Last post on Aug 29, 2007 at 4:24 AM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Alternative Fuels, Hybrid Cars
#44 of 53 Re: "I" don't discredit their data - OTHER STUDIES DO !!! [gagrice]
Aug 16, 2007 (12:43 pm)
hold on - I'm workin on something.....
OK, go read this PDF:
RMI info on CNW study
The Toyota LCA shows that in every category except PM, the overall pollution of the Prius versus a comparable gas car, like the COROLLA, is less over the life of the car. ( And notice the PM is VERY SMALL compared to all other pollution categories. )
Put a Hummer as the "comparable gas car" versus the Prius and watch what would happen to the comparison bars.
PS Here is another EXHAUSTIVE, LENGTHY study which puts HEVs at the lowest end of overall environmental impact:
Another CNW refuter with DATA in 2006
#45 of 53 Re: "I" don't discredit their data - OTHER STUDIES DO !!! [gagrice]
Aug 16, 2007 (1:32 pm)
gary says, "Your discrediting of the CNW report also discredits the Toyota LCA."
Oh, by the way: NOT.
The LCA merely shows that a Prius pollutes more at manufacturing than does a comparable 2.0 liter gasoline engine car.
It says nothing about Prius versus a polluting monster like the Hummer.
Like I said - put a Humdinger on that LCA chart and you'd need an 11 x 17 sheet to see the length of the hummer line.
#46 of 53 Re: "I" don't discredit their data - OTHER STUDIES DO !!! [larsb]
Aug 16, 2007 (2:05 pm)
I don't think so. If the life of the H2 was 300k miles or two Prius lifetimes it would be a totally different picture. We are in a holding pattern. We DO NOT Know how well the hybrids will hold up over 10-15 years. If they go 15 years with normal car expense. They will be in the winners circle. Otherwise they will be a page in automotive history.
#47 of 53 Re: "I" don't discredit their data - OTHER STUDIES DO !!! [gagrice]
Aug 16, 2007 (2:42 pm)
You are attempting to combine ALL of your anti-hybrid rhetoric into a few posts, when that is not the topic here.
How you feel about the "historical significance" or lack thereof in regard to hybrids is not at issue.
Trying to guess what hybrids will do in 10-15 years is not the issue.
This CNW study, and it's accompanying ridiculous conclusions, is the issue at hand in this topic.
Anyone visiting this particular forum with an open mind and no preconceived biases can see my "fact-filled" rebuttal of the CNW study and will make up their mind without prejudice. My points have been made and they are correct.
#48 of 53 Re: "I" don't discredit their data - OTHER STUDIES DO !!! [larsb]
Aug 16, 2007 (3:31 pm)
My opinion of hybrids is based on facts. The CNW report was based on how long a vehicle will last. The reason the Hummer was more cost effective was the presumed longer life. Toyota set the life of the Prius at 10 years and 150k miles. I would say on average that is very generous. I think that they will be filling the wrecking yards shortly after they hit 100k miles. The cost to maintain them after the warranty is up will be more than the average owner will want to spend. That is what the CNW report is all about. If you missed that you should read it over again. Those that have tried to disprove it have an agenda. My agenda is a vehicle that will last a LONG time with as little cost as possible. The CNW report left out the obvious best choice "DIESEL".
Aug 16, 2007 (4:26 pm)
We get it. You guys disagree on this. We're going around in circles again. Let's move on
#50 of 53 Fact or opinion?
Aug 17, 2007 (6:21 am)
Gary says: "My opinion of hybrids is based on facts."
Then he turns around and issues two consecutive opinions:
"I think that they will be filling the wrecking yards shortly after they hit 100k miles. The cost to maintain them after the warranty is up will be more than the average owner will want to spend."
Anyway, like I said earlier, for those people looking for validity of that CNW study, I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt with FACTS my point that the CNW study is bogus, ridiculous, not scientifically valid, and is contradicted by every other scientifically peer-reviewed study on the subject.
#51 of 53 Another good CNW debunking job
Aug 28, 2007 (10:57 am)
Dust To Dumb - another successful CNW debunking
Of all of them, this one makes them look the stupidest.
I am mocking this report because it is the most contrived and mistake-filled study I have ever seen -- by far (and that's saying a lot, since I worked for the federal government for five years). I am not certain there is an accurate calculation in the entire report. I say this without fear of contradiction, because this is also the most opaque study I have ever seen -- by far. I defy anyone to figure out their methodology.
In this post I'm just going to highlight the most inane claims -- and again, they can only be treated as claims because the report omits all the underlying calculations.
#52 of 53 Re: Another good CNW debunking job [larsb]
Aug 28, 2007 (8:09 pm)
larsb, after reading all of gagrice's comments and your comments, as well as all the referenced studies, I've come to the conclusion that you are 100% correct on your analysis. Gagrice has been a broken record and isn't listening to reason. I'm a nuclear engineer, and from a scientific/engineering/economic point of view, the "dust to dust" report makes absolutely no sense in any way. I agree 100% with the Joseph Romm blog that you referenced. His insight that CNW intentionally published the study as a hoax is interesting and plausible.
Aug 29, 2007 (4:24 am)
Let's keep the discussion about the topics and vehicles and keep away from discussing each other please.
There's nothing but trouble down that road