Gas Tax…an Idea of the Auto Companies?

The summer of 2008 showed us that at some point, consumers do respond to gas prices.  As prices approached $4/gallon, people started to drive less, take alternative forms of transportation, or just stay home.  Perhaps, then, one of the easiest ways to get people to drive less is to increase the price gasoline (or take away all of its subsidies).  How about a gasoline tax?  This idea is supported by auto industry executives as a way to get Americans to use less gasoline.  They support a gas tax over giving out billions of dollars in loans and guarantees to develop new technologies.

This sounds great at face value.  If the general market demands more efficient technology, we can expect the producers to respond.  However, we cannot stop pursuing and developing the technologies that will get us off oil: hydrogen fuel cells, battery electric technology, and sustainable biofuels.  Taxing gasoline, or having consumers pay for the real cost of oil, will almost certainly lead to efficiency gains within the the internal combustion engine.  The fact that auto executives are calling for it is an incredibly positive step.  We, as a society, need to make sure that such a step would lead us away from oil altogether.

Fuel Cell Forklifts at Whole Foods

Last month EIN talked about the potential to marry hydrogen fueling infrastructure for light duty vehicles with forklift and heavy duty applications.  Along these lines, Whole Foods Markets recently switched from battery operated forklifts to hydrogen fuel-cell forklifts in its Maryland distribution center.  The move will save operators time, provide a more safe refueling situation, and facilitate significant greenhouse gas emission reductions.  The Whole Foods blog estimates that each hydrogen fuel cell forklift operation will reduce greenhouse emissions by  80% over previous operations (approximately the equivalent of removing two traditional cars from the road per year).

Check out this video showing how the hydrogen fueling process works.  Whole Foods estimates that this process will save 3,750 hours per year when compared to their old lead acid batteries.

Whole Foods would not have been able to proceed with this project without money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to bring down the cost of the fuel cells. These types of public investments are necessary to get new, environmentally beneficial, technologies off of the ground.  They should be leveraged to the maximum extent possible.  In this case, Whole Foods could not have justified the fork lift transition without ARRA funds.  These funds helped not only pay for hydrogen fuel cell forklifts, they justified the installation of hydrogen fueling infrastructure (without ARRA funds).  If designed with the future in mind, these types of infrastructure investments can be used to help fuel the early adoption of hydrogen fuel cell cars.

Blog Action Day 2009: Hydrogen and Batteries Driving the Climate

Many leading scientists now agree that 350 parts per million (ppm) represents the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent in our atmosphere.  Concentrations above 350 ppm are expected to lead to potentially catastrophic events (i.e., the melting of the polar ice-caps, displacement of millions of people from their low-lying home-lands, the spread of mosquitoes and disease to higher latitudes).  We have already reached 387 ppm CO2, and the concentrations are rising by about 2 ppm per year.  The Arctic is warming, glaciers melting, and the ocean is becoming more acidic.  We need throw every possible solution at the problem.

In terms of climate change, our transportation system is a major problem.  In California, 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the state come from the transportation sector, more than any other sector.  In the United States as a whole, the transportation sector is second only to power generation.  The majority of transportation emissions are generated by personal vehicles; our society depends on the automobile to move around.  We need significant, perhaps even total, reductions in emissions from the transportation sector to stabilize the atmosphere at 350 ppm CO2.

To get us moving in the right direction, in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger set a target to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. We cannot reach this target in the transportation sector by simply increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel based engines and reducing our driving miles.  We need game changing, zero-emissions personal transportation options.

So far, only two zero-emissions vehicle platforms exist:  battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (assuming we employ renewable electricity and hydrogen generated from renewable resources).  We need them both.  Despite tremendous progress made by vehicle manufacturers, hydrogen has come under political fire as a transportation fuel.  In this year alone, the Department of Energy proposed a $100 million cut in the hydrogen program and the California State Legislature deleted funding for hydrogen infrastructure, before Gov. Schwarzenegger restored it.  These maneuvers threatened a fledgling industry that needs public support to survive into commercial viability.

Why do we need hydrogen?  Why not just use batteries?  The figure below, prepared by General Motors, holds the answer.  While batteries represents the most efficient transfer of stored energy to the road, battery weight limits potential car size and the ability to haul heavy goods.  As shown in the figure, battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and range extended BEVs (think Chevy Volt) are very effective for light load, city driving.  Hydrogen fuel-cells are the only zero-emissions platform able to perform in long-distance or heavy load scenarios.

From GM Presentation to House of Reps 6-12-09

Based on our existing technologies, we need both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies to reach a truly zero-emissions transportation economy.  Barring technological breakthroughs, we cannot afford to give up on either if we hope to return our atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppm.  We need to encourage California and the U.S. to pursue both platforms with vigor; we have no time to lose.

Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure: Help from Heavy Duty Trucks and Box Stores

Infrastructure.  That’s what we hear when people ask vehicle manufacturers about the main limiting factor to hydrogen vehicle deployment.  Manufacturers have overcome range limitations,1 the ability to start and operate in cold weather,2 expect costs to come down with increased production, and are coming ever closer to fuel cell durability targets.  To achieve manufacturer cost targets, vehicles basically need to be mass produced.  These vehicles need access to fuel.

Unfortunately, based on testimony presented at the September 29, 2009 AB 118 Alternative Fuels Investment Plan workshop for Hydrogen-based transportation, the business case for installing hydrogen fueling in a traditional gas station model does not yet exist.  At demonstration fleet levels, the expected break-even price of hydrogen is too high to justify 100-percent privately funded stations.  The assumption remains that public funding can and should be used to bridge this infrastructure development gap until hydrogen can be sold at volumes high enough to warrant 100-percent private development.

While public funding is an important component to establishing a hydrogen transportation economy, it remains politically tenuous, especially in the face of recent government funding shortfalls.  For hydrogen to have the greatest chance for success, the business case needs to be developed as soon as possible.  This is where heavy duty trucks and box stores come in.

From an operations standpoint, at least one company says that it already makes economic sense to operate heavy duty trucks with hydrogen as the primary fuel source.  According to Vision Industries Corporation, their hydrogen powered heavy-duty Class-8 truck is 35-percent cheaper to operate than a similar diesel and 50-percent cheaper than a natural gas truck.  Government subsidies have been applied to get the trucks off the ground, and as more trucks are produced the per unit cost drops, leading affordable trucks that could be purchased without subsidy.

Why is this significant?  It takes a lot of hydrogen fuel to operate a heavy duty truck.  Over the course of a year, one of these trucks demands a volume of hydrogen fuel equivalent to 60 to 65 cars.  This demand, and the fuel payment associated with it, improves the economics of hydrogen fuel production and delivery.  In other words, high demand volume can help fuel providers achieve the economies of scale necessary to reduce hydrogen distribution costs.  Conveniently, the first deployments of these trucks will be made in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, in the primary early market hydrogen passenger car target area.3 Passenger car fueling infrastructure can and should take advantage of the heavy duty hydrogen demand.

So what about box stores?  Currently, their are over 50,000 electric lift trucks operating in large fleets in California warehouses and stores.  According to Plug Power these electric units suffer from downtime when charging and/or swapping out batteries.  They claim that work efficiencies can be improved using fuel cell powered lifts, primarily based on quick refueling times, and that operation can be cheaper. A number of stores, including Wal Mart, FedEx, and CocaCola appear to agree, at least in specific locations (refer to the Plug Power presentation stored here for specifics).

According to Plug Power, individual warehouses represent a commercial scale demand (up to 300 kg per day, equivalent to fueling 76 Honda Clarities).  Box stores and warehouses increase the volume of hydrogen demanded in the same way heavy duty trucks do. However, box stores are located conveniently next to major population centers.  It takes little imagination to picture hydrogen production dedicated to the consistent lift truck operation and an increasing population of light duty vehicles.  Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, etc. could use their hydrogen production to both fuel their internal goods movement and their customers.  This would leverage the base-load demand for hydrogen in the warehouses to build infrastructure for passenger vehicles.

Public funding is an important component in hydrogen fuel infrastructure development.  But, cross sector interests need to by synergized to leverage the maximum power of the  private sector.  We, as a society, need to do everything we can to make sure we take advantage of every case where hydrogen makes economic sense in the early market.  The more systems we deploy now, the more likely we will be able to meet our 2050 GHG emissions reductions targets.  That, is in everyone’s interest.

1. The Toyota Highlander FCV-adv traveled 431 miles on a single tank, Hyuandai-Kia went 396 miles in an unpublished test, Honda achieves 240 miles with its lower pressure hydrogen tank.

2. Honda and Toyota have been able to operate their FCV in temperatures as cold as -30 deg C; Hyundai-Kia has verified up to -20 deg C

3. Medium and heavy duty trucks account for approximately 20-percent of California’s transportation related emissions (transportation in total accounts for 40-percent of annual California emissions).

Cash for Clunkers – Was it environmentally successful?

The Cash for Clunkers program, also known as the Cash Allowance Rebate System (CARS), recently ended with over 700,000 new cars sold.  While one of the primary intents of the CARS program was to spur vehicle sales for the hurting auto industry, it also provided a positive environmental effect.  Under the CARS program, 84% of the vehicle trade-ins were trucks, while 59% of the newly purchased vehicles were passenger vehicles.  As a result, there was an increase in vehicle miles per gallon (MPG) from 15.8 MPG for the trade-in vehicles to 24.9 MPG for the newly purchased vehicles,  a 58 percent improvement.  There have been arguments that 60% of these “clunkers” would likely have been scraped and replaced with new cars by the end of the year without the CARS incentives.  However, it is also important to note that the cars purchased under the CARS program were on average 19% more fuel efficient than the average vehicle on the market.  As a result, there are likely to be not only immediate short term decreases in carbon emissions but long term reductions in carbon emissions as well.

The next logical question to ask might be: “Doesn’t the production of a new vehicle offset the savings in carbon emissions from the increased fuel economy?”  In short, no.  In order to determine the carbon emissions from a vehicle, it is necessary to take the vehicle’s whole life cycle, from manufacture to scraping, into consideration.  Research conducted by Toyota and other independent parties have found that a surprising 72% of carbon emissions are a result of the driving the vehicle (plus an additional 8% for fuel production) versus only 12% for material production and 6 percent for vehicle production.  Therefore, an overwhelming proportion of the vehicle emissions are directly tied to the fuel economy of the vehicle.

The CARS program provides some valuable insight into the behavior of consumers: when given sufficient incentives to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, people use them.  When put in percentage improvement terms, the numbers are impressive (i.e., CARS created a 58% improvement in fuel economy).  We can do better.  An average fuel economy of 24.9 MPG for the newly purchased cars is an improvement when compared to 15.8 MPG, but the availability of cars that achieve 50 MPG or more illustrates the room for serious growth.  The public money put into Cash for Clunkers should be used to not only generate car sales, but to encourage consumers to purchase cars with the best fuel economy.

Five Stroke Engines = Improved Energy Efficiency

While Energy Independence Now strives for zero emissions transportation, the reality is that only a limited number of zero emission vehicles are  available for lease  by the general public, and it will take a number of years  before all transportation is zero emissions.  As a result, the highly energy inefficient and polluting four stroke gasoline engine will continue to provide our main source of automotive transportation over the near term.  Recent technological improvements in vehicle technology, such as the gas-electric hybrid engine found in vehicles such as the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and others have helped reduce carbon and other vehicle emissions.  In an attempt to further improve upon and redefine the gasoline engine, a company called Ilmor Engineering has developed a “five stroke” engine that offers fuel economy similar to that of the diesel engine without the particulate emissions.  Additionally, the engine is much smaller than a conventionalfour-stroke gasoline engine for the same brake horsepower.  Imor claims that their 0.7 liter engine is capable of producing 150 horsepower.  In comparison, Mazda produces a much larger 2.0 liter engine that produces 148 brake horsepower while using more fuel to operate.  Additionally, the engine will weigh 20 percent less than a conventional engine with similar power output.  A lighter vehicle allows for an even greater fuel economy.  And importantly, from the vehicle manufacturers point of view, the five stroke engine utilizes conventional technology which does not require new manufacturing techniques.  As a result, the cost to implement this new technology can be expected to be much lower than other fuel saving options.

Photo credit: ilmor.co.uk

For more information on this engine, check out Ilmor’s website at:

http://www.ilmor.co.uk/concept_5-stroke_1.php

- Scott

A Good Article on Chevy Volt’s 230mpg Claim

There has been a lot of press and discussion about the Chevy Volt getting 230 mpg.  This Edmunds blog takes a closer look.  The true story appears to lie in the drive cycle.  If trips are kept under 40 miles, the Volt does very well.  If not, it appears that the Volt performs like a hybrid gasoline vehicle.  Either way, a 230 mpg rating is likely misleading…..take a look for yourself:

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/08/gms-230-mpg-estimate-for-volt-works-or-not-depending-on-the-drive.html

Manufacturers bet on the promise of hydrogen

Honda, Daimler, Toyota, GM, and Hyundai are all betting that hydrogen fuel-cell cars will play a significant role in the zero-emissions transportation system of the future.  Honda’s head of their fuel cell development group states that Honda is positioning fuel-cell cars as the “ultimate zero emission car”, a stance that contrasts the Obama administration’s push for battery vehicles.  Alan Taub, the replacement for GM’s outgoing VP of research and development and champion of fuel-cell technology, Larry Burns, remains committed to bringing fuel-cells to production by about 2012.

In spite of the Obama Administration’s proposal to slash funding for hydrogen transportation projects, and the California state legislature’s effort a zero hydrogen funding for the FY 2009-10 budget, their is plenty of reason to remain optimistic that hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles will help us achieve our transportation emission reduction goals.  For starters, the US Congress voted to restore hydrogen funds, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger restored the states ability to continue to invest in hydrogen.

From a technical standpoint, Toyota’s Highlander Fuel Cell Hybrid Vehicle (FCHV-adv) recently achieved an estimated range of 431 miles on a single full tank of compressed hydrogen gas during a real-world driving test.  According to the calculations run by the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) this range translates to an average of 68.3 miles/kg (the approximate mpg equivalent).   For comparison, the 2009 Toyota Highlander Hybrid achieves an average fuel economy of 26 mpg.  A 431 mile range, 68.3 mpg equivalent with quick refueling should meet everyone’s expectation for a fully a fully functional car.

On the infrastructure side, as California continues to move forward with it’s hydrogen fueling network, at least one country is actively working to expand its hydrogen fueling infrastructure.  By 2015, Japan plans to extend its Hydrogen Highway to the entire country, starting with dozens of field trials.  2015 also marks the year that both Toyota and Honda expect to bring to market affordable, durable fuel cell vehicles.

Honda, Toyota, Daimler, GM and Hyundai all know that hydrogen fuel-cell cars have the ability to deliver the performance and versatility consumers desire.  As a society, we just need to provide the platform for these eventual zero emissions cars to flourish.

The Comeback of the Electric Car…and The Need For Infrastructure

Who brought the electric car back to life?  If one company has anything to say about it, its Nissan.  Nissan-Renault recently released information about it brand new Leaf electric car: its 100 percent electric, drives like a V6, seats 5, has 5 doors, and is expected to be competitively priced.  Best of all, if it is fueled by electricity generated from renewable sources, driving the Leaf will produce zero emissions.

The Leaf has been developed as part of Nissan’s Green Program 2010 through which the company is aiming to become a “sincere eco-innovator”.  Currently, Nissan’s Green Program focuses primarily on achieving C02 emissions reductions through improving their internal combustion engines, introducing hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and bringing zero-emission electric and fuel cell vehicles to the market.

While the Nissan’s Leaf, Altima hybrid and fuel cell research program show the potential for advanced vehicle deployment, we desperately need to develop the infrastructure to support them.

Nissan’s predicted 2050 powertrain penetration helps illustrate the problem we are facing: they predict that in 40 years, the internal combustion engine (ICE) will continue to capture the biggest market share when compared to the zero-emissions and hybrid platforms.  Expected infrastructure limitations likely drive this calculation.

Market scale zero-emissions vehicles are the future, but to get there, we need to continually invest in the infrastructure necessary to support them.  On August 5th, President Obama announced the awarding of $2.4 billion dollars in Recovery Act grants  to “Accelerate the Manufacturing and Deployment of the Next Generation of U.S. Batties and Electric Vehicles”.  However, only 5 percent of that money is for the infrastructure necessary to support these vehicles.

Fortunately for Nissan, the largest infrastructure grant was awarded to help Electric Transportation Engineering Corp. and Nissan develop 12,750 charging stations.  However, Southern California Edison (SCE), a utility that played a huge role in deploying the electric vehicles in the 1990s (see Who Killed the Electric Car), was not awarded any funding to update its charging stations.

Ed Kjaer, director of electric transportation for SCE sums up the infrastructure worries in an August 6th Wall Street Journal Article “…we need to get the markets ready for [electric] cars by creating the infrastructure.  Its not ready now and its a big concern.”

While this round of Recovery Act grant funding does not tell the entire story (more investment is expected), we need to remember some key points on the road as consider how to best spend our public money:

1. As Nissan has just showed us, electric vehicles are once again ready for prime time.*
2. Our existing electricity infrastructure is not prepared to handle the load of a large scale deployment.
3. We need easy consumer access to the market to fund and encourage continued private investment in to zero-emissions transportation options.  Without infrastructure, there will only be limited consumer access.

The August 5th round of Recovery Act funding will no doubt lead to innovations in battery performance and use.  However, without the infrastructure to support these gains and entice consumers to replace their ICEs with electric vehicles, we cannot expect to benefit on the scale necessary to meet our needed emissions reductions targets.  In short, we need to invest in both the chicken and the egg, and we need to continue to invest in a big way.

*Nissan is not the only company venturing into the full battery-electric vehicle arena:  for example, Tesla Motors sold a record 109 vehicles in July; Mitsubishi’s iMEV is being sold to corporate and government fleets in Japan; Subaru’s Stella all electric car was expected to be delivered to its first Japanese customers in July; the Mini E is currently being driven in test markets; and Toyota recently unveiled it concept battery electric FT-EV car.  The Chevy Volt, which will sport a gasoline engine range extender, can be a zero emissions car if driven within its 40-mile all electric range.

An eye towards public transit

The recent 2009 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Statewide Survey: Californian’s and the Environment, shows that Californian’s are increasingly interested in expanding public transit.  Three in four residents (77%) now say that the state transportation funding should focus on public transit, up 10 points from August 2004.  On the other end, only 18% say that the state should focus on expanding our freeways and highways.

What does this mean?  Californians, across political affiliations, want access to transportation alternatives. The public’s desire lines up with on of the key strategies outlined in California’s December 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan (written pursuant to AB 32): reducing emissions from passenger vehicles.  As the the American Public Transportation Association calculates, each individual who switches a 20-mile round-trip commute to public transportation saves approximately 4,800 pounds of CO2 emissions per year, equal to a 10 percent reduction in a two-car household’s carbon footprint.

Making public transportation convenient to more people is a critical step towards our energy independence, climate change, and public health goals. Mass transit is both in our public interest and in the public’s interest.  Let’s not let our decision makers forget.