"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:09:50 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:30:56 -0800, "CalifBill"

wrote:

Merry Festus to all. And got a Garmin Nuvi 200W for the wife today.
Was
going to get a tomtom xls one, but West Marine had the Nuvi for $249 + a
$50
gift certificate to the store. Played with it while waiting at the
Mexican
market for the Christmas Eve Tamales. Pretty cool.


She'll love it, and it will save about $2000 on your next car purchase!
--
John H

Probably no savings on the next car. then I will inherit the GPS for the
truck. Looking at a Saturn Vue Hybrid for her next car.


I did a quick look and couldn't find the GPS as an accessory for the Vue.
Does it come with one? When I bought the wife the Highlander, the
'Navigation System' was in the $2000 range. Her Garmin was in the $300
range, and she's very happy with it.
--
John H


You bought her the Highlander????
I thought she was a teacher...and capable of her own purchases?
Does she have to give you her paycheque....do you dole out an allowance to
her?

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:44:56 -0500, JG2U wrote:

I recently heard a story that pointed out that a typical hybrid has a
negative impact on the environment. A fuel efficient "normal" car
actually has an edge after you factor in the manufacturing impact of the
hybrid's components.

But it is the feel-good thing to do.

You recently heard a "story". That about sums it up. I'm guessing the
story you are referring to is "Dust to Dust: The Energy Costs of New
Vehicles From Concept to Disposal". It's findings don't hold up.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr.../case_studies/
hummer_vs_prius.pdf

wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:44:56 -0500, JG2U wrote:

I recently heard a story that pointed out that a typical hybrid has a
negative impact on the environment. A fuel efficient "normal" car
actually has an edge after you factor in the manufacturing impact of the
hybrid's components.

But it is the feel-good thing to do.

You recently heard a "story". That about sums it up. I'm guessing the
story you are referring to is "Dust to Dust: The Energy Costs of New
Vehicles From Concept to Disposal". It's findings don't hold up.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr.../case_studies/
hummer_vs_prius.pdf


Unfortunately, we've knee-deep in luddites who don't think it is
important or necessary to do anything to try to save energy or to shift
to alternative sources.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:53:05 -0000, wrote:

hummer_vs_prius.pdf

"Closer inspection suggests that the report’s conclusions rely on
faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and
presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review. Even the
most cursory look reveals serious biases and flaws:"

Sounds like the "Inconvenient Truth". :)

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:54:51 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:44:56 -0500, JG2U wrote:

I recently heard a story that pointed out that a typical hybrid has a
negative impact on the environment. A fuel efficient "normal" car
actually has an edge after you factor in the manufacturing impact of the
hybrid's components.

But it is the feel-good thing to do.

You recently heard a "story". That about sums it up. I'm guessing the
story you are referring to is "Dust to Dust: The Energy Costs of New
Vehicles From Concept to Disposal". It's findings don't hold up.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr.../case_studies/
hummer_vs_prius.pdf

Unfortunately, we've knee-deep in luddites who don't think it is
important or necessary to do anything to try to save energy or to shift
to alternative sources.

I look at it this way - the faster we use up fossil fuels, the faster
something new will come along to replace it.

From a historical perspective, it fits perfectly.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:53:05 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:44:56 -0500, JG2U wrote:

I recently heard a story that pointed out that a typical hybrid has a
negative impact on the environment. A fuel efficient "normal" car
actually has an edge after you factor in the manufacturing impact of the
hybrid's components.

But it is the feel-good thing to do.

You recently heard a "story". That about sums it up. I'm guessing the
story you are referring to is "Dust to Dust: The Energy Costs of New
Vehicles From Concept to Disposal". It's findings don't hold up.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr.../case_studies/
hummer_vs_prius.pdf


The pacinst folks say this: "The Integrity of Science Initiative responds
to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the
public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change,
and security." But, although the phrase 'Integrity of Science' is used, the
whole site seems to lean in only one direction and present only one side of
the stroy.

That's not to say that the 'Hummer vs Prius' study was accurate (or
flawed), only to make an observation.

I wonder what would be their response to:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
--
John H

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:54:51 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:44:56 -0500, JG2U wrote:

I recently heard a story that pointed out that a typical hybrid has a
negative impact on the environment. A fuel efficient "normal" car
actually has an edge after you factor in the manufacturing impact of the
hybrid's components.

But it is the feel-good thing to do.
You recently heard a "story". That about sums it up. I'm guessing the
story you are referring to is "Dust to Dust: The Energy Costs of New
Vehicles From Concept to Disposal". It's findings don't hold up.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr.../case_studies/
hummer_vs_prius.pdf
Unfortunately, we've knee-deep in luddites who don't think it is
important or necessary to do anything to try to save energy or to shift
to alternative sources.

I look at it this way - the faster we use up fossil fuels, the faster
something new will come along to replace it.

From a historical perspective, it fits perfectly.


Yeah, but you are an old fa^t like me, and it really doesn't matter to
either of us, because we'll both be pushing up daisies before we run out
of oil.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:19:24 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:53:05 -0000, wrote:

hummer_vs_prius.pdf

"Closer inspection suggests that the report’s conclusions rely on
faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and
presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review. Even the
most cursory look reveals serious biases and flaws:"

Sounds like the "Inconvenient Truth". :)

That was quite low and uncalled for.
--
John H

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:21:26 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Unfortunately, we've knee-deep in luddites who don't think it is
important or necessary to do anything to try to save energy or to shift
to alternative sources.

I look at it this way - the faster we use up fossil fuels, the faster
something new will come along to replace it.

From a historical perspective, it fits perfectly.

As a fuel, yes, but what about all the other uses of petroleum,
medicines, fertilizers, plastics, etc. Oil is a gift, and some would
argue it's too important to be squandered as fuel.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:14:36 -0500, JG2U wrote:

The battery
pollution is substantial because the creation of the batteries requires
destructive mining to produce the batteries and the caustic substances
that power the batteries must later be disposed of.

80%, by weight, of a car, is now recycled. I'm sure batteries are
included. And, we recycle 95% of the cars retired from service.