Re: Congress Passes H-Prize

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 04:21:21PM -0400, Alex Fraser wrote:
> I think the H-Prize is a good idea.  We must progress.  However
> I think the congress could do better.
> 
> -Increase mileage standards for new cars.  Include trucks of all kinds.

Congress can change the laws of physics by passing a law.

> -free mass transit.

Congress can change the laws of economics, time, and space
by passing a law.

> -Big tax breaks for getting rid of your gas hog.  

I suspect there might be some unintended consequences here.
(cf: people bringing in vaguely gun-shaped pieces of rust to
collect prizes at "Gun buy-backs". (Example only as relates
to this car issue, NO INTENT TO START THAT ARGUMENT HERE.))

> -Huge tax on gas now!  Force the market to react.

Congress can, in a democracy, prevent themselves from being
un-elected in a frenzy of enraged voting ... how?

> Sorry to post politics, but I don't think it's primarily a
> technical problem.

But proposed political solutions have to be technically
feasible.   For instance, sure, you could pass a law that
18-wheelers (you did say *trucks of all kinds*) must get 50
miles per gallon, but that would mean you've just outlawed
the 18-wheeler.  Meeting that standard would require a
violation of conservation of energy.  I trust Congress to
understand the laws of physics not at all.

To the extent that it is phyically possible, increasing gas
milage is not free; it comes at a cost.  At some level, that
cost worth it, but returns diminish, and there's a limit.
More expensive new cars mean that older, less efficient, and
more polluting cars are kept on the road longer.  A large part
of that cost is measured in blood on the asphalt.  As cars get
lighter and more flimsy, they become less safe in the
inevitable accidents.  Sure, there are measures that can
ameliorate that to some extent; crumple zones, air bags, etc.
But the laws of physics can not be violated.  Try, and Mother
Nature bites you.

Mass transit is touted as a panacea. It works in densely
populated areas where people can live and work close to
stations, such as much of Europe and the East Coast.  How many
trolly lines, how many stations, and how many homes siezed in
eminent domain proceedings, at what cost, would be necessary
to build a mass transit system in the Bay Area that would
allow any significant fraction of the population to use it
instead of driving?  How much time would the average user be
expected to spend commuting?  (I tried using mass transit from
San Bruno to Cupertino once.  It took three hours.  Each way.
Driving was 40 minutes at rush hour.)

Does running all those empty trollys back and forth all day
long in Santa Clara County actually result in any net energy
savings?  At all?

A solution that actually solves anything has to take into
account the real needs and desires of real people.  Find out
why people buy SUVs.  If the answer is "Well, I wanted and
needed a station wagon, but there aren't any, and the closest
available match to my needs was the SUV", then maybe CAFE
standards written so as to kill the station wagon were
counterproductive.