My idea of a "hybrid".
Posted on 12/04/2005 4:18:42 PM PST by wjersey
PHILADELPHIA-December 4, 2005 - By gradually adding hybrids to this city's vehicle fleet, James Muller knows he's helping to save the environment. What he doesn't know is whether switching to the more expensive "green" vehicles will ever save any taxpayer dollars.
The city just bought 20 new hybrid Ford Escapes to add to the six Toyota Priuses already in its 6,000-vehicle fleet. Muller, Philadelphia's fleet manager, said officials are doing it to improve air quality, but that the upfront costs definitely take a bigger hit on city coffers. "That's what we're finding with the initial cost ... it doesn't wash out," he said. "You're actually paying more money."
It's only been a year or two since many cities across the country started adding hybrids to their fleets, but officials say the initial costs can be tough to bear. And they simply don't know whether, over the long run, the vehicles will end up costing more, the same or less than those fueled by gasoline or diesel.
Officials in Ann Arbor, Mich., decided not to add hybrids to their fleet after determining the costs would outweigh the benefits. Ann Arbor has other types of alternate-fuel vehicles, but found that hybrids just weren't cost-effective, said David Konkle, the city's energy coordinator.
"Economic times have been very tough and we were facing the toughest budget year that I've seen in the 15-plus years that I've been here at the city," Konkle said.
He found that hybrids would cost the city about $8,000 more than other cars it would use and save $300 to $500 a year in gas. "That takes more than the life of the car to make that $8,000 difference up," he said.
Hybrid vehicles get better mileage than their regular gasoline-powered counterparts because the hybrid switches back and forth between an electric motor and a gasoline engine.
In New York, hybrids make sense because the city now requires the purchase of the cleanest vehicle available, said Mark Simon, director of alternative fuel programs.
Simon estimates that the city is spending $3,000 to $6,000 more per hybrid vehicle, and saving $400 to $500 a year in fuel.
"It was not our mandate to save money," he said. "They're expecting us to pay more for a cleaner tailpipe."
In Oregon, Dan Clem has purview over 3,000 vehicles – 123 of them hybrids – as fleet manager for the state's Department of Administration Services.
Whether the state saves money in the long run depends on a number of factors, including how prices change and how well the hybrids hold up, he said.
"If they don't last, then they won't pencil out," Clem said, adding that they appear to be holding up well so far. "It could all go bad if and when the battery packs go bad."
Manufacturers say prices are bound to come down as more are manufactured.
"It costs the city more money to put out recycling bins, but it is the proper thing to do," said Dan Bedore, spokesman for Ford, which makes about 20,000 hybrid Ford Escapes a year. "Eventually, as hybrids become more popular, the price has to come down."
Brian Wynne, president the Electric Drive Transportation Association, said his group is working to try to encourage fleets to go hybrid. While hybrids are a low-risk technology, he said, the price does cause some governments to think hard before buying them.
"Yes, there is a premium associated with buying a hybrid vehicle at this point," said Wynne, whose group's members include vehicle and equipment manufacturers, energy suppliers and others. "I don't think there's hesitancy, I think there's diligence."
He pointed to efforts to bring down the costs, including government incentives and tax credits and increasing the overall production of vehicles and parts.
Bradley Berman, editor of hybridcars.com, a consumer-information site, said fleet managers need to look at how much they typically drive a vehicle and how long they keep it.
"Obviously, the more you drive the more you save and the more compelling the financial equation is," Berman said. Cities such as Seattle and Pittsburgh have made the move to hybrid buses, a use that some say is perfect for a hybrid because of all the stop-and-go, heavy-duty driving.
Brett Smith, assistant director of manufacturing, engineering and technology for the Center for Automotive Research, in Ann Arbor, said it can take five to seven years to start saving on a car driven 12,000 miles a year.
"Certainly there are governments and communities that will make that commitment," he said.
In Garfield County, Colo., County Manager Ed Green said the fleet's 11 hybrid cars are meant to set an example for the community as a whole. But not all governments are in a position to be able to make that statement.
With the reality of layoffs facing Ann Arbor, Konkle said, the expense of hybrids was pretty much out of the question this year.
"Is this year a good year to demonstrate our greenness by buying a hybrid vehicle?" he said. "And the answer was, 'no."'
Got that right! This is sheer madness on the part of a PC city government.
Taxpayers Beware! You have been had -- again and still -- by your elected officials!
When will we ever learn?
Ahem.
Yes, they will, as soon as the EPA gets around to OK-ing urea injection. The Mercedes E320 CDI with the new V-6 is ready to go as soon as that happens.
There are also other alternative solutions.
Including revising the emissions standards to not be completely biased towards gasoline engines.
Hybrids make sense for urban use; diesels for rural/highway.
I agree. Hybrid technology does make sense. Even if you aren't an enviro (I am not), saving money at the stoplight makes sense. It is pretty cool to sit in total silence at the light, or to have someone ask--"Is it started?" when you give them a ride. You are also right that it is ugly-- I agree with that, but it is SO ugly that it is kind of cool-- in an ugly sort of way. Everything about the car is geared to efficiency. It is very quiet, very ergonomic, and frankly, fun. I have put nearly 35k miles on it in just over a year, and not the first problem. Oil and filter changes every 5K miles, and that's it. Brakes almost never wear out, because the friction brakes don't engage until you are down to 7 mph. Faster than that, and the brakes are used to regenerate the battery.
I understand hating it because of the liberal attraction. That is my only regret, but it does give me a chance to surprise people with my conservatism when they assume I am a lib. I am looking for a good conservative symbol to put on the car-- I had a W '04 sticker before the election-- not sure now.... maybe something with a military orientation.
My idea of a "hybrid".
Government's job is provide services at the most efficient cost! It is not to piss away taxpayer $$$ on Kook ideas. If a Honda Civic or Ford Focus is all that is needed and cost 8,000 less, then the gov't is to buy that car NOT a more expensive one. And wait till the repair bill comes in for all the new batteries at 80K miles on these boondogles.
Hybrids are only a stop gap measure until the fuel cell autos are available at reasonable cost.
These govt's should be going DIESEL. You get 30% more power out of a gallon of diesel than gas, and diesel takes less energy to produce.
My VW Jetta TDI gets 51-55mpg and my Cummins Dodge Ram gets 20mpg unloaded. This is where gov't needs to go for $$$ savings.
Credit diesels' reduced CO2/CO/HC emissions against their higher NOx emissions.
Just wait until they see their repair bills.
ROFLMAO!!
No kidding. Here is the count for the state of wisconsin
The State’s vehicle fleet decreased from a high of 7,734 cars, trucks, vans, and buses at the end of 2001 to a low of 6,669 as of December 31, 2004. This 13.8 percent reduction resulted in part from the vehicle reduction initiative announced by the Governor in June 2004. However, after deducting sales costs and outstanding debt for the 958 vehicles sold under the initiative through March 2005, it is unclear how much of the $3.5 million in gross revenue will be available for deficit reduction.
Diesels won't work because they won't pass the new EPA standards.
Ahem.
Yes, they will, as soon as the EPA gets around to OK-ing urea injection. The Mercedes E320 CDI with the new V-6 is ready to go as soon as that happens.
There are also other alternative solutions.
Including revising the emissions standards to not be completely biased towards gasoline engines.
Hybrids make sense for urban use; diesels for rural/highway.
Therer are some fascinating designs that, instead of maximizing fuel efficiency, are trying to maximize power at the standard MPGs. From what I understand, drivers of the test vehicles are pleasantly surprised.
The thing that will cause me to get a hyrbrid (once the price comes down a bit!) is that I loathe inefficiency. It's always bothered me that engines are running at stoplights. It's insane to throw away all that momentum everytime you hit the brakes. Pollution out the tailpipe means that you haven't burned everything properly where it could be doing you some good.
A vehicle where the engine runs at an optimally efficient speed for the design will last longer, need less maintenance, and run better for its entire life. Also, the engine could be simply swapped out for another one every 200-300,000 miles cheaply if a manufacturer has settled on only a few basic engine sizes/designs.
A cleaner, quieter, gas-sipping car is the result of increases in efficiency. We don't need the government to impose standards... in this case the smarter choice will eventually win out.
"I agree. Hybrid technology does make sense. Even if you aren't an enviro (I am not), saving money at the stoplight makes sense. It is pretty cool to sit in total silence at the light, or to have someone ask--"Is it started?" when you give them a ride. You are also right that it is ugly-- I agree with that, but it is SO ugly that it is kind of cool-- in an ugly sort of way. Everything about the car is geared to efficiency. It is very quiet, very ergonomic, and frankly, fun. I have put nearly 35k miles on it in just over a year, and not the first problem. Oil and filter changes every 5K miles, and that's it. Brakes almost never wear out, because the friction brakes don't engage until you are down to 7 mph. Faster than that, and the brakes are used to regenerate the battery.
I understand hating it because of the liberal attraction. That is my only regret, but it does give me a chance to surprise people with my conservatism when they assume I am a lib. I am looking for a good conservative symbol to put on the car-- I had a W '04 sticker before the election-- not sure now.... maybe something with a military orientation."
Officials in Ann Arbor, Mich., - What do you expect from a college town.
Yea, that's why the price of SUV's and pickups kept coming down. < /sarcasm >
I don't care what they do in Michigan. I'm down here in Texas and bought my new Escape because I WANTED one. Simple as that and if I get significantly better gas mileage, so much the better. And it looks pretty neat sitting alongside my new 2005 F-150 that I use for its intended purposes.
They can only save fuel by shutting off the engine at idle/slow speeds, and recovering a little bit of energy on braking. At higher speeds, with less braking, by definition, they are less efficient due to their higher weight (and less-efficient gasoline engines), compared to an equivalent non-hybrid car.
This makes them ideal for delivery vehicles, or city cars.
The Car & Driver guy is woefully misinformed if he thinks there will be no diesels in the future. The only problem is going to be expense, although the cost of urea injection is still less than the hybrid gear.
The negative aspect of hybrids on the highway is not power, as all modern cars have more than enough power; it is efficiency, as explained above. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I have no objection to people wanting to buy hybrids; I only object to people trying to prevent me from being able to buy diesels.
Yep, wait until they see the replacement bill for the batteries. Near as I can tell that was not figured into the payoff time. Only the gasoline.
I work in fleet management, and I have to agree- at today's prices, the extra cost of Hybrids will be almost impossible to recoup over the useful life of the vehicle.
But if the price difference can come down, they do make economic sense- IF you do a lot of short-haul, start-and-stop driving. The worse the stop-and-go traffic, the bigger the advantage of the Hybrid. City buses are another promising application.
On the highway, they aren't much more efficient than a standard vehicle.
As a side note, Toronto, Canada was running Hybrid buses back in the '80s (and may still be for all I know.) They used an air motor/compressor system to capture braking energy. They would pull quietly away from the curb, and then at 5 mph or so the diesel would kick in. Neat technology.
In 91 I got a Nissan Sentra and it got over 30 in the city and about 45 on the highway. I wish I'd never traded it. It seems like these hybrids don't get that great a mileage.
The silent running is really cool, almost worth the money right there. Except they need a beep when they take off. I was loading my truck one day and suddenly the car next to me starts moving! I freaked.
But in Houston, there's another aspect. We had that big evacuation and lots of people ran out of gas idling. Wouldn't happen in a hybrid. Could be a big advantage in an emergency.
sure so more acid rain can be dumped on the east coast from those coal burning power plants needed to charge up cars...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.