NATION:
Alternative Cars

The car of the future may do more than mollify America's antipollution zealots. Alternative fuels could revolutionize U. S. energy policy, reducing dependency on foreign oil.

By Timothy W. Maier Who wants a "green" car? Surely only a tree-hugging left-winger could be serious about it. Look at these contraptions: the hydrogen vehicle; the "Back to the Future" flux capacitor or garbage car; the Texas "air car"; the natural gas car; the hybrid vehicle, which runs on electricity and gasoline; or just the plain old electric car or EV. Sounds perfect for the Al Gore enviro-wackos, but more than a bit far out for those on the right. After all, American cars are 90 percent cleaner than they were three decades ago and gasoline prices have dipped to a 10-year low. What kind of nut would actually drive a "green" car? Wait a minute, says Ward Paine, a San Franciscan who leases a Honda electric car called the EV Plus, which boasts a nickel-metal hydride battery containing twice the range of conventional lead-acid batteries. "I'm a businessman," he tells Insight. "I never hugged a tree. I took a chain saw to one once and yelled, 'Look out!' but I never hugged a tree." What's the attraction? For Paine, who doesn't consider himself a hardcore environmentalist, it's self-reliance. "I never go near a gas station and that's a real pleasure," Paine says. Okay, there's always one nut in a barrel. Who else? The government -- that's who. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 calls for a 10 percent reduction in the nation's dependence upon foreign oil by 2000 and a 30 percent reduction by 2010 through the production and increased use of replacement fuels. By 2002, 75 percent of all state and federal vehicles will be required to run on alternative fuels. William McGlinchey, facility manager for the National Alternative Fuel Training Program in West Virginia, says alternative-fuel vehicles now have moved from an environmental issue to a national-security concern. "We should care about this so we don't have to go to foreign countries to fight wars over oil," he declares. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts U.S. net oil imports will rise from the present 45 percent of domestic consumption to about 58 percent in 2005. The nation's dependence on imported oil is higher than in 1973 and 1979, when OPEC price increases plunged the U.S. economy into recession. Some economists predict that within 30 to 50 years oil supplies could be depleted seriously, while others argue there are plenty of untapped reserves. Nevertheless, electricity is leading the charge. Paine is a shrewd businessman, not an eccentric. If anything goes wrong with his car, Honda fixes it. He says he is not even allowed to touch it with a screwdriver. The vehicle records everything that is done to it and that record is studied when the auto is turned in upon expiration of the lease. Paine's son Chris understands his father's zeal for electric cars. After all, he leased the electric General Motors EV-1 in Los Angeles even before his dad signed the Honda contract. "It's a good deal for the commuter," says Chris Paine, who heads up an interactive agency in Santa Monica, Calif., called Internet Outfitters. He pays $400 per month, while his father pays about $600 for a similar three-year lease. The price includes insurance, repairs, and a home charger, which takes about three hours to fully juice a vehicle. A charged Honda can go 70 miles and the GM 50 miles before requiring another jolt. However, a charge of only about 40 minutes provides the EVs with up to 80 percent of their full range. There are about 100 charging stations in California in places such as airports, shopping centers and hotels. The infrastructure still is not up to speed when compared to the 6,000 gas stations in the state, but the Paines say they get along just fine by taking a little extra time to plan trips. And the drive? "I appreciate technical beauty," Chris Paine tells Insight. "It's like a rocket. It's really fast. The first thing you notice about it is you can't hear a damn thing. It's dead quiet. There is no gear shifting." And there are perks to consider. GM EV-1 drivers enjoy free parking at the airport and other places where there are charging stations -- a hot commodity in crowded cities such as Los Angeles. Joseph H. Strubhar, who converted his Datsun Kingcab pickup to electric power, says EVs are as powerful as an ordinary engine but more cost efficient. "With 96 volts DC, for example, a full charge costs me only 30 cents. No maintenance, and the motor is good for 1 million miles, approximately." Robert Ward of San Francisco, who has converted three gasoline vehicles to electric, says unfortunately the average person can't afford to pay or lease a $35,000 vehicle. Perhaps that's the major reason why there are as few as 300 electric cars in California and less than 5,000 nationwide. Still, if these vehicles are so cost-efficient, why isn't the public buying them? "Because the major media insist on portraying the electric vehicle as a dog or a slug, and ignore the facts," Strubhar insists. "Fact 1: An electric dragster recently set a record of 10.88 seconds in the quarter-mile. Last summer the same vehicle beat a Dodge Viper soundly. Fact 2: The land-speed record for an electric vehicle is over 200 mph. True, this doesn't come near the jet-powered land record, but compare the technology level and it is still very impressive! Fact 3: There are people who are driving 30 to 50 miles daily in EVs on a single charge. Some are driving farther, and charging on both ends. Fact 4: Solectria recently drove a prototype sedan at freeway speeds 217 miles on a single charge from Boston to New York City. You don't hear anything about it in the national media, do you?" Bob Oldham, president of the Central Virginia Electric Auto Association, blames the auto and oil industries, as well as circulation of claims of excessive cost and inadequate range for stalling EV development. "The key to acceptance will be reeducation of drivers to expect smaller, lighter cars for their short, one- or two-person commutes," he says. 'With 96 volts DC, a full charge costs me only 30 cents. No maintenance, and the motor is good for 1 million miles.' Meanwhile, the EV drivers boast they are saving thousands of dollars at the pump. But guess who is paying for their drive? Rebates and credits, such as a $5,000 incentive check offered to electric-car buyers, combined with a 10 percent federal tax credit, cost taxpayers about $8,400 per vehicle. Chrysler Chief Executive Robert Eaten puts it this way: "When you pass an electric car, be sure to wave -- because you helped pay for it." But several states are considering even more subsidies for alternative-fuel cars. Automakers want to offer more discounts for these vehicles and pass the cost along to consumers as higher prices for conventional cars. But it doesn't stop there. States are enacting laws requiring that certain percentages of new cars must produce zero emissions -- hence electric cars -- since conventional cars contribute nearly one-third of the airborne carbon dioxide produced in the United States. California -- once known as having the nation's smoggiest air -- required that 2 percent of all cars sold by this year must be "zero-emission" vehicles, and 10 percent by 2003. That is a significant number considering about 10 percent of all the nation's trucks and cars are sold in the Golden State. Automakers paid millions of dollars to lawyers to fight these quotas, which eventually led to a 1996 agreement in which California waived the 2 percent law and gave the automakers an extension in exchange for meeting a lowered zero-emission standard over five years. Since then, 13 Northeastern states have adopted the agreement and only New York is sticking firmly to the 2 percent law, even though infrastructure is lagging. Former GOP activist Anita Mangels, who is president of Californians Against Hidden Taxes, stopped at least three cities from coughing up matching funds to pay for the $20,000 charging stations. "We are stringently opposed to taxpayers having to foot the bill," she tells Insight. "If there is demand -- the private sector will fund it. Look, if electric cars are such a good thing there should be investors all around Wall Street and they should get rich, not the government." Mangel's group is funded by the Western States Petroleum Association, but her argument raises the question: Should the government tell automakers what products to sell and not to sell, or should the marketplace determine what is offered and bought? Tom Sota, former president of Coalition for Clean Air in Washington, argues "the mandate is not to create a market but to help kick start a market." Sota says oil campanies and U.S. automakers repeatedly have "tried to push back" the legislation because "you don't make money off of electricity," and automakers and oil companies want to take the least-costly approach to meeting emission goals. Apparently, Henry Ford II agreed. He reportedly once said: "We could not have made all of the advances in safety and the environment without government regulations" covering such mandates as seatbelts, air bags or catalytic converters. But critics laugh and ask, What is the profit on 200,000 federally mandated seatbelts a year forever? Drivers such as Strubhar, who converted his Datsun to electric, says, "If government wants to get involved, my suggestion is that they encourage the little entrepreneur to convert existing gas-powered vehicles into electrics, and then stay out of the way." University of Delaware sociologist Willett Kempton says government intervention is needed for the "first set of cars" just as it was when ratepayers financed nuclear power plants with increases in utility bills. "It's appropriate because oil is not going to he around that long," he claims. "I would hate to see us wait to start doing something when gas reaches $20 a gallon." While U.S. automakers pumped millions into their lawyers' pockets to resist alternative-fuel vehicles, Toyota quietly pursued more-efficient cars -- coming up with the Prius, a hybrid gas/fuel-cell vehicle that can get 66 miles per gallon and cuts emissions by 90 percent. It sells for about $17,700 and is expected to make its U.S. marketplace debut by 2000. The Prius never needs to be recharged from an external source because the motor functions as a generator to recharge the batteries, and the engine limits its fuel consumption by shutting off when coming to a stop and then turning back on when power resumes. Toyota also has developed the RAV4 electric vehicle -- a sport-utility vehicle, which went on sale last year to U.S. fleet managers, and has a maximum range of 130 miles on a single charge, which beats all U.S. EVs for distance. International competition from Toyota may be playing a role in getting Americans to see big-league opportunities. Already Lee A. Iacocca has bought a $3.2 million stake in Unique Mobility in Colorado, an electric bicycle and car outfit run by Ray Geddes, who used to work for Iacocca at Ford and Chrysler, whereupon the price of Unique stock more than doubled. Ford has invested $500 million in a joint venture with Daimler-Benz, which plans on selling 100,000 family-size fuel-cell cars by 2004. General Motors plans to hit the road in 2002 with an 8O-mile-per-gallon car and Chrysler has a 70-mile-a-gallon diesel/electric hybrid version of the Intrepid. Still, Mangels insists consumers don't want "green" cars. "New-car buyers are not interested in the environment," she says, noting a poll by Los-Angeles-based J.D. Powers, which said 75 percent of California drivers don't want to lease or buy electric. "They look for low price and convenience." McGlinchey, the facility manager for the National Alternative Fuel Training Program, knows "green" doesn't sell. "Every time I talk to fleet managers, environment is the last thing I stress," he says. "It doesn't matter how green your fuel is if you can't show a fleet manager a return on their investment." McGlinchey says the answer to fuel problems is within our own borders -- a natural-gas supply that could last 200 years but which is controlled by oil companies. As with electric cars, however, natural gas presents problems, chiefly with storage. For example, Volvo introduced dual-tank -- natural gas and gasoline -- vehicles, but in Europe, not the US. (Ford has a similar vehicle it sells to fleets in the US.) But one of Volvo's engineers, Stephen Wallman, dejectedly says the United States isn't ready for the vehicle while gas prices are so low and there is a lack of room for natural-gas storage. McGlinchey says: "The biggest obstacle is public apathy. You're not going to see a shift to alternative fuel because America doesn't want to give up that space for those golf clubs." If not natural gas, perhaps hydrogen. Jim Morrison, project manager for Southeastern Technology Center, says their hydrogen bus with 27 seats and 56 lead-acid batteries is safe because it's difficult to "sniff a lot of hydrogen when it is [stored] up as a solid." The hydrogen fuels the making of electricity. The price tag? A mere $3 million, and it debuts this month in Augusta, Ga. Who paid for it? The Departments of Energy and Transportation, along with private industry. Not to worry, says Morrison, the price will drop if it is ever mass produced -- that is, if it works! Morrison won't say for sure if it will. "It's not worth it to the transit authority unless it goes all day," he says, because it takes about an hour to fuel and another eight hours to charge. New York-based Pure Energy Corp. president Rick Andlinger believes he has the "Back to the Future" answer with the garbage mobile. Last year the company signed a five-year research-and-development agreement with the Tennnessee Valley Authority to develop chemical and biological conversion systems to produce fuel from waste paper, agricultural waste, and wood waste. Ford Taurus, Ford Ranger and some Chrysler minivans can use this type of fuel, which burns 25 to 50 percent cleaner than gas. Or maybe the answer rests in Texas where a University of North Texas material-science professor, Rick Reidy, built the real "New Beetle" that runs on air. It boils liquid nitrogen, which turns the motor on a 1973 Bug. It is completely pollution free, unlike electric cars, whose pollution does not come from tailpipes but from smokestacks at electric plants. This Bug is nothing like the Hindenburg, and is completely safe. "It's not like a Pinto either," he says. "You're not going to get an explosion if it is rear ended." The car currently travels at a maximum speed of 25 mph but can be souped up to do 60, maybe more, and costs about $2,000. The disadvantage? "It only gets 3 miles per gallon, but has a 50-gallon tank," which would cost about $5 to fill. The advantage? "One thing ahout liquid nitrogen," he muses. "We won't run out. But you know the government, they will find a way to tax even the air." used by permission from Insight on the News (May 18, 1998, pages 18-20)

Return to