Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, August 24, 2007
Ed Feulner :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fueling the Push for a Better Car
by Ed Feulner
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Today’s modern technology would doubtless awe the people whose pioneering work made it possible. If Alexander Graham Bell flipped open a cell phone or Philo T. Farnsworth watched a high-def television, they’d be dumbfounded. Technology has taken their relatively crude inventions and made them immeasurably better.

But suppose Henry Ford took a spin in a 2007 Lincoln Town Car. He’d undoubtedly be impressed with the leather seats, the thunderous sound system and the power windows. But when he looked under the hood, he’d feel right at home.

Sure, the internal combustion engine’s been improved since the Model T days. For example, fuel injection has replaced the carburetor, and electronic ignition eliminated the crank. But Mr. Ford would certainly recognize the basic system: An 8-cylinder engine burns gasoline to turn the wheels and drive the passengers.

It’s long past time to improve this design, and it’s critical that we do so.

Think of it this way: Policymakers stress the importance of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. To do this, they’ve subsidized ethanol and passed automotive fuel economy standards, among other things. But none of these measures have worked -- and they won’t. To use less foreign oil, we need to make the internal combustion engine obsolete, by creating the next generation automobile -- a car that doesn’t run on gas.

That may sound impossible, but it isn’t. Somewhere there’s an inventor who can design an affordable car that runs on clean fuel. This person simply needs the right incentive, and here’s where private groups and foundations can help.

They could use the Ansari X Prize as a model. That competition promised $10 million to the first team that could put a man into low-earth orbit. Eventually, 26 teams from all around the world vied for the prize. To fund their efforts, these inventors lined up $100 million worth of private research and development -- R & D worth far more than the prize that was eventually handed out in 2004.

For a similarly small investment, foundations could encourage private citizens, academics and auto industry experts to develop the next generation car.

It’s time to set up a fund to reward the first person who develops a commercially viable alternative-fuel car. Such a fund could offer to pay, say, $25 million to this lucky inventor. It’s a lot of money, but a mere drop in the bucket compared to the billions our government has spent in recent years to subsidize the ethanol industry -- subsidies we’re all paying for and few are benefiting from.

Everyone knows that incentives work. Employers offer bonuses to workers who exceed expectations on a project. Even the government frequently pays contractors a bonus to finish projects ahead of schedule. Why not use rewards to speed the production of a better automobile?

It may seem as if the internal combustion engine will remain around forever. But it won’t. Eventually, something will replace it.

Recall that just 100 years ago, many worried about whether cities could continue to grow. After all, more people meant more horses, and what would a city do with all the resulting manure? Cars changed all that. Tomorrow’s vehicles will do something similar, because once they’re invented, they’ll allow us to travel without burning any foreign oil or generating any exhaust.

But they won’t invent themselves.

Lawmakers have failed to solve our oil problems because they’ve tried to pick winners. Only the market can do that successfully. We need to set up a reward and then get out of the way. That will drive inventers to finally create something that’ll eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and in doing so improve the environment. The next Henry Ford awaits.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner, and co-author of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ed Feulner's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
By people who hate cars
The people who keep bawling for some kind of *alternative* car are people who essentially hate cars. Their real goal is to make cars so unattractive and useless that people will give up driving them. OTHER PEOPLE, of course. Not the people doing the bawling, who *need* their cars -- same as the Hollyweirds who keep bawling for the proletariat to live in high rises jammed closely together and ride bikes to work continue to live in McMansions and fly their private jets around the world.

People who have never taken public transit on a regular basis do not understand that it is designed for people who are very thin and not carrying anything; and most of all, who have no interest in getting where they are going on time. A mother with four children, one cello, two hockey bags and a couple of backpacks, not to mention her own briefcase and computer bag, is not interested in a Smart Car. She needs a large vehicle with storage space. The man who has a horse trailer to pull cannot pull that trailer with a Zip Car. He needs a Toyota Tundra.

And the loudest screams, of course, are aimed at the people who simply love beautiful cars. There will never be a *smart* Maserati or Lamborghini, or an *alternative fuel* Ferrari or Koenigsegg. People who buy these cars and go to see them race love them for their speed and beauty, and in the case of the Corvette, for their intoxicating engine note.

We do not need *smart* and *alternative* go karts for the proletariat. What we need is for people who hate cars to shut up and leave us alone.

Incentive?
The best incentive to invent and produce a more efficient car is a free market - someone with an idea and the prospect of making a profit from it.

I don't recall hearing that Mr. Ford had any huge prize luring him on, other than the assurance that he could have a patent right to whatever he created, and other private individuals might see the benefits to investing in his project.

While I applaud the fact that you didn't say government should put up the money for this prize, a much better incentive would be for the government to assure bright individuals that any invention they come up with is solely theirs, and if they can, make a gazillion bucks from the end product.

What may be holding potential inventors back is the prospect that there will be a maze of rules and regulations, onerous taxes, and endless lawsuits from corporations and unions who have the ear of politicians.

http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com

Fueling the Push for a Better Car
I am a Heritage member and today Ed disappoints. All he is asking for already exists. GM has a working fuel cell vehicle. And plug-in hybrids (still somewhat dependant on gas are coming very soon. But both of these vehicles are still dependant on frequent refueling. And it is there where we have allowed the enviros to limit us. Although I disagree with his choice of a horse puller, AudiR10, has it right, and the market must decide and the incentives Ed suggests are a market manipulation

Today’s free market already offers all the incentive necessary to get away from the IC engine. But until some proves Issac Newton wrong, we will always need an energy source and it is there where Radlad makes a significant point. Nuclear powered cars, which would rarely need refueling, are feasible. Is there any chance we would be permitted to build one? The needed hydrogen for the fuel cell cars, would require much more electric generation (nuclear again and again, fat chance). Even the new cell phones you mention must find their way back to our century old power grid for recharging.

In short, we do not need more incentives. All we need is the liberal government to get out of the way.

Smity
"All we need is the liberal government to get out of the way."

Yeah, right! Dream on!

YaDaYaDa
I've been hearing this for over 30 years. The bottom line is that no other fuel has the BTU density, stability portablilty, and affordability of gasoline,even at today's prices. Until someone can develop an economically feasable processing and distribution system for an alternative fuel that has the BTUs/$ that gas has, replacing the ICE as we know it is only a pipe dream. Ethanol? Too expensive and deficient on BTUs, not to mention the $4/gal milk prices and other food price hikes. Also, can only be transported by truck, no pipelines. Hydrogen? Enormously expensive, takes more BTUs to make than it yields, then there's the safety issue. Remember the Hindenburg, or the Challenger?

The all-electric car is...
possible today. The major automakers have a less than enthusiastic attitude about bringing a full EV to market.

The EV was offered in California but GM just wanted to lease a short ranged vehicle. Toyota sold a RAV4 electric with a NiMH battery that gave excellent range and performance. But Toyota folded to pressure and stopped selling this car.

The NiMH battery patent is now owned by Chevron and will remain locked up until 2014. Do you think there is some vested interest at play here?

Yes hybrids are available today but an all-electric car with acceleration that would make a Corvette or Mustang blush is possible if the battery technology were not under lock and key. The market will decide between gas, hybrid or all electric if it is allowed to do so. The question is how do we let the market place decide without unnecessary roadblocks?

Bonehead
Another pie-in-the-sky article by a totally ignorant author. The posters (except Deacon) have a better grasp of reality than the socialist Feulner. His previous column tried to sell us on mass transit as the end all, be all.

"electronic ignition eliminated the crank." ?!?!

What the heck does that mean?

Truly a bonehead.

Future Car
will have efficient solar cells on horizontal surfaces, high-voltage battery-driven electric motors, and power recovery braking system. MPG? It does not use ANY gasoline. Each day, a typical sized car that is parked in the sunlight receives enough solar energy to run many, many miles. Search for solar electric cars and read about this. Recent research on solar cells achieved 50% conversion of sunlight to electricity. Soon it will be even higher. That means that the cars' range will increase, too.

Oil will continue to be needed for petrochemicals, lubricants, and asphalt, and probably for jet fuel and diesel. The day when an eighteen wheeler truck is powered by solar cells is still a long way off.

FOWG
You assert that Deacon doesn't have a grasp of reality. Reality is proveable and true but assertions are lacking in reality.

Who exactly is the bonehead?

REal issue is ultimate energy source
"just 100 years ago, many worried about whether cities could continue to grow. ...more people meant more horses, and what would a city do with all the resulting manure?"

Well, government has continued to grow, & we have yet to figure out what to do w/ all the manure!

I reject the inevitable-change-4-its-own-sake mantra. There's a reason the IC engine has lasted 100 yrs.

"Reduce dependence on foriegn oil" has become a code phrase for restricting private vehicles & driving. There has been an elitist emnity toward the private auto long before the petro crunches & the "global warming" dogma.

Restricting private access to, & use of, energy is a dead end, unless you're one of the elite who think the little people should live in tiny apartments & ride trains & buses. Energy is freedom. The question is, where & how to get it?

Smity has the right idea. The real issue is a new ultimate energy source. With basically unlimited energy, heck, the IC question becomes moot. Extract the carbon dioxide back out of the air (solving any alleged "global warming" problem) & reduce it back to carbon, & make pure isooctane & cetane to use in IC cars & diesels! We need to look at either extracting lots of solar energy by satellite, & making nuclear fusion practical, w/ modern nuclear (fission) power as a stopgap.

How to encourage it? Simple. Define what constitutes "sustainable" sources & uses of energy, & exempt the revenue & assets of those in that business from ALL TAXES. Anyone who can produce cheap nonpolluting energy is doing society a service far in excess of their piddly little tax revenues, anyway. If the lefty elites really were concerned about "sustainable" energy instead of energy rationing for the masses, they'd go for it.

KillaCycle-
Search "KillaCycle" and check it out. Times and technology change and we should be able to enjoy and incorporate but not finance it with tax $'s. I'm kinda bored driving to the station, inserting my plastic, and then pumping but man I sure like driving fast and far. I would not mind running some errands with solar if and when it works well and I can afford it. The article is almost worthless except for discussion generated by the usually suspects of educated, open minded, green haters, libs, and boneheads.
Gotta make a run to town, gas up for the weekend, head out to the lake and run the boat and large quantities of fuel to get from fishin' whole to fishin' hole. Tomorrow I plan to mow, weed eat, and run the 4 wheeler around. Come Sunday, I think I will be fueing up again.

Good weekend to ya,
Another Bonehead

Heritage Foundation Socialist????
Suggesting that the IC engine has changed less than the interior of a car is utter ignorance. From exotic materials to computer controls and on and on the IC engine of today is so much lighter, cleaner, more powerful and more efficient it isn't even in the same realm as the Model T engine... which was a four cylinder by the way.

Then, your entire column says the free market hasn't and can't produce a cleaner car while your last paragraph claims only the market can produce it. Huh? So are you a socialist or not????

In actuality, the free market would produce a reward that would dwarf any subsidy your socialist plan ever could... oh, and immortality as a bonus.

You should resign from the Heritage Foundation immediately and join the socialist Democrat party if this your quality of thought. You obviously have no idea what capitolism and the free market are about.

PS. Where in the constitution can you find authority to spend my money to bribe certain products to be made. The longer I think about this the dumber you get!

Radlad
"indefinitely" ?

God's love may persist indefinitely... But not Oil.

A squirrel collects nuts because he instinctively knows the supply does not exist indefinitely. So, in a nutshell, any squirrel has more intelligence than you.

The real problem
The real problem with this energy "crisis" we are having is that it is an economic issue, but it is also much more than an economic issue. It also involves political and moral issues, and it cannot escape them.

The market will always have one solution to our energy needs: "Middle Eastern Oil." This is because that is the cheapest major energy source available, and economic markets don't care about anything else. The market doesn't care that every dollar we spend on oil helps fund Bin Laden and his goons. The market also doesn't care about "greenhouse gases" and "global warming." I don't care much about them either, but many do -- which involves energy supply with more political and moral issues.

In the 1970's, when the first oil crunch hit, we started spending gov't money on alternative sources. One of these, ethanol, is still around, and is not a good fuel for many reasons, though it does work as an anti-knock additive. But most of the rest of the projects were given up in favor of market solutions during the '80's. The market solutions of course worked -- we got abundant energy for 20 years -- but they left us over the Middle Eastern oil barrel. If we had kept developing things like our own oil shale deposits, the world energy markets wouldn't be as beholden to the oil sheiks. Economic expenditures 25 years ago could have saved us much political grief today.

As for the internal-combustion engine, when an economically viable alternative comes down the pike, it will replace the IC engine, and not before that. We won't need any special awards. When it came to the space ship award, the whole point there is that there was no money to be made (short-term) in building a rocket. There is plenty of money to be made in energy, so no prize is needed.

Good Intention - Flawed Premise
Building an alt fuel vehicle is a stunt compared to actually building cars people will drive. $25M is a good prize for a stunt, but what is really needed is a car, such as a PHEV, that can be MASS PRODUCED... PROFITABLY! GM has invested something like $3Billion in the Saturn division - that is the kind of investement needed to do what you want done. You don't want 1 car... you want millions. That means infrastructure, and labor agreements, safety testing, etc. Phoenix motor cars already produces what you want. It just costs $80k per car, so it is not economically viable except for those who want to flaunt their green credentials. What is required is a 40 mile PHEV that recharges off the grid at night and has gas backup for long trips. The good news is that if GM follows through on their promise of the Chevy Volt, you'll get exactly what you're asking for - all without a $25M prize...

Free Market at Work, Incentive Profit
Below is 2 articles posted today on this website. Seems like the incentives are in place.

Gas Price, Style Drive Small Car Growth
By DEE-ANN DURBIN
Friday, August 24, 2007

GM Testing Fuel Technology

Friday, August 24, 2007

Fuel bill for weekend, $100 give or take. Recently acquired share in well, priceless. I'm happy when prices go up and I'm happy when prices go down.

for Radlad: Yes, you are ignorant
Radlad writes: "I have no knowledge or facts but I believe sitting off California's coast alone is enough oil to fuel America at current consumption levels for at least a generation."

You're right, you have NO KNOWLEDGE.

So let me give you some knowledge:

25% of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East.

The U.S. only has 2% of the world's proven oil reserves.

Yet the U.S. consumes some 22% of the world's total oil reserves.

So you tell me how long that can continue--we use 10 times more oil than we have in our entire country.

I'll tell you how we do it: We do it by volunteering to be OPEC's prostitute. We do it by maintaining the fiction that Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally while they spend billions of their petrodollars on promoting Islamic radicalism all over the world in madrassas and mosques. We do it by using so much oil that we prop up the oil price to the point that loathsome dictators like Chavez in Venezuela can remain afloat solely on the oil revenues they bring in.

America has become like a well-paid prostitute--we get to maintain our standard of living at the expense of our self-respect.

(BTW: There are lots of tar sands in Canada. But why should they strip-mine their entire country just so we can enjoy our power boats, SUVs and sports cars?)

for Audir10
Audir10 writes: "A mother with four children, one cello, two hockey bags and a couple of backpacks, not to mention her own briefcase and computer bag, is not interested in a Smart Car. She needs a large vehicle with storage space."

Gee, I have observed big SUVs and big pickup trucks at shopping mall parking lots, on the highways, and while walking down the street. I almost never see huge families inside those vehicles. (I'm more likely to see "family" sedans like Volvos with families aboard.) I see SUVs and trucks being driven with just the driver aboard, as giant status symbols. Or because they have this (incorrect) idea that big SUVs are safer in a collision or that they're easier to dig out of ice and snow than smaller cars.

The truth is that Americans have a CULTURAL love of cars that are far too big for them. It's a sexual and fantasy symbol, and always has been. It's a symbol of exuberance and conspicuous consumption, which has become synonymous with "conservative" these days.

Back in the 1950s, cars were styled with long, flowing, feminine lines because they appealed to the majority of car buyers who were men. Today, the vehicles are increasingly macho and masculine, pickup trucks and big SUVs, to appeal to single women as macho surrogates.

I remember a reporter once asked a single woman why she needed to drive a huge pickup truck with a big engine. She replied, "I love the feel of the vibration of the engine under my legs." I think that sums it up.

SteveL
That was very insulting and completely unnecessary. That type of attack has no place on TH. AudiR10 has had a life-long love of cars that you have attempted to sully in a most unchivalrous fashion. I believe that you owe the lady an apology and owe it to yourself to examine pictures of some of the beautiful automobiles that she has mentioned. I personally am in awe of the bodywork of some of the early Ferraris. (Not "turned on", but inspired.) BTW, my wife and I have a Sequioa and we barely fit four car seats, a stroller, diaper bag and whatever the heck else we need in there. As these kids age we are going to have to get a Suburban!

Stop Oil -- Raise the price.
Incentives, particularly "pull" incentives, are fine for one-off instances. But they don't work in the long run because it requires that the incentives remain *permanently* in place. And since "pull" incentives cost money to implement and administrate, they are constantly a target for being cut causing "permanent" loses its meaning and effect.

Besides, the Government tried this already under Carter (i need not say more).

However, there is an incentive that will work. A "push" incentive.

It is quite obvious that if the price of gas should drop and stay at $1 per gallon, EVERYTHING would be based on burning lots of gasoline. It is equally obvious that if the price of gas would rise to $200 per gallon it would be cheaper to burn single malt scotch (what a pity), and everything would be pushed away from burning gasoline (including the economy).

But as the price of gasoline slowly rises through price points, more and more alternatives become naturally attractive. No "pull" incentive is needed. People will naturally be "pushed" away from gasoline.

You want independence from foreign oil? Simple. Tax oil, directly as it is being pumped off the supertanker.

If such a tax is a "targeted" "adaptive" tax, it would actually be a excellent for the economy as well.

(continued...)

Stop Oil -- Raise the price (part-II)
What do i mean by targeted?

Wired magazine had an interesting article a while back that gave the point at which numerous alternative fuels become economically viable. At $50 per barrel, gas is so cheep burning anything else is basically stupid. But at $70 per barrel lots of other things start to make serious economic sense. So, a sustained price of $85 per barrel would open up whole new worlds of possibilities. Whole new industries would spring into being. With whole new sets of opportunities.

So by targeted and adaptive, i mean a tax that targets a price of $85 per barrel and for every dollar the market falls below $85 the tax drops by only 90 cents, and for every dollar the market price rises above $80 per barrel the tax reverts to subsidy for the average daily un-subsidised consumption during the previous twelve months.

This would actually be very good for business. Because what business hates most is unpredictability and such a tax would calm (but not totally remove) market instability.

And if the tax would not start for a year and would ramp-in slowly and evenly over 2 years. It would also be predictable and expected. And if our economy survived being blindsided by $72 per barrel oil, a planned rise to $85 per barrel would not cause any disasters.

You want an SUV for the family 4th of July Bar-B-Q on the beach. Fine. Enjoy. Nobody is stopping you.

But then you will also want a NEW plug-in bio-fuel Hybrid for your daily commute.

Which is Great! Because car sales were slowing...

Uneducated pipedreams
People who think it is just a matter of inspiring some inventor to come up with a way to eliminate the car as we know it are completly ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics which clearly show you can't get somthing for nothing. The energy to push a vehicle has to come from somewhere. Chemical energy in a fuel to make heat energy to turn to mechanical energy as we most often do now. Solar energy to convert to electricity (probably converted to chemical to store in a battery until needed) to convert to mechanical. Nuclear to convert to electrical (same path). It turns out that the way we do it now is still the cheapest way. The answer is to develope our own sources of oil and build a lot of new nuclear powerplants, then tell the Arabs we will buy their oil at $40.00 a barrel or pump our own.


Oil Taxes
Opticontrarian has it partly right. First, abolish all of the government-run programs for promoting efficiency; they won't work and just give the politicians more places to hide handouts to their friends. Second, phase in the oil tax but dedicate all revenues, dollar-for-dollar, to reducing the most regressive tax in America:the Social Security tax, levied on American workers and businessmen. If we tax oil more and employment less, we will be better off as a nation. All it takes is a politician with courage.

Inventor will be bought off/bumped off
Soon enough there may be an inventor with a revolutionary car or maybe there already has been; but we'll never really know about it or benefit from it.

Anybody who devises a revolutionary new vehicle that runs efficiently using a resource that is plentiful but not currently controlled by the oil powers will either be bought off or bumped off. There is no way that the powers that profit from our current dependency on petroleum are going to just politely close up shop or redevelop a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Does anybody think that the major oil producers and the major automakers and other big industries associated with them are incapable of hiring someone to secretly assassinate an unknown inventor?


SteveL,,,
hit the nail on the head - oversize and overpowered cars are all about status. In this country of 300M it is hard to stand out. Possessing a roving rustbucket-in-the-making which is higher, wider, longer or simply more expensive than ones neighbor's puts one a rung up the pecking order.

Of course, the wily auto makers and oilmen ensure that all 300M of us can buy these things and afford to run them. Woo-hoo! Nope - there's no feeling like being stuck in traffic in a Mercedes/Lexus/Corvette/(fill in your favorite). Nothing compares with the thrill of speeding along at all of 55mph on the country roads! (Well, maybe the thrill of being pulled over by a cop after doing 65).

Folks like Audir10 should welcome gas at $10/gal. It would clear a lot of the riff-raff from the road, so that true enthusiasts could strut their stuff.

Radlad...
One doesn't have to be a "liberal" to dislike cars. I'm as conservative as they come. I mean conservative as in liking to conserve things, not waste things. (Not only that, but I'm also socially conservative and fiscally conservative - just not particularly "neo" conservative - but I digress.)

On the other hand, those folks who like to squander things are liberals, as in liberally suck as much oil out of the ground as they can, and burn it for fun and profit.

My children have an insatiable appetite for chocolate chip cookies. Sadly, in order to maintain nutritional balance, the government (i.e. us, the parents) must curb demand by making the cookies more expensive than they otherwise might be. We, the government, put additional taxes on the cookies such as requiring washing of the dishes. Without these demand curbs, our obscenely large GFP would easily be able to buy more cookies than existed in the local emporium, and we would be forced to raid neighbouring town's emporia, which would probably cause the citizens of such towns to not like us very much.

Now I ask you: are we, the home government, conservative or liberal? Conservative because we don't waste our resources on excess cookies (and like to look after our children's health), or liberal because we "tax" to "manipulate the market" in "socially desirable directions"?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.