Fox News host Neil Cavuto said he’d rather have an ‘Osama Bin Laden healthcare’ plan over Medicare. Cenk Uygur breaks it down. Subscribe: bit.ly TYT Mobile: bit.ly On Facebook: www.facebook.com On Twitter: twitter.com www.theyoungturks.com FREE Movies(!): www.netflix.com Read Ana’s blog and subscribe at: www.examiner.com Read Cenk’s Blog: www.huffingtonpost.com
@thereinliestherib Now, your battery longevity figures are bullshit. Where are you getting them? I honestly want to know, because who ever is feeding you that is feeding you bullshit. Some generation 1 batteries on the Prius (from 2001) are still on the road. Not replacement batteries mind you, the original ones. And Toyota gave those owners a 10 year/ 150,000 mile guarantee on the batteries.
@shalcall “Some generation 1” Exactly, “some.” Regardless of their longevity, they are a maintenance part–they inevitably must be replaced, and the production (oil) costs of a SINGLE battery more than offsets the savings in gasoline. A 10yr/150k warranty is pretty damn easy in any industry, and that alone acknowledges the need for replacement. This doesn’t even address the maintenance issues of redundancy when it comes to the motors and other “recapture” systems.
@shalcall And like I said, I’m not knocking hybrids because I’m anti-environment, I like them–they’re just not worth anything more than novelty, and batteries will never catch up to make them viable. I’m just using their subsidization to show how the automotive market is being restructured, often through govt support, around a disposable product model. I still drive my beater 300k yota, with the lowest of all maintenance costs and the highest mpg available. AND its friggin carbureted!
@shalcall Cash for Clunkers had few qualifications, and ALL of the cars brought into the program were destroyed prior to their availability to recyclers. Sand was poured into their engines. They had to sit on literally millions of cars, unable to make any money off of them–so much so, that some refused to accept them. Similarly, at the end of multiple American wars, returning civilian-capable machinery (say, Jeeps) was dumped in the sea because it was a (surplus) threat to domestic markets.
@thereinliestherib you’re looking at the cost of energy of production for the batteries vs. their savings in energy on the road, and more importantly, their ability to be recycled. You can’t recycle gas. The longer the battery (and recycled battery) are on the road, the more energy savings result. This is in direct contrast to gasoline production, which is also energy intensive, but cannot be reused once used.
@thereinliestherib Their ability to be resold as cars were destroyed and most car parts were destroyed. But they could be scrapped for raw materials.
@shalcall They were circumvented from going into more direct and relevant uses for ordinary people, but I’m sure Schnitzer steel had a nice run of it at the crusher. And like I said, many of the so-called “clunkers” were cars that were designed during an era of simplicity, high mileage, and maintenance-oriented desigin, which is completely gone from automotive engineering. Simple maintenance procedures on most new cars run up to thousands of dollars and require special tooling.
@thereinliestherib You do realize that one of the eligibility requirements for a car to be turned in under cash for clunkers was that it “have a combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less,” right?
This idea that more fuel efficient cars were traded in under this program is just plain wrong. And if they were, then that’s the dealer playing shenanigans, because it wasn’t prescribed by the law.
@shalcall Recycling lithium batteries is WAY more intensive than lead-acids, requiring oil-consumption of its own. Overall, the price of the batteries, the fuel costs of their production, and the poor longevity of the cars completely undermines their supposed “green” purposes. Its just marketing and govt money. Hybrids won’t be viable until batteries dramatically change, which is simply improbably. But that’s what bus passes, bicycles, motorcycles, etc. have always been for anyway…
@shalcall And age was another qualifier of the program. As I’ve already described, the longevity of a car has a FAR greater effect on its environmental impact than just its fuel mileage. Older cars overwhelmingly tend to have greater longevity than new cars, and thus, old Clem in the thrice-rebuilt 15mpg 1972 chevy is arguably greener than the techie snob in the prius. I just wish they’d apply modern fuel technology to a (attractive) conventional car–but there’s no market for it.
@thereinliestherib You keep making this assumption that hybrids simply don’t have longevity. You need to prove that.
You also keep stating that old cars with lower gas mileage and demonstrably high emissions are greener than modern hybrids. I simply reject that assertion unless you have a peer reviewed study that backs that up, because it flies in the face of both common sense and simple math.
@shalcall I’ve shown you the math, and why is it that liberals need a study to support common mechanical/engineering knowledge??? Hybrid longevity is detracted by both the replacement/costs of the batteries (which typically only last 50k), and the mechanical redundancy of their recapture mechanisms. Every time you add to a drivetrain, you are increasing maintenance costs and reducing longevity. Why is that so complex? New, hi-mpg conventional cars run roughshod over expensive hybrid crap.
@thereinliestherib You haven’t shown me any math. You’ve asserted that hybrids don’t have longevity. That’s not math. You keep saying older cars are greener than hybrids. That’s not math, and with the exception of a few outliers is demonstrably false for the majority of older cars. You say that hybrid batteries typically last only 50k. Again, an assertion that’s demonstrably false. This is not about being liberal or conservative. This is about you bullshitting.
@shalcall Dude, you don’t need a study for what is practically true in design. The fact that you don’t understand what I’m saying is case in point that liberals don’t know shit about anything mechanical or applied. Older cars are not “outliers”–millions of the cars I’ve mentioned are still on the road, and have already outlasted millions of newer cars that expired after 90k. Hybrids are neat, but they aren’t economically viable, and aren’t actually “environmental” because of poor longevity.
@thereinliestherib “You don’t need a study for what is practically true in design.”
See, that’s the problem I have with so many ignorant conservatives that feel “the truth” in their gut, but don’t actually know the truth and refuse to believe the truth when someone sticks it in their face.
Toyota (and yes, they’re biased) has stated that they have not had to replace any batteries on any prius since 2004, except for car accidents. The battery has been tested to 185,000 miles.
@shalcall To not replace any battery for only six years is an incredibly short sample-span. And honsetly, if you don’t understand basic mechanics we can’t have this conversation. If you need studies to support what is theoretically, practically, and mechanically true, you’re a true liberal–I’m sure we should set up an agency and require its funding through surcharges on car sales, just to tell everyone the obvious to an engineer: mechanical redundancy = decreased longevity. Friggin stupid.
@shalcall And I aint just knocking hybrids–they are cool, from a design perspective. But their “green” claims truly are bunk: there’s a cost analysis called the “dust to dust” paper that whacked em. But no hybrid can beat a bike, bus pass, pair a feet, or old eighties “clunkers” that get better mileage and have FAR lower maintenance/lifetime costs than most new cars. Keep in mind mpg fluctuations over the years are consistent with market models, not improvements in internal combustion.
@thereinliestherib The “analysis” from dust to dust was debunked (at least for Prius vs H1). Look up the “Hummer versus Prius” paper from the Pacific Institute.
Now I agree that no hybrid can beat a bike, bus pass or pair of feet. But your average eighties clunker is, once again, making an assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up but your own “feelings” about the matter.
@shalcall Okay, so obviously you haven’t listened to a single thing I’ve said. The “dust to dust” issue wasn’t “debunked” by anyone but econuts and hybrid owners themselves–hardly an unbiased audience. And the fact that market demands, mounds of unnecessary electronics, and federal safety/environmental regulations have destroyed vehicle longevity and mpg is common f’ing knowledge in the industry. You’re completely outta the park.
@thereinliestherib
“I just wish they’d apply modern fuel technology to a (attractive) conventional car–but there’s no market for it.”
Sure there is. Many classic car enthusiasts retrofit their old carbureted engines with aftermarket throttle body injection kits and oxygen sensor kits specifically manufactured for that purpose.
@thereinliestherib
Granted, if your engine electronics go on the fritz, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to fix it at the side of the road with a screwdriver. But on average, you’ll go over 100,000 miles without a problem, and I like not having to change a distributor cap or readjust my carburetor or ignition points every 10K -20k miles or so.
@logik316 Its not just the electronics, its mounds of plumbing and auxilliary eqipment, in addition to pressurized fuel system components. Simple replacement of a fuel pump on Tahoes/Suburbans costs about TWO grand. And no, carbs rarely require adjustment, nor do points–you’re talking about tech. from over fifty years ago, pre-electronic ignition. Modern cars are garbage–don’t argue with me, but with the unchanging laws of thermodynamics, poor engineering, non-interchangeability…
he didn’t say “legendary” right