This little gem keeps coming back...
#1
07-30-2007, 03:18 PM
This little gem keeps coming back...
HI,
I was visiting familly in eastern Canada on the weekend, and found this article in the Sait-John Telegraph Journal.
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.c.../article/39090
Just a paraphrase of the stupid CNW article. I don't subscribe, so I could not comment on-line. If by chance someone here does, it might be worth a message.
Cheers,
rcomeau
I was visiting familly in eastern Canada on the weekend, and found this article in the Sait-John Telegraph Journal.
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.c.../article/39090
Just a paraphrase of the stupid CNW article. I don't subscribe, so I could not comment on-line. If by chance someone here does, it might be worth a message.
Cheers,
rcomeau
#2
07-30-2007, 05:20 PM
Re: This little gem keeps coming back...
That is SO irritating. No, I don't subscribe, but for those of you who want to make a stand, here's the writer's contact:
Neil Reynolds, a former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph-Journal, is the Ottawa-based national affairs columnist for the Globe and Mail's Report on Business. He can be reached by email at nreynolds@xplornet.com
#3
07-30-2007, 07:47 PM
Re: This little gem keeps coming back...
Here is my response to the Reynolds commentary...
Mr. Reynolds,
Your commentary looks at energy costs to build and run cars in an interesting way. It seems that the energy costs for manufacturing would necessarily be factored into the price of the automobile. Otherwise, there would be no profit. So I wonder why a Hummer or other large Suv is so much more expensive than a hybrid?
It is very important to know the energy costs involved in the manufacture of cars. It seems a better way to get a handle on it would be to look at the total BTUs of energy needed for all the parts and manufacturing processes for each model rather than confounding it by factoring in a price per expected mile.
But maybe I'm just prejudiced since I recently bought a hybrid. I can tell you this about it. I used to put US $40 of gas into my old car every five days. Now I put $25 every 10 days into the hybrid. Fuel savings accumulated over an expected life of 150,000 miles is about half the sale price of the car, assuming stable gas prices over the next 5-7 years..
You might be interested in a fuel cost comparison and CO2 emissions calculator I created on my web log at the URL below. I wonder if the analysis in your commentary factored in CO2 and other atmospheric emissions that result from engine combustion.
Sincerely,
Tom Woods
http://www.altenergyweb.com
Mr. Reynolds,
Your commentary looks at energy costs to build and run cars in an interesting way. It seems that the energy costs for manufacturing would necessarily be factored into the price of the automobile. Otherwise, there would be no profit. So I wonder why a Hummer or other large Suv is so much more expensive than a hybrid?
It is very important to know the energy costs involved in the manufacture of cars. It seems a better way to get a handle on it would be to look at the total BTUs of energy needed for all the parts and manufacturing processes for each model rather than confounding it by factoring in a price per expected mile.
But maybe I'm just prejudiced since I recently bought a hybrid. I can tell you this about it. I used to put US $40 of gas into my old car every five days. Now I put $25 every 10 days into the hybrid. Fuel savings accumulated over an expected life of 150,000 miles is about half the sale price of the car, assuming stable gas prices over the next 5-7 years..
You might be interested in a fuel cost comparison and CO2 emissions calculator I created on my web log at the URL below. I wonder if the analysis in your commentary factored in CO2 and other atmospheric emissions that result from engine combustion.
Sincerely,
Tom Woods
http://www.altenergyweb.com
#4
07-30-2007, 09:03 PM
Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Two miles N of the technology 'center-of-the-world' in 1903, on the Outer Banks of NC
Posts: 205
Re: This little gem keeps coming back...
Speaking of little gems...how about this one from the article itself. Ready..
Ok, let's do the math. I buy a $40000 Yukon Denali that I love and take care of it perfectly and it seves me as perfectly as I take care of it. after 10 yrs of driving it all over on multiple vactions I retire it with 200,000 miles.
According to the report that $40000 vehicle has a lifetime energy cost of.... $800,000!!!!
$800,000????? How? It only cost me $40000 to buy it and about $13500 to put fuel in it ( 15 mpg @ $3/gal )
So where did the other $745,000 in cost come from? I sure didn't pay it. This is a figure pulled out of a dream while toked up sitting in the Oregon woods. It's a ludicrous figure. No one could even possibly begin to offer some logic to justify it.
It reports by model name and by category. For 22 models of economy cars, the average lifetime energy cost is $0.85. For six models of pickup trucks, it's $2.58. For 14 models of smaller-sized sports utility vehicles, it's $2.07; for nine models of larger-sized SUVs, it's $3.98. For 10 models of gas-electric hybrids, it's $3.65.
According to the report that $40000 vehicle has a lifetime energy cost of.... $800,000!!!!
$800,000????? How? It only cost me $40000 to buy it and about $13500 to put fuel in it ( 15 mpg @ $3/gal )
So where did the other $745,000 in cost come from? I sure didn't pay it. This is a figure pulled out of a dream while toked up sitting in the Oregon woods. It's a ludicrous figure. No one could even possibly begin to offer some logic to justify it.
#5
07-30-2007, 09:47 PM
Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Two miles N of the technology 'center-of-the-world' in 1903, on the Outer Banks of NC
Posts: 205
Re: This little gem keeps coming back...
Email sent to Neil Reynolds tonight:
It's Surprising Which Cars are Greenest
At the end of the article there is this quote:
Neil Reynolds, a former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph-Journal, is the Ottawa-based national affairs columnist for the Globe and Mail's Report on Business.
This can't be true. As a former Editor in Chief you must have read thousands of articles submitted by writers and sent many of them back with caustic remarks about checking sources and reading for understanding. Did you have someone else write this article for you?
Consider this minor logical fallacy in the data presented in your column.
Some snippets:
"Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research, Inc has conducted the world's most comprehensive analysis of the 'life cycle' energy requirement of more than 100 makes and models of cars and trucks." Very impressive '...world's most comprehensive analysis...'
The analysis uses a "US dollars per lifetime mile" as the metric to rank the various models and makes.
"...for nine models of larger-sized SUVs, it's $3.98."
So if my beloved GMC Yukon which cost me nearly $40000 in 2002 lasts 10-12 years at my current rate of use I will reach about 200,000 miles. If I understand your article correctly the energy cost of this vehicle then is ..... $800,000??????
If I spent just shy of $40000 to acquire it, spend an additional $12000-$14000 on fuel, then I drop it off at a dealer where they give me $500 for it (?), you contend thatsomehow I have spent ( incurred an energy cost of ) $745,000 in owning this vehicle? Who pays this phantom $745,000? I surely have not. BTW, that's about 10 years gross wages for most workers.
Editors comments:
Are you nuts? Didn't you read what you were writing? How long have you been doing this, son? Do you want to embarrass yourself and this paper with mindless drivel that no one will take seriously?
If you had someone write this for you, shame on you. It's embarrassing that it went out under your byline
At the end of the article there is this quote:
Neil Reynolds, a former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph-Journal, is the Ottawa-based national affairs columnist for the Globe and Mail's Report on Business.
This can't be true. As a former Editor in Chief you must have read thousands of articles submitted by writers and sent many of them back with caustic remarks about checking sources and reading for understanding. Did you have someone else write this article for you?
Consider this minor logical fallacy in the data presented in your column.
Some snippets:
"Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research, Inc has conducted the world's most comprehensive analysis of the 'life cycle' energy requirement of more than 100 makes and models of cars and trucks." Very impressive '...world's most comprehensive analysis...'
The analysis uses a "US dollars per lifetime mile" as the metric to rank the various models and makes.
"...for nine models of larger-sized SUVs, it's $3.98."
So if my beloved GMC Yukon which cost me nearly $40000 in 2002 lasts 10-12 years at my current rate of use I will reach about 200,000 miles. If I understand your article correctly the energy cost of this vehicle then is ..... $800,000??????
If I spent just shy of $40000 to acquire it, spend an additional $12000-$14000 on fuel, then I drop it off at a dealer where they give me $500 for it (?), you contend thatsomehow I have spent ( incurred an energy cost of ) $745,000 in owning this vehicle? Who pays this phantom $745,000? I surely have not. BTW, that's about 10 years gross wages for most workers.
Editors comments:
Are you nuts? Didn't you read what you were writing? How long have you been doing this, son? Do you want to embarrass yourself and this paper with mindless drivel that no one will take seriously?
If you had someone write this for you, shame on you. It's embarrassing that it went out under your byline
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jahwerx
Journalism & The Media
7
05-06-2005 08:30 PM
