| |
Why the Gasoline Engine Isn't Going Away Any Time Soon - WSJ.com
by flynn23 at 1:24 pm EDT, Sep 16, 2008 |
Cars aren't iPods or washing machines. They are both highly complex machines and the enablers of a way of life that for many is synonymous with freedom and opportunity -- not just in the U.S., but increasingly in rising nations such as China, India and Russia. Engineering and tooling to produce a new vehicle takes three to five years -- and that's without adding the challenge of major new technology. Most car buyers won't accept "beta" technology in the vehicles they and their families depend on every day. Many senior industry executives -- including those at Japanese companies -- have vivid memories of the backlash against the quality problems that resulted when Detroit rushed smaller cars and new engines into the market after the gas-price shocks of the 1970s. The lesson learned: Technological change is best done incrementally.
This is part of a broader expose that the WSJ is doing about green tech and business, all of which I have not read yet but am looking forward to doing so. I think that these 2 paragraphs give very short shrift to the underlying problem with the automotive industry. Product development lifecycle is just too damn slow. Where is the innovation? It needs to be right here. Most other products have experienced tremendous gains in this kind of investment. I mean, the software industry alone has benefited exponentially from gains in lifecycle management. It's not a fair comparison, but it is proof that things can get a lot better. Yes, it's expensive and time consuming to create the manufacturing tools and systems to create a new product in this industry, but incrementalizing your way isn't going to rescue Detroit. There's loads of things like new materials, new construction and fabrication techniques, and new shared tooling. That's not even to mention process improvements like faster iteration of testing and less focus on marketing test groups. Throw away the waterfall method and you might be surprised at much more efficient you can get. Who knows, that might even result in production cost savings giving you a better margin or a cheaper car for the consumer. |
| |
RE: Why the Gasoline Engine Isn't Going Away Any Time Soon - WSJ.com
by Stefanie at 11:17 am EDT, Sep 17, 2008 |
flynn23 wrote:
Yes, it's expensive and time consuming to create the manufacturing tools and systems to create a new product in this industry, but incrementalizing your way isn't going to rescue Detroit. There's loads of things like new materials, new construction and fabrication techniques, and new shared tooling. That's not even to mention process improvements like faster iteration of testing and less focus on marketing test groups.
Granted, the software and automotive industries are two different animals, but you make a good a point. Were this the 1960s-1970s, one would expect slow reactions to quickly (and drastically) changing circumstances, but now, we should be much better equipped to react sooner, assuming that the industry is willing. Joseph White wrote:
A world full of electricity-driven cars would require different refueling infrastructure but the good news is that it's already largely in place, reflecting a century of investment in the electric grid. The refueling station is any electric outlet. The key will be to control recharging so it primarily happens when the grid isn't already stressed, but controllers should be able to steer recharging to off-peak hours, likely backed by discount rates for electricity.
A 20-mile commute in an electric car may not burn gasoline, but it could well burn coal -- the fuel used to fire electric power plants in much of the U.S. The greener alternative would be to not make the drive at all, and fire up a laptop and a broadband connection instead.
More businesses might be able to allow employees to work from home offices, which would help; but that won't always be practical, especially for service-oriented businesses. People will still take recreational trips, too, as long as they have the means. Besides, nuclear energy would be "greener" than coal, and that should hold us until solar energy becomes a practical replacement (assuming that it ever does; let's hope Phaethon's prediction regarding decentralized production is accurate). First, we need the electric vehicles. The change in infrastructure will follow. |
|
| | |
RE: Why the Gasoline Engine Isn't Going Away Any Time Soon - WSJ.com
by flynn23 at 10:16 am EDT, Sep 18, 2008 |
Stefanie wrote: flynn23 wrote:
Yes, it's expensive and time consuming to create the manufacturing tools and systems to create a new product in this industry, but incrementalizing your way isn't going to rescue Detroit. There's loads of things like new materials, new construction and fabrication techniques, and new shared tooling. That's not even to mention process improvements like faster iteration of testing and less focus on marketing test groups.
Granted, the software and automotive industries are two different animals, but you make a good a point. Were this the 1960s-1970s, one would expect slow reactions to quickly (and drastically) changing circumstances, but now, we should be much better equipped to react sooner, assuming that the industry is willing. Joseph White wrote:
A world full of electricity-driven cars would require different refueling infrastructure but the good news is that it's already largely in place, reflecting a century of investment in the electric grid. The refueling station is any electric outlet. The key will be to control recharging so it primarily happens when the grid isn't already stressed, but controllers should be able to steer recharging to off-peak hours, likely backed by discount rates for electricity.
A 20-mile commute in an electric car may not burn gasoline, but it could well burn coal -- the fuel used to fire electric power plants in much of the U.S. The greener alternative would be to not make the drive at all, and fire up a laptop and a broadband connection instead.
More businesses might be able to allow employees to work from home offices, which would help; but that won't always be practical, especially for service-oriented businesses. People will still take recreational trips, too, as long as they have the means. Besides, nuclear energy would be "greener" than coal, and that should hold us until solar energy becomes a practical replacement (assuming that it ever does; let's hope Phaethon's prediction regarding decentralized production is accurate). First, we need the electric vehicles. The change in infrastructure will follow.
Frankly I think the focus on the greening of transportation is a faulty strategy. It only accounts for about 40% of total energy use. The rest is made up of static infrastructure (your home, your office, your store, etc). Those problems are much easier to solve. Getting your home or office off the grid is a much better investment, short and long term, than trying to design a sustainable transportation system. Go for the easy win people! Another thing to consider is that bringing online things like solar, hydro, and wind to generate electricity is not just about the price per watt for those sources. The grid is in a woeful state and is just not built for these distributed sources. There's been a 30-50 year error in strategy around core infrastructure in this country. Yes, we've had cheap commodities compared to the Asians and Europeans, but at the cost of having crap infrastructure. It's going to be time to pay the piper I fear. |
|
|
|
