Does a 100 mpg car really make sense?

[Roxanne Appleby]

Um, Roxanne. There is a way that governments can be controlled, at least here in the West.

It's called 'voting'.

That helps, but the larger the government the less effective it is. How many congresscritters in the US will lose their seats this year? Answer: single digits. "Incumbent protection rackets" are a problem in all western nations to a greater or lesser degree.

Then there is this:

" . . . (D)emocracy can be a good form of government only if the scope of government is narrow and limited. Voters will always be ignorant of most political details because their periodic votes have virtually no effect on the outcome; this inevitable ignorance gives special interests - which do have a limited impact through campaign funds and contributions - extensive power, undermining many great hopes for democracy. But accepting the limitations of democracy is a conclusion that scares modern liberals."

from "How Smart Must Voters Be?" by Jane Shaw, a review of "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki, Liberty, May, 2006.


I will add this: In addition to the rationality of a particular voter's remaining ignorant regarding an entity over which he has virtually no control, there is the impossibility of any one person or even well funded group ever grasping every action of such a massive entity ($2 trillion +++) even if one is in a position to have some effect or control. The bureaucratic blob will even wear down even the most dilligent investigators over time, and relies on that in its dealings with the rest of the society.

As you know I am not dour or pessimistic about western societies and democratic institutions, but I try to be realistic about their limitations and flaws.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Actually, I don't believe that it is possible to build a 100MPG car today -- at least not one that will meet the safety and pollution requirements imposed by the various governments!

The safety features in modern cars -- crumple zones, soft bumpers, air-bags, seat-belts, etc -- all add weight to the minimum possible weight of a car; ranging from a few ounces for airbags to a few hundred weight for sogft bumpers. Seatbelts add more than the weight of the belt alone, BTW -- the anchor points have to be reinforced and that adds dozens of pounds to the structure.

Emission Control regulations and Efficiency (MPG) regulations are conflicting requirements for the most part -- when the first required emission controls were added to cars in the sixties, average milage was reduced by almost 50%. If the government truly wants 100 MPG cars on the road, the quickest way to get them is to repeal the safety and emissions requirements!

I don't think the public would stand for a repeal of safety or pollution controls, though -- safety and low emissions are bigger selling points than milage for most people.

You are correct. As I said in that post, "We could have "(100 mpg cars) right now (but) it would get blown around in strong winds, and would not really be safe sharing the road with today's big trucks. . . . We could adopt a system that relies more on rail and less on trucks for long distance freight, so those cars could use the roads safely." Other changes in the overall transportation infrastructure would be desireable if such cars were the norm, possibly including lower speed limits. Such a system would probably not be most people's cup of tea.


Og and R: For some reason all that talk of itsy-bitsy super high-efficiency vehicles turns me on! (I get extra geek-points for this.)

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

===================================================

Sorry if this has been said already, but what you say isn't always the case. "Cost effective" is changing with new technology. Many small companies are now working, or reworking, old, used up fields. In the 70s and 80s they did pump out what they easily could, and right now many are going after the easy to get at stuff.

However, new technology such as "horizontal" drilling to access pools that were left behind in other minor locales, or pumping steam to get out some of what used to be hard to get at oil is being used. Also, some oil sands which were not cost effective to reach are now with higher prices. Soon they may also get oil from shale which, to my knowledge, is not being done yet, or at least not on a large basis.

There are a lot of variables, and many different strategies, including many different minds on what strategy to use, and where. Primarily, the oil industry is like any other, and its sole purpose is to make money where money is the easiest to make. Money goes where money is welcome, is the old adage. A corporation has no other thought, at least not most. You are not necessarily right to say that an industry will maximize its investment, but you would be correct in saying that a company/corp. will maximize its investment as the heads of the individual companies see it.

Other technologies that are being looked at include hydrogen. One small company can make a "juice" for a better word, from "clean" coal that could be converted to hydrogen, and has enough to do so for a long, long time. Will it ever see the light of day? Only the greed of the corporations will say. They are greedy.

m

You are correct about the new ways to extract oil. Each new technique costs more that the old ways. At some point the rising cost will make alternatives more cost effective. That point comes long, long before the "last barrel" has been extracted.

"Corporations are greedy." They are self-interested, as are we all. Indeed, to some extent "they" are "we": Mutual funds in 401Ks and IRAs, and pension funds that benefit between more than the families in the U.S. almost all hold energy stocks.

" . . . a company/corp. will maximize its investment as the heads of the individual companies see it." Correct. But it would be a mistake to assume that as a class such people are wilfully blind. Yes, they will seek to maximize their return on current investments, but that does not mean their future investments will mimic their past ones; and the current investments all have a limited life. Non-blindness is enforced by the fact that if one company's heads are blind their lunch will be eaten by a hungry newcomer or better-managed incumbent.

"One small company can make a "juice" for a better word, from "clean" coal."
Many things are possible; that does not mean they are cost effective and competitive. I doubt this technique is either, but would be delighted if it were, and have no doubt that if that were the case "greedy" corporations would use it to make money.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Thanks, Mis, for your thoughtful posts.


When one has a company infrastructure that is fashioned according to human-ness, it is normal to "assume" that they will not willingly "change" to be something else. The norm is that they will tend to wish to be as they are if they are the money making powerhouse in the industry, or one of them. They are loathe to relinquish it.

True, but consider that the transition will happen over several decades. Previous investments will reach the end of their lifespans and new ones will be needed if companies want to stay in the energy biz. Given the extended timeframe, nothing requires that the new investments mimic the past ones.

As for "changing," what would they change to? Nuclear?

I laid out one plausible scenario in the the opening post. There would be a huge money-making infrastructure of batteries and battery-exchange stations to be created and operated. Again, think about this happening over 20-30 years.

2029 is the bugaboo year
Bugaboo is right. Refer to your overall thesis here - that innovation is happening in oil extraction. The following is from an earlier post of mine elsewhere:

According to a comprehensive estimate of total world recoverable oil performed by the United States Geological Survey in 2000, the world "endowment" of conventional oil resources (which includes natural gas) is approximately 5.9 trillion barrels equivalent. Of this, 1 trillion barrels have already been consumed, leaving 82 percent still available. Non-conventional "frontier" resources such as tar sands could raise the total much higher.

Unfortunately, much of the immediately available capacity is located in nations characterized by unstable political environments. This has generated great uncertainty about supplies in the short term, which contributes to high prices despite the optimistic long term prospects. This is exacerbated by the fact that 77 percent of known oil reserves belong to government-owned companies.

In the long term, nuclear energy could supply all the energy required by an industrial civilization indefinitely. New technology makes nuclear plants built today far safer than past facilities. Worldwide, some 300 new plants are planned or under construction. France generates 77 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

General point: I find this entire subject endlessly fascinating, witness my activity discussing it in this place. Yet it generates a great deal of confusion, made worse by ignorance in the general population, often exploited and manipulated by individuals or groups with agendas that most people do not share. This results in a lot of simplistic "we're all gonna die" type talk, which is unfortunate. I don't pretend that there won't be "interesting times" ahead on this front in every sense of the word, dire and optimistic. But if "we're all gonna die" is true (in the doomsday sense), it has nothing to do with the underlying physical and economic realities of our civilizations need for great magnitudes of energy. We can provide these indefinately without destroying the environment, breaking the economy, or impoverishing the general population of current and future industrial nations.

 

[oggbashan]

Consumer demand and Governmental drive

What will change the 21st Century automobile is the combination of what the public want and regulations enforced by governments.

In Europe there is a demand for highly efficient vehicles. The number of diesel sedans on the roads is growing because diesel engines give better mpg. The noise and rattle of older diesels is becoming a memory. For most of us, there are only two differences from a gas (petrol) engine 1. Watch for the little red light to go out before turning the key to 'Start' and that is usually quicker than counting from 1 to 10 and 2. Filling up with diesel, not gas (petrol), less frequently and for less money. Whether the extra cost of a diesel engine makes sense depends on your annual mileage but a diesel powered car depreciates slower than a gas (petrol) powered one.

There is also a contradictory demand for large SUVs. For some it is a statement 'I'm rich enough not to have to care about my fuel costs'. If true, then the owner has no problem but if it is really a statement of 'I want people to THINK I'm rich enough...' then the fuel and tax bills will hurt and so will the depreciation.

Most UK youngsters start with a small fuel-efficient car because insurance is so expensive for under-25s. As they get older the insurance cost reduces but if they are used to paying 'x' for fuel to travel their normal mileage a change to a larger, more powerful car can double 'x'. A ten-year-old large sedan will be cheaper to buy than a ten-year-old small hatchback that cost a third of the larger car when new because for the larger car the running costs (fuel, tax, servicing, repairs, and insurance) are so high.

Governments' tax systems for vehicles and fuel affect car sales. Imminent changes in France will make owning a car with an engine larger than 2 litres very expensive, so cars sold in France will not offer engines larger than 2 litres. The same car might be offered with a 3 litre V6 in the UK but only as a 2 litre 4-cylinder in France. Anyone seen in France driving a new car with a larger engine next year is likely to attract unwelcome attention from the highway police on the basis 'The owner must have more money than sense so if he breaks the speed limit (and why else would he need a large engine?) then he can afford to pay the on-the-spot of up to 1000 dollars...'

The world is changing. Despite public transport systems, nothing is as convenient as a car for getting from your home to your ultimate destination with your passengers and luggage. Weaning Western civilisations from the car will be almost impossible. What has to be done is to make the car ecologically affordable for the planet in the longer term. Higher mpg is a start. Electric vehicles powered by electricity made by renewable means would be better still.

Og

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[rgraham666]

Roxanne, is this ineffectiveness limited to government? Or does it affect any large organization?

If it affects any large organization why should we trust the large corporations who currently dominate our market place?

Or is there some fundamental difference between government and business that prevents business from falling to the same human foibles as government?

And I'm afraid that your little blurt about the essential ignorance and stupidity of the voter simply illustrates what my favourite writer points out: that our current education system produces an elite that is unconsciously but profoundly anti-democratic.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, is this ineffectiveness limited to government? Or does it affect any large organization?

If it affects any large organization why should we trust the large corporations who currently dominate our market place?

Or is there some fundamental difference between government and business that prevents business from falling to the same human foibles as government?

And I'm afraid that your little blurt about the essential ignorance and stupidity of the voter simply illustrates what my favourite writer points out: that our current education system produces an elite that is unconsciously but profoundly anti-democratic.

They are equally subject to human foibles, but I believe that the private sector has "feedback mechanisms" that are very direct and more effective because they are in the final analysis determinative - if people don't buy your product, you are his-to-ry. It's not necessary to recite all the ways in which these are imperfect, I probably agree with most of what you would say. But over time it really does work. I know you have a different favorite quote from the Sage, but in the proper context it does not contradict this: "Every individual . . . neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention."

To put it another way, I look at processes. The processes of the private sector have better corrective mechanisms in many areas than those of government.

 

[cantdog]

I believe Roxanne makes a valid point, as far as I understand it. The "sedan" idea assumes a seamless continuation of today's car culture. It's a have the cake and eat it idea.

Once the oil begins to go, so does the current automobile culture. In fact, right now, all the projects to widen highways by adding lanes ought to be re-thought. Traveling on the ground and moving goods on the ground will have to change. As she suggests (again, dead right, as I see it) transit of goods will have to switch away from trucking, and mass transit options will have to expand. Electric trains, many more of them. A much more developed rail system.

Electricity itself will have to begin to come from other sources, of course, but investment in electrically powered mass transit passenger systems and freight moving systems will ease the transition away from fossil fuels. The electricity grid is flexible; it can accept input from any kind of source, and the output is the same. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, gas, coal, microwave beam, or oil-- it makes no difference to the grid what produces the power.

Meanwhile, the personal, individual aspects of having a vehicle will look different. Having a personal or family internal-combustion petroleum-burning car will not be sustainable. Some other sort of personal vehicle will have to come to dominate.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I believe Roxanne makes a valid point, as far as I understand it. The "sedan" idea assumes a seamless continuation of today's car culture. It's a have the cake and eat it idea.

Once the oil begins to go, so does the current automobile culture. In fact, right now, all the projects to widen highways by adding lanes ought to be re-thought. Traveling on the ground and moving goods on the ground will have to change. As she suggests (again, dead right, as I see it) transit of goods will have to switch away from trucking, and mass transit options will have to expand. Electric trains, many more of them. A much more developed rail system.

Electricity itself will have to begin to come from other sources, of course, but investment in electrically powered mass transit passenger systems and freight moving systems will ease the transition away from fossil fuels. The electricity grid is flexible; it can accept input from any kind of source, and the output is the same. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, gas, coal, microwave beam, or oil-- it makes no difference to the grid what produces the power.

Meanwhile, the personal, individual aspects of having a vehicle will look different. Having a personal or family internal-combustion petroleum-burning car will not be sustainable. Some other sort of personal vehicle will have to come to dominate.

I agree with what most of what Og said in his last post, although I would give a little more emphasis to the market, within the constraints imposed by governments that he points to. I mostly agree with this:

The world is changing. Despite public transport systems, nothing is as convenient as a car for getting from your home to your ultimate destination with your passengers and luggage. Weaning Western civilisations from the car will be almost impossible. What has to be done is to make the car ecologically affordable for the planet in the longer term. Higher mpg is a start. Electric vehicles powered by electricity made by renewable means would be better still.

I would add "nukes" to that "renewable" list. In fact, most of the "renewables" that are so popular in concept will be shown to be chimeras for many reasons, but I'll never discount the power of human ingenuity. One final point: As mentioned in my opening post, nothing prohibits the establishment of an electric vehicle infrastructure that would allow cars and trucks that are identical in every way to those on the road today except for what is under the hood (bonnet for those in the mother country). (So not so fast on cancelling those new lane projects!). As I say above, the transition will take place gradually; we're not going to turn on the news one day and hear, "The last barrel was pumped yesterday." Instead the relative costs of fossils and other sources (most likely nukes for the most parrt) will gradually shift, making the latter preferable to the first. The overall cost level may be a bit higher, but maybe not, and in any event, as Og points out, we will have our cars.

 

[rgraham666]

They are equally subject to human foibles, but I believe that the private sector has "feedback mechanisms" that are very direct and more effective because they are in the final analysis determinative - if people don't buy your product, you are his-to-ry. It's not necessary to recite all the ways in which these are imperfect, I probably agree with most of what you would say. But over time it really does work. I know you have a different favorite quote from the Sage, but in the proper context it does not contradict this: "Every individual . . . neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention."

To put it another way, I look at processes. The processes of the private sector have better corrective mechanisms in many areas than those of government.

I disagree, Roxanne.

Since the decision making power in a corporation is concentrated in a very few hands, it becomes even more subject to human foible. Greed, romanticism, pride, wilfull blindness end up affecting a business far more than a government especially a democratic government.

I also disagree with with your idea that people are incapable of seeing or believing in the public good. Most people are perfectly capable of understanding such a concept. The problem now is we aren't taught about such a thing. It's now taken as a given by most that the public good is non-existent, a chimera. And discussing it contains overtones of socialist, often Marxist ideology.

I see no reason why representative democracy shouldn't work. Except for the fact that the people charged with the responsibility to look after it no longer believe in it.

You might also want to look at the problems the market place did not solve, such as public sanitation, slavery, disease. Very often it fought bitterly against improvements in these things.

Garbage collection for example. I know when introduced in Paris everyone important, except the people elected to office hated the idea. It was attacked as an infringement of personal rights. And an interference in the free market. That it was unhealthy and spread disease wasn't a consideration.

And I can quote Smith as well. "The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest."

 

[oggbashan]

Motorail

The UK used to have a small network of train services that would take cars and their passengers for long distances on the train for example London to Penzance; London to Glasgow and further into Scotland.

The driver would arrive at the depot in the evening and the car would be loaded on a flatbed railway truck. The driver and passengers would travel overnight in a sleeping compartment, arriving at their destination shortly after breakfast.

The service was never cheap but in the 1950s and 60s it was a great way to travel because long distance roads in the UK were poor.

The French still have a Motorail system. This is the version for Brits travelling from Calais:
French Motorail

For a family wanting to take their car to NE Spain, going almost all the way by train reduces tension and driver tiredness.

If the Motorail system could be expanded to freight in a similar way as trucks are hauled through the Channel Tunnel, then heavy trucks on long hauls could get close to their destination without clogging the roads nor using fossil fuels.

At the moment sending the truck all the way by road is cheaper. Until that changes there is no incentive to invest in road/rail systems.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

I disagree, Roxanne.

Since the decision making power in a corporation is concentrated in a very few hands, it becomes even more subject to human foible. Greed, romanticism, pride, wilfull blindness end up affecting a business far more than a government especially a democratic government.

I must disagree. The decision making in most corporations is abysmal. But it is still much better than what I see from the government. To give you an example, I will go back to "The War On Poverty." Bureaucrats from the Northeast were sent to interact with poor people in Appalacia. Neither group could understand the other's speech, much less thinking. A private corporation would have likely gone bankrupt over such stupidity. The US government simply raided Social Security.

You might also want to look at the problems the market place did not solve, such as public sanitation, slavery, disease. Very often it fought bitterly against improvements in these things.

Iwas unaware that the marketplace did not solve certain social problems. A man named Crapper, in England, provided the toilet, one of the major improvements in sanitation. [Despite the private use, it is a major contribution to public sanitation.]

Slavery is/was very much market driven. In the Southern USA, slavery was economic. Slaves could be profitably used to work the large cotton plantations and the South had slaves. In the Northern USA, slaves were not economic to work the much smaller farms that raised mainly food crops and the North did not really have slaves. Eventually, the North tried to deprive the South of its slaves. The South proposed an economic resolution to the problem. The North would buy all of the slaves, at prevailing market prices and do whatever they wanted with them. The North decided to go to war instead.

Disease is addressed almost as often by private hospitals as by public ones. I have been in both types of care and find the private hospitals to be much better.

And I can quote Smith as well. "The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest."

Smith is insane! If you doubt my words, then tell me how my elected representatives decide what is the public interest? Let me give you some specific topics to address. Elected representatives decided 1) Slavery was in the public interest. 2) The War On Poverty was in the public interest. 3) the spending of Katrina relief funds on strippers and breast implants was in the public interest. 4) The maintenace of "separate but equal" schooling was in the public interest. 5) The maintenace of "separate but equal" schooling was not in the public interest. 6) It was OK to draft men for service in the armed forces. 7) It was not OK to draft men for service in the armed forces. 8) It is not OK to enforce duly enacted laws making illegal immigration a crime.

TIA.