The Prius drivers are forgetting that a new car costs about 32,600 BTU/lb to build (from ores and such to finished product). By still driving your classic Mustang instead of buying a new car, you're saving more energy than an average person expends driving an average commute for a year.
Absolutely correct. Not to mention how much energy it takes to generate the electricity to 'top off' the batteries as well. It's that kind of short-sightedness that I have issues with - people tend to only pick and choose the things they can use to justify their reasons, and overlook the rest of the 'big picture.' But since 'they' didn't actually make the car, it's not their fault, and therefore their direct impact is limited by default - it only begins when they purchase the Prius and start driving it, after all.
You have to remember that you're dealing with energy delivery in very different forms with very different entropy balance involved in the changes. Topping up a battery or draining it involves a very small change in entropies and, as a result, is inherently enormously more efficient than burning fossil fuels. Since burning fossil fuels becomes more efficient at scale, the energy costs of operating electric drive are much better than that of an internal combustion engine, even if fossil fuels are burned to produce the electricity in question. That's not opinion, that's thermodynamics. Feel free to look it up.
Using your logic, however, we're also 'more green' by preventing our cars from being crushed (that takes energy and creates pollution, after all). As well as maintaining our gas-guzzlers alongside our modern fuel-efficient daily drivers, we're effectively limiting the impact, per unit, since we can only drive one car at a time. That means I'm 150% more efficient than the average Prius owner because 3 of my cars are tucked in safe and sound at home at any given time (and not polluting), using the 'pick and choose' logic from a different perspective.
You're being snarky, but I agree, actually. My 71 is my daily driver and, since I have a short commute (about 3 mi. each way), that bothers me not at all. I would have to drive the car a long, long time to offset the effects of not paying for the production of a new car. And even then, the car has artistic, sentimental, and elegance of engineering value that, IMO, more than offsets its carbon footprint.
I think the most disappointing thing about the questions of climate change, energy sustainability, etc. is that it has become politicized. If you're interested in the raw science of sustainable energy, I recommend David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air".
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0954452933/tag=davidmackayca-20
or you can read it for free at his website, withouthotair.com
He approaches the questions from an engineering and physics standpoint and without political bias or alarmist nonsense. The issues are real and the science is quite clear. It's interesting to see how greatly the policy decisions of politicians of either camp diverge from what is actually indicated by the data.
