Want A Green Car? Skip the Prius, Buy a Hummer

I wonder why there aren't any Hummers older than 4 years on Car Soup and none with more than 100,000 miles? Makes me wonder what's up with the assumptions made in this article. Notice that they left out the lifetime mileage estimate for the Scion? A little loose with the facts.

I think a more honest comparison would be interesting to see.

The cost to run the vehicle has nothing to do with it's "being green". What does matter is fuel efficiency, not lifespan. Absolutely, the fuel source for an electric car can add carbon to the atmosphere. And the largest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is coal-fired power plants. However, power plants are a point source of CO2, and their emissions can be scrubbed, whereas an auto's emissions cannot as easily, especially on older cars, like that hummer with 300k miles on it.

You're neglecting the environmental cost of MAKING the car. Steel, electricity, plastics, rubber, paint, etc. All that mining and smelting and chemicals... That's not negligable. In the case of batteries, creating them could be WORSE for the environment than burning a little more gas.

If car A has twice the lifespan of car B, and both got the same efficiency, and were equivalenty environmentally damaging to make, then car A is significantly more environmentally sound than car B.

By the same token, a gas guzzling truck that lasts 20 years may be more fuel efficient OVERALL than a brand new hybrid truck -- provided the owner keeps the gas guzzler for 20 years.

You need to think beyond just C02 emissions and look at the big picture. Also, you have to do a full life-cycle analysis before you can say for sure... but its certainly possible.

Sorry to knock you off your high horse, but I didn't do a black-white comparison between the Prius and Hummer... I also compared them to the Ford Focus, Chevy Aveo, Toyota Scion xB, and a V6 Mercedes Benz Diesel.

Did you even read the article?

I FIRMLY believe that electric and hybrid cars are a con by PR and marketing folks in the auto industry. The goal is to trick people into buying "green" technology that isn't actually green. With current battery technology, hybrids create more damage in hazardous and toxic waste than they reduce in CO2 emissions. Plus, you can get better fuel economy with other cars.

Unless you think that the EPA and Consumer Reports are BOTH lying, you can reduce your carbon output more effectively by driving a Ford Focus. If you want more room, get a Diesel VW Jetta. If you want style, get a Diesel Mercedes. If you need an SUV, look for one that runs diesel.

Just don't get a hybrid and fool yourself into thinking you're "green."

You're absolutely right, I only skimmed your posting, and focused more on the comments that followed. I realized my error after I'd made my post, and had intended to offer an apology, but my reply hadn't appeared yet. So I'd be putting the cart before the horse. Okay, enough about horses.

To illuminate a bit: I'd just read (or skimmed) dozens of posts on other sites, which cited the CNW (ahem) "study" as though it were fact. I've seen this phenomenon all too often before. Someone will latch on to some half-baked idea, and everyone runs with it. Suddenly someone's conjecture, "junk science" (if indeed there even is any science involved here), or marketing spin becomes the defacto standard of knowledge on a particular subject. It seems that the masses have lost the ability--or at least the will--to look beyond the surface, to question sources, and reason objectively. It's much easier to settle into the comfortable bliss of ignorance.

After reading enough of that, my brain had become numb. When I stumbled upon your page, I said "Here we go again". And seeing an opportunity to inject a bit of rationality into the debate, I did--without realizing you'd already done so.

So, again, I offer my apologies--but I also offer that a little repetition of rational and objective thought, against the tide of absurdity surrounding this subject, may not be an entirely bad thing.

You wrote: "I probably hate pseudoscience as much as you, and it bugs me when green people use it "

Shouldn't it bother you when ANYONE uses it? That goes back to the point of my original posting. People like to latch onto ideas--right or wrong--that support their own agenda. I can see from your various postings, that you're intelligent and can think objectively I challenge you to apply your abilities even to areas that are personally unfavorable to you.

You wrote: "the market share of hybrids is irrelevant....if magically everybody dumped their SUV and got a hybrid."

No, it's not irrelevant. I was being realistic. The reality that we live with, is that people would be driving SUVs even if compact hybrids were perfect in every way. Americans have always had a "bigger is better" mentality when it comes to vehicles, and only reluctantly embraced compact cars during the energy crisis of the 70's. Even with gas prices expected to hit $4 a gallon, people are still buying and driving SUVs. It makes no sense to make comparisons that only exist in an idealized world, that has no bearing on the real world.

You wrote: "Many many industries are working on better ways to generate and store energy: computer manufacturers, power plants, heavy machinery "

I don't see any--or even all--of these industries having sufficient incentive or ability to improve technology, as compared to the automotive industry. Computers don't need to store the amount of power that a car would; power plants generate power in real-time, so I can't imagine why they'd need to store it at all; and heavy machinery is a tiny market compared to automobiles. They may all be working on it in some form or fashion, but I don't see the drive or incentives there to advance it as quickly.

You wrote:"Didn't you catch the reference to using algae? Way more output per acre than anything else, and"

I did, but it's the first I'd ever heard of it. What's the total environmental footprint? How and where would it be grown and harvested?

You wrote: "Regarding your final nit picking: yes, I hate pseudoscience. Yes, I hate it when green people use it. Yes, I hate it when anybody uses it, but it bothers me MOST when people with my values use it"

Not nit-picking at all. It was a legitimate question. You may not realize it, but your values aren't entirely clear--I wasn't sure exactly where you were coming from. In some things, you seem to be "green", yet there's a certain edge to your comments that makes question that.

I otherwise agree with your reasoning. I think that if people want to be taken as credible, they need to be credible 100% of the time. It's unfortunate, as it further tilts the playing field to the other side, which seems to be able to use bogus data and irrational reasoning with impunity (see how often the CNW "study" is cited as fact).

We're probably very close in our values--so can't we discuss this without the emotional outbursts?

You said:

We're probably very close in our values--so can't we discuss this without the emotional outbursts?

Based on this, and your behavior thus far, I'm going to make 3 evaluations:

1. You only engage in civil discussion with people who you assume share your values,
2. You're still attempting to regain a moral high ground without any humility, despite your unjustifiable and vitriolic first post, and
3. You're probably one of those pompous windbags who prefers to engage in discussion, being blissfully unaware that the only way to achieve true resolution is through dialog

If you're indeed interested in dialog, and not discussion, then you must contribute to the resolution of the question... which, in case you forgot, was to discover the true hidden costs of hybrids. Again, re-read my blog post if you need a refresher.

Now, because of your statements such as "I don't see any..." and "its the first I've ever heard of it," you seem to be arguing that you are the all-knowing sage when it comes to "green" technology... since you've never heard of it, it therefore must not exist... despite the fact that I already gave you numerous links so you could educate yourself.

If you care to engage in a dialog in the internet age, then ignorance is never an excuse. Everything I spoke about above has been reported on by Mother Earth News, Treehugger, Ecogeek, and AutoBlogGreen for YEARS. If its new to you, then you're out of touch. You should try Google next time:

• Algae and biodeisel
• Biodeisel generated from smokestack pollution
• Computer fuel cells by Toshiba
• high-efficiency diesel engines from General Electric
• New fuel-cell based generators by Acumentrics
• Mother Earth News on Algae Biodeisel (2003)

And BTW, you should read consumer reports again. The VW Diesel is ranked #2 (at 41mpg), the Toyota Prius is ranked #3 (at 41mpg) -- look at all of the numbers to see why it wasn't considered a tie. And yes, as I said, the Honda Insight got #1 (51mpg).

Not that any of that matters... and I'm surprised I have to repeat myself yet again, but the topic at hand is total life cycle cost of a hybrid, and MPG is just one aspect. Even if a Hybrid got 25% better mileage, that doesn't mean its greener... having two engines means more maintenance, more problems, more energy to manufacture, and more weight... not to mention dirty batteries. And since its relatively easy to get a a 45mpg diesel, the choice of hybrids becomes less and less justifiable.

It is possible that the Honda Insight is greener overall compared to a VW Golf Diesel, but that's far from certain. What is nearly certain, is that the VW Golf Diesel beats the Toyota Prius overall... and its possible that even the Ford Focus -- with simpler, lighter, design -- could be better than the Prius... despite the lower MPG rating. That probably hinges on the expected life span of the Focus, since Ford isn't known to make cars more reliable than Toyota... although the Prius appears to be an exception.

If you have any hard data that will add to the dialog, feel free to supply it. Otherwise, I'm tired of repeating myself.

I looked at a couple of your links. The Toshiba fuel cell article I read, only makes my point--that they're for low-energy devices ("Toshiba today announced a small methanol fuel cell which weighs just 8.5 g (0.3 oz) and can produce 100 mW of power"). And at what cost?

Acumetrics Biogas Fuel Cell costs $175,000 for 5KW (I don't know--and yes, that means I DON'T KNOW, and nothing more) what kind of wattage a car requires, but I'd say this is way, way beyond the reach of practical automotive use.

So yes--other companies are working on it. I never denied that. But are they anywhere close to developing technologies that would be suitable, practical, and cheap enough for use in automobiles?

I'm not defending batteries here. I hate batteries probably as much as you do. But they're a baby-step. Hybrids have put the idea of moving away from fossil fuels into the media and into people's consciousness. And in the scheme of things, the environmental damage is miniscule compared to what's been done by gas-guzzling SUVs. I see the net effect as being a good thing. They were never intended to be a "destination" technology, but a "bridge" technology.

In the end, when you have "green" people fighting against hybrids, while touting some elusive technological holy grail, you end up with a general public that thinks all "greens" are kooks who will never be satisfied (trust me, they're pretty convinced of that already), and they'll throw their hands up and say "Ah to hell with it, let's just use fossil fuels".

That's the BIG PICTURE. It's not just mpg, it's not batteries, it's not any one little tedious thing. It's about getting people to think beyond fossil fuels. Once they have, maybe some of the other things you're touting will work, and maybe they won't. But at least, maybe, people will be more receptive to listening, if we're not in-fighting about it.

You wrote: "They are simply a new form of an internal combustion engine that uses slightly less fossil fuel... Will you agree to that?"

Not entirely. It is an internal combustion engine coupled with an electric motor. It gets the public used to the idea of cars that are at least partially powered by electricity and driven at least partially by an electric motor. That is a baby-step toward an all-electric vehicle, but more importantly to me, it's a huge step toward getting the getting the idea of electric vehicles in the public's mind, and gaining acceptance of them (remember Honda's "you don't have to plug it in" ads?).

You accuse me of not reading your messages, but clearly you don't read mine either. Re-read my message and see what I'm saying about the "big picture". And it's what I've been saying all along, so don't accuse me of being inconsistent. You need to step outside your own little world for a moment, and realize that for the most part, the average American doesn't give a squat about the specifics of technology their vehicle uses. They care about convenience, reliability, and style--and they respond to PR. PR is largely what made the SUV what it is (giving people the idea that they're going to have some great off-road adventure, when in reality they're driving their kids to the mall; or that they're safer in crashes, when in some types of accidents, they're in far greater danger). And bad PR and inconvenience (two serious strikes) have put a sour taste in people's mouths about electric vehicles. The hybrid is a way of re-introducing that concept in a way that is palatable to people. "It still runs on gas, but it's electric". It's something that people can palate. Even if most people don't care, it subliminally gains acceptance in people's minds. Whether you see it or not, that is immensely valuable.

ONE MORE TIME, this is not about hybrids as a "destination technology", it's not saying that hybrids are all good. It's not saying that work shouldn't be done in other fields. It's only saying that, in the big picture, they have their place FOR NOW. If you still don't get that, then indeed there's nothing left for us to discuss.

You wrote: "Its fuel can be made from waste streams from intensive pig farms, power plants, or standard farming techniques... in the latter case its oil output per acre is 500 times better
"

You didn't answer my questions about algae-based biodiesel , so I did my own research. It was late, and I was tired, so I only read one site. It spoke of the terms that you cite--but it also glossed over technical hurdles that "surely will be" surmounted. When I read things like that, my Blue-Sky/BS-meter goes off the scale. Bottom line, from what I've read so far--and if you have other evidence to the contrary, please present a specific link from a reputable source--it does not appear that algae-based biodiesel is yet a workable technology on a scale that can even replace the existing tiny hybrid market share. Now before you go into a hissy fit, re-read what I said. I am drawing my own conclusions, which may or may not be correct. If you have real evidence to the contrary, please present it, educate me, rather than embattling me.

I also still don't have an answer on algae's total environmental footprint. There's some references to adverse environmental effects in the one piece I read (which again, they glossed over). But I suspect that there's more. Is the algae itself safe for the environment? (Again, I am ASKING, not making a point). Does it create VOCs of any kind? Here in Florida, we have a type of algae (part of a phenomenon known as "Red Tide") which produces airborne toxins. It can cause serious respiratory illness. I realize that this is only one species of algae, and others may be safe--but instinct tells me, that it's just not that easy. Every action has a reaction, and the best intentions of man often are fraught with unexpected consequences.

You've obviously read some web sites and maybe magazines and are all rah-rah-rah about biodiesel, but I doubt that you really understand its implications beyond what you've read. And what you've read, undoubtedly doesn't address the hard questions, if in fact they even do have the answers.

There are also other issues, which I haven't seen addressed. Will biodiesel run in a standard diesel without modification to the vehicle? If not, then you have a serious logistics problem. Diesel already--like electric cars--leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. Besides a reputation for being noisy and messy (deserved or not, it's what many people believe), there's also the issue that not every gas station carries diesel. That hits right at one of the "top 3" issues for consumers, convenience. It's also why, even if hydrogen were otherwise more viable, it would have an extremely hard time penetrating the market. The distribution and retail infrastructure has to exist before people will buy the cars, and the investment won't be made in the infrastructure until there are a significant number of the cars on the road. It's a chicken-and-the-egg scenario.

I'm sure you don't realize it, and won't believe me when I tell you, but I've been interested in biofuels since the 1970's, when I first heard about them. I've been interested in symbiotic technology for equally as long. Yes, more than 30 years. And I still am. I think the idea is great, if it will work on a large scale, and if it will be adopted by the public, and if there are no serious negative consequences. I have yet to see those questions answered, so I remain optimistic but not committed to the idea.

And one more time, since you clearly aren't listening, for me this is not about one technology versus another (you really need to re-read my first message; like most Americans, you seem to have a very serious issue with black-and-white thinking).

You wrote (for the second time): "Will you also agree to that?"

Let's be real here. This is not about sharing information, having a dialog, or anything of the sort. It's about getting me to agree with you. Clearly that's not going to happen, for though we may agree on specific issues, you're taking a small-picture view, and I'm taking a big-picture view. They're not the same, and never will be. So I guess that, in your terms, I'm not "adding to the resolution".

And you haven't answered many of my questions, both technical questions, or citing what I posted (again, after the first message) which you claim was "vitriolic".

This kind of behavior, the "I'm right, you're wrong", and myopic focus on specific issues while completely ignoring their greater context, is what gives "green" people a bad name. It's one big reason why, despite my affinity for environmental concerns, I won't call myself "green". If this the way you come across to me--someone who is as concerned about the environment as you allegedly are--just think how much you're turning off people on the other side, who need convincing, not embattling.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I'm trying to figure out WHERE we disagree one point at a time. If you throw 1000 words at me with a dozen vague references to minuscule things I said that might be incorrect, then this will get nowhere.

Clearly, you enjoy talking a lot... since you comment twice as often as I, and have significantly longer posts, with far less data or references. Perhaps that's your style, I'm not judging, but its not the most practical way to resolve anything. It's the same technique Bill O'Reilly uses to confuse the situation so he appears correct, regardless of what the evidence may be. No thanks; I'm staying on-topic.

I was trying to put out my big 3 points: hybrids are not nearly as green as people claim, diesel and biodiesel are cleaner, and the optimal result is an electric car based on supercapacitors. If you disagree, fine! Then say why... or give me compelling evidence that says I'm asking the wrong questions.

After wading through that novel you call a comment, I believe we agree on the third point. You might agree on the 1st point with reservations, and you have scalability concerns about the 2nd point. Understandable... However, you clearly believe a hybrid car is a better stepping stone towards electric cars than a diesel... mainly for PR reasons, and not environmental reasons. I disagree.

Why? Big picture: odds are extremely low that electric engines will fully replace internal combustion engines. What about trains? Probably not. Large shipping freighters? Never. Cruise ships? Nope. Semi-trucks? Not likely. Motor homes? Nah. Buses? Probably, but mainly because they are urban, and people hate smog. Thus, diesel will be with us for a long long time. The engine is simple to make, it can be incredibly efficient, the fuel lasts a long time in storage, and is not explosive. Plus, add in as much biodiesel as we can muster, and you reduce the carbon footprint even more.

Also, I don't see any PR value in Hybrids as a baby-step towards an electric car. As you said, the point of a hybrid is so that people don't know its electric. The mandatory plug-in will strike people as odd no matter when it happens. However, if your electric car is based on supercapacitors, there is the potential (ha!) of using filling stations as "quick charge" stations. Instead of a slow charge overnight, you get a quick boost at the station that's good for several days. No change in human behavior needed, its much greener, and hybrids are not required.

Thus, I think we're wasting a lot of time & energy on hybrids. I feel its better to use the existing infrastructure on cleaner diesel engines, and biodiesel. That will help make personal autos greener now, as well as improve the overall transportation industry. Then we just have to wait a few years for supercapacitors to hit critical mass, and we'll be even better off.

And the people are with me: analysts predict diesel to outsell hybrids by 2012.

I'm not indifferent to your points, I simply wanted to focus on one point at a time... otherwise the dialog goes nowhere. I mentioned my 3 main points, noted your objections, then focused on what I believed was your main "big picture" point: hybrids don't have to be fully green because they are a bridge technology to electric cars. I agreed that electric cars are the best end-result, but I disagreed about hybrids being necessary. I stated why, and wanted to see if you agreed. If so, then I was going to look at your other objections, and see if there were any "deal-breakers". I obviously didn't make that clear, and apparently came off as hostile.

And anyway, there's no such things as victory in a dialog; you're thinking of a debate. A dialog is a search for the optimal resolution, or "truth" if you believe in that.

Case in point, I'm taking a more cautious view of biodiesel until more of these bench-scale systems ramp up into full-blown factories... Worth investing in, but not 100% there. However, I still feel strongly that ordinary diesel is greener technology than hybrids... and adding whatever biodiesel we can muster will make it even greener.

everybody is a hypocrite. If you want to save fuel, money and the environment, drive motorbikes when one or two people are travelling rather than a car. A bike gives about 100 miles a gallon with less emissions. If people start driving more bikes, there will be less cars on the roads and automatically less accidents. If the number of cars are more then drivers donot see bikers, but if it the oterh way round, then things will change. Orotherwise, ask the government to make the outer lanes on roads as "bike only" lanes which again is a safety option. People dont want to give up the comfort of sitting in a car and they talk about saving the envirronment..............huhh !!! hypocrites. We will all go back to horse backs and carraiges soon...

IF all the emerging technologies were available TODAY, I'd give up my gasoline engine in favor of HYDROGEN (not electic).

Hydrogen provides all the advantages of internal combustion engines without the drawbacks of electric. Maybe YOU don't have a problem taking a few hours out of your drives to recharge your car's batteries, but I don't.

I'd much rather pull into my hydrogen station (as opposed to a "gas station") and take a few minutes to refill my hydrogen tank, and get back on my way...

The "emission" from Hydrogen engine is WATER! I think the environment can handle my water discharge, don't you?

And WHERE, exactly, is the electricity to RECHARGE your precious electric vehicles coming from? Nice Clean NUCLEAR? No? No matter, use that same electricity (regardless of its source) and use to to produce hydrogen (especially if AlGore is so worried about rising sea levels, what better way to combat that, than to take the water and produce Hydrogen and Oxygen?).

All energy comes from somewhere. It takes a ton of electricity to extract hydrogen from water... which we then have to burn to run our cars. It makes more sense to just put that electricity directly into our cars.

Once we have batteries or super capacitors that are relatively "green," then they make the most sense. Of course, we need a push away from coal, and towards solar / wind / fusion to complete the story.

Gents,

All parts of batteries are recyclable, and no one should be putting them in landfills. This includes lead-acid batteries, Li-Ion, NiMH, etc. There is no reason for electric cars or hybrids to be intrinsically bad for the environment due to pollution. By the way, there are more and more consumer items out there that use batteries, including the computers that we write these messages on, cell phones, and so forth. All using some variant of the same recipes. So to blame hybrid cars for hypothetical (show me these polluted places that you speak of) evils is not looking at the whole picture.

Where exactly is this battery factory that you speak of? " One of the Prius's battery factories causes so much environmental damage that NASA uses the lifeless land nearby to simulate moon landings. " (And why would NASA have to simulate moon landings? They've been there already.) Tell us more about these NASA simulations - when and where, and so on. NASA doesn't do secret research - they have a mandate to publicize what they do.

Capacitors and supercapacitors are also made of metals and chemicals. The supercapacitor that you speak of has not been fully developed yet, and I wonder if you know what chemicals will be in it? "Until super capacitors become more viable, and we scrap those dirty batteries, hybrid and electric cars will probably cause more environmental problems than they solve."

Putting batteries and chemicals in landfills is plain bad, and as stupid as pouring diesel or gasoline in landfills.

[[citation needed]]

exactly right... That's what I meant by total lifecycle cost of a car.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about "green" cars. Frankly, its not easy to have a green car: you have to think about the environmental costs of creating and maintaining the car throughout its life, and not just the miles per gallon today.

Not that it matters... the #1 reason Hybrids sell is because of vanity. According to recent market research, people drive Hybrids because:

• "It makes a statement about me," and
• "I really want people to know that I care about the environment."

don't expect them to be rational ;-)

The cold hard facts are everywhere these cars don't even come close to every green claim Toyota has claimed. Not by a long shot. Yet every fact about how they are not green is attacked by nit picking the facts in hopes they can bend the facts in their favor. Just don't even bother... With the real scientific facts the Earth is cooling and sun shots are on a steady down hill slide their Prius is helping warm the Earth up!!! So even tho the cars are costing more per mile to drive per mile and all that they are actually green but in ways they DON'T believe is good for the environment/climate..