The problem is that so much of the current green hype is propaganda.

Despite our advances in technology and population growth, much of the environment is better now than for many years. The Thames is clean enough to support fish, the smogs of the 1950s and 60s are long gone. It’s not all doom and gloom on the environment front.

The Prius and the other hybrids are knee-jerk reactions to the global warming hype. Saddling western societies with green taxes and regulation (such as through the Waxman-Markey bill in the US Senate) will stifle profitability and thus research and development. It just doesn't work. Given time, we can come up with new technologies. There's no question in my mind about that. In 50 years' time, the cars we will be buying will be hugely different from today's vehicles.

Personally, I don't think the Prius is a step forward. Technologically speaking, it's the love child of a night’s passion between a Mondeo and a milk float.

The simplest answer to most energy problems lies in the invention of a cheap and simple way to store electricity. We don't have the answer yet, but it will come. The batteries of today are crude and, as we can see in the article, laden with environmental problems. Wind power is similarly daft as a substitute for base load, yet more and more are being built. Essentially for every windmill put in place you need an equivalent of its output in conventional generation so that it can be substituted during no wind (or high wind) days.

In the meantime, until new electricity storage solutions are developed, we need to refine the petrol/diesel engine. KERS is an interesting development.

If I were PM I would set manufacturers the following challenge: Develop a mass production, 4-seater vehicle which can cruise at 100mph, with a minimum range of 250 miles and minimum fuel consumption of 100mpg (equivalent). The winning company would get at least two years' exemption from all taxes. That would attract huge investment and massive R&D.

The Prius? Just a gimmick, I'm afraid.   

Nickbat wrote on 22. May 2009 at 21:53:



Prius and the other hybrids are knee-jerk reactions to the global warming hype.


Both Toyota and Honda were working on the technology from the mid 90s when environmental matters were not as precient as they now are, so is it fair to describe the resultant technology as a knee-jerk reaction?


Technologically speaking, it's the love child of a night’s passion between a Mondeo and a milk float.

I like that, it's a great descriptor


If I were PM I would set manufacturers the following challenge: Develop a mass production, 4-seater vehicle which can cruise at 100mph, with a minimum range of 250 miles and minimum fuel consumption of 100mpg (equivalent). The winning company would get at least two years' exemption from all taxes. That would attract huge investment and massive


That's what should happen Nick - but will it? No one seems to want to belly-up until they're forced to by legislation or financial penalty

The Prius? Just a gimmick, I'm afraid


It's a really practical car Nick, hybrid or not and it deserves to be regarded much more for this practicality than the 'green' label so readily applied to it

This has been a great topic and I thank you for raising it.  It's refreshing to see an argument presented in a well researched and balanced way and I look forward to your future posts with much interest

When you're an old geezer like me it's important to keep the grey matter active otherwise it turns to custard

Kevin Wood wrote on 22. May 2009 at 23:02:


In the local parlance Kevin - You're suckin' diesel now ya boy ye

Nickbat wrote on 22. May 2009 at 23:37:



good one Nick  and there are many of them about

It's not just the prius. If you drive it because it's actually good as a car i.e practical,spacious etc. thats fine.

But it's the whole hybrid image thats the problem. "Global warming" must be the best money spinner ever.

First of all the new scrappage scheme, great idea! Get rid of your perfactly good 10-year-old car that is paid for and not wasting anything that isn't necessary,buy an new car thats been shiped around the world a couple of times,save the car industry and give the government more tax.Then when you buy said car you'll be charged green tax.

Government then wastes that tax money on pointless "carbon credits".

Al Gore actually owns a carbon credit company then goes preaching global warming, what an entrepreneur!!

Omega man 2 wrote on 23. May 2009 at 11:47:



It is Ron and we'll all pay very dearly for it

Nickbat wrote on 23. May 2009 at 19:01:



Nick you're going to get the back of my head smacked.  SWMBO has directed me to attended the kitchen and make the dinner ( I do all the cooking you see) and I have been gently reminded that I've 'been sitting at that box for hours'

It does sound interesting however, so I'll look into it later after discharging my domestic duties

Martin Imber wrote on 23. May 2009 at 21:17:


That's an important point Martin.

I agree totally.  It must be more sensible to continue to use well looked-after vehicles until they reach the end of their practical service lives rather than junk them, for something apparently better for the environment, before it's absolutely necessary.

The replacement creates it's own environmental impact and why cause additional problems when it's so unnecessary