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

Biofuels are increasingly lumped into a single category of environmentally apocalyptic dead-end solutions. As the food vs. fuel debate rages on, it’s no wonder that the general public believes this.

But not all biofuels are created equal, as the chart above illustrates (click the image to see full size). It’s one of the best depictions I’ve seen of how each biofuel feedstock has completely different impacts on overall greenhouse gas emissions, water and pesticide use, and the energy required to produce the fuel. (Click on the chart for the full image)

The chart was created jointly by faculty members from University of Washington and The Nature Conservancy and published in the Seattle P-I (see the article Bio-debatable: Food vs. fuel).

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

Last week’s topic was why corn ethanol is an environmental loser.

But are all biofuels losers? No. Some can be winners. One of those is called cellulosic ethanol.

What Is Cellulosic Ethanol?

All ethanol — whether it is corn or cellulosic — is the same chemical compound: C2H5OH. You might recall from elementary chemistry courses that the “OH” group at the end of the formula indicates that the compound is an “alcohol.” Alcohols can have varying numbers of carbon atoms. Alcohol with two carbon atoms is called “ethanol.” The other alcohols are generally too toxic to be ingested, and thus ethanol has been the libation of choice down through the ages. (Ethanol used as fuel is rendered nonpotable.)

So corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol don’t signify different types of ethanol, but rather the different material (or feedstocks) used to produce them.

Why Cellulosic Ethanol Can Be an Environmental Winner

Corn ethanol is produced from kernels — actually only a small part of the corn kernels — the sugars and starches. Herein lies one of the limitations of corn ethanol. You see, sugars and starches comprise a tiny fraction of the corn plant’s mass — about 2-15%. Because only a small fraction of a plant is used to make corn ethanol, the amount you can produce is limited.

Cellulosic ethanol is a different story. Most of the dry biomass — as much as 80% — is typically made up of cellulosic material — the stuff that makes the plant sturdy. So you can make a lot of ethanol using a plant’s cellulose instead of its sugars and starches. (By the way, even if the cellulosic material comes from corn, we still call it “cellulosic ethanol.” Corn ethanol is made solely from the sugars and starches of the corn kernel.)

The Major Advantage of Cellulosic Ethanol

Our guts are unable to digest cellulose, so we typically throw away that part of crops. A lot of it is left on the field or disposed of as agricultural waste. For corn, the cellulosic material includes the corn stover — the leaves and stalk — and the cob.

Remember what made corn ethanol such an environmental negative? A main reason is that it requires that land being used to grow food (or left as forests or grassland) be converted to growing an energy crop. And that leads to lots of global warming pollution.

This is not a problem for cellulosic ethanol — we can simply use the agricultural waste from food crops to make the ethanol and thereby avoid all those emissions.

Why We Can’t Fill Our Tanks With the Cellulosic Stuff … Yet

Unfortunately, right now, producing cellulosic ethanol on an industrial scale is too expensive. Unlike converting a plant’s sugars and starches to corn ethanol, making cellulosic ethanol requires that we first break down the cellulosic material. But because this material is what makes a plant sturdy, the atoms in these compounds are strongly bonded together and that makes them hard to break apart. The processes we have available today to do this are too expensive to make cellulosic ethanol commercially competitive.

But that will likely change. Scientists and engineers are working to make a commercially viable form of cellulosic ethanol. Some are developing new chemical processes; others are trying to genetically engineer new microbes that can “ferment” cellulose into ethanol like normal microbes that ferment sugars into ethanol. (The U.S.Department of Energy is helping fund six biorefineries.)

Cellulosic Ethanol Could Help Cut U.S. Global Warming Pollution

By my own estimates, agricultural and forest wastes could supply as much as 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year, saving up to 76 megatons of global warming emissions per year. (These results are somewhat larger than but consistent with other recent estimates (e.g., see Smith et al. 2004).) Such savings would cut a little less than 5% of all our heat-trapping pollution and about 15% of the emissions from the transportation sector.

By mid-century, cellulosic ethanol could supply as much as 86 billion gallons of ethanol, saving a little more than 180 megatons of global warming pollution per year — or almost 12% of America’s total global warming pollution and about 35% of the emissions from the transportation sector.

These are significant numbers. But to reach such levels we would need to grow bioenergy crops such as switch grass. Such cultivation, in turn, would require converting lands for this purpose, and that could raise some of the problems discussed in last week’s post.

The Bottom Line of Biofuels: There Are Winners and Losers

The saying “waste not, want not” applies to biofuels. The best biofuels are made from agricultural or forests wastes or from plants cultivated on degraded or marginal lands. The product from such feedstocks — cellulosic ethanol — is where we should be directing our entrepreneurial energies.

Read more about Dr. Bill Chameides, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University.

See also:

CleanTechnica: Gene from Cow’s Stomach Engineered to Create More Affordable Biofuel

Gas 2.0: Mascoma Update — Cellulosic Ethanol Company Adds $10 Million From Marathon Oil

CleanTechnica: First Sustainable Ethanol to Mass Market?

This facility at Waste Management’s Altamont Landfill in Livermore, California will begin operation in 2009. It comes with a price tag of $15.5 million, with grants providing $1.4 million.

Cleaner Fuel

Waste Management is the largest waste management company in North America and operates the largest US fleet of heavy-duty collection trucks. The company has a goal to reduce fleet emissions by 15% by 2020.

The new facility will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30,000 tons per year, according to Linde North America. LNG is a cleaner burning transportation fuel that emits less nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and particulates than diesel-fueled vehicles.

Duane Woods, senior vice president, Western group of Waste Management, said, “This will be the largest plant of its kind and we hope to break new ground by producing commercial quantities. Natural gas is already the cleanest burning fuel available for our collection trucks, and the opportunity to use recovered landfill gas offers enormous environmental benefits to the communities we serve.”

Demand for Low-carbon Fuels

California passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 and other states may follow. Demand for low-carbon fuels is expected to increase significantly in California as the state starts requiring a decrease in carbon emissions. Waste Management will be ahead of the curve by having plants like this in operation, creating lucrative business opportunities.

Related Posts on Alternative Fuels:

• Landfill Gas Heats and Powers School
• The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV’s)
• Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country

Photo Credit: Waste Management

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

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.

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

…or so the media has us all believe.

About two weeks ago, the Government of Delhi, India unveiled the much hyped Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), previously popular here as the High Capacity Bus Corridor (HCBS) and the construction for which had been on for the last few months. The little under 6 Km BRT stretch that is now completed and is being trial run came at the cost of some lives (accidental deaths) and at the reported cost of about 3,000 heritage trees of Delhi. The dedicated bus lanes invited mixed reaction from the public; with the car users complaining about having to spend more time on the road now than before and the bus riders being annoyed with the bus-stands being displaced to the middle of the road. Poor design and lack of coordination between different stake holders further worsened the situation. And as if all of that wasn’t enough, the media has taken on itself to narrate the “failure of BRT story” with much fervour.

The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Delhi is the brainchild of the Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi’s Traffic Research and Injury Prevention Programme (TRIPP) and has been executed by RITES Ltd., a Govt. of India enterprise. The Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System (DIMTS) a “special purpose vehicle” set up by the Govt. is supervising the Project. Clearly then, the Project does not have a single master: probably leading to the mess. The BRT stretch now requires over 70 traffic marshals, 35 traffic policemen and 20 transport department officials for enforcement.

However, it is not just poor planning and lack of coordination that is leading to the mayhem on the corridor. The people using the corridor are to be equally blamed. While the authorities are trying their best to ensure people drive in the lanes meant for the type of vehicle they are using, motorists are violating every rule in the book. The cycle lane is the worst hit and sees more motorcycles, scooters and auto-taxis than cycles. The BRT needs a disciplined traffic to work best, and Delhi unfortunately does not relate much to the latter. Halting on the road to take a call, changing lanes without signaling, over-speeding and jumping signals isn’t something too uncommon in the city. In fact, it is this very discipline now required to maintain on the road, that has been irritating many.

Apparently, the media has initiated a “scrap BRT campaign” of its own! Ever since the first trial run, images and footage of cars waiting forever, motorcycles scattered around the signals, pedestrians not knowing where/how to go; have been put up on the front page/prime time by several media houses. What is unfortunate is that the media seems to have ignored the large number of people who have benefited from the launch of the BRT. While some 1.2 lakh people using their personal vehicles may facing problems and hating the BRT, more than double this number of people using buses have not complained. Rather, they have not been heard.

To gain some experience, I myself took a ride on the entire strecth of the BRT. It felt good, the journey was much speedier and the same bus that used to crawl on the road was at a speed that would not have ever been possible without the corridor. The new low floored buses that have been around for some time added to my pleasant experience. Minus the AC, the experience came pretty close to what it feels when one travels in the Delhi Metro!

Next day, I took my car on the same route, got stuck at all signals - with an empty lane on my left - that had buses zooming pass by me. Then, I realized why all the irritation, disgust and hatred was for!

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

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!

The average Chicagoan spends an hour and a half commuting to and from work each day. With the second largest public transportation system in the country, one million people ride city buses each day. Mayor Daley considered both facts when he devised a plan aimed at easing congestion, commuting times, and air pollution in the central business district. A $153 million federal grant can help make this plan a reality.

Priority Given to Buses Over Cars

The first part of the plan entails creating a 100 mile bus corridor with dedicated bus lanes during peak hours. Kiosks selling bus tickets allow passengers to quickly board buses and many routes will run express, resulting in fewer stops. Traffic lights will be programmed to turn green for buses, helping to keep them in motion. Hybrid buses will be used, reducing pollution in these heavily populated areas.

“The Bus Rapid Transit service will give commuters a more modern and faster alternative to driving as well as better connections with rail lines,” said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. “The result is less congestion and less pollution.”

Driving Discouraged

This plan not only encourages mass transit use, but also discourages driving. Cars will squeeze into fewer lanes as buses have dedicated lanes. Parking meter and loading zone usage fees would increase during peak times.

6,013 meters line the streets of the central business district, according to the Chicago Department of Revenue. They generated a hefty $10.1 million in 2007 for the City. If parking rates increase too much, drives will prefer private parking lots. Some businesses are weary of effects of parking rate increases.

“We’ve expressed concern about past congestion pricing proposals and their impact on both businesses and employees and we will be looking at this in coming weeks,” said Justin DeJong, a spokesman for the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.

Changing Behavior

The question behind Mayor Daley’s plans is whether a carrot and a shove will get people out of their cars. Is this enough to ease the American love affair with the automobile, at least in times of peak congestion?

Related Posts:
Chicago Generates Twice the Energy for a Third of the Carbon
5 Ways to Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil
European “Smart Car” Hits the American Market
Decrease Air Pollution Through School Bus Program

Seems logical, right? But knowing how your transportation costs can affect your decision on where to live isn’t easy. Fortunately, along comes a new online tool that makes it considerably easier.

The Housing + Transportation Affordability Index lets you see which parts of the U.S. are truly affordable when you factor in both housing and transportation costs. The index lets you zoom in and explore 52 metropolitan areas across the country and, to be honest, it’s both fascinating and a little addictive.
Go to the index’s results for the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area, for example, and you’ll see the outlying regions — the suburbs and exurbs — are the most affordable when considering housing costs alone. Switch to a view that shows affordability when both housing and transportation costs are factored in, and the picture is almost entirely reversed. Many of those “reasonably priced” suburbs, it turns out, have housing-transportation costs that eat up 48 percent or more of the region’s median income.

Cooler still is the index’s “goal for affordability” tool. When you highlight that choice for a region, you’ll see in stark teals (less affordable) vs. yellows (more affordable) which areas let you keep housing and travel expenses below 45 percent of median income.

The index was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology in partnership with The Brookings Institution.

“The index tells an alternative story of affordability than we’ve become accustomed to hearing,” said Scott Bernstein, president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. “The real estate pages may list 2- and 3-bedroom homes for under $150,000 in suburban communities. That sounds affordable, right? But once you factor in transportation costs, the bargain goes away. Transportation costs can be as much or more than housing costs. The index protects consumers by divulging those costs and helps planners and decision-makers work toward providing truly affordable housing.”

Check out the index yourself to see how your area measures in true affordability. I bet you’ll discover it gives a whole new, greener meaning to the old real-estate cliche of “location, location, location.”

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

This morning on NPR, President Bush tried to blame congress for the nation’s high gas, food, and electricity prices. Apparently, Congress has been thwarting the President’s attempts to fix the economy:

“I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems,” the president said. “Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them.”

The President proposed dealing with high gas prices by “environmentally safe” drilling the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR.

“It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery, yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries,” Bush said.

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Of course, we wouldn’t reach 876,000 barrels of oil per day until production peaked in 2025, assuming the oil started flowing by 2013. According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration back in 2004 (that’s where these numbers come from), peak oil production in ANWR “might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel.”

Even if the analysis was spot-on about the price of oil (only $100 dollars off), would 30 to 50 cents make a difference? The analysis went on to say that OPEC (being OPEC) would probably “countermand” any change in price by reducing an equivalent amount of oil exports.

So how is it going to help the average American to drill in ANWR? It probably wouldn’t. With oil at $120 a barrel and rising steadily, the only thing that’s clear is how lucrative the proposal would be for oil companies.

Bush also mentioned lifting federal gas and diesel taxes (18.4 cents and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively) over the summer, another move that would make a huge difference in long term energy security. I think Barack Obama is right about this one: it’s a “gimmick that won’t provide any significant relief to motorists.”

At a meeting with voters in North Carolina on Monday, Mr. Obama said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts. Mr. Obama has previously dismissed Mr. McCain’s proposal as a “scheme.”

“Half a tank of gas,” Mr. Obama told his audience. “That’s his big solution.”

How about raising petroleum taxes and investing in renewable energy infrastructure? How about setting up a tax on carbon emissions like British Columbia just did? Anything but continuing to invest so heavily in a resource that’s on its way out.

It’s time to start looking for real solutions, and gracefully acquiescing that it’s the end of an era.

To hear Bush’s speech, listen to the NPR show from this morning. Have a comment on this topic? Share it below.

I wasn’t too bummed, because as I alluded to earlier, it did open my eyes to Mana and their Selva Negra Foundation, and Missy Higgins and her carbon neutral tour. The article also highlighted the other things their top ten green bands, or “Green Ten”, are doing to share their music and their ideals. Like, The Roots giving away autographed compost bins, or Radiohead’s desire to travel only when needed, and to partner with Best Foot Forward when they do, or Serj Tankian’s Sky Is Over website, or a whole fleet of biodiesel buses, etc… (I’ll let you read the article for more).

I was also happy that Billboard did leave out one of Jack’s most important “green” features, so that I could be left with a little writing of my own…


As great as it is that there are recycled paper CD covers and biodiesel buses, we cannot create true worldwide change without organized organizing. Without linking a bunch of little individual movements together we remain isolated and much less able to make a meaningful difference. As a result, Jack and Kim Johnson (with operational support from Music Matters, and technical support from Oniracom) created the All at Once Community. Their tagline reads: “An individual action, multiplied by millions, creates global change.”

Jacob Tell, Vice President and Creative Lead of Oniracom and Oniric Records shared some background with me this afternoon:

Jack’s song “All At Once” is the ethos surrounding the concept of this online social networking site. Music Matters has been good to work with - they are behind the logistics and operations, whereas Jack and Kim are the architects of the general idea. It’s like an environmental myspace. The goal is to provoke environmental education and communication. We’ve been involved on most decisions from a technical perspective, allowing our online marketing experience to mature within the realm of All At Once. It’s been great to be a part of. We’re excited to watch the community continue to grow.

They are linking a growing list of environmental non-profits together with a large number of individuals to create what will hopefully become one large voice for change. View the video explaining their vision here. And remember, “An individual action, multiplied by millions, creates global change”, so start changing…

…the world!

For more on what Jack Johnson is doing to green up the world check out his “greening” page.

photo credit: www.jackjohnsonmusic.com

Asia

Working the land the natural way: Organic farming in China

It’s been almost four years since the project was launched, and of the nine households who have tried organic farming, only four are still at it. The others decided it just wasn’t worth it. Organic farming requires much more labor, the yield can be half or less of that of conventional farming, and besides, hardly anyone in Chengdu is eating organic. Our stock broker-turned-farmer estimates their customer base to be only 0.01% of Chengdu’s population.

Anlong farmer Gao Shengjian believes there’s a link between the use of pesticides and fertilizers on farms and the growing incidences of various diseases among the rural population.

Source: Crossroads China. Vote for this article in social media: StumbleUpon.

China down to 12 days worth of coal

China only has enough coal for 12 days of consumption, three days less than a month ago, state media reported Wednesday, sounding the alarm bells over the nation’s most important source of energy.

In certain parts of China, such as densely populated Hebei province in the north, reserves are down to less than a week, Xinhua news agency reported, citing the China Electricity Regulatory Commission.

In the period since early March, coal reserves have slumped by 12 per cent to 46.7 million tonnes, according to the commission.

Source: News.com.au. Vote for this article in social media: Digg.

Chinese execute Tibetans

[kml_flashembed movie="http://ca.youtube.com/v/rLN4KWxqZ-0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Note: The above video contains long-distance video footage of people being killed. Please watch at your own discretion. Vote for this article in social media: Digg, Care2. Get involved: Students for a Free Tibet.

Europe

Europeans using cars less

Europe generally has far better public transportation than the United States, with workers in countries like Britain, Be

While we love hearing about sweet rides like the $100K Tesla Roadster, a functional and economical electric car made for the rest of us would be even cooler.

This could be it: the Th!nk City electric car, a four-seater with 110 mile range and top speed of 65 mph, priced under $25,000, made from 95% recyclable materials, and available in the U.S. in 2009.

The Th!nk City electric car is the product of Norwegian firm Th!nk Global, an auto manufacturer backed by Silicon Valley funding who has plans to assemble the cars in Southern California. In contrast to Tesla’s limited release of 300 cars per year, the Th!nk City is designed for mass production to the tune of 30-50,000 units within a few years. Th!nk already produces about 10,000 of these cars in Europe annually.

As an interesting aside, Ford Motor Company originally developed the vehicle, but (in a move they may soon regret), sold it to Norwegian investors in 2003. Why is it so cool? Because most of us don’t drive more than 40 miles in a day, and small electric cars are optimally suited for congested city driving. The benefits are pretty obvious, but if you’re worried about getting out for the weekend with the Th!nk City, don’t. Use it for city driving and keep that gas-guzzling SUV for forays into the mountains. You’ll still come out ahead.

Safety-wise, the Th!nk City meets the strict safety requirements of both Europe and the US as a highway-safe road car. ABS brakes, airbags, side-impact bars, and an advanced frame designed to absorb energy and distribute it away from the passenger’s compartment make it another blow to the myth that bigger cars are inherently safer.

If recent sales trends toward smaller vehicles are any indication (sales of Toyota Yaris up 70%), the Th!ink city could be very popular when released in the US.

Check out a few more pictures (below), and learn more from Th!nk’s website.

Addendum: Are plug-in electric vehicles a perfect answer to our transportation problems? I think you’ll see from the comments below that no, they aren’t. As one reader pointed out, dead batteries in the Th!nk City could take up to 10 hours to charge. That’s not only inconvenient, but putting 50,000 of these on the road could cause serious power draw (see Plug-In Hybrids Could Require 160 New Power Plants By 2030 (Or None At All and Plug-In Hybrids Use Over 17 Times More Water Than Regular Cars, Researchers Say). Since such a large portion of US power generation comes from coal, the increasing use of plug-in hybrid and electric cars will require serious consideration of other energy sources (for example, see How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation).

Related Posts on Electric Cars:

• Aptera’s $26,000 Electric Car and 300 MPG Hybrid Coming Soon
• Tesla Motors Sues Fisker Automotive Over Electric Car Design
• Tesla’s First Electric Vehicle, 2008 Roadster, Now Under Production
• Subaru Unleashes R1e Electric Car on New York
• Chevy Volt’s Lithium-Ion Batteries Road- Tested By Month’s End
• Get 120 MPG Out of Your Prius (Plug It In)
• The Sporty Future of Electrics Cars: the Lightning GT

Photo Credits: Th!nk