Robert Lutz, the vice chairman of product development at General Motors, says that putting hybrid technology in smaller cars doesn't make sense. And in today's political and economic climate, he's absolutely right. And that's wrong.First of all, let's understand exactly what "hybrid technology" is. When a car moves, its axles rotate. This rotation could be used to create an electric current. Also, when brakes are applied, the energy of the car's motion is allowed to escape as heat, instead of being captured. Hybrid cars capture this energy and store it in batteries. Then, rather than burn gasoline to provide the power to make the car go, some of the force is provided by the stored electrical energy in the batteries.
The good news is that these cars use far less gasoline, about 30% less, than regular cars. The bad news is that all this technology costs several thousand dollars extra. With cost savings in smaller cars of only a few hundred dollars a year in lower fuel costs, the consumer pays more.
Eventually, as crude oil prices continue to climb and the technology gets better and cheaper, GM will decide that hybrid cars are worth making. But that decision is years, possibly many, many years, away. In the meantime, they'll concentrate on putting this technology into a few SUVs and other light trucks, and that's it.
While we wait, billions of dollars are being spent on crude oil. And a lot of this money is going to countries that support terrorists.
If the Bush administration is serious about fighting terrorism, imposing new fuel efficiency standards that force auto makers to put hybrid technology in most, or all, of their cars and trucks is one of the best things they can do. Yes, there will be a cost to the American consumer, as new cars will become more expensive. But there are many advantages.
For one thing, the added cost will be a whale of a lot lower than the billion dollars we're spending every week in Iraq. And the money will be spent here in the United States, rather than being sent overseas, thus lowering our trade deficit. Furthermore, it won't cost one American life. Additionally, it will place America back in the lead. Finally, lower emissions mean cleaner air. Who could possibly be against such a wonderful solution?
Well, big oil companies could be against it. After all, we're talking about permanently reducing the demand for oil. And we're talking about doing it sooner rather than later.
Perhaps that's why President Bush, instead of supporting hybrid technology, has scrapped it in favor of a fuel cell technology that is, at best, years away from the market. Perhaps George W. Bush, along with his big-oil second in command Dick Cheney, are more concerned with making sure their big oil buddies make big profits than with making America stronger and safer.
And that's what's wrong.
Copyright 2004, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu