The rise in gas costs is causing many consumers to reconsider their SUV’s and gas guzzlers. Gasoline prices and the crude oil supply are relevant problems that affect nearly everyone that owns a vehicle, given that gasoline is used for applications at work, home, and leisure. If, and when, a gasoline shortage does occur, panic and chaos will quickly spread as families learn that they will be unable to travel anywhere by means of motor vehicle. I am targeting a younger audience of consumers between the ages of 25-30. These consumers are a few years out of college, have stable jobs, and are looking to buy new cars, possibly their first new car. These consumers must begin to support car companies by investing in alternative fuel vehicles sooner rather than later. The gasoline crisis can be avoided using preventative actions. Even though consumers are aware that alternative fuel vehicles exist, they need to know more about the fuels available before making a large investment. I will evaluate some of the most popular alternative fuels with a goal of determining which fuel is best for future production. The younger consumers need to know that investing in alternative fuel vehicles now could save them from crisis in the future.

Alternative fuel vehicles can be classified as a vehicle that uses a fuel sources other than gasoline such as hydrogen, electric, or any other fuel combination to be propelled. The goal is to eventually move away from non renewable fuel sources, such as gasoline, while at the same time keeping or improving aspects that are beneficial from gasoline vehicles; such as the reliability and performance. The new vehicles are expected to produce little or no byproducts that cause harm to the environment unlike the majority of vehicles that are on the road today. Currently, nearly all vehicles are powered by a combustion engines that burn gasoline, a volatile liquid/gas, which is refined from the dwindling crude oil supply. As the price of gas rises, consumers who choose to make changes by purchasing gas-electric hybrids or small economy cars are merely putting a band-aid on the real problem. This is a step in the right direction, but ultimately this will not solve the problem. Most major car companies are researching and producing hybrid vehicles that use electric motors in combination with a gasoline engine and regenerative braking to achieve better gas mileage. These vehicles, along with economy cars, are less harmful to the environment and are capable of achieving more miles per gallon of gas, yet both still depend on gasoline as a fuel. The consumers that are purchasing these hybrid vehicles and economy cars are trying to offset the increasing high gasoline prices.

Consumers must begin to support car companies by investing in alternative fuel vehicles sooner rather than later. Future gasoline prices are predicted to rise to over $3 per gallon and hold that price through most of 2006 (gasoline). This problem must be addressed before it becomes a larger issue. The constant demand for gasoline is rising while the supply of crude oil, from which gasoline is refined, is steadily declining. This basic concept of supply and demand equates to increased gasoline prices until either the prices become too high for consumers to afford or the remaining crude oil supply is completely consumed; a gasoline crisis. Yet, consumers still have little motivation to invest in an alternative fuel vehicle until gasoline supply and prices become a problem and they feel they have no other option. The preparatory action of investing in an alternative fuel vehicle now will save you from what is certain to happen in years to come. When the fuel used by these people everyday to go to work, to the store, and anywhere else is no longer affordable or available, then the chain of chaotic events will begin. When people are no longer able to go to work, they will not have a steady income, and without income, they can not do anything to improve their situation and buy a new form of transportation. The cars consumers presently own will no longer be of any use, thus they will be extremely hard to sell given that everyone is trying to sell their useless gasoline vehicle at the same time. People are then left without income and without a usable form of transportation. Of course some families with money will be able to purchase an alternative fuel vehicle as soon as they hear about the fuel shortage. But in the case of most blue collar middle class workers, they do not have the thousands of dollars in disposable income to just go out and purchase a new vehicle at a moments notice. Even if they would have the money the car companies would not be able to produce enough cars in such a short amount of time to meet the consumer’s needs. However, if I can persuade consumers to invest in an alternative fuel vehicle as their next vehicle before a gasoline crisis occurs, then consumers will already be making the transition to alternative fuel vehicles by the time gasoline shortage becomes a serious problem. As a result consumers will feel less financial strain when gas becomes scarcer. When a gasoline crisis does arise many, hopefully most, families will have alternative means of transportation, therefore avoiding the widespread panic and chaos that would be soon to follow. Consumers would not only be ensuring themselves transportation for the future, they would be helping the environment to restore the air quality and repair the ozone layer.

The amount of pollutants that are produced from vehicles must be greatly reduced or eliminated all together in order to decrease the amount of green house gasses in the atmosphere. These green house gasses are causing global warming as well as holes in the ozone layer. Current gasoline combustion engines produce many different pollutants which are spread into the air after combustion via the vehicle’s tailpipe. The most recognized pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). The EPA or Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in some major cities motor vehicles produce 95 percent of the carbon monoxide; this is formed when the gasoline that is burned in vehicle engines is not completely combusted. The EPA also estimates that nitrogen oxide, produced by a fuel being burned at a high temperature, contributes to more than 50 percent of the nitrogen oxide in the United States. Nitrogen oxide is known to be one of the largest contributors to the formation of smog (Vehicular Exhaust). The United States Federal Government has started putting emission standards in place to start forcing car companies to reduce the amount of pollutants that are produced from vehicles. Car companies can only do so much to reduce the emissions from a gasoline combustion engine because there will always be a harmful byproduct. The answer is not to waste excess time and money trying to reduce the emissions from gasoline engines even further when there are alternative fuel vehicles that already exist that produce little or no harmful emissions. Electric powered vehicles themselves produce no emissions at all, but the process to make that electricity does. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also produce no harmful emissions. The tailpipe emission is nothing but water (H20). This is a complete reduction of emissions that would eventually restore the ozone layer to its normal state and would make significant reduce the amount of green house gasses being produced.

Many skeptics believe that if all vehicles switched from using gasoline to an alternative fuel, the oil industry would fold causing a vast downfall of jobs and economy. The oil industry provides over 56,000 jobs in the United States alone and has been an important part of the United States economy (Background). They ask the question: are alternate fuel vehicles worth 56,000 people’s jobs and all of the economy that the United States Government will lose when there is no longer a demand for oil? The answer is yes. Consumers buying alternative fuel vehicles will not cause the demand for oil to drop to zero. The United States only produces 40% of the oil that it uses, the rest is imported from other countries. This means that if the demand of oil dropped by 60% the United States would feel no impact from this and no jobs or economy would be lost. Even if everyone in the United States would switch to an alternative fuel vehicle, the demand for oil would drop but it would still be needed for other applications such as making electricity, heating homes, and to fuel everything else that would still use some type of refined oil. Jobs would be lost in the oil industry but new alternative fuel plants opening would more then make up for the jobs lost in the oil industry. Therefore by consumers switching over to alternative fuel vehicles causing the demand of oil to decrease, the overall economy would improve. Thus proving that switching from using gasoline would not cause a vast downfall in economy and jobs, but do quite the opposite. Most consumers are not willing to invest large amounts of money into a new technology such as an alternative fuel vehicle without at least a basic knowledge about the technology and what else is available. I will evaluate some of the most popular alternative fuels with the goal of determining which fuel will best for consumer investment and for future production.

Some of the most popular alternative fuels are electric, hydrogen fuel cells, compressed natural gas, and a less known fuel called fischer-tropsch. Contrary to what most people believe electric vehicles have been around just as long as gasoline. Typically an electric vehicle works by having one or more electric motors that are powered by a series of battery packs. Some designs use one large electric motor to replace the combustion engine attaching to the transmission. Other models have two or four smaller electric motors on some or all of the wheels giving the vehicles the option of two or four wheel drive. These vehicles benefit by not having the engine run continuously, the electric motors are shut off when vehicle comes to a stop, saving energy while you are sitting in traffic. When coming to a stop regenerative braking can be used to transfer the kinetic energy of the vehicle to turn a generator to recharge the batteries. Conventional breaking uses friction to turn the vehicles kinetic energy into heat energy which is essentially wasted. Electric vehicles cost much less to fuel approximately $15 a month rather than at least $50 compared to a conventional car. The $15 a month would be an increase in your electric bill. The car would release no harmful emissions other than the emissions that are produced while a power plant generates the electricity used for charging the vehicle’s batteries. The reliability and performance of these alternative fuel vehicles are comparable if not better, to conventional vehicles. The electric vehicle has not become more popular because of some of its major flaws such as the short range of 40-120 miles before having to stop and recharge. The current recharge time for the batteries are 4-14 hours which would make for major inconveniences during longer trips (electric). The batteries currently being used are very expensive and must be replaced every three years making this vehicle a bad choice until new battery technology can be developed.

Hydrogen fuel cells are also a popular fuel source for alternative vehicles. Owners of these vehicles will buy tanks of pure hydrogen in a liquid or gaseous form. Families will essentially have their own fill station in their garage where they can fill the high pressure storage tanks that are onboard the car. A hydrogen fuel cell works by using the pure hydrogen stored in the tanks and by using oxygen from the air outside the car. A fuel cell has electrodes or solid electrical conductors submersed in an electrolyte, an electrically conductive liquid. A hydrogen molecule will come in contact with the negative electrodes and the molecule will spilt into a proton and an electron. The proton is taken across a proton exchange membrane to the positive electrode of the fuel cell to generate electricity. The hydrogen is then attracted by oxygen molecules that have also been split into two atoms. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms bond forming H20 or pure water as the byproduct. The rest of the car is nearly identical to that of an electric vehicle; electricity generated by the fuel cell is used to power any number of electric motors. Regenerative breaking is also used to regenerate energy that would have been otherwise wasted by conventional brakes. The hydrogen car combines all of the benefits of having an electric vehicle such as regenerative breaking, motors that can shut off when power is not being consumed, and no pollutants are produced. The range of the vehicle will vary depending on the quantity of hydrogen able to be stored and the size of the fuel cell being used. A fault of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is that the hydrogen may be difficult for owners to store and transfer the hydrogen to their vehicles (Fuel Cell). It is only a matter of time before an easier method to store and transfer hydrogen is developed, making this vehicle a good choice for the future.

Compressed natural gas is already being used in some commercial transportation applications. Compressed natural gas is made up of mostly methane and stored similarly to hydrogen in storage tanks under high pressure. The gas is injected into a combustion engine similar to a gasoline engine, but most have more advanced cylinders and pistons to allow greater compression and improved combustion. Other than the storage tanks to hold the compressed natural gas instead of a gasoline tank the vehicles are nearly the same. Improvements such as weight reduction have been implemented to help gain extra fuel economy. When two identical cars were tested, one with compressed natural gas and the other with gasoline, the compressed natural gas had much better results. The natural gas produces 90 to 97 percent less carbon monoxide emissions as well as 35 to 60 percent less nitrogen oxide than conventional gasoline vehicles. A study found that the operating cost for a compressed natural gas vehicle is 25 percent less than that of conventional gasoline engine. Compressed natural gas and H-fuel cells have similar drawbacks because both are difficult to store and transfer, but can be easily used in a commercial environment with trained employees filling the vehicles (CNG). Because this alternative fuel is collected while drilling crude oil and when it is combusted it still produces pollutants harmful to the environment, making the compressed natural gas vehicle a mediocre choice for the future.

A less known fuel, fischer-tropsch, is a new technology that uses coal, natural gas, and other low-value refinery products and produces a high-value, clean-burning fuel. The process makes a colorless, odorless, and relatively non-toxic fuel. The fuel can be used in direct replacement in any conventional diesel engine and can be mixed at any ratio with diesel with little or no modification to the engine. The emissions have not yet been tested but are predicted to produce fewer pollutants than diesel combustion engines. Although this fuel can be made from alternative fuels and is estimated to be better for the environment it costs roughly ten percent more than diesel fuel (fischer-tropsch). This is most likely to deter potential consumers from investing in a new fuel when diesel fuel is cheaper. This fuel could prove to be a great choice for consumers who currently own diesel vehicles only if the fuel was able to be mass produced causing it to become cheaper than diesel. It would not be worth it to current diesel vehicle owners to switch to this alternative fuel let alone consumers who would need to purchase a diesel vehicle before able to use fischer-tropsch.

To determine which fuel is best for future production I have constructed the chart below to help evaluate the alternative fuels. This chart emphasizes the benefits and flaws of each fuel to allow for a straightforward assessment.

CHART GOES HERE(I Sent the chart to your e-mail)

While evaluating the fuels, you can see that electric vehicles have a number of benefits and flaws. However, if you look closely at the flaws, all of the problems are related to the limitations of the batteries. As battery technology advances electric vehicles have the potential of becoming a top choice for consumers. Hydrogen fuel cells were by far the best investment for consumers provided that storage and filling issues would be resolved. Compressed natural gas was second to hydrogen mainly because of the harmful emissions that are produced, even though it is a much cleaner burning fuel than gasoline. In addition methane, the main component of compressed natural gas, is collected during the process of drilling for oil meaning it cannot be collected if oil is not drilled. Fischer-Tropsch may at first sounded promising for the future until the chart showed that its flaws greatly out weighed its’ few benefits making it the least favorable choice for the consumers. Now that that best alternative fuel has been determined; the real question is, when a gasoline shortage occurs, will you be ready?

The problem of increasing gas prices and crude oil supply falling is relevant nearly everyone. Therefore readers must be persuaded that a preventative action is needed to avoid the panic and chaos that would be eminent with a gasoline shortage. I have targeted my efforts towards a group of consumers that would be most likely to invest in new technology such as alternative fueled vehicles. The argument, consumers must begin to support car companies by investing in alternative fuel vehicles sooner rather than later, began to form. While persuading the readers several alternative fuels were evaluated with the goal of determining which fuel would be best for future production. Evaluation showed that Hydrogen fuel cells will be the best alternative fuel for the future. The purpose and goal of this paper is to persuade some readers to take on some of my views or convince them that investing in an alternative fuel vehicle now will save them later, if this is accomplished then my paper will be a success.