"TeGGer®" > wrote
snip
> At the end of the day, it's still debatable whether or not Toyota will
> actually end up making more than they spent on hybrid technology. And
> Toyota ain't sayin', except to state that if "development costs" are NOT
> counted, then they're "breaking even". That's straight from a Toyota
press
> release of a couple of years ago.
>
> If there's one thing definite about "green" technology, it's that the
word
> "cheap" does not describe it.

Are you talking strictly about the latest green technology, namely,
hybrids?

Or do you mean going back across all time? If so, then is it your
understanding that the substantial car emissions improvements since about
the 1960s has been 'expensive'?

It seems to me, based on buying cars for a couple of decades now, that it
has not been expensive.

I'm focused on small cars, because of course those tend to be the greenest.

Now maybe that's because car manufacturers were forced to mass produce
certain technologies, and the mass production aspect made prices not
skyrocket.

I've run the numbers in the recent past, and I agree hybrids currently are
not worth the money for the consumer. Gas prices would have to go up a lot
more. I haven't looked at whether the manufacturer is losing, too, but will
take your and others' word (here at the newsgroup) for it now.

I welcome citations on the cost of reducing automobile fuel emissions since
the 1960s.