“Dust to Dust� Energy costs of hybrid vs. conventional

This all started with Ben Franklin and the kite/key experiment and was further advanced by Edison and then we started working, playing 24/7.

As for the auto/oil thing...well that started with guys like H. Ford and J.D. Rockerfeller. Ford had a "personal vehicle" with a new-flanged gasoline engine and JD was looking for some way to make money on the by-product from crude oil...gasoline. Mmmm, robber barons at their best! And it's finally caught up to us.

Interesting. Just based on your list above (unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity to review the actual study so sorry if my questions are naive), I find these results to be rather surprising. First of all, how old are these results? Ford stopped production of the Escort in 2003. Were they analyzing the old generation Prius (pre-2004) or the new, more fuel efficient Prius? I also notice that they refer to relatively recent hybrid models like the Escape. Are they comparing the cost of energy used to manufacture an Escape in 2005 with the cost of manufacturing an Escort in 2003? If so, are they adjusting energy costs to account for today's higher oil/gas prices (i.e., what would it cost to manufacture and operate an Escort if Ford built it today)?

Also, if for the sake of argument the lifetime of a vehicle is 100,000 miles (Toyota's reputation for longevity I dare say is better than Ford's...with hybrids consistently rated high in reliability), are they saying a Prius will result in $325,000 in energy costs while an Escort would only burn through $57,000? Since materials, manufacturing and delivery costs are factored into the price of the car, and since the price differences between these cars can't be over 5-10 grand (with only a fraction of that difference due to energy costs), where does the extra quarter of a million come from? The Prius would clearly out-perform the Escort when it comes to fuel economy, so this money can't be accounted for in fuel costs. Disposal costs? Battery replacement costs? Can't imagine these would put a dent into that 200+k figure.

Scientific American did a related study comparing cradle-to-grave energy costs for hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, conventional gasoline powered combustion engines, etc., and I believe the hybrids ranked relatively high on the efficiency charts. As I recall, hybrids beat Bush's proposed hydrogen-powered cars hands down. If I can find the article again, I'll cite it.

For example, a car imported from Japan requires a lot more energy to transport it to a consumer in York than if it were built in Pennsylvania.

True, but wouldn't this be offset by the costs associated with sending supertankers full of crude from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Mexico? Plus, eventually hybrids will be manufactured in the U.S. just like any other car, lowering transport costs, but oil in the ground isn't moving anywhere (when's the last time they struck oil in PA?). I also wonder if they accounted for the billions and billions of energy dollars we're spending to "free Iraq." Trust me: If Iraq was just a dry patch of sand in the desert (or if crude oil had the same importance today that sand has to our economy), we wouldn't be over there. It is a smart idea to discuss these issues, though, lest we leap before looking.

I finally had a chance to click on all the hyperlinks associated with that study and I still couldn't find any detailed description of the "hundreds of factors" that the study purports to have analyzed. Quite frankly I think your intuition to be leery about a report provided by an automotive industry marketing firm is correct. I find their conclusions to be at best misleading. Their statement that "...some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models [such as the Hummer H3] over their lifetime," would lead one to believe that we should all be driving Hummers instead of high mileage hybrids. Clearly this would be an environmental disaster. Once hybrid production is geared up, economies of scale take over and increase manufacturing efficiency even more. Plus as I stated above, production of hybrids in this country (an inevitability) would remove the transport cost difference. Hummers don't stand a chance against Hybrids in the long run. Perhaps that's why this "study" was done...to pump up an ailing industry scared stiff about the coming hybrid tsunami.

They said there were 100 variables included in the study. The more variables the more chance for interpretation and error.

The recent Consumer’s Report study (after the correction) said that the only hybrids that will save you money are the Prius and Civic. I am guessing the Insight is in there too. They were in the neighborhood of $400 after 75,000 miles over a conventional car of the same proportions. The SUV and luxury hybrids have such a large surcharge for the technology and low gas mileage that the added cost is just added cost.

I find it odd that companies are trying to market these cars when the two that get good mileage are selling very well.

All these figures are relative to a lot of interpretations. For me, my hybrid is cost effective.

I can spend $38,000 on an SUV and get 20 mpg or I can spend $22,000 and get 50 mpg. Why would I want to spend twice the money to spend twice the amount on gas each week?

The recent Consumer’s Report study (after the correction) said that the only hybrids that will save you money are the Prius and Civic.

I read the synopsis of this study online just to see what gasoline prices they punched in to calculate operating costs, and found that they assume gas prices will stay between 3 and 4 bucks over the next 5 to 10 years (correct me if I'm wrong since I don't have the actual magazine issue). If anyone believes that 5 years from now gas will be less than or equal to 4 bucks a gallon, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. I recall other studies last year on this same issue done by mainstream news, consumer and auto organizations that used prices under 3 bucks when attempting to calculate long term savings...wow, talk about a miscalculation. Plus, none of these studies account for the amount of money we spend due to health problems associated with air pollution, global warming effects, oil wars, etc.. These issues are not free. We pay for them in taxes, health care, insurance, property damage, etc. Too bad these problems are not as tangible as prices at the pump.

I find it odd that companies are trying to market these cars when the two that get good mileage are selling very well.

Personally, I don't find this to be too odd. I applaud Toyota for moving all their cars to hybrid powerplants. This just means that the hybrid engine will only get better and cheaper as more and more of them hit the streets. Plus repair shops will have to learn how to fix them if they want to stay in business, bringing down the cost of repairs. Even though I'd like to see the technology used to promote fuel economy rather than horsepower, I think overall it's a good thing.

Hi Mike, to answer your question, I was last in Seattle in 1992. I was driving a 1985 VW diesel Golf and left the fuel cap on top of a pump. I didn't notice it until I hit Idaho. Did you find it?

Ah - if you look at the report, and have any kind of math backgroud you can come up with lots and lots of glaring 'errors'. I put errors in quotes as calling these errors is a gross understatment. For instance, they have a dollars per mile ENERGY cost over the LIFE of a car to be $2.25 per mile. Drivers in the US drive 2.5 trillion miles per year, which means accorinding to this silly report that JUST THE US FLEET of residential cars and light trucks USES MORE ENERGY than is consumed on the PLANET for all industries, cars, house heating, a/c, etc etc. For Example the total US Energy bill in 2002 was $0.6 trillion dollars. The rest of the world quadruples this to about $2.4 trillion, which is about 1/2 of the energy needed just for the US car fleet, according to the report. I guess the rest of the energy comes from aliens, or more likely, from the hot air exhausted by marketing research firms.

The only thing that this report is good for is for teaching critical thinking to first year engineering students.

Tom Andersen

I would love to see 2.5 trillion moments of "critical thinking" driven by American consumers per year.

I have a thought I haven't seen brought up in the 'dust to dust' issue. From what I have read people are buying hybrids for two reasons, 1. To help reduce global warming and 2. financial savings. As for global warming I would suspect that the hybrid car actually does reduce carbon output more than a regular car and here my reasoning. Coal powered electric plants and far far more efficient than the internal combustion engine. You get much more energy per pound of CO2 emitted. This study shows that hybrids use more energy from these coal powered plants, but most of the energy consumed by the car over it's lifetime is still in the running of the vehicle. Since the carbon output is so much lower during the phase in which the hybrid vehicle runs I would venture to say that the overall carbon output of the hybrid is lower even though it's 'dust to dust' energy use is higher. Just my thoughts...

What I find interesting is that folks who own a Prius are the most upset about the findings. There is a huge difference between fuel savings (the Prius) to the owner vs the total carbon foot print. The fact that they have included 100 factors of which; if you look at the large ones they mentioned through out the article, are the most significant factors.

I have been an engineer for a long time and can tell you the most expensive and carbon polluting processes are not from rolling and manipulating metal but from the plastics, laminates (chemicals not the wood), and most importantly batteries. That is why the Jeep wrangler is rated so low. It's basically nothing more than manipulated metal. Where a Mercedes is loaded with laminates and plastics. Does anyone know why you don't find battery manufactures in the US. Almost all battery manufactures are in third world nations where there are little pollution controls. If that manufacturer was in the US or Europe, the cost of making a battery increases significantly due to the pollution controls the US and Europe would impose on them.

As for all the comments on fuel... they used the price of fuel as a factor of cost of transportation... so, I don't think we care where it came from as the oil companies are making money so you can assume the cost of processing and transporting are rolled up in the sale price. And just an FYI, the bulk of our fuel comes from the US and South America... we get less than a quarter of our oil from the middle east. We care about the middle east because a 5% drop in fuel supply significantly increases the cost of fuel.

The real solution to our pollution is not with hybrids, but hydrogen fuel cells. If you want to protect our environment, look at what Norway is doing. Hydrogen produces water and oxegen as a bi-product, its safer than gas from a volatility perspective and since its a chemical reaction rather than mechanical, it is 80% efficient (vs 40% at best with gas engines).

So, if you really want to protect our environment, push the hydrogen solution!