I just spent three days in Sonoma, Calif., attending the fifth annual Michelin Tire "Challenge Bibendum." This event, named after the roly-poly Michelin man, brings together teams with alternatively fueled vehicles from around the world to compete in a series of performance tests. At the same time, car manufacturers bring out some of their latest green technology to be sampled by an assembled mass of both automotive and environmental journalists. This unholy cabal of strange bedfellows attends lectures and presentations from industry luminaries and environmental regulators.
Trying to make sense out of what is being said by individuals and organizations, each of whom clearly have their own agendas to push, isn't easy. There are a few things that are clear:
* American drivers traveled 2.3 trillion miles in 128 million cars in 2002.* Americans use 8.2 million barrels of fuel each day.* Heavy trucks account for 6% of vehicles in the U.S. but use 24% of all U.S. fuel consumption.* Americans use 25% of the world's energy but only produce a small percentage of it.* Transportation accounts for 66% of the oil use in the U.S.* The transportation sector is 95% dependent on its current fuel source.* 64% of all oil comes from 5 countries in the Mideast.* More roads are being built in China each year than exist in all of France.* By 2020, there will be more than a billion vehicles in the world, a 40% increase over today.* By 2050, there will be 3.5 billion vehicles in the world.
Another clear point is that the war on exhaust emissions from passenger cars and light trucks has largely been won through the use of technology. Vehicles like Volvo's PZEV (Partially Zero Emission Vehicle) have reduced the emissions of toxic hydrocarbons to less than a thousandth of the levels from cars produced 30 years ago. In fact, emissions from today's modern gasoline engines are often cleaner than the surrounding air. Unfortunately, heavy trucks still remain a serious source of emissions, producing 80% of the particulates and 60% of the smog-producing oxides of nitrogen.
If the passenger car emissions war has been won, the war on fuel economy is another matter. The anti-car forces are quick to point out that, over the past 20 years, average fuel economy has only improved by 1%, while weight has gone up by 24%, horsepower by 93% and that cars are faster by 28%. They argue that we have squandered our technology making cars and SUVs more luxurious, more powerful and faster instead of more fuel-efficient. There is no doubt that we are using oil at an impressive rate. In 1985, the use of oil in America exceeded the level of domestic production. By 2010, the gap will be double of what we can produce in the U.S. The Department of Energy estimates that even if were to have an immediate increase of 60% in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE to 38.4 mpg) and were to tap into the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the continuing increase in the number of vehicles on the road means that the gap wouldn't decrease in the coming years.
So, switching to gasoline hybrids and efficient diesels won't do much to stem the demand for oil. Now consider that China and India currently use only a tiny fraction of the world's oil. In the future both will become major automotive markets with hundreds of millions of vehicles. They will need to get their oil from someone, and it is clear that international competition for a limited amount of oil will become a major national security concern in the coming decades.
Which brings us to alternative energy sources. Discounting things like solar and wind power as impractical, the following look viable as transport fuels:
* Biodiesel: Made from organic materials instead of petroleum crude.
* Natural gas: Used today and technology exists-U.S. has lots of it.
* Methane from biomass: Byproduct of sewage treatment which is now wasted-solves the environmental problem of methane by putting it to work-can be used like natural gas.
* Hydrogen: As a fuel in combustion engines or used with fuel cells to make electricity-expensive to make, difficult to store.
* Alcohol Fuels (methanol and ethanol): Already used mixed with gasoline. Methanol may be a source for hydrogen in fuel-cell vehicles.
* Gasoline: Reformulated for better economy and lower emissions.
Considering the options, the outlook for car enthusiasts seems bleak. The good news is that, even at the Challenge Bibendum, some of the tests for green vehicles included enthusiast-oriented slalom, acceleration and braking tests. Maybe the performance desires of the car buying public won't be overshadowed by the needs for alternative energy sources.
Listening carefully to what was said and talking to those who seemed most rational, here is what automotive enthusiasts can expect:
* Gasoline engines will be around for at least another 20 years before other technologies begin to make a dent in their dominance.
* Except for some very limited inner city uses, battery electric cars are dead.
* High-technology diesel-engine cars are Europe's solution to greenhouse emissions and fuel economy.
* Diesels will be slow to be accepted in the U.S.
* Japan is pushing hybrid gasoline-electric cars and will continue to do so.
* U.S. car makers are hedging their bets about the future and hence aren't leading.
* Everyone dreams of hydrogen fuel cells as the long-term answer, but they realistically won't hit the mass-market until after 2015.
* There won't be one clear winner as each type of vehicle may need its own propulsion system.
If there is one message that comes through loud and clear from an event like Challenge Bibendum, it is that incremental improvements and attempts at conservation really won't make a difference. There needs to be a fundamentally new type of fuel and vehicle. If we are ever brave enough to embrace that, the automotive future should be interesting.