The fallacy of hybrid vehicles
Are hybrid vehicles really the climate-saving panacea that their proponents claim them to be? Cause for skepticism (the emphasis is mine):
Spinella spent two years on the most comprehensive study to date - dubbed "Dust to Dust" -- collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a car from the initial conception to scrappage. He even included in the study such minutia as plant-to-dealer fuel costs of each vehicle, employee driving distances, and electricity usage per pound of material. All this data was then boiled down to an "energy cost per mile" figure for each car (see here and here).
Comparing this data, the study concludes that overall hybrids cost more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. But even more surprising, smaller hybrids' energy costs are greater than many large, non-hybrid SUVs.
For instance, the dust-to-dust energy cost of the bunny-sized Honda Civic hybrid is $3.238 per mile. This is quite a bit more than the $1.949 per mile that the elephantine Hummer costs. The energy cots of SUVs such as the Tahoe, Escalade, and Navigator are similarly far less than the Civic hybrid.
As for Ford cars, a Ford Escape hybrid costs $3.2 per mile - about a third more than the regular Escape. But on the whole, ironically enough, the dust-to-dust costs of many of the Ford non-hybrids - Fusion, Milan, Zephyr - are not only lower than comparable Japanese hybrids - Prius, Accord -- but also non-hybrids - Seville, Civic.
Spinella's finding that a Hummer on the whole consumes less energy than a hybrid than even some smaller hybrids and non-hybrids has infuriated environmentalists. And on its face it does seem implausible that a gas-guzzling monster like a Hummer that employs several times more raw material than a little Prius' could be so much less energy-intensive. But by and large the dust-to-dust energy costs in Spinella's study correlate with the fanciness of the car - not its size or fuel economy -- with the Rolls Royces and Bentleys consuming gobs of energy and Mazda 3s, Saturns and Taurus consuming relatively minuscule amounts.
As for Hummers, Spinella explains, the life of these cars averaged across various models is over 300,000 miles. By contrast, Prius' life - according to Toyota's own numbers - is 100,000 miles. Furthermore, Hummer is a far less sophisticated vehicle. Its engine obviously does not have an electric and gas component as a hybrid's does so it takes much less time and energy to manufacture. What's more, its main raw ingredient is low-cost steel, not the exotic light-weights that are exceedingly difficult to make - and dispose. But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars.
It is not possible to do this with a specialty product like hybrid. All in all, Spinella insists, the energy costs of disposing a Hummer are 60 percent less than an average hybrid's and its design and development costs are 80 percent less.
One of the most perverse things about U.S. consumers buying hybrids is that while this might reduce air pollution in their own cities, they increase pollution - and energy consumption -- in Japan and other Asian countries where these cars are predominantly manufactured. "In effect, they are exporting pollution and energy consumption," Spinella says.
Even before reading this, I was dubious about the excitement surrounding hybrids. It smacks of the hope -- one that is understandable but which has no basis in reality -- that we can have it all. A lot of people have made a lot of money exploiting that hope. The diet industry, in particular, comes to mind, but the environmental movement has been notably susceptible as well. Envinronmentalism's most widespread success -- recycling -- probably does more for our consciences than it does for the health of our planet. The amount of effort that it takes to cart recycled material to a recycle center, sort it all out, clean it, melt it all down, and refashion it into whatever it is going to be in its next life makes recycling totally impractical without government assistance. Have you wondered why, If recycling saves so much energy and raw material, it isn't able to stand on its own two feet?
And so it is with hybrids. If hybrids are so great, why does the government provide tax incentives to people who purchase them? Why do local muncipalities have to open their HOV lanes to hybrid vehicles? Shouldn't the massive savings on gas that hybrid owners supposedly achieve be enough on its own to encourage people to buy hybrids?
The reality is this: you cannot cut your energy use without causing yourself discomfort. Whether that means driving less, driving a smaller car, driving a car with fewer luxury features, minimizing your use of your car's HVAC system, etc., every option stinks. The appeal of hybrid vehicles is obvious. It is also misplaced.
Spinella spent two years on the most comprehensive study to date - dubbed "Dust to Dust" -- collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a car from the initial conception to scrappage. He even included in the study such minutia as plant-to-dealer fuel costs of each vehicle, employee driving distances, and electricity usage per pound of material. All this data was then boiled down to an "energy cost per mile" figure for each car (see here and here).
Comparing this data, the study concludes that overall hybrids cost more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. But even more surprising, smaller hybrids' energy costs are greater than many large, non-hybrid SUVs.
For instance, the dust-to-dust energy cost of the bunny-sized Honda Civic hybrid is $3.238 per mile. This is quite a bit more than the $1.949 per mile that the elephantine Hummer costs. The energy cots of SUVs such as the Tahoe, Escalade, and Navigator are similarly far less than the Civic hybrid.
As for Ford cars, a Ford Escape hybrid costs $3.2 per mile - about a third more than the regular Escape. But on the whole, ironically enough, the dust-to-dust costs of many of the Ford non-hybrids - Fusion, Milan, Zephyr - are not only lower than comparable Japanese hybrids - Prius, Accord -- but also non-hybrids - Seville, Civic.
Spinella's finding that a Hummer on the whole consumes less energy than a hybrid than even some smaller hybrids and non-hybrids has infuriated environmentalists. And on its face it does seem implausible that a gas-guzzling monster like a Hummer that employs several times more raw material than a little Prius' could be so much less energy-intensive. But by and large the dust-to-dust energy costs in Spinella's study correlate with the fanciness of the car - not its size or fuel economy -- with the Rolls Royces and Bentleys consuming gobs of energy and Mazda 3s, Saturns and Taurus consuming relatively minuscule amounts.
As for Hummers, Spinella explains, the life of these cars averaged across various models is over 300,000 miles. By contrast, Prius' life - according to Toyota's own numbers - is 100,000 miles. Furthermore, Hummer is a far less sophisticated vehicle. Its engine obviously does not have an electric and gas component as a hybrid's does so it takes much less time and energy to manufacture. What's more, its main raw ingredient is low-cost steel, not the exotic light-weights that are exceedingly difficult to make - and dispose. But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars.
It is not possible to do this with a specialty product like hybrid. All in all, Spinella insists, the energy costs of disposing a Hummer are 60 percent less than an average hybrid's and its design and development costs are 80 percent less.
One of the most perverse things about U.S. consumers buying hybrids is that while this might reduce air pollution in their own cities, they increase pollution - and energy consumption -- in Japan and other Asian countries where these cars are predominantly manufactured. "In effect, they are exporting pollution and energy consumption," Spinella says.
Even before reading this, I was dubious about the excitement surrounding hybrids. It smacks of the hope -- one that is understandable but which has no basis in reality -- that we can have it all. A lot of people have made a lot of money exploiting that hope. The diet industry, in particular, comes to mind, but the environmental movement has been notably susceptible as well. Envinronmentalism's most widespread success -- recycling -- probably does more for our consciences than it does for the health of our planet. The amount of effort that it takes to cart recycled material to a recycle center, sort it all out, clean it, melt it all down, and refashion it into whatever it is going to be in its next life makes recycling totally impractical without government assistance. Have you wondered why, If recycling saves so much energy and raw material, it isn't able to stand on its own two feet?
And so it is with hybrids. If hybrids are so great, why does the government provide tax incentives to people who purchase them? Why do local muncipalities have to open their HOV lanes to hybrid vehicles? Shouldn't the massive savings on gas that hybrid owners supposedly achieve be enough on its own to encourage people to buy hybrids?
The reality is this: you cannot cut your energy use without causing yourself discomfort. Whether that means driving less, driving a smaller car, driving a car with fewer luxury features, minimizing your use of your car's HVAC system, etc., every option stinks. The appeal of hybrid vehicles is obvious. It is also misplaced.