45 Comments

1. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

One thing people should understand about today’s hybrids (at least those I know about): they do not have superior mileage on the highway.

Where they win is in the city, where they get mileage roughly the same as their highway mileage. This is in the nature of the true hybrid drive systems.

Apr 4, 2005 - 10:54 am 2. BigFire:

Bought my Prius last month. After a learning curve of how to drive the vehicle to get better milage, I’m averaging 53MPG. And yes, the vast majority of my drive is the soulnumbing 101-134 from west end of the Valley to Glendale.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:02 am 3. John Pearley Huffman:

Roger,

You’re right about the economics of hybrids of course. And your argument about keeping the money out of despots like Chavez is iron clad correct. In fact it’s the best argument I’ve read yet in favor of hybrids and it’s really an entirely moral one.

But you still may want to wait a few months. That’s only because hybrid technology is moving so fast, that the next hybrids to go on sale may yet be another leap forward from the current Prius and even the imminent Lexus RX400h. Of particular promise is the new Lexus GS450h — the first hybrid luxury sedan — which debuted at the New York Auto Show. it’s probably still a year away from showrooms but it may actually be so much better than the gasoline-only version of the car that it will be worth buying just for the qualitatively better driving experience.

We’re still at the point where the reason to buy a hybrid has to be, as you argue, a moral crusade. But we’re rapidly approaching the moment when the reason to buy a hybrid is because it’s a better car, period.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:08 am 4. Rick Ballard:

For those not in the market for a new car but disirous of pursuing a bit of conservation, installing a decent attic fan, making sure that your insulation and windows are at R-24 standards and replacing any appliance over 10 years old will generate energy savings that will be gratifying. Especially that second refrigerator in the garage that is probably costing $15-$20 per month (in CA) to operate.

Oh, and support the construction of pebble bed reactors whenever possible because without substantial increments in nuclear power production the rest is the equivalent of sporting an “I support conservation” button on Saturday night.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:15 am 5. Teresa:

I agree Roger. Time to start drilling in Alaska while researching alternate fuel sources (fuel cells, hybrids, etc.) Reality: the world still needs oil to function and will for a time. Why not become more independent of OPEC and produce more jobs for America?

Here’s something you won’t hear in the MSM. The emerging democracies in India and China are a big reason for the jump in oil prices – supply versus demand. Not to mention summer traveling is around the corner.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:15 am 6. Alan Blue:

I’ve got a 2003 Prius in the Seattle area – so perhaps my anecdote applies to excessively hilly city driving.

But the biggest change I see in my gas milage is ‘First 20 minutes’ versus anything longer than that. For the first 20 minutes the battery is warming up to the optimum temperature for both charging and discharging.

On a 20 minute drive from my driveway with some highway/major arterial driving, but zero freeway time, I’ll get 38 mpg.

On an hour of within-the-city driving, the average for the last 20 minutes will be 44 mpg. That’s with the last 20 minutes being exactly the same route at the same time of day.

On a 500 mile nonstop trip, 100% I5, mostly in 70mph zones I get 48mpg-ish.

Compared to my previous Cadillac STS, the car payments and gas are lower than the previous gas bill. But if you’re only looking at cars with decent mpg in the first place, some of the non-hybrids might be of interest. Whatever.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:18 am 7. Roger:

It is worth noting that John Pearley Huffman (above) is a car critic for Car and Driver among other places.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/FeaturesIndex/subsubtypeId=37/subsubtypeName=Generations

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:19 am 8. George Purcell:

Remember, Roger, that every trend continues until it stops. Which is a fancy way of saying that there is no way oil could remain consistently at $100 per barrel. Indeed, I’d argue that the current $55 to $60 price includes a far-too-sizable risk premium than is warranted. Oil at $100 per barrel for any length of time would lead to severe economic dislocation and that in turn would sharply decrease the demand for oil in turn.

I’m not suggesting that oil will go to $25 barrel anytime soon…but I’d certainly hold off making purchases based upon a run up in oil price that looks suspiciously like a bubble.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:38 am 9. Ron:

In the 1970’s when the lines at gas stations were a quarter of a mile long everywhere in the United States, nay, in the world, only two countries did anything about it, Japan and France. They went nuclear using American technology. They are 70% free of the blackmail tactics of the oil producers now. With China becoming a huge buyer of petroleum for their red hot economy, the price will keep getting higher. It was time 20 years ago to start using the technology that we developed and others are using. Its a dangerous situation when we let other countries that are so unstable, that are theocracies and are really quite mad, control our destiny because we are to naive to see what is coming down the pike. Our country runs on energy and with out it we become a 3rd worlder. There is the oil shale in Canada and the oil under the oceans of the world and there is what is left in proven fields around the world and that is it. You would think that there is a conspiracy against using nuclear energy for power. Wonder if the oil companies are behind it, wonder if it is they who have stirred up the moonbats to be against this form of energy in order to drive the prices higher and higher?

Apr 4, 2005 - 12:09 pm 10. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

There’s one aspect of hybrid technology that I’d like to know more about. To evaluate the energy efficiency of a product, one should look at its total life cycle…that is, the energy cost of manufacturing it as well as of using it. I have seen statements that the energy cost of manufacturing the battery, which is of course an essential element of a hybrid, is very high, such that this energy may not be recovered over the likely lifespan of the vehicle (or at least of the battery, which is apparently pretty finite.) I’ve seen other statements that this energy cost is pretty minimal.

Anyone have any insight on this?

(Of course, not all energy is equal…the energy used in manufacturing would probably be either electrical, meaning domestic coal, gas, or nuclear, or direct process heat, which probably would also be domestic in source.)

Apr 4, 2005 - 12:34 pm 11. Cybrludite:

Instead of a hybrid, I’m looking at getting one of these instead. Unlike a hybrid, one of these buggers will get me out of town faster during a hurricane evacuation.

Apr 4, 2005 - 12:43 pm 12. jbb:

Hi Roger,

One other small point.

It makes no sense to buy a hybrid to make the planet better if you have to get in a long line to buy one.

When you buy one, you will displace the person behind you from getting one, and that person will only pollute the planet so much more.

You need to wait until they make so many of them that they are sitting around on a dealer lot without a buyer. Then you will make a difference by buying one. Til then, let everyone else who wants one have one, that’s the generous thing to do.

Jim

Apr 4, 2005 - 1:24 pm 13. Terrye:

I have to drive for my job and right now gas is very close to being my number 1 expenditure and man oh man does it burn my ass.

I was glad to hear Bush say we were going to increase the use nuclear fuel, even though there was a time when I thought that was nuts. I heard the other day that a new plant may be going up here in Indiana to turn coal into gas. And I was glad when they said they were going to drill for oil in Anwar, high time. But all of this will take time and the prices are going up day to day.

But as for hybrids…I would rather have a fuel cell car but I know they have to have a whole infrasturcture to support them, just like the petro fueled cars. That might take awhile to bring about as well.

I drive a Buick [I know I know]. I get about 34 mpg, but I own the damn thing and I hate a car payment.

But if this escalation keeps up it could add to inflation and increase interest rates and that in turn could be a time bomb. I don’t think the world economy can sustain really high prices without recession and that in turn will mean lower prices. It seems to me this is all very speculative and the run up is based more on what people fear will happen than what is happening.

I would like nothing better than to see our technology free us from the oil dictators…I would love to see the likes of Chavez and the Sauds drowning in the stuff. It is not as if they share the wealth their people, I doubt they would even feel the loss. same old same old to the peasants.

Apr 4, 2005 - 2:11 pm 14. WichitaBoy:

Follow the money.

The reason we use Middle Eastern oil, enriching Islamofascist despots, and Venezuelan oil, enriching dangerous despots closer to home, is very simple: because it is cheap. There are other sources of energy, many of them. But they cost more. Which means our standard of living falls when we use them. Which means more poor people will have even less money for their basic needs. For well-to-do people this doesn’t matter; for poor people this extra cost can be devastating. If the price of oil rises sufficiently, our free-market dynamic economy is virtually certain to implement alternative sources of energy, because there will be money to be made in the process. But the higher cost will hurt.

One wrench in the works is the problem of costing health and safety intangibles. We could easily convert to nuclear energy, sure, but what do we do with the waste? Having debated the suject with people for thirty years, I’ve never heard an adequate answer to that problem. Storing plutonium, with a half-life of 24,000 years or so, is costly to mankind, costly to the environment, costly to the future of the planet. How do we fairly account for that cost vs. the cost of oil?

As for hybrids, it’s far from clear that they are the right moral solution to the problem. I also wonder about the point raised by photoncourier, to wit, if the total energy cost of manufacturing a hybrid and driving it through its lifetime exceeds the total energy cost of manufacturing a regular car and driving it through its lifetime, then one is not virtuous, one has instead gone morally astray. Normally we all rely on free-market pricing signals to sort these issues out but in the case of hybrids the market is highly distorted by environmental religious considerations, which have in turn induced massive government subsidies, so that the market price is not a reliable indicator of the true cost.

Apr 4, 2005 - 2:17 pm 15. RIP Ford:

Roger,

There is one last thing to consider when purchasing a hybrid vehicle, will it have any resale value?

The systems are extremely complex and very expensive to replace and repair, costs that a second owner might have to eat when purchasing this car on the used market, so when it comes time for you to get another vehicle will you be able to get rid of this one?

Apr 4, 2005 - 2:37 pm 16. OJ:

Although the price of oil has an effect on the cost of gasoline here in the US, it is almost at the same level as refinery costs of CA grade gasoline. Washington needs to get serious about introducing a nationally standardized fuel grade or we will continue to see price hikes, irregardless of world oil prices. The Petro-Giants should also be forced in increase refining capacity here at home.

Here is what we posted last week on the issue with data.

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=300&PHPSESSID=6aac2ac9cc5ea4cb201719744ed16ac5

http://www.RightViews.com

Apr 4, 2005 - 3:06 pm 17. Yehudit:

Thermal Depolymerization. It’s technically proven, it fits seamlessly into the existing energy infrastructure, and it solves a whole bunch of pesky waste disposal problems all at the same time.

Apr 4, 2005 - 3:25 pm 18. Yehudit:

“There’s one aspect of hybrid technology that I’d like to know more about. To evaluate the energy efficiency of a product, one should look at its total life cycle…that is, the energy cost of manufacturing it as well as of using it.”

See above.

Apr 4, 2005 - 3:26 pm 19. Katherine:

Roger,

Crude dropped to $56.65 today. http://www.kitco.com/

I doubt that it will reach $100/barrel, and even if it does it will not stay there long. China, whose appetite for oil drives current prices, is already partially converting to coal, and they have no Sierra Club activists and EPA regulations to worry about.

Couple of years ago I read about a small company that developed a method of processing coal to make sure that it burns amazingly cleanly. There is plenty of coal practically everywhere and we should not spurn this excellent source of energy. I am all for nuclear power, too.

Regarding other ìalternative sourcesî I am skeptical as to their applicability and practicality. The thing that I am really waiting for is nuclear fusion, which was promised to us at least 25 years ago. However, knowing how the market works I have a feeling that fusion problem will be solved just in the nick of time when we truly face energy crisis.

Apr 4, 2005 - 4:10 pm 20. Dishman:

Cybrludite, along those lines, I’ve got a ‘94 Ninja. I get 53 MPG at ~80 MPH.

WichitaBoy, Plutonium shouldn’t be stored, it should be burned in reactors. It’s the other wastes that are a problem.

Rick Ballard, attic fans are very underrated. My parents put one in a dozen years ago and saved several hundred dollars a year on cooling. It took my dad and I about 4 hours to install, including wiring and replacing the vent. They’re quieter than A/C, too.

Apr 4, 2005 - 4:11 pm 21. Terrye:

Wichita Boy has a point, this is very hard on the poor.

One thing about it, if we can not afford to buy that cheap stuff from China and their exports drop and then their demand for oil may come down too.

But this is hard on people who are paycheck to paycheck.

Apr 4, 2005 - 4:40 pm 22. JimBobElrod:

The working man’s, not as politically correct as the Pious, high mileage car is the VW diesel. My standard transmission Jetta gets 54+ mpg at 70-80 mph. The worst mileage I got this winter in Michigan was approx. 43 mpg in back and forth to work, suburban type driving. An additional advantage is that I expect the body of the car to be turned into a pile of rust before the engine wears out.

Apr 4, 2005 - 5:24 pm 23. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The problem of storage of nuclear waste has been greatly over-hyped by the opponents of nuclear power. THe result is that we are storing the spent waste in cooling ponds on-site instead of deep in the ground.

The requirements for storage facilities are crazy. Why store Plutonium in a facility that is perfect for 10,000 years when we don’t do the same for asbestos, or arsenic, or other nasty toxins?

It’s all politics, folks. Nuclear waste is just a toxin (unless you get too much in the same place at once) and perhaps a target for terrorists. IT should be treated as such, not sa some kryptonite that will cripple mankind should we vfly by in our 2100th century rocket ships.

Apr 4, 2005 - 5:27 pm 24. Paul:

This is something that was in Wretchard’s comments section a few months ago. I have no way to verify its accuracy, but perhaps someone who knows more about the manufacturing process for hybrid batteries can chime in.

“Hybrid vehicles get roughly half their advertised EPA Mileage rating.

Why?, You say?

Because they use BATTERIES to store engine power for surge use.

These batteries are extremely energy-intensive to produce. For instance, the Toyota Prius “gets” 50 MPG. The battery pack costs $6000. The energy to make that battery pack is roughly $4000 worth of Japanese electricity. $4000 worth of Japanese (oil fired) electricity is used over the 150000 mile life of the battery pack.

In 150000 miles at “50″ MPG, you consume 3000 gallons of gasoline. PLUS $4000 of extra electricity. When you do the math, that equals the energy equivalent of another 3000 gallons of gasoline.

Final “True” MPG of the Prius? 25 MPG.

An SUV version of a hybrid vehicle would be even worse, mileage wise.

Posted by: j.pickens at April 23, 2004 09:16 AM

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001685.html#001685“

Apr 4, 2005 - 5:31 pm 25. Katherine:

Terrye,

Thatís precisely the problem; high-energy prices hurt the poor the most. Thatís one of the reasons why all those who demand higher taxes for gas in the name ìcleaner environmentî or some other benevolent social scheme drive me crazy. Usually these people have no problem financing a new Lexus SUV, let alone paying for the mileage, and just cannot imagine that it might hurt somebody down the line.

Apr 4, 2005 - 5:33 pm 26. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

One thing to remember about nuclear power is that even though the waste is very toxic/dangerous, it is also relatively small in quantity. A coal-fired power plant, on the other hand, generate very large quantities (hundreds of thousands of tons per year) of ash and exhaust. These contain (among other things) mercury, which appears to be very difficult to filter out.

There are no perfect answers.

Apr 4, 2005 - 5:36 pm 27. Robert in San Diego:

I encourage you to join the iconoclastic voted-for-Bush-but-drive-a-hybrid club. It is good that it pollutes less, but as a former resident of the 79th floor North WTC Tower, what I really like is using less gasoline. I know its mostly just an emotional response, but the emotions are real. Our national dependence in Mid-East oil has helped finance trouble.

Meantime, as prices at the pump are expected to be >$3 gallon, I am very happy to only fill up once a month, instead of once a week with my old car. I bought the Honda Civic Hybrid a couple of years ago, and once the engine was broken in, average 48 mpg per tank. I do a lot of city freeway driving, where the advantage isn’t as extreme, but as you can see, it does well on either city or highway.

Apr 4, 2005 - 6:12 pm 28. Terrye:

I drive about 500 miles a week.

I can not imagine only filling up my tank once a month.

It is strange, when I was on the farm I was so confined that a trip to the feed store was like an outing, now I drive and drive and drive….

Apr 4, 2005 - 6:52 pm 29. Impacted Wisdom Truth:

Roger, thanks for your thought provoking post. I documented my thoughts (such as they are) in this post. I welcome criticism of the thoughts I put there.

Apr 4, 2005 - 7:23 pm 30. Impacted Wisdom Truth:

Whoops…must have messed up the HTML tag. Cut and paste version…

http://impactedwisdomtruth.blogspot.com/2005/04/roger-l-simons-post-on-hybrid-vehicles.html

Apr 4, 2005 - 7:24 pm 31. richard mcenroe:

Cyberluddite ó I used to drive an old box-twin BMW the Patrol is cloned off. Sure, there are bikes that outperform the Patrol… but they can’t carry the beerkeg, so you’ll be welcome at any rally…

Roger… Sure, a hybrid will get you down the hill, but back up? You’ll probably use more gas just trying to find a shallower slope…

Apr 4, 2005 - 8:50 pm 32. lindenen:

I swear I’ve read that there are now nuclear reactors that actually recycle the nuclear waste as fuel, so the long time storage of nuclear waste isn’t an issue. I just can’t for the life of me remember what they’re called.

Apr 4, 2005 - 9:01 pm 33. Katherine:

I entertained the idea of getting a new car this year (I drive an old beater, which still runs fine, to my chagrin), possibly a hybrid. Well, we just run out numbers through the Turbotax and it looks like the federal, state and local governments will be receiving my new car money.

AMT strikes again and welcomes more and more customers each year.

Tax cuts? Hahahaha!

Apr 4, 2005 - 10:48 pm 34. mythusmage:

Has anybody here given any thought to what would most likely happen transportation if gasoline ever went to $5.00 a gallon on a sustained basis?

The end of cheap air freight for one, and the end of relatively cheap overnight package deliveries. Air travel becoming a luxury item once more. And the necessary expansion of rail travel to take the place of travel by air. Especially over short and medium distances.

Not to mention the re-introduction of ocean liners as a way to get around, instead of as peripatetic hotels.

Apr 4, 2005 - 10:48 pm 35. Scott free:

What about bio-diesel? I hear that bio diesel products like “grassoline” can be used in ordinary diesel engines. They are made from crops, so they are carbon-neutral (as much CO2 goes in to making them as comes out when you burn them if you are worried about greenhouse gasses), and the U.S. has thousands of acres of farmland either idle or busy producing subsidised crops no one needs.

Could this be a way to kill 2 birds with one stone – get rid of agricultural subsides while cutting our dependence on foriegn oil?

Right now it is rather expensive compared to oil-based products, but I wonder how much of that is due to economy of scale factors and infrastructure…

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:22 pm 36. Katherine:

Scott free,

Steven Den Beste wrote about all those ìalternativesî. He very convincingly argued that they do not amount to anything in practical terms. You can dig his archives for the detailed analysis.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:34 pm 37. greeneyeshade:

Teresa says you won’t hear in the MSM about the demand in India and China, and from summer travelers, pushing up the price of oil. I work in an MSM outlet and I see references to these facts all the time _ when we run a story on the price of gasoline going up, for instance. that’s probably one reason there’s so little public anger about it: people know that it’s not the result of any sinister plot.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:55 pm 38. drewtam:

Keep in mind that centralised power production is very different from the autmotive fuel production.

In the US most of our power production comes from 3 sourcees in the following order 1 Coal 2 Natural Gas (of North Amer origin) 3 Nuclear. Any oil fired plant are usually peaker plants and do not generally make up a signifiigant portion of our energy source.

What this implies then, is that switching to nuclear will NOT reduce oil usage in this country. With the following caveat; it will reduce oil consumption if we begin to switch to some hydrogen or ethanol type fuel. But again economics has not dictated such a move yet.

I am in favor of nuclear power as a long term energy strategy, but for other resaons than fuel/oil needs.

Along those lines, from the evidence and numbers I’ve seen I expect an eventual conversion to some sort of hydrogen or equivelent synthesised fuel, realising that such a system is actually an energy storgae medium from the power plant producers.

Here is a very good website that has very good arguments with explanations.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/energy.html

I dont agree with evrything he says, except my free market heart that says let the market decide price, usage, and consumption not politicians.

Apr 4, 2005 - 11:56 pm 39. Rick Ballard:

“I swear I’ve read that there are now nuclear reactors that actually recycle the nuclear waste as fuel, so the long time storage of nuclear waste isn’t an issue.”

Lindenen,

You’re probably thinking of an Integral Fast Reactor. Here is a brief piece with a very good comment section on pebble beds and IFR’s. The safety issue regarding spent fuel is political in nature and needs to be adequately addressed – running it through an IFR to reduce the volume and consume the plutonium is better than storage. Here is a fact sheet in question/response form concerning IFR’s.

Apr 5, 2005 - 7:17 am 40. Dale Mader:

The 3-cylinder engine is at least as energy efficient as any hybrid I’ve heard of, and they were only about $6000 for a base model Geo Metro in 1992.

Inexplicably, they were discontinued. Chevy should reconsider marketing the Metro at a more profitable price. They would still be a fraction of the cost of a hybrid.

Apr 5, 2005 - 7:45 am 41. WichitaBoy:

Rick, Thanks for the articles.

John Moore, it’s good to see you back here. I for one like your long posts.

Richard, I hope you enjoyed.

For future reference, here are some of Steven den Beste’s articles about energy. Well worth reading and bookmarking.

Apr 5, 2005 - 8:49 am 42. OJ:

Aside from the oil industries reluctance to expand refinery capacity, keeping gasoline prices artificially inflated, automakers are resisting emission reductions in California and elsewhere by suing California.

The issue is discussed here:

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=301

Large industry is guiding federal policy that favors their bottom line. As the consumer, it is time we start voting with our dollars.

http://www.RightViews.com

Apr 5, 2005 - 9:08 am 43. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

“Oil industry reluctance to expand refinery capacity”…it takes something like 800 permits to get a new oil refinery opened. Somebody on Kudlow the other day mentioned an investor group that has been trying to build a new refinery for 10 years, but hasn’t yet been able to break ground.

What is going to happen, on the current track, is that more and more refining will be done in places other than the US, and that refined product (gasoline, jet fuel, etc) will be transported by long-distance tanker (whereas it is now mainly crude that is so transported.)

I doubt that this is a good thing.

Apr 5, 2005 - 10:53 am 44. jerry:

I have been away at “TOPOFF 3″ See Fox and CNN stories from April 4/5 so I know this is not likely to be read by anybody. But just in case.

Diesel powered cars remain the most fuel efficient vehicles on the road. The Jetta TDI gets about the same mileage as Prius or Civic without the need to learn how manage your power like a diesel submarine. It’s a bigger car and will last a lot longer then current generation of hybrids. If you want an larger car then the Passat TDI is the best buy. It gets only slightly less mileage then the Jetta. For those without a budget constraint Mercedes has begun importing a new E300 Turbo Diesel, which will get on the order of 40mph with a lot of acceleration. It costs about $50K

Apr 8, 2005 - 7:45 am 45. Achillea:

Jerry,

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I read it. Some questions, since you seem knowledgeable (I’ve been researching, but blegging works, too). How much does diesel fuel cost, and how available is it, in comparison with unleaded? Is it more or less polluting? Also, how much more (or less) expensive are diesel cars vs. their unleaded-fuel counterparts?

I ask because I’ve been tilting strongly toward getting a hybrid car, for economic, environmental, and thumb-in-the-Wahabbi-eye reasons. But I’m an average person with average practical constraints. I can’t afford a $50K car, even $30K is going to strain my finances to their utmost, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. Plus, as appealing as I might find being ready for futuristic supergreen diesel fuels, I foresee needing gas a little sooner than that, and driving all over creation to find a specialized fuel source is a non-starter.

Apr 13, 2005 - 11:10 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: