Hummer takes less energy than Prius to produce and drive

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,332
    Thanks Received:
    2,020
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,826
    Print this one out, Xerox off about a hundred copies, and stick them on the windshield of every Prius you find. Especially the ones doing 50 in the express lane where there's no way to pass them. :^) I'm sure these environmentally-conscious people would be grateful to learn the truth about their cars.

    -------------------------------------------

    http://www.ncpa.org

    PRIUS OUTDOES HUMMER IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

    March 14, 2007

    The Toyota Prius, the flagship car for the environmentally conscious, is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America, and takes more combined energy to produce than a Hummer, says the Recorder.

    http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

    Consider:

    o The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and
    smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much
    environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA
    has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers.

    o Dubbed the Superstack, the factory has spread sulfur dioxide
    across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's
    nightmare.

    o Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the
    plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, according to
    Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin.

    o After leaving the plant, the nickel travels to Europe, China,
    Japan and United States, a hardly environmentally sound round
    the world trip for a single battery.

    But that isn't even the worst part, says the Record. According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius (consisting of electrical, fuel, transportation, materials and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime), is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer:

    o The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a
    lifetime of 100,000 miles -- the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

    o The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per
    mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000
    miles.

    o That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a
    Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it.

    Source: Chris Demorro, "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage," The Recorder, March 7, 2007.
     
  2. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Hmm... this post was interesting. Unfortunately, it's also wrong.

    First, the study quoted by your Chris Demorro of Central Connecticut State University is old, and the company which produced the original report has since retracted its conclusions and issued another report, found here: http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Cost_per_mile_by_segment_by_model_and_sorts.xls

    However, even this report contains questionable methodology, and contradicts other, similar studies conducted by Argonne National Laboratory and MIT. Here is a link to the MIT study, which was published in MIT's Technology Review: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=transportation&id=16483

    In addition, the study contains several obvious flaws in the conclusion. For example:

    Example 1: These studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
    Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
    Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota's internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.

    These are Toyota's criticism, in addition, the following points raise questions.

    As mentioned, all other studies place a vehicles greatest area of energy consumption during the usage, not production, phase at about 80-85%. For some unknown reason this figure is reversed for the quoted study.

    The newspaper article also claims that the nickel used to produce the Prius comes from an environmentally destructive mine in Ontario, yet, according to Toyota's manufacturers, the nickel used for Prius batteries is in fact from recycled materials.

    The CNW study also assumes that hybrids last only 109,000 miles before requiring replacement while SUV will last over 200,000. In reality, most Prius owners report that their vehicles last far longer and several have been shown to work with the same batteries after 200,000 miles of use. This is critical to the study as even under the reports faulty assumptions any percieved problems with hybrid energy consumption are negated once this greater average is taken into account.

    More information can be found at the following links:
    http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/05-10-06
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs_cars.shtml
    http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17388/

    Personally, I tend to trust the good folks at MIT more than some noob wannabe reporter who plagerises a study which is considered flawed even by its creator. Myth Busted.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    Hell, I love big four wheel drive pick ups, big V twin motorcycles, and most anything that goes fast, and makes noise. I didn't however, believe that a Hummer(which I hate)was energy wise, and beat the Toyota at ANYTHING, including going fast.

    The Hummer is a dog, and the people that drive them have some major issues.

    The rappers, and the culture of the foul mouth have a lock on that vehicle.
     
  4. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    I was thinking of test driving an H3 when its time to replace my 04 Explorer. That will be in about 2 years.
     
  5. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Its based on the assumption that if something cost twice as much it uses twice the energy, which is a fucking retarded assumption to make.
     
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Ummm, no that's not what its based on. try reading it again. It's saying in terms of production cost that is how the two stack up. He took the total production cost and divded by the the expected mileage of the vehicle. That and the pollution mentioned in the first bullet points are not suppossed to represent any type of cause and effect relationship. That's just how you chose to read it.
     

Share This Page