Here is a very interesting study of the total energy inputs required to make, operate and dispose of various kinds of cars.  

It is interesting...
The one thing I noticed in reading is that CNW states that the higher costs associated with 'greener' cars are directly related to the more complex manufacture of their more complex parts.
It stands to reason that a standard fossil-fuel burning vehicle will be more efficient to produce, as we are 99 years into producing such vehicles, and only a few years into producing hybrids and other alterna-fuel vehicles. Over the course of the past century auto manufacturers have faced pressures from consumers, politics, and economic competition to streamline their production costs.
With the demand for more fuel efficient cars the logical course of action is for manufacturers to find more efficient ways to produce such cars. Manufacturers trying to play catchup to the hybrid pack may benefit from some of the technology that has been already established, modifying it and standardizing it for use across the various models.
I think the most important thing to remember is that the report deals with the cost (in fuel efficiency) of car production NOW. In the future, as hybrids and fuel efficient cars rise in prominence, the report may look very different.

good points all...
now i feel more reassured about buying a hybrid when the old car finally gives out.

Hi dcwilson...
I did not read all the material, but a substantial part of it and it is simply garbage, not worth anybody's attention.
First of all most figures are taken out of context. I know Sudbury (source of nickel specified by the so called study) quite well and the impression that is given that the higher smoke stack and other environmental improuvements are recent is just not true. On top of that one can not relate the polution to one single use, when nickel is not only used in batteries, but 65% of it is used in stainless, 8% in electroplating (including hummer bumpers, 10% in other steel alloys and 12% in non ferrous alloys. Somewhere in those 12% is hidden the part that is used for batteries.
But the worst part is the logic. How can the energy consumption of the manufacturing for a Prius be ammortized over 100.000 km. and the Hummer over 300.000 km. Simply states the writer, at the average nbr. of kilometers of the average Prius driver the car will be far too old to reach the 100.000. This is of course an invalid argument because the whole thing is written to encourage or discourage people from buying one car or the other. What these people's driving habits are is not known. A fair comparaison would have enough rigour to state that if you do so and so much km. per years than the best environmental choice would be that or that car.
The text is full of this kind of noncense.

denialism
i took a quick look and imeadiatly saw things that didnt make sense to me. i then recalled that lately right wing global warming deniers are now singing a different tune. they have switched tactics and now are starting to admit that it exists, but are now saying its a good thing with ideas like we will get more farmable land farther north and other absurdities. in cases like this, a fast way to evaluate claims is to find out who is funding the group that is doing the studies. go look at denialism.com from april 13 2007 and you will see that koen is spot on. but i see hybrids as a poor stopgap measure anyway. the solution is to get rid of internal combustion engines altogether. from a pollution and energy management standpoint it makes no sense to me to have millions of little power plants spewing out filth when electric cars are very doable right now. regional power plants based on sustainable technologies (wind etc) would be far more manageable. also i am scarcely impressed with the mileage of the hybrids. in 1990 i bought a geo metro xfi that was stickered for and got 53 and 58 mpg. and i put 250,000 miles on it with only normal maintenance and no other problems. this was acompletely conventional car! what could it do as a hybrid? this post reminds me that i need to find and watch the film "who killed the electric car?"

Control vs. Freedom
Having not seen "Who Killed the Electric Car" I cannot state with hard statistics, but here goes anyway: Cars represent freedom. Even the very best public transit systems in the world still require the user to submit - to timetables, usage costs, and distance limitations. It is a form of control (one that I submit to willingly, albeit frustrated at times). The internal combustion car represents an unmatched freedom for the user. It is affordable, generally easy to have maintained, can travel great distances, and is quickly refuelable at a variety of stations and locations.
Long recharging times, lack of public recharging stations, and lack of personal charging stations in tight urban environments are often cited as reasons for the lack of popularity for electric cars. While I cannot prove or disprove those objections they do seem to be commonly held (according to my quick poll around the office).
Hybrids seem to represent a more accessible alternative to the electric car. Perhaps hybrids are simply a transitional vehicle - or perhaps, as alternative fuels are developed they become a sustainable alternative to ICE cars.

freedom
freedom is linked to the car being an ego accessory of who we see ourselves as being. i have realized this a long time ago and am trying to remove my self image from my car. not an easy thing.if it works will i end up a buddhist? sure there is the physical freedom you speak of, but this too is tangled with a marlboro man, manifest destiny sort of psychology. there seems to be car co-ops popping up here and there to address this restriction you mentioned, to give another option to urban folk. if G.M. hadnt been so sucessful at killing off mass transit in most cities back in the fourties, we might not fear the restrictions you mention because they would be the norm. i wonder if people felt restricted when horses couldnt take you 400 miles in a day.

I'm exploring electric bikes...
Has anybody ridden one of the current electric bike conversions with the electric motor in the front wheel hub? The current marketing pitch is 20 mph for 20 miles on a 26 inch mountain bike/city bike. The kit with front wheel and hub, plus handle bar throttle, batter rack, battery wires and charger is $400-500US. As I live in a warm climate and am only 5 miles from most things in a semi rural area it would make sense for me, if front heel drive on a bike were safe and the devices were durable and reliable. Anyone have any experience with these electric bike kits with the hub motors? I know they've been used in Germany in one form or another for a long time, but they're kind of new to the states, at least to me.

you are
ahead of me on this one. sounds like a great one. now here is something i could wrap my self image around (laughs). if you do get one let us know your evaluation.

Hi dc
In the early 60ties I used to have one of these french Solex bikes with a two tact engine hanging over the front wheel. Driven by friction on the surface of the front wheel tire. A pivot would allow you to "lift" the whole thing to disengage it from the frontwheel. Usually one would pedal the first meters and than release the whole thing from the holding position.
It sounds a little bit silly but it was always a pleasant ride, but beyond 25-30 km it becomes an expedition more than a ride. One has to be able to enjoy all those little things that happen when you have the time to look around you because it certainly is not "fast". Eventually I exchanged it for a race-bike...
Unfortunately I have no experience with these new eco-friendly ones.