In San Francisco last week I happened to bump into a Tesla Roadster outside SF Green. The pictures are below, but I also wanted to highlight something Daryl Siry, VP of sales marketing and service for Tesla Motors said during the event.

Daryl commented that yes, $100K is a lot to pay for an electric car (he also mentioned the new Whitestar sedan would be around $70k), but he reiterated how expensive the technology is for small companies.

To bring the price down (which is the eventual goal), he said that Tesla Moors would be open to partnering with larger automotive companies who have the manufacturing capacity to offer lower pricepoints to consumers. In other words, Tesla could offer their drivetrain up for implementation into larger scale production, and everybody would win as a result.

Any auto manufacturers hear that? I’d sure love to see an affordable electric car sometime soon.

Posts Related to the Tesla Roadster and Electric Cars:

• Tesla’s First Electric Vehicle, 2008 Roadster, Now Under Production
• Tesla Motors Sues Fisker Automotive Over Electric Car Design
• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009

Photo Credits: Yours Truly, courtesy of Cristina at Huddler

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Nissan plans to sell electric cars in the US in 2010. Nissan’s chief executive, Carlos Ghosn, said the company was motivated to accelerate the development of battery-powered vehicles by high gas prices and environmental concerns. Nissan expects to expand to a globally-marketed fleet of 60 electric vehicles by 2012.

John O’Dell, senior editor of GreenCarAdvisor.com, noted that this was a major announcement for the auto industry: “Nissan is upping the ante tremendously. They are the first to put it on the line and say we’re going to have an all-electric vehicle for a certain market by a certain date.”

According to the NYT, Nissan will be the first auto manufacturer to mass market all-electric vehicles worldwide. Mr. Ghosn didn’t offer much in the way of details about specific models or production numbers (he said said it would only be “hundreds of vehicles” at first). The new products for the US market would be something along the lines of a new Maxima sedan, Cube small car, and a new version of Z-family sports cars.

Mr. Ghosn added to the predominant sentiment in renewable technology investment these days: “What we are seeing is that the shifts coming from the markets are more powerful than what regulators are doing.”

“We are not interested in some ‘Stars Wars’ prototype,” he said, “but in really bringing a mass market product that everybody can buy. It’s really a new chapter in the life of this industry.”

Posts Related to Electric Cars:

• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• Aptera’s $26,000 Electric Car and 300 MPG Hybrid Coming Soon
• Tesla’s First Electric Vehicle, 2008 Roadster, Now Under Production

Source: New York Times (May 13, 2008): Nissan Plans Electric Car in U.S. by ’10

Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons under GNU Free Documentation License.

I’ve heard of making fuel from wood before, but rarely does using wood as fuel come up. However, just today I was pointed to this site, hosted by a local radio station, with a real-life example of someone burning wood as a fuel in his truck.

I can’t say for sure how the system works, whether it’s dual fuel or the wood-burning supplies all the fuel the engine needs, but it doesn’t appear to be a hoax and is certainly interesting. Evidently, during WWII, there was some experimenting with alternative fuels (due to shortages caused by the war), and one of the results was the wood burning automobile.

I can’t comment on emissions, but something tells me this practice would be not the choice of people concerned about air quality or GHGs. Another problem I see is that wood is not very energy dense compared to liquid fuels, meaning you would need a lot of trees and a big “wood tank” to get any sort of range out of your wood-powered vehicle (WPV).

That said, this WPV is definitely on the neat side of things. For another real-life example, check out a truck that runs on coffee grounds.
See two more pictures below, and for more, visit this site.

Posts Related to Car Hacks and Alternative Fuels:

• A Truck That Runs on Coffee Grounds (and How Wood-Gas Powers Cars With Garbage)
• Car Hacker’s Hummer Gets 60 MPG
• How to Get 76 MPG
• Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
• The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs)
• MicroFueler Makes $1/gal Homebrew Ethanol From Sugar
• 376.59 MPG Car Found In Museum (It Was Built In 1959)
• Car and Driver Increase Pinto Fuel Economy with $11 of Ecomods
• Sick of Gas?: Convert Your Car To Run On Electricity

Image credit: Claire L. Evans at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Diesel Hybrid Electric Golf Doesn’t Make it out of the Showroom

It looks like VW won’t be sending a diesel hybrid to the US after all. VW announced the 70 MPG diesel-hybrid electric Golf at the Geneva Motor Show, but turned around in the March 27 edition of Auto, Motor und Sport to say they wouldn’t be building the car because it would be “too expensive.”

I’m not sure how this story slipped under the radar (except that the magazine is written in German), but the VW hybrid Golf’s demise is unfortunate. Pairing a clean diesel engine with hybrid system seems like the best of both worlds (especially for biodiesel users), but we might just have to rely on Mercedes and their diesel-hybrid SUV for now.

For more on what the car would have been, see A Biodiesel Prius? VW To Release 69.9 MPG Diesel Hybrid.

More on the cancellation of the car:

• TheTruthAboutCars: VW Diesel Hybrid Kaput; Golf VI Details Revealed
• AutoblogGreen: VW Golf TDI Hybrid probably dead in the water
• TreeHugger: Volkswagen Golf Turbo-Diesel Hybrid Too Expensive for Production

Post Related to Hybrid Diesel Electric Cars:

• 2009 Jetta BlueTDI Comes to US This Summer, Sports 60 MPG and Cleaner Emissions
• Mercedes 40-MPG Diesel Hybrid: Cleanest SUV on the Planet
• The World’s Most Fuel Efficient Car: 285 MPG, Not A Hybrid
• Germans Release 117 MPG Diesel Sportscar: Biodiesel, Anyone?

VW’s Jetta BlueTDI: 60 MPG, 90% Emissions Reduction for NOx

VW’s ultra-low emission Jetta BlueTDI will be coming to the US mid-summer, according to an announcement made late last month at the Vienna Motor Symposium.

This newer version of the Jetta will meet the strictest emissions standards in the world—BIN5/LEV2—which are enforced by 5 US states: California, Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and Vermont. BIN5/LEV2 standards severely cap nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions (0.05 g/mile), one of the two tailpipe pollutants that have given diesels a bad rap (that and particulate matter).

As it happens, Bin5/LEV2 standards are tougher than their European counterpart, the Euro-5, and VW had to custom modify the Jetta BlueTDI for the North American market. NOx reductions were met with internal engine modifications—some of which are “unique worldwide”—and a maintenance-free NOx exhaust trap. Altogether, this system reduces NOx emissions by 90%.

Combining clean emissions with a road-tested 60 MPG highway fuel economy could make this a winner in the US. Dr. Ing. Jens Hadler, Director of Volkswagen Powertrain Development commented:

[H]igh fuel prices and a dramatic change in environmental consciousness means that diesel is becoming more and more attractive for American drivers every day. This is why many customers, especially in California, have been waiting for a super-clean diesel like our BlueTDI. I think this motor will help the diesel get its big break in America because it consumes so little and yet can go such long distances on a single fill-up. And in a country as big as the United States, this is a priceless advantage. On the highway, for example, this engine can reach up to 60 miles per gallon. This is an improvement of 12 percent over its predecessor, which had a lower capacity and higher emissions.

Posts Related to VW Jetta TDI and other Diesels:

• A Biodiesel Prius? VW To Release 69.9 MPG Diesel Hybrid
• VW Confirms 1L Concept Will Become Reality in 2010
• Mercedes 40-MPG Diesel Hybrid: Cleanest SUV on the Planet
• Germans Release 117 MPG Diesel Sportscar: Biodiesel, Anyone?

[Via]

Photo Credit: VW

Before you get too excited, please note that the unit is probably too expensive for your next block party, unless you’ve got an extra $9,995 lying around somewhere. Fortunately, state and Federal tax credits can halve this, but that still keeps it out of the price range of the average American.

How could making ethanol be so expensive? As Thomas Quinn quipped, this is “third-grade science. You just mix together water, sugar and yeast, and in a few hours, you start getting ethanol.” That’s not the hard part; what’s difficult is purifying ethanol to the degree that it can be mixed successfully with gasoline.

Ethanol has been made from yeast-fermentation of grain, fruits, and vegetables for thousands of years. Distillation, which gets around the 15% alcohol concentration limit that kills yeast, followed shortly thereafter. Adding ethanol to motor fuel takes things one step further. To mix properly with gasoline, ethanol must be anhydrous (containing no water) at 100% pure, or 200-proof. Homemade ethanol stills can easily produce 95% pure, or 190-proof, ethanol. But getting that last 5% of water out of the ethanol can require just as much energy as it did to get out the first 95%.

It could be the ingenuity of putting several thousand years of knowledge into one box makes the MicroFueler so costly. It can fill its own 35-gallon tank with E100 (100% ethanol) in about a week by fermenting the sugar, water and yeast internally, then separating out the water through a membrane filter.

Compared to homebrewing biodiesel, which can be done with less than $100 worth of equipment, making ethanol for motor fuel seems complicated and expensive. While sugar appears to be a cheap, ubiquitous resource, according to one expert it takes 10 to 14 pounds of sugar to make a gallon of ethanol. Right now, raw sugar sells in the United States for about 20 cents a pound.

Although the cost of each gallon of ethanol produced in the MicroFueler depends on the price of sugar, electricity, and water, Thomas Quinn maintains that it can be made for somewhere around $1 per gallon. The company is trying to make inedible sugar available from Mexico, which can be bought for as little as 2.5 cents per pound.

I like the idea, but this probably isn’t something that will go mainstream unless the price comes down. If you want more information about homebrewing ethanol, or plans to make your own still (which would be substantially cheaper), see these resources:

• RunningOnAlcohol Library
• JourneyToForever Ethanol Resources

Posts Related to Ethanol and Biodiesel:

• Study: Your Car Can Run On 20% Ethanol
• 6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere
• Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: Twenty-Two Biodiesel Myths Dispelled
• Cellulosic Ethanol Sugar Diverted to Algae Biodiesel Production

Via: NYT
Photo Credit: Popular Mechanics

According to Swedish car safety specialist Claes Tingvall, GM has wrapped up a multi-year project which used dead human bodies instead of crash dummies. Specifically, the tests were made with Saab automobiles.

Tingvall told the Swedish Newspaper Expressen, that people had donated their bodies for the tests. He said the bodies aided researcher in better design of crash dummies, and, of course, see first-hand injuries sustained by human bodies in car accidents.

The article, in the English language website, The Local, says neither Saab or GM has acknowledged using human cadavers in any tests.

A Saab spokesperson, Christer Nilsson is quoted in Expressen as saying,

“We are with GM through thick and thin. We conduct our own research and try to find other methods to achieve our results, with the help of computers, for example.”

I might mention the image you see came from the pages of Expressen, and if you go there, I hope your Swedish is good. I found no way to convert to English.

May 6 was World Asthma Day. Since car exhaust can lead to asthma as well as global warming, we thought it would be a good day to highlight the importance of not idling your car or truck engine.

What makes idling especially bad for health is that drivers tend to idle in gathering places - by sidewalks, schools, playgrounds, homes, and offices. Breathing in pollution close to the source is more dangerous than farther away.

Take a look at the evidence.

Tailpipe Exhaust May Cause Asthma

Tailpipe exhaust from both gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles contains the pollutants that produce ozone when combined with sunlight and heat. Ozone occurs mostly during the summer months. A warming planet means more hot days, and thus more ozone.

Breathing in ozone irritates and inflames your lungs, and repeated exposure can reduce lung function. There’s a lot of evidence that ozone makes asthma worse. But the Children’s Health Study in California found evidence that ozone causes asthma. The study also found that children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing smog.

On top of that, diesel exhaust contains particulate matter (soot). This has long been known to cause a variety of health problems, including aggravated asthma (see CARB report on health effects [PDF]). But as with ozone, there is evidence that diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma, and not just worsen it.

California kids aren’t the only ones to suffer from tailpipe-induced asthma. A 2005 NYU Medical Center study showed that asthma symptoms among children in the South Bronx doubled on high traffic days.

Conversely, reducing ozone can improve asthma rates. During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the city closed downtown to private cars for 17 days. During this time, daily peak ozone levels dropped more than a quarter and hospitalizations for asthma fell by almost one-fifth.

Fight Global Warming, Save Money

There’s no reason to idle your vehicle engine. As I explained my previous post:

• Today’s engines don’t need a warm-up period.
• If you’re stopped for more than 10 seconds, it uses more gasoline to idle than to restart.

Many cities, including New York, have laws against idling, but they’re rarely enforced. We need better enforcement, but we can make a difference with our own actions and behavior.

So in honor of World Asthma Day, switch off that idling engine. You’ll curb global warming pollution, save money on gasoline, and help everyone to breathe better.

Image source: Wikipedia

There’s been talk about the VW 1L concept for years. Since VW built the original, fuel economy, safety, price, and release date has been speculated upon and argued about, and I’d finally stopped thinking it was ever going to happen. However, according to VW’s CEO, it should hit the market in 2010.

The VW 1L is so named because, in theory, it only consumes one liter of fuel per 100 kilometers traveled. For those of us in the US, this translates into about 235 MPG. Definitely far and above anything on the market currently. The concept, developed in 2002, actually got better fuel economy, scoring a sweet .89L/100km in VW testing. It’s likely to use more fuel in real world use, but with that kind of mileage in testing it’s unlikely that anyone would complain about an “unsatisfactory 200 MPG.”

The thing is, that kinda of fuel economy comes at the price of riding in an extremely small two seater, with the two seats being one in front of the other, a la jet plane, rather than a standard side by side. The 1L also looks frighteningly close to the ground, which is part of how it pulls off a drag coefficient of .159, much better than any current production vehicle. While the final design isn’t done, VW will probably power the car with a 1 cyclinder diesel engine of displacement lower the .5 L, meaning the car’s speed will top out at 120 km/h.

The other obvious issue is the one I’m sure you’re all wondering about too. How safe is this thing? While I’m not usually one to complain about small cars, the 1L is extremely light and low to the ground. If it were released in the US I could easily see it being run over by any old F150 or Hummer. Nothing is out right now about safety, but as the production date nears, I’m sure VW will be doing lots of testing to reassure the public.

2010 isn’t that far off, in fact, it’s about the same time the Volt is supposed to be hitting the streets, so you’ll likely hear a lot more good and bad about this car in the coming months.

Posts Related to VW’s 1L and other Green Car Technology:

• The World’s Most Fuel Efficient Car: 285 MPG, Not A Hybrid
• A Biodiesel Prius? VW To Release 69.9 MPG Diesel Hybrid
• The Sporty Future of Electrics Cars: the Lightning GT
• The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs)
• Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• Mercedes 40-MPG Diesel Hybrid: Cleanest SUV on the Planet
• Tesla’s First Electric Vehicle, 2008 Roadster, Now Under Production

Source: Motorauthority

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/yx3qonMjrnU" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Those cute little creatures shown in the video are represent what may be the future of carbon sequestration.

CARS is the acronym for Carbon Algae Recycling System, it’s a system under development in Canada to clean up tailing ponds and greenhouse gas emissions left by the Alberta Tar Sands project.

As the video shows, exhaust CO2 is pumped into algae-rich tailing ponds where it’s digested. The plumped-out algae, full of hydrocarbons and heavy metals, are harvested and turned into biofuels.

The Alberta Research Council, and several other research organizations are expanding their efforts to provide a sustainable, affordable way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

Once proven and considered economically feasible, could this become another wide-spread method of dealing with greenhouse gasses? Stay tuned.

Clean Burning Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) are hot commodities in some parts of the country, where fuel can sell for as low as $0.63 per gallon.

Unlike the world’s most fuel efficient car (VW’s 285 MPG bullet), the Honda Civic GX looks like a standard passenger vehicle. What makes it special is what you don’t see: tailpipe emissions that are often cleaner than ambient air.

The Civic GX is powered by compressed natural gas—methane—the simplest and cleanest-burning hydrocarbon available. With an economical 113-hp, 1.8-Liter engine, the EPA has called the Civic the “world’s cleanest internal-combustion vehicle” with 90% cleaner emissions than the average gasoline-powered car on the road in 2004.

And get this: in Utah, natural gas can be purchased for $0.63 per gallon.

At $24,590, buying a new Civic GX won’t exactly break your bank account, especially since up to $7,000 will come back to you in the form of state and federal tax credits. But don’t expect to find one easily. The car is only sold in two states, New York and California, and Honda can’t build them fast enough. One dealership said they have over 80 people waiting to buy.

It’s fairly obvious why densely populated states would be interested, especially since natural gas is a readily available source of heating fuel for many parts of the country. Most importantly, the Civic is the Eagle Scout of emissions certifications: it qualified for the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV) status, which means that it’s a Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) with zero-evaporative emissions. To qualify for AT-PZEV, the Civic must also carry a 15-year/150,000-mile warranty on emissions equipment. It also meets EPA’s strict Tier-2, Bin-2 and ILEV certification.

Despite getting the equivalent of a good but not quite amazing 36 MPG highway/24 MPG city, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) awarded the Civic the green ribbon as the greenest vehicle of 2008. That’s the fifth consecutive year it’s taken the top prize.

So what’s the downside?

Drawbacks to the Civic GX and other Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

Earlier this week I was clued-in to the explosion in popularity of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in Southern Utah, and their potential to overwhelm the 91 refueling stations already in place there.

That’s the biggest drawback to NGVs:

• There are only about 1,600 CNG stations nationwide (compared to 200,000 gas stations), though some areas (like Utah and California) are better served than others. To see where these stations are, see the alternative fuel locater from Mapquest (under #2 on that post).

One way to get around this is to buy your own natural gas refueling station. Since a large number of us burn natural gas for heat, this doesn’t require much more than setting up a pump. The refueling kits, made by FuelMaker, will set you back about $3,500, but that can be offset by substantial tax credits.

• Second drawback: since natural gas is a compressed fuel, the tank takes up some trunk space, and only holds the equivalent of 8 gallons of gasoline. Honda estimates the vehicle’s range to be 220 to 250 miles, although Consumer Reports claimed it was closer to 180 miles.

NGV enthusiasts are getting around range limitations (and vehicle scarcity) by converting their own vehicles to run on natural gas and adding spare tank capacity. Throwing extra tanks in the bed of a truck, for example, can boost driving range to around 600 miles. The best part about converting a vehicle (as opposed to the Civic GX) is that if you run out of CNG, the system automatically switches back to gasoline.

• Third drawback: NGVs don’t provide that great of a reduction in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions when compared to their gasoline counterparts.

According to the industry group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA), the reduction is only 20%, which is about the same GHG reduction you get from corn-based ethanol. That doesn’t sound too impressive, but it’s still a reduction, and clean air could be worth it.

The big question mark is natural gas supply. If large amounts of biomethane can be produced from biomass (which is probably already done at your local landfill), the emissions reductions would be much greater.

But What About Natural Gas Supply?

Natural gas supplies 20% of all energy use in the US. According to NGVA: “Even if the number of NGVs were to increase 100-fold in the next ten years to 11,000,000 or roughly 5% of the entire vehicle market (a formidable goal), the impact on natural gas supplies and the natural gas delivery infrastructure would be small — equating to about 4 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption.”

At first glance, that sounds pretty good, but any increase in natural gas usage means importing more fuel.

Taking a look at data from the Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 21.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, most of which is produced domestically (18.5 trillion cubic feet) with the difference being imported (4.2 trillion cubic feet). Proved natural gas reserves in the US amount to about 211 trillion cubic feet. If my math is correct, without taking into account any increase in demand, the US only has about 11.5 years of natural gas left. After that, we’re back to square one: importing oil from Russia, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia

Like petroleum, two-thirds of world natural gas supply exists in just a few countries. If we’re at all worried about having domestic (let alone renewable) energy sources, basing the future of US transportation on natural gas puts us right back in the same position we’re in now.

Also like petroleum, there is an “infinite supply” argument: “Don’t worry, we won’t run out… promise.” NGVA says that if we can tap into methane hydrate ice formations that exist under 1000 feet of water at the bottom of the arctic oceans, we’ll be just fine. Right now, this is about as plausible as time travel, and methane hydrates serve a very important function—they’re a crucial sink for carbon dioxide in the global carbon cycle.

Conclusions

Whether or not we’ve learned our lesson about importing foreign energy, natural gas could still provide a functional infrastructure and technology for transition to hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas is currently the number one feedstock for producing hydrogen, and refueling stations along California’s hydrogen highway may produce the fuel by reforming natural gas on-site. Basically, this gives us a transition fuel until we figure out how to make hydrogen sustainably.

As for the Honda Civic GX, it may be the cleanest-burning vehicle on the market, but the drawbacks listed above are likely to keep NGVs out of mainstream production for the forseeable future. It seems unlikely that natural gas will stay as cheap as it currently is in Utah, but relatively low pricing could keep the car’s popularity high in some areas. It will be interesting to see how things resolve there.

For more on the Honda Civic GX, see Honda’s Website and Consumer Reports. See more pictures below.

For more on Natural Gas, see Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country.

Posts Related to Alternative Fuels and Green Car Technology:

• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
• How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
• Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)

Photo Credit: Honda

Take a look at the latest video from Aptera, a guided tour of their factory:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Ogy6_KHE4A" width="425" height="355" wmode="transparent" /]

You can also see pictures of the facility here.

Related Post: Aptera’s $26,000 Electric Car and 300 MPG Hybrid Coming Soon

As has happened before, with gas prices continuing to climb, the demand for improved fuel economy will increase as well, and all manner of improvements and upgrades that promise to help get better mileage will be touted. Some offer real benefits; others are pure snake oil.

An improvement that offers both improved mileage and increased horsepower seems counterintuitive at first. After all, the tradeoff that hybrids and other economy vehicles offer seem to be one of reduced horsepower and acceleration in exchange for improved fuel economy. So how can you have both?

The Pulse Plug is a replacement spark plug that incorporates a capacitor (an “integrated circuit” according to the manufacturer) to increase the power of the spark that ignites the fuel. The manufacturer claims increases of 6 to 8 percent (which works out to about an extra 3 MPG for a Toyota Prius). While it would be misleading to draw a direct connection between the power of the spark and the power from the engine, after all, it’s not the spark that is propelling the vehicle, any more than the temperature of the match determines how hot the barbecue will be. But could a stronger spark provide increased power through a more complete combustion of the fuel? If so, then, at least theoretically, less fuel would be needed for the same level of power - more complete combustion would be cleaner (less unburned hydrocarbons through the tail pipe as well as less fuel used overall).

I’m not prepared to offer judgment about this one. The test results from several vehicles are varied, and in some vehicles, the improved performance was fairly slight. The testing procedure being reported is the manufacturer’s own method, rather than an independent third-party test, which always adds a degree of skepticism to any results. In general, the results seemed to show greater fuel economy improvement with smaller engines (VW Jetta GLI, 1.8L Turbo; Honda S2000, 2.2L; and 2005 Toyota Prius) while larger engines (Jeep Wranger Umlimited, 3.8L; Pontiac TransAm, 5.7L) had smaller improvement figures.

Improved mileage and fuel economy comes through numerous small improvements. I’d be more suspicious of anything that claimed a double digit improvement or more, unless it was clearly a radical modification. Even with the manufacturer’s limited testing, there are a range of results, and it may be that, for some vehicles, significant improvements such as this could be achieved. But I would want more wide range testing information before I invested $100 (or more) in a new set of spark plugs.

via: o2 Michigan mailing list

Posts Related to Fuel Economy and Car Technology:

• Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
• Coal-Power Can’t Stop Plug-In Hybrids From Beating Normal Cars
• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• U.S. Fuel Economy Standards Boosted to 31.6 MPG by 2015

General Motors announced today it would be entering into a strategic relationship with Mascoma Corp., a second-generation biofuel company with the technology to produce cellulosic ethanol from non-food sources via a single-step biochemical conversion.

The undisclosed equity share aims to contribute to joint research and development along with technology exchange, plant siting, and rapid commercialization of cellulosic ethanol technology and infrastructure. This is GM’s second investment in a cellulosic ethanol company, after announcing partnership with Coskata back in January.

Mascoma is a 3 year old energy biotech company based in Boston. Their proprietary production process, called Consolidated Bioprocessing, limits the use of chemicals and enzymes required by other biochemical methods to make cellulosic ethanol. There are two basic processing methods: biochemical treatment and gasification (see post on Coskata).

How Does Mascoma’s Cellulosic Ethanol Process Work?

During a conference call today, I asked Chairman and CEO of Mascoma Bruce Jamerson how their process differs from standard biochemical production processes. He described it like this:

Cellulosic ethanol feedstocks are usually broken down by some kind of pre-treatment, like a mild acid bath. At that point, the cellulose (which is basically a chain of glucose sugar molecules) is clipped apart into C5 and C6 sugars by enzymes. Those sugars are then fermented into ethanol by other microbes. Each of these steps take time, and money. The first step after pre-treatment, called hydrolysis, typically requires purchasing expensive enzymes. The best way to reduce the cost and throughput time would be to eliminate some of these steps.

Mascoma’s proprietary microorganims do all of the post pre-treatment steps at once, without the need for separate batches. The advantage of this is decreased throughput time, lower capital cost, and higher yields.

The other big difference about Mascoma is their pretreatment step, which essentially chops up plant material and uses a proprietary process involving heat, water, temperature, and mechanical action to prepare the plant material for digestion. Since it doesn’t use acids or bases to break down cellulose, it avoids chemical use and decreases waste materials.

Mascoma can make cellulosic ethanol out of any non-grain feedstock like switchgrass, corn stover, wood chips, waste wood material.

What are Mascoma’s Plans for Commericalization?

Mascoma is building a demonstration facility in New York, and hopes to have it operating by end of the year. The company is looking at 2010 or beyond before commercial scale facilities are operating.

Mascoma, like Coskata, is backed by Khosla Ventures, and has raised about $90 million in investments.

Is Mascoma Competing with Coskata for Biofuel Supremecy?

During a conference call today, Mary Beth Stanek of GM said that Coskata and Mascoma aren’t really competing with one another, since they offer complimentary approaches to producing ethanol. Bruce Jamerson commented that they’re glad GM is investing in both Coskata and Mascoma because there is such a demand for low greenhouse gas fuels.

How does Mascoma’s Ethanol Compare?

Mascoma said their fuel would incur approximately $1.00 to $1.50 per gallon production cost, completive with gasoline.

GM said they’ve thoroughly evaluated Mascoma’s environmental metrics, which include:

• Greenhouse gas savings: 90-95% reduction when compared to gasoline.
• Commercial stage water use: 2-3 gallons water per gallon ethanol produced (compared to Coskata’s 1 gallon).
• Commercial stage net energy balance: around 1:8-10 (8 to 10 units of energy produced for each put in). Mascoma says they’re currently getting an energy return of 1:5.5 in the lab.

Why Does GM Care so much About Cellulosic Ethanol?

It’s no mystery why GM is interested. They’ve already got 4 million Flex Fuel vehicles (those that can run on 85% ethanol) on the road, and any effort to rapidly commercialize cellulosic ethanol will help them in the long term.

For more on this topic, see GM’s Grand Plan For Solving America’s Oil Dependence.

Update: Mascoma receives $10 million in equity investment from Marathon Oil.

Posts Related to Cellulosic Ethanol, GM, and Coskata:

• World’s First Commercially Viable Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Online 2009
• GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Cheap, Green Ethanol?
• Video: Coskata Ethanol Announcement From Detroit Auto Show
• Switchgrass Could Displace 30% of US Petroleum Usage With 94% GHG Reduction
• First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Goes Online, Makes Fuel From Wood Waste
• More About the Coskata Process
• More on Plasma Gasification Technology
• Video: Breakfast with Rick Wagoner, Chairman and CEO of General Motors
• Coskata Announces Ethanol Plant for 2010
• A Birds-Eye View of the Coskata Ethanol Process… at CleanTechnica

As the automakers scramble to make plans for achieving 35 MPG by 2020, it seems that our suspicions that the task is entirely possible without fancy hybrids or hydrogen cars has been confirmed. The manufacturers been achieving high mileage in Europe and Japan for years now, so I expect to see it in the US eventually. Luckily, there are six exciting new technologies that are going to make it possible in the US.

These technologies are interesting because they come without the paradigm shift that seems to accompany buying a hybrid or a small economy car. Cars equipped with this green tech will be just like any other car, just more efficient.

More on the six new engine technologies after the break.

1. Multistage oil pump: Oil pumps usually only pump oil out through one port, meaning that under every circumstance the pump ends up doing about the same amount of work. Multistage oil pumps, like those that are beginning to be released with some Toyotas, use two oil ports, one small and one larger, to make sure that the amount of oil being pump is optimized based on the operating conditions of the engine. During low-stress operation, only the smallest pump will be used. As the engine is put through its paces, it will switch to the large port, and finally, if you’re really going all out, both ports will open up to allow maximum flow.
2. Shortened cylinder head: In the past, cylinder heads have remained a certain height in order to keep the valves aligned in operation. While this presents and issue for shorter cylinder heads (which save weight), guides on the top of the valve springs can be used in conjunction with standard valve guides to ensure smooth operation. The weight difference might not be that dramatic, but at the very least, it will cut down on some materials usage.
3. Variable compression ratio: Engines are more efficient at higher compression ratios, but that doesn’t mean it’s always best to be running at the highest compression ratio you can. With that in mind, several manufacturers have begun exploring variable compression ratio engines, where the connecting rod length can be changed using an actuator so that during low-load operation (like driving on the freeway) compression ratio is reduced and fuel economy improves dramatically.
4. Guided-spray turbo: The most important thing here is not the turbo, but the method of creating the air-fuel mix in the combustion chamber. The injectors and chamber have been redesigned so that spark plugs are positioned to more efficiently ignite the fuel-air mix and pistons have also been redesigned to create a swirling in the chamber (something that’s been used since Honda since 1992 in fuel economy-conscious engines). Together, all these designs make for incredibly efficient combustion, resulting in impressive power output and comparably good fuel economy numbers.
5. Electromagnetic valve actuators: In my opinion, this is probably one of the neatest new technologies out there. By using electromagnets to control the valve train, the camshaft and all its friction losses and rotating mass would be replaced with a system of almost no moving parts that can also precisely control valve timing and adjust it to run the most efficiently in any condition. While expensive, this change could bring up to a 19% improvement in fuel efficiency, and might very well be implemented down the road.
6. Hydraulic power electrification: Car makers have already begun this switch-over, as it is one of the most common-sense, and easiest things to do. Beginning with the move from belted radiator fans to electric, car makers have started trying to reduce parasitic loads on the engine. Because electric versions of things like power steering and A/C are more efficient (and run when the engine isn’t on, which is necessary for full hybrids), we’re already starting to see these things popping up on Honda and Toyota hybrid models. Soon manufacturers will be moving even to electric water pumps, which are more efficient and precise.

So, do we at Gas 2.0 anticipate seeing these technologies any time soon, or are they just more pie in the sky stuff that the automakers like to trot out to “prove” they’re “doing something.” Well, several of these we have seen already, and with the automakers scrambling to make 35 MPG in a very unfriendly market, it seems like the cheapest way to do so will be to use some of these tricks rather than trying to upgrade everyone to hybrids. Hopefully we’ll begin seeing these technologies in run-of-the-mill engines sooner, rather than later.

Source: PopMech

Posts Related to Fuel Economy and Engine Technology:

• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• The World’s Most Fuel Efficient Car: 285 MPG, Not A Hybrid
• U.S. Fuel Economy Standards Boosted to 31.6 MPG by 2015
• Formula 1 Racing to Go Hybrid from 2009-2013
• Scania’s Ethanol Diesel-Engine, Runs On Biodiesel Too
• Need a New Car? Nope, Just a New Engine!

While the national average price of gasoline is now $3.60, some residents of Utah are happily filling up on compressed natural gas (CNG) at $0.63 per gallon. That’s the country’s lowest price for CNG, which has understandably caused a surge in demand for vehicles running on a fuel that one man described as “practically free.”

So far, CNG vehicles haven’t made a blip on my radar screen, even though the group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA) estimates there are 150,000 NGVs on U.S. roads today and over 5 million worldwide. It took a phone call from sunny Southern Utah to clue me in to recent developments, which include a local refueling station overflowing with CNG-hungry vehicles.

There are about 1500 CNG refueling stations in the US, which is about the same number of commercial stations offering E85 ethanol blends. Utah has a total of 91 CNG filling stations, most of which are reserved for commercial fleet use, but there are 20 open to the public. According to an article by the Associated Press, you could drive Utah from top to bottom and hit 22 different stations offering compressed natural gas.

The NGVA also says there are 50 different manufacturers producing 150 models of light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles and engines that run on compressed natural gas. Unfortunately, there’s only one for sale to individuals, Honda’s Civic GX, and it’s only offered in California and New York (although Utah could be next on the list). California ranks highest in number of CNG refueling stations, but fuel prices are also higher—more like $2.50 per gallon.

There’s so much demand now in Utah for CNG-ready vehicles that Honda can’t make them fast enough. Savvy customers are buying the vehicles from other states and shipping them back for sale. But waiting for a new Honda Civic GX to role off the assembly line isn’t the only option. It’s also possible to convert a used vehicle to run on natural gas, like Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who converted his state-owned Chevy Suburban. And for either used or new vehicles, the tax incentives are substantial. Combining state and federal tax credits in Utah can almost completely offset the approximately $7,000 difference in price between regular and CNG-ready vehicles.

One of the major benefits of using compressed natural gas is a significant reduction in emissions when compared to gasoline. Compressed natural gas is touted as the “cleanest burning” alternative fuel available, since the simplicity of the methane molecule reduces tailpipe emissions of different pollutants by 35-97%. Not quite as dramatic is the reduction in net greenhouse-gas emissions, which is about the same as corn-grain ethanol at about a 20% reduction over gasoline.

The big question in Utah is whether or not the infrastructure can keep up with the amount of new CNG cars on the road. Utah already has 5,000 CNG vehicles, up from none a few years ago, essentially overwhelming the refueling network.

Then, of course, there’s the question of natural gas supply. According to the NGVA, worldwide supply of natural gas is almost infinite, assuming we can tap into methane hydrate ice formations at the bottom of the arctic oceans. If we can’t figure that out, we can just drill more (please note the sarcastic tone):

…there are huge natural gas resources on public lands in the U.S. that currently are off-limits to drilling. These include areas a hundred miles or more off the coast of Florida and America’s east and west coast as well as the Rocky Mountain area. The current run-up in natural gas prices is increasing political pressure to allow gas exploration and production in these areas.

More promising is the potential of bio-methane, or the production of methane from the natural breakdown of plant material, something already captured by landfills in the US. The NGVA says that waste biomass could supply enough natural gas for about 11 million natural gas vehicles, which is approximately 5% of the nation’s automotive fleet.

This is certainly something to watch out for, and maybe even participate in if you live in Utah. Now that it’s got my attention, I’ll be taking a closer look at the Honda Civic GX this week, a car that has been called the cleanest burning vehicle on the planet.

For more on this story, see Natural-gas vehicles hot in Utah, where the fuel is cheap. Also see How Natural Gas Vehicles Work for more background.

Photo Credit

You remember, the power line scare back in the ’70’s (which really hasn’t gone away) and of course the more recent flap about cell phones emitting dangerous electromagnetic fields to the brain. In case you want to read more on these issues, a specific Google entry should suffice.Now, before you go somewhere else, hang on, there’s more to this electromagnetic field issue than you may think. That’s coming up, along with a short tip of the hat to the man who got us started on our way to the world we live in.

Back to the story. A New York Times article suggests that the flow of electrical current to the motor that moves a vehicle, in this case a hybrid, sets up very large electromagnetic fields that could result in health risks to both adults and children. Again, the reference here is to children and the danger of leukemia. Sound familiar?

Now, we live with electromagnetic fields (EMF) every day. Where electric current flows, generally speaking, there are EMF’s of varying degrees. There are no specific government, or scientific standards for EMF exposure, so much of this concern is pure conjecture, or so it seems. As for plug-ins and electric cars, it is thought that drivers and passengers could be exposed to large EMF’s for extended periods of time.

The NYT article told the story of a Staten Island woman who bought a Honda Civic Hybrid in 2007. She drove the car about 200 miles each week as part of her employment. After a while, the woman said she fell asleep at the wheel three times, and her blood pressure rose. She believes the strong electromagnetic fields produced by electrical systems in the car caused the malady.

There could be many causes for her affliction, but just remember that it’s her reality, specific to her alone. The woman clearly stated those were her own conclusions and not based on a doctor’s opinion.

To make a long story short, both Toyota and Honda say their hybrids meet all recognized safety standards. They say their plug-ins are tested for EMF’s and they stand by the safety of their products.

Just to set the record straight, man-made EMF’s may not be the only threat to health. A recent article in New Scientist tells of research in Russia that indicates the earth’s very own EMF’s may result in suicides. And there is ongoing research into the effects of the earth’s magnetic fields on humans. A trip to Google is suggested for further research.

While preparing for this article, I thought of the man who brought electromagnetism into the public mainstream, and made everything we hold electrically dear today possible.

His name, Nikola (Nicholas) Tesla, a Serbian immigrant born in 1856. He’s often been called “the man who invented the twentieth century.”

Tesla held more than a hundred patents, including the transmission of electric power, an electro-magentic motor, a regulation system for alternating current, which powers our world today. His inventions made radio and TV possible, his induction motor has made it possible for nearly everything that moves on wheels today. In spite of all that, he never became financially wealthy, dying in 1943, and according to some, penniless.

Was Tesla affected by electromagnetic fields? After all, he spent his life exploring them, often living for hours within high concentrations. He was 87 when he died. Could they have helped extend his life, or were his genes just right for a long life?

There’s a story on EV World about Tesla’s so-called “Black Magic” touring car. It was a 1931 Pierce-Arrow, supposedly converted by Tesla and his nephew to run on some sort of energy created out of a box of electronic circuitry measuring 24 x 12 x 6 inches. He replaced the gasoline engine with an electric motor, hooked the circuit box up to the motor and they were off. The car is said to have been capable of reaching speeds up to 90 mph.

Eventually, the car reportedly wound up on a farm near Buffalo, New York, and the magic “converter” box disappeared.

The article asks, had he tapped into the earth’s magnetic field, or, found zero point energy or gravitation waves?

I’m sure we’ll never know.

As for today’s hybrids and electric cars being dangerous to our health, it appears more scientific study is needed to answer that question.

Posts Related to Plug-ins and Electric Cars:

• Coal-Power Can’t Stop Plug-In Hybrids From Beating Normal Cars
• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• Formula 1 Racing to Go Hybrid from 2009-2013

This is important news, since the authors also estimate that by 2050, 60% of US transportation could be met by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Total impact on electrical generation may all depend on when the vehicles are charged. A recent study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory showed that charging vehicles during off-peak hours (after 10 pm) would result in only slight increases in energy draw, while charging them after work could require 160 new power plants over the next few decades.

More Posts on Plug-In Electric Cars:

• Plug-In Hybrids Could Require 160 New Power Plants By 2030 (Or None At All)
• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• MIT Study Predicts Well-to-Wheel Vehicle Emissions for 2030
• Without Clean Electricity, Plug-In Vehicles aren’t So Hot
• Google To Spend $10 Million on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Project

However, actions speak louder than words, particularly the words of politicians.

When the British Government announced their most recent budget earlier this year, there was much applause from green groups after chancellor Alistair Darling announced almost draconian increases in taxation on gas guzzling cars.

But how effective are these taxes? Do we have a clear set of policies that are making a real difference, or is there some truth in accusations that governments are using a green agenda to raise additional tax revenue?

Early projections suggest that the latter may be true, with the UK treasury estimating that new green motoring taxes will provide an additional £4 billion ($7.9 billion) in tax revenues, but reduce vehicle emissions by only 1% (0.06% of the total CO2 emissions in the UK).

The new motor taxes have obviously been widely criticized, with the shadow Treasury minister describing it as “This is a massive tax hike which will have virtually no impact on the environment,” adding that “Despite their claims, the Government don’t expect this move to change behaviour at all - it is just another eco-stealth tax of the worst kind.”

To which the British government has feebly responded “The Government is committed to protecting the environment and tackling climate change. Part of this commitment involves promoting sustainable environmental improvements through tax and other economic instruments, and incentivising the development and uptake of lower emissions vehicles.”

Many fear that these are merely warm intentions, and not concrete commitments. Considering that, for example, current investment in energy research is approximately one tenth of the amount spent on space research, and that UK CO2 emissions are still rising after over a decade of pseudo green government action, it would appear that a new approach is needed.

Until then it will be hard to argue with the sentiment that for many governments green = more tax.

Photo courtesy of Flickr.