<dold (AT) 53 (DOT) usenet.us.com> wrote

I see that you used the intellectually dishonest method of editing the
previous posts by deleting importants parts with indicating that fact.

The poster, to whom I was replying, said, in part: " Coming down the hill,
you have the choice of throwing that energy away in the form of heat and
brake dust, or capturing some of it in a battery for later use."

Again, you were intellectually dishonest in the way you edited what was
said. You removed the part that showed I was talking about the environmental
costs, not the economic costs.

Does that mean that if ExxonMobil makes a profit on every gallon of gas,
that using gas is good for the environment?

If you want to make an intelligent choice about where a hybrid or
conventional car is a better choice for the environment, you need to look at
all the environmental costs of building the car, including the environmental
costs of building and disposing of the hybrid system compared to a
conventional car.

Jeff

<dold (AT) 53 (DOT) usenet.us.com> wrote

In the future, I recommend putting <...> or something to indicate that stuff
was removed.

From where I was sitting, important details were removed, which changed the
conversion.

OK, NP.

OK. NP.

I was talking about environmental costs.

As far as I can tell, financially, it comes out about even for the hybrid,
particularly with the lifetime of the batteries and hybrid system and the
cost of fuel in the future being unknown.

Personally, I don't car that much if Toyota or Ford is making money off a
particular purchase. I understand why you included that. In the end, I think
it is going to help Toyota beyound current profits, both because it improves
Toyota's image as making fuel efficent cars as well as giving Toyota more
options for the future.

Unfortunately, too many companies are too worried about the present quarter
and not paying enough to the financial results of the future.

Jeff