Nice to see some critical analysis of the assumptions around such purchase decisions.

I'm not sure I buy the argument you make initially that (given you have definitely decided to buy a new car) the money saved on the purchase of a cheaper, non-hybrid car will be spent on things that have a more beneficial effect than the extra fuel efficiency you are foregoing. Simple reason: the money will likely be spent on more consumer goods of some kind. Not buying at all is nearly always better than buying "green" products, unless any of those products are actually carbon negative (which seems unlikely). I suppose you could give all the remaining money to a (good) carbon offset scheme, but if you're the kind of deeply committed person who would do that, then you're probably going to find a way of avoiding car ownership altogether.

Does anyone know what the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is? Does it make a significant difference to the calculation?

And shouldn't we be comparing the overall cost (both in temrs of carbon and dollars) of joining a scheme such as zipcar, versus owning your own car?

Watch out, one popular and inexpensive German diesel shows up on a lot of "worst" reliability lists.

A Diesel Jetta would actually be a pretty good option.

A BioDiesel Jetta on the other hand would entirely depend on what emissions study you choose, and what type of BioDiesel we are talking about.

It could range from Atmospheric Armageddon to almost as good as the normal Jetta.

and then you'd have a PHEV.  as i will in one and a half months.  which i will charge off our solar panel-led energy to the house (we have 2000 sq ft of panels being installed).

then i'll have a car that gets 100 mpg (tested and verifiable) and that gets its energy to run from the sun.  all with readily available currently existing technology.

remind me why there is still a debate about what needs to be done?

I think buying a Prius (if you can swing the upfront costs, which I couldn't) has two additional, intangible, but very real benefits:

You send a message to the automakers that you want a car that's very fuel-efficient and minimally  pollutive. Yes, buying a Corolla, Yaris, Fit, conventional Civic, or other such car gets you good fuel efficiency and fairly low emissions at a significantly lower upfront cost, but they don't send a clear message to the automakers that you place a high priority on a car's ecological impact. For all they know, you could've bought such a car because it was relatively inexpensive but still well-made.

You help to build the critical mass necessary to hit a tipping point of social change. How? By sending a highly-visible message to other people that you are serious about reducing your energy use as well as your emissions of greenhouse gases and smog-forming air pollutants. You demonstrate that you were willing to pay more for a car upfront to get those benefits, taking a longer-term and deeper view of the cost of driving.

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.

A 2006 Diesel Jetta is quite a different beast than what a 2008 Diesel Jetta will be.

October 2006 they removed Sulfur from Diesel
January 2007 they instituted nationwide standards for diesel emissions which are 3x more stringent than Europe.
Spring 2008 should expect to see a Diesel Jetta featuring a particulate filter, and a NOx filter which meets those stringent standards.

Next year when I consider buying a replacement vehicle, which for me is usually about a 2 year old used car, I will be looking for a used hybrid. I will be concerned about the usual issues with used cars, i.e. hidden damage from floods or accidents, previous owner's maintenance habits, non-smoker, etc. Are there any smokers who would drive a Prius? ;-)

Those are the best ;-), it's unfortunate when our actual choices are so limited, and yes, marred by bad service records.

That bites on two levels.  It is pretty easy for one repair to eat the net fuel savings over a year, for an individual.  But on the global scale, repairs and replacement parts have their own upstream carbon impact.  A replacement water pump is not "free" either in the sense of dollars, or the CO2 put out by its foundry.

(In my v-dub owning days I was the happy purchaser of a couple water pumps.)

So I say compare in the real world, with those reliable and efficient models we have around us.  If you want to be a (non-bicycling, non-mass-transit) carbon king, drive a used Echo.

10 million of these cars connected to the grid at any one time ought to be enough generation power (at say 20 kw per car) to put a serious dent into coal and nuclear central power generation.

There are 200 million cars in the US?  So make only 5% of those 200 million cars with this fuel cell/biogas vehicle to grid function and kill coal?  It's possible.

Because every kw of this V2G source could be matched with 3 or 4 kw of wind, solar, wave, and water power.  A perfectly stable renewable grid would only need these vehicles as backup, although there would be adequate, affordable  conventional power plant capacity  just in case.  like natural gas/biogas turbine power plants.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I think better batteries are on the way, but not quite up to total grid support yet.  Emergencies though, yes.

I sure like the solid oxide fuel cell running on biogas or natural gas supplying power on demand to the grid though.  10 millioon 20kw units, mounted in plugin hybrids, plugged into natural gas lines could be called upon by the smart grid when needed.  

Car owners would be paid per kwh produced.

Boeing seems to be getting it smaller in size, and I think that with mass production  new copper/ceramic fuel cell stacks could be affordable, versus complex computerized internal combustion/electric hybrids like the Prius system.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

With a smart grid shutting demand on and off, plus that battery or fuel cell capacity in cars being able to feed or store power.  Brownouts would not turn to blackouts.  

In any crisis of supply, like no sun or wind at the same time over a large region, backup from the cars would ramp up and the smart grid would shut down enough demand selectively so as not to create any crisis situations.  The hospital would keep running and your home lights and lower power equipment, essential equipment all over the grid would stay on.

Only high load devices that could afford to be shut down would be.  Large freezer or air conditioning systems for instance, designed to store cold during peak energy time periods.

A fixed grid that always supplies any possible demand is not necessary.  This fallacy of the anti-renewable crowd needs exposure to the solar renewable  light of day.  

Think always predictable, safe, reasillient, variable, distributed grid..  instead of centralized GHG breathing, storm outage, overload prone, coal eating, radiation spewing  monster grid.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I wouldn't really put much faith into solid oxide fuel cells either... Most likely the $/KW installed capacity is just insane.

Not to mention, the whole point of a backup engine which you run less than 10 times a year is that it's supposed to be as cheap and lightweight as possible.

Only reason Boeing is thinking of using them is because they are doing AIRCRAFT.  Entirely different finance model, and vehicle size than solo passenger cars.  (Not to mention are you factoring in the size/cost of the reformer?)

Also it's not so much for motive energy, but merely such that they can get auxiliary electricity from onboard liquid fuels, and use the excess heat for actual heating.  (Not to mention, have a ready supply of cooling reserve, since it's so cold up there)

_

I'm sure Joseph Romm would have more to say on the subject.

But lemme just say SOFC's aren't likely to be much of any impact except for niche applications where they need combined heat and power, and have sufficient economies of scale.
Like Aircraft, and Hotels, etc.

odo wrote:

If you want to be a (non-bicycling, non-mass-transit) carbon king, drive a used Echo.

Except that the Toyota Echo was a tiny subcompact car, which won't suffice for everyone's needs. It has no side airbags and its crash test ratings were mediocre, which is a valid concern given all the lumbering behemoths on the road--unless one hopes to become "carbon king" by getting killed in a collision (if you want a fuel-efficient, low-polluting, inexpensive subcompact car with good safety features and crash test ratings, try a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris, both of which you might be able to find used).

Moreover, under the EPA's new method for calculating fuel economy, an Echo with a manual transmission gets a combined rating of 33 mpg, 13 mpg below the Prius hatchback. With an automatic transmission, the Echo only gets a combined rating of 31. Also, an Echo, with an EPA air pollution score of only 2, will put out a lot more smog-forming air pollutants than a Prius, which scores 8 or 9.5 (depending on whether it was built for California and certain other states with higher air pollution regs or the rest of the nation), or a Civic Hybrid, which scores 9 or 9.5 (ditto).

In other words, a Prius gets almost 40%, or almost 50%, better fuel economy and emits much less smog-forming air pollutants than an Echo--all while being much roomier (it's classified as a midsize car), safer, and more versatile.

Finally, buying a used Echo does nothing to support the development of new, more fuel-efficient and less-polluting vehicle technologies or to help us build toward a tipping point of social change. The only message most people get from seeing you drive an Echo is that you couldn't afford anything better because Echos, though reliable, were entry-level cars subject to cost-cutting in materials and design.

For the record, I drive a 2000 Honda Insight I bought used 3 years ago. It is possible to find a used Prius, though they were all outside my budget.

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.

No reformer needed on the copper/ceria cells.  Comparing Boeing's cost to mass production for car, the prototype maybe 1000 times, the aircraft version, 100 times, the eventual cost of mass produced models for cars.

No expensive alloys and only a few moving parts, under 100, on the fuel cell/turbine generator compared to 1000s of parts and computer controls for internal combustion/electric hybrids like the prius.  Nope, the real cost of mass production would likely be a lot lower than the alternative hybrid drives.

And if 10 or 20 million of these replaced 200 to 400 1000 mw nukes or coal plants.  Eureka!  The savings of trillions from upgrading  the power grid and power plant upgrades  for the centralized grid model, help justify some serious subsidies for these V2G vehicles, fuel cells, and interactive smart grid technology.

Not to mention all the GHG reduction.

But nickel batteries in V2G?  I doubt it would be very effective.  The latest lithium ion would be ok though.  Their recharging lifespans are fairly long.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

with the 40 mile range between charges (for 80% of commutes) with a tiny gas ICE to charge the battery for crosscountry jaunts. Plus if all of us teehuggers bought green cars Detroit would be reborn as a sustainable industry.

I don't know you or odo, biod, so maybe neither one of you does anything out of a desire to attain status in society. I think we're in agreement that the vast majority of people do act to seek status among those whose opinions matter to them. This is as true of punks as daytraders, and of goth kids as much as sorority girls and frat boys. What differs between those groups are the characteristics and behaviors to which status is ascribed, not the desire to attain status (though the strength of that desire surely varies from individual to individual).

In my case, I don't conform much to attain status in mainstream American culture (though I do feel the pressure to make more money, buy new clothes, get a respectable job, etc.), but I most definitely want status among my friends and activist colleagues.

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.

There are always tradeoffs in engineering any car, and one needs to consider both active (ability to avoid a crash) and passive (protection during a crash) safety. The Prius hatchback has Good (the highest possible) frontal offset and side impact crash test ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety when equipped with side airbags (optional 2004-6, standard after that) and has a low rollover risk while achieving an EPA combined fuel economy rating of 46 mpg--a good balance, it seems to me. Larger, more massive vehicles--a Chevy Tahoe hybrid for example--likely will protect the occupants better in a crash, but, because of their size and mass, they are harder to maneuver when you want to avoid a crash (active). Given that I value fuel economy highly, I'd take the Prius despite the mass disadvantage.

The Echo, in comparison, never offered any side airbags, had mediocre crash test ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is tiny (you can only fairly compare the crash test ratings of vehicles of similar size and weight), and is known for not handling very well when pushed to its limits, which makes it harder to avoid crashes.

I think you make a good point about feeling safer in your Prius than in sports cars. Sports cars tend to foster driving behavior that exploits their power and handling, leading to more dangerous driving. Whatever kudos the Prius may receive, I've never heard anyone say it's a car that driving enthusiasts love.

On the other hand, it seems to me that many SUV drivers feel they are so safe in their big, tall vehicles that they drive recklessly, not taking into account the greater rollover risk, longer stopping distances, and less-agile handling characteristics of such vehicles (generally speaking).

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.

GreyFlcn:

Well, such things are a matter of opinion, of course, but I don't think the Prius hatchback and the Echo sedan look much alike at all, and they're certainly much different in size. The Echo was classified as a subcompact while the Prius, though having relatively compact exterior dimensions, has the passenger room of a midsize car (larger than a Corolla, but not quite as large as a Camry) and very versatile interior space because of the hatch.

Now, if you want to compare the Echo to the first generation Prius, which was sold in the U.S. from 2001-3, then I see strong similarities. The 1stG Prius was a subcompact sedan like the Echo.

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.

jabailo, you wrote:

But I was just thinking...the main efficiency of a hybrid seems to be that it's designed to be stuck in traffic.   Because it can run the electric engine, it doesn't matter if it's not moving, because it's not "idling".   However, the cost of that is that you have to have two engines, a gas and an electric.

Actually, no, I don't think that's correct. The main efficiency gain of a hybrid comes from the fact that the electric motor provides a significant portion of the energy needed to move the vehicle by capturing, storing, and then using energy generated during braking and while cruising that goes to waste in conventional cars. Some hybrids--those classified as full hybrids--even move using the electric motor and battery pack alone under certain circumstances, such as stop-and-go traffic. Full hybrids include all Toyota hybrids, Honda's 2nd-generation Civic Hybrid, Ford's Escape and Mariner Hybrids, and General Motors' upcoming 2-mode hybrids (hybrid versions of the Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon/Cadillac Escalade and the Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra pickup).

Mild hybrids, in contrast, derive a significant amount of their motive power from the electric motor and battery pack but cannot be driven on the electric motor alone. Mild hybrids include the 1st generation Civic Hybrid as well as the discontinued Honda Insight and Accord Hybrids.

Then there are vehicles which do receive a slight acceleration boost from their electric motors and battery packs, but their systems are so weak that the Union of Concerned Scientists classifies them as "hollow hybrids." Vehicles that fit this description include the Saturn Vue and Aura Greenline variants and the new Chevy Malibu "Hybrid."

It is true that meaningful fuel-savings can be achieved solely from a Stop/Start feature that shuts the engine off at stoplights, stop signs, and in stop-and-go traffic, then automatically restarts the engine when you are ready to go. Some automakers plan to introduce so-called "microhybrids" (I don't think that name is accurate) that have the Stop/Start feature but do not derive any motive power from their electric motors. Such systems could be added to pretty much any model for about $500 if I remember right.

You also wrote:

So, taking a fuel efficient regular gas car, at 35 mpg, if you could eliminate the idle, as a hybrid does, you then get nearly 42 mpg -- or hydrid level efficiency (maybe more).

One problem with that: The only vehicles currently being sold new in the U.S. that achieve a City EPA rating of 35 mpg or higher are the Prius and Civic Hybrids, and it's in the city that the fuel economy benefits of the Stop/Start feature occur. The conventional car with the highest City mpg rating is the Toyota Yaris at 29 mpg, followed by the Honda Fit and Toyota Corolla at 28 mpg (all equipped with manual transmissions). And, once again, it's important to keep in mind that the Yaris and Fit are itty-bitty subcompacts and the Corolla is a compact, significantly smaller than the Prius hatchback (though roughly the same size as the Civic Hybrid). The Yaris, Fit, and Corolla also appear to me to be less safe in a crash than the Prius and Civic Hybrid based on their crash test results and, in the case of the first 2, their much smaller size and lower weight.

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.

So how does a Diesel Mild Hybrid with Stop/Start compare to a Full Gasoline Hybrid.

GreyFlcn,

Stop/Start would make little difference on a diesel, because diesels -- being non-throttled engines -- idle efficiently.

If I know I'm going to be sitting at a red light for more than 60 seconds or so (love that DC traffic!) I  just turn off the engine myself. I wonder how much of a difference that makes.  Certainly when I do drive, I would say about 1/4 of my commute time is spent stopped at red lights.

Bear in mind that solid oxide fuel cells (like molten carbonate and phosphorous cells) are poorly suited to pushing a car around.  They tend to be large, heavy, hotter than hell (1000 C), and very slow to respond or follow loads.  (I know these things are true for molten carbonate units; I'm pretty sure they are also true for the other technologies I mention.)  As far as I know, PEM is the only fuel cell technology that is suitable for automobile use.  And "suitable" here is a word used judiciously.

These big, hot, slow-responding cells are great for stationary applications, especially cogeneration in buildings.  They might even be appropriate for ships and trains, which tend to have a fairly flat and consistent power demand (but what do you do with the excess heat?).  Aircraft?  Color me skeptical -- weight is at such a premium in that context.  But for cars, forget about it.

Regarding the fuel consumption effects of turning the engine off yourself with the key and restarting it when you're ready to go: My understanding is that it will save fuel to shut the engine off and restart if you expect to be idling for 30 seconds or more, which is applicable to situations like drive-through lanes and waiting for trains to pass. I'm not sure it would make sense to turn the engine off quite frequently, day-after-day, in stop-and-go traffic, though. The increased wear on the starter motor, shortening its lifespan (and maybe other components involved in starting, too), might outweigh the fuel savings. Vehicles that are equipped with automatic stop/start systems are engineered for frequent restarting.

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.