If the Feds really wanted to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we could have gone the Euro route of high mileage diesel automobiles but for some reason we thought it would be smarter to build a vehicle that has to not only tote around both a heavy battery/electrical system and an engine. Hybrid is supposed to mean the best of both worlds, but often it includes the worst of both worlds.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The Prius started development in 1995 way before fuel prices started to rise. Just like the fuel crunch of the 70's US automakers were again caught with their pants down. Do you remember why we ended up with the Chrysler K car?
FredHayek wrote: If the Feds really wanted to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we could have gone the Euro route of high mileage diesel automobiles but for some reason we thought it would be smarter to build a vehicle that has to not only tote around both a heavy battery/electrical system and an engine. Hybrid is supposed to mean the best of both worlds, but often it includes the worst of both worlds.
In the late 70's early 80's we had some Diesel powered cars but they were just Diesel engines stuffed into the old family truckster. They were underpowered, smelly, noisy and didn't make as much power as the gas powered version so they failed.
Since every car in 'Merica has to have at least 300 HP to be considered roadworthy we are about 20 years behind the curve on Diesel technology.
How do you want to play with the numbers? A practical look at a vehicle's useful life indicates that a Hummer is actually "greener" than hybrid vehicles:
As for Hummers, Spinella explains, the life of these cars averaged across various models is over 300,000 miles. By contrast, Prius' life — according to Toyota's own numbers — is 100,000 miles. Furthermore, Hummer is a far less sophisticated vehicle. Its engine obviously does not have an electric and gas component as a hybrid's does so it takes much less time and energy to manufacture. What's more, its main raw ingredient is low-cost steel, not the exotic light-weights that are exceedingly difficult to make — and dispose. But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars.
At the end of the day I'd rather see our money spent on technologies that work and not wasting those dollars on technologies that are popular and politically expedient to any one, especially the POTUS regardless of party.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
I'm not on the green energy bandwagon I am for the concept of energy diversity. Ev's work great in urban area's and petro fuels for rural folks. Solar power for those in the desert sw and nuclear for those in the east coal for the south. I don't expect a one size fits all energy source. I would expect that we would be able to use multiple energy sources to fulfill our energy requirements. As a country we get caught up in the partisan politics of it all and argue about it all the while the rest of the world laughs at us.
