Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

The Hazy Future of Hybrid Cars

By Robin Kraft, AlterNet. Posted September 27, 2005.


The auto industry is at a crossroads in the increasing popularity of hybrids: Is it time to keep increasing fuel effiency or sacrifice gas for more power?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Environmental activists face a difficult question today: How do you react when car companies that have been ignoring you for years finally start doing something you want?

After recovering from shock, those agitating for cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars will probably keep up what they've been doing: Out of more than 17 million cars sold every year, only about 311,000 hybrids have been sold since they were introduced eight years ago.

But hybrids are gaining traction, picking up "mindshare" where they've yet to gain much market share in the industry -- between skyrocketing demand by car buyers and increased production from auto makers, hybrids are quickly becoming the future of the automobile. Nonetheless, while hybrid production increases are a step in the right direction, the big question is whether automakers will use the efficiency gains to save gas, or to add performance. Although the answer seems obvious -- the vast majority of hybrid owners bought the vehicles to conserve gas -- the next few years may see a big shift in how hybrids function.

Signs of the Shift

The initial signs are positive. Hybrid holdout GM is waking up, recently adding BMW to its month-old "catch up with Toyota and Honda" hybrid development alliance. Then last week Ford announced plans to make half its models more fuel efficient within 5 years and ramping up hybrid production (while one of its executives criticized Toyota for supposedly being "predatory" and for hoarding certain key hybrid components).

Laughing in the face of this new competition, hybrid heavyweight Toyota responded by doubling 2006 hybrid sales targets and planning eventually to roll out hybrid engines across all models.

Automakers haven't suddenly become altruistic about preserving the environment, as nice as that would be. Between spiking gas prices and maturing hybrid technology, it has become good business to make efficient cars. According to hybridcars.com editor Bradley Berman, we're on the precipiece of a tipping point about why people are interested in hybrids.

In a phone interview, he said that "the shift is from purchasing a hybrid based on ideology, whether it's foreign oil dependency, global warming or because you're a technology innovator. Nothing is having as big an impact as $3-a-gallon gasoline." Nevertheless, he added, "we're in a time of great change, and nobody knows [what's going to happen] until they put hybrids out into the marketplace."

You can see this uncertainty in the schizophrenic design decisions being made throughout the hybrid market. Covering all its bases, Honda has the ultra-efficient Insight, the "50/50" (city/highway mileage) Civic hybrid, and the new Accord hybrid, which has sacrificed increased fuel efficiency for the sake of more power.

Again, Toyota stands out. The company's CEO eventually wants to sell 1 million hybrids globally a year by early next decade, but how Toyota does this will be important. Following up on the unexpected success of the gas-sipping Prius, Lexus recently released the RX 400h luxury SUV hybrid, touting it online as possessing "exceptional power -- not just for a hybrid vehicle, but for an SUV as well." Lexus is not marketing its fuel efficiency, even though the estimated 31 mpg in the city is a big improvement over the estimated 17 mpg of its gas-only twin, the RX 330. The downside is that on the highway it barely bests the 330 by a meager 1-2 mpg.

Representing Toyota at the Sierra Club's 2005 Sierra Summit in early September, Dave Hermance, executive engineer for advanced fuel vehicles at the Toyota Technical Center, recognized that they could have put more emphasis on fuel efficiency, but said that for marketing reasons they chose power.

When you design a hybrid, he explained, "in the overall scheme of things you can reduce [the gas] engine size, you can improve the engine efficiency, or you can leave everything alone [like for the Lexus], and those each have three different impacts on performance and fuel economy. It's kind of like, what do you want for the image of the vehicle? They're basic engineering tradeoffs."

Changing the Conventional Wisdom

Conventional wisdom in the auto industry says that Americans don't care about fuel efficiency, and that a hybrid must meet or beat the performance of existing vehicles. But with increased gas prices, hurricane damage to American refining capacity, and instability in the Middle East, consumers seem to be increasingly willing to make some sacrifices.

Berman, for one, is convinced that automakers are just being slow to react to new market conditions. "The emphasis on power over fuel economy," he said, "is a momentary phase in the evolution of hybrids in the marketplace. It is a vestige of research that was from 2-3 years ago. We should rip that research up!"

Ford, of all companies, may be the first to move beyond those old studies. With the Mercury (owned by Ford) Mariner hybrid, Ford even got the Sierra Club promoting its fuel efficiency gains at the Sierra Summit.

According to Neil Golightly, Ford's director of sustainable business strategies, "We have said very, very clearly, we have no plans to convert fuel efficiency that we're achieving through hybrid technology into performance," he said. Those are brave words, but only time will tell. Given the evolution of Toyota's hybrid offerings, it doesn't take a cynic to wonder whether Ford will really stay away from performance boosting.

Nevertheless, Dan Becker, the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program director, explained why the Club would deign to have an SUV at its convention: "We wanted to feature the most efficient vehicles, that are the biggest improvements over their non-hybrid twins. And this Mercury Mariner is about a 50 percent improvement over the regular Mercury Mariner."

Praising the Sierra Club's willingness to work with Ford when it does something right, Golightly said that this support "has a profound impact in terms of reinforcing our ability to build a business case around doing more of this." Obviously, environmental idealism just doesn't go very far in accounting and marketing departments.

But car companies' talk of catering to consumer preferences for high-performance cars is exasperating for anyone interested in conservation and environmental ideals. Despite impressive efficiency gains, hybrids could do even better if consumers would simply give up their treasured ideal of performance.

Old habits die hard, though, and the auto industry is only now getting over the stigma of the dismal performance of early electric and hybrid vehicles. Plus, Berman pointed out that even if consumers are clamoring for hybrids now, automakers can't respond that quickly. In terms of major design changes, "2009 is tomorrow for them."

Making Every Car a Hybrid

The question remains whether having immediate, spectacular improvements in every hybrid vehicle is even as important as mainstreaming hybrid technology and fuel efficiency concerns. After all, a 25 percent improvement in gas-guzzling SUVs saves more gas than a 60 percent improvement in sedans that are already relatively efficient.* Gritting your teeth and learning to love hybrid SUVs isn't a bad idea, because unless something happens to truly wean Americans off buying enormous cars, they will continue to be big sellers.

This is actually GM's strategy for catching up to Toyota and Honda, one Berman described as "interesting." But by the time the relatively easy efficiency gains in SUVs and large cars bear fruit, he said "Toyota will be selling 1 million hybrids a year globally, and they're going to be in all those segments." And one can hold out hope that as drivers appreciate the benefits of higher mileage and lower gas bills, the SUV fad will quickly die off.

Felix Kramer, founder of the California Cars Initiative, an organization that promotes plug-in hybrid technology, described his ambivalence about mainstreaming hybrids by choosing performance over efficiency: "On the one hand, I like [performance], because people are realizing a hybrid doesn't mean sacrifice. On the other hand, it turns it into one more technology since the 1970s being used to bring unneeded power and acceleration to cars."

In any case, in the longer view, hybrids "are just efficient gasoline cars. So the whole issue really comes down to fuel substitution." Unfortunately, every automaker except GM seems to think mass production of hydrogen fuel cell cars is 10 to 20 years out, while diesel is just too dirty for the time being. Hybrid technology, on the other hand, can be used to improve fuel economy now and anytime in the future.

The Big Effects of a Simple Solution

This concept of every car as a hybrid represents a sort of "Eureka" moment. Ford's fuel cell car is a hybrid. So is Toyota's. Why not create a clean diesel hybrid, or a plug-in hybrid, or a hybrid using any other alternative fuel? It doesn't matter right now that every car isn't a hybrid, because eventually they will be.

After all, electronic fuel injection wasn't always standard either. Why shouldn't a car be able to capture energy from braking? And why do any cars still idle at stoplights and in stop and go traffic? These all represent wasted energy, and now that hybrids show you can harness it, it's only a matter of time before this technology becomes commonplace in the auto industry.

Fact is, despite the understandable reservations of environmentalists, if costs come down and hybrid systems improve (and assuming the efficiency isn't diverted into performance, again), this could easily become a standard feature that would kick average fuel efficiency up to 40 mpg. Plus, switching to an alternative fuel is cheaper and more practical if car makers can phase it in, instead of creating an entirely new engine for a new fuel. Look at the long timeline for creating fuel-cell vehicles compared to the quick adoption of gas-electric hybrids of all shapes and sizes.

For example, in Felix Kramer's scenario, plug-in hybrids are the "platform for future development of all cars," storing electricity for local driving and using gas, or any alternative fuel, to extend range.

Standing at the Sierra Summit in front of a row of the best Detroit and Japan have to offer, Kramer and Hermance discussed the regulatory hurdles and battery limitations that are holding back a brave new world of more-energy-efficient transportation. This is the future. None of this does anything about sprawl, idiotic energy policies, public transit, car culture or our national obsession with "bigger is better," but whenever we actually start to run out of oil, you can bet we'll be happy to have these kinds of technologies worked out.

After all, peak oil and global warming are much bigger problems than McMansions and suburbs. Hybrid cars are here today, and people are getting excited about them.

As Sierra Club's Dan Becker argued, "The biggest single step we can take to curb global warming, cut our oil dependence, and save consumers money at the pump, is to make vehicles go further on a gallon of gas. And that's what we're trying to educate people about."

[*Keep in mind that this is a very basic scenario that assumes that driving and vehicle purchase habits won't change drastically in the near term.

Driving 100 miles, a 14-m.p.g. SUV uses 7.14 gallons of gas. If it's 25 percent more efficient (17.5 m.p.g.), it will use 5.71 gallons, a savings of 1.43 gallons.

A sedan that gets 30 m.p.g. uses 3.33 gallons of gas, while a 50 m.p.g. hybrid uses 2 gallons, saving 1.33 gallons.]

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Robin Kraft is AlterNet's copyeditor, editorial assistant, and jack-of-all-trades.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wait until $5.00/Gal Gas.
Posted by: expat in tokyo on Sep 27, 2005 2:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its so nice that the car companies are doing something about fuel economy finally.. but unfortunately it is like the man who starts running for the train after it has left the station.

Unless you want to believe the Saudis and thier mantra of ever increasing suppy then I suggest some reading to you..

linked text
linked text

The world is at or close to Peak Oil and even with these new cars and SUVs there are still currently far too many on the road to make a difference.

Liberals and Conservatives can continue to scream at each other, all the while the US and the world will fall into what is going to be called The Grand Depression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Counterpoint Posted by: nickptar
» Not Doomers Posted by: expat in tokyo
» RE: Counterpoint Posted by: deejayvee
» RE: Wait until $5.00/Gal Gas. Posted by: oldsmobile
How much do you really need?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 27, 2005 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My 15 year old Toyota truck will still get 30 mpg and it will easily get me a speeding ticket if my right foot wants one. I do not understand these monster engines in SUVs when there is really little need for them.

If you want performance, buy a sports car. Porsche's newest 911s will get over 20 mpg yet accelerate faster than all but a very few cars. Back in 1986 a Porsche 944 Turbo would easily get over 30mpg if it was not driven over 55mph yet it was capable of exceeding 150 mph. In 1997 Car and Driver magazine drove a Z28 Camaro across Montana averaging 90 mph with a stint of over 100 mph for an hour yet they averaged 28 mpg. I also drive a 150 hp 4-cyl. Nissan that performs pretty well yet I can get around 35 mpg if I stay under 60mph. A Toyota Echo will get 40 mpg and it is faster than any amerikan production car was in 1980.

All the SUVs should have to meet CAFE standards for cars since they are used the same as cars. The domestic auto industry used a loophole to increase their profit margin. There are many people that need a truck for work but why would you need one to get to work if you wear a tie?

As gas prices are rising I am often thinking of how to get farther on less. I am now pondering how efficient a nd useful a car towing a trailer loaded tools would work.

As for people sacrificing these obscene powerhouses in their trucks for efficiency is probably a pipe dream. Here in the south, bad taste and stupidity seem too heriditary for much of a change. Seeing these morons getting less than 15 mpg in these eye sores of transportation paying out the ass for gas is the only thing I have liked about higher prices. I just wish the people who drive efficient vehicles were not having to suffer too. I often wish for tiered pricing on gas. The more your vehicle weighs the higher the price for a gallon. That might make people show some ecological responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How much do you really need? Posted by: Uncle Crabby
The Big Picture
Posted by: birdman on Sep 27, 2005 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First let me give a cheer for WhatNow? This person has it nailed.

Better gas milage, as important in the short run as it is, does nothing about the roughly 45,000 traffic deaths and hundreds of thousand of injuries annually in the U.S. (1.2 million auto-related deaths annually worldwide!). Nor does it address the 3.5 billion hours of our collective lives lost each year in traffic jams (Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University). Add to that the sprawl, loss of farmland, alienation, exercise-deprived children (and adults), and all the other ills of our brain-dead car culture, and it becomes clear to me that hybrid cars are primarily a way for all those who profit from this absurd way of living to keep the party going as long as they can.

What we need, in addition to and even more than hybrid cars, is to revision how we live our lives, moving to a way of life in which a car (if one even owns one) is a sometime thing. Instead of building more highways, we need our taxes to subsidize sanity, not this goofy suburban, shop-till-you-drop insanity. Until we gain a little enlightenment about better, more humanly satisfying ways to live, all the hybrids in the world won't help all that much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Big Picture Posted by: heftysmurf
Performance is an old hat
Posted by: nanobubble on Sep 27, 2005 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for machismo fantasies and nascar drivers. Let them have it - but I am not an irresponsible consumer, and won't buy a car that isn't hybrid. Period.

They need to build hybrid one and two seat vehicles, and hybrid motorcycles as well, for people who don't want bulky four-seat vehicles which only waste more energy through weight and unused space.

When the fuels can be substituted with biomass and renewable non-fossil sources, hybrids will still be desired, in order to have a more efficient vehicle regardless of the fuel type.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's response to gas price increase is
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 27, 2005 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
build more oil refineries and kill all environmental safety nets. Next thing you know, he'll try to outlaw hybrids. I can't tell you folks how much we Virginians could sorely benefit from hybrids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hybrids
Posted by: robchapman on Sep 27, 2005 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hybrid revolution appears to be a good thing for the American consumer.
Reducing city fuel consumption is fantastic.
The increasing congestion of our roads means that "highway" driving is lessening dramatically as a factor in driving.
If the hybrid shuts off the gas engine while idling in a traffic snarl and keeps it off during slow speed creeps it can potentially save millions of gallons of fuel and prevent the emission of millions of tons of pollution.
Short of immobilizing the American driver, it is hard to see how these outcomes can be achieved otherwise.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cars could be fuel efficient already
Posted by: oldsmobile on Sep 27, 2005 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now we can build cars that are incredibly fuel efficient, without expensive hybrid techonology. We would have to sacrifice luxuries, size and power, but the technology is already here. Volkswagon sells a limited edition car in Europe called the Lupo 3L that delivers 3liters per 100km, thats over 78 miles per gallon. It accomplishes this simply by having a small efficient diesel engine, a lightened structure and an automatically controlled straightdrive transmission.

That is almost double the fuel efficiency of the Toyota Prius, in case you are wondering, albeit the Prius is a larger car. But even if we were to sacrifice some efficiency for a larger, more comfortable car, it would still be more efficient AND cheaper than the Prius but built with current, almost mundane techonolgy.

So forget talk about hybrids and the hydrogen economy. Current techonolgy could bring us a revolution in fuel efficiency right here and right now if the car companies wanted it (or if it was legislated) -it's just not happening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jevon's Paradox
Posted by: Pooty T on Sep 27, 2005 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Improvements in efficiency will actually increase consumption.

Yes, hybrids will probably let us ignore the crisis a little longer. They get double the average mileage, but how long has it taken for gas prices to double? How long do you think it will take for them to double again? Hybrids are a suckers play.

Buy a bike, or move closer to light rail - closer to your work. That's it.

The economy is about to turn into a game of musical chairs. Those who get stuck holding the dead technology are going to be very sorry.

Does anyone remember that gas was rationed at 5 gallons a week during WWII? This at a time when we were swimming in oil. What are the rations going to look like during WWIII?

But go right ahead: continue being a slave to the white man. Every time you fill up on the Saudi juice you are just padding Cheney's portfolio, and expanding the "War on Terror".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jevon's Paradox Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Jevon's Paradox Posted by: djasonw
Promising News
Posted by: johnny-boy3 on Sep 27, 2005 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hybrid technology IS the future.

As an evil, heartless, rootin'-tootin'-pollutin' conservative, I'm sure none of you are surprised that I drive a gas guzzling ford expedition.

But after Katrina, I've strongly been considering one of the new Toyota hybrid SUVs.

Cheap oil in the 1980s and 1990s is what spurred this huge truck/SUV craze, and drove up both demand and prices. If we as Americans take responsibility for lowering the national demand (buying hybrid, not buying gas on sundays, etc), we can help both the economy and the environment.

This is a noble goal, and worthy of our attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» johnny-boy3 a credit to conservatives Posted by: Michael Turnauer, Vancouver,WA
» RE: Promising News Posted by: Jerryd3001
Future? What future?
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 27, 2005 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, there once was a time when some kind of technological improvement meant a better future. I remember my mother's first washing machine. Big improvement over the scrub board.

And there was lots of natural gas to heat lots of clean water that could dump the detergent (actually, soap flakes that were probably bio-degradable) down lots of sewer system into lots of drainage canals.

Every one of those items is in danger of exhaustion today. Get real. Does it really matter if you get 25 mpg or 50 mpg while you sit on a freeway during rushhour that averages 12 mph? Yes, there's a difference. But, I mean, really?

More, more, more and even better, better, better means less. Our economy is like the junkie with a hole in his arm where all the money goes.

Think of it this way. I want everyone reading this, who works for a company that wants to get bigger, to quit your job.

Bigger is more horrible. Bigger is cancer. Bigger is monstrous. Bigger is enormous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Future? What future? Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» Amen! Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Amen! Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Hybrids are not the solution!
Posted by: wdzeller on Sep 27, 2005 8:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Soon many will see that hybrids will not solve any fuel efficiency issues.

For example, over the long run hybrid fuel economy does not live up to the claims of the manufacturers or the E.P.A.
All batteries have a fundamental problem in that their charging efficiency rapidly drops from about 80% to only 20%; in other words, the difference in fuel economy between a conventional car and a hybrid will decrease to only about 1/4th of the difference compared when the hybrid vehicle was brand new.

For example, let's say you have two vehicles of similar weight having engines of comparable horsepower; a conventional car which gets 30 m.p.g. and a new hybrid that is "certified" to get 50 m.p.g. the difference is 20 m.p.g., which represents about 80% of the kinetic energy retrieved when the generator/brakes are applied. However, within a year or so that difference will drop to 1/4th of the original 20 m.p.g., which translates to only about 5 m.p.g.

In other words the hybrid will soon be getting only about 35 m.p.g. versus the conventional vehicle which will still be realizing 30 m.p.g.

Then there is the cost issue of having to to pay about $7000 for a replacement battery sometime after 100,000 miles.
This in itself is a big problem, as people will figure out that a used Toyota hybrid with an original battery pack is one used car you do not want to buy. In other words, in a few years these cars will have a lousy resale value.

Okay, let's say you have decided to drive the car until it gets scrapped, perhaps 200,000 miles. Let's also say that gasoline stays around $3.00 per gallon. The conventional car will use $20,000 in fuel while the hybrid will use about $17,000. Both cars will require similar maintenance and routine repairs of ancillary parts. However, you will have to buy at least one, maybe even two replacement battery packs at $7,000 a pop. In otherwords, that hybid will end up costing you $4,000 to $11,000 more to operate than the conventional car!

The only way to solve these fuel economy issues is to build lighter weight cars having engines that produce maximum torque (work) at low engine speeds while producing lower horsepower. Todays engines must rev to very high speeds just so that the engine can produce enough work to push the car down the road. Unfortunately, it's at these high r.p.m.s where high horsepower; i.e., high fuel consumption occurs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clean Diesel!
Posted by: Ben Furman on Sep 28, 2005 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Modern diesels are not dirty. Diesel fuel (in the US) is dirty. Smoke (PM10) production is directly proportional to the sulfur content of the fuel. We need ULSD yesterday. When the sulfur/soot is gone, we can use catalysts to reduce the NOx.

Diesel engines are thermodynamically more efficient than gassers - to the tune of about 30% for similar performance. They lack the peak power of comparably sized gassers, but they have a more useable torque band and better "real world" performance. My VW's four-cylinder TDI feels more like a V6 around town.

Hybrid technology, given improved battery performance, combined with clean diesel technology will negate any need for fuel cells as vehicle power plants. Low-sulfur diesel fuel can be obtained from either biomass (biodiesel, Fisher-Tropsch) or coal (Fisher-Tropsch) at prices competetive with today's oil. The time to implement these technologies is now, but only Toyota is moving forward rapidly on both the clean diesel and the hybrid fronts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» On biodiesel Posted by: oldsmobile
Gloom and Doom for ALL
Posted by: Flyinghogfish on Sep 28, 2005 3:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why hasn't anyone suggested cold fusion? We might as well add that one to the dream list of solutions to American consumer culture. The problem is all this keeping up with the Joneses. Who are the Jones family anyway? Why are they so special that everybody has to have the same Roadleviathan SUV or the same Home Omnidirectional HDTV that they have. It doesn't matter what the product is, if Mr. Jones has it, we will pay anything to buy our way into his world. We'd better start saving our pennies though, because there are not enough horses to go around when the pumps run dry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hybrids=false hope
Posted by: Michael Turnauer, Vancouver,WA on Sep 28, 2005 10:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody I know who owns a hybrid achieves anywhere near the EPA fuel economy rating. Fuel efficient cars have been available before in the U.S. and repeatedly rejected by consumers because, largely, of their want--not need--for a larger and/or more powerful vehicle. Economic might makes right is the order of the day.

Now the false promise of hybrids have been foisted on a buying public eager to buy into the false promise that nothing has to be sacrificed in the way of comfort, power, or gargantuan size in the new found quest for "fuel efficiency."

I'll stick with my 3-cylinder Geo Metro which I bought new in '94 and still gets well over 50 mpg at least until something truly more economical comes along. The only condition under which any hybrid beats my Metro in fuel efficiency is when stopped in traffic. And I can always (and sometimes do) turn the key to off myself under these conditions.

Another point that has also gone unmentioned is the energy required in the manufacture of hybrids vs. a conventional gasoline engined minicompact (Euro size Class B) such as the Metro. Again the Metro wins hands down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hybrids=false hope Posted by: nickptar
» RE: hybrids=false hope Posted by: oldsmobile
Cold fusion
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 1, 2005 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is no longer a thing of the distant future. Europe is incredibly close to making it work. Congress already has made it illegal to reasearch.
It will completely get rid of our relience on oil. It is the miracle drug that everyone has been seeking to save the enviroment. write to congress and tell them how important alternate forms of energy are.
aedwardsone@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's About Damn Time!
Posted by: Spyder on Oct 2, 2005 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America desperately needs to address this subject. I find it to be incredibly short-sighted of the U.S. car makers to have ignored fuel economy values so thoroughly during the recent past of SUV madness. The gas lines of the '70's were not that long ago, folks. Since I am both a strong liberal and a car nut at the same time, I personally sit on both sides of the table on the oil issues; however, I have always been in favor of high gas mileage, even back when gas was only 35-cents. We need three things to happen here. (1) We must make driving monster SUV's on the freeway an unpopular, un-American thing to do. (2) We must at least begin to question the rampant suburban sprawl. (3) We must start using at least reasonably small, fuel-efficient cars for everyday transport. Hybrids can be the vanguard of the movement, but we need forty zillion Civics to follow them down the path of righteousness while the power, sticker prices, reliability, and upkeep costs of the hybrids improve over time.

http://www.e-tabitha.com/traffic.htm
http://www.e-tabitha.com/Daydream.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement