Arctic Leaf

Alt-fuel stations growing, without subsidies or regulations

/in , , /by

Without much fanfare, the number of fueling stations offering an alternative to gasoline has passed the 20,000 mark, according to the federal government’s Clean Cities program. The number of gasoline fueling stations, according to the American Petroleum Institute, is 153,000.

The figure shows that alternative infrastructure is gaining ground even as the number of alternative vehicles sold in the U.S. has slowed of late, an obvious result of falling oil prices. On the other hand, the sale of alternative vehicles has actually accelerated in Europe. China is also giving indications of a big push that will attempt to make it the leading market of alternative vehicles in the world.

Clean Cities is a 1993 initiative of the Department of Energy that has picked up steam in recent years. Its efforts to reduce gasoline consumption include 1) replacing petroleum with alternative and renewable fuels; 2) reducing petroleum consumption through smarter driving practices and fuel economy improvements; and 3) eliminating petroleum use through idle reduction and other fuel-saving technologies and practices. The goal is to reduce gasoline consumption by 2.5 billion gallons every year through 2020. The program claims to have already reduced consumption by 6 billion gallons since its inaugural.

In order to carry out its mission, Clean Cities has formed coalitions with nearly 100 major cities covering 82 percent of the population of the United States. Coalitions are comprised of local businesses, fuel providers, vehicle fleets, state and local government agencies, and community organizations. These stakeholders come together to share information and resources, educate the public, help craft public policy, and collaborate on projects that reduce petroleum use. There are networking opportunities with fleets and industry partners, technical training workshops and webinars, plus information on alternative fuels, advanced vehicles, idle reduction, and other technologies that reduce petroleum use. There are also funding opportunities from the Department of Energy.

Probably Clean Cities’ biggest initiative, however, has been a map of alternative fueling stations across the country. The Station Locator has now grown to a list of 20,000. These include: 12,334 electric recharging stations, 3292 propane stations, 2,956 gas stations that offer E85 (up to 85 percent ethanol), 1,549 compressed natural gas (CNG) outlets, 729 biodiesel pumps, 115 liquid natural gas (LNG) outlets and 41 hydrogen stations.

Dennis Smith, director of the Clean Cities program, says that both plug-in electrics and propane vehicles are becoming increasingly popular. “Plug-in electric vehicle sales for consumers have passed more than 300,000 since they were introduced in 2010, and an increasing number of fleets are using propane,” he told AgriMarketing.com. The growth of these stations is most likely in response to a need from these drivers. In addition, both propane and EV stations are less expensive to purchase and install than those for many other fuels.” Smith also said that the number of CNG and LNG stations understates their impact, since they tend to service heavy-duty trucks along interstate highway routes.

While the sale of alternative vehicles may have leveled off of late in the United States, they are burgeoning in Europe, despite the drop in world oil prices. Alternative fuel vehicle registrations rose 17.4 percent across Europe in the second quarter of 2015, and 24.6 percent over the first half of the year. There are now nearly 300,000 registered vehicles, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. The United Kingdom led the pack in major markets with an increase of 62.4 percent registrations in the second quarter. Norway led the entire continent, however, with 77 percent of all 11,614 newly registered vehicles being electrically powered. The country has offered huge incentives to alternative fuel owners as its oil production from the North Sea begins to taper off.

Meanwhile, in China, the Beijing city government is considering investing tens of billions in a plan to make the Middle Kingdom the world’s largest manufacturer of alternative vehicles. China now has 18,000 EVs on the road, 10,133 public passenger vehicles and 8,360 owned by individuals and organizations.

To cut down on traffic, Beijing has a unique system in which cars with certain license plate numbers are forbidden from being within the city’s fifth-ring road from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. from Monday through Friday. And it’s not automatic that a new car can receive a license plate. But electric vehicles are much easier to register and will be allowed to drive within the city at any hour, giving them a distinct advantage. BAIC, the principal maker of EVs, has become China’s largest automobile manufacturer, controlling 22.5 percent of the market.

So the initiative to cut down on imported oil is universal. In Europe, it comes from heavy-handed government subsidies and regulations. In China, it comes from government favoritism and outright prohibition. In the U.S., however, volunteer organizations, led by government initiative, seem to be achieving similar results.

Arctic Leaf

Why aren’t we using methanol?

/in , , /by

The more you look at the contemporary scene with gasoline and imported oil, the more you have to wonder why we’re not switching some of our fuel needs to methanol.

Look at what’s happening: Oil has become so plentiful that we’re reverting to the old situation of the 1950s, when the big concern among oil people was that some new discovery was going to be made in some far corner of the world and there would be a new “glut” that would cause the bottom to fall out of the market. It was during this era that we placed a 20 percent cap on our oil imports. The concern was that there was so much cheap oil in the world that the American oil industry would be decimated.

All that changed in 1970 when American production finally leveled off — right about the time geoscientist M. King Hubbert had predicted “Hubbert’s Peak” would occur. The import ban proved easy to circumvent, and before we knew, it we were importing 36 percent of our oil, most of it from the Persian Gulf. OPEC, first convened in Baghdad by Saddam Hussein in 1960, suddenly became more than a debating society and realized it had real market leverage. Instead of begging the oil companies for higher royalties, the OPEC nations suddenly realized they could raise their price and even withhold supplies. The era of the Energy Crisis had begun.

Congress did all the wrong things in responding. It extended President Nixon’s price controls on one commodity, oil, creating a domestic shortage — too much consumption, not enough production. We made up for this by importing more oil, in which the price controls didn’t apply. While President Carter mandated a “moral equivalent of war” and wore cardigan sweaters, the price controls had the exact opposite effect: Our imports swelled from 36 percent to 50 percent in 1980, and we were sitting ducks when the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War suddenly cut short supplies. The result was the Second Gas Shortage.

President Reagan put an end to all this by striking down the oil-price controls his first week in office. Drillers went wild in Texas, and the Saudis flooded the market in trying to maintain market share. Soon prices had collapsed back to 1972 levels, and the “oil shortage” was pretty much forgotten.

Meanwhile, similar developments were taking place in natural gas. This commodity had been subject to federal price controls since the 1930s. Basically, it was an attempt by the Northern consuming states to rob Texas and Louisiana of their natural resources. In 1977 we actually experienced a “natural gas shortage” that caused factories and schools all over the North to close down in mid-winter, while Texas and Louisiana were burning natural gas for electricity — then considered horribly wasteful — because the price controls did not apply intrastate. This “crisis” was solved more slowly as natural-gas price controls were not phased out until 1988. Once again, supplies gushed forth. (We did learn a lesson. Nobody has talked about price controls on oil and natural gas since.)

Even with the market freely operating, however, the natural supplies of both oil and natural gas seemed to be diminishing, so that by 2005 we were running short of gas and back to importing more than half our oil. Then George Mitchell’s fracking revolution began. Suddenly, America was the world’s leading producer and oil and gas were once again in abundance.

Yet as far as freeing ourselves from further dependence on foreign oil, the results have been disappointing. Even though we are again producing 10 million barrels of oil a day, we are still dependent on imports for 30 percent of our oil, about one-quarter of this from the Persian Gulf. Low prices have stimulated consumption. People are going back to buying bigger cars and our gasoline use is hitting new records. Sales of electric cars and other alternative vehicles have nearly collapsed. Whatever impulse there is toward conservation is highly dependent on price.

Anything that requires a new infrastructure — electric cars, hydrogen vehicles, compressed natural gas and propane — will have trouble getting beyond a niche market. It’s simply too troublesome and expensive to get people to convert. But corn ethanol and methanol both slot easily into our current system of gas pumps and can compete.

The trouble with corn ethanol is that we are rapidly exhausting the potential supplies. We now use 40 percent of the corn crop to replace 3 percent of our gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol may expand supplies, but it is still basically experimental.

That leaves one fuel that could potentially replace vast amounts of our imported oil — methanol made from natural gas. We have enough natural gas supplies from fracking to make this a game-changer.

The great irony is that China sees this opportunity and is already seizing it. The Chinese are busy constructing two huge methanol conversion plants in Texas and Louisiana in order to take advantage of the abundant supplies coming out of the region. The Chinese have a million methanol cars on the road and will be carrying these supplies back to China to power their growing transport sector.

Yet the EPA continues to refuse to allow methanol to be used in car engines, mainly because of the reputation earned as a poisonous “wood alcohol” during Prohibition.

As Anne Korin of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security once said: “I think methanol fares poorly in Washington precisely because it doesn’t need any subsidies or government assistance in making it economical. For that reason you have no big constituency behind it and no member of Congress crusading on its behalf.” The entire farm belt is working to support ethanol, but there is no “methanol state” or corresponding congressman working in its favor. For that reason it languishes.

For almost 50 years the Indianapolis 500 cars have run on methanol. Yet it is still forbidden in our commercial transport sector. Isn’t it time that somebody considered the general good and started crusading on behalf of methanol?

(Photo by Vivid Racing, posted to Flickr)

Related posts:

 

 

Landon Hall

Sacramento flex-fuel drivers, you can’t pass up this deal

/in , /by

We did some quick math here at Fuel Freedom Foundation, and we can say, without hesitation, that there are thousands of flex-fuel vehicles on the road in Sacramento and its environs.

Attention soccer moms in your GMC Yukons, and dads in your Chevy Silverados and Ford F-150s! This is a deal you can’t afford to miss.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, Aug. 12, five gas stations in the Sacramento area will sell E85 ethanol fuel for 85 cents a gallon, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. See what they did there? E85 all over the place!

Here are the five participating stations:

  • Shell: 5103 Fair Oaks Blvd., Carmichael, CA 95608
  • Shell: 730 29th Street, Sacramento, CA 95816
  • Shell: 3721 Truxel Road, Sacramento, CA 95834
  • Shell: 800 Ikea Court, West Sacramento, CA 95691
  • Oliver Gas: 1009 Oliver Road, Fairfield, CA 94534

Our friends at San Diego-based Pearson Fuels are sponsoring the promo. The five stations are the newest outlets for E85 in a network that spans California. (We wrote about Pearson and its business model a couple months back.) Check out Pearson’s release for more information.

There are some 1 million flex-fuel vehicles in California, built to run on E85, a cheaper, cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline that also emits fewer toxic pollutants that foul the air and fewer greenhouse-gas emissions that warm the planet. Since there are about 2.1 million people living in the Sacramento metro area, 5.4 percent of the state’s population, we can extrapolate that there are roughly 54,000 FFVs in the area.

So get thee to the pump, and tell your FFV-driving friends!

Even after Wednesday, when E85 resets to its usual price, consumers will still see a benefit. It’s usually 25 to 30 percent cheaper than regular 87 octane.

Even if you don’t own an FFV, you can enter our contest to raise awareness about the benefits of E85. You could win a $50 Amazon gift card!

Fuel Freedom Staff

Support fuel choice for a chance to win a $50 gift card

/2 Comments/in , /by

Pearson Fuels is a big believer in the power of drivers like you choosing better alternatives, and they’re celebrating new contracts with five stations in the Sacramento area by offering E85 for 85 cents per gallon on Wednesday August 12 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

If you have a flex-fuel vehicle, you can save big by filling up at one of the Pearson-affiliated stations listed below.

Even if you don’t have an FFV, you can still enter our contest to help raise awareness about the need for more alternative fuel stations.

It’s easy. While you’re at the station, snap a photo of yourself at the pump and post it on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook along with the hashtag #flexfuel4all for a chance to win a $50 gift card from Amazon.

PearsonGreg

The participating stations are:

  • Shell: 5103 Fair Oaks Blvd., Carmichael, CA 95608
  • Shell: 730 29th Street, Sacramento, CA 95816
  • Shell: 3721 Truxel Road, Sacramento, CA 95834
  • Shell: 800 Ikea Court, West Sacramento, CA 95691
  • Oliver Gas: 1009 Oliver Road, Fairfield, CA 94534

Full contest rules here.

Good luck!

Arctic Leaf

The hydrogen car finally takes shape

/2 Comments/in , , /by

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003, President George W. Bush proposed $1.2 billion in research funding so that America “can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.”

“With a new national commitment,” the president added, “our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.”

That child, now an adolescent, still has another 4 and a half years before obtaining a driver’s license, so that dream of his or her first car being hydrogen-powered is well within reach. After almost a decade of talk and promises, the first hydrogen cars are now making it from the drawing boards into showrooms.

Hyundai was first out of the box last spring with the introduction of the hydrogen fuel-cell Tucson. The company now claims to have 71 cars on the road, all of them in California. But it will be soon joined by Toyota, which is treating the introduction of its Mirai (the word means “future” in Japanese) like the arrival of a new baby. Only 3,000 are to be sold during the first year, only in California, and potential buyers are being screened like 3-year-olds applying to an exclusive preschool. “To buy Toyota’s new hydrogen car you’ll need to pass an interview,” read one headline. Deliveries will start in October.

“We’re looking for the bold and the few,” Toyota says on its marketing video, making ownership sound like joining the Marines. Potential buyers are being vetted very seriously to make sure they are prepared for the challenges and not just seeking novelty. And there will be challenges: The car will only be sold at eight dealerships in California. The $57,000 car has a driving range of 320 miles, putting it right next to gasoline engines and well ahead of the 200-mile range of electric vehicles. Its 67 miles-per-gallon puts it in a class by itself. Refueling takes no longer than an ordinary gasoline car. BMW, Honda and Mercedes will also have entries in the next few years.

But refueling stations will be few and far between. There are only eight in the state right now, with 48 more in development, according to this locator operated by the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Toyota has pledged to build more, including a bunch in Connecticut, but that is still far in the future. “Marketing this car is the reverse of selling,” says Mike Sullivan of Toyota Santa Monica, one of the exclusive outlets. “We’re going to turn people down if this car isn’t for you.”

Hydrogen cars run on fuel cells, which are entirely different from the combustion process. The hydrogen is fed into a “polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM),” which separates the molecule’s electron from its proton. The proton passes through the membrane, but the electron is routed around it in a way that creates an electric current. The electron is then reunited with the proton on the opposite side, where it joins oxygen from the air to produce the fuel cell’s only “exhaust” — water vapor. No carbon dioxide is emitted during the process.

The process is ideal for replacing traditional auto exhausts from the combustion process. The only trick is producing the hydrogen, which does not exist freely in nature. Most hydrogen is now being derived from natural gas (methane), although that process produces carbon dioxide. (Toyota shows that livestock manure is one source of the hydrogen that can power the Mirai.) Various experiments have been tried in producing hydrogen from food wastes and other organic materials, but the carbon dioxide remains. The other method is splitting the water molecule through electrolysis, but this is very energy-intensive and expensive. (Fuel cells are often described as reversing electrolysis.)

Although fuel cells have been slow in coming in the automotive sector, they have been making rapid progress in other uses. A good portion of the nation’s forklifts now run on hydrogen, since it is relatively easy to keep a refueling station on-site. A company called Plug Power in upstate New York has had success in selling fuel cells as backup power in businesses and residences. And Bloom Energy, a California company, has made a business of selling fuel cell systems — the “Bloom Box” — to power data centers.

Setting up a network of fueling stations around California and the rest of the country may prove to be more of a challenge, however. A story in Green Car Reports last month said complaints are mounting among hydrogen car owners that even the few refueling stations around California are not working properly. “The stations are frequently inoperative, drivers say, closed for days or weeks at a time,” wrote reporter John Voelcker. “Moreover, even when the stations are functioning properly, there is often an hour-long wait after the first one or two cars – and some stations can only fuel cars to half-full.”

An entire Facebook group of disappointed owners has emerged, and the caustic comments are abundant. “The expectations that were being portrayed — 15 stations being up by the end of 2014 — fell woefully short,” wrote one Hyundai Tucson owner. “There are eight so-called active consumer stations, with three currently working. I would say my wife and I are HUGELY disappointed as we firmly believe in this technology. … But if someone does not plant a huge boot in the behind of the people who are in control of delivering the fueling infrastructure, this will be an epic fail.”

This will be the problem that Toyota and the others will be facing as they prepare to enter the hydrogen race.

More William Tucker posts about alternative vehicles:

 

Landon Hall

Rauch smacks down ‘corrosive’ argument about ethanol

/in , /by

One of the most often-repeated attacks on ethanol we hear is that “It hurts my engine.” We hear it from people who buy into the oil companies’ misinformation; from people who are (reasonably) concerned about using a new fuel type after 100 years of using the same gasoline tank after tank; and even from car people who insist that it’s the small portion of ethanol — not the dirtier gasoline — that is responsible for engine deposits and wear on fuel systems.

Here’s the truth: Some older vehicles should not use any ethanol blend above E10, which is up to 10 percent ethanol and what virtually all of us use as regular gasoline. Higher ethanol blends also aren’t approved for motorcycles, boats and yard equipment. But E15 is approved for all vehicles model year 2001 and newer, and there are more than 17 million cars, trucks and SUVs on the road in the U.S. that are flex-fuel vehicles — built to run on E85, which is between 51 percent and 83 percent ethanol.

What happens if a non-FFV uses E85? As many of our supporters on social media have noted, nothing. No engine damage, no corrosion of parts, no locusts descending, nothing bad at all. All that happens is that they pay less at the pump, and go to sleep at night knowing that they’ve made the world a tiny bit better place, because they’ve used an American-made fuel that emits fewer toxic pollutants than gasoline.

In a post last week on Green Car Reports, writer John Voelcker mentioned research promoted by the Urban Air Initiative showing that ethanol-free gasoline (E0) is more corrosive than E10. But Voelcker then takes a swipe at higher ethanol blends:

Ethanol in its purer forms, specifically E85, is long accepted as more corrosive to rubber and other engine components than gasoline.

That’s why carmakers have to develop “Flex-Fuel” engines specifically designed to withstand the effects of fuel that contains a majority of ethanol.

I e-mailed Voelcker’s post to Marc Rauch, executive vice president and co-editor of The Auto Channel (and one of the breakout stars of our 2014 documentary PUMP), and he called me right away. Weary over the persistent “corrosive” debate point, Rauch asked whether ethanol — which is also called ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol or “moonshine” — ate away at the plastic bottles that hold such booze at the liquor store. The answer is no.

“What people don’t get is, everything is corrosive,” he said. “You have to find a material that is not as susceptible to corrosion.”

Rauch then went to the comments section of the Green Car Reports post to elaborate:

Ethanol opponents trump up mythical ethanol mandate predictions and horrific false stories of ethanol-caused damage to frighten consumers. The boating community is a prime example. If boat owners want to hear some truthful comments about ethanol blends they should watch the Vernon Barfield ethanol boating videos on YouTube and listen to the Mercury Marine “Myths of Ethanol and Fuel Care” webinar from August 2011.

… In fact, water is corrosive; wind is corrosive; air is corrosive; gasoline is corrosive; solar rays are corrosive; moving parts are corrosive; human interaction with seating and flooring materials is corrosive.

The reality is that auto manufacturers have had to develop “specially designed” containers to hold water for automatic window washing. That’s right, if they used most metals to hold the water it would rust and/or corrode. Manufacturers had to develop “specially designed” coatings or parts to prevent chassis and fenders and bumpers from water corrosion. Manufacturers had to develop “specially designed” body paint and rubber to prevent solar corrosion. And, over the years auto manufacturers had to develop “specially designed” engine parts, rubber, and body paint that was resistant to the corrosive characteristics of gasoline and diesel.

In other words, if auto manufacturers had to make some alterations to accommodate ethanol, so what? It’s not even worth a serious discussion, and it certainly doesn’t befit a person like you who is supposed to know something about automobiles and industrial engineering.

There’s more good stuff there. Take a look.

If you’d like to see Rauch bat away that and other myths about ethanol one by one, or ask him a question yourself, he’s going to be taking part in a special Twitter conversation with @fuelfreedomnow on Wednesday at 12 noon. Follow the hashtag #FuelChat.

Related content:

 

Fuel Freedom Staff

Seeking: 50 donations for Fuel Freedom Month

/in , , /by

All month we’ve been talking about what fuel choice means. We spent one week on each of our core issue impact areas: the environment, the economy, and national security.

Now, to close out the month, we’re looking for 50 new donors to pitch in and help fund the future of the fight for fuel choice — one donor to represent each state in the U.S. Will you be one of them?

50-FOR-FF_v4_600

When you support Fuel Freedom Foundation with a tax-deductible donation, you’ll be supporting our ongoing work to secure a future where everyone has a choice at the gas pump — and we’re not just talking about regular or premium.

Automotive testing: Currently there’s only one fully EPA-certified kit available for individuals to convert a regular vehicle to flex-fuel. Interest and demand exist, so we’re working to enable more conversion options.

Research: We partner with think tanks and universities to push the envelope … with research on different fuel types and their benefits for the public. Read more here: http://www.fuelfreedom.org/our-work/initiatives/research-partners/

Outreach: The issue of fuel choice is complex, and the airwaves are full of misinformation about the various fuels. Our robust communications program (including our documentary PUMP which has been viewed by tens of thousands) seeks to educate, inform and hopefully inspire our many supporters to demand fuel choice.

Join our movement as an active supporter with a donation today.

Donate

Arctic Leaf

U.S. is trailing the rest of the world on EVs

/1 Comment/in , , /by

As oil prices have tumbled, one thing has become clear: Electric vehicles are making much greater headway in the rest of the world than they are in the United States.

U.S. sales have remained flat over the past year after increasing steadily over the last decade. But sales have actually accelerated in some European countries, and several now have a larger percentage of their fleet in EVs than America does.

The website InsideEVs estimated that 160,670 EVs were sold around the world through the month of May, 34 percent ahead of last year during the same period. But U.S. global market share is declining: Domestic sales totaled 43,973 through May, a fraction ahead of last year’s pace. But when the June numbers came out, the U.S. had sold only 10,365, off 16.2 percent from the same month in 2014.

Norway is emerging as the world leader in making the transition from gasoline to electric vehicles. An incredible 33 percent of new-car registrations in the first quarter of 2015 were for EVs. Volkswagen’s e-Golf, the electric model, now sells 71 percent of its cars worldwide in Norway, giving it 40 percent of the Norwegian market. Tesla is not far behind with 16 percent of the market. Oddly, the Toyota Prius, the pioneer in the hybrid field, is seeing almost no sales now. People are beginning to opt for all-electric rather than the halfway point of gas-electric hybrids.

The Norwegian government has given EVs a raft of advantages over traditional gasoline-powered engines. Here’s a brief list:

• EVs get access to bus lanes
• The government has provided free charging stations
• EVs get free access to all toll roads
• EVs get free rides on ferries
• EVs get free parking in municipal parking spaces
• EVs carry a low annual road fee
• EV buyers pay no tax on purchase

Some of these advantages will eventually have to be cut back as the number of EVs on the road grows. But for now the incentives are huge and are not costing the government a great deal of money.

Other European countries have also been successful in promoting the purchase of electric vehicles. EVs now make up 5.7 percent of new car registrations in the Netherlands and 1.2 percent in the United Kingdom. The U.S. counts only 0.8 percent of new registrants as EVs, a figure that is matched by France. Germany and Japan counted only 0.6 percent of new registrations during the first quarter.

The reason EVs are doing so well in Europe is easy to identify: Europe imports nearly all its oil, and gasoline prices are much higher, mainly because of the imposition of heavy taxes. Gasoline sells for $8 a gallon in much of Europe, while prices are generally below $3 per gallon in this country. But air pollution is also playing a role. Pollution in some European cities has gotten as bad as it is in China and other parts of Asia. Paris shut down all auto traffic for three days last year when air pollution reached the same levels of Beijing and Shanghai. Sales of the Nissan Leaf – now the best-selling electric vehicle in the world – skyrocketed during this period. It’s expected that if emergencies like the one in Paris become commonplace, electric vehicles will be exempted from the ban.

Meanwhile, it appears that electric vehicles are finally taking off in China, which is now the world’s largest auto market. Back in the early 2000s, the Chinese government promised it would have 500,000 EVs on the road by 2011. Officials publicly announced they would be challenging the American industry by then. But as late as 2014, China was selling only 600 EVs a month, at the same time the U.S. was selling 6,000.
All that has reversed over the past year. In December, China sold 27,000 electric vehicles, almost 30 times the number as the previous January, and surpassed the U.S. in monthly sales for the first time. In 2015 China will probably become the world’s largest buyer of EVs.

All this has happened while Tesla was failing in its attempt to break into the Chinese market. The reason is plain: Tesla is marketing a luxury vehicle, something that few Chinese can afford. Meanwhile, the Chinese manufacturers, BYD, Kandi, Chery Zotye and BAIC, are selling no-frills vehicles that can only reach about 35 miles per hour. But such utilitarian vehicles are perfect for Chinese families to buzz around their cities for shopping and short commutes. There is even speculation that the Chinese manufacturers may start marketing their vehicles in the United States, where they would compete with entries such as the Chevy Volt and the Ford Focus. There is even talk that such vehicles may be able to feed off the rise of Uber for short-term ride-sharing in an urban setting.

Tesla’s moment of truth will come with the expected 2017 release of its Model 3, the $35,000 version of its EV, aimed at the average car-buyer. Then we will see if Tesla can really meet its deadlines, and if it can sell its highly stylized car on the mid-market. If it can, Tesla will probably have oodles of customers in both Europe and America, giving it a shot at the 500,000 sales Elon Musk has declared as his 2020 goal.

Landon Hall

Oil still a major source of revenue for terrorist groups

/in , /by

Oil prices continue to plummet, owing to an oversize inventory and the prospect of still more crude coming onto the market from Iran. But that doesn’t seem to have turned off the spigot of revenue flowing to extremist groups.

At one point last year, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) was believed to be raking in $3 million a day in black-market sales of oil the group pumped from territories in Syria and Iran it took over during a swift campaign. ISIS once controlled several Iraqi oil fields, but thanks to a counteroffensive involving U.S. airstrikes and an American-backed campaign by the Iraqi security forces, the group now has only one, according to Agence France-Presse.

But ISIS’s oil operations have only been scaled back, not thoroughly halted. According to a story in The New York Times this week, ISIS has transformed from a simply bloodthirsty terrorist group, the successor to al-Qaeda, into a fully functioning government. It has a complex economy that relies not just on stolen oil, but other revenue sources, including kidnapping, extortion and an assortment of taxes and levies.

That complexity is evident in the way ISIS pumps and transports oil: Based on a BBC2 program called “The World’s Richest Terror Army” that aired this spring, ISIS even sells the oil it gets from fields in eastern Syria back to the Syrian government, even though the group is a sworn enemy of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

ISIS sells some of its oil to the people it governs — some 8 million in the territory it controls — and smuggles more of it across the Turkish border. According to a story in U.K.’s Independent, around the time of the BBC special in April:

A Syrian source involved in oil smuggling for Isis explained how oil brought in one of the group’s biggest streams of revenue. “Isis controls the oil wells in our region of Deir Ezzor, which is rich in oil,” he said. “My family, friends and members of my tribe by oil from Isis and smuggle it to the refineries and then to civilian markets.” The US treasury estimates Isis is still earning $2 million a week by smuggling oil in spite of a sustained bombing campaign by the US-led coalition.

The documentary reveals that militants have developed ways of pumping oil hundreds of metres across the border and floating it in barrels down rivers in order to export it into areas not held by Isis.

ISIS is far from the only extremist group that finances its activities through oil, one way or another. According to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, Saudi Arabia — a U.S. ally that also hates ISIS — is home to many financiers of global terrorism:

This Gulf monarchy is a … state in which no taxes are imposed on the population. Instead, Saudis have a religious tax, the zakat, requiring all Muslims to give at least 2.5 percent of their income to charities. Many of the charities are truly dedicated to good causes, but others merely serve as money laundering and terrorist financing apparatuses. While many Saudis contribute to those charities in good faith believing their money goes toward good causes, others know full well the terrorist purposes to which their money will be funneled.

Oil not only underwrites terrorism, it gives oil-exporting nations in the Persian Gulf an outsize influence on the world stage. The United States and other Western countries devote inordinate amounts of resources and attention to dealing with the Middle East and its many internecine struggles, at the expense of other parts of the world.

Also, the task of defending the flow of oil from the region routinely falls to the United States, and using less oil would absolve us of the need to send in troops and keep up military bases to protect supply routes.

“As long as we keep buying oil from the Middle East, our enemies can continue to fund terrorism,” oil and gas tycoon T. Boone Pickens wrote in TIME earlier this month. “For too long we have spent the lives and limbs of thousands of young men and women fighting in the Middle East, and we still bear most of the cost of protecting the about 17 million barrels that flow through the Strait of Hormuz every day even though only about 10% of that oil comes to us.”

Some say we can drill our way to oil independence, but the reality is, the U.S. still needs about 19 million barrels of oil a day to function, and the “shale revolution” only restored U.S. production to a peak of about 10 million barrels. The rest has to come from somewhere.

If the U.S. used more alternative fuels for vehicles, instead of primarily oil-based gasoline and diesel, we could reduce our dependence on oil — and shrink the influence of the countries that supply it.

To learn more about the connections between oil and terrorism, visit our National Security page.

Arctic Leaf

U.S. answer to Mideast violence must include reducing oil dependence

/in , , /by

Over the last month, the following incidents have taken place in the Middle East:

  • On July 4, a car bomb exploded in a crowded market in Baghdad, killing nine people and injuring 24. Although no one took credit for the attack, suspicion fell on ISIS, which had been responsible for previous bombings in Baghdad. The incident was described as one of the deadliest in recent memory.
  • On July 12, a series of car bombs and suicide attacks killed 35 people and injured more than 100, mainly in Shi’ite neighborhoods. In the deadliest attack in the northern Shaab neighborhood, a car bomb exploded and then a suicide bomber detonated another explosion once police and crowds had gathered at the scene of the first explosion. Once again, ISIS was believed to be responsible. The incident was described as the deadliest in recent memory.
  • On July 18, a truck loaded with explosives was detonated in a busy Baghdad market, killing 120 and wounding 130. The explosion occurred while the local populace was celebrating the festival of Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the monthlong Ramadan holiday. The explosion destroyed 50 stores and 75 cars, and leveled two buildings. It was said to be the worst incident so far this year.
  • A month earlier, terrorists struck in France, Tunisia and Kuwait on the same day, June 26. No one knows whether the events were coordinated or just occurred by coincidence. In Kuwait, an explosion at a Shi’ite mosque killed 25 worshippers and destroyed the mosque. In Tunisia on the same day, a lone gunman wielding an assault rifle killed 38 people, mostly tourists, on a public beach. ISIS claimed credit for both incidents, although it did not say they had been coordinated. In France, a lone terrorist made it past security at an American-owned chemical factory, set off a gas explosion, and then decapitated a company executive and posted his head on a gate next to two Muslim flags. At the beginning of the holy month, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, a spokesman for ISIS, had exhorted his followers: “Muslims, embark and hasten toward jihad. O mujahedeen everywhere, rush and go to make Ramadan a month of disasters for the infidels.”

Many American think all this violence started with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. In fact, it’s been going on since the 7th century. The original argument began with the succession to Muhammad’s leadership when he died in 632 A.D. There were two claimants to his legacy. The first was the Umayyad Caliph, made up of the followers of Muhammad’s entourage in Medina and Baghdad. The second was Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad, who claimed to be his legitimate heir.

In 680, Caliph Muawiyah I of the Umayyad died and tried to pass his rule on to his son, Yazid, despite a written agreement with Hussein to honor his claim to the throne. Yazid demanded that Hussein acknowledge his rulership, and Hussein refused. Instead, he mounted an army and headed toward Baghdad, where Yazid was seated. During the march, however, Hussein’s supporters dwindled, and when he arrived at Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad, he only had 75 followers left. There he was met by an army of 1,000 men sent forth from Baghdad by Yazid.

Hussein deliberated for a week before deciding once again to refuse Yazid’s leadership and join him in battle. By this time, Yazid’s army had swelled to 6,000. Hussein went to battle with about 75. Hussein’s army was slaughtered, and he was himself beheaded and his head sent to Baghdad. Hussein’s followers set up a rival caliphate in Medina, however, and the schism between the Sunni Umayyad Empire and the rival Shi’ites began and continues to this day.

The Shi’ia, who eventually established their dominion in Persia (Iran), still celebrate the holiday of Ashura, in which they flagellate themselves because they were not there to help Hussein at the Battle of Karbala. As one scholar has put it, the Shi’ia are “born martyrs.” Iran is the one country you can imagine starting a nuclear war, even if it meant nuclear suicide.

All this would be only of antiquarian interest if it were not that more than half the world’s oil comes from the Persian Gulf. And all that oil is continually riding on the chance that the two sides will not disrupt the flow of oil — or destroy whole oil fields — in their endless, ongoing battles. The stakes are only getting higher. Last week, ISIS rebels in the Sinai Peninsula claimed to have hit an Egyptian naval vessel with a guided missile offshore in the Mediterranean. How long will it be before rival factions are firing guided missiles at oil tankers sailing through the Strait of Hormuz?

It is impossible to choose sides in the Middle East. For instance, ever since the 9/11 attack, the United States has considered al-Qaeda to be its prime adversary in the world. Yet last week, Americans found themselves on the same side as al-Qaeda in backing Saudi Arabia’s efforts to expel the Shi’ite Houthi rebels from Yemen. Yet at the very same time, we were negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran that is widely perceived as supporting the Shi’ite faction in the Middle East, in defiance of Sunni Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have said they may seek a nuclear weapon themselves if Iran is able to secure one. Imagine a nuclear-armed Iran and Saudi Arabia facing each other across the Persian Gulf while our oil tankers try to escape into the Indian Ocean.

The only reasonable strategy here is to reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil. We still import 20 percent of our oil from the Persian Gulf, with 13 percent coming from Saudi Arabia. This is down from over 30 percent a decade ago, but we can still go further. America’s amazing improvement in oil production has played a part, but we are still dependent on oil for 80 percent of our transport sector. Substituting other kinds of fuels to power our vehicles is the obvious answer.

The Middle East tinder box isn’t going to go away during our lifetime. The obvious solution is to disassociate ourselves as much as possible. Freeing ourselves from our dependence on oil for our transport sector is the first and foremost step forward.