'Greenies' .. The "Prius Polluter" truths

[Digit]

Look up Piltdown Man Jake! That is just one example of many when that rule came unglued.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

I don't know enough about the Piltdown example to know whether there really was concensus, or how peer-reviewed etc it was. Assuming in your favour it was, though, are you saying that Piltdown man proves we should always take the opposite side of every point of scientific concensus because a concensus on one thing was once wrong?

 

[duncanh]

Before I write anything else I should state that I own a Prius. Now that's out in the open...

Back to the original post from Jenx, and not getting involved in the global warming debate...

Having heard it rumoured many times.. was doing a bit of research...

"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. "

It has a standard engine and an electric motor, but that's not hugely relevant.

Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph.

Not necessarily true - it depends entirely on the driving conditions. You can get up to more than 30 on electric, sometimes the engine comes on sooner.

The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph.

The battery is also recharged when coasting into a junction and when travelling down hill.
It isn't always charged when the engine takes over - again, it varies according to conditions and driving style.

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.

My usual mpg is around 55, and I know that is lower than a lot of people who drive Priuses. Occasionally I get mid 60s. The car is not designed to drive at 80mph and shouldn't be going over 70. I find that my most economic speed is around 50 mph.

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.

NASA hasn't actually used Sudbury for training since the early 70s and when it did it was because of the rock formations caused by an ancient meteor strike, not because of mining destruction.

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.

There are several sources online (eg. here and here) which shed a little more light on the nickel issue. One quote is
"Out of the Inco mine’s 174,800-ton output in 2004, Toyota purchased 1000 tons, just over a half-percent of its output".
Both links which I gave report that the article describes Sudbury in the 1970s, before Toyota was making the Prius and before large clean-up operations.

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.

Yes, this is crazy.

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.

Having just skimmed through the "Dust to Dust" document I found the following statement

One thing is clear. The typical hybrid small vehicle such as the Prius is driven far fewer miles
each year than a comparably sized budget car. And for good reason. Like Upper Premium Sports
cars, these are generally secondary vehicles in a household OR they are driven in restricted or
short range environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods. Clearly both of
those are generalizations and there are exceptions, but nonetheless this is a reality of automotive
use.
This is a ridiculous assumption and I would suggest that this is actually the exception to the norm. The original report is from the US though, so maybe their Prius ownership is that much different from ours.

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.

The "Dust to Dust" report assumes that the Prius and other hybrids will have an expected lifetime of 10 years. The first Prius was launched in 1997 and according to Wikipedia this model is now being exported and sold second hand. (admittedly this could be false data, but there is a link to completed sales for 1997 models)
This suggests a reliable vehicle.

Of course, the information that I found against the original "Dust to Dust" report is all online and I can't say for sure that they weren't written by either hybrid owners or people with a green agenda.

When it comes down to it, I didn't buy a Prius because I thought it was greener, although it was a small factor, and I didn't buy because of the fuel economy, although that was a larger factor. The main reason was that I went for a test drive just out of interest and loved the driving experience.

Right, you can now carry on discussing global warming ;-)

Duncan

 

[Jenx]

Edited to maintain clarity by including what Jake says...

The point is that the vast preponderance of seemingly-credible-by-their-titles-and-qualifications people are on one side of the line, and a few seemingly-credible-by-their-titles-and-qualifications are the other side of the line.

It is therefore a reasonable working hypothesis that the vast preponderance are right and the others are wrong, irrespective of their respective claims to said titles and qualifications.

Fair comment too Jake, thats a definate given :wink: :lol:

Where does one draw the line ? -- I honestly don't know the right answer to that.

Effectively, any tom, **** or harry can pop out of the woodwork and 'claim' expertise.. thats true.
And in certain cases, make a reasonable fist of a convincing argument, into the bargain.

What appears to be evident is that there are two sides to this ( like any ) story, and possibly, the 'real' truth may lie some way in between the two opposing ends of the pendulum's arc. History would perhaps indicate that this is possibly the most likely reality.

From a personal perspective, I think that ( as mentioned much earlier ), an effort to 'clean up our act' can't be a bad thing.. regardless of whether its a contributory factor to changes in climate or not.
Yes, I agree that the economies of other places in the world are far more guilty than we in the UK are... however, to take the standpoint of "I can't make a difference, and therefore why should I try" , isn't perhaps the most responsible course to take.
A case of 'every little helps', if you will.
It certainly cannot do any harm.

Nice to see the whole thing 'unfolding' without descending into the 'expected slanging match' ... there is never a need for that, in my humblest of opinions - and points have been conveyed in an eloquent and considered manner.
If for no other reason.. we should take heart from that.

There will always be divided views and opinions on almost every subject under the sun, and that, again in my humble view, is a very good thing indeed.

As I mentioned earlier - I'm not an educated fella.. and I also believe that I understand and accept the limits of my intelligence.... to obtain the views and input of others, serves as another source of 'education'... and for that, I would thank the contributors to the topic unreservedly.
A most enjoyable and informative discussion ( so far )... who knows, there may yet be more !

Good stuff, people..
:wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Digit]

Agreed Jake, but that was just one example. I could damn near fill a page with others if you so desire.
Scientists are just as fallible as the rest of us, even the mighty Einstein was dismissive of quantum physics. I wasn't suggesting that something should be dismissed because of support by a majority, simply that that does not prove it to be correct. Newton's gravity laws is just another example, some theories take on a life of their own and develop legs.
Very very few theories of my childhood have stood the test of the intervening years, science moves on.

Roy.

 

[Jenx]

Hi Duncan ... sorry, I was replying to Jake, just as you posted. 8) :lol:

Thats great input...
The article used is of course but one of many many similar on the same subject.
There is, as always, lots to choose from, from many many sources.
And as ever.. an argument to counter each previous one, and to counter-counter that.
On first reading, I thought Duncan's points blow holes in the point i was making, second reading.. not so much.
Who drives at 50mph for example ? .... not many people.

However... to get an account of someone who owns the Prius, ( which I have never done ), is as good a bit of background as one can hope for,
Much appreciated 8) :lol:

 

[Jenx]

test of the intervening years, science moves on.

Roy.

Yes, thats very true.
Its off the subject entirely, but at 16.. I was treated ( for a good few subsequent years too ) for a stomach ulcer, in the 'traditional manner'

Only after the reaserch of two medical Scientists, who were, I believe Aussies, was the true cause to be eventually found.. a viral thing called Helicobacter.

Without the advancement of 'science moving on'.. I'd never have got better.

Maybe a poor example.. but it does highlight the point Roy makes. :lol: :lol:

 

[Digit]

Not really Jenx, it had more validity for you than the knowledge that Piltdown Man was a fraud.

Roy.

 

[Jenx]

I'm thinking about suggesting Piltdown drove a prius.
:wink:
But that will probably result in my being shot. :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fraud-in-a-fraud so to speak

A Fraudian Slip perhaps :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

On that note.. I think that indicates its Teatime for me ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[TrimTheKing]

...The man is an Emiritus Professor of Biogeography ...

I must have read this 20 times and every time thought 'I was with him for a while, but what the hell has a bl00dy professor who spends his whole time writing about other people's lives got to do with anything?', then I realised it said Bio-Geography and not Biography



Cheers

Mark

 

[Digit]

I'm thinking about suggesting Piltdown drove a prius.

:lol: :lol:

Roy.

 

[jlawrence]

digit - I'm better late than never I suppose. I've no idea what supposedly caused the deep water temperatures to rise - the only thing I've found online so far is that the warmer deep water supposedly originated in Antarctica. WHY ? I've no idea.
I don't really have a problem with either side of the gw discussion - though to my neither side makes any sense at times.

Just out of interest, what does peer reviewed actually mean. Is it that their peers reviewed the material to check that it was factually correct and thus the conclusions could be deemed sensible, or does it mean that they reviewed it to actually be correct - I'm don't think the two things are necessarily the same.

 

[StevieB]

Peer review means that it has been reviewed by your peers or contempories in the field. They are supposed to ensure scientific methodolgy is correct and appropriate and that any claims you make are valid based on your methodology. It doesnt mean it is correct as such, but that the interpretation is valid given the known state of play.

Steve.

 

[Digit]

That about sums it up jl. The system has been is use for many years and works pretty well to prevent 'Nature' for example from publishing rubbish.
But like most systems the it isn't perfect, there have been complaints in recent years that you can only get Nature to publish that which follows the 'official' line.
The argument that GW is caused by CO2 got to the press before those who disagree, logically as they would not be disagree till somebody had made the opposite case.
So when Nature puts your paper out to peer review it is likely to be reviewed by someone who disagrees with what you say, as a result Nature has been accused of censorship and a lot of other nasty names.
Forget the open scientific mind jl, it don't exist, opponents have been known to slag each other off in the most insulting of terms.

Roy.

 

[jlawrence]

A fully open mind is a very very rare thing in any field.
Also (as with many fields in life) money can play a massive part as to which side of the fence you sit on. I'm not saying that all scientists have been swayed by who is funding the research they're doing, but some will have been.