48 percent of respondents to a recent Pike Research survey have classified themselves as very or extremely intrested in buying a plug-in hybrid vee-
hee-cle, and 65 percent of them were willing to pay a premium price relative to a regular old petrol puffer. This enthusiasm stretched to an average premium of 12 percent which, while encouraging, still won't quite cover the current price gap between
hybrids and, erm, monobryds? It would seem, then, that the environmental,
fuel efficiency and plug-in ability benefits aren't lost on buyers, but neither are basic principles of economics. Our view on things? What we need is a netbook equivalent in the car world -- a dirt-cheap hybrid that students and hippies can get behind and stimulate the move of all prices downwards.
[Via
Autoblog Green]
posted Sep 11th 2009 7:02AM
Survey finds that more Americans believe in devil than Darwin :
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1938,Poll-finds-more-Americans-believe-in-devil-than-Darwin,Reuters-Ed-Stoddard
FAIL
Very True.
I respect every religion and when I asked a Christian friend about why he believes the Devil exists, he replied that questioning whether or not he exists is the very thing the devil wants. If people don't believe the devil exists or stop fearing him, then they will commit sins without thinking of the consequences and be sent to hell when they die which is exactly what the devil wants.
Interesting insight is it not?
As for me, I used to be very religious. Grew up and started questioning things. and now I'm just living life one day at a time wondering what it's all for.
I will say this though, rejecting something just because you "believe' it is wrong doesn't make it so. I think most of those people polled never went to the Smithsonian museum of natural history. Sad part is, there is a Darwin exhibit that is on at the Smithsonian in time for the 150th anniversary of publication of his book, "On the Origin of Species" this Saturday the 12th.
The Devil is real, man. Just ask Tenacious D.
Survey didn't ask if I want that pictured car.
But I'm not American so you won't care...
Yeah, I want pictured car. I like it.
Make a hybrid escalade and suddenly everyone will be able "afford" it even thought it might only go from 14mpg to 15mpg.
@ Kamal
you mean this escalade hybrid? http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/landing.jsp?model=hybrid&year=2009&cmp=HybridRedirect
I've seen it and the amount of times they badged it "hybrid" is ridiculous...
A loremo if loremo ever makes a car...
If my brothers and sisters down south cannot afford to buy Hybrids, which country can? America is the richest nation in the world and is the number 1 consumer nation in the world. They are most likely the first people to afford anything.
But I can understand where they are coming from. Up here in Canada, why buy a Toyota Prius for close to 30,000+ when you get a smaller compact that has excellent fuel economy and mileage for 1/3rd the price.
I'm all for saving the economy, but not if it puts me in the poorhouse. And besides, for every american that buys a hybrid, nearly 100 Chinese or Indians buy a high-emission gas guzzler.
Once the chinese change then the world will change. They are the most populous nation so their act will most likely ripple throgh out the world. imo
"America is the richest nation in the world and is the number 1 consumer nation in the world."
No it isn't.
Perhaps if our "great" leaders would give us back most of our tax dollars a hybrid would be well within reach.
America is not the richest nation in the world. We have a debt of $11,790,793,319,176.89 . The media broadcasts the "rich and super rich" lifestyles which is something like 5% of the US population, not the typical "blue collar middle class" American life which is the majority. The majority of Americans can't justify to go green with hybrids with the current costs, especially now. The majority of Americans struggle with healthcare and college education costs.
According to GDP the US is the richest economy in the world. even with it's debt. Japan is number two.
Just because we have a high GDP doesn't mean we manage our money well. We aren't the richest trust me. And we are also far from the highest GDP per-capita. Meaning that other countries are richer per person than us. Nice patriotism though.
If the article is about hybrids why is there a picture of the all electric Fisker Karma? Just a thought. And secondly, hybrids are still kinda semi a new technology. it is still high in price. Just wait for all these manufacturers to put out their models and it will inevitably go down in price. However I personally would rather jump from a full gas to a full electric. I am not interested in a hybrid. Its either one or the other. I am willing to trade my Mazda RX8 for a Tesla Roadster... any takers?
If it was a late model RX-7, yes! Those are nice looking cars. RX-8 is nasty.
Although I agree with you there, full on electric cars don't get you very far. 250 miles is plenty for daily use. But you're SOL when you want to take a roadtrip. I am not sure either if it is more pollutanous to plug your car in overnight then it is to burn a few gallons of gas a day. There is no such thing as 'clean coal'.
The thing with EV's is that they are perfect for nearly 90% of transportation needs which involve to and from work, to and from school, and other daily commutes. That would be your weekday car in which you will travel less than 100 miles in a day while an ICE car will be your weekend car. Just imagine how much less pollutants will be spewed if such substances are emitted for only 2 or 3 days out of the week as opposed to every day.
Also when it comes to the whole argument over using an EV just displaces the emissions further up the supply line, power plants are specialized for such work. Just take for example a home generator powered by a small engine. That engine is designed to run at a specific RPM that optimizes its efficiency to power output. So it is a whole lot more efficient to charge an EV with that system than it is to provide the same equivalant energy usage over a certain distance with an ICE car. my $0.02
@EM1:
Not all electricity comes from coal. In fact it's possible to call your power company and specify renewable-only electricity for a small premium. It's also the case that the biggest provider of EV charge stations, 'Better Place' corporation, supplies only electricity from solar and wind farms.
The range of electrics is also soon to be a non-issue as that same corporation is building battery swap stations. When you run low on power you simply pull into a swap station, where the spent battery is pulled out and a freshly charged one is put in, all automated and in less time than it would take to gas up.
The Fisker Karma is a plug in hybrid.
http://karma.fiskerautomotive.com/pages/karma
With the advent of the lithium air battery, promising 10x the energy density of lithium ion batteries, range soon won't be a problem. Imagine a roadster that could go 2500 miles on a charge. Anyways, this will likely reduce the cost because Americans only really need a car with a 600 mile range so the packs would get smaller and the cars more efficient.
@SirisC
You are correct. I apologize for my assumption that it is the same as the Tesla.
screw lithium air screw 10x times the range screw the tesla.
What I want is a 4 door mid size sedan with NIMH batteries that does 100miles a day.
Here are the reasons.
#1 it can be built for under $13,000 FULL RETAIL
#2 its proven ready to go technology
#3 its virtually maintenance free
#4 the battery is good for at least 250,000 miles to 80% range
#5 the batteries are DIRT cheap to replace when I need to in 20+ years
Need I go on?
You say your screwed if you need to go on a road trip. I say your not using your brain.
I drive 54 miles ONE WAY to work. Drive to work. Charge up Drive home Charge up. Seems simple to me.
NO MORE GAS. I would trade my current $3500-$4000 gasoline bill each year for a $300 a YEAR electric bill increase. $3500 or $300 do the math.
the car would be FREE in under 4 years JUST in gasoline savings.
Nothing to break down virtually maintenance free no moving parts to speak of besides the electric motor axles and wheels.
If I could AFFORD to buy a prius (I can't) it would take me 138 years to BREAK EVEN in gasoline savings over just KEEPING my 28mpg minivan I already have. 68 years if I compared it to a brand new $10,000 kia etc..
Are you kidding me? thats NUTS! its physically impossible to "save money" buying a prius unless your a cab driver maybe.
Problem is GM sold the NIMH patent we need to Texaco/Chevron when they killed the EV1 Electric car project. So we are screwed since chevron REFUSES to let anyone license the tech for CAR usage.
there are E95 NIMH powered Toyota RAV 4's STILL on the road today. some with over 150,000 miles on the battery pack. So far ZERO degradation in the battery. ZERO.
these people get 80-110 miles PER CHARGE.
Compared to the 40miles in the volt. Consider this. The average LEAD ACID battery powered home built electric car conversion averages 40 miles range. DO YOU REALLY think its a coincidence that the volt also only goes 40 miles. I do not believe in coincidences. OH and the average lead acid conversion costs about $8000. (alas I need 60 miles or I would DO ONE in a heart beat)
Hydrogen is a SCAM. average mpg will be around 35mpg equivalent and its going to cost you $7 to $8 a gallon equivalent for hydrogen.
How about they just put out a nice under $10,000 1.5l diesel that gets 50mpg (they already do this in europe though I think its more than $10,000)
Or better yet REVOKE the chevron NIMH patent put this STIMULUS money into a nimh production factory HERE ON US SOIL and COMPEL the auto makers to start making under $15,000 Aluminum Framed 100+mile range Direct Drive NIMH powered 4 door midsize sedans.
as for the devil. He is dead. I went to hell. He pissed me off. I nuked the place. Why do you think its on fire! :-)
@F117nghthawk
-1 for misspelling "through"
Freaking Engadget commenting system!!!
-1 for misspelling "Nighthawk"
Just kidding. I don't care.
Hmmm...
Now that I think about it, it's very vague. I guess you are right.
While it has a GDP that is unrivalled, when you factor in PPP the US goes down. If you compare standard of living then the US still doesn't rank at the top.
In the literal sense it is the richest nation because it's GDP is so high, has the most billionaires out of any country in the world, the largest companies and conglomerates, etc...
But it also has one of the widest rich-poor gaps in the world, and when you average every american, the US falls below many other countries when it comes to things like home ownership etc...
But I will say, any country that spends close to 600 billion on defense a year is pretty damn rich no? Not to mention the Iraq war is close to costing a trillion dollars. Although the debt is growing like crazy, The U.S. is also still the worlds largest economy.
^above comment was for Fanman. I wish Engadget allowed you to edit or delete posts.
"But I will say, any country that spends close to 600 billion on defense a year is pretty damn rich no? "
I wouldnt say rich...id say stupid...
Thats what i hate about America, they would rather spend more money to buy guns, ships and planes than spend it on the education and health of their people...you could replace "America" in that sentence with "North korea" and it would still be true.
@Adderz
Not every defense dollar goes to buying "guns, ships and planes". Much of the technology the world enjoys -- much of the technology you see on Engadget, gained its infancy at the expense of the US people through the development of newer / better tech coming straight from the US defense industry.
The Internet, hard drive technology, random access memory, the laser in your dvd drive, the farking LCD you're viewing to read this post -- all originated as projects funded by the US Department of Defense. I won't go into medical technologies that have been developed & marketed -- we've been around this particular block many many times.
The need to use guns to protect a nation is sad. The need to use force when diplomacy fails is a historical fact. That's just the way it is. The fact that the end products of defense research dollars can, in some cases, be used to the benefit of mankind is serendipitous. Let's focus on the good that comes out of defense spending and stop bashing the nation that has brought so much good to, well, *your* life.
not if the money is from other countries like china and japan and india.
Rationalization at its best!
Im can sure as hell do without much of the technology in my life if it meant the general populous would have food to eat and an education. With education comes advancement. With war only comes death.
I agree every country needs to have a defense force but America "over-indulges".
@Adderz
"With education comes advancement. With war only comes death. I agree every country needs to have a defense force but America "over-indulges".
1) I agree for the most part. With education comes advancement. And a higher standard of living. And higher population. And population pressure. And, (whups!), war.
2) I agree for the most part. I think we can agree that war itself leads to death and destruction. However, I think we can also agree that preparation for war, itself a deterrent to war, can lead to some pretty amazing and useful innovation.
3) "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was AT PEACE with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor *looking toward the maintenance of peace* in the Pacific."... This nation will *NEVER* be caught again with its pants down! !!!NEVER!!! So stop being a prick.
I wish that education were enough. I wish that the bulk of our resources could be directed at helping mankind -- that the fruits of noble endeavors could be gleaned for other purposes (such as the discoveries made by research for the space program).
Again, I wish that we lived in a world without war. Honestly, I do. As someone who has had to fire a weapon and has been fired upon, believe me here. However, we live in a world of tinpot dictators. A world of piracy. A world where millions of (American) dollars in food and aid are air-dropped to starving, hurting people, only to be looted, corralled and withheld from those who need it (think most of Africa).
But we don't. So we deal with it. And defend ourselves. And try to find good in the face of "evil". Alright by you?
Adderz: It only seems a lot in relation to other countries defense spending, but it is actually the correct amount for defense spending based off of GDP. Meaning that most countries typically spend between 3-4 percent of GDP on defense.
The US spends 4.06% of its GDP on defense which while higher than countries like India and France, in relation to GDP, is less than what countries like Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia spend. They spend over 10-20% of total country GDP on defense.
While the US doesn't need to spend as much since a lot gets wasted on stupid projects that never see the light of day, they are essential in making sure you sleep comfortable at night. I'm Canadian and I sleep safe knowing that there is a giant to the South. I mean the F-22 raptor is the most expensive jet ever, but it is also the most advanced fighter jet ever made. It destroys any other fighter jet in the world, but the exorbitant cost allowed the program to be scrapped.
Also, keep in the mind the rising dragon and sleeping tiger in the East. China is close to spending 100 billion plus on defense and India has reached around 40 billion US. May seem trivial when the US spends 600 billion, but China and India are increasing defense spending in double digits meaning it is always 15-20% more than the year before.
There are many of us who have never purchased a new car, let alone afford a hybrid. If I had access to a mass transit option such as rail, I could drop to a single car and afford to buy new. Unfortunately, since I live in the mid-west, it's unlikely to happen any time soon. I like the idea of a "netbook" option. A car for me is something to get me from point A to point B and I don't care if it has the latest and greatest options. If you make them cheep, we will buy.
bicycle+pub.trans., great hybrid, been around for a while.
Along the lines of what Ool said regarding the final line ("What we need is a netbook equivalent in the car world -- a dirt-cheap hybrid that students and hippies can get behind and stimulate the move of all prices downwards."):
Geo Metro, Subaru Justy, Ford Aspire, etc etc ad nauseum. We have had cheap, small, fuel-efficient vehicle options for decades. What we NEED is a population that cares about fuel economy, not about whether they have the new hotness in petrol-fueled transit.
I'll agree Americans are the world's greatest consumer, I won't agree to them being the wealthiest.
Have you read the article called "Neo-Economics: Saving as Sin, Spending as Virtue"?
http://www.shc-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=178192&sid=a45a7e219bedbf1790738439c7522526
(this is just one versions of the article i found on the net)
The world desperately needs cheap hybrid cars.
this was supposed to be in response to HC and fanman...
"What we need is a netbook equivalent in the car world" -- Maybe Smart will make a hybrid.
Cheap hybrid car may never be a possibility, by the time more lithium battery cars are produced the lithium price will shoot up like that of gas. best alternative would be to provide entire freeway with bumper Car kind on infrastructure, like, I can get my electric car from my home and join the freeway grid ..reach my office again back home using the grid..
here is wiki on bumper car (for kids though) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_car ..
Hey, I just patented this idea.. mind it!
WRONG!!!!
If lithium (Which is pretty cheap right now actually) were to become 5x more expensive than it is today, it would become economical to extract it from sea water. Look it up.
It's just not cost efficient. I drive a HHR SS. Gets great gas millage and goes fast too. Its all I need.
That sounds like every other bullshit enviro-Statist initiative. Alternative energies should not be pursued unless they are economically viable. Global warming is a myth. Climate change is the norm.
On the other hand, the presence of a massive human population on Earth is not the norm.
(Sorry, someone had to say it.)
Tell you what. I'll give up my "alternative" energy pursuits if you give up your non-alternative energy subsidies...
Yeah, since Nobel prize winners are so often wrong about the things in which they are awarded the Nobel prize...
Flandry:
The presence of pretty much every creature on Earth is just as subject to change as climate itself.
Boyprodigy:
There is no "consensus". Furthermore, consensus is not the basis of science; skepticism is. Need I remind you that in the 1970s there was a "consensus" that global cooling would cause the Earth to cool by 6 degrees in 50 years. Need I remind you that we have now been in a period of temperature plateau for eight years? Need I remind you that extreme weather has existed since weather began? We can't just point to every heat wave and blame it on global warming. You can predict any kind of apocalyptic disaster with so called climate models. The fact is, climate change is the norm, and we humans are smart enough to adapt as we have for millenia.
@Andir3.0
I believe our government has a hybrid vehicle tax credit incentive...
http://www.hybridcars.com/federal-incentives.html
That's not my point. The government is part of the reason why health care Is so expensive (from your other post.) They are part of the reason why people have no money, and they are a part of the reason why companies can't/won't afford to pay their employees more. Giving a tax write off (that is what this credit is?) is pathetic since you will never see that money. You'll likely only see a tenth of that amount (if that) in our return, but it's made out to look like a tremendous amount of money.
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill
Obviously i was too subtle. While climate change may be the norm, climate change with us in the equation should be a concern for us because the Earth doesn't care one whit whether we stay or not. We should make sure we know what we're doing if we don't want to become a blip in the fossil record. Are you so certain that we can't affect the climate that you'd bet your great-great grandchildren on it?
It's a trick question. We CAN affect the climate, no question. What's at issue is ARE we, right now. I don't care to bet that we're not enough to scoff and mock at the effort to change that. Why do you? Selfishness? Self hate?
I don't know how many times I've explained that hybrids are a poor choice if you care about fuel economy and price. It also doesn't help Americans would buy a hybrid SUV because the hybrid part obviously negates all other issues...
Simply figure the price of the car + (the price of a gallon x expected life of the car) and a much cheaper and slightly less fuel efficient car will always win. The price of hybrids either needs to become competitive or the price of fuel to go through the roof.
Also:
1) Drive slower! I had a load of furniture in my car and to be safe I went slower than 99% of the people on the highway. I managed to milk out 37mpg out of my 2007 Pontiac Vibe.
2) Ride a bike. It costs no fuel. I figured out that my bike saves me around $1 everytime I rode to campus on it. It didn't take much longer either given the speed limit. Public transport works to! I could get to campus free if I bothered to deal with the bus system. I prefer running on my schedule and getting the exercise.
I would agree with that except that right now there are enough early adopters to drive the price down. Except the price isn't really driving, its more trinkling. Anyways, good advice.
Scarcity is also a major issue. My wife and I walked into a Toyota dealership looking for a Highlander Hybrid last week and were basically laughed at. They had ONE coming in later in the month and were telling us we would have to pay a deposit to reserve it there wasn't much room for negotiation away from the sticker price. Lexus also was sold out of 450h's and would have required a deposit to hold one. I checked inventory on Highlander Hybrids in the DC metro area and there was ONE. We ended up just sucking up the $2000 cost of fixing her current ride.
Why buy a dirt cheap hybrid when dirt cheap traditional vehicles will always get mileage that is nearly as good for even less? Can't get rid of the extra weight and cost that hybrid equipment adds.
It is my belief that Hybrids are worse for the environment for this exact reason. There were far more fuel efficient vehicles prior to the introduction of Hybrids. Check out the 85 Sprint (55+ MPG) , 1992 Civic VX (72 MPG), or the 2000 Civic HX (had one and never once got below 45MPG regardless oh how hard I drove it). They discontinued making these traditional drive train high ferule efficiency models when Hybrids came around. Why on earth would anyone buy a Hybrid when you could get a cheaper, far more environmentally friendly (Lithium?) and somewhat safer vehicle that got better mileage.
Ultimately all the fuel used to power a typical hybrid comes from Gasoline. Due to conservation of energy principals, you cannot end up with more energy than what a gas car could. You just temporarily store it and use it in a more optimized manner. Well every conversion of that energy loses a bit of it to heat, etc. So instead of Gas -> Kinetic, you have Gas -> Kinetic -> Magnetic - > Electric -> Stored in Battery -.> Electric -> Magnetic -> Kinetic. With each arrow losing a bit of efficiency is it any wonder that Hybrids are dissapointing compared to their previously un-gimped conventional counterparts?
The question is then why on earth would the car companies do this? The answer may not be obvious, but it is simple. It is the law. Legislation was introduced requiring a certain percentage of vehicles sold to be ZEV or ULEV (Zero Emissions Vehicles, or Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles). Conventional powered cars did not conform to this mandate, so the auto industry introduced Hybrids to fill the requirement. Note: Typical Hybrids do not actually output any less emissions overall under typical use than the discontinued high fuel efficiency models from yesteryear, but they are classified as such so they meet the requirement. Thus the companies were essentially mandated to sell the things and the only way to do that was to eliminate the conventional models that would prevent sales. Thus Efficiency has gone down, toxic elements used have gone up, and prices are outrageous (even though Hybrids are usually sold at a loss, since they need to sell a certain % by law)
Typical Hybrids are nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by car companies to get through a loophole mandated by the Government.
Plug-in Hybrids however, get their energy for the bulk of travel (short trips) from the grid and as such are not nearly as inefficient. For those, the negative aspects of toxic batteries, lugging around extra weight and all the energy conversions, can be outweighed by getting energy from the extremely optimized Power grid rather than a gas engine. I am all for Plug-in hybrids, especially the new Gas-Electric models such as the Volt where the drivetrain is essentially that of an electric car with a standby generator on board if the batteries get low.
Now if we can just get more capacity added to our power-grids so any additional load doesn't rely on coal....
Yes, your Civic and Spirit will get better mileage. Hell, a 1980s Honda Civic HF could pull almost 60 miles per gallon. However, the fatal flaw lies in their lack of safety equipment or amenities. Remember, we didn't have half as many safety devices back in 1992.
Wrong! My Civic HX was built in 2000, they continued that model until 2005. It had pretty much every standard safety item that the new Civic Hybrids do (well except for the mandatory power battery cutoff for Hybrids, since fireman were afraid to go near that much voltage with the jaws of life), and they consistently get better mileage than the Hybrid equivalent, and were faster. Even the 92 Civic VX came with airbags and ABS brakes. The safety equipment argument is utter BS. Hybrids are a scam to take advantage of people who don't actually stud the technology and are more concerned about appearing green that being green. I am as anti-hybrid (plug-in hybrid excepted) as they get, yet until I had children to cart around I never owned a car that got below 45 MPG. Now about the highest mileage non-hybrid is a Smart car. I have a brother that has one, and I can assure you it gets unimpressive mileage and is no safer/heavier than an 80s compact, let alone a 2005 civic coupe.
Mileage has lowered, and safety isn't the reason.
I forgot to address amenities, my 2000 Civic HX, had a sunroof, alloy rims, power everything cruise control and A/C. Sure it was missing heated leather power seats, but anyone who has those in a hybrid is a complete hypocrite.
The only option that was missing was that it was a two door. For some reason they don't make 2-door hybrids, or compact cars for that matter anymore.
Mother Nature doesn't give stuff away free. If you factor in the energy needed and the environmental burdens associated with producing the batteries in a hybrid vehicle, I'll bet it's roughly equal to the energy content of the gasoline "saved" during the hybrid's life cycle. This enviro-conscious stuff is just a scam. I recently bought airline tickets and at the end of the transaction I was offered an opportunity to pay (Al Gore?) $28.99 for carbon offset credits to assuage my guilt. What a crock-o-sh*t! This is just the modern day equivalent of the indulgences sold by the Catholic Church in medieval times.
Someone makes that same misguided assumption in every post on engadget about hybrids, and sometimes a person doing more than assuming comes along and corrects them with the facts. That person is not me. I'm too lazy and pessimistic about it actually getting to those who need to hear it. I'm just letting you know you are wrong.
@flandry
Well I'm lazy too , but it's not hard to show there is no advantage in terms of net energy required. The hybrid will use about 3000 gallons less fuel over 250K miles of driving, but it will also require at least 2 new batteries during that time. The energy content of 3000 gallons of gasoline is about 400 million BTUs. Just refining the lithium needed for one battery pack takes over 100 million BTUs, and we haven't even added the energy needed to process, move, and assemble the other components and ship the heavy thing from Asia to the U.S. Yes, I know, the packs can be recycled which saves some energy, but not as much as you might think.
Not even close man. you see you FORGET to factor in what we NO LONGER NEED when we go to electric.
a E95 NIMH powered car is good to go for MINIMUM 250,000 miles before you need to replace the batteries.
for the average american thats 22 years or MORE and that just to 80% capacity if your usage is less than 80% of the batteries original capacity then you might get another decade or MORE before having to change the battery.
SO lets compare. ONE NIMH battery pack.
what did I REMOVE to get that battery. ENTIRE ENGINE gone. ALL accessories attached to engine GONE Transmission GONE fuel tank GONE emissions system and entire exhaust system GONE Cooling system GONE smog system GONE
source of 90% of expensive automotive repairs GONE
We replace it with 3 things. An electric motor with ONE single moving part that will outlive you outlive your kids and probably outlive THEIR KIDS as well. A fully solid state battery and a fully solid state controller.
Add in a heat pump for heat and AC.
No power steering (just another electric motor) No radiator. NO water pump No power steering pump NO alternator etc.. etc.. etc..
all that goes away along with 20+ years worth of replacement parts and maintenance and fluids needed to keep those parts going.
you replaced ALL OF THAT with an electric motor solid state battery and controller. ALL of which will outlast YOU except the battery which will last nearly 3 times LONGER than the average person keeps a car and only cost $4500 to replace in 22 or so years.
I bet the FLUIDS ALONE that you use in your car now over 20 years are GREATER in environmental impact than the ONE battery for an electric car. JUST THE FLUIDS.
there is NO COMPARISON between them. even if we use 100% COAL power plants and NO renewables electric cars are NIGHT AND DAY better for the environment and our wallets than gas cars.
Nano Solar is working on $1 a watt solar panels (already making them just need to RAMP up production)
so for under $3000 you can put a small array on the roof of your house and a grid tie in within your garage and now you pay NOTHING for the power to charge your car (the watts the panel generates over a month would be greater than the watts you use to charge the car over time NO this size panel could not charge the car DIRECTLY in a timely manner)
so take a $13,000 electric car (IT IS possible to do one for that price full retail) add in $3000 and for $16,000 you have a car that will last you AT LEAST 20-25 years before you need to do ANY major maintenance to it and cost you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to drive (fuel costs) once you have paid off that $16,000.
and you wonder why they BURIED IT and DO NOT WANT TO BUILD THEM. This is why GM sold the patent for the E95 NIMH packs to Texaco/Chevron and why Chevron will NEVER let you have them so long as that patent is in force.
The funny thing is that the diesels from the 50's got 10-20 miles per gallon better than any of these hybrids.
I am referring to the VW rabbit, as an example.
But diesels have been taxed out of production because they're too environmentally unfriendly. Go figure.
Conventional diesel engines produce too many NOx emissions (i.e. smog) due to their high compression ratio/temperature. New diesel tech must have found a way around it because there are new diesel models in the US that get very good mileage. In this case, it's proper use of a tax: capturing an externality (air pollution). And it obviously drove innovation, which is the desired outcome. It's actually a brilliant example of the way we SHOULD promote tech change.
0 interest in a hybrid. I'm a gearhead with a love for cars, and I'd buy an electric car in a minute if it fit my needs - small, good range, sub-50k (basically a Tesla roadster but cheaper).
To me, hybrids just feel like a total hack. I've always appreciated the elegance of regenerative braking -- somehow this NEEDS to be a feature of all cars in the future, there is no excuse for wasting kinetic energy as heat. But the gas + electric hybrid just feels like a patched-together solution.
We looked at hybrids - the Prius, the Insight, the Civic, the Escape, the Fusion -- and ended up buying a Jetta TDI. Didn't like the styling or handling of the Prius, the Civic drove like a barge, and Ford was charging a ridiculous dealer markup for their models. Nice thing about the TDI is good mileage, low emissions, fun to drive, and no toxic metal based battery to dispose of later on.
I'd love to buy a hybrid, but I certainly can't afford one. I'm a college student, so my funds are limited. I currently drive a gas guzzler--it's a good car, but it's not fuel-efficient at all and I'm getting taken to the cleaners at the pump. I wish I could afford a hybrid (or alternative vehicle car), and I think in the next few years as technology progresses hybrids will become cheaper. IF I had all the money in the world, I'd probably buy a hybrid sportscar or, better yet, a hydrogen sportscar. In fact, I wrote a blog about the sexiest 'green' cars: http://blog.insweb.com/2008/09/sexiest_green_cars.html Maybe if I hit the Mega Millions one day or get on Deal or No Deal I'll be able to afford one :-) Until then, I'll do my best to help the environment in smaller ways.
Robert
@Adderz
"With education comes advancement. With war only comes death. I agree every country needs to have a defense force but America "over-indulges".
1) I agree for the most part. With education comes advancement. And a higher standard of living. And higher population. And population pressure. And, (whups!), war.
2) I agree for the most part. I think we can agree that war itself leads to death and destruction. However, I think we can also agree that preparation for war, itself a deterrent to war, can lead to some pretty amazing and useful innovation.
3) "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was AT PEACE with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor *looking toward the maintenance of peace* in the Pacific."... This nation will *NEVER* be caught again with its pants down! !!!NEVER!!! So stop being a prick.
I wish that education were enough. I wish that the bulk of our resources could be directed at helping mankind -- that the fruits of noble endeavors could be gleaned for other purposes (such as the discoveries made by research for the space program).
Again, I wish that we lived in a world without war. Honestly, I do. As someone who has had to fire a weapon and has been fired upon, believe me here. However, we live in a world of tinpot dictators. A world of piracy. A world where millions of (American) dollars in food and aid are air-dropped to starving, hurting people, only to be looted, corralled and withheld from those who need it (think most of Africa).
But we don't. So we deal with it. And defend ourselves. And try to find good in the face of "evil". Alright by you?
Sorry, I don't want to go hybrid. I like the days of old, where more gas pumped into the engine equaled more horespower. Also these damn noise restrictions. Living in Cali you have to have cats and mufflers. BOOO! The days of the good ol cars are gone. Now sh*itty boring cars are made. Only thing worth looking at now are $100K+ cars. Ah well, my next car will be a decent 60 or 70s classic that eats fuel and is loud as hell.
ALSO, I doubt with the age of electronic cars like we life in now, that we will be able to maintain cars for 20+ years. I will NEVER buy a new car because of the depreciation rate. But I do want my car to last at least 10 years....Almost all cars are poor financial "invstments." Unless its an Enzo...whats it go for now? 5mil. 10mil?
My 88 Cherokee has 490,000 miles on the clock. My 92 Clubwagon has 212,000 miles my 96 Voyager has 195,000 miles. Even my 74 VW Thing has 74,000 miles on it. I even managed to squeeze 22-24mpg out of the cherokee (31" tires lift etc..) until ETHANOL came along. now I lost 15% to 25% or more of my fuel economy across the board. Horaay! :-(
Cars CAN LAST if taken care of. An ALuminum NIMH powered electric car built right direct drive can be sold for under $15,000 and should EASILY last 25 years VIRTUALLY MAINTENANCE FREE including the battery without much trouble.
The battery is good for 250,000 miles the aluminum frame and plastic body would be rust proof and corrosion resistant everything else is solid state and uncomplicated.
Why even buy a hybrid? It would be cheaper to convert your car to run off of water, no? A buddy of mine did it to his truck and he gets REALLY excellent gas mileage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-Hu3FkAGU
well I sure as hell don't want a hybrid and I'm an American! I want MORE POWER!!!!!!!!! I happen to be a big fan of German engineering. Audi 4.2L V8 is a wonderfully crafted engine.
I can't afford a five old model of the car I want and they don't even make hybrid versions of it yet. For reference I'm talking about the RAV4, CRV, Forester segment.
My wife would enjoy a Prius. Her car only gets 23mpg and it can be expensive driving the kids all over the place.
Of course, her car is paid for, and $23,000 buys about 8,000 gallons of gasoline. That's 184,000 miles worth of driving... Or, you know, we could spend the same money to buy a Prius and drive it zero miles. Then spend more money to buy gas for it day in and day out.
Yeah, we're keeping the paid for car.
I recently did an analysis on buying a Honda Insight to drive to work instead of my Hummer H2. I'd keep the H2 for weekends and for taking the family places, etc, so I get no money selling it. $10k buys a decent Insight and at 12k miles driven per year, another $500 buys about 170 gallons of fuel @ 70mpg for the first year. Or I could spend my $10,500 to buy 3500 gallons of fuel at $3/each and drive my Hummer 42,000 miles - 3.5 years. So there's a roughly 4 year payoff to "save money" parking my Hummer and driving an Insight? Let's see, spend 4 years in an Insight every day, or spend it in my Hummer, either way it costs me the same amount of money. I'll keep driving the luxury 4x4 to work, thanks. It's way the hell more comfortable.
survey finds 99% of people want a better car but cant afford it