creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
24 May 2012
Bain And Our Screwed-Up Culture

We recently saluted Leslie Sabo for giving his life to save fellow soldiers in Vietnam 40 years ago. Injured … Read More.

22 May 2012
The United States of Gambling

A surprising fact: Gamblers spent more last year at commercial casinos in Indiana than they did at non-Indian … Read More.

17 May 2012
Grief Is Not a Mental Illness

We moderns seem determined to suppress all unhappiness with one exception: grief. The intense sadness … Read More.

Electrify the Roads

Share Comment

My magic wand is on the fritz, otherwise we'd have a big, new federal program to free America from its dependence on oil. Like other environmentalists, I'm sad that the calamity in the Gulf of Mexico hasn't spurred Washington to more vigorously promote America's exit from this curse.

The fault may lie with President Obama's timidity, a public scared by major new government programs or fossil-fuel interests flashing their campaign dough. Probably it's all three, but the bottom line is this: An all-out effort to unchain America from hydrocarbons is essential to national security, a healthy environment and economic prosperity in the 21st century. But it's not politically possible.

And so we must look at what's passable. Fortunately, there's one piece to the escape strategy that business leaders, military brass and the buying public all like — and would create jobs. Most importantly, it has bipartisan support in Congress.

We speak of electric cars, specifically the "Electric Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010." Sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., the bill's goal is to electrify half of America's cars and trucks within 20 years. That, its backers say, would cut America's dependence on petroleum by a third. Similar legislation is before the House.

The Senate bill would name at least five communities to be models for electric-vehicle transportation. They would build stations where motorists could recharge their cars' batteries. Residents would be offered a $10,000 tax credit to buy electric cars. And the federal government would put $1.5 billion into research for improving electric-car technology.

Electric cars don't appear to be a very hard sell to those who would buy them. The first all-electric model, the Nissan Leaf, will hit the U.S.

market at the end of the year. (The batteries will be made in Smyrna, Tenn.) But you won't be able to just pick one up, because the year's production is already sold out. More than two-thirds of the 19,000 preorders are from the United States.

The Chevy Volt will reach showrooms around that time. Its battery range of 40 miles is considerably smaller than the Nissan Leaf's 100 miles, but the Volt has a small gasoline engine to keep the car going if a recharging station is not handy.

In any case, more than 75 percent of Americans commute 40 miles or less a day. That means most of them could plug in their Volts at the end of the day and drive off fully charged in the morning.

Being both an environmentalist and a fan of high automotive performance can be awkward. But car makers are learning to put zoom into their fuel-efficient models. The Ford Fusion Hybrid, for example, gets 41 miles-a-gallon in the city, but can pull away from a stoplight at a respectable pace. "Sustainable mobility solutions" need not be as boring as they sound.

What about the source of the electric power? Although an all-electric vehicle puts out zero emissions, that is probably not true of the plant that provides the electricity. While California has moved its mix of electricity sources toward clean, renewable energy, other parts of America are still highly dependent on dirty, coal-powered plants.

However, electric cars cut global warming pollution even where coal supplies the power, according to a study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash. That's because cars plugged in overnight employ unused capacity in the current electric system.

So let the brawl over cap-and-trade proceed. Outside of the oil business, most everyone seems enthusiastic about accelerating a move toward electric cars. Nothing should stop Congress from revving up the process. Right?

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Comments

6 Comments | Post Comment
Crude oil can be processed into petroleum; "petrochemicals" are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum or other hydrocarbon origin. They are used in products such as detergents, fertilizers, medicines, paints, plastics, synthetic fibres, and synthetic rubber. Put a windmill and a solar panel on your car. People like you, who jump on every "politcally correct" nut-job idea are so narrow-minded it's a wonder we don't still live in caves.
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:59 AM
I now have 1800 miles on my ZENN ("Zero Emissions, No Noise") car -- the only fully enclosed 4-wheel all-electric car I could find last year. It goes 35 mph, 30 miles a day or more, and costs 1 cent a mile of clean electricity to drive! I'm always the first away from a traffic light, and go uphill without problem (AC Motor, run from 6 lead-acid batteries!). Two seats, plenty of storage room, hatch back. I have never once run out of power. Disadvantage: for in-city driving only, need a second car for trips. Not as plush as "normal" cars, no power steering. " mcelectricvehicles.com " has others now.
We should use petrochemicals (oil) as a raw material only in the future, (any plastic to asphalt to roofing). Right now we are borrowing money from China, buy oil from questionable countries, then burn it. How much sense does that make?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Thomas Heumann
Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:12 AM
I once knew a couple that went to garage sales because they knew they'd save money. Unfortunately, last year they went bankrupt because they had spent all their money, saving money at garage sales. This is a bad analogy but somewhat similar to your borrowed comment about "cars plugged in overnight employ unused capacity in the current electric system". Unused capacity is not the same as FREE electricity or even cleaner electricity. The electricity still has to be produced to charge that car in the middle of the night.
I think you rightly point out that the source of electricity is not clean, even though we all appreicate the clean nature of the electric car itself. However, adding thousands of electric cars to the grid, will increase the load on the grid (even in the middle of the night) and will increase pollution. The typical power plant has a thermal efficiency of only about 36% efficient, then the power lines from the plant loose more power, and the charger and batteries of the car will loose power.
It seems we need to go in another direction that uses whatever "basic" fuel in the most efficient manner, or maybe we should plan our cities better so that we can walk and ride bicycles for the majority of our travel. Just a thought.
Comment: #3
Posted by: David McFadden
Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:40 AM
I'm sorry, did you use California's electric grid as an example of how to do it right? Why not use Texas (#1 producer of clean wind energy total) or Iowa (#1 producer of wind energy per capita) as examples, instead of a state known for its rolling blackouts? And as for why all states don't move to cleaner energy, not all states have the option. Not every state has consistent winds or plentiful hours of sunlight. Damns for hydro-electricity destroy entire river ecosystems. Modern laws make it nearly impossible to open a new nuclear power plant. It's all pie in the sky until someone has to come up with the ideas to make it work. If we were to move en-masse to electric cars today, that would mean only one thing, more coal power plants, there's simply no viable alternative at this point for the nation.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Nathan H.
Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:51 PM
First, there are plenty of places in the U.S. in which coal is not king. In Idaho, Washington and Oregon, more than 75 percent of the electricity is generated by renewable energy (hydro in particular) http://solarchargeddriving.com/news/evsphevs/373-top-ten-clean-energy-states-to-plug-in-an-electric-car.html -- and the percentage of the grid powered by renewable energy is going to rise. Second, unlike ICEs, electric cars can (and are being) powered by renewable energy forms. Third, maintenance costs are far less for an electric car than for an ICE as an electric car has far fewer complex moving parts. Fourth, guess you haven't heard of Peak OIl, which many experts say we're at right now, and virtually all experts agree will be reached within the next decade. It's downhill from there in terms of oil -- and uphill in terms of prices, with potentially severe economic repercussions for the U.S. and for the entire world. And the longer we wait to begin shifting our transportation fleet (which consumes 72 percent of the oil burned in the U.S.) to other forms of fuel the more catastrophic Peak Oil, and End of Oil (coming by the end of this century) will be. Finally, the faster we devour our oil for auto transportation, the less we have in the long run for agriculture, plastics, jet travel, and the many other things we depend on oil for.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Christof
Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:24 PM
Ms Harrop - read your editorial regarding the benefits of the "Electric Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010" with interest - but wondered if you checked the math?
I have a hard time seeing how a total of 50% electric cars by 2030 can happen.

Today 250 mil cars/trucks = 305 mil in 2030 @ 2% increase per year.
At 50% - I think that means that you have to sell over 5.5 mil electrics EVERY year ?
We won't even get to 1 mil for a number of years.

A subsidy of $10,000 per vehicle means a cost of $55 billion/year for 20 years?
Probably less due to income restrictions, but still an incredible amount of $$/year

Does this make sense - or is my math all wrong?
Does the legislation include a real world calculation of how it will be accomplished?

love to see a follow up editorial explaining.

Thanks
Comment: #6
Posted by: Ed Duffy
Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:18 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Froma Harrop
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

29 Nov 2007 Once Granite New Hampshire GOP Crumbles

24 Mar 2009 Economy and Health Care Are Married

6 Dec 2011 Paper Is More Forever