>Similar to hybrid cars. They are better for the environment but that isn't that offset by the production of the batteries needed for the hybrid engine? No. Th

>Similar to hybrid cars. They are better for the environment but that isn't that offset by the production of the batteries needed for the hybrid engine? No. The oft-cited "Dust to Dust" report has been thoroughly debunked: http://grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/ http://grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/ For just one example, they assume (with no real justification) that a Hummer will last 300k miles and a Prius just 100k. Invalidating that single assumption flips the result, and it's not the only one. There's a false equivocacy going on in our heads when we fall victim to this kind of misinformation. "One advantage vs. one disadvantage. They must cancel out!" This is why it's important to do quantitative analysis. In reality, the addition of a battery and motor only adds about 10% to the embodied energy and disposal impact of a car, which itself is dwarfed by the fuel burned in its lifetime (by about 3:1). The interesting question for me is: why do people worry about the Nickel in their car's battery but not in their car's steel-alloy frame?