For All Those Who Are Graduating and Those That Aren't

It is a little off topic but the WSJ has a good article for everyone that is graduating this year. With the sudden change from being poor to actually receiving a real paycheck, many college graduates get into trouble. This is about the time when recent grads are inundated with credit card offers and then are tempted to buy flat screen TVs and go on vacation with this new found credit. This article points out that with a little dollar sense all of these new luxuries can be enjoyed as well as setting yourself up for a comfortable retirement. Believe it or not, as soon as a student graduates, retirement planning should be added to their budget. Employees should always take advantage of the companies 401k program and full advantage of any company match. With the time value of money and compounding the money that you put into retirement savings now will be worth much more later.

The Greener Side of the NY Auto Show

Below is a video with newest green cars from our domestic auto makers. You can tell that most of this technology is quite a few year off given the fervor at which auto makers are fighting the proposed raise in CAFE standards. If the auto industry really does get serious about this new clean technology and brings it to market they will easily be able to avoid any increased government intervention in the auto sector.

Someone is Overthinking the Problem

This article at AutoBlogGreen (original WSJ article) describes the pilot program that Oregon is conducting to tax drivers per mile instead of per gallon. This pilot program requires installing a GPS system on participating vehicles that tracks the number of miles driven. When the driver refuels, the GPS unit uploads the miles traveled and resets. The specially equipped gas pump calculates the tax based on the mileage instead of the gallons pumped.

There have been a few criticisms of this system. The first is that fuel efficient vehicles are taxed at a higher rate per gallon then gas guzzlers. The second is that while Oregon says that they do not track where the owners have been, and I believe them, they may have the ability to determine where the owners are at any given time, a clear privacy issue. In addition to the two issues above, my issues are that heavier vehicles cause greater wear to the road and therefore the tax per gallon is fairer. Second, installing these units in all cars and equipping all gas pumps just seams so unnecessary and expensive. If the end goal is truly to increase revenues for road projects, why not just raise the current gas tax?

If you are Forced to Build it, Will They Buy it

AutoBlogGreen had a good report on the latest rumblings of the effort to raise the CAFE mpg minimums. Before the May 8th commerce committee vote to raise fuel economy standards to 35mpg over the next 10 years, automakers will get one more chance to provide input into this process. The automakers are trying to persuade Washington to allow them to raise fuel economy at a rate that is demanded by the consumer thereby also profitable for them. The automakers do not want to be forced to produce vehicles that consumer don't want.

New Study

In a study released by Stanford University, the effects of using a high blend (E100) for all of the United States transportation needs were assessed. This study found that ethanol produced more ozone in urban areas and could lead to more related deaths each year. He also determined the land area needed to produce all that fuel and came to the conclusion that clean electricity used to charge batteries or make hydrogen is a better choice.

The Study is being questioned by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights because it is indirectly funded by ExxonMobil. I’m a little unclear of the connection and why ExxonMobil would support clean electricity over ethanol. If anything ethanol would be the easier of the two for ExxonMobil to get involved with as it can be added to its current product or gas added to ethanol to make E85.

Progress Report

The WSJ has a good summary or progress report on the leading alternative energy sources. The good news is that progress is being made and only looks to accelerate as the cost of these energy sources drop. All of the energy sources looked at have too many disadvantages to be our sole method of energy production, collectively energy dependence will someday be a reality. What this means for the automotive industry is that most likely electricity will power our vehicles in the future. This electricity may be stored in the form of batteries powering an electric motor or hydrogen powering a fuel cell or a modified internal combustion engine.

Tesla Motors Top Down

If you haven't heard of Tesla Motors, they are the company that is trying to re-legitimize the electric car. After all major auto manufactures have given up on the concept this new company is going about the electric car in a different way. Instead of trying to design and build an electric car that is cheap and needs to be sold by the tens to hundreds of thousands, Tesla is building a $100k sports car that needs to sell about 1000 a year to be profitable. When you think about it, this makes a lot of sense and is normally how new technologies are introduced, from the top down. In this interview, Martin Eberhard makes this point by giving examples of flat panel TVs, cell phones and refrigerators, all were very expensive in the beginning and sold in small quantities to those who could afford it, but eventually came down in price and were then priced for the general public.