And Toyota isn't really all that green in the first place building the Land Cruiser, LX, Sequoia, Tundra, Tacoma, Highlander, 4Runner and probably a few other things. VW is probably a lot greener than Toyota.
Since we have a Toyota plant here in Kentucky they have a huge booth every year at the state fair, usually taking up five or six (may even be more) exhibitor booth spaces. It is staffed by volunteers from the factory staff and their families. As you walk by they have every single truck on display, and then at the end they have one cross-cut hybrid model on display with a couple of signs explaining how it works, benefits, etc. Every time I look at their booth I think to myself that if Toyota truly wanted to show themselves as green they would fill the booth with their small cars and hybrids. But then a blue Yaris hatchback doesn't look nearly as sexy as a jet black Tundra.
The problem I'm having with all this Prius bashing is that everyone seems to ignore manuacturers that bring cars onto the market with engines that go trough enormous amounts of fuel.
The difference is that these manufacturers don't advertise themselves as being green and don't market their cars as both economic and solutions to oil supply problems and global warming.
Unless, I missed a new Ferrari ad, that is.
What I'm having a problem with is that people seem to put Toyota down for producing a car that in a way offers a solution, like some sort of guideline in what direction we should move.
But it is not a solution, and as they have worked hard to make hybrid technology a large trend, they are effectively slowing other manufacturers' ability to research a true solution and still maintain profitability. I am not saying Toyota is to blame for the financial situation of the American auto companies, because they were too late to even make a move toward the trend and had other issues as well.
However, I do find it interesting that two of the companies attempting to make the biggest moves toward eco-friendly trends, Toyota and VAG, are pulling sales from many others, and may possibly be battling each other for most sales in a few years.
Yet these people think it's oh so awesome brands like Dodge or Chevrolet keep bringing out cars that are fitted with big V8s.
This is partly do to car culture. People less interested in fuel economy and more into wanting driving to be about more than getting from Point A to Point B are going to be more open to calling Toyota out on their conflicting goals and look deeper into the true economic value of a hybrid. Plus, even if these people had a Prius and drove it like they didn't care about the fuel savings, they would barely get any more benefit than from any other car.
But if you step outside of the car culture realm, away from political commentators, and just look at average guys who wish to be informed you will see that they aren't cheering for the next big muscle car either. I'm talking about guys like my dad, who wants an everyday car and an efficient pickup, nothing more.
What about diesel engines, they're not so innocent either as everyone seems to think.
But diesel uses upgraded forms of current technology to reach the same, or better, efficiency and pollution levels. It acts as an in-between but allows for new fuel sources to be researched without creating a trend that pulls research away. Diesel is the same natural progression of technology that you see in any petrol car.
Same goes for bio-fuel. If we'd check our sources where the fuel comes from, bio-fuel actually isn't that bad.
Bio-fuel has significant problems though. It is most efficient when made from sugar cane, but sugar cane is best grown in tropical climates. Unfortunately farming in tropical climates often requires destroying rain forests. So, to produce large quantities would require destroying the environment anyway.
The other alternative, that is currently used in the US, is to find a plant source that can be grown in a much larger climate zone. Certain types of corn/grains work great for that, but due to its loss of efficiency we still don't have enough available farmlands to supply the planet. Factor in that switching current corn/grain cropland to focus on bio-fuel effects many other things. Animal feed supply is reduced, so the feed cost rises, and now we see meat and dairy prices increasing. It also means less human food corn, so corn, and all the food stuffs made from it, has prices go up. And most disastrous, less hops are being grown and my beer prices have gone up.
And I haven't even gotten into the fact that bio-fuels from corn, such as ethanol, are not getting the same mileage as petrol and thus means that it has some more advancements to make before it is actually a cost benefit to consumers.
My personal thoughts are that as an interim technology we should focus on clean diesel and then see what advancements we can make with ethanol while researching other alternative fuels as well.
But whatever the end result is it must meet a few requirements:
- Equal to or less than cost of petrol to the consumer (this won't be completely determined until it has large market accessibility, but the research will show if it is possible before we start).
- It serves to meet the wants of both daily and fun drivers.
- Has all the conveniences of filling up with petrol in under five minutes.
- Of course, low pollution.
- Easily produced in multiple regions of the world.
