According to the BBC, researcher Mark Jacobson of Stanford University has come up with some troubling predictions about the future of E-85, or Ethanol. Using computer modeling technology, Jacobson ran two separate simulations: one where all vehicles are run on a mixture of gasoline and E-85, and one where all cars are run on gasoline. In the simulation involving E-85, there was a mixed result: there was a decrease in certain carcinogens in the atmosphere, but there was a significant increase in Ozone. Based on those predictions, Jacobson ran some figures and guessed that the increase in Ozone would offset any gains from the decrease in other carcinogens. The net result? According to him, Ethanol isn't worth it.
So if Ethanol isn't worth it, and we still need to be less dependent on fossil fuel, where do we turn? Jacobson himself suggests a combination battery/electric car:
"By comparison, converting all vehicles to battery-electric, where the electricity is from wind energy would eliminate 10,000 air pollution deaths per year and 98% of carbon emissions from vehicles."
Of course, we all know that as Americans, we prefer huge inefficient gas-powered behemoths that provide the illusion of safety while giving us the thrill of feeling powerful all at once. So a battery/electric car, to succeed, would have to be sexy and powerful all at once to succeed. Given the history of such cars, it seems unlikely to happen.
Hydrogen-powered cars are a good idea, but the process of producing hydrogen is fairly expensive and polluting in itself.
Why not experiment with other alternatives? Hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, Ford Escape and the Honda Civic hybrids, have proven to be fairly successful as well as being (in the case of the Prius and the Civic) Super Low Emissions Vehicles (SULEVS).
I think that the answer is to continue research on alternative fuels while giving large tax incentives to hybrid car owners. Combined with tightened emissions controls at the state level (like CA and VT have done) and an increased gas tax, the market pressure to create a truly efficient vehicle could be created.
electric cars seems to be the best alternative, in a distant future where perhaps no gasoline needs to be used. maybe the cars wouldnt be as big or go as fast, but to me that does not sounds bad at all. To me fully electric cars seem like a definite possibility, and if the electricty was produced in a clean way, such as a wind far, could solve the emissions problems. I would like to hear what critics of such a plan say, i may be thinking about a dream world.
Also, I am not well versed on the subject and i had not heard of the polluting effects of hydrogen. The pieces i have seen on the subject always show a demonstrator drinking the liquid water emissions from the tailpipe. I assumed that hydrogen was an extremely clean burning fuel. Though my few sources were probably fairly insufficient.
The cars themselves are extremely efficient, and you could drink water from the tailpipe. But the processes that are needed to make the hydrogen fuel for the car may be polluting enough to actually offset the reduction in auto emissions.
I think an electric car, if properly researched and developed, is feasible. It may be a long way off, but it could happen. Or, and here I'm dreaming my Tesla-like dreams, a magnetic car would be interesting.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
Hydrogen fuel cell technology is kind of weird; it seems like researchers gave it up when it became too much of a hassle to find ways around its production pollution. Using hydrogen could be a viable alternative in the short term, because most fuel cells in such cars have to be huge in order to have good mileage. So, if Americans are concerned about losing leg room to gain power, have no fear!
However, like electric cars, the issue would be refueling/charging on the road, which isn't going to be viable until fueling/charging stations are as easy to find as gas stations. Which is also not going to happen anytime soon.
Basically, production is inefficient, use is totally efficient but huge and cumbersome, and fueling will be virtually impossible until it becomes convenient.
If only we had cold fusion!
As I understand it, the problem with electric cars is that they don't usually get very good power or mileage (how exactly is that measured? Miles per coulomb?) and they can't go too far without being recharged. It would be cool if we had charging stations like we do gas stations, but that would be a large endeavor which would probably be brought on by some business cooperation between a car company and an energy company which owns gas stations (and given the nature of gas station franchising, that could prove difficult and quite expensive). While electric cars, in and of themselves are fuel efficient and environmentally friendly, the cost of a hydro-electric overhaul would be enormous.
Personally, I like to fuel my car with the tears of children.
--Mike
Also, wonderful job with incorporating the article. This is definitely a great model that other bloggers should follow when using a news source in their post.
Thanks for the positive feedback. I try and integrate articles more than just re-post them. Oh, and we're in the same boat, car-wise: mine runs on broken glass and tears.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
Solar energy would be good while using gasoline on cloudy days!!!
Which would be great, if solar panels on a car could actually power a vehicle for more than five minutes.
Currently, the most efficient solar panel technologies are about 30% efficient, and that's government-grade, like in space and stuff. Civilians have access to solar panels that are 7-15% efficient, and the affordable ones are the less efficient ones.
With that efficiency, you would need a huge roof for your car in order to make enough surface area to produce the amount of energy needed to run a car, but you would never be able to power it long because the bigger the roof, the more energy the car will need (if it's a bigger car overall, though I suppose someone could fudge about a foot on all sides, which doesn't help much).
Electric cars are a much more feasible option, because the technology is much more ripe for development. Solar energy just hasn't been as easily harnessed, and it probably won't be anytime soon.
Ethanol can't be used everywhere, but I think it is viable in moderation. However, I also think that by coming up with new types of fuel or depending on hybrids (which not everyone can afford), we are treating the symptom rather than the problem. Driving less and developing sustainable mass transit would solve a lot of problems.
Different sources of energy need to be invested in. It is obvious that carbon emissions are not doing anything for the world. I agree with what you're saying in your blog--we need to invest the future into different sources of energy! Just as a side note: I am totally in love with green energy. I do not know much about it, but I like the idea of producing energy as cleanly as possible for the reduction of pollution and demise to the atmosphere.
Good news does exist.
Production and storage of electricity seem to be a big obstacle of electric cars/hybrids.
I'd like to see an array of resistance-training devices invented to produce and store electricity. So, it would be a weightlifting system that stimulates a metal coil or whatnot with every lift. Perhaps treadmills too could be designed...in that way, we would not only get the tears of our children but the sweat as well --containing similar consistency. I present to you the new hybrid and advent of neo-child-labor laws involving fuel for our cars!