About that CNW hybrid study

We have gotten a number of inquiries asking for our take on the CNW study that claims that hybrid vehicles are a net-environmental loser due to the additional production and disposal costs.  On the face of it, we are skeptical of their claims, but we are taking a close look at the report’s findings before we make an official reaction.

Our skepticism, is based on several previous studies undertaken by very well-respected analysts.  We thought it would be helpful to point these out so everyone will understand that the CNW study does not exist in a vacuum.

• The 2001 MIT study called "On the Road in 2020: An Assessment of the Future of Transportation Technology" (.pdf) used a life cycle analysis that concluded that increasing fuel efficiency with hybrid technology, is a net energy and global warming pollution winner.
• Andrew Burnham, Michael Wang, and Paula Moon at the Center for Transportation Research of Argonne National Labs recently gave presentation called “Energy and Emission Effects of the Vehicle Cycle” at the 2006 SAE World Congress.  One of the key the conclusions is “Total energy cycle energy use decreases for advanced powertrains & lightweight vehicles… Improved fuel economy offsets increase in vehicle cycle energy.”
• Heather L. MacLean and Lester B. Lave of Carnegie Mellon University published a 1998 life-cycle assessment which concluded that 85 percent of energy use associated with a conventional vehicle’s life cycle is attributable to operation. Only 15 percent is attributable to manufacturing and disposal.   Given that, it seems implausible that a 50 mpg rated Honda Civic Hybrid could be worse for the environment than a 17 mpg rated Hummer H3, even if it took twice as much energy to make the hybrid and it is driven half as much before it is replaced.

Posted by: Don

Comments

[Mike]

Thanks for posting this. The CNW study had some dodgy math in it, but I had problems finding other research that contradicted them.

[Alanp]

Surely you guys can do better than that. The CNW study is totally bogus to the most casual observer with more than half a functioning brain cell.

I'm not going to go and look it all up again, but the "Dust to Dust" ENERGY costs were womething like this:
Honda Civic hybrid $3.20/mile
Hummer H3 (or was it H2?) $1.95/mile

Lets say each car lasts 150,000 miles, and gas cost is $3/gal.
Energy cost for the Civic is $480,000 (thats right, 150,000 x 3.20 = $480,000)
Fuel cost for the Civic at 40 mpg = $11,250
That means the ENERGY cost alone to manufacture, maintain and dispose of a Civic hybrid is over $460,000. That is so completely absurd I can't even find words for it. Study bogus, case closed, move on to something remotely sensible.

[Tim]

The HUMMER vs Civic comparison is so hilariosly wrong that I cannot stop laughing.

The whole study about cost of H2-H# vs Civic was questionable especially when it assumed that a hybrid can last only 100,000 miles and the HUMMER can last 250,000 miles. I have had Ford, Chevy and Dodge and NONE last past 130K miles before they become extremely unreliable. I have bought 2 Toyotas since and the first is 190K miles, the second is only 90K miles and going strong.

In Canada, Prius is used for Taxi's and there are CONCRETE real world data of Prius logging 500,000 KM (kilometer) and still going.

What a joke! Go hybrid!!!

[pongle]

The 2001 MIT study page (pdf) is missing. Google still finds it as the first search result, but the pdf is not there..

[NOTR]

These "cost per mile" figures are ecological footprint costs. That means the cost of fuel to transport the raw materials, the CO2 emissions from that transport, along with the production cost (energy) then the vehicle life cycle and finally the disposal costs. It includes a lot more that cost of gasoline per mile traveled.

[Steven]

The thing you have to realise is that while it is possible for a hybrid to reach 500,000KM in its life, the average person that buys them is a greenie and such wont actually drive it much.
Next the cost of replacement batteries is cost prohibitive so when they die in around 7 years they car will be discarded. Compared to a normal car which can live for 30 years without much worry, just a bit of minor mechanical work.
So what does the average greenie cover in 7 years? not much!
And then if it is driven less the battery life will be even worse, so it may only be 5 years or less.
In the real world the figure of 100,000 miles is probably a bit generous.
Another point is that hybrids don't actually turn a profit for their manufacturers, their costs are actually higher than the purchase price. Real cars are the exact opposite. their real world costs are less than half the purchase price in many cases.
Hybrids should exist, they are merely a marketing tool companies use to try improve thier profile to the people which are too stupid to realise how useless they actually are.

[Steven]

whoops - shouldn't exist :)

[Dave]

I'm shocked and disappointed that any journalist would take such a short sighted view on the issue of renewable energy.

It's easy on either end to make specific assumptions on use and reliabilty to either justify or bash a hybrid. In the end there are people that it makes financial sense for, and people that doesn't. In either case, a hybrid driver is making a long term investment while living in a socitey concerned with short term returns.

Bottom line is that if we all drove Hummers, we’d be screwed in a few hundred years. We need people to start embracing new technology early (even if it is “inefficient”) so that we’re on the right path to making things better. If we waited for Hybrid (or any technology) to be a silver bullet before ever putting it into use, we’d never change the way we did things.

Articles like this just give ignorant people more fire power to delay making the right decisions and prolong solving major worldwide problems our children will have to deal with.

We need to stop being selfishly concerned about which car helps me the most and start worrying about which car/technologies, in the end, will help our kids.

[Henry Gibson]

Almost no individual buys a new car for its efficiency or low fuel consumption. All new cars and many used ones are technology art for their buyers. Almost no one, including Hummer or Prius drivers will make the most efficient use of their car. Buying a new car is an expression of affluence as is buying a big house. If all one needs is transportation, then get the cheapest most efficient used cars that you can stand to drive and pay for the gas you need to use, and you will come out ahead. TATA NANOs will never be sold in this country because they are "unsafe" but how safe per mile are motorcycles or bycycles. The major reason for high costs for hybrid cars is low volume production and little direct competition. The US government should prohibit the sale of electric cars that don't have at least an emergency gasoline generator and fuel tank built in to prevent stranded motorists on roads and media reports that battery cars can only go xxx miles. A very tiny engine is all that would be needed to keep up with traffic on city streets with a dead battery. After a few stop lights there would be enough power in the battery for good accelleration as well, and you just need to fill up the ten gallon gas tank every 400 miles or so. That ought to get you home. You don't need a TZERO or WrightSpeed to go shopping. A one KW generator will take you, slowly, any where you need to go, but ten pounds of a well designed engine could give you 10 KW.(OPOC) The government has mandated highly efficient refrigerators no matter the cost, and now it is the time to mandate plug in hybrid cars. There is now enough excess generating capacity at night to charge at least 30 percent of commuter cars....HG...