Cancel
Advanced Search
KEYWORDS
CATEGORY
AUTHOR
MONTH

Please click here to take a brief survey

Happy Birthday, Prius!
Erica Barnett, 2 Nov 07
Article Photo

Toyota's Prius--the most successful hybrid car in history, with more than 800,000 in circulation--is turning ten. When the gas-electric hybrid was introduced in Japan in 1997, the market for alternative vehicles was sluggish. Off-road sport-utility vehicles were all the rage; gas prices were low; and skeptics of the new technology worried that the electric battery would amount to a costly but useless add-on that would do little to save gas or improve the environment.

Despite the early Prius' competitive pricing (initially around $24,000, less than many comparable conventional cars) and positive reviews (reviewers at the time declared it "amazing" and "unique", and the Automotive Researchers and Journalists Conference of Japan made it their Car of the Year), the Prius didn't really take off, at least not at first.

All that would change, of course, when gas prices went through the roof starting in 2000, and so did Prius sales in the United States, which initially rose modestly -- 20,000 in 2003, to 24,000 in 2004 -- but spiked to a whopping a whopping 105,000 in 2006. 2007 sales trends suggest that Toyota will sell around 185,000 Prius sedans in the U.S. this year.

Toyota isn't resting on its laurels, either; is looking for ways to improve the Prius and expand its line of alternative vehicles further. In the works: Plug-in electric cars, much more powerful batteries for the next generation of hybrids, and cars powered by hydrogen fuel-cells (I'm skeptical). The company is aiming to sell a million gas-electric hybrids a year globally by the early 2010's, and is

Hybrid cars aren't ideal; they're still cars, for one thing. Producing them has significant negative impacts on the climate, as do the development patterns that car ownership tends to promote. All those concrete, impervious roads aren't good for the environment either; indeed, concrete production itself produces significant greenhouse-gas emissions.

Moreover, the companies that produce hybrids still rely heavily on selling gas-guzzling, carbon-belching behemoths as well -- according to The New York Times, this year's Tokyo motor show featured hybrid concept cars, alternative-fuel propulsion systems, and congestion-relief technologies right alongside "a bigger collection of the newest engine-revving, pollutant-belching, tire-smoking supercars" than ever.

Still, let's give the Prius its due. Despite its shortcomings, it has built a market for cool alternatives to conventional internal-combustion cars --a market that will only continue to grow. (And with US companies like Chrysler laying off workers and switching production to hybrid models, there's a good chance it will grow in the US, too.) Perhaps more importantly, it serves as an advertisement for sustainability. People don't buy Priuses primarily because they look cool (although they do) or because they get good gas mileage (although they do that too.) They buy them because they say something about the people driving them--that they want to live a sustainable lifestyle, even if they aren't there yet. I think buying a hybrid also makes people more conscious of what they can do to live more sustainably in other areas of their life, too--a positive thing, even if buying a hybrid isn't nearly enough.

Image credit: flickr/Mind Hacker

Bookmark and Share


Comments

It was not only the rise in oil prices that helped Prius sales. My wife and I looked at the first version and found it too small and too devoid of any style or comfort. When we looked again, in '05, we found a roomy, comfortable car that averages above 50 mpg for us. I hope Toyota does a plug-in retrofit for older Priuses someday...


Posted by: patrick on 2 Nov 07

No free lunch here. The 50MPG benefit is offset by the carbon / fossil costs of making the batteries that power the Prius (and other hybrids). Always look at the "net energy" costs (EROEI).

When compared with a standard high-mileage gasoline car (such as Honda Accord, etc.), the Prius uses about the same amount of energy - less of that energy is used at the pump, and more of it in the battery manufacturing process, which is wickedly energy intensive.

Energy (in cheap abundance) drove the industrial revolution (and population explosion) of the last 100 years - and energy (in dwindling scarcity) will likely put an end to industrialization as we know it. Peak oil is the #1 social issue of our day.


Posted by: John La Grou on 3 Nov 07

No free lunch here. The 50MPG benefit is offset by the carbon / fossil costs of making the batteries that power the Prius (and other hybrids). Always look at the "net energy" costs (EROEI).

When compared with a standard high-mileage gasoline car (such as Honda Accord, etc.), the Prius uses about the same amount of energy - less of that energy is used at the pump, and more of it in the battery manufacturing process, which is wickedly energy intensive.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? I've seen LCA charts for the Prius which indicates nothing of the sort.

http://toyota.jp/prius/ecology/image/eco02.gif


Posted by: lkj on 3 Nov 07

LKJ, it's similar with many "green" technologies - such as PV solar panels. It takes massive amounts of energy (mostly fossil) to manufacture PV panels - the net payoff period is getting better, but is still roughly 15 years - not enough for broad commercial viability. And as the cost of fossil energy goes up, so must the costs of PV manufacturing. They track. There is no free lunch.

Ethanol is another - it takes massive amounts of fossil energy to cultivate, fertilize, grow, harvest, transport, and process the agricultural materials (mostly corn) used to make ethanol. UC Berkeley's recent study shows that, if every step of the process is managed perfectly, it's theoretically possible to achieve a -slight- net gain with ethanol (5%?), but we're not anywhere near that yet - it's still far more efficient to simply refine fossil oil directly rather than use it to grow crops to make fuel.

When comparing net energy used by battery-based vehicles to pure fuel vehicles, there's a point (MPG) at which the hybrid begins to have an advantage, but it's not 1:1 - there's a significant premium due to the intensive energy used in manufacturing (and decommissioning..) NiMH batteries. So, a pure fuel Toyota Corolla that gets 35MPG vs. a Prius that gets 45MPG will consume roughly the same amount of NET energy.

Hybrid designs (batteries, drive train, conversion, plug-in technology, etc.) are becoming more efficient each year. We need to continue moving in this direction. I'm not disparaging hybrids, just pointing out an often overlooked detail. The Prius driver may be using less gas at the pump than the Corolla driver, but both cars will have required a similar amount of fossil energy over their entire life. For now..


Posted by: John La Grou on 3 Nov 07

LKJ, it's similar with many "green" technologies - such as PV solar panels. It takes massive amounts of energy (mostly fossil) to manufacture PV panels - the net payoff period is getting better, but is still roughly 15 years - not enough for broad commercial viability. And as the cost of fossil energy goes up, so must the costs of PV manufacturing. They track. There is no free lunch.

I realize that you're saying that, but that chart I just showed you contradicts what you're saying. Perhaps you can point me to the source of your information.

As for PVs, the energy payback period is 1 to 4 years, from what I've seen - not 15.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Please point us to the source for your numbers.


Posted by: lkj on 3 Nov 07

If real-world PV payback was 1-4 years, we would see a profoundly greater interest in PV today. Today’s PV payback is roughly 15 years. This number is a world average and will vary significantly with geographic location / PV orientation / etc.. Here’s a realistic analysis from a PV-friendly source:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Consumer/Payback.htm

I calculated PV payback some years ago for my business. Let’s do it again.

We use about 250KWh per 8 hr day. That requires a PV system (collectors, installation, inverters, LA batts, chargers, etc.) to sustain 25kW on a local average of 4.8 sun-hours/day. At $6/W, our front-end investment is roughly $150,000.

Our commercial electricity bill averages $1200/mo.. Payback – about 11 years. Now factor in inverter replacement at 15 years, battery replacement (varies), expected maintenance, etc.. Payback is closer to 13 years. An improvement since the last time I calculated costs (!), but not enough incentive to switch from the grid.

In Germany, PV systems are compensated for every watt they deliver to the grid – homeowners and businesses make around 50 cents per KWh for their excess PV power. In the USA, power companies will not compensate beyond break-even on your utility bill. No wonder PV is vastly more popular in Germany than USA.

Sigh...


Posted by: John La Grou on 4 Nov 07

LKJ, it just occurred to me that the study you cited is talking about "carbon payback" - not system payback. In other words, your study addresses the question "how long must a PV system operate to recover the energy (carbon) used in making the system?"

Real-world PV "carbon payback" numbers I've seen are more like 4 to 6 years, but that is always improving.


Posted by: JL on 4 Nov 07

If real-world PV payback was 1-4 years, we would see a profoundly greater interest in PV today. Today’s PV payback is roughly 15 years.

That's the economic payback, not the energy payback. You were discussing energy payback with respect to the Prius and then PVs, and now you just shifted gears to economic payback. Thanks for catching that in your latest comment.

I'd still like to know where you got your numbers for the Prius, and I'd also like to know if you still claim the energy (not the financial) payback for PVs is 15 years.

Point is, you're drawing a lot of conclusions here that essentially say that the Prius and PVs aren't really that good for the environment, and the numbers you use you have yet to substantiate. The financial question for both the Prius and PVs is an entirely different discussion from the energy/environmental question, so I'd prefer that you just simply support your energy/environmental assertions with where you got the numbers you've claimed.

You really don't need to try and explain the financial, energy, or environmental issues about these things. I feel comfortable that I have sufficient knowledge about them. I just want the source of your numbers - that's all - since they are nowhere near the numbers I'm familiar with and trust.

As for your claim about the "carbon payback" of PVs, are you contesting the energy payback from the NREL I just provided? Or are you claiming that there's a substantial difference between energy and carbon payback?

I just would like to see where you get all your numbers. Thanks.


Posted by: lkj on 4 Nov 07

Yes, "energy payback" and "carbon payback" can be nearly interchangeable terms, subject only to differences in manufacturing. For instance, Chinese-built batteries and PVs use nearly all carbon based energy for their manufacture, whereas French-based manufacturing uses very little carbon energy - the lowest of any major industrialized country on the planet (less than 20% of their electrical power is generated by carbon).

It's not a "Prius battery" study you want - it's battery mfg carbon payback in general. Check both LA and NiMH. You'll find that the AH required in the Prius adds roughly 15% to its net energy cost. I did the work up some year ago with LA cells, and it was even higher. Sorry, I don't have time to re-do those calcs (your link is in Japanese and I cannot read it).

You say "you're drawing a lot of conclusions here that essentially say that the Prius and PVs aren't really that good for the environment."

Not sure where I said that, or even inferred that. Everything we manufacture, drive, consume, process, etc.. has a NET energy cost. Automotive MPG is just one of myriad factors in determining total energy used. Energy is a complex issue which is often simplified or skewed for the benefit of one interest group over another.

Hybrid vehicles are a great step in the right direction, and plug-in vehicles will be even better. But new coal plants in China alone greatly offset any gains we make in vehicle efficiency. Our energy issues go much deeper than automotive efficiencies. One hundred years of cheap, abundant energy has engendered an ethos of industrialization that is fundamentally unsustainable. We have a wickedly difficult problem on our hands.


Posted by: John La Grou on 4 Nov 07

oh, sorry - Yes. The Alsema study looks sound. The numbers I saw some time ago showed PV carbon payback at something like 4-6 years. Given that Alsema is citing 4 years for current MCS PV technology, that seems in line.


Posted by: JL on 4 Nov 07

OK, so those were just your own calculations and you weren't relying on any outside source's conclusion? So, where are the data that you used to make your calculations?

You originally said that the net energy use of the Prius is the same as an Accord. The graphic I provided from Toyota indicates 30% lower lifecycle CO2 emissions from a Prius compared to the average vehicle in its class. You can also see that the majority of the emissions come in the use phase - not in the extraction of raw materials, the production of the parts and assembly of the vehicle, and the disposal.

If one were to assume a 200,000 mile lifespan of a vehicle, the tailpipe CO2 emissions of a Prius are 100,000 pounds less than a 4 cylinder Accord (about 4,000 fewer gallons of gasoline).

To put out that much CO2 from electricity in the United States, one would need to use over 72,000 kWh of it. In Japan, which is less carbon intensive in its electricity generation, it would require substantially more electricity. Even at the US amount, at industrial electricity prices, that's about $4,500 worth of electricity. That's more money than the entire retail price premium of a hybrid vehicle. Add in all the material costs for batteries and other hybrid components, and the numbers can't balance to make the Accord carbon-equivalent to the Prius.

As for energy-equivalency, the extraction, manufacture, and disposal energy requirements of the Prius would have to be around 500 million BTU more than an Accord, which is also past the realm of believability.


Posted by: lkj on 4 Nov 07

I did the Prius net-energy work up some years ago, when Prius used lead-acid cells. Let me find some recent data on NiMH and post my findings. IIRC, NiMH has some improvement in net-energy mfg, but not much - and has additional issues in other kinds of mfg pollutions and decommissioning / recycling of heavy metals. Where NiMH excels is in energy density and longevity.

You trust Toyota's data? I don't. Check back shortly.


Posted by: JL on 4 Nov 07

I did the Prius net-energy work up some years ago, when Prius used lead-acid cells.

When did it have lead-acid cells?

You trust Toyota's data?

More than empirical assertions made with no supporting data? Yes. If they make wild claims, then there are consequences if those claims are found to be bogus.

I don't need their data, in any case, as I already demonstrated that both the notions of carbon and energy paybacks compared to the Accord (which you asserted was its lifecycle equivalent) don't stand up under analysis. Factor in lower carbon intensity and higher priced electricity (as in Japan) and it makes your claim even less likely to be true.


Posted by: lkj on 4 Nov 07

It's also important to note that the LCA chart from Toyota is for 100,000 km, so if it actually covered a full vehicle lifetime (over 3 times that distance) the CO2 from use portion would completely dominate those two bars on the left and the lifetime CO2 of the Prius would drop to about 50% of an average vehicle in its size class.


Posted by: lkj on 4 Nov 07

To give you a sense of where the Toyota LCA numbers stand, their claim is around 5,600 pounds of CO2 from the non-use part of an average vehicle's lifecycle, and 14,800 pounds for the Prius. So the CO2 "deficit" of the Prius before use is a little over 9,000 pounds.

A Camry puts out 158,000 pounds of CO2 in lifetime use, a Corolla 136,000 pounds, and a Prius 86,000 pounds. A non-hybrid car would need to average 42 mpg over its lifetime to better the Prius lifecycle CO2 number.


Posted by: lkj on 4 Nov 07

Replied yesterday, but was rejected by WC comment-bot. Here it is again w/o NYT (etc.) links.

duo mea culpae - I assumed a 300V sealed LA array in the earliest Prius, which is wrong (it was 288V NiMH, now 202V), and explains the significant net-energy hit. And Accord was a poor choice – it delivers 40% more horsepower than a Prius. Fair comparisons would include Toyota’s own Yaris sedan or Scion XD.. which are all of roughly similar size and horsepower (the all-fuel Yaris shows surprisingly good CO2 performance as well - 119g/km vs. 109g/km).

Based on its 30-40% price differential from Scion-Yaris, we could assume that the energy cost to manufacture a Prius is higher than a Scion XD or Yaris Sedan. Or perhaps the Prius drive train is truly 30-40% more costly than a mechanical drive? Is the cost increase related to energy? Supply + demand? We don’t know. Nor have I found real-world net-energy numbers on NiMH mfg. Still looking.

Worldwatch says the average car uses 6% of its carbon footprint in mfg. This was news to me – I had seen much higher numbers in the past (closer to 1/3 perhaps), and 21kW (100 pounds) of batteries would skew this number even higher. Worldwatch cites “Weiss 2000”, and I have contacted Mr. Weiss, a geo-ecologist, to start a dialogue on his methodology.

Also found that Argonne Labs has developed a “well to wheels” calculator that may help. I’m going to poke around on that and report back. In discussing this with a friend (who recently directed a major domestic auto mfr’s electric vehicle program), he didn’t know where to find NiMH net-energy data, but did say that their analysis of the total carbon footprint of test EVs proved “favorable.”

Yet there’s a nagging issue of real-world MPG. Does the Prius really get EPA 46MPG all-around? Many, including USA Today and NY Times, say “not even close.” So our quick comparison could very well be totally off the mark.


Posted by: JL on 6 Nov 07

You think a Yaris is a legitimate comparison with a Prius? They're not in the same size class and they certainly don't have the same trim level. The difference in prices is a lot more than attributing it all to different costs of energy inputs.

If you want to get a sense of the cost of a hybrid premium, it's generally assumed to be in the $4,000 range for current vehicles, which bears out when looking at models like the Civic, Camry, and Escape - all of which have direct non-hybrid versions. Toyota claims they will halve this premium with the third generation Prius, so now the whole hybrid premium (at retail, including all components, not just batteries) should come in at around $2,000 in the next 1-2 years.

At prices from the year 2005 ($611/kWh of capacity), the 1.3 kWh NiMH pack of the Prius would put the battery price at around $800.

Yet there’s a nagging issue of real-world MPG. Does the Prius really get EPA 46MPG all-around? Many, including USA Today and NY Times, say “not even close.” So our quick comparison could very well be totally off the mark.

There are 1,407 users at Greenhybrid whose average real-world MPG is 47.6 mpg. All 2nd generation Prius real-world average data at Fueleconomy exceeds 47 mpg. It's safe to assume the EPA estimate is accurate, if a small bit understated.

Keep in mind the prior EPA estimate had it at 55 mpg.

Point is, I'm just not seeing how a hybrid is an energy or carbon dud, given how much energy and carbon are involved in driving 200,000 miles.


Posted by: lkj on 6 Nov 07

"You think a Yaris is a legitimate comparison with a Prius?"

Haven't driven either of them, and not sure about "trim" upgrades, but in many key categories they are almost identical

Horsepower 106 / 110
Length 170 / 175
Width 67 / 68
Leg Room 42 / 42
CO2 119 / 109

Yet Yaris with upgraded trim is roughly 60% the cost of Prius with standard trim. Perhaps Yaris isn't a good comparison, but we can't fairly compare cars with 30-40% horsepower differential, either. I'm not sure there IS a good all-gas comparison to the Prius.

Anyway, thanks for the chat. No question - hybrids, and especially and plug-ins, are the future. I'll report back if I can find more NiMH net-energy data, etc..


Posted by: JL on 6 Nov 07

If you'd like to avoid comparison difficulties, just work with the numbers for the Civic, Camry, Escape, Altima, Highlander, or any other hybrid that's based on a non-hybrid of the same model. The Corolla comparison is tenuous enough and the Yaris is even more out there. Five minutes in each of those vehicles (especially the back seat) would make that pretty clear.

Take the Altima as an example. Base 4 cylinder non-hybrid is $4,500 cheaper than the hybrid. Lifetime vehicle-use CO2 differential is around 36,000 pounds. The difference between a Prius and a Yaris is more than that - more than 41,000 pounds. Keep in mind, too, that that is tailpipe CO2 and doesn't include the 5 or so pounds per gallon that come from refining, transport, extraction, and so forth.

Either way, those CO2 numbers are 4 to 5 times greater than the "hybrid penalty" in extraction, manufacture, and disposal. Unless you can figure out how 18 to 20 tons of extra CO2 can come from making a small batch of batteries, some electric motors, and such, the numbers are very favorable towards hybrid technology - and will only keep getting better. Especially if people keep putting money into the technology instead of giving it to the oil industry.


Posted by: lkj on 6 Nov 07

I just have to jump in here and offer a tangential comment, which is that it's discussions like these that make working at Worldchanging so much fun. This was a substantive dispute, made by respectful parties who took for granted the other side's good intentions and shared their arguments and assumptions. And, in the process, you've helped me (at least, I expect others as well) see the issue more clearly. So thanks guys!

On a more relevant note, the manufacturing question seems a critical one to me

Worldwatch says the average car uses 6% of its carbon footprint in mfg. This was news to me – I had seen much higher numbers in the past (closer to 1/3 perhaps), and 21kW (100 pounds) of batteries would skew this number even higher.

Because I had heard figures much closer to 1/3 of a car's *ecological footprint* (which obviously includes things other than carbon) in manufacturing, and some additional poorly quantified impacts in disposal. Which did not address batteries at all.

I'd love to get some guidance on the best numbers here, and on how you all would think through this question.

What do you think?


Posted by: Alex Steffen on 7 Nov 07

What about the cost of a vehicle for it's typical use. In other words a bigger car is stil a waste of energy, because we don't need it most of the time.

Many people drive to work. Most of them drive to work, and perhaps 20% of these drive to lunch. They often drive alone. They are lugging along 3 extra seats and countless other crap in the vehicle that they don't need. This adds weight. As one author mentioned in Solar Energy Today, we are carting around 2000lbs of steel to move a 200 lb person. This means we are only 10% efficient with 100% efficient drive train. Compare that to a bicycle which weighs less than a human riding it. The bike is at least 50% efficient with human power. Now we can see that in northern places and in the suburbs driving to the inner city over freeways, pot hole and through dangerous neighboorhoods and in snow and cold, bicycles are not as great a bargain in convinience and time. A real problem

The solution may be a POD car, proposal. I propose we need to focus on a vehicle that is more like a motorcycle scooter sidecar pod that is enclosed and fully electric. This is a type of vehicle that has a POD per person or may be an extended long pod. The pods would be able to be added to a skeleton of tubular steel. A three wheeled structure with a single pod could exist. perhaps it would weight 1000lbs or less even in high performance modes. It could be powered by a small motorcycle engine, but better to be powred by an electric engine. The three wheeled pod would be best to start with. The frame would be expensive. like a frame of a dune buggy, but low slung.

The pod would have a control panel. The rear wheel might be inside a POD and powertrain that could be exchanged for different powered purposes, optional expansion without getting rid of the entire vehicle.

The POD a human (driver sits in) would be for one or two maybe an adult and a kid behind. The Solo version of the pod would be about 200lbs. The Passenger pod would also be beside this attached to the skeleton for SOCIAL driving. Here is the great part. Since we are travelling to work alone most of the time, we just keep the second pod at home and leave it and drive a one pod configuration to work. Now the pod is secure and weighs about 200lds, maybe a bit more with extras like a control setup for driving, airbags, etc.

If we want to travel by light rail, we just disconnect our pod and attach it to the rail system that has the same skeleton structure to inteface the pod. So the pods can become a part of a monorail system or a buss system that has many pods attached to a larger frame for long distance travel. That way you are in a safe personal space.

** This is a much better idea and needed NOW ** we need these kinds of cars for working people in the northern United States. Ford, GM, Toyota, heck everyone should be making these now. The spacefram construction is the most expensive part. The panels can be ANYTHING, that means anything like lightweight panels of aluminum, fabric like biplanes it doesn't matter. This means less embedded energy for aerodynamics and many options. The suspension is attached to the frame in the front with two wheels. The rear suspension is either attached the the frame or in the rear power pod that contains it's own powerplant.

Why have a vehicle like this. Go to work and look around while your in traffic. Most people don't want to ride a buss and be next to a smelly guy or bum who may be on the bus. It may be bus racism of a sort or snobbery or a desire to go where you want to go, no impulse control. Wanting your "own" system. Whatever the reason, cars are the best means of transportation for our consumer wants, but WAY to inefficient. We need 1000lb or less pod cars, and if they are electric they should have a range of 30 or 40 miles. For the drive to work. How do you recharge a system and go further? You don't you exchange the battery at a battery charging gas station. The exchange process is quick computer controlled efficient and based on card swiping technology. The battery is charged at the station and you "RENT" the battery via a buy of the energy or exchange of your original one. Each battery has a life and statistics in a centralized database run by the companies who charge the batteries.

This should provide.
1. A pod car with one person capacity with a gas miliage equivalent of 100 to 150 MPG.
2. A pod car that gets less milage with the second pod attached.
3. A way to drive 150 miles with each "exchange at a gas station taking less than 10 seconds. You will "fill up" more but the process will be much faster as the batteries are simply robotically replaced into their locked position.
4. ON STAR tracking like capabilities are in the cars as the batteries are serial numbered and the datbase tracks the vehicles and which batteries are in which vehicles. This means if someone steals your pod car, they will never get a battery replacement, because they will be locked out and the exchange would notify the police.


That's about it. If we can replace most of the cars in the US that will allow us to reduce our oil dependence a lot. Other countries have to do this as well. If we are only consuming 25% of the worlds fossil fuels even if we use zero energy the world is still depleting energy. Therefore the solution must be WORLD WIDE in becoming more efficient. This is only a partial solution, all effficient solutions, retrofitting insulation on all US houses, etc, must be undertaken to address peak OIL. This must happen now.

As a side note: I work in IT data processing and can "WORK FROM HOME" and don't even need to drive to work. But my employer will not allow me to do this, so I waste a lot of fuel driving to work each day and then to lunch as well because most fast food restraunts are horrible in Detroit Michigan. So I drive perhaps 11 miles to work and back and almost as far each day to lunch. What a waste of energy. Think about this. My 110 horsepower Civic could plow enough soil in a daily drive to probably feed my family for a year. So I'm wasting 300 times more energy in driving to work than I should be just to eat. Let's see I could feed my family for the rest of their life for the cost of one year of driving. Many small farm tractors have 18 HP engines. The Horsepower needed to travel at highway speeds with a "Whippet" styled small car frame is 17 horsepower, meaning a 17HP diesel should be enough for a small vehicle that can get over 100MPG. Anyone want to win the Automotive X prize?


Posted by: think about this - Pod car needed on 8 Nov 07

By the way. Pvideo@aol.com posted the pod car comments above. Forgot to fill in all the details.

Greg


Posted by: Greg K- pvideo@aol.com on 8 Nov 07



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO:

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:


MESSAGE (optional):


Search Worldchanging

Worldchanging Newsletter Get good news for a change —
Click here to sign up!


Worldchanging2.0


Website Design by Eben Design | Logo Design by Egg Hosting | Hosted by Amazon AWS | Problems with the site? Send email to tech /at/ worldchanging.com
©2012
Architecture for Humanity - all rights reserved except where otherwise indicated.

Find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif twitter-logo.jpg