Life in the Green Lane (hybrids)

NY Times ^ | April 16, 2006 | JAMIE LINCOLN KITMAN

[neverdem]

IF you make your way over to the Javits Convention Center for the New York International Automobile Show — or if you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so — you'll know that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics.

And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at the expense of the intended outcome — saving gas.

Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources — one a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven electric motor — the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. For this reason, federal, state and local governments have been bending over backward to encourage the sale of hybrids, with a bewildering array of tax breaks, traffic lanes and parking spaces dedicated to hybrid owners.

But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a nonhybrid car. The truth is...

[Malsua]

funny we haven't known of such wisdom before, why hasn't science heard about you yet?

Funny, you keep taking the tack that if you make me seem foolish, you'll discredit what I'm saying. Nice strawmen.

Here's the fact. You cannot prove the meg works. It's simple as that. No one can prove it, because it doesn't work. Prove me wrong. Friend of a Friend ain't gonna do it.

I know there is a cashmir effect, where did I suggest otherwise? It's an engineering problem now. The meg ain't it. You seem to think that I immediately dismiss all technology straight out of the gate. You couldn't be further from the truth. The MEG had its shot, after 15+ years, it cannot be simply demonstrated. Those Lutec 2000 people keep saying "Oh, we're going to be producing soon". They've been saying that since 2002. In a couple more years, if they still are, that's kook science too. If not, the world will change overnight and we can flip the bird to the ME. I hope for the latter, but suspect the former.

[timer]

No one ever built a monument to honor a critic. If the MEG doesn't work then what does? A tree is known by its fruit. As for me I've invented several concepts that would benefit the world but it's been the parable of the seeds and hard soil is all I've found so far, where is the fruitful soil to be found? It sure ain't critics like you...