Enviromentally sound thinking or good marketing?

But we *can* pretty safely assume that the price of gas will increase faster than inflation. Low western-world birth rates are contributing to long-term low inflation, but oil and gas are finite resources that have growing demand so they absolutely will outpace inflation over the long-term, and might do so by quite a bit.

As for your thesis that hybrids make no economic sense, you are looking at it only from the perspective of an individual consumer. In the area I live (Greater Victoria, British Columbia, Canada), a growing number (possibly now a majority, if my admittedly anecdotal experience is anything to go by). I don’t think those taxi companies are being duped economically, and I don’t think they’re doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, I think they’re doing it based on solid numbers. When you’re driving a lot, and it’s almost all stop-and-go city driving like taxis, hybrids pay for themselves over the operating life of the vehicle.

Of course, some fair trade supporters argue that buying fair trade coffee still helps move the market to a better place, even if the final price is a bad bargain. So, as AV points out, hybrid owners might be moving us towards better technologies.

But neither changes the issue of this article: hybrids make no economic sense!

The GOP also got derailed into things like drilling in ANWR (which would never solve the underlying issue). But, I agree, an opportunity lost, especially right after 9/11 when the nation would have easily backed a move away from “the lifeblood of terrorism.”

Interestingly, this was attempted—the designs commonly used were civilian adaptations of US Navy designs. But it went off the rails somewhere.

I suspect part of the problem was the standard bid process. Instead of having a single design and using it without modification, once you start opening things to lowest bid and “cost-cutting” measures you may have proliferation of “slight” modifications.

Normally that would be great, because you could then see which ones work well and which ones fail horribly. But allowing nuclear plants to “fail horribly” seems unwise. And even the actual case of many of them “failing in small ways constantly” pretty much destroyed the industry. Perhaps the market for nuclear power plants was just too small to support a real market for designs?

I don’t believe anyone ever thought the early plants would last as long as they did, either.

That’s certainly an excellent point. We are basically still using the “latest and greatest” technology of the late 1950s and early 1960s…it’s not surprising it shows its age!

While I’m no fan of the French overall

Now that’s an understatement.

Personally, I agree with many that the US needs a sort of “New Manhattan Project” to explore a long-term solution to energy needs.

I’ve long said this. In fact I recall saying this to AOC (and others) sometime around 2001. It’s another of those “Nixon goes to China” moments squandered: An administration of two oil men, two conservatives, etc.—they could have stood up and said “we’ve got to change.” It didn’t happen. Why exactly is, doubtless complex, involving political weakness of the 2000 election and a desire to do the popular thing to be re-elected, varying priorities, fear of NIMBYism, but also a distinct lack of vision.

People like Amory Lovins largely think government is simply not going to do what needs to be done and I suppose he might well be right.

In particular, there should be one design replicated everywhere, rather than the incredible number of “slightly” different designs which make maintenance and training a nightmare currently.

Interestingly, this was attempted—the designs commonly used were civilian adaptations of US Navy designs. But it went off the rails somewhere. I don’t believe anyone ever thought the early plants would last as long as they did, either.

Personally, I agree with many that the US needs a sort of “New Manhattan Project” to explore a long-term solution to energy needs. This should include developing viable replacements for the internal combustion engine and for current 100+ megawatt oil or coal power plants.

As a critical part of this, and to move immediately away from an oil- and coal-based power economy, we need to design and build nuclear plants according to a proven, tested, and refined design using modern technology and quality assurance methods. In particular, there should be one design replicated everywhere, rather than the incredible number of “slightly” different designs which make maintenance and training a nightmare currently.

As the U.S. Navy shows, it is perfectly possible to operate large numbers of nuclear fission plants for many years without accidents—as long as the plants and personnel are focused equally on safety and reliability!