Fuels to Keep the Cars Running Still Many Years Off
One of the most recent changes in fueling vehicles is the switch to “Ultra-Low Sulfur” diesel fuel with no more than 15 ppm (parts per million). As the only road worthy diesel now available, this permits auto manufacturers to use the high tech emissions systems used on diesel cars in Europe and Asia. That is, our old 500+ ppm diesel fuel would have damaged the sensitive emissions equipment.
This new diesel fuel seems to be pricier than the old but I have no evidence of such. Lately gasoline prices have shown a steady increase in price making the diesel priced between the mid and high grades of gas.
Of course many people are assuming we’ll simply all shift to one or more of a number of “alternative” fuels being marketed currently or in development. These include ethanol, bio-diesel and hydrogen. Via Green Car Congress is a look at a new report from the US Government Accounting Office on alternate fuels. GCC reports:
The technologies examined currently supply the equivalent of only about 1% of US annual consumption of petroleum products;
DOE estimates that even under optimistic scenarios, these technologies could displace only the equivalent of about 4% of projected annual consumption by around 2015.
DOE projects that these technologies could displace up to the equivalent of 34% of projected US annual consumption of petroleum products in the 2025 through 2030 time frame, assuming the challenges the technologies face are overcome.
Basically if the effects of peak oil come in the next 10-20 years we will have some serious issues to deal with. The report suggests, depending upon timing, we could face a world-wide recession.
One of the things we do know is that we simply cannot grow ourselves out of this fuel crisis. If we grew enough corn to supply all of our petroleum needs we’d not have any corn left to eat or any crop land to grow much else.
The answer is very clear, at the same time we develop new fuels we need to be reducing our dependence on the car through mass transit, cycling, walking or simply reduced trips/distance in the car. As fuel prices increase, it will get easier and easier to justify capital improvements for mass transit. As regular readers know, I’m more of an advocate for lower-cost streetcar/tram systems serving compact local areas than long distances of light rail serving the broader region. The costs to get transit out to the low-density suburbs can be just as bad as running a highway out there. Building compact in the core will support the transit I seek as well as supporting those that choose to bike or walk.
Who knows, maybe in 2030 I’ll get that new hydrogen car but in the meantime we need more realistic solutions to our transportation needs.
Not to mention that our increasing dependance on corn makes us that much more suceptable to issues if a virus or other bug wipes out our corn crops. See- potato Famine in Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine
Money talks . . . when gasoline truly does get scarce and really becomes “too expensive”, and there are other alternatives that are less expensive/painful, we’ll see substantive changes. Until then, we’ll just continue to bitch about how much the price has gone up and do little else . . .
I am considering getting a TDI Diesel Jetta. 49MPG for under 10k is rather excellent.
From Adam Zaretsky and his paper A Look at Light Rail Transit
What Makes Public Transportation More Efficient?
Compared with single-occupant automobiles, public
transportation, especially rail systems, is a much more efficient
way to move people around a metropolitan area. According to
the American Public Transit Association (APTA), in measures of
fuel efficiency, one full bus equals six autos, and one full rail car
equals 15 cars. APTA concludes that by every commuter who
switches from driving alone to public transit, 200 gallons of
gasoline could be saved each year; 85 million gallons could be
saved from a 10 percent increase in transit ridership in the five
largest U.S. cities; and 135 million gallons could be saved from a
10 percent nationwide increase in ridership
Energy use, like global warming, needs to be framed as an economic debate in this country for any hope of changing things. Americans are doing a good job of giving their wealth as well as their health away to whoever has oil for the convenience of a car and big houses. In the meantime we will get more slide show documentaries and more farm subsidies. Neither one of those is effective in reducing demand or the price of energy let alone change any habits of our couch potatoe selves. Indeed, a very hard 5-15 years ahead is coming.
I agree with all of the above – the big question is where are we going to find true leadership on the issue, not just lip service?
Do you know how to turn a potential asset into a liability? Simply provide control to our elected leaders, especially in the StL region. Cycling will work but mass transit? Light rail in StL is a failure and even those in charge don’t want to be held accountable! The state needs to sue MetroLink to get needed answers…unbelievable!
Of course the idea of using corn is foolish but so are most of the decisions made by our elected leaders. Most roads/highways and other transportation designs are products of government and it is that entity which is creating national self destruction. In StL empty busses dominate and as long as parking is highly subsidized, mass transit will fail.
Leadership is a major issue locally and in all over the nation. Energy Conservation is the most reasonable alternative at this juncture. It transcends any new fuel on the horizon as well as oil. It is as Thomas Paine might say “Common Sense.†Energy conservation would include redirecting mammoth funds for highway construction at the federal level to mass transit; emphasizing rational urban planning that encourages walking, bicycles, scooters as well as development of sustainable building practices for rehab and new construction. It would include recycling systems for everyday products as well as recycling on a larger scale, such as building parts. In short a revolution in government policy is needed to avert what is probably going to be a collapse of the current system.
The problem is so many people are getting rich off the status quo, oil, automobile, land developers, highway builders and the like that there is no incentive for leadership. It especially hurts at the national level when there is not a voice for other approaches. There is no debate, no discussion, just misinformation and change (such as ethanol) that will allow the status quo to continue.
It could very well be hard in the coming years, and it may take a major crisis to change the lack of leadership in America. None of the current presidential candidates has done anything but mouth the usual platitudes. With the death grip corporate America has on government policy, it is no surprise.
Very good point about not being able to grow our way off of fossil fuels with corn ethanol. More walking and biking and mass transit are usually the first things people point to, and while these are important steps, they call for major shifts in the daily habits of millions of people all over the country. I find that to be noble but unrealistic–at least achieving numbers that would make a difference.
What we need are solutions that can be accomplished by leadership and policy changes. Such as? The first and biggest step we can take to reduce our oil consumption is to ensure that all new vehicles use less gasoline–or less of whatever fuel they burn. Investments in fuel-efficiency logically precede investments in new fuels. Automakers have had the technological know-how for years, but with cheap gas prices, there was no consumer demand. Hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity are one obvious exception, and they’ve been a fast-growing sector of the market since 2000. You can’t swing a cat at Whole Foods without hitting a Prius these days. But there are many other, less expensive technologies as well.
We should expect automakers to give us vehicles to get at least 35 miles per gallon in the very near future. We simply cannot continue to consume oil at today’s pace.
It is not unrealistic to achieve numbers that will make a difference with mass transit, walking and biking, what it takes is a different kind of city than now exists.
For transit, bikes and walking to be successful it takes a commitment to creating an environment where these activities can happen as part of the daily routine. Thirty and forty mile a gallon cars is not going to solve anything permanently if we are going to build a sustainable society. Good urban planning that serves the citizens takes some thought and effort, not seen as yet in St. Louis. For instance in San Francisco the planning department publicizes the eight elements that make a great neighborhood for use as a planning guide. This statement of principle allows the citizens to participate in the planning process. It is moving that city in the right direction. St. Louis does nothing like this. It is why San Francisco is a world class city while St. Louis is second rate. It is these types of activities St. Louis should be engaged in. Involving the citizens is paramount.
St. Louis still has the urban core that could make building a sustainable city realistic. In comparison the suburbs would need major reconfiguration to achieve sustainability. The problem, as stated above is that there is a power structure that is unaccountable and without a larger vision of what needs to happen. They try to control policy so they can maintain profit margins and power. There is no leadership that I can see. All of this will collapse at some point and the people will suffer.
If fundamental changes do not occur in approaches to city building, hybrid vehicles and fuel efficiency may put off the day of reckoning for a short while, but is only a band aid on a massive wound