What's the win for going hybrid? Let's take the Camry for example, as it's a car that you can get in both gasoline & hybrid versions with the same 2.4l 4 cyl engine.

A 2008 Camry 4cyl 2.4l with automatic gets 21/3, started at $15,561
A 2008 Camry hybrid 4cyl 2.4l with automatic gets 33/34, started at $21,634

According to fueleconomy.gov's estimates the non-hybrid will cost about $1548 per year for gas, while the hybrid will cost about $1138 per year. You got some extras with the hybrid that you didn't get with the non-hybrid version, but if we ignore that you're talking about a $6k price difference. So it'd take you over 14 years to recoup the cost. Even if we jump up to a better-equipped 2008 non-hybrid Camry SE with the same engine at $17,196, it'd still take more than 10 years to make up the price difference in the cost of gas alone.

At least in the case of the Camry, it doesn't make much sense to opt for the Hybrid because the fuel savings won't make up for the price differential.

...not to mention the fact that the way EPA mileage estimates were made changed a couple years ago, resulting in lower ratings across the board. For example, my 2001 Beetle TDI was EPA rated 42/49 under the old system, whereas under the new system it would be rated 35/44 (you can compare old & new ratings as far back as 1985 at www.fueleconomy.gov).

The 1985 Golf diesel was rated 37/46 under the old system, 31/41 under the new system.

EXACTLY. If the US truly wants to be energy dependent, then the resources we use for energy have to be abundant in the US.

blah blah blah infrastructure blah blah big oil conspiracies blah blah blah, but this is a big point in favor of HFC vehicles -- we don't need to import anything.

Tohe, mine is not a fake profile. I don't know who Greg is. I don't have an agenda. There's clearly an anti-HFC-at-all-costs agenda, and it's stupid. We shouldn't be writing off ANY alternative fuel technologies at this point.

David, you said "A lot of your other comments rest on the assumption that straight away EV's must be capable of replacing ICE cars in all circumstances and for all uses." To some extent, perhaps, but especially in America there are many, many people for whom the current limitations of EVs preclude them from consideration. Remember those "untils" and "ifs" in my post :-) I'm sure that eventually these problems will be resolved.

As usual, reading comprehension is simply nonexistent in these comments. My post was littered with "ifs" and "untils", but all of you anti-fuel cell zealots, and that's what you are, jumped all over my post as if I was saying EVs would never, ever work for anyone under any circumstances.

The FACT is that many, many people in the US do NOT live near where they work. They do NOT live in cities. They live in suburbs, edge cities, rural areas -- places where, in the US, there is little to no access to public transportation. People live in these places for a variety of reasons, all of them perfectly valid. Coupled with this is the FACT that the US, in terms of infrastructure, population/retail/industrial centers, and culture, is largely built around the automobile. People *DRIVE*. They drive from New York to Orlando for vacation. They drive 8 hours to Grandma's house for Thanksgiving.

And once again, UNTIL -- let me stress that word, UNTIL -- they can do that in the same amount of time, including stops for recharging or refueling, with an EV that they can in an IC, the EV will NOT be a viable alternative.

And let's not forget, for long haul trips, EVs are missing infrastructure just as much as HFC vehicles are. If you can truly charge an EV in minutes, that's great -- but, as with HFCs, the infrastructure, in the form of ubiquitous recharging stations, is nonexistent. If an EV can truly match the range of an HFC (I'll use the Highlander in the story as a good example), that's great too. And if EVs can match the range of an IC vehicle in cold weather, and even do better than an HFC, that's great too. It doesn't appear that the Leaf can do all of that, and I know the Tesla Roadster can't. Maybe the Tesla Model S with the 300 mile pack could, depending on charging/swapping stations.

I'm not writing off EVs like some of you seem to hope I am. But I'm also not writing off HFCs like you seem to want to, either, especially not because of some hypothetical oil company conspiracy. This story points out some very positive results of an HFC vehicle. The future is going to be best-served by a mix of technologies, depending on application. EVs, HFC, diesel/biodiesel, hybrid, LNG and even good old gasoline ICs all have their places.

EVs *will* *not* *work* unless one is capable of driving long distances without stopping for hours for a recharge. Americans want to be able to drive from New York to Orlando. They want to be able to drive 8 hours to Grandma's house at Thanksgiving. And many Americans drive 100 miles per day or more just commuting. You CANNOT write all of these people off. They are actual, real, legitimate uses of personal transportation.

Until EVs can reliably and consistently produce the range of an average gasoline car coupled with recharge/battery swap times comparable to filling up a gas tank -- IN ALL WEATHER -- EVs will NOT be a viable replacement for IC engines.

The HFC vehicle in this article HAS the range. It HAS the performance. It HAS the all-weather capability (batteries don't work as well in cold temperatures). And refilling the hydrogen tanks won't take hours. All that's missing is infrastructure.

EVs, as they stand now and will for the foreseeable future, are great for certain applications. But until the requirements of range, recharge time and all-weather performance can be met, they will not be a viable REPLACEMENT for IC engines. (Standardized batteries and ubiquitous swap stations help by eliminating recharge times on long trips).

Basically, there are more negatives for EVs right now than there are for HFCs.

I never said anything about driving 600 miles in a day. But for EVs to truly "replace" gasoline or other power types that are quickly refillable, you need to be able to drive them long distances. I just drove 800 miles round trip this past weekend, for example, to go to a family reunion. Even the Tesla Model S won't be able to manage this in the same amount of time without adequate battery swap or fast-charge stations.

Now, if you had actually read my post, instead of jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion, you'd realize that I never said, or even implied, that such EVs would never happen. The word "Until" at the beginning of my post should have made that pretty clear. Infrastructure is needed, just as it would be for hydrogen. However, 45 minutes is far too long to stop to refuel, so unless that time can be drastically reduced we're left with battery swapping stations. And the big problem with that is that it would require either standardization among battery packs, or it would require stations to carry many different battery pack types. So far standardization doesn't even appear to be on the radar, and the likelihood of stations carrying a bunch of different battery packs in the near term is also very low. In time, these things can and will change.

But until that time, for EVs to truly replace automobiles, some form of refillable range extension device -- be it a gas or diesel or LNG or LPG engine or a hydrogen fuel cell -- will be an absolute requirement.

When I can drive an electric car for a minimum of 300 miles without a charge in the depths of winter, stop at a "refueling" station and either do a quick battery swap or a 5 minute charge and then drive ANOTHER 300 miles, then electric vehicles will have "arrived".

Until then, we're going to need some sort of quickly refillable fuel to extend the range of our EVs. Gasoline and Diesel can work. So can Hydrogen, which is better because it is renewable AND doesn't emit harmful exhaust.

Nice! Let's see, I can do my lawn in about an hour with my Deere X500 with a 54" deck. With the smaller deck, 75 minutes might be pushing it. I'd probably need a longer charging time.

Induction charging strips on highways would be great for extending the range of EVs.
They'd probably have to be toll lanes, in order to recoup the expense of installation and of providing power.