Why I will never (probably) buy a hybrid vehicle:

[Robb]

I've been looking for some time for an authoritative statement on energy use and emissions during the production of a new vehicle, and finally found just what I was curious about here.

They based their analysis on a 1990 Ford Taurus, assuming a vehicle lifetime of approximately 14 years and a fuel efficiency of 21.8 mpg.

The point:

While only 10% of a vehicle's energy "impact" over its lifetime is during production, 59% of its toxic releases occur then. In other words, a new vehicle being produced will release as many harmful emissions as 8 years' worth of driving it around.

So in order to make, say, a new Prius pay off emissions-wise, I'd have to (a) make up 8 years' worth of driving my other vehicle around, and (b) make sure the old one was never driven again.

Ignoring the second part, I read at SERC that for every 54 lbs. of carbon produced by an Explorer, a Prius will pump out 20 lbs., or about 37%. We'll call it a third, telling me that to save that 8 years' worth of Explorer emissions, I'd have to drive the Prius 24 years.

Is my math off? Someone tell me I'm looking at this wrong. I am tired, after all. :)

[greenman3610]

1. your math is ok, but your logic is a little off

You cut your carbon emissions by 2/3.
You save about that much on gas.

What is your problem with that?

Emissions during production are a point source problem that
can be addressed by management measures at a
particular site. Ford is now working with consultants
like William Mcdonough who are looking at exactly
this part of the manufacturing cycle to close up
these leaks. A bit of political will is what is
needed to speed up that process.

[Robb]

3. But I don't cut my emissions

I'm set back by the emissions of the new car's production. Shouldn't my political will be to demand these plant emission problems be addressed before I agree to be responsible for 8 years' worth getting pumped into the air? :shrug:

[brmdp3123]

2. huh?

[Spinzonner]

4. So

you plan to drive your current vehicle forever and you think its environmental costs will remain constant over that period. And you think that profile can be retained with sufficient maintenance that is more cost effective than, at some point, replacing it.

The appropriate comparison is not on an individual basis because there are costs - both financial and environmental - to everyone replacing current vehicles with newer ones. What is appropriate is the profile of all the vehicles on the road and their characteristics and the cumulative effect.

Your math is probably servicably OK. The logic is a bit suspect, though.

[Robb]

5. No, not forever

Just say for that 14-year lifetime. Not driving it for that period would negate any logic I might've had a grip on. ;)

[Spinzonner]

8. You miss the point

The issue is not what each individual vehicle owner/user should do with their vehicles. There are indeed startup costs both financial and environmental to a change.

And we're not even considering that unless you retire the vehicle without destroying it (which also has environmental costs) or sell it to another user (which continues its effects) it's not necessarily a benign action.

The tradeoffs are across the population. We don't really care about your own little problem :-)

[bananas]

9. So what do you do when after 14 years when your old car dies?

Eventually, it will have to be replaced.
Do you replace it with a hybrid or a gas guzzler?
There's a whole new generation of people out to buy their first new car.
Should they buy a Prius or a Taurus?

[Fescue4u]

6. Assuming you have to drive something....

No matter what you drive is going to have this release of toxins during manufacture.


Even if you buy used, the vehicle still had to be built to satisfy the eventual used car market.

IMO, drive whatever you want, even if its an SUV, you are a free person afterall. But if you are looking to minimize the environmental impact, a hybrid is still the way to go.

[Robb]

7. I agree

But my argument would be if you find yourself replacing a standard vehicle with a hybrid (or any new car, for that matter) before you've run out that lifetime, you're not doing the air any favors.

[bananas]

10. Maybe you should change the subject line

Because right now it says "Why I will never (probably) buy a hybrid vehicle:"
what you apparently meant is "Why I won't replace my two-year old Taurus with a Prius for at least six more years".

[Robb]

13. Kinda wordy

...But you're right. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. If you have a two year old vehice it is silly to replace it

now for us we replaced a 17 year old Honda Accord for a 2005 Hybrid Civic, trust me at that point it made sense

[Gregorian]

12. Toxic is one thing. Don't forget global warming.

This subject is something I've been very interested in. I've always mentioned the production phase of cars. Most people haven't even been aware of this factor.

I'd like to take this to the next step. Let's forget about internal combustion. Electric cars are almost feasable. And at that point, there will be a dramatic decrease in fuel use, if not a complete cessation of it's use. That would happen if photovoltaics become reasonably efficient. And they are almost a reality. However, at that point in time, we would have to do the same logical thinking about THEIR manufacturing "cost". Batteries, etc. Now I believe that the manufacturing "costs" are going to become very efficient. AND unlike gears, and pistons, and transmissions, electric cars will be much kinder to produce.

I also believe that engineering within the context of recyclability will also bring manufacturing costs down. When I say cost, I mean environmental costs.

I am looking forward to electric. That's when we really start making a dent in things.

It's not just the cost of manufacturing, and the fuel use. It's also global warming. And until we eliminate combustion as our means of energy conversion, I don't see where we will have made a big enough impact to warrant driving around in hybrids.