"Green" Batteries

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

We'll be walking in circles forever with all that hybrid vs. old beater, and it all started with batteries and their environmental impact...

It is fairly simple.

The old beater is dirtier tail pipe pollution per mile or per gallon ... every mile you drive , and every gallon it uses ... for the entire life of the vehicle ... especially when you try to compare something like that 7,700lbs beast it to a vehicle like the Prius.

Thus it is only a matter of how many miles of the old dirtier miles is too many ... and it is just dirtier and pollutes more ... bellow that number the older is net cleaner ... over that number the newer is net cleaner.

If you use too big of a gap in the initial vehicles ... like a 7,700 lbs vehicle then all you do is reduce the number of mile before the Prius is net cleaner.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Considering the energy spent in mining for rare earths used in electric motors, and either Nickel or Lithium to the batteries, then the logistics, both the energy balance and the pollution footprint from a battery pack is often pointed out to be even higher than the footprint of a Hummer H2 in a 20-year life cycle, even after the energy required to refine petroleum and to transport the gasoline is taken into account.

Not that we were even talking about BEV ... just HEV.

But ... Often by Who?

Because without some massive biased context such a thing if factually incorrect ... like that old report that was completely debunked long ago about the EV1 and the Hummer.

Even that old debunked EV1 vs Hummer report had to add in more than just the batteries production pollution ... but all the pollution to charge the EV from some of the dirtiest US electricity back in the 1980s ... and make many other known to be false claims about the life time operation of both vehicles.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

And while you would need a computer to be hooked up to the Prius, I could fix anything in the old Mercedes just with manual tools.

Repair like that is a 100% valid reason to want that vehicle.

But it is not pollution ... and it still puts out more tail pipe pollution every gallon and consumes more gallons per mile.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Sure there are other old beaters that could be compared to the Prius more closely than the MB 180 D, either gassers like the Metro or small Diesels like an early Rabbit. Even a current Golf TDI could be compared to the Prius if you would rather want to compare brand-new rides, and we might not forget that it still has engine options more efficient than the U.S.-spec 2.0L in overseas markets.

And if you shifted your claim away from the massive gap you insisted on of a 7,700 lb polluting massively more per mile beast vs a Prius .. to something far cleaner ... then your argument is less extreme and easier to defend ... if that other vehicle is also a more modern/current vehicle with better tail pipe pollution per gallon and per mile ... than it would again be able to shift the balance even further.

But all that is an entirely different claim than the 7,700 lb many times more pollution per mile vehicle vs a Prius for pollution.

- - - - - -

If you are just focused on being Anti-HEV ... from a pollution point of view ... the easier argument to make ... is to compare the HEV total Net pollution to some other vehicle that is not a HEV but that still has the same or less tail pipe rated amount of pollution.

But the older the vehicle you choose to use the harder and harder it is to do that ... because the older vehicles were far more polluting per gallon and / or per mile... and the older vehicles per more polluting to produce per lbs of material.

[samwichse]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Considering the energy spent in mining for rare earths used in electric motors, and either Nickel or Lithium to the batteries, then the logistics, both the energy balance and the pollution footprint from a battery pack is often pointed out to be even higher than the footprint of a Hummer H2 in a 20-year life cycle, even after the energy required to refine petroleum and to transport the gasoline is taken into account. Sure it sounds weird and over-exagerated, but if we could consider something with an engine smaller and lighter (thus requiring less raw materials) than the Hummer's V8 I'd still rather get an old Mercedes-Benz MB 180 D with the die-hard OM616 engine rated at 79hp instead of a brand-new Prius.

Man that stupid, baseless hit-piece on the Prius was an absolute goldmine of brainwashing power. It's STILL being rattled around the internet anywhere there's a public forum or comments section. This in spite of the thorough and repeated debunking of pretty much every claim in it.

Is it possible that a Hummer's better for the environment than a Prius is? - Slate Magazine

AskPablo: Time to get a new car?

The upshot summary:

The energy required to manufacture the vehicles is:
Hummer H2: 200.717 mmBTU
Toyota Prius: 113.322 mmBTU

...snip

The gallons used during a 160,000 mile lifespan and the energy contained therein is:
Hummer H2: 13,913 gallons, 1579.13 mmBTU
Toyota Prius: 2,883 gallons, 327.207 mmBTU

The Hummer even takes more nickel to make than the Prius because it requires so much more steel, which contains nickel as an alloying agent to improve tensile strength.

Do the world a favor and never mention that stupid, incorrect article again.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by samwichse

AskPablo: Time to get a new car?

The upshot summary:

This link also helps quantify the HEV vs non-HEV ... from an energy stand point at least... even if that is not the whole pollution picture.

Production Energy:
Toyota Highlander: 107.133 mmBTU
Toyota Highlander Hybrid: 155.18 mmBTU

HEV has a 48.047 mmBTU production energy penalty ... ~45% more

Operation Energy 160,000 Miles:
Toyota Highlander: 6,400, 726.4 mmBTU
Toyota Highlander Hybrid: 5,424, 615.593 mmBTU

The HEV uses 110.807 mmBTU less energy over 160,000 miles.

ie ... the HEV uses less net energy once it passes ~70,000 miles.

- - - - - - -

The non-HEV produces ~80% more EPA tail pipe pollution during operation based on the difference in their ULEV vs SULEV ratings ... which will mean the HEV will be gaining ground on the non-HEV for total net pollution very quickly.

If the production energy is even remotely similar to the production pollution ( may not be the case ) ... but if it is ... the non-HEV net pollution will pass the HEV and become net larger (dirtier) in about ~40,000 miles.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

As i've pointed out, I already knew that Prius vs. Hummer article quite unaccurate, mostly because of its boat-anchor V8 and the transmission setup being naturally heavier and more slippy due to the AWD.

But now, considering a Prius and a comparably-sized turbodiesel compact car such as the current European Opel Astra, which is available with a 90hp 1.3L turbodiesel rated at the same mileage as the Prius, I'd still rather get one. Then, considering both the Prius and the Opel Astra running on pure ethanol, altough the Astra would use 40% more fuel for the same mileage the cost difference would still be favorable to it in a 160,000-mile expected life cycle. But it could also be set to run on other alternative fuels such as biodiesel and even straight vegetable oil or waste vegetable oil, which wouldn't decrease the mileage so much as ethanol does. Regarding emissions per gallon, current Diesels were highly improved for that matter.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

But now, considering a Prius and a comparably-sized turbodiesel compact car

Would be a much better ... it would at least have a chance ... instead of the outdated 7,700 aerodynamic brick beast you tried to use previously.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

rated at the same mileage as the Prius

MPG is not whole pollution picture.

As long as the discussion is about pollution ... you need to compare the tail pipe pollutants emitted ... not just MPG ... Some higher MPG vehicles actually produce more tail pipe pollution.

The ULEV rated MT LB Gen-1 Insight is just such an example ... it produces more toxic pollutants out it's tail pipe per mile ... than the SULEV rated CVT Gen-1 Insight does ... even though the CVT gets less MPG , it pollutes less per mile.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Then, considering both the Prius and the Opel Astra running on pure ethanol, altough the Astra would use 40% more fuel for the same mileage the cost difference would still be favorable to it in a 160,000-mile expected life cycle.

Cost can be a 100% valid reason to buy a car.

But it does not change the pollution coming out the tail pipe... This entire thread is about the pollution or green-ness , not the cost effectiveness.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

But it could also be set to run on other alternative fuels such as biodiesel and even straight vegetable oil or waste vegetable oil, which wouldn't decrease the mileage so much as ethanol does.

As was already pointed out , by you ... both vehicles could be run on bio-fuel ... thus it changes nothing for the pollution comparison.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Regarding emissions per gallon, current Diesels were highly improved for that matter.

And that is 100% a good thing... much better for pollution , than the previously suggested several decade outdated diesel options.

But is it enough? ... You need to compare a diesel that gets ... to the same low tail pipe pollution rates ... PZEV operating exhaust rating... or the diesel is still polluting more per mile , every mile it is driven.

As long as it pollutes more per mile ... it is only a question of how many miles before the Diesel is a net of more pollution / less-green option.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Exactly ... That is a pollution penalty for the older vehicle's operating life time ... that the older vehicle will never escape.

Wrong way of looking at it. That steel &c produced in the long-ago past already exists, and will continue to exist even if the old vehicle rusts away in a junkyard, or indeed, if it is crushed and recycled. But by driving it instead of buying a new car, you are avoiding the production of steel for the new car.

MPG is not whole pollution picture.

As long as the discussion is about pollution ... you need to compare the tail pipe pollutants emitted ... not just MPG ... Some higher MPG vehicles actually produce more tail pipe pollution.

But mpg (and its direct connection to CO2 emissions) is what really matters in the context of the world today. Those other emissions are only important when you have a large number of vehicles operating in a small area, such as a city, since they degrade fairly quickly, whereas CO2 is effectively permanent on the scale of a human lifetime.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Wrong way of looking at it. That steel &c produced in the long-ago past already exists, and will continue to exist even if the old vehicle rusts away in a junkyard, or indeed, if it is crushed and recycled. But by driving it instead of buying a new car, you are avoiding the production of steel for the new car.

I see 3 potential different reference frames.

#1> Vehicle net life time pollution.
What I was referring to in the quote you referenced ... was the vehicle life cycle net pollution ... and for that ... the production cost in the past is 100% valid part of the net life time pollution of that vehicle ... which is how one would compare the life time net pollution of two vehicles.

#2> Individual net life time pollution.
If you are only concerned about your own net life time contribution to pollution ... then the person who bought a new car , any new car is the one who takes the new car production pollution hit ... and if you buy it used ... that production pollution isn't yours ... just the pollution of operation / repairs... this would absolve the person buying the 2012 used vehicle just as much as the 1970s used vehicle ... and thus a Used PZEV Prius can get it's production pollution absolved as well.

#3> Global net pollution
This seems to be the option you are describing ... The globe takes the hit for the net life time vehicle operation including the initial production pollution ... The hit from the new vehicle's production pollution would be a second production hit ... It just comes back to the question of how many miles of running cleaner per mile of operation is a net benefit ... it is not an automatic win for the old dirtier per mile.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But mpg (and its direct connection to CO2 emissions) is what really matters in the context of the world today. Those other emissions are only important when you have a large number of vehicles operating in a small area, such as a city, since they degrade fairly quickly, whereas CO2 is effectively permanent on the scale of a human lifetime.

I disagree ... for several reasons:

#A>
Our current laws ... and just about any medical doctor you ask ... about the comparative harm from the various toxins.... CO2 vs all the other regulated tail pipe pollutants.

CO2 has a far weaker pound for pound impact than the other tail pipe regulated emissions ... As long as I have enough % of O2 in the Air I breath the CO2 doesn't directly hurt me ... but those other regulated tail pipe emissions are a very different story ... The CO , NOx , etc ... even with the % of O2 in the air I breath those other things can still kill you ... or hurt you ... or animals ... or plants ... etc.

If we are talking about pollution ... there are good reasons why we have tighter regulations about those other toxic emissions.

- - - - - - -

#B>
Also if we were to adopt this MPG is what really matters philosophy ... not only would it undo the good that has been done by the other more toxic emissions controls ... see #1 above ... but it would also mean that Bio-Fuels are more polluting than fossil fuels ... because they lower the MPG with their lower energy content per gallon ... and thus put out more CO2 from the tail pipe per mile.

If you are concerned about AGW than this byproduct of , MPG is what matters , is not helping.

- - - - - - -
#C>
If You say CO2 is what matters more than those other toxins ... than the byproduct of that ... is that you would be encouraging vehicle engineers to intentionally design vehicles to produce more CO , NOx , etc ... in order to reduce the amount of CO2 that comes out the tail pipe ... and that would be VERY BAD.

- - - - - - -

#D>
A much greater total % of the human population lives in the areas concentrated enough for those other tail pipe toxins be able to cause harm.

Even if you aren't in a area of high concentration of those other pollutants ... diluting those toxins over a larger area ... does not in any way reduce the amount of those toxins that the vehicle in question is putting out ... The less toxin emitting vehicle emits less ... less in concentrated areas ... and less in remote distant areas.

[Awd180]

First, I don't disagree with reducing a carbon footprint but it has been shown in a number of reports that removing all personal use combustion engines wouldn't effect the carbon footprint. The largest part of the carbon footprint is living creatures, but that isn't something to consider changing. The second runner up is industry, and the cleanest with nearly 0 emissions a year is nuclear (only emissions are from backup diesel and gas generators). To consider other forms of green energy product you need to also consider how they are made. Wind mills and solar panels need plastics and a large amount of them, the more plastics produced is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Plus wind mills and solar panels couldn't meet the needs of society, especially if we need them to power transportation as well.

Hope this helps open some peoples minds, granted mine is open and I believe the technology is growing it's just the pros and cons need to be weighed justly.

[NeilBlanchard]

Living creatures do not change the balance of carbon in the system.

Burning fossil fuels does change the balance of carbon in the air.

[Awd180]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Living creatures do not change the balance of carbon in the system.

Burning fossil fuels does change the balance of carbon in the air.

Really thanks, I'll make sure I remember that. Sarcasm.

Living creatures breathe in oxygen and exhale co2, then the gases that come out the other end aren't any better for the atmosphere. Methane, ch4 causes more damage to the ozone then you can understand because you didn't know it.

Co and co2 from combustion engines is smaller if at all considerable since the use of catalytic converts compared to the population vehicles to all living organisms. There are plenty of other forms of scrubbing co and co2, one being planet life. But mostly its the increase of hydro carbons into the environment that are the problem, every real publication will identify that as the problem.