I still find it highly suspect--that they revised their study so greatly two years later and came out with vastly different results says to me that they really don't know what they are doing.
According to them, the most environmentally friendly thing we should be doing right now is all driving a Ford Focus or Jeep Wrangler.
Label me unconvinced that they have a handle on this.
So really, their fucked if they make a mistake and keep touting it as truth
and their fucked if they revise their study to incorporate the critisisms of the original?
the results aren't "vastly different", the prius figure changed because they upped the lifespan, and the cost of development of the third gen was much lower, as the tech had been refined by the first and second gen (and all the hybrid camry/highlander etc)
A ford focus would be one of the more enviro friendly choices IMO. is the Corolla manufactured in the USA?
the wrangler scores so low possibly because the R&D costs are minimal... i mean what's ever changed in them?
all i know is, i don't trust or distrust this study any more than the others. simple laws of physics do state that if you make a heavier, more complicated car, with more raw materials from different continents, it is going to take more energy to transport the materials, refine them, and build the damn car than it would if you produced a lighter weight, less complex car, using minerals available closer to the country of being built.
is the original dust to dust conclusion that a hummer h2 is more enviro friendly than a prius accurate? probably not. but none of the articles disputing the dust to dust article have come up with reasonable figures suggesting a corolla/focus is less enviro friendly than a prius. and THAT is the point. if your concerned with environmental degredation, longer periods of ownership of reliable, fuel efficient regular cars (especially diesels), is more than likely a better choice than a prius. therefore, it is image, and not fact, that compells people to buy them. < my initial point jman took issue with.
Sure the nickle mine may have been there, but using that to excuse the prius for utilising an environmentally damaging material is akin to saying "well oil wells were dug before i bought my F650, so i can just use the gas coming from them right, and i'm not causing environmental damage?"
as for "all car parts come from the ground" i know the EU has a law about a high % of the materials a manufacturer uses to must be from recycled sources. recycling is energy intensive, so not sure whether that really makes much difference
__________________ What can you do when you wake up and realise you sacrificed everything you ever wanted in life for the sake of progress?
I'm just not interested in the mingling of politics with science. I hate politics and I love science. When I read a journal I'm looking for statistical significance and nothing more. You can try to dig deeper but, for me, that's all there is to it.
I do understand. But when you have science that indicates the world is on a certain course, and there is a consensus among a certain group that the course must be changed, then politics enters into it. It is just the way it is. Most people do not react to the science of things, they react to more visceral stuff, which means that, in a democracy, the population (and Congress! not many scientists there!) must be swayed. The space program, defense spending, nuclear power, hazardous waste cleanup in Superfund sites--all need PR to flip the levers to make things happen.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrdogma
Simon is not obnoxious like Val.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patride71
Yeah that is what you need, another goddamn quote in your sigline.
So really, their fucked if they make a mistake and keep touting it as truth
and their fucked if they revise their study to incorporate the critisisms of the original?
. . . .
if your concerned with environmental degredation, longer periods of ownership of reliable, fuel efficient regular cars (especially diesels), is more than likely a better choice than a prius. therefore, it is image, and not fact, that compells people to buy them. < my initial point jman took issue with.
I just don't trust a no-name organization that produced a non-peer-reviewed report that had wildly controversial conclusions that gained no support from other researchers and that they then significantly revised.
I am more likely to believe the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory when they say that hybrid ownership pays off once vehicles hit 160,000 miles.
Stuff on Argonne's GREET 2.7 lifecycle analysis model:
Sadly, the point might be, since Americans in general can't take care of their shit and always want something new, asking them to hold onto their cars until 160,000 miles is unreasonable. But, if someone is going to own a Prius and until it hits 200k, then yes, it is better the owner do that than buy a Corolla.
I do not doubt that many people--maybe most people--buy them because of the image they convey, as is true for most American vehicle purchases. But that doesn't make them bad cars, nor does it make them bad for the environment. They are good choices if you buy them and hold onto them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrdogma
Simon is not obnoxious like Val.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patride71
Yeah that is what you need, another goddamn quote in your sigline.
I am finding a lot of folks disputing Dust to Dust. Supposedly Argonne Labs did an analysis of total energy used over a vehicle's lifecycle for many models, looking for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jman
I just don't trust a no-name organization that produced a non-peer-reviewed report that had wildly controversial conclusions that gained no support from other researchers and that they then significantly revised.
I am more likely to believe the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory when they say that hybrid ownership pays off once vehicles hit 160,000 miles.
Stuff on Argonne's GREET 2.7 lifecycle analysis model:
Sadly, the point might be, since Americans in general can't take care of their shit and always want something new, asking them to hold onto their cars until 160,000 miles is unreasonable. But, if someone is going to own a Prius and until it hits 200k, then yes, it is better the owner do that than buy a Corolla.
I do not doubt that many people--maybe most people--buy them because of the image they convey, as is true for most American vehicle purchases. But that doesn't make them bad cars, nor does it make them bad for the environment. They are good choices if you buy them and hold onto them.
Word. The Rocky Mountain Institute (the reference in your first link above) is trustworthy and well respected and pretty much above and outside of politics.
Word. The Rocky Mountain Institute (the reference in your first link above) is trustworthy and well respected and pretty much above and outside of politics.
From that link: "..Since the researchers at Argonne Labs performed a careful study of all recent life cycle analyses of cars, especially hybrids, our research underlies the deep divide between CNW"s (Dust to Dust) study and all scientifically reviewed work on the same topic..."
Of course, Amory Lovins head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, certainly believes in human induced climate change, so.....
our Prius does indeed do around 48mpg in town, a bit more on freeway (while not driven objectionably slow in fact).
A tiny Ford fiesta TD I just rented in Europe did 42 overall, probably something like 45 on the freeway.
(our LCs do around 13 and 15 in town, something like that.)
[all US mpg, not UK mpg]
The Prius is an amazing vehicle, mpg wise. I am stunned it will do better mpg with 4 people and luggage than my motorcycle...
I wonder what a TD with regenerative braking would do...
that is all
__________________ : '97: 90K, 3xlock, 285 MT/Rs on steelies, Hanna sliders, 851+1.5"/863/N73/N74E/SD24, ARB bull with M12, Kaymar with duals, Kaymar Tradesman full rack, Slee TC skid, 2m/440, more stuff, loose nut behind the wheel!).
From that link: "..Since the researchers at Argonne Labs performed a careful study of all recent life cycle analyses of cars, especially hybrids, our research underlies the deep divide between CNW"s (Dust to Dust) study and all scientifically reviewed work on the same topic..."
Of course, Amory Lovins head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, certainly believes in human induced climate change, so.....
Amory is an honest scientist to his core, and a total energy geek, but definitely a hippie from way back. I have a lot of respect for him even when I disagree with him.
I have no official stance regarding climate change other than it's too complex a subject to make good conclusions and the related science is woefully incomplete and usually very poorly interpreted.
I just don't trust a no-name organization that produced a non-peer-reviewed report that had wildly controversial conclusions that gained no support from other researchers and that they then significantly revised.
I am more likely to believe the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory when they say that hybrid ownership pays off once vehicles hit 160,000 miles.
Stuff on Argonne's GREET 2.7 lifecycle analysis model:
Sadly, the point might be, since Americans in general can't take care of their shit and always want something new, asking them to hold onto their cars until 160,000 miles is unreasonable. But, if someone is going to own a Prius and until it hits 200k, then yes, it is better the owner do that than buy a Corolla.
I do not doubt that many people--maybe most people--buy them because of the image they convey, as is true for most American vehicle purchases. But that doesn't make them bad cars, nor does it make them bad for the environment. They are good choices if you buy them and hold onto them.
good reading, can't tell if the issue of Prius tires lasting less distance is addressed. it shows what i was trying to point out, how many of the eco nazi's that buy Prius's understand that they don't break even with corolla's till 160 000 miles?
one last concern that these calculations haven't taken into effect is hilighted by the following passage
"There are additional environmental concerns related to those rare earth metals, like those used in the magnets of hybrid batteries. In recent years, rare earth metals like lithium have been imported almost exclusively from China, which was able to lower its prices enough to monopolize the industry [source: Strickland]. One of the reasons China could sell lithium so cheaply was because it widely ignored environmental safeguards during the mining process. In the Bayan Obo region of China, for example, miners removed topsoil and extracted the gold-flecked metals using acids that entered the groundwater, destroying nearby agricultural land. Even the normally tight-lipped Chinese government admitted that rare earth mining has been abused in some places. A regulator at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in China went so far as to tell The New York Times, "This has caused great harm to the ecology and environment""
how much enviro damage could have been avoided if materials were sourced from enviromentally responsible countries? more food for thought.
I never said the prius was inherently
__________________ What can you do when you wake up and realise you sacrificed everything you ever wanted in life for the sake of progress?
good reading, can't tell if the issue of Prius tires lasting less distance is addressed. it shows what i was trying to point out, how many of the eco nazi's that buy Prius's understand that they don't break even with corolla's till 160 000 miles?
one last concern that these calculations haven't taken into effect is hilighted by the following passage
"There are additional environmental concerns related to those rare earth metals, like those used in the magnets of hybrid batteries. In recent years, rare earth metals like lithium have been imported almost exclusively from China, which was able to lower its prices enough to monopolize the industry [source: Strickland]. One of the reasons China could sell lithium so cheaply was because it widely ignored environmental safeguards during the mining process. In the Bayan Obo region of China, for example, miners removed topsoil and extracted the gold-flecked metals using acids that entered the groundwater, destroying nearby agricultural land. Even the normally tight-lipped Chinese government admitted that rare earth mining has been abused in some places. A regulator at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in China went so far as to tell The New York Times, "This has caused great harm to the ecology and environment""
how much enviro damage could have been avoided if materials were sourced from enviromentally responsible countries? more food for thought.
I never said the prius was inherently
I wonder how many other materials in cars also comes from China? Or other nations that ignore environmental concerns?
I don't doubt that metals extractions is damaging the Chinese environment, but I don't think it is something that is specific to Prius battery production.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrdogma
Simon is not obnoxious like Val.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patride71
Yeah that is what you need, another goddamn quote in your sigline.
Last night I was leaving rehearsal and a guy in Prius honked at me...
If you are over the age of whenever it is your parents can still force you to do shit on a stage, it is not called "rehearsal", it's called "faggot practice".
Quit kissin' pickles and get with the program, son.
--FJ40Owner
__________________ The Cow: 1996 FZJ80, OEM Lockers, 3" OME lift, ARB front bumper, Kaymar tyre jockey, BFG MT KM2s 255/85/16, Check Engine Light.
The Camel: 1986 Toyota Hilux 4x4 DLX Long Bed, Wildernest Pop-up Camper, Check Engine Light.
and the (base model) Prius is $35,000aud, or about 30% dearer, which would correspond roughly with toyota's figures of 25% more energy consumed.[/B]
.
FALSE! I bought a 2011 Prius II in March. 24,500 out the door (including taxes,fees, etc.) So far my total avg. mpg is 51.6 and I don't drive like the tree huggers. I put a lot of miles on my vehicle (I use it for work) and my FJ Cruiser was killing me on gas. I send less than a third on gas than I was on the FJ. Yeah, I miss my FJ, but my new '97 LC helps to alleviate the loss of it. Bottom line, it saves me $250 a month on gas.
FALSE! I bought a 2011 Prius II in March. 24,500 out the door (including taxes,fees, etc.) So far my total avg. mpg is 51.6 and I don't drive like the tree huggers. I put a lot of miles on my vehicle (I use it for work) and my FJ Cruiser was killing me on gas. I send less than a third on gas than I was on the FJ. Yeah, I miss my FJ, but my new '97 LC helps to alleviate the loss of it. Bottom line, it saves me $250 a month on gas.
FALSE! I bought a 2011 Prius II in March. 24,500 out the door (including taxes,fees, etc.) So far my total avg. mpg is 51.6 and I don't drive like the tree huggers. I put a lot of miles on my vehicle (I use it for work) and my FJ Cruiser was killing me on gas. I send less than a third on gas than I was on the FJ. Yeah, I miss my FJ, but my new '97 LC helps to alleviate the loss of it. Bottom line, it saves me $250 a month on gas.
You tell 'em. He might have been talking crazy ozzie dollars, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillet
so, what is your car payment on that prius?
then, when the batteries take a shit...hmmm...?
Same as on any new car, sweetheart. And for batteries, you can check out what folks on the forums say--not so bad.
Label me unconvinced that they have a handle on this.
Jman
yooper
Supposedly Argonne Labs did an analysis of total energy used over a vehicle's lifecycle for many models, looking for that.
1989 Toyota Landcruiser FJ62
1990 Toyota 4Runner
1992 Toyota 4x4 standard cab 4cyl pickup
e9999
: '97: 90K, 3xlock, 285 MT/Rs on steelies, Hanna sliders, 851+1.5"/863/N73/N74E/SD24, ARB bull with M12, Kaymar with duals, Kaymar Tradesman full rack, Slee TC skid, 2m/440, more stuff, loose nut behind the wheel!). 
: '03: 125K
: souped-up DR650 
2010 
He might have been talking crazy ozzie dollars, though. 
Linear Mode
