« Political Pressure Crashes Bailed Out Citicorp’s Plan For $50 Million Jet
On Obama’s Bipartisanship And Transportation Realities (Guest Voice) »
Mr. President.. You Cannah Change The Laws of Physics (Or Economics)
Jan 27th, 2009 | 8 responses
The Obama adminstration this week announced that it would be setting new guidelines for fuel efficient to apply to the 2011 model year cars and trucks.
Let me make it clear from the beginning that I am a strong supporter of efforts to improve fuel mileage for both environmental reasons and national security reasons.
However I think perhaps the adminstration is going a bit fast in setting targets for the 2011 model year. Some reports suggest they may even be shooting for the 2020 target of 35 mpg for cars in the 2011 model year.
As Mr. Scott was fond of reminding us, you can’t change the laws of physics no matter how much you want to. The simple fact is that if you want to move car A at speed B then it is going to take force C and that requires using energy D to produce the force.
Of course our ultimate goal would be to develop more efficient engines and better ways of running cars (i.e., engines beyond the internal combustion model) which would simply allow us to reduce D while getting the same level of C.
But for the moment that isn’t as much of an option as we’d like, which means you are looking at either reducing B (i.e., a slower car which would then run longer to get from place to place, defeating the whole purpose) or reducing A (i.e., a smaller car with less mass which would be less safe in the event of accidents).
There are of course some methods of making cars more efficient these days, various forms of hybrids or hydrogen cell type vehicles. But the problem there runs into the fact that you cannot ignore the laws of economics either. As anyone who has been car shopping will tell you, the hybrid type vehicles tend to be more expensive than their traditional cousins.
In an economy where people are struggling to get by I am not sure that making cars more expensive is exactly a good idea. In addition the vehicles are not always the most effective in terms of performance. Now I am not talking about having a power car of any kind. The two cars I’ve driven are far from being muscle cars.
But if you look at the plug in type models they can only go a couple hundred miles on one charge (as seen when a new Congressman tried to drive to DC only to need two cars to make the trip). For some people that might be enough but if you have a longer commute and factor in waiting time in traffic, you could find problems here.
Now as I said at the start, I am in favor of more efficient cars. Aside from the fact that I would love to see cleaner air I would also be happy to tell the Middle East to take their oil and shove it.
But I also think we need to be realistic about things. It is going to take time to develop these new technologies and I don’t want us to be rushing to push something out just for show, I’d rather have them take the time to develop a properly designed car. In fact given that the 2011 model year cars will be going into production in about a year, I am not even sure you could design a new model in that short of a time.
So while I am solidly behind the Adminstration in wanting to make cars more efficient and also recognize that absent some government urging the auto makers are likely to drag their feet, I also think we need to balance out the realities of time and technology and perhaps make the 2011 target a bit more realistic by shooting for 2013 or 2014.
Indeed given the problems of getting things in place by 2011, I suspect we will end up going for 2013 or 2014 anyway, so why not just say so up front rather than making it a public relations thing ?
8 Responses to “Mr. President.. You Cannah Change The Laws of Physics (Or Economics)”
Indeed given the problems of getting things in place by 2011, I suspect we will end up going for 2013 or 2014 anyway, so why not just say so up front rather than making it a public relations thing ?
Have you ever known the U.S. Government to set a target and stick to it? If we say 2013 or 2014, we'd end up pushing it back anyhow.
Setting 2011 as the goal makes everyone involved “put the pedal to the metal” and if we don't make it by 2011, we will have a realistic sense of what it will take and when it will be done.
Ambitious goals are not a problem unless you get discouraged by failure.
As a happy Prius owner who is getting reimbursed/rewarded every day (at 49+ mpg) for whatever additional few dollars it may have cost to buy it, I still wish I l could have bought an identical American car (Would have been happy to pay even a few more dollars).
If the Japanese (and the Koreans, etc) can do it–and have done it–why can't our fabulous, innovative, enterprising American car industry do it?
Patrick — good job. In addition to what we saw several days ago about unrealistic objectives in other areas, and “discovering” problems that in fact we tried addressing decades ago, that we never neglected — the “urban problem,” the underdevelopment of Africa, and so on — what we see here is even worse. Aribitrary, ridiculous, childish or childlike demands for unrealistic objectives to be met is simply futile at best, and threatens to harm industry and society (including the economy). It's true about the silly infatuation with “green vehicles” and “green jobs,” so-called (by some, such as Michigan's governor, to a ridiculous and irritatingly predictable extent these days), but with the hype, hysteria, and frequent excuse for interventionism flirting with totalitarianism in the case of “global warming” or the current choice of alternate phrase by the emotion-ruled, “climate change.” As to enmity toward automobility or the US standard of living, it's being very, very kind and lenient merely to remind people that not everyone can be realistically shoehorned into a small two-seater vehicle, much less a $40,000 vehicle with a ridiculously short range and long recharging time as is true with the much-over-hyped Chevrolet Volt.
“[...] happy Prius owner [...] wish I could have bought an identical American car”
As a sound-minded caller-in to NPR said this morning, it needs to be available for about $8,000, to name a typical affordable price.
The problem isn't really technological limitations. There are already many affordable cars that get close to 40. For example, the Honda Civic already gets ~35 MPG with a normal gas engine.
Although I think there is a lot of life left in the gas and electric engines, once we start talking about using electric motors/batteries and replacing metal with lightweight carbon fiber, the issue becomes cost. Already they make cars like the Opel Eco Speedster that can get 113 MPG and go over 100 MPH. But it's expensive as all hell.
The day the government starts using Priuses for the official car, for President and Congress, and everyone else as well, then I will know they are serious. Otherwise it remains posturing and pandering and 'do as we say, but not as we do.'
AR,
The government is caught between the conservative Limbaugh crowd that would call them un-American traitors, and the labor unions whose employees would lose out on the pay checks.
Don't forget with plug-in electric vehicles that the infrastructure needs have yet to be met, and range as well as recharging times are still a substantial weakness with these vehicles (as well as their being too costly, which was true for EV-1 and which is known to be true for the Volt).
I wouldn't hesitate to go to a “Level 2″ charger at home (240 V, 40 A dedicated circuit for a Level 2 charger), as it would be cost-prohibitive to go up to a Level 3 service, but leaving aside the need to recharge while on a typical longer trip, what about the equipment needed to be able to charge easily while one's vehicle is parked at work? As is felt by the auto-automobility crowd already about parking, is employer-provided EV charging an employee benefit that should be taxed, or should those without EVs be given additional pay for foregoing EV use?
Those who want to view current vehicle use, and EV charging, can probably do well here:
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/phev/phevInfrastructure…
If it were me, I'd even hope to see home-located and employer-located “Level 2 Plus” charging equipment such as described here:
smartgarage.rmi.org/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=17
But no matter what was chosen or sought, it has yet to be provided, and will need to be there to convince many to buy and drive EVs.
* * *
“the government starts using Priuses for the official car, for President and Congress, and everyone else as well”
That, and driving current Detroit vehicles, including economy cars, not Secret Service-style big, black SUVs.
Best Star Signs…
I believe astrology happens to be of extreme significance so far as human compatibility is concerned……