For some time, I've been vaguely aware of some 'research' that purported to show that a GM Hummer was more eco-friendly than a hybrid Toyota Prius over its entire lifecycle. This puzzled me greatly so I decided to have a look myself.

In March 2007, a market research company called CNWMR published a report called 'Dust To Dust' which appeared to show that, taking into consideration energy over the whole lifecycle, the energy cost of a Prius was $3.25 per mile whereas the Hummer H3 was only $1.949 per mile (dig the precision). This caused jubilation amongst the reactionary press and blogosphere and outrage amongst their progressive counterparts.

While many of the latter produced long lists and reports of what was wrong with the CNWMR analysis, I personally believe there is one big fatal flaw.

CNWMR factored in the different driver behaviour of the two vehicles - an average of 100 000 miles across its lifetime for the Prius and 400 000 ish for the Hummer. The Prius does have a higher energy cost to build (partly due to the battery, partly because it is unique so cannot share facilities with other models), so this skews the analysis heavily against the Prius as the smaller build energy for the Hummer is spread more thinly against all those miles.

To put it in layman's terms the argument is: the Prius is more damaging because its drivers drive less.

Or conversely: if you drive more then your vehicle is more eco-friendly!

Ludicrous!

This clearly demonstrates the WYGIWYN (what you get is what you need) effect associated with life cycle assessments. If LCA is to be used to make clear judgements between products then standardised methods are required (as with fuel efficiency or energy labelling) to ensure that this sort of idiocy is not given the oxygen of publicity that I've just given it!

Labels: dust to dust, hummer, lca, prius

Google's reputation as a corporate goodguy (motto: Don't be evil) took a big hit recently with charges of complicity in political censorship by the Chinese Government. So the cynical may think that their massive investment in solar photovoltaic technologies is a desperate attempt by the search engine giant to claw its way back to the moral high ground. But I'm not so sure this is a cynical ploy - the company's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin drive modest hybrid Toyota Priuses (Prii?) despite being worth gazillions, and earlier this year they announced $11m donation to further develop hybrid technologies.

According to Page, "Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in years, not decades." I think this is the first time I have heard someone set such an ambitious target, and, even if this proves impossible, they've certainly got the cash to have a damn good try to get close.

Tree hugging greens have long quoted Nobel prize winner George Porter's statement "If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago." to reflect the difference in investment between the defence industry and sustainability. Well maybe philanthropists like Page & Brin can succeed where Governments have failed...

Labels: google, prius, renewable energy