The futility of the Prius and the end of the world …

Toshi

10 kW
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
841
Location
Denver, CO
Title continuation: "… as we know it"

I sold my only car back in 2008 after having an epiphany that our western way of life is unsustainable. Recently, I've come to a more gradual realization that my reaction to it is futile. Here's how it all came to pass:

The Epiphany

Although I'd read this and that regarding the energy use and petroleum dependence of our way of living for many years I can still pinpoint the exact moment when it sunk in: I was on an "express" bus in the fall of 2007 making its way very slowly up the crowded I-5 HOV lanes on the way up north to see my then-fiancée. The sight of so many people sitting sightless in their near-stationary cars perched atop an artificial desert of concrete, just waiting for the car ahead of them to inch forward so that they could mindlessly do so as well, made things click. It seemed absurd all of a sudden to contemplate how much energy and sheer effort it took to change the wooded landscape to that just so that we could coop ourselves up in a 3,500 lb padded private box on our way home. What is progress good for if our lives are spent this way?

The Reaction

I basically didn't drive after this realization. I'd never commuted by car even before this point due to (deliberately) exorbitant parking fees at my workplace, so commuting in by bicycle was no change in my habits. I did cut out all pleasure driving, however, and did my errands by foot, bicycle, or bus--nothing like coming back from Costco via two buses when a car is parked in one's driveway, just out of sheer obstinance… Autocross, long one of my passions--what young man doesn't secretly want to be a racecar driver?--lost its allure once I looked at it coldly and analytically, so I sold my extra wheels and race tires and put my math-nerd number vinyl number plate (#1729) in a dark corner of the garage. Eventually, I sold the car itself: I didn't drive it any more besides moving it in and out of the driveway at my roommates' request, I didn't enjoy driving it because of my environmental guilt, and the money tied up in it would be more useful for paying for an engagement ring and an then-upcoming cross-country move. In order to get around sans car given my weird hours as a physician (as in getting to the hospital before the buses are even running), I built an electric bicycle, comfortable with the "unnatural" electric assistance with the knowledge that its lithium battery pack is probably more efficient than my own metabolism.

The Green Life, Long Island-style

Fast forward a year or three and my wife and I are living the "green life" as best as we can in suburban New York. Our electricity consumption is a third of the national average; we keep our programmable thermostat quite low indeed and have added insulation to our rented house; we bring reusable bags to the grocery; and we recycle as best as we can. Finally, of course, we drive efficient vehicles: a Prius (46 mpg combined), a Fit (30 mpg combined), or a medium-sized motorcycle (~40-45 mpg observed but with higher smog-forming emissions than either of the two cars). Although gas isn't cheap here, we don't live so close to the financial edge that $5 or even $10/gallon gas would bankrupt us, so our motivation isn't merely financial: We really feel that it's the right thing to do, as our western-lifestyle world's demand for oil can be implicated in so much strife and bloodshed and leads to the enrichment of some truly unsavory characters in the Middle East.

The Realization of Futility

All this up to this point has been my reaction to my epiphany, however. As I stated up front, I've now gradually realized that what we are doing is futile. Inspirational slogans on Seattle bus shelters aside, the actions of an individual, one small family, or even a small similarly-minded minority of people (let's call us "people who like Stuff White People Like"), are not enough to change the world. What is required is that the incentives align themselves differently: much as our current mess in medicine is because the payment model provides incentives to do more procedures and charge more fees rather than to practice low-cost medicine and substitute judgment and thought for waste, our current worldwide system of incentives rewards copious consumption of the cheapest (and dirtiest) forms of energy.

Given that the US, Russia, and China "own" the three largest reserves of coal in the whole world and we, de facto, control or at least buy influence and access to the Middle East's vast oil fields, it's pretty much guaranteed that the taps to these dirty forms of energy won't turn off until the last mote has truly been extracted from the ground. Furthermore, given the tremendous energy demands posed by China's surging economy, which may well be followed in 20 years by an Indian surge should they figure out how to stamp out their endemic corruption, there will be every incentive imaginable to the world's coal miners and well drillers to extract the black gold in order to spin up the compressors of air conditioners and refrigerators throughout the newly-westernized world.

What use, then, are incremental steps such as that embodied by the Prius and our "green lifestyle"? A car that gets 50% better fuel economy than its competitors yet still runs on gasoline may forestall the world running out of oil from the year 2090 to 2095, but that doesn't really change anything at all. Even electric cars aren't the answer: Although they may allow for an additional, say, 50% reduction in CO2 emission per mile driven compared to a Prius under ideal circumstances, the electricity generating capacity that they require is still fundamentally tied to oil and coal and will be for the foreseeable future due to simple economics.

Basically, these cars (and all the related energy-efficiency jazz: CFL lightbulbs, Energy Star this and that) are all small incremental steps, and will only forestall the inevitable. They do offer an economic benefit if energy prices are very high, but we haven't reached that point on the supply and demand curve, and the political reality in the US and especially the still-developing world will prevent any kind of high carbon tax from being enacted. Until we actually do start to run out of these supplies, which probably will not be within my lifetime, their existence merely serves to assuage the guilty conscience of the collective white world.

Beyond Thunderdome

When we do run out--and we will run out, it's just a matter of whether it's in my lifetime or that of my descendants--is when the true changes will be made. When gasoline becomes so scarce that we can't buy it at any cost, no matter how much military muscle we possess, is when our lifestyle will truly change and we'll see the concrete jungle that we've constructed--concrete having a very high CO2 cost--crumble. A nation that has built up its hydroelectric, wind, and solar power generation capabilities back in the (current and mid-term future) era when power was cheap will prosper if they can protect themselves from military bullies, but much if not most of the world will not be ready for this new world order. Chaos will ensue, and lives will get a whole lot simpler, for better or, likely, worse.

I used to think that the scientific evidence showing our effects on the global climate would be enough to convince the population and its politicians that an energy tax would be necessary, and that this energy tax might slow down our rate of energy consumption to a sustainable level. I now believe that achieving the political and inter-nation consensus to make this happen is impossible, and that we as a world will draw down our fossil fluids at an ever-increasing rate until they're simply gone. Therefore preparing for some utopian near-term world where the incentives are changed to reward energy efficiency, as I have so madly done (and as embodied by the image of the Prius), is pointless. There's no point being a martyr to a cause if the world is literally stacked against oneself. Instead I think it makes sense to party while Rome burns, to take advantage of our low energy prices that do not account for the externalities such as climate change, and to enjoy the fruits of our petroleum-derived society while it's still around to enjoy.

Of course, it might also not be a bad idea to build an underground bunker with an electric car, water purification setup, and enough solar panels to be self-sustaining. 100 years from now my great-grandchildren may well be able to live like a king (a sheikh, even) if they have such equipment for their use when Mad Max roams the barren earth above…
 
The easiest way to save the planet from environmental devastation:

Stop spending money.


Sure, your employer will stop spending money on you, but if you don't need to spend money, then we're all cool. Mankind has existed in his current form for about a million years, and despite the tough conditions, at least you can say it was sustainable. Agriculture became the basis of civilisation, but once the phosphorus and arable land runs out, it will become our Achilles heel.

Hard to not be pessimistic, but the answer is simple. It's not a pleasant one though.
 
If you read the story behind Toyota taking what was, at the time, an absolutely immense risk in investing all that money to bring an odd car to market, you'll find out that it wasn't primarily about fuel economy. As any Prius owner will tell you, there are one or two similar size and weight turbo diesels that give mpg around that of the Prius.

They certainly wanted to cash in on all the millennium hype at the tail end of the 90's, and hit the market with a "car for the 21st century" (in fact the original idea was for zero emissions, prompted by the movement in this direction in California), but, being Japanese, they were pragmatic realists when it came down to understanding what the current state of vehicle technology would allow. A pure electric vehicle was ruled out, because battery technology wasn't up to it, plus there was a feeling that the general public wouldn't yet accept a pure electric car.

The Prius programme was just the first step in a very ambitious schedule of change for Toyota. They plan to have a hybrid version of every Toyota model, to get people used to the concept of partial electric power and to establish a reliable reputation for this technology in the minds of consumers. By the time that battery technology has improved to the point where long range EVs are a realistic proposition, Toyota will be in a position where they have a great deal of experience with the key technologies and will also have the skills, both in manufacture and out in their global dealer network. Toyota had to invest massively in training their service staff around the globe to look after the high voltage systems on the Prius, an investment that only makes sense if you're going to expand into this area or switch to EVs at some future point.

I look upon all the hybrids as a stepping stone towards pure EVs. They are already changing public opinion (with the exception of nauseating retards like Jeremy Clarkson and a few other motoring journalist dinosaurs) and, as a consequence, electric power is now beginning to be seen as a more acceptable way of powering vehicles. They aren't a solution to the oil issue, but they are a first step in the right direction and they have massively increased investment in motor, battery and controller technology already.

Jeremy
 
Jeremy Harris said:
I look upon all the hybrids as a stepping stone towards pure EVs.
Pure EVs won't solve anything, either. They're just another incremental improvement.
 
Toshi said:
Pure EVs won't solve anything, either. They're just another incremental improvement.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

The really big challenge right now is to wean people away from their love affair with big internal combustion engines, that are, at best, around 30% efficient at converting fossil fuel to power. Once people come to accept that they don't need, or can't afford, personal transport that's so blatantly wasteful of non-renewable resources then the path will be prepared for more innovative transport solutions being seen as acceptable.

Jeremy
 
I don't think people can be convinced until it's scarcity of the very thing that allows for our current, easy lifestyle that forces them to look elsewhere.
 
Toshi said:
Jeremy Harris said:
I look upon all the hybrids as a stepping stone towards pure EVs.
Pure EVs won't solve anything, either. They're just another incremental improvement.

But every small improvment will help. we're atleast 50 years away from what will probably be major warfare over energy resources. But there will come a day when we've cut down all the trees to heat our homes and cook our food, when the grain stalks have as much value for fuel as the grain its self, and we've almost depleted the nutrients from the soil raeping the land for biofuels.

So every step that gets humanity used to doing more with less will lessen the shock when we run out.
 
nicobie said:
Until population control becomes a reality, all of these arguments are moot.

Or as 10 years after sang 40 years ago...

"I don't know what to do, so I'll leave it up to you"
Population control will only come with scarcity of resources, including energy. Our genes dictate that any attempt otherwise will be futile.
 
I used to get very passionate about warning people about their ways. About two weeks ago, I had the exact same revelation you have had. Why??? Our planet is currently overpopulated by a figure somewhere around 5.5 billion people. It's too late. I just want to have as much fun as I can, and build cool things until it all falls apart. For years, I had this doomsday plan to be all setup and help reform civilization but now, I'm so generally disgusted with humans that I'd NEVER willingly repopulate the planet. I friend of mine asked, "Why would you even want to survive Armageddon? It's going to suck after it. Everything's going to be all blown up and desolate and stuff???" At first, my reaction was that I'm a survivor type but now I totally agree. If billions and billions of people haven't put their dicks in their pants and become aware of the way they live and how it affects other people and the environment, what good are a few thousand educated, honest, and caring people going to do about them? We can't kill them. It's not right, and as honest, loving educated people, it's below us. All we can do is let them eat themselves up from the inside. This happens with every type of life form on our planet. Why should we be exempt? When resources are plentiful, population soars until resources are depleted. If the entire environment isn't destroyed, a small percentage of the life forms live on, evolving in the process, and usually living sustainably until massive amounts of resources are found again.

I still really like the idea of that solar powered bio-dome ship/submarine sustainable floating habitat thingy though....

Maybe earth will be populated by a few thousand uber-intelligent folks living in things like that once the ignorance sorts itself out. That would be cool.

We could also discover that dog poop can replace uranium in nuclear power applications if you mix it with salt and earth could soar to a genetically devolved, sub-human zombie like population of 50 billion living in apartments and all working for Walmart, eating dogs and salt that is recollected from their sweat for sustenance.....all while a few extremely rich old white men play golf and eat truffles.

So, as of this post, I won't try to change anything in the world through words. It's a total waste of time. The people that have the ability to read and understand my posts, but still disagree, are lost forever to media brainwashing and the other 90% would be lucky to be online instead of slaving away making some lazy a-hole rich, even if they could read.... I'll build neat stuff with sustainability in mind, just for my own conscience and just continue to do my thing until it's time to change...or shoot zombies from the roof.....
 
Toshi said:
Jeremy Harris said:
I look upon all the hybrids as a stepping stone towards pure EVs.
Pure EVs won't solve anything, either. They're just another incremental improvement.


One of my co-workers has been using a full electric toyota RAV4 as his only vehicle since 2001, and charges solely from his home solar/wind station at his home. Amazingly, he also said his RAV4 has never had any issues at all, other than needing a set of tires.

Do you think this is an incremental step?
I think it looks quite a bit like a working transportation solution IMHO.

The big difference between gasoline/biodiesel/LGP/CNG vehicles and electric vehicles, is the ability to gather your own vehicles energy in a sustainable way. Biodiesel means planting crops, harvesting, refining etc, so it's a failure IMHO. CNG/LPG etc are just byproducts of oil drilling, so it's a failure IMHO.

Electricity for vehicles that you generate yourself in a sustainable way can be a solution.

Every month I read about new solar cell efficiency records being broken, new manufacturing techniques and materials promising to make them cheaper. Even cooler, electricity is something you can tailor to suit your areas unique attributes. For example, if you live in a volcanic area, use geothermal to make your clean electricity source. Live in a windy place? Use wind. Live in a sunny place? Use solar. Got an ocean handy? Use tidal or wave power.

Or, better yet, build proper nuclear power plants. Just because Russia, the USA and others made a comedy of errors with primitive equipment to botch nuclear power in it's super early development stage doesn't mean it can't be done safely now. Hell, even the French can get it right, and have a surplus of clean power they sell all over Europe because of it, and they handle their own waste re-processing.
 
The curious thing about the whole population control thing is that, arguably, it's the Chinese that have been most successful at limiting population growth.

I'm not, for one moment, advocating the global adoption of the "one child" policy that has been more-or-less enforced in China for the past 30+ years, but there is no doubting that it has contributed to the position China is now in. Had they not adopted this draconian policy, they would be consuming all of their resources in supporting their own population, so wouldn't have become the export power-house they are today.

Jeremy
 
Hi Toshi,

Thanks for a thoughtful post. I keep a selective list of noteworthy topics and put yours in there too.

Like you, I agonize over how in comparison to other wasteful use of energy, the savings of riding my eBike instead of driving are like a drop in the sea. Like you I see the bumper-to-bumper traffic at 9am and 5pm every day. I also see how the university maintenance has V8 vans and trucks which just sit idling most of the day while the employee runs in with a package, waters the flowers or whatnot, etc, etc. So much obviously silly waste and few seem to care!

Now despite this, I derive some personal gain from eBiking:
I eBike past the rush hour traffic. (Often choosing car-free routes even if this is a bit longer, since the biking is pleasant.)
I don't waste 2+ hours commuting every day.
I managed to convince my wife to bike in the summer and (mostly) use public transport in the winter.
I have no accidents and pay very little for car maintenance.
We use the car to go out of the city for the weekends and holiday.

Personal benefits such as the above, combined with trend setters making it more fashionable to be environmentally concious is having an increasing impact. In Edmonton more bike paths and the building of more commuter train lines is making some impact already.

I agree with you that the expansion of the economy currently is outpacing any benefits from environmental initiatives, and might do so for some time in the future. Yet some proportion of the western world driving hybrids is better than nothing. Just like 120million eBikes in China is better than 120million gas motorbikes etc.

Will there be an apocalyptic end when resources run dry? Maybe so. We often see in the news how relatively minor events trigger violence and looting. But mankind has also overcome some pretty serious events. At the end of WWII much of the population in the ravaged countries had to revert back to subsistence living growing veggies in the back yard while rebuilding their countries.
 
Haha - Eating dogpoop and shooting zombies from the roof :roll: I don't want to be around for that either..

I agree with Luke though. It is depressing knowing 90% of people won't change a damn thing until they are forced to but so what. If I can afford a 100 mi. range electric for my next vehicle I'll damn sure get it. I spend--no shit-- between 4 and 6 thous. a year on fuel. I just had to live rural. So yeah I may not change/move closer till I have to. But I have ample room for solar and I already have a tower so no real covenants to keep me from doing windpower either. Soon my last kid goes to college-hopefully so maybe in the next 5 yrs. I can get that e-vehicle and keep a few more dollars in my pocket for toys :mrgreen:

Concluding: Never going to change some folks but still worth it to try out new tech.
 
liveforphysics said:
One of my co-workers has been using a full electric toyota RAV4 as his only vehicle since 2001, and charges solely from his home solar/wind station at his home. Amazingly, he also said his RAV4 has never had any issues at all, other than needing a set of tires.

Do you think this is an incremental step?
I think it looks quite a bit like a working transportation solution IMHO.

It's a great solution for rich, conscientious individuals, and indeed I may spring for such a setup myself: not just for assuring the prosperity of my future offspring in a Mad Max scenario but because the tech is very cool.

However, even though it exists and is possible, that's never been the problem. The problem is that it's much cheaper to go with gas/coal, and because of this we won't see a wholesale sea change until every last bit of fossil fuel has been extracted and burnt in a smokestack somewhere.

Once we run out of fossil fuels then simply having an EV and an array of PV panels won't guarantee a "normal" life, either. There's that niggling problem that our medicines, our clothes, the fertilizer for our food--EVERYTHING--is derived from petroleum.
 
Toshi, take the gun out of your mouth.

We lived without oil for a verry long time. We can do it again. Running out of cheap energy will not be apocalyptic.. it will just mean a slow and painful regression into the agricultural lifestyle we lived long ago, but we will have the advantage of solar panels, wind, and decades of technological progression in our hands.

All you fellow peak oil/mad max/global warming worriers, do check out this youtube series sometime. It is really interesting..

[youtube]YIoRmuWHzyg[/youtube]

Anyhow, all cars use tons of energy to move people and are unsustainable by that nature alone. Think about it; this vehicle has to move 2000-4000lbs worth of metal and the person inside is a tenth of that weight..

What can you do other than set the example by commuting on an eBike, or other means?
 
One of my friends pointed out a very relevant recent TED video, in which Bill Gates speaks about "Innovating to Zero". I highly recommend watching it:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

The stuff he talks about is the stuff that used to give me hope--talk of green-minded venture capital firms incubating the "next big thing". I don't share Bill Gates' optimism, however, as evidenced by this thread. I don't think the problem is technological, although his proposed nuclear tech is quite cool. I think the problem is that meeting his "report card" goals of 20% reduction of global CO2 by 2020 and 80% reduction by 2050 will be impossible for political reasons.

As long as there's coal in the ground in West Virginia you'll never see a full-fledged energy tax clear Congress and be signed into law, and without such drastic incentives/disincentives fossil fuels will be used to the very last drop.
 
The elephant in the room is population.

Good time to cut Planned Parenthood funding.
 
jmygann said:
The elephant in the room is population.

Good time to cut Planned Parenthood funding.

Adopt the "One Child" policy. It's worked OK for China..................

Jeremy
 
Population is not the problem... distribution of wealth is.

There is enough money.
There is enough food.
There is enough water.

It is the greed of the wealthy few that fuels our fears and our wars.

In the proud democracy of the US:
inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
 
You wanna save the world? Don't reproduce. About the only thing two people can do by themselves that really impacts the planet.
 
Toshi said:
--concrete having a very high CO2 cost--
Right now, maybe. But concrete has been in heavy use for thousands of years, and it hasn't always had such a high CO2 cost. It is the techniques currently used to make the material, not the material itself, that create the problem.

Toshi said:
However, even though it exists and is possible, that's never been the problem. The problem is that it's much cheaper to go with gas/coal, and because of this we won't see a wholesale sea change until every last bit of fossil fuel has been extracted and burnt in a smokestack somewhere.
The difference is that with electric vehicles (whatever type of vehicle they are) can accept power from any source, as Luke pointed out. It doesn't have to come from fossil fuels. And because of this, in the grand scheme of things they are definitely a worthwhile incremental step. Which is easier (and more likely to actually happen): persuading the population to convert to electric transportation gradually over time, then replacing the power plants with more sustainable sources, or trying to convert both at once? You say incremental changes are useless, but a bunch of incremental changes over time is often the only way that a system can be changed; especially one involving as many individuals as this.

Toshi said:
I think the problem is that meeting his "report card" goals of 20% reduction of global CO2 by 2020 and 80% reduction by 2050 will be impossible for political reasons.
What political reasons? Do you think taxing something into oblivion is the only way to fuel innovation?

Toshi said:
As long as there's coal in the ground in West Virginia you'll never see a full-fledged energy tax clear Congress and be signed into law, and without such drastic incentives/disincentives fossil fuels will be used to the very last drop.
I think you are wrong on this point. Your entire argument is predicated on the requirement that fossil fuels are not only the current cheapest fuel source available, but will continue being the cheapest until the very second they're entirely gone. That's not how a supply and demand system works. Fuel costs will increase as the resource grows scarcer and more expensive to find/acquire/refine/etc, and as that cost increases, the incentive to improve existing and find new alternatives will increase. Your argument also requires that fossil fuels are, and always will be, the best (densest energy storage, most energy available per cost, safest, etc) fuel source. I don't think that this is the case now, let alone in 50 or 100 years. They're just the most readily available in the infrastructure that we have at the moment. But keep in mind that 100 years ago, that infrastructure didn't really exist. We as a race moved fast this past century; faster than almost any other century in history, to my knowledge. Yes, maybe part of that was because of an easily available, cheap, fuel source. But that's not (imo) a bad thing. The last 100 years we have gone from horses and primitive motorized vehicles to spaceflight (granted, very localized); from couriers to global communication networks that can transfer millions of volumes worth of information around the globe (and off it) in less than a second; from gas and animal-fat burning lamps to LEDs that consume tiny amounts of energy but produce hundreds (or thousands) of times more light. I don't find it difficult at all to see a viable replacement for fossil fuels arising in the next 50 years.

The human race has been around for a very long time, and (imo) will be around for a very long time yet to come. Throughout that time, the race as a whole has almost always found ways not only to survive, but to thrive. Yes, there were challenges, but human ingenuity has always won out in the end. Every time that an existing resource, even one heavily and widely used, has been in danger of disappearing, a better alternative has been found before that could happen. A prime example of this is whale oil. I have complete confidence that new fuel sources will be discovered, and existing fuel sources improved, that will easily replace fossil fuels before we run out.

If you have faith in nothing else, have faith in human greed. Wherever there is a weakness, whether it be in a business or an economy, someone will be there to exploit it. In this case, that means developing and improving alternatives to fossil fuels; something that will benefit us all. Most of the richest and most powerful people in the world got where they are by looking at the long picture. Skyscrapers, bridges, oil rigs, refineries, power plants; all of these take a very long time to build and even longer to recoup investments. The simple fact of the matter is that using up a resource until it is gone with no plan for the future simply is not good business sense. Someone used to looking that far into the future for profits probably saw this coming a long time ago. Luke touched on this with Honda's slow, gradual move towards electric vehicles. Dow has shown a similar commitment with Dow Kokam. Heck, even Chevron buying the NiMH tech used in the EV1-era round of EVs can be seen as a way of hedging their bets 'just in case'. They shelved that tech, and as much as that pisses me off as a consumer, from a pure business standpoint it makes sense. Their primary income source (oil) was not yet to the point of scarcity (real or not) or cost that promoting an alternative would be profitable. And on the off chance that something happened, they had something to give them a running start.

Call me an optimistic, blind, brainwashed, fool if you like, but before you go off moaning about how the world is doomed and oil will destroy us all, take a long hard look at everything that is already being done to remove our dependence on fossil fuels.
 
when i was in public school[we actualy walked to school :eek: ] bread,milk, tea, was delivered by horse and wagon...[yes,i have been around awhile]...no polution..frozen road apples were good for hockey..good use of by products..healthy excerise ... i saw my first"fat" kid when i was in boarding school[actual he was just chubby] he took a lot of ribbing...today i read about %40 of North Americans being fat or obese...europe is probably about the same... the point is,TODAY ,THE MAJORITY OF US DO LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR OURSELVES...couch potatoes,car passengers, fast food gobblers, internet shoppers ect..... we take more than we give.... HOW DEEP IS THE POT :?: :?:
 
Refreshing to see the obvious truth pointed out above - the planet cannot sustain 6 billion large mammals of species homo sapiens. Wouldn't it be nice if we could address that issue by choice rather than famine, war or pandemic...
Unfortunately I believe that (as has been the case for some time) those who chose not to contribute to the overpopulation are, from a gene pool perspective, probably the only ones who should....
I find the inevitability of the nightmare in prospect exceedingly depressing. I probably won't live it, but the next generation, or the one after, sure will. All I can do is try to develop the technologies that will be useful in a less energy rich world.
I never 'got' the prius thing - in my diesel mondeo - big comfy rep car - I average 55mpg(UK) year round (it's a LOT more economical in summer) (basically by driving like an old fart...), but I can't pretend Toyota have not done an incredible marketing job making the technology 'hip' and I take the point about preparing the way for full EVs.
Does nobody think we can keep on breeding until it's standing room only????
 
Back
Top