New study shows H3 uses less energy dust-to-dust than hybrids

[JeffW]

Here is the press release. I still find the numbers a little dubious, i.e. how does it cost Honda $24k in energy costs to manufacture 1 civic, when it sells for less than that. The full report should be available for fee around May 1. Nonetheless, the results are very interesting.

BANDON, OR -- 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.

“If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles,” says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. “But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.

“We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer’s selection of transportation,” says Spinella. “Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue.”

The goal of overall worldwide energy conservation and the cost to society in general – not just the auto buyer – can often be better addressed by being aware of a car or truck’s “dust to dust” energy requirements, he said.

This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. “We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions,” Spinella said. “We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world.”

Here are some more details:

A Honda Civic has a dust-to-dust energy cost of $2.42/mile, compared to the Honda Civic Hybrid which has a dust-to-dust energy cost of $3.238/mile. This means that although the hybrid version has better fuel efficiency, over the entire life of the car, the Honda Civic will be using less energy than the Honda Civic Hybrid. Here's a breakdown of where the energy is being spent for the two cases:







Here's an interview with Art Spinella (president of CMWMR) that sheds some more light. Note, the host is a very lefty anti-car guy, put on your hip waders, but the interview seems well done anyway.

Podcast from <A HREF="http://www.theWatt.com%5B/URL%5D" TARGET=_blank>www.theWatt.com</A>

Despite Art calling the H3 technology "crude" (he must not be familiar with the e-locker), the H3 comes off looking pretty good. In summary, he explains the hybrids have high energy costs due to more R&D, disposal, and repair. He notes GM employs a lot of reuse of parts and tooling with regard to the H3, which keeps energy costs down.

[Idaho-Hummer]

Originally posted by JeffW:

Despite Art calling the H3 technology "crude" (he must not be familiar with the e-locker), the H3 comes off looking pretty good. In summary, he explains the hybrids have high energy costs due to more R&D, disposal, and repair. He notes GM employs a lot of reuse of parts and tooling with regard to the H3, which keeps energy costs down.

ie Cheaper

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

Very Interesting !!!

RYD

[Alan06SUT]

[quote]Originally posted by JeffW:
Here is the press release. I still find the numbers a little dubious, i.e. how does it cost Honda $24k in energy costs to manufacture 1 civic, when it sells for less than that. The full report should be available for fee around May 1. Nonetheless, the results are very interesting.
[quote]

Probably because I assume they consider gas and maintenace into the total cost, which the consumer pays for rather than Honda.

[JeffW]

Originally posted by Alan06SUT:
Probably because I assume they consider gas and maintenace into the total cost, which the consumer pays for rather than Honda.

That's only after the car is sold. The $24k I mentioned is only for the amount of energy spent at the manufacturing plant, which is 10% of the total energy cost. There is another 10% prescribed to dismantling the car at end-of-life. The total energy cost at $2.42 per mile with an assumed 100,000 mi. life is $242,000. The cost of gas and maintenance over that 100,000 mi. would be about $10k. So that leaves $230k that's unaccounted for?? The author indicates that it's borne by society, not just the purchaser. But I don't see that much of my tax dollars going to automakers. The author mentioned that the manufacturing energy costs include such things as the energy used by the employees of the plant to transport themselves to work each day. But still that energy cost should be covered by their wage, which should come from a portion of the revenue from selling the cars that employee works on.

[deicustoms1]

Is all that information assuming every vehicle has a lifetime mileage of 100,000 miles?

[JeffW]

Originally posted by dei???????:
Is all that information assuming every vehicle has a lifetime mileage of 100,000 miles?

Not exactly, I read one 2nd hand update that indicated they used 100k miles for all cars and 250k miles for all trucks, but from the interview it sounds like they tried to use manufacturer longetivity estimates for each vehicle. It's not clear. That's another detail we'll probably have to wait for the full report for.

[hmrlvr]

http://elcova.com/groupee/forums/a/t...1/m/9181086071

[deicustoms1]

Way to refer us to a page w/o the pictures!

[hmrlvr]

Way to refer us to a page w/o the pictures!

That was just my nice way of saying "old news"