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

Mazda’s newest hydrogen rotary engine will take to public roads in Japan for testing this year.  The company says the vehicle is the world’s first hydrogen hybrid car with a dual-fuel system, enabling the use of either hydrogen or gasoline.

The Japanese government has given Mazda Motor Corporation permission to test the Mazda Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid minivan on public roads in that country.  The next step will be commercial leasing in Japan during this fiscal year.

The engine’s hybrid system increases power by 40 percent, and is said to increase hydrogen fuel range to 200 kilometers, (135 miles).  This is accomplished with the addition of an electric motor to enhance performance.

Mazda plans on debuting the Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid alongside the RX-8 Hydrogen RE at the G8 Hoddaido Toyako Summit in July.

Plant-derived materials used for some of the vehicle’s interior plastic parts and seat covers are also featured in the new car, a part of what Mazda calls its Sustainable Zoom-Zoom environmental plan.

Click here for more details on the Mazda Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid,

Image:  Mazda Corporation

Source

Posts Related to Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles

• Revolution in Hydrogen Cars - 650 Miles Per Tank
• Honda Begins “Production” of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
• VW Debuts Tiguan HyMotion Fuel-Cell Vehicle and 2009 Clean Diesel Jetta
• GM Backs Hydrogen Fueling Station Near LA
• Toyota Announces New 516-Mile Range Fuel-Cell/Electric Hybrid

Step Right Up And Be Amazed

It struck me today that our fearless leaders, would-be’s, and corporate giants seem to think we’re all a bunch of rubes gathered outside a carnival sideshow, leaning on the barker’s every word.

Urging Congress to lift its ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, our fearless leader, you know, President Bush, told lawmakers, “There is no excuse for delay“.

It got worse, “Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response.”  Gimme a break.

In response, House Democrats, in a news conference, propose nationalization of refineries, a way to better control the flow of oil supply. Stay tuned, this will be one hot potato.

One of our presidential wanna-be’s, Sen John McCain (R-AZ), has jumped on the bandwagon, even though he’s on record supporting the moratorium on drilling.  Flip-flop, what do we believe?

The Senator also proposed a gas tax holiday.  Woop.  Arizona made it clear the other day that it won’t happen here, and I doubt the idea will ever get off the ground.

Not only has McCain changed his tune, he’s asking for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds to “make clean coal a reality.”

You can bet that’ll get my vote; for Obama.

Florida’s Governor, Charlie Crist has gone on record, changing his position on offshore drilling.  Gas prices too high, we must do something now.

Drill Now?  How Long Will It Take To Get Some Relief?

Think about it for a minute.  There are approximatley 68 million acres of offshore waters under lease by oil companies at this moment, but none are under development.

Let’s say the oil companies decide to get busy and help us poor folks get out of the gas crunch.  By the time they set up new platforms, drill, recover and ship crude to refineries, my great-grandchildren will be voting.

How about that for a quick fix?

See my point?  It truly is a dog and pony show, smoke and mirrors, whatever, but let’s look further.

Big Oil’s Take On The Problem

In this case, “BIG OIL” is Chevron Corp, whose CEO David O’Reilly told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that big oil isn’t to blame for high gas prices.

It’s a matter of supply and demand, that’s what we’ve been hearing all along, and it makes as much sense as anything.

Domestic production of crude, according to O’Reilly, has declined over the years, putting America further in debt to foreign oil producers.

Meanwhile, Chevron claims to be reinvesting it’s $18.7 billion profit from last year in new supplies.  He didn’t say what constituted “supplies.”

Saudi’s To Increase Production

The world’s leading producer of oil, Saudi Arabia, plans to increase production by 200,000 barrels a day through July.  That would bring production up to 9.7 million barrels a day.

The U.S. alone consumes an estimated 20 million barrels a day, roughly half of that amount is imported.  I doubt the 200,000 barrel increase in Saudi production will make a huge impact on the world’s thirst for oil, or bring relief to high prices in America.

The rest of the OPEC nations have decided not to make a committment until their meeting on Sept 9th.  History has shown they usually follow Saudi Arabia’s lead, but given the instability and tensions in that area, they may just take the money and enjoy.

Environmentalists Are Weakening

I read with great amusement this article in the LA Times, inferring that the environmental movement is now on the defensive.

It’s worth a read, still more of the same as listed above.

What I find most interesting, in this time of environmental awareness, is the call for more oil out of one side of the mouth, while the other side speaks boldly of developing alternative energy sources.

So there it is folks, step right up and get your ticket now, the only cost:  A gallon of gas for the greatest show on earth.

Welcome to the circus, are you having any fun, aren’t you glad you came?

CNN’S “Fueling America” site..interesting.

Image Credit:  http://www.jamestilley.com/

This most recent spate of reviling the human race was sparked by an opinion piece by Elizabeth R. Sawin from the Sustainability Institute. Her title was enough to make me smile: “$4.00 per Gallon Gasoline and Climate Change Both Call for the Same Solution: Collective Investment in Clean Energy.” I smiled again when she opened with a question she was recently asked: “What do you have to say about global warming to the whole segment of Americans who are just waking up to energy issues with $4.00 per gallon gasoline?”

Needless to say, my revulsion of the human species, or at least a vast majority of them (I have a variety of revulsions, this one is environmentally based), seem to have only just realized that maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to have a look for something other than fossil fuels to power our transportation.

And the terms “climate change” or “global warming” do not even register.

I must admit to a certain measure of childish glee, when I see petrol prices rising as they are. You see, I do not drive a car, and at 24, I have no real desire to drive one either. No doubt by the end of 2008 my peer group will have bullied me in to getting my license, but apart from the sporadic 3am drive to the supermarket for a chicken, my feet and my bike are all I need (and maybe the occasional bus/train ticket).

So at a time when petrol prices are skyrocketing and the US Senate defeating the Climate Security Act, people are suitably concerned. But as I mentioned, it isn’t because of any fear of melting ice-caps or drowning polar bears – although I like to think that many at least feel they should care about such things, even if they don’t actively do so.

Now Sawin quickly antagonizes a great magnitude of people out there by using the term “scientific consensus” to describe what is happening to our environment; it’s never a good move. But I don’t even want to discuss that. The point I want to make is this: how come with fuel prices getting higher than Willie Nelson, people don’t want a cheaper alternative?

It would seem to me that, even though you may be 100% against the idea that man has decided to pollute Earth in to oblivion (guess where I stand), surely you would like to be paying a little less to get to work in the morning? (Another gleeful admission: I work from home!) Wouldn’t you like to pay a little less to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer? (I got nothing for those two! I’m sufferin’ like the rest of you!)

So if there ever comes a time where there is a vote to be cast, calls to be made and politicians to be swayed, make sure you do your part: vote to bring in alternative energies, call your local whatever and let him know! Because even if you don’t feel the environment needs the helping hand, I can sure bet that your hip-pocket wouldn’t mind one.

Chrysler has recently launched its “Let’s Refuel America” campaign in which it claims to offer Americans protection from rising gas prices. Anyone buying a Chrysler in the month of May will get the deal. Here’s how it works: each qualifying buyer will get a ‘gas card’ that has been linked to their own credit card, but when they gas-up they will only pay $2.99 a gallon with Chrysler charged the difference. You can read more about it here.

This is a really lame-brained scheme. It reminds me of the McCain-Clinton proposal to cut federal gas taxes during the summer– it’s the wrong solution for our economic woes. Yes, we’re all hurting from gas prices and we need relief (what are the oil companies offering consumers in terms of help, hmmmm? anyone? hello?). But what Chrysler is offering is an incentive for consumers to ignore gas prices and drive, drive, drive– producing more green house gases and increasing global warming.

Why doesn’t Chrysler just give buyers a rebate? It’s hard to estimate the potential cost to Chrysler of their offer over the three year period, but it could be huge. Let’s say that gas stays at $4 per gallon for the rest of this year and then goes to $4.25/gallon in 2009 (probably too conservative), and then to $4.50/gallon in 2010. The average American drives 12,000 miles per year and gets 25 MPG… so that’s over $1800 that Chrysler would have to pay to cover the gas price differential. How about just offering buyers a $1000 rebate? That would 1) help Americans NOW; 2) save Chrysler money over time and 3) reduce the incentive to burn fuel and pollute our skies.

We understand Chrysler is desperate to sell cars — but they’d probably be doing a whole lot better if they’d developed more fuel-efficient cars years ago. Hey, it’s Friday afternoon so I think I’ll jump in my Prius and get 43 MPG on the way home….

Read more about (real) Fuel Efficiency:

• Can Improved Spark Plugs Boost Both Fuel Economy and Performance?
• Goodbye Trucks and SUVs; Hello Gas Saving… Geo Metro?
• How to Get 70 MPG Out of a Honda Civic

Image source: Chrysler News

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.

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

The federal excise tax on gasoline was first implemented in 1932, although the states began taxing fuel in 1919. It is estimated that suspending this tax, as proposed by Clinto and McCain, would result in a loss of revenue of nine billion dollars for the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for interstate maintenance. McCain says he would shift revenue from other sources, and Clinton proposes enacting windfall-profits tax on big oil companies to make up for the loss. Both candidates are making Obama look like the bad guy for not wanting to save consumers 18 cents per gallon, but would this temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline really be the catalyst to change our current oil dependency and the harm it causes to the environment?

Apparently, Obama trusts the oil companies as much as I do. Last week, he stated:

You don’t know that the oil companies are going to pass on the savings to the consumers or whether they’re just gonna, you’re just gonna see an increase in prices, by the same amount that the gas tax goes down. And it would deplete the highway trust fund that we need for rebuilding our roads and our bridges.

I agree with Obama that this is just a “short-term quick fix”, and I can’t help that it is just a ploy to get votes by the two other candidates. I do, however, appreciate that Clinton wishes to tax the record profits big oil companies are scamming out of the American public, a move Senator McCain admitently opposes. In truth, the amount saved by consumers through the removal of such a tax over the summer months is only about $30, so what’s the big deal.

What is the big deal? How about improving gas mileage in all vehicles, providing incentives for car companies to vamp up production of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids now (and I’m not talking about some joke of an SUV hybrid that gets 30 MPG), stop farm subsidies for not growing food and put it into biofuel productions, etc. A “gas tax holiday” will not solve the problem of peak oil. It is not a long term solution, and of course, our bozo of a president proposes the same old policies to help big oil rape the American public of their hard earned income. Somehow, I don’t think saving $30 over the summer will help when oil reaches $200 a barrel.

Image: Judiciary Report

Related posts on big oil companies and politics:

• The Big Oil Company Scam

• Mean Joe Green #5: “Big Oil and The Loggers” Continue to Play to a Sellout Crowd

• Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy

Residents of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho are outpacing the national average decline in gas consumption, according to a new report by the Sightline Instutute.

In the last 8 years, residents of these states have cut back by about a gallon per week, for a total gas consumption reduction of 11%. In the Pacific Northwest, gas usage has fallen to its lowest level since 1966, while CO2 emissions from gasoline have fallen by six-tenths of a ton per capita since 1999.

Clark Williams-Derry, Sightline research director, said that this was like “every driver taking an annual, five-week holiday from their cars.”

Williams-Derry attributed the trend to changing driving habits and more fuel efficient cars. Public transit ridership in Portland and Seattle is at an all-time high—the highest level nationally in 50 years.

Despite the positive trends, population growth has still made up the difference where decreasing per-capita carbon dioxide emissions are concerned. As a result, total CO2 emissions in the region have been roughly flat since 1999. The NorthWest’s gasoline consumption is also almost twice as high as the global average for high-income nations.

But we’re still beating the rest of the country, and no doubt these positive trends could be strengthened by the right policy environment.

“We’ve made progress, but adopting smart policies such as a cap-and-trade program that includes highway fuels can extend our gas savings,” said Williams-Derry. “It’s our best shot at protecting ourselves from rising prices at the pump, while reducing climate-warming pollution.”

For more information see Sightline’s report page and the full report on gas consumption.

Posts Related to Gas Consumption and the Pacific NW:

• Canada Unleashes First Carbon Tax in N. America
• US Will Export $440 Billion For Oil In 2008
• U.S. Gasoline Still Among World’s Cheapest
• The Growing Need for Fuel Substitution, Efficiency, and Conservation
• Portland’s Grease Wars: Battling for Biodiesel-Bound Cooking Oil

Photo Credit: Sightline Institute

The Renewable Fuels Association estimated that due to government mandates, by 2015 one-third of the U.S. corn harvest will be turned into ethanol for use as an automotive fuel.

That’s an increase of 234% in the next 7 years in the amount of corn being used as fuel.

Who’s hungry?

See the full story here.

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst have made a potentially ground-breaking discovery in the production of biofuels from sustainable, non-food sources.

By heating cellulosic plant material to between 750 and 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit in the presence of a catalyst, then quickly cooling it, the team of graduate students led by associate professor George W. Huber was able to produce a mixture of hydrocarbons identical to gasoline in less than two minutes. The conversion is a relatively simple, one-step process that could create biogasoline for as little as $1 per gallon.

“We’ve proven this method on a small scale in the lab,” Huber said. “But we need to make further improvements and prove it on a large scale before it’s going to be economically viable.”

This process could provide a less-energy intensive alternative to standard ethanol production—the fuel which, like it or not, the US is currently banking on to carry it into the foreseeable future (don’t believe this? see my last post).

Of course, that depends on whether or not the process makes it out of the lab. Huber says that could take up to 10 years, but the research has already generated $400,000 in funds from the National Science Foundation, and $30,000 from the UMass Office of Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property. If the breakthrough lives up to its hype, it could be on the receiving end of a lot more.

John Regalbuto, director of the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at the National Science Foundation, said:

“In theory, (the UMass biofuel) requires much less energy to make than ethanol, giving it a smaller carbon footprint and making it cheaper to produce,” Regalbuto said.

“In fact, from the extra heat that will be released, you can generate electricity in addition to the biofuel. There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process. By recovering heat and generating electricity, there won’t be any footprint.”

I won’t be holding my breath for this one, but it could offer another fuel to the growing list of sustainable, petroleum-free alternatives we may depend on in the next few decades.

It may also legitimate the name of this blog.

Posts Related to Green Gasoline:

• Coskata’s $1/gallon Cellulosic Ethanol, Made From Trash
• Scania’s Ethanol Diesel-Engine, Runs On Biodiesel Too
• Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: Twenty-Two Biodiesel Myths Dispelled
• Shell, Virent to Develop Second-Generation BioGasoline
• Farmers Invest In Diesel-Producing Trees
• 2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline
• GMO Corn-Stover Eats Itself, Makes Ethanol Processing A Breeze

Source: The Republican (Apr. 09, 08): $1 per gallon biofuel touted

Photo Credit: University of Wisconsin-Madison

Range Fuels Inc. announced yesterday it has secured over $100 million in Series B funding, an investment that could make it the first company to seriously commercialize cellulosic ethanol. The first phase of construction will produce 20 million gallons of mixed alcohols per year by 2009, and has the potential to expand to up to 120 million gallons.

Range Fuels says their facility will break down any type of plant material (eg agricultural waste or wood chips) by a two-step thermochemical process. This differs from competing methods of producing cellulosic ethanol, which involve breakdown of plant material with heat and/or acid, and treating it with costly ($0.50/gallon) enzymes.

Range Fuels skips the enzymatic part and uses a process similar to Coskata Inc.: biomass is broken down by extreme heat and pressure, which converts it into a mixture of gases (H2 and CO) called syngas. The syngas is fed through proprietary catalysts that converts it into a mixture of alcohols, and a bit more sorting and processing produces a renewable vehicle fuel. See Range Fuel’s interactive explanation (as depicted above).

The only difference between Range Fuels and the Coskata process seems to be that Coskata relies on proprietary microorganisms instead of chemical catalysts to convert the syngas into ethanol. In any case, the race is on. Coskata said earlier this year it would start building commercial facilities after a 40,000 gallon per year demo plant goes online in late 2008.

Highlights of the Range Fuels Process:

• Fuel production costs “significantly less” than either enzymatic cellulosic ethanol or corn-grain ethanol, the latter of which currently costs about $2/gallon.
• Higher fuel production rates for each ton of biomass than enzymatic and corn-grain ethanol, which decreases cost, biomass needed, and land use.
• Uses 75 percent less water than corn ethanol and 60% lower emissions than corn-grain ethanol
• Cost competitive with gasoline as long as oil stays above $50/barrel.

Related Posts:
First Algae Biodiesel Plant Goes Online: April 1, 2008
Switchgrass Could Displace 30% of US Petroleum Usage With 94% GHG Reduction
First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Goes Online, Makes Fuel From Wood Waste
Study: Your Car Can Run On 20% Ethanol
GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Cheap, Green Ethanol?

Source: Range Fuels (Apr. 1, 2008): Range Fuels Raises over $100 Million in Series B Financing

Photo Credit: Range Fuels Inc.

Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs) have taken some undeserved heat lately, with the recent hullabaloo over their potential to drain U.S. water supplies. But as some readers pointed out, it all depends when you charge them.

This week’s report from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which evaluated the impact of a substantial increase in PHEV ownership, found that nighttime charging of PHEV’s would not increase electricity demand over baseline levels. In other words, no (or very few) new power plants would need to be constructed if plug-in owners only charged their vehicles at night.

While nighttime charging makes sense, since it can be incentivized by power companies and prices are cheapest after 10 p.m. anyway, there’s no guarantee that the average car owner will wait until then to charge up. The worst case scenario, in which all PHEV owners charged their vehicles at 5pm, could require the construction of up to 160 new power plants.

Obviously, vehicle charging will take place at different times during the day, but it may be important (even vital) that new plug-ins be charged during nighttime hours. Study authors estimated the impact on electricity generation would be greatest by 2030, when PHEVs have become well-established in the U.S. market.

See the press release here.
See the study here.

Related Posts:
100 MPG+ Plug-In Hybrids Already Available (Check ‘em Out)
Could Hybrid Vehicles Hinder Development of More Sustainable Alternatives?
Plug-In Hybrids Use Over 17 Times More Water Than Regular Cars, Researchers Say

[Via] and Photo Credit

Not everyone is waiting until 2010 to get their first plug-in hybrid. As I reported previously, Hybrids Plus out of Boulder, CO, is offering conversions for the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape hybrids, turning them into 100 MPG+ superstars.

I’ve collected a little more background on Prius hybrid hacks, and a few more resources. Check out this video, which should give you a good feeling for what getting 100 MPG would be like:

Hybrids Plus’ conversions add lithium-ion batteries to the trunk, and come in either 30 or 60 mile ranges, depending on the buyer’s average commute. The conversion doubles fuel economy by running on a blended mode of gasoline and electricity. And here’s a 30-second video to show you how it’s done:

But Hybrids Plus isn’t the only group interested in Prius Hacks. Another organization, CalCars.org, claims to have built the world’s first plug-in Prius back in 2004, using lead acid batteries to prove it would work. CalCars maintains a list of shops offering plug-in hybrid conversions and how-to advice.

While fun to look at, these conversions are probably only fit for the economically solvent or seriously committed. Even Hybrids Plus admits their prices are steep, but it’s possible that prices will drop as production volume increases. For a more in-depth look at Hybrids-Plus, take a look at their professional video, which covers all the bases:

Related Posts:
Get 120 MPG Out of Your Prius (Plug It In)
Sick of Gas?: Convert Your Car To Run On Electricity
Will Plug-In Hybrids Become the Standard?

Resources:
Hybrids Plus
CalCars.org

Photo Credit

Electric-car company ZAP announced it will offer $24,000 plug-in conversions for the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape Hybrids, making them plug-in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs).

It’s sort of like doubling your fuel efficiency for the cost of a new car…

Source: Gas 2.0

55 MPG isn’t good enough for you? Then try adding a plug to your hybrid.

The electric-car company ZAP