George Denzinger recently asked a good question, so I am front paging his comment from our post, “If automakers focused more on efficiency would there be less pressure to go EV?” This is an example of how you don’t have to have an answer when you raise a question in the comments.
Regarding EVs and fuel efficiency: I was in elementary school when Nixon created the EPA, and then started issuing mandates. One of those mandates was to eliminate tetraethyl lead from motor fuels. This was to take place by model year 1975 and the automakers all had to comply in order to sell in the US. There were exceptions, but the requirements were going to ramp up significantly in the coming years and they would have to be met using unleaded fuel. Thinking about that situation and comparing it to the current edict to switch to BEVs has me thinking about the unleaded fuel mandates. I’m too young to remember what the “man in the street” was thinking at the time, but I think there would have to be some parallels between the two situations.
It would have been impossible to predict the future in 1970 when the unleaded fuel mandates were announced. Here we are 50 years later and enjoy some of the best performance from motor vehicles ever imagined. Powerful, efficient and clean which would have been unimaginable in the 1970’s.
Which brings me to my latest quandary: Porsche announced an investment in a synthetic fuel alleged to meet emissions standards and capture CO2 from the atmosphere. In this scheme, CO2 would be continuously captured and released while ostensibly having a neutral effect on the environment.
Also see ‘CO2 emissions: Automakers still partying like it’s 1975’
I believe there’s merit in this idea as it would extend the useful life of existing vehicles (and other things like infrastructure and distribution channels), particularly in areas that will not be quickly or easily electrified. Electrification is relatively easy in North America, Europe or China, even. But, imagine the hurdles in Africa and parts of Asia? Now, this could also stall the adoption of electrification in more wealthy countries, but like so many other ideas, electrification has to hit that “critical mass”, where the populations believe it is a great idea. Similar to the adoption of the automobile over the horse (or street car). For enthusiasts like myself, this would allow me to keep my existing ICE automobile functional in an EV world.
But my main question really is this: Where is the US EPA regarding a synthetic fuel? I wonder if Nixon were still in office would the EPA be bold enough to mandate a synthetic fuel, similar to the unleaded fuel mandate of the 1970’s? Or has our government gotten so used to the Reagan-era idea of doing as little as possible to hinder business that it just won’t do anything? However, I have little idea of what goes into the shaping public policy and how the government responds, or if it is even obligated to respond. Maybe there’s just not enough public demand or interest in this question.
Go here for a link to the comments section of an ARS Technica article about the synthetic-fuel Porsche has invested in. Many of these folks seem to have excellent questions and observations concerning this issue.
— George Denzinger
RE:SOURCES
- Gitlin, Jonathan M.; 2022. “This synthetic-fuel startup just got $75 million from Porsche.” ARS Technica. Posted April 4.
Indie Auto invites your comments (see below) or letters to the editor (go here). Letters may be lightly edited for style.
Synthetic fuel? Welcome to Ethanol.
Don’t tell me it’s a “renewable” resource, turning topsoil into fuel, using coal and natural gas to heat the fermenting vats; and being upside-down in the energy invested, is insane.
Typical Government project: Mandate the use of an overall poor investment-to-outcome system, and then pretend it’s a perpetual motion scheme. Meantime, the folks bribing–oops, contributing to the re-election campaign of–the politicians, are raking in the dough. And it’ll be worse soon, when E15 comes to the pump and it voids all the warranties on the small engines–snowmobiles, lawn mowers, outboard motors, weed-whackers, etc.
If I were in charge, all the speed limits would be raised, and Ethanol and EVs would have to stand on their own merits with neither Government subsidy nor mandate. (Since neither one is viable in a free-market system, Ethanol and EVs would crash and burn, never to be heard from again.)
If we lived in a truly free-market system, nuclear power never would have gotten off the ground. And even though the oil industry is quite mature, it still benefits from a range of subsidies.
I’d be open to removing government subsidies and mandates if the auto industry would display social responsibility in dealing with the various problems its has contributed to. Ralph Nader would have never gotten his 15 minutes of fame if the industry had taken safety more seriously. One can say the same thing for the likes of air pollution. Brock Yates said it best:
“All of the government interference could have been avoided if the industry had demonstrated some social responsibility during the 1960s. . . . Bad automobiles came before bad laws. To be sure, federal bureaucrats have since swung the regulation pendulum too far, but that too was an inevitable response to Detroit’s witless excesses” (1983, p. 254).
These kinds of comments cover so much ground not one response can cover all of the topics they bring up. I will attempt to cover some of it, but there’s so much more to all of this.
Synthetic fuels are typically “synthesized” from other materials, chemically. Ethanol (and other alcohol-based fuels) are generally distilled or converted from existing starches. There are many ways to generate ethanol, besides food-based starches. Switchgrasses, lumber products and even algae are some of the other methods. The method for algae uses sunlight to produce ethanol uses very little outside energy to do so. However, the most expedient way to produce ethanol is through the use of food based starches, since the infrastructure is already in place and is rather efficient for that purpose. Also, according to this US Department of Energy website, ethanol production can be made to have a positive energy balance using corn, and a better balance when using switchgrass https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html The original requirement of automobiles to be 10% ethanol capable was in 1986. One of the other reasons for the rapid adoption of ethanol was for the replacement of MTBE due to ground water issues.
Also, folks greatly underestimate the amount of energy to get a gallon of gasoline to market. I live in an area that pumps oil and the off-gassing from the wells alone is rather noticeable. Since it simply does not rain gasoline, there’s far more to it than I care to get into on this post. If you’re really interested here’s a place to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
As Steve points out in his post, there are many current and successful industries are dependent upon government subsidies (an issue many seem to ignore), but new technologies receive a lot of resistance when subsidy assistance is revealed. Very few products, consumer or otherwise, do not receive subsidies from one government (local, state or Federal, and even other countries) or another.