Be Careful What You Wish For

When it comes to so-called “green” automotive technology, the phrases, “be careful what you wish for” and “too good to be true”, both come to mind.  Electric vehicle technology has apparently matured to such a level that Motor Trend magazine has selected the Chevrolet Volt as its 2011 Car of the Year, calling it a “game changer”, “astonishing” and an engineering breakthrough.  It’s an electric vehicle that takes 10 hours to fully charge at 110 volts and 4 hours with the 220 volt kit, and shifts to a small gasoline engine for extended range if you run out of charge.   But if you’re a typical commuter, you may never need to use gas!

The Volt is truly an engineering marvel, delivering fuel efficiencies on the order of 70- to 100 miles per gallon, depending on your driving habits.  But there’s a price for this efficiency.  A decently equipped Volt will run you about $41,000.  Even with the $7,500 Federal tax rebate being offered to Volt buyers, this is still a lot of money to pay when you could buy an equivalent vehicle for around $20,000 or less.

As with most leading edge technologies, what’s expensive at first gradually becomes more affordable as the technology matures, production volumes increase and more competition is involved.  It’s certainly conceivable that, within a few years, the so-called “plug-in hybrid” technology of the Chevy Volt will be offered by many car manufacturers.  As the price comes down, the demand for these cars could grow to the point where every household might own at least one electric vehicle.

Would our electric power infrastructure be able to handle a world in which most vehicles are powered by electricity?  I did a bit of research to find out more about the implications of a greater demand on the grid due to electric vehicles.  What I discovered suggests that we may not have completely thought through these implications.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the average annual electricity consumption per US household is about 10,656 Kilowatt-hours (KW-Hr).  This unit of energy (the KW-hr) is important because it allows us to compare the energy content of electricity with that of gasoline.  A gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 33.7 KW-Hr of energy.  So, if you drive an average of 15,000 miles per year in a car that averages 25 miles per gallon, you will have consumed 600 gallons of gas, which is equivalent to 20,220 KW-Hr of energy – almost twice as much as your entire electricity usage for the entire year!

What would happen if you replaced two cars with two Chevy Volts?  First of all, you’d spend a lot less money on gasoline; about $4,000 less per year at current gas prices.  But you’d also be transferring much of your transportation energy requirements from gasoline to the electric power grid.  Fortunately, Motor Trend tested their Chevy Volt over a 299 mile course to determine how much electricity and how much gas it would use.  It used 58.6 KW-Hr of electrical energy and 2.36 gallons of gas.  Knowing these numbers allows us to calculate about how much of an increase in electrical demand a Volt would place annually on our household usage.  Two Volts would add 5,879.6 KW-Hr of demand annually, which is a 55 percent increase, so you would see your electric bill go up just as your gasoline bills would go down.

But what would be the potential effect on the entire electrical grid if every household’s electricity demand increased 55 percent?  Energy Information Administration data tell us that residential electricity usage accounts for about 40 percent of total demand.  For the state of Virginia, this translates to an overall increase in demand of about 26 percent.  This does not bode well, given that Virginia is a net importer of electricity (we import 36% of our electric power).

Two electric vehicles in every garage will not solve our energy and carbon footprint problems.  At best it will simply shift much of the energy burden from gasoline to coal or nuclear.  Until a major energy technology breakthrough occurs, we must summon the political will to expand our current electric power generation capacity in advance of the inevitable increase in demand.

The Religion Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks...

In Shakespeare's famous play, "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark", there is a famous scene in which Hamlet sets up a play (within the play) for his mother, queen Gertrude, and his uncle Claudius, whom she has married.  Hamlet suspects that she and Claudius have been involved in the death of his father, the king.  Hamlet has the actors in the play re-create what he thinks is the most likely scenario in the king's death.  Hamlet hopes to discern by their reactions the degree of their guilt.  Queen Gertrude utters the famous quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks", when she observes the fictitious queen in the play being overly loyal and loving to her husband.  Thus, the quote has gone down in western idiom to describe someone who insists so vehemently that something is true that we suspect it is not.

Islam continues to protest to the world that it is a religion of peace.  It's adherents and apologists routinely object most vociferously that the west is guilty of "Islamophobia" and bigotry whenever anyone is the least critical of the actions and words of some who hold to this religion. 

The most dastardly acts of terrorism ever committed in the United States have been perpetrated in the name of Islam and yet we are not allowed to "profile" suspected terrorists by country or ethnic background.  That would be bigoted and discriminatory.

Cartoonists who caricatured the prophet Muhammad and filmmakers who documented the abusive treatment of women under Islamic law are placed under a Fatwa, or a death sentence.

Now, a small, reclusive and eccentric church in Gainesville, Florida has burned a copy of the Koran - and all hell has broken loose.  Riots in the streets of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Storms of protest, targeted killings of westerners.  Even the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has called for the arrest of those responsible and is amazed that this will not take place.

The "religion" of Islam is more and more showing it's true identity.  And it is not pretty.

It's true that what this pastor in Florida did was unwise.  It was an intentionally provocative act and he knew, because of all the publicity that had surrounded his first plan to burn the Koran last year, that this would ignite a firestorm of protest around the world.  He poured gasoline on that fire by having a video of the burning streamed via YouTube.

The act was not Christian in any sense of the word, and I am ashamed that this man would, by his actions, associate all believing Christians everywhere with this kind of behavior.  He has endangered the lives of many.

But here is the difference between Islam and Christianity:  When a Crucifix was placed in a jar of urine and called a work of art; put on display at an art museum, it was considered edgy and hip.  Yes, Christians protested, but were any death threats made?  Was a $2.4 million bounty placed on the head of the "artist" who created this piece of trash as is the case with the Florida pastor?  Other so-called works of art have featured elephant dung placed on pictures of the Virgin Mary, and figures of Christ in homoerotic poses.  No worldwide violent firestorms of protest erupted from Christians.

Christians don't do this.  Islam does.

It's not cool to say this in a world in which it's politically correct to label Christianity as an oppressive religion, responsible for most of the world's evils (slavery, capitalism, genocide, subjugation of indigenous peoples, etc.), but Christians are being horribly persecuted all over the world, particularly in Africa and Asia.  They are being arrested, tortured, killed and hounded because of their faith. 

Do we hear about this on the news?  No, but we do hear about how we daily hurt the sensitive feelings of Muslims the world over by our so-called bigoted acts of blasphemy.

Why are people afraid of offending Muslims but no one seems to be afraid of offending Christians?  Is it perhaps because, deep down, the world knows that Christianity is the true "religion of peace"?

Not All Unions Are The Same

Polling data can be very informative and useful for decision- and policymakers, but be very wary if you see a newspaper story on the front page touting the latest results of a national poll.  You’re probably looking at an exercise in spin.

Case in point:  USA Today had a top of the fold front page story trumpeting the results of a 21 February USA Today/Gallup poll.  The story was headlined, “Americans favor union bargaining rights” and clearly suggested strong nationwide support for public employee unions. 

Really?

The actual polling question was, “Would you favor or oppose a law in your state taking away some collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers union?”  The way this question is worded is clearly designed to elicit an unfavorable response.  No one wants to have “rights” “taken away”!  And why was the state teachers’ union specifically identified?  Was it perhaps to elicit some sympathy for those poor underpaid and overworked public school teachers?  Does the general non-union individual being asked this question even know what “collective bargaining” is?  Does the typical American really know what the phrase, “right to work” means? 

This poll was commissioned specifically to generate a result sympathetic to the union protesters in Wisconsin, not to actually gauge the public’s opinion on public employee unions.

If the goal of this poll was truly to find out what Americans thought about public unions, why not ask a slightly different question?   “Would you favor or oppose a law in your state allowing public sector employees to opt out of paying union dues if they so chose?”  Right now, in Wisconsin and many other states, public employees must join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment.  In Wisconsin, these annual dues can be up to $1,100 per member, and are typically deducted automatically from their pay.  This is nothing less than a cash-generating machine.  And after the union officers’ and staff salaries are paid, how do you think these funds are allocated?  For political purposes.  The overwhelming preponderance of these contributions are given to Democrats.  According to political analyst Michael Barone, “Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle”.   A citation from the Chronicle of Higher Education website shows that 99% of AFSCME contributions went to Democrats and zero to Republicans; Teamsters - 98% Democrat/2% Republican; International Association of Firefighters 83% Democrat/16% Republican.

If Americans knew that mandatory dues were being funneled into a machine funding a single political party that favors public unions, do you think the polling results would be a little different?  Of course they would.

In the private sector, the goal of management is to make a profit for the shareholders.  Private sector unions have been organized to protect labor from being exploited by management (being overworked or under-compensated or both).  The theory is that if the corporation or industry is profitable, some of those profits should be shared with the workers in the form of increases in benefits.  This makes sense and is defensible.

Governmental administration at the local, state and federal level is a non-profit enterprise.  Government employees are supposed to be "public servants".  The source of their income is not revenue from producing a product or service, it is taxes.  So when government unions, such as teachers, go on strike, they are striking against taxpayers, demanding an increase in taxes to fund their benefits.  A state in dire fiscal crisis must make hard choices.  But requiring state employees to contribute something to their retirement and health premiums is not an unreasonable way to control state spending.  The savings to state workers from not paying mandatory union dues would offset much of that contribution! 

Public unions have only been around since the 1950s.  Even FDR and George Meany (former president of the AFL-CIO) both thought public sector unions “unthinkable and intolerable”.  Now they exist as a mechanism, not to ensure management or shareholders do not exploit workers, but to perpetuate a protected stream of benefits paid for by taxpayers.

Not all unions are the same.  If more Americans knew this, some of the polling data would be quite different.