According to reliable government and industry estimates, about half of all air pollution comes from mobile sources -- on-road cars and trucks. While toxic emissions from road-going engines have been reduced by more than 90 percent over the last three decades, the number of engines on the road and miles driven has increased enough to just about completely offset those gains during the same time period, and that's only in the United States and Europe. With the population of China poised to join the party, the only real way to control air pollution from mobile sources is to burn less gasoline. Hybrids do exactly that. While real-world gas mileage is below the figures generated on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency test cycle, my own experience with existing hybrids shows that owners can expect more than 40 mpg.
The time, money and effortto develop
[hybrid vehicles] might have been better spent developing a more permanent solution.
I also appreciate hybrids from an engineering point of view. Regenerative braking recaptures some of the energy that would otherwise be shed as waste heat and stores it in batteries for later retrieval. This is a huge increase in the overall efficiency of the vehicle, and nothing else on the road even comes close.
But as an answer to the world's transportation needs, I think hybrids are an engineering cul-de-sac, a short-term solution with limited potential. There are already diesel-powered cars that carry just as many people and get the same fuel mileage as a Toyota Prius, and they pack a lot more horsepower. With recent advances in diesel fuel injection and emission control technologies, they're almost as clean as a gasoline engine of like power, and more improvements are on the way.
The piston engine still offers a lot of potential even after more than a century of development. With very little modification it can run on natural gas, which reduces engine-out emissions (precatalyst) about 90 percent below the same engine burning gasoline. The infrastructure for fueling stations would be quick and relatively inexpensive to build, because much of it already exists. Piston engines also can run on hydrogen, which automotive engineers all agree is the perfect fuel for eliminating pollution and CO2 emissions. Cars that can use these fuels may eventually be built, because the piston engine will still be around for a long time after fuel cell-powered vehicles finally hit the road, especially if a clean fuel becomes economically available for them.
I'm not suggesting that hybrids aren't a step forward, but the time, money and effort to develop them might have been better spent developing a more permanent solution. I compare them to the Stanley Steamers of the early 20th century. Even though they offered vastly superior performance in their day, steam engines couldn't meet the market's demand for convenience, economy and ease of operation. In addition to these, today's market also demands minimal environmental impact. Using two different power plants and a complex drivetrain just doesn't offer the potential of a simple powertrain
-- either internal combustion or electric -- operating on a clean fuel. If the goal is to stop burning gasoline, why spend resources to develop a technology that will eventually become obsolete?
