Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
#21
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
Hi Martin:
___That was stated very well indeed.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
Originally Posted by martinjlm
All valid issues, but not for the auto industry to solve. I also doubt that most consumers internalize these hidden costs when considering the economics of a vehicle purchase. I hope this doesn't come off as callous or dismissing. I'm just pointing out that the things you are talking about and factoring into the cost of gasoline are not central to the consiousness of the average consumer and the auto industry will not go to any effort to place them into stream of consciousness.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
#22
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
Originally Posted by EricGo
....We also may wish to add in Federal & State tax credits that I believe are not being taken into account ?
Originally Posted by EricGo
.......I know your calcs that show upfront cost recup can be used for the same purpose, they reflect a mindset more prevalent in GM land than civic/corolla/camry land:
A Cobalt owner may say: in three years my lease is up, and so the hybrid did not save me anything.
The Civic owner might say: In ten or fifteen years, when this car is ready for the junkyard, the hybrid tech will have saved me .. a bundle.
A Cobalt owner may say: in three years my lease is up, and so the hybrid did not save me anything.
The Civic owner might say: In ten or fifteen years, when this car is ready for the junkyard, the hybrid tech will have saved me .. a bundle.
#23
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
If the leaked info is true, Toyota is increasing the Prius price by $1K. That leaves $2k for the consumer, unless demand outstrips supply, and then of course the dealers will take advantage.
I think your analysis of lease vs buy is true for the public at large, but I have my doubts if the Civic/Corolla/Camry populace is the same.
I think your analysis of lease vs buy is true for the public at large, but I have my doubts if the Civic/Corolla/Camry populace is the same.
#24
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
Originally Posted by EricGo
Martin,
I didn't check your calcs, but they sound about right for the RX. The numbers are quite different, however, for the Honda Civic and the Prius.
Moreover, you are ignoring the indirect costs of a gluttonous oil economy: Global warming, Health, Military, terrorism -- the real costs of gasoline to society is closer to $10/gallon, if not more. Granted, these costs are currently either hidden, added to the national debt, and or shared across all citizenry for the moment, but they are there, and honest debate should not ignore them.
I didn't check your calcs, but they sound about right for the RX. The numbers are quite different, however, for the Honda Civic and the Prius.
Moreover, you are ignoring the indirect costs of a gluttonous oil economy: Global warming, Health, Military, terrorism -- the real costs of gasoline to society is closer to $10/gallon, if not more. Granted, these costs are currently either hidden, added to the national debt, and or shared across all citizenry for the moment, but they are there, and honest debate should not ignore them.
#25
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
No more than environmental concerns are something the auto industry cares to concern itself with .. and yet we compare two cars with similar emissions ratings, before talking about MPG.
Even within the auto industry, large differences exist. Look at the environment position papers of Toyota. They are upfront in saying that good environmental stewardship is good business, and they make future plans factoring in increasing environmental costs to the value of the cars they make.
More and more people are realizing that foreign oil dependence is costing the US dearly in terms of security. Two cars that cost the same to the consumer, but one uses twice the gasoline, will not be viewed equally by increasing numbers of the population.
Frankly, this myopic view of car 'value' is part of the core problem at GM.
Even within the auto industry, large differences exist. Look at the environment position papers of Toyota. They are upfront in saying that good environmental stewardship is good business, and they make future plans factoring in increasing environmental costs to the value of the cars they make.
More and more people are realizing that foreign oil dependence is costing the US dearly in terms of security. Two cars that cost the same to the consumer, but one uses twice the gasoline, will not be viewed equally by increasing numbers of the population.
Frankly, this myopic view of car 'value' is part of the core problem at GM.
All valid issues, but not for the auto industry to solve. I also doubt that most consumers internalize these hidden costs when considering the economics of a vehicle purchase. I hope this doesn't come off as callous or dismissing. I'm just pointing out that the things you are talking about and factoring into the cost of gasoline are not central to the consiousness of the average consumer and the auto industry will not go to any effort to place them into stream of consciousness.
Peace,
Martin
Peace,
Martin
#26
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
Originally Posted by EricGo
...Even within the auto industry, large differences exist. Look at the environment position papers of Toyota. They are upfront in saying that good environmental stewardship is good business, and they make future plans factoring in increasing environmental costs to the value of the cars they make.
....
....
- Who's building new Full Size Truck plants in the US? (These plants will introduce more trucks/year into the US market than the number of Prius sold in the same timeframe)
- Who's converting some truck plants to car plants?
- Who is deploying a fleet of fuel cell vehicles in Tokyo and another in DC?
- Who builds more than 100,000 vehicles a year capable of running on fuel that is 85% ethanol?
- Whose plants have VOLUNTARILY reduced greenhouse emissions by 72% since 1990? Carbon Dioxide emissions by 22% over the same timeframe?
Peace,
Martin
#27
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
put that way, it seems as though GM could use a better PR machine? If Toyota and Honda could... the fact that you asked those questions, assuming we would need to look up the answers, proves that point. Talk it up! Do the apples-apples comparison in an ad campaign.
Even that won't do all that much until the most public face of GM is seen as 'green'...in the form of mass market vehicles. Killing EV1 and forcing the holders to return them, for instance was not exactly a positive step- even if it made 100% business sense. A step away from 'green' to the public, even those who only caught the sound bite on Headline News, if that.
As you alluded to earlier, the steps GM has taken to date are largely out of the public consciousness, and thus will not be internalized when the consumer goes to write that check for the car. The largest impact is always from what the consumer sees/gets. A new car.
Even that won't do all that much until the most public face of GM is seen as 'green'...in the form of mass market vehicles. Killing EV1 and forcing the holders to return them, for instance was not exactly a positive step- even if it made 100% business sense. A step away from 'green' to the public, even those who only caught the sound bite on Headline News, if that.
As you alluded to earlier, the steps GM has taken to date are largely out of the public consciousness, and thus will not be internalized when the consumer goes to write that check for the car. The largest impact is always from what the consumer sees/gets. A new car.
#28
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
Originally Posted by martinjlm
The differences are more in public perception and ability to influence regulatory agencies, not so much in actual deed.
- 1. Who's building new Full Size Truck plants in the US? (These plants will introduce more trucks/year into the US market than the number of Prius sold in the same timeframe)
- 2. Who's converting some truck plants to car plants?
- 3. Who is deploying a fleet of fuel cell vehicles in Tokyo and another in DC?
- 4. Who builds more than 100,000 vehicles a year capable of running on fuel that is 85% ethanol?
- 5. Whose plants have VOLUNTARILY reduced greenhouse emissions by 72% since 1990? Carbon Dioxide emissions by 22% over the same timeframe?
1., 2. Toyota has increased demand for it's trucks, while GM has decreased demand, which has lead to changes in car/truck production ratios. That has NOTHING to do with environmental sensitivity, and you know it.
3. Toyota has FCV on the road in CA, and prototypes since 2001 -- all without government hand-outs. The entire hydrogen car business is so much BS, I'm loath to even call it an environmental initiative.
4. OK. I'm not sure why that is a good thing over and above E10 as a substitute for MTBE, since Etoh is just as fishy a scheme as hydrogen, but one point to GM.
5. May be much more interesting, and relevant. Can you convert your statistic into per unit produced, and also report absolute amounts per unit ? Toyota reports a 27% reduction in CO2 production per unit from a baseline year 2000 of 9.4 mmBtu/unit, to 7.8 in FY 2004.
As long as we are comparing companies, lets also talk about landfill waste, VOC and other toxin production, fleet emissions, fleet CAFE, water use, Total greenhouse gas inventory, and implementation leading green manufacturing standards. I'll post information from Toyota in each of these areas in separate posts below later to facilitate discussion on each point.
#29
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
I only have two comments regarding this thread:
1) It isn't the auto industries job to care about their 'soft' environmental and political impact? Yet currently the majority of our population want less governmental regulation.. So who's job is it to add some sense of responsibility larger than each individual if it's not the entities that are making money off them?
2) I'm amazed that a 2-5 year return on investment is seen as inadequate especially considering that it'd be considered perfect for a private business and considering how much money the average family constantly just throws away without any regard to return on investment. It seems rediculously short-sighted. I've been considering supplimenting my home electricity with solar with an expected ROI of 25-30 years.
1) It isn't the auto industries job to care about their 'soft' environmental and political impact? Yet currently the majority of our population want less governmental regulation.. So who's job is it to add some sense of responsibility larger than each individual if it's not the entities that are making money off them?
2) I'm amazed that a 2-5 year return on investment is seen as inadequate especially considering that it'd be considered perfect for a private business and considering how much money the average family constantly just throws away without any regard to return on investment. It seems rediculously short-sighted. I've been considering supplimenting my home electricity with solar with an expected ROI of 25-30 years.
#30
Re: Spreading Hybrid Misinformation on the radio
Sirkut wrote:
THAT IS SO TRUE !!!
I've wondered the same thing so many times myself, without coming up with a reasonable answer, other than one:
In many cases of emerging technologies, commoditization and technological advance makes waiting financially advantageous. Each case has to considered separately ..
E.g., look at wind power. The price per KW has dropped rapidly over the past 10 years, and is now leveling off. Grid accesible, high wind regions are in limited supply, suggesting that ROI will level off, if it has not already, so peak investment opportunity is probably now.
2) I'm amazed that a 2-5 year return on investment is seen as inadequate especially considering that it'd be considered perfect for a private business and considering how much money the average family constantly just throws away without any regard to return on investment. It seems rediculously short-sighted. I've been considering supplimenting my home electricity with solar with an expected ROI of 25-30 years.
I've wondered the same thing so many times myself, without coming up with a reasonable answer, other than one:
In many cases of emerging technologies, commoditization and technological advance makes waiting financially advantageous. Each case has to considered separately ..
E.g., look at wind power. The price per KW has dropped rapidly over the past 10 years, and is now leveling off. Grid accesible, high wind regions are in limited supply, suggesting that ROI will level off, if it has not already, so peak investment opportunity is probably now.
Last edited by EricGo; 09-03-2005 at 12:26 PM.