An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« I Don’t Understand This Thinking

Spend Our Way Out »

Some Thoughts On Hybrids And Fuel Economy

Posted by PATRICK EDABURN in At TMV, Politics, Science & Technology.
Jan 28th, 2009 | View Comments

Since I got some well thought responses to my last post regarding efforts to reach better fuel mileage goals I thought I would respond back in a post that would be easier for everyone to read.

As I said in my original comments, I am strongly in favor of reaching the goal of better fuel efficiency both for environmental and national security reasons. But I am also conscious of the need to be realistic about things and just what it is going to take to reach those goals.

My original discussion focused more on the fact that at present it is going to be difficult to reach the projected goals without sacrificing either safety (IE car size) or speed of the vehicle. I also expressed doubts as to how quickly the car companies would be able to redesign and retool.

One responder correctly pointed out that with regard to plug in type vehicles there is a considerable issue of infrastructure to consider as well as the fact that while you might not burn fuel to drive the car somebody somewhere has to burn something to produce the electricity for you to plug in to.

Another responder pointed out that Toyota offers the Prius which does get great fuel mileage. I am second to none in my respect for the Prius but the fact remains it is a smaller, less sturdy car (my Mom owns one and I frequently drive it). This is not to say that it is entirely unsafe, but it is less safe and less spacious than my Nissan and much less roomy that the vehicles driven by my sister’s family.

I actually considered buying a hybrid about a year ago when I was car shopping, but when I ran the numbers things did not quite work out as well as I would have hoped.

At the time I was shopping I had every intent of looking at a hybrid but found that most of the models ran about $ 10,000 higher than their traditional cousins. The traditional models I looked at ran in the $ 18,000 to $ 20,000 range while the hybrid models all ran over $ 25,000 and often over $ 30,000. Despite the stereotype not all lawyers are rich and in my case I would have really had to stretch to come up with that extra money. I can only imagine what a family would have to do to make the same stretch.

Even when you factor in better fuel economy it does not work out very well. I get about 30 MPG from my Nissan while my Mom gets about 50 from her Prius. I drive about 10,000 miles a year but the average driver is closer to 12,000 so I’ll use that figure.

At 12,000 miles a year you’d need to buy 400 gallons of gas for the Nissan or 240 for the Prius. That’s a difference of 160 gallons a year so if you drove the car for 10 years you would use 1600 more gallons. Assuming gas ran as high as $ 5 per gallon it still only works out to a savings of $ 8,000 versus the $ 10,000 extra the car cost originally.

This is not to say that I wouldn’t be willing to spend a little extra for a cleaner burning car, but in this case I really didn’t have the money available. For hybrid cars to be realistic options we need to get them to be much less expensive for the average family to afford it.

Again, for anyone in the West Wing who happens to read this, many of us out here are strongly in support of your ideas but when the good cars cost more than we can reasonably afford, it doesn’t matter how many you produce, they aren’t going to do much good on the car lot.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

ChrisWWW

It is immoral for government and activists to want to coerce people into buying what they don't want, rather than what they want.

When the Army is threatening to put a bullet in your head if you don't go to the Toyota dealership, let me know.

Setting up economic penalties (through taxes usually) is a great way to use market forces to address externalities like pollution and traffic congestion.

Silhouette

Wow. The title of this article should be "BigOil Faced With the Future On Its Doorstep Spins Yet Another Reason To Stay Dependant On Their Monopoly"

Who do they think they're kidding? We've had the technology in place for DECADES to have safe, fast, reliable hybrids and guess what BigOil did back then? Paid the Car Manufacturers to scrap early models in heaps in the desert, made up false reports, just like this article, that they were "unworkable"..."not worth the investment" "unsafe" etc. etc. AND simultaneously spent millions in lobbying Congress to shoot down any R&D money for developing...back in the 1970s and beyond!!

Screw you BigOil. You lie like dogs. The future is here, the green cars are not only working just fine but they are the new investment of the future. Pull all your money from BigOil and invest green. It's like getting in on Microsoft when they were just starting out....in spite of how hard the typewriter/slide rule people lobbied to keep you thinking it was a bad idea destined to go nowhere...lol...

DLS

"when the good cars cost more than we can reasonably afford, it doesn’t matter how many you produce"

Absolutely, and that's assuming that such vehicles can be offered that become the kind of vehicles people want to buy. (It is immoral for government and activists to want to coerce people into buying what they don't want, rather than what they want.) On the road this morning here in Michigan the discussion was about just that, what people want. It's corroborated by my observations -- my eyes are usually very widely open -- that even with $4.00+ fuel prices, people continued to drive their larger vehicles that they prefer, and to do it aggressively (i.e., waste fuel, which they don't value as highly as others imagine). More to the point, what few vehicles are new are all larger vehicles here in Detroit. I've driven two-seaters almost exclusively, and all but one of my acquisitions has been of a used vehicle. (The new car I bought, I put 400,000 miles on it and replaced the first engine when it wore out rather than get a new car. That's a low-footprint lifestyle. I plan the same thing at least once with the small pickup truck I currently own, i.e., at least one engine replacement over a long life.)

I've even engaged in some cynical, dark humor here: How does the center-right public respond to poor roads? Avoid tax increases by driving larger, heavier, more robust vehicles over the worsening roads. Ha.

As to the issue of affordability (as well as practicality), the cost (be it to buy or to lease) killed the EV-1, not any Big Oil "conspiracy." The Chevy Volt is supposed to be priced, still, around $40,000. I hope this figure is lowered. As it is (again, this was on today's radio show here in Detroit), it's wonderful to talk about great new conservation-minded and performance-oriented improvements (in the real world, economy and performance will face a tradeoff whenever engine efficiency and power are improved), but if it increases the cost by $5,000, say, most people will say "forget it." Just as they said "forget it" when larger station wagons disappeared, but SUVs were available. Most won't pay a premium for something with a long payback. Few will want to pay a premium merely to feel good about the environment or to engage in the delusion they are superior to others who drive larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles.

* * *

"it takes much more energy to produce a Prius than a typical car, and the making of the batteries does significant environmental damage"

Environmentalists and other activists should keep this in mind when dreaming of "clean" solar and wind power, which require batteries in addition to construction costs, physical hazards to personnel, and land appropriation, because solar and wind power are intermittent. (What used to be called by activists years ago, "soft power," in fact has some awfully hard attributes, harder than so-called icky, easily available "hard power" in a number of instances.)

DdW

Oh, I am sure we can come up with all kinds of good, and not-do-good reasons to reject a car such as the outstanding, not-all-that-expensive, environmetally friendly, economical, safe, and --yes--comfortable Prius...just as the American car industry has done.

adelinesdad

I did a similar economic analysis for myself a few months ago and came to the same conclusion as you.

As for the environment, I've read that it takes much more energy to produce a Prius than a typical car, and the making of the batteries does significant environmental damage. I think some of the editorials I've read overstate the issue (they often write of how far materials need to be shipped to make a single car, but ignore the economy of scale). But it's something to consider when making the decision between a traditional car and a hybrid.

blog comments powered by Disqus