EVE Search - All tree huggers should sell your Prius, buy a hummer.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

All tree huggers should sell your Prius, buy a hummer.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 17:39:00 - [1] Read this article. I got a huge lulz out of this. I can't stand the smugness of these Prius and Focus drivers who think they are the environments best friend. I beg to differ. Now, I not one who is so easily moved by studies, but this one seems legit.
Kye Kenshin coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.11 17:50:00 - [2] I don't like people who seriously think they are somehow saviours of the planet because they drive a prius. But then I also think people must be hugely compensating for something if they insist on buying a Hummer for general use.
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.05.11 17:52:00 - [3] Buy a Mercedes.... ... was i supposed to make a point? Just do it, you know it makes sense! -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!! PEW PEW PEW PEW!
Kye Kenshin coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.11 18:05:00 - [4] Originally by: Mtthias Clemi Buy a Mercedes.... ... was i supposed to make a point? Just do it, you know it makes sense! Mercedes are boring... What you really want is a TVR or an Aston Martin.
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.05.11 18:20:00 - [5] Originally by: Kye Kenshin Originally by: Mtthias Clemi Buy a Mercedes.... ... was i supposed to make a point? Just do it, you know it makes sense! Mercedes are boring... What you really want is a TVR or an Aston Martin. They are good.... but.. Id choose the Merc SLR over either of those any day... but yeah, both great types of car -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!! PEW PEW PEW PEW!
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.11 18:30:00 - [6] Originally by: RedFall Read this article. I got a huge lulz out of this. I can't stand the smugness of these Prius and Focus drivers who think they are the environments best friend. I beg to differ. Now, I not one who is so easily moved by studies, but this one seems legit. Oh hell YES! I now have something to wave in front of those smug gits who ponce about in their environmentally friendly cars. Thanks! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Beer is my religion. Guinness is my God.
Zalathar Minmatar Biometaloid INC	Posted - 2007.05.11 18:47:00 - [7] Honestly, this article braught a smile to my face. Myabe its just a personal grudge, but i cant stand all the smug eco warriors. ~~~~~~ insert nice picture here ~~~~~~
Mari Onette	Posted - 2007.05.11 19:36:00 - [8] Get a lotus Elise. They weigh far less then a prius or a hummer, and when you think about it, when you drive a car, Most of the energy is used to move the 2000 pound car not the 200 pound human. Personally I want a 3rd gen RX-7... The article is vauge about it's sources, and I don't think he makes a good point. This article feels more like it is more designed to bash people who are at least trying to do the right thing, and encourage people who are absolutely doing the wrong thing. This article is not about objectively comparing the costs of both vehicles, the author clearly has a bias. You will notice he is also doing fuzzy statistics math, calculating cost of a prius at a lifespan of 100,000 miles, and the hummer at a lifespan of 300,000 miles. Well sure, when you spread the costs out over THREE TIMES LONGER the hummer will cost less then the prius. I challenge you to find a single hummer out there with 300,000 miles on it... If you assume that the consumer will throw both cars out at the same time (a much more reasonable assumption then the consumer driving the car completely into the ground) The prius costs $3.25, and the hummer is well over 5 bucks. Not that I'm defending all those smug prius owners that love the smell of their own farts, but jounralistic bias is always something to think about.
Chaoswynd	Posted - 2007.05.11 19:59:00 - [9] The MDI Air Car - the world's cleanest car Compressed air powered engines, what a novel idea.
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:00:00 - [10] Originally by: Mari Onette This article feels more like it is more designed to bash people who are at least trying to do the right thing, and encourage people who are absolutely doing the wrong thing. This article is not about objectively comparing the costs of both vehicles, the author clearly has a bias. That is exactly the point. He is exposing the hypocrisy and the irony of the situation. Originally by: Mari Onette You will notice he is also doing fuzzy statistics math, calculating cost of a prius at a lifespan of 100,000 miles, and the hummer at a lifespan of 300,000 miles. Well sure, when you spread the costs out over THREE TIMES LONGER the hummer will cost less then the prius. I challenge you to find a single hummer out there with 300,000 miles on it... If you assume that the consumer will throw both cars out at the same time (a much more reasonable assumption then the consumer driving the car completely into the ground) The prius costs $3.25, and the hummer is well over 5 bucks. The H2 and H3's are geared more for luxury, much like Mercedes and whatnot so I doubt a lot of people are going to be doing heavy driving with them. But they are still rated and 300,000 miles as opposed to the Prius 100,000. H1's, which are the best of the three models, I'm sure you can find some from 1992 with tons of miles on them. As for your assumption, like the old saying goes "if pigs had square *****s, then they would bricks". Originally by:** Mari Onette jounralistic bias is always something to think about. There is no such thing as a bias-less journalist.

Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:05:00 - [11] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 20:05:02 The only solid statistics claiming the Hummer is better for the environment than the Prius assumed that the Hummer would be driven for 400,000+ miles and the Prius for like 100,000 (which is a ridiculous comparison). Yes, the Prius is better for the environment. No, its not perfect. You get a Prius, primarily, because it saves you money. The environment-friendliness is a bonus, and a minor one for most people. The main impersonal reason (like the environment, etc) people get it is the fact that it reduces dependence on foreign oil. And its not Toyota's fault that a specific, single nickel plant out of many in the world doesn't have proper air filters. What a load of bull. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Chaoswynd The MDI Air Car - the world's cleanest car Compressed air powered engines, what a novel idea. Novel idea, but I don't think it'll ever work. Much like hydrogen, it would be to unstable and expensive cause more pollution than it would save. The quasi-turbine engine looks like a great contender if the people ever get off their asses and produce it.
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:13:00 - [13] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 20:05:02 The only solid statistics claiming the Hummer is better for the environment than the Prius assumed that the Hummer would be driven for 400,000+ miles and the Prius for like 100,000 (which is a ridiculous comparison). Yes, the Prius is better for the environment. No, its not perfect. You get a Prius, primarily, because it saves you money. The environment-friendliness is a bonus, and a minor one for most people. The main impersonal reason (like the environment, etc) people get it is the fact that it reduces dependence on foreign oil. And its not Toyota's fault that a specific, single nickel plant out of many in the world doesn't have proper air filters. What a load of bull. Good luck when you go in to get your fancy schmancy hybrid car parts fixed at $150+ a hour. I'll stick with the plain old, tested and true v8.
Lucifer Fellblade Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:28:00 - [14] Until electricity is primarily generated from solar/wind power etc, electric cars will be just as environmentally damaging as all the other cars out there (not accounting fuel efficiency ofc). ------
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:35:00 - [15] Originally by: Lucifer Fellblade Until electricity is primarily generated from solar/wind power etc, electric cars will be just as environmentally damaging as all the other cars out there (not accounting fuel efficiency ofc). You can't have wind power plants because you don't want to kill the poor birds. You can't have solar power plants because it covers up the land and changes the ecosystem. Nuclear's the way to go.
Miki Fin Gallente Independant Union of Rangers	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:35:00 - [16] Edited by: Miki Fin on 11/05/2007 20:35:12 Imo the prius is no more fuel efficient than any other car. I test drove one on behalf of the company I work for, over a month and averaged around 45 mpg. I get the same with my diesal Passat. Edit: and yes it was horrible to drive, the "handbrake" is hidden by the other pedals, handling was very mundane, virtually no boot space thanks to the batteries, etc, etc.
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:37:00 - [17] Originally by: Miki Fin Imo the prius is no more fuel efficient than any other car. I test drove one on behalf of the company I work for, over a month and averaged around 45 mpg. I get the same with my diesal Passat. Thank you for that, would you mind actually reading the article?
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:38:00 - [18] If we can at least get the daily drivers to run efficiently, or better yet get the American public transportation system to a state where I can say "driving is a privilege, not a right" with a straight face, then things should be much better off. Having a handful of enthusiasts running around in Lotus Elises and Ferrari F430s using traditional gas isn't a big issue. There's simply not enough people with the desire and money to do that for them to make an impact. For that matter, you could convert all of them over to alcohol-based fuels. Performance will be better, so it's a win for everyone.
Miki Fin Gallente Independant Union of Rangers	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:42:00 - [19] Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Miki Fin Imo the prius is no more fuel efficient than any other car. I test drove one on behalf of the company I work for, over a month and averaged around 45 mpg. I get the same with my diesal Passat. Thank you for that, would you mind actually reading the article? Your welcome, but I did read the post but if you read the replies, you would notice I was responding to shikari's post on the prius being less dependant on foreign oil
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:45:00 - [20] Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 11/05/2007 20:46:00 I'm more concerned about milage and the fact that a Hummer would get me taxed to hell, that and Toyota runs forever. Oh and the Scion, forget that, I don't usually go for appendix cars but it has to have some human quality to it, that's just plain dorky, ugly and well the designer needs to be shot. Also Known As

RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:47:00 - [21] Originally by: Frezik If we can at least get the daily drivers to run efficiently, What's wrong with my putting my full-ton truck's dual climate zones at maximum opposite temperatures so that I can get a nice swirly whirlwind goin? It's so much fun.
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:53:00 - [22] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 20:05:02 The only solid statistics claiming the Hummer is better for the environment than the Prius assumed that the Hummer would be driven for 400,000+ miles and the Prius for like 100,000 (which is a ridiculous comparison). Yes, the Prius is better for the environment. No, its not perfect. You get a Prius, primarily, because it saves you money. The environment-friendliness is a bonus, and a minor one for most people. The main impersonal reason (like the environment, etc) people get it is the fact that it reduces dependence on foreign oil. And its not Toyota's fault that a specific, single nickel plant out of many in the world doesn't have proper air filters. What a load of bull. I do remember that study being highly criticized, but there are issues with the Prius and any other hybrid car when considering dust-to-dust energy costs. The drive system holds a lot more pieces, and a large battery array is more difficult to dispose/recycle than a mostly metal car. I would not be surprised if the Prius was on par with a Hummer when considering these costs (though good luck getting hard data and logical conclusions from either side of the environmental debate).
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.11 20:56:00 - [23] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 20:54:36 Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Lucifer Fellblade Until electricity is primarily generated from solar/wind power etc, electric cars will be just as environmentally damaging as all the other cars out there (not accounting fuel efficiency ofc). You can't have wind power plants because you don't want to kill the poor birds. You can't have solar power plants because it covers up the land and changes the ecosystem. Nuclear's the way to go. There is nobody serious in the world that actually thinks that. If they do, nobody cares about them. Such a statement is nothing but a talking-point by TV talking heads to parody a class of "environmentalist" that doesn't really exist, in my experience. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 21:09:00 - [24] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 20:54:36 Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Lucifer Fellblade Until electricity is primarily generated from solar/wind power etc, electric cars will be just as environmentally damaging as all the other cars out there (not accounting fuel efficiency ofc). You can't have wind power plants because you don't want to kill the poor birds. You can't have solar power plants because it covers up the land and changes the ecosystem. Nuclear's the way to go. There is nobody serious in the world that actually thinks that. If they do, nobody cares about them. Such a statement is nothing but a talking-point by TV talking heads to parody a class of "environmentalist" that doesn't really exist, in my experience. O RLY!? Where I live we are attempting to have a private power company build some wind turbines on our property out in the middle of nowhere. Take a guess at who is stopping it? It is not talking points for some knee-jerk reactionary blowhard talking head there Dark Shikari. It is happening all over the place.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.11 21:19:00 - [25] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 21:17:51 Originally by: RedFall O RLY!? Where I live we are attempting to have a private power company build some wind turbines on our property out in the middle of nowhere. Take a guess at who is stopping it? It is not talking points for some knee-jerk reactionary blowhard talking head there Dark Shikari. It is happening all over the place. Here in America the people who try to stop wind turbines are primarily those living on the coast, for example, where they plan to put the turbines. Even if they're miles and miles out, people will whine terribly about how it will "ruin the view". They use excuses like "oh, it'll kill birds" but the real reason is because of property values. Of course, there are valid "bird" reasons not to place turbines: if the company is stupid enough to place them specifically in a migratory path for birds, yes, one can probably complain on that topic. But usually in my experience its an excuse by people who have other, more important motives. Anyone who whines about solar plants "disrupting the ecology" by creating a few shaded areas can probably be ignored also. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.11 21:20:00 - [26] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: RedFall O RLY!? Where I live we are attempting to have a private power company build some wind turbines on our property out in the middle of nowhere. Take a guess at who is stopping it? It is not talking points for some knee-jerk reactionary blowhard talking head there Dark Shikari. It is happening all over the place. Here in America the people who try to stop wind turbines are primarily those living on the coast, for example, where they plan to put the turbines. Even if they're miles and miles out, people will whine terribly about how it will "ruin the view". They use excuses like "oh, it'll kill birds" but the real reason is because of property values. Of course, there are valid "bird" reasons not to place turbines: if the company is stupid enough to place them specifically in a migratory path for birds, yes, one can probably complain on that topic. We are obstructing no one's views. And no mass migratory birds pass though here. We get a few turkeys, ducks, some eagles but nothing en masse. It's just a way for a small group of people to control another group of people.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.11 21:23:00 - [27] Originally by: RedFall We are obstructing no one's views. And no mass migratory birds pass though here. We get a few turkeys, ducks, some eagles but nothing en masse. It's just a way for a small group of people to control another group of people. Somehow I don't think they're going to convince anyone not to build the turbines... --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.05.11 21:24:00 - [28] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 20:54:36 Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Lucifer Fellblade Until electricity is primarily generated from solar/wind power etc, electric cars will be just as environmentally damaging as all the other cars out there (not accounting fuel efficiency ofc). You can't have wind power plants because you don't want to kill the poor birds. You can't have solar power plants because it covers up the land and changes the ecosystem. Nuclear's the way to go. There is nobody serious in the world that actually thinks that. If they do, nobody cares about them. There's a legitimate problem with wind farms near the nesting grounds of endangered birds. If you're comparing wind farm impact with more common birds, they're a net gain--birds are going to be hurt a lot more by hydrocarbon-burning power. Solar is problematic from an efficiency viewpoint. There's some promising advancements, but are currently infeasible on a mass scale. Put them into orbit and beam down energy with microwaves and you have something that can work with current photovoltaic cells, if you can bring launch costs down. There is a public perception problem that this idea is too science fictiony, even though its feasibility has been proven since the '70s. There's also the perception that microwaves are dangerous (thanks, Sim City!). Real problems with nuclear are more than answered with breeder and pebble bed reactors. There again, it's a public perception problem, not anything technical. There are environmentalists who won't be happy until humans have exactly zero environmental impact. Which is absurd with 6 billion humans running around the planet. People with lots of scientific/engineering in their background tend to want to pretend that the human problem of perception won't exist--the facts will stand on their own. I'd probably prefer live in that world, but the fact is that these ideas need a public relations maverick to get them going.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.11 21:30:00 - [29] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/05/2007 21:29:18 Originally by: Frezik Solar is problematic from an efficiency viewpoint. There's some promising advancements, but are currently infeasible on a mass scale. Try out the Stirling-engine based systems. They are more efficient and much cheaper than solar cells (since they're basically external combustion engines and based on 100-year-old technology), and have been bought in the thousands by California. They're also singleton units; you can placed 1000 or 1; there's no real difficulty in placing more or less. Orbital cells would be effective, as there is easily an order of magnitude more solar energy available in orbit due to the amount absorbed by the atmosphere. However, you need cheap solar cell-like material for that; it has to be light and thin, so it could be launched up. They seem to have found some carbon nanotube materials lately that might fit the bill. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Kye Kenshin coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.11 22:19:00 - [30] Edited by: Kye Kenshin on 11/05/2007 22:17:30 Wow this has turned into a very reasonable debate on the enviroment and sustainble energy. Quick someone flame someone else!!



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.