Motoring into the future.

The war in the Persian Gulf has heightened the urgency of finding alternatives to gasoline

Operation Desert Storm has underscored in the most dramatic way possible America’s continued dependence on imported oil. But one fact that remains poorly appreciated is that the only crucial energy-supply problem facing the country today is the fueling of Americans’ favorite personal technology, the automobile. And that crisis, too, is likely to begin diminishing before the end of the century, as clean-air policies force the development of alternative motor fuels and motor cars that use them. In fact, America could enter the next millennium well on the way toward reducing the twin plagues of automobile pollution and energy insecurity.

Virtually all the energy used to make electricity, heat homes and drive factories comes from secure, low-cost and plentiful domestic sources, principally coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro. But America’s mobile society requires liquid fuels that pack enormous energy into small portable tanks. Nearly two thirds of the 17 million barrels of Petroleum consumed by Americans every day is used by 185 million cars, trucks and buses as well as aircraft and locomotives. During the seven months before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, over half the oil burned in the United States was imported, the highest level ever. Worse, imports are projected to rise in the future as old U.S. oil fields run dry. If nothing were done, the bulk of the nation’s future transportation fuel would have to come from politically unstable countries around the Persian Gulf, where two thirds of the world’s known oil is located and war now rages.

Fortunately, steps are being taken on the environmental front that guarantee the availability of cars, vans and pickup trucks powered by electricity, natural gas and reformulated gasoline within the decade. Alcohol fuels such as methanol and ethanol may also be on the way. For one thing, the 1990 Clean Air Act mandates that gasoline be “re-engineered” to reduce harmful pollutants and requires that certain commercial fleets use clean” fuels such as domestically produced natural gas. Perhaps more important, California, long the leader in auto pollution reductions, decreed last fall that, starting in 1998, all car builders doing business in the state must offer zero-emission electric vehicles for sale. Since Californians buy 1 of every 10 cars made in the United States, this will have the effect of forcing all manufacturers to offer electric vehicles.

Both the federal law and the California action are meant to cut filth of gasoline engines, which contributes significantly to urban smog. Alternative fuels could help reduce these harmful emissions.

Compressed natural gas. This fuel, known by the initials CNG, is the first alternative likely to make a dent in gasoline sales. With a cost comparable to about 70 cents a gallon, CNG is cheaper than gasoline, causes less tail-pipe pollution and comes from relatively abundant U.S. and Canadian sources. CNG’s low cost has already won over many fleet operators. About 30,000 cars and trucks in the United States and 700,000 worldwide burn CNG, including 300,000 in Italy, where it has been used since the 1930s. The Clean Air Act requires that, starting in 1998, large-city operators of centrally fueled fleets of 10 or more vehicles begin to use “clean” fuels. According to the American Gas Association, 8 to 10 million vehicles could be powered with less than 6 percent of current U.S. natural gas consumption. CNG is reportedly so clean that crankcase oil lasts 50,000 miles and spark plugs rarely need replacing.

Burning natural gas in cars is not without problems. The gas must be pressurized to 3,000 pounds per square inch and stored in bulky cylinders similar to those used by scuba divers. Even under high pressure the gas contains only about one fourth as much energy as the same volume of gasoline. As a result, a tank of CNG must be four times as big as a tank of unleaded to give the same driving range. The entire trunk of a small car, for example, would be required just for fuel storage.

Because of the bulky tanks and lack of public filling stations, most CNG is now used in commercial fleets that return to the same parking lot each night to be refueled. Washington Gas, which serves homes in the District of Columbia area, operates 220 service vans that can switch between gasoline and natural gas. With two CNG tanks that together hold the equivalent of 9 gallons of gasoline, the vans almost never use gasoline while traveling an average of 60 miles a day. Refueling can take up to six hours with less-expensive “slow-fill” compression systems. At “quick-fill” facilities with big compressors, filling up takes little longer than for gasoline.

So far, most CNG vehicles have been converted from gasoline with simple add-on kits that cost between $2,000 and $3,000. Next month, the first factory-warranted natural-gas vehicles, GMC Sierra pickups, will go on sale in Texas and California. Three slender fiber glass wrapped tanks over 5 feet long, tucked along the pickup’s frame, hold enough CNG for 150 to 200 miles; the truck carries no gasoline. Equipped with a catalytic converter and computerized engine controls, the GM truck promises better performance and lower emissions than retrofitted gasoline models. General Motors will build 1,000 new pickups under a cost-sharing agreement with gas utility companies but, says Richard Pennell, GMC’s product-line manager, we’re looking at this as the start of a new business.” Initially, the cost and inconvenience of CNG-powered cars will probably deter consumers, but manufacturers believe sales will grow as fuel storage, delivery and marketing develop.

Electric. After years of promise, it is nearly certain thai electric vehicles finally will be sold generally in the United States, perhaps as soon as 1995. The California Air Resources Board is trying to force the development of a market with a new rule requiring any manufacturer selling cars in the state to offer zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). In practice, this means “electrics.” Starting in 1998, 2 percent of a manufacturer’s car and light-truck sales must be ZEV; by 2003, 10 percent. This translates into a market of about 200,000 a year. The edict applies to all makers, foreign and domestic, and proponents argue that once electrics are marketed sales will go higher still.

Electric vehicles promise enormous environmental and energy-security advantages. The vehicles themselves don’t pollute at all and, even when the emissions from power plants used to charge batteries are considered, an electric car adds less than 5 percent of the pollution of a typical gasoline-powered car. Furthermore, about 95 percent of powerplant fuels are domestic. Because electric cars would be recharged at night when there is a large surplus of generating capacity, tens of millions of electric cars would have to be on the road before there would be a need for new power plants to support them.

The Big Three U.S. auto manufacturers all have clear plans to meet California’s requirement. Ford and Chrysler expect to offer electric versions of their popular minivans. GM will sell a small, sporty, two-passenger electric commuter similar to the Impact show car it demonstrated last year. The U.S. companies all say they will offer these vehicles in other states with acute smog problems and probably in Europe, too.

First, however, car builders must overcome psychological as well as technological hurdles. “How do you sell a vehicle that doesn’t quite measure up in driving range and performance at a premium price?” asks Robert Davis, executive engineer for Chrysler’s electric-van project. First-generation electric vehicles will go only about 100 miles before they must be plugged in for several hours to be recharged, and they will cost several thousand dollars more than equivalent gasoline cars. Because of their higher price, electrics over their lifetime will cost the consumer somewhat more than gasoline cars, even though the cost of electric power for recharging will run only two to three cents a mile. Heating and cooling electrics is also a major technical problem, since using the battery power for passenger comfort cuts a car’s driving range. Electrics will be heavily insulated to minimize the energy needed for air conditioning and heating.

Public concern about air quality may help spur sales. In fact, after GM showed the Impact last year at the Los Angeles Auto Show, the company was deluged with requests for information. But consumer good will won’t be enough to make electrics succeed; federal and state governments will need to offer potential buyers incentives such as tax advantages, special access to car-pool lanes and preferential parking with electric outlets for recharging, contends GM President Lloyd Reuss.

Even with government incentives, motorists will have to like the cars’ performance if they are to be a success in the long run, and manufacturers are banking on the electric cars’ unique qualities: Electrics make almost no noise, for example and, since they lack complex engines “they have the potential to be very reliable – in essence, no-maintenance vehicles,” argues Bradford Bates, Ford’s manager for electric power.

Batteries remain a crucial weakness. At present, Chrysler and Ford plan to use advanced nickel-iron or sodium-sulfur batteries costing $5,000 to $10,000 a set that last the life of the vehicle; maintenance will be largely limited to replacing worn tires, brakes and windshield wipers. The $1,500 lead-acid battery pack in GM’s Impact is expected to last about 20,000 miles.

Lack of range may not be the problem many fear, given the way most people actually use cars. The average American driver goes only 15 to 35 miles a day, well within an electric’s range, says Donald Runkle, GM vice president for advanced technology. For longer trips, motorists will have to take a gasoline car-or perhaps an unusual hybrid vehicle. Around town, a hybrid like the new GM van demonstrated last month operates on batteries. On long trips, a small gasoline-driven generator kicks in automatically to recharge the batteries.

Reformulated gasoline. For the foreseeable future, analysts believe that gasoline will remain the dominant fuel. But gasoline will be changed to produce less pollution, even in older cars. Beginning in 1995, the Clean Air Act requires that reformulated gasoline be sold in the nine cities with the worst ozone pollution; reformulation means an adjustment in gasoline’s chemical components to reduce harmful emissions. Compliance with the new law will account for over one fifth of U.S. gasoline sales. As much as one half of all gasoline will have to be re-engineered by refiners if other urban areas that do not meet ozone standards decide to join the program voluntarily. The cost to modify refineries could reach $40 billion.

Research on how to make the changes has already begun. Fourteen oil companies and the three major U.S. auto companies have joined forces to figure out the best ways to modify both gasoline and the cars that burn it. Oil and auto companies, which in the past rarely spoke to one another, are for the first time working together on the pollution problem.

Alcohol fuels. Although alcohol fuels got a lot of early hype as sound alternatives to gasoline, experts say now that they have failed to live up to their early promise. Both methanol, made from natural gas or coal, and ethanol, derived from corn and other crops, have proved too costly to serve as clean substitutes. In addition, methanol would have to come from the Soviet Union and countries around the Persian Gulf that have large surpluses. Importing from these regions would not contribute much to energy security. Both compounds, however, may prove useful as blends in reformulating gasoline to comply with emissions requirements.

Stricter emissions rules alone will raise the future cost of motoring. But Operation Desert Storm may raise the ante higher and more quickly. Congress may decide to raise gasoline taxes to promote conservation, spur adoption of alternative fuels and pay for the war. The country is learning that assuring supplies of inexpensive petroleum can have a very high price. As energy analyst Adam Sieminski of Washington Analysis Corp. observes, “The public’s appetite for cheap gasoline might be curbed by the sight of blood.”