Dust to Dust Report
In February, 2001 CNW Research staff in one of its regular brainstorming sessions hit on the notion of looking at total energy needed in the auto industry on a worldwide basis. That is, what was the real energy cost - from Dust to Dust - of producing vehicles for consumer use?
Obviously this was of great interest to us here at Addison Lee. Over time and after on and off again discussions, as well as extensive Internet searches of available studies on this issue, it was discovered that many had tried, none had succeeded in measuring TOTAL energy consumption for the auto industry.
In many cases the jargon was overly technical and aimed at scientists and engineers. In other cases, the analysis was incomplete not taking into account the energy cost of simply conceiving of a new automotive idea or "off loading" manufacturing energy requirements to suppliers. In the latter case, for example, by requiring parts suppliers to perform sub-assemblies and "modules" 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.
By the end of 2001 and into 2002, it was clear that there was a need for such research that could be explained to the public in a way that would add to the general population's knowledge about the energy cost of the vehicles they drive.
The problem remained, however, how to do it in such a way that avoided the jargon.
By the end of 2002, CNW decided to at least attempt to put numbers to the question based on whatever public and private records could be gathered. We took the "white board" approach. That is, we began listing the pieces of the energy puzzle that needed to be uncovered and/or collected and/or uniquely researched that would be necessary for a solid analysis.
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.
In December 2003 it was decided to go ahead with the research and begin the collection process of what was available through the Society of Automotive Engineers papers, manufacturer and supplier public records, previous research and other data sources.
By late 2004 it was clear that more than half of the data could be publicly obtained with little additional research on CNW's part, but the remaining half needed a commitment of time and funds. In addition, it was clear that most of the historical information needed to be updated, in some cases significantly, to be of use.
With extensive journalistic experience as a reporter and editor for such publications as Ward's Automotive Reports, Ward's Engine Update (nee Ward's Wankel Report), Ward's Auto World, Automotive Age and other automotive trade publications, compiling lists of possible sources and historical data as well as current information on plants and vehicles produced at each was easily obtained.
By mid-2005, many of the gaps were being filled and 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. This had to be done on site and with phone and mail surveys in native languages and with sufficient responses to be useful.
One key ingredient: Not to let automakers, suppliers or any other outside organization know the research was underway. Nor accepting outside assistance in the funding of the project. The goal was to avoid, regardless of the end result, being labeled a "supporter of ..." those who produce hybrid vehicles or the auto industry or the oil industry or the LPG industry or any other group, organization or partisan cause. In some cases, this meant hiding energy-related questions behind or within other inquiries.
While it may be considered a misrepresentation, the approach worked. We were able to gain insights and data that otherwise would have been blocked for this research. For those who provided the data through this method - we apologize and will not release either the names of the individuals or the companies from which this information was obtained.
The second half of 2005 required extensive time to begin formulating the information into a "by model" matrix and data base. While much had already been done, it was clear that there was much to go. And the decision had yet been made about the method of reporting the findings that could be used by average consumers rather than just technicians, engineers and scientists.
Clearly the information needed to be put into the most common and understandable rating. "Cents per mile" was the most logical choice. Technically it would be less stable because energy costs change in short bursts but energy requirements don't. So it would require a number of assumptions and projections to be built into the data sets.
The following data will provide those assumptions, but generally we took a worse case scenario of $80 per barrel of oil and gasoline prices of $3.00 (sustained) per gallon as general conditions for the most volatile of the energy sources.
Then we translated all of the non-U.S. data and prices to U.S. dollars (2005).
For future or projected costs, we elected to use 2005 Dollars as well as assuming those interested in the data as well as CNW could adjust for inflation or deflation, as needed.
By November 2005 all of the data points were filled and the next three months were spent adjusting and updating those pieces of information that had changed including the models of vehicles sold, changes in content, etc.
This was done for all 311 vehicle models measured some 2005 models, some as early as 2002 models which were our initial test vehicles to see how the data base would be able to handle year-to-year changes and a few new models.
The first announcement of the findings provided a brief overview of the study and the list of vehicles with their "cents per mile" figure. Let's look at the original information release:
Hybrids Consume More Energy in Lifetime than Chevrolet's Tahoe SUV
BANDON, OR -- As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions.
But many of those choices aren't actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck.
CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrap. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.
To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.
The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents.
While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.
For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.
One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.
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.
"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.
"We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer's selection of transportation," says Spinella. "A basing purchase decision solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue."
The goal of overall worldwide energy conservation and the cost to society in general - not just the auto buyer - can often be better addressed by being aware of a car or truck's "dust to dust" energy requirements, he said.
This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. "We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world."
The second release added some break downs in the overall research.
Energy Efficiency is more than Just Fuel Economy
Looking for an energy efficient vehicle? Scion xB leads the list, significantly better than even the best hybrids.
That's the conclusion of long-term study of "dust to dust" energy costs for cars and trucks. The research tracked and calculated the energy cost of each model sold in the U.S. in 2005 from initial concept to the projected time it is scrapped.
The Top 2 most energy efficient vehicles over their lifetime:
- Scion xB ($0.48 per mile)
- Ford Escort (0.57 per mile)
Hybrid energy efficiency over their lifetime:
- Honda Insight ($2.94 per mile)
- Ford Escape Hybrid ($3.18 per mile)
- Honda Civic Hybrid ($3.24 per mile)
- Toyota Prius ($3.25 per mile)
- Honda Accord Hybrid ($3.30 per mile)
The study measures all energy needed for vehicles sold in the U.S. in cy2005. The data applies to new and used vehicles even though most calculations were made on cy05 models.
Data includes supplier as well as brand manufacturer energy consumption for the listed vehicles; transportation at all levels of distribution; use of materials (plastics, steel, light-weight steel, aluminum, etc.) and literally hundreds of other factors.
While historical data is spotty, CNW analysis shows the industry as a whole has improved manufacturing energy efficiency significantly in the production portion of the calculation - between 15 and 20 percent - since 1995. This, however, is only a small part of the total Energy Cost per Mile calculation.
The full list of vehicles will be dissected later in this report, but needless to say the first two releases were received with some extreme reactions, both positive and negative. We've provided samples of those emails and letters in the Q&A Section of this report.
Some of the Q&A entries include references to other studies.
We've also added a number of reports, press stories and other related information in the Appendices Section.
While initially we intended to charge a fee for the initial data and report, the intense consumer interest altered those plans. We now intend to release the information at no charge to the public with CNW subscribers receiving a two-week advance on any and all data that comes from this research.
"Addison Lee were the first in the UK to get and study the report, we have found it vital for making the important choices with our fleet in regard to the environment and the sustainability of our business"
Liam Griffin Managing Director Addison Lee.
