Slashdot Mirror
The Math Behind the Hybrid Hype
markmcb writes "OmniNerd has posted a thorough mathematical analysis of purchasing a hybrid vehicle that dispels much of the hype associated with this modern buzz word. The author considers all of the major factors to show just how much money a hybrid vehicle will or won't save you. In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment."
> the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment.
That is to say, everyone and everything on the planet.
Here in Europe the fuel prices are vastly different. Where in the US the price this year was between 37.9 and 26.82 UK pence / litre, in the UK it is currently 91 . So you would have to multiply the savings in petrol by 3 or so.
Fortunately in Europe we also have a system of public transport which most environment minded people (like myself) prefer to use rather than pretend we are doing our bit through the purchase of a new car.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
"In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment"
And that isn't enough?
My Sig: SEGV
What's wrong with that?
"In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment."
I hope this wouldn't be considered a bad thing.
"it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment."
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
umm...
buying a new car is almost -always- a losing proposition, financially. If money is a concern, a 3-year-old Accord or
Camry is probably the best way to go.
I bought my prius to replace my 15 year old celica. I didn't buy it to save money, I bought it because it was an interesting/cool car in my price range. The fact that it is a hybrid entered into MY purchase equation but it wasn't the only reason.
The fact that I've gotten as much as 66.5 mpg (after a 50 mile round trip commute) is just icing on the cake.
My dad works for a local government and was required to investigate the use of hybrid vehicles for use in his department, as a form of gasoline reduction measure, to save money. However, since this local government doesn't have to pay taxes on the gasoline it purchases, it can get it for very cheap. He also found that it would take well beyond the life of the vehicle to become profitable.
I think it's kind of unfortunate, really, why hybrids cost so much more than conventional vehicles. The tax incentives in this case were of no use, as I said, because this agency didn't pay taxes.
This data does not take into account someone who is already willing to lay out 20-30K on a SUV and deciding to switch to a hybrid instead. It has been long obvious that hybrids were not yet the most cost efficient way to travel. Though if you already own a 30K SUV, and you trade it in for a hybrid, you will see savings. Take these statistics for what they are. The most interesting point being in figure 13 where it seems with gas at 2.50 a gallon, a car that gets 50 - 60 mpg would have to cost less than 13,000 to be the cheapest new bought transportation.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Fundamentally, there is a problem with the way the US is underpricing fuel. In Europe prices are much higher (US$6 per gallon is typical) which provides a financial incentive to create cars with lower fuel consumption, primarily though making more efficient engines.
Until the US starts to tax gasoline products in order to encourage fuel efficiency, then the US will continue to drive around in inefficient gas guzzlers. Heck, they would in Europe too if the tax regime wasn't different.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
"In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment."
Let's not forget the auto manufacturers and their markup for sticking the word "hybrid" on their vehicles.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Fuel prices are protected in China and America, this has to be taken into account. So should the change in cost of running over time. In Western Austrlia we are debating desalinationplats versus pipelines. the major bonus in desalination plants is that as the technology gets better the costs get cheaper. The artcle fails to deduce the drop in cost and increase in productivity caused by new fuel production and use technologies. And etcetera...
Big deal! I bet that's great for those of us who LIVE in the Environment. That's only, what 6 or 7 billion of us? Call me when they come up with something that matters. I'd do anything for another EZ Cheez, but all we get these days is a cure for AIDS and cars that help the Environment. Engineers and scientists, sheesh. Call me when there's some real news, OK?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
He compares the Prius to a Corolla; really it's closer in quality and size to a Camry, which is much closer in price.
Also, the value retention part of it is key in treating it as an investment, but "OmniNerd" doesn't do that, he's just calculating the change in monthly payments. That completely invalidates the monetary comparison from the start.
I.e. the "Math" here is off base, by quite a lot.
Plus, my '05 Prius is very fun to drive, wouldn't trade it for just about anything (well, maybe one of those $40,000 sports cars...)
Energy: time to change the picture.
"In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment."
I don't know about you, but I don't think that lead-acid batteries are all that environmentally friendly. I mean, at least with smog and CO2 the ecosystem will eventually clean up (once we run out of fossil fuels), but lead-acid batteries sitting in land-fills doesn't make it seem like the environment really wins out, here.
It is the whole model that is screwed-up.
Getting rid of the cars is the only solution. There is no way on earth (or in hell) to provide three tons of scrap (and the energy needed to move them) to each human on the planet.
"The only winner here is the enviroment"?
GOOD.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Anyone who purchases a hybrid without doing at least a really basic cost analysis is an idiot.
We purchased a Prius back in June. We knew that unless gas stays at like $3 or $4 a gallon, it wouldn't really pay off (and then Katrina hits, and we actually paid $3 a gallon for a few weeks).
It's not a cheap car, but fully loaded, it really wasn't that big a difference for us compared to, say, and Accord. And it gets better mileage. You can run the A/C in stop-and-go traffic with virtually no gas consumption (the gas engine cycles on for 30 seconds every five minutes or so).
Plus, it's incredibly geeky. What's not to love? We've even been able to fit a lot of stuff in it for weekend trips (suitcase, assorted other bags, cameras, etc., plus a stroller, pack-and-play, and, of course, the baby), even leaving the back seat pretty much free of extra boxes or bags. You'd never think there was so much space to look at it from the outside.
Bottom line: Don't buy it to save money. Buy it for the clean air impact, and especially to support the longer-term development of hybrid technology. Imagine if this were in *every* Toyota car -- their CAFE numbers would probably be up in the 30s or 40s (it's probably in the 20s right now).
[it's also displaced our Explorer as our primary errand-running car, which is certaily helping *our* bottom line somewhat...]
Nice analysis, but like most of these type of analyses, they ignore some important factors:
Environmental cost of manufacturing NiMH batteries
$ Cost of replacing batteries at end of useful life (which is likely before the vehicle's useful life is over)
Environmental cost of disposal of NiMH batteries (likely 2 sets per vehicle during useful life, 100 pounds+ each set) That's a lot of heavy metals to dispose of.
We need every meaningful reduction in environmental damage we can get. I really hate analyses that focus/emphasis money as primary consideration for everything. If we can get the overall costs of a new technology even close to that of the current technology, and it *really* reduces environmental damage, we should jump on it. That said, I'm not entirely convinced hybrids are really reducing environmental damage in any significant way -- it is probably more of a feel-good measure to give us an excuse not to change our destructive habits, but that is another argument.
1. Take yer 55 mpg turbodiesel
2. Put it into a light truck (bring back Rabbit, if you have to)
3. Sell it at a reasonable price (comparable to diesel VW sedans)
4. Profit!
Truth is, I'd rather take a diesel that burns more expensive (for now - may not be the case, when biodiesel really takes off) fuel and loses 10 mpg, yet is based on proven technology and does not suffer on freeway. VW, are you listening? Bring back a diesel light truck, and my next vehicle just might be a new VW.
Why must hybrids be the only product to prove themselves economically? If people bought stuff based solely on price/performance, we'd all be only eating bread, drinking water, living in small shacks, and driving white 15-year old Honda Civics. Boring.
I buy lots of things that don't make economic sense. I have expensive sports equipment like road bikes and scuba gear. My computer has lots of fast parts that I don't really "need".
Maybe there's more to things than just what your ROI is.
This math does not take into account the ass factor. There are a lot of chicks that are hip to this save the rain forest crap and they may be more inclined to open up for a guy who "cares" about the ice melting. Think of these tofu-eating broads as an untapped market and get yourself some rubbers and a set of 21 inch rims on your Prius and you're ready to go. You might not even have to use rubbers with these girls if you play the latex is bad for the pandas card.
Does the environment really win or is the problem just being moved? The electricity must come from some place. Does the power plant produce more pollution to provide the electricity?
Just curious if anyone knows.
The only reason to buy a hybrid is show other people how much you care about the environment: it's a statement, not an answer.
if you're the type of person that gets a new car every 5-7 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, then no, you're not going to save money by purchasing a more expensive car. If, on the other hand, you're the type who takes care of your vehicle, maintains it, maybe even makes a few repairs on your own rather than taking it to the shop (or neglecting problems outright), with the hopes of getting 10-20 years (and 250,000+ miles) out of your vehicle, then you might actually save money in the long run, assuming roughly equal wear-and-tear and part replacement needs for hybrid and conventional vehicles.
My personal take on it is that hybrid and fuel-cell systems are still flawed due to their continued reliance on fossil fuels. An all-electric vehicle would be ideal, and indeed we have our electric motor science down pat. What we lack are effective battery systems -- pound for pound, gasoline contains far more energy than our best batteries. Until we can improve our electrical energy storage, we are limited to either having a very small "gas tank", in which we'd have to stop and recharge every 50 miles or so, or a very large, heavy, slow vehicle carrying a ton or six of battery cells in order to extend the range of the vehicle. Neither is a generally viable solution.
The car manufacturers are reluctant to further research these alternate systems, I think, due to the fact that if you take away or reduce the internal combustion components of an engine, you reduce the stress and heat experienced by the engine, which means the engine parts fail less often, which means they sell fewer new cars. No company is going to deliberately research ways to reduce their profit.
Now, in the long run, a mathematical model would prove much friendlier to our individual pocketbooks if we car-pooled when we could, rode bikes over short distances, and kept a stable of oxen and a few extra wagon wheels for those long trips down the Oregon Trail.
Actually, the analysis is based on MSRP, but I doubt anyone pays MSRP anymore. In fact, I've two Honda civics, one standard (for my wife), and one hybrid. The hybrid came with more options standard and ultimately I argued the price down to about $1400 of the normal Civic. I've made that up between tax breaks and gas savings, but better still it's ULEV that can go 600 miles on a tank of gas. That's pretty good.
As far as maintenance costs -- both have been excellent.
The article seems to be assuming that Gas prices remain constant through the life of a car. Anyone believe that? How about the same calculations assuming a 10% per year increase in gas prices (which they were this year before Katrina).
The problem is with modern battery technologies which _are_ hard to recycle and dangerous to dispose of. The more efficient they get in energy density, the nastier they seem to get.
Pining for the fjords
What about the newer generation of deisel cars like the Volkswagens? They seem to squeeze more energy per unit volume of fuel. Sounds to me like that would be good for the environment.
from the article:
Gas-electric hybrids are the most fuel-efficient passenger cars on the road and ecologically there isn't a more viable option. Until something big changes, though, the industry-high efficiency can't economically offset the steep sticker price.
This is quite a sweeping claim, and one that I would contest. The VW Jetta TDI (diesel) gets consistently 55-60 mpg -- about as good as the best hybrids out there. What's more, diesel fuel uses less fuel in its manufacture than regular gasoline, meaning that the "embedded fuel" is significantly lower.
I tend to agree that much of the hybrid talk is hype and that getting 25 more miles out of a gallon of fuel does not make your car "green". What's much more, though, is the idea that hybrids get better mileage than any other cars on the road. Diesels, particularly some of the models by VW and Audi (in Europe, at least), prove that efficiency is more than just fancy technology.
The first rule of modern economic theory is that the way people spend money can be used as a measurement of their satisfaction.
Right after the duo of hurricanes hit the Gulf, CNN had a similar article a month ago. While it didn't go into hard math they said had some easy examples. Essentially they said (at current gas prices, you'd have to drive for x years to begin to begin to see a return) or (it's only really a bargain if gas were like ~$5/gallon).
Unfortunately I can't find the one with the math, only some others saying that the hype isn't all that real.
I read 2 of their articles, one with some actual math (which I can't seem to find) and another simply saying it might be worth getting a 4cyl car to avoid wait times and the premium on hybrids.
While I think hybrids are definately a neat idea, I think the premiums on them are too steep for most to consider. Bring the price down and start putting them in more models of cars.
the author considers all of the major factors to show just how much money a hybrid vehicle will or won't save you. In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment."
as opposed to getting an SUV and having the only real winner be the car manufacture?
One thing this article and everyone I've seen discussing the issue fails to take into account is the cutting of demand. If everyone in the US began driving hybrids and other fuel efficient cars, the consumption of gas would decrease. Anyone with two ounces of knowledge of economics knows what that means--decrease in gas prices. This would further result in savings for consumers.
I also think if the government would give graded tax incentives for efficient vehicles and tax penalties for inefficient vehicles, that would help. In other words, at some level of fuel economy you actually start to get taxed MORE for buying a vehicle with efficiency below that level.
Okay, Free-Market Fucknut. Two things to consider. First, ever wanted to get laid? Non-economical motive. If you showered before going on a (hypothetical) date, you were also exhibiting long-term thinking.
THe much-loved Free Market Economy is an invention of man, not a natural phenomenon. Yes, it is a compelling metaphor, but it currently is the root cause of so many poor decisions in which ling-term consequences and any sense of human compassion are ignored because 'that's just the market'. This so-called free market is one that is constrained as much as a socialist market, its just that the constraints on a free market serve the wealthy thorugh serving corporations, wher ea socialist market serves the poor throuhg serving the government. Both have their issues of friction - I know that socialist models still have poor to a drastic extent, but arguing that the 'free market economy' is the best is farcical because of the lack of a real free market. And arguing it is natural is like arguing that Moore's Law is a a law of physics.
Maybe 15% of the population. It just isn't a viable solution for the other 85% -> 90% of people who need to travel. Not only that it isn't physically possible for it to be a viable solution for the other 90%, the transport maths simply don't add up for conventional mass transit.
c -transport-cant-work.html
More details on exactly why here:
http://mrprecision.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-publi
Deleted
Yeah, I went through a similar bit of mathematics when I thought I might have needed a second car for the household. It turned out that buying a cheaper car (like a Scion, e.g.) versus a hybrid was still cheaper for the number of miles I'd be driving. You have to drive pretty heavily for the hybrid to work out economically given the premia on them...
I am the Lorvax, I speak for the machines.
As usual, the car manufacturers will start to paste the hybrid label on anything with wheels. There used to be an SUV tax (markup) because they were the hot product. They were able to reduce the price of their econobox cars because they were making so much freakin' money from SUV's. Looks like it has switched the other way, judging by the falling prices of SUV's.
We'll be buying a big +6000lb'er and guess what, they're cheap now! Thank you to all the hybrid buyers out there and congress for those generous tax-breaks on +6000 GVW vehicles.
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
You can tell that this person hasn't taken any economics courses. His statement alone about the length of a loan having a large effect on the cost and the interest rate a small effect is the perfect customer for a credit card or auto loan company, because he'll be taking the longest term, highest interest rate loan and paying the minimum every month.
The only things that matter are:
- Total cost of ownership of a new Accord (using a discount rate for future expenses).
- Total cost of ownership of a new Prius (using a discount rate for future expenses).
- Assume that you pay either car cash and compare new car vs new car.
There's nothing to be gained by posting irrational rants with overinflated values.
There are VERY few cars that weigh three tons. Even the big SUVs do NOT weigh that much. Their GVWR may be just touching three tons, but if you think that means they weigh that, you need to go look up what it means.
I have a very large truck -- it weights two and a quarter tons, thats it. Thats a big honkin, sits five, rides 14 inches off the ground, and can tow 8000lbs truck. I've had it up to three tons total weight once -- when I was trucking a bedload of oil around rural Maine up and down mountains.
My other car weighs about 2000lbs. Thats one ton, not three tons. Most sedans are somewhere in the 1.5-1.75 ton range.
So if you want to post irrational rants, try to use accurate numbers. And while you're at it, suggest how each human on the planet is going to make a living when transportation resources, zoning and other factors ensure commercial and industrial space is gathered together, and not dispersed throughout residential areas. Don't suggest public transportation, since that demonstrates a lack of understanding about how much they cost, how much pollution they generate, and how the numbers showing cost benefits to them do not take into account that taxes are not paid on the energy consumed by public transportation services.
From TFA:
non-hybrids have more mechanical systems to break down
I would LOVE to know where THIS tidbit came from. I can't possibly imagine a way for a parallel hybrid to have fewer mechanical systems than an equally boring driving appliance without a big electric traction motor(s).
Look at how much toxic chemicals is in a battery. Now factor in that you have to replace the batt every 2-4 years. Not only does it end up costing you more, but you're not doing much besides thinking you're helping.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
Is the tax we pay per gallon of gas. The U.S. government has made more money on gas taxes than the oil companies have, even with "windfall profits".
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
I never really liked those damned trees anyway.
diegoT
Driving solo in the carpool is worth getting a Hybrid for!
Car manufacturers also win... they get to sell more indecently marked-up cars.
Hybrids offer many opportunities for cost-cutting: they can have smaller engines, these can be tuned to operate only within a very narrow high-efficiency range, motor-wheels remove the need for a drive train, etc. Hybrid manufacturers charge over $6000 more for the privilege but their actual production cost overhead is probably under $2000 and it will only go down with volume and improvements.
Now, if hybrids had a $2000 premium, they would be worth considering even in NA. Until then or until gas prices go over $2.50/L, going hybrid makes no economical sense - as TFA said, the extra interests simply gobbles up the savings. I did these calculations once some time ago and concluded that I would have to own the car for ~10 years to recover my initial investment.
When the Civic breaks down, or if either of us finds a job not in the city (projection: 5 years for the latter, and something like 7-8 years for the former because Hondas last forever), then I will consider a hybrid, as it'll be price competitive by then. The only problem is that it seems that the fuel effiency is either misrepresented or not much of an advantage — our Civic currently gets about 30 city / 34 highway. Consumer Reports has tested a Honda Civic Hybrid and gotten about 40 city / 36 highway, which is both far less than the 47 / 46 advertised, and not worth the $3,000.
Replace a 8 city / 10 highway Escalade, though, and now we're talking. I just can't imagine anyone that would do that, because I suspect that about half the people like the big factor of their car, while the other half actually need the space.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
I have a friend who owns a Prius, yes he has the most expensive model around $28,000.00 US, but it gets about 45mpg average and he can use the HOV lanes which also saves time and gas.
t /nn_rt_hy/images/hy1_bmw_1348.jpg
In today's preplanned communities, where you are running around in suburbia in stop & go traffic, he says it does save time and money. The GPS system also saves time and money by not having to get lost or stop and ask directions.
On a side note, he said there was no wait to purchase this vehicle...he simply walked in the dealership and bought the only one they had. Toyota no longer measures their Prius inventories in monthly allotments, it is in such high demand that they do it by the day!
Now on to Hydrogen-powered vehicles, I will buy one of these....Toyota, are you listening?
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/nn/nn_r
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Thanks! It would have been nice if they had started with the premise that you need to purchase some kind of new vehicle. Everything looks expensive compared against the old existing vehicle.
In addition to the improvement to the environment, reduction in oil imports -- if significant enough -- would have beneficial political effects as well. Currently the US is engaged in a number of problematic policies, from supporting oppressive regimes to tinkering with markets, in order feed the appetite for oil. And, as China's need for energy increases, we're moving into having to compete with them for that resource as well. Moving to eliminating that dependence is inherently a Good Thing.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I bought a 2001 Honda Insight last may while I was commuting from South Orange County, CA to North Hollywood, CA. Round trip my daily commute was 150miles. I was getting roughly 23mpg in my Chrysler 300M, and was tired of the fuel cost. I paid $11,888 for the Insight after all taxes and fees after negotiating for two weeks with the dealer that was selling it.
I bought the CVT model since I would be in traffic, and a 5spd wasn't fun (I also did the commute in my 5spd Protege5 before I sold it). I believe the insight was rated for 57mpg highway. I did 65-70.
I was able to average 60-65mpg city/highway combined over my ownership of the car, and it saved me oodles of money with my commute. I got a new job, closer to home, and two weeks later Katrina hit. I put my car on the market and sold it for $12,000. I had put 13,000 miles on the car and I made a profit, not to mention it was solid as I rock while I owned it, I saved money on gas, and I didn't have to fill up every other day.
It's most definitely not all about taxing the fuel that makes the difference here. If there is a good rail system, people use it. In the few places where there is a strong rail system in place (like New York, Chicago), people use that form of transportation all the time. In New York it's common not to own a car.
Unfortunately, it is now next to impossible to install a strong rail system in most places in the US where it is severely lacking. In any case, this factor must be considered when you compare auto use in Europe vs. the USA.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Hybrids might be better or might be worse for the environment in the long run. It just depends on which is worse for the environment -- manufacturing the more complex power train of the hybrid versus the extra gas burned in a non hybrid.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The batteries in the Prius are not lead-acid, as another poster pointed out. They're NiMH. In addition to that, they are warranted for 8yrs/100k miles, and expected to last the lifetime of the car without replacement, so it's unlikely that there will be much more than one battery pack per car lifetime on an average basis.
Toyota recycles them completely, chemicals, metals, case, wiring, etc... and pays a $200 bounty to encourage people to do so. Their recycling program has been in place since the Rav4 EV, so it's a fairly mature process by now.
The math assumption in the paper assumes that you are replacing a 1999 Accord with something new. Given the age of the 1999 Accord, you will probably be replacing it soon anyway. So, a more interesting calculation would be the difference in savings say between buying a 2006 Accord, a 2006 Corolla, or a 2006 Prius. In that case you could include the difference in base cost between the new cars, but not the difference between the new car and your old one, since you would be replaing that one anyway.
Sorry, but I don't have time to run those numbers.
I'm guessing the reason the article's author chose to structure things in terms of a bunch of new cars (hybrid and not) vs. a 1999 Honda Accord is because the author owns a 1999 Honda Accord. This alone gave the article an unnecessary slant. The basic conclusion -- that hybrids are more expensive to own on an installment plan than comparable standard and diesel cars -- is valid, but the gratuitous comparison to a six-year-old car exaggerates the differences by making everything a bad proposition compared to his 1999 Accord.
Heck, how do I get a 1999 Accord for $4000 anyway? By lucking out at an auction? By buying one off my favorite aunt? Last I checked in my area, 1999 Accords in decent condition fetched at least 50% more than that even through private sellers. Use of honest numbers for comparison woud help. That and factoring in repair costs. I doubt his 1999 Accord is still under warranty, making average repair costs more expensive.
Also, his favorite new-car-to-new-car comparison was between the Prius and the Toyota Corolla. The Corolla, though bigger for 2006 than past models, is a compact and the Prius is generally regarded as mid-sized, Edmunds database notwithstanding. And comparing a Prius to the stripped-down base Corolla is also a bit dishonest. The base Prius is equipped comparably to one of the upgraded Corollas that sell for $15,000-$16,000, not to ths stripped $12,000 model. Want a decently-equipped Toyota for $12,000? Go look at the Echo or whatever they renamed it. That's even smaller.
The TCO advantage still belongs to the quality non-hybrid gasoline and diesel vehicles, but not as much as indicated here. And as gasoline prices pick up again this spring and likely top $3/gallon for good, the smaller-than-stated gap will narrow considerably.
The linked article and summary act as if the cost of borrowing to cover the initial cost of the vehicle and the cost of gas are the only factors to consider. (To be fair, the article does mention some of the other factors at the end... but just in a hand-waving way, and does no actual inclusion of them in the cost/benefit analysis.) The costs involved in running a vehicle include other significant factors such as insurance, maintenance, and depreciation (unless you plan to keep the car forever). Maintenance in particular will be a tricky factor to calculate for hybrids. There's the electric generator & battery to maintain (increased cost) but on the other hand the regenerative breaking will take a lot of wear off of the brakes, and perhaps the electric motor assist will prolong the life of the engine (decreased cost).
Last year I did a comparison of "total cost of ownership" on edmunds.com, and the Prius came out ahead of all of the conventional vehicles I was comparing it to. A lot of that was probably due to depreciation (hybrids have kept their value really well in practice). I ended up buying one, and found that insurance was also lower than I expected. I doubt this would necessarily apply to other hybrids like the Civic hybrid, but who knows? The full story is certainly more complicated than the simplistic (car cost - gas cost) analysis that is usually presented.
(Me, I'm happy with the Prius. Other people may prefer other cars. That's why it's so nice that we can actually choose to buy different models of cars, instead of just having one or a few maximally cost effective vehicles.)
In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment. A minor quibble. The Environment always wins, and will always be here. The Environment doesn't give a rat's bum about global warming or the levels of one or more pollutants in the air. Now I will admit that the critters that live within that Environment might find things bit diffcult, and almost certainly will be replaced, as were the dinosaurs, but The Environemnt will do just fine thank you.
Three Squirrels
Of course I did not RTA but what about the looming problem of disposing of all of these batteries? Methinks that the way to cut consumption of fossil fuels as well as the emission of "greenhouse gases" is to encourage the following:
--to make as many jobs as possible work-from-home positions
--to use alternate human-powered (read bicycle) forms of transportation
I make use of both. My employer allows me to do most of work from home and other times (weather permitting) I ride the 15 miles to and from so sometimes, I only drive my truck a couple of times a week. A decent road bike is only about $600 and a good hybrid/commuter bike is even less. Also imagine the health benefits.
Yeah, my real beef with the analysis is that he compares a new Prius to a used Accord. Talk about stacking the deck! Compare 2006s (or 1999s) for both.
I think the Accord might still win, but let's not start with a blatantly skewed study.
The more toxic parts of these batteries can be recycled, making it less of an issue.
The idea of the hybrid isn't about directly saving money on gas. It's about changing attitiudes in the auto industry. Hybrids are the first of their kind to be mass produced by many car manufactors. It's gotten the ball rolling on mass producing hydrogen and natural gas powered vechiles as well. We've been stuck with basically the same power source for our cars for decades. By purchasing a hybrid you are telling the car makers that you _are_ interested in saving the environment and that you _are_ interested in getting away from foreign controlled oil. Purchasing a hybrid now isn't about saving money on gas today, it's about saving the earth and being self reliant in 30 years. The narrow mindedness of articles such as this show that the author's have little insight as to the long term goal of the hybrid.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
the cost of producing and purchasing hybrids should be shared by everyone on the planet, not just by purchasers of hybrids.
You've created a bit of a strawman in the three tons of scrap to move each human. Admittedly, even moving 1.5 tons is problematic, but at least it's both easier and more typical of most of the world outside the suburban US. Also consider that each 1.5 to 3 ton vehicle is capable of carrying two or more humans, and the numbers get better.
~*~ Tara
Am i just imagining it, or does that linke say "November 28, 1999"?
Thought so.
Well, one thing they don't take into account is the dollar value of the emissions reduction you'd get by driving a Prius. Turns out polluting isn't all that expensive.
From Cascadia Scorecard Weblog:
"In reality, the cost of offsetting a ton of CO2 emissions isn't all that high. Today's L.A. Times reports on a company that's selling what it calls a TerraPass: "essentially, a pricey bumper sticker that identifies the driver as a volunteer in the fight against global warming." When you buy a TerraPass, the parent company buys up CO2 credits in the newly established Chicago Climate Exchange, whose member corporations have committed to reducing greenhouse emissions. The rub: a TerraPass that offsets 10 metric tons of CO2 emissions costs just $79.95. If the program really works as advertised (a big if, obviously) $120 would be more than enough to offset the increase in emissions from buying a Corolla vs. a Prius. If you were willing to commit just one-tenth of the cost difference between the Prius and the Corolla, you could make your driving climate neutral for 10 full years. For one-fifth the savings vs. a Prius, you could offset both your emissions, plus a neighbor's. And so on."
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
Exactly. Sort've. One problem with the article is it seems to treat all cars as equal. You could strap a hybrid system onto an economy car and sell it for about $15,000. But when you start comparing features and luxuary, the Prius is more comparable to a Camry than a Dodge Neon. If your only goal is low TCO, then a moped would be your best bet. For my money, a TDI Jetta or Passat would probably be the nexus of features, efficiancy, luxory and durability. But I figure it'll be about 4-5 more years before my '98 Plymouth Breeze is ready for the scrap heap, and I'm content to drive it into the ground.
They only burn less because they usually have a higher utilisation. And they only always have higher utilisation during rush hours.
e.g.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002197.html
Conventional mass transit isn't the answer. Packetised mass transit is...
Deleted
Hey there,
I'm looking for a car and really wanted a Prius. We test drove on last weekend and I loved it (was ready to put down my deposit). One problem though, my wife (6'4") was too tall to sit in either front seat of the Prius. This wasn't just "Wanting more room". She couldn't sit there at all, without a pretty major contortion of her legs just to get the door shut for a 5 minute test drive.
Here are some real stats: Toyota's happily made the Prius about 300 pounds heavier than the Civic Hybrid, so that it enters the "midsize" category of cars. See, cars are categorized by weight, not size. As it turns out, the Civic is larger in every external dimension (H,W,D) than the Prius, and yes - my wife fits in one just fine.
I actually have no problem with the Prius, but it's funny that you get nearly $1000 more tax incentive with the Prius than the Civic as of Jan 1, 2006, because the Prius compares better to it's "weight class/midsize" than the Civic Hybrid compares to it's "weight class/compact". For safety & size, I'd go with the civic.
One more thing - a well equipped Civic with 6 airbags standard (and I would assume Corolla, but haven't done the research) will get 40mpg highway and cost you about $7k less than the Prius.
I've got one thing to say about these kind of "math" analyses: GIGO. If your assumptions are garbage, a few + and - signs strewn about don't amount to much.
Hey it's me almost... I drive a BMW 325Ci, it drinks fuel 29.5mpg is normal. However I bought this car from new and now it's paid for. I currently use about £200/month keeping it in fuel. If I were to go and buy a new car to replace this car, I would want to reduce my fuel consumption. However I would have to start paying for a car again, lets just say that I bought a car that did 60mpg (not likely, especially in the UK where we sit in traffic more than move), anyway I am now saving £100/month and the environment is better. But for me to be financially unaffected I would need to have a car that the repayments were only £100/month, so my current trade in vaule is about £11000, if I use this as a start deposit I can go for something about £14600 - assuming 0% interest on my loan. Then I need to think about the deppreciation of the new car v's old car, clearly I would lose more on the new car but how much? Anyway as the prius does about 60mpg at best, the problem is that the base price of this car is just under £18000, without depreciation I am worse off buying a new car due to the tradin, old/new fuel costs and new car costs. Also, my current car has already been built. I only have the environmental impact of the car now to worry about, a new car leaves the current cars impact still there plus the new car. To the the concept of buying a new car to save on fuel just doesn't work even with the UKs high fuel prices. Even the argument that the new car is more reliable is just stuipd, I recently had a LandRover salesman trying to tell me that it would be so much better to buy a new Discovery (about £800/month) as the reliability aspect would save me cash - I guess it might if I had to pay about £8k a year fixing my car, last year I spent about £500 on maintenance!
Ok, I read the site, and there's some misinformation there.
1) He's comparing the cost of keeping, and driving your 1999 Accord that's presumably already paid off with the cost of entering into a new loan. That automatically skews the numbers in his favor.
2) He assumes that you're going from the Accord to either another different model, or a hybrid. (Comparison Prius vs. Corolla) as opposed to assuming you NEED a new car since that 1999 Accord at 1500 miles a month has 108000 miles on it, and might be running a little weird. ( I know Hondas can go for 200K+, spare me the stories. 100k is a psychological barrier people have). And then comparing between your choice between equivalent models hybrid vs. non-hybrid (ie: Accord V6 vs. Accord Hybrid or Ford Escape vs. Ford Escape Hybrid). He should check to see if the price premium still holds out over time then.
There was a third point, but I've since forgotten it.
Reeses
The analysis made two striking assumptions.
1) It assumed that when purchasing a hybrid vehicle, buying a gas vehicle wasn't an option.
If you have to buy a vehicle anyway, and spend the same amount of money on either one, then the calculations of monthly payments are a wash.
2) It assumed the car has no resale value when you get rid of it.
He throws in the calculation of a trade in, but that isn't right either. The trade in is part of the value of the other car. Why would a hybrid be a better buy if you trade in a Mercedes vs. a Kia?
/.ed :(
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Maybe I missed it in TFA, but I didn't see references to inflation or time-value of money. Another poster remarked that gas prices are unlikely to remain constant, but there's also the fact that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar next year.
If you pay significantly more up-front for Hybrid, you don't just have to save the extra $$$'s you spent initially, but you have to make up for the depreciation of the dollar over the same period.
---
tjc
Ok -- I thought about getting one of these, and I was wondering if anybody could comment on my plan.
I live in Texas, and as anybody who's lived here in August can tell you, one thing we don't lack is sunshine. Since my daily commute consists of about ten miles in and ten miles out, I generally bike it in, but when it gets incredibly hot it nearly kills me. So, what about a solar panel on top? Cover it with lexan to protect it from birds. I'm assuming that sitting all day in the parking lot under a fierce Texan sun could do a bit to charge the batteries for the drive home. Anyone have any thoughts on feasibility and effectiveness?
Bit of a taugtology when you get down to that moderation thing. In the end, you do take a stand whether you choose to or not. Some take their stand by sitting down and letting others decide for them, other like to act on what they believe in. The latter will always easily be labeled as extremists by that sit-down majority who disagree with the stand they take. This is simply an ad hominem attack though and not a meaningful criticism because it's too generalized to be meaningful. You cannot generalize and speak in meanginful terms at the same time because in order to mean anything you have to be specific. Do you get it? You fucking moderate sloth!
Anyway, back to the point. Nah, nevermind this rant would screw up my otherwise interesting comment.
"The author considers all of the major factors to show just how much money a hybrid vehicle will or won't save you"
That is like comparing the amount of cardiovascular fitness you gain from sex. It's a small consideration, but not the main reason for doing it.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
This is a critical point. Without taking the resale value into account, the calculations are useful only in determining what your monthly payment is-- not what your lifetime cost for the car is.
By my math, if I'd bought a Prius instead of a Civic HX in 2001, I would just now be crossing the point where I was ahead. I would not, however, have that money in hand unless I sold the car. I would have paid out more per month, but I would also get more back on selling.
On the other hand, it's almost never a winning financial bet to buy a hybrid when you already have a working car. New vs. new, a hybrid will just barely edge out a similar but cheaper car over five years or so, but it would have to be a staggering difference in fuel economy to beat out a paid-for car.
There are other, more efficient technologies out there. A petrol econobox can get equivalent or better gas mileage over any hybrid...and this is real-world milage, not some EPA numbers that real drivers never actually see. Diesel cars can trump even this. Biodiesel (and grease-powered) cars take envorinmental friendliness even further, since the net greenhouse emissions from these vehicles is zero.
Hybrids are great for making a statement. However, if better fuel economy can be obtained with a better equipped, cheaper car, which doesn't have any extra batteries to dispose of -- why not skip the statement and go with the vehicle that actually does better?
-Turkey
Good walkthrough, pretty thorough, though it's got one large failure (and some minor ones, mentioned in other comments)
It only analyzes the cost savings from a hybrid during the period you're paying off the car. There is no analysis given for the life of the vehicle, to determine how much you're saving in gas over the whole life of the vehicle. This is an obvious step, of course, but it wasn't taken.
In fact, it also didn't compare the different monthly payments, only the 30 month payment plan (shorter loans always cost you less than longer loans, but if you're going by "how much does it cost per month" numbers and not looking at the bigger picture anyway, this is worth exploring)
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
I recently replaced a Skoda Octavia 1.8T with a Prius, both leased over 3 years. The lease cost is almost identical. I got 31.5mpg (UK) from the Skoda, I'm getting 49.5 from the Prius. I do at least 25000 a year; gas averages around GBP0.90 (USD1.57) in the UK, so I'm saving plenty. Plus, the Prius attracts less tax and is exempt from the London congestion charge.
I am currently driving an '84 Hundai that I bought from my sister for $500 cash four years ago. It cost me about $15 a week in gas. For a total cost of about $60 a month. A lot cheaper than buying a new hybrid and it saves the resources that would be used to build a new car. I'm being a cheapo and helping the environment at the same time. OK, I don't get that many dates, 'cept for hairy legged Green Party German exchange students, but for someone on Slashdot that's not doing too bad.
From TFA: Written on a Mac
Apparently the author of the article doesn't apply his own analysis to the realm of computers
Aside from which, as others have pointed out, his analysis makes some large errors such as not including a curve for the increase of the cost of gas above increases in general inflation.
Others have also pointed out the author also doesn't address that if the claim that hybrids are undisputedly better for the environment, then everyone alive directly benefits from more hybrids being on the road.
Lastly, I would have expected better treatment of the way that economics uses the way consumers are willing to spend money as a measure of their satisfaction. As it is, the article is a financial analysis and not an economic analysis. An econonomic analysis would not be complete without comparing rates of owner satisfaction. If hybrid owners, for the most part, would be willing to make the same decision again to forgo being able to spend the premium they paid for the hybrid on some other service or good, then the hybrid was economically a sound choice.
The point of a hybrid is that it uses an ICE engine running at high efficiency (plus regnerative braking) to generate electricity that it stores. You're not plugging it in at night to suck off the grid.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The batteries are designed for 70-80K miles. Thats about twice as long as I get for standard batteries. However, they cost three times as much each to replace all 12 to 16 at the end of their useful life or $5000. The earliest customers will havent reached this distance yet.
Yup, and it's also worth mentioning that some of us can't even make use of hybrid technology (regardless of the initial and ongoing costs) until the vehicles can actually do what other vehicles can do. Yes, one of my family vehicles is a full-sized SUV with a big engine. On a drive this weekend, I hauled about 900 pounds worth of people, 275 pounds worth of dogs, and about 350 pounds worth of gear, and drove about 450 miles (several of which were over some poor rocky, muddy roads, and part of which was in some slick mud). Yes, that trip cost about 60 bucks in gas... but back when I had a smaller SUV (as my other passengers currently own), we'd have required at least two vehicles in a caravan to do the same trip. An while I get around 17-18mpg because of the big V8, two (or more) smaller vehicles making the same trip would have used much more fuel per person.
So, I'm unusual, perhaps, in that I actually use an SUV for what it's intended to do. Most of the rest of the time, I'm working from home, and don't drive anywhere. A five-day-a-week communte in that vehicle would, of course, be crazy (unless I had a big carpool going - which is totally unworkable for most techie-types that I know, given the odd hours).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The server is on fire, so I didn't get to read it I don't suppose they considered that if I buy a vehicle ("for the business") that has over a 6000#GVWR (and is in the 30k range), I get to deduct practially the entire cost of the vehicle from my taxes? I looked at a Toyota Sequoia two years ago, and at a price of $36k, I would only actually spend the equvalent of about $22k of after tax dollars. Since I drive about 14k mi/yr and gas near me is $2/gal ($1.979 to be exact), that would be $1750/yr in gas costs. I get a $14k tax credit, which will run my vehicle for 8 years.
(edit, page just came up) HEY! that new Hybrid was $21,285! And at my 14k miles/yr, that's only $510 in gas. So if you buy a hybrid personally, and I buy a Sequoia for the business, we'll pay the same for our cars. You'll pay $510/yr in gas costs, and I'll pay ($1750 less 39%) $1070. So you can save $500 per year by buying a hybrid vs me buying a V8 SUV with room for 8 passengers. Aren't tax loopholes wonderful?
I can even make it come out in my favor...I'm sure there is a less expensive large vehicle. Hmmmm, how 'bout maybe a Grand Caravan, >6000GVWR, ~$30k, 20mpg....$18,300 post-tax dollars, $850/yr in gas, in equvalent after tax dollars. It would take more than 10 years just for the hybrid to break even.
BTW - I did not get the monster SUV. I also bike or walk to work in good weather, as my office is (intentionally) less than a mile from my house. IMHO, the whole tax thing is out of control.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
anyway, it claims that CO_2 emissions are proportional to volume of fuel used, so that if a diesel is 35% more efficient than its regular counterpart, it will emit 35% less CO_2.
It also states that diesel emits "virtually no" carbon monoxide (CO).
NO_x (nitrous oxides) are supposed to be higher in diesels while the engine is new, but lower while the engine is old, so it all about evens out.
Hydrocarbons such as benzene are "much less" in diesels.
To make a politically statement, I want the automative industry to produce more environmental friendly cars. The geek factor is really high, it's full of gadgetry!!!! I knew when I bought it, I would not be saving any money in the long term (provided gas doesn't hit like $9/gallon).
In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment.
All of us depend on "the environment" for our existence. So if the environment is a winner, then we're all winners.
Don't know the package, but:
"Written on a Mac, served by Linux."
As long as there's a market of people who are willing to pay for the value of helping the environment (or even pay for the perception that they are), of course car companies will charge whatever premium for it that they can. Basic supply and demand: They'll charge what the car is worth to people.
Just like when you buy an SUV you're paying for the feeling of driving a big safe tank thing, the satisfying sound of the doors closing, etc-- not just for the materials or whatever.
So don't expect hybrids to become cost effective, at least until they cease to be an "alternative" option (due to a gas tax or an oil crisis making SUVs either unaffordable or completely stigmatized), leading to more players and price competition -within- the fuel-efficient car market.
What is this crap, is everybody succumbing to the idiotic marketing-words that companies are spewing? It's not a "pre-owned" car, it's used. A used car!
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Pollution tax
When the gas tank gets low, it's a few minutes at the station to refuel. With batteries you're looking at a few hours to recharge.
Actually, a common counter-argument to this is not to re-charge by 'plugging in' - unless you're doing so at home/work (yes, rules/etc. will have to be established for that).
Instead, you'd go to the 'gas station' equivalent, drop off your battery and pick up a fully charged one. 'Your' battery then gets recharged at the station, ready to be picked up by whoever needs it then.
There's some problems with this.. for one, batteries would need to be standardized (not an issue, I think - you can still have a larger battery by linking several in serial/parallel - depending on yuor needs), and for two - weight. Batteries can be heavy.. so is 30l of gasoline, of course, but that doesn't have to be moved in a single go. But as noted above, you could have several smaller batteries that you can handle easily and just 'slot into' the battery compartment.
And this is a key point that the author overlooked in the economic analysis. It's similar to saying the world's space programs have all been a total economic waste and reaching that conclusion by eliminating all of the economic side effects that have resulted from the technology that went into those space programs. That's a political statement, not an analysis.
The large-scale production of NiMh battery arrays that go into hybrids is rapidly reducing the unit price of these high energy density storage devices. Now, is it really a great lap of logic to think that low-cost high energy density rechargeable electricity packs might find use in other products besides hybrid vehicles once the price is right?
Not only has the price of large arrays of NiMh cells gone down dramatically in a short time, but the early stages of an upramp in large arrays of Li-Ion batteries is beginning as well.
But wait, there's more!
Supercapacitors. Did you know that the regenerative braking system in Japanese hybrids uses arrays of supercapacitors? Again, the technology has been around for a long time, the real issue is price and the price doesn't come down until we get economies of scale and we don't get economies of scale until we get a consumer grade product that uses masses of these devices.
The availability of these high energy density devices at low prices is almost guaranteed to have fall-over effects in all sorts of different consumer markets. Unless you take those significant advantages into consideration, it's really just a snipe to draw a conclusion about the lack of economic value in a hybrid car.
Hmmm... I think its more interesting to consider battery life if you add replacement costs after 8yrs into the equation for calculating resale value. He definitely does not include that. I think hybrids on the used car market would lose their appeal much quicker if you have to factor in a $5000 lump sum payement ~8 years after the mfg date. (And that statement assumes that battery performance does not decrease over the years.. which is an invalid assumption)
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Hi all,
Automobiles emit nitrous oxides(NOx) which interact with volotile organic carbons(VOCs, a by product of chemical manufacturing and glues). This interaction results in higher ozone concentrations in the troposphere which is a Bad Thing. Ozone in the troposphere results in lower crop yields and breathing problems for mammals. Too much ozone in the troposphere is a different problem than too little ozone in the stratosphere. At any rate, the reduction in NOx emissions, a byproduct of internal combustion, will reduce the concentration of NOx in the troposphere, which in turn will reduce the amount of ozone in the troposphere. This seems to me to be a good reason to consider buying a hybrid.
Brian
The real problem with electric cars is refueling time. The 300 mile range is nice for most trips, but that weekend to grandma's house would be out. She live 500 miles away and there is no way to refill the tank in 20 mins, like a gas tank. It is easy refueling that is the bane of most alternatives. Hydrogen cars also suffer. Nobody trusts Jane car owner to refill a tank of hydrogen or recyle a load of lithium hydroxide. Or plug a 220 outlet into the car. Until we get tort reform, and stupid people are allowed to kill themselves without suing companies, none of this will work.
Here is the link
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
I'd like to see it expanded to include total cost of ownership. I would think that maintenence on a Prius might be higher than a normal gasoline vehicle. I have a TDI Jetta, and the recommended time between oil changes is 10,000 miles, since it uses a specific synthetic oil. Also, I expect the diesel engine to run a lot longer (mileage wise) than a traditional gasoline engine. The Prius might also benefit from the engine not running all the time, but how long do the batteries last?
Are you referring to our cities within earthquake zones like Los Angeles or San Fransisco? Public transportation becomes a lot more difficult when you have to put in ugly elevated tracks everywhere, and over hilly terrain, to do it. Do not underestimate geography as driving factor in driving habits.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"...In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment." And this is exactly why it will be my next car purchase. Not to mention the fact that every ounce of oil I can avoid purchasing might just help hold off our next war. And someone might want to do an analysis on the true cost of gas/oil, that could be interesting...
Oddly enough, every hybrid I've checked out shows only a 10-25% improvement in fuel efficiency over contemporary autos, usually 30-40 MPG highway.
This strikes me as just a little odd, since a Honda Civic from just barely a decade ago had over 50 MPG on average, and was about the size of a Prius.
Emissions wise, I don't think it makes much of a difference, since fuel economy also accounts for reduced emissions.
On a side note: Has anyone considered that the preferred transmission of choice in the US is automatic? Those things carve off close at least 25% of fuel economy on every car, that's a lot of gas (and a lot of additional emissions to boot). As far as I know, that's also a limiting factor in most hybrids.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
The world would be greener if car manufacturers didn't market vehicles with super-powerful engines to everyone and their dog.
Watch any car tv show. The most common evaluation point is how powerful or not the motor is.
Smaller motor, best aerodynamics possible = less fuel consumption = greener. Probably cheaper to make and maintain, too.
The impact of consumers all switching to hybrid or electric vehicles wouldn't have such a great effect on the world's fuel consumption problem. The largest consumer of petrol (diesel, gas, kerosene) is the military. For a two week period of exercises, a US carrier group expends the same amount of fuel as the entire population of a small town (small town 10k people) would in a year. The military does not require any form of catalytic converters on their vehicles. The second largest consumer of fuels is the heavy industry, mining and construction. If these two groups would adopt more fuel efficient vehicles it would be a step in the right direction.
No, of course it isn't. What we are forgetting is all of the other environmental contributions that are missing from these simplified analyses... sure they guzzle less gas, but what about the batteries that will need replacing and go through some nasty proceses in construction and disposal (yes, I know you say you will recycle them... but who knows if your dealer will hold up his end of the bargain.) Plus you have to consider the fact that you aren't mass producing these vechicles - the manufactureres are making really a token number of hybrids. There is a cost - not just monetary, but in tooling, reconfiguring assembly lines, etc. which takes a toll on our environment - to make a few thousand hybrid vehicles. If you add it all up, all hybrids are is a way for grown up hippies with (1) too much money to burn to feel good about themselves or (2) not enough money to run themselves unnecessarily into debt. Buying a decent traditional car with good fuel economy in the long run is almost assuredly better for the environment when you look at the total life cycle from end to end, not just from the showcase to you selling it to the next guy, a better deal for all parties involved including the environment.
-everphilski-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
on environmental damage. THEN we'll see how cheap the gasoline cars really are.
I know, it's not feasible, but we ought to take into account the loss for global-warming caused disasters, like Katrina; the health costs spent on treating lung diseases, cancer, heart attacks, not to mention the food shortage (due to poisoning the environment), etc. etc.
On a second thought, perhaps a tax discount on hybrid cars could be more feasible.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Might not be as reliable as clipper ship either. I fail to see the significance of an artificially encumbered economy as a rationale for saying it makes no sense on its face.
See car companies could make the economics work just like we could make a plausible economic rationale for nationwide high quality rail service. Guess who does all the studies that say it makes no sense? Car companies, oil companie and the road builders.
Is there a Moore's law for hybrid technology. Toyota is already working to cut the hybrid's premium by 50%. In that case, this analysis would be obsolete in x months.
As for hydrogen technology, that's literally vaporware at this point.
How much sense does it make to jump in the 4 door V10 truck to go 3 miles to get another 12 pack?
There are plenty of people here who don't understand the ramifications of an economically unsustainable technology. What that shows is that hybrids tend to be an inefficient use of resources. Think about it this way. What if you save the money by not getting a hybrid, and use the savings to move closer to work? Or to buy more energy efficient appliances? What if the savings were used to enhance public transportation? To blindly allocate resources to one technology and ignoring the financial impact is downright foolhardy, and doesn't even help the environment from a system perspective either.
Boy, it's a good thing all those electrical plants run completely clean with no environmental impact, otherwise, we'd just be offsetting the polution with hybrids from the tailpipe of a car to the smoke stack of a plant.
Based on what you've said, no, you're not in a position to purchase a new vehicle and therefore it won't pay for itself. Were you in a position to make a new vehicle purchase (age, damage, wear+tear, excess maintainance, etc.) then you should find the type of vehicle you're interested in and compare the regular version against the hybrid variant. Figure the difference in price, the total time you expect to own the vehicle, and the fuel savings per year (which in many cases can be upwards of 50%). Based on fuel savings, you can extrapolate how long it will take to account for the difference in price before the hybrid starts effectively paying for itself.
Remember that you can spend an eternity trying to find a way to make a car pay for itself but unless you drive a taxi/limo, you're attempting a lost cause. Cars are by far the worst investment you can make but they're a neccesary part of life, so it's a cost of living. Anything else will just give you a headache. :P
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Mirror is http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/e758386943ddcb0e8 8bdcc5465cbc159/index.html
I've had a 2004 Prius since November 2003. I'm very pleased with my car, and I'll keep it for many years to come, I think. One thing that keeps coming up is that I didn't save any money. What I don't understand is why that focus is applied to the hybrid and not other cars? You can pretty much get a fully functional, well engineered car today for around $12K. So every dollar you spend over that is just for personal taste. When someone buys a $60K BMW, I don't hear people saying "You know, you didn't save any money".
I guess the idea that you might save money with a hybrid casts the image that most people who buy them are out to save money. I'm not. At $24K, the Prius is only a bit more expensive than other cars of it's quality -- but like a BMW purchaser, I would have bought it for even more. BecasuseI think it's cool. I like the idea of using as little oil as I can while still living a convenient and comfortable life. I like the idea of polluting as less. And most of all, I like the idea of voting (with my dollars) for changing technology in automobiles.
So, just want to point out that not everyone who buys a Prius is doing it for a financial reason -- probably not more than with any other car.
Cheers.
No, the real winner is the Hybrid owner. The author makes the financial comparison "presently owned used car vs purchasing new hybrid", which is not the choice that the consumer makes, nor is it a fair comparison. A better analysis would've pitted the cost difference between a new Hybrid and a new equivalent gas-only model with same features. Or a used hybrid vs. a used equivalent gas-only model of the same year. You'd see that the Hybrid saves thousands of dollars over the lifetime.
Furthermore, since when does anything an American *wants*, need to be cost justified? Those spinning rims? They don't pay for themselves. Knobby tires? I don't think so. Black light interior lights and woo-woo muffler? Forget it. Entire villages of starving people could live off the amount of money that an average American spends maintaining his/her image.
I think the author would be best to use $7.50/gallon for his calculations. According to T. Friedman in a recent interview on NPR, the true cost of gas, counting the billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks and corporate welfare doled out to the oil industry, is somewhere between $7 and $8 per gallon. You don't pay $7.50 per gallon at the pump, but you do in your income taxes already.
Add a small tax on gasoline consumption for alternative fuels (i.e. fuel cells / solar) research. Comments / criticisms?
The real problem with electric cars is refueling time. The 300 mile range is nice for most trips, but that weekend to grandma's house would be out. She live 500 miles away and there is no way to refill the tank in 20 mins, like a gas tank. It is easy refueling that is the bane of most alternatives. Hydrogen cars also suffer. Nobody trusts Jane car owner to refill a tank of hydrogen or recyle a load of lithium hydroxide. Or plug a 220 outlet into the car. Until we get tort reform, and stupid people are allowed to kill themselves without suing companies, none of this will work.
So there are other options for the monthly trip to Grandma's. Trailers with onboard diesel/gasoline generators come to mind. That would turn your BEV into a hybrid for long distance trips. It would probably be more efficient too -- locomotives use this method (diesel generators turning electric motors) rather then a direct drive system with transmission and clutch.
The outlet part is a no brainer. Inductive charging (similar to some types of electric razors) would completely eliminate the risk of electric shock and would allow you to use that 240 volt supply instead of the 120 volts out of normal outlets.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I believe that the time is ripe to publish my own findings on this subject.
My research was specific, so my results are too. The bottom line is that if you purchase a Honda Civic Hybrid you save $5,638.32 and 30 hours of your life in comparison with the purchase of a Honda Civic GX.
I've factored in things that most people don't consider, such as:
Oil changes are slightly more expensive for the hybrid Civic, because synthetic oil should be used. However, oil changes are required every 10,000 miles, unlike the 5,000 of the Civic GX.
At least through the end of this year, in California, purchase of an HEV will get you a $2,000 tax writeoff - which boils down to approximately $600 in actual money.
While the initial cost of owning a Civic Hybrid are higher than a Civic GX; the cost OVER TIME is lower, and my calculations take that into account. In order to save money with a hybrid, you'll have to be in it for the long haul, to the tune of about 80,000 miles. At 80,000, you start saving money over a Civic GX.
The battery replacement issue: Yes, this is the big deal that the oil company shills like to bring up every chance they get, but it's really a non-issue. $2,000 to replace the batteries still leaves you with over $5,000 saved. And, I have in my posession (see the link) maintenance records of a Civic Hybrid logging 129,000 miles and never having an HEV battery replaced.
Miles per gallon: It's common knowlege that the EPA mileage on a Civic Hybrid is a bit on the optimistic side. That's why I took my MPG data from actual Hybrid drivers. Note that my numbers are for people who KNOW HOW TO DRIVE A HYBRID - they won't work for your 16 year old son who's trying to drag race the thing at every green light. (and on a related tangent, Hybrids have great torque because acceleration from a stop is heavily assisted by the electric motor - so in a short race, your hybrid might beat a regular Civic. Don't put any money on it, though... I'm not a racer, so I'm not sure)
The good news here (if you can call it good) is that the higher that gas prices go, the wider a gap there is between hybrids and the "normal" kind of car, (whatever we'd call it in this context).
Please let me know if I've made any mistakes in my reasoning - I don't want to fool myself any more than I want to fool the rest of you - so if I've made a mistake (and I often do), I certainly want to be put straight about it. The beautiful thing about this spreadsheet is that you can easily put in numbers that match your situation and see updated totals. Is the price of gas higher or lower where you live? Change it!
http://sonic.net/~montag/hybrid/
I wish I'd had more time to format my results nicer - maybe add some charts or something. But the OpenOffice Spreadsheet which I'm linking you to was really created for my own personal use. I hope it's useful to somebody!
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
the effective cost of hybrids go down. Let's say a year ago, if you bought a 20k hybrid you would have to drive it for 10 years to get your money back...today, that 20k hybrid (at current prices) would take say 7 years to get your money back, etc. etc. As the price of gas goes up, the better a hybrid is for your wallet.
In the end, the hybrid is great for the environment which is great for our wallet and our health.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Partly by weight. But also catorgorized by cockpit room. There are huge Bentleys classed as "compact" because despite the extremely large engine and length of the car, the passenger area is very small.
{ - Generic Guy - }
When hybrids are scarce, and there are waiting lists, you are making no net contribution to anything by buying one. The car will be sold to someone else, and the environment gets its help.
Let some other eager person enjoy the bleeding edge!
When the hybrids become plentiful (and more mature), I'll take a look.
Fiat Lux.
"In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment." That damn environment gets all the breaks!
Did you get that thing I sent ya?
Til that battery goes dead. A V8 gas hog will look cheap.
There are currently hybrid SUVs on the market. Ford's Escape Hybrid is what I would consider a smaller hybrid, more of a crossover... but have you considered Toyota Highlander Hybrid or the Lexus RX400h? Both of those vehicles have 7 passenger seating, V6 (with the hybrid drive, that can deliver V8 power) and intelligent 4WD. They both are advertised to be able to get over 30 MPG as well, and can be well equipped for comfort.
Papers like these are crowning examples of why economics is not just imperfect, but a fundamentally flawed "science". Cost and pricing, according to economic theory, are supposed to represent actual real-world values of labor and resources consumed to produce something. The fact that economics cannot properly account, even remotely, the degradation of the environment and account for how this will impact us in ten to 100 years means that its recommendations should be taken within a strictly constrainted box.
However, economics has become the modern religion of politics, with its "experts" word taken as golden writ, despite the path of ruination it leads us to. The world continues to ramp up nonsustainable consumption of all resources, especially as China, India, and other countries modernize. The only route to redefining the costs and economic behaviors is government regulation, which is now so passe and under steady assault, both explicitly through increased conservatism, and practically by offshoring all manufacturing in unregulated countries.
Of course Slashdot happily plops shit like this paper on slashdot as the holy scree of the economists, as if that is the end all be all. W00t! Hybrid owners p0wn'd, we're l33t kewl.
please.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
Nearly the entire population of Saskatchewan is farmers. They work at home. The problem they drive a tractor all day (particularly during harvest and planting).
So depending on how you look at it, they either have no commute at all, or a 12 hour commute at 5 mph!
After factoring in line and charging losses, it is quite likely that the engine of their tractor is more efficient than an electric tractor could be (assuming a battery that can store enough power). Unlike cars, tractors are not concerned about having plenty of extra power for acceleration. (15 mph on a tractor is uncomfortable - most have no springs so you feel every bump) Farmers operate their tractor at maximum power all day, which is where the engine is most efficient.
I suspect time and availability of recharging are factors.
In the UK it will need a generation to pass on before people will buy an electric car again. This is because in 1985 Sir Clive Sinclair went loony and brought out the
C5.
This was after build-up hype in which it was said the C5 would revolutionise road transport etc etc. People were visualising some kind of electric VW Polo, but when it did come out after much delay they laughed their lungs up - the best joke of the decade. It even had pedal assist because the motor was so feeble.
Mention electic vehicles here today and the C5 is still what people remember -and they still laugh about it!
Sinclair put back the cause of electric vehicles by at least 25 years.
When the gas tank gets low, it's a few minutes at the station to refuel. With batteries you're looking at a few hours to recharge.
Well, for the early electric cars (c 1900) the makers set up a network of battery stations at which a charged battery could be swapped in - a few minutes.
I love to read environmentalist yapping about how they are helping the environment by buying their new PRIUS. What wasn't discussed in the article was the cost to the environment to MANUFACTURE the PRIUS. There is steel, rubber, plastic, and lead in that car, that wouldn't have been made if you didn't trade in your car.
geesh
God: "I don't leave footprints!"
Your average Joe likes to talk about help the environment, doing what's right, etc, but when it comes down to action, most people (in the US anyway) are going to look out for their own interests first. Hybrids are going to have to save people a noticable amount of money before we see a sizable percentage of the population adopt them. It's just the unfortunate mentality of most people.
This is all the more reason to invest more into TRUE ALTERNATIVE FUELS like Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology and improved Solar Technology, or a hydrid of the two. The rising cost of gasoline and the National Security risks of depending on oil from the Middle East should be more than enough reason to promote these technologies.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Nice try, but not quite.
My 500K estimate is high, since that includes everyone not living in an urban center, including children and the elderly. Of those 500K, not nearly close to that is all farmers, it includes towns and villages too, as well as miners, lumberjacks, and ranchers.
We don't all travel daily 300km+ but most need to go at least 300km round trip a few times a month, and would need a vehicle that could do it without taking long to recharge [like gas can be refueled].
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
is that gas prices are probably going up much further. Hard to say whether it is going to be soon or in a few more years, but we'll eventually be paying twice as much again, at least.
Another possibility is to convert your Prius into a plug-in hybrid. You could get several miles of your commute every day on pure electric power, without burning any gas for them. Or, you could install a bigger battery pack and get most of your commute gas-free.
If you want to do this in a cheaper way, consider converting an existing car to electric yourself. For a few thousand bucks you'd never have to visit a gas station again. Of course the prices for electricity may be going up too, but hopefully not quite as fast, since the majority of it doesn't come from oil.
The flaw in the economic argument is the 60-month term of the loan. Thus the monthly-cost comparison only holds for 5 years. The net comparison is very different over a vehicle lifetime, where the choice of a hybrid save you gas money for another 10 years, give or take.
How much does a broken environment cost to replace, when it's the only one available?
--
make install -not war
I bought a Prius last August, not to save money on gas, but because I thought the electric/gas computer-controlled drive was cool. The 'hybrid' setup is very sophisticated and was only made possible by advances in onboard computer controls such as reliability, more memory, more powerful processors, and easier programming. Now that they're here, though, hybrid engines are just a better idea and will eventually replace non-hybrid engines, just like disc brakes have mostly replaced drum brakes, radial-ply tires have replaced bias-ply tires, and fuel injection obsoleted carburetors.
Yes, the hybrids are much more fuel-efficient but they also have many other advantages such as they are likely to need a lot less maintenance and have a longer life. For example, the Prius does not even have "spark plugs" with a "coil" but instead has a new gizmo in the top of each cylinder that selectively turns the spark off and on under computer control based on power demand while the cylinder continues to move.
I know engineering types love to dispel marketing myths, but its common knowledge that hybrids do not yet effect a cost savings - I mean, even my local Lexus dealer pointed this out to me (without my asking) when I checked out the 300h, no graphs needed.
They finished it two or three years ago. They did it together with some funding from the federal government. However, before they even showed it at a car show, another arm of the government had changed the law so that Diesels cannot qualify as PZEV (partial zero emissions vehicles), and so they no longer made sense for the companies to even consider making, as they wouldn't help them make their low-emissions mix of production.
As to Diesels making power, they don't make much power. Power is horsepower, Diesels are low on HP. They make a lot of torque, but due to the gearing necessary due to the low redlines, most of that doesn't make it through to the wheels where it would do you any good. And Diesels only make all that torque with complex turbocharging setups (see the new Mercedes 3.2L tri-turbo engine).
With low-sulfur gas and direct gasoline injection, gasoline engines also don't have to close the throttle plate when you let off the gas. They do quite well on the highway.
As to the 45mpg, it's nice. Do the math though. With Diesel costing $0.50 more per gallon right now, the breakeven point of getting your extra $1K or more back that you paid for that engine instead of a gas one is well outside of 100,000 miles.
Say a gas engine gets 26mpg and Diesel 33mpg. You use 4 gallons per 100 mi in the gas engine, 3 in the Diesel. Gas costs $2.50/gallon, Diesel $3.00. So you use $10/100 mi in the gas engine, $9 with the Diesel. So you save $1 for every 100 miles. To save $1000, you have to drive 1000*100 or 100,000 miles. That's before you pay the extra for Diesel maintenance (particulate filters are the newest extra cost). And yes, I know the Diesel does better than 33mpg, but the gas engine does better then 24 also. The numbers get worse if the Diesel gets 40 and the car 29, which is more on track.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Just before you go out and purchase more SUVs....
They closed that tax loophole in 2005.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
The article throws out a lot of math but the bottom line is it only compares the improved gas mileage vs. the purchase cost and residual value of the car. This is a very short sited way to look at the situation. It is equivalent to GM concentrating on the next quarterly results and failing to plan for the next ten years (the situation they find themselves in now). It fails to also include a reduction of insurance costs that is being offered by some insurance providers, and a significant tax credit available for the near future. However, ignoring this, there is a number of indirect costs that would also be reduced in the long run. The hybrid car represents a start to a better and safer future for the world. Everyone in the US, both wealthy and poor, should consider the following:
First of all, reducing the US dependency on oil, whether domestic or foreign, is something each of us can do that will directly and immediately impact the war on terror. That's right. In case you didn't realize it, the US is fighting the war in Iraq because of oil. It's not to say that there aren't other causes (there are), and it's not to say that our foreign policy hasn't been driven by our oil requirements before (it has), but if the US didn't need a stable supply of oil we'd still be fighting the injustices in Iraq by diplomacy instead of by force. The war in Iraq costs each US citizen about $0.83 per gallon of gas (at least 5 billion per month war cost divided by 6 billion gallons of gas per month used in the US). And the US attempting to control the politics of the middle east to provide a stable source of oil for the US economy fuels terrorism (whether valid or not). Bottom line, citizens everywhere and especially in the US can take money out of the hands of terrorists if we reduce our dependency on oil.
Next, the hybrid car allows the auto manufacturers to develop the technology needed to replace the gas powered ICE (internal combustion engine) while still remaining profitable. Major changes represented by a "hydrogen economy" is very risky from a business perspective. The established players (GM, Ford, Exxon, Shell, etc.) are reluctant to change quickly because of the risks involved. New players have difficulty securing financing because of the same risks. The hybrid provides a crucial platform in terms of the real world for some of the enabling technology (flex fuel, PV modules, battery, energy conservation, software control, etc.). You don't go from a well understood technology (discrete gas powered ICE) to new tech (multiple power sources, multiple transmission inputs, computer assisted power management, etc.) without growing pains and without real world usage.
Third, the hybrid car lets us transition off of oil one step at a time. It avoid the totally impractical necessity of a whole new and unproven infrastructure for cars (whether hydrogen, electricity, or whatever, whether for fuels or vendor supplies, or trained technicians, etc.) to be in place before we can start transitioning. Without the hybrid car, the cost of transitioning to a new form of auto power would be much much higher. So, the fact that the hybrid can work off the existing infrastructure while improving efficiency, paving the way for oil independence, and provide a platform to develop the required tech is an uncounted cost savings.
Most practically, however, a plug-in hybrid car ties in very nicely with future efficiency gains in electricity production. As power companies get more efficient and cleaner at producing electricity, you can use that electricity to charge your car at home if you have a plug-in hybrid. And because the hybrid can still use gas from any old gas station, you are not stuck depending on electrical outlets away from home. Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds as well. I predict in 5 years the batteries in a plug-in hybrid will be able to provide 200 miles of driving range. While 200 miles isn't as much as a full tank of gas, it is enough for most daily driving. T
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
When hybrids become mainstream, I would think that the macroeconomic impact would be somewhat higher. The oil companies always tout supply and demand to explain the high price of gasoline and their record $32 billion profit in 2005. So, if people start driving hybrids, the actual gasoline usage would be halved, assuming that their everyday usage of a vehicle has not changed on average. Therefore, there would be an oversupply of gasoline, which in the basic theory of supply and demand, would drop the price.
But will that happen? Maybe not. The oil companies and OPEC like being profitable, so they would reduce production accordingly in order to keep the price high. That's why they always call OPEC a cartel right? It's just a fancy word for monopolistic orgy.
Coderz 4 Life
Good point, but just think, if you argued the price of the hybrid down to within $1400 of the normal Civic price (by which I assume you mean MSRP) then just think of how hard you could have chiseled them on the standard one. There is a lot of demand for hybrid models and limited supply -- thus they cost more. I've heard that the Priuses are going for several hundred dollars above MSRP right now because of demand: the dealers add a "market price adjustment" onto the bottom line, which is all profit for them.
You say that nobody pays MSRP anymore, but then you compare the final price you paid after negotiation to the MSRP of a different model to show how much of a good deal yours was. That doesn't make a lot of sense. To be fair you'd have to somehow come up with what the price after negotiation of the standard Civic would have been.
Personally I really like hybrids but I've run the numbers myself as well, using my own mileage amounts and local gas prices, interest rates, etc., and they don't make sense quite yet. There are certain situations where they might (all city driving, where they get 300% better mileage than some other cars) but for an interstate commuter there's still too much of a premium being charged for the technology.
It's still an "early adopter" technology. Lots of people buy things that aren't ready for the mainstream market, just because they can -- and that's not something that should be discounted.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
On a drive this weekend, I hauled about 900 pounds worth of people
It sounds like you're an American, so that means you needed an SUV for just three people, right?
Unfortunately, I resemble that joke... (despite serious exercise 3x a week)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
"and the costs of the US foreign policy and the wars needed to pillage, rape and plunder cheap oil abroad." Gotta love the people who take any opportunity they can find to try to hammer the US. Now, name a war that we have engaged in that has led to "cheap oil". I ask because the current war you're trying so coyly not to refer to has led to MORE EXPENSIVE oil. So either there is another "war for oil" I'm unaware of, or you're making shit up. I know which I think it is.
One bus a day? You don't know you're born. I used to live in a place that had one bus every other day! That was in Gloucestershire, too - maybe that's not a coincidence.
Public transport in rural areas could be a lot better than it is in the UK; many parts of Europe manage to do it much more frequently and cheaply. I think it's an absence of political will and competence rather than financial constraints: there seems to be a congenital British inability to run public services well.
However, living in a rural area is also a choice for all but the most financially straitened. If you choose to live there, the lower population density is inevitably going to mean that there is less public transport.
What I would like to see is a more reasonable and less punitive taxation policy in the UK. At present, cars and fuel are heavily taxed to discourage their use. At the same time, the alternatives are impractical: buses are filthy, expensive, and unreliable; the train system is a basket case, and the operators are even putting up prices to discourage people from using them! One sometimes questions whether 'They' have any understanding of how their country works. People living in isolated areas will always need personal transportation of some kind, and it needs to be affordable. I sometimes wonder whether politicians don't think that people 'in the provinces' get around by pony and trap...
CLUE: stop all trying to live in one small space, duh
I can only speak for myself, but I think that most people who live in cities do so in full knowledge of the tradeoffs. They live there because they want to, just as, I assume, you live in Gloucestershire because you want to. The benefits and the drawbacks are both directly related to the density of development. Accommodation costs more, but public transport can be convenient and cheap, and one saves a lot of time by not having to travel long distances. One can save money by not buying, taxing, ensuring, and feeding a car. And many people choose to live in cities because they like living where there are plenty of other people.
Believe me, you really wouldn't like it if everyone in London took your advice and moved to the country: the South of England would be even more concreted-over and gridlocked than it is now, and there wouldn't really be any countryside left to speak of.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
The environment is not necessarily the winner if the cost is higher. The economic fallacy here is that most cars consume close to as much energy in their construction as they do in their lifetime of burning gas. The energy is consumed in mining, smelting, and every step of fabrication. In fact, essentially because the basis of our economy is energy (mostly fossil fuels), the new cost of a car (including the higher cost of a hybrid) is a reflection of the amount of energy that went into its construction. Even the wages to auto workers are a reflection of how they're going to spend that money on energy (heating their homes, buying gas, etc.)
So a more expensive hybrid actually costs more in energy (once again, mostly fossil fuel) to produce, and therefore can't be considered green unless over it's lifetime the purchase price plus the amount you spend on fuel is less than the purchase price and amount spent on fuel of a standard fuel car.
The lesson, buy a cheap, fuel efficient car, not a hybrid SUV if you want to be green. Or ride a bike.
You can't consume your way to greeness.
Ok, so we are going to ignore other factors such as enviroment, less wear and tear on brakes and far longer range then most vehicles. Thats ok. They are non tangable values. But RESALE value is quite real and there is tons of data on it. The resale value on hybrids is far better then non hybrids. The article actually says this but does not factor it in. A $2000 difference in trade in at the end is a big deal. It should not be ignored, its enough to tip it the other way. I personally consider hybrid a feature like a nav system or a larger tank. It gives other benifits. I dont need do a page full of math to see if the nav system will save me gas enough to pay for it. Nor do I ask if the stereo will pay for itself. I like the idea of a hybrid system, for the enviroment, for the time savings of not filling up as much and for the huge difference in traffic jam MPG. A Prius uses about 1/5 the petro to cover a slow moving two hour bakcup as any non-hybrid, even a thrifty VW diesel.
it took a 10 second google search for "hybrid battery disposal" to find these three results on the first page:
toyota's recycling initiatives
hybridcars.com's FAQ
treehugger.com article with some good resource links
seriously, man, use your noodle.
The entire thing [i]screams[/i] paper for some undergrad class... [I might add it is def. not for a capital markets / finance class!]. So not having proper citations would be a Very Bad Thing(tm)
NPV FTW...
I will admit to skimming the second half of the article (I decided I should probably do some work), but it seems to consider only the individual costs and benefits, without concern for more social influences. For example, if people switched to hybrid, less gas would be consumed, and the price of gas would reduce. It also doesn't consider the effect of value retention if more people moved to hybrid (admittedly hard to tell). Battery replacement/disposal? Reduced environmental costs? I mean, I realize that the focus on the article was "Should you buy a hybrid?", but, especially for the gas price point, I would have liked to see these as at least disclaimers (e.g., we assumed a gas price of $x/gal, but that would change if many people moved to hybrid, which would then change our conclusions).
As,
An owner of a hybrid my wife gets to tkae 45 minutes a day off her commute time because she is allowed to drive in the carpool lane.
She is the real winner, regardless of the cost of car.
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
And since money has a total order, we can therefore assign a total order to everything. Thus, we can suspend moral judgement and simply compare the two relevant dollar figures for any two items. Is Christianity better than Islam? Simply apply the dollar function to each (Xtians win). Is it better to live fast and die young, or to die a bitter old man? Once again, money shows us the way (die bitter)!
God Money, just tell me what you want me to.
Looks like the links been slashdotted :)
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.
some how or another, you still have to generate that electricity to keep the battery charged, whether by gas, oil, coal, or some other method.
Try this site and type in your destination Zip Code and you may find the ride you were looking for. http://www.erideshare.com/
e s/Classic_Trilogy/Locations/Tatooine/A_New_Hope/ro nto2a.jpg
SW carpool scene: http://multimedia.theforce.net/museum/images/Imag
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
What would be the best of both worlds would be a marriage of Hybrid and BioDiesel. The Hybrid side of things would keep the mileage high, and the BioDiesel would keep the emissions much lower and much more of the fuel supply internal to the U.S.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
would be a calculator that you could plug in gas price, miles driven per year, percentage city driving, cost differential between hybrid and gas model, etc. and get a cost analysis.
Ahhh, did anyone check the math. It looks a bit off. First he uses a 1.15 multiplier to account for 'other costs' THEN adds it to the loan value (i.e., interest oriented). If you read the endnote that is based on the fact that loans are for 115% of the value (payoff on old car?). How is that a legit 'cost' of the new hybrid car?
Second he is using the full cost of the hybrid. He is assuming that you dump a perfectly good car and buy a hybrid, NOT that you are bright enough to buy a hybrid when it is time to buy something. That is, he is assuming it is the full cost, not the incremental cost of the hybrid. While that MAY be a correct financial analysis, it is unlikely to be a real world analysis (IMO).
If I want a $22K hybrid and my other choice is a $18K car/SUV at 25MPG, then the 'additional capital expense' is $4K NOT $22K. $4K * 1.15 (assuming I use his magic math) is $4.6K incremental cost at 5.25% over 60 months that's about $88/mo in payment. Given the gas savings and higher trade in allowance, the case for a hybrid may be closer than he paints. Of course that assumes the competition for your car dollar is an SUV at 25 MPG if it is a small car at $15K and 30MPG then the hybrid case is less good.
The real issue is during a "I'm going to buy a new car, what will it be" purchase period. It is fair to deal with incremental costs and incremental improvements in gas mileage/trade-in value. As I read it, the article assumes a 'forced trade' at full cost, not incremental costs. I'm not sure that is a fair comparison.
The office building I work in is located in one of those "We have everything in the world right here" communities: it has a church, a bank, a grocery store, a movie theater, several resteraunts and pubs, etc. One of my coworkers lives in this community, literally one block from the office. She drives to work EVERY DAY! She also drives home for lunch, then back to work, EVERY DAY! She lives two blocks from the gym; yep, she drives to the gym to work out three times/week.
Not terribly surprising, she is also the most useless sack of crap we have in our department: comes in at 9:30 - 10:00, takes a two hour lunch, goes home at 3:30-4:00. And constantly bitches about how swamped she is, while farming as much of her work out as possible. Too bad our department head is too soft to actually fire anyone... </rant>
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Except that inductive charging means that you loose about an additional 40% of your energy. It's simply nowhere near as efficient as a direct electrical connection.
Of course, the question of why they can't just use a dryer type socket begs questions, but still. That socket is rated for both 220 and high amperage.
I don't read AC A human right
I am interested in buying a new car, and I found this analysis almost completely worthless.
- I am not expecting the hybrid to be better economically.
- I am willing to exchange sending money to the car manufacturer for sending money to oil producers.
- I am not willing to buy a tiny economy car, to get lower overall costs with a convential engine.
Hybrid technology allows me to get a car that I want, like the Ford Escape, or Toyota Hybrid SUV; while increasing the gas mileage over what it otherwise would be. If that means I pay $3,000 to Ford, rather than $2,200 to oil companies, that's fine with me.
In some areas, like the snowy Northern states, the smaller economy cars are not a great option. I would much rather have my sisters driving their kids around in four wheel drive vehicles in that stuff, rather than small/cheap economy cars. If hybrid allows those cars to be decent in fuel efficiency, that's all the better.
> the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment.
....including the US and world economy.
That is to say, everyone and everything on the planet.
VW has a 1.8 liter TDI that gives over 50 mpg in jetta and golf and a 2.2 (?) liter TDI in the passat getting pretty good mileage. If you are concerned about the environment, you can put biodiesel or veggie oil in it. There is a conversion kit for pretty much any TDI motor - especially for german vehicles, contact elsbett for a single-tank multifuel kit, you can put diesel, biodiesel, SVO, or WVO in the tank and even start up on VO.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This acticle is full of flaws and one if the most biased article I've seen in a long time. Being a physicist and analytical person I've done a much more thourough analysis if the subject, including a detailed comparison between my Corolla and my Prius which I've had for about 2 years. Based on my fairly average driving habits I have already recouped the price difference in less than 2 years! The author also forgets(?) to mention the many other benefits of a hybrid such as less noise(good if you like to listen to music in the car), smoother driving, higher reliability(spending less time at the shop - see Consumer Report/AAA/other statistics), likely higher resale value, etc. etc.
Considering that the Prius has to be a new purchase, the mainstay of the comparison should have been between a gasoline car of similar performance or a gasoline cars of similar price. Instead, there was only a brief aside of comparing a Toyota Prius vs a Toyota Corolla, the mainstay was against a 99' accord. This is problematic on several levels:
1. It spread the net cost of the vehicle across the expected loan cycle against the "zero cost" of a 6 year old vehicle, which tend to enter higher maintenance cost as it is almost always out of warrantee and is a older vehicle. This is a stacked comparison.
2. It assumed that a person wouldn't want to replace a 6 year old vehicle. This is odd as typical car US fleet is 9 yrs old http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p3.htm/, a 6 year old car should be close to the replacement age.
3. When it chose a new automobile, it chose a economy car instead of a car of comparable performance as opposed to a 2006 Accord (avg msrp 24000), when it was ok to compare to a 1999 Accord because it was paid off. Also, it used a trade in value, when Accords are well known for having very high blue book values. 1999 Accords list from 8300-10700 in the blue book, the lower end should have been used for this, if at all
4. The base MSRP for the 2006 Corolla is 14000-17000, the author cherry picked the most base number for comparison when the standard package in the Prius is comparable to a 16000 Corolla.
5. It also discounts any tax incentives in the main comparison, only listing the gov't tax breaks in other factors when the main focus of the article is on the monetary impact. Performance and maintenance also has real world values he could have used, but that value is more debatable.
Overall, the article, tho it lists all factors, cherry picks comparisons to focus on to paint the hybrids as a very poor economic choice. Making the implication that the hybrids is far out of the value minded mainstream, when the real life costs is only probably 30-50$/month over the life of the loan
I am replacing a 2001 Toyota Rav 4 in April of 2006 with a Prius. Although the Rav 4 gets about 27 mpg, I can't see settling for only 27 mpg in this day and age. Maybe they'll be less regime changes sponsored by Exxxon et al...
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
As it is argued back and forth, 'save the environment' (and how to best do that) and 'Oil is more effective'. Lets not forget the fact that in X (50...) years we will not have oil. Even that is generous. This is not a matter of 'efficiency'. This is a matter of survival. Mark my words, if we do not begin serious research and investment into NON-oil sources, we will die, as a species. This is not a cop-out. We will be dead, gone, -extinct-.
We cannot simply come to the point at which we run out and decide, "hey, maybe we should do this now". It takes massive amounts of energy and resources to change something which is fundamental to the delivery of every service / product / and anything of HUMAN NECESSITY. Im not talking about your new Laptop. Im talking about food, water, medical supplies. We cannot even effectively manage NON-Oil resources without Oil at this stage in the game (Maintainence, transportation of workers, etc).
There has never been a sink or swim moment in the history of man as great as the one we are coming upon. The fact that you saved $1000 buying the gas/diesal version is irrelevent when $X's mean nothing, when there is NO marketplace, when there is NO currency, when there is nothing but a murderous rampage.
Have you heard the story of the immigrents shipped in a sealed box accross the border? They didn't get unsealed in time, and the result was them going ape-shit wild and beating eachother to death. There was one survivor who played dead and sucked air in through a small, tiny, hole. He lived to tell the story.
We will not.
I am not trying to be a fear monger. This is simply what will happen if we dont take into account the gravity of the situation. Operating on %20 clean non-oil energy is not option in 20 years, as seems to be the rate. This is not a matter of sovereignty, and protecting our country by not using foreign oil. It is a matter of existance by not using any oil.
I would love to live in a clean world. But this is not an environmentalist argument, this is an existance argument.
Unless you think (as some do) that we as a race deserve or ought to be made extinct, you need to really step back for a second, stop making arguments for marginal utility, profits and costs (personal and corporate) and stop being so damned myopic.
If in 20-30 years we are not completely rid of Oil (for energy) use, we will be gone. You can disregard this all you want, but when the shit hits the fan, your marginal utility dies with you and your civilization.
(Let me make this clear, mankind won't end. Any developed city will parish, including everyone in it. The meek shall inherit the earth, ironically. The tribal communities that have maintained functioning without the aid of Oil will go on much as they have.)
I don't like this article's arbitrary numbers so I'll make my own with a more apples to apples comparison.
Current Kelly Blue Book:
Honda Civic Reg Manual 2005 15,029.00 at 32MPG
Honda Civic Hybrid Manual 2005 20,041.00 at 46MPG
Difference in price $5,012
Assume the 32MPG fills up for gas once a week
14 Gal * $2.50 per gal * 52.177457 weeks = $1826.21 for gas per year at 32MPG
Assume the 46MPG fills up for gas once every 46/32 = 1.4375 weeks
14 Gal * $2.50 per gal * 52.177457/1.4375 weeks = $1270.41 for gas per year at 46MPG
That's $555.80 savings in gas a year for the Hybrid
Assume a car lifetime/battery lifetime of 8 years
That's $4446.40 in gas savings
You paid $5012-$4446.40 = $565.6 more over time for your hybrid car.
Maybe you just happen to really get a car lifetime/battery lifetime of 10 years?
That's $5558 in gas savings
You paid $5558-$5012 = $546 LESS over time for your hybrid car.
You don't have to make an economic case for people to go to hybrids... $12,000 will get you a damn good car nowadays...
People buy $100,000 sports cars, and then drive them below the speed limit in the slow lane. People buy performance offroad SUVs, and only use them to take the kids to soccer. Autos are all about the conspicuous consuption. The person who purchases the SUV is saying "Look at me, I may be a soccer mom dropping the kids off at school, but in my spare time I am a cool adventurous person who likes to drive in the wilderness"... of course that is total crap, but that is what purchasing a vehicle is about. It is about establishing identity, and distinguishing economic class.
So if you want to get people to use hybrid vehicles, you need to hype some other feature of hybrids. Perhaps, because it has independent control over an electric motor on each wheel, you can make the case of greater manuverability, or that electronics can compensate for slide on each wheel individually, and so they are safer or offer better performance. Maybe if hybrids have a smaller motor, they can offer more passenger space and more luxury. Hybrids need to find some other selling point besides being frugal and responsible. So cost, really, doesn't have a lot to do with it.
You're the SUV owner that doesn't piss me off. I hate the people who drive giant SUVs/Trucks and go shopping with them. If you're using the capabilities of the vehicle where others wouldn't be able to, I don't mind. So keep on using it for the weekend adventure, but if you find yourself commuting in it, that's where you are being an ass.
I just had a brain-fart. Why can't the auto-industry follow/mirror what happened to trains?
Early trains started out as wood/coal burning toxic (and inefficient) monsters.
They now mostly run diesel/electric.
result:
a) more powerfull
b) better fuel economy
c) less mechanical parts = fewer breakdowns = more reliable
Why not build a car that has 4 electric motors (one at each wheel), powered by a small diesel generator?
Hell you could even make a bank of batteries optional for extra fuel economy.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Okay, everyone, please try to look past the straw man.
Unsuspecting reader, "Hey, hybrids really aren't cheaper. Guess I can ignore all of that hype now..."
Hybrids were never intended to be cheaper. They are designed to have lower environmental impact. Hybrid hype ==> fuel efficiency.
Taking pieces like this at face value only adds to the noise and consumer confusion. I expected mre from you guys.
S'scuse me, but it looks to me like the car makers & dealers make out big on this one. The car makers have more iron to sell and the dealers can make fat profits off high-demand-vehicle markups. And don't think that the dealers haven't pressured the mfr's to keep the supply tight for a while just to help keep the markups high.
meanwhile, after you spent that extra $7,500, what you get is a 'good feeling about the environment'.
"have yourself a nuclear combine."
And start selling Plutonium Peas, Radioactive Rye, Barrium Barley, Deuterium Durum, and Isotope Flax.
The marketing firm messed up when they thought Isotope Flax would sell well.
I think your idea has potential, but I think it will be a hydrogen fuel cell that will be the farming engine of the future.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Have you ever considered the possibility that public transportation is much more popular in Europe due to the greater population density?
The population density of the UK is 8 times that of the US. On average, the UK mass transit system gets 8 times the potential travelers for the same amount of track.
Other than a few cities, finding a public mass transit system that runs on time is a rarity in most areas of the US. Intercity mass transit is better -- there is greyhound, which is mostly dependable -- but expensive and slow.
Currently, I'm considering a nice used motorcycle. It isn't mass transit, but it is fast, dependable, and relatively efficient on gas.
Hello, The post maybe on hybrid, but what would the effect be of a bio-diesel, ethanol, hydrogen, or myabe a bio-diesel battery combo?
"Finally, I think you are overestimating the effect of the rural and surban subsidy, and understating the unreimbursed services provided by the rural population. The founding fathers recognized from day one this divide between the urban and rural citizen and this led directly to the split system of representation - the two per State senate and the population based House."
While much of your post makes reasonable points, this last part is just nonsense.
The split system of representation was decided as a compromise among the demands of those joining the union. States with larger populations demanded proportional representation (the House), while states with smaller populations demanded equivalent per-state representation (the Senate).
It had essentially nothing to do with the "founding fathers" recognizing the "services provided by the rural population."
This isn't even taking into account the fact that much of those less-populated states' health depended on unpaid (slave) labor. When their slave labor disappeared, it had economic impact -- which is one reason they fought for its continuation. The loss resulted in a drop in economic efficiency and net productivity for those states. This is to say that if you're claiming the "founding fathers" decided on split representation based on this productivity, it's inaccurate to claim the situation has remained static for hundreds of years.
>I modded my TDI, but it's making 300 ft lbs of torque
258 for an unmodified Prius, *at zero RPM*. Low end torque is where electric motors shine.
>(when your foot is off of the throttle on a gas car, you've turned the motor into a vacuum pump - again, wasting energy).
When your foot is off the throttle on a hybrid the engine stops (unless it needs to charge the battery, run the air conditioner or keep the catalytic converter warm).
>anemic TDI (that is, one that only made as much power as your average hybrid)
Take another look. Only five years ago there was the three-cylinder Insight and the domestic-model Prius which had just enough power to be in a Tokyo traffic jam. Today's models are plenty adequate for freeway onramps and contingency maneuvers. The current Prius does 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds, which is not high performance but not anemic either.
I had a long conversation with one of the (now common) Prius taxi drivers in Vancouver and he said he has never seen or heard of one have a problem with its battery.
Much of the US population lives in suburbs that developed after the automobile, and simply don't work without it, and in areas that have zoning laws that make sure than most people can't walk to work or to stores. Some of us live in cities that evolved around trains, and some of us live in cities like New York where public transit works fairly well and automobile ownership is silly and impractical. That's a big contrast to Europe, where much of the population is in cities that originally evolved for walking or horses or later for streetcars and trains. The traditional model where you've got a store or shop on the ground floor and several floors of apartments above it works very well. The industrial model where factories were surrounded by dirty sooty tenement housing for the workers wasn't great, and the alternative where the factory is along a railroad track that carries commuting workers as well as freight was a big step up.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
A while ago I heard of a German prototype for a practical electric car. You're right, there's no complex ICE, no transmission, but simple electric motors. You can even get all wheel drive and traction control basically for free. Motors can work as generators, so brakes can be simpler.
The big problem is energy storage. Capacitors have low energy density, but can be charged and decharged in fractions of a second. NiMH batteries have better power density and survive many charge cycles at reasonably high amperages. But as primary storage they are still bulky and heavy.
The aforementioned prototype used a supercap, a NiMH battery and a zinc-air battery. The supercap is short term storage for regenerative braking and quickstarts, the NiMH battery smoothes out varying demand and gives power when quickly accelerating, and the zinc-air battery is the primary storage, which is only capable of giving a moderate and constant power output, but has reasonable energy density. Switching regulators shuffle electricity back and forth as needed.
Now you should see the problems: Four switchers with high power ratings, three batteries, all completely different, and the main battery is experimental technology. This is a complex system, it is still in its infancy and there was not enough economic incentive to develop this further. No need to resort to conspiracy theories for an explanation.
Besides all that, the electricity, which is stored with losses, has to come from somewhere. Obviously, there's no advantage to burning oil in power plants instead of ICEs, and there's little advantage if the oil is replaced by coal. The electricity has to come from somewhere else, which is still not the case, and so battery powered vehicles are not interesting yet.
The problems with not redistributing wealth is that no one ever thinks it's fair, an unelected government (i.e. coercive power) develops, it opens the door to corruption and misuse, and it never works the way it was intended.
There's a lot of babble coming out of a lot of people right now (especially right-wing radio) about "being fair". It essentially casts any social program in an ugly light (we're SUPPORTING OTHER PEOPLE!) and brings about things like the "fair tax plan" that proposes only a national sales tax.
This is obviously tripe. Of course, the FTP is a loophole for big money to invest in itself while real money only comes out of the pockets of real people. Most of the Midwest is on Medicare, and I have yet to meet anyone who can say in the same meeting that they are against Social Security and that they don't have a parent or grandparent that lives on it. I'm sure they exist, but they're not very common for a reason.
At the core of it, this is the same problem we've always had. People don't like to accept the truth. People (especially a lot of my isolationist, red-state neighbors) want to believe that it will work for people to just "pull their own weight" without any social programs. This is ignorant of reality. People can't always manage their own money, they can't always support their relatives, and there is no way that a person who makes $15,000 per year is in a similar situation (percentages or otherwise) as someone who makes $15 million.
Civilization exists because of an understanding that a group of people is more effective than a single person. If you have a market of isolated people, you develop control and rule by de facto groups, rather it be corporations of political blocs. There is no effective solution for this other than an attempt at representative government. Wealth redistribution and social programs are a direct result of transforming what would have previously been a revolution into a controlled, accountable, and transparent procedure. Ignoring the problem doesn't solve it.
Face it, rampant free market capitalism creates monopolies and an unelected, and unaccountable, class of rich that becomes inaccessibly difficult to join. I have to laugh as I watch these upper class swindlers, time and time again, drag along so many middle class lemmings to dive over their cliff. Until social programs and redistribution of wealth, we HAD NO MIDDLE CLASS! If you're a member of it, deal with it.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
Golias says:
What if that same money was spent on pure research, rather than solving one huge engineering problem, and applying that solution?
This seems to be a rather strange supposition. You're saying that "pure research" would have likely been more effective at producing the advantages that came from the space program. There is a glaring problem with that idea: all research has to have a goal. That's the whole point of the argument in favor of space research. You set an extremely ambitious goal, and then you get collateral benefits not obvious in the original goal. You can't just jump to the benefits without the search. That's why it's called research.
After all, what exactly is pure research? You mean like quantum physics experiments or perhaps you prefer cosmology? Or perhaps you don't mean the hard sciences. Maybe marketing research would have been a more productive way to spend those funds? Perhaps we could have been better off spending billions on studies to see what color packaging sells the most TV dinners. That's pure research I suppose. Is that what you are suggesting?
Something I would like to add: TORQUE is a major argument in favor of diesel engines. Have you ever driven a 155hp Golf Mk IV with 360Nm (sorry for the metric unit) torque (modified software)? The equivalent "felt" power of an "otto" engine requires a +200hp engine in everyday traffic.
Plus, I'm getting 40mpg easily.
By this "it doesn't pay off" logic, you really shouldn't get a nav system... you'll never recoup the costs of a couple of Thomas guides.
I got my Honda Civic hybrid for two reasons: range (when I took up with a new girlfriend out in Thousand Oaks) and the geek factor (I wrecked an S2000. I'm not going to get myself another one until I'm sure I won't do something that stupid again. So, if I can't geek out on performance, I'll geek out on efficiency).
I'm not an envirocultist, so that wasn't a factor for me... besides, with modern cars creating just a smidgeon of pollution compared to earlier models these days, trucks are where it's at for the next phase of pollution controls.
TFA is currently Slashdotted into oblivion, so did anyone check to see if he accounted for tax breaks?
Does he take into account tax credits and deductions available for hybrid cars? There is a $2000 federal tax deduction for buying ahybrid vehicle, which is probably worth about $400-800 depending on tax bracket and other factors. Plus some states have additional tax incentives for hybrid vehicles. In Colorado, I believe you can get a state tax credit for the full price difference between a hybrid and the closest comparable non-hybrid.
Of course, my wife and I probably would have bought a Prius regardless of cost difference had it been an option for us. Unfortunately, at the time we bought our car, there was a year wait to get a new 2004 Prius, and we needed a new car ASAP.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I'm intrigued by the hybrid SUVs, but the ones you mention aren't even close to being big enough. The "seats 7" spec on most of thise mid-sized SUVs usually means two seats up front, a middle bench that can squeeze in three adults or sit two comfortably, and a very small rear bench best suited to a couple of children. When that rear seat bench is up, the payload space in the vehicle is essentially gone. You can help with rooftop carriers, a tow-hitch platform, or a trailer - but those all introduce their own sorts of problems. In my case, it's the 4 to 5 adults and the two or three dog crates plus gear that are the problem - need that extended payload space to be there no matter what, or it's a two-vehicle trip (which I really try to avoid).
If I did much of the same driving with only a couple of people and a more modest payload, the models you've mentioned would be seriously worth considering. Most of them, though, aren't "trucky" enough, in terms of suspension and transmission ruggedness, at least not yet. I'm sure we'll get there - but it would be a pretty small market, at least for a while.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Uhm, I have a real issue with this statement which is continually made by my fellow Americans. I'd like to remind everyone that most US cities had *excellent* public transit systems, as well as an equally excellent long-distance rail service before a General Motors-funded company called National City Lines bought and gutted nearly every one of the systems. They ripped out the rail lines, knowing it would be nearly impossible to redeploy them and subsidized the demolition of old buildings for parking lots and freeways.
The info is out there. Check out the old streetcar/public transit maps for various cities; you can Google most of them.
LA for example, which is often cited as the classic example of "America is too big for mass transit" used to have one of the best public transit/streetcar systems in the country, the LARY system
...precisely because of their introduction in hybrids. Now I can buy a wideband O2 setup for engine tuning for about $350 USD, instead of the $1,000 it cost before hybrids.
As the site was apparently /.ed before I could read it, I can not speak to the math therein.
As a hybrid owner, I can speak to the fiscal feasibility of owning a Honda Insight.
When I purchased my car I was driving 66 miles one-way to work in a 1990 Chevy 1/2 ton with a 4.3 V6 engine.
At 15-17 miles per gallon that's 7.76 to 8.8 gallons/day (132 mile round trip).
7.76 * $1.80/gal = $13.97/day in gas
5 days/week * $13.97/day = $69.84/week
4 weeks * 69.84/week = $279.36/month
Today's gas price in my area is $2.50/gal this brings this total to $388/month
(FYI: The truck was paid off so there was no note)
With the hybrid:
Car note of $265/month (Purchased used with 7,600 miles for $11,500)
Decrease in insurance of $20/month
Subtotal $245/month
@ 65 mpg = 2.03 gal/day
@ $1.80/gal = $73/month
@ $2.50/gal = $101.54/month
Totals:
@ $1.80/gal = $318
@ $2.50/gal = $346.54
Difference of:
@ $1.80/gal the Car is more expensive by $38.64/month
@ $2.50/gal the Truck is more expensive by $41.46/month
Even when the car was costing me more money in the end I had something tangable.
With the truck all the cost was in fuel which has no resale value after use.
It may be good for the environment, but for my particular situation it was a financially sound purchase as well.
I used to work in produce for a local grocery store in Utah, (just south of SLC). One thing that I learned quickly is that we sold twice as much produce if it was local produce. --it just tastes better-- because it can be completely 'tree/vine ripened' and doesn't have to be chemical treated for long storage and transport. (This includes strawberries, cherries, raspberries, oranges, peaches, etc...)
I fully agree with you about the % of fruit, etc... production that California does, but don't be so quick to chime in your 'me too, me too' that you forget about Florida, Geirgia, Idaho, S. Carolina, ... and any other state that produces fruit/export that is not located in the 'bread basket.'
You might also be interested to know just how much produce the U.S. imports from all over the world as well. -apples from New Zealand, oranges from Australia, of coarse the bananas from all over S. America, Mango's, Kiwi, ...any 'exotic' fruit really, vegetables, etc... the world is small and we live in an intertwined world economy.
For every loophole that is closed, two will open.
;-)
Personally, I'm in favor of a gross receipts tax. The only deduction is 2087x[federal minimum wage]. Every personal TIN gets the deduction against any receipts (not just income). My calculations put the tax close to 3% to raise the current amount of revenue. But is shifts the burden to corporations, which pay little or no tax right now, so it will never pass. A shame, too, as it favors short supply chains and encourages long term savings and investment strategies, and it simplifies accounting: add up the left column in your coa (less 2087xFMW), multiply by the single rate, and write your check.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
>Every time the subjects of efficiency standards and pollution come up, the big three automakers whine and say they'll lose money.
Sure. that'll create less sales & demand from the military.
Sadly, I don't think that is what you meant, but it's a factor.
It's interesting how many of the "how much will a hybrid cost you?" articles compare hybrids to economy cars. I've had a 2002 Prius for almost 4 years now ($20k, give or take), and I would consider it to have all the features I'd expect from a $20k car, ignoring the fact that it's a hybrid. If I didn't buy the Prius, I would have just bought another $20k car. I haven't spend any extra after-market money on the Prius that I wouldn't have on any other car, therefore *I* am actually saving money on gas. YMMV. Of course, if you were looking at a $11k Kia, a $20k hyrbid would not save you $9k in gas costs.
a Prius is exempt from a 8 pound a day fee to drive inside the center of London. If you have to drive say 3 days a week in London, that is over 1200 pounds. Not a bad deducation.
The pollution of automobiles is immensely lower than that of the transportation that they replaced, horses. Automobiles have reduced pollution and brought tremendous improvements to human life. Taxing these improvements in excess of the immediate cost of roads is abhorrent.
Your ideas of US foreign policy can only be described as paranoid fantasy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A bit of support for what you are saying. Back in grad school (~1994), UIUC, I took an engineering economics course. We had to do a feature pricing model based on surveys. Our team chose as a project the hybrid Ford Escort the auto guys had built. Neat car. Looked just like a regular Escort station wagon (unless you looked under the hood), weighed 400 lbs more (lead batteries), ran on anything from gas to alcohol to whatever, had better acceleration and mileage, still carried 5 people and a full load of cargo, and was by all accounts a simple substitute for a regular Escort. The modifications were estimated to cost $4k. At the end of our statistical surverys, the median price premium people would pay was $400. That was a bit skewed since UIUC is in the middle of corn fields and we interviewed a disproportionate number of farmers who like the idea of an ethanol powered car. Rigourous study? No. But it did drive home that people will pay extra for a hybrid, just not much.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I moved closer to work so that I can ride my bike. My gas guzzler Caddy (a gift) is driven once a month to see family in the 'burbs. Keeping the speed under 65 gives me >22 mpg costing me and Ma Earth about three gallons a month.
So the environment a winner, my pocketbook wins not paying expenses for a brand new Prius, I don't have the stress of commuting to the 'burbs every damn day and I am in a hell of a lot better shape!
Cheers yo,
BillyBob
bamph
The real way to make a good economic comparison is to compare buying a new hybrid vs. buying a new conventional-engine car, and do a time-value-of-money calculation to get present values of the cars and gasoline. Sure, monthly payments are what hits you in the wallet when you're making them, but they go away once you've paid off the loan, so you can calculate the Net Present Value of any interest you might pay to car dealers (might be positive or negative, depending on whether they're doing loss-leader loans to keep the car price higher.) Assume you're going to keep them both for the same number of years (otherwise it's way too messy; more on this later), estimate the effective interest rate for money over the next N years (which is not the same as the interest on your car loan...), estimate the future value of the car at the time you sell it (and calculate NPV), estimate the NPV of the price of any repairs you'll need to make, estimate the price of gasoline and amount you'll use over that period and NPV that.
So does it pay off, or not? Depends a lot on what kind of car you'd get instead, how long you'd keep the cars, and on the assumptions you make about the future cost of money, gasoline, and used cars. If you're spending the same amount of money on the car (overinflated price of a hybrid vs. buying a fancy car), it's probably a win. If you're comparing the hybrid to an econobox, it's probably not a win. If you think cars last 15 years, and you're comparing the hybrid to a used econobox now, another one five years from now, and another one in ten years, it's almost definitely a big lose, but you get fewer coolness points for driving around in beaters during the first ten years (after that, your hybrid will also be a beater, and repair costs are much harder to predict than for standard cars.)
I'm not the typical American car consumer - I buy cars with cash, generally new, don't drive very far most days, and keep them till they die of old age or are sufficiently close financially, so I spend less on cars and more on repairs (though replacing the engine in an old van did cost about the same as buying a used van of similar vintage, but since it had spent most of its years in California instead of New Jersey, the body was in really good shape.) A few years back, when my 1985 Toyota was getting old, we were thinking about keeping it running for a couple more years and getting an electric, but then the PT Cruiser came out, so we decided to go with the cool car instead... bought it on eBay.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I don't have a clue what point either you or the GP is making, but diesel engine _efficiency_ comes from the simple fact of a very very high compression ratio (20:1 or more), which allows for burning more gases before dispelling them into the exhaust pipes. Furhtermore, if you've ever had to deal with a "run away" diesel engine that runs without any electric spark applied to it (engine turned off), you would _really_ understand what efficiency is all about - dangerous efficiency at that!
like at http://www.newscoast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID =/20050402/ZNYT05/504020759/1283/BUSINESS10
"If you cover people's daily commute, maybe they'll go to the gas station once a month," said Mr. Kramer, the founder of CalCars. "That's the whole idea."
My folks are very comfortably retired and can easily afford to purchase, operate and maintain their pick of upmarket luxury sports sedans. However, they're waitlisted in their market for a $23K Prius.
Why?
They want to encourage more manufacturer R&D by pushing up market popularity for alternatively powered vehicles. They recognize that the current state of the technology is not a panacea of savings, nor a real solution to fossil fuel dependence, but it's something. They're more than willing to put their money where there mouth is, which is more than many can say.
*There* are just some people who should check *their* posts whenever *they're* submitting, and I'm one of they! :)
Nearly every internal compustion engine (with the exception of aviation engines(not high enough octane)) can be converted cheaply to run on methane. This has been proven over and over (WWII Germany ran most of their war machine on methane because the allies largely cut off their supply of oil from North Africa).
Methane is a re-newable resource (look outside: trees, grasses, etc.) You can re-plant methane sources and they are "pretty to look at while their growing" (grin).
Another common benefit of some hybrids is that they can be configured to outgun their gas-only counter parts. This is true for the new Lexus SUV, for example. In this context, the argument over whether or not hybrids save you money doesn't matter so much because gas savings isn't the only advantage.
As more and more technology becomes available for use on cars, hybrids will gain another advantage because of the increased availablity of electric power onboard. One example of this is electric active suspension systems.
I have an Insight. It is the car I drive nearly everywhere to do nearly everything. I love it to pieces. Maybe only having to buy gas once a month isn't worth some theoretical premium that I may have paid, but in practice, the car's been paid off for ages and I very much appreciate a cheap vehicle for running errands.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
You got just about all of it correct, but CO2 is not the only emmision product of biodiesel combustion. NOx is perhaps the most important difference between biodiesel and unleaded. And this has nothing to do (directly) with the fuel itself. The major source of the NOx problem is the higher opperating temperatures in diesel engines (which you will recall from thermo class is also the reason they are more efficient), so there is little that can be done currently to solve the NOx problem..
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
f the environment. Seriously. What has she ever done for you?? You spend your entire life protecting her, and in return, immediately upon death she sends her massive armies of worms and maggots to recycle your body as compensation. wtf? I say we nuke this shithole and move to Mars. All in favor?
My secret? On uphill stretches of highway I set the cruise control to 58 and stay in the slow lane. Downhill I keep to the speed limit. If you're willing to eschew the fast lane you can get pretty good milage in a Prius. On another similar trip over many of the same roads I got 44mpg because I was behind schedule and needed to go 70-75.
By the way: all you folks who are trying to compare the Prius to a Vespa, remember the key words: "family of four plus luggage." You'd need four Vespas to carry our load; oops, your milage just dropped to 15!
An interesting thing about the Prius is that it has changed my driving style. When I drive our other car, I drive much more agressively (and probably less safely) and play the game of trying to "win traffic". When I drive the Prius, I play a different game: don't hurt the milage. It makes me a safer, friendlier driver. The omninerd analysis fails to register that benefit.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
If the comparison is about gas to get to work, then work at home is for you. If it all about gas per week, then city life is for you. Some of us count our quality of life, rather than being a rat in a high rise hell hole.
Given that a perfectly functional electricty infrastructure already exists
As a native of Ohio, I call bulldookey. The electrical infrastructure in most of the US is aged, dilapitated and barely serviceable. I get brown outs and power outages enough without everyone on the block also plugging their cars in.
See, this is the element to these discussions that always arises and pisses me off.
How do you know what those people are doing with their vehicles when you aren't watching? And for that matter why is it your business what they do with their money?
Put me, my wife, our 5 year-old and two large dogs in my SUV and there's barely any room for camping gear or anything else. If we went camping/roadtripping more often I'd consider trading up to a larger vehicle. As it is, even with two SUVs, we're seriously considering buying a used pickup truck or upgrading my vehicle to something larger with more towing capacity.
My point is that if you saw me commuting to work alone you'd probably think I was an idiot; but by your admission, if you saw me going camping with my family you wouldn't. Does that really make sense to you?
Wow, that's one tall wife.
The guy did all kinds of analysis on every variable except one: the value of the trade-in (about $4000) and the amount owed on the current car ($0). All he was basically saying was that he and his wife couldn't afford a whole new car out of the gas savings. If he'd have stated that as his question up front, I wouldn't have bothered to waste time reading it.
He says the Civic Hybrid is 36MPG and the Prius is 44MPG without citing his figures, because the site he does cite http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/ very pointly says Civic Hybrid is 44MPG and the Prius is 48MPG REAL-WORLD average.
Not only that, but he fails to do an apples-to-apples comparision of the same status car (new to new, used to used) at the same time as same class (mid-size to mid-size).
The only fair comparision would be a NEW 2004-2005 Honda Accord or Toyota Camry almost exactly equipped to the 2004-2005 Prius, so he's just another in a long line that fails to do that. When you leave out options, safety features, luxury items, you've already biased the comparision.
How about trying a used hybrid vs a used conventional car of the same year and options comparision?
Somebody previously on Slashdot did a used Insight vs a Civic HF, which was fair because they were both the same sized car (internally), but I wonder if the safety options/ratings were the same.
Besides, when has a new car ever saved anybody money? Where's the comparison of how a new: 3/5-series car, H2/H3, Suburu WRX/STi, Scion tC, IS 350, or other fair-comparision vehicle of the same status and class - saved you money versus just not buying it? Why aren't there articles deploring these vehicles in the same breath? Where's the V4 vs V6/V8 doesn't save you money articles?
Obviously, people step up to these luxury/performance cars for reasons other than just cost and savings.
Much like the statistics about statistics usually be wrong, this is just another article from the anti-hybrid side wielding information disingenuously.
Holy Hell!
Does she wear a tiger-skin loin-cloth, carry a club around, and talk in short, broken english?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Anecdotals, reported right here on slashdot, showed one very good use for hybrids. During the hurricane katrina immense long evacuation lines, MANY normal cars ran out of gas just sitting idling,creeping along, whereas the hybrids, shutting off completely at standstill, conserved their fuel and were able to make it out on the one and *only* tank of gas they could get at the time. I have no idea what sort of "price" you could put on such an advantage, but it's pretty high if it meant the difference between a successful evac for you and your family or stranded in a storm someplace because you ran out of fuel or starter battery charge.
And now with the aftermarket modding of hybrids into true plug-in hybrids, and some manufacturere making noises like they could offer them soon, the economics might be better, as one could conceivably keep the batts topped off from a solar array or wind charger at home, reducing reliance on both the grid and on fossil petroleum fuels.. now what the jerk government might do about road taxes then I have no idea, as this is such a variable and subject to non engineering related political change overnight. They would most likely switch to more monitoring and charge you by the mile traveled via some blackbox gizmo. That's one annoying part in all this, politics always gets involved. "here's a tax credit, go electric or hybrid!" "whoops, because our road fuel tax income just dropped, now we have to monitor you and charge by the mile and offer you an urban "congestion fee" alternative.
With all that said, I would like a pure electric vehicle, with the generator part that makes it a hybrid contained in a trailer for longer trips. Best of both worlds then, and no need to cram all the hybrid drive train stuff inside the vehicle..
The current Prius is a much small saloon as much as a Camry/Accord is. Ever heard of the term mid-sized? Look at the internal space numbers and try again.
On a slightly offtopic rant I'm rather sick of populated areas (typically blue states in the US) subsidizing rural ones (typically red states in the US).
Hmmm...descides being a rather incendiary comment it also demonstrates your complete ignorance of geography. Saskatchewan is rural, but is nether a state nor is it "red". Saskatchewan is probably best described as an "orange province" (Canada does not have states--it has provinces, and Saskatchewan has a "New Democratic" (NDP) government, and the colour representation of the NDP is orange). Saskatchewan politics is for the most part more "liberal left" than any given American "blue state".
Why should we have to pay more for our phone service/electricity/roads/etc, etc, etc just so you can afford yours?
Why? So you can afford to sit on your ass in a Manhattan McDonalds eating Big Macs, french fries and pop. That stuff all has to be grown, harvested and processed somewhere, and city dwellers seem to have very little tolerance for the typical farming activities (noisy dusty tractors, smelly feedlots, etc) required to provide urban conveniences. Perhaps we should plough under the whole of Central Park, fence it in barbed wire and plant wheat there. We could also mandate that all city buildings be equipped with thick sod roofs to accomodate potato growing operations. Also, every dwelling with a back yard in the city should be turned over to feed at least one head of cattle and every restaurant and supermarket should have finishing and slaughtering facilities on premesis.
If you like living in the middle of nowhere so much then be prepared to pay for it.
If you like living in you pleasant little sterile box in the city so much, with all your conveniences provided to you within minutes, then be prepared to pay for it. Selfish bastard.
All the heat coming off your gasoline engine is waste heat anyway. That represents inefficacy. So even if you had to run an electric heater the BEV is still better for the environment.
You have never experienced a Canadian Prairie winter have you? At temperatures approaching -30 there really is NO surplus heat energy coming from the engine. In my car, on such a cold winter day, the radiator fan never starts and the radiator thermostat valve does not open--all the circulating coolat goes through just the engine block and heater core--and at that the interior temperature is just comfortable with the temperature control at maximum.
I have an electric heater that I occasionally use in my garage when I'm working out there on winter dyas. The power consumption is massive and on very cold days it basically only warms up the immediate vicinity enough so my un-gloved hands do not get frostbitten. Electric heating element + electric fan motors = huge power drain. That would destroy the already barely-adequate range of contemporary electric vehicles (and given that rural dwellers drive mostly highway miles and wouldn't have the opportunity to make use of regenerative braking even 300 miles is a very optimistic number).
Besides all that, one of the more interesting ideas I've seen involves a BEV with an a trailer that you could hook up for long distance trips.
A trailer would weigh way too much and kill the drag coefficient of your vehicle, and basically provide next to no improvements in range. I also can't imagine a Prius-like vehicle towing a heavy trailer would handle very well or be very safe on icy roads.
How often would you need that functionality? Heck, I could get by 95% of the time if my BEV only had 100 miles of range
I think that not being able to use my vehicle 5 percent of the time would be quite annoying. FYI a resident of a rural area like perhaps Broadview or Whitewood might want to travel to somewhere like Regina on a monthly basis--that round trip is probably well over 300 miles--all highway too which would kill batteries faster. Unless such electric vehicles were so inexpensive that it could be aff
is that he doesn't even seem to consider the possibility that you'll still be driving the car by the time you've paid it off. Which says something: apparently most people either have money and get a new car every three years, or don't have so much money, and get super-long-term financing (which is, of course, fantastically expensive in the long run, but all you ever notice is the "low monthly payment").
And for that matter why is it your business what they do with their money? I, personally, am not concerned what you do with your money, it's more what you're doing to our air, water, and climate. As you stated in your posting, you already have two SUV's. How many times do you need to use both SUV's at the same time? It sounds to me like you would probably be better served by 1 large SUV and 1 small efficient car. I am a firm believer in personal rights and freedom. I believe that you should be allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt me (or anyone else). Maybe you don't fit the model, but... Driving 2 full-size SUV's to work everyday (and using the fact that you actually make use of it a handful of times on the weekends as justification) is hurting me.
-glynor
Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese.
Considering there hasn't been a Toyota hybrid that needed battery replacement every 100K miles (Prius has been around since 1998 and there are cabs that gone over 150K miles), and they're warranted up to 150K miles.
So let's look at 200K miles stats. How much will it cost to replace a normal transmission at 200K miles versus only probable battery replacement when the battery has been babied (hard maintained at 40% to 80% charge) the entire time?
Also, no timing belt in a Prius, no clutch, no torque convertor. HSD transmission is more like a differential which almost never breaks down. Less spark-plug replacements because the engine is used less and at lower RPMs. Where's this extra cost?
Your dad needs to update his education because the most popular hybrid in America (Prius) uses NiMH and has done so for many years.
I don't know if this is a good or bad thing: either we are looking at integrated coils on the plug, or integrated coils in the plug "wires". On the one hand, this could be "good" as it moves the coil closer to the plug, so there is less chance of vibration and heat affecting the wires and such (as with regular plug wires, which carry high voltage), but on the other hand, now the coils are subjected to much higher heat loads (being that they are closer to the cylinder), so they could wear out quicker.
Futhermore, if they are integrated into the spark plug, you could be looking at $5.00 - 10.00 per plug to replace. If they are a "wire set", then those are things likely to go for at least (and probably much more) $100.00 for the set. Also, it is likely these things are "dealer parts", meaning double the price - you can't get them at AutoZone, at least not yet.
I can see the benefits of doing this, especially in a hybrid vehicle. However, I doubt they save you money, and probably make a lot of money for the dealer (assumming you can replace them yourself - something tells me they make you come to the dealer if you want to replace such a simple part)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Another factor for myself was where the money was going. Oil resources correlate rather highly to corrupt government. So send my money to a bunch of capitolist pig-dogs in Japan with a hair of it going to engineers, or send it to a corrupt government where large chunks of end up in the hands of corrupt government officials or worse. My vote is for the pig-dogs &Y geeks.
I don't care why people buy hybrids, I just want them to buy them. It's better for my clean-air-breathing, gas-using, plastics-buying lifestyle if others conserve oil.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The most interesting point being in figure 13 where it seems with gas at 2.50 a gallon, a car that gets 50 - 60 mpg would have to cost less than 13,000 to be the cheapest new bought transportation.
What if it could get 78 MPG?
I was already sick of the "Hybrid cars won't save you lots of money, therefore they're all hype" argument, but this just goes way too far. What loser spent a week making all those formulas and writing it all up?
Points these nutcases seem to not get:
1) It is entirely possible that within the lifespan of a brand new car, gas will be many, many times more expensive than it is now--even more expensive than the hypotheticals of this argument allow for. A hybrid is a hedge against the possibility of out-of-control prices. Even if the event that necessitates a hedge's existence never happens, the purpose of the hedge is still valid.
2) Buying a hybrid makes people feel good. You cannot put a value on that.
3) When someone buys a hybrid, we all win, so just STFU already about the hype!
No sane person has ever or will ever use a mathematical formula to decide whether to buy a hybrid.
I don't know that I'd describe our current electricity distribution system is "perfectly functional." There are more cars than people in the U.S. And while a change to electric cars wouldn't happen overnight, having millions of cars charging every night would require a major increase in production capacity, probably coupled with an increase in electric bills for non-electric car users (due to the law of supply and demand).
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
But just because I might be able to find gas for 80 cents for a gallon doesn't mean my point is invalid any more than you being able to find biodiesel for 80 cents a gallon means it is.
If people switch, en-masse to biodiesel, it would rise in price. Also, it would be taxed like Diesel to prevent revenue loss by governments. And you're back where you started or worse.
Yes, your car has more HP than a gas motor at the same RPM. But since you have a low redline, your gearing has to be changed in your car. So you are running at lower RPMs than a gas engine at every speed other than launch, and again, that cuts your power. That was what I said about gearing meaning your torque doesn't make it to the wheels.
Diesels make great sense if you roll on a ton of miles, especially at light loads (as GDI isn't in widespred use yet). It doesn't really make sense in a passenger car. Fifth Gear did a great story on this a while back, showing how once the tax advantages of owning a Diesel were dropped in the UK, Diesel went from a wash to a big loss for most people with passenger cars.
And I don't get the guy on here who said Diesels take less energy to produce. If that's true, why do they cost more? A Diesel engine block contains 50% more material (at least) than a gas one, and it requires a turbo or two to get it moving. Plus high pressure fuel pumps and block heaters. And all you remove is the ignition coil, some wires and spark plugs? I just don't see how it could require less energy to make a Diesel motor than a gas one.
Also, your argument about running a modded turbo car against a N/A car goes right with my point. How about you try on a 215HP modded 1.8T? If you get ahead, it won't be for long, you'll be behind before the 1.8T leaves 1st gear.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Economics is certainly flawed, but that's because it's very hard to experiment and observe in practice. Thus economic theories are useful to explain certain phenomena but are always incomplete in the real world. In the area of macroeconomics especially, there really is very little clue about how to guide & control it, especially as national economies becomes more complex and grow into multi-national blocs, industries become sick on their own, etc.
Having said that, it's an important area, as important as politics and sociology are at least as a way of understanding how humans interact.
However, economics has become the modern religion of politics, with its "experts" word taken as golden writ, despite the path of ruination it leads us to
This I agree with. American politics has enthroned economics as the beginning and end of all policy debate. Certainly, economics has a place in policy debate -- one must understand the cost of a policy. But to focus solely on that, as some conservatives are prone to, ignore the profound social consequences that economic change can reap. Government has an obligation to balance the need for change (driven by capitalism) and the need for continuity (driven by social services, community, culture, etc.)
-Stu
I suspect that the previous commenter didn't articulate a common thought on this. People who need an SUV for what an SUV can actually do often have no choice but to drive that vehicle for more mundane activities as well. Purchasing (assuming the cash is handy) another vehicle isn't all there is to it, ecology-wise. The costs (to the world, in terms of resources used, energy spent, etc) of another vehicle being born to serve for a few years along side a somewhat less efficient vehicle could easily eclipse the difference between the two vehicles in the fuel used during occasional, close-in errand running.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's what I never see anyone ask: How long do I have to drive an SUV for it to pay for itself, or at least for the bloated price which gives the manufacturer their crack-like fat profit margin.
Of course, the answer is: never. It never pays for itself. An SUV is a money sink, everyone knows that, so people discreetly ignore this.
Meanwhile, they pose the question about hybrids, and play it up as if it's some kind of 'gotcha'.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
1) The brake pads will wear less because of regenerative braking
Well, let us see what brake pads for a prius cost:
brake pads for a prius Oh. $28.79
2) NO transmission repair costs, it uses constant mesh planetary gears instead
I have Toyotas out in the back pasture that have been retired at 264000 miles due to rust. I have never seen a transmission failure/problem in a Toyota car
3) minimized eng wear because the electric motor handles high torque demands
Motor ( a 4AFE ) was still running when car was retired due to rust. Only weak spot on these cars is deposits on the valve stems which make the valves stick open. I just pull the heads, beadblast the valves and heads, have the seats cut and the valves ground, reassemble, total cost in parts is $80 to cut the seats and the valves, about $30 for head gasket and sundries.
4) minimized eng wear because the engine is spun up BEFORE any cylinder ignition
See Above!
5) minimized eng wear because the engine fires 2 cyl and then the other 2 on start
Huh?
6) The engine was designed lighter because of the shared load so bearing wear is reduced
This is just not an issue if you keep the oil changed. The engine will outlast the rest of the car.
7) minimized eng and exhaust system wear because of first 5 minute warmup cycle
Exhaust wear will be worse, because of the multiple heating and cooling cycle. An exhaust system kept hot 100% of the time will last longest because the most destructive corrosion does not occur at elevated temperature.
To sum up: The prius will not save you money on repair just because it is a hybrid. Anyone who can assemble a PC can change the brake pads by following the instructions in the Toyota service manual which is available by calling Toyota MDC
From an economic perspective, if you could use electricity from the wall for 90% of your driving instead of using gasoline-generated electricity, you'd start to notice your electric bill a lot more carefully (:-) Exactly how much it would increase depends a lot on what state you're in and what games your state electricity regulators and electric companies are playing against each other. (Here in California, you'd want to charge your car at night if you're able to get a cheaper-at-night electric rate, but you'd also get nailed by the "using-more-electricity-than-last-N-years" surcharges.)
From an ecological perspective, sounds like your hybrid engine is a great deal (my old 1985 Toyota wagon also got 27-30 mpg when it was new, but it's about half the weight of your SUV.) Using electricity from the wall for most of your driving is going to have much different environmental effects than driving, but whether that's good or bad depends a lot on efficiencies and sources of power. For instance, if your local power plant runs on natural gas, it's probably a bit less efficient than using the natural gas directly in your engine. If it runs on oil, it's probably much less refined oil than the gasoline you'd be burning, so there's less waste and pollution from the refining processes, but it might or might not be more efficient in terms of hydrocarbons that get burned per mile you drive. Air pollution, especially smog, is generally reduced if you've got the power plants far away from cities and electric cars in the cities instead of gasoline-burners, but the Greenhouse Gas issues depend on how much fossil carbon you're burning, regardless of where you burn it. Hydroelectric power pretends to be clean, but the habitat destruction caused by dams is immense. Nuclear power is really clean from a greenhouse gas perspective, as long as you don't mind a bit of extra light from the poisonous wastes glowing in the dark for a few hundred thousand year :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you consider most of the $6000 of the nimh battery goes towards the coal, petroleum, and natural gas consumed in the fabrication of the battery, you would be better off signing a contract for $6000 of gas when you buy the car instead of paying $6000 to make a battery out of it.
It only helps the environment if you ignore the mining and purification of the nickel or import it from far far away, like Inco Ltd. in Canadia.
Invest the money in pollution credits or a good insulation for your hot water heater, for example, and you save more pollution for less $$$.
Of course, you don't get the "holier-than-thou" bragging rights, unless you routinely drag people into your basement.
Hybrids, as they currently stand, are not the best way to help the environment, and are rather a way to show off.
God, anyone with this attitude, you included, should be taken out to the woodshed and removed from the gene pool. I am serious.
Taxing by gasoline consumption forces everyone to pay in direct proportion to the amount of problem they create. That is fair.
What you are suggesting is far from fair, with some big polluters paying little (somebody who drives a "normal" vehicle quite a lot), some small polluters paying lots (someone who drives an SUV, but not many miles), and (not surprisingly) you paying nothing. This "me first" attitude is the biggest problem with the political system as it is - please don't add to it.
Europe is more population dense, for example. This helps matters enormously.
Also, most European city layouts were formed pre-car, leaving the streets too narrow for cars to be particularly useful. In America, many of the major cities grew along with automobile traffic. Hence, the layouts were designed to be more car-friendly.
Compare the public transportation and layout of an "old" city like Boston and a "new" city like Houston to see what I mean.
Except that inductive charging means that you loose about an additional 40% of your energy. It's simply nowhere near as efficient as a direct electrical connection.
You sure about that? I thought it was just a transformer with the same number of windings (i.e: no voltage change)? High quality AC transformers (the kinds hanging off poles) attain 98% efficieny. Inductive charging causes a 40% loss? That blows my mind.
Of course, the question of why they can't just use a dryer type socket begs questions, but still. That socket is rated for both 220 and high amperage.
240 volts x 30 amps = 7,200 watts. I really don't see why you couldn't either. Unless you are a complete dumbass about it 240 volt electric out of a dryer/range socket is no more dangerous then 120 out of a household one. Hell, it's good enough for Europe....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Thank you! I'm sick of people with their Civics and 30 mile commutes giving me a hard time for having a Mustang GT with a big V8. Sure I only get 16 miles to the gallon... but I work from home nearly every day, and I take public transportation whenever it is available. As a result, I only drive about 5000 miles a year, and I never have to worry about the price of gas.
Very early in the article, the distance travelled is recognised as a key component in calculations. Then it's assumed to be 1500m/month. That's it.
The rest of the discussion and pretty graphs ignore this one factor. I thought it was obvious when talking higher fixed costs for lower running costs, mention distance in the final analysis. Unless you KNOW your audience have very consistent travel patterns (perhaps some corporate fleets), or, the break-even point is something ridiculous like 1000 miles per day.
-- All your bass are below two Hz
Do you baby your laptop battery to be only between 40% and 80% charge 100% of the time like a Prius does?
Come back and tell us when you do (with a NiMH batt) and your battery still consistently dies. The Prius has been around since 1998 so where are these 'the sky is falling' the dead battery stories that are supposed to have happened by now?
Is 100lbs of battery that massive? It sure weighs hell lot less than most Slashdotters/Americans.
There's always buy the car you use everyday, rent/borrow the vehicle you need for special activities. You can win both ways there.
Thank you for giving another example of how this paradox works. Mass consumption of increased efficiency/reduced pollution = exactly that : increased pollution/consumption by summation.
The last time: "Another environmental shell game that hides the real cost of the scheme. EVERY form of stored potential chemical energy has an initial and equal, or even greater, cost in energy to [create and] store it in the first place. This was true of petroleum, though we didn't have to expend that energy ourselves, the Earth's geologic processes expended it for us over millions of years."
"It's also true of this process. There's only a single sentence in that entire article that hints at that cost: 'The solid waste product of the process, in the form of metal oxide, will later be collected in the fuel station and recycled for further use by the metal industry.'"
"What that means, properly interpreted, is that more energy is going to have to be expended behind the scenes in a factory somewhere to convert the metallic-oxide 'waste product' back into usable metal. Where's the savings?"
"This reminds me of the nut [Ron Gremban] who thought he was being environmentally conscientious by installing $3000 worth of batteries in his Prius to cut down on the gasoline that HE had to burn personally... never mind the fact that it meant that some POWER PLANT somewhere was having to burn an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel to create the electricity that would travel down the wires - at considerable attenuation - to allow him to recharge those batteries."
"This is all a song and dance designed to make us 'feel good' about continuing to be Good Little Consumers."
The Environment is the ONLY "winner" that matters.
Until this country (the US) and to a lesser degree the rest of the world realizes this simple concept, we will never solve this problem. Environmental protection must trump ALL other concerns from economics to convenience. This is non-negotiable, and governments must be used to enforce this as individuals (yes myself included) have proven repeatedly that they are too selfish and immature to do it on their own.
Buy the car you need everyday, rent the car you need once a month. For me that means I have no car, and rent one of the right size when I need it. This weekend it was a BMW.
With such technology in place, demonization of petroleum would then be less justified. The efficiency of hybrid vehicles would obviously still be relevent, but the issue would cease to be environmental and become purely economical.
With current technology it's hard to beat the convenience of liquid fuel. Hydrocarbdon recycling technology would not require such a dramatic change of infrastructure as electric or hydrogen power - that in itself would have enormous economic and associated environmental benefits. It would also present a parallel avenue of development for existing oil companies, creating incentive for them to actually support an environmentally friendly technology rather than to thwart it.
This is very relevent to those of us living in California, for example, where the government is spending billions in an initiative to roll out a hydrogen-based transportation infrastructure. That is CRAZY in light of Thermal Conversion technology.
A-Bomb
Even if you're in the position of buying a new car, this doesn't have to limit your choice to new cars.
A couple of months ago I was in that position, and seriously considered a Smart Fortwo. Unfortunately, the fuel costs are really a small proportion of the total ownership costs, and depreciation weighed heavily against it.
So, what did I do? I bought a 1993 Mazda MX-5 (Miata). Yes, it's a high miler, but it is still servicable, and will probably last another five years at least. I can do my own maintenance (I'm a mech engineer, so it doesn't bother me), which I wouldn't be a practical propositon if buying a new car (service history reasons).
Sure, this is not a true apples-apples comparison, but it is still a valid comparison, as it shows the differences between practical alternatives.
...without a pretty major contortion of her legs...
Would you please post a picture of your wife sitting in a Prius?
As others have pointed out, that is an incomplete, and thus inaccurate, financial comparison. Of course that is very typical of such comparisons, most of which leave out the residual sale value of the car, and in this particular case even leaves out government incentives (including the possible advantages of free parking or using carpool lanes, which could save not only money, including bypassing bridge tolls and parking fees, but time, which can be equated to the same thing). While it does mention these things almost as footnotes, in typical fashion this one stacks the deck against the hybrid in some important respects in its main calculations, making a hybrid seem like a waste of money when it really might not be.
(This may also be true of solar power: such analyses generally omit any possible increase in the selling value of the home as a result of the solar system. It's even plausible such systems could sometimes pay for themselves in the long run due to increased home value alone, let alone any energy savings in the meantime, but the people appearantly trying to discredit such technology usually don't want to look at those numbers.)
In addition, as has also been pointed out, why on earth is energy-saving technology the only area that people should be forced to justify their purchases based on economic return? How do you justify that fancy paint job, those snazzy wheels, that killer stereo, that funky spoiler, that leather trim, or any number of other fairly useless features that increase the purchase price of a car? (Or even the 300 horsepower engine - it can tangibly increase acceleration capability, but what is the economic value of having faster acceleration? Is that benefit worth the increased cost of the car and increased fuel use?) How could anyone ever possibly justify buying a $70,000 Porsche, Mercedes or Hummer? Where are the demands for economic or financial analyses to justify the cost effectiveness of those vehicles? (And ditto for many factors affecting the price of a home, or any other purchase.)
But I get brown outs and blackouts at non-peak times such as the middle of the night, just after dinner time, and before breakfast regardless of the season.
I have the old model Prius and my father who is 6'6" used it to take a trip down to Florida (I live in Ohio). His head was touching the roof I think, but he had no complaints and didn't have to turn his head to the side to drive or anything like that. Admittedly my dad and your wife make have different bits of them at different lengths that made it workable for my dad but impossible for your wife.
Are the seats fixed or adjustable in the new model you tested?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Every day. My wife uses hers to transport equipment for her business and I commute to work. You could make the argument that I could sell my vehicle and buy a car (actually I also have a 2-seat sports car), but what would be the point? It was paid for long ago, is reliable and comfortable and SUITS MY NEEDS just fine.
This is the point that you, and so many more, ignore. Just because a more "efficient" solution exists, doesn't mean it's desirable. Most people have more than just subsistence requirements, and we don't all want to be martyrs to a cause.
I wasn't attempting to justify anything. The only "justification" I need is that my wife and I have determined that the vehicles fit our requirements.
What I was responding to was your comment that the previous poster's use of his SUV didn't bother you because he needed it to carry all those people and things. If that makes it OK in your mind, then you need to give everyone else the same benefit of doubt, since you don't know what they are doing in their vehicles when you don't see them commuting to work.
It's very easy to look at anything you don't like and make specious claims that it's hurting you. Someone having their house warmer in winter, or cooler in summer is "using more energy than they need" and hurting you. People who won't recycle could be hurting you. etc. But no one focuses on the things done that actually are helpful. I won't use Chemlawn, etc because (a) I don't believe that I need perfect green carpets around my house and (b) I'm concerned about chemical runoff that ends up in the many lakes around here.
You remind me of the people who would glare at me in the supermarket checkout line when I said "plastic" to the "paper or plastic" bag question. Sure, I may not be using the environmentally friendly (?) paper, but look at my purchases vs. theirs. I buy mostly raw meat, veggies, milk & fruit versus their carts full of every industrially processed food product known to man. But I'm the bad guy cause I think plastic bags are easier to carry and I can reuse them to take my lunch to work.
Your post made me do some more research. I was off. It's substantially better, but still there. 70-92% efficiency. The problem comes from not being able to get things as close together as in a sealed transformer. Conductive systems are qouted at "usually over 92% efficient", Inductive chargers are quoted at "Although inductive charging systems may have a peak efficiency of up to 92%, this efficiency drops off substantially with power level. If EVs are frequently "topping off" at lower power levels staff believes that the overall charging efficiency of inductive systems will be much lower."
It also incures extra cost in needing a $2000 system to provide the connection.
source
240 volts x 30 amps = 7,200 watts. I really don't see why you couldn't either. Unless you are a complete dumbass about it 240 volt electric out of a dryer/range socket is no more dangerous then 120 out of a household one. Hell, it's good enough for Europe....
I looked up some data, a EV1's power cells seem to be rated at around 30kw/h. Five hours at 7000 watts give you 35kw/h. You generally don't want to push an electrical circuit right up to the breaker blowing point regularly, so give it 6-8 hours. 8 hours at 25amps gives you 44kw/h of power, easily enough to charge the batteries from 'dead' to 'full'. And you're not paying $2k for a charger, you're paying maybe $200 for a electrician to run a 220 socket out into your garage.
It also gives you a chance to charge your car at, say, a friend's or relative's house, you just 'borrow' their dryer socket, as that tends to be near the garage. It might take borrowing the garage and a heck of a extension cable, but it can be done. An external switchmode power supply could make the cable quite a bit lighter(up it to something like 400 volts), and allow you to 'trickle charge' if all you can get is 110.
I don't read AC A human right
One would have thought that after events in the recent past more people would have a clue as to just how badly munged the power distribution infrastructure is in much of the country.
Those plastic bags are also great for incidental use in those Bathroom tiny cans.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Haahahaha!
Ooops! Err... Sorry, I guess you weren't really trying to be ironic were you?
Consider our real world case: We bought a RX400h which costs ~$5K more than a comparably equipped RX330. If we had bought a ML500 instead of a ML320, the delta would have been ~$10K; the result would have been more HP and worse gas mileage. With the RX400h, we get more HP and better mileage. In fact, 50% better mpg than our RX300. Following the Mercedes ML example, I can justify the RX400h higher price just by better performance. When we sell the RX400h, it'll retain 50% (at least) of purchase value, so true out of pocket cost is $2.5K (ignoring time value of money in a world of 3% money market rates). Going from 15.5 mpg with RX300 to 23.5 mpg with RX400h (our real world experience with thousands & thousands of miles of real data), we save $72/month at 1,200 miles driven per month and gas at $2.75. Breakeven is less than 3 years. Again, this assumes zero value assigned to much better performance. Take into account real-world $2K tax break and effective out of pocket cost is now $500, or just 7 months of ownership...again, this assumes zero value assigned to much better performance. It's a no brainer...RX400h any day over gas-only RX.
Followup: I couldn't find an equivalent fuel economy site for Europe, but this official-looking site:
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/
has a bunch of data on UK fuel economy. Of course, they use a different testing methodology over there, which makes comparisons against the US figures somewhat problematic. If we assume the difference in methodology isn't critical, we can use the Prius as a calibration poiunt against the more fuel-efficient cars in their database.
Toyota shows the US Prius as having a 55 MPG combined city/highway rating. Converting that to Imperial gallons so we can compare with the data on the vcacarfueldata.org.uk site, that's 66 MPG (Imperial). Their chart shows 65.6 for the Prius, which seems like a pretty fair match.
Okay, so what gets better mileage than the Prius?
* Citroen C1, C2, C3 (with 1.4 Diesel engine)
* Renault Clio (with 1.5 Diesel engine)
* Fiat New Panda (with 1.3 Diesel)
* Honda Insight (the other high-MPG gas-electric hybrid)
Okay, ignoring the Insight (which is a two-seater, and a gas-burner, anyway), the best of these is about 5% better in overall MPG than the Prius. To be fair, some of them do have substantially higher Extra-Urban (highway) ratings. Probably any of the Citroens on the list would get better MPG on a relatively-long highway trip than my Prius does.
It's worth noting that all of these cars are substantially smaller than the Prius, though. Like 3 feet shorter, half the luggage space, that sort of thing. These are *tiny* cars.
All of the diesel cars produce roughly 5-20% more CO2/mile than the Prius, and 10-40 TIMES as much NOx pollution. With those sorts of numbers, I'm pretty sure I won't be seeing these on the roads in California any time soon...
Anyway, to get back on point - there are certainly cars available outside the US which get better gas mileage than the Toyota Prius, but there's nothing magical about these cars - they're just small cars with Diesel engines.
And it's not like the majority of cars "over there" are way more efficient than the Prius - these are specific fuel-economy-focused models of smaller cars.
That SUV's will be rare and Electric engines will be commonplace.