Rick Newman

Why We Keep Pumping Gas, Not Greener Fuels

By Rick Newman

Posted: January 14, 2008

Who needs oil?

That's clearly going to be the theme among automakers this year as they compete for the green spotlight. General Motors has announced an investment in a company that claims it can make ethanol from garbage and old tires, at half the cost of gasoline. Honda plans to begin leasing a vehicle this summer that's powered by hydrogen. Hybrids will come in more flavors than ever, and you might start to feel like a dinosaur if you don't know what a ZEV is. (It's a zero-emissions vehicle.)

But don't sell your Exxon stock. For all the hype—and the very good reasons to seek alternative fuels—gasoline will still power the vast majority of cars five years from now, and probably 10. True, some alternatives look very promising. Cellulosic ethanol, the kind GM is backing, can be made without imported hydrocarbons, and it generates a lot more energy than is required to produce it. Electric cars could be charged at home for less than gasoline costs. Hydrogen, if ever mass-produced, could be a miracle fuel that provides great mileage with zero emissions.

But so far, every alternative to carbon-based fuel comes with trade-offs that reveal the reasons we're so addicted to gasoline in the first place:

It's cheap. Sure, $3 gas might seem expensive—compared with the heady days when it was barely a buck a gallon. But mile for mile, virtually nothing is cheaper. Corn ethanol has been around for a while, for instance but hasn't caught on because it yields lower mileage and ends up costing drivers more. Diesel fuel offers great performance in cars, but the engines and new technology needed to trap pollutants make the vehicles more expensive. Hybrids save money over time, through lower gas bills, but it takes years to recoup the $2,000 to $4,000 premium. And new kinds of fuels will require vast new infrastructure that will surely add to the cost. Some may end up cheaper than gasoline, but it might take $4 or even $5 gas to tip the scales.

It's efficient. Diesel, cellulosic ethanol, and hydrogen pack more energy per pound than gasoline. Hydrogen and electric-powered vehicles would pollute less. But gasoline gets a B in both areas: Gas-powered cars perform well, and modern filters can greatly reduce tailpipe emissions without crippling performance. At current prices, that's a winning combo for most consumers.

It's here. The distribution challenges associated with other fuels illustrate how convenient it is to have a gas station on every corner. Many Americans would have to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find an ethanol pump. GM has confined a real-world test of 100 fuel-cell cars to just a couple of cities on the East and West coasts—because they're among the few places where you can get hydrogen fuel. One thing that might be more convenient than filling up at the local gas station would be plugging an electric car into an outlet at home. But so far, there are no mass-produced batteries that would work in such a car. And getting most new fuels to consumers would require new infrastructure costing billions.

It's simple. A lot of technology in the works would involve more than one power source in the car—an electric motor, for instance, that's powered by a battery, which is charged by a gas engine (a conventional hybrid), a fuel-cell stack (hydrogen), or power from the electrical grid (a plug-in hybrid). All such systems would raise mileage, cut oil consumption, and lower pollution, but multiple systems also add to costs and complexity. Gas engines do it all with one power source and one fuel.

Nobody has come up with anything better. After years of talk about 100-mpg cars and the need for energy independence, big companies and wealthy investors are finally putting real money into alternative fuels—the biggest factor in determining whether they ever get mass-produced. But gasoline sets a high bar. Thousands of scientists are working on clean, cheap ways to power a car without burning oil, sending dollars overseas, or inconveniencing consumers. When they figure it out, a revolution will ensue. But along the way, we're learning that gasoline is a tough act to follow.

Prior comments are off base

Energy companies (so called "big oil") and automotive manufacturers will sell us what WE want, which right now that equates to larger vehicles and CHEAP fuel for those vehicles. Think about it: if we were not willingly buying big vehicles who would have them? Dealers on their lots. Those who say otherwise clearly have their minds made up already and all the articles by Newman will make no difference. IF you all had read the article and sidebars, you would have seen that fuel cells have many issues, beyond the lack of infrastructure. For example, they do not do well in start up below certain temperatures. Not only that, but hydrogen is often extracted from Natural Gas. What good is that? It's a HYDROCARBON!!! And who cares who owns the patents on existing batteries. They won't work for the applications...

As well, auto makers and energy companies are driven by PROFIT. Those are profits for shareholders and workers. Set aside if execs get "too much" or not. There are lots of pension plans, mutual funds and individual investors who own stocks in such companies and deserve a return on those investments. When the government interfers with new laws and regulations, profits may suffer, and those who rely on that current of future income also feel the financial impact.

The DIY kits often suggest you can run your car on water or other substances, but if you dig you will find that they promise a lot, but often require more energy input than they produce. *Not to mention use of them can void your warranty.) As such they go against natural laws. It takes a lot (I repeat, a LOT) of energy to split water into its oxygen and hydrogen components. Anyone promising that you can split water and run your car on it is lying to you.

Like the old adage goes: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

As for government, we already have a Department of Energy here in the US that is investing heavily in alternative energy production ideas, new battery technology, and other things. They're even researching how to accelerate scientific advances in many fields.

Personally, I'm nopt convinced that the government is best suited to decide which technology is best, or where infrastructure can go. It was the federal government, in association with State and Local goverments who decided to put up flood barriers for a city that is up to 20 feet below sea level, and look how well New Orleans did in a major hurricane...

Yeah, I really trust my government to do all those things AND get it right.

Gene of OH @ Mar 24, 2009 18:34:49 PM

Governments need to take action

Essentially car companies do not want hydrogen powered cars on the market and distribute a lot of lies in their press packs. GM also developed lots of patents, specifically to stop other companies making electric cars, and Chevron own the patent for NiMh batteries and have been obstructive in handing out liscenses for large battery manufature.

Hydrogen is clearly the winning choice in most instances. Two problems, the motors and batteries last indefinitely and so customers will very rarely come back for more - it will cut their earnings DRAMATICALLY. This is why they continually report hydrogen cars as being almost ready! Despite the fact that they had test models running 10 or more years ago. Unfortunately jounalists with limited time don't bother to dig this deep. The second problem is that it needs decisive action by governments to make hydrogen readily available country wide, the USA and UK both have oil supplies so this is unlikely to occur until they realise greater ecomomic benefits from the switch over. Personally, when the cost of car pollution relatied health issues, and the cost of asthma drugs, and the longevity of Hydrogen cell powered cars, I believe that they are making a chronic mistake.

I am lucky enough to be able to recharge a 60kph electric scooter from my garage, the running costs are about 10 dollars a year, and it is bliss to ride - like freewheeling everywhere. I often wish others could have a five minute go on it - I feel that they would be hooked for life, even if it is a second vehicle to be used on local journeys.

@ Aug 07, 2008 13:04:34 PM

AFTERMARKET HYDROGEN "PACKS"

What about the hydrogen packs? I see there are several websites advertising packs ranging in cost from $400-$1500 installed and components and instructions for the DYI mkt starting @ $50? Your thoughts as to practicality and viability? THX, JRH

JOHN HICKEY of CO @ Mar 24, 2008 16:23:14 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!