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 -
as usual, assumptions and no citation of reliable sources
Jul 14, 2007 9:58PM PDT

The point is those other emissions other than CO2 are NOT zero. Why else would vehicles be given different emissions ratings based on how much NOx, particulate matter, CO, etc. they produce? You really believe that air quality warnings are due to lots of vehicles running around w/o fully warmed up engines?

As for moving to diesel, why? Because they produce more of the above? BTW, hybrids are not tied to a specific fuel source. Diesel hybrids exist.

As usual, you've gone on thrown around a bunch of numbers which support your positions and made a bunch of calculations which seem to support it to. It's funny that you mention "Friends of Science". I'd not heard of the before, but apparently, they're a dubious group which receives a lot of funding from big oil. There are some mentions of this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science.

It's also funny that you mention arctic ice core samples. At the page I mentioned in my post http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html, it says "See Figure 1 for a record of CO2 concentrations from about 420,000 years ago to present." Figure 1 leads to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html#fig1. You can see the CO2 level fluctuations and see that we're MUCH higher than ever were going back 420,000 years.

Again, even if you think global warming caused by human activities and CO2 emissions is all BS, what about the other harmful pollutants?

- Collapse -
As expected, close minded.
Jul 15, 2007 7:05AM PDT

Yes yes yes, blaw blaw blaw. As I said, I'm not interested in pursuing that information.

That's fine that diesel hybrids exist. Make a point, or move on. As for why we should move to diesels, one reason is that diesel are inherently more efficient. I'd site the VW TDI as an example, which some owners have claimed they can reliably get 50 or more miles to the gallon, without a hybrid system.

As for why we get air warnings, I think there's likely a number of factors. I would suggest cars are just one cause. Native natural emissions, sewer gas, factory emissions, electrical use, and just plain density of the population.

Look, I could flood this whole forum with facts and figures, and sources, but not to someone who is going to find some reason to ignore everything on some unimportant, insignificant, dubious information. Look at batman883 for example. Yeah he's skeptical, and yes he's weary of the information, but at least he's open to it.

That's the reason I start off with the intro. If someone refuses to at least consider what the 5 part movie says, then what's the point of me spending time research this? If you won't hear the very scientists that reviewed the Kyoto protocol, why would you listen to anything else?

A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. Thus it's pointless for me to cite any sources or facts to you, and thus I won't. Until you are open to, just the possibility, that what you "know" is wrong, then I'm wasting your time, and mine.

I had hoped you'd be more open than this, even if you didn't change your view in the end. But alas, I was expecting too much from you.
Talk to you later. Be well.

- Collapse -
me? closed minded
Jul 15, 2007 8:26AM PDT

You're just as set in your views as I am, except that you spout off "information" and assumptions, from unknown/uncited sources or are just plain wrong. Examples include your mention of CO2 levels as measured by arctic ice core samples, the claims that there were no commercial diesel powered ships w/sails, your inaccurate assumptions about the cost to drive electric cars, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "some of the people on it are the actual scientists who reviewed the Kyoto protocol for the U.N. and supporting information." The Friends of Science group is anti-Kyoto protocol.

As for the VW TDI, have you bothered to look it up at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm? Since there are no 2007 VW Jetta TDIs, you can compare an 06 VW Jetta TDI to an 06 Prius. An automatic Jetta TDI is estimated to emit 6.4 tons of GHG/year vs. 4.0 of the Prius. The Jetta TDI gets a 1/10 (Tier 2 Bin 10) for emissions, so it's insanely dirty compared to the Prius and the majority of non-hybrid cars sold today. The Prius gets a 8 (Tier 2 Bin 3) or 9.5 (SULEV II/PZEV) for Cali spec models.

For a refresher, let's compare the limits for Tier 2 Bin 10 (Jetta TDI) in terms of grams/mile:
NOx: 0.60
NMOG 0.156
CO: 4.2
PM: 0.08
HCHO 0.018

to PZEV/SULEV II:
NOx: 0.02
NMOG 0.010
CO: 1.0
PM: 0.01
HCHO 0.004

- Collapse -
Yes, you are.
Jul 23, 2007 5:54PM PDT

If you can't even look at the evidence before determining that the organization that is merely hosting the evidence is somehow linked to Oil Companies and therefore, no matter what they say, it must be wrong... you are closed minded.

Truth is not determined by funding. Let's say I'm an oil company CEO. 1+1=2... hey guess what? one plus one, will always equal two... even if I'm an oil company CEO! Shocking.

No I am not closed minded. I was more of a liberal eco-nut than you are. My history was as hard left as the DNC convention. Everything liberal I stood for. I was against "evil oil companies", I was against anyone remotely conservative, I was for gun control, for taxing the rich, for clean up the environment, CFC are bad, Ozone layer is being destroyed, were going to ruin the planet. I was as hard core left as one could get. I have a video of me in high school presenting a "save the planet" presentation to my mothers 4th grade class.

The problem is, unlike some people on this forum, I kept thinking. I kept reading up on various view points. I read up on all these issues and realized that most of them (not all) are flat out frauds.

Further, your point about me being wrong is irrelevant. Name one person on this whole planet that isn't wrong, and wrong routinely. Human beings are wrong all the time. Grow up. I never pretended to claim I was never wrong, and if I *was* never wrong, I wouldn't waste time being on this forum with other people because I would never learn anything from them.

See no is going to tell you anything, when you have already dismissed the information given. Why bother responding to the ice core sample information, when you'll just go off whining about how someone, who knew someone, said something to the effect that somewhere, a person who had some brother that worked for an oil company gave money to the research?

Do not cast your pearls before swine. Just look at your own post. You never watched the video, or you'd know exactly who I am talking about. So why should I waste any more time talking to you? Sigh... I am here by through with you. I want to talk to open minded people willing to discuss information. I can't learn anything from a rock, nor can a rock learn anything from me, so communication between us if null. Good day.

- Collapse -
Perhaps you are right about being reactionary, but....
Sep 28, 2007 6:17AM PDT

You make a point. Being reactionary is not a solution. But thinking about the whole of the problem is a solution and many don't.

The concept of a safe, enclosed, comfortable self-propelled vehicle is not inherently bad. Perhaps there might be a good way for millions of individuals to travel 1 to 45 miles a day each way to work or school or whatever in such a vehicle. But right now, such travel is a major problem for the environment. No "environmentally friendly" self-propelled vehicle has been placed in the marketplace that is truly environmentally friendly when considered it in the context of millions of them, each on the road every day taking one person to and from a particular location, plus extras like shopping and recreation.

Within that context consider hydrogen fueled cars. They produce moisture. In such volumes as we might imagine, what would be the effect of that moisture? You don't see politicians discussing this because no one has effectively raised the question. If the technology were embraced as the hope for the future, and in that future my grandchildren's children learn that no one considered the extra moisture and it has ruined the environment, I would be the idiot they would think I was.

I do get a bit reactionary when holier-than-thou commuters embracing current solutions like "batteries plus engines" castigate SUV owners as a group. I do recognize that my, and my generation's, lifestyle was for 60+ years a major error based on greedy consumption and it still is.

But really, me and my adult children each buying a Prius would not be significant steps to undue my first 60 years. We have to find a way to recognize the dangers of conspicuous consumption and Mammon worship, and begin selling a process of life changes that will appeal to my 11-year-old granddaughter and her peers in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa. GM and Toyota are not going to do that for us or her.

That is why I have a reactionary attitude towards the editors of Cnet writing about marginal changes in design as outstanding environmental solutions. If they can't see the big picture, no one will.

- Collapse -
Indeed
Dec 28, 2007 3:28PM PST

It is ironic to hear this given that moisture is the single largest contributer to the greenhouse effect, more so than any other gas. Yet, the "greenhouse effect" is the very reason given as to why we need to move from gasoline cars to hydrogen cars, so badly.

This is why I always assume conventional wisdom is wrong. If there is any argument that everyone universally believes to be true, I automatically assume it's wrong. I can't count the number of times I found the truth by simply betting against the conventional wisdom.

I would suggest the only true 'environmentally friendly' solution is mass suicide. As long as man exists, man will have an impact on the world around them. The goal of most super environmentalists seems to be a goal of no impact, which will only happen when man no longer exists.

As for GM or Toyota bringing a better mode of transportation... if GM could sell a car with monkeys pushing it, they'd do it. This is what any business does. It sells a product. If they could sell solar powered cars, they would do it. Problem is, no one will buy a $200K one seater car without a trunk that stops when the sun goes behind a cloud. IF or WHEN the technology comes about, that allows the creation of a car that works better with less power and less emissions, the car companies will make it. Ford often sends out engineers to review technology patents, to see if there is something they might use to improve their products. All car companies do this.

- Collapse -
Transistion
Jul 12, 2007 1:59AM PDT

Hi,

I agree hybrid cars are not as environmental friendly as we like. But they are the best environment friendly we can get with current technology. We must adopt it till a better solution is found. To the question why we should make a change to wait. We must make a transition because its our moral responsibility to save earth in all possible ways

- Collapse -
silver bullet
Jul 12, 2007 5:58AM PDT

We are dealing in alternative energy and feel we have the silver bullet.
Our process is the little known KDV depolymerization technology from Germany.

It does NOT use foodstock. It uses waste, and trash to product hi-grade, low sulfur diesel (much cleaner than we grew up with).

With a very environmentally friendly property, no harmfully emissions, carbon neutral, etc., it is far beyond the end product of biodiesel and even ethanol. And it impacts the importation of fossil crude from the Middle east without consuming all the corn on the planet and initiating the slash and burn of our rain forest (that's where our oxygen come from).

- Collapse -
Renewable sources for electricity will increase
Jul 13, 2007 1:36PM PDT

I think plug in hybrids will be an overall improvement for the environment. Many ststes are legislating increased percentages of electricity to be produced by renewable sources such as solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, etc. With the help of big tax credits I put solar panels on my house two years ago and haven't paid for electricity since. I can't wait for a plug in car that I will recharge from my solar panel generated electricity for FREE!!!

The few things I have read on ethanol make it sound like it will actually take more energy to produce than it will provide.

As with all complex problems, I don't believe there will be any one solution.

- Collapse -
Carbon dioxide from a family
Jul 22, 2007 12:25PM PDT

We have a Prius that got the original 3150 tax credit. It really helped for the recently filed return.

We are retired and carefully plan car use. So far in 18 months we have driven just under 10K miles. We use less than a tank a month and have taken two trips of about 2200 miles each. On the road we got 50-55 MPG . Former was at 70 mph and latter keeping at or below 65. More to the point is total carbon dioxide from the house and car.

When we moved in the original cheap furnace used 1000 gallons of oil a year. Forty-five years later and a couple of upgrades of furnaces we have averged just about 330 gallons per year.
Converting to carbon dioxide is left as an exercise. The oil is #2. Adding gas to oil results in about 108 galons for the motor fuel and our footprint is smaller than most.

- Collapse -
Hybrids
Nov 26, 2007 10:53AM PST

Some of my info about hybrid batteries are wrong. They are designed to last 150-200k miles. They also use NiHM batteries that can be recycled. http://www.hybridcars.com/faq.html#battery

I've enjoyed reading everyones response about hybrids. Debate is good, everyone learns something. Happy

- Collapse -
Corn and Ethanol
Nov 27, 2007 8:15AM PST

Only a very tiny percent of the total corn production is corn meant for human consumption (canned corn, corn on cob, etc). The corn that we eat and the corn used for ethanol are two different corns. I'm still not sure that Ethanol is the answer, but I like the fact that we are at least starting to make Hybrids (even if they have problematic batteries) and hopefully we are beginning to realize that we don't need huge cars that only get 10 mpg.

- Collapse -
I do not get where this comes from
Dec 20, 2007 11:14PM PST

Ok yes, you are correct. The type of corn used for eating, and the type used for Ethanol is different. Great, peachy, that's good to know. Psst... problem... the field that either type of corn is grown in... is the same. Ooops...

So let's think this through. Supply and Demand rules apply. Farmer Ted Turner, is sitting there with millions of acres of land. He can either grow corn for eating on it and sell for market price, or he can make corn for ethanol, collect government subsidies (your money) and sell for the high cost fuel. So being the astute businessman that he is, he makes corn for Ethanol, and collects your tax money in his bank account.

Meanwhile, all those acres that used to make corn for food, are not... thus reducing the supply, thus increasing the cost of food.

Hint.. check out the cost of corn. It's higher now than it has been in decades. That cost will be passed on to nearly everything we eat because nearly everything uses corn syrup .

- Collapse -
No they are not good for the environment
Dec 7, 2007 4:55AM PST

Hybrids are not good for the environment. This is a mis-use of words. What is good for the environment is anything that has no impact upon it's natural functioning. Hybrids may do less harm (in the short term anyway) by getting better fuel milage and thus burning less fuel, thus releasing less carbon when compared to a conventional gasoline or diesel car. However, stating that Hybrids are good for the environment is like saying that drinking half the amount of mercury, arsenic or cyanide is good for you. It is not. What might be a more accurate statement is "Hybrids release less carbon and other emissions per mile of driving than conventional cars". And that is about all that you can accurately say about them.

Regardless, the better soltution (I think someone proposed here) is to go all electric... that is zero emissions cars. You will still have the issues of manufacturing and disposal of materials (especially in batteries) but you transfer all the emissions pollution issues back on to the power production plant. That is to say you turn a diffused source of pollution (million of individual cars producing pollution) into a more manageable point source of pollution (a few power plants). This then allows regulations to more easily tackle the pollution at the plant instead of having a huge overburden of trying to enforce emissions controls on millions of cars. Think about the pollution generated by that industry. Just the savings on producing all the paperwork alone would be great.

Anyway, as mentioned by others in here prior to my posting, hydrogen and ethanol are not good either. They consume vast amount of energy in production and still require the fuel delivery infrastructure (gas-stations, and delivery) along with their other problems (e.g. removing food from the supply chain when the world-wide food stocks are currently going down due to over population).

Anyway, the best (engineered) solution to any pollution problem is one in which turn diffued pollution to point source pollution. Thus is it easier to tackle, requires less resources and usually lessens the impact to the environment.

However, as we all know, engineers are not generally politicians nor are they a majority of voters and therefore, the most practical and best solutions rarely see the light of day. Therefore, the most likely implemented solution will be slow conversion to hybrids to reduce dependancy on oil (but not get rid of it), and introduction of ethanol cars (such as those used in Brazil and elsewhere). Since putting gas stations, refineries, and delievery companies out of business is not generally accepted by governments and economists.

- Collapse -
Hybrid Battery comment
Dec 7, 2007 2:37PM PST

Why does the community have this huge misinformed hangup about Hybrid batteries?
Their chemical composition is nickel metal-hydride (nimh)...the exact same battery type as in your mobile phone; camera; toys; some torches and many, many other day-to-day consumer items!
How many millions of those are sold/discarded around the world every day? Why just pick on hybrids because you don't understand or don't want to understand the technology?
In Toyota's case, the battery pack is warranted for 5 years, and designed to last for a period between 8-10 years. When it does eventually need replacing, Toyota buys them back for recycling....how many manufacturers of the other aforementioned consumer goods do that?

Hybrids are not the only technology leading us to a greener world, but at least they are a viable pathway. Nothing is totally green, but we have to start using new technology to get to the future...not just sit back and criticise those who do adapt and are prepared to invest in the future.

Regarding ethanol....cars in Brazil run on 90% ethanol, saving 90% of petrol usage. They refine it from sugar cane, and other plants fairly cheaply, and the plant waste material is used to fire the boilers to produce steam which in turn powers the refining machinery. That is another way to reduce our dependence on oil and reduce emissions.

As has been said, there is no single way to reduce our current environment predicament. But unless we start adopting new ideas and technology, and stop putting our collective heads in the sand, the sooner our future generations might see some improvement.

- Collapse -
some corrections and more info
Dec 7, 2007 4:17PM PST

NiMH batteries are readily available in the store and are used in some consumer devices. However, many cameras and cell phones have moved to lithium ion. Generally, only very low end cameras and cell phones use NiMH now.

As for the battery pack warranty, Toyota warrants it for 8 years/80K miles for most of the US. It's 10 years/150K miles for California and CARB states. The buyback is a $200 bounty Toyota pays on them.

http://john1701a.com/prius/owners/jesse4.htm is at 333K miles.

At http://avt.inl.gov/hev.shtml, they took 2 previous gen Priuses to over 160K miles and 2 current gens to over 120K miles w/o any battery probs.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/03/ford-escape-hybrid-taxis-top-175-000-miles/ mentions that 18 Ford Escape Hybrids have topped 175K miles in 2 years.

- Collapse -
Keep in mind the unintended consquences...
Dec 21, 2007 12:52AM PST

Yes Brazil does have a high ethanol mandate. However, if you research it a little, you'll find huge problems. First, Brazil use to (past tense) have 100% ethanol fill stations. However, the people hated Ethanol cars... they didn't run all the time, very poor mileage, and high cost.

Today, Brazil only has a 15%-25% ethanol mix. But it doesn't end there.

Environmentalist in Brazil complain that land throughout the nation is now being converted to grow one crop, sugarcanes. Clear cutting. Soil degradation. And lack of food crops since sugarcanes for ethanol is more profitable than growing food.

Finely when Brazil first started on the Ethanol path, they heavily subsidized the market. Estimates are that the Brazilian government spent 8 Billion to subsidize the market to make Ethanol affordable. That's taxing the poor to pay the rich to sell the poor an expensive product. Ready to do the same here? Ted Turner wants your money. In fact, he's getting your tax money as we speak. He'll get more though.

However, when the subsidies ended, the real cost of Ethanol made it unprofitable and farmers stopped growing it. Brazil nearly went through their own private energy crisis. The government had to step in with emergency action to keep the fuel coming.

So if you are ready for ethanol future... are you ready to pay more taxes? Ready for the upper class to get that tax money? Ready to pay more for food? Are you ready to pay more for fuel? If not... give up on Ethanol.

- Collapse -
Why cars in the US are so rubbish at fuel economy.
Mar 14, 2008 3:14AM PDT

I'm sure there are a bazillion reasons for why US cars get such rubbish MPG (miles driven per gallon of fuel consumed). However, it is hard to understand sometimes when my wifes car in the UK is getting around 70MPG (US Gallons). Additionally, many cars in the US require enormous engines to produce about the same horsepower as many cars I've seen in the UK. Why do you need 5+ liter (litre) of displacement to generate 300 horsepower when a 1.0 l can do it. That is just flat out inefficiency. They say there is no weirdness going on with the cars in America, but I wonder sometimes since the cars here have way larger engines that perform more often than not equally or less than much smaller more efficient engines. I mean heck most of the cars here barely drive well over 120MPH. Look, for 5.0 liters of displacement I expect to have 1000+ horsepower and 200+ MPH speed. Otherwise what is the point of wasting all that fuel.