I pissed off an SUV driver today, unintentionally...

When at a stop light and a suv is beside me, I like to accelerate fast.... for a few seconds just to pass them.... and then I hear them accelerate hard and then I back off...... letting them pass me...... oh what a feeling..... Toyota.

 

Haha yeah that video is a classic around here. She makes us all look like we're batshit crazy.

 

+1 Having the courage to standup to the aggressor.
I hate when people behave in that way.
I despise the ones that do it to "defenseless" targets.

I've lived in NY for a little bit too, so I won't encourage doing that too often. Reasons, #1 It's against the law "it is unlawful for a person to carry, exhibit, display or draw any weapons in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. A violation is a gross misdemeanor."
#2 Where I've lived Queens, Brooklyn, and near Bronx, I hope you have something more than a baseball bat when they pull out their "piece" "When you draw, you better be ready to use it."
#3 If things did get ugly, the witnesses that would have been on your side will now be against you. Most shopping areas now have cameras. Not to mention there is no running from the law even after you come out on top. (Video, witnesses, and your license plate)
I'm on your side, just looking out for your personal safety Stick with some annoyance tactics for now

Call me crazy, but sometimes I think the world would be a better place .
::Warning contains profanity and violence::

 

No need to worry, I live 4.5 hours north of NYC, things are a little less civilised out here. There are many "hicks" and "rednecks" out here, and though I live in a city (Syracuse), there are still many farms in Central New York. I would never mess with someone who looks too suspicious, but he looked like he was being all high and mighty in his gas-guzzling piece of crap, that he was driving in alone. Plus, I could counterclaim him for threatening my safety with aggressive driving and attempted vehicular assault. Alls good

 

That clip was hilarious. hahaha

 

I just see all these anti-Prius videos, but they all start like halfway after the aggressor has pissed off the Prius driver, making the Prius owner look like an nice person unfairly. Then you get all these dumb nice person comments that the Prius is less environmental when that myth has been debunked hundreds of times!!!!!

 

It was in the name of good fun.

I don't condone extreme violence, but I believe in an eye for an eye. (Equal or slightly more force to overcome the aggressor in self-defense)

For those of you who would say "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I say to you, as long as I am the last one standing I'll still have an eye

 

not enough time to finish the story gtg

 

Yes I agree with you.

 

I believe that it has nothing to do with big oil.

The Prius was for years the symbol of liberal eco-green "nuts," as a lot of the drivers of the gas-eating trucks would think.

In the early years, this was largely true, as those who prioritized technology and ecology (often associated with California), plus has more cash to purchase a Prius (also associated with the higher cost-of-living and higher salaries of the west coast) were early adopters of hybrids.

Now, however, with well over a million Prius on the road, the Prius is a PROVEN vehicle.

Now anyone who is interested in technology or in saving money on gas could consider one, as long as they can overcome the mindset that it is a liberal-only green-freak car.

One can also help to overcome that mindset by not driving in a way that suggests that Prius drivers will inconvenience all traffic behind them in order to save a few cents on their own gas.

Though the slow-driving Prius owner may save a few more cents, they waste the time and gas of other drivers who do not have the advantage of a vehicle who can plod along on an electric motor that was not designed to operate at normal road conditions WITHOUT THE GASOLINE ENGINE.

If a Prius driver dislikes the gasoline engine, then they have the option to purchase a vehicle that does not have an engine. These vehicles (EV) are DESIGNED to accelerate and drive without a gasoline engine, which is why they do not have one.

If Prius drivers--no matter what their political leanings--drive the Prius as it was designed to operate, then we can win over a significant portion of that "clueless" population.

 

While I agree 99% with your post, you didn't provide enough evidence to refute the big oil conspiracy theory.

 

I wasn't trying to directly refute it. Hence the "I believe" statement rather than a "this is the way it is" statement.

Just providing another significant piece of the "hate on Prius" mindset, and one that we can actually work to improve!

I suppose that it also makes sense that companies and organizations that profit from gasoline sales would also be opposed to more fuel-efficient cars, but gasoline is just one of many products that are produced from a barrel of crude. Gasoline makes up about 44% of the product--other products being things like kerosene, jet fuel, and the plastics that are so useful to us.

I think that the demand for that fraction of crude used to make gasoline also far outstrips the supply from that fraction, so I don't see how a minority of hybrid cars could pose any serious threat to "big oil." A reduction in overall gasoline demand might even help oil companies balance out supply and demand for the different fractions of crude.

Unfortunately, I study civil engineering rather than chemical engineering, so my knowledge of hydrocarbons is limited to the overview I got in college chemistry & organic chemistry. It's an interesting subject though, so I ordered a used copy of "Chemical Storylines" by George Burton which looks to be a fun read that covers the topic.

 

Well here is my take on it, and my take it simple. Many cars around the world that are diesel can surpass the Prius in mileage easily. The EV1 was made back in the 80s as an all electric car. There were some cars back in the 80s and 90s that were manual and could easily get 30-45mpg. Most of these items have been held back by low demand and high prices due to consumers not thinking the technology or the types of fuels are good (ie electric batteries and diesel). Many people in Europe do not find Hybrids to be all that amazing because of the diesel cars in Europe that easily get 45mpg for half the price of a Prius, you do the math. Point is, the electric car as you stated is the most viable for those of us who want to save the environment. I want to save the environment and money, however, I live in Upstate New York and the cold weather, lack of charging stations in most areas I visit, and crappy traffic conditions have hindered it for now with the range given by most mainstream electrics like the Leaf or even the Prius Plug in (that still has a petrol engine). Charging stations are growing, oil prices are soaring, and battery technology is getting better. Once I see an electric with a 100-200 mile range, I will gladly buy it. However, I also live in an apartment, so that is why the Prius is the current car I own.

 

As end-users of products, it is easy for us to become myopic and only focus on the environmental impacts of the use phase of a product.

Environmental impacts occur not just during the use phase, but instead span creation of the product from raw materials all the way to disposal. You must consider the acquisition of the raw materials, processing of raw materials, manufacturing of your product, your use of the product, the disposal of the product when you are done with it, and the transportation of pieces and products each step of the way. It is no easy calculus.

If you really want to be honest about whether you are helping the environment, then you need to perform (or acquire) a complete life-cycle analysis of the product.

The lithium batteries used in electric cars are one sticking point.

Batteries are not all equal--not in capacity to hold energy of course, but not at all equal in ease and economics of recycling, either.

The common lead-acid (low capacity) batteries are so simple and economic to recycle that 95% of them are recycled (though not all parts get recycled).

Recycling the nickel metal-hydride battery is a step above in complexity and cost, but still doable.

Recycling the lithium battery is so costly and difficult that only a few plants have developed demonstration models to attempt it (Umicore in Belgium is one of them). It involves shredding the batteries, sending the pieces through a blast furnace, and then ending up with mixed ingots that need further processing and slag that needs disposal. The processing (and transportation for processing) makes recycled lithium cost 5x as much as virgin lithium, not to mention the environmental effects of all that processing. So it is only going to happen if a company is willing to eat the cost of doing it, as Tesla appears to be willing to attempt. Whether the company will be able to sustain the attempt fiscally is a gamble.

The point is that we cannot only focus on our use of a product and claim that we are being environmentally conscious.

I am as guilty as the next person since I purchased my Prius without performing a lifecycle assessment on it. However I do not claim to be helping the environment by my purchase. In all honesty, I don't know.

No one knows until they have done the math, and since environmental issues are so heavily politicized, I would only trust my own research.

 

Oh boy, the only reason that I bought a Prius was because I thought it was a sleek cool looking sports car.

Well, at least I drive it like it's one.

 

I don't buy it. I do know for a fact that big oil tried to suppress electric cars in many ways. The most visible was restriction of large format NiMH batteries.

Cobasys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's incredibly easy to fund "astroturfing" or fake grass roots campaign. It costs 50 cents a successful negative post from China. This and TV commercials is how Exxon was able to brainwash US population and politicians that global warming doesn't exist. Sad, but true.

 

Since you know it for a fact, and even have irrefutable Wikipedia evidence, then there is no point in me bringing engineering into the discussion.

END OF LINE

 

I understand environmental science, I am studying it. Yes there is the resource harvesting, collection, creation/manufacture processes, transport, delivery to place of sale, use/lifetime, and then disposal/end of product lifetime. However, looking at is with chemistry and physics, there is NO disput among scientists that carbon emissions are dooming us all. Most scientists agree upon their studies, hence it is science, NOT politics. You can't say it is all politicized. Those of us who study science do not politicize it. It's SCIENCE! Not religion or art, so it is NOT open to interpretation!!!!!!! Scientific Law is fact unless more factual facts come along, however, with current science facts are just building, and less is being "revised" or "edited."

 

If we are going to be realistic, as a "realistic" environmentalist, I personally see Hydrogen Fuel cells and Compressed Air cars as the MOST environmental, but batteries are good to. It is important to see life in priorities of pollution. Air is #1 because nothing can function without an atmosphere and stable climate. Then we can worry about everything from there, and if batteries buy us some time, we will develop better tech and find cleaner ways to recycle the old. This is technological advancement and scientifically evidenced. To say science is just politics is like saying science is a bunch of lies, which is foolish as those who have never stood on the side of science always end up looking like an idiot. Not but a few hundred years ago people were convinced the earth was flat because of a religion and the people who fought it were imprisoned for heresy!!!!

 

Hydrogen has a major storage issue.

For one, though its energy by unit mass looks awesome (higher than gasoline), its energy density (per volume) is abysmal.

At 1 atmosphere, it is 270 Btu/cu foot. For comparison, gasoline is 836,000 Btu/cu ft.

Compress that to 3000 psi (about what CNG uses) and and it bumps up to 48,900 Btu/cu ft, still a fraction of the energy of gasoline. By the way, CNG at 3000 psi is 184,100 Btu/cu ft, beating hydrogen by nearly a factor of four.

Compress that to a pretty insane 10,000 psi and hydrogen has 121,000 Btu/cu foot, still less than CNG at 3000, and also don't forget that compressing a gas takes energy, too.

Supercool the hydrogen to liquid (that takes energy, too), and it is 227,850 Btu/cu ft. It takes roughly 30% of the liquid hydrogen's energy value to cool it to a liquid state.

And then there is the phenomenon known as "hydrogen embrittlement" which can cause materials exposed to hydrogen to become brittle and catastrophically fail (which is a concern at high compression).

Hydrogen is also flammable and explosive over a wide range of temperatures and concentrations--a much larger range than gasoline. During daylight hours, burning hydrogen is invisible; only made visible by inserting another combustible object into the flame.

Hydrogen is also challenging to store, as its molecule is the smallest one out there so it can leak through materials that are otherwise considered impermeable to air. Due to its extremely light nature, once it escapes it also zooms spaceward. When it reaches the ozone layer, it can combine with the ozone (O3) to form H2O, which plays havoc with our precious ozone layer.

The production of hydrogen for use as fuel is also not extremely efficient. The cracking of water into hydrogen and oxygen and subsequent recombination in a fuel cell is only 40 to 60% efficient, lower than most batteries.

I am sorry, but I don't think that you have studied the science enough to to claim to speak for science.