Alternative Fuels Discussion Thread

[Antonisbob]

If Nitromethane, Alcohol and Jet Fuel are 'alternative' fuels, I'm all for them.

 

[Joel]

Yeah! Let's never change anything ever again!

 

[Slash]

Sometimes I wonder if the water produced from catalytic converters could be stored and used in a separate engine that somehow runs on water. It couldn't be a conventional engine though. It would have to be all new technology. Or not. Maybe somehow an engine could be produced in some manor similar to that of electrical turbines in rivers.

 

[Joel]

We should install windmills on hybrids to get even more electic power

 

[thebadwrench]

When it comes to hybrid cars, i've heard from a number of people that in the big picture, hybrid cars are actually more damaging to the environment than comparable sized gas vehicles. I have never seen this written anywhere, but I work in the automotive industry as a dealership mechanic. In time, as I meet other mechanics and others who work in the buisness, the general impression of everyone is the same, hybrids do more damage. I was told this in automotive school as well. The theory is that by the time you take into consideration the mining of the materials for the batteries as well as battery disposal, each hybrid car has actually damaged the environment more than a gas car. As someone who has worked on far too many hybrid vehicle electrical systems to count, I know that battery replacement is not entirely uncommon. Most hybrids have a battery life expectancy of around 100,000 miles, so the average hybrid will see at least two sets of batteries in its lifetime, maybe more if there's a problem with vehicles charging/battery system. I won't name the vehicle brand I primarily work on, but about 3 years ago there was a recall on every hybrid of a specific model line. Every single north american hybrid of this model got its hybrid batteries replaced. Hybrid car batteries are actually several batteries linked together... just think of you normal everyday car battery multiplied by 3 or 4. Taking all those things into consideration, now think of the amount of battery waste that is being generated by hybrid vehicles. Sure they use less gas and save you money at the pump, but all those batteries need to be disposed of sooner or later... and batteries are not environmentally friendly.

 

[Slash]

When it comes to hybrid cars, i've heard from a number of people that in the big picture, hybrid cars are actually more damaging to the environment than comparable sized gas vehicles. I have never seen this written anywhere, but I work in the automotive industry as a dealership mechanic. In time, as I meet other mechanics and others who work in the buisness, the general impression of everyone is the same, hybrids do more damage. I was told this in automotive school as well. The theory is that by the time you take into consideration the mining of the materials for the batteries as well as battery disposal, each hybrid car has actually damaged the environment more than a gas car. As someone who has worked on far too many hybrid vehicle electrical systems to count, I know that battery replacement is not entirely uncommon. Most hybrids have a battery life expectancy of around 100,000 miles, so the average hybrid will see at least two sets of batteries in its lifetime, maybe more if there's a problem with vehicles charging/battery system. I won't name the vehicle brand I primarily work on, but about 3 years ago there was a recall on every hybrid of a specific model line. Every single north american hybrid of this model got its hybrid batteries replaced. Hybrid car batteries are actually several batteries linked together... just think of you normal everyday car battery multiplied by 3 or 4. Taking all those things into consideration, now think of the amount of battery waste that is being generated by hybrid vehicles. Sure they use less gas and save you money at the pump, but all those batteries need to be disposed of sooner or later... and batteries are not environmentally friendly.

I've been telling people this for a while.

 

[thebadwrench]

I've been telling people this for a while.

People don't like to believe me when I tell them that, but I don't think the general population will ever understand "the big picture". I hate to say it, but people are like sheep... followers. Its a group mentality thing. They think hybrids are better because they are told that.

 

[VspecZR1GT2RS89]

You hit the nail on the head badwrench. And just like Slash said, I been telling people we still have a long way to go with Hybrid/Electric cars. You have to look at it in two ways.

Yeah, I'll give respect on hybrids on the saving gas and stuff, plus what they can do in performance and racing (Toyota TS030, Tesla Roadster and S, CR-Z, R18 E-tron, 918 etc.) But look at the picture. They use batteries, and batteries use acid and numerous other resources that are even more damaging to environment, like acid rain or erosion to the land. And its dangers to people who mine and develop acid chemicals. And for electric cars, you can't use them for long journeys, the electric cars or EVs mostly. Good for in the town/city, yes. But from Vegas to LA (or any city you want to use), no.
These types of engines are still in R&D process if you think about it. We should look at alcohol and other fuels the most.

Just like the pistons, boxers, V and inline engines, rotarys and diesels in the beginning of their stages when they first came out. And look at these types of combustion engines today, and they are STILL improving! The Hybrid/EVs have a long way go IMO. I wished people would understand that, they are not 100% perfect. I'm not bashing Hybrid/EVs, they're impressive. Just saying they have a looonnnggg way to go.

 

[niky]

Honda has had many problems with its battery packs, and I assume this is the brand in question, but Toyota has had good success with the Prius batteries, which have proven to last for over 200,000 or even (in the case of some taxis) 300,000 miles.

Hybrids and electrics are not necessarily worse for the environment. This depends greatly on how you account for everything, and the most widely cited study in this case is absolutely laughable in the way it biases the data. A hybrid is, like most modern cars, over 90% recyclable. And that includes the "toxic" batteries, which are recycled into new batteries.

 

[thebadwrench]

You hit the nail on the head badwrench.

Thanks, I'm glad to see that others see it the same way I do. I think hybrids are, if anything, a short term answer to what is realistically a very big problem. We need to steer ourselves away from fossil fuels. I don't think hybrids are the answer, nor do I think hydrogen fuel cell is the answer. Hydrogen is kinda explosive, to say the least ... just look at the Hindenburg. Nor does hydrogen fit into our infrastructure easily. Hybrids do fit into our current infrastructure very easily, and that, i think, is why they are becoming more common. But our infrastructure us very fossil fuel dependant and therefore environmentally damaging. Personally, I would like to see more people moving towards E85 ethanol and biodiesel as both these fuel types can be derived from natural, renewable sources and are cleaner for the environment. These would also fit into our infrastructure easier than other alternatives, I think. Unfortunately, nobody really knows what the answer is though. only time will tell....

 

[thebadwrench]

Honda has had many problems with its battery packs, and I assume this is the brand in question, but Toyota has had good success with the Prius batteries, which have proven to last for over 200,000 or even (in the case of some taxis) 300,000 miles.

Hybrids and electrics are not necessarily worse for the environment. This depends greatly on how you account for everything, and the most widely cited study in this case is absolutely laughable in the way it biases the data. A hybrid is, like most modern cars, over 90% recyclable. And that includes the "toxic" batteries, which are recycled into new batteries.

No, its not Honda. Its a U.S. based manufacturer. When it comes to recycling hybrid car batteries, yes they are 100% recyclable. Problem with that is that the lithium within a hybrid battery is 5 times cheaper to mine than it is to recycle. Large scale lithium battery recycling has only been put into place in the last year or two and can currently only handle about 25% of the lithium based batteries that are removed from hybrid cars. Hybrids have a ways to go before they are actually "environmentally friendly".

 

[homeforsummer]

I've been telling people this for a while.

Then it seems, unfortunately, that you've been doing exactly as thebadwrench has described and been a "sheep" - believing things you've been told, rather than looking into the situation yourself.

I've been writing in this industry for about 3.5 years now and the amount of misinformation on hybrids and electric cars is utterly staggering - and basically every point you agreed with above is based on myth, rather than reality.

Let's look at a few:

The theory is that by the time you take into consideration the mining of the materials for the batteries as well as battery disposal, each hybrid car has actually damaged the environment more than a gas car. As someone who has worked on far too many hybrid vehicle electrical systems to count, I know that battery replacement is not entirely uncommon.

A few problems with this.

The first is that it assumes hybrids and electric cars have required vastly more resources to be mined than were being mined already.

A common image used to depict this was, if I recall correctly, a nickel mine in Canada (Sudbury, I think), which had destroyed the landscape it was set in - industry as far as the eyes could see, rivers running red etc. Nasty stuff.

The issue with this, and the assumption in general, is that nickel and lithium have been mined for many decades before hybrids existed (I think Sudbury had been around for about 100 years), and vehicles make up only a few percent of the worldwide demand for these metals. It also assumed in the Sudbury case that the photo was actually a recent one - I think it was proved to have been taken in the 1980s in the end, and in the last few decades the mine has been massively cleaned up.

Own a laptop? Smartphone? Tablet PC? Best not get too high and mighty about the mining of rare metals, as the billions of these devices made every year require a little more than the hundreds of thousands of vehicles...

Actually, even then the situation isn't so bad. The first figure I've come across for lithium mining suggests about 26,000 tons of the stuff are mined every year. From the same year, 2011, 70 million barrels of crude oil were produced every day.

A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's 2,940,000,000 gallons of crude oil extracted every day in 2011. Almost 3 billion per day.

Tell me which looks more important: Reducing use of a few thousand tons of metal per year, or 3 billion gallons of oil?

Incidentally, Renault-Nissan has now sold around 100,000 electric cars worldwide since 2010. They reckon that's saved around 14 million gallons of oil. Even though that's 1/210th of what we collectively produce every day, I wouldn't mind betting it still more than offsets the few hundred extra tons of lithium mined to make their batteries...

Most hybrids have a battery life expectancy of around 100,000 miles, so the average hybrid will see at least two sets of batteries in its lifetime, maybe more if there's a problem with vehicles charging/battery system. I won't name the vehicle brand I primarily work on, but about 3 years ago there was a recall on every hybrid of a specific model line. Every single north american hybrid of this model got its hybrid batteries replaced. Hybrid car batteries are actually several batteries linked together... just think of you normal everyday car battery multiplied by 3 or 4. Taking all those things into consideration, now think of the amount of battery waste that is being generated by hybrid vehicles.

Also a bit hazy here.

As niky has said, some are better than others. Toyota hybrids aren't unknown to go 200,000+ miles without a change. A few years ago, I looked into the case of a Civic Hybrid which had done around 750,000 miles in its 13-year lifetime with only one battery change. Not so long ago, I wrote about a NYC Ford Escape Hybrid taxi for sale with over 300,000 miles on, again with no changes.

Battery issues are actually a relative rarity, and if that recall was for anyone other than Toyota, even more so, as Toyota have sold a greater number of hybrids than any other carmaker by far (I think it's in the region of 6 to 1, i.e. six Toyota hybrids for every one car made by every other automaker that makes hybrids).

On this point, it's worth considering, when Toyota has now sold over 5 million hybrids (as of April - it'll be more now), whether you think figures in the hundreds for battery replacement are acceptable. You'd then have to take the same number of other vehicles of similar age and mileage and ask whether the jobs they'd require at that sort of age are acceptable.

It's also a bit of a myth to say that battery replacements are creating "waste". Far from it - they're eminently recyclable. The humble lead acid battery used in every vehicle is one of the most recycled products on the planet; lithium and nickel are recycled too. It makes sense really - these are difficult, expensive metals to extract, so you don't just let that stuff go to landfill!

Sure they use less gas and save you money at the pump, but all those batteries need to be disposed of sooner or later... and batteries are not environmentally friendly.

Again, a fallacy based on the assumption people just throw the old ones in a big pile somewhere.

There's also the issue I mentioned barely a page ago, which is that the vast, vast majority of a car's overall environmental impact is in its usage. Something in the region of 75-80%. If that hybrid is then 25% more efficient than a gasoline equivalent (not an unusual state of affairs), it's going to take only a few years from a 15-year lifespan before it's "worked off" the extra energy it took to produce.

You hit the nail on the head badwrench. And just like Slash said, I been telling people we still have a long way to go with Hybrid/Electric cars. You have to look at it in two ways.

Electric cars? Undoubtedly. Hybrids? I'm not sure - what metric are you using?

Hybrids, after all, tend to use gasoline engines. Those engines are no less developed than any other engine, so I'd argue hybrid technology is right up to the modern day with progress. And the electric motor itself has still had well over a century of development too, so no issues there.

They use batteries, and batteries use acid and numerous other resources that are even more damaging to environment, like acid rain or erosion to the land. And its dangers to people who mine and develop acid chemicals.

Covered above

And for electric cars, you can't use them for long journeys, the electric cars or EVs mostly. Good for in the town/city, yes. But from Vegas to LA (or any city you want to use), no.

That depends. A Tesla Model S can quite happily do that journey on a charge. Even if it couldn't, there's a Tesla Supercharger fast charging station at Barstow, about half way along.

Other electric cars may struggle, but as the network of fast chargers grows it becomes a little less of a problem.

Obviously there's a long way to go, but writing them off now based on stuff that hasn't happened yet seems a bit short-sighted. It brings to mind all those quotes from people in the computer industry that people would never need PCs etc...

I wished people would understand that, they are not 100% perfect.

I don't think anyone is claiming they are. But I also suspect that misinformation causes many to think they're less viable than is actually the case. Some of the paragraphs I've quoted above demonstrate that quite nicely.

Hybrids have a ways to go before they are actually "environmentally friendly".

I've already sort of explained this in my replies to you above, but I'd still suggest hybrids are more environmentally friendly than regular cars - solely based on how much less fuel they use during their lifetime.

 

[thebadwrench]

Homeforsummer. No one us implying that gas is better than hybrid or vice versa. All I'm stating is that hybrids, at this point in time, are simply not as environmentally friendly as is widely assumed. The traditional lead acid automotive battery is recycled almost to 100%, but hybrid batteries are not lead acid and therefore are not recycled in the same way. Lithium has been mined and used for some time now (cell phones, lap tops etc) but a cell phone battery will not power a vehicle. Lithium demand has increased greatly due to the increase in hybrid vehicle sales, and the recycling facilities currently in place simply can not keep up with the amount of battery disposal. Toyota is undoubtedly the frontrunner in hybrid car technology and yes their batteries have been, for the most part, successful. But Toyota is only one of many hybrid vehicle manufacturers. The hybrid battery recall I mentioned before included about 700,000 vehicles. I happened to know that most if not all of those batteries were destined for the scrap heap... part of my job as the mechanic replacing many if those batteries was to "prep them" for disposal. Meaning they were double bagged and thrown away. Im not sure who you write for, but I dont write about the industry. I work in the industry... not to mention I'm currently working towards my assosiate degree in alternative energies. I'm not saying hybrids arnt the answer. I don't think they are, but who am I to say. I've been wrong before. All Im stating is that hybrids are not nearly as environmentally friendly as people generally think. Why do they think that? Because they see commercials on TV that give them the impression that a hybrid car has a small carbon footprint. Cause the facts show otherwise. No offense against you personally, but in all honesty, if your writing anything that indicates the opposite, then in my opinion your one of the "sheep" that has sadly been misled and us mistaken.

 

[thebadwrench]

Correction, I mentioned above the recall included 700,000 vehicles. Was just short if 70,000. I put one too many zeros

 

[homeforsummer]

Homeforsummer. No one us implying that gas is better than hybrid or vice versa. All I'm stating is that hybrids, at this point in time, are simply not as environmentally friendly as is widely assumed.

You've misinterpreted what I said. I'm not implying their production is more environmentally friendly than other vehicles (quite the opposite). What I'm saying is that in use, they more than offset their extra production impact over the course of the car's lifetime.

The traditional lead acid automotive battery is recycled almost to 100%, but hybrid batteries are not lead acid and therefore are not recycled in the same way.

Of this I am aware.

Lithium has been mined and used for some time now (cell phones, lap tops etc) but a cell phone battery will not power a vehicle. Lithium demand has increased greatly due to the increase in hybrid vehicle sales

It has increased, but not greatly. By a long, long way, the consumer electronics industry uses the most lithium - electric vehicles and hybrids are currently nowhere near using such proportions.

This study suggests around a quarter of all mined lithium goes to batteries of any sort. Of that quarter, electric vehicles and hybrids are currently a very small proportion indeed.

In fact, if that page is correct we can work it out: it says the battery in a Nissan Leaf uses 4kg of lithium. Let's assume the previous 100,000 Renault-Nissan electric cars I mentioned all use about the same - 4 kg of lithium. That's 400,000 kg of lithium, or 400 tons since 2010 when their first EVs arrived.

Assuming the other earlier link of 26,000 tons per year of lithium mined was correct, Renault-Nissan has used approximately 1/195th of the lithium produced in that time, or about half a percent. And they're by a long way the largest worldwide producer of electric cars.

And that's full battery electric vehicles. Hybrids have much smaller batteries - a Prius has around 1.3 kWh of capacity, compared to a Leaf's 24 kWh (it's also Ni-Mh rather than Li-ion but nickel is vastly more common and used more widely, and most hybrids are going to lithium now anyway) so the automotive industry doesn't use anything like what you're implying.

and the recycling facilities currently in place simply can not keep up with the amount of battery disposal.

Then you're vastly overstating the number of hybrid/electric batteries being disposed. Unless you can provide figures to the contrary.

The hybrid battery recall I mentioned before included about 700,000 vehicles. I happened to know that most if not all of those batteries were destined for the scrap heap...

This doesn't look quite so bad now you've revised your estimate to a tenth of what it was, does it?

All Im stating is that hybrids are not nearly as environmentally friendly as people generally think. Why do they think that? Because they see commercials on TV that give them the impression that a hybrid car has a small carbon footprint.

It does, relative to other vehicles. Even taking into account production. I've covered this in my previous post.

And that's just CO2. When you delve into other emissions, or indeed refer back to that 3 billion gallons per year crude oil figure, there's far more to this than carbon footprints.

Cause the facts show otherwise.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you've not yet provided any "facts" - just hearsay and a rather narrow selection of experiences working for one carmaker.

No offense against you personally, but in all honesty, if your writing anything that indicates the opposite, then in my opinion your one of the "sheep" that has sadly been misled and us mistaken.

My writing does indeed indicate the opposite, because it's based on facts. These facts I have provided in the form of links throughout my posts, because when I come out with certain figures I expect people to call me on them.

Therefore, while you're entitled to your opinion, you're also wrong on several counts.

It's my job, as a journalist, to be impartial. I've attracted just as much flak for being too hard on electric and hybrid vehicles as I have on sites like GTP for defending them, and it's because I tend to rely on facts rather than opinions. Some people don't like to hear that as a young automaker, Tesla Motors still may not survive its early years; no more than some other people don't like to hear that hybrids are genuinely "greener" than regular vehicles.

I have driven a sum total of maybe two hybrids and maybe one battery electric vehicle I'd actually own, given the budget. I have no drum to beat, no agenda, and nobody is paying me to say nice things about hybrids (they're paying me to write about them, but that isn't the same thing).

But there's a lot of misinformation about, and it needs correcting. I don't know what sort of cars you're experienced with or interested in, but I'm sure you'd do the same if you heard someone spreading misinformation about them.

 

[thebadwrench]

You, my friend are misinterpreting as well. In fact, your opening statement is kinda my point, between production and disposal, hybrid vehicles leave a larger carbon footprint than people realize. I don't disagree that a hybrid electric vehicle "in use" is a cleaner vehicle. But the life of the batteries and replacement batteries that a hybrid vehicle uses doesnt begin or end with just the usage life of a car. After the car is no longer in use, its batteries must be either disposed, or recycled. I will point out that it states directly in the link you provided that lithium is cheaper to mine than it is to recycle. Also per the same link, 26% of lithium mined is for use in batteries, and demand is expected to increase corresponding with growing demand for hybrids. Correct me if i'm wrong, but hybrids haven't gained much popularity until recent years, so a source you give dating from 2008 is outdated a little, dont you think? I would think that the percentage of lithium used in car batteries has increased since 2008, especially in the last two years.

As for my sources, they are mostly training materials that are on paper and therefore I cannot show you them. But i assure you the FACTS I previously presented come from sources such as LG Chem, A123, Think, GM, general electric, the U.S. department of transportation and the U.S. environmental protection agency.

Yes, hybrid vehicles are a cleaner emissions vehicle then traditional gas while "in use", just like you said. I never said or even indicated that gas vehicles are cleaner than hybrids "in use", cause they arent. Hybrids leave a carbon footprint after use with battery disposal. gas vehicles do not leave that footprint. Yes, there is a percentage of batteries that are recycled, but I assure you that percentage is FAR from 100%. Lithium recycling is growing, but currently is unable to keep up with the rate of battery disposal. I will also point out that its not the lithium in the battery that presents environmental hazards.

If you will go back and read my original post, my end point was that we too dependant on fossil fuels. I guess for your sake I should broaden that to include any non renewable energy source. hybrid transportation is in no way shape or form less reliant on non renewable energy that gas cars. The earth will only provide us with a certian amount of crude oil, lithium, nickel, cobalt or any of the rare earth elements (found in any electronic device/ computer) that all vehicles, whether electric or gas, require.

As far as the recycling of lithium, as stated in your link, mining is cheaper than recycling (lets not mention the environmental damage mining causes). If you ran a major corporation, wouldn't you throw away the old batteries and mine the materials for new ones if that was more cost effective? In the end hybrids leave more of a carbon footprint than people think. your just going to have to trust me on this one, but auto makers DO withhold certain facts from consumers as best they can. How? By misrepresenting facts, presenting misleading information. And i'm sorry, but its news and media outlets that pass this misinformation onto the public audience.

That's besides my point. My point was that we need to seek more renewable type energy sources, and therefore hybrids IMO are not the solution, as they rely on nonrenewable energy just the same as gas cars do

 

[thebadwrench]

By the way Homeforsummer, good debate

 

[homeforsummer]

Agreed Very much glad you've not gone down the "HYBRIDS ARE BORING AND RUBBISH" route, as many do...

You, my friend are misinterpreting as well. In fact, your opening statement is kinda my point, between production and disposal, hybrid vehicles leave a larger carbon footprint than people realize. I don't disagree that a hybrid electric vehicle "in use" is a cleaner vehicle. But the life of the batteries and replacement batteries that a hybrid vehicle uses doesnt begin or end with just the usage life of a car. After the car is no longer in use, its batteries must be either disposed, or recycled.

Disposal and recycling is a very small part of a vehicle's lifetime impact. It can't be overstated that usage is by far the greatest proportion, and therefore the proportion which is most important if we're to discuss how environmentally friendly a vehicle is.

I will point out that it states directly in the link you provided that lithium is cheaper to mine than it is to recycle. Also per the same link, 26% of lithium mined is for use in batteries, and demand is expected to increase corresponding with growing demand for hybrids. Correct me if i'm wrong, but hybrids haven't gained much popularity until recent years, so a source you give dating from 2008 is outdated a little, dont you think? I would think that the percentage of lithium used in car batteries has increased since 2008, especially in the last two years.

While the link is a little old, it should still be largely accurate. Most lithium at the moment is used in full electric vehicles, rather than hybrids, and of electric vehicles, it's those Renault-Nissan ones which make up the vast proportion of existing EVs. Not only that, but my Renault-Nissan figures are right up to date - they sold their 100,000th EV the other day, so that half-percent figure over the last three years will be as accurate as I can get with cigarette packet math.

As for my sources, they are mostly training materials that are on paper and therefore I cannot show you them. But i assure you the FACTS I previously presented come from sources such as LG Chem, A123, Think, GM, general electric, the U.S. department of transportation and the U.S. environmental protection agency.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but realistically this debate can't really be furthered without figures you can actually back up.

Yes, hybrid vehicles are a cleaner emissions vehicle then traditional gas while "in use", just like you said. I never said or even indicated that gas vehicles are cleaner than hybrids "in use", cause they arent. Hybrids leave a carbon footprint after use with battery disposal. gas vehicles do not leave that footprint.

And again, you're overstating this end-of-life footprint. I'd be confident in saying that the vast majority of hybrids ever produced are still on the roads, since they've only been around for about 15 years (electric cars even more so, since usable ones have only been around a handful of years), and as such any figures you can provide for end-of-life impact are entirely speculative.

Yes, there is a percentage of batteries that are recycled, but I assure you that percentage is FAR from 100%.

I don't think I ever said it was 100%...

Lithium recycling is growing, but currently is unable to keep up with the rate of battery disposal. I will also point out that its not the lithium in the battery that presents environmental hazards.

Indeed, but many of those substances can be recycled.

If you will go back and read my original post, my end point was that we too dependant on fossil fuels.

I don't disagree.

I guess for your sake I should broaden that to include any non renewable energy source. hybrid transportation is in no way shape or form less reliant on non renewable energy that gas cars.

Well, it is, because they use less fuel. By definition, that makes them less reliant on the fossil fuel itself, even if they're equally reliant on the infrastructure being in place.

The earth will only provide us with a certian amount of crude oil, lithium, nickel, cobalt or any of the rare earth elements (found in any electronic device/ computer) that all vehicles, whether electric or gas, require.

Indeed, but that's more of an argument against transportation as a whole - and therefore unrealistic - than it is against hybrid or electric vehicles.

As far as the recycling of lithium, as stated in your link, mining is cheaper than recycling (lets not mention the environmental damage mining causes).

I'm surprised you've tripped over that one, given my previous comments on exactly that. Given EVs and hybrids use only a tiny proportion of the elements mined, blame can hardly be laid at their feet for the damage done by mining.

If you think it can, then I can highly recommend never buying another electronic product again. Unfortunately, this does also mean you'd have to curtail your participation in this debate if your existing computer dies.

Of course, no mention nothing of the environmental impact of extracting 3 billion gallons of fuel from the ground every day rather than a few thousand tons of lithium each year. Seriously, to continue the "mining is bad" line of thought is to miss the absolutely massive, oily elephant in the room.

If you ran a major corporation, wouldn't you throw away the old batteries and mine the materials for new ones if that was more cost effective?

It depends on margins. Toyota does recycle its nickel batteries once they're worn out, so it must be viable for some. And let's not forget, Toyota has to buy in that nickel from someone. The company mining isn't always the end user, and they can pretty much set the market price. If you're a company using lithium or nickel, who is to say that recycling isn't cheaper than buying it from a supplier?

In the end hybrids leave more of a carbon footprint than people think.

Possibly so, but my point is that they still leave vastly smaller ones than regular vehicles. And since the choice isn't, "regular vehicles, hybrids or magic carpets", hybrids are still the better choice.

your just going to have to trust me on this one, but auto makers DO withhold certain facts from consumers as best they can. How? By misrepresenting facts, presenting misleading information. And i'm sorry, but its news and media outlets that pass this misinformation onto the public audience.

No.

News and media outlets (reputable ones) analyse and question information passed to them, and make a decision on how best to disseminate that information.

When a press release lands in my email inbox I don't just replicate it word for word. I look to see if that information is backed up elsewhere. I decide whether a piece of new technology is vaporware. Due to the joys of being on the internet, I compare it with previous, similar stories, to see if numbers have changed. As a matter of course, I link to previous studies, articles and data where it's relevant.

If you choose to ignore that based on your own preconceived thoughts and ideas ("batteries = not environmentally friendly", for example), that particular factor is beyond my control.

That's besides my point. My point was that we need to seek more renewable type energy sources, and therefore hybrids IMO are not the solution, as they rely on nonrenewable energy just the same as gas cars do

Yes, but less of it. So they're a better solution than just sticking with regular gas cars until there's something better.

 

[thebadwrench]

Obviously your not seeing the point, nonrenewable energy us just that. Nonrenewable. And honestly, you keep putting words in my mouth and its rather annoying. So Ill just end this by saying that its widely publicized that a conservative estimate that the amount of crude oil known to exist is approx. 1.5 trillion barrels. According to BP, at the current rate of use that's about 40 years worth. Granted, nobody knows for sure when the earth will stop the supply. We find oil regularly, but even then the big oil companies guesstimate 100 years until there's nothing usable left. So hybrid and plugin cars, in my opinion, are just like I said, a short term solution at best. They may help the situation, but does not remedy it. If plug in type vehicles become the norm, then we burn more coal to make electricity to power the cars, which doesnt help the environmental aspect if the subject. Simply stated, in my opinion if coarse, there is only one real problem and that's overpopulation. unless something is done to break our dependency on nonrenewable energy regardless of what type... then we are in trouble Again, that's just my opinion have yourself a good day homeforsummer

 

[Slash]

People don't like to believe me when I tell them that, but I don't think the general population will ever understand "the big picture". I hate to say it, but people are like sheep... followers. Its a group mentality thing. They think hybrids are better because they are told that.

Exactly. Which is why I usually avoid bringing it up in conversation because it results in an argument.

 

[homeforsummer]

Obviously your not seeing the point nonrenewable energy us just that. Nonrenewable.

Nowhere have I disagreed with this. And therefore, I've not missed whatever point you're trying to make.

So far, your argument can be roughly summed up as this:

1) Batteries require lots of energy to make and recycle, therefore hybrids and EVs aren't as clean as people say.

2) Hybrids/EVs are equally reliant on fossil fuels as gasoline cars.

3) By using, y'know, facts to illustrate my points, I'm a "sheep" and misleading people.

To which I've countered with the following answers:

1) Yes, batteries require lots of energy to make and recycle, but since the vast proportion of a car's lifetime energy use comes from driving it and burning fuel, battery production isn't a compelling argument against the lifetime impact EVs and hybrids.

2) No, because they use less fossil fuel than regular cars. By definition, using less of something means being less reliant on it.

3) I am indeed using facts. As you yourself have admitted, you're using opinions. Apart from the facts you're unable to show me.

And honestly, you keep putting words in my mouth

Where? Unlike yourself, I've responded directly to each of your points, rather than in a block of text. I'm only responding to the words you're saying.

So Ill just end this by saying that its widely publicized that a conservative estimate that the amount of crude oil known to exist is approx. 1.5 trillion barrels. According to BP, at the current rate of use that's about 40 years worth.

Nowhere have I disagreed with that. Indeed, it would have been impossible for me to disagree with it, as this is the first time you've brought it up.

So hybrid and plugin cars, in my opinion, are just like I said, a short term solution at best.

Hybrids? Sure, but then I'm not arguing they aren't short term. I'm saying they're the best solution now, because of this:

They may help the situation

...which is fairly obvious. If "the problem" is "using too much oil", then "the solution" is "use less oil". Hybrids are doing exactly this.

As for electric cars, I disagree. It's incredibly short sighted to assume their existence is limited by fossil fuels, because that discounts renewable energy as a potential solution.

And even then, they're helping in the short term too - as I provided in the figures earlier, 19 million gallons saved by Renault and Nissan's electric vehicles. Small beans next to 3 billion per day, but better than nothing.

If plug in type vehicles become the norm, then we burn more coal to make electricity to power the cars, which doesnt help the environmental aspect if the subject.

Well that's okay then, since we're not using 100% coal to power them anyway. In California, renewables already make up a large proportion of the electricity, while gas (which is much cleaner burning than coal) is also used. Even in the UK, it's only around 30% coal. In France, it's getting towards 100% nuclear. For anyone who puts a solar panel on their roof (and in my experience, a lot of EV owners do just this), it's more or less 100% solar.

Electric cars are as low-emissions as their particular fraction of whatever energy is used to make the electricity.

Regularly-fueled vehicles are as low-emissions as the fuel they burn there and then, though they're also inherently less efficient as a means of moving from place to place, since about 60% of the energy in fuel is lost as waste heat, noise, and so-on.

Simply stated, in my opinion if coarse, there is only one real problem and that's overpopulation. unless something is done to break our dependency on nonrenewable energy regardless of what type... then we are in trouble Again, that's just my opinion have yourself a good day homeforsummer

Opinions, though, are not facts.

And honestly, while I'm enjoying this discussion, you can cut the faux-friendliness out if you're going to start each post with "you're not seeing the point", "you're misinterpreting" or "you're putting words in my mouth", when I'm doing nothing of the sort. I've made myself very clear in my previous posts and failure to interpret this clarity is not my problem.

Exactly. Which is why I usually avoid bringing it up in conversation because it results in an argument.

So given the back and forth of this "argument" over the last page or so, has your opinion changed? Or are numbers and explanations falling upon deaf ears?

 

[thebadwrench]

#1 and #2?? Yes, putting words into my mouth... as I never made those statements. #3: I don't understand how your facts were proven in anyway different from me. Except of coarse one outdated webpage that if anything, backed up what I said... and per you, you verify your info via internet. So is everything on the internet true? And about sheep, part of that I did say and the other part is your twisting my words into something I did not say.

As for your "countered with" statements... #1 & #2 I dont disagree with and never stated otherwise.#3 see #3 above. Also, I gave a couple personal opinions which I clearly labeled as such. That in no way makes everything I said my opinion, which is what you make it sound like.

I'll admit this, you are a good writer indeed. Very talented at twisting the things I said into things I didn't say... kinda reminds me if something I DID say about media outlets and misrepresenting facts (whatever they maybe). I didn't read your post beyond your flawed summary. Obviously there's a miscommunication or misunderstanding of the debate on hand, so it would be pointless to continue any further. As I said before, good day to you

 

[Keef]

Overall, using electricity to power cars is vastly more environmentally friendly than using a gas engine. In the US, the electricity will likely come from a coal-fired power plant, one which not only powers your local big city but the entire metropolitan area. Even thousands of cars plugged in to recharge is a drop in the bucket of the amount of energy produced by that plant at any given moment. Afterwards, the electric car will make no gaseous pollutants at all, and its systems are rebuildable and ultimately recyclable.

Or you could use a gas powered car which only uses a small percentage of its potential power during typical drives, wastes probably 10% of its fuel by idling at stop lights and drive-throughs, and at full song has the potential to power a couple houses full of electronics. All that potential gone to waste.

 

[niky]

@thebadwrench: You have actually stated, a number of times that:

When it comes to hybrid cars, i've heard from a number of people that in the big picture, hybrid cars are actually more damaging to the environment than comparable sized gas vehicles.

And on point #3:

but in all honesty, if your writing anything that indicates the opposite, then in my opinion your one of the "sheep" that has sadly been misled and us mistaken.

To get things straight:

While many people believe that hybrids and electrics release nothing into the air but perfume and rose petals, believe me, the cradle-to-grave emissions, costs and energy costs of hybrids and electrics are some of the most heavily researched and debated on the planet.

What most people don't consider is the same cradle-to-grave calculations and cost calculations for gasoline vehicles. Over the run of the first owners, most of whom will not exceed 100,000 miles, you don't see much of a benefit, but over the total lifespan of the hybrid, which is multiple times that, the cost savings in terms of gasoline will make it worth it. Yes... with gasoline vehicles, you don't have an extra ten to twenty pounds (or, say a hundred pounds) of batteries to dispose of... but you've burned around 10 tons of gasoline for every 100,000 miles driven. 10 tons, with their attendant toxic emissions. 10 tons that we will never be able to utilize again. Over the 300,000 miles a typical engine lasts, that's 30 tons of waste. A hybrid will trade about a half to two-thirds that waste for a few pounds of batteries.

Secondhand Prii are much sought after. Even with their battery problems, first generation Insights, thanks to their inherent efficiency, are still 50+ mpg vehicles on the highway.

I'm still a skeptic in the sense that I do not see expensive hybrid systems having a major impact on fuel use on a global scale. But for those who can afford them, they're a good alternative to the status quo.

Electrics are even worse in terms of the upfront cost equation, but electric power itself benefits from economies of scale where the electricity itself is produced, whatever source is used... and the resultant lower cost per mile makes it worth taking them seriously where they are available.

 

[Joel]

And for someone like me living in Ontario it's even cleaner. Power in this province comes from natural gas, hydroelectric (Niagara river) and nuclear plants, with a few absurdly expensive windmills mixed in. There's one coal plant in the province and it's only used lightly at this stage. The other aspect is that even a belching coal plant is away from where people live, rather than the emissions of hundreds of thousands of cars through the city.

 

[Wolfe]

I've always considered the real point of a hybrid to be low emissions instead of fuel efficiency, anyway. As I understand it, that was Toyota's main goal with the original Prius. The fuel efficiency is simply a $$$ bonus that got hammered into our heads when they began marketing worldwide. Gotta have an incentive for the consumer.

Like niky, I'm not convinced hybrids are a worthwhile solution to improving fuel efficiency. But they might have an impact if every car in Los Angeles was replaced by one.

 

[Joel]

Well I think it's an improvement. It's of course still reliant on the fossil fuel industry which we'll need to get away from eventually, but they're a worthwhile way to transition into EV's. I guess the frustrating part is that the counter argument we see in this thread seems to boil down to "well they still create pollution and they won't save the earth so why bother?"

 

[thebadwrench]

@thebadwrench: You have actually stated, a number of times that:

Not once did state that as fact, only as opinion of many who work in the auto industry. Nor did I dispute that hybrids are cleaner burning vehicles.

And on point #3:

Media outlets are known to be very biased and in the opinion of most everyone i've ever spoken to on the subject, they can be very misleading in their representation of the facts. People, as a whole, generally believe whatever they hear when it comes from "reputable media", hence the term "sheep".

To get things straight:

While many people believe that hybrids and electrics release nothing into the air but perfume and rose petals

Exactly what I was trying to say (before everything I said was taken out of context)

I'm still a skeptic in the sense that I do not see expensive hybrid systems having a major impact on fuel use on a global scale. But for those who can afford them, they're a good alternative to the status quo.

my opinion exactly

Electrics are even worse in terms of the upfront cost equation, but electric power itself benefits from economies of scale where the electricity itself is produced, whatever source is used... and the resultant lower cost per mile makes it worth taking them seriously where they are available.

I don't disagree, but I do think other alternatives, like those that rely more on renewable energy, are better environmentally (in the long run) on the global scale... reason being that in the big picture, hybrids still rely heavily on nonrenewable energy in one way or another. But as I stated before, that's just my opinion. That just got lost in translation when every little thing I said was nit picked and turned into things I did not say.

Thank you Niky, as you put back into context much if what I was initially trying to say. I was taken SOOOOO far out if context and off my main point. UGH!

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Not once did state that as fact, only as opinion of many who work in the auto industry. Nor did I dispute that hybrids are cleaner burning vehicles.

...

People, as a whole, generally believe whatever they hear when it comes from "reputable media", hence the term "sheep".

And yet...

When it comes to hybrid cars, i've heard from a number of people that in the big picture, hybrid cars are actually more damaging to the environment than comparable sized gas vehicles.

Hmmm. Quite.

 

[Joey D]

I don't disagree, but I do think other alternatives, like those that rely more on renewable energy, are better environmentally (in the long run) on the global scale... reason being that in the big picture, hybrids still rely heavily on nonrenewable energy in one way or another. But as I stated before, that's just my opinion. That just got lost in translation when every little thing I said was nit picked and turned into things I did not say.

What sort of vehicle would use a completely renewable resource though? I mean there's solar but a solar powered car doesn't work all that well and would end up being completely covered in panels.