Hybrid vehicles and alternate fuels cause more damage to the environment....

...than a hummer.

Here's an article (editorial) written in CCSU's Reporter which describes how the Toyota Prius is more damaging to the environment to manufacter than a Hummer:

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 ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’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 ‘nickel foam.’ 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?

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. 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. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

On a different note: all the hoopla over "bio fuels" (fuels derived from crops such as corn) is misguided as the amount of energy it takes to create the fuel and polution caused by its processing exceeds that which is created by using current petroleum technologies. The only advantage, which in my view is huge, is that it reduces our dependency on foriegn sources of oil.

In addition; the energy/pollution it takes to make solar-electric panels cannot be recovered in its normal lifespan (approximately 10-15 years).

My point for this thread is that if new energy technologies are going to be developed it will be up to us (the general public) to be smart and educate ourselves whether the technology does, in fact, reduce over-all pollution.

Uh, yeah but those factories also make the parts for the car battery in a Hummer. So that means Hummers still create more pollution than a hybrid car, because they would have parts that create pollution when they're made.

Originally posted by MAD Hatt3r
Uh, yeah but those factories also make the parts for the car battery in a Hummer. So that means Hummers still create more pollution than a hybrid car, because they would have parts that create pollution when they're made.

Because it uses a high-power electric motor, the hybrid uses a completely different kind of battery than does the Hummer, or any other gas-only powered vehicle.

Did you read the editorial? Do you think author is lying?

I don't think the author is lying, I think he/she is taking it all out of centext

Originally posted by MAD Hatt3r
I don't think the author is lying, I think he/she is taking it all out of centext

Of course you have facts to back your assertion; right?

Talk about screwing with the data...

He's comparing a single hummer, with an entire nickel mine, not the single car itself. That nickel mine doesnt just make parts for that car, nickel is present in ALOT of devices, not just that car.

Essentially using the authors logic, you could state that all cell phones, laptop computers, and anything else that is battery operated pollutes more than a hummer.

Notice how the author didnt actually state the percentage of the nickel in that mine that goes into the hybrid vehicle? He blatantly compared one single solitary hummer to the entire nickel mining process.

It's this form of disinformation that really gets me angry.

You want facts? Ok.
sealed lead acid (SLA) - thats the common battery type that the Hummer uses.
Lead acid batteries are notorious for leaking once their life span reaches the end. Lead acid is extremely corrosive, and 100% fatal to all forms of life on the planet.
SLA batteries, must allways be stored in a charged state. Unlike Nickel Cadiums and Nickel Metal Hydrates, you have to charge them completley before storage, then maintain that charge over time. In fact, wasting power just for storage alone.
The SLA is one of the hardest batteries to dispose of in an environmentally friendly way. And many people have been known to dispose of the battery, by simply tossing it out with the rest of the usual garbage.
Though Nickel may be a toxic metal, it is alot easier to recycle than an acid, especially an acid that over time has become saturated with lead.
Nickel based batteries are alot more durable than Lead Acid batteries, meaning that you can abuse them, and they aren't going to leak anything onto the ground or surrounding environment.

I would also go into the topic of gasoline consumption of the two vehicles, but that is something that we allready know about, and I would only be insulting everyones intelligence by pushing the matter further.

The author also goes into the cost of building these cars. However, the topic was supposed to be about the environmental issues of the car itself... this is called sidestepping the issue. Instead of actually attempting to prove his point, he goes after a secondary point to make the reader forget about his original argument.
Extensive manufacturing purchases are wonderful for the economy. It keeps people employed. When people start talking about the cost of something in an argument, ignore them, they are obviously ignoring the fact that the exchange of money for goods and services isnt just good for the economy, IT IS THE ECONOMY.
I don't know about this guy, but I'd feel safer keeping the economy alive and well.

All this talk about how much energy it takes to use it as fuel is a load of bull in itself. For instance I shal use an example, even though it's extreme, it sort of puts things into perspective.
A dry forrest is easy to use as fuel, it takes next to no energy to get it to fuel status, it already is fuel. Do we use it as a fuel in vehicles? No of course not, thats a rediculous concept. You'd laugh in anyones face who proposes that.
However, we do use oil... it takes ALOT more energy to refine...
Its not how much energy it takes to make it, it's how much energy you can get FROM it.
I've heard the same arguments regarding the energy of manufacturing about solar panels. People saying they are hard and expensive to make... but with that they are forgetting one point of information... the power you can get from a solar panel over its life span is virtually infinite.

On the topic of batteries, you can't really call it a FUEL source. Its a fuel STORAGE, not a source. That would be like comparing your gas tank to the gas it holds inside of it.
"How much gas does YOUR gas tank use?"
None, thats such a stupid question. It holds the gas.


Quite frankly, if the authors point was valid at ALL... then we'd be carrying around portable gasoline driven generators, and massive lead acid batteries to power our cellphones. All because we didnt want to use nickel.

There are also MANY alternatives to nickel batteries. Just because toyota happened to use a nickel based battery doesnt mean you have to...
Alkaline
Nickel Metal Hydride
Nickel Cadium
Zinc Chloride
Carbon Zinc
Aluminum air
Radioisotope (wouldnt suggest using this)
Lithium Ion
Lithium Polymer
Organic Radical (currently in production)
Oxyride
Silver Oxide
Zinc Air
Zinc Carbon
Lead Acid
Molton Salt
and last but not least Capacitance Tanks

Essentially any battery type can be configured to do the same job. They all have their own induvidual disadvantages, but you are certainly not restricted to using nickel batteries.

I end on this note...
ALL vehicles and electronics have some form of manufacturing process that is bad for the environment... if the author wants to bash the use of these devices, LET HIM TRY TO INVENT AN ALTERNATIVE

[Edit]
Oh, and this isnt really a current event, it's more of a scientific discussion. I would have it moved there.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by johnsky]

From the article...



Hmm I don't think this guy did his research very well.

en.wikipedia.org...

The ore deposits in Sudbury are part of a large geological structure known as the Sudbury Basin, believed to be the remnants of a 1.85-billion year old meteorite impact crater. Sudbury ore contains profitable amounts of many elements, especially transition metals, including platinum. It also contains an unusually high concentration of sulfur. When nickel-copper ore is smelted, this sulfur is released into the environment, where it is toxic to vegetation. Carried aloft, it combines with atmospheric water to form sulfuric acid. This contaminates atmospheric water, resulting in a phenomenon known as acid rain...

...During the Apollo manned lunar exploration program, NASA astronauts trained in Sudbury, to become familiar with shatter cones, a rare rock formation connected with meteorite impacts. However, the popular misconception that they were visiting Sudbury because it purportedly resembled the lifeless surface of the moon dogged the city for years.

The area has also been undergoing an 'regreening' since the '70's as well. Perhaps this guy should update his information?

I also don't think the whole article is very good in general. I don't know where they are getting their numbers from. But I've seen it stated that the Prius' batteries last well up to 200k and more. There whole method of calculating the environmental damage seems very odd to me. They total up all the energy it takes to build the vehicles and some how get an average cost per mile. Well firstly the amount of energy used doesn't necessarily equal pollution/environmental damage. You just can't lump it all together, some machines/equipment my expend more energy, but may not pollute as much. Also I haven't heard of any Prius owners spending $325,000 on their car ($3.25 per mile at 100,000 miles). That's a ridiculous amount of money. I doubt any prius owners have spent even a quarter of that amount at that mileage.

Also, i'd like to add



This goes to show just how wrong the other article is in it's 100,000mile estimate for the battery life.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Do you think author is lying?

I can't say for sure, but it's not looking good for him.

Howdy jra!!
I know we are all in the same boat, but are we all on the same oar strikes?

www.metacafe.com...

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sumOn a different note: all the hoopla over "bio fuels" (fuels derived from crops such as corn) is misguided as the amount of energy it takes to create the fuel and polution caused by its processing exceeds that which is created by using current petroleum technologies. The only advantage, which in my view is huge, is that it reduces our dependency on foriegn sources of oil.

I'm with you on this. Check out this thread regarding ethanol if you haven't already.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

My point for this thread is that if new energy technologies are going to be developed it will be up to us (the general public) to be smart and educate ourselves whether the technology does, in fact, reduce over-all pollution.

Precisely.

fixed link

[edit on 3/29/2007 by darkbluesky]

My point for this thread is that if new energy technologies are going to be developed it will be up to us (the general public) to be smart and educate ourselves whether the technology does, in fact, reduce over-all pollution.

This post would have more impact if it weren't about a study which is completely based off of faulty assumptions and lackluster research.

all the hoopla over "bio fuels" (fuels derived from crops such as corn) is misguided as the amount of energy it takes to create the fuel and polution caused by its processing exceeds that which is created by using current petroleum technologies

This is a rather lofty statement. Care to back it up?

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sumOn a different note: all the hoopla over "bio fuels" (fuels derived from crops such as corn) is misguided as the amount of energy it takes to create the fuel and polution caused by its processing exceeds that which is created by using current petroleum technologies. The only advantage, which in my view is huge, is that it reduces our dependency on foriegn sources of oil.

I'm with you on this. Check out this thread regarding ethanol if you haven't already.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

My point for this thread is that if new energy technologies are going to be developed it will be up to us (the general public) to be smart and educate ourselves whether the technology does, in fact, reduce over-all pollution.

Precisely.

fixed link

[edit on 3/29/2007 by darkbluesky]

You're whole argument in that thread is similarly based on faulty assumptions, and that is the assumption that Biodiesel/Ethanol will only be refined from food crops. This linear thinking has to stop as just with Batteries, there are many more types of crops that are non-edible that can be used for fuel. One example is Jatrohpa oil which is a non-edible crop that can grow in very arid conditions(approximately 50% of Africa is capable of supporting Jatropha plantations) and has a very high oil content comparable with other high energy density crops currently in use today.

It's simply economics. Once the prices of food crops no longer support a profitable ethanol/biodiesel industry, they'll just move to other crops that are cheaper.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by sardion2000]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by sardion2000]

Shut up with your "Techno" know how start reading efficient and respectable tabloid's!!!!

m1.2mdn.net...

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Allred5923]

Originally posted by Allred5923
Shut up with your "Techno" know how start reading efficient and respectable tabloid's!!!!

m1.2mdn.net...

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Allred5923]

..........

Would you please stay on topic and not flamebait people posting in this thread. Of course, if you want to get warned(and possibly banned) KEEP IT UP!