Having a management system "in place" is nice but it proves nothing until actual performance (outcome) metrics are available long after the Toyota system is established, and after a large number of the initially sold hybrids have passed their design life. If you don't believe this, then explain why it is that almost all the world's e-waste has ended up on river banks in Asia and South America, with women and children scavenging them. Imagine what happens when 30 or 50% of the world's car fleet is hybrid, and some of the makers do not go for the same management system. Makers need to be held accountable at every step of the way or its another predetermined disaster in the making.

well, if we look at the past, sure, almost everything was bad for the environment. We're just starting to really work on it. But I think this will be like the new laws in Europe that say that carmakers have to take back their cars at the end of their lifetime. It just won't be an option by the time hybrids are popular, especially since it surely will be monetarily advantageous for carmakers who have to produce LOTS of battery packs to recycle old ones instead of making new ones from scratch..

And hybrid batteries probably less of a problem than all the regular car batteries that are still lead-based, anyway (IIRC).

I agree in principle MGR. Enthusiasm must sleep with one eye open, however, as risk management is always a collective bargain with stakeholders yet unimagined.

Well, sure. I can't promise anything and nobody can; it's not under my power and is unknown right now. It's the same for everything.

But I'd rather have some hybrid batteries that fall through the crack than to still have cars that get 25-30 mpg in 10 years.

I am sure Toyota and others have recycling centers for hybrid car batteries. But what really pollutes the environment is not used batteries but the articles that are produced during manufacturing of the hybrid battery (just like during manufacturing of lap-tops)

Have any of you considered the impact of the additional mining required to make these batteries?

--
editor note: Yes, and compared to the thousands of extra gallons of gasoline that a vehicle would burn without them, it's a good trade off, especially since the materials in these batteries are then recycled.

Ed; I think you don't have any conception of the energy required to mine nickel, nor the fact that demand already outstrips supply without adding in 100-200kg for every new car America wants. Sure, you'll save a few gallons of gas over the life of the car, but no more than switching to biodiesel and burning recycled carbon. The price of 200kg of nickel is about US$10K, unrefined into NiMH. This is not factored into the cost of the hybrid car fully, because remember, you are paying $10K to partly replace the fuel tank, and you still need an engine to do most of the driving. So I don't think people are fully pricing the impact of demanding nickel batteries for their cars.

The biggest step the hybrid will achieve inturning auto users green is to finally place an imperative in the minds of US auto customers that fuel efficiency is the prime concern. It won't save anyone money, nor save the environment, nor save much fuel. eg; fiat Punto turbo-diesel 4.7l/100km. Prius 4.4l/100km. A coke can per hundred klicks and you pay $10K for the battery? Thats a helluva lot of driving o pay that battery off!

First, future batteries won't be made of nickel. There might be other problems there, but once supply of something becomes tight we're usually pretty good at reusing, recycling and substituting it. I'm sure there are many big industrial processes that use immensely more nick/lithium/ion polymer/whatever than batteries and nobody's complaining about them now..

Second, there's also a premium for a diesel engine over a regular gas engine, and biodiesel has scalability problems too. It's also not as clean emission-wise as the AT-PZEV hybrids.

Also, you don't save "a few gallons" of gasoline with a hybrid like a Prius. You save many times the weight of the car in gas over the lifetime of the car.

Not perfect yet, and a plug-in with cellulosic ethanol or diesel/biodiesel capabilities would be better (while waiting for 100% EVs), but we should be careful about downplaying the benefits of good hybrids (not muscle cars). Seems to be a trend lately to try to claim that tech X is so much better than the Prius...

Lets also remember that the current Prius is a 2004 car. Next gen will of course be better...

I have seen many comments bantered around concerning the "Greenness" of Hybrids but little actual data.

It is evident that the additional battery power of a hybrid comes at a price in terms of additional mining, refining, shipping, and manufacturing and the environmental damage associated with those processes. What is not evident is whether or not that cost is balanced by gasoline savings.

I suspect that if you were to compare two otherwise identical cars, one with a hybrid drivetrain and one with a conventional gas engine you would find that the additional environmental cost is not outweighed by the gas savings. Unfortunately this is speculation and gets us nowhere. I am sure that somewhere someone has done a full analysis of the "lifecycle" of a hybrid vs a conventional car and knows the answer to this debate.

does anyone have a answer with some real numbers that people can check and verify?

All the anti-hybrid arguments fall flat when you look at the life-cycle analysis data..

Everything I've read (I don't have my references here) show that from 80 to 90% of a car's life-cycle impact comes from the fuel that it burns. The actual physical car is only between 20 and 10% of the impact.

I know everybody loves a good counter-intuitive story, but the fact is, hybrids are better than non-hybrids. Plug-in will be even better, and electrics even better.

One thing that seems to be escaping the posts is that everyone is comparing just the costs and enviromental effects of the car itself. That would be like comparing a coal burning electrical plant with a nuclear plant. The nuke plant doesn't release any fossil fuel emmsisions, however, not many people would argue against the fact that after the life of the nuke plant has expired, the remains have to be dealt with. Also to be considered is the consequences of obtaining the fuel itself.

Before you think I've gotten completely off track, compare that to the hybrid cars. Look around Sudbury, Ontairo, where one of the largest Nickel mines in the Western Hemisphere is. NASA uses the area around it for rover testing because nothing will grow there - it looks like the moon! Also consider the fuel (FOSSIL FUEL) burned to get it out of the ground. And the fuel to transport it to the refineries, to refine it, ship it to the battery manufacturer, ship it to the auto manufacturer, etc. You get the point. I won't argue against the fact that we need to look at alternative fuels, but we need to look at the whole forest to see what the end result is, not just look at one tree in front of us.

Just remember that to manufacture the bateries that go into hybrid cars we also have to create pollutants, and not all of the parts of the battery are recycleable. Also, the "life of the car" statement is vague. Most automakers place the life of the cars they make around 5 to 8 years. With most not even making it to 2. (accidents, broken parts after warranty that will cost a fortune to replace)
I am an environmental friendly person, but I don't buy the Hybrid BS.
This is what someone recomended me. Look for a car with a light weight body 2,800 lbs. or less. Make sure the engine is around 2.0 to 2.4 liters. UPGRADE the intake and exhaust system to a less restricted design. Take the care to a local tuner shop and tell them you want a car that will give you a lot of economy. And guess what? you will find yourself driving a very environmentaly friendly vehicle. (the guy that recomended this to me drives a 1995 honda civic hatchback Turbo that delivers 500hp on its power setting and can also deliver 38mpg on its economy setting!!!

CPL - your comment regarding the "Big Nickel" is pretty off base considering that the mining operations there have been going on since the turn of the century. Mining practices have improved greatly over the past.. oh.. 50-70 years. Just as hybrid technology has and will over the next decade. So when you look at the devisation that has gone on there, you can blame poor environmental standards and practices from a bygone era. not saying that it isn't impactive.. but thats one of the LARGEST mines... and it still doesn't encompass nearly the same area as the largest oil fields. Plus, the materials extracted can be recycled - when was the last time you recycled a tank of gas?

I DONT think that Hybrids are the answer (and I do drive one) but I do support them, and believe its a strp in the right direction. It's a far better alternative then some of the other options out there.

Battery life claims range from 150,000 to 100,000 miles from my reading. The manufacturers are the optimists. Similar claims with the same optimists regarding the environmental impact on batteries.

Lifestyle choices remain the 500 pound gorilla in the dialog. This gorilla's primary incentive to motivate lifestyle change, economics. Rising transportation costs will reduce fuel consumption, encourage urban living, and maybe encourage some exercise.

I read the hybrid becomes cost effective when gas costs exceed a t threshold of $7.00 to $9.60 per gallon.

Sellers of cars and things tend to market optimistically, overly so in many cases.

The 100k to 150k proposed life span of the prius battery might be such an optimism. But then there is the 100k warranty.
And then there is the optional extended warranty. From a practical standpoint, it would seem toyota has confidence in their batteries.

Recycling anything, especially batteries, uses energy.

That energy has to come from somewhere. Generally, that means pollution.

Seems to me that hybrids are the feel-good option. They don't so much reduce pollution as they just push the act of creating it away from the consumer.

The hybrid buyer sleeps sound in his/her bed at night, thinking she/he is saving the world, and by day, battery recycling plants belch out toxic fumes and burn all kinds of fossil fuels.

My motorcycle gets better mileage then a Hybrid plus it doesn't have Nickel metal hydride batteries to deal with. We should be giving tax credits to motorcycle riders.

I ride a motorcycle also. it averages 45 MPG. Low initial cost, 1 tiny battery, only 2 small itres, lot less and Mine far less emmisins than a car, and I would guess less than 20% of the materials that it takes to make a car. It was an easy decision.

Oh come on, motorcyclists--I ride a human-powered bicycle for as much of my transportation needs as possible. Should I get a tax break?? What about all the methane produced because I am partially fueled by beef? And the fossil fuel used to produce the grain that feeds those cows? On the other hand the incremental increase in my food consumption by bicycling over sitting on my duff reading blogs is not that much, and my body utilizes food more efficiently when I am in shape. What's a body to do? Go with the Earth-Firsters and limit population growth? Become a vegan?
And on and on. I need a car, as do most people, because of my lifestyle: the activities I want to do and my kids do cannot be done without one. I drive a hybrid (when I have to drive) in order to limit my consumption as much as possible, but I don't feel smug about it. I bet the fuel I use for one transcontinental airline flight negates the savings from my hybrid or bicycle use. But I will still make that flight when I want to visit my family. Now about the rich folks who send their private jet to the other coast to pick up the right bottle of wine for the dinner they're planning--is that ok if it's for a fundraiser for Al Gore?
My point: limit where you can, but don't feel smug just because you ride a motorcycle. Our collective lifestyle entails HUGE waste, and only by raising awareness of it can we begin to limit that waste. We need a collective solution to our lavish energy use, and hybrids are clearly part of that solution.

Did you hear asbout Flextreme: on a small battery pack, the main electric engine of this revolutionary four door sedan will power the car for a full 55kms/80miles at normal speeds...without a charge. Hybrid cars of the future, it will have a 1.3 turbo diesel annex power plant to recharge the batteries only, not to power the wheels at all (turbo diesel has long been considered as Green in Europe for it is LESS pollutant than gasoline).
It is an Opel. and only releases 40gr CO2...oPEL IS....GM!
SAF is another automaker that has introduced Flexifuel to 12 European countries in 2001. It lowers emission 70%....75% ethanol and 15% gas...or both for these mixed fuel engines from 1.8 to 3.0 liters, 125 to 300 hp...SAF drove one non stop on "superethanol" 3200 kms (2000 miles) from Norway to Paris using existing gas station infrastructure. SAF won major French awards and gold medals for its commitment to clean air. SAF is the second part of the name Ford Sciete Anonyme Francaise, that is to say Ford France. Ford S Max was French' 2007 car of the year.
As long as Americans will have the wealth to waste in filling up gas guzzler, even American Automakers will focus on selling them the humongus piece of junk they drive. If we want a change, let's the price of gas to go up...and tell US automakers to sell us here what they sell in Europe....tell European and Japanese automaker to sell us here what they sell at home instead of beefed up, inflated and wasteful models.
The US customer IS the problem. Just going to fuel efficient car would clean our air a lot and right now, without xtra effort, money, promises and commitment. I hear about depression, crisis, households without money....my 1988 Renault averages 30mpg in suburbian stop and go traffic....better than 90% of the 2007 American models! From 1988 to 1998, in France, average mpg went from 8.5 liters/100kms to 7.6 (6.7 for a diesel...) Now we are down to the 4.5 liters/100, that is about what....50mpg!
I rest my case and will resume driving my 1964 Fiat 500 (42mpg)!

I would like to buy a hybrid. But I have a few problems. One, we only buy used cars. We are not going to pay for the depreciation that happens when you drive off the lot. Two, the last car we bought - we bought with 80,000 miles on the car. Even with the highest number of 150,000 we would be replacing a battery within a couple of years of buying. We have a 2000 civic and a 95 civic. The get 36 mpg and 32 respectively. A couple of years ago we sold a saturn with 220,000 miles and bought the 2000. The 95 has 150,000 on it right now and we will probably keep it another 3 years. And then sell it. At that point it will probably have 190,000 to 200,000 on it. With the kind of gas mileage we get the hybrids are better, but not by alot. We don't like to buy new because of depreciation, but more importantly its a waste of resources(metal and plastic), to buy a new car every 4-5 years. We do things like combining errands - driving mostly highway. Walking to errands that are not far away. My biggest frustration. Like the previous commenter referred to, finding a model today that has better mpg than my 2000 or 95 is difficult, not impossible, but really most of the cars today should get better than my 13 year old honda civic. The fact that they don't is pathetic.

Maybe we shouldn't be worried about recycling until we figure out what we are going to do about the way they are made:

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

Eric, I wonder if you have run the numbers with the depreciation issue. I drive a 2002 Civic, which also gets great gas mileage (37ish), and, as you know, the emissions aren't terribly terrible. I purchased it new after lots of hemming and hawing. There were a lot of factors that went into a new-car purchase, but I found that when I ran the numbers, it actually was NOT "worse" to buy the car new than to buy it used. I think it depends on the car and maker - I know Hondas tend to have a much better resale value than some other makers. Not sure how it would work out for your situation, but I think that the generally accepted "used is always financially better" isn't always true. Nevertheless, your comment about the price (economically and environmentally) is totally on -- definitely drive your current car until the mpg and emissions and all that get to be a worse environmental choice than new materials! I appreciate your "whole picture" approach to the issue!

I think that a lot of you are mistaken about how mining operations work. My father used to operate a dragline for open pit coal mining and any open pit mine is run in a similar fashion. I thought that you would worry more about the land being raped and torn up than about oil wells being sunk to find oil or the tar sands being cleaned to normal sand. It sounds like priorities are backwards as you just want to pick your battles and go with what is convient for your own arguments.

There is also a (local) health issue to consider. Imagine for a moment that everyone drove a hybrid. While sitting at a red light we would not be breathing pollutants from all of the cars around us. Those standing, living or working near the intersection would likewise be breathing cleaner air. I travelled to Switzerland many years back and in one town had dirty stares thrust in my direction for not turning off my engine at a red light. When turned off, it was eerily silent. All these cars sitting in line and no noise. I've never relaxed so much at red lights!

I drive a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid and get better mileage than a motorcycle. I get about 48 in the winter with snow tires, when I can't drive a motorcycle anyway, and 53 in the warmer seasons. I live in a mountainous region, so it's not because the driving is flat. I don't understand why the estimates are so low, but mine is also a manual transmission, which may help.

Hey! All the different views are really interesting and I agree that we have a lot more options in our future, until then I am happy with my 01 Toyota Echo (40/44)... : )