Are Hybrids “worth it?”
By Karina | October 31, 2007
I talk about hybrid cars a lot. (Um. A lot.) Partly it’s because I love gadgets, and I love innovation. Partly it’s because I drive a hybrid car, and I love it. And partly it’s because I find that people don’t really know how incredibly inefficient most automobiles are. When faced with my hybrid, which gets roughly 60 mpg (and that’s my experience, not the EPA estimate or the average mileage of people who drive really fast and accelerate towards red lights) most people are shocked. Shocked! because it’s just not common knowledge that it’s possible to drive a car that gets over 35 mpg.
But I do recognize that I have the luxury of purchasing a new hybrid car and of paying over 20K for it. I know that not everyone who requires a car has that luxury. So choosing to purchase a hybrid car was a tiny choice that I made because I was able to.
Today I read an article about hybrid cars, though, that ticked me off a little. It was featured in Salon.com’s new column called “The Good Life: for the discriminating environmentalist.” Which sounds like a great column, and one that I look forward to reading regularly. But this article, though, rubbed me the wrong way. It’s titled “Who needs a Prius, anyway?” and it proceeds to argue that there really isn’t a good reason to buy a hybrid, because shoot, they don’t get great gas mileage under regular driving conditions anyway, and there are plenty of cars that do nearly as good.
I took a break from reading the article and tried to figure out why it was ticking me off. OK, me and the article, we didn’t get off to a great start. It says at the beginning:
So if you want to pay more than $20,000 to reduce your carbon footprint, brag about your part in reducing dependence on foreign oil, and garner esteem from friends at the natural-foods store, go right ahead. Just don’t be too smug. If hybrids are driving a revolution, it’s a televised road trip to marketing heaven.
which is not a real friendly opening line to someone who has already purchased a hybrid, you know?
There are some good points in the article, that’s for sure. The author points out that some hybrids get really bad mileage (um, Lexus, I’m looking at you!) and that she is a journalist who won’t be able to afford a hybrid for some time, anyway, and really, what she needs is a small car that gets her around town. The author is writing about her own tiny choice – to not get a hybrid, because it’s too expensive, but instead to consider a smaller and efficient car. Which, obviously! I am totally behind. I love small cars! I love tiny choices? so, what seems to be the problem?
The article kind of goes terribly awry. Let’s start with the backstory:
While the Prius and Honda’s former hybrid, the Insight, get reported averages of 40 miles per gallon, they’re far from the 60 mpg promised on the sticker for city driving. The disconnect is due to an outdated Environmental Protection Agency calculation for fuel economy estimates that fails to include air conditioning, cold-weather driving and high freeway speeds. In October, the EPA implemented its new calculation method for 2008 models. It now claims the Prius gets 45 mpg on the highway.
This is all true! The EPA did change its mileage rating system. You can read all about it here. You can also revise your own cars mileage – I checked and for my Insight hybrid the mileage drops from 63 mpg combined to 52 mpg combined (I should note here that I get pretty good mileage because I don’t use my A/C, I drive kind of slow, I don’t accelerate like a bat out of you-know-where, and most of my driving is on the highway where the Insight’s engine is optimized).
BUT, the next part of the article is the part that is just plain misdirection. The author tries to argue that because the most efficient hybrids (the Civic and the Prius) only get roughly 40 mpg, you might as well get a small inexpensive car, for example the Honda Fit, because “while the Honda hybrid gets around 40 mpg, the Fit, for $6,000 less, gets 37 mpg.” Except that’s just not true.
I went to the EPA fuel economy webpage — a great resource! and compared the three cars in question: the Civic, the Fit, and the Prius. I checked the economy of 2007 models in case anyone wanted to catch any end-of-year sales. Don’t worry, I checked and there’s no significant difference for the 2008 models. So check this out:
You can see here that the Fit gets only 31 mpg combined! while the combined mileage – under the exact same apples-to-apples EPA driving conditions, turns out to be over 40 mpg. That’s not a difference of a few miles per gallon. That’s a difference of over 10 mpg. You can also see the old EPA mpg in the grey, that’s what they’re calling the “Official EPA Window Sticker MPG” because it’s still on cars through the end of this year. You can also see the MPG estimates from “drivers like you,” which reflects self-reported mileages from real-world drivers.
So, anyway. what the heck does this mean? it means that 1. the article is making an argument based on not entirely truths, and 2. but hey! look at how many barrels of oil these the cars don’t use!
You can also compare your carbon footprint (which is a direct result of the quantity of gasoline used. It also includes an air pollution score, which is a measure of smog forming compounds that are released by the engine.
Look: I know that this isn’t really the point. I know I’m being nitpicky and it’s probably because I am taking the article personally (I don’t think I’m smug! If I am, please let me know!). What the author PROBABLY meant to say is “hey, don’t stress out if you can’t buy a hybrid because there are cheaper and more efficient cars available out there, and we all have to make our own tiny choices.” It’s just, that’s not really what she said. And the way she said it kind of pits environmentalists who tiny-choose to buy hybrids against environmentalists who make other tiny choices.
But bottom line: What IS true is that hey! there are lots of vehicles out there for purchase. And we all have to make our own tiny choices. Really, don’t stress out: If you have to buy a vehicle, just make sure you do a little legwork and know the facts.
Do you find the amount of environmental research one can do before making large purchases to be empowering or overwhelming? And, um, is Karina a smug hybrid driver?
Topics: Transportation | 12 Comments »
i find it so refreshing that more and more people are able to use their abilities for the “cosmic better good” like Oprah building houses and schools. so many people of money are beginning to share more. and if one is able, one is welcome!!! i don’t look at Karina as smug, but as a happy, good natured person willing to do what she can for our environmental better good. i hope the author got a copy of your article, and is able to stop feeling guilty.
thanks for the vote of confidence! :)
Hi Kari -
Aurora and I had been having a very similar discussion a few weeks prior to me seeing the Salon article the other day and seeing your post today. Her and Jesse were thinking about getting a Prius. Since then they have obviously decided to do so.
My argument was that from a cost perspective, a Prius will consistently (according to the nerdy model I built, about 78% of the time) lose to a cheap standard ICE car like the Corolla. This happens under a wide range of assumptions about the actual price paid for the vehicle, gas prices, MPG, miles driven per year, car lifetime, and without taking discounting over the lifetime of the car into account, which would further benefit the Corolla with its lower upfront costs. It also does not take the battery production and resource use into account, but probably should. Again, this would favor the Corolla.
The reduction in total carbon – and its highly correlated buddy, reduction in fossil fuel consumption – is often, although not as often as from a pure cost perspective, going to be better with the Corolla, too. Why? Because in order to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to spend the money not spent on the Prius on the best carbon mitigation option available. Basically, find the carbon “opportunity cost” of not buying the Corolla. In Aurora and Jesse’s world, this might be money spent on blowing additional insulation into their walls or replacing single pane windows. But because the carbon reduction effect of those things is hard to figure out, pretend they took the money saved and bought either carbon offsets or credits. Again, under a wide range of assumptions about the eventual price of a ton of carbon, the Corolla comes out better.
Aurora’s point, which is perfectly valid, and the one the Salon article argues as well, is that the *perception* of the Prius as the best environmental choice is important to them and the wider community who will see them in it. It’s easier to drive around in a Prius and advertise yourself as green than it is to drive around a Corolla and try to explain in a bumper sticker or something that in fact you did the full life-cycle carbon costing and this was the better choice under a particular set of assumptions.
In the end though, it’s very hard to qualify this as a “tiny choice”. This is an incredibly complicated choice with potentially very large financial and carbon consequences. To try to sell it as an easy choice is to really miss the complexity of sustainable choices made with a life-cycle perspective. Not peeling out from a stop light is a tiny choice. The vehicle you do it in is not.
-joe
I honestly don’t think that most people will take the price differential of a prius or a corolla into insulation, like you suggest. it’s a great idea, but I’m not sure it’s one that occurs to many people.
If you draw the box of your life cycle analysis around what people are able to afford (as the article argues: not a prius) then the choice does become tiny – do I get a small cheap car that gets less than 30 mpg like a chevy cobalt, or one that gets more than 30 mpg like the corolla or the chevy aveo. I don’t think that the prius/corolla comparison is strictly apples to apples, because it assumes a certain amount of available cash that many people don’t have.
we were part of the first batch of prius owners, and just celebrated our 7 year anniversary. car ownership was a big decision for us and it was a risk being part of the first generation of hybrids. at the time we were looking at several cars with comparable gas mileage. some of the VW jettas did pretty well, but some were diesel and you couldn’t buy a new diesel in CA and we didn’t want diesel (though we could have made it run on biofuel/diesel… which makes me wonder hybrids vs. greasecars?). In addition to gas mileage, tailpipe emissions were also a concern. we loved how we wouldn’t be emitting fume while stuck in traffic. (check out the air pollution scores from the figure’s Kari posted)
Being a prius owner has initiated a lot of environmental conversations and there is value in that. We also realize that living in the Bay Area and New York with a car was/is indeed a privilege and great for road trips, late night ventures, visiting friends and family, and currently any travel with our dog. However on a a daily basis i l take advantage of my feet and public transit, and feel my bigger tiny choice (tinier tiny choice?) is driving less. And while we drove our prius cross-country and it was fabulous, wan also bicycled across it a couple of years ago, which is inspiring to me.
I remember being so jealous that you bought your gen1 prius! and also am jealous of wan and his very awesome bike riding.
if I didn’t get the insight I would have gotten a diesel too – but then even though you are net carbon nearly-neutral, you still have to deal with local air pollution issues.
And I don’t think you are smug either!
I’m of the opinion that less driving, period, is the best way to save the planet. Hybrids may be a start, but it will take serious lifestyle shifts to really make a difference. Walkable communities and good public transit links are what we need. Right now most solutions – hybrid, biodiesel, ethanol – are ways to keep our car dependency going and not make serious changes. As fossil fuel supplies dwindle, a 50 mile commute will become prohibitively expensive, hybrid or no. Heck, even if oil supplies remain constant, increased demand from developing nations will push fuel prices up, making driving a more expensive option.
Wise bread has a good article about this: http://www.wisebread.com/better-cars-are-not-the-answer
I have a regular car but I only drive 3 miles to work. I suppose that’s my tiny choice!
I agree that driving less and living in more walkable communities of scale is the best choice – but I don’t know if it’s a tiny choice: esp. with today’s mobility and two-income households. It’s great that it works out for you!
I didn’t read all the talkbacks, but I did do similar research with my SO who is considering a new car.
Around here, a civic ex (epa adjusted of 29 combined) retails for about 19,380 at a certain trim level.
A toyota corolla (epa adjusted of 25 combined) retails for about 19, 448 at a comparable trim level.
A civic hybrid (epa adjusted of 42 combined) retails for about 22,600 with less amenities than either of the above.
A prius (epa adjusted of 46 combined) retails for about 27,500 with most of the amenities of the above (cruise control and stability are added as options).
The difference in price doesn’t seem to be justified by the mpg gains. Sure, you use less oil and have a smaller carbon footprint, but the journalist is correct in suggesting that you are paying a luxury cost for it.
For the toyotas, a $7,000 difference, divided over 4 years, assuming 52 weeks per year means you need to make up more than $38 a week to justify the cost. At $5 a gallon, that’s nearly 8 gallons of gas per week your car has to be more efficient.
Am I wrong? What did I miss?
you’re not wrong, but I think the biggest thing is that it’s really unusual for someone to drive a hybrid for just 4 years. why would you stop then? most hybrid drivers I know keep theirs for EVER, because it’s such a great bargin.
I’m ok with the luxury cost that I’m paying but also I’m ok with only paying $120 every MONTH, not every fill up every week, for my gas. Did you see my last post on miles per dollar? that might be a better way to look at it.
also the new epa mileage estimates are driving the car at about the least efficient way you can drive it. most hybrid drivers get significantly better mileage, because the car makes you pay attention to how you’re driving. As I noted above, my car is rated at 10mpg less than what I’m getting. check http://www.greenhybrid.com/ for what real people are getting in the hybrids – you can see that there’s a very real range.
Having driven good, Euro diesels for the last decade I can say that 50+mpg in nothing special. And that is attained indefinately at trunk road speeds – where hybrids are essentially regular petrol cars with a few ’00Kg of battery in the boot.
If you are a short journey/urban driver you will get real benefits from a hydrid but as I pointed out they are nothing special on longer trips.
I’m guessing lifecycle costing must be taken into account, over 100,000 miles a hybrid may have saved you 10,000 gallons of petrol, which would suggest they do “return” their higher manufacture footprint if the battery et al last 100,000, as you would expect the prime components of a regular engine too (which, obviously a hybrid has as well.)
Interestingly a recent test – done in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner – revealed that an M3 returned better MPG than a Prius at a steady 100mph. Pointless but interesting none the less.
I drive an hour every day each way to work. I spend $200 / week on gas. For me, I’ve always driven cars about to expire 1985-1995 that I can fix myself. However over the past few years, I’ve noticed I spent $5000 annually on gas alone. If I can change that amount from my 1995 subaru at 30 mpg awd to an awd hybrid, I can afford, I will definitely do so as I plan to keep driving $200 / week in gas for the next 30 years