This column is the direct result of one of our reader’s comments about journalists overstating the performance of alternate fuels such as biodiesel. I understand his frustration about the misinformation that’s out there. It’s very difficult to make any decision about alternate fuels if you can’t trust the information you’re given. Perhaps I should share some of my background so you readers can better understand my philosophy on energy and alternate fuels.

You can tell from my writing I’m not a journalist—I’m actually a physicist. I hold a Master’s degree in Engineering Physics from the University of Missouri. I’ve spent over 33 years as a fuels and lubes scientist. I’m also a motorhead who still co-holds the Shell Mileage Marathon fuel economy record.

As a scientist, I always search for the truth because I, like you, despise misinformation. Fleet Equipment asked me to be a columnist because they knew I would try to cut through the B.S. and give you the facts to the best of my ability.  

Let’s discuss some of the misinformation that’s out there. My neighbor, who gets all of his information either off the Internet or from magazines, recently showed me an article in NASA Technology Briefs. The author claimed that trucks were going to obtain 20% better fuel economy because of recent aerodynamic improvements.  The author, who obviously knew nothing about trucking, gave NASA all the credit for these developments.

This well-intentioned, but woefully uninformed journalist claimed that 20% aero gains would result in 20% better truck fuel economy. I had to explain to my neighbor that his article would make good fertilizer. First, only half of the vehicles out there could actually measure aero-related fuel economy gains, because vehicles that change speeds frequently are affected much more by weight (F=ma) than aerodynamics. Second, aerodynamics is only one of several components of over-the-road fuel economy. A 20% reduction in aerodynamic drag might be expected to yield at best a 7% fuel economy gain. Third, truckers are reluctant to install aero devices that might interfere with vehicle loading or maintenance.

Neither the author nor my neighbor had ever considered anything as practical as commerce, so my neighbor probably went home cursing me for not being “green.” I actually began to feel sorry for those who are trying to “green up” our world without one iota of commercial or practical knowledge. It’s not that these people are purposely lying; they just start with the conclusion and accept only that data which promotes their interests. NASA needs to promote their R&D efforts at every chance to obtain grant money. As someone once said, “You’ve got to follow the money.”

Let me give you another example. We constantly hear the statement that fully electric vehicles produce zero emissions. Where do the well-meaning people making these statements think that electrical power comes from? There are very few sources of power that produce zero emissions, and the only one I‘m aware of that produces sufficient zero emissions is nuclear power. We have to get over our fear of nuclear power.

I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter called the Green Chip Review. Its creators recently made the statement that over 10% of our nation’s energy needs are supplied by alternate sources. Excuse me, but I’ve never heard such an unbelievable claim. Thousands of “green” supporters out there now probably think that statement is true.

It’s very difficult to obtain factual information these days when, it seems to me, most authors are only giving you the information that promotes their self-interest. And there is a plethora of information to digest before even a logical, practical, technical person can reach a sound conclusion.  I’ll try to help.

Next month we’ll discuss some basic energy/fuels facts.

Editor’s note: Part two of this series will be published in the July issue of Fleet Equipment.