Hybrids: not as green as you think
Research shows that lifetime costs are higher
Toyota Prius: hybrid debate hots up
Hybrid petrol electric vehicle advocates trumpet the environmental benefits of the petrol-electric vehicles, but, according to the results of an exhaustive two year study, the overall energy picture for hybrid vehicles isn’t as favourable as it seems. Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research said that, when the total cost of hybrids to the environment is calculated, including factors like original production and then recycling of batteries and electric motors, into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure, hybrids come up short against conventional powered vehicles which where thought to consume more of the world’s energy.
"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," said company boss Art Spinella. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage taking into account the energy needed to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from concept to scrappage some high economy vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime."
Hybrids are not so "green"
CNW’s "Dust to Dust" survey studied hundreds of variables but to make it easy for the consumer to understand, developed an energy cost per mile driven figure. While some of the vehicles referred to aren't sold in the UK or Europe, the overall thrust of the research makes sense.
Topping the league with the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, VW Phaeton at $11.213 and Rolls-Royce Phantom at $10.660 while the thriftiest is the Scion xB at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile, ahead of the Ford Escort at $0.568 and Jeep Wrangler at $0.604. However, the research brings into question the whole concept of hybrids as "energy-saving", at least for the planet as a whole.
The industry average of 312 vehicles was $2.281, yet all the hybrids cost more than this. Compact family hybrids like the Toyota Prius ($3.249) and Honda Civic hybrid ($3.238), cost more than a full size SUV Land Rover Discovery ($2.525) or Lincoln Navigator ($2.617). By comparison, America’s best selling car, the mid-size Toyota Camry, cost $1.954 and the similar Nissan Altima only $1.381. Hybrids on the other hand cost more over their lifetime due to the extra complexity and production and recycling costs: the Hybrid Honda Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the regular version’s is $2.18. A regular Honda Civic costs $2.420.
"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 were true in the real world."
CNW didn't say who funded its research.
However, there is the valid point that the development of hybrid technology is necessary to reach the stage where they are more econimical 'dust-to-dust'. A means to an end, if you like.
Now can we have some research like this that looks at ALL other aspects of daily life and their environmental impact so we can see the relative impact of motoring compared to other activities (see JCs column in current issue of Top Gear for similar sentiments).
eein said:
I would suspect that the XJ should do well as aluminium is quite easy to recycle.
Steel is far easier to recycle than Aluminium. You just add it as part of the 20-30% scrap that goes into each cast. Aluminium uses a lot more energy, but yields a higher value product.
Blue Peter has got a lot to answer for regarding steel recycling.
Hmm, I am not sure that breaking something down to a dollar value is getting the green thing at all. People drive Priuses and other hybrids because they are good for the planet, not because their dollar cost is lowe - regardless of what you take into account, what dollar value can you put on making sure the Earth is around for our grandchildren.
Total energy cost is about as good as you can get as a single unit for measuring environmental impact.
Of course this doesn't truly reflect the effect on the environment, but then this is very difficult to quantify.
Besides, I recycle and I once planted a tree so that gives me the right to drive a four and a half litre!
eein said:
This is really good to eventually see some proper research presented in a simple manner that has taken into account the whole picture. I think most petrolheads and tech savvy people have been generally aware of the implication of this for some time...
Without the original report and its sources all I can see is unsubstantiated claims, not 'proper research'.
Don't get me wrong of course, I am yet to be convinced of the environmental benefits of a hybrid.
madbadger said:
I would suspect that the XJ should do well as aluminium is quite easy to recycle.
Steel is far easier to recycle than Aluminium. You just add it as part of the 20-30% scrap that goes into each cast. Aluminium uses a lot more energy, but yields a higher value product.
Blue Peter has got a lot to answer for regarding steel recycling.
This is incorrect, Aluminium takes more energy to manufacture initially yes (extracting from bauxite), however when recycling the melting point of aluminium is much lower than steel and so takes less energy to recover the metal from a product.
Zod said:
Drivers of hybrids are typical of the prevailing intellectual laziness and dishonesty in this country: it is better to show a symbol that you care about something than to actually do anything to improve the situation.
So Prius drivers are "intellectually lazy and dishonest"?? Think you're being a bit extreme there. Not everyone wants to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that oil reserves will last forever. Some day we're going to have electric-only cars whether we like them or not, and hybrids are a step towards that.
The main motivation for buying a hybrid is to support a developing technology by being an early adopter, and to avoid the congestion charge in London (£2k per annum if you go into the CC zone Mon-Fri every week).
I don't own a hybrid, but if I had to commute into central London by car daily, it's definitely something I'd consider.
The key point is that, whilst hybrids are expensive in energy to produce, the energy used in production can be from renewable sources. Therefore it's better for the environment to have a larger amount of the lifetime energy requirement focused in production of the vehicle rather than usage.
This premise carries through to the concept of the hybrid. Renewable sources of power (a windmill or nuclear fusion reactor) are generally not either reliable or compact enough for a vehicle to generate it's own power. Thus future vehicles will be run from a power storage medium as they are now, only it will be batteries rather than a chemical energy store such as octane. The problem is, current storage technology is not sufficient to power a viable vehicle on it's own, and there's no financial incentive to develop the technology at the moment, as the pay-off on a pure storage vehicle would be decades down the line. Hybrids require such technology but in a reduced capacity, and thus once a market is established for hybrids there will be demand for better and better storage technology, until we reach a point at which a pure battery vehicle is viable. Or so the theory goes...
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff