(Source: LA Times)

At a recycling plant in San Pedro and five other similar operations around California, giant shredding machines annually reduce 1.3 million junk cars, refrigerators and other appliances into fist-sized chunks of metal.

(Source: TreeHugger; HuffingtonPost & Bike Europe)

While news of the four-wheel variety remains bleak with news that GM is on the brinkof bankruptcy, news for the two wheel set is mostly good. In fact, more bicycles were bought in the first quarter of 2009 than cars and trucks. Dennis Markatos @ HuffingtonPost points out, the news isn’t all good. Overall, bicycle sales are down 30 percent for the year, but the good news is that bikes are outperforming cars. In total, around 2.6 million bicycles were sold, compared to less than 2.5 million cars and trucks.  That doesn’t mean all is well for the American bicycle market and it is hard to say that bicycle sales are unfazed by the recession.  In units the Americans imported 1.1 million bicycles less this year. Remarkably the average value increased by 37.2% in the same period. The average FOB value now stands at US$ 96.60 against US$ 70.41 in 2008.

But that percentage drop is slower than the35+% drop in sales for cars and trucks. Since nationwide gasoline prices are now rising above $2.40 per gallon at the pump, we may see another wave of US residents shifting to bicycles for their everyday trips. The large savings from riding a bike over short distances rather than driving can help consumer confidence and support economic recovery.

(Source: Wall Street Journal & Politico via Yahoo)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to order auto makers to increase the overall fuel economy of automobiles sold in the U.S. to 35 miles per gallon by 2016, four years faster than current federal law requires, people familiar with the matter said Monday.

The move is part of a broader overhaul of fuel economy rules aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.

Image: Fueleconomy.gov

The Obama administration is expected to announce a plan to revamp federal vehicle fuel-efficiency standards to bring them into harmony with the goals of a California greenhouse-gas law. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation will jointly raise fuel-economy standards and reduce greenhouse-gas pollution under the plan.

Separately, auto makers have agreed to drop litigation challenging the legality of state-level curbs on tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, people familiar with the matter said.

An announcement of the agreement is expected Tuesday, with representatives of several large auto companies, including General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Fritz Henderson, and the president of United Auto Workers, Ron Gettelfinger, planning to participate, people familiar with the matter said.

The agreement worked out by aides to President Barack Obama represents a partial victory for the auto industry. The industry will be able to operate under a single national standard on fuel economy, rather than multiple regimes at the federal and state levels. Auto makers have long opposed California’s tailpipe emissions program as tantamount to state-level regulation of fuel economy, traditionally a federal responsibility.

But the standards will require huge investments by auto makers to remake their U.S. fleets so that they have roughly the same overall efficiency as vehicles they now sell in Europe, where gasoline is two to three times more expensive as in the U.S. By moving the 35 mpg requirement to 2016 from 2020, the administration is stepping up the pressure on the industry to overhaul its product lineup faster. It typically takes three to four years for auto makers to design and bring a new vehicle to market.

Auto executives are flying into Washington from around the world for the White House announcement.   California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is expected to attend, the sources said.

The CAFE standard was established by Congress in 1975 in response to the Arab Oil embargo.   A 2007 energy law requires auto makers to boost the average fuel economy of their vehicle fleets to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase from the roughly 25 mpg standard for the current fleet.  Last summer, the Transportation Department estimated that requiring auto makers to achieve 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost the industry $46.7 billion, a sum the agency said would make it among the most expensive rule makings in U.S. history.

“This rule will be a down payment on a broader and sustained effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” he said. “Going forward, my administration will work on a bipartisan basis in Washington and with industry partners across the country to forge a comprehensive approach that makes our economy stronger and our nation more secure.”

According to two industry officials familiar with the plan, mileage standards would rise slowly at first — from a combined requirement of 27.3 miles per gallon for cars and trucks in 2011 — and faster approaching roughly 35 miles per gallon in 2016. That would give auto makers more time to adjust — and collect credits if they can manage to exceed earlier targets — before the steeper increases kick in.

It is unclear how quickly the EPA and the Transportation Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be able to make a formal proposal for curbing emissions and boosting fuel economy. The EPA on Monday was holding a public hearing on its proposal to find that greenhouse gases endanger public health, the first step toward regulating them.

(Source: Timesonline, UK & Autocar, UK)

A £2,000-a-car scrappage scheme aimed at kick-starting Britain’s depressed motor industry has hit trouble after a dispute between car companies and the Government over costs.

Manufacturers, including Ford and Honda, have told dealers not to register any new vehicles under the scheme, which is starting today.

Consumers are being offered £2,000 towards a new car if they trade in a motor that is at least ten years old.

The car companies said that they were seeking “clarification” from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) over “administrative” details.

The Government insisted that it had been clear on details of the scheme, under which manufacturers would pay £1,000 and the Government £1,000 towards the cost of the incentive.

However, the car manufacturers want dealers to share the cost.

The eleventh-hour hitch will come as a huge embarrassment to the Prime Minister, who had heavily promoted the “bangers for cash” scheme as the route to revitalising Britain’s depressed motor industry.

Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, visited a Nissan dealership today to talk to consumers signing up to the scheme.

Mr Brown said the £300 million project would prove “very popular” and “a great help to the British car industry.” It would help the economy to “move forward,” he said.

A BERR spokesman said: “Thirty-eight manufacturers have signed contracts with the Department which set out clearly that manufacturers provide £1,000 and the Government matches it.

“We understand several dealers are unhappy about the idea they should share the costs. The Government also needs to ensure VAT is paid in accordance with the scheme.”

Though the scheme was revealed in the Budget the final details emerged only at a meeting on Thursday, manufacturers said.

However, President of the AA Edmund King has pointed out that the £2000 incentive can be used as a deposit to help car buyers get finance. He added that the scheme would “transform the chances of survival in a crash for thousands of car owners” whose current old cars offer substantially less protection than newer models.

But Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said the scrappage scheme was “a lost opportunity”.

“A well-designed scheme could have played a limited role in cutting emissions from our roads,” he said. “But, unlike some other countries, the UK scheme doesn’t prevent motorists part-exchanging an old, small model for a brand-new gas guzzler.”

Business secretary Peter Mandelson visited a car dealership today to launch the scheme and said there has been a positive response from the industry.

“I am delighted by the response of the motor industry. Thirty-eight companies have signed up – all the major UK car manufacturers and a number of other companies. This means more choice for consumers and a boost for British brands. 



“The scheme has been met with a flood of enquiries from customers. It will provide a boost to the industry and kick-start sales.” 



The confirmed list of manufacturers who have signed up to take part are: Allied Vehicles, Bentley, BMW, Chevrolet, Citroen, Daihatsu, FIAT, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Jaguar, Kia, Land Rover, London Taxis International, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, MG Motor, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Perodua, Peugeot, Porsche, Proton, Renault, Rolls Royce, SAAB, SECMA UK, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Vauxhall, Volkswagen, Volvo, Koelliker UK Ltd, Iveco Ltd, Chrysler and Renault Trucks UK Ltd.

(Source: USA Today & Image: Jalopnik)

As the American lawmakers are getting ready to pass the landmark “cash for clunkers” legislation, many of you are still left wondering what this legislation entails and how it will affect you.  The media chatter in the past has offered very little except that the legislation would provide federal vouchers of up to $4,500 for people to trade in their older vehicles for new ones that get better mileage.

Talk of the vouchers has kept some would-be new car and truck buyers on the sidelines, waiting to see whether they’d qualify for government help. So, for the moment, the idea is hurting sales. Based on interviews with lobbyists and congressional offices, the USA Today captured the details of this legislation in a nice Q & A format:

Image: Newsday

Q: What’s the idea behind “cash-for-clunkers”?

A: Supporters say it would replace older vehicles with new ones that use less fuel, are safer and pollute less. And it would give the struggling auto industry a sales boost.

Q: What’s the bill’s status?

A: It’s in a House committee and backed by the president. Senators from both parties are prepared to co-sponsor similar legislation as soon as this week.

Q: Sounds like a sure thing.

A: Not so. Environmental lobbyists, who don’t think it boosts fuel economy enough, might derail it or get it changed enough in the Senate that a compromise would take awhile.

Q: Any groups trying to keep it from being derailed?

A: You bet. Car companies, autoworkers, component suppliers and car dealers, among them. The House bill “will help jump-start auto sales and the U.S. economy, while also providing environmental benefits and increasing energy security,” says Ziad Ojakli, Ford Motor spokesman.

Q: What’s the price tag?

A: About $4 billion. The money is currently proposed to come from Energy Department funding included in the already enacted $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Q: If the House bill becomes law, how would it work?

A: The government would send up to $4,500 to the selling dealer on your behalf, if you:

1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.

2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.

Example: Trade that well-worn 1985 Chevrolet Impala V-8, rated 14 mpg, for a 2009 Impala V-8 rated 19 mpg and the government will kick in $3,500. Downsize to Chevy Cobalt (27 mpg) or even a larger Honda Accord (24 mpg) and get $4,500.

Mileage ratings back to 1985 are at www.fueleconomy.gov.

Q: What about trucks?

A: It’s more complicated.

For standard-duty models — most SUVs, vans and pickups:

1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.

For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):

1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.

Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don’t have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.

Q: Is it worth it for $4,500?

A: The assumption is that the people most likely to use the program would trade in cars worth less than $4,500. Thus, while not necessarily clunkers, most would be at least 8 years old.

Q: Can I combine these incentives with other offers?

A: Yes. For instance, you could trade for a hybrid and get the voucher, claim the hybrid tax credit and get dealer or manufacturer discounts. You also could deduct the sales tax, if any, on your next federal tax return.

Q: Would I ever see the $3,500 or $4,500?

A: No. It’s an electronic transfer from the government to the dealer. Dealers want to be sure the amount can be counted as cash from the buyer, which would help buyers get credit because they’re financing less.

Q: What does the dealer do with my trade-in?

A: Gives it to a salvage operator. The engine, transmission and some other parts must be destroyed so they can’t be reused. The idea is to cull fuel-thirsty, polluting drivetrains. Operators can resell other parts, however.

Q: What’s to keep me from buying a junkyard car for a few hundred bucks, getting it barely running and trading it?

A: The one-year-in-service requirement noted earlier. Lawmakers wanted to exclude the revival of so-called junkyard dogs, because they’ve already been taken off the road.

Q: What do I get if I recently bought a car that would have qualified?

A: The bill contemplates making the incentives retroactive to March 30, but it’s unclear how to find and junk cars that were traded in that long ago. Some might already be back on the road, driven by new owners.

Q: What’s wrong with environmentalists’ idea that the new car or truck should get much better fuel economy than the House bill currently requires?

A: Opponents say the environmentalists’ fuel-economy improvement thresholds are so high that foreign brands benefit disproportionately, because their lineups tend now to have more small, fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy complained in a statement criticizing the House bill that the proposal as it stands now is way too lenient.

The council charged that the bill “aims primarily to clear Detroit’s unsold inventory from the storage lots,” rather than to seriously cut fuel use.

Q: How soon could this become law?

A: Depends on how much critics can sway the Senate, and to what piece of legislation this “fleet modernization” bill is attached.

If it becomes part of a larger bill that’s likely to get lots of debate, it could take awhile. If it’s attached to urgent, must-pass legislation, such as an appropriation bill, it could move quickly to the president’s desk.

A current plan is to add the program as an amendment to climate change legislation now being considered.

As proposed, it would be in effect for just one year.

(Source: Detroit Free Press & Image: Jalopnik)

WASHINGTON — Congress appeared ready Wednesday to move forward on a bill to pay people to surrender their old gas-guzzlers for new, fuel-efficient models — but the auto industry hasn’t decided what it wants out of the program.

While backers of a cash-for-clunkers plan announced a deal earlier this month, the final bill has yet to be crafted because of a last-minute dispute between foreign and domestic automakers over incentives for leasing. Environmental groups aren’t thrilled with the compromise, saying it is weighted too heavily toward truck buyers.

But with House and Senate leaders, along with President Barack Obama, voicing support, industry officials say they are hopeful a bill that will boost a lethargic market for new vehicles will get through Congress in weeks. Backers say the compromise would cost about $4 billion — paid for by money from the economic stimulus plan passed earlier this year — and could boost sales by 1.3 million vehicles over a year, according to industry officials.

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, but no trade-in value because the vehicles would be scrapped.

“This is a jobs bill that helps the environment,” said Ziad Ojakli, Ford’s group vice president for governmental affairs.

The plan does have several hurdles that will keep some potential buyers on the sidelines. The clunker being traded in has to be kept off the road — meaning it will have no trade-in value beyond the voucher. Far more trucks on the road will qualify for the vouchers than cars: even 15 years ago, only five models of midsize sedans managed just 18 m.p.g.

And while the compromise among U.S. House members was unveiled earlier this month, the actual bill will be kept under wraps until it is introduced with the House Democrats’ plan to control carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system, expected no later than Monday.

Although cash-for-clunkers programs in other nations have been motivated by environmental goals to improve the mileage of vehicles on the road, environmental groups are lukewarm about the U.S. compromise.

(Source: The City Room – New York Times)

Will New York City be left behind in the era of the electric car? Or will it perhaps become the first to embrace it?

Image: Reuters - Would New York City install charging stations like the one above, in London? The Bloomberg administration has commissioned a study on electric cars in the city.

With all the hubbub over electric cars of late (covered very well by our compatriots on the Green Inc. blog), the Bloomberg administration found that the strategies that electric car manufacturers were presenting to them did not apply well to New York City. “None of them felt like they were really tailored to New York City,” said Rohit T. Aggarwala, Mayor Bloomberg’s adviser on green issues. “The fact is that most drivers live in circumstances and use their cars very differently from New York drivers.”

As a result, the Bloomberg administration plans to commission a survey to understand the dynamics of New Yorkers and electric cars, as The New York Post reported Wednesday.

One of the key differences is that many American families live in a house with a garage, which gives them a place and opportunity to charge cars when they are parked at night.

“That works most places, but at least for a large portion of New York, they don’t store it in a garage,” Mr. Aggarwala said. Many New Yorkers park on the street (and contend with alternate-side-of-the street parking rules) or in shared garages.

In addition, average Americans may use their cars almost daily, but a large number of New Yorkers own cars but do not use them every day. “Our conjecture is that for local travel, many New York auto owners use public transit,” Mr. Aggarwala said.

Mr. Aggarwala also noted that perhaps the survey could find that the regions of the city that do have homes with individual garages may prove the most fertile for electric cars, as in the rest of the country. “That would mean you wouldn’t target it in Manhattan,” he said.

At the same time, if New Yorkers largely drive within the city and use their cars for errands, they may not mind the limited range and power of the current generation of electric cars.

Different circumstances are prompting communities to embrace electric cars at different rates. China, for example, also has very different driving dynamics — short distances, lots of traffic — and the government there has gambled that those factors create a fertile environment for introducing electric cars.

(Source: Green Inc, NY Times)

Raising crops to produce electricity, which will in turn power cars, is more efficient, a new study says, than raising crops to create ethanol to use as fuel in cars.

According to a study by three California researchers, an acre planted with corn for ethanol will provide far fewer miles of transportation fuel as the same acre growing trees or switchgrass, which are then burned in power plants that provide the power to charge the batteries of electric cars.

In fact, even ethanol made from cellulose, a technology that does not now exist in commercial form, is not as efficient a use of biomass as burning it in a power plant would be, the researchers found.

In a paper published in the current issue of Science magazine, Chris Field, a professor of biology at Stanford and director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution, Elliott Campbell of the University of California, Merced, and David Lobell of Stanford’s Program on Food Security and the Environment, write that the size of the advantage would depend on many factors.

These include the number of miles per gallon any particular vehicle will go on ethanol, and what a battery weighs per kilowatt-hour of energy stored. As batteries get lighter, for example, it takes less energy to move them.

But the researchers estimated that a small battery-powered S.U.V. would go nearly 14,000 miles on the highway on the energy from an acre of switchgrass burned to make electricity, compared to about 9,000 miles on ethanol.

If one grows a tree or annual crop, for example, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air, burns it in a power plant that captures and stores escaping CO₂, and then replaces it with another crop, which pulls yet more carbon dioxide out of the air, the process becomes carbon negative.

The “miles per acre” question, and the amount of farmland diverted for use in producing transportation fuel is a sensitive political question, with American use of corn for ethanol blamed in part for last year’s run-up in global grain prices.

(Source: Autobloggreen)

The message has been hinted at before, but the federal government is now serious about shifting the focus away from hydrogen and onto plug-in vehicles. In an important statement yesterday, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that hydrogen vehicles are still 10 to 20 years away from practicality and that millions in federal government funding for hydrogen programs will be cut from the 2010 federal budget. Chu said, “We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no'” (well, duh).

Did we mention this is a big reversal? Just a few weeks ago, Chu announced $41.9 million for hydrogen projects. A major switch, but not totally surprising. During the presidential campaign last fall, Obama did call for a million PHEVs by 2015.

The U.S. Fuel Cell Council and the National Hydrogen Association quickly released a joint statement against the budget cuts.  Here is the full presser:

PRESS RELEASE:

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Associations Criticize DOE Program Cuts

Official Joint Statement
Washington, DC

May 7, 2009-The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) and U.S. Fuel Cell Council (USFCC) issued the following joint statement regarding the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 budget request for the U.S Department of Energy:

“The cuts proposed in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell program threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction.

“Fuel cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are real vehicles with real marketability and real benefits. Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have collectively logged millions of miles. 

“Both the National Academy of Sciences and NHA’s recent Energy Evolution report conclude that a portfolio of vehicle technologies is needed to achieve the nation’s energy and environmental security goals and that hydrogen is essential to success. Hydrogen also advances the Obama Administration’s goals of greener power generation and a smarter power grid.

“The National Academy recommended a portfolio approach and we are frankly puzzled at the Energy Department’s decision to ignore that recommendation even as the Department uses other material from the same report to justify its proposed cut.

“We are also concerned that the Department appears to be walking away from its Market Transformation activities, which support fuel cell deployment in early commercial applications. This Congressionally-mandated program is demonstrating the ability of fuel cells to provide a competitive and green alternative to battery-based systems in vehicles and in power supply.

“Finally, we are concerned that the Department has proposed to cut funds for the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA). SECA success could dramatically lower the cost of carbon sequestration, improve power plant efficiency, and enable a virtually pollution-free coal plant in the future. Additional funding will hasten SECA progress.”

The NHA and USFCC collectively represent more than 200 companies and organizations.

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

A related post on TransportGooru.com: 

Biofuels Get a Boost – Secretary Chu Announces Nearly $800 Million from Recovery Act to Accelerate Biofuels Research and Commercialization