Slate's Bizbox
the green lantern: Illuminating answers to environmental questions.

Tank vs. HybridIs it possible that a Hummer's better for the environment than a Prius is?

By Brendan I. Koerner
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008, at 7:39 AM ET

(Continued from page 1)

"Dust to Dust" also posits that the vast majority of a car's cradle-to-grave energy gets expended during production. That assertion runs contrary to virtually every other analysis of vehicular life cycles, including those conducted by MIT (PDF) and Argonne National Laboratory. The authors of "Dust to Dust" try to explain this discrepancy on pages 277 and 278 of the report, by invoking a truly weird analogy to coffee production. (How weird? CNW proposes factoring a consumer's post-coffee "bathroom run" into the commodity's life-cycle equation.) The Lantern is, to say the least, unconvinced, especially since CNW refuses to reveal its methodology—about as bright a red flag as you could ever hope to see. CNW's science is so feeble, in fact, that the Central Connecticut student who first cited it went on to publish a partial recantation, admitting that "Dust to Dust" is "dubious at best." (The writer says he's still no fan of gas-electric hybrids, claiming they've been embraced to the exclusion of more promising technologies.)

Another major part of the anti-Prius meme is that the car's battery uses 32 pounds of nickel, mined in Sudbury, Ontario. The skeptical e-mails often state that Sudbury is an environmental wasteland that resembles "a surrealistic scene from the depths of hell." That assertion might have been true about three decades ago, long before the Prius. Nickel mining is by no means a clean endeavor, but Sudbury's conditions have improved in recent years. On top of that, all cars contain nickel in their frames—the Hummer's frame, for example, has twice as much nickel as the Prius'. Also, nickel is 80 percent to 95 percent recoverable during the recycling process. (Future hybrids may use lithium batteries instead of NiMH, though the next-generation Prius does not.)

All that said, Toyota acknowledges that manufacturing a Prius is more energy intensive than making a nonhybrid car. Argonne's scientists estimate that producing a pound's worth of a hybrid car requires 38,650 British thermal units, 23 percent more than that required to build a pound of a traditional car. But the Prius' fuel savings can make up that difference rather quickly, at least compared with the average car, which gets a measly 22.9 miles per gallon. (The EPA estimates the Prius' fuel efficiency at 48 miles per gallon in the city, 45 on the highway—estimates that Prius owners typically claim are far too low.)

Sadly, the Lantern fully expects to continue receiving the same anti-Prius e-mails, citing the same flimsy evidence. Perhaps because of its association with the glitterati, the Prius attracts a large amount of venom, mostly from critics who specialize in knocking the stuffing out of straw men. These naysayers gleefully point out the hypocrisy of stars who drive Priuses while jetting around the globe in private planes or lambaste Toyota for milking the car for publicity.

None of these critiques should obscure that fact that the Prius represents a step in the right direction—innovation designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions and that the market (abetted by tax breaks) seems to be rewarding. Will the car slow climate change all by its lonesome? Of course not, but no one has ever suggested as much. Will it soon be eclipsed by newer technologies? Quite likely, and quite hopefully. But attacking the Prius for not being perfect—especially with lame scuttlebutt masquerading as science—strikes the Lantern as dangerously inane.

Is there an environmental quandary that's been keeping you up at night? Send it to , and check this space every Tuesday.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Brendan I. Koerner is a contributing editor at Wired and a columnist for Gizmodo. His first book, Now the Hell Will Start, is out now.
Photograph of Hummer H3 on the Slate home page by Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images. Illustration by Robert Neubecker.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Note from the Fray Editor

Plenty of sensible argument and discussion in this Fray: a question on replacement batteries; a discussion on biogradability; how about those diesel cars here; and, of all things, criticism of Slate's headline-writing abilities.

Comments from the Fray

It's pretty counterintuitive that a Hummer has less environmental impact. But where the "hybrids are just for symbolism not for really doing something about the environment" idea shows some truth is in the fact that hybrid technology is mainly devoted to small cars which 1) already have the least environmental impact and 2) are the most negatively affected by having to carry the excess weight and space of the hybrid system. it seems intuitive that the biggest bang for the buck would be for hybrids in things like... well, a Hummer. Or a Suburban. the bigger the vehicle, the more room for improvement; the bigger and more thirsty the gasoline engine you're turning off at lights and while cruising; the less the impact of the weight and bulk of the system on the total mass of the vehicle.

Obviously a few manufacturers have made steps towards hybridizing their trucky vehicles; Ford Escape, for instance, although I think they've only gotten as far as shutting down the engine when stopped. technology that Subaru sold, decades ago. But Chrysler still features the Hemi for their monsters, rather than a hybrid, emphasizing the ability to crush the earth, rather than preserve it.

It's symbolism on both sides; the pro-environmental folks want not only to be environmentally conscious, but to advertise themselves as environmentally conscious. and the big vehicle buyers, want something that serves as a bumper sticker saying 'screw the environment'.

Even Honda's Accord hybrid which was the brilliantly logical answer to how do you make a midsize car faster without making it more thirsty was a failure in the market to the point where Honda pulled it. That undoubtedly gives pause to any manufacturer who wants to revamp their car line intelligently. Rather look at Toyota, who gets huge public relations boost for selling a few Priuses, while simultaneously selling thousands of big heavy thirsty trucks and suvs.

--gzuckier

(To reply, click here)

(3/19)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.