Sep 07 2008
Politicians aren’t automotive engineers
Presidential hopeful Sen. Obama took a shot at Republicans by mentioning the huge numbers of lay-offs in Michigan. (The Labor Department just announced that 39,000 auto-related jobs were lost in August.) According to the Detroit News:
“These numbers are unacceptable and are just one more reminder of what is at stake in this election,” Obama said in a statement issued just before McCain and Palin arrived in the state. He reiterated his support of $50 billion in loan guarantees for domestic automakers to help them “retool their factories to make the next generation in fuel efficient vehicles.”
“Re-tooling” isn’t the same thing as “re-engineering.” Nor is publically acknowledging that automotive workers continue to bear the brunt of industry changes the same thing as acknowledging that political policies, including those of Gov. Granholm (D), have contributed a great deal to our one-state recession.
I don’t recall ANY politician addressing the question of changing our nation’s infrastructure to support the transportation of the future – although they legislate lower carbon emissions even if they occasionally back down when reality strikes. The truth is that there’s a disconnect between political catch phrases and reality.
Case in point: ”We can’t drill our way out” is catchy but vapid. Suppose we imported more than 80% of our food and were striving for agricultural independence. Can you imagine someone saying, “We can’t farm our way out of this?” Can you imagine any sane people suggesting government-guaranteed loans for farmers who want to grow new high-yield crops, but criticizing them for using every available standard farming method until they developed new high-yield hybrids?
In a similar way, politicians seem to be ignoring what the auto industry knows: Electric/gas hybrids have their own downside. General Motors had an electric car, the EV1, which it stopped producing in 2003 because the batteries were inadequate. Now battery technology is better but still comes with problems. Batteries are made by relatively few producers, they cost roughly $5,000 per battery, and no one seems to want to discuss their disposal. (Replacement is necessary about every 100,000 miles, which means I’d have to buy a new battery at least twice during the life of my car!) Drivers can rely on electric for short commutes but must switch to gas for distance. Buyers also have to run hybrids a lot longer in order to recoup their cost as opposed to buying a gas-powered car.
“Regardless of what people say, oil-burning cars aren’t going to go away. People still want the range for long trips and cross-country vacations.” - Keith Balconi, whose automotive engineering degree makes him our family’s Go-To Guy on cars
Ironically, some of the same people who demand electric hybrids also oppose building new power plants. This June, I received an e-mail from my local teacher’s union asking members to write letters in opposition of new coal-burning plants in Michigan. (I asked if we should start a letter-writing campaign in support of nuclear plants, but received no reply. ) Sen. Obama is anti-nuclear energy and, throughout 2007, supported biofuels like ethanol, as an alternate source for cars. Can we husk our way out of this crisis?
There is also criticism of bioreactor landfills which generate methane (CH4). People living nearby are concerned about increased odors, seepage, landfill fires, etc. The US Department of Energy estimates that if 50% of our current waste was used, it could provide over 270 billion cubic feet of methane. That’s equivalent to one percent of current US electrical needs. (Source: www.epa.gov)
T. Boone Pickens has a plan that extolls the virtues of natural gas-powered cars. Such cars (and trucks) already exist. Their spark-ignition engine is basically the same as that of a regular vehicle and they have the same drive train. They’re already in use as fleet vehicles for companies like Schwan’s and for public transportation in our own Port Huron, MI. However, natural gas is a fossil fuels just like coal and oil.
Plus, people who use natural gas daily (like me) don’t relish the idea of rising heating costs because of higher demand for natural gas. And skeptical taxpayers note that Pickens and other investors in his Clean Energy Fuels Corp. are pushing legislation that would give them an edge over other alternate fuels.
In addition, if natural gas becomes our alternate car fuel, we won’t be using it for the real alternate: hydrogen.
Today, over 90-percent of the hydrogen created in this country is made by steam-reforming of natural gas. This “extra” natural gas that wind power will free up can be used to create hydrogen for fuel cell cars, which are more than twice as efficient as today’s gasoline-powered vehicles and more efficient than natural gas internal combustion engines as well. – Hydro Kevin, on the Hydrogen Cars and Vehicles blog
Maybe – and not just maybe - the automotive industry is more complicated than politicians would have us believe.
