| |
|
 |
fivedollarsagallon.com |
| It really is time to sell something other than gas |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
interview with david lane, a former co-founding member of the petroleum alternatives advocacy group pluginamerica.org |
|
|
| |
|
| |
How economically viable are alternative fuels today compared to gasoline and what do you feel will be the impact of maintaining the status quo?
To draw a fair comparison, one should consider the full costs of maintaining a petroleum-based economy. This includes massive military spending to "securitize" access to oil reserves around the globe, particularly in Iraq today which has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. The US spends $11,000,000 every single hour to maintain operations in Iraq. The total cost to date congressional analysts place at over $700 billion. This is sending our national debt into the stratosphere. No one should dare put a price on the lives lost in this endeavor, but that cost will continue to rise. The price at the pump doesn't reflect any of this.
Alternatives to petroleum are price-competitive today. Non-petroleum-based diesel (biodiesel) in Los Angeles sells for around $3.95 a gallon and is available at the pump in several locations. Ethanol, available in the Midwest, is similarly priced. Charging costs for EVs (electric vehicles) are astonishingly low, the equivalent of around 85 cents a gallon when charged at night during off-peak rates. This is about one forth the cost of gasoline. The competition for petroleum-based driving is poised to seriously threaten its dominance if the alternatives are fairly permitted to exist in the market. Not to prepare for the inevitable rise in fossil fuels costs and their dwindling availability is to lay the groundwork for future catastrophe.
Let me bring up China, the world's most populous country and an exploding economic power. With their rapidly growing economy, living standards will move towards western standards, and this means among other things, personal automobiles. Green house gas emissions from China's automobiles will make an enormous and devastating contribution to the damage done here in the West. The US has 300 million people; China 1.3 billion. Air pollution and green house gas emissions know no borders. Their demand for energy and resources may one day outstrip that of the US. China's demands today are such that a new coal-burning power plant is built every two weeks to keep up with the pace of development.
China along with India as well are developing in ways that are rather disconcerting. They parrot the western example very closely in the form of wasteful trends and conspicuous consumption. For example, using as many plastic bags and styrofoam containers as possible signifies western-style progress. The sentiment among many in developing nations towards admonitions from the West is essentially, 'Why should we deny ourselves the luxuries you've enjoyed for years? Who are you to tell us what not to do here, when you've done it all?' I can appreciate this point of view. It is therefore key that we change our habits today under their observing eyes to stave off the impending environmental threat that is on the horizon. The United States, if it is to be bold and insightful, can better affect change globally by setting new examples today.
According to the Wall Street Journal, oil-company policies make it harder for many service stations to stock a fuel called E85 (blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Has Plug-in America tried to voice any solutions to this?
Let me clarify some points about ethanol's potential. When the topic turns to ethanol, Brazil is often cited because of its staggering success there, where half of the cars on the road and nearly all new cars are capable of running on ethanol or gasoline or any combination thereof. These are called flex fuel vehicles. In the Brazilian model, ethanol is produced domestically from sugar cane. Ethanol made from sugar cane is a less energy intensive process than making ethanol from corn as they do here in the US. With corn-based ethanol it can take eight gallons of petroleum to produce nine gallons of ethanol and requires massive amounts of water. The US imposes tariffs on Brazilian ethanol to keep it from becoming competitive with domestic supply.
Ethanol can also be produced from the waste material of crops, i.e husks and stems, etc. This is called cellulosic ethanol and is the most promising of all ethanol options because it capitalizes on an abundant source that currently goes to waste.
It is a surprise to many to learn that there are already millions of flex fuel cars on US roads today designed to run on ethanol or gasoline. The problem is a lack of E85 fueling stations. There are very few places to fill up with E85. Only one station in all of Southern California exists, located in San Diego.
Oil companies are not inclined to sabotage their own revenues by offering an alternative at their gas stations. Consider, would an Apple Store invite IBM to place their products alongside ipods and Powerbooks in its store? Their resistance is logical. Smaller stations are contractually bound by the petroleum companies who supply their fuel not to offer ethanol or biodiesel under the same canopy.
One small exception may be in British Petroleum (BP) which recently opened a flagship eco-friendly fueling station here in Los Angeles on the corner of Robertson Blvd and Olympic. This unique structure with its glistening Frank Gehry-esque metallic facade, solar panels, and rooftop water collection system, makes every effort to impress upon customers that BP is forward thinking. They have implied that one day E85 and biodiesel may be offered, but declined to state when or guarantee it will happen.
The point I want to emphasize here is that E85 derived from cellulosic ethanol or at least from sugar cane offers substantial benefits, but requires some top-down federal leadership as well as some bottom-up public education to make it happen. The agribusiness lobby is a powerful force in Washington and will do everything to win support for their means of producing ethanol from corn, which as mentioned, does not wean us off of petroleum very far. However, if they do succeed in this, infrastructure to supply E85 will be expanded. I tend to think that a compromise may be arrived at where ethanol is blended with gas in larger ratios than it all ready is today, perhaps as a 20% blend of ethanol. The greatest amount of ethanol and biodiesel may reach the pumps not in pure forms but in blends. We of course would like to see petroleum written out of the equation all together. PIA would most like to see plug-ins, either all electiric or plug-in hybrids with flex fuel tanks using E85 or biodiesel.
Do you think we have an obligation to future generations by promoting alternative fuel measures? Some argue we have a moral obligation. What are your thoughts?
As you might expect, I believe we have a tremendous obligation to future generations but do not believe that we need look that far down the road to be motivated to act today. Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. Cancer rates from environmental pollution are at an all time high. The latest report from the esteemed body of international scientists, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control), firmly rules out the possibility that global warming on the scale that it exists today could be due to anything other than human influence. US petro-dollars go into the hands of Middle East regimes hostile to the United States, basically funding the other side in the "war on terrorism".
Some people will adopt a fatalist position. Even if we shut down every coal burning power plant and no one drove another mile, global warming will continue unabated for years to come because the wheels have been set in motion.
I can understand part of this fatalistic view, but I just can't live like that. Who can? I have faith in the ability of mankind to adapt to change. Human beings are often excellent crisis managers and frequently that's exactly what it takes to get us to act. I'm not so certain that we will condemn ourselves and future generations by staying on the present path given what we now know and when there's so much that can be done to improve the situation. The evidence for climate change today is incontestable and the moral obligation is clear.
Greener business practices, sustainability, and new energy are to become part and parcel of the 21st century business model. The technology exists today to make gasoline burning engines a thing of the past, so very last century. Dean Kamen, best known as the inventor of the Segway but also responsible for some truly amazing inventions with philanthropic benefit, once said "Technology is the easy part. Getting people to change their habits, now that's hard." So it's really more about changing attitudes than anything else. The excuses of many resemble those of the oil and car companies', saying one day a better alternative will be here and simply continuing along with their current practices. The truth is that better alternatives exist now and it just takes public awareness and acceptance to move them forward to a point where they gain critical mass. It's like cell phones catching on fifteen years ago or so. You see your neighbor doing it and think, hey, I can get into this too.
The number of cars driven in the US is much larger than other countries around the world. How are other nations dealing with the issues? Are they doing better or worse? What are their solutions?
There will eventually be more drivers in China. The Chinese, anticipating peak oil (the point at which oil with its finite availability no longer becomes economical to extract and refine) are very interested in electric drive and companies like BYD, which Warren Buffet has invested an astonishing $232 million in, are already producing electric cars to enter the market here in the US. Germany is structuring new caps on CO2 emissions and is investing heavily in renewable sources. I believe Germany invests more in solar than any other country, even with their marginal weather. Recycling is de rigueur there as it is in much of Europe. Japan, which has no domestic oil resources of its own, is also taking an interest in electric drive. Japan's former Prime Minister, Junichero Koizumi, is a major proponent of electric vehicles. The Japanese auto industry is somewhat similar to US Big Auto and has been reluctant to revise their core product beyond hybrids, though there are promising signs coming out now. India is very disconcerting, trailing China in overall growth and becoming a top tier gross polluter. The US, for its part, continues to have among the lowest fuel economy standards in the western world and the federal government is loathe to raise them. China's fleet actually achieves significantly better mileage than cars in the US do.
The auto industry here is behaving like a typewriter company in the late 70s or early 80s when Steve Jobs was in a garage developing Apple Computers. If US car companies are unwilling to adapt and change, they may not be the purveyors of cars people want to drive and instead lose out to alternatives from the competition. The hybrid technology employed in the runaway success of the Toyota Prius was developed under a program here in the US, but domestic automakers shunned the hybrid until Toyota brought it back to them. Detroit may well be too conservative and short-sighted to restructure on its own and the government remains reluctant to impose suitably high fuel economy standards on them, but all of this may just be the death knell for Detroit and a boon to the alternative companies like Tesla Motors, which was recently slated for $465 million in federal funding. The technology of the last century got us into this situation and it is only new technology which can get us out.
What is Plug-in America.org's major accomplishment and what are your goals for the future?
I would say that the success of Who Killed the Electric Car? and the influence the film has had on the industry and the public is PIA's most significant achievement. The film, directed by PIA member Chris Paine, generated a great deal of enthusiasm in the public for EVs and plug-in hybrids and skepticism towards the oil and auto industries. It provoked a direct response from US Big Auto. GM attacked the film in ads in major newspapers and bought massive influence in other areas. For a while, all Google searches for "EV1" or the title of the film suspiciously returned users to GM's own website. The film received rave reviews and played across the country for longer than its distributor Sony Pictures anticipated. Parallel exposure with An Inconvenient Truth was also fortuitous and Al Gore made very positive remarks about the film. GM seemed to be caught in a quagmire as a rising backlash for their earlier decisions began to form. CEO Rick Waggoner went public in an interview (Motor Trend magazine June 2006) stating that ending the EV1 program was the worst decision GM made. Ultimately, in an effort to reshape their image after the film, GM decided to develop a plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt, which debuted at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show.
Today PIA makes presentations in colleges and high schools around the country, and consults with lawmakers at the city, state, and national level. With the help of our Washington connection, PIA Board of Directors member James Woolsey, a DVD of the film was delivered to every member of the Senate and House of Representatives. Woolsey is a foreign policy specialist and has served in political appointments under several White House administrations including as Director of Central Intelligence from 1993-95. He looks like a typical Washington conservative but he's an ardent supporter of environmental issues and energy independence. His black Washington politician's Suburban runs on biodiesel. Having a figure like this working with PIA is a tremendous benefit.
PIA will continue to work both top-down strategies with lawmakers and industry as well as bottom-up strategies that seek to increase public awareness. Both are crucial but I would say that the real power for change ultimately rests with the public. Awareness creates demand for alternatives and when the demand is significant, industry responds. The petroleum and old auto industries can no longer successfully suppress alternatives when it is clear that they are viable, competitive, and in fact superior in many respects. The future belongs to those ready and willing to adapt to change and the need to do so for environmental reasons and beyond is so very great.
Interview by Bao-an Nguyen
|
|
|
|
| copyright © 2010 web hosting by 2mHost.com |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
