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.

Comments

That's how the market is supposed to work.

[synaptik]

That's how the market is supposed to work.

Ideally, the invisible hand of the market would price the hybrid vehicles higher than their non-hybrid counterparts, to such a degree that the hybrid's price discounts the future value of the gasoline saved over the vehicle's lifetime. If the market didn't do this, an arbitrage opportunity would exist... and arbitrageurs would act upon it, which would have the effect of raising the price of the hybrids anyway.

Obviously this will never work out perfectly outside of academia, but if you had a crystal ball and all future prices were knowable by all parties in the present, this is how the pricing would work out, all other variables held constant.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[lgw]

A hybrid is a unique sort of car: it has a special cargo area to haul your smug around! It has never been about saving money, but about the very American idea of expressing your personal values through your choice of vehicle.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[SpryGuy]

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.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[NeverVotedBush]

Sigh. Personally, I think it is about saving money and using less fossil fuels.

I bought a 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid after running the numbers. I broke even at around 27,000 miles and it's been gravy since then.

I didn't take the price difference as between the base Civic and the HCH because the HCH was much closer to the EX version in terms of features. I got a $1500 tax rebate, did not have to pay excise tax, and until I switched to Michelin tires, was getting 50-54 mpg. The closest I came to that mileage before was with the Civic HX where I got 42-44 mpg.

This was also through the time that gas creeped up over $3.50/gallon and such, but it worked for me.

In fairness, my hybrid battery did need to be replaced at 67,000 miles but that was done under warranty and didn't cost me a penny. Spooked me a little though since the repair cost would have been $5000 instead of the $1500 the dealer had told me a replacement pack would cost at the time I bought the car. On the other hand, there are rebuilders out there who will take a bad pack apart, replace the dead cells, match all the other cells, and give it back to you for around $700.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[Rei]

Let's look at their numbers for the Prius comparison. Competitor: Toyota Matrix XR

Matrix cost listed: $21,800 CAD
Prius cost listed: $27,500 CAD
Matrix total 5-year cost listed: $38,606 CAD
Prius total 5-year cost listed: $40,324 CAD

Assumptions: Total cost includes purchase price, financing, and fuel costs at $1.17/l ($4.43/gal CAD), less rebates. Does not include maintenance or insurance costs. Annual driving distance is 20,000 km (12,427 mi).

Stats: I couldn't find a 2010 "Matrix XR". There's a "Matrix XRS". Heck, let's just assume that they mean the most efficient 2010 Matrix, which is a manual base model that gets 26/32mpg. The 2010 Prius gets 51/48mpg.

Fuel consumption calculations: Given these numbers, the Matrix should consume 429 gallons per year at $1,898 for five years for a total of $9,492. The Prius should consume 251 gallons per year at $1,112/yr for five years for a total of $5,561. The difference, then, is $3,931 CAD. I don't know what "rebates" or "financing" costs they're assuming, but their combination of rebates and financing seems to be approximately a net zero, so the rebate value must be low and the financing costs high.

To quote Billy Mays, however: "But wait, there's more!"

Unlike in this study, a vehicle doesn't just vanish into thin air after five years. The average age of a vehicle on the road in the US today is over 9.5 years and rising. Hence, the projected lifespan until the vehicle hits the scrapheap is about 20 years. So the total fuel difference is actually $15,724 CAD. Some last longer, some shorter. And even if your argument is, "well, I'll just sell my car after five years" -- that leaves two options:

1) The low cost of gas the Prius provides will be reflected in the resale price; OR
2) The buyer of a new Prius may get a bum deal, but the buyer of a used Prius gets a correspondingly *excellent* deal.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[Technician]

The study assumed several things and was way too narrow in scope.

I bought a 2002 Prius at 1 year of age. The purchase cost covered all maintenance for the first 100,000 miles. Some other cars do that too. I commute 30 miles one way to work. The study was limited to the first 5 years of a new car purchase. This covers the depreciation of driving it off the showroom floor which I have never purchased.

Now for some stats, I'm averaging 46 MPG. I have driven 135,000 miles. I'm well into the gas payback as this purchase was planned to be kept until the wheels fall off. The payback not covered in the study has been maintenance.

I have had to buy the usual replacement sets of tires. No savings there. Oil changes are less frequent. Some savings there. I have had to replace the small 12 volt battery twice, about the norm for a car that age.

Now compared to cars the same age I used to drive.. I have had no need to change any belts, hoses, starters, water pumps, brake pads, etc. The sum total of items failed has been the bulb in the dome light.

Due to the lack of a starter motor, this is won't ever be a repair bill. The car has only one belt, the AC belt. The new model eliminated that belt. There is no belt driven water pump. The electric pump has been very reliable. The regenerative breaking drastically reduces brake wear. At my 80,000 miles tire change I checked the brakes and had 80% remaining. They will need changed at about 200,000 miles. The car has a linear electric motor for the power steering assistance, not hydraulic. Hose and pump failure won't happen.

The mechanical portion of the transmission has less than 10 moving parts, none of which is a clutch, band, or disk, or friction part. A mechanical transmission failure is very unlikely. If the hybrid battery pack fails, it is less expensive than most transmission replacements. I will be unlikely to need to replace the entire pack. Replacing a failed 7.2 volt module from the 36 module pack is much more likely. The modules are recyclable. Finding a used one at the same age of the rest of the pack won't be too difficult.

I am well into the payback period and loving it. My wife's car of the same age has already been in for a couple repairs exceeding $300 each.

I bought the car knowing that low repair bills was part of the payback. I figured the payback for 100,000 miles at the time I bought it. The gas prices then was at the 2003 gas prices.

The short sighted report listed a 5 year ownership. It did not list a 100,000+ mile study. I did my study when gas was under $2/gallon. Over the life of my car ownership, the gas prices were higher as anticipated and the payback period started well before 100,000 miles. The Prius replaced another smaller 4 cylinder car, not a large gas hog.

If you counted the first five years of my car's ownership, the study would have been correct as the payback period was just being reached.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[PopeRatzo]

A hybrid is a unique sort of car:

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?

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[BitHive]

Not true, if we followed the teachings of Austrian economics, we would know that it's the academics who try to model economic activity who are to blame for the failure of the free market, which, if left unchecked, would make us all rich.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[timeOday]

In the report, the Civic hybrid didn't quite break even during their arbitrary 5 year cutoff, but it was very close (-$290), and that was with no tax incentives. That car would have shown a positive return if they had even extended the time window to 6 years, or assume it was driven slightly more miles per year. (They also placed the value of a 37% reduction in CO2 emissions at $0.) So, the case for the Civic is very easy to build.

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.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[TooMuchToDo]

Current hybrids don't make economic sense except in extreme or lucky circumstances, or when your net benefit is based on government hand-outs.

Kind of like gas-only vehicles only make sense with hundreds of billions of dollars in government hand outs to gas and oil companies? God forbid you have to pay the $8-12/gallon true cost of gasoline instead of the $2.50-$4/gallon subsidized price.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[TooMuchToDo]

Market price is not the *true cost*.

This report by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are notreflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in other sectors. The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies;(3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, results in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14

.

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

That is only one example. Feel free to Google "true cost of gasoline."

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[tkrotchko]

"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.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[im_thatoneguy]

Except that as of 2008 Toyota reported that they had sold a grant total of... 0 batteries due to wear and tear.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[Skippy_kangaroo]

Very, very wrong.

Rolling resistance is not related to the coefficient of friction of the rubber. It is primarily related to the suppleness of the tyre casing allowing it to roll over minor variations in the road surface without giving up lots of energy in heat associated with the deformation of the tyre. (It is also related to inflation pressure - which is one reason why car manufacturers recommend you maintain your tyres at optimum pressure.)

These sorts of tyres are well know for bicycles and the effects can be dramatic and noticeable when it is your own legs supplying the power rather than an engine. Indeed, the tyres with the lowest rolling resistance also tend to have the stickiest rubber. When I ungraded my bike tyres I got: lower rolling resistance, better cornering, and better wet weather performance. On a bike at least, they also give a more comfortable ride because you are not bouncing over the micro-contours of the road nearly as much.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[sumdumass]

Have you even read the study? If so, don't you find it strange that the biggest subsidy counted besides the idea of the entire military and defense budge that they fallaciously claim is around only to protect oil producing state (I guess history and the cold war means nothing to them), is the road use tax which is applied directly to the people using gas in order to maintain the roads and build new ones? I mean why are they counting something as a large as they are simply because it passes through to the government before the oil companies benefit from it? If it went straight to the oil companies and they had to build and maintain the roads, we would be paying about the same amount if not just a tad bit more.

And the idea of tacking the costs of roads onto the subsidy list is ridiculous at that. Roads were around long before oil was in the economy. In fact, it was so important, it's actually in the US constitution as something the federal government is supposed to fuck with. Roads are needed for transportation no matter what the fuel or power source is and will exist with or without oil. Should we start taking this costs onto the costs of hybrids or Plug in electric vehicles too seeing how they don't pay the same amount of tax or in some cases none of the tax that goes to maintain and build roads?

If you can read that study and make any statement with the word true in it, you are either lying or stating where the study is wrong. the little nit pick about the fallacious costs of defense spending and a tax specifically designed to maintain and build roads and be paid for by some who use them in certain ways as being a subsidy, there are all sorts of other problems with it. Most if not all the tax breaks are because the government wants the oil companies to do something they wouldn't already do. The percentage depletion allowance isn't actually a subsidy at all, it allows them to deduct a portion of their lease payments based around the decreased value of the lease as the oil is removed. This is actually a penalty because in all other businesses, the entire lease payment is deductible as a cost of business. The non-conventional fuel production is a tax break only if they produce non-conventional fuels and develop uses for them that would benefit the economy. Without the tax break, the program would simply not exist as they are typically losing ventures. The immediate expending of exploration and development costs is not a break at all, it simply allows the costs to be deducted sooner then in a normal setting. The only advantage here is an interest break on capital loans because of short payback terms. The enhanced oil recovery credit only exists to get oil companies to drill in leases that aren't readily accessible or when something makes then non-profitable to produce oil from a well. This actually benefits the government as it allows more leases to remain active generating revenue in excess of the tax breaks.

The so called study is a load of hog wash passed off as fine filters spring water. You may not know the difference, but anyone without an agenda and the ability to pay attention will.

Re:That's how the market is supposed to work.

[stewbacca]

I bought a 2002 Prius at 1 year of age.

I didn't buy my first car until I was 19.

Misleading summary

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

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.

The retail price of that car seems to be ~$80k. The given figure includes gasoline costs over time.

Re:Misleading summary

[NonSequor]

Sir,

    You also forgot to factor in the cost of money. I.e., if you banked the $5000 instead, you'd have that much more money at the end of the car ownership period. In 10 years at 7%, that $5000 becomes almost $10,000 (depending on how you compound the interest.)

Yeah... um.... I don't think you should be using 7% for personal finance TVM calculations right now.

http://finance.yahoo.com/bonds/composite_bond_rates

Well.....

[HappyCycling]

Not if you buy a used hybrid.

Re:Well.....

[Bigjeff5]

There is still a price gap of a couple thousand dollars, which will still take about a decade to make up. Buying a used civic hybrid instead of a used civic will only take you 10 years to make up the difference, instead of a new civic hybrid vs a new civic, which takes 30+ years, but it's still a long time, and the car already has wear now.

Re:Well.....

[Technician]

AC flame bait, or someone totally disconnected from reality.

Laptop batteries are maintained for long run time, not long life. They are deep cycled. Fully charged and then deeply discharged. Both reduce battery life. The battery in my car is rarely charged above 80% and never discharged below 50%.

Im still running on the original 8 year old battery and have over 135,000 miles on it. The AC is spreading FUD that plagued sales from when the Prius first hit the US market. The rate of battery replacements and costs ate both below the frequency and cost of a standard automatic transmission.

http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f13/toyota-hybrid-150-000-mile-battery-life-15002/

UK gasoline (petrol) currently approx $6.60

[fantomas]

Well here in the UK my local garage is selling petrol/gasoline at 1.20 GBP / litre, there are 3.79 litres to 1 US gallon = 4.55 GBP / gallon, x 1.45 (pounds to dollars) so we're at $6.60 /US gallon. You can probably find it for 1.17, a few pennies cheaper, but probably it's around the 1.20 mark give or take a tiny bit across the country. Rest of Europe probably similar.

So quite a difference from the 2.77 you pay in the USA and so hybrids perhaps more economically viable here.

Re:UK gasoline (petrol) currently approx $6.60

[name_already_taken]

Hence why Americans like to drive cars with 6L v8s and can afford to drive a truck to work everyday.

Some of them. Last time I looked it up, the average engine size in the USA was in the 2.5L to 3L range. There are a lot more small-displacement cars on the road than there were 15 years ago.

Re:UK gasoline (petrol) currently approx $6.60

[Monkey_Genius]

The reason you pay such high fuel prices in the U.K. is because your government is gouging the bloody hell out of its citizens with taxes. The U.S. has historically had significantly lower taxes on fuel than the rest of the free world. That being said, crude oil and wholesale gasoline prices in the U.S. are inching their way back up despite record high inventory levels and reduced demand due to the prolonged recession. Those of you who are paying less than $3.00 USD per gallon here in the U.S. should consider yourselves fortunate.
The pundits in the financial press attribute much of the recent run-up in prices to the falling value of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies such as the Euro. While this may account for some of the upward price pressure, much of the gains are due to hedging of currency risk by large firms such as Morgan Stanley -the same bastards that were responsible for bidding the price of crude to record highs in the summer of 2008 while that squint Bush was telling the world it was the Chinese and their demand that was responsible for the high prices.

Short Study Timeframe

[Sponge Bath]

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?

Re:Short Study Timeframe

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. My car is 16 years old, and my wife's is 10. What kind of moron only keeps a car 5 years? Even if the original owner sells it, it generally lives a long life with the subsequent owners, unless it's some POS that falls apart right after the warranty expires. Toyotas are generally known for having very long service lives (as long as they don't have a stuck gas pedal incident....)

Re:Short Study Timeframe

[oldspewey]

Another possibility: you don't know anything at all about the personalities and motivations of the thousands upon thousands of individual hybrid drivers out there, and you're just making things up because it's intellectually convenient for you to do so.

Only true if you ignore the externalities

[guanxi]

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?.

Re:Only true if you ignore the externalities

[God'sDuck]

...there are benefits gained by riding on even a semi-regular basis (ie, fitness).

Serious benefits. For all the biker-putty on the roads, the mortality stats I've seen show that even casual bikers have longer life expectancies, since the odds of getting roadkilled are so much lower than the odds of being killed by heart disease.

Re:Only true if you ignore the externalities

[vlm]

The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities.

I'm used to the modern digital world, where everything is available for free and you only pay for something if you want to reward the folks whom made it.

My buying choice was to either:

1) Send $3000 to the Japanese, whom will spend the profit on formulaic movies about women and tentacles

-or-

2) Send $1000 to the Saudis, whom will bankroll their citizens into flying aircraft into our tall buildings.

I'm much happier sending a little more to the Japanese than a little less to the Saudis.

Five years!?

[rnelsonee]

Well, it usually takes over 100,000 miles to break even, so the study, which only considers 5 years, is fairly useless. On a thread last week, someone calculated that a Prius will take 320,000 miles to to break even (and I checked the math, as we all like to do!). And the average Prius will last longer than 5 years - especially since those with a "greener" lifestyle know how bad buying a new car is for the environment.

I'd imagine about half of the cars pay back the owner in fuel costs. And it's obviously variable as gas prices are fairly volatile lately...

Sounds like most "1st Gen" tech.

[El_Smack]

Think of today's Hybrids as the equivalent of the first iPod. "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." It's the 3rd and 4th gen of these vehicles that will blow everything else out off the road, in a matter of speaking.

I didn't buy one for the payback

[Lank]

Look, is it so hard to believe that someone would buy a hybrid to make a statement not to others, but to the car manufacturers making these products? I own a Honda Civic hybrid. It's not much to look at and it certainly doesn't turn heads. On the other hand, I bought it new from a Honda dealer in California when they were trying to push a lot more expensive cars on me. Why? Because I want Honda to know that I'd rather be green than cool or hip or whatever. I want Honda to know that it's important to ME so in the future they'll make cars better-suited to ME.

From one of the linked articles, "Translation: The kinds of people who buy Toyota Prius hybrids in the U.S. may indulge themselves in private, where no one else will see them, but want to be seen in public with less luxurious, greener products to bolster their reputation."

I call bullshit. I didn't do it to bolster my reputation. I put my money where my mouth is and instead of getting on a soapbox and telling everyone to go out and buy a hybrid, I actually bought one.

I don't care that I probably spent more than I'll recoup from the fuel-efficiency. For me, it wasn't about that.

Re:I didn't buy one for the payback

[realmolo]

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.

Re:I didn't buy one for the payback

[ArsonSmith]

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.

Flaws in comparisons: Unique cars & trim level

[Anonymous Freak]

They have flawed comparisons in their "hybrid-only" cars.

They compare the Prius to the slightly smaller and noticeably less well appointed Matrix XR. The Prius has a unique spot in Toyota's lineup, falling between the Corolla and Camry. The Matrix may be closest - being basically a Corolla wagon, but it is still smaller. The $1700-over-5-years buys you more than a $1700 upgrade in car size and appointment.

Same with the Honda Civic DX-G vs. Insight. The Civic is a smaller, less well appointed vehicle, the upgrade to an Insight is more than worth the $1200-over-5-years difference.

Not to mention they quote some of the hybrids at higher-than-base packages, while the conventional equivalents are base. (Or they compare versions that have higher-than-base stock to the base conventional, such as all the Lexus models - which all come at higher-than-base packages compared to their non-hybrid equivalents. The LS coming at 'fully loaded' as the only choice on the hybrid.)

Re:Financial vs. environmental cost

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

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...

Other conclusions

[JustinOpinion]

The actual numbers are quite interesting. The study seems to be doing a decent job of adjusting for other aspects of car quality and features. To do this, they directly compare hybrid and non-hybrid versions of various cars, or very similar cars by the same manufacturer when this is not possible.

What's interesting, to me at least, is how small the "hybrid loss" actually is for many of the popular models. The extra cost to buy and operate a Toyota Prius, over the Toyota Matrix XR, is apparently $1,718 over 5 years, or $343/year. This isn't that much to a person who cares about the environment. Consider, for instance, that this will apparently reduct CO2 emissions by 1242 kg/year. This means that it "costs" the environmentally-conscious consumer about 28 cents per kg of CO2 reduced. Doesn't sound too bad.

Also worth noting is that the vehicle costs were apparently based on MSRP. Thus any incentive program (e.g. government rebates) only have to be on the order of a few thousand dollars to make the hybrid cheaper overall. I would, personally, prefer it if the hybrid technology were cheaper no matter what (so that there was no excuse not to buy one), but the fact that the extra cost is so small makes it fairly reasonable to subsidize it in the name of environmental protection. (Or, conversely, taxing more-polluting vehicles or energy sources for the externality of environmental damage they cause.)

Again, I think it's well-known that it's generally cheaper to do environmental damage, and more costly to protect the environment. But I see these numbers as being very encouraging: the technology is now at a point where the extra cost of hybrid technology can be made quite small. (For instance it's only $290 extra over 5-years to own and operate the Honda Civic Hybrid vs. the Honda Civic EX. That shows how close we are to hybrid vehicles being cost competitive with conventional vehicles, even without government rebates.)

Not an accident

[amiga3D]

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.

Re:Not an accident

[JohnFx]

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.

Dragging out the tired old oil company conspiracy again huh? So the car companies co-operate with this evil plan despite an overwhelming demand for a product that they could profitably sell, to prop up another industry? I suppose that works under the assumption that all big companies are evil, and thus colluding to screw the planet like some evil super-villain alliance. In the real world, I severely doubt that type of cartel-esque arrangement would hold up long. Forgive me, but I only see the Quid, but the pro quo seems to be missing in that arrangement. Gas never stays expensive long because it is still extremely plentiful, and so far the most efficient way to produce mechanical energy for mass consumption.

Hybirds are half-assed.

[fyngyrz]

I'm not in the least interested in buying a hybrid. I want an all-electric car. I want a normal-size car that can do 80 mph uphill, and has at least 300 miles of range at typical highway speeds. Get the price under 50g, and I'll buy it. With any luck it'd become a family heirloom. The only dealings I want with petroleum are for lubrication and manufacture of the plastic parts.

I'd love to buy a Tesla, but it's just too small, and let's face it, a wee bit on the expensive side.

Too bad EEStor turned out to be a bust... ultracapacitors could solve this whole battery mess pretty easily if they just had adequate energy capacities. Everyone else is in the "discovery" phase, which usually translates to "impractical." Not that manipulating a (very) high voltage energy source for use in low voltage, high current motors is all that easy anyway. That whole (E = CVV/2) thing is a cast-iron bitch on a number of fronts.

Oh, well.

Re:Hybirds are half-assed.

[rk]

I want a spaceship that runs on my kitchen garbage that can fly to Mars in 3 hours. I want it to cost 500 bucks and generate gold and platinum as waste products.

I figured if we're going to fantasize, I might as well go for broke.

Re:Hybirds are half-assed.

[socsoc]

Can I preorder?

the Nickel myth

[spage]

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.