If you buy an electric car, you suck.
I’m all in favor of innovative solutions, and of doing what it takes to get there. In most cases. There are a lot of directions in which we might go that make no sense. Some may make sense in the future, but don’t appear to now, and vice versa. I wish I had a car that was free to run and had zero emissions. What am I willing to do to get there? Should I buy a Prius, which is a step in the right direction?
In terms of the ratio of dollar cost to environmental benefit, trading your existing car in for a Prius to take advantage of its marginally better mileage is probably about the worst thing you can do. A single-suspendered redneck who simply keeps his 15-year-old pickup is doing way more to protect the environment than you are. You see, any time anyone buys a new car, we are instructing that a new car be built that would not otherwise have been needed. When you consider the entire resourcing chain of every component on a new car, it’s clear that its environmental impact is significant. At the same time you order your new car, someone buys your used one, and somewhere down the line someone is sending an old clunker to the scrapyard, and another environmental impact event is created. The redneck’s higher emissions over the lifetime of the car are a drop in the bucket compared to your new car purchase. You elitist bastard.
Speaking strictly from the perspective of today’s immediate environmental impact, it almost never makes sense to buy a new car; and only then when an existing car is accidentally destroyed.
But even though the redneck and his pickup are the environmental champions of the day, there is still a reason to buy the Prius, Volt, Tesla, what have you. You’re investing in the future. And not because the Prius will have a better long-term impact, because with its giant battery even that is not necessarily true. I can think of a number of reasons why today’s Prius is a terrible solution; those aren’t the point.
This is a future investment in a much broader sense. Toyota realized that when they first introduced the car and were willing to lose money on each one sold. In order to do something well, we first have to do it badly. The Prius, the Volt, and all the other innovative cars are necessary stepping stones. We’re still in first grade here.
I’m learning to ride a unicycle. I suck. I’m going to have to continue sucking before I get good at it. No amount of advance planning can let me skip straight to skillful mastery of the unicycle on my first try.
It’s the same with next generation cars, fuels, energy sources, everything. If we want to get good at them, we’re going to have to be bad at them first. The innovators who get us to real solutions are going to be the ones who are willing to suck first. The more of us who participate in that experiment, the more we’ll learn how not to suck.
Suck away.
‘If you buy an electric car you suck.’ Some people actually buy their first car, often because they simply need it for their commute. There’s a limit to what you can do by bike and still keep some spare time. Even if you’re saying that everyone should always buy an occasion, your headline doesn’t cover that, and besides it’s impractical for a lot of people and in many cases not even that green. So let me fix your headline for you:
‘If you use sensationalist headlines you suck.’
Lighten up Francis…errr….Martha.
You read the article, didn’t you?
Yes, and it is hilarious that everyone is so up-in-arms about the headline. They have completely missed the entire point of Dunning’s little essay.
“The redneck’s higher emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to your new car purchase.”
Reference?
This line of thinking is along the same lines as the “study” by a marketing company that “proved” that a Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer. If it sounds preposterous it is because it is; it completely ignored fuel consumption over the lifetime of the vehicle.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth
I declare lack of skeptical thinking until a reference for an environmental impact comparison over the lifetime of the vehicle is produced.
This is a good site to compare the difference in barrels of oil used by different vehicle models. Compare the Prius to SUVs or large luxury cars. The difference is anything but “marginal”
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
The anual petroleum consumption of a 2010 Prius is 6.9 barrels per year. A 2000 AWD Ford F-150 (the redeneck’s dream car) is 24.5 barrels a year. An almost 4X difference is anything but marginal. Over 10 years is 70 compared to 250 barrels. Marginal?
It’s hilarious that none of the so-called ‘skeptics’ posting in this thread (to say nothing of the author of the article,) have even tried to respond to this point. C’mon, guys, put up or shut up.
Actually somite, Brian’s claim regarding throwing away working cars doesn’t sound preposterous, it sounds quite logical. Building a new car has high energy & polution costs. So does throwing away an old car. The issue then is a balancig between the extra energy that would have been consumed by the old thrown away car if it had been used for the rest of its life vs. the saved energy in using the new car + the cost of building that car earlier than necessary.
In addition, your claim that your cited article (comparing SUVs to hybrids) is the same line of thinking as proposed in this post is outrageous. The point made at the beggining of this post is that the overall gain from throwing away a gas guzzler and buying a new fuel efficient car isn’t as good as it seems because you are unnecessarily building a new car. Your cited article addresses something completely different: it speaks about comparing new car to new car.
You are of course correct that it would be good if Brian used citations, but it would also be good to read and understand an article prior to submitting criticism.
Bad headline man. I generally agree with you, but you are not talking about electric cars here – you are talking about gas-electric hybrids. We get up in arms when headlines in the general media are inaccurate, we need to be careful about it when we do it too.
The same applies equally to all-electric cars. It has a short-term negative environmental impact, but that’s needed to get to long-term positive environmental impact.
Wow, way to read the headline and NOTHING else guys!
Honestly, Brian should had written “peas and carrots” over and over again instead of the thoughtful article he wrote for all the attention it received from you people. It would have saved him a lot of time and effort too.
Here this is from the article itself;
“The innovators who get us to real solutions are going to be the ones who are willing to suck first. The more of us who participate in that experiment, the more we’ll learn how not to suck.”
And THAT is what the man’s talking about folks!
Sheesh, read more than the headline, THEN comment.
Pete- who actually READ the article and THEN the comments before writing this…
Good article, Brian. Very right. I think you really hit it on the headthis time. Why bitch about the headline when it’s the article that matters?
@spencer Because we bitch about bad headlines and misleading lead-ins when the cranks do it. We MUST hold ourselves to the same standard.
Do we, though? Even in old media, surely, we hold news article headlines to a tighter standard than opinion column headlines – and rightly so.
Apparently Somite isn’t a redneck:
There really isn’t an AWD F-150! Its a 4×4 (AWD is 4×4 on all the time!) and no respectable redneck can be found with an AWD vehicle!
Besides a real redneck’s dream vehicle would be the F-350 (or even F-550)! Both of which are even worse on the fuel mileage!
(Full disclosure: I’m very happy with my F-350 4×4!)
Great article, Brian. I suppose many people don’t think about the impact of the manufacturing of “green products”. Just take ethanol and the CO2 issue.
However, I don’t entirely agree with he reasoning in the last paragraphs. You don’t necessarily have to suck before doing something great. When riding the unicycle you probably will suck, but that comparison doesn’t hold when it comes to technical innovations; you really can plan something in theory and produce a great first-time result.
Of course, drawing from the experiences of an early product, the next one will probably be even better, but thats not a reason to buy a lot of bad cars – the experience can be gathered from small scale tests.
What I’m trying to say is: we don’t really need to buy sucky, green cars as a necessary evil before we’ll get good ones.
Otherwise a great article!
Brian loves to stir the pot and I thought this was good. Sensational headlines aren’t inherently bad. This one immediately provoked me to read it and I thought his message of “you suck, but that is a necessary part of progress that shouldn’t stop us” was great.
It is a confusing headline, and I guess I could see people trying to take it out of context, but, I thought the content was clear and the final understanding of what the title gave me the same sort of pleasure I get from seeing a clever twist at the end of a movie.
Awesome. That’s exactly why we bought a Prius. To show support for the technology and continued R&D into rechargeable car batteries.
The reality is that we all suck! The electric hybrid shifts some consumption from oil to consumption of other fossil fuels (e.g., coal, natural gas) or nuclear. I suppose electric cars are a step in the right direction – But until we are willing to step away from individual forms of transit (cars)in favor of mass transit we are just fooling ourselves. Another key issue to me seems to be the importance of moving away from centralized fossil fuel based production to decentralized renewable energy production (e.g., home- or site-based solar, wind power generation). There really is just too much capital appreciation tied up with the status quo to make any real changes. And we, as a species, lack the propensity to change until we are forced to – and in this scenario – that may be too late.
Good article. We need to think rationally about the worlds problems, not just pick a belief and cling to it.
We have to become more efficient in our use of resources, there will never be a single black and white right answer, just a series of grey compromises.
@Somite — While the study may have been faulty, Brian isn’t discussing whether a Prius is more environmentally friendly than a Hummer. He is comparing a new Prius with an old truck. One already exists and has existed for a long time, the other has to be produced.
Brian touches on a more important point though. We often hear the mantra “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”. This is crap. If you want to be environmentally friendly in an optimum manner the real mantra is Create, Conserve, Consume. Create new things that do things better. Create them in such a way that they can be reused in the future and most importantly CONSUME the creation.
Consumption releases resources. Resources make it easier to survive. Ease of survival leads to more creative thought, freeing up more resources and making life on the planet better.
I still think people who buy Priuses are usually nuts. The ones who do it because they want to buy a new car I respect. The ones who do it to save the environment by reducing their fuel consumption — Ignorant Elitist Bastards.
And how do you think that electricity driving your vaunted electric car is being produced? From thin air?
Or from:
Nuclear plants
coal fired plants
Hydro electric dams – with all the attending environmental destruction and loss of land
Convert all the power used by all vehicles and convert it into kW – I doubt there is enough money in the kitty to build even 1/10 of the plants needed for a conversion to electric vehicles.
@peter:
“Convert all the power used by all vehicles and convert it into kW – I doubt there is enough money in the kitty to build even 1/10 of the plants needed for a conversion to electric vehicles.”
You’d be wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle#Grid_capacity
“Grid capacity
If a large proportion of private vehicles were to convert to grid electricity it would increase the demand for generation and transmission, and consequent emissions. However, overall energy consumption and emissions would diminish because of the higher efficiency of electric vehicles over the entire cycle. In the USA it has been estimated there is already nearly sufficient existing power plant and transmission infrastructure, assuming that most charging would occur overnight, using the most efficient off-peak base load sources.[10]“
As per my rough calculations:
electric car at .82 MJ/km
http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/energy-use-cars-5-gasoline-cars-vs-electric-cars
average use 20×10^3km/year = 4.600MW/year
at app. 250×10^6 vehicles in NA = 11.5×10^9 MWH/year.
According to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.pdf
the total production in 2008 was 4.19 x 10^12 kWH = 4.19×10^9 MWh/ year.
According to those just rough calcs at fairly conservative levels – we are producing only 1/3 what would be needed to run all vehicles in NA on electricity.
From your own source, the correct number for electric cars is .54MJ/km (you used the number before regenerative breaking was added in).
It also appears you may have slipped a decimal when multiplying by 250E6 cars.
My calculations, arrived slightly differently, arrive at the same number if you made the two corrections.
Total Miles driven in US = 3E12
3E12 miles = 4.828E12 km
4.828E12km x .54MJ/km = 2.6E12 MJ = 2.6E12(MW sec)
2.6E12(MW sec) x 1hr/3600sec = 724E6 MWhr
This is only 17% of the production capacity (unless I also made a mistake, which is possible).
Even if the infrastructure exists for delivering the power and cars charge at night, you still have to consume a power source to generate the electricity. If you live in an area like the midwest with a lot of coal power, that can mean additional CO2 emissions.
According to an article in last October’s National Geographic (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/04/electric-cars-pg2), an electric car using coal-powered electricity emits 80% as much carbon as a car getting 21 mpg. That amounts to an equivalent 26 mpg car. In that case, might be better to go with the hybrid or an efficient internal combustion.
I’m afraid that wasn’t very convincing. You compared the environmental cost of buying a new prius vs keeping an old car. Even if we concede that fact, wouldn’t it be a more appropriate to compare buying a new prius vs buying a different new car?
I think you missed Brian’s point,as did several other readers.
Yes, I’m quite sure I did miss the point. I continue to miss the point.
So I guess I’m off the hook since my ’03 Prius is the first car I’ve ever had, right? Got it when I was 17, no plans to replace it any time soon.
I agree with Miller though. It sounds like the real problem is people who insist that they need a new car every 2 years, even if the old one is still in great shape. Are people really going out and switching to a hybrid before they would have gotten a new car anyway? The real question is how a new hybrid compares to a new conventional car.
unless you’re ordering something with a custom package, then you’re not actually contributing to the extra environmental impact. the auto companies are going to produce a certain number of vehicles with a variety of accessories regardless. so if you take one of those cars off the lot instead of having the company turn out a new car just for you, then your “immediate” environmental impact is not large at all.
Keep in mind that the number of cars made this year is forecast from how many they sold last year. Or put differently. If you don’t buy that car, and no one else does either, they make fewer cars next year.
I’m buying a Nissan Leaf (all electric) this year to replace our family-of-four’s one car, a 1995 Honda Odyssey. I live in Washington State, where 75% of our electricity production is hydroelectricity, 10% nuclear, and 15% natural gas, oil, coal and wind.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=WA
I submit that this is the most environmentally sound decision our family can make, given that my wife’s job requires commuting by car (I and the the kids take the bus, walk or ride bikes to work/school).
My principal concern is that the car’s batteries will end up in a landfill, but I believe that cleaning up our air is a more immediate concern than cleaning up our dumps.
I don’t know about these new classes of batteries, but the conventional lead acid batteries are the #1 most recycled (%97)product. If they follow that model, the environmental impact, potentially, may not be too bad. However, having said that,the recycling of any battery needs to be done properly, and that isn’t always happening,so there is a problem there that needs to be addressed.
Right now electric cars like the Leaf are probably destined to mostly be the second car in a two car household because of their limited range. That hurdle will have to be overcome before people will want exclusively electric cars. As someone pointed out, electric cars overall impact on air pollution depends on how the electricity is produced, but it seems electric cars for commuting in big cities would have a large impact on local air pollution.
And since the Feds (and some states) are giving rebates or tax credits on these cars, it’s not only the buyers of the cars that are “investing in the future”. It’s also the taxpayers. So give yourselves a pat on the back taxpayers, and hope it’s money well spent.
So where does my purchase of a 3-yr old hybrid to serve as a necessary means of transport in the absence of a mass transit system & no other vehicle in my life for my 70 mi round-trip daily commute fall?
I think the article is aimed at the very few people who, as Jake K. mentioned, get a new car every few years. Most of the rest of us don’t have the cash or inclination.
I think, with a 70mile round trip commute, you would find that a small conventional petrol car (1.2L-1.6L) would get you far better fuel economy at a vastly reduced purchase price, with the added advantage of not having 2 motors and a battery to service.
Hybrids only work when in stop start traffic, once you get on to the open road they become a liability, read any real world comparisons and you will see this.
For starters; the environmental impact of a cat lies mostly in its usage and not in its construction. Building energy costs for cars are 11% for ICEs and 15% for hybrid
http://current.com/green/89993794_eco-question-whats-the-environmental-impact-of-building-a-car.htm
The basis of this article is therefore incorrect.
Not a cat, car!
Actually true for cats as well.
Jake said “It sounds like the real problem is people who insist that they need a new car every 2 years, even if the old one is still in great shape.”
Exactly. The most economical solution is to drive a car into the ground, and THEN replace it. (That’s what the Cartalk guys recommend, isn’t it?) It seems plausible that the most economical solution is also the most environmental.
When you become proficient at the unicycle thing, come on down to San Marcos, Texas. We have a The Unicycle Football League, complete with cheerleaders, half-time show, beer and dogs. It’s a lot of fun, and no one owns a hybrid electric car, but many have old pick-ups. ;-)
PS The local Freethought Society meets at the same coffee shop, as the football team, so you can kill two birds with one stone.
Brian, what I got from your article is that “unicycles are more efficient and better for the environment than bicycles,and that everyone should ride one!!!” COMPLETE FAIL!!! may I suggest that you go back and take Physics 101!!! ;-)
P.S. I hope you wear a helmet.A head is a terrible thing to crack.
I do disagree with this one point:
“You see, any time anyone buys a new car, we are instructing that a new car be built that would not otherwise have been needed.”
Well no – cars are not built upon order. Cars are built in the previous year by the millions according to what the car company thinks it can sell. So its not like there’s a factory line sitting around idle waiting for orders to come in.
@KC, it’s a simplification, but by buying something you are increasing demand for the thing.
The article seems to be saying “If you don’t currently need a new car and plan to buy one anyway, don’t buy a hybrid.” I’ve never met anyone with enough money laying around to just buy a car when they didn’t need one, so I’m not sure there’s any such issue. Maybe there are some rich make-believe environmentalists who upgrade to the greenest technology all the time, but I doubt there are enough of them to make much of an impact (though I don’t have any statistics on it).
Really if you want to be an environmentalist consumer, it’s best to buy as little as possible in general and focus on quality when you do buy. The words are reduce, reuse, and recycle; are we forgetting the first two?
That’s not what he is saying at all.
He is saying that hybrids are not really that great now – marginal improvement in gas mileage, potential issues with battery disposal, etc. So, they kind of suck. However, you can’t get good at anything unless you work through the period where you suck. So, even though the people who are currently buying the Prius are somewhat deluding themselves when they get all smug about the environmental benefits, they are serving a useful purpose in helping Toyota, et al, further develop the technology. So, eventually, hybrids and electrics will no longer suck.
If I’m not mistaken, the big environmental plus for hybrids is around town or stop and go traffic situations which is when the electric motor operates thereby reducing the air pollution in the immediate area. At highway speeds they are running on the gas engine and because of the weight of the batteries are getting slightly less gas mileage than a non-hybrid. I wonder if anyone has tried to figure out what the environmental impact of a hybrid is?
This whole thread contains the most instances of misinformation I’ve seen in skeptiblog! Mileage of my Prius in city 50 MPG, HIghway 48 MPG. Yes, less mileage but still way better than any conventional car.
The negatives that have been cited for hybrid and electric cars are far less impactful than the current impact of conventional cars in terms of energy, pollution and overall environmental or political impacts.
Consider; if everyone drove a Prius there would be no need to import any oil..
Actually, you are saying the same thing I was trying to say which is that if you take the batteries out of a Prius it would get better gas mileage because it would weigh less. I didn’t intend to compare it to other cars or mean to imply that it doesn’t get good gas mileage in comparison to most other cars.
As for the environmental impact of hybrids and electric cars versus gas cars, citations are needed before I believe it’s anything other than speculation by you.
A pries would not get the same mileage without the battery or hybrid system. What you are describing is a smart or yaris that even with greatly reduced weight does not reach the fuel efficiency of the prius.
Third time’s a charm? It was a trivial point, but what I’m saying is that if you remove the battery and electric motor from a Prius it will weight less which would mean slightly better gas mileage at highway speeds. What would those few hundred (I’m guessing) pounds mean for highway gas mileage in a new Prius with a curb weight of 3042 lbs? A mile or two per gallon? Doesn’t really change the fact that this car gets good highway gas mileage even with the battery and electric motor.
Without the hybrid system a car like the Prius, a mid-size hatchback, would not be drivable and I doubt it would achieve a similar mileage. Again, think of smaller ligther cars that do not achieve the mileage of the Prius like the Yaris or Smarts.
Looks like I was mistaken. I thought the electric motor was dead weight at highway speeds, but if I’m understanding what I just read on the internet, it also assists the gas engine. I don’t think I’ll mention this to my brother who owns a Camry hybrid because I might have (which means I did) made the same mistake in talking to him, and unlike you, he will call me an idiot.
This is my experience cruising at highway speeds. Once acceleration stops and under the right conditions, the combustion engine may turn off, the Prius continues coasting with spurts of assisted energy by the electric engine to continue the acquired momentum. It is the state that Prius owners call “gliding”; when everything is right with the world ;)
It’s as if the Prius has a mind of its own ;-)
Consumer Reports rates the Prius at 44 MPG overall, with 32 MPG city and 55 MPG on the highway in real world driving. They state that “…our tested Prius averaged 44 mpg overall and is still the most fuel-efficient car you can buy”, so it’s highway mileage is far superior to most cars, even with the heavy battery.
Those numbers were discussed at priuschat.com and we have no idea how they could get such mileage. Same for the prius episode on bullshit. There is no way to get such low numbers on a Prius unless you drive it the worst way possible. Normal driving will result in near 50 mpg mileage.
Somite- This is what CR’s web site says about fuel economy testing:”Among Consumer Reports’ vehicle test criteria are measurements of fuel economy. Our fuel economy numbers come from our measurements using a precision flow meter and are rounded to the nearest mile per gallon (mpg).
CR’s overall mileage is calculated from equal portions of city and expressway driving and on a 150-mile trip.”
I have also heard criticisms about various reports of MPG testing on the Prius, and it is important to remember that people’s driving habits can differ dramatically (jack rabbit starts,riding the brake,not using cruise control etc.). You will notice that the highway mileage that they gave was higher that what you reported (50 MPG). CR has a long history of solid evidence based research, so I doubt that they screwed up their testing (which is consistent year to year on the Prius.Rather, I suspect that some Prius owners are more careful in their driving habits than the average driver, and try to maximize their fuel efficiency. The test drivers at CR probably try to go out of their way to make driving conditions the same from one car model to the next, so as not to skew their findings,thus giving readers a good baseline for comparison from one car to the next. As the saying goes,”your mileage may vary”.
All I can tell you from personal experience and many other prius owners is that you really have to try hard to get mileage in the 30s. It is definitively not average even for aggressive drivers.
Well, look at it this way,regardless of how much better mileage that some owners report (I will point out that there are others who complain that they aren’t getting what they expected) compared to what CR’s testers got, CR STILL rates the Prius as the most fuel efficient car you can buy based off their testing,including the laughably small Smart For Two Passion. So using their findings as a base of comparison should give you a reasonably good idea of which to choose based off of your needs. Their MPG data should be used as a standard, not as an absolute.
This is just retarded!
Even the title just shows arrogance..
This isnt about EVs, its about buying anything.
Lets all sit in the dark and stare and the wall, thats way more environmental than the 15 yr old pick up truck.
How is anything ever going to change with your argument. EVs could have been made years ago, but they are only getting better because there is demand.
This post is a serious waste of kilobytes!!!
“A single-suspendered redneck who simply keeps his 15-year-old pickup is doing way more to protect the environment than you are.”
I laughed when I read that, having just purchased a new pickup to replace my old one, which I had for 16 years. However, I don’t wear suspenders (double or single).
I’m looking forward to the day when the technology is available to manufacture an affordable 4X4 with power to carry and pull loads up and down the hills and mountains where I live. But until then, I’m happy to support (by my purchase) the means by which an auto manufacturer can experiment in alternative energy vehicles for those without my particular needs.
“Toyota realized that when they first introduced the car and were willing to lose money on each one sold.”
True. And in addition, if people like me don’t buy their other vehicles, Toyota wouldn’t have the profit margins necessary to risk in developing alternative energy vehicles, either. So while my Tacoma V6 may not be directly contributing to a solution, it’s not as big a part of the problem as some may think, because my purchase is an indirect means of furthering Toyota’s technological innovation.
For an opposing viewpoint that does pretty much exactly the calculation Brian proposes:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2008/04/21/ask_pablo_cars
“Is it environmentally better to keep my 1986 Mercedes-Benz W126 or buy a new hybrid?
The consensus among some environmentalists — perhaps ones who drive late-’60s Mustangs — seems to be that driving your old car creates significantly less pollution than the manufacture of a new car. I wish it were that easy.”
He does analysis using a US Dept. of Energy model for calculating the energy costs of car production, and concludes that the final answer to whether it’s better to buy the Prius or not is “it depends”.
I know Brian enjoys sticking it to the hippies, but there is lots of sloppy assumptions made in this post.
I like his point that driving an older car might have less of an environmental impact than buying a new one, but people who want a shiny, trendy new car are going to get one regardless.
Ten years ago, they would’ve bought a big ol’ SUV, now,(thanks to shifting trends) they want a Prius instead, and that is bad because…?
The battery disposal arguement seems lame and desperate to me, the landfill I go to won’t let me dispose of mostly empty paint cans there, what makes you think I’d be allowed to dump a 200 pound lead battery?
Batteries are recyclable, as electric cars become more common, a new support industry of battery recycling and reconditioning will flourish, this should have free market libertarians licking their chops in anticipation of new avenues of entrepreneurship.
Also the speculation made by some commenters regarding a shift towards 100% electric transportation is irrational, that is never going to happen.
We will always need fossil fuels, the point is to diversify our energy needs so we aren’t so dependant on oil.
Electric isn’t always the ideal solution, but in cases where it DOES make sense, we should be exploring it.
And, some people don’t seem to know that a Prius, (unlike the Volt or Leaf), does not run on electricity from the grid. It generates its own by converting wasted energy from braking into electricity, which feeds a small electric motor, which compensates for its tiny engine.
It’s a very clever and elegant idea, and will probably be incorporated into most new cars eventually.
In the meantime, all new technologies need early adopters, which was Brian’s last point, but more often than not, these early adopters are privilaged, upper-class, politically progressive, organic-cake eaters.
How does telling them they suck help anything?
“How cars waste space”: http://peterstair.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-cars-waste-space.html
What if for starters we began to educate drivers on how achieve better fuel economy in whatever they drive? This way, Prius owners and “single-suspendered rednecks” with their fuel sucking pig 15-year-old pickups could suck less?
I’m personally learning to “suck” less by driving in a way to minimize fuel consumption, safely arriving at my destination AND saving money. It’s called hypermiling. Toyota and other manufactures are investing in the future and innovating. And in the best way that I know how to, so am I.
This article does raise an important issue for environmentally minded sceptics – don’t take environmental claims at face value. Of course we are going to have differing opinions on the best way to live, but we need to evaluate each claim or concept on it’s own merits; just as we do most other things.
Nice…make claims with no numbers to back it up. Typical.
Well, clearly when a vehicle is at the point where it should be replaced that’s the best time to replace it with a clean vehicle. Speeding up the process as you say isn’t necessarily the best choice because of the embedded energy cost of the existing vehicle. On the other hand you’re pretty hard on the stereotypes there. The person who truly needs a truck should buy a truck and is unlikely to be able to use a Prius to replace a truck. What sucks the most is the people buying trucks that have been upholstered to be luxury automobiles and they only use the thing to go to the grocery store.
All you electric/hybrid people are wrong. The most economical and environmental vehicle choice is the Volkswagen TDI’s. They are getting close to 60 mpg highway! I drive a TDI and it will last a whole lot longer than your Prius’s. I drive my cars until they go to the recyclers!
Clean diesel is the answer. Those batteries of yours are dangerous and toxic for the environment!
Plus you get a real car that can carry 4 big people and cargo in comfort.
http://tdi.vw.com/
How many Jews can it fit? That’s an anti-VW joke, not an anti-Jewish joke.
*ahem* Not to mention that EVs still get their energy from somewhere, and that somewhere is usually from a power plant. And usually the power plant either has considerable emissions (i.e. coal- fired or most thermal power plants) or causes dangerous wastes to accumulate (i.e. nuclear power plants). So, even though the driver won’t be directly causing emissions and these other environmental impacts, they will most likely still end up as a result. Keep in mind I’m not saying that this is the case 100% of the time, I’m just putting it out there that EVs might not be as pure, environmental impact- wise, as some would like to think.
It’s a question of efficiency. Producing energy at a power plant is much more efficient than in an internal combustion energy; almost by an order of magnitude.
You can take my Hemi when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the steering wheel. Roar!
I have a TDI Beetle, one of the safest cars on the road, and I fill it up, maybe once a month. I’ve had it for 10 years, and it will run on bio-diesel. I think the TDI, or something similar, is the way to go. Especially since hydrogen in the U.S. is generated via coal, and full electric vehicles would increase dependence on more fossil fuel burning power plants, to generate the electricity… but that’s just me.
I’ve got a 99 Beetle TDI and I love that bug too. So much head room for us tall people.
I drive an 8 year old car that I paid cash for. I keep it in good running condition(frequent oil changes, keeping the tires properly inflated etc.)and I get about 26mpg. I’d like to lower my impact on the environment but the impact on my wallet has a higher priority. By the way I think you ALL suck LOL.
Diesel is nothing but concentrated gasoline. If you compare the number of barrels of oil per year consumed by a diesel or gas car of the same model you will see the difference is only minimal.
Diesel can save money and reduces the frequency of going to the gas station. But if you care about consumption or environmental impact diesel is of no benefit.
You could use vegetable oil to produce biodiesel but this still results in emissions.
No, diesel is not concentrated gasoline. Diesel takes a lot less to refine than gasoline. Different processes and they get different stuff from that one barrel of crude.
Clean Diesel is the most cost effective and efficient vehicle today and gets you a real car and not a toy!
You don’t have to take my word for it. Go to this website to compare the same vehicle model in gas or diesel versions in barrels of oil a year
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
Jetta. 14 barrels
Jetta TDI 12 barrels
Prius. 6 barrels
Look at the consumer mileage reports. They are pretty close and I would say the VW is still low because they are saying 49mi/gal for the VW Jetta tdi.
So when you look at the cost of the vehicle and the battery issues, I’ll take the VW any day.
The VW TDI will live a long time too.
I think Brian overall has a point, but there seems to be an assumption that all cars are purchased without other contribution decision factors.
We purchased a Prius in 2006 because we had our first child, and we needed a larger car for the car seat. The back seat in my previous car (a Saturn SC coupe) was simply is too small for an infant car seat; it literally wouldn’t fit. So, we needed a new vehicle that had more room in the back seat.
So, because of lifestyle changes, we needed to replace my 8-yr-old Saturn with a larger vehicle. Given that change in requirements, getting a Prius was the environmentally sound choice.
Of course, Brian’s point is valid about new vs. old, and it would have been more sustainable for us to have purchased a used Prius instead of a new Prius. But other than that, getting a Prius was the right, non-sucky choice because we were going to have to get something.
FWIW, we get 51 MPG in the summer and 41 MPG in the winter. Both greatly exceed the 30 MPG we were getting with the Saturn.
On another note, it would be more useful if we used Gallons per Mile instead of Miles per Gallon (http://www.mpgillusion.com/), but I don’t think that change is happening any time soon.
The title of this article is a disgrace! It says absolutely nothing about what I was hoping to read. And the article itself is even worse! My god, there’s not a single mention about anything that I was expecting on an article about potted plants.
C’mon Mr Dunning, you call yourself a skeptic, and yet you can’t even get the basics of soil pH and weevils right. I’m just so indignated right now.
Totally off topic but I just picked up a barn find 1976 Honda Civic with 62000 genuine miles in immaculate, show room condition. I drove 300km on one quarter of the tank. I think it’s a 40ltr tank. Yeah. Just thought I’d mention that. Brrrrrooooooom!
Brrrrroooom, your gas gauge is probably stuck! When cars are stored for long times, thing stop working. You are saying 1200km per tank…. of 40L. I don’t think soooooooo.
I’ll take into consideration that it may be a faulty fuel gauge but then I didn’t mention it was 300km of freeway driving in 4th gear almost the entire way and the revs were pretty low. Then take into consideration this car was a barn find 3 years ago and since has been a daily driver with a monthly service and tune whilst driven in a Car Club.
Glad to accept the faulty gauge or inaccurate one. Thought of that though. The full tank was roughly 40ltrs of unleaded 95. The refill when I arrived at home was a little over 12ltrs. So not far from it. Many variables to consider though.
Still…that’s pretty damn good. Definitely better than my Hemi and a world of difference from my workhorse.
So what you are saying that you are getting 4.0L/100km!
No way for that car. Even if that car has no emission control devices on it! Were you going downhill for 300km?
I can only tell you what I observed. I filled the tank to capacity just as I left and filled to capacity when I arrived. As I said, there are many variables which would enable better fuel economy and reduce it. Cold day, smooth, new roads, minimal hill climb, brand new consumable engine components (spark plugs, air filter) pressure in tyres, the finely tuned, light alloy displaced 1,238 cc engine, no aircon, virtually no creature comfort electricals, utilising neutral on downhill, selective low RPM gear changes but not low enough for excessive load. Just little things.
Maybe the car is blessed with positive, universal energy. Maybe it was a fluke. But yes, it drove roughly 300km on 12ltrs of fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_%28first_generation%29
The car could achieve 40 mpg-US (5.9 L/100 km; 48 mpg-imp) on the highway.
Wow…I saved a whole 5.7 liters. Guess you really can’t trust Wikipedia or general estimates for everything. I’ll have to compare it with the Daily Express Motor Show Review and the state of our roads compared with the state 35 years ago.
If you want to be really fuel efficient, just use a motorcycle.
BTW, the 76 civic scored terribly on crash tests. Not a very safe vehicle.
Safe as opposed to a motorcycle? Very safe. I do agree with the fuel efficiency of motorcycles though and I wouldn’t hesitate in saying the “cool” factor of a road bike being somewhat higher than a 76 Civic. Seems the only heads I turned were covered in grey hair. It’s a total spectrum opposite to the Hemi in regards to coolness but a nice change and fun to drive.
So now I have a granny car. The collection is complete.
Motorcycles are extremely dangerous. Not by themselves (unless you take risks or stupid) but they seem to interact poorly with 4 wheel vehicles.
No match when they collide as they seem to do often at intersections.
I was referring to the safety of the 76 civic in crash testing. There is a big difference in today’s modern vehicles that just makes good sense to forget about that 76 civic.
Wait, are you telling me that a 76 Civic isn’t as safe as a modern car?
Sense and classic old cars. Who’d a thunk it.
Dah……
Classic cars were built like a tank and their mass protects them (not really).
Here’s a thought. Did you know that the cars build today could potentially be less safe than cars 35 years in the future?
Yes. I’ll keep my classics.
What, there are still going to be cars in 35 years?
Well, assuming we don’t all die in 2012 when the Anunaki from Nibiru invade. If you’re lucky enough not to be eaten then I recommend the 2045 model VW Golf GTi. They’re going to be really retro looking. Kind of like the 2010 model, only, with the option of a flying car.
So if you buy a non-electric car, you suck even more, right?
First time blogger, first time Prius Ownder…Funny headline, great article. Got it. Saved my pennies last year by borrowing my sons 1997 Ford, BRONCO to get to work, and finally in Jan 2010, bought my 2004 Prius. Yay! I had wheels!! Three weeks later it was a RECALL! No joke. Bronco is running fine.
Last week the Prius inverter needed to replaced at the tune of $500. Bronco cost this past year, besides an oil change…$0. But…not-so-redneck-son borrowed my Prius yesterday…just makes sense when traveling…we save money. It’s all about balance…helping one another out and my Prius sucks when hauling wood for winter. B a l a n c e ….
I submit that I have only read about half the comments but I noticed nobody seems to be addressing the big issue with this article, and that is NUMBERS.
There are a number of factors that need to be addressed before coming to an accurate conclusion:
1. “Green Energy” rating of the power plant where the Hybrid/Electric car was made
2. Amount of CO2 emissions expected from old car vs new car
3. Green rating of the grid where you expect to drive most (it is a lot easier to make the grid green than a car).
Even then it is hard to come to a good conclusion. Your old car will die out before your hybrid would most likely, so your old car won’t last as long and you’ll have to buy another car soon after. Also, could you buy a used hybrid? And if more people buy new hybrids, wont that also increase the number of used hybrids available later on?
I think this article is way too over-simplified. I would at the very least like to see some number comparisons before saying “The redneck’s higher emissions over the lifetime of the car are a drop in the bucket compared to your new car purchase.”
I also forgot to mention it is worth noting that older cars are more likely to get quite a bit less than their stated gas mileage because of engine degradation, among other factors, so this is another factor in this decision.
Brian, good luck on the unicycle. I teach people to ride unicycles and it takes a lot of time and diligence. It really helps if you hold onto a fence or something you can use to hold yourself up with while you pedal forward. Try to sit up straight. Don’t stick your butt out. Most importantly, if you fall, let the unicycle go and catch yourself. You can buy a new seat or unicycle.
Have fun!!!!!
An important thing to consider is that even if one car is more environmentally friendly than another, it may be sufficiently more expensive that you’re not getting the optimal “green for your buck”. You may be able to be more environmentally friendly buying cheaper products and using the difference for charitable purposes (perhaps buying carbon offsets).
The same logic applies here. If you want to promote R&D, wouldn’t the most effective way be donating to a charity – say, a renewable energy foundation?
Why people feel the need to bundle everyday and charitable goods is a mystery to me. Well, actually, it’s not – there’s the selfish reason that it allows you to signal how socially responsible you are whenever you use the former good. Since this presumably results in a price premium, you could almost certainly do better using my above strategy.