What do YOU say? I have read the report mentioned and if you have a gripe with the content, by all means pick apart the assumptions. What the report does not do is hide it's assumptions. They are all there for you to pick at. Making broad, unjustified negative comments puts you in the same boat as the tree-huggers. This ain't religion, it's science -- treat it like that and you'll get a lot more respect for your comments!

‘gigajeulles’? What about the chronic miss-spelling of 'centre' and the like? Hyper-intellectuals allow history to be repeated time and time again, eh?

The Koerner piece was in "Slate"? Well, for heaven's sake, that automatically makes it biased very partial, and unreliable, as that electro-rag is the house organ of all things socialist! Begone, quasi-scientist of the far, far left!

Hmmm. Let's take the authors complete comments at face value: 1) the Prius takes 23% more energy to build (which, it is noted, could be compensated for as the car is driven, if it is more energy efficient), and 2) the "lifetime" estimates of the Prius in the CNW study may simply indicate that Prius drivers tend to drive less miles (this seems reasonable, since they might well be more sensitive to environmental issues). These two points suggest that precisely the wrong people are driving a Prius! If the "sunk cost" in energy is higher for the Prius, then Prius drivers need to drive MORE than the typical driver, in order to compensate for this energy cost over the long run. If "low mileage" drivers are buying a Prius, this wastes energy. If what the author says is true about the Prius (and the CNW study), then low-mileage drivers should probably buy a conventional car, and leave the Prius for high mileage drivers (say, travelling salesmen). This is what happens when "good intentions" take the place of facts of life. I think this was the real point of the original "Prius v Hummer" comparison, not whether every assumption about lifespans and battery production environmental damages were correct to within +/- 1% accuracy.

How about a combination: the Hybrid HumVEE. We have a full military HMWWV that we are using as the test bed for advanced Lead-Acid battery technology, with a VW Diesel engine running the Auxiliary Power Unit for battery recharge, a 360 Volt battery pack, and electric drive.

It was a while ago that I read the report, so this may not be accurate, but this is what I remember. 1. The development cost of the HMWWV was not included in the comparison, so the Hummer may have got a free ride for a large portion of the sunk cost. This is not actually completely clear, because the raw data was kept out of the report. However, it stands to reason that the development costs for a military vehicle are considerable. 2. Maximum mileage was based on early-adopters of the Prius as there were no other statistics available at the time. The maximum mileage figure may be considerably different today, since there are a lot more Prius' on the road now. 3. The report does not stand to scientific rigor, as it was not peer-reviewed, and a number of the sources of information were kept confidential and thus are not subject to scrutiny. Please note that I am not "siding" with either vehicle. I am just noting deficits in the report. Basically, you can't actually conclude anything from it.

It was a while ago that I read the report, so this may not be accurate, but this is what I remember. 1. The development cost of the HMWWV was not included in the comparison, so the Hummer may have got a free ride for a large portion of the sunk cost. This is not actually completely clear, because the raw data was kept out of the report. However, it stands to reason that the development costs for a military vehicle are considerable. 2. Maximum mileage was based on early-adopters of the Prius as there were no other statistics available at the time. The maximum mileage figure may be considerably different today, since there are a lot more Prius' on the road now. 3. The report does not stand to scientific rigor, as it was not peer-reviewed, and a number of the sources of information were kept confidential and thus are not subject to scrutiny. Please note that I am not "siding" with either vehicle. I am just noting deficits in the report. Basically, you can't actually conclude anything from it.

Another re-run of the old arguments. The prissyarse may be a step change in tech. but it isn't as green as they claim. I'll keep my 25 year old Land-Rover, with modern 'cleaner' diesel engine, simple body parts, galv steel chassis, and easily recycled when its time finally comes. I have a prof (head of dept. for Electronics and Computer Sciences) who WAS considering buying one, but in the final analysis a Nissan Micra was better value and much greener by miles!

The one thing about hybrids that has never been answered to my satisfaction is what type of environmental damage is done when one is stolen and dumped in a lake? It would seem to me that they would pose a more serious problem than non-hybrid cars when something unusual happens to them. I also wonder about the costs for recycling hybrid cars. We will learn a lot from hybrid technology, but this is only a step. I suspect that a small high efficient gas car cuts into the possible advantages of a hybrid car to the point that they are the better alternative for the cost. We need to be pushing fuel cells harder - this would be an opportunity for the USA to regain some tech advantage in the automotive world.

The one thing about hybrids that has never been answered to my satisfaction is what type of environmental damage is done when one is stolen and dumped in a lake? It would seem to me that they would pose a more serious problem than non-hybrid cars when something unusual happens to them. I also wonder about the costs for recycling hybrid cars. We will learn a lot from hybrid technology, but this is only a step. I suspect that a small high efficient gas car cuts into the possible advantages of a hybrid car to the point that they are the better alternative for the cost. We need to be pushing fuel cells harder - this would be an opportunity for the USA to regain some tech advantage in the automotive world.

My wife's first Honda car (a 600 Coupe) got a real 50 mpg with a gas engine at 70 MPH and would hold 4 people. Battery replacement is looking like the big unknown in hybrids and may be a hidden cost if some of what I've heard is true. So, what the environmenatalists don't kill the safety people will (as probably happened to the Honda 600!) Both cars are larger than the Honda and less peppy if my memory serves. And only 1300 pounds of steel has got to result in a greener manufacturing process.

I started a new job last August that involves commuting 80 miles per day! I went out and bought a new Prius. The weekday traffic is often bumper-to-bumper. And, Prius thrives on it. I brake to a stop, and the engine turns off. I sit there for two minutes, and use zero gasoline. The Mini Cooper next to me is sitting there burning fuel. The Hummer next to her is really cooking. In my first six months of commuting, the Prius has been averaging about 49 mpg. My carpool mate drives a Volvo wagon. The average mpg is 20. We both pay $3.60 plus per gallon of 87 octane gasoline, but my gallon takes us 150 percent further. I didn't buy it for the economy; I bought it for the mileage efficiency. And, I'm getting it!

Priusman - you commute 80 miles a day? So you're still burning ~1.6 gallons/day. How is that better than commuting 40 miles/day with a car that gets half the mileage? I'm happy that you're not burning more gas, but it seems like in environmental terms, you're still leaving a large footprint.

Telecommuting, bicycles and public transportation will likely become the way America gets to work in 20 years at the rate gas is increasing in price.