Hidden cost of driving a Prius

Holy crap, man. I haven't even been on these forums for 3 weeks, and this is like the 10th time this fricking article has been posted -- IN THOSE THREE WEEKS.

Use the search function, and you can read the arguments against this crappy article for about 16 hours.

Yes ... there ARE that many posts.

:angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Somechic @ Apr 4 2007, 07:47 AM) [snapback]417568[/snapback]</div>

Wow, is this blatant plagiarism or what? Both articles claim, with no support, that Toyota uses Nickel primarily or exclusively from a single mine, while recycled Nickel is far cheaper. Never mind that many "American" cars use raw metal materials from the US (such as steel) which are transported to China, then Mexico or Canada, then back to the US for "final assembly". This is the result of having cheap labor on the other side of the planet. Do these editorials ultimately argue against a global economy? The "dust-to-dust" impacts for the Prius are already published, yet not referenced in these "articles" http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf So the suggestion that three and a half tons of Hummer may be more environmentally friendly that a Prius is clearly absurd. And you have to love the use of a marketing firm for hard data on environmental impacts.

Notice that the "borrowed" version is missing the original references to violating the laws of physics
"As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving."
Well, granted, this is true if you're driving your car in the vacuum of space.

The size of Sudbury's smokestack is relevant how?

These editorials are so obviously rhetorical slander that one wonders where the Exxon paychecks were cashed.



Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro

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.

 

This article is like a bad penny; it just keeps coming back. Someone should drive a wooden stake into its cold, dark heart.

Tom

 

Can we shut up with this stupid article? It's total bullsh*t. Every time it pops up on here I want to swear my mouth off.

 

Suggestion: When members needlessly mention the name of a particular dictator, PriusChat Hitler appears.

We need something like this when "Dust to Dust" and the Sudbury nickel plant appears.

 

Maybe we should take it upon ourselves to write "Hidden savings in driving a Prius" and distribute it worldwide?

 

I've adapted a comment I had posted initially on Priuschat and then in numerous places about Demorro's article into an initial blog entry titled "The Myth that Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage."
http://wallofcheese.blogspot.com/

You also digg the blog here:
http://www.digg.com/environment/Prius_Does...onmental_Damage

If any Priuschat members would like to offer suggestions regarding rewrites, improvements please PM them to me and I'll incorporate them when I get time. And of course if any members with more visible sites want to incorporate its content please feel free.

I'm so tired of this stupid story.

 

Hate to even bump this thread, but I got fed up and wrote the editors and author.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Apr 4 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]417584[/snapback]</div>

Is your moderator hat on as you say that?

I'm normally pretty tolerant and try not to be critical of other PC members, but I tend to agree with Snowdog. When posts like this come from a would-be troll, we pretty much have to shrug it off. In the rare case it comes from a newbie genuinely interested in the truth, we can politely debunk it (yet again). But from a veteran member of a year and a half with over 100 posts ...?!

Somechic, with all due respect, please don't shoot from the hip. Check this stuff out before posting. Thanks for listening to our venting. It's obviously struck a nerve.

 

Maybe we need a sticky that has a link to the article and the reasons why the article is wrong.

 

Did they pull the article? I got a 404 on that link. Anyways, the article was dated today. I think that it's actually interesting to see the morphology of this ridiculous "argument" unfold.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 4 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]417683[/snapback]</div>

Naw, I could still find it. Just the first link was bad.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/200...ng_a_Prius.html

 

While this "junk science" can be annoying and tiresome to many of us, it becomes dangerously credible when it is picked-up by the mainstream media. I encourage anyone with concise, factual responses to respond immediately with commentaries or "letters to the editor" to any news outlet disseminating such misleading information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mywhitenoise @ Apr 4 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]417609[/snapback]</div>

You missed the point, it isn't just "this stupid article" anymore, it's been re-written with minor corrections and more finesse by another author.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prianista @ Apr 4 2007, 10:33 AM) [snapback]417690[/snapback]</div>

You're too correct. Do a google search on DeMorrow's title. The radical conservative sites are all referencing this "editorial" as a factual source.

 

Another one for the list

 

Letter to Philadelphia Inquirer followed by info on ultraright Exxon hitman James Martin of the Exxon funded 60Plus Association
others can write to:
[email protected]
Ideologically motivated Americans are free to use the media to champion their causes. especially on the commentary page. But when the Philadelphia Inquirer refuses to properly identify the real affiliation of highly partisan groups on the extreme right like the 60 Plus Association, they do a disservice to their readers.. Posting a ‘nonpartisan’ tag on James L. Martin and 60 Plus Association is like saying that Karl Rove and the Republican party are nonpartisan. James L. Martin sued President Clinton for increasing the scope of, and the funding for, a report on climate change by the US Global Change Research Program.
Although Martin’s 60 Plus bills itself as a non-partisan organization, its electioneering messages in 2002 exclusively benefited Republicans. Martin, the group's president, has long been associated with Republican politics. Among other things, the group's Web site advertises that Martin "was instrumental" in hiring George W. Bush for his first job in politics to work on the successful 1968 U.S. Senate campaign of Edward J. Gurney (R-Fla.).1
Martin’s claims regarding the Prius vs Hummer would be laughable if not for the fact that some unsuspecting seniors or juniors may actually believe him. The research group he sites in yesterdays commentary, CNW Marketing Research has been totally discredited on their so called ‘study’. Funny that the same study has been sited by Rush Limbaugh that other bastion of ‘nonpartisan’ propaganda. Martin’s group has stated,
“Although global warming alarmists believe carbon dioxide and other man-made greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, they’ve never documented that case with hard science.†Source: 60 Plus Association Op-Ed
Such pseudoscience fraud is the same as the tobacco industries assault on Science from 1960 to the present. Although this time the consequences are global. Listen to the report on Friday from the IPCC. Ignore, NO stamp out the special interest energy ‘nonpartisans’ like Martin who will join the scientific historical trashheap of such forebearers as the Flat Earth Society.

(Background and sources.)
In the 2002 election campaigns, the 60 Plus Association paid for issue ads on local radio and TV stations across the country saying that local Republican candidates "care for seniors" so much that they "passed a prescription drug bill" that saved us from an inept government bureaucracy meddling with health plan benefits.
Though 60 Plus claims to be a citizens' group, they are actually a front group for the pharmaceutical industry. That bill died in the senate, but Big Pharma paid them and similar front groups well - more than $5 million dollars by most accounts (see below). The misinformation of those 'soft money' issue ads helped elect a lot of drug-industry-friendly congresspersons.
The 60 Plus Association has championed the pharmaceutical industry in mass mailings, press releases, lobbying and law suits since its inception. It was one of three associations that backed the "astroturf" issue ads of Citizens for Better Medicare (a drug industry front group) during the 2000 elections. It is currently supporting a lawsuit by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America against the state of Maine (in a "friend of the court" brief) for daring to try to pass a law that will authentically reduce prices for Medicare drugs by allowing the state to buy in bulk directly from manufacturers. It has also joined a lawsuit against the FCC regarding campaign reform (specifically -surprise!- they support soft money for issue ads).
The AARP Bulletin of February, 2003, has an excellent, well-researched article explaining this subversion of the democratic process by 60 Plus and two other astroturf organizations (United Seniors Association and the Senior Coalition). It notes that none of these groups have significant membership roles or community bases. "All three organizations claim to speak for millions of older Americans, although as recently as 2001 none of the three listed any revenue from membership dues on their tax returns," it states. "Moreover, an investigation by the AARP Bulletin shows that virtually all of their largest contributions in recent years have come from the same source - the nation's pharmaceutical industry." [1
60 Plus President Jim Martin told the British Medical Journal in 2003 that his group had 225,000 donors, whom he said he would not disclose to protect their privacy.10 But in 2002, 60 Plus received nearly $11 million (91 percent of its total revenue) from a single undisclosed donor, according to the group's Form 990 filing with the IRS.11

It is quite likely that such a large contribution came from the pharmaceutical industry. The Washington Post reported that 60 Plus was the beneficiary of an unrestricted educational grant in 2002 from PhRMA, the trade association of the brand name prescription drug industry;12 AARP Bulletin reported that 60 Plus received contributions in 2001 from PhRMA and from drug giants Pfizer, Merck and Wyeth-Ayerst.13
http://www.stealthpacs.org/profile.cfm?org_id=27

Although 60 Plus bills itself as a non-partisan organization, its electioneering messages in 2002 exclusively benefited Republicans. Martin, the group's president, has long been associated with Republican politics. Among other things, the group's Web site advertises that Martin "was instrumental" in hiring George W. Bush for his first job in politics to work on the successful 1968 U.S. Senate campaign of Edward J. Gurney (R-Fla.).1
3 March, 2004
Although global warming alarmists believe carbon dioxide and other man-made greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, they’ve never documented that case with hard science.
Source: 60 Plus Association Op-Ed


3 October, 2000
Filed a lawsuit against President Clinton for increasing the scope of, and the funding for, a report on climate change by the US Global Change Research Program.
Source: "Lawmakers, Groups Sue Over National Assessment on Climate Change," Greenwire, 10/5/2000


1 Jim Martin, "The Funding Father of the Conservative Movement," Washington Times, Sept. 20, 2003.
2 Public Citizen's analysis of data contained in the New Stealth PACs database. Data collected from groups' Web sites and annual tax forms, press reports, academic papers on activities of independent political groups and interviews by Public Citizen research staff.
3 Erik Eckholm, "Fear In The Mail," New York Times, Nov. 12, 1992.
4 Public Citizen's analysis of data contained in the New Stealth PACs database. Data collected from groups' Web sites and annual tax forms, press reports, academic papers on activities of independent political groups and interviews by Public Citizen research staff.
5 Public Citizen's analysis of data contained in the New Stealth PACs database. Data collected from groups' Web sites and annual tax forms, press reports, academic papers on activities of independent political groups and interviews by Public Citizen research staff.
6 Daniel Smith, "Distorted by Outside Money: National Parties and the Race for Colorado's Seventh Congressional District," in "The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections," edited by David E. Magelby and J. Quin Monson, 2003.
7 America 21 2002 direct mail piece, collected by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, Brigham Young University, 2002.
8 Seniors Coalition 2002 Direct Mail Piece, collected by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, Brigham Young University, 2002.
9 60 Plus 2002 direct mail piece, collected by the Center for the Study in Elections in Democracy, 2002.
10 Roy Moynihan, "U.S. Seniors Group Attacks Pharmaceutical Industry 'Fronts,'" British Medical Journal, Feb. 15, 2003.
11 60 Plus 990 form, 2002.
12 Thomas B. Edsall, "High Drug Prices Return As Issue That Stirs Voters; New Challenges for a Lobby Used to Spending," Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2002.
13 Bill Hogan, "Pulling Strings From Afar," AARP Bulletin, February 2003.
14 60 Plus 990 forms, 1999-2002.
15 IRS Form 990 Instructions, Line 81, 2003. (Available at www.irs.gov.)
16 Public Citizen's analysis of data contained in the New Stealth PACs database. Data collected from groups' Web sites and annual tax forms, press reports, academic papers on activities of independent political groups and interviews by Public Citizen research staff.
17 60 Plus Web site. (Available at www.60plus.org. Accessed on May 26, 2004.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(drsurd @ Apr 4 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]417729[/snapback]</div>

Wow. Nice first post. Welcome to Priuschat!