January 2009 – Alternative Fuels

Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels.

PFDebate did a really good job talking about the first topic of the new year and was enlightening on the subject of the NFL partnering up with other debate-related organizations, so I’ll try my best to talk about other factors to consider.

I’m a little confused by the wording of the resolution because it doesn’t say all of these vehicles sold in the US should be powered by alternative fuels by 2040, instead, it says that, by 2040, the federal government should mandate it to be the case. Probably a nitpicky concern, and I assume the resolution means for alternative fuel-powered cars to be the market standard by 2040.

So I first thought about this resolution from the angle of the actor, the federal government. The Obama administration has several specific goals related to automobiles in their plans for energy. One of which is for all new vehicles to be flexible fuel vehicles by 2012 rather than 2040.

However, there has been a lot of talk about what changes Obama will have to make to his original plans in response to the state of the American economy. By all indications, the incoming government is supportive of the US auto industry and is probably in favor of the Bush administration’s decision to lend $17.4 bn to GM and Chrysler. Knowing that, and knowing that there will be more sacrifices on the part of automobile workers, many of whom have already been laid off, is it good policy to give with one hand and burden with another? The government conditions attached to these loans are very demanding, and if GM and Chrysler do not show almost immediate improvement in performance, they are expected to repay the loans on the spot.

The UChicago Law School blog on carmakers and TARP

And how reasonable is 2040 in terms of retraining workers or refitting factories?

Japanese companies will have an easier time adapting their entire range of vehicles to this resolution but they are hurting too – Toyota’s first loss in 70 years was a pretty depressing news story right before Christmas. Worldwide carmaker losses means cost-cutting, and cost-cutting means even less money for technological innovation and updated factories. Teams addressing the industrial and financial elements of this resolution will be making a prediction about the duration of the economic recession somewhere along the way.

Factor 1: the state of the US auto industry and its counterparts, the US economy, and the world economy

The next question that came to mind was whether or not vehicles powered by alternative fuels would be able to use petroleum. Current hybrids still use some gasoline. If vehicles are to be completely powered by alternative fuels, alternative fuel stations must be prevalent across the US to the same degree that gas stations are now. How much will such an infrastructure cost? How will it become a reality? Is this a “if you build it, they will come” scenario?

US Alternative Fueling Station counts

Are fuel providers to follow the cars? With oil prices as low as they are right now, alternative fuels are not cost-competitive for providers or consumers. US corn-based ethanol is more expensive to produce than Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol and it shares some of the blame for the world food crisis. Biofuels are also not as green as we thought because of environment depletion by agricultural methods. Foreign Affairs explains these problems in much greater detail.

Ok, so forget biofuels, let’s have all cars be electric and people can charge them up at home. From what I can glean from the DOE, the energy cost per mile is less for electric vehicles than gasoline vehicles – good news for the Pro. However, when we incorporate the environmental costs of electricity production, which in the US is overwhelmingly coal-based (lots and lots of carbon emissions) followed by natural gas (cleaner but still polluting), electric is not as competitive. So if one of the reasons this resolution should be affirmed is the environment, the negative consequences of alternative fuels must be compared to the downsides of gasoline.

Factor 2: Alternative fuel options and the pros and cons of each

For amusement – see the post entitled “88 MPH” on Jim Menick’s blog, Coachean Life.