Transportation
in the 21st Century
By Reid
Gustin, Brian Rodde
The
current outlook for oil production on a worldwide scale is not good. As early as the summer of 1999, oil
producers are expecting gasoline prices to start rising rapidly. The global oil glut that was a result of
searching and finding new oil fields during the 1970’s is finally coming to an
end, as fewer and fewer new fields are being found. Many experts flatly state that there are no more major oil fields
to be found. Also, we will eventually
start to run out of crude petroleum from the fields we are currently drilling
in, as our recovery rates for oil fields are currently around 50%. This will result in higher and higher prices
for the gasoline being sold, and hopefully will result in more and more
efficient automobiles being produced.
Currently, with new sales of sport utility vehicles and other light
trucks edging out cars as a percentage of total auto sales, the low gasoline
prices have been a major problem. With
the average sport utility vehicle getting no more than eighteen miles per
gallon, and the average compact car getting upwards of thirty five, low gas
prices have led to a consumer attitude that a gas-guzzling light truck is as
good or better than an ultra-efficient compact car. In order for the oil currently in reserves and the oil we expect
to find within the next twenty years not to be depleted at a rate higher than
production, more and more efficient cars must be used, and the exemptions for
the gas-guzzling cars must be removed.
Currently, a truck over 5000 pounds is exempt from emissions and mileage
restrictions in many states. The laws
were seen as a break for the working man, as when they were written, sport
utility vehicles didn’t really exist yet, and a work force laborer with a
pickup truck could generally use a break on emissions rules for his truck. Moving into the 21st century, we
need to realize that it is not the working man who owns a sport utility
vehicle: they are too expensive to buy,
and use to much gas.
First, the basic problem. In the late 1970’s, when Iran and Iraq were
engaged in political arguments, and then a war, the rest of the world scrambled
to find oil outside of the Persian Gulf.
Oil surged to $40 per barrel (as compared to $13 or so today) and new
oil fields were found. At least, some
new oil fields were found. Engineers
promised a huge number of new fields were out there, but the peak year for finding new major oil
fields was 1962. Since then, global
discovery has dropped sharply, in all regions.
Petroleum exploration, as a procedure, is very efficient. The technology is very advanced, and suits
it’s purpose well. The current method
for finding oil fields is to locate a basin, or general area where oil might be
found. Next, a small, man-made virtual
earthquake is produced by slamming a projectile into the ground. This sends seismic lines across the oil
basin, and the echo signature can be used to find pockets of liquid or other
mineral deposits. The only thing left
is to tap the oil field, and the field has been fully discovered. Unfortunately, the fact is that the largest
oil field in a given basin will also be the easiest to find. Consequently, the largest oil fields were
found very early in the exploration process.
For obvious reasons, the oil companies always chose to drill on the biggest
oil field in an area, meaning that occasionally some of the current fields will
have a smaller pocket of oil, a secondary field of sorts, but nowhere near as
substantial as the main field an oil company will focus on for oil
drilling. Even if all of these
secondary fields are exploited, the oil depletion curve will only be moved back
a few years; we certainly won't be able to count on smaller oil fields for a
period longer than fifteen years.
Today, there is no area on earth
where petroleum exploration cannot take place if geological studies show a
decent chance of finding significant petroleum fields. Even deep-water drilling is a possibility,
though exploration is more complicated.
It is fortunate that we can drill in these areas, because the only two
unexploited areas with possible oil resources are in arctic climates like Russians
Siberia, and in deep oceanic shelves like those off the eastern coast of South
America. Still, as compared to the
amount of oil in fields over the rest of the world, the oil in these unexplored
regions should account to no more than 5% of supply.
So, in the late 1970s, very few of
the promised major oil fields were found.
Most of the regions on earth where petroleum was likely to be found had
already been located, and the significant majority of the fields in those
regions had been found. In fact, no new
oil regions with major oil resources have been found since 1980. We have been depending on the same general
areas for our oil during the entire history of oil exploration and use. There are 1311 major and giant oil fields,
which contain 94% of the world's known oil, and are therefore the most
important for future global oil supplies, or the lack thereof. The vast majority of the giant fields are
located in five middle eastern countries: Abu Dhabi, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and
Saudi Arabia. There are, however, major
fields (being the next category smaller than giant fields, the largest) across
the seven continents, and off the shores of all of them.
Modern three-dimensional seismic and
horizontal drilling techniques improved current oil recovery in known fields,
but made no substantial change in global reserves of discoveries of new major
fields. When the world oil prices
dropped sharply in 1986, searching for new oil fields was almost stopped. Oil companies felt that it was far more cost
effective to simply try to improve recovery in the fields they were currently
using. New techniques arose, but the
amount of reserves left in those fields already found certainly did not change. By 1989, all major world petroleum
exploration companies were downsizing or eliminating their geological and
geophysical staffs. Money for
exploration and discovery began to be much more limited, with only the prime
prospects being looked at.
A distinction must now be made
between oil reserves and oil resources.
Oil reserves are engineers conservative opinions of how much oil is
known to be producible, within a known time, with known techniques, at known
costs, in known fields. They are the
quantity of oil that an oil company or a country can get their hands on within a
reasonable amount of time. The oil must
be reachable with a current technology, not with something “in the works,” or
soon to become available. Additionally,
reserves must be located in the actual oil field in which the company is
currently drilling. Reserves do not
count oil known to exist but not currently being drilled, as the setup time on
a new drill is substantial. Once a
drill is set up, then the new field becomes part of reserves, and can be
counted with numbers for that particular fields reserves. Oil reserves are conservative enough that a
bank will loan money based on reserves.
Oil resources, on the other hand, are geologists optimistic opinions of
all undiscovered oil theoretically present in an area. It is all the oil thought to be in a
region. For example, if a geologist
looks at the geological makeup of a region and believes that there could be
substantial amounts of oil in that particular location, he makes an estimate as
to how much oil is actually there and that number becomes part of the oil
resources count. Obviously, this number
is subject to a great deal of estimation, as well as personal opinion. Banks will not loan money based on oil
resources.
The drop in exploration funds means
that oil resources will likely never be converted into oil reserves. For example, in Russia, there are huge areas
where oil resources are thought to exist, but the huge amount of money going
into oil production in the last couple of years went instead to increasing
efficiency of current production areas.
It is commonly thought that Siberia holds substantial oil pockets
created before the area was encased in permafrost. The Russian government, however, has decided that it would be far
more effective to try and increase recovery in current fields than to search
for new ones. This region in Siberia is
extremely hostile to humans, and the costs associated with setting up and
manning any number of oil drills would be huge. Alternatively, by increasing recovery in current wells by only a
small percent, a huge amount of oil that was previously unavailable comes into
the driller’s hands. In America,
petroleum engineers also are being used to get more oil out of current fields,
rather than exploring for new fields.
With current drilling techniques, approximately 50% of the oil in a
field can be extracted. That number is
up from 30% less than thirty years ago, and could certainly rise in the near
future. However, even if oil companies
raise this number to 70% or even 80%, the patterns of oil depletion will
certainly continue, only with a longer time-frame. With global demand for oil soaring currently, a 5% rise in
recovery techniques would give no more than 7 years to the date when oil demand
would race past oil production.
Another problem with public knowledge,
or lack thereof, of oil reserves is that scientists and government reporters
are reporting inactive reserves along with active reserves. If the government believes it has a twenty
year oil reserve, chances are that a significant portion of that reserve is
inactive, meaning that it is known to exist, but is not considered producible
within the foreseeable future with current production methods. Often, these inactive reserves are seen by
the oil companies only as oil resources, but governments call them oil reserves
to inflate their numbers. Counted as
inactive reserves would be, for example, the additional 5% increase in recovery
from a field if technology to make this increase was expected to arrive within
the next year or so. A government might
look at it as though the imminent technology were as good as here, and count
the additional oil as already a part of reserves. Alternatively, the oil companies would look at the extra oil as
oil resources, as they still would be unable to retrieve it with current
production methods. Oil companies are
in business for profit, and are generally very realistic as far as innovations
go. It would be likely that they would
be skeptical about the new recovery technique until it had been proven as
effective and efficient. As oil
companies are in business to make money, they also will not work to exploit
inactive reserves until active reserves start to fall behind, as it would earn
a division of resources that they tend to find unacceptable. The extra effort to keep another drill or
pump going at the same time means a depletion of capital that they will not let
happen.
Government petroleum production
ministries also have an interest in announcing the best possible reserve
estimates, because they are useful for national prestige, in negotiations for
OPEC production quotas, World Bank loans and grants, and so on. Because of this, political reserve estimates
tend to be very high, in effect lulling the public and politicians into
complacency. Consequently, even the
shrinking reserves reported by some countries may be inflated for political
reasons. Other countries simply
continue to quote the exact same number year after year. China, for instance, has reported the exact
same reserve number for the last fifteen years, even though they have continued
to drill the oil, meaning that some of it has to have been used up. They do this so that the reserves are
counted towards national assets, meaning that it is something against which the
government could take a loan if it became necessary.
So, where do falling oil reserves
leave us? By the year 2000, the global
population will be half again as much as it was in 1975, nearly seven billion
people, with a corresponding increase in demand for crude oil. Industrializing nations such as China and
India, both with enormous populations, will start to compete with Western
nations for world crude oil exports.
The U.S. Geological Survey statistics show that the worlds oil
production might peak by the year 2010, after which the oil fields will begin
to decline rapidly. With a growing
global population, and oil reserves that will begin to shrink, oil will begin
to rise exponentially in price, and automobile gasoline will become extremely
expensive. By 2050, oil production will
be a small fraction of what it is today.
Global public demand will begin to exceed supply from the Persian Gulf
exporters as early as 2010 if political affairs remain in their current state,
and it could even be as early as the year 2000 if Saudi Arabia, the principle
petroleum exporter, has serious political problems that effect oil
exports. The question now is only when
the permanent oil crunch will come.
Even with questionable numbers
reported by some countries, such as China and Iraq, estimates can be made for
when countries will begin to enter the depletion stage, where petroleum
production falls behind. Geologists
speak of this stage as the “midpoint,” where the production function begins to
decline rapidly. China, for example, is
expected to peak around the year 2000, while Mexico and Columbia are expected
to peak in the next year. These
numbers, however, are based upon what the governments of these countries report
as their numbers, as no confirmation can be obtained. Also, this does assume that Abu Dhabi, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and
Saudi Arabia continue to produce at current levels, with no disruptions. The world oil situation is tenuous at best,
and relies on a huge number of variables and relationships between countries
remaining friendly. At any given point,
the middle eastern countries could decide to close off oil exports to the rest
of the world if relations break down.
Obviously, this would have an enormous impact on the world economy, and
near-chaos would ensue. However, if
relations with these countries remain normal, the pandemonium around a real oil
crunch will still occur, only at a later point in time than if the oil
exporters sealed oil sales. Clearly,
another method of fuel for the worlds energy needs must be found, whether a temporary
solution, such as natural gas, or a renewable solution such as methanol. After oil is depleted for practical
purposes, gas will come into play. In
barrels of oil equivalent (boe), there is 1 trillion boe worth of gas that can
be produced for fuel. This is compared
with 1.8 trillion boe for conventional petroleum. Gas, however, must be sealed into the ground, either by cold or
by salt, in order for pockets to be found, so the locations where gas can be
found are much less scattered than those for oil. In the near future, more deep water oil and gas (greater than 500
m water depth) will come into play.
Hopefully, there will be some oil produced from new finds in the Arctic,
and recovery methods are advancing to a certain extent. It is currently estimated that an oil
producer can get 50% of the oil out of an oil field; that is, 50% can be
retrieved and processed. As technology
advances, this may rise to 60% or further, but the depletion patterns currently
in place will not disappear, they will only be moved back a few years.
This is the current oil
situation. We are, in fact, running out
of retrievable oil that we can process into the fuels used so extensively
today. To add insult to injury, we also
have issues with the cars currently being used in America, as well as the rest
of the world. In 1998, Sport Utility
Vehicles (SUV's) made up 51% of new vehicles sold, the first time light trucks
have ever sold more new models than smaller cars have. There is clearly a need for action as far as
transportation goes. In addition to the
gas consumption worries, the pollution emitted from these vehicles are far
worse than that from most other new cars.
Motor vehicles account for a fourth of all U.S. emissions of carbon
dioxide, the chief cause of global warming.
Policy makers therefore focus on cars as a way to reduce carbon
emissions. For good reason: U.S.
vehicles emit more carbon dioxide than all combustion sources in any other
single country (except China, Russia, and Japan). Short-term, the outlook is bad.
The efficiency of new vehicles has been on the decline for ten years due
to steady fuel economy standards and increasing sales of inefficient pickups,
mini vans, and SUVs. Even though
technology for cleaner cars exists, these enormous sport utility vehicles do
not take advantage of that technology, and generally get fifteen to twenty
miles per gallon, as compared to 35 to 40 for a conventional compact car. In addition, vehicle miles are increasing
while the proportion of commuters taking public transport steadily
declines. With oil prices reaching
record lows, consumers are not looking for efficiency, or cutting back on miles
driven. If no action is taken, transportation
will continue to be the single largest source of carbon emissions in the
U.S. Fortunately, as oil production
falls, the price of oil per barrel will begin to rise, meaning that consumers
will not want to spend more money for the privilege of buying greater
quantities of more expensive gas. This
will create a demand on automakers to start making more and more efficient
vehicles, and to cut back on production of SUVs, which will almost certainly
have a declining demand.
In the near future, closing
loopholes that permit light trucks to pollute more than cars and improving the
fuel economy of all vehicles will be absolutely crucial. California is currently taking action, but
large cuts in carbon emissions and air pollution require that automakers
rapidly introduce vehicles that give a huge jump in environmental
performance. Over the next ten to
twenty years, alternative fuels like hydrogen, ethanol, and methanol
manufactured from renewable sources can provide additional air quality gains
while virtually eliminating carbon emissions.
And reducing driving altogether, which ultimately requires shifts in
travel and housing patterns, is vital to the eventual shift towards a
sustainable transportation future.
However, these social changes are in the further future than our oil
crunch. Very shortly, the world is
going to have to make drastic changes in the way it consumes petroleum, and
automobiles are the first thing that we need to change.
Without any action, carbon emissions
from passenger vehicles will rise 20% to 35% over early 1990s levels by the
year 2010. Instead, there have been
estimates that emissions could be 13% lower in 2010. So, instead of actually decreasing our emissions from
automobiles, we will actually be increasing them by a third to a fifth. With emissions already bad, adding an extra
30% onto them could make for even more serious need for pollution
controls. To make matters worse, there
are a large number of technology advances coming into play in the next few
years that could make emissions far lower.
By 2030, when the full group in environmentally friendly innovations
come into existence, carbon emissions could be more than 60% lower. There has been, not surprisingly, a reaction
from automakers stating that “the U.S. can expect soaring production costs and
significantly higher driving costs,” as Andrew Card, CEO of the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association put it, due to a move towards more
efficient vehicles. Environmental
groups, however, claim that drivers in the U.S. alone could save more than $4
billion per year because of lower fuel bills from relatively low-cost
efficiency improvements. Yet without
stronger regulatory pressure or overwhelming consumer demand, automakers have
little incentive to bring cost-effective, highly efficient cars to market. Currently, profit drives the automakers, and
SUVs bring in huge profits. Margins are
very high on these vehicles, because they don't require a great deal of
research and development to bring them to the front line. The current trend in sport utility vehicles
is toward bigger and even less efficient vehicles. Ford is currently planning to bring out its biggest, and the
biggest ever sport utility vehicle, the Excursion. The excursion is planned to be more than 19 feet long, more than
a foot longer than a parking space in most cities. More importantly, the Excursion will get around 10 miles per
gallon, rising to almost 15 when cruising on highways.
California, facing federally
required emission reductions by the year 2010, adopted regulations that make them
the first to force most SUVs, pickups, and mini vans to meet the same pollution
standards as regular cars. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is expected to closely examine the new rules,
and may follow California's lead when drawing up nationwide regulations. Twenty-five million vehicles are on the
roads of California. Half of these, as
in the rest of the nation, are SUVs, or light trucks. Exempt by weight from more stringent car-pollution standards,
they produce three-fourths of vehicle emissions in California, which has seven
of the ten areas in the United States with the highest readings of ozone.
The new rules apply only to new cars
sold starting in 2004 and will be phased in through 2010, with reevaluations
scheduled every two years. The rules
would expand passenger car emission standards to all vehicles that weigh up to
8,500 pounds. That will include about
90% of SUVs, and most pickups and mini vans.
While major car manufacturers were disappointed, the Air Resources Board
showed that the costs could be far less than anticipated. While car manufacturers claimed it might
cost “thousands per vehicle” to meet the new standards, the Air Resources Board
showed a 1998 Ford Explorer that had been converted to meet to new standards
for about $200. Unfortunately for the
oil depletion problem, most of the new fixes in efficiency controls focus
solely on emissions. While carbon
emissions must be controlled to maintain our quality of air, an automobile can
be converted to meet the new standards while still getting terrible gas
mileage.
Clearly there will eventually have
to be a shift away from petroleum using vehicles, or at least a huge jump in
efficiency, but a clear start towards higher efficiency is very strict controls
on sport utility vehicles, and an increasing gas mileage standard for all
cars. It should not be particularly
difficult to require a car to get a certain number of miles per gallon. Even an rule saying that all cars must get
20 miles per gallon would certainly help the immediate oil depletion situation,
as it might push the depletion timeframe back a few more years. While a temporary fix to be sure, it would
help in the short run. There are a number
of new technologies for increasing fuel efficiency, including ethanol, methanol,
and battery powered cars, but these currently all hold negatives that will
hamper their acceptance by the public.
One alternative with none of these negatives is a hybrid car, that
combines a small gas motor with a battery for very efficient operation
Now that we've discussed what’s
wrong with conventional cars and the problems they create, we will discuss some
possible solutions. The most commonly talked about is the electric car, other
solutions include buses, solar cars, alternative fuel sources, and even bullet
trains. While all of these are good ideas and could be seen as steps in the
right direction, the key to alleviating the problems associated with modern
transportation will rely heavily upon the hybrid car. This car of the future is
part conventional car, part electric car and is guaranteed to change the way we
travel in the decades to come.
It is commonly believed, and
correctly so, that people are unwilling to abandon their personal automobiles.
People have just grown too attached to the comfort and convenience cars provide to give it all up for some form of
mass transportation. That is why for all intention purposes the best way to
relieve pollution will be to improve conventional cars, instead of looking at
other forms of transportation. Therefore, mass transportation will not be
looked at as a realistic option and will not be discussed in the following
pages.
Electric
Vehicles
Long thought of as the wave of the
future a purely electric car (one that operates on electricity alone) is
actually not as efficient as once thought. Electric vehicles boast very clear
benefits over the conventional car, foremost among those is its lowered
emissions. An electric vehicle draws its power from a conventional 220 volt
power outlet. Therefore, any comparison of pollutants means comparing a cars
emissions with the byproducts of producing electricity. A car will emit twice
the amount of nitrogen oxides as will a power plant producing the energy to
charge a comparable electric vehicle. Moreover, a conventional car will create
60 times more carbon monoxide, 30 times more volatile organic compounds and
twice the carbon dioxide emissions as the electric power plant. These
statistics are based on power plants that operate oil and natural gas fired generators
and so don’t even take into account the fact that even cleaner alternative
energy sources are available including solar, hydro and wind power.
To better understand the benefits
and drawbacks of electric vehicles
we’ll take a closer look at the most widely available electric vehicle, which
is the EV1 made by Saturn. The EV1 looks like your typical car until you look
under the hood or drive it. Under the hood is a lead acid battery pack
consisting of 26 12-volt modules, which are capable of carrying 16.3 kilowatt
hours of energy. When driving the EV1 the first thing you will notice is that
it has no key to turn the ignition, instead it has a number combination that is
punched into a key pad to turn on the car. Once the car is turned on it is
ready to go although most people think something has gone wrong because there
is no sound. This is because the EV1 is virtually silent due to the fact it has
no internal combustion engine. It handles as well as most cars on the road and
actually accelerates better than most boasting a 0-60mph time of 8 seconds. The
EV1 also comes with the amenities you would expect of your average car air
conditioning, radio, etc.
However, the EV1 like most electric
cars has a few key obstacles holding it back. The first of which is that it
must be recharged, which takes approximately 3 hours. The other major hurdle is
the range of the EV1 which at present time is between 50-90 miles. As you can
see both of these facts are major drawbacks, the recharging because it takes so
long and the range because so short a distance can be traveled on any single
outing. Additionally, batteries themselves are highly reactive chemical
pollutants.
Hybrid
Vehicles
Because of the challenges currently
facing electric cars, hybrid cars seem like a more practical application of
advanced electric vehicle technology. Hybrid cars combine both the electric
vehicle and the conventional car to form a better, more efficient vehicle. Many
models are still in development, while others are currently being tested.
However, there is one model that has made it to market albeit not in the U.S.
The engineering department at UC
Davis has been developing a hybrid model of the Ford Taurus. It utilizes both
gasoline and electricity, gets nearly 70 miles per gallon and has nearly 80%
fewer emissions than a stock Taurus. However, it still requires a recharging,
although only every 1,000 miles. An on board computer determines which energy
source to draw from. For short distances or stop and go driving the car runs on
electricity. For longer distances the gasoline engine kicks in, aided by the
electric motor. Its developers feel that, the adoption of this technology is
inevitable. Its the only way well meet emission standards and fuel economy
without sacrificing performance. Currently
being tested is a 40 foot, 36 passenger hybrid passenger bus. Instead of
running on diesel the bus carries an on board generator that runs on propane.
This generator is continuously recharging battery packs that are in the rear of
the bus, this in turn enables the bus
to travel about 200 miles at a time. The Bay Area Air Quality Management has
also determined that the hybrid bus spews out at least 50% fewer emissions than
a conventional diesel bus. While a hybrid bus would cost more to produce, in
the long term it would actually be cheaper because its maintenance and
operating costs would be lower.
Alas, there is a hybrid car that is
in mass production and has few if any problems. It is the Prius made by Toyota
and modeled after the best selling Toyota Corolla. It gets great gas mileage,
has extremely low emissions and doesn’t ever have to be plugged in to an
electrical outlet. It is currently available in Japan, where it sells for
approximately $17,000 U.S. dollars. While as of yet unavailable in the U.S. it
should make its way here sometime in the year 2000. The Prius gets about 66
miles per gallon which comes out to about 800 miles on a single tank of a gas.
The reason for the Prius superior efficiency is the fact that it has both
electric and motor engine capabilities. Having both energy sources available
allows it to draw from its electric motor when the car is stopped and a gas
engine would be at its most inefficient. Conversely when an electric motor is
not able to provide enough power, like when climbing a hill, the motor engine
will kick in and provide the missing power. Furthermore, Toyota’s system
diverts output from the generator to recharge the batteries whenever they are
low and a regenerative braking system recovers energy from the wheels during
downhill driving and braking and uses it to generate electricity. No other
charging is ever necessary for the batteries.
Honda also has a product available
for California’s low-pollution road race, due next year. It’s a hybrid gas and
electric car that gets 70 miles to a
gallon of gas and has a range of 600 miles between fuel stops. With its electric-motor boost and
relatively light body weight (1,740 pounds), the auto meets California’s ultra
low emission standard. With a three-cylinder gasoline motor and five-speed
manual transmission, Honda says, the car can match the performance of a
traditional four-cylinder 1.5 liter engine - and with less pollution and higher
gas mileage.
Similarly to the Prius, the electric
motor kicks in when the car needs to accelerate, when starting out from a stop
light, climbing a hill or passing a truck. The battery is recharged when the
car’s brakes are used.
Hybrid cars still pollute a little bit,
but they are a big improvement over the lowest emission gas-powered vehicles
now on U.S. roads. Further refinements could improve performance and cut
pollution even more. Additionally, mass production will drive down costs, and
consumers should be willing to spend a little more for a thrifty car that goes
twice or three times as far on a gallon of gas.
Alternative
Fuel Sources.
Our dependence upon foreign oil and the diminishing amount of oil
in existence has given rise to a search for alternative fuel sources, foremost
among these is ethanol. Ethanol is a renewable, clean-burning, domestic fuel
that has the potential to displace foreign oil and will allow the U.S. to still
meet its energy demand. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Ethanol is the most energy efficient of all liquid transportation fuels.
Ethanol is produced by converting the starch content of biomass
feed stocks (e.g. corn, potatoes, beets, sugar cane, wheat) into alcohol. The
fermentation process is essentially the same process used to make alcoholic
beverages—yeast and heat are used to break down complex sugars into more simple
sugars, creating ethanol. Currently, about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol are
produced this way each year in the U.S.
Biomass is
America’s secret renewable energy resource. Thousands of opportunities exist
across the country to capture the energy in this vastly underutilized resource.
Not only can biomass energy help reduce waste and clean up the environment, it
can also provide new and better jobs for rural America. Biomass has not entered
the market more widely because fossil fuels have been cheaper. However, valuing the environmental benefits
of biomass or the negative impacts of fossil fuels more highly will allow
biomass to compete economically and provide a greater portion of the U.S.
energy supply in the 21st. century.
There is a relatively
new process to produce ethanol which utilizes the cellulosic portion of biomass
feed stocks like trees, grasses and agricultural wastes. Cellulose is another
form of carbohydrate and can be broken down into more simple sugars. This
process is relatively new and is not yet commercially available, but
potentially can use a much wider variety of abundant, inexpensive feed stocks.
For those who
think its unrealistic to change our gas guzzlers into clean running vehicles we
need look no further than Brazil to find that it is indeed possible. It is
there that ethanol has been used since 1939 and where currently 40% of the cars
are ethanol powered vehicles. In addition ethanol has not only helped their
environment but their economy as well. While the environmental benefits of
ethanol are clear, ethanol also reduced Brazils dependence on foreign oil and
also provided valuable, new markets for its sugar cane producers.
Our strategy for the
future should include the combination of hybrid cars with a more efficient fuel
source such as ethanol. This will help overcome many of the hurdles facing
modern transportation.
Future Possibilities
This combination
of a cleaner more efficient fuel used in conjunction with a hybrid car is
definitely the wave of the future, however, even further down the road there
may be even more effective means of combating the problems facing us. These
include some ideas already in the works, including a hydrogen fueled car and an
air powered car.
The idea behind
the hydrogen powered car is that fuel cells will use hydrogen to generate
electricity through an electrochemical process. The only byproduct of the
process would be protons which combined with air would form water. In the past
obtaining hydrogen for commercial use appeared to be the biggest obstacle
facing the hydrogen powered car, however, scientists have come up with a means
of extracting hydrogen from various fuels including methanol and gasoline. The
pollutants from this extraction would be half the number a typical car emits
today. Furthermore, a hydrogen powered car could go much further on a gallon of
gas than could a conventional car, because the gas would be used only to
produce hydrogen to run the fuel cell.
Also in the works, as far fetched as it
sounds is an air powered car. The idea is that air fed into an expander would
drive a shaft that would turns the wheels, much like an old steam engine. If
this vehicle ever came to be it would be completely emission free, only
releasing air that was colder than it was before. The range on such a car would
still be very short, 60 miles, however with even a small internal combustion
engine that range could increase to 200 miles while still having near zero
emissions. This air powered car has also paved the way for a very similar
vehicle that runs on liquid nitrogen. While both these ideas may seem
unrealistic, they are meant to show you just how many options are out there and
how crucial research and development is.
Automaker Reluctance
Despite all the
progress being made in the automotive industry, nothing will come of it until
the consumer decides to turn in his gas guzzler for a more efficient vehicle.
Unfortunately this transition may be slow to occur if the 1999 North American
International Auto Show is any indication. On the positive end, Energy
Secretary Bill Richardson announced $20 million in grants to research companies
that are developing electric power that can be used in electric, hybrid and fuel
cell vehicles. However, while electric
and hybrid vehicles were on display at this show, also unveiled were
three more SUVs guaranteed to pollute our air and increase inefficiency.
Perhaps the most
intimidating problem facing hybrid cars at this point are car manufacturers
themselves. Most major American automakers are reluctant to put any capital or
any resources at all into the development of a hybrid car, The Japanese on the
other hand realize that in the future there will be a market built of necessity
that requires far more efficient vehicles than the ones available today.
Detroit must come to realize that this market is nearly upon us and that they
need a product to sell. Furthermore, U.S. auto manufacturers should recognize
that they won’t need to overhaul their current assembly lines. This is because
hybrid cars can be built using the same methods currently in place.
Marketing hybrid cars should not be
perceived as difficult because, once hybrid cars start being produced and
driven their advantages will become obvious and the need for conventional cars will slowly die out, and
hopefully take their pollution with them. Hybrid cars are not only more
environmentally sound, but they are cheaper to operate and maintain than
conventional cars. While the flood of SUVs on the auto market may be seen as an
obstacle to the emergence of hybrid cars, there is no reason to believe that
SUV models of hybrid cars could not be made. Additionally, the price of gas is
expected to greatly increase in the coming years, that is further incentive to
switch from conventional cars to the far more fuel efficient hybrid car