The Prius: The Destroyer of the Environment?
June 20, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
A neato study was done comparing the total environmental impact of a Toyota Prius hybrid over its expected lifespan (100 000 miles) as compared to its arch-nemesis, the Hummer over its expected lifespan (300 000 miles).  Guess which one came out on top?
The CNW Marketing study has been roundly discredited. Even a cursory examination shows that the Hummer is given a 300k life while the Prius was given a 100k life. Three times the mileage to absorb the Hummer’s manufacturing and driving costs.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/0.....han-prius/
You don’t think that 3 times the gas being guzzled and pumped into the air through the tailpipe to be a fair comparison against a vehicle running on a battery half the time?
Ok…
Meh. I thought it was interesting. I don’t particularly care if people buy a prius or not. Myself, thinking only of my wallet, would prefer to drive a Mini Cooper anyway (which would satisfy my need for coolness AND suck less gas than my truck) BUT…
The truck is darned useful.
Try this:
– Surf to http://maps.google.com
– search for 46.47, -81
– switch to satellite view
– zoom out a few levels
Take a look at how the area around the outskirts of Sudbury is green, but the 2005 summer satellite shots that Google used show much of Sudbury to be brown. That is the rock that was uncovered when the soil was washed away.
John M Reynolds
Ah. Another in the “Let’s Compare Apples and Oranges, and Shrug When the Fallacies are Pointed Out To Us” series of rigorous scientific essays collected by “The Politic”.
Shane, did you actually think there was any value in this comparison at all, when you look at what’s being compared, and what’s not?
Ah, thank you for coming, Balbully. we’ve been expecting you.
Had you read the comments before breaking out the shotgun, you would know why I posted this.
If Edwards believes a Prius is more damaging to the environment than a Hummer, he will likely believe absolutely anything.
This study quoted only by idiots nowadays
Roundly discredited rick?
The article you pointed to, doesn’t say much except the 100,000 miles comparison sounds fishy.
CNW explained their reasoning for this which sounded pretty good
Ok, KC, if I must ;->
Hummer versus Prius
“Dust to Dust†Report Misleads the Media and Public with Bad Science
Dr. Peter H. Gleick
Pacific Institute
May 2007
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/....._prius.pdf
There is also an excellent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute that comes to the same conclusion.
https://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf
(both, peer reviewed articles, unlike the CNW study).
I did read the CNW report and they focus on the battery and what to do with it at the end of its life–how to recycle and rebattery the vehicle. But PG&E is already making plans to reuse the batteries in RE installations to store energy (while not as useful as tractor batteries, they still have uses). They make assumptions in the article that may or may not be valid, there’s no real data.
Finally, I’d point to the new Google Institute RechargeIT initiative
http://www.google.org/recharge/
V2G, storing excess grid energy generated at night in vehicles batteries and reusing it during the day, is an innovative idea that sounds quite interesting.
Still, 300,000 miles would translate to about 20-30 years of useful life for the Hummer. Some may be around a relics and museum pieces after all those years, but I don’t see any way that tank will still on the road after all those years.
Oh, “Balbully”. Gosh, that’s really witty. Adult, too. You’re starting to make Peter Rempel look positively post-pubescent. Are you taking lessons from Canadian Sentinel?
I did read your response. It didn’t answer my question, which I will rephrase.
You posted a link to an article which was based on a series of invalid comparisons and some REALLY huge leaps in logic. My favourite: batteries use nickel. Nickel comes from Sudbury. Look at Sudbury. Yeah, that was a high point.
As an aside, the article was extremely poorly written, badly edited, and rotten with poor grammar and typos.
So you posted it because you found it “interesting”. “Interesting” as what? As an example of really lousy propaganda masquerading as science? As an example of the kind of drivel ideologues will swallow to “prove” a point?
Rick
The Pacific’s problem is summed up with, “The report’s conclusions are completely at odds with what the science currently says about vehicle energy requirements.” The trouble is the original post does not just deal with vehicle energy requirements. The Pacific document has built a straw man argument.
As well, their May 2007 document complains about a lack of evidence when it says that “CNW has provided no such proof.” The trouble is the Why 100,000 Miles is dated April 10, 2007. The evidence was available.
Balbulican, I too found the article interesting. It was noted in the Why 100,000 Miles document that the high cost of the Prius will not last “as the technology continues to spread across other models and the disposal/scrap industry learns how to deal with its high-tech materials and components”, but the anaysis is indeed interesting nonetheless.
John M Reynolds
Perhaps. It is also interesting that I made no vouch for the quality of the article whatsoever, only pointing it out for, as I stated, interest.
Sadly, I am not capable of searching and backchecking every single thing I read and find comment-worthy for whatever reason. I do have a job to do which takes the bulk of my time. It is always easier for those who wish to take shots to take what another says and knock it down – it is always easier to rebut than to declare.
However, on the Sudbury point, is it not the origin of the nickel used in the Prius batteries? If you have information showing that it is not, then certainly that would weigh against the piece.
As for the Balbully crack, I was rather proud of the double-entendre. It is common to add a “y” to show affection for people which was my intent in a roundabout way. The second meaning, calling you a “bully”… well, go back and read the history of your comments.
You are a bully. Certainly not interested in moderately civil discourse. Case in point: “Ah. Another in the “Let’s Compare Apples and Oranges, and Shrug When the Fallacies are Pointed Out To Us†series of rigorous scientific essays collected by “The Politicâ€Â.” Rather meanspirited beginning was it not?
Balbully may be a lot of things but he is definitely not an ideologue…bwahahaa, Balbully said “ideologue”…bwahahahaaa…
The origin of the nickel is not important. That the nickel was smelted here is what matters. Even after the early 1990s reduction in Sulpher dioxide emissions, there is still a long way to go to get the pollution down here in Sudbury. The Superstack helped the city out quite a bit as did the massive re-greening effort, but the stack just acidified hundreds of area lakes. Many areas are classified as unrecoverable. How do you put a price on that?
And this is ignoring the old smelting by crib method of days of yore.
My main question is about the amount of stainless steel used in the vehicles since nickle is used to make stainless steel.
John M Reynolds
Thanks jmrSudbury, you took the words right out of my mouth.
These conclusions seem to focus around this 100,000 miles for the Prius which makes sense. If you’re mostly driving it around the city, your not going to put a lot of miles of it in a given year.
It’s not that the Prius won’t last longer that 100,000 miles, it’s the amount of time it takes to get there.
I recall when I was going to school, I drove to it everyday in the city and usually put on 10,000 KM/year or 6,000 miles.
Here’s a hint, Shane. If you don’t want to be mocked for disseminating badly written, badly researched, badly reasoned propaganda…don’t disseminate badly written, badly researched, badly reasoned propaganda. It works for me.
Hush little Shane
don’t say a word
Balbull’s going to buy you a mocking bird
and if that mocking bird won’t sing
Balbull’s going to buy you a diamond ring
…blah blah…
ahhh, the mocking bird song: featuring Balbull and the Stagleft wind band, now playing here, there and everywhere – mocking, rock-on Balbull!
balbulican, while I too dislike grammar errors, you still have to prove that it is badly researched and badly reasoned propaganda.
The first link Rick gave had as its main argument that the amortization considered by the story was not industry standard. The problem is that the industry standard is bogus. Amortizing over future production? Ya right. Five years ago, GM probably tried that with their new Alero. Then they dropped the whole Oldsmobile line. Those amortization numbers were useless guesses. The CNW story has it right: base the numbers on current data not hopes for the future.
It is the Pacific Institute that is using propeganda. Arguing that sources of funding were not disclosed and lack of peer review are side issues. Attack the data not the source. The only almost valid argument made was the lack of clarity on how the anaysis was done. Too bad that analysis had already been made available though by the time Pacific published in May.
Rick’s second link to the RMI was based on computer modeling and missed the bulk of the manufacturing arguments. They argued a different premise by creating a straw man argument.
Does anyone have a serious critique of the CNW paper? It seems that CNW were the only ones able to put their paper into the proper perspective.
John M Reynolds
Does anyone have a serious critique of the CNW paper?
Sure, in Why 100,000 Miles for Prius? CNW makes a lot of assumptions about G1 Prius’ being quickly rolled in the marketplace by non-existent but “coming” models like the Chevy Volt, therefore shortening the working lifespan of the Prius. So far, G1 models, those out of warranty, are in peak demand for plug-in experimentation and are getting top dollar. The assumption that people will dump their Prius’ early is just that, an assumption.
Second, the methodology penalizes the Prius for having to develop new technology while amortimizing the cost Hummer development over several models (after all, it’s just a chevy truck with additional R&D and production development funded by the taxpayers).
I do not fault either the assumptions of the Pacific article or the RMI study. I find their complaints creditable.
Thanks for the reply Rick, but I asked for a serious reply. You said, “CNW makes a lot of assumptions about G1 Prius’ being quickly rolled in the marketplace by non-existent but “coming†models like the Chevy Volt, therefore shortening the working lifespan of the Prius.”
They based this assumption on historical data. Their assumption makes sense. The people who bought hybrids already are the early adopters who are most likely to upgrade thus dumping their old prius. You saying that this CNW made an assumption is not proof that the assumption is incorrect.
Next you switch topics from lifespan to demand of old models for experimentation. You said the opposite of what the CNW article said, but you did not provide proof. They said, “We’ve already seen the early stages of this happening with decreasing used values for all of the original batch of hybrids.” Do you have any proof that the trend evident in the early stages has been reversed?
Next, you said that “the methodology penalizes the Prius for having to develop new technology while amortimizing the cost Hummer development over several models.” What is the problem with that? If you are not even going to back up your statements, then why should I consider your post to be a serious reply?
Finally, you wrote that you found the Pacific and RMI complaints to be “creditable” yet you did not address any of my concerns about them. I won’t give in to talking points. Show me the proof or at least your logic behind your arguments.
I am still waiting for a serious reply.
John M Reynolds
I don’t know where you got G1 from, but here are a couple of facts. The 2001 to 2003 Prius (NHW11) was the first Prius sold in the U.S. which sold in relatively small numbers. The 2004 to 2007 Prius (NHW20) is the larger model that can be converted to a plug-in. — John M Reynolds
then why should I consider your post to be a serious reply?
For the same reason yours is a semi-serious position. There is no long-term historical data model I know of that reflects the buying habits of American auto buyers of new technology vehicles in a era when gasoline prices are upwards of $3/gallon and rising.
Work it from the other side of the equation. Why a 300k lifetime for an 8mpg or whatever Hummer in an era of rising gasoline prices? What is the historical evidence that predicts future behavior in that case?
Truth be told, this is a fun debate because of the lack of solid foundation to argue from. CNW doesn’t supply enough references to backcheck their work and they didn’t have anyone else do it either.
I should also point out that you have not presented in data, just opinion and analysis.
Rick, your whole argument in comment 21 hinges on a lack of historical evidence. The current gas prices are similar to what was experienced in the 1970s in 1970s dollars. There is plenty of historical evidence; therefore, your argument holds no weight. — John M Reynolds
21? this thread is getting too long.
The Arab Oil Embargo was an artificial shortage and short lived, so there is little correlation to 1978 and today in a historical sense.
OTOH, worldwide oil production has been flat or in slight decline at 200 billion barrels per year for about a decade. What oil that is left is not the easy to refine light sweet crude but heavy sour crude (heavy in sulfer), which is very expensive to refine (we’re getting into the cost of refining tar sands range, here).
At current growth rates by about 2020 China alone will have need of about that much oil, not counting India (which is booming) and the western world. Even in the US gasoline consumption has been increasing at about 15% per year for the last several years. So there is good reason to believe that oil prices are rising and will stay high, unlike in 1978 (which is the reason GE’s Ecomagination line of hybrid locomotives is selling so well in the rail industry, and Wal-Mart is working to drastically cut their utility expenses. A lot of companies are looking down the road and doing their best to insulate themselves against higher oil prices they see coming).
So, in short, I don’t see any economic or societal trends that indicate Hummer like vehicles will be with us for 300k miles, to bring this back to the topic in hand.