Hybrids worse than Hummers?

[ClimbingPanther]

Yes.

 

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml

 

I think research covered in this article is interesting and keeps things in perspective, but the conclusion of the commentary's author is flawed. Whatever extra energy is consumed in researching and manufacturing hybrids today must be considered a sunk cost in terms of energy, which will be offset by future improvements and increased prevalence of hybrids. After all, they're comparing a 100-year-old established industry to a brand new tiny sub-section. Interesting food for thought though.

 

The real [unanswered?] question though is can hybrid production and usage ever come to the point where in an all-things-considered point of view, they are more energy efficient than the normal cars of today?

[minx]

i can't justify a hybrid. they don't get much better highway mileage than my mazda does. heck my 1989 nissan sentra got 44mpg on the hiway. don't know why cars can't get that today.

 

the expense of replacing the battery at 100,000 miles negates any fuel cost savings and raises the question of what the heck are we going to do with all those.

 

i think its BMW that's announced that they'll be producing a hydrogen fuelled car soon. it'll be interesting to see what that actually turns out to be.

[cj001f]

Hybrid is like when they ride you before you've came?

[catbirdseat]

i can't justify a hybrid. they don't get much better highway mileage than my mazda does. heck my 1989 nissan sentra got 44mpg on the hiway. don't know why cars can't get that today.

That's easy. Newer cars are heavier with bigger engines. People like to be able to accelerate rapidly up to the next stop light.

[bobinc]

Curb weight is the primary determinant of mileage. I have a 15 year old Toyota that gets 40 mpg on the freeway. It cost $1600. Of course I am sure it is louder than a hybrid and doesn't have as many cool features, but it is cheap to operate. A hybrid makes a lot more economic sense if you do a lot of city driving (where the electric side is more in play). If you are an interstate freeway warrior, you will end up paying a lot for very little economy.

[catbirdseat]

They are starting to build hybrid SUVs. It would seem to me that if you put the extra money that the batteries and electric motor would cost into an aluminum chassis instead, you'd have a car that got better gas mileage, but wouldn't ever need a battery replacement.

[catbirdseat]

Okay, I read the article and wondered about this statement.

 

Furthermore, Hummer is a far less sophisticated vehicle. Its engine obviously does not have an electric and gas component as a hybrid's does so it takes much less time and energy to manufacture. What's more, its main raw ingredient is low-cost steel, not the exotic light-weights that are exceedingly difficult to make – and dispose.

What are they talking about here? Carbon-fiber composites? Those would be difficult to dispose of.

 

Right now, cars are mostly steel. They rip off the plastic panels and bumper components and then crush the whole thing down. It then gets shredded and goes off to China where it is melted down and recycled.

 

If you start mixing metals like iron and aluminum, you'd have to separate the two before you could recycle. I would imagine that you could design the car so that ferrous components could be easily separated. Perhaps easier said than done.

[Stefan]

Yes.

 

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml

 

I think research covered in this article is interesting and keeps things in perspective, but the conclusion of the commentary's author is flawed. Whatever extra energy is consumed in researching and manufacturing hybrids today must be considered a sunk cost in terms of energy, which will be offset by future improvements and increased prevalence of hybrids. After all, they're comparing a 100-year-old established industry to a brand new tiny sub-section. Interesting food for thought though.

 

The real [unanswered?] question though is can hybrid production and usage ever come to the point where in an all-things-considered point of view, they are more energy efficient than the normal cars of today?

 

I like the thought. Also have to think of all the people behind the scenes...and the cost to keep those people. Since Americans are spoiled and consume most of the earth's resources, even the dude who does the marketing for Hummers and his expenses must take into consideration of his living expenses.

 

End the end, I think the price is what is comparable, becuase it is an accumulation of all the inputs (costs) plus a slight profit.

 

If that is true, then the Hummer is still worse.....now if a Hummer was made in a sweatshop in SE Asia.....

[archenemy]

Funny, I never had anyone say no to a hummer...

[Weekend_Climberz]

I was gonna say, I'll take a Hummer over any transexual hybrid anyday, twice on Sundays.

[Weekend_Climberz]

Perhaps easier said than done.

 

Not any more, you can now use the new nanoparticle sensors to separate out anything.

[dinomyte]

Funny, I never had anyone say no to a hummer...

 

HAHAHAHAH!

 

And, that's why I CAN'T say that I don't like bush!

 

Well, I guess I do prefer shaved!

[archenemy]

Perhaps easier said than done.

 

Not any more, you can now use the new nanoparticle sensors to separate out anything.

*Gasp*

On God's day?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

hummers blow

 

[Greta]

Funny, I never had anyone say no to a hummer...

 

HAHAHAHAH!

 

And, that's why I CAN'T say that I don't like bush!

 

Well, I guess I do prefer shaved!

 

You mean shorn, yes?

[ClimbingPanther]

End the end, I think the price is what is comparable, becuase it is an accumulation of all the inputs (costs) plus a slight profit.

 

Not exactly. First, they were not talking purely about input costs, it was about all input/maintenance/gas energy over the life of the vehicle stated as a dollar figure per mile of vehicle life. Second, hybrids do not turn a profit yet, so their price is artificially low compared to the massive-profit-maker hummers. Perhaps the prices aren't that far apart. On top of that, the gains in energy efficiency of manufacturing a smaller vehicle and of running the vehicle are lost in the fact that you have to produce three hybrids (est. 100K mile lifetime) to last as long as one hummer (est. 300K lifetime).

[olyclimber]

I sent my hybrid with the divot back, way worse than a hummer. but they work better for flaring pin scars than a hummer ever will.

[JayB]

Most alternative energies start to look like this when you really pencil out all of the imputs/outputs, which is why they remain "alternative." The odds are quite high that if there were real profits (outputs>inputs) to be made with any of these things that energy companies would have figured this out a while ago, as would consumers.

 

You can argue that settling for higher overall costs and lower efficiencies are worth it as they'll contribute to genuine improvements in efficiency/conservation once they evolve beyond the first couple of iterations, but everyone who wants to see such improvements should be honest about the current status of each alternative and their true limitations. Inflated expectations based on incomplete or incorrect information can be more damaging to new technologies over the long run than an honest reckoning of their limitations.

 

Ethanol from corn starts to look especially bad when you take a hard look at the inputs and outputs, and quite a bit worse when you look at the environmental effects of expanded corn cultivation, and then there's the many negative effects of expanded subsidies to consider as well.

[tvashtarkatena]

From the article:

 

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.

 

If there's a glaring fly in the ointment, this is it. Who gets 300K miles out of any vehicle?

 

There's no inherent reason why a hybrid wouldn't last just as long as any other vehicle if the batteries were changed at appropriate intervals. A more credible study might factor in the extra energy required to do this rather than assuming a whopping 3:1 ratio in vehicle life. Use a 1:1 ratio, and the conclusions of the study come out quite differently.

 

It's also not just about energy input, it's about carbon emissions. Cars account for about half of all carbon production. Auto plants use energy from power plants which, in contrast to cars, are fairly efficient in terms of their carbon emissions (and can be made more so at lower cost). Even if the energy required to produce hybrids and non-hybrids is comparable, manufacturing and using hybrids will results in lower carbon emissions in the long run.

[wfinley]

I think research covered in this article is interesting and keeps things in perspective, but the conclusion of the commentary's author is flawed.

 

Likewise consider the source of the article. A quick review of The Reason Foundation's corporate sponsors yields the following:

 

- American Petroleum Institute

- Chevron Corporation

- ExxonMobil Corporation

- Ford Motor Company

- General Motors Corporation

- Shell Oil Co.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation

 

and

 

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=286

[catbirdseat]

From the article:

 

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.

 

If there's a glaring fly in the ointment, this is it. Who gets 300K miles out of any vehicle?

 

There's no inherent reason why a hybrid wouldn't last just as long as any other vehicle if the batteries were changed at appropriate intervals. A more credible study might factor in the extra energy required to do this rather than assuming a whopping 3:1 ratio in vehicle life. Use a 1:1 ratio, and the conclusions of the study come out quite differently.

 

It all depends on whether it's a Toyota or a Chevy. But seriously, no one really knows what the longevity of hybrids is likely to be, even with battery swaps. These cars haven't been around long enough to have a track record.

[ClimbingPanther]

You're right about the fact that you don't need to replace the whole car, probably just the batteries, although I don't know what other hybrid-specific stuff will wear out sooner also. Regarding hummers, they must assume that the lifetime of newer vehicles will be longer that what is common today, I guess. I agree 300K seems a bit generous.

 

Electrical energy, especially from nuclear reactors, is very clean, in a sense, and I believe much cheaper than gas for the work you can do. What would a system based on electric cars and nuclear power look like?

Edited October 12, 2006 by ClimbingPanther

[tvashtarkatena]

It all depends on whether it's a Toyota or a Chevy. But seriously, no one really knows what the longevity of hybrids is likely to be, even with battery swaps. These cars haven't been around long enough to have a track record.

 

Actually, it all depends on whether or not I'm the owner.

 

Many of the systems in a hybrid are similar to those in a non-hybrid, so there's no reason to assume, battery system excepted, that they wouldn't last as long.

 

Honda's Insight hybrid has been out for 6 years now. Different from a Prius in some fundamental ways, but still a good case study for how hybrids age. Many are just pushing that 100K mile mark right about now.

[Dechristo]

I've got 160k on a four-yesr-old diesel and I feel I've only broken it in.

[tvashtarkatena]

I've got 160k on a four-yesr-old diesel and I feel I've only broken it in.

 

I've got a 160K on a Subaru and it's just broken.