Captain Obvious,

Please change your profile from "Active Enthuasist" to something more accurate.

Flawed arguements against hybrids with the intent of endless disruption was not the intent of this forum. I'm sure there are intelligent people who oppose hybrids, but at least they don't shift their arguements with every post. Every lawyer knows shifting your case even a little bit guarantees losing the case.

You simply refuse to express your intention of where you are on your hybrid selection process, or alternative vehicle. This is a place for discussing what we drive.

 

CaptainObvious: You are the Anne Coulter of the hybrid forum. You do nothing but spew hybrid-hate and call it "fact" with absolutely nothing to back up your assertions.

Point #1: Since when does it take a lot of CO2 to fabricate a battery? If that was the case, then Energizer and Duracel would be under scrutiny by the EPA. Also, think about how many laptop and cell phone batteries have been produced (compared to the relatively tiny number of hybrids). Batteries just don't EMIT anything except electricity when they are active. Rechargable batteries are also highly recyclable, so the overall environmental impact is miniscule.

Point #2: Since when is 168k miles an unacceptable life expectancy for a car -- especially a compact car as tiny as an Insight? Show me a GM SUV-hulk that even lasts half that long? (Personally, I've never been in a Pontiac that made it past 70k). Since when is an 8-10 year life expectancy of a car unacceptable? Most people trade their cars in a year or two after the payments are over.

Point #3: Since when do Honda CVTs blow up at 40-50k? My HCH has had 105k miles of VERY HARD driving, and the tranny and batteries are doing just fine. Ask abyone on the forum with 70k miles or more if they've neded new CVTs. I doubt you'll get a single "yes".

Point #4: What's wrong with adding creature comforts to a hybrid for the purpose of added profitability? Why do you think some people choose Lexus over Toyota?

Point #5: If you think HCH tires don't get good traction, then replace the tires! I did that, and my traction is fine! Duh!

Point #6: Saying the wheels on the HCH are ugly is subjective and pointless. Two people can look at the same car and have totally different impressions of the aesthetic merit. I don't mind the wheels at all.

Why don't you join the Anne Coulter book club or something. Your presence (for me at least) has grown tiresome.

 

Captain Obvious,
Here are some real numbers on what it costs in terms of CO2 production to build metal hydride batteries-what we can expect to be in the next generation hybrid.
These numbers are absolute worse case-the "real real numbers" would be much, much less. Metal hydride batteries cost more than the current batteries, so they overstate the cost by even more.
A 10 WH metal hydride rechargeable battery costs $9.50-check battery station.
Our Prius needs 1500 WH, so we need 150 batteries-
Total cost of 150 batteries=$1425 dollars.
Assume that all that cost is energy cost-no workers are getting paid one penny.
$1425 will buy $1425/$.11= 12954 KWH of electricity generated from natural gas-which is what we pay-and use-in South Louisiana
400 grams of CO2 is produced for every KWH produced from a natural gas power plant.This isn't just the CO2 produced during the burning of CH4, it is the entire CO2 produced during the building of the plant, and the mining of the gas-everything-This is from an enviromental site( gristmill).
.4 kgX 12954=5181 KG=11,400 LBS CO2
So if all the cost of the batteries is from energy costs-absurd, you have to pay workers-then they would cost 11,400 lb of CO2.
Now a 4400 lb (HUMMER) SUV- gets 10MPG in heavy city driving(I get 12 in the Pilot and it is much better than the Hummer mpg wise-check CR)
I get 40 mpg in the Prius.
10 mpg means 10,000 gallons or 60,000 lbs of gasoline over 100,000 miles
40 means 2500 gal or 15,000 lbs
60,000 lbs gasoline means 60,000 x12/14 x 44/12=188,571 lbs CO2/100,000 MILES for the SUV
15000 LBS=47,142 LBS CO2 over 100,000 miles-add the 11,400 lbs from the battery production and you get 58,542 lbs over the 100,000 miles
HUMMER= 188,571 LBS CO2 - JUST TO DRIVE IT 100,000 MILES
PRIUS =58,542 LBS CO2 to drive it 100,000 miles and to "make" its batteries.
Now the BS about the batteries(HYBRID COMPONENTS) costing huge amounts more CO2 is absurd.If you assume all costs are energy costs then it is clear that the batteries are just 1.5 time more expensive than the other components.
A $28000 Prius-2800 lbs costs $10/lb
The batteries cost $1500 and weigh ~100 lbs(more or less) or $15/lb-not much more than the rest of the car.
The steel,aluminum,plastic,silica etc in the SUV and the Prius cost the same.
Anyone who says a Prius costs more CO2 over its lifetime than a midsized SUV (say 100,000 miles) is AN ABSOLUTE LIAR OR MORON.I have one of each-so I don't have to make the numbers up-or make any assumptions other than that the MPG will continue as they have been the last 38K(SUV) and 3K(Prius).
A midsized SUV produces at LEAST 3 TIMES AS MUCH CO2 over a lifetime because it produces most of the CO2 buring gasoline-not being produced. Most production costs are wages of workers-not energy-workers mining, workers on assembly lines.
Will a Prius save you money??The Running Total Cost of ownership of a $26000 Prius and a $21000 Matrix will cross about 70,000 miles-this is ignoring resale(or assuming the resale will be the same-unlikely, the Prius will probably be worth much more).
You say anything that makes an assumption about the future is speculation. If so, them it is speculation for me to assume I will hit this next key-but I did.Some assumptions are reasonable-based on past performance.
ONLY A LIAR WOULD SAY A PRIUS PRODUCES MORE CO2 THAN A MIDSIZED SUV-SHOW ME OTHERWISE?! Numbers I can verify-not bald assumptions from a shill.Thanks.Charlie
PS-The 12/14 and the 44/12 are 12/14 12=carbon wt 14 mole. wt CH2-CH2 is more or less gasoline 44/12 44=mole. wt CO2 12=WT C

 

So I can better understand your post, can you correct the part where you said $1425/$.11=12954WH? I assume you pay 11c per KHW, not WH. Are your numbers off by a factor of 1000, or is their a typo somewhere?

 

Yes, a person who says a Prius uses more CO2 than a midsized SUV might be a moron. Sure glad I never said anything like that.

 

CaptainObvious has the anti-hybrid "religion", which means that facts, data, experience, and studies will never change his mind.

Oh, and he is so intellectually bankrupt that he has to resort to cursing when sending private messages.

 

His numbers are correct, and he is NOT off by 1000.

He just stated it a little differently and changed the units on the fly.

$1425/$.11 per KWH yeilds 12.954 KWH times 1000 = 12954 WH

 

Does Captain Obvious have an intelligent opposing view, or is merely instigating a forum-wide distrubance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikapedia

Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.

More on this


He must be laughing about all the trouble he has caused. This forum is too big to expect everybody to avoid his bait. Unchecked - it will go on forever. If this goes on many more days, many will wonder if Capt Obvious' behavior is implicitly being blessed.

 

Your ineptitude with logic is showing. You have just said: If I don't know A, then you can't prove not A (where A is hybrids are less green than non-hybrids). What you don't know has nothing to do with what someone else can or can't prove. This is just one example of what has been a pattern in your method of argument.

Very true. However, you ask a valid question and then go on to attack people with your own unsupported answers. It's not your questions, it's your unsupported assertions which ignore evidence to the contrary which has been presented to you over and over again, only to get your repeated assertions which are effectively nothing more than unjustified attacks by you.

No, you are convincing us that you are convinced beyond any level of evidence to the contrary that hybrids are worse for the environment than a gas only model. You are avoiding learning and questioning your own assumptions which are based on old and biased and untrustworthy evidence. Delta is doing just fine.

We have looked at the evidence which suggests that the production, maintenance, and termination of a hybrid vechicle may produce more atmospheric CO2 than is what saved by its use and have concluded with much justification that such claims are untrustworthy, brought by those with bias against hybrid technology, and have little in the way of common sense and scientific basis to be probable. That is, this is an extraordinary claim (that the CO2 emissions in the production of hybrids exceed the CO2 emissions saved by the use of hybrids) and the burden of proof falls clearly on those making such a claim. Note that it is entirely probable that more CO2 is emitted in producing hybrids, but the extraordinary claim is that this amount of extra CO2 exceeds the unquestionably large amount saved during the useful lifetime of a hybrid (including maintenance and such).

-- Alan

 

Ok both sides have said about everything that needs said. No one is changing their mind anytime soon. This thread has run its course and is starting to get ugly.