Quote of the day
Look, I’ve got nothing against hybrid cars, except that their owners are smug, self-important imbeciles who save $100 a year on gas by spending an extra $5,000 on their car.
Yeah, here locally, there is some Hybrid car (maybe the Prius) that has a license plate that says 72 MPG or some such. I’m familiar with it because I occasionally have the misfortune of getting behind this imbecile on Alcoa highway while he or she is doing 40 MPH in the passing lane.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Yeah, but my truck can tow more than 7,000 pounds, and probably outrun a Prius while doing it.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:58 am
I once saw a Prius with the plates “I {heart} OPEC”. Of course, I saw this while riding my bike and was wondering why this guy wasn’t doing the same.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Hybrid cars produce far fewer emissions, which makes their owners even bigger chumps. What kind of idiot responds to costs that are external to the marketplace? Sure, air pollution is causing an increase in asthma and respiratory diseases, inflicting significant health care costs on our economy, but that’s someone else’s problem! Even if the hybrid owner himself suffers from respiratory ailments, the drop in pollutants due to his car is meaningless.
Climate change, acid-damaged forests, diminished agricultural productivity, SOMEONE ELSE’S PROBLEM! Real men ride market externalities all the way down the hill, spending $5000 extra on their cars for the privilege of buying $5000 more gas each year just to fart in the face of personal responsibility. Being an American means getting all the lung cancer you can afford!
October 19th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
The President says: Conserve gas!
Don’t hate the driver, hate the game.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
“Hybrid cars produce far fewer emissions”
They do? Care to back that up with facts?
While you’re at it, check into the fate of the batteries once they’ve exceeded their llife expectancy (4-5 years, with a replacement cost of several thousand dollars).
October 19th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Of course, the instant I posted that, I realized I’d better check up on it.
The good news? The batteries last 8+ years, for 150-200K miles.
The bad news? Replacement cost is $7K.
Which means that the car is essentially disposable – an eight year old car with 150K miles that needs $7K worth of work isn’t exactly going to fly off the used car lots. Rather, it’s going to go straight to the junkyard. Real fuckin’ good for the environment.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Batteries don’t last 8 years, that – according to my friends in the industry – is pure marketing BS. Simply put, they have no idea how long the average batteries will last since they haven’t been on the market long enough, but most folks in the industry don’t expect them to really last more than 4 or 5 years. I do know that a significant number have failed already within a couple of years of purchase, but those were covered by warranties and the auto makers repaired willingly lest they get bad press.
Battery life is going to be a HUGE issue in the secondary market and Jay is right to question the environmental impact of them.
Don’t even get me started on the huge risk first responders face when they respond to an accident involving the giant batteries within a hybrid (and tremendous specialized training and equipment costs that already strapped localities have to cover to protect their fire and police departments)
I’d prefer a diesel to hybrid – but for some reason we are all caught up with fine particuate matter emissions in this country. In the next few years though, with the new diesel engines and low sulfur diesel fuel entering th emarket (not to mention lots of 80/20 biodiesel blends) expect to see a big revival in Diesel which will generally kick hybrids all over the place (ie: they get 50 mpg city or highway)
October 19th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
persimmon…I am enough of an environmental wackjob that I don’t even own a car, but I still have contempt for the snooty hybrid drivers.
Jay..I assume he means that less gas consumed = fewer emissions
I don’t think that Hybrids are a bad idea..the car manufacturers should definitely look into cleaner technologies. The problem is that cars that consume less gas are not the answer. A co-worker lives 60 miles away and drives a hybrid while another drives an SUV and lives down the street from work.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Manish –
Good for you. I went about a year and a half without a car, but just found it impractical in our current situation. i still ride my bike or take public transportation as often as feasible, but it doesn’t really work on the weekends when I have to take my kid around.
anyway, a hybird doesn’t really give you any additional beenfits when you drive them on a highway. In the city, sure. They are gosh darn good ideas for city drivers, but make much less sense for people commuting long distances on the highway.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
What I hate about the whole mess is the silver bullet mentality. The idea that any one thing can fix all of the environmental problems, or the even-more-common idea that any one thing that doesn’t single-handedly resolve all the environmental issues is somehow not worthwhile, even if it does make a difference.
Make fun of persimmon all you want, but he does raise some valid points, particularly WRT unrestrained capitalism (or libertarianism, if you prefer) as compared to long-term concerns.
Yes, hybrid cars are currently too expensive, and no, they’re not going to solve oil dependence or pollution single-handedly. And maybe their drivers are snobbish assholes — I don’t know any, so I can’t comment (although I do know plenty of SUV drivers who peg the asshole-o-meter, so I’d be careful about throwing stones). That doesn’t mean that hybrid cars “aren’t the answer.”
Concerning countertop‘s concerns, I’ve heard all sorts of rumor and innuendo about the dangers of wrecked hybrids, but I’ve never seen anything even remotely credible that questions their relative safety as compared to a traditional car. There may very well be something to this, but I certainly haven’t seen anything. Just vague cow-tipping-like assertions.
Further, there’s a question of what happens to the batteries / cars / etc., after they’ve used up their life. If they’re just winding up in a dump, you’ve got a point. But if they’re being recycled (as more and more batteries are these days), then it’s not so terrible. And a car that gets dumped after six or eight years is hardly “disposable,” especially by today’s “new every two” standards.
So other than the hybrid-drivers-are-smug-bastards assertion (which I can neither verify nor deny, even if I find it hard to believe they could be any worse than SUV drivers), I find most of the complaints here to be pretty vacuous.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Manish,
“Jay..I assume he means that less gas consumed = fewer emissions”
I would hope he doesn’t. My 2000 Accord (no, I don’t drive an eeevil SUV) is an ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle), and I’ll wager that my car in top shape (getting 30 MPG) will put out far fewer emissions than a Civic hybrid operating at 90% shape.
I’d also wager that a diesel-powered Passat that gets BETTER gas mileage than the Prius will put out more emissions as well…
October 19th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Tom,
FWIW, I’ve found the worst drivers on the road to drive either Cadillacs or mini-vans. But that’s just my opinion… I was just crackin’ on the whole “More Economical than thou” crowd in the same vein as the “all SUVs are evil and should be banned” crowd. For what it’s worth.
“And a car that gets dumped after six or eight years is hardly “disposable,” especially by today’s “new every two” standards.”
Huh???
I don’t mean that the people will dump (get out of) their hybrids. I specifically said JUNKYARD, because that’s where the car is headed.
*IF* the batteries last 8 years, with a replacement cost of multiple thousands of dollars (I just noticed that my link was Australian, which means that the $7,000 is really about $4K in American dollars), a used Prius will go straight to a junkyard or chop shop.
8 years old is roughly 100,000 miles for the “average” driver. An eight year old car with a hundred thousand miles that needs $4,000 worth of repairs isn’t going to go to a used car lot. It’s getting cut up for parts then scrapped.
And *THAT* is a helluva lot more wasteful than an Explorer that gets 15 MPG but driven for 15 years.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Jay
Depends on what emissions your looking at. The passat will pump out more particulates. The debate over that is ongoing. EPA won in the Supreme Court over the ability to regulate them even with slim scientific justification, but as an asthmatic I tend to buy into the reduce PM improve health way of thinking. Most of the folks I work with don’t.
Tgirsch – the batteries aren’t being recycled (though in fairness, the cars haven’t really reached the end of their lifespan yet. We need to wait another year or two for that, but if the experience with e-waste is any indication, there will be a huge fight over this issue. And as I said, its a much more significant problem for secondary market buyers.
I am not making fun of persimmions. I think Hybrids vehicles within a crowded city. Does Knoxville qualify? probably, but DC, NY, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. are really where they could shine and should be encouraged.
Still what we really need to encourage are more efficient technolgoies. Again, your right that Hybrids aren’t the siler bullet. They are just one part of a diverse marketplace of emerging technologies. You need to take baby steps to whatever goal you strive for and both the new diesel technologies and hybrids are great starts. Hydrogen, for all its press, is still a long way off though the rapid advent of nanotechnology is really pushing development forward at a greater pace than it was.
As far as the wrech thing – I am not an emergency worker so I don’t know. I do know however that at our local firedepartments open house this weekend (McLean, VA) they did some demonstrations for the kids with the jaws of life ripping cars apart. Since we have a higher percentage of hybrid cars here in DC than anywhere else in the country I raised the issue with them and they said that indeed the risk of exposure to massive electric shock and to leaking battery materials was a concern and they had begun training to address it.
Here is a story on the concern from earlier this year from Detroit News.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
OH, and fwiw, the 2006 Hummer H3 with a standard Vortec 3500 engine qualifies in California as an Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) so go figure.
I’ve got an entire marketing brochure on my desk discussing the environmental benefits of purchasing a hummer. Wish I could scan it, cause it deserves to be nominated for the biggest brass balls of the year award
Simply incredible to try and sell a hummer as an environmental alternative.
but there ya go.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Persimmon has convinced me. I sold my SUV today and bought a french-made compact that runs on hippy love and good intentions.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
I once (circa 1985) shared a bus with a woman who believed that no vehicle should have an engine larger than 4 cylinders. She could see no viable reason to have a v8. I asked about the bus we were on. She shrugged and said something to the effect that it would just be slower, but she wasn’t in a hurry anyhow.
I just shut up.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
I think the underpowered VW rabbit and the blown head gaskets of the 350 chevy diesel ruined diesel engines in commuter cars. If the cars won’t sell, they won’t try to build them. Otherwise, why not a Prius Diesel? You would get even better mileage, and the chance to use bio-diesel.
Regarding those battery packs, they are made of a whole lot of standard, off the shelf NiMH cells (double A, I think). I see no reason why the aftermarket can’t step in and compete on price. The packs should be rebuildable.
However, the real reason many people get a hybrid around here is because Northern Virgina will let the hybrid owners ride in the HOV lanes without the bother of gathering up a few extra people going the same way. Sorta like “Lexis Lanes”, but instead of of paying tolls, you just gotta pretend to be green. I think there’s a small federal tax break too.
As for public transportation, around here, it’s expensive, it run oh-so-government-efficiently, and I have fixed expenses with the car I have to own anyway. I did buy close to work, but that is not always practical for everyone. I sure as hell ain’t living in that gun free utopia that is DC.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Well, I just happen to have a meeting tomorrow with one of the largest diesel mfg in the world on that very subject 🙂
For my omoney, I am betting on Diesel Hybrids to actually win the battle in the years to come. Once low sulfur diesel is fully rolled out, PM emissions won’t be as much of an issue and if energy prices remain where they are or creep up any more you will see a huge roll out of diesel hybrid technology.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Jay G:
Depends if you’re counting CO2 (carbon dioxide, in case that didn’t render correctly) as an emission. As to the particulate output of the Accord versus the Civic hybrid, I’d like more info before passing judgment.
Isn’t that where all cars are ultimately headed? Now if hybrids wind up in the junkyard at a significantly higher percentage, significantly earlier than traditional cars, you might be on to something, although you’re still ultimately comparing apples to oranges. Things piling up in junkyards is indeed bad, but is it as bad as, or worse than, continuing to pump all kinds of crap into our air at an obscene (at least comparatively speaking) rate? Or, as in the case of many old cars, leaking oil and antifreeze and who-knows-what-else? I honestly don’t know.
Also known as “recycled.” 🙂
Highly, highly debatable. Although I’ll admit it’s tough to compare the relative environmental impact of manufacturing cars on average twice as often versus getting only 1/3 of the fuel economy during the operation of such cars. My gut tells me that the former is still lower-impact, but I have no data one way or the other.
countertop:
Again, only because carbon dioxide isn’t counted. 🙂 It’s a [uncle bait]loophole[/uncle bait] in the ULEV standard.
Ravenwood:
Thanks for contributing oh-so-much to the discussion.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Funny, the GMCanada website has a Hummer H3 Brochure, but I can’t find any such link on the regular U.S. GM website.
The GM Death Watch continues…
October 19th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
The Comedian – Hmm, John Dingel and his wife both continue to drive really expensive cadillacs though – they get new cars every 4 weeks or so.
tgirsch – CO2 isn’t a pollutant. Just cause you want to believe it is, doesn’t make it so (though New Jersey is now – as of yesterday – the first and only state to fully buy into the confusion and classify it as one)
October 19th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Wait, wait.
Climate change and reduced agricultural productivity?
The only significant “Greenhouse gas” in car exhaust is CO2. (Strangely, overall, water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas overall. Hydrogen cars give off water. Guess we’d best ban ’em or something.)
CO2 is also a factor in increased plant growth, as anyone who payed attention in highschool biology should know.
I don’t think you just get to assert that you get it both ways. “Climate change” might cause overall reduced productivity (though depending on the “change” it might not!), but let’s not just assert that cars eject enough CO2 to change world climate and then pretend this won’t be delicious life-giving plant-food at the same time.
Doing so suggests one is more interested in a political or ideological outcome than in what is actually going on.
(I also second not just assuming CO2 should be a “pollutant” because it may have some effect on temperature. What about all the plankton that won’t grow and produce oxygen if we don’t release that CO2? Why do you hate the baby Gaia? WHY?)
October 19th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, and just because I like to start flamewars, I’d like to ask those people who think the global economy should spend a gazillion dollars to prevent global warming to check these links (sorry for the major wikipedia linkage, but its so easy and available)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Norse men tried to settle the new world, but overfishing the cod caused a major climate change, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_A_Summer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_changes_of_535-536
Anyone remember when the environmentalist were worried about global cooling?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
UFOs, or are the cavemen responsible?
I’m not saying I’m not worried about global warming, but hey, we’ve had four ice ages before and we have no idea (though several theories) why they happen. Oh yea, and we’re about due for the next one.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1227_020102wirclimate.html
Some people think ice ages are fairly rapid in onset. Wouldn’t that totally suck, spend a gazillion dollars, strictly limit emissions in our country, while letting the third world pollute, and then we get our own “two thousand and froze to death”?
October 19th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
You know, some have criteria when we buy cars other than their emissions.
For example: when my 1998 Audi A4 reaches the end of it’s service life, say in 2010, my sons will be 6 and 4. By the time it’s replacement wears out, say in 12 years again, they’ll be 18 and 16, and I’d expect both of them to be over 6 feet tall.
Try stuffing 3 6′ tall adults (plus my 5’2″ wife) in a Prius for more than a trip around the block. Add personal luggage that’s more than overnight hygiene kits, or hey, how about guns and ammo for a trip to the range, (or even better, to Boomershoot or Knob Creek) and these little hybrids just don’t cut the mustard.
Families need a vehicle with space and hauling capacity (oh yeah, my wife’s Dakota was bought because it can tow the Audi. Across the country. Twice so far.) Fuel efficiency and emissions weren’t the primary concerns. The ability to to the jobs we needed done were.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:51 am
The Toyata Prius HV battery is covered under warranty for 8 years/100,000 miles.
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2006/highlander/models.html
October 20th, 2005 at 8:44 am
From the above site:
“Highlander Hybrid in 2WD or 4WD-i is not designed to be driven off road.
Toyota Highlanders are designed to meet most off-road driving requirements. Abusive use may result in bodily harm or damage. Toyota encourages responsible operation to protect you, your vehicle and the environment.”
So you pay $8000 extra for the hybrid, and it can’t even go off road.
8 years / 100,000 means whichever comes first. Many drivers average 100,000 in four years. So you will probably pay an extra $16,000 (with new batteries) over the first four or five years for a less able car, with reduced towing capacity and higher repair costs.
Most pollution comes form the MANUFACTURE of the car in the first place. So a shortened time-to-junkyard time will really reduce the environmental benefits.
Can’t see a hybrid in my future real soon.
October 20th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
HL:
Indeed, emissions are less important to me than, say, fuel economy in a car. Then again, there’s a lot of middle-ground between a Prius and a H2. Actually, the A4 is probably pretty fuel-efficient.
That said, hybrids are in their infancy. The Escape Hybrid, if I’m not mistaken, has nearly identical cargo space and towing capacity as compared to its non-hybrid counterpart, and that can be expected to improve as the technology matures.
David:
Oh, give me a friggin’ break. I’d bet fewer than one in thirty SUV drivers ever even consider taking that thing off-road. Most modern non-hybrid SUVs suck ass at going off-road anyway. My father-in-law owns two jeeps (has owned five while I’ve known him) and only two of them ever went off-road. The only one that does with any regularity is a Wrangler, hardly the kind of SUV most Americans buy (indeed, I’m not even sure it qualifies as an SUV.
Regarding warranties, driving habits, etc., see my “silver bullet” point above. Just because a hybrid isn’t practical for you doesn’t mean it couldn’t be practical for a decent segment of the population, or shouldn’t be pursued. Never mind the fact that according to 2001 statistics (the latest I could find), the average miles-per-vehicle-per-year was about 12,000 — under the 12,500 per year assumed by the Toyota warranty.
And I do wonder if it’s true that more pollution (in particular, air pollution) comes from the manufacture of a car than from 100,000 miles of operation of that car. I hear that over and over again, but nobody ever seems to cite any evidence.
October 21st, 2005 at 12:30 am
Oh, and Mischief, if you want to side with the 2% of qualified scientists who don’t believe global warming is a serious problem over the 98% who do, I suppose that’s your prerogative. And once you get out of your Intelligent Design classes and phrenology appointment, maybe you can get to work on that psychic surgery degree…
October 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am
Come now, you can do better than that,
tgirsch Says: Oh, and Mischief, if you want to side with the 2% of qualified scientists who don’t believe global warming is a serious problem over the 98% who do, I suppose that’s your prerogative.
How bout some linkage on this statistic? Unless of course, you pulled it out of your ass, then I don’t wanna know.
And once you get out of your Intelligent Design classes and phrenology appointment, maybe you can get to work on that psychic surgery degree…
Fair enough, But I’m just going to arbitrary lump you in with the flat-earthers and the UFO guys, you loonie. 😛
I never meant to imply that global climate change isn’t a serous problem, I just wanted to show that it has happened before, without human meddling, and it’s likely to happen again, regardless of whether we ban possession of certain chemicals in rich countries or not.
And hey, the pursuit of research dollars in “Politically Correct” fields has never, ever, influenced the research proposals of scientists (*cough* …NASA mission to planet earth… *cough*)
But hey, let’s just take R-12 (freon) into consideration. Overnight a $10 tax was slapped onto cans, to prevent people from stocking up, while they phased out sales in the United States. Eventually, mere possession was outlawed for people not holding a special license. Meanwhile, certain third world countries get to keep making the stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
I’m sure the Tijuana auto repair places enjoy all the cross border work but wouldn’t it have been better to just require the car makers to switch to the new stuff and let the demand phase out by itself? Perhaps those US Customs agents and the Border Patrol needed some make-busy work. Perhaps organized crime needed something else to smuggle.
We also could have also had an honest study of the risk/benefits of hydrocarbon refrigerants. Heck, even Greenpeace supports them
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/
With a mini-fridge holding the equivalent of two cigarette lighters full of hydrocarbons, I really think the FUD is a little overblown. Heck, I got a full can of butane in the camping gear in the bedroom and a few disposable propane bottles in the basement, and I’m not worried.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/excuse/5excuse.html (fourth paragraph)
But then a dose of “drop-in” of hydrocarbon refrigerant in a classic car would be about one Pepsi can full of flammable gas (as opposed to who knows how much on those newfangled natural gas fueled metro buses) and wouldn’t require the replacement of hoses or lubricating oil, and the cost would be around fifty cents. We couldn’t have that now, could we?
October 21st, 2005 at 4:17 pm
So, Jay, was it “fewer” or “far fewer” that you threw you into a tizzy? “Fewer” seems like a no-brainer. “Far fewer” would be tougher to defend, but given the overall tone of my post and your $100/yr estimate on gasoline savings, when did precision and rock-solid factual support become an overriding concern?
Sigivald, for a gazillion dollars, we had better get climate change and reduced agricultural productivity and better hurricanes and longer droughts and new Arctic shipping lanes and whole lot more! For that kind of money, we really should just get a new, less finicky planet and a free bowl of primordial soup.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Buy Soma
Buy Soma