There has been a lot of press lately concerning the launch of the long-delayed Chevy Volt, the first of the so-called “plug-in hybrids” to reach the market. Although generally similar to the hybrid cars already on the market, plug-in types like the Volt offer the option of recharging the vehicle’s main battery from an external source instead of the small gasoline-burning engine carried onboard, and the option of not engaging the recharging engine until after the battery’s own range is exceeded. The upshot is that if you drive a Volt 40 miles (to the edge of its battery range) on battery power, and then use the recharging engine to put another 10 miles into the battery (at 50 mpg) you will effectively have covered 50 miles on 0.2 gallons of gas – effectively 250 miles per gallon. Rather a lot, really…
Needless to say, these reports have generated a huge backlash from people who complain (correctly, as it happens) that the car’s true mileage is much lower than the 230 mpg the company claims, assuming that you want to drive it more than 50 miles between recharges from a conventional electrical system. Stories like this one on CNN Money Online try to provide both sides of the story, but a lot of the readers (check the comments section) seem to be focused entirely on the math of the situation – which does, in fact, fall short of the 230 mpg hype for long-distance and highway travel. However, I can’t help thinking that all of these nay-sayers are missing the point…
Consider, for example, someone living in East Lansing (as I do) and working at MSU (which I also do). My commute is only about 8 miles a day (round-trip); even allowing for extra mileage to go out for lunch or swing by the grocery store on the way home, it’s rarely more than 20 miles per day. With a recharge cost of about 50 cents for 40 miles , it’s possible that my whole week’s driving would cost less than a single gallon of gas – or less than 20% of what it would cost me to power my car using gasoline for the same period. Even when we were living in Redondo Beach (and driving 32 miles round-trip to and from work every day) we could still have commuted without ever buying (or burning) a gallon of gas; in East Lansing it’s entirely possible that we could go for months at a time without ever burning any gasoline…
Of course, if you add in a renewable power source, these calculations get even more absurd. A bank of photo-electric cells capable of generating and storing 8 kilowatt hours per day, for example, or a wind turbine with a similar output, would give the Volt owner an almost unlimited supply of essentially free mileage. Even if the price of gas returns to last year’s levels, or extends into one of those nightmare $9/gallon scenarios, Volt owners will remain relatively unaffected. If General Motors can get enough Volts into service to lower the price, making the vehicle accessible to the general public, it could really be the game-changer they’re hoping for…
Even more to the point, perhaps, even this basic application of the technology has the potential to dramatically lower the amount of fossil fuel consumed in this country, lower the amount of particulate matter in the air, and improve our foreign trade balance, all while providing jobs for the nice people here in Central Michigan who will get to build the Volts. But if GM does not handle the mass-production of the vehicle correctly; if they allow this to become a curiosity (like the EV-1) or a rare commodity with a huge waiting list (like the Prius) or a high-priced luxury item that will never produce enough in fuel savings to make it worth the purchase price, then this whole product will become nothing more than a big, sick joke…
Let us hope that General Motors, at least, gets the point of this exercise. And that they choose wisely…
Showing posts with label Fuel Efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fuel Efficiency. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
A Booming Business
It's been said that any new technology brings with it its own hazards, drawbacks and assorted downsides, and the same can usually be said for new business models. Overuse of computers has given us workplace problems like carpal tunnel syndrome and eyestrain, and we can all remember the joys of technological breakthroughs like asbestos, to take the obvious example. There's a case being reported this week in the Arizona Republic that brings up a similar point about the new business of biodiesel, and one of the side effects that we really should have seen coming before now...
With the price of gasoline hovering around $4 nationwide, the idea of getting used cooking oil from the local greasy spoon and filtering it down to motor fuel in your garage has a very strong appeal. Nevermind that most people will spend dozens of hours of work on every gallon of fuel they obtain through this process (effectively making much less than $1 per hour, or perhaps one twentieth of minimum wage for this work; it's still free fuel, it's still good for the environment, it's still a way to avoid foreign oil, and so on. Unfortunately, it's also still motor fuel, used to power an internal combustion engine, and therefore (under the wrong conditions) both flamable and explosive...
Imagine if people all over the country were to start filtering cooking oil in their garage. Explosions of the type described in the article would become commonplace, and you'd definately want to invest in those new fireproof ceramic shingles for your roof, just to keep your house from being set on fire everytime your neighbor's biodiesel operation blows up. Even worse, if the E85 ethanol (flex-fuel) vehicles start to catch on, you might have people all over the country operating distilleries in their basement -- in which case you'll want to purchase armor for the side of your house for those occasions when your neighbor blows himself up, house and all...
Now I suppose if could be argued that this is a good thing in the larger view; it would certainly increase demand for fire-proof ceramic roof tiles, armored siding, bullet-proof window glass, and fire extinguishers. It would also represent a huge growth opportunity for contractors who install these products, and might even result in a new building boom to replace all of the exploding houses and garages. With luck we could even see new products start up to handle these needs, like built-in fire fighting systems for ordinary single-family houses, or carpets and window treatments made out of the anti-spall linings used inside tanks (they keep bits of the inside of the tank from being knocked loose and flying around the interior like shrapnel when the vehicle it hit by a shell or missile, a process called "spalling")...
Preposterous, you say? Then tell me this: how do you propose to stop it? Used cooking oil can't very well be made a controlled substance, and neither can the (very simple) filters needed to convert it to fuel. You can make the whole process illegal, as with stills for making alcohol, but even BATF has never been completely successful in shutting those down, either; I'd hate to put local law enforcement in charge of sniffing out used cooking oil in someone's garage. And in any case, we can't afford the extra police needed to carry out such a search, or the additional errosion of our civil rights that searches of this kind would cause. Unless the price of motor fuel comes down, or some other method of transportation is introduced, and soon, this type of story is going to become more and more common...
Maybe I'll look into investing in the companies that make those ceramic roof tiles...
With the price of gasoline hovering around $4 nationwide, the idea of getting used cooking oil from the local greasy spoon and filtering it down to motor fuel in your garage has a very strong appeal. Nevermind that most people will spend dozens of hours of work on every gallon of fuel they obtain through this process (effectively making much less than $1 per hour, or perhaps one twentieth of minimum wage for this work; it's still free fuel, it's still good for the environment, it's still a way to avoid foreign oil, and so on. Unfortunately, it's also still motor fuel, used to power an internal combustion engine, and therefore (under the wrong conditions) both flamable and explosive...
Imagine if people all over the country were to start filtering cooking oil in their garage. Explosions of the type described in the article would become commonplace, and you'd definately want to invest in those new fireproof ceramic shingles for your roof, just to keep your house from being set on fire everytime your neighbor's biodiesel operation blows up. Even worse, if the E85 ethanol (flex-fuel) vehicles start to catch on, you might have people all over the country operating distilleries in their basement -- in which case you'll want to purchase armor for the side of your house for those occasions when your neighbor blows himself up, house and all...
Now I suppose if could be argued that this is a good thing in the larger view; it would certainly increase demand for fire-proof ceramic roof tiles, armored siding, bullet-proof window glass, and fire extinguishers. It would also represent a huge growth opportunity for contractors who install these products, and might even result in a new building boom to replace all of the exploding houses and garages. With luck we could even see new products start up to handle these needs, like built-in fire fighting systems for ordinary single-family houses, or carpets and window treatments made out of the anti-spall linings used inside tanks (they keep bits of the inside of the tank from being knocked loose and flying around the interior like shrapnel when the vehicle it hit by a shell or missile, a process called "spalling")...
Preposterous, you say? Then tell me this: how do you propose to stop it? Used cooking oil can't very well be made a controlled substance, and neither can the (very simple) filters needed to convert it to fuel. You can make the whole process illegal, as with stills for making alcohol, but even BATF has never been completely successful in shutting those down, either; I'd hate to put local law enforcement in charge of sniffing out used cooking oil in someone's garage. And in any case, we can't afford the extra police needed to carry out such a search, or the additional errosion of our civil rights that searches of this kind would cause. Unless the price of motor fuel comes down, or some other method of transportation is introduced, and soon, this type of story is going to become more and more common...
Maybe I'll look into investing in the companies that make those ceramic roof tiles...
Monday, August 18, 2008
To SUV or Not To SUV
The local ABC affiliate station in Chicago is reporting that starting this fall, the Chicago Police Department will replace 150 to 160 of their existing Ford Crown Victoria police cruisers with new Chevrolet Tahoe SUVs. The Department cites such advantages as the SUVs handle better in bad weather and allow the officers to sit 13 inches higher, presumably to see over the rest of traffic better. On the one hand, speaking as someone who lives in the community where Chevy Tahoe units are built, this sounds like a good thing for Michigan. The problem is, when you consider issues like fuel and repair costs, I’m not so sure it’s a good thing for Chicago…
A quick check of the relative stats on “Fuel Economy.gov” shows that a Crown Victoria averages 18 miles per gallon (mpg), while a Tahoe manages just 16 mpg. It’s a difference of about 70 cents for each 25 miles driven, or about $410 per year at 15,000, although one suspects that police cars are driven harder than that. Still, that’s a difference of at least $60,000 per year extra to fuel the SUVs, which isn’t that bad, but those projections assume that gasoline stays under $4 a gallon, that the SUVs are kept in optimal driving condition, that they aren’t left idling, and so on. In theory, the differential could go much higher, and that doesn’t include the fact that SUV tires and parts are more expensive, or that the maintenance takes much longer…
Now, I’m sure you’re wondering what difference a small change like this is going to make on the budget of an agency the size of the Chicago Police Department, or on a city the size of Chicago, for that matter. Even allowing for the increase in carbon footprint or how much more room an SUV take up in traffic, why should anyone care if the city is buying new gas hogs? Well, I don’t suppose 150 SUVs are going to make much difference, but consider if the CPD were to purchase the Chevy Equinox instead. It’s a crossover, not a true SUV, but the police are not likely to use their SUVs for towing or construction duties, so that shouldn’t matter. More to the point, the Equinox has an average mpg of 21, 31% better than the Tahoe and almost 20% higher than the Crown Victoria…
Now the City of Chicago is saving $600 per vehicle per year over the Crown Victoria, and $1,000 per vehicle per year over the Tahoe, just in fuel costs. It’s a much more attractive idea, and one that won’t get you second-guessed on the evening news, mocked on the Internet or flamed on Fark.com. It also lowers the city’s carbon footprint and dependence on oil, which could only help. And the Equinox is also made in the Lansing area, so I’m still in favor of it from an economic standpoint. But what if the Chicago PD went with Ford Escape units instead? The Escape has an average mpg of 26, and the hybrid version manages 32, twice as high as the Tahoe and nearly twice as high as the Crown Victoria. That gives us a savings of nearly $3,000 per unit per year, $450,000 total, and a really great press release…
Why does he tell us this? I hear some of you asking. Unless you actually work for General Motors in the Lansing area, these choices are unlikely to have much effect on your life, and unless you spend a lot of time in Chicago it’s unlikely you’ll ever notice the difference. I call this to your attention because while the City of Chicago can afford to blow off a $450,000 per year savings if they really want to, your business probably can’t. A Chevy Tahoe is an extremely capable vehicle, and if you actually need any of the SUV’s functionality during the course of your business then by all means go and get one. Heck, get 160 of them if you like. But if not, you might consider something more efficient – or at least cheaper to operate…
A quick check of the relative stats on “Fuel Economy.gov” shows that a Crown Victoria averages 18 miles per gallon (mpg), while a Tahoe manages just 16 mpg. It’s a difference of about 70 cents for each 25 miles driven, or about $410 per year at 15,000, although one suspects that police cars are driven harder than that. Still, that’s a difference of at least $60,000 per year extra to fuel the SUVs, which isn’t that bad, but those projections assume that gasoline stays under $4 a gallon, that the SUVs are kept in optimal driving condition, that they aren’t left idling, and so on. In theory, the differential could go much higher, and that doesn’t include the fact that SUV tires and parts are more expensive, or that the maintenance takes much longer…
Now, I’m sure you’re wondering what difference a small change like this is going to make on the budget of an agency the size of the Chicago Police Department, or on a city the size of Chicago, for that matter. Even allowing for the increase in carbon footprint or how much more room an SUV take up in traffic, why should anyone care if the city is buying new gas hogs? Well, I don’t suppose 150 SUVs are going to make much difference, but consider if the CPD were to purchase the Chevy Equinox instead. It’s a crossover, not a true SUV, but the police are not likely to use their SUVs for towing or construction duties, so that shouldn’t matter. More to the point, the Equinox has an average mpg of 21, 31% better than the Tahoe and almost 20% higher than the Crown Victoria…
Now the City of Chicago is saving $600 per vehicle per year over the Crown Victoria, and $1,000 per vehicle per year over the Tahoe, just in fuel costs. It’s a much more attractive idea, and one that won’t get you second-guessed on the evening news, mocked on the Internet or flamed on Fark.com. It also lowers the city’s carbon footprint and dependence on oil, which could only help. And the Equinox is also made in the Lansing area, so I’m still in favor of it from an economic standpoint. But what if the Chicago PD went with Ford Escape units instead? The Escape has an average mpg of 26, and the hybrid version manages 32, twice as high as the Tahoe and nearly twice as high as the Crown Victoria. That gives us a savings of nearly $3,000 per unit per year, $450,000 total, and a really great press release…
Why does he tell us this? I hear some of you asking. Unless you actually work for General Motors in the Lansing area, these choices are unlikely to have much effect on your life, and unless you spend a lot of time in Chicago it’s unlikely you’ll ever notice the difference. I call this to your attention because while the City of Chicago can afford to blow off a $450,000 per year savings if they really want to, your business probably can’t. A Chevy Tahoe is an extremely capable vehicle, and if you actually need any of the SUV’s functionality during the course of your business then by all means go and get one. Heck, get 160 of them if you like. But if not, you might consider something more efficient – or at least cheaper to operate…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
