Again with the gas?

November 19, 2003 | Wayne

This post was written by guest author, The One and Only Wayne.

Listen, I know this is really long and that I haven’t fixed spacing and such, but pity me and read it. Or pretend to read it just to get friends to read it.

The automobile has been a part of the American dream since 1908, when Henry Ford introduced the Model T, the first car that many Americans could actually afford. Since that time, the automobile has changed dramatically. These days, cars are more powerful, more comfortable and quieter than ever before. They can travel faster and further than ever. However, one thing has not changed. Automobiles still rely on gasoline for their operation. Additionally, cars today are no more fuel-efficient than they were fifteen years ago. This means that, in the not so distant future, or supply of fuel will be depleted. Therein lies the problem: most Americans do not care.

Five of the best-selling vehicles in the country weigh more than 4,000 lbs (Csere). This in itself would not be a bad thing if people were actually using all the room afforded them in Ford F-150 or Dodge Ram pickups to haul or tow. However, most people buy these to become personal vehicles. It just takes one trip to the mall or down the interstate to see that most large trucks and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) are carrying just one person, and a lot of air. The public will not make the necessary changes, but will surely complain loudly in a few years, after it is too late. Also, the car manufacturers themselves cannot be relied on to make their own vehicles more any more than slightly more efficient, and then it is only to have a selling point or advantage over the competition. In the end, only the government has sufficient power to make the changes required to preserve our fuel supply.

Simply put, it is our dependence on fossil fuels that has produced the increasing prices and rapidly diminishing reserves that affect everyone, whether they actually own a car or not. Tied directly to the prices and availability of fuel, is the American economy. Every day, millions of dollars of merchandise are shipped from one end of the continent to the other by truck and train, and this alone amounts to a huge amount of consumed fuel. Were these distributors forced to pay higher prices for gas or diesel fuel, they would charge the manufacturer a higher price. This would then mean an increase in the price consumers must pay, which is something that no one wants.

Not only are the prices of consumer goods affected by fuel prices, but also our nation’s budget, which takes a hit each year because of all of the oil we must buy from other countries. According to “Energy Security,” a report recently published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the US spends $200,000 each minute on foreign oil. That amounts to $105,120,000,000 each year that we are spending on oil which could be used on education or tax relief. There are some say that we should just rely on our own oil supply. That is a perfectly valid idea until one see that he same report also states that the United States supplies about 2% of the world’s crude oil, yet consumes about 29% of it. Additionally, if we were to begin drilling the Alaska, which President Bush has proposed, we would not actually get any oil until 2010 (10). Unfortunately, this means that we are too dependent on other nations to supply us the energy we need. Unless drastic changes are made to reduce the amount of fuel we are using, Americans will likely not be able to afford to maintain our current lifestyle. One of the most important of these changes involves our vehicles.

Historically, the automotive industry does not like to innovate unless it is forced to. It was not until our government forced them to that carmakers began installing such safety devices as seat belts and air bags, and even then, they complained for years. There is one group, however, that they will listen to: the consumer. Over the past few years, demand for large, inefficient vehicles has skyrocketed. The result is an explosion of new models of trucks and SUVs whose motto seems to be, “bigger is better.” Not since the heyday of tail fins decades ago have such large vehicles been used to transport people. According to Ford’s own website (www.fordvehicles.com), the 5,000+lbs. F-150 averages 15 miles per gallon (mpg). Compare this to the Toyota Prius, which is powered by an advanced gasoline-electric hybrid, which averages 48.5 mpg (Edmunds) and we can see that a great deal of progress could be made if customers spoke with their wallets. Yet, these same customers refuse to part with their trucks. The truck has become a symbol of success in America, part of the American Dream, and it is going to take something powerful to change that.

Enter the federal government. During the 1970s, the fed began to track something called the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAF, (Fix). This program offers incentives to auto manufacturers who could successfully reach an average fuel economy of around 27.3 mpg for all of its cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks and SUVs (Lane), and assesses penalties, based on sales volume, those that do not. One problem is that the requirements have not changed since their inception. The second problem lies in the fact that trucks are allowed to be less efficient than cars, and this is compounded by the fact that so many of them are sold. Immediately addressing these problems would constitute a major leap in prolonging the life of the crude oil supply. Carmakers would not be able to get away with selling such wasteful vehicles were it not for the fact that they are trucks, and apparently exempt from responsibility. The fines levied on foreign carmakers that do not meet the average mileage requirements have been very steep. For example, BMW was fined $13,147,249.50 just in 1999 (”Summary”) because its cars are not efficient enough. If trucks, which are sold in much higher quantities, were held to the same standard as cars, domestic makes would needlessly be shelling out incredible amounts of cash. As it stands now, however, our future fuel supply is being penalized. One thing that some companies are looking into, and this is a promising fact amid our current trend of “big rigs,” is an alternative to conventional gasoline engines.

If everyone decided to minimize overall fuel consumption, which is a great start, then a diesel-electric hybrid is a good way to go. It combines a diesel engine (diesels are more efficient than gas equivalents), and an electric motor, which powers the vehicle alone when the engine is not needed. These vehicles require no batteries, because the engine acts as a generator when necessary. It is estimated that this powertrain could offer a 47% increase in fuel economy when compared to a gas engine, and 22% better economy than a diesel engine alone (Lane). Other proposed alternatives involve hydrogen or ethanol, or E100, a fuel made entirely out of plant material. Numerous obstacles are involved with both options. Until fuel cells (devices that turn hydrogen into electricity and water) are perfected, not many people are going to want a tank full of extremely explosive gas just a few feet behind them. In addition, producing hydrogen, which is done through electrolysis, consumes a great deal more energy than the hydrogen will produce. As for E100, it ends up using roughly the same amount of petroleum as gasoline because of all of the diesel fuel required by farming, transporting, and processing machines (Bedard).

It would seem that the American way is in jeopardy. The people of this fine nation have dug themselves into a hole. Sadly, it is a hole which many are all too happy to live out their years in. What is worse is the awakening these people will receive when they realize that they are paying $200 to fill the forty-gallon tank of their Ford Excursion. I am optimistic, though, that changes will be made to improve what appears to be our future, although I may just be setting myself up for disappointment. Recently, a bill tried to work its way through legislation that would include cars and trucks together and increase the CAFE requirement for both. While it is true that this bill did not go too far, it shows that there are people out there who actually care, which is not a bad way to start.

Works Cited
“Ford, Henry.” Encarta 2001 Standard. CD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft, 2001
Bedard, Patrick. “Gas is good,” Car and Driver. Mar. 2002: 22
Csere, Csaba. “The Steering Column.” Car and Driver. Mar. 2002: 11
Edumnds. http://www.edmunds.com 21 Apr. 2002
Energy Security. Cambridge: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2002
Fix, Janet L. “Ford has ideas about helping environment.” Auto.com 23 July 1999 21 Apr. 2002
Ford Division of Ford Motor Company. www.fordvehicles.com 21 Apr. 2002
Lane, Robert. Blue Oval News. 4 Dec. 2000 21 Apr. 2002
“SUMMARY OF CAFE CIVIL PENALTIES COLLECTED FROM MY 1983 TO 2000.” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 21 Apr. 2002

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment. You may also want to subscribe to updates so you don't miss anything in the future.

guests, oil, politics, Wayne