I was just asked the following question about the Camry Hybrid in another forum.

"Is there anything to the rumour that due to the NI Cd batteries they take three times more energy to make than a regular car, and over the cradle to grave lifespan you would be doing the environment more of a favour if you drove a hummer?"

I have no clue how to answer other than to say I doubt it but I couldn't argue the point as I have no clue as to how much more or less energy it take to produce one.

Anyone here want to take a stab at it?

Thanks
Steve

 

They got that idea from the flawed CNW Marketing study or the other flawed study that is getting around.....

It's "anti-hybrid" rhetoric that is not based in fact.

 

Sooty — You could tell them to try looking at:
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html.
This is the rejoinder to the report referred to by lars-ss above.

Stan

 

It is old news based on following article in November 2006...
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/...n_page_id=1770

The story is completely wrong.
https://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/...ad.php?t=12657

Again...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p41q4570n392661q/
"Studies are reported on two small lakes at Sudbury, Ontario located close to a nickel-copper smelter which closed in 1972".

25 years later, Toyota Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997.

Prius Green Report (LCA or Life Cycle Assessment)
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf
Maybe, you'll be required Japanese font to view the PDF file.
This is for Prius, but it is applicable for TCH too.

BTW, Toyota is using NiMH battery instead of NiCd.

Ken@Japan