yea but if you have the matrix, it is worth a few grand higher than a comparable vibe. buddy of mine got the vibe because of the roof rack and later said he should have just got the matrix. when he resold it, there was a noticeable difference in resale value.
funny how that works
Be the change you wish to see in the world
"Everyone" told me I should have gotten a GMC pickup instead of the F150 because of "higher resale value". That was 17 years ago and I'm still driving the F150. If you don't buy and sell cars more often than you change your underwear, resale value is a moot point.
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24
Resale value matters to me, because I buy almost all my cars used. Thus, I'm looking for the Vibes and Geos, not Toyotas and Hondas. It's a lot easier to find deals on used Nissans, Mazdas, and Hyundais than on used Hondas and Toyotas.
If Nissan didn't make economy cars with crap fuel economy, I *might* have considered them like I considered the Corolla. Same applies to Mazda and other similar vehicles. Resale value matters to me for the sake of being fairly compensated by the insurance company.. The only place the Volt is "green" is in northern California where all the electricity is primarily from natural gas. Otherwise, if you want to be "green" and save some green, you can't go wrong with the Prius. Volt gets terrible fuel economy when running purely on gasoline.
How about areas powered by hydroelectric or nuclear? Both are carbon free. Geothermal, wind, and solar are good too, but are not really all that common sources of grid power.
Right, but if you look at this map:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/phevghg.shtml
that really only applies to the north west, but even then they're not 100% carbon free.. There are also a lot of states that use coal, and if you charge your car with coal, that's FAR worse than even something as lowly as a Honda Insight, let alone a Prius! I feel that the money spent on such an expensive vehicle would be better put towards either buying TWO Prius vehicles or one prius vehicle and then efficiency improvements for your home. $40K is a lot of money for a minuscule improvement.
Centralized large-scale production from coal is quite clean, possibly cleaner than small-scale portable production from gasoline (don't forget to include the mining and refining of one vs. the other). Tough laws, a huge budget, and full-time professional maintenance all contribute.
No matter how clean it is there's going to be CO2 emissions, but that's true no matter where you convert hydrocarbons into energy...it's the entire nature of the process.
The only place the Volt is "green" is in northern California where all the electricity is primarily from natural gas.
Actually, it's nowhere near as simple as you claim. San Francisco PUC and Alameda Power get their electricity from Hetch-Hetchy's hydroelectric plant. PG&E and Southern California Edison get the majority of their power from natural gas, but significant chunks of about 15% each come from nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind/solar.
So, northern California includes Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, where their electricity is primarily hydroelectric-generated?
According to the link you referenced, the Volt is "only 'green'" in a lot of other places besides northern California and the northwest. Southern California, Nevada, Texas, and Florida have natural gas generation as their primary source of electricity. That's green, too.
Other states where 50% or more of their power (ergo Volt green) comes from a combination of nuclear, hydroelectric, and gas include Illinois, New York Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Kentucky, and more. In short, the vast majority of the US population.