Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Hybrids not enviro-friendly?! Looking for credibility of this study...



  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Even More Simple Answer: Because they were both studying hybrid cars and their environmental impact, which has not changed. It does not matter how many were on the road at the time of the study because the study was not using "cars on the road" as any basis for any conclusions.

    ( I'm not going to talk about CR here - everyone knows they are a valid source of good information. That you personally choose to discredit them is your own demon to deal with. )

    My feelings about the CNW study are ABSOLUTELY not only based on emotion. It's based on logic. I have already stated the logical problems in their data multiple times here.

    Not only I have seen the ridiculosity of this study, but logical disputes of it's findings are all over the Web !!!

    It's a MARKETING company, not even a scientific organization !!

    One simple question for you Gary:

    You DO know that in the "scientific community" all studies are peer-reviewed before becoming a part of the research base, right?

    So how can their results be considered scientifically valid when they won't allow REAL SCIENTISTS to review their methodology and data?

    Until then, it's just a fancy opinion.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    Your discrediting of the CNW report also discredits the Toyota LCA. Have it your way. I can totally disregard the CNW report and the evidence is still there that a Prius pollutes more in the MFG than in the driving. And the percentage is way over 50%. I know you don't like that Toyota published that analysis. It still exists and you can deny it all you like. Maybe the Toyota study was just some tech writer's OPINION.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    hold on - I'm workin on something.....

    OK, go read this PDF:

    RMI info on CNW study

    The Toyota LCA shows that in every category except PM, the overall pollution of the Prius versus a comparable gas car, like the COROLLA, is less over the life of the car. ( And notice the PM is VERY SMALL compared to all other pollution categories. )

    Put a Hummer as the "comparable gas car" versus the Prius and watch what would happen to the comparison bars.

    PS Here is another EXHAUSTIVE, LENGTHY study which puts HEVs at the lowest end of overall environmental impact:

    Another CNW refuter with DATA in 2006
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    gary says, "Your discrediting of the CNW report also discredits the Toyota LCA."

    Oh, by the way: NOT.

    The LCA merely shows that a Prius pollutes more at manufacturing than does a comparable 2.0 liter gasoline engine car.

    It says nothing about Prius versus a polluting monster like the Hummer.

    Like I said - put a Humdinger on that LCA chart and you'd need an 11 x 17 sheet to see the length of the hummer line.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    I don't think so. If the life of the H2 was 300k miles or two Prius lifetimes it would be a totally different picture. We are in a holding pattern. We DO NOT Know how well the hybrids will hold up over 10-15 years. If they go 15 years with normal car expense. They will be in the winners circle. Otherwise they will be a page in automotive history.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    You are attempting to combine ALL of your anti-hybrid rhetoric into a few posts, when that is not the topic here.

    How you feel about the "historical significance" or lack thereof in regard to hybrids is not at issue.

    Trying to guess what hybrids will do in 10-15 years is not the issue.

    This CNW study, and it's accompanying ridiculous conclusions, is the issue at hand in this topic.

    Anyone visiting this particular forum with an open mind and no preconceived biases can see my "fact-filled" rebuttal of the CNW study and will make up their mind without prejudice. My points have been made and they are correct.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    My opinion of hybrids is based on facts. The CNW report was based on how long a vehicle will last. The reason the Hummer was more cost effective was the presumed longer life. Toyota set the life of the Prius at 10 years and 150k miles. I would say on average that is very generous. I think that they will be filling the wrecking yards shortly after they hit 100k miles. The cost to maintain them after the warranty is up will be more than the average owner will want to spend. That is what the CNW report is all about. If you missed that you should read it over again. Those that have tried to disprove it have an agenda. My agenda is a vehicle that will last a LONG time with as little cost as possible. The CNW report left out the obvious best choice "DIESEL".
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,854
    We get it. You guys disagree on this. We're going around in circles again. Let's move on

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Gary says: "My opinion of hybrids is based on facts."

    Then he turns around and issues two consecutive opinions:

    "I think that they will be filling the wrecking yards shortly after they hit 100k miles. The cost to maintain them after the warranty is up will be more than the average owner will want to spend."

    Anyway, like I said earlier, for those people looking for validity of that CNW study, I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt with FACTS my point that the CNW study is bogus, ridiculous, not scientifically valid, and is contradicted by every other scientifically peer-reviewed study on the subject.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Dust To Dumb - another successful CNW debunking

    Of all of them, this one makes them look the stupidest.

    I am mocking this report because it is the most contrived and mistake-filled study I have ever seen -- by far (and that's saying a lot, since I worked for the federal government for five years). I am not certain there is an accurate calculation in the entire report. I say this without fear of contradiction, because this is also the most opaque study I have ever seen -- by far. I defy anyone to figure out their methodology.

    In this post I'm just going to highlight the most inane claims -- and again, they can only be treated as claims because the report omits all the underlying calculations.
  • carz89carz89 Posts: 16
    larsb, after reading all of gagrice's comments and your comments, as well as all the referenced studies, I've come to the conclusion that you are 100% correct on your analysis. Gagrice has been a broken record and isn't listening to reason. I'm a nuclear engineer, and from a scientific/engineering/economic point of view, the "dust to dust" report makes absolutely no sense in any way. I agree 100% with the Joseph Romm blog that you referenced. His insight that CNW intentionally published the study as a hoax is interesting and plausible.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,854
    Let's keep the discussion about the topics and vehicles and keep away from discussing each other please.

    There's nothing but trouble down that road

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

This discussion has been closed.