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/edito...asp?NewsID=188

[Psycluded]

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Psycluded

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.

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Hitman

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by Hitman

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.