Slashdot Mirror
Hummer Greener Than Prius?
J adds:
The Prius's mediocre cost-per-mile is due mainly to CNW Research assigning the car a short expected lifetime: 109,000 miles. Nobody knows where this number comes from because CNW has not published details about its derivation. If a car will not last very long, then of course its energy cost per mile is high.
Back in July 2006, when CNW's study "Dust to Dust" had just been published (and which remains, unchanged, the original source for today's news), I emailed its president, Art Spinella:
Hello,
I'm with the tech news and discussion site Slashdot.org. One of our readers submitted a story about your Dust to Dust study.
According to Wikipedia, the Prius comes with a 150,000 mile warranty in California and a few other states; 100,000 elsewhere.
On p. 21 and p. 40 of your report I see that you estimate the average Prius will be "removed from the streets... and sent for disposal" at 109,000 miles. Can you explain how you arrived at this figure?
Thank you.
I did not receive a reply.
My question was about the cost-per-mile denominator; here's another critique questioning the numerator.
Since when does manufacturing cost/cost over life equal friendly to the environment?
Hummers may be more energy efficient, but how are they supposed to make you feel morally superior to others?
Think about it.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
They can't even spell joule...
The question is what type of eneregy is used, and how much is producted from the energy source. Automobiles are a lot more energy effecient then say a human. But they give off polution that is less "green" or more difficult for the environment to handel.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You don't get 300,000 miles of use out of a hummer.
Correct that down to a more realistic 120,000 and the rest of the article's conclusions crumble.
What woman wouldn't prefer a guy who already has a hummer, and thus doesn't need any from them?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
(Score:0, Funny)
This score is a combination of (+1, Funny) and (-1, Environment-Destroying-Hummer-Owner). However, no one cares about the complaints of hippie mods, so the +1 Funny takes precedence.OK, this has got to be a seriously flawed study, for any car! $3.25/mile over 100,000 miles means I will have spent $325,000 on car maintenance in the lifetime of my Prius. Does anyone find this number just a bit untenable? Even for a Hummer, this number is untenable.
B) I couldn't find any information about "CNW Marketing" other than *suggestions* that they are a oil-funded group (nothing concrete, though).
So who the fuck is CNW Marketing and why should their study be given any credence? Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? (Not that BS doesn't ever make it into perr-reviewed journals....)
It's good to see some comment on the (carbon) manufacturing costs of new cars. I heard some advice the other day that said if you wanted to help the environment, you should buy a new car, because they're more fuel efficient and produce less nasty chemicals. Great advice, if it wasn't for the facts that:
1: Emissions are created during the manufacture of a car. And
2: What happens to your old car? You're likely to sell it to someone that keeps using it, i.e. that car keeps producing harmful emissions, just for somebody else.
If you wanted to help the environment, you wouldn't buy a new car, you'd keep an old one running as efficiently as you could and remember that there's more to carbon emissions than simply what you're doing right now. No man is an island, after all.
As an aside, the plant produce 130,000 tonnes (is that metric or imperial) annually.
The 1,000 that goes towards Prius batteries is negligible
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving
But I'm an engineering major, and I can tell you that that's only the case if you ignore air resistance.
When gasoline goes to $5.00 a gallon, it makes for a better garden shed than a Prius. Or a better place to sleep, if you bought your house with a interest-only loan.
* * *
So, is the Prius like a power plant in Sim City 2000? The second it hits 100,000 miles it falls apart?
Who made this crap up, the Club For Growth, the American Enterprise Institute, or the Hummer Fans of America?
Even if you assume that the Prius has a 300,000 lifespan that puts its energy price per mile at $1.08 - far in excess of the Scion that is mentioned in the article that has a normal gasoline engine.
The point is that the Prius isn't the green car you are looking for.
While the part about the manufacture of the batteries is interesting, to say that a Hummer uses less energy than a Prius is misleading at best and propaganda at worst. The mistake that is makes is to assume that all energy usage is the same when of course it isn't. When the issue is the environment, there are types of energy that are better for the environment than others. The article is acting as if burning old tires and solar energy were exactly the same when they aren't. Without more details on the environmental impact of the manufacturing processes used in each vehicle, this article is only useful for raising questions and making people who own Hummers feel good about themselves.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Oh man, How many times do we need to go over the flawed assumptions and conclusions from the CNW Marketing analysis.
First, it incorrectly assumes that hybrid batteries are not recycled. In reality, Toyota has very successful recycling program, including a $200 bounty on Prius batteries.
Second, it is interesting that TFA mentions the Scion xB. Yet it fails to note that the CNW report data on the xA and xB don't make any sense. They are built on the same assembly line, have the same powertrains, only differ in weight by 50 lbs or so, and have similar efficiency (~35mpg), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to differ by 50 percent. How's that work?
Third, the CNW report makes really bad assumptions about where the bulk of lifecycle energy use occurs (eg manufacturing vs operation).
In short, it's misinformed at best and is more likely an intentional greenwash to assuage SUV owner dissonance in a post 9/11 world.
Disclaimer: I drive a biodiesel powered Jetta TDI, not a hybrid.
women prefer guys like me (hummer owner)
It must be painful to admit you're not attractive to women without the truck. Sorry to hear that, shorty.
Have you ever actually ridden in a Prius? They're surprisingly roomy.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Depends on the Hummer. The article doesn't say which Hummer they are comparing to, but a diesel H1 (which most H1's were) could easily go 300K. This would also explain why the 2006 comparison no longer contained a Hummer, since H1's stopped production in 2005.
While some of the numbers might be arguable, the whole article misses the point of any new technology argument.
-- First movers on new technology almost always are paying more and using more energy than their stick in the mud Hummer counterparts; the *hope* of the new technology is that with increased production efficiency it'll eventually become a good move. This is the argument of ethanol, bio-diesel, solar panels, hybrid cars, etc. The fact that they do more near term environmental damage than their conservative counterparts doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored on a low volume basis.
I do agree with the article though that a truly economical car is better for the pocket book and the environment without having to bet on the environmental returns of a new technology. But what Prius owners are doing is spending all this money and subsidizing en masse Toyota's research of building hybrid cars. I applaud them for doing so. That's something the article misses entirely. In this sense, the Hummer is certainly not more environmentally friendly than a Prius (because the Prius is a search for a better solution).
What the article doesn't mention is that mass transit and bicycles are way further down on the cost / mile and environmental damage than any of these cars. But that would be thinking outside the box.
I bet that's probably about right. If you exclude the number of them that are destroyed in accidents/fires/floods, etc., most modern cars last a lot longer than many people realize.
You don't see cars at the end of their lifespan in the U.S., generally, because we export them. IIRC, used cars are one of our biggest exports to Mexico and Latin America.
It would be interesting if someone wanted to trace the lifespan of an 'average vehicle' that didn't get offed by a bad driver before its time and was well maintained throughout. I suspect it's something like this:
0 - 100 miles: Test drive at factory, sitting on dealer lot.
100 - 30,000 miles: first owner, maybe on a 2 or 3 year lease.
30,000 - 150,000 miles: Second owner, or maybe multiple owners. Eventually traded in, sold to wholesaler. If still in good condition, exported.
150,000 - 300,000 miles: Mexican taxi. Parts get replaced as they wear out and break.
300,000+ miles: When body finally rusts through, strip for parts. Scrap remainder.
You don't see a ton of quarter-million-mile cars in Suburbia, USA, but in some places they're pretty desirable.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Remember, light trucks get a pass on pollution from the Auto-Industry-Friendly US government. Their emissions standards are much more lax than a passaenger car.
What year is your truck?
Blar.
TFA claims that the prius costs $3.25 per mile over the course of 100,000 miles. The car must therefore cost $325,000 to own over the lifetime of the car. That sounds pretty impossible to me. I think somebody miscounted a zero when they were doing the math.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
or any general motors product for that matter.
the article might have been interesting if the author wasn't pounding a drum and actually did an apples to apples comparison, i.e. prius to corolla or camry hybrid to camry regular...
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/115426/ 732
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
And I'm a supporter of hybrids of that reason. I don't own one (my old car works fine) but I do think they are a technology that will be good for efficiency increases eventually. I mean we have to consider that this is essentially generation one technology. It will take time to get better. Look at the internal combustion engine to see the massive amount of progress there's been. While hybrids might not see as much, I think they will see large increases as the tech is refined.
Also there's other factors that may end up being useful. Electric motors produce nearly 100% torque from the word go, whereas ICEs need to operate at a higher speed for maximum torque. So if we changed up the way a car worked and had electric motors directly drive the wheels and the engine drive a generator, you'd have a car (or truck) with tons of low end torque. Also that allows for the use of a smaller, single speed engine. You can make a much more optimised engine if it only need to run at a single RPM rather than being variable. Of course there's losses from the mechanical-electrical-mechanical conversion, so that's something that has to be overcome.
That's actually how modern diesel trains work. Their power-plant doesn't drive the wheels, it drives a generator that powers electric motors. Hybrid locomotives seem to be quite a winner since there's already the conversion cycle, and adding 2000 pounds of batteries isn't really significant in the scope of a train weighing 5 million pounds or more.
So I'm happy that this technology is being developed, but you are right that people need to have a big glass of perspective and soda. They are NOT more efficient over all. They aren't even cheaper to you. Get a Toyota Corolla 5-speed manual if you want efficiency. Even if gas were $4/gallon, it'd still be cheaper over the life of the car than a Prius. Or hell, if you can swing the smaller size, get a Smart Fortwo.
If you want a hybrid that's great, I'm glad you are helping to support the research, but do be realistic about it.
Dozens of environmentalist blogs have picked apart this "study" and have found it to be lacking. Two responses. The gist of it is that they underestimated the Prius' lifespan and overestimated the amount of energy it takes.
And a big red flag for every Slashdot reader is that CNW is a "market research" institute. Do you trust marketdroids to make engineering assessments?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I was figuring this out a while back. If you keep your Prius for 100,000 miles at about 50mpg that is 2,000 gallons of gas. At $3.00/gal that's $6,000 in fuel. If a none Hybrid gets even 25 mpg (mine gets 30+) that's 4,000 gallons of gas or $12,000. So the Prius saves you $6,000 in gas and costs about $10,000 more than a comparable non-hybrid. I think I'll pass.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Well, I can't speak for Hummers. I can't say I like them much myself. However, the 100,000 miles estimate isn't for the vehicle itself, but for the expected life-expectancy of the batteries.
Speaking of reliability, I have family members with GM cars, specifically Buick and Pontiac, which have well over 200,000 miles and are still running well. They aren't sticklers for maintenance either often going 10,000 to 15,000 miles between oil changes. There are quite a few vehicles nowadays with suggested oil change schedules in that range, but I'm talking about 10+ year old cars with 5,000 mile maintenance schedules.
These cars have had as few problems as any Japanese car I know. American automobiles had terrible reliability in the 70s and 80s but they've improved considerably. The problem is the occasional lemon and the fact that they haven't been able to change public perception.
I have a Honda myself. The real problem I see facing the American automakers is poor decision making. They seem incapable of producing the kinds of cars consumers are looking for. They also lack commitment to specific models. Instead of improving existing models and following a process of evolution they're quick to abandon what they have for something completely new. Then there's the ridiculous obsession with SUVs. They seem to exist in a vacuum. To this day they're stuck competing amongst each other instead of responding to foreign competition.
Ford introduces the new Mustang with 60's style design cues. Despite not helping Ford overall the car sells reasonably well in the short-term. Chrysler and GM see this and rush to produce their own muscle cars with classic muscle car design cues. This doesn't help these companies in any meaningful way, but they invest untold resources into these vehicles anyway. It's like they've oblivious to what the foreign competition is doing. Those are the cars the Americans should be thinking about.
The Americans have this expectation that a single vehicle will make enough of a dramatic impact that it will enable their companies to finally be successful. It's a stupid, short-sighted expectation. Something else I find funny is that the Americans need to move manufacturing overseas to be profitable while the Japanese and Europeans open new factories in the US and continue to be very successful. Of course, the Americans are crippled by unions. And that is a big hindrance to success on the part of the US automakers, but that's a whole other story. Suffice it to say that management can't be blamed for all the problems they're having.
Reliability, however, is no longer a problem with US cars. In fact, American cars have been consistently shown to be more reliable than European cars. European cars may be better designed than the American counterparts, but that doesn't make them more reliable.
I don't think hybrids are the wave of the future. They will never completely replace gasoline engines, another technology will arrive before that happens. I see hybrids merely as an overly complicated stopgap measure. They sell because it's a fad. Most people will never save enough in gasoline to make up the premium a hybrid costs over a standard model. And it's a fact that the manufacture and disposal of batteries is very polluting.
The US would be better served driving diesels. Either that or automakers should start offering the same small displacement engines offered in Europe: 1 and 1.2 liter engines. The problem is that the American public is obsessed with the size of it's automotive penis. They need to drive around in vehicles putting out 300hp and more. God forbid a car feels a little sluggish. Then there's the obsession with over-sized SUVs which is another aspect of the same problem.
Just buy a used car. It's been known for a while that a Prius is a lot worse cost-wise and environment-wise at the manufacturing stage. If it's worse over it's whole lifetime than a different new car depends on the assumptions made. Those in this article seem pretty poor, but better assumptions don't always make the Prius come out ahead. Buying a used car avoids all that, and is by far the best choice for the environment. Which is better: spending $25k to bring yet another Prius into the world, or $5k on a 10-year old Civic that gets 70% the mpg. $20k buys a lot of carbon offsets.
"guys who are trying to compensate for a tiny penis?"
Get real. Some of us *need* a Hummer just so we can haul our huge penis around.
I just took a little time to refamiliarize myself with it. What this comes down to is economies of scale. Since the H3 is little more than an existing GM chassis with a new body on top, the cost of developing the vehicle is spread over a shit load of cars/trucks on the road. Especially since has been no new technology developed for the hummer.
The Prius, on the other hand, has a lot of new technology. the cost of which is spread over relatively few cars on the road.
And now a word from the president of CNW himself about this study. From http://www.hybridcars.com/environment-stories/dust -to-dust-energy-costs.htmltest:
Any damage caused by test drivers is unlikely to have recurring/chronic problems associated with it. On top of that, as long as the car is within the new car warranty, the manufacturer is legally bound to honor that warranty and make sure the car is repaired and made road-worthy. If they determine that the car's damage is from abuse then they must prove that it was you. This is why testers are gone over with a fine-tooth comb before leaving the lot. If you don't want the chance of having problems and having to deal with the hassle of repairs than that is a much more reasonable reason for avoiding testers. Basing a decision on mere mileage alone is no grounds for determing the intelligence level of those who would buy a vehicle with 11 or more miles on it.
Calling the previous poster an idiot because you seem to have an inability to apply common sense to a rather simple problem is not really a good way to win friends and influence people nor does it lend credibility to your status as a legitimate, constructive poster. You should curb your paranoid pete attitude and take a look at things for what they are, not what you want them to be. Many posters here on Slashdot could benefit from that approach.
Maybe even then, all the Prius lovers out there (who could benefit from the same attitude adjustment) would stop getting so defensive when common sense is applied to the "ultimate solution" of the venerable Prius and see it for what it is, a technology showcase and an exercise in engineering. It's not the eco-friendly mode of transportation it is being made out to be. If anything, it's biggest redeeming quality is that it is a big step in weening not only the U.S. but the world off of oil as a source of energy.
I have a Prius with 46,000 miles it. I average 52MPG. Gas costs $3.13 today. Here are my total costs:
Purchase: $26,000 or so. That's 56.5 per mile.
Gas: 6 per mile.
Oil: 0.5 per mile.
Tires: 1 per mile.
TOTAL: 64 per mile, so far.
If I threw the thing away today, and bought a new one (which I'm not likely to do, so don't check my dumpster), that would still be 64 per mile. Assuming it will last 250,000 miles, like the rest of my Toyotas, the cost will be WAY lower.
I don't know, but the woman who wouldn't is invited to drop me an email...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Thirty years ago it was rare to expect any car, let alone a US built one, to last much more than 150k. Manufacturing has greatly improved. Even manufacturers that build ``below average'' vehicles are putting out product that lasts far longer than the bad old days. There is no prima facie reason that a Hummer wouldn't last for 300k miles given that, unlike the Prius, Hummers don't have uber-expensive batteries that will almost certainly need to be replaced at 100k miles.
Only you're totally wrong. Just one example: "Grant -- a one-time car salesman who, when he's not driving, is studying to be an executive business coach -- is on his third Prius now. (Toyota, seizing a chance to evaluate the car's durability, took his original back after he'd driven it 200,000 miles in 25 months and exchanged it with a 2003 model, fully outfitted for fares.) Compared to conventional taxis, his current 2004 Prius saves between $900 and $1,100 per month in fuel costs alone, and his repair bills -- thanks to automotive innovations such as regenerative braking, which reduces wear and tear on the brake pads -- have been cut by more than half."No battery has ever been replaced so far due to age related failure, and there are certainly cars out there with more than 100k miles on them. Here are more:
http://newsdesk.inl.gov/press_releases/2004/06-23
They may be the first to have crossed 200K miles with a Prius. Taxi service is one of the hardest uses for a car. When Toyota bought it back for a teardown to study extended wear, it still had the factory battery and other drivetrain components.
As more normal service pushes others over 200K, the results have been mostly the same.
The Prius was also designed for (_relatively_) green manufacturing techniques, including a less nasty painting process.
The Prius is also an SULEV, news to me if the Hummer is as well.
Even if you assume that the Prius has a 300,000 lifespan that puts its energy price per mile at $1.08 - far in excess of the Scion that is mentioned in the article that has a normal gasoline engine.
Well, actually, you can't simply divide-by-three. The Gasoline costs for that extra 200k miles runs you (assuming 50mpg and 2.50$/gallon) another 40,000$ dollars. So, total cost of ownership goes up to at least 364k$. or 1.21$ per mile. Plus additional repair costs, oil changes & filters, etc.
I'm still very curious as to how the numbers were found.
100k Miles in gas at US prices is about 20,000$. Even assuming some inflation, and that costs for maintenance runs the same as the gas costs, that's only a 50 - 60k$ premium on purchase price. That's only around 100,000$ for a Prius, all told. Where is the extra 200k$ cost coming from?
(Yes, I understand cost-of-ownership and cost-of-energy aren't the same thing, but someone is making a profit along the way. if the cost-of-energy is MORE than the cost of ownership, someone is losing money when I buy gas, or get an oil change.)
I can't talk about the rest of Latin America, but this is not true for Mexico. While the import rules are slowly being loosened, Mexico is extremely protective of its new car market (of course made up of American and Japanese cars) and importing a used car into the country is a nightmare, unless you are in one of their "free trade" zones right on the border. Even those have to be ~5 years old or so. Moving them further in is right damn near impossible unless you're willing to pay enough taxes to rival what you paid for the thing to begin with.
The reason for this is of course to keep the "straight" auto importers and dealers happy by allowing them to set artificially high prices on new cars without any competition whatsoever.
Your theory might be correct for other countries, maybe even outside of the Americas, but it's not for Mexico. The amount of cars in the free trade zones would not make a dent on the volume of vehicles that land on the "used" circuit here in the US every year. If you ever travel down to Mexico City or one of the larger cities in the interior of the country, keep your eyes open for a used Pontiac or Mercury. You won't find any.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Considering the Prius maximum lifetime was off by 3x, that's a pretty biased "correction" you're doing there. Plus, I'm not sure how "half-way-or-so wrong" turns $3.25 into $2 (a decrease of 60%) but only turns $1.95 into $2 (an increase of 2%). How is this meeting half-way? You're biasing it by assuming the Hummer estimate must be way 30x more accurate than the Prius estimate.
Anyway, using reversing their numbers:
Prius: $3.25 x 100,000 = $325,000
Hummer: $1.95 x 300,000 = $585,000
So, if the Prius gets 200,000, which seems more reasonable:
Prius: $325,000 / 200,000 = $1.625
Hummer: $585,000 / 300,000 = $1.95
That puts the Prius at 17% less. That's pretty significant.
And if you drop the Hummer down to 200,000?
Prius: $325,000 / 200,000 = $1.625
Hummer: $585,000 / 200,000 = $2.925
That puts the Prius at 56% less.
So really, the only way you could make the comparison look favorable to the Hummer was to use bullshit numbers. Which is what the study did. Very sad.
I bike to work *and* I own a Prius. What does that make me?
...never invited to parties?
(ba-dum-chi!)
Any real 4x4 like a Jeep Wrangler or the Hummer H1 are greener than everything else on the road for one very obvious reason: neither vehicle requires the world be covered in asphalt. A Prius or any other eco-friendly, high MPG vehicle on the other hand isn't going to get very far without chopping down forests, blasting through mountain ranges and otherwise laying waste to the environment for a "road".
http://www.omninerd.com/
When you understand your disbelief in other gods, then you will understand my disbelief in yours.
Hmm let me see, I've had my Prius for 5 years and have driven 95000 miles, at a total cost of $308,750 or $61,750 per year. Either I'm a lot more wealthy than I thought, or Chris Demorro is a Cuckoo clock. I'm also not sure why I should feel guilty about Ontario not being able to regulate its mines. After all plenty of other suphide mines (for copper, lead, silver, zinc etc) seem to operate without causing this level of environmental damage.
I am disappointed by the comments about this report - if you take time and read the original report "dust to dust" I believe it raises some very pertinent points. It does not say "Hummer good Prius bad", to quote Animal Farm, but rather it points out that the simple MPG figures are not the only environmental costs that we should consider. There is an environmental impact in manufacturing, maintaining and scrapping any vehicle that is also real and needs to be accounted for. The figures in the report may be wrong, but the logic is correct - it is feasible that a simple and easily repaired long life vehicle could have a lower environmental impact than a very high technology vehicle with a much shorter life span. On the subject of vehicles like the Prius, if I recall the document correctly, it highlights that it is an early example of hybrid technology which is still being developed. As a result currently they are not as environmentally friendly as the headlines would have us believe, but in future this will most certainly change. The report indicates that by their measurements the most environmentally friendly vehicles available today is a small Toyota car.
As the AC said, INCO has done a heck of a clean-up job in the past 3 decades. The comment about moon rovers was true - in 1969. NASA hasn't built a moon rover in decades anyway, which shows just how old this info is.
.. well, stupid.
I last drove through Sudbury in the mid 90s. The trees do get noticably shorter the closer you get to the smelter, but the 'dead zone' is history.
I actually took this story half-seriously until reading your comment. With disinformation like that, I think we can all dismiss this as
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
It's even worse than that because you are bad at math.
100k miles / 50 mpg = 2000 gallons * $2.50/gallon = $5000
Yup...you are correct. It is all about money.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Here is what they ACTUALLY used for the lifetimes:
So, not only did they lowball the Prius at 109k, they put the H1 down for 379,000 miles. If you read the explanation of expected life, the author says:
So, basically, they have some kind of formula that they're not going to share with us. But just trust them.
This paper is really a hoot. You can get it from http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Dust% 20Zip%20Folder.zip
The first 300 or so pages are the explanation and tables. Then there's another 60 pages of the author answering emails. Yet nowhere in those 60 pages can I find anyone apparently asking for hard evidence that the 109k/379k numbers are anywhere in the ballpark. You would think more than a couple of people asked that. But maybe I missed it. Did I mention this went on for 60 pages?
And then the next 120 pages are disclosures, articles, correspondance, photos of cars, editorial cartoons and song lyrics. I am NOT joking.
I can knock a few holes in this specious argument without even breaking a sweat...
9 .shtml), and it's still bad analysis after being regurgitated on the op-ed page of a college newspaper.
1. The editorial does not specify which Hummer model of the five currently listed on the Hummer website (The H1 Alpha? The H2? The H2 SUT? The H3? The H3^X?) is the basis for the comparison to the Prius (one model only). So how is it possible to validate its claims for the idealized "Hummer" that's mentioned if the specific model is not stated?
2. The analysis also assumes gas prices will remain static for five years to recoup the higher cost of the hybrid for lower fuel expenses. Gas prices do not remain static. The folks with hybrids were doing quite well after Katrina while all the SUV drivers were complaining about $80 tanks of gas. Are you willing to bet we won't have another Katrina or yet another war in the Middle East in the next five years?
3. The authors of the study assumed the Hummer would last 300k miles and the Prius only 100k. Uh, how about we do an apples to apples comparison here? On what basis was this number chosen, apart from the fact that the fudge factor of 3 allows the Hummer to win this straw man argument? And does the typical Hummer driver even drive his Hummer for 300k miles? How about you pick one set of criteria and apply it for both cars.
4. None of the many arguments offered in this editorial addresses the issue that, despite the premium one must pay for a Prius over a non-hybrid car, they still cost less to purchase than a Hummer (whichever model you pick).
This was bad analysis when it was published on July 19, 2006 (NINE MONTHS AGO!) by the auto industry shills at the Reason Foundation (see http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_2006071
I think you're wife is spot on with that theory.
In an unrelated note, my car is approximately 4 feet high and weighs only 2200 pounds...
This is actually an incredibly old study from a CNW market research which is shady for-hire "market research" group that promotes the views of the client (Think about all those Microsoft-funded studies depicted Linux being incredibly expensive).
http://www.cnwmr.com/
http://www.cnwmarketingresearch.com/
That's insane. My 2004 Prius is already about to hit the 100,000 mile mark, and its nowhere near dying. There are reports (see other /. replies) of first-generation Priuses (Prii?) already over the 200,000 mile mark. I wonder if even a single consumer-use Hummer has hit that yet?
/ pgr_e.pdf]Prius Green Report[/url] that shows their analysis of the environmental impact of the Prius compared to an equivalent gas car (I believe they used their own Corolla,) over a 100,000 km (not mile,) lifespan. It doesn't say they only expect it to last 100,000 km, just that if you destroy the car at that point, what the impact is. It covers material production (mining, refining, etc, which would include the Nickel problem,) vehicle production, driving, maintenance, and disposal. The Prius is considered 'cleaner' with regard to CO2 emissions at about the 20,000 km mark. I'm sure the Hummer would be long blown out of the water in this comparison.
Unless they're willing to share their reasoning for 'expected life', then their arbitrary choice is bull-crap.
Toyota has a document called the [url=http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf
Now, if you convert an original diesel H1 Hummer to run on vegetable oil (a 'greasel' conversion,) then it becomes nearly as clean as a Prius for all categories OTHER than CO2. (Biodiesel and veggie oil conversions both have a 'lifecycle' CO2 emission about 60% less than petroleum diesel, but even that isn't enough to make an H1 emit less CO2 than a Prius.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
NiMH batteries are almost entirely recycleable. The high-nickel product from currently primitive recycling processes can be used as an input to stainless steel manufacturing, but is only marginally economical for making new batteries. When used in making stainless steel, the recycled product displaces nickel that would be produced by new extraction, and IMHO, should be considered as a 100% offset to the environmental cost of the nickel used in the original construction of the battery.
Nickel is already expensive enough that if nickel-based battery production ramps up, the economic value of the nickel will make battery remanufacturing fully cost-effective. Additional research on the manufacturing and recycling processes are also likely to provide substantial cost improvements from where we stand today. I wouldn't be suprised to find in 5-10 years that nickel-based batteries enjoy the same "near-100%" closed-loop recycling ability that lead-acid batteries currently enjoy.
Regards,
Ross
Here's how you know that most hybrids are bought for ego, rather than environmental, reasons.
Compare Prius sales to Civic hybrid sales.
There's a reason you see far more Priuses (Prii?) on that road than Civic hybrids, and that is because the Prius looks like a rolling freakshow, and the Civic hybrid looks like a normal car. For all intents and purposes, both cars do the same thing in a similar sized body with similar fuel economy results at a similar price point.
Prius drivers just REALLY REALLY want you to know that they're saving the environment.
Hybrid drivers who turn up their noses at diesels are also similarly guilty of being fashionistas.
For the record, I've driven a current-gen Prius, and it's a neat little car.
I just enjoy driving too much to drive any economy car, let alone a hybrid. But if I were to get a commuter car of some sort, I'd look long and hard at the Jetta TDI Wagon.
I got one word for you. Noo-kyoo-lar. It's pronounced noo-kyoo-lar.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Sorry for deviating from the primary discussion topic of female-penis-attraction, and correlations between small genitals and large means of transportation, but this is actually a very good point.
...) and am quite exposed to some of the more bizzarre green movements, some of which, I daresay, are just a bunch of tree-hugging idiots.
For the sake of perspective, I'm a 4-wheel-driving aussie, I drive a truck (... to places no Prius has gone before
Now mind you, I like nature, spend time in nature and am all for preserving it. However, some tree-hugging truck-bashers are too resistant to common sense.
For starters, most proper trucks run on Diesel engines, and do twice the mileage per volume of fuel compared to their similar-engine-sized petrol (aka 'gas' in American) brethren.
Now I'd rather refer to human affordable practical vehicles such as Toyota Landcruisers and Nissan Patrols, not utterly-impractical overpriced-by-a-fucking-order-of-magnitude gimmicks for LA rappers ala Hummer H2/H3 or military-grade vehicles ala H1.
This where both the parent comment and TFA touched on. An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car. Moreso even for a Prius that needs a 7000A$ - circa 5K US$ - at least that's what it costs here in Oz - battery change every so often.
If you factor in the resource costs of making and recycling 2-3 times more cars to service the same amount of need, this sheds some unwelcome light on economic vehicles that last little.
One argument that floats
One point that comes
-
Appendix B: An invitation to drive a XEBRA electric car
Appendix E: Some spam about a psychology professor and techniques for memorization.
Appendix UU: Cartoons
Appendix BBB: The lyrics to 90 Pounds SUV
There's more common sense at the Time Cube
Maybe you actually use your truck for real off-road purposes, but the vast majority of truck/suv owners don't do so. I grew up in Vermont (about 80% unimproved dirt roads), and one of the most common sights was some idiot yuppie from connecticut slid off the road in his 4WD SUV as the natives drove happily past in beat-up 1987 Saabs, Subarus, and Hondas. Even in California, I see this all the time: big fancy trucks and SUVs struggling to stay on the road in conditions better than anything I've ever seen in the winter. You'd be surprised where you can get a Prius to go if you have some idea of what you're doing.
I'm also not sure where "An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car" comes from; My father and I drove an Accord to 427,000 miles with only oil changes and new belts. It would still be on the road and pushing 600k if he hadn't rolled it over, haha.
I have nothing against people who genuinely use trucks / 4x4s where smaller cars wouldn't suffice. But I have big objections to idiots who live in the suburbs and "need a big SUV" because they go skiing once a year / need to carry stuff back from Home Depot / whatever.
I have a friend who's a real car nut. He's also a big environmentalist. When it came time for me to buy a new car, he specifically told me not to get a hybrid. His rational was that the chemicals it took to make the batteries on the thing, and what happened to them after the cells lifespan was of a larger environmental impact than a run of the mill compact car. Which makes sense to me.
>> but the vast majority of truck/suv owners don't do so
True, and I absolutely agree. Many of which, especially the crossovers/softroaders/whatever-you-call-them, are not diesel and offer no such option. Nevertheless this has no impact on the argument at hand.
>> I'm also not sure where "An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car" comes from
From the sheer numbers of older 4WD's on our roads as compared to the number of smaller cars of the same age. This is actually an official Aussie statistic I've seen quoted in a newspaper, I couldn't be bothered to dig it up. The gut feel I get by looking at the cars I see around me does confirm this though.
This does not, by the way, necessarily have to be the same in the states or anywhere else. A different mentality can easily dictate different consumer behavior.
>> But I have big objections to idiots who live in the suburbs and "need a big SUV" because they go skiing once a year / need to carry stuff back from Home Depot / whatever.
I understand where you're coming from, even agree, but I think your way of going about it is altogether wrong.
Telling people they are idiots and dictating their needs will not make them do what you want (even if they are idiots). Even if it's for a once-a-year ski or family trip.
The constructive way of going about it is offering alternatives, not acting derogatory towards people who do not share your view.
A Prius is NOT an alternative, unless you're an idealist fanatic who is either shitting bricks of money or can't do math.
A car that runs on LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) is. Not a silver bullet, but it is (LPG is a byproduct of making petrol. As long as they'll be making petrol, running a car on it helps dispose of it cleanly, and runs your car cleaner than it would on petrol).
A 4WD, even if you never use it outside the suburbs, that runs Diesel, is an alternative. It offers a big family vehicle, and quite often runs on less fuel than a standard petrol sedan.
A European sedan that runs diesel is an excelent alternative. VERY little fuel consumption, very long mechanical life. As long as you can stomach paying the bigger import costs, more frequent servicing and more expensive parts.
Other alternatives like the Aussie bladerunner initiative (a gutted Toyota Starlet or Daihatsu Charade that runs on battery, charged off the mains, not regenerative breaking ala prius) and can go 60-100km per charge and ~60mph - a glorified golf-cart that can easily do what my second car does) is very promising.
The luxemburg-designed soon-to-be-indian-built compressed-air car all over wired yesterday is also an alternative.
Sorry for being too lazy to bring links, feel free to google. Karma whores welcome to do the work.
At the moment there is no silver bullet here in Australia. There are compromises, and there ARE non-perfect choices that are cleaner than others (and I'm making some such choices, even by owning a large 4WD). Green idealists don't like non-perfect choices, which is why I call them tree-hugging idiots. I much prefer the pragmatic approach of actually making a difference by voting with my consumer dollars for what the best compromise (and hopefully soon a win-win non-compromise product) between environmental and affordable.
The important thing to understand here, if you allow me to make an analogy, is that just because there's a VIA desktop processor that runs windows reasonably at 30Watts, doesn't make it immoral to own a Xeon or a high-end desktop CPU. Rather than point the finger at the consumers, hit your local government representative for government subsidies to encourage low-power alternatives, be they EDEN CPU's, LPG vehicles (installation is subsidized and LPG fuel is not/very-lightly taxed in Australia for this very reason), diesel or mains-powered vehicles.
And never forget, the math counts.
As long as Toyota keeps selling the Prius for nearly twice any other compatible car in the same category, I'll be eyeballing a Diesel VW Golf, maybe a diesel Alfa or even a second diesel 4WD, and, quite possibly if the bladerunner goes commercial, one of them.
-
http://john1701a.com/prius/owners/jesse3.htm
5 37&highlight=crock#post2494537 and http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=30444&st= 0&p=403215&#entry403215
n sumer-report-list_x.htm for a ranking of reliability by manufacturer. Hummer is almost dead last.
This CNW story is such crap and its numbers make no sense. It's old news. I posted my critiques of CNW's old news before at http://www.my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2494
Did you know that CNW claims that the Prius costs $325K to DISPOSE while they claim it cost $13K to make it? Did you that a VW Phaeton the sold for $64K to ~$100K incurs $2.5 MILLION in disposal costs? This is the type of crap that CNW spews out.
It also makes perfect (!) sense that they claim a Prius only lasts 100K miles when the HV battery is warranted for 10 years/150K miles in CA and a few other states. The Prius also has an excellent reliability record while the Hummer H2 has a terrible one... so therefore, the terrible one should last 300K miles. Right....
See http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-01-co
(manufacturing cost) != (ecofriendliness).
First off, the HV batteries are warranted for 10 years/150K miles in CA and a few other states. This guy is at 280K miles BTW. http://john1701a.com/prius/owners/jesse3.htm
y /2004/hybrid.html.
They're also recycled. See http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technolog
"Is there a recycling plan in place for nickel-metal hydride batteries?
Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery."
We refer to those as "Toorak Tractors" in Melbourne (Oz), but you see it everywhere of course. It's always a 40-something mother of one or two, shopping. The main purpose of the vehicle's increased ground clearance is in picking parking spaces from a distance, and the bull-bar is to make sure that when she's crap at parking, the other cars suffer and not hers. And the snorkel is just a phallic thing, everyone knows that. Lately it's always a BMW or Mercedes or some glitzy schmitzy thing with GPS and radar and beepers and other creepers.
However, Diesel engines do have a much longer lifespan, on average. They are very low maintenance and fatigue very gradually, almost imperceptibly. They are terrible for city driving because they release a lot of soot, but the other emissions are mainly CO2 and very little sulphur or benzene or other nasties that lighter fuel engines release (hence the engine life is longer due to less corrosion).
The main (other) reason 4WD SUV's have a long lifespan is because they are engineered to survive the conditions they operate under (like the old Volkswagen Beetle was). When you look underneath one of the proper ones, like a Landcruiser, you see all rust resistant parts, no compromises on gearbox design or bearing sizes or break system specifications. It's not like a bubble car which is manufactured to be shiny and round, with a muffled lawnmower engine inside and aluminium foil body.
However, from the environment point of view, it is true to say that most cars you see have one person too many in them.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.