Battery powered cars: breakthrough or bullsh*t?

General Motors claims that the Chevrolet Volt will get an incredible 230 mpg. The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are currently working on a method for comparing electric and gasoline vehicles regarding fuel efficiency.  Which begs the question: How can GM claim such outstanding mileage for its Chevy Volt when there doesn’t appear to be a finalized standard?  Quite simply, if there are no rules then you can’t be accused of breaking them, right?  General Motors, in an attempt to grab the spotlight for positive press since they haven’t had much lately, decided to make such a bold claim because there’s no way to prove them wrong–for now.

I’ve long been skeptical of electric vehicles that rely on batteries for their main power source.  They typically have limited capacity so you can’t go very far; there are hazards with disposal and/or recycling of the batteries; using electricity to charge them consumes more energy from primarily coal fire power plants.  Tesla Motors has developed a roadster that uses everyday laptop batteries, according to their CEO, Elon Musk.  Anybody who owns a laptop knows the batteries don’t run as long as advertised, so why would they be any better in a high-performance automobile?

Vehicles powered by Hydrogen Fuel Cells, although costlier to develop currently, are the future.  Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles emit nothing more than moisture from their tailpipe.

It appears that the auto industry and our government have chosen batteries as a “Band-Aid” to the path that leads us to a future with hydrogen as the fuel source.

 

Kicking the tires of the CARS program

I’m uncertain about this “cash for clunkers” program. Officially, it’s known as the Cash Allowance Rebate System (CARS).  The idea behind it is to offer government cash incentives for old cars as trade-ins towards the purchase of new cars that are more fuel-efficient and produce less harmful emissions.  Sounds great but when you consider the unintended consequences of such a program it’s not so appealing.

For example,  in an article by Bob Cox of the Star-Telegram, Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmonds.com said projections over the next four months have consumers purchasing 250,000 automobiles by way of the CARS program.  However, without such a program consumers normally would have traded in 200,000 cars for new vehicles within the same time period.  Thereby the additional 50,000 cars bought by the one billion dollars in stimulus money have a subsidy price tag of 20,000 each.  Ouch!

The Senate just passed legislation that will infuse the program with another $2 billion–the program’s first $1 billion was spent in about 10 days.

Then there’s the requirements of the CARS program for eligible trade-in and purchased vehicles.  One word: CONFUSING.  Seriously, the CARS official web site has FAQs that most people would find difficult to understand.

Another gripe I have is that the government set their goals for increased MPG far too low.  An excerpt from the CARS site:  “For passenger automobiles, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon.”  Is this really all that much better then the requirement of a combined 18 MPG or less for your clunker to be eligible as a trade-in?  If one of the purported benefits from this program is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, shouldn’t we be driving cars that get at least 25 combined MPG or better?

My gut tells me that the US auto industry, with their large inventory of trucks and SUVs, had a say in the diminished MPG factor.

Also, some in the auto salvage industry feel the “cash for clunkers” program will increase the price of used engines and parts for older cars because dealers who take the “clunker” trade-in must destroy the engine.  This may be true but ideally the CARS program is designed to remove old vehicles from the road not preserve them.

Regardless of what I think about the caveats of the “cash for clunkers” program, it’s apparently working.  Who would’ve thought just a few months ago that some in the the auto industry would be almost selling out of their inventory.

Dealers clearing their car lots sounds like a good thing but again Mr. Anwyl from Edmunds.com has a different take.  He believes the average consumer is unaware that “cash for clunkers” is costing them money (tax dollars) and it’s artificially raising prices on new vehicles.  If you’re not buying you’re still paying, he said.

Looking at it this way, I’m not so enthusiastic by the “good news” that I’ve been hearing lately about this government program.

 

Racial profiling or suppression?

For me, the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates on July 16 was an example of an abuse of power by the Cambridge Police Department.  I believe the discussion should be more about the freedom of speech and less about race.  Perhaps I feel this way because I’m white and I don’t have to deal with the everyday crushing pressure felt between black men and law enforcement.

Of course, having our first black president state publicly that the Cambridge Police Department “acted stupidly” in their arrest of Professor Gates probably didn’t help matters: Or did it?   Certainly I’m not alone in the belief that we as a society must address the inequities, real or apparent, felt by all minorities.

Professor Gates should not have been arrested on the porch of his home for “disorderly conduct”.  The charge was later dropped as it’s likely that the Cambridge Police Department thought better of it.  If only Sgt. Crowley had shown this level of discernment, such an embarrassment could’ve been easily avoided.

I don’t have all the facts, and having said so, I still don’t believe that anyone could justify to me that Professor Gates–who apparently provided identification showing that this was in fact his residence–deserved to be taken away in cuffs.

I’m sure President Obama knew that once he spoke those fatal words he’d have to carefully navigate the political storm he had jumped headlong into. Really though, if he hadn’t spoke strongly about this incident, would he have been disingenuous to all those who have been harassed by law enforcement, as well as to himself?

What if I felt that police officers at my porch were harassing me?  Shouldn’t I have the right as an American to tell them to go to hell?  What happened to the First Amendment?  Seriously, Professor Gates didn’t go down to the police station and randomly assault an officer, rather they showed up at his door and proceeded to question him. What about the mantra of the police to “Protect and to Serve”?  Is this their idea of service?  No thank you.

I understand that Professor Gates(biography) has a history of provocation in regards to racial profiling but isn’t this a perfect example of what he has been writing and speaking about?  A black man trying to enter his own home and the police show up to later arrest him.  Regardless of the fact that they were there on a 911 call, once Sgt. Crowley had determined that there wasn’t a crime taking place, he should’ve just got in his police car and drove off.  Case closed.

I’ve only been hearing what mostly white people in the media have to say about the Gates-Crowley incident yet I found a black news publication with a different take.  It just goes to show that there really is two sides to this powerful and continuing story about race relations in the United States.

 

Going Green is harder than it looks

Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulbs contain mercury, albeit very small amounts (approximately 5 mg.)  There is no doubt that mercury is harmful to the environment and to humans.  Now I know we all must go Green, and in spirit I agree, however I’m troubled with where the mercury inside these bulbs will eventually end up.

The government wants us to replace our incandescent light bulbs with CFLs in order to save power yet little is mentioned about the proper disposal once CFLs burn out.  Perhaps you’re thinking that since they’re such little mercury inside each bulb that this really isn’t an environmental issue?  Well, multiply that small amount by millions of bulbs and over time and it will certainly add up.

General Electric recommends that if you can’t find a local facility that handles the disposal of hazardous waste that the bulb should be placed in a plastic bag and thrown away.  And if the bulb should break, special measures must be taken.  For example, don’t handle the broken bulb, do not use a vacuum to clean it up, open up a window, etc. Wow, what is this, nuclear waste?  Sure makes you miss the good old days of the incandescent, don’t you think?

I know that CFLs use considerably less power than the average lightbulb and reportedly last much longer, it’s just that I enjoy the soft warm light provided by incandescent bulbs.

To take this a bit further, consider the rechargeable batteries used in hybrid vehicles of today.  Where will I take the batteries in my Toyota Prius once they fail to hold a charge?  After all, all batteries die at some point.  If they’re like typical rechargeable batteries, say Ni-Cad or lead acid, then they probably will need to be recycled or disposed of by a hazardous materials agency.

Not so easy.

 

The hand is always open

Our president currently has approval ratings in the lower 60s yet based on the reaction he receives when he goes on “tour” across the country, or the world for that matter, you’d think his numbers would be above 90%.

President Obama ran a very successful campaign that used the Internet so effectively that future political candidates are sure to steal a page or two from his playbook. Just for the record, I did vote for him. And this leads me to my gripe: enough with the fund-raising already! Didn’t Obama win? Why does he need me to make a donation with just about every e-mail I receive from BarackObama.com?

My most recent e-mail is from our vice president in which he asks me to share my healthcare stories (see large red donate now button in the upper right corner of the page) with the world. I do have a few stories to tell, however, when I went to the site to read some of the stories posted by others I found this disturbing paragraph: “Your contribution will help us pass comprehensive health care reform and ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care.” Really? You need my money to pass health care reform? Didn’t you take enough of it to bail out the banks? What about the auto manufacturers?

Now I’m all in favor of taking a look at our health-care system and see how it can be improved–most importantly, reducing its cost because it’s the only industry I can think of that the longer it exists the more expensive it gets–and possibly make it affordable so that all can be insured. Just don’t ask me for money each time our elected officials are expected to do their job.

 

The King of Pop Stops at 50

Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, at UCLA Medical Center at the age of 50 by cardiac arrest. All right, now I’ve seen it all. Snoop Dogg is on Conan O’Brien tonight and he’s memorializing Michael Jackson; Tavis Smiley earlier displayed an iconic image of the King of Pop with heavenly clouds in the background. Please. It’s not that I doubt the sincerity of their friendship with Michael, it’s just that for quite some time–years to be exact–he was the forbidden fruit. No one with the exception of the tabloids would show any interest, and they would just seek to ridicule and embarrass him.

Now postmortem, the public is scrambling for anything Jackson on Amazon. Why? Because in death it appears okay to own something from an accused child molester. I say accused because he was originally acquitted in one trial and settled the other; yet in the court of public opinion he never really escaped judgment. For some time, Michael was sure to be on every late-night comedian’s opening monologue. Letterman, Leno, Ferguson and Conan, their jokes were always geared towards Michael and the perversion of children. The punchline was predictable.

Just for the record, I was never truly convinced of his guilt. Sure, I can say that now with him being dead. It just seemed like the alleged victims had parents who had a history of questionable ethics. Once you are accused of child molestation you cannot unring that bell. Not to mention some in the media hinting at his guilt rather than innocence.

I do believe that he was one strange individual with all the plastic surgical procedures and the mask he would wear in public. However, the nickname of “Jacko” that publications like Time magazine and Fox news would use in their articles about him I find completely unprofessional and childish.

Perhaps Michael is better off dead then to linger here among the vultures with their never-ending thirst for his ultimate and wretched demise.

 

David and Goliath

In early June, Late Night with David Letterman aired a show in which the host told a joke referring to one of Sara Palin’s daughters and the well-known sexual exploits of New York Yankee Alex Rodríguez (Randy Cohen of the New York Times sums it up quite well.) Anyway, Dave mistakenly thought he was speaking of Bristol Palin–certainly you remember her at the time as the unwed 17-year-old pregnant girl standing onstage beside her mother while on the Republican vice presidential campaign trail–when in fact it was Willow, the 14-year-old who attended the game with her parents.

Therein lies the rub: apparently this was a terrible misunderstanding and at first Mr. Letterman shrugged it off as nothing more than just a silly joke. However, Sara being the ever so diligent opportunist decided to take Letterman to task. Palin said that the joke was disgusting because Letterman made “sexually perverted comments” which were “aimed at 14-year-old girl.” Her husband Todd went as far as to say that humor involving the raping of his daughter is “despicable.”

I don’t know what is worse. The obvious exaggerated reaction by the Palins or in my opinion the timeliness of this goof by Letterman. On June 1 Conan O’Brien took over the Tonight Show (highest ratings for a Monday show in four years) and I find it more than just a coincidence that Dave mysteriously grabs headlines during the first couple of weeks of Conan’s debut. Sounds like Letterman and CBS were desperate to swing the ratings back their way (it’s just might be working).

 

Free or Low Cost Internet?

Occasionally I receive e-mails from the online advocacy group Free Press, which desires to reform the media as we know it today. One of their current issues at hand is the expense of Broadband Internet access as well as discrimination directed toward those who aren’t able to afford it. This “Digital Divide” refers to the growing division between those who have access to the Internet in their homes and those who do not based on either income levels, race, geography, etc. For the record, I’m a white male who is living at the poverty level and I have Broadband Internet access in my home–just $15 a month via Verizon DSL.

Perhaps I just don’t understand the issue and maybe there’s more to be known that would help me to see why some people cannot afford $15 a month? Granted, there are probably those who earn less income than myself, although not too many, and cannot find it within their budget to pay a relatively modest monthly fee for a broadband connection. To them I say, if you must choose between food on the table or browsing pornography online, then you should stick to perusing through printed magazines if you don’t wish to go hungry tonight.