Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Aug 7, 2006, at 8:54 AM, mike wilson wrote: > > >>>>>The extra cost of the hybrid power system is warranted on that kind >>>>>of fuel mileage for me, coupled with the fact that it's a darn nice >>>>>car which otherwise satisfies my needs well. The fact that it uses >>>>>less fuel than most others with its performance/quality makes me >>>>>feel >>>>>good about being environmentally friendly as well. >>>> >>>>The problem with that is that you have to "save" a huge amount of >>>>fuel before you recoup the environmental cost of constructing it >>>>in the first place. 8-/ >>> >>> >>>Are you referring to the outlay to buy one such car? >> >>Indeed. When you think of all the energy that has gone into mining, >>refining, moving, machining, casting, painting, etc. (I know there are >>economies of scale) the materials in that vehicle (not to mention the >>factory that built it) and then compare that carbon footprint to the >>actual savings it makes over its life, I would be interested to know >>what fuel saving it makes. I'm not sure it can even be evaluated. > > > I don't understand how the hybrid-electric Prius is substantially > different in terms of "environmental cost of manufacture" compared to > a petrol or diesel powered automobile. The fact that it will > generally return 50-80% better fuel economy can only be a plus. In > terms of its mechanical components it's the same or simpler than most > of the petrol-diesel machines, the parts that are more complicated > are the computers and the NiMH batteries, and I've not seen much that > substantiates saying that manufacturing the Prius' computers is any > more or less of an environmental impact than making the computers > already included in other cars. Or the one on your desk, for that > matter. The NiMH battery I don't know, but we seem to be > manufacturing them by the bazillion anyway, the volumes required for > the automobile industry are trivial compared to the total at present. > > With fuel consumption gains due to efficient operation of the > combustion engine, the hybrid-electric is putting less pollutants > into the atmosphere in operation, which is a plus. The NiMH traction > batteries are designed to run at least 100,000 miles (some reports of > people with 200,000+ miles still on the original batteries, still > going strong, are available on the web if you look) and are also > designed to be recyclable, so that counts as another plus. > > Nothing involving power is without some environmental impact, of > course. But it can hardly be said that you have to "save a huge > amount of fuel before you recoup the environmental cost of > constructing it in the first place" is a valid statement if you're > trying to contrast it to petrol and diesel powered automobiles. They > are probably pretty much the same overall impact, and whatever fuel > you do save, even if the percentage were small, improves the net > benefits of the hybrid-electric power train.
I didn't mean my origianl staement as a direct criticism of your choice of vehicle but as a general one about the motor industry. I have a sneaking and unevaluated feeling that the environmental cost of producing new cars is higher than the cost of keeping old ones running. Not that anyone (especially the motor industry) is going to be bothered about that. m -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
