The Electric Car; Saving Us from Big Oil.
Solving the transportation fuel crisis.
(
OpEd topic & ongoing discussion )
We are currently at the mercy of OPEC and big oil companies. The vehicles
we drive and the trucks that deliver our goods to us burn fuel produced by
the distillation of oil into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
There is available today, the means to resolve much of this crisis if we
pressure automakers into acting responsibly. In the past they have sided
with big oil and refused to produce a viable electric vehicle.
Some exceptions did occur which embarrassed automakers when C.A.R.B. ( California
Air Resources Board ) mandated electric vehicles in California. Until they
over turned their own requirements, all automakers shipped pure electric
vehicles to be tested in California. Those who were fortunate to drive them
loved them. Sure there were a few bugs to work out but those were mostly
resolved when the plug was pulled ( no pun intended ). GM had the best of
the lot in it's EV1. It had sufficient range and speed to meet over 90% of
the typical drivers daily needs. It looked like a sports car! It was a good
vehicle that could be charged at home. No trips to the gas station. See:
http://ev1-club.power.net/
Today the Tesla Motor
Company produces a roadster that can blow the doors off of a Porsche
and travel 200 miles on a $3.50 charge from an outlet in your home. That's
135 equivalent MPG efficiency! This is a $80,000+ car though, because it
is not mass produced. But it proves the technology is here now. EV1 proved
that years ago but GM took them all back despite public outcry, and destroyed
all but a few left in museums ( which were disabled ).
Ford allowed some of its electric vehicles, mostly modified
Ford
Ranger pickup trucks to remain in service. Most people who own them would
not part with them.
Chrysler imported an existing electric vehicle from Scandinavia where they
are a current production vehicle, and returned most of them to daily service
there after the mandate was dropped.
GM and others did all they could to discourage people from knowing about
the EV1's in other states.Their ads were designed not to sell the vehicles
but to discourage people from buying them in the first place by "promoting"
their limitations rather than to extol their virtues. They know how to market.
GM did not want to build electric cars. It was not that they couldn't do
it....they did not want to.
No one can be sure of private influence on Detroit by big oil interests but
I would not be the least surprised to learn they play a major part in halting
progress on electric cars you and I could buy in order to assure the oil
companies stand between us and our energy to move.
The big hype these days is hydrogen powered fuel cell cars. This is just
a fancy electric vehicle like the above but instead of chemical batteries
it would use a fuel cell that requires hydrogen gas to generate electricity.
So to build these the automakers have to build an electric vehicle anyway.
Why hydrogen fuel cells vs. batteries is not a good alternative?
There is the advantage that you can have range only limited by distance
between fuel stations offering hydrogen gas. Not many exist. I know of one
I have seen with my own eyes on the West side of Washington DC. A whole new
infrastructure would need to be built out across the US to accommodate any
hydrogen powered vehicles. We know who would have to build those stations
at great expense, the major oil companies. They would still control our fuel
and have us on yet another energy leash.
The fact that is hidden is that for over 90% of the average American's daily
transportation needs, a battery powered car is more than adequate. The
infrastructure is already in place. All you need is an electric plug and
you can "fuel" your car at home while you sleep. No additional infrastructure
needs to be built. For many they can also plug in at work so they always
start their journey with a "full tank" and never a need to stop at a gas
station.
Those who would have you buy into the hydrogen fuel proposal will discourage
a pure electric vehicle saying it lacks the range for long trips.
Range is not an issue because: (a) you can just rent a gas-electric hybrid,
still fairly cheap on gas for the few times a year you take a long trip or
(b) electric vehicle dealers can offer you a "time share" gas vehicle you
borrow when necessary.
The majority of your normal daily needs are met without gas, using your standard
house current to fuel your car. No ties to big oil. No pollution at the vehicle.
Silent and fast.
Electric vehicles can out perform their gas counter parts. An electric motor
produces more power and torque per pound than a gas engine and does it a
zero RPM offering quick acceleration with almost no sound. There is no idle.
The motor, when at a light, is off. Braking puts some of that energy back
into the batteries.
There is one place that, perhaps, government can help with some type of credit
or rebate. In light of the current crash in resale value for SUV's I can
see something like this getting in the way of electric vehicle sales. Gas
cars will lose value as a trade in. The best of the crop can be held by dealers
as loaners or "time-share" for electric owner's occasional distance driving
needs but the rest? This is where a government that might be tempted
( by lobby ) to give a bunch of money to Big Oil to build a hydrogen
infrastructure, instead use that money to buy out older cars from dealers
and convert them to scrap steel, thus boosting trade in values for those
moving to an electric car.
Big oil does not need any handouts.
Wouldn't you like to thumb your nose at every gas station you drive by?
Now the issue of trucking and the goods they deliver to you. Electric is
not viable for them today. They need long range and the ability to pull a
heavy load. Better efficiency, perhaps bio fuels can help boost their economy.
Congress needs to treat the trucking industry as it does farmers by providing
fuel tax-free. If you have ever noticed, diesel fuel sold to farms is died
red to make it easy to inspect to make sure it is not used on the roadways
for non-agricultural purposes. This same fuel should be available to licensed
trucks at truck stops. This would offset the cost of delivering nearly everything
we buy or eat, helping to keep the costs down for consumers.
Remember, business does not pay taxes, you do. They may fill out the forms
and write the checks to the states, but that is a cost of doing business
they pass along to the consumer. The tax they pay on fuel is added to the
loaf of bread you bought today.
While on the subject of taxes and incentives, Congress needs to get in the
act to push this idea and make it happen. There are tax credits available
today but the problem with a credit is that the consumer must first be able
to put down the full price of the vehicle and be in a tax bracket that enables
them to benefit from the credit. Often the average tax payer fails on both
accounts. Rather than a tax credit offered to those who's incomes enable
them to use the credit ( people with more money ) Congress needs to provide
an equivalent rebate at time of purchase to bring the cost of buying an electric
car down. Perhaps provide loan guarantees similar to HUD so lower interest
rates are available to buy electric vehicles. Perhaps tie these price incentives
to conditions that dealers offer either "time share" or low rental rates
for hybrids for those occasional longer trips beyond the range of the electric.
The fuel savings would then be a great additional incentive for they buyer.
This could be based on the cost so that those who opt for a luxury version
get a credit while those who buy a basic daily commuter car get the instant
rebate.
We have the means and the technology to cut the hose. What we need are
incentives to build them and incentives to buy them. A start is in properly
and honestly educating the consumer about costs, range and their average
daily needs.
Paul Kruger © 2008, all rights reserved.
May be reproduced with credit to author.
|
