[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=3]Daily Edition: Apr. 3, 2006[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=2]
Hybrids Lose Lifetime Energy Battle, Study Says Hybrid advocates trumpet the environmental benefits of the gas-electric vehicles. But a new study says that the overall energy picture for hybrid vehicles isn't as favorable as it seems. CNW Marketing Research, of Bandon, Ore., says that when the total cost of hybrids to the environment is calculated, including factors like recycling batteries into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure, hybrids come up short against gas-powered vehicles. CNW's energy cost per mile driven figured that the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, while the Scion xB checks in at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile. Some hybrids, like the Honda Accord Hybrid, actually get higher lifetime costs than their gas counterparts: the Hybrid Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the gas version's is $2.18. CNW accounts for the differences by citing the investments in lightweight materials along with the cost of recycling batteries. The auto industry as a whole, CNW says, has an average dollar per lifetime mile of $2.28; GM's HUMMER H3's figure was $1.949 per mile, lower than the Honda Civic at $2.42 a mile. "If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime."

article from carconnection.com




[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

Are they serious . How can an H3 be better for the environment than a Civic ... because an H3 is made of cheap steel and hybrids (and sports cars) are made of exotic aluminum, magnesium, and carbon fiber? How can you compare building materials and cost to manufacture with how good a car is for the environment .

I'll agree that disposal of hybrid batteries does have some issues but from what I've seen, they are recycled. Something has to be done to stretch out our fuel reserves until another viable energy source is mass produced. Hybrids not only do this but are definitely better for the environment as well.

I'm not sure about some of these new hybrids coming out that are regular gas burners that have been converted to hybrids... but for those that were designed specifically for maximum efficiency, there is definitely a positive argument.

 

The conventional cost calculation includes a bunch of stuff, but rarely includes the cost of waste disposal, so there is no cost associated with CO2 emmissions differences, as an example. These indirect costs are paid for by us all.

Comparisons of new hybrid technology to developed gas only technology is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Horses were cheaper to use when the car first came out. How much transport is done by horse now. Economies of scale haven't really kicked in for hybrid transport yet.

There are other issues that come to play that aren't taken into account here either, like having a factory that is located in an area with lots of renewable enegy sources, vs one that is powered by coal fired power generation. If you ran an electric car near a coal fired plant, it would create more pollution than a gas car because of transmission losses in moving the electricity to the car charger, and the fact that coal power generation is pretty dirty on average (thanks George W!)

If you factor in the energy cost of new cars, some older cars make more sense from a global impact perspective. But if you live in a place like the LA basin, getting older cars off the road sure is good, if you suffer from asthma!

Anyway, life-cycle costing is a very interesting subject, and has a lot of surprises (like the comparison of disposable and cloth diapers). But the sad trueth is here in the US, we usually only pay for the cost of manufacture and delivery, and not the cost of waste abatement. Oil products are a very good example of this.

I heard this report on the tax benefit of the hybrid rebate. We'd do better to have suburbans traded for Honda Pilots, as far as gas use goes. But that wouldn't stimulate the creation of the new technology.

FWIW, the best hybrids would use a small, direct injection deisle motor running a generator for a pure electric. Then you could run the diesle at best efficiency, and have the electric do it's thing. But that's not the type of hybrid we're making now.... Too bad!

Matt

 

Holy...

 

I'm having second thoughts about trading my MC for a Maybach.

 

I think these studies are really a good idea... just they all tend to be 100% one way or the other. There are definately obvious advantages to hybrids, but I don't think a lot of people really see them. my biggest gripe with them is when people say that they are saving tons of money because of them. that simply isn't true. for instance a toyota prius will save you some on gas over the lifetime of the car, but that savings is less than if someone just got a 4 cyl corolla. so basically they are paying for the gas 'savings' up front. yes, it will use less gas, which is great from an ecological point of view.... but they sure never think of how bad it is to dispose of batteries. way to pass off our problems on our kids!

I do remember reading an interesting article about a program that you pay x amount every year based on how bad the vehicle is on the environment... and that money is used to purchase solar or wind produced energy in place of coal or nuclear produced energy thus making the environmental impact effectively nil. sounds like a good idea (especially for ecologically minded companies) to own up for what they are doing.

 

I would love to see the actual report and what this group's assumptions were. Looking at the CNW Marketing Research web site (www.cnwmr.com), it looks like their work has been in (duh) market research. Leases and purchases per month, purchasing trends, that kind of thing. This energy/economics report should be more of an engineering analysis and I wonder at CNW's ability to do that. Also, not to be too cynical about it, I wonder at their political leanings and who funded the research.

Here's an opinion piece titled The Hybrid Hoax that showed up on CBS News in January. It's written by a columnist for The Weekly Standard, a rather conservative magazine. This columnist jumps on the supposed poor showing of hybrids on their real-world fuel economy relative to the published EPA numbers leading him to call hybrids a "fashion statement" since they don't perform as advertised. He then criticizes the government's giving of tax credits for environmental "fashion statements." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...pinion_1224807

What bothers me is that hybrid technology is in it's relative infancy and a push from people with possible undisclosed political and financial conflicts of interest could handicap further development.

 

I agree. Politics makes it's way into everything. We own a 2000 Honda Insight that's made it 80k miles at ~65 mpg. The battery was just replaced under warranty after 6 years of brutal Florida heat. My family also just purchased an '06 Prius that's getting a decent 48 mpg so far.

I'm not a fan of the Prius as it doesn't give the driver as much control as the Insight but that's the way most people want it. Both of them are going to save us major $$$ at the pump and last quite a long time. Hopefully, hydrogen cars will be coming out when we're ready to get another one.

 

In the US that is only going to fly if we crack methane and combine it with CO2 sequestration (read pumping it into depleted oil wells). And no one has really dealt with the issue of hydrogen energy density (or lack thereof). Really, the best for quite a while is low sulpher diesel running a generator to power the electrical half of a hybrid.

Matt

 

Hybrids suck.

 

The latest issue of Road and Track has a comparison of hybrids and their non-hybrid twins. I especially like the new Camry hybrid. 47 MPG on a trip down the Pacific Coast highway, a little over seven seconds 0-60, lots of room, and the reliability of a Toyota. Sure wouldn't hurt my feelings to own one.

 

I would be happier with a MINI ONE "D"... 1.4L Toyota diesel engine, 6-speed Getrag manual (Like the MCS but different gear ratios), 75HP, gobs of low end torque and 60 MPG.

 

I've used to drive an '03 Prius here at work. It was pretty good.

Really, the only thing I truly like about hybrids (other then less refueling) is that they finally seemed to have wedged the door open w/ automakers to bring fuel-efficiency more fully into the mass marketplace (although my '91 Metro got 43mpg...but that was just a blip). The bar is finally being raised......at long last.

I agree w/ C4...if diesel was the way to go I'd be all over a One D. Personally, I'd love to see MINI leading the way on all this, but mostly for sentimental reasons.

 

my wife wants one because she doesn't like to pump gas... we pump
about once every 3 weeks....hybrid, she can probably go once every
6-7 weeks.

so there are benefits to the enduser in terms of convenience. not sure
about environmentally-friendly... imagine production costs/energy for building
small production vehicles vs normal popular gas economy cars.

 

??

 

Or could it be a way to subsidize heretofore uneconomical technologies. Folks who are invested in wind and solar look for any way possible to get others to subsidize their industries, industries that have not yet proven to be economically competitive. Rent-seeking activities abound, and I don't blame them. Maybe I should buy a wind farm and lobby politicians in hopes that they will force taxpayers to make me rich some day. Seriously though, maybe someday wind, solar, etc. will become effective competitors with gas and coal technologies, but maybe they won't.

Another option that would make wind, solar, and other "green" technologies more competitive is to raise the price of gas and coal. Then, compared with the high price of gas, solar energy will be relatively inexpensive. That can happen several ways, including by letting the market prices of gas and coal rise as the supply of these resources diminishes over time and demand continues to rise. But then we would complain about the high price of gas. Or we would tax them. But then we would complain about high taxes. Either way, consumers will pay higher energy prices. In the former case, the resource owners get the money; in the latter case the government gets the money. Hmmmm...

Another alternative is that we could just tax ourselves whatever amount is deemed appropriate, give the money to the "green" industry, and trust they will use it to finally prove the efficacy of their technologies (a form of the infant industry argument). After all, it's obvious that the technologies will work if only they had more money to prove it. But if they can get tax money on a promise to do good, let me tell you about some of my good ideas.

Of course, the proposal to have people pay "x amount every year" (to whom?) "and that money is used" (by whom?) "to purchase solar or wind produced energy" (from whom? and for use by whom?) is an interesting concept. However, it sounds just as complicated and contentious as the current (more or less) market-directed approach. Also, some may argue whether the environmental impact of "environmentally friendly" technologies really is "nil." Windmill farms are under increasing criticism for killing birds, and solar farms have been criticized as being "visually offensive." In some places, politicians won't even allow "green" technologies in their backyards.

Personally, when I get the urge to save the environment, I ride my bike, take a walk, turn down my thermostat, cancel the unnecessary trip to Reno for dinner, etc. I also pat myself on the back for only owning one house (and a small one at that), never flying anywhere in a private jet, never letting anyone take me anywhere in a limo, never indulging in the pleasures of a private yacht, and never wasting precious resources engaging in superfluous diversions such as waterskiing, skydiving, autoracing, hot air ballooning, etc. Then, when I decide I have sacrificed enough for the environment, I open the garage door, back the MINI out and onto the road, and MOTOR ON.

 

From www.autoextremist.com:

Hybrids. Is there trouble in Hybrid-Ville? You better believe it. It seems that the notoriously fickle American consumer is losing interest in the whole hybrid thing, and the even the word has a tinge of "yesterday's news" about it. Consumers have finally gotten around to reading all the nitty-gritty dollar comparisons, and they're beginning to understand that as technical exercises hybrids are fine, but for most people who don't have the disposable income to drive a Hollywood-approved political statement around, they don't really have the appeal or "buzz" they once did. There are too many excellent, real-world vehicle choices out there that happen to deliver excellent mileage - and hybrids are just one alternative, no matter how Toyota's "Master Manipulators" try to spin it for us poor, unenlightened folk in the hinterlands.

 

^^ those toyota manipulators are actually your own American marketing teams... ya know.

 

So, if the pure market isn't going to seed industries needed in the future, what is the responsible thing to do?

1) let the public keep buying large V8 motors and ***** about the price of energy, when the individual doesn't do anything to lower demand?

2) ignore the fact that todays industries are often the rust-belts of the future, and blindly let us wander down the path of least resistance until we notice that most of the domestically owned auto industry is making the equivalent of buggy whips in the age of the new automobile?

3) apply incentives to artificially improve the percieved benefit of emerging technologies to acclerate their development BEFORE pure market forces demand that new technolgies be created?

Here's where I see the problem of just the "lassaiz-faire" attitudes that any market "manipulation" is a bad idea attitude.

a) Other contries/regions/economies will create the technology demanded by the future societal energy balance. When we get there, we will have to buy hte technology, worsening the trade imbalance, and we'll have to fire all the employees in the obsolete industries. This is already happening in hybrid technologies.

b) We as a society will continue to make purchasing decisions based on short term interestes compounded with incomplete understanding of the interdependance of the issues in play.

c) Correcting the mistakes of the past (especially on short time lines) has pretty much always been much more expensive than using some foresight in anticipating future issues and doing something about them. I was just reading about what's happening in Pensylvanias closed coal mines, and what is having to be done (or not done, as the case may be) with the multiple trillions of gallons of highly poluted water that has accumulated in the mines since they've been closed. The cost of creating alternative enegy sources to displace petrolium is going to be very, very expensive. Doing it quickly when the average person in the public understands that we have no choice in the matter will be even more expensive!

So, even if you think that TODAYS hybrids are just a poor choice when compared to other fuel efficient choices that are available TODAY, what about tomorrow? What about not $60 a barrel oil prices, but $70, $80, or $100 a barrel?
Where is it written that the hybrid technology of today is as good as it will ever be? Sheeze, we had the internal combustion engine for a real, real long time before electronic fuel injection allowed it to become more efficient and CLEANER at the same time (and for those that aren't really aware of it, electronic fuel injection wasn't adopted to create power, it was adopted to meet emissions controls -Yikes! Market Manipulation!- and out of it us MCS drivers are getting over 100 hp a liter of displacement, thanks fed gov!) So now the ICE is at close to the end of it's possible optimization, and hybrids are just starting the optimization, makes threads like this that are saying hybrids are a hoax the worst kind of apples to oranges comparison, cloked as knowledge and fact.

Matt

ps, how many of you were aware that our ability to upload new ECU maps was a result of the OBD-II requirements? So we were "saddled" with a gov regulation based on the need to improve operational cleanliness of already sold cars, and we, the performacne marketplace, was given the gift of a back door into the engine management so we can sup-up our cars!

Mr Econ raises good points, how does a responsible society prepare for and react to changing demands on society that aren't currently part of or properly represented in the market economy now? It's a very difficult question. Ignore it at our own peril.

 

+1 and converted to bio-diesil for even better fuel economy and lower cost per mile. Whats it gonna take for MINI to import that thing anyway?