Nissan Boss - Hybrid Cars Make No Sense - Reuters

NEW ORLEANS - "The head of Nissan Motor Co., breaking ranks with some of his leading rivals, said on Saturday that building fuel-sipping hybrid vehicles makes little sense in today's world because of their high costs.

"They make a nice story, but they're not a a good business story yet because the value is lower than their costs," said Nissan Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn. Nissan will, in fact, start manufacturing a gas-electric hybrid version of its Altima sedan for the US market in 2006.

But Ghosn said the model was only intended to help Japan's second-largest automaker comply with strict fuel economy and emissions standards in states like California, not because he expects it to be a money-maker. Nissan will license some technology for the hybrid Altima from Toyota Motor Corp., which is the world leader in hybrid production along with Honda Motor Co. Ltd..

EDIT

In his speech, he noted that only about 88,000 of the 16.9 million light vehicles sold in the United States last year were hybrids, adding that they are still considered "niche" products and something way outside the automotive mainstream."

EDIT

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29274/story.htm

Hmm . . . sounds like somebody's been playing WAY too much golf with Bob Lutz lately . . .

And fuel cells regularly will cost more than the automobile purchase price.

In other words the long-term operating costs of electric hybrids and hydrogen hybrids is much larger than an internal combustion automobile.

All the fancy futuristic articles leave these details out.

I've always wondered about that.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

Google "electric fuel". The Zinc is reprocessable for reuse.

far better than lead acid.

Plus according to the info we were given on the bettery when we purchased the car, Toyota recycles the battery parts into new batteries.

Debbi

You must keep your cars a long time if that's "regular".

Hybrid cars are nothing more than expensive status symbols for environmentalist fashion plates. They don't get the advertised 70 miles to the gallon (imagine, automobile corporations lying; I' m shocked!)

In reality they get only about forty miles per gallon, an efficiency that can be realized with lower priced Diesel engines. As a bonus, Diesels can be re-tuned to run on waste vegetable oil helping the US achieve energy independence, and saving valuable landfill space.

too.

There really isn't that much vegetable oil available, even in virgin form, to make anything like "energy independence" even remotely possible.

The hybrid option is far more scalable, and it is cleaner. As I understand the matter, batteries are warrantied for some 100,000 miles. These cars work, and are in full production.

Also, he was commenting on the current economic dynamics concerning hybrids. My understanding is that Toyota, among others, are dabbling in the market now to have the technology ready when demand spikes following the initial peak oil economic transients.

In 20 years, the vast majority of personal transportation vehicles sold will be pluggable multi-fuel (diesel) hybrids. Why pluggable? To be able to make use of nuclear and wind power, which seem to be the only viable post peak oil mass energy production options. If we can get a Prius class vehicle up to travel up to 30 miles on an overnight charge, most people could get through a typical day without having to kick in the combustion engine.

Of course, EPA static treadmill tests . . . hmm . . . People I know who drive them typically get in the mid- to high-50s.

Jack-rabbit starts and braking at the last minute kills their fuel economy.

batteries, do not like,
extremely fast recharging...
implies...
when you apply the 'brakes',
some energy goes to the batteries, but not much,
most turns into heat, the old fashion way

since adding all that stuff to a gasoline engine that already exists in the car has to drive costs up.

I had a Corolla that gave me over 40mpg on the highway, and my Saturn LS is a big car that gives me 35 mpg. Buying a hybrid would cost me a lot of money for little actual mileage gain. It would cost me even more if they weren't subsidized.

Ultimately, a new generation of fuel cells would be a better answer. Even better would be less car and truck use.

was originally advertised as getting seventy miles to the gallon.

Pluggable hybrid cars will actually pollute more than old fashioned internal combustion engines. Since we are already right on the edge of capacity with our electrical generation potential, any increased demand would be met by firing up idled coal burning electric plants. Since coal contains far less hydrogen than petroleum, and because it takes 6 BTU of energy to create 1 BTU of electricity in a battery, you would be putting roughly 36 times the CO2 into the atmosphere by running off of a battery rather than on old fashioned petroleum.

Our wind capacity has peaked. Wind farm owners are starting to get sued big time, by wealthy people who don't want their view of the ocean obstructed, and by groups like the Audubon Society for killing endangered migratory birds. It also costs twice as much to generate (even environmentalists refuse to pay that additional cost).

Nuclear is a viable non-polluting option, but it scares the pants off of everybody. Try and build Nuke plant, and see how far you get, before you're shut down by lawyers and bureaucrats.

Typical round trip storage efficiency of lead-acid batteries (AC to DC) is about 70%. And who said anything about using coal to generate the electricity to charge the battery.

A 1993 study by the NREL notes 15 Quads/yr. of US wind potential. In “The Party’s Over” Richard Heinberg notes that US wind potential could be 60 Quads/yr. due to recent advances in turbine efficiency. Per the EIA 2002 US wind production was 0.105 Quads. It does not appear that we are anywhere near wind generating capacity. I am sure wind generated electricity does cost twice as much as coal, probably more, if you do not count the environmental costs of burning coal.

The NIMBY issues concerning nuclear and wind generation sites will fall away with the first peak oil economic transients. Also, I don’t know how many coastal views wind power will impact, since most of the potential is in the midwest and high plains.

As for Honda rating the Insight so high, this is typical of all cars, primarily due to the speed at which the highway mileage rating is calculated. And 20% off of a 70 mpg rating seems a lot higher to the owner than 20% off of 18 mpg. I have spoken to Prius owners who state that their in-town mpg is actually higher than the advertised rating, so things do kind of balance out.

What is you banquet of options for post peak oil energy production?

however there are transmission losses from the power plant to the point of use. According to the DOE, it takes 3 BTU of fuel to deliver 1 BTU of electricity. Divide that by your figure of .7 (it was my understanding that batteries are only 50% efficient, I'll acquiesce, because I don't want to argue that point) and you see that you have to burn 4.3 BTUs of energy to put 1 BTU into a battery.

And the Prius owners who claim they are getting better than the advertised mileage are either bad at math, or lying to you (perhaps they're embarrassed that they bought into the hype). In a recent Popular Mechanics road test, the Prius got only 32.9 mpg in city driving, far less than the 60 mpg the EPA has it rated for.

If every car on the road became electric overnight, we would have to roughly quadruple our electric generation capability because right now we use as much energy for transportation as we consume in electricity. The only unused reserve we have ready to go on-line, is coal.

I brought up the coastal issue, because there is an ongoing lawsuit between Martha's Vineyard property owners and a proposed wind farm. People in the midwest are starting to get tired of windmills as well, and like I said, existing wind farms are currently being sued by environmental lobbies and could be closed down because of their threat to endangered species of birds. I doubt these lawsuits were included into the NERL or Richard Heinberg calculations of wind potential.

I wish I had an alternative to oil, for such knowledge would render me into a very wealthy man. But alas, I don't think an alternative exists.

since, whether or not you find it convenient or desirable, either oil is on its way out or you and the rest of humanity are on the way out. There's a complicating factor. It's called "the atmosphere."

It is true that the United States is doomed but only because of its citizens who continue to believe, in spite of vast amounts of available information to the contrary, seem to believe that oil is everything.

First, let's turn to the electricity issue. There are two complicating factors here, infrastructure (aka capital costs) and fuel costs. If one finds the capital, it happens that fuel can be damned close to free. For instance, the cost of Uranium as a fuel translates to the equivalent of gasoline at less than a penny a gallon when one converts both uranium and gasoline to units of dollars per joule. Thorium is actually thrown away, it is so damned cheap. Some people - even though I am among those who often object - like to say that the cost of fuel for solar cells and wind plants are zero, but ignoring infrastructure, they have something of a point. The cost of an electricity from an environmental (external), energy invested (production) and commercial vantage points varies widely as locales, methods of production and circumstances therefore a blanket statement about coal and electricity, which is in my view, about as myopic as one can get, is hardly credible. To repeat, many factors are involved, including, among others, the transportation cost of electricity. Electricity generated in my own back yard has much, much, much higher efficiency than electricity generated in the recesses of Canada, owing to the lack of transmission losses in power lines and transformers.

I find it somewhat dubious too, to claim that the writer from Popular Mechanics somehow magically has better "insight" (pun intended) and no issues "with math" when compared to the majority of hybrid owners. One principle of an important branch of, well, "math," a very important branch called "statistical analysis," involves the use of appropriate sample sizes. Generally a large population of measurements will be both more accurate than a small sample size. In mathematical statistical tables, in fact, the t value for a sample size of one is, in fact, infinite, implying that the data is just this side of useless. It is relatively easy to see that the sample size of a single "Popular Mechanics" writer is next to useless. Neither you nor, I'll bet, the writer in "Popular Mechanics" have any clue even if the device they were measuring, a particular instance of a Prius driven by a particular instance of a driver, was functioning properly or whether either constituted a representative sample. An article some years ago in the "Wall Street Journal," hardly a bastion of wild eyed wishful liberal thinking, reported on a group of Honda Insight owners who had formed a group dedicated to coaxing the last MPG out of their cars by tweaking both the machinery and their driving habits. Some had managed their driving habits so well as to be approaching the century mark in MPG.

So much for "Popular Mechanics."

Finally, even it were true that the average hybrid got "only" 32 mpg, it would be a really, really, really dubious business to judge the worth of a technology on the basis of its earliest examples. I'm quite sure that there were a number of Admirals who objected to the adoption of diesel fueled ships on the ground that the world could never adopt enough oiling stations and refineries to match the entrenched value of port side coal yards.

I drive every day on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the number of hybrids seems to be increasing every day. You might think this is pure marketing with your propensity to tell us who is and who is not lying, but it is somewhat surprising that the number of these cars continues to rise on "hype," alone. I've questioned a few drivers of these cars and found almost none with the kind of sullenness associated with concealed disappointment.

Finally, I have been advocating nuclear power as loudly as I can for almost twenty years, since shortly after Chernobyl blew up and life on earth did not, in fact, come to an end. As someone who understands both the technological and social issues, I can say that I have seen quite a sea change in attitudes even in the United States, even among many people who are as far on the left as I am, even among those much farther to the left than I am. I am an example myself actually. Although I am an ex-antinuclear activist, I can tell you that right now I'd be at every town meeting I to which I could get to cheer if PSEG wanted to build a nuclear power plant here. I wouldn't be salivating over the tax revenue alone either. I'd be rather thrilled at the energy.

With our national bizarre kill-or-whore-or-do-anything-for-my-syringe-full-of-oil mentality, we in the severely declining USA will not be able to afford infrastructure of any kind, including that of nuclear energy, nor will we afford fossil fuels much longer, but in fact, the rest of the world which does have resources and does not buy into conservative religious fascinations, will certainly be expanding its energy capacity via nuclear means. However, I'm quite sure that we haven't heard the last of the replacements for gasoline even those involving batteries and their cousins, the fuel cell; in fact, I'm sure in the future first world countries, most likely those in Asia, historians will be writing how the once dominant United States declined because it's people had all kinds of absurd fantasies about the irreplacability of oil. I'll bet it will get some guffawing even in the elementary schools.

At the end of the day, BTW, those who actually end up wealthy men are seldom those who sat around all day remarking on what could not be done. Actually the real situation is represented better by the inverse.

Can you support this claim or are you simply repeating what Rush tells you?

First, let me point out that if you could generate electricity in your back yard, it would be more efficient than at a power plant in Canada, but I suspect that your entire yard is not big enough to hold the solar cells required just for your electric consumption, much less for your transpportation needs. And I defy you to obtain proper permitting to construct a windmill there. Since most of these energy sources would have to be constructed outside of residential areas, the curent transmission losses apply.

Meanwhile, the fuel efficiency pointed out in Popular Mechanics was not the work of one writer. The have a team of dedicated automotive engineers who put the vehicles through rigorous and precise scientific testing. I trust their analysis much better than that of a handful of individuals. Individuals who were parked on a year long waiting list, eagerly awaiting their chance at paying $25,000 dollars for a stripped-down economy car.

I remember from my childhood, that none of my friends ever went to a bad "Stones" concert, even though the Rolling Stones were at the height of their addictions at that point, and really put on a lot of miserable shows. But after camping out at the Arena for a day or two, and paying an exorbitant price, nobody would ever admit they wasted a lot of time and money just to see some drunks falling down on stage.

But it's not just me and PM saying that the Prius is way over rated:

http://www.carreview.com/Midsize-Compact/Toyota/PRD_54438_1531crx.aspx

- good gas milage low43-hi51

- We're finding the exact mileage numbers that others have noted: 43 mpg average, less in city and 50+ on highway

-Good Acceleration. Great mileage, though the EPA's estimates disappoint.

- mpg is approximately 40

- We're getting mileages in the city of about 42 mpg, less than advertised, but certainly nothing to complain about.

- Although we don't get the advertised mileage in town....quoted at 60mpg....we average 43mpg.

- It is great on gas mileage, even though I have never gotten their posted mpg for either highway or city driving.

- My satisfaction with my Prius and ealer has steadily declined since taking delivery October 2001. Mileage has declined to 41 to 42 mpg from 46 to 48 mpg

Please note that not one person is even getting the advertised mileage. I cannot believe that anybody is really getting "more than the advertised rating."

And I'm quite certain that the owners of the first Stanley Steamers thought they were on the cutting edge of technology as well, and were certain that the bugs would be worked out in a generation or two.

Lawsuit links:

http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2002/09/27/wind_tower_halted.php

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16205

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=74439

http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2004/gs041223.php

http://business.mainetoday.com/news/040711weekreview.shtml

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html

I usually went to concerts so I could hang out with wild women. If I ever noticed the band was falling down drunk, it was because the women I was with were not wild enough.

I don't have a lot to say about the Prius from a technical standpoint, I haven't looked at them carefully. I'm certain it gets better mileage than the average American SUV, and it is probably better built too.

If I was a young single guy, I'd want a Prius. Those young single women would be thinking, "wow, now there's a guy who is environmentally responsible, and he has money too..."

That's why guys drive cars, isn't it? To impress women?

Personally, I drive a little Japanese truck that I bought new in the 'eighties. Mostly I walk downstairs to my work. My wife commutes less than two miles to her work every day. We burn most of our gasoline for fun, on pleasure trips to San Francisco or Santa Cruz, and other stuff like that.

And, yes, as a matter of fact, we could generate all the electricity we need in our own backyard.

I personally think that driving a Prius and having a solar rooftop would be a vanity, but I don't begrudge anyone those sorts of vanities. Better for the environment that than the vanity of buying a two-story high Ford 4X4 to drive seventy miles down the freeway to a job you hate in the city.

The biggest problem we have now in the United States is that we no longer think "outside the box," and the box we are living in is getting smaller and smaller... cliche, yes, but you see evidence of this everywhere.

The "American Dream" we built on cheap oil and cheap natural gas cannot be sustained, so it's time to look around for a new "American Dream."

Here in California, when I see Arnold driving around in a hummer, even a hydrogen powered hummer, I am witnessing a terrible failure of imagination...

I believe it is this failure of imagination that will destroy the United States.

"the team of engineers" at popular mechanics?

Is it again, that the "team of engineers" can't do math? They seemed to be about 25% off the "carreview drivers"

It seems to me that to get mileage in the mid forties for a family car, one would need either to buy a hybrid or a diesel.

But you seem to want to selectively select very specific cases and make them into generalities. Since you are an expert in what is and is not math, in a Republican sort of way at least, I invite you to review the grounds for inductive and deductive reasoning.

Lots of giant SUV's roll over. Some get stuck in the snow, according to the Wall Street Journal. And no one really confuses drivers of hummers with people with adequately sized penises, so it can't just be "false" advertising that stings you so badly.

For the record, almost no person on earth gets the "advertised" EPA mileage because the test is always performed under idealized conditions. I have occasionally managed to exceed the rated mileage for my Honda Accord on highways, but only when I pay real careful attention to my driving by using the cruise control, inflating my tires, and driving on off hours. Other wise the car always comes up short. Should I dump it and buy a hummer so I can prove something? What exactly would I be trying to prove?

Maybe you will list cars that get their EPA ratings, or else you will, seemingly advocate the abandonment of the automobile on the grounds of poor EPA testing protocol.

You, by the way, don't know anything about the size of my yard and never will, because I seldom invite conservatives to my home, in fact, I can't recall one time that I've done so.

PM engineers didn't get the mileage that the Prius owners I cited did, depends on the definition of "city." Popular Mechanics is based in New York, probably the purest example of City in the United States, where it can take almost an hour to travel a mile. Most of the owners probably live in suburban or semi urban areas where traffic congestion is not such an issue.

My first remark here was that Hybrids only get about forty miles to the gallon, an allegation that owners I cited seem to support. I also mentioned that a similar mileage can be achieved more simply with a diesel engine.

The statement I was disputing, was from loindelrio, that he had "spoken to Prius owners who state that their in-town mpg is actually higher than the advertised rating." We agree that nobody gets the EPA estimate, and that those owners were probably exaggerating.

Maybe they could have started the motor and then shut if off repeatedly until they ran out of gas.

I'll bet almost every car in New York got much, much, much better mileage than the Prius, under these conditions too. I'll be for instance that the Lincoln Navigator gets, 60 mpg just by being in the vicinity of the Lincoln Tunnel. Are the authors of the "Popular Mechanics" article just really, really, really, really, really so mathematically illiterate as to completely ignore controls, as in other cars that also have high city EPA mileage and go one mile in an hour of NYC traffic?

Since I don't read that magazine mostly because I'm interested in things that really matter, maybe you can tell me about that.

We have a 2004 and have had it for about 1 1/2 years. The longer we've driven it, the better the MPG has gotten. I think it is a combination of the engine breaking in and learning how to "manipulate" the engine to keep it in hybrid mode as much as possible. My husband learned that keeping cruise control on makes a huge difference.

We know several people who also purchased the new Prius model and they get similar MPG.

Is it the same as quoted by Toyota, of course not. But, I've never seen a car that met the Mfr's MPG quotes. Would we buy another, absolutely. It is a very roomy car and fits all 5 of us, including one big car seat.

I've also heard incredible things, though about Bio-diesel and we may look into that for the next car, too. We're definitely looking into to converting our home heating from oil to bio-diesel. Where we're located, there are actually several home heating companies and a couple gas stations that offer bio-diesel as an alternative.

Debbi

Here's the reason why Popular Mechanics got poor mileage...the testers are 'car nuts' who flog the bejesus out of vehicles when they test them. Most car reviewers are like this. Usually the exceptions involve long term testers at places like Edmunds.com or Car & Driver, where they're driven by a very wide range of people with families in them etc. Those tests usually give a decent indication of mileage - the tests where they beat on it for 2 or 3 days typically post very poor mileage, for any car.

Even when driven hard, the Prius was still turning out better mileage than any other midsize car in the city...

themselves to praise a car, unless it accelerates and handles like a sports-coupe.

My favorite example is a review of the Toyota Corrola, where the reviewer said "The Corrola is for drivers who just want transportation, the car equivalent of blue-jeans".

That's exactly what I look for in a car, but he meant this as a put-down, which I always thought explains a lot about America's dysfunctional relationship with transporation.

We have this image of ourselves as pragmatic people, but we're about the least practical people around.

Of all the links you provided, only TWO involved a lawsuit. Neither of them against an existing windfarm as you earlier claimed. One lawsuit was filed NOT by enivironmentalist, but "on behalf of Cape Cod fishermen, boaters, marina owners and 10 taxpayers." The other, "coalition of ranchers, conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts" was indeed joined by the Audobon. Yes, environmental organizations are concerned about the siting of wind farms, but that is another point. Your unwillingness to make that distinction indicates a) you really don't know much about the subject, or b)you trying to push an agenda.

Another website you link offered this:

We can have wind energy without decimating imperiled wildlife populations

There is scientific consensus that the industrialized world’s addiction to fossil fuels is causing irreversible climate change, altering ecosystems, and destroying biodiversity. Conservationists support the development of clean energy as an alternative to fossil fuel power plants, but impacts to wildlife should be reduced wherever possible. Potential sites for new wind energy projects should be reviewed for bird abundance, migration and use patterns, and wind farms should be designed and operated to prevent or minimize bird mortality. Where existing wind energy facilities are having adverse impacts on birds, as at Altamont Pass, these impacts should be fully mitigated. Turbine owners at APWRA must take reasonable measures to reduce bird kills and adequately compensate for impacts to imperiled bird populations. According to wind industry reports, the fiasco at Altamont Pass has hampered wind power development, as unresolved concerns about impacts to birds resulted in delays or discontinuation of other wind facilities.

P.S. Citing the Heartland Institute pretty much removes your mask.

I included the Heartland article, was because the AP release on the KATU Portland site forgot to mention that the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy had joined the suit. Lest you think I am a Repugnant supporter of Chimpy, I have found different sites verifying that allegation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875711/.

“There are many places the wind blows, but only one place where we have the largest expanse of native tallgrass prairie,” said Ron Klataske, executive director of Audubon of Kansas, one of members of the alliance opposing the wind development.

http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/kansas/preserves/art3599.html

The Nature Conservancy is a founding member and supporter of the Tallgrass Legacy Alliance (TLA), a diverse alliance of ranchers, agricultural and environmental organizations, and public agencies.

Here's the relevant quotes from the other sites:

The plan for the wind farm was put on hold in November 2003 after the New Jersey Audubon Society filed an appeal of the permit. The society said then that not enough research had been done on the effects of wind turbines on migratory birds. The coast of New Jersey lies in the Atlantic Flyway, where many migratory species travel.

The possibility that the 400-foot-high turbines of the state's first wind farm could kill birds and bats has stalled the project in central Aroostook County. Maine Audubon last week appealed the state Department of Environmental Protection's approval of the plan by Evergreen Wind Power LLC to construct 33 turbines atop Mars Hill Mountain.
Maine Audubon has expressed concern that the 50-megawatt project, which can provide clean, renewable power to 25,000 homes, could be harmful to migrating birds.

The CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) filed a lawsuit in November 2004 for unlawful and unfair business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law (section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code) against wind power companies at Altamont Pass, seeking restitution for the past killing of thousands of raptors in flagrant criminal violation of state and federal wildlife protection laws.

Perhaps you should have read those sites a little more thoroughly.

And the reason why I pointed to the Cape Cod lawsuit, was to support my allegation that property owners are getting tired of windmills obstructing their view. Perhaps it is possible to construct environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing windmills, but as long as the people trying to build them are getting sued, nobody is going to attempt it.

There are several criteria that need to be met in order for an argument from specific instance to be warranted. Your drum beat of two examples does not meet those criteria.

Are the examples true? Yes, you're doing OK so far.

Are the examples relevant? OK, you're still on track.

Are the examples sufficient? No. Two is not sufficient sample to make the genralized conclusions you make. This flaw in your reasoning was pointed out in an earlier post on another topic.

Are the examples representative? Again, no. The two examples you provide are environmentally sensitive or unique areas that demand thoughtful consideration.

wind projects that were halted, delayed, or are facing financial duress because of lawsuits:

Altamont Pass, CA - facing financial duress
Atlantic County, NJ - construction delayed
Flint Hills, Kansas - construction halted
Mars Hill Mountain, ME -construction halted
Horseshoe Shoal, MA, - construction halted

There could be more pending, those are just the first five I found. But, you're kidding yourself if you think these five lawsuits don't impact the viability of all new windfarm projects. I would imagine that most new constructions will remain on hold until the outcome of these lawsuits are weighed

and a dozen more currently under construction. That's just one state. As I said, your conclusions are unjustifiable.

This thread started out with:

Nissan Boss - Hybrid Cars Make No Sense - Reuters

And now we are talking wind farms. Perhaps another thread should be started?

I myself am thinking life was much easier when a good "Ford vs. Chevy" argument was all it took to impress the girls.

although through different routes. The poster is making the same hand-waving argument about windmills as he is about hybrids; his basic point is "They're not perfect so they're no good." Of course this is a fallacious argument (one made repeatedly by Industry Funded Think Tanks, BTW). Additionally the poster provides no solutions to our looming environmental and energy needs (the desired enthymeme of Think Tanks = there's no perfect alternatives, so more of the same).

I think that it benefits no one to hold faith in technologies that aren't working, solely for a lack of better options.

Hybrids are never going to get much better. Their fuel savings are derived, in the most part, from their ability to recycle energy normally burned off at the brakes back into the battery. While that is a good idea, it has its limitations. The majority of what takes energy to propel a car is friction and wind resistance, and these sinks are not recoverable.

A lot of the energy savings in a Prius come from its skinny tires and light weight. Were the Prius offered with a diesel engine rather than the hybrid equipment, I believe (opinion not fact) that the fuel economy would be about the same, and it would be roomier because there would be no necessity for a battery. (Which would eliminate the toxic waste problem, as batteries need changing every 3 - 4 years.) I believe the Hybrid is a failed experiment, that only survives because of it's status among environmentalists.

Ditto for wind power. It is twice as expensive as traditional power, and I believe (again: opinion, not fact) it is approaching saturation. It is ugly and hazardous to wildlife, and I believe it will not be expanded much beyond its current share of the US energy flow.

If I were going to suggest something, it would probably be nuclear. I know there is an issue with the waste, but compared to the tons of carbon sent into the atmosphere from a traditionally fired plant, the few pounds of spent fuel rods are negligible and contained. But as I said before, it scares the pants off of everybody.

But are we really here to design new technologies? Most of us here are political and social scientists, not engineers. We are here to discuss policy, and if the current energy policy channels tax revenue into failed programs, it is the responsibility of people here to state that the programs are failing. Better to use public funds for things like health care, schools and housing rather than blowing it on a wind farm that might be sued into bankruptcy before it puts a single watt into the grid, or subsidizing a privately owned vehicle that impresses hippie chicks, but doesn't get the mileage it's supposed to.

Hybrids are never going to get much better.

…and man will never fly. The continued improvement in hybrid technology is demonstrated with each year’s new releases.

The majority of what takes energy to propel a car is friction and wind resistance, and these sinks are not recoverable.

I’ll be generous and assume you meant energy is needed to overcome friction and wind resistance. True, but in city driving the largest factor is inertia.

Windpower is twice as expensive as traditional power

Of course you ignore the external costs created by “traditional power”, i.e health costs, environmental costs, etc. Factor in those subsidized costs and “traditional power” is far more expensive.

Windpower, is ugly and hazardous to wildlife, and I believe it will not be expanded much beyond its current share of the US energy flow.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your bogus claims about the hazards to wildlife are straight from the fossil fuel lobby. New generation wind turbines and proper siting virtually eliminate those risks. Moreover, justr As you ignored the costs , you ignore the hazards to wildlife posed by “traditional power.”

if the current energy policy channels tax revenue into failed programs, it is the responsibility of people here to state that the programs are failing.

Apparently you’re not very familiar with the billions of dollars of subsidies funneled into the “failure” of “traditional power,” the geophysical and geopolitical limits of those technologies, not to mention the unacceptable environmental costs.

On edit: Fixed code for proper display

First off: Inertia is not the major consumer of energy in passenger vehicles. Highway mileage is calculated at a constant speed, hence inertia is not a factor. It is solely wind resistance and friction that consume the energy at constant speed. City mileage deals with the inertial factor plus the friction and wind resistance. You can extrapolate the inertial requirement by noting the difference between city mileage and highway mileage -- usually about ten miles to the gallon in most cars. A hybrid that is capable of 100% return of the inertial energy normally wasted by brakes (which is impossible, and prohibited by the laws of thermodynamics) would only give the hybrid about a ten mile per gallon advantage over a traditionally fueled vehicle of the same size shape and weight. That's the upper limit of the technology.

Meanwhile, you mentioned the "external costs created by 'traditional power.'" Exactly what are those costs in cents per gallon? I don't recall you ever sourceing that for me.

And don't try and tell me that the war in Iraq is part of the cost. Had the entire nation converted to solar cars in 2000, Bushie still would have gone to war, because oil would still have been a valuable commodity. Despite our independence from petroleum in this country, the oil barons who stole the election would have still wanted to seize the oil fields to secure their profits.

And the danger to posed to wildlife was not my "bogus claim," Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and the Center for Biological Diversity made it. I just claimed that the lawsuits filed by these orgainizations would hamper construction of any new wind farms.

I personally don't mind seeing a few birds fly into a windmill; it's somewhat entertaining, and it keeps my car windshield cleaner.

examined in the EU.

Although this certainly is not likely to have the power of a bunch of mathematically illiterate "popular mechanics" writers with degrees in engineering from correspondence schools, I will link the thread, I will provide the reference below. Many of the posters on this thread, who do not get their educations in "Popular Mechanics" have read that thread.

I will be kicking that thread up one of these days to include some interesting calculations and comments relating to the element cesium that I have done, but I will not kick it up now.

Here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115&page=5

In most countries wind and nuclear were generally the cheapest fuels with respect to external costs. The highest subsidy in external cost predictably belonged to the "fuels for fools," oil and coal.

The costs are given in euros, not dollars, in energy units of costs per kilowatt-hr. I don't know if "Popular Mechanics" gives the conversion factors for these two currencies, but if you need help with that, someone here will be helpful with that.

Since this work was done for electrical generation, it measures the cost of energy production and use under more or less constant load conditions. I don't know if they've ever written an article about constant loads in "Popular Mechanics," but the idea removes all kinds of external mechanical factors. Thus one wouldn't need to worry that a comparator might be reduce a car's "city" mileage by keeping it stuck in NYC at one mile per hour, before authoritatively announcing that its mileage isn't very good.

Unfortunately, this research does not apply to the United States. We have different climates, lower population density, less expensive architecture, and a superior health care system. It is fallacious to try and apply it here.

But even if it did apply, perhaps you didn't read the fine print:

"Results show a geometric standard deviation of ca. 2 to 4 which means that the true value could be 2 to 4 times smaller or larger than the median estimate. The largest uncertainties lie in the exposure-response function for health impacts and the value of a life year lost – current research is directed towards reducing these uncertainties which reflect our limited knowledge."

In other words, the figures we came up with could be anywhere from 1/4 to four times the numbers we recorded, depending how good we guessed.

Or how about this one:

"If uncertainties are too large, as currently still is the case for global warming impacts, shadow values could be used as a second best option. Shadow values are inferred from reduction targets or constraints for emissions and estimate the opportunity costs of environmentally harmful activities assuming that a specified reduction target is socially desired. "

In other words, when we didn't have any hard science, we just substituted the speculation of politicians.

No wonder Popular Mechanics refuses to hire EU Bureaucrats.

of physics are not excluded by political boundaries.

Readers of scientific literature as opposed to popular pablum, understand that the chemistry of atmospheres, and many other physical laws are not determined by locality.

One of the things that conservatives do is attempt to selectively read the literature, which of course they expect no one gets, relying as they do on the broad scientific illiteracy of the declining American culture to get their (purely specious) points across. Of course, if one can read the scientific literature, conservative arguments seem rather silly.

Conservatives seldom notice this, how silly they sound, however, since this is one of the pleasures of being scientifically illiterate, not knowing exactly the extent to which one's (for lack of a better term) "ideas" are looney.

Don't worry yourself though troubling over what we think. The conservatives, as is well known, have won. The American people very much deserve what the American people are going to get.

Welcome to the third world, Romans. The Vandals commeth.

around the world, but statistical studies are not. Since Europe has a higher population density, power plants will be closer to residential areas, and more people will be affected by the toxins. You're treating me like I'm ignorant, but how ignorant is it to assume that I am an uneducated Conservative, just because I disagree with you?

If you can drop the self-righteous routine for a just moment and look at what I'm saying, rather than viciously attacking me, you might realize that there is no hard evidence to the social cost of using fossil fuel. The study you cited is admittedly inconclusive and speculative.

Wind power is twice as expensive as traditional fuels. That is a hard fact. Spending tax revenue to offset speculative social costs is folly. You wouldn't spend your own money so foolishly, why do you ask the taxpayers to do something you wouldn't do yourself?

Meanwhile, you mentioned the "external costs created by 'traditional power.'" Exactly what are those costs in cents per gallon? I don't recall you ever sourceing that for me.

How do you put a price tag on the preventable deaths of 4000 people? Do you suppose significant health care costs are incurred while these people suffer from respitory disease?

Premature deaths tied to moderate smog
EPA-funded study: Cutting ozone by third would save 4,000 lives

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6502986/


The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions

http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/particulate-related.pdf

Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution

Conclusion Long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/9/1132


Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: a cohort study
McConnell et. al.
The Lancet Vol. 359. – February 2, 2002.

A decade long study of children conducted by the University of Southern California has concluded that new cases of asthma are associated with heavy exercise in California communities with high concentrations of ozone. The study compared newly diagnosed asthma cases in 3,535 children tracked over a five-year period in 12 Southern California communities. The researchers showed that children in high ozone communities who played three or more sports developed asthma at a rate three times higher than children in low ozone communities. Although scientists have known for some time that smog can trigger attacks in asthmatics, this study presents some of the first evidence that ozone may cause asthma.

www.niehs.nih.gov/centers/2002News/usc-asma.pdf


Increased Particulate Air Pollution and the Triggering of Myocardial Infraction, Peters et. al. Circulation v. 103. - June 12, 2001.

According to this time-series study, short term exposures to elevated levels of fine particles (PM 2.5) increases the risk of heart attacks in at-risk persons for up to one day following exposure. Researchers interviewed 772 Boston-area patients recovering from heart attacks and found that the onset of their symptoms correlated with times of high daily pollution. The study, conducted between 1995 and May 1996, is one of the first of its kind to document the link between short-term exposure to air pollution and heart attacks. The study found that elevated levels of fine particulate matter increases the risk of heart attack by 48-69 percent after being exposed to particulate matter pollution for anywhere from 2 to 24 hours. Murray Mittleman, M.D., director of the cardiovascular epidemiology at Beth Israel Deaconess, and a coauthor of the study concluded, “As levels of air pollution went up, the risk went up.”

www.respiratoryreviews.com/sep01/rr_sep01_pollution.html


Effect of Air Pollutants on Acute Stroke Mortality
Hong et. al. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 110, no. 2 – February 2002.

A team of four Korean institutions and the Harvard School of Public Health has concluded that: "fine particulate matter and gaseous pollutants are significant risk factors for acute stroke death and that the elderly and women are more susceptible to the effect of particulate air pollutants." Researchers found that deaths from stroke in Seoul between 1995 and 1998 increased with rising concentrations of PM10, ozone, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (NOx)—all common power plant emissions.

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p187-191hong/abstract.html

No Hazards to wildlife here:

Mountaintop removal mining is the practice of blasting off the tops of mountains so machines called draglines can mine coal deposits. Coal mining companies dump the mountaintops into nearby valleys and streams to create "valley fills," converting mountain landscapes covered in hardwood forests into fields of sparse grass. Coal companies are stripping off the tops of mountains in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. Tennessee has three inactive mines.

not speculations on health risks. It's hard to compare the relative savings from wind energy, when all I'm presented with is sob stories.

While the EPA ozone study is compelling, it doesn't prove anything more than people with respiratory illness die more often when the weather gets hotter. That same correlation has been noted in Chicago, where Lake Michigan breezes and flat landscape make ozone less of an issue since, according to the article, "Ground-level ozone typically increases when temperatures rise."

I don't have the time to read all the articles you so graciously provided, although I'm certain they are packed full of similar oversights. (especially the one citing statistics from Korea --not really applicable). I'm going out of town for the weekend, and won't be packing my computer.

In conclusion, I would like to say that if there were really a link between health and consumption of traditional fuels, the mortality rate in this country would have increased along with our energy consumption. The truth is, that while the nation uses more fossil fuel year after year, life expectancies have been going up dramatically.

You're obviously not interested in nor do you understand science and reason. I'm done talking to brick walls.

Clearly such an ability to distinguish such points, which involves being educated in scientific matters, is generally not found among those who read "popular" magazines.

a health consequence. It was written by a governing body that wants to assess a tax on energy, so it satisfies their self-interest to make the figures to come out high. It reminds me of earlier studies done to calculate the cost to society from cigarette smoking. However, a Norwegian study, that factored in the cost "benefit" of smoking (smokers tend to die early, saving the cost of things like pensions and nursing homes) found that smoking actually saved society money.

Only detrimental health aspects were cited here. Cheaper energy means cheaper food, and better nutrition all around. How many lives are saved every year because gas powered ambulances, helicopters and jets can rush patients to medical care, before they expire? Can you imagine how many people would die every year if paramedics used light rail to get a patient into the emergency room? How many houses would burn to the ground because the electric fire engine wasn't charged up yet?

Cheap, reliable transportation also allows people to get themselves where the work is, and keep their heads above the poverty line. Poverty is at least as certain a killer as cancer or asthma.

Let's just leave it at one of us reading "Popular Mechanics" and the other of us not reading "Popular Mechanics."

I certainly don't have time to teach energy economics to the readers of popular magazines. It would seem that the readers of popular magazines are so far detached from even the most basic conceptions of this matter, and so myopic, that such an effort, even if undertaken, is certainly doomed to fail, especially if the starting point is hare-brained conspiracy theories about taxes.

Sometimes I can't believe that conservatives can possibly be as dumb as they seem, but you know, after watching Fox briefly for the Super Bowl, maybe they actually are.

Man, historians, if there are historians in the future, are going to be rolling in the aisles over this culture, rolling in the aisles I tell you...

the peer reviewed study on the actual mileage ratings for the Toyota Prius. Please direct me to the respected scientific journal where that was published, so I can compare their results to what was reported in the pedestrian tabloid I cited, and see if the only source my tiny mind can comprehend was accurate.

Do you really believe that I am the one who is sounding "dumb" throughout this dialog? Perhaps you better reread some of your posts. By your own admission you're reading is exclusionary, that's almost a textbook definition of "ignorance."

But as I said before, you're not willing to pay double the cost for electricity when it comes out of your own pocket, so apparently we both have a grasp of street-level economics.

many conservatives can't really see how obvious it is to anyone who thinks.

Here's how it works.

1) A mindless conservative makes a negative statement. "Studies show" (and what mindless conservative twittery doesn't include the vague word "studies" in the introductory sentence) that "x doesn't work." X in a particular case could "welfare" or "global warming" or "affirmative action" or "evolutionary biology" or "hybrid car technology," or "the denial that war is good for us," or that "promoting smoking on the grounds that it kills people before they grow old and expensive is bad" etc. (What I've learned by an unfortunate osmosis is that this particular bit of mindlessness is the signature of the infamous drug addled radio host, Limbaugh, for instance.)

2) A person who is familiar with "x," but perhaps with the fact that the mindless conservative is, in fact, a mindless conservative, points out that the conservative's position is incorrect on clearly demonstrable physical grounds. (Note it makes no difference if the objection to the conservative's position is prima facie correct. The point of conservative religion is very much like the point or Orwell's "People's Party," to demonstrate the power of propaganda by the obfuscation of reality so much as to demonstrate its power in defiance of reality.)

3) The conservative, being conservative and therefore only loosely attached at best to the idea of critical thinking, immediately launches into some specious logical fallacy. The logical fallacy of of "appeal to authority," is a favorite, widely used, for instance, by "intelligent" (and boy does THAT word crack me up in this context) "Design" advocates.

4) Critical thinkers then point out the logical fallacy by noting that the appeal to authority by which the original negative premise is alleged to be supported is hardly competent authority, noting that the authority cited is in fact incompetent to rule on the matter in question.

5) The mindless conservative then demands that the critical thinker produce references, evidence, blah, blah, blah into pure perfect twittery disproving the original negative premise. This of course, is designed to distract attention from the fact that the mindless conservative's original premise is, by virtue of being negative, the one that is in need of support.


Now. I am a scientist. I am not a high school teacher. I am therefore not in the business of attempting to find ways to the educate the educationally intractable. That is not the goal of my posts. Put another way, I do NOT post on DU to convince people who exist in some kind of dogmatic lockstep of the error of their ways. I am too old to believe that there is any hope for such persons. Like persons in other exceedingly tragic times, my reason for posting here is that I am increasingly disturbed with the increasing power of lies. When cultures collapse precipitously they always do so in a matrix of lies, inattention to reality, intellectual sloth and intellectual laziness. I believe that stupidity triumphs, as it now is doing in the rapidly decaying and collapsing United States, mostly because it is unconfronted.

It is NOT always true of course, that all persons on the left endorse scientifically verifiable or even scientifically justifiable courses or analyses. I have quite clearly disagreed with other persons on this left leaning site for instance who offer the erroneous conclusion that nuclear power is unacceptably unsafe. This flies in the face of experimental reality and I have no problem whatsoever than saying that a leftist is wrong when they are wrong. Although in individual cases though there are exceptions however, it is much more interesting to wrestle intellectually with leftists because leftists, in general, have much more intellectual equipment, and in general know at least what does and does not constitute thinking.

In comparison arguing with conservatives is just a cruel sport. It's shooting ducks in a barrel. What's sad, though, really sad is somehow the ducks have gotten out the barrel and now obscure the sun, shitting in fact, on everyone's heads.

someone hasn't been taking his meds.

So that's how a conservative argues huh? You sure won that debate, That's NNadir: 1 Straw Man 0

Now to get back to where we were: Apparently you've been unable to find the respected scientific journal where the Prius test drive was published and peer reviewed. Here's a hint: it doesn't exist. That's why I sometimes read magazines like Popular Mechanics, to get information on subjects that other sources won't cover. If you want to ignore that level of publication, fine, but you really shouldn't try discuss matters you haven't read about, you come off as an arrogant fop.

But the real question: If you find the EU study, you provided as an authority appeal, so convincing, then why aren't you powering your abode with wind energy paid for from your own pocket?

You might also remember that Mother Nature Always Wins.

Small subsidies of hybrid vehicles and wind farms are probably no big deal in the overall economy of the United States. But subsidies of the existing oil and coal infrastructure are quite impressive, and most certainly include our current occupation of Iraq.

We wouldn't be in Iraq if they didn't have oil. That is a fact.

I can't help but regard your protests against hybrid cars and wind farms as a distraction when thousands of people are being killed every day by the oil and coal industries.

Nissan and General Motors may be correct, maybe hybrid cars are a dead-end technology. I don't believe that, but still, I'm not Toyota or Honda betting my money in that arena.

One hundred years from now I suspect my great-grandchildren will walk, ride their bicycles, or take trains and busses to work. Privately owned automobiles will be used much like "pleasure boats" are used today -- left neglected in storage lots most of the time, to be used for occasional weekend joyrides.

In 100 years there may be no grandchildren, not yours, not mine, not anyone's.

"Were the Prius offered with a diesel engine rather than the hybrid equipment, I believe (opinion not fact) that the fuel economy would be about the same, and it would be roomier because there would be no necessity for a battery."

I don't think this quite makes sense.

For one thing, one of the main selling points of hybrids is that they're substantially cleaner even than LEV and ULEV standard ICEs. And while diesels have improved vastly in the last 30 years in terms of pollutants and particulates, they're probably always going to be substantially dirtier than gasoline cars.

Beyond that, it doesn't make sense to make a hybrid diesel in terms of power response. The advantage of an electric assist to a standard ICE in a hybrid is the addition of low- and mid-range torque that gasoline engines are somewhat lacking in. If you drive a hybrid, you'll know what I mean. The Prius ain't exactly NASCAR material, but when you slap the pedal, its initial pickup is quite good - all that electricity doing its torquey job.

But diesels already have plenty of low- to mid-range torque. So why would you add on a hybrid drive train to a diesel engine (which is already heavier than a gas engine, demanding a more powerful battery, greater materials demands for that battery system, etc., etc.) when your efforts would probably be better spent on improving emissions in standard diesels?

putting a diesel engine into a hybrid configuration. (Others did, perhaps you are confusing remarks, or maybe I wasn't clear enough). I just suggested putting a diesel engine into a Prius body, maintaining the lightweight frame, high skinny tires and aerodynamic body shape. That way, some of the design advantages beyond the drivetrain would contiribute to a very efficient vehicle.

I wasn't remarking on the emissions either, I was talking about fuel economy. One might assume that as more miles are squeezed out of a gallon of fuel, the less pollutants wander into the atmosphere, but I was speaking strictly in terms of fuel efficiency.

Batteries would not need to be changed every 3-4 yrs unless you're driving 25,000 miles per year. That's some commute.

They have not done anything original since they broke their real union in 1953 and replaced it with a Company union. That is the history of Nissan Steel. No innovation and few risks. For Example when Nissan first entered the US Market it adopted the name Datsun for its cars in case the effort would fail and taint their company's name. This was four years AFTER Toyota was already in the US under its own name.

My point is Compared to Toyota (The largest Japanese Car Company) and Honda (The only Automobile Company with any idea of what risk taking and original ideas are) Nissan is another GM (A follower not a leader in Technology). Thus like the recent statement from a GM Employee that the Hybrid was a missed MARKETING and ADVERTISING opportunity of GM, the Comment from Nissan sounds like Sour Grapes, complaining of missing an marketing opportunity that it (GM or Nissan) would NEVER have took.

For example the VW's 235 MPG test car. There are ways to get better mileage other than Hybrids, but the cost is in acceleration AND top speed. If drivers would accept a top speed of 25mph, cars can be made much smaller and get much better fuel economy. Mopeds do this now, notice the dumber of mopeds on the road. The price if Gasoline is NOT yet high enough to see people demanding high mileage cars, when you start seeing a lot of Mopeds you know the demand for high mileage cars is here to stay.
]
For information on Mopeds:
http://powersports.honda.com/scooters/
http://www.bargainjims.com/default.asp?campaign_id=overture
http://www.scootsusa.com/?src=overture&OVRAW=Mopeds&OVKEY=moped&OVMTC=standard
http://gmimotorsports.com/index.shtml

For electric Car Information:
http://www.electric-bikes.com/lev.htm
http://www.gemcar.com/

Other high mileage Vehicles:
http://www.zapworld.com/about/news/news_smartmods.asp

I see that as the weakness of hybrid automobiles. One could justify it by adding in pollution savings and resource protection, but I think you would still end up having a hard time making a case for hybrids.

I have a hunch that low-nitrous diesels are the real hope for economy without emitting smog producing or nitrous-GHG emissions:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x19456

For mostly higher speeds/longer distances, the electric components of a hybrid will probably never pay off when compared with a next-gen small diesel as you present.

For low speeds/stop and go commutes my bet is that the hybrid components would be economical once gas gets high enough in cost. For predominantly stop and go driving, going one step further to a pluggable hybrid, allowing the first 25 miles on the grid, may be cost effective.

I don't think there is one solution for everyone. For me, a pluggable gas hybrid would be best. I travel maybe 20 mi./day, urban stop and go, so I could run on the grid most of the time. But when I want to travel a couple hundred miles, the combustion engine is there to take over.

Where I live you would be consuming dirty coal to get the electricity. That is not so swell either.

Did you know that Japanese-market Priuses have a dashboard button to switch to pluggable/battery only drive? The motorist has a choice on how to operate.

I think that some day, Americans would be greatful just to have a battery-powered EV with a range of 60 miles to get them to work and back each day.

(sorry, until my friend gets back to me on which scientific journals do automotive test driving and pricing, it's the only source I can find) you can buy a Volkswagen Jetta GL TDI for over $6000 less than a Prius. In tests it got 31.6 MPG city, 53 MPG highway (the Prius got 32.9 MPG city, 56.2 highway). Assuming an even mix of city and highway driving, over 100K miles, you would only save 120 gallons of gas, less than $250. Performance is similar (Prius is a little quicker, Jetta corners better). There's also not as long a waiting list for the Jetta.

Diesel and gasoline powered cars have been under development for over a hundred years now. Boring.

Computer controlled hybrid vehicles are something entirely new. Toyota and Honda are betting these hybrid cars will be succesful in the long run, and if they are, other manufacturers will be playing catch-up, and buying technology licenses.

Companies that make hybrid cars will also be better prepared to make a "plug-in" hybrid. A plug-in hybrid that relies on electric utility power for average daily commuting fits very well into certain kinds of energy economies, say for example an economy that relies primarily on nuclear generated electricity.

Meanwhile, I could purchase a "solar powered" car today because a service station near me sells biodiesel. But then I wouldn't be contributing much towards any technological advances in automotive design or alternative fuel infrastructures. From my point of view this makes hybrids a little bit more interesting than other high mileage cars, even biodiesel fueled cars.

That's an important point -- how "interesting" a new car is. I don't understand GM's or Nissan's or vonSchloegel's opposition to hybrid technology.

Sadly most people in the United States purchase their new cars as a "fashion statement." They buy cars the same way they buy clothes -- because they "look good."

Our roads are clogged with giant SUVs that will never be driven off-road, and high horsepower sports cars that will never be driven down empty highways at full throttle.

Popular Mechanics, Road and Track, Car and Driver, etc., are all about selling the fantasy that you are not just another average Joe driving to and from work five days a week. You are the kind of guy who drives a Hummer, or a Cadillac superbowl-tunnel-bullet-car, or a Prius, or a big truck, or a little rice rocket.

You are not a mom driving a seven year old mini-van that smells like french fries and dirty diapers, or a geek on a bicycle who has to take a shower when he gets to work, or, at the very worst, you walk or ride the bus...

Your car is part of your identity.

I personally believe hybrid vehicles are a significant technological advancement, so if I buy a new car I will consider a hybrid, knowing full well that some plain old diesel or gasoline technology car might be more "economical..."

Perhaps a used three cylindar Geo Metro, anyone? How cool is that?

I'm not opposed to Hybrid technology, I personally think it's pretty neat, but it is limited. The hybrid is not a magic engine, it just allows energy normally burned off at the brakes to be recovered and used for acceleration. Because most people don't understand this, they fantasize that the potential is far and away from its real world limitations. I'm just trying to explain the reality of the technology to people who have good intentions, but might spend more time reading policy reports than automotive manuals.

I also believe that people who buy the Prius are just as concerned about their identity as the buyers of any other vehicle. By buying the Prius, they are telegraphing to everyone on the road that they are much smarter, and care more about the environment than all the other drivers. It's as much a fashion statement as a Green Party bumper sticker, or a PBS tote bag.

Sure, it's partly about recycling braking energy, but mostly it's about the efficiency curves of the gasoline engine.

Gasoline engines are most efficient at a certain RPM and load. Outside that range they can be grossly inefficient. The hybrid technology increases the amount of time the gasoline engine runs within its efficient range, and decreases the amount of time it runs within it's inefficient range.

Braking energy is only a small part of the overall equation.

I underestimated the impact of the efficiency curve. I thought with computerized transmissions, engine management systems, and cruise control, that most modern cars were already quite capable of keeping engines within a certain RPM and load.

Regardless of who is correct, I fail to see where much more efficiency can be milked from the technology. A lot of people are saying that the hybrid is still in its infancy, however it appears to me that it is already within the upper limits of its potential.

New technologies don't always improve year after year. When I was young, the Wankle Rotary Engine was supposed to be the energy efficient, low polluting, technology of the future. Only Mazda ever even offered it in a vehicle, and it failed miserably.

It is solely a matter of faith that the hybrid will get better year after year. Forgive me for doubting, it's just that I've been presented with very little evidence to be optimistic about the future of the technology.

But the invention of the Carburetor made Gasoline engines efficient enough that the Hybrids all died out.

People have played with Hybrids ever since 1900 but never could over come its two big weaknesses, first Batteries are heavy and have to be replaced, and two, batteries storage is only 10-15% efficient. Between these two "problems" Hybrids never took off. As the GM manger aid a few weeks ago, as an automotive system Hybrids were NOT worth what Toyota has put into it, but as Advertisement as to high tech and good will it was worth every penny Toyota paid (and will pay) for its Hybrids.

If you really want to improve fuel economy just reduce maximum performance. Mopeds get 250mpg TODAY. OK, the top speed is only 25mph on the flat (and MUCH slower going up hill) but if all you want is to get from X to Y more efficient than any other motorized vehicle. VW did an experimental car a few years ago and it achieved 235mpg, it had a very slow acceleration but obtained high mileage. VW's produces its Lupo in Europe as a high mileage car, and claims it gets higher mileage than the Toyota Primus (VW does not sell the car in the US on the Grounds its low performance, rough ride, and unique fuel saving techniques would not make it an hot seller in the US).

No hybrids was a dead end in 1900 and a dead end today. In 1900 Hybrids were developed to improve the efficiency of Gasoline Engines, the same it is being used for today. The Difference is that people are willing to PAY more for the image of being fuel and environmental conscious, something no one thought of in 1900.

My Predictions for Hybrids? 10-15 year life period, than replacement by cars with max speed of 25mph as the price of Gasoline goes to $10-20 dollar a gallon. The Military may retain them in Tanks and Armored Vehicles (The latest proposed Version of the M113 is to be a Hybrid) for lower performance may NOT be acceptable to the US Military, but I should point out even the Army will drop hybrids as even the Army will have to stop using Oil.


Articles with Pictures of Early hybrids:
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4022560&src=msn>1=4553
http://www.detnews.com/joyrides/2000/oldcar00/
http://autos.msn.com/volvo/article.aspx?contentid=4022308&src=vdg
http://www.motorists.org/new/carreviews/dieselvshybrid.html
http://www.ok-living.com/archives/april/hybrid%20cars.pdf#search='1900%20Gasoline%20Hybrids'


An actaul paper on Hybrids:
http://www2.bc.edu/~lindgret/fws-fall2002/student_pres/Taylor/Essay3.htm
http://pisor.org/hybrid/grn4.html

On The M113 Hybrid powered APC:
http://www.marcav.ctc.com/projects/m113/

VW Lupo:
http://www.lupousa.com/

If you really want to improve fuel economy just reduce maximum performance.

Hybrids offer another way to do just that. We don't need that much
power most of the time. The time we need power is when we are trying
to merge into traffic. That's a short burst of power and when you
want it, you want it NOW. Electric motors and batteries are very good
for that. They can deliver a burst of acceleration faster than any
gas engine. So the hybrid is a painless way to reduce the maximum
(sustained) performance while providing the sort of burst performance
that people need in actual driving situations.

My Predictions for Hybrids? 10-15 year life period, than replacement by cars with max speed of 25mph as the price of Gasoline goes to $10-20 dollar a gallon.

Long before that, hybrids will acquire the ability to plug in.
If gas gets that expensive, people will plug in more and gas up less.

I think we'll see the 25mph-and-under vehicles within a few years, at least for in-city use, or getting to the train station.
Those will probably be electric, and should be much cheaper than hybrids,
but they will not replace all other vehicles any time soon.
Gas-electric hybrids may morph into (bio)diesel-electric or
alcohol-electric hybrids. Lithium batteries may replace NiMH.

Pure gas cars will disappear as hybrids offer better economy AND better performance.

I have a hybred that gets 300 mpg, goes 35mph, and accelerates from a stop about like the average car. It is in fact a 25# mountain bike with a 10#, one horsepower engine driving the rear wheel with a kevlar cogged belt, no transmission. For acceleration and hills my legs supply the second source of power. Good exercise, lots of fun, and saving big bucks, a fill up costs me 65 cents. Bob