The ethics of gas-guzzling

Who is responsible for the consequences of our actions?

Somehow I lost about 9 hours yesterday watching Goldman Sach's testimony. Wow. What a circus.

Anyway, ethics was a big theme at the Goldman grilling, and subcommittee Chairmen Carl Levin essentially called Goldman's recent profits, and the bonuses those profits created, unethical. Since, Levin's focus on ethics has been ringing in my head.

For instance, as a staunch advocate of the Big 3 - and a protector of the gas-guzzler - I cannot help but wonder about the ethics of Mr. Levin. Was it ethical, for example, for Levin to habitually protect an industry that could only compete in the American market if it produced the biggest gas-guzzlers, despite very early and significant evidence that highly profitable SUVs would lead to outrageous road deaths, increased pollution, and much greater foreign oil dependence?

Furthermore, even after events like Katrina and 9/11, did the Michigan Congressional delegation, including Levin, begin to demand more of their hometown industry? Did they dare to lead America, to do the right thing, even if it meant a short term loss of profits? Of course not. Instead, companies like GM rolled out upgraded versions of their largest gas-guzzlers as survivors sifted through wreckage from the World Trade Center.

Ethical?

Obviously, this question of ethics extends far beyond Goldman and Michigan and onto the driveways of many Americans, for instance. And, Mr. Levin was right to hammer down on ethics. Yet, the real question seems to be, can you even legislate ethics, particularly when even most legislators, like most Americans, seem to have regular and significant ethical lapses.

I hate Prius drivers!

You're so smug

Came across MotorTrend's Smug Alert! Paper examines Park Slope Prius Panic and, of course, I had to check it out. Apparently a NY newspaper went into a neighborhood that "so creepily resembles San Francisco" and is, therefore, home to a high number of hybrid drivers. For instance, the reporter went to a Park Slope, NY coop where 6 out of 14 cars in the parking lot were Prius hybrids, so they were interviewed on their worries of sudden acceleration.

None were worried. Instead, these Toyota Prius drivers were concerned with how a few bad drivers and an overly-sensationalized media might hurt the long term value of their hybrid cars.

MotorTrend's author called the newspaper's piece the most insightful story on the hybrid icon since the "Smug Alert!" episode of "South Park", which was actually a pretty funny episode, as there is no doubt some smugness in the hybrid community.

So what?

In my SoCal neighborhood, for instance, there is easily as much smugness amongst USC football fans driving their BMWs and Range Rovers regarding both their luxury vehicles and their football team. At least Prius drivers are deriving their smugness from trying to do something positive - not just for themselves, but for everyone and the environment.

What is football smugness about?

Again, there is no doubt that some Prius drivers are smug. It seems most of us are a little smug about something. Nevertheless, surveys prove that a huge majority of Americans are worried about foreign oil dependence, yet most seemingly just bury their heads in the sand and pretend nothing can be done. Perhaps some of this 'smugness' perception is less about Prius drivers and more about gas-guzzling guilt?

Hybrids: Reasons not to listen to Forbes

It won't create energy independence?

Yesterday, Forbes ran Reasons not to buy a hybrid, yet Forbes couldn't offer one compelling reason not to buy a hybrid, assuming energy independence was their primary goal, as stated in their subtitle.

Hybrid vehicles, even the plug-in kind, are simply inefficient because they have two powertrains according to Forbes.

Who cares? Success is about one thing and one thing only, cost-effectiveness. According to Toyota, sometime after 2020 the price difference between hybrids and non-hybrids will be a minor fraction of what is today, and quickly recovered via gains in fuel economy, especially if gas prices continue to rise in the next decade.

Even if true, they still can't lead to energy independence Forbes claims.

Why not? A fleet of natural gas and/or biofueled hybrids and plug-in hybrids could EASILY lead to the end of foreign oil dependence. Likewise, such development would more quickly advance battery technology. Moreover, as battery technology evolves, hybrids and plug-ins could be upgraded to even more efficient batteries, negating the legacy effects caused by conventional vehicles upon energy dependence.

Instead, the Forbe's plan to energy independence is better highway fuel economy, smaller cars and diesel fuel. Apparently, that's the cheapest way to burn through the rest of the world's oil, which naturally ends our foreign oil dependence of course.

Obama - Just as much about big oil as Bush

Just code for petroleum?

Watched the overly dramatized, although very fascinating, Food Inc. last night, and I was left with two over-whelming thoughts: 1.) Is health care reform a joke when high fructose corn syrup is subsidized by the government, and 2.) Isn't ethanol simply code for big oil?

In the US, most foods and many products can in some way trace some of their roots back to corn and, consequently, petroleum. Ultimately, America's corny economy isn't just killing the US health care system, according to Food Inc., it also uses vast amounts of petroleum. And, as many scientists have suggested, if it takes as much, or more, petroleum to displace petroleum via ethanol, what's the gain, aside from massive subsidies for the politically powerful corn lobbies, cheap fast food, and low-cost labor?

Yet, President Obama has been as big a proponent of ethanol as President Bush was of big oil, but is there really any difference? Isn't over-dependence upon ethanol just as bad, if not worse, than over-dependence upon petroleum?

Is new drilling a necessary evil?

A natural gas hybrid

National security. We all know that foreign oil dependence is a national security risk, but our increasing national debt might be an even bigger national security risk if not taken seriously, claimed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently.

While I couldn't agree more, it seems to me that energy independence is the key to both risks.

Finish reading: Is new drilling a necessary evil?

Toyotagate: House Panel more concerned with Big 3 profits than safety?

10,000 rollover deaths per year

Since 2000 there have been 2,600 complaints of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles that have led to 34 deaths. Rather than fix this problem, according to a Congressional Panel, Toyota was 'more concerned with profits than safety'.

Of course, since 2000, Toyota has sold many tens of millions of vehicles, and more than 99.9 percent of them have been safer and more reliable than most other brands on the road then or today. So, it isn't that surprising that Toyota was slow to react, or that they assumed the problem must be with drivers.

Nonetheless, 34 people have died. For that, Toyota deserves some vilification.

Still, in the last decade, for instance, anyone driving a Honda Civic has been 2 times safer than someone driving a Chevy Cavalier. Why? Was GM more concerned with profits than safety? Likewise years of crash data demonstrate that foreign autos are consistently and significantly safer than domestic autos. Why? Did the Big 3 sacrifice safety for profits?

Finally, there is the House Panel itself, now led by Michigan's own John Dingell, a fearless lobbyist - I mean Congressperson - for GM and the Big 3.

Finish: Toyotagate - House Panel more concerned with profits than safety

$3.00+ gas this summer thanks to China

Gas demand keeps rising in China

Expect $3.00 gas this summer, but don't expect gas prices to rise too far above $3.25. There simply won't be enough demand in the US to drive gasoline prices any higher according to an AP report.

Ironically, there isn't enough demand in America to justify current gasoline prices either; however, demand in China keeps growing, counterbalancing US weakness in the energy markets.

So, if gas is going to hit $3.00 while the world struggles through a tough recession, what happens during the economic recovery? Can the US recover if a recovery also means $4.00 or $5.00 gasoline?

The year America significantly reduces foreign oil dependence

When and why?

Foreign oil dependence has become a pretty significant buzz phrase in the last decade, yet over the last ten years little decrease in foreign oil consumption has been achieved.

When will this change? What technology, resource or event will provide the impetus for a significant reduction - more than 50 percent - in foreign oil consumption?

More important, will America proactively embrace this change, or will America be forced to react to change caused by external events beyond America's control?

Only $5.00 gas can fight foreign oil dependence

Americans don't want small cars

Surprise, surprise. New analysis demonstrates that since 2008 small car interest has decreased significantly as SUV interest has increased. Even the recent run up in gas prices could not reverse this trend.

Unless gas prices hit $5.00, foreign oil dependence is here to stay for a very, very long time.

Branson: Oil crunch within 5 years

Branson's SpaceShipOne

Think the recession caused by the financial crisis was bad?

The recession caused by the next oil crunch will be even worse, at least in Britain according to The Oil Crunch - a wake up call for the UK economy penned by Sir Richard Branson's Taskforce for Peak Oil and Energy Security.

According to the report within the next 5 years an oil crunch "could lead to shortages in consumer products and the UK's energy security will be significantly compromised."

Toyota's powerful DC friends? Are you kidding me?

Can you say John Dingell?

Boy the media's coverage of Toyota-gate has become almost laughable at times. Lately, the new angle is Toyota's political friends in Washington.

"Some members of Congress have been such cheerleaders for Toyota that the public may wonder how they can act objectively as government watchdogs for auto safety and oversight."

LOL! Wow. John Dingell anyone?

Has Michigan Congressman John Dingell ever acted objectively when it has come to the Big 3, especially when Dingell was the fricken Chairmen of the HUGELY important House Energy and Commerce Committee? Is the media kidding? I mean talk about subjective cheerleaders!

Those of us that have followed CAFE for the last several years, for instance, can only chuckle at the idea that somehow Toyota has more political friends in Washington than does Detroit. For decades DC power-brokers, such as Dingell, have ensured that Big 3 SUV profits were safe from CAFE regulations, despite an average of 10,000 deaths per year because of defective and inadequate designs, despite 9/11, and despite growing evidence that foreign oil dependence was becoming an ever greater threat to American national security.

I know, Toyota-gate has also caused almost 10,000 deaths in the last year. OK, at least a couple of deaths.

Toyota deserves a lot of criticism these days, but if the media really wants to make America safer, isn't it time to start focusing on some real issues?

And yet 10,000 deaths per year means so little

Weak roofs are just one SUV design defect

Perhaps you've had enough recall news for the week? Well, forgive me then, but I'd just like to use the Toyota recall to demonstrate the silliness of American culture.

Today, foreign oil dependence is a hugely important talking point, and that's it, it's only a talking point. Nobody wants to take any real action, at least not today. It's always about tomorrow.

Certainly, we can't do the obvious, simple stuff than can be done today, like making our vehicles smaller and lighter to easily increase fuel economy and reduce foreign oil consumption. Our personal safety is just too important.

And safety drives the US auto industry, right? That's why the Toyota recall scandal is SOOO important. It must be terribly important because it's possible that a few people died due to a design defect.

Ironically, however, every year around 10,000 people die in SUV rollovers, many of which are significantly due to design defects, such as overly high centers of gravity, inadequate roof structures, defective tires, defective door latches and overly narrow tire tracks - all of which are design defects that the auto industry has known about for decades.

Consequently, for decades, the US auto industry has been largely driven by an entirely defective automotive design that directly kills thousands of SUV drivers every year - mostly in single vehicle accidents - while guzzling massive amounts of foreign oil and killing everything else that gets in its way.

And yet 10,000 deaths per year continues to mean so little.

Obama renews 'clean' coal and biofuels plan to reduce foreign oil

Nothing like a good old coal ash spill

President Obama and a bipartisan coalition of governors plan to use 'clean' coal - still an oxymoron today - and biofuels as key resources to ween America off foreign oil dependence according to a White House press release.

Ironically, however, cost-effective clean coal technologies simply do not exist. And, according to a recent Oxford Study, even next gen biofuels will be significantly constrained by land-use issues.

So, why not natural gas?

Even if CO2 can be cost-effectively captured and managed, is coal technology really so much better for the environment than natural gas, for instance? Furthermore, natural gas doesn't require any magical breakthrough today to clean itself up compared to coal. More important, both natural gas and 'clean' coal - if such a thing ever exits - should be seen ONLY as interim technologies.

Is not an interim technology that is cost-effective and clean today better than an interim technology that might one day be clean and cost-effective? Are we being pragmatic, or just playing politics?

What do 100,000 Volts, Leafs or Prius hybrids per year really mean?

No impact on foreign oil dependence for 2 decades?

For several years now, Toyota has sold more than 100,000 Prius hybrids per year in the US. In fact, Toyota has sold more than 1 million hybrid cars in the US alone.

Yet, what effect have one million hybrids had on US foreign oil dependence? None.

Soon, GM will launch the highly-anticipated Chevy Volt, yet it might be a decade before GM is selling 100,000 Volts per year. Likewise, late this year Nissan will begin US production of the Leaf electric car. When Nissan's new production facility is fully operational, it will produce up to 150,000 Leafs per year.

Yet again, what impact will these vehicles have on foreign oil dependence?

Unfortunately, according to numerous studies, ALL electric vehicle sales in the US, combined, won't have any noticeable impact on foreign oil dependence for probably another TWO decades, and even then the effect might still be marginal.

Certainly, automakers have to start electrifying the automobile somewhere, and the Prius, Volt and Leaf are all noble and important products. Nonetheless, their impact upon the environment and foreign oil dependence will remain meaningless for decades.

Is this really the best that America can do?

A plan to be 40 percent electric by 2020?

Are Americans ready and willing?

Calling foreign oil dependency “one of the most devastating policy failures of our time”, ex New York Governor, George Pataki, called for new programs to ensure that America is 40 percent electric drive vehicles by 2020.

Today, most experts predict that electric drive penetration will be about 3 - 7 percent by 2020. Therefore, to increase the rate of adoption, Pataki suggests a number of new policies, such as rebates for EVs instead of tax credits, tax exemptions for automakers and incentives for battery development.

Mary Ann Wright, VP and Managing Director, Johnson Controls Business Accelerator for Advanced Energy Storage Solutions, was far less optimistic and claimed demand for such vehicles simply doesn't exist to achieve 40 percent electric vehicle penetration by 2020. Ultimately, "gasoline is too cheap."

What if you can't afford a Chevy Volt?

A fantastic car for 5 percent of car consumers?

In recent months I've been criticized many times for being too critical of US automakers. Ironically, a year ago or so, I was criticized many times for being too supportive of the Chevy Volt.

So, what's my deal?

Ultimately, I became interested in hybrid cars after 9/11 because I decided that America's foreign oil dependence was beginning to cause far more harm than good for America and the world. Thus, hybrid cars presented a great way to take immediate action today, while investing in the potential of fuel cell vehicles and all other battery-powered vehicles for tomorrow.

For this reason, I was very supportive of the Chevy Volt at first. Yet, as time has passed from the debut of the Volt, I've realized that the Volt has almost become a distraction to my cause.

Finish reading: What if you can't afford a Chevy Volt. Thinking about foreign oil dependence

Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead

Global warming?

Today's Senate race in Massachusetts is the big story on Wall Street. According to the pollsters this political race, again, epitomizes change. This time, however, it's not a change against Bush and Republicans. This time, the message is for Democrats that have either gone too far, or not in the right direction, at least according to the populist majority.

Even if Republican Scott Brown loses, the Wake Up call has been delivered. Issues such as any big 'cap & trade' program, according to the pundits, are now dead.

So, why not give foreign oil dependence a try? Finish reading: Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead

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?

Drill, drill, drill: The path to a stronger America

Let's drill our way to greatness!

In the 1970's the US imported 24 percent of its oil. Today those imports have increased to 65 percent.

So, let's drill, drill, drill. Certainly, we can find enough oil here in the US to replace our current consumption, right?

OK. Maybe that's not realistic, but we can find enough oil to reduce pressure at the margins and bring down prices, right?

Maybe. In fact, let's say that's true. But, would that really help America?

About a year ago, Congress 'invested' more than $80 billion in the US auto industry. Why? Because it's a key segment in the US economy, right? Yet, if cheap oil is so good for America, why has the US auto industry been on the decline for decades?

Likewise, why hasn't cheap oil led to greater innovation and manufacturing success in the US if energy was so cheap?

Of course, that isn't totally fair. US foreign oil consumption has led to many amazing innovations in the military sector. Of course, have all the costs been worth this great military strength? Has America really become safer?

Perhaps more drilling could lead to some temporary, marginal improvement in pump prices. Inevitably, however, more drilling - and cheaper gas - would assuredly lead to the same technological complacency and national security risks that cheap oil has nurtured for the last few decades.

If America is to be anything more than a military state in the next couple of decades, isn't our potential greatness inextricably linked to ending our petroleum addiction?

Only 17 percent of consumers might pay extra to plug-in

Forever a niche vehicle at best?

Haven't had time to fully read the latest plug-in hybrid report by Pike Research, but I just finished CNET's review. Overall, the report suggests that only 17 percent of US consumers might be willing to pay a premium for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

And, if plug-ins do 'take off', they will probably be short range plug-in hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid rather than the Chevy Volt, or short range pure EVs, as plug-in vehicles with smaller battery packs will be more cost-viable for the majority of consumers.

As I blogged early this week in Great hybrid hoax: Adding a plug to hybrid cars?, this report seems to also suggest that conventional hybrid cars will make a more appealing buying case to the majority of US consumers for at least the next few decades.

Along those lines, since full hybrids such as the Toyota Prius can so easily be converted into plug-in hybrids, wouldn't such vehicles more immediately tackle global warming and foreign oil dependency today, while providing a 'cash for plug-in conversion' option tomorrow?

Can Congress fight foreign oil dependence and save Detroit?

Is foreign oil dependence a meaningless buzz phrase?

So, Nancy Pelosi is going to lead a Congressional caucus to the North American International Auto Show to see how Detroit's new automotive products are shaping up and to listen to ideas from Michigan's elected leaders.

Considering that Congress has invested at least $81 billion in the US auto industry, such a trip seems necessary.

And, without doubt, there will certinaly be photo ops with various plug-in vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt, and sound bites of how such vehicles are going to save Michigan and America, despite the fact that numerous studies claim such vehicles will have little impact on foreign oil dependency or CO2 emissions for decades. Nonetheless, I'm sure the trip will make for great PR.

Moreover, I'm sure there will be some references to new CAFE rules and how they've led to a plethora of new American small cars. Shoot, by 2020 the US auto industry's fleet fuel economy might even match our competitor's fleet fuel economy - well, at least what their fleet fuel economy is today.

Inevitably, however, America will still be heavily dependent upon foreign oil. In fact, based on most data available, the US will be heavily dependent upon dirty foreign oil for several more decades, minimally, barring any new, aggressive change in Congressional policy.

Thus, I must ask, can Congress aggressively and swiftly fight foreign oil dependence and save the US auto industry, while not bankrupting the US economy nor increasing CO2 emissions? Is such a task simply impossible, or is it Congress that is the problem?

The great hybrid hoax: Adding a plug?

Better without the plug?

Depending upon the poll or survey, between 70 and 80 percent of Americans are interested in buying a hybrid car today. Many of them are interested because they are worried about pollution and global warming. Most, however, are interested in hybrid cars because they help reduce foreign oil consumption.

Unfortunately, hybrids are still too expensive, according to these same polls, for most Americans to act upon these various convictions. Most Americans are only willing to pay a little more to 'do the right thing'. Many, perhaps even a majority, are unwilling to pay anything extra for a hybrid, or any other foreign-oil dependency-fighting product.

So, what's the solution? More expensive plug-in hybrid cars and electric vehicles, of course, at least judging by the actions of today's politicians and US automakers.

Finish: The great hybrid hoax: Adding a plug?

Study: Plug-in hybrid impact minimal for decades

Not for the masses

A new study by the US National Research Council finds that plug-in hybrid costs are likely to remain high for decades, therefore, PHEV impact on foreign oil dependency and CO2 emissions is likely to remain low until after 2030.

By 2030, the council expects about 13, but up to 40, million plug-in hybrid cars to be on US roads, dependent upon numerous factors. However, in a fleet of 300 million vehicles, impact upon reducing CO2 emissions and foreign oil dependency before 2030 will be minor. Even to achieve the 13 million mark, 10s of billions in subsidies, minimally, will be required. To hit the higher mark, hundreds of billions will probably be needed.

Overall, the council expects production costs of plug-in hybrid vehicles - mostly in relation to battery technologies - to decrease by about 1/3 over the next decade. Thereafter, cost-savings will probably slow. Thus, it will take decades of cheap electricity to recover the upfront costs of plug-in hybrids compared to gasoline vehicles according to the Council - which will severely impact plug-in hybrid adoption.

A few UM plug-in study thoughts

Have automakers over-played the plug?

Like past studies, the University of Michigan plug-in study finds that a number of Americans, 42 percent in this study, are interested in plug-in vehicles. Of course, most of those interested are only willing to pay about $2,500 extra for a plug-in vehicle, which is also in line with most other studies.

The study also finds that foreign oil dependency is a much bigger plug-in adoption factor than is global warming.

Consequently, while there is a market for plug-in vehicles, there seems to be a far greater market for cost-effective, foreign-oil dependency-fighting solutions than what plug-in vehicles are going to address any time soon. For instance, other studies have suggested that as many as 80 percent of Americans are interested in hybrid cars, again, if the price is right.

Obviously, the price isn't right for most Americans today. Nor are there enough hybrid choices.

However, that will have to change if Toyota is to achieve its 30 percent hybrid sales goal by 2020. And, if they can achieve this goal, imagine how many potential plug-in hybrid consumers Toyota will have in its pipeline just as plug-ins start achieving scalability.

Some have called Toyota's plug-in plans "conservative". In reality, aren't Toyota's battery-powered vehicle plans not only more aggressive than every other automaker, but also more realistic?

Time to get real about hybrids and plug-ins

All about the dead Presidents?

Several months ago, a JD Power survey found that, despite declining gas prices, more than 70 percent of Americans were interested in buying hybrid cars. More than 40 percent of that 70 percent indicated they would pay as much as $5000.00 more for a hybrid.

At the time, however, hybrid sales were declining, as hybrid market share fell below 3 percent. Apparently, it's not easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Can we change this disconnect? Finish: Time to get real about hybrids and plug-ins

Saudi Arabia to America: Get real about oil

Do we need them far more than we care to admit?

Last week a Saudi Arabian oil minister claimed that American energy independence is "a concept that is unrealistic, misguided and ultimately harmful to energy-producing and - consuming countries alike."

Moreover, interdependence between Saudi Arabia and the US will last for decades.

Obviously, what else would anyone expect from a Saudi oil minister?

Nonetheless, isn't it true that America will be heavily dependent upon foreign oil at least another 3 decades? Is America's energy policy still "schizophrenic" and delusional?

Cash for clunker's shocking reality

Legacy costs

Cash for Clunkers is over. After $2.88 billion we've removed 690,117 fuel inefficient clunkers from society while providing a quick bump to a down and out auto industry.

Good news, right?

Regardless, according to CNN, those 700,000 clunkers represent just "2% of the approximately 42 million fuel hoggers still clunking along." So, we have a long way to go, but at least 700,000 15 mpg vehicles were replaced, on average, with 25 mpg vehicles.

Unfortunately, if by some magic wand Cash for Clunkers could have worked for ALL clunkers, even at 25 mpg across the entire US fleet, America would still be terribly dependent upon foreign oil.

Freedom: Guzzling funds Taliban

War on drugs? Why not a war on oil?

According to Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Taliban funding from Persian Gulf oil money outpaces funding from opium and heroin exports.

Good thing we'll only be dependent upon Persian Gulf oil for another 50 years, otherwise I might be a little worried.

Guzzle in peace! May Allah be with you.

What's wrong with tax credits for hybrid cars?

You're no plug-in, Ford hybrid

Today, Toyota is facing a battery shortage for its hybrid cars. By next year, however, Toyota might have enough batteries to produce 1 million hybrids per year.

Aside from Honda, no other automaker will produce even 100,000 hybrid vehicles per year until lithium is developed. Even then, many automakers might skip hybrids, instead preferring to put their lithium technology into limited production plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

However, if Toyota swapped its NiMH batteries for Enerdel's lithium batteries, for instance, it could produce either 100,000 electric vehicles or one million Prius hybrids. And, without question, 1,000,000 Prius hybrids would have a significantly greater effect on both foreign oil dependency and global warming.

Considering that plug-in vehicles could be 3 decades or more from achieving at least 20 percent marketshare, why is America's lithium focus only upon plug-in vehicles?

Without question, tax credits for plug-in vehicles are a worthy expenditure. Still, why only plug-ins? Why not put lithium into as many vehicles as possible?

Ultimately, wouldn't lithium hybrids lead to a much quicker and dramatic effect on America's foreign oil dependency and carbon footprint? Shouldn't that be the driver of any battery-powered tax credit?

Foreign oil dependence on TheStreet

Should plug-ins be the only path to foreign oil dependence?

TheStreet.com asked me to be a guest contributor recently, so they published Foreign Oil Versus the GM Volt this morning (although I didn't pick the title).

Ultimately, I've become very critical of the Chevy Volt compared to a year ago, when I was a fairly strong advocate. While I agree that it's important to bring this technology to market, such vehicles are decades away from making a major impact on America's energy paradigm.

More important, while GM can hype the petroleum-free driving of the Volt, such hype can't hide the fact that the Volt will be a limited production vehicle for most of the next decade and it won't be cost-effective and profitable until well into the 2020s. Thus, it will be 30 to 40 years before such plug-ins can provide a dramatic impact on ending foreign oil dependence.

So, I can't help but ask, how many more decades before foreign oil dependence leads to another bin Laden, another 9/11, another major gas spike?

Ultimately, the Volt isn't the source of my angst, my focus is purely on foreign oil dependence. Unfortunately, as the Volt moves closer to reality, it has become a tool for illustrating just how far away America is from tackling foreign oil dependence.

Lutz on Fast Money: Dodging questions on Volt viability?

The Vice Chairman at his best

Last night Melissa Lee of Fast Money asked Bob Lutz how many units of the Chevy Volt GM expected to sell. Instead of answering, Lutz switched the conversation to how much better the Volt is than the competition. Fine. Maybe it is on a technological level.

Lee then followed up by asking when consumers can expect to reap the benefits of the Volt. After a $7500 tax credit, Lutz claimed at $32,500 the Volt wasn't too much more expensive than Toyota Prius. Still, he never explained how long it would take the Volt to recover its additional expense compared to a Prius or a similarly sized conventional vehicle.

Yet, what happens when tax credits run out? Moreover, recently it was reported that even at $40,000, GM is still losing money on every Volt sold, as the first Volts will be sold below cost. On top of that, GM eventually - someday - needs to start recovering the $1 billion plus spent on production costs.

Thus, tax payers - now owing 60 percent of GM - are selling the Volt at a loss, at a time that the Volt program is already $1 billion+ in debt, and taxpayers are also going to provide a $7500 tax credit to help sell a vehicle that can't help GM's bottom line for at least a decade?

And, not too much more expensive than the Prius?

I don't know. $10,000 + a $7500 tax credit sounds a little expensive to me, especially considering that the Toyota Prius is already a tough sell for the far majority of Americans. Most Americans want an even faster payback, an even cheaper clean and green option.

And, while I agree with Lutz's sentiments about petroleum-free driving, without enticing a majority of Americans, EVs will have no effect foreign oil dependency even if they achieve 1,000,000 mpg.

In 10 or 15 years, the Volt might have a chance of becoming a profitable, top-selling vehicle in America. In the interim, competitors will be developing a plethora of Volt competitors. Yet, none of them mean anything until millions of reliable and cost-effective battery packs can be produced per year.

Until then - even as early as next year - Toyota could be selling 1 million hybrid cars+ per year.

So which car, the Prius or the Volt, will offer the greatest reduction in petroleum over the next decade?

Is it time to put cap and trade on the back burner?

The people continue to grow more skeptical of global warming

A few weeks ago I attended HybridFest in Madison, WI. While there I experienced some of Wisconsin's coldest summer days in recorded history. Certainly, such whether isn't proof that global warming isn't real, but it does cause pause, especially for those already skeptical of CO2 emissions and their effect upon global warming.

And, as the economy continues to struggle, more polls seem to indicate that public support for fighting global warming is declining. This simply isn't an issue that is going to unite the people into a positive, forward-thinking movement, at least not today.

Besides, what's the rush to cap and trade legislation? Other countries that have been more progressive on CO2 limits are largely failing to meet their emissions requirements. Might it not be time to think outside of the box?

For instance, foreign oil dependence is an issue that resonates much more with the people. Of course, that doesn't mean the people are willing to be taxed more to fight such dependence. Nonetheless, it is an issue that is a far easier to sell to the American public. More important, a serious declaration of war against foreign oil dependence could have a huge effect on CO2 emissions, on igniting innovations in efficient, aka green, technology in a package the people just might buy.

Ultimately, can America really move forward by forcing Americans to act against their beliefs? Might it not be worth rallying America around an issue in which most Americans can believe?

Everything about the car must change

It looks too much like a science experiment

In the last few days I've been hearing about how dumb hybrid cars are and how nothing more than diesel is needed in America. I guess these knuckle-heads believe that diesel isn't dependent upon foreign oil. Maybe one of them can explain that one to me some day.

Anyway, I was reviewing a few articles this morning on the best American cars. Of course, none of them were hybrids. Consequently, all of them offered city mileage at 25 mpg or less, far less for some.

No problem, right? Just fill 'em up with batteries.

Of course, just to convert a Chevy Tahoe into a Tahoe hybrid requires about $10,000 worth of hybrid batteries and components. Yet, the Tahoe hybrid still only achieves a little over 20 mpg in city driving.

That just won't cut the foreign oil.

But, let's forget cost for a second. Let's think of an every day electric sedan that offers at least a few hundred miles of EV power, and one that can recharge in minutes, not hours. The geniuses over at MIT are working on such a vehicle. Unfortunately, the batteries alone cost $80,000, and costs can only be forgotten for so long.

So, just filling today's car designs with batteries and electric motors isn't going to be a solution for some time either.

Can the US auto industry survive well into the future, without completely re-inventing itself? Sizes, materials, powertrains, etc. Isn't it time to realize that everything about the car must change?

Bob Lutz as GM's savior

Is the Volt's grandfather the dude?

I hate Bob Lutz. Then again, I love Bob Lutz. Long time Hybridcarblog followers, such as KP, have often criticized my Lutz affection.

What can I say? I just love his gun-slinging, say-it-as-he-feels-it attitude.

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of what he says. Yet, from a business perspective, I'd argue that Lutz is much more attuned to Detroit success that I am.

Nonetheless, Lutz is now more in control of GM than ever. Considering Lutz's history on global warming and hybrid cars, is this really the right move for GM?

Is fuel efficiency really that important to the real world survival of GM? Or, is Lutz correct in assuming that fuel efficiency - when push comes to shove - is really only important to about just 5 percent of America?

Will America ever declare war on foreign oil?

What would it take?

As a $150 million dollar natural gas for transportation research bill works its way through Congress, I can't help but wonder, could America end foreign oil dependency with its own resources?

Could America draw a line in the sand and determine to be foreign oil free within 10, 15, or 20 years using some combination of natural gas, biofuels, batteries and whatever other tools are available today?

While natural gas is typically cleaner than oil, it's not renewable. Should that matter?

If we could end foreign oil dependency, but only minimally reduce our CO2 footprint along the way, could that still be a good thing? For instance, wouldn't ending foreign oil dependency eventually lead to a massive cost-savings, once military costs are factored into the equation? Couldn't such a savings be used exclusively for developing cleaner and more sustainable energy?

Is there a way to declare war on foreign oil that both those from the green side and the 'drill, drill, drill' side could find consensus? Is an aggressive move against foreign oil dependency even possible without such a consensus?

Will America ever declare war on foreign oil? Or will America's energy paradigm ultimately be dictated by forces beyond America's control?

Obama bent over a corn cob?

Beholden to the corn lobby?

I am not an ethanol fan. It's corrosive and inefficient. It's polluting our water systems, and it probably takes as much energy to produce ethanol as it provides, if not more. And, after many years of massive government subsidies, E85 is still only available at just 2 percent of the nation's gas stations - mostly in or around Illinois.

Thus, most flex fuel vehicles have never filled up with E85, yet the automakers producing these flex fuel vehicles have received a massive amount of flex fuel credits enabling the sale of a massive amount of gas guzzlers that would have otherwise violated CAFE.

How has that helped reduce CO2 emissions or reduce foreign oil dependency?

Yet, President Obama is now considering a move that would require ALL vehicles to be flex fuel vehicles, at a cost of at least $1 billion per year.

Isn't it time to take the corn out of politics, and out of the energy paradigm?

Hybrid shoppers: It's not about global warming

The global warming fighter?

A few years ago, Hybridcarblog ran a poll on "Why buy a hybrid vehicle?" There were four possible choices: 1.) Cool technology, 2.) Foreign oil dependency 3.) Global warming and 4.) Carpool lane access.

After running the poll on Hybridcarblog for a while, I moved it to a few Soultek pages and kind of forget about it, until the other day.

So far, there have been more than 28,000 responses to the poll and the results are a little surprising. 37 percent of respondents picked foreign oil dependency, 29 percent cool technology, 27 percent car pool lane access, but only 7 percent picked global warming.

While I wasn't surprised that foreign oil dependency was the top reason for interest in buying hybrid cars, I was extremely surprised that just 7 percent picked global warming.

Is the hybrid and global warming angle being overplayed? Are automakers, especially US automakers, completely underestimating the selling power of foreign oil dependency-fighting hybrid vehicles?

The great oil crash of 2010

But only the calm before the storm?

Speculation. Is it a dirty word? Should the entire future's market be shut down? Should their be higher margins and position limits on oil trading? The government might soon decide these questions, at least as far as the energy markets are concerned.

Yet, regardless of any government action, oil and gasoline prices are almost assuredly heading downward. Oil supplies are ridiculously high, gasoline inventories keep rising, and the world economy simply is not recovering. And, despite the fact that gas prices are far less than last summer, Americans are driving less. One way or another, the air has to come out of this bubble.

But is that really a good thing? Won't a few years of cheaper gas simply result in more complacency regarding the dangers of foreign oil dependency and in the stagnation of alternative energy development? Ultimately, isn't cheap foreign oil, like cheap cigarettes, bad for America?

Will cap and trade reduce foreign oil dependency?

Does it all come down to gas prices?

As the House quickly tweaks 1200 pages of cap and trade legislation, cutting chunks of it, unfortunately, into large slices of pork, I cannot help but wonder how much cap and trade will affect foreign oil dependency.

A couple months ago USAToday published research that suggested that by 2015 cap & trade would add between .16 cents on the low end to $2.58 on the high end to the price of a gallon of gas.

That's a lot of variability. If cap and trade only results in an extra .16 cents at the pump, it seems hard to believe that cap and trade's affect on gas prices would have much impact on foreign oil dependency. Of course, if the high end becomes reality, we'll significantly reduce foreign oil dependency, but we'll also kill the US auto industry.

Is cap and trade the right approach to foreign oil dependency? Is foreign oil dependency irrelevant compared to global warming?

$4:00 gas in 2010: How does the US fare?

Will trucks still sell?

I'm not predicting $4.00 gas in 2010. It's possible, but so is $2.00 gas.

Still, what if gas prices hit $4.00+ for all of 2010? Wouldn't the auto industry need another bailout? Would China bail the US out - hah! - again?

Earlier today I read that Chrysler's biggest worry right now is gas prices. Since it'll be at least a year before any of Fiat's more fuel efficient models hit the US, Chrysler worries that high gas prices could kill it's profitable vehicles - all gas guzzlers - and its business.

Yet, the odds on $4.00 gas in 2010 are pretty good.

Isn't it time to take foreign oil dependence a bit more seriously? With public polls showing such consensus on this issue, why is foreign oil dependency but a sound bite in the political arena?

Does the Volt really resonate in America?

More hype than reality?

GM is holding a technology briefing today that will include updates on GM's new, fully operational battery lab as well as more confirmation about a new fleet of pre-production Chevy Volts. None of this news, however, is really that new if you've been following the Volt story.

In a nutshell, however, the Chevy Volt is on track, even ahead of schedule. More important, GM believes it can significantly reduce costs, especially regarding the battery, by just the second generation. Nonetheless, the Volt will still cost a good bit more than both a conventional vehicle, as well as a conventional hybrid vehicle like the Toyota Prius.

So, can the Volt really be America's car?

Numerous studies indicate that most Americans are very concerned about foreign oil dependency, and they believe that hybrid cars are a strategically important part of ending this dependency. Yet, the majority of these Americans are not willing to pay extra for these strategically important vehicles.

Can a potentially revolutionary American hybrid, or range extended electric vehicle, change this complacent attitude? Or, are significantly higher gas prices the Volt's only chance of serious market penetration?

Carbon schmarbon: It's foreign oil dependency, stupid

Does global warming resonate with America?

Today, most Americans - most of Main Street - believe that hybrid cars are "strategically" important to the United States. Yet, most of these Americans have real doubts about global warming. So, how do most Americans reconcile this bit of irony?

Foreign oil dependency.

According to recent data, most Americans believe hybrid cars are "strategically" important because of foreign oil dependency, followed by saving auto jobs. For most Americans, global warming is not a reason to buy a hybrid vehicle.

Yet, Democrats, when discussing the issue of the oncoming auto revolution, always frame this conversation around global warming. Around carbon. Around cap and trade. Main Street, however, does not agree with Democrats on this issue.

Of course, once America also believed 'separate, but equal' was a fair policy until the government led America out of that insanity. So, the government leading the people, rather than the people leading the government, is sometimes a necessary evil.

Nonetheless, why not more of a focus on ending foreign oil dependence? Inevitably, ending foreign oil dependence would have a positive impact on global warming. Moreover, ending foreign oil dependency, like beating the Russians to the moon, is something almost every American could rally behind. Foreign oil dependence is the thread that can sew unity amongst the workers, industry, and and the government.

Ultimately, inevitably, American tax payers are going to risk as much as a few hundred billion on the US auto industry. Why not leverage this investment into a national campaign to end foreign oil dependency? Besides if you bring average Americans into this movement, it will probably be easier to work cap & trade legislation through Congress in the background.

Cake eaters: America and hybrid cars

88 percent of US adults believe hybrids are strategically important

Wow. I guess I can't say I'm surprised, but I'm certainly disappointed.

A recent study finds that 88 percent of US adults believe that hybrid cars are strategically important to 1.) Reduce foreign oil dependence, 2.) Save and create auto-related jobs, and 3.) To help the environment.

Unfortunately, only 23 percent of Americans are willing to pay extra for hybrids. 35 percent will only buy a hybrid if it costs the same as a comparable non-hybrid. Another 33 percent will only buy a hybrid if it costs less than a comparable non-hybrid.

So, a majority of Americans believe in the strategic importance of hybrid cars for national security, jobs, and the environment, but most are willing to invest NOTHING in these strategically important vehicles? Shameful. What a bunch of selfish, vision-less cake eaters.

Anyway, might this attitude change if more marketing tying hybrids and foreign oil dependency replaced some of the environmentally-skewed commercials of today, since that issue most resonates with Americans? Then again, since there are so few American-made hybrids, such a message would probably be pointless.

35 mpg by 2016: Still a bad addict

The 35 mpg+ Ford Fusion hybrid

Tomorrow President Barack Obama will issue new vehicle emissions standards that will include a green house gas emission reduction of about 30 percent, according to early reports. Thus, by 2016 CAFE will be increased to 35 mpg - the number CAFE is now to achieve by 2020.

So, by 2016 America will still be heavily addicted to foreign oil?

Obviously, this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it also demonstrates how dependent America will be upon foreign oil for many, many more years.

Also, I cannot help but wonder, can US automakers make enough profit along the way to such standards?

Made in America to suck foreign oil

Buy American or eat your import?

My father is a retired union worker. His entire life he's bought nothing but Fords and he would never consider buying a foreign car. Thus, he doesn't think much of my Toyota hybrid.

However, despite the endless problems we had with almost every single Ford my father bought - although his recent Ford purchases have been significantly more reliable - I still considered a Ford for my last auto purchase.

Unfortunately, other than SUVs that I don't care for, Ford didn't have an offering for my fuel efficient motives. Thus, I went with Toyota, again. In fact, I've never bought an American car, but I would.

Today, "The Made In America" bus tour will kick off in Michigan to bring awareness to the plight of the US auto industry. Yet, I cannot help but wonder, how much FOREIGN oil will this American bus tour consume? Also, I can't help but wonder why so many of these "Made in America" folks seem so indifferent to the foreign oil they guzzle in their American autos.

Moreover, why can't these "Made in America" people converge these two fronts of domestic autos and foreign oil? To me "Made in America to end Foreign Oil Dependency" could sell. Is it just me?

Energy Independence: An American joke

Can the US auto industry end America's foreign energy dependence?

Chrysler isn't paying back $7 billion that the government lent to the automaker to stay out of bankruptcy. GM is losing billions by the week. Yet, the government is about to loan the auto industry up to $50 billion to help the US auto industry retool for greater fuel efficiency.

Then there are bailouts for auto suppliers, financing units like GMAC, cash for clunker programs, etc., but why dwell? The real point is, when will all of this bailout money lead to energy independence?

In terms of future fuel efficient, oil dependence-fighting vehicles, it's all about the plug, right? Yet, GM's Chevy Volt probably won't be profitable until the 2020s according to Obama's auto task force unless there is a tripling in gas prices. What happens in the interim? Why can't the Big 3 compete with Toyota's already profitable, 50 mpg Prius?

Thus, many claim that only a gas tax can push America off foreign energy. However, as popular as President Obama is today, even he couldn't push such an idea through Congress.

Today, America's Achilles heal, foreign oil dependency, is more exposed than ever, and by the time we truly realize the dangers of this sick joke, it might be too late. Ironically, however, now that gas prices have fallen, this issue isn't even on America's radar.

Will cap and trade increase auto fuel economy?

How much must gas cost to make the Fusion hybrid a big seller?

So, Bill Ford Jr. is now advocating a gas tax. It seems everyone in the auto industry is hyping a gas tax these days. It provides such a perfect excuse for Big 3 inaction on fuel economy. Of course, its hard to argue that Bill and others don't have a bit of a point.

Still, why now? Is it just because the White House has indicated a gas tax isn't even on the table, as it all comes down to cap & trade now?

I'm not really sure, but I have wondered lately how cap & trade would affect gas prices. One article in USAToday recently claimed that by 2015 a cap & trade program would add between .16 cents on the low end to about $2.58 on the high end to the price of a gallon of gas.

Certainly, an additional .16 cents won't accomplish anything. $2.58, on the other hand, would have a pretty big effect. Nonetheless, that's quite a range and a lot of uncertainty.

Obviously, cap & trade is about carbon, but is such a program too open ended if the goal is ending foreign oil dependency?

Obama asks Americans to join clean energy "mission"

Will Americans support cap & trade?

As I write this, President Obama is speaking in Newton, IA about the need for a new era of energy exploration in the US. Thus, based on the EPA's rule that CO2 is dangerous to America's health, it's time for the US to pass a CO2 cap & trade program. According to Obama, the "American people are ready to be part of a mission," a mission to end foreign oil dependency and move from dirty energy to clean energy via carbon trading.

Are you ready to join the mission? I am.

CAFE loopholes to increase oil dependency? More gas tax proof?

Just make it bigger?

So GM has a problem. New CAFE requirements will require that GM add hybrid technology to its Chevy Tahoe.

Good start, right? The Tahoe hybrid achieves much better fuel economy than the conventional Tahoe, especially in the city. Unfortunately, the added hybrid costs also suck out GM's profit margin, especially at today's gas prices.

Solution: Just make the conventional Tahoe bigger so it applies for a different class of fuel economy regulations and skip the hybrid version reports a scary article by BusinessWeek.

Hmmm. Waste tons of time and money creating complex, loopholed and ineffective legislation that swaps real costs for treasury bills owned by China, or initiate a simple, effective gas tax? And Congress wants to investigate credit swaps?

Time to revisit plug-in tax credit legislation?

Is its battery big enough?

There has been an AP story all over the Internet covering the difficulties of reaching President Obama's 1 million plug-ins by 2015 goal. Cheap gas, a struggling economy, bankrupt automakers, and excessively expensive technology, etc. make the goal impossible without massive help from the government.

Thus far the government has offered tens of billions in loans and aid to help automakers retool, in addition to plug-in tax credits for consumers worth up to $7500. While these tax credits are not as heavily skewed towards large battery plug-ins as originally proposed, they are still skewed towards vehicles that some studies have questioned in terms of efficiency.

Now, I don't want to argue against large battery plug-ins, but I do wonder if this legislation is as effective and efficient as it could be. Even worse, I wonder if this legislation is semi-counterproductive.

For instance, with plug-in profitability possibly a decade away, are plug-ins more about CAFE balancing than an aggressive attack on oil dependence? Also, will these vehicles be profitable after tax credits expire?

Is the size of the battery really the key this early in the game, or should there be more focus on putting lithium into as many cars as possible as quickly as possible?

Ford's $20,000 hybrid?

Ford's third gen Focus

I was checking out new pictures of the third generation Ford Focus on MotorTrend, and I couldn't help but think, why not make the Focus Ford's Honda Insight and Toyota Prius contender?

Imagine a $20,000 American hybrid!?

Hello! You wouldn't be able to keep it in stock. Even if the car lost money per unit for the next few years, imagine the traffic it would bring into showrooms. Imagine the positive press. And, eventually it would make a nice profit.

Make the gas version the econ model. Offer the hybrid in medium and luxury level trims. Maybe do the same for an EV version.

Isn't that the kind of choice America's freedom from foreign oil requires?