How long do you think it will be before hybrids make a real impact on the environment ?

realistically, probably never. Alternative fuels are the way to go. Hybrids are a nice "patch", I guess, but they still burn gasoline.

They are making one right now... in the negative. Given the environmental impact it takes to MAKE one prius in its lifetime accounts for more waste and emissions than a Hummer does. Not kidding.

Hybrids do a wonderful job of taking potential energy in the form of fuel, turning it into kinetic energy in the engine, converting it again to electric, and then putting it BACK into kinetic. They actually waste more energy than a comparable small gasoline vehicle.

As far as actual emissions go, they are a bit below a good compact gas car, but as far as driving one, they waste fossil fuels compared to a typical small diesel like a VW TDI.

In this engineer's opinion, they aren't even a "patch," they are a consumer buzzword. Auto makers knew they would sell and while they are a great thing, they are far from the BEST thing we could be doing right now.

Given the environmental impact it takes to MAKE one prius in its lifetime accounts for more waste and emissions than a Hummer does. Not kidding.

That's interesting. Could you explain that?

That's interesting. Could you explain that?

I think he is referring to the fact that since it is made up of so many different materials to keep it lightweight and the addition of batteries, recycling it at its end would be a big hassle.
Doesnt change the fact they use far less gas than the average car. They are having a bigger impact in different areas. They are everywhere in CA.

I want a car that's solar powered, like those Maybachs got that cool roof thing I want that to get Solar power and run my car, and lunar power for that matter :D, and if you really need to go an electric car, but they have to look as good as todays cars and somehow be as fast <- Making the impossible, possible.

I want a car that's solar powered, like those Maybachs got that cool roof thing I want that to get Solar power and run my car, and lunar power for that matter :D, and if you really need to go an electric car, but they have to look as good as todays cars and somehow be as fast <- Making the impossible, possible.

I want mine to run on hopes and dreams.

A solar panel roughly 4'x6' (just my best guess at what it was) provides 208 watts in full sunlight. So... if you covered an entire semi trailer with solar panels you would probably have enough power to move it. And you could fill it with batteries to provide power at night. Probably not stylish or fast enough for you.

That's interesting. Could you explain that?

Sure. Every year, several green companies measure actual emissions and environmental impact of vehicles from concept to death. The thought is, people keep buying fuel-efficient cars thinking they're saving the environment, but they don't take into consideration production impacts. If a Prius saves 20% fuel compared to a Civic, but its batteries and plastic parts used 25% more fossil fuels to produce, then you are negatively impacting the environment by buying one. And that is just the case.

For instance, as can be read HERE (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Hidden%20Cost%20of%20Driving%20a%20Prius%20Comment ary.pdf), you see that the 1000 tons of nickel used in making batteries requires a huge smelting operation that spews hundreds of tons of Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere as well as refinement overseas involving days of ocean-liner emissions getting it there and back.

Also, as you can see HERE (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf), they published actual energy impacts over average model life-span and the hybrids did worse than most SUVs. In fact, not one hybrid made the top ten; all hybrids being beaten out by the Jeep Wrangler. In shameful fact, the best hybrid (in terms of least energy impact) uses a full 6.125 times MORE energy PER MILE over its lifetime as an average compared to the top car on the list. Think twice before saving the environment with a hybrid.

That's amazing, thanks.

If a Prius saves 20% fuel compared to a Civic

First of all, that's a gross underestimate. Think more in the neighborhood of 200%.

I can't really tell if the reports you're quoting are intentionally biased and hiding it very well, or they just don't know better. At any rate, they can be very misleading if not read carefully, and indeed are very misleading when 'summarized' in the way you have here.

For instance, as can be read HERE (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Hidden%20Cost%20of%20Driving%20a%20Prius%20Comment ary.pdf), you see that the 1000 tons of nickel used in making batteries requires a huge smelting operation that spews hundreds of tons of Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere as well as refinement overseas involving days of ocean-liner emissions getting it there and back.

This quote states 'Most of the gas is consumed when the car goes from 0-30' when that is actually the time that the car tends to run on battery power with the gasoline engine completely turned off. It stores kinetic energy from braking, shuts the engine off, then uses the captured energy to start moving again, turning the gas engine back on only when necessary.
This report also states that the pollution from the refineries has left the surrounding area barren of vegetation, and NASA conducts training there for this purpose. This is, again, half truth and unrelated circumstance. The half truth is that the pollution from the refineries does hurt some vegetation, but that was mostly in times long before the Prius had ever been dreamed up, and even in the worst era the vegetation loss was only spotty, with plants like papaer birch and blueberry even preferring and thriving in the acidic soil. Modern techniques have cleaned the area up greatly, and in 1992 the city was given one of 12 awards by the United Nations Earth Summit to honor environmental reclamation strategies.
The unrelated circumstance comes in this articles suggestion that acid rain made the area so barren that NASA trained the apollo astronauts there because it was like the moon. The reason NASA used the area because it was an old impact crater that contained rare impact-related geologic formations, and absolutely nothing to do with the environmental impact of the factories.
You can see how the writers of the article are doing one of two things, they're either 1. just latching on to things that seem to support their position without checking into them, or 2. intentionally trying to mislead their readers.

Also, as you can see HERE (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf), they published actual energy impacts over average model life-span and the hybrids did worse than most SUVs. In fact, not one hybrid made the top ten; all hybrids being beaten out by the Jeep Wrangler. In shameful fact, the best hybrid (in terms of least energy impact) uses a full 6.125 times MORE energy PER MILE over its lifetime as an average compared to the top car on the list. Think twice before saving the environment with a hybrid.

In this article, some of the variables they've listed are, while accurate, almost silly. Distance the workers have to drive to get to work? Yes, this affects the total energy needed to make a vehicle, but is it a mark against the vehicle or the hybrid concept? Not at all. One thing they're not taking into account is where the energy comes from, or how clean the energy is. So a Tahoe requires less energy in its lifetime than a Prius. Now what percentage of each of those vehicles energy comes from renewable or non-renewable sources? The Tahoe is gasoline powered while the Prius, while primarily gasoline powered, gets a portion of its energy from kinetic (braking) that would be lost as heat in the Tahoe. With a plug in adaptation, an even larger part of the Prius' energy input can come from clean renewable sources like hydro or nuclear by drawing it off the power grid. Total energy consumption is really almost a non-issue when we're talking about how green a car is, the issue is where does that energy come from? And that is an issue that this article seems to have stepped very carefully around.

Hybrids do a wonderful job of taking potential energy in the form of fuel, turning it into kinetic energy in the engine, converting it again to electric, and then putting it BACK into kinetic. They actually waste more energy than a comparable small gasoline vehicle.

As far as actual emissions go, they are a bit below a good compact gas car, but as far as driving one, they waste fossil fuels compared to a typical small diesel like a VW TDI.

And while we're at it, this is just plain untrue. Breaking it down:
"Hybrids do a wonderful job of taking potential energy in the form of fuel, turning it into kinetic energy in the engine"
- yes, they do this part exactly the same as regular gas cars
"converting it again to electric, and then putting it BACK into kinetic"
And this is the part I don't think you understand. They convert it back to electricity via a generator engaged when braking. A conventional car wastes energy when braking by converting it to heat. A hybrid recaptures this energy, and uses it to drive the axle again when ready to go. This is energy that would be completely wasted in a non-hybrid.
I mean, gosh, gasoline is the only energy input into a conventional car and a non-plug in hybrid. If the hybrid goes further on a gallon of gas than a conventional car, isn't it obvious the hybrid is using the gas more efficiently?
A conventional car uses gas to get moving, then hits its brakes and turns all it's kinetic energy into heat and dissipates it into the air. Then it uses more gas to get moving again.
A hybrid uses gas to get moving, then hits its brakes and turns all its kinetic energy into electrical charge in the battery. Then it uses that charge to get moving again.
I just don't understand how you can possibly draw the conclusion that hybrids waste more energy?

they waste fossil fuels compared to a typical small diesel

Again dude, it's really extremely simple. A conventional engine will always waste more fuel than a hybrid version of the same engine. Period.

Nobody said that the hybrid car doesn't use less gasoline. They simply cause more pollution from the mining and smelting of the nickel for the battery, plus the trip and a half around the world from the mine to the consumer. And a plug-in hybrid? Read my post on 100% electric cars. I heard somebody say that 100% electric cars aren't much better than gasoline powered vehicles, so I set out to prove him wrong. I did a lot of research, and couldn't prove him wrong.