HYBRIDS less GREEN than HUMMERS and ML

[hawk20]

Some remarkable research in the US, done by independents free from funding bias, has shown that if 'full life' costs are taken, including all the energy used in making, running and then disposing of hybrid and conventional engined cars then -amazingly- a Hummer comes out greener the a Honda hybrid! Equally therefore the ML would be even better!

Here's the link to a very long and detailed report:-
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

For non-economist non environmentalist folk in a hurry here's a summary: -
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. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.

To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.

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.” The goal of overall worldwide energy conservation and the cost to society in general – not just the auto buyer – can often be better addressed by being aware of a car or truck’s “dust to dust” energy requirements, he said.

This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. “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.”

Energy Efficiency is More than Just Fuel Economy

Looking for an energy efficient vehicle? Scion xB leads the list, significantly better than even the best hybrids.

That’s the conclusion of long-term study of “dust to dust” energy costs for cars and trucks. The research tracked and calculated the energy cost of each model sold in the U.S. in 2005 from initial concept to the projected time it is scrapped.

The Top 10 most energy efficient vehicles over their lifetime:

1. Scion xB ($0.48 per mile)
2. Ford Escort (0.57 per mile)
3. Jeep Wrangler ($0.60 per mile)
4. Chevrolet Tracker ($0.69 per mile)
5. Toyota Echo ($0.70 per mile)
6. Saturn Ion ($0.71 per mile)
7. Hyundai Elantra ($0.72 per mile)
8. Dodge Neon ($0.73 per mile)
9. Toyota Corolla ($0.73 per mile)
10. Scion xA ($0.74 per mile)

The 10 least energy efficient vehicles over their lifetime:

1. Mercedes Benz produced Maybach ($11.58 per mile)
2. Volkswagen Phaeton ($11.21 per mile)
3. Rolls-Royce (full line average: $10.66 per mile)
4. Bentley (full line average: $10.56 per mile)
5. Audi allroad Quattro ($5.59 per mile)
6. Audi A8 ($4.96 per mile)
7. Audi A6 ($4.96 per mile)
8. Lexus LS430 ($4.73 per mile)
9. Porsche Carrera GT ($4.53 per mile)
10. Acura NSX ($4.45 per mile)

Hybrid energy efficiency over their lifetime:

1. Honda Insight ($2.94 per mile)
2. Ford Escape Hybrid ($3.18 per mile)
3. Honda Civic Hybrid ($3.24 per mile)
4. Toyota Prius ($3.25 per mile)
5. Honda Accord Hybrid ($3.30 per mile)

 

[hawk20]

Some interesting questions now are: -
Will this important research end the persecution of 4X4's?
Will the Govt stop offering Ministers hybrid cars in preference to petrol ones or diesel??
And will Ken Livingstone now modify the congestion charge and stop exempting Hybrid vehicles?

 

[television]

Some interesting questions now are: -
Will this important research end the persecution of 4X4's?
Will the Govt stop offering Ministers hybrid cars in preference to petrol ones or diesel??
And will Ken Livingstone now modify the congestion charge and stop exempting Hybrid vehicles?

In Sweden you get parking and tax concessions for a Hi brid.

Re the 4x4's, I hate the damm things around here, they all drive too fast in the middle of the road, with the biggest woman drivers you ever saw.

malcolm

 

[hawk20]

In Sweden you get parking and tax concessions for a Hi brid.

Re the 4x4's, I hate the damm things around here, they all drive too fast in the middle of the road, with the biggest woman drivers you ever saw.

malcolm

Well it now seems that hybrids should not get concessions. Nice to know your new high powered monster may not be anything like as polluting as some assume. Not if you take whole life costs.

 

[jberks]

err, there is an interesting slant on this. Much as I personally don't believe that hybrids are the way forward, at least outside the city commute, this report quietly fails to mention that based on the way it works, whilst these figures are undoubtably true in the US, switch to Europe and they'd swap round dramatically.

I once read that the boat that brings Volvos to the UK from Sweden, belches out more CO2 over that one journey, than all its contents combined will over their entire lifetime. Hence, shipping is a major contributor. Now look at the list - the top 10 are all US produced vehicles. Where is the Saab, whose CO2 is very low, Where is the A140? Are the actually saying that the Jeep Wrangler 4.0l is better than an A140 or an Audi A2 diesel? Come on!
Only if it's driven round the corner from the factory to the dealer rather than built, loaded onto a ship and carried across the ocean.

Admittedly the Ford hybrid is US built, but then its a 4x4 and a truck so it's inherent inneficiencies are so massive that they can compensate for the fact that it wasn't shipped.

I would be very surprised if the cost of building the motors, batteries etc don't make a difference but I believe shipping costs are far more significant that the hybrid factor!

 

[hawk20]

err, there is an interesting slant on this. Much as I personally don't believe that hybrids are the way forward, at least outside the city commute, this report quietly fails to mention that based on the way it works, whilst these figures are undoubtably true in the US, switch to Europe and they'd swap round dramatically.

I once read that the boat that brings Volvos to the UK from Sweden, belches out more CO2 over that one journey, than all its contents combined will over their entire lifetime. Hence, shipping is a major contributor. Now look at the list - the top 10 are all US produced vehicles. Where is the Saab, whose CO2 is very low, Where is the A140? Are the actually saying that the Jeep Wrangler 4.0l is better than an A140 or an Audi A2 diesel? Come on!
Only if it's driven round the corner from the factory to the dealer rather than built, loaded onto a ship and carried across the ocean.

Admittedly the Ford hybrid is US built, but then its a 4x4 and a truck so it's inherent inneficiencies are so massive that they can compensate for the fact that it wasn't shipped.

I would be very surprised if the cost of building the motors, batteries etc don't make a difference but I believe shipping costs are far more significant that the hybrid factor!

Very, very interesting points, you make. We need the research repeated for different countries. Importing cars from a long way away is itself a real problem. Shios have to push through water which is heavy and huge energy is needed. Even a thirty foot pleasure boat can use ten gallons PER HOUR at only 25 miles an hour. Tankers consume vast quantities.

The other thing I found interesting is that Catalysts that use trace metals involve huge energy in sorting the trace metal from the vast amounts of rock that contain only ounces of the metal we need.
Also making large batteries and electric motors is very energy intensive.

You raise the interesting question: will this research be followed up over here as it clearly should be.

The other issue, I raise is will the bad news on hybrids -that they use lots of energy from dust to dust- make the green lobby and politicians note these findings and act on them. I for one will bet that in two years time we will still be giving incentives to hybrids and persecuting 4x4's even though some -like the little Suzuki- only have a 1600 cc engine.

 

[hawk20]

err, there is an interesting slant on this. Much as I personally don't believe that hybrids are the way forward, at least outside the city commute, this report quietly fails to mention that based on the way it works, whilst these figures are undoubtably true in the US, switch to Europe and they'd swap round dramatically.

I once read that the boat that brings Volvos to the UK from Sweden, belches out more CO2 over that one journey, than all its contents combined will over their entire lifetime. Hence, shipping is a major contributor. Now look at the list - the top 10 are all US produced vehicles. Where is the Saab, whose CO2 is very low, Where is the A140? Are the actually saying that the Jeep Wrangler 4.0l is better than an A140 or an Audi A2 diesel? Come on!
Only if it's driven round the corner from the factory to the dealer rather than built, loaded onto a ship and carried across the ocean.

Admittedly the Ford hybrid is US built, but then its a 4x4 and a truck so it's inherent inneficiencies are so massive that they can compensate for the fact that it wasn't shipped.

I would be very surprised if the cost of building the motors, batteries etc don't make a difference but I believe shipping costs are far more significant that the hybrid factor!

Very, very interesting points, you make. We need the research repeated for different countries. Importing cars from a long way away is itself a real problem. Ships have to push through water which is heavy and huge energy is needed. Even a thirty foot pleasure boat can use ten gallons PER HOUR at only 25 miles an hour. Tankers consume vast quantities.

The other thing I found interesting is that Catalysts that use trace metals involve huge energy in sorting the trace metal from the vast amounts of rock that contain only ounces of the metal we need.
Also making large batteries and electric motors is very energy intensive.

You raise the interesting question: will this research be followed up over here as it clearly should be.

The other issue, I raise is will the bad news on hybrids -that they use lots of energy from dust to dust- make the green lobby and politicians note these findings and act on them. I for one will bet that in two years time we will still be giving incentives to hybrids and persecuting 4x4's even though some -like the little Suzuki- only have a 1600 cc engine.

 

[Blobcat]

If you wish to replace your oil central heating boiler you now have to have a condensing one as they have a greater efficiency. However they cost around 50% more than a regular boiler and are only around 5% more efficient. Their working life is around half as long as a normal boiler and more CO2 is produced in the manufacturing then it will ever produce in its life.
So from an envrionment and a financial point of view you are better off with a normal boiler. The government are only looking at one aspect 'operating efficiency', whole life costs both financial and envionmentally are ignored. Policy is more about lobbyists than anything else, this is also true for cars and the current transport policy in the UK.

 

[hawk20]

If you wish to replace your oil central heating boiler you now have to have a condensing one as they have a greater efficiency. However they cost around 50% more than a regular boiler and are only around 5% more efficient. Their working life is around half as long as a normal boiler and more CO2 is produced in the manufacturing then it will ever produce in its life.
So from an envrionment and a financial point of view you are better off with a normal boiler. The government are only looking at one aspect 'operating efficiency', whole life costs both financial and envionmentally are ignored. Policy is more about lobbyists than anything else, this is also true for cars and the current transport policy in the UK.

So infuriating and we all feel so helpless to change any of it -except on a forum!

 

[stever]

You might like to consider that the people who published this research assumed that a Hummer would operate for 300,000 miles, whereas a Prius would operate for 100,000. There is no apprant reason for this assumption. They have hidden their methodology and not presented the paper for peer review. Hence I am highly sceptical of their conclusions.

 

[stever]

Also of note - they assume that petrol usage is around 30% of the vehicle's total lifetime energy consumption. Other (peer reviewed) studies suggest this is 60-70%.

 

[johnmc]

Hi,
The 300,000 miles for Hummer vs 100,000 for the Hybrid may be justified as the hybrid battery power pack will have a short life before complete replacement. I seem to remember that 100,000miles was the limit, may be wrong.

jberks is spot on with the energy consumption on shipping. My brother works for a company that runs ships, and they are bringing into service more and more ships at an unprecedented rate to move goods in from China and other low cost areas. The economics might make sense to someone, but in the long term we need to be more self sufficient in each major region to be energy efficient.

It's a good report, gets the old brain cells moving!!

Cheers!
John

 

[hawk20]

You might like to consider that the people who published this research assumed that a Hummer would operate for 300,000 miles, whereas a Prius would operate for 100,000. There is no apprant reason for this assumption. They have hidden their methodology and not presented the paper for peer review. Hence I am highly sceptical of their conclusions.

It is all there on their website for you and others to analyse all you wish. Personally I'd rather bet on the Hummer doing 300k than on the Prius doing 100k miles.

 

[hawk20]

Also of note - they assume that petrol usage is around 30% of the vehicle's total lifetime energy consumption. Other (peer reviewed) studies suggest this is 60-70%.

Yes and that is where they are pointing out the flaws in the approach of the other studies. Too much emphasis just on the fuel consumed and not enough on all the energy involved in producing, transporting and disposing of everything involved manufacture, use and disposal of the car, cradle to grave, dust to dust.

 

[jon_harley]

Some remarkable research in the US, done by independents free from funding bias

So who did pay for this study - does it say? Because to me, a company with a name like "CNW Marketing Research Inc." suggests that it's a company that does research for marketing, and in this case the obvious client marketing departments would appear to be those of the automotive industry. I'm suspicious about the tone of "we thought the public would like to know". Corporations serve their customers and stockholders, not the public, especially in the US.

In any case, who gives a toss about the total energy used? High energy cost says nothing about whether something is green or not green. What's important to the environment is the carbon cost - how green the energy involved is. Surely the point about hybrids is not how much they cost to make or dispose of, but that they involve less hydrocarbon material being burnt and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Those figures would be wildly different in Europe from the US since the US still relies heavily on coal for energy.

As an aside, when I was in San Francisco recently I noticed signs on buses saying "this is an emissions-free bus". I think whoever decided to put the signs on hadn't thought very hard about where electricity comes from!

 

[hawk20]

In any case, who gives a toss about the total energy used? High energy cost says nothing about whether something is green or not green.

That really is nonsense, Jon. Even if you define green as only being about carbon emissions there is very high correlation between energy use, in general, and carbon emissions. Of course there are exceptions like energy from nuclear power and so on, but as a general rule the link is strong.

Surely the point about hybrids is not how much they cost to make or dispose of, but that they involve less hydrocarbon material being burnt and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
As an aside, when I was in San Francisco recently I noticed signs on buses saying "this is an emissions-free bus". I think whoever decided to put the signs on hadn't thought very hard about where electricity comes from!

Here you virtually answer your own problem. NO it is not just the energy burnt in use or the hydrocarbons given off in use that matters, IT IS ALL the energy used and hydrocarbons given off, not just when the hybrid is being driven but also in its manufacture, transport to buyer and disposal at the end of its life. Same with the bus.

 

[Blobcat]

Hi,
My brother works for a company that runs ships, and they are bringing into service more and more ships at an unprecedented rate to move goods in from China and other low cost areas. The economics might make sense to someone, but in the long term we need to be more self sufficient in each major region to be energy efficient.

It's a good report, gets the old brain cells moving!!

Cheers!
John

Ships are far more efficient (fuel & whole life costs) than lorries. A decent sized container ship can carry >3,000 40' containers. A lorry can carry 1.

 

[stever]

Hi,
The 300,000 miles for Hummer vs 100,000 for the Hybrid may be justified as the hybrid battery power pack will have a short life before complete replacement. I seem to remember that 100,000miles was the limit, may be wrong.

John

They guarantee the battery pack for 100k miles, but the report assumes that the car is scrapped at this mileage. Highly unlikely that the battery pack will fail the minute the clock hits 100,000. And I suspect Hummers aren't warrantied for 300k either!

 

[stever]

Yes and that is where they are pointing out the flaws in the approach of the other studies. Too much emphasis just on the fuel consumed and not enough on all the energy involved in producing, transporting and disposing of everything involved manufacture, use and disposal of the car, cradle to grave, dust to dust.

Not so - other studies are based on established life cycle assessment methodology that is designed to consider all of these aspects. Having read more on this report, the more ridiculous it becomes - the reason the Hummer does well is that it is based on old and crude technology, so all of the R&D energy has been done already. Whereas a Prius is new technology - do the report methodology again in 3 years time and the results would be very different. Even the chairman of the marketing company admitted as much.

 

[jon_harley]

That really is nonsense, Jon. Even if you define green as only being about carbon emissions there is very high correlation between energy use, in general, and carbon emissions. Of course there are exceptions like energy from nuclear power and so on, but as a general rule the link is strong.

That's my point - you need information about both things to get a meaningful assessment of how "green" something is, otherwise you have to fall back on vague generalisations "as a general rule" (which isn't research, it's hearsay). As you point out, the carbon footprint of a car built using electricity from a nuclear plant is very different to one built using electricity from burning irreplaceable coal/gas resources. In other words, its ecological impact is very different. Without that information, totting up an "energy cost" is not useless, but very much not the whole story.