Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment?

May 3, 2007 3:17PM PDT

I agree we need to get more fuel efficient cars, but are hybrids the way to go? I mean they use some type of nickel batteries, which are terrible for the environment when made and eventually disregarded. The product lifestyle for a hybrid is less than a regular care because the batteries go bad around 100000 miles. Furthermore their gas mileage is not phenomenally better than regular cars, realistically they get about 40-45mpg, while regular cars can now get 30 maybe 35.

With the electric car it again uses batteries, and electricity. Many assume that because they use electricity they are automatically green. However what?s the number 1 way of producing electricity in the USA, coal, gas, nuclear, does that not defeat the purpose of an electric car? I must admit an electric motor is highly more efficient than a combustion.

People are talking about ethenol, but how much work does it take to grow, harvest, and produce it.

Everyone needs to look at all the benefits and shortcomings to every technology, from production to destruction.

Basically their is no silver bullet for our energy needs. What we need is another Manhattan project for energy.

- ASU Bioengineering Student

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Misinformation about advantages of Electric Vechicles
May 13, 2007 2:20PM PDT

For everyone who doubt's that carbon emission are better on Electric Vehicles even when charging from Coal Fired Plants

Read this,
"Studies by Energy Commission staff of electric vehicles' impact on the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles find that EVs significantly reduce criteria pollutants, those pollutants for which there are ambient concentration standards. Some pollutants are reduced by more than 90 percent and as much as 98 percent, compared to gasoline-powered vehicles, even when power plant emissions are included. We are confident that carbon monoxide and reactive organic gases (a precursor of ozone) will be greatly reduced. We believe oxides of nitrogen (also a precursor to ozone) will be substantially reduced."

Even in a plug in hybrid the emissions are better than full gasoline car.

Sources:
Quote From, http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/95-07-12_imbrecht_EV_essay.txt
http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/index.html
http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/96-EV+EMISSIONS.PDF

(do your research next time)

- Collapse -
What are they talking about!
May 19, 2007 9:54AM PDT

Ugh, but here's the issue. This is just as stupid as taxes. Here's what government does... it looks at the CURRENT rate of Commerce... and says if we put up a 5% tax, at the CURRECT rate of commerce, then we should get (whatever amount) $500,000 from that tax. But that NEVER happens. Because, when you tax something, the rate decreases.

Like the Yacht tax in the 90s. They thought it would bring in so much money. Instead all the rich people starting buying yachts from other countries where they were cheaper, and the yacht industry in the US crashed, and the tax brought in very little.

Apply that here... *IF* you have all these thousand of electric cars, they are all going to need recharged. The amount of polution from power plants will INCREASE vastly! Remember, most people will charge their cars at night, when solar and wind power will be minimal supply... leaving fuel burning plants to pick up the extra load.

I want a better source than some politically motivated group with invested interest in coming up with a poticular view. dot gov, is dot.stupid. Number one way of screwing something up is getting government involved.

- Collapse -
What powers an oil refinery?
May 19, 2007 5:09PM PDT

Yes, electric cars need electricity, just as gas cars need gasoline and diesel cars need diesel fuel.

Electricity comes from many power sources, but gasoline and diesel comes from refineries, and refineries run on oil and ELECTRICITY! Ironically, the amount of electricity needed to make one gallon of gasoline will drive an electric car about as far as one gallon of gas will drive an IC engine car.

So, if we start switching over to electrics and plug-in hybrids, there won't be as much gasoline made and refineries won't use as much electricity. End result, electricity consumption won't change much, but oil consumption and pollution will be greatly reduced.

- Collapse -
Funny you mention that.
May 20, 2007 3:11AM PDT

First, you are incorrect. The basis for that theory is false.

It takes X amount of energy to move Y amount of weight, Z amount of distance. In order to claim that the amount of electricity used is the same as an EV would need to move Z amount of distance, you have to compare a light weight EV to have heavy large vehicle.

X and Z are staying the same, but Y weight is changing. That's a false theory. Further, Diesels are far more energy efficient than Gasoline IC engines.

If you campare it to a TDI diesels or some other small car, it does not come close. Further, that statement is comparing the raw electricity from the batteries to how much is used in making a gallon of gas. The problem is, it takes 2 to 3 times the power to charge those batteries, than what you get from them.

In other words, if it takes 3 KwHs to make a gallon of gas, and 3 KwHs to move an EV 20 miles. What you don't see is that it takes 6 to 9 KwHs to charge up those batteries in that EV.

Finely, your plug-in hybrids, currently are a joke. Toyota says you void the warranty. The battery information indicates fully charging them will cause per-mature failures, shortening lifespan and reducing full charge capacity. File that under "bad ideas". There's a reason the Prius on board computer prevents the batteries from being charged over 75% of max.

- Collapse -
Errors, errors...
Jun 11, 2007 12:11PM PDT

First, I was speaking in terms of general averages, and did not mention specific models. Obviously, if we compared the most efficient gas car to the least efficient electric car, the gas car would win. If we compared the least efficient gas car with the most efficient electric, the electric would go much farther.

Besides, I keep hearing complaints about the battery cars being "too heavy", and now Andy77 says they are "light weight"? Can you EV opponents ever make up your minds on this?

Andy77 is totally wrong on the efficiency of electric cars. Charger and batteries are about 85% efficient, for every 10 Kwh put in you get 8.5 Kwh out. There is a big difference between 85% and the 50% to 33% figures he was using!

The electric distribution grid is 95% to 98% efficient - compare that with the efficiency of the tanker truck fleet for gas distribution getting about 7 mpg, about 90% to 60% (depending on distance). Ahh, what Andy77 didn't see is the amount of fuel needed to move the gas! While we're at it, compare the 95% to 98% efficiency of the electric motor to the 15% to 30% efficiency of petrol and diesel engines. Doesn't look too good for fossil fuels, does it.

As for the "current plug-in hybrids", certain types of alterations will void the warranty on ANY brand of car, not just Toyota hybrids. The current crop of plug-in alterations do NOT "fully charge" the Toyota NiMH battery - some charge up an extra LiIon battery and do not charge the NiMH battery, others replace the original pack with a much higher capacity LiIon battery. The engineers that designed these plug-in mods know all about charge levels and their effect on battery life, and are aware that Toyota designed to keep NiMH batteries between 80% and 40% of maximum state of charge.

Of course that will all soon be moot. Automakers are hard at work developing their own plug-in hybrids, and both Toyota and GM plan on production before 2010.

- Collapse -
Then show me
Jun 11, 2007 2:52PM PDT

Would the electric car go much further? I'm not so sure. The problem is, a "less efficient" car is normally less efficient because it does more. We've seen electric 2 seater tiny cars. Where are the electric trucks or SUVs? So the electric car goes farther, but if it doesn't do what I need, who cares? I need it to carry my beautiful wife (love ya hon) and my two kids, and my cat, and all the luggage. Can your efficient electric car do that? And go 250 miles? And be able to recharge it anywhere? If not, it's not a comparitive replacement for my SUV.

Oh please dump the strawman. Context clearly says I was talking about a light weight car. The battery is heavy, but the total weight of the car is not. The point was you can't make a comparison of a tiny little EV and an SUV. Apples to apples. That whole point was about a childish as it can get. Next time you feel like a 10 year old and start pulling things out of context, shut up and grow up.

And btw, I'm not an opponent to EVs. If they make an EV that gets 250 miles a charge, and seats 5 and has a full size trunk, and doesn't require 100 KWhs to charge, and is under $15K, I'll be the first in line to buy it.

And maybe I am wrong on efficiency of battery charging. Last I read it was at least 50%. If it is 85% great! I'd love to have a site I can read about that.

None of that other information is important to me. What I was looking for was how much is charging this EV up going to cost me on my electric bill. Here's what I want to know: I can go 300 miles on a tank of gas, that costs me $30 to fill. That's $10 per hundred miles. So how much will it cost me to charge an EV to go 100 miles? The problem is, lets say it takes 100 KWh to go 100 miles. That is cheaper than gas... unless you factor in that it takes more than 100 KWh to charge a battery to 100 KWh. At 85% it would require 115 KWh to charge the batteries to go 100 miles. That would cost $11 to go the same distance as $10 worth of gas.

See here's the deal. If I'm going to buy a car that has limited range, limited load carrying ability, then it better have great mileage. See when you say, almost arrogantly, "doesn't look too good for fossil fuels, does it", I say wrong. See I can fill up my car, load 5 people in it, and my luggage, and drive 300 miles and fill up anywhere I go. You can't with an EV... at least not yet. But that's still "not yet".

Now if EVs go 300 miles on $10 to $20 worth of power, then that makes up for it's limited functionality.

Again, I'm not against EVs. If there's a market for that, great. If you can make one that fits my needs, great. I'd love an EV if it's cheap and just as functional, while costing less to fuel. But what I've seen thus far... well lets say I'm not surprised GM pulled the plug.

I'm done with hybrids. I see no value in them. Honda has already canceled it's accord hybrid. If people want them, yay, if not oh well. They are over priced junk to me.

- Collapse -
making up numbers and not looking at costs
Jun 11, 2007 6:07PM PDT

Go look at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm and look up the most recent EV they have there: the 2003 Toyota RAV4 EV and compare it side by side to say the Prius.

Per the default settings, it costs $0.60 to drive the RAV4 EV 25 miles vs. $1.75 for the Prius.

If I change the values to the avg. gas price in San Jose, CA of $3.365/gal for regular (per http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/CAmetro.asp) and the $0.12 per Kwh PG&E charged me last month the values become $0.90 and $1.83 respectively.

- Collapse -
Well yeah
Jun 30, 2007 4:18PM PDT

I told you I didn't know, which is why I asked. Dump a little arrogance. Given this new information, this makes me feel better about EVs. There is some hope, but some things still need improved.

First, they are using the old mileage ratings which are less accurate. Again, the issue I have here is, they are basing their fuel cost estimate on how much fuel (electrical energy) is needed to go 100 miles. That's fine, and is a good start.

But 34 kW/hrs is what is taken from the batteries to the motor. How much is taken from my home to charge the batteries? Because how much energy is drawn from the meter is what I'm charged, not how much is drawn from the battery.

However this still looks decent *if* and I still have only your word on this, the conversion factor in charging is 85%. At that rate, I'd need 40 KW/hrs (rounding up) to go 100 miles. Which leads me to $1.20 for 25 miles (at $0.12 a KW/hr).

That's $720 a year compared to $1229 for Prius, saving $509 a year.

So the rub comes with the charging efficiency. If you are right, then that is pretty good in my estimation. But I know back in DC fundamentals I was told 50%, two Kwh were need to store one Kwh. So either things changed for the better real fast in the last 4 years, or I was lied to, or this is not correct. Which one, I don't know yet.

At 50%, I'd need 68 Kw/hrs to go 100 miles, which translates to $2.08 per 25 miles, and $1224 per year. Just barely under a Prius. I did not plan that out trust me.

See, an EV absolutely must save a large sum of money yearly, or no one will buy it. Saving $500 a year could make the car worth it given it's limitations. Remember, you have a max range of 135 miles, plus an unknown recharge time, plus you can not go somewhere that does not have a recharge station.

For example: If I owned an EV, and I drove to work and back, that's 50 miles. Now if I get home and my sister calls and says she needs me, or theres an emergency there, I can't go because that's 60 miles away, 120 mile round tripper, I'd never make it in (this) EV. This is a limitation. I'm not going to buy an EV unless it saves me enough money to offset that limitation.

Again, I'm not against EVs. But they have to be practical and have a good "cost-benefit ratio". Otherwise all this jaw flapping and getting arrogant, is pointless. On that point, I'd add I couldn't find any MSRP information on the Rav4 EV, and clearly they don't make them, so what's up with that?

- Collapse -
oops one last point
May 20, 2007 3:19AM PDT

I forgot one last thing. Most, not all... but most refineries make power from the oil they are refining. In two seperate cases, the refinery ran a generator that used low grade koresen run off from the refining proccess to power the plant, and used no external power supply.

So no electricity would be saved by using less oil, and the increase in demand for electrical power would still be an issue. Further, you still fail to realize how much oil is used in other products. There would still be a large demand for oil no matter what our cars run on.

Good luck making a hybrid plane for example, or hybrid cruise ships. What about plastic? It uses oil. And millions more products.

- Collapse -
Really??
Jun 11, 2007 12:32PM PDT

I find it hard to believe that a refinery would willingly burn anything they could sell for a profit. With industrial electricity rates so low, why burn up profit to produce electricity?

Refineries may have emergency generators for the occasional power failures, and they do burn some less valuable petroleum byproducts to make process heat, but they still get most of their electricity from the grid.

Yes, there are many other uses for petroleum, which is precisely why it is unwise to waste it. Nearly 60% of petroleum is used for transportation - cars, trucks, trains, planes, ships.

No one has yet produced a hybrid plane, the engineering is quite different than for cars, though some research is underway. There are hybrid ships, including steam/sail, diesel/sail, diesel/electric, sail/electric, and even diesel/solar/sail hybrids!

- Collapse -
That's a joke right?
Jun 11, 2007 3:02PM PDT

You have got to be kidding. Diesel sail? What diesel powered comercial ship is there that uses sails? Or are you talking about some dude in his yaught that has a diesel engine back up? That's got to be it. Your talking about private little vessels, right? I buy that. For a minute I was laughing about some huge cruise ship with a sail on top, or an oil barage with a sail on it. But private small boats, ok I buy that.

Low grade keroseen doesn't sell for much. As such, the money saved by not purchasing power, is greater than the money lost on a very low grade keroseen. However, that being said, your point is valid. With oil prices so high, it is likely that isn't the case anymore. I wager your right, they likely are using power off the grid now a days. The article I read was from more than a few years back when crude was much much cheaper.

- Collapse -
as usual, making assumptions and posts not based on fact
Jun 11, 2007 5:57PM PDT
- Collapse -
As usual?
Jun 30, 2007 4:54PM PDT

Obviously no, I'd never heard, nor seen any cruise ship with a sail. And yeah I've been wrong about stuff in the past, I don't think that's the majority of my posts though. At least I hope not, since if I really don't have any clue about a topic, I avoid talking about it, or ask question. I'm amazed how many times I ask a question, and get jumped on.

Besides I'm mainly here to learn what there is to know. You think I care what you think of opinions? Or do you think I'm so bored with life that I'm here just to spout my opinion on junk and assume you care about it so much? No no. I'm here to read and learn, and respond whenever it suits me. I have picked up so much from this forum. I never knew about HHO gas, or the energy difference of Ethanol, or about garbage to crude oil conversion, air taxi, and dozens of others. I learned it all just by conversing on this forum.

Really... do you think it matters if some guy with a internet name of "cwerdna" thinks I make assumptions? "oh boo hoo, Cwerdna says I post without facts. I'm so hurt now" No of course not. If you have something to say, say it. If not, don't. If I am wrong about something, tell me, otherwise do something else with your time. Either way, your personal view of me, a guy you've never met, and likely won't, isn't all that relevant.

Agreed? Moving on. Happy

I guess I should have figured a cruise company would make a cruise liner with a yacht feel to it. It seems they are more interested in giving a sailing feel to the ship than using it for propulsion, at least that's what I get from the web sites you list.

Oh, by the way, feel free to point out my spelling errors and typos. You'll have plenty of work. I freely admit to being in the world's worst spellers group. (charter member: I have the card and bumper sticker) If you spell check all my posts, pointing out my spelling mistakes will take up every free moment you have.

- Collapse -
.Gov is stupid???
May 20, 2007 3:25AM PDT

I'll admit that I'm not a big fan of the government right now but to say a study coming from California Air and Resource Board is stupid, is a bit ridiculous. Yes some will blame them for 'killing the electric car' but why would the Government (funded by big oil and Car companies) say that Electric Car's were better than gas. If they were smart they would say that the Electric Car's were worse and that would give them an excuse to kill the electric car.

Also where do you think that energy goes when its not being used. It is stored on the grid or it is used somewhere else therefore offsetting the Coal Usage.

If your not going to believe that the emission are better then think about this. Is is harder to control emissions coming out of over 100 million tale pipes or a few hundred big pipes that are forced to make big improvement.

- Collapse -
Yes .gov = .stupid
May 20, 2007 11:23AM PDT

Easy, because politicians get votes and money from special interest groups like Green Peace, and Sierra Club and thousands of others. There are thousands of special interest groups funding liberals in Congress. Once a report found out during the 90s that the Sierra club actually had people from the government running a donation drive inside the Sierra clubs head quarters. We have religious action groups running around with "what would Jesus drive" logos. You think government isn't funded by these political action groups? Trust me it is. The main reason companies spend money on government is to offset these nuts.

Not sure what you mean or refered to here. Very little energy is stored on the grid. In order to hold electricity you must charge a tempory hold, this takes more energy to do, than what is stored.

Well, first you'll have to convince me that the 100 million tail pipes are as big a problem. Most all modern autos emit very little beyond CO2. I simply do not buy that CO2 is going to wiped out the whole planet. CO, NOx, H2C and so on, yes. Those are bad, but we've delt with that problem. CO2? I breath out CO2. Heating my home makes CO2. My cat makes CO2. Babies make CO2. Farm animals make CO2. A forest fire that happens naturally makes CO2. Volcainos make CO2. My hot water heater makes CO2. The company that I work for, makes CO2. How many billions of tons of CO2 from everything on the planet is created every single day...

yet you are going to force people to buy a product they do not want because it might make a tad bit less CO2? That is a path that leads to totalitarianism in the name of "saving the planet" which it won't.

- Collapse -
CO2 and other pollutants, more handwaving as usual
May 20, 2007 1:52PM PDT

What do you mean by "a tad bit less CO2"? As I have in other posts, I direct you to LOOK at how much CO2 is estimated to be emitted per year by various vehicles. Here are annual the greenhouse gas emissions for 07 vehicles w/the smallest available naturally aspirated engine and automatic transmissions per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm.

07 Prius: 3.4 tons
07 Focus: 6.2 tons
07 Civic: 5.5 tons
07 Tahoe 1500 AWD: 10.6 tons
06 Jetta TDI: 5.6 tons [there's are no 07 Jetta TDIs]
07 Camry: 6.7 tons
07 Camry hybrid: 4.8 tons
07 Jetta: 7.4 tons

The vehicle you keep citing, the Focus emits 82% more greenhouse gases in a year than a Prius.

As for other substances, have you bothered looking at http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf and seeing what the various air pollution scores correspond to?

While I'm still looking for reliable sources as to how much CO2 a person emits by breathing, http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1180, mentions "based on the USDA estimate, burning one US gallon of gasoline produces ten times more CO2 than one person produces naturally in a day."

- Collapse -
You missed it again.
Jun 11, 2007 3:21PM PDT

Ok, here is what I mean by "a tad bit less CO2". I am not comparing one car verses another car. I am comparing a little less CO2 from a car, to that of all the sources of CO2 world wide. When you compare the multi-billions of tons of CO2 that are produced from sources world wide yearly, 3 tons less from one car isn't going to make a difference.

And do not give me this "well if everyone did X then" because not everyone is going to buy a Prius. A Prius doesn't fit my needs, I'm not getting one.

Further, I only cited the focus because thats what the other guy said he had. I don't particularly care about the focus. I personally think they are junk.

Ironically, on your list the cars I'd be more likely to buy are the ones with the higher rating.

Lastly, I do not buy global warming to begin with, especially as it relates to CO2. There is growing evidence global cooling is happening, so I'll take the Tahoe and I know I'm not killing the planet.

- Collapse -
shifting the argument and not looking at the facts
Jun 11, 2007 6:44PM PDT

3 tons/year from 1 vehicle won't make a difference. It DOES make a difference if lots of people drive vehicles that emit 60% more (or even more) greenhouse gases than another. A Tahoe emits more than 3x that of a Prius.

BTW. according to http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html, there are 243 milion registered vehicles in the US in 2004. You also need to include vehicles in the rest of the world.

Even if you don't believe global warming being caused by CO2 caused by human activity, go look up the limits for each of the air pollution scores at http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf. Then lookup air pollution scores for both versions (CARB state and rest of US) of the 07 Chevy Tahoe vs. both versions of the Prius at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm. You'll find the Tahoe pollutes WAY more (and that score doesn't even consider CO2).

- Collapse -
I'm amused
Dec 28, 2007 2:52PM PST

I still do not buy the 'greenhouse gas' theory. It doesn't stand up to science, it doesn't stand up to logic, it only stand up on ignorance. So no, a Tahoe emitting 3x that of a Prius still does nothing.

It's funny, the EPA numbers when I look at them, show much just how insignificant the other pollutants are. Tahoe does pollute 'way more' than the Prius, and yet it barely pollutes at all. Basically it proves all cars these days are incredibly clean.

In fact I just read that a former support of Ethanol, now says that we should do away with it because he found that cars today are so clean, that Ethanol actually makes the exhaust more dirty. Those are the facts.

- Collapse -
as usual, just ignoring the facts and evidence
Jan 20, 2008 11:26AM PST

As usual, I've already presented the facts and the evidence numerous times. You just conveniently decide to ignore them claiming that it doesn't "stand up to logic". That's just bull.

As for cars being "incredibly clean", we've already been through this argument and I already presented the facts about this too. There are just "so clean" that there are still problems w/smog, particulates and air quality/smog alerts. Again, you just choose ignore this as well.

The only information (which you try to present as fact) you pay attention to are things you've made up or those from questionable sources which support your position.

Keep sticking your head in the sand and covering your ears...

- Collapse -
Not needed.
Jan 21, 2008 2:27AM PST

I don't have to 'stick my head in the sand' or whatever. You haven't provided sufficient evidence. Try showing me someone dieing on the side of the road from car exhaust poisoning. Show some independent research on the matter, that isn't controlled by politically motivated funding.

When you do that, I'll stop ignoring your irrelevant posts.

- Collapse -
usual ignoring facts and believing what you want to believe
Mar 12, 2008 5:26PM PDT

You want to prove it to yourself? Go run your car in a closed garage with a hose running from the exhaust into the cabin of your car. Sit inside and leave it running until you run out of gas.

Tell me what happens afterwards.

BTW, you may as well look at the news about smog today at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_go_ot/dirty_air_8 and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_go_ot/dirty_air_counties_3.

BTW, I live in Santa Clara County (one of the counties mentioned above). My natural gas and electric utility is PG&E. You can see their electric generation mix at http://www.pge.com/about/edusafety/systemworks/electric/howelectricsystemworks/2006energymix.shtml.

- Collapse -
Global Warming
Jul 11, 2007 10:09AM PDT

I am so tired of the debate over global warming.

The fact that the idea is debatable is the problem. Some say it is real others argue its not.

What ever happened to the simple concept of Pollution. That is real and non-debatable. Time to re-focus the discussion. Stop talking about global warming and simply realize that every time we create waste of any type, whether it is during the manufacturing of a hybrid car or its fuel or simply buy over packaged goods that end up in landfill. Its all pollution and all pollution is bad!

Its like the food companies focus on Fat. Instead of talking about calories, which is the ultimate counter of energy created by food, we focus on the fat content. People start to think that eating fat equals fat on their hips - not so!

- Collapse -
Hybrids are a great option
Jul 11, 2007 12:02PM PDT

I have to say the original post is not very accurate, and is quite pessimistic. First, I drive pretty aggressively, and have to climb a few big hills during my commute, and my average is usually around 48-49MPG. That is pretty darn good to me. Quite a bit more than my old Dodge Colt (which was a pretty small car). If you are not happy with 48MPG than I guess you can go back to your 30-35MPG.

The battery concerns are quite over-blown. The warranty for the battery is 150,000 miles or 10 years. So obviously there is no worry before that point. I've talked to many Prius drivers and I only heard of 1 battery going bad, and Toyota replaced it. As for the environmental impact of electric hybrid vehicles. These batteries are recycled and are not put into a landfill. Toyota will buy the old battery pack back so they can recycle it. So I don't see how the are so bad for the environment? Plus for all the years that I drive a Prius I will be using less gas and emitting less pollution. Isn't that a good thing?

Thanks.

- Collapse -
Old school high MPG cars still a good solution
Jul 11, 2007 1:51PM PDT

I've read the beginning of this thread and later entries. I have to agree with several comments that older small economy cars can provide as much cost savings and reduced carbon footprint as newer cars including hybrids. Case in point - my 89' Geo Metro with a 1.0 liter 3-cylinder fuel-injected engine mated to a manual 5-speed (4th and 5th gears are both overdrive gears) consistently gets 45-50 mpg on the highway, and no worst than 38 mpg around town. This high MPG from a non-hybrid car that can easily cruise at 70 mph on the freeway.

Why is it that American car companies can't build cars like these today? Why are the only real choices in high MPG cars non-American cars. My Geo Metro is a 18 year old design, which could be easily improved on by today's standards - better chassis, suspension, engine technology, brakes, safety features, and creature comforts. A new American version of this old design could be the next 'Prius' that everyone is waiting to buy.

Hybrids are fine, but there are some battery environmental issues. Alternative fuels are fine, but there are some supply questions and concerns for total cost to use. I think reducing our fuel consumption by driving more economical cars will make a real difference.

- Collapse -
Diesel Electric Hybrids

are the way to go! Smaller cars work well too!

- Collapse -
Yeah, and nuclear power plants are also a great solution
Jul 11, 2007 3:20PM PDT

A new 1955 Chevrolet would be just as good.

In the early 1950's my dad, who for his time was a techno nut, took me to tour a nuclear power plant that was being built. (I was a kid then, so that makes me old now!) It was to be the solution to all energy problems....

Yes, in the 1950's we knew burning coal and oil was bad, but we kept on trucking because we wouldn't have an electronic world today without powering those vacuum tubes, transitors, chips....

Technology has brought with it horrid side effects as well as all the benefits. Anyone who reads CNET needs to understand this. Read http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics . It's the truth and I am still a techo nut (we own many computers, av components, etc.).

Complex chemicals and rare metals which are the core of hybrids, batteries, and the computer I'm using right now are the source of poisons so toxic that radioactive waste doesn't really look so bad.

That 15th cell phone you have discarded since you got your first one five years ago.... It makes my driving 200 miles a month in my SUV look like a save-the-environment campaign.

Automobiles by definition are bad for the environment. Walk. If its too far, ride a bicycle. Take public transit. Use your car less, whatever car it is.

- Collapse -
Yeah they are all bad
Jul 12, 2007 11:00AM PDT

Bad I tell you!

See I just do not get this. Basically the advocates want us to regress to the early 1900s.

What is so bad about driving a car? Back in the early days, cars emitted tons of hydrocarbons (fuel), Carbon Monoxide (partial burnt fuel), and oxides of nitrogen (by product of high engine temps). Now, with the 3-way catalyst converter, most engine emit one thing only, CO2.

CO2 is a normal gas, that naturally occurs in nature. As far as the global warming bs, humans emit only 3.4% of the total yearly created CO2 world wide, and besides that, total CO2 only causes about 5% of the "greenhouse effect", so I'll ask again:

Automobiles by definition are bad for the environment? How? You think public transit is better? A 6.8 liter diesel bus (average American bus) that gets 4.1 miles to the gallon, is going to be better? It takes me 30 minutes to get to work by car. How long do you suppose by bike?

- Collapse -
please cite sources
Jul 12, 2007 7:07PM PDT

You've been known to make assumptions, handwave and make assertions not based on fact. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html says "Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2005 State of the Climate Report, a 35 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2001). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.8ppmv/year." Let's assume the global warming and CO2 concerns are BS and look at other pollutants.

As for "most engine emit one thing only, CO2", that's totally false. I guess you didn't bother to look at http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf which I posted before and lookup pollution scores for various vehicles. Many regions of the country suffer from air quality/smog alerts and that's not due to CO2. You can read about all the various pollutants.

BTW, here's a new tidbit for you http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/pdf/airWeBreathe_062407.pdf. It would take 15 people crammed into an SUV to offset the NOx emissions of 15 hybrids. At the worst case is the Hummer. You'd need to cram 45 people in that to equal the NOx emissions of 45 hybrids.

- Collapse -
Of course.
Jul 14, 2007 7:55PM PDT

I guess I get a little tired *sometimes* at having to lead everyone by the hand to get information. I feel like I should be paid to do this much research.

Anyway. You are right about the CO2, and I should have not said it in that fashion. After a cars catalytic converter has sufficiently heated up, the car *should* produce nothing but CO2. As I said before, I was in automotive technology for 2 years, and worked at a dealership for 2 years. We had a smog tester there, and in testing, once a car reached normal operating temp, HC was near zero, NOx was barely even showing up at all, and CO was gone.

Now, this is a combination of first hand experience and what I was taught in college. I still have my old text book "Automotive Technology, A systems approach" by Jack Erjavec. Of course that's meaningless to you.

I looked at the data on the EPA site. It seems really skewed. I can't say why, but just the numbers seem off to me. However, I honestly have no interest in investigating this further. So, if you want to say I'm full of it, or made it all up, feel free, I just don't care enough.

Nonetheless, this increases my belief that we should move to Diesel.

Moving on: this issue of CO2 is important to me. Yes the ppm of CO2 has increased from 280 to 379 in 2005. However, if you check the data from the arctic ice core samples, you'll find that CO2 levels have varied greatly in the past, assuming we can trust that data. If we can't then we have no basis to assume the rise or fall is un-natural. If we can trust the data, then this variance is normal because in the past CO2 have been naturally higher and lower, than they are now.

One big issue here is sections of the carbon cycle, that scientist simply label "carbon sinks". The reason is, we have little understand of where the carbon goes, or what happens to it. So how do we know an unknown carbon sink doesn't vary in it's absorption of CO2? We don't.

One thing we do know for certain, is that 90% to 95% of the "greenhouse" effect is cause by water in it's various forms (frozen,liquid,vapor). Further we know that only 3.4% of yearly CO2 output is human made. Thus, we are responsible for about 0.3% of the greenhouse effect. Even if you assume the we are totally responsible for the 100 extra ppm of CO2, that still means we caused a 20% increase, which works out to about 1.8% of the greenhouse effect.

Now the research indicates the total greenhouse effect raises the global temp by 33