Hummer Greener Than Prius? 920
J adds:
The Prius's mediocre cost-per-mile is due mainly to CNW Research assigning the car a short expected lifetime: 109,000 miles. Nobody knows where this number comes from because CNW has not published details about its derivation. If a car will not last very long, then of course its energy cost per mile is high.
Back in July 2006, when CNW's study "Dust to Dust" had just been published (and which remains, unchanged, the original source for today's news), I emailed its president, Art Spinella:
Hello,
I'm with the tech news and discussion site Slashdot.org. One of our readers submitted a story about your Dust to Dust study.
According to Wikipedia, the Prius comes with a 150,000 mile warranty in California and a few other states; 100,000 elsewhere.
On p. 21 and p. 40 of your report I see that you estimate the average Prius will be "removed from the streets... and sent for disposal" at 109,000 miles. Can you explain how you arrived at this figure?
Thank you.
I did not receive a reply.
My question was about the cost-per-mile denominator; here's another critique questioning the numerator.
wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct that down to a more realistic 120,000 and the rest of the article's conclusions crumble.
$3.25/mile??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
B) I couldn't find any information about "CNW Marketing" other than *suggestions* that they are a oil-funded group (nothing concrete, though).
So who the fuck is CNW Marketing and why should their study be given any credence? Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? (Not that BS doesn't ever make it into perr-reviewed journals....)
Good to see (Score:4, Insightful)
1: Emissions are created during the manufacture of a car. And
2: What happens to your old car? You're likely to sell it to someone that keeps using it, i.e. that car keeps producing harmful emissions, just for somebody else.
If you wanted to help the environment, you wouldn't buy a new car, you'd keep an old one running as efficiently as you could and remember that there's more to carbon emissions than simply what you're doing right now. No man is an island, after all.
Is this still true? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aside, the plant produce 130,000 tonnes (is that metric or imperial) annually.
The 1,000 that goes towards Prius batteries is negligible
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't necessarily think the report is accurate, but it is a fact that current battery technology is not only energy intensive to manufacture, but environmentally burdensome as well.
The Prius was never for real environmentalists anyway. It's for lazy yuppies who want to put out an environmentally conscious image. Real environmentalists live close to work, bike, or take the bus.
Re:300k mi on a Hummer??? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that the Prius isn't the green car you are looking for.
Re:BS (Score:3, Insightful)
because all energy has the same environmental cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The primary purpose of the current generation of hybrids is to make their smug owners FEEL like they are helping the environment. And since there was apparently a pretty big untapped market selling feel good cars to pompous greens, Toyota has made a killing with the Prius. Looks like good marketing to me.
And who knows, perhaps enough will be learned by the widespread deployment of these current hybrids that future generations of them will actually BE more efficient. If so we should all be sure to thank their local hippie for donating to Big Evil Corporations R&D efforts be field testing their 1st generation products for them.. and paying a big price premium for the privledge.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
They then take energy cost of production and divide by these numbers to get cost per mile
HAHA BULLSHIT! Reading the study they take very elaborate measure to get an exact accurate cost of each vehicle in terms of energy. Then they pull this shit. The Prius batteries are well known to last 200K miles and more. And only the military Hummers last 300K miles the commercial version doesn't even come close.
Reading the data makes me laugh
Re:wtf? (Score:1, Insightful)
not a complete story (Score:5, Insightful)
-- First movers on new technology almost always are paying more and using more energy than their stick in the mud Hummer counterparts; the *hope* of the new technology is that with increased production efficiency it'll eventually become a good move. This is the argument of ethanol, bio-diesel, solar panels, hybrid cars, etc. The fact that they do more near term environmental damage than their conservative counterparts doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored on a low volume basis.
I do agree with the article though that a truly economical car is better for the pocket book and the environment without having to bet on the environmental returns of a new technology. But what Prius owners are doing is spending all this money and subsidizing en masse Toyota's research of building hybrid cars. I applaud them for doing so. That's something the article misses entirely. In this sense, the Hummer is certainly not more environmentally friendly than a Prius (because the Prius is a search for a better solution).
What the article doesn't mention is that mass transit and bicycles are way further down on the cost / mile and environmental damage than any of these cars. But that would be thinking outside the box.
Re:Well amount of Energy != Green (Score:3, Insightful)
Now excuse me while I go smash my bike lock into some Hummer's tail-light.
Just because you don't see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't see cars at the end of their lifespan in the U.S., generally, because we export them. IIRC, used cars are one of our biggest exports to Mexico and Latin America.
It would be interesting if someone wanted to trace the lifespan of an 'average vehicle' that didn't get offed by a bad driver before its time and was well maintained throughout. I suspect it's something like this:
0 - 100 miles: Test drive at factory, sitting on dealer lot.
100 - 30,000 miles: first owner, maybe on a 2 or 3 year lease.
30,000 - 150,000 miles: Second owner, or maybe multiple owners. Eventually traded in, sold to wholesaler. If still in good condition, exported.
150,000 - 300,000 miles: Mexican taxi. Parts get replaced as they wear out and break.
300,000+ miles: When body finally rusts through, strip for parts. Scrap remainder.
You don't see a ton of quarter-million-mile cars in Suburbia, USA, but in some places they're pretty desirable.
That's not saying much. (Score:3, Insightful)
What year is your truck?
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
"If env's want to cut down on CO2 emissions, why don't they support nuclear?"
"Oh well, real env's are all about nuclear."
"Solar panels are often worse for the environment once you consider manufacturing and design life."
"Oh well, real env's can see through all the solar propaganda."
"Priuses are actually worse than Hummers."
"Well, real env's don't use Priuses."
"If people save money using CFL's, won't they just apply the savings to some other energy use? Or won't someone else on global energy markets do the same?"
"Well, real env's have ALWAYS seen the futility of trying to micromanage into energy use reductions, and instead want a simple tax on emissions with the funds going to cleanup and pollution sinks."
Who is the authority on what an "environmentalist" ought to believe?
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wtf? (Score:1, Insightful)
who ever heard of a Hummer lasting 300K miles? (Score:3, Insightful)
the article might have been interesting if the author wasn't pounding a drum and actually did an apples to apples comparison, i.e. prius to corolla or camry hybrid to camry regular...
Hybrids are mostly marketing (Score:1, Insightful)
In a hybrid, I'd just be a gas engine hauling a bank of batteries. The fact that I "skip" first gear wouldnt make a difference.
As luck would have it, a co-worker lives just an exit up from me (closer to work), and bought a prius. We compared numbers over about a 2 month span.
My 2005 v6 mustang got 26.3 mpg over the whole 2 month period, he got 25.something.
Too close to say I "won", but I don't see his fuel economy. Add to that, he paid significantly more - his care is pricier to maintain, and I got a sweet little 'vert, while he looks like a complete fag in his car.
YAY GREEN
It's all marketing, unless you spent a lot of time at red lights.
Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honda gives a 100,000 km warranty on all there cars (60,000 miles).
You are either lying, exaggerating, or having yours cars survive for less then the warranty period and still buying the same brand again - which is pretty damn stupid if you ask me.
I think it will (Score:5, Insightful)
Also there's other factors that may end up being useful. Electric motors produce nearly 100% torque from the word go, whereas ICEs need to operate at a higher speed for maximum torque. So if we changed up the way a car worked and had electric motors directly drive the wheels and the engine drive a generator, you'd have a car (or truck) with tons of low end torque. Also that allows for the use of a smaller, single speed engine. You can make a much more optimised engine if it only need to run at a single RPM rather than being variable. Of course there's losses from the mechanical-electrical-mechanical conversion, so that's something that has to be overcome.
That's actually how modern diesel trains work. Their power-plant doesn't drive the wheels, it drives a generator that powers electric motors. Hybrid locomotives seem to be quite a winner since there's already the conversion cycle, and adding 2000 pounds of batteries isn't really significant in the scope of a train weighing 5 million pounds or more.
So I'm happy that this technology is being developed, but you are right that people need to have a big glass of perspective and soda. They are NOT more efficient over all. They aren't even cheaper to you. Get a Toyota Corolla 5-speed manual if you want efficiency. Even if gas were $4/gallon, it'd still be cheaper over the life of the car than a Prius. Or hell, if you can swing the smaller size, get a Smart Fortwo.
If you want a hybrid that's great, I'm glad you are helping to support the research, but do be realistic about it.
Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
I also had a 93 Eclipse that lasted well over 200,000 miles but had to get a 'family' car.
I hate buying cars because they drop in value so fast. Forget getting a loan for a car beacuse you'll need devaulation (gap) insurance for that.
You'll have negotiating room if (A) you pay in cash, (B) walk away. Dealers will not let you walk away from moving a car.
Re:$3.25/mile??? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been debated (Score:4, Insightful)
Dozens of environmentalist blogs have picked apart this "study" and have found it to be lacking. Two [treehugger.com] responses [autobloggreen.com]. The gist of it is that they underestimated the Prius' lifespan and overestimated the amount of energy it takes.
And a big red flag for every Slashdot reader is that CNW is a "market research" institute. Do you trust marketdroids to make engineering assessments?
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having been an environmental, labor, and political activist for many years, I can tell you the things that I have heard from people who put their money where their mouth is, environmentally speaking:
Nuclear power is less polluting, if the storage and safety issues can be worked out. You'll find the people who really oppose nuclear power are suburban NIMBYists who just don't want a nuke plant in THEIR backyard.
Solar panels are not now worse for the environment, nor have they been for a long time. Where are you getting that idea?
The damn Prius/Hummer study is fatally flawed and put out by a marketing firm that was most likely hired by Hummer. Hummers aren't more environmentally friendly than Priuses. But the real environmentalists I've met are too poor to own either.
Your CFL argument makes no sense, maybe you could explain it better? Because it sounds like you are saying that no one should ever try to reduce energy usage, as it will always be futile. Is that what you are saying?
Re:wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BS (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the article assumes the Hummer will go 300K and the Prius 100K. Assuming the drivers have similar maintenance habits, etc. one of these assumptions is stupid. Given this basic level of rigging in their comparison, am I expected to beleive the many other numbers they throw about?
Re:Dubious lifetime estimates (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I can't speak for Hummers. I can't say I like them much myself. However, the 100,000 miles estimate isn't for the vehicle itself, but for the expected life-expectancy of the batteries.
Speaking of reliability, I have family members with GM cars, specifically Buick and Pontiac, which have well over 200,000 miles and are still running well. They aren't sticklers for maintenance either often going 10,000 to 15,000 miles between oil changes. There are quite a few vehicles nowadays with suggested oil change schedules in that range, but I'm talking about 10+ year old cars with 5,000 mile maintenance schedules.
These cars have had as few problems as any Japanese car I know. American automobiles had terrible reliability in the 70s and 80s but they've improved considerably. The problem is the occasional lemon and the fact that they haven't been able to change public perception.
I have a Honda myself. The real problem I see facing the American automakers is poor decision making. They seem incapable of producing the kinds of cars consumers are looking for. They also lack commitment to specific models. Instead of improving existing models and following a process of evolution they're quick to abandon what they have for something completely new. Then there's the ridiculous obsession with SUVs. They seem to exist in a vacuum. To this day they're stuck competing amongst each other instead of responding to foreign competition.
Ford introduces the new Mustang with 60's style design cues. Despite not helping Ford overall the car sells reasonably well in the short-term. Chrysler and GM see this and rush to produce their own muscle cars with classic muscle car design cues. This doesn't help these companies in any meaningful way, but they invest untold resources into these vehicles anyway. It's like they've oblivious to what the foreign competition is doing. Those are the cars the Americans should be thinking about.
The Americans have this expectation that a single vehicle will make enough of a dramatic impact that it will enable their companies to finally be successful. It's a stupid, short-sighted expectation. Something else I find funny is that the Americans need to move manufacturing overseas to be profitable while the Japanese and Europeans open new factories in the US and continue to be very successful. Of course, the Americans are crippled by unions. And that is a big hindrance to success on the part of the US automakers, but that's a whole other story. Suffice it to say that management can't be blamed for all the problems they're having.
Reliability, however, is no longer a problem with US cars. In fact, American cars have been consistently shown to be more reliable than European cars. European cars may be better designed than the American counterparts, but that doesn't make them more reliable.
I don't think hybrids are the wave of the future. They will never completely replace gasoline engines, another technology will arrive before that happens. I see hybrids merely as an overly complicated stopgap measure. They sell because it's a fad. Most people will never save enough in gasoline to make up the premium a hybrid costs over a standard model. And it's a fact that the manufacture and disposal of batteries is very polluting.
The US would be better served driving diesels. Either that or automakers should start offering the same small displacement engines offered in Europe: 1 and 1.2 liter engines. The problem is that the American public is obsessed with the size of it's automotive penis. They need to drive around in vehicles putting out 300hp and more. God forbid a car feels a little sluggish. Then there's the obsession with over-sized SUVs which is another aspect of the same problem.
Used car (Score:3, Insightful)
You are harping on a non-issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling the previous poster an idiot because you seem to have an inability to apply common sense to a rather simple problem is not really a good way to win friends and influence people nor does it lend credibility to your status as a legitimate, constructive poster. You should curb your paranoid pete attitude and take a look at things for what they are, not what you want them to be. Many posters here on Slashdot could benefit from that approach.
Maybe even then, all the Prius lovers out there (who could benefit from the same attitude adjustment) would stop getting so defensive when common sense is applied to the "ultimate solution" of the venerable Prius and see it for what it is, a technology showcase and an exercise in engineering. It's not the eco-friendly mode of transportation it is being made out to be. If anything, it's biggest redeeming quality is that it is a big step in weening not only the U.S. but the world off of oil as a source of energy.
Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Blast Inco as much as you want for the pollution that poured out of the smelting operations for decades, but you have to give them credit for reversing a lot of the local damage.
Your joking right? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:who ever heard of a Hummer lasting 300K miles? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand I am positive you can find plenty of other Toyota owners who have gotten such mileage out of their cars.
Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re Dust to Dust (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My problem with Prius (Score:3, Insightful)
If you directly compare something like a Civic to a Civic hybrid, you will find that the price difference is much lower.
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
I did my research, now it's your turn. A quick search found that China's electrical prices were of the same order of magnitude- not enough to destroy my argument.
I rarely pay more than $5 for a GE or Philips CFL. And I would note that the energy cost between a good CFL and a cheap one is probably not material- you still build the ballast, twist the glass, etc. It's just you get more margin if you do it well.
I stand by my argument- there's no frickin way a CFL requires enough energy to manufacture than it saves over its service life.
This is what we call a "hand wave" (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The editorial does not specify which Hummer model of the five currently listed on the Hummer website (The H1 Alpha? The H2? The H2 SUT? The H3? The H3^X?) is the basis for the comparison to the Prius (one model only). So how is it possible to validate its claims for the idealized "Hummer" that's mentioned if the specific model is not stated?
2. The analysis also assumes gas prices will remain static for five years to recoup the higher cost of the hybrid for lower fuel expenses. Gas prices do not remain static. The folks with hybrids were doing quite well after Katrina while all the SUV drivers were complaining about $80 tanks of gas. Are you willing to bet we won't have another Katrina or yet another war in the Middle East in the next five years?
3. The authors of the study assumed the Hummer would last 300k miles and the Prius only 100k. Uh, how about we do an apples to apples comparison here? On what basis was this number chosen, apart from the fact that the fudge factor of 3 allows the Hummer to win this straw man argument? And does the typical Hummer driver even drive his Hummer for 300k miles? How about you pick one set of criteria and apply it for both cars.
4. None of the many arguments offered in this editorial addresses the issue that, despite the premium one must pay for a Prius over a non-hybrid car, they still cost less to purchase than a Hummer (whichever model you pick).
This was bad analysis when it was published on July 19, 2006 (NINE MONTHS AGO!) by the auto industry shills at the Reason Foundation (see http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_2006071
Re:I think it will (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Re Dust to Dust (Score:4, Insightful)
And what is a Prius, if not a small Toyota car?
Re:BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My problem with Prius (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't buy the car to save money though, I bought it to use less of a declining resource.
Re:not a complete story (Score:1, Insightful)
Hybrids bought for ego, not environment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare Prius sales to Civic hybrid sales.
There's a reason you see far more Priuses (Prii?) on that road than Civic hybrids, and that is because the Prius looks like a rolling freakshow, and the Civic hybrid looks like a normal car. For all intents and purposes, both cars do the same thing in a similar sized body with similar fuel economy results at a similar price point.
Prius drivers just REALLY REALLY want you to know that they're saving the environment.
Hybrid drivers who turn up their noses at diesels are also similarly guilty of being fashionistas.
For the record, I've driven a current-gen Prius, and it's a neat little car.
I just enjoy driving too much to drive any economy car, let alone a hybrid. But if I were to get a commuter car of some sort, I'd look long and hard at the Jetta TDI Wagon.
Wanna get rid of carbon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Greener and manlier (Score:5, Insightful)
For the sake of perspective, I'm a 4-wheel-driving aussie, I drive a truck (... to places no Prius has gone before
Now mind you, I like nature, spend time in nature and am all for preserving it. However, some tree-hugging truck-bashers are too resistant to common sense.
For starters, most proper trucks run on Diesel engines, and do twice the mileage per volume of fuel compared to their similar-engine-sized petrol (aka 'gas' in American) brethren.
Now I'd rather refer to human affordable practical vehicles such as Toyota Landcruisers and Nissan Patrols, not utterly-impractical overpriced-by-a-fucking-order-of-magnitude gimmicks for LA rappers ala Hummer H2/H3 or military-grade vehicles ala H1.
This where both the parent comment and TFA touched on. An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car. Moreso even for a Prius that needs a 7000A$ - circa 5K US$ - at least that's what it costs here in Oz - battery change every so often.
If you factor in the resource costs of making and recycling 2-3 times more cars to service the same amount of need, this sheds some unwelcome light on economic vehicles that last little.
One argument that floats
One point that comes
Re:wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can look out my window and see that almost every single office in the skyscrapers downtown has the lights on, even though it's past working hours....
Re:Greener and manlier (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also not sure where "An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car" comes from; My father and I drove an Accord to 427,000 miles with only oil changes and new belts. It would still be on the road and pushing 600k if he hadn't rolled it over, haha.
I have nothing against people who genuinely use trucks / 4x4s where smaller cars wouldn't suffice. But I have big objections to idiots who live in the suburbs and "need a big SUV" because they go skiing once a year / need to carry stuff back from Home Depot / whatever.
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
;)
Re:Greener and manlier (Score:4, Insightful)
True, and I absolutely agree. Many of which, especially the crossovers/softroaders/whatever-you-call-them, are not diesel and offer no such option. Nevertheless this has no impact on the argument at hand.
>> I'm also not sure where "An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car" comes from
From the sheer numbers of older 4WD's on our roads as compared to the number of smaller cars of the same age. This is actually an official Aussie statistic I've seen quoted in a newspaper, I couldn't be bothered to dig it up. The gut feel I get by looking at the cars I see around me does confirm this though.
This does not, by the way, necessarily have to be the same in the states or anywhere else. A different mentality can easily dictate different consumer behavior.
>> But I have big objections to idiots who live in the suburbs and "need a big SUV" because they go skiing once a year / need to carry stuff back from Home Depot / whatever.
I understand where you're coming from, even agree, but I think your way of going about it is altogether wrong.
Telling people they are idiots and dictating their needs will not make them do what you want (even if they are idiots). Even if it's for a once-a-year ski or family trip.
The constructive way of going about it is offering alternatives, not acting derogatory towards people who do not share your view.
A Prius is NOT an alternative, unless you're an idealist fanatic who is either shitting bricks of money or can't do math.
A car that runs on LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) is. Not a silver bullet, but it is (LPG is a byproduct of making petrol. As long as they'll be making petrol, running a car on it helps dispose of it cleanly, and runs your car cleaner than it would on petrol).
A 4WD, even if you never use it outside the suburbs, that runs Diesel, is an alternative. It offers a big family vehicle, and quite often runs on less fuel than a standard petrol sedan.
A European sedan that runs diesel is an excelent alternative. VERY little fuel consumption, very long mechanical life. As long as you can stomach paying the bigger import costs, more frequent servicing and more expensive parts.
Other alternatives like the Aussie bladerunner initiative (a gutted Toyota Starlet or Daihatsu Charade that runs on battery, charged off the mains, not regenerative breaking ala prius) and can go 60-100km per charge and ~60mph - a glorified golf-cart that can easily do what my second car does) is very promising.
The luxemburg-designed soon-to-be-indian-built compressed-air car all over wired yesterday is also an alternative.
Sorry for being too lazy to bring links, feel free to google. Karma whores welcome to do the work.
At the moment there is no silver bullet here in Australia. There are compromises, and there ARE non-perfect choices that are cleaner than others (and I'm making some such choices, even by owning a large 4WD). Green idealists don't like non-perfect choices, which is why I call them tree-hugging idiots. I much prefer the pragmatic approach of actually making a difference by voting with my consumer dollars for what the best compromise (and hopefully soon a win-win non-compromise product) between environmental and affordable.
The important thing to understand here, if you allow me to make an analogy, is that just because there's a VIA desktop processor that runs windows reasonably at 30Watts, doesn't make it immoral to own a Xeon or a high-end desktop CPU. Rather than point the finger at the consumers, hit your local government representative for government subsidies to encourage low-power alternatives, be they EDEN CPU's, LPG vehicles (installation is subsidized and LPG fuel is not/very-lightly taxed in Australia for this very reason), diesel or mains-powered vehicles.
And never forget, the math counts.
As long as Toyota keeps selling the Prius for nearly twice any other compatible car in the same category, I'll be eyeballing a Diesel VW Golf, maybe a diesel Alfa or even a second diesel 4WD, and, quite possibly if the bladerunner goes commercial, one of them.
Cost Vs. Green (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Greener and manlier (Score:2, Insightful)