Comments on: Unintended Consequences of Hybrid Vehicles

By: google@google.com

google@google.com — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:58 +0000

all i can do is express my discontent with this post and ask you to enguage(bad spellling) in some real dialogue. make it happen! we have a meme tooo!

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:58 +0000

Guess I'll buy a Hummer… With that analysis the best thing we can do is be as wasteful as possible and all drive the lowest mileage vehicles we can…. we'd "save gas" by all driving Hummers (apparently) because we'd drive "less" to make up the difference.

We should also all use incandescent lightbulbs, old technology inefficient hot water heaters, 20 year old refrigerators, 30 year old air conditioners, and coal furnaces to heat our houses.

Inefficiency…. the path to efficiency…. Sheer GENIUS!!!!!

By: FN

FN — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

It's the "light cigarette" argument (smokers just inhale more). Although I doubt that enough hybrids have been sold for this effect to emerge. Today a hybrid comes at a premium not a discount (if people were looking for lower cost per mile they would buy a mini or other small / cheap car). So that would imply that hybrids are being bought by rich folks who are "doing the right thing" and thus the marginal cost savings are unlikely to change behavior.

By: Nick Harris

Nick Harris — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

I don't drive anymore since I got my hybrid. It never even really crossed my mind to drive more. I also find that I offer to car pool more since I'm the only one of my friends with a hybrid. Instead of everyone in their own SUVs, we park those and pile into the hybrid.

By: Scott Lasica

Scott Lasica — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

Another point on this that I heard (but also don't have data to back up) is that the manufacturing process for the batteries in hybrid cars actually damage the environment more than if you bought and drove a non-hybrid car. Apparently the waste created as well as the fuel costs to ship the parts all over the world create a large amount of dangerous waste and emmissions. Here's an old summary of a study that shows that for the overall lifetime of a car, hybrids are actually worse than hummers. http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_2006071...

By: smurchie

smurchie — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

If the typical hybrid gets 2-4x the gas mileage of a standard car or truck, wouldn't hybrid drivers have to log 2-4x as many miles to just equal the aggregate consumption of fuel? I can't see that happening – hybrid drivers would have to be spending the better part of their lives in their cars. I know some pretty dedicated Prius fans, but even they have other things to do in their lives. Sounds like phlogiston logic to me.

By: jeremy_lil11031

jeremy_lil11031 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

I agree with Jon. I bought a hybrid because I wanted to get the best mileage I could *when I had to drive*, but I take steps not to drive (such as living where I can walk to most of the merchants that I need to visit regularly). I would hope that the people who purchase hybrids are doing it thoughtfully, first trying to minimize their driving as much as possible, then trying to be more efficient when they must drive (including driving less aggressively and being mindful of efficient speeds).

But this is a good illustration of a larger point, that the economics of environmentalism can be pretty difficult to figure out at times. I think only a massive investment in public transit (very unlikely in this country) will make a huge difference w/r/t auto use.

By: mike y

mike y — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

they study scott mentions is few years dated now. wonder if any new data out to consider overall carbon footprint of hybrid and regular vehicles. Anyone?
brad, when are you going to join clean-tech venture wave? It is very exciting space. time to save the world?… and maybe a cheerleader in the process.

By: MikeK

MikeK — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

Possibly another point to pounder regarding the purchase of a hybrid. Let's do some simple math, for fun. I drive an SUV which gets 14mi/gal. Yep terrible but the car is paid for and being a large SUV it has today basically lost all of its market value (i.e. driving it longer doesn’t affect its $0 market value). So for economic reasons should I switch to a better mileage car? I drive about 14k mi per year which translates to 1,000 gal of gas or $4,000 at $4/gal. If I buy a new car that gets me twice the mileage, I'll save $2,000 per year on gas money. The depreciation of the new vehicle though will be a multiple of that. Ok, then let's push the envelope. With a car that performs at 40mi/gal I would save $2,600. Well, still not covering depreciation. Conclusion? Amy is right. Don’t bother me with hybrids until gas prices are substantially higher.

By: Nick Molnar

Nick Molnar — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

A country with 100% hybrids is still a country 100% dependent on oil.

By: jud_valeski3968

jud_valeski3968 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

This is the Tivo effect. Tivo was supposed to make us watch less TV (skip commercials). Study after study shows we watch more TV b/c we think we're doing it more efficiently.

By: Chris Yeh

Chris Yeh — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

That systems reach dynamic equilibria is nothing new.

Engines are vastly more efficient than they were 20 years ago, but we've chosen to use more powerful engines to power bigger cars, rather than going for mileage. Nonetheless, you won't hear anyone arguing that we should switch back to less-efficient, lower-horsepower engines.

If hybrid technology reduces harmful emissions and cuts gas consumption, it is a good thing. If people choose to use it to power even bigger cars, well, at least they have the option to scale down later on. We didn't have that option with gas guzzlers.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

Wow – this post certainly got some opinions going! The hybrid dilemma also points to the fallacy of CAFE restrictions. On paper it sounds great – the evil auto companies are hoarding their secret mileage technology and forcing 15mpg SUV's on us. In truth, if GM had a 25mpg Suburban, I think we'd be seeing it now. The problem with CAFE is that it works the wrong curve in the equation: CAFE increases supply, rather than decreasing demand. In other words, making the auto companies increase their mileage makes it cheaper for us to continue our bad habits, making driving 15,000 miles/year more affordable. What govt. mandates should be doing is affecting demand – raising taxes to the point of pain (and $4.00 gas seems to have started that) where the market starts to sort itself out.

There is a case to be made for the govt. to raise taxes so gas is even higher at an artificially stable price for a set amount of time (say, $8.00 for 7 years), let the commodity market function underneath that price, return stability to gas pumps and force us, the users to make hard choices.

By: virgilio

virgilio — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

Small diesel cars are more fuel efficient than prius or other hybrids. Higher fuel prices makes us more efficient.

By: abemurray

abemurray — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:54 +0000

I love common sense (to some, counter-intuitive) thoughts like this. For instance, conservation doesn't solve the larger problems, because when people reduce consumption in one area, they generally shift the savings to another area of, you guessed it, consumption .

That's not to say conservation isn't important – if we conserve / become more efficient, we are free to have more, not less, overall. But many promoting a conservation approach are hoping that everybody will somehow use less of everything, and I just don't think that's how humans are designed to work.

What is very cool are plugin hybrids – but that is more an opportunity to arbitrage between cheap electricity from the mains and expensive fuel, and less caring about the mileage of cars. (If I could power my "16mpg SUV" from the mains I would for most local trips, simply because it's cheaper, not because it's saving fuel).

@ Dan, who mentioned that the political opponent and public didn't perceive biking and non-car-owning to be better than hybrid ownership, this is the problem in a nutshell. Humans are humans, they don't care about solving problems, they care about not worrying about problems. For many a hybrid ticks the box (I've dealt with global warming, I bought a hybrid!) and they can get back to life as normal. Biking and walking are harder, so they don't want to hear that as "solutions" they want something they can purchase without inconveniencing the rest of their lives terribly much.