Archives




View Full Version : Hummer Greener Than Prius Urban Myth Exploded


Chuck
04-17-2007, 11:30 AM
Did you really think the Hummer was green? Blow-by-blow account of why Prius is clearly greener (http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=1)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2006_Toyota_Prius-II.jpgBengt Halvorson - The Car Connection - April 17, 2007

Related Slate Article (http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/), The Hummer vs. the Prius (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/04/EDGI7Q63U01.DTL), Pacific Institute Study (PDF) (http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf),
The Guardian Dismisses Dust to Dust as Bad Science (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8606)

Over the past year, there has been an explosion of stories raising questions about the real environmental cost of hybrids.

One of the most misleading ones, which has been spread by countless blogs over the past several weeks, and cited without verification by several sources that appear reputable, looks to have originated in a story last November in England's Daily Mail, a right-leaning, British tabloid paper, which bore the gleefully spiteful title 'Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness.' An editorial, published last month in a newspaper for a small state university on the East Coast, helped bring this misleading report a new life.

But it isn't a Toyota factory at all. The automaker has, in fact, only been purchasing significant amounts of nickel from the Sudbury , Ontario , Inco mine for its batteries in recent years, while the environmental disaster the headline is referring to largely occurred more than thirty years ago.

And that ore is at the core of a semi-urban legend that leads to dumb headlines like "HUMMER Greener than Prius," and others we've seen recently. … http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=1

Chuck
04-17-2007, 11:37 AM
I can't tell you how many times in the last couple of months this has appeared in various forums. In Prius Chat alone, at least one newbie daily mentions Spinella's Dust to Dust propaganda and the other article about the Sudbury nickel "toxic dump". Add to that the electronic media: it's been mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh and Lars Larson talk shows to name a few.

These articles are what they seem - the Prius is made to seem dirtier by perverted data.

Please take the link to the original article and post it to refute the disinformation.

Skwyre7
04-17-2007, 12:08 PM
It's already a sticky over on PC. I must say it was a nice thing to read on my lunch break. :)

Sledge
04-17-2007, 12:19 PM
CNW's lies strike again :rolleyes:

Chuck
04-17-2007, 12:23 PM
The rebuttal article failed to mention the CNW assertion a Hummer lasts 300,000 miles while the Prius lasts only 100,000, but they have so much other evidence to call out Spinella, it's not critical.

locutus
04-17-2007, 12:38 PM
Great find! Just today over lunch, somehow (;)) the discussion got around to cars and FE, and one of my coworkers brought up that ..."study". I did what I could to refute it on the spot (the lifetime assumption, which was promptly backed up by another coworker :)). It's still in the public consciousness though.

xcel
04-17-2007, 12:54 PM
Hi All:

___I can add only one other thing and it’s a good one.

___Prius sales for the month of March 2007 were up 133% at 19,156 units on a DSR based basis vs. the same month last year. H2/H3 sales? Down 23.7% at just 4,847 units for their entire lineup vs. the same last year. I think we know the public is a lot smarter then the spin-doctors trying to keep us hooked up to the junkie ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Dan
04-17-2007, 01:01 PM
Just had a laugh thinking about whatever guy goes in to buy a Hummer because he wants to save the environment!

You mean it's NOT good for the environment... but I just bought it, and there was this study the dealer pointed me to, looked real scientific.

11011011

mparrish
04-17-2007, 01:18 PM
"It's an Oil Industry lie"

One of the tactics of those who have a financial interest in thwarting fuel economy is to muddy the waters. There is no need to "prove" a Hummer is greener. Just throw it out there with some questionable assumptions & methodologies. The good guys will fight back by diving into the weeds, and the general public throws up its hands and thinks "who to believe? the truth is probably somewhere in the middle." That's a partial victory for the bad guys.

I have the ability as needed to dive into the weeds and prove the study is bogus. But I usually don't, at least not at first. I usually simply say "it's a lie by people who want to make money selling gas". Clear & simple. It unmuddies the waters as well as anything can.

Then I jump in the weeds if somebody wants to go there.

Pravus Prime
04-17-2007, 06:59 PM
Just had a laugh thinking about whatever guy goes in to buy a Hummer because he wants to save the environment!



11011011


But that seems to imply that there's a hummer owner who cares about the environment! :rolleyes: ;) :D

Frankly, I'm glad that the CNW debunking is finally getting out there. There've been too many people who someone get a hold of that and think they've got a bullet to use to shoot down the "Why you should have a hybrid" arguement.

PapaMile
04-17-2007, 08:11 PM
... guy goes in to buy a Hummer because he wants to save the environment!

Yes, I have hesitated a lot in march. My driveway was not wide enough for the Hummer. So I bought this inspid hybrid. ;)

I understand that the Hummer is a symbol but there is worst (Canadian figure HW):
Hummer :25mpg
GMC Yukon : 17
Dodge Durango : 15

Pierre

edit: I must admit, I had hesitated beween the regular Civic and the hybrid because of the arguments mentionned in the text.

Dan
06-04-2007, 09:28 AM
San Francisco Chronicle to the rescue...

Finally this is hitting some mainstream press.

The Hummer vs. the Prius (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/04/EDGI7Q63U01.DTL)

11011011

Chuck
06-04-2007, 10:03 AM
That was a slam dunk!

madman
06-04-2007, 10:14 AM
I don't believe a word of it! I must trade in my prius for a hummer. CNW says it will cost me less to use over the next 35 years.......how can i dispute those facts. Now I can drive 75mph everywhere I go and know that I am saving the planet every time I fill up. YAY!!! (does anyone know where I can get a second job to pay for the fuel? I'm sure the savings will show up eventually)

xcel
06-04-2007, 11:08 AM
Hi Dan:

___That one is going to the home page today :D

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Chuck
06-04-2007, 11:14 AM
Hi Dan:

___That one is going to the home page today :D

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I can't tell you how many www.priuschat.com (http://www.priuschat.com) newbies have unintentionally or intentionally mentioned Spinella's junk science.

Dan
06-04-2007, 11:17 AM
Check today's posts.... I have a great idea for an illustration for the article ;)

11011011

xcel
06-04-2007, 11:30 AM
Hi Dan:

___You want to post it? I have to get ready for work but Chuck should be able to guide you through the details in less then 5 minutes … I have lots of nice H2 and Prius pics in the Gallery to choose from so make sure your illustration is of a CleanMPG quality ;) I remember an illustration of a Prius and a large something (H2) side by sides at a pump island during the gas fill with some cute commentary. I think Chuck threw that one in the gallery last year? Or maybe I did ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Chuck
07-03-2007, 09:41 AM
Check out this excellent rebuttle from http://www.pacinst.org/ of Dust to Dust in pdf:

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. in regards to Dust to Dust with no peer review whatsoever

haole
01-21-2008, 11:50 PM
I would start debunking it with one thing and one thing only.

Environmental impact comparisons shouldn't be given in dollars.

Environmental impact is physical thing, not a financial thing.

xcel
01-22-2008, 12:28 AM
Hi Haole:

___Here is a peer reviewed little display you may be interested in? As weight and engine size increase, the numbers get far worse. The new Tundra’s LCA is an absolute joke by comparison to the Prius’ with the H2 having to be far worse :ccry:

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/Prius_II_Green_Report.jpg

___Good Luck

___Wayne

wdb
01-05-2009, 11:42 PM
[Dredging up the past, apparently.]

I don't really see much "debunking" going on in the article linked in the first post. It's basically calling D2D's results into question by comparing their data to data from Toyota, which has an obvious and vested interest in making the Prius look good.

I don't doubt that Toyota looks at total environmental impact over the life cycle of a vehicle, especially a vehicle as environmentally flashy as a Prius. However I do have a problem with people who assume that the CNW (D2D) study must be tainted or biased just because of the numbers its methods produce.

Let me try to take subjectivity out of it for a moment: if Toyota really does care about total environmental impact, and/or if CNW really does use objective data -- for example if factors such as real-world miles driven are taken into account, which for the Prius should be heading higher, or if CNW really does amortize of development impacts over the now-larger number of vehicles sold -- then the D2D numbers for the Prius should change for the better over time. And they are. "Dust to Dust" dollars per mile for the Prius, from the two published reports I found from CNW, show the Prius numbers to be dropping pretty quickly:

2005 $3.249
2006 $2.865
2007 $2.191

In comparison: since Hummer sales have suffered so much lately, one would expect the D2D numbers for the Hummer to be getting worse. And they are. The numbers below are for the H3, which is the model that started all the hubbub (the H1 and H2 were always worse than the Prius, based on D2D figures):

2005 $1.949
2006 $2.069
2007 $2.327

I guess what I'm getting at is that CNW's data might bear watching over time, by folks truly interested in gauging the total impact of their automobile purchases. Such an approach seems far more practical than the shout-at-it-and-hope-it-goes-away approach that eco folks seem to want to give the ongoing study. From what I can gather about their methods and credentials, they sure do seem to be grounded in the real world I live in.

Chuck
01-06-2009, 04:15 AM
This study is saying the environmental impact of a vehicle shy of 3000 pounds has a larger environmental footprint than a vehicle weighing 8500 pounds....does that raise suspicons? It is what it is - propaganda. Spinella assumes a H2 will last 300,000 miles....something that happens to at most 1.5% of all vehicles and I doubt many of those are GM. He then says a Prius will last just 100,000 miles, yet a million Toyota hybrids and ten years later it's hard to find stories of Prius drivers that with wheels off at 100K...we have a member that drove a Prius I to 350K until a teen totaled it...there is a Brit Columbia taxi driver that has driven a Prius I to 250K, then Toyota took it for research while his Prius II is at 300-400K.

Also suspicious is Spinella's estimates of the resources exceeding 15% to manufacture it relative to it's total life.

The one billion of R&D was added to the cost of the Prius in the study....do you think Spinella would be as honest doing that to the Chevy Volt? ;)

In conjunction with Dust to Dust is a British paper that took a horrendous moonscape picture of Sudbury in 1979 then deviously attempted to assert that the 0.4% of nickel Toyota buys for all it's vehicles are solely for the 20 pounds of nickel on a Prius traction pack and causing massive environmental damage. If this were true, cordless phones, cell phones, many other consumer electronics using NiMH batteries should be banned.

It just amazes me how desperately people are to grasp at "proof" such as Dust to Dust to prop up flawed beliefs. Is it accurate to grace such as honest discussions?

lightfoot
01-06-2009, 06:55 AM
However I do have a problem with people who assume that the CNW (D2D) study must be tainted or biased just because of the numbers its methods produce.

That doesn't seem to be what is happening. CNW results are being questioned due to the assumptions and numbers that the study is starting from, not the numbers that result. This is very common scientific practice: it the results seem surprising, take a careful look at the assumptions and the numbers that they are based on, and the methods used to do the calculation.

Frankly, even an unbiased analysis of something like this is fairly hopeless given the impossibility of accurately determining the true values of some of the large numbers involved. Probably not even Toyota can determine the true cost of developing the Prius because the technology and design for it probably drew on many different internal sources. And many of the costs (such as battery recycling) are imponderable until it actually happens for that model year car: to determine the D2D for a 2006 Prius, you have to wait until the car dies in say 2016 to find out what the actual recycling costs are for that vehicle. Messy.

As for bias in the studies, there is always bias, for both Toyota and for CNW. I doubt if Toyota would fudge data (very embarrassing if detected!) but they might omit unfavorable aspects or present the data in a more flattering-to-Toyota way. CNW's motives are murkier. They are a studies-for-pay outfit, and we don't know who paid for this study (do we?). CNW's writeup can't be treated as science because (a) we don't know the sources of funding (scientific articles usually list the grants involved), and (b) it was not peer reviewed. Peer review certainly doesn't completely eliminate bias but it does reduce the problem.

wdb
01-06-2009, 10:37 AM
This study is saying the environmental impact of a vehicle shy of 3000 pounds has a larger environmental footprint than a vehicle weighing 8500 pounds....does that raise suspicons? It is what it is - propaganda.There it is in a nutshell. You don't like the results, so you find one point (among the 3,000 to 4,000 CNW claims to have considered in coming up with their figures) that can be considered odd, and leap headlong to your conclusion. That kind of 'analysis' really grates on the lab rat in me.
Spinella assumes a H2 will last 300,000 miles....something that happens to at most 1.5% of all vehicles and I doubt many of those are GM. Except for the H1, Hummers are Chevy pickup trucks. I have no trouble whatsoever believing that pickup trucks are among that sliver of vehicles driven for 30 years and multiple 100's of Ks. And in reading the CNW report (although I have not yet plowed through all 450 pages) they discuss things such as the impact of commonality of parts on their mileage and development figures; well, the 350 V8 in a Hummer is probably the single most common V8 on earth. So, yes, I can see where they came up with the number.
He then says a Prius will last just 100,000 miles, yet a million Toyota hybrids and ten years later it's hard to find stories of Prius drivers that with wheels off at 100K...we have a member that drove a Prius I to 350K until a teen totaled it...there is a Brit Columbia taxi driver that has driven a Prius I to 250K, then Toyota took it for research while his Prius II is at 300-400K. All of which is why the numbers should be getting better, and they are.
Also suspicious is Spinella's estimates of the resources exceeding 15% to manufacture it relative to it's total life.If that percentage is specific to the Prius, it will improve as more cars are produced and sold. If it is a generalization CNW used throughout the study, from what I've seen I have no doubt they have rational justification. As they like to point out (over and over), they were a year ahead of the feds in placing real world MPG for the Prius at 48MPG, which goes to the validity of their methods. Again, you may not like the number, but it becomes awfully hard to justify shooting the messenger when it turns out to be correct .
The one billion of R&D was added to the cost of the Prius in the study....do you think Spinella would be as honest doing that to the Chevy Volt? ;)Yes. I see nothing in their motives for producing the study (which to me seem obvious -- publicity for their company) to indicate that they favor one manufacturer over another. If that were the case, Audi must be their most hated company by far, because Audis really, really got slammed in the study.
In conjunction with Dust to Dust is a British paper that took a horrendous moonscape picture of Sudbury in 1979 [...]Sounds like yellow journalism at its finest. Whatever; I didn't see it and I'm not here to disucss it.
It just amazes me how desperately people are to grasp at "proof" such as Dust to Dust to prop up flawed beliefs. Is it accurate to grace such as honest discussions?That's just it; CNW did not start out to prop up anything. They went looking for studies comparing total lifetime energy impacts of vehicles, found nothing they considered to be truly thorough, and decided to do their own.

CNW results are being questioned due to the assumptions and numbers that the study is starting from, not the numbers that result. This is very common scientific practice: it the results seem surprising, take a careful look at the assumptions and the numbers that they are based on, and the methods used to do the calculation.Agreed. I'm attempting to have that discussion here. But the stuff I've seen so far as "refutation" of the CNW study hasn't measured up very well against the study itself in terms of scientific validity and built-in bias.

I guess this is a good point at which to admit to a bias of my own: I'm biased towards believing that simpler, less complicated vehicles have less energy impact over their entire lifetimes than more complicated vehicles. I'm biased towards thinking that my Honda Fit has a smaller cradle-to-grave footprint than a Honda Civic hybrid. This is exactly why I went in search of numbers to prove (or disprove) my bias. And here I am.
Frankly, even an unbiased analysis of something like this is fairly hopeless given the impossibility of accurately determining the true values of some of the large numbers involved.This is where I find my credulity to be weakest as regards D2D. But the company is in the business of doing just this kind of deep dive study, and so they have experience at locating numbers, access to the tools necessary to collect those they could not find, probably already had collected a bunch of the data for other studies, and could justify spending the effort to collect the rest because they could apply it elsewhere.

To specifics: the fact that they went as far as to consider such things as how far auto factory workers drive to and from work may be thought of as downright strange, or it may seen as being thorough (perhaps to a fault?), or it may be seen as part of a truly honest attempt to determine the TOTAL environmental cost of a vehicle. That kind of thing is fodder for rational discourse, but I cannot see how it is justification to declare the study to be "junk science" and whatnot.
And many of the costs (such as battery recycling)[...]Funny you should mention that. CNW uses that same example to point out how the numbers for hybrids are bound to change as their components are assimilated into the recycling stream.
to determine the D2D for a 2006 Prius, you have to wait until the car dies in say 2016 to find out what the actual recycling costs are for that vehicle.Statisticians the world over would beg to differ. :) However real world results should certainly be included as they become available, as CNW clearly states (and appears to be doing).
CNW's motives are murkier. They are a studies-for-pay outfit, and we don't know who paid for this study (do we?). CNW's writeup can't be treated as science because (a) we don't know the sources of funding (scientific articles usually list the grants involved), and (b) it was not peer reviewed. Peer review certainly doesn't completely eliminate bias but it does reduce the problem.CNW answers your funding questions directly in statements on their website; the study was self-funded, or as they put it, the employees paid for it by getting smaller raises. Based on what the company does to make money, I take them at their word.

The D2D study became a great tool for bringing attention to their company, especially coming as it did in the midst of a growing dislike for FSP's in conjunction with the coming of age of hybrid vehicle technology. The timing was beautiful and, again with an eye on my credulity meter, 'interesting'. The original study contained two years' worth of numbers; did CNW sit on it for a year because they were waiting for the right time to release the study, or did they wait until they felt they had vetted their numbers, or did they have some other reason?

Again I feel compelled to say that this does not look to me as anything remotely weighty enough to toss the whole study out as garbage. Or should I say to send the the study into the recyling stream. ;) I find the study, its methods, and its results to be downright fascinating, and I dearly hope they keep publishing figures. I'd love to see how hybrids fare over, say, 10 years, by CNW's D2D method of reckoning. Especially compared to my Fit!

Chuck
01-06-2009, 10:44 AM
wdb,

If you are also bent on insisting the world is flat and the Moon Landings were faked, reasoning is utterly useless. To top it off, you are questioning everyone else's judgement. {sigh}

You are not going to find a reputable source supporting Dust to Dust, but you will find plently refuting it. Here. Googling it.

Reasoning is not the issue - it's your denial.

Saying it's true over and over does not turn myth into reality.

mparrish
01-06-2009, 11:43 AM
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

Pretty persuasive debunking.

mparrish
01-06-2009, 12:13 PM
I guess this is a good point at which to admit to a bias of my own: I'm biased towards believing that simpler, less complicated vehicles have less energy impact over their entire lifetimes than more complicated vehicles. I'm biased towards thinking that my Honda Fit has a smaller cradle-to-grave footprint than a Honda Civic hybrid.

And indeed you may be right on the comparison.

Remember that the denominator is everything. Total D2D energy usage of the Prius was 3x less than the Hummer, even with the controversial heavy weighting of the production portion (see Gleick link above).

So when a study uses assumptions that are suspect AND are just enough to undo the impact of the numerator, in most people that raises red flags.

379,000 miles in a Hummer, 109,000 in a Prius. That huge disparity simply doesn't pass the laugh test. You could make a case that the average Hummer might last longer. Maybe 20k. Maybe 70k. Hell, I'll give you double............109k. But 270K? Please.

But of course they NEED that 270k and the 3.X multiple it provides. Otherwise the Prius "wins". So 270k it is.

lightfoot
01-06-2009, 12:27 PM
CNW answers your funding questions directly in statements on their website; the study was self-funded, or as they put it, the employees paid for it by getting smaller raises. Based on what the company does to make money, I take them at their word.

The D2D study became a great tool for bringing attention to their company, especially coming as it did in the midst of a growing dislike for FSP's in conjunction with the coming of age of hybrid vehicle technology. The timing was beautiful and, again with an eye on my credulity meter, 'interesting'.

I'd love to see how hybrids fare over, say, 10 years, by CNW's D2D method of reckoning. Especially compared to my Fit!

Well then there you have it: the study was done to draw attention to CNW. If the results were predictable, the study would not have drawn attention. So they had to reach a surprising conclusion to achieve their goal. That is the bias.

A scientific study to determine the difference between D2D of hybrids and non-hybrids would have compared the D2D costs of two comparable vehicles. An HCHII and a conventional Civic of the same vintage would have been ideal for this. That is how science is done: you eliminate extraneous variables in order to isolate the effect of a few variables (ideally just one). Not only are the results more meaningful, in this case the study would be much easier to do because it could be a differential study: looking only at the components, production methods, etc that differ between the two otherwise identical vehicles.

I too would welcome a study of the latter type. Unfortunately, the goal and design of the CNW study do not allow useful and meaningful comparisons to be reached from it.

wdb
01-06-2009, 05:26 PM
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

Pretty persuasive debunking.CNW's response:

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Response%20to%20Pacific%20Institute.pdf

379,000 miles in a Hummer, 109,000 in a Prius. That huge disparity simply doesn't pass the laugh test. You could make a case that the average Hummer might last longer. Maybe 20k. Maybe 70k. Hell, I'll give you double............109k. But 280K? Please.The mileage numbers for the H1 do seem pretty wild. Does it matter? After all the hubbub under discussion compares the H3 to the Prius. (CNW gave the H3 a 207,000 mile lifespan.) Well, yeah it does, because if that number is wildly wrong (assuming it IS wrong and not just a result of their different -- possibly more in depth? -- methodology) then it calls the rest of their data into question. I have not seen anything from CNW giving justification for the number assigned to the H1, and that is a definite mark against them in my book.

Well then there you have it: the study was done to draw attention to CNW. If the results were predictable, the study would not have drawn attention. So they had to reach a surprising conclusion to achieve their goal. That is the bias.Possibly, and the existence of that kind of bias would provide one explanation for the timing of the report's publication. But in the beginning of the report itself CNW indicates that D2D is the result of several years of brainstorming, meetings, determinations as to what to include, etcetera, followed by more time spent collecting and collating the data. If the goal was purely just to publicize their company, why not simply throw something together and get it out there?

A scientific study to determine the difference between D2D of hybrids and non-hybrids would have compared the D2D costs of two comparable vehicles. An HCHII and a conventional Civic of the same vintage would have been ideal for this.They're in there. I'm having a little trouble with formatting the columns; the first column is the study year, second is Civic, third is Civic Hybrid.

2005 $2.420 $3.238
2006 $2.361 $3.398
2007 $2.867 $2.943

Also, CNW recommends that people use their data to compare vehicles in the same segments. Not exactly the same as comparing hybrid vs. conventional, but certainly a good way to reduce any bias that might be due to assumptions made about categories, such as the heavy development costs applied to the Prius.

I found one interesting passage in the report, which may speak more to their reason for producing it than anything else I've read so far.
From purely a consumer auto-buy perspective, the first consideration has to be suitability of the vehicle to current driving needs. That narrows the field to the appropriate market segment or segments. From that point on, while family budget will decide price and other conditions such as fuel economy expenses, somewhere in the equation that consumer may wish to include the overall energy cost to society. That, however, in our view, is a personal choice.

Government, on the other hand, is a different matter. To offer incentives to a select group of vehicles under the guise of energy efficiency is misdirected because government is purported to represent all consumers, or society in general. Without at least the consideration of overall energy cost it is doing a disservice. If governments include Dust-to-Dust energy data and still decide to offer tax or other incentives, at least it would be a better informed choice.While interesting from the standpoint of motivation for producing the report, I don't happen to agree with it. I prefer to view tax breaks for hybrid purchases as a means of promoting a technology that has significant long term potential to improve the lives of everyone in the country. (It's also a regressive tax, favoring the wealthier consumer over the less well-off, but that's a different discussion.)

donee
01-06-2009, 06:07 PM
Hi All,

WDB first reply to Delta Flyer proves he does not have the technical background sufficient to conduct a reasonable discusion on this topic. Please do not feed the trolls. Unless you like talking science with a ostrich for your own giggles. Your not going to change his mind, and it don't matter if the earth is round, or the sky is blue , or people landed on the moon. WDB just is not interested in facts....

wdb
01-06-2009, 06:43 PM
Hi All,

WDB first reply to Delta Flyer proves he does not have the technical background sufficient to conduct a reasonable discusion on this topic. Please do not feed the trolls. Unless you like talking science with a ostrich for your own giggles. Your not going to change his mind, and it don't matter if the earth is round, or the sky is blue , or people landed on the moon. WDB just is not interested in facts....
Sigh. Alrighty then. As DONEE appears to be the voice of reason here, I will respond in kind. DONEE has hit the nail on the head, and obviously has read true meaning hidden behind every word of my responses. I own 4 Hummers and you will pry their keys from my cold, dead fingers!!!!1!!!

Thanks to those of you who sent me links and who responded thoughtfully. To DONEE and friends, I'd send you a get well card for that sprained knee but I'd rather not incur the environmental costs.

And with that I take my leave.

lamebums
01-07-2009, 03:25 AM
The only glaring problem I see is the number of miles each car is driven. 370k for a Hummer, or any GM vehicle, is ridiculous. I don't know of *anyone* with a GM vehicle that has even half that. The highest I've ever seen in any GM vehicle is 149k, and it was riddled with problems by then.

Hell, I could put 109k miles on a Prius in three years. I'm sure the Prius would last longer than that.


I know how the nickel is mined in Canada, shipped to China where the batteries are manufactured, then to Japan where it's put in a car, and then shipped here. And the upfront cost (pollution) may well be more than a Hummer. But the Prius is getting better than 10 MPG over its life.

mparrish
01-07-2009, 09:19 AM
CNW's response:

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Response%20to%20Pacific%20Institute.pdf



Funny, I actually read this again before you posted it yesterday.

The most controversial part of the report is the miles driven, of course. Here is CNW:

A. Complaints about the mileage used for each vehicle is addressed in a document on the CNWMR.com site. Fundamentally it says that the Prius (since this seems to be the choking point for the Pacific Institute) was given a 109,000 lifetime miles figure NOT because it couldn't or wouldn't last for more, rather because the lifetime mileage has to be adjusted for average driving distances per year and how long the current technology is viable.

NEW high tech products have a limited life expectancy because they become obsolete more quickly. In Prius's case, the stage 1 and stage 2 hybrid drive systems are already or soon will be out of date. In 10 years those systems will be as ancient as Windows ME.

If Prius drivers are covering only 6,700 miles per year, then clearly in 10 years the cars will have no more than 67,000 miles on them. Put simply: The car could last longer in terms of miles, but replacement technology makes existing technology virtually unusable by the time the vehicle is 109,000-miles old (about 15 years from introduction).
Got that?

It's not that the Prius lasts 109k. It's that by the time I hit 109k, Toyota will:

(1) announce a new PHEV
(2) announce they will no longer service my 2007 GenII
(3) allow me to return my GenII for crushing or abandoning (since nobody will want to buy "obsolete technology") in exchange for a PHEV purchase.

That makes sense.

Earthling
01-07-2009, 09:59 AM
CNW's response:

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Response%20to%20Pacific%20Institute.pdf



CNW's response is more laughable than their original "study."

Prius will become obsolete sooner because it is so high-tech? That's absurd.

It is the FSP hulks that are obsolete, not the Prius. Obsolescence has nothing to do with the amazing engineering in a Prius. As long as there are spare parts available, and replacement batteries, the argument that a Prius will become obsolete sooner because it is high tech in not a legitimate argument concerning the Prius. Rather, it is just one more indictment of CNW and their BS.

Anyone who gives CNW any shred of credence needs to examine his own thought processes and biases. I guess what I'm saying is only a damned fool would give CNW more than a passing thought, let alone support any of their nonsense.


Harry

Taliesin
01-07-2009, 10:35 AM
Prius will become obsolete sooner because it is so high-tech? That's absurd.

It is the FSP hulks that are obsolete, not the Prius.

Hmm... New figures they should use due to the "obsolete" reasoning?

Hummer: 2.0 miles
Prius: 109K miles

I wonder what that does to the final numbers?

The technology in the Prius is what makes the technology in the other vehicles unusable (to a certain extent).

But then again, the auto transmission supposedly made the manual obsolete and look at how many are still out there.

Either way, it's a very weak argument.

Chuck
09-10-2009, 03:42 PM
Did you really think the Hummer was green? Blow-by-blow account of why Prius is clearly greener (http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=1)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2006_Toyota_Prius-II.jpgBengt Halvorson - The Car Connection - April 17, 2007

Related Slate Article (http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/), The Hummer vs. the Prius (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/04/EDGI7Q63U01.DTL), Pacific Institute Study (PDF) (http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf),
The Guardian Dismisses Dust to Dust as Bad Science (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8606)

Over the past year, there has been an explosion of stories raising questions about the real environmental cost of hybrids.

One of the most misleading ones, which has been spread by countless blogs over the past several weeks, and cited without verification by several sources that appear reputable, looks to have originated in a story last November in England's Daily Mail, a right-leaning, British tabloid paper, which bore the gleefully spiteful title 'Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness.' An editorial, published last month in a newspaper for a small state university on the East Coast, helped bring this misleading report a new life.

But it isn't a Toyota factory at all. The automaker has, in fact, only been purchasing significant amounts of nickel from the Sudbury , Ontario , Inco mine for its batteries in recent years, while the environmental disaster the headline is referring to largely occurred more than thirty years ago.

And that ore is at the core of a semi-urban legend that leads to dumb headlines like "HUMMER Greener than Prius," and others we've seen recently. http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=1


{replying to the Dust to Dust study}

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/10/obama.heckled.speech/art.joe.wilson.heckling.gi.jpg

YOU LIE!!!



Copyright 2006 Clean MPG, LLC. All Rights Reserved.