TheFatKidDeath

Yes, I read that response from the authors of the report. Why am I obligated to post every point and counterpoint? The original post on this thread did not offer a counter article for the sake of balance or science, and why should he have?

If we are talking about not being very scientific - which goes back to my original question - who would you rather trust on the stated topic?

Scientists who state Hybrid technology is a benefit for the planet or a marketing group which proves it is not?

leejo

You're not obligated to post anything at all. But you did choose that one nugget that recruits people to dismiss this report as nonsense and encourages people to ignore it. I think that's pretty crappy.

Who to believe? Neither. Both. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make them all that smart and it certainly doesn't make them unbiased. Hell the Bear Whisperer tried to pass himself off as a scientist of sorts, and he was a loon. And marketing research firms are crawling with "scientists" in terms of analysts, actuaries, and modellers. They're not ALL working their blackberries on the golf course.

It's just information. If you have some evidence that this study is biased or flawed, I'd like to hear it.

TheFatKidDeath

Come on. Posting "nuggets" that recruits people to dismiss other peoples viewpoints is what this sandbox is all about! This happens on almost every thread when we discuss everything from politics to movies to the benefits of hybrid technology. Maybe we all can sign a non-nugget statement which contracts us not to post statements that support points we are trying to make!

Perhaps you make your living as a scientist, I do not. I know nothing of Hybrid technology beyond what I read. I can forward the article to someone at the Union of Concerned Scientists, whose group I used as a source, and see what they have to say. If I get a response I will post it here.

BHack

I think instead of this lightweight hi-tech steel, hybrids should be made completely of carbon fiber.

Oh and they should put an LS2 under the hood.

__________________

leejo

FWIW I suspect that the study is missing some points. Using $'s to measure the "cost" of energy required to create and support a vehicle through it's life is one way to measure its "cost". But I'm not sure it's really valid in this case.

For example, a kilowatt of nuclear energy may be more expensive in terms of $'s than burning coal, but by another metric, the one that's driving investment in hybrids, nuclear energy is almost infinitely cheaper. The point of hybrids isn't that they are cost-effective dollar-wise but that they are cleaner and have a smaller footprint in terms of pooting crap into the air. Right?

There. Not a single citation or reference to help someone check my facts. But isn't that a tad more palatable than "they're biased. Don't listen to them"?

GhostintheShell

Sorry, but there are several Prius that have gone more than 400,000 kms. One in Vancouver as a taxi that I remember specifically. So, I don't buy this 100,000 miles (160,000 kms)

They have only been around since 1997. At a high average of 20,000 km's per year that would take 20 years or so before we start to see the lifespan estimates more accurately. "Toyota's own numbers", seems a little sketchy. Why would anyone who drives a lot ever buy one? I could rack up that many miles in possibly 2 and easily in 3 years.

Besides, no one could afford to drive a full sized Hummer 400,000 kms. :P

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

leejo

Another good point.