Skip to main content

A political and economic evaluation of sustainable fuel sources for automobiles
















Introduction
For the last century, fossil fuels have been depended on globally to meet transportation demands. Unfortunately, emissions from fossil fuels have caused global warming, leading to environmental damage and rising sea levels. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 27% of CO2 emissions emanate from the transportation sector, compelling countries to seek cleaner fuels for vehicles (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Fossil fuels are essential for the global economy due to their cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, developing countries rely on them to keep their economies afloat. This dependence on fossil fuels means they cannot be phased out quickly. Greater public awareness of the need for cleaner technologies has fueled Tesla’s growth and the rise of battery-powered electric vehicles (BEVs). However, BEVs have competition in the form of hydrogen fuel cells (FCEVs) and biofuels, which include biodiesel and ethanol, for being the next big clean technology. FCEVs use hydrogen to make electricity, while biofuels supplement fossil fuels in internal combustion engine cars (ICEs) to make them greener.

















The hurdles EVs need to overcome
When considering why fossil fuels are still the norm, it’s crucial to understand the political hurdles EVs need to cross for success: dealerships, unions, and repairability. Companies and traditional jobs don’t like EVs, as they have many consumer-friendly advantages, such as easy repairability and home charging. Since the transportation sector is built around fossil fuels, EVs would take away money and jobs from traditional companies that still rely on them. Tesla pioneered the direct-to-consumer (DTC) model in the automotive industry, which removes dealerships from car purchases by selling their cars directly to customers through company stores or online. This model has proved immensely successful, for it reduces costs and is more reliable. According to Miro Jin, a senior director of experience consulting at EPAM, the COVID-19 pandemic showed how “manufacturers [using the DTC model] were still able to sell vehicles online while others shut down their dealership-dependent sales channels” (Jin). Tesla isn’t alone, as other companies like Lucid and Polestar are planning to switch to the DTC model, something dealerships don’t like as they’ll be cut out of purchases and lose their importance. According to a peer-reviewed article in the Franchise Law Journal by Eric Stolze, car dealerships produce 18% of sales tax revenue, giving states a vested interest in helping them (Stolze). He also explains that all 50 states have laws requiring automakers to have a relationship with dealerships (Stolze). When Tesla attempted to renew their non-dealership stores’ licenses in New Jersey, the Motor Vehicle Commission barred them from operating company-owned stores and pressured them to use dealerships (Stolze). The MVC did this after being lobbied by the Coalition of Automotive Retailers (Stolze).
EVs have another political enemy: unions. Joining a union allows workers to negotiate better working conditions and higher wages. Data from a Bureau of Labor Statistics report correlates with this, as union workers in 2022 had higher median weekly earnings than non-union workers (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 3). However, according to Alan Ohnsman from Forbes, no EV-only companies are currently unionized (Ohnsman). Tesla has even publicly argued with the United Auto Workers, the largest union group, about not joining them (Ohnsman). Comparing this to General Motors, which has 45,000 employees represented by unions, it’s easy to see why some workers may be reluctant to join an EV company (General Motors 9).

The political strengths and weaknesses behind sustainable fuels
The consumer-friendly advantages of EVs can reduce the profitability of dealerships, giving them a reason to oppose beneficial changes. This is especially the case with maintenance-related revenue. Burnham et al. from Argonne National Laboratory say BEVs have the lowest maintenance cost, followed by FCEVs (Burnham et al. 132). ICE and biofuel cars require regular maintenance and dealer visits (Burnham et al. 132). According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 269,180 people work as automotive technicians in car dealerships, and much more work in other maintenance roles (USBOLS). With the increased reliability of EVs, dealerships will need fewer technicians but will take a hit to profits. The National Automobile Dealers Association reported that 46.3% of dealership profits came from service and parts sales (NADA 12). Luckily, BEVs have the advantage of being the most established sustainable solution, as they have an extensive charging network and are the easiest to implement on a wide scale. They are easy to implement due to only needing electricity and the power grid, as opposed to hydrogen or crops. In an article published in the MIT Technology Review, Paris Marx reveals information from GM that President Biden’s Hummer EV test drive “boosted reservations for the vehicles” (Marx 16). Having celebrities and CEOs endorse BEVs gives the public a positive view of them and increases people’s awareness of them, an advantage FCEVs and biofuels do not have. The straightforward implementation of BEV infrastructure also helps politicians, who can make claims about being green by easily connecting wires to chargers instead of the costly alternative of improving public transport or establishing other forms of energy.
Another fuel source politicians have supported is biofuels, shown prominently through the introduction of the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. According to a study in the Utah Law Review by research associates at the Energy Biosciences Institute, the RFS mandates fuel companies to blend 22.25 billion gallons of biofuels into national fuel lines annually (Kesan et al. 159, 164). Blending biofuels into petrol and diesel makes them cleaner due to a reduced carbon footprint and is an easy way to make current and older ICE cars greener with low infrastructure costs. Kesan et al. also discuss how the RFS supported the growth of the ethanol market when it was in its early stages (Kesan et al. 165, 197).
Due to their recency, hydrogen fuel cells don’t have the same government assistance or infrastructure as biofuels to incentivize customers. On the other hand, according to Cremades and Casal’s peer-reviewed academic report published in Energies, they are the best fuel solution when the environment is considered (Cremades and Casal 9). While this may seem like an upside, fuel cells also have cost issues that prevent politicians from easily supporting them, as we will discuss later.

The economic evaluation of sustainable fuels
Due to battery costs, cars using them typically cost more than ICE cars. According to Ford, the F150 costs $33,695, while the F150 Lightning costs $55,974 as of January 29, 2023 (Ford). To counteract this, tax credits are given to every low-emission automotive technology. BEVs mention fuel savings as another reason to justify extra costs. According to John Rosevear from CNBC, who compiled data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Energy Information Administration, the average price for the fuel required to travel 100 miles is $14.08 for gas and $5.14 for electricity (Rosevear). Over time, the savings from charging EVs offset their extra costs. However, according to Yapaev et al.’s article published in the Chemistry & Technology of Fuels & Oils journal, “the cost of recycling [lithium-ion] batteries exceeds the cost of producing a new battery,” lessening many of the environmental effects and requiring higher recycling costs (Yapaev et al. 436).
As for FCEVs, Muhammed Oral, an energy professor at Karabuk University, explains that a big issue with hydrogen currently is that the only cost-effective way of producing it is by using fossil fuels (Oral 1126). However, according to Zhijie Duan et al.’s peer-reviewed report published in Energies, the ideal method for making hydrogen is electrolysis, with zero emissions for marginally higher prices than coal (Duan et al. 3). Unfortunately, it isn’t ready yet. Finally, Duan et al. also mention how FCEVs refuel much faster than BEVs, have a longer range, and have a high energy density, thereby helping in efficiency during long-range transport (Duan et al. 2).
Conclusion
Having evaluated all options, we can conclude that no single source stands out as the fuel for the future. When considering the pros and cons, combining these may be the best solution to reduce transport emissions. Until other options have established their infrastructure, biofuels are essential to inexpensively reducing the emissions of current ICE vehicles. BEVs are the best for shorter distances and everyday driving due to their rapidly growing infrastructure, easier maintenance, and cheaper costs than FCEVs. Meanwhile, FCEVs should be considered an option for long-distance transportation, such as trucks and public transport, due to their high efficiency, low battery weight, and better range.

Work Cited
Burnham, Andrew, et al. “Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains.” Argonne Scientific Publications, April 2021, https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2023.
Cremades, Lázaro V., and Lluc Canals Casals. “Analysis of the Future of Mobility: The Battery Electric Vehicle Seems Just a Transitory Alternative.” Energies (19961073), vol. 15, no. 23, Dec. 2022, p. 9149. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15239149.
Duan, Zhijie, et al. “Research on Economic and Operating Characteristics of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Based on Real Vehicle Tests.” Energies (19961073), vol. 14, no. 23, Dec. 2021, p. 7856. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14237856.
Ford. “Ford Vehicle Showroom.” Ford, 2023, https://shop.ford.com/showroom?searchid=1070113656%7C55200459089%7C415930876506%7C&ef_id=Cj0KCQiAz9ieBhCIARIsACB0oGLW1d2OPQ2eTYmqL5VhFG2JBT3bLRZUHPnBHoIVzX4KC-0R_xQu7hUaAnuUEALw_wcB:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!2519!3!607555053085!e!!g!!ford%20car%20comparison&gclsrc=aw. Accessed 29 January 2023.
General Motors Company. “General Motors Annual Report 2021.” General Motors Company, 2 February 2022, https://investor.gm.com/static-files/6ac492ca-6a4f-462e-9de8-0e2a7d471327. Accessed 12 December 2022.
Jin, Miro. “The Future of Automotive Commerce: How DTC Impacts Consumer Engagement in Automotive.” EPAM, 15 September 2022, https://www.epam.com/insights/blogs/the-future-of-automotive-commerce-how-dtc-impacts-consumer-engagement-in-automotive. Accessed 21 January 2023.
Kesan, Jay P. et al. “An Empirical Study of the Impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on the Production of Fuel Ethanol in the U.S.” Utah Law Review, vol. 2017, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 159–206. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=121922498&site=ehost-live.
National Automobiles Dealers Association. “ANNUAL FINANCIAL PROFILE OF AMERICA'S FRANCHISED NEW-CAR DEALERSHIPS.” Radio Advertising Bureau, 2019, https://www.rab.com/unusual/PDFs/Nov2020/2019%20NADA%20Data%20Full.pdf. Accessed 23 January 2023.
Ohnsman, Alan. “UAW Says It’s Had No Contact With Tesla As Musk Amps Up Attacks On Union.” Forbes, 11 July 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/03/29/uaw-says-its-had-no-contact-with-tesla-as-musk-amps-up-attacks-on-union/?sh=4e8eb99f2ab5. Accessed 14 December 2022.
ORAL, Muhammed. “Hydrogen Energy in the Future of Sustainable Energy Policies.” International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences / Uluslararasi Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 42, Dec. 2020, pp. 1115–56. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=147821473&site=ehost-live.
Rosevear, John. “Cost of charging EV vs. gas prices.” CNBC, 19 March 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/19/cost-of-charging-ev-vs-gas-prices.html. Accessed 24 January 2023.
Stolze, Eric D. “A Billion Dollar Franchise Fee? Tesla Motors’ Battle for Direct Sales: State Dealer Franchise Law and Politics.” Franchise Law Journal, vol. 34, no. 3, Winter 2015, pp. 293–309. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=102933300&site=ehost-live.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Automobile Dealers - May 2021 OEWS Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 31 March 2022, https://www.bls.gov/OES/CURRENT/naics4_441100.htm. Accessed 13 December 2022.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Union Members - 2022.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 19 January 2023, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2023.
United States Department of Energy. “Alternative Fuels Data Center: Fuel Prices.” Alternative Fuels Data Center, January 2023, https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html. Accessed 25 January 2023.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, 5 August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed 18 January 2023.
Yapaev, R. R., et al. “Biofuel Production: A Promising Direction for Reducing Carbon Footprint in the Transition to Green Energy.” Chemistry & Technology of Fuels & Oils, vol. 58, no. 3, July 2022, pp. 434–38. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10553-022-01401-8.

Comments