Aw shucks, it seems it ain't ethanol after all

The Discover "100 Best Science Stories of the Year" issue is out and the #1 story spotlights alternatives to petroleum-powered transportation.

Titled "The Post-Oil Era Begins," the article breaks down the ups and downs of ethanol and other bio-fuels as petroleum substitutes. Unfortunately, the article is not online as of yet, which is rare for the magazine.

Essentially, while ethanol has doubled since 2006, but recent studies have shown that it is "much more costly, both economically and environmentally, than people thought." That, combined with lowering petroleum prices, has made ethanol "significantly less competitive in the energy marketplace." ["The Post-oil era begins." Discover. Jan., 2009. p. 19.]

Another down-side is that most other bio-fuel plants are nowhere near reaching noteworthy production of alternative fuel.

Further, scientists have realized that increased ethanol production could actually increase emissions by up to 100% because farmers would begin using more land that once absorbed carbon. Not only that, ethanol consumes 186 times the amount of water per mile traveled than petroleum.

The seeming solution?

Hybrids and Plug-in Hybrid vehicles. Toyota sold nearly 200,000 of their Prius model last year. The upcoming Chevy Volt is touted to run 40 miles on nothing but electricity before the combustion engine kicks in.

The main hurdle to an EV America is infrastructure. If people are willing to charge their vehicles during off-peak hours at a low rate (which would entail a longer recharge time), no additional electrical plants will be required. However, this means asking Americans to show deference and perhaps suffer some inconvenience. The innovators and early adopters in the field most likely have no problems with such minor trivialities, but what happens when EV becomes the norm?

Do we build more power plants? If so, certainly not coal, and nuclear power still puts a lot of people on edge.

If not, what do we face? A nation-wide black-out and no way to travel in the manner many have grown accustomed?

I think I smell a Road Warrior-esque plot approaching. I can see it now - Snake Pliskenn in: Escape from the Alamo.

Air cars

No, they're not flying vehicles, they're powered by compressed air. Developed in Europe and India, ZPM (Zero Pollution Motors) will be bringing the car to states as early as next year. At this point, models are generally 2-seaters, but there is a four seat model in the works. A spokesman for ZPM stated that the car could go near 1000 miles at nearly 100 mph, before refueling. Pretty impressive and although it does require some form of liquid fuel, it can be adapted to run on ethanol or other bio-fuels.

In the city, gas would probably not even be used. The car runs entirely on compressed air under 35 mph and can be refueled in a matter of minutes.

But why do they have to look so stupid? Can't they put that tech in the body of a '69 GTO?

New horizons, but not for us

I really don't like to pick on domestic companies that stimulate the American economy, but lately none seem to come to mind. The only economy these companies care about is their own. Case in point, Ford Motors.

According to an article published by BusinessWeek last Friday and now gracing the the Yahoo! homepage, Ford Motors - responsible for some of the most reprehensible gas guzzlers on the market - have come up with a 65 MPG car. It's called the Fiesta ECOnetic and it runs on clean diesel. 65 MPG!

The drawback?

It won't be sold in America.

However, Ford is not entirely to blame. Yes, the engines for the ECOnetic are built in Great Britain under higher labor costs and and a pound that still trumps the dollar in global eonomic strength. Under such conditions, the ECOnetic would wind up costing a consumer almost $2,ooo more than Toyota Prius hybrid. Which is much hipper, just ask Ethan Hawke.

This is where the American Attitude comes in: Americans do not believe in such a thing as "clean diesel." Diesel is that smelly stuff that big trucks run on and makes bumper-to-bumper freeway traffic a hand of Texas Hold 'em with carbon monoxide poisoning, right?

Not anymore.

Researchers have developed a method of "combining clean diesel fuel, advanced engines and effective exhaust-control technology," according to the Diesel Technology Forum. Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz have been making clean diesel vehicles for years, according to the BusinessWeek article, but only 3% of U.S. cars run on it (65 MPG!).

This is where it becomes the Ouroborus swallowing its own tail. Because only 3% of drivers have vehicles that run on diesel, rare is the filling station that carries it (as far as I know there are two in Austin). If one cannot find the fuel, why would one purchase the vehicle that runs on it (65 MPG!)? And so no one bothers to create a demand for the fuel and the scarcity of it remains in place. Misperceived air pollution aside, people are not buying diesel vehicles because there is no place to get diesel and there is no place to get diesel because there are no vehicles that require it.

Perhaps an ad campaign that actually showed people that Ford cared would create a demand for the ECOnetic in the states (65 MPG!). Hell, it wouldn't hurt Volkswagen to promote the technology either. We as Americans are consumers and we prefer a plethora of choices (just look at the insane amount of fast food franchises that have essentially the same menus), and the more that are out there, the happier we seem to be.

Although when it comes to environment vs. fast food*, I'm afraid fast food gets the vast majority a vast majority of the time.

*And by fast food, I refer to anything convenient, easy and probably bad in the long run.