'Greenies' .. The "Prius Polluter" truths

[Jenx]

Having heard it rumoured many times.. was doing a bit of research...
The so-called 'green' car, the Toyota Prius ... is a fraud.

You'd be more 'green' buying a Hummer.

"Typical" details that you can find documented everywhere, if you care to look, are as per the following :

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate "green car" is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn't be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the dead zone around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalists nightmare.

The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. 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.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: 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.


These accounts are documented all over the net.
and as one who is very much behind the whole 'global warming is an utter crock of nonsense' school of thought ... I love finding this sort of stuff out, and making mention of it everywhere possible.

Fantastic.

 

[bugbear]

Through a * study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,"

You forgot to insert "extensively refuted" where I've put the asterisk

BugBear

 

[Jenx]

:lol: No, checked the article again ... no mention of "extensively refuted" ... and I promise.. i looked really hard :wink: :lol:

"Refuted" by whom ? owners of Priuses no doubt :wink:

 

[lurker]

Always seemed a con to me.
The tree huggers somehow ignore the energy used in making & envirionmental dumping aspects.

And whilst we are on about it, we have the same con with "windmills" trouble is most tree huggers have poor science backgrounds.

In the next few years the lights will go out in the UK (we came very very close in early Dec 2008). The "blame" will be down to Porrit, that failed USA president bloke and their ilk selling their untruths (based on general ignorance) about Nuclear power.

 

[MikeG.]

Right guys........

...."tree huggers" have never made any claims about the Prius. These are claims that are made by a car company that is trying to sell cars. There are no such things as "green" cars. Just about the only thing that can be said in the Prius' defence is that at least it is trying , a little.......

.........but some of the mindless, , conspiracy-theory, flat-earth statements associated with these threads drives me absolutely nuts.

Lurker, you should be ashamed of the thoughtless assignation of blame you have made. If the lights go out, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with Al Gore, or wind turbines, or Jonathon Porrit. However, if your grandchildren are just about saved by the skin of their teeth from a world running out of land capable of growing crops, or running out of water, or from losing most of their major coastal cities to floodwater, then I trust you will roll over in your grave and thank those you have just blamed.

If you had any sort of understanding of science, you really wouldn't make such moronic assertions as "the tree huggers always ignore the energy used in making........" etc. Look at any scientific account of any of the problems associated with the emission of greenhouse gases, and dozens of associated topics, and look for the words "embodied energy". They are everywhere. If you don't understand them, look them up. You might also check anything I have written on here about photovoltaics, for instance, and find the embodied energy argument used to argue against them.......and I am the biggest greenie you have obviously ever come into contact with.

Whilst we're at it, please explain to me how we can have chuffed out tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over 300 plus years without making a difference.

Now, for goodness sake, if you can't do anything other than rehearse your thoughtless prejudices why don't you just keep quiet?

Mike

 

[MikeG.]

........oh, I nearly forgot.........

Jenx,

justify your baseless claim that we would be more green buying a Hummer.

The claim that the embodied energy may be higher in the Prius would only be of relevence if you bought a car then stuck it in the garage and never used it.

To make any sort of claim about lifetime energy use you would have to compare figures for total energy consumption over the lifetime of the 2 vehicles........which of course you haven't. If you ran both vehicles for, say, 10 years, doing the same mileage in each, are you really telling me that the Hummer would have consumed less energy overall than the Prius? What sort of percentage of its total lifetime energy consumption do you think the embodied energy of a Hummer is?

If you think global warming is a "crock of nonsense", this can only be becasue you don't/ won't understand the science behind it. Go and read some reputable scientific journals.........go and ask university geography professors..........go and read anything on the subject that has been published in a peer reviewed journal, and see if you can pick any holes in that sort of stuff. Good luck. In the meantime, I hope that when you go on holiday that you don't fall off the edge of the world.....

Mike

 

[Gill]

Hi Mike

Although I've spent a long time hunting for scientific evidence to substantiate claims that global warming is taking place, it seems to be very scarce. I have, however, encountered works by sceptics such as Nigel Lawson which examine data and are persuasive.

I want scientific data as opposed to scientific opinions so I can make up my own mind about what is going on. The likes of the IPCC and Stern seem to simply spout the inadequate line, "Trust us, we're the world's leading scientists and you'd be stupid not to take us at our word". Yet there is some evidence out there, primarily relating to acidification of the seas, which cannot be denied. James Lovelock's writings are particularly intriguing, especially since he believes that the wise course of action is for humanity to adapt to climate change rather than seeking to prevent it. Ironically, this is the same course of action that Lawson endorses.

Can you help me form my own opinion by pointing out other online sources of data which support the notion of global warming? I'm not really interested in debating the subject because passions often become aroused and it's all too easy for reason and logic to be shunned. However, I would like to feel I was better informed.

Gill

 

[Jenx]

:lol:
Have you got one then ? :wink:


The scientific journals that explain that the expanding ball of gas ( sun )
which, by expanding ( i.e. getting that wee bit closer to us ) and increasing in its temperature as it does so.. is all the scientific journals I need to know what makes the world heat up.

As long as I don't "fall off the edge at Exeter", I should be ok this year .. it seemed "blunt enough" last time I was down :wink: :lol:

Right guys........

...."tree huggers" have never made any claims about the Prius.

Oh I think they very much have done :wink:
Touted as the GREEN vehicle ? ... don't sound so green now
The 'claim' is anything but baseless, Mike... thats what the article is saying. That ( and the countless others like it ) ARE the basis.

To promote a counter argument by calling my point baseless, well isn't a counter argument at all, is it :wink:

Now, for goodness sake, if you can't do anything other than rehearse your thoughtless prejudices why don't you just keep quiet?

But you see, they are not thoughtless predjudicies.. they are views based on a lot of reading, thinking logically and are well-considered.
Because they may conflict with yours, does not mean that yours have more creedence does it ? or am I lesser of an individual and therefore not permitted to speak my mind ? Hmm.. not too convinced there, either.
I arrive at my conclusions on the matter by considering multiple viewpoints from all camps.. yours included.
And I will arrive at the same conclusion 100 times from 100.
Even if i didn't want to.

If What i presented was utter bunkum from generated from my own ( sometimes simple ) mentality, then you would have a point by calling them thoughtless predjucices, but they indeed are not..
They, equally come from the learned minds of the professors to whom which you refer, every bit as much.

:wink:

 

[xraymtb]

Just to add some fuel to the fire...

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

It's amazing what you can do with statistics and figures when you present them in the correct light. Whilst I don't believe we are having no effect on the planets climate, I don't believe its as bad as some people make out.

 

[Peter T]

I have to say that I find MMCC very difficult to believe in.

The problem I have is that all the prominent supporters has a vested interest in it being real.

Parasitic politicians love it because it's something else they can use to justify separating the long suffering taxpayer from more of their hard earned income.

The scientists love it because it's providing them with billions in research funds.

It's completely impossible to get an unbiased view on the subject.

And as for the Prius; I find the entire hybrid vehicle concept ill conceived. Here we have a small car with a small engine and it can only do 40 odd mpg. I wonder why? Maybe it's something to do with having to drag around a big, heavy electric motor plus all its control gear, just to capture a bit of regenerated energy when the driver puts the brakes on!

 

[Jenx]

Indeed Peter.

Thats why when Mike says " Its at least trying ", its a ridiculous statement. Becuase even if it is... its failing miserably by all accounts and is therefore an ill-concieved and pointless exercise in the first place.

And to deny that its touted as the Greenie-Machine somewhat beggars belief... borne out by rushing of 'celebs' to get their hands on one and clarion from the rooftops about 'look what I'm doing for the environment'.


I think that its an admirable thing to attempt to conserve energy or utilise it in as economical and efficient way as possible, and ( although it may surprise Mike ), I would support this wherever possible.
Of course it makes sense to do so ... what doesn't, is to blindly follow everything one is told, and not to "question."
And when one sees a very plausible case being put against something that is in many respects, 'pushed at us', when the reality behind it is clearly at the very least 'questionable', if not down-right flawed,
then we are in a sorry state.

 

[filsgreen]

I will admit that I am not too clued up on this topic, so I can't really comment. However, the amount of greenhouse gases that this tiny island produces is a drop in the ocean compared to China, India, Russia and the USA.

Whilst we get fleeced by the Government in so called "Green" taxes, these other countries make all the right sounds but do nothing. As someone pointed out recently, "we have had our Industrial Revolution, who are we to deny others theirs?"

And you will rightly point out that their industrial revolution will result in killing the planet, won't stop them though. Most of the posters on this site encourage them by buying the cheap products they produce.

 

[MikeG.]

Although I've spent a long time hunting for scientific evidence to substantiate claims that global warming is taking place, it seems to be very scarce.

Can you help me form my own opinion by pointing out other online sources of data which support the notion of global warming?
Gill

Gill,

for the base data you need to be reading peer-reviewed scientific papers published in science journals, which are heavy going. For assessments of the contents of these, summaries in readable English etc., you might try The New Scientist, but I can't point you to individual editions..........there are 25 years worth of articles to read.

Incidentally, the New Scientist did a count-up of published works on global climate change, and found over a thousand papers supporting the premise, and not a single one proclaiming the opposite in recognised peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of course, if you read the common press, you would think there was some sort of debate about this going on amongst scientists. There isn't. That all got dealt with 20 years ago. Now, the main discussions are about how to get a stubborn political class and populace to understand the urgency.

I'm afraid I can't help with web based stuff.......that isn't where I go for my information. Incidentally, my first degree was in Environmental Science........I was persuaded over 25 years ago, and have seen nothing since that in any way leads me to any conclusion other than being scared to death of what we are leaving for our kids.

Someone mentioned Lovelock, the genius who foresaw all this years before anybody else.........his thesis that humans have to adapt to man made climate change is because his calculations lead him to think that there is nothing we can do to avoid it now. His notion of adaption is to plan for a planet capable of supporting only one eigth of the number of humans that it currently does........in less than 100 years time.

Mike

 

[Jenx]

Did any of the scientists mention the expanding gas giant of the sun ?

As it expands.. it gets closer to us.
that means we get a wee bitty more cosy.

I learnt that from me mum, when she told me to keep away from the fire.

and the physics behind it still works, I think.


Sun gets closer.
we get hotter

Meerkats
Simples :wink:


No counter-counter argument to put ?

( remember though.. always with good cheer in the heart :wink: )

 

[MikeG.]

Did any of the scientists mention the expanding gas giant of the sun ?

As it expands.. it gets closer to us.
that means we get a wee bitty more cosy.

I learnt that from me mum, when she told me to keep away from the fire.

and the physics behind it still works, I think.


Sun gets closer.
we get hotter

Meerkats
Simples :wink:

I have never seen a scientist anywhere publish an article on why the moon isn't made of cheese. Just about as relevant.........and if that is what this thread is sinking to........fine........and enjoy yourselves without me.

 

[Jenx]

Mike...
The sun is exapnding - Fact.

Just because you dont agree with a premise or a theory, doesn't automatically condemn it as unacceptable or wrong, you know :wink:

Can any of the scientists Prove, beyond any doubt, conclusively that Golbal warming exists because of CO2 emissions.. no.

keep the toys in the cot.. enjoy the debate, and maybe you can convince someone to change their mind.. I'm not above doing so, given the right convincing. :wink:
But you can't just 'no thats wrong about the prius.. cause I dont want to hear it' - the thing is flawed, as a concept. 'Questionable' at the very least ...
The evidence stacked up against it is huge !

Nobody is saying 'don't strive for energy efficiency' or 'dont attempt to be conservative in your use of natural resources' etc etc.. its very good to be that way... basic economics would dictate that, one would imagine.. before you go near any other reasons for doing so. It makes sense !

but don't shoot down the thoughts of people who choose to look beyond what they're told to believe and go rooting around to try to find answers... that isn't right either.

For a clearly well-educated lad, you don't half come out the block with the guns blazing.. and If you were doing so, becuase of 'conclusive absolute undeniable proof, then fine.. but you cant do that, because it ISNT conclusive undeniable proof.
I'm giving YOU proof that that Car is a joke.. every bit as much as you are, in trying to substantiate your theories.

I can accept you having yours... theories and views, i mean ... where's the difficulty in accepting that others may have views that conflict with yours ?
That, if I didn't know better, is the action of a 'Sheep', and I don't believe for a minute that you spend half your life bleating.

There are, without any doubt, areas of very very strong evidence to support what I say here... every bit as much as what you promote as the 'truth'.
Pick up the ted's .. climb back in, and debate the matter with the decorum befitting of a gentleman of your (clear) standing.. and don't run off with a 'its my ball and i'm no' playing' outlook. -- just because you don't agree with whats said.

I'm sure, certain in fact, that as a confirmed 'green thinker', you'd have probably more than most to contribute in a constructive and happy-demeanoured manner to a fascinating and intriguing discussion.

Agreed ?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Keep smilin too.. always discuss with a smile..even if you are diametrically opposed to the subject., yes ? :lol: :lol:

 

[Gill]

So it looks as if I'll have to pay a visit to the library and scour back copies of the New Scientist ](*,) . Thanks anyway, Mike .

These scientists who espouse global warming are rotten communicators. If they made their data more readily accessible to the public, this debate might not be taking place.

Gill

 

[Doctor]

 

[Jenx]

I have never seen a scientist anywhere publish an article on why the moon isn't made of cheese. Just about as relevant.........and if that is what this thread is sinking to........fine........and enjoy yourselves without me.

And as an extra.. thats a classic diversionary tactic... you introduce the "Moon/Cheese" scenario, like it has any relevance to anything, which of course it does not .. and yet, by doing so, to the casual observer, this can have the effect of debunking the view opposed to the 'introducer' of such a nonsense.
Why do that ? ... If i didn't know better, - that gives me the impression that your viewpoint is running out of puff. .. for that is how such a diversionary tactic appears.
Why don't we stick to where science and theorists perhaps arrive at the right conclusion eventually.. wouldnt that be better ?

So no .. scientists have yet, as far as I am aware, not spending any tax-resourced research grants on establishing if any cheese is lunar in origin.
To save them the trouble.. I think we can reasonably safely assume that it isn't.


:wink:

 

[Argee]

Reminds me of Eddie Izzard taking the rise out of the "Time Team" and their pontifications. He was fed up with so-called experts claiming to know, for certain, that "this pile of stone used to be a wall around a local shop" and (Eddie) "over there a man sat playing a banjo and eating a jam sandwich." What he implied was that you could claim pretty much anything, because there was no-one around from the time (nor definitive records) to refute it.

The same thing is true of trying to predict the future, or to offer an opinion on it, because the current crop of pundits will not be around later on to say "I told you so," or "I got that wrong." OK, so there will be records and articles in archives somewhere, but that doesn't help today and for the immediate future. I try to understand the vehemence (sometimes even anger) with which some put their point across, but in all honesty it adds nothing to the matter - quite the opposite. Statistics do not always help when trying to add credence to an opinion, however honestly formed and held.

Like Gill, I looked for definitive, plausible, accurate statements, until I realised that no-one has a crystal ball. No-one predicted the Tsunami, if I recall correctly. We still can't predict earthquakes with any certainty, as Italy will attest, yet it is the simplest thing to blame anything that has happened on "global warming" and/or "climate change."

Do I use a plastic bag at the supermarket, or take my own? What possible effect would that have on climate change? Up come the prophets, talking about landfill, re-cycling, attitude, etc., whilst China and others continue to expand their engineering and consequently-polluting industries. I am neither stupid or naive enough to believe that my not using a plastic bag will have any effect compared to China's output, nor would the entire UK stopping their use make any difference either, as far as I can see. Projecting the "amount saved" by stopping such use cannot take into account the possible increase in the output from around the globe, yet I see many proclaiming it as a definitive statistic in which I'm expected to place my trust.

Of course it makes sense to re-cycle, but not if the subsequent detritus is then shipped off overseas at considerable cost to this country. "Carbon offsetting" is another flawed concept that is both patronising and irritating in equal amounts, but what is really irksome about this topic is the way it is used to justify all sorts of increased prices, taxes etc. Have you passed by Harrods lately? For a man once desperate to gain UK citizenship, he's not doing himself any favours by leaving all the Christmas lights ablaze every evening, or does he think it wouldn't make a difference too? How can the lighting of, for example, the London Eye, be justified, if every little saving was so important.

Has anyone thought to try and calculate the amount of "slack" in the Earth's ability to absorb the increased CO2 output, I wonder? I recall the horror expressed about the hole in the ozone layer many years ago, but I think the latest I heard on that was that it was closing. Excuse the length of this post, please, especially as it's probably "worthless," depending upon your viewpoint!

Ray