Wired.com has an article on why it’s better to buy a used car than to buy a new hybrid.
The author’s argument states that it takes 113 Million BTU’s to build a Prius hybrid, leaving it having to travel 100,000 miles to make up the debt, as compared to a used car, which has already paid back its debt.
There’s a problem here, he’s talking BTU’s, when the global concern is about carbon emissions.
What’s a BTU? It’s a British Thermal Unit. It’s a measure of heat, having nothing to do with carbon output.
Case-in-point, thermal solar panels work by collecting the suns heat and transmitting it to a liquid medium for use as a heat source. This activity produces BTUs, yet there is no carbon production. Still the author continues to do the math relative to the amount of BTU’s released by gasoline, and makes the assumption that there must be a larger carbon footprint because of a higher level of BTU’s.
WRONG!!!!
This is a completely dis-associated mathematics, because most assembly plants run off of electricity, which could be provided by nuclear or water based sources, leaving his founding premise without any viable weight.
Are we in such a panic that we’re willing to jump on any idea that sounds cool?
[ Read the Article ]
But what do I know?
June 3, 2008 at 11:48 am |
BTUs are not a measure of heat, they are a measure of energy. In your example, the solar panels produce energy measured in kilowatts/hour (kWh) which can be converted to BTU (3410 BTU per kWh). Calculating the carbon output of kWh is difficult, though. The carbon output of kWh is significantly lower in France where much of their electricity is generated through nuclear energy whereas in the midwest United States much of our energy comes from coal. Even there, it depends on the type of coal being burned and the efficiency of the plant.
As far as your idea that energy could be produced through non-carbon generating sources, you are right. It could be. But it isn’t. And it won’t be for awhile. So, there is a carbon “cost” component to purchasing a hybrid (or any other) vehicle right now.
Back to what the author of the Wired article was getting at, my opinion is that the main point he was trying to make was that consuming more is not necessarily the best way to “go green.” A simple example: If you replace a nalgene bottle you already own with a new one made more efficiently, that does not help the environment. It’s only if you have to purchase a new one that the more efficient process helps. I got the feeling that Mr. Squatriglia is fighting consumerism.
June 4, 2008 at 12:24 am |
I stand corrected. Thank you for the information.
September 30, 2008 at 4:33 am |
Hi, does anyone know how many BTUs it takes to make a solar panel and the battery system that it takes to make it work as compaired to how many btu it will produce in it’s life? Has anyone ever looked at the total energy needed to mine the lead, ship the lead, build the battries, controls, wire, etc.. This seems like the question most important to global warming. Does a solar panel system produce more energy in it’s 20-25 year life then it took to build it. thanks, steve