Yes, but sadly you are a prius driver. "No Soup For YOU!"

 

Good thread going here. I have allot of respect for Rebound, obviously outnumbered by many of us that remember when the World Series was everything and was played during the day, he is not throwing the towel in.

 

I really don't think the issue is about defending/attacking the Prius or those who choose to drive them. (full disclosure: my in-laws were early adopters of the first gen Prius and are now on their third one. I had the Lexus 200h ct on my short list when I decided on our Clubman. I have driven each model Prius and the Lexus and have not enjoyed any of them at all.)

There has been some study and a lot of claiming regarding the role of hybrids as an environmental pollution solution as opposed to seeing them for what they are -- a link in the automotive technology evolution (some might say devolution) chain.

But all cars are dirty. From manufacture to scrapping -- the entire life cycle. And, when the current battery technology is factored in, the Prius is one of the dirty ones. How dirty? Depends I guess, on what one means by dirty and how one measures these things.

If one seeks high gas mileage and relatively lower tailpipe emissions per mile, Prius might be a sound choice.

The extraction of metals for batteries remains a big issue. Techniques for extraction are very dirty. Much of the work happens in parts of the globe where environmental monitoring and worker health/safety are not necessarily high priorities.

Reclaiming and recycling of exhausted batteries is evolving but not yet where it needs to be.

Transportation of raw materials, the final assembly of batteries, and their disposal/reclimation, are not yet at the point where one can confidently assert that this is a "clean" technology.

Battery charging is still primarily hydrocarbon based. And then there's the issue of how clean the manufacture of solar collectors is or isn't. And the amount of energy expended and other pollution created by building concrete hydroelectric dams is staggering and can, on large scale projects like the dam in China, take lifetimes to counter-balance through "clean" power from those projects. And even wind farms still face the challenge of substantial energy loss due to long distance power transmission -- same issue as fossil fuel power and solar.

These are not easy problems.

So, a Prius burns less fuel per mile than a MINI. But it still has an internal combustion engine with hydrocarbons in use for fuel and lubricants, plus it's got that big old battery. The cars have plastics and metals and glass and tires and brake pads and they are transported great distances from manufacture to final consumer delivery. And, at life cycle end, they are more challenging to recycle than conventional cars.

So, yes, regen braking recaptures a bit of lost energy, and lower tailpipe emissions, if scaled up, could be less "dirty" than a straight internal combustion 2 liter MINI. Maybe.

Here's an excerpt about litium batteries that I found interesting.

Environmental Consequences of the Use of Batteries in Low Carbon Systems: the Impact of Battery Production M.C. McManus Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Bath, excerpt:

…lithium batteries have the largest impact on metal depletion. The primary material responsible for this is the lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), but there is also some impact on metal resource depletion from the use of the electronic component, the transistor. Data for the production of the transistor was taken from the EcoInvent database. It is based on a review of the production process of many transistors used in the EU and represents an average of these. The primary impact associated with the lithium iron phosphate is associated with the production of the ferrite, not the lithium. This result doesn’t indicate that ferrite stocks are running out; the results compare demand with available stocks, and the ease with which the ferrite can be extracted. Ferrite is one of the most abundantly mined and processed metal globally [9]. As a result our demand is such that we are now having to extract ferrite from lower and lower grade ores, which has higher environmental and economic consequences. Manganese is also used in the production process of the ferrite: this is again well used and a relatively abundant mineral within the earths crust. It has been noted, that as a mineral that is in high demand, little information about its global availability and cost (both financially and environmentally) has been collated [9] There are three main types of lithium deposits; brines, sedimentary, and pegmatites (igneous). Much of the global lithium is supplied through the brine deposits as it is close to the surface. The largest mines are in South America, China and Tibet. It had been predicted that half the world’s total reserves of lithium might be mined out by 2050 [8]. However, recent review of all lithium availability suggested that the global reserves are approximately 39Mt, but expected demand will not exceed 20Mt by 2100 [28]. Therefore, whilst continued use of lithium needs to be monitored and it is proposed that there is not an immediate shortage. Never the less, mining of lithium can cause significant human health and social impacts. The largest global reserve of lithium is in a scenic area of Bolivia and the Bolivian government is keen to ensure that any extraction will have minimum environmental impact [29]. The lithium based batteries also show an impact on human toxicity. This is partially due to the lithium mining process, but is also due to the use of copper and the impacts associated with copper mining.

Examination of some of the key issues in greater detail shows the range of impacts for greenhouse gases (CO2eq), fossil fuel depletion and cumulative energy demand. For both the metal depletion and the greenhouse gas emissions, the lithium ion batteries perform worst out of the alternatives considered on a per kg and on a per energy capacity basis.

 

The technology will hopefully improve to become cleaner just like fossil fuels have improved. I don't dislike electric cars, but I don't think it is the ultimate savior some would have you believe.


My biggest gripe with electric cars was perfectly summed up by Jeremy Clarkson in the first episode of the new season of The Grand Tour. To the point where I will claim Clarkson is my spirit animal.

 

I think we all know that the petroleum industry (like the tobacco industry) has funded non-scientific FUD for decades. They've successfully spent a fortune to discredit climate science and they're happy to fund "research" to cast doubt on clean energy. And, you know, I've heard it all, and it quite frankly disgusts me. Folks, we NEED clean energy. Now, as Mini Cooper owners, you're hardly the problem, but we are facing substantial environmental destruction.... not because we drive cars, not because we drive them fast... but because the petroleum industry works to maximize petroleum combustion. You're quite simply deluded if you think the air you breathe can tolerate an infinite amount of automotive exhaust without harming your health at some point.

When hybrid cars came out, the FUD was all about battery life, and the costs when the cars failed, and you'd have to replace expensive voltage inverters, batteries, and other expensive components which don't fail on conventional cars.

Well, the jury's back in on this one: Hybrid vehicles, especially Toyota's Prius, have proven to have exceptional long-term reliability. In fact, Prius is one of, if not THE, most reliable cars manufactured. Now, that doesn't just mean it's less expensive in the long-term. It also means that when we calculate "cradle-to-grave," the longer lifespan means the energy costs of manufacturing the vehicle are extended.

In a somewhat famous and widely discredited "study," a paper claimed that a Hummer was overall more efficient than a Prius. It's pretty obvious at the surface that an 8,000 pound, $80,000 gas-guzzler is not going to be as efficient as a 3,000 pound, $20,000 ultra-efficient car, but people believe what they want. The "study" relied on a wide range of data which had no sources, and the key piece of data which skewed the result was the claim that a Hummer would last 300,000 miles, while a Prius would last only 100,000. As it turns out, every single Hummer built from 1996 to 2000 had an engine casting flaw which caused its 8th cylinder to crack. Every single one. So much for long-term reliability. And then we learned that Prius' were used as taxis in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and elsewhere.... and their reliability was famous, and they easily lasted the 300,000 maximum permitted for taxi use.

Now we have arguments about the environmental impacts of the metals used for the batteries. Well.... cars are made of metal, and weight 3,000 to 8,000 pounds. The battery in a Prius weighs 180 pounds. Hardly going to tip the scales.

I'd love to see the industry agree on a single form-factor for individual battery cells, and to require that hybrids and EV's all permit identification and replacement of failed cells, along with automatic re-balancing upon cell replacement. It's really not rocket science, and this would vastly extend the lifetime of the vehicle, because these batteries aren't single, monolithic batteries, they're collections of small cells, sometimes hundreds of them. Imagine if you or your mechanic could easily identify and replace individual cells as they failed. You could probably double the vehicle's useful life.

If you consider an electric Mini Cooper for a moment, there is tremendous potential. For one thing, the center of gravity could be much lower, and weight distribution much better, because the battery pack could be integrated into the floor pan. For another thing, torque, acceleration and overall performance would improve dramatically. And reliability would skyrocket. If you look at all the items which need maintenance and repair on five and ten year-old Mini Coopers, they're almost all things which don't even exist on electric cars!

In fact, the Washington Post just wrote that the emergence of the electric car threatens the entire profession of over 700,000 auto mechanics in the United States. EV's are VASTLY simpler. There's a HUGE list of things which electric vehicles don't have:

• No engine
• No transmission
• No fuel tank
• No fuel pump
• No differential
• No vacuum lines
• No catalytic converter
• No muffler
• No timing chain, spark plugs, valves, pistons, rods, and virtually no bearings

You get the idea... there is a huge battery, a cooling system (so there may be a radiator and coolant), one or two motors, and a computer system. And there's a braking system and a suspension.... and that's about it. Oh, and that braking system lasts way longer because more than half the braking is regenerative and doesn't use the friction material at all. On my Prius, I have more than half of the friction material remaining on my brake pads after 120,000 miles.

Folks, I'm not trying to convert you. Enjoy your Mini Coopers! Really! But the future Mini Cooper might be electric, and that may well make it far, far better than the one you drive today.

 

Zero Point Energy -"Where we're going Marty, We won't need batteries".

 

they had cars in the early 80's that got 40 mpg on gas and you know they can get 80 to 100 by now if they wanted to electric is not needed if they didn't hold back on internal combustion technology

 

Specific examples please!

 

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/...ars-1978-1981/

 

Yes! Bring back the VW Rabbit!

 

Everything on that list in excess of 40 mpg I would question, and most cars on that list were junk when new.

I learned to drive in the last car on the list (Datsun B-210). That car absolutely, positively sucked! The front strut towers were rusted so badly that my dad held the front together with a bedrail that spanned from one strut to the other. He was ahead of his time in strut tower support development but without it the front end would fall apart. I (unwittingly) took it on the interstate one day and told him how badly it shook. He just got mad at me for driving it on the interstate. Never really said why. I hit a pothole one day while turning into the local pool access road and came out of the turn with the steering wheel rotated about 60 degrees from where it was before. No way I would put my kid in a car like that but he mostly used it to drive 2 miles each way back and forth from work.

I also owned an early 90s model Honda Civic that did get 40+ mpg on the highway. I'm not saying the entire list is bad but I do question some of the higher numbers.

Also, I don't see any verifiable sources for the numbers on the list. Again, another example of "I read it on the web so it must be true".

 

by 1991 we were making cars getting over 50 mpg city and almost 60 highway. what happened to the trend from there with the advancement in technology we should be getting at least 80 mpg.but instead the most fuel efficient car according to consumer report for 2018 is the prius at get this 43 city 59 highway so how did it go down and not up ?

 

The point is not if they were good cars it is that they could get that kind of mileage back then with the technology they had the build quality of the car itself is not the point

 

My wife had a VW Rabbit diesel when we were dating i know that thing got way over 40 mpg ,a tank of fuel lasted 2 weeks but you need a 1 mile on ramp to get on the freeway. Just imagine that with lower gears and a modern six speed instead of the 4 speed they had back then

 

I was kidding. Buddy of mine in HS used to give me a ride to school in his Rabbit. Had a huge fart can on the exhaust. It was the loudest, slowest, most ridiculous car around.

 

My dad had an Escort Wagon. That was one great car. I think it may have been Fords best selling model ever.

 

It will all be resolved by using Fusion Core technology, a device the size of a 16 oz soda can. Because driving around with a small amount Nuclear Fuel in our vehicles will not be an issue because they will solve the disposal and handling issues well before they realize the current method is robbing Peter to pay Paul, to charge/recharge the currently designed electrically powered vehicles.

So each State/Country will need to increase electrical production plants globally to supply the required power. And what will these plants run on? I like the idea of service stations with fully charged battery packs ready to swap out. But were are going to get all the raw materials needed for making all the required batteries? And what type of environmental impact with that make?

I can see it now, the Environmental impact of converting all motor vehicles to electric (figuring in all the Lifecycle Logistics and charging requirements for a 10 year goal) is it safe to estimate five or six times more detrimental than the current growth of fossil fuel vehicles in the same time frame?

But to make it really work the Globalists will want to do away with ALL private conveyances and all transportation will be done thru Socialized Government Transportation, or you can walk or bicycle but only on the designated areas so that you don't interfere with the Self-Driving Socialized Government Transportation powered by tax money to pay for the massive electrical bills incurred by the Transit Authority because the Electrical companies have to pay for the cost of building all the new Power Plants to charge all the batteries that all these vehicles require, Oh, by the way they are dependent and run on the standard Fossil Fuels the very same Governments want to do away with but can't so they are levied penalty taxes and forced to the state of being driven to the very edge of bankruptcy but are prevented from going out of business by the Government because they are identified to be essential to the Infrastructure of the State.

Those Penalty Taxes are what is used to be a virtual signal by the Government in an attempt to offset the Environmental Damage done by the massively destructive hasty stripe mining for the materials required for the manufacturing of all the batteries the Government needed to get the Self-Driving Socialized Government Transportation System operational.

But don't worry, that mining was done with only the cleanest of equipment, the people. Because without the ability to travel unfettered the people could not travel to work, so most of the businesses closed, no goods were being manufactured because there is no way to transport them across boarders to consumers, consumption faltered without the vehicles to power the trade or construction industry all that was left was for the people was to be herded up and marched off to work camps around the globe, were they will toil for the State so that they can fuel the Electrical Grid required to Power the Nation. All this because they want to take away my fuel....