Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parahy
I'm not denying the fact that the Hummer H2 will cost more on gas, all I'm saying is that a Prius is meaner to the environment than a Hummer H2. The amount of acid that has been caused by all the nickel mining and smelting in Ontario is incredible. You wouldn't know that, since all you see is the 50 MPG EPA figure slapped on the window of a Prius.
|
I understand that you are pissed about the trouble from Ontario nickel mining, but I don't believe that the damage being done there, even if it's totally for Priuses (which i doubt) outweighs the overall damage done globally by large SUVs. And when it REALLY comes down to it, i serious doubt EITHER of us are qualified enough to say which is the more damaging factor, speculation is speculation. You say all i see is 50 MPG well i can just as easily say all you see is mining and smelting and need to open your perspective as well.
Quote:
|
And, we really aren't buying gas from the Middle East since most of our oil comes from Alberta.
|
Yeah, these are just two graphics, the first from Senator Lugar's (R-IA) Energy Initiative and the other from the Saudi-US Relations Information Service, but we by no means get MOST of our oil from Alberta, or Canada, or North America even.
Quote:
|
For life expectancy, you really can't say if the Prius will last longer. It hasn't even been on the market for a decade, whereas Hummers (and other conventional cars) have for many decades.
|
yeah, and you can't really say it will last shorter either, really. oh, and the Hummer has only been commercially available since 1992, and the Prius since 1997 in Japan, not too far behind.
Quote:
|
An xB also costs more, so that obviously have something to do with the figures. They are also taking into account resale value, etc.
|
According to their data the xA is $13.1k and the xB is $14.9k, but give no reason why this is important in energy usage. They don't take resale value into account at all (have you read the report?), simply overall lifespan in years vs. number of miles estimated to be driven each year. They do, however, take into account what % of the overall lifespan is with the first owner vs subsequent owners, which is 5.6 for the xB and 5.9 for the xA (even though they haven't been on the market for 5 years, these numbers are based on the perceived buying demographic) They state that the "the movement of a vehicle through the marketplace adds to the overall energy costs." So i assume they are saying that having a car sit on a used auto lot means it is partly responsible for the energy usage of that lot? and that the usage of that lot while it sits there (and maybe moved 30 yards across the lot) is greater than the energy used when belonging to a person and being driven around? A bold, un-supported claim.