Catch 22: Plug-ins and cheap gas
Not cost-effective or profitable?Many years ago I wrote the best hybrid car was a plug-in hybrid car. Today, I'm not so sure. Without significantly higher gas prices Americans will not buy hybrid cars in numbers that finally revolutionize the US auto industry.
If Americans won't make the investment into today's hybrid technology, why would anyone assume that Americans will invest in even more expensive plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles?
Without much higher gas prices, Americans will not buy these vehicles, at least not enough of them to make these vehicles profitable for US automakers in the next decade, maybe even two. And, if American automakers cannot survive in much of North America making internal combustion vehicles, how are they going to survive making less profitable - if profitable at all - and significantly more expensive plug-in vehicles?
Without $4.00 or $5.00 gas they won't. They can't.
Ironically, if gas suddenly goes from $2.50 to $5.00, American consumers might still not buy these cars as the economy would be so devastated they probably couldn't afford them regardless of gas prices. Even if they would buy them, American automakers are many, many years from selling such vehicles in numbers that would have any effect. Our pace towards change is simply too slow.
So why not a smart gas tax that covers the costs of hybridization via tax credits from gas tax revenue, while making alternative fuels more cost-effective?
Besides, if we're going to save the US auto industry, shouldn't we try to save it in a way that has some legs, some long term viability? Next quarters balance sheet can no longer be the metric for determining success.
Nonetheless, is long term viability of the US auto industry possible without higher fuel prices? Otherwise, aren't we just throwing good money after bad to delay the inevitable collapse?
Labels: Hybrid Vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
7:49 AM
6 Comments:
Companies like GM won't die because of cheap gas. They'll just move their headquarters to China and export American hybrids manufactured in China to America to overcome the price barriers.
No unions. No gas taxes. No problems.
Can't preach to lemmings. US citizens are the proverbial frog in the pot of water. They are in denial about the water getting warmer and will not hop out until they're dead in the soup.
My family's purchase of a Prius in 2006 was our step toward reality. Most people I know still give me the eye-roll they'd give anyone they'd label as a tree hugger.
You'd be more likely to sell them a bridge before they see the wisdom of the hybrid...
How sad but true, KP. As Noz is fond of saying, I guess people aren't going to change until they feel some pain.
Why not mandate that consumers use fuels that contain relatively more expensive carbon neutral fuels so that we can get the carbon neutral gasoline industry started in this country.
There's enough urban and rural bio-waste in this country to supply 4 million barrels a day equivalent of transportation fuel. That's enough to supply 44% of our total gasoline needs.
So if you assume that plug-in-hybrids and EVs could replace at least 50% of the fuel for light vehicles then at least 94% of our gasoline needs could be replace by synthetic gasoline and electricity.
Since biomass synthesis waste about 80% of its carbon content, if we added hydrogen from nuclear reactors to the mix, then all of our transportation and industrial chemical needs in the US could be met to such a degree that America could actually become a major exporter of carbon neutral synthetic fuels to other countries.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-synfuel-economy.html
I like that idea, Marcel.
The power of the mandate seems to be relatively under explored in this question of CO2/gas tax/energy independence.
There was never a hybrid car tax or tax on cars other than hybrids. At least that is not why we have hybrids today. The only reason we have hybrids today is because California mandated them into existence.
Well, California mandated EV cars and the auto makers came back and said, "Well we could do these Hybrid EV cars instead. What do you think?" California said OK and the rest is...Prius history.
Now some mandates may be stupid, like a mandate for Ethanol would be, or is. And the CAFE standards are a mandate that could have worked but was corrupted due to lack of purpose in Congress. So that mandate needs to be smart and the body behind the mandate needs to be clear and committed to the true and effective purpose behind the mandate.
So, I would say you can't rely on an industry bought body like congress to create and manage an effective mandate. You need a body committed to the spirit behind a CO2/fuel type mandate. To me that means EPA or California, period. I wouldn't trust anyone else.
And it actually disturbs me that EPA is deferring to Congress on the regulation of CO2. The EPA should lead and have Congress follow. And to have Congress design a Cap and Trade system is bullshit. Again let EPA design and have Congress follow. I believe in having democracy decide the big questions, but I believe that technical and design efforts are not big questions, they are details. Congress should control the power of the purse, no doubt, but NOT design a CO2/fuel mandate.
Anyway that is my theory of mandates! :)
i guess my theory of mandates defines a mandate as something that still results in a tax in one way or another.
still, if hiding it behind the back door works better than an outright tax, i would support it. and, in truth, that is probably what works best in american politics. when you tell people the truth, a significant percent just don't want to hear it.
you have to package the truth in a way that just isn't so blatantly truthful.
regardless, along the lines of marcel's mandate is an obvious realization. in any number of ways, but including alt. fuels - even natural gas and ethanol - plus hybrid technology and other efficiency technologies, ending foreign oil dependency isn't as far-fetched as it seems.
still, it won't be just EVs, or plugs-in or today's hybrid technology. it will be that and alt fuels, perhaps even some alt fuels some of us won't agree with.
too bad. a democracy requires give and take. that i think is the real problem. this can't be partisan. the goal should be ending foreign oil dependency.
yes that might include anwar drilling. too bad. it will also include a massive increase in the use of fuel efficiency technology and alt fuels. in such a case, i'll bet, we'll realize that more drilling in anwar just isn't worth the effort.
inevitably, the technologies will speak for themselves - at least in an open and transparent society......
....but is that really what the average american wants?
Post a Comment
<< Home