« Brain teaser | Home | Power & Weakness: US diverges from Europe »
July 15, 2002
Hybrid cars a fairy tale & CAFE kills
According to a piece by Jay Lehr in Environment & Climate News, hybrid cars are destined to failure and CAFE standards kill. NCPA summarizes:
The latest studies show electric automobiles and "hybrid" cars are destined for failure. The attempt to reduce auto emissions and reduce energy consumption -- which are sometimes incompatible goals -- through emissions and mileage mandates is foolish, researchers say. Among recent findings:
More on Vehicles from NCPA
- The added cost of hybrid technology -- which uses a combination of conventional internal combustion engines and electric batteries -- is 1.5 to 3 times the costs of other technological improvements that could achieve the same environmental performance improvement.
- Production of ethanol gasoline additives and bio-diesel fuel demands vast quantities of electric power, making them less energy efficient than using conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.
- What's more, buyers don't care: fuel economy ranks 25th among considerations in the decision to buy a particular car.
Most seriously, improving car mileage by reducing a car's weight increases traffic fatalities. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, passenger car standards, which have been lowered to accommodate fuel mandates, have already caused an additional 2,000 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries each year.
In light of these negative hurdles, gasoline alternatives will likely power stationary home operations long before they power an automobile economically.
Wow, that's myopic.
On cost. If there's a cheaper way than a hybrid to increase MPG (like mass-produced fuel cells), than great -- let's do it. Meanwhile, mass production of hybrid engines will be cost-competitive within less than three years.
On ethanol/additives costs. Great -- so let's keep using gasoline. That's what hybrids do. Fine.
On weight. Which is safer? A Ford Explorer or a volvo sedan? The Volvo...and yet it's lighter. Weight, of course, doesn't equal safety. Which is safer, a Trooper or an Accord? etc.
I'm not sure what the point here is. Is the point that we should build heavier more consumptive cars? Is the point that we shouldn't be innovating? Is the point that we should keep burning oil because it's much less polluting than coal? Is the point that we should stick with internal combustion that has not had a true upgrade in 100 years (to paraphrase GM CEO Rick Wagoner)? If that's the point, you've still done a poor job articulating it.
Interesting point of view. There was a very interesting (and timely) article printed in the September 9th issue of Business Week titled "Commentary: Gas-Guzzlers Are Safer? Pure Bunk ". The main conention of the article is that larger cars don't necessarily protect their passengers better than well-designed small cars, but they are many times more effective at killing passengers in cars that they collide with.
The data used to support the figures on fatalities "caused" by CAFE standards are based on cars modeled 1993 and older. The study was performed again using models up to 1997, and the data shows no bias against lighter vehicles. Additionally, with the advent of advanced composites and other new technologies, lighter will actually mean stronger.