move over prius
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,680
Likes: 0
From: OLD SOUTH WALES
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Just goes to show what BS these 'official figures' are!
The Honda Insect suffers poor sales, because the greenie twunts believe the official figures, which lead them to believe the Priapism is much more economical. In real driving, there's little real difference.
Mind you, give ME a Maloo and I'd struggle a bit. At least its longevity and lack of precious metals mean it IS far more eco-friendly than the twuntmobiles!
The Honda Insect suffers poor sales, because the greenie twunts believe the official figures, which lead them to believe the Priapism is much more economical. In real driving, there's little real difference.
Mind you, give ME a Maloo and I'd struggle a bit. At least its longevity and lack of precious metals mean it IS far more eco-friendly than the twuntmobiles!
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 0
There was an article a while back in a paper in Colorado comparing the environmental cost of a Humvee with a prius if it was bought and driven by an average Denver driver.
Straight out the factory the prious is in massive negative figures for environmental damage because of all the chemicals in the batteries and such like.
The Hummer wasn't good, but nowhere near as bad.
Once you factored in the transport costs to get the cars to Denver the gap was even bigger.
I think they factored in 15 years of driving and then scrapping the car.
The prius got hammered again with the costs of disposing of the batteries and other stuff - while the big metal hummer was pretty much 100% squahable metal.
The actual difference in Environmental damage on a mile by mile basis was so small compared to these two factors they worked out that for a 15 year onwership for average milage then the Humvee was better for the environment.
Straight out the factory the prious is in massive negative figures for environmental damage because of all the chemicals in the batteries and such like.
The Hummer wasn't good, but nowhere near as bad.
Once you factored in the transport costs to get the cars to Denver the gap was even bigger.
I think they factored in 15 years of driving and then scrapping the car.
The prius got hammered again with the costs of disposing of the batteries and other stuff - while the big metal hummer was pretty much 100% squahable metal.
The actual difference in Environmental damage on a mile by mile basis was so small compared to these two factors they worked out that for a 15 year onwership for average milage then the Humvee was better for the environment.
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
it's the same argument with supercars
most will do 3,000 miles pa max
be maintained in tip-top condition
and will have a lifespan of 20 years or more
what's more polluting and damaging to the envirnment - a supercar like that or two Prii (one very ten years) doing say 30,000 miles pa?
doesn't matter what we think though
unless the global warming myth is destroyed, motoring will continue to be demonised in this country
most will do 3,000 miles pa max
be maintained in tip-top condition
and will have a lifespan of 20 years or more
what's more polluting and damaging to the envirnment - a supercar like that or two Prii (one very ten years) doing say 30,000 miles pa?
doesn't matter what we think though
unless the global warming myth is destroyed, motoring will continue to be demonised in this country
Trending Topics
Former Moderator
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 24,770
Likes: 311
From: Stanmore
Originally Posted by Rob88,Nov 8 2009, 01:05 PM
There was an article a while back in a paper in Colorado comparing the environmental cost of a Humvee with a prius if it was bought and driven by an average Denver driver.
Straight out the factory the prious is in massive negative figures for environmental damage because of all the chemicals in the batteries and such like.
The Hummer wasn't good, but nowhere near as bad.
Once you factored in the transport costs to get the cars to Denver the gap was even bigger.
I think they factored in 15 years of driving and then scrapping the car.
The prius got hammered again with the costs of disposing of the batteries and other stuff - while the big metal hummer was pretty much 100% squahable metal.
The actual difference in Environmental damage on a mile by mile basis was so small compared to these two factors they worked out that for a 15 year onwership for average milage then the Humvee was better for the environment.
Straight out the factory the prious is in massive negative figures for environmental damage because of all the chemicals in the batteries and such like.
The Hummer wasn't good, but nowhere near as bad.
Once you factored in the transport costs to get the cars to Denver the gap was even bigger.
I think they factored in 15 years of driving and then scrapping the car.
The prius got hammered again with the costs of disposing of the batteries and other stuff - while the big metal hummer was pretty much 100% squahable metal.
The actual difference in Environmental damage on a mile by mile basis was so small compared to these two factors they worked out that for a 15 year onwership for average milage then the Humvee was better for the environment.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of...er_vs_prius.pdf
Abstract
The CNW Marketing Research, Inc.’s 2007 “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal” caught the interest of the media and the public with its claim that a Hummer H3 SUV has a lower life-cycle energy cost than a Toyota Prius hybrid. Closer inspection suggests that the report’s conclusions rely on faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review. Even the most cursory look reveals serious biases and flaws: the average Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379,000 miles and last for 35 years, while the average Prius is assumed to last only 109,000 miles over less than 12 years. These selective and unsupported assumptions distort the final results. A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs. CNW should either release its full report, including methods, assumptions, and data, or the public should ignore its conclusions. Unfortunately, “Dust to Dust” has already
distorted the public debate.
The CNW Marketing Research, Inc.’s 2007 “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal” caught the interest of the media and the public with its claim that a Hummer H3 SUV has a lower life-cycle energy cost than a Toyota Prius hybrid. Closer inspection suggests that the report’s conclusions rely on faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review. Even the most cursory look reveals serious biases and flaws: the average Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379,000 miles and last for 35 years, while the average Prius is assumed to last only 109,000 miles over less than 12 years. These selective and unsupported assumptions distort the final results. A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs. CNW should either release its full report, including methods, assumptions, and data, or the public should ignore its conclusions. Unfortunately, “Dust to Dust” has already
distorted the public debate.
Is it good that pollution in general is reduced? Yes, more fresh-ish air for all.
Is it daft that I pay a high rate of road tax on my car despite the fact that I rarely use it? Yes, although there is some offset given I have to pay more per mile in terms of fuel tax, it's not quite fair really.
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
Originally Posted by lovegroova,Nov 8 2009, 01:39 PM
That article has subsequently been debunked as there were some pretty ridiculous assumptions made.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of...er_vs_prius.pdf
Is it good that cars use less fuel? Yes, as that means we can have petrol cars for much longer.
Is it good that pollution in general is reduced? Yes, more fresh-ish air for all.
Is it daft that I pay a high rate of road tax on my car despite the fact that I rarely use it? Yes, although there is some offset given I have to pay more per mile in terms of fuel tax, it's not quite fair really.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of...er_vs_prius.pdf
Is it good that cars use less fuel? Yes, as that means we can have petrol cars for much longer.
Is it good that pollution in general is reduced? Yes, more fresh-ish air for all.
Is it daft that I pay a high rate of road tax on my car despite the fact that I rarely use it? Yes, although there is some offset given I have to pay more per mile in terms of fuel tax, it's not quite fair really.
great myths of our time #1
'peak oil'
