Why would a company wanting to reduce its carbon footprint discourage electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles? I realize from an absolute sense they are reducing "their" carbon footprint, but image is important to companies.
Because image is important to companies, and this reduces their carbon footprint, so they can call their business green. If they increased their carbon footprint by charging employees' cars, they would look bad.
I think you misread me, I said "wanting to", not "want to". We agree here:)
Fair enough, I just think it's a little jaded to think that all environmentally friendly labelled products (or cars, VW Diesel TDIs, Priuses, etc.) are not doing some part in helping the environment as opposed to other, less environmentally-friendly, options. I agree that greenwashing certainly occurs, but Luddism isn't a choice for pretty much everyone and that there are more responsible choices out there.
Tons of projects and housing for northern communities started up when oil was over $80 a barrel, and it went a little crazy when it was over $100 (CDN). Now that it has dropped again, all those projects are on hold.
Energy by conversion is never environmentally friendly in any form. Hydro wrecks the landscape, burning fuels pollutes the air, nuclear creates radioactive waste, and even solar, wind, and wave have negative impacts on the environment. The only way to truly protect our environment it to produce the cleanest energy possible and use that energy responsibly, and sparingly.
So... what's left? Maybe we should start doing things that are less bad to the environment right now and progress towards that, rather than just argue how we can't live without doing bad things to the environment and just give up on it.
Maybe the reason is that luxury car owners ARE better than average people, but Prius drivers just like to THINK they are better than average people? Besides, doesn't an armour-plated Escalade just sound glittery diamond and gold-teeth awesome?
I can't really explain it. My typical image of people using the word arse are the same people that use the word turd or say 'polished turd', or gawds. I realize they're just words or expressions, and they are very normal in some places (in some countries they say arse as the norm, instead of ass). There really is nothing wrong with these words, but I find them grating - they symbolize the type of people that I don't relate to well.
Not to mention all those other things the government does! They make roads, yet potential government spies in these proposed socialized "governemnt" hospitals also benefit when I die and my organs are donated. Pardon me while I get my tinfoil hat, because they're out to get me.
This is a very insightful post. But seriously, are we so constrained in our engineering/research resources that we can't try and do both, or are you talking about allocation?
That's true it's probably marketing, newer diesels are fairly clean (but still worse than ICEs in terms of smog/particulates) and get amazing mileage (they beat hybrids at highway driving for sure, but hybrids beat diesels at city driving - seems like an obvious trade-off to me). Get the one for whichever driving your doing more of.
Maybe it's just who I know (I live in Alberta and I run into a number of rabid anti-environment people, or people from Europe who voraciously defend any European (although VW does make good cars)), but some people just seem so vitriolic to hybrids. I just try to see both clean diesel and hybrids as being positive advances in making less environmentally damaging (new) cars. I've observed that whenever confronted with multiple new solutions (diesel/hybrid/electric or say, renewable energy) people will argue and stall on small points (like 48 MPG vs. 50 MPG) rather than admit they are at least steps in the right direction (better than 12 MPG and cleaner).
For me, I'd like to get a Prius, but then I'd have to deal with explaining to people how CNW and Top Gear aren't reliable scientific sources...
You should come to Canada (freeze/thaw weather tends to make things less permanent) - America has amazing roads by comparison. Better yet, go to Costa Rica and experience roads so awesome they have nicknames
That won't last long. Inevitably, your company will decide to reduce its carbon footprint, and that won't be allowed.
Why would a company wanting to reduce its carbon footprint discourage electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles? I realize from an absolute sense they are reducing "their" carbon footprint, but image is important to companies. Further, from a global perspective even a coal plant + electric motor is better than an ICE for power/carbon output.
Li-Ion batteries use a lot things that aren't good for the environment and a lot of energy to do so. Someone else is using more energy so you can use less. Net of zero.
Because all American cars need to be giant armored tubs with 18 airbags and foot-thick doors nowadays.
Doesn't say much about American drivers:P (joking - I live in Canada, and we're just as bad if not worse). There's a good line from Fawlty Towers towers about an American driver.
I've had my batteries for 2 1/2 years and I would say they've lost ~10-15% of their total charge, hardly useless.
Besides, as adoptions rates go up it won't be such a specialty vehicle. Similar to the situation Prius.
Genetic drift can also help. But back to the issue, I disagree with you. The first mutated individual needs to reproduce, yes. And some of its offspring need to survive (not all, but some), to the point where the trait(s) begin to form their own population(s). In an idea similar to a most recent common ancestor you have lots and lots of ancestors. As long as the trait has a net benefit of being neutral or slightly advantageous (or even with lots of luck, slightly deleterious), it's very likely to be present in a later population. I'll have to pick up this conversation tomorrow as I have to go to bed (and I saw that you just said the same). It seems we have two competing 'thread species' (a sibling thread has a similar discussion going), but we could pick this up later.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would a company wanting to reduce its carbon footprint discourage electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles? I realize from an absolute sense they are reducing "their" carbon footprint, but image is important to companies.
Because image is important to companies, and this reduces their carbon footprint, so they can call their business green. If they increased their carbon footprint by charging employees' cars, they would look bad.
I think you misread me, I said "wanting to", not "want to". We agree here :)
Fair enough, I just think it's a little jaded to think that all environmentally friendly labelled products (or cars, VW Diesel TDIs, Priuses, etc.) are not doing some part in helping the environment as opposed to other, less environmentally-friendly, options. I agree that greenwashing certainly occurs, but Luddism isn't a choice for pretty much everyone and that there are more responsible choices out there.
Tons of projects and housing for northern communities started up when oil was over $80 a barrel, and it went a little crazy when it was over $100 (CDN). Now that it has dropped again, all those projects are on hold.
Energy by conversion is never environmentally friendly in any form. Hydro wrecks the landscape, burning fuels pollutes the air, nuclear creates radioactive waste, and even solar, wind, and wave have negative impacts on the environment. The only way to truly protect our environment it to produce the cleanest energy possible and use that energy responsibly, and sparingly.
So... what's left? Maybe we should start doing things that are less bad to the environment right now and progress towards that, rather than just argue how we can't live without doing bad things to the environment and just give up on it.
He said the Corolla costs 1/3 less than a Prius, not 1/3 the cost of a Prius. If you want to see strange "scientific" comparisons, look here http://www.google.ca/search?q=top+gear+prius+vs+m3
Maybe the reason is that luxury car owners ARE better than average people, but Prius drivers just like to THINK they are better than average people? Besides, doesn't an armour-plated Escalade just sound glittery diamond and gold-teeth awesome?
I can't really explain it. My typical image of people using the word arse are the same people that use the word turd or say 'polished turd', or gawds. I realize they're just words or expressions, and they are very normal in some places (in some countries they say arse as the norm, instead of ass). There really is nothing wrong with these words, but I find them grating - they symbolize the type of people that I don't relate to well.
Not to mention all those other things the government does! They make roads, yet potential government spies in these proposed socialized "governemnt" hospitals also benefit when I die and my organs are donated. Pardon me while I get my tinfoil hat, because they're out to get me.
Enlighten us, where is km/l used? (That's a lowercase L, btw. No point going metric if you can't use the units properly.)
Depends where you're from. And you have to admit it makes more sense to be uppercase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre#Symbol
The odds of being in a near-fatal crash [on a motorcycle] are higher than in a car
motorcycles are far more fun to drive than cars are
These two things are related.
Is GM going to be around in 10 years? Warranties are only as good as the governments they come from.
FTFY
This is a very insightful post. But seriously, are we so constrained in our engineering/research resources that we can't try and do both, or are you talking about allocation?
That's true it's probably marketing, newer diesels are fairly clean (but still worse than ICEs in terms of smog/particulates) and get amazing mileage (they beat hybrids at highway driving for sure, but hybrids beat diesels at city driving - seems like an obvious trade-off to me). Get the one for whichever driving your doing more of.
Maybe it's just who I know (I live in Alberta and I run into a number of rabid anti-environment people, or people from Europe who voraciously defend any European (although VW does make good cars)), but some people just seem so vitriolic to hybrids. I just try to see both clean diesel and hybrids as being positive advances in making less environmentally damaging (new) cars. I've observed that whenever confronted with multiple new solutions (diesel/hybrid/electric or say, renewable energy) people will argue and stall on small points (like 48 MPG vs. 50 MPG) rather than admit they are at least steps in the right direction (better than 12 MPG and cleaner).
For me, I'd like to get a Prius, but then I'd have to deal with explaining to people how CNW and Top Gear aren't reliable scientific sources...
You should come to Canada (freeze/thaw weather tends to make things less permanent) - America has amazing roads by comparison. Better yet, go to Costa Rica and experience roads so awesome they have nicknames
I am buying it because as a child I wanted to know why I couldn't put a windmill on top of the family car and use wind power to make it go.
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! (although an insightful post :)
Most hybrids are larger than golf carts... :P
And you wouldn't be able to open the car... However, it would be sleek and shiny, and visible to only the most *loyal* customers.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple_claims_new_iphone_only
That won't last long. Inevitably, your company will decide to reduce its carbon footprint, and that won't be allowed.
Why would a company wanting to reduce its carbon footprint discourage electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles? I realize from an absolute sense they are reducing "their" carbon footprint, but image is important to companies. Further, from a global perspective even a coal plant + electric motor is better than an ICE for power/carbon output.
Li-Ion batteries use a lot things that aren't good for the environment and a lot of energy to do so. Someone else is using more energy so you can use less. Net of zero.
Yeah... like lithium and ions ...
Why can't both hybrid and clean diesel owns accept the fact that they're both good solutions...?
You and your beating me to the post.
Because all American cars need to be giant armored tubs with 18 airbags and foot-thick doors nowadays.
Doesn't say much about American drivers :P (joking - I live in Canada, and we're just as bad if not worse). There's a good line from Fawlty Towers towers about an American driver.
We actually measure it in L/100km, which comes out to 1.02 L / 100 km. That's a TINY number, we're getting so screwed here it's not even funny.
I've had my batteries for 2 1/2 years and I would say they've lost ~10-15% of their total charge, hardly useless. Besides, as adoptions rates go up it won't be such a specialty vehicle. Similar to the situation Prius.
Oh, my nesting is all messed up.
Does it make you that uncomfortable to know that the meaning of your life is one fixed in thought, and not externally decreed? That randomness exists?
Grow up, for Christ's sake.
What? It doesn't make me uncomfortable that randomness exists, I am a proponent of evolution. Did you reply to the correct person?
Links (I haven't read yet, almost a reference for myself later though).
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7347284.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_106/ai_53479052/