(Source: Autoblog, Bloomberg & ThisDay)

America might get most of its oil from Canada, but the moves that Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) makes still reverberate here. Thus, a statement by the Kuwaiti Oil Minister Sheikh Ahmed al-Abdullah al-Sabah to reporters yesterday probably won’t help decrease domestic gasoline prices any time soon. OPEC’s al-Sabah said that the organization will not consider increasing production until the price of a barrel of oil reaches $100.

Crude oil traded in New York has climbed almost 60 percent this year, after plunging more than $100 in five months at the end of 2008 as the global recession curbed demand for fuel.

(Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office)

The U.S. transportation sector relies almost exclusively on oil; as a result, it causes about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Advanced technology vehicles powered by alternative fuels, such as electricity and ethanol, are one way to reduce oil consumption. The federal government set a goal for federal agencies to use plug-in hybrid electric vehicles–vehicles that run on both gasoline and batteries charged by connecting a plug into an electric power source–as they become available at a reasonable cost. This goal is on top of other requirements agencies must meet for conserving energy.

In response to a request, GAO examined the:

(1) potential benefits of plug-ins,

(2) factors affecting the availability of plug-ins, and

(3) challenges to incorporating plug-ins into the federal fleet. GAO reviewed literature on plug-ins, federal legislation, and agency policies and interviewed federal officials, experts, and industry stakeholders, including auto and battery manufacturers.

Increasing the use of plug-ins could result in environmental and other benefits, but realizing these benefits depends on several factors. Because plug-ins are powered at least in part by electricity, they could significantly reduce oil consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. For plug-ins to realize their full potential, electricity would need to be generated from lower-emission fuels such as nuclear and renewable energy rather than the fossil fuels–coal and natural gas–used most often to generate electricity today. However, new nuclear plants and renewable energy sources can be controversial and expensive. In addition, research suggests that for plug-ins to be cost-effective relative to gasoline vehicles the price of batteries must come down significantly and gasoline prices must be high relative to electricity.

Auto manufacturers plan to introduce a range of plug-in models over the next 6 years, but several factors could delay widespread availability and affect the extent to which consumers are willing to purchase plug-ins. For example, limited battery manufacturing, relatively low gasoline prices, and declining vehicle sales could delay availability and discourage consumers. Other factors may emerge over the longer term if the use of plug-ins increases, including managing the impact on the electrical grid (the network linking the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity) and increasing consumer access to public charging infrastructure needed to charge the vehicles.

The federal government has supported plug-in-related research and initiated new programs to encourage manufacturing. Experts also identified options for providing additional federal support. To incorporate plug-ins into the federal fleet, agencies will face challenges related to cost, availability, planning, and federal requirements. Plug-ins are expected to have high upfront costs when they are first introduced. However, they could become comparable to gasoline vehicles over the life of ownership if certain factors change, such as a decrease in the cost of batteries and an increase in gasoline prices.

Agencies vary in the extent to which they use life-cycle costing when evaluating which vehicle to purchase. Agencies also may find that plug-ins are not available to them, especially when the vehicles are initially introduced because the number available to the government may be limited. In addition, agencies have not made plans to incorporate plug-ins due to uncertainties about vehicle cost, performance, and infrastructure needs.

Finally, agencies must meet a number of requirements covering energy use and vehicle acquisition–such as acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and reducing facility energy and petroleum consumption–but these sometimes conflict with one another. For example, plugging vehicles into federal facilities could reduce petroleum consumption but increase facility energy use. The federal government has not yet provided information to agencies on how to set priorities for these requirements or leverage different types of vehicles to do so. Without such information, agencies face challenges in making decisions about acquiring plug-ins that will meet the requirements, as well as maximize plug-ins’ potential benefits and minimize costs.

The recommendations are listed below:

• To enable agencies to more effectively meet congressional requirements, the Secretary of Energy should, in consultation with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and organizations representing federal fleet customers such as Interagency Committee for Alternative Fuels and Low-Emission Vehicles (INTERFUEL), Federal Fleet Policy Council (FEDFLEET), and the Motor Vehicle Executive Council, propose legislative changes that would resolve the conflicts and set priorities for the multiple requirements and goals with respect to reducing petroleum consumption, reducing emissions, managing costs, and acquiring advanced technology vehicles.
• The Secretary of Energy should begin to develop guidance for when agencies consider acquiring plug-in vehicles, as well as guidance specifying the elements that agencies should include in their plans for acquiring the mix of vehicles that will best enable them to meet their requirements and goals. Such guidance might include assessing the need for installing charging infrastructure and identifying areas where improvements may be necessary, mapping current driving patterns, and determining the energy sources used to generate electricity in an area.
• The Secretary of Energy should continue ongoing efforts to develop guidance for agencies on how electricity used to charge plug-ins should be measured and accounted for in meeting energy-reduction goals related to federal facilities and alternative fuel consumption. In doing so, the Secretary should determine whether changes to existing legislation will be needed to ensure there is no conflict between using electricity to charge vehicles and requirements to reduce the energy intensity of federal facilities, and advise Congress accordingly.
• The Administrator of GSA should consider providing information to agencies regarding total cost of ownership or life-cycle cost for vehicles in the same class. For plug-in vehicles that are newly offered, the Administrator should provide guidance for how agencies should address uncertainties about the vehicles’ future performance in estimating the life-cycle costs of plug-ins, so agencies can make better-informed, consistent, and cost-effective decisions in acquiring vehicles.
• Once plug-in hybrids and all-electrics become available to the federal government but are still in the early phases of commercialization, the Administrator of GSA should explore the possibility of arranging pass-through leases of plug-in vehicles directly from vehicle manufacturers or dealers–as is being done with DOD’s acquisition of neighborhood electric vehicles–if doing so proves to be a cost-effective means of reducing some of the risk agencies face associated with acquiring new technology.

Click here to read or download the entire report.

(Source: AFP via Yahoo & Science Daily)

Image Courtesy: IOP - Energy consumption and GHG emissions per PKT (The vehicle operation components are shown with gray patterns. Other vehicle components are shown in shades of blue. Infrastructure components are shown in shades of red and orange. The fuel production component is shown in green. All components appear in the order they are shown in the legend.)

Do you worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint? Are you the one who frets about  tailpipe emissions, greenhouse gases and climate change?

If yes,  you must be the one who prefers to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study published in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain’s Institute of Physics.  Often unknown to the public, there are an array of hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple “tailpipe” tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip. Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at theUniversity of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.  By comparison, San Francisco‘s local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston’s. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the “tailpipe” quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure — railways, airport terminals, roads and so on — nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

The researchers also touch on the effect of low passenger occupancy and show that we are naïve to automatically assume one form of transport is more environmentally friendly than another. They conclude from their calculations that a half-full Boston light railway is only as environmentally friendly, per kilometre traveled, as a midsize aircraft at 38 per cent occupancy.  From cataloguing the varied environmental costs the researchers come to some surprising conclusions. A comparison between light railways in both Boston and San Franciso show that despite Boston boasting a light railway with low operational energy use, their LRT is a far larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter because 82 per cent of the energy generated in Boston is fossil-fuel based, compared to only 49 per cent in San Francisco.

Total life-cycle energy inputs and GHG emissions contribute an additional 155 per cent for rail, 63 per cent for cars and buses, and 32 per cent for air systems over vehicle exhaust pipe operation.

Journal reference:

• Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath. Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 2009; 4 (024008) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008

(Source: ABC News & Autobloggreen)

I had an opportunity to take a ride today in a new electric car that has perhaps one of the best shots at being the U.S. answer to Japan’s popular Toyota Prius.

Image Courtesy: Autobloggreen

Designed by Santa Monica, California-based Coda Automotive, the four-door sedan isn’t powered by gas. The electric battery can plug into any standard AC outlet.

Coda says a 40-mile commute takes about 2 hours to charge.

Right now, the car and it’s battery are manufactured in China. But the company has applied for tens of millions of dollars worth of stimulus funding through the Department of Energy to build an electric battery plant in a factory in Enfield, Connecticut to fuel it’s vehicles.

“The U.S. has zero,  absolutely no mass battery manufacturing in the United States.  So we’re going to China where they can mass produce the batteries to get these cars to market in the U.S. fast until we can get these produced here” said Kevin Czinger, president and CEO of Coda Automotive.

Coda plans to partner with aerospace battery designer Connecticut-based Yardney Technical Products to create and mass produce the first U.S. electric car battery.

The company says the plant could employ 600 people at first, and then possibly grow. Beginning next June, Coda plans to have the capacity to build 2,700 cars and 20,000 a year in 2011. By comparison, Toyota sold about 159,000second-generation Toyota Prius hybrid cars last year in the U.S.  The price tag? $45,000 — but buyers could receive a federal tax credit worth $7,500 and other state incentives that Coda says could drive the price down to $32,500.

Image Courtesy: Autobloggreen

Click here to see more hi-res pictures of the Coda sedan.

(Source: Associated Press, The Detroit News, Streetsblog & Jalopnik)

With the “Cash for Clunkers” bill successfully clearing the House floor, there is a lot of chatter about the fate of this bill in the Senate.   The auto industry and Michigan lawmakers are pushing for quick Senate action on this legislation to boost auto sales, after the House overwhelmingly passed the bill Tuesday.

But it remains unclear when Senate supporters may overcome the objections of Senate appropriators and a group of senators who say the House proposal doesn’t do enough to improve fuel efficiency on the nation’s highways.

The House approved its version Tuesday, 298-199, with substantial Republican support despite the opposition of House leaders including Minority Leader John Boehner and whip Eric Cantor.

Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., introduced a nearly identical bill in the Senate, but had to withdraw an attempt to get a floor vote last week.

Opposition came from members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which objected to funding provisions of the bill, and from senators who want tougher fuel economy requirements.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a competing proposal on Monday.   Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.  The requirements for car trade-ins aren’t much better under the Stabenow and Sutton plans, with a mere4 mpg increase in fuel economy triggering the $3,500 tax credit.  With Rep. Sutton’s plan winning the House approval this week, Stabenow’s Senate counterpart could potentially get a leg up over Feinstein’s.

While we await the Senate action, I put together a quick side by side comparision of the two bills  (data from Associated Press).

Data Courtesy: Associated Press

Also, our friends at Jalopnik have compiled an awesome visual that simplifies the rs details of this “Cash for Clunkealong” with some great analysis about the worthiness of the program for buyers.

First of all, operable vehicles are required and there aren’t many people driving around with vehicles worth less than $1,500. Many old crappy cars, in fact, can still demand up to $2,500 on the open market. This means you’re going to get, max, $2000 for your trade-in. The least valuable qualifying cars, of course, are actually the more efficient compact vehicles, which makes getting the necessary 10 MPG improvement unlikely.

The second problem, stemming from the first, is quantifying the number of people who actually drive around in cars worth less than $2,500 and can actually afford a new car. Our instinct tells us there aren’t many people. This means people taking advantage of the program will, typically, have to be excited by the prospect of saving $1,000 or $2,000. These people should already have been swayed by intense discounting from automakers in recent months.

Image Courtesy: Jalopnik

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress)

Image: via Apture

Off late, there is a big push within the Aviation industry towards a “greener future.”   More airlines are starting to test technologies and tweak approaches (such as use of biofuels) to attract the environmentally-conscious consumer. According to 700-page Stern Report on the economics of climate change, CO2 emissions from aviation are about 600-700 megatonnes per year, or about 2-3% of total global CO2 emissions.   Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO, in his State of the Industry address at the 65th IATA Annual General Meeting and World Air Transport Summit in Kuala Lumpur said the international airline industry is committed to achieving carbon-neutral growth by 2020.

Amdist all the buzz and fervor building up around the greening of aviation, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA),  the world’s largest technical society dedicated to the global aerospace profession, with more than 35,000 individual members worldwide, and 90 corporate members, has released its first annual list of top emerging aerospace technologies.  Developed by AIAA’s Emerging Technologies Committee (ETC), the 2009 list comprises the following:

1. “Greener Aviation” Technologies, including emission reduction and noise reduction technologies as usedin the Federal Aviation Administration’s Continuous Low Emissions, Energy and Noise (CLEEN) program, and the European Environmentally Friendly Engine (EFE) program and “Clean Sky” Joint Technology Initiative.
2. Alternative Fuels, including biofuels, as promoted by the FAA’s Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), and the recent FAA grant to the X Prize Foundation to spur development of renewable aviation fuels and technologies.
3. High Speed Flight Technologies, such as supersonic and hypersonic aerodynamics, sonic boom reduction technology, and thermal management aids.
4. Efficient Propulsion Technologies, including open rotors and geared turbofans, such as those used in the European DREAM (valiDation Radical Engine Architecture systeMs) program.
5. Active Flow Technologies, such as plasma actuators.
6. Advanced Materials, such as nanotechnology and composites.
7. Active Structures, such as shape memory alloys, morphing, and flapping.
8. Health Management, such as monitoring, prognostics, and self-healing.
9. Remote Sensing Technologies, including unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites such as those used inNASA’s Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) program.
10. Advanced Space Propulsion Technologies, including plasma-based propulsion such as the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, and solar sail technologies.

AIAA’s list reflects the expertise of the members of the Emerging Technologies Committee, as well as the results of a specially commissioned study. The ETC is composed of three technical subcommittees: Aviation, Space, and Multidisciplinary and System Technologies.  ETC chair Dan Jensen stated, “The list provides guidance to AIAA for its institute development strategy, while helping shape the annual input AIAA provides to the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. The technologies listed represent the aerospace technologies in which research and technology development is most active from a global perspective.”

(Source:  Autoblog & Detroit Free Press)

The U.S. House approved the “cash for clunkers” legislation earlier today, paving the way for consumers to snag up to $4,500 for trading in their older vehicles for new, more fuel efficient transport.

The bill, which passed 298-119, drew overwhelming support from automakers, local business groups and dealers who claimed the passage could boost sales – further aiding GM and Chrysler’s “reinvention” – during the economic downturn.

The House bill sets aside $4 billion to pay for electronic vouchers given to owners of older vehicles toward new models. With auto sales running at their lowest rate in four decades, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill could spur sales of about 625,000 vehicles; backers are hoping for 1 million.

The act “will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies,” said Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio. “It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

The government’s interest in goosing the vehicle market extends to its ownership inGeneral Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, both of which are counting on a healthier U.S. market in the coming years for survival.

“The auto industry is going through a tremendous restructuring,” said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak. “If there is not increased demand, that restructuring cannot succeed.”

Under the plan, owners of cars and trucks that get less than 18 m.p.g. could get a voucher of $3,500 to $4,500 for a new vehicle, depending on the mileage of the new model.

(Source:  Flight Global)

American Airlines plans to fly a more precise altitude on an 11 June flight as part of the launch of testing to prove efficiencies of aircraft equipped with avionics to support next generation (NextGen) air traffic control modernization.

The flight operated by American from Charles De Gaulle to Miami is designed to showcase route optimization as the carrier plans to operate within a special envelope clear of other aircraft.

On the flight American plans to use single engine taxi on departure and arrival, continuous climb out and descent, optimised routing and a tailored arrival.

For the optimised routing over water American will fly a more precise altitude of 32,400ft, for example, rather than being confined to a normal altitude of 32,000ft or 33,000ft, says American Boeing 777/737 programme manager Brian Will.

Once the weight burns down the Boeing 767 can climb another 1,000-2,000ft. But instead of using an increase in engine power for that climb, the 767 climbs in 100-200ft increments without a push in power, which reduces fuel burn and carbon emissions, Will explains.

American is spending about $2.2 million per aircraft for its future air navigation system (fans) upgrade that includes a global positioning update to the flight management system and changes to the flight management computer that allow for the automatic downlink of an aircraft’s position through controller pilot datalink communication. Fourteen of the carrier’s 767s have been upgraded with the system.

(Source: Wired & You Tube)

Folks at Mission Motors are hard at work preparing for the upcoming TTxGP green motorcycle grand prix.  As they prepared their electric beauty, Mission One, for the D-Day they decided to take it out for a spin on the circuit and test its endurance and speed.   We are now thankful that the team decided to capture the events in a video and decided to share with us enthusiasts who are eagerly awaiting the products arrival in the market. The video provides some tantalizing glimpses of the bike’s mechanicals, and since Mission Motorsunveiled the bike in February, we know a little about what’s coming in the $69,000 street bike slated for production next year.

“We were able to test extensively at speed as well as for endurance,” company founder and CEO Forrest North told Wired.com. “The bike responded amazingly in both areas. We were extremely impressed that right off the factory floor the Mission One could be ridden to the limits with very few tweaks. We’re excited to begin testing at the Isle of Man next week and put the bike through its paces on the mountain course.”

It has a 3-phase AC induction motor and a liquid-cooled lithium-ion battery. Mission Motors claims the battery is good for 150 miles and recharges in just two hours at 240 volts. Lustworthy hardware includes Ohlins suspension at both ends, four-piston Brembo brakes and Marchesini forged wheels. The components put the Mission One on par with hardcore sportbikes like the Ducati 1198.

The TTxGP will be a great place to prove the bike’s sporting cred. The inaugural event follows the Isle of Man TT, one of the most storied races in all of motorcycling. The 37.5-mile course may well be the ultimate test of a motorcycle’s handling, and running that hard for that long will show what’s possible – or what isn’t – with battery range.

(Source: Streetsblog & Rotor.com)

The House is poised this week to take up the so-called “cash for clunkers” bill, which aims to boost the slumping U.S. auto market by giving out tax credits of $3,500 and up to anyone who trades in a gas-guzzling car for a more efficient model.

With the Senate Majority Leader threatening to make Senators work five days a week to speed up work on legislative priorities, lawmakers expect to finish a war supplemental bill this week that would include a provision for cash for clunkers and then Congress will turn its attention to healthcare and climate change legislation.

House Democrats must settle the issue of whether to include in the war supplemental a provision that would give car buyers a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trading gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.  There is tremendous bipartisan support for this proposal, especially with the recent bankruptcy of General Motors.

The likely passage of Sutton’s bill this week could be bad news for a stronger “cash for clunkers” plan that’s being promoted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who displayed welcome candor last month in calling the Sutton plan “the auto industry’s version” of “cash for clunkers” and “unacceptable” to American drivers.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.