Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Tech check: Why hybrid car Eco-nomics don't add up

Hybrid cars are sexy. They are the most energy efficient automobiles when measured in miles per gallon, and they make a social statement about fighting global warming. They are the anti-Hummer. But are they the best way to invest your dollars if you truly want to reduce your carbon impact on global warming? Not necessarily. Just do the math.

I was speaking with Eric Carlson, executive director at Carbonfund.org this week about Dell's program that allows PC buyers the option to purchase carbon offsets when the this topic came up. The nonprofit acts as an intermediary between customers who want to buy carbon offsets and reforestation programs that plant trees that remove carbon dioxide(a total of 2,000 lbs per tree) from the atmosphere. (To plant the trees, Carbonfund.org works with Environmental Resource Trust and Rainforest Alliance. Third-party verifiers audit the programs.) Buying carbon offsets with an energy efficient PC is one way to compensate for the carbon emissions directly related to the PC's consumption of electricity during its useful life.

That was all fine and good. But then, somehow, we got to talking about hybrid cars.

Consider this scenario: You buy a hybrid and pay the premium - somewhere around $3,500 to $5,000 for a Honda Accord hybrid, according to my local dealer. Now let's assume for a moment that your hybrid gets 50 mpg. I buy a Civic for less money that gets 38 mpg. We both drive 12,000 miles per year. At the end of that year I have burned 316 gallons. You used 240. Every gallon of gasoline consumed generates about 20 lbs of CO2, among other pollutants. So I'm putting about 1,520 more lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere than you are. The hybrid wins.

But wait. I saved thousands of dollars by not buying a hybrid. Says Carlson, "You can offset those extra emissions for $3.80 a year [in carbon credits]."

It gets better. If you bought the Honda Accord hybrid you paid at least $23,000. You can't get a base model Accord in a hybrid - the hybrid version fits between the more upscale EX/LX models - and you pay that $3,500 to $5,000 premium over a comparably equipped non-hybrid version of the car. Wanting to do my part for the environment, I make a sacrifice and buy a smaller Civic for $15,000 - spending $8,000 less.

For 10 bucks you can buy about 650 lbs of carbon offsets through organizations such as EFI. Carbonfund.org also sells them, of course. If I invest my purchase savings in carbon credits I can start my own small forest. On the low end, my $3,500 savings from not purchasing a hybrid buys 227,500 lbs of CO2 offsets. Since each tree consumes about 2,000 lbs of C02, I just bought 113 trees. I bought a Civic and saved $8,000, so I can buy 520,000 lbs of offsets, which adds about 260 trees to the planet. Or I could just by a carbon offset that covers my car's lifetime emissions for about 20 bucks.

The Accord hybrid emits 1,520 fewer lbs of CO2 per year than my Civic. But by investing the difference I've recovered all of that - and taken nearly a half million more pounds out of the environment.

Mind you, all of this isn't entirely apples to apples. The trees remove one ton of CO2 over a 70 year lifespan, while the auto's lifespan is probably 7-10 years. But it does come out eventually. And the forest continues on as a sustainable resource - one that's been decimated over the past 150 years and whose decline is responsible for about 20% of global warming, according to Carlson.

The carbon math also doesn't take into account the fact that manufacturing a hybrid also produces a bigger carbon footprint due to the fact that it requires the manufacture of redundant power plants - a gas tank/engine and a battery bank/motor. All of those subcomponents had to be manufactured and shipped to the final assembly plant.

Hybrids are sexy and make a statement, but require no real sacrifice. Sure, they cost more per mile to run than an economy car because people pay more for them up front. But so do Hummers. People are paying the premium for the cache of a hybrid. It's all about brand and status (If you don't believe it look at how hot Prius sales haven't trickled down to more pedestrian hybrid models introduced by Ford and others). People buy hybrids because they're upscale and make a very public statement about being eco-friendly, just as Hummer owners make their own statement to the tree huggers (A few years ago I saw a Hummer on the highway with two bumper stickers: One of the American flag and the other said "Nuke Iraq."). A hybrid is a feel-good investment.

As an eco-investment, however, I'd rather see the forest for the trees. Another way to save the environment is to live smaller. Buy the most energy efficient car you can and invest the savings in energy conservation, renewable energy or carbon offsets.

Doesn't that make more sense than buying a hybrid?

What People Are Saying

A simple solution to many of

A simple solution to many of the footprint
worries is to refine the nickel and manufacture
the batteries in Ontario.

Another point against hybrids

You are all also missing the fact that hybrid cars do more damage to the environment than they make up for in fuel savings. The Nickel used in the batteries is mined in, among other places, Sudbury, Ontario. It is then shipped through no fewer than 7 different countries across the globe before it ends up back in North America.

The process of mining and refining the nickel is a filthy process than dumps untold amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, ground water, and damages the health of the workers who mine it. Since hybrid technology is an adder on top of the normal car manufacturing process, all of this added waste and pollution can never be made up for.

Carbon Offsets

When all of those trees die in 70 years, they'll release the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Are we not just postponing global warming for our grandchildren?

Talking of carbon footprints

Talking of carbon footprints and then talking of buying a shiny new automobile without a hint of irony seems a little off base to me. I own a 1985 Honda CRX that I bought for $500. It gets 38mpg on the highway and has not seen the manufacturing process for 23 years. Wouldn't maintaining an older car that is gas efficient be much better for the environment than buying a new model of almost any manufacture? Cars bring us from point A to point B and mine does so quite efficiently and is quite nimble off the line at stoplights as well.
Honda also made a high fuel efficiency model of the CRX that gets even better gas mileage than mine does.

Perhaps some people aren't

Perhaps some people aren't buying hybrids to save money. Everyone seems to be missing the point there.

When I bought a hybrid, I knew it was more expensive. I did NOT expect to make that back. To me, the extra cost of the hybrid technology and its benefit to the environment was a better investment than a car with leather seats or somesuch.

I know there's controversy over the carbon footprint of hybrid manufacture, but my searches haven't turned up any hard numbers about what that impact is per car. Only when we have that number can we really assess the situation. I'm sure it diffuses some of the benefit, but only a small amount over the lifespan of a car. After all, no one ever talks about the drastically reduced emissions of a hybrid (regardless of gas consumption). My emissions are infintesimal compared to those of a normal car based on standard tests.

I'm not sure why people have such a "problem" if hybrid owners want to spend their money "foolishly" and still end up reducing our dependency on oil and emissions in the meantime. It sometimes seems like a way people make themselves feel better about not making the jump themselves. I get that hybrid ownership is not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not right for anyone.

Did anyone bother to

Did anyone bother to consider the carbon footprint that is left by the manufacture of the batteries in a hybrid.

Mine the zinc ore, ship the ore to the smelter, creat zinc plates, ship the zinc plates to the battery manafactorer, manufacture the batteries, ship the batteries, build the hybrid, ship the hybrid?

Although this article is

Although this article is dressed up in green, it is really repeating the old message that hybrids don't make economic sense. After all, if hybrids actually save you money, you can buy carbon offsets with the savings and be doubly green.

So do hybrids save money? It depends what you compare. Compared to a Camry, a Prius costs less and gets better mileage; so I'd say a Prius is greener than a Camry. On the other hand, compared to a cheaper Yaris, the Prius may not be a better deal. So it comes down to needs; if you only need what a Yaris offers, buy it rather than a Prius and be greener; if a Yaris doesn't meet your needs, there is no point considering it.

So how do we compare cars then? I suggest that we remove the financial aspect of better gas mileage, then we can compare hybrids and normal vehicles without worrying about the difference in fuel costs. For example, a Prius gets about 45 mpg, so it takes 3333 gallons to go 150,000 miles (a reasonable life for the car). A vehicle that gets only 30 mpg will need 5000 gallons of gas for the same distance. So a driving a Prius saves you 1666 gallons of gas over the life of the car, compared to a vehicle that gets only 30 mpg.

Assuming gas costs $3 a gallon, the Prius will save $5000 in gas costs. So subtract $5000 from the cost of a Prius and then compare to a 30 mpg vehicle. In my case, I compared a Prius to a Toyota Matrix (both medium-size 4-door hatchbacks) and determined that the Prius was clearly cheaper.

This type of analysis also tells you that, even if a hybrid uses no gas, it will save you at most 5000 gallons of gas compared to a 30mpg car; so a hybrid that uses no gas is worth at most $15,000 more than a 30mpg car. So I don't think plug-in hybrids (that need $10,000+ batteries) are going to be a financially wise purchase for some time to come.

On another note, I don't think carbon offsets will stay cheap forever, so they aren't a serious alternative to actually reducing carbon emissions. Someone who sells you a credit for 1 ton of CO2 has to actually do something to reduce emissions by that ton. I think there is a limit to the number of technologies that only cost $3 to save a ton of CO2. However, if we assume there is a limitless supply of these cheap carbon-saving technologies then it is clear what we should do. Since $3.80 will offset 316 gallons worth of emissions, the government should increase the gas tax gas by 1.2 cents per gallon and use the extra revenue to buy carbon credits. Forget individual efforts; with this simple tax and an unlimited supply of cheap offsets, the government could completely offset the carbon emissions of every vehicle in America!

The Author says: People are

The Author says: People are paying the premium for the cache of a hybrid.

What he is saying (in effect) is: One can stash more cash in one's cache if one eschews the capricious CACHET conferred to those convinced that one's status is enhanced by the purchase of a widely advertized hybrid vehicle rather than its CPU.

The Carbon Credit industry

The Carbon Credit industry is in its infancy and presents numerous hazards for those seeking to reduce pollution now. As the author indicated, the system is banking on the 70 year lifespan of a tree when it counts that plant as a ton of C02 removed from the atmosphere. The purchase of a hybrid represents an immediate reduction in pollution vs. a standard vehicle and each hybrid purchase paves the way for the reduction of cost of future models and ensures the development of even better pollution-reducing technologies hitting the market (like plug-in hybrids which are just shy of a zero-emissions vehicle).

Oh please! This stuff would

Oh please! This stuff would be funny if it weren't so yuppy left field.

I drive a Dodge Magnum with a 340hp HEMI V-8. 25 mpg on the highway and about 20 mpg back and forth to work. Quiet, smooth, and very powerful.

It can very easily blow a Prius into the weeds (which ALSO consume CO2, giggle...) leaving a stoplight.

Carbon credits? What a way to massage your guilt complex when you don't really want to give up anything. (Does the name Al Gore and his 28,000 sq.ft. mansion and private jet travel ring a bell? Maybe he should try out my 1250 sq ft house if he was really serious.)

I don't believe I have ever heard so much half-baked (well, maybe 1/4 baked) science in my life.

But hey, hybrid owners,keep up the good work. That leaves more gas for my HEMI....