4Gman said:
Looks like a bunch of self serving BS distorted statistics. I hope you dont honestly believe this hybrid hype. This "analysis" coincidentally does not include many factors.
I would be interested to know what about it is hype? There are lots of factors not incuded on both sides I'm sure. Like the Prius needing nothing but oil & filters until 120k when they recommend new spark plugs. This was simply an "analysis" of the EPA reported data for tailpipe emissions.
wxman said:
According to NREL, many of the hybrids typically operate in the all-electric over much of the FTP75 driving cycle. Thus they spend a considerable amount of time emitting NO pollutants in the FTP75 test.
I would be interested to see the referrences for that, as it seems unlikely. The Prius's battery only contains enough juice to run ~1 mile at these speeds, and will not do that of its own accord. Only when modified with an EV override button not present on US models. Over the 11 mile test the battery should cycle up and down over a small portion of its range much as it would in actual driving conditions. If anything I would think it could be pessemistic as I don't know that the Prius would get the benefit of its regenerative braking to help charge the battery back up if its not actually moving.
wxman said:
Toyota concedes that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for its hybrids (they take more energy to produce than a Hummer!).
Sorry I believe this is totaly bogus. The numbers I have seen are in the 20-30% more than a non-hybrid of the same size/weight. The Hummer claim came from a group called CNW who turned out to be on the Detroit bankrole. After this came to light, along with a number of other refuting studies, many publications published retractions. One of my personal favorite details was that they apparently took all of the time, effort, energy and money associated with the development of hybrid technology, and divided it by the number of hybrids on the road at that time (well under 100,000 as I recall). Apparently the 900,000+ built since then are free of any development costs? One might have thought some sort of conservative guess of how many hybrid vehicles might go on to be made might have been in order?
http://www.toyota.com/html/dyncon/2007/september/hummervprius.html
Dan_Ruddock said:
Absurd!! for some people if the thing runs on a fossil fuel it will never be clean enough and unless the current measuring equipment says the emissions are zero then god forbid using it on the road. If we really want to clean up the air why don't we go after the real problem which is old cars, big rigs and heavy industry. For some CARB politicians they justify there usefulness by coming up with the latest overkill standards. Maybe they should spend there time coming up with ever more demanding fuel mileage standards which would service the public in a useful way. Dan
I guess I currently see it just the opposite. If company A makes a product that puts out 10-300 times more harmful stuff than company Bs product, I'll probably be inclinced to give company B my business. As long as climate change and air/water quality continue to be major problems, I'll probably continue to feel that way.
tsingtao said:
Yes, they also started that nonsense here in Arizona. As soon as they let hybrids in the carpool lane their sales took off. They get a blue license plate with clouds (to symbolize a clean sky) that says "Alternative fuel Vehicle." What garbage!. It's all feel good run amuck.
Well, one of the main reasons for carpool lanes was supposed to be to reduce smog and air pollution. Based on the current data, it looks like the Prius is consistent with that goal.
KentSzabo said:
According to
www.volkswagen.de the Golf with a 1.9 TDI produces 132 g/km of carbon dioxide this is 212.432 g/mi. Therefore all of the TDI's running around the U.S. today are more carbon conservative than the hybrids mentioned above. Also the above site states the Golf BlueMotion produces 115 g/km or 185 g/mi.
That bogus figure of 191 g/mi for the 2006 Toyota Prius above was based on the old EPA mileage figure of 55 mpg. The reality of it is the new EPA mileage figure is 16% less, therefore the carbon dioxide emmisions goes up to 222 g/mi.
As mentioned above, UK data for 1.9 TDI Jetta is 156g/km, while Prius is 104g/km. Prius CO2 was calculated on EPA '08 combined 46mpg. 8788g/gal / 46 m/gal = 191.04g/mi. As a Prius has the same cargo volume and more passenger volume compared to a Jetta, I would claim it is the more fair comparison than the Golf. That said, the smallest, slowest, cleanest TDI, the Polo Blue Motion just matches the Prius at 104g/km assuming you give the Polo AC.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=19905
TurbinePower said:
Isn't the latest cancer/carcinogenic PM research showing that it's those tiny subfine and ultrafine particulates that are really doing the damage anyway? IE what gas vehicles have been emitting all the time?
Unfortunately isn't this also what a DPF turns larger particles into
wxman said:
Actually, that is one of the biggest reasons why gasoline vehicles have a relatively high adverse environmental impact. Gasoline is an extremely volatile substance. A recent study in Southern California shows that about 1/3 (between 31% and 34%) of ambient NMHC is from evaporative emissions EXTERNAL to the vehicles itself (Steven G. Brown, Anna Frankel and Hilary R. Hafner; “Source apportionment of VOCs in the Los Angeles area using positive matrix factorization”. Atmospheric Environment, Volume 41, Issue 2, January 2007, Pages 227-237). Overall, gasoline vehicles are responsible for about 80% (!) of ambient NMHC (22%-24% from exhaust, ~25% from evaporative emissions from the vehicle itself), but even if vehicle NMHC emissions are reduced to ZERO (i.e., ZEV or Bin 1), they’ll still be responsible for ~33% of the ambient NMHC just from the handling of the fuel they require (biogenic VOCs only account for 1%-3% of the ambient NMHC in Southern California). NMHC not only is the primary contributor to ground-level ozone (smog), it oxidizes to increasingly lower vapor pressure oxidation products…forming secondary particulate matter (SOA). Most of this PM is ultrafine and/or nanoparticles.
Ok, now that is interesting. I definately need to do some research in this area. I wonder how this compares for a vehicle like the Prius that uses a tank bladder to pretty much eliminate evaporative losses, and has very low tail pipe HC emissions as shown above? I agree this seems to be an inherant challenge with gasoline.
hevster1 said:
Since when don't gas engines give of CO? I am a licensed inspector for gods sake and I am Toyota Hybrid certified. That is the nature of the beast. When we were still doing IM240 or ASM 50-15 tests hybrids were exempt as they would run in electric mode OR start up and cause a failure.
Hybrids are NOT the answer and they never will be. They are a way for Toyota and other companies to say they are "green" (I hate that f**king term, it is used way to much and is meaningless) while making money hand over fist.
That said Diesels do pollute, probably more than a gas car. Will it change with the new breed? Time will tell. However, they are probably a better answer for 95% of the drivers out there as a compromise for real world power and economy.
The battery issue is far less of a problem than people think. Very few have been replaced since the Prius was imported.
Don't know what to tell you. Kia, Hyundai, honda, toyota, lexus, and BMW all have non-hybrid gasoline models that are now under 0.1g/mile. The Prius at least has been fitted with a diagnostic mode that now forces it to run the ICE all the time for purposes such as emissions testing. I would be interested to know why a diesel is a better choice for 95% of the population. Personally I would think a large part of the population would be pretty well served by an all electric run on renewable energy
At least a hybrid is a stepping stone in that direction. Good point on battery life. There are Prius taxis that are now getting up into the 300,000+ mile territory on their original batteries. Old batteries are rebuilt or recycled, used batteries are available at junkyards starting ~$500.
nicklockard said:
Look at the broader perspective of total well-to-wheels-to end of life cycle.
An excellent idea! I love the part where BEVs running on renewables are ~3 times more efficient than Hydrogen Fuel Cells are projected to be in 2030, and ~4 times more efficient than a typical ICE.
MPLSTDI said:
The 06 Jetta isn't a clean Diesel!
I'll say
It does however bother me that the E320 Bluetec supposedly is. My local Mercedes dealer has big signs out announcing the arrival of the "world cleanest diesel!" Based on the above, I'm not convinvced that is saying a lot.
wxman said:
Nick - is
this what you're looking for?
Lots of interesting stuff there, look forward to reading in more detail.
Wobisobi said:
This is certainly not the product of a data analyst. One question I have is where the verifiable test results for the diesels with bluetec are or what ever they want to call it? It is obvious to me that a diesel that can pass 50 states emissions would have much different results that the ones shown in this odd little post.
I'm sorry you don't think so. EPA is about as verifiable as I can find. I thought the E320 Bluetec sort of implied a result for a vehicle with Bluetec. The vehicles shown are the only ones available on the 2008 light duty vehcile market. If there was a 50 state diesel available for sale I would have included it. I showed the 2006 TDI as a reference for lack of any other smallish efficient diesel. Below is the UK VW Polo Blue Motion if that helps:
2007 VW Polo 1.4L Blue Motion UK vs. 2007 Toyota Prius UK
CO2 (g/km): 104 vs. 104 (
even)
CO (g/km): 0.237 vs. 0.18 (
31.7% higher)
NOx (g/km): 0.227 vs. 0.01 (
2170% or 22.7X higher)
PM (g/km): 0 vs. 0 (
even)
Luggage (cuft): 9.5 vs 14.4 (
34% less)
0-60 (s): 13.5 vs. 10.5 (
28.6% slower)
mijbo11 said:
How much energy is used in the mining, milling and refining processes?
heavy metals are extremly toxic. more so than the particulates out of a diesel. you want facts its all here just read with an open mind.
BTW, nickel is neither a heavy metal nor toxic. Its not particularly rare either, as implied in another post. If it were we probably wouldn't use it to make up 25% of our 5c coins. Its basically unremarkable as a metal, and probably no more (or less) polluting or energy intensive than the 1000s of pounds of various metals that go into all our vehicles. Given that the battery weighs 99 lbs in a prius, and only a portion of that is nickel, a fair amount is steel,plastic and water, I'm thinking the batteries probably aren't that big an issue. The "acid" is actually a base, KOH, or basically drano. I wouldn't want to drink it, but its pretty environmentally benign as it breaks down very quickly. Thats more or less why its ok to put it down the drain.
NFSTDI said:
Petroleum is a dangerous substance as well. The bottom line is that unless we all give up our cars any reduction is a good thing.
Here, Here!
nortones2 said:
Problems with mining of any sort too! At least the TDI's and the Prius are less heavy on the juice...
And well said!
Sorry if I started getting sarcastic, its now 4:30AM
Rob