People who subscribe to catastrophic global-warming scenarios sometimes buy hybrid vehicles to do their part in saving the planet. As for me, I'd be more likely to buy a Hummer if I thought man-made global warming was a real problem. The reason is simple. Though hybrids have much higher fuel efficiency, their overall energy cost exceeds that of SUVs, including the Hummer. The overall energy cost of the Honda Accord hybrid, for example, is $3.29/mile; for the Hummer H3 it's $1.949/mile.

This interesting statistic comes from CNW Marketing Research Inc., which spent two years collecting data on how much energy it takes to plan, build, use, and dispose of specific vehicle makes and models. CNW's figures on energy use are impressively inclusive. They factor in such details as the distance auto-plant employees drive to work, electricity usage at car dealerships, and literally hundreds of other variables.

The 479-page study is free and well worth digging into. Readers will find, for example, that the fuel a car burns over its lifetime isn't the largest portion of its energy use, just the most visible. Also interesting is that energy consumed during manufacturing makes up only a small part of the total energy cost/mile.

And it's easy to get tripped up calculating energy use. Toyota, for example, says it reduced by 30% the energy it consumes to build vehicles in Japan. But CNW says Toyota's claims ignore the energy demands of its suppliers building full-module components. In some cases, the energy requirements of these suppliers actually exceed those of Toyota had the automaker kept the work in-house.

It also becomes clear why hybrids don't score well on lifetime energy use. The first generation of hybrids is likely to be scrapped earlier than comparable ordinary vehicles, simply because first-generation technology rapidly loses maintenance support. Repairs quickly become a losing proposition.

Hybrid components are also more expensive to make and recycle. H2 Hummers, for instance, have about $800 worth of medium-weight steel, which takes about $200 worth of energy to produce. The steel is easily recycled. The infrastructure to do so has been in place for decades. But the Prius has lightweight steel and steel composites that cost about $585 and take roughly $230 worth of energy to produce. Disposal of this metal is more energy intensive than that in the Hummer though there is less of it.

The complexity of hybrids and their relatively low volumes also works against them when repairing accident damage. A Prius, for example, needs nearly three times more time and twice as many parts costing nearly nine times more than a comparable small car in an identical accident. Complexity also takes a toll during design and development. The energy to design and develop a Prius runs $29,000/vehicle. For a Corolla, it's just $2,600.

All in all, the report points the way for those who truly want to minimize planet-wide energy use. The clear choice is a used original VW Beetle. Its overall energy cost is a mere $0.05/mile.


Leland Teschler, Editor

Could you please explain exactly how it costs over $300,000 to drive a Honda hybrid 100,000 miles.

Who pays for what?

I'm missing the accounting trick whereby Honda spends $300,000 for every car they sell.

Yet another editorial with no backup for the numbers

bcstractor: Maybe if you would have read the report instead of just shooting from the hip, you would have some idea how that $3.25/mile in energy costs for the Prius was calculated. Included in this calculation were energy cost of producing the vehicles, cost of running the vehicle, and cost of recycling the vehicle, something you obviously did not consider before writing your reply. Obviously not all costs are paid by the OEM--for instance, does the OEM pay for the fuel to run your Prius over the life of the car? Of course not. Does the OEM pay for turning that Prius into dust? (not in the US). That said, this wasn't a peer reviewed paper, and I personally do not have the knowledge to figure out whether their numbers are 'baloney' or good estimates. If the paper had been peer reviewed, that generally but not always means that some other experts have looked over the numbers and they appear reasonable.

Yeah Leland,

 I'm with you on your editorial response in the June 7th issue. Leland says, "... I am just not convienced by the scientific evidence that humans are responsible for global warming."  I consider you to be the god of "conventional wisdom".

What does the National Academy of Sciences know anyway. They can't tell us anti-science, anti-education, anti-art, anti-sex people anything that doesn't follow "common cents".

 I read a article from a scientist just the other day. He had a degree in Bible Studies and we all know if you want to know the truth, you should read the bible to find it out. He said, he couldn't see any global warming nor greenhouse gases.

Well, that's about it. I've got my EPA license now and can buy Freon. I just buy 30 lb canisters and open the valves to the atmosphere, just to prove the EPA is STUPID.

Bye,

Lush Rimbaugh

Maybe Lee Teschler should have spent enough time to read the report to justify the silly numbers.  It's HIS job to give us good information.

 

You didn't give any clue as to the missing dollars either.  How can there be such a large discrepancy.  I believe there is a post somewhere on the web that does go through the report and says it is bogue - but then Lee didn't follow up on that.

 Lee is a Ron Khol soulmate.  Good capitalist - not interested in reality.

 

Chris P
 

Interesting approach (do all ou GCC disciples read the same manual for attacking GCC theory opponents?). The editorial has a limited space, so he can't present many facts from the report, and he certainly doesn't have the space to substantiate and cross reference every statement he makes--but the editor does give you a place to look, and yet you still tell him he is wrong. You still haven't read the report, yet you cut down the report by telling us that there is a website out there somewhere that "...says it is bogue...." ("bogus" of course is misspelled, everyone has typos now and again), and fail to identify the actual website so we can go there ourselves and evaluate the site's information for rationality and accuracy. The editor has presented some facts, you however have presented nothing except for attacks. The missing dollars are in the report, read it!

I have no idea whether the methods and the data in this report are accurate; my mind is open enough to consider the possibility at least that any rush to mitigate humans' damage to the environment must be tempered with some reasonable discussion regarding the possible negative side effects associated with those rushed actions. For instance, we obviously spent about 2 seconds in our rush to dump more ethanol into our gasoline, because now it is becoming clear that the negative side effects are many and can cause more harm than good: corn needs a lot of water, which drains our depleted aquifers probably more than they can take; corn needs  a lot of fertilizer, which can easily end up in our rivers and contribute more to the expanding dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi dumps into the Gulf; growing corn for fuel means it won't be available for livestock feed, leading to higher corn costs, leading to higher livestock costs, leading to higher human food costs. The point is not to argue the bad or the good of corn-based ethanol; the point is that all these actions have positive and negative effects, and if we rush out to reduce our carbon output without first accepting the consequences of those actions, then we could be worse off than we are now.

 If the cited report is correct, and we use more energy over the life cycle of the Prius than the SUV uses, then apparently switching to the Prius will be more damaging to our energy supply than the SUV.

 Capitalism sucks; except for all OTHER economic systems, which suck more.

I took to the time to read the entire study that Mr Teschler as well as many other "journalists" quoted. It makes for the perfect grab you headline.

What the study actually shows is how far you have to go; cheating and lying with statistics, biased assumptions and downright ignorance of basic science and engineering to arrive at the conclusion of the paper. It so clearly shows that the result was chosen and the numbers backsolved until the answer 'desired' was found. The study has been thoroughly debunked by others and a quick Google search will lead you to the articles.

It has been a great lesson in propaganda theory as I watch the news of this study spread though the population. As a Prius owner ( does that disqualify my opinion?) I am constantly asked or taunted about this "study". Those that want to believe that saving 50% of your annual fuel costs while driving an amazingly comfortable and reliable car is a worse economically than driving a hummer please call me. I have many other worthless obsolete things I would like to sell you at great profit.