Think hybrids are economical? Think again.
- Thread starter spacemule
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
boltonranger
ArboristSite Guru
Hmmm.
It assumes fixed fuel cost;
even so it makes a compelling case when you consider these cars were being sold and lauded before 4.00 / gal.
Really good info Mule.
-br
It assumes fixed fuel cost;
even so it makes a compelling case when you consider these cars were being sold and lauded before 4.00 / gal.
Really good info Mule.
-br
BlueRidgeMark
Addicted to ArboristSite
Space, that's really low-down and just plain mean! :angry2:
Hybrid cars are a beloved ICON with the greenie crowd, and here you go posting some FACTS that show them to be pretty much useless!!!
Don't you know that discussion of facts is mean?!?!?
Nice find!
Hybrid cars are a beloved ICON with the greenie crowd, and here you go posting some FACTS that show them to be pretty much useless!!!
Don't you know that discussion of facts is mean?!?!?
Nice find!
wood4heat
Addicted to ArboristSite
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,832
- Reaction score
- 1,511
Space, that's really low-down and just plain mean! :angry2:
Hybrid cars are a beloved ICON with the greenie crowd, and here you go posting some FACTS that show them to be pretty much useless!!!
Don't you know that discussion of facts is mean?!?!?
Nice find!
If the "greenies" don't like Space's spreadsheet give them this link:
http://www.katu.com/news/7561002.html
Wired magazine tells environmentalists to forget organics, go nuclear, and screw the spotted owl
1. Live in cities. “The fact is that urban living is kinder to the planet, and Manhattan is perhaps the greenest place in the US. A Manhattanite’s carbon footprint is 30 percent smaller than the average American’s.” It adds, “30%—the amount by which an average household reduces its CO2 emissions if one member takes public transit to work instead of driving .”
2. A/C is okay. Claiming that heating a home has greater implication than cooling a home, Matt Power’s mini-article says, “8—the factor by which the CO2 released byheating US homes exceeds that released by cooling them,” and thereby ends the stereotype that “energy sucking A/C props up an unsustainable lifestyle…while the cheerful New Englander splitting wood and tending his potbelly stove is the epitome of ecological harmony.”
3. Organics are not the answer. Joanna Pearlstein’s mini-article says, “45%—the amount by which an organic chicken’s lifetime greenhouse gas emissions exceed a nonorganic bird’s.” She says, “What matters is eating food that’s locally grown and in season.” Out of season foods are likely grown in energy-dependent hothouses.
4. Farm the forests. As misleading as this title is, it’s actually asserting that we should consider trees crops, “A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years.” However, decomposing wood releases more carbon. Matt Power’s mini-article cites a Canadian study and plan that “farms the forests” and clears dead trees and plants new trees to keep the carbon absorption versus emission in check.
5. China is the solution, not the problem. Spencer Reiss’s mini-article says that China has the largest motive for fighting greenhouse gases. They are becoming the leading exporter of alternative-energy products. “35%—Portion of the world’s solar cells manufactured in China.”
6. Accept genetic engineering. “Agriculture accounts for 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,” Spencer Reiss writes. However genomics—or genetically engineering—offers a solution that optimizes food production. Properly applied, this could save on carbon dioxide. His article explains that Arcadia Biosciences believes nitrogen-efficient rice crops, “…could save the equivalent of 50 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.”
7. Carbon trading doesn’t work. In this mini-article, Spencer Reiss claims, “Carbon offsets—and emissions-trading schemes, their industrial-scale siblings—are the environmental version of subprime mortgages. In other words, they gain little with great risk. He writes, “…the Kyoto Protocol…will slow the rise of carbon emissions by…6.5 days.” He suggests the economists’ solution: a fossil fuel tax.
8. Embrace nuclear power. Spencer Reiss writes, “Embracing the atom is the key to winning the war on warming…” Debunking other renewable energy sources, he says, “Nukes win…” as, “…the most climate friendly industrial-scale energy source.”
9. Used cars, not hybrids. “100K—Miles a new Prius would have to travel to achieve the carbon savings that come from driving a 1998 Tercel,” Matt Powers writes. Mostly because of the nickel batteries, making hybrids emits more carbon that making a Hummer. Although the hybrid’s fuel efficiency is reputed to balance that out, it’s not that simple or fast. His solution? “…buy a three-cylinder, 49-horsepower 1994 Geo Metro XFi, one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever built. it gets the same average mileage as a 2008 Prius, so a new hybrid would never close the carbon gap.”
10. Prepare for the worst. Spencer Reiss’s mini-article is grim, “62—Years before atmospheric carbon will reach critical levels even if drastic steps are taken now.” Quoting Al Gore from his book Earth in the Balance, Reiss’ backs up his argument, “[adaptation is]…a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our own skin.”
1. Live in cities. “The fact is that urban living is kinder to the planet, and Manhattan is perhaps the greenest place in the US. A Manhattanite’s carbon footprint is 30 percent smaller than the average American’s.” It adds, “30%—the amount by which an average household reduces its CO2 emissions if one member takes public transit to work instead of driving .”
2. A/C is okay. Claiming that heating a home has greater implication than cooling a home, Matt Power’s mini-article says, “8—the factor by which the CO2 released byheating US homes exceeds that released by cooling them,” and thereby ends the stereotype that “energy sucking A/C props up an unsustainable lifestyle…while the cheerful New Englander splitting wood and tending his potbelly stove is the epitome of ecological harmony.”
3. Organics are not the answer. Joanna Pearlstein’s mini-article says, “45%—the amount by which an organic chicken’s lifetime greenhouse gas emissions exceed a nonorganic bird’s.” She says, “What matters is eating food that’s locally grown and in season.” Out of season foods are likely grown in energy-dependent hothouses.
4. Farm the forests. As misleading as this title is, it’s actually asserting that we should consider trees crops, “A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years.” However, decomposing wood releases more carbon. Matt Power’s mini-article cites a Canadian study and plan that “farms the forests” and clears dead trees and plants new trees to keep the carbon absorption versus emission in check.
5. China is the solution, not the problem. Spencer Reiss’s mini-article says that China has the largest motive for fighting greenhouse gases. They are becoming the leading exporter of alternative-energy products. “35%—Portion of the world’s solar cells manufactured in China.”
6. Accept genetic engineering. “Agriculture accounts for 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,” Spencer Reiss writes. However genomics—or genetically engineering—offers a solution that optimizes food production. Properly applied, this could save on carbon dioxide. His article explains that Arcadia Biosciences believes nitrogen-efficient rice crops, “…could save the equivalent of 50 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.”
7. Carbon trading doesn’t work. In this mini-article, Spencer Reiss claims, “Carbon offsets—and emissions-trading schemes, their industrial-scale siblings—are the environmental version of subprime mortgages. In other words, they gain little with great risk. He writes, “…the Kyoto Protocol…will slow the rise of carbon emissions by…6.5 days.” He suggests the economists’ solution: a fossil fuel tax.
8. Embrace nuclear power. Spencer Reiss writes, “Embracing the atom is the key to winning the war on warming…” Debunking other renewable energy sources, he says, “Nukes win…” as, “…the most climate friendly industrial-scale energy source.”
9. Used cars, not hybrids. “100K—Miles a new Prius would have to travel to achieve the carbon savings that come from driving a 1998 Tercel,” Matt Powers writes. Mostly because of the nickel batteries, making hybrids emits more carbon that making a Hummer. Although the hybrid’s fuel efficiency is reputed to balance that out, it’s not that simple or fast. His solution? “…buy a three-cylinder, 49-horsepower 1994 Geo Metro XFi, one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever built. it gets the same average mileage as a 2008 Prius, so a new hybrid would never close the carbon gap.”
10. Prepare for the worst. Spencer Reiss’s mini-article is grim, “62—Years before atmospheric carbon will reach critical levels even if drastic steps are taken now.” Quoting Al Gore from his book Earth in the Balance, Reiss’ backs up his argument, “[adaptation is]…a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our own skin.”
spacemule
The Peanut Gallery
Good point, but I also saw a figure that suggested hybrids require more energy to make than their standard counterparts and this more than offset the fuel mileage advantage. Sorry, don't have a link to that figure. Bottom line is, hybrids make neither economic nor environmental sense.
spacemule
The Peanut Gallery
I can just see the ALF (or is it ELF?) people going around and burning Priuses and making snide hybrid comments.
b1rdman
Addicted to ArboristSite
Looks like the spreadsheet deals with direct costs only and it appears that it does this at a cursory level. I don't know much about hybrids but I'd routine maintenance and such to be quite different.
spacemule
The Peanut Gallery
About maintenance costs, here's a quote from a discussion forum.
BlueRidgeMark
Addicted to ArboristSite
And how much energy was consumed by the production of that $6,000 battery?
And how much pollution was created?
I have to laugh at the greenies who just recently (last 2 years or so) discovered that the advertised MPG isn't what they get in real life! And they are MAD!!!
Oh, duh! Advertised mileage doesn't match real mileage! Wow! What a discovery!
All they are doing is announcing what idiots they are.
We knew that.
And how much pollution was created?
I have to laugh at the greenies who just recently (last 2 years or so) discovered that the advertised MPG isn't what they get in real life! And they are MAD!!!
Oh, duh! Advertised mileage doesn't match real mileage! Wow! What a discovery!
All they are doing is announcing what idiots they are.
We knew that.
b1rdman
Addicted to ArboristSite
Shoot strait BRM...dont you think that's taking the discussion down the same slippery slope that TreeCo tried to? Next thing you know we'll get some yahoo who wants factor in lobbiest salaries and someone else who will want to divide up $500B in Iraq War funding between the two. The double speak is surely on it's way but let's stick to straight talk until he ...err...they arrive.
Anyhow, apples to apples the so-called gas guzzler does seem cheaper doesn't it?
Last edited:
BlueRidgeMark
Addicted to ArboristSite
Birdie, you missed my point. Treeco wanted to talk about pollution from the tailpipe of those gas guzzlers. I pointed out that the hybrids cause pollution from other sources, like making those nasty chemical filled batteries.
Also, once you factor in the cost of the energy to make those batteries, the whole "save the planet, buy a hybrid!" position goes up in smoke!
Literally.
Also, once you factor in the cost of the energy to make those batteries, the whole "save the planet, buy a hybrid!" position goes up in smoke!
Literally.
Cerran
Addicted to ArboristSite
Both the Hybrid and the Civic are ULEV's so emissions from both is similar when the engine is operating. Assuming same miles driven the pollution difference from both cars is negligible.
The interest rate on the sheet's base case is pretty high and could use to be closer to 5.75% or less.
Hybrids do break even around $4.25 per gallon and 12k miles per year. Additionally, the price premium drops every year as the technology matures.
Also you should be choosing similar packages on options for the base model. A similar model to the hybrid would be $16,960.
The interest rate on the sheet's base case is pretty high and could use to be closer to 5.75% or less.
Hybrids do break even around $4.25 per gallon and 12k miles per year. Additionally, the price premium drops every year as the technology matures.
Also you should be choosing similar packages on options for the base model. A similar model to the hybrid would be $16,960.
Last edited:
Cerran
Addicted to ArboristSite
Actually that's not really true, the batteries are smaller and more efficient every year. For example the Prius dropped over 100 pounds off its battery since the original car came out.
b1rdman
Addicted to ArboristSite
That's the key right there! These gas prices are a tough transition for a lot of us but it's a good thing in the end. We need lighten up on the oil and the only things that will help us along are time or "high" fuels prices.
gink595
Addicted to ArboristSite
This kinda fits here, but I heard on the radio the other day (I know) that the old Ford Festiva's and Geo Metero's from the late 80's early 90's are selling for decent prices on E-bay and such, since they get better mileage than the new hybrids. I drive a 92 civic that gets 38-42 mpg, I just don't understand why the new cars can't get better.
oldsaw
"Been There, Milled That"
Space, that's really low-down and just plain mean! :angry2:
Hybrid cars are a beloved ICON with the greenie crowd, and here you go posting some FACTS that show them to be pretty much useless!!!
Don't you know that discussion of facts is mean?!?!?
Nice find!
Especially when you consider that at 331k you would be almost ready for your 2nd replacement set of batteries at $3-7k each. That pushes the return well into the future. 1/2 million miles anyone?
Mark
ShoerFast
Tree Freak
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 25,843
- Reaction score
- 17,234
Unless your waring that 'Self contained Breathing Apparatus' on a bicycle, your part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
When is the best time to complain, stuck in traffic?
The evidence is pouring in how 'duped' the greenies were in adopting the hybrid!
The Hybrid Hoax
Weekly Standard: The Dirty Secret About New Cars
LINK
| Page 1 of 2
DETROIT, Jan. 20, 2006
(Weekly Standard) This column was written by Richard Burr.When Treasury Secretary John Snow announced guidelines for a new tax cut for the rich here last week, liberals did not denounce him. That's because the proposed tax breaks were for gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, the favorite ride of environmentalists this side of bicycles. But the dirty secret about hybrids is that, even as the government continues to fuel their growth with tax subsidies, they don't deliver the gas savings they promise.
Most cars and trucks don't achieve the gas mileage they advertise, according to Consumer Reports. But hybrids do a far worse job than conventional vehicles in meeting their Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy ratings, especially in city driving.
Hybrids, which typically claim to get 32 to 60 miles per gallon, ended up delivering an average of 19 miles per gallon less than their EPA ratings under real-world driving conditions (which reflect more stop-and-go traffic and Americans' penchant for heavy accelerating) according to a Consumer Reports investigation in October 2005.
For example, a 2004 Toyota Prius got 35 miles per gallon in city driving, off 42 percent from its EPA rating of 60 mpg. The 2003 Honda Civic averaged 26 mpg, off 46 percent from its advertised 48 mpg. And the Ford Escape small sport utility vehicle managed 22 mpg, falling 33 percent short of its 33 mpg rating.
"City traffic is supposed to be the hybrids' strong suit, but their shortfall amounted to a 40 percent deficit on average," Consumer Reports said.
The hybrid failed another real world test in 2004 when a USA Today reporter compared a Toyota Prius hybrid with a Volkswagen Jetta diesel, driving both between his home in Ann Arbor, Michigan and the Washington, D.C. area. Both should have made the 500-mile trip on one tank of gas.
"Jetta lived up to its one-tank billing," reporter David Kiley wrote. "Prius did not."
Kiley had to stop to refill the Prius, which ended up averaging 38 miles per gallon, compared with 44 miles per gallon for the Jetta (which met its fuel economy rating). And this occurred during spring weather without the extra drain on a hybrid battery caused by winter weather--which would have favored the diesel Jetta even more.
Customers complain about the failure to meet fuel savings expectations. There are web sites such as hybridbuzz.com and chat rooms of hybrid fanatics who bemoan their lackluster fuel economy. About 58 percent of hybrid drivers say they aren't happy with their fuel economy (compared with 27 percent of conventional vehicle drivers), according to CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Oregon.
It's gotten to the point where Ford is giving hybrid owners special lessons on how to improve fuel economy, according to USA Today. They teach drivers how to brake sooner, which helps recharge the battery. But they also drill owners with the same tips that help conventional vehicle owners improve gas mileage: Accelerate slowly. Inflate your tires. Plan your errands better. And this eye-opener: Don't set the air conditioner on maximum. "That prevents the electric motor from engaging," USA Today says.
Muddy
ArboristSite Member
Prius got 35 miles per gallon in city driving, off 42 percent from its EPA rating of 60 mpg. The 2003 Honda Civic averaged 26 mpg, off 46 percent from its advertised 48 mpg. And the Ford Escape small sport utility vehicle managed 22 mpg, falling 33 percent short of its 33 mpg rating.
Yeh its the lowest per cent, but the highest MPG still. I see battery technology is advancing, we all would love to eradicate heavy metal Cd - i.e. NiCd in our everyday consumer products, but because there are so many, you can't switch the supply of this material or the industries that survive from it- off overnight.
Li Ion is coming along, hell, look at LiPo in RC products. Still unstable, but the power!! We advance but only in small steps. I remember an ol' Electrical guru telling me that at the turn of the last Century, there were more electric vehicles on the road than Otto principled vehicles.
No prizes for guessing who bought all the patents and shelved them????
No Government has decided on what our next gen vehicles will be powered by. BMW had a motor 10 plus years ago that ran on hydrogen - the exhaust? - water.
Only thing is, we all remember the Hindenburg.
I cant remember the link, but steam powered is still worth considering. Bio diesels, ethanol, CNG, LPG, Hydrogen, Battery - who knows, one day nuclear?
There is still so much to learn
Yeh its the lowest per cent, but the highest MPG still. I see battery technology is advancing, we all would love to eradicate heavy metal Cd - i.e. NiCd in our everyday consumer products, but because there are so many, you can't switch the supply of this material or the industries that survive from it- off overnight.
Li Ion is coming along, hell, look at LiPo in RC products. Still unstable, but the power!! We advance but only in small steps. I remember an ol' Electrical guru telling me that at the turn of the last Century, there were more electric vehicles on the road than Otto principled vehicles.
No prizes for guessing who bought all the patents and shelved them????
No Government has decided on what our next gen vehicles will be powered by. BMW had a motor 10 plus years ago that ran on hydrogen - the exhaust? - water.
Only thing is, we all remember the Hindenburg.
I cant remember the link, but steam powered is still worth considering. Bio diesels, ethanol, CNG, LPG, Hydrogen, Battery - who knows, one day nuclear?
There is still so much to learn
