For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.
[W]hile the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.
The conclusion? "Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue," because "some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime."
Hybrids never made much sense economically, as it was difficult to make up the additional upfront cost in fuel savings. But it allowed people to feel that they were making a contribution to a more "sustainable" world. Well, baby, it may be time for a trade. And while we're at it, can we now get single-driver hybrids out of the carpool lane?
The link to a report on the study is here.
Posts
1 comment:
I haven't read this study (By the time I read your post the link had gone dead, but I have found some reports on it on the web). The study could be misleading in a number of ways, and it definitely is in at least one. The author, Art Spinella (who is President of CNW Marketing Research, which, among other things, claims that buying a car through a local dealer is cheaper than on line.) estimates that a Hummer goes 300,000 miles and a Prius 100,000. So, off the bat, that gives the Hummer a three to one advantage in cost per mile "over the life of the vehicle." But most people understand "cost per mile over the life of the vehicle" as average cost per mile, not total cost per mile. It's pretty clear the author of this study had the outcome he wanted in mind from the start. Since hybrids' design costs are higher, because they depend on new technology, hybrids are penalized in the short run, but is this a fair comparison? Maybe, figured on this basis, we shouldn't have switched from horses to cars (horses have zero design cost) or from trains to airplanes. There are many definitional decisions that go into such analyses, and these can be chosen to pretty much make things come out the way the author wants. For example, hybrids have lots of batteries and since disposal is one of the included costs, assuming it will be no cheaper to dispose of batteries by the time the current hybrids expire than it is now, may or may not be a fair decision. The same question may be asked about the costs of batteries. If one makes all of these decisions in such a way that each is defensible on its own but all are at the same end of the defensible range, the outcome can be pretty well determined in advance. Given, the obvious attempt at deception with the "over the life of the vehicle" trick, it would be nice to know more about Art Spinella, his firm, and how they make their money. Want to lay any bets they're underwritten by the Sierra Club?
Post a Comment