I read this article in the NY Times a few days ago about how some tinkerers adapted their hybrid cars to plug in to wall outlets. Now this is not earth-shaking in itself. The idea of plug-in cars isn't new at all, but that idea was set aside in favor of cars that don't require external power. Now the purpose of these engineer's modification was not to power them from the outside, but rather to see how fuel-efficient the car could be made. Although it is officially untested, the guys who did it say that their Prius (which normally gets 45 mpg) gets up to 180 mpg this way. If you want to know why that is exactly, read the article.
What's important about this article is the question it brings up. Like I said, the plug-in car isn't new, but some are reluctant to go with the idea because while it makes the car even more independent of gasoline, it makes it reliant on the sources of power that come to the home, which is mostly coal. The argument is that coal is a dirtier power source and that it doesn't really make for less fuel consumption overall but shifts the burden away from gasoline. Also, it requires a lot of batteries in the car, which makes the vehicle less convenient. It is, by no means, a perfect solution.
In my opinion, both options are a win over our current state of affairs. The first thing we must do to decrease dependence on foreign oil is quit using so much. What people don't realize is that the best way to do that is simply to get more fuel-efficient cars. Have you ever thought about how much gasoline SUVs and trucks use out of the total amount used by Americans? We could actually shrink the whole pie by shrinking each individual portion, which is a simple mathematical truth. If instead of driving a car that gets 13-18 mpg you drove a car which got 25-30, you increase fuel efficiency in a range from 39 to 131%. But that doesn't mean people would drive 39 to 131% more in the same time, it means it would take longer for them to go through the same amount of fuel. Now if you add in hybrid electric vehicles, which get, let's say 40-45 mpg, you're increasing efficiency of the normal car by 60-80%. For the SUV to the hybrid electric, that's 150-208%. The benefits are rather clear cut and I fail to see why we've taken this long to make any changes. Of course with the plug-in option the percentages just become amazing in terms of gas savings.
Now at the same time, people have finally begun to see that high gas prices aren't a fluctuation and they're not going to go away. Reference this article. As usual, one of the first things the Republicans want to do is deregulate environmental standards and open wilderness areas for exploitation. If we really needed to do either of those things, I wouldn't argue against it so strenuously, but I've read other studies that say the benefits of the ANWR drilling will be negligible and a wasteful destruction of the environment. However, finally, both parties are willing to look at serious measures to incorporate alternative energies. Unfortunately, one of those is hydrogen fuel cells, which according to some is a pie-in-the-sky alternative which is only being used as a sort of carrot on a stick by conservatives who want to push for changes that don't really happen. On the other hand, some say that the technology is a real possibility but that it would be a very difficult and prolonged effort to actually bring it about.
I'm all for alternative energies, but come on, we don't need to change our whole way of life overnight just to solve the current fuel problem. If we got most SUVs and trucks off the road and got a significant portion of America driving hybrid electric vehicles, I think we'd be doing fine for the meanwhile and could then afford to be leisurely about changing over to different fuels, a plan which I think we'd all agree is eminently more sensible than trying to make any larger changes quickly. But of course, we have people on both sides who aren't really looking for the most sensible answers to the problem. Hopefully enough of us Americans will come together on this to get our politicians to do something meaningful.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree. The question is how do we get people off those damn SUVs!
I believe a public ad campaign might work, but I think the auto industries should also be pressured with incentives and penalties for violating a minimum-milage limit. I mean, it makes sense to reward them for making better cars because in the end it will cost the whole nation less.
Good post. Changes could be made through a public campaign and regulation, like you say. That, in addition to modifcations to our foreign policy, could go a long way towards lowering our energy dependance on other countires. Of course there are powerful interests who are working against this very thing, but the reality is becoming so obvious that most Americans at this point would welcome some change. But the later it comes, the harder it'll be and the less good it will do.
I think I might have heard that before. The auto manufacturers are pretty devious.
First of all, I don't see how my comment is out of line with what you're saying, but more importantly, what you propose (like with many "free-market" solutions) isn't realistic. Families buy SUVs because it's easy to fit all three kids in them, and just like they aren't going to stop shopping at Wal-Mart despite its indecent labor record because of the low prices, they aren't going to stop buying them. This isn't because people don't care, it's because they don't have the time or energy to do so. Sure, most people say they'd like to buy local and support their local businesses and economy, but they are going to shop at chain stores because they are conveinent. This is the problem with such market solutions, and why regulation is required to fix these problems instead.
I don't understand the point, Daniel. Car makers are adhering to standards set by the federal government. They don't act out of the goodness of their hearts. For the most part, they don't choose to exceed federal emissions or mileage standards by much.
Adam's point is a solid one, but personally I think the rights of all Americans and future generations should be protected from those who would choose to do things like buy giant, fuel-guzzling vehicles.
Look, I think public choice and government regulation go hand-in-hand. We don't live in a society where we have an apathetic government and the majority of us don't want to. Eventually things are going to change for the worse if we don't take action now. We can't just leave it up to the soccer moms to all come around to the conclusion that they have to not buy bigass vehicles.
Oh, I see your point, Daniel. But still, with that kind of market philosophy you get one company making Jetta TDIs and one making Ford Excursions. I think the discrepancy should just be ended with regulation. Besides which, I, and I'm sure most people, would favor incentives and rewards for companies to do that until such vehicles are the norm.
Yes, that some point being that point! :)
I really believe in the philosophy that products should cost as much to the buyer as they cost the producer to make, and society to support them, so as to make the decision to purchase such products more "efficient" on a macro-economic level. If for example, you could establish that SUVs are more damaging to roadways, then SUV buyers should have to pay for that additional damage, instead of having it borne by the average citizen in the form of state taxes. And though we all pay the same amount at the pump, prices that are "artificially" low(in the failure to collect taxes that are collected in other countires, or subsidizing of the oil industry)allow people to purchase less fuel-efficient vehicles, at the expense of the citizens who pay taxes for those subsidies, or pay taxes in other ways that the SUV owners might need to pay. Plus, I'm very much in favor of, instead of flat-out regulation fo what you can and cannot buy, government imposing additional costs on behavior they want to discourage. People will still be free to buy SUVs, or whatever, so long as they are willing to pay "cost" comensurate with the detrimental effect the product has on society overall. In that way you a)discourage the use of those products in those with moderate incomes and b) make sure those who can afford it pay the full cost that their product choice imposes on society.
The problem is SUVs are bought by mostly affluent people to some degree where high taxes really aren't so big of a deterrent they won't buy one or drive significantly less.
Post a Comment