AutoblogGreen

1. "Oh, so a Hummer is NOT greener a Prius"

Um, you might want to change that.

How about "Oh, so a Hummer is NOT greener THAN a Prius"

Posted at 10:59AM on Oct 5th 2006 by dejal

2. Can I be an editor to clean up blog entries? :)

Posted at 11:42AM on Oct 5th 2006 by Tony C

3. To be honest, anyone with an iota of common sense (i.e. maybe no more than 25% of the population) could have seen the claims of a Hummer being "greener" overall than a Prius, was totally bogus when the first nonsense hit the blogosphere and mediasphere.

I'll hold up my hand and say that I was one of the skeptical on the claims, because lucky for me, God decided to give me common sense.

Come on, the overall math is not THAT difficult.

Total mass (weight) more than doubled on a Hummer compared to a Prius, means an obvious doubling of the amount of earth moved to get the raw materials, no matter WHAT they are. Of course, it's not like the Hummer hasn't got a battery, though it is the rather large lead-acid sort instead of the Prius's NiMH (though the Prius also has a tiny, garden tractor sized 12 volt lead-acid battery, as well).

Fuel consumption of the Hummer compared to a Prius is what, 3 to 1? 4 to 1?

Posted at 1:04PM on Oct 5th 2006 by Glenn

4. look...

recycling TOXIC batteries takes ENERGY. LOTS OF ENERGY...

Energy that comes from where? Power plants. How do powerplants make energy? By burning COAL & OIL.

So a hybrid at best, is just delaying the burning of fossil fuels until its battery packs have to be recycled. Something that takes A LOT of energy (not only to recycle the battery, but to transport the batteries, handle them, keep track etc...).

So a hybrid is cleaner then a prius. I concede that. But a hybrid being cleaner than a car of the same size? That isn't true. It pollutes more...

DON'T BE FOOLED... Hybrids are just another way for automakers to delay hydrogen implementation... Something, unfortunately many stupid people of our country are letting occur and letting auto makers get away with...

Posted at 4:23PM on Oct 5th 2006 by johnnash

5. EDIT: "So a prius is cleaner then a hummer."

Posted at 4:25PM on Oct 5th 2006 by johnnash

6. Tony C,
if you did, then what reason would I have to feel like an idiot?

Posted at 8:04AM on Oct 6th 2006 by Sebastian

7. "Toyota and other environmentally conscious car makers..."

Toyota may make the prius, xA, xB, corolla, etc. so lets forget about the Tundra, Sequioa, 4Runner, Highlander, Land Cruiser, all non-hybrid Lexi.

Yep, they make the Prius they win, they are the greenest.

Posted at 8:09AM on Oct 6th 2006 by BLS

8. hey johnnash- i edit your edit.
"So a prius is cleaner then a hummer."
"So a prius is cleaner THAN a hummer."

Posted at 9:18AM on Oct 6th 2006 by paco

9.
"but I've got to their claims make sense to me."

=>

"but I've got to admit their claims make sense to me."

?

Posted at 10:11AM on Oct 6th 2006 by Lithous

10. Fuel cell hydrogen powered cars ARE HYBRIDS, people. They have a hydrogen tank, and a fuel cell which adds hydrogen and oxygen to make water vapor as the only "emission" - in order to provide energy for ELECTRIC MOTORS. These ELECTRIC MOTORS are also motor-GENERATORS which put electricity into BATTERIES for later use, when the car is decelerating or stopping - REGENERATIVE BRAKING OF A HYBRID.

Get it? The Prius may be a "stop-gap" but wow, what a "stop-gap". We'll possibly have 10-20 years more of "stop-gap" - in the meanwhile, most of you trashing the Prius are probably riding around in 5000 pound gas powered non-hybrid SUV's and askign where the hydrogen economy is so you think you can keep driving a 5000 pound road hog?!? Hypocrites! Idiots!

Plus, if I had a HYDROGEN FUELLED CAR RIGHT NOW, WHERE AM I SUPPOSED TO TANK IT UP WITH HYDROGEN?

DUH!

As for me, guess what? I'd love to buy another hybrid in addition to my Prius. In fact, I've been watching Honda move-up the introduction date of their production hydrogen fuel cell HYBRID CAR the FCX, from 2012, to 2010 and now recently, 2008. I presume that part of the deal when buying, will be leasing or buying a home hydrogen refuelling station, just as Honda are leasing PHILL units for those private customers now buying CNG powered Civics.

Thus, such cars will be on the roads and the hydrogen fuel station infrastructure can start to be built, rather than all of us wondering "what came first, chicken or egg?" (aka "shall we build the hydrogen fuelling station infrastructure THEN put cars on the road? Or put cars on the road THEN build the infrastructure? If the latter how do the first cars get fuelled?")

Posted at 12:13PM on Oct 6th 2006 by Glenn

11. So let me get this straight? Is this the same Toyota that can't put a sticker on the Prius window to show the variation of fuel economy that the mass media are reporting? The same Toyota that “encourages” automobile magazines to focus reviews of their cars on quality and tactile experience rather than price or fuel economy lest the publication face decreased advertising? Toyota is to be believed when they answer third party research with an INTERNAL study? ROFL, I am simply amazed by how brainwashed the average "American Idiot" (Thank you Green Day) is. You will believe anything they say. Anyway I know just enough about materials, component manufacturing and recycling to know Toyota is stretching the truth. Like MPG? Like perceived quality? Like US auto work pay and benefits? I'll buy a Hummer and live a greener LIFE and save more than you blockheads will driving your little Propaganda mobile. Nothing is funnier than someone who buys a Prius for 150mile/day commute. Maybe you should move closer to work, you idiot? After work the Precious Prius carries them to their 5,000 sq-ft McMansion so they can proclaim how “green” he/she is. Dolts!

Posted at 7:32PM on Oct 6th 2006 by NoBS_Here

12. Okay Nobs_here, Toyota does have a vested interest in this. But clearly, large SUVs use more energy than small hybrids. Even CNW's research shows this, if you read the actual report, but they deflected it in their press release by reporting *lifetime* cost, then claim that the average Tahoe, Suburban, Expedition will last over 270K miles, whereas the Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid will only last 109K miles. If they increased that to only 128K miles the SUVs lose their advantage. Several Prii have already been driven well over 200K miles on their original batteries, and given that the average hybrid is less than 4 years old, this lifetime estimate is severely flawed. You do have valid points in that your commute and your house are part of the energy equation as well. I use about 12 gallons/month, I think that is a more important figure than mpg). I put in good windows, a good furnace, even changed jobs for one closer to home, etc. Getting 50 mpg in my Prius as I do doesn't give me a right to be smug, but driving a smaller, more efficient car is still clearly the right thing to do (if you can't bike or walk to work).

Posted at 1:11AM on Oct 7th 2006 by Rob Neff

13. Okay I need to clarify that. CNW's report shows that large SUVs use considerably more energy over their lifecycle than small hybrids. But they claim that most energy is in building and disposing the car, not in driving it (they 'helpfully' included the cost of landfills (while somehow forgetting the hybrid battery recycling that keeps them out of landfills), but neglected the road repair that large multi-ton vehicles impose). This means that vehicles that travel more miles have a lower energy cost per mile than shorter lived cars, and then they use the 270K+ number for SUVs and 109K for hybrids, so they can report that SUVs use less energy per mile when all factors are considered. Toyota rightly disputes the building and disposal estimates (100's of thousands of dollars per vehicle, which is clearly out of line) but surprisingly I don't see that they've disputed the absurdly low 109K estimated life.

Posted at 1:25AM on Oct 7th 2006 by Rob Neff

14. Hey NoBS_Here,

Toyota is required by law to display the EPA estimated mileage. Just so you know. As for driving long distances to work, your argument is a common one, but I think misguided. It makes more sense to compare the suburban prius driver to the suburban SUV driver than to simply call the suburban prius driver a hypocrite because he or she doesn't move into the city. There's always something more we can do to help the environment. Driving a prius has trade-offs, and one benefit is that it doesn't produce as much pollution than other cars. Just like with recycling- it may use energy to recycle, but it's better than not recycling. And I'm sure most prius drivers would LOVE and SUPPORT a greener way to recycle batteries. Just because we don't have it yet, doesn't mean we should just say "screw it, let's all just drive SUVs".

Out of curiosity, what kind of car do you drive? And why all the rage towards people wanting to do something to benefit the environment? It doesn't sound to me like you're pro-environment. You just seem to have this hatred for people who are. Of COURSE there are pro-environment hypocrites. But just because someone doesn't do everything humanly possible doesn't make them a hypocrite. It just makes them human.

Posted at 2:55PM on Oct 7th 2006 by nat

15. Oh- and just because the report was an internal Toyota report doesn't make it wrong. There were FACTUAL and valid arguments discrediting the CNW report, even if there was also some kind of Toyota bias. The facts aren't biased. (Unless, as some conservatives seem to believe, and Stephen Colbert pointed out, "reality has a liberal bias.")

That was just a little joke. Conservatives please breath, and try try try to refrain from name-calling, please.

Posted at 5:58PM on Oct 7th 2006 by nat

16. "4. look...
recycling TOXIC batteries takes ENERGY. LOTS OF ENERGY..."

Does anyone have any cite for this? To the best of my knowledge, in regards to current Ni-MH formulations that assertion is just wrong. Toxicity is insignificant, hence the approval for disposal in the standard waste stream in 49 states in the US. I wouldn't want to chow down on nickel hydroxide, but the same goes for portland cement and people are not freaking out about its toxicity. Where are the quantities of energy involved for recovery extreme? Am I missing something, or is the original post just the standard Luddite "OMG dihydrogen oxide can kill and should be banned!!!11!!" ?

Posted at 8:18PM on Oct 7th 2006 by JHW539

17. I.
About the comment concerning how much energy is used to make a Prius--for everyone bashing this, no one has asked what kind of energy is being used by the factories to begin with.

So, what KIND of energy is being used? I don't have an answer to this question, but I think it's one worth thinking about. Not all power plants are burning fossil fuels after all. Surely fossil fuel plants are a large contributor to the global warming issue that suddenly the public is 'becoming' aware of. But, there is another kind of power plant that doesn't do this--and, it's also in wide use...

If we concentrate on changing how we generate energy used by factories, and everyone for that matter, then this big debate on how much energy Toyota uses to produce a Prius becomes a moot point. (Of course we have the means to affect complete replacement of fossil fuel plants, but that's another debate.)

Then, the next thing to tackle would be how to eliminate fossil fuel use in cars. Eventually, eliminating this all together will happen, but until then, I think building cars that use LESS fossil fuel than its other class equivalents (such as Prius or any other hybrid car) is not a wasted effort while we pursue this goal.


II.
I can understand how a hybrid owner might feel a little proud for their decision to help the environment much more than I can understand the smugness someone might feel when they've come up with a "smart enough" reason to openly bash hybrid owners for being convinced that buying a hybrid car is a step in the right direction. There's nothing wrong with expressing support for a cause through a purchase, regardless of whether how you interpreted the information influencing your decision is write, wrong, or somewhere in-between. The environmental support present in the act itself is better than nothing at all.

Who's less concerned with image? Surely not someone smart enough to judge someone for being a hybrid owner and all the while feeling justified. And, surely not someone who openly 'brags' about not being influenced by pride.

Who cares which country has the most oil? We're almost out of the stuff--which isn't good to begin with--and burning it for energy is wrecking the stability of our planet anyway. We should be scrambling to find an alternative to oil, and in the meanwhile diluting our dependancy on it.

And, who cares that we are going through growing pains as we try to figure out how to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels? We're quickly plunging into a global crisis, and any effort made in trying to address this--whether faulted or not--is a positive thing. This desperately needed movement--whether by manufactures or by consumers--should not be criticized so passionately by loud nay-sayers sitting on the sidelines waiting for a better idea to fall out of the sky.


III.
Small facts can easily deter people from caring about the big picture. We should really take care in what battles we choose to fight. I for one would more readily defend any effort of a manufacturer to produce a more environmentally conscious product, than to bash it with an argument created against it for the sake of arguing.

Posted at 10:27PM on Oct 7th 2006 by llsweetgeek

18. EDIT: "...influencing your decision is right, wrong, or somewhere in-between."

I know there are a few other errors, but this is the biggest one that I can see.

Posted at 10:58PM on Oct 7th 2006 by llsweetgeek

19. To Glenn on #10 response:

Right-on...

Yes, the hydrogen solution is not quite ready yet for practical reasons, but it's getting there!

Posted at 11:14PM on Oct 7th 2006 by llsweetgeek

20. It's about time that CNW Marketing was publicly spanked for this scam report. They have still yet to publish their methodology. That should throw red flags all over the place, if you know anything about how reliable studies are promolgated.

What's most appalling is the way the press picked up the results of this "study" without any critical thought whatsoever. "Wow, that totally contradicts what everyone thinks. Guess I'll just publish it without checking the facts or comparing it to other similar studies by widely respected research institutions. It'll make a great headline."

Sheesh. And they say we aren't descended from apes.

Posted at 12:06AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Jon