Hummer beats a Prius in environmentally friendly tests

[moon111]

I don't care who's right or wrong, if anything, hopefully the article makes people think. There's allot of factors people don't consider regarding the environment.

The environmental cost of manufacturing. The amount of materials in a vehicle that can be recycled. Materials that can't be recycled. The lifespan of the vehicle. And vehicle use.

Of course we know, most Hummers are bought as a status symbol. But they reall do have different roles. If the Hummer actually carried more then one person, that also would be a factor. Divide fuel economy per passenger. I've never driven a Prius, but I won't even look a vehicle that small. Even in mid-size vehicles, it gets tough to fit people in.

Personally I have an old truck. I need a truck. I don't need it 75% of the time, but you drive the gas-guzzling beast because another smaller vehicle isn't affordable. Want to help the environment? Pass a law that you insure a driver, not the vehicle. For basic transportation, I'd drive a smaller car. I'd also be able to fix my truck so it ran properly. A little unburnt fuel never hurt anyone right? But at least it gets me to work. Also, it isn't rocket science to update older carburated vehicles to a modern day fuel injection. Pass laws that certain parts are universal. Easy, cheaper parts, the longer cars can remain on the road and the less energy required remanufactering. Car companies are also very bad at controlling rust... because they know people will be back to buy a new vehicle. My buddy got over 500,000 kms on his truck... it could of kept on going if it weren't for rust. Make every place that serves gas provide free air. Just think how much fuel could be saved with properly inflated tires?

As a side note off topic. In my hometown of Thunder Bay, the paper mills have to have so much recycled paper and so much of that has to be from consumer recycling. Well the only way they can get that much consumer recycled material is by buying it from a place like Toronto and shipping it. That shipping hurts the environment more then it would spending the money to just plant more trees. The other recycled materials come from fresh rolls of paper. They calculate how much is needed, drive a forklift into new fresh rolls to damage them. Now, they toss them back into the process. Processing the paper again also hurts the environment more then simply planting new trees. The paper waste is biodegradable, so it can be simply buried.

 

[madmat]

I have a question though...about the paper waste. If it's buried what do we do when we run out of room? The landfills today are very fast running out of room and if we start dumping more waste into the landfill system which is already at max capacity what happens when we end up running out of room sooner? Do we burn it? Shoot it out into space? Toss it in the ocean?

Yeah shooting it out into space sounds viable except for the expense (cost per launch versus weight of trash launched per launch) until you stop to consider the pollution from the rocket fuel. It's just a no-win situation.

And yes, we need to learn how to use less of everything to build every car and start developing alternative fuel sources so that we don't need fossil fuels or much less of it. Until the oil companies aren't running the country we're stuck with things the way they are with slow change and I'm not going to blast anyone for at least trying to change things. Yes it needs to get better but it has to start somewhere and the evolution has to be funded by the early efforts. That's just how the system works and always has worked. We can't expect them to develop the technology of lower impact cars 100% out of their pockets for the entire time it takes to perfect them.

 

[leecho7]

I know many of you won't believe me in saying this, but at work some dude had his 2005 Hummer H2 brought in for some repairs. Somebody hit his hood. The way the H2 is designed is that the hood is pretty much the entire hood and the left and right fenders. You would think with a 'tough and rugged' Hummer, the hood would be made from some tough material, but it's actually a really flimsy, but expensive material like carbon fiber or fiber glass. Since both carbon fiber, and fiber glass are not repairable, the only viable option for this guy was to replace the entire hood. The part in itself costs well over $1500.

 

[moon111]

I have a question though...about the paper waste. If it's buried what do we do when we run out of room? The landfills today are very fast running out of room and if we start dumping more waste into the landfill system which is already at max capacity what happens when we end up running out of room sooner? Do we burn it? Shoot it out into space? Toss it in the ocean?

Yeah shooting it out into space sounds viable except for the expense (cost per launch versus weight of trash launched per launch) until you stop to consider the pollution from the rocket fuel. It's just a no-win situation.

And yes, we need to learn how to use less of everything to build every car and start developing alternative fuel sources so that we don't need fossil fuels or much less of it. Until the oil companies aren't running the country we're stuck with things the way they are with slow change and I'm not going to blast anyone for at least trying to change things. Yes it needs to get better but it has to start somewhere and the evolution has to be funded by the early efforts. That's just how the system works and always has worked. We can't expect them to develop the technology of lower impact cars 100% out of their pockets for the entire time it takes to perfect them.

There's allot we can do with garbage. But it's not a big of enough concern. People will talk about wanting to do something, but how many actually go out and buy a Prius ? The fact is, money is more important then the environment. Copper is being recycled because it's worth allot. Drunks will bring back bottles, because they get a refund. There's allot of technology to use recycled garbage materials, but there's no money in it. Garbage would be processed allot further if the government made it artificially more valuable.

Another really good start would be to implement a tax on packaging. I'd say 75% of my trash was never needed. There's probably more packaging in a ToyRUs then actual toys. My pop bottles use to be re-used. Now they're landfill.

We can spend billions on prison systems, welfare, unemployment, yet we can't afford to pay people to work at the local recycling plant more then minimum wage. As a society, I think there would be a positive impact on the environment, the amount of crime and economy if we actually spent more.

I'd also look at what other's are doing with their garbage. Other's will do something that works, and we'll have politicians argue about it.

 

[b1lk1]

Lynch Al Gore and there will be no more global warming from the stench that is eminating from his mouth. In fact, if you take out the entire Gore family, you also protect the environment from their evil energy usage and Tipper will never get to censor the music industry like she so desires. Global warming = good politics = silly articles that can somehow claim a Hummer is less detrimental to the environment. People buying Hummers (and I don't mean johns) should all be beaten in a public square for needing to show us what they can afford and how they can afford to put more pollution per mile into the atmosphere than pretty much any vehicle on the planet. Any engine over 100HP should require a legitimate need to own. Why does someone need a Hummer when a small 4 door 4cylinder car does the same thing? Politics can never fix the environment, only people can. As a people, we will never do what it takes to fix the environment because it would make our lives uncomfortable.

If you feel the world should change to save the environment, worry about what you do, not everyone else because I guarantee that almost noone here (including me) does jack sh*t to help the environment and until we take personal responsibility, posting silly links and talking tough means nothing.

This is the end of my rant and this thread = useless drivel.

 

[madmat]

Lynch Al Gore and there will be no more global warming from the stench that is eminating from his mouth. In fact, if you take out the entire Gore family, you also protect the environment from their evil energy usage and Tipper will never get to censor the music industry like she so desires. Global warming = good politics = silly articles that can somehow claim a Hummer is less detrimental to the environment. People buying Hummers (and I don't mean johns) should all be beaten in a public square for needing to show us what they can afford and how they can afford to put more pollution per mile into the atmosphere than pretty much any vehicle on the planet. Any engine over 100HP should require a legitimate need to own. Why does someone need a Hummer when a small 4 door 4cylinder car does the same thing? Politics can never fix the environment, only people can. As a people, we will never do what it takes to fix the environment because it would make our lives uncomfortable.

If you feel the world should change to save the environment, worry about what you do, not everyone else because I guarantee that almost noone here (including me) does jack sh*t to help the environment and until we take personal responsibility, posting silly links and talking tough means nothing.

This is the end of my rant and this thread = useless drivel.

Good thinking. We should abolish the EPA, get rid of emission testing and shut down all the recycling centers. Stop recycling cars and instead just let them sit and moulder away in wrecking yards or in backwoods and start using the mines we have to dig for metal ores as landfills. Allow the ultra refinement of steel again and get those smokestacks humming once more in Pittsburgh and Allentown so we can stop importing all the steel from other countries that don't care what they're doing to our air.

See, that's what the world would still be like if we did just what you're advising and kept our collective heads down and worried about number one. We never would've stopped using CFC's, our steel industry would still be going along full tilt and nothing would ever get recycled. We wouldn't have pollution controls on vehicles nor would we be having this discussion because there wouldn't be such a thing as a hybrid vehicle, nor electric or fuel cell technology waiting in the wings.

We have to be concerned as a community and I mean as a global community because each year there are more and more of us on this wasted hunk of rock hurtling through space and if we don't start doing something as a whole then there's no point in anything because eventually we'll end up killing ourselves off and the cockroaches will inherit what's left.

Stopping to think about it, they're pretty good at dealing with trash, maybe the world would be better off with them in charge.

 

[b1lk1]

What I meant was that without everyone taking some responsibility and doing their part, the government cannot do it alone. Everyone wants a miracle answer from the government that will not interrupt their cozy lifestyles when the only thing that can truely make even a minor dent is a radical lifestyle change by everyone. Time to recycle all these sport utilities, pickup trucks, sports cars, luxury cars, etc.. Time to turn down the heat and turn off the A/C. Time to turn off the TV and turn off some lights. Time to recycle, even when it isn't easy. Time for people to do something and not expect the government to do it for them. The only thing the government can do is raise taxes to pay for programs that will hurt everyone, whether it shuts down car plants or they limit the amount of electricity you can use. Energy conservation doesn't just happen, it takes a major effort. The EPA is hamstrung by the public because noone wants energy conservation to effect them, they just want it to happen.

Look at good ole Al Gore and his $1.5mil mansion. It uses 20 times the energy of the average home. What gives him the right to live that way? They wrote in the article that exposed his lifestyle that he buys "green energy certificates" to make up for it. So he uses the energy, but he pays more money and it is justifiable. It is laughable. The guru of global warming is pulling the same tricks the government does to make himself look good, even though he lives a glutonous lifestyle. So his "right" to live in excess trumps our rights for EVERY citizen to do their part to save energy.

My entire point that you completely missed is that I am NOT blaming the government. Sure they could do more, but until every single person on the planet takes responsibility for their lives and how they live and use energy and resources, you and me can recycle and be as green as we want, but it won't make the smallest difference in the overall effects of global warming. Even this chicken shit province I live in of Ontario, with 40% of it's income/jobs based on the automobile industry, does next to nothing for the green movement, yet they yap and yap about it and blame everyone else. Personal responsibility, the only choice.

 

[madmat]

You can vilify Al Gore but every person with wealth does the same thing. The CEO of the car plant in your home town probably makes ol' Al look like a boy scout. The only way things will change is if governments become involved and say "You have to stop making wasteful vehicles" and stop giving tax breaks to people for buying gross polluters and instead give them to people that buy cars that don't waste fuel and get >30mpg. The greater the mileage the greater the tax break.

The government also needs to make recycling easier everywhere. How to pay for it I hear you asking, easy, tax industry for containers (as you suggested) and use that revenue to fund greater recycling. In the end the cost will get passed to end users but that's OK by me, if I don't have to drive 30 miles to recycle my cans and paper and plastics and instead simply leave them at the curb I'll happily recycle.

 

[b1lk1]

I'm sorry, it seems that we are missing each other. I only vilify Al Gore personally because he is high profile and an easy target. I was trying to imply that EVERY rich person living a lifestyle of much excess with huge 10,000 square foot mansions with heated indoor pools for their dogs ALL need to be dragged out into public squares and beaten for their callous lack of concern for the environment since they can buy their way into "the green zone". They finally are giving us small breaks on new cards in Canada that are green, and they are taxing the luxury gas guzzlers, although we both know that if you can afford a Hummer/Escalade/Lexus/etc..., you could care less about the $4K tax penalty. And the incentive is only $2K. While that is a start, people like me that would love to jump to efficient/hybrids still cannot afford to scrap the car I drive and buy a new one. They sure make it easy for the "haves" to keep their lifestyle, while keeping it hard for us "have nots" who want to make a difference but cannot.

We truely are on the same page, I am just not getting it out in a way to show that. I am probably being somewhat sarcastic, and I really should know better that sarcasm cannot be seen on the internet.

 

[moon111]

The biggest problem with the environment is priorities.

A trucking company use to put the used oil in the driveway to control dust. Someone buys the lot had to dig it all up to make it into... a giant parking lot.
Now I'm not saying this isn't a good thing. But I bet the environment would of been better off if the money was spent on solar panels on top of the store.

Vancouver decides to build non-profit housing. Once again, contaminated soil. So they dig it all up and replace it. Of course it's cheaper just to haul the soil to Alberta and dump it. So what's the benefit? You just burnt tons of fuel to move contaminated soil, not cleaned. And the cost? Well they could of bought each non-profit family a $250,000 house for their effort.

People here recycle, but all they do is collect it and throw most of it in the garbage anyways. If it isn't going to make them money, they don't want it.

Personally, until I see any wisdom regarding the environment, I won't change my ways. The word environment to me means there's less food on the table and the world isn't any better off for it.

 

[madstork91]

Not that I want to shut down the plants in corpus christy... but...

The EPA wnd lobyist will not allow us to build any more oil refineries. Our current plants are vastly inferrior to current technology's ability to refine oil. We waste oil. We could make cleaner more efficient gas, but we don't.

 

[megansprius]

I'll just quote my news posting:

"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."
​

I think the results found here will shock most people. It's mentioned that it was once claimed that the Prius could go 60MPG, but recent tests have shaved that down to 45MPG. That puts the Prius just within spitting distance of the Chevrolet Aveo, as the article states.

It doesn't end there. The Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer. This is a big hit to those who "thought" that they were doing favors to the environment by driving a hybrid car (this is not exclusive to Prius).

I can't say it's very surprising, but at the same time... it is.

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

The original article is an opinion piece (i.e., no fact-checking) for a college newspaper that evidently desperately needs attention. In February, The Recorder published "Rape only hurts if you fight it" and now in March, "Prius outdoes hummer." This newspaper and this article are garbage.

1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo's mileage puts it within "spitting distance" of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is "spitting distance."

2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/">have 200k on them now</A>:

And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? See the image below for the answer to that one. <A HREF="http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48">A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available</A>

3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies — early 1970’s) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury’s nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of <A HREF="http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770">(visible here )</A>, used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution <A HREF="http://www.photoboy.com/bin/Cklb?vmo=1173985067754"> (visible here )</A>. There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.

Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. <A HREF="http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html"> The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada -- that's GM, maker of the Hummer,</A> ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury's trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.

<A HREF="http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm"> Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening.</A> The acid rain problem David Martin of Greenpeace is talking about is the situation pre 1972.

 

[NicePants42]

megansprius, before Matt beats me over the head with your post, I'd like to thank you for posting it and remark that it was very well put together.

I pretty much skimmed over most of the author's remarks about the mining and other environmental impacts of the Prius since they were obviously skewed, but it appears that the magnitude of the skew is quite tremendous.

What I really appreciate, however, is the critique you linked regarding the D2D study. While looking through the 200-some-odd page explanation of what was included in the study, I conveniently failed to notice some of what is mentioned in the critique - particularly:

"Next, CNW divided the costs of developing the technology and the car itself over the number of cars produced to date. A more reasonable assumption would divide these costs over expected future as well as past production.

Similarly, CNW divided the costs of building a factory over the cars it has produced to date, not future as well as past production."

Holy economies of scale, no wonder the Prius looks expensive!

In defense of my previous arguments, my only goal was to encourage people to look at the information and studies being cited before dismissing it based on one over-zealous author's presentation.

I still think that the D2D study is creditable - the above assumptions aren't wrong, after all - they're just biased because not very many Prius have been made. But think of something like a Ferrari, where the factory only makes like 600 of a certain model in a year. Buying one of these cars instead of one of the um-teen thousand Ford Taurus or Toyota Corollas made in a year would be more costly in terms of energy consumed...which is why a Ferrari costs like ten times as much. The fact that a HUMMER costs more at the dealership than a Prius should have been a clue to me.

 

[madmat]

I've got to say that the Prius having a "poor" rating on the electrical system in the middle column (dunno what it represents, the image is so tiny) is slightly alarming since, well, it is a hybrid and the electrical system is very complex and a very vital part of it's operation. I can just imagine how complex it must be to troubleshoot and how big a can of worms it would be to repair along with expensive.

And my exception wasn't ever with the D2D study but with the way the author presented his "facts". It was misleading and more muck raking than anything else. Hell, I'm willing to bet that there's far more nickel used in chrome plating on a yearly basis in just the US alone than there is in building 10 years worth of Prius'.

 

[moon111]

If I wasn't worried about money, I wouldn't think twice about getting the Hummer. Until alternative vehicles can become bigger, badder, and less expensive... people won't switch.

 

[megansprius]

I've got to say that the Prius having a "poor" rating on the electrical system in the middle column (dunno what it represents, the image is so tiny) is slightly alarming since, well, it is a hybrid and the electrical system is very complex and a very vital part of it's operation. I can just imagine how complex it must be to troubleshoot and how big a can of worms it would be to repair along with expensive.

And my exception wasn't ever with the D2D study but with the way the author presented his "facts". It was misleading and more muck raking than anything else. Hell, I'm willing to bet that there's far more nickel used in chrome plating on a yearly basis in just the US alone than there is in building 10 years worth of Prius'.

Sorry about the tiny image -- didn't want to be a file space hog on my first post. If you click on the image, it gets a little larger. Those black dots for the electrical represent a recall Toyota did for those model years
(2003,2004) of the MFD (i.e., Multifunction Display -- the little lcd screen that shows you your mileage and also acts as an interface for climate, stereo, phone). Most of the MFD's on 2004's are out of warranty now (3 years), and from threads on a hybrid car forum I frequent, the repair is about $400 for the refurbished part plus labor. Unless you fail to shop around; there tales of dealers trying to charge people 1-2k for such a repair.

I also used to think the Prius a sort of uber-complex machine. My limited understanding of it since owning it one a few months is that while the software that manages the two engines (Internal combustion, electric) is complex, the car actually has fewer moving parts, and consequently less wear, than normal cars. Part of my decision in purchasing it was in looking at owner satisfaction/reliability, as it has a daily commute through some pretty dodgy neighborhoods in Chicago and I didn't want something that would break down.

But mainly, the article in question just really griped me cause it's such a three-pronged swift-boating (distorted mileage numbers, mine history, and CNW marketing study). The writer even acknowledged in a follow up column that some his original column looked suspect. But he still kept dissing the Prius, recommending people spend $30,000 on a fully electric Tesla Roadster instead. Of course, he got his facts wrong on that one too, as the Tesla actually costs $92,000 (base). And, of course, they won't even be available for until June 2008 at earliest.