I believe this study has been faulted, but don't worry, the materials have easy-to-know energy content.  I don't know battery energy content.  The rest is just aluminum, steel, glass, rubber, and copper.  Weight is the big deal in materials energy.  Lovins' Hyper Car is carbon fiber (4x energy I think) -- very lightweight.

Buyers do not think about energy content in cars, just mpg.   I remember that only the poor owned used Lincoln Continentals during the OPEC oil embargo.  Soon, only the poor will drive junked Hummers.

After the infernal in the Persian Gulf, your Prius will appreciate in value.

I have two questions for the moment...

I was surprised by the following... "The results of the study are expressed as money spent on energy per mile. So, if your car goes 200,000 miles instead of 100,000, your cost per mile would be cut in half. He chose 109,000 miles for the Prius and 197,000 for the Hummer."

(1) How long is a car supposed to last? I have a 1994 Saturn Sedan with over 200,000 miles on it and it is running quite well. The fiberglass shell will probably last forever. Are you telling me a fancy schmancy Prius goes to the recycling bin after only 100,000 miles?! This drastically reduces the environmental advantages. Better to drive every existing gasoline-powered car into the ground before we start using the new hybrids.

(2) Are clear easy-to-comprehend numbers available for how much energy goes into manufacturing a car (including extracting materials from the Earth) and how much energy goes into moving moving it, say, 200,000 miles? Expressed in BTUs, not dollars. Where is the bulk of the energy consumed? Is it somewhere in the original post? I'll work a bit harder to find it if you tell me it is in there.

Forward!

Too points on this. One you have already made - that this flips embedded energy and operating energy for cars.

The other is a little trick you will find if you plow though the study. It includes energy used to make the factories that make the hummers, and the energy used to make the factories than make the prius. It even includes embedded energy for R&D. Fine - that is what a lifecycle study should do.

But then it does not allocate that over how much of the useful life of the factories have been used. Instead it divides by the number of vehicles produced. Of course the Hummer has been around a lot longer, so Hummer factories divide their embedded energy over a lot more Hummers than Prius factories.

Do you see the dishonesty of that. The way to allocate capital expenditures, including embedded energy within capital expenditures, is to depreciate it.  By the method the study used, the very first Prius must have been very energy intensive indeed, since it included the entire stock of embedded energy in the whole factory, plus all R&D done. But not to worry: by the method used in the study, the embedded energy in your Prius decreases everytime a new Prius rolls off the assembly line!

Share your data or keep your conclusions to yourself, guys. Dude should have saved his money and just gave us his opinion.

Anyway, it's not about energy consumption, it's about emissions- both real (CO2) and imagined (see how cool).

a liberal in redsville

Is easier to ignore.  But I suppose going through it all ought to be done anyway.

I'm glad YOU did it bio-d.  

What is interesting is how the initial conclusion that hummers are greener than priuses gets the headline, and the correction, issued later on,that, whoops, we were wrong priuses are greener than hummers is ignored.

Like the extensive explanations on how GHG climate change is a natural phenomenon, or a liberal conspiracy, or that hurricane intensity is not increasing from global climate change, or that clean coal, ethanol, and nuclear power will save the planet.

If you simply ignore this stuff, it eventually comes out it was all based on well paid for lies.

Just like this "study" did.  But the correction is always in almost non-existent print.  That's a shame.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

They have two means of propulsion.  Thus they carry around more weight than is necessary to move the car around.

Still with a good old "dumb car" like a Chevy Cobalt...then get a fuel cell car.

Also, just wait until your Prius needs major repairs....har har har.

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.

...of a bike is.

Plugins plugged into wind electricity and built with wind powered electricity.  With biofuel cell backup.

Zero lifecycle fossil energy cost.  Beat that hummers.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

There's a certain egotistical arrogance exhibited by this study's authors to think that they can accurately sum up the cost to manufacture the thousands of different parts, materials and technology that goes into making a single car, much less hundreds of cars, as this study proposes to do.

When calculating the cost of a part, did the study take into consideration the energy expended by the person building the part?   Or perhaps the energy demands of the building where parts were assembled?  Bigger parts probably need bigger buildings, hence more energy.  How about all the energy and resources expended on advertising?  The Prius hasn't had to be advertised at all, but look at the total ad budget for Hummers.  Did this study add in the cost of other consumables like tires? (A Hummer's tire is at least twice the size of a Prius and wears out faster)

There are far too many variables in a company the size of GM or Toyota for any outsider to quantify manufacturing costs into some quasi-figure.

There's a simpler and perhaps more accurate method of calculating a car's total manufacturing energy expenditure: its cost.  You see, auto manufacturers spend millions of dollars over decades to determine the precise manufacturing costs of their vehicles.  It's the only way they can set an accurate sales price and make a decent profit.  Otherwise, they go out of business.  (Judging from GM's current situation, perhaps they've underpriced the Hummer) I trust Toyota's accounting department far more than the dubious calculations of this ambitious study.

Cost is an excellent indicator of energy usage, since all energy and resources have an established market value that finds its own level.  If a Hummer used less total energy to produce than a Prius, then its total price would be lower, plain and simple.  But of course it's not.  Therefore, something stinks in this analysis.

I won't even go into the banal assumption that a Hummer will last twice as long as a Prius. Has this guy ever looked at the average service life of Toyota vehicles vs. GM vehicles?

We also did not know much about the tax subsidy until after we bought our second Prius (snobs times two).  

Our motivation was global warming mitigation (and car value).  The big sales motivator for most people was the high price of oil.  

The interest in saving energy is low now that oil is priced cheap (thanks to Saudi Arabia competing with Iran).  The hybrid subsidies were just plain stupid, nothing new there.

I too have had the misfortune to read this "study".

It's a very poorly written document which leads to an intense headache after a few chapters. It's quite clever really as it means the journalists will never acutally read the thing but instead just quote from the introductory paragraph as that economist article did.

On the face of it it appears to be exhaustively researched but it's quite interesting to do a simple piece of arthimetic: 312 cars x 4,000 datapoints per car = 1.25 million datapoints in total. CNW claims it took two years to collect the data. That's 1,700 datapoints a day or one a minute. My how industrious they are over at CNW Marketing Research!

For those of us who do not buy new vehicles, conversion is the answer.  Conversion to plugin hybrid.  Another 10 years of driving after the internal combustion engine is removed.

It saves even more energy than keeping the old gas hog or buying a brand new plugin hybrid.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Jason, I'm no expert on the emissions testing regime in California, but it seems to me from reading your message that your 1988 Volvo probably scored in the bottom 10% for emissions when compared to all the individual vehicles tested in California, which I'm guessing is primarily made up of vehicles that are too old to have been equipped with the best current technology. The particular model of Volvo you drive probably wouldn't score anywhere close to the bottom 10% if compared to new models instead, nor would my Insight.

Emissions controls have been improving steadily over the years, largely driven by California's increasingly stringent regulations, but only the most recently introduced or redesigned models are likely to be equipped with the latest technology (though it's important to check Air Pollution Scores; not all new vehicles achieve the same emissions reductions). Most if not all of the hybrid models currently on the market are either Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles or Advanced Technology-Partial Zero Emission Vehicles.

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

The last line of my previous post should have been "Most if not all of the hybrid models currently on the market are either Super-Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles or Advanced Technology-Partial Zero Emission Vehicles."

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

The Belgian study is an interesting one, and its premise that all vehicles attract similar manufacture and disposal energy costs so it's safe to ignore them makes superficial sense. However, hybrids such as the Prius are promoted to environmentalists as a transitional technology, one is which is likely to become obsolete in a relatively short period of time as high performance plug-in vehicles become available. For this reason the manufacture/disposal cost as a proportion of total energy cost is likely to be higher for a new hybrid than it is for vehicles in existing inventory, and this should be taken into account.

Here's a little scenario which may illustrate the point:

First world environmentalist with sufficient disposable income buys Prius, trades in old car. Old car wholesaled to Mexico, continues to run for another twenty years with increasingly bad emissions, hits the 200K wall, left to rust in a corner. End of life for old car at thirty years/200K miles.
Environmentalist runs Prius for five years at 5K miles a year. Trades in Prius for new plug-in electric car. Lives happily ever after. Prius sold to poorer environmentalist who can't afford a new one. Prius runs for another five years at 5K miles a year. Poorer environmentalist trades it in for a five-year-old plug-in. Prius batteries are about dead at ten years old. Not cost-effective to replace them - car's value has plummeted because plug-ins have made them obsolete, and they're not rugged enough to run as junkers on rough roads. End of life at ten years/50K miles.
If the Prius is a transitional technology, a thoughtful environmentalist who drives relatively little should be the last person to buy one. They are not likely to get enough energy-savings-in-use to justify the  energy cost of manufacture and disposal. Only the gas-hungry road warrior who racks up 20K or more miles a year can do so. Ironic, huh?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Please could you post the url of the Union of Concern Scientists statement? I can't find it on their website.

Thanks

Dave

Plug in different numbers, get different answers: I don't have a problem with that. If you drive a lot, and want a new car, by all means get a hybrid.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

it seems to me you're basing your hypothetical scenario on some huge and highly questionable assumptions.
You got me dead to rights, guv'ner. These are questionable scenarios, as are many of our assumptions about the future, including extrapolating long-term light-use Prius battery performance from short-term intensive-use examples. And while Priuses currently hold their value extremely well it is quite possible this condition will not prevail as and when much more efficient vehicles become available.

I presented this scenario which I believe is well within the cone of multiple possible futures because I think these are important factors to consider when making personal buying decisions, particularly when one's resources are limited. The traditional virtue of frugality on which sustainable resource use depends presents a conflict: the Prius is currently one of the most frugal vehicles in energy cost-in-use available, but that could change very rapidly. Indeed we all hope it does. At the the same time it is not an especially frugal choice in first cost, whether defined in energy or monetary terms.

Thus: high first cost (as with all new vehicles); low cost-in-use; possibly short time in use before obsolescence. The thoughtful and not-so-wealthy environmentalist who is considering going into heavy debt to join the hybrid club will figure their own likely miles per year into that equation and come up with their own answer.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

spaceshaper:

What's the basis for your suspicion that gas-electric hybrids using current technology will be obsolescent within several years? Sure, hybrid technology is likely to continue improving, and there may even be flex-fuel plug-in hybrids on the market in the next few years, but there's no reason to think everyone who chooses to drive will be able to afford to buy a new vehicle with the latest technology at that time any more than everyone who would like to buy a new hybrid can afford to do so now. It seems clear to me that less-affluent folks--including me--will still be glad to have the chance to buy vehicles with older hybrid technology rather than only have conventional vehicles to choose from, and this will likely ensure that current hybrids retain much of their value in the future.

I can think of two scenarios in which current hybrids lose their value within several years:

If major problems arise with the battery packs, though right now I know of no reason to think they will, though, at least in those vehicles using Toyota or Honda technology. My Insight has 141,000 miles on it and there's no sign of any problems with the battery pack. It would be interesting to know how the very first Priuses--sold only in Japan starting about 10 years ago--are doing. Anyone have any information on that?

If the downside of the global oil production curve after peak is so steep that gasoline becomes prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest people in the world, in which case there won't be many current vehicles with any resale value. Which could happen, mind you, though I'm provisionally convinced a long, undulating plateau of oil production, gradually declining over time, is a much more likely scenario. That will still cause prices to rise dramatically, but not as precipitously.

Finally, I'm not saying everyone who cares about the living world should do whatever is necessary, including going deep into debt, to switch their current automobile out for a brand-new hybrid. The point I'm trying to make is that one can make a case for the ecological benefits of that decision in a general sense; each one of us must weigh all the factors in our own lives and decide how we can best meet our transportation needs and wants while staying true to our ecological values.

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

Got me there, Nucbuddy: Batteries do weaken and eventually fail over time. I should have been more specific and stated that I see no reason to think this will happen within 10 years in the case of current hybrid battery packs in normal use as imagined by spaceshaper. I think it's also likely that the replacement costs for battery packs will fall significantly along the way.

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

I've seen a lot of stuff in this thread about plug-ins, but what about serial hybrids, where a tiny internal combustion engine is used exclusively as a generator to recharge the battery, which is always the power source to the drive motor; and which apparently rate at 100 miles per gallon, and have performance ratings  (acceleration and cruising speed) as good as conventional cars? Are they likely to be commercially available soon? If not, anyone know  why not?

Dave

What's the basis for your suspicion that gas-electric hybrids using current technology will be obsolescent within several years?
 - I'm just postulating a scenario that seems within the realm of possibility as perhaps a rather poor illustration for my deeper suspicion that frugality rather extravagance might be the strategy that will take us into a sustainable future, and making a case for discussing the Prius as an expensive consumer product with a limited life, or a routine energy-consumption device with some mitigating benefits, rather than as a savior technology which every consumer with a conscience should aspire to own.

Conversations around hybrids, even (especially?) among environmentalists, seem to revolve around an unspoken assumption that driving 10,000 and more miles a year is the birthright of every American, and we should be merely aspiring to make some baby-step reductions in the energy consumption and noxious emissions associated with that (spurious) entitlement.

What about just driving less as a personal choice?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Recent nano tech li-ion batteries from several companies have solved the battery life problem.

18,000 battery cycles has been reached.  In a plugin hybrid that has a 25 mile electric range that would mean the battery would last for 450,000 miles.  That ought to be fine for most applications.

Nuke-u-ler buddy wants one that lasts as long as nuclear waste remains dangerous?  10,000 years?  hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

spaceshaper:

You seem to me to have a bad habit of making unwarranted assumptions. While I don't doubt there are drivers who feel absolved of any need to be concerned about the eco-impacts of their driving because they bought a hybrid, this isn't by any means universal. I own a used Honda Insight but I often walk and take the bus even though it would be so much easier and quicker to just take the car. In metro-Kansas City, though, the simple fact is that the transit system here is mediocre to nearly non-existent depending on where you live and where you need to go. I didn't have a car for a bit over 6 years because I didn't want to be responsible for the destructive consequences, but that choice inhibited my ability to spend time with loved ones and my flexibility to take part in activism considerably. When I received an inheritance, I consequently chose to spend it on a used hybrid. I think that's a justifiable, though imperfect, decision.

Have I or anyone else writing here claimed that hybrids are "a savior technology which every consumer with a conscience should aspire to own"? I know I haven't, and I don't think anyone else has, either. To the contrary, I've said explicitly that individuals have to weigh their own circumstances and priorities when deciding how to meet their transportation needs and wants but, for those who can afford to buy a new hybrid, doing so can be a beneficial and ecologically-justifiable choice.

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

John, I don't think we're very far apart here. This is not a personal attack on anyone who has decided to buy a Prius, far from it, in your position I would most likely have come to the same decision. My concerns arise not from such reasonable personal choices but from the fact that  the powerful and pervasive world of marketing interests is all too ready to claim relatively minor technological improvements to the automobile as our environmental saviors, and it is only in blogs such as this that these claims can be challenged by a more balanced view. Yes, a Prius or similar hybrid is a very good choice for anyone who is in the market for a new car and can afford it. But Grist is not Consumer Reports, and this would seem to be the appropriate forum to bring up, e.g. issues of opportunity cost: buy a Prius or insulate the attic? Buy a Prius or get a lower-paid but more satisfying job closer to home? You'll never see that in a Toyota commercial.

Then apart from personal buying decisions there are the larger issues of where our activist energies are best spent.  There are three? four? current threads on Gristmill in which the Prius is the center of attention. I obviously think this is way too much and that as a culture we'd be getting more bang for our virtual buck looking for ways to drive less rather than ways to drive as much on less. There are two fundamental sources for this belief, the first is that given the number of non-hybrid vehicles in the current inventory which are likely to stay in service for many years to come I think using all vehicles less would be more effective in actually addressing our energy-abuse issues, and the second is that in my personal experience communities which are not constructed around endless vehicle-miles are warmer, more inclusive, more satisfying places to live than those that are.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Thank you for the gentle remonstrance on my writing style, which I gather can appear excessively critical at times. I will try to be more positive. But the fact is I can be like that in person too when the passion runs high. I find it so, so frustrating when, as good as the Prius is, it represents only a 20% fuel efficiency improvement on the Renault I drove in the early eighties. At this rate of progress, how likely is it we will be able to stabilize, let alone reverse, carbon emissions due to auto use over the next quarter century? But there I go again...

I am much more heartened by the undeniably quantum improvements in battery technology - which, it's my impression, has been driven more by the demand for efficient reliable rechargeable batteries for laptops, cell phones and cordless power tools than by any effort on the part of the automotive industry. While this will clearly hasten the advent of the PHEV, as for me, I'm so ready for an all-electric car.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

I agree we're as close to a social change tipping point as we've been in the last quarter century in respect of public awareness of the extent of the problem. But I fear that this does not necessarily bring with it the political will to do something  sensible and effective about it. We are already seeing the fruits of fiscal/political manipulation of that awareness resulting in some very foolish and counterproductive public policy initiatives, e.g. those favoring corn ethanol, soy diesel, nuclear and coal over conservation and low-impact renewables, the system of inappropriate subsidies and perks to generic vehicle technologies in preference to realistic performance-based incentives and penalties, and the carbon-trading and carbon-offset sleight-of-hand schemes being promoted over straightforward and effective carbon taxes.

Sorry to sound grinchy. But this is why Grist of all places needs to keep it real.
 

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

If we reach a true tipping point of culture change, spaceshaper, it will sweep through the political establishment eventually. They'll be last, as usual, but that's the way these things work.

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

Spaceshaper wrote: counterproductive public policy initiatives, e.g. those favoring corn ethanol, soy diesel, nuclear and coal over conservation and low-impact renewables

How is nuclear-energy favoritism counterproductive?

Nuke-you-ler power is the enemy of mankind.

Huge expense, contractor corruption,contamination, proliferation and war,waste, mining,nuclear terrorism  all make that true.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog