I don't think that answer is nearly so clear cut. Where I live in Southern Ontario our electric power comes mostly from nuclear and coal. And not "new clean" coal. Old dirty coal. Creating more electric load means that the dirty coal plants have to run more.
So with the hybrids, what we have in effect are nuclear and coal powered cars. Great!
Here's a link to an article on the Nanticoke coal fired plant about 60 miles from here:
formatting link
The government (which indirectly owns the plant) has pledged to shut it down, but doesn't have anything to replace the capacity.
I had a friend from Toronto tell me once that electric busses and subways produced no polution at all... I asked him about the nuclear plants in the suburbs that generate the power for the busses. "Oh yeah" was his answer.
Central generation just shifts the problem to somebody else's back yard. It doesn't make it go away.
We won't know if there are service issues until we get there. I suspect that there will be serious disposal and recyling issues with today's hybrids 10 years down the road. Only time will tell.
While a valid theoretical point, that is not something you can sell the general public. There has to be a net economic payoff, in a reasonable period of time, to get the average joe consumer to buy. If it takes 8+ years for the economic savings from lower fuel costs to pay for the increased purchase cost of the vehicle, then it doesn't quite make sense yet.
I only drive 8,000 or so miles per year, and for a Prius the payoff was going to take even longer than that for me. I also tend to keep cars for 10-12 years, which means I would also have to factor in the cost of replacement batteries towards the tail-end of the ownership period. For me, a smaller, gasoline powered vehicle made the most sense. What I ended up with is about 30% more fuel efficient than the
94 VR6 Passat it replaced. I would have considered a 5spd TDI Jetta Wagon, but there were none available when I went looking 5 weeks ago.
There is no question that increased economies of scale, and maturation of the technology will lead to a better cost benefit curve for hybrids. If you can get the payoff period to around 4 years (lets say assuming $3.00/gallon fuel and 12,000 miles/year) most would buy in.
100k mile is not much nowadays and could be easily reached in ~3-4 years. If you drive less, then you will not save much anyways. Another problem is, that batteries are known to gradually loose the capacity. Where is the limit between "alive" and "dead"? You say - it does not feel good, and toyota says - everything is working, go away, no warranty for you. And how much % of capacity could you expect in say 5 years?
Then, there is not so easy question about the TCO. That warranty is interesting only if you drive the car for 8 years/100k mi and then scrap it. What happends if you want to sell the car in say 5 years with
100k miles? There is no warranty anymore. And the replacement batteries will cost a lot of money (thousands of $), as (if anything happends) you are likely needing the complete replacement. So, you will need to find a very naive person to buy the car for the "usual" price, say 60% from new (at least in europe). More likely, you will get much less. So, you need to put more money upfront, and you get less afterwards. So, the car costs you more. And if you mainly drive not in a city traffic, then you will have a very hard time to save up that premium the car will be costing you, because such a hybrid has an advantage only if you do a lot of start-stops. And only after this you will start saving money. So, everyone can do it's own calculations.
And somehow I am not so sure, if recycling of those batteries really is so unproblematic.
Btw, there is one more thing: the production of the car and the recycling of it are not pollution free too. And it is not insignificant.
It is not so clear. Hydroelectric - maybe, but wind and solar are definitely not an option, if you look at the whole picture. They cost pollution to produce, and are very expensive to recycle. For example, the wind generators have a lot of epoxy and carbon fiber in them, live maybe 30 years and are _royal_ PITA to recycle. And they produce too little power for the purpose.
Ok, the usual car has maybe some 20-30% of energetic efficiency. How efficient will be the electric car when charged from the wall plug, when you add together the loses at the power plant, then couple of hundred miles of wires and a charger device, the batteries, power "regulator" and the engine?
And I doubt very much, if the usual power plant would have a better catalytic converters as the usual car has.
Now, let's calculate. Say, your car needs some 30kW of power just to keep moving at 60mph. Let's assume, that, charger, batteries, the engine and power "regulator" all together have a fantastically good effciency of 60%. So, in order to drive 60 miles you will need some 50kWh of power, which will cost you in something like 5$, given the price of say 10ct/kWh. And if you take a TDI and drive steady at 60mph, then you will probably reach the same 60mpg, an a gallon of diesel will currently cost much less than 5$.
And oh, if everybody starts to charge the car overnight, then the usual demand of electricity will go up 10-20 times, which mean, that the current power grid infrastructure is not capabale to supply it.
You require that the production of cars create no pollution whatsoever? And that they be inexpensive to recycle? Tell you what -- if the German auto industry adopts the same negative attitude that you seem to have, you are handing the future of the automotive industry to the East Asians. Y'all need some "can do" spirit.
Al, no offense, but your defeatist attitude seems to suggest that there is no solution, and that technology cannot progress and address these problems.
I do not require anything, it is just the way it is. And if you shift the pollution from the cars to the power plants, it will be no use. Someting like "let's keep our yard clean - drop all the garbage 2 miles further". But the garbage is still there, and in case of prius probably more of it.
Would it not be reasonable?
Just because it is currently hyped? I don't know. If the hype will last long enough to pay for the whole thing - maybe. Otherwise - not.
And there are lots of another ways to build clean autos. For example, a lot of german car makers are experimenting with hydrogen fuel cells. In my opinion, it is much more feasible as just a bunch of NiMH cells. You can have a "clean" car and you do not need to wait all night to charge your auto for the next 100 miles.
The next thing, I suppose european manufacturers are waiting for, is the transition from 12V to 42V board network. It is not so easy as it sounds, as everything down to the connectors should be reworked, tested etc. But it is due anyway, because there there is a growing consumption of electricity. This will bring the crank-shaft mounted alternators which in turn will give the hybrid capabilities almost "for free".
There is no question that a HUGE improvement in the health of our environment would occur if hybrid Electrics and all electrics would come into mainstream use. Not only that, but the dependence on foreign oil would diminish significantly. An article posted on the internet and written by Doug Korthof , a retiree living in California, discusses this very well. The article mentions the once mass-produced EVs of just a few years ago, such as the 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV. Other mass-produced EVs included the GM EV-1, the Honda EV+, the Ford Ranger EV, and more. Most of these vehicles were available only on leases, and were called back from their leases in the
2002-2003 time period, cut up, or otherwise destroyed. Leasees were given very few offers to buy out those leases, so most are gone forever. What a surrender to the oil interests! Wonder what our leaders will do when the world actually runs out of oil? That event WILL occur if mankind survives long enough.
They only use less fossil fuel during low speed city driving while on battery power, not during highway driving. During highway driving they use more fossil fuel than my diesel Jetta.
What's better, starting down the road of saving petroleum or doing nothing at all? You're adovacting the excuse that's it's not worth the expense. True, by today's cost for fuel there is a price to be paid to save it. But as availability decreases, and it is decreasing, the prices will continue to go up. Without efforts to conserve how much is consumed the economic effects will be quite problematic. As in, penny-wise, pound-foolish.
But hey, you cling to your ideals. Meanwhile some folks will do their part to plan around them.
It's no one's job to convince you. Either you see the merits to saving fuel or you don't.
If you're driving that many miles you're already part of the problem.
Other than not wasting more fuel, no there's no savings. The point is conservation not some nonsense argument about short-term "savings".
"Lose". Spell it right.
Were these GM vehicles I'd certainly have worries. Toyota, on the other hand, seems to value their on-going image. I think your worries about the battery costs are going to be more of a problem in the NEXT generation of vehicles.
Certainly, and if you need to haul lots of dirt than buying a pickup truck instead of a dump truck would be a likewise bad idea. Buy the right vehicle for the right needs. At the same time look closely at the "needs".
So is inventing words but hey, go right ahead.
Those "costs" are just as present for any other vehicle.
Incidently, I do not have any ideals. Just trying to look from the rational point of view, not just screaming "lets save some fuel, no matter how much does it really cost".
The problem is, that Prius turns out to be not the right tool for your task. If you drive a lot (i.e. commute many miles on highways), it will conserve almost nothing. If you drive less, then you conserve not much anyway plus produce a HUGE pile of used NiMH batteries.
I do not know, it just does not make much sense to me. Of course, it would be a perfect car for taxi, police, small packet delivery and other similar uses, who spend all the time in city traffic. But it is not the use we are currently speaking about.
Sorry sir, I must apologize myself. I am not a native english speaker, in fact, it is one of about 5 languages I know, and sometimes I do forget the correct spelling of some words.
Exactly.
I apologize, I am not sure I understand.
But not in the same amount. The NiMH batteries alone are the huge source of pollution.
No, do something reasonable. Not just "do something, no matter what!!!". That is what you usually hear from hysterical women :)
Just for example: a big part of europe is already driving on a liquid gas. The mix of Propane and Butane or the compressed Methane. Thats a real fuel saving, and more eco friendly too. Or Brasil for example uses alcohol. Ok, the gas is a fossil fuel too, but it is much cleaner as gasoline or diesel.
But the biggest savings could be achieved, if USA would equally treat the trucks and the passenger cars. Yes, I know, the full size truck is an American icon, but if conservation is your goal...
I don't know about that, Mike -- here's the way the marketplace works: Fuel prices go up dramatically. Auto companies' marketing departments, and auto dealerships nationwide, begin their new marketing campaigns based on "skyrocketing fuel costs!!!" "Get your new, fuel-efficient, money-saving economy vehicle"!!! Consumers oblige, based upon fear of rising prices and of course, upon the hype of the marketing campaigns. ROI? Do you remember how people shed their full-size, V-8 sedans in
1974 and snapped up Pintos, Chevettes, B210s, etc., as fast as they could? In spite of the fact that they could buy a hell of a lot of
59-cent-per-gallon gas for the purchase price of one of them. There wasn't a hell of a lot of ROI analysis. The consumer market responds to things like the sight of long gas lines, not thoughtful analysis of economics. You can observe that phenomenon in action right now, as a matter of fact.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.