Are hybrid cars really better for the environment

[Tuckerfan]

@Rick

Well if we want to get really nit picky one of the first if not the first Hybrid shown (but never produced) ran on diesel fuel, but used a gas turbine. Does this count?

In 1902?

@Your Link

His second car, also built for them, was a hybrid (called “mixte”) coincidentally, like the Volvo, front wheel drive. That was 1902.

Somewhere around here I’ve got a book with photos of a truck from the 1920s which was a gas electric hybrid.

[Chronos]

If you want to get really technical, I don’t think diesel-electric locomotives can be considered hybrid vehicles. “Hybrid” refers to having two sources of energy, e.g. an electric battery and a gas tank. Traditional diesel-electric locomotives do not have batteries.

But they do have contact bars to run on catenary wires. Nowadays trains in populated areas don’t generally burn anything. On the Amtrack line through Pennsylvania, for instance, there are catenaries over the tracks from Harrisburg to at least Philadelphia, and probably further east as well. On these stretches, they don’t burn diesel, but just run the electric motors directly from power from the wires.

[kanicbird]

@gotpasswords

The claim is that due to highly conservative battery power and charging management - they’re not run down below 20% charge and aren’t charged at more than 80% or so

This makes sense, in most (all?) batteries charging efficency is dependant on “depth of discharge or DoD” (0% depth of discharge is fully charged, and 100% is fully depleted).

A battery is most efficient at about the 80% DoD (20% charged), below this point many batteries are resistant to charge, and some shorten their life span. When you approach 20% DoD (80% charged) efficiency really drops off. But running a battery from 80-20% Dod does limit the battery pack to 60% of it’s total capacity.

[scr4]

@gotpasswords

OThe claim is that due to highly conservative battery power and charging management - they’re not run down below 20% charge and aren’t charged at more than 80% or so - the batteries have a very easy life and should be able to last for 180,000 miles.

That’s what they said about the iPod batteries too, that they’d last the life of the device because of the shallow charge/discharge cycle, but eventually they started offering battery replacement service.

Surely the first hybrids must be reaching 150,000+ miles by now? Is there any data on real-life battery life?

[bup]

Even if a hybrid right now is not better than a pure gasoline engine, it is encouraging real research into environment-bettering systems - with dollar votes that say that environmentally friendly cars are important to consumers.

Further, it’d at least be more ‘distributed damage’ - it’s better to take little hits off several parts of the environment (say, the ozone, CO2, and ground pH levels) than one big hit off one part (say, CO2 levels).

I’m not saying hybrids aren’t better, mind you - I’m just saying the point is spurious, if it’s meant to imply that status quo car technology is better than what we’re headed toward.

FWIW, Consumer Reports says that hybrids aren’t economically better yet - the extra purchase cost plus maintenance for now outweighs the gas savings.

[R.P.McMurphy]

@Twotwofive

Most of what I’ve read on the subject has come from interested parties, and needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, aside from the disposal issue (which, given that mass-production of hybrid cars is a recent phenomenon, shouldn’t come home to roost for a few years yet) there seem to be two important arguments against hybrids. Firstly, as pointed out above, they simply aren’t more economical than your average diesel-powered family car. I don’t know what the factory figures are, but independent reviews of the Prius usually put mpg for the combined cycle in the mid 40s, which is materially worse than, say, a golf diesel, which would probably do 50+. I gather that the latest Lexus hybrid SUV manages (gasp!) 35 mpg. Big fat deal - I drive a car that deliberately sacrifices economy for power, and yet I still get a (manufacturer quoted) combined mpg of 32.

This demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of hybrids. Hybrids are not designed and sold simply based on fuel efficiency. The fact is that they perform very well, deliver better gas milage than an equivilent vehicle and have lower emmission. If you want just gas milage, go to diesel but it will give worse performance and create a lot more air pollution in the form of particulates. If you want performance, stick with gasoline but give up on fuel efficiency. If you want low emmissions go with electric but put up with a huge recharging hassle.

The current hybrids take all three considerations, put them in one package and come up with a compromise that provides a superior vehicle that is available today.

The Prius is not a poor perfoming car. The Lexus RX 400h doesn’t get anywhere near 35 mpg in real life driving. However, it is a better performing, more fuel efficient, lower emmissions car than the RX330 which is the same car without the hybrid drivetrain. People don’t buy a Lexus to save money. The buyers of the 400h want what the 330 has in a more environmentally friendly package. Because of the hybrid technology the 400h accelerates better than the 330. Going hybrid means not having to give up performance in order to get better fuel efficiency.

[Balthisar]

Hybrids are the flavor of the week. They’re not sustainable, and in the end they’re going to be more devastating to the environment than gasoline engines. Now I’m not some wacko saying that there are no problems with gasoline engines – yeah, they’ve got to be replaced, but hybrids aren’t the ecological way (or the inexpensive way) to do it.

Start with the basics. A car of 3000lbs takes about 100hp to maintain a speed of 75mph. It doesn’t matter what the engine is; 100hp is 100hp. Hybrid drivers, though, tend to drive differently. They make a game out of their MPH gage and drive differently. Maybe they only go 55mph. They’re dreadfully slow when lights turn green. They gradually decellerate from light to light. These behaviour modifications alone account for a vast quantity in the disparity between real world mileage figures. Accelleration and decellaration also involve horsepower. In my traditional gasoline vehicle if I don’t care about economy, I’ll floor it at the green light (unless there’s a hybrid in front of me). Getting to the speed limit fast uses more horsepower. The hybrid driver (or the conscientious traditional driver) will both consume less gasoline because of the more gradual startup.

So “significant” is highly subjective, but I’ll offer that there’s no significant difference between both cars when driven conventially; almost all of the savings comes from changing your driving habits. So for the OP, so far there’s not a lot of environmental benefit attributable to just the fact that a car is hybrid.

How about production? These batteries have a lot of exotic metals which are dangerous to mine. Just because that mine is in Chile or South Africa doesn’t mean there’s no environmental impact. Heck, oil is mostly harmless to extract and deliver these days when compared to mining for exotic metals. If you buy a hybrid but then don’t change your driving habits, you’re consuming about the same amount of gasoline, plus consuming valueable metals, plus consuming all of the dual production for their manufacture, plus paying the salaries of the workers who would otherwise be laid off and have to give up their SUV’s! You insensitive clod! If you really want to protect the environment, don’t buy a hybrid! (for the humorless, there’s a little tongue in cheek there)

How about cost? With the manufacture of most things, costs go down. So why is gasoline so expensive if there’s so much being manufactured? The rules of supply and demand apply to the batteries, too. Sure, the manufacturing costs will go down, but the materials costs can only get vastly more expensive as we hybridize our entire world fleet of automobiles. Aside from being worse for the environment, they’re just not sustainable.

Simply put, hybrids are just a way to make us feel good until we can develop a real solution.

[Mr.Slant]

@Balthisar

SNIP

Start with the basics. A car of 3000lbs takes about 100hp to maintain a speed of 75mph. It doesn’t matter what the engine is; 100hp is 100hp. Hybrid drivers, though, tend to drive differently. They make a game out of their MPH gage and drive differently. Maybe they only go 55mph. They’re dreadfully slow when lights turn green. They gradually decellerate from light to light. These behaviour modifications alone account for a vast quantity in the disparity between real world mileage figures. Accelleration and decellaration also involve horsepower. In my traditional gasoline vehicle if I don’t care about economy, I’ll floor it at the green light (unless there’s a hybrid in front of me). Getting to the speed limit fast uses more horsepower. The hybrid driver (or the conscientious traditional driver) will both consume less gasoline because of the more gradual startup.
SNIP

Nitpick: You’re ignoring engine efficiency as a factor.
It may take 100 HP to move a given car down the road, but in order to get 100 HP to the rear wheels, you’ll wind up generating 150 HP with let’s say, a small-block Chevy, and 140 HP with a GM 3800.
Bigger engines mean more heat loss, more frictional losses and more inertia to overcome.
As a completely nitpicking aside, if your vehicle needs 100 HP to maintain 55 MPH, it is NOT a passenger car. You could go around 60-65 MPH in a Chevy Silverado, a 4800-lb truck, using 100 HP.
Gas engines make less than 20 HP per hour per gallon of fuel burned. For something that would use 100 HP at 55 MPH, look for cars with highway EPA ratings around 11 MPG.

[Balthisar]

@Mr. Slant

Nitpick: You’re ignoring engine efficiency as a factor.
It may take 100 HP to move a given car down the road, but in order to get 100 HP to the rear wheels, you’ll wind up generating 150 HP with let’s say, a small-block Chevy, and 140 HP with a GM 3800.
Bigger engines mean more heat loss, more frictional losses and more inertia to overcome.

Yeah, you’re right and I meant to mention that. But such losses aren’t 50% of the power at the wheels. It is significant, though, otherwise GM wouldn’t be trying out their displacement-on-demand engines again.

As a completely nitpicking aside, if your vehicle needs 100 HP to maintain 55 MPH, it is NOT a passenger car. You could go around 60-65 MPH in a Chevy Silverado, a 4800-lb truck, using 100 HP… For something that would use 100 HP at 55 MPH, look for cars with highway EPA ratings around 11 MPG.

Well, yeah, but I said 75mph and 3000lbs, so we’re in line here. Remember the wind resistance and the power to overcome it is not linear. It takes a lot more hp at 75 than at 55. Plus, where the heck does anyone drive 55mph? I don’t mean the posted speed limit thingy, but actual driving speeds. Well, hybrid drivers aside, but that’s part of the change in behaviour that yields the majority of the savings. If we all drove 55mph, then we’d save a lot of gasoline. Reminiscent of the 1970’s, huh?

[Balthisar]

To further illustrate, the 3000lb car at 75mph should use almost 100hp if my math is right. Granted, this is an estimate; a true measurement would have to be made, and a profile could be generated for each individual vehicle based on wind resistance and other factors. So… given that, the same 3000lb car at 55mph should only use 40 hp! The same vehicle weighing 4800lbs (I won’t say truck; that’s a different vehicle subject to my disclaimer above) should require 65hp and 160hp at 55mph and 75mph respectively.

A truck has a lot more wind resistance than a turd-shaped car, and a turd-shaped car weighs less than a big, manly truck, so there’s a lot of advantage to the turd-shaped car. A nice-shaped car with reasonable interior space should fall into a happy medium between the two.

But… for comparing hybrid vs. hybrid for the same vehicle you have:
[ul]
[li]Significantly increased initial cost for the hybrid, with a greater than five year recovery cost for the price of gasoline (although figures vary and increased gasoline cost can change this estimate).[/li][li]Significantly increased use of rare earth metals, and all of the environmental damage caused by their use.[/li][li]Increased use of rare metals has the same problem as gasoline – they just get more and more expensive as their use popularizes. The the five year payoff could swing the other way, too.[/li][li]Unless you change your driving habits to play the hybrid efficiency game, you won’t see a significant difference between the hybrid and non-hybrid versions of the same vehicle.[/li][li]If you were to play the same efficiency game on a conventional gasoline engine, you would see a very significant difference in your fuel consumption. Above all, slow down! (but stay out of the left lane)[/li][/ul]

[Sage_Rat]

I’ve nothing to add but a question, so assuming it doesn’t get lost…

My grandfather (an engineer) explained hybrids to me as that instead of having an engine that alternates RPM to match your speed requirements, you have an engine that runs at a set RPM to fill batteries, and then you suck energy out of the batteries at whatever rate is needed to fill your speed requirement. And as he explained it, having a motor which runs at a set RPM allows you to fine-tune everything and thus to waste less fuel, and convert more of it into energy instead of emissions.

So, is that correct?

If so, then how can a hybrid have less efficiency than a non-hybrid? Short of setting up the engine’s static RPM at the place it performs worst for efficiency, it doesn’t seem possible. So unless we are talking deliberate sabotage, or just horribly engineered engines (which would make one have to fear the non-RPM-locked versions for mileage…)

[Balthisar]

@Sage Rat

My grandfather (an engineer) explained hybrids to me as that instead of having an engine that alternates RPM to match your speed requirements, you have an engine that runs at a set RPM to fill batteries, and then you suck energy out of the batteries at whatever rate is needed to fill your speed requirement. And as he explained it, having a motor which runs at a set RPM allows you to fine-tune everything and thus to waste less fuel, and convert more of it into energy instead of emissions.

Well, that’s not how current hybrid automobiles work. That would be an all electric drive, even if a gasoline motor does generate the electricity. In hybrid cars, the drive system itself is hybrid, i.e., torque from the electric motor and torque from the gasoline motor are both applied to the traction system depending on needs. That’s what makes a hybrid “hybrid” – the alternative is an otherwise conventional gasoline-electric or diesel-electric system used on big, heavy equipment that can haul around the necessary batteries.

The necessary batteries are why we don’t have pure gas/diesel-electric engines or just rechargeable cars. Pound per pound, gasoline contains more energy than an inexpensive battery can. That’s why in my example above, the difference in freeway mileage of a hybrid as compared to a gasoline engine is negligible – it’s incumbant upon the gasoline engine to do virtually all of the work, just like in a “normal” car. If you’re willing to change your driving habits, the big advantage for hybrids is in exclusively stop-and-go city driving because of lower horsepower* requirements and the more efficient running (non-torque) speed of the gasoline engine. Of course if you’re in too much city driving or you’re too aggressive (i.e., you don’t change your habits!), at some point you’ll discharge the batteries faster than the gasoline engine can charge them, in which case you’ll be depending on the gasoline engine for all of your torque and horsepower. That reminds me, don’t confuse horsepower with torque. Electric motors can put out a lot of torque. Wasn’t the EV1 capable of beating a 'Vette off the line from 0 to 60?

Notice how virtually every meaningful advantage of a hybrid car comes back down to changing your driving habits?

[Dewey_Finn]

@kanicbird

True, sort of, D-Chrysler has stated that they have no plans to make hybrids as diesel power can easially get better mpg then hybrids using proven technology. But I beleive this is mainly for highway driving. If you do city driving you would burn less in a hybrid, if you do mostly highway you should do better with a diesel.

The part I’ve bolded isn’t true. Daimler-Chrysler is working with BMW and GM to jointly develop their own hybrid technology (Global Hybrid Cooperation is the name of the joint venture). They introduced the technology on April 28.

[Mr.Slant]

@Balthisar

Yeah, you’re right and I meant to mention that. But such losses aren’t 50% of the power at the wheels. It is significant, though, otherwise GM wouldn’t be trying out their displacement-on-demand engines again.
Well, yeah, but I said 75mph and 3000lbs, so we’re in line here. Remember the wind resistance and the power to overcome it is not linear. It takes a lot more hp at 75 than at 55. Plus, where the heck does anyone drive 55mph? I don’t mean the posted speed limit thingy, but actual driving speeds. Well, hybrid drivers aside, but that’s part of the change in behaviour that yields the majority of the savings. If we all drove 55mph, then we’d save a lot of gasoline. Reminiscent of the 1970’s, huh?

You caught me, I misread your 75 as 55. COMPLETELY my fault.
And… I drive a gas-engined car at 55 MPH on the way to work on Interstate 77.
Gas is 8% of my household budget. I’d really rather not speed at ± $3/gal.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Balthisar

Notice how virtually every meaningful advantage of a hybrid car comes back down to changing your driving habits?

Wrong. It really comes down to selecting the appropriate engine for your driving needs, which is something you have to consider even if you aren’t buying a hybrid. If your daily commute is 15 miles of stop-and-go city driving, then you gain fuel efficiency and improve your emissions by driving a hybrid without changing your driving habits at all.

Also, I have to take issue with your wrongheaded insistence that it’s just a feelgood measure until we find something better. We’ve had the technology for various “something betters” probably for 30 years or so that didn’t get manufactured due to overcoming initial barriers of startup cost and market inertia. Hybrids are greasing the wheels toward better solutions, so to speak.

Hybrids aren’t a magic bullet for everyone but you really should stop phrasing their limitations in a way that wrongly suggests they aren’t helpful and convenient for many drivers.

[Balthisar]

@Mr. Slant

You caught me, I misread your 75 as 55. COMPLETELY my fault.
And… I drive a gas-engined car at 55 MPH on the way to work on Interstate 77.
Gas is 8% of my household budget. I’d really rather not speed at ± $3/gal.

Oh… it’s just that 75mph and 70mph are the speed limit in so many places. Sorry for assuming… you know how that saying goes, and it applies in my case.

@Brain Wreck

Wrong. It really comes down to selecting the appropriate engine for your driving needs, which is something you have to consider even if you aren’t buying a hybrid. If your daily commute is 15 miles of stop-and-go city driving, then you gain fuel efficiency and improve your emissions by driving a hybrid without changing your driving habits at all.

What’s wrong? My whole argument is based on using the same car with either a hybrid or a conventional engine. You can’t just go select another car with an engine based on your driving needs. You have to select the car that we’re talking about with one of the two powertrain options. If we did it your way, I’d trump you with a motorcycle and you’d trump me right back by suggesting walking.

You’re absolutely wrong in your ascertation that you get significantly more efficiency without changing your driving habits. I was prepared with some cites, but this is even better: just look at the many, many hits for “hybrid mileage driving habits” on Google. It spans Honda, Toyota, Ford, and others. If you don’t change your driving habits you’re not going to improve your mileage. It’s not rocket science, and it’s not difficult to understand why. It takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain amount of mass a certain distance as a certain speed. Type of drivetrain isn’t going to change that inherently, so you have to look at other efficiencies. If you drive “correctly” then you can realize some of those efficiencies in a hybrid car. But… if you drive correctly then you can realize most of those efficiencies in a standard car. The difference isn’t enough to justify the cost unless you change your driving habits. The ecological impact is negative for the hybrids if you don’t change your driving habits. The biggest savings is in changing your driving habits.

Also, I have to take issue with your wrongheaded insistence that it’s just a feelgood measure until we find something better. We’ve had the technology for various “something betters” probably for 30 years or so that didn’t get manufactured due to overcoming initial barriers of startup cost and market inertia. Hybrids are greasing the wheels toward better solutions, so to speak.

Just because it’s an unpleasant truth doesn’t mean it’s not true. It is true, and hence you can take issue, but you can’t truthfully say I’m wrongheaded. It’s a feelgood measure until we market something better. If we replaced every single car in the USA today with a hybrid, then the collective savings would be significant, but the cost would insurmountable – remember those precious metals?

When it comes to “greasing the wheels” what are hybrids good for? You fill them with gasoline. They don’t change anything else. You’re better served arguing that E85 is a better motivator for change. While it has a lot of problems in efficiency and supply/demand problems, at least it sets a precedent for the infrastructural changes that will be required by a true solution for the future. Hybrids are actually counterproductive in that measure because they’re continuing the gasoline dependency for every so slightly more time.

Oh… I didn’t say it was wrong to have feelgood feelings about hybrids. I feel good about lots of things, too. But their practical benefit is nil; they’re a dead end “technology” that will end up going nowhere and serve no real world, practical purpose now unless we all change our driving habits.

Hybrids aren’t a magic bullet for everyone but you really should stop phrasing their limitations in a way that wrongly suggests they aren’t helpful and convenient for many drivers.

Well, an Excursion is helpful and convenient for many drivers, but that’s not the point. I also didn’t mention any limitations whatsoever about the hybrids. If you drive them correctly, they’re better than a gasoline car driven normally. So what’s the limitation I mentioned? My point though is to try to dispel this absurd myth that the world will change with widespread hybrid deployment; those that are willing to change their driving habits will realize almost the same savings without having to buy a new car.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Balthisar

What’s wrong? My whole argument is based on using the same car with either a hybrid or a conventional engine. You can’t just go select another car with an engine based on your driving needs. You have to select the car that we’re talking about with one of the two powertrain options. If we did it your way, I’d trump you with a motorcycle and you’d trump me right back by suggesting walking.

No, that’s a fallacy. If I give you a commuting route and specify that I have to get there safely and on time, the hybrid will be the most efficient way to satisfy those requirements. As with any vehicle, it’s about choosing the right tool for the right situation. I wouldn’t pull a boat with a Yugo and I wouldn’t do a lot of highway mileage in a hybrid.

You’re absolutely wrong in your ascertation that you get significantly more efficiency without changing your driving habits. I was prepared with some cites, but this is even better: just look at the many, many hits for “hybrid mileage driving habits” on Google.

So in other words, you have no cites. “Google it” is not a cite. But to humor you, I did check through a few web pages concerning driving habits, and all of them say something that is equally true of gasoline engines: you can improve your mileage by changing your driving habits. Note that this is not the same as saying hybrids are only beneficial if you change your driving habits.

So basically, you’re still wrong, and all you have to support yourself is a bunch of heartfelt opinion and logical fallacy.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Balthisar

Start with the basics. A car of 3000lbs takes about 100hp to maintain a speed of 75mph.

[My emphasis.] I don’t think this is true. 100 hp will get you to 75 mph more quickly than less horsepower, but you can still reach that speed with less. And once you reach that speed, it takes much less horsepower to maintain it.

[Balthisar]

@Brain Wreck

No, that’s a fallacy. If I give you a commuting route and specify that I have to get there safely and on time, the hybrid will be the most efficient way to satisfy those requirements. As with any vehicle, it’s about choosing the right tool for the right situation. I wouldn’t pull a boat with a Yugo and I wouldn’t do a lot of highway mileage in a hybrid.

You’re doing it again. Before you accuse me supporting myself with logical fallacies, why don’t you step back and take a look in the mirror? This discussion is about the same car in a hybrid and non-hybrid version. Or are your seriously implying that I don’t know the difference between commuting in a Land Cruiser and an Insight? Your logical fallacy is in your insistence in comparing two unlike vehicles.

So in other words, you have no cites. “Google it” is not a cite. But to humor you, I did check through a few web pages concerning driving habits, and all of them say something that is equally true of gasoline engines: you can improve your mileage by changing your driving habits. Note that this is not the same as saying hybrids are only beneficial if you change your driving habits.

Your emotion is getting the best of you, and the best indication of that is that you’re being confused by separate messages. I’m not asking you to defend your hybrid purchase; I’m only asking you to understand that it’s not world-changing. As per your mixed understanding, shall I review? I’ve already said all along that you can improve your mileage by changing your driving habits. That’s the whole point. Also, I’ve never, ever said that hybrids were only beneficial if you change your driving habits; I did freely admit to some very small savings if you don’t change your driving habits. Double check my first post – “‘significant’ is highly subjective.” And remember that I mentioned that we’d have a significant savings if everyone suddenly had a hybrid instead of what they have today? Logically how could a savings occur on a massive scale if there weren’t tiny, almost inconsequential savings on the individual level? Of course the problem with such an obscene fantasy is the supply and demand problem, as well as the ecological damage caused by the mining (remember, we’re answering the OP here).

Let’s summarize lest you be more confused (and that’s a proper analysis, although in your emotional state it is likely that’ll you see that as being unfairly critical in some respect) or confuse others:
[ul]
[li]The OP asks whether a hybrid is necessarily any better than a normal, high mpg conventional car.[/li][li]We’ve settled on, regardless of the technology, the less fuel consumed per mile, the better for the environment, except…[/li][li]…current hybrid batteries cause a lot of ecological problems due to their materials. This includes:[/li][list]
[li]The non-friendliness of mining operations for rare metals.[/li][li]The pollution as a result of not properly recycling these metals.[/li][li]The rising cost of these metals as a result of their increased demand.[/li][/ul]
[li]Because the OP was technically answered, we verged into a discussion of hybrid vs. non-hybrid. Obviously this would only be applicable for the same car in both versions, because (as you so astutely pointed out) there’s no sense in comparing a Yugo with a Freightliner.[/li][li]Various estimates with a mean of about five years are given as payback time for the cost of a hybrid versus the cost of gas for the same conventional vehicle.[/li][li]EPA mileage is pretty good for conventional cars. There’s some variation about the mean, but everything falls within the EPA’s control limits for such figures.[/li][li]There’s a lot of bad press about how EPA figures for hybrids don’t reflect real world usage. The car makers freely admit this, but they’re bound by the EPA testing methods.[/li][li]Consequentially, the payback period is based on reasonable gasoline estimates and unreasonable hybrid estimates.[/li][li]The payback period also fails to reflect the increasing cost of existing battery technology given further adoption. Remember…[/li][ul]
[li]Manfucturing costs will go down because of competition and capitalism.[/li][li]Materials costs will skyrocket due to increased demand for already rare metals.[/li][/ul]
[li]It turns out that you can get EPA mileage in a hybrid![/li][ul]
[li]You’ve got to change your driving habits. Not only incrementally, but drastically.[/li][li](Here’s a give on my part: If you don’t change your driving habits, you’re probably already getting excellent mileage in the same, non-hybrid version of the vehicle).[/li][li]Ah, but if you change your driving habits drastically in a conventional vehicle, you get virtually the same savings.[/li][/ul]
[li]We’ve agreed that there’s some savings without changing driving conditions. It’s statistically significant on a massive scale, which means that, yeah, it’s statistically significant on a smaller scale. But it’s not significant to a normal human being, because you’re talking about pennies over weeks and months (unless you drive correctly).[/li][li]It takes x energy to move y pounds a distance of z at an accelleration of w per unit of time per unit of time. That’s not “heartfelt opinion,” thank you very much.[/li][li]You’re going to use x energy whether your engine is a hybrid or not, with small variation due to internal frictions and so on – hybrids don’t answer that.[/li][li]Hybrids do do other things that can make small differences in stop and go traffic, like regenerative braking, or turning off the gasoline engine if you’ve not run down the battery (but you didn’t, because you no longer accellerate quickly due to having changed your driving habits). This is a legitimate advantage of hybrids over conventional engines, although to be fair, some convential European engines do the turn-off-when-stopped trick.[/li][li]Hybrids aren’t sustainable. They still require gasoline, virtually just as much as a conventional car.[/li][li]They don’t provoke alternate mindsets where it matters; you’re still just putting the same old gasoline into it.[/li][li]Because you’re putting gasoline into it, you’re extending the gasoline-petroleum dependancy that we all want out of.[/li][li]New technologies will demand infrastructural changes that we’re not being prepared for by extending the gasoline culture.[/li][li]Things like E85 are slowly causing changes to the infrastructure that we are willing to accept, and is paving the way toward a better, gasolineless future.[/li][li]E85 has lots of other problems; I’m only using it to illustrate the point.[/li][li]Summary:[/li][ul]
[li]If you want to feel good about owning a hybrid, fine.[/li][li]I’m not suggesting that you not buy a hybrid; just understand what you get out of it, and how you’ll have to change to get the maximum benefit.[/li][li](On the contrary, my company makes and sells hybrids. Please buy all you want. I’m even considering one for M.Y. '08, but I know my reasons).[/li][li]If you practice the change in your existing vehicle before outlaying the cash, you may be surprised by how much more efficient your existing car is, or…[/li][li]…or you may realize that you can by a new, non-hybrid version and get essentially the same efficiency.[/li][li]But if you really want to make a difference, try these:[/li][list]
[li]Buy carbon emissions. These are traded on the international pollution exchange, and any emissions that you purchase are forever kept out of the hands of polluters.[/li][li]Change your driving habits.[/li][li]Buy a smaller or lighter vehicle.[/li][/ul]
[/list]
[/list]

I know I’m being a little aggressive at the top of this post, but it’s important for you to understand that I’m not attacking hybrids or hybrid technology in their own right, and I wish you were able to distance yourself and see that. I am trying to ensure that everyone does have a truthful understanding of what they are and what they aren’t, how they work, and the type of experience you can expect to have in one given different situations and conditions. In the end, maybe you’ll still go for a hybrid, but it won’t be a decision made on faulty assumptions or the pundit of the week in the press. It’ll be a decision made on the simple laws of physics and supply & demand.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Balthisar

You’re doing it again. Before you accuse me supporting myself with logical fallacies, why don’t you step back and take a look in the mirror?

:rolleyes: At least you didn’t say “and so’s your mother.”

This discussion is about the same car in a hybrid and non-hybrid version. Or are your seriously implying that I don’t know the difference between commuting in a Land Cruiser and an Insight? Your logical fallacy is in your insistence in comparing two unlike vehicles.

shrug. I’m talking about comparing two like vehicles, a hybrid a non-hybrid, on equal terms: a stop-and-go route, no special driving habits, within the same period of time. If you want to talk like-to-like, you shouldn’t have introduced the apples and oranges of motorcycles and walking.

Your emotion is getting the best of you, and the best indication of that is that you’re being confused by separate messages. I’m not asking you to defend your hybrid purchase;

Point of fact chief, I don’t own a hybrid. I usually take the train, and drive less than 50 miles per month. At that mileage it’s basically moot whether I drive a Hummer or a pogo stick (not that I’d ever be seen on either of those). Truth be told, that’s the real solution to the resource and environmental crisis, if people would just stop living lives and creating communities that require extensive driving as a requirement of daily life. But that isn’t going to happen, so we need better automotive solutions.

I’m only asking you to understand that it’s not world-changing. As per your mixed understanding, shall I review?

Not to knock the tremendous effort you’ve invested in setting your personal opinion to such lengthy text, but like I said, really what would help more is a cite that supports your assertions. Less heat, more light please.

I’ve never, ever said that hybrids were only beneficial if you change your driving habits; I did freely admit to some very small savings if you don’t change your driving habits.

Let’s look at a couple of your most emphatic statements:
[ul]
[li]Notice how virtually every meaningful advantage of a hybrid car comes back down to changing your driving habits?[/li][li]Unless you change your driving habits to play the hybrid efficiency game, you won’t see a significant difference between the hybrid and non-hybrid versions of the same vehicle.[/li][/ul]
These statements are, of course, false, and you have not posted any reference that would indicate they are true. Like I said, I’m more interested in cites than paragraphs of your own opinion.