Prius vs. HUMMER: Exploding the Myth

[RobertG]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San_Carlos_Jeff @ Apr 17 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]424799[/snapback]</div>

I was wondering the same thing so sent a note to the author asking him about this. Here's his response:

"Thanks -- I certainly did notice this, and it was cut out in the
interest of space, but I've had the paragraph added back in. Toyota says
that there's no data to support the average Prius going 109,000 in its
lifetime.
-BH"

Haven't had a chance to look at the article again.

Jeff
[/b]

Here's a quote from that article which I just read at The Car Connection web site:

• But Toyota also says that the study uses an unrealistically low estimated lifetime for hybrids, and that there's no data to support its assumptions in this. For instance, according to the study the average Prius is expected to go 109,000 miles over its lifetime, while a Hummer H1 would go 379,000 miles. CNW says about hybrids: "…these are generally secondary vehicles in a household OR they are driven in restricted or short range environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods."
  
  "Prius versus HUMMER: Exploding the Myth"
  The Car Connection

Excuse me while I take a short break to go to the pharmacy and pick up some Metamucil.

[Stev0]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 17 2007, 10:18 AM) [snapback]424666[/snapback]</div>

Ok, but it's only been about 3 weeks before we had the thread of complaints of too many stickies which led me to delete a bunch. Kinda hard to have it both ways.
[/b]

I was one who said A) We DID have too many stickies (and a good job to Admins here for cleaning it up), and B) This is one topic that SHOULD be a stickie. "You have too many" doesn't mean "You shouldn't have any". So another pat on the back to the Admins for stickifying this, too.

[MarkMN]

He added the miles thing back into the article. I am now quite satisfied with the article I think I will email it to my local paper who published George Will's (of Wash. Post) anti-environmental opinion peice last Saturday where he suggested that "perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one [Hummer] and squash a Prius with it". The conservatives have no shame in throwing the mud of deceit around, I just hope that the mud of facts gets thrown back in their face.

[Wildkow]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 17 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]424894[/snapback]</div>

He added the miles thing back into the article. I am now quite satisfied with the article I think I will email it to my local paper who published George Will's (of Wash. Post) anti-environmental opinion peice last Saturday where he suggested that "perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one [Hummer] and squash a Prius with it". The conservatives have no shame in throwing the mud of deceit around, I just hope that the mud of facts gets thrown back in their face.
[/b]

Here is the column and I don't think that he is advocating crushing Prii with Hummii's. His whole point is about the media trying to indoctrinate listeners into believing Environmental Fuzzy Math, and how enormously expensive it is to impact the actual worldwide climate while the change will be argueably insignificant. He then lists some outrageously farcical steps that have been recommended or should also be considered and one of them happens to be crushing your Prii with a Humii. His conclusion is contained in his last two paragraphs . . .

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:
Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?


Wildkow

p.s. that’s my reading anyway, correct me if I’m wrong.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

[liquidsoapdispenser]

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:
Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly? [/b]

I constantly fret that anything I do to cut energy use (and cut associated pollutants) is more then canceled out by my neighbors driving huge SUVs to work every day. It's so easy to think, "hey, I'm just one person, it really doesn't matter what I do." Well, I don't want to think that way, and I have to do what seems right, even if I'm just a drop in the bucket.

Along those lines, how can anyone fault California for trying to do the right thing. Even if the effect could be overshadowed by others, it doesn't make it any less the right thing to do. Hopefully in California's effort to curb emissions, new technologies will be discovered, and an example will be set that others may follow.

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 18 2007, 12:41 AM) [snapback]425153[/snapback]</div>

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:
Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?
Wildkow

p.s. that’s my reading anyway, correct me if I’m wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1
[/b]

But if everybody does it, then together we reduce emissions 25%. That's the growing consensus for a secure future - everybody needs to pitch in. And if you think converting our vehicle base to use less gas and our buildings to use less electricity is going to be expensive, just wait till you go to the pumps in a couple years and gas is $5/gallon and electricity from natural gas generators is 2x or 3x today's rate, and coal surely won't be cheaper.

But you're probably right in one respect - we won't completely meet our voluntary goals. The only thing that will significantly slow our contributions to GHG will be higher energy prices. But it doesn't mean I can't start now in reducing my contribution. Then I can look at my grandchildren and explain what we knew and what I did with a clear conscience. And by being an example today makes it easier for my co-workers and neighbors to make better decisions in the coming months and years.

This part of the thread belongs in FHOP or the environmental forum. But the point here is, when all things are considered, the Prius is beneficial for our global economy and environment, compared to large SUVs, despite some well-publicized but deeply flawed reports.

[thebrattygurl]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 17 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]424660[/snapback]</div>

I wish the author of this article elaborated on the biggest obvious flaw in the CNW scam -- the fact that it 'estimates' Hummers and other SUVs to last well over 300,000 miles, while 'estimated' that Prii only last a bit over 100,000 miles. That assumption alone makes the Prius per mile 'cost' relative to SUVs more than three times higher than it otherwise would be if they had equal mileage expectations. Otherwise the above article is well written and points out a lot of the flaws of the trash studys that have been made.
[/b]

LOL at SUVs lasting even over 100,000 miles. What about all my friends with SUVs whose transmissions went out before 100,000 mi? In addition, my buddy at the Acura dealership told me to dump my SUV before it hit 100,000 miles, as after that I would be paying out the ^*(**( for car repairs. I bet my Prius will last alot longer than 100,000 miles, given that it is a Toyota!

[cwerdna]

Looks like some moron decided to add the CNW/CCSU garbage to the Wikipedia entry for the Prius at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius.

"In taking into account the overall energy and production cycle, the total cost and environmental damage to produce a Prius greatly outweighs that of producing a pure ICE vehicle. Over the lifespan of the vehicle, the Prius will cost more to operate than most other vehicles, and cost more energy initially for production of the batteries and other equipment, and to truly be efficient, one would be more effective in purchasing a Toyota Scion xB, which costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to operate, as opposed to the $3.25 of the Prius..."

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ May 12 2007, 04:18 AM) [snapback]440470[/snapback]</div>

Looks like some moron decided to add the CNW/CCSU garbage to the Wikipedia entry for the Prius at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius.

"In taking into account the overall energy and production cycle, the total cost and environmental damage to produce a Prius greatly outweighs that of producing a pure ICE vehicle. Over the lifespan of the vehicle, the Prius will cost more to operate than most other vehicles, and cost more energy initially for production of the batteries and other equipment, and to truly be efficient, one would be more effective in purchasing a Toyota Scion xB, which costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to operate, as opposed to the $3.25 of the Prius..."
[/b]

Time to have that deleted from Wiki!

*edit*

Looks like it has been corrected to me.

"In March 2007, an editorial in the Central Connecticut State University Recorder alleged that the total cost and environmental damage to produce a Prius greatly outweighs that of producing a non-hybrid vehicle[34]. According to this editorial, over the lifespan of the vehicle, the Prius will cost more to operate than most other vehicles, and cost more energy initially for production of the batteries and other equipment. To truly be efficient, one would be more effective in purchasing a Toyota Scion xB, which costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to operate, as opposed to the $3.25 of the Prius. This editorial cited a study by CNW Marketing Research, Inc.[35], and was cited by a number of news sources[2]. However, in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, a Toyota Motor Sales vice president refuted the CNW Marketing study[3]. Furthermore, the author of the Recorder article later questioned the authenticity of the CNW numbers on which he had based his original column.[36] The amount of misinformation in the CNW study and CCSU articles lead to a long piece being written at The Car Connection titled Prius vs. Hummer: Exploding the Myth"

[Stev0]

Boy, do we have our work cut out for us! In Google, "Prius outdoes Hummer in environmental damage": 10,600 hits.