Slashdot Mirror
When Hybrids Do (And Don't) Make Sense
prostoalex writes "Recently NPR, CNN Money and Wall Street Journal Online have all dedicated some time and space to discussing hybrid vehicle pros and cons. It seems that hybrids do not make much financial sense if (a) you're buying after getting yourself into a debt with not really good interest on a car loan, (b) your battery requires replacement after being out of warranty, (c) your daily commute is not too long, so the price markup you pay for a hybrid does not translate into long-term gas savings." From the CNN article: "They may make a social statement you're interested in, but if you want to save money because of rising gas prices, you're heading down the wrong road, at least for now."
Maybe for some people, buying a car that pollutes less is about trying to harm our environment less so that we don't end up like LA rather than saving money or "making a statement".
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Because not wanting to fuck over others is a "social statement." Because not wanting to die from smog is a "social statement." Because using only your fair share is a "social statement."
a Kung Fu Monkey blog entry from a month ago said this:
If you wait until Jan. 1st of next year (in the US), the federal government will give you a fat tax credit with the purchase of a hybrid vehicle. This changes the financial equation considerably. My understanding is the tax credit won't cover the full incremental cost of moving up to a hybrid, but is usually more than half of it.
two wheels
bicycles get incredible gas mileage...zero gallons of gas will run it forever!
in all seriousness, my 22 year old motorcycle gets better gas mileage than just about any car out there. properly tuned it gets somewhere between 45 and 50 mpg. newer smaller engine bikes (the little 250cc ninjas and stuff) get even better. i've heard of bikes getting around 70mpg
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
so then you calculate the real cost. say the civic gets 30mpg, and the prius 60mpg (this is really giving the prius to much credit, but just for the sake of discussion). say you spend $40/week in gas on the civic, you'd then spend $20/week on the prius. you save $20/week on gas with the prius. but, you paid $12,000 more for the prius. divide 10,000 by 20, and you get 500, which is the number of weeks you'd need to drive the prius to break even. 500 weeks ~ 9.61 years. now factor in the possible battery replacement.
i understand that at least part of this conclusion is based on the fact that the prius is in high demand, and therefore overpriced right now.
I don't know where you are located, but here in California diesels aren't subject to any emissions or equipment testing for registration, while gasoline vehicles are subject to frequent and increasingly difficult testing standards. Also, the claim that diesel is cleaner only holds true when using more cleanly refined diesel than is currently widely available in the US and even then only holds true when speaking of CO2 or HC emissions and quickly falls flat when particulate emissions are taken into account...
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
AFAIK it's always more efficient to produce the electricty closer to where you consume it.
Efficient in terms of power, yes. But efficient in terms of pollution? No.
Which would you rather have: 100 million individual pollution sources, or 1000? Which do you think would be easier to maintain for pollution controls? Which do you think would be easier to improve to reduce emissions?
And of course, if you're only polluting from power plants, you can relocate the power plants to avoid smog.
Motorcycles only make sense in environments where there's no or very little snow. Here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, you simply can't get by with a motorcycle as your sole means of transportation. By the middle or end of October, you can't ride it any more. Not until probably May.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
When I bought my Prius, the price difference between a Corolla and a Prius (cars that are comparable except for the powertrain) was about $6,000. In 100,000 miles the corolla will burn about 4,000 gallons of gas; the Prius will burn about 2,000 gallons. Hence purchasing the Prius makes sense from a fuel-only standpoint at about $3.00/gallon. That price point seemed unlikely to happen when I bought the car and fuel was about $1.80/gallon in Colorado. Now that fuel is close to $2.80/gallon (and I'm 30,000 miles into that 100,000 mile amortization) it's doesn't seem so unlikely.
But in the debate over pricing most people forget the all-important motivating difference between up-front and marginal pricing. When each mile costs a lot, you tend not to drive as much as when you pay for them all up front! This is the reason I buy a ski pass every year: although I may or may not get my "money's worth" from the pass over the whole year, I'm more likely to ski more times with the pass -- it's a no-brainer to head up the mountain. That convenience, for me, makes the pass worthwhile.
Similarly, having a very fuel-efficient car makes it more likely that I'll actually use and enjoy the convenience of my car. If it cost me $50 every 200 or 250 miles, I might think more about hopping in the car -- but at $30 every 400 miles, I don't really think about the price of fuel when i'm deciding whether to zip off somewhere to go hiking.
I suspect hybrid cars will never take off until the day that their TCO is lower than those of petrol or diesel. Environmental statements are all very well and good for the few, but impact requires the masses and the masses follow the money (that's not necessarily a bad thing; I do it too).
;o)
If petrol wasn't so ridiculously cheap, hybrid cars would make more sense financially. Financial sense leads to adoption. The tax $$$s might help the budget deficit too
Since hybrids make use of regenerative breaking (capturing energy during breaking to recharge batteries) they tend to get very good milage in city driving when compared to other vehicles. However, on the Freeway where you're doing little stop&go (well, I suppose that depends on how bad traffic is where you are :) they don't make much sense.
Personally, I wish we could buy some of the smaller non-hybrid European or Asian cars here in the US. Many of these cars get 50+MPG without hybrid technology (no heavy, expensive batteries to carry around and replace). Cars in this category include the new Fiat Grande Punte and the SmartCar.
Also, you can 'simulate' a hybrid if you're willing to drive like an old geezer: Drive as if physics matters. Coast to red lights (why are people so much in a hurry to get to a red light?). Since starting and stopping are the main impacts on gas milage, you can learn to drive in such a way as to avoid stopping as much as possible. Sure, you're going to be driving much less aggressively, but it works. I'm getting 31MPG in city driving in an '87 Acura Integra which is rated at 26MPG in the city. Not only does it save on gas, it'll save on breaks as well.
The price people pay for hybrids represents something of a guilt tax paid by the affluent. While they'll probably never recoup the price of the hybrid in gasoline savings, they will, in fact, be reducing their usage of the stuff, which is not a bad thing.
Prices will need to be no higher, preferably lower, than current car prices if hybrids or any other similar alternative technologies are to have a lasting environmental impact. Only the economically privileged can afford to spend more to use less energy.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This is a very common misconception. Diesel fuel is denser than gasoline. When you correct for mileage per fuel mass or (even better) per carbon output, much of their advantage on paper fades.
Diesel engines are still slightly more efficient than typical gasoline engines, owing to the higher compression ratios used by the Diesel ignition process. The higher combustion temperatures, however, produce nitrogen oxides, which are a local pollutant. And of course a poorly tuned Diesel (or, often, just a cold one) generates a ton of particulate ("soot") emissions -- another local pollutant.
And remember that Diesels idle very inefficiently (they have bigger and heavier pistons, and a finicky ignition mechanism that can't be run as lean as gasoline), whereas a hybird will shut down the engine and idle with no emissions whatsoever (well, minus battery drain due to the air conditioner, etc...).
The best general advice that I've read is that a Diesel makes the best environmental choice for a long-haul vehicle that rarely idles, or for rural areas with little sensitivity to local pollution. They make rather poorer choices in the urban commute environment.
Disclaimer: I love my Prius, and it just smells better than the Diesels cars I've known.
no offense and i dont know where you live or you personal circumstances, but have you considered a bicycle?
always mosh clockwise
None of those things actually reduce *local* pollution, if you happen to live in a high Smog type area.
They're *broadly* better environmentally, but don't necessarily help the *local* environment.
Clever but wrong. If you think about it, when you go uphill the hybrid uses both the gas engine and the electric motor to power the car. Going down hill all it is doing is charging the battery. So battery is charged more going downhill than it is depleted going uphill, wise guy.
If I want to buy a new car right now then certain hybrids make sense in their own ways.
First is price. What diesel powered car is available in the US for $20,000? The Jetta isn't. Most other economy cars aren't available as diesel. However, both the Prius and the new Civic hybrid are right at that $20k mark. I'd have to pay almost $2,000 more to get into a Jetta TDI.
Second is interior. Have you ever been in a Prius? It has a bit of quirk to its interior, but it is still quite nice and very roomy. The last figure I recall it had more interior volume than a Camry. Plus, it's a five door vehicle. Ask any Saab enthusiast about how versatile that is versus having a trunk.
Third is dealing with diesel. Right now diesel is pushed aside in American society. Yes, that's a shame. The problem is that it's a huge hurdle to overcome. The stigma of smelly diesel and noxious exhaust is alive and well. It's harder to find, too. Not every station has it, sometimes stations have it but only have truck pumps. Normally, those who have car pumps only have one or two tops.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for diesel. It's just not as viable right here and now. Blame California for the emissions regulations. Go thank Minnesota for requiring that diesel be part bio-diesel.
As an aside, I'd like to say that there is a political reason to spend a little extra on your vehicle to save on gas. Depending on your views, many would think that it's better to send their money to Japan (or wherever the car is made) than it is to Saudi Arabia.
Seems obvous to me...it's also the same reason that auto manufacturers almost completely stopped trying to create mainstream pure electricity cars...
Because the auto manufacturers, as a whole, are in bed with the oil companies.
There are higher profit margins on gasoline than diesel, so the oil companies want cars in America to use gasoline, not diesel.
Although a diesel-electric hybrid is a great idea, it'll never happen for that reason alone.
Huh?
Cold is an issue, but the big problem is the layout of Western cities.
There is this big, open flat space. There are no natural impediments to growth outwards. Land is free, or nearly so. So rather than high and packed in, the cities just go on and on and on.
You COULD be car-free in San Francisco, or Vancouver without it messing up your schtick very much. (SF is dense, so not having a car is actually a blessing). Portland and Seattle get runner-up status (i.e. you can do it, but it will have some quality-of-life impact).
Anywhere else West of Chicago? Some people do it, but it is done usually as fallout from a DUI conviction or grinding poverty rather than a "lifestyle choice"
Oh yeah, on top of all that, you get mighty cold waiting for the bus in Edmonton.
That's what he's talking about.
He's watched a signpost temperature display toggle back and forth, with the only thing changing being the "F" to "C" and vice versa.
He doesn't mean he's watched the temperature go up and down.
It makes a lot more sense if you have regular exposure to the big signs that toggle between the two measurement systems, as we often see on the northern side near the border. Since the numbers virtually always change, it's quite noticable when they don't.
What statement do you really make by buying a car? I presume you think the statement is "you care". But about what? Technology? Fashion? The future? The economy? Some carmaker's bottom line? The promise of a great new world? The environment? If it costs you more than other options producing similar mileage then you're not making a very good statement that you're saving resources.
Knowing that in about 10 years, let's assume, the expensive battery on the Prius is going to need to be replaced, it's my feeling that the used market for this form of hybrid is going to have a near-zero dollar value. You may even have to pay people to dispose of the things properly. Who wants a car that if working, would have a used value of $2-$3k, but needs a $2-$3k battery to be replaced?
I'm sure the carmakers have thought of this. For example, if the battery does die and you don't replace it, will the gas engine simply stay running and it will just get worse mileage? Battery costs may well go way down in ten years, as well. This just stays on the back of my mind about hybrids. I would love to have a used one in five or ten years, especially if this problem were solved. And this is the market that'll really get the mass penetration imo...
Posted by yintercept - "...science...[is] the study of the 'divine creation.' "
Hybrids are cool and all, because they drive innovation and new ways of thinking, but the way to immediately and permanently reduce our reliance on petrochemicals is ethanol.
Hell, an ethanol hybrid car would be fantastic.
Point 1. It's environmentally neutral, sure CO2 is released into the atmosphere but it's the same amount that would have been as the plants it's made from decomposed.
Point 2. It works in current cars. Minimal modifications would be necessary for standard gasoline engines to run off of ethanol.
Point 3. Ethanol is cheap. In large scale production it would cost somewhere around a dollar (US) per gallon.
Point 4. Ethanol can be made from everything from sugar cane and corn to sawdust. It can be made just about everywhere on earth.
Point 5. It's being used on a large scale right now. 20 years ago Brazil started pushing ethanol and they decreased their dependence on foreign oil from 60% to somewhere around 10-15% now.
Instead of pumping our bodies full of high fructose corn syrup, we should be using it to power our automobiles.
The big drawback to ethanol is that it requires higher temps to burn than does gasoline, so in cold climates cars would still need to burn gasoline to get up to the proper temp to switch to ethanol. This is the same problem that we have with bio-diesel and we've learned how to work around it.
I'm anonymous on this because I know I'll draw the ire of mods with political axes to grind so let me say this. I'm not an echo-whacko. I'm a right wing Republican. I voted for Bush, twice. It's just that it's so clear that this is the right thing to do that I can't see any reason not to advocate it.
...I really do hope the US hits $6+ soon
Guys its for your own good, everyone else manages. Once the US is forced into alternative cars they will start to make more sense, the industry just needs that boost to get things like battery advances and incentives for hydrogen stations (if that's the best way) and charging places. If I was in the US right now I wouldn't even consider buying a car that couldn't at least plow through a bull. They need fuel prices to go through the roof so people will start changing the cars they buy.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.