Hybrids Consume More Energy in Lifetime Than Chevy Tahoe

[TheScionicMan]

Hybrids Consume More Energy in Lifetime Than Chevy Tahoe As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions. But many of those choices aren't actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck. CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables. To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven. The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents. While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version. One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package. And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced. For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile. MORE: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060331/sff031.html?.v=38

[evilBOXevil]

"But hybrid cars and anti-smoking laws are what allow us to feel better than the other people around us!!!"

All of that makes me laugh. It's like the anti SUV guy that went around burning SUVs at car dealerships in the middle of the night. The toxins given off into the air from those fires released more nasty crap into the air than the exhaust from that car could have in it's lifetime!!! But he was an activist, dude!! Save the rainforest! Ban cigarette smoking in public air!! Shun those gas guzzlers!! Hug a hybrid driver today!

[TheScionicMan]

Like the South Park episode where the hybrid drivers were causing a buildup of SMUG.

This "study" has GM written all over it, IMO. I wonder if the xB is so cheap because there was little to no costs involved in things like aerodynamics...

[bc]

I think this article is very biased. It does nto factor in the overall long term production costs. The Hybrids are new, their current production costs (versus numbers produced) are still high. This is quickly going down though. The Camry Hybrid is already being built, soon to be built n the US, projected at 40% of Camry production.

Over the next few years this will drive down the costs, also the Camry Hybrid was developed as part of the regular Camry line, a cost reduction in itself.

it would have been nice it the authoe of this article actually did proper research.