Hummer better than Hybrid, for Earth

[xoxoxoBruce]

Here's an interesting study That claims a Hummer H-3 has consumes less energy than the Honda Hybrids.

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.

It's interesting where the rest of the field falls on that scale.

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.

They look at the purchase decision two ways.

“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.

Hmmm...I wonder how they factor in clean(er) air, global warming and the supply decreasing while the price is climbing, of fuel?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

claims a Hummer H-3 has consumes less energy than the Honda Hybrids.

Strange.

"dollars per lifetime mile"

$/mile

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.

...so, where are the figures on this? Energy consumption is not measured in US dollars. For vehicles, the energy used in production, driving, and recycling of that car are measured is a unity of energy, usually BTUs. Is the money required to purchase the vehicle and maintain it being included? Dollars don't mean anything as far as the environment goes, not to mention what the actual emissions are of that vehicle and the amount it pollutes the air based on a single gallon of gasoline burned in it.

I recently got into an argument with a friend concerning my five year old vehicle that gets ~32mpg on the highway who suggested it would best be scrapped and ditched for a hybrid. It has ~95,000mi on it and, as I consider it, a long ways away from retirement. Being the green dork I am, I looked up how many BTUs it would take to manufacture a new hybrid and how many it would take to drive my car another five years and rack up another 100,000 miles. Knowing that better technology will come along, I found that even driving my little car for another five years is more energy efficient than swapping it for a hybrid Civic. Yet, there is a chance emissions output would be lessened if I were to switch. To date, there is no data regarding it, however, and so I'll continue to drive my current vehicle.

I'm sad to see "environmental impact" errorneously translated into consumer dollars. That isn't what this is about, although I'm not surprised considering this article seemed targeted at potential H3/SUV buyers.

[Kitsune]

Nice. I re-read and find that there is, indeed, no link between "energy consumed" and environment. Thank you bias and outside influence.

Still, I don't buy what this article grasping at.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's obviously bias, consider the source. But, I think it brings up some things that many never consider, much like your rationalization of keeping the 5 year old vehicle for a while.
Like everything else that is important, there's no trustworthy, definitive source of information........ except the Cellar.

[Elspode]

I would assume that the environmental impact of the batteries in a hybrid is probably the deciding factor in the skew. Well, that, and the probability that the study is about as unbiased as doctors who said cigarettes were safe back in the 50's.

[Bullitt]

I wonder how much the "study" takes into account the fact that the technology and manufacturing of hybrid cars is just more expensive overall than your normal vehicle.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

I wonder how much the "study" takes into account the fact that the technology and manufacturing of hybrid cars is just more expensive overall than your normal vehicle.

I think you're close. I enjoyed this analysis of the CNW article.

Well, since hybrids aren't mass produced at the same level as conventional vehicles, this automatically creates extra SHORT TERM costs. If hybrids were produced in the same quantities as conventional vehicles, many of these extra costs would not exist. Moreover, over time the production of any vehicle becomes more efficient.

Additionally, the electric components of hybrids - many of which are the foundation of fuel cell vehicles - are expensive to dispose notes CNW. While this might also be true, this again is largely due to the newness of the technology. Many of these components will eventually be recycled. Anytime there is an emerging technology, different processes are required and take time to develop.

...

Using CNW's logic, America's answer to foreign oil dependency and to pollution is simply to do nothing, as every experimental vehicle, such as hybrids or fuel cell vehicles, will always take more energy to produce in the short term.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Maintenance costs are also high for now.
I think what they are taking the position that hybrids aren't for everyone and we shouldn't push for a wholesale changeover to an entirely hybrid market.


Oh,......and don't let Bill Gates build them.

[Cyclefrance]

Like most studies, the authors/researchers will draw lines and set boundaries to their investigations, so its unclear what's in scope and what's outside, although it's pretty much a sure bet that the research falls short of putting a cost/value against the damage that the non-hybrid route means (contribution to rising sea levels and share of costs of defenses against same as a distant example). That's why it's is hard to believe any expert and the fact that so many of them can contradict each other ands still be right (omntheir own terms). Guess we will still probably go with the gut as to whether it feels right or not at the end of the day.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

I wonder how much the "study" takes into account the fact that the technology and manufacturing of hybrid cars is just more expensive overall than your normal vehicle.

That is why transistors cost so much more than vacuum tubes. The same 'monetary' study was once written to prove transistors would be useless. Clearly a study based in monetary analysis is accurate.

Worse is that the study's author is considered an expert. I see Rush Limbaugh logic. Where does he put up a single number for energy? He does not. Instead he does a classic bean counter analysis. You are expected to assume that costs measure energy.

Clayton Christensen's book "Innovators Dilemma" makes this woefully obvious. Major breakthrough innovations are usually inferior when first provided. One need only look at disk drives. Why would tiny disk drives that hold so much less data end up undermining the big disk drive industry? Welcome to innovation. Major innovation does not demonstrate major advantages on the spread sheets - at first.

The original 8080 I had considered buying was $400 - or about $2200 in today's money. That proves the microprocessor takes too much energy to produce? That logic is in that hybrid vs hummer example. Not only is the study based in spread sheet analysis. It also demands you will assume a relationship between energy consumption and dollars.

Meanwhile that 8080 dropped to less than $10 in 10 years. This because technology advanced due to the new and revolutionary technology found in semiconductors and not found in vacuum tubes.

Hybrids are technologically superior to now obsoleting big block (1968) solutions. But it will take time and continued technology innovations for prices to eventually reflect that advantage. Ever hear of an Atkin's engine? Just another possibility that, due to hybrid technology, could reduce energy consumption further. Hybrids provide to automobiles what diesel electrics did to the steam engine. As is so routine, superior technology initially costs more than existing and obsoleting technology. It is why those who do spread sheet analysis cannot see innovation even if stuffed up their nose. By the time superior technology become obvious on a spread sheet, the technology has long been proven superior.

Those who do spread sheet analysis include GM management whose 1975engine technologies are in most all competition vehicles and still not standard in GM products - 30 years later. GM is still waiting for the 70 Hp per liter engine to be 'cost effective' - which is why GM dabbles in bankruptcy in 1991 and in 2006 while using spread sheet games to mask their continuing losses.

GM’s core business has not been a profitable for decades. This due to monetary analysis that cannot realize value until that innovation is no longer innovative. One can play money games to prove anything - including that the hummer uses less energy than hybrids. Classic MBA school reasoning.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ever hear of an Atkin's engine?

No, except the reworked Mazda rotary engines like my brother races.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ever hear of an Atkin's engine?

No, except the reworked Mazda rotary engines like my brother races.

Silly Mazda! Wankels are for boats!

[xoxoxoBruce]

And the Chris Craft goes hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, except the reworked Mazda rotary engines like my brother races.

- Is that direct drive - can he spin a propeller that fast - and not suffer from cavitation?

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, Bro races RX-7s. The boat was for Kitsune.
Atkin is one of the major Wankel rebuilders.
So what is your Atkins engine, TW?