Assembling The 2009 Ford F-150 In Kansas City

The debate has touched nerves around the country, and few people remain opinionless on whether or not the government should offer a hand. Taxpayers are tired of bailouts, but this one pales in comparison to the $1.5 trillion bailouts that have been hastily arranged in the last month to prop up banks and insurance companies.

Some people wonder aloud why the financial industry rates such lavish attention from Congress with hardly a second thought to how the recipients will spend the money, while at the same time, Congress is demanding detailed business plans from the automakers who are asking for a combined amount that's less than 2% of what the banks were handed, with no questions asked.

At stake is more than just the $25 billion. Each of the automakers comes with billions in pensions and benefit guarantees to millions (yes, millions) of retirees. Those pensions are guaranteed at some level under by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

The stereotype of the "lazy UAW worker" persists, but the people who work in the plants - and who would likely lose their jobs - run the gamut from the highly educated (including Master's Degree holders) to single mothers who are simply trying to support their families by doing honest work.

The automakers use suppliers - some commonly - who are in danger of going out of business. That would translate in to lost jobs both in and out of the country, and additional pensions that would fall to the PBGC for payment. A failure of one or more of the Big Three would guarantee an end to the domestic auto industry, and would place an undue economic hardship on both the Midwest and the South.

The real question that Congress must answer is whether or not we as a country will maintain our manufacturing capabilities. Ultimately, we must "do" something to generate income. We cannot rely on "soft industries" like information technology and finance to generate long-term, sustainable and distributed wealth around this country. The loss of our manufacturing capability would signal that we have opted for a society based solely upon the Haves versus the Haves-Not; that we value equity over equality; and that we're prepared to deal with the consequences of disenfranchising Main Street to prop up Wall Street.

Photo Courtesy of the Ford Motor Company

The researchers considered six different types of noise and three variations within each type, and asked 24 subjects to rate each noise type's overall acceptability. Noises were classified as engine, horn, hum, siren, whistle and white. According to the results, study subjects overwhelmingly preferred engine, hum and white noises over horn, siren and whistle noises, noting that the preferred noises were similar in character to the operational noises that conventional vehicles make now.

The researchers suggested that while automakers are constantly challenged to make their vehicles quieter, the addition of noise could contain a relative component that could adjust the sound the car makes based upon the ambient noise in the car's surroundings.

Several manufacturing and regulatory groups are researching the issue of electric vehicle noise as it relates to pedestrian and cyclist safety. Both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Society of Automotive Engineers are studying the issue of noise in vehicles with alternative propulsion systems, and Congress is currently considering whether to require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct additional research, make recommendations and oversee the implementation of regulations on minimum noise standards for vehicles on the road.

Abandoned Packard Plant, Detroit - Derek Farr

Should tax dollars be used to bail out GM, Ford and Chrysler? In a word, yes. GM and Ford have been playing the game for more than 100 years. In that time, they've contributed far more to American prosperity than most other companies could ever hope to.

Abandoned Fisher Body Plant, Detroit - Jurlacher

If you've never been inside of an assembly plant, you'll be astounded by the real estate they cover. In some ways, they're like little covered cities. At peak production, they can run 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months on end. Few plants operate this way today, but the capacity is there.

Some of the most dangerous jobs are handled by robots. Lifting, welding, and moving are all prime candidates for robotic assistance. But make no mistake about it - people work in and around the cars as they're being built. The assembly process is complex, and if you ever have the chance to watch it, you'll never think the same way about an automobile again, nor about the people who put them together.

Abandoned Packard Plant, Katherine/Chicago

While the rest of the country is dealing with 6.5% unemployment right now, Michigan is struggling with 9 percent unemployment, largely because the automakers are shedding both salaried and hourly workers like an old skin. The City of Detroit is a shell of its former self, and once-prosperous cities like Flint and Saginaw are all but dead.

Fisher Body, Katherine/Chicago

But if you think Washington doesn't "owe" Detroit and the Great Lakes region anything, think again. This region has been disproportionately negatively affected by trade policies like NAFTA, which encouraged firms to ship manufacturing jobs to Mexico and other overseas locations, and provided nothing in return to the workers who were left behind. Shuttered factories that at one time employed 40,000 people dot the landscape here. Aside from the jobs they once supplied, many cities and towns gave long-term tax breaks to the factory owners. The tax burdens were shifted to the residents, but when the factories and their jobs left, the tax burden stayed behind, with fewer people to shoulder it.

It's not just Detroit, either. You'll find the same stories repeated in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas... the list goes on. Don't be foolish enough to think that the demise of the American auto industry will have no impact on you because frankly, it already has. To borrow a phrase, " As Detroit goes, so goes the nation."

Photo Credits: Katherine, Jurlacher, Derek Farr

The measure passed by the House gives a tax credit of $3,000 to the buyer of any new plug-in electric vehicle with a battery of at least 5kWh. As the kWh goes up, so does the tax credit, in increments of $200/kWh. The Volt, with its 16kWh battery pack, is the only known vehicle that is eligible for the full credit.

The measure also included a provision that would require all gas stations to have at least one alternative-fuel pump by 2018. Alternative fuels are defined as natural gas, E85, biodiesel, renewable diesel and hydrogen. The bill provides for a $100,000 fine for each station that is not in compliance and a $50,000 credit per station for those that opt for E85.

The E85 provision is somewhat troubling. The provision would be much stronger if it applied only to cellulosic E85. Public policy shouldn't reward shrinking food production for the sake of fuel, especially when there are better sources of biomaterial than corn that can be redirected toward the production of E85.

Lawmakers should not be so focused on the problem of fuel that they neglect the reality we face: there is a limited amount of land on which corn can be grown. If certain production targets for corn-as-fuel are to be made, they must come at the expense of food production. What happens when Spring floods take out the E85 corn? Higher food and fuel prices?

Lawmakers would do well to extricate the questions of food and fuel. Technological solutions exist that don't require us to choose between two necessities.

Photo Credit: Mark Harris

The Financial Times is now reporting that Japan will be building a nationwide recharging network for PHEVs, based on a device that Tokyo Electric Power says can recharge a vehicle's batteries in five minutes well enough to carry it 40 km. For the more patient souls in the crowd, a 10-minute charge will up the range to 60 km.

The discussion about charging standards is also taking place in the US. GM, Ford and other major manufacturers are working with the Electric Power Research Institute and a number of utilities across the nation to work out policy issues that will support a nationwide charging infrastructure here.

The fact remains that PHEVs will be on the market long before the charging infrastructure is in place, and the lack of such an infrastructure will be a hindrance to widespread adoption of the technologies here. Utilities are primarily interested in boosting electricity consumption at night when demand drops sharply. A large number of consumers will want to charge their vehicles during the day, while they're at work and charge them again at night, a regimen that doesn't fit quite as neatly into the hopes of utilities, whose infrastructure is already taxed by the heavy demand for air conditioning during the daytime hours.

Complicating the issue are the expansive geography of the US, compared to a nation like Japan, and the sheer number of utility companies that supply power across the US. Whether or not these organizations can work together remains to be seen, but the long-term viability of PHEVs and EVs depends upon our ability to erect a charging infrastructure that's widely accessible, reliable and relatively inexpensive to use.

The report also identifies the ten states that are doing the most to reduce their consumption of oil. California heads the list, followed by New York, Connecticut, Washington, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Colorado and Maryland. The ten states that are doing the least to reduce oil dependence are Delaware, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi and Alaska.

According to the NRDC, the most effective strategies to reduce oil dependence include using cleaner, more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels. Research and development, careful growth planning and improved public transportation can also help reduce dependence upon oil.

Can these strategies make a difference? A new report by the Travelers Insurance company shows that California, Florida, New York, Texas and Illinois have more hybrid vehicles registered than any other states. Based on the NRDC data on gasoline expenditures, drivers in only New York and Connecticut are ranked among those who spend the least on gasoline, while Pennsylvania and Washington drivers spend between 4% and 5% of their incomes on gasoline, and drivers in California spend between 5% and 6% of their income on gasoline.

The combined reports would seem to indicate the states that are doing the most to reduce their dependence on oil may not be achieving those gains by licensing large numbers of hybrid vehicles. Californians, who licensed more hybrid vehicles than drivers in any other state in 2007 are still spending more than 5% of their income on gasoline yearly. Similarly situated are Texas drivers, who ranked fourth in hybrid registrations and still spend more than 5% of their annual income on gasoline. In addition, Texas is in the heart of the US oil refining industry. The cost of transportation should be minimal in Texas, giving those drivers a slight advantage when it comes to the cost of gasoline at the pump.

Indisputably, vehicles contribute a lot to poor air quality, and reducing emissions will improve the breathability of our air and reduce the consumption of oil. However, hybrid technology may only be a stepping stone on the path to reducing vehicle emissions. Zero-emission vehicles - such as those that run on hydrogen or electricity - may ultimately contribute much more to the reduction of oil consumption than hybrids can, and raise the question of how long hybrid technology will serve as an intermediate technology on the way to gasoline-free transportation.

Hybrid vehicles excel at city driving. For the most part, this is where the electric motor gets used, and boosts your miles per gallon. If most of your driving is done on the highway, fuel economy shouldn't be your top reason for buying a hybrid. The more you rely on the gasoline engine, the lower your overall fuel economy will be. If you do a lot of highway driving, a better alternative would be a highly efficient gasoline or diesel engine.

Ironically, some states allow hybrid drivers to use their high-occupancy lanes as an added bonus for having purchased an environmentally friendly, reduced-emissions hybrid. Unfortunately, most of the time, those hybrids will be zipping down the HOV lane on their dirty, old-school gasoline engines, while the hybrid technology snoozes. Go figure. Before you cruise on over to the carpool lane, check your state's laws. Some states require a special sticker or license plate to qualify for the HOV lane use.

Some, but not all, hybrid vehicles qualify for tax breaks from Uncle Sam. The tax breaks were doled out by manufacturer, so the most popular hybrid models no longer qualify for a bump from the Treasury Department. If you're insistent upon getting a tax break, do some research first to see which models still qualify. And before you ask: the tax credits for the Prius are long gone. (Which is ok, since you wouldn't be able to find a Prius at your local Toyota dealer anyway.)

As with everything in life, there are tradeoffs. If you already drive a relatively fuel efficient vehicle, getting a hybrid isn't going to save you a great deal over your current car. You shouldn't expect a major reduction in your gasoline consumption or your out-of-pocket expenses at the pump. With hybrid vehicles, you can't really tow anything. If you're not the outdoorsy type, then no harm, no foul on this one.

And then there's the whole battery issue. Automakers struggled mightily with that, mainly out of concern for cost and safety. Batteries, although warranteed for some time, are not under warranty indefinitely and their replacement cost can reach into the thousands of dollars. Automakers don't have very good data on longevity for hybrid batteries, so as the vehicles age out, replacing their batteries could become the functional equivalent of blowing an engine. If battery technology improves significantly, the replacement cost will come down, but nothing is certain about hybrid car batteries these days, except that there aren't enough of them to go around.

Current hybrids use nickel-metal hydride batteries and many new hybrids will run on newer, more powerful lithium-ion batteries. Purposely or not, the automakers have recreated a version of the old "BetaMax/VHS debate" for hybrid vehicles. Vehicles are designed to work on one or the other type of batteries. If one battery type takes off and the other languishes, it could be tough to find replacements at any price for the less favored technology.

If you do your research carefully before you go car shopping, these issues and others can weigh in on your decision to buy or not to buy a hybrid vehicle. If you simply want a hybrid in your driveway because everyone else has one, you're likely to be disappointed by what you get, no matter which company makes it.