Car Tech forum: Hybrids are they really good for the enviroment?

I like your thinking, and believe Engineering students should be focusing on "what's real"

Hybrids are expensive (from an energy standpoint) to produce, and have many elements which are not recyclable, so the life cycle costs are hard to justify in a one off situation. Somehow, I still want one, and believe that this technology will be helpful.

I am personally biased toward plug in hybrids, using electricity from the grid to substitute for gasoline... I don't have facts, but I believe that it has to be more efficient to produce electricity in a factory than in a car, but I want to take advantage of regenerative braking as well. I think Nuclear is the way to go, even with the disposal problems.

Ethanol and Hydrogen cars are generally bad ideas the way the fuel is produced in the US. Ethanol from corn takes away from the food supply, is subsidized by the government, and puts the burden of the cost onto poor people (through tortilla prices, etc.), while still using 95% of the oil that just burning the gasoline would have taken. Hydrogen is planned to be obtained from cracking oil, so the carbon loading is similar to burning gasoline, and keeps depending on a non-renewable resource.

The only real solution is driving less, public transportation, people power (bicycles, walking). Reducing consumption should be the first priority in any of these discussions.

So not having all the facts, I say this with a grain of salt. I'm not convinced that the "greenhouse gas" argument in general has any merit. As an engineer, I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest that globally (energy) pollution has an impact. That being said, that argument is for scientists, politicians and (apparently) actors to decide. For that reason I'm skeptical of how "inappropriate" producing energy from hydrocarbons really is.
What seems obvious is that pollution has a real lifestyle impact in cities(smog). For this reason, power plants (and plug in cars)become a rather attractive option for mobile power needs. Reducing energy byproducts in heavily populated areas is a realistic short term goal and an attractive one at that.
As to ethanol as an energy source, it may not be feasible to provide 100% of our energy this way, but as it is, America subsidizes farmers to NOT utilize farm land to control the price of produce in America (so farmers don't go poor). This leads me to believe that much of gasoline could be mixed with ethanol to produce a "more environmentally friendly" fuel source.
As to nuclear, It's a no-brainer; nuclear power plants in America release less radiation per kW-hr in an uncontrolled manner than almost coal power plants (yes coal power plants release trace radiation into the atmosphere).
I do agree most however, that not using energy is the best solution. You will likely never get rid of industrial energy use and the home will always require a certain amount of energy to run, but for our personal pocketbooks if for nothing else, it makes a lot of sense to use "people power" and also to build a "greener house". It is true that PVcells on your roof do not make economic sense, but things like investing in double paned glass and flourescent light bulbs do.
Don't forget that energy crises are largely driven by things that have nothing to do with energy. In California, it was discovered that their energy crisis was manufactured by enron. Today it could be argued that the crisis is driven by Western nations pressuring NIC's like china and India to quell their explosive economic growth.
The facts certainly aren't in, and I agree that there are no "silver bullets" but from an economic and from a social standpoint- everyone could use a little more walking and biking, and everyone could be a little wiser about improvements to their homes to make them more "green". ultimately a little investment in things like light bulbs and insulation goes a long way in saving you money in the long term.

Hybrids still have a long way to go IMHO. We own a Prius which gets about 47 MPG in real life situations- far better mileage than any other car we have owned in the past. I cannot speak to the other issues like battery death after 100000 or disposal of same. What I believe the hybrids are best at, though, is getting more people to think about how their actions impact Earth. We've been speaking about the consequences of human actions on the environment for over 40 years and, besides a somewhat successful push for curb recycling, less littering, and a few cleaner rivers, do not have much to show for it. Driving a hybrid is a useful step in the road to living a more green lifestyle. Impacting the American choice of auto is a huge step in the right direction.

I think you're definitely on the right track, but one minor correction: While Nickel *Cadmium* batteries are pretty environmentally awful, Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries (used in all of the mass-produced hybrid vehicles on the market right now) are pretty environmentally benign. Also, because nickel is a fairly valuable metal (and there is a lot of it in a hybrid car's battery pack) the batteries are very likely to be extracted and recycled at the end of their useful life.

The NiMH batteries that are in the Prius and other hybrids are recyclable. Toyota has a program in place to do so. See http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technology/2004/hybrid.html. "Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery"

Where do you get the idea that the batteries are "terrible for the environment"? Is it from article that quote the idiot/shill CNW/Art Spinella and the total misinformation about a plant at Sudbury?

I don't know where you get the notion that the batteries "go bad around 100000 miles." The HV battery is warranted for 10 years/150K miles in CA and a few other northeastern CARB states. http://john1701a.com/prius/owners/jesse3.htm is at 285K miles on his original battery on his previous gen Prius. http://www.hybridcars.com/high-road.html went over 200K miles on his previous gen Prius w/no battery probs. Another benefit is that the brakes last a LOT longer than on regular cars, saving $ on brake jobs. There have been many documented cases of people being past 100K miles still on their original pads. The Ford Escape hybrid taxis in NYC have all exceeded 175K miles now http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/03/ford-escape-hybrid-taxis-top-175-000-miles/ . The Escape hybrid uses batteries from Sanyo vs. the Matsushita/Panasonic ones in Toyota hybrids.


As for "not phenomenally better" mileage, see http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/buyingleasing/most-fuelefficient-cars-206/index.htm. Sure there are non-hybrids w/high mileage, but the Prius for instance has almost the room of a Camry I own a Prius and sure wouldn't want to drive a crappy Yaris. The Prius in CR's testing gets an overall mileage that ~33% better than that of an automatic Yaris. That's pretty significant. 10 gallons of gas would take you 440 miles vs. 330 miles. With proper hybrid driving techniques (pulse and glide, keeping speed below 70 mph), one can manage 50+ mpg in a Prius.

are the people who fail to recognize that their driving habits affect their mileage. A co-worker who owns a Civic Hybrid can instantly tell when her teenage daughter has driven it by the sudden drop in her gas mileage reading. You can't expect fuel-efficiency if you slam the pedal down and jam on the brakes at every opportunity.

Furthermore, to discuss these technologies without considering the real world conditions in which they are used is to miss the point. With the stop and start driving that characterizes most urban areas, hybrids reduce or eliminate much of the gas wasted and pollution caused by idling combustion engines. Assessing technologies solely by their EPA mileage ratings is like believing the cologne ads that claim slapping some on will make you instantly attractive.

The challenge is not finding the perfect technology since this is probably unlikely but rather to achieve a reasonable balance across various needs and alternative solutions while minimizing the negative consequnces of each as much as possible. Just as farming has discovered that the monoculture approach leads to whole system vulnerability, we have to apply this lesson to energy by adopting a range of technology, regulatory, and economic solutions.

Based on what, do you claim NiHM are not worse than Lead Acid?

I know people who have not only had to replace some batteries, but it cost them a ton too.

Your friends minivan and SUV can haul a lot more, tow alot more, and more people and stuff can fit in it, and it's more comfortable on long road trips, and for most people it's more enjoyable to drive.

I know I'm not polluting much without a hybrid, so there would be no joy in knowing I spent more to save little and do nothing either way on the evironment. I don't like driving an absolute slug either.

Prius MSRP $22,175 Focus MSRP $15,885 Hybrid = $6290 more.
Prius MPG 50 Focus MPG 35
Prius $720: fuel cost per year. Focus: $1028 fuel cost per year.
Prius save you a whooping $308 a year. (assuming 12K miles at $3 per gallon)
So you are going to spend an extra $6290 to save $308. (and I have yet to meet a hybrid owner who actually got the rated mileage) Only in America does this make sense. A penny wise, dollar stupid.

If you keep your hybrid for 20 years, you *MIGHT* save some money. Of course after the first 5 years, you'd be paying full price for repairs. High tech car, high tech prices. Doesn't seem like your saving "thousands" to me.

and BTW, maybe you were around in the 90s, when they said the price of gas would keep going up and ... doh, it dropped to $0.78 per gallon. You do not know what will happen. I do not either.

When the VW TDI comes out, or Audi's Turbo Diesel comes out, and gets 50 miles to the gallon, and yet costs thousands less than your hybrid, how much will you be saving then?

Great reply.

You can see the gas price averages at http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/index.asp. It's at $3.157/gal for regular unleaded right now.

As for "most buyers will not get" the tax credit... err, depends on when you bought. I got it... everyone else got the full credit they were entitled (depending on where they were in the phaseout) if they bought between 1/1/06 and now unless they were subject to AMT or they owed too little total tax. Prices have come down now because of the smaller tax credits. (MSRP used to be an ok deal on a Prius whereas it's a bad deal now.)

I'm getting ~45.6 mpg lifetime average in my Prius. There are plenty of people getting in the high 40s and low 50s on http://www.priuschat.com/. Some there can't even fathom how someone could get below 45.

I only brought up the brake replacement cost of my Z since that's the last car I had which needed it. Brakes jobs don't come free. Not having to do them for 100K+ miles adds up to something.

HV battery replacement is more than $400. They must've had something else done. As I said, it's warranted for 10 years/150K miles in CA and the couple other CARB states and 8 years/100K miles for everyone else.

As for the other extras I brought up, it's to prove that you're not comparing apples to apples. Some people have been upset by comparing a Prius to say a Corolla when a Corolla lacks a ton of features. The same goes w/the Focus. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

As for VW, if you don't subscribe to Consumer Reports, look at where they stand at:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/pricing/best-worst-in-car-reliability-1005/most-least-reliable-new-cars/0704_most-least-reliable-new-cars.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/pricing/best-worst-in-car-reliability-1005/most-least-reliable-used-cars/0704_most-least-reliable-used-cars.htm
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2006133

The engine isn't the only part of a car.

Also look at where the Prius stands in owner satisfaction. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/reliability/would-you-buy-that-car-again-406/best-and-worst-models/best-and-worst-models.htm

From http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/reliability/would-you-buy-that-car-again-406/overview/index.htm "The Toyota Prius ranks as the most satisfying vehicle overall for the fourth straight year, with 92 percent of owners saying theyd get another one. Second place again goes to the Chevrolet Corvette..."

I agree that one person alone driving a Prius is just a drop in the bucket. If a significant # of people drove them, it'd help. The bigger issue is that Americans need to be drive more sensible vehicles for their needs instead of 5000+ lb. monstrosities like Tahoes, Suburbans, and Expeditions. The craziness is reflected at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s06003.htm

The claim that "the largest untapped supply of oil in the world, is in our land" is totally untrue. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html.

Biodiesel is a decent idea in practice, but I doubt there's even close to enough supply to meet demands if even 50% of vehicles could run on it. BTW, if you care about your warranty on a VW TDI, you risk voiding it by running more than B5 (5% biodiesel) from sources meeting petroleum industry standards. They used to state this at http://www.vw.com/contactus/faqs.html#5.1 but I can't find the new location anymore.

I did not harp on Prius vs. Focus. I was merely using the car the original poster refered to. A better comparison is a smaller weaker car. Like a Civic something similar.

No hybrids are not tied to a specific fuel. And I firmly support Diesels. Diesels in other countries already hit 50 MPG without the need for a hybrid systems. They are much cheaper too. Ethanol is garabage. I don't feel like getting back into that crap right now.

That's interesting because every other source I read, indicates a higher cost of ownership for hybrids. Further, I have read that a focus keeps it's value better because most people don't want to buy a hybrid out of warranty and have that $3000 dallor battery pack go bad. I'm starting to wonder if Intellichoice is baised.

The fact that with a tax credit you'll come out ahead is true. Problem is, I find this immoral, unfair, and against what America is supposed to stand for.

Why should you not have to pay tax, simply because you bought a more expensive car than I could possibly afford? What happened to equality? Now we have a two tier system where those who do what government dictates, get rewarded? This is not what the founding father intended.

It is simply amazing to see how many people talk about how the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, yet you turn right around and support the system doing just that. You get the money to buy an expensive Prius, and the government rewards these rich people with a huge tax break, meanwhile I can't afford one, so I'm SOL, pay your taxes. Thanks alot!

In America, we are supposed to be equal. If I have to pay it, you should have to pay it. If you don't, I shouldn't either. Tax credits should not even be in this discussion. This is why in my calculations, I never used the tax credit. It's flat out immoral.

Again, I only compared the Prius to a Focus because that is what the other poster said. However, my post focused (not a pun) on the aspect of "saving money", which is what most people said. Just look at the complaints people have listed about the Prius. It isn't "oh man, my car is emitting more CO2 than they said!", no it's "Hey I'm not saving as much as they said on gas! Where's that 60 MPG!".

Point is, and has been said here on this forum, "I'm going to save money by getting a Prius!". That is what I'm responding to. When I'm talking about saving money, that is all I'm talking about, and I really don't care about what features the car has.

If the goal is saving money, then I'll compare it to a money saving car. If it has 50 less features, who cares, I'm saving money.

But if I want features, then I'll compare it to luxury class cars, and I wager many of those have many more and I wider variety of features. For example, compare it to a Tesla Roadster then. That car has a ton more features, and you don't need gas at all. Of course your not saving money, but the goal is features right?

Again, my point has nothing to do with features. It's a mistake to say "I'll save money" when it won't, and that my friend, is my point.

As for the 5 year cost of ownership, and maintenance, and depreciation... I personally am very weary of buying a used hybrid. If there's many like me, then the value of a used hybrid will fall faster than a non-hybrid. Most of the "cost of ownership" figures I've seen have all been higher for a hybrid. Can't say much about it, but I'll guess there's a reason for that.

If you look at the numbers from www.fueleconomy.gov you can compare the Ford and Prius. First off the Prius has more Luggage Room and Passenger Volume (by just a little bit). Secondly you would emit about double the emissions in the Ford.
Here are some of the millage figures

Fuel to Drive 25 Miles
0.86 gal - Ford
0.45 gal - Prius

Cost of a Fill-up
$39.06 - Ford
$33.20 - Prius

Miles on a Tank
365 miles - Ford
589 miles - Prius

Annual Fuel Cost (based on national average Fuel Cost of 3.10 a Gallon)
$1604 - Ford
$846 - Prius

It may not be as economical to buy a hybrid at this point in time but Toyota is working to cut their next Prius (2009) price a ton and I 100% agree "if you can spend more for a car, in exchange for buying less gas and maybe get a little joy from not polluting as much, then get a hybrid."!!!!

That said, anything to do with .gov is questionable to me. You really trust government that much? Lawyers and Politians (many of which are lawyers) are completely trustworthy, right?

Better sources please. Just looking at the numbers given, something doesn't add up.

At 44 MPG, at 12000 miles a year, a Prius would cost about $846. Ok I'll buy that.

But at 28 MPG at 12000 miles a year, a Focus would cost about $1328. So where did you get this $1604 garabage? Further, 28 MPG is the worst it's supposed to get. It's rated at 37 MPG on the highway. In other words, your blowing hot air whether you mean to or not.

But, hey, if you like to spend tons of money to save a little money, and feel like your "saving the planet" then go fot it. You will not see me in one, unless like you say Toyota drastically reduces it's prices. Of course I'm betting a new TDI diesel will still make a better choice.

You make a good point about the difference in mileage and cost. Also, you make a good point about hybrids not getting the EPA mileage ratings. But the same is true for every car. Mine is rated 28/35. At worst, with all city driving in the winter with 10-20min warm-ups, I've never gotten below 23mpg on a fill-up. Yes, I do calculate my mileage every time I fill up. Most of the time, I average about 30-33mpg. The focus probably does around the same.

As far as NiHM batteries, I can just tell you what the manufacturers' say, and a little of my own experience with small cells. They are better for the environment, in production and disposal, and that they have a better charge efficiency for the same capacity of a lead-acid battery. Also, for the same size of battery, they have a bigger capacity, quicker recharge rates and get more charges before they go bad.
I cannot say anything about the difference in durability between the two or the cost in the bigger batteries.

The VW TDI isn't allowed in america because it doesn't test well enough on emissions. But as I've said before, we test emissions by volume, not by mile. The VW TDI is a diesel so the emissions standards should be different anyway, but maybe we'll see it in the market soon enough.

Gas prices will continue to rise, but there may be small and short-lived drops in price like you refer to. But just like the stocks, after the ups and downs, the price slowly but surely goes up over time.

A person with enough money to spare to buy a hybrid will probably not buy the Focus, Lancer, or Sentra. If they choose not to buy the Hybrid, it's because of the same reasons you present. They're not as powerful or as much fun to drive as the Couger, Charger or SUV. But if they want to 'save the world' then, maybe they'll go out and buy something efficient.

You're absolutely correct when you advise people not to buy a hybrid. The reason they don't get the EPA mileage rating is because of the way people drive. Basically, when you are running at a constant speed for somewhat extended times, the engine shuts off and the electric motor takes over. But when real people drive in the manner we do, in the city in particular, the gas engine is running all the time because of all the stop-and-go with the pedal to the floor. To get that hybrid to act as it's designed to, you have to be easy on the gas and accept the fact that you can't accelerate as fast as other cars, but people simply don't.
Also, the batteries are terribly expensive to replace because they are new technology and they won't last that 10 or 20 years that would be required for you to save a significant amount of money.

Well, many of your earlier posts at least implicitly implied people shouldn't buy hybrids via incorrect assertions and FUD on topics such as lead acid batteries and ni-cads (hybrids don't use them for their traction battery), recycling, global warming being called BS from a questionable source (seemingly funded by big oil), incorrect statements regarding atmospheric CO2 levels and taking a "Tahoe and I know I'm not killing the planet."

You also choose to conveniently ignore other pollutants.

As for tax credits, well, it's going away on all Toyota/Lexus hybrids on 10/1/07 unless something changes (per http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157557,00.html). What's wrong w/encouraging people to use less foreign oil and a non-renewable resource, putting less CO2 and pollutants into the air and recapturing otherwise wasted energy? This has helped stimulate demand, drive costs down (via competition and economies of scale) and will only have further benefits down the road as the cost of these systems comes down. You've refused to believe other people's studies that hybrids can save money.

People are willing to pay for features like V8 engines, sunroofs and 18" wheels. How much $ did these save you? You'll never see anyone say that a V8 engine saved you $. Buying a vehicle w/a hybrid system is a feature in itself and as I said. See above for benefits.

We've sent people to war over oil. A lot of oil comes from unstable regions and countries that don't like us very much. OPEC is just playing the world like a fiddle.

I agree about insane claims. My biggest pet peeve is misinformation and the spread of it.

As for diesel, the big problem is that even they so called "clean diesels" w/much hyped systems like "Bluetec" are still dirty and much dirtier than many non-hybrids (esp. PZEV rated vehicles).

It also irks me that it has to be so much of a diesel vs. hybrid debate. As I stated before, hybrids are NOT tied to gasoline or one fuel source. Diesel hybrids exist, just not in the form is passenger cars available to consumers in the US, yet.