Hybrid thoughts

[ghini]

I did some quick math replying to Marthas journal. thought you might find it interesting:

If you go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov you can compare a regular civic with a hybrid civic.

A regular plain-vanilla Civic costs about $13,500 and has an estimated $908 a year in fuel costs. A hybrid civic costs $19,000 and has $658 in fuel costs. Both these are based on driving 15,000 miles a year.

The difference in cost is $5500. The difference in yearly gas costs is $312. At that rate, you would have to drive the Hybrid for 17.5 years before the money you save in gas is greater than they extra money you paid for a hybrid. If you drive less than 15,000 miles a year, then it's even longer. Even if gas prices double, it's still 8.75 years driving the same car. There are a lot of 9 year old Civics on the road. No one is sure if a Hybrid will last that long.

I'm sure in 20 years almost all new cars will be hybrids, or something similar. Right now they are like computers and digital cameras. Give them 3 years or so and there will probably be something new and better.

Comments

[xopherg.livejournal.com]

Some people might say that driving a hybrid provides social and environmental benefits that exceed the extra cost.

Plus, they're cool.

[dj-ricecake.livejournal.com]

If you're a hippie :-)

[uglor.livejournal.com]

His definition of 'social benefits' is hitting on hippie chicks. :)

[violin.livejournal.com]

I'm not able right now, because of fatigue and busyness, to wrap my mind around how the possibbility of selling the car used changes the math, if at all. For simplicity, we could imagine that they depreciate proportionally, though it's doubtful...

I seem to be wrapping my head around it, anyway...

Lets say the value of the cars depreciate x per year. Like, if it falls 15% per year, x=0.85 Cause the numbers are better that way. If it's the same for both then the cost of ownership (in thousands) over n years would be

Cs(n) = (1 - x^n)13.5 + 0.908n for the standard civic

Ch(n) = (1 - x^n)19 + 0.658n for the hybrid.

Given a realistic estimate of x, we should be able to see when the real costs match up by equating the 2 expressions:

 (1 - x^n)13.5 + 0.908n = (1 - x^n)19 +  0.658n
-(1 - x^n)13.5  -0.658n  -(1 - x^n)13.5 -0.658n

0.25n = 5.5(1 - x^n)
/5.5   /5.5

n/22 = 1 - x^n
n/22 + x^n = 1

Sadly, at the moment I don't remember any easy way to solve that for n. But, I fed it into the solver on my HP, and if I've done everything right, x=0.9 (10% depreciation per year) gives 19 years before the real costs match up.

If you assume more aggressive depreciation, it gets worse: x=0.5 gives 22 years-- if the hybrid depreciates faster than the standard, then it loses out even more, of course.

Interestingly, if we assume 5% depreciation/yr, x=0.95, gives slightly less than 5 years. If x gets much closer to 1 (no depreciation at all) then the answers get useless very quickly-- nearly zero, since then the only cost of ownership would be gas.

Also interesting, to me, anyway, is that your answer of 17.5 years, found without thinking about depreciation, corresponds with the answer when x=0.9133-- 8.67% depreciation. So if they depreciate equally (not likely) and they depreciate faster than 8.67% then the hybrid does even worse. If they depreciate slower, the hybrid does better.

OK, back to real work...

[violin.livejournal.com]

and they depreciate faster than 8.67% then the hybrid does even worse.

....than your 17.5yr estimate


If they depreciate slower, the hybrid does better.

....than your 17.5yr estimate

[uglor.livejournal.com]

Hybrids have rechargeable batteries which in theory need to be replaced after so much time/use. They haven't been on the road long enough for anyone to really know how often they need to be replaced, or how much they will cost.

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

I was wondering about other maitenency costs with hybrids, are they more expensive?

I plan on getting a hybrid as well (eventually), once they work all the technical kinks out.

[uglor.livejournal.com]

Hybrids are a lot like normal cars. They have shocks, power steering, tires, etc. Things that wear out on any car.

That being said, hybrids also have things unlike other cars, like regenerative brakes. Like any new, high tech car parts, they are expensive. They haven't been on the road long enough for anyone to know if they are going to be more or less expensive 5 or 10 years from now.

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

*nods* The weirdest thing about a hybrid I found was actually driving one. It's like driving a really really expensive golf cart.

[angry-user.livejournal.com]

If that's your plan, you'll never have a hybrid. They are filling a gap between gas motors and fuel cell type cars. I'd just hold out for the latter.

[violin.livejournal.com]

Oh, none of that should be construed as an effort to economically justify owning a hybrid. More that these things get in my mind, and I have to address them....

While the 5 years at 5% depreciation result surprised me (and is either way off because the standard is a known quantity and will depreciate slower or because the hybrid is widely assumed to make economic sense and will depreciate slower) the fact remains that, in absence of gov't incentives, a hybrid doesn't make economic sense right now.

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

AHHHH AHHHH AHHHH numbers ahhhh!

[lorigami.livejournal.com]

sure, that works with today's gas price, plus, it's not just money that's the issue.

[uglor.livejournal.com]

With gas at $5 a gallon it is still nine years before the hybrid saves money.

Also, the normal Civic doesn't put out much more greenhouse gasses than the Hybrid.

The Hybrid Civic puts out 4.1 tons of greenhouse gasses a year.
The regular Civic puts out 5.6 tons.

For comparison, a VW Golf Deisel puts out 5.1 tons a year, and a Ford Expedition puts out 12.1 tons in one year.

Hybrids are great. I expect I will be buying one someday. But right now if you buy one, you are spending a lot more for a car that isn't much better on the environment or your gas mileage.

[fuzbal.livejournal.com]

dont forget you usually get a tax break on having such a car as well.

[uglor.livejournal.com]

It varies wildly by state. California has a tax break for hybrids, but only if they get over a certain MPG. I think it is 30, but I'm not sure. Ford is mad because they are coming out with a hybrid Explorer which gets double the gas mileage, but is just under the mpg limit. So in Cali, even with a hybrid that gets double the mileage of a regular model, no tax break.

[leezechka.livejournal.com]

thats because it is a truck, and stills gets worse mileage than regular sedans.

out here, the hybrids also get HOV access with single drivers

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

nice, only zero emission vehicles get the HOV lane here.

[leezechka.livejournal.com]

i find it sad that you have to bribe people that way, but if it works, I am for it. Like Uglor, i am giving it a couple more years, i want them to get a little better and stop looking all funky.

[lizerati.livejournal.com]

I just spent $31 filling up my car. Bring on the hybrids. Of course, I wish my damn office would move near a marta station.

[uglor.livejournal.com]

I live 6 miles from work and get about 28 mpg. :P

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

Think about the trees, man. They'll thank you. They told me so.

[uglor.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking of the trees. But ask yourself this: will the environment be better off if you spend $5500 more on a car and put out 25% less emissions, or could you buy the more polluting car and spend the $5500 on longer-lasting energy saving things, like insulation for a home, solar energy for a home, etc?

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

Doh, I should've added the tag on that.

The environment would be better off if we (all) used mass transit, biked, or walked I suppose. Cut the car out of the equation. I do wonder what's worse for the environment - using an old polluting car, or buying a freshly manufactured and less polluting one. Way beyond my level of knowledge, and frankly I'm just babbling at this point.

http://cowcotland.free.fr/modules/Forums/conneries/russes.mpeg <-unrelated quality entertainment.

[codymc.livejournal.com]

Man i so need to get the four barrel carb in my '73 convertible replaced/fixed so i can cruise around with the top down and listen to the 7 litre v8 rumble.

the really sad part? It's gets about the same gas milage as my '02 nissan frontier with an engine roughly half the size

[leezechka.livejournal.com]

So on the smog days and when we run out of gas we can declare that it is all YOUR fault. and my dad's.... You evil giant car people!

[eneref.livejournal.com]

Hybrids simply cost more. There's no denying that. You forgot, however, to factor in the tax credits you get both federal (and here in Georgia, state) for driving a hybrid. But it doesn't drop their overall costs down below that of a regular car.

Of course, companies who make them get SUPER tax credits for producing them... and still charge through the nose.

hybrid vs. regular car

[snowtiger61.livejournal.com]

You're not buying the hybrid because you think it's going to break-even based on savings due to MPG.

You're buying the hybrid because the quantity of pollutants it spews is *tiny* compared to regular vehicles.

If one doesn't care about what one is breathing, then just buy a regular car.

Re: hybrid vs. regular car

[uglor.livejournal.com]

according to fueleconomy.gov, the Prius puts out 3.5 tons of greenhouse gasses a year, a Corolla puts out 5.4 tons and a Land Cruiser puts out 13 tons.

Hybrids still burn gas, and still put out a lot of crap.