NSJC Message Board - greenest cars? you'd be surprised.

NSJC Message Board
« greenest cars? you'd be surprised. »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 9, 2010, 10:00am

NSJC Message Board :: misc. stuff :: Off Topic :: greenest cars? you'd be surprised.

Page 1 of 3 » Jump to page Go

Author

Topic: greenest cars? you'd be surprised. (Read 600 times)

trailrated
Jeeper

member is offline

Joined: Jan 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 587
Location: Weymouth N.S
Karma: 3

greenest cars? you'd be surprised.
« Thread Started on Feb 24, 2009, 9:33am »

Neil Reynolds.
Globe & Mail.

OTTAWA — Could it really be so - that GM's Hummer is more than 40 per cent greener than Toyota's Prius? That Ford's F-Series pickup is greener? That GM's Silverado pickup is greener? That Dodge's Ram pickup is greener? That Cadillac's DTS, a full-sized luxury sedan with a V8 engine, is greener? Could it be, in fact, that seven different luxury-class automobiles are all greener - and that three of them are Cadillac models?

Well, indeed, it really could be. And, if so, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's new-car incentive program is a huge environmental mistake.

Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research Inc. has conducted the world's most comprehensive analysis of the "life cycle" energy requirements of more than 100 makes and models of cars and trucks. Given the thousands of parts and processes in the manufacturing and operation of cars, it was a complex task and took the company two years to complete. Volvo once tried to do it - and gave up in frustration (though it does publish "life cycle" analysis for its own makes).

CNW identified 4,000 "data points" for each car, ranging from the energy consumed in research and development to energy consumed in junkyard disposal. It calculated the electrical energy needed to produce each pound of parts. It calculated greenhouse gas emissions. It calculated mileage, too - adjusting for the differences between rush-hour Tokyo and rural America.

The company describes this exercise as "dust to dust" analysis. CNW has now published its second annual report, a 400-page production.

To keep it relatively free of technical jargon, the company expresses energy requirement as the dollar cost of energy for every mile across a vehicle's anticipated years of use - "U.S. dollars per lifetime mile." Thus it reports the lifetime energy requirement of a Hummer as $1.90 a mile; the lifetime energy requirement of a Prius as $2.86 a mile.

It reports by model name and by category. For 22 models of economy cars, the average lifetime energy cost is $0.85. For six models of pickup trucks, it's $2.58. For 14 models of smaller-sized sports utility vehicles, it's $2.07; for nine models of larger-sized SUVs, it's $3.98. For 10 models of gas-electric hybrids, it's $3.65.

Compare the SUVs against the hybrids and you get a sweep in favour of conventional technology. The best-rated smaller SUVs are more than twice as eco-friendly as the hybrids: Dodge's Durango, $1.57; Ford's Explorer, $1.61; Chevrolet's TrailBlazer, $1.61; Jeep's Grand Cherokee, $1.80.

More remarkably, one of the larger SUVs, Ford's Expedition, beats the hybrids with an eco-cost of $3.54.

CNW found wide differences, however, within classes of vehicles. For 18 models of luxury cars, the average energy cost is $4.45. Yet the best of these luxury cars are superior, in lifetime energy use, to hybrids.

The luxury cars that rival hybrids: Lincoln's Town Car, $2.66; Acura's RL, $2.80; Cadillac's CTS, $3.19; BMW's 5 Series, $3.19; Mercedes-Benz's E-Class, $3.48; Toyota Land Cruiser 80 series, $3.49; Cadillac's STS (Seville), $3.56; Cadillac's DTS (DeVille), $3.65.

CNW's assessment of the hybrids has irritated some of the car companies.

Toyota says that CNW credited Prius with only half its 200,000 lifetime miles. CNW says that Prius owners drive less than 7,500 miles a year - meaning that these cars will be scrapped long before they use their expected lifetime mileage (in 26 years). CNW says that hybrids fare poorly because of increased complexity. Honda's conventional Accord gets rated at $2.18; its Accord Hybrid gets rated at $3.29 - an environmental cost 50 per cent higher.

Take the batteries, for example. Toyota buys 1,000 tonnes of nickel a year from Ontario (mined and smelted in Sudbury). This nickel gets shipped to Wales for refining, then to China, for further processing, and then to Toyota's battery plant in Tokyo - a 10,000-mile trip, mostly by petrol-gulping container ships and diesel-powered locomotives.

Toyota, however, still has some of the greenest vehicles on earth. The Scion has the lowest energy cost of all at 48 cents a mile. The Corolla, at 72 cents, and the Echo (Yaris), at 77 cents, are also in the best-on-earth class. Low-energy competitors include Dodge's Neon (64 cents) and Saturn's Ion (67 cents). Cars with the highest energy requirement include the Rolls Royce ($10.97) and the equally elegant German-made Maybach ($15.83).

In his March budget, Mr. Flaherty made fuel efficiency - gas mileage alone - the sole basis for the environmental rating of new cars. He will reward high-mileage cars (with rebates from $1,000 to $2,000) and punish low-mileage cars (with surcharges from $1,000 to $4,000). The program could well be a phenomenal waste of energy. Junk it, Mr. Flaherty. It's not fit for the road.