Are Hybrids REALLY better for the environment?

[Idratherbsidewayz]

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

I know its written fairly propagandy, but it brings up interesting points. If its true, its just Capitalists raping stupid peoples wallets...

[mark4091]

"its just Capitalists raping stupid peoples wallets..."

Pretty much what I think aswell.

[Team_BMW]

the answer is... NO!

Because the batteries have to be disposed of... which causes more pollution.

[ca18det240sx]

The only thing safer for the environment as far as im concerned is hydrogen.....get on it engineers....

[benyl]

Originally posted by ca18det240sx
The only thing safer for the environment as far as im concerned is hydrogen.....get on it engineers....

Right, cause that doesn't take any energy to produce...

[ca18det240sx]

Its zero emissions, its a damn good start.

[mikestypes]

Originally posted by ca18det240sx
Its zero emissions, its a damn good start.

True, but that is not everything. It takes REDICULOUS amounts of energy to make hydrogen. After that, it is extremely difficult to store liquid hydrogen as it needs to be keep at very low temperatures and hgh pressures. Also, keeping hydrogen in a tank is not easy. Due to it's small molecule size, it can escape relatively easily. Then, to top it off, it offers very poor energy density, meaning you require more than twice as much of it as gasoline to have the same range.

Hydrogen is DEFINITELY NOT the answer right now.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by mikestypes


True, but that is not everything. It takes REDICULOUS amounts of energy to make hydrogen. After that, it is extremely difficult to store liquid hydrogen as it needs to be keep at very low temperatures and hgh pressures. Also, keeping hydrogen in a tank is not easy. Due to it's small molecule size, it can escape relatively easily. Then, to top it off, it offers very poor energy density, meaning you require more than twice as much of it as gasoline to have the same range.

Hydrogen is DEFINITELY NOT the answer right now.

And the fact that it explodes quite nicely too. Liquid gasoline doesn't, but hydrogen under pressure sure does. (And if anyone brings up the Hindenberg, I'll slap you!)

[three.eighteen.]

hybrids only save gas if you drive like a total geezer

[Mangina]

Ethanol is the answer!!

[1-Bar]

my badd, I thought we were talking about something different in this thread....

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wMTAxOTUzNjZzNDEzZGZkMzF5NTQx.jpg

Maybe here's your answer:

http://www.ecochauffeur.co.uk/a/i/bmw-hydrogen-7-car.jpg

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Mangina
Ethanol is the answer!!

Yeah. Instead of feeding the hungry... lets burn it in our SUVs. Personally I would rather burn a fuel that we don't need to eat.

I don't understand why people care so much about running out of oil. Once it's gone we will figure something else out.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what your car runs on there will always be some form of emissions produced.

If all Albertans drove electric cars the coal plants would be polluting more as we charged our batteries overnight. Not to mention that with everyone plugging in at the same time (after work) that Alberta would need even more coal and steam plants. Electric cars also require massive amounts of nickel for the NiMH batteries. Nickel mines and smelters are TERRIBLE polluters. INCO is one of the biggest polluting companies in Canada and creating batteries in general doesn't reduce our reliance on non-renewable resources. It just shifts the blame and makes Al Gore seem like a hero to the ignorant.

If we had to rely solely on ethanol our food supply would dwindle as farm lands would be used to create fuel instead of crops for food and animal feed. Converting plants into ethanol also requires a considerable amount of energy when you consider the farming, transport and manufacturing processes.

Hydrogen required electricity to produce as well. Not to mention that the emissions from cars would be water vapour which is the most commonly found greenhouse gas in our environment. If you believe that we should eliminate greenhouse gases you won't want a hydrogen car.

Our best bet so far is to just continue using gasoline engines and work to continually make them more efficient.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by sputnik

If all Albertans drove electric cars the coal plants would be polluting more as we charged our batteries overnight. Not to mention that with everyone plugging in at the same time (after work) that Alberta would need even more coal and steam plants. Electric cars also require massive amounts of nickel for the NiMH batteries. Nickel mines and smelters are TERRIBLE polluters. INCO is one of the biggest polluting companies in Canada and creating batteries in general doesn't reduce our reliance on non-renewable resources. It just shifts the blame and makes Al Gore seem like a hero to the ignorant.


I think most hybrid models today don't require you to charge the battery overnight. They charge itself thru kinetic energy as your car slows down or brakes. just FYI

[mikestypes]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


I think most hybrid models today don't require you to charge the battery overnight. They charge itself thru kinetic energy as your car slows down or brakes. just FYI

He didn't say hybrid, he said electric cars. You are correct in that hybrid cars do not need to be plugged in, but electric only cars sure do.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by sputnik

I don't understand why people care so much about running out of oil. Once it's gone we will figure something else out.


Or, instead of risking the collapse of the civilised world, we could work towards a solution now so that we're not freaking out when the time comes. I don't understand why people have such a problem with trying to find alternate solutions. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, fine, try something else, but what benefit is there in any way to actually ignoring the problem?

[benyl]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


I think most hybrid models today don't require you to charge the battery overnight. They charge itself thru kinetic energy as your car slows down or brakes. just FYI

This shows the ignorance of the general public.

You are only partially correct. Regeneration does charge the batteries, but Hybrid cars use gasoline to charge themselves!

When you drive over 30km/h (or something), the gas engine takes over full time. The alternator charges the batteries.

[benyl]

Originally posted by Antonito


Or, instead of risking the collapse of the civilised world, we could work towards a solution now so that we're not freaking out when the time comes. I don't understand why people have such a problem with trying to find alternate solutions. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, fine, try something else, but what benefit is there in any way to actually ignoring the problem?

Quite clearly, the problem is not being ignored. However, the current solutions are actually worse than the problem itself. People keep trying to convince themselves that hybrids and hydrogen are the answer. The answer is out there, we just haven't found it yet. Until then, there is plenty of oil to burn.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Antonito


Or, instead of risking the collapse of the civilised world, we could work towards a solution now so that we're not freaking out when the time comes. I don't understand why people have such a problem with trying to find alternate solutions. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, fine, try something else, but what benefit is there in any way to actually ignoring the problem?

I am not saying that we should ignore the problem but innovation WILL happen when oil becomes more and more scarce and market is ready for alternative energy cars.

Right now gas is VERY cheap which makes other energy sources unmarketable since very few will pay the premium. Even with hybrids the current cost of the cars themselves have been shown to be more expensive (even with the gas savings) than the comparable model.

Ultimately the private sector will drive innovation and the engine types that are successful will be the ones that are cheaper to produce, maintain and run than current conventional gas/diesel models. So either gas prices need to skyrocket or the costs to develop and sell new engine types needs to plummet.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


I think most hybrid models today don't require you to charge the battery overnight. They charge itself thru kinetic energy as your car slows down or brakes. just FYI

Apparently you believe that hybrid cars violate the laws of thermodynamics.

As benyl already mentioned... burning gasoline is what charges the batteries.

[Mangina]

Originally posted by sputnik


Yeah. Instead of feeding the hungry... lets burn it in our SUVs. Personally I would rather burn a fuel that we don't need to eat.


Well I for one am tired of it showing up in my toilet, when I haven't eaten corn in months.

[treg50]

Originally posted by benyl
...The answer is out there, we just haven't found it yet. Until then, there is plenty of oil to burn.
"There is plenty of oil to burn" was that supposed to be funny? I think it's funny. It's like saying "There are still a lot of forests that we haven't clear cut yet" or "There is still some ozone we haven't destroyed." It's a short-sighted way to look at the situation. Just because the problem isn't in our sky, or in our backyards, or in your body it doesn't mean you should take those things for granted.

We "haven't found the answer yet", oh well I guess I'll by an M3 or an M5 instead of an I-4.

We have the answer: Buy a car that uses less fuel.

I'm almost certain that anyone against reducing fuel-consumption is in the oil business, all they care about is people using more oil and burning more gasoline so they have work and so the money keeps pouring into their bank accounts. You ever wonder who it is that actually criticizes a guy like Al Gore and his work? It's these people, who only care about themselves and ripping natural resources out of the ground and water to profit off of the general public.

The moment people slow down consumption of everything, these rich bastards will feel it. The root issue is our society based on consumption, materialism, and capitalism. Stop living in excess, stop wanting things you don't need.

If people like excess because it makes them feel 'good', then they've got some deeper issues that they need to deal with. Continually wanting better material goods will never really give what you need.

We may not have the ultimate answer, but there are some pretty good answers that we can choose from today.


Originally posted by sputnik

Apparently you believe that hybrid cars violate the laws of thermodynamics.

As benyl already mentioned... burning gasoline is what charges the batteries.
Regardless, with a hybrid you can burn gasoline some of the time, instead of all of the time.

People can also look into PHEV's (Plug-in Electric Vehicles), the alternative to conventional hybrids (Prius, etc.). You plug-in overnight when the electrical-grid is off peaktime. The electricity used comes from plants that can't shutdown/run and are producing unused energy continually. PHEV's can charge off of this thereby not adding extra lode on the grid.

[mikestypes]

Originally posted by treg50
Regardless, with a hybrid you can burn gasoline some of the time, instead of all of the time.


But what not talked about is that during the gasoline running mode, there is EXTRA load on the engine to charge the battery, thus extra fuel being burned. Yes, they can gain some of that energy back from regenerative braking, but not all of it.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by treg50
People can also look into PHEV's (Plug-in Electric Vehicles), the alternative to conventional hybrids (Prius, etc.). You plug-in overnight when the electrical-grid is off peaktime. The electricity used comes from plants that can't shutdown/run and are producing unused energy continually. PHEV's can charge off of this thereby not adding extra lode on the grid.

Are you expecting people to go out to their garage at 2am to plug in their car?

I would suspect that most would get home at 5pm, plug in their car and then head inside turn on all of their lights, the TV and fire up the stove to start cooking dinner.

Unless you can somehow magically determine when people are allowed to plug in their car you will still need to account for the additional load. In the same way you can't account for when a heatwave will roll through and cause everyone to turn on their A/C. Utilities have to build based on peak load and cannot make assumptions otherwise you end up with brownouts or rolling blackouts.

[benyl]

Originally posted by treg50

"There is plenty of oil to burn" was that supposed to be funny? I think it's funny. It's like saying "There are still a lot of forests that we haven't clear cut yet" or "There is still some ozone we haven't destroyed." It's a short-sighted way to look at the situation. Just because the problem isn't in our sky, or in our backyards, or in your body it doesn't mean you should take those things for granted.

We "haven't found the answer yet", oh well I guess I'll by an M3 or an M5 instead of an I-4.

We have the answer: Buy a car that uses less fuel.

I'm almost certain that anyone against reducing fuel-consumption is in the oil business, all they care about is people using more oil and burning more gasoline so they have work and so the money keeps pouring into their bank accounts. You ever wonder who it is that actually criticizes a guy like Al Gore and his work? It's these people, who only care about themselves and ripping natural resources out of the ground and water to profit off of the general public.

The moment people slow down consumption of everything, these rich bastards will feel it. The root issue is our society based on consumption, materialism, and capitalism. Stop living in excess, stop wanting things you don't need.

If people like excess because it makes them feel 'good', then they've got some deeper issues that they need to deal with. Continually wanting better material goods will never really give what you need.

We may not have the ultimate answer, but there are some pretty good answers that we can choose from today.


Regardless, with a hybrid you can burn gasoline some of the time, instead of all of the time.

People can also look into PHEV's (Plug-in Electric Vehicles), the alternative to conventional hybrids (Prius, etc.). You plug-in overnight when the electrical-grid is off peaktime. The electricity used comes from plants that can't shutdown/run and are producing unused energy continually. PHEV's can charge off of this thereby not adding extra lode on the grid.

You are taking what I said out of context. It was in reference to Antonio's end of the world comment. I am simply stating that we aren't going to run out of oil anytime soon and that jumping on the bandwagon solutions of Hybrids, Ethanol, and electric vehicles isn't something that should be taken lightly.

100 years ago, who would have imagined that we would have the internet? No one. In 50 years from now, people may be saying, what were they thinking with those hybrids?

PHEV's are a great idea if they are powered by a clean source. Coal and Nat Gas generators aren't clean... So where is the benefit to the environment?

If we are talking about wind, solar, or tidal generated power... then we have something.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by treg50
We have the answer: Buy a car that uses less fuel.


That would be nice if hybrids didn't cost $10,000 more than a conventional model.

With most hybrids the gains in gas mileage are so negligible that it would take 10-15 years of average driving before you start actually saving any money.

How many people do you know hang onto their car for 10-15 years? What are the repair costs of a Hybrid after 10-15 years of use?

Most people would rather just buy a regular Camry or Civic over the hybrid model and save their money.

[Xtrema]

Hybrid only works in stop and go traffic. Continuous driving, go buy a Fit/Smart/Yaris.

Plug in Hybrid will bring stress to the grid. Not everyone know when the best time to plug in. And again, you're not gaining anything @ highway speed compare to Fit/Smart/Yaris.

Hydrogen is good in theory. Still sucks to implement. But you have to start somewhere and it's more promising than Ethanol. Cleaner too. But mass production is still decades away.

Ethanol is a total waste. We are already facing food shortage coming in about 3 decade due to farm land unable to yield enough food for the world population. Making fuel off edible substance is FUCKING stupid. The only ethanol production I want to see is Honda's way, off bio-waste.

[treg50]

Originally posted by sputnik
That would be nice if hybrids didn't cost $10,000 more than a conventional model.

With most hybrids the gains in gas mileage are so negligible that it would take 10-15 years of average driving before you start actually saving any money.

How many people do you know hang onto their car for 10-15 years? What are the repair costs of a Hybrid after 10-15 years of use?

Most people would rather just buy a regular Camry or Civic over the hybrid model and save their money.
I know. I said "We have the answer: Buy a car that uses less fuel." I didn't say buy hybrids only. I also wasn't talking against cars like the two you mentioned.

People will have to decide. What are the repair costs to the world around you after 10-15 years of using an inefficient fossil-fuel burning vehicle?

[Rav4Guy]

Ethanol is not a waste. We're actually seeing more and more cars with flexfuel engines. Huge thing in Brazil I believe too. We're starting to see E85 (85% eth, 15% gas) stations throughout the US and in Europe.

The problem with "food shortages" is that there is not enough interest in it... especially money wise. If there was to be MEGA MONEY in farming.. you wouldn't think we would have a lot more huge multi-billion $ companies?

[Eleanor]

Ethanol is not the way to go. Yeah you don't have to burn gas to get power but you don't get nearly the power out of it then you do gasoline. Which means you need to burn more of it to get the same amount of power as you do gasoline. Plus it still puts out the same chemicals as burning gas does. Hydrogen is not the answer either as the major source of hydrogen is as a by-product of petroleum production. It takes a lot more energy in then it gives off when you burn it. Fully electric cars are an improvement though. You do need to burn coal or natural gas to get the electricity but power generation stations are a hell of a lot more efficient then the ICE in our cars. The solution will be nuclear fusion, it'll just be awhile. In the meantime don't drive a big vehicle if you don't want to. There is still lots of oil to burn and until a new solution is found for our energy crisis, do your part not to use as much energy.

[Rav4Guy]

actually... I read it in an article last week where it said something along the lines of...

1 unit of energy to produce 1 unit of soy-based ethanol where it produces 60+ units of energy. How efficient is that!

corn-based fuel produces somewhere around 14 units of energy for every 1 used.

hey.. eventually everything will be nuclear fission based.

[bspot]

Nuke plant, electric cars, done!

That article is complete BS and a giant GM advertisement. It's not even worth picking apart it's flaws are so obvious.

[jibber]

Originally posted by treg50

I know. I said "We have the answer: Buy a car that uses less fuel." I didn't say buy hybrids only. I also wasn't talking against cars like the two you mentioned.

People will have to decide. What are the repair costs to the world around you after 10-15 years of using an inefficient fossil-fuel burning vehicle?

I agree... more fuel efficient vehicles pollute less. Especially if you look at the CO2/km figure.

It's not why I bought my car, I'm not all overly concerned with the environment. But saving $250-300 a month in fuel costs was so appealing I bought a smart.

And about the premiums for buying a hybrid-type vehicle.. you do get some of the cash back from the Federal Government. The Eco-Rebate forms came online on Oct 1st, and my smart qualifies for a $2000 one-time rebate.


I think part of the problem is the fact that cars are getting fat with safety features. Airbags and all the extra metal that gives good crash-test ratings kills fuel mileage, because you waste gas hauling all that extra weight around. Cases in point: Civic and VW GTi. When they came out in the 70's it was like driving a tin can down the road.. light and nimble and fun... fuel efficient too. But over time both the Golf and the Civic have swollen because of saftey and the market.

Plus there is a difference between being clean and fuel efficient. My smart produces the same amount of emissions as most hybrids, but uses less fuel per kilometer. So if it used the same about of fuel as a hybrid, it would produce more emissions.

So smaller, more fuel efficient cars get my vote.

EDIT: Bio-diesel is pretty cool stuff... burns cleaner and lubricates better than dino-diesel, and it's also using the waste of some industries as the supply in the bio-diesel industry. Only one problem... 100% BioDiesel tends to gel a 5 degrees above zero... even a 20% blend solidifies at -5. So you can't use it in Alberta 8 out of the 12 months of the year :P

[95EagleAWD]

If you can find me a car that's amazing on gas, and still quick and fun to drive, then sure.

Until then, sorry, but the shitshow that is the environmental movement hasn't convinced me it's a big enough problem yet.

I'll enjoy my V6 and 270bhp without feeling guilty about the gas that I'm burning. Even though it get's a damn fine 35-37 mpg on the highway.

The market gives you what people want. And right now, people don't want slow cars that are good on gas.

[Mo Squared]

Originally posted by bspot
Nuke plant, electric cars, done!




Nuke plant...Agreed! Nuclear wastes are being disposed of amazingly well and the amount of power that these plants can produce is amazing. I think we can use fuel-cell cars as soon as we perfect the hydrogen storage issue. I mean who ever thought we would run cars on pressurized propane? Exactly, hydrogen CAN work, and will be the fuel of the future. Why in the hell would Toyota and Ford be putting so much money into perfecting it if there was no market?

As for the moron who said that water vapour is the highest contributing green house gas, you are right! However with a fuel cell vehicle we will not be releasing:

Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Lead
Tiny suspended particles

All of which are not naturally occuring chemicals in our atmosphere? And all of which are known carcinogens?

Hmm good trade off I think

[Idratherbsidewayz]

Originally posted by bspot
That article is complete BS and a giant GM advertisement. It's not even worth picking apart it's flaws are so obvious.

By saying that you're not proving anything. Im not saying the article is right, but just because they mention GM cars doesn't mean its wrong. It was written by a University Newspaper btw.

I want to see your counter points. Specifically to the Battery Production Pollution part.

[Mo Squared]

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.



I'd love to the see the citation of where he got this...especially after reading this from SPROLS official website:

"During the Apollo program, NASA astronauts trained in Sudbury to locate the shatter cones formed during the impact. They weren't there because Sudbury strangely resembled the lifeless wastelands of the moon."

Hmm..sounds like the University paper should be required to cite all the information it provides? Don't believe everything you read. I am not saying that all the information in the article is wrong, it may not be more environmentally concious to drive a Prius but I think that it is a start. By quoting a "University newspaper" you have not found a credible source, as you seem to think you have.

[Mo Squared]

After reading James Martin's column on the environmental impacts of the Toyota Prius in the April 4 edition of the "hometown rag", I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

In his column, Martin makes an absurd conclusion that a Hummer does less damage to the environment than a Prius in terms of life-cycle consumption of energy and materials.

How could the Hometown Rag print such blatantly misleading information?

The majority of Martin's argument focuses on the pollution created by a large nickel mining and smelting facility in Sudbury, Ontario. He then loosely ties the responsibility for the pollution to Toyota, and specifically the Ni-MH battery in the Prius.

He fails to mention that Toyota purchases fewer than 1 percent of the total annual nickel yield of the mine. He also fails to mention that the environmental damage near the mine occurred decades ago and has since been rehabilitated.

This should be evident to readers when he mentions the testing of NASA moon buggies on a denuded landscape.

We all use nickel in the form of coins, stainless steel, camera batteries, etc., so let's not start casting stones.

Production of a Prius does, in fact, produce more pollution than a conventional car of similar size, but when fuel economy is factored in, the difference is counteracted in the first 12,000 miles, and in a 62,000-mile comparison, the Prius reduces life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions by 35 percent.

This is public information that can be found on Toyota's Web site.

Martin then refers to a widely disputed report titled the "Dust to Dust" report, by CNW Marketing Research, which concludes that the life-cycle cost of driving a Prius is higher than that of a Hummer. It is assumed in the report that a Hummer will last three times as long as a Prius, despite the fact that Consumer Reports' reliability ratings rank the Prius as one of the most reliable cars and the H2 as one of the worst.

The CNW report also implies that the environmental impact of a 100-pound Ni-MH battery outweighs the environmental impact of producing the extra 5,700 lbs of materials that go into an H2.

Give me a break!

I have read the report. It is filled with "results" on almost every model of car made, but it does not discuss the analysis methods used to obtain the results. For what it lacks in technical content, it tries to compensate with letters, editorial articles, cartoons, poems, etc.

The report makes no reference to the National Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database Project, which was initiated six years ago by Ford, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors as a peer-reviewed resource for this kind of data. The report has not been acknowledged by any of the major automakers or the International Society of Automotive Engineers.

I know the Hometown Rag doesn't have the resources to check the sources and credentials of every columnist, but a little common sense and skepticism wouldn't hurt.

[01RedDX]

.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by bspot
Nuke plant, electric cars, done!

That article is complete BS and a giant GM advertisement. It's not even worth picking apart it's flaws are so obvious.

So obvious you can't even back it up with a valid argument.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
This is how it works, in a nutshell. There is no need to store compressed hydrogen. Instead, they use any available hydrocarbon such as ethanol, methane, butane, propane, gasoline, etc., as a fuel/catalyst, then hydrogen is produced as an output. He was telling me a story of when they tried using good old vodka as a fuel in an experiment and saw great results.

Heh.

Maybe we will one day see Vodka at the pumps for $1/L.

[01RedDX]

.

[bspot]

Originally posted by sputnik


So obvious you can't even back it up with a valid argument.

A Hummer lasts 3 times longer than a Prius. Right.

Battery life stated in the article is severly under actual numbers. Someone above already posted many of the counter points on this, I don't feel a need to repeat all of it.