Hybrid Plates - Getting Around Intent of Law
Printed From: Slug-Lines.com
Category: Archived Slugging Topics
Forum Name: Hybrids
Forum Description: This area is devoted to the discussion of hybrid vehicles and their impact to the HOV.
URL: http://www.slug-lines.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2841
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2024 at 10:17am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Hybrid Plates - Getting Around Intent of Law
Posted By: Bob
Subject: Hybrid Plates - Getting Around Intent of Law
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2006 at 8:06am
OK. Now I am really mad. I just found out that hybrid car owners who got the old grandfathted plates can transfer them to a new vehicle, even if that vehicle is purchased after July 1. This is an outrage.
See the following link:
http://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/cleanspecialfuel.asp
|
Replies:
Posted By: sluDgE
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2006 at 8:15am
Bob,
[?] Isn't transferring the plates from our old vehicles what Virginia allows all car owners to do when they buy a replacement? [?]
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2006 at 8:32am
It was my understanding that the text of the bill stated that the VEHICLE had to be registered before July 1 to get the new plates. This is a loophole.
I started noticing a whole lot of older priuses that had really recent CF (CX) plates. This explains it. The car dealers latched onto this loophole and were selling hundreds of old hybrids to people because the new ones had a wait list. A scam with us paying the price.
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2006 at 2:41pm
What a great convenience for they hybrid owners. That means they can still get a 330HP 2007 Lexus, and go SOV!
What I don't understand is why they left this nonsensical language in.
In order for your vehicle to qualify as clean fuel it must be exclusively powered by clean special fuel. Then they go on to say that gasoline powered hybrids are qualified???
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2006 at 11:48am
|
MDC - check your facts. Hybrids have a dual source - that's why they call them hybrids. It's like saying an amphibian is a land creature. The answer is that it's only part of the story. Remember, not only does the hybrid use less fuel than comparable vehicles, but it uses the fuel more efficiently. Always.
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2006 at 1:53pm
NoSUV,
Check your English. "Exclusively" has a meaning. Are you going to argue that gasoline, is now a "clean special fuel?"
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2006 at 1:57pm
|
MDC - My hybrid uses a battery. What part of that don't you understand? Have you ANY idea what hybrid means? Try not to post your ignorance.
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2006 at 3:12pm
|
It doesn't run only on battery as you've admitted previously. What part of "exclusively" do you not get?
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2006 at 7:43am
Hybrid: Something, such as a computer or power plant, having two kinds of components that produce the same or similar results.
Ignorant: MDC
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2006 at 8:47am
A hybrid running on CNG and battery would be exclusively clean fuel.
A hybrid running on Gasoline and battery is not exclusively clean fuel.
Unless you are a fool, this is not complicated.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2006 at 9:31am
quote:
Originally posted by MDC
[br]A hybrid running on CNG and battery would be exclusively clean fuel.
A hybrid running on Gasoline and battery is not exclusively clean fuel.
Says you - but not anyone significant. Our legislatures, the entire auto industry (including those who don't make hybrids), and the GENERAL public disagree with your definition - as does the dictionary.
|
Posted By: SlugsB1tch2Much
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2006 at 2:00pm
|
What an excellent loophole! Thanks Bob.
|
Posted By: sluDgE
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2006 at 8:15pm
Seems the most important definition is whatever the Commonwealth of VA uses to define a CFV. [;)] Somebody convinced the lawmakers that a hybrid should be considered as meeting that definition. Hybrids do get clean fuel plates, and those plates issued prior to 1 July qualify for the HOV exemption. [;)]
When the 100% electric or hydrogen cars appear on the market, this site will probably have the same debate about whether they can use VA's express lanes without having to meet HOV-2 or 3. [:I]
Same play ... different actors. [:(]
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2006 at 10:02am
quote:
Originally posted by SlugsB1tch2Much
[br]What an excellent loophole! Thanks Bob.
Too bad that in order to get a new hybrid and still use it for HOV by transferring plates, one would have to sell one's old hybrid. Market for old hybrids now stinks. Oh well.
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2006 at 10:56am
Bob,
These are vehicles with distinctly limited life left in them once they leave the lot. All vehicles have an expected service life. The auto manufacturers' incorporated rationale plus marketing of the hybrids incur costs that greatly reduce the attractiveness of gas/elec vehicles. Once these start filling up the landfills, we'll see the true nature of their "friendliness" towards the environment. (this speaks to the "trickle down" nature--or lack thereof--some would ascribe to the rapidly deteriorating hybrids).
On a more positive note, I bought the least expensive fuel for my vehicles on Saturday that I could find. Costco had regular unleaded for less than anywhere else. The added bonus was their unleaded contains 10% ethanol....gotta like that!
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2006 at 1:32pm
NoSB: Have to wonder what was being said 100 years ago about cars vs. horses - and if they were guessing that the same landfill problem would occur. After all, the disposal of horses seems easier than autos after the end of useful life. And, at the time, I'm sure that folks thought that a horse could easily outlive a car.
So, what's a "distinctly limited life?" Some people claim 5 year s for the standard US built auto. Of course, some of us keep our cars longer, and some keep them shorter. How long can a hybrid work? I don't know - but then, I'd venture a guess that if you look at the odometer of the driver, you'd see less than 150K on most of them. I'm only at 75K on the hybrid, and it's running much better than my old '89 Voyager did at the same point.
Right now, you are predicting end-of-the-world when the hybrid gets old. It's sort of like what happens after death, you can believe whatever you want, but right now, your guess is as good as mine.
I just disagree with your guess.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2006 at 12:31pm
NoSUV, as usual, your use of 'selective opposition' fails to address many relevant facts that undermine your pro-hybrid argument.
Fact 1: Your hybrid runs on gas! And although you and some confused-yet-influential politicians call this 'clean' fuel, it's just gas. And yes Virginia, gas is a dirty-burining, fossil fuel. So call it what you want, your car runs on the same fuel mine does.
Fact 2: Your SOV hybrid gets fewer 'passenger' MPGs (PMPGs)than my HOV car. Since this discussion revolves around commuting this comparison is very relevant and needs to pick up some steam, so I'll restate it here; my HOV car (with 4 passengers) X 25 MPG = 100 PMPGs, your SOV hybrid X 40 MPG = 40 PMPGs. This makes a traditional HOV commuting car 2.5 times more energy effecient at moving people than your SOV hybrid.
Fact 3: Your car also runs on stored electrical power generated by the gas engine in your car which constantly recharges batteries. (Since I don't have all the facts on the gas energy expended to create this stored electrical power, I'll stick to a discussion on batteries.) All batteries have a planned obsolesence, an engineerred number of times they can be recharged. I have read that hybrid batteries have an estimated life of about 10 years. So in about ten years following mile one, your several-hundred-pound battery pack will join thousands of others in a landfill contributing to all sorts of battery related pollution problems.
So sleep well tonight in your ignorance, NoSUV. You and all the other hybrid owners have bought into the falacy that hybrids are 'green,' when in fact, they are all environmental timebombs!
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2006 at 11:59pm
raymond - way to go mixing witchcraft with theory! Gotta admit, you are creative with your not-quite-right facts.
The fact remains, and is undisputed, that hybrids get better fuel economy than similar cars in their class that are not hybrids.
The fact remains, and is undisputed by every definition but yours, that hybrids receive energy for their motors from more than one source.
The fact remains, and is undisputed, that no hybrid battery has yet reached the 10 year mark, so your landfill "fact" is really a fiction, and unproven. By the way, what percent of hybrid batteries are currently in landfills? Is it ZERO????
I sincerely feel sorry for you raymond, that you believe in your dilusions and cannot comprehend undisputed facts. Feel free to look in encyclopedias, dictionaries, trade magazines, or other sources of information instead of making up your facts.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2006 at 9:15am
|
NoSUV, you have yet to disprove any of the facts that have been asserted here. So stop wasting bandwidth just to spout your contradictions, they are unfounded. As usual, you choose to ignore facts that do not suit you. You need to take your blinders off!
|
Posted By: gatewayslug
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2006 at 2:49pm
More holes for the hybrid is better for the environment mystique. Note the comments about how even a Hummer has a lower "energy costs per miles driven" than the best hybrid when a "dust to dust" analysis is done.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/082006/08072006/209918
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2006 at 7:50pm
A person (NoSUV) who argues from a standpoint of ignorance and denial, and cannot even evaluate the validity of his own arguments, is not worthy of engaging in discussion. A person (NoSUV) who does not participate in slugging is not a member of the slugging community and is a Troll on this forum. NoSUV has demonstrated his ignorance in two major areas: First, he apparently has never experienced the terrible HOV lane congestion between Potomac Mills and Springfield in the morning, or at the HOV merge at Dumfries in the afternoon, having only used a few miles of 395 between Edsall Road and D.C. Second, he appears ignorant of some basic physics, particularly the Laws of Motion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as the system function of his car, when he erroneously claims that his hybrid actually uses more than one source of energy. Unless a hybrid vehicle battery can be plugged into an electrical outlet and recharged using energy derived from coal fire, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, solar, wind, etc., ALL OF ITS ENERGY COMES FROM GASOLINE, with the exception of the original factory charge, if there is one. (The charging function of electric motor-generator braking merely recovers kinetic energy from previous vehicle acceleration, traceable to the chemical energy of gasoline.) Sure, it’s more efficient and less polluting. But the focus of this forum is that of facilitating safe and efficient commuting (slugging), not marketing new technologies.
If we solve the problem of congestion, we go a long way toward solving the problems of energy and pollution, as most of us (except NoSUV) already know and are acting upon. Here is my suggestion for one step toward a solution (for what it's worth): Re-Stripe the HOV lanes for 3 lanes from near Potomac Mills (start at that first northbound fly-over on-ramp) to the Springfield fly-over exit to the main lanes. Then there would be plenty of room for all the hybrids and violators.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2006 at 8:24am
Welcome to the forum Slugjo. Man, you hit a brick wall right out of the blocks! NoSUV cannot be reasoned with. NoSUV works for either a hybrid manufacturer, an advertising agency with a car dealer as a client, or for the auto-makers lobby.
I use these discussions to sharpen my debate skills, and NoSUV's ramblings to validate my position on these subjects. I don't think that for a moment that I will change NoSUV's opinion (you can't argue with a sick mind), but hopefully this discussion will enlighten other readers to the SOV/hybrid falacy.
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2006 at 9:13am
|
Yep, Raymond, I knew I was hitting 2 brick walls when I posted. (The second was the thing about 3 lanes between Potomac Mills and Springfield. I know it won't happen, with HOT in the plans.) On the first brick wall, I will not engage any of NoSUV's replies, since I know it would be as futile as discussing evolution with a creationist. Have fun with him, you're doing OK. I find it amusing.
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2006 at 9:19am
|
I assume you are aware that part of the HOT proposal is to convert the HOV lanes to 3 new "lanes" with a 2 foot shoulder on one side. This would supposedly add capacity. In reality, it could move more cars south of springfield (95 part), but on the 395 part, the massive bottleneck at the pentagon will negate any advantages of having 3 lanes. You could have a 10 lane superhighway going up to the pentagon and it wouldnt move any more cars than now move.
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2006 at 10:10am
|
Yep, I was just suggesting a short stretch of 3 lanes as really all we need at present; therefore it won't happen. I hate to be the one to encourage HOT, but if it has to happen, how about more exit ramps along 295, like at Seminary and Glebe, for instance. Not everyone wants to go all the way in, and more exits would relieve some of the bottleneck congestion. (This belongs in the HOT forum, doesn't it?) There's no hope for the southbound merge, except more enforcement, fewer SOV hybrids, and fewer tourists & 18 wheelers (no possibility). Actually, extending the express lanes (HOT) would eliminate the 6 to 3 lane merge bottleneck problem at 234.
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2006 at 10:12am
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2006 at 6:16pm
slugjo - you obviously don't know that the theory on 395 as well as part of 95 was that restricting "local" traffic from "express" traffic would ease congestion and allow a more free-flow of traffic. That's why they are called "express lanes." As you well know, they are used for HOV less than 1/4 of the day, but they remain express the entire time they are in use.
Now, to your other false claims:
- saying that the energy recovered by the hybrid is a bi-product of gas is pretty stupid. you may as well claim that all energy sources have gas involved because the manufacture of engines requires energy which comes from fossil fuels. WHAT PART OF BETTER EFFICIENCY DON'T YOU GET?
- The reason there is a separate topic on slug-lines for hybrid discussions is because so many people posting had comments on hybrid use and its impact on traffic in the express lanes. Tell you what - if no one ever posts again about hybrids on this site, I'll go away. Otherwise, as a hybrid owner, I have more of a right to comment on this thread than you do.
- If you truely believe in saving energy, where's YOUR hybrid? Don't you agree that you save more if you have one? Or are you a hypocritic as well as someone who makes false statements?
|
Posted By: LDOMAJ
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2006 at 9:51am
Posted By: rodmunera
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2006 at 12:55am
|
Hahaha!!! It's funny how I now find myself just scanning NoSUV's messages while my mind goes: do you really want to bother? I can picture him as a 5 year old child repeating his argument "My (toy) machine gun is better because it has 3 red lights on the tip instead of the 2 yours has so you die quicker and I get to kill more!!" over and over and over.
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2006 at 8:24am
|
Since I cannot in good conscience engage NoSUV in this discussion, I am awaiting further input from Raymond et al. who, I am sure, have re-read my original post. NoSUV has further demonstrated his ignorance of basic chemistry (battery function) and the physics of energy conversions, as well as his state of denial and inability to evaluate the validity of his own argument. But I will always allow him to have the last word, like a creationist. I find it amusing.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2006 at 8:47am
NoSUV said it, we all read it! "...energy recovered by the hybrid is a bi-product of gas...," and "...all energy sources have gas involved because the manufacture of engines requires energy which comes from fossil fuels." And while the terminology is at an elementary level, these are true statements.
Energy is a constant property that transfers its value into different states resulting from chemical and mechanical processes. Dinosaurs ate plants (mechanical). The energy that the plants harnessed from the sun, water, and soil for growth was transfered to the dinosaurs for their use as a food source (digestion = mechanical and chemical). The dinosaurs died and fossilized (mechanical and chemical). We drilled for oil, dug up coal, etc. (mechanical) and processed it into fuel (chemical). We then burn the fuel (chemical) to run our machinery (mechanical) to produce our products or transport us from place to place. A hybrid simply captures and stores some of the energy generated by the (gas burning) engine for later use. Even the inertia captured by the 'brake-generators' to recharge the batteries was forward motion created by a gas engine.
It is true that fossil fuel (probably coal) was used to run the factory that manufactured the engine in NoSUV's hybrid. And it is true that the energy recovered by the hybrid batteries is a bi-product of a gas burning engine.
Thanks NoSUV for helping to clear that up!
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2006 at 9:53am
|
This is too funny! Raymond, you forgot to mention Intelligent Design. I wish my car were a perpetual motion machine! Just think, a battery that is a "source" of energy! Now, don't take my comments out of context. We don't do that here.
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2006 at 12:15pm
|
Raymond: you said you use these discussions to sharpen your debate skills (against NoSUV). A knife and a grindstone! One is sharp and agile, the other is dull with a lot of inertia. But the knife has very little effect on the grindstone. (Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.)
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2006 at 3:22pm
I'm an equal opportunity debater, I'll argue with anyone with a poorly-developed point of view! The debate forces analysis and discovery, its a learning experience.
But metaphors like that are too philosophical for me! We're just two sides of the same coin. (OMG, there's another one!) Did you hear the one about the three blind men who came upon an elephant...
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2006 at 7:14am
|
Sorry about the metaphor, but I just thought that if NoSUV could call me a hypocritic (sic) and a liar, I could call him a grindstone, with a little bit of finesse and creativity, and win the vicious, offensive name-calling contest for the day without appearing as juvenile as he.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2006 at 9:49pm
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]NoSUV said it, we all read it! "...energy recovered by the hybrid is a bi-product of gas...," and "...all energy sources have gas involved because the manufacture of engines requires energy which comes from fossil fuels." And while the terminology is at an elementary level, these are true statements.
Energy is a constant property that transfers its value into different states resulting from chemical and mechanical processes. Dinosaurs ate plants (mechanical). The energy that the plants harnessed from the sun, water, and soil for growth was transfered to the dinosaurs for their use as a food source (digestion = mechanical and chemical). The dinosaurs died and fossilized (mechanical and chemical). We drilled for oil, dug up coal, etc. (mechanical) and processed it into fuel (chemical). We then burn the fuel (chemical) to run our machinery (mechanical) to produce our products or transport us from place to place. A hybrid simply captures and stores some of the energy generated by the (gas burning) engine for later use. Even the inertia captured by the 'brake-generators' to recharge the batteries was forward motion created by a gas engine.
It is true that fossil fuel (probably coal) was used to run the factory that manufactured the engine in NoSUV's hybrid. And it is true that the energy recovered by the hybrid batteries is a bi-product of a gas burning engine.
Thanks NoSUV for helping to clear that up!
raymond - by your definitions, then, there is no such thing as a Clean fuel vehicle. Which means that you screwed up. Which surprises no one.
Hey, by the way, what happens to the waste products from an internal combustion engine?
a. Goes into our lungs
b. contributes to pollutions
c. major cause of global warming
d. all of the above
e. I'm raymond and have no clue
|
Posted By: rodmunera
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2006 at 11:39pm
|
There it is again! that argument!! haha!
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2006 at 3:55pm
NoSUV, you mean the internal combustion engine in your hybrid?
What about all the lead and mercury in those hybrid batteries: coming soon to a landfill near you!
|
Posted By: SlugsB1tch2Much
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2006 at 4:14pm
I hate to get in the middle of this but I think NoSUV shares these sentiments:
Let's not use the facade of being environmentally friendly, I will be amongst the first to say the only reason why I drive a hybrid is that I enjoy making use of the HOV-3 loophole that will be closed in less than a year. Although I do drive slugs to work on a regular basis, my initial intentions were to exploit the convenience and pay the price. I have nothing against you NoSUV, but as a fellow hybrid driver myself, I see almost no short-term environmental benefit of driving a hybrid nor do I see hybrid vehicles as a means of a sustainable energy source. Raymond said it, Slugjo has said it: it still takes fossil fuel to manufacture the vehicles, the net usage of fossil fuel is still negative. Let's just be forthcoming and admit that the convenience is the key selling point and that if you're willing to pay the price then do so. I'm pretty much over the idea of SOV in general because I enjoy picking up slugs--it's very different from my last job and it makes for very interesting days. Thanks and sorry if I ruined the continuity of this debate with my interjection.
|
Posted By: rodmunera
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2006 at 10:21pm
|
I don't know whether to boo or clap... mixed feelings here... But hey, NoSUV won't be stopped by the admission of something that is painfully obvious to everyone else here. As long as in his mind he's the Eco-Man superhero, there's little that we puny mortals can do to sway him.
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2006 at 6:16am
|
I haven't said anything about the energy used in manufacturing the hybrids or the fuel. I'm talking about the energy conversions taking place in the hybrid drive system. NoSUV thinks his battery is a magic endless source of energy, not knowing that automotive batteries do not produce energy, but only store it. That's why they are called storage batteries. The chemical potential energy of the gasoline is converted to heat energy, then to mechanical and electrical, then to kinetic (acceleration of the vehicle). Some of the electrical energy from the engine goes to charge the battery, and the battery also gains more charge from the recovery of kinetic energy in braking. A wonderful technology, I love hybrids, they are indeed more efficient and less polluting. But the battery is not an energy source. It serves to maximize the useful energy obtained from the gasoline. Every energy conversion is much less than 100% efficient, with losses as heat (increase in entropy)(second law of thermodynamics), and conventional vehicles waste a large amount in acceleration and braking. The hybrid system addresses these losses. But unless NoSUV gets a hybrid (not available yet) that he can plug in and recharge without burning gasoline, he is burning gasoline, and only gasoline (I know, it has ethanol in it). And if he someday gets one, then he will be increasing the load on mainly coal-fired and nuclear power plants.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2006 at 8:18am
Thanks for your input SB2M; its an open forum and your comments are welcome. I think everyone can appreciate the convenience factor afforded by the hybrid HOV exemptions; without a doubt. And many, like you, are willing to pay a premium for a car that is exempt for convenience sake. Hey, its a free country!
But as you accurately state, nobility is a thin veil for this purchase decision; "Let's not use the facade of being environmentally friendly..." as a justification for buying a hybrid when there are other reasons that while far less altruistic, but more realistic. NoSUV falls back on the ecology argument in a lame, ego-inflating attempt. But SB2M has offered a candid assesment; no arguments here.
And while at times you may B1tch2Much, your honesty is refreshing! And thanks for participating in slugging; I wish more hybrid drivers would pick up passengers. Hats off!
|
Posted By: SlugsB1tch2Much
Date Posted: 26 Aug 2006 at 8:48am
|
Hey no problem...Slugjo, I like the sound thermodynamic justification of hybrid energy usage. While it is simple and comprehensible, I think it is unfortunate that "green" people won't understand it (I mentioned entropic irreversibility at work and they asked me what transmission had to do with it). Hope you all had a great weekend.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2006 at 11:23am
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]NoSUV, you mean the internal combustion engine in your hybrid?
What about all the lead and mercury in those hybrid batteries: coming soon to a landfill near you!
raymond - yep, you failed that quiz. Here's another:
What happens to the waste products from a battery?
a. Goes into our lungs
b. contributes to air pollution
c. major cause of global warming
d. all of the above
e. I'm raymond and have no clue
BTW - most components of a battery can be reclaimed; none of the waste products from your gas guzzler tailpipe is.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2006 at 11:26am
quote:
Originally posted by rodmunera
[br]I don't know whether to boo or clap... mixed feelings here... But hey, NoSUV won't be stopped by the admission of something that is painfully obvious to everyone else here. As long as in his mind he's the Eco-Man superhero, there's little that we puny mortals can do to sway him.
for over a year, now, pundits have claimed that the better solution to hybrids is just around the corner. And yet, we are no closer. And still we debate whether the hybrid is better than an non-hybrid in a similar car class.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2006 at 11:32am
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]But as you accurately state, nobility is a thin veil for this purchase decision; "Let's not use the facade of being environmentally friendly..." as a justification for buying a hybrid when there are other reasons that while far less altruistic, but more realistic. NoSUV falls back on the ecology argument in a lame, ego-inflating attempt. But SB2M has offered a candid assesment; no arguments here.
raymond - if you check my earlier posts, my hybrid purchase was based on environmental reasons. My Prius was purchased in '02; I moved to the region with 300,000 of my closest friends in '03. And not for the hybrid exemption, but for the employment opportunity.
Get your facts straight, raymond. Whoops - forgot who I was writing to - the person who needs no facts and just makes them up.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2006 at 3:41pm
Soooooooo, you don't put gas in your gas tank?! Of course you do, we all do! Look, I don't dispute that gas engines pollute, they do. The gas engine in your prius pollutes just the same as the engine in my car. So don't get all high-and-mighty with me, fellow polluter. As I said before, nobility is a thin veil, and you don't wear it well!
But you can't really be so naive as to think that your several hundred pound battery pack is 100% recyclable. I would like to see one reputable source that proves that. Disposed batteries have been leaching lead and mercury and dozens of other chemicals into our environment for decades. What makes you think the batteries in your hybrid are any different?
I would like to hear about your plan for recycling the battery in your hybrid. Where will you take it? What is the name of the company that will reclaim it? Are you willing to pay a disposal fee? You talk of facts, let's hear some from you... Now is your chance, shut me up with your ecological battery recovery plan. If you have actually thought any of this out, I'll concede.
I didn't think so!
|
Posted By: slugjo
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2006 at 4:23pm
|
Raymond, the Priapus batteries are Nickel Metal Hydride, not lead-acid, and are more environmentally friendly.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2006 at 8:58am
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]The gas engine in your prius pollutes just the same as the engine in my car.
raymond - and yet, you are WRONG again. wagonman will be happy to provide you the statistics, as will any reputable trade journal.
Yes, when my battery has reached end of life, I'm planning on taking it to the Toyota dealer for them to recycle. Feel free to call them about how they perform the reclaiming process. I don't know when I'll need to take it to them since I'm already at 4 years and 76K miles. I can guarantee you that the battery isn't contributing NEARLY as much to global warming as your engine - which is exactly why more incentives, such as exemptions from tolls, are needed.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2006 at 9:47am
You want facts? OK, her are some:
As you state, as part of its marketing scheme, Toyota has a program outlined in the Toyota website (at http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technology/2004/hybrid.html0 ) which states, “Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place,” And offers customers “…a $200 "bounty" for each battery,” a fraction of the value of the components that could be recovered from the batteries. And while the website states that “Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled,” it falls short of saying that none of these components end up in landfills.
MSNBC reporter Herb Weisbaum offers a more objective opinion in his March 14, 2006 article (at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11812910/), about hybrid batteries. In response to the question, “And will there be a pollution problem when the batteries come to the end of their useful life?” He answers, “Sooner or later — because they are defective, worn out, or the vehicle is in an accident — the battery pack in a hybrid vehicle will need to be removed or replaced.” “…the batteries will be treated as hazardous waste, similar to any other car battery. That means they will be sent to a recycling plant for proper disposal. The chemicals in the cells will be neutralized and any materials that can be reused will be sorted out.” This of course leaves any unrecyclable materials for the landfill.
In a CarPoint.com article (at http://www.carpoint.com.au/car-news/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabID=500648&ArticleID=5487&R=ce5487) , author Glenn Butler, outlines “THE HIDDEN COST OF HYBRID CARS.” Butler states, “The battery unit, which has a lifespan of 8-10 years - shorter in hotter climates - cannot be reconditioned. It must be thrown out and replaced with a new one, at considerable cost to the owner.” “Both Toyota and Honda were unable to tell CarPoint exactly how much of the battery could be recycled. Both have left the task of recycling in the hands of a third party recycler.” Butler warns against the careless disposable of Ni-MH batteries, due to the toxicity of it main derivative, nickel. "The main derivative is nickel, which is considered semi-toxic. Nickel-metal-hydride also contains electrolyte that, in large amounts, is hazardous. If no disposal service is available in an area,” the nickel-metal-hydride batteries will be disposed of “…other household wastes.” Butler warns that if ten or more batteries are accumulated, the user should dispose of these packs in a secure waste landfill." Battery packs like that used by Toyota in the Prius, contain up to 28 groups of six Ni-MH battery cells.
Oh, and based on the information in these websites and others on the subject, you are about 1/2 way through the usable life of your hybrid batteries. So you may want to start thinking about this.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2006 at 3:08pm
Thanks, raymond, for actually doing some research. Lots of conjecture from MSNBC and CarPoint. Did you see how it affects global warming?
You failed to note the below from the MSNBC article:
{“The number of failures has been really, really low,” says American Honda’s Juan Avilla. “We expect them to last the life of the vehicle.”
Toyota tells me that some of the original Prius models now have battery packs that have gone more than 300,000 miles.
BusinessWeek magazine reports that when the U.S. Department of Energy investigated hybrid batteries, it stopped its tests “when the capacity remained almost like new — after 160,000 miles.” }
Note: the MSNBC article is silent on materials, hazardous or otherwise, going to a landfill.
The CarPoint article appears to be from 2003, and clearly states that Toyota plans to recycle the batteries. Also, much of the information is from models never sold or marketed in the US, but in 1997 in Australia.
Also, the Toyota article appears to be about 2 years old - it would be nice of them to provide an update. Curious that although Toyota claims every part is recycled that you also require them to list every possibility where the batteries won't go: landfills, outer space, 3rd world contries, pet food...
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2006 at 4:00pm
"Conjecture?" Is that how you describe those who disagree with you? I would not be so quick to believe everything Toyota says, remember they want to sell hybrids, so they are going to paint a rosey picture. Wait, oh that's right, you work for Toyota! Now all your selective ignorance makes sense!
As I have stated time and time again, I am neutral on the subject of hybrids, its a free country, spend your money how you choose. But don't look through those eco-centric, rose colored glasses at me and tell me that I am wrong while you benefit from tax breaks, incentives and exemptions that represent the manipulation of a crooked system. I have the same freedom of choice, and I also have the right to freedom from persecution from the likes of you.
Your narrow-minded attitude betrays your selfish motives.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2006 at 11:19am
|
it must really bug you that I read the articles that you quoted and pointed out that you were guilty of many omissions in your write up. I really feel sorry that you have no concerns for the environment.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2006 at 12:12pm
"Sorry" is just one word that I would use to describe your lame attempts to manipulate the attitudes of readers in this forum.
Your buying habits don't bug me, neither does your opinions. But when you make derrogatory statements and falsely accuse others who disaggre with you, fail to justify your claims, and fall back on nobility as some sort of shield for your actions, it is insulting.
At least I did the research and developed my position based on recognized and peer-reveiwed sources. Next time do your own research!
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2006 at 2:36pm
When facts fail, resort to personal attacks...
ahem.
Global warming? hmmmm, fact or fiction? follow the $$.
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
|