Are Hybrids Worth It?

Hey Mr. Green,
 
I'm shopping for a used car and am seriously considering a used hybrid, such as a Civic or Prius. Friends have warned me that hybrid batteries wear out and are very expensive to replace. So what is the expected life of a used hybrid battery and what do new hybrid batteries cost? I emailed the same question to the Car Talk guys, but their auto-response said they get 500 emails a day, so they are unlikely to be able to respond.

-- Dale Wright in Tacoma, Washington

I’m honored to fill in for the worthy Car Talk guys, and relish another opportunity to refute those chronic hybrid-dissers who keep busy contriving anti-hybrid arguments. Even if you did have replace the battery, you’d still probably come out money ahead with the hybrid.

The expected battery life, according to Toyota, is at least 100,000 miles or 8 years for the first-generation Prius models. To back this up, the batteries of the first-generation Priuses are covered by warranty for this mileage and time period, and both companies report a very low failure rate even for batteries past their warranty period.

In some states (your neighboring Oregon and California, plus Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont, batteries of second-generation Priuses (2004 to 2008) are covered for 150,000 miles or 10 years. So if you buy a used hybrid, be sure you have the warranty because if the battery croaked before reaching these miles or age, you shouldn't have to pay to replace it. The Honda battery life expectancy and warranties are the same.

Toyota says that its recommended price for a a battery pack for a first-generation Prius is $2,299, while the price or the battery pack for the second-generation cars (2004 to 2008 models) is $2,588. That's the battery price itself; the individual dealer’s markup and charges for labor will of course add to this. So you’re looking at something around $3,000 to $3,500 if the hybrid has exceeded the warranty limits. Honda has similar prices for the Civic.

A lot of money, yes, but, if you drive the Prius sensibly, you should get around 45 miles per gallon. So, that means you get 20 mpg more than the all-too-typical 25. If you drive 10,000 miles per year, you'd save 188 gallons per year, or $564 at $3 per gallon. So in five or six years (or sooner, if gas prices go up drastically, as they occasionally do), your fuel savings would cover the cost of battery replacement.

Of course, I don't recommend that everybody rush out and buy a Prius. It depends on what you can afford and what the car costs. As I've said before, some folks might be better off buying a cheaper car with lower mpg, and investing the extra cash in other energy-saving measures, like insulation, solar panels, a new furnace, and so on.

Overpopulation: A Religious Problem?

Hey Mr. Green,

How come you are intimidated by the religion business? Why won’t you talk about the root of all our environmental problems: Overpopulation?

I see a list of environmental criminals in the latest issue of Sierra. But the most notorious environmental criminals, the Duggars, actually have their own TV show: 18 children and counting. The Duggars are thieves, stealing from the rest of us what little is left. We should launch a boycott of that show, write to the sponsors and tell them we won’t buy their product.

Sarah Palin isn't far behind, with five kids already and the next generation beginning at age 16—which will double the number of Palins living at one time. That means that we will have 500 percent more Palins on every creek and river, devouring and murdering every living thing in the name of sport . . . but thanking God for putting them there. Good thing she didn’t win.

–Cliff in San Rafael, California

That some people are actually inspired by the Duggars and their litter might qualify as America's biggest Unsolved Mystery. If you propose to initiate a boycott of their reproductive propaganda machine, I won't stand in your way. But aren't you being a bit rough on the Palin clan? Unless they brew up some in vitro octuplets, they simply can’t outbreed the Duggars.

As far as religion and population are concerned, as I've noted before, it's an oversimplification to single out religion as the cause of high birth rates. The demographics don't show a clear connection between religion and fertility. For example, relatively pious Poland has a fertility rate of 1.28 children per woman, while more secular France is at almost 2 per woman. And Iran, a strongly Muslim country, has a lower rate than France. But poverty-stricken Rwanda's rate is 5.25 per woman.

In general, poverty and lack of education are far more significant factors in high fertility rates than religion. So the real root of environmental problems is not population, but poverty and injustice. Remember, too, that people’s impact on the environment can be more serious than numbers would show. Even if a nation’s fertility rate is low, its toxic waste, sprawl, water and energy consumption, and sheer excess can create problems way out of proportion to the population numbers.

None of this lets religion off the hook. When any religious group attempts to obstruct family planning through legislation or lawsuits, it deserves to be challenged head on. But it's also important to avoid being oppositional because religion can be a strong ally for environmentalists, as you can see from the many ways in which spirituality is being integrated with environmental thought and action. For insight into this, check out the multi-faith National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Though these environmentalists aren't singing “Kumbaya” with the Duggars, they do represent a broad group of religions with a common goal of stewardship of Creation that is grounded in their faith.

A Black-or-White Question Yields Shades of Gray

Hey Mr. Green,

In a cold climate like Minnesota's, is it better to have a light or dark house exterior and roof? We spend more of the year heating than cooling, so that makes me think dark. On the other hand, we live in a city heat island, and I would think dark colors would just add to that.

--Cynthia in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Going with lighter colors is generally best for many regions, but darker colors might be the best choice for the great northern city of Minneapolis. So you’ve got Mr. Green in the (rather rare) position of lacking a definitive answer. This is because of a gazillion variables: the insulation quality, the type of heating and cooling systems, the size and shape of the building, the pitch of the roof, and so on. (Even the absence of shade trees or wind-busting evergreens might come into play.) Obviously, every building in this country needs a thorough energy audit.

But you can get an estimate for your dwelling by using calculators provided by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy here and here. Plug in the math -- and do disregard idiots at town-hall meetings and right-wing bloggers who’ll no doubt claim that these sites are a scheme from Obama’s emerging socialist tyranny to invade your privacy.

Regarding heat islands, if you were to move to a hotter place like Los Angeles, the case for lighter colors is easy to make. For example, one study showed that if L.A. installed reflective roofs, reflective asphalt, and 10 million more shade trees, it could knock 5 degrees off its summertime temperatures and slash the need for air-conditioning by 18 percent. That’s a whopping amount of energy, with the added bonus of reducing the lung-searing ozone caused by higher temperatures.

Homes aren’t the only places where huge savings could occur; commercial buildings could reduce their energy use by 13 to 16 percent by taking energy-saving measures, which would not only hugely cut greenhouse gases, but save $30 billion per year on energy costs by 2030.