PBS takes the Hummer v Prius bait

[Drive Stick]

The guy is correct about one thing, cleaning up the smog lingering over Los Angeles isn't free and clear. Somebody is always paying the price for building, and recycling such vehicles as hybrid cars. Batteries are extremely hazardous and hard to dispose of. Just because the car gets 50 mpg now, doesn't mean that you are not putting a HUGE negative impact on the environment when someday that vehicle with equivalent to 15 batteries worth of scrap need to be disposed of. Maybe you won't be the owner of it, so you can wipe your hands clean but rest assure someday, all vehicles will be in a junkyard and dead.

I am not good enough at math to disprove what the guy said about the H3 having less of an impact on the environment - but I wouldn't try because the mathematics necessary to determine the overall impact from birth, to recycling of a vehicle are extreme.

His theory has weight to it, in the fact that most people are not capable of figuring out all the part of the equation. Hybrid drivers take offense to such findings, however the truth hurts. I don't doubt for 1 second that to make, drive, and recycle an H3 is more environmentally friendly than a Prius because of the eletronic components aboard.

You may be getting 50% less fuel economy, and spending more money on fuel over the life of the vehicle - but thats NOT what this guy is telling you here. He is telling you that from the concept drawing, to the disposal of the basic components it's more detrimental to the planet to make a hybrid car.

[bwilson4web]

This is inaccurate:

Originally Posted by Drive Stick

. . . Batteries are extremely hazardous and hard to dispose of. . . .

The reasons why:












Hands on experiments suggest traction batteries, in particular the NiMH, are a joy to work on. The nickel is biologically inert and too valuable to abandon whereas lead is an environmental toxin and cheap enough that abandoned lead-acid batteries are easy to find. The NiMH electrolyte, a saturated KOH solution, is all but identical to lye, NaOH, that is sold in grocery stores.

It turns out that NiMH traction batteries can be refurbished to like new capacity. Only a small portion have to be recycled and they are too valuable to abandon as Toyota has a $200 premium on old traction batteries.

Bob Wilson

[Drive Stick]

Something I didn't mention

I think the guy in the video's point is that instead of just 1 facility polluting the air in japan making the engines and vehicles, they now have to increase the pollution output and energy necessary to build each vehicle. There aren't just sheet metal and engine components, now we have a whole 'nother facility making specialized batteries and electrical equipment for the vehicles too. So while the cars are on the road conserving energy, and reducing smog in LA it really "doesn't out weight" the overall production energy deficiency and pollution overseas.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by shovel

I can't speak for the East, but out West 99% or more of off-highway driving in street legal vehicles is done on legal trails. Legal trails as in [I]actual designated roads.

I think you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you. I'm not talking about driving on dirt roads, even rough dirt ones. I do that myself, because that's what a lot of the roads are around these parts, especially the ones that lead to trailheads & other good places to hike, bike, or ski. (Or fish or hunt, if that's what you enjoy.) But driving on existing roads is quite a different thing from the yahoo who takes off cross-country in his Hummer, leaving a trail of destruction behind.

The other point, of course, is that even if you're driving the dirt roads, you haven't quite left the noise & chaos of civilization behind - ok, I suppose your exhaust is technically behind you - because you're still driving a piece of it.

...a dusty pair of tracks that would grow over in 5 years if left unused?

Now I'm sure you don't live in northern Nevada, because things just don't grow that fast. There are places where you can still find the traces of covered wagons, a century and a half later. You just have to use your eyes to see what some of these off-road tracks do. A few of the yahoos get into a contest, for instance trying to drive straight up a steep hillside. That kills off the vegetation, and a few years later that track's become a deeply-eroded gully.

[Silveredwings]

May 2007
Pacific Institute: Hummer versus Prius:
“Dust to Dust” Report Misleads the Media and Public with Bad Science

March 2008
Pacific Institute: Hummer vs. Prius Redux: Prius (Still) Leaves Hummer in the Dust

[bwilson4web]

This is not quite accurate either:

Originally Posted by Drive Stick

. . . instead of just 1 facility polluting the air in japan making the engines and vehicles, . . .

I've attached a photo from the Toyota Georgetown KY plant where they make:

• Camry
• Camry hybrid
• Solara
• Venza
• Avelons

It is a fascinating tour I've been through three times. They essentially treat all solid and liquid waste so none is passed on to landfills. If you ever get a chance, it is a terrific tour.



Fortunately, we have price-preformance data available from the EPA and vendor minimum MSRP:
FAMILY SIZE SEDANS
EPA Hwy , Combined , Make , Model , MSRP
45 , 46 , Toyota , Prius , $22,000
34 , 34 , Toyota , Camry Hybrid , $26,150
34 , 29 , Chevrolet , Malibu Hybrid , $26,225
34 , 29 , Saturn , Aura Hybrid , $27,045

It is amazing that the most fuel efficient vehicle is also the most affordable. A buyer can pay more and get less mileage in the EPA Family Size Sedans. Very clever people, these Japanese.

Bob Wilson

[shovel]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I think you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you. I'm not talking about driving on dirt roads, even rough dirt ones. I do that myself, because that's what a lot of the roads are around these parts, especially the ones that lead to trailheads & other good places to hike, bike, or ski. (Or fish or hunt, if that's what you enjoy.) But driving on existing roads is quite a different thing from the yahoo who takes off cross-country in his Hummer, leaving a trail of destruction behind.

The other point, of course, is that even if you're driving the dirt roads, you haven't quite left the noise & chaos of civilization behind - ok, I suppose your exhaust is technically behind you - because you're still driving a piece of it.

First things first, please don't take our discussion the wrong way. You're well spoken and I respect you for that, even if our opinions may differ.

There are many thousands of responsible off-highway drivers on the road, and I consider myself one. I use my vehicle to get to places I could never hope to walk in the 2 scant days per week that fulltime employment allow me. Many of the roads I drive in pursuit of isolation and immersion are severe terrain, like this but nonetheless still actual roads, legal and open by RS2477 legislation.

These roads are being closed at an alarming rate. Between public lands being sold off to corporate interests, overzealous environmentalist hypocrites destroying legal roads and lobbying to have the lands closed, and unincorporated areas being settled by our growing population - frankly outdoorsmen are running out of places to be outdoors.

Much like drugs don't go away when they're made illegal (see: prohibition of alcohol as an example) and abortion was prevalent when it was illegal, people WILL do what they want to do, whether it's legal or not. When legal off-highway routes are closed, the yahoos you and I hate WILL tear up wild lands and cause the destruction that makes life very hard for the more responsible outdoorsmen of the world.

The US has millions upon millions of miles of paved roads. Nobody seems to complain about them, but how long would it take for a paved road to be reclaimed by nature? Longer than an unpaved road, I warrant. Why the uproar about unpaved roads? Unpaved roads to isolated valleys are being closed constantly. I live in Phoenix and when I moved here a little over a decade ago there were countless dirt tracks I could drive to in less than an hour, be around nobody, park my vehicle and enjoy the solitude with or without a short walk. Now I drive 2 hours or more to approach the same solitude. To get into REAL wilderness I'm looking at a 4 hour or more cruise on the highway, to get to an isolated road that isn't paved and gets me away from everyone else.
Sedona is a great example of this, beautiful land that had a dozen or so excellent roads that an off-highway enthusiast could drive, camp, and feel distanced from the chaos of city living. Then the roads were closed because "it is destructive to the environment" and what is there now? Houses, and paved roads to the houses. Is that not MORE destructive than a 2-track and a couple fire rings?

True, when you as a human walk into the "wild", you bring humanity with you. Unless you're naked and use a stick to hunt fish or something you're bringing "the evils of man" with you. I drive and then park, you drive and then park, but unless you leave your car at home and walk straight out your front door to your destination, you're still driving a road to the last spot you can get to mechanically before embarking on foot. What difference then does it make if the parking spot is a paved lot or a wide spot in the dirt track? Are drivers of typial cars bitterly jealous that I don't have to walk as far thanks to my foot-plus of ground clearance? Unless they walked all the way from home, they have no argument to stand on.

Now I'm sure you don't live in northern Nevada, because things just don't grow that fast. There are places where you can still find the traces of covered wagons, a century and a half later. You just have to use your eyes to see what some of these off-road tracks do. A few of the yahoos get into a contest, for instance trying to drive straight up a steep hillside. That kills off the vegetation, and a few years later that track's become a deeply-eroded gully.

What do the tracks do that a paved highway doesn't do? If you drive on paved highways, it's hardly fair to complain about drivers on unpaved roads. Paved highways blast through mountains, deposit mountains of toxic asphalt and oils, require thousands of gallons of fuel to be burnt in the construction and maintenance thereof, what are the net ecological costs of paved highways?
As mentioned in my statement above, regardless of the law and what's right or wrong, nobody's going to throw away their jeep or ATV if you close everything down. They own their toys and they're going to use their toys, one way or another. You close the legal roads and the first thing you see is yahoos tearing off across truly wild land because it's equally illegal to do that as it is to drive the formerly legal trails that just got closed.

The key here is, we all must wash our own finger before we point it at each other. If we drive a car, if we own anything electrically operated, if we participate in modern society at all we are all polluters, consumers, and general destroyers of that which is natural. If we make children, we make more polluters who will make more polluters still.
The off-highway driver is an easy boogeyman to blame because his dirt tracks are not used by everyone, so you can point AT it without pointing at yourself. Because his dirt tracks are by necessity adjacent to untouched nature, it's a fresh scar still bleeding. But have you ever considered what your city looked like 400 years ago? A short time geologically, and it was pristine untouched nature. Now it's asphalt and a-holes, as far as the eye can see. Not a fresh wound like a dirt track, but a deep wound that will take centuries to stop festering and heal. Frankly none of us has much right to blame anyone, any more than we blame the guy in the mirror. We sure as heck have no right to blame the Hummers of the world, how many are there exactly?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by shovel

What do the tracks do that a paved highway doesn't do?

Erode. Just look at the difference, over time, of a paved road, or a designed & maintained (even if not very often) dirt road, and one of those tracks. The road will stay much the same, the track will, as I said before, turn into an eroded gully - at which point the off-highway drivers will likely make a new track a few yards to one side. Over the years, the process gets repeated until you have not much left but tracks.

At least around here, most of those closed roads you complain about are in fact just such trackways, created by casual use rather than design. There are almost always easy alternative routes that will get you to the same destination. The people who complain about the closures generally don't use them as roads, they use them as raceways. They're not trying to get somewhere, they just want to drive around in circles, and would get just as much enjoyment & escape from a video game.

But have you ever considered what your city looked like 400 years ago?

My city? What makes you think I live in a city?

In fact, the place where I happen to live has been inhabited - used as a living place & workshop - for a good many centuries. I can, if you like, show you the flakes discarded from stone tool making that I've dug up in my garden. The folks who lived here then didn't do much to change the land, and I can't see that I have either.

Now it's asphalt and a-holes, as far as the eye can see.

Can't say that I disagree, but does that mean I have to act like one, just to fit in?

We sure as heck have no right to blame the Hummers of the world, how many are there exactly?

Sure we do, because we can see exactly what the Hummers & ATVs and such are doing. Of course that doesn't absolve anyone else for the consequences of their actions, but claiming "Johnny does it too!" is the sort of excuse you'd expect from a 6-year old kid.

[shovel]

Point missed entirely.

Look, you have a computer right? Or do you just scream ONEZEROONEONEONEONEZEROZEROONEZEROONEZEROONEONEONE into the air to post here?

We all do stuff that's not natural. We all pollute. Obviously the guys of whom you complain would not be satisfied playing racing games on playstation because that would be a heck of a lot cheaper and yet they don't do it, right?

Unless you're naked and posting telepathically from atop some rock, you're a polluter just like the rest of us. Wash your finger before you point it at others.

Take away their legal roads and they make illegal ones. Legal ones are preferable, because they isolate the "damage".

There are other people than you on this planet and they have the right to their activities, just like you have the right to yours. If we work together to keep our collective behaviors from becoming wanton disregard, then we can preserve what nature is still there to preserve. If we point fingers around at who sucks worse, THAT is some six-year-old nonsense right there.

100% of all pollution and nature destruction is caused by humans, because by definition "nature" does not pollute itself, and because humans dictate ourselves as the only force that exists outside of nature. Since humans make pollution, more humans make more pollution - don't get mad at hummers, get mad at breeders.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by shovel

Point missed entirely.

Look, you have a computer right? Or do you just scream ONEZEROONEONEONEONEZEROZEROONEZEROONEZEROONEONEONE into the air to post here?

We all do stuff that's not natural. We all pollute. Obviously the guys of whom you complain would not be satisfied playing racing games on playstation because that would be a heck of a lot cheaper and yet they don't do it, right?

The point isn't that no one pollutes, but that hybrids, even including recycling of the inert/valuable battery pack, pollute far less than a conventional vehicle of similar size, even including the extra Nickel in the pack, and definitely pollute less than something like an H3, that gets ~10-15mpg or whatever, and requires as much Nickel in it's overall construction.

Originally Posted by shovel

If we work together to keep our collective behaviors from becoming wanton disregard, then we can preserve what nature is still there to preserve. If we point fingers around at who sucks worse, THAT is some six-year-old nonsense right there.

I hate to break it to you, but we have to point fingers at who pollutes more if we want to base decisions on reducing pollution. If we don't really give a rat's ass and just want to "feel" green, then we can go buy funny shaped water bottles and call it a day, but if we actually want to do something we need to accurately assess the impacts of everything we do.

Originally Posted by shovel

100% of all pollution and nature destruction is caused by humans, because by definition "nature" does not pollute itself, and because humans dictate ourselves as the only force that exists outside of nature. Since humans make pollution, more humans make more pollution - don't get mad at hummers, get mad at breeders.

People in the developed world, such as NA, use ten times more energy than people in the undeveloped world, like Africa. That means that ~330 million people use and pollute as much as another ~3.3 billion people, half of the world's population. Simply reducing their energy consumption/pollution to half of what it is would be the same as removing nearly two billion people.

Given how excessive the lifestyle of most North American's is, and how easy it is to reduce energy consumption/pollution for a developed nation, I'd say that it's reasonable to drive a four door sedan instead of a H3, as opposed to blaming nearly two billion people for existing. Especially since the population growth rate is slowing, or at least was until Bush killed overseas aid for birth control/family planning.