Slashdot Mirror
Just One Out of 16 Hybrids Pays Back In Gas Savings
thecarchik writes with this snippet from GreenCarReports:
"One of the criticisms of hybrid cars has historically been that there's no payback, especially given the cheap gasoline prices in the US. The extra money you spend on a hybrid isn't returned in gas savings, say critics. Well, that may be true, especially when regular gasoline is averaging $2.77 a gallon this week. But as we often point out, most people don't buy hybrids for payback — they buy them to make a statement about wanting to drive green. Nevertheless, a Canadian study has now looked at the question of hybrid payback in a country whose gasoline is more expensive than ours (roughly $3.70 per gallon this week), with surprising results. The British Columbia Automobile Association projected the fuel costs of 16 hybrids over five years against their purchase price and financing fees. In a study released in late July, only a single one of the 16 hybrids cost less to buy and run than its gasoline counterpart."
The one car that would save you money, according the study, is the Mercedes S400 Hybrid sedan — and it will only cost you $105,000.
Not if you buy a used hybrid.
So the time frame is only over 5 years? Cars can and do last longer than that. Also the comparisons are against the non-hybrid equivalent (Camry Hybrid v Camry, Fusion Hybrid v Fusion). What did they compare the Prius to since it does not have a conventional equivalent?
The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities. That is, if you conveniently ignore the cost of our climate warming up, and the cost in blood and treasure of maintaining access to oil, then sure, the hybrid costs more. Bicycles are even cheaper, if you ignore the cost of your time and of becoming a smear on the expressway. How about hitchhiking?.
Well, you're half right. It's not about saving money. It's about trying to use less fossil fuels, even if it costs a little more. Because there are longer-term and indirect benefits. And yes, it's also about making a statement. But it's not ONLY about making a statement. It's about taking necessary first steps. Without early adopters paying more (which "early adopters" always do, especially in the world of high tech gadgets), the road wouldn't be paved for the masses down the road. Do you think the people who bought the first PS3's did it because they thought it would save them money in the long run? It's not ALWAYS about saving money.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
From what I understand, nickel (used in Prius batteries) mining is much more polluting than burning hydrocarbons. (Which the Prius still does occasionally)
There is more to enviromental impact than what comes out of the tailpipe...
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
The thing is, if you are TRULY concerned about the environment (and must drive a car), then you would buy a used car.
The amount of energy and resources and toxic chemicals involved in the car manufacturing process FAR outweighs any "statement" you make with a hybrid.
And if you REALLY REALLY care about the environment, you would carpool, or take the bus (if it's available), or walk or ride your bike.
What I'm saying is, you aren't being "green" by buying a hybrid. You're just pretending. You're a poseur.
There's a reason that gas cars are cheaper. The oil companies are not stupid. They know the price point at which alternative fuels become competitive with gas and they keep the price a little below that. The price of oil is not high enough for anything else to compete....and it'll stay that way barring government interference. It's good for oil companies, they're rolling in the dough. It's good for consumers, gas is cheap and plentiful. It's good for politicians, their voters are happy with them. When glitches happen to the fuel supply and price drives high then all sorts of alternative power supply comes out of the woodwork. The price never stays high for long though. No one wants expensive fuel.
Or, he's thinking of the long term rather than short term. If his buying a hybrid kicks in to the car companies that they should make hybrids and they do, then in the long term it will create much more efficient cars everywhere rather than just his one bike trip back and forth to work and the store.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
A $80,000 sports car is also unique. People are willing to pay premiums for all sorts of things. They'll pay premiums for the status of driving a car that's worth twice the yearly income of a working-class family. They'll pay premiums to drive cars that use four times the amount of gasoline to travel one mile as other cars, just to make it look like they can afford it. They'll pay premiums for "sports cars" to make it look like they're younger than they really are.
You want to talk about "smug"? You ever talk to someone who lives in the city and drives one of these huge SUVs that look like locomotives? You ever talk to someone who drives one of the new Bentleys or Aston-Martin DB9s?
All of those things, status, looking young, looking wealthy, they're all subjective and illusory reasons to buy a car. So why do you have such a problem because someone wants to pay a much smaller premium to drive a car that is more fuel efficient? Even if the premium is never payed for by the differential between fuel economy and price difference. Do you really think the guy with the $170,000 Bentley or $2.5 million Bugatti Veyron is ever going to get enough pussy to pay for the difference in price? Do you believe the "he-man" type who drives his F250 pickup around downtown is ever going to realize the difference in his gasoline costs in make-believe macho?
If people can express their "personal values" by stapling teabags to their hats and carrying racist signs, what's wrong with expressing their "personal values" by driving a fuel-efficient car?
You are welcome on my lawn.
In fact, the case for all the hybrids near the top (Civic, Prius, Insight) is very close, and several assumptions in the study are fairly arbitrary. It seems clear we are within a year or two of a new headline, "non-hybrids fail to provide savings." At that moment will everybody not driving a hybrid be accused of wasting money just to project an image of wanton wastefulness and pollution? I find the argument rather silly. People spend $1500 on leather upholstery and another $1200 on a fancy stereo system, and nobody complains. But spend an extra $290 to avoid emitting thousands of pounds of CO2, and suddenly you're some kind of leftist rebel.
"People spend $1500 on leather upholstery and another $1200 on a fancy stereo system"
Nobody is complaining about people spending money for an option that lets them express their opinion and show their feelings about the environment. I think what the discussion is centered around is whether hybrids will save the owner any money. The evidence appears (to me) to say that if you do save any money, it's less than you think.
I think that's a reasonable discussion to have.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Except that as of 2008 Toyota reported that they had sold a grant total of... 0 batteries due to wear and tear.
Nickel isn't polluting, it just sits there. Presumably you mean the production of a few hundred pounds of NiMH batteries, containing (if I recall correctly) about 20 pounds of nickel. Note that the chrome and steel in a regular car already contains nickel, and that the real toxic villain is the lead-ACID battery in a conventional car
So what makes you think the pollution from manufacturing a few hundred pounds of recyclable batteries is remotely comparable to the TONS of gasoline and CO2 saved over 100,000 miles by driving a more fuel-efficient car? Repeating crap you've heard doesn't make it true.
=S