Study: a hybrid consumes more energy in lifetime than a Hummer
 

Study: a hybrid consumes more energy in lifetime than a Hummer

As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions. But many of those choices aren’t actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck, according to a report by CNW Marketing Research. The firm spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. 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. While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.



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.



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.



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 Civic 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.



“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.”



“We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions,” Spinella said. “We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world.”

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/...than-a-hummer/


Hybrids Lose Lifetime Energy Battle, Study Says

Hybrid advocates trumpet the environmental benefits of the gas-electric vehicles. But a new study says that the overall energy picture for hybrid vehicles isn't as favorable as it seems. CNW Marketing Research, of Bandon, Ore., says that when the total cost of hybrids to the environment is calculated, including factors like recycling batteries into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure, hybrids come up short against gas-powered vehicles. CNW's energy cost per mile driven figured that the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, while the Scion xB checks in at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile. Some hybrids, like the Honda Accord Hybrid, actually get higher lifetime costs than their gas counterparts: the Hybrid Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the gas version's is $2.18. CNW accounts for the differences by citing the investments in lightweight materials along with the cost of recycling batteries. The auto industry as a whole, CNW says, has an average dollar per lifetime mile of $2.28; GM's HUMMER H3's figure was $1.949 per mile, lower than the Honda Civic at $2.42 a 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."


http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto...73.A10227.html


FINALLY!!

i've been saying this for years!

God forbid envioronmentally conscious Americans drive vehicles that are simply smaller! Apparently thats too simple of a concept to boast about. :whyme:

Interesting article. Wouldnt have thought the xb was the cheapest...

Very interesting article. Ofcourse, it's logical to see a hybrid comsuming more engergy in a lifetime, and have a harder impact on the enviroment when you take into account things such as wearable parts and batteries, etc. The qustion is, how much traction would an article like this get? Many people will continue to sip the Hybrid Kool-Aid and pay thousands more for a vehicle that will save them maybe a few hundred (in fuel costs) over the course of their ownership of it.

Hybrids are a stop gap measure....bring on the Fuel Cell.

Better yet, drive a Diesel. Hybrids get the pub but they ain't where it's headed. We need more efficient combustion engines or new technologies altogether (like Fuel Cells).

What does scare me about articles like this though is people thinking this means their SUV is "better". That ain't what it's saying. All it's saying is the modern technologies of weight and plastics have a high cost NOW and batteries are hugely expensive. As battery technology improves the gap is going to get smaller. And as automakers improve the combustion engine with things like direct injection diesels or Honda's sparkless gasoline motors we'll be better off.

Diesel with hydraulic assist :nod:

Thats the future in my opinion.

I find the study bogus and I really would like to know 1) who funded it and 2) their methodology.

Cause if the Hybrid Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the gas version's is $2.18, a Honda Civic is at $2.42 a mile, and the auto industry as a whole has an average dollar per lifetime mile of $2.28, and GM's HUMMER H3's figure was $1.949 per mile, then clearly the Hummer is the most logical choice for every consumer.

Yeah, one has to know how much weight was given to things like making of the plastics and other things. I assume the H3 seems cheaper because it has fewer parts. They must also assume some things about disposal costs which may or may not translate into real life. And I'm sure many of the figures are extrapolated from one figure.

Say that they got some general figure that it takes 1 watt of electricity to make one ounce of plastic and they just simply applied that to the weight of all the plastic in the car - that could figure could be way off in the real world. I'm sure they penalized the hybrids with real inflated cost to dispose of batteries.

Like someone already said - an article stating the obvious - Smaller cars are good for the earth - just wouldn't work. :rolleyes:

smartest thing ive heard in a while....

Fuel Cells are not the answer. Much of the same issues as the original point. Maybe even worse because compressed hydrogen. Discount the fact that it has big time logistical issues. It has to be manufactured and that's costly and takes energy.
Brazil has grown special ethanol crops. I believe they are going to be oil independent at the end of this year. As long as oil is above $45 per gallon ethanol can make sense. Nevertheless, leave to good old american greed to make this solution a long time coming.

Diesel and engine modifications and new electronics -OK Hydraulics - No. Again it the same issue as the orginal point. These pumps and storage devices are costly and add weight. The hydraulic systems in jet aircraft are similiar to some of the ideas presented for cars. Were talking about 50K worth of hardware easy. It would be a very complex system that would more maintenance. Not worth the savings when for the same bucks you can replace all the cast iron in the vehicle.

oh noes!!!! not my pious PRIUS!

:spit:

Time to go back to Volvo's. :tomato:

According to the companies that are involved in making these hydraulic systems, they aren't any more expensive or heavy than a comparible hybrid yet they don't have the negative side associated with the disposal of batteries.

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...ighlight=EATON

I'm all for hybrids, as a step in the right direction and not to settle down with for too long.

Hydraulics
 

Yes these are the same systems. More time and money wasted! I bet at the end of the day it's government money being spent on this type of doomed solution. BTW they don't even use 5000 PSI system pressures on military aircraft because of technical issues.

Hybrids This is so similiar to GM early diesel engines. The resale on a hybrid with 100K miles is going to be 50% below a traditional engine.

That article is ridiculous. I too would be interested to read all the elements that went into their research. Besides, the real question is not about energy consumption but gasoline consumption. The real problem lies in our overreliance on fossil fuels, not the amount of energy. Ideally we want a vehicle that consumes less energy but currently the problem is oil and oil prices. Another question is whether the study also takes into account gas prices of the last year or several years ago? Either way if they were to adjust for today's prices and future gas prices then I'm sure that the study would reveal very different information.

And yes, currently the hybrid cars won't necessarily cost save the consumers more money over its lifetime, but it is a pretty recent technology (compared to the combustion engine) that will get cheaper with time. The point is that it is a step in the right direction.

Don't forget.. what will happen when we have 100 million fuel cell cars on the road all spewing out water vapour? That'll screw up the hydrological cycle.

Probably for the better with all the droughts and need for new water supplies.