Tipping Point: Half of America Wants a Hybrid Car

[Dover]

Tipping Point: Half of America Wants a Hybrid Car

More than half of all Americans say they would seriously consider buying or leasing a fuel-saving hybrid car, according to a new poll.

Price is the obstacle for many, however.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found 48 percent of Americans have cut back significantly on the amount they drive because of higher gas prices. The figure is 59 percent for those living in households earning less than $50,000 per year and 36 percent for those making $50,000 or more.

More than half of all Americans (54 percent) said they have reduced household spending on other items because of high gas prices.

cont'd

http://www.livescience.com/technology/060410_hybrid_poll.html

[MADem]

1. And the other half are ...what? Pedestrians, public transportation

denizens....or idiots!!!!

If they could find a way to, for say, two grand, rip out the engine in your existing car and plunk in an alternative powerplant that used half the gas, how many here among us wouldn't be lined up for this service?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. How the other half lives

"And the other half are ...what? Pedestrians, public transportation denizens....or idiots!!!!"

Either that or:

1) we like traveling on two wheels. Bicycles? Motorcycles? Remember them?

2) the math on hybrids is not that good. Specifically, how long does it take before one recognizes an advantage to owning one? The numbers really aren't that good yet. The April Consumers Report, among several sources, had something to say about this, but note that there was a correction to their figures in the May issue.

I mean, I'm used to being called an idiot, but still....

[MADem]

9. Pardon me for leaving out the two wheelers--that was not my intent

My point was that anyone who uses less gas is clearly not an idiot.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. OK, no problem

I'll get over it.

My contention is that people would be much better off saying "I think I'll walk this time" just once per week rather than going out and buying a hybrid.

[wuushew]

12. I disagree based on the following assumptions

Lets say you are a family of four looking for a new family car. You have decided that the new 2007 Camry meets your space and price needs.

In terms of performance, trim and price it probably would be appropriate to compare the 4-cylinder SE model with a MSRP of $20,900 to the Hybrid version with a MSRP of $25,900.

If we structure the payments for both to include $2,000 down payments, 7.2% APR and 36 month payment schedule the monthly cost of owning and fueling the two cars at $3 a gallon would differ only by $100 a month during the first three years. If federal tax credits are available that sum available after year one tax season could used to be offset the monthly difference in price. $3,600 extra cost -( 1,000-2,500? tax credit) could be quite affordable over the remaining years of the financing.

Lets say that we intend on keeping this vehicle for at least 150,000 miles. This is the wear to which Toyota warranties the batteries.

So assuming that the insurance repair costs are comparable for both cars over the duration of this 150,000, total cost of ownership based on gas and financing would be the following(not factoring in uncertain federal tax credits)....

(Camry SE) = $31,000_________ MPG 24/34
(Hybrid) = $27,510 __________ MPG 38/40






I have no idea if this savings would cover differences in depreciation or insurance, but even if you break even you would be getting a very clean running, high tech and innovative vehicle that would be interesting to drive. The hybrid version also has higher horse power and acceleration then the conventional version powered by the 2.4 liter DOHC.

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. Rip the motor out of my Testorossa? n/t

[holboz]

2. Count me as one of them -

I know there are debates about whether or not the overall cost of ownership outweighs the premimum cost on the hybrids and whether the technology lives up to the hype. The technology may not be perfect right now but it's a step in the right direction and if people start buying the hybrid vehicles then the auto industry will sink more money into making the technology better.

As someone who spends a lot of time in stop & go traffic, I'm definitely considering one when the lease is up on my Toyota Matrix.

[ochazuke]

3. That doesn't jive

stats on the national economy don't show any significant cutbacks in consumption, do they? When someone takes a poll like that, the respondants get the implied message that you should say you are conserving, or they feel it's an opportunity to complain about the price of gas; and one way of doing that is to say they can't afford to buy other things now.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Actually I think it does

No one I know wants to consume more than is necessary. Americans are also willing to put out a little more money for things that are seen as ecologically friendly. However, we remain markedly resistant to changes in lifestyle (smart development, mass transit...) that would make major changes in our consumption habits

[Jayhawk Lib]

8. I drove from Wichita to Ft. Worth

last weekend in my 5 year old (paid for) suv and I did not see a hint of anybody cutting back on gasoline. Bumper to bumper traffic all of the way and traffic jams in Ok City and Ft. Worth. The Nascar race I attended was cars, suvs, and motor homes as far as you could see. There were lines at all of the gas stations we stopped at.

I would not mind having something with a little more fuel economy but it would certainly not be cost effective for me. To get something more economical I would have to go in debt and the fuel savings would not begin to justify the payments.

[msongs]

6. honda accord hybrid sales are going...down!

according to american honda, they will cut back making hybrid accords as sales are declining.* turns out people do not
want a 6 cylinder high power car hybrid because the minimal increase in miles per gallon is not worth the huge increase
in price not justified by the current price of gas.

the strategy of taking gas guzzlers and making them slightly less gas guzzling via hybridization may not work.

sales of civic hybrids and prius are still doing fine.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/impeachbush.htm

*source = LA Times article

[CountAllVotes]

7. I have a 2002 Honda Accord - 4 cylinder

I get ~30 MPG in it (highway; ~27 MPG city). I wouldn't even consider selling it or buying a new car. I don't drive very much for one thing. I have no complaints.

I wouldn't want an Accord hybrid as it seems they don't get much better mileage than the car I have does.

[rinsd]

17. I have a 1999 Honda Civic with over 100,000 miles and I get 31 mpg (nt)

[Trillo]

10. I'm looking forward to a hybrid like this:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=108992

It seems to be a motorcycle and efficient wind fairing with a hybrid powerplant. Needs to carry 2 people minimum (front-to-back instead of side-by-side) or 1 person with cargo capacity for goods.

Back in the 70s, U.S. auto manufacturers used to make inexpensive basic cars. Like the Ford Capri, the first one that was built in Germany, not the later American Capri that looked like the Mustang. Anyway, it didn't have power windows, luxurious interior, etc., it was just a basic small car, that a very large person could fit in. Today, every small car I've sat in at car shows, a tall or large person doesn't fit in.

It seems like so many of the small cars are made to fail in the tall-person market so they can sell you the big luxury sedan or $UV.

[eppur_se_muova]

13. Thanks for that link! Now make it a hybrid 'moped'... nt

[Trillo]

15. here's an interesting one-person vehicle I happened across

when looking for something else.

Looks to be under development and still a prototype.
http://www.armec.com.nyud.net:8090/city/city12_g.jpg
see more:
http://www.armec.com/city/cm.html

[Strelnikov_]

20. Or This Human/Electric Hybrid

Apparently a product ahead of it's time.



http://www.twike.com/

[Dead_Parrot]

22. I'm having flashbacks...

...to the C5...

[Coastie for Truth]

14. I think it's got to be in my area (SF Bay, CA)

1. SF Bay is silly with "early adaptors"
2. SF Bay is also techie-green (like flat panel terminals - 97% less electricity, etc.)

We have a Prius - only drive 5K miles per year. But we are "Making A Statement", i.e., market penetration of hybrids, no more "wars for oil", plus - I used to work for the NiMH battery manufacturer.

[JohnWxy]

16. I don't really think half the population is in a position to go out and

buy a new car, especially one that cost s about $5,000 more than a regular car.

Lets take a look at some numbers:

I think the number of hybrids on the road today is about 411,000. The total fleet of cars and light trucks is about 211 million (this nunber may be a couple of year old, but it's close).

Hybrids 411,000
total fleet 211,000,000

That means the number of hybrids is .19% (19/100ths of a percent) of the total vehicles on the road (not counting heavy vehicles). NOw lets assume these hybrids were all driven on the average, the same miles and the same mix of driving as the average vehicle. NOw, in real wourld terms hybrids reduce gasoline consumption by about 25% over a similar non-hybrid car.

so, .0019 * .25 = .000475

The total consumption of gasoline was (2004?) 140,000,000,000 gallons

140 Billion gallons * .000475 = 68,175,355 gallons

$3.00 * 68,175,355 = $204,526,066 - dollars saved in gasoline

Now, the costs:
extra cost of hybrid $5,000
total cost of hybrids: $2,055,000,000 - extra cost of 411,000 hybrids
cost of gasoline saved: $204,526,066


So you are spending about $10 to save $1.00 in gasoline. IF you increased the gasoline efficiency of hybrids to say, 37.5% over regular ICE car the savings would be $1for every $10 invested in hybrids.

NOw, actually, considering the fact that not everybody can afford to buy new cars, and that even those who can afford to buy a new car, not all of them buy a new car every year, it's going to take a while even to get hybrids up to 1/5th of the total fleet - if they ever do get to that proportion. Probably something like 20 years (and that would be doing something). If hybrids ever get to be that high a proportion and they get 25% better mileage, then 20% of the fleet being hybrids would reduce your total gasoline consumption by 5%. What if they increased hybrids mileage to 37.5% over a standard car? That still would get you just 7.5% of the gasoline demand. BTW, 20% of the fleet in hybrids would cost $156 Billion dollars (without considering growth in the automobile fleet or the cost of replacing batteries in the hybrid cars over 100,000 miles), allowing for the cost differential (average differential over 20 years) to go down to $3,700 to purchase a hybrid.

Just for comparison, ethanol now meets about 2.8% of the total gasoline demand. At the present rate of growth it will be 5% in probably 3 years.

And blended at 10% ethanol, everybody could be using it as 10%-15% ethanol can be burned in any engine that burns gasoline. New cars, used cars, any car that burns gasoline can use 10% - 15% ethanol.

did I make any mistakes in these calculations? let me know if I did. I think they are right, though.

[Beaverhausen]

19. you need to factor in the low/near zero emissions from hybrids

there are some things more important than money, you know.

[JohnWxy]

21. emissions for hybrids are NOT near zero. They reduce GHGs in the same

proportion that they reduce gasoline consumption (about 25% in the real world- depending upon the type of driving you do). If the Hybrid reduces gasoline consumption by 25% it reduces GHG emmissions by 25% - for that car. That's because it is still using gasolinie at 75% the rate that a non-hybrid is. Gasoline is still being consumed.

NOw, cost is an issue because you have to evaluate what you are getting for your investment. It also is a factor when not everybody goes out and buys a new car every year. In fact, surprising as this may sound to you, not everybody can buy a new car. Many people buy only used cars. so they are not too likely to go out and buy a hybrid which costs about $5,000 more than a regular new car. (okay $2,000 extra with the $3,000 tax credit - but it is still costing the country $5,000). This becomes a factor when you consider the potential of hybrids to affect GHGs to a signigficant degree.

NOw, there are about 400,000 hybrids on the road today. Against a total fleet of 211,000,000 cars and light trucks. That's a percentage of the total fleet of .19% or: .0019 as decimal fraction (411,000/211,000,000). So the reduction in GHGs for the total of all the hybrids is 25% of the .0019, or: 0.000475 or .0475%. That is the percentage GHG reduction of the GHGs produced by all the cars and light trucks due to the 411,000 hybrids. Now those hybrids cost about $5,000 extra each so the investment required to get that .000475 reduction in total GHGs produced by all cars and light trucks was: $2,055,000,000. (if you want to assume hybrids will get to 37.5% reduction in gasoline consumption, then the proportionate reduction of gas consumption and GHG for all vehicles would be 0.0007 due to hybrid vehicle use.)

Now if you want to see what it would take to reduce GHGs say 5%, then if hybrids reduce gas consumption by 25% and you want to get a 5% reduction to the total GHG emmisions (by cars and light trucks) then you would have to have the hybrids on the road equal 20% of the total of cars and light trucks on the road. Bear in mind, since not everybody goes out and buys a new car every year (more like once every 7 years - for those who buy new cars) it would take a while to achieve this. Probably at least 20 years.

Now, 20% of 211,000,000 is 42,000,000 hybrids (lets not get into how the total fleet would grow over the 20 years it would take to bulld up the hybrids to 20% of total). So if you figure the extra cost of a hybrid goes down to about $3,700 (from $5,00 now) then the cost of the 42,000,000 hybrids would be (in 2006 year dollars) $156,140,000,000.

So to get a 5% reduction in GHGs you spent $156 Billion

Now, for comparison, to get a 5% reduction in GHGs how much ethanol would be required?
You would need the gasoline being used in all cars be 24% ethanol blend to get a 5% reduction in GHGs. (Well for wet-milled corn based ethanol you would need 29% of the gasoline supply to be made up of ethanol. For Dry-milled ethanol it would require 19% of the gasoline supply. The reason the process makes a difference is some GHGs are generated in making nitrogen fertilizer and in the ethanol prodution process. Wet milled ethanol produces more GHGs than dry-milled. Most of the new ethanol plants being made today are dry milled. But I just used a simple average even though as we continue building ethanol production the weighting will lean in favor of dry-milled ethanol.)

Now, how long will this take. This depends a lot on various assumptions. Will we continue to keep a tariff on Brazilian ethanol? I do not think this will continue much longer. National security and economic security factors will demand that we start importing ethanol from Brazil as we build our domestic production. Another factor is cellulosic ethanol. Most experts expect cellulosic ethanol to be commercially viable in 5 to 6 years. Once cellulosic ethanol enters the picture the GHG reduction rate really goes up. Cellulosic ethanol will reduce GHGs by 85% relative to gasoline. Since cellulosic ethanol reduces GHGs so much relative to gasoline you would only need for the total fuel supply to be made up of 5.88% of cellulosic ethanol to get a 5% reduction in GHGs.

So how soon would that GHG reduction rate (per year) take place - that's a good one to try and guess. If we were to drop the tariff on Brazilian ethanol we would reach tha point much sooner. I suppose an aggressive estimate would be 10 years. But, if something like a major impact to oil supplies happened (Venezuela, Niger, Iran, another bad hurricane season - in any one of the next few years) we could see imports of ethanol from Brazil and domestic production jump up much faster and maybe 5% reduction to GHGs would be happening in 7 years.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has estimated we could replace (with domestic production) at least 30% of the gasoline supply with ethanol. IF that was mostly from cellulosic ethanol then you would be looking at close to 25% reduction (per year) of GHG production. NOte that there are scientists who have developed bacteria which significantly enhance the production of ethanol from cellulosic sources (one is working with Iogen in Canada). One of these scientists (from a University in Florida) expects that with the bacterium he has develeped (genetically altered to break down complex sugars) that ethanol could meet 50% of the U.S. gasoline demand.

And if I failed to mention it before, any car that runs on gas can use 10%-15% ethanol - new cars, old cars - any car that runs on gas. So you do not need to buy a new or expensive new car to heop reduce GHGs or use of imported fossil fuels. The cost issue, I'm afraid, is a factor that must be considered.

Of course in the longer run, fuel cell cars are the best hope of dramatically reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and reducing GHGs. But until they are developed, ethanol is about the most cost effective and quickest way to reduce fossil fuel use and GHGs.

[kestrel91316]

23. People have DEFINITELY cut back on their driving here in Lost Angeles.

For the past couple of months, when I drive home from work at 6 PM, there is WAY less traffic. It is back to what it was like 12-15 years ago. I think the children with cars paid for by their rich parents are not liking the cost of gas, and so cruise a lot less.

Works for me!