The reality of that statement is the fact that IF someone could wave a magic wand and EVERY CAR on the planet was poofed into a Prius and that if EVERY SUV on the planet was poofed into a Highlander Hybrid, the world would be a cleaner place, the air would be cleaner, and we would all benefit.
Yes, there's no reality stretched in THAT statement. :confuse: If we all had fairy wings and could fly to work, the air would be cleaner too.
Other than hybridizing them, which the makers are doing, there is really nothing that can be done about the pollution levels of the larger Trucks and SUVs on the market.
More fuel burned = more pollution, and nothing we have yet in the arsenal can make that fact go away.
Their balance sheet and income statement surely look better
Toyota's balance sheet and income statement look better because they sell a lot of SUV's and mid-size cars, not hybrids (if anything, the hybrids are likely subtracting from the balance sheet). They also have a government who pays for their workers' health care and manipulates the local currency to artificially depress it against the dollar/euro.
Toyota is the right now the most profitable and soon to be world's largest car manufacturer because they make smart business decisions.
They have not crippled their cashflow by making ridiculous retirement plans like GM has.
And they were smart enough business people to see that the era of the SUV was on it's way out. While GM was investing in larger and more ridiculous SUVs (Hummer et al) Toyota was developing and selling Hybrids worldwide.
lame comeback - try again - fairy wings are not real; hybrids are
I think the statement I was refuting began with "if we could wave a magic wand...", but let me rephrase. If we all drove small econoboxes with PZEV ICE engines (and there are a few), the air would be better too, and we wouldn't have a huge number of chemical batteries to clean up either. As a statement, it's stupid because it won't happen. But what Toyota is really trying to make consumers think in this commercial is that if they buy a Toyota hybrid the world's air will get measurably better RIGHT NOW. And that's unmitigated, uh, bull-puckey.
OK, "what if" Toyota were to build a hybrid full size truck in the new factory in San Antonio? That would have given a much clearer picture of their intent to build HSD into every vehicle they make. Instead they chose to build more big polluters. This factory is being built to double the large PU truck manufacturing capability. What happened to the talk of a Prius plant in the USA? We are the biggest buyers of the Prius world wide. Yet they are just finishing up a new Prius plant in China. In fact it looks like ALL the 2006 Prius will be built in China by the end of this year. It may be the only way they can build them at a profit. I guess you would not fault them on that.
Gary, I think the results show that Toyota is doing well financially, so your continued second guessing of their San Antonion pickup operation seems kinda off base. They are doing what they need to do financially to keep the business profitable. Unless you are privy to key business intelligence from within Toyota Corporate, you cannot know even a small portion of the business reasons why they are doing what they are doing in San Antonio.
You can rest assured that if they decide, from a business standpoint, that it makes sense to them financially to build Priuses in the USA, they will most assuredly do so.
With Toyota's pledge to build Hybridization as an option in ALL OF THEIR VEHICLES by 2010, well, chances are good that they might indeed build a full size Hybrid pickup in San Antonio - time will tell.
The air DOES get cleaner if you buy a Prius, compared to almost anything else you might have bought in it's place. The fewer tons of greenhouse gases and exhaust we put into the air, the cleaner the air becomes as a result.
If millions of us bought Prius cars, the result would be greater.
That's one of the points of the commerical campaign, and it's not incorrect.
If millions of us bought Prius cars, the result would be greater.
That is a Toyota controlled situation. At this time they are selling all they bring over. Maybe a million people would buy them. Maybe Toyota does not want to sell that many. They seem to have enough batteries to build other hybrids so what is the holdup on more Prii being built? They seem to be able to build enough of the other vehicles in the lineup to satisfy demand.
PS The Civic GX is cleaner than the Prius according to the EPA. If GHG was an issue the enviro community would get behind diesel cars using biodiesel.
The sales limitations of the Prius are not supply oriented at this time but like all cars the demand has to be there. Waiting lists have shortened and in many cases you can get a Prius almost any day of the week. The demand is no longer overwhelming the supply like it did a year ago.
And as far as supply goes, Toyota is putting finishing touches on upgrading aTokyo City plant that can put out ONE PRIUS PER MINUTE. That will handle any supply issues.
PS Unfortunately, the well-known problems with the practicality of the Honda GX make it unsuitable for a vast majority of USA drivers. Unless Honda starts offering PHILL for free, the sales of that car will remain super low.
And although cleaner, it still only gets mid 30s in MPG, nothing near what the Prius is capable of.
I am going to be very sad when hybrid envy evenutally is a thing of the past. Apparently the market is changing causing lots of posters here to have constipation. Relax... it's only a car. O...BTW... can't wait to take delivery of my hybrid. One last thing,,, most car commerials are stupid. I've never been sold on a car from a commercial. Maybe the guy that sells Oxi Clean can make a commercial for the Hummer. It needs all the help it can get these days!
> In fact it looks like ALL the 2006 Prius will be built in China by the end of this year.
That is totally, completely false.
The production plant in China will be used to make Prius for their own country... much like that plant they will be building later in the United States for Prius. But right now, they are busy prepping the location in Kentucky for Camry-Hybrid.
Unless Honda starts offering PHILL for free, the sales of that car will remain super low
Why doesn't Toyota offer the hybrid option free under that perspective. First I don't think the GX is offered outside CA. Some parts of CA offer big incentives to put in PHILL. I would be curious how that compares to an equivalent hybrid. The 30 MPG is a relative figure. Natural gas, up until Rita shortened supply, was less than half the cost of using unleaded gas. No car is perfect for every need. The GX can fill the needs of a CA commuter the same as the hydrogen Civic that is in test trials. The GX for the foreseeable future is a practical commuter for many people.
By the way some of the posters here would argue with your assessment that the Prius is easy to find on the dealers lots.
quote gagrice-"The GX for the foreseeable future is a practical commuter for many people."-end quote
That's probably really true only in California, where CNG stations can be found relatively easily.
The 150-200 mile limitation between fillups is the major thing that handicaps the Civic GX. Most people who can afford both a "weekend trip car" and a "Commuter only car" do not want to deal with the CNG limited range issue.
But the GX as a "commuter car offered to the public" is relatively new, far newer than the Hybrids.
RRJames here and I've been reading these threads and ,frankly I'm wondering just what the point is? There's no circus act in Toyota's R & D to give us a hybrid car that rises above the lame attempts that others have tried. The PRIUS is without a doubt, A whole, well rounded car that has attributes that the consumer has obviously recognized and is willing to pay a reasonable premium for. Why not? The Prius delivers where others have NOT! I even think the styling is creative too! Advertised as "GREEN" and why not? It is! :shades: In my travels in other countrys it became apparent that practical cars are the norm. Cars that serve all practical purposes and don't gulp expensive gas excessively. The gravy train is over!! Gas hogs are the dinosaurs that WILL be left behind as it should be. Yes there will be trucks and SUV's but they will be designed with adaptation to hybriding & economy. I even think attitudes will become evident that show if someone is driving a Hummer, Navigator, Excursion or the like, they will be looked upon as wastefull, self-indulgent morons who will also eventually be considered out of touch with common sense.
What about the morons driving Tundras, Land Cruisers, Sequoias, and 4runners? Why doesn't Toyota just stop selling trucks and SUVs? Is Toyota Green or just after everyone's green?
They're just going after GM customers that are fed up with crappy build and lousy service. Have you read that they intend to hybridize most of their fleet?
My point is this "Green panacea-like nirvana" commercials don't exactly jive with the Toyota's SUV and big truck reality. When one of the large trucks or SUVs drives off the Toyota lot and puts out about 30 times the NOx and CO as a Prius, the real green Toyota shows through. As gagrice said, their big vehicles can't even compete with GMs gas guzzlers on fuel economy and emissions.
But all of the top makers also do - there are HUGE profits to be made there. And until recently, the market (you and I) *WANTED* those big vehicles.
Remember: First and foremost, car manufacturers are in business to make money.
If they can be green along the way, fine. See Toyota with more than 400,000 Hybrids on the road worldwide, and possibly hitting a million on the road in three more years.
Gm has what so far: a few hundred "semi-hybrid" Trucks?
I can't blame Toyota for selling trucks. It is up to the consumer to decide what type of vehicle to purchase. I praise Toyota for offering the Prius. However, it is fair to blame Toyota if the vehicles in the same class (i.e. trucks) have poorer mileage and worse emissions than GM vehicles. If that IS the case, then that taints Toyota's green bona fides.
If you want to be "green," then you have to be green across the board: in hybrid cars; in small cars; in mid-size and large cars; and in trucks. If your trucks are gas-guzzlers and spew crap, you aren't "green"
(of course, this is all relative - anyone's trucks are greener today than 20 years ago)
I suspect that across the board, Honda may have the best cumulative fuel economy; they don't even build a V-8 (yet). Even their gas guzzler sized vehicles get better MPG than the abysmal offerings from the big 3.
"The air DOES get cleaner if you buy a Prius, compared to almost anything else you might have bought in it's place. The fewer tons of greenhouse gases and exhaust we put into the air, the cleaner the air becomes as a result."
Well, not exactly. According to Toyota's own figures it uses more pollution to create the Prius than a conventional ICE only car. Over the life of the car, the Prius will emit less pollutants. However, the air is already dirtier because the Prius was built instead of a (for example) Corolla.
Over the lifetime of the vehicles, I think that the Prius may be somewhat cleaner than a similar sized vehicle with a small engine. However, I have not seen any studies or Toyota comments on the environmental cost of "junking" a hybrid, vs. "junking" a conventional car of similar size. Without knowing the environmental end-of-life-cycle costs, an actual statement as to which car is cleaner is problematical. I suspect you would find that the Toyota Echo (with it's mid 40's MPG) might actually be environmentally friendlier than the Prius, due to the Prius' up front environmental costs in the manufacturing process. But unfortunately, an Echo isn't "cool", and doesn't have the techno gadgets of the Prius. The question is - which one is better for the environment?
Of course, if you compare the Prius with a Sequoia, it is cleaner, but that is not a fair comparison, since they are different vehicle classes.
But the bottom line is always "who cares?" You like that Prius (and I would consider one myself if I were in the market for that size of a car) and the other person likes that SUV. Best of luck to both of you, and enjoy your cars! :shades:
Sure, the Hybrid is "slightly higher" for the manufacturing process, but MUCH LOWER when you get to the lifetime totals.
So I think we can put the "hybrids pollute more because of the manufacturing process" argument to rest as an UNTRUTH.
"V. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRIUS
Although the production of the Prius generates more CO2 released into the atmosphere than a gasoline car, the use of the Prius over a life cycle creates significantly less CO2 emissions. If you drive a Prius for 10 years or for a total of 100,000km, you will decrease CO2 release into the atmosphere by 7.5 tons. To put this into context, the Japanese cedar tree absorbs 14kg of CO2 annually, so you will do the annual workload of 536 trees."
"I'll try to find the thread which details all the data I found on this subject a few months ago."
I found the charts on the Toyota website, though I don't have a book mark for it. The extra pollution was not "minimal"; the charts gave a time frame in which the "costs" would be recouped by gas savings, but I don't remember what the figure was. 75K miles is in my mind, but I would not swear to it.
And if you can find any information on the "end-of-life-cycle" costs of the hybrid vs. conventional small car, I would sure like to have more information. Thanks.
the ONLY fact I care about is the air where I live and breathe
if the Prius is MADE in Kentucky and causes pollution there, I don't care, as long as the Prius emits less pollution where I drive it
the people who live in Kentucky can whine about the pollutin caused there, but they are getting the job/wage/tax benefits. They can also push for better controls at the factory.
But MY issue is where I BREATHE.
Many cities in the U.S. ahve air pollution problems caused by auto emissions. Cars are not being manufactured in those cities. Decreasing auto emissions in those cities, where millions of people live is a good thing, even if it means the air in Kentucky gets worse.
The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account.
"The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account."
Have you found anything about the disposal "costs"? That would help complete the picture.
quote stevedebi-"Have you found anything about the disposal "costs"? That would help complete the picture."-end quote
"The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account."
""The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account."
Larsb, did you confirm they were using Gen 2 Prius information, and I didn't see specific comparison numbers for end of life cycle.
I don't have any data and have not seen any on the Gen 2 Prius, but I think we can safely assume that Toyota did a better, cleaner job with that car, and made it even more recyclable than the Gen 1 car. Battery is not so much larger in size but is far more powerful.
I was correct in my guess. New Prius even cleaner over life cycle than Gen 1:
"Reduction of environmental impact over the entire lifecycle Life Cycle Assessment Besides achieving targets in the use and disposal stage, emissions of CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants have been reduced over the entire life cycle of the new Prius, including in the development stage."
"Driving a new Prius saves roughly 1 tonne of CO2 per year as compared to a diesel vehicle or 1.9 tonnes compared to petrol vehicles, based on average driving patterns. Global sales of the new Prius totalled 132,703 in 2004; considering that one tree absorbs around 14kg of CO2 each year, Prius drivers in 2004 alone did the job of some 9,478,800 trees."
I've browsed the message boards for a while, and I've noticed people often confuse fuel economy with emissions. For instance, here's a question: What's better for the environment: A VW Jetta TDI (diesel) getting 40 mpg or an Audi A3 getting 30 miles per gallon (but rated as an ultra-low emissions vehicle -- ULEV)?
It sounds like most people around here would say the VW is better because it gets better gas mileage.
But, in fact it has more emissions than the Audi. I just hope people understand that good gas mileage (especially from Diesels) does not necessarily equal "environmentally friendly".
I learned a few years ago, that within ten years, every car Toyota makes will be a hybrid. Maybe every vehicle. I don't remember for sure. If the number two (soon to be number one) auto maker in the world makes a statement like that, and I headed a car company, I'd get going on my own design.
Not enough manufacturers are offering hybrids. Maybe they feel it's just a passing fancy. Maybe it is. Frankly, I'd prefer more diesel offerings. But, hybrid seems to be the craze du jour. As with everything else, time will tell.
Not to mention that running your prius doesn't make the air cleaner. That is a ridiculous statement. The prius spews pollution and greenhouse gasses just like every other car. It just spews less of it. And not 40 times less like someone said on this thread. For C02, anyway, it is like 35% less than a 4 cyl CAMRY.
That is a good point, but you are making the same mistake you are arguing against. By saying that one pollutes less than the other without presenting the criteria used to quantify "pollution," you are merely presenting an opinion.
The fact is that it is a value judgement. Are you more concerned about particulates or greenhouse gasses? Is CO less desirable than NO2? I'm not sure what the batteries emit, but you might not like that stuff either, especially if they aren't disposed of properly. You have to make a value judgement to answer these questions, but I agree with you that mileage does not tell the whole story.
Most people today do not keep their vehicles beyond 12 yrs. Even if the battery is an issue after ten years, it can also be said that a transmission will fail after five years. Either way you'll have to pay the piper. Everyone here can be speculators. No one knows for sure. I do know one thing. Every major manufacturer will have at least one hybrid in their stable by the end of the decade. That's progress.
Actually, a PZEV of just about any type can can clean the air through which it travels if that air is heavily smog laydened in the first place. A PZEV based Ford Focus, Honda Accord, HCH, Nissan Sentra, Toyota Prius II, etc. can and does clean the air in some of our more heavily polluted locales.
In regards to pack disposal hazards and emissions, Toyota encourages that Prius I and II owners and dealerships have the Ni-MH’s recycled through their own supply system when/if their useful life has expired. The Honda Insight packs that have been replaced are recycled through Honda’s manufacturing network but I have heard of only two or three Prius I/II packs that have needed to be replaced as of this writing Our Lead-Acid’s in everything we drive is an environmental disaster waiting to happen however
Comments
Yes, there's no reality stretched in THAT statement. :confuse: If we all had fairy wings and could fly to work, the air would be cleaner too.
More fuel burned = more pollution, and nothing we have yet in the arsenal can make that fact go away.
lame comeback - try again - fairy wings are not real; hybrids are
Toyota's balance sheet and income statement look better because they sell a lot of SUV's and mid-size cars, not hybrids (if anything, the hybrids are likely subtracting from the balance sheet). They also have a government who pays for their workers' health care and manipulates the local currency to artificially depress it against the dollar/euro.
They have not crippled their cashflow by making ridiculous retirement plans like GM has.
And they were smart enough business people to see that the era of the SUV was on it's way out. While GM was investing in larger and more ridiculous SUVs (Hummer et al) Toyota was developing and selling Hybrids worldwide.
I think the statement I was refuting began with "if we could wave a magic wand...", but let me rephrase. If we all drove small econoboxes with PZEV ICE engines (and there are a few), the air would be better too, and we wouldn't have a huge number of chemical batteries to clean up either. As a statement, it's stupid because it won't happen. But what Toyota is really trying to make consumers think in this commercial is that if they buy a Toyota hybrid the world's air will get measurably better RIGHT NOW. And that's unmitigated, uh, bull-puckey.
Anyway, as always, it's merely IMHO.
OK, "what if" Toyota were to build a hybrid full size truck in the new factory in San Antonio? That would have given a much clearer picture of their intent to build HSD into every vehicle they make. Instead they chose to build more big polluters. This factory is being built to double the large PU truck manufacturing capability. What happened to the talk of a Prius plant in the USA? We are the biggest buyers of the Prius world wide. Yet they are just finishing up a new Prius plant in China. In fact it looks like ALL the 2006 Prius will be built in China by the end of this year. It may be the only way they can build them at a profit. I guess you would not fault them on that.
You can rest assured that if they decide, from a business standpoint, that it makes sense to them financially to build Priuses in the USA, they will most assuredly do so.
With Toyota's pledge to build Hybridization as an option in ALL OF THEIR VEHICLES by 2010, well, chances are good that they might indeed build a full size Hybrid pickup in San Antonio - time will tell.
Nobody who sees that commercial thinks that if they buy a hybrid the air is going to be cleaner. Nobody is that stupid.
If millions of us bought Prius cars, the result would be greater.
That's one of the points of the commerical campaign, and it's not incorrect.
That is a Toyota controlled situation. At this time they are selling all they bring over. Maybe a million people would buy them. Maybe Toyota does not want to sell that many. They seem to have enough batteries to build other hybrids so what is the holdup on more Prii being built? They seem to be able to build enough of the other vehicles in the lineup to satisfy demand.
PS
The Civic GX is cleaner than the Prius according to the EPA. If GHG was an issue the enviro community would get behind diesel cars using biodiesel.
And as far as supply goes, Toyota is putting finishing touches on upgrading aTokyo City plant that can put out ONE PRIUS PER MINUTE. That will handle any supply issues.
PS
Unfortunately, the well-known problems with the practicality of the Honda GX make it unsuitable for a vast majority of USA drivers. Unless Honda starts offering PHILL for free, the sales of that car will remain super low.
And although cleaner, it still only gets mid 30s in MPG, nothing near what the Prius is capable of.
That is totally, completely false.
The production plant in China will be used to make Prius for their own country... much like that plant they will be building later in the United States for Prius. But right now, they are busy prepping the location in Kentucky for Camry-Hybrid.
JOHN
Why doesn't Toyota offer the hybrid option free under that perspective. First I don't think the GX is offered outside CA. Some parts of CA offer big incentives to put in PHILL. I would be curious how that compares to an equivalent hybrid. The 30 MPG is a relative figure. Natural gas, up until Rita shortened supply, was less than half the cost of using unleaded gas. No car is perfect for every need. The GX can fill the needs of a CA commuter the same as the hydrogen Civic that is in test trials. The GX for the foreseeable future is a practical commuter for many people.
By the way some of the posters here would argue with your assessment that the Prius is easy to find on the dealers lots.
That's probably really true only in California, where CNG stations can be found relatively easily.
The 150-200 mile limitation between fillups is the major thing that handicaps the Civic GX. Most people who can afford both a "weekend trip car" and a "Commuter only car" do not want to deal with the CNG limited range issue.
But the GX as a "commuter car offered to the public" is relatively new, far newer than the Hybrids.
http://tinyurl.com/8qmwm
use bugmenot if want to avoid registering
In my travels in other countrys it became apparent that practical cars are the norm. Cars that serve all practical purposes and don't gulp expensive gas excessively. The gravy train is over!! Gas hogs are the dinosaurs that WILL be left behind as it should be. Yes there will be trucks and SUV's but they will be designed with adaptation to hybriding & economy.
I even think attitudes will become evident that show if someone is driving a Hummer, Navigator, Excursion or the like, they will be looked upon as wastefull, self-indulgent morons who will also eventually be considered out of touch with common sense.
Remember: First and foremost, car manufacturers are in business to make money.
If they can be green along the way, fine. See Toyota with more than 400,000 Hybrids on the road worldwide, and possibly hitting a million on the road in three more years.
Gm has what so far: a few hundred "semi-hybrid" Trucks?
So who is doing more for the enviroment?
If you want to be "green," then you have to be green across the board: in hybrid cars; in small cars; in mid-size and large cars; and in trucks. If your trucks are gas-guzzlers and spew crap, you aren't "green"
(of course, this is all relative - anyone's trucks are greener today than 20 years ago)
Well, not exactly. According to Toyota's own figures it uses more pollution to create the Prius than a conventional ICE only car. Over the life of the car, the Prius will emit less pollutants. However, the air is already dirtier because the Prius was built instead of a (for example) Corolla.
Over the lifetime of the vehicles, I think that the Prius may be somewhat cleaner than a similar sized vehicle with a small engine. However, I have not seen any studies or Toyota comments on the environmental cost of "junking" a hybrid, vs. "junking" a conventional car of similar size. Without knowing the environmental end-of-life-cycle costs, an actual statement as to which car is cleaner is problematical. I suspect you would find that the Toyota Echo (with it's mid 40's MPG) might actually be environmentally friendlier than the Prius, due to the Prius' up front environmental costs in the manufacturing process. But unfortunately, an Echo isn't "cool", and doesn't have the techno gadgets of the Prius. The question is - which one is better for the environment?
Of course, if you compare the Prius with a Sequoia, it is cleaner, but that is not a fair comparison, since they are different vehicle classes.
But the bottom line is always "who cares?" You like that Prius (and I would consider one myself if I were in the market for that size of a car) and the other person likes that SUV. Best of luck to both of you, and enjoy your cars! :shades:
The "extra pollution at manufacture time" is minimal. Over the lifetime of the Prius versus a gasoline-only similar car, the Prius is far cleaner.
I'll try to find the thread which details all the data I found on this subject a few months ago.
Look at the chart on page 18 which totals "lifetime pollution amounts" for Hybrids versus non Hybrids:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/pubs/lightvehicles.pdf
Sure, the Hybrid is "slightly higher" for the manufacturing process, but MUCH LOWER when you get to the lifetime totals.
So I think we can put the "hybrids pollute more because of the manufacturing process" argument to rest as an UNTRUTH.
"V. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRIUS
Although the production of the Prius generates more CO2 released into the atmosphere than a gasoline car, the use of the Prius over a life cycle creates significantly less CO2 emissions. If you drive a Prius for 10 years or for a total of 100,000km, you will decrease CO2 release into the atmosphere by 7.5 tons. To put this into context, the Japanese cedar tree absorbs 14kg of CO2 annually, so you will do the annual workload of 536 trees."
http://jove.eng.yale.edu/twiki/pub/Experimentalproduct/ToyotaPriu s/HowThePriusIsMade_fullreport.doc
I found the charts on the Toyota website, though I don't have a book mark for it. The extra pollution was not "minimal"; the charts gave a time frame in which the "costs" would be recouped by gas savings, but I don't remember what the figure was. 75K miles is in my mind, but I would not swear to it.
And if you can find any information on the "end-of-life-cycle" costs of the hybrid vs. conventional small car, I would sure like to have more information. Thanks.
if the Prius is MADE in Kentucky and causes pollution there, I don't care, as long as the Prius emits less pollution where I drive it
the people who live in Kentucky can whine about the pollutin caused there, but they are getting the job/wage/tax benefits. They can also push for better controls at the factory.
But MY issue is where I BREATHE.
Many cities in the U.S. ahve air pollution problems caused by auto emissions. Cars are not being manufactured in those cities. Decreasing auto emissions in those cities, where millions of people live is a good thing, even if it means the air in Kentucky gets worse.
Larsb,
Check the report, it appears they were talking about Gen 1 Prius. Those charts don't reflect what I saw on the Toyota Website.
BTW, I wasn't talking about CO2.
Have you found anything about the disposal "costs"? That would help complete the picture.
battery factories
which right now are all in Japan.
Nothing about "assembling the Prius versus the Corolla" is more polluting. It's the hybrids battery stuff which creates the extra pollution..
"The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account."
Larsb,
did you confirm they were using Gen 2 Prius information, and I didn't see specific comparison numbers for end of life cycle.
I was correct in my guess. New Prius even cleaner over life cycle than Gen 1:
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/03/0901a.html
"Reduction of environmental impact over the entire lifecycle
Life Cycle Assessment
Besides achieving targets in the use and disposal stage, emissions of CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants have been reduced over the entire life cycle of the new Prius, including in the development stage."
http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=718
"Driving a new Prius saves roughly 1 tonne of CO2 per year as compared to a diesel vehicle or 1.9 tonnes compared to petrol vehicles, based on average driving patterns. Global sales of the new Prius totalled 132,703 in 2004; considering that one tree absorbs around 14kg of CO2 each year, Prius drivers in 2004 alone did the job of some 9,478,800 trees."
It sounds like most people around here would say the VW is better because it gets better gas mileage.
But, in fact it has more emissions than the Audi. I just hope people understand that good gas mileage (especially from Diesels) does not necessarily equal "environmentally friendly".
Not enough manufacturers are offering hybrids. Maybe they feel it's just a passing fancy. Maybe it is. Frankly, I'd prefer more diesel offerings. But, hybrid seems to be the craze du jour. As with everything else, time will tell.
Larry
most people spend their time debating the mpg issue and ignore all other attributes of a given vehicle
The fact is that it is a value judgement. Are you more concerned about particulates or greenhouse gasses? Is CO less desirable than NO2? I'm not sure what the batteries emit, but you might not like that stuff either, especially if they aren't disposed of properly. You have to make a value judgement to answer these questions, but I agree with you that mileage does not tell the whole story.
Actually, a PZEV of just about any type can can clean the air through which it travels if that air is heavily smog laydened in the first place. A PZEV based Ford Focus, Honda Accord, HCH, Nissan Sentra, Toyota Prius II, etc. can and does clean the air in some of our more heavily polluted locales.
In regards to pack disposal hazards and emissions, Toyota encourages that Prius I and II owners and dealerships have the Ni-MH’s recycled through their own supply system when/if their useful life has expired. The Honda Insight packs that have been replaced are recycled through Honda’s manufacturing network but I have heard of only two or three Prius I/II packs that have needed to be replaced as of this writing
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes