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."
only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
That is to say, everyone and everything on the planet.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
sometimes it's as simple as walking your kid to school 3 times a week. just a little nudge in the right direction from many people and the planet wins. Small steps towards the benefit of mankind.
heck, I'm learning to Rollerblade, this way I can skate to work 2 times a week. it's an idea that I might end up liking a lot.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that I'm living elsewhere and have a longer drive to work, I've looked into alternatives to save fuel. There's no carpool/vanpool from my house to work and public transportation is out of the question (It's possible, but involves a 3 mile drive to train station, three trains, and 2 hours).
For now I'm stuck with my Honda Accord however at 33MPG I can't complain, even if gas was $3 a gallon again. I noticed that when gas prices were over $3 a gallon, most of the people complaining were drivers of SUVs and pickup trucks. I personally don't have a problem with gas being $3 or even $4 a gallon. The cheaper the better, but the net effect of higher gas prices would be lower consumption. I still miss the days when $10 would get me over 300 miles with my 89 Honda Civic!
Re:only winner (Score:4, Insightful)
-nB
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
While the colorized graphs and tables* are a nice bonus,
it is incredibly refreshing to see something with proper citations posted to
This is truly News for Nerds.
Note to CmdrTaco, ScuttleMonkey, et al:
We'd appreciate more articles like this
*wonder what software package he used.
Pretty Graphs But the MATH is Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
Many thanks for pointing out that when the environment wins, so does everyone else.
While it might not be the cheapest technology out there, even the article that allegedly "debunk" the cost effectiveness of hybrid technology goes a long way to show that environmental options are not the money-draining nightmare they have been presented to be.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding this "Math Behind the Hybrid Hype" article, did it include saving related to lower vehicle maintenance costs? Nobody ever mentions these things, which I believe will reduce repair/replacement costs:
1) The brake pads will wear less because of regenerative braking
2) NO transmission repair costs, it uses constant mesh planetary gears instead
3) minimized eng wear because the electric motor handles high torque demands
4) minimized eng wear because the engine is spun up BEFORE any cylinder ignition
5) minimized eng wear because the engine fires 2 cyl and then the other 2 on start
6) The engine was designed lighter because of the shared load so bearing wear is reduced
7) minimized eng and exhaust system wear because of first 5 minute warmup cycle
The site is down so I can't verify if he included these in his "math" but since even other Prius owners don't seem to consider these, I figure he missed it too. BTW, I own a 2001 model Prius and it has been a very reliable car so far and we expect more of the same. We will know if that continues since we typically keep our vehicles for 10 - 15 years.
And I agree, anything which opens eyes to environmentally better consumables is a good thing.
LoB
Re:only winner (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly, this particular analysis is only looking the economic factor, which anybody who's ever priced out a hyrbrid knows that owning a gasoline car is still cheaper.
It would be interesting to see a similar paper on Total Environmental Impact.
Gas-only cars burn more gasoline, which means not only more pollution from the car's exhaust, but also more demand for oil refineries.
A hybrid car requires less gas, but it also has a massive battery which will need to be disposed of safely in a few years. What would it be like to manage the disposal of these batteries if there was suddenly tens of millions of such cars driving around?
I'm sure things would still favor the hybrid by a pretty good margin, in spite of issues like this, but it would be interesting to see a complete comparison. (One that is not from somebody trying to sell us on the idea of owning a hybrid.)
Re:only winner (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Yes, Toyota and Honda are using NiMh so far. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes, Toyota and Honda are using NiMh so far. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? If that were the case, almost zero hybrids would have been sold. The math in this article is not rocket-science, he is stating the obvious, and I imagine 98+% of the people buying them are full aware of the simple economics. I think your point may be valid for many, but certainly not all. Many, many people have bought hybrids (or are considering one), paying a definite premium, solely because they believe they are doing the right thing for the environment and the next generations of earth inhabitants.
It definitely does factor into many (not all) consumer's decisions.
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:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be interesting to see a paper on Total Economic Impact including environmental costs. It has always bugged me that environmental impact papers don't generally include the cost of asthma-related hospitalizations, increases in lung cancer, the detrimental effects of acid rain on equipment, etc.
The kyoto protocol was one way we've put a price on air pollution. How much would the equivalent amount of environmental pollution cost on the open market?
Re:only winner (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, some controversial estimates of casualties from Chernobyl ran into the hundr
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
Its emissions will be the same as any other 4cyl car as well.
The mentioned incentives to allow hybrid cars to use the HOV lanes actually hurts since they see thier best fuel econ in stop and go traffic.
For real high economy, low enviromental impact look toward diesels for the time being. New diesels produce much lower emissions (sometimes better than thier unleaded counterparts) get excellent gas mileage (north of 40mpg for many models). Further by desgin diesel engines are multi-fuel so when the next replacement for dino fuel comes around, most likely your diesel engine can run it with little or no modifcation.
Yes a diesel engine costs more, it will also last longer and be more reliable than gas engines. Not to mention for the real geek you can make your own fuel for pennies a gallon.
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)
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:4, Interesting)
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: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: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:only winner (Score:4, Interesting)
The prius battery is actually quite small- about the size of a small suitcase. It is composed of 280 D cells (actual consumer D cells were used in the initial Japanese models). In terms of energy, it holds about a HALF A CUP of gasoline. This is all that is needed to smooth out the peaks and valleys of energy demand during stop and go driving, thus allowing a smaller (hence more efficient) gasoline engine.
>What would it be like to manage the disposal of these batteries >if there was suddenly tens of millions of such cars driving >around?
Recycling. The nickel in the NiMH batteries is valuable enough that recycling pays for itself. They can be melted down and used again and again and again... The electrolite is plain old
potassium hydroxide; caustic but no more "hazardous" than bleach.
For an outstanding whitepaper on the prius drivetrain (including mathcad models), see:
http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/MyToyotaPrius/
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:only winner (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with gas guzzlers in the US can be traced back to three things: GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Every time the subjects of efficiency standards and pollution come up, the big three automakers whine and say they'll lose money.
Re:only winner (Score:4, Insightful)
4 people carpooling 50 miles in a Prius.
This paper = economics sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:This paper = economics sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
With a proper and more full economic analysis you would include costs to the environment (say the cost of cleaning up extra pollution, or the opportunity costs of using the oil for gas, or economies of scale when more people purchase hybrids). Poor analysis isn't the fault of economics, it is the fault of the economist.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
I once looked up the amount of pollution caused by the manufacture of a new vehicle. It has a significant environmental impact.
I once calculated the environmental impact of driving an old junker versus buying a new car, and driving the old junker for five more years ended up being ahead of the new car.
Re:only winner (Score:3, Informative)
Re:only winner (Score:4, Interesting)
Prius and Insight are small saloons, which are much more aerodynamic. They typically get 50-60MPG.
Running cars on hydrogen is easy. Storing enough hydrogen to get a decent range is hard. Generating hydrogen efficiently is harder. Similarly, pure-electric cars have been around for over 100 years, but no-one's yet found batteries that'll hold charge comparable to a full gas tank, or a recharging system as effective as a gas station. Partly the problem is lack of research, and a major reason for lack of research is a lack of "environazi" pressure on governments to wake up and smell the CO2/NO2/particulates/smog. Cost-wise and energy-density-wise, gasoline is a great solution, it just happens to have the problematic side-effect of screwing up the environment (both locally and globally).
Grab.
Re:only winner (Score:4, Interesting)
That is to say, everyone and everything on the planet.
And the oil companies and the auto makers who get to wring some more life out of their outdated internal combustion technology.
Wikipedia's article on battery operated vehicles is pretty damn interesting. Why was that technology abandoned? There's no reason why with modern technology we couldn't build an all-electric car that had comparable performance to any hybrid (they already did in every category save range) and similar range (the missing piece). Who here wouldn't own a battery powered electric vehicle if it had about 300-350 miles of range?
In fact such a car would probably be cheaper (subtract the internal combustion engine, replace it with a nearly maintenance free electric motor(s), possibly subtract the transmission, subtract the cooling system, add batteries) and a lot easier to maintain -- brakes/wheel bearings/etc would be the only items left -- and the brake pads could last a lot longer with regenerative breaking.
I still think it doesn't happen because it would put too many people out of work in Detriot/Japan/Germany -- and to a lesser extent because of the oil influence. But that's just my paranoia. Wish I had the investors and the wherewithal to give it a shot on my own.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not enough range for half a million drivers in Saskatchewan, and it wouldn't do well in winter. A hybrid can provide heat to the passengers without an electric heater which might be too much strain on a vehicle's battery?
I'm not saying battery cars shouldn't proceed to be adopted, but not everyone can have one for what they need.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Also, where can you plug in to recharge? In an apartment without reserved parking, you can't guarantee being able to get to a plug. I can imagine most landlords having a problem with long extension cords running across the parking lot.
If a gasoline-powered car runs out of gas, the driver can hitch a ride to a station and back with a couple of gallons. What do you do when if/when your batteries run out? Getting towed is expensive.
The early electric cars were also just plain ugly [ieee-virtual-museum.org].
Re:only winner (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect time and availability of recharging are factors.
They are factors but not insurmountable ones. For 95% of your activity simply recharging your BEV overnight would be good enough. Think about it -- you go to work (30 miles in my case -- that's probably average for the US), work all day, then you go home. Even if you go out and party until last call your car still has several hours to be recharged before you go back to work.
Also, where can you plug in to recharge? In an apartment without reserved parking, you can't guarantee being able to get to a plug. I can imagine most landlords having a problem with long extension cords running across the parking lot.
And that should stop Detroit/et all from investing in this technology? Those are hardly insurmountable problems. It's not a big leap of faith to picture "BEV friendly" apartment complexes or worksites.
If a gasoline-powered car runs out of gas, the driver can hitch a ride to a station and back with a couple of gallons. What do you do when if/when your batteries run out? Getting towed is expensive.
Well there's no reason to run out of gasoline or battery power other then stupidity on the part of the owner. I've never run out of gas.
My whole point is that this technology should not have been abandoned. Why isn't it still being researched? What about that new battery chemistry that we read about awhile ago that recharges to 90% in only a few minutes? Could that scale into BEV sizes? Why the hell isn't nobody researching and building these things? I would buy one -- so would a lot of other people.
Hell, if Detroit would invest half the money into BEV technology that they spend on marketing for the H2 and Grand Cherokee.....
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.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
And for the other 5%? A range of 300-350 miles between recharges means that I can't make any plans to travel any further than ~150 miles as the crow files from my home. That's not even enough to make it from New York to Boston and back. What will become of the Great American Road Trip?
It's not a big leap of faith to picture "BEV friendly" apartment complexes or worksites.
Yes it is. Hell, very few communities in the US even provide BICYCLE LANES. If an environmentally-friendly travel device that's nearly 150 years old can't make any headway, what are the odds that a brand-new, much more expensive device could? Between zero and nil.
Well there's no reason to run out of gasoline or battery power other then stupidity on the part of the owner. I've never run out of gas.
Congratulations, you're not stupid! You may have noticed, though, that many motorists ARE stupid. How do we deal with them? Pretending they're not there or not important isn't an option.
My whole point is that this technology should not have been abandoned. Why isn't it still being researched?
Oh, I'm sure it still is -- just not with plans for bringing it to market in the near-term. Even if current all-electric tech meets YOUR needs, the industry's research has convinced them that the technology isn't ready for prime time.
Maybe in 10-15 years.
Re:only winner (Score:5, Insightful)
As is with just about EVERYTHING in life, moderation is always better than extremism. Large companies that drive market forces should still strive to pollute as little as possible, and anyone that things that the world is fine and not in need of a little love from newer technology is crazy. Anyone that thinks we shouldn't strive to develop newer and better technologies that do in turn pollute less is truely delusional.
Please excuse the bad spelling in this post.
Re:only winner (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I can approve of moving from total relian
Re:only winner (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because gasoline is a commodity, not a utility. Anybody with a well can put crude on the market, and anybody with an operating refinery can purchase the crude and distill it, then sell the products which consist of everything from asphalt, heating oil, natural gas, to plastics. While we have organic equivalents to all of this, oil is just so cheap...
I tend to prefer the coop model for utilities, which generally consist of water, sewar, gas, electricity, telephone, and maybe cable. Roads in a sense as well. Those items where running a seperate network for compitition just isn't going to happen. Telephone and cable are starting to have competitors, as new technology allows them to compete with each other, and things like satellite and cell phones allow competitors to enter without having to run a network.
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 r
Re:The environment also loses. (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting...I've had my Prius for over 2-1/2 years and over 75,000 miles, and I haven't had to replace the battery yet. The battery carries a 100,000 mile warranty, and is designed for the life of the car.
Where does the 2-4 year number come from?
Re:The environment also loses. (Score:4, Funny)
Well, I'm not going to be left out. I think you hog the left lane, and you're an inconsiderate driver. You're a jerk, a complete kneebiter. Just shut up already with your "fact" and "figures" and "evidence", dickhead. We have no use for them on slashdot.
Depends where you live (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Depends where you live (Score:3, Interesting)
Do THAT many people, in general, really give a damn about the environment? I think most people after the hybrid cars these days are going for it primarily for the gas savings. The price at the pump is driving sales...and while I would guess the 'greeness' of the cars is a nice benefit, it isn't the driv
Mass transit is only useful for 10% (Score:3, Informative)
More details on exactly why here:
http://mrprecision.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-public -transport-cant-work.html [blogspot.com]
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:Depends where you live (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, your comment just makes you look like a fool.
Um, that all depends on the usage... (Score:5, Interesting)
e.g.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002197.html [futurepundit.com]
Conventional mass transit isn't the answer. Packetised mass transit is... [washington.edu]
Re:Depends where you live (Score:3, Insightful)
Wife is angry => Buy her some diamonds
Children are screaming => Buy them McDonalds
The environment is collapsing => Buy a car
Re:Depends where you live (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how that follows at all. Is your argument that people use public transport because of the cost? In my experience (UK) it's usually cheaper to drive, especially if the car has more than one person in it. I take the bus to work each day, and that's much more expensive than the car.
So why don't I drive to work? Well being sat in a traffic jam isn't my idea of fun. Given the choice I'll take sitting down with the paper. Most European cities weren't designed for cars (especially at current volumes), so maybe that's why we use public transport more.
Re:Depends where you live (Score:5, Insightful)
Not much to do with oil prices; more to do with infrastructure. I can't imagine getting by in the US without a car, unless I was based entirely in one of the larger cities, say New York. Otherwise, how are you to get to the mall to buy food and clothing?
"only" (Score:5, Insightful)
"In the end, it seems the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment"
And that isn't enough?
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.
Re:"only" (Score:3, Insightful)
Upgrading from v4->v6 or v6->v8 has a similar markup to buying a hybrid.
So affording a hybrid is not the limiting factor here; the world would be a better place if every unnecessary SUV was replaced with a comparable hybrid (even if it was a hybrid SUV).
buying a new car is almost always a losing bet (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:buying a new car is almost always a losing bet (Score:3, Insightful)
It compares fuel based savings versus cost of repayment which is incorrect.
You should compare versus combined depreciation + cost to run.
While the overall conclusions may end up being the same the numbers are likely to be quite different.
It's not the money (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
So True (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
Take these stats for what they are meant to show (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Take these stats for what they are meant to sho (Score:3, Insightful)
The "environment" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The "environment" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always fascinated by the capacity of the US citizen to asked to be taxed further.
Re:The "environment" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The "environment" (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the arguement is that Europe "taxes the bejesus" out of their gasoline in order to encourage mass transit and energy saving vehicles.
In the U.S., while in principle this would be a good idea, there just isn't the urbanization that there is in Europe. European cities aren't built for car commuting - hell most of them had to be upgraded for horses 1400 years ago. Narrow, winding streets, and cobblestones, do not encourage cars. In the U.S., everything is younger, and most of it is built to accomidate cars, with wider streets, etc. As a result, the U.S. has always had that huge suburban and rural population that drives into work. In many places, there just isn't a mass transit option. I lived in metropolitan Memphis for a long time; there's no mass transit to speak of there, other than an aweful bus system. It's too close to the mississippi and too close to the water table for a subway (no one has a basement in Memphis). But, you know what they do have? A "beltway" (I-240) and a LOT of parking.
It's only feasable to use mass transit for everything if you live in one of the cities like Washington, DC, which has an excellent metro system and inbound rail system, or New York, who's subway system, while not pretty, can get you anywhere you need to go.
Driving places is a culture in America. Very few of us live close enough to walk, or even bike, to work. A friend of mine told me about an exchange student from Estonia whom he befriended, and how when they went to D.C. one day, and Dimitri saw the "Springfield Interchange" (the Mixing Bowl), it flipped him out. A road that's seven lanes wide in each direction, with flyover ramps going everywhere, people merging at 60 miles an hour 10 feet apart... it was like nothing he'd ever seen before.
Raising taxes on gas to $6-$8/gal in the U.S. would crush the economy. We're just not built for it. We're slowly emphasizing mass transit and there's been a small movement towards local community envolvement (i.e. not driving 50 miles to work, but working where you live), and we'll get there... but let's not get drastic.
~W
Re:The "environment" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the kind of rationalization about wars that scares the hell out of me.
If you have to go to war repeatedlly to maintain your energy policy, despite having being bitten once 30 years ago, then something must be wrong with your policy. Especially when alternatives to oil already exists.
It's just that the populations of Islamic societies don't want to be in contact with Westerners.
This blanket generalization scares me even more.
But just to say oil is evil, etc. is not a solution.
Nobody is saying oil is evil. It is the irresponsible use of a limited resource, in an enviromentally damaging way, maintained by a myopic national energy policy which uses wars as a policy tool, that is evil.
Re:The "environment" (Score:3, Insightful)
Please define "underpricing" for me. With the oil companies making record profits [google.com] it seems there is plenty of room for the price to go down. That strikes me as "overpricing".
Or are you thinking along the lines of a nanny state where the children aren't doing what the gov't thinks they should so is going to raise taxes through the roof as an "incentive for proper behavior"?
-Charles
Re:The "environment" (Score:5, Insightful)
With respect to this line of reasoning, the big white elephant in the room is the environmental costs. What is the point of enriching a nation if it become toxic in 50 years? What need to be happen is for the global economy, not just the US, to come to some concensus on the future of energy availability. More and more signs point to peak oil occuring now or in the next 5 years. That means from now on (or not far from now) energy will be a premium commodity and the costs associated will inflate. Inventing efficient gasoline cars is a useful tactic to stem the tide of oil scarcity, but oil is still dirty. Technology like fuel cells and hydrogen power must be the focus. Preserving the oil economy is folly.
Many people realise this and have argued that the global oil economy is a disastrous thing. I, for one, have no confidence that it will change, however. We are addicted to oil. Everyone in the developed world is addicted to oil. We are not going to stop. It is like an alcoholic who drinks himself to death. He knows he is killing himself but he keeps drinking. That is us. We will use oil until the world is toxic or the economy collapses plunging us into chaos. I'll be dead by the time it happens but unless there a radical shifts in the next ten years I think we are doomed.
So, to single out the US oil stategy is unfair. We all suck.
Have a nice day.
Re:The "environment" (Score:3, Interesting)
While I appreciate your concern for the environment, I'll draw the line somewhere before we say that burning gasoline (or other hydrocarbon-based energy sources like coal and oil derivatives) in accordance with a 'cheap energy' bit of economic planning has the capacity to make the nation or the world 'toxic'. You have license to shout all you want to about global warming and CO2 emissions and melting glaciers which may or may not be ove
Re:The "environment" (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I currently pay $2/gal and $1 of that is tax
2. The US is over twice the size of Europe so that does present some barriers to public transportation.
3. Actually, I agree with you in principle, just wanted to make the above points.
Re:The "environment" (Score:3, Interesting)
That's obviously a loaded assumption because no one puts the effort into actually making a public transportation that does not suck, so people stick to cars, thus not stimiulating interest in public transportation
Re:The "environment" (Score:3, Insightful)
How is that problem "fundamental". And I'd wager that "Fundamentally" there is a problem with the way Europe is overpricing fuel. "Fundamentally" The problem is that you think the government should have a say in how much fuel costs, when "Fundamentally" the price of fuel is the same everywhere, the only difference is other governments are making a lot more in revenue off of it than America is...
"Until the US starts to tax gas
Re:The "environment" (Score:4, Interesting)
And for those of us who drive fuel efficient cars and can't afford the gas already, you recommend what course of action?
How about we just tax the hell out of SUVs? Take the average lifetime of an SUV in miles, multiply it by your gas tax hike, and add that to the sticker price. Roll it into the loan payment. Make it apply only to cars that get fewer than x miles per gallon, with the limit announced a couple years in advance so that manufacturers aren't left with a bunch of unsellable inventory all of a sudden. Drop the x by a mpg per year until you get your target mileage. No punishing people that are already struggling that way. Punishes people who drive their SUV 8 blocks a year, sure, but there's not that many of them. There are plenty of poor people, and they're already in rough shape.
Faulty Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
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...)
Re:Faulty Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
depreciation and resale (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Only one solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well, duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
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...]
Missing some required data (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Missing some required data (Score:3, Interesting)
Economic sense? Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It might get you some ass... (Score:5, Funny)
well that depends... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Does the environment count for nothing? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as maintenance costs -- both have been excellent.
More Math Problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Math Problems... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:most fuel-efficient? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll second that.
Not only do VW TDIs get phenomenal fuel mileage, they also make power. Something hybrids do not do. Granted, I modded my TDI, but it's making 300 ft lbs of torque and still getting 45 MPG. If VW actually built an anemic TDI (that is, one that only made as much power as your average hybrid) I would bet it would double the fuel economy.
Diesel motors are more efficient by design. They have lower exhaust temps (less energy wasted through heat) and they don't have a throttle (when your foot is off of the throttle on a gas car, you've turned the motor into a vacuum pump - again, wasting energy).
That being said, why hasn't anyone built a diesel-electric hybrid car? Surely it would maximize power & economy?
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.
Comparing diesels and hybrids (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
As one of those hybrid owners... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Incremental cost (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.