Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

nonhuman · Mar 14, 2007, 04:24 PM

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

Yep, it's true. The main culprit is the battery, as Rob is fond of pointing out, which actually completes a complete circuit of the Earth (in polluting cargo ships and trucks) before it's finished being produced. And that's saying nothing of the environmental damage done retrieving the raw materials necessary to build the car (especially the nickel in the battery). From that point on, the environmental cost of building a Prius is probably about the same (maybe a little less due to the reduced mass) of building a Hummer. But with all the pollution a brand new Prius has already caused, you'd actually be doing about 1/3 the damage if you were driving a Hummer over the same period of time.

Driving a Prius actually damages the environment more than driving a Hummer. Gotta love irony.

olePigeon · Mar 14, 2007, 04:50 PM

Unfortunately. That's always been the problem with electric cars. That's why hydrogen fuel-cell/petrol hybrid is a lot better alternative. The battery is just water (or more petrol.)

invisibleX · Mar 14, 2007, 04:58 PM

But.. does it? Because driving a Prius does not involve shipping batteries on cargo ships; thats manufacture. In a limited view manufacture has (or typically has) little to do with the end user. Doesn't really seem logical to toss environmental impact of manufacturing with that of the end product. They're also lumping in things like Nickle mines... which I highly doubt exist purely for the sake of the Prius.

Sure the Prius isn't the most environmentally sound car on the road. I'd also agree with Rob that efficient gas engines are a better way to go. But that was just really bad piece of journalism.

ort888 · Mar 14, 2007, 05:08 PM

I've been hearing reports like this quite a bit. I'm interested to see how this plays out.

To be honest, as appealing an idea as a hybrid car is, it doesn't really seem to get enough extra milage to be that big of a deal. A small, fuel-efficient car seems the best choice if you want to save the planet and/or your money.

Mastrap · Mar 14, 2007, 05:09 PM

I am no friend of hybrid cars, and I can't find the link right now, but the original article has been repeatedly debunked.

From what I have read the comparison is invalid mainly because it compares apples with oranges - they compare the efficiencies of building 100.000 SUVs to building 5000 Prius (I am making these numbers up as I can't find the article right now, but it gives the general idea.) If you compare one single SUV to one single Prius the Prius wins hands down.

Personally I don't think that hybrid cars are the way forward - it's either bio diesel or hydrogen that will propel cars in the future. The CBC reported this morning that British Columbia is building a number of hydrogen filling stations already. BMW's 7 series Hydrogen looks to be the first hydrogen powered production car.

Jawbone54 · Mar 14, 2007, 05:18 PM

I'm sure there's some sort of spin to the story, but I hate both cars anyways. My bet's on hydrogen.

centerchannel68 · Mar 14, 2007, 05:25 PM

Again, as I've stated, the best thing to do is drive an older car, and keep it maintained. REDUCE, reuse, recycle. Using less materials is better for the earth. As for the H2 vs the Prius, I'm not quite sure it's that drastic, as the H2 does not even pass emissions or anything, so it puts out a shitload of pollution, way more than any other passenger vehicle on the road (sold today).

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 06:28 PM

Here's an interesting article I read a few months ago regarding this: Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness | the Mail on Sunday

How would you like to live next to this battery factory in Canada? The factory is the tiny structure in the middle of the picture.

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 06:29 PM

Interesting quote from the article I linked to:

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.

Uncle Skeleton · Mar 14, 2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Again, as I've stated, the best thing to do is drive an older car, and keep it maintained.

I thought the best thing to do was ride your bike.

centerchannel68 · Mar 14, 2007, 06:31 PM

However, here's the HUGE problem with that article:

"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. "

Chevy is being WAAAYYYYWAYAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too optimistic about the longevity of their H2, and Toyota is being fairly humble about the longevity of the prius. That simple difference throws all their research and bullshit right out the window.

centerchannel68 · Mar 14, 2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I thought the best thing to do was ride your bike.

Well, that uses calories, so you'd need to eat more, so that's technically bad too. But realistically, not everybody can ride a bike to work. I did last summer, it was great.

Uncle Skeleton · Mar 14, 2007, 06:42 PM

Don't forget the increased human emissions too

Seriously though, if you're talking about the total cost of manufacture, use and destruction of a vehicle, bikes have to win no contest.

As for fuel alone, I don't know about the accuracy of this page, but you have to think that propelling a 20 lb bike is more efficient than a 2000 lb car:

Fuel efficiency in transportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary
Efficiency Mode
(per passenger)
653 mpg Biking
506 mpg TGV train
328 mpg Colorado Railcar
235 mpg Walking
231 mpg Bus
78 mpg Airplane
18 mpg Steamship

tie · Mar 14, 2007, 06:46 PM

This seems like nonsense. Will the Hummer really last 300,000 miles, and the Prius only 100,000? And how do you quantify "environmentally friendly"? There are multiple parameters. The Hummer puts out more CO2, causing global warming, melting glaciers, acidifying the ocean, driving species extinct, intensifying hurricanes, etc. etc. etc. The Prius batteries cause localized pollution. I don't know how you really compare them fairly, but it is an interesting question.

imitchellg5 · Mar 14, 2007, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

However, here's the HUGE problem with that article:

"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. "

Chevy is being WAAAYYYYWAYAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too optimistic about the longevity of their H2, and Toyota is being fairly humble about the longevity of the prius. That simple difference throws all their research and bullshit right out the window.

$3.25 a mile is expensive! A Subaru B9 Tribeca costs $.15 a mile. And, uh, Chevy doesn't make the H2. Hummer does.

nonhuman · Mar 14, 2007, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

$3.25 a mile is expensive! A Subaru B9 Tribeca costs $.15 a mile. And, uh, Chevy doesn't make the H2. Hummer does.

Hummer is owned by GM which also owns Chevrolet.

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

A Subaru B9 Tribeca costs $.15 a mile.

Do they give you the car for free? All you pay is for gas, and maintenance consumables? Cool!

OldManMac · Mar 14, 2007, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

$3.25 a mile is expensive! A Subaru B9 Tribeca costs $.15 a mile. And, uh, Chevy doesn't make the H2. Hummer does.

I gotta get me one of those Subarus. They're probably giving good deals on them, as they're backing up on dealer lots. If I get a good enough deal, does it work out to be free?

Mastrap · Mar 14, 2007, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Here's an interesting article I read a few months ago regarding this: Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness | the Mail on Sunday

How would you like to live next to this battery factory in Canada? The factory is the tiny structure in the middle of the picture.

I'm going to print this article out and send it to Stephen Harper. Lets see what, if anything, he has to say.

However, the factory is not a battery factory. It's a nickel smelting facility that produces nickel for many industrial applications besides the Prius. That of course doesn't make this less of a scandal.

imitchellg5 · Mar 14, 2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Do they give you the car for free? All you pay is for gas, and maintenance consumables? Cool!

That doesn't include the cost of the car. Cost per mile never does. It is the cost to maintain and fuel the car. It costs $.15 per mile (for 60,000 miles) to own a Tribeca. It costs $.21 per mile to own a Porsche Boxster S. And if a Hummer is a Chevy, it might as well be a Saab also.

OldManMac · Mar 14, 2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

That doesn't include the cost of the car. Cost per mile never does. It is the cost to maintain and fuel the car. It costs $.15 per mile (for 60,000 miles) to own a Tribeca. It costs $.21 per mile to own a Porsche Boxster S. And if a Hummer is a Chevy, it might as well be a Saab also.

Link please. And I know that didn't include the cost of the car; just joshing with you, as I'm sure Railroader was. $.15 sounds incredibly low.

imitchellg5 · Mar 14, 2007, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by KarlG

Link please. And I know that didn't include the cost of the car; just joshing with you, as I'm sure Railroader was. $.15 sounds incredibly low.

I don't have a link, but just look in an Automobile Magazine under their Four Seasons test. They give the cost per mile.

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

That doesn't include the cost of the car. Cost per mile never does. It is the cost to maintain and fuel the car. It costs $.15 per mile (for 60,000 miles) to own a Tribeca. It costs $.21 per mile to own a Porsche Boxster S. And if a Hummer is a Chevy, it might as well be a Saab also.

The figure you replied to was the cost of ownership of the Prius over 100,000 miles. That included the cost of operating, maintaining and purchasing it. Your $.15/mile number being compared to the $3.25/mile is comparing apples to oranges. You are not comparing the same things.

And what does this "if a Hummer is a Chevy, it might as well be a Saab also" mean? Hummer, Chevrolet, Saab, as well as a bunch of other nameplates, are all (in one way or another) owned by GM. Ca$h was simply associating Hummer with Chevrolet because he associates Chevrolet with everything General Motors. In actuality, it is a company owned by General Motors North American Operations[GMNAO]. Saab is not owned by GMNAO, but owned by General Motors Corporation, which owns GMNAO. It's complicated and I probably got all of that wrong, but that is how I understood it when it was explained to me during a State of the Business address I attended while working for General Motors Powertrain Group which is owned by GMNAO.

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

However, the factory is not a battery factory. It's a nickel smelting facility that produces nickel for many industrial applications besides the Prius. That of course doesn't make this less of a scandal.

Your right, my mistake. I even knew that when I typed the post and still made the mistake. The article was certainly written with a scandalous slant towards Toyota, although Toyota is a tiny component of the business that factory has a part in. It's more about nickel and mining it in general, in addition to nickel being a component in most batteries.

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by KarlG

Link please. And I know that didn't include the cost of the car; just joshing with you, as I'm sure Railroader was. $.15 sounds incredibly low.

Indeed I was. I should have been more straight forward.

centerchannel68 · Mar 14, 2007, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

And if a Hummer is a Chevy, it might as well be a Saab also.

You're just ignorant. An H2 is a suburban, with a different bodykit. Same frame, same engine, heavier suspension to take advantage of cafe loopholes and emissions/safety standards. If you knew anything about cars you'd know that the H2 is just a rebadged chevy.

Doofy · Mar 14, 2007, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

You're just ignorant. An H2 is a suburban, with a different bodykit. Same frame, same engine, heavier suspension to take advantage of cafe loopholes and emissions/safety standards. If you knew anything about cars you'd know that the H2 is just a rebadged chevy.

True.

imitchellg5 · Mar 14, 2007, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

You're just ignorant. An H2 is a suburban, with a different bodykit. Same frame, same engine, heavier suspension to take advantage of cafe loopholes and emissions/safety standards. If you knew anything about cars you'd know that the H2 is just a rebadged chevy.

Actually it's the old Tahoe frame which is a long version of the GMT 360 which is used for Saab's SUV.

SSharon · Mar 14, 2007, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Your right, my mistake. I even knew that when I typed the post and still made the mistake. The article was certainly written with a scandalous slant towards Toyota, although Toyota is a tiny component of the business that factory has a part in. It's more about nickel and mining it in general, in addition to nickel being a component in most batteries.

Don't you hate it when people make little grammar mistakes like this over and over? I mean, they claim to be intelligent, but make stupid little mistakes.

For shame.

imitchellg5 · Mar 14, 2007, 08:54 PM

This thread makes me want to go hug a tree and cut myself.

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by SSharon

Don't you hate it when people make little grammar mistakes like this over and over? I mean, they claim to be intelligent, but make stupid little mistakes.

For shame.

Oh no, I make malapropisms on porpoise. You must have missed the post about this.

Alas, I did not start a thread complaining about people making little mistakes over and over again. I just like to point out irony whence I can.

Now don't you look a little silly?

centerchannel68 · Mar 14, 2007, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Actually it's the old Tahoe frame which is a long version of the GMT 360 which is used for Saab's SUV.

Actually you're totally and completely wrong.

The H2's final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections: The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series utility frame, the mid-section is all new and is completely boxed, and the rear section uses a modified GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for the 8,600 pound (3629 kg) gross vehicle weight.

Railroader · 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Actually it's the old Tahoe frame which is a long version of the GMT 360 which is used for Saab's SUV.

Actually, Tahoe and Suburban and H2 don't use the 360 frame. The H2 used the GMT800 series line but now uses the GMT 900 series line.

Wanna guess which of the three has been in production the longest?

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

This thread makes me want to go hug a tree and cut myself.

It should make you want to recognize your mistakes and admit them:

A) you compared two financial numbers that shouldn't have been compared,
B) you joined confused car companies
C) you made a mistake stating what frames are used in the construction of certain models of SUVs.

... and you did all of this in posts where you corrected someone's "mistake".

OldManMac · Mar 14, 2007, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Actually, Tahoe and Suburban don't use the 360 frame. The H2 used the GMT800 series line but now uses the GMT 900 series line.

Wanna guess which of the three has been in production the longest?

You are correct, sir! In the late fifties, my dad's uncle used to own a grocery store in East Detroit. On Saturdays I would take the bus from St. Clair Shores to his store, and work there for a few extra bucks. He had a Suburban panel van, with just the two seats in the front, and we would load it with groceries and deliver customer's orders to their home. I can still picture riding in that Suburban, beginning when I was 12. It had a three-speed column shift and didn't even have a radio, which was optional then.

Railroader · Mar 14, 2007, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by KarlG

You are correct, sir! In the late fifties, my dad's uncle used to own a grocery store in East Detroit. On Saturdays I would take the bus from St. Clair Shores to his store, and work there for a few extra bucks. He had a Suburban panel van, with just the two seats in the front, and we would load it with groceries and deliver customer's orders to their home. I can still picture riding in that Suburban, beginning when I was 12. It had a three-speed column shift and didn't even have a radio, which was optional then.

My neighbors had a Suburban when I was growing up. We'd cram both families into it and go camping together. VERY good memories. I'll admit this was the early 70's but it was a Suburban nonetheless.

And I love the St. Clair Shores area a lot. Nice place.

imitchellg5 · Mar 14, 2007, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Actually you're totally and completely wrong.

The H2's final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections: The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series utility frame, the mid-section is all new and is completely boxed, and the rear section uses a modified GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for the 8,600 pound (3629 kg) gross vehicle weight.

Oh. Guess I need to stop reading Car and Driver and Automobile. They seem to be completely full of lies.

Edit: Forgot Motor Trend too.

Cipher13 · Mar 14, 2007, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Oh. Guess I need to stop reading Car and Driver and Automobile. They seem to be completely full of lies.

Edit: Forgot Motor Trend too.

Apparently.

SSharon · Mar 14, 2007, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Oh no, I make malapropisms on porpoise. You must have missed the post about this.

Alas, I did not start a thread complaining about people making little mistakes over and over again. I just like to point out irony whence I can.

Now don't you look a little silly?

no, I saw the post. I just don't think satisfying your desire for irony outweighs the damage and confusion you are doing to our younger/foreign crowd.
it just doesn't seem fair for you to be able to pick out what looked like a typo to me in the other thread (to vs. do).

centerchannel68 · Mar 14, 2007, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Oh. Guess I need to stop reading Car and Driver and Automobile. They seem to be completely full of lies.

Edit: Forgot Motor Trend too.

You might be talking about the H3, not the H2. But yeah, or you're just not remembering things correctly. That has happened to some humans before.

Railroader · Mar 15, 2007, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by SSharon

no, I saw the post. I just don't think satisfying your desire for irony outweighs the damage and confusion you are doing to our younger/foreign crowd.
it just doesn't seem fair for you to be able to pick out what looked like a typo to me in the other thread (to vs. do).

Well, I guess you just have to do whatever it is you have to do then, don't you?

Railroader · Mar 15, 2007, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Oh. Guess I need to stop reading Car and Driver and Automobile. They seem to be completely full of lies.

Edit: Forgot Motor Trend too.

I think your memory has failed you in this regard. Did you look at the links I supplied?

Lateralus · Mar 15, 2007, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Oh. Guess I need to stop reading Car and Driver and Automobile.

Or you could just stop debating people who know more than you so you don't end up looking like an ass all the time?

Sorry, but watching a kid lecture people who've been driving longer than he's been alive is more than a little irritating.

Frugle · Mar 15, 2007, 01:43 AM

anybody watch futurecar on discovery?

They invented a car that runs on air... it gets its energy from an air pump... they said they hard part wasn't getting the car to run on air, it was finding the power to run the pump.. but they got it all worked out and working... they said you only have to have an external power source once to start it...and then it is self powered until it dies... pretty freaking cool if you ask me.

malvolio · Mar 15, 2007, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

How would you like to live next to this battery factory in Canada? The factory is the tiny structure in the middle of the picture.

You can't blame that on the Prius. The Sudbury area has looked like that since at least 1962, as I know from driving through it on the way to other places.

Dakar² · Mar 15, 2007, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I'm sure there's some sort of spin to the story, but I hate both cars anyways. My bet's on hydrogen.

I'm waiting for it to explode onto the scene.

Kevin · Mar 15, 2007, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by SSharon

Don't you hate it when people make little grammar mistakes like this over and over? I mean, they claim to be intelligent, but make stupid little mistakes.

For shame.

Naw, it's lamer when trolls confuse such things with intelligence.

el chupacabra · Mar 15, 2007, 10:48 AM

This part confuses me a little.

"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. "

80 mph is illegal everywhere I've been. I can't even get over 65 in the few areas where the SL is 70mph. So realistic would be 55-65 on most highways. As for the 8mph, don't know...

This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. "

25% for the city or highway? Thats a big thing to leave out considering the prius is manly a city car. Does a city dweller always get 45mpg or perhaps 50 considering your average city dweller can't find the traffic conditions to go 80?

Btw how is nickel processing any more environmentally unfriendly than any other heavy metal such as iron/steel, or any metal for that matter considering there are other plants around the world just as polluting as this one but doing something entirely different. Seems more like a scrubber problem with this particular factory more than anything else. Clean air costs money and canada, a 3rd world country has to compete with russia in this market.

If hybrids weren't so new they wouln't need to be shipped all over the world in the manufacturing process.

in other words its not the prius's fault

angelmb · Mar 15, 2007, 10:49 AM

centerchannel68 · Mar 15, 2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Frugle

anybody watch futurecar on discovery?

They invented a car that runs on air... it gets its energy from an air pump... they said they hard part wasn't getting the car to run on air, it was finding the power to run the pump.. but they got it all worked out and working... they said you only have to have an external power source once to start it...and then it is self powered until it dies... pretty freaking cool if you ask me.

Sure...but not viable at all for modern tranportation. Same goes for solar powered cars. Sure, there are some, but they're not really useable in stop and go traffic, don't meet any safety requirements, only carry one person, have no radio, heater, etc etc etc etc. If you're talkinga bout what I think you're talking about, it's just basically a go kart with a compressed air tank on the back. Again, a fairly stupid idea, because you need to compress the air in the first place, which requires a lot of energy, and the car gets slower and slower and slower until it dies, at which point it goes nowhere.

You people who support priuses, the tesla roadster, and stuff like this are forgetting something: What happens when you convert energy from one kind of energy to another? YOU LOSE SOME.

Hence, it's most efficient to use the energy with as few conversions as possible. What's more effficient? Using oil/coal to burn creating heat (conversion 1) creating electricity (2) transformers for high voltage lines (3) step down transformers (4) electrical air pump (5) to compressed air turbine (6) to turn the wheels (7)

vs

Burn gas (1) turn crankshaft (2) turn transmission (3) turn wheels (4)

I mean. Come on. Yes, I'm generalizing, but the point is an internal combustion engine, PROPERLY MAINTAINED, is more earth friendly than just shifting the power requirements to the electricity grid, especially when most of our electricity comes from COAL.