Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrids - News, Reviews and Views in the Press
567 messages, Last post on Oct 30, 2009 at 9:21 PM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
Prius vs. Hummer - Which is Greener?
|
|
|
Replying to: moparbad (Apr 17, 2007 5:29 am) The media has picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Hummer is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area. As with any scientific model, it is critical that the methodology is valid, that the assumptions are sound, and the data accurate. The CNW study makes several assumptions which undermine the conclusions arrived at. Without a scientific peer review, it is impossible to comment on any of these factors. And CNW has REPEATEDLY refused to allow peer review and access to their methods. What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). · Example 1: These studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed. · Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent). · Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota’s internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use. There are also basic factual errors in the report; for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled. In truth Toyota and sister brand Lexus have a comprehensive battery recycling programm in place and has been recycling Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case, and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information. Toyota and other environmentally conscious car makers have been using life cycle assessment for many years to evaluate various advanced vehicle technologies. Toyota, along with many others, believes that the best way to judge the environmental impact of a vehicle is to do a full evaluation of all the inputs and outputs in every stage of its life. The lifetime energy use is just one of the many things to look at. The environment and the role of the car in CO2 emissions are rightly a very important subject for debate. Toyota welcomes such debate. However, the debate is not helped by sensationalistic reporting of an uncorroborated and unrepresentative piece of marketing research carried out in North America. On the nickel issue: - The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel - The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds - Electronic appliances such as cell phones use way more nickel in their NiMH batteries worldwide than hybrids - Toyota is not a primary customer of this factory - 1,000 tons of nickel is far too little to keep it in business. That Inco plant produced 267,500 tons of nickel in 2006. - The 1,000 tons of nickel is not dedicated to the Prius, but Toyota. Tundra probably uses more nickel. - The plant is not owned by Toyota or joined at the hip. The studies are reported on two small lakes at Sudbury, Ontario located close to a nickel-copper smelter which closed in 1972. 25 years later, Toyota Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997. So reporters need to REALLY check the facts before doing something like this. The world is far better off with hybrids like the Pruis on the road, not vice-versa.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 17, 2007 6:43 am) |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 17, 2007 6:43 am) The media has picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Hummer is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area. So reporters need to REALLY check the facts before doing something like this. The world is far better off with hybrids like the Pruis on the road, not vice-versa. Are you implying that the article is incorrect to state that the "Hummer is Greener than Prius" is urban myth?
|
|
|
Replying to: moparbad (Apr 17, 2007 8:41 am) The CNW Research study is garbage. They refuse to let scientific peers review their methodology, which is on the surface clearly flawed. They compared apples to oranges when they compared the "energy used" of a 100,000 mile Prius to that of a (excuse me while I snicker at the concept of a Hummer making 300,000 miles........) 300,000 mile Hummer. OF COURSE in that FANTASY comparison, the Hummer will win. DUH. And their other glaring mistake: Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent). You see the glaring errors? I agree that hybrids have many faults and are not the answer to all our problems. But I cannot stand by while some mysterious "study" (which will not allow peer review) tells me that driving a vehicle that gets 9 MPG is good for the environment. It's not. Try as one might, you can't reason your way out of that simple fact - much less the OTHER factual problems.
|
|
| Hummer Greener than Prius? YEAH RIGHT !!! | |
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 17, 2007 8:50 am) 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. http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188 If you watch vehicle sales, as I do, you will see many Prius being offered that look fine. Yet they carry a Salvage title. Why is that you may ask? It costs more to fix a minor accident in a Prius than to just total it. That would account for a longer lifespan in a larger stronger built vehicle such as a Hummer. If gas mileage was the only criteria on which to base our vehicle purchases the Prius may be a good choice. For me it is being built to hold up for many years not just 150k miles, which is of little importance to someone that limits driving to under 7500 miles per year.
|
|
|
That is not a RESEARCH or a STUDY page....It's an editorial which recycles the CNW Garbage....: Article says: "Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius." - A re-stating of the CNW "apples to oranges" comparison of 300,000 mile Hummer to a 100,000 Prius. Article says: "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." A re-stating of the nickel plant situation which I have already debunked in previous posts, which I will repeat for the newbies: The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel - The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds - Electronic appliances such as cell phones use way more nickel in their NiMH batteries worldwide than hybrids - Toyota is not a primary customer of this factory - 1,000 tons of nickel is far too little to keep it in business. That Inco plant produced 267,500 tons of nickel in 2006. - The 1,000 tons of nickel is not dedicated to the Prius, but Toyota. Tundra probably uses more nickel. - The plant is not owned by Toyota or joined at the hip. The studies are reported on two small lakes at Sudbury, Ontario located close to a nickel-copper smelter which closed in 1972. 25 years later, Toyota Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997. All that article shows is a more wordy interpretation of already flawed information. Where are the "University studies" which concur with CNW? Still waiting on that.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 17, 2007 9:47 am) PS Cannot find a TCO for the Scion.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrids - News, Reviews and Views in the Press
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Camry Hybrid
2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
2011 Honda Civic
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
