The Future of the Auto Industry

Labor Day weekend is probably most celebrated by members of unions. This year will probably see more subdued celebrations as many employees of unions have faced lay-offs and are still out of work. This is particularly true in Detroit, which is host to the auto-industry. On the bright side they have announced an increase in production. This may be due to the “Cash for Clunkers” Program; however the only American company that benefitted was Ford, with sales of its economy vehicles the Fusion, Escape, and Focus.

Perhaps American Automakers are suffering from being locked into an old method of building, marketing, and selling vehicles. Though Ford is benefitting from fuel-efficient vehicle sales, they are still proving less revolutionary in their thinking than anticipated. This week Ford announced the rerelease of its infamous Ford Taurus. It was thought that this would be a groundbreaking update to the once popular model, but with a focus on electronics and safety, it will probably not boost sales as expected.

Why? This models fuel efficiency is almost identical to the original 1986 model, which managed 18 MPG city and 24MPG highway. The new Taurus? 18 MPG city and 28 MPG highway. It seems in twenty years Ford was able to improve efficiency only on the highway.

A major reason for the failure of the US auto industry is a lack on their part to make more fuel efficient cars. After receiving a large amount of funding from the US government and a promise of oversight, has real change happened? Not really. Unless we consider compact cars or SUVs, not much is happening in the world of fuel economy.

Automakers are trying to boost sales on their SUVs by increasing fuel economy and make an alternative vehicle for those who are worried about the environment, but they are still compelled to follow a dead model of small features updates on cars that are not selling, hoping to spark interest. This is what Ford did with the Taurus. Will it succeed? Probably not.

Perhaps it is time for US automakers to really invest in alternative fuels and develop concepts that will sustain them far into the future. This may increase their competitiveness in the long run while also allowing the US to wean itself off of fossil fuels, which are running out, causing the cost of gas to, disregarding fluctuations, steadily rise, and considered one of the main causes of global warming.

Which alternative to use has led to a lot of debate. As such, let’s take a look at the pros, cons, and possible uses of different alternatives.

One of the most common alternative fuels being developed in the US is ethanol. The US is the largest consumer of Ethanol and in many places there are regulations for gas to be mixed with at least 10% ethanol. The big car manufacturers already make flex vehicles capable of running on up to E85, which is 85% ethanol. At first look this would appear to be a useful alternative; however there are some major problems, including the cost of food, the fact that it still emits CO2, and the low total energy savings.

One of the worries with ethanol is that it will drive up the cost of food. It already has driven up the cost of corn. This is because subsidies provided have caused many farmers to plant corn, which for the production of ethanol, which may not have been profitable without the subsidies. Meanwhile, subsidies are still paying farmers not to plant corn for food production to keep the cost up. The main solution to this is obviously clearing out old regulations to make a system that is productive and doesn’t cause excess waste. Still, though, with increased corn production, the Central Belt will develop new problems from the extra use of pesticides and fertilizers if this is not regulated as well.

While it appears that ethanol is a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline, the reduction in CO2 output is not that significant. Add to this the carbon contained in the ground that is lost by tilling new soil, the carbon used in the manufacture of ethanol as well as fertilizers, and the net gain is not large. Granted growing plants will help draw some CO2 out of the atmosphere and more efficient farming methods could be found. Still, this would be an alternative to gasoline, not a fuel that would help considerably with global warming.

Another pitfall is the low total energy savings. For the amount of energy put into extracting power from ethanol, it returns 1.34 units of energy for every 1 expended. This is not an efficient system. In Brazil, they use sugarcane, which can be grown easily in tropical environments. There they are able to get 8 units of energy for each unit expended. This is much better than in the US.

So should the US give up on Ethanol? Maybe, but maybe not. Perhaps if we are able to find another plant to use. Some have suggested using sea algae as a way of avoiding using farmland, or switching to a more productive plant. Also, if the process were made more efficient by using more of the corn than just the kernels and finding ways to sustain food prices while stimulating food production would have to be found. This would take a lot of rethinking of subsidies as well as considering how to zone the growth of fuels to keep the system efficient.

Another fuel that is already in use is biodiesel and vegetable oil. This basically has similar advantages and disadvantages to ethanol. Although for biodiesel there are many ways to make it out of wastes such as coffee grounds, sewage, and actual garbage. The yields however would not be sufficient for everyone to use it.

Still, there is one more fuel that is available now, which is natural gas or compressed natural gas. This is much cleaner burning (60-90% cleaner than gasoline as far as smog), produces 30-40% less green house gases, and is cheaper and domestically produced. As a future alternative, it probably wouldn’t work long-term, but could be used as a steppingstone or for little tasks sometime in the future.

For a more groundbreaking alternative, we’ll have to shift our attention to Electric Vehicles or EVs. The benefit of EVs is they have the potential to be 100% emission free. However, as of now, most power comes from coal or gas burning plants, so while they save a lot of energy, until power comes from non-emitting resources, they are not the perfect solution. Also many of the materials that are used to make the batteries are limited in supply or hard to produce, which is why batteries for EVs can be so expensive.

EVs are not slow and powerless. In terms of accelerations they can beat a muscle car in a drag race and if there were a way to refill the battery quickly, they might be able to compete in longer races.

The battery running out and taking time to refill is one of the main issues currently with EVs. As of right now, they can maybe run for 200-300 miles before recharging which can take a considerable amount of time. Ideas for how to tackle this problem have been thought of, such as having a rental system for batteries rather than a refueling system, but people would still need to stop by the refueling station much more than the gas station and how to factor cost in such a system when some people use vehicles more than others.

Another problem is the availability of power. Right now power companies are making some deals with owners of electric vehicles to give them a cheaper rate for charging at night. Also during peak power times, some EVs can be reversed and used for power (or in an emergency such as a blackout). However, for them to truly be beneficial, solar power, wind power, or some other power would have to be used at home, in order to generate cheap power for them and this could also be supplied at work as well.

As a ready transition to this vehicle, there are already PHEVs in development, which is basically like a hybrid car that can also be plugged in and run solely on electric power, but which can also use gas power. This could be used to transition people from gas-powered vehicles to EVs while a solution for how to drive long-distances is considered.

Solar-powered vehicles are often thought of as a solution to this problem. These, so far, have been very lightweight vehicles, but no practical applications. Although in full sunlight solar power could extend an EVs range, it would be more practical to use solar panels at home, which store energy that is then used to recharge the vehicle. Although there may be a practical application in smaller vehicles, such as a scooter, with fold out panels that could recharge while parked or a non-daily use vehicle like a golf cart.

A rarely considered alternative is vehicles that run on compressed air. This would be using compressed air. Compressed air has many of the same disadvantages of electric vehicles in that they can travel limited distances. Also there is more of an energy loss in compressing air to power the vehicle. Yet, the advantages are interesting.

Compressed air vehicles are by nature lightweight, which would reduce wear and tear on roads, so it may save energy in other ways. They are easy to produce and maintain. In fact, electric cars are also cheap to maintain, but the cost of the battery and production of the battery make compressed air vehicles more economical. Also with compressed air there would be less of a problem with using resources and disposing of pollutants from batteries. All in all it is practical for short distances, wastes some energy, and is difficult to refuel, but has the benefit of being very environmentally friendly.

There is still one more alternative. That is to use public transportation and improve the public transportation infrastructure. In many cities around the US and the world a majority of people can get anywhere within a city without the use of a car. This method needs to be used more. It is inconvenient for waiting time, impractical, because of the difficulty in going where you actually want to go, and sometimes a little unreliable.

The benefits, though, are quite substantial. Because so many people are using one train or bus, it is energy efficient. Also, cities can put a lot more investment into alternative fuel sources than consumers can. It also cuts down significantly on the costs of maintaining roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. In addition to being a healthy means of getting from point A to point B.

So, which is the best method to use? Where should auto-makers put their focus?

None. Nowhere. I think this is what got us into this problem in the first place. Because everyone used the same methods, we’ve overused the same materials and polluted with the same materials. Things have changed so that the world is international, but our focus needs to shift to the benefits of each area and what is manageable in each area. Brazil has demonstrated an effective system for extracting Ethanol from sugar cane, but are we able to duplicate it in America? No.

The best method to get out of this situation is to make alternatives available now with what we have. This means to take current hybrid vehicles and change them over PHEVs while solving the problem of recharging the batteries and building the necessary infrastructure. In some areas like the Midwest, where Ethanol is already common, continue developing ethanol vehicles and do research to make ethanol a more viable option. In places where Natural gas is common, use that for vehicles. In cities or places where a commute is short, switch entirely to smaller EVs and public transportation. Areas that are along the coast should work on the development of algae for fuel and for power.

In fact power should be developed as a priority. No method is 100% clean and viable without renewable energy sources like wind, thermal, and hydroelectric powering it.

What do the Big Three need to do then? They need to diversify more. They need to find options that will work for different areas and make them available to those people. Solar power can work in the Southwestern US very well, but it wouldn’t work in Seattle, which doesn’t see a lot of sun. But Seattle is small, so EVs could work, and most of Washington is running on hydroelectric and nuclear power. Zero emissions. But this might not work in another place. We need to find sustainability. To do that we can’t keep looking for one solution while doing the same thing. We need to find solutions that are adaptable to different environments and start working on them now.