- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Several reasons occur to one offhand. For one reason, the type of flex fuel vehicle described doesn't exist. The ignition systems necessary to burn diesel, biodiesel or vegetable oil are so radically different from those of gasoline or ethanol burning cars that they can't be combined.
As for ethanol-gasoline models, they're a great idea in Brazil where every fueling station sells both, less so in America where ethanol is difficult or impossible to get. The best Americans can do at this point is an ethanol-gasoline mix. Even there, as has been pointed out in Salon, the use of ethanol increases food costs considerably, with little to no savings in carbon emissions resulting. Do Americans advocate starving an already stressed underclass in the developing world in order to fuel their automobiles?
LP-gasoline hybrids are a bit more practical. The major difficulties there are, given their availability in some other countries, solvable, but because of the necessity of having an lp system under pressure, the extra costs are considerable. Achievable, and probably the most practical and economical, so the lp-gas hybrid will most likely be the first one that Americans see.
In the end, though, hybrids are a dead end, simply because of the sheer amount of carbon that any type of hybrid fuel vehicle produces. The goal ought to be green electricity and new battery technology, to enable rapid recharging and greater capacity. Only new electric technology will really address the current problems. Switching from one carbon intensive fuel, like gasoline, to another, like ethanol, biodiesel or lp bottled gas, will help cope with rises in gasoline costs, but do nothing to address global warming. A huge investment in hybrid technology is a misguided attempt to solve one pressing issue, but does nothing to address the even greater one just down the road.
