Is it true a 'Hybrid' vehicles battery production causes more pollution than conventional vehicles?

Question

There's a rumor I've heard that the battery for a typical hybrid vehicle starts in Canada, (mining and ore process); transported to Europe, then to Asia then to the vehicles point of sale: And all this production costs more damage to the environment than that of just a regular gas using vehicle. (The rumor continues to say more than a Humvee!). Any body with any REAL, (not argumentative) proof one way or the other?

If this is true, lets start looking at other alternatives.

Answer 1

As i understand the situation at the moment the questioner is correct. I have not all the statistics on the subject ,but in most cases in regards to the engines the eclectic component is produce of site from the fabrication site.So I feel it's only common senses that currently all is not working as well as could be! And yes there is a problem here, its better to hang on to the old car than to buy a new car,.

Also it is a  shame that they don't make the more parts of the car from renewable resources  like they use to. its the old chestnut :reducd,reuse and recylce

Answer 2

Not only does production of hybrids cause more pollution. but when they reach the end if there useful life the disposal of the hybrids will result in even more toxic battery material to be disposed of.

plus most hybrids will go through 2 or more battery changes in the life of the car. that is if the owners can afford to have them replaced.

i some cases the batteries will not last till the car is payed off.

so they will be paying for new batteries and still making car payments.

and the mines sites are a source of toxic hazards to.

Answer 3

I have been to a nickel mine in Canada.  I have been to several American mines that export ALL their ore because American law dictates that they can not process their ore here, so they ship it all to India, Japan, and China.

I don't know anything about going to Europe, or Canada's processing laws, but all that transportation can't be efficient.  I would believe that if you take into account the mining processes, transportation, refining,  production, transportation, and all that adds up.  

Did you hear the one where Toyota had to revise their mileage standards on the prius because they were false?

The fact is that a gasoline engine running an electric motor is by definition, inefficient.  1.) energy transfers add resistance, and 2.) more weight (i.e. adding another engine) adds resistance.

Answer 4

You are referring to a CNW Marketing Study (which was not done by a scientific organization) that has been debunked and disputed so many times that it is wildly considered false.  The authors sat down and made essential random assumptions like: Hummers are driven 3x as much as Priuses are because they are stronger (or something along those lines.)  Not to mention the fact that the Prius currently gets its nickel from a plant that is definitely not the worst (it used to be a disaster but it has improved 200%) and produces much less air pollution (I read somewhere that if every car driven in L.A. for the next twelve years had Prius-style emissions, the smog problem would essentially disappear).

The Prius is not the best (Pure Electric is) but it is an improvement.

In terms of fumes, the battery can be recycled, Toyota's position is that it will try to recycle the batteries, and they last a reasonable time so people won't be replacing them TOO often.  Plus, that's a problem with the specific battery technology chosen; evolving battery standards and concepts (version 2.0 of the Prius will come out '08) will iron out these wrinkles.

Answer 5

No, this is one of many ridiculous myths about hybrids (usually specifically about the Prius).

In reality, 80-90% of a car's lifetime energy is used during operation, and only 5-10% during production.  Thus it makes no sense that transporting a battery (which is just one component of the car anyway) around would create more 'pollution' than a conventional car, because during the operational lifetime (while driving), the hybrid uses far less overall energy and thus pollutes far less.

For further information, go to this link:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/...

To see the statistics I gave, click on the Pacific Institute study linked on that page.

Answer 6

No, this is not true.  However, currently there are such few hybrids being produced that the overhead cost (both in money and in environmental damage) per car is higher than for regular cars.  This will rectify itself as production increases.  But as far as using the car, it definitely causes less pollution since it burns less oil.

Answer 7

i dont know the study ya all r talking about ...BUT  a hybrid has 2 forms of propulsion..a reg car just one...

Answer 8

Actually, the Hybrid was created not for the sake of the enviroment but for the sake of people wanting to save on petroleum products in the future. Oil in its depleting supply will surely cost more in the future. and the more you save in fuel through the hybrid technology the less you'll spend your hard earned dollar on such depleting resource. Taking into mind that other than fumes, you now have battery chemicals to worry about.

Answer 9

There's a lot of myth, urban legend, and misinformation out there on hybrid vehicle batteries and vehicle production, thanks to a flawed marketing paper by CNW and a poorly researched student newspaper article that keep getting quoted...

Anyhow, I suggest reading:

Prius Versus Hummer: A Nickel for Your Thoughts:  

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200711/...

Battery Toxicity:  http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxici...

Hummer versus Prius: "Dust to Dust" Report Misleads the Media and Public with Bad Science:

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_...

Prius Versus HUMMER: Exploding the Myth:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_New...

Giving Directions: No, the Hummer Actually Isn't More Energy Efficient Than A Prius, Let's Put This "Debate" To Rest:

http://www.betterworldclub.com/articles/...

Heard the One About the Hummer?:

http://www.toyota.com/html/dyncon/2007/s...

Usually the mythic "article" from The Mail on the nickel in the hybrid cars' NiMH batteries is quoted from a now retracted article.  The retraction that clears up this bit of misinformation is at:  http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live...

(They were using data from the early 1970's about the INCO-Sudbury nickel mine, which was more than 20 years before the first hybrids needed NiMH batteries, and the plant has greatly cleaned themselves up and reforested the area.  If you were to add up the amount of nickel in the million+ hybrids sold since 1997, the total is less than 1% of the world's annual nickel production (far more nickel is used for stainless steel, for example).)

All of the hybrids on the market so far have a full warranty on the hybrid battery out to at least 8 years/80,000 miles, sometimes longer depending on manufacturer or if an AT-PZEV vehicle in a CA-emissions state (longest of 10 years/150,000 miles).  The hybrid batteries are supposed to last the lifetime of the vehicle, and depending on model replacements are often quite rare.  Toyota does offer a $200 bounty (with labeling on the battery stating who to contact) on each hybrid battery to be sure that it gets properly recycled.  With nickel prices as high as they currently are, recycling is very cost effective.

And no, Toyota did not have to lower the fuel economy ratings of the Prius because they were too high.  The EPA changed their testing procedures for the 2008 model year to be more realistic, by increasing speeds and acceleration, by testing for colder temperatures, and by testing for AC use.  The fuel economy numbers for ALL cars dropped, not just for the Toyota Prius.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/f*g/ratings20...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/f*g/fe_test_s...