Welcome to Greenhybrid.com.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catseye
Okay, this is my first post here, I would be surprised if this hadn't come up before, I tried to find it, but I couldn't, so here goes:
On my BMW forum, the subject of Hybrids and how much they really add to the pollution once you count in manufacturing came up, and some of the people countered that once you count the additional manufacturing costs, and the more polluting types of processes involved, the hybrid did not really save much wear and tear on the environment.
|
That already came up with the "CNW Marketing" report. Try that in the search function and you'll get a lot of details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catseye
. . . A graph was presented, and though it is in Japanese, it seems to show some validity to the claims:
|
Bring the URL so we can use Google and other translation software to understand what is being posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catseye
And here is how the discussion went, from the perspective of the hybrid not being a viable alternative:
and
Anyone here have any perspectives on the subject, I'd like to go back with some credible info. Thanks.
|
Ok start with this:
1) Use reproducible mileage test results, USA, Japanese or European for the mileage claims. Lay reports are nice but do not reflect the same vehicles driven over the same profile.
2) Burning the same unit of gas releases the same amount of carbon, always. The vehicle with lower fuel burn releases less carbon.
3) The claims about manufacturing energy costs are not supported in peer review papers:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10...eener-a-prius/
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by autobloggreen
What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). - Example 1: These studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
- Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
- Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota's internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.
There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled. . . . |
Bob Wilson
ps. We used to have a "Capt." troll hanging around here but thankfully, he has wandered off. I believe he had a fondness for German cars too.