Hybrid vehicles are partly about doing something for the environment. They're also about celebrating your conscience; if you drive a Prius, your colleagues know you're a good person. But even for the apolitical motorist, the mostly overlapping categories of hybrids, high-mpg vehicles, and alternative-fuel vehicles are starting to make sense. Read more.
Refreshing to read this! "It is not cast in stone (or tacked to an old-growth redwood) that a smaller car with a downsized gasoline engine, a rack of batteries under the back seat, and an electric motor is the only true solution for low emissions." I get the feeling that many hybrid owners feel that burning a bit less gasoline, and doing it quite cleanly, is the best we can do.
Oh Wow! A weirdo that thinks diesels are the answer to getting good gas mileage and giving tax credits to the poor to get rid of their junkers will clean the air. That sounds like an oxymoron to me. I for one don't drive a Prius to celebrate my conscience or to show anyone that I'm good person. I bought a Prius because I LIKED it. (the ride, toys, MPG, styling).
I bought one because I am Cheap and drive alot. I loved the toy's in this car. Lastly less of my gas money get's sent to the Middle East and and I can spend more of it here. Blue
It's the best that our family can do - yes....for the price. Not to mention changing out light bulbs, lowering home energy use, using rechargable batteries, beefing up the insulation, etc. If it was more affordable, we'd also have solar panels on the roof. So Darell, you are correct, for most of us, it's the best we can do
Conservation measures such as driving a Prius, more efficient resource use and thinking and acting long-term are all affordable and highly cost effective. We have become so accustomed to thinking and acting short-term, substituting oil for knowledge under the influence of "affluenza" that simple things like photovoltaics or efficiency are deemed unaffordable. Builders construct "entry level" and high-end homes with no concern for energy efficiency. In fact, making a structure more energy efficient and appropriate for geography is highly cost effective, but it takes "up front" thinking and money. Appraisers complete "comparable" appraisals looking only at the square area of a house - little consideration for energy efficiency or geography. Whether it is a washer, drier, house, place of business or transportation, energy cost is an "externality", that is, not factored in. The short-term goal is to just "turn the money over." Lending institutions operate on formulæ, so they too contribute to "high cost" of energy. We did a few simple retrofits to our house a few years ago. Payback time (compared to energy use of surrounding homes) was 2.5 years. Our monthly utility costs, year round, are less than 10% of surrounding homes. The retrofit continues to "pay off" year after year as costs continue to increase. Same with driving a vehicle - we must factor in the initial purchase price, insurance, tires, maintenance and upkeep - not just the price of fuel. If anything, energy efficiency is highly affordable. Energy inefficiency is very costly. You want to cut your costs by one-half? Double your efficiency. We have been led to always "substitute oil for knowledge." Why not work smarter and just apply the knowledge (and avoid the cost)?!
