Monday, June 16, 2008

"Hybrid Technologies" promotes simple electric car

Today, The Washington Post ran a paid advertisement on p A14 in print for Hybrid Technologies (“Hbyr.Ob”). The item apparently is available only in the print version. The item shows a picture of a tiny car (like the “scareb” around 1980, during the Iran gasoline crisis). It does list all the benefits: zero emissions, no need for a carburetor, distributor, tail pipe, engine, gaskets, transmission, clutch. (It’s hard to imagine how the car would not need a transmission and gears of some kind.) The battery technology is based on lithium technology, which is very effective in packing stored energy. We know from experience with laptop computer batteries that there are conceivably some fire safety issues if manufacturing is not carefully controlled.

The car would be rechargeable at home with a plug in. If the homeowner (or renter) had solar or wind turbine energy, it would run on entirely renewable resources. The housing and utility industry would need to provide the infrastructure to support such a mechanism. Ownership of the car involves a lifestyle of short commutes around an urban area, with renting more conventional gasoline or hybrid vehicles from major car rental companies for cross country trips.

The website gives various links, including mention of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and Sony Pictures “Who Killed the Electric Car?

The company was organized in Nevada and appears to be publicly traded ((OTCBB: HYBR). The research report appears to be available here (at “Pinkinvesting”).

Today The Post also continues the debate on “green energy” with a couple of editorial pieces. An op-ed by Vinod Khasla on p A19 June 19 is titled “The right kind of energy: All biofuels are not the same” and argues for cellulosic fuels, but also for careful monitoring of deforestation in countries (like Brazil and Malaysia) that are or that may become major biofuel producers. The link is here.

A leading Post editorial today discusses a call from the Council for Foreign Relations for “aggressive action” at home that could affect lifestyles. The editorial is subtitled “Another call for U.S. leadership on climate change” and is available here.

No comments: