http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/edito...asp?NewsID=188

Apparently, the battery in it contains nickel from a smelter whose emissions generated acid rain that eliminated all life within miles of it. Specifically to quote a representative from Greenpeace: "The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside." According to the article, the area surrounding the smelter is so bad, that NASA uses the location to test its Mars Rovers.

I know that people here did not enjoy my posts the last time I visited because I was a more conventional environmentalist, but surely everyone here can see that the environmental damage caused by the production of the Toyota Prius' batteries outweighs any possible benefit that the Toyota Prius with its Nickel-Cadmium batteries brings. In addition, considering that all of Toyota's hybrids should use batteries from the same manufacturer, it is a fairly safe assumption to make that all of Toyota Hybrids damage the environment because of this smelter, which would mean that people here should not be recommending them. Also, the batteries in other hybrids use the same battery technologies, so while their nickel might not be from the same smelter, it would follow that the smelters that produce them are likely to be not much better for the environment than the one that produces the nickel used in the Toyota Prius' batteries, so it might be the case that they are not much better for the environment than the Prius. Furthermore, according to that article, the production of the Hummer, does far less damage to the environment than the production of the Toyota Prius, such that driving it for 300,000 miles is far better for the environment than driving a Toyota Prius for 100,000 miles, due to that smelter.

Now for the good news. I have read that Toyota will be making a new Prius that will use lithium ion battery technology instead of the nickel cadmium battery technology that it uses now; while I do not know much about its production, Lithium Ion battery technology to my understanding is designed to be very good for the environment, so it should make the Toyota Prius better for the environment than the Hummer, when Toyota begins to use Lithium Ion batteries. Also, while the obsession of many people here with getting people to switch over hybrids probably did more environmental damage than doing nothing ever could have done, it is too late to undo the damage, so selling your hybrids and buying new vehicles will likely be more damaging to the environment than simply driving them, as all of the significant damage to the environment was done in the production of your vehicles. Lastly, MIT found a way to design an engine that uses conventional engine technologies that triples the power output, such that SUVs and sports cars could be sold with small engines without any decrease their performance by 2011:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18304/

 

This is worthy of submission to www.snopes.com - False

See Toyota Factory turns landscape to arid wasteland

 

Did you read the article? The person who wrote the article did some calculations and according to them, the Toyota Prius uses more energy to build and drive for 100,000 miles than the Hummer uses to be built and driven for 300,000 miles.

I do not know if the figures are exact, but from this information, buying a Toyota Prius is far more damaging to the environment than simply driving an old car, because of the emissions of the production of the nickel metal used in it. It follows logically from the information, as if a Toyota Prius is more environmentally damaging to build than a Hummer is to build and drive for 300,000 miles, an old sedan gets better fuel economy than a Hummer and an old sedan is already built (which it is by definition), then by simplification (a rule of inference, although I am stating this rather informally and in English rather than in symbols) driving an old sedan is less environmentally damaging than a Toyota Prius. When Toyota puts the Lithium Ion batteries into the Prius, the situation should reverse itself, but until then, buying a Toyota Prius does more damage to the environment than buying an old car and driving it for hundreds of thousands of miles.

 

Wrong!

Get your facts straight, Mr. Super-Environmentalist!

We've already been through this: that smelter has cleaned up its act, and Toyota used a tiny fraction of its production.

A blanket statement like you made above isn't just factually wrong, it indicates an extreme bias in your reasoning.

Harry

 

And you actually believed it?

I've got a bridge to sell you in NYC, or some prime real estate in South Florida.

Harry

 

1. You did not answer my question. Did you read the article?

2. I will until I find a plausible explanation of why the information is wrong. I was under the impression that most people who quote representatives from Greenpeace do not falsify the quotes.

 

I'm familiar with Art Spinella of CNW Research - he is as dispassonate about hybrids as the George Stienbrenner is about the Boston Red Sox. Art is great with numbers - he would be a great political hack.

 

It does not matter what the organization thinks; if a specific statement is correct, it is correct and if a specific statement is wrong, it is wrong. If someone can logically demonstrate that a part of the logic is wrong behind that article, then it would invalidate that article, but until then, the information they present seems plausible and it is extremely important to discern whether or not it is correct; how people feel about the party that presented it does not invalidate the information they put forward.

In the thread that you referenced, bwilson4web says that "There is more nickel in stainless steel than hybrid electrics" and if that is true, environmentalists should be more worried about the production of stainless steel than what vehicles people are driving, assuming that this information is correct. It is entirely plausible that a component of a hybrid vehicle causes its production to do far more environmental damage than a conventional vehicle's production and lifespan and given that metal from that smelter is being used in the Toyota Prius, it might be prudent to re-evaluate whether or not the Toyota Prius is as good for the environment as it has been said to be.

 

If it has, then that is good news. That would mean that sales of the Hummer do more damage to the environment than those of the Toyota Prius. Do you have a link to an article with this information?

 

This has appeared at least three times on PriusChat, twice here, no telling how many times elsewhere. The factory has been in production for a century - it's customers have little control over what they do. This includes the 0.4% share Toyota is using for their entire line of vehicles.

The Spinella estimate of a domestic non-hybrid lasting 300,000 miles is....optimistic for any vehicle. Then to say hybrids will last only 100,000 miles is equally speculative. Consumer Reports has a reputation of being far more dispassionate than CNW Research. They have consistently noted Japanese makes hold up better than domestics.

Shining Arcanine, it's up to the plantiff/prosecution to provide the proof, esp. since this has been tried and dismissed several times.

Find some factual links.