The Math Behind the Hybrid Hype 1194
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."
Re:"only" (Score:3, Informative)
The less people that can afford the car, the less hybrids that will be out there. Not everyone can afford the $3,000 markup that hybrids carry, and especially when they're told it won't save them the cost of said markup over time.
They don't sit in landfills, though (Score:2, Informative)
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.
most fuel-efficient? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Mass transit is only useful for 10% (Score:3, Informative)
More details on exactly why here:
http://mrprecision.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-publi
Re:only winner (Score:3, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:2, Informative)
The graphs are fairly nice though, and don't say Excel so much. I think they could be GNUplot or some derivative product...?
But I agree, the citations are nice. A step above the usual vaporware press releases or hype journalism, anyway.
Re:The environment also loses. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
That's oil cartel/Detriot propaganda talking. There are people driving battery operated vehicles from the early 90s (that's right BEVs -- not hybrids) that say they still get similar performance out of the batteries as they did when they first bought the car. Hybrids are new enough that it remains to be seen how well the batteries will hold up.
In any case the recycling programs that already exist for batteries (in particular, lead-acid car batteries) are hugely successful. There is no reason other then pessimistic cynicism to assume that these programs couldn't scale to successfully recycle all batteries related to automotive technology without releasing harmful chemicals into the environment.
What's easier to control? The chemical leakage out of a recycling plant with measures in place to prevent it or a tailpipe on your SUV?
Re:only winner (Score:5, Informative)
I think that hybrids generally use NiMH, not lead-acid batteries. For instance, the Toyota Prius [wikipedia.org]. But I think that NiMH batteries are just as recyclable.
Not lead-acid, and fully recycled. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Nice apples-oranges comparison (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Faulty Comparison - smaller than a civic (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:most fuel-efficient? (Score:2, Informative)
diesel releases much smaller amounts of greenhouse gasses (CO_2, CO, SO_2, etc)
diesel releases more particulates that contribute to smog and cause asthma.
so you're right in part.
anyway. the reference was to fuel efficiency.
Re:More Math Problems... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:5, Informative)
Current hybrids use Ni-MH batteries, which aren't particularly toxic from a disposal perspective, and, more importantly, conatin valuable metals that can be recovered through recycling.
Toyota, for example, pays a $200 "bounty" for dead batteries, because the nickel in them is quite valuable.
Ni-MH is probably the most "eco-friendly" battery technology. It's certainly worlds better than Ni-Cd.
Re:only winner (Score:3, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite. The Prius, for example, uses a power-split device that allows power to be directed from the engine through two motor-generators and the battery. This eliminates the need for a traditional transmission.
If you have a 40 min highway commute the 4cyl gas engine is going to be doing most of the work and you wont even see the improved gas mileage of a hybrid.
While hybrids are essentially conventional vehicles at high-speeds, they are conventional vehicles with engines that are appropriately designed to supply sustained power necessary to maintain speed. Because of the electric system, there isn't a need for a large, inefficent motor to provide acceptable accelration.
The Prius, for example, uses a 76hp I-4 engine that uses the Miller cycle. Such an engine would be highly underpowered in a similar weight conventional vehicle.
Its emissions will be the same as any other 4cyl car as well.
The Prius, 2006 Civic Hybrid, Highlander Hybrid, and Escape Hybrid are all AT-PZEV certified. While there are some PZEV certified conventional vehicles (e.g. certain models of the Ford Focus), they are rare. The Prius and other PZEV vehicles are cleaner than non-PZEV vehicles, even at highway speeds.
New diesels produce much lower emissions (sometimes better than thier unleaded counterparts) get excellent gas mileage (north of 40mpg for many models).
No production diesel can currently meet California emission standards in the US. Mileage per gallon cannot be compared between diesel and gas as a measure of effiency because diesel has over 30% more energy per gallon than gasoline.
NOx emissions are particularly problematic with diesel engines. The higher compression ratios create considerably more work for the catalytic converter.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in the United States.
Are we in the same country?
Are you thinking percentage recycled, or mass recycled?
"Over 70 million metric tons of asphalt paving material is recycled each year. Today, asphalt pavement is America's most recycled material." from http://www.hotmix.org/history.php [hotmix.org]
Re:Depends where you live (Score:5, Informative)
No, unfortunately in Europe our population distribution is massively unbalanced, squeezed into tiny mega-cities constrained by historical boundaries, that have great public transport, and everyone who lives in a rural area gets f**ked over.
My local bus timetable [carlberry.co.uk] (local being two miles away). Yup, that's right; Tuesday-Friday we get 1 bus a day; you can go, but you can't come back until tomorrow. On Mondays we get two busses; sadly they go to different places so you still can't get home. No busses at all on Saturdays or Sundays. None of these busses go within 5 miles of where I work. None allow bikes on board.
Given the total lack of understanding of rural communities by European townies and so-called "environmentalists" (who, ironically, usually have about as much knowledge of the countryside as I have of the Docklands Light Railway), quite frankly I'm just waiting for the day when they draw up the cattle trucks to forceably relocate all country folk to London. No doubt the townies would still complain about the cost of housing even then (CLUE: stop all trying to live in one small space, duh).
Re:only winner (Score:2, Informative)
You bet. Keying someones vehicle often ends with a mouthful of broken teeth in the keyer's mouth - or a jail term. "Repercussions" indeed.
Wave your environmental flag all you want, educate people and make a positive contribution. That's all great. Descend into vandalism or worse, and you deserve what you'll inevitably get.
Re:Depends where you live (Score:2, Informative)
I see this asserted periodically, but I've heard that it's not necessarily true for ordinary (non-hybrid) city buses that burn diesel fuel -- that all the stops and starts can give fuel efficiency that's actually worse per person than that of automobiles. There are secondary effects in the buses' favor (more people taking buses might lead to fewer traffic jams), but I'd like to see some real data before taking it on faith that mass transit is always better environmentally.
Re:Depends where you live (Score:2, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. The current diesel fuel standards in the US prevent the cleaner diesel engines from being sold. The engines exist and are being sold everyday in Europe. It's our dirty diesel fuel that is holding them back. Thankfully our diesel standards are set to go up in the next year or two which will open our markets to these very efficient and clean diesels.
Re:only winner (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Vanity (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, mr-stereotypical-SUV-driving-cellphone-talking mcdonalds-sucking-American-corporatist-pigdog, some of us actually do care about the environment.
Very few people can tell that I use all CF lighting in my home and pick my CPUs based on power consumption (Athlon 64 all the way, baby!). My lawn "only" looks healthy, not the bright-chemo-green I could get by dumping fertilizer and weed killer on it. No one but me can tell that I go out of my way and pay more to fill my (SO's) car with B20 biodiesel. That I use biodegradable laundry detergent and non-chlorine bleach. That I manually duplex all my printouts, thus using only half the paper (and for personal use, I'll even do 2- or 4-up per side as well). That I post on Slashdot using 100% recycled electrons.
You can't tell any of those things from a casual observation (well, I suppose if you came into my house you might notice the color of the CFs rather than incandescents). Therefore, I can't possibly have a "oh, look at me saving the environment! Look, look, I care!" motive. Nor can you attribute it (like the FP) to purely financial goals - Some of those save me money, some cost me more. The net gain goes straight to helping YOU breathe better.
Unfortunately, I suspect that more often than not, you have it right. But hell, I'll take even the slight improvement of faux-environmentalists over a proud SUV owner any day.
Re:only winner (Score:2, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's not the money (Score:3, Informative)
When it's warm we usually are in the 50's on average. In really hot weather with an ideal traffic pattern, and a driver interested in maximizing battery usage, it's pretty easy to hit 60 MPG
The 66.5 I quoted was one particular commute, my wifes actually, she arrived home and beeped the horn, refusing to shut off the car until I came out to witness the 66.5.
Re:The environment also loses. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:5, Informative)
And that somehow nullifies the comparison? Why?
And, your data is completely wrong. Diesel contains 139,000 BTU/gallon. Gasoline contains 124,000 BTU/gallon. (both figures rounded to nearest 1000) That's about 10%, not 30%.
However, the diesel combustion cycle is MUCH more efficient than most gasoline (Otto) combustion cycles. The Atkinson and Miller cycles can increase gasoline combustion efficiencies, but usually in a narrower operating region. THAT's where the difference comes in.
NOx emissions are particularly problematic with diesel engines. The higher compression ratios create considerably more work for the catalytic converter.
And continuing studies show that NOx emissions are not the "root cause" of air pollution that scientists once thought they were. "Cats" on diesel engines are near worthless, and NOx is almost completely handled by combustion technology. Run a modern diesel on 100% biodiesel, and even the emissions argument goes out the window. Your "net" CO2 emissions are drastically reduced (they would go to ZERO if the biodiesel production uses methanol derived from an organic source instead of natural gas.) Someone also addressed the cost "premium" of buying a diesel vehicle. The cost for the diesel upgrade on the new Passat is $255 (you read that right, two-hundred fifty-five 'murican dollars), and the reward is roughly 35% better fuel economy, and the ability to run on a renewable, sustainable fuel. How much over MSRP are people paying for Prii again?
Re:only winner (Score:4, Informative)
First, electric engines have a much higher limiting efficiency than combustion engines, at almost any power output. Simply put, electricity is easier to turn into mechanical motion than the chemical energy in hydrocarbons. That means power-hungry drivers can get the power they love at lower energy cost.
Second, by using gas for cars, we are committing ourselves to running two parallel and totally non-interoperable energy distribution infrastructures, which in itself is massively wasteful and polluting, quite aside from the polluting output of the hydrocarbon energy. At least when it comes to motion-making (the converse of #1 is that electricity to heat is a very poor conversion), we should be pushing for a combined distribution system, with modular inputs and outputs. This compatible-architecture gives you the same kinds of benefits as the Internet: open standards for energy are good just like in software.
Given that a perfectly functional electricty infrastructure already exists, getting power to most commuter cars is pretty straightforward: some digitally lockable power cords at your parking garage or meter that can deal with charging for power. Or some system of exchanging drained batteries for charged ones. None of which is that hard, particularly if the gov't chips in some $$$ to get the ball rolling.
Third, the most promising portable energy solutions all point towards electric engines: fuel cells, hydrogen, etc. So we should be getting as many kinks as possible worked out of electric car engines, including performance, disposal, fabrication supply chain, etc, as they are the future.
The fact that an implementable technology like batteries has been completely shunted aside in favor of vapordrive is indeed infuriating.
GM and Ford did a Diesel-electric hybrid... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:only winner (Score:2, Informative)
Article's comparisons are very short sited (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:only winner (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_i
just hit google... (Score:2, Informative)
toyota's recycling initiatives [toyota.co.jp]
hybridcars.com's FAQ [hybridcars.com]
treehugger.com article with some good resource links [treehugger.com]
seriously, man, use your noodle.
Re:The "environment" (Score:1, Informative)
What? Since when did 9,631,000 sqkm (US) become larger than 9,938,000 sqkm (Europe)?
Re:The real cost of transportation (Score:5, Informative)
But profits can't be judged by dollar amounts alone. What counts is the percentage of revenues those profits represent. "Our numbers are huge because the scale of our industry is huge," Exxon CEO Lee Raymond tried, probably in vain, to explain during last week's big Senate hearing on oil company profits. Exxon's profits last quarter amounted to 9.8 cents for every dollar of sales. Is that obscene? Well, it was more profitable than Shell (which netted 7.8 cents of each dollar of revenue) or Chevron (6.6 cents) or BP (4.6 cents). But compared to Coca-Cola (21.2 cents), Bank of America (28.3 cents), or Microsoft (33.2 cents), it was nothing to write home about.
Oil companies invest billions. getting a billion (or even 100 billion) isn't that much. The government, on the other hand has "made" $2.2 trillion on gas taxes. Thats money you and I could have spent elsewhere.
The government doesn't have enough to maintain roads? That's because the so called transportation money goes elsewhere - even money spent on transportation is more likely to go to new projects as that gets better visibility. Repairing roads isn't sexy and it doesn't get you votes.
Re:only winner (Score:2, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:5, Informative)
Replacement costs are down to about $3000 [greenhybrid.com] now.
Also Toyota warranties the battery for 100K miles/8 years... at the end of said time, I'm sure the replacement cost will be much lower. Where did you get your $7000 figure?Re:The environment also loses. (Score:2, Informative)
My personal experience (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:only winner (Score:1, Informative)
Just curious, but what happened to good people putting their own money where their ideas are? Why are there so many calls for the Govt. to chip in "$$$" - (by that I assume a six-digit or higher amount of tax dollars)- to initiate change in economy? I don't remember reading that Henry Ford was subsidised, or that the Govt. gave $$$ to that-(at the time)- special-interest group to build the infrastructure.
If this is such a good thing, (which I think it is), why don't people initiate it themselves? If they believe in it so much, why don't they use their own money instead of using the taxes of the general populace who don't agree with them yet?
this is not a troll, I am seriously wanting to know where the risk-takers are hiding, and why they are not jumping on this 'great idea?' The reason I hate seeing money funneled from the Govt. to is because when the Govt. does give $$$, it tends to be less than half as effective. (ie. To get the same effectiveness, the Govt. spends three to four times as much $$$ as a private company.)
I agree, mostly (Score:3, Informative)