Long term consequences: The need for hybridization now?
Still on the road 20 years from now?America learned many things from the recent Cash for Clunker program, yet one of the biggest takeaways should be the lasting impact of today's technology upon tomorrow's environment. In a fleet of hundreds of millions, old gas-guzzlers from decades ago still impact today's world significantly.
Unfortunately, neither upgraded CAFE requirements nor President Obama's initiative of 1 million plug-in vehicles by 2015 will be able to offset the impact of the many tens of millions of gas-guzzlers that will be produced over the next decade upon America's future. Consequently, the legacy of these vehicles ensures that America will still be very dependent upon petroleum - mostly foreign - for decades to come.
Felix Kramer, founder of the CalCarsInitiative and long time plug-in hybrid driver and advocate, recently told the LATimes that the only way for the US to make any serious, timely dent in oil consumption requires the retrofitting of existing gas-guzzlers into hybrid vehicles.
Moreover, such vehicles could be further converted to plug-in hybrids as the technology becomes cost-effective.
Quite simply, however, mass plug-in vehicle adoption is at least a couple of decades away. Even then, the legacy effects of 100s of millions of gas-guzzlers will still live on for decades longer.
Whether the answer is hybridization or not, based on the last 30 years of US oil consumption, can America really afford several more decades of foreign oil dependence?
Labels: Foreign Oil Dependency, Hybrid Vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
1:23 PM
14 Comments:
but hasn't Europe proved you can cut consumption (to 1/2 of what we use per capita) without hybrids?
How about Japan? Do they have a lot of hybrids?
well, i'm not saying the answer is hybridization, although i would argue that significant more hybridization is at least a piece of the answer.
nonetheless, hybridization is growing in both the EU and, especially in japan, where it is currently skyrocketing thanks to government incentives. in fact, the prius is the top selling vehicle in japan, as it has been for most of the year. the insight is 4th or 5th.
moreover, both europe and japan were significantly affected by foreign oil consumption during the spike of 2008. so, their policies might be better, but still not enough.
the average car in Europe and Japan is a non-hybrid, about 1/2 the size of our average car and it gets about twice the gas mileage.
I would submit that they have accomplished without hybridization what we at least seem to imply, that we cannot do without hybridization.
something doesn't quite mesh on the logic sometimes.
I disagree that cars in europe are twice as fuel efficient. perhaps it appears that way based on their standards, but not when put to EPA testing.
on the epa's city cycle, i'd bet none can match the Prius, probably not even close. in fact, i'd bet most barely reach above 30 mpg on the US cycle.
the smart car for instance, barely tops 30 on the EPA's city cycle, adding clean diesel tech wouldn't push its fuel economy above 40 mpgs, and that's a tiny two-seater.
the jetta tdi turbo-diesel only achieves 30 in the city.
moreover, based on the rough numbers i've seen, the EU's fleet size is almost as big as the US, yet they use only about 25% less oil.
replicating either country's vehicles would be helpful, but it wouldn't end foreign oil dependence, not by a long shot.
and what about future competitiveness in the auto industry? automakers all over asia are developing hybrids.
in my opinion, the US MUST embrace the battery.
likewise, we'd have to change all our refineries, etc, if we tried to convert to diesel. moreover, there are many commodities traders that claim that a significant switch to diesel would significantly increase the price of diesel, which would increase the cost-effectiveness of hybrids compared to diesels.
moreover, what are the chances that americans would accept such change, especially if forced to accept EU and Japan vehicle sizes?
would pickup trucks, for instance, have to be banned?
only by force could that happen.
likewise, study after study demonstrates that american consumers don't want to change their vehicles that much. they want technology to simply make their vehicles more efficient, which is why people like felix cramer believe hybridization is the solution.
not only does hybridization achieve european fuel economy, without having to downsize, it leaves open the potential for plug-in conversion a decade down the road as the technology becomes more cost-effective.
small turbo diesels cannot offer that kind of potential, that kind of ability to turn legacy costs into gains.
certainly, hybridization isn't an immediate cure-all, but the long term impacts are huge. likewise, such technology can be coupled with essentially every alternative fuel.
the thing about hybrids that convinces me is the ability to cycle the engine when stopped and slow moving...
if we could do that to a conventional ICE engine .. it would accomplish nearly the same benefit IMHO.
I think you're wrong about the fuel economy - PER CAPITA or the fleet average in Europe.
It's much better than us.
You've named some isolated examples and the Smart Car itself is a bad example.
Many cars in Europe are Yarus-sized .. Opels.. etc...
Most folks don't need a large car for the vast majority of their use...
they have the large car so they can hold the entire family when they go to the beach but the other 99% of the time.. they in it solo..
in Europe..it's the other way around...
the cars are more sized to their actual predominate use...
of course I have no references for my views - either.. so maybe it might be better to reference some real data.
here's an example:
" Citroen’s C1 1.4HDi diesel-powered car gets an impressive 57.4 miles per gallon, but you can’t buy one of them here in the United States."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/
this is not a hybrid I don't believe....
the US uses about 20 billion barrels of oil per day, the EU about 15 billion - with a smaller fleet.
yes, those are base raw statistics, but it keeps things simple.
likewise, 60 mpg in the EU or Japan is not 60 mpg using the EPA's methodology, especially if using the city cycle.
forget the smart, just look at the Jetta diesel, or even the 2-door Golf turbo diesel with 6 speed, it's still 30 mpg on the epa's city cycle.
hmm.. I did not realize that Europe uses a different methodology though I admit it was not smart to assume so....
nonetheless, you're making a good point.
there is no doubt that we could make significant gains by embracing more clean diesel and smaller vehicles.
likewise, natural gas and other exotics, such as carbon fiber, represent some interesting options as well.
it doesn't have to be hybrid or nothing.
ultimately, i'd like to see a bigger focus on hybridization, especially compared to focusing on plug-in hybrids and EVs.
bigger short term bang for the buck, plus the option of plug-in conversions in the long term.
Diesel: US vs Europe...
America uses significantly more Diesel than Europe for transportation of goods.
Commercial trucks are smaller in Europe. There is no such thing as an 18-wheeled Semi-Trailer. Large shipments of goods all go by rail.....
Additionally, in Europe they have a higher gas tax on gasoline compared to Diesel making it even more cost effective to use diesel in Europe. The plan seems to be working as a high oercentage of passenger vehicles in Europe are Diesel.
This why I approve of a "gasoline" tax increase in the US with no tax increase on Diesel. We do not want to increase transportation costs for goods, but we do want to create an incentive for consumers to buy more for Diesel cars...
a gasoline tax might also help natural gas and other alternative fuels as well.
in fact, that might be a way to actually sell this to the more 'drill, drill' folks. the idea of using a gasoline tax to advance domestic natural gas would at least make this crowd pause and think for a second.
increasing the gasoline tax is going to be a TALL order given the public's current view of the damaged economy, healthcare and cap&trade.
I simply don't know how you increase taxes this way without a big turnover at the next election and the new guys will simply undo the tax...
right?
probably.
that doesn't mean advocates of such ideas should forgo any future discussion of such topics.
this topic needs to stay alive. it needs to be reworked. reinvented.
honestly, does anybody really believe that america can be a world leader if we aren't more proactive in managing our next energy paradigm?
i mean if someone believes that, then aren't they ignoring the historical realities of the last several decades of oil dependence?
seriously, can america simply react its way to energy security?
perhaps, at least as long as we have the world's greatest military and use it regularly. still, is that really the most cost-effective path to the future for the average US taxpayer and/or citizen?
I'm think that many folks don't believe that we have a strong military _just_ to protect our access to oil.
It's more complicated than that and even if we came up with a way to not need middle east oil any more at all.. I'm not sure how that translates into a different/lower military cost.
People will pay more for things they want.
for instance, people now days will pay more - for cell phones, GPS Nav devices, sirius satellite, DISH/Direct TV, large screen TVs, MP3 players... FLIP video players, etc.
my point is that people will pay for something they want if they think it is worth it to them.
that case has not been made for energy/efficiency - beyond the point that they'll buy a small conventionally-powered econobox to minimize their fuel costs.
nobody is saying our military exists just to protect our oil interests, its the amount that we DO spend on our oil interests that we're talking about.
minus any war costs, the US still spends billions on our oil interests every year. yet, can you honestly say that oil interests didn't significantly influence decades of US middle east policy? middle east policy that has led to numerous conflicts, including the conflicts that bin Laden claimed as his cause for 9/11 in his manifesto.
one way or another the american taxpayers has paid a massive amount of money protecting oil interests. sure, it worked for a little while, kind of, in terms of cheaply lubing the economy, but it seems terribly obvious to me that we're on an unsustainable path.
and its not just me. the pentagon has reached similar conclusions.
Post a Comment
<< Home