In my reading of news /popular science articles I haven’t yet found any concensus on whether Hybrid vehicles are really better for the environment than a normal high mpg echonomical cars? Is there any good info on how much impact the production and recycling/disposal of hybrid car batteries will have on the environment?
http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/car-news/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabID=500648&ArticleID=5487&R=ce5487
The site says the following: Battery packs like that used by Toyota in the Prius, contain up to 28 groups of six Ni-MH battery cells. Correct disposal is therefore important.
I have heard this before, that the biggest downfall to hybrid cars are the batteries and the effect that they have on the environment. However, the batteries are supposed to have a long life. Anyone out there have a hybrid?
Recently a so-called study concluded that hybrid cars are cumulatively worse for the environment. However the study was rather questionable, taking into account the greenhouse gases expended during R&D of the vehicle etc. Not a fair comparison in my book, since gasoline engines have been under development for 100 years!
I believe that hybrid vehicles are currently better for the environment, provided the batteries are properly disposed of. I am SURE that they will become MORE better for the environment over time. Purchasing a hybrid car can be considered an investment in the technology, since the more popular they get, the more car manufacturers will put into making them better. This is why many hybrid owners rationalize their purchase - not because they’ll save money (it’ll come out the same or worse in the long run), or because they’re cumulatively greener cars at this moment, but because they want to help the technology get better.
The main way that cars hurt the environment is by burning gasoline. So if you have two cars, a hybrid and a non-hybrid, which get the same average fuel efficiency, they both have about an equal effect on the environment (of course, there aren’t that many non-hybrids with efficiencies that high). Remember, too, that efficiencies depend on what kind of driving you’re doing: Hybrids can actually have worse milage than non-hybrids if you’re driving nonstop across Kansas, or the like, but in stop-and-go city driving, a hybrid is much better than an equivalent non-hybrid vehicle.
The batteries are recyclable. If you were to simply discard the batteries into a landfill then a case could be made that the hybrid is not ecologically advantagious. As long as you recycle the batteries the fuel savings put the car at an advantage.
Also remember, its not always about money. It’s about wise use of resources and emmissions. The hybrids have lower emmissions but the critics don’t know how to quantify that so they try to just ignore it.
I own a Civic Hybrid and one of my motivations for buying it was that it was greener than non-hybrid cars. It gets over 50 mpg and therefore generates less pollution per mile than a non-hybrid. Yes it has batteries… but I wasn’t planning on throwing them into a landfill when I replaced them. Recyclers would be happy to have them. 
Most of what I’ve read on the subject has come from interested parties, and needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, aside from the disposal issue (which, given that mass-production of hybrid cars is a recent phenomenon, shouldn’t come home to roost for a few years yet) there seem to be two important arguments against hybrids. Firstly, as pointed out above, they simply aren’t more economical than your average diesel-powered family car. I don’t know what the factory figures are, but independent reviews of the Prius usually put mpg for the combined cycle in the mid 40s, which is materially worse than, say, a golf diesel, which would probably do 50+. I gather that the latest Lexus hybrid SUV manages (gasp!) 35 mpg. Big fat deal - I drive a car that deliberately sacrifices economy for power, and yet I still get a (manufacturer quoted) combined mpg of 32.
The other issue is the resources that go into building it. A car that has two engines needs (or at least, in the case of the Prius, employs) two factories to build it. It’s probably a bit simplistic to assume that this means double the amount of resources, but you get my drift.
Hybrids do not have the highest gas mileage of any car, but they do seem to have higher mileage than similar non-hybrid cars. People (at least in the US) want big cars with good performance. They’re not going to buy Golf Diesels in any significant quantity, any more than they’re going to bicycle to work. Hybrids allow them to buy the style of car they want, in a higher economy package.
That does not mean that they are enviromentally sound, just they can be somehow reused. I would have to know how they are recycled, what happens to the end product - is it a new battery pack, or just suitable for kitty litter? If is it a new battry pack, is it the same capacity as the old, or are materials lost?, what is the waste and energy that goes into the recycling process?
True, sort of, D-Chrysler has stated that they have no plans to make hybrids as diesel power can easially get better mpg then hybrids using proven technology. But I beleive this is mainly for highway driving. If you do city driving you would burn less in a hybrid, if you do mostly highway you should do better with a diesel.
Which means that hybrids should be banned from HOV lanes, and should only be driven in the slow lane to get the best mpg 
Except that a Prius or a hybrid Civic (mentioned in a previous post - I don’t think such a thing exists in Europe) is surely no more appealing than a Golf? I’ve never driven a diesel myself, but with the massive strides made in diesel technology lately, I fully subscribe to the idea that your first stop for a more frugal version of what you already drive should be a diesel rather than a hybrid.
Also, as I alluded to in my first post, good performance only seems to be synonymous with enormous, uneconomical engines in the US. Is it actually performance that the American consumer wants, or is it bragging rights over the size of his/her engine? I accept that cheap gas has meant that there has never been any reason for the US auto industry to strive for the efficiency achieved elsewhere, but it still surprises me that the US has been left so far behind on that front.
Is there such a thing as a hybrid diesel-electric? If not, why not? Wouldn’t this solve the debate?
Diesels may be as efficient, but aren’t they still dirtier?
The advantages are nowhere near as great. Diesels use far less fuel when at idle then gas, so the shutdown at a stop is really not a advantage. Diesels are also a bit harder to start and really need to come up to temp’s to get to the higher mpg, which start/stopping the engine sort of defeats. One thing that could help is some sort of regenerative braking system, but IIRC some trucks have (or used to have - this was back in the 80’s) such a system that works with air pressure generated at the wheel hubs, which can be reused during acceleration.
Maybe, but ‘clean Diesel’ tech has come a long way, and should not produce that black cloud of carbon upon heavy acceleration - but then again that carbon expelled like that does nto contrubute to global warming as it never got converted to CO2, if just falls all over the road and cars, making them go to the car wash more often (which uses more gas).
First, there are now hybrids and ‘hybrids’, as marketing departments have decided that it’s a good buzzword. Some of the ‘hybrid’ SUVs do get much much worse gas milage than a 20 year old toyota.
In general, it’s pretty safe to say that when choosing among new cars, the better the gas milage, the better for the environment.
By the way, the black cloud of carbon maybe doesn’t contribute to climate change, but it is particularly exceedingly bad for the lungs of children and other living creatures.
In addition to Exapno’s link, if you want to get technical the first “hybrids” were diesel-electric. 
If you want to get really technical, I don’t think diesel-electric locomotives can be considered hybrid vehicles. “Hybrid” refers to having two sources of energy, e.g. an electric battery and a gas tank. Traditional diesel-electric locomotives do not have batteries. Using a generator/motor pair as a transmission doesn’t make it a hybrid, no more than a fluid torque converter makes a regular car a “hydraulic/gasoline hybrid.”
However, some rail companies are starting to use true hybrid locomotives. These do have batteries, and used in switching yards (very short trips with frequent stops).
Of course, submarines used to have diesel engines for the surface that also charged electric motors for when they were submerged. Not the same thing tho, and not really relevant to this thread.
On the battery front, there was an article in today’s paper about them. The claim is that due to highly conservative battery power and charging management - they’re not run down below 20% charge and aren’t charged at more than 80% or so - the batteries have a very easy life and should be able to last for 180,000 miles.
After that, the prices for nickel are “through the roof” and recyclers are salivating at the idea of all these big NiMH batteries that will eventually be retired and recycled.
Well if we want to get really nit picky one of the first if not the first Hybrid shown (but never produced) ran on diesel fuel, but used a gas turbine. Does this count?