Oil hits $140 a barrel; it's time for plug-ins

It was January 2nd this year when oil hit $100 for the first time. Today it reached $140, and OPEC warns it will only get worse, and soon.

Instead of biting the bullet and facing the need for plug-in cars quick, "solutions" put on the table by the presidential candidates wouldn't have an impact as soon as required to meet carbon and petroleum reduction or national security goals. To say nothing of consumer's need for cheaper transportation fuel. Domestic oil producers apparently aren't extracting domestically where already approved but clamor for access to the coast. Even if Congress authorized coastal and ANWR exploitation as McCain now supports, the impact would be too late and too little. I'm pleased to hear McCain promoting electrics, but his battery contest proposal would at best have a medium term impact.

We need to see policies that will push electric cars and plug-in hybrids with available battery technology. The $9000 incentive California put on the table in the 90s for electric cars wasn't enough to interest automakers. Today, were product available, such an incentive would see consumers lining up for cars they once might have snubbed as range-deficient and over-priced.

Overflow crowd at DC plug-in conference

News of oil by the barrel and gas by the gallon reaching new highs had been dominating TV and print, so it was perhaps not surprising that the Google/Brookings Plug-in Electric Vehicle Conference saw overflow crowds. The speeches and hallway chatter suggested plug-in vehicles have finally caught the attention of industry bigwigs and policy makers. Auto makers, electric utilities, battery makers and advocates all found themselves under one roof in the nation’s capital, and all said regarding plug-in vehicles it is a matter of “when” not “if.”

Many of the speeches sounded notes long trumpeted by advocates at Plug In America and the Electric Auto Association. The benefits to the environment were repeatedly mentioned, and the national security rationale for plug-ins was brought to the fore. The state of the grid was discussed by advocates and utility executives. Some concern was voiced about the day tens of millions of cars charge up from and contribute to the grid. Yet there was near unanimity that the utility infrastructure can handle the plug-in cars being introduced in the near term.

Politicians from both parties, both long-term advocates of alternative fuels and long-term defenders of every auto maker misstep, found themselves largely in agreement. Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Orrin Hatch, and Democratic Congressmen John Dingell and Jay Inslee spoke to the attendees, with each recognizing the need for policies promoting grid electrification of automobiles.

GM President Tory Clarke's concluding keynote on Thursday kept expectations up for the November 2010 release of the Volt. Bill Reinert of Toyota played the contrarian, forecasting a return, albeit temporary, to $2/gallon gasoline. The President of Ford bored plug-in proponents with tweaks to the internal combustion engine and appeals to the feds for hand-outs.

Fred Smith, CEO and Founder of Federal Express summed up the hopefulness expressed by many speakers and attendees about the broad possibilities for plug-ins beyond passenger vehicles. The possibility of plug-in trucks to reduce the ever-increasing fuel costs for a package delivery service are very attractive, he asserted. And, when his interviewer referred to plug-in hybrids, he insisted that all-electrics be part of the conversation and the commercial vehicle mix. When a questioner challenged him to move from rhetorical support to issuing an RFP for actual vehicles, he didn’t flinch.

One couldn’t help leaving the conference with the excitement of feeling part of an idea whose time has come.

Google spurs electric car videos

Rechargeit.org, Google.org's campaign for plug-in cars, has issued a call for short videos. If you've got one, explain how it works for you. If you want one, explain why.

Videos are beginning to show up on youtube.

Jeff U'ren drove an EV1 for three years....well, the vid tells the tale.

Tom Friedman on Gas Prices, Honesty, Obama, and Electric Cars

Tom Friedman of the NY Times has been hammering away at the bi-partisan disaster that is the US energy policy for years now. One cornerstone of the policy is cheap gas. Pandering politicians have ensured the true cost of gas remains shrouded in tax policy and the defense budget. Now the pressures of a changing global market have provoked a precipitous rise in gasoline prices for the heretofore protected American driver. Friedman says it's time for some truth telling. We need to pay more for gasoline to keep up market pressure for more fuel efficient vehicles. Good policy according to Friedman would keep gasoline from ever dropping below $4/gallon.

That may seem an unlikely campaign platform for any politician hoping to be elected, but the gas price holiday dust up suggests American voters may be ahead of their leaders. Sen. Obama was not blown away by his opposition to the gas holiday.

Next, Friedman hopes, new leadership will choose the right policy, one that leads us to electric cars.

We need to make a structural shift in our energy economy. Ultimately, we need to move our entire fleet to plug-in electric cars. The only way to get from here to there is to start now with a price signal that will force the change.

Barack Obama had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud. Wouldn’t it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn’t that just be amazing?

Electric cars back on track?

The tide appears to be turning. Electric cars are in the news almost daily. Large manufacturers and startups are responding to changing circumstances and customer preferences. Oil has passed $120 a barrel. The NY Times headlined "As Gas Costs Soar, Buyers Flock to Small Cars." GM lost $3.25 billion in the first quarter. Something’s got to give.

In perhaps the biggest news, on May 13 amidst a generally downbeat report, Nissan announced a serious, forward-looking effort to make electric cars an important part of their automotive portfolio. The announcement has been reported quite positively everywhere, including the NY Times here and the Wall St. Journal here. Even stories that got much wrong, such as The Independent of London, England, here, concluded "the electric car is probably the [alternative] with the greatest potential."

Sales and profits are declining for automakers in established markets. "It is going to be a tough year for the whole industry. Every single element of our environment is negative," said Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn, who also heads the automaker's French partner Renault. After turning Nissan around during his 5 year tenure at the once beleaguered Japanese automaker and naysaying hybrids and electric cars a mere two years ago, Ghosn is moving both automakers toward a leadership position in zero-emission vehicles worldwide. The Nissan plan envisions hundreds of vehicles in 2010, with general sales in various markets including the U.S. to commence in 2012.

This year Renault announced a partnership with Project Better Place to manufacture electric cars for Shai Agassi’s ambitious plan to create discreet markets, beginning in Israel and Denmark. The first prototype debuted in Tel Aviv in May, and it was announced that hundreds of cars would appear in a pilot program in 2009, with a rollout of thousands in 2010.

Smaller automakers continue to make the news. Tesla had a red carpet grand opening for its first showroom and service center in Los Angeles. Tesla has come to terms with its mistaken decision to introduce the Roadster with a two-speed transmission that delayed production a year or more. As of May, two Roadsters have been delivered, and the expectation is that 300 will be in customers hands by the end of 2008. The luxury electric sedan codenamed Whitestar is slated for 2010.

Th!nk of Norway has begun producing cars again, and sales are slated to begin soon in Scandinavia, Switzerland and France. Th!nk has opened an office in California, and announced its intention to begin sales in 2009. Small regulatory hurdles still need to be overcome before the mini-car that turned me into an electric car advocate can be offered in the U.S.

An unusual entrant into the EV arena, Aptera, a three-wheeled futuristic electric car, continues to stir excitement, and would appear to be more than science fiction. Popular Mechanics took the car for a spin, and a video (available on my blog here) shows various members of the team at work developing the car. With an announced price under $30,000, hundreds of prospective owners have shelled out $500 for a reservation. Who knows how many would want the car if it appears as reported in the next Star Trek movie.

Automakers once completely dismissive of battery electrics, are getting on board, at least rhetorically. Smart has begun testing a small electric fleet in England. Audi here and BMW here are reported to be taking another look at all-electrics.

Still, with all the activity, showrooms remain devoid of a highway-legal electric car. Consumers in the market for a new car are trapped into purchasing a somewhat more efficient gasser. Despite ever increasing gasoline prices and looming environmental and political disasters based on our petroleum addiction, governments are taking only small steps and major automakers seem intent on squeezing every last dollar out of internal combustion.

A race, even a reluctant race, to offer electric cars, is a major about-face.
Let’s hope Nissan’s announcement is spurring its competitors to reappraise the potential of the market for electric cars.

Obama on cars

Today Barak Obama appeared on Meet the Press. (full transcript here.)

MR. RUSSERT: How long before our automobiles are off of gasoline oil and, and using something like an alternative fuel?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I, I think that if we decided right now that we were going to make the kind of investment I've proposed--$150 billion over 10 years--then I think at the end of the decade we could have a auto industry that has significantly reduced our consumption of oil by as much as 35, 40 percent. And the technologies exist right now for plug-in hybrids. You know, we should continue to investigate the possibilities of electric cars. The problem is is that we have not been serious about it, and Detroit ended up making investments in SUVs and large trucks because that's where they perceived a competitive advantage and that's where they felt they could make the most profit. I think it was a mistake for them not to plan earlier. Now we're seeing a huge growth in fuel-efficient cars that is benefitting the Japanese automakers, and Detroit is getting pounded some more. And I think that we can make those cars here in the United States. By the way, that's going to be our expert market over the future. China already has higher fuel efficiency standards than we do. If we want to compete for those markets, then we're going to have to invest in technology. The government can help, but the automakers have to make some changes. And I didn't say that just in front of environmental groups, I went to Detroit and said it in front of the automakers. That's the kind of truth telling we need from the next president.

Aptera: incredible becomes believable

The Aptera electric car, so futuristic looking it will appear in an upcoming Star Trek movie, is becoming more believable with each passing day. Extremely lightweight, it will be able to get decent range out of a relatively small lithium battery pack. Three-wheeled, it will not be speed limited like four-wheeled NEVs.

They produced a short video from inside their Southern California base station. Check it out.

[Source: Autobloggreen.com]

Plug-in Rally in Sacramento

Stefano Paris, plug-in car and renewable energy supporter and renaissance man, has made a video of Plug In America's rally in Sacramento outside CARB last month. Check out the video, and his extremely useful website on plug-ins here.

LA Times: CARB's Sperling Conflicted

Check out today's LA Times piece by Ken Bensinger on CARB Board Member Dan Sperling, here.

The UC Davis Institute he heads took in millions from auto and oil companies in the years prior to his appointment by Gov Schwarzenegger. At last month's Board Meet, Sperling spearheaded a proposal to cut the number of zero emission vehicles required by the ZEV program. Spirling has been a major proponent, along with the automakers and oil companies, of shifting the program's emphasis from near-term battery electric cars to decades-away hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. A one-time supporter of electric cars, he says in the article,

"I lost funding [for the institute] from the Detroit car companies for many years, and I realized I should not be taking those policy positions unless it was really well-grounded," he said.

Luxurious greenwashing, Lexus-style

Check out my snarky AutoblogGreen.com post on Lexus' greenwashing. Quoting myself,

Lexus is taking hybrid hype to the next level, the penthouse.....At one time Toyota was content to let the Prius subliminally lower consumers' green expectations from electric cars to hybrids which use gasoline-generated electricity to raise efficiency. Lexus has gone literal - "h" is the new green lifestyle. Instead of actually manufacturing and marketing the greenest vehicles Toyota has already proven they could produce....

Is NRDC drinking the hydrogen kool-aid?

The following guest blog post is by Earl Killian who often blogs at Joe Romm's ClimateProgress.org . Biographical information below the post.

Is NRDC drinking the hydrogen kool-aid?

Imagine for a moment that the world had rejected wind and solar energy, and instead decided to wait for a hydrogen fusion research program to reach fruition. Where would we be today? Fortunately for the world, wind and solar are growing rapidly, while hydrogen fusion research remains speculative at best. But when it comes to cars, the hydrogen kool-aid seems to be working and putting research before solutions.

Roland Hwang is an NRDC policy analyst working on transportation energy issues. In his blog he writes:

Originally conceived of in 1990, the California ZEV program has morphed over time from just an electric car mandate to incorporate a broad spectrum of clean, advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrids. 2008 required another tune up based on the opinion of the Air Board’s own independent technology review panel which said that fuel cells cars are not ready for mass commercialization.

There’s a contradiction in those two sentences. If the ZEV program is a “broad spectrum of clean, advanced technology vehicles,” then why does it need a “tune up” because “fuel cell cars are not ready for mass commercialization”? The answer is that the ZEV program has in reality bcome a hydrogen fuel cell research program, apparently even in the mind of the NRDC. And to make his point Hwang stretched the original goal of 8,333 ZEVs per year into “mass commercialization.” Hwang went on to write,

That is, they reduced the fuel cell requirement by 17,500 cars, but strengthened the program by requiring 58,000 plug-in hybrids.

That sounds good, but he never discusses the possibility, so often found in the pre-meeting comments submitted, of getting the plug-in hybrid numbers by taking the dirtiest cars off the road instead of the cleanest ones. At the very least, CARB could have converted their hybrid requirements into a plug-in hybrid requirement, instead of taking from the small ZEV numbers.

Hwang also never considers whether CARB is leading or following the market on plug-in hybrids. If it is following, then it is simply giving the automakers credit for something that plan to do otherwise.

CARB’s reduction in ZEV deployment guarantees that the automakers will spin the tiny number of ZEVs now required as being “uneconomic”. By the estimates presented at the meeting, 1,667 additional vehicles per year will cost the automakers and additional $147 million, so they expect them to lose $88,200 per FCV. BEVs in contrast could be sold at a profit.

Why does the NRDC ignore Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and pretend that only hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can satisfy a ZEV goal? One would expect the NRDC to understand that hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs), even if the research someday reaches fruition (fuel cells have both lifetime and cost issues in the foreseeable future), make it two to four times harder to solve our greenhouse gas emissions problem, and can do so only by using up unnecessary wildlife habitat.

If the hydrogen for FCVs comes from steam reformation of methane (11,888 g CO2e/kgH2), then greenhouse gas emissions per mile for a 50 mi/kgH2 vehicle are 238 g/mi. The 2008 Toyota Prius is 242 g/mi today. If FCVs are to be better than a Prius, the hydrogen must be produced from renewable energy.

California’s own Hydrogen Highway Blueprint Plan estimates that hydrogen FCVs will require more than 4000 BTU/mi (1172 Watt hours per mile) of renewable energy. Even a boxy SUV built with decade old technology (the Toyota RAV4-EV) uses only 302 Wh/mi, according to the EPA’s Fuel Economy website. If powered by renewable wind and solar, extra Watt hours translate into extra land use for solar and wind farms. FCVs will therefore be wasteful of land and our renewable electricity investments. But FCVs are still in research, and perhaps the final result will be more efficient than California’s blueprint allows? Let us look at what might be possible if FCVs achieve all of the aggressive goals set for them.

Because a FCV is essentially a BEV where some (but not all) of the batteries/capacitors have been replaced by a hydrogen tank and a fuel cell, and the plug is optional (but probably desirable), it is straightforward to compare the vehicles. Use an identical 260 Wh/mi for motor to wheels efficiency. For a BEV, this gives 300 Wh/mi at the garage plug (as seen on the RAV4-EV). The DOE’s FreedomCar’s goal for fuel cells at their peak efficiency is 20kWh of electrical output per kilogram of hydrogen fed into it. Thus to power the wheels one mile we need 13g of hydrogen (or 77 mi/kg). FreedomCar’s goal is still a ways off (most similar sized FCVs are less than 50 mi/kg). Next, according to NREL, “An efficiency goal for electrolyzers in the future has been reported to be in the 50 kWh/kg range, or a system efficiency of 78%.” Thus 13 g/mi of hydrogen to operate a FCV of the future requires 650 Wh/mi of renewable electricity. This is better than the 1172 Wh/mi in the Hydrogen Highway Blueprint Plan, but still a factor of two higher than the BEV requirement. Wouldn’t this additional land be better used toward solving our electricity greenhouse gas emissions, instead of wasting it on inefficient FCVs?

Earl Killian is a software engineer and microprocessor architect who is also passionate about finding solutions to the global warming crisis confronting us. He graduated from MIT in 1978 (B.S. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science), and has most recently worked for MIPS, QED, SGI, and Tensilica, all silicon valley companies engaged in creating microprocessor products. He was a co-founder and CTO of QED, and held the title Director of Architecture at each of the other companies. His microprocessor work has resulted in 23 patents issued so far. Earl Killian and his wife drive two battery electric vehicles, fueled by sunlight from the photovoltaic panels on their home.

CARB's Conflict of Interest

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CFCP) have become inseparable. The Green California Summit taking place next week in Sacramento appears to provide one more small example.

As I stated in my testimony before CARB's Zero Emission Vehicle Program meeting last week, to understand the conflict of interest

one need look no further than the CARB homepage, where hydrogen and fuel cells – not ZEVs - receive prominent placement, with no equivalent recognition of battery electrics. The same members of staff that administer the ZEV program and make recommendations to this Board are charged with promoting and administering the hydrogen highway and fuel cell projects. A bias toward one technology is reflected in the titles and job descriptions of many staffers who wrote the recommendation you are considering today that give a fuel cell vehicle more credit than a battery electric vehicle with the same range.

At the upcoming Summit, CARB and the Fuel Cell Partnership share booth #1001. Not in the sense that ZAP and Global Electric are housed at a booth divided into A and B. No. On the floorplan, booth 1001 is simply "CA Fuel Cell Partnership & CA Air Resources Board."

It would be a different matter if this were two government agencies sharing space to save taxpayer money. But this is a government regulatory agency cohabitating with a group dominated by the regulated corporations, including auto manufacturers, energy providers, and fuel cell technology companies.

Ever since Alan Lloyd chaired both CARB and the Fuel Cell Partnership at the time of the disastrous 2003 vote that eviscerated the ZEV Mandate, and perhaps before, something has been fundamentally wrong about the relationship. The mission of CARB's Zero Emission Vehicle program appears to have been corrupted. Once the goal was to bring zero emission vehicles to market, and the result back then was thousands of electric cars on the road. Now CARB is content to shepherd a research program, gambling on technologies - hydrogen and fuel cells - that with every passing day disappear further over the horizon. This relationship jeopardizes achieving California's clean air, carbon and petroleum reduction goals and it is time for the legislature to look into it.

Tesla to sell Roadster in Europe

Governor Schwarzenegger can expect delivery of his $100,000 electric Tesla Roadster within a few months. His pals in the Old World won't have to wait too much longer before they can buy their own, for a cool €100,000 ($156,000.) The Roadster will be sold in Europe beginning in Summer, 2008, CEO Ze'ev Drori has told the Financial Times.

The upstart California auto maker decided to offer its vehicles in Europe for a number of reasons. Favorable tax treatment of electric cars as well as other incentives are among the measures the continent hopes to employ to lower carbon emissions. The weak dollar also makes Europe an attractive market. Although the chassis and body are made in the U.K., with no plans for a right hand drive version the English rich and royal are out of luck.

Sandia Labs Researcher Says Electric Makes More Sense

Sandia Labs Researcher Ben Cipiti has penned a short piece entitled An Unbiased Approach to Evaluating Transportation Fuels in which he extols the virtues of plug-in cars to meet our environmental and national security goals. He correctly identifies the problem bedeviling consumers, policy makers and, perhaps, auto makers.

Many of us want to know what we can do to make a difference. Yet with so much varying information about energy alternatives, it has become difficult to choose which technologies really make sense and which will be a waste of research dollars.

He briefly recaps the problems with ethanol and hydrogen and concludes:

Of the alternative transportation options, electric vehicles coupled with increased use of renewables and other clean sources of energy will be the most efficient way to reduce pollution and eliminate dependence on foreign oil. We need to look at all of the issues to concentrate funding on the solutions that make sense.

Read the entire article here.

Some of the Facts : Automakers Comment to CARB

The Large Volume Manufacturers, the automakers with obligations under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Zero Emission Vehicle Program, have made a joint comment about the staff proposed revisions that will be voted on Thursday March 27 in Sacramento. It can be seen here (comment #121) along with 187 other public comments (overwhelmingly asking for a stronger mandate for plug-in cars) on the CARB website. Despite the various positions advanced by each automaker independently, they overcame their differences to say they “remain very concerned” that “provisions being proposed by Staff are overly stringent.” The letter states that the Staff recommendation has increased the volume of ZEVs and PHEVs required from 2012-2014 and this would result in additional costs of up to $3.4 billion. An accompanying chart shows the increases.

But the explanation is disingenuous. The chart compares the November 2007 Concept Paper to the February 2008 45-day Notice, which results in a possible increase of 630 zero-emission vehicles. Yes, 630 vehicles over a three year period from 2012 to 2014. What is missing in this presentation is the ZEV Program requirements endorsed by CARB in 2003, the requirements as they stand now. Back then, when the intention was to kill the electric car, automakers signed on to an “alternative path” replacing battery electric vehicles with fuel cell vehicles. An obligation to manufacture a meaningful percentage of electric cars dropped down to a required 250 FCVs by 2008, then 2500 by 2012, and then 25,000 by 2015. But what happened to the 25,000 ZEVs in the automaker’s plea? Absent of course, since including it would make clear that the staff revision in fact lops off 90% of the 2003 ZEV requirement. The automakers bemoan a supposed 25% increase, while ignoring what is actually a 90% reduction.

Chutzpah.

Electric Subaru: Tell 'em what you think

Subaru has brought some R1e electric mini-cars to NY. They have a program with Tokyo Electric Power Company that has been testing vehicles in Japan since 2006. Now, they're at the NY Auto Show, and two of them are joining the New York Power Authority fleet. Much like the Th!nk City that NYPA also tested, the cars have a 50 miles range with a 65 mile per hour top speed. Any interest in such a car? Subaru wants to know. Visit the bottom of their R1e webpage here to send them comments.

Electric Coops Use Aptera EV in Ad

Touchstone Energy Cooperatives has made an ad touting its preparedness to deliver electricity whatever needs it in the future.



Hattip to Domenick Yoney - AutoblogGreen

Automakers Losing Religion; CARB Keeps Unfounded Faith

The expense and impracticality of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars is beginning to dawn on the major automakers. Batteries will do within a few short years what H2 advocates can only dream. The Wall Street Journal reports GM, Toyota Doubtful on Fuel Cells' Mass Use.

Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale.

Further evidence that the action is in electric cars and the batteries that will energize them: General Electric has invested $4 million in Th!nk Global, and $20 million in A123. Business Week reports GE plugs into electric car investments. And Th!nk has debuted a larger concept car, which it has developed with an unnamed major automaker. Green Wombat has more info here.

Pretty soon it might be down to BMW and Honda advertising the dream, with the California Air Resources Board acting as enabler. CARB staff is recommending lowering once again the required number of zero emission vehicles - this time by a mere 90%! Honda, the supposed H2 true believer, is actually given an incentive to produce fewer of its much touted Clarity FCV.

The Air Resources Board could probably find a way to lead by prodding early commercialization of battery ZEVs, but instead it appears to be regulating itself into irrelevancy.

Th!nk thinks bigger

Th!nk CEO Jan Olaf Willums made a return appearance at the Cleantech Forum in San Francisco this week. He sat down with Todd Woody, Business 2.0's Green Wombat. The small 2 seater Th!nk City is rolling off the Norwegian assembly line and 500 cars are set for March delivery. Cars will be delivered in London and Paris and Scandinavia. The strategy of delivering cars to urban centers with incentive programs bodes well for California cities, especially if CARB comes up with better incentives for battery electric cars.

Equally exciting are the plans for a larger 4 or 5 passenger car in partnership with an established auto maker. Referring to Tesla's planned White Star, Willums said,

"We won't compete with Tesla," says Willums. "The Tesla will be more a BMW; we'll be more the Volkswagen."

On Prius

There's much I should be blogging these days and hopefully will shortly. The pathetic CARB staff ZEV recommendations (here); Bob Lutz's latest inanity about inefficient windshield wipers effect on electric cars' range; London's step backward on the congestion charge. I'll get to them.

But for now, enjoy a pointed chuckle. Check out the blog Stuff White People Like on the Prius. Reminds me to blog about that Lexus ad campaign casting a spell around the letter h. How to spin a false green consciousness around a gasoline burning luxury automobile.

Over the years, white people have gone through a number of official cars. In the 1980s it was the Saab and the Volvo. By the 1990s it was the Volkswagen Jetta or a Subaru 4WD stastion wagon. But these days, there is only one car for white people. One car that defines all that they love: the Toyota Prius.

The Prius might be the most perfect white product ever. It’s expensive, gives the idea that you are helping the environment, and requires no commitment/changes other than money.