In The Washington Post, the dean of DC car hacks reports of his meeting with GM engineers to discuss gas – electric hybrids. The boffins convinced Warren Brown they're a duff deal. "In terms of what engineers call 'well-to-wheel energy costs,' gas-electrics actually are more energy consumptive and environmentally stressful than the traditional gasoline-powered cars and trucks they are supposed to replace. It takes lots of energy to design, develop, manufacture, transport and install nickel-metal hydride and lithium ion batteries. And, again, once their energy is used, once those batteries have become entropic, something has to be done with them." Full marks for recycling an old argument. But it's more than that; it's Warren's Road to Damascus. "It was in that context, over a luncheon of killed and cooked fish [dig the symbolism] we were eating to fuel our bodies, that we ventured into a conversation about Christian religious beliefs… Energy conservation is nothing more than an attempt to delay and manage the inevitable. It requires intelligence. It demands compromise. You can even argue that… it requires a certain amount of love. Essentially, it is an act of faith in something better." Amen.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
So with the Christian argument of using good stewardship as demanded by God almighty himself in Genesis, where he gives Adam (and therefore mandkind) dominion over the earth and everything in it, with the understanding of using it wisely, I’m quite happy to drive my Prius, thanks very much.
I have to say “tish tosh what tossers these GM ijits truly are” because they speak with forked tongue, to mix metaphores. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t GM working on at least two different hybrid systems or is it three?
If they are so concerned about electric hybrids, why not use hydraulic hybrids? I mentioned right here on TTAC in another forum last week, that I found a fascinating article in a November 1977 Popular Science magazine (I believe it was PS not Popular Mechanics but can’t recall without it right in front of me). In the article, an engineering team showed a 1977 Ford Granada which obtained 38.4 mpg instead of a conventional car’s 16 mpg, by means of a hydraulic hybrid design with accumulator tank. The standard Ford six cycled on and off, running at a steady 3500 rpm, and they didn’t use the word “hybrid” but that is what it was. It even recuperated braking power for later use.
In the meanwhile, I’ll go ahead and disbelieve this nonsense anti-electric hybrid drivel constantly put out by the GM and also Nissan people (read: Ghosn)(while at the same time they both are developing electric hybrids).
Wells to wheels indeed.
Huh? GM is working like mad (supposedly) to get the Chevy Volt out, and then they tell good old Warren that it’s not really about saving energy. And what’s up with Warren these days? I don’t get all this religious mumbo jumbo. Is he trying to atone for his frequent references to sex and “libido” in his reviews?
It would be interesting to see an apples to apples comarison of energy and waste produced from oil in the ground to gas in your tank vs. battery production/recycling/etc. I suspect a Prius is far less green than it gets credit for. Anyway, everyone’s jumping on the hybrid bandwagon for the perception more than the reality.
Well, guyincognito, I manage to get 45-50 mpg (US) in my Prius, and on a trip to the Upper Peninsula, managed over 56.5 mpg (over 800 miles, so it was not a fluke). With 3 people, several hundred pounds of luggage and food, too.
Plus the (main traction) battery is recycleable to re-cycle the nickel, etc., (and just to be clear, Toyota reminds the junk-yard that they’ll get $300 per battery to send it back – and let’s be honest, salvage yards are more profitable than the average big 2.8 car dealer, so let’s assume they know how to get $300 rather than putting it in the crusher).
A mid-sized car 200% more efficient than anything else on the road? Prius. It’s not as dumb as you think, nor is it just for the perception instead of reality.
For me, driving to/from work with my wife (carpooling) and obtaining 45-50 mpg IS reality.
We have plenty of other stuff we want to spend money on instead of gas. Like, retirement, vacations, dinner out, family needs, friends.
Not sending extra money to people who profess to wish to destroy our nation and our way of life.
Hey glenn126, did you even read guyincognito’s post? The mileage that you get, while impressive, says nothing about the energy used to mine and refine the raw materials for the batteries, or the energy used to produce or recycle those batteries that allow your good mileage. THAT is what matters in terms of overall conservation, not just what you (the end user) save in gas.
It could be that the complexity of the dual drivetrains in current hybrids *is* more efficient from well to wheel, but it could easily go the other way. Point is, no one knows for sure.
It takes lots of energy to design, develop, manufacture, transport and install nickel-metal hydride and lithium ion batteries
When someone starts talking about how much energy is takes to design a battery, you know they’re really picking nits.
I tend to think that hybrids have yet to really payoff, and may end up never doing so (yes, glenn gets good mileage, but you can get good mileage out of non-hybrids as well). But I don’t fault the people who buy them, since they’re really just early adopters.
an ounce of perception is worth a pound of performance.
Warren lost me when he used the old can’t-recycle-the-batteries argument, which was long ago show to be bogus. They’re designed to be recyclable, particularly the expensive materials inside them. It’s not rocket science. It’s, uh, battery science.
Lets see, the GM engineers have spun that hybrids aren’t really that efficient or enviromentally friendly etc. What a surprise they also showed the washington post columnist that 4 speed automatics are actually superior to 5 and 6 speed automatics and more efficient too.
Note to GM this is a perfect example of why so many people do not like GM and hold it in such disdain. Everytime you flat out lie or spin the truth into a lie, you end up destroying your own credibility which has now reached a point where even if you tell the truth, I assume you are lying.
OK, I think we now all know where Karl Rove will work as of September 1st. Interesting move from GM.
glenn126, I don’t mean to say the Prius isn’t amazingly efficient or that the technology isn’t cool, just that I question the overall environmental benefit of its hybrid drivetrain. Couldn’t the same or better efficiency have been achieved with a deisel engine? While nickel-metal hydride batteries are recyclable they are also composed of seriously nasty stuff. Surely there is some waste in the manufacturing/recycling process. Of course I was drinking the same kool-aid as those GM engineers not too long ago.
Well Warren lost all credibility for me when he reviewed the Audi A3 3.2 and compared it to a Chevy Impala and claimed the Impala was the better car for less money!
I have always wondered if hybrids and fully electric vehicles are the saviors they have been touted as being (what the hell, I’ll stick with the metaphor, if only this once). My reasons for doubt definitely aren’t the bilge spewed from the tanks of GM or Mr. Brown; however I do have some reason for doubt.
Ultimately, recyclable or not, things will wear out. As another writer has said, the batteries used in electrics do contain some nasty chemicals, not to mention nasty chemicals are used in their manufacture. Ultimately, then, you’ve got to do something with the chemicals, and now you’ve got a haz-mat problem. It appears to me that all we’re doing is trading off Los Angeles’ air quality for Love Canal’s ground water contamination. This is the ideal answer, or at the very least the best answer now available?
It’s also interesting that in the U.S., the largest source of electricity is coal burning, and again that doesn’t strike me as helping get anywhere near the Green Utopia that electrics and hybrids are touted to create. Not to sound too pessimistic, but nothing we humans use as propulsion is going to be perfect, though that seems news to many of the more naive or idealistic environmentalists. Even with a horse, somebody has to get a shovel and clean the streets. Ya takes your pick and you pays your price.
Hi guyincognito. Well, to answer your question, even looking at cars not available in the US, I’ll give you a direct size-for-size comparison between the Prius and the Toyota Avensis, which can be had with a very modern and (relatively clean) turbo-intercooled diesel.
Here’s a link to Toyota UK so you and everyone else can see the car
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_editorial.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0657720979.1187630068@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdaddlkikifemcfngcfkmdfkidffk.0&navRoot=toyota_1024_root&portal=null&nodiv=TRUE&edname=AV4_exp&id=MSR_AVENSIS&catname=%2ftoyota_root%2fTopNav%2fNew+Cars&zone=Zone+Avensis&menuid=10638&sr=Mall
Now, the Avensis is a nice car – about the same size as the Prius, can be had in a 5 door hatchback which is as useful as the Prius.
But the car is highly complex in it’s own way. Diesels don’t come cheap. Turbochargers don’t come cheap. Intercoolers don’t come cheap. And high tech fuel injection and diesel emission systems also don’t come cheap. Lots of specialty aircraft grade, rare raw materials go into turbochargers, for example.
Yet the car uses more fuel than a Prius, and pollutes (CO, HC, NOx) significantly more than the Prius. To the point that Toyota could not even offer this modern, high tech (and it is) diesel in the United States – it is too dirty for sale in any of the 50 states, without significant additional emission equipment (and yet more cost).
Sure, I “could” have gotten a Jetta diesel in 2005 when I bought my Prius. But I don’t trust VW reliability. I don’t like smelly hands and feet from spilled diesel. The exhaust would be far dirtier (approximately 17 times dirtier than the Prius, in fact). Notice that VW no longer can sell diesels in the US until they add the latest, expensive and efficiency reducing diesel car emission technology now in the wings.
Mind blowing, itn’t it, that a whole neighborhood of Prius cars is cleaner than one 2005 Jetta diesel. And car for car, uses about the same amount of fuel (there are arguments both ways so let’s just say they’re relatively even).
Yep, there is a way to make a hybrid withbout batteries. Hydraulic hybrids, which are what the UPS are doing with their delivery trucks.
So, if the next-gen 2009 Prius is a microturbine hydraulic hybrid, I’ll cheer and buy one. But I suspect it’ll be a refinement of what they’ve done, and I may well buy one anyway!
I’m thinking of selling my 2005 (under 47,000 miles, NADA $19,400), and getting a 2008. I owe less on the car than it is valued at because the resale value is phenomenally good compared to conventional cars.
That speaks volumes, brother.
Oh yes, the Avensis has a minimum of 146 grams per km of CO2, whereas the Prius has a maximum of 104 grams per km of CO2, which means it is much more efficient.
I do question the environmental strengths of the Prius. Now, I don’t doubt that some people get great mileage on their Prius, but most of my friends with Priuses average 42-48. I average 30 in my Focus (and it’s PZEV, mind you – same non-CO2 tailpipe emissions as a Prius) and 31 in my Civic. Neither required nickel refining and battery production and both weigh hundreds of pounds less and were manufactured in the U.S. and shipped less distance. Granted, I’m wasting a lot of extra energy by not collecting my braking energy and such, but I’ve also spared our planet 400-500 lbs of raw materials whose mining, processing and shipping require extra emissions – a lot of extra emissions (and chemicals).
Now, if the Prius really averaged 55 and once in a while touched 60 for *most* people as the old EPA figues had it, it might make more sense – the percentage savings might have finally been good enough. Heck, when Li+ batteries debut, I imagine that their savings will be even better than NiMh, and it might be worth it from an environmental prespective, but right now, driving small cars (Civic, Focus, Corolla) as little as possible (my partner and I are down to 15,000 combined – just under 500 gallons).
It’s true that hybrids offer something at the pump, but their supply chains are far more complex – their development cycles are more complicated. You can recycle the batteries, but recycling is not 100% efficient. You have to put a lot of energy into the battery actually recycle its materials.
The truth about the Prius is that it is a unique car that has helped change our perception of what fuel-efficient cars can do and are like. That is probably its greatest achievement, and that’s how it will be remembered. However, as far as overall environmental impact – it’s still a car. It still does pollute, and it has more parts to contribute to pollution than most cars. And it doesn’t achieve magical or amazing numbers, just very good numbers for most people. My friends were trading in late 90s, early 00s efficient small cars just to have a Prius – not because they really wanted a new car. That’s pretty wasteful right there!
GM’s comments, while a bit disingenuous, are partially correct. What they won’t tell you, however, is that it would be even more environmentally friendly to forgo new vehicles and look for alternative ways to travel and evaluate your need to travel.
The good that is coming from the Prius-created gas mileage craze is the launch of newer, more efficient gas engines and cleaner diesel engines just over the horizon, which combined with alternate fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel) and better hybrid systems (Li+, new power distribution, hydraulics) and just general changes in car systems (electrical, alternator, braking, weight, aerodynamics) might be what we need to soften the inevitable blow. But the Prius, as it stands, is not the answer. And other than thanking you for being an early adopters of an expensive and experimental technology to keep the craze going, I don’t find that Prius owners have any room to brag about their enviro-credentials if they are still driving a vehicle versus thinking completely different about how to live in this changing world.
I DO wonder about the manufacture, transport, and recycling of those batteries. I know the mining is just sickly bad environmentally. Still, I haven’t seen any reports I believe one way or another. The fact that people are posting here about great Prius mileage to refute the story shows you how tough it is to get the truth anymore. As a society, we can all be a bit dense, and therefore, entrenched interests can continue to throw out bull without fear.
Until the press starts fulfilling their mandate of publicly discrediting individuals, organizations, and governments when they truly do lie, we will continue to get “both sides” of the story. Truth will never be discovered, because all the reward, and little punishment, goes to those who push their own agendas without any concern for truth.
When we catch someone lying on behalf of GM, we should make sure that the lie is rehashed every time they speak publicly – EVER AGAIN. Same for the greens and the pols. That is what the press is for.
Only that will make people more responsible before they stand up and toe the company line. If they may never be able to work as a spokesperson again, they will likely refuse to lie for their measly salaries, forcing the top managers to take the risks themselves.
Robert, Landcrusher, feel free to buy and drive what you want! But the hype and anti-hybrid rhetoric “out there” in the lame-stream media is getting a little old for those of us who actually are trying to make a difference.
Even if – all things considered – the “well to wheels” argument comes out that the Prius and Civic IMA are no more efficient over a lifetime of 250,000 miles than a diesel car, yet use – let’s say 2/3’s of the fuel (and therefore emits 2/3 of the carbon) into the atmosphere while it is being used – this means 1/3 less fuel imported from crazed nations who seek to destroy our civilization. (Generalization maybe – but would you hand your state house keys to “Mister” Chavez? How about “Mister” A-mad-dog-on-jihad?).
Even the Amish horse & buggy takes a toll on the environment, folks. In fact, if you look back some 100 years, the low cost automobile was hailed as a health boon, because eventually, it would (and did) clear out tons of filthy horse manure from our cities, with the disease and stink that went with it.
Not many people think about it like that, but I’d much prefer paved roads, a Prius, running water, electricity, etc. to clay-mud roads, a horse & buggy (which consumes “fuel” even while “idle”), a hand pump for water and having lamps lit by sperm oil from an endangered species.
I kind of like the 21st century.
I was curious, so I did some quick calculations on the energy use of the Prius. The battery pack of the Prius weighs 53.3 kg, and I’m assuming the largest percentage of that mass is the nickel, So I’m assuming about 30 kg of nickel per Prius.
According to an Australian producer’s website, producing one tonne of nickel produces 45.4 tonnes of CO2 directly. As near as I could tell, it also uses 567 GJ/tonne of power. Assuming an Oil power plant (better than coal, worse than natural gas) that results in 78kg of CO2 per GJ. So refining one ton of nickel produces 90 tonnes of CO2.
Per Prius that comes to 2700 kg of CO2. With the Prius releasing 104g/km of CO2 and the 4-cylinder Camry about 146g/km of CO2 (I wasn’t sure of the accuracy of the Camry number)
That comes to ~64000km before the Prius begins to gain CO2 ground on the Camry. Of course this is assuming so much. Like assuming that other than the batteries, the materials are the same in the Prius and Camry, which ofcourse they aren’t. It also doesn’t take into account the impact of mining the nickel, or of the other chemicals in the process.
I guess all this showed me is that this question is complex beyond a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
I read the entire original article. It’s a trifecta of bad. Bad theology, factual errors and a complete failure of journalism in neglecting to contemplate the possible motives of your source.
I did learn one thing, though: I shouldn’t be expecting a Chevy Volt to show up on the streets any time soon.
It seems a bit disingenuous for people to complain about the impact of nickel mining on the environmental credentials of the Prius, when nickel is used everyday in “worthless” applications.
The example of real word mileage given earlier spoke of the Prius attaining 42-48mpg and a civic having 31 mpg. This would be a mileage increase of 26.2-35.4%.
Nickel is also used in the manufacture of US coins. 25% for nickels, 8.33% for dimes and up.
One of these examples is a huge gain in fuel efficiency; the other is a pile of metal disks…
If one truly feels justified in the merits of arguing against nickel mining, you might want to start with the low hanging fruit.
“It seems a bit disingenuous for people to complain about the impact of nickel mining on the environmental credentials of the Prius, when nickel is used everyday in “worthless” applications.”
straight8 –
True… *BUT* how much more nickel would need to be mined if every car being made needed a NiMH battery. There is no way to get a truly zero impact vehicle.
I happen to think it is disingenuous of Hybrid boosters not to consider the *possible* (not definite but possible) environmental impacts of the production of their vehicles when talking about the “green” aspects of ownership. Great mileage? Sure, but you can’t say that your own personal conservation means that the car is, in total, greener.
Ultimately, all of this is the 21st century version of the ancient “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” argument. Ridiculous, pointless, waste of time.
So many people ignore the very most basic facts: that the population of the world is increasing rapidly (there’s no argument about that, assuming you can count), that things seem to be happening WHATEVER the cause that are creating climatic changes (there’s no argument about that either, only argument about what’s causing it, and for all I care maybe that guy god’s causing it), that we are using increasing amounts of energy drawn from a tangible supply (who could argue that?), etc. etc. Hell, even if they figure out cold fusion, there’s only so much water in the world…
The fact is that we are all selfish and that only a minuscule number of people are willing to make sacrifices for future generations. And maybe we’re right: why should we constrict our very pleasant lives for the sake of uncomfortable generations yet unborn? Are you gonna bicycle to work and seat all day so that somebody in the 24th century will still have water to drink or wood to chop? Of course not.
It is quite obviously hopeless. Even if the First World miraculously turned 80-percent caring (there will alway be the moronically witless 10 percent), and 90 percent of us decided to slow down, limit our energy usage, downsize, have less fun, make less money, spend less money…who is going to tell the Indians and the Chinese, who suddenly have access to at least a little bit of what we’ve been enjoying since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that no, they need to back off, keep carrying drinking water in buckets on their heads, get out of that Hindustan or Chery and get back on the bike?
I once wrote the script for a documentary film on the deforestation of vast areas of Nepal (it was nominated for an Oscar, in fact), which in the Himalayan foothills led to terminal erosion during the rainy season, thus destroying what parts of the forests were left.
The solution? Persuade the Nepalese peasants to stop chopping wood and instead starve, since there’d be no way for them to cook their food, and to freeze their skinny asses at night. Riiiight.
The equivalent? Persuade the First World to drastically slow up its energy usage. Riiight.
Waste of time. Tell me your “solutions,” your “answers,” and I’ll ask you exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You won’t have an answer for that either.
Have a good life, you’ll be out of it soon, and then what does it matter?
The diesel lovers in the USA can argue all day about the merits of diesel powered autos. Yes they may be cheaper than Hybrid cars today and they are about just as efficient. But for the overwhelming majority of Americans diesel is NOT a viable option today. The availablity of diesel is very limited and will continue to be limited into the foreseeable future. As long as the overwhelming majority of cars and light trucks require gasoline to run there will be little to no room for diesel at the local gas station.
Anyone from the northeast of this country can tell you that diesel is for sale in maybe 1 in 10 stations (IF you are lucky). When diesel is available it is only dispensed through one pump in each station! So needless to say a proliferation of diesel powered vehicles in America would be problematic at the least.
Now I do not know abou the rest of the country but around here at certian times of the day there is a back up at teh local filling stations with folks needing to wait for a pump to become available. In many area there is no room on the local street for a back up of traffic waiting to purchase fuel. The owners will also tell you that there is not much profit in selling diesel since it requires a dedicated pump but does not currently generate enough demand. If you own a busy franchise why have a pump sit idle or have customers wait when you can just sell gasoline and keep all the pumps going all day long.
To dedicate more pumps to diesel will only limit the ability to dispense gasoline which will always be in higher demand.
Now those guys at Toyota aint no fools and they seem to understand this fact. Hybrids fit right into our existing infrastructure. Toyota is banking on selling a product that can successfully exist on its own without relying on other players to get on board and make major investments and changes to their business model.
If the price of gas was to climb to $5.00 per gallon tomorrow Toyota will be able to sell its Hybrid everywhere and anywhere. Diesel will sell but once the amount of diesel powered vehicles reaches a given level the problems of supplying them all with fuel will need to be dealt with.
I’m the lucky Civic owner (2 of them) surrounded by Prius driving neighbors, 4 or 5 on my street alone. We often jab each other teasingly, but I appreciate the fact that people are becoming aware of the fact that things must change, and change hurts. I see us all driving goldwing powered seven speeds someday, call me crazy!
It’s pretty simple: if it costs less, it uses less energy. If a hybrid owner spends less money owning, operating, and maintaining their vehicle than someone with a conventional vehicle, then they are using less energy. A hybrid will beat most vehicles on the road in that regard, but probably not the inexpensive and fuel efficient compacts. However, they may also be buying a little extra cheap energy now in order to use a lower amount of more expensive energy after we hit the peak.
Cowbell: – you forgot to allow for recycling. Though surely there will be some loss through the manufacturing and recycling process, most of the nickel produced for one Prius battery will be available for use in a long line of its successors.
I drive a Prius but driving a Prius isn’t going to save the planet. I agree with Cowbell that the environmental cost/benifits of hybrid cars is far too complex to be answered on this forum. But whatever its merits, the Prius is not “the answer”. But I do think it is a step in a direction that is better than the direction our love of cars has been taking us in. The Prius says “I will make buying choices based in part on the environmental impact of my consumption even if it does mean I am inconvenienced (i.e. – it costs me more so there is something else I can’t buy)” It’s as much a statement to manufacturers as it is to other people.
I think this is why hybrids (and hybrid owners) get criticized so much. Cars have created previously unimaginable mobility but the environmental cost is enormous and unsustainable. We know this even though we love the prestige, power, speed and cheap travel that cars bring. By making a statment about the need to reduce the environmental impact of cars, the Prius is a direct affront to our happy fantasies about the car culture.
Which is a bit of a joke really because the Prius may be a step towards improved environmental sustainability but it is only a tiny step and it is surely not any threat to a car dominated transport system (in fact it probably supports it). But it still pisses a lot of people off because it is perceived to be a raised finger towards our love affair with cars.
What I find most curious is the reluctance most of us have to sacrifice even a little bit of convenience or pleasure in the interests of improved efficiency or better road safety. Use some of your purchasing power to buy a more fuel efficient, smaller, lighter, slower, more recyclable,less luxurious car (that does everything you actually need it to do) rather than a heavier, thirstier, bigger, taller, faster more luxurious vehicle that allows you to dominate the other traffic (in one way or another)? Bugger off!
@Stephan Wilkinson: Waste of time. Tell me your “solutions,” your “answers,” and I’ll ask you exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The solution is technology, as always. In the late nineteenth century, the doomers were predicting that London was about to be buried under horse manure. Their projections of London’s population growth “proved” it.
London (and many other cities) were saved by technology: the much-maligned internal combustion engine. Who would have thought? ICE as an environmental saviour!
Think of it this way: Earth could not support 6 billion hunter-gatherers. Each one needs to much area. But cubicle workers? No problem!
What does this say about the future? Better enjoy all that office space, while you still have it.
So, Stephan, how many angels do you count on the head of a pin? Or maybe that should be future office workers…
I don’t have the knowledge to fo the calculation but how much energy does it take for 2 persons to walk 100 miles vs. how much energy for a 100 mile trip in a 35mpg car. I think that mammals are pretty inefficient compared to oil burning equiptment. Walking and biking might be good for the body and soul but it may well be that the energy you would consume in the 7 days it would take you to cover the 100 miles at a reasonable pace is not that different and may be much more than 2.5 gallons of 87 octane.
I read somewhere that a bicycle gets about 930 miles per energy-equivalent-gallon. At 10 calories of oil energy per calorie of food energy, that’s still 93 mpg. I personally enjoy being physically fit, too! I’m sure walking is nowhere near as efficient as cycling.