|
Electric cars and alternatives in MADrive Clean
|
from NewsLink, Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall 2000
In his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore promoted the use of higher gas taxes and alternatives to fossil fuels to fight global warming. He suggested that one way to do this would be to phase out the internal combustion engine within 25 years.
Most Americans don't share Gore's enthusiasm. To the contrary, Americans are happy with the internal combustion engines parked in their driveways. This appears to be the case even when they are offered alternatives and incentives.
Given America's love affair with the automobile, alternative fuels and engines tend to generate more curiosity than genuine interest. But by 2004, curiosity may not be enough for those of us living in Massachusetts. That's when 10% of the new vehicles sold in the state must satisfy a zero-emission-vehicle (ZEV) mandate.
In an effort to fight pollution, the federal Clean Air Act of 1992 required all states to adopt strict vehicle emission standards. States could adopt either federal regulations or a more stringent “California model.” While most states opted for the federal guidelines, two states, Massachusetts and New York, chose the California model requiring (by 2003 in the case of California) 10% of all new vehicles to be ZEVs.
Among alternative vehicles that satisfy the ZEV mandate, the electric car is a leading contender for commercial development. But, despite vast development efforts, electric cars have failed to catch the imagination of the American driving public.
Powered by on-board batteries, “electrics” must be recharged when the vehicle is not in use. Costing more than $30,000, electrics travel at speeds of up to 80 miles per hour but have a driving range of as little as 50 miles between recharges. Because they are powered by battery, they are virtually silent: Their loudest noise is the tires meeting the road.
Critics charge that “down-weighing,” or lightening the weight of the vehicle in order to offset the added weight of the battery, makes electric cars less safe in the event of accidents. But such safety concerns are not deterring environmental planning agencies. An even smaller version, the neighborhood electric vehicle, priced at about $8,900, will also meet the 2004 mandate.
Fuel-cell electric vehicles may be an improvement. According to the California Air Resources Board, a fuel cell combines oxygen with hydrogen gas and converts the resulting chemical energy directly into electricity. Compared to electric cars, fuel-cell vehicles do not rely on batteries that need recharging. But like other alternatives, fuel cells are costly. The Heartland Institute estimates that fuel-cell electric vehicles will cost between $35,000 and $45,000 more (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than a conventional car in 2010. These vehicles won't be available until 2004.
A third alternative is the hybrid car. Already available to the consumer, these vehicles run on gas-electric power. A battery-operated electric motor works in cooperation with a gasoline engine to power the car. A battery-powered electric motor starts the car accelerating, and a gasoline engine boosts performance. As the car slows down, spinning drive axles help recharge the batteries, thus eliminating the problem of having to recharge the batteries when the car is not in use.
Alternative fuels such as natural gas, methanol and ethanol result in somewhat cleaner emissions. They are, however, more expensive than gasoline and diesel, and are more difficult to obtain.
California Dreaming
California adopted its ZEV program in 1990 as part of its Low Emission Vehicle program, which was aimed at improving air quality in the state over the long term. Automobile makers' concerns about developing unmarketable cars, law suits, changing regulations, questions about air quality, high development costs, low vehicle performance and consumer indifference have compromised and delayed the original program. The California mandate was modified in 1996 and again in 1998 due to technological and developmental difficulties. But these difficulties haven't stopped California; the state continues to soldier on.
On September 8, the California Air Resources Board unanimously voted to keep the ZEV mandate in place, thus requiring automakers to market thousands of ZEVs starting in 2003.
As California goes, so goes the Commonwealth.
In an effort to test and evaluate the everyday use of electric vehicles for commuting, the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources (DOER) administers the Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project, touted as the largest program of its kind in the nation. For $249/month, drivers lease a state-owned vehicle that they can use for commuting to an MBTA station, Massachusetts Highway Department “park and ride” lot or other approved destination. The Red Line's Alewife and Braintree MBTA station parking lots are equipped with 220-volt AC chargers that participants can use to recharge their vehicles while parked. DOER is collecting data on vehicle performance, characteristics, feasibility and viability, as well as driver satisfaction.
The Arizona Alternative
While the drive for alternative fuel vehicles may not have gotten out of first gear in Massachusetts, consider the case in Arizona. This past spring, Arizona began an initiative that was supposed to lead to cleaner air in the state. To accomplish this goal, Arizona put in place a set of incentives for converting current gasoline powered vehicles to alternative fuel vehicles.
If Massachusetts wants an object lesson on the response to certain incentives, it need only look to Arizona.
For example, residents who purchased a vehicle in Arizona for $24,000 and spent an additional $6,000 converting it for alternative fuels were eligible for tax breaks of more than $18,000. Some residents were able to work even sweeter deals: a $40,000 Ford pickup truck equipped to run on propane or natural gas could be purchased for $2,000 after incentives.
The law required only that a vehicle be equipped to run on alternative fuel: It could run on gasoline, if the owner so desired. Thus owners found it easy to keep using gasoline. Arizona experienced a buying and converting stampede estimated to cost $420 million or 7% of its annual budget. On October 20, 2000, the Arizona Legislature met in a special session to suspend the program. But this rebate law wasn't the only casualty. Arizona House of Representatives Speaker Jeff Groscost, embroiled in a scandal surrounding the passage of the rebate program, was ousted from office in this November's election.
Are Alternatives the Answer?
While environmentalists promote electric and other alternative vehicles, the petroleum industry maintains the answer lies in producing cleaner-burning fuels. The future, developing better petroleum products to go in the cars that Americans really want to drive, is far preferable.
According to the Heartland Institute, the internal combustion engine is here to stay. And that fact has more to do with technology and innovation arising out of the marketplace than consumers' love affair with cars (or what the experts call path dependency). Today's new cars release approximately 96% fewer air pollutants than their 1975 counterparts, in part because of other regulations not as costly as the alternative mandates that are on the horizon.
In 2020, Americans will still be sitting behind their gasoline and diesel-fueled engines, opting for larger, heavier and safer vehicles. Innovations such as substituting aluminum and polymers for steel in car and truck bodies, and improved engine and muffler design make diesel engines as clean as those using natural gas, thus both improving air quality and ensuring human safety. And while these developments may not make you any happier as you sit in traffic on the depressed Central Artery, they will be a lot friendlier to your wallet.
As to consumer acceptance, electrics and other alternatives will become viable only when they are economically efficient and not before. Unless and until that happens, motorists will continue to ride with the status quo.
NewsLink is the quarterly newsletter of the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research at Suffolk University. © 1996-2002. All rights reserved.
HTML reformatted on 9/9/02 8:44 PM
