Why Americans should embrace Alternative fuel vehicles?

Energy sources alternative to fossil-produced oil have been talked about for many years now. Yet no meaningful transformation to these energy sources have been practically implemented so far. Transportation industry, with its assortment of different oil-guzzling vehicles, is the chief culprit in this regard. If this trend is to continue in the future, then very shortly the phenomenon of 'peak oil' would be triggered and global competition of remaining oil will escalate the prices beyond affordability. Moreover, there is the persuasive argument from environment preservation angle. If current energy usage patterns continue for a few more decades then the ecosystems and environments across the world would be damaged beyond repair, putting at risk the long-term survival of our species. (Borowitz, 1999, p.255) The rest of this essay will elaborate on these points and present the reasons why Americans should embrace alternative fuel vehicles. Beyond concerns about peak-oil and issues of sustaining conventional oil supplies, there is the danger posed by environmental pollution. While manufacturing industries play their part in polluting air, water and soil, the chief contributors are motor vehicles. For example, 90% of the carbon monoxide, 50% of the volatile organic compounds, and 40% of the ozone in metropolitan areas come from motor vehicles. (Meotti, 1995, p.27) With car ownership per-capita in America being one of the highest among advanced economies, there is a urgent need for alternative fuels. There is also the option of attempting to reduce car sales and car usage. But since this outcome is highly unlikely, finding substitute fuels for petroleum-based ones is the more plausible option going forward. Soybean oil is another alternative fuel that holds a lot of promise. When oil prices spiked during the first Gulf War in 1991, American farmers put to use the huge surplus of soybean oil stored in tanks across the country. They said that Soybean oil can be refined into bio-diesel, which can be used by vehicles. Already, by this time, bio-diesel was being manufactured in Europe using rapeseed oil. And by following the same procedure, Soybean oil could also be converted into bio-diesel, which would prove to be a cleaner and eco-friendly energy alternative. (Schmidt, 2007, p.87) Experts and business people have now identified bio-diesel as a key player in the alternative fuels market. It also has the advantage of being produced by both small-scale manufacturers as well as large industries. While bio-diesel cannot completely substitute for petroleum products, it has the capacity to power a wide variety of vehicles. At present 95% of passenger vehicles in America run on gasoline. Bio-diesel can significantly help reduce this percentage. (Schmidt, 2007, p.87) Promoters of bio-diesel also feel that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. It is not only a sustainable energy option, but also an eco-friendly one. For example, “Numerous studies show that compared to petrodiesel, B20 emits at least 10% less particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbons. The relevant data are summarized in a 2006 NREL report titled Effects of Biodiesel Blends on Vehicle Emissions. Unlike fossil fuels--which contain carbon from underground sources--biodiesel contains carbon from plants that were recently alive and drawing carbon from the atmosphere. For that reason, burning it doesn't add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than what was already there. What's more, biodiesel contains 11% oxygen by weight, which enhances fuel combustion, and reduces the amount of carcinogenic soot that diesel engines spew into the air.” (Schmidt, 2007, p.87) Diesel-run vehicles, on the other hand, are decisively more polluting. They release a lot of sulphur into the atmosphere, which in turn creates sulfate-based particulates, which in turn can induce acid rain. Once this happens, all life-forms on the planet will have negative health consequences. On the mild side, these health problems can relate to the respiratory system; and on the acute side, they can manifest as cancer. It is in recognition of this danger that states such as California, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, etc have prohibited the sales of diesel-run cars and other vehicles. By doing this, government authorities are encouraging Americans to embrace alternative fuel vehicles. And already there are positive signs : “Since 15 October 2006, most diesel sold in the United States is ULSD, which contains a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur, and all model year 2007 diesel vehicles for highway use must use this fuel. Biodiesel does one better, however, because it contains no sulfur.” (Schmidt, 2007, p.87) The encouraging news for Americans is that alternative fuels can be produced domestically, reducing dependency on foreign oil. Moreover, most alternative fuels in discussions today are derived from renewable sources and they contribute much less to air pollution upon combustion. The federal government is doing the right thing by offering tax-incentives to consumers for buying alternative fuel vehicles. There are a range of prototypes of these vehicles, each using a particular fuel type. In a gist, these vehicles can use the following alternative fuels for their engines “Ethanol is produced domestically from corn and other crops and produces less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels. Biodiesel is derived from vegetable oils and animal fats. It usually produces less air pollutants than petroleum-based diesel. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that generates less air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Propane, also called liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), is a domestically abundant fossil fuel that generates less greenhouse gases. Hydrogen can be produced domestically from fossil fuels (such as coal), nuclear power or renewable resources, such as hydropower. Fuel cell vehicles powered by pure hydrogen emit no harmful air pollutants.” (Daily Herald, 2009,p.6) The leading fuels for vehicles today are gasoline and diesel, which are both hydrocarbons. It is heartening to learn that new technologies have been invented to convert coal into liquid fuel, by combining its hydrogen and carbon content. The resulting liquid fuel would be comparable in properties to that of methane, ethane, butane and propane. Other possible hydrocarbon outcomes for coal include pentane, hexane, heptane, etc. Not all of these are suitable for internal-combustion engines as they exist today; some of them are not eco friendly as well. The costs likely to be incurred in this conversion process is also a tad high. But the biggest incentive to extracting oil from coal is to reduce dependency on crude oil sources in the Middle East, as well as switching to a more sustainable model of energy consumption. There is an economic incentive as well, as lesser demand for crude oil will bring its prices down, thereby enabling its reach to consumers from low socio-economic bracket. (Hiserodt, 2008, p.17) The American government's efforts to promote alternative fuels should be lauded. This is especially true with respect to ethanol consumption. Tax-incentives and other encouragements have been provided in the last few decades. For example, “After 1978, U.S. energy policy sought to encourage ethanol production to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Federal and state incentives have been credited with increasing ethanol production from 175 million gallons in 1980 to 6.8 billion gallons in 2007. Between 1978 and 2004, the size of the exemption varied from $0.40 to $0.60 per gallon of pure ethanol. The Energy Act of 2005 restructured federal tax incentives for ethanol production to include three income tax credits and one excise tax credit. The Internal Revenue Code contains three income tax credits designed to encourage ethanol use: the alcohol mixture credit, the pure alcohol credit, and the small ethanol producer's credit. The credits, together with other subsidies, come close to making the price of ethanol competitive with petroleum-based fuels.” (Mann & Hymel, 2008, p.45) It is believed by experts that ethanol use has the potential to reduce foreign fossil-fuel dependency as well as helping preserve the environment. The government has prudently devised tax incentives to “encourage conservation and discourage driving may be a better way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependency.” (Mann & Hymel, 2008, p.45) Hence Americans should avail of tax concessions given to them and switch to alternative fuels for their vehicles. At a time when Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) are all the rage despite consuming copious quantities of gasoline per kilometer travelled, Americans would do well to support government energy policies. In this case, supporting would entail making concerted efforts to make ethanol-driven vehicles a practical reality. (Mann & Hymel, 2008, p.45) Some positive developments in helping reduce pollution is already taking place. For example, “Many state and local government officials are pursuing vehicle emission inspection, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and carpooling programs to reduce auto pollution.” (Meotti, 1995, p.27) While these measures should be appreciated, they can only be stop-gap measures, for clean fuels can reduce auto emissions at far less a price. The biggest problem faced by policy-makers at this point is in making Americans aware of their luxurious ways. Despite comprising 5% of total world population, Americans consume 25% of its energy resources, which is highly disproportionate and indicates the country's love affair with cars. Despite rising gasoline costs, traffic congestion and parking lot hassles, Americans continue to own at least one car per person. (Meotti, 1995, p.27) It is important though not to get carried away by the potential of alternative fuel vehicles. In fact, there are no longitudinal studies or statistical data available to verify the sustainable use of alternative fuels in transportation. While new transportation technologies may “have been on the horizon for decades: the hydrogen fuel cell, biodiesel, electric cars and scooters, solar-powered cars. But when it comes to emissions reduction, the hype may be greater than the promise.” (McNally, 2003, p.30) And before conclusive proof of the advantages of alternative fuel vehicles is available, hybrid electric vehicles might be the best option in the near future. Hybrid vehicles look similar to conventional vehicles with an electric motor that aids the working of gasoline engine. It also boasts of a regenerative braking system that saves “otherwise-lost energy in a battery for later use by the electric motor. This design brings significant gains in fuel efficiency, which translates into fewer emissions per kilometre travelled. The fuel efficiency advantage of hybrids arises mainly from the greater energy efficiency of electric motors at low speeds, such as driving in traffic. The battery also means the gas engine does not need to run when the car is stopped, reducing idling emissions. The hybrid exploits these benefits while also making use of the weight and space advantages of petroleum fuel over batteries.” (McNally, 2003, p.30) But as of today, the biggest hurdle to embracing alternative fuel vehicles is the power exerted by the oil industry. Since the alternative fuel market will cut down on their market-share, they have tried to strangle fledgling ideas in their early stages. There is a very informative documentary film called 'Who Killed the Electric Car', in which the hurdles and opposition faced by promoters of electric cars is recorded. During the 1980s and 1990s, several viable prototypes of electric or hybrid vehicles were promoted by a group of entrepreneurial auto manufacturers. But despite these cars proving their adaptability to American city and highway usage, their commercial release have either been suppressed or revoked due to pressure from the oil industry. (Oliver & Hospers, 2001, p.20) Hence, in conclusion, in order for America to have a sustainable energy future, the emphasis on near-term profit should be replaced by moderate but long-term profits. The government too should continue its path of providing tax-benefits for auto-manufacturers and energy producers who tread the alternative path. More importantly, the government should create an awareness among the general population, so that it loses its obsession with gasoline-consuming SUVs and other passenger vehicles and opts for more efficient/mass transit transportation options. A culture of eco-preservation should be perpetuated among consumers, so that they make smart, viable and sustainable choices that benefit themselves as well as the environment. References Alternative Fuel Vehicles. (2009, February 11). Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL), p. 6. Baliunas, S. (2003, November). Economics of the Oil Alternatives. World and I, 18, 26. Borowitz, S. (1999). Farewell Fossil Fuels: Reviewing America's Energy Policy. New York: Plenum Trade. Democrats Push Ethanol Growth; Bills Promote Alternative Energy, 'Flex-Fuel' Vehicles. (2006, May 12). The Washington Times, p. A07. Hiserodt, E. (2008, June 9). Coal in Your Car's Tank: American-Dug Coal Could Be Altered to Produce Clean-Burning Fuels for Our Vehicles. Here's How We Could Do It, and What Might Stop It from Happening. The New American, 24, 17+. Mann, R. F., & Hymel, M. L. (2008). Moonshine to Motorfuel: Tax Incentives for Fuel Ethanol. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 19(1), 43+. Mcnally, R. (2003, Summer). High Tech Hopes: New Transportation Technologies May Reduce Vehicle Emissions Only Marginally. Alternatives Journal, 29, 30. Meotti, M. P. (1995). Clean Fuel Vehicles: The Air Pollution Solution. Journal of Environmental Health, 58(4), 27. Oliver, M., & Hospers, J. (2001, September). "Alternative Fuels"?. The American Enterprise, 12, 20. Schmidt, C. W. (2007). Biodiesel: Cultivating Alternative Fuels. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 86+.

Related Posts: