Thinking about Efficiencey

In the day (circa 1974, right after the first big 'fuel crunch' of 1973) I could provoke an argument by insisting that my sweetly tuned 1960 36 horsepower VW Beetle, notorious for squeezing a then amazing 32 miles out of every gallon of regular gas, was not as 'efficient,' or even fuel efficient, as friend Scott's '63 Merc, with its 265 horsepower 390 cubic inch V-8, that never quite managed 19 highway miles on a gallon of hi-test.

If, by efficiency, we meant: ton-miles moved for fuel consumed, he was doing lots better. Not that this was much consolation to him when he was inwardly questioning whether he really needed to haul around 3600 lbs of tailfins and chrome every time he went from Point A to Point B. But when he took on three passengers there was no perceptible degradation in mileage or performance, while a full load in my beloved 1600 lb.'Wolfbang' meant that several hills which were normally taken in 4th now entailed a downshift—or two—and a noticeable drop to mileage in the mid 20s per gallon.

The term 'efficiency' alone does not specify which efficiency one is discussing. In the era where may of us are now aware of our 'carbon footprint' and should engage in the national dialog about planning and policies that reduce greenhouse gasses, we need to go beyond the usually intended 'miles per gallon' and ponder things on bigger scales.

Come to appreciate that the Q25 MTA bus, only 1/3 full and getting only 5 mpg while lumbering along Parsons Avenue, is keeping 20 autos off the same road. (Hell, if we can convert it to a hybrid, maybe it would even beat 5 loaded, ride-sharing Priuses replacing it!) Ponder the national implications of subsidizing railway construction and improvement, in terms of the fact that on comparable long haul routes that 2-engined 100 freight car train is using about 1/8th the fuel per payload ton mile of the Peterbilt tractor hauling 10 tons in its 60 foot trailer.

In addition to wondering how much money you could be saving now by switching to a hybrid, think higher up and further ahead for a moment. We can find non-fossil fuel ways to move loads on the earth's surface, and should make that an international priority now, because we do not want to preclude the possibility of anyone being able to fly in airplanes after the year 2100. (Maybe by then we will have developed a way to safely beam non-fossil fuel-generated power up to aircraft... and likely by then they will be selling seaside real estate within the city limits of Houston.)

How cool it would be to have a presidential campaign based on the premise that we should lead international efforts to switch to appropriate technologies, to undertake and apply basic science that makes our planet sustainable and improves conditions globally. I am old enough to remember JFK's bold declaration (in 1962) that we would land a man on the moon before the end of that decade, and the excitement and global interest it sustained. It is time to return to visionary leadership, and a visionary citizenry motivated to get to work.