Alternative Energy Fueling Debate
UMaine national policy analyst Jonathan Rubin is studying the
obstacles to adopting advanced-technology vehicles in America for the
sake of economic security and the environment
About the Photo:
Based upon his research, Jonathan Rubin does not forsee this country
transitioning to hybrid cars or any other advanced technology
vehicles any time soon.
Links Related to this
In 1973, a few days after the outbreak
of the fourth Arab-Israeli war, most of the oil-producing Arab countries
imposed an embargo on petroleum exports to the United States.
To cope with the shortages, some gas stations limited the number of
gallons each customer could buy. Others opened late and closed early. In
some towns, people were only allowed to buy gas on certain days of the
week, depending on whether their license plate ended in an odd or even
For consumers, anxiety levels rose as their gas gauges fell. The less
gas there was, the more desperately people sought it, sometimes waiting
in line for hours to top off their tanks. During the five-month embargo,
millions of Americans came to understand how much their lifestyles and,
in many cases, their livelihoods depended on oil. They were shocked to
learn how vulnerable the U.S. was to interruptions in the flow of
foreign oil. Everyone agreed that something had to be done.
The Nixon administration responded with Project Independence, a
seven-point plan to make the country energy self-sufficient. America
would produce and conserve more energy. We would get serious about
developing alternative-energy vehicles to make us less dependent on oil.
But a quarter-century later, despite the introduction of two hybrid
electric-gas cars, we still don't have all those advanced-technology
vehicles we were supposed to be driving by now. And more important,
there are still obstacles to manufacturing them, bringing them to market
and getting people to buy them.
The stalemate is the subject of intensive study nationwide, and one of
the leading researchers in the field is Jonathan Rubin, interim director
of the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy and associate
professor of resource economics and policy at the University of Maine.
Rubin and colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee
have created a model for analyzing the barriers to transitioning to
alternative-fuel vehicles or hybrid vehicles. Alternative fuels include
ethanol, methanol, propane, compressed natural gas and electricity.
Hybrid cars might run on a combination of gasoline and electricity.
Interest in advanced-technology vehicles is driven by the desire for
both energy security and lower air emissions, says Rubin. The two types
of emissions associated with gasoline engines are greenhouse gases,
mainly carbon dioxide, and pollutants like oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile hydrocarbons that are responsible for ground-level ozone and
The different types of advance-technology cars — those on the drawing
board and in various stages of development — offer significant
energy-security and air-quality benefits. Some technical problems remain
to be solved, but most of them are minor compared to the social and
economic barriers to bringing any of these new cars to market, Rubin
"In transitioning to these technologies, we face huge economies of
scale. It is very expensive to produce just a few of a new type of car.
The question is: If you can get past that scale barrier, can these
vehicles be cost effective in the marketplace?"
Rubin says other important obstacles are, ironically, the low cost of
petroleum energy in America and the high cost of building a nationwide
network of retail stations for alternative fuels. However, this would
not be an issue with hybrid vehicles that run on a combination of
gasoline and electricity.
The model that Rubin co-developed for analyzing these barriers — the
Transitional Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Model — simulates the use
and cost of non-petroleum fuels under various conditions. "We build the
cost barriers into the model and then test the effectiveness of various
government policies in overcoming them," Rubin explains. "We can do all
kinds of experiments with it. For example, we can throw in an oil price
shock (a sudden, steep rise in price) and see if that changes the
relative benefits of different technologies." To date, his analysis
shows that an oil price shock lasting five years or less would not be
effective, by itself, in making alternative-fuel vehicles feasible.
"That is largely because vehicles last a long time," he says. "An
average car is a $20,000 capital investment with a 12-year life span. So
a five-year price shock is not sufficient to induce a fundamental change
in vehicle purchases."
The long-talked-about switch to advanced-technology vehicles would be
unlike most other big technology transitions in history. Cars replaced
horses because they offered benefits to the individual. The personal
advantages of speed and convenience also ensured the popularity of cell
phones, microwave ovens, personal computers and hundreds of other new
technologies. But alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles are different.
Their benefits accrue largely to society as a whole rather than to
individual consumers, making them a much harder sell. While some people
would pay a little more to promote the common good, most car buyers put
their personal interests first. People will keep driving SUVs unless
they are forced — or offered incentive — to change.
"Since energy security and better air quality are public benefits, I
think there is an important role for government to play in transitioning
to advanced-technology vehicles," says Rubin, who serves on both the
Alternative Fuels Committee and Transportation Energy Committee of the
National Transportation Research Board.
"Government has to determine how important these benefits are and then
appropriately adjust market prices through subsidies and tax incentives.
A number of bills were introduced in the last session of Congress to
provide significant subsidies to alternative fuel, fuel cell and
advanced-hybrid vehicles," he says. All of the alternative technologies
have their advocates. For example, ethanol, which is made from corn, has
strong support in farming states, especially in the Midwest.
The federal government has been subsidizing research and development
related to advanced-technology vehicles for years. The Clinton
administration began the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles
Program. In 2002, the Bush administration announced the FreedomCAR
Partnership with DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors. The
partnership says its long-term vision is "to free the nation's personal
transportation system from petroleum dependence and from harmful vehicle
emissions." FreedomCAR's major R&D focus is on "technologies to enable
mass production of affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles."
Of all the advanced-technology alternatives being explored, the
hydrogen-based fuel cell system seems, to many, to be the best candidate
for large-scale production and marketing. "A lot of people are holding
it up as the Holy Grail," Rubin says, "but I'm skeptical of it
happening, even in the next 20 years, because the cost would be so high.
(Even now) people complain when the gas tax goes up a few cents."
How much are we willing to pay for energy security? How much to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and global warming? Even if those questions
could be answered, there is still no consensus on which alternative
technology will work the best and cost the least.
"The magnitude of the uncertainties is large," Rubin says. "One of the
main things that government policymakers worry about is how to avoid
locking into the wrong technology."
Rubin's alternative vehicles analysis model is one of the tools being
used to help evaluate the costs and feasibility of adopting the various
Based on his research, Rubin does not foresee the U.S. transitioning to
hybrid cars or any other advanced- technology vehicles anytime soon. He
believes the costs are simply too high. The best short-term solution, he
says, might be to further increase fuel-efficiency standards for
gasoline-powered vehicles. "A lot of economists don't like higher fuel
efficiency standards because of the costs they impose," he says. "But I
think we could achieve substantial energy gains as well as some
greenhouse gas reduction benefits."
Then, perhaps in two or three decades, the country might be ready to
move in a big way to one of the new technologies. In the meantime,
trying to get a handle on what it will take to accomplish that move is
incredibly complex work.
"It's interesting and challenging being at the interface between social
science, engineering and policy," Rubin says. "My work is applied
research, trying to find answers to real, practical problems."
by Dick Broom
for more stories from this issue of UMaine Today Magazine.