Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness

Hmmm Greenpeace Canada didn't seem to mention the over-half-century of "pass the buck" by various Federal and Provincial governments with regards to the moonscape around Sudbury.

The desolation of Sudbury was even lampooned in the wonderful indie film called "Roadkill," released in 1989. Otherwise there isn't anything funny about it.

Maybe INCO expects Toyota to pay the billions to clean up their mess??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Nov 24 2006, 11:31 AM) [snapback]353683[/snapback]</div>

Toyota seems not even a minor focus of this sudbury Nickel supplier, Falconbridge Ltd., now owned by the Swiss company Xstrata (the INCO takeover bid failed and Xstrata acquired them in 2006). In fact, from Falconbridge's 2004 Annual Report, available on their website, Toyota gets no mention whatsoever. Then again, that's only fair, as Toyota, according to the article that started this thread, only purchased 1000 tons of Nickel. In 2004, Falconbridge produced 109,000 tons of nickel. So how could the amount of Nickel used in a Prius battery compare to what they export to, say, CHINA!

From the Falconbridge Website 2004 annual report:
>>Falconbridge achieved
refined nickel production of
100,900* tonnes in 2004.
Nickel consumption, mainly driven by stainless
steel production, has grown at an average rate
of 4% per year since 1993. Average stainless
steel growth has been around 6% for the last
decade, and the non-stainless steel sector has
doubled its growth rate during the same period.
Since 1990, nickel demand from China has
grown at more than twice the rate in the
Western World. Despite these increases, China
remains in the early stages of intense metal
usage, and per capita metal consumption is
only now reaching levels that have historically
triggered significant growth in metal demand in
other newly industrialized Asian countries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bh696 @ Nov 23 2006, 06:59 PM) [snapback]353597[/snapback]</div>

My father swears there's an article in some magazine which proves that it's better to fix up an old car rather than buying a new one due to the energy involved in making a new car.

 

Another toll well swatted. It's so adictive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aaf709 @ Dec 1 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]356266[/snapback]</div>

I used to believe that as well, but it appears to be incorrect. It fits in well with my general attitude of thrift, but, sadly, that is not supported by the facts.

Here's a link to more than you ever wanted to know about life-cycle energy use of cars, courtesy of Google answers:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981

Briefly, of the total life-cycle energy involved in making, using, and scrapping a traditional (non-hybrid) car, 90% or so is in the gas to run it, 10% in the making and scrapping of it.

Anyway, even if your only criterion was the environment, not dollar cost to operate the car, the decision to scrap or not to scrap a potentially usable car, in favor of a new one, has to depend on the facts of the case. At some point, if the old car gets poor enough mileage (relative to a new one) and has high enough emissions (relative to a new one), it would be preferable to scrap it. And conversely, if your old car has great mileage and low emissions, it might never pay (environentally) to scrap it.

So there would never be a generic answer that says "always keep the old car". But, knowing nothing else, gas mileage would be likely to dominate your decision to scrap, if you only worried about environmental cost, because gas mileage is going to determine 90% of lifetime energy cost.

 

Yet another compelling reason to switch to Li-Ion chemsitry.... which is what Toyota is doing for the next generation. Good on them.

When we talk of previous high-mileage vehicles, and when we compare "fixing up an old car" we aren't comparing the entire equation. In one case we only look at mileage, in the other we only look at net energy consumption. But what of pollution in both of these cases? Both obviously better for the Prius. Over a lifetime of driving, what sort of difference will that make? One hopes it would be large enough to be worth the energy (and pollution generated) of building a Prius instead of just another gas vehicle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Dec 1 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]356324[/snapback]</div>

Let's not forget that the Hummer H2 so very favored by the "consultant" Art Spinella is in an EPA Bin that allows for MUCH more total pollution than the Prius.

Kind of ironic how the EPA tiers the Bin numbers, so a "clean" giant pickup or SUV is grossly dirty compared to a small fuel efficient car. Yet all the average consumer will see is LEV or ULEV, etc, not realizing they are not comparing apples to apples.

 

OT:

EPA green vehicle guide

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle/E-HUMMER-H2-06.htm

Stands ready to answer your questions about the remarkable Hummer. A zero. Click on 'air pollution score' to see what the numbers mean.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tochatihu @ Dec 2 2006, 01:04 PM) [snapback]356680[/snapback]</div>

Yea,

We had a pretty big blizard storm here in Chicagoland the past few days. Got out last night to mail some bills. Crossing the street by the post office, a H2 went buy. Could not help but think " There goes a future Mr. Plow ".

 

Gotta love how people are always out to bring down a good idea because it makes them feel more comfortable with their bad habits. I see this a lot when people who barely finished high school bad mouth those with college education and imply that they are somehow more enlightened because they didn't expand their world view.. Guess you have to coat your ego somehow. Thanks for the info Megan.

 

My understanding is that the nickel they mine there is a result of a meteor impact. I've been past the place on a motorcycle and it is pretty desolate.

But 0on the other hand, the meteor could have impacted in a lot of places. In some cases the change brought by the mining operation would be an improvement.