biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
#1
12-21-2006, 01:03 PM
biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
I'm new to this forum, so sorry if this issue has been dealt with already.
I just want to throw in some research I've done to help me decide whether my next car will be a hybrid or diesel (using biodiesel). As far as mpgs, you can find diesels that are comparable to hybrids. But when it comes to emmissions, which is our biggest motivation, the results definitely are in favour of the gasoline hybrid, at least for the near future.
There is very little out there comparing biodiesel to gasoline hybrids emmissions. Most comparisons are between the petro-diesel and the biodiesel. According to a well-researched article on Wikipedia, biodiesel produces 50-90% fewer smog producing and ozone depleting emmissions than petro-diesel (depending on the type of emmission). However, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), petro-diesel produces up to 10-20 times more emmissions (again depending on the type of emmission) than conventional gasoline engines. This huge difference means that the tailpiple of biodiesel cars still produces higher emmissions than a conventional gasoline engine.
Biodiesel supporters, however, point out that biofuels are actually carbon-nuetral. The plants that go into the making of biofuels take in as much carbon as the biodiesel engine puts out.
Biodiesel critics (see link to biofuelswatch.uk below) argue that the carbon-nuetral arguement ingnores the fact that land was cleared of original native carbon sucking plants to produce agrobusiness carbon sucking plants producing a zero net benefit. In some places, massive clearcutting is taking place to clear land for biofuel plants. The result is actually a negetive benefit when we include smoke produced by forest fires used to clear the land.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the best choice for now is simply to compare what comes out of the tailpipe and that leaves me choosing the hybrid.
I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Cheers,
Mark
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...biodiesel.html
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
I just want to throw in some research I've done to help me decide whether my next car will be a hybrid or diesel (using biodiesel). As far as mpgs, you can find diesels that are comparable to hybrids. But when it comes to emmissions, which is our biggest motivation, the results definitely are in favour of the gasoline hybrid, at least for the near future.
There is very little out there comparing biodiesel to gasoline hybrids emmissions. Most comparisons are between the petro-diesel and the biodiesel. According to a well-researched article on Wikipedia, biodiesel produces 50-90% fewer smog producing and ozone depleting emmissions than petro-diesel (depending on the type of emmission). However, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), petro-diesel produces up to 10-20 times more emmissions (again depending on the type of emmission) than conventional gasoline engines. This huge difference means that the tailpiple of biodiesel cars still produces higher emmissions than a conventional gasoline engine.
Biodiesel supporters, however, point out that biofuels are actually carbon-nuetral. The plants that go into the making of biofuels take in as much carbon as the biodiesel engine puts out.
Biodiesel critics (see link to biofuelswatch.uk below) argue that the carbon-nuetral arguement ingnores the fact that land was cleared of original native carbon sucking plants to produce agrobusiness carbon sucking plants producing a zero net benefit. In some places, massive clearcutting is taking place to clear land for biofuel plants. The result is actually a negetive benefit when we include smoke produced by forest fires used to clear the land.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the best choice for now is simply to compare what comes out of the tailpipe and that leaves me choosing the hybrid.
I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Cheers,
Mark
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...biodiesel.html
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
Last edited by Mark_bc; 12-21-2006 at 01:09 PM. Reason: misspelled word
#2
12-21-2006, 02:08 PM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
Nice post Mark, welcome. It's worth bearing in mind that for all the talk here about mileage, what comes out of the tailpipe probably has a greater impact on our environment. If hybrids came with real-time 'emissions guages' we'd all be swapping tips on how to get the lowest output.
#3
12-22-2006, 06:05 AM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
Biodiesel critics (see link to biofuelswatch.uk below) argue that the carbon-nuetral arguement ingnores the fact that land was cleared of original native carbon sucking plants to produce agrobusiness carbon sucking plants producing a zero net benefit. In some places, massive clearcutting is taking place to clear land for biofuel plants. The result is actually a negetive benefit when we include smoke produced by forest fires used to clear the land.
I am all for bio-fuels, but we must find more environmentally friendly ways to produce them. I think the oil producing algae is the way to go. Convert wasted desert to algae farms and get a win-win, CO2 absorption and energy production without fertile land loss.
#4
12-22-2006, 06:20 AM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
We already divert nearly the entire Colorado river flow to Nevada, Arizona, etc for drinking water.... where are you going to get all the fresh water to feed your desert algae farms?
#5
12-22-2006, 08:00 AM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
That is one of the hurdles we need to figure out. I trust that our collective brainpower can figure a solution to it.
#6
12-22-2006, 08:59 AM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
I got beat up when I proposed that the GX Civic was a cleaner car... but somebody posted a link to a gov site indicating that the hybrid was better (in that in produced less emmissions) what wasn't clear is what kind of emmissions. I still haven't heard anybody tell me which is truly cleaner. A GX (natural gas) civic or the HCH? The GX articles that I find flaunt the fact of how clean the car emmissions are (more so than any other fueled car out there).
#7
12-22-2006, 09:04 AM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
I'm new to this forum, so sorry if this issue has been dealt with already.
I just want to throw in some research I've done to help me decide whether my next car will be a hybrid or diesel (using biodiesel). As far as mpgs, you can find diesels that are comparable to hybrids. But when it comes to emmissions, which is our biggest motivation, the results definitely are in favour of the gasoline hybrid, at least for the near future.
There is very little out there comparing biodiesel to gasoline hybrids emmissions. Most comparisons are between the petro-diesel and the biodiesel. According to a well-researched article on Wikipedia, biodiesel produces 50-90% fewer smog producing and ozone depleting emmissions than petro-diesel (depending on the type of emmission). However, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), petro-diesel produces up to 10-20 times more emmissions (again depending on the type of emmission) than conventional gasoline engines. This huge difference means that the tailpiple of biodiesel cars still produces higher emmissions than a conventional gasoline engine.
Biodiesel supporters, however, point out that biofuels are actually carbon-nuetral. The plants that go into the making of biofuels take in as much carbon as the biodiesel engine puts out.
Biodiesel critics (see link to biofuelswatch.uk below) argue that the carbon-nuetral arguement ingnores the fact that land was cleared of original native carbon sucking plants to produce agrobusiness carbon sucking plants producing a zero net benefit. In some places, massive clearcutting is taking place to clear land for biofuel plants. The result is actually a negetive benefit when we include smoke produced by forest fires used to clear the land.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the best choice for now is simply to compare what comes out of the tailpipe and that leaves me choosing the hybrid.
I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Cheers,
Mark
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...biodiesel.html
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
I just want to throw in some research I've done to help me decide whether my next car will be a hybrid or diesel (using biodiesel). As far as mpgs, you can find diesels that are comparable to hybrids. But when it comes to emmissions, which is our biggest motivation, the results definitely are in favour of the gasoline hybrid, at least for the near future.
There is very little out there comparing biodiesel to gasoline hybrids emmissions. Most comparisons are between the petro-diesel and the biodiesel. According to a well-researched article on Wikipedia, biodiesel produces 50-90% fewer smog producing and ozone depleting emmissions than petro-diesel (depending on the type of emmission). However, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), petro-diesel produces up to 10-20 times more emmissions (again depending on the type of emmission) than conventional gasoline engines. This huge difference means that the tailpiple of biodiesel cars still produces higher emmissions than a conventional gasoline engine.
Biodiesel supporters, however, point out that biofuels are actually carbon-nuetral. The plants that go into the making of biofuels take in as much carbon as the biodiesel engine puts out.
Biodiesel critics (see link to biofuelswatch.uk below) argue that the carbon-nuetral arguement ingnores the fact that land was cleared of original native carbon sucking plants to produce agrobusiness carbon sucking plants producing a zero net benefit. In some places, massive clearcutting is taking place to clear land for biofuel plants. The result is actually a negetive benefit when we include smoke produced by forest fires used to clear the land.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the best choice for now is simply to compare what comes out of the tailpipe and that leaves me choosing the hybrid.
I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Cheers,
Mark
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...biodiesel.html
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
I have a simple solution. Build nuclear power plants to provide energy for the desaltification of seawater. It would require a significant upfront investment, but with the huge profit margins that crude oil enjoys, such an investment should be economically feasible in the long run, and any company that makes it would become filthy rich while lowering energy prices for us. We would only need some private organization to make the upfront investment.
#8
12-22-2006, 12:37 PM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
Granted that gas-hybrids probably have lower emissions than most other gasoline vehicles, but the latest “clean diesel” vehicles actually aren’t as “dirty” as organizations like UCS claim (UCS, Sierra Club, etc., base their “dirty diesel” claims on old data).
Generally speaking, the emissions from a MY 2007+ diesel vehicle (i.e., with DPF) are lower than an equivalent gasoline vehicle. Consider:
- Criteria emissions
Diesel is lower in PM2.5, NMHC, and CO (http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/art...86&q=&page=all, http://www.greendieseltechnology.com...sp?ID=418&link=).
Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline (and biodiesel is far less volatile than ethanol) resulting in far less evaporative emissions from fuel production, distribution, storage, and refueling, and from “running losses”. According to EPA, VOC emissions just from gasoline distribution amount to approximately 475,000 tons (FR, November 9, 2006, page 66077). These emissions would be virtually eliminated if hypothetically the entire transportation fleet was turned over to diesel.
Diesel vehicles will be able to be certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 once urea/SCR after-treatment certification procedures are approved, and has the potential of being classified Bin 2 or SULEV (http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/rca/rca138.html, http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_fu...ism/index.html), and thus PZEV since diesel fuel has such low volatility.
- Unregulated toxic emissions
Diesel vehicles have lower vehicle-out emissions of virtually all unregulated toxic emissions, including benzene (a known carcinogen), acrolein, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde (http://www.vagverket.se/filer/publikationer/2002_62.pdf, http://epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007c.pdf).
- CO2/greenhouse gas emissions
Not only do diesel vehicles produce about 20% less CO2 emissions than equivalent gasoline vehicles, they produce less emissions of other “greenhouse gases” like N2O (nitrous oxide) and CH4 (methane) (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ry_annex_e.pdf (Tables E-13, E-17)). Furthermore, diesel fuel requires less energy to produce (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420r05012.pdf (page 28)) and biodiesel is more efficient to produce than ethanol (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rele...&ID=3113&-Find, http://www.renewableenergypartners.org/biodiesel.html).
About the only emission in which diesel vehicles are higher is NOx (and as mentioned previously, NOx emissions are being addressed). In my opinion, NOx is the least critical of the criteria pollutants at this time. This is mostly based on the “weekend ozone effect” studies which suggest that lowering ambient levels of NOx relatively more than NMHC (VOC) or CO cause ozone levels (i.e., smog) to increase in urban locations. See:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...eer_lawson.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/weekendeff...r_wspa_com.pdf
http://www.raqc.org/ozone/Workshop/O...g%20Lawson.PDF
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/art...51&q=&page=all
http://climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=32049
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...eer_lawson.pdf
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp
http://www.alabamapolicy.org/PDFs/EnvIndicators.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18973
http://www.greendieseltechnology.com...p?ID=403&link=
http://www.greendieseltechnology.com...EER%202006.pdf
Generally speaking, the emissions from a MY 2007+ diesel vehicle (i.e., with DPF) are lower than an equivalent gasoline vehicle. Consider:
- Criteria emissions
Diesel is lower in PM2.5, NMHC, and CO (http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/art...86&q=&page=all, http://www.greendieseltechnology.com...sp?ID=418&link=).
Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline (and biodiesel is far less volatile than ethanol) resulting in far less evaporative emissions from fuel production, distribution, storage, and refueling, and from “running losses”. According to EPA, VOC emissions just from gasoline distribution amount to approximately 475,000 tons (FR, November 9, 2006, page 66077). These emissions would be virtually eliminated if hypothetically the entire transportation fleet was turned over to diesel.
Diesel vehicles will be able to be certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 once urea/SCR after-treatment certification procedures are approved, and has the potential of being classified Bin 2 or SULEV (http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/rca/rca138.html, http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_fu...ism/index.html), and thus PZEV since diesel fuel has such low volatility.
- Unregulated toxic emissions
Diesel vehicles have lower vehicle-out emissions of virtually all unregulated toxic emissions, including benzene (a known carcinogen), acrolein, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde (http://www.vagverket.se/filer/publikationer/2002_62.pdf, http://epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007c.pdf).
- CO2/greenhouse gas emissions
Not only do diesel vehicles produce about 20% less CO2 emissions than equivalent gasoline vehicles, they produce less emissions of other “greenhouse gases” like N2O (nitrous oxide) and CH4 (methane) (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ry_annex_e.pdf (Tables E-13, E-17)). Furthermore, diesel fuel requires less energy to produce (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420r05012.pdf (page 28)) and biodiesel is more efficient to produce than ethanol (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rele...&ID=3113&-Find, http://www.renewableenergypartners.org/biodiesel.html).
About the only emission in which diesel vehicles are higher is NOx (and as mentioned previously, NOx emissions are being addressed). In my opinion, NOx is the least critical of the criteria pollutants at this time. This is mostly based on the “weekend ozone effect” studies which suggest that lowering ambient levels of NOx relatively more than NMHC (VOC) or CO cause ozone levels (i.e., smog) to increase in urban locations. See:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...eer_lawson.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/weekendeff...r_wspa_com.pdf
http://www.raqc.org/ozone/Workshop/O...g%20Lawson.PDF
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/art...51&q=&page=all
http://climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=32049
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...eer_lawson.pdf
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp
http://www.alabamapolicy.org/PDFs/EnvIndicators.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18973
http://www.greendieseltechnology.com...p?ID=403&link=
http://www.greendieseltechnology.com...EER%202006.pdf
#9
12-22-2006, 02:33 PM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emissions
BUT ... let's not stop at "what comes out of the tailpipe." While I'm not pleased to see Soybeans as the only feedstock in the US being promoted, there are some real positive things coming out of algae-to-biodiesel research. Still too far off to use today, but recycling cooking oil and using non-food grade farm crops isn't entirely bad? Sometimes I think hybrid owners can act a bit to arrogant, especially when they ignore a few 'consumables' that might not be tailpipe related. Petroleum and batteries.
Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness
By MARTIN DELGADO
The 'green-living' Toyota Prius has become the ultimate statement for those seeking to stress their commitment to the environment.
However, the environment-saving credentials of the cars are seriously undermined by the disclosure that one of the car's essential components is produced at a factory that has created devastation likened to the arid environment of the moon. So many plants and trees around the factory at Sudbury in Ontario, Canada, have died that astronauts from Nasa practised driving moon buggies on the outskirts of the city because it was considered the closest thing on earth to the rocky lunar landscape.
Unlike normal cars, hybrids such as the Prius, whose proud owners include Gwyneth Paltrow, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts and ex-Tory leader Michael Howard, are powered by a battery that contains nickel - as well as a traditional petrol engine.
Toyota gets the metal from a Canadian company whose smelting facility at Sudbury has spewed sulphur dioxide into the air for more than a century. The car giant buys about 1,000 tons a year from the plant, which is owned by Inco, one of the world's largest nickel-mining companies. Fumes emerging from the factory are so poisonous that they have destroyed vegetation in the surrounding countryside, turning the once-beautiful landscape into the bare, rocky terrain astronauts might expect to find in outer space. Although efforts have been made in recent years to reduce emissions from the plant's 1,250ft chimney - dubbed the Superstack - campaigners say the factory is still responsible for some of the worst pollution in North America. David Martin, energy co-ordinator of Greenpeace Canada, said: "The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside.
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute the pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout right across northern Ontario. Things improved in the Nineties but the plant is still responsible for large-scale emissions of sulphur dioxide.
"Sudbury remains a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high." Once the nickel is smelted it is sent 10,000 miles on a container ship journey which in itself consumes vast quantities of fuel and energy. First it is shipped to Europe's biggest nickel refinery at Clydach near Swansea, South Wales. From there it is transported to the Chinese cities of Dalian and Shenyang to be turned into a lightweight substance called nickel foam.
The final stage of the manufacturing process takes place in Japan where the Prius batteries are made.
Toyota produced nearly 180,000 Prius cars last year, some 4,000 of which were sold in Britain. Last week 14 MPs from all parties claimed they had exchanged their petrol-guzzling vehicles for a Prius or similar hybrid. But some experts doubt whether the Prius even wins the argument over fuel consumption. Robert Fowler, of the Battery Vehicle Association, said: "It is questionable whether it does any more miles to the gallon than a good diesel." The hybrid system has a very small battery so most of the time it's operating as a petrol car, particularly out of town and above 30mph."
A Toyota spokesman said last night: "I cannot confirm the source of the nickel used in the Prius battery. It is true there is a slight increase in the energy required to produce the materials for the car."
By MARTIN DELGADO
The 'green-living' Toyota Prius has become the ultimate statement for those seeking to stress their commitment to the environment.
However, the environment-saving credentials of the cars are seriously undermined by the disclosure that one of the car's essential components is produced at a factory that has created devastation likened to the arid environment of the moon. So many plants and trees around the factory at Sudbury in Ontario, Canada, have died that astronauts from Nasa practised driving moon buggies on the outskirts of the city because it was considered the closest thing on earth to the rocky lunar landscape.
Unlike normal cars, hybrids such as the Prius, whose proud owners include Gwyneth Paltrow, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts and ex-Tory leader Michael Howard, are powered by a battery that contains nickel - as well as a traditional petrol engine.
Toyota gets the metal from a Canadian company whose smelting facility at Sudbury has spewed sulphur dioxide into the air for more than a century. The car giant buys about 1,000 tons a year from the plant, which is owned by Inco, one of the world's largest nickel-mining companies. Fumes emerging from the factory are so poisonous that they have destroyed vegetation in the surrounding countryside, turning the once-beautiful landscape into the bare, rocky terrain astronauts might expect to find in outer space. Although efforts have been made in recent years to reduce emissions from the plant's 1,250ft chimney - dubbed the Superstack - campaigners say the factory is still responsible for some of the worst pollution in North America. David Martin, energy co-ordinator of Greenpeace Canada, said: "The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside.
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute the pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout right across northern Ontario. Things improved in the Nineties but the plant is still responsible for large-scale emissions of sulphur dioxide.
"Sudbury remains a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high." Once the nickel is smelted it is sent 10,000 miles on a container ship journey which in itself consumes vast quantities of fuel and energy. First it is shipped to Europe's biggest nickel refinery at Clydach near Swansea, South Wales. From there it is transported to the Chinese cities of Dalian and Shenyang to be turned into a lightweight substance called nickel foam.
The final stage of the manufacturing process takes place in Japan where the Prius batteries are made.
Toyota produced nearly 180,000 Prius cars last year, some 4,000 of which were sold in Britain. Last week 14 MPs from all parties claimed they had exchanged their petrol-guzzling vehicles for a Prius or similar hybrid. But some experts doubt whether the Prius even wins the argument over fuel consumption. Robert Fowler, of the Battery Vehicle Association, said: "It is questionable whether it does any more miles to the gallon than a good diesel." The hybrid system has a very small battery so most of the time it's operating as a petrol car, particularly out of town and above 30mph."
A Toyota spokesman said last night: "I cannot confirm the source of the nickel used in the Prius battery. It is true there is a slight increase in the energy required to produce the materials for the car."
#10
12-22-2006, 05:28 PM
Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emissions
First let me say that I'm not 'anti-hybrid' ... in fact I wish we had a small diesel using hybrid technology; I assume it is just a matter of time? Until then, a fuel sipping, long life, clean diesel using a domestically produced renewable fuel is not a bad way to go. From a personal side, 170,000 miles on two 45 mpg VW TDIs running biodiesel ain't half bad.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...12/ai_59282149
". . .
Under the hood (actually the trunk), GM is using a hybrid diesel-electric powerplant hooked up to a complex dual-axle regenerative system using both heat and electric traction to boost efficiency. Engineers say right now, their battery specification is nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) packs provided by Ovonic Battery Co., a joint venture with GM. The 28 battery modules weigh 197lb. and produce more than 43 kW of power. A liquid cooling system circulates between the battery cells, maintaining an optimum operating temperature.
. . ."
Then there are nearly 300, GM hybrid-electric diesel buses already on the road. I believe Martin once suggest the actual number is closer to 500. Diesel hybrid-electrics already exist although, thanks to some incredibly short-sighted decisions, not by US manufacturers.
BUT ... let's not stop at "what comes out of the tailpipe." While I'm not pleased to see Soybeans as the only feedstock in the US being promoted, there are some real positive things coming out of algae-to-biodiesel research. Still too far off to use today, but recycling cooking oil and using non-food grade farm crops isn't entirely bad?
Petroleum and batteries.
Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness
By MARTIN DELGADO
The 'green-living' Toyota Prius has become the ultimate statement for those seeking to stress their commitment to the environment.
However, the environment-saving credentials of the cars are seriously undermined by the disclosure that one of the car's essential components is produced at a factory that has created devastation likened to the arid environment of the moon. So many plants and trees around the factory at Sudbury in Ontario, Canada, have died that astronauts from Nasa practised driving moon buggies on the outskirts of the city because it was considered the closest thing on earth to the rocky lunar landscape.
By MARTIN DELGADO
The 'green-living' Toyota Prius has become the ultimate statement for those seeking to stress their commitment to the environment.
However, the environment-saving credentials of the cars are seriously undermined by the disclosure that one of the car's essential components is produced at a factory that has created devastation likened to the arid environment of the moon. So many plants and trees around the factory at Sudbury in Ontario, Canada, have died that astronauts from Nasa practised driving moon buggies on the outskirts of the city because it was considered the closest thing on earth to the rocky lunar landscape.
Well this photo tells a tale, like this one:
And Bob Wilson who is here to answer this obvious envy of their betters. The term 'Prius envy' comes to mind since obviously the wealth and position of these owners, cited by name, is being used to make a 'class warfare' attack on hybrids."In 2002, Canadian production of nickel in concentrates was 188 100 t and refined nickel production was 144 500 t (Class I plus Class II production, per the International Nickel Study Group definition). All Canadian mines exploit sulphide ores in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. . . ."
So do the math:
1,000 / 144,500 = 0.7%
The author and apparently the quoter of this blatant anti-hybrid propaganda sheet seem to see the 'mote' of hybrid nickel and ignore the 99.3% used in such things as nickel steel used in . . . diesel engine blocks and moving parts.
Fumes emerging from the factory are so poisonous that they have destroyed vegetation in the surrounding countryside, turning the once-beautiful landscape into the bare, rocky terrain astronauts might expect to find in outer space. Although efforts have been made in recent years to reduce emissions from the plant's 1,250ft chimney - dubbed the Superstack - campaigners say the factory is still responsible for some of the worst pollution in North America. David Martin, energy co-ordinator of Greenpeace Canada, said: "The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside.
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute the pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout right across northern Ontario. Things improved in the Nineties but the plant is still responsible for large-scale emissions of sulphur dioxide.
"Sudbury remains a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high."
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute the pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout right across northern Ontario. Things improved in the Nineties but the plant is still responsible for large-scale emissions of sulphur dioxide.
"Sudbury remains a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high."
Once the nickel is smelted it is sent 10,000 miles on a container ship journey which in itself consumes vast quantities of fuel and energy. First it is shipped to Europe's biggest nickel refinery at Clydach near Swansea, South Wales. From there it is transported to the Chinese cities of Dalian and Shenyang to be turned into a lightweight substance called nickel foam.
The final stage of the manufacturing process takes place in Japan where the Prius batteries are made.
The final stage of the manufacturing process takes place in Japan where the Prius batteries are made.
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/star-osakana/
At any one time, there 3,500 cargo ships with 15 million containers holding up to 4 tons per container. The trade in nickel for batteries is not even close to a significant shipping load to the planet. Unlike many products, the hybrid electrics are reducing the amount of oil being shipped.
But the real lie is comparing the tradeoff, how many megatons of oil that will never be shipped and burnt because the hybrid electrics don't waste gas like non-hybrids and diesels in city traffic.
Toyota produced nearly 180,000 Prius cars last year, some 4,000 of which were sold in Britain. Last week 14 MPs from all parties claimed they had exchanged their petrol-guzzling vehicles for a Prius or similar hybrid. But some experts doubt whether the Prius even wins the argument over fuel consumption. Robert Fowler, of the Battery Vehicle Association, said: "It is questionable whether it does any more miles to the gallon than a good diesel." The hybrid system has a very small battery so most of the time it's operating as a petrol car, particularly out of town and above 30mph."
37/44 - city/hwy - 2006 Volkswagen Golf Diesel, manual
60/51 - city/hwy - 2006 Toyota Prius, automatic
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
The problem the anti-hybrid crowd faces is any sort of disciplined, head-to-head testing by engineers keeps coming back with the serious hybrid electrics beating the diesels hands down. Only non-engineering tests give different results.
The factual errors and half-truths of this quoted article pretty well paints an ugly picture of the type of dishonesty used to argue against hybrids. To bring such nonsense to this forum, invites a point by point refutation. I don't have anything against diesels but I have a big problem with those who use "Cato" math to attack hybrid electrics.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 12-22-2006 at 10:08 PM.
