|
Author
|
Topic: The Hidden Cost of Hybrid Cars
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 14 December 2005 07:17 AM
If anybody's seriously considering a hybrid car, this makes interesting reading. Not only do the batteries have a limited lifespan they're expensive and disposal represents and environmental question mark. Add to that the fact that the cars themselves are designed to last about as long as the batteries - somehow the idea of a disposable car doesn't seem environmentally friendly - and it's not clear to me what the advantages, economically or environmentally, of the current generation of cars are. quote:
Hybrid cars are hitting our roads in ever increasing numbers as purchase prices come down and fuel prices go up. But the substantial hidden costs of owning a hybrid car could make it a financial time bomb.Owners of 'environmentally friendly' hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight may be hit with a bill for up to $7000 when their car's battery dies less than eight years after purchase. The battery unit, which has a lifespan of 8-10 years -- shorter in hotter climates like Australia -- cannot be reconditioned. It must be thrown out and replaced with a new one, at considerable cost to the owner. "A replacement battery on the Insight retails for $6840," said Honda spokesman Mark Higgins. Honda began selling the Insight hybrid in Japan car in 1997 and in Australia in 2000. It sold 44 Insights before withdrawing the futuristic-looking two-door coupe from the market earlier this year. Honda will re-enter the hybrid market with the Civic sedan in March, and aims to sell around 20 per month.
quote:
To further add environmental insult to injury, a considerable cloud exists over just how recyclable NickelMetal Hydride batteries really are - some reports even suggest that those who buy green may be doing more environmental harm than good. Both Toyota and Honda were unable to tell CarPoint exactly how much of the battery could be recycled. Both have left the task of recycling in the hands of a third party recycler. Internet site www.BatteryUniversity.com warns against the careless disposable of Ni-MH batteries, due to the toxicity of it main derivative, Nickel.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sleeping Sun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10470
|
posted 14 December 2005 12:50 PM
As a hybrid owner, I'm fully expecting that my battery will cease to work approximately 18 hours after the warranty expires. And I fully expect to pay through the nose for a new one.These were issues we looked at before we got the car. Our previous car, an old student beater, was really beyond repair, and we needed a new car (Mr. Sun works in a very bus un-friendly area). Of the things we looked at, battery life and replacement cost were included. As was disposal, and this was our biggest reservation. But, as we look around, the lifespan of cars these days is not very long. Without getting into a 'they just aren't made the way they used to be' spiel, a large majority of cars are meant to be disposable and replaced in short time. Add to that the fact that the city of Ottawa uses obscene (in my mind) amounts of salt, that hastens the downfall of any metal products, and you'll see that a 7 year lifespan is not uncommon. So, seeing as we were going to be buying a car anyways (and as environmentally minded as we try to be, our personal comfort level and Mr. Sun's sanity dictated that we have a vehicle), we thought that was the best choice we could make at that time. Maybe we were wrong. Rather than hope for cheap replacement batteries, I'm hoping they will find better ways to recycle them.
From: when I find out, I'll let you know | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 14 December 2005 03:04 PM
I must admit that, on a very rough calculation, I'm not sure it saves you much if you do replace the battery.
Say you're saving $50 a month on gas over a similar non-hybrid model. That works out to just $4200 over seven years. Even if battery costs come down considerably in that time, you could just be breaking even.One inobvious thing--it may be that these cars will require less maintenance. They're more complex, yes, but electric motors are pretty simple, low-maintenance things, and the gas engine should see less wear because it's putt-putting along at a constant speed right in its "sweet spot" as it were. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the big money is as usual not going in the best directions. To heck with batteries--I want to see flywheels. Flywheels last forever, aren't made of anything too toxic, and don't have the current flow limitations of batteries (which means that flywheel cars could quite conceivably knock the doors off gas-guzzlers for acceleration).
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 14 December 2005 08:46 PM
quote:
The people I talk to who want hybrids hand-wave away the possibility that the end-of-warranty period will screw them over, and just assume that there'll be el-cheapo batteries in seven years.
Given that the cars are expected to last eight to ten years this doesn't mean a lot. from the article I posted: quote:
concedes the batteries, like the car itself, are built to last less than a decade. "The life of the car and the battery are supposed to be the same... around 8 to 10 years," he said. "We're not expecting to replace them [the batteries]. In fact we only hold one [replacement] battery in stock nationally."
Ignoring cost, if you combine the battery recycling issue with the fact that the entire car is designed to go to the dump at about the same time the battery dies, I find it hard to argue that hybrids are environmentally efficient. The energy required to build a new car (from the steel mills to the time the car is on the road) and the associated environmental impacts has got to exceed any benefits to the environment that result from fuel efficiency.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987
|
posted 14 December 2005 09:05 PM
Non-hybrid cars are expensive disposables as well. I purchased a new GMC truck a couple months ago and it has been in for warranty work twice already and now needs new brake pads. For 60k one would think that a vehicle would last a year at least before seeing a shop. I can't imagine what a domestic piece of garbage like that will cost after the warrenty is expired. After market Allison transmissions cost $12k to replace. I hear that Toyota will be offering a 3/4 ton diesel soon and I can finally kiss the big three manufacturers goodbye. If any auto manufacturer wants to make inroads in the market in a big way, they need to produce vehicles that will last decades rather than a handfull of years. It used to be done, why have we gone backwards?
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917
|
posted 14 December 2005 09:51 PM
I have an 1983 Ford Truck and it's as good as the day I bought it. Any repair 'no problemo' even by a weekend mechanic like myself. Our 98 Jeep problem free to date (if it was a hybrid I'd be looking at a replacement $7000 battery!!!) I'll get another 10 years out of the Jeep. My wife has a Camry but it's not practical in our line of work. It's hard to judge because it hasn't been used for much more than city and hwy driving.
From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 14 December 2005 11:00 PM
My brother lives and works on a farm, has an older Ford F150 2x4, I think it's a 1985, and it's been a piece of shit almost from the day he brought it new. 20 years old, never been in an accident, yet there's two holes in the floorboards, the passenger door won't close properly, rust everywhere. I know other folks like their Fords, but there's some real crappy Ford trucks out there too. Yet they continue to sell very well, especially the F150, although the big Dodge Ram is quite popular also. I think the larger Japanese trucks will continue to make inroads once people get tired of bad experiences with American iron. I don't think the Japanese makers have anything the size of an F150 or Dodge Ram here, yet. The Tundra is smaller, isn't it?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770
|
posted 15 December 2005 08:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
[QB]I must admit that, on a very rough calculation, I'm not sure it saves you much if you do replace the battery.
Say you're saving $50 a month on gas over a similar non-hybrid model. That works out to just $4200 over seven years. Even if battery costs come down considerably in that time, you could just be breaking even.
At the moment, cost is not the big selling point of Hybrids. An 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is. If that's not important to you, a hybrid is not going to seem like a good deal. quote:
One inobvious thing--it may be that these cars will require less maintenance. They're more complex, yes, but electric motors are pretty simple, low-maintenance things, and the gas engine should see less wear because it's putt-putting along at a constant speed right in its "sweet spot" as it were.
My uncle owns a repair shop and he tells me that's true. He expected the first round of hybrids to be buggy and breakdown-prone, but the opposite is proving to be the case. quote:
To heck with batteries--I want to see flywheels. Flywheels last forever, aren't made of anything too toxic, and don't have the current flow limitations of batteries (which means that flywheel cars could quite conceivably knock the doors off gas-guzzlers for acceleration).
Besides the fact that the technology is purely theoretical at this point, the problem with flywheels is that cars crash. If you're storing a gas tank's worth of chemical energy as kinetic energy, the risks of catastrophic failure are huge.
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
