Considering that the parent company to Infiniti is going for EVs in a big way, you're probably right, but for the luxury market, they'll probably try PHEVs first.

↓↑report

Uh hybrids done have to use gas. Just because it is hybrid doesnt mean it cant use ethanol or diesel. So what if all manufacturers in the near future made all their cars flex fuel and not hybrid? We are not going to have enough ethanol to fuel anything but a small percentage of cars. Then we would have been better off with hybrids in the first place. Plus if it really only costs $100 to make a car flex fuel, then why not have flex fuel hybrids. Hybrids have proven to greatly increase fuel efficiency in city conditions.

So dont get your panties in a wad when people reduce consumption by going hybrid.

Oh and BTW Ethanol will not cost less than gas once it scales up. Just my opinion.

↓↑report

The typical NiMH hybrid battery weighs about a hundred pounds, I wouldn't consider that the equivalent of a "fat man". LiIon batteries will weight even less, PHEV LiIon batteries a bit more. Regardless of the weight, the improvement in hybrid efficiency is undeniable.

Efficiency is important, no matter which alternative fuel is used. There isn't quite enough free land to run all our current transportation from biofuels alone, but with improved efficiency from hybrids, and plug-ins taking over most local driving, then biofuels could fill in the rest with room to grow (pardon the pun).

Using less automatically means less pollution, and less demand on the environment, and less expense!

And BoneHead is right, hybrids can also be flex fueled, there are no technical obstacles to adapt them to run on alcohol fuels. So why not use less petrol AND save on ethanol, too?

↓↑report

Even if making a car flex fuel cost exactly the same as making it a hybrid, it still would be stupid to make it a hybrid.

Because with a flex fuel car you can slash gasoline use by 85 percent, FAR more than any hybrid.

Thus for the same funds you can do a lot more to cut gasoline use.

Not only that, it of course costs far MORE to make a car a hybrid, making it even MORE stupid.

Newflash: resources are not infinite. You can't do everything. There are only so many dollars and man-hours available for a car company or government.

For the same effort and expense at hybridizing one car, one can flex fuel-ify many more. Thus with a limited quantity of resources it makes WAY more sense to devote them to flex fuel rather than hybrids.

So even if conservation actually did reduce overall gasoline use, it still wouldn't be worthwhile.

But it doesn't even do that. MPG went up from 13 MPG to 20MPG thanks to CAFE from 1976 to 1990, but gasoline use went up from 89 to 103 billion barrels. The BEST conservation can do is slow down growth. That's a strategy for defeat.

In every possible way the hybrid craze is stupid, stupid, stupid.

↓↑report

WOW Carney are you kidding or are you actually that dumb? Gasoline use went up from 1976 to 1990 because there were more people in the world driving more cars! Conservation always helps.

And yes if you use E85 you only use 15 percent gas but you use 85% ethanol which is not free, not easy to transport and grow, and not infinite either! You said it best resources are not infinite. Neither is land, water, and corn. Using ethanol does not amount to a solution and it is the worst of all biofuels. Why not conserve with Hybrids and use biodiesel. using corn ethanol, THAT is Nuts!

↓↑report

"WOW Carney are you kidding or are you actually that dumb? Gasoline use went up from 1976 to 1990 because there were more people in the world driving more cars!"

Obviously, and the situation has accelerated since then. Gasoline use went up to 140 billion gallons by 2004.

Just take a look at the explosions in India and China. We have 800 cars per 1,000 people; China has 8. And that has quadrupled in less than ten years. There's a tsunami of gasoline demand coming, and conservation isn't going to do squat.

"Conservation always helps."

Hasn't so far, if facts, numbers, science, and physical results count, rather than smug feelings. We're still using MORE gasoline than ever before.

"And yes if you use E85 you only use 15 percent gas but you use 85% ethanol which is not free, not easy to transport and grow, and not infinite either! You said it best resources are not infinite. Neither is land, water, and corn."

I never claimed it was free, but it's cheaper than gasoline. It's more challenging to transport until we get the pipeline system upgraded, but it can be done. It is being don in Brazil, for example. It's no more difficult to grow for than any other product produced by crops. And in a key way it IS infinite, not at any given time, but when considered down the road, because it's RENEWABLE. You can grow another ethanol crop next year. With petroleum, you burn it, it's gone forever.

"Using ethanol does not amount to a solution and it is the worst of all biofuels. "

It's a vital part of the solution. Those painting it with a negative brush are a) oil dependent think tanks, b) oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez who realize what that it is the only realistic threat they face, c) businessmen and scientists who depend on further pointless research for unneeded ethanol alternatives for their meal tickets and need to make us dither for years on their wasteful activities; d) fanatical greens for which no solution for anything is acceptable other than perhaps human extinction, and e) people who have been fooled by one of the above.

"Why not conserve with Hybrids"

I just carefully explained why not. Reread above, this time paying attention.

"and use biodiesel."

Because it's not backward compatible with gasoline. Furthermore, if you object to using crosp and plants to make fuel, how is biodiesel superior?

"using corn ethanol, THAT is Nuts!"

Corn ethanol will be a vital component of the post-petroleum future in this country, if there ever is one. Other elements will be ethanol from other sources, methanol, and DME for diesel.

↓↑report