I'm having problems with these numbers. If the Prius costs $3.25 / mile for a 100,000 mile life, that means the total cost is $325,000. If gas is at $3/gallon for 40 mile/gal, that's $7,500 of gas in a lifetime leaving $317,500 in non-gasoline costs. Assuming the car is made of pure energy (absolutely nothing in it can be attributed to a non-energy cost) and costs $25,000 (might be a little high) you're left with $292,500 of energy costs not associated with manufacture or use. Some is for disposal. Some is for the energy to make repair and maintenance parts. But there is no way in the world you can say that those add up to over $290k. I rank this with proving you can flap your arms and fly around the room with a little math. The numbers don't add up.
(after a quick look at the report, it looks like most of that cost is for the disposal of the car. I have my doubts.)
posted on 07/19/2006 2:05:52 PM PDT
(Loose lips sink ships - and the New York Times really doesn't have a problem with sinking ships.)
"The numbers don't add up."
You're absolutely correct. The "study" is a total crock.
This is the sort of nonsensical, innumerate sophistry one expects to come from moonbats ranting about SUV's. It doesn't help advance us toward rational decision making.
SUV's aren't as bad as they're usually made out to be, and hybrids aren't as "green" as they're made out to be -- but, these figures are asinine.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson