based battery for lithium ion.

What I find hilarious about the article is the fact they expect a Hummer to last 3 times longer than a Toyota!

JD Power ratings for a 4 year old Prius Vs. a 4 year old Hummer

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-ratings/usedCompare.aspx?yr=2003&make=Toyota&model=Prius&fromModel=1

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-ratings/usedCompare.aspx?yr=2003&make=HUMMER&model=H2&fromModel=1



Overall quality: Prius 4.5 and Hummer 2

Mechanical Quality Prius 5 and Hummer 2

The article seemed to ignore the green ratings of the two.

Prius 86

Hummer 50

In short I find that article to have no basis in reality!

[SUBMAN1]

You are wrong. There's a lot of stuff you can't use even after cracking longer carbohydrates, and any oil refinery produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way: This is my job - techical chemist in the oil refining business, so please don't tell me there's no damage cause by oil refining.
I hear ya. I am not saying there is no damage, I am saying it is 'less' damaging than its alternatives. Carbon dioxide by the way is good for plant life. If you say tons and tons Carbon Monoxide, then there is a bigger problem. Also, CO2 is the same thing you expell every time you breath.

-S
Dont worry about the Prius poluting the environment even by that silly articles standards.

In mid 2008 Toyota ditches the nickle based battery for lithium ion.

What I find hilarious about the article is the fact they expect a Hummer to last 3 times longer than a Toyota!

JD Power ratings for a 4 year old Prius Vs. a 4 year old Hummer

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-ratings/usedCompare.aspx?yr=2003&make=Toyota&model=Prius&fromModel=1

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-ratings/usedCompare.aspx?yr=2003&make=HUMMER&model=H2&fromModel=1



Overall quality: Prius 4.5 and Hummer 2

Mechanical Quality Prius 5 and Hummer 2

The article seemed to ignore the green ratings of the two.

Prius 86

Hummer 50

In short I find that article to have no basis in reality!

Repair is not a factor. Everyone has issues with their vehicle, and I's assume a Hummer might have more if they off road it.

Lithium Ion is an even more environmentally unfriendly tech by the way. I wonder how one would dispose of a car full of batteries like this? Its nuts!.

-S

[Tchocky]

As much as the Connecticut State University's student newspaper is considered the paper of record in this nation, and refering to people sincerely interested in environmental issues as "fanatics" is a sure sign of solid journalistic integrity, I'd be wary of instantly embracing this kind of story as the gospel truth. Here's a more balanced look at the situation.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/337qu7


Good fun to read 'em side-by-side :p

[NEON DEON]

You are wrong. There's a lot of stuff you can't use even after cracking longer carbohydrates, and any oil refinery produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way: This is my job - techical chemist in the oil refining business, so please don't tell me there's no damage cause by oil refining.
I hear ya. I am not saying there is no damage, I am saying it is 'less' damaging than its alternatives. Carbon dioxide by the way is good for plant life. If you say tons and tons Carbon Monoxide, then there is a bigger problem. Also, CO2 is the same thing you expell every time you breath.

-S
Dont worry about the Prius poluting the environment even by that silly articles standards.

In mid 2008 Toyota ditches the nickle based battery for lithium ion.

What I find hilarious about the article is the fact they expect a Hummer to last 3 times longer than a Toyota!

JD Power ratings for a 4 year old Prius Vs. a 4 year old Hummer

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-ratings/usedCompare.aspx?yr=2003&make=Toyota&model=Prius&fromModel=1

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-ratings/usedCompare.aspx?yr=2003&make=HUMMER&model=H2&fromModel=1



Overall quality: Prius 4.5 and Hummer 2

Mechanical Quality Prius 5 and Hummer 2

The article seemed to ignore the green ratings of the two.

Prius 86

Hummer 50

In short I find that article to have no basis in reality!

Repair is not a factor. Everyone has issues with their vehicle, and I's assume a Hummer might have more if they off road it.

Lithium Ion is an even more environmentally unfriendly tech by the way. I wonder how one would dispose of a car full of batteries like this? Its nuts!.

-S

Whats nuts is to ignore the fact that the toyota has a higher eco rating and quaility rating and some how assume that the lower quality Hummer will last 3 times longer than the Toyota.

Lithium batteries produce less strain on the environment,

Lithium Ion batteries have less of an impact than lead acid batteries, nickle-cadmium, and nimh batteries.

http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/lce2006/010.pdf

"Looking at the global results, the following environmental ranking is obtained (decreasing environmental impact): nickel-cadmium, lead-acid, nickel-metal hydride, lithium-ion and sodium-nickel chloride. Globally three battery technologies (lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride) have very comparable environmental impacts. It can consequently be stated that, taking the sensitivity analysis into account, these technologies have a higher environmental impact than the lithium-ion and the sodium nickel chloride batteries."

Cost of operating a Prius at 20 K miles a year VS. the HUMMER.

Prius: 41 cents a mile.

Hummer: 64 cents a mile.

http://autos.yahoo.com/toyota_prius_4_door_liftback-price/;_ylt=AuPnrxa2SlqnV6AiKBc0yCkSjdEF

http://autos.yahoo.com/hummer_h3_suv_base-price/;_ylt=AuPnrxa2SlqnV6AiKBc0yCkrzNAF?miles=20&exp=A

[fatty]

This is a problem:

Ethanol burns fossil fuels during harvesting of the crops and turning crops into ethanol. Ethanol has a higher octane rating (giving a car more power) but burns twice as fast as regular unleaded, which means cost-wise and emissions-wise there's little improvement.
Add in there the increased carbon from a gallon, and that doesn't look too good.

-S

What if you add the fuel and environmental costs of drilling and pumping the oil out of the ground as well as the the costs to ship it by tanker half way around the world? How's it look then?

Yeah, there's really an endless chain of costs here which make it impossible to calculate the amount of "energy" that goes into the production of a car as the article attempts to do near the end. You point out the tanker - so what kind of energy went into building the tanker? What about building the shipyard? What about the construction vehicles that built the shipyard? Seems to me like the dollar values the author provides are just arbitrary.

I would also be interested to know what kind of environmental damage is caused by offroading Hummer drivers :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Yeah, there's really an endless chain of costs here which make it impossible to calculate the amount of "energy" that goes into the production of a car as the article attempts to do near the end. You point out the tanker - so what kind of energy went into building the tanker? What about building the shipyard? What about the construction vehicles that built the shipyard? Seems to me like the dollar values the author provides are just arbitrary.

I would also be interested to know what kind of environmental damage is caused by offroading Hummer drivers :hmm:
I guess you must define that first. An example - The tanker will still exist whether you build the car or not, so I don't think that would be in the picture at all.

-S

[kakemann]

Cheers to enviromental friendly cars! :sunny:

[fatty]

Yeah, there's really an endless chain of costs here which make it impossible to calculate the amount of "energy" that goes into the production of a car as the article attempts to do near the end. You point out the tanker - so what kind of energy went into building the tanker? What about building the shipyard? What about the construction vehicles that built the shipyard? Seems to me like the dollar values the author provides are just arbitrary.

I would also be interested to know what kind of environmental damage is caused by offroading Hummer drivers :hmm:
I guess you must define that first. An example - The tanker will still exist whether you build the car or not, so I don't think that would be in the picture at all.

-S

Same could be said for the factory producing the nickel.

[SUBMAN1]

Whats nuts is to ignore the fact that the toyota has a higher eco rating and quaility rating and some how assume that the lower quality Hummer will last 3 times longer than the Toyota.

Lithium batteries produce less strain on the environment,

Lithium Ion batteries have less of an impact than lead acid batteries, nickle-cadmium, and nimh batteries.

http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/lce2006/010.pdf

"Looking at the global results, the following environmental ranking is obtained (decreasing environmental impact): nickel-cadmium, lead-acid, nickel-metal hydride, lithium-ion and sodium-nickel chloride. Globally three battery technologies (lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride) have very comparable environmental impacts. It can consequently be stated that, taking the sensitivity analysis into account, these technologies have a higher environmental impact than the lithium-ion and the sodium nickel chloride batteries."

Cost of operating a Prius at 20 K miles a year VS. the HUMMER.

Prius: 41 cents a mile.

Hummer: 64 cents a mile.

http://autos.yahoo.com/toyota_prius_4_door_liftback-price/;_ylt=AuPnrxa2SlqnV6AiKBc0yCkSjdEF

http://autos.yahoo.com/hummer_h3_suv_base-price/;_ylt=AuPnrxa2SlqnV6AiKBc0yCkrzNAF?miles=20&exp=A
Good find. :up: i will read that batt article since I was always told the opposite due to the chemicals involved with the Lithium. Give me a day to absorb it.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

be said for the factory producing the nickel.

To a point since its main customer is that type of particular car.

[SUBMAN1]

Found a picture of Toyotas battery plant. Its ugly. Let it be known that this is a Toyota main customer plant. Of course it has been around for a century to fill arguments above. So the question is, would it be any different if Toyota had not entered the picture? The article below suggest Toyota is the responsible party, but I guess that is up for debate.

-S

Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/11/nickelmine181106_468x309.jpg

The 'green-living' Toyota Prius has become the ultimate statement for those seeking to stress their commitment to the environment.


However, the environment-saving credentials of the cars are seriously undermined by the disclosure that one of the car's essential components is produced at a factory that has created devastation likened to the arid environment of the moon.


So many plants and trees around the factory at Sudbury in Ontario, Canada, have died that astronauts from Nasa practised driving moon buggies on the outskirts of the city because it was considered the closest thing on earth to the rocky lunar landscape.

Unlike normal cars, hybrids such as the Prius, whose proud owners include Gwyneth Paltrow, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts and ex-Tory leader Michael Howard, are powered by a battery that contains nickel - as well as a traditional petrol engine.


Toyota gets the metal from a Canadian company whose smelting facility at Sudbury has spewed sulphur dioxide into the air for more than a century.


The car giant buys about 1,000 tons a year from the plant, which is owned by Inco, one of the world's largest nickel-mining companies.


Fumes emerging from the factory are so poisonous that they have destroyed vegetation in the surrounding countryside, turning the once-beautiful landscape into the bare, rocky terrain astronauts might expect to find in outer space.


Although efforts have been made in recent years to reduce emissions from the plant's 1,250ft chimney - dubbed the Superstack - campaigners say the factory is still respon-sible for some of the worst pollution in North America.


David Martin, energy co-ordinator of Greenpeace Canada, said: "The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside.
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute the pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout right across northern Ontario. Things improved in the Nineties but the plant is still responsible for large-scale emissions of sulphur dioxide.


"Sudbury remains a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high."


Once the nickel is smelted it is sent 10,000 miles on a container ship journey which in itself consumes vast quantities of fuel and energy.


First it is shipped to Europe's biggest nickel refinery at Clydach near Swansea, South Wales. From there it is transported to the Chinese cities of Dalian and Shenyang to be turned into a lightweight substance called nickel foam.


The final stage of the manufacturing process takes place in Japan where the Prius batteries are made.


Toyota produced nearly 180,000 Prius cars last year, some 4,000 of which were sold in Britain. Last week 14 MPs from all parties claimed they had exchanged their petrol-guzzling vehicles for a Prius or similar hybrid.


But some experts doubt whether the Prius even wins the argument over fuel consumption.


Robert Fowler, of the Battery Vehicle Association, said: "It is questionable whether it does any more miles to the gallon than a good diesel.


"The hybrid system has a very small battery so most of the time it's operating as a petrol car, particularly out of town and above 30mph."


A Toyota spokesman said last night: "I cannot confirm the source of the nickel used in the Prius battery. It is true there is a slight increase in the energy required to produce the materials for the car."

[August]

This is the basic question:

Robert Fowler, of the Battery Vehicle Association, said: "It is questionable whether it does any more miles to the gallon than a good diesel.

"The hybrid system has a very small battery so most of the time it's operating as a petrol car, particularly out of town and above 30mph."

I guess if you just drive it in the city there are some energy savings over a standard vehicle though even that is hard to believe with all the electronic gizmos they put in it.

But that is only a very small percentage of the type of driving that people do, especially in a huge spread out country like the US, where it's quite common to have an hour or more commute to work. Heck even in the city 30mph is pretty slow, at least in any of the ones i've driven around during the past 30 years i've held my license.

I've yet to hear of any technology that will replace the gasoline automobile for the type of mobility Americans require without enormous and damaging changes to their lifestyle, and that includes (so far at least) the hybrid car.

[NEON DEON]

Subman,

INCOs main customer is who ever needs metals for manufacturing.

Including staineless steel manufactures.

TOYOTA DOES NOT HAVE A BATTERY PLANT!

One more time.

Toyota will switch to lithium Ion batteries in 2008.

LEAD

NICKLE

LEAD

NICKLE


Hmmm. :hmm:

not really a tough choice.

I am going to ask a rhetorical question.

What are all those non hybrid car batteries made of that are not hybrids?

"Standard car batteries are lead-acid batteries. Each battery usually has 6 cells which alternate positive and negative. The negative cells are connected to the negative terminal and the positive cells to the positive terminal. Each cell contains a plate made up of lead and lead oxide. The plates are submerged in an electrolyte solution which is a combination of water and sulphuric acid. This allows a chemical reaction to take place which produces the electricity due to differences in electrical potential. The lead in batteries is what makes them so heavy."

Please tell me how nickle is worse than lead?

And another thing!

All that Sudbury waste land stuff happened to the land around Sudbury before 1972!

The Prius did not even exist then.

BTW here is a little polution blurb on sudbury from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack

"The structure was built to disperse sulphur gases and other byproducts of the smelting process away from the city itself. As a result, these gases can be detected in the atmosphere around Greater Sudbury in a 150 mile radius of the Inco plant. Prior to the construction of the Superstack, the waste gases caused severe ecological damage in the area around Sudbury. This included an almost total loss of native vegetation in some areas, giving the city a not-entirely deserved reputation as a barren rocky wasteland."


I believe you have been snookered mate.:yep: :yep: :yep:

What is the next thread going to be?

Mercury insurance is being run by aliens from the planet mercury!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Letum]

What is the next thread going to be?


Take your pick.....

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

[SUBMAN1]

...

Toyota will switch to lithium Ion batteries in 2008.



So they say. Until that happens, it doesn't really matter. One big problem with LIon batteries are their voltage restrictions. I wonder how they plan to build a reliable car around that?

And until a manufacturer does something, I take every big plan they have with a grain of salt.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Found a website that spells out the details on Lithium Ion. I wonder how the car manufacturers will expect to deal with the 'aging' of Lithium Ion? With all the latops that went up in smoke too due to Lithium Ion use (And at least one commercial aircraft - an MD-11 up in smoke I believe), I am not too sure I want a Litium based battery in my car!

ANyway, here from the horses mouth is the details on Lithium Ion:

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-5.htm

-S

[Platapus]

Such hate against the Prius.

If you don't like the Prius don't buy one
If you do like the Prius then buy one

I like my Prius, but even at work many people seem to feel obligated to put the Prius down.

No one is forcing anyone to buy a Prius and there are many people who just don't like the Prius.

Can't we all just get a long?

I do wish I could download a Submarine mod for my Prius where the car would well me "batteries down to 80%" and "Charging batteries" snicker

[SUBMAN1]

Such hate against the Prius.

If you don't like the Prius don't buy one
If you do like the Prius then buy one

I like my Prius, but even at work many people seem to feel obligated to put the Prius down.

No one is forcing anyone to buy a Prius and there are many people who just don't like the Prius.

Can't we all just get a long?

I do wish I could download a Submarine mod for my Prius where the car would well me "batteries down to 80%" and "Charging batteries" snicker

QUick question for the Prius owner - How long have you had it? And #2, are you seeing any sort of reduction in the battery capacity due to aging?

[Torpedo Fodder]

I like my Prius, but even at work many people seem to feel obligated to put the Prius down.
This aspect is hardly your fault, since you yourself recognize that the Prius (or other hybrids for that matter) isn't necessarly for everyone, but there are some Prius owners (especially the celebrity owners) who put people down who don't drive Priuses. It didn't earn the nickname "Toyota Pious" for nothing. Sure, it's not fair to the Prius owners who don't act that way, but unfortuantely it only takes a few miscreants to ruin it for everyone.

I may not ever own a Prius, but one car I do find interesting is that Chevrolet Volt concept that GM revealed recently, and seem intent on turning into a production car. Unlike the Prius, it will actually be able to move at it's full range of speeds on electric power alone (since the gas motor isn't actually conected to the wheels, it only turns a generator that recharges the batteries) up to 60-70km on a full charge, and it it will supposed be able to recharge in 6.5 hours from a home outlet. If GM can bring it to production and make it work as advertized, I may just buy one when it comes time to replace my current ride.

[NEON DEON]

The 2007 Prius has an 8 year 150,000 mile warranty on the battery here in California.

Since the Government has classified it a SULEV. (90 % cleaner than the average new car) you can drive in the carpool lane anytime you want. They even give you little yellow stickers so CHIPS wont bother you.

The new 2008 or 2009 Prius (not sure how late in 2008 the car will be ready) will get over 100 miles per gallon. Now, if you think Toyota, one of the highest quality car manufacturers on the planet, is going to drop the ball then I suggest you stay inside for the rest of your life because you might get hit by a meteorite.

And for all thoes out there that think electric cars have no performance

Take a look at this video

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/11/30/la-times-dan-neil-gushes-over-tesla-roadster/

The future is electric.

BTW.

The Teslev uses Lithium Ion batteries.

[moose1am]

The author of this article is very biased. Initial cost will have nothing to do with paying $4.00 and up for a gallon of gas in the future.

What kind of gas mileage will a hummer get? Zilch compared to any of the hybrid cars on the market these days and into the future.

Nickle is used to make chrome. So how much nickle is mined to put a chrome bumper on those off road hummers.

We could look at the total environmental cost of making anything in this world. The cost of mining the land to recover coal to run the boilers that heat the water that turns the turbines that produces the energy or electricity to run the lights and other equipment in any auto plant in the world. Unless you are using hydro electric but then you need to figure in the costs to build the hydro plant. And then you have to figure in the gas used to get the people to the plant so that they can build the cars. And then the cost to build the highways for them to use to get to the plant. And the cost to feed the workers so that the have the energy to do the work at the plant. And the cost to house those same workers and their families.

This author only looks at a very small piece of the total picture and then loudly and biasly proclaims his conclusion.

I say he conclusion is HOGWASH. The guy reminds me of how some people take a few out of context to make a conclusion. Sorry but I don't buy that cow!

Look at the lifetime of a prius. Well they have not been on the market that long to really know how long they are going to last as a whole.

Most gas is used in town driving where you are constantly stopping and starting again. Highway mileage is much better if you are maintaining a constant speed for long periods of time.

I do agree with the subman in that Hydrogen is the future. It would be an ideal energy source. All we need to do is improve the solar cell collection effeciency above the current 10% to use the sun to spilt the water molecule to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The only pollution that comes from buring hydrogen is WATER VAPOR.

[SUBMAN1]

The 2007 Prius has an 8 year 150,000 mile warranty on the battery here in California.

Since the Government has classified it a SULEV. (90 % cleaner than the average new car) you can drive in the carpool lane anytime you want. They even give you little yellow stickers so CHIPS wont bother you.

The new 2008 or 2009 Prius (not sure how late in 2008 the car will be ready) will get over 100 miles per gallon. Now, if you think Toyota, one of the highest quality car manufacturers on the planet, is going to drop the ball then I suggest you stay inside for the rest of your life because you might get hit by a meteorite.

And for all thoes out there that think electric cars have no performance

Take a look at this video

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/11/30/la-times-dan-neil-gushes-over-tesla-roadster/

The future is electric.

BTW.

The Teslev uses Lithium Ion batteries.
Lithium Ion scares me to death as a car battery. THis is what I am dealing with this morning since I have many of these Acer branded laptops that have Sony batteries in them, so don't tell me this is a good idea to put into a car:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7067

[tycho102]

The problem with hydrogen is transportation (OMFG! PUN! PUN!).

If you have *any* seals, at all, hydrogen is going to leak. I don't know how Iceland gets around this, other than the fact they are a tiny little nation. Pumping hydrogen +400km just doesn't work well, whether you're using pipes or tanks. To get around this, the hydrogen needs to be made "on site" and stored for as little time as possible. This is pretty simple to achieve -- people make an appointment to refuel 1-2 hours before they need to. Inconvienent but possible.


Now, that's for liquid or gasseous hydrogen. Talk about alcohols or bonded-substrates, and the losses aren't nearly as bad. This is where a "hydrogen economy" is currently being buggered. You've got to store the hydrogen and barring fairly large quantities of platinum, the volumetric energy-density just isn't great enough to offset air-resistance, not even in consideration of what it takes to make a refueling facility usable to people.

Nuclear power and hydrogen are the answer, but it's the storage and transportation of the hydrogen that needs work.

[SUBMAN1]

The problem with hydrogen is transportation (OMFG! PUN! PUN!).

If you have *any* seals, at all, hydrogen is going to leak. I don't know how Iceland gets around this, other than the fact they are a tiny little nation. Pumping hydrogen +400km just doesn't work well, whether you're using pipes or tanks. To get around this, the hydrogen needs to be made "on site" and stored for as little time as possible. This is pretty simple to achieve -- people make an appointment to refuel 1-2 hours before they need to. Inconvienent but possible.


Now, that's for liquid or gasseous hydrogen. Talk about alcohols or bonded-substrates, and the losses aren't nearly as bad. This is where a "hydrogen economy" is currently being buggered. You've got to store the hydrogen and barring fairly large quantities of platinum, the volumetric energy-density just isn't great enough to offset air-resistance, not even in consideration of what it takes to make a refueling facility usable to people.

Nuclear power and hydrogen are the answer, but it's the storage and transportation of the hydrogen that needs work.

What I saw on Discovery is that they make it 'on-site' via solar power and water.

-S

[Platapus]

QUick question for the Prius owner - How long have you had it? And #2, are you seeing any sort of reduction in the battery capacity due to aging?

Mine is a 2005 so it is not all that old. I have not experience any problems with the battery.

In fact, I have had less mechanical problems with my Prius than I had with my Land Rover, which I had before the Prius.

[NEON DEON]

The 2007 Prius has an 8 year 150,000 mile warranty on the battery here in California.

Since the Government has classified it a SULEV. (90 % cleaner than the average new car) you can drive in the carpool lane anytime you want. They even give you little yellow stickers so CHIPS wont bother you.

The new 2008 or 2009 Prius (not sure how late in 2008 the car will be ready) will get over 100 miles per gallon. Now, if you think Toyota, one of the highest quality car manufacturers on the planet, is going to drop the ball then I suggest you stay inside for the rest of your life because you might get hit by a meteorite.

And for all thoes out there that think electric cars have no performance

Take a look at this video

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/11/30/la-times-dan-neil-gushes-over-tesla-roadster/

The future is electric.

BTW.

The Teslev uses Lithium Ion batteries.
Lithium Ion scares me to death as a car battery. THis is what I am dealing with this morning since I have many of these Acer branded laptops that have Sony batteries in them, so don't tell me this is a good idea to put into a car:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7067

You make it out so that it appears that all lithium ion batteries have been recalled.

They have not.

Only SONY manufactured batteries were recalled.

One laptop manufacturer, Dell, recalled FOUR MILLION of these based on 33 fires.

ONE in ONE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE THOUSAND caught fire. The batteries were manufactured poorly no doubt about it. But, not all lithium batteries are manufactured badly and not all lithium ion batteries were recalled.

So let us all break out the boom boxes and toss out all the laptops, PDAs, MP3 players, and CELL PHONEs because they have that oh soo scary lithium ion battery in it!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14514890

As for the Prius, It won’t have that type of Lithium Ion battery anyway!:D :yep: :D