Washblog

On Buying Out The Fleet, Or, Here's A Gas War We Can Win

[Front paged: NM]

There is no way to save us from our dependence on oil, we are told, except to drill for more oil wherever it can be found—and some will even tell us it’s possible that there’s so much oil not yet discovered off the coast that all our problems will be over once we poke a few holes in the ground and git ‘er done.

Of course, it’s also possible there are monkeys to be found in certain of my body cavities…and I’m hoping most fervently that no one proposes drilling in my ANWAR in an effort to find out.

But what if there was another way?

What if we could afford to convert our gas-powered cars to something else…something that could reduce our national gasoline consumption by 70%?

Something we could put into place just as quickly as offshore wells could be drilled—and maybe even faster.

A “Manhattan Project” of fleet conversion, if you will.

Well, Gentle Reader, I think we can—and today we examine a way it might be done.

Those who are regular readers in this space probably recognize this as the part of the diary where we introduce background information while keeping the plan a bit of a secret…just to build the suspense…but today, let’s do the opposite: let’s open with a plan, and then provide the supporting numbers.

So here it is: Americans are quite familiar with the concept of paying farmers to not grow crops—why not apply the same logic to this problem? To be more specific, I’m proposing we subsidize drivers, through loans and grants, to get out of gasoline cars and into electric, just as quickly as we can—and to apply the money that will be saved on gas and other expenses to repay the investments needed…meaning that over time this could be an idea that’s either revenue neutral or net positive, depending on the future price of gas.

To examine how the numbers work out, let’s begin with the costs of today’s cars:

The first, and most obvious, is oil itself…and the State Department estimates we spent about $400 billion on imported oil in 2007.

The cost of making fuel substitutes is adding up as well, and experts point to ethanol as one substitute that imposes many costs, some of which are as yet unquantifiable, but clearly substantial. Among those costs is a subsidy of nearly 50 cents per gallon paid to ethanol producers that will cost us roughly $4 billion this year-and we expect that amount to grow to $7 billion a year by the middle of next decade, if production estimates prove correct.

Then there’s automobile maintenance. The American Automobile Association reports that maintaining a car and keeping it in tires averages five and a half cents per mile—and the Department of Transportation estimates Americans drove more than 3 trillion miles in 2006. Multiply the two and we apparently spend somewhere around $165 billion annually on maintenance.

Like it or not, we must acknowledge that we also spent some portion of our military budget on “oil security”.  The 2007 Defense Department budget request—without the War Supplemental requests—came in at $471 billion. Supplemental requests ware estimated to be another $90 billion. A charitable estimate might assign 30% of that number to “oil security”, adding roughly $175 billion more annually to our oil costs. An estimate of 50% equals more or less $280 billion annually. We’ll use the lower number today.

Add these together, and we spend at least $735 billion, plus an unknown amount from additional “ethanol costs”, to drive gasoline powered cars annually.

So what would it cost to replace them?

In my proposal, the Federal Government would provide a grant of $15,000 to the owners of the 136.5 million cars on the roads (that’s a 2005 number), which would basically pay off the loans on those cars. They would have to be turned over to the Government for scrapping. (Any leftover money would have to be spent on the replacement car.)  That’s just about $2 trillion over the 10-year life of the program…or $200 billion a year.

Additionally, I would provide low-interest loans of up to $30,000 to purchase a new electric car. (Just for reference, you can buy a Prius for $23,770.) At 5% interest, that’s a maximum $150 billion “carrying cost” annually…but if the loans are priced at 5%, it’s a virtual wash. (There will be some losses for delinquencies—but as with student loans, the IRS can help with collections…)

We will have to upgrade the electric grid to provide about 17% more power than it does today, and based on the Edison Electric Institute’s numbers that means we need to provide about 180,000 megawatts (MW) of new capacity.

Is it possible to generate that much power using a no-fuel source like, maybe…windmills? The answer seems to be: yes. The Pacific Northwest alone has the potential to generate 137,000 of those 180,000 MW—and beyond that there’s tons of wind potential on the Great Plains…and believe it or not, even Texas (yes, I said Texas...) now sees wind farming as a cash crop.

So how much would it cost to build all that capacity? 229 MW of wind capacity installed near Whisky Dick, Washington (how cool is that…I got to say “Whiskey Dick” in a serious story…) is costing Puget Sound Energy $380 million. Based on that number it should cost about $299 billion for the new wind turbines--assuming no “bulk discounts” or decreases in price as the technology advances. Add 50% for new transmission and distribution, and you get roughly $450 billion…which is about $45 billion a year over 10 years

Having demonstrated that it’s possible to make this change, we need to take some time to address the biggest problem that prevent us from simply “flipping the switch” and putting this plan in place.

What is it? Batteries. To make a long story short, batteries for different types of electric car applications demand either high power or long-lasting power—and a battery that can provide both is usually too heavy and emits too much waste heat (the more heat, of course, the more energy lost, making the battery less efficient).

Charging time is another issue. To charge batteries quickly requires high voltage, and a nation of rapid charging cars could have problems delivering enough power through the electrical grid as it’s currently designed…and at the moment, charging batteries using 120V current takes hours, not minutes.

But there’s good news on the horizon—and a company that is the world leader in the batteries that power cordless tools is one of the companies that thinks they can advance the state of the art. A123 Systems makes the batteries that power one of the most impressive of today’s electric cars, the Tesla.

A123 Systems put 6,831 AA battery-sized batteries in a car that’s a very close cousin of the Lotus Elise (the cars’ chassis are built on adjacent assembly lines) and the resulting car is quite amazing.

220 miles on a charge (this is a plug-in car…no gasoline engine of any kind); and performance that is shocking to those who think of electric cars as inherently boring and lacking in performance. What do I mean by shocking? Well, the car has been slowed down quite a bit by the introduction of the new monospeed transmission, so acceleration from 0-60 mph is now up to 3.9 seconds from 3.2.

It seems to be able to turn a bit of a corner as well…as this video demonstrates…

Of course, this is a $100,000 car—and without backup power, you better not travel more than 219 miles to the next outlet, or it might be tow time.

More typical performance is found in the Subaru R1e—an all-electric plug-in car that is a variant on a car currently available in Japan, which can travel at speeds up to 65 mph for 50 miles before needing a charge.

Both of these cars appear to require less than $2 a day for charging for most electric consumers in the US.

Eventually the market may move to “series hybrid” electrics, which, like railroad locomotives, use small fossil-fueled engines to run a generator that provides the electricity for the car. The Chevy Volt, expected on the market for the 2010 model year, is such a car. The company reports the first 40 miles of travel would use the plug-in batteries only, and beyond that the engine kicks in to spin the generator (and recharge the battery), which gives the car a range of 640 miles on 12 gallons of fuel.

Which brings us to the final question: how fast could such a conversion occur?

The Census Bureau tells us that 12,087,000 cars, more or less, were manufactured in the US in 2006. If we instituted a lottery system (or something similar) to choose who gets ‘em first, it should take about 10 years to replace the fleet—and if we allow consumers to buy US and foreign-made cars under the terms of the program, the conversion could occur considerably faster.

So that’s it.

I’m proposing we buy out gasoline cars with borrowed money, and I’m suggesting that 70% of the $400 billion we spend annually on gas, as well as most of the $165 billion we spend each year to fix gasoline engines could be saved by the conversion, helping to repay the costs incurred…I’m proposing that we lend ourselves the money to buy new electric cars—but I expect that money to be repaid by the owners of those cars—I’m further suggesting we can “windmill” our way into providing the additional generating capacity required, and I’m suggesting that we justify this highly unusual intrusion by the government into the private economy on National Security grounds…because reducing our gasoline consumption by 70% makes our OPEC friends 70% less powerful…and also puts us at a competitive advantage compared to China and any other country who hasn’t yet broken their oil addiction.

And if all that wasn’t enough, it’s also one enormous public works project that can’t help but create hundreds of thousands of long-term jobs in our very beaten-down manufacturing sector.

Obama, are you listening?

AUTHOR”S NOTE: George Carlin has left us…with a few thoughts on the American Dream that offer a far better eulogy than anything I could ever provide.
< Smith, Dicks & Baird: A Chorus of Lies on FISA | My Racial Joke >

Poll

the electric car you want?
hybrid
pure plug-in
"series hybrid"
a ford f-350 with 220,000 little batteries

Votes: 22
Results | Other Polls
Display: Sort:

...and exactly the kind Obama will have to embrace.

I could go on and on enriching the proposal (I think  other revenue can be added like a national car insurance program) but the fundamental idea is the only idea that will work going forward.

That is, we have to take the positive responsibility to replace what doesn't work or is unsustainable with what does work and is sustainable.

We have to introduce government entrepreneurship.

But how does that happen? By getting down to numbers, FC gets down to brass tacks. Economically, the government is just another financial institution. It has unusual powers and unusual responsibilities, but we shouldn't get overwhelmed by too much "big thinking". There are real, knowable numbers here and if we give clever people the opportunity to work with those numbers, they will find solutions that seem as miraculous now as aircraft seemed when even this nation was still largely horse-drawn and as miraculous as the telephone seemed when people had been shouting out the window for fifty thousand years - and all just as possible.

People talk about genomics, protenomics and nanotechnology, but I think we are entering a digitally-enhanced age of "Back-To-The-Future." I think the future will be about ingenious contraptions and the information technology to bring them to the people and bring the people to them.

Oil has doubled - doubled - and yet oil consumption has gone down trivially. The installed base of petroleum-dependent technology is so huge that currently people have no choice but to just keep using this stuff until it all breaks down. THAT is NOT the way to go.

A replacement campaign can't wait for the market. It has to use the market to figure out how well the new solutions are working, but the "invisible hand" just works too damned slowly.

In this age, prepare to hear strange-sounding things like this post. But you have to keep an open mind. You might hear something like: "To retire megatons of carbon dioxide, we have to get ATVs to thousands of farmers in Africa."  

It will make no sense until you see in your mind's eye all those tons of new rice and corn stalks made of CO2 from the atmoshpere being composted back into the ground.

This is just a possible example, but what's clear is that the future will not look as we expect it to look - and it had better not, really.

by dlaw on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:39:01 AM PST

* 1 none 0 *


   What is going to happen to current(future) worldwide society as the expense of air transport continues to rise. Sure, hybrid(s) and electric (and more walking and telecomuting) will be able to cover individual ground needs.
   Trains (fossil, bio, or electric) and some version of trucks can cover local and even continental needs. Solar, wind and and (dare I say it) nuclear

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:54:57 PM PST

* 2 none 0 *



And it's a concern I'd not heard before, but a really important one.

In this globalized world, we're almost dependent on - not the reality - but more importantly the idea that Sydney, Seoul, London, New York and Seattle are just names - the world is one, big, capitalist market society.

But as we're finding out with Iraq, local reality is very important.

Physical limits on cultural exchange could be a big problem. More reason to make sure there is plenty of petro for planes by using less in cars.    

by dlaw on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM PST

* 7 none 0 *


OK -- I admit it, this has turned into a Planes, Trains and Automobiles thread.  But, hey it's hard to not talk about the whole shebang even with the brilliant idea of getting rid of gas guzzlers.

Here is a looonnng but really good article about Sound Transit and it illuminates the role of some different forms of ground transportation options.

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2008/06/doug-macdonalds-criticism-of-light-rail.html

Meanwhile - back in Seattle - they are talking about more streetcars, the discussion today was about the Central Line which would come close to my area.  But, it DOES NOT connect to light rail????  Can't anyone do any computer modeling?  What we are getting with our hard earned dollars is more vanity boondoggles like the SLUT ( I know they tried to change the name, but a friend of mine wrote a song "She'll take you to nowhere...")  I'm speaking as a lover of fixed rail transit!

by ktkeller on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:11:16 PM PST

* 20 none 0 *


Display: Sort:

 

 

 

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

Login

Make a new account
Username:
Password:

 HELP

Recommended Diaries

Washblog RSS Feeds

Political Contacts

Local Media

Coastal/Grays Harbor
Aberdeen Daily World
Chinook Observer
Montesano Vidette
Pacific County Press
Willapa Harbor Herald
KXRO 1320 AM

Olympic Peninsula
Peninsula Daily News
Bremerton Sun
Bremerton Chronicle
Gig Harbor Gateway
Port Orchard Independent
Port Townsend Leader
North Kitsap Herald
Squim Gazette
Central Kitsap Reporter
Business Examiner
KONP 1450 AM

Sound and Islands
Anacortes American
Bainbridge Review
Voice Of Bainbridge
San Juan Journal
The Islands' Sounder
Whidbey NewsTimes
South Whidbey Record
Stanwood/Camano News
Vashon Beachcomber
Voice Of Vashon
KLKI 1340 AM

North Puget Sound
Bellingham Herald
The Northern Light
Everett Herald
Skagit Valley Herald
Lynden Tribune
The Enterprise
Snohomish County Tribune
Snohomish County Business Journal
The Monroe Monitor
The Edmonds Beacon
KGMI 790 AM
KELA 1470 AM
KRKO 1380 AM

Central Puget Sound
King County Journal
Issaquah Press
Mukilteo Beacon
Voice of the Valley
Federal Way Mirror
Bothell/Kenmore Reporter
Kirkland courier
Mercer Island Reporter
Woodinville Weekly

Greater Seattle
Seattle PI
Seattle Times
KOMO TV 4
KIRO TV 7
KING 5 TV
KTBW TV 22
KCTS 9
UW Daily
The Stranger
Seattle Weekly
Capitol Hill Times
Madison Park Times
Seattle Journal of Commerce
NW Asian Weekly
West Seattle Herald
North Seattle Herald-Outlook
South Seattle Star
Magnolia News
Beacon Hill News
KIRO 710 AM
KOMO AM 1000
KEXP 90.3 FM
KUOW 94.9 FM
KVI 570 AM

South Puget Sound
The Columbian
Longview Daily News
Nisqually Valley News
Lewis County News
The Reflector
Eatonville Dispatch
Tacoma News Tribune
Tacoma Weekly
Puyallup Herald
Enumclaw Courier-Herald
The Olympian
KAOS 89.3 FM
KCPQ 13
KOWA FM 106.5
UPN 11

Cascade/Okanogan
Ellensburg Daily Record
Levenworth Echo
Cle Elum Tribune
Snoqualmie Valley Record
Methow Valley News
Lake Chelan Mirror
Omak chronicle
The Newport Miner

Spokane/Palouse
The Spokesman-Review
KREM 2 TV Spokane
KXLY News 4 Spokane
KHQ 6 Spokane
KSPS Spokane
Statesman-Examiner
Othello Outlook
Cheney Free Press
Camas PostRecord
The South County sun
White Salmon Enterprise
Palouse Boomerang
Columbia Basin Herald
Grand Coulee Star
Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
Yakima Herald-Republic
KIMA 29 Yakima
KAPP TV 35 Yakima
KYVE Yakima
Wenatchee World
Tri-City Herald
TVEW TV 42 Tri-cities
KTNW Richland
KEPR 19 Pasco
Daily Sun News
Prosser Record-Bulletin
KTCR 1340 AM
KWSU Pullman
Moscow-Pullman Daily News