Breaking: Senate votes to raise fuel standards.
Breaking: Senate votes to raise fuel standards.
“The Senate voted Thursday to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon for cars and SUVs, the first significant boost demanded of automakers in nearly 20 years.”
The agreement was announced at a news conference and then quickly adopted by the Senate without a roll call vote. It scaled back tougher standards already in the Senate’s energy bill but was still considered strong enough to have wide support from environmentalists.
“It closes the SUV loophole,” declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., referring to current requirements that allow much less stringent fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. “This is a victory for the American public.”
UPDATE: Feinstein has released a statement on the vote: “The compromise legislation raises the fleetwide average fuel economy standards for all cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years — or from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by Model Year 2020.” By 2025, the fuel economy increases for cars and light-duty trucks would:
— Save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.
— Achieve up to 18 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from anticipated levels, or the equivalent of taking 60 million cars off the road in one year.
— Save consumers $79-98 billion at the pump, based on a $3.00 gas price.
Read the full release, with many more details, HERE.
UPDATE II: Climate Progress warns that the House may punt on increasing fuel economy standards.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
111 Responses to “Breaking: Senate votes to raise fuel standards.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nice. Gotta start somewhere.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:36 pmNow that's progress -- my 1993 Nissan Sentra only gets 34 mpg.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pmVeto! Warm up your pen, Shrub!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pmIf it's good for almost all Americans, then the empty suit, special interest puppet will veto it. The only question is- what lie or distortion of the truth will be told as the reason of the veto?
June 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pmOh wow can't wait to watch George rationalize this one.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:49 pmThe only question is- what lie or distortion of the truth will be told as the reason of the veto?
Comment by WaltinTexas — June 21, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Maybe he'll be really bold and claim that this bill actually causes more air pollution and makes us more dependent on foreign oil.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:49 pmI wonder when Big Awl and Detroit will dump their big bucks on Congress and stop this craziness!!! This is totally un amurriken!!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:50 pmThis intrepid piece of legislation does not go into effect until the year 2020. Not exactly a Profiles in Courage moment for congress or the American auto industry.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:50 pmWe need to abolish personal automotive transportation and begin extreme conservation measures. There is an interesting article you can read about the truth of the Prius. The Prius is only expected to last 100,000 miles then you need to replace it.
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
June 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pmSo if it doesn't go into effect until 2020, we get another "killing the electric car" scenario right? The industry throws a few bones at acting like they are going to comply, and they throw a lot of bones at making sure the legislation doesn't exist by the time 2020 rolls around.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:57 pmWhen? By 2020? 35 mpg by 2020?
June 21st, 2007 at 7:58 pmW O W!
Too little, too late. 35 MPG? HA! And they had to pull out a 4% annual increase because of the auto lobby.
They should have 50 MPG by 2010 and 50% of a manufacturers fleet has to be hybrid by then, too. There is the technology out there now for hybrids and there's no cause for celebrating this silly a$$ed bill like it's some huge accomplishment. It's not. Puleeeze!
June 21st, 2007 at 8:00 pmI just got a Prius - 55mpg.
Just saw the movie "who killed the electric car" which was quite an eye opener. The cars were leased and after a few years, they were all called back and destroyed. Their former owners loved the cars. An entrepreneur had invented a battery that would greatly increase the length of the battery charge. The auto mfg. took over the patent. That was the end of it.
The oil companies, the auto mfrs. and the congress killed the electric car, which was silent, clean and efficient.
Twelve years from now, cars will have to meet a standard that is hardly going to make a lot of difference -- but it is a step forward. Baby step - but nonetheless a step.
Why is mass transportation losing funding and cutting back -- shouldn't we be expanding mass transit and making it easier, and more convenient?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:02 pm2020--That's 13 years in the future! Yikes! This is TOTAL GARBAGE! I drive a 2005 Scion tC in a rural western state that gets 35 mpg.
It's ironic that Detroit doesn't want to do this. They say we can't because the investment will cause us to go out of business. Guess what, Chrysler was bought up a a bunch of financial hucksters, Ford has only a couple of models people want and make sense, and GM sells it's finance division, closes plants, lays off thousands and is doing a slow version of the Studebaker nose-dive to put off in inevitable.
Because of the oil industry greed, supported by political hacks, the $1.75/gal gas is dead as dinosaurs. If Detroit does not make capital investments for better products and lower mpg, they too will be dead as dinosaurs. Face the music. Face reality.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:02 pmComment by upside00 — June 21, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Honestly the more efficient you try to build something the more energy it takes to make. Mass production requires more oil to make any given car then that car is even likely to burn during its service.
Congress is an illusion. There is nothing they can do in this matter. Cars are machines that use resources from concept to the junkyard and beyond that too.
Congress will not openly admit why we are in Iraq and they cannot ban cars since that would be the open admission that the industrial age is closing fast!
Rather than switching to a tight plan of regulation, conservation, mass transportation and rationing resources the government blames everything on terrorism and terrorists.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pmThis is a complete joke and utter nonsense.
I suppose the Senate will pass a motion to make sure all computers run on a minimum Pentium 2 processor by 2020 as well?
Whatever you do, Congress, don't force the auto manufacturers to work too hard over the next 14 years.
It won't matter much anyway.
Soon the EU will pass more aggressive legislation, the Germans, Japanese and Koreans will respond with more fuel efficient vehicles and leave American automakers and their lack of inventiveness in the dust (again).
Same thing with stem cell research by the way. Bush's veto won't stop this research from happening. He has only ensured that the research takes place outisde the US - in Berlin, Germany, Mumbai, India or Moscow, Russia, but it will happen and Americans will eventually have access to the benefits. It's a shame that the US, with its facilities and universities, won't be able to lead the way.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:09 pmComment by Marie — June 21, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
You bought a giant battery full of a rare material called nickel.
The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
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. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:11 pmEnjoy your hummer, freedomrings.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:14 pm"Honestly the more efficient you try to build something the more energy it takes to make."
Your heart is in the right place but that just makes no sense.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:18 pmGood point freedomrings. And one uses energy and resources to extract Nickel. But batteries can be recharged and Nickel can be recycled for other uses. And there are no Nickel mines in the Middle East. Also, you're assertion of the 100,000 mile lifespan for the hybrid doesn't make any sense.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pmBesides all of that, we know for a fact that electric cars are viable options, but they have not been fully explored and improved.
In 2020 the automobile will have been around for over 100 years and all we have to show for it with the U.S. legislation if 35 freaking miles per gallon?
That my friend, along with anyone who drives a Hummer, is a complete embarrassment.
Cue the trolls nattering on about how "the market should decide" in 3...2...1...
June 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pmA hummer will last 300,000 miles? It's American made, dude. Think again.
I have a 1980 Honda Civic with 373,000 miles on it. Runs great. And check this, 20 mpg! I'm so stoked!
June 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pmEnjoy your hummer, freedomrings.
Comment by Marie — June 21, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
That is so frikkin funny for you to be going down the road in your big battery. Sorry but you were conned by Toyota. I happen to drive a Honda Civic and when weather permits I drive a Honda CBR motorcycle. As we get into the workings of cars we learn that efficiency has hidden costs!
Imagine that, your Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid. 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. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. LOL
In the spirit of your reply I think I will as my wife for a hummer to enjoy tonight! Thanks for the inspiration.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:28 pmActually, I agree. More people should drive motorcycles. Some get between 50 and 60 mpg! And in California it's not illegal to lane-split.
No talking on the cell phone though, or it's curtains.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pmThis doesn't even matter. As long as we're driving and have land use patterns that push people to drive, VMT will go up with the fuel efficiency of cars meaning that more people will drive further and gas consumption will still go up. Better land use and transit options are needed in addition to higher auto standards. Auto standards alone will do nothing in terms of carbon output.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pmComment by Markus — June 21, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
I am merely posting the facts that were arrived at through tests. The Hummer costs less per mile to operate than the Prius. LOL
Now as a matter of fact building a car requires massive amounts of energy and other resources. Building an ultra efficient car requires more high tolerance high performance parts. Everything is more precise and requires more energy from concept to creation.
LOL Electric cars are.............................LOL viable alternatives. Ah yes the electricity is a result of something................ hold on........... wait................ I know................ ding.....
Copper mines
Aluminum
Nickel
Steel
Water
Oil
and electricity produced by
Oil
Natural gas
Coal
Nuclear
Ha aha haa haaha ahaaaa LOL
Sorry that I'm rupturing at my seams over your replies here but you are just too funny. I'm not sure what is more funny in this though you or the truth about the Prius??
Sorry, I just like to laugh at the horror story of energy depletion and what BS people will go through to say it isn't so.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pmThe 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. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
Comment by freedomrings — June 21, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Are you fu*king high. There isn't a normal person outside of crazyville that believes that.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pmI'ma git me a 1967 Cadillac Coupe de Ville.
15+ m.p.g. uuhyesssir!!
June 21st, 2007 at 8:49 pmWay too little, way too late.
35 MPG by 2020? Come on.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:49 pmHa ha ha ha ahaha a ahahaa haa...
Tooooooo funny
Your Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha
June 21st, 2007 at 8:50 pmI saw an SUV commercial the other day.
In a very sedductive asian robotic voice she said "Now With Better Gas Milage" as the SUV rolled through these beautiful landscapes.
Then I read in the small print 22 MPG!!! thats what it was in 1982!!!
get back in the station wagons moms and dads stop trying to look cool. You're parents. thats cool enough.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pmAre you fu*king high. There isn’t a normal person outside of crazyville that believes that.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — June 21, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Ha haha ha aha NO!
Here is the article that I am looking at that makes you the crazyville inhabitant
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
Ha haha haha ha aha
Pollution from the nickel mine in Canada where those batteries come from has killed everything withing 250 miles of the smelter
Ha haaha aha aha ah
June 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pmHere's a thought: Standards for large trucks, like eighteen wheelers, etc. They spew more crap into the air than all the emissions restrictions on cars/trucks/SUVs in the world couldn't make up for. States can't regulate them because they are covered under "interstate commerce" laws....it sucks. I used to work for a state emissions dept., and people would complain about the double-standard all the time...
June 21st, 2007 at 8:55 pmYou forgot solar energy to charge batteries too, but you were just keeping that one close to the vest, weren't you.?
Ah, what we all do without the smartest kid in the class?
Even if everyone agreed with you, dude, you agree with and feel good about 8 miles to the gallon with a war going on? Way to get with the program!
Well, it's still a free country. Better prepare yourself and your wife mentally for a lot more of this on your weekend and work-week drives: http://www.fuh2.com/
June 21st, 2007 at 8:56 pmGreens think we can drive out of this one....
Ah aha haahaaaa
That smelter in Canada reminds me of Hiroshima
The ships go back and fourth over the ocean LOL
Ahhhhahahahaha
June 21st, 2007 at 8:57 pmYou forgot solar energy to charge batteries too, but you were just keeping that one close to the vest, weren’t you.?
Ah, what we all do without the smartest kid in the class?
Even if everyone agreed with you, dude, you agree with and feel good about 8 miles to the gallon with a war going on? Way to get with the program!
Well, it’s still a free country. Better prepare yourself and your wife mentally for a lot more of this on your weekend and work-week drives: http://www.fuh2.com/
Comment by Markus — June 21, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
LOL Ha ha ha ha
Hang on I’m pulling up to the solar recharging station presently
Ahahahahaha
Solar cells = mines and oil
June 21st, 2007 at 9:00 pmfreedomrings sez:
I really don't see the humor in this, freedomrings. The only solution you put forth involves the collapse of civilization, which I assure you, will be no laughing matter.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:03 pmfreedomrings, do you see nothing wrong with that EDITORIAL you linked? Nothing at all? K, your heart ISN'T in the right place. Let me give you a hint. It is BS.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:07 pm"Solar cells = mines and oil"
How is this so, freedomrings? Hint: This is a trick question.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:08 pmI really don’t see the humor in this, freedomrings. The only solution you put forth involves the collapse of civilization, which I assure you, will be no laughing matter.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — June 21, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Well it is important to laugh at adversity. Why cry when you can laugh at death!
June 21st, 2007 at 9:13 pmfreedomrings, do you see nothing wrong with that EDITORIAL you linked? Nothing at all? K, your heart ISN’T in the right place. Let me give you a hint. It is BS.
Comment by JPark — June 21, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
“Solar cells = mines and oilâ€
How is this so, freedomrings? Hint: This is a trick question.
Comment by JPark — June 21, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
The article checks out and there are no solar cell trees!
The law of diminishing returns makes the conclusion of the industrial age inevitable.
Try to make a computer processor with no mass production or mines.
YOU ARE IN DENIAL! LOL
June 21st, 2007 at 9:22 pmfreedomrings sez:
It's one thing to "laugh at adversity"...it's another thing entirely to wax hysterical and mock everyone who isn't reveling in the schadenfreude as much as you.
Tell me something...if this is how you feel, shouldn't you be spending your time a bit more wisely? Like stocking up on ammunition and MREs...or perhaps just swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:25 pmI'll try this in smaller chunks, 'cuz it didn't post before.
PART I
freedomrings, get a grip.
Thanks for your pointer to that ridiculous propaganda designed to help Hummer owners maintain their grand delusions.
Let's look at the sick thinking in this article.
Insinuation #1: The Prius mileage is overstated by the EPA.
True, but the argument is over the top. It is rated at 50 highway and 60 city. My reality is 50 highway and 45 city. How horrible, I only get 5x the mileage of a Hummer. (Some people who are fanatic about maximizing mileage actually exceed the government ratings, but I'm not willing to drive that way.)
Insinuation #2: The Prius mileage is not much better than the Chevy Aveo.
False. The Aveo is rated at 27 city, 37 highway, probably a few points less in real life. It's not bad, but hardly comparable. And the Aveo is a tiny little econobox, where the Prius is midsize, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Anyway, while this might argue a bit for using an Aveo, it doesn't argue for using a Hummer.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:26 pmPART II
Insinuation #3: Prius battery production is responsible for all the pollution in Sudbury.
I'm going to guess that's a convenient oversimplification. Please show the stats comparing Sudbury pollution before and after Toyota started building batteries there. Sudbury has been a stink hole decades before anybody thought of a hybrid car. Acid rain in the region is a real problem (though it makes for some beautiful, clear lakes with pristine drinking water), but blaming this on the Prius is a remarkable stretch from reality.
Insinuation #4: The problems with nickel production pollution are a good reason to abandon hybrids.
Here's a better idea: improve the production process, reduce the pollution, improve logistics, fund research for better batteries. The future of electric car batteries is not nickel-based, as everyone knows.
And here's the stupidest part:
"[The Prius] takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer".
Um, yeah, and the surge is working.
First of all, the stat used is false. It assumes a 100k life for the Prius and a 300k life of the Hummer. Right from the get-go you know this is a joke. There is no GM vehicle on the planet that will outlast ANY Toyota, much less by a factor of three, assuming comparable maintenance. The Hummer has a really crappy reliability rating and the Prius among the best.
Now, the battery is warranteed only for 10 years / 100k, but that's a very different thing from the stupid statement in the article.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pmLAST PART
Anyone who seriously thinks a Hummer, typically operating at 8-9 MPG and 2.2 times the mass, is somehow better for the environment than a Prius running at 50 MPG, is smoking dope. This article not only misrepresents facts, but also cherry-picks them. For example, does this environmental cost analysis look at factors such as "destruction of the freeway system due to higher weight", "damage caused in accidents", "tonnage of exhaust spewed"? I'm thinking no.
The argument also fails to take into consideration the fact that every drop of gasoline used represents money in the pockets of Middle East dictators and Muslim fanatics. It's a fair trade to swap that evil for some nickel pollution that can be and will be solved technologically.
The final lie: "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".
And this is measured by what standard? There is only a hybrid Prius. There is no non-hybrid Prius to compare against. There continues to be a price premium for equivalent cars, although as hybrids become the norm this premium will dissipate. There is (or was) a tax incentive that for me wiped out any price difference from day 1, so I started saving at the pump immediately. I save about $400 per year over an Aveo and $4000 per year over a Hummer. And, I can drive in the HOV lane to boot.
But go on with your delusion.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:28 pm"The article checks out and there are no solar cell trees!
The law of diminishing returns makes the conclusion of the industrial age inevitable.
Try to make a computer processor with no mass production or mines.
YOU ARE IN DENIAL! LOL"
In other words you are not interested in facts. You just love your talking points and pseudo-science. Thanks, one more troll to ignore. It gets tiring.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:30 pm35 mpg in 2020? I'll bet gas cost 35 $pg by then.
These pussies won't take global warming seriously until we are actually on fire.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pmLast point, trolly and I will never respond to you again (unless you actually take the time to say something intelligent). You don't think technological advances will make high-mpg cars more efficient?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:32 pmThe article checks out - freedomrings
Yes, it checks out as coming from the student newspaper Central Connecticut State University.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:39 pm"YOU ARE IN DENIAL! LOL
Comment by freedomrings — June 21, 2007"
you tell him brother!! hey, can i borrow $100 to fill the tank of my H2?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:45 pmWhat of Sudbury? It was devastated by acid rain 130 years before the first Prius rolled off the assembly line, and today it is revitalized.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
About the magnificent Killarney Provincial Park, near Sudbury:
Game, Set, Match.
Freedomrings just had his bell rung.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:55 pmWhen? By 2020? 35 mpg by 2020?
W O W!
Comment by Alejandro
By that time, maybe Ford, Chrysler and GM already know how to make a zero-emission Prius-like car.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:56 pmJuan, they haven't learned their lesson since the 70's. For awhile they started making quality sedans but then SUVs got popular (among the extremely stupid). They have no long term ideas.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pmSorry, hadnt read the whole thread. Whats the deal with freedomrings?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pmThey have no long term ideas.
Comment by JPark
I think they know, they have the technology. They cant be that far from Japanese...my guess. I think they produce it becuz they will lose market. Europe wont buy them, cuz they prefer small cars (they dont have oil), so they are left with the US and they think US citizens wont buy imports. Now, the biggest market is going to be China, I dont know what they prefer. Any hint someone?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:03 pmfreedomrings likes Hummers, Juan C.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:03 pmNow, small h hummers, I am a fan. Capitol H Hummers, not so much.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:04 pm"Sorry, hadnt read the whole thread. Whats the deal with freedomrings?" - Juan C
Hummer fumes cause brain damage.
Seriously, though, this is a delusional fatalist who was creamed in a debate a couple months ago, under a different screen name.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:05 pmGorn and JPark: He once called me a propagandist of Marxism. I was honored. ;)
June 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pmSPREAD THE WORD: Bush is now officially known as "Mr. 26%."
June 21st, 2007 at 10:29 pmSPREAD THE WORD: Bush is now officially known as "Mr. 26%."
SPREAD THE WORD: Bush is now officially known as "Mr. 26%!"
SPREAD THE WORD: Bush is now officially known as "Mr. 26%."
Don't be surprised the Dems are crowing about this fuel standards increase, it covers up the atrocity of the Senate Dems completely caving to Big Oil today by letting the GOP threaten a filibuster
June 21st, 2007 at 10:32 pmSorry, hadnt read the whole thread. Whats the deal with freedomrings?
Comment by Juan C
He's nuckin' futs.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:47 pmLOL, Juan, I think Marx was kind of naive but I don't see the insult in that. Now, if I called you Adam Smith...
June 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pmUseless garbage.
If Americans were interested in buying cars with high gas mileage, they'd already be doing so.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:04 pmm12, it is nice to see you care nothing for your children and your children's children. Nice job!!! Arrogant f^ck.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:11 pmTrue, but the argument is over the top. It is rated at 50 highway and 60 city. My reality is 50 highway and 45 city. How horrible, I only get 5x the mileage of a Hummer. (Some people who are fanatic about maximizing mileage actually exceed the government ratings, but I’m not willing to drive that way.)
Good for you. You save a lot of cash.
Too bad there are plenty of useless Kerry Bumper sticker a$$hats driving around in their SUVs. So much for practicing what you preach.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:13 pmm12, it is nice to see you care nothing for your children and your children’s children. Nice job!!! Arrogant f^ck.
I drive a Corolla. Not a fan of larger vehicles, really. But no, most of the people in my very blue county don't care about our children, as you phrase it.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:15 pmm12, I would love to see what the liberal vs. conservative mph would be. Honestly, do you think yours would be higher?
June 21st, 2007 at 11:23 pmThis doesn’t even matter. As long as we’re driving and have land use patterns that push people to drive, VMT will go up with the fuel efficiency of cars meaning that more people will drive further and gas consumption will still go up. Better land use and transit options are needed in addition to higher auto standards. Auto standards alone will do nothing in terms of carbon output.
Let me know when Amtrak doesn't require huge taxpayer subsidies to finance its poorly run operation.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:24 pmFreedomrings just had his bell rung.
Comment by gorn by any other name — June 21, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
You have an opinion and it is indifferent to mine. The article I referenced is accurate in all respects. It talks about the cost of ownership. It factors in the reality that in this case a “car†just didn’t pop into existence. That car was made and moved around in a world of fossil fuels. While I read your replies you should have expected the Prius to represent a problem. It is a fact that the total cost of ownership of a Prius is greater than that of a Hummer.
That article points out that we should look at ownership costs when selecting a car. It points out a car that runs for less than the Prius and Hummer. The Prius is another Rube Goldberg idea and if not for the battery it would not work but the battery has a short life cycle and is a polluter.
We should talk about mines but the realization that mines rely on fossil fuel to operate day to day must also be discussed. I’m sure you know about the different mining methods like strip and deep mining. You will find that Sudbury is difficult to get detailed data about and the Canadians protect the environmental impact studies of it. You found your answers on Wiki but discount information like this
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Company/inco7.htm
The USA has some mines in operation and the biggest one happens to have the “biggest hole†here…
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/bingham/bingham2.html
Bingham has the most modern smelter in the world and it is hoped that emissions will be reduced to near ZERO smelting emissions. That big hole relies on lots of explosives and modern explosives are made with fossil fuel. Not to worry so is fertilizer and it just happens that modern fertilizer and explosives share ammonium nitrate. After all of that blasting these…
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/bingham/bingham3.html
Big honkin excavators and trucks that run on magic fluid move the rock to the processing plant here…
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/bingham/bingham5.html
for crushing. We move on to the $880 million smelter here…
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/bingham/bingham7.html
Large amounts of heat from electricity get the job done. The energy demand is so great that Bingham has its own power plant pictured here…
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/bingham/bingham4.html
That black stuff on the ground (in the photo) is shipped in on a train that dumps it there. Even though their smelter is modern they burn lots of coal for power. The coal mines are located else ware and that train trip uses lots of diesel.
Back to the thread…
Let’s talk about any cars produced and determine some of the materials that are required to build them. Wait we didn’t talk about the tools and equipment needed to build cars. Cars are built mass production style in factories. An internal combustion engine relies on machine shops, foundries, mines, energy and human power. All of the machines used to make engines are made with machines that rely on machines, foundries, mines, energy and manpower too. It is safe to say that it takes industrial manufacturing to manufacture mass production plants.
Assuming we have all of the raw materials most parts are formed in mills and foundries. Parts that relate to other parts must be machined so many foundry parts must be machined. Often heat treatment is used to harden metal. Here the magic is electricity generated by fossil fuel. We need steel, copper for electric components, aluminum, lead, zinc, potassium, silver and many other mined materials to build a car.
Plastic keeps cars light and ergonomic but is a petro chemical delight. Plastic requires natural gas & oil and coal if heat and electric generation for production relies on coal. Even carbon fiber and fiber glass rely on fossil fuel.
I’m seeing a connection between everything and everything else are you? Odds are your skeptical but that is OK.
Photovoltaic cells (from memory) rely on 3 combinations of 9 elements (or something like that). The main mined material is gallium and like many of the others it is in short supply and energy intensive to get and process. Ore is crushed and makes it into a “smelter†and carbon arc supplies the “spark†to heat that ore.
You are going to see a pattern here and there is a hitch. Rising fossil fuel costs increase the cost of all resources. Nuclear reactors require deep mining for material that is more difficult to accumulate and process than the other heavy metals. Starting a nuclear reactor requires the power of a fossil fuel power reactor. All of the equipment in power generation needs fabrication.
We have a circular dependence on high energy to produce items that can only be mass produced by high energy. If we cannot jump up to the next energy level we will fall back to a lower level energy resource. So what goes up goes down! Wind needs everything from the high energy production mass production methods that you would expect from generator equipment. Fiber glass, plastics, metals, concrete, copper wire and something that you can’t count on at all… WIND
Oil, NG and coal happen to be the last hours of ancient sunlight.
What bursts my seams is the thought that anything other than a complete power down and full rationing of remaining resources to grow food till we can orderly depopulate will hasten our demise. You’re Prius and my motorcycle both burn calories that are needed for food. Why not laugh at it? People want to believe that we can drive hybrids into a cleaner tomorrow, let ‘em. Go on and believe what you want about NiCad batteries (cordless drills last a long time don’t they). Go on and pay your carbon taxes and wage your class warfare.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:28 pmm12, I would love to see what the liberal vs. conservative mph would be. Honestly, do you think yours would be higher?
Higher than the average leftie on this board, yeah. My car is 28/36 mpg.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:29 pmDon’t be surprised the Dems are crowing about this fuel standards increase, it covers up the atrocity of the Senate Dems completely caving to Big Oil today by letting the GOP threaten a filibuster
They're merely preserving the Clinton tax breaks.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:30 pm#70
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2003_Toyota_Corolla.shtml
June 21st, 2007 at 11:33 pmI remember when I graduated high school in 1982 that VW had just come out with the Rabbit that got 50 mpg. Now, it wasn't much to look at or ride in, but 25 years later and we're no further along? Come on.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:45 pmPrius reviews...
http://autos.yahoo.com/toyota_prius-reviews_user/?sort=mr&start=11&show=atl
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 amHigher than the average leftie on this board, yeah. My car is 28/36 mpg. Comment by m12 — June 21, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
As usual you make a *claim*, without any *facts* to back them up. Another *wingnut* wako *ssh*le.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 am"Too bad there are plenty of useless Kerry Bumper sticker a$$hats driving around in their SUVs. So much for practicing what you preach." - m12
Can't believe you posted something I agree with.
However, you're only half right. There are TONS of people with W stickers doing the same thing.
This is not a political issue as much as you want it to be. If people in the US had any of the courage of their convictions, the lefties would not buy an SUV in order to help the environment and the righties would not buy an SUV for the sake of national security. And those are only two of the many reasons.
You can't go on and on about de-fanging Al Queda while providing them an ongoing funding vehicle. Well, you can, but then you'd be a scum-sucking hypocrite.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 amI don't know what the fuss about hybrids is all about. I have a '97 Toyota Tercel that gets 33 mpg city, and low 40's highway. When I took it out to the Rocky Mountain states, for some reason it was getting 50 mpg (dry air? thinner air?) going up and down the mountains. Why pay twice as much for a car that only gets marginally better mileage, and also has potentially much greater repair costs and environmental costs associated with those huge batteries?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 amThe Bagger 288 mobile strip coal mining machine. It uses 16.56 megawatts of externally supplied electricity a day.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Bagger-garzweiler.jpg
http://www.wisoveg.de/rheinbraun/rb-bagger-010217/bagger288-linke/linke2.jpg
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 amWhy pay twice as much for a car
What makes you think it costs twice as much? For an equivalent car, maybe it's about 10%. In trade for that, you get better mileage or better power for equivalent mileage, and lower emissions.
There is no Tercel anymore. The closest equivalent today is the Yaris, which is a cute little car that gets nice mileage. But it aint no Prius, which has the interior room of a Camry, better power, better mileage, lower emissions, higher end features and gadgets, better construction, and so far even better reliability. But sure, if saving money is the key criteria, buy the Yaris, or better, ride a bike.
"that only gets marginally better mileage"
No offense, but I don't believe a Tercel is getting 50 MPG going up and down mountains. I used to own one. You'll get that if you start measuring at the top of the mountain and stop at the bottom, sure.
"and also has potentially much greater repair costs"
Zero basis for this conclusion. All Toyota cars are nearly indestructible. The record for the Prius is awesome.
"and environmental costs associated with those huge batteries?"
Greatly exaggerated as discussed previously, and the situation will only get better as the battery technology improves. On cursory search, I haven't found any credible info yet on the magnitude of environmental impact of these batteries compared to the downsides of other modes of transport. What I HAVE found is the same unsubstantiated (or flat out lying) crap found in the obscure university student newspaper. Nothing so fun as spreading Orwellian memes, I guess.
BTW, the techno is relatively young, but even these existing batteries are known to still be running fine after 250,000 miles. The future of lithium-ion will be even better.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 amMore on the Prius battery, from Toyota:
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:13 am
Comment by gorn by any other name — June 22, 2007 @ 2:02 am
So what you disagree with is automatically BS. The Gorn was green on TV but in real life he drives a Prius. That does not do by the way. The referenced study was sourced. Consumer reports has also blasted the Prius for numerous complaints and deceptive claims about performance. Some posts up is a link to some reviews like
Cons: Misleading mileage sticker,no rear visibility,no power,poor styling.
Cons: Slow, bad MPG that is far from the truth, fumes from the batteries, costly price
Not related but here is a great picture...
http://www.oih.rwth-aachen.de/~hendrik/bagger/432-10-bagger-228-auf-A61-18-02-2001-k.jpg
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 am"The referenced study was sourced."
Being "sourced" does not make it legit. The article is crap, as I amply demonstrated. Not that you would ever admit that.
"Consumer reports has also blasted the Prius for numerous complaints and deceptive claims about performance."
Prius is one of the top rated vehicles in the history of Consumer Reports. Your statement is ludicrous. Pointing on an issue here or there is not a "blast". Do you expect to be taken seriously?
"Cons: Misleading mileage sticker,no rear visibility,no power,poor styling."
Let me get this straight. You post a crap article suggesting that the Hummer is more environmentally friendly than the Prius. You get your a$$ handed to you for it. And your response is that the car has poor styling? Are you frigging serious?
You can't win your hystrionic environmental argument and you think you can save face by talking about styling, power, and visibility?
Cons: Slow, bad MPG that is far from the truth, fumes from the batteries, costly price
And here you're just making this up as you go along. What a sad character.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 amComment by gorn by any other name — June 22, 2007 @ 2:28 am
Let me get this straight. You bought a tree hugging Prius and will sit here all night sticking up for your giant cell phone battery on wheels even though it happens to be a Rube Goldberg machine. The article is sourced and you have not disproved any of the claims. You made more comments and I posted more than enough about mines. Basically, your premise is to kid yourself into another reality that allows everyone to drive out of an energy and pollution nightmare.
Ahhhahahahah hahahahah
I wish you well Gorn (Star Trek right?) in that endeavor. Rationing is the only way and till then my Hondas are reliable and efficient. Just so you know I would never promote or own an American car not even a Hummer.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:48 amPrius reviews...
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:51 amhttp://autos.yahoo.com/toyota_prius_4_door_liftback-reviews_user/?sort=mr&trimid=20466&start=11&show=otl
Quote from freedomrings:
"NEENER NEENER NEENER I CAN'T HERE YOU NEENER NEENER NEENER"
Just like the last time I wiped the floor with your a$$, the more you post, the more you make a mockery of yourself. Give it a rest, man. Salvage a little dignity.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 amPrius reviews… - freedomrings
Yeah, so basically what you see here is a bunch of essentially identical reviews ghost-posted over a series of days by some nutbag with an axe to grind (you perhaps?) because he's too frigging stupid to research a vehicle before buying it. I knew two years before I bought mine that the EPA city mileage estimate was not an accurate gauge of normal driving. This was not exactly a secret. Hint: many of these "reviews" also call the car "ugly". Chances are you aren't going to buy a car that you think is ugly, so don't you find this commonality of "review" a bit suspicious?
The indisputable fact is that Prius owners are notoriously happy campers. Remember that you referenced Consumer Reports? Since you consider CR to be a reliable source of information, what does CR say? CR says that Prius owners are unusually happy with their cars and would buy again. CR rates the car very highly across the board. DEAL WITH IT, IDIOT!
"The article is sourced and you have not disproved any of the claims."
Right. You want to go back and read about Sudbury? Let's see how honest you can be. (Rhetorical point - the answer is known.)
"Rationing is the only way"
Wrong again. Rationing is merely a delay of the inevitable. As a fatalist, you should understand that.
The best form of rationing is using energy sources that cannot be depleted, and finding more efficient ways to renew depletable resources.
"and till then my Hondas are reliable and efficient"
Hypocritical blowhard. Your Honda is, at best, as negatively impactful of anything you are whining about. Walk, ride a bike, or STFU.
And yes, I can stay here all night checking this thread from time to time and continuing to hand you your a$$, as long as you want to do it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 am“NEENER NEENER NEENER I CAN’T HERE YOU NEENER NEENER NEENERâ€
Just like the last time I wiped the floor with your a$$, the more you post, the more you make a mockery of yourself. Give it a rest, man. Salvage a little dignity.
Comment by gorn by any other name — June 22, 2007 @ 3:12 am
Wow a colloquialism in full force. You were wiping something no doubt and that must be the only sex you get there in Alaska when you’re hugging trees. Your mileage claims are a lie. Your car is after all a car and so can’t be “green†ever. You can’t drive your way out of the energy and pollution nightmare. There are NO “green†mines in or on the earth. The biggest point to make is that your Prius is another BS device that you bought and I’ll bet it sold itself! You are not the sharpest tool here though you are definitely not the only tool here.
The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid…. Ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahha
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 amRead it and weep. Smacked down again.
JD Power finds Prius, Lexus owners happiest
Perhaps you're just sour because Toyota sold 107,897 of these last year compared to 666 (yikes!) units of Honda's hybrid, the Insight, and only 13,200 total during its six year run.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 am"Prius reviews…"
Bullshit. Random drive-by comments on Yahoo that all appear to be from the people that probably don't even own such a car are not reviews.
The problem with dumb-ass right-wingers like yourself is that you guys have drank so much of the kool-aid that you can't even tell anymore how weak and lame your arguments are. 9 times out of 10 you guys all link to the same damn piece of contrived "research" or article on some goofy website. Case in point is the Sudbury issue - a quick search on Wikipedia would have set you straight. Or better yet, call up or email a contact in the city of Sudbury and ask them:
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 am
"you guys all link to the same damn piece of contrived “research†or article on some goofy website" - OhNoNotAgain
"but... but... but... it's sourced!!!"
LOL
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 amWhen will you learn not to embarrass yourself in front of your betters?
"blah blah...when you’re hugging trees"
In fact, my first interest with the Prius is a positive action in favor of national security. This is followed by low emissions, gas savings, and the smug satisfaction of cruising by a-holes like yourself.
I'm taking money from Osama. What are you doing, scum?
"Your mileage claims are a lie."
Which ones are those? Do you need a snapshot of my mileage computer? I average 45 city, 50 highway (at 75-80 mph). Sorry if you can't deal with that. If I accelerate slowly enough, I can hit or exceed 60 city, but I don't have the patience to do that on a normal basis.
So, pray tell, where am I lying, you useless sack of manure?
"Your car is after all a car and so can’t be “green†ever."
Right. Just the greenest one available.
"You can’t drive your way out of the energy and pollution nightmare."
Don't remember claiming it. I can't save the world from starvation or war, either, but I can do what little contribution I can, and if we all did it the world would be a better place.
Or, I can sit around whining and moaning and obfuscating like you.
"There are NO “green†mines in or on the earth."
Didn't make the claim. Glad to hear your Honda arose direct from the mind of god, with no environmental impact of any kind.
"The biggest point to make is that your Prius is another BS device that you bought"
Wow, your argument is so powerful. So impressive. You have zero chance arguing actual facts, so just make nonsense statements.
"The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid…."
... and repeat stupid, already disproven lies as well. You can't even remember that your original argument was about environmental impact, so you switch to talking about "style" or "cost efficiency".
It's hard to tell if you are genuinely stupid, insane, delusional, morally bankrupt, or just a very poor troll. All of the above?
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 am"You are not the sharpest tool here"
Son, I don't claim to having intelligence of any special merit.
But me debating with you is like Stephen Hawking debating with a drosophila melanogaster. You're a persistent little bug, I'll give you that.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 amComment by gorn by any other name — June 22, 2007 @ 3:33 am
Gorn thoughts…
Yeah, so basically what you see here is a bunch of essentially identical reviews ghost-posted over a series of days by some nutbag with an axe to grind (you perhaps?) because he’s too frigging stupid to research a vehicle before buying it. I knew two years before I bought mine that the EPA city mileage estimate was not an accurate gauge of normal driving. This was not exactly a secret. Hint: many of these “reviews†also call the car “uglyâ€. Chances are you aren’t going to buy a car that you think is ugly, so don’t you find this commonality of “review†a bit suspicious?
The indisputable fact is that Prius owners are notoriously happy campers. Remember that you referenced Consumer Reports? Since you consider CR to be a reliable source of information, what does CR say? CR says that Prius owners are unusually happy with their cars and would buy again. CR rates the car very highly across the board. DEAL WITH IT, IDIOT!
CR confirmed that the car gets 45mpg like the article. The battery as expected looses performance at 40F and lower… So you are full of BS so far but there is much more…
Right. You want to go back and read about Sudbury? Let’s see how honest you can be. (Rhetorical point - the answer is known.)
Mining may provide the elements, minerals and crystals we want but at an excessive cost. You referenced Wiki and according to them operations have become cleaner in Sudbury. According to the link I provided Inco Mining has devastated massive amounts of land with pollution. Canada has a poor mining track record!
Wrong again. Rationing is merely a delay of the inevitable. As a fatalist, you should understand that.
If that is true then why did you get a Prius? More than that why waste time defending a car that is doomed by the inevitability of oil depletion? You strike me as a Lexus person. Regardless, rationing is preferable to demand destruction. Rationing allows us to limit population growth and reduce the same over time while still being able to grow food. I don’t think I’m a fatalist? I do think that not moving to strict conservation methods now will cost more lives to be lost.
The best form of rationing is using energy sources that cannot be depleted, and finding more efficient ways to renew depletable(SIC) resources.
No this is wrong. All energy sources become depleted. The Sun will not last forever and is depleting. Harnessing alternatives at the cost of existing oil supplies is something a bone head like you would offer as a solution. Then you went onto say, “And finding more efficient ways to renew depletable resources.†That is a joke right? You want people to get better at renewing non-renewables? “Shut the DOOR!â€
Hypocritical blowhard. Your Honda is, at best, as negatively impactful of anything you are whining about. Walk, ride a bike, or STFU.
Hondas CBR600 and a Civic. You were commenting about your tree hugger Prius and boasting about how it gets less than sticker mileage and is all that and then some. That Prius cost all of us some energy. I pointed out that my mileage on the bike blows your giant cell phone battery away. My old Civic gets 35 in town and better on the highway but I don’t drive it that much. I have a bicycle too, etc. One thing about you is that you like to command the store but I’m not going to STFU simply because you say so looser!
And yes, I can stay here all night checking this thread from time to time and continuing to hand you your a$$, as long as you want to do it.
And when is this as$ handing going to happen? Heck, first your wiping the floor, then your handing it and next you will have your head in my poor ‘ol as$ You have a big head and my as$ is small and tight. I can suggest that you stick your head up your own as$ and see if it fits but odds are that you can lose yourself up there and then whose colloquialisms and pontifications will I have to listen to then?
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:31 amGorn I have to attempt to make it look like I'm working so I will have to put an egg in my shoe and beat it. Don't worry I still love your tree hugging ass as big as that is!
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 am"CR confirmed that the car gets 45mpg like the article."
Which is also the figure I claimed. You called me a liar, now you're supporting what I said. You are so amusing.
"The battery as expected looses performance at 40F and lower"
Whatever. I debunk a lie so you try to come up with some other angle. Can you come back to your original premise that a Prius is more damaging to the environment than a Hummer?
"Canada has a poor mining track record!"
Whatever. Your original claim was that the Prius was responsible for the acid rain destruction around Sudbury. I've proven your premise false, but again you try to change the argument. Won't work, bucko.
"If that is true then why did you get a Prius?"
I thought I was pretty clear on that. I'm not the fatalist, you are. I got it because (1) it's good for national security, (2) it's low emission, (3) it saves me money, (4) it's a cool car with cool features, (5) I like it, (6) I get to drive the HOV lanes and bypass all the SUVs, etc. Sorry I'm not sitting in a fetal position whining about the hopelessness of it all, like you.
" No this is wrong. All energy sources become depleted. The Sun will not last forever and is depleting."
Holy crap, batman, you are unbelievably dense. I already kicked you ten ways to Tuesday on this subject before. The Sun will not last forever. It will only be there for a few billion years. Oh, woe are we.
"You were commenting about your tree hugger Prius and boasting about how it gets less than sticker mileage"
Well, I guess if stating real, verifiable facts is 'boasting', then I'm guilty as charged. Wow, do you ever have an inferiority complex. I guess that comes from having your a$$ handed to you over and over and over again.
"my as$ is small and tight."
Must make it damned hard to breathe.
"I’m not going to STFU simply because you say so looser!"
Please don't call me loose. That hurts my feelings.
"I will have to put an egg in my shoe and beat it."
Translation: "Okay, Gorn, I'm going to do as you say and STFU."
Thanks, freedomrings, I've enjoyed this a$$-kicking today. Come back and play again after the welts heal.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 amWhy is mass transportation losing funding and cutting back — shouldn’t we be expanding mass transit and making it easier, and more convenient?
Sure we should, Marie. But thanks to the extreme low-density nature of most American cities and sprawl-burbs, effective and ubiquitous mass transit would be an incredibly expensive solution.
That's not to say we shouldn't do it, however - I personally think we should. All I'm saying is that building the political will to do it will be very difficult, in light of the price tag for doing it right.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 amCan’t believe you posted something I agree with.
However, you’re only half right. There are TONS of people with W stickers doing the same thing.
Very true, but when they voted for W, they presumably didn't like the idea of heavyhanded CAFE regulations.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 amHere's a better idea: Ban automatic transmissions, and get a 2-3 MPG increase across the board.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pmThe American automobile industry has taught me and millions of other Americans that we would be fools to buy their products when there are many other superior products available.
For years Ford, GM and Chrysler produced cars were designed to explode in three years, and which had poor resale value, embrassessing safety features and pathetic gas mileage . Now, when Americans in droves are purchasing great cars from Japan with superior gas mileage, design, safety, resale value and reliability, and only now, are these failed accountants even trying to build better and more competitive cars.
Even now, with the market walking away from them, are they attempting to stop the development of cars with moderately higher fuel economy. Are they stupid? Is it possible that they just don't understand? Or are they still just looking at next quarters financial statement?
I would sincerely love to buy American, however, these clowns have told me that I would be foolish to do so.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pmThe energy bill now before the Senate, far from being any kind of solution to our economic and environmental crises, represents exactly the kind of thinking and legislating that has brought us to the point of crisis in the first place. Mandating 35 mile per gallon vehicles by 2020 is a bit like bailing out the Titanic with Dixie cups, or treating cancer with a Band-Aid. What it will accomplish is less than nothing; by 2020, the number of new drivers and new cars on the road will ensure that we produce more carbon, not less, than we do now, despite the new fuel standards.
These standards do not even attempt to slow down the pace at which we pollute the air and consume natural resources, let alone reverse the damage. Instead, they ensure that we will continue to consume and pollute at ever increasing levels, and only limit the rate of increase minimally. This bill is evidence that the Democrats have neither the intent nor the ability to address the environmental and economic problems they helped create, and are in fact only slightly less beholden to corporate interests than are Republicans.
We need zero emission vehicles. We need a solar grid. We need public transit. Cars that get 35 miles to the gallon are worse than an empty gesture; they are a false comfort in a time of emergency.
I call upon our representatives to reject this meaningless bill and go back to the drawing board, this time listening not to centrists, appeasers, and lobbyists, but instead to technological innovators and real environmental advocates.
As a member of the House of Representatives, I vow to craft legislation that offers real, sustainable solutions to the severe crises we face. I encourage our current Congressional legislators and all Americans to learn about my proposed "New Deal for sustainability," which provides a model for sustainable energy production and transportation in the 21st century. And I encourage voters in the 37th district to consider which candidate will provide real leadership on issues related to the environment, energy prices, and transportation when they vote this Tuesday"
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 pmDoubtful anyone is still reading this thread, but I'll add this in for the historical record. Going back to the student newspaper article cited by freedomrings, he states that the article is legit because it is "sourced". The source is an outfit called CNW Research. I just read their paper on how they justified the claim of a Prius life at 100k miles.
Bottom line: really weak reasoning. To come up with this figure, they suggested that "historical data" shows the average Prius owner drives only 6,700 miles per year. They don't indicate where that historical data comes from. I can't find it anywhere. The only hits from a Google search either point back to this very web site, or sites talking about this web site.
Even if it were true, it is nonsense to use this figure to compare against a Hummer. It suggests that if I Prius driver instead drives a hummer, suddenly they will drive three times as much. What? Are we to believe that there is something magical about a Prius that makes people suddenly dirve only half the national average just by virtue of owning that car?
Let's suppose that this hypothetical Prius driver switched to a Hummer and drove the identical number of miles on it. Now, the cost of the Hummer per mile would be about $6 per mile, not the $2 claimed. Of course, ALL of these figures are suspect.
This paper does NOT claim that the expect practical life of a Prius is 100k miles. It states:
Sorry freedomrings, this lays your central claim to waste.
Further poor reasoning in the CNW report center around the idea that at an "early adopter" stage, costs per vehicle are higher, but any rational analysis would look at the amortization costs over the lifetime of the technology. It even forces itself to admit this:
Suggesting that Prius technologies would not be shared among other models and brands is absurd.
Finally, the paper makes a statement that completely agrees with my position against freedomrings:
Thus, freedomrings, your very position is completely undermined by the source behind your student newspaper article. As flaky as that source is, even they have to back off and admit to the obvious. And, their conclusion is the opposite of your woe-is-me fatalism. Don't you feel stupid?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 pmTrue comparison of relative consumer costs for equivalent usage.
Assuming both vehicles are driven 100k miles, the lifetime cost (vehicle plus fuel) at current fuel prices would be:
Prius: $28,166
Hummer H2: $87,333
Corolla: $26,714
If driven 300,000 miles:
Prius: $41,500
Hummer H2: $154,000
Corolla: $48,142
Left unstated is that a Hummer could not possibly last that long without probably being fully rebuilt a couple of times, the volume of crap spewed into the atmosphere, the damage done to roadways, damage done to vehicles and people in accidents, the near-certainty of much higher ordinary maintenance costs, and the relative damage done to national security.
Other than that, it's just a swell idea to drive a Hummer to work every day.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmComment by gorn by any other name — June 22, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
While it is clear that those other results are impossible it is relevant to question where you obtained your information ##s whatever statistics??
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pmToo bad everyone in Miami and New Orleans will be 4 feet under water by 2015.
It's pathetic what passes as environmental progress in Bush's America.
P.S. US automakers can deliver 40MPG today in their European models, the ones they refuse to sell here.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmWhile it is clear that those other results are impossible it is relevant to question where you obtained your information ##s whatever statistics?? - Jeff McNanny
Fair enough. I assumed the MSRP of each vehicle as found on the internet, used $3 per gallon for the price of gas, and assumed the same number of miles driven for each vehicle. Unlike freedomrings' numbers, there's no magic dust involved here.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pmFor Jeff McNanny:
My apologies, I left out one important variable in my disclosure: my assumptions about fuel economy for each vehicle.
My calculations used 45 MPG for the Prius, 9 MPG for the Hummer, and 28 MPG for the Corolla. I opted to used figures typically reported in the real world rather than EPA estimates which would unfairly favor the Prius.
I found the Hummer and Corolla figures via reviews found on the internet. For the Prius, I used my own experience which I think is fairly typical. My commute this morning: 14 miles, mixed freeway/city, 49.8 MPG. Thus, I think 45 as an average is a more than fair figure to use.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pmComment by gorn by any other name — June 22, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Thanks lot :)
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 pmI went to the grocery store yesterday and paid $4.95 for 1 gallon of milk....
That being said Gorn's numbers assume that these cars always existed. I don't pretend to understand how CNW's formula works. Gorn's simply does this (he used some different numbers and fudged up the Hummer2 number)...
Prius 100 000m / 45mpg = 2222.2 * 3.00 = 6666.66 + 21,000 = 27,666.66
Humme 100 000m / 12mpg = 8333.3 * 3.00 = 24999.90 + 54,110 = 79,109.90
No financing costs, taxes, tariffs, wasted shipping, waste management costs, or anything else has been accounted for with Gorn’s method. The basic point is that CNW has created a formula that accounts for all of the waste. A big point is that Gorn’s method is not the “total cost of operation†it only accounts for gas and the sticker price.
How much to insure a Prius for 100,000 miles. How much can you deduct off of your federal tax returns if you own an SUV? How realistic is it to suggest that an $8,000.00 battery has ZERO downside? What does mark-up have to do with this? We buy Japanese but if you buy American the reason a Hummer costs $50K is that it is all “mark-upâ€. What about depreciation and the rate of depretiation?
I realize all study results of any study can be fudged, fictitious or based on problematic formulas. The point is that hybrids are the same BS that Hummers are and that is the same BS that all cars are. The study did not suggest that anyone should purchase a hummer. It pointed to less expensive options and in that list were other Toyotas. To comment about this and suggest that CNW supports hummers is as ridiculous as the Greens thinking that they can drive the nation clean. Gorn does the same thing that he accuses CNW of and Gorn has invested in the Prius. I don’t own any SU(X)Vs or Toyotas, the main reason I chose Honda to roll in is that the total cost of ownership is LOW.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pmThis is hope for our country yet.
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 pm