…is not what’s good for America. Earlier this week, GM sent representatives to campus to attempt to sell their idea of a hydrogen car. The story is poorly written, but what do you expect, it’s a probably a communications major. By “poorly written” I don’t mean that it has poor spelling and grammar — there is plenty of that around here. No, I mean it sounds like a press release from GM.

McCormick started his quest to create a fuel-efficient vehicle as a UA student concerned about rising gas prices. He quickly realized then that his lifestyle of fuel consumption was no longer an option for him, or for car owners anywhere, he said.

Judging from the picture, I’d guess that gasoline prices when McCormick was a university student were around $0.25 per gallon. Nothing wrong with that. But then he “quickly” realized wasn’t an option. Wha? I don’t think so. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, why did it take 20-30 years (again, guessing) to make a prototype?

He goes on,

He explained that although most people tend to favor renewable energy like solar or wind, the hidden problem is the lack of an efficient way to store them, and the distribution ability is very limited.

Ethanol, McCormick explained, is a viable option, but only if it is not shortchanging the public of food. General Motors has invested in two companies - Coskata and Mascoma - that endorse ethanol use but only cellulosic, or non-edible products in order to make ethanol.

I’m not a fan of ethanol. It is a band-aid, not a solution. But casually dismissing solar and wind power like this not acceptable. It’s true that energy cannot be stored for very long or very efficiently right now. But in the time-line of everything that works, there was once a time when it didn’t work. It seems that a possible solution might be to use renewable non-polluting energy to make hydrogen, which can be stored.

“The next president and his policies are going to determine a lot of the future of these vehicles,” McCormick said. “We (GM) are willing to put in the money and the technology, but we really need favorable government policies. These cars are going to be more expensive, and tax breaks would encourage consumption by the public.”

True. But the difference between the candidates isn’t that large. If you’re looking for government handouts to corporations, then McCain would probably be a better choice. If you’re worried about the environmental impacts of pollution, then Obama would be a better choice.

But that pretty academic by now. When the pundits start describing Georgia as “too close to call”, it’s over. If Obama doesn’t get 350 electoral votes, I’d be surprised.

A quick break from the usual topic to comment on the news. Unless you’ve been recently dead for a few years, and miraculously brought back to life in the last few seconds, and even more miraculously decided after all that miracling to read this blog, you’ve probably heard about the “housing crisis”. They were talking about it on NPR this morning as I drove to work. For what it’s worth, I don’t particularly like NPR, but it’s the only radio station that doesn’t yell at me before my morning joe - and that’s a requirement. So NPR it is.

Anyway, there really isn’t a “housing crisis” of course. Nor is there a “financial crisis”. Sure, people are losing their homes because they can’t pay their mortgages. And financial institutions are failing left and right. The latest being Lehman Brothers. That doesn’t mean there’s a “financial crisis”. There is a crisis, although I’m not sure what to call it. I originally was going to call it the “stupidity crisis”, but that sounded too mean. The “greed crisis” might be a better descriptor. Although capitalism is motivated pretty much solely by greed, so it could also be called the “capitalism crisis”.
Continue Reading »

As I was browsing web pages of past instructors (Dr. Rabbit’s post got me all nostalgic), I came across a link to this interesting simulation of U.S. oil policy. It’s a bit old, 2005, but it still provides a decent method of estimating how specific policy initiatives might affect oil demand.

It provides a way to select specific policies, and dates for their onset that will affect oil demand in the United States. It then tells you if your specific policies will meet your goal for reducing oil imports. I’ve included below the specific policies that would be needed, according to this simulation, to reduce oil imports by 90% by 2025. The format for the input is in the form of a section of the State of the Union. The parts that could be changed I’ve highlighted. In his 2006 State of the Union, President Bush set the goal of reducing our oil imports by 75% by 2025.

Inset image credit: user jasonskinner on Flickr.
Continue Reading »

The consumer gets screwed.

New Scientist reports that up to 1 in 4 fish sold in New York City is “mislabeled” as a more expensive variety. A little oversight goes a long ways.