PBS takes the Hummer v Prius bait

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

Here's the best rebuttal to this myth that I've seen:

No, The Hummer Actually Isn't More Energy Efficient Than A Prius

Let's Put This "Debate" To Rest

Ever wonder where urban legends come from? Like the one about Paul McCartney being dead, or the one about Paris Hilton finding religion in prison and producing a series of self-help DVDs titled 'Caged Wisdom'? How about this doozy: a Hummer is more energy efficient over its lifetime than a Prius.

Like most urban legends, it’s hard to pinpoint the source. Was it an article by James L. Martin of the 60 Plus Association (60 Plus Association ///), a lobbying group for the elderly that desires to be the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)? Or was it the story by student reporter Chris Demorro that was picked up by the factually fastidious Rush Limbaugh? (Demorro says that he was actually coming at the Prius from the left, believing that hybrid technology is inferior to all electric vehicles.)

Or was it the publication of a study conducted by CNW Marketing Research? The study was titled "Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal". The study's most controversial finding indicated that if one factors in design and development, manufacturing, use of the vehicle over its projected lifetime, and disposal of the vehicle once it's no longer usable, the Prius is actually less energy efficient than the Hummer, at a per-mile energy cost of $3.25 versus the H2's per-mile energy cost of $3.03.

Regardless, the right-wing media has, of course, had a field day with this. The Prius has become the standard-bearer for energy efficient vehicles. Reporters and bloggers who are more interested in being provocative than accurate have used this study to blast the Prius, hybrids, and the fuel-efficiency movement in general.

The original study, while not as tendentious as the follow up articles by Martin and others, is skewed by indefensible assumptions. These assumptions, along with those of the Martin and Demorro articles, are noted below:

1. Let's spread the Hummer's costs over lots of vehicles. Let's spread the Prius' costs over..the Prius.

Wanting to establish the “lifecycle” energy cost of a product is both desirable and admirable. But one must be very careful about how this is done. CNW’s first mistake was to take the energy costs of the design/development stage of hybrid technology and spread them over the life of the Prius alone. Meanwhile, the development costs of the Hummer, which is basically a high-speed tractor that didn't require any breakthrough technology to develop, are spread over numerous vehicles.

CNW acknowledges that the Prius' cost per mile will inevitably fall as hybrid technology is spread to more cars. In a document on their website entitled "Why 100,000 Miles for Prius" they note:

"And as I pointed out in the past, the energy cost per mile is unequivocally going to decline for Prius over time as the technology continues to spread across other models and the disposal/scrap industry learns how to deal with its high-tech materials and components."

The fact is, failing to adjust these costs in advance undermines the conclusions of the study and renders it meaningless. But that’s hardly the only problem.

2. Demorro: “Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius.”

The development costs are not only spread over too few vehicles, they are also spread over too few miles. CNW assumes that the life of a Prius will be only 100,000 miles compared to the 300,000-mile life of a Hummer. And this assumption is based on: nothing. Just the fact that Prius drivers seem to drive less than Hummer drivers and that new technology gets replaced by newer technology (in which case, the Hummer would last even less than 100,000 miles.) It’s as if the CNW authors had never heard of the used car market.

Again, just adjusting this assumption would undermine the argument that the Prius is less energy efficient than the Hummer. But there’s more.

3. Martin and Demorro also include “facts” that were not included in the CNW study: “(T)he Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the “Superstack”, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.”

Boy, the use of nickel in an automobile must be unique to the Prius and a substantial amount of that Sudbury plant’s production…

Uh, not exactly. This plant puts out 95,000 tons of nickel annually. So the 1,000 tons of nickel that Toyota puts into its batteries accounts for about 1.1% of the annual output and should account for the same percentage of annual pollution.

This is hardly a surprise as nickel is used in many products including many parts used in automobiles: spark plugs and various alloys (especially stainless steel). The Prius uses nickel in more than its battery. It uses nickel in its steel plated parts and electronics. But, the Hummer uses twice as much nickel in its non-battery applications. Unfortunately, both cars use nickel and contribute to the environmental damage from nickel processing.

4. The Martin/Demorro misdiagnoses continue with, “All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce? No doubt about it…that round trip for the battery production takes energy.”

Presumably, the authors never heard of globalization. Guess what: virtually every car is built with parts that come from places all over the world. And none of them get there without using energy.

For example, let’s compare the battery on the Prius (120lb) to the tires on the Hummer (240lb). The Hummer’s original equipment tires are made overseas by BF Goodrich (owned by Michelin) using rubber, steel, and carbon from many sources around the world. I’d guess that shipping them takes more energy than shipping the Prius battery.

6. Demorro: "The energy cost per mile of the Prius, after the EPS mpg stats were revised a few months ago, now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less than half what the Prius costs."

Clearly wrong. The Chevy Aveo is revised to about 26 mpg (combined city/highway), the Prius at 46 combined. But this understates the desirability of hybrids: the Prius is a midsized car, while the Aveo is a compact. The superiority of hybrids is that they can permit larger, presumably more comfortable vehicles to get better mileage than smaller vehicles. It’s one thing to want to make a dubious case for the Hummer, but for the Aveo? Come on.

It may be just a coincidence, but the promotion of the Aveo alongside the Hummer raises the following question: is all of this for the benefit of General Motors, the manufacturer of both? Did CNW select the Hummer to discourage hybrid sales or merely because it's a good, controversial marketing hook for their study? The fact that they included the Martin piece on their website: "Totaling all the energy expended, from design to junkyard, a Hummer may be a better bargain" doesn't give one much faith in the notion of CNW being neutral researchers without an agenda.

The bottom line is, regardless of the hype, we just hope that skewed facts and biased reporting won't deter interested consumers from purchasing hybrids - or completely electric vehicles for that matter. CNW's own findings show that purchasing more Priuses will ultimately offset the energy used in developing them, and allow for hybrid technology to spread to multiple models, further reducing energy costs per mile. And that’s no legend.

[ttoyoda]

No, that doesn't happen in practice, although I suppose you could discharge the battery enough or be in acceleration mode long enough to cause the computer to cut off the electric motor and leave you with ICE alone. I've never heard of that happening, though.

I'll take your word for it, I have never even ridden in one. This guy was so pissed off at turtle in the car that he put a turbo in it, and then wrote a 5 part article about it, he claims to get better mileage. Then again he lives at the top of a mountaing or something. Kinda neat.

autospeed article
Not to whine, but I kinda like the old way of showing urls better...

[12voltsolar]

How is she only getting 500 mile range on her tank, in a Prius? I've done that on 14+ gallons in my AWD wagon.

[fshagan]

Originally Posted by ttoyoda

I'll take your word for it, I have never even ridden in one. This guy was so pissed off at turtle in the car that he put a turbo in it, and then wrote a 5 part article about it, he claims to get better mileage. Then again he lives at the top of a mountaing or something. Kinda neat.

autospeed article
Not to whine, but I kinda like the old way of showing urls better...

That's a Gen 1 Prius, built up to the 2004 model year. It was different in several aspects, so I don't know if it had a "turtle" light or not (the new one does not.) In one part, he mentions that the hybrid system on that model worked seamlessly with the supercharger, just charging the batteries more than usual. He's certainly miles ahead of me in terms of mechanical skill!

[Unforgiven]

Sadly the reality is that even with the increase costs of recycling the heavy metals and special electronics in a Prius, it is still far more cost effective to do that recycling as opposed to trying to build hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Battery recyclers are out there already, so the fudging of the costs of scraping a Prius or other hybrid down are actually slightly exaggerated. It can be done, and without that much fuss.

Sidenote... how many of you actually see a Prius driven like a hypermiler? Or do you instead see them barrelling along at 70-90 mph in the fast lane like I do...

[jamesqf]

So which uses less gas? Hypermiling a Hummer to get 17 mpg instead of 15, or driving a Prius at 90 and getting 40 mpg?

[shovel]

My opinion is that it's retarded to blame the tools. Blame people who buy the wrong car.

A H3 is an off-road capable 4x4. It has skid plates, lockable differentials, long suspension travel that necessitates large parachute wheel wells, large tires to overcome difficult terrain, tires pushed out past the body line to protect the sheet metal from that terrain & improve lateral stability... not to mention a beefy drivetrain able to handle serious torque from the transfer case's gear reduction, serious heat and abuse from low speed, high strain use....

All of that stuff is stupid to haul around back and forth in the city. That doesn't make the VEHICLE stupid, it makes the BUYER stupid.

The vehicle itself is still brilliant for those who make regular use of its features. People who CHOOSE a lifestyle that includes outdoorsmanship and are willing to pay the increased fuel and maintenance cost for a vehicle that will get them as far away from the noise and rules and chaos of civilisation as possible.

People who drive it just for the image of toughness, still they're willing to pay the fuel cost. That's on them, not the vehicle. No different than anyone driving a muscle car or pickup truck that don't see the track or farm, respectively. No reason whatsoever to single out the hummer. The H3 is essentially the next generation Chevy Blazer ZR2, so why not hate on those too? The H3 is essentially the GM version of the Jeep Wrangler, so why not hate on those too? The H3 is essentially the GM version of the Benz G500, why not hate on those too? and so forth...

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by fshagan

but its not worth it to risk your life at 55 MPH on a Southern California freeway!

Risk your life at 55? You know that braking distance increases according to the square of speed and that truck drivers cause half as many fatal accidents per mile compared to the general public, right?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by shovel

People who CHOOSE a lifestyle that includes outdoorsmanship and are willing to pay the increased fuel and maintenance cost for a vehicle that will get them as far away from the noise and rules and chaos of civilisation as possible.

Except that the people who think they can do that by off-road driving are just deluding themselves, because they're bringing the noise & chaos with them. If you want to get away from civilization, drive to the trailhead, then WALK.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Except that the people who think they can do that by off-road driving are just deluding themselves, because they're bringing the noise & chaos with them. If you want to get away from civilization, drive to the trailhead, then WALK.

Everyone does different things to make life worth living in between workin' and sleepin' hours. There are plenty of things people do which annoy me but I still respect their right to do it.

I can't speak for the East, but out West 99% or more of off-highway driving in street legal vehicles is done on legal trails. Legal trails as in actual designated roads.
For example the famed Rubicon is actually a road, no different from the I5 highway - except of course that it's not likely you'll be seeing any Prius' drive that road.

In other words since these trails are in fact roads, nobody would complain they are driven on if they were paved like any of the millions of miles of paved roads out there... so why the complaint that they're driven without pavement?

I get upset at yahoos who drive off-road (as in, blaze new trails that don't go anywhere, when an existing road is already in place) because not only do they make an area ugly, they also give ammunition to the jerks who want to close areas down.

Walking into the wilderness is great, but who decides at what point you park and start walking? The grand canyon is 200 miles of beautiful desert away from me. Do I drive on the paved road all the way to the rim, THEN park? Should I start walking from home, because it's ecologically irresponsible to lay down 200 miles of asphalt and then drive on it? Do I drive all the way out the old hualapai road which is unpaved & unsuitable to 2wd vehicles but still a perfectly legal, driveable road for high clearance vehicles and goes all the way to the river?

The whole crux of the eco movement is to minimize man's impact on nature, implying man is the one force of the universe that exists outside of nature. If we are to go with this definition, then the single worst thing any human can do to the environment is make more humans because those offspring and their offspring ad infinitum will consume resources and create pollution with anything they do. I can't have children. So I'm more eco-friendly than just about anyone without even doing anything. Nobody with offspring had better try to tell me my legal use of legal-if-challenging roads is "bad for the environment"... that would be an error of logic on their part. Frankly nobody with a car should try to tell me my legal use of legal roads that don't happen to have asphalt on 'em is bad.... what's worse for the environment? A 20 foot swath of asphalt times a thousand miles or a dusty pair of tracks that would grow over in 5 years if left unused?