TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

U.S. Energy Policy Needs A Zap

ADVERTISEMENT

By GEORGE MOON Special to the Tribune

The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 22, 2008

Peter Drucker said, "There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."

Politicians on both sides of the aisle make claims for the need of a United States energy policy. Yet, all they have given us is a slightly raised fuel economy standard for automobiles and a nebulous list of items, some ridiculous and other unattainable. They include subsidies for ethanol, coal, landfills and nuclear industries.

All of which have dire aspects and are couched around our supposed "addiction to foreign oil." The government has pledged billions of dollars in tax exemptions, research grants and loan guarantees for seeking the "Holy Grail" and our emancipation. Many of the plans enrich select industries and would harm mainstream Americans.

One ingredient, and perhaps the most important, is missing. That is serious production of the electric automobile. For more than 50 years the electric vehicle has been used here in America in a multitude of applications, i.e., electric forklift trucks, airport transfer equipment, warehouse AGV's, and deep coal and mineral mines. In England, electric vehicles were used for home milk delivery for years. That only slowed when a variety of retail outlets began selling milk. The city of Chattanooga, Tenn., has had electric shuttle buses in service since 1992, with over 11 million passenger trips and run over 2 million miles.

Raising fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020 is not only absurd but dishonest. Auto manufacturers could do that today. Giving another 12 years only allows them to utilize designs already finalized and filed away. An abrupt change in their strategy would obsolete gigantic inventories in spare parts and projected service schedules costing millions in profits. By 2020 a more serious goal should be over 50 to 60 mpg.

It's all well and good to spend millions on research that might pay dividends in 20 or 30 years, but the problem is now. Americans lead the world in automobile ownership. Over 25 percent of families or 21 million own at least two and sometimes up to five cars. Usually, that second or third car is primarily used to travel to and from work. Occasionally they are used for shopping but, according to research statistics, travel only an average of 30 miles a day.

Most of us can remember back in 1990 when California enacted a controversial law calling for zero emissions from cars. Smog, caused by car exhaust trapped in the basin of the San Fernando Valley, had been a problem since the 1940s. In order to encourage auto companies to develop new technology rather than simply make internal combustion engines cleaner, the California Air Resources Board adopted a visionary and landmark regulation. The new law required 2 percent of new car sales by 1996, 5 percent by 2001 and 10 percent of all large automobiles from 2003 onward be zero-emission vehicles .

A few years ago we were on the right track. The first "purpose built" electric car was produced by General Motors and available in California and Arizona. While never offered for sale it was offered to consumers as lease only with service performed at designated Saturn dealers.

Between 1996 and 1999, GM produced 1,117 zero-emission cars and leased them all. Improvements in battery design also occurred during that period, increasing distance covered before recharge became necessary. The first units traveled 55 to 75 miles and improved to 75 to 100, all with lead-acid batteries. A third battery type (nickel-metal hydride) extended mileage but required eight hours to recharge although 80 percent was achieved in two to three hours.

Pressure from car companies, reluctant to meet these goals, caused the state to roll back deadlines and allow credit for low-emission and hybrid cars. The rollback rules gave the auto industry the opening to challenge the entire regulation. General Motors sued the state of California claiming new rules violated federal law barring states from regulating fuel economy in any way. The Bush administration filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief along similar lines.

Consequently, the California Air Resources Board amended its zero- emission law dropping the requirements for battery powered electric vehicles with assurances the rules would not be revised. The auto companies dropped their lawsuit.

The year General Motors produced the EV1 gasoline cost $1.38 a gallon, with the comparable cost of electric about 46 cents. Today gas is over $4 a gallon and expected to go higher nationally this summer, making electric cost even more attractive.

Americans have already changed their driving habits and gasoline costing upwards to seven and eight dollars a gallon loom for the future. In my opinion, all negative opposition to electric cars is trumped by the cost of gasoline and carbon emissions. Global warming is real.

The electric car, with lead-acid batteries, has zero emissions and is 100 percent recyclable. It is a reasonable alternative for those owning more than one car and can be accommodated for states with colder winters. Cold winter weather may reduce its range to 60 miles but, when used as a second car, still quite persuasive.

General Motors stated that it could not sell enough of the electric cars to make it profitable. They canceled the EV1 program in 2003 in spite of unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from customers. The end came when GM decided it was cheaper to sue the state of California to roll back clean-vehicle regulations that it was to build electric vehicles. By not continuing to develop future EV designs, GM squandered its technological advantage.

Naturally, main opposition comes from lobby groups of both the auto industries and big oil companies. The threat to big oil is obvious with its profits now greatest in history. Electric cars require virtually no maintenance which threatens automakers profitability by the aforementioned replacement parts after market as well as planned service and obsolescence.

Regardless, we need our country's energy policy to include zero emission electric cars. Biofuels are not the answer. They will require refinery plants that give off global warming emissions plus, by using corn, inflate prices on just about everything especially food. Once zero emission electric becomes part of the energy policy, some manufacturers would be very happy to comply.

George Moon, who founded Pilot Battery Inc., a battery manufacturing company, is retired and lives in Lake Placid.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT