The Folly of Hybrid Electric Vehicles

AOL, U. S. Government | 05/14/02 | HMV

[Hillary'sMoralVoid]

AOL Proclaims "HEVs are Hot"! Unfortunately, the treatment of the subject matter is so superficial that it ignores facts that AOL even provides links to. Here is a quote from a government publication: "Although a few production HEVs with advanced batteries have been introduced in the market, no current battery technology has demonstrated an economical, acceptable combination of power, energy efficiency, and life cycle for high-volume production vehicles."

The truth is, these are not economical, safe or environmentally sound vehicles. First, the economical aspect. If the quote in the previous paragraph doesn't convince you, the fact that the AOL FAQs on HEVs document that replacement batteries can cost between $3000 and $8000 ought to get your attention. These batteries are good for 80,000 to 100,000 miles, but their life varies based on the type of driving patterns and habits.

The AOL articles tout the high mileage that the hybrid vehicles get. What they don't tell you is that these are sub-compact cars. A fully gasoline-fueled version of the Toyota Prius, for example, could be expected to get comparable gas mileage with less weight and complexity than an HEV, and with more trunk space. The thousands of dollars you pay for a new battery effectively doubles the cost per mile. You do, however, get good GAS mileage with the HEV, just not good battery mileage!!!

In an increasingly graying population, comfort is winning out over fuel efficiency. With comfort goes size. The average size of vehicles is getting larger every year, and unless we can reverse the aging process, people will continue to want roomy, comfortable cars and SUVs.

This does not bode well for the HEVs, most of which are in the subcompact category. In collisions, larger vehicles almost always win, smaller vehicles invariably lose. No matter how many safety features are built into a subcompact car, you cannot compensate for the laws of physics. You simply are more prone to die or suffer serious injuries in today's HEVs.

Accidents pose another risk. Exploding batteries, containing hazardous components like mercury, lithium, and lead, pose serious cleanup challenges. Further, according to the U. S. Government, most new battery designs are not yet fully recycleable, meaning that discharged batteries will have to be stored and protected until a recycling strategy has matured. Its like nuclear waste dump II.

There are many other factors to consider, not the least of which is technical complexity. The biggest issue is the codependency of the two engines. The gasoline engine must provide the power generating capability that the electric motor needs, the electric motor must provide the torque that the gasoline engine lacks. If either system fails or is degraded, performance will suffer dramatically, and render the auto either inoperable or dangerously underpowered.

A final factor to consider is the simple mass in the form of a battery that is hauled around with little value added. As we've discussed previously, a gas-powered Toyota Prius could be expected to get comparable gas mileage as its HEV counterpart, particularily if the same level of research and development is utilized in the design. What we have created is vehicle that is nothing more than a battery-hauler, in which the battery only contributes to the cost and inefficiency of the vehicle.

AOL is pursuing its own agenda here, and it is not one that is either practical or smart.

[John Jamieson]

Your absolutely correct! The law suits should start pretty soon now. I assume that Honda and Toyota are already paying off unhappy customers who just realized that they paid much too high price for the gas they save (about $10 a gallon!) and that their car will have no resale value with the old battery.

These cars are not even "Green" considering all the extra materials and ENERGY that went to manufacturing them and the enviornmental costs of exotic battery disposal. This latest wave of BS engineering without life cycle cost evaulation should be over pretty soon.

[Willie Green]

High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns as we expand our 4-lane interstates to 6 or (gasp!!!) 8 lanes. And even costly airport expansions make little sense when (prior to 9/11) the air corridors themselves are over-congested.

High-speed rail and maglev offer the perfect alternative to augment & supplement our highway and air transportation infrastructure. For regional trips between 150 and 350 miles, it is faster than automobile and not that much slower than air. Yet offers the potential to alleviate both congested highways and air corridors!

In light of current economic conditions, construction of this vital transportation infrastructure should be accelerated.

What is High Speed Ground Transportation?

High-speed ground transportation (HSGT)-- a family of technologies ranging from upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles-- is a passenger transportation option that can best link cities lying about 100-500 miles apart. Common in Europe ( http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/home.htm) and Japan (http://www.japanrail.com),HSGT in the United States already exists in the Northeast Corridor (http://www.amtrak.com/news/pr/atk9936.html) between New York and Washington, D.C. and will soon serve travelers between New York and Boston. 

HSGT is self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation that is time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. This is market-based, not a speed based definition. It recognizes that the opportunities and requirements for HSGT differ markedly among different pairs of cities. High-speed ground transportation (HSGT) is a family of technologies ranging from upgraded steel-wheel-on-rail railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles.

The Federal Railroad Administration has designated a variety of high density transportation corridors within our nation for development of HSGT:

.

For more information, please visit the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) High Speed Ground Transportation Website

[John Jamieson]

Word is finally getting out on these cars. Car & Driver ignored my rant, but published a similar one from someone else in the current issue.

Detroit is hedging, waiting for the axe of common sense to fall, while preparing modest lead-acid versions, just in case CA makes it manditory.

[glc1173@aol.com]

Hybrid cars also only give that great mileage boost in certain types of driving.

They will do best in stop-and-go driving - but little if most of your mileage is at high speed on the freeway.

[John Jamieson]

Sorry Willie, It ain't ever going to happen. Well, maybe, if gas hits $20 a gallon.

[dasboot]

Major problem with the concept: "Federal".

Expect over-runs that make the Big Dig look like small bucks; a revenue-sucking red-ink lamprey that no one uses; more Federal" baggage screeners; scamming insider contracts; plain folks being tossed off their land by eminent domain takings; Bill and Hill will be in it somewhere....bringing it to Little Rock's Clinton Library.

Yep, sounds like a real loser to me.

[altair]

It ain't ever going to happen.

It's a pity. The Shinkansen in Japan is quite convenient.

[John Jamieson]

Reading the car magazine reports, their milage advantage seems grossly exagerated. The magazines can't get those numbers. In high driving these cars are carring 300 to 500 pounds extra weight.

Honda recently refused to identify the battery replacement costs, but assured it's owners that their cars could still be used with worn out batteries!. I think, I read that the Prius could not be, and it's battery is twice as big and expensive as the Honda one.

[dasboot]

..and did I mention Senator Byrd and Mike Dukakis on the Board of Directors?

[John Jamieson]

Much higher population density. I liked using the trains in Europe too.

[dasboot]

How convenient is the tax burden of Japanese citizens? How much is required to maintain the glittering infrastructure?

[BearCub]

Jeez - as long ago as 1989 Honda had an all gas car that got 46/51 mpg - the same as their new electric hybrid. It was the CRX-HF - a small car, but no smaller than the hybrids. And a buttload less expensive!

[John Jamieson]

Toyota had a Tercel that got 53 in '88.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

I understand that one of the tricks these hybrids use is slicker tires. They're OK for dry conditions, but horrible for ice or rain or snow.

Maybe they should change the name of that car from Prius to PryUs, as in ...

PryUs from the wreckage!

[BearCub]

I don't understand why they don't go back to what they were doing then. With technology where it is now - a decade later - they could probably tweak those engines and get 55-60 out of them.

FWIW I have no idea when the CRX/HF came out - just know it existed in 88-89.

[John Jamieson]

Prius means first.....it will be the first to be exposed!

[daviddennis]

Fortunately, we have the gas powered Toyota Prius in the shape of the Toyota Echo, which is almost identical in style and basic design, so I was able to run some numbers to test your hypothesis.

I started with these assumptions:

• Drive 15,000 miles a year
• Gas at $1.25 a gallon
• The Prius costs roughly $9,000 more than the Echo (which is almost double the cost - it's about $10,000 versus about $20,000). Giving the Prius a $1,000 head start due to slightly higher equipment levels helped a bit - but as we will see, not enough.

The end result of this finagling is that you would spend $426 in gas annually in the Prius, versus $604.50 in the Echo. If you take the $178.50 annual difference and multiply it by a five-year ownership period, you get $ 892.50 in fuel savings.

So we are spending $9,000 more to get $ 892.50 in savings, which looks pretty bleak. Of course in theory the Prius will retain more value, but the trade feels this is unlikely due to questions about potential reliability. If you do have to replace the batteries by 80,000-100,000 miles, that means the car is less than worthless since the new batteries would be worth more than the car! Because of this, a Prius is likely to be worth the same amount as an Echo at best; you have really and truly pissed away your $9,000 (minus $900 in savings).

Incidentally, the Prius is significantly slower and less fun to drive than the Echo. It has a 70hp engine instead of a bit over 100hp on the Echo. The electric motor is supposed to make up for this, but Consumer Guide testing rated the Echo a "4" (out of ten) on acceleration, while rating the Prius a "2".

In short, if you look closely enough at the facts, only a masochist would buy an Echo.

Hope that was entertaining. No surprises, I fear, but at least of interest.

D

[A CA Guy]

Batteries for the Electric Rav 4 is $30,000 and only gets 80 miles with the lights and air on.