Exactly. If a Hummer costs twice as much as a hybrid, then it uses twice the energy to produce it. After reading through the article again, I actually find it offensive.
Have you hugged your Hummer Today?
- Thread starter Dan4510
- Start date
- Status
I believe I understand where they are going, indicating that to scrap a vehicle, there are costs, and much of the costs are covered by the profit. So I can see where the total energy cost is going to be greater than the operating energy cost.
However, one has to assume that for most cars, especially something like a Camry, the cost of building the car, includes the energy, and since Toyota is probably making a profit on that vehicle, the energy costs to build a Camry don't exceed the approximately $4k in profit or even the $16k in manufacturing costs to build the vehicle.
The study gives the Camry a lifecycle close to 200K miles, with a cost of IIRC, $1.94/mile, or just under $400K
200K miles at 30MPG with $3/gallon gas is $0.10/mile for gasoline. If maintenance items were also $0.10/mile, that's $0.20/mile if we counted all maintenance as energy, or about $40K.
If we counted the full purchase price of the vehicle as energy, that' another, let's say $20K, or about $60K in energy costs.
Are we to believe there is just under $140K in profit from the junking of this vehicle to cover the energy costs associated with pulling the parts that can be re-sold, and then scrapping the rest of the vehicle?
I don't buy it.
However, one has to assume that for most cars, especially something like a Camry, the cost of building the car, includes the energy, and since Toyota is probably making a profit on that vehicle, the energy costs to build a Camry don't exceed the approximately $4k in profit or even the $16k in manufacturing costs to build the vehicle.
The study gives the Camry a lifecycle close to 200K miles, with a cost of IIRC, $1.94/mile, or just under $400K
200K miles at 30MPG with $3/gallon gas is $0.10/mile for gasoline. If maintenance items were also $0.10/mile, that's $0.20/mile if we counted all maintenance as energy, or about $40K.
If we counted the full purchase price of the vehicle as energy, that' another, let's say $20K, or about $60K in energy costs.
Are we to believe there is just under $140K in profit from the junking of this vehicle to cover the energy costs associated with pulling the parts that can be re-sold, and then scrapping the rest of the vehicle?
I don't buy it.
So you reject his study because you dont want to include all the other costs associated with a hybrid design, build, operation disposal?? if the hummer required half the engineering, half the time to design, etc and all the energy needed to house and heat the buildings said engineers/people work in, you dont want that counted into the net energy equation?? Basically when you add it all up, the net amount of enery used to produce x amount of hummers is lower than a hybrid and that is his point. thus the eco nazis dont like it when someone does their homework.
Face it Prius is just another piece of Toyota propoganda to make closed minded people think Toyota is the only car company worried about the environment. Dont drink their Kool Aid, they sell Sequoia, Tundra, LExus SUV;s too.
Face it Prius is just another piece of Toyota propoganda to make closed minded people think Toyota is the only car company worried about the environment. Dont drink their Kool Aid, they sell Sequoia, Tundra, LExus SUV;s too.
Kestas
Staff member
No, I reject the study because of the way the commentary was structured. I'm no stranger to business models. To repeat myself, the cost to design and manufacture a product should be reflected in the price, and should not be calculated separate from the purchase price of the vehicle. How a company wants to price a product (such as borrowing funding from other programs) is their business. If they want to "rob Peter to pay Paul", that's up to them. Sometimes they prime the pump, whether it's good business sense or plain greed.
I purposely ignored the disposal issue. I was only addressing the cradle-to-product cost as mentioned in the first post. I agree that disposal is something that can be factored into the equation.
I've already read something that hybrids cost 30% more materials and energy (processing costs) over similar conventional vehicles. Honorably, this thread is digging deeper into "society" cost.
We have to remember that gas mileage is not the end-all for doing what is right for personal transportation decisions. It is the total cost - cradle to grave - that should drive our decisions.
To look at this in absurdium, suppose we have a technology that can be added to a car that gives us an extra 2 mpg. But it costs an extra $500 to the sticker price, and is prone to failure in 30% of the cars, which costs an average $800 repair bill at the dealer. Would you add it to the vehicle? We're already doing it with much of our technology, i.e., 4-spd lockup torque converters, mass air flow sensors, variable cam timing, and many other parts that we're fixing today that suck our bank account dry, and never existed over fifteen years ago. Pay the pump or pay the mechanic... what's the difference?
I purposely ignored the disposal issue. I was only addressing the cradle-to-product cost as mentioned in the first post. I agree that disposal is something that can be factored into the equation.
I've already read something that hybrids cost 30% more materials and energy (processing costs) over similar conventional vehicles. Honorably, this thread is digging deeper into "society" cost.
We have to remember that gas mileage is not the end-all for doing what is right for personal transportation decisions. It is the total cost - cradle to grave - that should drive our decisions.
To look at this in absurdium, suppose we have a technology that can be added to a car that gives us an extra 2 mpg. But it costs an extra $500 to the sticker price, and is prone to failure in 30% of the cars, which costs an average $800 repair bill at the dealer. Would you add it to the vehicle? We're already doing it with much of our technology, i.e., 4-spd lockup torque converters, mass air flow sensors, variable cam timing, and many other parts that we're fixing today that suck our bank account dry, and never existed over fifteen years ago. Pay the pump or pay the mechanic... what's the difference?
All those costs are paid for by the user of the vehicle. How could a Hummer be so expensive if it uses and requires so little to create? Is demand so high that the price has been artificially inflated so that a $5000 Hummer sells for $60000? Does it exist in an imaginary economy and is not subject to the amount that actually went into making it, like an expensive painting? Is Toyota taking an enormous loss, of more than double the value of the vehicle, on every hybrid they sell and subsidizing it with the sales of other vehicles? IMHO, those would be the only ways for the Hummer to consume less energy than a Prius, because when you break costs down to their most basic levels, it's all paying for energy in one form or another. The least-expensive choice is the one that consumes the least energy, unless subsidies are creating artificial prices and throwing the balance out. As far as I know, subsidies do not favor hybrids that much though. The hybrid cars on the market today do consume more energy throughout their life cycle than many other non-hybrid cars, but not more than a large, expensive SUV.
Those cost per mile values are actually making me wonder: Is reason.org similar to theonion.com? Am I discussing a joke article? Oh well, it was fun anyway!
[ August 14, 2006, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: rpn453 ]
Actually, yes, to a degree. Hummers and most SUVs have a low cost to manufacture. What's in a Hummer that is so special? This is one reason US automakers were so glad to oblige the SUV craze. They were the highest profit margin vehicles the domestics make.
I had a strange coincidence to this thread. Last night I walked out of Carl's Jr and I saw a trailer with a brand new from the dealer white Toyota Prius; cargo strapped to the trailer and hooked up to a Ford F250, sitting in the parking lot.
Because his study has nothing to do with cost!
It only deals with the net amount of energy needed to design, build, drive, maintain, dispose etc
Dont change the parameters of the study/discussion, ie the Hummer while it sells for more than a Prius it requires from cradle to grave less "energy per mile driven" period, end of discussion.
For people to say it costs more is not the point.
Toyota subsidizes at a major loss every Prius sold.
Toyota uses Prius for green propoganda and the study sheds a different light/slant on this if you consider the big picture, ie the audience who drink the kool aid think they are doing the environment a big favor by purchasing a Prius are not.
It only deals with the net amount of energy needed to design, build, drive, maintain, dispose etc
Dont change the parameters of the study/discussion, ie the Hummer while it sells for more than a Prius it requires from cradle to grave less "energy per mile driven" period, end of discussion.
For people to say it costs more is not the point.
Toyota subsidizes at a major loss every Prius sold.
Toyota uses Prius for green propoganda and the study sheds a different light/slant on this if you consider the big picture, ie the audience who drink the kool aid think they are doing the environment a big favor by purchasing a Prius are not.
Sounds like he wants to be prepared for the next one.
Maybe it's just me but wouldn't a Hummer use more oil per oil change than a Prius? Was this difference in oil usage factored in as well over the life time of the vehicle along with the cost to process that oil? They seemed to really nit pick some of the details which seemed to "prove" their point. And, no, I'm not comparing the "cost" of the vehicle. The article stated maint costs as well.
Also, and has been stated, the Hummer is the result of Military planning. Was the time needed to design and test the military version of the Hummer factored in?
Also, and has been stated, the Hummer is the result of Military planning. Was the time needed to design and test the military version of the Hummer factored in?
Javacontour asked about the Escort. The wagon model and all the Mercury Tracer variants went bye-bye in the summer of 1999. The Focus came out as a 2000 model to replace both the Escort and Contour. However, the ZX2 coupe continued until June 2003, and the Escort sedan became a fleet-only car and was built through the 2002 model year.
There was no "2005" Escort, though with the fuel situation today perhaps Ford would have been better off had the car remained in the line. The Escort got rather better fuel economy than the Focus, typically several mpg on the highway. Certainly the tooling had long been amortized. And wouldn't the ZX2 with some upgrades make an interesting comparison with the Scion tC?
Many of the numbers are suspect in the study. That said, for several years in Europe the dilemma of what to do with vehicles at the end of their useful lives has been addressed through legislation concerning labeling of plastics and other materials used in cars for future recycling, handling of disposed-of cars, etc., thereby addressing some of the cost issues that this thread discusses.
And the extra materials, energy cost, and other issues involved in manufacturing hybrids are real and need to be addressed. My point has been that hybrids are needlessly complex and like a lot of other gimmicky products have been shamelessly overhyped. Don't forget the new GM "hybrid" pickups that have something like a whopping 2 mpg increase in fuel economy for all the extra paraphernalia. Admittedly, they aren't hybrids in the same sense as Honda/Toyota/Ford's models, but for the extra complexity that is there the extra fuel economy is a joke.
Maybe the Prius is closer to a Camry in size. But most people aren't going to notice much difference in interior room between the conventional Corolla that gets fuel economy as good as that of a Prius and that of either the Prius or a Camry. And who says bigger must be better? One thing that has struck me over the years is how relatively little interior room changes regardless of the size of the vehicle, at least in the North American market. (I am about as comfortable driving my Escort as I would have been in, say, a Crown Vic, and it surprises me how little extra room for the driver a lot of full-sized trucks have compared to most cars. Of course, I should point out that I'm a big dude, 6' and 300 pounds.) Most drivers would be just as comfortable, far happier, and in my opinion would have fewer mechanical worries and expenses long-term with a Corolla over a Prius.
There was no "2005" Escort, though with the fuel situation today perhaps Ford would have been better off had the car remained in the line. The Escort got rather better fuel economy than the Focus, typically several mpg on the highway. Certainly the tooling had long been amortized. And wouldn't the ZX2 with some upgrades make an interesting comparison with the Scion tC?
Many of the numbers are suspect in the study. That said, for several years in Europe the dilemma of what to do with vehicles at the end of their useful lives has been addressed through legislation concerning labeling of plastics and other materials used in cars for future recycling, handling of disposed-of cars, etc., thereby addressing some of the cost issues that this thread discusses.
And the extra materials, energy cost, and other issues involved in manufacturing hybrids are real and need to be addressed. My point has been that hybrids are needlessly complex and like a lot of other gimmicky products have been shamelessly overhyped. Don't forget the new GM "hybrid" pickups that have something like a whopping 2 mpg increase in fuel economy for all the extra paraphernalia. Admittedly, they aren't hybrids in the same sense as Honda/Toyota/Ford's models, but for the extra complexity that is there the extra fuel economy is a joke.
Maybe the Prius is closer to a Camry in size. But most people aren't going to notice much difference in interior room between the conventional Corolla that gets fuel economy as good as that of a Prius and that of either the Prius or a Camry. And who says bigger must be better? One thing that has struck me over the years is how relatively little interior room changes regardless of the size of the vehicle, at least in the North American market. (I am about as comfortable driving my Escort as I would have been in, say, a Crown Vic, and it surprises me how little extra room for the driver a lot of full-sized trucks have compared to most cars. Of course, I should point out that I'm a big dude, 6' and 300 pounds.) Most drivers would be just as comfortable, far happier, and in my opinion would have fewer mechanical worries and expenses long-term with a Corolla over a Prius.
But cost is a valid way of checking if the study is valid.
Companies are not going to act in a fashion that, in the long term, loses money.
So while the energy costs for bringing the Prius to the market may be higher than for the Hummer or the Camry, I don't buy that the energy costs for a Camry are just under $2/mile for the lifecycle of the Camry.
This brings the study into question.
The money to buy that energy has to come from somewhere.
Businesses are not providing it, they are in the business of making a profit, and I don't see $300K profit in the sale of a Camry.
The government can't lose money on that scale. They can't raise that kind of tax money, who would they sell government bonds to raise that type of cash.
Money is a valid way to see if the study is consistent with what we know about the world.
I don't see a 2005 Camry costing close to $400K in energy.
Therefore, I doubt the study.
But I will say this, and I have asked the question before, is it more energy efficient, in the entire lifecycle of the current vehicle I own, to keep driving that vehicle, or purchase one with a much greater fuel economy.
Since I have to pay for the energy need to design, build and deliver a vehicle, then I suspect that it is more energy efficient to keep driving what I have for some period of time, compared to purchasing a new vehicle.
I do believe that it is possible that the Prius does require more energy overall, compared to the Hummer.
But I don't buy the numbers they are using.
Hey, you can't end this just by saying it's over!
In my eyes, the study has everything to do with cost. Total cost includes everything it takes to get something done. The only tangible personal or business expense that I can think of that isn't entirely determined by energy and our ability to use that energy efficiently is undeveloped property value. I've worked as an engineer in power generation, oil and gas, and pulp and paper production, and all I see when I look around are the products of energy. Whether something is economically feasible depends on the energy to do it. To me, a $30,000 car is equal to $30,000 in fuel. I don't believe Toyota subsidizes the Prius by many tens of thousands of dollars per vehicle, but subsidies certainly can throw an economic system off and encourage wasteful use of energy.
Maybe I'm entirely wrong, but I will not accept the results of a study that opposes one of my fundamental principles without any details. What assumptions were made in this study to get that result? That is the truly important information, and it's the information we don't know. For example, maybe they don't count expenses such as employee salaries as energy, even though someone clearing $20,000 more per year will find a way to consume $20,000 more energy per year, and the government will certainly find a way to use more energy from the taxes on that. You do have to admit that the cost per mile values are absolutely ridiculous; javacontour has done a good job of showing that. Is there any reason to think that the rest of the study isn't when they present nonsensical information like that? I will look for the study on the web and see if I can get the details of what they actually consider to be energy usage. Some of the fundamental ideas in the article are great; more people need to recognize that there is far more to energy consumption than the petroleum and electricity you use directly. But the details seem way off.
Ironically, my cost = energy thought process is the thing that made me believe that hybrids would actually be a waste of energy for most users!
[ August 15, 2006, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: rpn453 ]
I have some news for all of you, this was an experiment on my part to do an informal study of the reasoning ability demonstrated by a cross-section of adults who are presumablely educated.
I graded as if i was teaching a class and most of you will be mad at me.
there were 34 responses; of the 34
6 understood what the study said and were able to comment positively or negatively using that knowledge. A+ congratulations.
17 utterly failed to get a glimmer of what was communicated. F, all you repeat a grade.
2 got it enough to make semi-cogent comments, i give both of you a C, you can pass to next grade.
9 were comments only that had nothing to do with they study, there no grades.
Of note here, i have a good friend who hangs sheet rock for a living and he had no trouble at all arguing with me based on points made in the article.
Finally, there were several ad hominem attacks of the article i found quite amusing.
Dan
I graded as if i was teaching a class and most of you will be mad at me.
there were 34 responses; of the 34
6 understood what the study said and were able to comment positively or negatively using that knowledge. A+ congratulations.
17 utterly failed to get a glimmer of what was communicated. F, all you repeat a grade.
2 got it enough to make semi-cogent comments, i give both of you a C, you can pass to next grade.
9 were comments only that had nothing to do with they study, there no grades.
Of note here, i have a good friend who hangs sheet rock for a living and he had no trouble at all arguing with me based on points made in the article.
Finally, there were several ad hominem attacks of the article i found quite amusing.
Dan
JHZR2
Staff member
Well arent you just Mr. Wonderful - congratulations on having everything so well figured out that us stupid folks (some of whom actually do cutting edge research and know more than that author ever will) should just stop and make you king.
And let's not forget, this is an intenet board, and a G&OT subsection no less... people come on for questions and friendly banter - we arent peer reviewing the NE Journal of Medicine or Rheologica Acta.
Care to tell us who gets what grades? Im sure I get an F.
Thanks,
JMH
And let's not forget, this is an intenet board, and a G&OT subsection no less... people come on for questions and friendly banter - we arent peer reviewing the NE Journal of Medicine or Rheologica Acta.
Care to tell us who gets what grades? Im sure I get an F.
Thanks,
JMH
One problem with your exercise Dan, is that you seem to be "grading" on whether we were gulible enough to give the article any credibility. Being gullible enough to take it seriously seems to have been your criteria for a good "grade".
This will be reflected in your next performance appraisal
XS650, I would agree except that, I didnt care if the students agreed with or disagreed with the article, I was only interested in if they grabbed essential points and then addressed it positively or negatively.
I will gladly take your grade in my next performance review.
Dan
I will gladly take your grade in my next performance review.
Dan
- Status
Similar threads
