Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
And, as one read on, there problem was with a connection, which fixed
for a whopping $1345.

This doesn't say anything about how long a battery is likely to last,
only that two cars had problems after around 100,000.

Jeff

In article <XhY8i.4730$My4.1506@trndny05>, kidsdoc2000 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
says...
One post showed 3 sets of batteries before the first warranty ran out.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free (AT) rrohio (DOT) com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam (AT) whitehouse (DOT) gov> wrote

No. The vehicle can't have an "energy cost" of $3.25/mile without someone
paying that cost. All costs associated with the production and delivery of
the vehicle, including the energy inputs (including even things like a
portion of the design cost and the energy cost of that, amortized over the
production run) either have to be borne by the purchaser or taken as a loss
by Toyota. Toyota ain't losin' money.

At the other end, Toyota pays the customer for the battery's return and the
car can be scrapped out (only in your dreams would it be 100K miles) for a
few bucks (if that, I had a Volvo picked up for free) by someone who's happy
to take it apart and "retail" the pieces to others or "retail" the metal
content to China (it will be back in six weeks, as a refrigerator). The
pieces or scrap metal take the place of use of other resources.

Unless there's some toxic waste in a Prius that isn't in a Hummer (aside
from the battery - which we've dealt with) it's essentially a straight
scrap-out of a car with an alternator that has a gland condition. Be sure
to salvage the copper from that, will ya?

Eeyore's right, $3.25/mile for it's 100K mile life either implies that the
user pays $325,000 for his Prius or the statement is nonsense. I'm going
with nonsense.

From the 300K mile "life" of a Hummer right to the $3.25/mile energy cost,
the article's nothing but BS.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <46645140$0$15142$88260bb3 (AT) free (DOT) teranews.com>,
DH <dh (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote:
You're forgetting externalities. While a useful concept, nowadays
they're typically abused by environmentalists and urban planners to
arbitrarily assign costs to things they don't like. They do this even
when the magnitude of the claimed externality is so enormous that the
financial burden (which has to be paid by someone, even with an
externality) could not possibly be missed, and yet it is.

Apparently Hummer fans have learned to abuse them too.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam (AT) whitehouse (DOT) gov> wrote

By your intrepretation....

There's a sulfur-spewing coal plant every mile from Mississippi to Maine.
Assigning something like $2.75/mile in arbitrary "energy cost" to the Prius
because of environmental damage from a single plant is flat ridiculous.

And your interpretation of the missing $2.75 may or may not be implied (it
is certainly not spelled out) by one of the paragraphs in that article and
the CNW study waas not linked (I've seen references to it before, though,
and I have discovered that CNW is a marketing firm - draw any conclusion you
like from that). I'd say that if you're writing a serious article and want
to assign $2.75/mile in missing costs to something, you'd better spell out
what that cost is.

Of course, if you're re-interpreting and sensationalizing BS and adding a
little BS of your own, feel free to ignore all the numbers you like.

And, of course, if the article author starts with the assertion that life of
a Prius is 100K miles and the life of a Hummer is 300K miles, neither of
which is at all likely true, then I'd say the author in question is not an
author so much as a bullshit artist.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"DH" <dh (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote


And the situation in Sudbury isn't what it once was, either:

http://horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/h5015/99papers/shaw.htm



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam (AT) whitehouse (DOT) gov> wrote

Hey, dumbass, didn't you realize that '99papers' in the link and the content
of the paper itself indicates that the environmental damage from nickel
mining and smelting was well recognized by 1972, being attacked by the
mid-70's and has been improved considerably by the mid-90's? That the
"moonscape" is gone and the reference to astronauts training in moon buggies
should make you wonder what the hell the relevance is since our last moon
mission was in the '70's? That there's been a 90% reduction in sulfur
emissions and similar improvements in other pollution? That practically
none of this environmental damage has anything whatever to do with the
Prius, since it antedates the Prius by decades?

Improve yourself; ditch the attitude and get a clue.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

R.Hemmu <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Trolling Toyota owners eh?

Depends on the appointed armament.....

I'm partial to the automatic grenade launcher myself.

Cut down followups.

--