Hummers more environmentaly friendly than hybrids

[SoundsForWords]

This is an article about why the Toyota Prius is far less evironmentaly friendly or economical than it's nemesis the Hummer.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188



If you have a Prius I pitty you for feeling that you are helping the environment.

[Rocko]

I've read that article. Hybrid owners apparently don't understand that gas mileage alone does not determine a car's environmental impact.

And before you hybrid people go after older cars with big engines, people that own them are in fact helping the environment even more by keeping an existing car running instead of encouraging new ones to be built.

[chumpion]

I have to agree with that.

When we were purchasing our current car, we were looking at small to medium vehicles. Things like Peugeot 307's, Prius's, that sort of thing.

Anyway, the life expectancy of these things are pitiful - 5 years and/or 200,000km would be considered good!

Instead, we bought a 7 year old toyota landcruiser with 70,000km on it. It cost less initially, has 8 seats, gets 10L/100km, and can take us all sorts of places (we love our camping..).

It now has 90,000km on it, and has had no problems at all in the 2 years we have had it. We expect to keep it for as long as we can. If we had have bought a small car, we would be 1 year away from looking at replacing it.....

Now no one could argue that my vehicle is not more environmentally friendly than a little car, given all the factors involved... Could they?

[RAOVQ]

someone posted this exact thing like three days ago.

[deus-redux]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

someone posted this exact thing like three days ago.

-deus-

[OdayJuarez]

The next generation uses a compressed nitrogen drivetrain that will eliminate the battery issue.

[Brady]

quote:Originally posted by OdayJuarez:

The next generation uses a compressed nitrogen drivetrain that will eliminate the battery issue.

Unless you can provide evidence for that, I'd say its a flat out lie. A google search shows me that the next generation Prius will use Li-Ion batteries instead if Ni-Cad, and a re-vamped electrical system will rely more heavily on them.

What kind of pollution issues go along with Li-Ion production? Anything similar to NiCad?

[Thought Riot]

also, I've heard (NOT SURE IF 100% TRUE) that the battery in hybrids is chemical waste, and cannot be broken down, another environmental downfall

[Bicycle]

Hydrogen, 2009. Wait it out.

[ArgonPlasma2000]

quote:Originally posted by Bicycle:

Hydrogen, 2009. Wait it out.

I hope that day never comes. Hydroen is the worst idea yet.

[ericstotle]

quote:Originally posted by Brady:

Unless you can provide evidence for that, I'd say its a flat out lie. A google search shows me that the next generation Prius will use Li-Ion batteries instead if Ni-Cad, and a re-vamped electrical system will rely more heavily on them.

What kind of pollution issues go along with Li-Ion production? Anything similar to NiCad?

Li-Ion = low battery cycles.

[Pyrology]

That article is such utter shit. That Nickel plant WILL mine and produce nickel regardless of toyota's purchase. Also the big thing these cars are made for is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which they put out much much less than a hummer. It is better to ruin a small corner of the world than to keep raising our average temperature every year and fuck up the entire earth. Yes they are expensive, nobody is denying that. And when the priuses (priuii?) switch to Lithium batteries most of this argument will be null and void. It also leaves out the effects of producing petroleum products will all the oil spills and other pollutants that are produced. Keep on thinking your hummers are green machines, this earth will keep getting warmer and warmer.

Hydrogen is not a viable fuel either. The average fuel cell vehicle costs a fucking fortune. There are so many problems with hydrogen it probably never will come into mass use. Also think about how it would be to have a gaseous instead of a liquid fuel? I cant imagine what would happen if you got into a car crash where your car caught on fire. If you want to learn somemore about alternate fuels and the best options for us, watch a documentry called "Who killed the electric car?"

[This message has been edited by Pyrology (edited 03-31-2007).]

[Jimmy_Jazz]

Yeh, I could use me a good hummer right now...

Wait-- This isnt S&A...

[Spanish Castle Magic]

quote:Attn Pyrology

quote:You...are...an...idiot



[This message has been edited by Spanish Castle Magic (edited 04-01-2007).]

[MaddMan]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

I hope that day never comes. Hydroen is the worst idea yet.

Can you elaborate on this? I haven't heard much on hydrogen powered vehicles for a while.

[easeoflife22]

I don't really give a damn about CO2 emissions, but rather about chemical build-ups in our ecosystems affecting our food and water supplies. Whether or not global warming happens fast of slow, it is inevitable that the climate will change and populations will be displaced, but heavy metals and other pollutants will do more damage to us in the long run than global warming. If you study the worlds ancient history, last time the CO2 levels were this high and the ice-caps didn't exist, the planet was a giant rainforest. Life flourished everywhere, even moreso than currently. Only the transition period is going to suck as we experience ocean current shifts, and weather patterns change, but the stabilized outcome will be quite desireable.

On the short term, a quick climate shift might create some rather unpleasent affects, but will shorten the period of instability to less years, even if it is more severe.

However, the ugly pollutants that poison us should be reduced or eliminated as they pose a much higher risk to the planet.

A good start would be to build stainless steel cars with recycleable bodies and fuel efficient engines. We need to stop making disposable vehicles and start making cars that can be driven for millions of miles. Another step would be to create a cleaner burning fuel. Investing in a high-speed rail system for North America would also reduce fuel used by Jets for long distance travel. The biggest impacts could be made by simply producing fruits and vegetables in local greenhouses or in private gardens to reduce the pollution created from food distribution. I think we should be thinking of more ways to reduce our disposable products than how much fuel were burning in our cars.

[OdayJuarez]

Got the details mixed up. Sue me.

The point is, hybrid technology has potential. The fact that Toyota decided to use batteries, a notoriously unimproved and behind the times technology, as it's backbone energy storage medium in it's introductory fleet of hybrids, is a relatively small issue in the long run compared to the benefit of getting hybrid technologies off the ground, out of the lab, and in to the public's eye.

Do you think the Hydraulic Hybrid technology that has been collecting dust for decades since it's invention would have been considered had it not been for the Prius paving the way? Toyota made a bold move and managed to win the public over to a radical change from the status quo. They deserve some credit for future benifits derived from that.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.100mpg.popsci/index.html

"One radical solution under development at the Environmental Protection Agency's Advanced Technology Division is to get rid of the heavy batteries altogether.

The EPA has built a modified hybrid that uses a hydraulic system, not a battery, to store braking energy. When you press the brakes, the wheels drive a pump that compresses nitrogen gas, which is inexpensive and inert. When you accelerate again, that compressed gas runs the pump in reverse to help power the vehicle.

The hydraulic-hybrid system, scheduled to begin testing in two UPS trucks this month, with another to follow next year, promises to return at least 70 percent of the braking energy back to the wheels, which would lead to a 60 to 70 percent jump in fuel economy and a 40 percent reduction in emissions.

Perhaps that's why Charles Gray, the director of the Advanced Technology Division and one of the developers of the hydraulic hybrid, can't contain his excitement about its potential.

"This is going to be the biggest revolution in automotive history," he declares. "Bigger than the assembly line."

That's yet to be seen, of course, but the hydraulic hybrid is also smaller and cheaper than conventional hybrids.

"I can hold a 500-horsepower hydraulic pump motor in my hand, and I'm not a big guy," Gray says. Because the technology would eliminate the need for a transmission -- the engine merely pressurizes the hydraulic system, while the hydraulic motors power the wheels -- and several other parts, it could be installed in a small car for almost no additional cost.

Ford, the U.S. Army and others are investigating the technology, yet UPS -- with its fleet of vehicles that constantly suffer through stop-and-go driving -- is its only committed customer so far."

[WorBlux]

also, I've heard (NOT SURE IF 100% TRUE) that the battery in hybrids is chemical waste, and cannot be broken down, another environmental downfall


Nickel, a toxic metal, no shit sherlock, however you can recyle the batteries and re-use the nickel and other metals in it

[Issue313]

>>The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.


So the Aveo at 55mph is much less fuel efficient than the Prius, but at 80 mph not so much or what?? I don't get this crap. Aveos get 35mpg, and I'm not sure if that's at 55 or 80. This article means to mislead. I see a big difference between 35 and 45 mpg, especially since most priusii are owned by faggy metrosexuals who need constant acceleration and deceleration. For city driving the prius is better. Plus the Prius is a fine big mother of a car! My Seat Arosa gets Prius mpg, but it's tiny. Prius, +1

[Obiwanshinobi000]

I hope that day never comes. Hydroen is the worst idea yet.

How? 90% percent of the universe is made up of that shit.

[gatorgrip]

what you all don't realize is someday soon....
the entire world will RUN OUT OF GAS!!!!!!!
then what will happen???
all these fucking cars and 4 wheelers and motorcycles and SNOWMACHINES (WOOT) and awesome trucks will be dead in the fucking water (pavement).

you know how i deal with this problem???

USE AS MUCH FUCKING GAS AS YOU CAN NOW!
man rev that engine hard, ride all day. fucking gun it off the stoplights..
ride the shit out of those 4 wheelers and bikes and snowmobiles while you still fucking can.

that's what i do at least.

[Kleenex]

Sounds like an advertisement for the incredibly ugly toyota scion.

[ParisGreen]

Also think about how it would be to have a gaseous instead of a liquid fuel? I cant imagine what would happen if you got into a car crash where your car caught on fire.

I haven't read the rest of the topic, so sorry if someone else has beaten me to it, but what ever happened to LPG? I hear it never took on too well over in the States, but I can't even begin to count the number of solid objects i've ran over or backed into with a full tank of actual gas-gas, and I can't say I've ever seen or heard of any gas-fitted vehicles going up in a crash.

Seen cars go up in a fireball when torched and burning for an hour, but never movie-style from a colision.

[ventrman]

I have always been afraid of using hydrogen as a fuel.
Hydrogen is very explosive when mixed with oxygen.
When I was in HS our chemistry teacher had some hydrogen in a coke bottle that was taped up very thickly with masking tape.
He put a lit match to the top of the bottle.
It exploded. If tthe tape had not been on the bottle, we would have had shards of glass flying all over the room.
If anyone loks back in the history books, the Hindenberg Blimp was fueled by hydrogen.
It exploded in mid air. It killed most, if not everyone that was on board.

[deus-redux]

I have always been afraid of using hydrogen as a fuel.
Hydrogen is very explosive when mixed with oxygen.
When I was in HS our chemistry teacher had some hydrogen in a coke bottle that was taped up very thickly with masking tape.
He put a lit match to the top of the bottle.
It exploded. If tthe tape had not been on the bottle, we would have had shards of glass flying all over the room.
If anyone loks back in the history books, the Hindenberg Blimp was fueled by hydrogen.
It exploded in mid air. It killed most, if not everyone that was on board.

QFT.

Besides, hydrogen is not energy-efficient to produce.

Plant ethanol, is, as I see it, the way forward. Until we find a way to artifically photosynthesise and ferment on a large scale.

[thunderstruck]

I have always been afraid of using hydrogen as a fuel.
Hydrogen is very explosive when mixed with oxygen.
When I was in HS our chemistry teacher had some hydrogen in a coke bottle that was taped up very thickly with masking tape.
He put a lit match to the top of the bottle.
It exploded. If tthe tape had not been on the bottle, we would have had shards of glass flying all over the room.
If anyone loks back in the history books, the Hindenberg Blimp was fueled by hydrogen.
It exploded in mid air. It killed most, if not everyone that was on board.

do your research first, moron. http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1052864.htm
what the fuck do you think happens in a car using petrol and air as fuel anyway?

[deus-redux]

do your research first, moron. http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1052864.htm
what the fuck do you think happens in a car using petrol and air as fuel anyway?

Whilst it's true that hydrogen was not soley responsible for the Hindenburg disaster, that doesn't change the fact that it's still explosive - when sufficiently mixed with oxygen.

Of course, in the Hindenburg disaster most of the gas escaped before it mixed sufficiently to explode.

However, if a pressurised hydrogen container in a vehicle was damaged in an accident, then the vehicle would fill up with a H - O2 mix. All it would take is a spark and it WOULD explode.

I've seen hydrogen explode. It does.

Although to a degree, there is the point that petroleum vapour is also explosive. But this takes much longer to vapourise than pressurised gas does to leak out, so explosions of cars rarely occur.

[RAOVQ]

hydrogen storage in cars does present a problem. the authorities do not want cars driving around with tanks full of the stuff, so people are finding better ways to store it. im not sure on what the progress is, but i would imagine they would be pretty close to an acceptable solid state storage option.

that said, i drive a car that runs half the time on petroleum gas. i have a big tank (about 40 litres) that sits in my boot (kind of like the one you run a bbq off). gram for gram, LPG is far more explosive than hydrogen (petrol vapour even more so again). but that doesn't seem to be an issue. the tanks are very strong and it is only very occasionally (say once a year) that you hear of one going pop, and almost every time it is due to mistreatment and lack of upkeep.

so tanks of gas are not inherantly dangerous, here the government will pay you $2000 to get your car converted to run on both. it is just the impression people get from accidents in the past. if the hindenburg was full of petrol vapour, it would have burnt just as well.

[mcamp4403]

My Ecology 101 Prof. showed a video about this in a lecture one day last semester.

[Sagewisher4]

This is the same newspaper that recently published the article "Rape Only Hurts if You Fight It."

http://tinyurl.com/2f5sd9

[thunderstruck]

This is the same newspaper that recently published the article "Rape Only Hurts if You Fight It."

http://tinyurl.com/2f5sd9

you would need to have downs syndrome to even think that was remotely serious

[Terri]

although it surprises me, im happy that this has come out, even though i doubt the credabillity

[OdayJuarez]

This is the same newspaper that recently published the article "Rape Only Hurts if You Fight It."

http://tinyurl.com/2f5sd9

That's funny, I posted to the site you linked to when that news story first broke. Got moderated out of existence. Feminazis need to shut up and find themselves a man. Oh wait, that's what they're trying to do!

The reason it hits girls of moderate attractiveness the worst is because they always get looked over and treated with disregard by men. They feel like they have to put up a "playing hard to get" front to scare off the dweebs and attract the "real men." In a preverse way it's like a "the taming of the shrew" mating call. It's just a shit test sex fantasy. The reason they're such rabbid misogynist haters is because they are pissed off that they can't have them. It's sour grapes to the extreme. It's the same reason rabbid moral conservatives are the biggest freaks. Their target audience is frat boys who need to break a girl for the bravado, but don't actually want to put energy in to it to go after a real challenge like a virgin or born again christian.

Chronic best friend of the popular girl syndrome. The cockblocking ugly bitch hoping to pick up some sloppy seconds from a jealousy bid or some stupid shit. Catty Hos.

[deus-redux]

1) What the fuck? :confused:

2) This is way off topic. :o

3) This topic is a clone anyway. :mad:

[/thread]

-deus-

[Nate7667]

I hope that day never comes. Hydroen is the worst idea yet.

Water for fuel...with no emmisions.

How is that a bad idea?

[z.neocide]

I hope that day never comes. Hydroen is the worst idea yet.

I believe Sweden is making great strides in the field, they are building a highway which has hydrogen stops every so many km's.

[nshanin]

How? 90% percent of the universe is made up of that shit.

False, about 3% of the universe is hydrogen (unless you count stars). I refer you to Godess Wikipedia :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cosmological_composition.jpg

[BoofyStoove]

I don't really give a damn about CO2 emissions, but rather about chemical build-ups in our ecosystems affecting our food and water supplies. Whether or not global warming happens fast of slow, it is inevitable that the climate will change and populations will be displaced, but heavy metals and other pollutants will do more damage to us in the long run than global warming. If you study the worlds ancient history, last time the CO2 levels were this high and the ice-caps didn't exist, the planet was a giant rainforest. Life flourished everywhere, even moreso than currently. Only the transition period is going to suck as we experience ocean current shifts, and weather patterns change, but the stabilized outcome will be quite desireable.

On the short term, a quick climate shift might create some rather unpleasent affects, but will shorten the period of instability to less years, even if it is more severe.

However, the ugly pollutants that poison us should be reduced or eliminated as they pose a much higher risk to the planet.

A good start would be to build stainless steel cars with recycleable bodies and fuel efficient engines. We need to stop making disposable vehicles and start making cars that can be driven for millions of miles. Another step would be to create a cleaner burning fuel. Investing in a high-speed rail system for North America would also reduce fuel used by Jets for long distance travel. The biggest impacts could be made by simply producing fruits and vegetables in local greenhouses or in private gardens to reduce the pollution created from food distribution. I think we should be thinking of more ways to reduce our disposable products than how much fuel were burning in our cars.



First off, anything plated with stainless steel will be really fuckin heavy compared to a car built with aluminum parts/panals - so there goes a good amount of efficiency. Secondly, why in the hell would companies produce a car that could be driven for millions of miles - how would the company make any money selling new models?

There arn't really any easy answers to these problems and if there were, do you not think that they would not have already been done? The truth is with some things, disposable is just cheaper and at the end of the day, that is what the customer will buy.

The problem with ethanol/flex fuel cars is that if fuel could be produced on a grand scale using corn products, then the price of corn would go up because of its value for fuel - and start researching just how much corn products are used in our/your everyday diet...you probably have no idea.

The better public transportation system would be great...but it seems too late in some cases. In places in Europe, using public transportation you can get anywhere you need to go in like 20 minutes, where as in the USA you might ride a public bus system for over 2 hours to get to where you need to go around the city - this is ridiculous and not practical. Taxes would be raised significantly for changes to be made, and then think of more people in the auto industry losing jobs. Right now many jobs for car production are already being outsourced - if a better public transportation system were set up, think about all the small businesses that are in someway involved with selling car parts. The truth is that this will be a hard idea to sell when it boils down to it. People want fixes but when they see a bill attempting to be passed and see how much taxes would go up, they would shoot it down.

In my opinion, there is nothing particularly appealing at this point in time. If people really care about the environment, then the bottom line is that they will have to put business and money issues aside, but this won't ever happen.

[gam3r_with_revenge]

Real people bike everywhere like me :mad:

[Ballin]

sweden ftw!

[H a r o l d]

I hope that day never comes. Hydroen is the worst idea yet.

Are you retarded?

[Connor MacManus]

Water for fuel...with no emmisions.

How is that a bad idea?

It's not economical, that's why. If you use $1 of energy in electrolysis to get 50 cents of hydrogen, no one is going to use it!!! As soon as we find a way to get hydrogen in a way that's economical, stuff will start happening. But why would you trade an Abe Lincoln for a George Washington?

[StealthyRacoons]

Well I'll have to look up Lithium refinement. I do know however if water gets into those batteries they will cause quite a bang.

[OdayJuarez]

Hydrogen is a proposed energy storage medium. Not a proposed energy source.

There is NO crisis here. We can switch over to nuclear with the return on investment to energy production being absurdly good. It's is as clean of an energy source as exists today, and the naysayers are ignorant dumbasses rallyied by special interests.

Remove the barriers to the success of the nuclear industry. The displacement if any of coal miners jobs will get replaced with new jobs in uranium mines. Uranium mines sound scary enough that the miners will actually get proper safety equipment rather than suffering the accepted tradition of black lung.

[Connor MacManus]

Hydrogen is a proposed energy storage medium. Not a proposed energy source.

There is NO crisis here. We can switch over to nuclear with the return on investment to energy production being absurdly good. It's is as clean of an energy source as exists today, and the naysayers are ignorant dumbasses rallyied by special interests.

Remove the barriers to the success of the nuclear industry. The displacement if any of coal miners jobs will get replaced with new jobs in uranium mines. Uranium mines sound scary enough that the miners will actually get proper safety equipment rather than suffering the accepted tradition of black lung.

Yeah man!!! Nuclear is the shit. France does a fucking great job with their energy. I think 80-90 percent of their power comes from nuclear fission, and they are the only major electricity exporter in Europe. New nuclear reactor designs are virtually accident proof. Coupled with other safeguards/technicians, there is really no way any radiation could ever leak into the atmosphere. Nuclear power is the promised land!! You put a couple rocks in a concrete and lead box and pump some water through it and you have ridiculous amounts of power. What's not to like?

[pianoSpleen]

I have always been afraid of using hydrogen as a fuel.
Hydrogen is very explosive when mixed with oxygen.
When I was in HS our chemistry teacher had some hydrogen in a coke bottle that was taped up very thickly with masking tape.
He put a lit match to the top of the bottle.
It exploded. If tthe tape had not been on the bottle, we would have had shards of glass flying all over the room.
If anyone loks back in the history books, the Hindenberg Blimp was fueled by hydrogen.
It exploded in mid air. It killed most, if not everyone that was on board.

Wow.

QFT.

Besides, hydrogen is not energy-efficient to produce.

Plant ethanol, is, as I see it, the way forward. Until we find a way to artifically photosynthesise and ferment on a large scale.

Wow.

These posts are simply beyond words.

I do approve of ethanol though.

[pisstest420]

The problem with ethanol/flex fuel cars is that if fuel could be produced on a grand scale using corn products, then the price of corn would go up because of its value for fuel - and start researching just how much corn products are used in our/your everyday diet...you probably have no idea.

The better public transportation system would be great...but it seems too late in some cases. In places in Europe, using public transportation you can get anywhere you need to go in like 20 minutes, where as in the USA you might ride a public bus system for over 2 hours to get to where you need to go around the city - this is ridiculous and not practical. Taxes would be raised significantly for changes to be made, and then think of more people in the auto industry losing jobs. Right now many jobs for car production are already being outsourced - if a better public transportation system were set up, think about all the small businesses that are in someway involved with selling car parts. The truth is that this will be a hard idea to sell when it boils down to it. People want fixes but when they see a bill attempting to be passed and see how much taxes would go up, they would shoot it down.

In my opinion, there is nothing particularly appealing at this point in time. If people really care about the environment, then the bottom line is that they will have to put business and money issues aside, but this won't ever happen.

Quoted for the fucking realisim.

[LuKaZz420]

We should just use more nuclear energy.

[Real.PUA]

The problem with ethanol/flex fuel cars is that if fuel could be produced on a grand scale using corn products, then the price of corn would go up because of its value for fuel - and start researching just how much corn products are used in our/your everyday diet...you probably have no idea.

Thankfully corn isn't the only option, nor is it even the best option.

[OdayJuarez]

Cars were built around oil, you don't replace oil around cars. Ethanol might have a future, but I seriously doubt it. I see no reason to neglect nuclear in favor of such an uninspiring alternitive. The energy profit margins just aren't there. Nuclear powered hydrogen production with hydraulic hybrids makes more sense. Get the power off the grid and fill up at electrolysis stations. I don't really give a shit how the power gets from the grid to your drive train. I just don't want to pay comparable prices for fuel for dumb reasons.

[Patrick Bateman]

I wrote this my sophmore year in highschool. My two cents for the thread:

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/hydrogenenergy191155.html

[ventrman]

First off, anything plated with stainless steel will be really fuckin heavy compared to a car built with aluminum parts/panals - so there goes a good amount of efficiency. Secondly, why in the hell would companies produce a car that could be driven for millions of miles - how would the company make any money selling new models?

There arn't really any easy answers to these problems and if there were, do you not think that they would not have already been done? The truth is with some things, disposable is just cheaper and at the end of the day, that is what the customer will buy.

The problem with ethanol/flex fuel cars is that if fuel could be produced on a grand scale using corn products, then the price of corn would go up because of its value for fuel - and start researching just how much corn products are used in our/your everyday diet...you probably have no idea.



While that argument may have validity at the current time. It ignores one simple thing. In order to counter that. All we have to do is to increase our corn production so we have enough corn to satisfy both the food requirements and the fuel requirements.

[gforce]

It ignores one simple thing. In order to counter that. All we have to do is to increase our corn production so we have enough corn to satisfy both the food requirements and the fuel requirements.

That statement ignores the finite nature of possible corn production.