Log in

View Full Version : Prius outdoes Hummer in enviro damage WOW


Paul Bailey
23rd March 2007, 12:50
March 7, 2007

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer

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.

Joe Blake
24th March 2007, 02:04
I find that a fairly far fetched line of argument.

300,000 miles versus 100,000??? It doesn't matter about the "expected" life. What's the relevance of that? What percentage of the population actually keeps a vehicle for that length of time? And if you sell your Hummer at 100,000 miles and buy another one, then there's TWO Hummers on the road. (One of which of course will be much more worn and consequently much less efficient and "clean" than the other.) Compare like with like. Taken over 100,000 miles the Hummer seems to cost much more to run.

Given that a Hummer is designed to be driven in, shall we say, "rough" terrain, I would think that, even given "over-engineering" Hummer would cost more to replace parts that break, and it would break more of them. How much does a Hummer tyre cost to replace, and how often do they have to be replaced? And if you don't intend to drive your Hummer off-road, why bother buying it in the first place?

Since the United States imports a lot of its petroleum, then the argument about "around the world trip" applies, and probably more so, to the Hummer.

Maybe I missed something, but there seemed to be a bit of "smoke and mirrors" in the "miles-per-gallon" thing. Was the Hummer tested under the new measurement system or the old? I couldn't find anywhere in the article that that was spelled out.

How often does the battery in the Hummer have to be replaced, and how much lead does it contain? Where does the lead come from? How long does
the Prius battery system last? Where are the batteries in the Hummer made?

What are the figures on the cost of recycling nickel versus recycling lead?

How much oil (as in lubrication, as opposed to propulsion) does each vehicle consume in its "lifetime"? How often is the oil changed in each vehicle, and what other "expendables" such as filters etc are consumed?

The author seems unwilling to expand on what the "hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle" are. Surely one of the most important expenses is the development cost of the engine. I understand the Hummer uses a standard internal combustion engine, which probably required a minuscule fraction of the cost of the developing the hybrid powerplant, considering how long the ICE has been in production.

The author suggests that we "buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot." Well, I don't know about buying a Chevy Aveo, but fixing the lead foot seems remarkably like the author is suggesting we drive in the "unrealistic" manner that was rejected by the EPA in its testing procedure. And therefore if we DO what he suggests then the original "unrealistic" figures become much closer to the truth, and his whole argument collapses.

He finishes off by saying "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."

Even if it's true (which I doubt severely), so what? The driving force behind developing hybrid technology is aimed at the environment, and not just the wallet. No one has ever said cleaning up the environment was going to be a painless process, and I'll say it now, it's going to hurt, and it may not succeed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Surely the author isn't suggesting it's too hard to clean up the environment, so let's not bother.

And the author? Well, a very cursory glance at the results of a Google Search shows that he has a keen interest in rather large, powerful cars (if the photographs are actually of him and his cars), so there would be a very strong case that this article is purely self-serving.

And he headlines himself as "Staff Writer". Of which highly respected and widely read organ? Why, none other than the world-renowned "Central Connecticut State University Recorder". Well, you can't get much more authoritative, informed or indeed persuasive than that.

I'm convinced. I'm going to buy two Hummers tomorrow.

Thanks for opening my eyes, Chris.

Joe

Joe Blake
24th March 2007, 02:39
Just a quick follow up.

In Australia, the following figures apply. (I don't know how the figures are arrived at, but they are arrived at in the same way, which is more important).

To buy a new H3 Hummer ("the smallest"), "Below $60,000".
Interestingly, second hand Hummers (H1 and H2) start at $98,000 and go up to $150,000+.

http://www.carpoint.com.au/DesktopDefault.aspx?Nty=1&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=CarAll&Dx=mode+matchany&N=291%20279&TabID=500442&sid=111853BDAA2D&Ntt=hummer&Nne=15&D=hummer


Top of the range Prius, $46,900.

http://prius.toyota.com.au/toyota/vehicle/FreeText/0,4665,2382_842,00.html

Fuel consumption:

Hummer: 12.4-15.7 litres per 100 km.

Prius: 4.4 litres per 100 km.

My BMW F650CS motorcycle? <$15,000. 4.0 litres per 100 km.

I like the Prius a lot.

Reading through some of the "blurb" on the Toyota website, it would appear that there's nothing about the expected life of the vehicle being 100,000 miles - but there is a factory warranty of 3 years/100,000 km, whichever comes first. And that's certainly different to the expected lifetime.

Hmmmm.

Something goin' here.

Joe

Joe Blake
24th March 2007, 22:27
Sunday morning, and for some strange reason I decided to follow up a bit further.

Visited this site

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

who are the crowd that did the research which the author relies on (CNW Marketing) and downloaded the "dust.zip" document at the bottom link.

When unzipped this proved to be a MS-WORD document of some 450+ pages. Lots of tables and figures with diagrams scattered throughout.

I have neither the time, the inclination, nor the expertise to give this document a thorough analysis (I don't have a car, I don't intend to buy a car, so I'm one of the disinterested spectators. Well, disinterested in an interested way) so I just read through the first 30 or so pages, then started "skimming" the tables for points of interest. (These are fairly easy to find since anything to do with hybrid vehicles is highlighted in yellow in the tables. Bearing in mind the Connecticut article was about comparing Prius to Hummer, this made it fairly easy, just search visually for a yellow highlighted portion, read the facts and then do a keyword search for "Hummer", either up or down the page.)

The basic tenet that the report was presented was that the "cost" of running a vehicle goes past how much energy it consumes in moving from point A to point B. There is the cost (in energy terms) of manufacturing the vehicle, manufacturing the parts that make the vehicle, and so on back to digging a hole in the ground to get at the iron ore. This is something which I've always had in my mind as being "swept under the carpet" and not talked about.

CNW seems to have been very thorough, and go to great lengths to say how unbiased they are, and not beholden to any group, automotive or environmental. On the face of it, I have no reason to doubt this claim.

Certainly it was a fairly broadly based piece of research, even taking into account such things as how the workers who made the vehicle(s) got to work, and their energy consumption in doing so. (In what I thought was a rather oblique but thought provoking comparison the report pointed out that when determining the "cost" (in energy terms) of a cup of coffee, you should take a look at the cup maker as well.) When I read that, I was a little bit discomfited because I was (and am) of the view that the people are going to be travelling to work regardless of what they are actually doing, so why bother putting that figure if it isn't relevant just to motor vehicles. However, during my "quick flick" through the report, towards the end I noted the authors stating that they had taken this factor into account. Maybe they did, but I still wonder whether it was really necessary.

One of my previous comments was the cost of development. CNW even covered that, and came up with figures (if I interpret their table correctly) that the Hummer H3 has a percentage cost of 2.11% whereas the Prius has a cost of 8.44%. The report notes:

As the figures below show, the Prius cost about $29,000 per vehicle sold in D&D [design and development] energy while the Corolla was $2,600.

As time passes and the design and development of the Prius’s hybrid technology is leveraged to other vehicles, the cost obviously will diminish on a per-model, per-sale basis. We, however, could not make the assumption that any of that technology would be spread across other products at the time of this study. As the GM Impact showed, high-tech products aren’t guaranteed a long life.


which is my view, that costs will go down over time, and the hybrid will become even more viable.

As I said previously, I haven't read the entire document, but it certainly seems to cover many facets.

However, one of the things (probably unintended) was the insight into the American psyche and how wedded it is to its motor vehicles. A point that caught my eye was just how few miles per year the Prius was reported to average. The explanation in the next paragraph is that this was due to the fact that the Prius was very seldom the "primary" vehicle, being relegated to secondary duties, hence driven less. Which raises the question of why do so many families find it necessary to have two (or more) vehicles? How much is it to do with poor urban design, or even peer pressure, the feeling of "having to keep up with the Joneses"?

Another comment was about the unsuitability of using hybrids at freeway speeds (ie 55 mph), since it is claimed they are running entirely on their ICE then. My experience with freeways is that for the vast majority of drivers (ie peak hours) this sort of speed is a myth. (On edit) It seems that the report ignores separation of the human from the machine. Under the previous EPA standard, if the Prius was assessed as being capable of doing 60 miles per gallon, but this was changed simply because people (in real life apparently) didn't drive that way, then why change? If the vehicle is capable of doing 60 mpg, then that's the end of it. If a person doesn't get that performance because of the way they drive that's certainly not the vehicle's fault, so why was it necessary to change the way of testing?

Anyway, I'll not go too much further on this, since I haven't read the whole thing (and it seems that our Connecticut connection didn't either.)

If you've got a spare afternoon and a half and are contemplating suicide or ripping your eyeballs out, try reading this report instead. It's not inaccurate (that I can see), it doesn't seem to be biased, and it is very long, both in words and figures, but nevertheless raises interesting concepts which bear thinking about and further discussion.

Joe

Chuck Morrison
5th April 2007, 08:13
Sunday morning, and for some strange reason I decided to follow up a bit further.
...

The basic tenet that the report was presented was that the "cost" of running a vehicle goes past how much energy it consumes in moving from point A to point B. There is the cost (in energy terms) of manufacturing the vehicle, manufacturing the parts that make the vehicle, and so on back to digging a hole in the ground to get at the iron ore. This is something which I've always had in my mind as being "swept under the carpet" and not talked about.


I'd agree that these things are real "costs", but are not necessarily the same as the "cost" to the environment. Is there such a difference between digging up iron ore and digging up lead ? Sudbury, Ont. was a gaping polluted pit 30 years ago when I drove through it. The Prius sure didn't cause that. I doubt it contributes much to it even now. I have 2400 AH @24v of battery storing PV generated power for my home. I wonder how many Prius's those batteries could supply ? That makes me and my home worse than how many Hummers ?


CNW seems to have been very thorough, and go to great lengths to say how unbiased they are, and not beholden to any group, automotive or environmental. On the face of it, I have no reason to doubt this claim.


I guess I'm too much of a skeptic. The more someone declares there impartiality, the more I suspect it. This is especially true of a report that makes claims such as this one. To be sure new technologies take more r&d than old ones. Duh ! R&D costs are higher. To then extrapolate that the lifestyles of these additional engineers adds to the environmental cost of producing the car is a bit of a stretch. I would guess that the author doesn't include the environmental (or fiscal) cost of all those lobbyists and government types that were involved in procuring the military contracts for the Hummer. My guess is that this alone would tip the scales wayyy the other way.

Also, to comment on something mentioned in another post, assuming 100k life for a Prius and 300k for a Hummer is ludicrous. Given the actual lifespans of toyotas compared to any US auto corp's cars would indicate the opposite. Then figure 300k at 50mpg and 300k at 15mpg and what's the cost ? What you set as basic assumptions determines the outcome.

I used to write articles like this for a different industry. You can prove anything with the right assumptions, never mentioning other relevant facts. Writing propaganda is a growth industry and this study is a good example of how it's done. Someone paid for it, who was it really ? You know it wasn't Toyota.


...
Another comment was about the unsuitability of using hybrids at freeway speeds (ie 55 mph), since it is claimed they are running entirely on their ICE then. My experience with freeways is that for the vast majority of drivers (ie peak hours) this sort of speed is a myth. (On edit) It seems that the report ignores separation of the human from the machine. Under the previous EPA standard, if the Prius was assessed as being capable of doing 60 miles per gallon, but this was changed simply because people (in real life apparently) didn't drive that way, then why change? If the vehicle is capable of doing 60 mpg, then that's the end of it. If a person doesn't get that performance because of the way they drive that's certainly not the vehicle's fault, so why was it necessary to change the way of testing?


I'll chime in here as someone with real life experience. Yes, a Prius's (and I've driven both models available in the US) gas mileage depends on how you drive it, no two ways about it. However, I drive 30 miles to work (open hightway, no rush hour traffic) at ~55 mph and I get an average of 51mpg(us) for a tank. I doubt a Hummer would get better than 15, if that. I've done worse on in town driving, so I also think the old EPA tests were bunk. That doesn't mean that the Prius is equivalent to other cars in mileage though.