Quote:
Originally Posted by 312
I love the car already. I wish people were smart enough to realize that NiCd batteries, changed every 100,000 miles, ARE NOT good for the environment. Sorry to the Prius and Insight owners, but your cars are no better than a diesel hummer. Now, if you were to do a biodiesel TDI-swap...
|
This brings up the central modern conundrum: is it possible to maintain the levels of technology, convenience, and ease of living that we have achieved, and not destroy the environment that sustains us in the process? I remember thinking about this last summer, when National Geographic ran an
article on rare earth metals:
'The list of things that contain rare earths is almost endless. Magnets made with them are much more powerful than conventional magnets and weigh less; that's one reason so many electronic devices have gotten so small. Rare earths are also essential to a host of green machines, including hybrid cars and wind turbines. The battery in a single Toyota Prius contains more than 20 pounds of the rare earth element lanthanum; the magnet in a large wind turbine may contain 500 pounds or more of neodymium. The U.S. military needs rare earths for night-vision goggles, cruise missiles, and other weapons.
"They're all around you," says Karl Gschneidner, a senior metallurgist with the Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, who has studied rare earth elements for more than 50 years. "The phosphors in your TV—the red color comes from an element called europium. The catalytic converter on your exhaust system contains cerium and lanthanum. They're hidden unless you know about them, so most people never worried about them as long as they could keep buying them."'
Hybrid cars represent one drop in the bucket of our total consumption of rare earth metals (only a few hundred thousand hybrids are sold in the US each year, about 2.5% of the total national automobile market). The metals can be recycled as well--several weeks ago Honda announced its initiation of a recycling program for batteries from their cars. The question is, is it better to buy a more fuel-efficient car that brings with it an increase in pollution from the mining, refining, and transport of rare earth metals, or buy a less fuel-efficient car that emits more particulates, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other gases? Either way, we're still polluting and potentially upsetting a delicate environmental balance. So, to say something like, "Sorry to the Prius and Insight owners, but your cars are no better than a diesel hummer," is not just misinformed (as pointed out above, that claim has been debunked by multiple organizations), but a misrepresentation of the real issues here. Diesels and bio-diesels are not a silver bullet, and carry their own set of problems, especially their increased emission of particulates and smog-forming matter compared to gasoline-powered cars. Bio-fuels in general are also not the be-all, end-all, when you take into account the amount of energy consumed to produce fertilizer and pesticides, harvest and plant, transport, and then refine the product--most of it in the form of fossil fuel. Battery-electric cars contain even larger amounts of the metals in hybrids, and the energy to charge them has to come from somewhere.
We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't, because our solution for problem x inevitably brings with it problem y. Which basically means, without a significant change to our habits and lifestyles, we're damned no matter what our next technological "solution" happens to be.