http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
Rather interesting about how 'green' that car actually is. What I find interesting is the amount of work going into manufactur this so called green car.
As for the Nickel mine I am not real up to date on the Canadian area, Zan or tik can you verify what they post about sudbury?
My Hummer beats out your Prius.
Moderator: Dictators in Training
-
kaharthemad
- NT Traveller
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:47 am
- Location: Somewhere South of Disorder
Surprising. He does assume that the Hummer will be on the road three times longer than the Prius (which may be accurate).
This is just a moronic thing to say. Obviously people realize they aren't going to be saving money right off the dealership.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
This is just a moronic thing to say. Obviously people realize they aren't going to be saving money right off the dealership.
-
kaharthemad
- NT Traveller
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:47 am
- Location: Somewhere South of Disorder
I haven't been there for a very long time but from what I remember, and hear/read, it was really bad years ago but they're making a real effort in cleaning things up and making sure that sort of situation doesn't happen again. There is still some work to do, I know acid rain was a very real problem and it killed off some lakes around sudbury making it too acidic for fish to live in.
-
kaharthemad
- NT Traveller
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:47 am
- Location: Somewhere South of Disorder
zan Im not making this into a flame war. However you cant see past your hatred for all things non liberal to realize that this came from a very liberal school and last time I checked Greenpeace aint exactly right wing loving.
I am interested in the fact that this car that is supposedly environmentally friendly, is looking to be opposite. I am checking the facts in the article but wanted some reference from someone that lives a bit closer than myself. However you saw fit to try and start a flame war over. I was asking for your thoughts on the site up there.
Thank you Snero. I appreciate you info. Just wanted to do some back ground on the site itself.
I am interested in the fact that this car that is supposedly environmentally friendly, is looking to be opposite. I am checking the facts in the article but wanted some reference from someone that lives a bit closer than myself. However you saw fit to try and start a flame war over. I was asking for your thoughts on the site up there.
Thank you Snero. I appreciate you info. Just wanted to do some back ground on the site itself.
-
kaharthemad
- NT Traveller
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:47 am
- Location: Somewhere South of Disorder
no you werent. and the point I was trying to make was this. if this car is so environmentally friendly why is the cost per mile so high? As well as why is the battery it requires to operate being shipped all over gods green earth to get 'manufactured'. There are other mines around the America, that has the capability to produuce the nickel needed for these cars yet they use one on the EPA's ten most wanted list?
this really is a case of somebody using statistics to try and prove their point though, it's a very slanted view on things. First of all, the notion that they use nickel and ship it around is something thats pretty universal, thats how it happens everywhere with just about every natural resource, china and taiwan are two of the leading manufacturing areas in the world and they have limited mines and wood, where do you think it comes from?
Also that whole dust to dust study of cars is totally bogus, they looked at energy costs but not where that energy comes from. Some methods are a lot more environmentally friendly then others, and as a general rule (I assume this is true in this case), the energy used to make electricity on a mass scale will cause less pollution then say, one gas guzzling SUV. They did not in any way look at actual pollution production, but only energy used in the lifetime of the vehicle and they assumed a direct correlation, or at least the people who quote the study do. They also took the cost of planning, developing the technology into consideration which is ridiculous. So R&D costs for something new is higher than the costs for something that hasn't changed much for a hundred years, and this is a surprise or in any way puts into question the positive environmental impact something like this could have?
I am not saying that a prius is the jesus of cars, and everybody should run out and get them, but this article and the study it's at least partially based on is very biased. Hybrid cars could very well be a potential problem on many fronts that haven't been explored yet, what to do with all the used batteries could be a problem. Then again fuel cells are far from perfect too While fuel cells burn clean, the problem is producing enough hydrogen to keep these cars running and right now the "best" way we have to do this is the electrolysis of water, which costs huge amounts of electricity, so it's not a totally clean technology either.
Also that whole dust to dust study of cars is totally bogus, they looked at energy costs but not where that energy comes from. Some methods are a lot more environmentally friendly then others, and as a general rule (I assume this is true in this case), the energy used to make electricity on a mass scale will cause less pollution then say, one gas guzzling SUV. They did not in any way look at actual pollution production, but only energy used in the lifetime of the vehicle and they assumed a direct correlation, or at least the people who quote the study do. They also took the cost of planning, developing the technology into consideration which is ridiculous. So R&D costs for something new is higher than the costs for something that hasn't changed much for a hundred years, and this is a surprise or in any way puts into question the positive environmental impact something like this could have?
I am not saying that a prius is the jesus of cars, and everybody should run out and get them, but this article and the study it's at least partially based on is very biased. Hybrid cars could very well be a potential problem on many fronts that haven't been explored yet, what to do with all the used batteries could be a problem. Then again fuel cells are far from perfect too While fuel cells burn clean, the problem is producing enough hydrogen to keep these cars running and right now the "best" way we have to do this is the electrolysis of water, which costs huge amounts of electricity, so it's not a totally clean technology either.
I'm about an hour and half from Sudbury
Here's what the government has to say about Sudbury and their pollution habits
(Taken from http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidwater.html )
"The greatest improvements have been seen in the Sudbury area, where local emissions of acid-causing pollutants have declined by 90% in the last three decades. Here, fish populations have rebounded and fish-eating birds, such as loons, have increased"
Yes, Nasa did do tests out there. They had the Canadian Branch of Nasa attach specialized wheels to a weighted frame and they did pull it around near the mine. But not because of how horribly the the landscape was destroyed due to this evil mine. The mine exists because it's the site of an asteroid colliding with earth however long ago and the area is rich in minerals. NASA wanted to test out some new tires/wheels in an environment that closely approximated that found on other planets/moons hit by asteroids etc.
Once I saw that someone from Greenpeace was quoted I knew right away that this was an alarmist post and they would try to twist the stats and meanings to their point of view.
I dont doubt that some of what they mentioned is true. But it's taken well out of context IMO to try and bolster their point.
Edit: fixed the link
Here's what the government has to say about Sudbury and their pollution habits
(Taken from http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidwater.html )
"The greatest improvements have been seen in the Sudbury area, where local emissions of acid-causing pollutants have declined by 90% in the last three decades. Here, fish populations have rebounded and fish-eating birds, such as loons, have increased"
Yes, Nasa did do tests out there. They had the Canadian Branch of Nasa attach specialized wheels to a weighted frame and they did pull it around near the mine. But not because of how horribly the the landscape was destroyed due to this evil mine. The mine exists because it's the site of an asteroid colliding with earth however long ago and the area is rich in minerals. NASA wanted to test out some new tires/wheels in an environment that closely approximated that found on other planets/moons hit by asteroids etc.
Once I saw that someone from Greenpeace was quoted I knew right away that this was an alarmist post and they would try to twist the stats and meanings to their point of view.
I dont doubt that some of what they mentioned is true. But it's taken well out of context IMO to try and bolster their point.
Edit: fixed the link
As an addendum
I used to (up until 7-8 years ago) go fishing there every few months. It was a get away to drink massive amounts of alcohol and pee over the side of a boat. There are many many lakes in the area and I had no trouble catching fish (or a buzz for that matter). The landscape itself looked fine to me.Albeit with alot more jagged rocks and such then I am used to. Maybe there was a grain of truth in the article if it was written 30 years ago.
I used to (up until 7-8 years ago) go fishing there every few months. It was a get away to drink massive amounts of alcohol and pee over the side of a boat. There are many many lakes in the area and I had no trouble catching fish (or a buzz for that matter). The landscape itself looked fine to me.Albeit with alot more jagged rocks and such then I am used to. Maybe there was a grain of truth in the article if it was written 30 years ago.
Didn't someone win the Darwin award a few years ago by splatting themselves with a rocket propelled car?
Complete bunk myth. Was actually one of the first episodes of Mythbusters. They got the same kind of car the guy supposedly had, put rockets on the roof of the same power he supposedly had, got the car going up to 120ish and fired the rockets. It hit about 180, but that's it.
-Arlos