"Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage"

Perhaps this article addresses very valid concerns, and perhaps it's a bit overblown. It seems to make an earnest point, however.

But regardless, the whole idea of hybrid cars is really just a mis-guided response to our failing way of life. Any time we humans recognize some fundamental error in our ways, there's inevitably an initial, fumbling attempt to correct our problems using the samed flawed thinking that created them in the first place. Or as countless others have pointed out: cars aren't the problem -- they're just a symptom of the problem.

Via the Central Conneticut State University paper, The Recorder:

"Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were....[The new tests] 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....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.

...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"

Comments

[Steve Balogh]

most of the rebuttals that I've read to this article show a flawed methodology, where they state that the Hummer is supposed to last 300,000 miles, and the Prius only 100,000. I am not sure why that would be the case, I am sure that there are Prius drivers out there now that have put on much more than 100,000 miles. I agree though that the overall solution to our climate and oil depletion dilemmas does not lie solely in cars that get better mileage.

It would be like trying to fight a fever from an infection with aspirin that lasts twice as long. The root cause of the fever would still persist.

[Steve Balogh]

glad to see that your up and posting frequently again, btw.

[Scott]

This article is based on some fairly suspect research by CNW Marketing, an automotive market research firm.
http://www.appropedia.org/Hybrid_vehicles

The statement "Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius" makes it sound like the Prius is three times worse than an Hummer. When in fact this statement is based on the fact that the production costs assumed a Hummer lasts 300,000 miles while a Prius only lasts 100,000 miles.
Also the CNW research attempted to total dollar cost of production rather than carbon, or energy cost of production. Another reason the Hummer got a lower cost was because it was developed at GM it was able to use the military design to help them make the commercial version, the Prius was made privately, and is newer so the design costs appear larger than those for the Hummer.

This concept that Priuses are worse for the environment than Hummers is becoming an urban myth.

[celeste pinheiro]

The article also takes into account "composting" the vehicle at the end of its life. You can recycle steel, but not highly specific ceramics and plastics(yet? ever? maybe?). Also covered is manufacturing the components of each car and the energy used. I believe the mileage lifespan is stated by the manufacturer as how long the engine/body will work "well"(with all proper maintenance of course;0)) Of course there are going to be examples , on both sides, of cars that go way over that mileage estimate. You can recycle a Hummer, pop in a new engine or rebuild it and you are good to go for another 300,000 miles, then rebuild the engine again... I doubt the body and frame of a Prius would last as long, and I would guess the cost of a new engine and installing it would be ridiculous--no point in putting a new engine into a shell that's falling apart. Of course that mileage lifespan is all comparing apples and oranges--a hummer is designed for something totally different than a Prius--you could never take a Prius off-road(although you can certainly commute in a Hummer if you wanted to--but I think the soccer-mom application to Hummer use is vapid and wasteful).

The main point of the article, it would seem to me, is that maybe we should focus on making vehicles with low-tech manufactured materials, with servicable reasonable mechanics--kinda like those old ranch pickups that run forever. And then drive those vehicles a million miles(in other words don't buy a new car every few years).

I think it's a great idea to go beyond MPG and think about energy and pollution used to make certain materials, as well as energy spent recycling the dead car.

Personally, we drive our car/truck for years and years, get parts from the junkyard, macguyver the thing with duct tape and baling wire.

[wallofcheese]

The original article is an opinion piece (i.e., no fact-checking) for a college newspaper that publishes wild claims in a pathetic attempt to draw attention to itself. In February, The Recorder published "Rape only hurts if you fight it" and now in March, "Prius outdoes hummer." This newspaper and this article are garbage.

1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo's mileage puts it within "spitting distance" of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is "spitting distance."

2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now.

And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? You can check Consumer Reports for the answer to that one. A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available at TrueDelta.

[wallofcheese]

3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies — early 1970’s) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury’s nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of (visible here ), used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution (visible here ). There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.

Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada -- that's GM, maker of the Hummer, ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury's trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.

Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening. The acid rain problem David Martin of Greenpeace is talking about is the situation pre 1972.

[wallofcheese]

The author of this article, Demorro, is so inaccurate with his facts that in his follow-up piece he recommends people buy a Tesla Roadster for $30,000. The Tesla Roadster actually costs $92,000. The guy can't even get the list price of a car right; I seriously wouldn't trust his opinion on hybrids.

For further info, see Prius Versus HUMMER: Exploding the Myth at The Car Connection

[Midnight Fire]

Let's face it, building ANY car is an affront to nature. It takes a lot of digging in the ground, more than a few factories, and lots of destruction. And that's just one.

So, the differences between cars are really academic, in my opinion.

[jj]

I presume there will be lots of disinfo as Am. Predators want to push a technology they can control.

For those interested in viable technologies, why not have our municipalities float bonds to build factories that are all ready to license, to produce cars that run on compressed air? link. Can't we then put solar rigs on our roofs to power air compressors & be done w/it?

[Edwin muse]

Fine although beaten but it remains the car of my dreams each day that goes by.

[Edwin muse]

Fine although beaten but it remains the car of my dreams each day that goes by.

[Hybrid Authority]

I don't know, but I read some stats on another blog that said the opposite, that the Hummer consumed less energy than most hybrid cars

[Wholesale Car Parts]

i think it got taken a little bit out of proportions - the environment got greater hazards.