63 Comments

1. Silicon valley Jim:

I certainly agree as to Toyota’s excellence compared to General Motors, or just about any other auto manufacturer not named Honda. I don’t know exactly what Friedman means by “having Toyota take over General Motors”. Having the federal government direct it? Seems like a bad idea to me. The FTC finding no anti-trust problem with it? Sounds okay to me.

Similarly, I disagree with him as to the merits of governmental gas mileage standards. There aren’t, for example, governmental standards for motor vehicle reliability (I owned a 1972 Vega, so I experienced that first-hand). We let the marketplace handle that. It can handle fuel efficiency, as well.

(I’ll bet there are some readers who will be astonished at the fact that I’m sounding like a libertarian for once.)

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:09 am 2. HenryB:

Its true that having Toyota take over GM would likely be good for the U.S. in many ways. However, I cannot imagine that it would be at all good for Toyota. Why would Toyota want to accept the huge liabilities that would come with such a takeover? It seems to me that it would be much better for Toyota to simply expand its current U.S. operations, assuming that it wanted a greater U.S. presence. So, to me it seems a pipe dream. Am I missing something?

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:16 am 3. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Much of Toyota’s success is due to its approach to manufacturing…I doubt if that approach is consistent with the UAW GM contract as it currently exists. Toyota would most likely be interested in acquiring GM only if the UAW were willing to radically renegotiate the contract, and that seems unlikely unless and until things get substantially worse than they are at present.

I’m really not sure why Toyota would want to do it anyway. What would they be acquiring? Factories? They’re already probably the best manufacturing company in the world, and they know how to build plants. Brands? There are some GM models that woul be worthwhile, like the Corvette…but the volumes are a small portion of the total. Technology? Only if GM really does turn out to have something unique in fuel cells. Distribution? Possibly…the typical GM dealer may well be better than the typical Toyota dealer, but there are probably easier ways to deal with this than buying GM.

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:26 am 4. Richard Nieporent:

500 miles to the gallon? That is liberal math. Using the same logic, an all electric car would get an infinite amount of miles to the gallon.

Actually for all of those liberals who are so concerned about our reliance on Middle East oil, what do they think would happen to the people in the Middle East if we were able to magically stop using oil over night. Do they think that would add to the stability of the region when their only source of income disappeared?

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:27 am 5. PJ:

Re branding, I would stay away from “news” because it implies facts and information filtered through a constraining system that blogs are specifically reacting against. I’d stay away from “political” too because that’s too narrow–your portal will include lots of other things, too.

Other suggestions: gateway, zeitgeist, review.

Arts and Letters Daily is a good model, I think. A reader knows right away that it’s a collection of independent essays, etc., and not a newspaper online. The essays represent what interests the editors that day. Same for you.

http://artsandlettersdaily.com/

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:41 am 6. Barry Dauphin:

Will we really reduce our need/use/appetite for oil via hybrid cars?

“There seems to be a misconception here about how oil refining works. The assumption seems to be that you can convert a given barrel of crude into whatever end product you want, so if you reduce the demand for some particular end product enough then you reduce the usage of crude.

It’s not that simple. A refinery is doing large scale fractional distillation, and what comes out is the various components which are present in the crude. There’s some degree to which those products can be reprocessed in order to change them (i.e. cracking heavier components to produce lighter ones) but it’s more limited than you might think.

As long as the demand for diesel fuel and aviation fuel and home heating oil remain strong, then the primary result of drastically reducing demand for gasoline would be for the price of gasoline to plummet. The refinery will still produce it whether there’s a market for it or not.

In the extreme case, if there’s no market for it, then it would be burned at the refinery.

In order to substantially reduce our consumption of petroleum, we would have to substantially reduce our consumption of all the things which are derived from petroleum. Reducing the consumption of just one of them is pointless.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 24, 2005 12:53 PM” http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/022039.html

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:51 am 7. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

Though I almost never disagree with you, I will make an exception here.

Schizo-political is not a good choice for what you’re trying to get at.

For one thing, the term obviously could invoke an association with “schizophrenic.” I know you don’t intend it that way, and certainly don’t intend any disrespect to sufferers, but such a connotation would be unfortunate.

Furthermore, “schizo” implies a split or sundering when what you’re really getting at is a coming together or joining.

In my view straightforward, non-trendy words like thoughtful, rational or, expresssed negatively, nonideological, would be just fine.

Jamie Irons

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:58 am 8. Roger:

Well, yeah, I probably let my facetiousness gene get the better of me there, Jamie. By the end of the conversation yesterday we were defining the idea as politically “blended” – as in coffee.

Jun 17, 2005 - 9:08 am 9. David Thomson:

ìMuch of Toyota’s success is due to its approach to manufacturing…I doubt if that approach is consistent with the UAW GM contract as it currently exists.î

Bingo! Entrepneural wisdom is worthless if powerful unions refuse to cooperate, and they are unlikely to do so in this instance. Toyota or even God would be unable to get rid of the contracts that are bankrupting GM. There is no way to efficiently restructure this major cooperation other than bankruptcy.

I am going to pretend that Iím a second rate Peter Drucker imitator and assert unhesitatingly that no company can survive in the long run when its top management is not able to focus on satisfying customers. GMís leaders are forced to spend too much time on resolving their employee benefits difficulties. How bad is the situation? At this very moment if the stock owners had to choose between a CEO with a superb business strategy and one able to solve the benefits issues—the latter one would probably be picked. That is no way to run a viable business.

Jun 17, 2005 - 9:14 am 10. Rick Ballard:

Roger,

Why are you screwing around with marketing without defining the product? You seem to be describing the personal outlooks of the founders rather than an editorial POV based upon a raison d’etre.

Taking “the best of both sides” is sometimes referred to as utilitarianism and sometimes as cherrypicking. It’s definitely a method shallow enough to achieve material success. Another word that fits an unfounded perspective is syncretism – anything that appears on the surface to be of the same nature can be added.

If Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill are the lights by which the company will be steered then simply say so. Utilitarianism is always well accepted by the undifferentiated muddle who comprise the majority.

I agree with Jamie concerning schizo – there is far too much sadness associated with the true meaning.

David Thomson is absolutely correct about GM. Toyota won’t touch it and neither will anyone else until the union contracts are repudiated in bankruptcy. The UAW’s Golden Geese are dead and the boards of both companies (Ford is in the same shape) betrayed the stockholders by standing and watching as the unions applied the deadly choke hold.

Jun 17, 2005 - 9:35 am 11. DeliLama:

Militant Moderate

Jun 17, 2005 - 9:35 am 12. Joe Bonforte:

How about “transpolitical”? Has the connotation of cutting across political boundaries.

Jun 17, 2005 - 9:43 am 13. Nitram:

Forgive me but how exactly is electricity generated? Nuclear, which we are afraid of, hydroelectric which destroys some endangered species ecosystem, coal fired plants, which pollute the atmosphere, oil fired plants, which we are trying to reduce our reliance on, and how exactly does a car that plugs into electricity solve any of the above mentioned help us? A hybrid car like Toyota that uses batteries and gas doesn’t get better gas mileage than our Suzuki Swift does. How much energy is used to produce the batteries, how do we dispose of them afterwards? As for ethanol from corn how exactly is it made into an alternate fuel, does it have to be processed, and where does the energy come from to accomplish this? I am positive that we no longer burn whale oil in lamps to light our houses. Furthermore we don’t all ride in carriages pulled by hayburners, or ride them either to get from one point to another. Automobiles, trucks, motorcycles and airplanes all provide us with, in the final analysis freedom. And I have faith that science will eventually provide us with an alternative answer to this problem also.

Jun 17, 2005 - 9:45 am 14. jerry:

Friedman is parroting the usual liberal line on the auto industry. Toyota is successful not just because it makes a great product but because they are great marketers. Mitsubishi makes an outstanding product that is as good as the more popular Japanese brands but does have the marketing cache that Toyota, Honda or even Nissan. Friedman’s babbling on hybrid technology is a case in point.

He says “Because Toyota has pioneered the very hybrid engine technology that can help rescue not only our economy from its oil addiction.”

Hybrid technology used by Toyota in the Prius and Honda in the CIVIC is inferior to the diesel engine used by the VW Jetta. In actual operations the Jetta gets significantly better mileage without the necessity to manage power like you are on a U-boat. To be otherwise would violate the laws of thermodynamics. The internal combustion engine is the most efficient way to transform fuel into usable energy. When you use the engine to charge a battery a good deal of that energy is dissipated into heat and not electrical potential. That is why the Prius with less horsepower gets worse gas mileage then Jetta TDI. In addition, a diesel automobile will last 20+ years and go hundreds of thousands of miles. I doubt the Prius has that longevity.

The superior fuel economy of a diesel engine versus the hybrid is end-to-end. The refining process to produce gasoline is more energy intensive then for diesel. Diesel is distillate fuel that is produced primarily in the atmospheric distillation phase. Gasoline must go through a cracking phase which is fairly energy intensive. So on net, the Jetta TDI is even more energy efficient then the Prius.

The only area where the Prius shows superiority is in particulate and NO emissions. However, when you consider the more efficient production process for diesel I would expect that the difference is small. Furthermore, all batteries have limited lives and contain hazardous materials that must be properly recycled. What are we going to do with all those dead batteries?

Toyota and Honda have figured out that liberal elitist like Friedman are gullible enough to buy into a false image that flatters their egos.

If you want to buy a vehicle that maximizes end-to-end fuel economy with the least long term environmental problems the diesel powered vehicle is the way to go not the hybrid.

Jun 17, 2005 - 9:59 am 15. Bob:

“One of the most popular themes was the ability to be free of ideological straight jackets and therefore able to see things clearly and take the best of both sides. We’re looking for a word for that.”

How about — Cynical Pragmatism? (And by the way, there are more than two sides.)

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:11 am 16. Occam's Beard:

Thanks, jerry, for broaching the “T-word” – thermodynamics.

How exactly are hybrids going to cut fossil fuel consumption? Sure, they run on batteries, but the batteries are charged by electricity generated from … burning fossil fuels. And as jerry points out, introducing an extra step just introduces further losses.

The only way to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption is to shift to another energy source, of which nuclear power is the only viable alternative (solar, wind, etc. are all much too dilute a source of energy). Either we suck it up and build more nuclear plants or we cut back dramatically on energy consumption, but let’s not conflate reducing energy consumption with reducing pollution (which hybrids can do, because it is more economic to put pollution controls on one power plant than millions of cars).

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:14 am 17. Jamie Irons:

For energy and thermodynamics mavens let me recommend Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills’ The Bottomless Well.

I wish Roger would open a thread on this book and this endlessly fascinating topic…

Jamie Irons

Charter Member of TSADJWG*

*The Sons and Daughters of Josiah Willard Gibbs

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:18 am 18. jerry:

Occam:

It’s not clear that hybrids or electics are less polluting end-to-end unless nuclear power is involved. It may reduce air pollution but what about the lead, cadium and/or lithium waste products? What is the energy requirement to operate the total battery cycle from production through use to disposal/recycling? I don’t know but before we can even claim that hybrid/electric vehicles will reduce even pollution we need to understand the cycle.

My guess is that we will only be trading one form of pollution for another.

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:30 am 19. Buddy Larsen:

How about a blended word, a schizo-neologism such as “exoderate” (extreme moderate), practicing exoderation, in support of exoderism. “Moderate” and “extreme” are dishonest words, anyway, they’re pejorative or laudatory half the time in the wrong places. An exoderist is against anything that deligitimizes his fellow humans, even if they’re Marxists or from California. It’s the person described by the great old chestnut “I disagree with everything you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it”.

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:34 am 20. Buddy Larsen:

Of course, the Exoderist will hate the damn Motremists (moderate extremists).

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:39 am 21. Patrick Tyson:

Putting a positive modern spin, naturally, on the enterprise…

The Insight Multiplex

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:52 am 22. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

Surely a compromise can be found between the Exmoderates and the Motremists. Both sides make very good points and a pragmatic utilitarian should be able to synthesize a position acceptable to all. The main thing is that immoderate language is to be avoided at all costs and nondescriptive euphemisms be found that obscure any sharp lines that might tend to divide.

I can hardly wait.

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:00 am 23. Occam's Beard:

Jerry, you’re absolutely right. I was just taking the most favorable view possible of hybrids, to make a point, particularly since the post slagged off alternative energy sources in favor of nuclear power (which I’m not crazy about, especially in an age of terrorism, but the alternatives are clearly non-starters).

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:02 am 24. Charlie (Colorado):

But if recent years have taught us anything, it is that we should be beyond partisan politics and the blindness it engenders. (How better to explain the complete moral idiocy of someone like Senator Durbin?).

Word.

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:09 am 25. jerry:

Occam:

Another thought: GM bashing is just another form of the American left’s self-loathing. By any measure GM makes quality products and if they made the Prius Tom Friedman would be pointing out how inferior the technology is. He would be touting the diesel instead of the hybrid.

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:13 am 26. Rick Ballard:

Patrick,

I think you are onto something with The Insight Multiplex.

All that’s needed is a catchy tag line. Perhaps ‘Covering the Spectrum from Taupe to Beige’?

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:20 am 27. PJ:

One last point. I don’t know how you plan to configure your service to market to print media. If it’s putatively truthful factual news, why would print choose you instead of AP, for instance, especially given the politics of these blogs? The NYT will never have the guts to print anything from lgf, for instance.

Blogaddicts prefer somewhat unique and truthful posts, open to comments, to the “truth” generated by the four levels of editors of the Times. Blogs are wiki news, and I would not want to see that change. We don’t want top down news.

We all visit pretty much a core set of blogs every day. I would want, even subscribe to, a portal that provides me those favorites and a whole bunch of other potential favorites, in an ongoing connective stream between independent, transparent writer and reader.

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:29 am 28. Jamie Irons:

PJ

I completely agree with your formulation above.

Jamie Irons

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:35 am 29. Charlie (Colorado):

Guys, wait a minute — the thermodynamic advantages of hybrids are well understood and have been in use for years, in the diesel-electric locomotive.

First, internal combustion engines have a “sweet spot”, a particluar RPM and load at which they get the best energy output for unit fuel expended. A hybrid can be designed around keeping the engine running at that optimal level; a conventional car has to be able to produce high torque and deal with laods over a very large RPM range, which is inherently less efficient.

Second, electric motors are extremely efficient at converting electricity into torque; the net of these two things is that a true hybrid is more efficient.

Third, you can do dynamic braking with a hybrid: instead of using conventional brakes and turning all the kinetic energy in the car into heat, you “unwind” the motor drive and generate electricity, which goes back to the battery. Since cars, on average, net out to zero kinetic energy on every trip (you’ve gotta stop sometime) that difference comes out to be potentially half the total energy alone. (Not really half in practice, of course, since there’s air drag and losses, but still a substantial difference.)

Now, the current generation of hybrids like the Prius doesn’t make great use of these (except being reasonably smart about how it uses the engine) so it doesn’t realize all the gains, but the thermodynamics certainly can be in the hybrid’s favor.

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:47 am 30. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Not all fossil fuels are equal. Whereas IC engines run on oil, most of which is imported, electricity can be produced in plants fired by domestic coal. And if you don’t like coal for environmental or CO2 reasons, processes are under development which converts it to gas (with carbon sequestration as an option) before burning it. GE appears to be pushing this technology.

Jun 17, 2005 - 11:49 am 31. Occam's Beard:

Jerry, Charlie, photon…good and interesting points all.

I’m not sure I buy the argument about the thermodynamic efficiency of hybrids. Of course, thermodynamics, like accounting, depends critically on reference state. Starting from a fully charged hybrid, and comparing it with an equivalently fueled internal combustion car, it’s easy to believe that the hybrid is more efficient.

But consider starting from two unfueled cars, and two tankfuls of gasoline (say, to make the comparison simple). One tankful is used to fuel the internal combustion car, while the other is used to generate electricity to charge the hybrid. Starting from that reference point, the overall the hybrid clearly is less efficient, because of the losses attendant upon the generation of the electricity.

To your last point, Charlie, dynamic braking arguably isn’t a feature of the hybrid engine, but of the car. In principle, internal combustion cars could also use it to, e.g., charge a battery that later returned power to the grid. (Silly, I know, but possible.)

Photon, your interesting point bears on geopolitical considerations.

Last, to your point, Jerry, about leftist self-loathing, I think for once they’re showing good sense.

Jun 17, 2005 - 12:15 pm 32. jerry:

Charlie:

Three points: Despite all the buy backs it will always take less energy to produce 100hp of power from and internal combustion engine then to produce it with a hybrid. If you could accomplish equal efficiency with a hybrid then you would have made a perpetual motion machine.

Second, as illustration here are the stats for the Prius and the Jetta.

Prius: 1.5 liter 78hp Engine combined with a 67hp electic motor. Curb weight 2921lbs

Jetta: 1.9 liter 100 hp diesel engine with turbocharger.

Curb weight 2895lbs

Operational gas mileage with the Jetta exceeds 50mpg on the highway and 40 in the city. These are higher then EPA figures.

Operational gas mileage for the Prius has been reported in 40’s at highway speeds. Of course this performance varies with temperature and length of drive. Actual gas mileage for say Chicago in January would be far less because of the reduced battery endurance in cold weather.

The reason that the EPA numbers don’t stack up to actual performance has to do with the way the tests are run. The EPA doesn’t drive the cars. They measure the volume of emissions and then compute the implied gas mileage. Normally this overestimates regular cars but underestimates diesels. Diesels put out more particulates which get translated into higher fuel consumption. With hybrid the test results vastly overstate the gas mileage because of the small size of the engine and the method of transferring the energy to transmission is different then for normal automobiles. The EPA mileage is 60 city and 51 highway. Nobody gets close to that unless they are very good at power management.

Third, the comparison between how a diesel-electric locomotive operates [and for that matter most US diesel submarines dating from the 1930ís on] and an automobile are quite different. The locomotive does not use the engine to charge a battery. It uses it to run a generator. When submarine charges its battery it reduces the power available tot generate motive power, i.e, it is a net power loss. The last class of diesel submarines, SS-580 or Barbel class, always ran power through the battery and used the diesel as a battery charger. When the engine had surplus power it went to charge the battery. It was called running on battery ìfloat.î

The Prius operates on mixed power. At speeds less than 12mph the electric motor is used. At higher speeds the gasoline engine is used unless a power boost is needed. The gasoline engine shuts off when the car is stopped or coasting. During the slowdown the battery is recharged.

Jun 17, 2005 - 12:30 pm 33. Rick Ballard:

PJ,

How do you see the comments section functioning? Do you believe that there would be a Pajamas Media if Charles had not picked up on Buckhead’s catch?

Odd how little is heard about Free Republic, Captain’s Quarters and even Powerline.

Jun 17, 2005 - 12:34 pm 34. lindenen:

According to this article I read while ago, GM will be releasing hybrids as well.

“GM will launch the two-mode full hybrid in 2007 in the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon.”

The article is mainly about GM hybrid buses delivered for use in Yosemite National Park.

Jun 17, 2005 - 12:35 pm 35. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Speaking of GM and hybrids: several months ago, GM sold the Electromotive Division, which makes diesel-electric locomotives. I would bet the people at EMD knew more about the practical aspects of electricity for transportation than anyone else in the company. This kind of knowledge is, of course, important both for hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

I wonder if any kind of knowledge transplant was attempted prior to the sale, or if any contractual provisions were put in place for ongoing consulting help?

Jun 17, 2005 - 12:41 pm 36. Curmudgeon:

I’ll have to read the whole article to be sure, but based on the excerpts quoted, the knee-jerk reaction would be correct. Friedman’s knowledge of physics is even worse than his grasp of middle east politics, if that is possible. His tone of voice is typical of someone who has never manufactured anything but hot air.

Jun 17, 2005 - 12:42 pm 37. Kyda Sylvester:

Jerry, Occams Beard, Charlie, Photon, et al:

What, if any, informed opinions do you have about natural gas?

Jun 17, 2005 - 12:58 pm 38. PJ:

Rick, are you talking about the Rather memo? I didn’t start following it until I guess I read about it on lgf. So, yeah, comments are interactive and would work just as they do now on the various blogs.

Arianna’s is a mockery precisely because it pretends to be a blog but is just another brick in the wall between the scared elite and the rubes (that would be us).

I’m not quite sure I follow the rest of your post. Explain?

Jun 17, 2005 - 1:03 pm 39. jerry:

Kyda:

Natural Gas is a cleaning burning, low emissions fuel. In addition engine wear is far less with propane. However, it has about half (if recall correctly) the energy content of a equivalent amount of gasoline. The Chicago Transit Authority used to have a fleet of Propane powered buses during the 1950’s and 60’s. They were phased out because diesel buses were cheaper to operate. If emissions are your Measure of Effectiveness then natural gas or propane powered vehicles are very good choice. If equivalent mpg is your MOE then they are a loser.

Jun 17, 2005 - 1:07 pm 40. IceCold:

Jerry, Barry, et al, thanks for the literate discussion of the physics and mechanics of the issue. I think it’s fair to say that the very comparative energy efficiency of the hybrid approach has been put in doubt. But, as you probably all realize, there’s no need even to get to that discussion to dispose of Friedman’s economic and geopolitical fallacy.

The US is dependent not on “foreign” oil, but on OIL. Oil is by far the most efficient fuel for a range of uses, including transportation, and it is literally built into the global economy of which we are the center-piece and engine. It is the most efficiently priced global commodity in history and its price and availability have a direct material impact on the US economy both directly (and unavoidably) through the impact on our trading partners.

It is nothing less than infantile for Friedman to keep suggesting (as he has for a long time) that reducing one component of US oil consumption will have any impact on the geopolitical challenges we face. It is a preposterous argument, ignorant of the basic facts and illiterate about basic economics. Even if one makes the completely unrealistic assumption (for sake of argument) that such stunts as hybrid cars will measurably decrease the rate of increase in US oil consumption, it is still clear there will be no geopolitical benefit. Both directly and indirectly via trading partners (i.e., the globalized economy which is a large factor in American growth and wealth-creation), the US will remain “dependent” on oil. Oil prices everywhere will still affect oil prices everywhere else, trade will still constitute a huge strategic interest, and most likely any softening in US oil consumption will be easily cancelled out by Chinese or Indian growth.

To materially change our “dependence” on oil, foreign and domestic (there is no difference) would require an American economy that did not use petroleum and did not rely on trade with other, similarly petroleum-dependent countries for the advantages an efficient, globalized economy confers.

Perhaps one can forgive a generalist columnist for ignorance of physics. But Friedman’s absurd contentions demonstrate an illiteracy in economics and a deficit in common sense that are shocking — or at least would have been shocking if we expected anything better from our pathetically mediocre “elite” commentariat.

Jun 17, 2005 - 1:20 pm 41. Rick Ballard:

PJ,

I don’t pay much attention to blogs which don’t allow comments. I don’t pay much attention to single line comments either, unless it’s a risposte. I consider “The Memo” as being a watershed event that foreshadowed what I hope Pajama Media becomes. That’s why I’m a bit impatient to see a prototype “PJ Portal” or at least a list of all the blogs signed up to date.

That’s what the last bit was about. How wide is the membership in PJ Media? I don’t care to see Ko$ in the mix (Crooked Timber could provide erudite idiocy from the left) and I’m not sure Free Republic fits – just curious about the makeup.

Jun 17, 2005 - 1:42 pm 42. Occam's Beard:

Jerry, when you say the energy content of propane is lower, do you mean on a mole basis? (That would be about right for the ratio of the molecular weights of propane and iso-octane.)

Probably the best comparison would be on a weight or volume basis, in which case propane and, say, iso-octane should be about the same. (Comparable densities as liquids, comparable amounts of CO2 and H2O generated).

Kyda’s natural gas vehicle site says propane is safer in an accident because gasoline pools, and is a fire threat (while propane will evaporate).

Unfortunately, they neglect to mention that propane is an explosion hazard. Like all fuels, it forms an explosive mixture with air (although the explosive upper and lower limits are fairly narrow), which of course is why it can be used in an internal combustion engine.

It’s a bit worrisome because propane is slightly heavier than air, so it will tend to creep along the ground, getting diluted by air, so that at some point it will reach its explosive limit. An ignition source at that point would turn the mixture into a fuel-air bomb (the military uses ethylene oxide because it has a huge range of explosive limits – practically all mixtures with air explode – but the principle is the same).

Gasoline isn’t such a problem, because as a liquid at room temperature it’s almost always well above its explosive limits (which is why it’s possible to flood a gasoline engine).

Jun 17, 2005 - 1:53 pm 43. Buddy Larsen:

Wrt prices, the ‘marginal effect’ is perfectly-demonstrated in the spot crude market (”oil price”); ergo, the problem with the political hammer “dependence on foreign oil” is in truth the price problem that is in turn a function of the fact that world daily production almost exactly matches world daily consumption, and any tiny movement either side resets the margin where the price performs on just a sliver of the demand (ice-cold’s “perfected pricing”). But what I’m trying to get at, tho my fingers resist typing it, is that in a free market price rations consumption, and unless we want to get into the bad politics of severe scarcity way before we’re ready, we do need to resist electing pols on the promise that they’ll lower gasoline prices. Yes, this is bad news for the price-conscious (nearly everyone, but some will be hurt worse). It would be different if the world was replacing its reserves, which until recently, it was.

Jun 17, 2005 - 1:56 pm 44. Charlie (Colorado):

But consider starting from two unfueled cars, and two tankfuls of gasoline (say, to make the comparison simple). One tankful is used to fuel the internal combustion car, while the other is used to generate electricity to charge the hybrid. Starting from that reference point, the overall the hybrid clearly is less efficient, because of the losses attendant upon the generation of the electricity.

No, that doesn’t follow necessarily. It depends on two factors: first, the difference in efficiency between an IC engine running at optimal efficiency generating electricity vs. the average efficiency of a conventional IC engine (variations like total mass of the car and the driving workload have to be normalized out, but these variables can be reduced to a constant factor); and second, the degree of efficiency gained from the dynamic braking.

My understanding, and the experience with diersel-electric, suggests that in fact the first factor is at least somewhat in the hybrid’s favor.

As to the second, we can perform a little thought experiment. Consider your comparison cars on a really simple workload: both cars accelerate smoothly to 100 m/s, then back down to zero, both at the same acceleration and other variables set equal. Assume further for this thought experiment that both cars have exactly the amount of gas needed to accelerate up to 100 m/s. At the end of the experiment, both cars have empty tanks. The dynamically-braked hybrid will have potential energy left in the battery, where the conventional car is stopped and has no reserve of potential energy. This holds for any efficiency of dynamic braking greater than 0.

I’ve got to run out, but the Hypercar website has more on these things, including some technical stuff.

Jun 17, 2005 - 2:01 pm 45. PJ:

Gotcha, Rick, and I agree on comments.

I think the reason Roger asks for comments on PJM issues is that they’re just developing the prototype at this stage; the agreement or option gives them the necessary information of who might participate. So, I’m sure a prototype will come out in due time.

Jun 17, 2005 - 2:10 pm 46. Doug S.:

I like joe bonforte’s ‘transpolitical’ idea better than ’schizo-political’ or ‘metro-political.’ The former sounds too much like a mental illness, and the latter too much like a tic of fashion. Roger, I think you’re looking for a label that will reflect open-mindedness, intellectual honesty and a willingness to engage in informed and civilized discussion; those are qualities that have timeless value and are most certainly not pathological.

Jun 17, 2005 - 3:14 pm 47. Rick Ballard:

Doug S.,

How does transpolitical differ from apolitical? Does the ‘trans’ refer to transcendence?

Jun 17, 2005 - 3:32 pm 48. Doug S.:

I’m not sure how or if it does, Rick. I was simply addressing joe bonforte’s upthread comment, in which it sounds like he’s using ‘trans-’ in the sense of cutting across categories or boundaries. I’m applying this to Roger’s exercise in brand creation, trying to look at it from the point of view of virtues that, it seems, he wants to capture and express.

Jun 17, 2005 - 3:58 pm 49. truepeers:

I strongly disagree with the pomo admonition that everything is political. But what is not political are the fundamental truths that are pre-political. As Northrop Frye once put it, (always politicized) rhetoric is the delta that all language reaches, while the headwaters are forms of poetical or religious (pre-political) thinking.

Attending to the anthropological question of why language first emerges in the ostensive and not the declarative form is the kind of thing that has wide-reaching implications we can explore in any number of discussions.

Anyway, my point is that if the goal is to speak about fundamental questions, e.g. peace, freedom, equality, then one can indeed aspire to be apolitical or prepolitical. But transpolitical only sounds to me like you think there is some place in the ocean that sums up all the rhetorical deltas with some superior meta language. But, imho, none such exists.

Jun 17, 2005 - 4:05 pm 50. Rick Ballard:

Doug,

Thanks. I’m afraid I missed Mr. Bonforte’s comment upthread. I assumed you were speaking of something read elsewhere.

Truepeers,

Excellent points. I believe that a statement of principles focusing upon fundamentals and made in apolitical language would constitute the most effective ‘branding’ imaginable for the enterprise. Will Pj Media be steering by North Star – or windsock?

Jun 17, 2005 - 4:28 pm 51. truepeers:

Rick, I agree. The trick, of course, is going beyond the statement of principles and performing them in the inevitably politicized and demanding workshop. Many noble souls and ideas don’t get beyond step A!

Jun 17, 2005 - 4:42 pm 52. Buddy Larsen:

The ‘river of currents’ is a great image. Motion, direction, carrying, draining, tributaries, swamps, rapids, coasts, changing the sea, making little raindrops into the great unstoppable ocean. How to put it into a snappy phrase?

Jun 17, 2005 - 5:12 pm 53. Buddy Larsen:

Great Metaphors of Life:

1) rivers-can’t cross one twice (diff H2O).

2) poker-know when to fold or play bad hand.

3) baseball-lose 8 1/2 innings but win.

Jun 17, 2005 - 5:24 pm 54. truepeers:

4)history is played like an accordion

5)glass half empty or half full

6)what can be done now can be done later…

Jun 17, 2005 - 8:52 pm 55. Jim Rockford:

Roger — as usual Friedman doesn’t know the first thing about what he’s talking about. He’s a journalist, so of course he will get EVERYTHING wrong.

1. Toyota’s US plants are free of expensive health care coverage that GM and Ford have. This gives them a tremendous cost advantage.

2. Toyota has less costly manufacturing processes, which allows them to profit on vehicles that customers don’t pay premiums for. In contrast GM and Ford require high demand vehicles for which customers pay premiums in order to profit. GM and Ford were hurt by the drop off in demand for high margin SUVs and Trucks.

3. Toyota is not infallible, their quality in US-made vehicles are falling because the Japanese quality gurus could not and would not train replacements, and Toyota is unable to keep them at US plants for any length of time. US-built Toyotas DO suffer build quality problems, and the process of continuous manufacturing improvement just isn’t there, as Toyota focuses on cost-cutting and not quality.

4. Hybrid cars are a joke. They are expensive to buy, and even costlier to own since they require low-volume specialized parts (read: extremely expensive) and considerable labor for maintenance. This makes them horribly expensive for consumers to own over 3-5 years. You couldn’t pay me enough to own one. They also have significantly poorer handling and safety features, and are not environmentally friendly (batteries take up lots of energy and pollution to manufacture).

5. Daimler-Chrysler is making money, not off of Mercedes but CHRYSLER, due to using their high performance Hemi engine in retro-styled cars offering handling and performance. The 300, Charger, Magnum, etc. are all high-demand, very profitable cars. They are also uniquely American, calling back the muscle cars of the 1960’s. US Car companies CAN be profitable if they make good cars that people want to buy. There is no Japanese magic or American disease.

6. It is a matter of national security and the economy to keep US jobs and technological know-how in this country. This doesn’t mean bailouts per-se but allowing our tech heritage to be sold off for pennies is stupid. Policies designed to provide say a baseline for universal health coverage, and capital investment in factories in the US employing high-wage/skillset workers is a start.

7. GM derives most of it’s revenues from it’s financing arm, leading to a badly run company that does not focus on manufacturing excellence and great cars (though Caddy, the sadly discontinued Buick Regal, and a few other cars are outstanding).

8. Hybrid cars have two separate powertrains, complex computer systems, and lots of electrical wiring just for everyday use. Already they have experienced sudden stallouts at speed (60 mph); they are a rube goldberg solution to a non-existent problem, yes clean diesel as others have said is a better solution.

9. GM in particular has starved the research in new vehicle design, and outside of Caddy produced boring, bland vehicles like the GTO (lacking the style and performance features of the Mustang or Charger). This is a management issue that requires internal commitment, Toyota or Honda buying them won’t change that.

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:13 pm 56. Buddy Larsen:

GM has a little two-seater coming out that is an absolute knockout. Caught a TV glimpse.

Jun 17, 2005 - 10:20 pm 57. CCM:

“One of the most popular themes was the ability to be free of ideological straight jackets and therefore able to see things clearly and take the best of both sides. We’re looking for a word for that.”

Thoughtful

Jun 18, 2005 - 12:59 am 58. felixkramer:

We’re the people behind those “kits” Friedman was talking about to start transforming current hybrids into vehicles that get 500 MPG of gasoline (the rest from electricity and biofuels).

I’ve seen some thoughtful comments and many that are hostile to the entire idea of hybrids. To find out more about what we’re doing, I urge you to read our 3-page Fact Sheet, found in PDF form at http://www.priusplus.org and in text form at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news

For a quick response to one big issue: why an electric car is cleaner than a gasoline car even on the dirty national (50% coal) grid see section 4 of http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

And to keep things lively, we will add a link to this blog at http://www.calcars.org/kudos.html -

by Felix Kramer, founder, California Cars Initiative http://www.calcars.org and the PRIUS+ campaign http://www.priusplus.org

Jun 18, 2005 - 7:18 am 59. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Felix Kramer! Just the person I’ve been hoping to meet. Maybe you can help me out with something…

The statement is frequently made that the manufacturing of hybrid batteries is very energy-intensive, to the point that it negates any energy savings by the car itself. However, I’ve been unable to find any credible data either way.

What I’m looking for is an estimate of the total energy consumed in making a hybrid battery, including the entire value chain (including mining) and how much of this is offset when & if the battery is recycled.

Any insights?

Jun 18, 2005 - 7:51 am 60. Buddy Larsen:

Photon, beware a bad conclusion from that chain, unless you factor in capacity-utilization percentages, and relative scarcity of resources employed.

Jun 18, 2005 - 8:48 am 61. yankeedame:

Jim,

Thank you for your statement #6. My husband has been a Dodge salesman for years, and never once has he interacted with a (potential) customer who has — in any way,shape, or form — sighed for a hybred car, even now that Dodge/DCX will be bring out one; at best he’s had a few folks ask him why Dodge doesn’t have more diesel (option) models.

Far and away, people want big cars and BIG SUVs and REALLY BIG trucks (yes, even women). As big a POV as they can afford, and sometimes even a bit more than they can afford. And believe it or not, the sale of scarcely gas-sipping Vipers have even taken an up-tic.

The Neon is considered by customers (actual or potential) a pretty much simply a “gateway” car, which no one a year or two out of college seems to want. Though many, limited by their pocketbook, have resigned themselves to acquire. (NB: I said “many”, not “all”.)

This is why all this talk about how American want hybrid cars, and trucks that get XYZ gallons to the mile always puzzles me.

The consumers may grumble about the price of gas, but, here in Ohio, they’re buying those “gas-guzzlers” (Oh, how I hate that term!).

Frankly, I think that liberals with their pronouncement that the American people are demanding “safer”, more fuel efficent cars and trucks is simpily another case of, “The wish is father to the thought.”

Mobility bestows freedom. And you are freer in an Ram 2500 than you are in a DCX “SmartCar”. IMHO, this is a chef reason liberals — never famous for their passion for freedom — are so quick condemn “gas guzzlers”.

Jun 20, 2005 - 1:02 pm 62. j.pickens:

The energy cost of the batteries is very difficult to pin down. There is very little available on the internet about this, and the statements on DOE websites, which are the most authoritative on the subject, use cryptic language on the subject. One link I found just about admitted that they waste more energy than they save. I think if the energy balance was positive, you’d see the data posted far and wide. But you can use the economic angle to make some energy determinations, to wit:

The Prius gets approx. 55mpg.

A comparable compact car, like the Toyota Echo, gets approx. 35mpg.

So it would appear that the echo gets 20mpg less gas mileage.

Over the 150,000mile life of the car, the Echo will burn 150,000/35 = 4,300 gallons of gasoline.

Over the 150,000mile life of the car, the Prius will burn 150,000/55 = 2,700 gallons of gasoline.

The difference between the two is 4,300 – 2,700 = 1600 gallons of gasoline “Saved” by the Prius.

Now, the Batteries cost approx. $6000 from Toyota.

For batteries like this, which are basically an electrochemical power plant, roughly 50% of the cost is the energy used to produce it.

So, the batteries took $3000 worth of energy to produce.

This energy comes in the form of electricity, predominantly, which was produced in Japan.

Japan produces over 80% of its electricity using petroleum hydrocarbons, like oil, natural gas, and coal.

At a wholesale electricity cost of 9 cents per kilowatt-hour, $3000 buys you 33,000 kwH of electricity.

The extra electric motor costs a good deal of money, and consumes alot of power to produce, but the internal combustion engine in the Prius is

smaller than the one in the Echo, so I’ll ignore this energy cost for this estimation.

That same $3000 buys you, at a wholesale gasoline price of $1.50 per gallon, 2000 gallons of gasoline

Since we are using current approximate wholesale energy prices here, the equivalence of $ for power is a close approximation of true energy cost.

So, we see that the energy used to produce the Prius, EXCEEDS the gasoline saved by 400 gallons.

(2000 gallons gasoline equivalent to make the batteries minus 1600 gallons “saved” by the Prius)

This is all pseudoenvironmentalism, and wastes energy to boot.

Jun 20, 2005 - 10:27 pm 63. Tim Morris:

For a very different take on Friedman’s column, take a look at:

http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml

Jun 22, 2005 - 8:48 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: