New at Reason

David Weigel | July 19, 2006

Shikha Dalmia explains why hybrids have all the fuel efficiency of Hummers at fully 1/10 the coolness.

Comments

|7.19.06 @ 3:30PM|#

Hummers live for 300k miles? Yeah, sure. And that still doesn't change the fact that those beast are inherently less maneuverable, and carry more mass than passenger cars, making them more dangerous in the hands of poor drivers (that is, the majority of people on the road).

|7.19.06 @ 3:31PM|#

So?

Why do people buy things which cost far more than they can afford and does more than they will ever need or use? Like cool computers or big screen TVs?

Why not? (so the hell what if it costs more.)

A key angle here is First-Adopter irrational egoism. Think Sharper Image Catalog-ers.

The next key angle are Tinkerers, who will buy anything if they think they can make it better.

And it can get better...these two key angles drive the whole Bettah' Business.

|7.19.06 @ 3:57PM|#

From Shikha's article"

But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars.
It is not possible to do this with a specialty product like hybrid.

This strikes me as a less than compelling argument against hybrids. Wouldn't the problem be alleviated if there were more of them?

|7.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Including the planning is totally unfair. The hummer was just a civillian conversion of an existing car, while the R&D for an entirely new drivetrain is going to be huge. I call shenanigans.

|7.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Including the planning is totally unfair. The hummer was just a civillian conversion of an existing car, while the R&D for an entirely new drivetrain is going to be huge. I call shenanigans.

|7.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Including the planning is totally unfair. The hummer was just a civillian conversion of an existing car, while the R&D for an entirely new drivetrain is going to be huge. I call shenanigans.

|7.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Including the planning is totally unfair. The hummer was just a civillian conversion of an existing car, while the R&D for an entirely new drivetrain is going to be huge. I call shenanigans.

|7.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Including the planning is totally unfair. The hummer was just a civillian conversion of an existing car, while the R&D for an entirely new drivetrain is going to be huge. I call shenanigans.

|7.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#

I wonder if the study included the hidden costs of heavier vehicles on road repair expenses? As well as insurance rates? ...the Number 6 makes a good point on the hidden accident costs due to more massive vehicles with poor visibility (of others), combined with poorer handling and iffy brakes.

speaking of brakes, in development is hydraulic regenerative braking; which is based on a resevoir of pressurized transmission fluid being used to capture and release braking energy. It is seen as a more efficeint and lower cost alternative to current electrical hybrid systems...which have been hampered by battery patent issues which limit their potential.

|7.19.06 @ 4:13PM|#

Something about this analysis seems dubious. As others have pointed out, averaging certain fixed costs over small sales numbers is not entirely reasonable. It's not clear to me whether the analysis accurately distinguishes between marginal impacts and average impacts. There can be a significant difference.

I'm not concluding (for now, anyway) that the analysis is wrong, but I'm skeptical.

To be honest, the thing that makes me most skeptical is the notion that the amount of energy used in producing the car is comparable to the energy used while driving it 100,000 miles. This is where marginal vs. average distinctions become particularly important.

The analysis could be right, but it seems somewhat questionable. I'd really like to see some replication here.

fyodor|7.19.06 @ 4:14PM|#

Ken Silber's point, echoed by bago, occurred to me, too. But I'm skeptical of the whole idea that the "design and development energy costs" can be so significant in the first place since I believe I've heard that something like 60% of air pollution is caused automobile use. Even if it's only 30%, I don't see how the development of an automobile could pollute nearly as much as its use. Did Mr. Dalmia exercise the kind of skepticism towards this study he would exercise towards one that did not tell him what he wanted to hear?

|7.19.06 @ 4:18PM|#

Ouch, this article, it hurts so very much.

1. 100,000 mile warranty on battery != 100,000 mile vehicle life.

2. Relatively few people who are considering a midsized vehicle like a Prius would settle for a tiny compact like the Aveo.

Dare I continue?

I give this article, and this intern, a F-, or maybe even a G.

|7.19.06 @ 4:24PM|#

Did Mr. Dalmia exercise the kind of skepticism towards this study he would exercise towards one that did not tell him what he wanted to hear?

fyodor, I was trying not to go there, but I guess you've opened the can of worms.

I will need to take a careful look at the analysis at some point. I will be most curious about distinctions between marginal and average. They can matter a lot. A whole lot.

Again, I'm not saying the study is wrong at this point, but I sure am suspicious. Not because of ideology, but because it seems rather surprising that making a vehicle would use roughly as much gasoline than driving it for several years.

Finally, if one wants to get into the realm of ideology, why is it ideologically preferable to assume that cool new technologies are worse for the environment? One could argue that the ideologically correct stance is very strong optimism about cool new technologies and their performance, and an assertion that technological advances almost inevitably lead to cleaner technologies.

Or one could skip the ideology and detect a strong whiff of BS here.

|7.19.06 @ 4:28PM|#

Congrats bago. That's the first time I've seen more than three duplicate posts. Most of us manage only two identical posts total. You got five.

Dan T.|7.19.06 @ 4:29PM|#

I agree that there seems something wrong about including the costs of planning and designing the new vehicle.

If nothing else, if it costs $50 million (random guess) to design a hybrid, wouldn't the cost of the vehicle's planning drop slightly each time one was sold?

Also, wouldn't the true cost of designing a Hummer require you to go back to the beginning of automotive time since so many elements of any new car are modifications of previous innovations?

|7.19.06 @ 4:30PM|#

I think this is a good example of what happens when a researcher cherry-picks data that support a foregone conclusion.

fyodor|7.19.06 @ 4:34PM|#

I do take the point that pollution may be hidden and that what sounds green may not necessarily be so.

That's why fining polluting activities based on their level of harm would be valuable, because it would make such issues more or less moot, or in a sense self-regulating.

|7.19.06 @ 4:35PM|#

If nothing else, if it costs $50 million (random guess) to design a hybrid, wouldn't the cost of the vehicle's planning drop slightly each time one was sold?

No, Dan, the planning would still cost the hypothetical 50 million...again, I (think) you meant that the cost of production goes down each time one is made. if it cost 50 million (that is you spent it already) how does it then retroactively go down?

Where did you learn to write?

|7.19.06 @ 4:36PM|#

I would like to see an apples to apples comparison against diesels. That is the question of the day, not whether it is better for the environment to use a Hummer.

|7.19.06 @ 4:38PM|#

Look. Want me to pay a premium on a vehicle? Don't tell me I should do so for the good of humanity. Give me a good reason to pay the premium. A major discount in energy costs would be a good start.

* * *

Full automation and safe flying capabilities would work even better. In fact, I'd buy one right now!

|7.19.06 @ 4:39PM|#

I, too, call shenanigans. A Civic Hybrid driver will hardly incur total costs of $50,000 over 30,000 miles of driving, much less $100,000 in energy costs. This includes the purchase price, gas and maintenance, vehicle registration and prorated taxes to build and maintain roads, and any other transportation expense you can think of. Remember that the purchase price must compensate the automaker and everyone in the supply chain and the sales channel for their production costs (including design and development costs, including labor costs which ultimately help the autoworkers drive to work, etc). Maybe the automaker is losing a few thousand on each hybrid they sell and maybe someone in the automobile or the gasoline supply chain is getting squeezed and losing a little money, but there's no way the automaker or the oil companies or the repair shops are subsidizing the hybrid driver for tens of thousands of dollars (not for very long, anyway). And there may be a government subsidy for roads, and it may even be large, but the net subsidy is small since the subsidy may only be produced by taxes, so there's no way that the government (or the non-driving taxpayers) are paying this extra cost. So where are the resources to pay these massive supposed energy costs coming from?

|7.19.06 @ 4:40PM|#

I'm pleased by the skepticism here. In the past I have complained (perhaps a bit excessively, I'll admit) about selective skepticism regarding scientific and technical issues on this forum. This is one case where I have no complaints. People are raising very good points in this thread. And they're doing so in a manner that arguably runs counter to certain stereotypes.

|7.19.06 @ 4:42PM|#

For the record, I had some questions about the article, too, but I have marginal time in which to make comments. And, as many here are aware, I never pass up an opportunity to comment on robots or flying cars.

It's almost like peer review!

grylliade|7.19.06 @ 4:42PM|#

To be honest, the thing that makes me most skeptical is the notion that the amount of energy used in producing the car is comparable to the energy used while driving it 100,000 miles.

It might be, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. Even if it is, though, it's not as meaningful as it might seem at first. The energy used in producing the car can be produced in a stationary power plant, which will be more efficient and less polluting than the engine in the car. Plus, the energy used in production can be made from cleaner energy, such as nuclear or hydro, whereas the energy used by the car is limited to being produced from oil.

The point about Hummers (and such cars) being made from less energy-intensive materials than hybrids and other newer cars is a good one, though. It might also be easier to recycle a car made from steel than one made from composites (though we're not at that point yet).

I think that it's a fair point that hybrids aren't as much better than SUVs for the environment as a simple comparison of fuel economy might suggest, at the very least. As far as I can tell, there's no magic bullet. Hydrogen used in fuel cells or some kind of turbine will probably be the ultimate answer, but there are significant problems with hydrogen as a fuel.

|7.19.06 @ 4:43PM|#

Did Mr. Dalmia exercise the kind of skepticism towards this study he would exercise towards one that did not tell him what he wanted to hear?

FYI,
Shikha is a 'she' creature...at least according to the bio-link availiable in the article saying and showing more or less as much.

Anyway, 'real' car using greens shun the faddish hybrids and buy old diesel klunkers and convert the them to use recovered veggie oil.

|7.19.06 @ 4:47PM|#

I think hybrids are a joke sold to people with more money than sense, but this guy's argument doesn't hold water. Regardless of what the hybrid cost to develop, that is a fixed cost. As more and more hybrids are produced, the development cost associated with each individual car decreases. Regardless of whether the $50,000 develpment cost estimate is correct, that figure goes down everytime a new hybrid is sold and slowly approaches zero.

|7.19.06 @ 4:47PM|#

"Ken Silber's point, echoed by bago"
(emphasis added)

heh heh.

"I give this article, and this intern, a F-, or maybe even a G"

according to the link, a "senior policy analyst" whatever that means. is that washington-speak for intern?

also, not to kick someone when they're down, but someone should probably introduce ms. dalmia to the idea of using quotation marks when quoting someone else's paragraph essentially verbatim. especially when using fancy words like scrappage and minutia.

-cab

|7.19.06 @ 4:50PM|#

"People are raising very good points in this thread. And they're doing so in a manner that arguably runs counter to certain stereotypes."

Yah. What kind of annoys me is that there are a lot of real questions about the utility of hybrids. What's wrong with a lifetime cost per mile metric?

Dan T.|7.19.06 @ 4:50PM|#

No, Dan, the planning would still cost the hypothetical 50 million...again, I (think) you meant that the cost of production goes down each time one is made. if it cost 50 million (that is you spent it already) how does it then retroactively go down?


Because the study was calculating "energy per mile driven" or something to that effect. Since the actual cost of designing a hybrid is the same regardless of whether you sell one of them or one million of them then the average energy costs depends on how many are sold. Which to me says little about how efficent the cars actually are in real life.

|7.19.06 @ 4:51PM|#

grylliade-

The thing is, if the energy consumed in transporting and making the materials and whatnot were really so huge, you'd think that the hybrid car would be a lot more expensive. Some of that probably does come from more efficient sources, but at least some of it comes from fossil fuels.

I'm very willing to believe that some of the benefits of hybrids are overstated. I'm very willing to entertain the notion that the Civic Hybrid may require more energy to produce than my non-hybrid Accord. That seems like more of an apples-to-apples comparison. But the fuel efficiency of the Hummer is pretty low even compared to my Accord, so inflated mpg estimates for the hybrids can't really explain everything here.

There probably are some hidden costs and some overstated numbers, but the ultimate conclusions here just scream BS.

|7.19.06 @ 4:53PM|#

Interesting article, though all it proves is that old technology is cheaper to mass produce than new technology. Duh.

|7.19.06 @ 4:53PM|#

John

Shikha Dalmia == 'she-creature'...

http://www.reason.org/dalmia.shtml

with a spawnling too.

|7.19.06 @ 4:55PM|#

I agree with the skepticism about this article. Although I do think there is some self-evident truth to it - to a point.

People who buy hybrids frequently admit (brag) that the total cost of the vehicle is more than the total cost of a non-hybrid equivalent. This in and of itself suggests to me that there is a good chance that the total energy required for the life of that vehicle is greater or at least similar to the non-hybrid versions. It might be cleaner & emitted in more remote places - but the fossil fuels are probably being used somewhere for the sake of that car.

Although imperfect, price can tell us an awful lot. So making these purchasing decisions based purely on costs probably does as much good for the environment as making them based on gas mileage, etc. Of course, for many people, at today's gas prices, hybrids are probably economically advantageous. But, to admit that would require that the purchaser has to give up the claim of being a selfless steward of the environment, so hybrid purchasers will claim that the costs of hybrids are higher even after they are much lower than the conventional options.

Kebko

|7.19.06 @ 4:56PM|#

I`ll drive my old one ton ford truck with 300,000+ miles on it from west Tx. to Pa. and Ky. next week. I`ll average 23 mpg (diesel w/overdrive) and feel very safe. Please clear the roads of all those rice rockets and motorized roller skates.

|7.19.06 @ 4:56PM|#

There is a good point here, though. If hybrids really aren't all they're cracked up to be from a fuel efficiency perspective, and the premium for purchasing one is much more than the relative utility gained from owning one, then people are quite unlikely to buy them in any large quantities. As a result, the marginal cost analysis has some relevance. Though I think that it is waaaaay too early in the hybrid/alternative fuel industry's existence to really make any profound statements about where it is and where it's going.

Gimme Back My Dog|7.19.06 @ 5:02PM|#

I'm pleased by the skepticism here. In the past I have complained (perhaps a bit excessively, I'll admit) about selective skepticism regarding scientific and technical issues on this forum. This is one case where I have no complaints. People are raising very good points in this thread. And they're doing so in a manner that arguably runs counter to certain stereotypes.

How very generous of you. Do we get an extra cookie before nap time?

|7.19.06 @ 5:03PM|#

" What's wrong with a lifetime cost per mile metric?"

Well, for one thing, it's too much like a real number, which could be used in a meaningful comparison between two alternatives.

I have heard this "dust to dust" analysis tossed out before, and to me, "fishy" would be a generous characterization.

|7.19.06 @ 5:04PM|#

Shikha,

I have really enjoyed reading your articles in Reason.

But something doesn't seem right here. Not even close. Environmentalists routinely use junk science to support their desired conclusions. Maybe anti-environmentalists have started to use junk science too?

|7.19.06 @ 5:07PM|#

How very generous of you. Do we get an extra cookie before nap time?

OK, the next time I have something nice to say I won't say it. Is that better?

|7.19.06 @ 5:09PM|#

I'm going to guess there were a lot of incorrect assumptions made during this study. They put the lifespan of a Prius at 100K. I think that's pretty low. Assuming the battery does crap out at 100K (and i doubt that) the rest of the car should still be in decent enough shape to justify replacing the battery. I would think a market for re-furbished batteries would emerge. To assume the average life of a Hummer will be 300K is just flat insane. I'm sure some will make it, but not most. Hummers are just as techno-heavy as anything else. Future maintenance will be prohibatively expensive and quite a few will be scrapped well before 300K due to technical/electrical faults rather than mechanical breakage.
That said, I can't wait for electric cars. Electric motors make maximum torque at zero RPM. Imagine the smokey burnouts!!

|7.19.06 @ 5:11PM|#

"Maybe anti-environmentalists have started to use junk science too?"

You don't say. Although "started" is inaccurate or at least far too diplomatic of a term to use here.

|7.19.06 @ 5:11PM|#

There probably are some hidden costs and some overstated numbers, but the ultimate conclusions here just scream BS.

There is probably a lot less BS than you think. Someone guessed development of a new vehicle is about $50 million. Try $500 million for a non-hybrid. I bet the Prius cost at least two billion dollars to develop.

Dan T.|7.19.06 @ 5:13PM|#

Maybe the real lesson here is that sometimes you have to spend energy to save energy.

|7.19.06 @ 5:14PM|#

"and the premium for purchasing one is much more than the relative utility gained from owning one,"

Doesn't this presume that the "utility gained" can be measured in miles, dollars or gallons?

The utility of owning a vehicle is an entirely subjective concept. People aren't buying a vehicle as much as a self-image.

They'll pay a premium for a "green" vehicle (even if it costs them more in the long run) for exactly the same reason that others will pay a premium for a Hummer... becuase they'll both derive intangible enjoyment and self-satisfaction from owning the vehicle.

|7.19.06 @ 5:17PM|#

I wonder which one Ayn Rand would drive?

|7.19.06 @ 5:23PM|#

"In the past I have complained (perhaps a bit excessively, I'll admit) about selective skepticism regarding scientific and technical issues on this forum."

I think this is a valid complaint. Anything that gets in the way of short-term market fundamentalism tends to follow this trajectory here on H & R.

You'll see this moronic Hummer fetish play itself out, and it will conveniently go down the memory hole a la global warming denial soon enough.

Environmental issues are the absolute bane of libertarians. Can't seem to keep them from crossing all those sacred property lines.

|7.19.06 @ 5:24PM|#

OK, the next time I have something nice to say I won't say it. Is that better?

thoreau,

I know you meant it as a nicety , but when I first read it, to me it also came across as condescending and kind of a back-handed compliment -- along the lines of "you guys are normally act like bunch of children, but in this one instant, you were capable of acting like adults, so bravo and lets see more of that"

I don't believe you meant it that way -- but it did seem rather smug at a glance.

I'm just saying...

|7.19.06 @ 5:24PM|#

thoreau: the stereotype you allude to is, I'm guessing, similar to the fictitious lib who doesn't practice gun safety and hates poor people (because we're against gun control and gov't welfare, so it must be...)

Like gun safety, though, there's no real l-vs-not-l debate to be had over total energy cost. Maybe if we started talking about, say, the gov't-provided bennies that Prius drivers get, like (in California) tax breaks and use of the carpool lane...

Meanwhile, a real analysis may still show that the Prius has a ways to go before being more "environmental" than a boring old gas Civic. I would really like to see that follow-up article!

|7.19.06 @ 5:25PM|#

There is probably a lot less BS than you think. Someone guessed development of a new vehicle is about $50 million. Try $500 million for a non-hybrid. I bet the Prius cost at least two billion dollars to develop.

Fair enough. But I'm more interested in the energy estimates. How much of that $2 billion went into fuel? And however much of that was fuel, including fuel used in initial R&D to estimate the environmental impact of buying and driving a hybrid is dishonest. One has to distinguish between marginal fuel consumption and average fuel consumption. Also, every car uses lots of pre-existing technologies as well as some new technologies. Estimating the energy used during R&D becomes a very tricky process if you want to honestly account for the development of every technology in the vehicle.

I'm willing to believe that hybrid manufacturing is energy intensive, but is it intensive enough to make up the difference in energy consumption between a Hummer and a hybrid?

This article is dubious.

|7.19.06 @ 5:25PM|#

"hybrids have all the fuel efficiency of Hummers at fully 1/10 the coolness"

I realize DW was spoofing here, but I hate the journalistic "fully" -- "fully one third oppose x" etc. What does that mean? One third for real, no kidding? If they just said "one third oppose x," would they then mean that we shouldn't take them seriously?

(I think this whole thing started as an easy way for journalists to start a sentence with a number and not have to spell it out.)

|7.19.06 @ 5:27PM|#

Russ R,

My point was that some utility was necessary for a mass, rather than a niche, market. Although "green" has some cachet, it's likely nowhere near as strong as even the luxury market. And, with the cost of everything besides bread and newspapers skyrocketing, people will need something more than that to justify paying a premium. Hardcore fuel economy is the grail here, in my opinion.

|7.19.06 @ 5:28PM|#

ha - ed's trying to go for another 300+ thread.

|7.19.06 @ 5:29PM|#

The Energy Storage Unit might be produced this year. It has been invented by a company in Texas
called EEstore. It charges in less than an hour
on household current and will move a small car
250 to 300 miles at freeway speeds. KPCB venture
capital company has invested 3M$ so far. 52KW
storage + endless charge-discharge cycles.

|7.19.06 @ 5:31PM|#

Where is the $50MM (or $50,000) development cost estimate coming from?

The original Ford Taurus had development costs of $2 billion dollars (and those were 1980-1985 dollars) before vehicle one was sold to the public. And this was without the need to radically redesign the engine.

Needless to say, no matter what the development costs ran, those are sunk costs and should not be considered. However, I think the point of the article is not to extoll the Hummer, but to point out that Hybrids are not as good for yooouuuuuu, as one might otherwise think.

|7.19.06 @ 5:34PM|#

Hybrids of course are less efficient than 50 year old designs. I'm sure the first fuel injected car had a higher life cost than the last of the carb cars, but that doesn't make hybrids poor replacements, it means we're just not there yet. Every year, hybrids' life cycle costs are reduced due to advancing technology and economies of scale. Yes, currently they are poor substitutes to deisels or small gas cars in terms of milage, but because the companies keep trying, they get better and cheaper to produce.

People buying hybrids right now may be wasting their money for little gain, but because they waste the money, companies try and advance towards better, cheaper vehicles, which ultimately will come to something which is better for people and the environment.

The other path to improving is stagnantation, which gets us nowhere. Technology is a crapshoot, and whether hybrids win or lose, atleast they open the financial gates towards sommething more revolutionary and a more permanent solution.

|7.19.06 @ 5:35PM|#

Doesn't sound fishy to me at all.

I imagine a dust-to-dust analysis of the energy consumption of a desktop computer would easily show that development, production, delivery, and recycling of the PC itself outweighs the electricity used during its lifetime.

|7.19.06 @ 5:43PM|#

What a weird article.

The first thing I thought of was that all energy isn't created equally, and trying to give production costs as a doller per mile figure is silly.

|7.19.06 @ 5:51PM|#

The article links to a graph which shows the dust to dust rating of the Hummer beats the non-hybrid VW Golf and Honda Civic as well. That sounds reasonable.

|7.19.06 @ 6:06PM|#

Wow. Those squirrels sure have some latency.

Including R&D costs is a red herring. The first copy of any technology costs biollions to produce. Every instance beyond that costs just pennies, and the company selling recoups that through unit pricing.

However this has NOTHING to do with operational efficency.

To somehow tie the costs of operational efficiency and research is, well, stupid.

Not to mention the per mile disparity that exists. Hybrids with regenerative braking are far more efficient at stop and go city traffic than anything else. That's why hybrids have a higher MPG for city driving than highway, which is the opposite dynamic for conventional cars. To try and amortize costs per mile driven while ignoring the signifigant impact of accelleration is, well, stupid.

|7.19.06 @ 6:08PM|#

Note that the marketing research company that produced the "study" is based in Detroit and also offers a conference center for use by automotive executives.

"CNW Marketing Research's Vista del Lago conference center has hosted executive sessions for automotive executives. While some major renovations continue, the Center is accepting Session dates for 2007. 2006 is booked, but we can schedule sessions at Bandon Dunes Golf Resort or other Bandon top-notch facilities."

Gosh, ya think they might offer cooked data to shore up slacker American automakers who are way behind, technologically?

Xmas|7.19.06 @ 6:11PM|#

I'm calling shenanigans too. The battery warranty on the Prius does not equal the life expectancy of the car. Sure, the battery is very costly to replace, if it dies, but so is an automatic transmission (the Prius doesn't switch gears like a normal car) or an engine (which the Prius uses more efficiently, and the computer prevents you from overexerting).

Anyway, I'm happy with my hybrid car. I guess I'm an early adopter. I could have bought a Camry with a navigation system for the same price as my Prius with the navigation system. But then I would have probably burned about 1000 gallons of gasoline more. (120 K miles at ~40 mpg vs ~30 mpg.)

|7.19.06 @ 6:12PM|#

Most of the criticisms here involve the actual findings of Art Spinella/CNW's "Dust to Dust" study, on which my colleague Shikha reports. She approached the Hummer v. hybrid total energy costs cautiously and thoroughly reported Spinella's explanations. I think the main point -- that hybrid vehicle total energy costs are higher than nonhybrids -- makes sense, given the approach described (small production runs, exotic materials, shorter life, etc.).

Regarding the CNW study: As others have pointed out, the numbers for total energy use are incredibly huge across the board. A Grand Am has a total energy cost over its life of $445,000?

CNW calculates the average vehicle (hybrid and non-hybrid, big and small, foreign and domestic) dust-to-dust energy cost per mile driven is $2.28.

Multiply by 2.3 trillion household vehicle miles traveled per year in the US and you get $5 trillion per year spent on auto-related energy alone, according to this.

That's nearly half the U.S. GDP.

Total US energy expenditures - all sectors, all sources - were only $700 billion in 2001.

|7.19.06 @ 6:21PM|#

biollions. It's a totally new number. It's big.

|7.19.06 @ 6:21PM|#

The way I figure it, the money saved on gas by driving a hybrid may not make up for the premium on the price, but I'd rather pay my money to an innovator like Toyota than a dinosaur like Ford or GM. And anything that lets me give less money to the oil companies is fine by me. They get enough of my money.

That said, the way things are going in the Middle East, gas savings on a hybrid will probably more than make up for the premium.

(And besides, many cars have premium prices. Some SUVs have a profit margin that would itself pay for a small car. There's no chance in heck of even breaking even on those purchases. But nobody ever mentions that.)

Oh. Also, another way the whole "resources used in development" thing is a red herring is that those resources can theoretically come from a wide variety of sources, not just oil. Factories and offices are rather more flexible than a car, when it comes to energy sources. They can easily run on fuel cells, solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear, etc.

|7.19.06 @ 6:25PM|#

Mike writes: "That's nearly half the U.S. GDP."

Which ought to be a beeg honkin' clue that the metric is bogus.

|7.19.06 @ 6:28PM|#

You can get the report from CNW Marketing Research if you want to pick it over (http://www.cnwmr.com/).

The part I find most suspect is the parts lifecycle costs, which dominate the overall energy numbers. The R&D comparison isn't fair, but doesn't have a huge impact on the total numbers, and fuel consumption by the end user is a very small factor according to their analysis. I may do some detailed calculations on it later.

|7.19.06 @ 6:37PM|#

Another thing to consider is that Toyota's and Honda's R&D may be more widely applicable among their various businesses than would be the case for US automakers.

Also, any R&D work Toyota does on battery technology could be pretty broadly applicable across industries.

The point being, it may be possible to amortize hybrid research & development costs beyond the hybrid cars themselves.

|7.19.06 @ 6:54PM|#

Twba writes: "There is probably a lot less BS than you think. Someone guessed development of a new vehicle is about $50 million. Try $500 million for a non-hybrid. I bet the Prius cost at least two billion dollars to develop."

Yeah, but a lot of that is going to be labor, body models (which would be the case for any car), etc. Especially since the Prius has been in the works since the mid 90s, if not longer.

|7.19.06 @ 6:57PM|#

"As for Hummers, Spinella explains, the life of these cars averaged across various models is over 300,000 miles. By contrast, Prius' life � according to Toyota's own numbers � is 100,000 miles."

Oh, I see. The study is complete bullshit. Large GM SUV averaging three times - three times! - the road life of a higher-end Japanese car? Are you freaking kidding me?

Have you ever seen those alien tee-shirts that say "I Want To Believe?" Those are the people who find this study credible.

|7.19.06 @ 7:04PM|#

I just ran the name of the "research" firm behind these numbers through Google.

It's pretty much what you'd expect. They brag on their homepage about being "the automobile industry's research group."

Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Gillespie, have you completely given up on protecting Reason's good name? Why would you keep running crap like this, and make people like Jacob Sullum have to live with the backlash?

|7.19.06 @ 7:14PM|#

Pssst, Joe-

Remember this one?

-----------------

Commentary

Reason.org
June 22, 2006

Much-Heralded Plan to Stop Global Warming Fails
Europe's carbon trading scheme flops, now what?
By Shikha Dalmia

|7.19.06 @ 7:17PM|#

Bottom line: I'm willing to believe that hybrids aren't all they're cracked up to be. I'm willing to believe that hidden energy consumption during special manufacturing processes can cancel out some of the benefits when compared with non-hybrids of similar size.

But I ain't ready to believe that fuel used during the full life cycle of a hybrid is greater than the fuel used during even a third of a Hummer's life cycle. That's the sort of extraordinary claim that would require some pretty damn extraordinary evidence.

What's really sad is that there probably is a perfectly good point there that would have been much more honest, much more credible, and still compatible with the interests of the funding organization. If you're going to hire shills, hire smart shills. (I'm referring to the person who wrote the study, not the Reason staff writer who reported on it.)

What the hell is wrong with Reason and science? The magazine kicks ass on so many other fronts, but the science and technology coverage is, well, mixed.

|7.19.06 @ 7:20PM|#

Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Gillespie, have you completely given up on protecting Reason's good name? Why would you keep running crap like this, and make people like Jacob Sullum have to live with the backlash?

I'd say you hit the nail on the head, joe. At least this time I won't (oops, I originally typed "want". Freudian slip? :)) jump on David Weigel for posting this, but he sure does get stuck with linking to the loser articles (that last Rauch article still leaves a bad taste in my mouth).

The Wine Commonsewer|7.19.06 @ 7:23PM|#

First of all, Shikha is a Chicka and second of all, she ain't no fragin intern she's a Policy Analyst with a long track record at Reason and elsewhere.

|7.19.06 @ 7:23PM|#

what we need is a civic hybrid vs a civic comparison...this friggin jumping aound with prias and hummer is used with the intent to confuse and offiscate by both sides.

|7.19.06 @ 7:27PM|#

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Beware of joe offering advice.

|7.19.06 @ 7:28PM|#

joshua-

I'm with you on the comparison.

|7.19.06 @ 7:31PM|#

Despite the fact that I view the benefits of hybrid vehicles to be largely imaginary, I have to say that, between this and the carbon trading piece, Ms Dalmia's credibility, at my house, is rapidly approaching nil.

Shannon Love|7.19.06 @ 7:34PM|#

Even without looking at the data I can give two good reasons for doubting the base study:(1) It's produced by a marketing company and (2) it's one of those super elaborate economic analysis much beloved by statist and central planners which are always vastly incomplete if not dead wrong. The total lifecycle of any modern technology is usually to complex to analyze reliably. If such analysis were reliable, corporations would get surprised so often.

However, Hybrids definitely do consume more energy and probably produce more CO2, waste and general environmental damage over their lifecycle than would a conventional vehicle of the same size.

First, Hybrids are the most complex vehicles on the road and it takes energy to produce complexity. (Thats just basic physics) Most manufacturing uses electricity most still produced from fossil sources (unless they are built in France). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that a hybrid has produced more C02 by the time it hits the lot than a conventional vehicle would over its entire lifetime.

Second, Hybrids, at least the first or second generation, will not have as long lifetimes as a conventional vehicle. Their failure point is not their batteries but their super complex transmissions.

Third, disposing of or recycling the batteries requires energy. Conventional vehicles don't have that overhead.

Fourth, hybrids simply cost significantly more than conventional vehicles and cost is the best (but not perfect) proxy to measure overall energy cost and environmental impact.

|7.19.06 @ 7:41PM|#

"First, Hybrids are the most complex vehicles on the road and it takes energy to produce complexity. (Thats just basic physics)"

You've never drafted using CAD vs. pencils, rulers, and compasses, have you Shannon? It doesn't take energy to produce complexity, it takes brainpower.

Brainpower, which costs quite a bit of money without requiring large energy inputs.

Must...resist...Shannon/brainpower joke...

Weakening...must...hit...

|7.19.06 @ 7:43PM|#

First, Hybrids are the most complex vehicles on the road and it takes energy to produce complexity. (Thats just basic physics)

There's a valid point in there about basic physics, but those sorts of arguments need to be made with great care. Otherwise you wind up in creationist territory. (They love to talk about complexity and thermodynamics.)

Most manufacturing uses electricity most still produced from fossil sources (unless they are built in France). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that a hybrid has produced more C02 by the time it hits the lot than a conventional vehicle would over its entire lifetime.

How much CO2 would you guess the conventional car produces before hitting the lot? The question is not how much CO2 a hybrid produces, it's how much more CO2 it produces in comparison with a regular car. Somehow, enough CO2 to account for several years of gasoline just sounds fishy. I'm open to being proven wrong on that point, however.

Now if the comparison were based on the difference in gasoline consumption over several years, then I'd be a little more open-minded. Particularly if we used mpg estimates made by somebody other than the manufacturer.

|7.19.06 @ 7:47PM|#

I've driven a 4WD Escape hybrid for 20K miles now, about 18 months of mixed city/hwy and some off-road, and I've averaged ~30mpg over those miles. Winter is worst, spring and fall best (up to 34mpg), but I can't imagine where claims of 22mpg come from. You'd have to be a really bad driver to get numbers that low (the equivalent V6 Escape averages about 18mpg).

And while I don't mind the eco-love that rubs off on hybrid owners, it isn't even close to the top reason why I bought one. I got it as a toy, as a science experiment, and because I'm fascinated by the technology. Anything else is gravy.

I can't speak about the environmental costs of making it or disposing it, but in operation it's very clean, qualifying as a PZEV under CA rules.

I knew going in that I'd be lucky to break even over the life of the car, but all in all it's been a great experience, and one I'm hoping to repeat. My next car will probably be a Ford Fusion hybrid, if I'm still breathing when it's released. I've learned a lot about how to drive a hybrid efficiently while still having a lot of fun, and I want a chance to apply that to another vehicle.

One last note: Both Ford and Toyota have done extensive battery-life testing, and the 100K mile warranty appears quite conservative. Many Priuses have now passed the 200K mark, and Toyota has claimed that they've never had to replace a battery pack that just "wore out".

|7.19.06 @ 7:55PM|#

What the hell is wrong with Reason and science? The magazine kicks ass on so many other fronts, but the science and technology coverage is, well, mixed.

What do you expect from people with little or no education in science? (This applies to the vast majority of journalists, as well.)

|7.19.06 @ 7:56PM|#

>Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Gillespie, have you completely given up on protecting Reason's good name? Why would you keep running crap like this...

I agree. Does Reason have any policy about retracting bogus information? I hate to see Reason associated with it.

|7.19.06 @ 8:11PM|#

I skipped most of this, but couldn't let this one go

"Anyway, 'real' car using greens shun the faddish hybrids and buy old diesel klunkers and convert the them to use recovered veggie oil."

Actually, "real" car using greens sell their car and use a car sharing service like Flexcar (which will likely stock heavily with hybrids). The difference in the long run in sharing your car with several hundred other people makes all the other considerations trivial... and seems particularly on point given the article. My cost last year for transportation (bus pass and Flexcar combined) was under $500 (yes, that includes fueling the Flexcar).

|7.19.06 @ 8:11PM|#

Had a quick look over some recent studies from the Energy Lab at MIT - according to them vehicle operation dominates life-cycle cost estimates and life-cycle green house gas emission estimates.

Their projection for lowest enviro cost propulsion type (up to the year 2020)? Diesel Hybrid. Of course, if you don't drive in urban areas etc much then there's no point in having the hybrid system - mostly excess wait in that case.

|7.19.06 @ 8:15PM|#

Uggh, make that weight.

Shannon Love|7.19.06 @ 8:28PM|#

thoreau,

I was being hyper literal about the energy and using energy in the technical sense (capacity to do work). To make something more complex you have to pay for that with greater overall entropy and that means throwing more waste heat overboard. If you have two different systems intended for the same task sitting next to each other, the more complex of the two will take more energy to create. Think about computer chips. Even though they are very tiny their manufacturing consumes a great deal of energy.

In the case of environmental issues we shouldn't be concerned about total energy per se but rather the source of energy. Unfortunately, most of the energy that goes into manufacturing cars still comes from carbon emitting sources. So the greater complexity of the hybrid means automatically that manufacturing a hybrid will create more CO2 pollution than a conventional vehicle.

Since price is a good proxy for energy use and hybrids are significantly more costly than conventionals (especially when you add in all the subsidies) then I would feel safe in asserting that a hybrid could easily generate more CO2 before it left the lot.

|7.19.06 @ 9:48PM|#

Since price is a good proxy for energy use and hybrids are significantly more costly than conventionals (especially when you add in all the subsidies) then I would feel safe in asserting that a hybrid could easily generate more CO2 before it left the lot.

More CO2 than a non-hybrid car of the same size and similar design has generated thus far (e.g. Civic hybrid vs. regular Civic)? Definitely. But does that difference in CO2 equate to the overall life cycle of the other car? I dunno about that. If you drive 15,000 miles/year (typical insurance company estimate) and you get 30 mpg (hypothetical), that's 500 gallons/year. At $2.50/gallon (lowball right now, average over the past few years) that's $750/year. If we assume a low life cycle of 100,000 miles, that's 7 years tims $750/year, or $5000.

$5000 is indeed roughly the same as the price difference, but how much of that price difference is for fuel? There are many inputs to production. Fuel is of course an operating cost, but it is hardly the only one. The cost of a sophisticated piece of machinery includes a lot more than fuel. Some of it comes from the fact that making something elaborate takes more time to get it precisely right. Time is money.

Now, if we were to ask whether that difference in CO2 before hitting the lot cancels out the difference in CO2 production during the life cycle of the vehicle, then I would be much more willing to entertain the possibility that the hybrid is a wash compared with a similar non-hybrid.

Also, sorry, I didn't mean to get so bent out of shape over the word "complexity." You have to understand, I caught myself using the word "emergent complexity" the other day. I'm still recovering. :)

|7.19.06 @ 9:59PM|#

Real Bill-

Here's what I expect from people with no education in science: I expect dumb mistakes. I expect technical explanations that fall flat.

But I also expect at least a tiny amount of NON-SELECTIVE skepticism from a writer who decides to cover a scientific topic. I expect non-scientists who write about science to be at least as good at detecting bullshit as the guy who knows everything that there is to know about hallucinogens. I expect people who write about science to consult more than one source. And since we libertarians fancy ourselves to be so econ-savvy, I expect a person who writes about a technical subject for a libertarian magazine to at least try to distinguish between average and marginal energy consumption.

Shikha Dalmia, you get a big wag of the finger (as Colbert might say).

Ron Bailey, we're still cool. You've answered even my harshest criticisms, and for that I salute you (and I promise to be nicer in the future).

|7.19.06 @ 10:02PM|#

dbcooper-

Who makes diesel hybrids? I'm tired of sending money to Saudi Arabia.

That's the other thing about the expense of fuel efficient cars: I'd rather buy an expensive car and send that extra cash to engineers in the US, Germany, or Japan, than buy a less expensive car and send more money to state-run oil companies in such corrupt and illiberal places as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran.

|7.19.06 @ 10:49PM|#

"$5000 is indeed roughly the same as the price difference...."

If I read that right, Thoreau, you have assumed an operating cost of zero for your hypothetical hybrid. Did I miss something?

A rational consumer(!) will be willing to pay some additional price X for a product, based on the expectation that there will be a savings over time greater than X. Whether this is actually the case with hybrid vehicles seems to me to remain unproved.

(My unsolicited advice: get a turbodiesel and run it on low sulfur fuel; unless you are a mailman, or some sort of route driver, the hybrid will offer little real benefit to you. Sorry.)

|7.19.06 @ 11:25PM|#

P Brooks writes: "A rational consumer(!) will be willing to pay some additional price X for a product, based on the expectation that there will be a savings over time greater than X. Whether this is actually the case with hybrid vehicles seems to me to remain unproved."

Yet people, rationally or no, regularly pay a premium for a vehicle with no expectation of savings whatsoever once they drive off the lot.

The reason the car companies are so hot to sell SUVs is because they are priced at a premium, which takes the form of a fat profit margin for the manufacturer.

|7.19.06 @ 11:41PM|#

"I've driven a 4WD Escape hybrid for 20K miles now, about 18 months of mixed city/hwy and some off-road, and I've averaged ~30mpg over those miles. Winter is worst, spring and fall best (up to 34mpg), but I can't imagine where claims of 22mpg come from."

I'm really curious about this. I know of at least two long term test drives that concluded (Edmunds and the one Burr references in the article) that hybrids were significantly less efficient than advertised in practice. It is also my understanding that the energy conservation from regenerative breaking is so small due to current battery technology that it almost can't be measured.

Then I hear people say what the good Doctor here says. Does it work, or not? I'm not interested in the technology per se, I just want to know how good the mileage really is to see if it justifies the cost per mile of the car and helps save the environment over, say a TDI VW diesel.

|7.19.06 @ 11:43PM|#

P Brooks-

I wasn't too clear. Sorry. I was trying to estimate how much a person driving a typical sedan (not a hybrid) spends on gas during the life cycle of the car. Shannon had speculated that manufacturing a hybrid requires an additional amount of fuel exceecding what a non-hybrid will burn during its lifetime.

I find that speculation to be rather unlikely.

|7.20.06 @ 12:15AM|#

I expect non-scientists who write about science to be at least as good at detecting bullshit as the guy who knows everything that there is to know about hallucinogens.

Expect all you want, but you ain't gonna get it. Training in science teaches logic. Any number of disciplines that journalists study are almost pure opinion that is divorced from logic or even opposed to it. Logical thinking is mostly learned; that is, it is only partially innate (IMO, of course).

...I can't imagine where claims of 22mpg come from.

Jackrabbiting can cause large decreases in mileage. This is true for hybrids and standard automobiles. Essentially, the way a person drives has a large effect on mileage. (Also, flat roads or hilly roads make a big difference, as well.)

|7.20.06 @ 12:32AM|#

that's 500 gallons/year. At $2.50/gallon (lowball right now, average over the past few years) that's $750/year.

thoreau, isn't that $1250/year? All that fancy math messing up your arithmetic skills?

Xmas|7.20.06 @ 12:34AM|#

Real Bill,

My car is happiest on hilly, twisty back roads going 35 to 50 miles per hour. I usually get 55 to 60 miles per gallon driving on those sort of roads.

The the Toyota hybrids also suffer if you brake hard. If you approach an upcoming stop intelligently, the regenerative braking gets most of the energy. Unfortunately, if you aren't used to this sort of braking, you'll see it in your mileage.

There's some getting used to driving a hybrid, especially the Toyota version. There is no gear shifting, just a smooth-ish acceleration as the electric motors provide the torque. Also, the small-ish engine sounds like it's straining. But that's not what is happening. The computer is keeping everything within it's optimum ranges.

Anyway, that's enough prostelytizing.

|7.20.06 @ 12:57AM|#

Sorry, it's just that electric was built for torque. Electric systems will own at providing power for stop and go vehicles. Long distance driving, not so much. But using physical resistance to regenerate energy in an electrical car is genius.

Heat or volts.

|7.20.06 @ 8:02AM|#

It is also my understanding that the energy conservation from regenerative breaking is so small due to current battery technology that it almost can't be measured.

Regen, at least in the Escape and Prius, accounts for more than half of the increase in mileage, so it pays to use it wisely.

Both cars offer an essentially unadvertised mode, called "B" in the Prius and "L" in the Escape. Driving 100% of the time in "L" gives an easy 10% boost in mileage by changing the regen profile.

As someone pointed out, proper braking is one key to getting good mileage, but the suggested method is foreign to most drivers and simply doesn't match the way people drive. "L" makes it simple to get the benefits of regen while continuing to drive the 'usual' way.

Yes, current (NiMH) batteries aren't good at rapid deep cycling, which is where better performance will come from. One reason that battery life is so good in these vehicles is the rather shallow charging curve: they never charge them more than about 80%, never discharge lower than about 40%. This means that the most you can really drive on electrics alone is a mile or two.

But the Escape isn't designed for electric-only. The motors are there for torque and regen. The gas engine is run on the Atkinson cycle, which offers complete combustion at the expense of low-end power. The computer combines them to provide a smooth and complete power curve with almost no pollutants.

Bottom line is that while it can be transparent to the driver -- you could drive an Escape and never know it was a hybrid -- there are big dividends to be gained by being hybrid-aware and applying a few tricks and techniques. This is what I believe accounts for the difference in reported experiences.

|7.20.06 @ 8:27AM|#

Thank-you, Tbone, for the correction.

|7.20.06 @ 8:32AM|#

Thoreau - Diesel hybrids are still in the prototype stage, but my collegue, who until recently designed large Diesel based engines, said that there shouldn't be any major problems with their development.

You could just get a good european turbodiesel in the meantime (especially if you do lots of highway/freeway driving). You can buy a small volkswagen that does 3L/100km of the lot.

|7.20.06 @ 9:20AM|#

DB, you made it!! I knew it!! Diesel hybrids are nowhere near the horizon b/c of the massive R&D going in to meeting EU & US emissions standards for regular diesels.

Kids, gather round and understand Dahlmla's point re: Scale advantages for R&D. An auto company enjoys scale advantages via platform (and these days module) sharing across their product portfolio. Hybrids necessitate an entirely separate platform from which very little (if anything) can be shared from the rest of the company's products. Hence, Toyota must invest $2b for development of a platform that is sold in extremely small numbers. Generally only companies like Ferrari and Porsche do this, b/c their gross margin per vehicle is stratospheric. Toyota certainly loses money on each hybrid, but high volume models like the Camry subsidize it, and the PR benefits are golden. The "energy cost differential" argument holds in this case in that hybrids are an inefficient allocation of resources for Toyota.

Doctor Duck, so if you have a lead foot in a hybrid, you'll have shitty gas mileage...same as if you have a lead foot in regular wheels. The idea of MPG is totally fucked up to begin with...the EPA's method of MPG derivation has nothing to do with driving conditions, it's a stationary test on a vehicle dynamometer.

|7.20.06 @ 9:23AM|#

I am curious- never having taken a hybrid apart, or crawled around underneath one, what sort of additional mechanical drag is introduced by the hybrid systems? Is a hybrid at a significant disadvantage to a conventional two wheel drive system at sustained highyway speeds?

As for braking technique, is the preferred method early, relatively light braking?

Thoreau- ah; I had basically dismissed that (additional energy input) argument out of hand, and did not see that that was your point.

|7.20.06 @ 9:37AM|#

Brooks, at highway speed the vast majority of the engine's HP is allocated to overcoming surface pressure losses, i,e., aerodynamic drag. This has nothing to do with the type of drivetrain, be it hybrid or plain vanilla.

At 70 mph, an SUV hybrid will have a higher coeff. of drag than a car hybrid, and require more energy from the engine, same as a regular car.

In city driving, stop/start, powertrain losses and tire losses come in to play, and here is where the drivetrain comparison is relevant.

|7.20.06 @ 10:38AM|#

Hybrids necessitate an entirely separate platform from which very little (if anything) can be shared from the rest of the company's products

In Ford's case that's true mostly of the drive train, which granted is a significant component. The rest of the vehicle is identical and gets the same benefit from econ of scale as all other models in that line. Their stated position is (was, now) that they hope to get to a place where "hybrid" is just another engine option like "V6".

if you have a lead foot in a hybrid, you'll have shitty gas mileage... same as... regular wheels.

True but incomplete. There are still hybrid-specific driving techniques that will improve mileage. And while I agree that EPA MPG ratings are fucked, at the end of the year I'll have spent 40% less on gas than my V6 neighbor, and that's worth something at $3/gal.

About highway driving. Yes, at 70mph the electrics are contributing nothing to forward motion, but if you drive in "B" mode you get a measure of regen every time you ease up on the gas, which happens quite often. Combine that with slow acceleration to get a big benefit.

As for braking technique, is the preferred method early, relatively light braking?

Yes. In fact, if done right you won't engage the disk brakes until you drop below 5mph -- all your braking is captured as regen. But that's an unnatural way of driving for most people, which is why I make such a point of "B" (or "L") mode.

In a full hybrid, pressing on the brake pedal is just an input to the computer. In the B profile that input is partially switched to the gas pedal -- you basically get one-foot driving. It feels a lot like compression braking from a stick-shift: "not-accel" is automatically converted to mild, active braking and therefore regen recovery. In the standard profile you just coast, as you would in an auto-trans car.

|7.20.06 @ 11:30AM|#

I'm not entirely sure about the soundness of this article's analysis either...but, some of the comments make me think that someone's healthy skeptical daughter ran off with the neighbor's sickly cynical kid.

|7.20.06 @ 11:45AM|#

I extracted their for numbers Civics vs Civic Hybrids to look at the hybrid technology by itself.

Civic Hybrid:
-Lifetime: 113,000 miles
-E Cost/mile:
Total: $3.238
Fuel: $0.076 (2.4%)
Maintenance/Repair: $0.166* (5.1%)
Accident Repair: $0.084* (2.6%)
Design/Development E Cost: $0.234* (7.2%)
Manufacturing E Cost: $0.117* (3.6%)
Support E Cost: $0.011* (0.3%)
Transport E Cost: $0.006* (0.2%)
Dealer E Cost: $0.020* (0.6%)
Recyclable Parts E Cost: $1.21* (37.4%)
Disposable Parts E Cost: $1.46* (45.1%)
Reusable Parts E Cost: $0.307* (9.5%)


Civic:
-Lifetime: 178,000 miles
-E Cost/mile
Total: $2.420
Fuel: $0.128 (5.3%)
Maintenance/Repair: $0.075* (3.1%)
Accident Repair: $0.041* (1.7%)
Manufacturing: $0.055* (2.3%)
Design/Development: $0.052* (2.1%)
Support E Cost: $0.004* (0.2%)
Transport E Cost: $0.004* (0.2%)
Dealer E Cost: $0.009* (0.4%)
Recyclable parts: $0.696* (28.8%)
Disposable parts: $1.427* (59.0%)
Reusable parts: $0.122* (5.0%)

Deltas (Hybrid - Civic):
-Lifetime: -75,000 miles
-E Cost/mile
Total: $0.818
Fuel: -$0.052 (-6.4%)
Maintenance/Repair: $0.091 (11.1%)
Accident Repair: $0.043 (5.3%)
Manufacturing: $0.062 (7.6%)
Design/Development: $0.182 (22.2%)
Support E Cost: $0.007 (0.9%)
Transport E Cost: $0.002 (0.2%)
Dealer E Cost: $0.011 (1.3%)
Recyclable parts: $0.514 (62.8%)
Disposable parts: $0.033 (4.0%)
Reusable parts: $0.185 (22.6%)

* calculated by dividing their lifetime E Cost by lifetime miles. %s are calculated based on their total numbers, which don't seem to match the sums of the categories, so they don't add up to 100% (and it's more than could be accounted for by rounding error - either them or I messed up somewhere).


The R&D comparison should be fairer in this case, since the Hybrid would be piggybacking on a lot of systems originally designed for the normal Civic (assuming there isn't double counting in how they got the R&D figures). The dominating factors seem to be lifespan (does anybody have other sources for average lifespan info to check against these numbers?) and the parts numbers (they seem really high, but the description of the methodology is too vague to suggest why). If these numbers are accurate, then the report may have a point about the lifetime energy usage of hybrids, but they seem pretty out there.

|7.20.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Bubba Z writes: " Hence, Toyota must invest $2b for development of a platform that is sold in extremely small numbers. Generally only companies like Ferrari and Porsche do this, b/c their gross margin per vehicle is stratospheric."

You significantly underestimate the sales of Toyota's hybrids. They sold over a quarter of a million worldwide in 2004 and 2005 combined, and sales are increasing.

Porsche, in the 2004 model year, produced only about 90,000 cars. And Ferarri produces a handful.


"The "energy cost differential" argument holds in this case in that hybrids are an inefficient allocation of resources for Toyota."

Only if you're thinking short-term, or if you think the technology won't spread to more models over time.

The current hybrids are functioning the way Intel or IBM uses high-end servers. The technology they develop for high-end CPUs starts out in low-volume expensive servers and workstations, but over time makes its way into mass-market processors.

|7.20.06 @ 12:39PM|#

Real Bill writes: "Jackrabbiting can cause large decreases in mileage. This is true for hybrids and standard automobiles. Essentially, the way a person drives has a large effect on mileage."

That's why I think a relatively cheap, easy way to cut American gas usage a bit would be if all new cars had instantaneous and average MPG displays on the dashboard.

It really makes you aware of how your driving effects your mileage, and may provide some people with instant feedback that leads them to try to drive as efficiently as possible.

When you can only determine your MPG by doing calculations when you fill up (assuming you even go to the trouble) there is a disconnect between moment-by-moment driving behavior and mileage.

|7.20.06 @ 1:02PM|#

I think that it is one of Murphy's Laws that the first instances of a superior technology are clumsier and more expensive than instaces of the current ones.

There is a reason why, as Jane Jacobs showed, that new technologies tend to show up in toys and their equivalent, where their value as entertainment, converstation pieces, or snob appeal makes them survive until the bugs are ironed out and mass production can start.

I suspect that it will be thus for hybrids.

|7.20.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Plug-in hybrids are a promising option. Once they have enough battery capacity to support everyday driving, gasoline will be needed only for occasional longer trips. Grid power costs only about one third as much as gasoline, and it can be generated from many different energy sources. http://calcars.org/vehicles.html , for example, has some basic information about plug-in hybrids.

New manufacturing techniques for photovoltaic cells hold out the promise of solar power at dramatically reduced prices. Nanosolar, http://nanosolar.com/ , for instance, has just raised $100 million to manufacture flexible solar cells. They are projected to sell for one fifth to one tenth as much as conventional solar cells.

Telecommuting to work via the Internet is another way to reduce gasoline consumption.

If we work from home while the solar panels on the roof charge the hybrids in the garage, the energy despots of the world will face a bleak future. In the longer term, Blacklight Power, http://www.blacklightpower.com/ , will probably put them out of business altogether.