Wow! Thanks to Debbie for passing this little gem along. I’m simply speechless. And to think we almost bought a Prius to be “green friendly”.
Now I’m glad we opted for a totally pimped out 06′ Honda Civic. That way we actually do have one of the most “green friendly” vehicles to offset my arguably-worse-than-a-Hummer 05′ Nissan Titan!
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage – By Chris Demorro
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.
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.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.
“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,†said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer – the Prius’s arch nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,†the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles – the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist – ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available – a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage – buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
This is GREAT! I argue with my wife that hybrids can’t be THAT much better than “regular” cars to justify their enormous discrepancies in price… Now I have a little more ammo to use in my argument!
100,000 miles – the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.
Where do these figures come from? They think a Prius will only last 100K and the Hummer 300K!? Their choice of figures has a huge impact the result.
So by their numbers, the overall cost of the Prius was $3.25*109,000 = $354,250, and the overall cost of the Hummer is $1.95*300,000 = $585,000.
So overall the Hummer costs more, and only becomes more economical if you are able to drive it many more miles than the Prius. If they both last the same amount of time, the Prius wins.
Now I grant you the nickel-induced pollution problem is a big deal, but that is less of an anti-hybrid argument as it is an argument for making an effort to clean up our industrial act. Batteries are here to stay, we need to find ways to make them as green as possible.
Yeah…except they only survive for 100,000 miles. So times the price of your little prius by 3, then compare to the hummer.
What is that? $975,000.
Dave W – After 17 years of marriage I just have one piece of advice to give you my friend… don’t ever argue with your wife. No matter what, she ultimately wins! :-)
Daver, I wondered about that as well. I think what they are referring to is that the batteries only last 100k miles before having to change them, as opposed to the Hummer’s V8 which will go a long time.
If you argue that the battery can be replaced, you then have to deal with the fact that the replacement is about $5000 or so, plus you’ve now doubled up on the pollution problem.
At least that’s my best guess!
John
@daver
So by their numbers, the overall cost of the Prius was $3.25*109,000 = $354,250, and the overall cost of the Hummer is $1.95*300,000 = $585,000.
your calculations are wrong sir, if you were comparing correctly you have to take into account three times of the Prius ownership figure to match the Hummer’s, i.e. 3*($3.25*100,000) = $975,000 vs. the Hummer’s $585,000 and so the Hummer is cheaper.
So overall the Hummer costs more, and only becomes more economical if you are able to drive it many more miles than the Prius. If they both last the same amount of time, the Prius wins.
And once again this is not true. You even state “if they both last the same amount of time” and still are comparing 100,000 miles vs. 300,000 miles. That is not the same amount of time. $3.25 * 100,000 = $325,000 vs. Hummer’s $1.95 * 100,000 = $195,000.
Once again Hummer wins.
$3.25*109,000 = $354,250
And where did you get the 109,000 from?
I’m sorry but you need to at least get your calculations straight before posting a rebuttal like that. And also if the production process of a hybrid requires a certain battery to be made, then yes it is an anti-hybrid argument since it is directly part of the vehicle.
@daver
So by their numbers, the overall cost of the Prius was $3.25*109,000 = $354,250, and the overall cost of the Hummer is $1.95*300,000 = $585,000.
your calculations are wrong sir, if you were comparing correctly you have to take into account three times of the Prius ownership figure to match the Hummer’s, i.e. 3*($3.25*100,000) = $975,000 vs. the Hummer’s $585,000 and so the Hummer is cheaper.
So overall the Hummer costs more, and only becomes more economical if you are able to drive it many more miles than the Prius. If they both last the same amount of time, the Prius wins.
And once again this is not true. You even state “if they both last the same amount of time” and still are comparing 100,000 miles vs. 300,000 miles. That is not the same amount of time. $3.25 * 100,000 = $325,000 vs. Hummer’s $1.95 * 100,000 = $195,000.
Once again Hummer wins.
$3.25*109,000 = $354,250
And where did you get the 109,000 from?
I’m sorry but you need to at least get your calculations straight before posting a rebuttal like that. And also if the production process of a hybrid requires a certain battery to be made, then yes it is an anti-hybrid argument since it is directly part of the vehicle.
P.S. DIGG: http://digg.com/environment/Toyota_Prius_does_more_environmental_damage_than_HUMMER_must_read
Story has been DUGG: http://digg.com/environment/Toyota_Prius_does_more_environmental_damage_than_HUMMER_must_read
come on. while the title is amusing; it is an unfair comparison.
does anyone really think ‘zero’ nickel is used to build a hummer?
and what about copper?
we use/mine much more copper than nickel.
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1163_mining_and_primary_metal_production_indexes.html
and copper mining is also known for their ability to pollute,
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu35ie/uu35ie04.htm
or not,
http://www.miningjournal.net/stories/articles.asp?articleID=12775
which is better? it depends on what you mean by ‘better’. as my grandfather always said,
“you pays you money, and takes you choice”
BAMS,
I think you misunderstood my point. Let me rephrase it. First I want to emphasize that my original post was not a “rebuttal” to anything, I was not trying to prove that one care is more efficient than the other, I was trying to show how a simple change in a single assumption in their study could change the whole conclusion. The point is that the CNW study does not definitively prove that the Prius is less green than the Hummer, because of one problematic assumption.
What they did is to estimate both car’s service life in miles, then calculated the total costs of each car over those mileages, and then divided the total by the miles to get ‘cost per mile’. These costs would include both one-time costs, like the manufacturing and transportation costs, and costs associated with mileage, like gas, oil changes, and repairs. My point was that their overall “cost per mile” is heavily affected by their *assumptions* about how long each car would last. They assume that the Prius will last 109,000 miles (this is the original number in their report, not 100,000), and they assume that the Hummer will last 207,000 miles. (This if from the Dust.doc file that can be downloaded on their website. I don’t know where Demorro gets his numbers in the original linked article, the 100K looks like it was probably rounded down, and the 300K figure looks like maybe he read the wrong line, or something.)
So what happens if we remove the mileage portion of the costs? (I’m going back to the numbers from the original report, because it looks like Mr. Demorro’s figures are off.) The total cost of the Prius over 109k miles is $354,141. If we assume that the costs of operating a car are about $0.50 a mile (from the AAA: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/03/26/041259.html), then the gas/repair/oil portion of that 354K is 109,000*.5 = $54,500, so the one time costs are about $300K. For the Hummer their total cost is $1.949*207,000 = 403,443. Subtracting the mileage portion ($0.50*207,000 = 103,500) we get approximately $300K!
So when we don’t make assumptions about which one lasts longer, they appear to be much closer in cost. Given that the Prius is much more fuel efficient, and probably more reliable (less $ for repairs), the Hummer has to last a lot longer for it to become more “fiscal” than the Prius.
And also if the production process of a hybrid requires a certain battery to be made, then yes it is an anti-hybrid argument since it is directly part of the vehicle
No, it is perhaps an argument against nickel based batteries. There is no law that says a hybrid must use a certain type of battery. Certain types may be better, but this is a matter of technological development. If we can develop a green battery that is effective at storing a charge in a hybrid system, the problem is solved.
Granted, for this specific car the nickel is a pollution issue. But with respect to overall pollution involved in car manufacture, this particular issue is presented entirely in isolation. We are told nothing of how much other cars use materials which are extracted through highly polluting processes. As Guy points out, lots of things are polluting, and all cars use a variety of materials which are extracted from the ground with a lot of pollution byproduct.
Clarification: in my post above I assume that the prius and the hummer cost the same per mile (from the AAA numbers), and then in the next paragraph I claim the prius is better off per mile than the Hummer. Clearly I need to pick one or the other. At the very least, if we assume they’re both on equal footing (the prius having an advantage in fuel economy and reliability, the hummer’s advantage being no big potentially expensive battery), then they come out to be about the same.
Prius ($3.25*100,000) = $975,000 vs. the Hummer’s $585,000
SOOOOOoooooo…..they’re the same? I have a great idea. I’m gonna write you a check for $585,000 and you write me a check for $975,000….it’s the same right?
Personally while there has been a lot of great discussion (and thanks for the good links Guy) this article, and everything we are debating here, brings one thing to mind…
Toyota’s marketing department has done a fantastic job of getting the whole world to focus on the good things about this car. Frankly until I saw this article I never had a negative thought about the Prius. (Other than the fact it is shamefully ugly.)
It reminds me that we should always evaluate the merits of what we see, read and buy carefully.
The original article is an opinion piece for a small college newspaper. The whole article is garbage.
1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo’s mileage puts it within “spitting distance” of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is “spitting distance.”
2. The “Dust-to-dust” study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There’s Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/
And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? You can check Consumer Reports for the answer to that one. A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available at:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48
3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies — early 1970’s) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury’s nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of (visible here http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770 ), used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution (visible here http://www.photoboy.com/bin/Cklb?vmo=1173985067754 ). There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.
Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada — that’s GM, maker of the Hummer, ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury’s trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.
http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html
I wish Dr. Keith Winterhalder, mentioned in the http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html link, were still alive. He lived on my street and his fabulous garden lives on. He would have had many great tales of the tremendous regreening effort and lake liming efforts that have taken place since the Superstack was built.
People seem to think that showing a few pictures of how Barlow Street, Spruce Street or Martindale Road have changed is indicative of the regreening effort in and around Sudbury. It is not. To be sure, the landscape is a lot better within Sudbury than it was in the mid 1970′s when, in my youth, I would travel here to see family. I was very proud of Sudbury’s regreen effort until I saw google’s satellite pictures. Check http://maps.google.com and go to the Satellite view. Search for 46.48, -81.01, zoom out a few levels, then click to get rid of the balloon. Notice the vast brown area around Sudbury? And those pictures were taken during the summer when the white birch tree in my front yard was green. Eight million trees is nothing compared to what was lost. The stock photo on the http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770 page is what some areas of our city look like to this day. Yes, it is a cherry picked photo, but it is not difficult to get photos such as this today.
Others have said that the damage was done years ago, but newer smelting practices are not as bad. This argument is disingenuous. We only just completed the soil study last year. It is too early to know the full impact of the changes that took place in the mid 1990s. As the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstack link suggests, there is more to be done. What we do know from that study is that it is the heavy metals in the soil that are causing the white pine to have a difficult time taking root. Those same heavy metals are great for berries, but berries does not a regreening effort make.
Sudbury still has a long way to go.
John M Reynolds
Wow! That is a lot of information to digest! Thanks to both of you for sharing such detailed opinions.
While the chemicals going into the batteries are hazardous during production, no one has mentioned what happens to them once they are spent? Disposal will cause an entirely different problem won’t it?
It’s obvious to me that we could argue all day whether the Prius is actually as bad as a Hummer, but that isn’t saying much is it? The real point seems to be that it is no where near as good for the environment as people think it is.
Clearly, trading one pollutant for another is not a net gain, no matter where in the manufacturing process it occurs.
One hopes that they will institute a core charge exchange (similar to rebuilt altenators and other car parts) and reclaim the nickle from the spent batteries rather then let them rot in a landfill. One day we’ll be mining those landfills for the scraps.
I initially didn’t critique the CNW report, because it was so obviously wrong I figured no one would take it seriously.
Unfortunately, I seriously underestimated the number of people who judge the quality of research based on how much they like its conclusions.
So recently I wrote two blog entries about this study:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=66
Research like this gives all research a bad name. I conduct research myself, and go out of my way to prevent my results from being misperceived. CNW, in contrast, did everything it could to create misperceptions.
Larry S:
Nickel is expensive. You can count on all of it being reclaimed in the recycling process. In fact, the value of the nickel more than pays for the cost of recycling the batteries.
When taxpayers have to pick up the tab for the environmental damage, then that is a hidden subsidy. As well, assuming the cost of initial production and the cost to build or convert the factory to be able to build a car has be paid today is not fair indeed. In Canada, the initial price of the car is usually higher then comes down as demand increases. That higher initial sticker price pays for much of the development. About the depreciation of the factory, the number of years should be according to the laws of the country where the factory resides. If the article’s author is not interested in delving that deep, simply treating all models the same, like the article did, is not a bad way to do your calculation. It might be more accurate though to use the same number of years since the factory was built though.
John M Reynolds
Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury’s regreening:
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm
Certainly Sudbury has a ways to go. But blaming the Toyota Prius for the disastrous mining practices of 1870-1970 is simply environmental swift-boating. None of those techniques were still being used by the time Priuses were being built. It’s a smear, pure and simple, especially given that Toyota buys only 1% of the mine’s output.
There is plenty of good information online about the Sudbury Soil Study at:
http://www.sudburysoilsstudy.com/EN/indexE.htm
Furthermore, the author of this article, Demorro, is so fact-challenged that in his follow-up piece he recommends people buy a Tesla Roadster for $30,000. The Tesla Roadster actually costs $92,000.
This guy can’t even get the list price of a car right.
If you want to believe an “automotive reporter” who can’t even be bothered to get the price of a car right . . .
As for the batteries, Toyota has a recycling program in place:
“Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 “bounty” for each battery.”
And if you really want to compare the environmental cost of a Hummer and a Prius, fueleconomy.gov provides the real, unconstested stats:
H3
Annual Fuel Cost $2,337
20.1 Barrels per year
Greenhouse Gas Rating: 11.1 tons/year
Air pollution score: 6/10
Prius
Annual Fuel cost $713
6.2 Barrels per year
Greenhouse Gas Rating: 3.4 tons/year
Air pollution score: 8/10
Hi,
I just wanted to point out a might bit of irony. Not personal attacks in any way shape or form, just some irony.
I’m willing to bet that any individual who pays this much attention to which car costs more, be they on the “green” prius side, or the “not so ungreen” hummer side owns a personal vehicle themself. As such, I’m willing to bet that a scant few of those individuals take alternate methods to reduce their energy consumption: alternate home heating sources, carpooling, public transit, etc. I think this is a little backwards.
I’m of the opinion that we have a long way to go, as a societal mentality and as a general public who is conscious of the results of our actions.
What difference does it make if one car costs more to drive than another car when there are many situations where either one doesn’t have to be driven at all?
owns a personal vehicle themself
I’m sure you’re right, as most people own personal vehicles ;-p If you’re saying we probably own the type of vehicle we’re defending, well in my case that’s true, I own a Prius. And I agree with you completely, we should be working to get rid of cars altogether. I walk to work when I can. But I don’t think it’s backwards to worry about whether a Prius is greener than a Hummer. Ideally we’d all be taking public transport and all that, but for the forseeable future there are going to be a lot of cars out there, and the more green cars and the less ‘brown’ cars the better.
To megansprius,
I just looked it up, from one barrel of crude oil, which contains 42 gallons, you get 19.5 gallons of gasoline; so something is wrong in these calculations. By the way, I drive a Prius.
Surely, the point of the article isnt to say that the Hummer is better/worse than the Prius, the point of the article is to show the often Pious Prius owner that their vehicle isn’t actually going to save the planet, and, indeed, far from it, the reality is that the marketing team selling you the Pious opps sorry Prius only tell you what you want to hear, and leave out much of what you should know about the product.
In head to head tests in a recent UK motoring magazine, the Prius was shown to be only marginally more economical to drive in every day situations/real world scenarios than Fiats latest super Mini car, and that the marginal savings would only recoup the cost differential of the Prius if the owner put around 1 million miles on the Prius during ownership. This was calculated using UK fuel costs of approximatly $8 per gallon also….
As these vehicles are sold mainly to fill a role in urban/city transport, surely the only way a person really concerned about reducing their ecological impact on via urban living would be to actually forsake the car in the first place and instead use public transport. Or is Public Transport not good enough for the people that buy the Toyota Prius….????
A couple of points that were not previously discussed. Testing at 80 mph? I rarely drive my prius over 65. I get places in plenty of time.
I have 22000 miles on my car and have been getting 52mpg overall. And yes I do drive a great deal of highway miles. Also, the fact that the pruis puts out less that 10% of the pollutants of other cars was not mentioned. Combine this with the 1% of nickel bought per year over the last 10 years as opposed to Sudbury’s over 100 year history of pollution, the recycling of every part of the battery, the much longer that 100,000 mile life of the battery, and the Aveo comparison should make the article a little more than suspicious to any objective person.
Next Comments →