On this day ten years ago I was fighting my way through morning rush-hour traffic, going to an out-of-town plant to work on some production issues.  After getting through the worst of it, I stopped for refreshment and another motorist told me that a small plane had flown into the World Trade Center.  I switched from the CD player to the radio, and listened the rest of the way as the horror unfolded.  By the time I got live TV coverage, the towers had collapsed.  The TVs at rest stops showed the smoking rubble all day.

At my destination, people were desperately filling up every gasoline container they could find.  I saw two men with a trailer full of brand-new 5-gallon cans, filling them all.  I filled my car with enough fuel to get me through the week and home again.  I had hoped to get a New York Times the following morning.  I don't think I saw one that whole week.

The lack of contrails in the sky was eerie.

The agents behind the first (failed) WTC attack, and the suicide nature of the successful one, suggested strongly that it came from Islamists, specifically Al Qaeda.  This was later proven; the attackers were from the Middle East, all Muslim, 15 of the 19 from Saudi Arabia.  Our so-called "friends" there killed roughly 3000 people that day, mostly Americans, on American soil.  Yet there was zero political response to this in Washington; while illegal Pakistani immigrants received a lot of attention and many returned home abruptly, the Saudi royal family was treated with kid gloves.

Nothing has changed in that respect.  The US government has, against all reason, expanded allowances for Saudi immigration.  Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was admitted to the US in 1999 (after the first WTC attack) and granted US citizenship in 2009!

US immigration and citizenship policy is somewhere between reckless and suicidal.  The question everyone should be asking is "Why?", followed immediately by "How do we fix it?"

It's easy to see why.  The answer is "oil money".  We have done precious little to wean ourselves off oil since 9/11 (Congress and the Bush administration continued policies of guzzler promotion for years after the attacks), and all those dollars flowing to Riyadh and Caracas and Kuwait flow back as political influence.  We're not buying oil with dollars or grain, we're handing over control of our government.

It's imperative to cut US dependency on oil.  The price of oil wouldn't matter to the economy if there wasn't an effective "petro-state tax" on most people just to get to work.  I did what I could in 2004, when I cut my fuel needs by about 1/3.  But today I'd find it hard to do that again.  I'd need to get up to 60 MPG or so, and there are precious few vehicles sold in the USA which can do that.  The Volt (sold out for months) is good for a couple iterations of this game and the latest Prius is in the ballpark, but the Fusion hybrid barely ekes out the mileage I often get today.

We've done practically nothing.  We've continued to hand money and power to the people who've proven they will use it to do us harm.  If it were only our elites I'd say it was treason, but sentiment among ordinary Americans is the same.  See no evil, and drain the retirement account to fill up the pickup to take the toy-hauler and the 4-wheelers out for a weekend on the trails.

Fixing this requires a complete 180 in attitude.  Oil must be treated as a necessary evil, but an evil.  Guzzling vehicles and wasteful driving must be subject to both fines and social opprobrium.  We need the PNGV or something like it back pronto, expanded production of all supply-chain components for hybrids and PHEVs (preferably all sited in the USA), feebates, higher gas taxes, the works.  We can't manage a full war footing yet, but we need urgent action NOW.  That attitude shift would help fix the flow of dangerous immigrants as well.  We should have no Faisal Shahzads or Umar Abdulmutallabs or even Richard Reids coming into the USA.

I don't see this happening.  Anyone who advocates any of the necessary changes is immediately stigmatized as "anti-American" (like R. James Woolsey?) or "islamophobic" (which is only half a step from "racist").  There's a stone wall, maintained by both major political parties, against making the changes we urgently needed to make starting on that clear sunny day ten years ago.

If this country doesn't wake up and get a clue, we're doomed.

Labels: 9/11, editorial, GM Volt, government incompetence, petroleum dependence, PHEV, PNGV, taxes

¶ 9/11/2011 12:39:00 PM 1 comments

What a difference a number makes.

The projected EPA economy rating of the GM Volt has set off a storm of criticism across the Internet.  While a number of blogs played the story straight (1, 2), the Good Math blog attacked it as nonsense, which got picked up by Reddit.  Critics say that the actual fuel economy seen by drivers could be as low as 50 MPG, or as high as infinity.  So who's right?

Basically, they all are.  The EPA city-cycle measures the Volt's characteristics about as well as a square peg fits a round hole.  In this mess, the number you get depends how you trim the test to fit the car.

Green Car Congress gave a rather straightforward analysis:

Based on the same draft EPA methodology, the Volt would also deliver “triple-digit” combined cycle fuel economy along with combined cycle electricity consumption of 25 kWh/100 miles, according to GM. At the US average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), GM calculates that a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than three cents per mile.

From the data we’ve seen, many Chevy Volt drivers might be able to be in pure electric mode on a daily basis without having to use virtually any gas. EPA labels are a yardstick for customers to compare a vehicles’ fuel efficiency. So, a vehicle like the Volt that achieves a combined triple-digit fuel economy is a game-changer...The key to high-mileage performance is for a Volt driver to plug into the electric grid at least once each day.

—GM CEO Fritz Henderson

Since it's obvious that almost nobody would get that 230 MPG figure, or even ±10% of this value, it's worth asking:  what does the prospective Volt buyer need to know?  Off the top of my head, I can think of this:

1. How much electricity they would use.
2. How often they'd have to visit the gas station
   • using gasoline
   • using E-85
3. Whether plugging in at work, or forgetting to plug in at night, would change those numbers substantially.
4. Whether there are any electric rate plans which would make the car significantly cheaper to own.
5. The overall monthly cost at various fuel prices and electric rates.
6. Comparison with other makes and models.

This doesn't call for a flamewar.  This calls for an on-line calculator, perhaps integrated with a mapping service which can project energy consumption on the typical commute, errands such as shopping, and trip to the relatives or the beach.  But without adjusting for lead feet and hyper-milers, would anyone still get within 10%?  The battle over the numbers does not look to end any time soon.

Labels: EPA cycle, GM Volt, PHEV

¶ 8/12/2009 10:15:00 PM 0 comments