Hybrid Hoax?
June 13th, 2007 | by Craig |I thought this article was interesting food for thought. One thing he overlooked is that a Prius has much less emissions than a Hummer. Nonetheless, his point about mining nickel could be an offsetting factor. Meanwhile, the feds are busy tinkering with human behavior with the tax code.
19 Responses to “Hybrid Hoax?”
By Chad on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
It’s an interesting article about the Prius, but I’m not buying that a higher percentage of Hummers manufactured will be on the road at 300k than Priuses will be at 100k. In fact, I can’t believe that there will be a higher percentage of manufactured Hummers at 300k than there will be Priuses at 200k. But really that’s the only nit I can pick, so I guess I will.
I own one of the postervehicles for American mileage longevity: the Ford Econoline. My Econoline is the most fuel-economical and Earth-friendly Econoline, I’d guess, since it has the six-cylinder 150 h.p. motor that Ford used to use.
But it’s a big box on wheels, so that doesn’t say much. And it happens to be a big box with 360k miles on it.
And as rugged and fault-tolerant as these vehicles are, after 300,000 miles goes on the clock, one thing becomes apparent quickly: if you sneeze, it will break. It will break if you drive it fast. It will break if you drive it slow. It will break if you don’t drive it at all — it seems to get really mad if left undriven for a four day stretch. It will break while breaking. It will break while being fixed. And this is despite the fact that most any part of any importance has been replaced once, including a not insignificant section of the frame. (That broke at 312k.)
Which brings me back to the Hummer. The Hummer is a luxury truck. If you’ve enough money to buy one, I’d wager you don’t have enough patience to put up with one doing things that my van does if not driven for four days.
But a good article worth keeping around, nonetheless. Makes me feel better about my van, provided the stuff in it is true.
By Shane C. Mason on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
There are a LOT of problems with this article Craig.
1. First off, he used the 2004 Prius as his sole example for fuel economy. The 2004 Prius did not have the synergy drive, it had the THS (which you can now find in Honda’s et al.
2. Why is an article written in 2007 using numbers from 2004 only?
3. He likes to use anecdotal evidence about a guy driving from Ann Arbor in 2004 to support the notion that Prius’ don’t deliver the efficiency they claim. How is this for anecdotal:
I have a 2007 Prius. It advertises 50 hwy and 60 in town. What is my mileage? 48 highway and 56 in Helena. That 48 highway includes McDonald pass.
4. He builds the strawman:
“So, hybrids have become the environmental equivalent of driving an Escalade or Mustang. Who cares if they deliver on their promises as long as they make a social statement?”
Where the hell did that come from? Even if they are not perfect, they are better for the environment than either of those cars.
By Shane C. Mason on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
I mean GMan
By Walter Greenspan on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
How’s about the ethanol hoax?
The typical 85-15 ethanol-gasoline blended fuel provides 25% fewer miles/gallon than does the all gasoline fuel.
This means that it will require 133 gallons of 85-15 ethanol-gasoline for a car to drive the same distance as it would with 100 gallons of gasoline.
Thus, unless the per gallon price of 85-15 ethanol-gasoline is at least 25% less than the per gallon price of gasoline, there is no economic reason to purchase the 85-15 ethanol-gasoline blended fuel.
By Shane C. Mason on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
See, there is a fundamental problem with this argument Walter: the assumption that fewer dollars spent is the ultimate goal.
You see, the one (obvious) statistic that you left out of your comment is that 133 gallons of 85-15 ethanol-gasoline mixture only uses 20 gallons of gasoline. The 100 gallons of pure gasoline, on the other hand, uses 100 gallons of gasoline. There are a multitude of reasons to get off the gasoline besides that it is economical in the short term. Anyone who knows anything about business knows that the short term expenditures can reap huge benefits in the long run.
I, for one, did not buy my Prius because I thought it would save me money. Hell, it cost $10,000 more than the car I went to the lot to buy. How could I ever recoup those expenses? I did it for lower emissions and because it felt like the responsible thing to do. So many of these articles and opinion pieces attack people for trying to do what they think is right. I haven’t see Chevy or Ford offer anything even close to efficient, so I went with the best option I had because I think that it is important to get off oil.
Why? I shouldn’t have to name them. Have you been to a big city on a still day? There is a pallor of smog and I just don’t feel like I have the right to do that to other peoples air. Doesn’t matter how you feel on global warming, you can not deny that autos put off noxious, toxic fumes. Don’t believe me? Put your nose down to your tailpipe for a few minutes. I am tired of sucking Saudi Arabia’s tit and fighting wars in the middle east. Let them work out their own problems, if it wasn’t for the oil we could give a crap. On an on.
The point is, why would you use a purely monetary argument to dismiss ideas about fuel efficiency? If that is the case, if that is why we drive cars, why don’t we all get Yugo’s and move on?
By Gman on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
I appreciate your comments, Shane, but I think the article was trying to point out two fallacies (but maybe not too effectively): 1) a lot of people purchase a hybrid vehicle for the cost savings, but the marketed gas mileage is likely incorrect and is offset by the cost of the vehicle in comparison to high-mileage vehicles that cost much less; 2) manufacturing a hybrid vehicle requires certain practices that are not exactly friendly to the environment. Maybe a corollary here is that a Prius is not to much different than a Hummer in that they are both “status” or “lifestyle” vehicles.
Couple other thoughts. First, let’s take the totally electric car as an eco-friendly option to a vehicle operated on fossil fuel. Sure, electric cars have zero emissions, so it’s easy, in your eco-conscious way, to pat yourself on the back for purchasing one. The flip side is that an electric car needs electricity to run. That electricity has to be produced somehow and somewhere. Some advocates of the eco-friendly electric car seem to admit that you have to have eco-friendly energy production for widespread electric car ownership to make a difference. So, that means no coal-fired or nuclear plants. Yes, hydropower is “clean,” but aren’t enviros trying to get dams removed? How about wind? How practical is that when everyone is driving an electric car? The only reliable source of electricity generation for widespread electric car ownership would be coal generation, it seems to me. Of course, you could dam every river in stream in sight. Economically speaking, the demand would simply overwhelm the productive capacity of “clean” forms of energy production like wind and hydro. The point is that energy is not created in thin air. Remember, the driving factor in economics is SCARCITY! In light of that fact, fossil fuel is the cheapest, and arguably the most environmentally friendly, source of energy for transportation in the planet. When it starts to run out, the market will provide other alternatives.
Second, as for your comment on U.S. dependency on foreign sources of oil, consider the fact that the U.S. gov’t makes it almost impossible for oil producers to find new sources of oil, which is exactly what the enviros want. There is an abundant supply of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, but policies make it politically and economically impossible to tap it. Do you find it a little hypocritical that enviros want to have their cake and eat it, too? These contradictions are so typical!
By Gman on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
…and, I might add, that hypocrisy is typical because most liberals (and many conservatives at that) are simply ignorant of economics….
By Walter Greenspan on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
And, exactly where, Shane, do you think the energy comes from that makes ethanol from corn (including the planting, harvesting and transporting of the corn, let alone the plant that converts the corn into ethanol)?
By Walter Greenspan on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
And, let’s not forget, Shane, that ethanol is so corrosive that it can not be sent through the pipeline, as is gasoline, and must be trucked to distribution centers before being distributed to individual gas stations.
By Shane C. Mason on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
‘Enviros’? You use the term like you are talking about lepers. I suppose I was just taught to respect mother nature and that it was our job to take care of her so that in turn she will take care of us. Calling out these ‘enviros’ as the extreme cases doesn’t really help you and I to have an honest debate. To be truthful, it is a bit lazy.
As for the points on a wholly electric car, you are using the old ‘reduction of choices’ fallacious argument. Why are those the only 3 choices I would have to power my all electric car? Couldn’t I buy a simple solar panel? Couldn’t I use wind energy as a subsidiary?
Another note, have I ever said that I oppose nuclear energy? Sure the damn ‘enviros’ are against it and since you have found it helpful to lump me in with them, then let’s just go with that.
Walter, I am not sure where you are getting your information on the process of converting feedstock to ethanol, but it is a biological process. The electricity that it does take to produce and transport it could be… wind? solar? Oh, maybe… ethanol???
By Walter Greenspan on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
Shane, if you truly want to make the U.S. independent of the global crude oil market and not just force everyone to accept a lower standard of living as a form of misguided ‘enviro’ worship of ‘Mother Nature’ (otherwise known as idolatry), the only economic rational way to do this would be to build nuclear plants to generate the electricity to power the liquification of coal.
By Shane C. Mason on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
Walter, how in the hell does me saying I was taught to respect mother nature translate into misguided ‘enviro’ worship of ‘Mother Nature’ ? Cast aspersions much? Actually, that was pretty intellectually lazy ad hominem attack on my character. Also, even if I did ‘worship’ mother nature, it would only be idolotry if you had the real God and mine was fake. Now, if we are done with these damn personal attacks, think that we can move on to have a substantive debate?
I wont argue with part of your statement: the only economic rational way to do this would be to build nuclear plants…
the rest of it is wrong. We still don’t have carbon sequestration down, though it is getting better. Here is how I would rephrase that statement:
the only economic rational and environmentally friendly way to do this would be to build nuclear plants to generate the electricity to produce hydrogen.
You see, burning hydrogen produces exactly 0 greenhouse gasses.
By Gman on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
Shane, I didn’t intend to use the word “enviro” with any negative connotation. You’re right — I’m lazy insofar as I don’t want to type out “environmentalist.” Furthermore, I’m not trying to pigeonhole you by saying that you’re for or against anything. I wanted to make a general comment about the practicality of sources of energy in light of potential demand. So, in response to your idea that a consumer could power an electric car by purchasing solar or wind energy, I simply wonder: 1) could the average person afford creating or purchasing such sources of energy; and 2) do those sources of energy have the productive capacity to provide enough electricity for widespread ownership of electric cars.
Here’s the thing, I’m certainly not against hybrid, electric, or other alternatives to vehicles that run on fossil fuel. My offering to the debate over alternatives to traditional energy production is to allow the market to sort it out, as opposed to, of course, the government. If environmentalists (there, I spelled it out) really want sustainability, then they should embrace the market approach to alternative energy. Keep in mind that the market approach will be driven (pardon the pun) not by producers but by consumers. The only reason hybrid vehicles are more prevalent today is simply because consumers like you have sent a message to auto manufacturers that you are willing to pay more for a vehicle in order to achieve a more important goal — protecting the environment.
I just wanted to say something about protecting the environment. I’m an “environmentalist,” assuming you take all the political connotations from the word. As a Christian, I believe we don’t own the earth; we are merely stewards of it. If we owned it, maybe you could make a plausible argument that we could do whatever we want with it. On the contrary, I believe that it’s God’s creation and he owns it. He gave us dominion over it in Genesis 1:26. This “dominion mandate” maintains God’s authority over the creation but enables us to partner with him to utilize it to further God’s kingdom on earth for the betterment of humanity. I take this “dominion mandate” to mean that we are to utilize the earth in a manner that is environmentally sound. Now, we have take into account the forces of economics, in particular scarcity, as I mentioned earlier. What does scarcity have to say about what is the best form of energy to serve humanity. Sure, there will be tension b/n cost considerations and environmental considerations. So, we have to balance those competing forces. If we mandate more cost, how does that affect standards of living? Here is where the market balances things out. It surprises me that environmentalists don’t recognize the power of market forces….
By Walter Greenspan on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
It would be nice to produce hydrogen, but, as far as I understand, the cost of producing hydrogen is far, far more expensive than the the cost of liquification of coal (this is different pricess from burning coal to produce electricity).
By Shane C. Mason on Jun 17, 2007 | Reply
1) could the average person afford creating or purchasing such sources of energy
–Only because they are not mass produced or mass marketed. If you could go down to Lowes and pick them up, then yes. As it is right now, for about $20,000 you can pick up enough equipment to take your self mainly off the grid, providing you use some passive solar measures which are even more effective than cells.
2) do those sources of energy have the productive capacity to provide enough electricity for widespread ownership of electric cars.
–In most parts of the country, yes. I live in the shadow of the scratch gravels so it almost never rains here and the wind ALWAYS blows.
“My offering to the debate over alternatives to traditional energy production is to allow the market to sort it out, as opposed to, of course, the government.”
–Would you say that the market has not done what it can to assure that doesn’t happen?
–we are merely stewards of it
Agreed
By Gman on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply
Shane, I’m trying to get you to think practically by thinking economically. Here’s a good article which states exactly what I said in a previous response…
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3989
I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with your last question. I’ll take a stab at a response. I think you’re suggesting that the market is preventing alternative energy production from occurring. It depends on how you look at things. On one hand, it’s encouraging alternative energy production — primarily because of rising gasoline prices. (If you read the article linked to above, witness the whale oil example.) On the other hand, the market in a way discourages alternative energy production because, as I mentioned, fossil fuel is still the cheapest form of energy, ceteris parabis. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Again, the market takes into account scarcity, and therefore where scarce resources should go and how much they should cost. Scarcity also brings about competition and innovation. Current market forces (i.e. supply and demand of oil) are leading to the development of alternative energy. Consumers have a huge part in this by sending signals to producers that they want more, for example, fuel efficiency. Yet, interestingly, they don’t want to give up speed. Hence, auto manufacturers build hybrid vehicles that afford maximum fuel efficiency while allowing consumers to drive 90 mph.
Also consider, Shane, that gov’t intervention in energy markets — the fossil fuel market in particular — can have nasty unintended consequences. If the gov’t holds the prices of gas artificially low, it’ll increase demand so much that supply won’t keep up. I even remember lines at the pump when I was about 10 years old. The interesting flip side of this is that price acts as a conservation mechanism. Why don’t environmentalists see how effective the price mechanism is. I think some of them see it, but only a minority.
By Shane C. Mason on Jun 19, 2007 | Reply
First off GMan, let me say that I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply. I understand your argument, but do not completely agree with it.
Note that I also [recycle my posts sometimes](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/15/03911/7781). commenter to that post on the Daily Kos points out the place where the free market breaks down in relation to fuel efficient autos.
“People who can afford the new car can afford the gas. The people who want and need fuel efficient transportation usually can’t afford anything but the old cars that the people that can afford the gas get tired of. Therefore market forces are NOT the way to more fuel efficient cars.
…
I am in the market for an electric car however my inability to pay eliminates my vote on what type of car will be produced.”
Now, let’s consider that for a moment. I can afford to vote in this free market while most can not. Again, this selling of the free market as though it were as fair as a democracy is not really effective to anyone that takes the time to think about it.
One closing point. While I agree with your point on scarcity, I think that it discounts two important factors:
1. The Psych of the American people brought on by a number of factors, including auto industry advertisements that we don’t want a wimpy truck, we want a meatball sub.
2. The Psych of the American auto industry. Switching to more fuel efficient vehicles is not a tech problem, it is a marketing problem. They have been telling us that we need a meatball sub for so long that it is difficult to change course. That is why Toyota is kicking Ford, Dodge and GM’s ass right now.
By Jay Stevens on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply
Actually we could meet the entire country’s power needs with solar power alone. Too bad that would cut out big energy corporations from making a buck off of extraction and distribution.
By Gman on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply
Jay, the only way you will ever get a truly competitive market in energy production would be to get the gov’t out of energy markets. Instead of allowing market forces to determine who wins and loses in the market for energy production, gov’t involvement allows those interests with the most power to determine who wins and loses. You responded to my post on coal to liquid. The coal companies want subsidies (and spend millions on lobbying) for coal to liquid so that it is the “winner,” instead of solar, nuclear, hydro, etc.
I really want you to answer this question, Jay: Are you willing to advocate a free market in energy in order to allow all types of energy production to compete for the consumers’ dollar? Or, are you willing to hang your hat on who’s best at garnering the political power to gain advantage over competition?
I would love to see our nation powered by solar power! AS LONG AS IT COMES TO FRUITION THROUGH THE FREE MARKET.