"Hybrid" Cars

[August1991]

In the past budget, the Quebec government offered a tax rebate of $1000 to a buyer of a new hybrid car. Ontario now offers a rebate up to $2000, PEI offers to $3000 (PEI also gets equalization payments) and BC to $2000.

Policy makers across Canada have identified hybrid vehicles as a technology that has the potential to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. As a result, some provincial governments offer tax incentives for purchasing a hybrid.

Link

This is economic policy by press release, and irritates me to no end.

First, if the government is serious about greenhouse gas emissions, then it should tax carbon emissions, and lower other taxes such as income taxes to be revenue neutral. With these rebates for hybrids, people who walk, take the metro, ride a bicycle are in effect subsidizing buyers of new SUV hybrids. This is crazy.

Second, about 1% of car sales are hybrids so this will cost the provincial governments little in the way of lost tax revenues. The governments are doing this as a PR measure, with taxpayer money.

Third, governments should not play around with the tax system in this way. It invariably leads to more problems than it is worth.

Fourth, no one has yet convinced me that hybrids are better for the environment. What is going to happen in a few years when we have to start disposing of these cars and their large batteries?

Fifth, if these cars consume less gasoline, then that should be incentive enough to buy them.

-----

Governments have a critical role to play in protecting the environment but this is not the way to do it. This is just a subsidy to a few rich, urban drivers that, for some reason, is politically possible. IMV, if we are going to subsidize people with my tax dollars, I can think of many others more deserving than buyers of hybrid cars.

[na85]

Speaking as a car enthusiast, that the hybrid cars consume less gas is not a big incentive to buy them. Insurance companies have been gouging the public pocket for decades, car owners are accustomed to getting ripped off and paying a little over the top.

The reason people don't buy hybrid cars is because they're stigmatized as cheap, flimsy, underpowered, and they're all designed with hippies in mind. In most cases, this reputation is deserved. No self-respecting twentysomething is going to buy and drive around in a Toyota Echo-lookalike, because they're under-tired, under-powered, and ugly.

The day that Ferrari, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, BMW, VW, Volvo, GM, Ford, and the other major players in the auto industry all release competitive, high-powered, attractive hybrid cars is the day that they replace conventional cars. Until then, they're going the way of the iMac and making themselves a niche market.

[fryingpan]

Why not wait until gas prices go up to $50/litre? The way things are going now, it's only a matter of time before that happens.

[Canuck E Stan]

Here's an opportunity for governments to do something right.

They seem to have a lot of money to subsidize the auto industry(we are talking the Big Three here) that builds cars and trucks that are not fuel efficient.

Toyota it appears is doing it's part in fuel efficiency with their cars, and they too get bucks from the governments.

Why doesn't the governments make an offer to those companies that make Hybrid cars and give them an incentive to build these cars in Canada,instead of supporting a failing auto market.

We could use the hybrid car to replace the gas guzzles being built in Ontario that everyone is slowly not wanting to buy.

Or for that matter, give some support to any alternative fuel car manufacturer(bio-diesel,fuel cell,natural gas). The present cost of these hybrid cars is still high in comparison to gas fuel cars, and getting $2000 off the price still doesn't make it any better price-wise to stop driving a gas fuel car that's the same size.

Let's get the Hybrid business built in Canada before the demand for these cars becomes greater.

[fixer1]

I sorrybut the people who use public transit are already subsidized more then enough. Not only do my taxes go towards reducing the fares they pay. They also have special lanes and transit ways that I can never use as a car driver.

The rebates on hybrids does make a lot of sense to me and it would go a long way to helping reduce the emmissions. You would need many dozens of hybrid auto to emit just what one Transit bus emits in a day.

The batteries from these cars are fully recycleable, so they will not be a problem when their usefulness is gone. The whole idea behind the hybrids are that it will also lend itself to fuelcell technology at a reasonable cost when that system is in place. It would seem to me that you may have only looked at this from one side.

I personally will never use the public transit, as I do not do well in crowds and when push comes to shove I will definitely shove right back. So I make sure never to put myself into those type of situations. I only go to the city for its entertainment value. I like the country and I am not against the green idea. Hell I have 13,000 trees on my tree farm, and they probably produce more oxygen and consume more carbon dioxide then I ever will produce. If cities were to simply amke it a rule that every new home in the city has to have 4 trees growing on its lots, then they would do wonderes for the environment. The answer to the green idea is not and should not all be about reduced emmissions. The city needs more green areas where plant life can thrive and people can go and enjoy it. The trees on my property are all over 40 ft tall now and if I took the number of trees by the number of tons of carbon dioxide each tree takes out of the environment, then I should be given huge tax breaks, because I am making up for several thousand others who do nothing.

I am going to assume you live in the city. If you have a yard, have you planted any trees in that yard? If you live in a highrise with only a balcony, you can have flowers or shrubs growing and making a contribution to the environment. All to often we blame what we see ass easy targets, in this whole green issue, when really the problems can be seen in the mirros of most of those who complain about those others who drive their cars. I bet you that a very large portion of those people in their cars are from the suburbs. They probably have yards with grass and trees and lots of flowers around their homes. They take lots of time and effort to do this and it does go towards cleaning up the environment. Yes, they could take mass transit to work. But since they already have actually given to cleanign the air, why should they now punish themselves by not having the privacy and convenience of their auotmobiles.

If all the people who live in the city took the time, troble and the costs to plant trees, shrubs and flowers around their own homes and work places, I bet you that things would be a whole lot better for the air quality. But of course then we will have those that suffer allergies saying that we now have too much pollen, and it will go on and on.

[fryingpan]

I am going to assume you live in the city. If you have a yard, have you planted any trees in that yard? If you live in a highrise with only a balcony, you can have flowers or shrubs growing and making a contribution to the environment. All to often we blame what we see ass easy targets, in this whole green issue, when really the problems can be seen in the mirros of most of those who complain about those others who drive their cars. I bet you that a very large portion of those people in their cars are from the suburbs. They probably have yards with grass and trees and lots of flowers around their homes. They take lots of time and effort to do this and it does go towards cleaning up the environment. Yes, they could take mass transit to work. But since they already have actually given to cleanign the air, why should they now punish themselves by not having the privacy and convenience of their auotmobiles.

That's a pretty good idea. But what about during winter when it's too cold for plants/trees to grow? Maybe people should keep more indoor plants too.

If all the people who live in the city took the time, troble and the costs to plant trees, shrubs and flowers around their own homes and work places, I bet you that things would be a whole lot better for the air quality. But of course then we will have those that suffer allergies saying that we now have too much pollen, and it will go on and on.

I'm pretty sure they have medicine now for allergies, and from what I hear, it's pretty effective. The only way to ever get rid of pollen would be to kill every plant and tree on the planet, and I hardly think that's reasonable.

[Riverwind]

I sorrybut the people who use public transit are already subsidized more then enough. Not only do my taxes go towards reducing the fares they pay. They also have special lanes and transit ways that I can never use as a car driver.

Public transit benefits all commuters whether they use it or not because it reduces the total number of cars on the road.

The rebates on hybrids does make a lot of sense to me and it would go a long way to helping reduce the emmissions. You would need many dozens of hybrid auto to emit just what one Transit bus emits in a day.

One transit buses replaces hundred of cars so there is no comparison.

Hell I have 13,000 trees on my tree farm, and they probably produce more oxygen and consume more carbon dioxide then I ever will produce.

Depends on the type of tree and how fast they are growing. Old forests can actual produce more CO2 than they consume.

[August1991]

The batteries from these cars are fully recycleable, so they will not be a problem when their usefulness is gone. The whole idea behind the hybrids are that it will also lend itself to fuelcell technology at a reasonable cost when that system is in place. It would seem to me that you may have only looked at this from one side.

That's false. Hybrids use a Nickel-Metal-Hybrid (NiMH) battery which is not recyclable, using current technology:

To further add environmental insult to injury, a considerable cloud exists over just how recyclable NickelMetal Hydride batteries really are - some reports even suggest that those who buy green may be doing more environmental harm than good. Both Toyota and Honda were unable to tell CarPoint exactly how much of the battery could be recycled. Both have left the task of recycling in the hands of a third party recycler.

Internet site www.BatteryUniversity.com warns against the careless disposable of Ni-MH batteries, due to the toxicity of it main derivative, Nickel.

" The main derivative is nickel, which is considered semi-toxic. Nickel-metal-hydride also contains electrolyte that, in large amounts, is hazardous. If no disposal service is available in an area, individual nickel-metal-hydride batteries can be discarded with other household wastes. If ten or more batteries are accumulated, the user should consider disposing of these packs in a secure waste landfill."

Battery packs like that used by Toyota in the Prius, contain up to 28 groups of six Ni-MH battery cells. Correct disposal is therefore important.

Link

This Business Week article answers other questions, and is positive about hybrids.

-----

I'm all in favour of seeking new, practical technologies. But governments should be careful when they start giving out subsidies. Bureaucrats are notoriously bad at picking winners; that's why they are bureaucrats.

For every $1000 given to a hybrid buyer (often well-educated, upper middle class), that's $1000 less for day care. If the provinces have money to give out for these subsidies, then they are badly placed to complain about a fiscal imbalance.

[geoffrey]

I'm tired of my province sending money to others to have these ridiculous programs. If they need equalisation payments, they sure are showing it by squandering my money.

PEI can go drive their hybrid cars, on their own dime, not mine thanks.

[August1991]

Hell I have 13,000 trees on my tree farm, and they probably produce more oxygen and consume more carbon dioxide then I ever will produce. If cities were to simply amke it a rule that every new home in the city has to have 4 trees growing on its lots, then they would do wonderes for the environment.

I will echo River's comment above.

There is a misconception that trees absorb carbon dioxide. It is more accurate to say that trees are carbon dioxide banks, or reservoirs. When trees grow, they accept deposits. When they die, they make the payout. A mature forest could be neutral in carbon dioxide absorption. (Link.)

[cybercoma]

In the past budget, the Quebec government offered a tax rebate of $1000 to a buyer of a new hybrid car. Ontario now offers a rebate up to $2000, PEI offers to $3000 (PEI also gets equalization payments) and BC to $2000.

Policy makers across Canada have identified hybrid vehicles as a technology that has the potential to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. As a result, some provincial governments offer tax incentives for purchasing a hybrid.

Link

This is economic policy by press release, and irritates me to no end.

First, if the government is serious about greenhouse gas emissions, then it should tax carbon emissions, and lower other taxes such as income taxes to be revenue neutral. With these rebates for hybrids, people who walk, take the metro, ride a bicycle are in effect subsidizing buyers of new SUV hybrids. This is crazy.

Second, about 1% of car sales are hybrids so this will cost the provincial governments little in the way of lost tax revenues. The governments are doing this as a PR measure, with taxpayer money.

Third, governments should not play around with the tax system in this way. It invariably leads to more problems than it is worth.

Fourth, no one has yet convinced me that hybrids are better for the environment. What is going to happen in a few years when we have to start disposing of these cars and their large batteries?

Fifth, if these cars consume less gasoline, then that should be incentive enough to buy them.

-----

Governments have a critical role to play in protecting the environment but this is not the way to do it. This is just a subsidy to a few rich, urban drivers that, for some reason, is politically possible. IMV, if we are going to subsidize people with my tax dollars, I can think of many others more deserving than buyers of hybrid cars.

I don't think we should subsidize the purchase of these vehicles; however, I do think the government should look at assisting people in the repair costs of these vehicles. The batteries they use are insanely expensive and when they die (all batteries, rechargeable or not, eventually die after some time) the average person is probably going to have an awfully difficult time replacing them. To offset the cost of subsidizing the replacement of these batteries, the government should take back the batteries and resell them to centers that recycle the batteries.

[Hicksey]

The main problem with hybrids is that they do not save you anything over the time you own the car as they are not that-much-more fuel efficient. In fact, the cost of ownership is much more than a gas-powered car as it is now being found upkeep and repairs are much more costly on a hybrid than originally anticipated. The premium you pay to get one of these cars is a joke. To offset the premium on the purchase price and repairs, any tax rebate is going to have to be larger than the $1K-$3K currently being offered up because in reality shoppers make their choice with their wallet first--then the environment. Simply put--to make these cars catch on, they will have to appeal to peoples' wallets.

Hybrids are actually much more costly than people think. Try getting hit on either front corner on a hybrid. On a normal gasoline car you're looking about $5K-$7K to repair it. On a hybrid you have a $2500 electric motor and a $800 regenerative braking system to repair on top of the normal cost. This added cost of repair over conventional cars isn't lost on insurance companies. Their rates on collision and comprehensive coverage are noticeably higher on hybrids.

Meanwhile diesel powered cars these days burn cleaner than the minute gasoline powered engines on hybrids (and significantly cleaner than normal gasoline engines) and get the same if not better fuel mileage as a hybrid.

If you ask me, with ULSD hitting the market later this year and making diesels even cleaner than they are now, diesel technology is the way to go until they get the battery technology down to make full-on electric cars.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I sorrybut the people who use public transit are already subsidized more then enough. Not only do my taxes go towards reducing the fares they pay. They also have special lanes and transit ways that I can never use as a car driver.

For every bus used; it's less trafic for you to deal with. In Ottawa alone, over 340 000 passengers use public transportation on a weekday. Link to some cool stats. We have a great public transportation system over here IMO.

[Pateris]

The problem with hybrid car designs today is that they are NOT being built for fuel economy. The new Honda Accord hybrid and Lexus SUV hybrid are using the technology to provide more performance without reducing fuel economy.

Transit buses that would be diesel-electric - where the diesel runs at constant load - would be the ideal fuel saving method.

Also look at the fuel economy data for various makes of cars. The best fuel economy isn't a hybrid at all, it's a Volkswagen Jetta DIESEL.

We should most definitely NOT be subsidizing hybrid cars - if the carmakers built a hybrid that was truly more fuel efficient (say 50% better than the Jetta diesel), then people might buy them to save money.

[na85]

Diesel, however, has higher sulphur ratings than conventional gasoline, especially North American Diesel. The new Ultra-low-sulphur Diesel complies to new EPA standards of 15 parts per million, however this does not come into play until september of this year. Furthermore, this will not do anything about the hordes of diesel vehicles in other countries that do not comply with EPA. Fuel economy is not the trump suit here, overall harmful emissions is.

[Hicksey]

Diesel, however, has higher sulphur ratings than conventional gasoline, especially North American Diesel. The new Ultra-low-sulphur Diesel complies to new EPA standards of 15 parts per million, however this does not come into play until september of this year. Furthermore, this will not do anything about the hordes of diesel vehicles in other countries that do not comply with EPA. Fuel economy is not the trump suit here, overall harmful emissions is.

That's just it. If you want people to do what's right for the environment you're going to have to make in within their best interests financially. In reality people make decisions based on their financial postion first then the environment. We don't all have endless financial resources so to appeal to the most people and encourage them to do what's right it has to make sense financially. I'd love to forgo my 14 year old minivan for a new more environmentally friendly vehicle that gets better fuel mileage but I cannot afford it. I'm not going to buy a vehicle I cannot afford just to help the enviroment and I doubt many other would either.

This begs to question though, why are all the things that are the best things for us and our environment are the most expensive?

Can you believe that with the new emissions requirements and ULSD that engine requirements that engine manufacturers wanted 0 PPM? It was the oil industry that said it could not supply it because of contamination in their pipelines. But, with the new regulations my 18 wheeler will produce less pollution per hour of my engine running than your car. With the 2007 regulations particulate matter and nitrous oxides are down over 95% from just 5 years ago and we're coming up to newer even more stringent regulations in 2010. With or without hybrid cars, your cars will be a bigger environmental foes than our class 8 trucks--let alone a Jetta. Diesel techonogy IS the way to go. More efficient and emissions less harmful to the environment.

[Wilber]

Diesels have a long way to go when it comes to potential. It's only now that the kind of R&D is starting to go into diesels that has gone into gas engines for passenger vehicles. In additon to being more fuel efficient, they produce about 20% less CO2 than a comparable gas engine. Particulates are their biggest problem at the moment and that is largely because of the quality of fuel. Diesels are far more user friendly than they used to be. Turbocharging has given them the power and common rail injection systems have made them quiet enough that they compare very well to gas engines.

Most manufacturers have diesel versions of vehicles you can only buy with gas engines here. 60% of Chrysler products sold in Europe are diesels. You can buy diesel Cherokees, Liberties, Caravan Mini Vans and PT Cruisers just about anywhere but North America. The Liberty just became available with a diesel here. We are just getting started.

[August1991]

In its latest budget, Quebec raises the refund to $2000:

Quebec will reward the purchase of eligible hybrid cars with a $2,000 provincial sales tax refund.

CBC

In some improved, future world, governments will not be able to pass such measures or will not have the incentive to do it.

This subsidize-hybrid policy is just plain wrong.

[geoffrey]

What of gasoline cars that have better economy? Do they get the discount?

[blueblood]

A gas is way more easier to use than a diesel. Diesel trucks are high maintenance and they are very finicky. They are no good in cold weather as they HAVE to be plugged in all the time. Parts are more expensive. Fuel filters, fuel pumps, glow plugs often have to be changed/replaced. Mind you if you are the person who doesn't own a vehicle past 50,000 km you don't have a problem. Plus if some jackass at the fuel station accidently puts gas in a diesel (this does happen) and you start it up, your vehicle is done. That being said I love my 3/4 ton diesel and like that it's easy on fuel plus can pull a lot.

I'm getting excited about bio-diesel. With current Canadian demand of the stuff we figure we'd need to put down 4-5 million acres at least which is around half the canola crop. Over a period of time it should help things out a little bit environmentally, emphasis on a little bit. Plus it helps out the economy.

To the guy who said that planting trees in all the backyards in the cities, I'm sorry but that's unfeasible. Trees die over time and for the trees your wanting in that small of a space is a death trap. 20+ foot trees in a small space is asking for trouble. To dispose of them in a city is something i can't put my mind around. I can't see manoeuvering a skitter to drag trees to a pile in the suburbs, or being able to fall the damn things safely.

I'd say a good way to reduce CO2 would be to install Geothermal furnaces in Canadian homes. They are easy on power, affordable (tacked onto power bill), and saves a lot of heating oil/natural gas. I did it and it cut down on heating costs substancially. Man. hydro has a pretty good setup for this sort of thing.

[Wilber]

I think more diesels are definately in the future. My 04 Jetta goes 16,000 Km between services and people don't know they are riding in a diesel car untill you tell them. I've kept mileage records since new and have maintained just over 50 miles per imperial gallon. The diesel pickups built since Jan 01 are not only cleaner but more powerfull than the engines they replaced. The new Bluetec Mercedes E320 diesel meets the latest emission standards, is rated at 31 mpg city 48 mpg highway and is faster 0 to 100Km than a E350 gas. Not bad for a fairly large luxury sedan. Diesels are just getting started.

[blueblood]

I'm surprised they haven't done diesel hybrids yet, think of the milage on those things. What about having cars that you can plug in. I'd think a city boy wouldn't mind something like that just to run to and from work. It would be plugged in almost all the time so you wouldn't have to worry about fuel and emissions. I'd say most vehicle emissions come from to and from work.

[Wilber]

I was looking at a copy of Lemon Aid. Edmonston figures if you buy a 2002 Civic instead of a new Prius the difference in cost vs resale will give you $21,000 to pay for gas over three years. Probably a little high but you get the idea.

[geoffrey]

What about having cars that you can plug in. I'd think a city boy wouldn't mind something like that just to run to and from work. It would be plugged in almost all the time so you wouldn't have to worry about fuel and emissions. I'd say most vehicle emissions come from to and from work.

Silly mistake by the Greenies.

I once saw a commerical, unsure who it was made by, some awareness thing... that showed some lady plugging in all these devices and the power plant outside her window polluting more and more.

When you plug your car in, your getting coal power in most of Canada. Burning coal in our cars essientially is a terrible route to go down.

No where in Canada has the transmission or generation capacity to even come close to powering everyone's ride to work anyways.

I was looking at a copy of Lemon Aid. Edmonston figures if you buy a 2002 Civic instead of a new Prius the difference in cost vs resale will give you $21,000 to pay for gas over three years. Probably a little high but you get the idea.

The difference in emissions is negligable too. Small cars are not much less fuel efficent, check out the ratings if you don't believe me. 5% isn't a big difference, not for $21,000... I can plant hundreds times more trees then I'd need to offset for that price.

[gc1765]

First, if the government is serious about greenhouse gas emissions, then it should tax carbon emissions, and lower other taxes such as income taxes to be revenue neutral. With these rebates for hybrids, people who walk, take the metro, ride a bicycle are in effect subsidizing buyers of new SUV hybrids. This is crazy.

Exactly. I agree.