Transportation Fuel: The Last 120 Years
From my colleague Fred Roeschke:
Very little-known fact about Henry Ford:
When he designed and built his first vehicles and factory, all of his engines were designed to run on corn ethanol ( ! ) …yup – biofuel… Like the German engineer Diesel, whose engines were designed to burn peanut oil, Ford’s motors would have kept the economic power of fuel production in the hands of farmers. However, in an incident untold by modern history, Rockefeller (an oil man in a big way) virtually single-handedly lobbied congress to pass Prohibition – thereby outlawing the production of ethanol (even for fuel) to leave his gasoline product as the only option for Ford’s motors. Ford fought this monopoly for 12 years, and then gave up – in year 13, Prohibition was repealed.
Similarly, Mr. Diesel suffered a mysterious fate when – already wealthy and bouyed by prospects of further successes with new negotiations in England – he disappeared off a ship crossing the channel and his floating body was found days later by fisherman… Shortly afterward, Standard Oil fielded a petroleum fuel for the engines he designed – and called it “Diesel Oil”.
Remember the Red Cars of LA? Thank Gulf and Goodyear for the disappearance of the greatest, cheapest and most efficient public transit system in the world at that time.
There’s a great documentary film out – “Fuel” … A reviewer in Texas wrote, “No one in America should see this movie!” I saw it, found it very well-produced and compelling, and was quite uplifted by the number of options available to get our fatally addicted nation off of petroleum. It was voted Audience Choice at Sundance.
Craig,
For an intelligent person, you do seem to gather some oddball ” colleagues” !
Fred Roeschke, appears typical of the average enthusiastic conspiracy theorist. In the world of such people, two and two don’t just equal five, it equals whatever number fits the parallel dimension they inhabit.
Unfortunately, reality is often less exciting than the fiction of distorted reality.
1) It’s not a “little known” fact that Henry Ford was initially interested in bio-fuels. (He grew up on a farm). Every book written about Henry Ford for the last 80 years mentions this information, including Wikipedia !
2) Rudolf Diesel was not wealthy at the time of his disappearance. He left his wife a bad containing 200,000 German marks in cash, but his bank accounts were empty and he was heavily in debt.
3) Oil became the fuel for transport because it was plentiful, cheap with superior energy storage and lubricant properties.
4) The idea that prohibition was created by Rockefeller to stop ethanol, is just ludicrous !
5) The LA “red car” transport system, was not “greatest, cheapest and most efficient public transit system in the world at that time” ! Like the idea of ” prohibition” , Americans have a tendency to assume America is the “World” ! (As in ‘world series base ball) .
Street cars, (tramways) were abandoned all over the world as cities grew in size, and developed suburban patterns better suited to motor transport.
The GM, Goodyear, Gulf conspiracy theory, has a little truth, but is wildly exaggerated. The theory ignores the fact many Street-car companies, (even utilities) were already obsolete, unpopular and bankrupt on a world wide basis. GM, Goodyear, Gulf may have been happy to hasten their demise, but very few cities experiencing large scale suburban growth cared about retaining Tramways.
6) The creation of the US corn-Ethanol industry has led to a massive economic and environmental catastrophe in the US and extended to a tragedy of unbelievable proportions in other parts of the world.
It’s arguable that the effects of the US ethanol mandate have produced more harmful environmental effects than the entire oil industry, for no discernible benefit.
Craig, you really should be more discerning about endorsing the views of such cranks.
The trouble with all these troubling facts is that repeating them makes you sound like a “conspiracy theorist.” Then you begin to mention the conspiracy for which there was an actual conviction (“National city lines,” aka “The great American Streetcar Scandal,”which you referred to) and people still walk away shaking their heads. People simply don’t want to believe they live in that kind of a world.
If you do have some suspicions and want to read a book rather than enjoy a movie I would highly recommend “Internal Combustion” by Edwin Black which I found especially rewarding several years ago.
Breath,
Actually, the 1949, conviction of General Motors, Standard Oil of California, Firestone and others was for conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by NCL and other companies.
General Motors, Standard Oil of California, Firestone were actually acquitted of conspiring to monopolize ownership of the transit companies.
The penalties were purely nominal. The corporations fined a mere $5000 each and the individuals involved only $1 each!
The demise of the famous Red Car Street Cars had little to do with General Motors, Standard Oil of California, Firestone etc.
Red Car Lines problems began twenty-fives years earlier in the 1920’s, when they began to prove too slow, uneconomic and were progressively replaced by buses on many routes .
In the 1930’s a proposal by the politically powerful, the Automobile Club of Southern California, called for a freeway/Motorway System. An important element of the proposal was dismantling all streetcar lines and introducing buses.
By 1938, the Red Car Line had dramatically decreased in size and finances, resulting in a series of amalgamations and bankruptcies. WW2 provided a respite, due to petrol rationing and an influx of patronage, but after 1946 decay became terminal.
Red Car Lines wasn’t alone, over the next two decades hundreds of cities across the world also abandoned Tramways.
I’m very lucky to live in a city (Melbourne, Australia) where thanks to the stubbornness and foresight of the Conservative Premier in office from 1955 – 1972, the city retained an extensive tramway (street car) network (the world’s largest) while also retaining and extending it’s extensive electrified suburban rail network.
The book “Internal Combustion” by Edwin Black is a well constructed, well written, example of how to construct a seemingly plausible conspiracy theory.
Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn, and t facts omitted, make the book a work of fiction, of not a factual account.
The demise of early electric cars was due not to any bizarre conspiracy theory, but an increase in the quality of road networks, and most importantly the introduction of the self-starter in the 1913 Cadillac.
Over the years I have collected many historic EV models. ( total to date, 81 !) Among these are seven examples spanning 1887-1925.
With the advent of the self starter, gasoline models became so much more powerful, faster, more convenient, cheaper while providing greater range and refilling capacity.
No conspiracy, just superior technology.
The 1918 Milburn Electric Sedan, beloved by President Wilson, is a good example of why the electric car couldn’t compete. The Milburn’s speed was about 25-30 mph, and range less than 60 miles. It cost $2055 new.
In contrast, a 1918 Cadillac cost only $2590, while a Chevrolet cost $530 and a Ford Sedan cost $522. Electric technology just couldn’t compete.
I inherited a dilapidated, but intact, gigantic Electric Limousine ordered by my great great-grandfather in 1907. This behemoth weighs nearly 3 tons and was used for trips to the Railway station and back ( a round trip of 14 miles). The vehicle is unique and built by the same company who built early electric trains.
The vehicle also saw use on special occasions for visiting neighbors, hunting, shooting parties or electioneering.
Equipped with six wheels powered by six electric motors it was originally capable of 20 mph with a max range of 45 miles. Sadly the vehicles original batteries proved impossible (and dangerous) to restore or replace, so reluctantly we used modern computer controlled lithium battery technology, housed in the original battery covers.
Marco, it is an old comeback that transit companies were all corrupt and somehow deserved to be bought out, bankrupt and the assets sold off to make way for buss lines (that benefited the parent companies) While it may provide some justification to the petrochemical and business minded this does not completely counter the fact that the transit companies were providing a public interest that was not replaced by the bus lines. To your point, any vehicle that carries an energy storage on the vehicle will have limited range, these vehicles were a perfect response. Their significance was that they operated using transmitted electricity for unlimited range on their R/W. It also seems somewhat disingenuous and elitist: A bit like saying it is ok to spit on the homeless because they have not proven themselves worthy to stand on equal footing.
Building up highways is a bit of a chicken or egg situation. It is no secret that petrochemical companies lobbied for various road improvements including the national highway system which amounted to a huge subsidy that put virtually the final nail in the coffin of commercial rail. Similarly petrochemical companies may not have single-handedly created prohibition but again they lobbied heavily for it. I don’t think it was because they were somehow morally against drinking.
Edwin Black is a respected investigative journalist. You might not like this topic but this probably goes as much to describing your perspective as the capacity of his investigative efforts. As a writer, I appreciated his efforts and his style for its classic organization and logical conclusions far more than the more than the popular digressive style of some newer “best selling” authors I have recently read who try to cram in lots of personal anecdotes for popular appeal and a fictional seeming approach.
Ultimately we have to give credit to petrochemical companies for their bullying tactics and hard hitting, take no prisoners approach to competing in their energy niche. They have viciously seized upon every opportunity, every advantage and done very well for themselves. Isn’t that what business is supposed to be? When we question if the energy benefits were worth the price in infrastructure, pollution, foreign wars, national debt, military spending, missed opportunities and human health we are looking at petrochemical companies as evidence and questioning the concept of capitalism as it has evolved.
Breath,
Like most people with a strong commitment to a particular ideology, I think you make the mistake of trying to fit historical events into the prism of that ideology.
In doing so you create distortions by ignoring or dismissing contemporaneous opinions and factors, thus creating historical distortions.
Petrol companies in 1920 had no fear of competition from bio-fuels. The prohibition movement has it’s roots deep in America’s Puritan culture.
There is no evidence of any “oil Companies funding or even lobbying for Prohibition. This misconception comes from the often repeated claim that John D Rockefeller jnr, donated $4 million to the temperance movement.
Although the exact figure can’t be verified, and by 1919 John D Rockefeller was retired from the oil industry, he did support prohibition. John D Rockefeller was a lifelong teetotaler, a staunch Northern Baptist and heavily influenced by his very religious mother who was an early supporter of the temperance movement.
At the time, John D Rockefeller’s name was synonymous in the popular media with oil, and thus the myth arose.
I have no idea what you mean by the old transit companies being “corrupt”. Why does everything have to have a moral-ideological aspect?) , Isn’t it possible that some technologies just lose popularity because social dynamics change and newer technologies prove more convenient and competitive ?
Like Edwin Black, you seem disconnected to the aspirations of the ordinary person. When ordinary folk don’t share your ideological commitment, you attribute this to Machiavellian conspiracies.
For more than a hundred years the majority of ordinary consumers (especially Americans)have loved and been fascinated by the automobile.
Returning soldiers from two wars didn’t dream of coming home to live in a crowded tenement and catch a street car !
The dream of the English speaking nations was to own a detached suburban home and a car. Automakers spent a lot of time and money styling vehicles to please the aesthetic taste of the models consumer segment. It could be argued that the auto-mobile encapsulated the ideal’s of individualism, freedom, and democratic social mobility.
The explosion of distributed wealth created after WW2 was to satisfy these aspirations with a cornucopia of consumer goods that created vast economic growth and prosperity.
Very, very, few consumers, are interested in sharing a stark, puritanical, stoic lifestyle.
Again, there’s nothing “elitist’ about expanding the general prosperity of society. I’m not sure what relevance “spitting” on the homeless signifies. (I try to avoid contact as it only confuses the savage pack of hounds I always release when encountering the poor and homeless).
In 1910 there were more electric cars than petrol vehicles. Steam was still a contender with petrol taking third place in market share. I am glad you can look into your crystal ball and assure us that 10 years later petrol companies were not looking back and had no fear of competition.
Marco you do realize that you want to condemn my view of history and a researcher who spent a great deal of time and his reputation as biased … based primarily on your perspective. You have also chosen to attack the author rather than what he has said. That would tend to try and convince others they should not read what he has to say. I find this all a bit amusing. But I like your predictability at least and don’t especially feel any need to offer anything further on this.
Breath,
It doesn’t take a crystal ball to understand that oil companies had lost interest in worrying about any form of competition from electric vehicles.
By 1920, Oil companies were too busy building outlets !
Here’s the evidence ! Take the sales of Ford as an example,
1909 10,666 $825
1910 19,050 $900
1911 34,858 $680
1912 68,773 $590
1913 170,211 $525
1914 202,667 $440
1915 308,162 $390
1916 501,462 $345
1917 735,020 $430
1918 664,076 $490
1919 498,342 $495
1920 941,042 $395
1921 971,610 $325
1922 1,301,067 $319
1923 2,011,125 $364
These figures indicate the explosion in popularity for Gasoline vehicles and don’t even take into consideration the rapid expansion of Trucks and Agricultural vehicles powered by gasoline.
Sales of electric vehicles peaked in 1910-12. In 1912 there were 33,842 electric vehicles in the US, but by 1911, Ford alone produced as many vehicles, and by 1920 electric vehicles were less than 0.04% of motor vehicle sales ! In 1920, US gasoline vehicle registrations topped 10,000,000 units, from less than 25,000 a decade earlier !
Yeah, I reckon the Oil Companies would have felt pretty safe by 1920 !
Again, I support my criticism of Edwin Black for what he said, and more importantly, what he omitted. (I note you are unable to refute my facts).
My criticism of Edward Black is valid. He deliberately selects ‘facts’, that suit his hypothesis,emphasizing the vague and trivial, while carefully omitting or ignoring important evidence doesn’t suit his prejudices.
Breath, when I advance a proposition, I don’t do so without having completed at least a modicum of research! Unlike Edward Black, I try to gather all the facts and relevant information, then form a theory consistent with the most credible facts and without personal ideology or bias.
However, if someone can show me a fact or information I’ve inaccurately interpreted, or overlooked, I’m delighted to revise my thinking and grateful for the correction.
Marco, perhaps you confuse my inability to refute facts with an unwillingness to engage in a futile conversation. While you site reasons why an oil company should feel confident their history is replete with the opposite. Someone might conclude that fear is often irrational and rationality then doesn’t sometimes apply when it comes to motivations, the point you have also been trying to impress.
Popularity of a vehicle is not evidence of popularity for the fuel. As Craig (and a recent election) has often mentioned, a lack of choice is not a choice for the limited option.
While you criticize Black you have not once cited the book. I suspect you formed your opinions around a review of the book or the author and have never cracked the cover. On that basis you advise no one should ever look or even touch the book. And all this is only because I said I enjoyed reading a book.
Please don’t try and tell me “what you do.” Your writing is far better evidence of your perspective to allow me to form my own opinion. On that basis, yes, I have concluded it is useless to submit my reading choices to further criticism.
et tandem, while the argument is futile, to anyone else who might be following this thread there are some interesting observations. Arguments can be viewed on several levels, an emotional, logical and kind of a meta level. An attack against the speaker is on an emotional level. It strives to discredit without discussion of the merits. Logical analysis will always depend upon the flaw of what is considered apriori or self evident. Different perspectives will always start their logic from different starting points. A meta analysis (actually a term borrowed from a type of statistical analysis) depends much more upon what we want to achieve. Although it tries to escape fundamental differences it doesn’t necessarily arrive at a fundamental truth which often depends upon information or facts not in evidence.
I said I liked a book but more importantly it would be appropriate for some who might have a particularly Pollyannic view of the world. The opposite extreme would be those who view the world as harsh and cruel and who naturally feel brutal and uncompromising tactics are therefore justified. To personally attack my opinion or the views of the author is an emotional argument. This leads us to question motivation. Curiously sometimes when something is banned, like a book, especially on an emotional level it can sometimes become even more popular from those intrigued with “forbidden knowledge.”
We often feel very superior to the ancient Greeks and Romans who believed in capricious and immortal gods. Yet how different are we than those who set out on a 40year walk-about and immediately tried to replace the old gods with a new golden calf? We have created corporations which are amoral, immortal “persons” who we seem to be anxious to put in place as our ruler over our government and our lives. We therefore make them our defacto gods.
I could complain about petrochemical corporations in the same way that an ancient Roman might complain about Jupiter. But that corporation is doing what it was designed to do. If it is amoral, capricious, fearful, vindictive so what? This is what we wanted and have allowed. It is like a guard dog we trained to be vicious. It is serving its function. Petrochemical companies are just the junkyard dog doing what they were trained to do. “I don’t like the result” doesn’t have a logical place if I accept the apriori existence of corporations (or Jupiter,) and how they are presently defined.
It is only when we go outside of the apriori “truths” and examine externalities, private information and monopolistic influence we begin to understand how the marketplace has failed to become the place capitalism depends upon. It is a “rigged system,” we have created.
Ultimately our social failure is based upon some very human weaknesses. Coming from such a perspective the little logical arguments based upon different foundations of what is true all seems rather pointless.
So Marco, although you favor categorizations, (like many people,) of people and books, I suspect you are trying to put a pyramid into a square hole. It only seems to fit on one two dimensional level. I am a little more concerned with a multi-dimensional world.
Breath,
Hmmm…, let’s see if I understand you correctly.
Basically what you you appear to be saying is even when your information is proven to be inaccurate, your claims unsustainable, and your conclusions delusional fantasies, you would rather cling to delusions for ideological-philosophical reasons than revise your opinions .
Is that correct ?
I can understand that kind of reaction. Very few people enjoy having their faith challenged and forced to revise long held beliefs.
Your long, emotive dissertation displays ample evidence of your need to believe. Regrettably, such firmly held beliefs often leave you in the position of defending the indefensible.
Your claim “Popularity of a vehicle is not evidence of popularity for the fuel” just makes no sense on any level .
Between 1910 and 1922, three types of automotive technology were available. No evil conspiracy existed, no behind the scenes plot, the simple fact is obvious, the Internal Combustion Engine running on gasoline, rapidly became the superior technology! So spectacularly superior, it changed the world.
The idea that the oil industry supported Prohibition for fear of an already almost extinct electric car industry, is absurd ! Not only is there no evidence for such a proposition, but it makes no sense.
It’s true John D Rockefeller jnr, long retired and in a private capacity, supported Prohibition, but this support can be attributed to his life long teetotalism and sectarian religious beliefs.
I can also understand your support of Edward Black, since you both share the same desire to interpret aspects of history or events through the distorted prism of ideology-political philosophy.
Like Edward Black you see evidence of conspiracies where none exist. Simply claiming something must be true, because you want it to be true, or believe it should be true, won’t make it true. Like Black, you often use the sort of “cats eat meat, dogs eat meat, therefore dogs are cats”, reasoning he employs to justify conspiracy theories.
When your claims are challenged, disproved by real evidence you can’t refute, instead of graciously conceding, you resort to a condescending “I’m not interested in talking to unbelievers” !
On a wider scale, I would suggest this kind of “faith based” attitude has led to the present loss of support by the general public for environmentalism.
Please don’t think I’m singling you out and attacking you on a personal level, I don’t doubt you are a sincere and well intentioned individual.
Recently, I met with the production team from a documentary film company. The subject of their production was the plight of oceanic reefs. The earnest writers of the series attributed the death of Caribbean coral primarily to global warming.
However, reading through the scientific material, it became apparent that the best maritime advice attributed the decline in coral to be a decline in Parrot fish numbers, due to over fishing of Parrot fish.
When I pointed out that viewers might also recognize this anomaly, the reaction was hostile, ranging from the old argument that viewers are gullible, to the necessity of pushing the awareness of GW, even if irrelevant and inaccurate.
Again, I suggest it’s this kind of filtering information through ideological prisms, that destroys credibility.
Breath,
I love your use of,”et tandem”, it’s so good to see these terms still being employed.
To be honest, I thought it was a typo that I didn’t know how to correct, so I left it as is. My three-year career in Latin ended when I was 13, but could this mean “and both?” I can’t even find it online.
Craig,
Yes, the ‘et’ in ”et tandem”” should be “ad” as in ‘ad nauseum’. “et’ in this context really means “also”, but the term “et tandem ” is widely used in ecclesiastical Latin to mean in tandem, particularly in music, so Breath’s usage may well be correct. (no irony intended:))
yes Craig, you are correct as in “also and finally.”