This is just about what I figured!

[LubeDude]

Art Spinella has really done it this time.<br /><br />Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore., has devised a way of comparing the relative energy efficiency of vehicles in a way that will drive a lot of people nuts and make others angry.<br /><br />He calls it a dust-to-dust study because it calculates the energy cost per mile driven over the lifetime of a vehicle, which includes all the energy used to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle. It accounts for all the energy consumed by suppliers, manufacturers, dealers, owners, disassemblers and recyclers as closely as he is able to compute it.<br /><br />Some of it makes perfect sense. For example, smaller cars tend to be more energy efficient over their lifetimes than bigger cars and trucks.<br /><br />But the way Spinella figures it, gasoline-electric hybrids gobble more energy in their lifetimes than SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Hummer H3. That's because it requires more energy to manufacture, replace and dispose of two drive systems and the batteries.<br /><br />That means the environmentalists who think they're doing so much to save the earth when they buy a hybrid are actually consuming more of Mother Earth's precious energy resources than the SUV owners they love to hate.<br /><br />I can almost hear them screaming from here.<br /><br />Spinella says it took two years to collect the data, which include about 4,000 data points for each model.<br /><br />Based on data through the 2005 model year with the price of gasoline factored in at $3 a gallon, the most energy-efficient vehicle was the Scion xB, with 48 cents in energy costs for each mile driven over its lifetime. The most inefficient was the Maybach at $11.58 per mile.<br /><br />Spinella says that if you're interested in the spreadsheet that breaks down cost by model you can request a copy by e-mailing: mailroom@cnwr.com.<br /><br />You just know some of the environmentalists will go over it closely, looking for a loophole.

 

[TexomaAv8r]

Re: This is just about what I figured!

IT seems as if some of this would be amortized (?) over time as the infrastructures for the newer technologies grow. And as related industries and protocol for recycling etc the hybrid cars evolves the enviornment impact would be lessoned over time resulting in a break even point followed by a net improvement. So initialy he might be correct but over time it would improve. Just a guess.

 

[JB]

Re: This is just about what I figured!

I always though "ton miles per gallon" made more sense than other measurements (distortions) of vehicle efficiency.

 

[boatneck]

Re: This is just about what I figured!

This analytic approach is exactly right. For example, I always thought that the use of fluorescent screw-in bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs only made sense if the energy to design, manufacture, distribute, advertise them was less than what it took to save the supposed energy to use them. You got to look at the total picture--but usually it's always about the money--theirs, not yours. The same approach applies to any so-called energy saving device, The switch to 85 ethanol will require a tremendous cost to the implementation of the required infrastructure to manufacture, market, distribute, etc the new fuel as well as the required changeover for the vehicles to use them. About the only thing that makes sense is to drive less since that uses less fuel and dumps less pollutants into the atmosphere. Think about a tankful of gas. Some of its weight goes into energy to power the car; the other weight goes out the tailpipe as water, co, co2, nitrous oxides, etc. None of this is simple as it sometimes seems.