Hybrids Require MORE Energy Than Normal Car

mikeyb

Member
Contributor
:
01 BMW 325xi Touring
From: Caranddriver.com
Doubts Cast on Hybrid Efficiency
The Daily Auto Insider
Monday, April 3, 2006
April 2006



Driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles, according to CNW Marketing Research Inc.
The Bandon, Oregon, auto research firm says in a news release that it spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.
To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.
One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.
For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims.
And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport-utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.
For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civics at $2.42 per mile.
"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high fuel economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime." The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents. "We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer's selection of transportation," says Spinella. "Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue."
 
summary: everone who wants to protect the enviroment should drive a Hummer H3 ...

The Bandon, Oregon, auto research firm says in a news release that it spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.
To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.
yep.."dollars per lifetime mile" is a totally valid term for that (humpleg) .. well at least it's a term that normal people think they understand hahaha

i wonder who pays for such pseudo scientifical poopaganda (poke)
 

Attachments

  • bulls***.webp
    bulls***.webp
    2.2 KB · Views: 172
Last edited:
Not surprising. I am anxiously awaiting the day that these hybrid drivers get to dish out $3000 to replace their battery.
 
buttthrax said:
Not surprising. I am anxiously awaiting the day that these hybrid drivers get to dish out $3000 to replace their battery.

yeah, that will suck!
 
while it is interesting they wound up going with "dollars per lifetime mile" as a means to express the amount of energy used by a vehicle in production use and destruction.....im not very surprised with the results. I mean we all know hybrids barely recoup their premium initial cost in fuel savings over their lifetime, add into that the resources required to create, dispose of maintain and operate the electrical components in a hybrid and to keep the "dollars per lifetime mile" you would have to do all that using only the amount of energy saved over the lifetime of the vehicle in fuel efficiency...

which begs the question.....why are they making hybrids?

they need to make cars that run exclusively on a new energy source (batteries fuel cells etc), imagine the impact on this test if the conventional engine was taken out of the equation on the hybrid side.
 
they need to make cars that run exclusively on a new energy source (batteries fuel cells etc)
i guess hybrids are still a kind of a concession to the fact that vehicles, which run only on an electric engine, are not powerful/inexepensive enough yet (in mass production)..

i have indeed seen cars which only have a simple power socket as a "gas tank opening"... i guess this will be the final result of the "conversion" we will be going through...
 
the hostility some people have towards hybrids strikes me as similar to the hostility that some people have towards sports cars.

it makes sense that at this point in time, hybrids would require more energy to design, build, use, and dispose of than more conventional cars. often, that's one of the hidden costs of new and narrowly-used technology. i would suspect that as mass production reaches the scale of more conventional vehicles, the lifetime cost/mile will drop.

why is this "pseudo-science?" it's a perfectly accurate way to examine the energy cost of a given product. the energy used in building and disposing of a product isn't free; it's energy the same way that gasoline is. discounting that is simply short-sighted and fails to take into account very real costs.
 
TStar said:
i guess hybrids are still a kind of a concession to the fact that vehicles, which run only on an electric engine, are not powerful/inexepensive enough yet (in mass production)..

i have indeed seen cars which only have a simple power socket as a "gas tank opening"... i guess this will be the final result of the "conversion" we will be going through...
Electric cars never took off (and don't have a chance to) because to create electricty most power plants (in the US) burn coal. Burning more coal to make the electricity for these "clean" cars pollutes the environment even more, while still consuming a non-renewable natural resource. At least hybrids use their gasoline engine to create that electricity cleaner than coal, but disposing of the batteries will pollute more then what little C02 is actually saved.

Can you imagine California, a place that already has problems producing enough electricity for its residents, if everyone has a car plugged into the grid?
 
I don't really understand the claim they're making. It's the exact same argument that the hybrid premium will most likely not pay for itself in gas savings. Most people aren't buying hybrids to save money. They do it for environmental purposes and to stick it to the man (big oil companies). People who want cheap cars buy Hyundais and Suzukis.

The content of the text is so unclear, it hurts. Different types of energy vary in cost and emissions. Measuring energy by cost is the stupidest thing ever. Thanks for nothing CNW.
 
Electric cars never took off (and don't have a chance to) because to create electricty most power plants (in the US) burn coal

as soon as technical progress allows us to cover our need for energy by methods other than coal/oil/atomic energy, this whole discussion will be superflous, because everybody prefers a clean and quite surrounding over a stinky and noisy enviroment. and i don't think the usa will be the last to jump on this train.

CNW Marketing Research Inc.
^ says it all. lobbying marketing mumbo jumbo @ it's worst.
 
Last edited:
TStar said:
the percentage of "alternative energies" (nice term down here for renewable energy sources) in lots of countries is growing for good reasons. i guess the USA will also understand this necessity one final day.
Yes, in the form of biodiesel or ethanol. But electricity isn't a renewable resource when you're using coal to generate it. Not to mention the huge energy losses when you distribute it over powe lines.
 
the research on storage and transportation of different forms of energy hasn't stopped...
if people are any clever, they will put a lot of effort into that research, rather than to cling to the old stuff just because it's (still) cheaper than the new stuff. maybe this is one of the very few topics where it pays off to be always up-to-date...
 
Last edited:
Back