An F150 is more "green" than a Prius?
12-14-18, 05:47 AM
#1
Pole Position
Thread Starter
An F150 is more "green" than a Prius?
That was a statement made last night over drinks with friends- two guys start talking about how hybrids are over-promoted as being "green." When I asked for an explanation, they started mentioning the way EV's and hybrids are produced is more harmful to the environment than a traditional vehicle, how disposing of the battery at the end of its life is more harmful than that of a traditional vehicle, and how the tires on a car like the Prius don't/can't last as long as tires on traditional vehicles and therefore you dispose of more tires over the life of owning a hybrid. They summarized by saying their F150's were more "green" than a Prius over the life of the vehicle.
I understand conceptually the argument of the first two points (production and battery disposal), but not sure I'm buying into the tire argument. Effectively the question is do the hybrids make up for their higher "carbon footprint" during production, battery disposal, etc. by using less gasoline during driving through the life of the car?
I understand conceptually the argument of the first two points (production and battery disposal), but not sure I'm buying into the tire argument. Effectively the question is do the hybrids make up for their higher "carbon footprint" during production, battery disposal, etc. by using less gasoline during driving through the life of the car?
12-14-18, 09:02 AM
#2
Lexus Champion
This reminds me of the now-debunked report from a decade ago that claimed that the Hummer was greener than the Prius. With the death of the Hummer, it seems that the Ford F-150 has been substituted.
Google "hummer is more green than prius" and you will find many articles on this. I chose the article below because I believe it presents the rebuttal clearly and concisely.
The problem is that, despite the fact that the Prius is now a 2-decade old car (first produced in 1997), the technology is still poorly understood by many people, even so-called enthusiasts. And, unfortunately, we tend to fear what we do not understand; and when we fear something, we tend to grasp onto any stories that speak ill of the new technology, and so reinforce our fear of the unknown.
Source
Google "hummer is more green than prius" and you will find many articles on this. I chose the article below because I believe it presents the rebuttal clearly and concisely.
The problem is that, despite the fact that the Prius is now a 2-decade old car (first produced in 1997), the technology is still poorly understood by many people, even so-called enthusiasts. And, unfortunately, we tend to fear what we do not understand; and when we fear something, we tend to grasp onto any stories that speak ill of the new technology, and so reinforce our fear of the unknown.
Remember that post from a few months ago about a Hummer being greener than a Prius? Well, the outfit that compared those two iconic vehicles, CNW Research, has gotten its study picked up in England (where the comparison is between a Jeep Cherokee and a Prius) and Toyota is responding by calling the study "Recycled Rubbish?".
I was skeptical of the Hummer = green claim at the time, and people certainly got to talking in the comments about the post. Now Toyota steps in and says CNW is wrong on a lot of fronts, from simple factual errors to larger methodical mistakes. It's important to remember that Toyota isn't an objective bystander in the debate, but I've got to their claims make sense to me.
You can read Toyota's entire argument after the jump.
Recycled Rubbish?
CNW Marketing Research Inc. – Study on Hybrid Efficiency
A number of UK publications have recently re-presented the results of an old study by a North American marketing research agency, CNW Research Inc. This study makes some surprising and uncorroborated claims about the total environmental impact of vehicles over the complete lifecycle (i.e. production – use – recycling).
The media have picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Jeep Cherokee is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid saloon. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area.
The "results" of the CNW study
As with any model, it is critical that the methodology is valid, the assumptions are sound, and the data accurate. The CNW study makes several assumptions which undermine the conclusions arrived at. Without a scientific peer review, it is impossible to comment on any of these factors.
What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Example 1: These studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota's internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.
There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled.
In truth Toyota and sister brand Lexus have a comprehensive battery recycling programme in place and has been recycling Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case, and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information.
Toyota and other environmentally conscious car makers have been using life cycle assessment for many years to evaluate various advanced vehicle technologies. Toyota, along with many others, believes that the best way to judge the environmental impact of a vehicle is to do a full evaluation of all the inputs and outputs in every stage of its life. The lifetime energy use is just one of the many things to look at.
The environment and the role of the car in CO2 emissions are rightly a very important subject for debate. Toyota welcomes such debate. However, the debate is not helped by sensationalistic reporting of an uncorroborated and unrepresentative piece of marketing research carried out in North America.
I was skeptical of the Hummer = green claim at the time, and people certainly got to talking in the comments about the post. Now Toyota steps in and says CNW is wrong on a lot of fronts, from simple factual errors to larger methodical mistakes. It's important to remember that Toyota isn't an objective bystander in the debate, but I've got to their claims make sense to me.
You can read Toyota's entire argument after the jump.
Recycled Rubbish?
CNW Marketing Research Inc. – Study on Hybrid Efficiency
A number of UK publications have recently re-presented the results of an old study by a North American marketing research agency, CNW Research Inc. This study makes some surprising and uncorroborated claims about the total environmental impact of vehicles over the complete lifecycle (i.e. production – use – recycling).
The media have picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Jeep Cherokee is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid saloon. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area.
The "results" of the CNW study
As with any model, it is critical that the methodology is valid, the assumptions are sound, and the data accurate. The CNW study makes several assumptions which undermine the conclusions arrived at. Without a scientific peer review, it is impossible to comment on any of these factors.
What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Example 1: These studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota's internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.
There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled.
In truth Toyota and sister brand Lexus have a comprehensive battery recycling programme in place and has been recycling Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case, and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information.
Toyota and other environmentally conscious car makers have been using life cycle assessment for many years to evaluate various advanced vehicle technologies. Toyota, along with many others, believes that the best way to judge the environmental impact of a vehicle is to do a full evaluation of all the inputs and outputs in every stage of its life. The lifetime energy use is just one of the many things to look at.
The environment and the role of the car in CO2 emissions are rightly a very important subject for debate. Toyota welcomes such debate. However, the debate is not helped by sensationalistic reporting of an uncorroborated and unrepresentative piece of marketing research carried out in North America.
12-14-18, 02:33 PM
#4
Several issues here.
As for overall cost of operation, I think it was Consumer Reports that calculated overall cost (depreciation, maintenance, fuel) and I think the Prius came in on top, at about $5K per year. Most cars were about $8-10K.
As for tires, hey, they're tires. Why would Prius tires cost more? Why wouldn't they last as long? I think this is a bogus claim, although I haven't checked with a tire dealer.
As for recycling, the battery packs last for pretty much the life of the car. The Prius hybrid uses NiMh, not Lithium, if that makes any difference to the argument. Chinese were trying to lock up rare earths needed to make batteries, but good ol' capitalism saw to it that other mines have opened up.
I drive a 2010 RX450h. I've had it for two years. Yes, I save gasoline money, but I also appreciate the utter smoothness of power delivery. No up- and down-shifts, which now seem alien to me when I drive other cars. And when a rental car engine didn't shut down at a traffic light I thought at first something was wrong!
And if the guys were talking about an EV like the Tesla, then the numbers are different. Perhaps they were talking about pollution, where a valid argument can be made that a Tesla pollutes more than an ICE if the energy source is a coal plant.
As for overall cost of operation, I think it was Consumer Reports that calculated overall cost (depreciation, maintenance, fuel) and I think the Prius came in on top, at about $5K per year. Most cars were about $8-10K.
As for tires, hey, they're tires. Why would Prius tires cost more? Why wouldn't they last as long? I think this is a bogus claim, although I haven't checked with a tire dealer.
As for recycling, the battery packs last for pretty much the life of the car. The Prius hybrid uses NiMh, not Lithium, if that makes any difference to the argument. Chinese were trying to lock up rare earths needed to make batteries, but good ol' capitalism saw to it that other mines have opened up.
I drive a 2010 RX450h. I've had it for two years. Yes, I save gasoline money, but I also appreciate the utter smoothness of power delivery. No up- and down-shifts, which now seem alien to me when I drive other cars. And when a rental car engine didn't shut down at a traffic light I thought at first something was wrong!
And if the guys were talking about an EV like the Tesla, then the numbers are different. Perhaps they were talking about pollution, where a valid argument can be made that a Tesla pollutes more than an ICE if the energy source is a coal plant.
12-14-18, 06:52 PM
#5
Lexus Champion
Having just replaced the original tires on my ESh (after 4 years), I can say that the old low rolling resistance tires had less traction, especially wet traction. That may be due to the harder compound. I did not specifically look for low rolling resistance in my new tires but I wanted the greater traction.
As for recycling, the battery packs last for pretty much the life of the car. The Prius hybrid uses NiMh, not Lithium, if that makes any difference to the argument. Chinese were trying to lock up rare earths needed to make batteries, but good ol' capitalism saw to it that other mines have opened up.
I drive a 2010 RX450h. I've had it for two years. Yes, I save gasoline money, but I also appreciate the utter smoothness of power delivery. No up- and down-shifts, which now seem alien to me when I drive other cars. And when a rental car engine didn't shut down at a traffic light I thought at first something was wrong!
12-14-18, 07:24 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Toyota puts low rolling resistance tires on its hybrid vehicles. I have not checked, but I believe that low rolling resistance tires use a harder, faster-wearing compound. If your tires wear faster and have to be replaced more often, they will be more expensive over the life of the vehicle.
Having just replaced the original tires on my ESh (after 4 years), I can say that the old low rolling resistance tires had less traction, especially wet traction. That may be due to the harder compound. I did not specifically look for low rolling resistance in my new tires but I wanted the greater traction.
Having just replaced the original tires on my ESh (after 4 years), I can say that the old low rolling resistance tires had less traction, especially wet traction. That may be due to the harder compound. I did not specifically look for low rolling resistance in my new tires but I wanted the greater traction.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-14-18 at 07:30 PM.
12-14-18, 07:50 PM
#7
Lexus Champion
Somehow one has to wonder if the types of people who make such arguments aren't a product of a very bad education system. To start with the F150 comes in at a porky 4500 lbs and starts approaching 5000 lbs. How much of this massive truck is actually recyclable. Certainly since the aluminum trucks came out, a lot more of it because aluminum is highly recylable compared to steel. But it is still a much larger vehicle which is using more of a resource before it even gets on the road.
The Prius comes in at a whopping lightweight 2900 lbs. It's obvious to even a grade schooler that something that uses fewer resources to start with is going to come out ahead in the recycling department vs a massive truck that uses more of something to be manufactured. The battery bit is the crux of this argument and it's a valid point but it ignores the total footprint of each vehicle.
Which vehicle emits more CO2? Which vehicle uses less gasoline over its lifespan? The whole point of the Prius isn't that it cost more initially, but rather that it uses less of a resource. The Ford is gas guzzling hog by comparison.
The Prius comes in at a whopping lightweight 2900 lbs. It's obvious to even a grade schooler that something that uses fewer resources to start with is going to come out ahead in the recycling department vs a massive truck that uses more of something to be manufactured. The battery bit is the crux of this argument and it's a valid point but it ignores the total footprint of each vehicle.
Which vehicle emits more CO2? Which vehicle uses less gasoline over its lifespan? The whole point of the Prius isn't that it cost more initially, but rather that it uses less of a resource. The Ford is gas guzzling hog by comparison.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post