Hybrid hater contradictions

Last month I made a post titled, Edmunds.com's Senseless Hybrid Vehicle Cost Study, that questioned the data behind the Edmunds study. Ultimately, like the EPA, Edmunds uses data which doesn't correspond to the real world driving conditions of a huge percentage of Americans. In particular, assuming that all Americans drive 75% of the time at the speed limit on the highway, while driving just 25% of the time in city driving.

Anybody that commutes in Los Angeles, San Francisco - most of California - or New York, Houston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and many, many other urban areas knows how ridiculous is that assumption. Congestion has become an American epidemic that most transportation scholars say - via real world data - is rapidly becoming much worse, even in far-out suburban and rural areas.

In these areas, hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius hybrid, can achieve unbelievable mileage - for those that care - almost entirely free from pollution. If every driver in America achieved Prius efficiency, the air would be drastically cleaner and foreign oil dependency would end.

Yet, American automakers continue to make their bread and butter off more expensive SUVs and trucks than the Prius. Still, Edmunds complains about the 'cost' of hybrid cars.

The costs? Doctors in Los Angeles insist that air pollution is killing people every day, as well as causing huge amounts of asthma and other respiratory problems. Yet pollution doesn't exist to these rocket scientists - paid by the polluter's advertisements.

Moreover, how many terrorist acts will it take for America to accept the cause and effects of foreign oil dependency? That doesn't cost?

Of course, every American isn't going to drive a vehicle the size of a Prius, and that is the beauty of hybrids. Hybrid technology is still just emerging, and the possibility of a SUV that achieves the same fuel efficiency and pollution reductions as the Prius is almost here.

Is the Ford Escape hybrid, Toyota Highlander hybrid, or the Lexus RX400h hybrid there yet? No, but just one significant battery development could make it happen.

Ultimately, the most pathetic of the contradictions is that we shouldn't waste our time with hybrid costs to focus on fuel cells. Well, in terms of costs, the Prius costs about $20,000, a fuel cell vehicle costs about $1,000,000. That's some interesting math.

In time, these hydrogen highway advocates claim costs will come down, but - somehow - hybrid costs will never come down - even though much of Toyota's fuel cell technology is built on a hybrid powertrain?

Ohhhh, GM is going to do it differently. GM tells America they are so excited about their fuel cell technology that they are going to give Americans their Employee Discount on the Hummer and the Yukon in the interim. Give me a break.

Fuel cell vehicles will happen, but they could still be decades away. Hybrid vehicles can make fuel cell vehicles happen much quicker. In fact, most fuel cell vehicles might be hybrid vehicles.

The hybrid haters simply make no sense. Do nothing. Build bigger SUVs, oil is cheap they tell us. Someday cheap technology...when has technology ever started out cheap? Even calculators used to be grossly expensive, let alone cell phones and computers.

Technology is made cheap by investment, and hybrid vehicles are the best investment Americans can make in the automotive sector. The conflicted interest of most hybrid critics is simply pathetic.