Rhymes With Right

March 13, 2007

Prius Worse Than Hummer For Environment

It must suck to be "environmentally friendly" while doing more damage to the planet than the biggest, baddest SUV.

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 Â‘green carÂ’ 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 PriusÂ’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.

Fine, but where does the comparison with the Hummer come in?

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 Â‘dead zoneÂ’ 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 PriusÂ’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalistÂ’s nightmare.
Â“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,Â” 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 doesnÂ’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 Â‘nickel foam.Â’ 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?

Oops! It turns out that the Prius consumes 50% more energy to make and operate than the Hummer.

Will those states (like California) that give special benefits to Prius owners now repeal them?

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

1 You must be a horrendous educator if this reflects the quality of your academic research. Shameful. You are a liberal moron! Liberal with you idea of knowledge.Remember that post from a few months ago about a Hummer being greener than a Prius? Well, the outfit that compared those two iconic vehicles, CNW Research, has gotten its study picked up in England (where the comparison is between a Jeep Cherokee and a Prius) and Toyota is responding by calling the study "Recycled Rubbish?".

I was skeptical of the Hummer = green claim at the time, and people certainly got to talking in the comments about the post. Now Toyota steps in and says CNW is wrong on a lot of fronts, from simple factual errors to larger methodical mistakes. It's important to remember that Toyota isn't an objective bystander in the debate, but I've got to their claims make sense to me.

You can read Toyota's entire argument after the jump.
Recycled Rubbish?

CNW Marketing Research Inc. â€“ Study on Hybrid Efficiency
A number of UK publications have recently re-presented the results of an old study by a North American marketing research agency, CNW Research Inc. This study makes some surprising and uncorroborated claims about the total environmental impact of vehicles over the complete lifecycle (i.e. production â€“ use â€“ recycling).

The media have picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Jeep Cherokee is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid saloon. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area.

The "results" of the CNW study

As with any model, it is critical that the methodology is valid, 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.

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 programme 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.

Posted by: drsurd at Tue Mar 20 06:46:12 2007 (Yp5wO)

2 Yeah, but truthiness is good enough for right-winger anti-environmentalists.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Mar 20 12:22:05 2007 (IU21y)

3 Dan -- I'm not an "anti-environmentalist". I am, however, anti-bad-science, which is why I oppose the current man-made global warming hoax. After all, as a student of history, I am aware of the cyclical climate changes over the last millenium or two that have seen the ebb and flow of glaciation -- such that Greenland was actually green rather than ice-covered when it was discovered by the Vikings.

As for the Toyota press release above, I have to ask a simple question -- since when do you accept the word of big Business with a financial stake in a controversy over independent scientific and academic researchers?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Mar 20 14:38:12 2007 (p6tyD)

4 That's funny - "since when do you accept the word of big Business with a financial stake in a controversy over independent scientific and academic researchers", from a guy who's posting paid advertisements. I think the logical points made by Toyota do a good job of undermining the bogus reasoning of the CNW report.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Mar 20 23:38:04 2007 (IU21y)

5 I disagree -- especially given all the other claims about the Prius made by Toyota that have not stood up to real-world experience.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Mar 21 00:05:44 2007 (sB+jR)

6 Do you really disagree, or is that a paid disagreement?

Posted by: Dan at Wed Mar 21 15:09:13 2007 (IU21y)

7 Bite me, Dan!