> Yes, the batteries are costly, but it's hardly fair to refer to them as "new
> technology" - Ni-MH batteries have been around for a very long time now.
> And the transmission device is far simpler than the average auto box and
> much cheaper to manufacture. Maintenance costs for it reflect that
> simplicity, i.e. zero. Much of what is said about the Prius is hearsay and
> guesswork (Note "there might also be and additional cost...", rather than
> "the cost difference is..."). I confess I don't know the whole life carbon
> load of a Prius when compared to a non-hybrid equivalent vehicle, but until
> somebody actually comes up with verifiable facts and figures I will continue
> to drive it believing that I am doing considerable good rather than
> considerable evil in terms of the environment - and the improved gas
> performance is really a bonus. Oh, and by the way, here in the UK the Prius
> starts at around £18,000, which appears to be getting on for twice what it
> costs in the States. If I were living over there I would be biting your
> hand off (a quaint British expression to indicate enthusiasm;-)) to get one.
Visit the area in Canada around the battery manufacturing plant, and you'll see an ecological cost. Serious carnage. Then, consider that the battery materials are shipped to Canada for manufacture, then back to Japan to be put in the cars, then the cars are shipped around the world. Plenty of carbon costs there.
The Prius is only affordable in the US because of the credit given by the government to own one. And it's gas mileage is no better than that of a 90's era CRX, which also had a significant fun factor to it.
I think the hybrid idea is a good one, but it still has quite a way to go before it is really environmentally friendly.