'Dust to Dust' Automotive Energy Report

I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of this report. It will take some time to digest it completely but a few things jump out at me immediately:

1. The company that prepared it makes their money selling reports about the status-quo auto industry that crushed the pure EV's, made hybrids as weak as possible, refused to make strong hybrids, hired publicists for anti- ev publicity campaigns, promotes 'yellow' hype bs, promotes hydrogen, etc. This, alone, makes their motives suspicious.

2. On the factual side, one thing jumped out to me immediately: How come big SUV's (Tahoe, Escalade, Suburban, Expedition, etc) get life expectancies of over 250K miles while a Prius is only good for 109K? I can see this figure giving a 240% penalty to the hybrids to begin with.

I'll look further into how they derive their estimates but I don't give much stock in this report at all. I'd look for other reports, independantly derived, that echo the same or similiar trends before granting any credence to this.

I can certainly believe that if two cars require the same amount of energy to build and recycle, the one that goes further in its lifetime, uses less energy per mile. I also agree that it takes a lot of energy to build a car (steel processing, energy-rich hydrocarbons used in plastics, glass processing, etc) and to recycle it (melt it all down again). It also probably takes more energy for a car manufactured in Japan (as the Prius and HCH are -today) than one manufactured in Detroit, simply because they don't need to be transported as far.
I just suspect that the factual numbers have been weighted (conveniently) by quite a bit in order to achieve a desired result. I also suspect that missing data (as is likely with hybrids that haven't been existance for long) may be substituted with particularly convenient assumptions.
I do know that the jury is still out on Compact Flourescent lightbulbs for 2 reasons:
1. There are a lot of toxic materials in a CFL that aren't in an incandescent
2. In the winter, the 'wasted' heat generated by an incandescent (compared with a CFL) isn't actually wasted since it offsets that amount of heat that a furnace must produce.
3. Manufacturing energy required to build a CFL are more than an incandescent although I haven't seen any credible studies as to whether this is offset by the significantly longer life.

I can appreciate your frustration, and most certainly appreciate your feedback and insight.

Thanks once again.

Additional thought on production: Toyota has separate plant near where Prius built to create chips and computer components. Those processes can have negative environmental effects, but other cars now have computers as well.
Most Prius I see are driven like other sedans to work, school, soccer, etc. Given Toyota quality I suspect their life will be far beyond 150K with second owners. A few have gone beyond 200K with original batteries.

:D You answered your own question, Rzod3. The study was well stocked with slanted assumptions. Previous posters have answered why: who is CNW, anyway, but a mouthpiece for GM?

Actually, if I may speak for Prius owners, I think a lot of us will be looking to turn our cars into plug-in hybrids when the first battery pack goes kaput. At least count me in that number. So assuming I hit 150k on the first bunch of batteries, I'll be extending my car's life to 500k.

Sadly, it's already beaten up (some Dallas yaya keyed it), so it's not like it will look great for the entire 500k. But the body will maintain its excellent coefficient of drag, making it easier (and therefore more efficient) on whatever is putting power to the wheels.

This isn't completely correct. Modern electric traction motors such as propel the Prius are much simpler mechanically than old fashioned starter motors. Brushes have been eliminated in the modern traction motors so there is far less wear on them. Until the 'planned obsolescence' folks at the auto makers do a bit more work, the electric motors are likely to last a lot longer than anything else on the car since the only moving parts are the bearings. The complex electronics that enable brushless motors shouldn't go bad if they're designed right but we can't be sure of them. Just look at how the auto manufacturers botched up the early EFI modules in the '80's.
I also ride the fence on buying and refurbishing old cars versus buying new ones. If we got more new, efficient cars out in the world and ran them longer, it might be better than running all the old, inefficient ones.
On the other hand, my assumption is that newer cars will be even more efficient that today's so I, too, continue to drive an old car while I wait for the really good stuff to come out. This also saves me money so I'll be able to pay the premium to reward the auto manufacturers when they finally do produce something that lives up to my standards of efficiency and performance.

I'm curious where you learned this information cause I always wondered about that, which was better, have it recycled or recycle it myself (use it for a mulch or something idk)

Could you give a reference to that information?

But you see, according to the Dust to Dust report, the Hybrids do not have a lesser environmental impact. They have a greater impact. The recycling of the batteries for example is not easy for the environment or for the wallet.

As far as asking for a refrence to the whole "Recycling is wasteful" thing...
Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous, but recycling could be America's most wasteful activity

So as I said... the prius may make you feel good, but if you are trying to realy help the environment (which is always the big arguement of the hybrids) you would be better off buying a Jeep Wrangler, or Sion Xb or Dodge Neon (or any of the cars on the top 10 list of the Dust to Dust report).

ex-EV1 driver, your skepticism is well placed, but your observations can be accurately explained.

The reason why non hybrid vehicles are anticipated to last longer and drive further is because they do. SUVs and trucks are built stronger, and their larger engines have longer life-spans. The same for the difference between a standard Honda Civic or a Hybrid Civic. The standard will last longer and drive further because of the simplicity of its parts (engine and drive train). In hybrids, the batteries are a HUGE liability, in terms of life-expectancy. They are expensive to produce and need replacing sooner.

Do you own "rechargeable batteries"? They loose their charge capacity over time.

It doesn't surprise me that large SUVs have a lower life-time cost than a new hybrid. Their technology is perfected and has been around much longer. I suspect that as hybrid technology continues to develop these ratios will change.

For the time being, however, it's quite possible that that Hybrid you love is worse for the environment than a Ford Escalade...

My other comment on this study, is that it illustrates the extreme difficulty of assessing the cost of environmental impact. It's voo-doo at best.

If you want to have an impact, reduce, reuse and recycle... And support continued new energies development. It's the best you can really do. ... and you should approach those selling "environmental solutions" with the same skepticism as you would a snake oil salesman.

I'm sure those florescent bulbs consume less energy, but they're loaded with Mercury, and other pollutants that incandescent bulbs aren't. Your best bet is to turn of lights when you leave the room... and go to bed earlier. Sunlight is free.

Chestnut,
Thanks for working on balancing my posts. If my position can't stand up to scrutiny then I need to adjust my position accordingly. I do, however, still feel that my position is more right than wrong whereas the dust-to-dust article is clearly more wrong than right - and as such is very dangerous.
While I agree with your assessment that trucks may have longer lives than passenger cars because of the second utility life that they have after they are no longer comfortable nor aesthetically pleasing, this does not fully justify the assements of the article.
Your suggestion that "SUVs and trucks are built stronger, and their larger engines have longer life-spans. The same for the difference between a standard Honda Civic or a Hybrid Civic. " while seemingly true from the outside does not apply to hybrids. The electric portion of the drive train takes much of the strain off of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) and (barring infant mortality issues with a new design) should enable the hybrid engine to run much longer than a pure ICE. There's also the question as to whether you are assuming that the heavy steel in the truck comes from recycled metal or includes the smelting from ore. If the assumption is made that the aluminum alloys and copper used in hybrids comes from raw ore, then it would require extensively more energy than recycled steel, however, once many hybrids have cycled off of the road then the amount of already recycled aluminum in the 'system' will equalize out, just as it has for automotive steel.
This attack may also be geared toward the passenger automobile in general as consumers seem to be more willing to get rid of their lovely automobiles a lot faster than industry gets rid of their trucks so perhaps it isn't fair to judge they hybrid drivetrain but rather the planned obsolescence in the car industry and the buyers who embrace it. It doesn't address the reason that the pure ICE Civic lasts longer than the hybrid.

Regarding your suggestion that "The standard will last longer and drive further because of the simplicity of its parts (engine and drive train)." This is pure prejudice (phobia?) toward new things and is not based upon any understanding of how today's hybrids work. The Honda hybrid drivetrain simply puts an electric motor on the same drive shaft as the ICE to provide assist. This is extremely simple. The Toyota and Ford have a very simple planetary gear arrangement to combine the power from the ICE and electric motor that is similiar to a traditional differential. When was the last time you had to replace or rebuild your differential?
I'll willingly grant that the battery is the weak link in a hybrid or pure electric vehicle, however, remember that battery technology has been improving about 10% per year over the past 3 decades and the price has been dropping about the same amount. This means that if you drive about 12K miles/year (about average), you will reach 120K miles in 10 years. During that time a $5000 battery (new) will only cost ~$2000 and the new one will perform better (possibly longer unless the planned obsolescence engineers have been successful). Given the current hybrid designs, it isn't likely, however that most batteries will need replacing until the 150Kto 200K point anyway so this really shouldn't be much of a problem.
"Do you own "rechargeable batteries"? They lose their charge capacity over time. " I may come from a bit of an advantage here since professionally, I've been a whole lot closer to the rechargable battery business than most. There certainly is a loss of capacity in rechargable batteries over time and usage, however, this is a fairly well understood issue and doesn't have to be quite as bad as the junk we see in consumer electronics where there is some benefit to making the products die after a few years so that the consumer will have to replace them. Battery capacity and lifetime issues are one of the main reasons that today's hybrids get such paltry improvement over their pure ICE counterparts since the algorithms are biased to minimize the battery use and maximize the ICE. This is also a reason that plug-in hybrids pose such an engineering challenge. From the looks of things, however, newer battery and other energy storage technologies will solve most of these problems.
Now, 2 things I'll beg you to retract:
1. "The reason why non hybrid vehicles are anticipated to last longer and drive further is because they do." This isn't a fair statement. Hybrids have only been on the road for about 6 years. Very few have gone out of service and most are still in active use.

2. Your badly mis-informed statement that pure electric vehicles . . . "exported the polution impact to power plants". This is patently untrue (and it was in the '70's as well). The extreme efficiency of the pure electric drivetrain (85 - 90%) and the efficiencies of the stationary power plant (50 - 75%), coupled with the efficiency of the power grid (greater than 90%) compared with the horrible (~20% or less) efficiency of the automobile ICE makes the plug-in electric drivetrain a much lower polluter (overall system). Even assuming the electricity is generated completely from the oldest, inefficient dirty coal plants, the pollution caused by running a plug-in electric is about the same as today's hybrids. Of course, with the traditional mix of cleaner and more efficient power plants that is in actual use across our country, the plug-in electric is much cleaner than any automobile using an ICE.
I applaud your suggestion that we should REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE, in that order (I independantly coined that exact phrase myself about 25 years ago) and that "environmentalists" who think that they can simply buy a hybrid and a few CO2 credits without having to do anything else are just greenwashed and not helping anything. I'll add to your concern with Compact Flourescents Lights (CFL) that they may not save any energy during the winter if the heat is on since the only waste from an incandescent is in heat and that offsets the house's heating system. The only energy savings that a CFL offers is if the heat generated by an incandescent is not used or is wasted (as with some recessed lights). Overall, however, I believe that CFL's are slightly better than incandescents but they aren't as great as their face value would indicate.
By the way, I'm not a drum banging environmentalist, rather, I'm a conservative engineer who has done a lot of research. I highly encourage everyone to do their own, independent research as well since the amount of literature generated by snake oil salesmen and buggy-whip preservers greatly exceeds the amount of rational thought. This is mostly because of the money to be made there versus the money to be made from the truth.
Thanks for the rational arguments that help keep me honest.

There are many things wrong with the logic in the article showing energy cost per lifetime mile. First of all, the Prius is made from 90% recycled material. Secondly, not only are the batteries recyclable, Toyota has a repurchase plan in place to directly buy them back if the car is totaled. The batteries are then remanufactured (according to reports). Very little is wasted.
The final thing is repair costs. Yes, some Prius parts are expensive, but normal repairs are not. With an Oil change rate of 5,000 to 7,000 miles with no color change of the oil, tires (not the original) lasting 60,000 miles, brakes lasting 200,000 miles (regenerative braking benefit) and batteries that can last 400,000 miles (New York Taxi Driver reports), the operating cost is much lower than any report states. In fact, I kind of get bored walking into the auto parts store with nothing to buy. I can handle it! Headlight wax, headrest springs, lighted windshield washer sprayers, what next? Try to match that with operating costs of a Hummer.

Boring?
Great!
Prius Owner

I love my new Prius. As far as this report by the CNW, who cares? It is apples or oranges...the bottom line for me is that I have driven 275 miles in my Prius and have not even used half a tank of gas. My Jeep Commander demands a full tank every 236 miles. So as far as adding up the minutia of the matter: I personally notice that my Prius gives off LESS fumes than my Jeep and Mercedes, LESS noise and uses LESS gas. That is enough for me. If any of you are truly "green", then get a bike or walk.

MCart,
The best pure EV that one can buy today is a converted xB. It's called the eBox by AC Propulsion (www.acpropulsion.com). It's pricey at $55K on top of the cost of your xB but its a blast to drive. Here's a piece from a (previously) neutral 3rd party who got a chance to test drive the eBox: http://www.stefanoparis.com/piaev/acpropulsion/eBox/2006.08.18eBox/eBoxF...
The eBox gets well over 100 effective well-to-wheels mpg.

One more thing, I drive a 2001 (yes 2001) Toyota Prius and love it. I get an "real-world" accumulative (yes accumulative) 41 MPG annually. No, this isn't based on a few particular trips in which I was driving in perfect weather. To the contrary, I live in Michigan. I also run the AC or heater 90% of the time. I have a heavy foot...I accelerate fast and drive 70-75 on freeways.

And again, "accumulative" 41 MPG! Meaning, in the winter (especially this long long cold one we just had) I get an average of 36-37 mpg. This is my true and honest average and hey, for the kind of winters we have, I'm ecstatic to get anything above 30!...It's still twice what most people get. Spring and summer I get 42-43. BTW, I drive about 18,000 miles per year.

I have good all season tires (top of the line) and noticed no reduction in MPG and improved handling...much worth it! I feel proud when I'm driving down the road and a SUV is slipping all over the place and I drive past him in my tic-tac of a car. According to this report, I was supposed to buy the cheapest and crappiest tires I could find. Sorry, my mistake.

Overall, I'm very happy with the car. I grew up driving big cars...I love big cars. I liked my Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited and especially my 1994 Country Jeep Cherokee 2 door (oh how I miss that car). But, I finally got over the small car thing and now with gas nearing $4 a gallon...I'm even more content.

I did more research on this dust to dust report...bogus bogus bogus. I do, however, agree that in these attempts to produce alternative fuels and new technologies, we need to be aware of their adverse affects. Ethenol is a perfect example of that...what a mistake that is turing out to be! While hybrid technology is expectedly not perfected, it's a good start...at least it's heading in the right direction and showed the industry that if they build it, we will come. By the way, I'm nearing 100,000 miles...I guess, according to this report, I better find a cliff I can push this thing off of soon. Maybe I'll use my new Hummer to tow it there?

The "Dust to Dust" report has generated considerable controversy and conversation, which could be a good thing; the report itself is BS. Among the many, many criticisms: the actual authors didn't sign it, the methodology used is unknown, many questionable assumptions were made, it was not peer reviewed, and some of their conclusions contradict all reputable studies.

For a good, readable summary of these criticisms, check out Cecil Adam's column on the report:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/080404.html

Other good, thoughtful criticisms:

www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius...

and another:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HU...

LOL I'm amazed anybody fell for this 'report' in the first place. You must not have any critical thinking skills whatsoever. Tell me, what's it like going through life believing EVERYTHING you hear? :D

Next time you hear something extraordinary, find a 12-year-old to give her your opinion on the voracity of the claims...and if she says it's crap, do a little more digging.

Good luck! Enjoy your H1 LOL <3

It seems like Prius owners can not take any criticism. I saw a TV report the other day that talked about the problem that Toyota has with Prius production, and why the lead time is so long is that is that they can not produce the batteries to keep up with demand. That is probably why they are willing to take back batteries from crashed cars. The batteries use precious metals that are not plentiful from recycled sources and need to be mined and processed which both contribute to the high environmental impact cost, as well as the disposal cost at end of life. I looked at the Prius and other hybrids, and, being an engineer who is also an environmentalist found that they displace their environmental impact to where the user does not see it, and that most people that buy them are really looking for the gas mileage (and yes, they can act smug thinking they are being trendy and green). At the end of the day I bought an old body style Xb. The car gets 36mpg on the highway, 34 around town and it is a very low tech car which minimizes the amount of circuitry to dispose of at the end of the day.

The CNW report Hummer from what I recall is a H1 version - the original military version. As for its lifetime, these vehicles are the modern day equivalent of the old army jeep and the old Dodge powerwagons that were used by the military. Those vehicles, some of which were built in the 1940s, are still heavily in demand and have continued through the decades to clock hundreds of thousands of miles. No, none of these vehicles are low pollution vehicles, nor are they the highest reliability vehicles, but they are simply built so they can be field serviced, and have very little plastic in them. When you look at the dust to dust impact of a H1 you do not find them in the scrap yards as the collectors buy them up and restore them as fast as they can get them. This will continue through history as the other military vehicles have shown. I don't think the Prius will hold that level of ownership over time.

I think the bottom line on the report is that the Prius and the Hummer are apples and oranges and should not be directly compared. If you are really concerned about the environment then you will buy a low emissions vehicle. If you are like most Prius owners then you are really buying the car for its gas mileage, and the ability to say that you drive a Prius. Most (not all) really do not dig that far into what the real overall environmental impact of the car is but will defend their car until they die. I would too if I spent that amount of money and had to wait 6 months to get my car. They should not be annoyed by this study. At over $70K for a H1 hummer which has a totally different purpose in life than the Prius they might as well have compared it to a city bus.

Cool your jets and keep your tire pressure maxed...