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."

Comments

Re:Depends where you live

[urmensch]

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.

Okay, I'll try to explain again more clearly, why I find this statement offensive.

I'm considering buying a hybrid right now. Why? Because I live in Carrborro, NC. USA. There isn't any serious public transport, though we are working on it. I'm not pretending buying a hybrid would save more energy than a rail system. But it helps. When I've lived in American cities with such systems, I've always used them. But your statement isn't realistic, and I have to get to work somehow.

I was called a fool in a reaction to my reply, but I think your comment is condesending.

Re:only winner

[FlimFlamboyant]

>> the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment.

> That is to say, everyone and everything on the planet.

In the end, I think the only real winner will be the auto makers, and only for a short time.

Think about it; in 5-7 years, all of these hybrids are going to need new batteries; VERY VERY expensive batteries. That means the used car market will soon be saturated with hybrids with old batteries that won't take a charge. That means that in a few years, people on low budgets will be driving cheap used hybrids (cheap because they'll depreciate VERY quickly) with dead batteries, winding their 50hp gas engines up to 6000RPM just to get around. That means that in the end, we're using just as much fuel as we did before, only now, we have craploads of old, dead batteries to dispose of. THAT means, the environmental impact is at least as bad, or even WORSE than what we had originally.

Re:This paper = economics sucks

[mjh]

Cost and pricing, according to economic theory, are supposed to represent actual real-world values of labor and resources consumed to produce something.

Only for those who continue to espouse the labor theory of value. IMHO, that theory has been thoroughly debunked. a few examples

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.

My only comment to this is that environmentalists frequently fail to account for the economic impact of their recommendations. Which do you think is worse: the death of 50% of the population due to lack of economic resources or the death of 50% of the population due to destruction of the environment?

The world continues to ramp up nonsustainable consumption of all resources

But pricing will take care of this. And this is very basic economics. It involves the laws of supply and demand. As the supply of the resource decreases, it's cost will increase past the cost of the next best alternative. At which point, everyone will stop using that resource. In other words, we will never (ever) run out of oil. It will, at some point before we run out, become to expensive to use. So no one will use it. No government regulation required.