(Source: Wired)

Image via Apture

The electrification of the automobile has been called the auto industry’s “moon shot,” an analogy that works because of both the technology involved and the cost to develop it. Automakers are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort with no promise that it will lead to affordable battery-powered vehicles anytime soon — or any guarantee people will buy them once they’re available.

All of the major automakers are racing to put EVs in showrooms as early as next year, and they’re spending money like sailors on shore leave to do it. General Motors has spent about $1 billion developing the Chevrolet Volt. Chrysler wants to invest $448 million in its electric vehicle program to build cars like the Circuit, pictured above at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Elon Musk’s personal investment in Tesla Motors tops $75 million.

The Apollo program cost more than $100 billion in today’s dollars, and as Ron Cogan, founder and editor of Green Car Journal and greencar.com notes, there was no imperative to produce a reasonably priced consumer product. Not so with electric vehicles – the whole point is to sell cars. The Obama Administration is betting heavily on the technology, having recently approved almost $8 billion to help automakers retoolfactories to produce EVs and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Another $16 billion will be doled out next year.

“What people overlook is that accomplishing ‘big picture’ programs like Apollo require accepting the concept of unlimited spending to achieve the mission,” Cogan says. “Current levels of unprecedented federal spending notwithstanding, electric cars are not an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges and consumers will not be willing to buy them at all costs.”

Early adopters and hardcore EV advocates will gladly pay that much, but will the rest of us pay $15,000 to $25,000 more for a car that runs on electricity? Cogan doesn’t think so and says EVs should be considered mid- to long-term solutions until automakers — and the battery makers they rely upon — can bring costs down to a level competitive with vehicles propelled by internal combustion.

Until then, he says, more efficient gasoline cars, clean diesel vehicles and hybrids will comprise the majority of cars sold even as EVs become an increasingly common sight in showrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Examiner & Autobloggreen)

In the name of “clean energy,” Washington is subsidizing a switch from gasoline-powered cars to cars powered mostly by coal. In pursuit of “energy independence,” the feds may foster addiction to a fuel concentrated in a socialist-run South American country.

Image Courtesy: Apture - Hybrid electric vehicles at Argonne

Lobbying by automakers, chemical companies and coal-dependent power producers has yielded a slew of subsidies and mandates for electric cars. However promising a gasoline-free automobile may sound, anyone who followed the government’s mad rush to ethanol fuel in recent years has to worry about the clean promise of the electric car yielding dirty results.

Ethanol — an alcohol fuel made from corn or other plants — has been pushed relentlessly on the American people by a Congress under the influence of a powerful ethanol lobby. Touted as a clean fuel, the government-created ethanol boom has contributed to water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation and even air pollution.

Lithium could be the new ethanol, thanks to the government push for electric cars. Lithium is an element found in nature, and lithium-ion batteries are at the heart of the next generation of electric cars. Compared with lead acid (the standard car battery) and nickel metal hydride (the batteries in today’s hybrids), lithium-ion batteries are less toxic, more powerful and longer lasting.

But what would happen if electric cars and these batteries gain wide use?

Before we even get to the batteries, recall that although all-electric, plug-in cars emit nothing, somebody needs to burn something for the car to move. Here, the burning happens at the power plant instead of under your hood.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

If the cleaner and cheaper fuel of a plug-in causes someone to drive even a bit more, it’s a break-even on CO2. GAO co-author Mark Gaffigan raised the question to CNSNews.com; “If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?”

And of course, there’s the lithium lobby. FMC Corp. is the largest lithium producer in the United States. The company employs a dozen lobbying firms and operates its own political action committee. FMC has leaned on Congress and the Energy Department for electric car subsidies.

If the electric car lobby succeeds, brace for another harsh lesson in unintended consequences.

Click here to read the entire Examiner article. Our friends at Autobloggreen were kind enough to point Tim Carney, the author of this Examiner article, the following: While Carney is right that the GAO did warn against all of the coal that could be used to power the EVs of the future, he forgot to mention the GAO’s finding that “Research we reviewed indicated that plug-ins could shift air pollutant emissions away from population centers even if there was no change in the fuel used to generate electricity.”

TransportGooru Musings: Though I agree with some aspects of the author’s argument, I disagree with the notion that  Electric Vehicle investment boom is akin to that of the Ethanol-boom of the years past.   There are many differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the past.  Apart from ridiculing the Government’s strategy, the author, Tim Carney, is not offering any credible solutions and simply terrorizes the readers with an insane argument — Your tax dollars are getting wasted and the lithium lobbies are winning.

Let us see, Mr. Carney! We have two clear choices  — either we continue to tread the same path, guzzling billions of gallons of oil a day (and polluting the environment with gay abandon), all the while facilitating the transfer of your dollars to some petro-dictatorship in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) or South America (Venezuela).  Or try and invest in something like Electric Vehicles which can help us and our children breathe easy in the years to come.   The latter option may not be very appealing to many folks like you who are grounded in a myopic view of the world.

Though majority of the electric power produced in the US comes from coal,  we can to a large degree control the emissions from these coal plants with current technology.  It may require some more arm twisting on the Government’s part to make these coal-fired electric plants to adhere to the stringent emissions standards but this is a lot more easy to manage.  Also, with more government investment in other forms of generating electricity and a great deal of consumer interest in purchasing clear power, we have  golden an opportunity for investing in other forms of electricity production (Nuclear,  Wind, solar. etc – FYI, Government data indicate there have been 17 licence applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors since mid 2007, following several regulatory initiatives preparing the way for new orders and the Government envisions producing significant share of the power from Nuclear by 2020).

In this option, the Fed & State Governments can regulate and control these domestic sources of power generation and to a large degree keep the investments within the American borders.  If you are advocating to continue the same path as we have done in the past decades, Petro-dictators on the other parts of the globe  (Saudi, Venezuela, Russia, etc) are going to grow richer and they do not listen to what you or your government wants.  They do what they want and run a cartel (OPEC) that is very unrestrained and at times acts like a bunch of thugs.  In this option, your price at the pump is not dictated by your Government but some hukka-smoking, arms-dealing perto-aggresor, who is trying to make the best of the situation and extract as much as he can from your wallet.

The Ethanol buzz dissipated quickly because the Detroit lobby was too damn powerful and them automakers were not listening well to what the customers wanted.   When the economy tanked (and the markets wreacked havock on their stock values) and the customers started showing love for foreign manufactured cars like Prius & Insight,  Detroit had a sudden realization that they need to change their strategy and started moving away from making those huge SUVs and Trucks. Now they are talking about newer cars that are small, functional, economic and environmentally viable products.

It is hard to disagree that there was a flood of investment in the Ethanol technology, but the underlying concept remained the same (burning fuel using the conventional combustion engine) and there was nothing ground-shaking about the way it was promoted.  It is just that we were simply trying to change the amount of emissions coming out of our tailpipes.  But now with Electric-vehicles, we are changing the game completely.

Though it may take a few more years to develop the “Perfect” technology, full electrification of vehicles will eliminate the very concept of a tailpipe in a vehicle.  Tesla and numerous other manufacturers are trying to do this and I consider this to be a step in the right direction.  One thing we have to bear in mind is that during the Ethanol era, the U.S. was the major proponent (because we have way to much areable land and corn growing farmers around) and the rest of the world was just playing along with mild interest because of various reason.  But this time around the  scenario looks very different.  Worldwide there is a coordinated push for heavy investments in alternative energy technologies, and almost every industrialized nation jumped into this EV bandwagon pushing research funds towards development of green cars when the oil prices sky rocketed.  No one is interested in paying $140+ dollars/barrel for oil.

Above all, we are at a time when the Government needs to invest its tax-payer dollars back in the communities in a fruitful way. The addiction to oil has gotten way bad and the sky-high oil prices of 2008 were a good indicator that we can’t afford to continue treading in the same path as we did in the decade past. If the Government has to hold back from investing in clean energy technologies, it might invest in other areas that may look very appealing in the short run but potentially leaving a huge developmental hole in the transportation sector.  This is the RIGHT TIME for investing in Electric Vehicles.  Now the Government has a stake in two of the three Detroit Automakers, which offers the flexibility to steer the development of new technologies and  newer vehicle platforms running on clean fuels such as electric and hydrogen power.

Going by your argument that by switching enmass to Electric-vehicles, we are going to create a demand for Lithium, simply shifting our oil dependence to socialist-Bolivia’s Lithium reserves, so be it.  You want to know why? Any day, I’ll take the Democratically-elected Bolivian Government (headed by a Evo Morales)  over the petro-crazy OPEC members.  If it helps resuscitate a nation that is living in depths of poverty, why not do that.  We in the Western world helped the Saudi’s & other mid-east monarchs become rich and modern from their goat-sheperding Bedouin past with the invention of modern Automobiles.  If we can do the same to Bolivia with the introduction of a new technology (Lithium-ion batteries for running cars), why do you get so jittery about that.

The growing threat of environmental degradation and the fallout from the rising green house gas emissions fore-casted by our eminent scientists are too damn threatening to our world and hard to ignore. Be happy thinking that your Government is doing something to improve the status-quo (which is guzzling billions of gallons of oil) instead of  sitting around waiting for a miracle.   For all that matters Electric Vehicles may be just an evolution in the quest for a better form of transportation.  Who knows!  But by investing in these technologies, we may at least have a chance to live a better life in the future. If our Government is not doing any of the above, we may never have a future after all.  So, let’s stop being an obstacle along the way for everything the Government does just because it is run by people who have a diabolically different views and principles.

(Source:  Green Car Congress & Synovate)

Market research firm Synovate released new study findings showing that nearly six in ten people would choose to buy a green car over a dream car, even if money was no object. In March 2009, Synovate surveyed more than 13,500 people across 18 markets (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom and the United States of America) about “green” versus “dream” cars, vehicle ownership, intent to buy in the next year and attitudes towards cars, traffic, public transport and their need-for-speed.

The top answer across all 18 markets, if money was no object, was to buy a green car, with 37% of respondents saying this would be their preference. Thirty percent said they would buy their dream car and a further 22% claimed that &ldqou;my dream car is a green car”, meaning that 59%—or very nearly six in ten—showed the desire to go green.

This In:fact survey on cars was conducted in March 2009 across 18 markets - Australia (AU), Brazil (BR), Canada (CA), China (CN), Egypt (EGY), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), India (IN), Japan (JP), Korea (KR), Malaysia (MY), South Africa (ZA), Thailand (TH), Turkey (TR), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US). It covered over 13,200 urban respondents

• The nation most likely to simply elect green car was Germany, with 58% choosing the environment over their dream cars.
• The 30% of people globally who would still choose their dream car, green-be-damned, comprised of 35% men and 27% women.
• The single biggest result for dream car came from South Africa where over half of all respondents (53%) would go for their fantasy vehicle over a green one.
• In the United States (US), 35% would buy a dream car, 23% chose green and 19% say their dream car is a green car. More American women than men say that their dream car is a green car (20% women versus 17% men).
• Overall, 15% of respondents across all 18 markets surveyed, including 9% in the US, say they will buy a new car in the next 12 months. The new car purchase intenders were topped by India at 38% and Egypt at 24%.
• 6% of survey respondents across the 18 markets say they will buy a used car in the next year, including 7% of Americans. 53% would be happy to pay more for a used car if it came with a manufacturer certification and warranty.
• South Africa (18%) as well as the US, Malaysia and Thailand (all 15%) were tops among the households globally in which more than two cars can be found.
• 14% of respondents across the 18 markets say they will use public transport more often in the coming year. The highest level of agreement was in China at 39%. The lowest level of agreement was in the US at 2%.
• 9% of people globally, including 5% of Americans, said they would be riding bikes or walking more often.

Click here to read the entire study.

(Source: Jalopnik)

Image Courtesy: Jalopnik

Now that the President has signed the “Cash For Clunkers” into a bill, a lot of you may be thinking hard about trading your old meta for a shiny new one.  Through various articles Transportgooru has already discussed in great lengths about the details associated with the Cash for Clunkers, including the eligibility criteria for trading your old vehicle.

To add to that, our good friends at Jalopnik have put together this awesome list (see below), which I think is a must read for anyone who is contemplating a trade under Cash for Clunkers program.  Here is the list in reverse order.

5.) Buy A Clunker Now!

Some unscrupulous sellers may try and convince you to buy a clunker for a few hundred dollars with the promise of being able to trade it in for a $4,500 voucher. In reality, if you haven’t owned your car and kept it running and insured for a year you’re not eligible. Don’t buy a beater unless you want to keep it for a while.

4.) Trade In Your Car Early! –

We’ve read reports on forums of people already taking advantage of the Cash for Clunkers bill. In reality, they’re being taken advantage of. The law has been signed, but the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration hasn’t finalized the rules. It probably won’t go into affect until after July 24th. If you are being offered a “voucher” on your clunker you’re really just getting money for your trade-in, which the dealer can then resell. The most you lose is your car, but the dealer could face a fine of up to $15,000.

3.) Scrap A Car Worth More Than The Voucher

The used car market isn’t great right now, but this doesn’t mean your vehicle doesn’t have some value. Make sure to check the value of your car using a resource like KBB before trading in an older car that, it turns out, is worth more than $4,500 or $3,500 on the open market. Dealers have a greater incentive to sell you a new car and scrap your old one than to get the value of your trade-in “clunker.”

2.) Get Denied For Other Discounts

The voucher program is not designed to be a stand-alone discount program, meaning you’re still eligible for whatever other discounts automakers are offering (and there are a lot of those). With 0% financing and thousands cash back you’re getting cheated if you just get the value of your trade-in off a new car. The average incentive, according to Edmunds, was $2,930 for June. So you could possibly get $4,500 + $3,000 off of a new car.

1.) Avoid Moving Up To A More Profitable Class

If you own a truck or SUV you can use your voucher to trade it in for a car and, likely, get a larger voucher. Many dealerships will want to put you into a new truck because they’re more expensive than most cars, but if you don’t need a truck you can trade your old one in and find an inexpensive car with 10 MPG better fuel economy, which qualifies you for $4,500. For example, if you’ve got a 1991 V6 Ford F-150 you can trade it in for a $15,000 2009 Ford Focus for your kid and get the full $4,500 off, instead of paying upwards of $20,000 for a new truck and only getting a $3,500 voucher.

(Source: AFP via Google, ITDP & Jakarta Post)

New laws requiring disabled pedestrians to wear traffic signs have met with frustration and derision in Indonesia, where in the eyes of the law cars have taken priority over people.

The laws will do nothing to improve road safety or ease the traffic that is choking the life out of the capital city of some 12 million people, and serve only to highlight official incompetence, analysts said.

Within five years, if nothing changes, experts predict Jakarta will reach total gridlock, with every main road and backstreet clogged with barely moving, pollution-spewing cars.

That’s too late for the long-awaited urban rail link known as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), which has only just entered the design stage and won’t be operational until 2016 at the earliest.

“Just like a big flood, Jakarta could be paralysed. The city’s mobility will die,” University of Indonesia researcher Nyoman Teguh Prasidha said.

Instead of requiring level footpaths and ramps, lawmakers voted unanimously this month to demand disabled people wear signs announcing their condition so motorists won’t run them down as they cross the street.

Experts say the new traffic law is sadly typical of a country which for decades has allowed cars and an obsession with car ownership to run rampant over basic imperatives of urban planning.

“It is strange when handicapped people are asked to carry extra burdens and obligations,” Institute of Transportation Studies (Instran) chairman Darmaningtyas said.

A 2004 study by the Japan International Cooperation Agency found that traffic jams cost Jakarta some 8.3 trillion rupiah (822 million dollars) a year in extra fuel consumption, lost productivity and health impact.

Paralyzing traffic jams and severe air pollution are the most frequent answers when people are asked what they know about Jakarta. Motorized vehicle ownerships increase in line with a rise in income per capita.

An Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) study notes that motorized vehicle ownership is growing at 9 percent every year, with more than 1,500 new registrations being filed a day for motorcycles and 500 a day for cars.  The study discusses various options including BRT, incentives for biking, etc to manage the growing congestion problem that is now threatening to cripple the growth of the country’s economy and adversely affect the quality of life of its citizens.

Now, growth of the vehicle population is not the only problem.  The drivers behind the wheel are adding to the chaos on the roads.  An article that recently appeared in the online edition of Jakarta Post, says the following: Driving in Jakarta is nothing short of chaotic, thanks to the huge quantity of people using the roads, the often terrible condition of the roads and the vast variety of vehicles there are. All of this chaos is only made worse by drivers who are reckless and dismissive of other road users.

There are drivers that seem utterly oblivious to there being anybody else on the roads except themselves. Perhaps they are too comfortable in the enclosed air-conditioned capsule that is their vehicle, as they listen to pumped-up stereophonic music or even watch small video screens, to pay any attention or care about anyone else on the roads.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Wired)

Image Courtesy: Apture

Seven billion gallons of gasoline. That’s how much fuel America consumes each year just running the air conditioning in their cars. And don’t think riding with the windows down is the answer; the Mythbusters have long since debunked that solution.

That’s 5.5 percent of the country’s fuel use, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says auto air conditioning contributes more than 58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. Factor in a 50 million additional tons of CO2 due to refrigerant leakage and you have a environmentally unhealthy result that no American would be proud of.

In the age of gaining independence from oil and seeking responsible consumption, the Department of Energy (DOE) has funded the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) to seek solutions to make air conditioning and other similar ancillary systems more efficient. The findings of this research can help automakers hit President Obama’s target for increased average fuel efficiency and put a dent in the carbon footprint of American cars. Research on cabin cooling efficiency is aimed at three areas:

(Source: Autobloggreen, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Guardian, UK)

• Financial crisis, pricey oil halve rise in CO2 emissions
• Developing nations now emit more than industrialised world

Image Courtesy: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

High oil prices and the impact of a global recession halved yearly rises in global greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels in 2008, the first evidence of an impact from the financial crisis, a study said on Thursday.

Also for the first time, the share of global carbon emissions from developing countries was higher than from industrialised nations, at 50.3 percent. China recently overtook the United States as the world’s top carbon emitter.

The good news comes to us via a study by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) which points out that the use of biofuels and an increase in the use of renewables has helped achieve the encouraging result. It’s also worth noting that America actually reduced emissions by 3 percent and that the continuing increases are mostly occurring in developing countries. One final positive worth underlining is that 2008 was the first year investment in renewables was greater than investments in fossil-fuelled technologies.

Thursday’s data showed that global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and from cement production reached 31.6 billion tonnes in 2008, up 40 percent from 1990 levels and a doubling since 1970. Scientists say that annual increases in global greenhouse gas emissions must level off and start to fall by 2015-2020 to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Emissions increased by 1.7 percent in 2008 compared with 3.3 percent in 2007. Since 2002, the average annual increase was almost 4 percent, the study said.

Click here to read the results of the entire PBL study. Below is an interesting exceprt from the report.

Trends in USA, European Union, China, Russia and India

In total, CO2 emissions of the USA and the European Union decreased by about 3% and 1.5% in 2008, Although China’s emissions showed an increase of 6%, this is the lowest increase since 2001. Cement production in China showed a similar pattern, with a 2.5% increase in 2008, a drop from 9.5% in 2007. The declining increase of China’s emissions fits in the trend since 2004, when its emissions increased by 17%. Smaller contributions to increasing global emissions were made by India and Russia, which emissions increased by 7% and 2%, respectively.

Since 1990, CO2 emissions per person of China have increased from 2 to 5.5 tonne of CO2 per capita and decreased from 9 to 8.5 for the EU-15 and from 19.5 to 18.5 for the USA. These changes reflect the large economic development of China, structural changes in national and global economies and the impact of climate and energy policies.

It can be observed that due to its fast economic development, per capita emissions of China quickly approaches levels that are common within the industrialised countries of the Annex I group under the Kyoto Protocol. Among the largest countries, other countries that show fast increasing per capita emissions are South Korea, Iran and Australia. On the other hand per capita emissions of the EU-15 and the USA are gradually decreasing over time. Those of Russia and Ukraine have decreased fast since 1990, although the emissions in 1990 and therefore the trend are rather uncertain due to the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

(Source: Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, fivethirtyeight.com & CNN)

Image Courtesy: Climatecrisis.net - An Inconvenient Truth

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a climate change bill that would create a national system to cap greenhouse gas emissions and allow trade of such credits. Only eight Republicans joined Democrats in backing the measure. Prospects for Senate passage this year are uncertain. States that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles.

The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The legislation, which passed despite deep divisions among Democrats, could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.

There was no derth of drama in the House from the moment the legislators began the day’s proceedings.  The Democrats released a 301-page amendment to the bill at 3:09 a.m. Friday, drawing protest from Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.  “This is the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here. This bill,” Boehner said.

The leaders of the House are customarily granted unlimited speaking time, but when the Boehner’s speech went more than 2½ hours, Democrats objected.  “Is this an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?” asked Rep Henry Waxman, D-California, the bill’s lead sponsor.

President Obama hailed the House passage of the bill as “a bold and necessary step.” Mr. Obama had lobbied wavering lawmakers in recent days, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore had made personal appeals to dozens of fence-sitters.

But the legislation, a patchwork of compromises, falls far short of what many European governments and environmentalists have said is needed to avert the worst effects of global warming. And it pitted liberal Democrats from the East and West Coasts against more conservative Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity and on heavy manufacturing for jobs.

The House legislation reflects a series of concessions necessary to attract the support of Democrats from different regions and with different ideologies. In the months of horse-trading before the vote Friday, the bill’s targets for emissions of heat-trapping gases were weakened, its mandate for renewable electricity was scaled back, and incentives for industries were sweetened.

Several House members expressed concern about the market to be created in carbon allowances, saying it posed the same risks as those in markets in other kinds of derivatives. Regulation of such markets would be divided among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Following is a list of key provisions of the landmark bill (thanks to Washington Post):

• Emissions from a large sector of the U.S. economy, including power plants, factories and auto tailpipes, will be required to be cut 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below those levels by 2050.
• These reductions would be managed by requiring emitters to amass buyable, sellable “credits” equal to their pollution.
• About 85 percent of these credits would be given away for free, many of them with the mandate that electricity distributors sell them and use the proceeds to soften the blow of rising energy prices. Environmentalists had wanted the government to auction them all off.
• Electricity producers would be required to get at least 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, with up to 5 percent more energy saved from new efficiency measures. The two figures must add up to 20 percent.
• Polluters could also balance out some of their emissions by purchasing carbon “offsets,” which are official certificates that greenhouse gas emissions have been avoided, or taken out of the air. In a last-minute amendment, oversight over offsets generated on farms was taken from the Environmental Protection Agency and given to the Agriculture Department.
• A new Clean Energy Deployment Administration funded with $7.5 billion in “green bonds” would provide government money to private companies investing in environment-friendly technologies.

Nearly half the U.S. states have moved toward curbing greenhouse gas emissions and want the federal government to learn from their experience in creating systems to cap emissions and trade pollution credits.  States that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles.

Image Courtesy: www.fivethirtyeight.com

At the heart of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that sets a limit on overall emissions of heat-trapping gases while allowing utilities, manufacturers and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves.

The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of making energy.

Regional considerations tend to loom larger in debates over environmental policy than in other sorts of affairs. Some states consume more energy than others. Some states have more carbon-intensive economies than others.

Some states are more or less likely to be negatively impacted by global warming. And some states are better equipped to take advantage of green energy development.

One of the first of those concerns: household energy usage. The goal here is simple: the Congressional Budget Office recently put out an estimate (.pdf) of the costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The CBO estimated that the average American household would wind up paying a net of $175 in additional energy costs in the year it benchmarked, which was 2020. But how does that cost translate to individual states?

Our renowned statistics whiz at fivethiryeight.com has come up with a brilliant way to translate the CBO’s numbers, based on his interpretation of the CBO’s assumptions, to the level of individual states, making it easy for us common folk to understand what is to be expected when this cap and trade takes effect  ( Transportgooru recommends this as a must read article, especially if you care to know about the the nuts and bolts of “cap-and-trade” system)

(Source: New York Times – Wheels Blog, Sec.  LaHood’s Fast Lane Blog, U.S. News and World Report)

First of all, it’s no longer Cash-for-Clunkers. The program is now called the Car Allowance Rebate System (C.A.R.S.).  The program, which President Obama signed into law on Thursday, pays consumers up to $4,500 in credit for trading in their cars or trucks for those that are more fuel efficient. The law allocates $1 billion for the program.

The incentive program begins within 30 days of today’s bill signing by the President. The final day for an eligible purchase or lease is November 1, 2009, or when DOT exhausts the funds set aside for the program, whichever occurs first. The credit is not retroactive prior to the start of the program and cannot be applied toward the purchase of used vehicles.

Of course, there are plenty of regulations to determine what vehicles qualify for the credit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is overseeing the program, has put together this Web site to help consumers who would like to participate in the program.

Image Courtesy: USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood's Fast Lane Blog

Today, the Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wrote on his blog: “This program helps consumers pay for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles when they trade in less fuel-efficient cars or trucks. Stimulating the automobile industry while improving the environment and reducing fuel consumption–these are outcomes the DOT is pleased to support.

Congress and the Obama Administration recognize this is an important time for the automobile industry. And, the CARS program will help boost car and truck sales. Moreover, since the auto industry has improved vehicle safety and reduced vehicle emissions over the years, we are also excited about a program that puts vehicles on the road that are safer, pollute less, and get more miles to the gallon than the vehicles they replace.

CARS will be implemented by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It’s a new responsibility this department welcomes; I know the folks in NHTSA stand ready to fulfill their new charge.  I encourage everyone to learn more about the program from the website, www.cars.gov, or call NHTSA’s Auto Hotline at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236). ”

The C.A.R.S. rebate does not count on top of the trade-in value of your vehicle. In the F.A.Q. section of CARS.gov: “The law requires your trade-in vehicle to be destroyed. Therefore, the value you negotiate with the dealer for your trade-in vehicle is not likely to exceed its scrap value.”

An Important FYI item: N.H.T.S.A. warns consumers of unofficial C.A.R.S. Web sites that are now popping up, reports USA Today. “Some want a lot of personal information, and talk about consumers being able to pre-register,” said Eric Bolton, a N.H.T.S.A. spokesman. “Consumers don’t have to register for this program at all.”

For those of you who are contemplating the purchase of a new vehicle under this program, here is a wonderful guide put together by the U.S. News and World Report:

10 Things You Should Know About Cash for Clunkers Car Allowance Rebate System”

1. What’s the official definition of a clunker? A driveable car made within the last 25 years, with a fuel economy rating of no more than 18 mpg. To learn more about the combined city/highway fuel-economy of your car, check out the Car Allowance Rebate System site.

2. Here’s how the program works: you trade in your old car for cash towards the purchase of a new, more efficient one. The better the mileage of the new car , the more money you’ll get towards its purchase – either $3,500 or $4,500. Check out Jalponik’s handy chart to figure out how much you might be able to claim.  The minimum combined fuel economy of a new car purchased under the program must be at least 22 mpg, while new small trucks and SUVs have to get at least 18 mpg, and large trucks have to get 15 mpg. The old cars will be salvaged once they’re turned in.

3. Consumers should act fast. The bill provides vouchers for one million purchases, and the window of time is only fron July 1 to November 1. The bill will be revisited in the fall , and some changes may be made at that time.

4. The program will cost $4 billion. Funds will come from TARP.

5. Sorry, would-be entrepreneurs: it’s off-limits to buy an old car and “flip” it for the program – the car must have been insured by the same owner for at least one year before the trade.

6. The environmental idea behind the bill is that it takes old, inefficient vehicles off of the road. But some environmentalists are actually opposed to the bill because it takes functioning cars off of the road before their time is up, and does not permit the vouchers to go towards used vehicles, even if they are more fuel-efficient. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored an alternate bill stated that the current version undermines fuel efficiency standards and provides “handouts for Hummers.” On the other hand, some argue that higher fuel standards would disproportionately benefit foreign cars, denying American automakers their much-needed boost.

7. The economic incentive of the bill is to jump-start drowsy auto sales. According to Bloomberg, similar programs worldwide have raised auto sales 25 percent to 40 percent in Germany, 15 percent in China and 8 percent in France.

8. Even if it’s not designed entirely the way environmentalists had hoped, there are still green benefits. Says Treehugger: “One positive effect the bill could have, though, is simply to further advance the presence of ‘fuel efficiency’ as a reward term in the skeptical American consumer market. Yes, hybrids continue to sell, but not to 99 percent of the population. The bill could, albeit in a relatively minor way, serve to advance an attitude that places importance on fuel efficiency in the future.”

9. Cash for Clunkers is expected to have a great impact on the Hispanic community. That’s why the program is getting a celebrity endorsement from Dancing With The Stars’ Cristian de la Fuente and Ugly Betty’s Angelica Vale.

10. As always, buyer beware. It doesn’t make sense to trade in your vehicle unless its value is less than or equal to what you’d get in the program. Edmunds has identified a list of cars that are guaranteed to be worth less than the value of the voucher. You can find it here (PDF). Said ABC News Consumer Correspondent Elisabeth Leamy, “From a strictly consumer standpoint, the Cash for Clunkers program is not a great deal. Yes, if you are bent on buying brand new, you will save money. But the savings are nothing compared with how well you can do by buying a used car.”

(Source: Baltimore Sun, New York Times & Wired)

Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon smiles after test-driving a Maya 300 electric car outside the Maryland Science Center Tuesday, June 23, 2009 in Baltimore. ExxonMobil and Electrovaya, a manufacturer of electric car battery systems, announced an all-electric car-sharing program Tuesday in Baltimore. (AP Photo/ Steve Ruark -via Baltimore Sun)

The nation’s first all-electric car-sharing program debuted in Baltimore, Maryland this week. The nation’s first all-electric car-sharing program debuted Tuesday at the city’s Inner Harbor, with manufacturer Electrovaya hoping urban residents seeking to go green and curious tourists will take the concept for a spin.   Electrovaya Inc. is offering its Maya 300 for rent at the Maryland Science Center. The car can go up to 120 miles on one charge of its lithium-ion battery system, and it gets its juice from a regular 110-volt outlet.

The altcar car-sharing service has a fleet of 10 electric cars at the Maryland Science Center.  Ten cars will be available starting Wednesday through the new car-sharing Web site Altcar.org. A two-hour trip costs $29, with discounts for science center members. (Wired reports that the cars won’t be available to the public until Aug. 1). Signing up requires a $25 application fee to pay for the background check and a $50 membership fee.

Image Courtesy: AltCar.org

This rental program gives Baltimore residents and tourists the opportunity to rent a five-door, five- passenger Maya-300 at the Maryland Science Center and drive it around the city.  The car makes little noise, provides dashboard gauges for battery life and temperature, and offers other conveniences of gas-powered cars.  Electrovaya’s battery technology is made possible by ExxonMobil Corp.’s battery separator film. The film, with lithium-ion batteries, allows for the units to operate at higher temperatures with a reduced risk of meltdown.

“This is an example of what science centers do best,” said Van Reiner, president and CEO of the science center. “We are showcasing new technology, and that’s what makes us so excited.”

The manufacturer calls the fleet of emission-free cars a “game changer” in urban transportation alternatives. Electrovaya CEO Sankar Das Gupta said that’s because the vehicle has the look and feel of a four-door, gas-powered sedan and should appeal to consumers who want to reduce oil dependence.

Das Gupta said he hopes to ink deals with larger fleet operators to scale up production of the Maya 300, which is currently manufactured in Michigan. He hopes to begin selling the vehicle to the general public within a year for about $25,000 apiece.

“Ultimately, in order to drop the price of electric cars, you have to generate large volumes,” explained Das Gupta, who said the lithium-ion battery his company makes constitutes 40-50 percent of the Maya 300’s cost.

In addition to manufacturing and selling the Maya 300, Electrovaya would supply major automakers lithium-ion batteries — which move lithium between an anode and cathode when charging and discharging. Das Gupta declined to say with whom he is discussing such an arrangement.

The Maya 300’s debut came as President Obama and his advisers dished out $8 billion in loans to Ford Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and Tesla Inc through DOE grants. “We have an historic opportunity to help ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America,” Obama said.

More than 50 million new vehicles hit the world’s roads each year, and President Obama has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015.

Electrovaya’s Das Gupta is bullish on America’s — and the world’s — ability to achieve the Obama’s goal.

“We expect that within the next few years, one third of these vehicles will be electric,” he said.

Click here to read the entire article.