Rest and Restlessness has moved to a new home.
Go to mattwiebe.com.
If you are a feed subscriber, please update to the new feed.
(The old feed will contine to be updated from the new site for a while)
Comments are closed, but clicking on post titles should bring you to the appropriate post on my new blog.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Are Hybrid Cars Environmentally Unfriendly?
I just came across an article titled Doubts Cast on Hybrid Efficiency (HT: Signal vs. Noise) that essentially says that Hybrids are less efficient than their conventional counterparts. Interesting.
A research study was performed that calculated the total energy cost it would take to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. When we only consider the fuel efficiency of a car, we miss out on a lot of stuff. And it turns out that far more energy goes into building a hybrid vehicle than into a conventional vehicle.
A research study was performed that calculated the total energy cost it would take to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. When we only consider the fuel efficiency of a car, we miss out on a lot of stuff. And it turns out that far more energy goes into building a hybrid vehicle than into a conventional vehicle.
For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims.And here's a shocker:
while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civics at $2.42 per mile.The conclusion is that things are always more complicated than what we're led to believe:
Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue.
On a random note, my Dad recently finished what he and Toyota believe is the first turbo-charged hybrid. It had to happen sometime!
There's some video of it here http://sema.carcrazycentral.com/Video/36/All
But this helps reinforce to me that coming up with more ecologically friendly cars just skirts the real issue: our car-centric lifestyles have no future and we need to start investing our creativity, energy and money into different ways of living that do not require most of the personal driving that occurs today.
If you're a car owner, like we currently are (thanks mom!), then see if you could live for 2 weeks without using it at all.
How crippled would you be?
Could you buy groceries? Get to work/school/church?
Visit friends?
If you can't imagine surviving without a car, then it's likely because the neighborhood you live in is poorly designed. So i guess to be completely honest, you're at fault for choosing to live there.
Here in St. Stephen, you can sort of survive without a car because it's such a small town, but it's an ass-ugly place to walk if you need to get errands done.
Being a small town, people are particularly stupid. The only gym in town, which several of my peers go to, is actually outside the town on the trans-canada hwy, as are several services and shops. Its retarded.
One last thought:
Nobody except transit-riders and cyclists are legitimately able to complain about traffic being bad.
uhhh, are you driving? Then here's some news: you ARE traffic.
So keep on complaining about yourself.
That said, I just felt that I needed to explain why I think car-centric cities suck so much.
Basically it's an equality and social justice issue. When cities are designed for cars, not people, we create a society that promotes social segregation and inequality.
Not everyone has a car. This may be for several reasons. One, they may not have enough money to buy, insure, and fuel a car, as this is quite a large expense. This can include anyone from students to drug addicts to single mothers to full-time community volunteers like our dear Maria.
Also, a large part of the population simply cannot drive. This includes anyone under 16, most people over 70, and almost anyone with a mental or physical disability.
So now we basically have these homogeneous suburban enclaves where nobody is exposed to anyone else, let alone anyone different from them. In it's pervasiveness, this type of social climate fosters ignorance of the 'other' and we are naturally inclined to fear the unfamiliar.
I have met several women who have lived in Winnipeg all their lives and are actually afraid to go downtown.
Ah yes, let's create a culture of fear! That'll be great for humanity.
End rant.
On the embodied energy topic, I would recommend a book that is on my own to-read list, called Cradle to Cradle. http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm
Basically it talks about evaluating the entire life cycle of our products and following their complete energy cycle rather than evaluating its efficiency based on only a segment of its existence.
Just kidding, good stuff oh wise and passionate wife of mine.
I vote for care-free hedonism.
Not all forms of energy are created equal, and in this case the energy required to create a vehicle can (in theory) come from a renewable/environmentally friendly source whereas the energy required to fuel the vehicle must, in practicality, be of the fossil-fuel sort.
Granted, less of the energy that goes into production comes from such 'noble' sources as hydro, solar, etc (dare I say 'nuclear' around here?), as it should, and it is possible that fuel source for the vehicle itself could be renewable, like biofuels. However, effectively using sources such as biofueuls for transport remains unrealistic, and the point should be made that it is/will be easier to convert our production energy away from fossil fuels than it will be for transport.
I was going to dwell on how my sister is turning into an irrational socialist, or at least an unrealistic idealist, but since I'm an unrealistc idealist, too, just of a differnt sort, so I think it's easier to just let that slide... :D
And of course, the point would seem somewhat moot: even if we could produce cars out of entirely renewable resources, what would be the point since their functionality still requires nonrenewable fossil fuels?
Post a Comment