Prius versus the Hummer, again? Nonsense again.
If we all drive Hummers we can save the world!In the last couple of weeks some genius at a small student newspaper brought up the CNW hybrid study - announced a year ago - which suggested that the Toyota Prius hybrid was less environmentally friendly than a Hummer. For some reason Drudge picked up the story.
Finish Prius versus the Hummer
Labels: Hybrid Vehicles, toyota prius
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:13 AM
9 Comments:
(rest of story)
Hmmm. Isn't every emerging technology always inefficient in terms of production at first? Whenever you deal with something new, it takes time to refine production processes, to create necessary suppliers and supply chains, and to develop new recycling technologies, etc.
Isn't that where the term 'economies of scale' comes from?
Besides, the Nickel so in question in the CNW study is already being phased out of hybrid production, as Toyota has already claimed that lithium will power the third generation Prius, as well as all third generation hybrid vehicles.
Oh my gosh, technology is advancing, adapting and evolving. Someone stop it before we create an energy independent, completely clean automotive technology!
Furthermore, how much have automakers reduced the automobile emissions of conventional vehicles in the last 20 years? So, automotive production has gotten more efficient over time? Unbelievable! Inconceivable!
I just don't get it. What's the problem with hybrid haters? Is it guilt? Maybe future shock? Simple ignorance?
The CNW study was as flawed as Bush's Iraq policy. It amazes me that people still use it as a data source. Also, the Canadian nickel mine did the bulk of its environmental damage in the 1970s -- 25 years or so before the Prius was ever invented!
If anyone thinks the Hummer is such hot stuff, why not get the carmaker to offer one as a 2mode hybrid?
The original article is an opinion piece for a small college newspaper. The whole article is garbage.
1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo's mileage puts it within "spitting distance" of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is "spitting distance."
2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/
And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? You can check Consumer Reports for the answer to that one. A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available at:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48
3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies — early 1970’s) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury’s nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of (visible here http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770 ), used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution (visible here http://www.photoboy.com/bin/Cklb?vmo=1173985067754 ). There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.
Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada -- that's GM, maker of the Hummer, ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury's trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.
http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html
Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening. http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm">
Why is something that questions the validity if Toyota a big issue? We argue every day that Ethanol pollutes more than it produces in positive results but when the battery production facilities in Asia kill everything within 200 miles things are different? Sounds like a convenient double standard.
I happen to own a Hummer H3 and love it. Mine gets just shy of 19 mpg which is not bad for a 4900 pound vehicle.
Being an electronics engineer I;m going to say like it or not there is very definately some truth to the CNW study and that is the usable life span of the hybrid vehicle... any hybrid vehicle for that matter, not just the Prius. The truth is that in 12 to 15 years, perhaps even sooner, you won't be able to get any of the necessary electronic parts to keep your Prius's going. With any computer based product the electronic parts and modules go obsolete faster then you can ever imagine. There are not enough Hybrids on the road to be able to say there will even be remanufactured parts available in the near future. It's best to be very careful and study what you plan to purchase. If you do you'll find that the Toyota Corolla or equivelent sized Honda or Subaru is indeed a much wiser choice.
the enviromental nut jobs get all defnsive when someone questions your made up science, and shows that it is flawed.
Green house Gases are you kidding me the earth has been getting warmer for millions if not billions of years, Volcano eruptions cause 90% of all green house gases, NOT cars. and Hawaii has had an active volcanofor over 20 years now.
I agree we should be energiy independent, but the prius is not the way. Hydrogen, or some other form of energy should be used Because any and all battery production is bad and causes just as much pollution because it has such a low recycling rate.
oh BTW nuclear recycling is upto 90% but they won't allow them to recycle it.
The batteries of most hybrids and EVS will be more than 90 percent recyclable, so I think you're being a little hypocritical.
Likewise, most automakers weren't developing pure hydrogen vehicles, they were developing hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicles. Today's fuel cell vehicles use the lithium batteries that will soon power hybrid and electric vehicles.
Also, hybrids have been on the road for over a decade and their reliability has been stellar. Moreover, many of the old and most important electronics can be replaced and replaced easily. Likewise, over time, much of the hybrid system can be swapped out and replaced with the latest gen. of battery technology, etc. Hymotion and Hybrids-Plus have been demonstrating this for years.
To claim global warming is a hoax is silly. The data doesn't prove your conclusions without any doubt. Just as there are some confounding variables to the man-made theory. Objective science would indicate that we should proceed with caution, however, for either side to claim the truth isn't for truthful. Humans simply aren't that smart and there is much more about the climate that is yet to be discovered and learned.
Regardless, energy dependence is enough of an issue.
call me when we have reversed "global warming" thanks to the Prius... or any/all hybrids for that matter. Batteries are very inefficient, and will take us nowhere. But you guys should keep being completely ignorant, and super defensive of your hybrids (especially the toyota prius)...i find it very entertaining.
P.S. INDIGO'S comparison to the Bush administration was great!!! Way to be creative! I've never heard anyone make fun of Bush! (no, im not republican, but try to call me a conservative anyways, i wouldn't see it coming)
It's a scientific fact that battery technology reduces CO2 emissions significantly compared to similarly sized gasoline vehicles.
Moreover, battery powered vehicles run much more efficiently than gasoline powered vehicles.
Perhaps you should take an engineering or physics class before you portend to understand science.
Or, are you an knuckle dragging anti-evolution, science is stupid follower?
Post a Comment
<< Home