Hybrids consume more energy in lifetime than Tahoe

I'll gladly call BS on this. We hear this ALL the time in the battery EV arena.



As usual, they seem to be ingoring the energy costs of the actual fuel consumed. And they ignore the energy costs of the environmental and health damage created. And they are NOT comparing apples and apples, but have biased it toward vehicle miles driven, and even how far plant workers have to drive to build the things??? If a particular type of vehicle is normally driven fewer miles (let's say a Prius is only driven 100 miles/year and the Tahoe is driven 20k miles/year - the Prius will be MUCH more energy-expensive per mile - duh. There's not much here that is logical or relevant.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: [That is the gist of my reaction]

This is another way to spin in justifying not to buy a hybrid.

When anything new is created, new manufacturing process needs to be created... and hence the extra cost/energy. If that manufacturing process becomes the norm, there is no extra cost than building a Ford Focus.

Okay GM/Ford/Dodge lovers, go back to your lovefest of status quo. I guess you should invest a few penny more in making the cupholder more EFFICIENT instead.

 

The story is ridiculous.

Quoting, "CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage."

The plan part is the interesting area to focus on. Did CNW Marketing Research Inc. calculate the time and energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of the internal combustion engine?

The fact that CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years on this project is what is really ridiculous.

 

uh boy not this lame-assed topic again I get so bored with Prius-bashers. Oh, let's throw caution to the wind, H - E - double toothpicks with the lot of them! Pay no attention to the Prius-basher behind the curtain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ohiocityprius @ Mar 31 2006, 02:25 PM) [snapback]233048[/snapback]</div>

OK - This article may actually be true, but it is because of the way the math is done. This is one of those cases where they are using the statistics in an invalid manner just to make a point that supports whoever gave them the money to do the study. The hybrids are new and there have been relatively few produced, and would have had high development cost because of the totally new systems and the dual systems. So if you take the total development costs/energy inputs and divide them over the number that have been produced, you will naturally get a higher cost for a newer model with fewer units sold, especially a completely new model and paradigm. The Tahoe has been around for longer, and even when it was a new model, it would have had relatively low developmental energy costs, because honestly, it's a truck with a camper shell on it. So therefore, this might be true, but it doesn't mean hybrids will be worse in the end, it just means they're new. So really, they should encourage people to buy more, to help lower the developmental energy cost per unit!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusblue @ Mar 31 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]233066[/snapback]</div>

Well, yeah, but they ignore how much energy has been wasted over the years by the American automobile industry. How much energy is going to waste as that fleet of Tahoes sits on a dealer's lot going unsold? How much energy was wasted on propping up dying brands Oldsmobile and Buick while ignoring Saturn? There was an article in one of the Detroit papers this morning, that I can't find now because of Delphi, that showed that it costs close to $10,000 per year to operate a large SUV and only three or four thousand to operate a small car. If you really don't need that SUV, you are expending a great deal more energy than the amount used to produce a hybrid.

 

Mark Twain had a quote that fits a lot of special interest articles: "Figures never lie, and liers never figure".

 

Idiots. Gaahsh. (a little Napoleon Dynamite, in case it matters).

Can we have a show of hands as to how many of us hybrid owners will give up their hybrid for a more "energy-efficient" H2 or 3 or whatever they're up to now...I thought so.

 

You guys want Tahoe Bashing?

Visit my other thread in "Other Cars" forum in PC.

http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=17797

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ohiocityprius @ Mar 31 2006, 02:25 PM) [snapback]233048[/snapback]</div>

They did not specify any of their methods, but a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they are seriously confused about something.

They cite a cost, for energy alone, of "$2.42 cents per mile" per mile for running a Honda Civic.

What could that possibly mean?

Option 1: they actually meant $2.42 per mile, to drive a Civic, in energy cost alone. Any simple calculation shows that's clearly absurd. If the average Civic lasts 150K miles before being scrapped, that would imply a total "energy cost" of ... $363,000 for the car, full life cycle. That's $20K to buy it, maybe $12.5K to put in the gas (150000 miles/30MPG*$2.50/gallon), which only leaves a discrepancy of $330,500 not accounted for in the purchase price (which has to cover the money costs of all inputs used to create the car, at least in the long run) and the gas (which again pretty much covers the direct money costs of the energy to run it, not counting the costs of the roads themselves, of course.)

Looking at that another way, US DOT says US residents drove 3 trillion miles in 2004. If we all drove Civics, at $2.42 per mile, that would suggest that the "energy cost" of our driving was about $7 trillion, or perhaps half of the entire US GDP. Nonsense. The US DOE says total 2004 value of US fossil fuel production and net imports was just about $400B. So, the "energy cost", using this figure, is perhaps 20x total US direct expenditures for fossil fuels. Nonsense again.

Option 2: They actually mean 2.42 cents per mile, or $0.0242 per mile. Some people are confused by zeros. But that's also foolish, because even a Prius is going to cost you a nickel a mile for the gas, roughly. So that's too low. That energy costs doesn't even pay for the gas.

Unless someone can read this differently, I think this is just nonsense.

 

CNW Marketing Research, Inc. ?

PR Newswire?

I agree these are valid things to question. But when I want unbiased research I don't think I will be looking to a PR or Marketing firm for unbiased answers.

Also how can they calculate anything based on the lifetime of the vehicle when most hybrids are probably still on the road.

 

Drive is only one factor. If they offered side-by-side comparisons of a Prius versus the Tahoe, we'd probably see where the BIG costs are. If they magically add $20,000 to PROPERLY dispose of the HV battery, then we'll know how much of a crock the report is...

 

There was a Toyota document a few years ago - the current gen Prius used much less energy to produce and manufacture than the first generation... and after about 30k miles the energy/carbon was recouped. This is BEFORE the mass production levels of today. As hybrid drivetrains are standardized this will become more and more meaningless (as it already is). Isn't the TCH supposed to be built in Kentucky along w/ other Camries? The Prius is no longer built on its own as the first generation was.

Also, that same Toyota document discussed how high a percentage of the Prius was recyclable. The Toyota hybrid FAQ page reveals that the battery (from let's say a completely wrecked Prius) has a tag on it to call the dealer... and the dealer is offered a $200 incentive to return the battery to Toyota. In addition to that, ALL parts of the battery are recycled.

And what is this cost to dispose? I would assume it takes more energy to crush a Tahoe than a Prius!!!!!

Perhaps they can get away with increasing costs for hybrids by factoring in recycled parts ~ without factoring in how these recycled parts reduce the energy costs of producing newer cars (since they are getting that much ahead of themselves).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ohiocityprius @ Mar 31 2006, 03:25 PM) [snapback]233048[/snapback]</div>

Nope, not for a second.

The fact that they didn't even define "lifetime" makes me highly suspicious... since results can easily be interpreted a different way if scope is changed. And of course, they generically grouped all hybrid types together. For that matter, the meaning of "energy" itself leaves a person wondering.

It basically looks like more guzzler propaganda to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ohiocityprius @ Mar 31 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]233048[/snapback]</div>

Two thoughts:

1) their results are useless to me until I know their methodology.

2) new technology is at a disadvantage compared to older tech, because older tech has had more time to spread it's R&D costs over its lifetime, reducing them. Esp. if older tech is unchanging, where it's R&D costs are fixed, and thus eventually fade into nothing.

3) more popular technology has an advantage over less popular tech because it can exploit economies of scale. (mass production and all that). Once hybrid parts are produced on a very large scale, they will be nearly as cheap as ICE cars and ultimately will wipe the floor with them, from an environmental perspective.

Three! Three thoughts! (Nobody expects the Hybrid inquisition!)

 

Who in hell is "CNW Marketing Research"?

From their website:

Company Background

Founded in 1984, CNW Marketing/Research began as Coastal NW Publishing Company. Through the years, clients and subscribers have spread from the Great Northwest to include every state of the union (except Alabama), Australia, Europe, Asia and Canada. Clients include major automobile manufacturers, banks and lending institutions, Wall Street brokerage firms and consultants. Besides publishing LTR/8+ (America's most quoted source of leasing information), CNW publishes new and used vehicle industry reference guides and study summaries, a monthly Retail Automotive Summary of sales and trends, as well as our online research distribution center, CNW by WEB. CNW holds an annual conference in Los Angeles in connection with Time Inc. Mr. Spinella is available for Executive Sessions for a limited number of clients. [end]

CNWMR seems to be a guy named Art Spinella, who will "analyze your business for from 4 to 10 days, starting at $10,000". Surfing around his interlocking websites raises more questions than it answers (outside of the above "About Us").

Its HQ is in Bandon, OR. It seems to be related to a golf course, Bandon Dunes. "It" recently bought a run-down, large cabin on a lake as an "executive center". One of its links leads to a model train layout. A related site is about transplanting a 5L Ford engine into a '76 MGB (!?) (The transplant was also done by a guy in Bandon.) It has pricy subscription rates (by unlimited web access for $995/yr, or fax for $395).

"It" even supplies news updates from...The Detroit News!! Surprise! :blink:

As Arte Johnson said, "Verrrrrrrry interesting!". <_<

 

Yeah, after navigating through his websites and seenig the Detroit reference, I wanted to shower and then never read his paid-ad crap again.