Analysis of CNW: sensitivity-thresholds
Hi folks,
Recently, someone posted an open question about the energy needed to make a hybrid electric. Quickly, several of us posted a pointer to the Carnegie Melon study but something kept bothering me: --- In Prius_Technical_Stuff@yahoogroups.com, "Robert J. Wilson" <bwilson4web@...> wrote: > > Hi, > --- In Prius_Technical_Stuff@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Hall > <jjj150a@> wrote: > > > > Hi,Just a quick question, has anyone thought about how much energy > > is used to create a car "Prius" or otherwise. This was a question > > put to me by one of my work colleagues. . . . > > http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html > > "Automobiles: Manufacture vs. Use > Carnegie Mellon University, 1998 > > This life-cycle inventory of impacts due to the manufacturing and use > stages of an automobile was published by Heather L. MacLean and Lester > B. Lave of Carnegie Mellon University, in 1998.1 Maclean and Lave used > a method of life-cycle assessment (LCA) known as economic input-output > (IO) analysis. This method of LCA has the benefit that it allows the > researcher to easily trace the environmental impacts of a car purchase > not just through the automobile manufacturing industry, but in turn > through its various suppliers (of raw materials, parts, chemicals, > etc.) . . ." > > They figure it is about "1.2 million MJ" with about 3/4ths being the > fuel used by vehicle operation. (1) Manufacturing cost (2) Vehicle life This allows us to test "CNW fudge factors" to see if we could figure out what was needed for their claims. This is important because it takes work to 'adjust' real data to give the illusion of 'truthiness' (see Wikipedia.) To give the same energy cost per mile as the Ford, I found: A) Holding manufacturing costs constant, requires the hybrid life to go down by ~64% while Hummer-like lifetime must go up 170% Folks were quick to spot the mileage discrepancy in the "Dust-to-Dust" report but the worst was the "Land Cruiser" versus every other car. It had nearly twice the 'lifetime' of any other car to the point of being way too obvious: http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/life_time_cost.jpg Within the same or similar models, we always found the hybrid with a shorter life even though it was more economical to operate. CNW had to invent the paradox that the same model hybrid would not be used as much as the gas-only vehicle, even if owned by the same family by the false claim that driving a hybrid is done to make a "style" statement. B) Holding vehicle life constant, requires the hybrid manufacturing costs to go up by 450% and even if built for free, the Hummer-like vehicle would never come close Folks also quickly noticed the inflated "design" costs as well as "recycling" costs. But the problem is even if you build a Hummer-like vehicle for free, you still have to make it Superman indestructible to compete. To no surprise, there is evidence of both "adjustment" factors: cost of manufacture and vehicle life to get the targeted cost per mile to where it would have "truthiness." (a term borrowed from Stephen Colbert describing how to act like someone who knows something while being totally full of fecal material.) So where did CNW Marketing get the detailed spreadsheets referenced in the "Dust-to-Dust" report? I suspect a copy of an actual life-time study but with the full data tables. Upon figuring out what numbers had to change by what 'adjustment' factors, the massive spreadsheets were released as backup to the "Dust-to-Dust" conclusions. When I reviewed the "Dust-to-Dust" spreadsheets, I was always bothered that some of the 'calculations' were omitted. This is not how a real engineering paper works! Now if I were a University professor concerned about sources or the author of a legitimate life-time study, I would compare the row elements of the CNW "Dust-to-Dust" report with published papers on vehicle life-time studies. Upon finding the rows looking a lot alike, I would then see if the data in the columns looked 'familiar'. All I've done is take the summary data from a legitimate lifetime study, the Carnegie Mellon report, and test the hypothesis that two simple 'adjustments' to their data could deliver "Dust-to-Dust" conclusions. Near as I can tell, that hypothesis remains viable. Bob Wilson |
Re: Analysis of CNW: sensitivity-thresholds
Here's my analysis of CNW: He's full of crap :D
|
Re: Analysis of CNW: sensitivity-thresholds
Bob,
What does "CNW" stand for? Thanks in advance. Chris |
Re: Analysis of CNW: sensitivity-thresholds
Hi Chris,
Originally Posted by chris_h
(Post 129495)
Bob,
What does "CNW" stand for? We quickly noticed several problems:
My speculation is CNW collected the data from these peer reports and then 'adjusted' the numbers. This would give the illusion of research with credible categories but the numbers would be illusionary. But it is easier to simply state the CNW Marketing is full of it. Bob Wilson |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands