| dothedishes |
| Just heard on the radio today; gas wholesalers paid an increase of .20 cents per gal. They said to expect to see the increase passed on to us at our local stations by this time next week. Ouch! I just paid $3.26/gal today in SoCal. |
|
|
| 5Gs |
| just to clarify, you did mean 20 cents and not .2 cents? .2 doesn't seem as much even though it's an increase. a couple of weeks ago I saw a shell station in s.f. charging $4.17/gallon for premium! :eek: |
|
|
| dothedishes |
| .20 (TWENTY) cents per gallon |
|
|
| il38694 |
quote:
Originally posted by dothedishes
.20 (TWENTY) cents per gallon
I think this is what you meant: $.20 (20 cents) per gallon. |
|
|
| jdeanski |
Going home last night : $2.799
Going to work this morning : $2.829
Coming home this afternoom: $2.899 |
|
|
| ThePilotster |
| Don't worry.. it will go down in election year:bangh: |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by ThePilotster
Don't worry.. it will go down in election year:bangh:
What is the driver? (I have missed they news)
I am guessing it will go down when demand does. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Scoobs |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
What is the driver? (I have missed they news)
I am guessing it will go down when demand does. :rolleyes:
It depends where the dart lands |
|
|
| jay |
| I'm happy. My Hybrid pays for itself faster with higher gas prices. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| krygny |
So, if you manage to get 15 gallons into your Pilot and you time it right, you'll save yourself a big 3 bucks over the subsequent tankful. WOOHOO!! Alternatively, you could get yourself a storage tank or 3,000 gallon gasoline truck and stock up. Oh, but then if gas prices drop, you're stuck with a $hitload of overpriced fuel.
Might as well play the Futures Markets . |
|
|
| razzergreen |
| The average hybrid will take 300000 miles to break even from the cost factor of the hybrid components. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by razzergreen
The average hybrid will take 300000 miles to break even from the cost factor of the hybrid components.
Shhhhhh!!
Don't confuse him with facts. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by razzergreen
The average hybrid will take 300000 miles to break even from the cost factor of the hybrid components.
Where'd you get this number? It's ridiculous.
A number of studies have been done, probably the most recent by Consumer Reports (seriously flawed when originally published but now corrected). They reported hybrids were break even or better in about half the cars they looked at over a typical four-year owernship period.
Granted there are some tax credits involved and you'd be hard pressed to say you're saving big money driving a hybrid, but things are about at a break-even point right now for a typical owner - the extra capital costs are pretty much equaled by the gas savings and tax credit over a typical ownership cycle.
- Mark |
|
|
| jestmaty |
1000 gallons a year @ 2.00 (still too much IMO) = $2,000
1000 gallons a year @ 3.00 (way too f***in much) = $3,000
$1000 difference divided by 12 months = $85 each month, or....
roughly $3.00 per day
Tow a boat with a Pilot 140 miles roundtrip @ 10mpg = 14 gallons @ $3.00 per gallon = $42 each time we want to take it out...... not including what the boat uses. Makes a lakeside storage seem cheap during the summer season.
The rest of the world sees us buying a sh**load of starbucks coffee each day... +/- $1200 per year .... approximately.... $100 a month
They see us eating lunch OUT 5 days a week @ $10 per day for our lunch hour... $2500 per year or $210 per month
We..... oh well, I'm pretty liquored up right now so I
don't know what I'm trying to say except, I miss the days of $1.07 per gallong of gas. I still feel like we are all being brainwashed into thinking that $2.10 per gallon of gas is cheap, like we are supposed to buy huge storage tanks and a buttload of Stabil fuel stabilizer to keep it explodeable for the next year.
Born June 9, 1965 and I remember when cigarettes were 60 cents a pack.
BTW, I don't smoke at all, ever, althought I do drink about $1000 worth of beer each year. Average about 5 hours per week doing high intensity cardio on a recumbent bike at home.
Stayed home all afternoon and hid my keys from myself, no driving after drinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:2: :eek: |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jestmaty
. . . . .
Tow a boat with a Pilot 140 miles roundtrip @ 10mpg = 14 gallons @ $3.00 per gallon = $42 each time we want to take it out...... not including what the boat uses. Makes a lakeside storage seem cheap during the summer season.
. . . .
EXCEPT
Drive to the lake (140 miles at 25 MPG) $16.80
Towing boat $42
Cost difference $25.20
4 trips in a month $100.80
How much is storage for the month?
The problem is gas is still "cheap", in that it does more than any alternative.
It may not be as cheap as it was, but cost is relative the alternatives, not the past or future value (except for the futures market). |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by jay
I'm happy. My Hybrid pays for itself faster with higher gas prices. :rolleyes:
Jay, fess up. The only reason you bought a hybrid is to drive alone in the HOV lane, you can't convince anyone here that you'll same money with one. |
|
|
| jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
Jay, fess up. The only reason you bought a hybrid is to drive alone in the HOV lane, you can't convince anyone here that you'll same money with one.
That's why I put the :rolleyes: at the end of my post. :p
I do like the driving experience over a traditional vehicle, though. HOV access is a great stress reducer, the car is very quiet, and that CVT transmission is smooooth.:p |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
Jay, fess up. The only reason you bought a hybrid is to drive alone in the HOV lane, you can't convince anyone here that you'll same money with one.
A new class.
To poor to be a "Limosene Liberal", so he has to settle being a "Left Lane Liberal"!
:2: :2: :2: |
|
|
| razzergreen |
The #'s I got were from one of those car and driver tests done a while back. They said that the "average" hybrid would have to spend at least 200000 miles and in some cases and models 300000 miles on the road to pay themselves back. The idea of leasing the first run hybrids is ok, because the first ones out you could barely afford to replace the batt.s when it was time.....3-4k from what the dealer told me back in those years....
I also miss the 1.07/gal fuel days....if only my paycheck went up with it rather than down....lol :D |
|
|
| krygny |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
Jay, fess up. The only reason you bought a hybrid is to drive alone in the HOV lane, you can't convince anyone here that you'll same money with one.
If you want to drive alone in the HOV lane, I think you can get a "girlfriend" for about $50. She may not move much, but she's always got a very surprised look on her face.
:19: |
|
|
| jay |
quote:
Originally posted by krygny
If you want to drive alone in the HOV lane, I think you can get a "girlfriend" for about $50. She may not move much, but she's always got a very surprised look on her face.
:19:
About a decade ago, I was driving in to work and saw a cop with a violator, who had a car seat with a life-sized baby doll in it. That scam didn't work that day. :p |
|
|
| xGS |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
A new class.
To poor to be a "Limosene Liberal", so he has to settle being a "Left Lane Liberal"!
:2: :2: :2:
But only until this car becomes available - then he can be a "Left Lane Limosine Liberal". |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by razzergreen
The #'s I got were from one of those car and driver tests done a while back.
Things have changed. Gas isn't so expensive that the initial capital cost of a hybrid can be recouped in a year or two, but it doesn't take hundreds of thousands of miles anymore. And if gas were to go up another buck or two, we'd start getting into the area where the few thousand premium for the hybrid model would be paid back very quickly.
The batteries on new hybrids are typically warranted for ten years and most experts think they'll last the life of the vehicle. There are a lot of Prius running around with 300K on their original battery pack.
When catalytic convertors first appeared, there was a lot of gloom/doom that the technology was too expensive to mass produce and would result in unreasonble costs. The hybrid battery situation today is analogous.
Current hybrids are marginal for most drivers, but what folks forget is that we're laying the groundwork for starting to be able to "plug in" your hybrid and recharge the battery with power off the grid. This could be a way to ramp up to greater and greater use of electrics without have to make the full leap to all electric cars immediately (whcih has been tried and failed).
- Mark |
|
|
| jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Things have changed. Gas isn't so expensive that the initial capital cost of a hybrid can be recouped in a year or two, but it doesn't take hundreds of thousands of miles anymore. And if gas were to go up another buck or two, we'd start getting into the area where the few thousand premium for the hybrid model would be paid back very quickly.
The batteries on new hybrids are typically warranted for ten years and most experts think they'll last the life of the vehicle. There are a lot of Prius running around with 300K on their original battery pack.
When catalytic convertors first appeared, there was a lot of gloom/doom that the technology was too expensive to mass produce and would result in unreasonble costs. The hybrid battery situation today is analogous.
Current hybrids are marginal for most drivers, but what folks forget is that we're laying the groundwork for starting to be able to "plug in" your hybrid and recharge the battery with power off the grid. This could be a way to ramp up to greater and greater use of electrics without have to make the full leap to all electric cars immediately (whcih has been tried and failed).
- Mark
Maybe I wanted to rationalize it, but Toyota figured our how to package a few features that help explain away the cost differential, without even getting into the hybrid issue.
And Nissan's figured it out, offering Smart Start and CVT transmissions even on the low end with the new Sentra. |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
The batteries on new hybrids are typically warranted for ten years and most experts think they'll last the life of the vehicle.
"Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. "
http://onemansblog.com/2007/03/27/p...nmental-damage/ |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
"Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. "
http://onemansblog.com/2007/03/27/p...nmental-damage/
I hate it when the anti-hybrid side uses stupid examples to prove their point.
I can see dialing back the life span of the hybrid a bit, but who thinks a (GM built) Hummer is really going to have an average life of 300K miles!
Plug in Hybrids are just electric cars with all the issues and costs of trying to put transportation on our already stressed electrical distribution system.
If we put a significant amount of transportation energy needs on the electrical power system, then the cost of power will go up for all uses.
This is the same economic FACT that the greenies miss when they forget the FACT that putting a significant amount of our transportation energy needs onto bio-sources will push up the cost of all other bio-sources commodities (Food).
I would also not count on any significant battery advances in the short term (10+ years). There is lots of work being done driven by many factors, and all the work has always gone slow. |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
I can see dialing back the life span of the hybrid a bit, but who thinks a (GM built) Hummer is really going to have an average life of 300K miles!
Old school, old technology GM engines last a long time. The rest of the vehicle may have it's share of problems but GM trucks seem to run forever. |
|
|
| ramirami |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
Old school, old technology GM engines last a long time. .
do they also have carburetors ?:2: |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
"Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. "
http://onemansblog.com/2007/03/27/p...nmental-damage/
This study is widely debunked - it's published by a mysterious single-person private firm which has not submitted any of the underlying data to peer review. It's gotten a lot of press, but most scientists and engineers don't take it seriously.
- Mark |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
This study is widely debunked -.............................. but most scientists and engineers don't take it seriously.
- Mark
OK Whizzy..................where are your quotes and links by these most esteemed "scientists and engineers" |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
OK Whizzy..................where are your quotes and links by these most esteemed "scientists and engineers"
Pulling out links to wacko junk science studies is your game and I don't play it.
Remember the "study" that predicting that educated women over thirty were more likely to be killed by a terrorist than find a man who would marry them? Anybody can publish a "study".
I can tell you that the big driver that made the Hummer attractive in this "study" was to assume a useful life of the Prius of 100K miles, while the Hummer was assumed to last 300K miles. Thus, you assume you have to build 3 Prius's for every Hummer - combine this with some very dubious assumptions about the environmental impact of making batteries and you can get some very skewed results.
This "study" was published by CNW Marketing based in the Bandon Oregon. I think the key word in the firm's name is "Marketing". This is junk science, pure and simple - make some outlandish assumptions and publish a report with a lot of shock value to be lapped up by the news feeds. There is no track record here to think that the study is well considered. CNW Marketing has no record of doing such studies. It's basically one guy.
The idea that there is more to environmental and energy impact than just gas mileage is a good one and probably does deserve some careful analysis. This wasn't a careful analysis. It was a "Swift Boating" of hybrids.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
| As much as I agree for MOST people and MOST uses hybrids are stupid, I hate stupid studies trying to "over prove" the fact. |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Pulling out links to wacko junk science studies is your game and I don't play it.
The idea that there is more to environmental and energy impact than just gas mileage is a good one and probably does deserve some careful analysis. This wasn't a careful analysis. It was a "Swift Boating" of hybrids.
So Mark, I called your bluff and you folded like a cheap tablecloth. I'll give you one more chance. Who are these scientists and engineers you quote that disagree with the content of my post? Help me out a little, I'm open to educated advice |
|
|
| tangotango99 |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
This study is widely debunked - it's published by a mysterious single-person private firm which has not submitted any of the underlying data to peer review. It's gotten a lot of press, but most scientists and engineers don't take it seriously.
- Mark
Hybrids are snake oil solution to energy crisis,what we need is to free petroleum companies to search the so called forbidden zones for more of it and also increase our fuel efficiency. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by tangotango99
Hybrids are snake oil solution to energy crisis,what we need is to free petroleum companies to search the so called forbidden zones for more of it and also increase our fuel efficiency.
Yep, what we need is to double mining and drilling. With current energy growth rates, that will give us an extra 20 years before we run out. Great solution.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
. . . . Who are these scientists and engineers you quote that disagree with the content of my post? . . . .
ME! |
|
|
| switch |
quote:
Originally posted by ThePilotster
Don't worry.. it will go down in election year:bangh:
Or if Congress gives Bush his money for Iraq. ;) |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
So Mark, I called your bluff and you folded like a cheap tablecloth. I'll give you one more chance. Who are these scientists and engineers you quote that disagree with the content of my post? Help me out a little, I'm open to educated advice
OK Mark, I gave you two chances to respond. Strike Three, you whizzed out and therefore I see no credibility. You could have bunted and said that it was your opinion, but no you alluded to the unnamed references. |
|
|
| 5Gs |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
"Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. "
http://onemansblog.com/2007/03/27/p...nmental-damage/
where can I find a breakdown of this $3.25 per mile? or the $1.95 for the hummer? |
|
|
| whizmo |
I haven't wanted to stay involved in this because debating this silly report in some ways gives it credence. But if you insist....
Here is the best summary I've found of the problems with the "Dust to Dust" report.
1) All of the peer-reviewed literature concludes that the majority (85% in one case) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study has these percentages reversed, an anomaly CNW has been unable to justify.
2) CNW has divided the R&D element of the energy cost of each model of car in their survey by the number of cars of that model produced so far, to calculate the energy cost per car. As the market for electric cars increases, and as new models using similar technology are released, the R&D cost per car, calculated in this way, will rapidly and dramatically decline. Scientifically speaking, the R&D cost should have been divided NOT by the number of cars produced so far but by the projected number of hybrid cars of all models that are expected to be produced *eventually* (and of course, that is hard to determine, but any reasonable figure that one might choose would lead to dramatically cheaper energy costs per car than those claimed by CNW).
3) The report also takes the energy used to make the *factories* that produce a given car model, and instead of allocating that energy over how much of the useful life of the factories has been used up, it simply divides it by the number of vehicles produced so far - which produces a massive bias against cars produced in newer factories (even though modern factories are in general far more energy efficient than old ones)! This blatantly flawed and clearly biased methodology would never pass any peer review process.
4) The study assumed a lifetime mileage rating for the Prius of 100,000 miles (compared with twice that for many SUVs). Had it assumed a larger mileage rating, the lifetime energy cost results for the Prius would have been correspondingly lower. The Prius hasn't been around long enough for accurate mileage rating statistics to be available yet, but there are Prius taxies that have passed the quarter million mile mark without a hitch (http://www.hybridexperience.ca/Toyota_Prius.htm), so the assumption of 100,000 miles clearly wouldn't pass any peer review process.
5) There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled, whereas they are.
So the reason it hasn't been and won't ever be peer reviewed is clearly that it couldn't possibly pass any peer review process; because as a scientific study it is hopelessly flawed and obviously biased. CNW has clearly set out in advance to produce a study that would conclude that hybrids were bad for the environment (as opposed to setting out to find out the truth, whatever the truth may be); and it weighted the evidence in many ways in order to allow this conclusion to be reached.
And yet the CNW report (unlike any of the peer reviewed reports that have come to the opposite conclusions) has received a huge amount of publicity in sections of the press (as a Google search quickly demonstrates); and almost none of the press articles that cover it mention that it hasn't been peer reviewed, or consider its flaws, or mention that several peer-reviewed studies have reached the opposite conclusion - they simply report its conclusions, and treat them as if they were facts.
On the other hand, there are several peer-reviewed studies which flatly contradict the CNW findings, concluding that the lifetime energy, emissions and pollution costs are much lower for hybrids and for electric cars than for their nearest petrol and diesel equivalents; here are four:
1) The 2001 MIT study called On the Road in 2020: An Assessment of the Future of Transportation Technology (http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2001/heywood.pdf) used a life cycle analysis that concluded that increasing fuel efficiency with hybrid technology, is a net energy and global warming pollution winner.
2) Andrew Burnham, Michael Wang, and Paula Moon at the Center for Transportation Research of Argonne National Labs (http://www.transportation.anl.gov/) recently gave presentation called "Energy and Emission Effects of the Vehicle Cycle" (http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2006-01-0375) at the 2006 SAE World Congress. One of the key the conclusions is "Total energy cycle energy use *decreases* for advanced powertrains & lightweight vehicles. Improved fuel economy offsets increase in vehicle cycle energy."
3) Heather L. MacLean and Lester B. Lave of Carnegie Mellon University published a 1998 life-cycle assessment (http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html) which concluded that 85 percent of energy use associated with a conventional vehicle's life cycle is attributable to operation. Only 15 percent is attributable to manufacturing and disposal. The CNW report reverses these percentages).
4) Sophie Nicolay of the University of Leige in Belgium, published a lifecycle study in 2000 (http://www.ulg.ac.be/cior-fsa/publicat/8lca_ve.pdf) that concluded that the lifecycle environmental impact of electric and hybrid cars is much lower than that of petrol and diesel ones.
Not one peer reviewed study has ever backed up the conclusions of the CNW report.
The CNW Marketing Research "Dust to Dust" study (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/) that was the basis of the first article you linked to, and which purported to show that Priuses use more energy over their entire lifecycle than some SUVs use, is worth exploring, because it's a good illustration of the way the press hypes up non-peer-reviewed pseudo-science - on both sides of the argument, but primarily on the anti-environmentalist side; and the perils of taking certain sections of the press, in particular, at face value.
The peer review process is what keeps science honest. If a study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it does not mean that its conclusions are uncontroversial; but it does mean that the evidence it presents has been verified, the methodology that it uses is considered by other experts in the field to be scientifically sound, and the conclusions it draws can objectively be said to be fair, and free from bias, given the current evidence. More evidence may later come to light that makes a peer-reviewed study obsolete; or better methodologies may later be devised; or in many cases it may simply be possible to quite reasonably draw differing conclusions from the same data (especially when one has to make assumptions, which one frequently does). There are many heated debates in the peer reviewed journals, and the process emphatically does not prevent scientists from publishing controversial studies that pass peer review, provided only that they practice sound science. But a peer-reviewed paper is a paper that has been checked for obvious logical flaws, for cherry picking or fabrication of evidence in order to support pre-determined conclusions, and for unconscious bias. Very, very occasionally the peer review process fails, but that happens so rarely that when it does it usually makes world headlines (such as when the Korean scientist Dr. Hwang Woo Suk fabricated some stem cell evidence (see http://tinyurl.com/3auo23) and it passed peer review); and it usually leads to the editors of the peer reviewed journals that publish such studies having to resign. So although the peer review checks aren't completely infallible, they're pretty close to being so, and no scientific study should ever be taken at face value until it has been peer reviewed. And no press report about a scientific study should ever be taken seriously if it doesn't mention whether or not the study has been peer reviewed.
Not only has the study by CNW Market research not been peer reviewed, but CNW makes it clear in the report itself that it never will be, in the following statements:
"Disclosure 3: The database used for the Excel spreadsheets is proprietary to CNW and will not be released."
"Disclosure 5: Additional data, other than what is presented on CNW Marketing Research, Inc.'s various web sites will remain unavailable to protect the proprietary nature of the data and the research methodology."
- Mark |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
I haven't wanted to stay involved in this because debating this silly report in some ways gives it credence. But if you insist....
Thanks Mark, you credibility has been restored. I find your remarks interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Here is the best summary I've found of the problems with the "Dust to Dust" report.
Just curious but where did you find this "summary"? Could it be that self interests are everywhere? |
|
|
| A6Pilot |
Thanks, Mark! Wonderful explanation. Too bad the Rush Limbaughs of this world spend their time screaming, instead of reading. And it's too bad so many of us buy into their verbal crap.
It's easier to listen than do a bit of thoughtful analysis.
Now, back to my People magazine! |
|
|
| Mainer |
quote:
Originally posted by razzergreen
The average hybrid will take 300000 miles to break even from the cost factor of the hybrid components.
let's see
List when I bought my Hybrid Camry list was 25900 and I got a 2600 tax credit so my cost came to 23,300. (I negotiated the price of a hybrid with a sunroof for the price of one with out - plus free B/S molding and mud flaps).
The closest other comparably equipped model is the Camry XLE - list price 24,900. The Hybrid is pretty nicely decked out from the factory
EPA hybrid is 40 mpg (Real life I average 38)
EPA XLE is 34 MPG (Real life probably less too)
I usually trade after 100K miles (which is the warranty on the hybrid components)
I think I save money from the first mile I drove it. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
Just curious but where did you find this "summary"? Could it be that self interests are everywhere?
I don't recall, but it was probably one of the hybrid blogs. Certainly whomever wrote this up did it to discredit the report and is a proponent of hybrids. But the issues reported are the same ones reported by many different people who have spent the time to review the report. And the issues are no less a problem just because they're published by someone who likes hybrids.
You only need to get look around the CNW Marketing web site to get a feel for whether this is a really a credible organzation:
http://www.nvo.com/cnwmr/door/
I want to emphasize that I'm not particularly pro-hybrid. Economically they're about a break-even for consumers, but in their present form, they're net energy benefits are pretty marginal. Most hybrids aren't even economical except for the tax credit and I'm not in favor tax credits in general for this sort of thing.
Many hybrids use less fuel for reasons that have nothing to do with the hybrid technoology - it's aerodynamics, narrower tires, etc. If you think about it, a hybrid can be more efficient for only two reasons: 1) regenerative braking; and 2) ability to run a smaller engine more efficiently since it is supplemented by the electric motor. On the whole and without other changes, a hybrid is a lot of complexity and weight for the marginal payback.
The situation is not unlike corn ethanol. It's probably a net energy loser right now, but you can make the case that we should encourage it so new technology can come on line and make it a winner. In the case of corn ethanol, the key thing is to come up with a way to digest corn stalks rather than the corn kernals. (Unfortuantely, the corn ethanol push has become a political football with agri-business seeing it as a way to make a short-term windfall through political muscle.)
But, it's only a matter of time before we see plug-in hybrids, so we are paving the way to transition to new fuel sources. Batery development, in particular, is a key area we need to make rapid advances in, and the hybrids are finally a mainsteam product that will drive innovation.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by Mainer
let's see
List when I bought my Hybrid Camry list was 25900 and I got a 2600 tax credit so my cost came to 23,300. (I negotiated the price of a hybrid with a sunroof for the price of one with out - plus free B/S molding and mud flaps).
The closest other comparably equipped model is the Camry XLE - list price 24,900. The Hybrid is pretty nicely decked out from the factory
EPA hybrid is 40 mpg (Real life I average 38)
EPA XLE is 34 MPG (Real life probably less too)
I usually trade after 100K miles (which is the warranty on the hybrid components)
I think I save money from the first mile I drove it.
I would think that if you got a good price in the Camry hybrid, you would have got the same (or better) amount off on the standard Camry.
So I don't think your cost comparison is valid.
I only show a $1500 savings in fuel costs over the entire 100,000 miles at $3 a gallon for fuel. (38 mpg vs. 32 mpg)
I would guess that at best you break even. (and probably that is a stretch). |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . . . . .But, it's only a matter of time before we see plug-in hybrids,
What is so good about "plug in hybrids"?
All they are is electric cars (another failure) carting around an gasoline engine for when they run out of battery.
In addition, the hybrid battery technology only works if you keep your battery use to the mid range and never fully charge or fully discharge the battery.
Plug in hybrids will break this rule and greatly decrease the battery lifespan.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . . . . so we are paving the way to transition to new fuel sources.
How?
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . . . . .Battery development, in particular, is a key area we need to make rapid advances in,
Battery technology is old and slowly developing. There is little in hybrid battery use that is going to drive any development different from the development that has been going on for over 100 years.
Hoping for a breakthrough is "wishful thinking"
PLANNING and DEPENDING on a breakthrough is just plane foolish.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . . . . .the hybrids are finally a mainstream product that will drive innovation.
This would be true for the unique technologies, like engine integration, and maybe electromechanical packaging, but I don't see it as a driver for the technologies that are really needed like batteries, motor efficiency, motor control, etc. |
|
|
| whizmo |
I wont' get into point-by-point rebuttals, but for heaven's sake, it's not hard to see how a car that runs off grid energy "paves the way " to other energy sources, since you can generate electricity by coal, natural gas, plant energy, hydro, wind, tidal, solar, nuclear, etc. etc. etc.. We also have the complete transportation infrastrcuture already in place to efficiently move electricity from points of generation to points of use. It's also much more efficient to control pollutants at the powerplant level rather than to have each individual vehicle carry out emissions cleanup technology. And technology is on the horizon to make widespread electric power "carbon neutral", either by using carbon fixing sources or by cleaning the exhaust of the power plant of CO2.
That's not to say that electric cars don't have problems - batteries being the huge one - but in terms of being able to provide transportation from the widest possible variety of input energy sources, electrics are unparalleled.
Hybrids are most definitely a stepping stone to an all-electric car - use the grid power for short-range use (which is 90% of the miles put on a car), and have the hybrid powerplant given the car the range to take a long trip.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
I wont' get into point-by-point rebuttals,
Of course not!
That would require you actually address one or more of the points presented rather then just broad-brush a response that answers none of the questions raised.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . .but for heaven's sake, it's not hard to see how a car that runs off grid energy "paves the way " to other energy sources,
Hu???
So you are saying that all the current uses for electricity just don't drive the market enough, and adding this additional one will "pave the way' for other energy sources???
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
I . . . since you can generate electricity by coal, natural gas, plant energy, hydro, wind, tidal, solar, nuclear, etc. etc. etc..
Yes, thank you for the enlightenment, but it is meaningless to the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . . . We also have the complete transportation infrastructure already in place to efficiently move electricity from points of generation to points of use.
Yes, EXCEPT it is taxed to its limits, and most power utilities are moving as fast as they can to distributed generation to try to keep the network from failing as it handles the new power requirements of today, not including moving any significant amount of transportation energy requirements onto the grid.
But, little factoids like this should not impact your broad-brush answer.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
It's also much more efficient to control pollutants at the powerplant level rather than to have each individual vehicle carry out emissions cleanup technology.
True in general, especially for dirtier fuels like coal and less refined oil.
However, this is not necessarily true for cleaner fuels, and the shift is even more noticeable when you consider the distribution losses from non-distributed generation, and the relatively small size of distributed generation plants.
Again, the broad-brush simplifies the situation to the point that incorrect conclusions can be drawn.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . . .And technology is on the horizon to make widespread electric power "carbon neutral", either by using carbon fixing sources or by cleaning the exhaust of the power plant of CO2.
Link please???
This sounds like dreams and wishes not backed by current technology, or any technology on the reasonable horizon.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
That's not to say that electric cars don't have problems - batteries being the huge one - but in terms of being able to provide transportation from the widest possible variety of input energy sources, electrics are unparalleled.
That sounds good if you ignore the many other issues.
Yes, we may get to the "Diesel-Electric" car, but that is very different than todays hybrids.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
. . .
Hybrids are most definitely a stepping stone to an all-electric car - use the grid power for short-range use (which is 90% of the miles put on a car), and have the hybrid powerplant given the car the range to take a long trip.
Again, this sounds good for those who don't care to look into the issue.
You have not addressed a single issue I presented in my previous post.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
I wont' get into point-by-point rebuttals,
Of course not! |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Of course not!
That would require you actually address one or more of the points presented rather then just broad-brush a response that answers none of the questions raised.
Jay, the internet is just a stupid way to argue when you get into the sentence-by-sentence dissection approach. You obviously have copious amounts of free time to do this - sorry, I don't. If that makes you the winner, congrats, you're the winner.
Instead, I'll make my "broad-brush" points along with the rationales and references where it makes sense. But I won't play this brow-beating style of debate that you enjoy so much.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Jay, the internet is just a stupid way to argue when you get into the sentence-by-sentence dissection approach. You obviously have copious amounts of free time to do this - sorry, I don't. If that makes you the winner, congrats, you're the winner.
Instead, I'll make my "broad-brush" points along with the rationales and references where it makes sense. But I won't play this brow-beating style of debate that you enjoy so much.
- Mark
It is funny how you have time to post, but no time to refute a single point. |
|
|
| whizmo |
The expression "Can't see the forest for the trees" has never fit better.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
The expression "Can't see the forest for the trees" has never fit better.
- Mark
Now you are really getting funny.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Lets see, you present an idea
I provided some insight as to how it is probably not correct.
You say a "point by point" is not worth your time, provide only a general "It's obvious" type answer, and don't address any of my information as incorrect.
Then provide 2 more posts (which you don't have tome for) only to comment on me, without any information on the topic being discussed.
Sounds like the a little kid yelling, "OH, yea, well so what, I'm right anyway!":rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Go have fun, believe what you want, don't bother with facts. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
The expression "Can't see the forest for the trees" has never fit better.
- Mark
Thinking about it, yes it does fit!:4:
You can't see the forest of real energy issues because you are focused on the trees of quick fixes the media (with the help of the greeies) keep putting in front of you. :4: :4: |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Thinking about it, yes it does fit!:4:
You can't see the forest of real energy issues because you are focused on the trees of quick fixes the media (with the help of the greeies) keep putting in front of you. :4: :4:
Can't we all just get along today. After all it is "Earth Day". |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
Can't we all just get along today. After all it is "Earth Day".
I love Earthday!
All the companies trying to woo the Greenie customer run sales.
I drive all over in my SUV to take advantage of the bargains.
Last year I took all the empty ink cartridges from my recycle bin and went to Stapes and got a$6 coupon for each one.
Then I use the coupons to buy stuff with free delivery.
In the end, I am sure the delivery truck showing up to drop off a pack of pens and a clipboard (free after rebate) made much more pollution then I would have by throwing out the old ink cartridges. |
|
|
| radarbuddy |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
It is funny how you have time to post, but no time to refute a single point.
I agree with you 100% NJay. |
|
|
| switch |
| In celebration of Earth Day, I didn't drive my Pilot all week. :) |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
I love Earthday!
All the companies trying to woo the Greenie customer run sales.
I do too. I love to see them squirm and then smile in cautious approval at the nuclear power exhibits. No hydrocarbons............no pollution.......Nuke power!!! They just can't handle it. I love it!
For those that scream "what about the radioactive byproducts".....my best friend........he has worked for the government for years in the NRC has a simple solution, maybe too simple. Pile it up in the middle of nowhere and put a fence around it. The solution takes political courage, not technical knowhow. Terrorists stealing the stuff? Not much of a concern......Lay a fuel rod on the road. Drive over it at 60 mph......you're dead of exposure! No real concern of someone stealing the stuff to do us harm. |
|
|
| rocky |
| Forgive me. Oil Companies for I have sinned. Its been 8 days since I used a drop of gas..... |
|
|
|
