Wired: How To Be More Green?
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 04.29.06
Wired answers three frequent questions about how to "become more green": 1) Should I ditch my old car for a newer hybrid? 2) How much of the USA's energy comes from "alternative" source? 3) Is eating organic food good for the environment, or just hype? We'll quote the answer to question #1 because it was asked in the comments of a recent post, but to read the rest you'll have to go to ::Wired - How can I be more green? or buy the magazine.
Should I ditch my old Toyota Corolla and buy a Prius? Hybrids get better mileage, but it takes energy to build a new car, right?Right - but the green choice is still the Prius. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 10 percent of the energy consumed by an automobile during its life cycle. Gas burned by the engine makes up almost everything else. So if a 1993 Corolla gets 27.5 miles per gallon and a 2006 Prius gets 55 mpg, you should earn back the energy "investment" that went into making the hybrid in about four years. Additionally, by purchasing a Prius, you help tilt the economies of scale in favor of hybrids. Toyota's hybrid technology is still relatively expensive, but production costs will come down as more Priuses are sold. And the more Priuses that fill the roads, the more consumers will view them as a legitimate option for their next car, rather than just trendy eco-boxes for Hollywood do-gooders.
Wired owes Gore an apology:
http://tinyurl.com/hxy8o
"Manufacturing accounts for approximately 10 percent of the energy consumed by an automobile during its life cycle."
I wonder where they get that number. Going back to the LCA chart Toyota uses to compare the Prius to an average vehicle from its size class, they claim that roughly 20% (about 200 tons) of the lifetime CO2 emissions of a normal car comes before use, whereas that number is about 43% (about 300 tons) for the Prius.
http://toyota.jp/prius/ecology/image/eco02.gif
Granted, CO2 is a somewhat crude analogue for energy use pre-use (since a lot of pre-use energy might be hydro or nuke), but either way 10% seems a little low.
I'd be curious to see Wired's source, as I haven't really found a satisfying resource on LCA for automobiles, or for many other things.
That's a good question, Joseph.
The author of the article is Brendan I. Koerner, but his email is not on the Wired page. Not sure how hard it is to find, but if you find an anwser, let us know.
I found alot of misleading information in this issue of WIRED. Seeing as it involves things I know more than the average bear about, it leaves me questioning the accuracy of the rest of their writing.
The first page dropped this little tidbit, clearly showing that biodiesel will not allow us to all drive Hummers:
"Fuel by the numbers
Gallons of biodiesel that can be made from one acre of soybeans: 50
Arable acres in the US: 427 million
Gallons of gasoline used by the average American driver in a year: 464
Drivers in the US: 198 million
Arable acres needed to make enough biodiesel for all of them: 1.8 billion"
It fails to mention that there are already forests, homes and food-farms on most of our arable land. This droplet of truth flounders in the far corner of a silly story of a man who's going to race a monster speedboat around the world. I'll bet it's got an engine that would shame a Peterbilt.
I used to really love WIRED. I still subscribe. But I'm getting sick of the hypefactor. Every article sounds like listening to an electronic snakeoil salesman.
don't get me wrong: im glad that the MSM is starting to embrace green thnking, but i take umbrage at some of the things being said: for example
"Green-minded activists failed to move the broader public not because they were wrong about the problems, but because the solutions they offered were unappealing to most people. They called for tightening belts and curbing appetites, turning down the thermostat and living lower on the food chain. They rejected technology, business, and prosperity in favor of returning to a simpler way of life. No wonder the movement got so little traction. Asking people in the world's wealthiest, most advanced societies to turn their backs on the very forces that drove such abundance is naive at best"
so let me get this straight? the people pushing PV SOlar and wind energy for 30 years, working like mad against the grain of lethargy and big oil, were "rejecting technology and business" Puhlease get off your high smarmy horse.
sure the Helen & Scott Nearing inspired Back to the Earth movement of the 70s, might have been like that, but that is hardly everyone invlved. What about John Todd?? is he against technology?? gimme a break. how about Bucky? He did more technological breakthroughs before breakfast than all the Wired hacks put together.
and as far as belt-tightening being uncool. why is it that the people at TrendsResearch say that voluntary simplicity is the hottest trend that there is?
you know its all great to make fun of hippies and to add words like "Hair shirts" to your punditry, but it serves no benefit. In fact the people who busted ass to bring about these technologies and businesses deserve a little respect
what drives me wild is thatthis was written by Alex Steffen (!) he ought to know better
"The author of the article is Brendan I. Koerner, but his email is not on the Wired page. Not sure how hard it is to find, but if you find an anwser, let us know."
I fired him off an email. I'll let you know if he gets back to me.
It takes more than energy to build a new car - it also takes enormous amounts of raw materials. I've no idea how all that stands up in quntifiable measurements, but it certainly ought to be mentioned!
Absolutely right, Nick, though a lot of it can be reused (while burned fossil fuel cannot). AFAIK, new recycling regulations should make it even better (newer cars will be designed for easy recycling for the start).
I enjoy reading Koerner's low end theory on gizmodo each week (he talks about really cheap electronics). He's an entertaining writer, but I do wonder how much work he puts into researching his stories (though maybe he puts more work into stories that aren't about 10 dollar gizmos). Here's a link to his latest story, if you want to e-mail him there is a contact link at the end of the page. http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/columns/low-end-theory-169993.php
Every year or so Wired seems to trot out the increasingly tired, "technology will deliver us from environmental collapse" issue. I am both a fan of Wired and an environmentalist, but their approach to this topic is simplistic at best. Energy is one of the most highly regulated industries on earth. The economics of energy markets are some of the most complex of any product. This is not the internet. Market driven regulation and competitive market design will drive innovation, not two kids in a garage. Sorry to be such a buzz kill, but this one is a job for the lawyers, bankers and politicians.