Barack Obama Doesn't Understand High Gas Prices

Obama's podcast on high gas prices in May 2006 is eye-opening.   The man has no engineers around him formulating policy.  It seems his entire energy policy is based on E85 stations and higher taxes on oil companies. 

The first place to start is with cars. We've got to build cars that use less gasoline. The auto industry hasn't been asked to raise fuel-economy standards in seventeen years and frankly, lately Republicans and Democrats seem to have stopped asking. Today, we've got no choice. Starting in 2008, we should raise CAFE standards (that's the fuel-efficiency standards on cars) a modest 3 percent a year. If we did that over the next 12 years, by 2020 passenger vehicles would average 40 miles per gallon, light trucks would average 32 miles per gallon. That's not a dramatic increase; it's easily achievable through existing technology and it can be done without compromising passenger safety.

Barack is supposed to be some kind of super genius (all Democratic presidential candidates supposedly are), but he really needs to think through the math on this last statement.  A 3% change every year is a 42.5% change over 12 years.  That's not modest, it's extraordinary.  If it could be done, the car companies would have done it by now.  There are only a few ways you can improve CAFE Standards.

1) Make the Cars Smaller
2) Make the engine Smaller
3) Make the Car Lighter
4) Improve the engine
5) Improve the Design.

The low hanging fruit is the design.  It's one of the reasons that cars all look the same now.  Aerodynamic principles really only work in a few ways, which means everything looks alike.  And the benefits are small.  Most of have been taken.  So 1) All cars and trucks now look alike, and you didn't improve much.

Making the Car Smaller, Lighter, or the engine smaller is all possible, but it drastically affects the performance and safety of the car. Small, light cars are more dangerous (to the driver) then heavy powerful ones.  If you want to do this, you have to be prepared to tell the American car-buyer that they no longer have choice, but instead have to drive tiny, slow cars.  If that's what you want to do, fine, but let's not pretend that magic CAFE changes will let us keep what we have with no pain.

And that leaves engine improvements.  We have electric cars and we have hybrids and we have ethanol and biodiesel.

First, let's start with Electric cars.  Electric cars are great for reducing air pollution.  They're horrible for greenhouse gases, because it's less efficient to make electricity (burning oil or coal) then it is to burn gas directly.  You lose a lot of power making electricity and transmitting it across lines and into batteries.

What about Ethanol?  Let's go back to Barack:

We should just replace the use of oil altogether as America's fuel of choice. This doesn't mean singing the praises of ethanol, and hoping that it finds its way into our fuel supply on its own. It means taking some serious steps now to put a national bio-fuel infrastructure into place. Already some cars on the road have flexible fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85, which is a cheaper, cleaner blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. But millions upon millions of cars still don't have these tanks. So its time for auto-makers to install those tanks in every single car that they make and the government can help cover this small cost which currently runs at just around $100 per car.

Ethanol and Biodiesel are red herrings.  Oil and Coal are great at producing energy for two reasons.  One, they're lumped together in one spot.  You put a derrick in the ground, or you cut pieces of a mountain out, and you have all the coal and oil you can gather.  If coal were spread out an inch thick over the entire state of New York, it would be very difficult to mine.  Two, oil and coal are concentrated energy.  They're organic material that has been compressed. 

Biofuels?  Well, burn a quart of oil and a quart of ethanol and see which burns hotter and faster.  Ethanol is less powerful, which means you need more of it, and the ethanol is a product of corn, which means that you have to process it, losing a lot of the mass.  If you replaced all of the oil in the US with ethanol, you'd be knee deep in corn stalks from Bangor to San Diego.  We don't have enough corn to do it, and we don't have enough other organic material.  What we do have is a way to enrich farm lobbies and farm conglomerates, while pretending to do a good job.

Here's the sad fact. We use oil because it works.  It's the best substance we have, and anyone who tells you different either doesn't care about the consequences, or refuses to look at the problem with clear eyes.  Yes, we may have a breakthough in energy conversion in the future, but mandating change in the hopes of a miracle happening is a fool's game.  If Barack is wrong, and we don't find the magic energy beans, we've actually wrecked the economy. 

Try this one.  If you are an engineering super genius, and you could create a replicable clean engine that could be mass produced, wouldn't you be hard at work on it?  The designer would be the richest man in the world, and be hailed as a savior for generations.  So why hasn't it happened? 

Because it's hard to do, and no number of laws passed are going to alter the fundamental laws of physics anytime soon.

Hybrids:  Snap Quiz:  If you want to reduce environmental impact, which should you buy, a Prius, or a Hummer?  You know the Hummer is better for Gaia, right? Here's the problem with hybrids.  All of their advantage comes from when they are stopped.  Gas is still more efficient for powering a car on the highway, but if you're ready to slow down, coast down hills, and accelerate slowly, then a hybrid is for  you.  The new SUV Hybrids are definitely interesting, but they're already on the market.  Why do you need a new law?

A final bit of hypocrisy?  Premium cars. CAFE standards don't restrict the building of cars.  They impose a fee for not meeting those standards.  What this means is that Detroit and Foreign Car Makers build premium cars that don't meet CAFE standards, but charge more for them.  This is one of the reasons big, expensive imports cost more, but if you're already wealthy, it doesn't bother you to pay $10,000 more.

Which means that small, light, less powerful cars that all look the same would be driven by the poorest people, while rich people still bought whatever they wanted.  Poor and middle class families with more than two kids, or a dog, or friends, or hockey equipment, couldn't afford premium cars, which means they make do with less. But the rich liberal who voted for Obama?  No difference. 

The presidency is a serious business.  Obama's free ride from the media in the primary is about to end, and it's a good thing.  It's time the grown-ups start taking a look at what Senator Obama is really offering, and begin imagining what his presidency is like.  There's a reason we don't elect people two years removed from the Illinois state senate to the most important office in the land.

Energy Policy is just one of those reasons.

Comments

[Joseph]

Dude, this is all utterly false. Your a moron, and a dangerous one at that, because you have managed to make it sound like you know what your talking about.

In fact it looks like your entire site is one lie to push the right wing agenda. You obviously have more love for your political ideology than for the truth, your country, or your fellow Americans. I suggest you catch the next boat to China.

[Jim Durbin]

Behold, the marvel of a leftist debate. Notice Joseph can't actually tell me where I went wrong.

Facts are stubborn things. Joseph Cardwell, of Round Rock, TX, roundabout Austin way. You should be careful when you leave disparaging comments with trackable information. Yes, that was me who just called you.

You should know better, especially when you're an internet consultant.

Also - learn the difference between your and you're.

Example: Your debating skills are poor, versus you're not so bright, leaving a comment that exposes your lack of intelligence.

What's with these people?

[Bill Monroe]

Your premise id false. You present a piece by Obama from Spring 2006, and say "Doesn't he have any engineers advising him?" This is ancient history...Barack has since modified his ehtanol stance, tho he does see it as in the mix of reducing foreign oil dependence.
You seem to want to muddy the debate by hauling out old news and presenting it as current.

[James]

@ Bill - So are you saying that Obama no longer wants an increase in CAFE? I find that hard to believe.

@ Jim - Good post.

[Jim Durbin]

Bill,

Earlier last week, I discussed his energy policy as Barack has it on his website. He still says his big accomplishment was E85 stations with Jim Talent, and he wants to tax oil companies.

He wants to spend that magic $150 billion he takes from oil companies and put it into alternative energy, but as my post demonstrates, that's easy to say, but it means nothing.

What he doesn't say, or rather what isn't reported, is the fact that oil will be the basis of our economy until we find another source from a technological breakthrough. If you don't use oil, you run out of money to make the breakthrough.

[jaelithe]

I'm very late to this party, but I'd like to point out, Jim, that our own big three car manufacturers make vehicles that are MUCH more fuel efficient than then ones available here for the European market. And Europe has very high crash safety standards.

Check out these Fords:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4221669.html
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-of-europe-joins-game-of-special-economical-trim/

They certainly don't look like tin cans to me.

[Jim Durbin]

Jaaelite,

An excellent find. A couple of things though. Those are small cars you found - and they're diesel engines. There's also a difference in the way that European countries measure fuel economy and Americans do.

The car is smaller, has a diesel engine (which is worse for smog), and has thinner tires (better gas mileage, not as fun driving and not as safe).

Maybe we should be looking at cars like this - but if we're to do so, it involves real changes in our car-buying habits and in what's available.

A final note - the price tag is $34,000 for a Econetic versus $14-16,000 for an American focus. That's quite a bit of change. The American car gets 35 MPG Highway.

That's quite the price tag jump.