CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy That’s the conclusion of long-term study of “dust to dust” energy costs for cars and . Some organization called CNW Marketing Research Inc. has published an ” analysis” of the total energy consumption of various kinds of cars. 8 This is in part because 6 Dust to Dust Rep CNW Marketing Research Inc Web 19 from ENVS at University of Oregon.
|Published (Last):||27 October 2010|
|PDF File Size:||17.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.6 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
They point out something that’s more or less reasonable: First, make sure you’re looking at the right numbers. In they revised their figures: Anyone still quoting the figures is either negligent or not being a good faith actor. Second, the numbers changed because the lifetime estimates changed.
In CNW said that a Prius had an expected lifetime ofmiles and an H2 had an expected lifetime ofmiles. In they said that both cars had an estimated lifetime ofAt least they’re comparing apples to apples this year, but the numbers miss the whole point of spending dhst money up front for more efficiency over the life of the vehicle.
A Prius is a Toyota – a brand famous for its ultra-reliability. The Prius runs its engine at a more constant speed than a conventional car, so the service interval is longer and the engine is expected to last longer.
‘Dust to dust’ is dust: Prius uses less energy than Hummer
The brakes and rotors are rarely used so they almost never need replacement. The transmission is six fixed gears so there’s very little to wear out. The battery is warranted tomiles in California. There are cab drivers with overmiles on their Priuses. I’m averaging 25, miles a year, and I doubt my car is headed to the crusher just three years from now.
‘Dust to dust’ is dust: Prius uses less energy than Hummer – CNET
As far as this study goes a duxt of electricity is equivalent to the energy in a similar volume of gasoline – they don’t care how the electricity is generated or gasoline is burned. But gasoline power is already more expensive and more polluting than electrical power. Consuming more power up front – power that can be generated with wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, or cogeneration at the factory – makes a lot of sense if it means burning less of the expensive and polluting fuel later.
The trade-off gets even more favorable when you start comparing gas prices five to ten years from now. Finally, I’m not sure that I buy the “Prius has tl higher up-front cost” argument. If it’s so much cheaper in materials and energy to produce an H2, why does the baseline H2 cost 2.
At very least the import taxes on a Prius ought to make it even more expensive than an H2. I could be wrong about these figures of course. Maybe building a Prius does cost more energy and cause more harm than an H2.
CNW Marketing Research – Wikipedia
Everyone ought to agree that the cost of a product duust to reflect its actual costs: Gross polluters should be penalized through environmental regulation, and the fines they pay should go to the cleanup efforts that their activities require. If consumers are required to consider the true costs of their purchase they will make smarter purchases.
But the people waving the CNW Report banner don’t seem dst be willing to follow the report to this conclusion. The fact that they’re not advocating stricter regulation to tie production costs to purchase costs or driving the ultra-compact, efficient conventional cars that their report suggests seems to indicate that they take this study’s conclusions about as seriously as I do.
Followup pieces hereherehereand here go even further than I do. It’s not just that CNW’s comparison is wrong, it’s that the numbers themselves are wrong.
Log in No account?
CNW Research “dust to dust” study.