17
His drive to suburbia's a (natural) gas
Dick Messer, executive director of the Peterson Automotive Museum in Los Angeles.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
STEVE CHIOTAKIS: You can say Dick Messer has a split personality about the car. He's the executive director of the Peterson Automotive Museum in Los Angeles. Everyday to the masses, he shows off a lot of gas guzzlers. But he drives something a little more environmentally-friendly.
This morning, as part of Marketplace's series, the "Next American Dream," we examine that quintessential American accessory -- the car.
It helped build suburbia. It gives us freedom.
And it also has an environmental downside.
That's something Dick Messer wants to fix. Thanks for joining us today sir. What is it that you drive?
Dick Messer: This is the GX-model Honda. That's my commuter car. That's a car that I drive on a daily basis and it's natural gas powered. It is basically pollution free. There's a little bit of pollution, but nothing anywhere near what it would be if the car was gasoline powered.
CHIOTAKIS: How difficult is it to find natural gas?
Messer: It's not difficult at all. That's a huge myth. Natural gas is anywhere from around the L.A. area anywhere from $1.35. I filled up last night, it was $1.79.
CHIOTAKIS: So why is natural gas better than electric?
Messer: I have a home in Riverside, Calif., which is 75 miles east of here. And you can't get there, you can't get from Los Angeles to Riverside -- to my house in Riverside -- on one charge with an electric car right now. You can't do it.
CHIOTAKIS: What do you say to people who tell you that electric cars are cleaner?
Messer: My answer is they're not.
CHIOTAKIS: Why?
Messer: Well you've got to take it right back from the beginning -- battery production. You've got lead in your batteries. You've got all kinds of toxic chemicals inside the battery and then you've got the disposal of the batteries. We're getting to the point now where some of these Priuses have been out since 2002, 2003 and their batteries are starting to go bad. What are you going to do when you get rid of the old battery pack? How's that disposed of? Well it goes to a toxic waste dump.
The other issue is the production of electricity. You know, you are running the car on electricity. It's not free energy.
CHIOTAKIS: What brought you to this? What brought you to drive in a car, you know, that's fueled by natural gas?
Messer: This is my offset. We're a museum. We have a lot of gas-guzzling cars. I own a lot of gas-guzzling cars. I own some muscle cars. I own a '63 Lincoln Continental I've had since new. I've had a '53 Cadillac. These cars are getting 11-12 miles a gallon. But I only drive them maybe once a month. This is my contribution to Mother Earth.
You know, and to set an example for the people that come to the Peterson. I'm saying I'm the director of the museum and I drive a natural gas-powered Honda, and I love it. I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's a comfortable car. It's got plenty of zip. It's clean energy. The thing that's a mystery to me is why more people haven't caught onto this.
CHIOTAKIS: Well Dick Messer, executive director of the Peterson Automotive Museum in Los Angeles, thanks for being with us.
Messer: Well thanks for having me on, I appreciate it.
CHIOTAKIS: Good luck with your car.
Messer: Thank you.
Pages
that business about the 2002 / 2003 Prius batteries going bad is flat out false.
plus, toyota recycles prius batteries.
plus, the prius comes with 8 yr / 100,000 mile warranty.
i do believe natural gas is cleaner than gasoline, but i doubt it is safer, and it is definitely not the final answer to our energy woes. the way to go is solar. natural gas is a distraction. we need to develop solar, as that is the only energy source that is truly abundant, reliable (provided we don't have a nuclear holocaust) and sustainable. wind, geothermal and hydro are good too... but solar is the one with literally the most potential.
and a prius can be converted to a plug-in hybrid. plugging in right now, yes, uses fossil fuels at the power plant... but the potential to be 100% clean is there... when (if) we convert our power plants to solar.
I continue to hear people on Tv and radio spewing misinformation about electric vehicles. It's unfortunate that someone listening to these people will get the wrong ideas when this country needs to progress to an alternative to fossil fuels. I would hope that Marketplace would have someone on the show in the near future that actually knows something about the EV industry and can set the record straight. I drive an electric vehicle daily that does use lead acid batteries
and the batteries will be recycled when I am finished with them.
I continue to hear people on Tv and radio spewing misinformation about electric vehicles. It's unfortunate that someone listening to these people will get the wrong ideas when this country needs to progress to an alternative to fossil fuels. I would hope that Marketplace would have someone on the show in the near future that actually knows something about the EV industry and can set the record straight. I drive an electric vehicle daily that does use lead acid batteries
and the batteries will be recycled when I am finished with them.
I was disappointed by the statements made by Mr. Messer in this article. I do not know if he is simply mis-informed or if he has a reason for his bias toward natural gas powered cars.
First, I would say that natural gas does have a place in our transportation system. T. Boone Pickens is a big supporter of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Although Mr. Pickens has promoted the Honda Mr. Messer drives in the past. Recently Mr. Pickens hinted that natural gas may need to be conserved for use in trucks, when cars can be powered by batteries. Mr. Pickens made the following statement on Meet the Press November 16, 2008. "We need to put our heavy duty 18-wheelers on the natural gas... because natural gas is the--it's the one and only fuel that moves an 18-wheeler other than diesel and gasoline... and the hybrid, all it does is move the light duty, you know, cars and trucks--or pickups. But the trucks, the big stuff, has got to be moved by natural gas. " Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27752329/page/3/
Second, the following statement by Mr. Messer that, "you can't get from Los Angeles to Riverside.. on one charge with an electric car right now. You can't do it." is completely false. Autospeed.com reports the Tesla's a 100% electric car for sale and in use today has a range on a single charge of 244 miles. Source: http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_111251/article.html
Third, I believe Mr. Messer does not understand the composition of the Prius battery. Mr. Messer's statement, "You've got lead in your batteries. You've got all kinds of toxic chemicals inside the battery and then you've got the disposal of the batteries. We're getting to the point now where some of these Priuses have been out since 2002, 2003 and their batteries are starting to go bad." This sounds like a reference to older lead-acid batteries not the more modern NiMH (nickel-metal Hydride) batteries used in the Prius. Totally debunking the, You've got all kinds of toxic chemicals inside the battery... Prius", Christopher Lampton in an article titled How Electric Car Batteries Work states, "Nickel metal hydride batteries came into commercial use in the late 1980s. They have a high energy density -- that is, a great deal of energy can be packed into a relatively small battery -- and don't contain any toxic metals, so they're easy to recycle." Source: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/electric-car-batt... Other comments have already amply pointed out that Toyota does have a recycling program for its batteries.
Fourth, Mr. Messer's next statement, "The other issue is the production of electricity. You know, you are running the car on electricity. It's not free energy." This statement may be partially correct as all electricity has some cost associated. However, there are fuel free ways of generating electricity. Solar has specifically been applied to generating electricity to power a Tesla by Jason Calacanis. "Like Tesla founder Martin Eberhard, Calacanis is installing solar panels on his house to charge the Roadster and he seems completely committed to the idea of getting his transportation needs free of the grid and imported oil." Source: http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/JasonCalacanis/ The use of off-peak wind power to charge plug in hybrids and electric cars is also being closely studied, as not everyone can afford the solar panels Mr. Calacanis has yet. Source: http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/2009/02/04/ferc_boss_dubs_the_...
I am disappointed that Marketplace and Mr. Chiotakis allowed so many blatantly incorrect statements to be made by Mr. Messer. In a time when people are hoping traditional media can survive so that proper journalist scrutiny will be applied, this interview where so many incorrect statements go unchallenged by the interviewer is unfortunate.
I am hopeful that tomorrow morning when I tune into my local NPR station, I will hear a retraction of the mis-information that was presented in this story.
Oh STEVE CHIOTAKIS-This could be a 'what was i thinking' moment for you.
As it turns out, there were many angles completely glossed over and sanitized which i must profess I completely missed when hearing it. There but for the grace of the internet go I...is that what they say?
I am really glad you did this story- but only because of what I learned from some of the letter writers. I think it's time to have Mary Sweeney and Paul Scott on for a rebuttal!! They really are well versed on the critical topics they discussed in depth-
Oh STEVE CHIOTAKIS-This could be a 'what was i thinking' moment for you.
As it turns out, there were many angles completely glossed over and sanitized which i must profess I completely missed when hearing it. There but for the grace of the internet go I...is that what they say?
I am really glad you did this story- but only because of what I learned from some of the letter writers. I think it's time to have Mary Sweeney and Paul Scott on for a rebuttal!! They really are well versed on the critical topics they discussed in depth-
Honestly, two things need to happen...
Less of everything. Less work, less driving, less vacations... of course that needs to be coupled with lower taxes and higher pay, which also means that we would have to pay more for everything we buy.
Second, diversify fuels. There simply can't be one energy source for everyone. In the midwest, lets use more alcohol, as it's more effective to produce here. Let people in large cities have electric vehicles. If your area is prime for natural gas, then let that operate in that area.
It will make moving more difficult, but that too is something we need less of. It takes a lot of resources to move. We have to give up some things to achieve others.
Private transportation will be a necessity as long as taxes, courts, centralized schools and all other conditions that can not be met from one's home exist. Having everyone move to a city doesn't help either. The more condensed a population is, the worse for the environment it becomes.
Mr. Messer said: "There's a little bit of pollution, but nothing anywhere near what it would be if the car was gasoline powered."
I doubt that Ms. Messer lives in an area where shale gas drilling is occurring. Shale gas is being promoted by the gas industry as a way to replace America's dwindling traditional natural gas sources.
I live in upstate NY above the Marcellus Shale. Last summer my area experienced a gas rush. A huge amount of acreage has been leased by various gas companies across the Marcellus Shale, which includes the Southern Tier of NY, most of PA, and parts of Ohio and W. VA.
Marcellus drilling in NY state is on hold pending an environmental review, but it is going forward in other areas.
Concerned about what this gas rush would mean for my community, I have spent a great deal of time over the last year researching the issue. The more I've learned, the more concerned I've become. Shale gas wells are not benign.
In traditional gas sources, the gas occurs in rich pockets. In shale gas formations, much of the gas is trapped within the rock. In order to release the gas, a process called hydrofracturing is employed: the rock is fractured by injecting millions of gallons of chemical-laden water at high pressure into the ground. The gas companies will not reveal the precise combination and amounts of chemicals used, but researchers have pieced together parts of the formula and discovered that a large number of dangerous chemicals--including carcinogenic chemicals--are used. Some of this chemical-laden water remains underground; some returns to the surface. In addition to the chemicals, the water returning to the surface may also contain heavy metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials which normally would be trapped deep beneath the earth. Disposing of this contaminated water is a huge problem.
A huge amount of diesel fuel is burned when a shale well is drilled. The diesel is used to fuel the fleet of trucks needed to bring equipment and water to and from the drilling site. Also, diesel is burned in the compressors needed to move the gas through the system of pipelines which transports the gas. This heavy use of diesel fuel contributes to global warming and causes serious local air pollution.
Moreover, in order to recover appreciable amounts of gas from the shale, a very high well density is required, and each well requires a system of access roads and pipelines. This means that over time, formerly rural and suburban areas will be turned into industrial zones by gas drilling. Large numbers of trees are sacrificed, further contributing to global warming.
Some areas in which shale gas drilling has occurred have experienced methane contamination of their water sources, leading to flammable tap water, explosions in water wells, and, in Bainbridge, Ohio, an explosion which occurred inside a house.
The gas industry has gotten exemptions to many federal environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.
There has been very little study of the true, overall contribution to global warming of this type of gas drilling. I have already mentioned that a great deal of diesel fuel must be consumed to drill a well, and that in some areas many trees will be sacrificed. Many wells must be hydrofractured multiple times if they are to continue producing, and each time a well is hydrofractured, trucks must haul millions of gallons of water to and from the drilling site. Moreover, methane, which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, is accidentally leaked and intentionally vented from the gas wells.
These gas wells are NOT being drilled out in the middle of nowhere. They are being drilled in neighborhoods and near homes and schools. They present serious threats to the environment and to public health. The damage caused by the drilling is likely to continue for many decades, long after the gas has been burned.
Until one looks more closely, burning "clean" natural gas may seem like a good solution to both local and global environmental problems. But a closer look leads to a different picture. It's time to consider the WHOLE picture, and in that larger picture, natural gas is NOT clean.
While I applaud Mr. Messer for driving the cleanest internal combustion vehicle made, his comments about electric vehicles were completely wrong. Let's take them one at a time:
"I have a home in Riverside, Calif., which is 75 miles east of here. And you can't get there, you can't get from Los Angeles to Riverside -- to my house in Riverside -- on one charge with an electric car right now. You can't do it."
**Actually, there are many EVs that have a range well beyond 75 miles. My Toyota RAV4 EV, which was first introduced by Toyota way back in 1997, has a range of 120 miles. The Tesla Roadster can travel 240 miles on a single charge. I drove a tZero from AC Propulsion over three years ago and that car had a range of over 300 miles on a charge.
"Well you've got to take it right back from the beginning -- battery production. You've got lead in your batteries. You've got all kinds of toxic chemicals inside the battery and then you've got the disposal of the batteries. We're getting to the point now where some of these Priuses have been out since 2002, 2003 and their batteries are starting to go bad. What are you going to do when you get rid of the old battery pack? How's that disposed of? Well it goes to a toxic waste dump."
** 100% of the hybrid batteries in the world are Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH), not lead acid as Mr. Messer claims. The battery in my RAV4 EV is NiMH as well. Virtually all of the new plug-in vehicles in development will use the newer lithium ion (LiIon) batteries.
While every car in the world has a starter battery that is lead acid, here in the U.S., these batteries are recycled at a rate of 98%. This is because it is illegal to throw them in the dump and lead has an intrinsic value as a commodity. When you take your car to the battery store for replacement, they will give you $5 or so for the old battery and after they store up a few, the recycler will come and take them to the battery recycling plant.
All the new EVs will be using the NiMH or LiIon batteries. These are going to be large battery packs of several hundred pounds. It will be illegal to throw them away and the commodity price of nickel and lithium is enough such that we expect virtually 100% of them to be recycled.
But prior to their being recycled, they will have a second life as storage for the utilities' excess energy at night. When they no longer have the power to run the car, they will be sold to utilities that will then place them in warehouses and wire them together and then charge them at night with cheap off-peak power. The utilities will then use this energy to feed into the grid the next day to offset what would be natural gas generated electricity. After several more years, then the batteries will be recycled.
"The other issue is the production of electricity. You know, you are running the car on electricity. It's not free energy."
** There are over 30 studies that have looked at the well-to-wheels pollution from a gas car vs. EV. See http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf for a compilation of the studies. In every study, the same conclusion was found. Even when charged on the national grid which is about 50% coal, EVs are much cleaner than gas cars. It's not even close. Of course, with EVs you have the choice to use clean, renewable energy to charge your car. Besides, if you have a problem with dirty electricity, you shouldn't be using that dirty electricity to run your household appliances either, right? Use solar or wind to run your house, and then when you get your EV, you're 100% clean.
Again, I thank Mr. Messer for driving a clean internal combustion car, but he should check his facts before unfairly comparing his car with electric cars.
Pages
