Mr. H.
Diamond Member
Because it doesn't have enough battery to run the car for 40 miles or better. And is not a plug in.
We both have agreed as to the merits of diesel engines. Wouldn't a transition to all- diesel transportation be more expedient and economical? And I would say that next on the list would be natural gas vehicles.
This issue of hybrids, all electric vehicles, or the production of energies from alternative and/or renewable sources isn't about expedience or economics or efficiencies- it's about petrophobia. Or hydrocarbophobia.
Carter started this nation- and the world for that matter- on a course not steeped in energy economics, but steeped in fear, loathing, and disdain for all things hydrocarbon. It was and always will be a notion of lies, half truths, propaganda, and Liberal hyperbole.
First, a constant rpm diesel combined with a large battery pack would be the ideal for a really efficient hybrid that has more than adaquete power.
Second, the cost of hydrocarbons is going to continue to go up, even as the cost at the citizens level of creating one's own electricity is going to go down. Simple economics says that most of us will be driving EVs and hybrids in my lifetime.
Right on, that first sentence. But why bastardise a decent diesel with a protagonist "hybrid" configuration?
Primacy in efficiency. That's where it's at.
Battery technology drags down the efficiency of primary energies from an economic standpoint. Batteries are a back seat technology. They ride the haunches of the true kings of power.
The "cost of hydrocarbons" is not going to continue to go up. If you belivie that, then are you invested in oil and/or natural gas futures?