I wonder if the Prius driving tree huggers

Frogman

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
6,987
Reaction score
1
Location
I promise to nicer if you promise to be smarter.
know about how their cars pollute the environment.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188


March 7, 2007
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer

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’s 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 environmentalist’s 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.
 
What have I been telling you people? Oil is cheap and cleaner than other methods previously tried. Hell, it's organic: it comes from the ground! We should stick with it. We try to get cute with fuel and we outsmart ourselves.

Great article, Frogman, thanks.
 
This is more propaganda.

That stuff about about the Sudbury plant pollution dates from the 70's. Emmisions there were reduced 90 percent by 1994, and the entire area is experiencing a comeback.

Furthermore, the nickel plant in question isn't owned by Toyota, and 1000 tons is only one percent of the 100000 tons the plant produces. Nor is the nickel used exclusively in batteries. It is also used, among other things, to make stainless steel, which is used in all cars.

The CNW data is misleading, since they include cost of R & D in their measurements, which is obviously going to be higher with a new technology.

By the way, how is the Prius' 46 MPG within "spitting distance" of the Aveo's 27?
 
YOU are misleading propaganda.

The last car made primarily of stainless steel was the DeLorean, back in the 80s. There were only 2,700 made.

Although cars have stainless steel in them, most cars are primarily made of aluminum or fiberglass. Stainless steel contains primarily molybdenum and iron, and very little nickel is used. Often nickel is NOT used to make stainless steel, as chromium and other metals are substituted.
 
Good grief, I know cars aren't made entirely of stainless steel. Nevertheless, Stainless steel is used in exhausts and other parts, and the type that is generally used in exhausts (409) contains nickel. Nickel has other uses in cars as well.
 
Face it Tommy, you have failed to debunk Frogman's article. Your attempt is to twist the facts and distract from the issue, which is mainly that the Prius isn't the wondermobile it was cracked up to be, and in fact contributes to damaging the environment. But we all know that you and your statist envirochondriacs want nothing more than to punish Americans for having the audacity to want to live an affluent life. Why, how dare we presume to enjoy our lives when there is so much pain and sufferin' in the rest of the world! (HRUMPH)
 
What did Tommy mislead about?

1) The plant itself isn't as pollution heavy as it was in the 70's with a 90% improvement.

2) Toyota only uses 1.0% of the mines nickel produce for the Prius.

3) The Prius if driven in urban areas for which it was designed; still gets better gas mileage than other small conventional cars.
 
Face it Tommy, you have failed to debunk Frogman's article. Your attempt is to twist the facts and distract from the issue, which is mainly that the Prius isn't the wondermobile it was cracked up to be, and in fact contributes to damaging the environment. But we all know that you and your statist envirochondriacs want nothing more than to punish Americans for having the audacity to want to live an affluent life. Why, how dare we presume to enjoy our lives when there is so much pain and sufferin' in the rest of the world! (HRUMPH)
I honestly have no stake in this issue whatsoever, as I couldn't care less who drives a Prius and who doesn't. Nor do I have any desire to tell people what they can and can't drive. Hell, I'm the proud owner of a gas-guzzling, 15 MPG city, Mark VIII myself. The only problem I have is with those who deliberately use misleading, obsolete, or just plain false information to pooh-pooh people who own these cars. One doesn't have to be a tree-hugging hippie to appreciate the fact that they require fewer trips to the gas station and less money to fill up. They may feel that the extra money spent up front is worth the trouble.

And whether you believe I "debunked" the story or not, the fact is that much of it is inaccurate.
 
Eh. Unfortunately, we will never be able to come to a consensus. On one hand, you have the people who think Al Gore is the 2nd coming of the environmentalists, and on the other hand you have the people who see the facts for what they are, and realize this whole global warming thing is just a farce.

Global warming, and the NE has had the worst storms in how long? Where was Gore when the NE got pounded? I'm sorry, but he's a hypocrite. What were his electricity consumptions last year? How big of a house? What about those private jets he treks in? Is he too good to fly with us, the common folk?

Hell, even one of the British princes (I cant remember which one), took a commercial flight to NY, foregoing his own private jet, to accept some environmental award earlier this year.
 
What you guys don't seem to get is that climate and weather are not the same thing. Weather is short-term, climate is long-term. As much as you guys love to post stories about cold weather as "proving" that global warming doesn't exist, local weather has very little effect on the global temperature trend. While February turned out to be fairly harsh for certain areas of the US, the overall temperature was a little above average for the month. Perhaps the reason everyone made such a big deal about it is because it followed the warmest January on record. The NOAA found that the three month period of December to February was also the warmest on record:

Global Highlights
The global land and ocean surface temperature was the 6th warmest on record in February, but a record warm January helped push the boreal winter (December-February) to its highest value since records began in 1880 (1.30°F/0.72°C above the 20th century mean). The presence of El Niño conditions contributed to the season's record warmth, but the episode rapidly weakened in February as ocean temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled more than 0.5°F/0.3°C and were near average for the month.

Separately, the global December-February land-surface temperature was the warmest on record while the ocean-surface temperature tied for second warmest in the 128-year period of record, approximately 0.1°F (0.06°C) cooler than the record established during the very strong El Niño episode of 1997-1998.

During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11°F (0.06°C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32°F (0.18°C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
Even the skeptics can no longer deny, as they used to, that the overall climate is warming. They've changed their agenda from denying global warming as a whole to denying man's role in it. And yes Fossten, the word "deny" is perfectly appropriate, as these guys explicitly deny that man has any effect on the climate. They're the ones making the connection to "holocaust denial", a ridiculous argument whose only purpose is to change the subject.
 
Let me ask you a question, Tommy. And yes, this is a test. It is a test to see if you can be intellectually honest.

Let's say that Al Gore and his camp were advocating Global Cooling; warning that we are heading toward an ice age, a la 1975. In other words, pretend his message was exactly reversed.

Do you really believe that the GC crowd would be advocating as measures to counteract this so-called cooling:

More SUVs
More carbon emissions
More industry
More capitalism
A wider hole in the ozone layer
More Edison-style light bulbs
Melting of the polar icecaps
More burning of fossil fuels
More pollution and smog
Running home heating and air at max depending on the season

I await your answer with bated breath. I am sure that you will attempt to sidestep the question in some way.
 
So then the climatologists wetting their undies in the 70's because we were "headed towards and ice age" is just junk?
The only thing that's junk is most people's faulty memories of it. The National Academy of Sciences wrote a report in 1975 that discussed the possibility of a long-term cooling trend, but they made it perfectly clear that the data was far from complete, and that they still had only a rudimentary understanding of the processes at work:

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

The report went on to propose more study:

"Our response to the concerns [about climate variations] is the proposal of a major new program of reseach designed to increase our understanding of climatic change and to lay the foundation for its prediction".

Here's where al the fuss started:

"there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years".

Hardly the stuff of "bed wetters". They made it clear again and again that they didn't have the data to make any predictions at that time. At worst, they simply laid out some possibilities.

It was a few in the popular press (mostly Newsweek) that blew out of proportion what was in fact an even-handed assessment of the current state of our knowledge. Newsweek took the report and pretty much made it sound like an ice age was just around the corner, when in fact, the report made no such predictions.

So the notion that scientists were predicting an imminent ice age is mostly a myth.

Also, don't confuse the talk about ice ages with the hubbub in the 80's about "nuclear winter", which was a different thing entirely.
 
Is that why the climatologists wanted to sprinkle some sort of heat absorbing dust at the polar ice caps, to retain heat?

Arguably, this whole global warming debate is useless. Try following the money, and see who will benefit from the Global warming "issue".

Look into what companies Gore owns.
 
Is that why the climatologists wanted to sprinkle some sort of heat absorbing dust at the polar ice caps, to retain heat?

Arguably, this whole global warming debate is useless. Try following the money, and see who will benefit from the Global warming "issue".

Look into what companies Gore owns.
Indeed, let's follow the money.
 
Al Gore’s Untimely Global Warming Speech
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: March 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


Former Vice President Al Gore unwittingly marked the 20th anniversary of 1984, the anti-utopia described in George Orwell’s 1949 novel, by delivering a twenty-first century version of Orwell’s feared “newspeak.”

Gore chose January 15, 2004, one of the coldest days in New York City’s history, to rail against the Bush administration and global warming skeptics for their insistence that science should guide public policy, rather than the other way around. Global warming, Gore told a startled audience, is causing record cold temperatures.

“The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming,” Gore claimed. “The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes.”


Oook, then. According to Gore himself, Climate and weather play into the whole Global warming farce.

Gore added, “I am particularly concerned because the vast majority of the most respected environmental scientists from all over the world have sounded a clear and urgent alarm.”

Again with the bullchit. The most respected scientists, huh?

Profiting from Alarmism

According to Gore’s climatespeak, global warming theory can be validated by record cold temperatures just as easily as warmer temperatures. Do most scientists really believe this? In a word, no.

Thousands of scientists worldwide reject Gore’s version of global warming theory. More than 17,000 of them have signed a petition saying no convincing scientific evidence supports the theory of catastrophic global warming, nor is there evidence to link human activities to such warming. You can read the petition for yourself at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm.


These scientists and other global warming skeptics, argued Gore, have all been deceived by an evil force called The Polluters. “They are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, out of a fear that their profits might be affected,” Gore said.

This is more climatespeak. Scientists who feed the climate change scare stand the best chance of collecting the billions of dollars in government grants allocated for global warming research every year, and scholarly journals are more apt to publish their articles. Environmental groups raise billions of dollars each year by featuring global warming in their newsletters and fundraising letters.

Even big energy companies, like Enron, have actively lobbied the federal government to cap greenhouse gas emissions and adopt an emissions credit trading system, because they are well-positioned to earn additional profits from such trading. Some big petroleum companies, like BP and Shell, lobby for greenhouse gas emission caps that would increase the value of their natural gas holdings.


Investing in Science

The U.S. has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990--three times as much as any other country. The more we learn about the causes and consequences of climate change, the less tenable the theory of global warming becomes.


Science has documented that the polar ice caps are not threatened by catastrophic melting. Sea levels have not risen. Satellite measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere show no warming trend. Paleoclimatologists report natural variability that is more extensive, and occurs more rapidly, than previously supposed.


In a twist of logic that would impress Orwell himself, the global warming alarmists claim further research is unnecessary and the equivalent of moral cowardice. Orwell’s thought police realized the scientific method was the enemy of the dictatorship and newspeak; similarly, science is the enemy of climatespeak.

Not only do the alarmists mimic Orwell’s thought police, but they call to mind a scene from another science fiction classic, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. A discrepancy between human impression and a computer’s computations “can only be attributable to human error,” reports HAL the computer. Alarmists allege that the satellite data--thought to be accurate to within 0.01° C-- are unreliable because of human error in interpreting the data. Yet they rely uncritically on data from land-based stations that have seen changes in physical surroundings and measurement techniques that make them far less reliable.


Even James Hansen, who first brought global warming to the public consciousness with his dire climate predictions in the late 1980s, now acknowledges alarmist global warming scenarios are largely overstated and have become increasingly unlikely as technology has progressed.

He's not an alarmist anymore, so he must be a wacko, right?


Before we hand over our economy and personal freedoms to today’s version of Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984, we need to take a deep breath, study the facts, and base our decisions on science rather than climatespeak. Or as HAL would suggest, “calm down; take a stress pill and think things over.”


http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14563

Fossten, you can prolly find this info, but Gore was supposed to give some sort of speech last week or a couple of weeks ago to some government entity, but he didn't submit his material until several? hours before his speech. Tommy, why did he do this, when he had to have his side of the argument in 48 hours before his speech? Maybe because he knew the panel would have scientists debunking him?


Look. We can do this all damned day. The silly alarmists can quote websites just like the realistic people can. Unfortunately, it's hard to convince someone from either camp with your "proof", alarmist or realist. I've seen past Gore and his "global Warming" farce. I've weighed the issue, and I have come to the conclussion that its all horsechit. You, apparently have come to the opposite of my conclussion, and that is fine. I will still drive my stinky pulloting cars, I will still make my yearly bonfire you can prolly see from space, and I will still "pollute" the environment by not recycling (there's another joke). And you know what? I'll bet you the planet will still truck on.
 
Sorry for the double post...

In 2004, Gore created a U.K. business called Generation Investment Management (GIM). GIM was established to take investments in technologies and processes that ostensibly combat global warming. In other words, Gore has a major interest in an organization that is poised to generate windfall profits should global-warming hysteria spread. Talk about a conflict of interest!

Writing at Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard distills Dan Riehl's brilliant work. Riehl, aided by The Tennessean, has exposed a fascinating grift at the heart of Al Gore's panic-mongering:

* First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism

* Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population

* Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act

* Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists

* Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in

* Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens

America -- what a country!

Dan Riehl concludes his piece with a wonderful and accurate sentiment: If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth.
 
You're right, we can go back and forth forever. Quoting an article from the right-wing Heartland Institute is like me quoting straight from the left-wing Sierra Club website. Neither of us will buy what the other's selling. I could go through all that's wrong in your article (which is nearly all of it), but it'd just be a waste of my time, and this realist is exhausted.
 
Let me ask you a question, Tommy. And yes, this is a test. It is a test to see if you can be intellectually honest.

Let's say that Al Gore and his camp were advocating Global Cooling; warning that we are heading toward an ice age, a la 1975. In other words, pretend his message was exactly reversed.

Do you really believe that the GC crowd would be advocating as measures to counteract this so-called cooling:

More SUVs
More carbon emissions
More industry
More capitalism
A wider hole in the ozone layer
More Edison-style light bulbs
Melting of the polar icecaps
More burning of fossil fuels
More pollution and smog
Running home heating and air at max depending on the season

I await your answer with bated breath. I am sure that you will attempt to sidestep the question in some way.
Since global cooling isn't what's happening, I don't see the point in this silly exercise. I will say that other than "more industry" and "more capitalism", which have completely ambiguous meanings, most of those things have deleterious effects unrelated to global warming. So no, I wouldn't advocate them.

Of the two exceptions, there is nothing inherently wrong with either. Only you, with your "alarmist" predictions of economic doom and gloom, apparently see them as incompatible with a cleaner environment.
 
i dont know about the Prius, but there is a new Altima Hybrid I would much rather drive :D
 
I would drive that new lexus hybrid... but thats about it...
 
Since global cooling isn't what's happening, I don't see the point in this silly exercise. I will say that other than "more industry" and "more capitalism", which have completely ambiguous meanings, most of those things have deleterious effects unrelated to global warming. So no, I wouldn't advocate them.

Of the two exceptions, there is nothing inherently wrong with either. Only you, with your "alarmist" predictions of economic doom and gloom, apparently see them as incompatible with a cleaner environment.

I knew you'd dodge the question. The fact is that GW is nothing but a scam to take over our economy and hand it to the UN. If you had half a brain, you'd realize that if the opposite were being preached by Al Gore and his religious fanatics, they would NOT advocate increasing capitalistic and industrial ventures, EVEN IF IT WAS CERTAIN THAT THOSE THINGS WOULD CHANGE THE CLIMATE. This is not about SAVING THE PLANET, this is about CO-OPTING THE UNITED STATES.

And the only people advocating doom and gloom are you GW envirochondriacs. Talk about PROJECTION. You take the cake.

Frogman, it was the Senate that Gore "testified" in front of. They bent over backwards to allow him to speak, and he still broke the rules and refused to submit his paperwork ahead of time. Not only that, but he refused to be in the chamber listening while opposing viewpoints were being heard.

"LALALALALALALALALALALALA I can't hear you LALALALALALALALA!"

The man is seriously deranged. Let's all trust our nation's economic future to Prince Albert. [/sarcasm]
 
Let's all trust our nation's economic future to Prince Albert.

Phone rings at the tobacco shop.
Shop Owner: Hello...
Customer: Hi, Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
Shop Owner: Why yes we do!
Customer: Would you please let him out.:D
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top