OT: What San Diego wants from the stimulus package

[afx114]

@AN: That makes sense. But shouldn’t we also be taking the economies of scale into account here? What private company would even come close to an order the size of the federal government’s? Could $300 million be enough to kick-start the fall of prices for hybrids? Or is $300 mil not enough? What if the order was for the originally proposed $600 mil? Would that drive down prices for the rest of us?

I am not an economist, just trying to figure all of this out while sipping tea in my armchair.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]afx114, I can’t speak for flu, but modernizing the fleet is NOT the same as replacing the fleet with hybrid vehicles. The cost different between hybrid vehicles vs comparable I4 models are huge and would take at least 5 years with $4/gal gas to break even when driven at an average of 15k miles a years. If the miles are mostly highway, then it would take much much longer to recoup the difference since the highway mileage is negligible between I4 models and hybrid models. Also, we haven’t even consider the extra cost of maintenance and how long those batteries last before it need to be replaced.[/quote]

That was my point.
There is a big difference between buying more fuel efficient cars versus paying the premium for hybrids.

Hybrids are not the soln to foreign dependency on oil. And frankly, recouping the cost from hybrid will take quite some time, especially these days. Plus no one is factoring the cost of replacing batteries in a hybrid systems, which can run north of $3-4k a car.

I see plenty of public vehicles running on alternative fuels like CNG. It would have been different if dollars were paid to explore those options. I don’t see the justification for spending taxpayers dollars on hybrids when as AN suggests a simple I4 banger will suffice to reduce fuel consumption and/or use things like CNG powered cars.

Also, arguably another reason why car manufacturers make hybrids could be to get around CAFE regulations for fuel efficiency on the other cars that the manufacturer produces. Toyota is the biggest benefit with Prius…Because CAFE rules are based on average fuel efficiency for the entire manufacturer.. With a Prius offering, toyota is able to sell cars that are not-so-fuel efficient without being penalized, like all there V-8 and high powered V-6 thirsty engines that american consumers have demanded (at least before these economic downturn). Hence, to some extent, buying a Prius didn’t necessarily make the world greener, because for every Prius one person buys, there’s someone else for instance that was buying a high powered Lexus V-8 for which Toyota didn’t need to pay a penalty for making. I don’t have the production numbers, but my guess would be toyota produced far more thirsty V-6 and V-8 that consumers bought than the number of prius’ they made….. Some auto manufacturers chose to pay the penalty, BMW for instance in 2006.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]afx114, I can’t speak for flu, but modernizing the fleet is NOT the same as replacing the fleet with hybrid vehicles. The cost different between hybrid vehicles vs comparable I4 models are huge and would take at least 5 years with $4/gal gas to break even when driven at an average of 15k miles a years. If the miles are mostly highway, then it would take much much longer to recoup the difference since the highway mileage is negligible between I4 models and hybrid models. Also, we haven’t even consider the extra cost of maintenance and how long those batteries last before it need to be replaced.[/quote]

That was my point.
There is a big difference between buying more fuel efficient cars versus paying the premium for hybrids.

Hybrids are not the soln to foreign dependency on oil. And frankly, recouping the cost from hybrid will take quite some time, especially these days. Plus no one is factoring the cost of replacing batteries in a hybrid systems, which can run north of $3-4k a car.

I see plenty of public vehicles running on alternative fuels like CNG. It would have been different if dollars were paid to explore those options. I don’t see the justification for spending taxpayers dollars on hybrids when as AN suggests a simple I4 banger will suffice to reduce fuel consumption and/or use things like CNG powered cars.

Also, arguably another reason why car manufacturers make hybrids could be to get around CAFE regulations for fuel efficiency on the other cars that the manufacturer produces. Toyota is the biggest benefit with Prius…Because CAFE rules are based on average fuel efficiency for the entire manufacturer.. With a Prius offering, toyota is able to sell cars that are not-so-fuel efficient without being penalized, like all there V-8 and high powered V-6 thirsty engines that american consumers have demanded (at least before these economic downturn). Hence, to some extent, buying a Prius didn’t necessarily make the world greener, because for every Prius one person buys, there’s someone else for instance that was buying a high powered Lexus V-8 for which Toyota didn’t need to pay a penalty for making. I don’t have the production numbers, but my guess would be toyota produced far more thirsty V-6 and V-8 that consumers bought than the number of prius’ they made….. Some auto manufacturers chose to pay the penalty, BMW for instance in 2006.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]afx114, I can’t speak for flu, but modernizing the fleet is NOT the same as replacing the fleet with hybrid vehicles. The cost different between hybrid vehicles vs comparable I4 models are huge and would take at least 5 years with $4/gal gas to break even when driven at an average of 15k miles a years. If the miles are mostly highway, then it would take much much longer to recoup the difference since the highway mileage is negligible between I4 models and hybrid models. Also, we haven’t even consider the extra cost of maintenance and how long those batteries last before it need to be replaced.[/quote]

That was my point.
There is a big difference between buying more fuel efficient cars versus paying the premium for hybrids.

Hybrids are not the soln to foreign dependency on oil. And frankly, recouping the cost from hybrid will take quite some time, especially these days. Plus no one is factoring the cost of replacing batteries in a hybrid systems, which can run north of $3-4k a car.

I see plenty of public vehicles running on alternative fuels like CNG. It would have been different if dollars were paid to explore those options. I don’t see the justification for spending taxpayers dollars on hybrids when as AN suggests a simple I4 banger will suffice to reduce fuel consumption and/or use things like CNG powered cars.

Also, arguably another reason why car manufacturers make hybrids could be to get around CAFE regulations for fuel efficiency on the other cars that the manufacturer produces. Toyota is the biggest benefit with Prius…Because CAFE rules are based on average fuel efficiency for the entire manufacturer.. With a Prius offering, toyota is able to sell cars that are not-so-fuel efficient without being penalized, like all there V-8 and high powered V-6 thirsty engines that american consumers have demanded (at least before these economic downturn). Hence, to some extent, buying a Prius didn’t necessarily make the world greener, because for every Prius one person buys, there’s someone else for instance that was buying a high powered Lexus V-8 for which Toyota didn’t need to pay a penalty for making. I don’t have the production numbers, but my guess would be toyota produced far more thirsty V-6 and V-8 that consumers bought than the number of prius’ they made….. Some auto manufacturers chose to pay the penalty, BMW for instance in 2006.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]afx114, I can’t speak for flu, but modernizing the fleet is NOT the same as replacing the fleet with hybrid vehicles. The cost different between hybrid vehicles vs comparable I4 models are huge and would take at least 5 years with $4/gal gas to break even when driven at an average of 15k miles a years. If the miles are mostly highway, then it would take much much longer to recoup the difference since the highway mileage is negligible between I4 models and hybrid models. Also, we haven’t even consider the extra cost of maintenance and how long those batteries last before it need to be replaced.[/quote]

That was my point.
There is a big difference between buying more fuel efficient cars versus paying the premium for hybrids.

Hybrids are not the soln to foreign dependency on oil. And frankly, recouping the cost from hybrid will take quite some time, especially these days. Plus no one is factoring the cost of replacing batteries in a hybrid systems, which can run north of $3-4k a car.

I see plenty of public vehicles running on alternative fuels like CNG. It would have been different if dollars were paid to explore those options. I don’t see the justification for spending taxpayers dollars on hybrids when as AN suggests a simple I4 banger will suffice to reduce fuel consumption and/or use things like CNG powered cars.

Also, arguably another reason why car manufacturers make hybrids could be to get around CAFE regulations for fuel efficiency on the other cars that the manufacturer produces. Toyota is the biggest benefit with Prius…Because CAFE rules are based on average fuel efficiency for the entire manufacturer.. With a Prius offering, toyota is able to sell cars that are not-so-fuel efficient without being penalized, like all there V-8 and high powered V-6 thirsty engines that american consumers have demanded (at least before these economic downturn). Hence, to some extent, buying a Prius didn’t necessarily make the world greener, because for every Prius one person buys, there’s someone else for instance that was buying a high powered Lexus V-8 for which Toyota didn’t need to pay a penalty for making. I don’t have the production numbers, but my guess would be toyota produced far more thirsty V-6 and V-8 that consumers bought than the number of prius’ they made….. Some auto manufacturers chose to pay the penalty, BMW for instance in 2006.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]afx114, I can’t speak for flu, but modernizing the fleet is NOT the same as replacing the fleet with hybrid vehicles. The cost different between hybrid vehicles vs comparable I4 models are huge and would take at least 5 years with $4/gal gas to break even when driven at an average of 15k miles a years. If the miles are mostly highway, then it would take much much longer to recoup the difference since the highway mileage is negligible between I4 models and hybrid models. Also, we haven’t even consider the extra cost of maintenance and how long those batteries last before it need to be replaced.[/quote]

That was my point.
There is a big difference between buying more fuel efficient cars versus paying the premium for hybrids.

Hybrids are not the soln to foreign dependency on oil. And frankly, recouping the cost from hybrid will take quite some time, especially these days. Plus no one is factoring the cost of replacing batteries in a hybrid systems, which can run north of $3-4k a car.

I see plenty of public vehicles running on alternative fuels like CNG. It would have been different if dollars were paid to explore those options. I don’t see the justification for spending taxpayers dollars on hybrids when as AN suggests a simple I4 banger will suffice to reduce fuel consumption and/or use things like CNG powered cars.

Also, arguably another reason why car manufacturers make hybrids could be to get around CAFE regulations for fuel efficiency on the other cars that the manufacturer produces. Toyota is the biggest benefit with Prius…Because CAFE rules are based on average fuel efficiency for the entire manufacturer.. With a Prius offering, toyota is able to sell cars that are not-so-fuel efficient without being penalized, like all there V-8 and high powered V-6 thirsty engines that american consumers have demanded (at least before these economic downturn). Hence, to some extent, buying a Prius didn’t necessarily make the world greener, because for every Prius one person buys, there’s someone else for instance that was buying a high powered Lexus V-8 for which Toyota didn’t need to pay a penalty for making. I don’t have the production numbers, but my guess would be toyota produced far more thirsty V-6 and V-8 that consumers bought than the number of prius’ they made….. Some auto manufacturers chose to pay the penalty, BMW for instance in 2006.

[LuckyInOC]

Let’s see…

$300M / $20k/vehicle = 15,000 vehicles

won’t even leave a dent…

It’s not even including the procurement cost.

Federal Leadership by Example

FEMP’s Transportation group aims to reduce the Federal Government’s petroleum consumption through increased AFV use and to lead the country in renewable energy and oil consumption use. The Federal vehicle fleet consists of 650,000 vehicles; approximately 20% (121,778) are AFVs.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fleet_requirements.html

Hybrid Vehicle Sales 2007 = 350,000
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw514.html

[LuckyInOC]

Let’s see…

$300M / $20k/vehicle = 15,000 vehicles

won’t even leave a dent…

It’s not even including the procurement cost.

Federal Leadership by Example

FEMP’s Transportation group aims to reduce the Federal Government’s petroleum consumption through increased AFV use and to lead the country in renewable energy and oil consumption use. The Federal vehicle fleet consists of 650,000 vehicles; approximately 20% (121,778) are AFVs.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fleet_requirements.html

Hybrid Vehicle Sales 2007 = 350,000
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw514.html

[LuckyInOC]

Let’s see…

$300M / $20k/vehicle = 15,000 vehicles

won’t even leave a dent…

It’s not even including the procurement cost.

Federal Leadership by Example

FEMP’s Transportation group aims to reduce the Federal Government’s petroleum consumption through increased AFV use and to lead the country in renewable energy and oil consumption use. The Federal vehicle fleet consists of 650,000 vehicles; approximately 20% (121,778) are AFVs.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fleet_requirements.html

Hybrid Vehicle Sales 2007 = 350,000
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw514.html

[LuckyInOC]

Let’s see…

$300M / $20k/vehicle = 15,000 vehicles

won’t even leave a dent…

It’s not even including the procurement cost.

Federal Leadership by Example

FEMP’s Transportation group aims to reduce the Federal Government’s petroleum consumption through increased AFV use and to lead the country in renewable energy and oil consumption use. The Federal vehicle fleet consists of 650,000 vehicles; approximately 20% (121,778) are AFVs.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fleet_requirements.html

Hybrid Vehicle Sales 2007 = 350,000
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw514.html

[LuckyInOC]

Let’s see…

$300M / $20k/vehicle = 15,000 vehicles

won’t even leave a dent…

It’s not even including the procurement cost.

Federal Leadership by Example

FEMP’s Transportation group aims to reduce the Federal Government’s petroleum consumption through increased AFV use and to lead the country in renewable energy and oil consumption use. The Federal vehicle fleet consists of 650,000 vehicles; approximately 20% (121,778) are AFVs.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fleet_requirements.html

Hybrid Vehicle Sales 2007 = 350,000
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw514.html

[afx114]

[quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]

Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.

Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?

[afx114]

[quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]

Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.

Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?

[afx114]

[quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]

Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.

Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?

[afx114]

[quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]

Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.

Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?

[Author]

Posts