Comments on: Prius Rebound Effect Wrong

By: Mark Brooks

Mark Brooks — Sun, 27 May 2012 16:43:00 +0000

I love how self appointed doomsayers ignore key facts to sell newspapers.

The key fact being ingnored in this case by the pundit, like many others critical of new tech green cars and EV’s, is the energy used to refine gasoline ( 7 to 12 kwh a Gallon, ) and the CO2 produced in the refining process.
If you take this into account then there is no were possible way for this sort of agument to stand. And thier is also no possible way for a gas car, even a prius, to be cleaner than an EV running on the dirtiest coal, as that same energy is required in the refining process.

Lets be clear, an EV like the GM Volt can go further on the electrical energy used to refine a gallon of gasoline than an average car can on the gas.

Time for sane thinking people to stop listen to these false fact pundits and drive into a new clean tech future by buying a new EV or fuel efficent car.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 21 May 2012 10:34:00 +0000

and there probably isn’t even any statistical significance in the difference there.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 21 May 2012 05:09:00 +0000

“On average Prius owners drove 13,130 VMT/year compared to 13,064 VMT/year for non-Prius owners—a difference of a mere 0.5%.”
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/18mfw)

Prior to seeing the data I would have guessed that Prius owners drove more miles. Both before and after they bought their Prii. That they purchased a very efficient car because they drove a lot and wanted to save money on fuel.

By: TedKidd

TedKidd — Mon, 21 May 2012 04:55:00 +0000

“Owen’s preference for narrative over fact is concerning, not just because he is informing Americans on key components of climate policy without researching the realities, but because as an established and respected staff writer at The New Yorker he is so well positioned to disseminate this simple and false storyline.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/18mfw)

Nicely put. Seems NY Times may be losing its ability to deliver high quality journalism. Also like Simon Oliver’s point, reduced consumption reduces demand which reduces price. It would be nice if there was a way to avoid that price drop, seems a bit of a penalty for those who improve efficiency and free ride for those who don’t.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:42:00 +0000

Yep.

By: Shecky Vegas

Shecky Vegas — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:00:00 +0000

This sort of mis-information is along the lines of that nonsense spouted years ago about the fat substitute Olestra. Because it was to cut the caloric content of fried foods in half, it was assumed the general tubbo population would now eat twice as much in fried foods.

That didn’t happen, of course, and several studies by the FDA confirmed the general fatso eating habit wasn’t really affected by those items advertised as being made with Olestra.

However, it WAS funny when everybody started crapping their pants…

By: Simon Oliver

Simon Oliver — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:15:00 +0000

This is actually a mis-statement of Jevon’s paradox. It’s not the Prius driver that drives more, it’s everyone. Reducing demand for a product through making (some) vehicles more efficient means that the price does not go as high as it might if demand remained at the higher level. The difference in price affects millions of purchasing and usage decisions, the net effect of which is to increase overall usage relative to the level it would be if the efficiency had not been implemented.

The only way to make the market work effectively is to eliminate the externalities that are not reflected in the price of the product, which means a carbon price on fossil fuels.