Rasmussen Poll Finds 48% Likely To Buy Alternative Fuel Car Within Next 10 Years
17 June 2010
A new Rasmussen poll found that 48% of Americans are likely to purchase a car that runs on something other than gasoline within the next ten years; 45% say they are not likely to purchase an alternative fuel car.
Within those findings, 22% say will very likely purchase an alternative fuel car, with 13% not at all likely.
A Rasmussen poll in April found that while 17% are somewhat likely to buy an all-electric car, 75% are not likely to go that route.
Other findings include:
- 63% say gas prices will likely rise as a result of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
- 61% say that finding new sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy used (32%)
Alternative liquid fuel is a just short term non-sustainable fix to reduce oil imports. It will not cure oil and liquid fuel addiction but prolong the problem a few more decades. More efforts have to be directed towards partial and full vehicles electrification and the production of cleaner e-energy. It seems that China is taking the lead position in both areas. USA cannot drag its feet forever and Canada should not rely on high pollution tar sands
Posted by: HarveyD | 17 June 2010 at 09:51 AM
If M85 and FFVs stall the transition to PHEV/EV, then the desire was probably not that strong to begin with. Most think it is more important to find more rather than use less. The vast majority will NOT by an EV any time soon.
These are the facts and it is best to go with what will work. Wishing and hoping that everyone will go out and buy an EV right away will not get us to where we want to go...less imported oil.
Posted by: SJC | 17 June 2010 at 03:19 PM
The masses will shift to BEV's if they are cheap enough, both in price and maintenance.
Posted by: ejj | 17 June 2010 at 07:25 PM
E85 is a sop to the corn lobby, which then will oppose PHEV because it cuts the market for its sole product. If you pay any attention to TV (which I rarely do), you know the GM "Live Green, Go Yellow" campaign which touted big SUVs. The "flex-fuel" vehicles mostly run on gasoline, so they add to overall petroleum demand.
More to the point, every "flex-fuel" vehicle sold is a 10+ year commitment to supplying it with liquid fuel. The consumption of such things should be held to an absolute minimum, and people who want things like luxury cars should be made to pay to electrify the bulk of their vehicle-miles. We should keep the old ones running until we can replace them with something that takes at least 20 miles worth of electrons in lieu of chemical fuel.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 17 June 2010 at 08:24 PM
Of what value is the public's guess of what they will want in the next 10 years when they, AND THE EXPERTS, do not know what will be available.
Flex fuels will not provide "momentum" for liquid fuels, no matter what you see on TV.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 June 2010 at 10:44 PM
The problem is not liquid fuels per se; they are an excellent energy storage medium, dense and easy to handle. The problem is *fossil* fuels. There are long-term alternatives (corn ethanol of course is not one).
Posted by: richard schumacher | 18 June 2010 at 06:45 AM
I do not think that we need to debate corn ethanol, there seems to be consensus there. To me FFV/M85 is a bridge for the next 10 years. Most data shows that the U.S. buying public are not going to buy EVs in any great number any time soon.
We could say that we should go EV right away as the ultimate solution, so we should forget any other alternatives and put all of our effort into that. What happens if it falls short and we are in a bind? I believe that is a more likely scenario, so we need a bridge to buy some time and have some options. We will need a time span where technology can advance and buyer attitudes can change.
Posted by: SJC | 18 June 2010 at 06:55 AM
One other thought about driving forces. Why would people want PHEV/EV? For less imported oil, or cleaner air OR for their personal budget. If energy for my car costs me $2000 per year and rising but PHEV/EV can give me a $1000 per year budget for transportation energy, I am motivated.
People may talk less imported oil and/or cleaner air, but it is the personal cash flow that closes the deal, IMO. Green for the plant or green for the wallet can coincide. If that is the case, an FFV/PHEV would be attractive. I use less imported oil, there is cleaner air AND I spend less on energy for my car.
Posted by: SJC | 18 June 2010 at 07:10 AM
Use whatever "fuel" the public will embrace, to reduce imports.
Just "switching" to BEVs or FCVs is not the answer - any more than just ”switching” to fusion is the answer.
Neither one is ready.
Even corn ethanol might not be so bad for short term -
- - there are worse scenarios than farmers putting more acreage to food and refusing to sell acreage to housing developers. Just be sure to ease off on any corn ethanol subsidies.
When cellulosic pushes corn ethanol out (soon, I hope, really soon)– we have more corn on the market, more food - and lower costs and lower taxes.
That’s how the market works, as long as one of those evil BIG entities do not interfere and screw things up (like BIG oil, BIG 3, no, much more likely, BIG government)
Posted by: ToppaTom | 19 June 2010 at 08:09 AM
Cellulose processing may become the front end for existing ethanol plants. They remember when hedge funds got a hold of grain futures and the price doubled, many were in a bind from that. There is not much of an alternate futures market for corn cobs and stalks, although the future traders will probably try.
I look at cellulose as another revenue stream for the farmers. If I can get twice the money of each acre, half in grain and half in cellulose I am really bringing in the money. Maybe when that gets going we can all dial back some of the subsidies to large agricultural corporations.
Posted by: SJC | 19 June 2010 at 09:38 AM
We should be paying farmers to capture carbon. That's the one thing they can do which isn't really practical to do any other way (well, forestry). We can extract energy and other benefits from that carbon any number of ways (add biochar to the soil, convert excess stover to bio-oil for use as fuel or feedstock). The one thing we can't do with it is replace gasoline (there isn't nearly enough), so that's something we should give up right now.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 22 June 2010 at 06:53 PM