For my earth day post about cars I’m choosing to blog about how some of the current trends in the automotive world aren’t as green as they may seem to be: hybrids and corn ethanol. I’m excited about the fact that our car-loving culture is trying (pretending?) to find ways to reduce its impact on the planet. However I have some serious doubts concerning whether hybrid vehicles and ethanol derived from corn will be the saviors they’re sometimes purported to be. In some cases they may not even be any better for the environment than the cars we drive right now …

Hybrids

A while back there was a bit of a stir when an article appeared in a college newspaper alleging that the Prius outdoes the Hummer in overall environmental damage. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything the article says, I do think that some folks who are trying to be environmentally friendly conveniently overlook the environmental implications of manufacturing hybrid cars. All current model hybrids use some type of nickel-metal hydride battery pack. Manufacturing such batteries requires a great deal of energy and resources. While the specific process outlined in the original article may be somewhat dubious, there is no denying that some amount of damage is done to the environment in the manufacture of these batteries, even if only from generating the energy used to produce them. Therefore, each hybrid car sold bears some amount of additional environmental burden that it must overcome before it can be considered better for the environment than a traditional car.

Hybrids are en vogue right now, with new models popping up every day. Everything from full-size SUVs (Chevy Tahoe Hybrid) to large luxury sedans (Lexus LS 600h) to “mainstream” family cars (Saturn Aura Green Line.) What’s more is that often these hybrids, despite all of their illusions of environmental grandeur, barely get better gas mileage than their gasoline-only counterparts. The Saturn Aura Green Line is a prime example of this, with the hybrid version achieving an EPA average only 2 miles per gallon better in both city and highway ratings.

I’m sure there may be ways, such as “plug-in hybrid” technology, to make hybrids more eco-friendly with regards to the big picture. However, most current hybrids seem to be little more than an attempt by the automakers to cash in on the latest marketing fad. Unfortunately, this is ultimately happening at the expense of the environment.

Corn Ethanol

This country has more corn than it knows what to do with, so why not try turning it into a fuel source? Flex-fuel cars capable of running on ethanol have been around for years, however it has only been within the past few that automakers have begun touting this capability on a large scale. At first blush it seems like a good solution. It gives corn growers an additional opportunity to sell their crops and it helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil, right?

What we consumers don’t often hear is the fact that refining corn-based ethanol only results in roughly 25% more energy than it takes to produce it. In addition, even though ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline it contains less energy per gallon, which means that vehicles running on E85 ethanol (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) only achieve about 75% of the fuel mileage they would on gasoline alone. That means your car that gets 28 MPG using gas would only get 21 on E85 and your SUV that gets 15 MPG on gas would drop to 11 MPG. Ouch.

The government currently subsidizes the production and sale of corn ethanol so that it can be priced attractively less than gasoline. But unless it is priced 25% less than gas it still ends up costing the consumer more. According to the Daily Fuel Gauge Report the energy-adjusted price of E85 is currently about 30 cents per gallon more than regular unleaded gasoline. And that still doesn’t reflect the actual cost of ethanol because of the government subsidies.

So if corn-based ethanol is such a lost cause, what other options might there be? Soy-based fuels, such as soy biodiesel, often have a better energy balance than corn ethanol, but involve some of the same risks with regards to over-farming and competing with food sources. One alternative that I think has some merit is cellulosic ethanol, which can be refined from just about anything that has ever been alive. This includes products that are often discarded like corn stalks and wood shavings from lumber yards. Many proponents of cellulosic ethanol are currently looking towards switchgrass, a perennial grass native to the North American plains, as a viable source for ethanol production. Current estimates put the energy yield from refining switchgrass at 540% (compared to corn ethanol’s 25%.) The first cellulosic ethanol refineries have yet to come online, but when they do ethanol may finally become a truly viable alternative to gasoline.

Personally I find myself most excited by efforts like the smart fortwo where auto manufacturers are being ecologically mindful at all steps of the production process and seeking to create very efficient “conventional” cars. Even though I have my doubts about whether I could personally justify getting a smart car, it would be great if more car companies would follow a similar model of environmental management and recycling in their own business practices.

So what are your thoughts on the current (not-so) green fads in the auto world? Think I’m being a bit too critical? Want to voice your hearty support? Hit up the comments and speak your mind! You can also check out Scientific American’s article on switchgrass ethanol and Popular Mechanic’s article on converting cellulose directly to gasoline for more reading on this subject.

As we contemplate what car to buy when it is time to replace this one, we are facing many of the same factors as other car-buyers in the US. Gas prices are high and are only predicted to go higher. The economy is heading downwards and that means there is less money to go around in general. I also worry about the continued detrimental impact on the environment of burning so much gasoline and the amounts of hazardous chemicals that go into making the batteries of all these new-fangled hybrids.

Since this will be our first “big” car purchase, we have already begun contemplating some of the options that will be available to us.

Option 1: Used VW Golf (or Jetta) TDI

We really like the small diesel-engined Volkswagens, such as the Golf and the Jetta. We have known some people who have had such cars and they report regularly getting between 40 and 50 miles per gallon. There is a local fueling station that carries soy bio-diesel, which would further help with environmental impact issues. However, these are very popular cars right now and they are quite difficult to find in the used market with low miles and reasonable prices. In addition, VW has yet to release a diesel version of the new Rabbit, which replaced the Golf a couple years ago. And so, while this remains an option, our chances of finding one of these in our price range in good condition with low miles are very slim.

Option 2: 2008 smart fortwo passion coupe

Though the smart fortwo is a rather unorthodox little car, we are both open to creative solutions to our car needs. We have actually gone so far as to visit the smart dealership in Indianapolis to test drive one of these. (You can read about our visit at my wife Becky’s blog.) I’m impressed by the engineering that has gone into making this tiny little 2-seat micro car. It has boatloads of technology such as brake-assist, traction control, stability control, etc. It is even relatively fun to drive!

The fortwo is not without its shortcomings however. I was less than impressed by the sometimes-sluggish gear changes from the “automated” manual transmission. In addition, its EPA mileage ratings aren’t really that impressive (33/40) considering all the sacrifices you make for such a small car. The first owners of the new-to-the-US 2008 fortwo have just begun taking delivery of their new cars, and so I am anxious to see what sort of mileage they experience in the real world. I am also a bit put off by the fact that they only come with a 2 year warranty and I fear that parts for them could be rather expensive. Another potential downside of the smart is that they are currently in very high demand. There is currently a long waiting list and it could potentially be a while before we would be able to get one.

Don’t get me wrong, I really like the smart and all that it stands for. It’s truly all the car that most folks would need for the chores of daily commuting and running around town. I also really like that they are concerned with environmental issues surrounding the entire production process. However I am interested not only in the environmental aspects of getting a more economical car, but also the financial aspects. The smart fortwo, with the options we would want, retails for about $15,000. There are quite a few cars in that same price range that get 75-80% of the gas mileage the smart gets, but have amenities such as cruise control and a back seat.

Option #3: 2008 Nissan Versa Hatchback SL

Since I’m not feeling very confident that we’ll be able to find a Golf or Jetta TDI, and I’m having second thoughts about the smart, I’ve started doing some research on other cars in the same price range. I still want something small and very fuel efficient, but also able to go on weekend road trips when we might want to leave our larger car at home. My research has recently led me to look more seriously at the Nissan Versa hatchback. For about the same money as the fortwo, the Versa SL with a 6-speed manual transmission is rated for 26/31 miles per gallon. Not too shabby for a small wagon with a back seat and a usable trunk. If you opt for the CVT instead of the manual the mileage rating rises to 27/33. Part of the draw of this car is the 6 speed though, so the CVT would have to be really good in order for me to forgo the manual.

I’m drawn to the Versa because it doesn’t come across as your typical, stripped-down econobox. In other markets, where it has been sold for several years as the “Tiida,” it is actually marketed as an entry-level luxury car with options such as navigation and leather seats! With all this in mind, the nagging questions that I keep coming back to are long-term cost of ownership and practicality.

I imagine that whichever car we choose it will be driven approximately 20,000 miles a year or less. After doing a little research and some math, the Versa looks like it would probably cost about 20% more annually for fuel. At a pessimistic $4 a gallon that translates to about $500 a year. At $3.50 a gallon it becomes a $400 difference annually. Real-life numbers would inevitably more complex than this little exercise however. Getting a slightly larger car like the Versa would mean that we could use it for longer trips, thereby saving money by not taking our larger car which only gets about 28mpg on the highway. It’s not a huge difference, but every bit counts. Once you start to account for driving a somewhat more efficient vehicle more often rather than a much more efficient vehicle less often, it is difficult to discern what vehicle would make for the best overall “fleet economy” for us.

So how wise of a purchase would a smart be, all things considered? For now the answer seems unclear. There are many factors that will play into our decision that are still a bit murky. How high will gas prices go? What kind of mileage will drivers really experience in the new smart? How difficult will it be to get one? Would we be comfortable taking it on day trips to Indianapolis or Dayton on the busy interstate? Only time will tell. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts in the comments section. Stay tuned over the next few months, because I have a feeling this could be a bumpy ride.