The Toyota Prius is LESS environmentally friendly than a Hummer..

[Qianglong]

http://omidr.typepad.com/torque/2007/03/toyotas_prius_i.html

"The production of the batteries does not end in Canada, the nickel is then sent off to a refinery in Europe and then off to China and finally it ends up in finished form in Japan. This in turn uses more energy to create the batteries since it involves many factories all over the world. "

"When you factor in all the energy it takes to drive and build a Prius it takes almost 50% more energy than a Hummer. In a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust", researchers discovered that the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles (the expected lifespan of a hybrid). On the other hand the Hummer costs $1.95 per mile over an expected 300,000 miles. "

"This also doesn't take into account the problem with disposing of the used batteries. Most of the hybrids have not been on the market long enough to be disposed of yet, but when it does happen there are going to be more environmental implications. "

"There is also a premium to buy a hybrid and there is a large chance that the premium will not be offset by the time you get rid of the car. According to Demorro, "It takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses."

 

[jpeyton]

So we should abandon all that R&D that Toyota has invested into hybrid technology so that economies of scale will never bring future hybrids down to a level that is more environmentally friendly to manufacture?

Let's just burn gasoline until it's gone and then switch to Razor scooters.

 

[compnovice]

Originally posted by: Qianglong
[L=http://omidr.typepad.com/torque/2007/03/toyotas_prius_i.html]
On the other hand the Hummer costs $1.95 per mile over an expected 300,000 miles. "

This is the most accurate fact....evar....

 

[Gooberlx2]

"There is also a premium to buy a hybrid and there is a large chance that the premium will not be offset by the time you get rid of the car. According to Demorro, "It takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses."

I'll admit I didn't RTFA, but does this take into account the tax credits some states give you for driving such a vehicle....are those credits very big anyway?

 

[brunswickite]

I did not click the lin, but the article is skewed by the mileage calculations..

300,000 miles comes to hummer at $1.95 /mile
(100,000 miles on a hummer rings in at $5.85 /mile)

100,000 miles comes to Prius at $3.25 /mile


HMMMM.... Because the average Hummer owner is going put 300,000 miles on it.

 

[beer]

300,000 miles on a hummer?

This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles."

So, gee, lets look at the source:
Current issue: March 7, 2007 Central Connecticut State University

This thread should be locked, I might as well stick my thumb four inches up my ass and tell you what my large intestine thinks. It'd be just as accurate as this piece of horse shyt article by some undergraduate university student at some tier3 no-name school in a worthless state.

 

[ultimatebob]

Wow, it looks like this story has gone national! Mad props to CCSU!

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: brunswickite
I did not click the lin, but the article is skewed by the mileage calculations..

300,000 miles comes to hummer at $1.95 /mile
(100,000 miles on a hummer rings in at $5.85 /mile)

100,000 miles comes to Prius at $3.25 /mile


HMMMM.... Because the average Hummer owner is going put 300,000 miles on it.

My thoughts exactly

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: brunswickite
I did not click the lin, but the article is skewed by the mileage calculations..

300,000 miles comes to hummer at $1.95 /mile
(100,000 miles on a hummer rings in at $5.85 /mile)

100,000 miles comes to Prius at $3.25 /mile


HMMMM.... Because the average Hummer owner is going put 300,000 miles on it.

My thoughts exactly

Hurrah for reading the whole article closely. I certainly didn't but thanks to you who did.

 

[sniperruff]

maybe the original hummer but not the chevy plastic virtual penis enlarger that are in the dealerships.

 

[Lonyo]

So in conclusion, it's better for the environment to buy a used car than a new car. Less disposal cost, less creation costs, and cheaper for the end user anyway.

 

[TheChort]

This seems to be an easily overlooked fact most of the time. Most environmentally conscious people think about their immediate and active contributions to the environment.
I think many fail to foresee the ultimate affect of their actions. Just because a battery/electricity doesn't pollute when you use it, doesn't mean there was no pollution associated with making it.
Every time energy is transferred from one type to another, a good portion of it (usually majority) will be lost to the environment as dispersed energy (2nd law of thermodynamics)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: brunswickite
I did not click the lin, but the article is skewed by the mileage calculations..

300,000 miles comes to hummer at $1.95 /mile
(100,000 miles on a hummer rings in at $5.85 /mile)

100,000 miles comes to Prius at $3.25 /mile


HMMMM.... Because the average Hummer owner is going put 300,000 miles on it.

My thoughts exactly

Hurrah for reading the whole article closely. I certainly didn't but thanks to you who did.

this same flawed 'study' has been circling the intarweb for a year or so now, i knew this thread was going to be based on that just by reading the title.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: compnovice

Originally posted by: Qianglong
[L=http://omidr.typepad.com/torque/2007/03/toyotas_prius_i.html]
On the other hand the Hummer costs $1.95 per mile over an expected 300,000 miles. "

This is the most accurate fact....evar....

:laugh:

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: compnovice

Originally posted by: Qianglong
[L=http://omidr.typepad.com/torque/2007/03/toyotas_prius_i.html]
On the other hand the Hummer costs $1.95 per mile over an expected 300,000 miles. "

This is the most accurate fact....evar....

:laugh:

Well they reason that the average Prius gets driven 6,700 miles a year. A 15 year life gives them their 100,000 mile estimate.
That means the average Hummer gets driven about 20k miles a year, whereas a quick look at used Hummers shows they get drives from about 7~15k mi a year, which means they should have used 150~200k for the Hummer lifetime figure, at a stretch.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: TheChort
This seems to be an easily overlooked fact most of the time. Most environmentally conscious people think about their immediate and active contributions to the environment.
I think many fail to foresee the ultimate affect of their actions. Just because a battery/electricity doesn't pollute when you use it, doesn't mean there was no pollution associated with making it.
Every time energy is transferred from one type to another, a good portion of it (usually majority) will be lost to the environment as dispersed energy (2nd law of thermodynamics)

..you still have the disposal problem of millions of tons of dead batteries after they have been fully recycled. No free lunch.

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
So in conclusion, it's better for the environment to buy a used car than a new car. Less disposal cost, less creation costs, and cheaper for the end user anyway.

Sssshhhhhh...you're gonna mess it up for those of us that already figured that out

 

[RU482]

I'd like to see a this doosh do a simliar study of the costs related to building and driving a Prius vs building and driving a Corolla

 

[IGBT]

..I like to see a shop manual for one of these things and get the real low down on the maint.intervals.

 

[grohl]

I love threads like this.

FWIW did you see that Wired article showing the energy cost to create a ceramic mug cost as much as 1600 styrofoam cups? Not including energy to wash it 1600 times. Didn't take into account the waste of styrofoam cups but it is interesting to think about the whole picture.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Qianglong
"The production of the batteries does not end in Canada, the nickel is then sent off to a refinery in Europe and then off to China and finally it ends up in finished form in Japan. This in turn uses more energy to create the batteries since it involves many factories all over the world. "

This article sounds like so much BS to me. Everything in the world is made in the way described in the above article. How do you think the parts of a hummer are made? Ire ore from minnesota is shipped to china where it is smelted and made into an engine for GM then shipped back to the us for assembly.

 

[TheGizmo]

This is possibly one of the most stupid articles I have read in my day. Crazy oil hugger. Now I don't feel so bad being a tree hugger, at least I don't get black crap all over my face when hugging.

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: TheGizmo
This is possibly one of the most stupid articles I have read in my day. Crazy oil hugger. Now I don't feel so bad being a tree hugger, at least I don't get black crap all over my face when hugging.

I agree the article is misleading, and probably a stretch at best, but it does bring up a good point.

Noone seems to care about the environmental factor that goes into creating environmentally friendly products. All people (environmentalists) ever seem to look at is the end result, but if you look at how alot of the stuff is created (solar panels, etc..), you will notice all the toxic waste products and large amounts of energy used that people seem to ignore.

 

[Toonces]

This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles."

Sudbury was used by NASA to test Moon rovers, true... when was that again? Oh yeah, the 1960's

The Inco smelter in Sudbury has caused irrevocable damage to the surrounding environment due to a century of Nickle production - true. However, to suggest the output and, consequently the damage, of Nickle smelting since 1902 is somehow related to the current-gen Prius Hybrids is hilarious.

During World War II, Inco's Frood Mine produced 40% of the nickel used in artillery by the Allies.

:Q

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: TheGizmo
This is possibly one of the most stupid articles I have read in my day. Crazy oil hugger. Now I don't feel so bad being a tree hugger, at least I don't get black crap all over my face when hugging.

I agree the article is misleading, and probably a stretch at best, but it does bring up a good point.

Noone seems to care about the environmental factor that goes into creating environmentally friendly products. All people (environmentalists) ever seem to look at is the end result, but if you look at how alot of the stuff is created (solar panels, etc..), you will notice all the toxic waste products and large amounts of energy used that people seem to ignore.

Not totally true, e.g. the complaints against Apple for the poor environmental record in terms of what's in their products, and also rulings made to get rid of various harmful things which used to be used in many computer components. It doesn't take into account manufacturing processes themselves and energy use, but it does look at things like disposal of stuff, by trying to ensure the environmental damage the rubbish does is minimised by reducing the harmful elements used to make them.
Also the removal of lead from fuel back in the day.

But your point is valid for most things, people don't care about the means, they only care about the ends, and if the means reduce the positive outcome from the final result, is it really worth going through the hassle of making environmentally friendly products if we don't make them in an environmentally friendly way?