Car Tech: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment?
Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment?
by mfodish - 5/3/07 10:17 PMI agree we need to get more fuel efficient cars, but are hybrids the way to go? I mean they use some type of nickel batteries, which are terrible for the environment when made and eventually disregarded. The product lifestyle for a hybrid is less than a regular care because the batteries go bad around 100000 miles. Furthermore their gas mileage is not phenomenally better than regular cars, realistically they get about 40-45mpg, while regular cars can now get 30 maybe 35.
With the electric car it again uses batteries, and electricity. Many assume that because they use electricity they are automatically green. However what’s the number 1 way of producing electricity in the USA, coal, gas, nuclear, does that not defeat the purpose of an electric car? I must admit an electric motor is highly more efficient than a combustion.
People are talking about ethenol, but how much work does it take to grow, harvest, and produce it.
Everyone needs to look at all the benefits and shortcomings to every technology, from production to destruction.
Basically their is no silver bullet for our energy needs. What we need is another Manhattan project for energy.
- ASU Bioengineering Student
Hybrids, and alternative energy
by sonelvis - 5/4/07 5:53 AM In reply to: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment? by mfodishI like your thinking, and believe Engineering students should be focusing on "what's real"
Hybrids are expensive (from an energy standpoint) to produce, and have many elements which are not recyclable, so the life cycle costs are hard to justify in a one off situation. Somehow, I still want one, and believe that this technology will be helpful.
I am personally biased toward plug in hybrids, using electricity from the grid to substitute for gasoline... I don't have facts, but I believe that it has to be more efficient to produce electricity in a factory than in a car, but I want to take advantage of regenerative braking as well. I think Nuclear is the way to go, even with the disposal problems.
Ethanol and Hydrogen cars are generally bad ideas the way the fuel is produced in the US. Ethanol from corn takes away from the food supply, is subsidized by the government, and puts the burden of the cost onto poor people (through tortilla prices, etc.), while still using 95% of the oil that just burning the gasoline would have taken. Hydrogen is planned to be obtained from cracking oil, so the carbon loading is similar to burning gasoline, and keeps depending on a non-renewable resource.
The only real solution is driving less, public transportation, people power (bicycles, walking). Reducing consumption should be the first priority in any of these discussions.
Remember the source of most electricity
by cschachter - 5/4/07 8:38 PM In reply to: Hybrids, and alternative energy by sonelvisI would agree with the plug in idea if the electricity we were using didn't come from coal and oil burning plants. A lot of pollution is made when we create electricity. There need to be more wind farms & solar power plants before power plant electricity is the answer.
RE: Hybrids, and alternative energy
by someguy7234 - 5/5/07 9:21 AM In reply to: Remember the source of most electricity by cschachterSo not having all the facts, I say this with a grain of salt. I'm not convinced that the "greenhouse gas" argument in general has any merit. As an engineer, I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest that globally (energy) pollution has an impact. That being said, that argument is for scientists, politicians and (apparently) actors to decide. For that reason I'm skeptical of how "inappropriate" producing energy from hydrocarbons really is.
What seems obvious is that pollution has a real lifestyle impact in cities(smog). For this reason, power plants (and plug in cars)become a rather attractive option for mobile power needs. Reducing energy byproducts in heavily populated areas is a realistic short term goal and an attractive one at that.
As to ethanol as an energy source, it may not be feasible to provide 100% of our energy this way, but as it is, America subsidizes farmers to NOT utilize farm land to control the price of produce in America (so farmers don't go poor). This leads me to believe that much of gasoline could be mixed with ethanol to produce a "more environmentally friendly" fuel source.
As to nuclear, It's a no-brainer; nuclear power plants in America release less radiation per kW-hr in an uncontrolled manner than almost coal power plants (yes coal power plants release trace radiation into the atmosphere).
I do agree most however, that not using energy is the best solution. You will likely never get rid of industrial energy use and the home will always require a certain amount of energy to run, but for our personal pocketbooks if for nothing else, it makes a lot of sense to use "people power" and also to build a "greener house". It is true that PVcells on your roof do not make economic sense, but things like investing in double paned glass and flourescent light bulbs do.
Don't forget that energy crises are largely driven by things that have nothing to do with energy. In California, it was discovered that their energy crisis was manufactured by enron. Today it could be argued that the crisis is driven by Western nations pressuring NIC's like china and India to quell their explosive economic growth.
The facts certainly aren't in, and I agree that there are no "silver bullets" but from an economic and from a social standpoint- everyone could use a little more walking and biking, and everyone could be a little wiser about improvements to their homes to make them more "green". ultimately a little investment in things like light bulbs and insulation goes a long way in saving you money in the long term.
plug-in hybrids
by SPDCentanglement - 5/10/07 12:21 AM In reply to: Remember the source of most electricity by cschachterright now i firmly believe that plug-in hybrids (along with public transport, people power and conservation) make the most sense as an option for reducing the carbon footprint of our transport. here are some responses to other arguments:
1) it has been noted that most of our power off the grid is made from coal, gas, or other methods which are not free of carbon emissions. While this is true, a) not ALL of grid power is made that way (especially in parts of the world especially suitable for hydropower like the Northwest) and b) the carbon footprint of energy from electricity off the grid is still much lower than that of burning petroleum in a normal car's combustion engine. This is true EVEN if the electrical power comes from a coal plant: the carbon emissions per mile driven will be lower when running your plug-in hybrid on energy from the grid than on gasoline. Furthermore, there are geopolitical arguments in favor of reducing our petroleum consumption in favor of other energy sources (coal wind nuclear hydro solar) which are sound--if perhaps not fully germane to this discussion. Finally, as our power on the grid continues to be produced in increasingly green ways in coming years (as it should be we hope!) through increasing solar, wind, etc. then plug-in hybrids will become correspondingly even greener. So while plug-in hybrids that use energy off the grid are not a perfect solution, they are significantly greener than petroleum-burning cars, and will only continue to become even greener as solar and wind energy become more efficient, cheap, and prevalent.
2) Hybrid technology is becoming better all the time so the lifetime of the cars is getting better.
I'm not saying plug-in hybrids are the perfect solution, but along with conservation, efficient driving, better public transport and more people power they are a the best option for greening transportation, much better (and practical on a wide scale) in my opinoin than biofuels, at least in the US (maybe not in brazil where ethanol is relatively much cheaper and greener to produce). But perhaps a plug-in flexfuel hybrid would be even better?....
Hybrids have their uses
by debisbooked - 5/24/07 7:59 AM In reply to: Hybrids, and alternative energy by sonelvisHybrids still have a long way to go IMHO. We own a Prius which gets about 47 MPG in real life situations- far better mileage than any other car we have owned in the past. I cannot speak to the other issues like battery death after 100000 or disposal of same. What I believe the hybrids are best at, though, is getting more people to think about how their actions impact Earth. We've been speaking about the consequences of human actions on the environment for over 40 years and, besides a somewhat successful push for curb recycling, less littering, and a few cleaner rivers, do not have much to show for it. Driving a hybrid is a useful step in the road to living a more green lifestyle. Impacting the American choice of auto is a huge step in the right direction.
Simple Efficiency > Techfest
by Impreza WRX - 7/11/07 5:16 PM In reply to: Hybrids have their uses by debisbookedMy old 1993 Honda Civic would break 42 MPG on the highway, and it had very little technology in it! I felt that car was perfect for someone that doesn't need to move lots of stuff around, and it's easy on the environment. Some Civics can push even 46 MPG highway, all this with a 1.5L four cylinder engine and very little after that.
The truth is, efficiency is not in using "hybrid" technology, which while looking nice on paper actually has some very big drawbacks, but being simple and efficient with nothing more than what's absolutely needed is the way to go.
The 92-95 Honda Civic weighs in from 2200-2500 lbs., depending on the trim line. Most other cars its size weigh 2600-2900 lbs. Also, having good aerodynamics and a perfectly matched engine and gearbox will help. The Civic had gear ratios that worked with the tiny engine's miniscule top-end powerband. Some people think that the engine runs too high RPM at cruise, but fact of the matter it doesn't, because it's in the beginning of the powerband pushing just the right amount of power to keep going without using any extra gas. I've been in cars like the early model Kia/Hyundai cars which have 2 or 3 gears for quick acceleration and two huge overdrive gears for good fuel economy. What happens is they aren't matched and you have a car that doesn't accelerate good and gets bad fuel economy. Speaking of acceleration, 9 seconds 0-60 isn't all that bad. The latest Ford F-150 does that in 10.7, so can it about V8 > 4 cylinder.
The biggest problem facing people is patriotism. Americans have to buy American cars! Got to support the US of A. The problem with that is American cars aren't built well, at least not most of them. Only a select few vehicles would I choose from a lineup in Ford, GM or Dodge. They normally build cars at warp speed to poop them out of the factory and sell a huge amount of them, and screw the build quality.
The Japanese manufacturers had to start off learning how to make cars simple and efficient. They didn't have many resources post-WWII, so with scarcity came necessity. While American companies were pooping bigger and bigger engines into their land yachts (which I do like the styling on late 50's cars BTW) the Japanese were starting small and staying small. Now look what we have. The American car companies still tout fast 0-60 times and big engines (among the class) and AMerican Pride but sacrifice everything else to sell them fast whereas the Japanese have continually built small, efficient cars that are high quality, get good fuel economy, and last a long time, and still manage to poop them out real fast and sell lots of them.
Re: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment?
by grant_stevens - 5/5/07 8:12 AM In reply to: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment? by mfodishI think you're definitely on the right track, but one minor correction: While Nickel *Cadmium* batteries are pretty environmentally awful, Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries (used in all of the mass-produced hybrid vehicles on the market right now) are pretty environmentally benign. Also, because nickel is a fairly valuable metal (and there is a lot of it in a hybrid car's battery pack) the batteries are very likely to be extracted and recycled at the end of their useful life.
Source please?
by Andy77e - 5/13/07 7:40 PM In reply to: Re: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment? by grant_stevensI was recently informed that hybrids use NiMH instead of NiCad. Thus I'm not as informed about them. What source to you have for NiMH being environmentally benign?
Please don't give me the Toyota site. I want an outside opinion. Toyota has a huge invested interest in convincing people their cars are "eco-friendly", or they wouldn't pay more for a hybrid.
We know Nickel is valuable, that's why after the warranty is up, and a battery dies, you pay $400 for it.
bunch of misinformation and FUD
by cwerdna - 5/5/07 3:35 PM In reply to: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment? by mfodishThe NiMH batteries that are in the Prius and other hybrids are recyclable. Toyota has a program in place to do so. See http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technology/2004/hybrid.html. "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 and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery"
Where do you get the idea that the batteries are "terrible for the environment"? Is it from article that quote the idiot/shill CNW/Art Spinella and the total misinformation about a plant at Sudbury?
I don't know where you get the notion that the batteries "go bad around 100000 miles." The HV battery is warranted for 10 years/150K miles in CA and a few other northeastern CARB states. http://john1701a.com/prius/owners/jesse3.htm is at 285K miles on his original battery on his previous gen Prius. http://www.hybridcars.com/high-road.html went over 200K miles on his previous gen Prius w/no battery probs. Another benefit is that the brakes last a LOT longer than on regular cars, saving $ on brake jobs. There have been many documented cases of people being past 100K miles still on their original pads. The Ford Escape hybrid taxis in NYC have all exceeded 175K miles now http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/03/ford-escape-hybrid-taxis-top-175-000-miles/ . The Escape hybrid uses batteries from Sanyo vs. the Matsushita/Panasonic ones in Toyota hybrids.
As for "not phenomenally better" mileage, see http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/buyingleasing/most-fuelefficient-cars-206/index.htm. Sure there are non-hybrids w/high mileage, but the Prius for instance has almost the room of a Camry I own a Prius and sure wouldn't want to drive a crappy Yaris. The Prius in CR's testing gets an overall mileage that ~33% better than that of an automatic Yaris. That's pretty significant. 10 gallons of gas would take you 440 miles vs. 330 miles. With proper hybrid driving techniques (pulse and glide, keeping speed below 70 mph), one can manage 50+ mpg in a Prius.
Thx for the corrections
by mfodish - 5/6/07 1:25 PM In reply to: bunch of misinformation and FUD by cwerdnaWow thx for all that information about the lifespan and recycling procedures of the hybrid batteries. I should have researched it more.
What's bad for the environment
by JZepp - 5/9/07 9:17 AM In reply to: Thx for the corrections by mfodishare the people who fail to recognize that their driving habits affect their mileage. A co-worker who owns a Civic Hybrid can instantly tell when her teenage daughter has driven it by the sudden drop in her gas mileage reading. You can't expect fuel-efficiency if you slam the pedal down and jam on the brakes at every opportunity.
Furthermore, to discuss these technologies without considering the real world conditions in which they are used is to miss the point. With the stop and start driving that characterizes most urban areas, hybrids reduce or eliminate much of the gas wasted and pollution caused by idling combustion engines. Assessing technologies solely by their EPA mileage ratings is like believing the cologne ads that claim slapping some on will make you instantly attractive.
The challenge is not finding the perfect technology since this is probably unlikely but rather to achieve a reasonable balance across various needs and alternative solutions while minimizing the negative consequnces of each as much as possible. Just as farming has discovered that the monoculture approach leads to whole system vulnerability, we have to apply this lesson to energy by adopting a range of technology, regulatory, and economic solutions.
Overall, yes. They're good for the environment
by Himself - 5/10/07 3:07 PM In reply to: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment? by mfodishHaving a Prius, I know your points are pretty weak.
* The Nickel batteries are not worse than the Lead in regular car batteries.
* Both types of batteries are recycled, anyway, so it's not like they're going into a landfill or water table any time soon.
* The batteries don't go bad at 100,000 miles. That's just when the warranty ends. You'd be hard pressed to find people who had to replace their battery pack.
* Over the life of a hybrid, you'll save $thousands in gas, and it's not getting any cheaper at the pump.
* From my own experience, In my Prius, I'm getting about 80-100% better mileage than my Ford Focus. About 46 mpg over a tank-full--and I do a lot of driving in the hills.
* My friend's minivan usually gets about 17 mpg and most SUVs get only about 12 mpg.
* Can you say that hybrids don't last as long? My last regular car only went 12 years before it was junked. Hybrids have only been around for less than 8 years & they're not filling up the junk yards.
* If you can spend more for a car, in exchange for buying less gas and maybe get a little joy from not polluting as much, then get a hybrid.
I not so sure.
by Andy77e - 5/13/07 8:10 PM In reply to: Overall, yes. They're good for the environment by HimselfBased on what, do you claim NiHM are not worse than Lead Acid?
I know people who have not only had to replace some batteries, but it cost them a ton too.
Your friends minivan and SUV can haul a lot more, tow alot more, and more people and stuff can fit in it, and it's more comfortable on long road trips, and for most people it's more enjoyable to drive.
I know I'm not polluting much without a hybrid, so there would be no joy in knowing I spent more to save little and do nothing either way on the evironment. I don't like driving an absolute slug either.
Prius MSRP $22,175 Focus MSRP $15,885 Hybrid = $6290 more.
Prius MPG 50 Focus MPG 35
Prius $720: fuel cost per year. Focus: $1028 fuel cost per year.
Prius save you a whooping $308 a year. (assuming 12K miles at $3 per gallon)
So you are going to spend an extra $6290 to save $308. (and I have yet to meet a hybrid owner who actually got the rated mileage) Only in America does this make sense. A penny wise, dollar stupid.
If you keep your hybrid for 20 years, you *MIGHT* save some money. Of course after the first 5 years, you'd be paying full price for repairs. High tech car, high tech prices. Doesn't seem like your saving "thousands" to me.
and BTW, maybe you were around in the 90s, when they said the price of gas would keep going up and ... doh, it dropped to $0.78 per gallon. You do not know what will happen. I do not either.
When the VW TDI comes out, or Audi's Turbo Diesel comes out, and gets 50 miles to the gallon, and yet costs thousands less than your hybrid, how much will you be saving then?
more misinformation, you've probably never been in a Prius
by cwerdna - 7/11/07 10:34 AM In reply to: I not so sure. by Andy77eIn Consumer Reports testing (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/ford/focus/model-overview-4636-5885.htm, you won't be able to access it w/o a subscription), they got 20/35, 28 mpg overall w/the Ford Focus, vs. 35/50, 44 overall for the Prius.
I live in San Jose, CA and the avg. for regular unleaded is already $3.496/gal per http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/CAmetro.asp.
The Ford Focus' reliability is just average according to Consumer Reports vs. FAR ABOVE average for the Prius.
Go run the cost of ownership numbers at http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/comparato r/v2/comparison-fs? for an 07 Prius vs. an 07 Ford focus (I picked a ZX5 S 4 door hatchback). They arrived at a 5 year ownership cost of $22,239 for the Prius vs. $27,433 for the Focus. Looks like Intellichoice is still counting a $1575 tax credit (they deducted only $1572), so you should add on $784.50 to the Prius TCO, making it $23,023.50.
I'm not sure where you're getting the 5 year bit from. The HV battery is warranted for 10 years/150K miles in CA and a couple other states and 8 years/100K miles for everyone else. Again, the Prius has an excellent reliability ratings vs. avg for a Focus.
See my earlier post regarding the 285K mile Prius, 175K mile Ford Escape hybrids and people on their original brake pads even after 100K miles. I needed new front pads on my other car, an 04 350Z after 24K miles. Replacing the pads, turning the rotors and flushing the brake fluid cost me $375 w/tax.
Regarding the Focus, it doesn't even compare to the Prius. Does the Focus have standard (or an option) these: multifunction touchscreen LCD, smartkey system, rear backup camera, Bluetooth phone support, voice recognition and navigation system? Have you ever even ridden in or driven a current gen Prius? You'll find the Focus in comparison is totally basic transportation.
How do you know "I know I'm not polluting much without a hybrid, so there would be no joy in knowing I spent more to save little and do nothing either way on the evironment."? What do you drive?
Since you brought up the Focus, go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm and compare the air pollution scores and greenhouse gas scores of say the two. The Prius is estimated to emit 3.4 tons/year of GHG vs. 6.2 tons for a Focus. You can lookup the meaning of the air pollution scores at http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf.
Since you mention VW or Audi TDIs, great... VW reliability is AWFUL. Any savings will be more than negated in repair costs and high maintenance costs on VWs and esp. Audi.
Why does buying a hybrid have to be ONLY about saving money? Does a V8 engine save $? How about sunroofs? You'll never find anything about them saving money beacuse they don't. Think of having a hybrid as having another feature that recaptures energy that would otherwise become useless heat and brake dust and repurposing it later. The gas engine almost never runs when you're stopped at a stoplight/stuck in traffic. You put out less pollution and use less foreign oil which is not a renewable resource and much of it comes from unstable regions/countries that don't like us much.
Message was edited by: admin to edit long URL so it doesn't break page
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
