You Might Be Very Surprised

A few days back I posted a You Tube presentation about two professors from Duke University who came up with a different, and in their minds, more accurate way to determine the efficiency of the engine in your vehicle.

It’s nice to know how many miles per gallon (MPG), or as the profs say, gallons per mile (GPM) your vehicle will get, but there’s more, much more to that equation.

First of all, you’re paying a premium for regular gasoline, $4 maybe in excess of $5 a gallon, and you decide to fill it up.  Sticker shock will settle in quickly, but how about this, how many hours will you have to work in order to pay for that fuel?

CNN has posted a super simple calculator to help you determine how long you’ll have to work in order to fill the gas tank on your car.  The link is below, along with another link that ties into the overall cost of owning a car, and a chart to see how your vehicle stacks up against the least expensive cars to own, and they aren’t hybrids.

How Much is Your Vehicle Costing You Each Day?

Face it, whether moving constantly or sitting in the garage for days on end, your vehicle is costing you money.  Here are the considerations:

• Depreciation (your vehicle loses value every day)
• Financing
• Insurance
• Taxes & Fees
• Maintenance
• Repairs

The Edmunds Company has posted a great “True Cost to Own” (TCO) page that helps determine what your vehicle is costing you over a five-year period, based on being driven an average 15,000 miles a year.  The calculator offers new or used options, for model years 2003 thru 2007.  The link is below, and when you’ve figured the “True Cost to Own” for your vehicle, along with total cash price and the average cost per mile, compare your car with the ones below.

Just remember, all the figures you come up with are averages, and won’t necessarily be an accurate depiction of your costs.

What Are the Ten Cheapest Cars to Drive?  They’re Not Hybrids!

The Edmunds company used their calculator to look at the latest 2008 model vehicles, to see which ones would be the cheapest to own over a five year period.  Surprisingly, there isn’t a single hybrid in the bunch, as a matter of fact, hybrids didn’t do all that well.

A quick rundown of the least expensive in order:

1. Chevrolet Aveo 5 Special Value 4dr Hatchback
2. Hyundai Accent GS2dr Hatchback
3. Honda Fit 4 dr Hatchback
4. Toyota Yaris 2dr Hatchback
5. Honda Civic DX 4dr Sedan
6. Nissan Versa 1.8 S 4d Hatchback
7. Mazda MAZDA3 i Sport 4dr Sedan
8. Kia Rio 4 dr Sedan
9. Scion xB 4 dr Wagon
10. Toyota Corolla CE 4dr Sedan

The lease expensive to operate in the first year was the Chevrolet Aveo costing $0.427 a mile to operate.

The Toyota came in at $0.468 a mile for the first year, so you can see the margins are small.

Moving to the Hybrids

Same order, least expensive first:

1. Honda Civic Hybrid 4dr Sedan gas/electric hybrid CVT
2. Toyota Prius Standard 4dr Hatchback gas/electric hybrid CVT
3. Nissa Altima Hybrid 4dr Sedan gas/electric hybrid CVT
4. Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid 4dr Sedan gas/electric hybrid 4A
5. Ford Escape 4dr SUV gas/electric hybrid CVT
6. Mercury Mariner Hybrid 4dr SUV gas/electric hybrid CVT
7. Toyota Camry Hybrid 4dr Sedan gas/electric hybrid CVT
8. Mercury Mariner Hybrid SUV gas/electrc hybrid CVT
9. Toyota Highlander Hybrid 4dr SUV AWD gas/electric hybrid CVT
10. Lexus RX 400h 4dr SUV gas/electric hybrid CVT.

The Honda Civic Hybrid came in at $.0476 a mile while the last place Lexus RX 400h would cost an estimated $0.897 per mile.

Again, these are estimates based on a system of calculations by the Edmunds Company and explained on their website.

You’ll find the complete totals on the “Hybrid Vehicles Not Best Value According to Edmunds” link below.

So, How Many Hours Do You Have To Work To Own Your Vehicle?

The math should be easy from here, if you work an 8 hour day, 40 hours a week you work 1080 2080 hours a year.  Average out the total amount of gas you buy for a year, divide by 1080 2080 and there you have it.  Then add that number to the one you found through the Edmunds calculator and that should give you the total number of hours you need to work to support your car.

CNN’s Hours for Gallons Calculator

The Edmunds Cost to Own Calculator

Hybrid Vehicles Not Best Value According to Edmunds

So there you have it, only you will know exactly how much your vehicle is costing you, and if not, I hope these guides will help you determine your own costs.

Happy motoring!

Some Related Articles:

Are Automakers To Blame For Consumer Car-Buying Trends? Auto Alliance Weighs In

Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy

High Gas Prices: Empty Tanks Are the New Black In California

Prototype Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 88 MPG on 85% Ethanol

Image Credit:  http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/gas-pump-71806.jpg

]]> http://gas2.org/2008/06/27/how-many-hours-do-you-have-to-work-to-fill-your-gas-tank/feed/ http://gas2.org/2008/06/26/low-cost-gas-engine-innovation-doubles-fuel-economy/ http://gas2.org/2008/06/26/low-cost-gas-engine-innovation-doubles-fuel-economy/#comments Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:15:02 +0000 Nick Chambers http://gas2.org/?p=636

Revetec, a little known company from the Gold Coast region of Australia, may be on to something huge: they’ve created an engine that is 50% smaller, 50% lighter, has 50% lower emissions and is cheaper to manufacture than a conventional internal combustion engine of the same horsepower. Oh yeah, did I mention that it doubles the fuel economy too.

What that means is a car like the 2007 Toyota Yaris, which is rated at 40 mpg on the highway, would get 80 mpg with a Revetec engine.

This isn’t some hoax… They have a prototype which has been attached to an actual vehicle and independently tested to substantiate their claims.

In personal communication with Mr. Brad Howell-Smith, the Chairman, Inventor and CAD Designer for Revetec, he says “road tests have estimated that [the engine] uses around 50% less fuel than a conventional engine” and if it were converted to run on diesel, that performance gain could be much higher.

Also, because the engine delivers higher torque, and can perform and operate well at much lower rpm’s than a conventional one, the noise levels are lower.

To illustrate how serious he is, Mr. Howell-Smith said that since 2001 his company has been in touch with the US Military Head of R&D for the Southern Hemisphere on a “regular basis” for the purpose of developing one of their engines for light aircraft.

The current prototype engine, the X4v2, is what Revetec calls a “controlled combustion engine.” The meat of the engine comprises two counter rotating multilobate cams, which are acted upon by two pairs of diametrically opposed pistons which are rigidly interlinked by connecting rods.

If that sounds like complete gibberish to you, you’re not alone. Which is why I included an animation of the process to the left. A more simplified animation of the general motion of an engine of this sort is also included below.

Mr. Howell-Smith said that “if [the engine] uses 50% less fuel given that it has the same top end as a conventional engine, emissions would be reduced by 50% if the bottom end was utilized.”

What does all that stuff about “bottom end” and “top end” mean? The X4v2 has a huge amount of torque over a much larger range of rpm’s than a conventional internal combustion engine.

If a person were to drive a vehicle fitted with this engine in a non-aggressive fashion and keep the rpm’s at the “bottom end” (meaning no “jack-rabbit” starts) they could expect to see a 50% reduction in emissions.

Alternatively, according to Mr. Howell-Smith, a person could see a 30% reduction in fuel use and a 30% reduction in emissions if they used the full acceleration power of the X4v2 all the time. This would provide a 20% increase in acceleration capabilities.

We could debate about whether or not the internal combustion engine has a place in the future of transportation or whether it’s going to be all-electric or fuel cell or whatever… but in the meantime, Revetec has a product that could revolutionize the the transportation industry now, and provide a much needed large reduction in fuel consumption and emissions.

Just imagine a bunch of 80 mpg Toyota Yarises (Yarisi??) running around all over the place. A little scary, I know, but… an 80 mpg conventional automobile? I must be dreaming, wake me up before I get too excited.

Posts Related to Engines and Fuel Economy:

• Turbine Engine: No Pistons, No Lube, 30% Better Fuel Economy
• Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
• Formula 1 Racing to Go Hybrid from 2009-2013
• Scania’s Ethanol Diesel-Engine, Runs On Biodiesel Too
• How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
• Need a New Car? Nope, Just a New Engine!
• U.S. Fuel Economy Standards Boosted to 31.6 MPG by 2015

Image Credits: Revetec

Which is better for you and your lawn–the traditional gas-powered lawnmower or the human-powered push reel mower?

Pros and Cons of the traditional gas-powered lawnmower
Pros:
* Consistently cuts everything growing in your lawn, be it grass, weeds, vines, etc…
* Easy to push for long periods of time (ie large lawns)
Cons:
* Air pollution. According to the EPA the average gas-powered lawn mower emits as much pollution per hour as 11 automobiles do during that same time span. Why? The lawn mower engine is a two-cycle engine which pumps out over 90 times more pollution per gallon of gas than any car or truck.
* Noise pollution.
* Recurring gas costs. In case you were unaware–we’re over $4/gallon!
* Maintenance costs.

Pros and Cons of the human-powered push reel mower
Pros:
* Only pollution during mowing is the CO2 that you exhale.
* Quiet.
* The new models have sharp blades and will outperform and outlast the reel mowers your parents pushed around as kids.
* Inexpensive.
* Better exercise considering you aren’t inhaling engine exhaust while mowing.
Cons:
* Does not cut all tall grasses and weeds. After using one for 3 years now. I’d say (as I’ve said to my neighbors) it cuts at about a 93% success rate.
* Not reasonable for large lawns.

The (Unexpected) Outcome

And the winner is…

…The electric lawn mower!!!
If we consider all the variables; pollution, cutting ability, size of lawn, level of ease to own and operate, this non-contestant has to be the winner (sorry John Henry). As much as I love my push reel mower (which is still the most environmentally friendly mower available), I understand that if I had a larger lawn it may not be the best choice–although, it would still be my choice, but I’m a fanatic. The electric lawnmower is quiet, easy to start, easy to maintain, and costs approximately $5/year for electricity. And I haven’t used one, but I’ve read that the mowing skills rival that of the gas-powered mower.

For what it’s worth, the loser is…

…the riding lawn mower.
The bigger brother of the gas-powered mower sells well in a society full of folks who drive a few blocks to and from various stores each day instead of actually walking or biking.
Pros:
It has a cup holder…

…but I’m thinking of adding one to my push reel mower anyway.

Stay tuned next week for the battle of The Washing Machine vs. a trio of human-powered rivals. You may be surprised when No Impact Man shares his thoughts on this one…

Image credits: Amazon.com

Whenever I’m involved in a discussion about government waste and/or the politics of bureaucratic budgeting, I undoubtedly recount a story that usually leaves people nodding in agreement or shaking their head in disbelief. The story goes like this: A friend of mine we’ll call “Rob,” whom I used to work with during my summer breaks, was coming back to Massachusetts for an unexpected late-September visit. Rob had relocated to Pensacola, Florida where he was learning how to fly jets at the Naval Flight Training School. As Rob lifted the golf clubs out of the nose of the fighter jet he had just flown from Florida to Massachusetts for a one-day visit, he knew his trip was different - and he was a little uneasy about it.

You see, Rob’s day-long visit to play golf in Massachusetts was made possible by an officer (or officers) who rightly feared that ending up with a surplus of fuel at the end of that fiscal year would slash the budget for fuel in the next. Rob’s little visit was back in the early 1990s, but with today’s skyrocketing fuel prices, and the added fuel demands of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “largest single user of petroleum products in the world” is looking for ways to use less fuel - and more types of it.

The Shreveport Times reports that the military spent $12.6 billion on jet fuel, diesel and other fuels in 2007 and rising fuel costs have the DoD asking Congress for additional funding to cover a projected shortfall. In the meantime, the Air Force has been looking for ways to offset rising fuel costs, including conservation. Col. West Anderson is the 2nd Bomb Wing’s vice commander at Barksdale AFB.

Anderson knows a thing or two about fuel consumption. A B-52 bomber has a 50,000 gallon fuel tank, when all filled up, his fleet of 60 plus B-52s hold a total of 5 million gallons of JP-8 jet fuel.

Col. Anderson says:

“We’ve been exploring fuel savings, trying to lighten the loads that we carry on day-to-day training missions, so we get better fuel economy. We’re planning our missions more efficiently so were not using as much ‘drone’ time, don’t try to spend as much high-level time, (and) condense and pack the training into a tighter schedule.”

Defense planners are also looking to alternative fuel sources and synthetic fuel blends to help cushion the impact of rising oil prices. Said Air Force Maj. Don Rhymer of the Air Force Alternative Fuels Certification Office, of the “The goal is to have every aircraft using synthetic fuel blends by 2011.” The DoD also hopes that at least 50% of this fuel will be produced domestically by 2016.

But “alternative fuel sources” and “synthetic fuel blends” are not automatically good things, as Clayton Cornell at gas2.org points out. Cornell writes:

“While synthetic fuel has the capacity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it could also double CO2 emissions produced by military flight[s]. At the time of this writing, synfuel is made via Fischer-Tropsch process from either coal or natural gas to produce a somewhat cleaner burning but extremely greenhouse-gas intensive product. The Air Force may be underscoring a recently hyped green image, but it seems that economic considerations are largely at play here…”

And what about those late-September Navy-sponsored New England golf getaways? The ones where the primary mission is to burn “surplus” fuel? Their days may be numbered, but there are no reductions or structural incentives for using less currently in the works.

According to Col. Anderson, “We haven’t been told that we’re going to get a reduction in our flight hours we have submitted for next year. That always could happen, but right now we have received no word that any of that is going to take place.”

Related Posts:

“Air Force Will Be Coal-Powered by 2011″

“The World’s Top Ten Military Spenders”

Shreveport Times

Photo: U.S. Air Force

A 45 year old mechanic from Dorset, England, always wanted a Hummer, but not the cost of maintenance and keeping it filled with gas.

So, Andy Saunders took a 1998 Suzuki Wagon, which he called an “old people carrier”, added custom steel panels and other parts to get that special Hummer look.

Now he drives a pint-sized version of the army’s Humvee personal troop transporter at a savings. Instead of 12mpg, he says the “credit crunch Hummer” gets 60mpg.

The complete transformation cost him nearly $7-thousand for parts, and some 300 hours of hard work.

Saunders has decided not to keep his customized car in favor of putting it up for auction in London this October.

How much would you pay for it? Saunders hopes it will fetch up to $30-thousand.

Want to see a real Hummer that gets 60 MPG? Hit the link for Jonathan Goodwin’s car hack.

Posts Related to Car Hacks / Mods:

• How to Get 70 MPG Out of a Honda Civic
• A Truck That Runs on Coffee Grounds (and How Wood-Gas Powers Cars With Garbage)
• Get 120 MPG Out of Your Prius (Plug It In)

Story and Image Credit: Ananova

The Price – how is it determined?

Asia Times Online reports that approximately 60% of the price of oil per barrel is determined by

“…unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York Nymex futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or over-the-counter trading to avoid scrutiny”.

This report goes on to explain how oil futures are purchased using a system that creates a leverage that helps drive prices continually higher.

Also, constant talk of our oil supply depleting (often referred to as “peak oil”) causes the price to continue to rise. Despite current big oil producers such as Saudi Arabia and Brazil making plans to extract more oil and recent reports by the American Geological Survey showing an estimated 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken there is still talk of the world’s oil supply being diminished.

What can we do?

It is apparent that the world still has an oil supply, big business is determining the price of oil and we are still purchasing gas for daily consumption. Out of necessity or desire we can make a decision to purchase less gas. We can make a statement with our purchasing power. Until we, as a community, decide to stop (or greatly reduce) buying gas at these prices, the prices will continue to rise.

Again we return to the pursuit of alternative energy. As a community we must continue this pursuit. As products and services grow, business opportunities grow too and we will see “money talk”. When we start spending our time and resources on things other than gas and oil the government will jump on board too. We can begin today, avoiding the gas pump!

Photo Credit: gimlack on Flickr

I have a wacky idea: it involves the photo above (from the National Geographic archives, taken 21 Sep 1938 by The Day, New London, CT), the designer Mitchell Joachim, the PDF here from the Global Citizen Center, and an article in New York magazine, dated 2/7/05.

See if you come to the same conclusion — or something better! 

A man identified only as Bob contributed this story to Coast to Coast, saying the owner told him the wood burning oven catches combustible fuels from wood coals which condenses any moisture. The dried fumes are fed to the engine, and it runs!

Location of the truck is unknown, and the image came from the article.

The deal will put Marathon Oil’s Senior Vice President Cliff Cook on Mascoma’s Board of Directors. Marathon President and CEO commented: “This investment in Mascoma’s leading-edge technology reflects our commitment to address increasing energy demand by bringing to market environmentally friendly, renewable fuel derived from non-food domestic biomass.”

Cellulosic ethanol is hot. Let’s hope all this investment money puts it out on the street soon.

Via: AutoblogGreen

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

What I’m getting at, is that I did not see Hillary Clinton on This Week with George Stephanopolous, on Sunday morning. But since we have a 24-hour media matrix covering every breath and every word in this presidential campaign, I was told all about it by all of my regular news outlets as soon as I got up. I was most struck by Senator Clinton’s reply to Stephanopolous’ question about the pushback her proposed summertime gas-tax holiday has received.
STEPHANOPOLOUS:

“Economists say that’s not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They’re not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.

Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?”

[Clinton tried to elude the question with a foray into populist appeals of how elite opinion is bringing down the hard-working middle class, but Stephanopolous reiterated the question].

STEPHANOPOULOS:

“But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?”

CLINTON:

“Well, I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.”

Now, I am usually the last person to be defending economists, but when it comes to designing energy tax policy, perhaps an economist is not a bad person to talk to, no? Former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich thinks so. Reich wrote in his blog on Sunday:

“I’m not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she’s “not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.

“Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.”

This gas tax holiday is just a bad idea all the way around. First of all, Sen. Clinton proposes that her tax be paid for by the oil companies. Do you actually think something like that would get through the Senate? Let me say this, if Congress wouldn’t repeal tax breaks to big oil to fund renewable energy tax credits, they are not going to pay for a summertime tax moratorium on gas with an increased tax on the oil companies.

Abolishing the federal excise tax on gasoline in the summer leading up to the presidential election is exactly the kind of pure pandering that is not going to get Hillary Clinton or John McCain elected.

Photo: robertstown2001

See Also:

• “Obama’s New Ad Rejects Gas Tax Break“
• “Can Hillary Clinton Take on Big Oil?“
• “Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

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

In a recent post, my colleague Jennifer Lance asked whether Hillary Clinton can take on big oil. Among other things, Jennifer concluded that despite the good intentions of Senator Clinton,”A gas tax holiday will not solve the problem of peak oil.” And that is exactly the same message the Obama campaign wants to deliver in an ad now running in North Carolina ahead of next Tuesday’s primary.

The commercial denounces the proposed gas-tax cut, a proposal which Senators Clinton and McCain both support, as the type of quick-fix policy solution that is emblematic of Washington politics. Running time: 1 min.

See Also:

“Can Hillary Clinton Take On Big Oil?”

“Video: Obama on Climate and Energy”

“Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

The mandate was outlined in last year’s energy bill in December, but this proposal gives a boost to the timeline by requiring the mileage of passenger vehicles to average 31.6 MPG by 2015. That’s up from today’s average of 25 MPG (which I can’t help but mentioning is identical to the mileage of the original Model T Ford).

The proposal is open for comment for the next 60 days. Although auto makers have publicly endorsed it, not everyone is satisfied. California is leading a group of states to require more dramatic increases in fuel efficiency. They want to see the average hit 35.7 MPG by 2016.

But why stop at 35.7 MPG? According to a poll of 1,013 Americans conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, 76% of them would rather see 40 MPG reached by 2010. The advocacy group 40MPG.org says reaching this goal (even if it’s later than 2010) would “eliminate 1 billion tons of global warming pollution annually while saving consumers $3,000 to $5,000 over the life of a vehicle.” It would also eliminate our dependence on oil imports from the Middle East.

However far the proposal goes, it’s about time average fuel economy increased. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters commented that, as it stands “this proposal will save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetime of the vehicles affected … And it will save America’s drivers over $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of those vehicles.”

In a cap-and-trade like system, auto manufacturers who do better than the average requirements will gain credits they can trade to carmakers who don’t meet the them.

Publicly, large auto manufacturers have endorsed the new proposal. GM said it will “work with [the government] throughout its rulemaking process on the yearly targets and the sensible mechanisms needed to meet this challenge.” Similarly, Ford said they “are analyzing the proposal and remain committed to meeting the requirements set by Congress in last year’s energy bill.”

Photo Credit