Popular Science With Professor Farid
I should have known that my old Baltimore roommate and Teach For America partner-in-crime Tammer Farid would have something to say about last Friday's editorial cartoon and accompanying article about nine auto makers suing the state of California. After all, this is the guy who called me outside one day to see how well he had parallel parked. But in the interest of fairness, Tammer brings up some interesting counterpoints to the article. With his permission, I'm posting the email he sent to me. If you read the Environmental Defense article and Tammer's response, you'll be able to formulate your own educated opinion and impress all of your friends. So I guess this counts as a letter to the editor? Sha-weet! Keep them coming!
Hi Dave - In response to the editorial listed on your website regarding California clean-air laws and the automakers fighting them, I'd like to offer a few thoughts.
First off, contrary to the reactionary author of the column, the automakers in question are not opposed to clean air. No one is, except perhaps the oil lobby. However, there is a serious problem with the most recent round of CARB regulations (the California Air Resources Board). Basically, it's a matter of politicos undertaking a bunch of hand-waving and fear-mongering, and the regulations are uninformed by basic chemistry and physics principles. Let's take a look.
We must remember that automotive pollution consists of a few major players, of which only a couple are considered greenhouse gases. They are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxides (NO, NO2), water vapor, hydrocarbons [CxH(2x+2)]. With the exception of CO2 and water, these are all byproducts of combustion resulting from incomplete or inefficient combustion. Since the best internal combustion engines are around 40% efficient--meaning 40% of the chemical energy in gasoline is converted to mechanical motion, and the rest generates heat--there is clearly a pollution problem. The catalytic converter was invented to reduce hydrocarbon and NOx emissions, which it does by processing any fuel that gets through the engine unburnt. It is a marvelous piece of equipment that works quite well, easily proven by comparing one new 1975 car with one new 2005 car ... in 30 years, NOx emissions have dropped to about 0.1% of their pre-catalytic converter levels. CO levels have dropped commensurately due to emissions technology currently in widespread use.
However, CARB now wants to limit CO2 production. The basic combustion process is this:
O2 + fuel* --> CO2 + H2O
*Fuel refers, in this case, to a hydrocarbon of some kind, whether it's glucose in the body or gasoline in your car's motor. As you can see, the amount of CO2 produced is directly proportional to the amount of work you want your car to do. All animals produce CO2, as do power plants and every type of machinery that isn't nuclear-powered. An exception is a machine powered by hydrogen fuel:
O2 + H2 --> H2O ; therefore the only emission is water. This is the reason for all of the hype about hydrogen combustion (BMW) or hydrogen fuel cells (GM, Ford, Honda) ... the only tailpipe emission is a little harmless steam. So why aren't we driving hydrogen cars?
It's about getting hydrogen in the first place. It doesn't exist appreciably in nature in its molecular (H2) form. Hydrogen is a little molecular ho, and it likes to copulate with all sorts of stuff. Hydrocarbons, water, ammonia and urea, silicates (a component of many minerals) ... you name it, it's probably got some hydrogen bound to it. These pairings are energetically favorable, which means to break them and isolate hydrogen in gas or liquid H2 form, you have to add energy. That energy comes from (you guessed it!) burning coal or natural gas to produce electricity, which is used to separate hydrogen from its oxygen neighbors in water, or its carbon neighbors in gasoline. So you burn hydrocarbons to isolate hydrogen, which you pump into a motor and burn to produce water. Turns out that this two-step process is LESS efficient, in terms of pollution/mile, then just burning the hydrocarbons in the motor in the first place. So for the short term, that's not a viable option. In a moment I'll discuss a new area of research that I was involved with this past semester that could be the way of the future for hydrogen fuels.
CARB wants to limit CO2 emissions, which can only be accomplished by burning less fuel. This is a new twist on an old dance, and one that failed quite miserably. In the early 90's, CARB hailed the arrival of ZEVs (Zero Emissions Vehicles, i.e. electric cars). The name is, as most political names are, a misnomer. Electricity is mostly generated by the combustion of fuels. So the ZEV is really a SEEV--Somewhere-Else Emissions Vehicle. To comply with the outrageous CARB requirements that a percentage of all vehicle sales in SoCal be ZEV, GM built the EV-1. They couldn't sell them, even below cost with heavy government subsidies and tax benefits to purchasers. After the EV-1 and, later, an electric RAV-4 from Toyota limped off showroom floors for several years, CARB realized it had created an unattainable goal and backed down. Turns out consumers won't give up convenience and performance for the environment--a theme that, we will see, recurs frequently. The latest and best EVs only traveled about 90 miles on a charge, 70 miles if you went above 55 mph or so. They need to be recharged nearly daily, and with Cali's imported electricity costing above the national average, this becomes an expensive proposition.
Besides, no one thought of the other environmental impacts, one that is still an issue with today's hybrid cars. Batteries pose three problems: 1) They are heavy, which makes the cars that use lots of them heavy, thereby increasing their energy requirements. 2) They contain hazardous materials such as heavy metals and strong acids. 3) They have a finite lifespan. What will we do when hybrid cars become the norm, and in 10 years there are millions of tons of nickel-metal-hydride batteries building up in landfills? Who will work (safely) to repair cars whose electric motors generate 800 volts? The car will become disposable, introducing yet another set of environmental bugaboos.
But back to CARB and CO2. It is asinine to force automakers to comply with laws that the most modern technology can't yet achieve. The automotive market is a major pillar supporting the economy's ceiling; forcing a significant number of large companies into unprofitability is not a recipe for long-term health. Improvements can be made, but legislation should be incremental in nature and these sorts of draconian measures should be avoided. Automobiles have been crippled three times in the last 30 years, and the cost to consumers have been huge. In the 70s, the concept of emission controls was introduced--a good thing. However, it took a few years for technology to catch up and in the interim, consumers had horribly unreliable cars with overheating emissions equipment causing cracked heads and extremely high repair costs. In the '80s, OBD-I (On-Board Diagnostics, the advent of the "check engine" light) increased electronic complexity of cars, but not to a huge degree. But then 1996 saw the advent of OBD-II, the building of myriad emissions-testing centers, and another round of required equipment that is difficult or impossible to repair, adds hundreds of pounds of wiring and electronics to cars, and is used as an excuse to fine drivers even more for being "out of compliance."
So, what do I propose? There are several simpler, cheaper, and drastically more effective ways to reduce pollution, and they won't cripple the automotive industry and the thousands of small supplier companies that live and breathe by maintaining automotive contracts.
1) Don't go after carmakers for CO2.
CO, NOx, and O3 (ozone) are the major problems, not CO2. And carmakers have done an excellent job of reducing emissions of these gases to mere thousandths of what they once were. Instead of bearing down more on them, let's get other sources. First, powerplants in many states can purchase pollution "credits" from cleaner powerplants, which allow them to spew greater than the legal limit of pollutants. This needs to end. Next, instead of punishing carmakers for building cars that burn a lot of gas--which they build because they sell, ever count the SUVs on your commute?--give a tax break to consumers who purchase clean cars. This happens to a small extent with hybrids and natural gas fleet vehicles, but why ignore 40-mpg Civics and 50-mpg Jetta TDi? Perhaps encourage lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles by crediting cars that weigh less than 3,000 lbs and have an engine displacement of less than 2 liters. With modern engine technology, such a car would make greater than 45-50 mpg--better than the hybrids in real-world driving, and cheaper in terms of technology.
2) Get rid of the tax breaks for SUVs.
Long ago, the government initiated a tax break for purchasers of trucks for business. This was to make it possible for farmers and construction crews to buy necessary equipment. The credit applies to any vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating over 6,000 lbs. It's no coincidence that the Porsche Cayenne has a GVWR of 6,006 lbs ... many "savvy" folks are using that credit to purchase luxury SUVs for personal use. Yep, that's your tax dollars paying for a yuppie lawyer's Range Rover. Get all of those yuppies in a Saab 9-2X (dollars to GM for the flag-wavers) where they belong, and you'd see an instant doubling in their fuel efficiency.
3) Invest money in real, functional mass transit systems in urban areas.
Simply reducing gridlock would allow the cars in existence to operate at peak efficiency, greatly reducing emissions. HOV lanes are a good workaround for this, in the short-term. However, the image-driven California consumer eschews "proletariat" modes of transport, such as trains. It is little-known that LA has a subway. Its efficacy is totally hamstrung because Beverly Hills refuses to allow the rails to pass through its borders. Again, when push comes to shove, image comes before environment. Everyone wants "someone else" to make the sacrifice.
4) Use the best technology for the job.
Roadside tailpipe "sniffers" exist which can sense pollution from passing cars, then snap a pic of the license plate and send a summons to the offending driver/owner. This would target only the gross polluters, and save the cost and time needed to test every car annually. What was California's response to the onset of this technology a few years ago? ... Yep, they banned it. Less money in the government coffers that way. Why sniff and target polluters when you can charge each person $50/year for a smog test? Environmental soundness be damned--you'll find that most laws regarding the automobile serve the "greater" purpose of filling government pockets. Likewise, the highly efficient Smart cars are illegal in the US, and our diesel fuel is too high in sulfur to take advantage of the newest, cleanest diesel technology in Europe. Who wouldn't want to drive a new BMW 330d with 280 hp ... and get 45 mpg on the highway? Some laws here counteract progress in a big way.
5) Make efficiency sexy.
Kudos to Toyota, Honda, and VW for advertising greenness and making mpg cool. (Toyota with the Scion, Honda with the Accord Hybrid, and VW with its diesels.) Now, we just have to get ballers and hip-hoppers into a Prius ... Ed Begley isn't reaching the kids at home. Financial incentives are always sexy, though--see above. Educating buyers about the long-term effects would help, too.
Does this let the automaker off the hook? No way--if the consumer sees a real, immediate benefit in trading in that Suburban for an efficient sedan, they'll vote with their dollars. And automakers want those dollars. In short, we should focus on creating a market that demands fuel efficiency and cleanliness, and then let competition do the rest. You can be damn sure that millions of former-SUV buyers clamoring for fuel-efficient, lightweight cars would force automakers into developing them--and fast. We all want cleaner air, but we must consider the true cost/benefit scenarios before enacting laws that cripple industry for little real-world effect.
If you're still reading, congratulations--it was long. As a brief reward, I'll give a bit of info on that research I mentioned way back at the top. A grant has been submitted to the Department of Energy seeking funds to research a solar-powered, bacteria-based source of hydrogen gas. I can't say more here, but I was proud to work on a project that, in a few years, could have very real benefits--production of hydrogen without the use of electricity or fossil fuels.
Thanks for taking a look, and enjoy that next bus ride.
-tammer farid, certifiable gearhead who walks to school every day
'87 BMW 535is (27 mpg highway, not bad for 18-years-old and 240,000 miles)
'85 VW GTI (2400 lbs, 100 hp, still fun to drive)
'80 pair of legs that get me most places, most of the time--even car nuts can be environmentalists!
Sunday, January 16 at 10:13 PM
Okay Samurai Multimedia is Dave Werner's personal site. I'm currently working at Minor Studios in San Francisco. Thanks for visiting! (more...)
Okay Samurai Journal (Subscribe RSS / XML)
Dave Werner's Portfolio (okaydave.com)
Archives (Cardboard Box)
Contact (Mailbox)
My Videos on Vimeo
My Photos on Flickr
Lars Amhoff: Kinkyform Design
Colin Anawaty: Cubed Companies
Chuck Anderson: NoPattern
Haik Avanian: HaikAvanian.com
James Bailey: The Kingdom of Sad Machines
Ben Barry: CarbonFour / Forced Connections
Dimitry Bentsionov: Arthero
Joshua Blankenship: JoshuaBlankenship.com
Casey Britt: CaseyBritt.com
Duncan Brook: Superfreaky Memories
Matthew Burtner: Burtner.net
Jeff Chin: JeffChin.com
Mary Campbell: Mary Campbell Design
Sarah Coffman: Minus Five
John Contino: drawings&co
Angie Cosimano: Angie Unit
Chris and Linda Doherty: Citizen Studio
Anne Elser: Annepages
Neil Epstein: Mediafactured
Bjorn Fagerholm: 3jorn
Dave Foster: Dave the Designer
Justin Genovese: JustinGenovese.com
J Grossen: Sugarcoma Labs
Audrey Gould: Aud's Blog
Greg Hackett: GregHackett.com
Sam Harrison: Zingzone
Todd Hammell: Solid Colors
Leon Henderson: LHJ Photo
Howard Hill: Fascination Streak
Peter Hobbs: Peter Hobbs Photography
Matt Ipcar: Ipcar Design
Michael Johnson: Michael J Rox
Melissa Jun: MelissaJun.com
Jiae Kim: Theme magazine
Zack Klein: ZackKlein.com
Katie Kosma: Flying Conundrum
Peter Lada: Proxima Labs
Josh Levin: Nothing Learned
Larry Luk: Epidemik Coalition
Mike Mates: Urban Influence
Alison Matheny: Life of a Harpy
Turi McKinley: Turi Travels
Alaa-Eddine Mendili: Furax
John Nack: John Nack on Adobe
Allen Orr: Anthem In
Scott Paterson: sgp7
Joe Peng: MacConcierge
Paavo Perkele: Astudios
Brian Perozo: Ephekto
Jason Puckett: Everyday Puck
Kate Ranson-Walsh: Thinkradical
Tania Rochelle: Stone's Colossal Dream
Angela Sailo: Peanut Butter Toast
Mohit SantRam: Santram.net
Dan Savage: Something Savage
Kevin Scarbrough: Thin Black Glasses
Scott Schiller: Schillmania
Jason Severs: JasonSevers.com
Anthony Sheret: Work By Lunch
Nick Skyles: Boats and Stars
Sujay Thomas: iSujay
Joe Tobens: JospehTobens.com
David Ulevitch: Substantiated.info
John Verhine: Verhine.com
Armin Vit: Under Consideration
Ian Wharton: IanWharton.com
Roger Wong: One Great Monkey
Clay Yount: Rob and Elliot Comics
Jack Zerby: Jack Zerby Music