3 ms·

I wasn't "fooled", and this is vaguely insulting. My unwillingness to burn dinosaur juice is reason enough for me to believe that hybrids are not "better" than

I wasn't "fooled", and this is vaguely insulting. My unwillingness to burn dinosaur juice is reason enough for me to believe that hybrids are not "better" than BEVs, but BEVs are also (a lot) more efficient per watt, they require less maintenance, the running costs are lower, the performance is better, and in the long run, they're more future proof. In fact it's hard to think of any reason why a hybrid would better except for "there are gas stations everywhere", but this reason is temporary at best, and ignores the fact that I can "fill" my EV at home, so I always leave the house with a full "tank". It's very rare that I have to visit a public charger. And hey, even when I do, my hands don't stink of gasoline anymore.

Alupis 2y ago
"Perfect is the enemy of good." You are unwilling to accept a significant reduction in "dinosaur juice" therefore we still burn about as much of it per day today, as we did 20 years ago[1]. You are not alone in this misguided opinion - which has stunted environmental efforts. Going from a 300 mile range to a 600+ mile range on the same fuel input is really significant. Instead, a tiny portion of the population drives an electric vehicle... > I wasn't "fooled", and this is vaguely insulting. It was designed to be insulting. People like yourself with this viewpoint that hybrids are not acceptable are the reason we do not have more hybrids. The tech was already there two decades ago to make all cars hybrids... best of both worlds - significant reduction in emissions, extreme range between "fill ups", and fast turn-around time at the pump. No new infrastructure needed to be built to support a "hybrid revolution". Instead, we have self-righteous electric vehicle owners touting how their environmental impact has been outsourced and reduced - failing to see the global environmental impact of electric vehicles has been essentially zero for two decades. Forest meet trees... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/282716/oil-consumption-in-the-us-per-day/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/282716/oil-consumption-i...

Alupis 2y ago

"Perfect is the enemy of good." You are unwilling to accept a significant reduction in "dinosaur juice" therefore we still burn about as much of it per day today, as we did 20 years ago[1]. You are not alone in this misguided opinion - which has stunted environmental efforts. Going from a 300 mile range to a 600+ mile range on the same fuel input is really significant. Instead, a tiny portion of the population drives an electric vehicle... > I wasn't "fooled", and this is vaguely insulting. It was designed to be insulting. People like yourself with this viewpoint that hybrids are not acceptable are the reason we do not have more hybrids. The tech was already there two decades ago to make all cars hybrids... best of both worlds - significant reduction in emissions, extreme range between "fill ups", and fast turn-around time at the pump. No new infrastructure needed to be built to support a "hybrid revolution". Instead, we have self-righteous electric vehicle owners touting how their environmental impact has been outsourced and reduced - failing to see the global environmental impact of electric vehicles has been essentially zero for two decades. Forest meet trees... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/282716/oil-consumption-in-the-us-per-day/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/282716/oil-consumption-i...