By Kevin Harrison
We have overcome many problems in our automotive history, usually by conjuring up sensible solutions.
Too many people dying in car accidents? Simple, invent seat belts and airbags.
Not enough room to haul all your stuff? Turning the trunk into a hatch or wagon should do the trick.
Sick of your kids asking ‘are we there yet?’ every 5 minutes? A DVD player should keep them occupied.
But there is one problem we have yet to overcome and the potential solutions are as controversial as Michael Moore.
I’m of course referring to gasoline. More to the point, how much we pay for this ever depleting resource, and how it affects our environment is the problem.
We’re all scratching our heads trying to figure out what the most sensible solution is.
Likely the most popular idea, judging on where car manufacturers are now investing their money, is hybrid vehicles.
Hybrids really make a noticeable impact on how often you find yourself at the pumps. They are quite efficient.
Recent stats have indicated that hybrid sales have been up for the sixth consecutive month, despite the industry continuing its nose dive.
In fact, according a recent survey conducted by JPMorgan, in the next decade one in five vehicles sold in the United States will be a hybrid.
So, it seems hybrids are gaining in popularity faster than Susan Boyle.
But there are a fair amount of people who are not in favour of these gas-electric vehicles.
They say they are too quiet or they’re not powerful enough or that it’s too expensive to replace the battery.
But a new argument has arisen against hybrids, one that supposedly has gained momentum thanks to Art Spinella’s 2007 ‘Dust to Dust’ research paper.
Spinella is a researcher in Oregon with CNW Marketing and he has been studying the environmental impact of certain vehicles.
Spinella took 300 vehicles and ranked their energy use over their entire life cycle –including raw material extraction along with transportation, recycling and disposal of parts.
“The Hummer over the lifetime of the vehicle ends up being less of a drain of energy on society in general than does the Prius,” concluded Spinella in his report.
That’s a bold statement. The Hummer H2 has long been the whipping boy of environmental groups due to its overall excess, while the Toyota Prius is widely considered to be greener than Kermit the Frog.
Spinella drew his conclusions from the amount of nickel extracted for the battery pack of a Prius, as well as the extra production costs associated with producing a car with two motors.
He didn’t stop there. He also stated that it would be harder and more harmful to dispose of the battery pack, again mostly due to the amount of nickel.
These are all interesting “findings”, but unfortunately Spinella may have been a bit too eager in his assessment as there are flaws in his arguments.
Firstly, Spinella assumes that the lifespan of a Hummer is 300,000 miles (or approximately 482,000 kms ) and that of a Prius is 100,000 miles (approximately 161,000 kms).
Well, Toyotas average twice that amount. The first generation Prius has been on sale in Japan since 1997. It’s probable that a 12 year old car would’ve passed this milestone by now.
For example, Andrew Grant, a taxi driver with Yellow Cab in Vancouver, has been running his Prius since 2000. He now has approximately 386,000 kms and reports having no major repairs to date.
Toyota estimates the lifespan of their battery packs to be eight years. However since no battery has needed post warranty replacement to date, it would appear that these batteries have a longer lifespan than anticipated.
Secondly, the transport costs associated with making a Prius such as getting the nickel to Europe for refinement, then to China, then to Japan where it is assembled, is not exclusive to the Prius.
All manufacturers use parts from different suppliers located across the globe for their vehicles. Hummer is no exception. Transport around the world is necessary to build mostly any vehicle.
Thirdly, Spinella says the mine in Sudbury Ontario, which extracts the nickel, produces so much sulphur dioxide that acid rain has been shown to have an effect on forests in the area.
However that mine has actually been decreasing its pollution steadily since 1970. In fact it has reduced its pollution by 90% since then.
But perhaps Spinella’s biggest faux-pas is his assumption that disposing the battery in hybrids is somehow more harmful to the environment.
Nickel is eminently recyclable. It can be recycled to make alloy and stainless steel and the process is not overly complicated.
Whereas the lead-acid found in the battery of a regular vehicle is actually more harmful than nickel.
Toyota has responded to these findings by publishing a rebuttal in the Washington Post.
Regarding the additional energy it takes to build both a regular combustion motor and an electric motor, Toyota said it “is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage.”
A number of environmentalists have challenged the study as well.
Whether hybrids are a long or short term to our solution to our problem remains to be seen. They are certainly not the only solution out there.
Legitimate arguments against hybrids do indeed exist, but it’s important for people to back up their claims and do proper research.
Like ‘Dust to Dust’, if something doesn’t sound sensical, chances are it isn’t.
(kharrison@clean.ns.ca)
Kevin Harrison is a Program Officer for Clean Nova Scotia’s DriveWiser program and writes a bi-weekly column on fuel efficiency for the Chronicle Herald. Look for more of his columns and ‘green’ vehicle posts on CREST!
