An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Making Cars – A New Lease on Life

Well the US is officially an automaker. What I hope is that GM is able to convert from a stodgy old “this is the way we have always done it” company to an innovative leader in cutting-edge technology. When one receives a new lease on life, one usually makes the rather easy decision to live it to its fullest. The realization that death is always mere moments away has the effect of freeing us from the burdens associated with the daily drudgery of ordinary life.

Were I the GM leadership, I would announce that every car produced in 2011 will be an electric hybrid flexible fuel vehicle with an enzymatic fuel cell. Maybe 2012. Maybe some other innovative standard. Make it audacious – a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG). Like going to the moon in the 1960s. Drive a stake in the ground and focus the entire company on reaching that goal and do whatever it takes to get there. Set it so that when GM gets there, they have passed everyone else in the race.

The GM leadership (and by that I suppose I mean President Obama at least in part) should buy or license innovative technologies that will make GM world renowned as THE leader in green vehicles. Unleash the creative juices of the engineers, the workforce, the M&A guys, the managers and even the public relations department toward one illustrious goal.

People love to be part of the team who desires with all their heart and throughout the organization to win the World Series and then makes every effort to do what it takes to get there. Only one team will be baseball’s champion, but only those teams who legitimately set that as their goal will have a chance.

Electric cars have much higher horse power than piston engine cars. They are ideal for high performance cars like the Corvette. Sure they have a relatively short range, 40 – 60 miles on a charge, but who drives their Corvette more than that? Power. Speed. Wind in the hair. Hums like a kitten.

While ethanol is somewhat less-efficient per gallon, it is much higher in octane than gasoline. This gives it greater power and makes it ideal for trucks and machinery. A flexible fuel vehicle allows the use of any mixture, including nearly 100% ethanol. It can also use regular old gasoline.

Develop cars whose engines prefer to use ethanol and can use gasoline, rather than the other way around. Create complimentary electric hybrid engines that prefer ethanol. Hybrid technology simply allows the use of electricity or a liquid fuel as circumstances dictate. Improve this computer technology. Expand the demand, and let the scientists and energy entrepreneurs create the supply.

Enzymatic fuel cells are one of the most environmentally beneficial waves of the battery future. Mining, handling and manufacturing Lithium, Nickel and other battery metals is nasty stuff. Enzymatic fuel cells are essentially batteries that use encapsulated enzymes rather than metals to remove the energy from a fuel. They are exponentially more efficient than any existing battery.

Akermin, Inc. in St. Louis is just one company that has developed such a fuel cell. While Akermin is focused on developing these batteries for electronics, their technology could be adapted for vehicles. GM could accelerate the commercialization of this technology and leap ahead of everyone else.

There are many technologies out there. Set a deadline; the 2011 line of vehicles. Focus the company top to bottom. Invent the car. Convert the plants. Be aggressive and set the new path to the future. Use the Stimulus funds to help make it happen (the President might have some clout in that area).

As GM exits the construction zone, I hope they step hard on the accelerator. I want my investment to pay off some day. Just for perspective, $30,000,000,000 is an investment of $100 for every single human being living in the United States.

  • jwest
    Ned,

    It appears you’ve bought into the leftist vision of where GM and the car industry as a whole are.

    Let’s try to bring you back to reality.

    GM sells the type of cars people want. The reason I say that is that they sell more of their cars than anyone else. The industry dropped from 17 million to 10 million units, so the volume was just not there to support GM’s huge overhead costs.

    Obama stepped in to repay his debt to the union. GM’s main problems were legacy costs and work rules, of which work rules were the main drag. Of course, nothing has changed because of the politics of the situation.

    You can’t give away a hybrid today. No one wants overpriced, complicated technology that delivers less performance. When gas is $4 per gallon they might sell, but certainly not now.

    Ethanol is a farm program. Converting food to fuel is stupid at best, criminal at worst. It takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol, so where is the savings in that?

    Fuel cell and battery technology has a definite leftist tilt, as they are only viable by applying fairy dust and unicorn essence to them. In typical fashion, the “greens” look only at the immediate upside and ignore the cost and pollution to bring these online and dispose of them after they are used. It must be bliss to never have to think something all the way through.

    The truly scary part of this story is that Obama and his cronies think exactly the way you do. General Motors, the foundation of industrial production in the U.S., is now run by people who have no grasp of reality.

    We’re screwed.
  • Anna
    You know, jwest....

    You occasionally have some interesting things to say even if I don't agree with all of it but perhaps if you laid off the name-calling, sarcasm and bullying attitude (i.e. implying that "I'm always right & everyone else is stupid") you could actually start some good informative debate.

    Just offering some friendly constructive advice...
  • jchem
    jwest -- When gas is $4 per gallon they might sell, but certainly not now.

    hmm, perhaps this will be part of the plan to get these cars to sell? Time to increase the gas tax, its that simple. We've gone after the smokers to pay for health care and those who don't smoke are generally fine with that. Higher prices for smokes means less smokers right? If we really want to get serious about generating some revenue, and cut down our emissions and our driving, perhaps a little negative reinforcement is in order. Bush said we are a country that is addicted to oil. Perhaps we need to be weened off. Higher prices for gas means less drivers, no?
  • casualobserver
    Hey, you certainly don't need us to increase the taxes on gasoline, jchem.........you've got a House, 98% of a Senate control and your own spanking new administration.........go for it!
  • jchem
    CO, I don't have anything, I voted for Barr. I guess I'm lost in the middle like many here who are some combination of liberal/conservative.

    Having said that, I should have tagged my comment with a bit of sarcasm. I am not advocating an increase in the gas tax, but in order for those cars to sell gas prices need to go up. I drew the analogy to the smokers just because it was an extremely heated issue a year ago when I was living in Iowa. They raised the price per pack $1 and anyone I talked to who didn't smoke didn't see a problem with it. I countered by asking about raising the tax on gas $1 and quickly those folks went on the defensive.
  • casualobserver
    OK, clarification understood.

    But as jwest counters to Ned, someone can try and remake GM into some green thing, but you're not addressing what got them into trouble in the first place........too much cost structure.
  • jwest
    Anna,

    I know I take an attitude on some of my comments, but its hard being a center-right conservative on a site like this.

    Almost every article is written from the perspective of righteous left wing dogma fueled by ignorance of the subject at hand. Ned believes in his heart the mainstream media’s collective opinion that GM’s troubles stem from building gas guzzling cars that are inferior in quality to Japanese cars. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    When people blindly accept as truth the blather that comes out of news anchors, we end up with “solutions” that have no bearing on the problem. As a matter of fact, by not having the real information, public opinion usually sways to positions that exasperate the problem.

    I’ll work on trying to have a bit more patients before pulling out the club of truth and hammering unsuspecting left wingers with it.
  • jchem
    People love to be part of the team who desires with all their heart and throughout the organization to win the World Series and then makes every effort to do what it takes to get there. Only one team will be baseball’s champion, but only those teams who legitimately set that as their goal will have a chance.

    After thinking about your post a little more, Ned, it seems to me that indeed the bar needs to be set high so anyone involved with GM has a goal to attempt to achieve. Using your baseball analogy, the team that makes it to the World Series and wins needs to have a solid coach, someone to put all of the pieces together. Right now it doesn't seem GM has solid leadership. I could be mistaken, of course; I don't know the inner workings of the business side of things and I certainly cannot tell you much about those who are currently leading this company. But the fact is they are now broke, and they have been on this path for some time. Mark Ambinder has an interesting suggestion:

    Mitt Romney Should Run GM
  • For an interesting look at how Detroit lost its dominance, and how it can get it back, take a look at the current issue of Wired (sorry, can't find the article online). Relying on vertical integration and a top down approach, the industry has become the poster child of sluggish non-innovative behemoths. Japanese car companies were the opposite, allowing component makers to have input on how to do things better, while Detroit told its component makers to make it to Detroit's spec. Now, the Japanese companies are big enough that they too shy away from "disruptive technologies". The new model needs to be closer to the PC model than the Mac model: encourage third party innovators to offer better batteries, brakes, suspensions etc. which could be assembled into a better car in Detroit.

    As to the typical "no we can't" BS from jwest and CO, it's inaccurate. Always. First, Detroit didn't "make what the consumer wanted". They spent billions marketing what they wanted to make, because behemoths have much better profit margins than subcompacts. They LET Toyota and VW have the small car market because they couldn't be bothered with what foreign car companies saw as strong consumer demand.

    As for alternative fuels, ALL fuels are massively subsidized in America. By government policy we have pushed energy production to petroleum. If incentives are shifted away from dead dinosaur fuels toward renewables, the mix of what we burn will change. It is a completely false premise that unsubsidized alternatives will only be successful if they can beat massively subsidized oil at the cash register. The prices of ALL fuels are artificial.
  • jchem
    CO -- I know this is now a day old thread, but since I mentioned a gas tax yesterday, I figured it was worth pointing out something of interest that I read today:

    And if the current gas tax rate doesn’t bring in enough revenue, we should raise the rate.

    So its being discussed. As I mentioned before, if these new cars are going to sell, then there needs to be an incentive implemented in order for people to buy them. Higher gas prices would most certainly do the trick.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC