Interesting read.

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

So, Toyota did something wrong?!?!?! Impossible!

I'm with a lot of people who are not convinced the numbers are on the up and up here. Mainly the 100k vs. 300k mile lifetimes. They're essentially tripling the manufactiring cost per mile of the hybrid without a lot of evidence that either car will last that lifetime.

And I love how the article insinuates that all the acid rain around Subbury is due to Toyota's purchase of 1.6% of Falconbridge's 63,000 tons of smelter output (that's been there since 1929).

Crack open the full report and lots of stuff pops out. For example, a Prius will require more $ in repairs and maintenance over 100k miles than a Hummer will in 300k miles. At over 35 years of service for the average H1 by their numbers, vs. 10 years for the average Prius.

I'll stop here. I know hybrids aren't the answer. If I was worried about fuel economy I'd have a VW TDI in the garage.

Either way you cut this it is still internet information, take it for what you want to believe.

I read the report and scanned the appendices. While there might be some erroneous things in there I like the thinking that it will stimulate in a segment of our population. It reminds me of a conversation that I had at "high society" dinner party years ago when I went to things like that.

I overheard a guy preaching the wonders of this electric car he bought and how it had zero emissions. I shimmied over to the group he was talking to and I engaged him about the car first just to get him talking. I then redirected the conversation in an unexpected direction. It went something like this:

Me: So, you just plug in it when you pull it into your garage and it recharges?

Mr. Sophisticated: Yes. It takes overnight to fully charge and then it's good for an honest 50 miles. It's not much but it fulfills my needs.

Me: Interesting. ...and you say it has zero emissions, huh?

Mr. Sophisticated: Yes. Since it has an electric motor, there are no emissions at all. It doesn't even have a tailpipe to emit pollutants. This is definitely the future now. A zero emissions vehicle is a god send for our environment and I am proud to own one to do my part to reduce my impact on the world.

Me: Cool. Wait a minute - you have to plug this in to charge it up, right?

Mr. Sophisticated: Yes. Like I said overnight.

Me: So it's powered by electricity supplied by your electric company, right?

Mr. Sophisticated: Yes.

Me: Did you know that the majority of electrical power in this country is generated by coal-fired plants?

Mr. Sophisticated: Yes, I guess I knew this but what is your point?

Me: Well, you're telling us your driving a zero emissions car and you're right - the car emits zero emissions as the end user of the energy. However, what you really have is a coal-fired car and the pollutants are just emitted somewhere else. I am not sure that a coal-fired car containing rechargeable batteries with a disposal problem is really good for the environment.

The guy (and many of his friends) then seemed at first surprised then quickly turned angry towards me. Real information shattered their limited thinking into what was really going on with that car. While I am sure that I was the jerk in the conversation in their minds, I believe that they should be able to think a little more critically in the future. That was my intention.

I see this report along these same lines.

Great story!

Reminds me of my tree hugger (I'm not as PC as Keith) cousin that owns a Diesel VW. He thinks that he is doing a great thing for the enviroment because it gets 40 MPG or whatever, then I told him that diesels have more particulate emmissions and are actually worst. I really didn't know if that was true or not, but that is what I told him anyways. He didn't like that.

Keith I agree with you 100% and I have similar discussions at work were I get to be the bad guy. Although pollution control on something as large scale as a power plant is much easier then for a car. Coal power plants have a ton of after treatment systems to reduce pollution that are not feasible in a car (bag houses, cyclone sepperators, UV light chambers, etc). Not sure if it's actually cleaner in the end, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was with all the coal after treatment.

I posted the link because I don't see a lot of people trying to look at the overall picture, which this article at least takes a shot at. Even if the numbers are not backed up by sources, I still think it's interesting reading.

This is what I find simultaneously hilarious and disturbing about current trends to "conserve". It is that there is so much misinformation and incorrect conclusions.

This is from a Discovery channel program on "global warming". In broad terms, global warming will be caused by a greenhouse effect, which is caused by all kinds of stuff that humans put into the air (not getting into details, because that's not my point). A greenhouse effect will raise temperatures and increase rainfall amounts.

Does anyone see where I'm going here?

Continuing with the story, a professor actually came out and stated that, while the greenhouse effect may not be good for HUMANS, it's actually quite healthy for most life on earth - especially plants and those directly reliant on plants!

So, when people tell you that "we are killing Mother Earth" tell them we're just killing ourselves - Mother Earth is quite healthy!

I love it. I need to relay that info to the guys at work who are dead set on "An Inconvenient Truth" being reality.

I thought they all had particulate filters these days - the diesel version of cats? I know the Audi R10 diesel lemans car does, because they wanted to showcase the "Green" side of diesel racing, and didn't think big black sooty clouds would win the public over.

A.

*Puts flame suit on*

I honestly don't think this argument has any merit at all. When Toyota claims 100k mile life expectancy for their Prius, they're obviously underestimating. They probably claim the same for their Corolla and Camry lines. Toyota's are known for their reliability, and many people drive these cars without major overhauls well over 200k or 250k miles. Try that with a Hummer. The 300k claimed lifetime of the Hummer's probably reflects their military heritage, where vehicles ago through extensive preventative maintenance programs and have major overhauls of engines and transmissions on a regular basis. An average consumer will not do this, and I'm pretty confident most civilian Hummers will be taking up space in a junkyard well shy of their 300k mile claimed lifetime. If you look at how long these modern (Toyota) cars SHOULD last, and their overall carbon footprint during their entire lifetime, you'll be able to appreciate how much extra carbon dioxide that Hummer is making, and thus damaging the environment. So now for a little math... while a Prius may *only* get 45 mpg in actual daily use, a Hummer is looking at more like 15 or less mpg. 250000miles/15mpg = 16667 gallons of gas used over its life as opposed to 250000/45 = 5556 gallons of gas used by the Prius. Sure manufacturing a Prius may produce a bit more emissions at whatever factory is producing it, but there are controls there to deal with it, and I'm sure its not nearly as harmful as burning an extra 11000 gallons of gas.

A 6.0L and 4L80E will run as long as you do the maitence. That is to say nothing about how well the body/interior will last, but at the shop I work at, an 01 C2500HD with a 6.0L came in with zero oil pressure. None. It had 325K miles. We put a new oil pump in it, and it drove out under its own power.

While the Prius' gas engine may last forever, the batteries will not. Batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles before they begin to loose capacity.

This is not a flame. However this post tells me that you missed the point of the study. Fuel consumption is only a component of energy consumption related to automobiles and a signgificant percentage of the general population seems to think that it begins and ends there because that is all they see.

While I agree with your observation that the lifetime estimates are dubious, mpg is not the final word on the energy consumption (and thus impact on the environment) though it is the only one that people seem to take into consideration - which is precisely why the report is significant to begin with.

I personally believe that they enhanced the Hummer lifetime estimate to get the study into the public eye. It would have never seen the light of day in our media outlets if it didn't have any shock value.

...years ago, my dad did some detailed research into wind power. Their comprehensive study found that it takes more energy to construct, install and maintain a wind-powered generator that it could produce in it's lifetime. The current purveyors of these things know this and will never tell you this lil nugget. Think about that one...

Yep, they are merely moving the pollution point. Car and Driver did a report on electric cars about 20 years ago, and noted that not only do they simply move the point source of the pollution, they are actually less efficient than the gas-driven cars of the time. Maybe things have changed, but you are _still_ moving the pollution source, not changing it.

Similar goes with ethanol. You still have to burn the HCs to produce the energy. Alcohol does not have as much energy as gasoline, so when you burn it, your vehicle is usually less efficient. The only nice thing is there is more hydrogen and oxygen there to combine and make water, but you still have to oxidize the same number of carbon molecules.

You're right, electric isn't the solution, UNLESS you can recharge it with solar or wind. Then, you have a very, very low emissions vehicle. The mileage is nice, but I am VERY concerned with what happens with the batteries when you have to replace them.

The answer is just not to travel. If my PHB would just let me telecommute.....