'Green' cars not that Green really.....

[laser_jock99]

From Piston Heads forum.

Research shows that lifetime costs are higher

The debate over the effectiveness of hybrid-powered vehicles at delivering anything other than lower mileage figures has just heated up. A US marketing company has released research showing that when you take the whole life costs of such a vehicle into account, they're not better for the planet after all.

Hybrid petrol electric vehicle advocates trumpet the environmental benefits of the petrol-electric vehicles, but, according to the results of an exhaustive two year study, the overall energy picture for hybrid vehicles isn’t as favourable as it seems. Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research said that, when the total cost of hybrids to the environment is calculated, including factors like original production and then recycling of batteries and electric motors, into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure, hybrids come up short against conventional powered vehicles which where thought to consume more of the world’s energy.

"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles," said company boss Art Spinella. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage taking into account the energy needed to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from concept to scrappage some high economy vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime."

Hybrids are not so "green"

CNW’s "Dust to Dust" survey studied hundreds of variables but to make it easy for the consumer to understand, developed an energy cost per mile driven figure. While some of the vehicles referred to aren't sold in the UK or Europe, the overall thrust of the research makes sense.

Topping the league with the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, VW Phaeton at $11.213 and Rolls-Royce Phantom at $10.660 while the thriftiest is the Scion xB at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile, ahead of the Ford Escort at $0.568 and Jeep Wrangler at $0.604. However, the research brings into question the whole concept of hybrids as "energy-saving", at least for the planet as a whole.

The industry average of 312 vehicles was $2.281, yet all the hybrids cost more than this. Compact family hybrids like the Toyota Prius ($3.249) and Honda Civic hybrid ($3.238), cost more than a full size SUV Land Rover Discovery ($2.525) or Lincoln Navigator ($2.617). By comparison, America’s best selling car, the mid-size Toyota Camry, cost $1.954 and the similar Nissan Altima only $1.381. Hybrids on the other hand cost more over their lifetime due to the extra complexity and production and recycling costs: the Hybrid Honda Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the regular version’s is $2.18. A regular Honda Civic costs $2.420.

"This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions were true in the real world."

CNW didn't say who funded its research.

[woody]

WOW
 lets go and post that on the greenpeace website

[Bishops Finger]

So driving around in a Jeep Wrangler is actually energy efficient :lol:  :lol:  :D  :D  :D

Excellent :lol:

[laser_jock99]

So driving around in a Jeep Wrangler is actually energy efficient :lol:  :lol:  :D  :D  :D

Excellent :lol:

I can't quite believe that either- a 4.0L petrol engine........?

[Rich_P]

Is there a source of this on a website?  Shall we bombard greenpeace with it?  :D

[Sheddy]

Its all about environmental debt and recycleing costs.  When an article is produced, in this case a hybrid car, there are always a certain amount of pollutants thrown into the atmosphere.  That coupled with the damage caused to the environment in getting the neccessary materials out of the earth is put together and calculated on a dollar scale.

One of my most hated items is the catalytic converter.  I'll explain.

In 1921 the US airforce needed higher compression engines to enable them to launch aeroplanes from ships - seaplanes.  When the engine compression went over a certain ratio the fuel began to pre-ignite under compression (knocking).  To make the fuel more stable they put lead into the fuel.

Lead has been know for centuries to be extremely harmful and the governments ofthe developed world recognised the damage that the lead in petrol was doing, they wanted to get rid of it and the other pollutants that were causing acid rain and smog.  

In order to reduce substantially the pollutants the catalytic converter was divised.  This device is a ceramic honeycombe coated in a microscopic layer of precious metals - palladium, rhodium, platinum and iridium.

These metals have one thing in common, they are all trace metals.  This means that an awful lot of rock has to be crushed and go through the refining process to liberate them from the metal element bearing strata (ore).  The metals appear worldwide but are more concentrated in what are considered the third world or developing world.

In these areas huge amounts of forests are removed to enable polluting earth moving equipment to tear out great swathes of the earth in the mining process.  This ore is them transported by polluting, energy inefficient vehicles to coastal areas where it is loaded onto (typically) archaic coasters or trains and sent off the the refineries.

These refineries used huge amounts of fossil fuel generated power to liberate the metals from the ore.  Irrespective of the power used, refining in itself is a hugely polluting process.  Having released the desired metals, the recovery and refining process is completed.

Now we need a ceramic honeycomb core on which to put the precious metals.  The manufacture of this core causes further environmental damage from mining, transport, manufacture and firing processes.

We have the metal, we have the core, now we need to stick them together.  Guess what .... another hugely polluting and energy hungry process.

Now we have the catalytic converter there is another problem.  If leaded petrol is used, the lead would over-coat the microscopic layer of precious metals and render it inoperative so the lead was taken out of the petrol and replaced with another retarding agent - benzine.  A little known fact is that benzine is one of the most carcinogenic substances known to man.  It also has a boiling point of around 61 degrees.  So next time your filling up your tank on a hot day and you notice the pretty vapour haze coming up from the filler, just remember, thats probably benzine fumes and yopu are breathing them in.

It was calculated that the cost to the environment in producing a catalytic converted was in excess of 7 years.  That is to say that the averge car covering the average milage would have to use the same catalytic converter for over 7 years just to repay the damage done in its production.  So if your c/c has been working correctly for 8 years, it has stopped more damage to the environment than has been caused in its manufacture.

How many cats still work at 7 years old?

Just off now to get some ointment on me fingertips, I've got blisters after all that typing!

[Rich_P]

Well the 3 on my father's merc fell apart with age a couple of years ago... although the car is '92....