Going "green" has gone ridiculous

[tapdiggy]

My girlfriend works at a Hannaford supermarket. They recently built a new, environmentally-friendly store. Skylights, geothermal heating, neat stuff. But there is a bizarre element in the design: specially marked parking spots for hybrids. There's no law regulating use so anyone can park there, hybrid or not. But the part that I take issue with is this: there are five or six spots located along the front of the store. They decided those spaces weren't adequate, so...



They scraped up a handicap symbol from the only handicap spot in the row to create a new hybrid spot. That door in the background is the pharmacy pick-up/drop-off exit. There are now no handicap spots for three rows. How do hybrid drivers get preference, however token, over disabled people?

[sixstring]

Report em!

[CC Cowboy]

At first I thought the hybrid parking place had a spot in the middle of the parking place from batteries leaking.

[talldrink]

Originally Posted by tapdiggy

My girlfriend works at a Hannaford supermarket. They recently built a new, environmentally-friendly store. Skylights, geothermal heating, neat stuff. But there is a bizarre element in the design: specially marked parking spots for hybrids. There's no law regulating use so anyone can park there, hybrid or not. But the part that I take issue with is this: there are five or six spots located along the front of the store. They decided those spaces weren't adequate, so...



They scraped up a handicap symbol from the only handicap spot in the row to create a new hybrid spot. That door in the background is the pharmacy pick-up/drop-off exit. There are now no handicap spots for three rows. How do hybrid drivers get preference, however token, over disabled people?

I'm certain that in order to get approval for the building, there had to be the minimum required number of handicap spots in the parking lot. They may have had an extra one and simply removed it.

[GeneJunkie]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

At first I thought the hybrid parking place had a spot in the moddle of the parking place from batteries leaking.

LOL that's exactly what I thought

[tapdiggy]

Originally Posted by talldrink

I'm certain that in order to get approval for the building, there had to be the minimum required number of handicap spots in the parking lot. They may have had an extra one and simply removed it.

They definitely have enough handicap accessible parking close to the main entrance, but none now immediately in front of the building, which is the normal order of things if such parking exists.This was the only space reserved for disabled individuals that was adjacent to the front walk and didn't require crossing traffic to reach the entrance. How is it more important for hybrids to have curbside convenience than the old guy pulling along his Oxygen bottle so he can get his arthritis medication and some groceries?

[FrugalNinja250]

As long as the parking conforms to the local laws and regulations I don't see any problems. I for one wish that businesses would take a couple of spots close to the door and mark them for motorcycles only, two bikes per spot. Now that I ride full time there are a lot of businesses I don't go to anymore because parking a bike there makes it an easy target for thieves.

[tjkamper]

If you ask me, Going green is just a marketing scheme that is aimed at the naïve, idealistic members of society and all of those who like to, “go with the crowd.” I am an economist so I make the assumption that all companies are trying to maximize profit. This means that a company will not invest in a “Green Policy” unless it will generate-at minimum-an offsetting increase in revenue and/or reduction of costs.

Example: XYZ Corporation “Goes Green” and invests in software that allows them to send invoices to their customers via email instead of printing and mailing invoices. The company made an initial investment in the software, but now reaps the benefits of eliminating paper costs, envelopes, toner, postage, and labor.

Example: Marriott International (I work for them), makes a donation of 3 million dollars to save a section of Brazilian rain forest. Marriott is out some Pudding right? Well this reduced the company’s profits for the year, lowering taxes. Also Marriott has multiple press releases telling the entire world how good a company they are. Broadcasters around the world mention Marriott’s donation in during the 5:00 news slot. Marriott also places news of the donation on their websites and in all of their hotels. Marriott in turn limits other marketing strategies during this time when they are receiving free publicity from the media. 3 Million dollars is not much when it comes to a world wide marketing campaign.

Example: John Smith’s Consulting Firm (as small business with 20 employees) tells it’s employees that they are “Going Green.” An interdepartmental memo instructs employees to limit use of paper notes, only print necessary documents, turn computers and lights off at the end of each work day, open windows instead of using air conditioning when possible, limit use of personal electronics (radios, alarm clocks, digital picture frames, etc…) at their desks. Long story short… The company saves 100’s of dollars a year in reduced use of office supplies, and utilities.

If this supermarket is a Green supermarket, it is with the purpose of making profit. Going Green is simply the vehicle for maximizing that profit. By offering parking stalls to owners of Hybrid Vehicles, they provide added incentive for those who are willing to spend extra money on“energy efficient” vehicles, and in turn are more likely to spend extra money on produce that is sold in an “energy efficient” store. The parking spot is simply a form of advertising.

I can imagine from my experience with similar stores in my area, the products are more expensive, but with skylights, no AC, and those little urinals that stink to high heaven and don’t use any water, their energy costs are lower. They probably employ less people too. At least a quarter of their produce is ORGANIC (less input = less cost, then sold at a higher price = more profit). They probably sell grains and baking supplies in bulk by the pound or ounce, which give the customer a slightly reduced price, but saves the store considerable amounts of money in packaging. They probably also make you bring your own reusable shopping bag that you bought from them for two dollars (they sold you a bag that cost them $0.25, made $1.75 in profit and now have no bagging costs at the checkout stand). ALL OF THESE THINGS AT A HIGHER PRICE THAN REGULAR DISCOUNT SUPERMARKETS IN THE AREA.

This is why your parking lot sucks! My advice, is to maximize your personal utility. If you are shopping at this store, you’re getting more utility out of your dollar there than you would by shopping at another. If not, then you wouldn’t be shopping there.

RANT OFF

[tapdiggy]

Wow, solid presentation of points. I do maximize my personal utility by shopping at Wal-Mart. Prices are lower and I don't see a major difference in quality except in meat and produce. But who eats that stuff anyway. They also don't mind when you park your bike on the concrete area instead of the parking lot.

[tjkamper]

Wal-Mart is a free-market economist's dream.

[Guinss]

Looks like they prioritize hybrid people, instead of the handicapped. And they actually scraped the asphalt to do so. Weird prioritizing if you ask me!

I personally think this green-thing is just a fashion or trend, if you can call it that. Sure, some things might help, but others are just upright lies. For example the hybrid cars. Buying a second hand car or keeping you old car means that you save all the environmental damage with making a new car. And if you drive the car reasonably, it wont use alot of fuel either. This hybrid needs to be built and shipped 5 times around the world, and then when you get it, it uses quite more fuel than promised because you gotta floor it all the time to keep up.
All those celebrities buying 2-3 hybrids, and then they are "cool" and "green" and "trendy". But really they made a big mistake.
I do not believe in half of the stuff that goes on about global-warming, but this with hybrid cars just don't make sense to me.
Maybe i watch too much Top Gear.

[FrugalNinja250]

Nothing like being called a naive idealist to make my afternoon.

Why is it that some people think others are required to accept being insulted? What happened to civility?

Hey, if I could drive a Prius I would. Their environmental costs from manufacturing are a fraction of most all vehicles larger than they are, and that's a lot of vehicle models. And bonus, if the engine wears out (so far they're not, going 200+K with no issues) I could convert to full EV fairly easily. And, if the battery pack ever failed (they haven't in any meaningful numbers) it'd be covered by warranty (as what few that have failed have been).

But, I got a bike to save gas instead, that's my major contribution to the green movement, and bonus: It'll have paid for itself and all the gear and repairs and maintenance in less than three years.

Oddly, this naive idealist knows how to use a calculator and spreadsheet quite well.

[tapdiggy]

*groan* I started this thread just to share an ironic situation, where environmentalism took precedent over disability, no debate required. Now it is a point/counterpoint. No hard feelings. *abandons thread*

[GeneJunkie]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Nothing like being called a naive idealist to make my afternoon.

Why is it that some people think others are required to accept being insulted? What happened to civility?

Hey, if I could drive a Prius I would. Their environmental costs from manufacturing are a fraction of most all vehicles larger than they are, and that's a lot of vehicle models. And bonus, if the engine wears out (so far they're not, going 200+K with no issues) I could convert to full EV fairly easily. And, if the battery pack ever failed (they haven't in any meaningful numbers) it'd be covered by warranty (as what few that have failed have been).

But, I got a bike to save gas instead, that's my major contribution to the green movement, and bonus: It'll have paid for itself and all the gear and repairs and maintenance in less than three years.

Oddly, this naive idealist knows how to use a calculator and spreadsheet quite well.

You are being naive. The manufacturing cost of a Prius is incredibly high and still requires dependence on oil. Not to mention that cost of disposing that vehicle due to that battery. Even when it comes to saving money at the pump, my friend and I calculated out the total cost of Prius vs Matrix saying you would keep it for 10 years. We included purchase price (including gov't rebate for hybrids), fill ups, etc and estimated gas reaching $5/gal, it was still more economical to purchase a non-hybrid.

Honestly the only "green" car that I will drive is a fuel cell car but thanks to our lovely president he cut funding on that research. Top Gear also did a segment on the Prius:

Link to original page on YouTube.

In terms of a motorcycle, using one does save you money at the pump but it is not eco-friendly. The pollution in ppm is higher but the actual volume is less than a car (I believe that was the jist of things). This was discussed highly in this thread http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showt...light=emission

Ok I'm off my soap box.

To the OP I am in total agreement about the hybrid parking vs handicap parking. In California if you have a hybrid you can get a sticker that allows you to ride in the carpool lane. It's completely ridiculous.

[Cedilla]

Originally Posted by tapdiggy

Going "green" has been ridiculous for a while now.

Fixed.

[inbox526]

Originally Posted by tjkamper

If you ask me, Going green is just a marketing scheme that is aimed at the naïve, idealistic members of society and all of those who like to, “go with the crowd.” I am an economist so I make the assumption that all companies are trying to maximize profit. This means that a company will not invest in a “Green Policy” unless it will generate-at minimum-an offsetting increase in revenue and/or reduction of costs.

Example: XYZ Corporation “Goes Green” and invests in software that allows them to send invoices to their customers via email instead of printing and mailing invoices. The company made an initial investment in the software, but now reaps the benefits of eliminating paper costs, envelopes, toner, postage, and labor.

Example: Marriott International (I work for them), makes a donation of 3 million dollars to save a section of Brazilian rain forest. Marriott is out some Pudding right? Well this reduced the company’s profits for the year, lowering taxes. Also Marriott has multiple press releases telling the entire world how good a company they are. Broadcasters around the world mention Marriott’s donation in during the 5:00 news slot. Marriott also places news of the donation on their websites and in all of their hotels. Marriott in turn limits other marketing strategies during this time when they are receiving free publicity from the media. 3 Million dollars is not much when it comes to a world wide marketing campaign.

Example: John Smith’s Consulting Firm (as small business with 20 employees) tells it’s employees that they are “Going Green.” An interdepartmental memo instructs employees to limit use of paper notes, only print necessary documents, turn computers and lights off at the end of each work day, open windows instead of using air conditioning when possible, limit use of personal electronics (radios, alarm clocks, digital picture frames, etc…) at their desks. Long story short… The company saves 100’s of dollars a year in reduced use of office supplies, and utilities.


RANT OFF

Well whats WRONG with "going green" to maximize profits? Look at the end results of what happens when companies go green. You cannot disagree with results.

Example 1: Costs in the long run - saved. Trees - also saved. Productivity - probably a boost as well. Negative results: cost of software, cost of integration. This company went green, and they saved money. "Saving money" is actually one of the arguments environmentalists like to use. And whats wrong with this when it happens? Any small amount is still something.

Example 2: Again, what are the end results? 3 Million dollars were donated into saving rain forests. Well, Marriott was smart to realize "going green" nets them free press, and did it before everyone catches on. But again, what are the end results? Lots of saved trees regardless. They could have spent 3 million trying to film a new ad instead. So would you have rathered they come out with a new commercial, or that they saved more trees?

Example 3: The company does indeed save money. And saving money goes hand in hand with reducing the use of supplies. Going green is a convenient rallying cry for "saving" in many regards.

More often than not, companies that go green still have a net effect of cutting costs, and cutting consumption, one way or another. In fact, 2 out of your 3 examples have nothing to do with the consumer. Sure they can advertise it, but even if they didn't, their "going green" has had its positive effect.

And take some time to think to yourself about what exactly going green was supposed to mean, and represent. It should be on a very personal level, sort of "what can I do on my own to make a difference, however small." Then think about whether you are right to be calling environmentalists "naïve, idealistic members of society and all of those who like to, 'go with the crowd.'"

[tjkamper]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Nothing like being called a naive idealist to make my afternoon.

Why is it that some people think others are required to accept being insulted? What happened to civility?

Hey, if I could drive a Prius I would. Their environmental costs from manufacturing are a fraction of most all vehicles larger than they are, and that's a lot of vehicle models. And bonus, if the engine wears out (so far they're not, going 200+K with no issues) I could convert to full EV fairly easily. And, if the battery pack ever failed (they haven't in any meaningful numbers) it'd be covered by warranty (as what few that have failed have been).

But, I got a bike to save gas instead, that's my major contribution to the green movement, and bonus: It'll have paid for itself and all the gear and repairs and maintenance in less than three years.

Oddly, this naive idealist knows how to use a calculator and spreadsheet quite well.

I appologize if my commends were offensive. They were not ment to be at all.

I simply presented the argument that businesses would not go green if there was no incentive to do so (of course there may bay the occational privately owned business who's owner recieved more utility out of selling a type of product, than the dollar amount of profit made, but that is still and incentive just not as common).

Likely if you prefer to spend extra money on a hybrid, or spend extra money in higher priced stores, or extra money on Organic foods, that simply means that you recieve some level of utility out of the fact that you are purchasing these items.

This increased utility may simply be that the store is closer and your time is more important. Or you could recieve greater utility from organic foods, because you believe there is a health or even a moral benefit from eating them. You may recieve more utility from driving a hybrid because you dirrectly are using less fossil fuels, or you might recieve utility from lowering your carbon footprint, or you might get utility simply out of the cool factor of carring a "GO GREEN" bumper sticker. Either way you recieve some benefit to these products that makes it worth spending a little extra money.

Companies simply are trying to maximize their utility as well, and the most domminant factor is profit. That is why I assume all companies goal is to maximize profit. Going Green is simply a stategy to maximize profit, I know from both study and first hand experience with my job, where I have sat in meetings were we discuss the cost benefit of aspects related to our green policy.

If you recieve benefit from Hybrids and Buying from Green companies, keep buying from them. That is why the companies are Green anyway, so that you will buy from them. If you believe it is important to be enviromentally responsible, buying from Green companies and buying Green products is the most effective way you can honor your belief.

[tjkamper]

Originally Posted by inbox526

Well whats WRONG with "going green" to maximize profits? '"

Absolutely nothing. It is a good business strategy. It can cut costs and raise revenue.

[FrugalNinja250]

A small reply to the battery comment:

The battery pack on in the Prius is about equivalent to around 20 laptop batteries. Since laptops outsell the Prius by a million to one, if you want to talk environmental cost of battery manufacturing laptops should be the primary target, not the Prius.

And further, the main component in the Prius battery that's of "concern" is nickel, and nickel used in batteries is only a itty, bitty, tiny fraction of all use since the main use for nickel is making stainless steel. Look in your cupboard, there's far more nickel there than in a Prius battery.

Besides, the Prius battery is very, very recyclable, and since the main environmental damage associated with nickel is smelting ore, recycling that nickel is good for the environment. I would hazard a guess that more nickel winds up in landfills in this country as disposed of cutlery and cooking implements than gets used to make all the hybrid battery packs in the world.

As to fuel cells, well, I talked to the engineering team a few years ago when the solar powered race cars came through town. One of the cars was a technology demonstrator powered by fuel cells. Until that chance meeting I was a big fan of fuel cells for transportation use. Afterward I wasn't anymore.

Why? Well, it turns out that fuel cells have a lot of problems that are fundamental, the biggest being contamination. Fuel cells catalytically combine oxygen from the air with hydrogen, either pure hydrogen from an onboard tank or by extracting the hydrogen from fuel on board using certain processes. If the incoming air is super clean then the fuel cell does ok, but any carbon compounds (and several other pollutants common in air) that get in with the air significantly and permanently reduce the output of the cell.

The only way around this is to purify the air, but that's expensive and technologically difficult if not impossible to do in a mobile system, i.e. a car. Even then, fuel cells degrade over time with all else being perfect, so much so that in a mobile environment you'd be changing out a $50,000 set of fuel cells every 20k miles.

Fuel cells do make a good alternative to combustion for generating electricity, though. I've seen figures where double the power was generated from a given amount of fuel.

[2WheelGuy]

Originally Posted by GeneJunkie

Top Gear also did a segment on the Prius:

Link to original page on YouTube.

In California if you have a hybrid you can get a sticker that allows you to ride in the carpool lane. It's completely ridiculous.

Excellent video that makes a great point. How you drive is more important than what you drive. A Prius gets very good mileage in stop and go traffic but not very good mileage at speed. So let's take it out of the traffic jam and run it at 70mph in the carpool lane? On the flip side vehicles that get good mileage at speed but crappy in stop and go are prohibited from the carpool lane. Can one of you Save The World Liberals make sense of this for me.

[2WheelGuy]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

The battery pack on in the Prius is about equivalent to around 20 laptop batteries.

There are 168 batteries in the current Prius. 240 batteries in the first model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius

[tjkamper]

Hybrid Cost effectiveness???

These are my calculations, my only source is www.toyota.com for MPG and MSRP.

I will compare the cost of what I consider two comparable vehicles offered by Toyota. I will also compare the Camry and the Hybrid Camry. I will also compare the Corolla and the Prius, just because a Prius was mentioned earlier in this thread and I believe the Corolla to be a comparable vehicle. .

ASSUMPTIONS:

$4 per Gallon of Gasoline. (I’m being generous here because the national average is at as $2.71 today).

I will not include any government incentives, registration, or discounts. I am assuming only off of the Base MSRP and the EPA ratings for MPG of the vehicles.

I will do two calculations, one on City and one on Highway MPG.

I will round to the fourth decimal point.

EQUATION:

MSRP GAS + (Miles traveled x (Price per gallon/MPG) = MSPR HYBRID + (Miles traveled x (Price per gallon/MPG)

DISCLAMER:

This calculation is strictly a cost analysis and does not reflect anything other than the number of miles traveled needed to break even on the MSRP difference between the two vehicles.


Camry Vs. Camry Hybrid (City)

$19,595 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 22MPG)] = $26,400 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 33MPG)]

$19,595 + [Miles ( .1818)] = $26,400 + [Miles (0.1212)]
-$19,595 -Miles (0.1212) -$19,595 -Miles (0.1212)

Miles (0.0606) = $6,805
/ 0.0606 /0.0606

Miles = 112,293.7294

Camry Vs. Camry Hybrid (Highway)

$19,595 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 33MPG)] = $26,400 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 34MPG)]

$19,595 + [Miles ( .1212)] = $26,400 + [Miles (0.1176)]
-$19,595 -Miles (0.1176) -$19,595 -Miles (0.1176)

Miles (0.0036) = $6,805
/ 0.0036 /0.0036

Miles = 1,890,277.7778


Corolla Vs. Prius (City)

$15,450 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 26MPG)] = $22,800 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 51MPG)]

$15,450 + [Miles ( 0.1538)] = $22,800 + [Miles (0.0784)]
-$15,450 -Miles (0.0784) -$15,450 -Miles (0.0784)

Miles (0.0922) = $7,350
/ 0.0922 /0.0922

Miles = 79,718.0043

Corolla Vs. Prius (Highway)

$15,450 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 35MPG)] = $22,800 + [Miles ($4 per gal. / 48MPG)]

$15,450 + [Miles ( 0.1143)] = $22,800 + [Miles (0.0833)]
-$15,450 -Miles (0.0833) -$15,450 -Miles (0.0833)

Miles (0.031) = $7,350
/ 0.031 /0.031

Miles = 237,096.7742

RESULTS:

If you intend to travel strictly in city and never drive your vehicle on highway, the Hybrid Camry is a poor, but viable option. The Prius is a good option. And translates to savings in less than eighty thousand miles (about half the life of the car). GO PRIUS!!!!

If you intend to drive at high speeds, than you should hop in a regular Camry and burn rubber away from the Hybrid as it will take almost two million miles before you will even brake even. I personally have never heard of a car lasting that long. The Prius also is not a good choice if you commute long distances on the highway with little congestion because it will require over two hundred thousand miles, before you will realize any savings.

If you drive a mix of highway and city traffic, the Camry Hybrid is not a good option, but the Prius could turn out to be a good choice or a bad choice depending on your particular City:Highway ratio.

CONCLUSION:

Make your own.

[FrugalNinja250]

Interesting calculations. I doubt that anyone does these types of calculations when spending on other options and upgrades like leather and audio systems. Also, one factor missing in your calcs is resale value. Though I haven't looked in a year or so, the last time I looked the Prius hybrid kept a lot more of its resale value than a typical Toyota. That may have changed since the electronic throttle debacle, though. Since most people don't keep a car longer than 3-5 years this retention of resale value is fairly more meaningful I would think.

[tjkamper]

Here is another equation so you can calculate savings based on your driving habits. I modeled this example off of my driving. (CITY:HIGHWAY RATIO)

Say you drive 20% city and 80% highway.
Corolla Vs. Prius

$15,450 + {[.2 Miles ($4 per gal. / 26MPG)] + [.8 Miles ($4 per gal. / 35MPG)] = $22,800 + {[.2 Miles ($4 per gal. / 51MPG)] + [.8 Miles ($4 per gal. / 48MPG)]

$15,450 + {[.2 Miles ( 0.1538)] + [.8 Miles ( 0.1143)]} = $22,800 + { [.2 Miles (0.0784)] [.8 Miles (0.0833)]}



$15,450 + [Miles ( 0.1222)] = $22,800 + [Miles (0.0823)]


-$15,450 -Miles (0.0823) -$15,450 -Miles (0.0823)

Miles (0.0399) = $7,350
/ 0.0399 /0.0399

Miles = 184,210.5263

[bob706]

Originally Posted by tapdiggy

They scraped up a handicap symbol from the only handicap spot in the row to create a new hybrid spot. That door in the background is the pharmacy pick-up/drop-off exit. There are now no handicap spots for three rows. How do hybrid drivers get preference, however token, over disabled people?

That's just wrong. Epic fail

[tjkamper]

Here is the polar opposite.

Say you drive 80% city and 20% highway.
Corolla Vs. Prius

$15,450 + {[.8 Miles ($4 per gal. / 26MPG)] + [.2 Miles ($4 per gal. / 35MPG)] = $22,800 + {[.8 Miles ($4 per gal. / 51MPG)] + [.2 Miles ($4 per gal. / 48MPG)]

$15,450 + {[.8 Miles ( 0.1538)] + [.2 Miles ( 0.1143)]} = $22,800 + { [.8 Miles (0.0784)] [.2 Miles (0.0833)]}



$15,450 + [Miles ( 0.1459)] = $22,800 + [Miles (0.0794)]
-$15,450 -Miles (0.0794) -$15,450 -Miles (0.0794)

Miles (0.0665) = $7,350
/ 0.0665 /0.0665

Miles = 110,526.3158

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by 2WheelGuy

Excellent video that makes a great point. .

Ok, I watched the video just so that I could respond accurately. First off, about the nickel mining: The Prius battery uses a few pounds of nickel at most, less than what a basic set of kitchen utensils contains. So the percentage of nickel out of any mine anywhere going into a Prius battery is miniscule at best. In fact, the Canadian mine mentioned in the video is in the Sudbury region of Ontario and produces about 30% of the world's supply. Russia has the largest supply. Shipping that nickel is not an issue since it probably doesn't even amount to 1x10^-10 of what gets shipped in this world every day. More on nickel here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel

Note how little goes toward batteries (all of them everywhere):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel#Applications

As to the way the cars were driven? Gimme a break. That Prius was thrashed as fast as it could go according to the hosts, way out of its designed driving parameters. Of course you can't drive it like that on the street, you'd get arrested assuming you lasted long enough instead of crashing. Other than making for an interesting bit of television (hey, it's a TV show!) nothing meaningful was demonstrated other than the fact that a $60,000 high-performance car could handle a racetrack better than a $23,000 bone stock commuter car. If you drove the M3 like the Prius was driven I bet its gas mileage would drop easily into the single digits. In fact, it does (edit to add, I mean, if you ran the M3 around the track on its own, driven to the edge of its performance envelope, screeching tires, braking into the ABS protocols of the car's antilock brake system, etc. In other words, driven as fast as it could go, just like the Prius was driven as fast as it could go. That's what I mean by the word "like".) :

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/arc.../t-112069.html

On the other hand, if you drove both in real world city and highway conditions I bet the Prius would get double, maybe even triple what the M3 got. So, thrashing them both on a track the BMW gets half the mileage of the hybrid.

The manufacturing costs for a Prius aren't any higher than many other cars in its price range, otherwise Toyota wouldn't be making money on them. Think about it. If they were, they'd charge more, right? They've been selling the Prius since the 1997 and have sold over 1.6 million worldwide, half in this country. Ford, Chrysler, and GM laughed at it and Toyota's precedent. Gee, look where that got them.

I like Top Gear, it's a fun show, but it's just a TV show whose primary focus is on performance vehicles and entertainment. Their audience is mainly people who like high-performance cars (and therefor are more likely to enjoy someone making fun of a low-performance car like the Prius).

I'm out, gotta go audit my perception filters.

[2WheelGuy]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

If you drove the M3 like the Prius was driven I bet its gas mileage would drop easily into the single digits.

In the video the M3 was driven just like the Prius. The M3 followed the Prius around the track at the same speeds and got better mileage.

Link to original page on YouTube.

The point is that when driven fast the Prius sucks more gas than performance cars. To maximize the economy of a Prius you have to drive it economically (i.e. slooowly). I wish I had a camera mount for my motorcycle. I'd video all the Prius' going 80mph+ in the carpool lane of my local freeway. There are so many that you see one every few minutes. Very, very, very rarely do you see one cruising in the slow lanes.

Just because you drive a Prius doesn't make you Green. You may like the way your farts smell, but I assure you that no one else does.

[GeneJunkie]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Ok, I watched the video just so that I could respond accurately. First off, about the nickel mining: The Prius battery uses a few pounds of nickel at most, less than what a basic set of kitchen utensils contains. So the percentage of nickel out of any mine anywhere going into a Prius battery is miniscule at best. In fact, the Canadian mine mentioned in the video is in the Sudbury region of Ontario and produces about 30% of the world's supply. Russia has the largest supply. Shipping that nickel is not an issue since it probably doesn't even amount to 1x10^-10 of what gets shipped in this world every day. More on nickel here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel

Note how little goes toward batteries (all of them everywhere):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel#Applications

The point they made about the nickle was to show that Toyota is not taking great lengths to truly make this a "green" vehicle. If the Prius or any other hybrid car was really manufactured to be healthier for the environment they wouldn't be importing materials, everything would be produced locally, factories would have very low pollution output, etc etc. Instead they use the exact same manufactoring methods as a regular car.

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

The manufacturing costs for a Prius aren't any higher than many other cars in its price range, otherwise Toyota wouldn't be making money on them.

They DO have a higher manufacturing cost, that's why they have a higher price tag. All hybrids cost at least $8000 more than their standard counterpart. They are shifting the manufacturing cost onto the consumer.

Hybrids a marketing scam, period. People buy these cars because they think they are using less fuel, saving money in their pocket and it's healthier for the environment but it's completely false. It is exactly why I will never own a hybrid. If you want to work on actually having a closer to "green" vehicle you need to check out the Honda FCX Clarity http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/ (/cry if I was only a little closer to their testing site)

BTW in the future, for the love of God please don't use Wikipedia as a source of information, it's a good starting point but the information there shouldn't be taken as fact. I have run into many instances of where the information in Wikipedia is blatantly wrong.

[mrlmd]

Don't forget the $4500 price tag (labor included) to replace the batteries on the Prius when they crap out at around 100,000 miles. Something to think about if you're buying a used one - be aware of what's on the odometer more than on another car.

[Guinss]

In addition to that episode of top gear about the m3 vs prius, there is also one time where they say that a vw polo uses less fuel than a prius. This 'VW Polo Bluemotion' uses a 3 cylinder TDI. I would rather buy that than a Prius.

[CC Cowboy]

The Prius of today is the VW bus of yesterday. They are the drivers that love to get in the fast lane and hold everyone up. Their thinking being that they are righteous energy conservationists and we should either all drive Priuses or go slow like they do (thus saving energy). I see them continuously up and down the east coast ( I just blow by them).

[bobguy]

Originally Posted by tjkamper

If you ask me, Going green is just a marketing scheme that is aimed at the naïve, idealistic members of society and all of those who like to, “go with the crowd.” I am an economist so I make the assumption that all companies are trying to maximize profit. This means that a company will not invest in a “Green Policy” unless it will generate-at minimum-an offsetting increase in revenue and/or reduction of costs.

Example: XYZ Corporation “Goes Green” and invests in software that allows them to send invoices to their customers via email instead of printing and mailing invoices. The company made an initial investment in the software, but now reaps the benefits of eliminating paper costs, envelopes, toner, postage, and labor.

Example: Marriott International (I work for them), makes a donation of 3 million dollars to save a section of Brazilian rain forest. Marriott is out some Pudding right? Well this reduced the company’s profits for the year, lowering taxes. Also Marriott has multiple press releases telling the entire world how good a company they are. Broadcasters around the world mention Marriott’s donation in during the 5:00 news slot. Marriott also places news of the donation on their websites and in all of their hotels. Marriott in turn limits other marketing strategies during this time when they are receiving free publicity from the media. 3 Million dollars is not much when it comes to a world wide marketing campaign.

Example: John Smith’s Consulting Firm (as small business with 20 employees) tells it’s employees that they are “Going Green.” An interdepartmental memo instructs employees to limit use of paper notes, only print necessary documents, turn computers and lights off at the end of each work day, open windows instead of using air conditioning when possible, limit use of personal electronics (radios, alarm clocks, digital picture frames, etc…) at their desks. Long story short… The company saves 100’s of dollars a year in reduced use of office supplies, and utilities.

If this supermarket is a Green supermarket, it is with the purpose of making profit. Going Green is simply the vehicle for maximizing that profit. By offering parking stalls to owners of Hybrid Vehicles, they provide added incentive for those who are willing to spend extra money on“energy efficient” vehicles, and in turn are more likely to spend extra money on produce that is sold in an “energy efficient” store. The parking spot is simply a form of advertising.

I can imagine from my experience with similar stores in my area, the products are more expensive, but with skylights, no AC, and those little urinals that stink to high heaven and don’t use any water, their energy costs are lower. They probably employ less people too. At least a quarter of their produce is ORGANIC (less input = less cost, then sold at a higher price = more profit). They probably sell grains and baking supplies in bulk by the pound or ounce, which give the customer a slightly reduced price, but saves the store considerable amounts of money in packaging. They probably also make you bring your own reusable shopping bag that you bought from them for two dollars (they sold you a bag that cost them $0.25, made $1.75 in profit and now have no bagging costs at the checkout stand). ALL OF THESE THINGS AT A HIGHER PRICE THAN REGULAR DISCOUNT SUPERMARKETS IN THE AREA.

This is why your parking lot sucks! My advice, is to maximize your personal utility. If you are shopping at this store, you’re getting more utility out of your dollar there than you would by shopping at another. If not, then you wouldn’t be shopping there.

RANT OFF

Hurray for economist!....especially Austrian economists.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by 2WheelGuy

In the video the M3 was driven just like the Prius. The M3 followed the Prius around the track at the same speeds and got better mileage.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear (though not that unclear!) What I meant, what I thought I clearly said (and apparently didn't), was that if you'd have driven the M3 like the Prius (which meant, thrashed to within an inch of its life!) the M3 would get worse gas mileage than the Prius.

And it does, single digit gas mileage (read the link).

Sorry that you weren't able to parse that meaning from what I wrote, I'll try to be less ambiguous in the future.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by GeneJunkie

They DO have a higher manufacturing cost, that's why they have a higher price tag. All hybrids cost at least $8000 more than their standard counterpart. They are shifting the manufacturing cost onto the consumer.

Uhhhh, go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, and I quote: "The manufacturing costs for a Prius aren't any higher than many other cars in its price range...

You seem to imply that the hybrid option is something that nobody wants but is shoved down their throats anyway. Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong, could you clarify your stance on that?

From what I remember about concepts in a free market economy such as ours (undergraduate courses in business) when people can freely choose what options are available (such as leather, Bose sound, upgrade performance package, hybrid drivetrain, etc) and then make that choice, the manufacturers that provide those options sell products, those that don't, well, don't and go out of business.

Over eight hundred thousand people have freely chosen the hybrid option when purchasing the Prius in this country.

Again, I stand by what I said, the manufacturing costs for a Prius aren't any higher than many other cars in its price range.

I also wonder at how the nickel use in the Prius could be so vilely condemned by people who have no problem buying a fancy set of stainless steel kitchen accessories or a grill that uses ten times as much nickel and will wind up in a landfill at some point instead of being recycled like the Prius battery is.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by mrlmd

Don't forget the $4500 price tag (labor included) to replace the batteries on the Prius when they crap out at around 100,000 miles. Something to think about if you're buying a used one - be aware of what's on the odometer more than on another car.

Real world experience has been that these batteries don't cost anywhere near that to replace, and not only that, but Toyota's been covering the cost of the very few battery packs that have failed under warranty even after the warranty period has expired, presumably to gain failure mode analysis experience.

Fact is, the battery in the Prius hasn't been the nightmare that it was predicted (and still apparently believed by a few) to be.

These are not the issues you're looking for. Move along (click).

[GeneJunkie]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Uhhhh, go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, and I quote: "The manufacturing costs for a Prius aren't any higher than many other cars in its price range...

You seem to imply that the hybrid option is something that nobody wants but is shoved down their throats anyway. Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong, could you clarify your stance on that?

When people say cars of the same price range.. I think of cars that are about the same size and class of car, ie Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, etc. I figured you were comparing the Prius to other similar sized vehicles since this whole argument seems to be Prius vs regular car. Of course the Prius isn't going to cost more than lets say the Honda Civic Hybrid, they use the same materials. I never implied that hybrid is something that nobody wants, I just said it's a great marketing scam.

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I also wonder at how the nickel use in the Prius could be so vilely condemned by people who have no problem buying a fancy set of stainless steel kitchen accessories or a grill that uses ten times as much nickel and will wind up in a landfill at some point instead of being recycled like the Prius battery is.

/sigh this is why I hate arguments with people who think that they are saving the world with a Prius. The only point was that Toyota is NOT making an effort to make manufacturing the Prius "greener." That's it, that was the point. Nickle is a very toxic heavy metal. I actually do research on nickle and the effects on plant growth... it's not something that should be taken lightly. The Prius is not a green vehicle, period, it isn't manufactured in a green way, it is still dependent on fossil fuels, it can't be easily recycled, and so on.

The fact of the matter is that barely anyone is truly trying to live in a greener manner. If people really cared they would take public transportation or cycle instead of driving a car, start their own garden or support local growers, compost, put an effort into recycling or reusing, keep the lights off until it's dark, open the windows instead of using A/C etc. The problem is, none of that is "sexy" for the modern day consumer. But, on the other hand you can go out and buy a Prius, now everyone knows that you are "being green" and you can make a statement to the world without having to change your daily habits and suddenly being green is "sexy." You can easily say oh that's complete BS but low and behold research was done and published in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/bu...brid.html?_r=1 I really hate that people are so close minded and can't accept a view that isn't there own. Yes I can see how hybrids can be useful, but I think there are too many negatives to those vehicles and it outweighs the benefits.

Anyways, in the search of information, I found this article that made me chuckle:
http://www.autotropolis.com/car-buyi...hummer-h2.html

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by GeneJunkie

When people say cars of the same price range.. I think of cars that are about the same size and class of car, ie Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, etc. I figured you were comparing the Prius to other similar sized vehicles since this whole argument seems to be Prius vs regular car. Of course the Prius isn't going to cost more than lets say the Honda Civic Hybrid, they use the same materials. I never implied that hybrid is something that nobody wants, I just said it's a great marketing scam.

You figured wrong. I'm a fairly literal kind of guy, and try to be very particular with the words I use so as to accurate reflect what I intend to say. When I said cars of the same price range, I meant exactly that, not anything else. And the use of the work "scam" implies some sort of criminal or otherwise nefarious intent. I don't know of any non-criminal, non-nefarious meanings of that word, and wonder why it's being used in this context.

Originally Posted by GeneJunkie

/sigh this is why I hate arguments with people who think that they are saving the world with a Prius. The only point was that Toyota is NOT making an effort to make manufacturing the Prius "greener." That's it, that was the point. Nickle is a very toxic heavy metal. I actually do research on nickle and the effects on plant growth... it's not something that should be taken lightly. The Prius is not a green vehicle, period, it isn't manufactured in a green way, it is still dependent on fossil fuels, it can't be easily recycled, and so on.

What research do you do on nickel? It's sort of a heavy metal, but it's not all that toxic compared to other commonly used industrial metals such as cadmium, lead, and even zinc in some contexts. As to the "green-ness" of the Prius, it's very recyclable, exactly the same as any other vehicle. It's no less recyclable than a Hummer H2 (or H1 for that matter!) There is already a nickel recycling infrastructure in place (you DO take your old NiCad batteries and old stainless steel items to your local recycling facility, right?) so the battery recycling issue is a dead issue (read: dead horse). As a small car the Prius takes fewer resources to make. As a hybrid it burns less fossil fuel to run the way many, if not most, people drive it, i.e. commuter traffic (not on a race track in England!).

Originally Posted by GeneJunkie

The fact of the matter is that barely anyone is truly trying to live in a greener manner. If people really cared they would take public transportation or cycle instead of driving a car, start their own garden or support local growers, compost, put an effort into recycling or reusing, keep the lights off until it's dark, open the windows instead of using A/C etc. The problem is, none of that is "sexy" for the modern day consumer. But, on the other hand you can go out and buy a Prius, now everyone knows that you are "being green" and you can make a statement to the world without having to change your daily habits and suddenly being green is "sexy." You can easily say oh that's complete BS but low and behold research was done and published in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/bu...brid.html?_r=1 I really hate that people are so close minded and can't accept a view that isn't there own. Yes I can see how hybrids can be useful, but I think there are too many negatives to those vehicles and it outweighs the benefits.

Anyways, in the search of information, I found this article that made me chuckle:
http://www.autotropolis.com/car-buyi...hummer-h2.html

BTW, the CNW report that that last article was based on was debunked years ago. http://www.slate.com/id/2186786 You embarrass yourself by bringing it up without bothering to at least check (google the words Prius, Hummer, debunk to get lots of hits) if it was accurate.

What I see happening here is fairly simple. Because the Prius became associated with a certain small political segment of Hollywood, a certain other small political segment decided to demonize the Prius as a symbol of all that's wrong (in their view) with the country and the world. The CNW report was part of that political attack, and it keeps being brought up over and over again despite being thoroughly discredited. Why? Because for many people it's easier to believe a comfortable lie than it is to believe an uncomfortable truth. Simple as that.

It's just a car, folks.

All of the hybrid-bashing that I've seen going in this thread (and I've tried to dispel as much as I can, not for the people spewing it because their perception filters make it impossible for them to alter their feelings about this car technology, but for anybody else reading this to form an opinion) is purely politically motivated.

I've studied this technology from an engineering and physics viewpoint, and I've made the real effort to learn the real facts surrounding it. I've come to the conclusion that it is a good transition to the eventuality of full EV transportation. The small hybrids use less energy and have a smaller ecological footprint across the board. Full EVs will be even better. My dream car with this transitional technology would be a VW TDI plug-in Hybrid with a large battery pack so that I could use line power for local trips.

And I'm out, because though I can present facts until I'm blue in the face, I know from long experience that it's impossible to budge many people who have no interest in being budged.

[cifex]

Prius is among the first generation of hybrids... They aren't going to get everything right in a few years but it will steadily improve and very quickly become FAR more economical than any gas guzzler. That said, between snowboarding, mountain biking and the motorcycle and drive well over 30,000 miles a year so, I can't really make judgements about how much gas others are sucking up.

[sharkie308]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

What research do you do on nickel? It's sort of a heavy metal, but it's not all that toxic compared to other commonly used industrial metals such as cadmium, lead, and even zinc in some contexts.

Ni, my friend is considerably toxic to plants. Which is the area in which she does work with Ni. She can go into the details but there was a dump near where I grew up in Indiana in the Corn belt and one of the main things the company was dumping was Ni based products. Nothing could grow anywhere near there. There is a Ni recycling infrastructure in place but it is still costs more to recycle it and is more of an intensive process.

You want to compare it to car's in the same price range but that can't be done. Because it does run anywhere from 5-8 thousand more than cars with similar sizes and options. For 25k on a Ford Fusion you can get a fully loaded car with leather, Navi, backup sensors etc. instead of a base Prius. On top of that the Fusion with the I4 with 6spd gets around 36mpg which is pretty damn good.

The top gear movie did make me laugh but the thing is with the way most people drive they would do better in the M3. Yet again to get the full effect from a Prius you have to change how you normally drive. Anyways, I'm done. I thing going green by driving a crappy vehicle is dumb. There are so many other things in my life I could change that would make more of a difference. For now I'll keep driving my gas guzzlers they're a hell of a lot more fun.