Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mkaresh
I'm not bashing anyone for their vehicle choices.
I just get annoyed when people measure the quality of research based on whether it agrees with their point of view. This happens often, especially within big business and government, sometimes with disastrous results.
I see your point about how they might have allocated all the costs of developing hybrid technology to those hybrids already on the road. But, as you also note, this isn't a productive point of view, because these costs will clearly end up being spread across hundreds of thousands, even millions of future vehicles.
But even this cannot explain the findings of their research, for it does not explain how the "energy cost" of everyday cars are allegedly so high.
I don't disagree that looking at total energy cost could be informative. But CNW has clearly done a very poor job of it.
|
Your argument and the repiles expose your ignorance. The dust to dust cost is a total of all energy costs associated with the vehicle over its life cycle, not just the cost to the consumer. Keep driving your prius and feel good about how your are "saving the environment". What are you going to do with your batteries? We all know that gas is not the future source of energy. Economics will drive the transition to the next type of fuel. PERIOD. So wheter you drive a hummer or a prius, both will be dinosaurs within the next 25-50 years. And the price of gas, or the alternative fuel will drive the transition, and the speed of the transition, not a bunch of leaf lickers who didn't give a rats ass about pollution until the gas prices rose! Actually, you should be happy that gas prices are high because it gives viable alternatives a better shot at the market.
