Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
#11
03-22-2007, 11:04 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
I liked all of the proposed designs and felt the right answer was for the Federal government to buy enough of each proposed model, at least 100, for a multi-year, fleet evaluation. During this period, vehicle problems would be reported to the maker so they could improve the next model. Then the top two would be selected for DoD and US Postal service with a subsequent five year commitment to buy. This would let the top companies cover their initial costs and as they 'got smart', start civilian sales.
Instead, we've had six years of 'all hat but no cattle.'
Bob Wilson
#12
03-22-2007, 11:25 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Not to beat a dead horse to death, but.....
The PNGV did not even invite Toyota and Honda to participate in the program. That seems like a major mistake, considering those are now the two leading companies in the "clean car" movement.
So my point remains that killing the PNGV was no great crime.
From this page:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=3&gl=us
The PNGV did not even invite Toyota and Honda to participate in the program. That seems like a major mistake, considering those are now the two leading companies in the "clean car" movement.
In reality, PNGV was much less than it was made to appear by the Clinton
administration. First, the program initially received essentially no new funding,
relying almost entirely on the “repurposing” of a potpourri of existing federal
research programs. Second, although PNGV is often credited with creating
dramatically new levels of cooperation between the federal government and the
automotive industry and within the automotive industry itself, the basis of this
accomplishment actually dates to the launch of the United States Advanced
Battery Consortium (USABC) in January 1991.
Third, although PNGV was presented as a visionary adventure by the Clinton-Gore team, the core program was actually the brainchild of automotive executives who had worked closely with the George H.W. Bush administration. At the 1991 Automotive News World
Congress, General Motor's vice president for advanced engineering proposed a
government-industry “moon shot” to solve the automobile's energy, air pollution,
and safety problems within a decade.
The biggest shortcoming of PNGV was that it was designed only to “push”
technology into the auto industry. There was no corresponding program to “pull,”
or direct, this technology towards any particular goal within the U.S. national
markets for passenger vehicles or fossil fuels. Absent a federal-level program to
significantly raise the fuel economy of new vehicles or to otherwise require
measurable reductions in oil use or greenhouse gas emissions, PNGV could never
be anything more than a very modest technology transfer program. Judged on this
level, PNGV was largely successful. Unfortunately, due to the bigger failings of
U.S. energy policy, most of the transferred technologies, if actually
commercialized, went to enabling automakers to improve performance or
enhance other vehicle features, rather than improve gas mileage
administration. First, the program initially received essentially no new funding,
relying almost entirely on the “repurposing” of a potpourri of existing federal
research programs. Second, although PNGV is often credited with creating
dramatically new levels of cooperation between the federal government and the
automotive industry and within the automotive industry itself, the basis of this
accomplishment actually dates to the launch of the United States Advanced
Battery Consortium (USABC) in January 1991.
Third, although PNGV was presented as a visionary adventure by the Clinton-Gore team, the core program was actually the brainchild of automotive executives who had worked closely with the George H.W. Bush administration. At the 1991 Automotive News World
Congress, General Motor's vice president for advanced engineering proposed a
government-industry “moon shot” to solve the automobile's energy, air pollution,
and safety problems within a decade.
The biggest shortcoming of PNGV was that it was designed only to “push”
technology into the auto industry. There was no corresponding program to “pull,”
or direct, this technology towards any particular goal within the U.S. national
markets for passenger vehicles or fossil fuels. Absent a federal-level program to
significantly raise the fuel economy of new vehicles or to otherwise require
measurable reductions in oil use or greenhouse gas emissions, PNGV could never
be anything more than a very modest technology transfer program. Judged on this
level, PNGV was largely successful. Unfortunately, due to the bigger failings of
U.S. energy policy, most of the transferred technologies, if actually
commercialized, went to enabling automakers to improve performance or
enhance other vehicle features, rather than improve gas mileage
From this page:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=3&gl=us
#13
03-22-2007, 11:47 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
We'll have to agree to disagree about the utility of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The GM Volt looks a lot like the GM Precept that came from that program. I didn't check the Ford proposal but I suspect the Escape has some lineage back to PNGV.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 03-22-2007 at 11:51 AM.
#14
03-22-2007, 12:27 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Originally Posted by lars-ss
that program was a SHAM. It was just a research project
Keep in mind that all technological advances start out as 'just' a research project... until they succeed. That romantic ideal of huge progress coming from accidental discovery in some sort of god-sent moment of clarity or fortuity is largely mythical and quite counterproductive. Science takes a lot of work from a lot of people, and being dismissive about it that way is condescending and offensive.
Sorry if I'm being too touchy about this, but really! Where would we be if governments didn't fund scientific and technological research? And don't come back with any libertarian arguments about how the private market would take care of it, because most of the major scientific advancements of the modern age would never have been possible without a strong foundation of scientific research done for the sake of knowledge, things that don't necessarily produce profits for far longer than any private company could stomach and stay in business.
#15
03-22-2007, 12:53 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
'Just' a research project, huh? Without getting into the specific merits of this particular project, with which I am not terribly familiar, let me just say that your cavalier attitude about scientific research and research generally isn't terribly thoughtful and reflects badly on anything else you might have to say about it.
Keep in mind that all technological advances start out as 'just' a research project... until they succeed. That romantic ideal of huge progress coming from accidental discovery in some sort of god-sent moment of clarity or fortuity is largely mythical and quite counterproductive. Science takes a lot of work from a lot of people, and being dismissive about it that way is condescending and offensive.
Sorry if I'm being too touchy about this, but really! Where would we be if governments didn't fund scientific and technological research? And don't come back with any libertarian arguments about how the private market would take care of it, because most of the major scientific advancements of the modern age would never have been possible without a strong foundation of scientific research done for the sake of knowledge, things that don't necessarily produce profits for far longer than any private company could stomach and stay in business.
Keep in mind that all technological advances start out as 'just' a research project... until they succeed. That romantic ideal of huge progress coming from accidental discovery in some sort of god-sent moment of clarity or fortuity is largely mythical and quite counterproductive. Science takes a lot of work from a lot of people, and being dismissive about it that way is condescending and offensive.
Sorry if I'm being too touchy about this, but really! Where would we be if governments didn't fund scientific and technological research? And don't come back with any libertarian arguments about how the private market would take care of it, because most of the major scientific advancements of the modern age would never have been possible without a strong foundation of scientific research done for the sake of knowledge, things that don't necessarily produce profits for far longer than any private company could stomach and stay in business.
My intent was to say that Bush does not deserve criticism for merely replacing the Clinton version of "government funded clean car program" with one of his own. Mostly because the Clinton program was no great shakes anyway.
And maybe FreedomCar will turn out to be a waste of time and money too like PNGV was. But at least (like Clinton before him) Bush is TRYING to get a clean car program that works. Maybe it won't work - time will tell.
But don't knock him for putting in his own version, his own vision, of a clean car program just because he had to kill the old one. EVERY PRESIDENT does the EXACT same thing - replace the former administration's programs with it's own - especially if a party change occurred.
PS In a related issue - Clinton replaced ALL 93 of the Federal Prosecutors when he took office. See what I mean? New Presidents come in and start fresh - it's the nature of the Presidency.
Last edited by lars-ss; 03-22-2007 at 12:57 PM.
#16
03-22-2007, 12:57 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Couldn't agree more with hot-georgia-2004's last statement.
Carl
Carl
#17
03-22-2007, 01:07 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Like Hot Georgia said - let's not try to make this too partisan.
Notice that PM Stephen Harper (good friend of GWB) did more than talk about fuel efficiency?
Notice that PM Stephen Harper (good friend of GWB) did more than talk about fuel efficiency?
#18
03-22-2007, 03:08 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
You've made that statement without the facts and data to support it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this too. Having looked at the PNGV program right up to its end, I know the vehicles proposed including the hydraulic hybrid are just now showing up instead of five years ago when they were on the drawing board and could have moved to testing and assembly lines. Instead of competing with Japan Inc, we've been distracted pursuing nonsense like the hydrogen fraud.
As for the hydrogen fraud, physics and chemistry and economics said is was foolishness from the beginning. Even today the same miracles have to occur to make hydrogen practical:
Bob Wilson
. . . for merely replacing the Clinton version of "government funded clean car program" with one of his own. Mostly because the Clinton program was no great shakes anyway.
And maybe FreedomCar will turn out to be a waste of time and money too like PNGV was. But at least (like Clinton before him) Bush is TRYING to get a clean car program that works. Maybe it won't work - time will tell.
But don't knock him for putting in his own version, his own vision, of a clean car program just because he had to kill the old one. EVERY PRESIDENT does the EXACT same thing - replace the former administration's programs with it's own - especially if a party change occurred.
. . .
And maybe FreedomCar will turn out to be a waste of time and money too like PNGV was. But at least (like Clinton before him) Bush is TRYING to get a clean car program that works. Maybe it won't work - time will tell.
But don't knock him for putting in his own version, his own vision, of a clean car program just because he had to kill the old one. EVERY PRESIDENT does the EXACT same thing - replace the former administration's programs with it's own - especially if a party change occurred.
. . .
As for the hydrogen fraud, physics and chemistry and economics said is was foolishness from the beginning. Even today the same miracles have to occur to make hydrogen practical:
- fuel cell technology - they still take expensive materials, have short lives, don't do well in cold or heat, and need a hybrid drive-train to deal with vehicle energy demands. NASA has a lot of experience with them.
- hydrogen energy - all sources take more energy to produce hydrogen than is released later. NASA and industry has a lot of experience with this.
- hydrogen chemistry - is is too light to carry useful amounts of energy (NASA has a lot of experience here
embrittles metals under high pressure; and has the highest known flamability range of any fuel. - better metal chemistries - there are so many metals that make more sense for air-metal power (hydrogen fuel cells are an air-metal battery.) Fixating on just hydrogen killed more productive research in air-metal batteries
Bob Wilson
#19
03-22-2007, 03:28 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Like I have said - all Bush did was replace Clinton's clean car program with his own. That's not debatable.
But if you understand the PNGV as well as you say, then you REALIZE that the program might not have ever produced production vehicles. The carmakers were not COMPELLED to do so by the program.
The only reason hybrids are being produced by so many companies now is that they were made into PRODUCTION cars and the carmakers realized they would SELL.
The fact that those year 2000 PNGV cars were not made is just water under the bridge.
Let's move forward and don't spend a lot of time whining about something we have no control over.
Odds are that the next Democratic President WILL KILL the FreedomCar program and start his own. It's the nature of the beast.
But if you understand the PNGV as well as you say, then you REALIZE that the program might not have ever produced production vehicles. The carmakers were not COMPELLED to do so by the program.
The only reason hybrids are being produced by so many companies now is that they were made into PRODUCTION cars and the carmakers realized they would SELL.
The fact that those year 2000 PNGV cars were not made is just water under the bridge.
Let's move forward and don't spend a lot of time whining about something we have no control over.
Odds are that the next Democratic President WILL KILL the FreedomCar program and start his own. It's the nature of the beast.
#20
03-22-2007, 06:59 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Instead of completing the program and getting the proposed cars in metal and on the road, he replaced it with hydrogen fueled, "PowerPoint." Six years later, the only serious hybrid is made by Ford and the PNGV prototypes are being built, a six years late and billions of dollars short . . . another GW success.
Bob Wilson
