Greenpeace believes that in order to create a sustainable world it is necessary to abandon the use of fossil fuels. Cars would be fuelled by solar energy which would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenpeace envisages a sustainable future in which, “Vehicles achieve around 100 mpg and are based heavily on solar/wind electric systems and liquid biofuels.” Given that greenpeace has carried out detailed research, in its fossil free energy scenario (ffes), into the feasibility of green cars it may be as well to explore the validity of these proposals.

“1,620 million in 2030, and a massive

4,930 million by 2100.”[2]

Trying to imagine what nearly 5 billion vehicles on Earth is just impossible.

960 million in 2010,

1,150 million in 2030 and

1,600 million in 2100.”[3]

roads;

car parks;

petrol filing stations;

motorway cafeterias;

out of town shopping centres;

leisure centres;

hospitals;

car/car component/car accessories factories;

mines to provide raw materials;

super dams to provide massive quantities of electricity to smelt aluminium;

urban sprawl, etc, etc, etc.

Green cars are nothing new. The world’s first cars ran on biofuels. Despite the fact that today it is taken for granted that cars run on petrol/diesel, in the early days of the car, oil companies had to engage in a long struggle with biofuel suppliers before they managed to dominate the market, "In the early days of oil, it was kerosene that was the industry's most prized product; gasoline was thrown away. Henry Ford's cars were built to run on grain alcohol, produced from corn grown by US farmers. Once a role was found for gasoline, however, the oil companies undertook a massive, orchestrated advertising campaign to convince American drivers that grain alcohol was no longer a modern, fashionable fuel."[7]

It is possible to use solar energy directly to run cars. However, on a global basis this is simply not a feasible option.

Some car manufacturers are developing battery powered cars, "Chrysler, Ford and General Motors have joined forces and will spend $130 million on research co-ordinated by their Advanced Battery Consortium during the next 4 years. The companies were shocked into action in 1990 when California passed a law stating that 2% of new cars sold in the state must be emission free by 1998."[8] The most advanced models today can do 100mph but, after a 60 mile journey, the battery needs recharging - typically taking two to three hours. Electric cars could obtain solar energy from a wide range of sources.

“In the United states, there are signs that solar power generation may be aproaching the point where it can compete economically with oil, gas and coal. At least, the Enron Corporation, the largest natural-gas company in that country, is betting that that day comes sooner rather than later. Enron is investing $150 million in a solar power plant in the desert of southern Nevada which will produce sufficient electricity for a (new? ed) city of 100,000 people (and their cars? ed). The plant will be over ten times larger than any previously built and that means that the costs of the solar-power cells will drop as a result of mass production.”[9]

Oil wells could be replaced by wind farms to generate electricity for battery operated cars.

Wave power could also be used to generate electricity.

Hydro-electric power could be used to generate electricity.

Manure from humans and factory pharm Animals could be used to produce electricity, “A pioneering London based firm called Fibrowatt has already set up two power stations fuelled by poultry litter. Rupert Fraser, finance director of Fibrowatt, said the company’s new stations at Eye, suffolk and Glanford, South Humberside would be competitive within five years. And he added, “As it is we are producing energy from a genuinely renewable source and with significant environmental benefits.””[10]; “In December the government finally announced its first round of support for renewable energy in Scotland. The Scottish Renewables Obligation gives the go-ahead to 30 projects: 12 wind farms, 15 small hydro schemes; 2 landfill gas projects and a biomass project - utilising 110,000 tonnes of poultry farm litter.”[11]

Organic waste consists of household rubbish such as food waste, paper etc., which could be used to generate electricity.

Crops could be grown to provide fuel to generate electricity. However, this would be a waste of resources since Phytomass could be used more efficiently as a fuel rather than as a source of electricity.

The following geocentric analysis is only a sketch of some of the many factors involved in assessing the geophysiological damage caused by solar electric cars. A comprehensive analysis is not required for the purposes of this article.[12]

The manufacture of solar electricity generating equipment would take place in factories which suffocate the Earth’s life support system.

The manufacture of solar cars would take place in factories which suffocate the Earth’s life support system.

Vast areas of land might be damaged to provide solar electricity for cars e.g. turning over land for the growing of energy crops; inundating land under reservoirs to producer hydro-electric power, etc.

The manufacture of solar electricity equipment would entail atmospheric pollution.

The manufacture of solar cars would entail atmospheric pollution.

Some sources of solar energy would not cause atmospheric pollution e.g. wind power, but other sources would, e.g. hydro-electric power.

Battery driven cars would not produce exhaust emissions. However, the disposal of batteries would cause pollution.

Some commentators believe the electric car is one of the best prospects for a cleaner future. David morris points out that, "Astonishingly, even now electric vehicles are cheaper to own than gas vehicles. EVs do cost more, and their battery packs must be replaced every 3-4 years. But their fuel costs less than half that of gas powered cars. And, aside from checking battery water levels once a month, EVs need no maintenance. Gas engines have 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. EVs do not need pollution control devices, cooling systems, mufflers, spark plugs or fuel pumps."[13] He is so enamoured by the electric car he fantasizes, "Electric cars can eliminate the pollution costs of vehicles."[14]

This section is included not because natural gas is a form of solar power but because this fuel is an important precursor to biogas. If biogas ever becomes popular it will inherit much of the natural gas infrastructure.

The reason for the increasing interest in natural gas powered cars is the availability of colossal quantities of natural gas. Natural gas is to be found in most of the world’s oil deposits. It has been suggested that gas reserves may prove to be even more abundant than those of oil.

Natural gas power stations cause much less damage to the Earth’s Phytosynthetic capacity compared to coal fired power stations, "The 1,875 MW Teeside power station (gas fired combined cycle heat and power station) occupies 23 acres compared to 800 acres for a coal-fired plant."[19]

The extraction and transmission of natural gas generates huge amounts of pollution, "The use of natural gas as an energy source liberates enormous amounts of methane. Natural gas extracted from gas fields is typically transmitted by pipeline to distribution centers or liquefied and shipped. During transmission to the user, gas is lost by leakage or venting. The rate of loss is poorly known, but estimates range from 1 to 5% in North America and europe and higher, possibly up to 10% in some centrally planned countries, especially the Soviet Union. The amounts lost to the atmosphere may be substantial, they may range up to 50 million tons per year."[20] The belief that american technology is superior to that in russian and thus loses only 5% may be a bit of cold war rhetoric, "Some American investigators believe that pipelines carrying the gas (to power stations) leak up to 10% of their contents. Since unburnt methane is a greenhouse gas, the pipelines may be a growing source of global warming as may gas vented from some oil fields."[21]

Gas powered cars release less pollution than petrol driven cars, “The International Gas Union .. found that gas produces up to 90% less nitrogen oxides (NOx) than coal or oil. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) also produces less ozone pollution, less carbon monoxide and less methane. CNG was found to produce 80-90% less greenhouse gases when used in vehicles."[23] Brutish gas claim that natural gas vehicles are .. “environmentally friendly because they can reduce carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions up to 70% and reduce emissions of sulphur and particulates to almost zero ..”[24].

It is time to look at the geophysiological damage which could be caused by biogas cars. Biogas can be generated either through Biomas (Manure) or Phytomass.

Just as was noted above with the creation of plantations for Phytomass crops to generate electricity, vast areas of land might have to be turned over to the growing of crops to produce biogas.

Biogas would be less polluting than natural gas since it would not have to be extracted from oil deposits. In addition, the risks of gas escapes during the transmission of biogas would be smaller than the risks involved in transmitting natural gas, since biogas could be produced in a far more decentralized way than natural gas. Biogas might not need as extensive a transmission system as natural gas. Unfortunately, decentralized sources of biogas would increase the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity.

"The potential for CO₂ reduction is said to be in the region of 19% when CNG is derived from natural gas and 100% when it is derived from biomass. The latter however gives rise to the release of methane, another potent gas."[25]

As far as biogas developed from Phytomass is concerned, it is argued that the amount of pollution created by biogas powered cars is irrelevant because it would be balanced by the growth of Plants needed to provide further supplies of biogas. There would be a balance between Carbon emissions and Carbon absorption which would not harm the Earth’s life support system. However, there are a number of problems with this alleged ecological harmony. Firstly, the methane cycle is much more extended than the Carbon dioxide cycle. When Carbon dioxide is released it can be taken up immediately by Photosynthesis but this is not the case with methane which has to be broken down into Carbon dioxide before it can be taken up by Plants. This boosts global warming. Secondly, there is currently too much Carbon in the atmosphere so unless this excess is removed first, a biogas cycle would simply boost geophysiological damage. Thirdly, there are climatic conditions under which it would be dangerous to have a balanced Carbon cycle in which Carbon emissions equal Carbon absorption. Because the Earth’s climate changes over the millenia, the biogas Carbon cycle would have to be regulated in such a way as to help stabilize the climate.

Natural gas powered cars are by no means as rustic as electric cars. The ‘profile’ is a gas fired, high-tech, futuristic so-called green car. Unfortunately, although it’s a new concept in cars it’s hardly a new concept in motoring - if anything it’s worse than what exists already, “A new 150mph high performance car from Ford runs on natural gas as well as unleaded fuel. The Profile’s 240 horsepower all-aluminium, 24 valve, 2.5 litre V6 engine is fuel injected and supercharged, has achieved an average top speed of 150mph during testing. The Profile’s sunroof incorporates a solar panel which provides up to 30 watts of continuous power on a sunny day.”

There are three main bioliquid fuels; ethanol, methanol and esters. Ethanol derives from sugar beets, maize (corn), cereals, and potatoes, and can be mixed with regular petrol. Methanol is a wood alcohol. Esters come from oilseeds and can be mixed with diesel fuel, “Another form of plant-based motor fuel is ‘biodiesel’ - essentially vegetable oil derived from a variety of energy crops.”[26] All three bioliquid fuels can also be produced by synthetic means. The united states’ oil industry manufactures methanol.[27] In addition, "alcohols can also be made from biomass such as various types of organic waste, including most household rubbish."[28]

There are already a large number of cars around the world which run on ethanol or ethanol mixed fuels. Brazil has funded a massive ethanol industry to supply fuel for domestic cars. One admirer of brazil’s home-grown energy industry provides an extremely rosy view of its achievements - less pollution, no contribution to global warming, a massive saving in oil imports, "The world's biggest experiment in alternative fuel, Proalcohol, was set up in 1975 as a response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, and now provides ethanol from sugar cane to power around one-third of Brazil's 12 million cars. It produces fewer pollutants and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. (sic) (But) world oil prices have fallen so far as to make ethanol too expensive without government subsidies. A motor running a car on ethanol produces 20-30% less Carbon monoxide and insignificant levels of sulphur; the two fuels generate roughly equal amounts of hydrocarbons (from unburned fuels) but unburned ethanol is non reactive and so does not contribute to the formation of photochemical smogs. Ethanol run cars generated 15% less nitrogen oxides. The production of CO₂ by ethanol-run vehicles is balanced by absorption in new cane. Gasohol cars run on 78% petrol-22% ethanol. Roughly $9 billion was invested in increasing cane production and building around 600 distilleries. Car adaptions to run on ethanol cost $500 per car. Over the last ten years, Proalcohol saved the country an estimated $20 billion in oil imports."[29]

Just as was the case with biogas, vast areas of land might have to be converted to growing crops to produce ethanol. It has been suggested that in europe, “Surplus agricultural land could be made available for cultivating both oil crops and plant-based alcohols.”[30] In brazil, "Local production of ethanol provided a crop for 10% of Brazil's farmland .."[31] "More than 6 million acres of the best agricultural land are now devoted to feeding cars .."[32] It has been estimated that .. “each alcohol distillery needs about 15,000 acres of land to be viable ..."[33]

The land on which distilleries are constructed would no longer be capable of carrying out Photosynthesis. In brazil there are around 600 distilleries.[34]

One commentator has argued that, “The potential for reducing CO₂ emissions by switching to biofuels is considerable.”[35] Other commentators argue, "From an emissions point of view, both ethanol and methanol (fuelled cars) produce fewer of the toxins associated with petrol engines, although carbon dioxide levels are often higher and formaldehydes are much higher than with petrol. Furthermore, fuel efficiency is reduced."[36]

It has been suggested that if cars ran on ethanol there would be net zero emissions of CO₂ - just as is the case with biogas derived from Phytomass - because CO₂ pollution would be reabsorbed by the Plants producing ethanol, “In principle, a biofuel plantation which grows as rapidly as the vegetation is removed can have almost zero net emissions of CO₂”[37]; “It (ethanol) produces fewer pollutants and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.”;[38] .. "if the alcohol is produced from crops, as in Brazil, the carbon dioxide released can be equivalent to that absorbed by the growing crop in the first place, so that there is no net increase in carbon dioxide."[39] The problems which afflict this scenario are the same as those outlined above for biogas.

The conclusion of the Carbon cycle analysis given above is roughly confirmed using an energy analysis, “The net energy obtained from biomass is the energy obtained from using the fuel, less the energy expended in growing the biomass, harvesting it, converting it to the fuel and transporting it to the point of use. (Comparing) the estimated energy costs of producing ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil and in southern USA. The amount of ethanol produced per hectare was similar in the two regions. The energy costs on the farm include not just the fuel used by the tractors and other machinery, but also the energy used to make that machinery, to make ammonium fertiliser and pesticides chemically, to mine and transport other fertilisers. The energy in the food eaten by the farm workers is also included, but is a small proportion of the total. In Brazil the total energy used on the farm was nearly a quarter of the energy content of the ethanol produced, and in Louisiana it was nearly a half. The difference betwee the two areas was partly due to greater use of fertilisers and pesticides in Louisiana, and partly due to more use of machines there and less of human labour. Another major energy cost arises because (of distillation). The energy required for this is more than half the energy content of the pure alcohol. The result is that in Louisiana the total energy expended to obtain the ethanol is more than the ethanol contains, so no energy is actually gained; the amount of energy is a negative number. In Brazil the net energy is a positive amount .. about one-fifth of the total energy in the ethanol.”[41]

It has been noted above that in brazil, “Over the last ten years, Proalcohol saved the country an estimated $20 billion in oil imports."[42] Alternatively it has been calculated that, “Brazil obtains .. 28% of its energy needs from sugar cane biomass reserves. This represents a major saving on petrol imports amounting to US$8.9 billion from 1976 to 1985.”[43] (This estimate ignores the use of fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, etc. etc.). However, in terms of government subsidies, growing sugar beet to feed cars is more expensive than using petrol, "Local production of ethanol provided a crop for 10% of Brazil's farmland and employed 850,000 people. The product was so successful that, until last year, 90% of all new cars sold in Brazil ran on it. Since 1985, the state has spent $10 billion on subsidizing consumption, because each barrel of alcohol costs about $30 more to produce than one of imported petrol."[44]

The comparative cost of ethanol is also high. The land could be used for better purposes than growing sugar beet, "Brazil has 8 million cars running on a mixture of petrol and ethyl alcohol. More than 6 million acres of the best agricultural land are now devoted to feeding cars .."[45] Politically, the consequence of creating sugar cane plantations for cars is a considerable shift in political power .. “because each alcohol distillery needs about 15,000 acres of land to be viable, production has fallen entirely into the hands of large plantation owners."[46]

There also seems to be an experiment in brazil with methanol, "In Brazil, where yields average 12 tons per hectare annually, eucalyptus is cultivated for charcoal and for methanol production. To supply a plant with sufficient feedstock to manufacture 1,000 tons of methanol a day, 72,000 hectares of eucalyptus must be harvested on a 7 year cutting cycle."[47]

No details.

The main anthropogenic health problem caused by methanol is its carcinogenic emissions, "methanol suffers the handicap of causing its own special exhaust emissions, most notably formaldehyde which not only smells vile but is high on the suspect list of carcinogens." [48]

The intensification of agricultural, and factory, pharming brought about by the european agricultural policy has created a vast area of surplus agricultural land. In many countries pharmers are taking the opportunity to use this land to grow rapeseed to provide biodiesel. In germany, "Biodiesel, the alternative fuel derived from rape seed .. could displace as much as 400,000 tonnes of fossil fuel a year in Germany - equivalent to 640,000 tonnes of CO₂ - which is 0.5-0.7% of the country's total emissions .. and would cost 1.1 billion DM (£400million). Set aside land can be used to grow biodiesel."[49] In great brutland, oilseed rape is the country’s fastest growing crop. In 1984 only 61,000 tonnes were harvested where by 1993 it had leapt to 1,300,000 and now constitutes a £350 million business for brutish farmers.

No details.

The large scale conversion of the car, and car related, industries from fossil fuels to solar power would produce a massive amount of pollution. As an indication of the scale of the pollution that could be released, it has been estimated that, "It will cost $55 billion to set up a methanol supply infrastructure - everything from production plants to forecourt pumps - in the US alone."[50] The alternative power industry would be a continual source of CO₂ emissions but its biggest threat would be to the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. Whilst it would be possible, as greenpeace suggests, to abolish fossil fuel emissions, and thereby dramatically reduce the greenhouse effect, it would cause a huge boost to ecological devastation and thus global warming. In the end it could prove to be every bit as destructive as fossil fuels.

* Vast areas of land would have to be covered in crops to provide Photofuels for consumers, and perhaps even supergreens, to drive to out of town hypermarkets. Every unexpropriated bit of land around the world could end up being covered in monocultural Phytomass crops to meet the ever-growing demands for this ‘environmentally-friendly’ form of energy. This is already happening in brazil where sugar cane is grown to produce ethanol and is starting to happen in europe where rape seed is an increasingly common sight in many countries. Increasing agricultural productivity has created huge areas of surplus agricultural land in europe but rather than being allowed to return to Wilderness areas attempts are being made to provide work for redundant pharmers by encouraging them to grow Phytomass.

* Deserts will be covered in solar power stations.

* Wind-swept beauty spots will be blotted by wind pharms and their soul-mates electricity pylons.

* Whilst even greens have come to recognize the ecological devastation caused by large scale hydro-electric dams, many still promote small scale hydro-electric dams on smaller rivers. These dams could cause considerable disruption to aquatic ecologies.

* Manure produced by factory pharming could be used to produce biomass energy either in the form of electricity or biofuels. The greater the number of factory pharmed Animals, the greater the amount of Manure they would produce, the greater the energy that could be created, and the greater the profits. In other words, green cars give an economic boost to factory pharming and, consequently, factory pharming makes green cars feasible. Green consumers driving out for a beefburger could, in the future, congratulate themselves for the fact that by eating meat they were also increasing the supply of ‘ecologically friendly’ biofuels in a world of increasingly scarce fossil fuels.[51]

A number of commentators believe that green cars will, ultimately, have to be run on hydrogen, "A truly clean fuel seems impossible, but does in fact exist."[52] It has also been noted above that hydrogen powered vehicles would play an increasingly major role in greenpeace’s fossil free future, “Solar electric and solar hydrogen systems were assumed to .. meet 30% of fuel use in 2030 and 80% in 2100.”[53].

Natural gas can be used to provide hydrogen, “The cheapest source of hydrogen at present is natural gas ...”[57]

Hydrogen can also be obtained by passing an electric current through water. This technology was discovered a mere two decades ago, “Japanese scientists A Fujishima and K Honda demonstrated in 1972 that solar energy could be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The process involved converting solar energy into electricity and then passing it through water.”[58] All the sources of electricity mentioned above could be used to provide electricity to produce hydrogen. Fred pearce supports the construction of small-scale hydro-electric dams to generate hydrogen.[59]

The ecological damage caused by the generation of electricity for battery driven cars, which was outlined above, is similar to that which would occur for the generation of hydrogen. Vast areas of land could be turned over to energy crops to produce electricity and then hydrogen.

The pollution released by the generation of electricity for hydrogen would be similar to the pollution released for the generation of electricity for battery driven cars, “As with electric vehicles, the level of CO₂ emissions from hydrogen powered vehicles depends critically on the source of fuel.”[60]; "Liquid hydrogen produced from coal increases the CO₂ equivalent emissions by 143%; whereas hydrogen from non-fossil fuels would reduce CO₂ by 100%."[61]

A number of commentators suspect that, in the short term, natural gas will succeed oil as the world’s primary fuel.[62] It is believed this will pave the way for the creation of a hydrogen fuelled society.[63] “First, and most imperative, is the necessary change from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Natural gas can be substituted for petroleum, and it releases far less damaging exhaust. Although its use would not finally solve our energy problems, the first step in the right direction would seem to be to turn to it as a substitute for other fuels. Transition from natural gas to hydrogen would then be possible by methods already projected by engineers, and hydrogen burns without any detrimental atmospheric emissions.”[64] Natural gas is likely to play a vital role in the transition from conventional fossil fuelled societies to alternative powered societies for two reasons: firstly, the vast abundance of natural gas and, secondly, the ease with which natural gas can be replaced by both hydrogen and biogas.

The shift from a conventional fossil fuelled society to an alternative powered society reliant primarily on hydrogen will not lead to the emergence of sustainable societies. On the contrary, it will be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. If hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future it will give a renewed justification to nuclear energy. In a hydrogen fuelled society there is a high degree of compatibility between nuclear, and solar, power.[67] It would be relatively easy to add nuclear power to a solar based economy. Nuclear power would be one of the most efficient ways of mass producing hydrogen. The fact that solar energy is not evenly spread around the world means there would be a considerable temptation to use nuclear power to generate hydrogen in temperate regions.[68] Ted trainer has highlighted the utter absurdities of setting up solar power stations in tropical regions to produce hydrogen and then transporting hydrogen to over-industrialized nations in temperate regions, “An integrated global solar electrical supply system might consist of many plants north and south of the equator to take account of the seasons. However, significant transportation costs could arise. It is 8,000 km from 15 degrees south of the equator to Britain. One form of transportation would be as liquid hydrogen. Liquefaction for transport in tankers would use energy equal to 30% of the energy in the gas, so that the overall energy efficiency of a liquid hydrogen system would be around 3.5%. Therefore to provide 24 million kwh of electrical energy per day in Europe would require collection of 685 million kwh in the form of solar energy. In a region averaging 6 kwh/m²/day this would require 114 millon square meters of solar collectors. More promising might be the generation of electricity at low latitudes and its transmission via very long high voltage cables, requiring only storage to supply night time demand.”[69]