Toyota
Prius versus the Hummer and the environment, again. Still
just nonsense!
Thursday,
March 22, 2007
If
we all drive Hummers we can save the world!
In the last couple of weeks some genius at a small student
newspaper brought up the CNW
hybrid study - announced a year ago - which suggested
that the Toyota
Prius hybrid was less environmentally friendly than a
Hummer. For some reason Drudge picked up the story.
Hmmm. Isn't every emerging technology always inefficient
in terms of production at first? Whenever you deal with
something new, it takes time to refine production
processes, to create necessary suppliers and supply
chains, and to develop new recycling technologies, etc.
Isn't that where the term 'economies of scale' comes from?
Besides, the Nickel so in question in the CNW study is
already being phased out of hybrid production, as Toyota
has already claimed that lithium will power the third
generation Prius, as well as all third generation
hybrid vehicles.
Oh my gosh, technology is advancing, adapting and
evolving. Someone stop it before we create an energy
independent, completely clean automotive technology!
Furthermore, how much have automakers reduced the
automobile emissions of conventional vehicles in the last
20 years? So, automotive production has gotten more
efficient over time? Unbelievable! Inconceivable!
I just don't get it. What's the problem with hybrid
haters? Is it guilt? Maybe future shock? Simple ignorance?
Comments
|
The CNW study was as flawed as Bush's Iraq policy. It amazes me that people still use it as a data source. Also, the Canadian nickel mine did the bulk of its environmental damage in the 1970s -- 25 years or so before the Prius was ever invented!
If anyone thinks the Hummer is such hot stuff, why not get the carmaker to offer one as a 2mode hybrid?
The original article is an opinion piece for a small college newspaper. The whole article is garbage.
1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo's mileage puts it within "spitting distance" of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is "spitting distance."
2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/8839690/
And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? You can check Consumer Reports for the answer to that one. A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available at:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/
?p=48
3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies — early 1970’s) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury’s nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of (visible here http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk
/pages/live/articles/news/
news.html?in_article_id=
417227&in_page_id=1770 ), used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution (visible here http://www.photoboy.com/bin/
Cklb?vmo=1173985067754 ). There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.
Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada -- that's GM, maker of the Hummer, ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury's trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.
http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/
gmcanada/english/about/
MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html
Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening. http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-h
i/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm">