As I have said before the Prius has a 50% higher carbon footprint at the point of manufacture than, say, a Corolla D4D or Focus TDCi both which are also more economical and are cheaper to buy. The Prius also presents greater challenges regarding end of life disposal.
|
Andy / cheddar
Any web links for this information?
|
tyro -
maybe this deserves a new subject thread - as per my heading here - see report in latest what-car magazine
www.whatcar.co.uk/news-special-report.aspx?NA=2225...2
shock horror - toyota prius is not as green as you might have thought
"... table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, even though they have some of the lowest CO2 emissions of any car and are usually regarded as the most environmentally friendly. Even 'gas guzzlers' such as the Range Rover Sport finished higher in the list. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler, closely followed by the Toyota Echo - the American version of the Yaris. ....."
|
To quote the What Car report:
"
In fact, some of the less fuel-efficient vehicles actually have extremely good 'dust to dust' energy consumption. Conversely some hybrids - at least the current hybrids - are inferior in total energy demands while offering high fuel-efficiency.
'This doesn't mean that hybrids, for example, are a bad choice. What it does mean, however, is that a modern hybrid uses less fuel and produces fewer tailpipe emissions, but costs society significantly more in overall energy costs.'
"
|
"'This doesn't mean that hybrids, for example, are a bad choice. What it does mean, however, is that a modern hybrid uses less fuel and produces fewer tailpipe emissions, but costs society significantly more in overall energy costs.'
Good for user country, bad for producer country?
IF Kyoto meant anything...
madf
|
|
Bad for disposer country too!
|
|
|
"Good for user country, bad for producer country?"
And a whole lot worse than that for the country that has to dismantle the car.
|
|
|
|
The problem is that the survey is based on some distinctly dodgy premises.
Yes, the Hyundai Accent might be capable of covering 150k miles in its lifetime (and they do in the US, as illustrated by WhatCar), but how many of them actually do? Most, due to the kind of people who buy them, are on the heap at less than 100k miles -- in the UK anyway.
Here's my point -- they're using the average miles each car covers over the course of its lifetime as a key component in their calculations. This is fundamentally flawed, because one of the reasons the Prius scores relatively badly is that these cars just aren't covering the miles -- the people who buy them on their "green" credentials simply aren't doing the coast-to-coast US mileages that other cars are (these same people will take the train over large distances, therefore the cars are being scrapped at a certain age with a certain number of miles on the clock), hence the Jeep's high standing because people are driving them over hundreds of thousands of miles.
So, that Accent in 6th place would be nowhere near 6th on British roads. And a survey that produces incomparable results based on market cannot be trusted, at all.
So, while I accept that the Prius isn't as green as it's being made out to be (absolutely not, although the technology does show potential -- remember that it's at the same effective stage as the petrol engine was back in the 1930s or earlier, and '30s cars were far from economical), this survey is based on flawed statistics and should be taken with a large pile of salt.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Dalglish.
Interesting.
But I think the most significant thing is that both Toyota and Volvo are doubtful about the assumptions on which CNW based its calculations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I can justify buying one! Yay cowboy boots!
|
"this survey is based on flawed statistics "
No it's not.
If people only drive a Prius for 50k miles because it is u/s for long journeys, then it's an inefficient use of resources.
If they drive a Jeep for 500k miles, it's a more efficient use of original energy input.
madf
|
If people only drive a Prius for 50k miles because it is u/s for long journeys, then it's an inefficient use of resources. If they drive a Jeep for 500k miles, it's a more efficient use of original energy input.
That's true, but all it says is that Jeep *owners* are using their cars in a more green way than the Prius drivers -- somewhat ironic when you think about it.
The problem is that the survey has made the classic "and therefore..." mistake to imply that a Jeep is greener than a Prius, which is absurd. If the Prius was driven for the same amount of miles as the Jeep then it would doubtless be as green if not greener than the Jeep. If the Prius is, as you say, u/s for long journeys -- irrelevant, it's still *capable* of going on the long journeys. If the owner of the car decides not to do the long journey in the Prius, this is a function of how green or otherwise the *owner* is, not the car.
If you are to make a fair comparison of which owner is greener, then you must take into account alternative ways of getting around into the equation, so the survey would in those circumstances be invalid because they have not done so. But they have used these results to imply the greenness of particular models, which is even less valid because the *choice* of the owner to travel fewer miles in one car than another is not a contributing factor in how green a design of car is.
Put it this way, if it transpired that the Mondeo diesel (45mpg) was being driven, dust-to-dust, 100K miles and the petrol one (35mpg) was being driven 250K in its lifetime (unrealistic figures but illustrative of the problem) would you conclude that the diesel was less green as a model than the petrol? Because this is the frankly absurd conclusion this survey is drawing repeatedly in its statistics.
|
>jase
You're drawing the wrong conclusions imo.
Capability is one thing: actual use is another. After all a bicycle is capable of travelling 1,000 mile journeys but....:-)
Theory is one thing but we live in a real world and if in a real world the average Prius lasts 50k miles and the average Jeep 200k, then that's how the life should be measured.
Energy efficiency is all real world actual experiences not what ifs ...
madf
|
>>The Daily Mail ran today a survey on the most eco friendly cars the prius came in at place 74 the winner was the Jeep Wrangler .The survey was a birth to death to give the true carbon footprint of the car some very suprising results<<
If that's true, (bearing in mind you come out with a fair bit of rubbish), then that's one of the funniest things I've read this week.
|
|
|
You are probably right in what you say. And if they said that the typical Prius is less green than the typical Jeep because Jeep owners use their vehicles more than Prius owners, then they'd be quite right it would seem.
However, as a mathematician it angers me when companies present statistics in such a way that they're implying something that the statistics do not support.
The statistics DO NOT SAY that the Prius is less green than the Jeep. They say that the typical usage of the Prius is less green than that of the Jeep. To suggest otherwise, as this survey does, is misrepresentation, and dangerous misrepresentation at that.
The typical Johnny-Sixpack is going to look at that and say, hey, my Jeep puts out less junk than a Prius would if I bought one of those instead, which of course is utter rubbish: if the same owner was to buy the Prius the chances are he'd use his vehicle just as much.
I have no problem with the survey per se: I have every problem with the "how green is your car" misrepresentation associated with it.
|
>jase
never mind
Toyota are killing the US makers in the States so the typical Johnny Sixpack has more brains than to belive what the papers may say. Iiirc it was the Daily Mail?
Doubt if read much in US..:-)
and If it was the wail, I place as much credence in its journalism as I do in the Daily Sport:-)
madf
|
|
|
>>then that's one of the funniest things I've read this week.>>
It wasn't the actual basis of the survey, which appears in Which Car? and is based on US research.
I've got the Mail in front of me and one of the comments from Art Spinella, executive of CNW Marketing Research which measured the environmentalimpact of cars from manufacture until scrapped - the so-called "carbon footprint" left by a vehicle, was:
"Why do hybrids show up so poorly? It's because of the manufacture, replacement and disposal of high energy-use items including the batteries, electric motors and lighter weight materials used in construction.
"Simpler vehicles, such as the Jeep Wrangler, use established technologies that need less energy in manufacture."
The report adds that fuel efficiency was "only a small part" of the total energy used in a vehicle's lifetime.
Now clearly there are variations on the theme but the general message seems clear enough, a point raised by Ben Adams, environmental spokesman for the Association of British Drivers, on the fact that top political figures ride around in the Lexus GS450h, Honda Civic Hybrids and the Prius.
He commented: "Politicians seem keener to make policitally correct gestures than to get the science right."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
The Daily Mail ran today a survey on the most eco friendly cars the prius came in at place 74 the winner was the Jeep Wrangler .The survey was a birth to death to give the true carbon footprint of the car some very suprising results
andy bairstow needs to back up his statement. i do not believe anything someone posts attributed to a source unless they give you the reference to back up their source.
the daily mail did not run the survey.
the daily mail was reporting the story from "what car magazine" - see my post above timed at
[ hybrid cars not as green as range-rover - Dalglish Wed 4 Oct 06 14:09 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
