22nd November 2006

Gasoline vs. Alternative Fuel Sources: Why Gasoline Wins

No one can deny that gasoline has become a necessary commodity for almost every household throughout the country. For this reason, people nervously watch for changes in gasoline prices.

Have you ever observed how the rise and fall of gas prices affect the average American? I am often amused at people’s behavior toward the fluctuation of this fuel source. Reactions range from condemning trucks and SUV’s to blaming the government.

One of the more constructive ways we can respond to the increase in gasoline prices is to explore alternative energy sources that we can tap into. Surprisingly, many of our alternative energy options have been available for years. It is only recently when gas prices have more than doubled, that people are revisiting ignored science to address our problems.

Though promising, it will take a while before any of these alternative fuel sources take center stage. Here are a few reasons why gasoline and yeah, diesel, are undoubtedly the unbeaten champions when it comes to powering our cars.

Price, Price, Price: Savings for the Wealthy?

When all is said and done, everything comes down to price. Okay, so gasoline might be more expensive than some other alternative sources of fuel. However, looking at the big picture, it is actually more economical to have your car run on gasoline than any other alternative fuel source available. Here’s why. Specialized Auto parts and components needed to convert a vehicle’s fuel source tend to be very expensive. These costs do not even include the maintenance of these contraptions or the price of technical specialists needed to repair problems that might arise. It’s hard enough to find a good mechanic nowadays, imagine if one has to find a rocket scientist to just make your car work. Hybrid cars are far more expensive as well. I saw the proto-type for a Hybrid Hydrogen ion run BMW the other day which costs significantly more than a than a standard gasoline car of the same type and performance. I find it ironic that those who can afford these expensive money saving technologies are not the ones who really need them. In the long run, the inconvenience and costs associated with specialized car parts and maintenance for an alternative fuel driven vehicle far outweigh any savings on fuel.

Support: More Mechanics than Einsteins

Why was the Betamax phased out? Why did the bulkier VHS systems in the early nineties win even though Betamax were more compact and better designed? Who cares! What we do know is that the industry and society chose VHS as the standard. Eventually all support and development turned to VHS, leaving those Betamax groupies with something more to put in storage. It is the same with the current status of alternative fuel cars. Unfortunately, there is just no support for the new technology being introduced to the market right now making a transition to a new standard impossible.

I also have noticed that every new alternative fuel source being introduced in modern cars still relies in some way on gasoline (gasoline-LNG, electricity-gasoline). This is evidence that the these alternative sources are not sufficient yet or reliable enough by themselves.

Performance: The Baby

Though some of the other fuel sources are cheaper and produce less pollution, I still have yet to see an alternative fuel source that exceeds, or even just equals the performance of a gasoline driven car. I am not saying that we might not have them in the future, but the truth is that the technology used to harness these other sources are still in their infancy. We smile as we imagine filling our tanks up with water from the hose. However, as of the moment, nothing is as effective or fully functional as gas. These alternatives still need nurturing and are presently very costly to maintain. We can’t depend on them to be a reliable option.

I support the exploration of alternative fuel sources. In fact, it even excites me a little. However, I refuse to be the next Betamax victim by letting my excitement get ahead of me. It seems society is not quite ready to adopt another standard because the options don’t exist and the stakes are much higher than a video tape. When I need something and it involves my car, I’d prefer to take the big boys with me and let the baby be.

*Photo by johnno30 via flickr.com

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006 at 9:54 am and is filed under Auto Parts and Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response here.

There are currently 18 responses to “Gasoline vs. Alternative Fuel Sources: Why Gasoline Wins”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On December 6th, 2006, jarred said:

    this article is another example of market economics not representing reality. your article leaves out the “externalities” or costs not paid by the producer or the consumer. These costs are often paid by society and the natural world. A sustainable alternative would be to not organize all of american life around driving places. i live in suburban detroit and it is one of the most poorly designed cities in the world. cleaner technologies + good urban planning = a better world. when heart disease (from sedentary lifestyles) and cancer (from polluting one’s body and environment) are how most people will die, maybe some rethinking of the way we move around the world is in order. be carful with stories like you have here, some people could read the headline and use it to justify their lifestyles.

  2. 2 On December 7th, 2006, Enrico Mutascio said:

    Amusing article but you did not really address the question. The real answer lies in the energy density of gasoline and diesel compared with alcohol or hydrogen or other hydrocarbon fuels as well as the stoichiometric ratio of oxydizer required for complete combustion . Gasoline and diesel fuel have approximately 19,000 BTU (British Thermal Units – a measure of energy)per pound mass and require a stoichiometric ratio of air (oxydizer) of about 14 parts air to one part gasoline or diesel fuel. Thus, most of what you need (the air) is abundantly available and does not need to be stored on your vehicle. Alcohol has about 9,000 BTU per pound mass and a stoichiometric ratio of about 5 parts air to one part alcohol (propane, butane, and liquified natural gas are about the same). That is why when you convert your car’s engine to run on these alternative fuels, you find that there is much less power available necessitating a larger displacement engine and/or increasing the volumeteric efficiency by supercharging or turbocharging plus you consume more of what you have to purchase. The situation is even worse with exotic fuels such as nitromethane, commonly used as a racing fuel. Nitromethane has only about 5,000 BTU per pound mass and a stoichiometric ratio of 2 parts air to one part nitromethane – it is nearly a monopropellant – and the same as hydrogen. hydrogen is also very dificult to store because it requies cyrogenic temperatures and is very bulky. The reason racing engines running on alcohol or nitrometane make so much power is that with their low stoichiometric ratios, the mass flow of fuel/air mixture through the engine is much greater than an engine fueled with gasoline or diesel, in other words the mileage is terrible. Take a look at the size of the fuel lines on a race car’s engine that uses alcohol or nitromethane. Remember that World war II airplanes that were powered by piston engines with propellers used very high octane gasoline (130/140 octane) for performance and range (i.e., mileage). A P-51 Mustang would have been a very short ranged WWII fighter plane had it been set up to run on alcohol.As aggravating as gasoline/diesel fuel prices are, they are still the best.

  3. 3 On December 7th, 2006, charles said:

    This guy is an idiot and must work for an oil company. No, price is not the determining factor.

    Being free of the oil yoke is the goal. Every oil producing nation with the exception of Canada, is not our friend. It is oil money that continues to fund the war of terror against us.

    Oil independence is the key to freedom and by the way, who needs a car that goes from 0-60 in 6 seconds?

  4. 4 On December 7th, 2006, Linden Malki said:

    Diesel is probably the best alternative to gasoline, with a number of possible sources of suitable variants. But to make it ecologically comparitive with gasoline takes a lot of high tech. Alcohol and hydrogen both take more energy to make than you get out of it. Batteries have to be charged from somewhere. It’s hard to beat gasoline!

  5. 5 On December 7th, 2006, ed contessa said:

    whatever happened to the G.M. GV1 the worlds fastest electric car. A must see documentary is “Who killed the electric car” talk to Ed Begley j.r. about his car they took back. The auto makers had the zero emission mandate killed. then destroyed all the EV1` they got rid of the car like a murder witness. does anyone remember a guy named Tucker nuff said.

  6. 6 On December 11th, 2006, Chris said:

    jarred, thank you for the comment. I guess the title really has the risk of being misinterpreted as the conclusion of the writer. In the ending paragraph of the article however, one can read that the author only wants to point out what is PRESENTLY the case with the use of gasoline. I am not in any way against the use or development of alternative fuel sources. I am actually condemming the lack of support for this very promising science.

    Enrico, NIce point of view. I might consider writing about the points you have given in the future.

    Charles,

    I think you’ll love another article on oil I’ve written. This will give you an idea of where I trully stand regarding this issue.

    It can be found on…
    http://www.autopartsplace.com/american-driver-hooked-on-gasoline.htm

  7. 7 On December 29th, 2006, Tito Cayoya said:

    I think you are being paid by the oil companies to write. Biodisel performs equal or better than gasoline, but People like you make it imposible for alternative fuels to develop, you kill them before they have a chance to grow.

  8. 8 On April 20th, 2007, SHAWN said:

    THE ONLY WAY THE PRICE OF GAS WILL COME DOWN IS WHEN BUSH AND CHENEY IS OUT OF OFFICE .JUST REMEMBER RIGHT WHEN BUSH GOT ELECTED FOR THE 2ND TIME IS WHEN PRICE ROSE TO 2$ A GAL.CHENEY WHO HAS MADE A DEAL WITH TH DEVIL IN WHICH TO PAY FOR THE 115 HEART ATTACK NEED HIS COMPANY TO MAKE 500% PROFIT REBUILDING IRAQ .I HOPE HE SLEEP WITH A CAMEL EVERY NIGHT KISSES IT SO GENTLY

  9. 9 On December 18th, 2007, micheal said:

    i hate u

  10. 10 On December 18th, 2007, Chris said:

    michael, that came pretty strong. I hope you are cool bro. Do read the previous comments. It might help keep your head cool.

  11. 11 On February 14th, 2008, nikki said:

    i dont really get it at all but i was doing a speech for school and my teacher

  12. 12 On February 14th, 2008, britanie said:

    i have a QUESTION way sont gas stations lower their price because if they do they can get more costumers and they will get more money after a while. people would buy more gas and and pay less and every one would be happy but of course the oil companys

  13. 13 On February 14th, 2008, Chris said:

    Brit, gas stations has no say in the matter for they are not manufacturing oil but is importing it at a cost as well. The price for gasoline is not dictated only by, say, a single entity or company but by a world economy that is greatly dependent on it. Oil and Fuel is a commodity that has a limit, meaning that sooner or later it will run out. The high demand for it and the lack of supply further increases its price.

    This article is not saying that gasoline rules and that we should continue using it. It is a call to the government and large corporations to take the risk of making alternative sources of fule more mainstream for the public to be able to afford it. Right now, embracing these wonderful technologies is costly if not inconvinient.

  14. 14 On February 15th, 2008, Pau Oliveri said:

    In hoping to give some perspective to the article in some in some commen sense way I wish too add my opinions. Having and getting information from the media which often distorts information for increased revenues;stay tuned for the end of the world.Had the price of fuel had been a gradual increse over a long time span it might not have been so objctionable, as to the price more than doubling over night. Perhaps in order to adress the price of fuel would be cost of a gallon to wage per hour. When gas was .25cents per gallon minimum wage was about a dollar per hour therefore fifteen minutes of labor towards purchaes 1 gal. of gas. Present day $7.00 per hour $3.00 per gallon about 26 minutes required; extra 11 minutes per gal. Obvioulsy the lower wage worker feels it more than someone making $25.per hr. but to a degree it seems it takes more units of time; thus some purchasing power has eroded.This might be a better way to gauge prices, and it is always better to get more with less.Overall I think that the avaarge wage earner has lost; he has to more units for a given purchase especially essesntials;fuel,food,housing and medical.Profits are hedged against labor- the less one is payed the more profit is made for producer/company. A lot more profit is generated when prices double rather than slowly increase time value of money.There seems to be to many unanswered questions.Since th fuel embargo of the 1970’s why hasn’t the oil issue really been adressed? Are there truly no cost effective fuel alternatives; or is it something the public is continually fed? It seems that technology and low prices only applies to elecnotric gadgets and widgets, but not other essentials, such as fuel, food,housing.Are we just being jerked around for the sake of profits? It is difficult to beleive that with a population of six billion peope that not enough intellegent people exist to be able to come up with sound and doable technologies.As long as profit keeps being the prime motivating factor, rather than mutual benefit of mankind we will just keep going in circles with a lot of pretentious crises.They seem to generate the most profits at least for some. We may not be heading towards dooms day, but we are likley get fleeced more for sure.

  15. 15 On March 5th, 2008, Rusty said:

    stay on subject guys, lets hear some more citiquing on gas vs. alternative fuels.

  16. 16 On June 7th, 2008, Gary said:

    I would like to ask a couple of things. First some back ground. Gas is going up because the demand is up. From my readings, I have found that we have plenty of oil coming from Alaska, which we sell outside the US, and from the countries around the Golf. The problem we have is that we do not have enough refineries to make the oil into gas for the demand that is needed here in the states. As for the increas being so fast, is because one of the refinieries we have is in the south were Katrina hit, which is now not being used because of the damage it sustained. This has given the companies that own the refinieries an excuse to raise the prices of gas. So the answer to that would be to create more refineries to cover the need of today. Now as for alternative fuels, I have read that it takes roughly 18 gallons of water, 5 bushels of corn, and the machines that run the process use electricity made from the electric company, imagine what some of them use to make electricy, just to make 1 galloon of ethonal. Now if that is even 50% right, first question is, what will happen in a few years when the water starts to go up in price, because we have a shortage of it, and on top of that the corn price will go up, because of the need of water? And the second question is, what happened to all that technology that powers satellites and do all those things that is needed in them for testing and transfering signals? I know for a fact that running radio signals back and forth from the earth and maintaining orbit is no small issue when it comes to power consumtion. The have a battery that runs for years and still have not sold it to the public. The reason for this is because it would cause companies to shut down, like the battery companies won’t sell to many if they sold ones that last for years. There are many things that can do the job for us the way we need them, but it is not the best interest of the companies to do things like that. Oil companies would go bankrupt if we found a fuel that was free to do the things we want. Along time ago, I read about a man who had put an electric windmill on his land to power his house, after a few months and a recalculation of his bill, he found out that the elctric company owed him money because he was powering his whole neighborhood. But no one heard this to much because it would have been bad for the company to let out that you could end up getting paid to do that.

  17. 17 On December 10th, 2008, Jared said:

    The oil companies are just trying to steel money from the consumer. The oil companies are evil. we as a people should have the right to support alternative fuels in order to have a clean impact on the environment. i have a vehicle that runs on E85 Ethonal, and i love it. my friend just got a prius, and he says it runs great. i think people need to stop buying vehicles that burn fuel faster than we can fill the tank. You’l probably think i’m stupid, but these are my feelings on this situation.

  18. 18 On January 22nd, 2009, random said:

    tesla roadster. enough said. and i dont care that is has a billion lithium ion batteries, it still goes 0- 60 in 3.9 seconds

Leave a Reply