An even more effective way to minimize damage to the environment is to cycle, walk or take public transit. Even a totally electric car would still require asphalt to drive on and asphalt to park on.

Word is that after certain period of use the whole battery will need replacement at cost of perhaps 4,ooo dollars.

These vehicles were exactly the ones I had under consideration last summer. I went with the Corolla. You'd have to drive the Prius 400,000 km further to equal in gas cost savings the initial price difference. And that excludes inflation and the strong possibility that even better hybrids are just around the corner. Prius might be great now for taxi companies and the like. It doesn't quite make sense yet for the typical driver.

The US$1.80/Gallon (about C$0.59/L) is an unrealistically low gas price, at least for us in Canada. The further assumption that gas prices will stay constant in the future after inflation is an unrealistic assumption. Most experts seem to believe that unless things change significantly, we can expect gas prices to continue to outpace inflation for the foreseeable future. This significantly throws off most of the calculations shown. The thing this whole article misses, and the reason the Prius is successful, is exept for a few nerds, nobody buys a car based strictly on a cost-benefit analysis. One of the main reasons they buy it for the image it presents and a Prius (rightly so) presents an environmentally responsible image.

I made similar cost comparisons in 2003, when I needed to purchase my first car (at age 32) for work. I used to cycle everywhere, so I resented needing to actually buy a vehicle. The Cooperative Auto Network wouldn't take me because I hadn't had my drivers' license long enough to qualify for their insurance (as a radical cyclist, I didn't see the need to get a drivers' license until I actually needed to drive ...). I wound up buying the 2003 Corolla -- I couldn't afford the premium for the image, awesome look and better CO2 performance of the Prius this time. I'm very happy with the Corolla, but maybe "next time" I can go for the Prius ...

I read an article recently that argued that, from an economic perspective, hybrid diesel engines had greater potential to remove more tons of CO2 from the atmosphere than other technologies because it was potentially more affordable, and that diesel could cycle at a lower rate. The article argued that this would likely be true for the next 30 - 50 years. (Sorry about the lack of citation -- I don't have it in front of me now)

The notion that hybrid vehicles will solve the so-called harmful gases that go into the atmosphere, I think is unrealistic. None of the current hybrid vehicles offer satisfactory long range driving comforts that are required in North America. Futher, the smaller cars, such as the SMART, are completely impractical for anything else than sight seeing or point a to b travel without any cargo. Electrically powered vehicles sound great, except, batteries wear out and need replacing at a huge cost. Public transport is completely in adequate in its present form and is really just for point a to b travel. If power plants for vehicles can be made using nuclear power then that could solve the issue, but so far that also seems to be just a dream. North Americans do like to travel independently and use motor vehicles to travel long distances. I do not think this will change.

Apparently one of the key selling points for hybrids in the U.S. is that many states and cities allow hybrid cars to use HOV lanes with a solo occupant. There has been considerable pressure on congress to extend this nation-wide. (car-pool lanes are funded through federal fuel taxes) In some areas there are complaints that slower moving hybrids as adding to congestion in the HOV's.

Terry, I do walk/run/cycle for my daily commute and to get groceries. We do drive our kids to school and after-school stuff. I also play hockey and have a band. I don't know how many times you've taken drums on the bus. Once is plenty, believe me.

I've been following the consumer reports on the Prius-type vehicles, in the hopes I can get one when my cheap and dependable beater finally packs it in. Rural commuters do not have the option of transit. It's kind of like my sister-in-law in London, who markets wind turbines, said: Wind power is not at all competitive with other, dirtier forms of power generation as far as cost goes, but corporations are buying them because of the environmental credits they receive -- and that's a benefit to the air we breathe. Leaving aside the argument that the turbines are visual pollution...

1) Toyota Corolla is lot smaller car than Prius. To compare Prius to Corolla is just plain lack of knowledge. 2) Due to my 140 miles a day commute, Prius is saving me right now $1,700 a year, as compared to my previous vehicle, Toyota Camry. 3) The tax deduction was extended - and it is $2,000 4) Your logic on removing CO2 is just plain faulty - I don't see _any_ reason not worthy of removing _any_ polution. Maybe people WOULD use the extra funds to remove polution - but they will not. End of argument. And finally - similarly equiped Corolla (you may like to check the standard equipment on Prius!) runs close to $17,000. The difference after Tax Credit - around $2,000. Where you got yours $10,000 is beyond me.

In addition to the info about fuel emissions, I'd want to know what are the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process and what is left over after the car has ended its useful life? What components can be made from recycled materials and, in turn, be recycled?

Pepa is right. This article raises good food for thought, but the logic is flawed and the analysis incomplete. The assumptions are all in favour of the given viewpoint. The author even disclaims the article by noting that he(?) is not an expert in the field. This is an opinion piece, nothing more.

I myself like recycled cars. This summer I bought a 1986 Toyota Tercel- for $1200 (with lots of new parts). It rocks. The perfect dog beach/ dog hike car (my main reason for buying it), and I still cycle and walk a lot. It costs me about $25 to fill the tank and if I seem to be going through gas to quickly I don't "let" myself drive it for a couple of days. Mind you, it needs to be air-cared next month, so we'll see...

Frankly, the way to kill pollution and save the planet is to jack up the price of gas. When prices rise to European levels, people buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars all round. And the cost of fuel emphasises the miles driven, so the long range daily commuter, who pollutes more, is pressed to get efficient. The person who only uses the car for recreation, and puts on low mileage, can still justify an SUV, but certainly not for commuting. Let's just tax the shit out of gas, and watch the market adjust. Don't believe me? Think back to the 70's and the OPEC oil shock. Demand for fuel efficient vehicles soared. Manufacturers actually advertised the great mileage their cars were getting. Market forces can be very powerful. Yes, it was a bit grim in terms of car design, but I still regret when the price of gas gradually became negligible, and the "more cylinders", "more power" hype started up again. If you want a revenue neutral solution give the increased taxes back to the consumer as a flat rate rebate on their insurance costs. Every car gets back $5oo a year (or so, depending on the amount of the tax) towards their insurance costs. If you drive a fuel efficient car, you win. If you drive a pig you lose. Just watch the market move.

I see the sense of the arguement, and of those commenting, but in addition to the other costs mentioned (road building / local pollution etc.) you need to account for the cost of congestion, noise and accidents on the local community. Once these are taken into account, the only economic option is a Green Fuel Bus. Perhaps the best focus should be on using the car less by pooling / home working etc.

Fi, if it fails Aircare, sell it to me! My 84 Civic (40mpg) is on the way out...i love toyotas, and never buy new cars..let some rich person absorb the sticker shock :)

I see CanStats ran a Canadianized version of this. They not only converted it to Canadian dollars, but seem to have used Canadian prices (ie. gas is way more expensive in Canada, not due to the exchange rate...higher gas taxes I assume) To Hybrid, or Not to Hybrid http://canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=731

I wish the author had commented on the Smart car.

Cars are to young ladys as a peacocks tail is to a peahen. They like the flashy one and to hell with the environmental or economic consiquences.
So, to get a better world, you got to educate the young ladys. Get them to forget the damn car. Look at the man! Girls, a guy With a car, you just cannot thrust, where is he goingto, who is he going to? He also has to pay for it (a car is like a mistress). Imagine how many extra times you could go out with him if he didnt have the expense? He could buy you dinner, wine, a band of gold. You could be taxied everywhere you wanted to go! Wow. You can have your hearts desire. All u gotta do first is get him to sell the car.
Yup, educate the females and the world will run smoother. PS I do not drive.

in the last 30 years since the last big oil crisis in the states nobody has doe anything to get the automobile off petrolem, there are other fuels that can run a car. The oil companies want you to use every drop of oil in the ground so most of this technolegy has bee supressed because
of that. oil use to be almost free for oil companies to take out of the ground now it is costing more to get at whats left. fossel fuel gives alot of punch in the internal combution engine but it doesn't burn as clean as alcohol.
if i have to do without 5 or 10 hourse power then so be it, many reports say alcohol gives more power others say less it is possable to convert a engine to use alcohol fuels it may need more copper fittings rather than rubber hose and plastic wich costs more. if we could get even 20% of the cars on the road esp older cars on alcohol fuels that would help a little to free up petrolem for ashphalt and shingles on your roof.
henry ford infact prefered alcohol fuel but the evil oil industry used propgada to make people want gasoline and gas was dirt cheap in comparison
alcohol is still exspensive if u buy it in 500mls bottles at the drug store and in bulk still would still be more because production of alcohol isn't as big and methods of refining haven't been mass produced in quantities as oil. i had a old lawn mower i ran on alcohol i'd buy at the drug store and it ran fine it just smelled like i was having a fondu and sometimes would put a bit of gas in the tank with it so it could start easyer cold.
hybrids are a good short term solution but if the oil companies have their way everything would be a gas guzziling beast.

The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster, Feeding Cars, Not People by George Monbiot in The Guardian, 12/11/04:

Please do some research on emmissions reports on biofuel vehicles. They aren't effective in reducing greenhouse gas emmissions.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

Brian White, get your head out of your butt. Not all women think that way, and your characterization is idiotic.

... Brian White, leave your head in your butt. It is the perfect place for it.

Terry Lavender makes a good point about walking, cycling and transit being a better response toward a cleaner environment. He might have added good train service between farflung communities. The point missed when focusing on air emissions and greenhouse gases is the additional destruction of the built urban environment to accommodate cars, be they Priuses or SUVs. The sheer expanse of tarmac, the lots, the ugly strip malls and big-box stores, the wretched plastic signs and other devices aimed at grabbing the attention of speeding motorists, not to mention the dehumanizing sprawl of communities, where walking around is considered an oddity or worse a felony — it all seems so obviously repellent. Why aren't we resisting the siren calls of Toyota and the rest of the self-serving auto giants and demanding more street cars, LRT, bike lanes, better and more buses — all at a cost considerably lower than paying Detroit for its obscene profits, while benefiting the entire community.
These kinds of things have already been done in countries like Gerrmany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Scandinavia, countries which are leaving North America behind in terms of high quality of life . . .

Post Script:
Correction, that's Germany. And Scandinavia isn't a country, but you know what I mean.

With the cost of battery rejuevenating after the inital period being perhaps $4,000.00 or more,you may be stuck with a rapidly depreciating car,as all second and three hand car buyers know you are just creating a used ,preowned, car for me.And the prospect of a disposal fee for the toxic battery disposal doesn't warm my heart.

The 1992 Accord would be the best option out of those listed in the article. The fossil fuels consumed in extracting and processing the materials that go into a car dwarf whatever gas you will consume over ten years -- especially the gas and coal involved in mining and smelting iron ore, or electrolyzing bauxite (alumninum ore) (don't kid yourself, a small and ever-decreasing proportion of electricity is generated from renewable sources).

CAR SHARE ANYONE? I am looking for a way to get alternatively fueled cars into a car share program in Vancouver. Cooperative Auto Net (CAN) currently has three hybrids but their priority is getting more people to share cars, so they too want the cheaper option. I want to directly demonstrate a viable non-fossil fuel dependent system for urbanites (yes, I know, lofty ideals given the dependence of electricity on fossil fuels). So anyone in? write to CAN to ask about this.