Quote Originally Posted by jakeslouw View Post
As far as I know, there hasn't been a proper carbon cost breakdown on the production of the Defender versus something like the Prius.

My opinion is the jury is still out regarding whether new tech cars are in fact cheaper top produce carbon-wise than old tech cars.
I thought they had done that with a Jeep as well as a Prius.
The Jeep killed the Prius when it got to diposal. IIRC, the only part of a Jeep that is not recyclable is the seat squabs.
What worked against the Prius was all the nasty toxic stuff in the batteries.


http://www.motortorque.com/expert-co...ler-17818.aspx


Just found this

Which cars are the greenest? You'd be surprised
Neil Reynolds

Friday, July 27, 2007

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.