Should a law be put in place that required all automobiles manufacturers to build only hybrid cars?

Question

We all know that automobiles contribute to the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Would it be unrealistic to require all automobiles made after a certain year to be hybrid? This would certainly reduce green house gases. What do you all think abou the law itself, and how realistic would it be?

For those of you who took a defensive approach in answering my question, I do not support such a law but simply was inquiring about what you all thought. Thank you, however, for your responses. My goal in asking this question was just to get thinking about some of the things that could be done to help protect our atmosphere when it comes to automobiles. Feel free to answer my question as well as provide alternate solutions to the current problems. Thanks!

Also... check out this link. If restrictions on CFCs can be made while still maintaining a free market than why would this case be any different? Just a response to somone's answer.

Also... check out this link. If restrictions on CFCs can be made while still maintaining a free market than why would this case be any different? Just a response to somone's answer.
http://hazard.com/library/manage/Regulations/CFC_regs_history

Answer 1

It would be more realistic to have mileage goals rather than "hybrid." Did you know there are non-hybrid cars that get better gas mileage than many hybrid cars? Did you know hybrids are more expensive to make and disposing of their batteries may (maybe not) contribute more to harming the environment than any emissions difference? Why would forcing "hybrids" be good?

The US does have average fleet goals, that manufacturers fight every time, the CAFE limits. i think we should keep raising those.

Answer 2

I think it is unrealistic for all automobiles made with hybrid engines only in the future. Although it reduces the green house gases, it still not a perfect set up. The more realistic is to use sugar canes or corns to produce the fuel and use engines just like the Braizilian cars. The used corns and canes can be used as fertilizer or building material or industrial use tissues. It is certainly enviromental concern fuel and far better than the gasoline and electric combined engines. We can't rebuild all used batteries. Dumping the huge amount batteries could be a problem to protect the environment.

Answer 3

OK that thing about the hybrid battery plant is a myth. That plant cleaned up 30 years ago, the damage in photos is 30+ years old.

Yes the Prius is annoying (and a lousy hybrid). There are lots of other hybrids out there. Escape, Yukon, Silverado.

Biodiesel is a major win. Combine diesel and hybrid and you get a double win because the performance and mileage will both be better than a geared diesel. Combine diesel with series plug-in hybrid and you get a triple win! It would drive most of its miles on battery power from the wall. It is absolutely possible to build a diesel car that can do 11.2 second quarter-miles. Just stick a Thermo King in the back of the Maniac Mazda and done!

Yes it would be unrealistic to force automakers to make all hybrids. They would fight it tooth and nail, and deliberately monkeywrench it just to spite the government, as they did crushing all those EVs.

The technology is plenty old enough. NiMH batteries are proven, NiFe batteries are 100 years old (and half of them still work, lol!) and GM already built a strong hybrid with an EV1 turbo.

Answer 4

With the current state of battery technology hybrid cars are neither economic not particularly environmentally friendly. This is mainly because the life span of the batteries is only about three years.
What would be much more sensible is to make all cars capable of very limited operation on batteries for use in traffic jams and similar situation where the average speed is only a few MPH for distances of two or three miles.
This would be practical and have the side benefit that it would improve automotive traction battery technology because it would then have a significant market.
Even on my small car the trip computer shows that there would be a 15% minimum improvement in fuel consumption.

Answer 5

HELL NO! Hybrids are HORRIBLE for the planet, just look at the areas around the plants where they produce the batteries.

Producing and driving a gasoline only car is cleaner in the long run then one of those publicity stunts known as a hybrid. Oh yeah, did I mention that they are also an unproven technology? Cars need to be around TWENTY YEARS before you can make a judgement of whether or not they are reliable.

Any REAL environmentalist can tell you that diesel engines running on cooking oil (biodiesel) is much better than a silly hybrid.

Answer 6

Mandating a specific technology isn't a good idea. That'll lock in one technology, while others that may be able to meet or surpass the same goals could be overlooked...

We already have manufactuers making mild-hybrids just to jump on the bandwagon (look at the GMC/Chevy Sierra/Silverado Yukon/Tahoe trucks for examples) - sure, you can't complain about a 10% increase in fuel efficiency, but that whole 2MPG difference is easily lost in the noise on a vehicle that doesn't even get 20MPG on the EPA's optimistic tests...

Why not mandate EVs (oh, yeah, that turned out well for CA...), or LPG or CNG vehicles - they all put out less greenhouse and smog-forming emissions than most ordinary gasoline or diesel vehicles?

Instead of mandating a hybrid, why not raise the CAFE standards, force light trucks to meet the same CAFE requirements as cars (since they're usually bought as such), remove the ethanol CAFE loophole... And then you'd have to make sure such vehicles at minimum meet the current emission requirements (or preferrably the stricter CA emission requirements) to keep the clean air standards...

Then you can mandate non-fossil fuels (no petroleum products - gasoline or diesel, LPG, CNG, or coal), but the fuel source would be up to the manufacturer to find the best available solution.

Then again, transportation only accounts for 69% of the US's petroleum fuel use, and a mere 3% of the US's natural gas use, so even if all vehicles in the US were switched to a non-fossil fuel, there would still be fossil fuel use in the US for other market segments (mainly industrial use, but also residential (like home heating), and for electric generation).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/energybasics101.html


For some notes for some of the other posters: No, hybrid batteries are not toxic, nor is their production. http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200711/mrgreen_mailbag.asp

Depending on the source for electricity in your area, a BEV may or may not put out more greenhouse gas emissions than a 55MPG HEV. Mainly, if the primary source for electricity in your area is coal,
your HEV is cleaner than a BEV running on coal-powered electricity. However, if your electricity source is natural gas, the BEV is usually cleaner than the HEV (depending on the method used for natural gas->electricity conversion), and it gets even better for the BEV if you are using a hydroelectric or other renewable electric source. In comparisons with a generic 17MPG SUV, an average 26MPG vehicle, and a high-efficiency 38MPG vehicle, the 38MPG vehicle still will beat the coal-powered BEV, but isn't as clean as the HEV (and gas and renewables powered BEVs are much better than the 38MPG vehicle).

see: "Battery-Powered Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Projects to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Resource Guide for Project Development," July 2002
http://www.netl.doe.gov/products/ccps/pubs/resguide.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/international/pdfs/hev_ev_ghgreductions.pdf
mainly section 4.3

(and that's besides the arguements that it's easier to manage emissions from a handful of electric plants, as opposed to millions of independently-owned cars... typically, electric charging rates are still cheaper than petroleum rates, too. Of course, there are still emissions to worry about other than just greenhouse gas emissions, too. )

Answer 7

Absolutely NOT!

Here's why: there are two types of regulations governments can use to make such changes (in this or any other industry): prescriptive and standard-setting. What you suggest is the first--and it does NOT work well. What this does is prescribe a particular solution to a problem--and thereby push to one side all other alternatives. That is exactly the type of bureaucratic thinking that (legitimate) conservatives deplore--and they are 100% right.

The other approach is to set standards. For example, the bill now in Congress that would require that automobile fuel efficiency be increased over a specific period. This approach does NOT tell the companies how to do theis--it simply sets the standard. Companies thus are free to innovate and develop, searching out the best and most cost-effective methods of achieving the stated goal.

The prescriptive method amounts to some bureaucrat telling everyone what they will do nd how to do it, without reference to the actual value of theapproach demanded by the government. The second, by contrast, only stipulates a particular outcome--and encourages the best in science, technology, and capitalism: entrepreneurship, research, risk-taking, innovation.

With regard to this particular issue: What about hydrogen fuel cars? Electric? "Straight" gas engines that are as--or more--fuel efficient than hybrids? Plus other promising approaches--do you want to marginalize all those--and their long range potential--for the sake of a bureaucratic "quick fix" of allowing the government to decide wat kind of cars can or cannot be manufactured?

Answer 8

ita all about fuel economy, the more aerodynamic the shape, the better the gas mileage. thats why they get 50 mpg, if they were shapes like regular cars the mileage would be alot lower, and the wow factor would be gone.i think part of it was also, you know exactly what car it is when you see it, and get people talking about it its free advertising! the old ones are hidious, but the new technology in car emmissions,and everyone making them, they can lessen the ugliness out of them and fight for the best looking one. go figure

Answer 9

That is not the American way. The American way should be, you are free to buy a Hummer or Expedition if you choose to, however, we should be paying about $5 per gallon in taxes alone, like the rest of the world is. That will give the people the freedom to choose just how important it is to drive a living room around.

Answer 10

No. Whats next, a law requiring you to brush your teeth ? If you don't like regular cars, don't buy one. If you feel others should only buy hybrids, organize and get the message out.