Thread: Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies

Originally Posted by isuzurover

The "embodied energy" (energy to produce a car) is about 10-25% of the energy consumption during use (there are a large number of studies to show this). These figures are usually based on an average lifespan of 8-12 years. The longer you drive your car or the more fuel it uses, the embodied energy becomes less significant.

If you rarely drive your old car, it makes no sense to change it. But if it is your daily driver, after ~10 years the improvements in economy and emissions in the new model have usually offset the energy and emissions for manufacturing a new vehicle.

Another example are light bulbs. The energy required to manufacture a light bulb is less than 1% of the energy consumption during use. So environmentally, it is better to replace all your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents ASAP, rather than waiting till they burn out (though it may not be better economically).

All of that said, my newest vehicle is 19 years old but I usually ride a mountain bike to work

I'll kind of give you that in a way, but its only really valid when you compare apples with turtles. So yes, if I trade in the county and buy a prius, then maybe after ten years the co2 emissions may start to get a little better (i'd be bankrupt though from all the freakin batteries and servicing)

But apples with apples

I've got a heap of kids so would need something bigger than a prius
How would the figures work out if i bought a new model Hilux or Rangie or territory?

Most new cars are bloated disposable crap


fuel consumption -

what about a '67 mini compared to the latest mini?

'67 monaro compared to the new monaro?

Cars (generally) aren't really getting more fuel effiecient - for every prius sold how many Big boys toys do toyota sell?

at least most other car companies aren't so pretentious about their enviromental credentials.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Yes, actually they did make it up.

I assume you are talking about the work by "CNW Marketing Research"

The study was later repeated by the Rocky Mountain Institute - a nonprofit education and research foundation (among others). All the independant studies have found that the CNW study was a load of BS and PR/marketing spin.

Hi Ben, i hadn’t seen the other reports so I’m happy to take you at your word.

But this still does not remove the fact that the VW gets better fuel figures than the Prius and correct me if I’m ( again ) but I think they are peddling the Ford Focus on the basis that it too gets better fuel economy and it's a fraction of the cost.

Originally Posted by Hardchina

I'll kind of give you that in a way, but its only really valid when you compare apples with turtles. So yes, if I trade in the county and buy a prius, then maybe after ten years the co2 emissions may start to get a little better (i'd be bankrupt though from all the freakin batteries and servicing)

But apples with apples

I've got a heap of kids so would need something bigger than a prius
How would the figures work out if i bought a new model Hilux or Rangie or territory?

Most new cars are bloated disposable crap


fuel consumption -

what about a '67 mini compared to the latest mini?

'67 monaro compared to the new monaro?

Cars (generally) aren't really getting more fuel effiecient - for every prius sold how many Big boys toys do toyota sell?

at least most other car companies aren't so pretentious about their enviromental credentials.

The best like for like example would be trading your county on a puma (since it is the new version of the same vehicle).

Assuming you did the same number of km per year as before, you would go from using 20-25L/100km to 10-15L/100km. Now the energy and CO2 content of both fuels needs to be considered, which would narrow the gap a bit. However the emissions need to be considered as well - a carb V8 would emit several orders of magnitude more emissions per km than a Euro IV diesel. Another factor is that the Puma now has a lot more steel and a lot less Al. Unfortunately, the production of a kg of Al requires LOTS more energy than steel. So although you often save weight, it is usually better for the environment to make things out of steel than Al.

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Hi Ben, i hadn’t seen the other reports so I’m happy to take you at your word.

But this still does not remove the fact that the VW gets better fuel figures than the Prius and correct me if I’m ( again ) but I think they are peddling the Ford Focus on the basis that it too gets better fuel economy and it's a fraction of the cost.

You are right that there are a bunch of cars in the same size class or smaller size classes that get better economy than the Prius or other similar hybrids. However this is measured on the standard city/highway combined cycle.

The prius has been optimised for driving in city stop/start traffic. That said, the prius needs to use extra fuel to drag the weight of the batteries around.

The best option for an all-round vehicle would be something like a diesel golf - as you suggest. If you only ever drove in the city, however, the prius may get better economy - unless the golf now has the same stop-start feature as the mini.

It has been shown that priuses start to drink fuel on the highway - and are only about the same as a camry - so anyone who does mostly highway driving should probably buy a camry instead.

We are comparing apples to apples here - however lots of fleet buyers have been switching from falcons and commodores to priuses and the like - which is a significant improvement - whether you drive on the highway or not.

EDIT - btw - here is the RMI study:
www.evworld.com/library/rmi_hummerVprius.pdf

Originally Posted by isuzurover

The best like for like example would be trading your county on a puma (since it is the new version of the same vehicle).

Assuming you did the same number of km per year as before, you would go from using 20-25L/100km to 10-15L/100km. Now the energy and CO2 content of both fuels needs to be considered, which would narrow the gap a bit. However the emissions need to be considered as well - a carb V8 would emit several orders of magnitude more emissions per km than a Euro IV diesel. Another factor is that the Puma now has a lot more steel and a lot less Al. Unfortunately, the production of a kg of Al requires LOTS more energy than steel. So although you often save weight, it is usually better for the environment to make things out of steel than Al.

I'd never buy a diesel , so was left of the list I'm on gas as well, I don't know the co2 / emmision figures for lpg but must be quite a bit less than petrol - maybe on par with diesel ?

The beauty of alloy is that whilst it may cost more (unless sourced from recycled beer cans, which is a less energy requiring option to produce than recycled steel), is that in 100 years time, you still have a functional automobile. The biggest demise to older cars is the body - (after fashion / w@nk factor) mechanical issues can be fixed quite easily.

Anyway if the gov were serious about co2 emmisions they would scrap registration and licencing for small cc motor bikes - we could all get around asian style. would be a good thing.
I tried riding a pushie to work.... stuff that

Originally Posted by PhilipA

.. ... ... ... .. ..

You should have seen the look I received when I suggested to the DG of DPI that he should use one to be driven around in in the city instead of his V8 Fairlane. You know, leading by example. He was happy for some of the scientists to drive them in the country though, and they were not happy,Jan.
Regard sPhilip A

As you suggested, the Prius should be used where the V8 is currently being driven and a carefully driven V8 might even match the Prius where the scientists are forced to use the Prius.

Of course people will be disappointed if they insist on using a vehicle in an environment for which it was not designed.

Driving a Prius on the highway makes about as much sense as trying to fit a Defender with 2" lift in a suburban underground car park. They just were not really designed to go there.

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Yep ghillie, I just made it all up.

Thats like the mob in the USA that do the Dust To Dust analysis of different vehicle.

They examine every aspect of a given vehicle, from it’s inception through the development stage, on through production and then the fuel consumption while in use, then right through to the way the vehicles have to be handled when they are scrapped.

Their findings were that a Hummer has a more environmentally sound life span than the Prius does.

But what the hell, they must have made that up, because you say so.

Get your head out of the sand, the Prius is the end result of a very good PR con job.

More FUD Drivesafe. I didn't say you'd made anything up or that anyone else had. What I did say was that you had not given any substantiation for your claims or any references. Both of which were true.

I also said that your comments about others being stupid were just rude. Your above post has more of that. You should calm down. Taking time to edit your posts before submitting them would also be a good idea.

Originally Posted by vnx205

Driving a Prius on the highway makes about as much sense as trying to fit a Defender with 2" lift in a suburban underground car park. They just were not really designed to go there.

Good point - so why does the government financialy discourage owning more than one car? If we could pay for plates and transfer them between cars, then alot of people could afford to have two or more cars - each suited to a purpose.

The government isn't really serious about the problem