> ... or ³off loading² manufacturing energy requirements to suppliers. In
> the latter case, for example, by requiring parts suppliers to perform
> sub-assemblies and ³modules² that go into the production of a vehicle, it
> removes that energy usage from the assembly plant to the supplier production
> line. In some cases, Toyota being one, it allows the manufacturer to claim a
> significant reduction in plant energy usage and an improvement in efficiency
> while, in reality, the energy costs have simply been moved from one site to
> another.

> Over the course of 2003, the White Board became crowded with every
> conceivable energy-required action necessary to conceive, produce, drive,
> and dispose of a vehicle. In all, nearly 4,000 data points were considered
> pertinent.

> ... a series of on-site analysis of manufacturing plants was clearly needed.
> This included, for example, the distances workers traveled to assembly
> plants; the use of mass transit and/or private vehicles; the types of
> vehicles driven; distances from home to plant.

> And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility
> vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency
> as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some
> of that disdain is misplaced.
>
> For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in
> 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only
> $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered
> hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.

> Government, on the other hand, is a different matter. To offer incentives to
> a select group of vehicles under the guise of energy efficiency is
> misdirected because government is purported to represent all consumers, or
> society in general. Without at least the consideration of overall energy
> cost it is doing a disservice. If governments include Dust-to-Dust energy
> data and still decide to offer tax or other incentives, at least it would be
> a better informed choice.

> The first buyer of that vehicle actually pays a small portion of the total
> energy cost. But his or her purchase supports many upstream and downstream
> companies ranging from the small plastic-fastener manufacturers to the
> dealership¹s janitorial service.

> Based on the average mileage and life expectancy, there is a wide range of
> years that certain models will be on the road before being scrapped. This
> ranges from a low of 10 years to as much as 20-plus years. As segments, the
> lowest number of years are Hybrid models as a group (12.1 years) while the
> highest segment is Premium SUVs such as the Range Rover and Hummer H2 (22.2
> years).

> Much of the focus of energy usage, dependence on fossil fuels and emissions
> revolves around discussions of fuel economy. And while this is not the
> largest component in the overall ³Dust to Dust² analysis, it deserves
> central mention simply because it is the most visible area to the public.

> ...the fuel economy within the family fleet of vehicles varies only
> slightly when a hybrid is added to the mix.
>
> ... we looked at more than 6,500 households that had a mix of vehicles used
> regularly and measured the average mileage for each of those vehicles, the
> real-world fuel economy (not EPA figures) for each vehicle and calculated
> the entire family fleets miles per gallon.

> Among the choices given to hybrid owners was ³Makes a statement about me.²
>
> Fully a third of owners give this as their first or second reason for making
> a hybrid acquisition.

> One last point about hybrids: The vast majority of owners received 60 to 70
> percent of the EPA fuel economy and dealers report a high incidence of
> customers coming back to find out ³what¹s wrong.²
>
> Clearly the EPA static drive cycle test is not realistic when evaluating
> hybrids. While that may change in the future, it clearly is the case
> currently.

> In terms of the overall repair/maintenance story, the industry as a whole
> sees figures ranging from 169 percent to 121.5 percent of the original
> Transaction Price.
>
> The Toyota Prius is highest followed by the Toyota Highlander. All other
> hybrids are above the industry average of 135.78 percent of TP except Lexus
> LX400h.
>
> In the last case, it is a testament to Toyota¹s research and development
> that has put the latest hybrid technology in a more easily repairable and
> logical package as well as designing the equipment and components in a way
> that allows the repair and maintenance industries to simplify the
> requirements (and thus the energy needed) to repair and maintain the overall
> vehicle.

> Also, since the current Prius will become ³obsolete² sooner the number of
> cross-year components will be limited. Example: About a third of all
> components in a 1985 Ford F Series pickup can be used on nearly a decade¹s
> worth of F Series trucks because of long-time consistent use of those
> components in manufacturing. It is highly unlikely the low-volume Prius will
> have such a history.

> Designing and developing new vehicles and/or updating old ones are among the
> most energy expensive parts of the new-vehicle production process. It
> requires years of intense engineering, design, parts development,
> evaluation, suitability, life-cycle vs. cost analysis, prototyping and
> vehicle integration. It is not unusual for a new vehicle to cost in excess
> of $1.5 billion just to move from concept to launch. And that doesn¹t
> guarantee success in a fickle consumer market.

> Another quick aside: One of the Detroit 3 had a team of engineers looking at
> how a whole vehicle and components could be recycled into future new
> vehicles.
>
> Components for the auto industry are designed to a 200,000 mile or 20 year
> lifespan. (This is a generalization, but one that works for this
> explanation.) The aircraft industry designs to a higher standard ­ about a
> million miles and/or 50 years.
>
> The auto company asked: ³What if we could develop major and minor components
> to this longer-lifetime standard? Could the parts be ³salvaged² and re-used
> in ³new² passenger cars?
>
> For example, if a window winder motor could be designed and built to a
> million-mile standard, what would the added cost be? The findings were
> dramatic. Quadrupling the life expectancy of a part costs about 20 percent
> more. If that part could be re-used through salvaging the window-winder
> motor and installing it in a new vehicle, a single re-use would cut the cost
> of that part by 30 percent (adjusting for refurbishing expenses, testing to
> assure a part is still good, etc.).
>
> Do that with a third of new-vehicle components and the manufacturing cost of
> the entire vehicle could be slashed as much as 20 percent.
>
> Standing in the way of implementing such a program is the higher cost of the
> original vehicle and the years it would take before longer-lifecycle
> components would be available for re-use.

> All of the environmental changes that passenger vehicles contend with would
> kill even the best in-home or office computer and consumers have zero
> tolerance for a vehicle failing day-use while they will put up with hours on
> the phone discussing a crashed computer with a technicians or support person.

> We also looked at the energy requirements for plant employees. For example,
> at one of the largest Japanese plants, virtually all workers use mass
> transit to reach their work place. The same manufacturer in the U.S.
> Southeast has workers who all drive personal vehicles to the plant,
> typically using cars and trucks with moderate to low fuel economy. The
> differences can be significant. The domestically built Honda Accord has an
> employee energy use of approximately $1.92 per day while the energy
> requirement to get a worker to the Japanese Accord plant is less than 18
> cents per day.
>
> This particular cost is not included in the retail price of the vehicles
> because the cost is borne by the worker from his or her paycheck. But the
> energy cost is a social one.

> Toyota currently has the most sophisticated methods of disposing of the
> nickel batteries found in Prius. But to do so today is likely to remain
> energy intense and unprofitable until the quantity of such batteries is high
> enough to encourage others to invest in the development of better recycling
> methods. CNW calculates that it costs $3 in energy to recycle a conventional
> lead acid battery and more than $93 for the Prius battery.

> Over the past 20 years, the actual percentage of parts that are not
> recyclable in modern vehicles has increased as vehicles last longer and such
> parts become less valuable to the aftermarket. At one point in time, when
> recycling to a secondary market for secondary material manufacture, these
> bits and pieces were simply stored and reused to keep a vehicle running long
> past the original life expectancy, covered in the next chapter.
>
> That is no longer the case. As cars become more sophisticated, the ability
> to recycle or even re-use parts increases in difficulty. This is a similar
> problem with modern computers and other electronic devices. Once simple to
> repair (or, at least, cost effective) today¹s computers, televisions, radios
> and other such devices are more likely to be ³trashed² rather than fixed.

> While we could expand on this for pages, the real conclusion is that there
> are many other factors involved than the simple ³fuel economy² cost that
> most consumers believe is the true measure of a vehicle¹s efficiency.
>
> For environmentalists and those concerned about CO2, for example, the adage
> that this emission knows no (national) borders is not only true but
> important to the discussion about pollution, global warming or related
> discussions. And that leads back to the ability of an automaker to produce
> simplified vehicles, the ability of the recycle/disposal industries to
> increasingly more efficient means of using those vehicles at the end of
> their lives.
>
> For government agencies, a serious consideration of the global impact has to
> be addressed when deciding on a local regulation regardless of the final
> decision.
>
> For automakers, it is important to consider all aspects of energy
> consumption and how this important social product impacts society in general.

> Question: Is the solution (to the energy issue) converting diesel to
> bio-diesel? Which of the cars on your list are diesel? Should we do what
> Europe is doing in the area of diesel?
>
> Answer: The simple answer is yes and no. Part of the EMISSIONS solution
> would be to convert to bio-diesel, but the added energy cost of producing
> the useable bio part is higher than the energy required to produce the
> equivalent amount of diesel. This goes for clean bio and/or reusing (for
> example) restaurant leavings. This may change as technology advances,
> however.
>
> One of the problems the European model has is that they are trying to buy
> clean bio because it is less expensive to produce than converting existing
> or cast-off bio.
>
> Proving, once again, that there are consequences to every action, suppliers
> of clean bio are, in part, in South America and to produce the crops
> necessary for fresh bio they need to cut down forests (some of which are
> rain and old growth) in order to clear the land and plant the necessary
> crops. As demand for clean bio to add to diesel increases, so does the
> "necessity" to clear forested areas.