Earth Day: How much energy would the U.S. save if ten percent of the population switched to hybrids
We here at AutoblogGreen are big on technology that can lower environmental impact. Hybrids are widely touted as one way of doing that although some are much better at it than others. With over a million of the most popular hybrid, the iconic Prius, being sold there must be a noticeable decrease in the amount of gas being burned by Americans, right? Have you ever wondered how much gas would be saved if we all drove a Prius? About half, unless we all drive like Danika. OK, that's an unlikely scenario. How about if 10 percent of the car-driving public used some kind of hybrid? With 2.2 percent of the cars sold last year being hybrids it seems we are on our way to that small milestone.
After pulling out my slide rule (and then putting it away after I remembered I never did learn how to use it), calculator and a copy of the I Ching, I set out to solve this problem of the ages. According to the Department of Energy (DOE) we burned through 9,290,000 barrels (390 million gallons) of gas a day in 2007, which is about half of all finished petroleum used - so we're not even talking about diesel or aviation fuel. Using advanced algebraic formulae which required the participation of all of my fingers and toes, I've deduced we could save about 6,285,000,000 gallons each year (around 16 days worth of gas) if ten percent of us drove hybrids. A big number indeed but one I hope we can soon surpass.
[Source: Energy Information Administration]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Luke 7:17PM (4/22/2008)
The problem is that the article neglects to include the extra energy required to produce the hybrid in comparison to other cars, not to mention the replacement of parts (i.e., batteries and hybrid components)over time.
I might also save more gas if a drove a private train everywhere, but that's only if I'm only considering the gas in the equation.
Reply
Domenick Yoney 10:55PM (4/22/2008)
Thanks for your comment Luke.
I don't think I've seen the extra energy required to build a hybrid detailed anyplace. I will look for it though I suspect any extra energy spent building the vehicle would be easily balanced by the energy spent drilling and refining the petroleum product not used by a hybrid. Regarding the replacement of parts, maintenance is usually less frequent for hybrids since the motors, brakes, etc. aren't worked as hard.
Reply
fred schumacher 6:05AM (4/23/2008)
Embedded energy is a serious consideration, and the added complexity of a hybrid powertrain does have more embedded energy than the comparatively simple ICE, much of which is made from recycled metal (about 75% recycled is the number I've seen mentioned).
Go to Vaclav Smil's homepage at the University of Manitoba for some numbers on saving energy and GHG emissions.
Reply
Chris M 2:00AM (4/23/2008)
It is hard to quantify exactly how much energy is required to build a car, as there are so many components involved, but even rough estimates make it clear that the energy of construction is far less than the energy used to drive the vehicle over its lifespan.
We can agree that a more massive vehicle has more materials, thus more energy is used to produce the needed materials. Thus a big massive SUV is likely to take more energy to produce than a midsize hybrid car, which in turn would take more energy than a small lightweight compact car.
Reply
Luke 4:06AM (4/23/2008)
"I will look for it though I suspect any extra energy spent building the vehicle would be easily balanced by the energy spent drilling and refining the petroleum product not used by a hybrid."
Considering that the cost of energy spent to drill refine it, and deliver gas is included in the cost of paying for the gas in the comparison (i.e, it is sold at a profit), it actually was part of the original comparison. In my silly analogy, I compared driving a train to run my personal errands. If the train used less gas than a hybrid (in my imaginary world), would the comparison be just? Certainly we would need to take into account the materials to build the train, not to mention the track. The impact is not limited to the fuel used.
Reply
Jon 1:35PM (4/23/2008)
If the cost of producing gasoline is embedded in gasoline's price, then isn't it equally logical that the cost of producing a hybrid is embedded in its price as well? One should be very wary of hunting for hidden externalities to add on top of the market price of a thing. While that approach can be valid in the right hands (and might lead us to include costs like the Iraq war in the price of gas), in the wrong hands it leads us to something utterly silly like the CNW dust-to-dust report. Absent a lot of diligent work, the market price of a thing needs to suffice as an adequate marker for its production cost.
A Prius costs in the low-to-mid 20s, while the National Automobile Dealers Association estimates that the average cost of a new car in the U.S. is over 28k. So: assuming that the cost of production is reflected in the price, converting a large portion of the nation's fleet to Prius would likely lower the average energy expended in producing cars. Not so much if everyone upsized from a Tata Nano, but very considerably if everyone downsized from a Hummer. Depends on the exact 10% converted, of course. Given our current economy, I think downsizing is a more probable picture.
Reply
steven 4:13PM (4/23/2008)
@6: No it is not logical. Not only that, it is also not true. Case(s) in point, the Honda Hybrids & Smart. It was widely reported that Honda had not made a penny on them and Smart has lost billons ($5+ billion from 2003-2006). In other words, to get people to buy them, they are sold at prices less than they cost to bring to market. Others are Maybach, Rolls & Bentley. It is common knowledge that they are priced in such a matter that they are intentionally made unaffordable to all but the most wealthy of individuals. Lord knows the rich and famous don't want to be seen in a car that the everyday millionaires can afford.
As far as saving energy, keep in mind that if everyone in the US just took just ONE(!) typical bottle of petroleum based dishwashing liquid and replaced it with a bottle of vegetable based dish washing liquid, we'd save 78,000 barrels of petroleum a year. ONE FREAKIN' BOTTLE OF DISHWASHING LIQUID!!!
Reply
steven 4:15PM (4/23/2008)
Sorry, that would be every "household in the US", not "everyone in the US". That would save enough to heat and cool 4500 US homes for a year.
Reply
Jon 6:12PM (4/23/2008)
Steven, good point. Cars with small production numbers present numerous exceptions. New market entries are sold under cost to build up the market, and extreme luxury items are sold as far over cost as the market will bear. Still, these are fringe cases (and in the case of items priced far over cost, you can't argue that the price does not recapture all embedded costs).
Cars are not sold under cost in great numbers for very long (goodbye Insight and hybrid Accord). So while the price of GM's hybrids, and even Honda's, may not fully reflect their embedded costs, they also don't sell many. The mass market Prius is likely another story. Over one million sold, production expanding, and Toyota has repeatedly stated that it is making a profit on them. So the retail price of the most popular hybrid likely is an adequate indicator of its embedded costs. Other hybrid Toyotas probably piggyback on that success, so there you are talking about 80% of the hybrid market.
That's a lot of savings from dish washing soap! But given that about 1/2 our oil consumption is in the form of gasoline, increased mpg is where you could have the largest affect on oil consumption.
Reply
Luke 7:42AM (4/24/2008)
"If the cost of producing gasoline is embedded in gasoline's price, then isn't it equally logical that the cost of producing a hybrid is embedded in its price as well?"
The cost of a Prius is nearly twice as much as that of a Corolla. The environmental impact is, to a great degree (although not entirely), reflected in the price. In the article above, the author makes the mistake of considering the Prius as though it starts out on an equal footing with other cars with regard to environmental impact before the first tankful of gas. Hence the error I commented on above.
Add to that that some models of cars that are economboxes can be purchased for less thatn 6k when they are 4 years old and only have 40,0000 miles on them. At that price, the money spent on a Prius could buy cars for most of one person's life. In other words, when considering the impact we need to take into account the impact of the initial manufacturing (extra materials) and the future use. A car purchased used is a recycled item, and it is not adding additional environmental impact the way a newly manufactured car is. In addition to that there is the huge financial saving alluded to above.
Reply
Dad 4:01PM (4/24/2008)
"Earth Day: How much energy would the U.S. save if ten percent of the population switched to hybrids"
Cripes, calculate how much fuel would be saved now if we all car pooled one day a week! But car pooling is walking the walk, and we liberals love to just talk the talk and blame others for our failures. Sooo much eaiser than taking responsibility for our own inactions.
Reply
Dan 10:46AM (6/09/2008)
@3: "It is hard to quantify exactly how much energy is required to build a car, as there are so many components involved, but even rough estimates make it clear that the energy of construction is far less than the energy used to drive the vehicle over its lifespan."
Your response above does not touch on an important comparison. I would like to know a comparison of: buying a new car (30 mpg) vs. keeping my existing car (20 mpg) coverted to an energy/$$$ comparison. In other words, using these figures - how much energy to produce a new car starting from the rough materials, cost of fuel to operate an existing car, the fuel saved operating a new car, and using 12,000 miles per year diving habit. How long would it take to "break even" in this equation? The average American car owner keeps their car for 5 years, so... can you save enough money in 5 years to justify buying a new, more fuel efficient car?
I feel that it would not justify buying a new car. As time goes on, Americans own their cars for less time, so they buy new cars more often. I feel if you really wanted to help the environment, keep your car longer - it will save money/energy and your old car won't end up in a land fill or junk yard.
Reply
Peter 2:37PM (6/10/2008)
Walking is walking the walk IMO. :)
I moved to be walking distance to work. You can always deflect the discussion away from one solution (hybrids) to, carpooling, walking etc... But really we should look at doing all of them and not use one to deflate the case for another.
Carpool/walk/bike/public transit when you can, drive a more efficient vehicle when you can't.
These aren't mutually exclusive solutions, they are mutually beneficial.
Personally I would rather see more emphasis on efficient vehicles, rather than specific tech (like hybrids). Start building lighter weight, smaller engined, more aerodynamic cars. That should get better fuel economy and lower prices. Plus it is not like adding hybrid to a Hummer is really going to solve anything.
Hybrids have a place if you do a lot of stop and go, but for those of use who don't, an efficient car would be close for less money.
I may end up buying a hybrid, but it will be largely to get a lightweight/aero bodied car (like Hondas upcoming GSH or CR-Z), that I couldn't otherwise get.
Reply