If you're looking to make bad video game movies, there's only one man for the job.

I call B.S.

Let's check your math. Assume an average of $2.24/gal. over the 80,000 miles (that's the average of $1.49/gal. and $2.98/gal., which is twice $1.49/gal.). Also assume you got 50mpg. Total fuel cost over the 80k miles = 80000 miles / 50 mpg * $2.24/gal. = $3584.

I think we can guess that you bought your Prius in 2002. That's the last time regular gasoline cost $1.49/gal. MSRP for a 2002 Prius was $20,000, and I think it's safe to assume you paid full sticker price (Priuses have always been a hot item). We'll keep things simple and ignore any sales taxes or other fees. This gives a partial cost over 80,000 miles of $23,584.

What was the other car you used for comparison? In order to hit breakeven, its sales cost + fuel cost over 80,000 miles must have been $23,584. If you're comparing to a similar sized vehicle with similar features, you're probably looking at a sales cost of around $13000 (the 2002 Corolla for example had an MSRP between $12000 and $14000, depending on features). $13K is probably a good, conservative assumption.

In order for you to really have hit breakeven at 80,000 miles, with an average fuel price of $2.24, a $13000 car would have had a fuel cost of $23584 - $13000 = $10584 over those 80,000 miles. That's a fuel efficiency of 80,000 miles * $2.24/gal. / $10584 = 16.9 mpg. That's horrible efficiency for a small car. I don't think any small car built in 2002 had anywhere near 16.9 mpg. Even the Ford Ranger had better estimated efficiency than that.

I don't know where you get your price data, but in my area used Corollas are selling for a minimum of $6500. That's for a pure beater with high miles. The nicer maintained Corollas are selling in the 9000-11000 range. Meanwhile '05 Priuses are selling in the $10000-$12000 range. So I think iamhassi's point holds up: at $3/gal., you have to drive the Prius (or Civic Hybrid, which is what I drive) a long time to realize any economic benefit from the fuel efficiency.

Actually, the restrictions Holder had in mind were mostly passed into law four months after he gave that interview. See 18 USC Â 842(p):

(2) Prohibition. - It shall be unlawful for any person -
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.