Prius truly green?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]397888[/snapback]</div>

I would not shift my arguement like that - it's kind of like Barney Fife's pistol going off and hitting him in the foot.

The mention of a transport's diesel's CO2 emissions across the Pacific is worded as if the belching increases only if the cargo is Prius.

For they hybrid-skeptics and global warming skeptics, the Prius and other hybrids are not zero emission, but definitely less emissions.

That diesel transport is probably emitting less CO2 across the ocean than it's load of Prius would if they traveled that distance on their own power - economies of scale. Also crusiing at a constant speed for optimal efficiency. It's a big hauler put to good use.

Is any automaker building transport vessels? The closest I can come up with is there was a US automaker that had a division making diesel-electric locomotives (Electro-Motive) since the 1930's, but they sold it in 2005 after taking a hit on truck/SUV sales.

 

For "Green Vehicles" the most efficient reference point should be a bicycle...

Keith

 

My bicycle requires some emissions to produce, and some emissions to fuel... after all, I need to eat, right? And biking does make me burn more calories. Therefore a Hummer is probably a better option than a bike because I burn almost ZERO calories while sitting in that thing driving around. Logical, right?

 

Ref: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/03/_l...is_more_p_1.php

Found this years ago, but it contradicts the CNW study, although unscientifically. Another thing to consider is that the Prius HV Pack is 100% recycled (if the wrecking crew calls the 800 number). So if over the 14 years of Prius life you factor in that Samsung (think they are the Pack supplier) will recycle x tons of Toyota batteries back into laptops or FEH's, the dust to dust number falls fast.

In fact Dust-to-Dust analysis is always going to be high on the first line of technology because CNW is charging for the R&D as well.

A proper study would spread this cost over the 14 years the car is likely to live (through multiple owners) before ultimately returned to dust.

So assuming that X represents the amount of energy used to light the labs and feed the engineers for the 10 years it took to develop the Prius. As well as the the amount of material and prototypes they consumed, the manufacturing cost for those, the gas they used to get to their labs and whatever else CNW could drum up. Then X would have to be divided by the projected number of vehicles that R&D yielded.

So now Y has to represent the number of cars that X produced. Prius, Lexus, Highlander. Over the LIFE of those lines. For round numbers lets just say 1 million cars. That assumes 71k hybrids a year for 14 years. So the energy sir charge on a Toyota hybrid is X/Y where X is described above, and Y = 1 million.

Now to Z. Z is the production cost of the car. Again, this decreases over time. The first (nonHybrid) Corolla cost much more to make than current (nonHybrid) Corollas (cost=KWh not $). So to be fair, you have to count the cost to make All Corollas and divide by the number of Corollas produced. So switch back to Prius and Z = Q/R. Q = The cost to produce all Prius for the life of the Prius line. R = the number of Prius that came off that line until in 2021, or whenever the discontinue the Prius product.

Now on to the cost of operation. This is where efficiency comes in. Let W = the cost of operation. CNW likes completeness, so include the KWh I consume working to pay my car note along with it. So let M = KWh I consume to earn the $ it takes to pay my car note, insurrance, maintance costs, and operation costs. N = the gas, motor oil, axle greese my Prius consumes from birth until scrapped in 2021 by the person I sold it to in 2017. That yields W = M + N.

Lets not forget about recycling. Let V be the amount of energy you extract from the vehicle before it's committed to landfill.

So the cost of my prius, C:
C = X/Y + Z + W

therefore

C = X/Y + Q/R + M + N - V

I think X, Q and N are the popular points that most studies focus on. CNW probably greatly reduced Y and R, and likely failed to acknowledge that M is much greater for a Hummer than it is for a Prius, and I have no doubt that V was discounted altogether.

I mean come on... if your going to include the electric bill of the lab you used to design it in the analysis, you should go all the way right!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Feb 28 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]397909[/snapback]</div>

My point is if you are truly trying to figure out the how "green" a vehicle is the environmental cost of transport must be taken into account.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Feb 28 2007, 09:16 AM) [snapback]397800[/snapback]</div>

No longer true. I read the dust-to-dust report (well, good sections of it, it's 459 pages long, but most of it is big charts of numbers for each vehicle, and a long appendix of e-mails to and from CNW, some supporters of his research, some not. The real text is surprisingly light on specifics.) I came up with several discrepancies (check out a brief analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_ele...and_Criticisms), but interestingly, they came up with new numbers for the 2006 models. These are available only in simple excel spreadsheet without the details of last year's report. And for some reason, they weren't publicized nearly as much....wondering why? Maybe because Art Spinella's own numbers now show that a Prius costs less to operate, from dust-to-dust, than a Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon or Ford Excursion . (But for the record, a Hummer H1 was never considered cheaper per mile than a Prius, although an H2 was).

Ha! I wonder if that will make the big appendix on e-mails that was part of the 459-page report? But reading the report, with its editorial comments and such, it doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is how he continues to be taken seriously.

Regarding other points brought up, the Prius isn't the greenest vehicle possible or even on the market. It is probably the best 5-passenger vehicle on the U.S. market with acceleration and range that Americans expect (HCH right in there too). Obviously the common bicycle is considerably better, then something like the Twike, then the all-electric vehicles.

As for the energy expended for the hybrid components, my limited understanding of economics says we as consumers have to pay for those components - the construction, design, even mining the elements. That manifests itself as two things in the final bill - time (man-hours) and energy cost to process and transport the physical material. Since the hybrid premium is typically given as around $3000 (but probably going down every year), and some portion of that is man-hours, let's say 1/5th, then $2400 worth of energy was consumed, presumably almost all fossil-fuel based.

Driving a Prius 10,000 miles/year at 50 mpg uses 200 gallons, average price last year is $2.60/gal = $520.
Driving an equivalent vehicle at 25 mpg would use 400 gallons for $1040, save $500/year, so it would take 5 years of driving to save the extra energy consumed in making the vehicle better.

Somebody please tell me if I'm all wet with this analysis.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]397936[/snapback]</div>

Only if it differs from the alternatives. That might be an argument against all imported cars, or imported products of any sort, but it is not relevant to single out the Prius. It would be better in many ways if the Prius were "built" in the US, but are we going to start calculating the green impact of American cars built in Mexico with lax environmental standards? Among competing alternatives, the Prius stands out in any reasonable comparison.

Anyway, that CNW analysis is a joke and was debunked almost as soon as it appeared.

The whole thing reminds me of the old joke about hiring an accountant...when asked a simple math question, the accountant asked, "what do you want the answer to be?"

 

Guys,

Notice when the "Are you Really Green" question comes up, the detractors suggest riding a bike? At least two members have resorted to that. Can't take that too seriously as America is not very walker or cyclist-friendly like Europe. Distances are often too far, and too many drivers willing to hit them. I'd love for that to start changing.

If a few things could change, I'd love to plugin a Twike overnight, commute to work at 50-60mph, somehow find a nearby shower and save time at the gym while getting 150+mph from grid electricity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Feb 28 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]397958[/snapback]</div>

How am I a detractor? The Prius is a green vehicle, and I went to some length to debunk CNW Marketing's anti-hybrid spin. It is simply not the most green method of transport available. I bike to nearby stores whenever I won't be carrying a bulky load. I biked to work once a week last summer (on roads with no shoulders for the better part of it), 8.5 miles each way, no shower (quick sponge bath with a wet towel in the handicapped bathroom stall works quite well). This summer I plan on biking quite a bit more, so it is a viable solution for many people. Not all, I will quickly admit.

But the question is, is the Prius green compared to what? A large SUV (yes) or a bicycle (no)? Is it a sustainable solution for all 6+ billion residents of this planet? Heck no!

 

I don't care if my Prius is green, blue or whatever (actually its white). It doubled my previous mpg, and cut 20-30 minutes off my commute. Its all good. I don't fret over mfg and transportation eco costs. Every product made has costs negative to the environment, or we'd all be driving Fred Flintstone mobiles!

I'm also a bike rider, but I do it because its fun, and a health benefit, not to make some kind of eco statement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Feb 28 2007, 01:56 PM) [snapback]397998[/snapback]</div>

That was one of my general shots and might have stepped on toes unintentionally. Over a number of forums, people who have a problem with hybrids tend to inject bicycles in the "all or nothing" remarks. You know - "to be green you have to live completely off the grid, make and grow all your stuff....". Green being redefined as perfect zero emissions - not less emissions in it's common usage. In twenty years, a 2007 Prius will not be very green - just as a 1974 Civic is not that green today - the standards are increasing.

Sorry if I'm lumping a number of posts together, but when one of the cleanest passenger cars - the Prius is attacked for not being green - it looks suspect.

If the shoe fits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Albertus @ Feb 28 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]397951[/snapback]</div>

Thanks... Just trying to illustrate the point. There is an adage "Numbers don't lie". The lie is in the assumptions and context you apply the numbers too, not the numbers themselves.

Example:
Lie: R&D by GM for Hummer was negligible totaling only 1.2 Million.
Truth: There was significant DoD R&D that went into H1 before being sold to GM that should be included.

Since I want the numbers to come out in the Prius favor, I try to maximize the divisor in the ratios. To do this I project future production into the equation (foretell the future). CNW went the other way. The wrote off the R&D that the military contractors put into the production of the H1 (probably in the billions), then only calculated the product cycle from start to present date. This is all truthful depending how you state the assumption, but if you did a cost anaysys after the very first prius was sold, you would determine that Toyota took a $100 Million Dollar loss on that one sale, since they spent $100 Million on research, but only sold one car (to date).

It's easy to make numbers lie. All you have to do is use them to prove a false premise.

I come from a small college town where cycling was very popular. Over the course of 2 years, a grad student was killed, and a professor received serious brain damage from an accident. Our family was close to both. I'll never ride a bike outside a subdivision again, and and even when I do ride, I'm very nervous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Feb 28 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]398014[/snapback]</div>

I don't have a problem with hybrids. They're a wonderful idea that really seems to be catching on, and that's great. A Prius is a big step in the right direction for many people, and that is to be encouraged. But don't forget that the cyclists and pedestrians are further down the green road than we are. It's not 'all or nothing', but it's too early for the end zone dance just yet. Keep going.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Feb 28 2007, 02:57 PM) [snapback]398025[/snapback]</div>

I agree going carbon neutral is just starting.

I salute anyone that is using a bike in place of a car - it's just quite a few that post about bicycles often do this after ripping hybrids (again, if the shoe fits...)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dan. @ Feb 28 2007, 04:47 PM) [snapback]398020[/snapback]</div>

How many people were injured and killed in car accidents in the same town over the same period of time?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Feb 28 2007, 10:13 PM) [snapback]398032[/snapback]</div>

Driving a Prius will certainly not save the world. But you make a stand against carbondioxide emissions.


I admit that the thrill of owning and driving a Prius is more important to me than the environmental issues.


If I really want to save the planet I'll have to walk or ride a train powered by hydro-electrics or nuclear power - which produces no green house emissions.


But to stop all emissions I will have to stop eating.


No way!

 

Sorry for clogging up the thread guys, but I had to share the CNW numbers with you.

Toyota Prius.
Cost / mile = $3.25 (p21)
Average miles driven before scraped = 109,000 (p21)
Average FE of a 10 year old Prius = 34.71 mpg (p79)
Age related efficiency loss = 23.20% (p87)
Lifetime repair costs = $ 22,430.86 (p134)
Accident repair costs = $ 15,192.48 (p163)
R&D costs per Prius sold = $ 29,889.18 (p187)
Manufacturing cost per Prius sold = $ 13,238 (p197)
Dealer Energy costs per Prius sold = $ 2,576.11 (p227)
Dealer Service cost per Prius sold = $ 14,377.97 (p227)
Cost (not profit) to recycle a Prius $ 147,391.88 (p240)
Disposal costs of non recyclables $ 131,082.41 (p251)
Disposal costs of reuseables $ 47,656.57 (p269)

So to make and sell a Prius Toyota and it's dealer's combined cost per car = 45,703.29
A $20,000 loss per car :huh:

Chevy Aveo
Cost / mile = $0.77 (p27)
Average miles driven before scraped = 142,000 (p27)
Average FE of a 10 year old Prius = 24.88 mpg (p78)
Age related efficiency loss = 23.82% (p86)
Lifetime repair costs = $ 4,277.64 (p133)
Accident repair costs = $ 1,987.28 (p168)
R&D costs per car sold = $ 2,325.01 (p186)
Manufacturing cost per car sold = $ 3,116 (p196)
Dealer Energy costs per Aveo sold = $ 421.91 (p226)
Dealer Service cost per Aveo sold = $ 1,639.78 (p226)
Cost (not profit) to recycle a Aveo $ 28,799.30 (p239)
Disposal costs of non recyclables $ 56,300.75 (p250)
Disposal costs of reuseables $ 11,313.85 (p268)

So to make and sell a Aveo GM and it's dealer's combined cost per car = 5,862.92

So all GM has to do is try to get all of it's personnel to start pushing a prius on every one they meet. If Toyota hits the 2 millionth Prius they are guaranteed to go bankrupt, right? Numbers don't lie.

So for those keeping score at home, the Aveo (marvel of engineering) will last 30% longer than a Prius. The Prius not only will suffer an early grave compared to the ultra-reliable Aveo, bit the Prius costs 5 times as much to repair (7 times as much if your in an accident), 12 times as much to develop, 4 times as much to manufacture, requires 6 times as much effort to sell, costs your dealer 8 times as much to repair, and costs 3 times as much to dispose of than an ultra-Eco Aveo. Prius owners, doesn't that sound about right?

Remember numbers don't lie.

Glad to know that after buying my Prius my cummute got shorter and It has become my secondary vehicle (guess I shouldn't have traded in my Mazda... guess it's still my primary)

And in regards to fueling costs:

Seriously, that's a quote.

The views on repairs:

Funny how every other study I read says the oposite siting that the ICE hours of operation per mile is lower with cars that feature auto-stop

Guess they forgot that the ICE Prius engine is used in the Yarvis, and Scion as well. I believe only the CAM is unique for Atkinson compression. Funny, they listed the Scion as one of the most economical cars to repair didn't they?

Funny, if it cost 3 times as much to repair, why do you compute the repair cost to be 8 times that of other cars?

Well ain't that convenient? Compare GM's ability to leverage R&D to Toyota's. Seems like apples to apples to me. :lol:

Well gee... wouldn't that skew your numbers?

OK... I feel better now... I'll try to duck out and not monopolize the thread.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Feb 28 2007, 03:13 PM) [snapback]398032[/snapback]</div>

That I knew personally? One. Died of a blood transfusion after breaking his leg in a motorcycle accident. I refuse to ride motorcycles as well. I've had no friends killed while driving a car (thank God).

Hey I didn't say it was logical, just hard to convince my wife and kids I'm gonna ride my bike these days.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dan. @ Feb 28 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]398083[/snapback]</div>

I'd be willing to bet, since it's a college town, that more people died in car accidents than in biking accidents. And it's kind of ironic, given that you said "It's easy to make numbers lie. All you have to do is use them to prove a false premise.", and then using biking numbers like that.

But if you were being ironic, you scored.