Over the years I’ve driven many battery electric vehicle prototypes and all production EVs in the U.S., spending a year living with a GM EV1. I have also spent time behind the wheel of many electric car conversions from small and hopeful new EV companies ranging from U.S. ElectriCar to those founded by entrepreneurs like Malcolm Bricklin and Miles Rubin. Test drives took place on highways and test tracks on multiple continents, sometimes for short drives out of necessity and sometimes for weeks at a time. Electric cars were my beat as feature editor at Motor Trend in the 1990s, by choice. I’ve been a vocal advocate for electric cars since the first issue of Green Car Journal 20 years ago…sometimes very vocal.
Time has a way of tempering not only perspective but expectations. One example: Over two decades of following battery development, I recall clearly the high expectations many have had that battery breakthroughs would come. Affordable and energy-dense batteries would be the enabling technology that could encourage full-function battery electric cars to market, making them cost competitive with internal combustion and readily displacing cars that for 100-plus years have relied on petroleum, a commodity that has grown costlier and in tighter supply.
That battery breakthrough has yet to occur. Yes, we have batteries with better chemistry and advanced designs. But they don’t represent the breakthrough that’s been widely anticipated and they remain quite expensive, so much so that battery electric cars must still be federally subsidized because of their high battery cost and retail price. In a normal world, a compact electric SUV should not cost $50,000, nor should a four-door electric sedan be $40,000, or a small electric hatchback priced over $30,000. Yet they are. And yes, there are a few electrics priced under $30,000, but as internal combustion models they would typically be priced $10,000 to $15,000 less while offering greater functionality.
It’s understandable why electric cars are being pushed so hard. Historically, EVs have spoken to a lot of needs. States have included them in State Implementation Plans as a way to show how their state would meet air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. Electric utilities see them as a pathway to selling electricity as a motor fuel. Government agencies often view electric vehicles as a panacea for (you choose) improving air pollution, mitigating petroleum use, decreasing CO2 emissions, and enhancing energy security. Automakers realize the dramatic impact that electric propulsion can have in helping achieve increasingly higher fleet fuel economy averages in coming years. Thrifty and eco-minded consumers understand the value of a smaller environmental impact by driving oil- and emissions-free, at a low cost per mile.
I remain an electric car enthusiast. But as a seasoned auto writer and industry analyst I’m also obliged to focus on reality. Today’s reality is that if we’re to make a real difference in petroleum reduction and environmental impact, battery EVs are not the short-term answer. While important and deserving of continuing development and sales, they are just one part of the solution, along with advanced gasoline, alternative fuel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and extended-range electric vehicles that create on-board electricity to provide full functionality. That’s the way forward.
Ron Cogan is editor and publisher of Green Car Journal.
I recently climbed out from behind the wheel of a 2013 Lexus GS450h. Fully loaded, this very luxurious hybrid will easily top $70,000 MSRP. And that’s not the most expensive hybrid offered by Toyota’s luxury brand. The LS600h L starts at $119,910.
Back to the GS450h: It’s hard not to be impressed with the car’s performance – delivered via 338 combined horsepower and a 34 mpg EPA highway rating, wrapped in a very stylish sedan with luxury appointments.
That got me thinking about the difficulty of bringing advanced technologies to the automotive market. We sometimes hear complaints that a powertrain or technology breakthrough ‘shoulda’ been out years ago. Truth is, it takes considerable time and money to bring any new idea to market these days. Big breakthroughs take even longer and often require a major capital investment on the part of the automaker.
The Prius is a good example. Toyota bet on a forward-thinking, long-term approach with this iconic gasoline electric hybrid. You can bet that Prius isn’t a profitable platform for Toyota when viewed in traditional automotive parameters. But now with over a million Prius models on the road, ‘Prius’ is used as a generic term when talk turns to hybrids. It’s difficult to measure the green halo that the Prius casts across the entire Toyota brand, but it’s certainly a marketing home run. Toyota has the resources to make that kind of multi-year investment. Many companies, especially smaller startups, need to be profitable early in the game.
That’s why we often see green technology introduced in cars that are much more expensive than the Prius. Both Fisker and Tesla took this approach with their launches working the ledger with high-end models eclipsing six figures. In a blog some six years ago, Tesla founder Elon Musk pointed out that his company’s strategy was to “enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model.”
At the time of his blog, Musk’s plan was to follow through with a second model that would be roughly half the cost of the $89,000 Tesla Roadster. As recent history has shown, that $89,000 MSRP ultimately became $111,000, which meant the cost of a more affordable coming sedan would likely be higher as well. That sedan is the highly acclaimed and awarded Tesla Model S. Initially, Tesla is only delivering the limited edition Model S Signature Series at a cost of $95,000 to $105,000. The plan is to next roll out less expensive Model S variants with an MSRP starting at $59,900 with smaller battery packs and shorter, although still exemplary, electric range.
Though battery cost is a prime contributor, this economic reality is not limited to hybrids or electric vehicles. Even clean diesel feels the influence of advanced technology running up cost. A diesel is generally more expensive to produce than a gasoline engine. When you add the cost of federally mandated high-tech pollution controls and exhaust aftertreatment systems, it’s easier to merge clean diesel into higher-end luxury vehicles and more expensive three-quarter ton and larger pickup trucks.
Clearly, the path to vehicles using highly-advanced technology is not a quick or easy one, nor as it turns out, one without cost.
Todd Kaho is executive editor of Green Car Journal and CarsOfChange.com
While we sadly may be part of the exception rather than the rule here in LA, many of Global Green's staff in Santa Monica live close enough to the office to walk or bike to work with ease. We have two walkers, four bikers, and a bus-taker.
On top of that, we have lots of eco drivers: three Prius drivers, and three others with Toyotas that get 30+ mpg. Others in the office are behind the wheels of EVs: two drivers of the Ford Think Neighbor EV (remember that vehicle…they're still on the road!), and one new and very proud Chevy Volt owner. They share an outlet in the garage for charging up their vehicles – and when California gas prices topped $5 a gallon last month, they were feeling pretty good about their vehicle choices.
The topic of how much we pay at the pump and how we can reduce our carbon footprint with transportation methods was a water cooler topic in many workplaces with the latest surge in gas prices. As the rest of the nation reacted to the news with fear that prices would rise everywhere, we reminded ourselves that we are lucky to live in a state that is leading the way in fighting climate change with legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions on the roads, and with stationary sources. Our low carbon fuel standard and greenhouse gas emission reduction law means our air is cleaner and our impact on the planet is lessened.
It also means California is positively impacting the development of cleaner, fuel-efficient cars. Based on the EPA estimate that a typical passenger vehicle emits about 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, we were able to calculate the greenhouse gas savings of our Santa Monica staff: we are able to save more than 50 metric tons per year by walking, biking, and driving green cars. In the meantime, our conscious commute choices are saving us cash while we cut GHGs. And one employee also estimated that the walkers and bikers combine to burn off a half a million calories per year, too! It’s win-win-win.
Matt Petersen is President and CEO of Global Green USA, the American arm of Green Cross International
Model year 2012 was a record breaking year for green cars. Average fuel economy (23.6 mpg), conventional hybrid sales (399,782), and plug-in electric sales (37,753) all hit historic highs. As a result of steadily rising fuel efficiency over the last five years, American drivers will use over two billion gallons less gasoline and cut their fuel bills by over $8 billion in 2012.
Unfortunately, in this sea of good news, there are still those who criticize the clearly successful government policies that have fostered this outcome.
Consider the case of plug-in electrics. Detractors like to focus on their sales as a percentage of total auto sales, but instead the focus should be on the incredible growth in sales this year in this sector and that the trends are in the right direction.
In the first nine months of 2012, electric vehicle sales increased an astounding 178 percent in the U.S. over the first nine months of 2011. The number of hybrid and electric models available on the market increased in 2012 by 10 and about 15 more models are expected in 2013.
Instead of focusing on the bankruptcy of A123 systems, the focus should on the fact that the U.S. now has a healthier advanced battery manufacturing industry and that the A123 automotive technology, products, customer contracts, and its two Michigan factories will stay in the U.S., thanks to its purchase by Johnson Controls.
The bottom line is that overall, the government strategy to support the market for green cars through consumer incentives, retooling loans and providing long-term pollution and fuel efficiency standards is already paying off.
But particularly with new technology such as plug-ins, it takes time to reach critical mass. When first introduced, cell phones were more rare than California Condors, but now they're more like pigeons – everywhere.
Survey after survey shows fuel efficiency is key to auto purchases. With electrics able to deliver the equivalent of running on $1 per gallon gasoline, consumers becoming more familiar with the technology, more models entering the market, and prices continuing to drop, the future is bright for electrics.
Roland Hwang is Transportation Program Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council
Recent media coverage of electric vehicles has featured claims of high environmental impact due to the production and disposal phases of the vehicle life cycle. ACEEE’s Green Book, which evaluates such impacts for real vehicle models, helps put this issue into perspective.
Among model year 2012 vehicles, production and disposal emissions were about 30 percent higher for EVs than for comparably-sized conventional vehicles, due to relatively high per-pound battery production emissions. And while these ‘embodied’ emissions accounted for 22 percent of total vehicle impacts on average, they were just above half for EVs.
Nonetheless, EVs received very high Green Scores, reflecting low environmental impact, not a surprise given their zero in-use emissions. And of course, their scores will climb further if and when the ‘upstream’ emissions associated with electricity generation decline.
More broadly, as vehicles’ in-use emissions and energy consumption fall, production and disposal will indeed be increasingly important determinants of environmental impact. Material substitution to reduce vehicle weight, which in turn allows downsizing of vehicle systems and further weight reduction, is already a key strategy to boost fuel economy. Production of advanced, lightweight materials can be energy-intensive, and net impacts will reflect this, together with material recyclability and the fuel savings these materials enable. But careful analyses of these considerations to date have shown a clear net reduction in energy use and GHG emissions from the use of high-strength steel and aluminum, for example.
The recent light-duty vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions rule provoked a lively discussion of the possibility of standards based on full life cycle emissions. At present, this would be quite a challenge, given the paucity of data on the content and production of individual models and differing views on life cycle analysis.
And for now, fuel economy remains the undisputed heavyweight in vehicle environmental impacts. But we should prepare for a time when, thankfully, that will no longer be the case.
Therese Langer is Transportation Program Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, www.ACEEE.org
The development and growth of the U.S. ethanol industry over the course of several decades has had concrete impacts on every day Americans. It is helping more than 400,000 of our friends and neighbors find work or keep the jobs they have. It is putting money back into consumers’ pockets by lowering gas prices by a national average of more than $1.00 and reducing the average American’s household gasoline bill by $1,200. Ethanol is now ten percent of America’s fuel supply and 25 percent of all the motor fuel produced from domestic resources, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our national security.
America consumes approximately 135-140 billion gallons of gasoline a year. More than 95 percent of those gallons were blended with ethanol, predominantly E10 (10 percent ethanol, 90 percent gasoline). America’s new fuel, E15 (15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gasoline), a cheaper and higher octane fuel than E10, is beginning to gain momentum in the marketplace.
Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska now have E15 being sold to model year 2001 and newer vehicles at a total of nine stations. E15 is approved for more than 65 percent of all vehicles on the road today, which consume about 80 percent of all unleaded fuel sold. Thus far, E15 sales have been nearly 20 percent of all sales at each station offering it today, quickly outpacing traditional premium volumes.
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is working in various states to remove the state level hurdles restricting the sale of E15. There are many fuel retailers and marketers nationwide who have been misinformed on costs, liability, and consumer demand revolving around E15. The RFA continues to correct this information by educating on why they should consider offering E15 and what the benefits are.
This includes the development of an E15 business case that will show impact to the bottom line for retailers considering adding this new product. Through a joint effort of the RFA and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), the Blend Your Own (BYO) Ethanol Campaign is also offering to educate retailers and marketers on E15, MLEBs, E85, and blender pumps through station visits and free online webinars.
The RFA is working diligently with the petroleum industry, gas retailers, automakers, and consumers to ensure E15 is used properly. RFA developed a model Misfueling Mitigation Plan (MMP) as required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for education and outreach on E15 and focused on the prevention of illegal use of E15 by consumers. This is the only EPA approved MMP and was deemed as sufficient on March 15, 2012. E15 Stakeholders can choose to adopt RFA’s model plan by notifying EPA of their intentions utilizing the RFA’s E15 retail and consumer resources.
Additionally, RFA has developed the E15 Retailer Handbook for evaluating existing infrastructure compatibility, safety and conversion practices, and state specific regulatory requirements. Specifically, the handbook offers guidance regarding: Federal regulatory requirements including blender registration, octane posting, proper pump labeling, compliance with an EPA approved fuel survey and OSHA regulations; state and local fuel and safety regulations; E15 conversion guidelines for fueling infrastructure; retail conversion procedures; E15 fuel specification and properties; transportation and storage requirements; and safety and firefighting procedures.
E15 remains the most tested fuel ever approved by EPA and is perfectly safe and effective for approved engines. Adding this fuel option to the marketplace allows consumers to make the decision of which fuel works best for them and their vehicle. Allowing for additional ethanol-blended fuel use will help to lower gas prices, create domestic jobs, reduce oil dependence, and accelerate the commercialization of new biofuel technologies.
Robert White is Director of Market Development at the Renewable Fuels Association, www.ethanolrfa.org
The basic facts about our dependence on oil are troubling. Burning oil is changing our climate and it threatens our health and environment. We use about 18 million barrels of petroleum products every day with about two-thirds of that going to keep our transportation system moving – with cars and light trucks being the biggest driver for our oil appetite. So what would this oil dependence look like county by county on a map, in aggregate or per capita? Could such a map help us assess which solutions will work best to address oil hot spots – those places using the most oil? We took a look.
Our maps (done with NRDC and League of Conservation Voters) can be seen here. It turns out that of the 3,144 counties in the U.S., 108 of them use 10 percent of the oil.
Population is a key driver with counties in Texas, California, Florida, the Northeast, and Chicago popping out as red hot spots for aggregate annual oil consumption. However, a map of how much oil each person is using is quite different. Suddenly those dense and populous counties – many with transit systems and walkable communities – are quite green and counties in the middle of the country suddenly become angry red.
Eighty percent of the population now lives in metropolitan areas where distances between destinations are shorter and transportation choices make driving, or even car ownership, optional. Increasing transportation choices and access to existing transit, making walking and biking safer, and better planning can cool off the large metropolitan area hot spots.
Those living in angry hotspots in the Midwest and northern plains will find relief in the fuel efficiency automakers are now bragging about, which will continue to improve as standards double fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution from new vehicles in half. These standards will have a significant impact on oil consumption for those who do need to drive. Ultimately, using less oil nationwide will mean more transportation choices: more transit, more safe biking and walking, and more efficient vehicles when we do drive. We need to cool off our oil hot spots.
Ann Mesnikoff is Green Transportation Campaign Director of the Sierra Club
With a bumper crop of fuel-efficient vehicles driving sales and jobs growth, automakers and their suppliers are looking ahead to a brighter future after the dark days of the recession. Since June 2009 when the industry hit bottom, the American auto industry has grown 24 percent, adding 150,000 jobs in motor vehicle and parts manufacturing.
And as demand grows for fuel-efficient cars, so does the business case to ‘onshore’ the production of fuel-efficiency components. Thanks in large part to the first round of stronger fuel efficiency standards that began this year, this onshoring is already happening.
Hybrid production exemplifies this trend. With U.S. hybrid sales booming (up 63 percent this year), Toyota and Honda are bringing production to the U.S. Honda plans to bring all global Civic Hybrid manufacturing to its Greensburg, Indiana manufacturing plant from Japan. Toyota has also announced it would bring production of its Highlander Hybrid from Japan to its Princeton, Indiana plant and the Prius to the U.S. by 2015.
With greater hybrid production comes even more jobs related to building the key components. Already Ford has moved battery pack assembly to the Rawsonville Plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and electric drive transaxles to the Van Dyke Transmission Plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
But hybrids and hybrid components are just the start of the story. With standards set to be finalized – which will double today’s efficiency to 54.5 mpg by 2025 – automakers
will need to make more fuel-efficient vehicles and buy more fuel-efficient components. The high volumes needed to meet stronger standards means that a large proportion of these components will be made in America.
Setting strong fuel efficiency standards means that manufacturers throughout the auto supply chain gain certainty for what innovative and efficiency-boosting products they should invest in. Regardless of one’s place on the political spectrum, we can all agree that changing the terms of the debate from ‘out’ to ‘on’ is a positive development for our country.
Roland Hwang is Transportation Program Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council
After spending four months in São Paulo, I’m taking a more expansive view of feasible policy options. Car ownership is still low in Brazil, but in wealthy São Paulo it’s far higher and growing at breakneck speed. Daily paralysis of major thoroughfares has led to implementation of a ‘rodízio’ prohibiting certain license plates from circulating each day during peak periods.
In terms of energy impacts, however, Brazil’s new automobiles have an edge over those in the U.S. More than 80 percent of light-duty vehicles sold last year were flex-fuel vehicles. Ethanol consumption varies greatly with price, but it accounted for close to 40 percent of car and light truck fuel consumed in 2010. And Brazil’s sugar-cane-based ethanol is said to be substantially less carbon-intensive than the corn ethanol used here.
In addition, the average fuel economy of Brazil’s vehicle stock is about 26 miles per gallon, in energy-equivalent terms, while the U.S. value stands at 23 miles per gallon. That’s largely a reflection of engine size, not technology – over 90 percent of the vehicles sold in Brazil in 2011 have engines of 2.0 liters or less. A tax differential of 18 percentage points between a 1.0-liter and a 2.5-liter engine helps to explain this. Plus, gasoline in Brazil costs about 40 percent more than in the U.S.
Now there’s a major new vehicle tax policy in the works, and it’s tied to fuel efficiency. With substantial and rapidly growing oil production, Brazil is a net petroleum exporter.
And climate change concerns are not driving policy at this time. So who’s worried about fuel economy? The President herself, along with the Ministry of Development and Commerce: the new tax regime would replace the 30 percent tax that Brazil slapped on imported vehicles last fall. That policy has come under fire at the World Trade Organization, and there’s a sense that that approach to keeping imports at bay won’t fly in the long run. So fuel efficiency is the new competitiveness policy for the Brazilian auto industry. Sound familiar?
Therese Langer is Transportation Program Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, www.ACEEE.org
For all of our Global Green projects to help communities, people, and the planet in crisis, we seek to reduce greenhouse gases and stem climate change. On the road, that means reducing emissions by promoting the use of public transportation, car sharing and carpooling, and driving vehicles that do not rely on fossil fuels.
In this last year, one of our initiatives has been to help green the streets of Santa Monica, California, where we have our headquarters. For this pursuit, our focus has been on a vehicle that was invented long before the automobile. This type of vehicle reduces pollution, emissions, traffic, and parking congestion – and also helps drivers stay fit. I’m talking about the two-wheeled, human-powered bicycle.
Our policy and legislative team worked with the City of Santa Monica on its Bike Action Plan and bike sharing, bringing together businesses and community groups to discuss the possibilities and advocate for its adoption. We looked to cities such as Boston, Denver, Minneapolis, and Portland that have already seen the benefits of bike sharing programs. In addition to the positive environmental impact, bike sharing programs can improve the local economy, as bicycling cuts down on gasoline and other car-related costs and makes popular businesses more accessible.
Our efforts are paying off, as the Santa Monica City Council overwhelmingly voted to pass the Bike Action Plan with an added emphasis on bringing a bike share system to Santa Monica. We also helped the City of Los Angeles secure a Metro grant that will help fund bike sharing in Los Angeles.
We hope this will serve as a catalyst for communities across the Los Angeles basin and beyond to develop their own bike share programs and help us all depend less on greenhouse gas-emitting vehicles. After all, more bikes on the road will mean reduced greenhouse gases – and more room for the eco vehicles we still drive.
Matt Petersen is President and CEO of Global Green USA, the American arm of Green Cross International
Clean cars and dirty fuels don’t mix. EPA and DOT will issue final standards to strengthen fuel efficiency and slash carbon pollution spewing from 2017-2025 vehicles. These standards pick up where the standards for 2012-2016 vehicles leave off, promising 13 years of continuous improvement in new vehicles. Automakers are churning out vehicles with better fuel efficiency and lower emissions. These steps forward are a win, saving us billions at the pump and cutting heat-trapping climate pollution and demand for oil.
Cleaner cars should not fill up with dirty fuels. Furnace-like temperatures, scorching drought, and extreme weather should be enough to warrant immediate action to curb emissions of the pollution causing global warming. Slashing greenhouse gas emissions is the driver behind EPA’s standards that demand the fleet of vehicles sold in 2025 will emit 163 grams per mile of climate pollution, half of what the 2011 fleet of new vehicles emitted, keeping more than 600 million metric tons of carbon pollution out of the atmosphere in 2030 alone. Just as automakers are racing to bring the best of today’s technologies to market and innovate for the future, Big Oil is racing to bring ever dirtier fuels to the market.
Oil companies are ripping up lush Boreal Forest in Alberta to dig out tar sands that are then refined into gasoline. Accounting for upstream emissions, producing a barrel of tar sands oil emits 20 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil, on top of the toxic tailing ponds and other damage extracting this fuel causes. Fracking, the dirty and polluting process for extracting natural gas, is being applied to extract oil in multiple states including North Dakota. Fracking for oil releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere either by venting or flaring, increasing the upstream emissions profile of this oil (along with other problems).
As we demand more of the auto industry to cut dangerous climate pollution, it is time to demand that Big Oil keep dirty fuels out of the mix.
Ann Mesnikoff is Green Transportation Campaign Director of the Sierra Club
Automakers, and especially Detroit’s Big Three, will see greater sales and profits from stronger federal fuel economy standards.
That’s what a recent report by Citi Investment Research in collaboration with Ceres found. It looked at what Washington’s plans to boost fuel economy standards to 54.5 mpg by 2025 would mean for the industry in 2020.
The analysis found that in 2020, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler could look forward to a 6 percent hike in profits – an extra $2.44 billion – under the proposed standards.
Foreign automakers would also benefit. They can expect a 5 percent rise in profits – an extra $2.31 billion in 2020.
As gas prices continue to rise, better mileage drives sales. Customers want cars that go farther on a gallon of gas. In fact, Kelley Blue Book's latest consumer survey found that 66 percent of people shopping for new cars are taking rising gas prices into account. Some shoppers are changing their minds about what vehicle to buy. Others say they’re considering more fuel-efficient cars they haven’t considered before.
These consumers can do the math. The Citi report finds that the added costs of technologies required to meet proposed fuel economy improvements in 2020 are extremely cost-effective. Even if gas prices sink as to low as $1.50 a gallon, drivers would still come out ahead. And higher gas prices would mean even greater savings.
All car companies selling in the U.S. will have to meet the standards, which means a level playing field. Buyers will be able to choose from a wide range of fuel-efficient vehicles.
American automakers will benefit the most. That’s because U.S. companies have historically relied on larger vehicles that guzzle more gas. The proposed standards will narrow that gap in fuel economy. Under the proposed standards, trucks and larger cars, in which the Detroit Three are more invested, will see relatively greater improvement in fuel economy, enhancing their consumer appeal. In addition, the prices, and therefore automakers’ variable profits, will be higher for trucks and larger cars than for smaller cars.
It’s important to note that U.S. carmakers can get most of the way to the new mileage standard simply by improving the internal combustion engines they already make – by using technologies already in play or almost market-ready. Variable valve timing and lift, cylinder deactivation, turbocharging, gasoline direct injection and other technologies – along with some increase in hybrid, plug-in and electric vehicles – will get us to the new national mileage goal.
The proposed standards will trigger a wave of innovation that will help U.S. automakers’ long-term global competitiveness. The Citi report found that suppliers of key fuel economy technologies would benefit as well. And what’s good for Detroit is good for America: a healthy automotive sector leads to more jobs across the industry’s huge domestic supply chain.
The standards will also create jobs across the economy. Ceres’ More Jobs per Gallon report found that boosting gas mileage requirements will lead to 484,000 new jobs across the country, with net job gains in 49 states. That’s because the money consumers save on fuel will be diverted to the broader economy, flowing to a broad range of sectors.
So strengthening the national fuel economy standards will create a rising tide that lifts all boats. Car companies and their suppliers will see greater profits and sales. Consumers will save money at the pump. Employment will rise and boost the larger economy. And the U.S. will gain a greater share of the world’s rebounding automotive business.
It’s no wonder the major car manufacturers, investors, businesses, consumer groups, and auto workers’ unions are supporting the federal proposal to boost fuel efficiency. It will benefit the industry, its customers, and the economy.
Carol Lee Rawn directs the Transportation Program at Ceres, which mobilizes a network of investors, companies and public interest groups to tackle sustainability challenges. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which supports 100 institutional investors with assets totaling $10 trillion.
The Gasoline Regulations Act (H.R. 4471) should be known as the ‘Gutting Air Standard Protections Act’ – or ‘GASP Act’ – because it denies the public the right to breathe clean and healthy air. There is no question that this bill by Representatives Whitfield (KY) and Barrow (GA) and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee will gut the Clean Air Act and harm children’s health. It will not impact fuel prices, but it will cause more smog, more childhood asthma attacks, and other health implications for people with lung disease.
HR 4471 would repeal the health basis of the Clean Air Act, block clean air safeguards, and hand the scientific process of setting healthy air standards over to economists, accountants, and financial analysts. This has been on the wish list of Big Oil for more than a decade.
The American Lung Association supports the Clean Air Act that sets air pollution standards based on health science. This bill creates new bureaucracies to delay and block health protections.
Those in Congress doing the bidding of Big Oil are woefully out of step with the views of the public on this issue. In a recent survey, conducted by Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Republican firm Perception Insight for the American Lung Association, nearly three-quarters of likely voters (73 percent) nationwide support the view that it is possible to protect public health through stronger air quality standards while achieving a healthy economy, over the notion that we must choose between public health or a strong economy. This overwhelming support includes 78 percent of independents, 60 percent of Republicans, and 62 percent of conservatives. In addition, when asked if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be setting additional standards for cleaner gasoline and vehicles, 60 percent of likely voters want stronger standards.
The Clean Air Act has a proven track record of success, preventing an estimated 160,000 premature deaths in the United States in 2010 and reducing avoidable medical visits that drive up health care costs for those who are already struggling to get by in a weak economy. To throw it all away now at the behest of Big Oil is outrageous.
We urge all members of Congress to vote no on the ‘GASP Act’ and stand up for the health of our children. Those who do not are standing with Big Oil. The Lung Association urges a no vote on this dangerous bill.
Al Rizzo, MD, is Chair of the American Lung Association Board of Directors
With the rise of online social networks and so many more of us carrying smart phones and tablets -- with the ability to connect anywhere and at any time -- we are seeing bigger and more modern versions of good ideas. An example on the road: ride-sharing businesses are springing up across the country.
Hopefully, it means carpooling will finally be seen as sexy and fun. You have friends in your life and then you have your extended network of ‘friends’ online -- and now you can reach them when making transportation plans.
Zimride, a program started in San Francisco, allows users to search for rides or offer rides -- it’s like an online ride board. It is one of many services we are seeing. Last year, a membership-based car sharing service called Zipcar raised nearly $175 million in its IPO and boasted half a million members…so-called ‘Zipsters.’
I see the hipster association as a positive. If we are going to see a reduction in our GHG emissions, we are going to need the younger generations to help lead the way.
If you haven’t heard of Zimride or Zipcar, that’s okay. What is important is that Zimride, Zipcar, and other services are growing on college campuses, where new drivers are learning to rely on, and embrace, alternative and sustainable forms of transportation. Innovations on college campuses are always encouraging.
We have already seen the rise of bike sharing programs on college campuses in recent years. The University of Washington even has an electric bike-sharing program. Transportation programs at colleges are also offering financial incentives to students who opt out of driving their own cars in favor of ride-sharing, taking public and campus transportation, or biking.
In addition to being encouraged by the sustainability programs and courses being offered and the fresh crop of students hoping to gain employment in a growing green job market, we are excited to see them already using greener modes of transportation.
Matt Petersen is president and CEO of Global Green USA, the American arm of Green Cross International
Those in the natural gas industry have long known that natural gas-powered vehicles will play an increasingly important role in our future. However, to work toward this future, we have had to navigate several challenges. Storage vessels, specifically, have presented challenges in the areas of weight, durability, capacity, and cost. In fact, currently, the fuel tank on a compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle is its most expensive single component. Because storage vessels play such an important role in natural gas vehicles, addressing this issue this has been an important goal for many.
Now, however, innovative technologies are helping address the problems surrounding storage vessels for natural gas. One such technology is 3M Matrix Resin for pressure vessels, which uses nano-particle enhanced resin technology to produce CNG tanks that are 10 to 20 percent lighter than standard vessels, with 10 to 20 percent greater capacity.
Additional 3M technologies such as liner advancements, thermoplastic materials, barrier films and coatings, and damage-resistant films are helping to transform the pressure vessel industry. Together, these technologies can produce CNG tanks that are safer and more durable than standard vessels. They are also lower in cost, offering up to a 40 percent savings on a cost-per-liter basis, with an average vehicle savings expected to be approximately 10 percent (dependent on original equipment manufacturer pricing).
Very soon, these new tanks will be available to the natural gas vehicle market, thanks to a new agreement between 3M and Chesapeake Energy Corporation. In February, we announced that we will collaborate to design, manufacture, and market a broad portfolio of CNG tanks for use in all sectors of the United States transportation market. With these new CNG tanks, we will not only reduce cost, but also improve performance. It is our goal to use these attributes to move toward greater market adoption of CNG as an alternative automotive fuel source.
We have undertaken this commitment because 3M believes in the potential of natural gas. Now more than ever, conditions are right for this transition. As those in the industry know, in the past few years private investments and increased political support have dramatically increased the viability of natural gas as an automotive fuel. With more than a 100 year supply in the United States alone, natural gas is an abundant resource that can help reduce the country’s reliance on oil imports.
Furthermore, with an average price per gasoline gallon equivalent of $1.00 to $2.00, the fuel is much more affordable than oil. Its price has also remained more stable than market prices for gasoline and diesel over the past several years, a factor that can make it significantly easier for owners of CNG vehicles to budget for fuel. On top of all this, we also know that natural gas burns more cleanly than gasoline, cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent and particulate matter by 95 percent.
3M and Chesapeake will work cooperatively in the coming months to begin the certification process for the first portfolio of tanks. After certification, production is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of this year. OEMs, particularly those serving corporate fleets, will find these new tanks very promising. In fact, Chesapeake itself has committed to using the new tanks for its corporate fleet conversions to run on natural gas. In addition to OEMs, integrators of CNG equipment and upfitters stand to benefit from these new offerings.
With this innovative partnership, 3M and Chesapeake are excited to build a strong future in the natural gas vehicle market and speed adoption of this important technology.
Mike Roman is Vice President of 3M Industrial Adhesive & Tapes Division
The huge gulf between environmentalists and the auto industry is shrinking. The relationship between these two interests has evolved to where we are finding a way to agree, and not just reflexively oppose everything the other side has to say.
Last summer, automakers and environmentalist joined together to support the historic new clean car agreement between the Obama administration, California, and major carmakers, crafting a grand bargain that will double the average fuel economy for cars on the road today by 2025, equivalent to 54.5 mpg.
The additional technology to meet this target will result in $300 billion in additional revenue for the U.S. auto industry and ensure it will be a global leader in advanced vehicle innovation. Stopping $350 billion from being sent overseas for oil will strengthen our economy, make us less vulnerable to oil price shocks, and create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. And curbing emissions of carbon pollution will help protect our economy against the costly impacts of global climate change. Last January many automakers also joined with environmentalists to support California’s strengthening of its Zero Emission Vehicle standard, which will result in about 1.5 million electric-drive vehicles on the road by 2025.
Unfortunately, ideologues in the media and in Washington have joined forces with auto dealers to try to preserve the status quo and scuttle the historic auto accord. More recently, they have turned their attention to the Chevy Volt and government support for clean energy manufacturing.
Automakers and environmentalists need to work together.
That’s why the head of NRDC, Frances Beinecke, and the former VP of GM, Bob Lutz, joined together in a joint op-ed that called for the end of the ‘petty politics’ that threatens to kill the electric cars and the American innovative spirit.
Moving forward with clean cars offers our country a choice: gridlock or progress. This is a time when automakers, regulators, and environmentalist need to come together, in partnership, to build markets for clean cars, cut our dangerous dependence on oil, and re-invest in American manufacturing leadership.
Roland Hwang is Transportation Program Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council
Revenge has come. In April, 200 Sierra Club members across the country hosted screenings of Revenge of the Electric Car. Thousands gathered to watch a great film and welcome electric vehicles that seemed impossible only a few years ago. As EVs are hitting the market, Big Oil, their cronies on Fox News, and even presidential candidates are eager to see them fail. But EVs are mainstream, and participants were able to meet EV owners, try electric vehicles, and get the facts.
Earlier this year Exxon Mobil was confident that EVs were nothing for Big Oil to worry about. Since then, gas prices have steadily climbed, causing pain at the pump and the now-annual gas price panic.
EVs will charge ahead. Sierra Club launched its Go Electric campaign, quickly gathering more than 50,000 signatures in support of EVs that were delivered to the White House in a Nissan LEAF. We guzzle more than 121 billion gallons of gasoline each year. EVs are not the only solution to ending our addiction to oil, but along with fuel efficient vehicles across the board and investing in transportation choices from safe walking to transit, EVs are part of that solution. And contrary to nay-sayers’ claims, EVs will cut dangerous climate pollution. We can switch from oil to electricity and not only save money, but pollute less and less as we switch to cleaner sources of electricity. A gasoline car will always need oil.
From Richmond and Marietta to Illinois, Oregon and California, EV chargers are appearing and consumers’ choices of electric vehicles are growing. While chargers and the increasing number of EVs in the marketplace -- Ford’s EV Focus, Nissan’s LEAF, Chevy’s Volt, Toyota’s plug-in Prius, and the increasing number of EV trucks from companies like Via Motors and EVI – are not the result of this spring’s rising gas prices, they will offer consumers and businesses the choice to detach from the pump and the pain of rising prices.
Adorning Washington DC's RFK Stadium is a LEAF ad bearing the message ‘Kick Gas.’ Well, now we can.
Ann Mesnikoff is Green Transportation Campaign Director of the Sierra Club
Though natural gas vehicles (NGVs) have been around since the 1930s, they have never been able to break through the barriers to their widespread application in America – special infrastructure requirements, a shortage of fueling stations, and awkward, expensive fuel tanks that must be filled at pressures as high as 3600 psi. Moreover, until just a few years ago, the U.S. was importing natural gas, so there was no strategic benefit to converting our transportation fleet to its use.
But in the last two years, a major change has occurred in the energy market. Natural gas reserves have started growing…and fast. The Energy Information Administration has revised its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2011 to reflect a 25 percent increase in natural gas production in the lower 48 states, relative to its 2010 forecast. Further projected increases in well productivity lead to a near-doubling for predicted shale gas production in 2035 compared to the 2010 reference case.
Most new natural gas comes from deep underground rock structures, including shale. Recent improvements in hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ a controversial process that some critics claim can hurt the environment, have made it economical for natural gas companies to extract a greater supply of such gas from unconventional sources.
Unlike those for gasoline, the compressed natural gas (CNG) markets are relatively insulated from geopolitical shocks. The price of CNG has been, and will likely continue to be, cheaper and more stable over the long term than that of gasoline. CNG currently costs the equivalent of about $2 per gallon, roughly half the current price of gasoline. What’s more, natural gas burns cleanly, emits far smaller amounts of criteria pollutants, and is already available to half of all homes in America through existing connections. Most important, America has sufficient natural gas and does not have enough oil.
The combination of increasing natural gas supplies and low cost compared to conventional motor fuels provides a unique opportunity to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum by using CNG as a vehicle fuel.
The drawbacks to natural gas: It has been tried in cars before and has failed. The liquefying of natural gas consumes too much energy. There are currently fewer than 1,000 publically available CNG refueling stations in the United States, in comparison to nearly 200,000 gas stations. The moment you leave the driveway, you will suffer from massive range anxiety. Where is there another natural gas station?
So we need solutions that will allow us to use our new-found natural gas wealth. We cannot pay for infrastructure. We need low-cost fuel that comes without range anxiety, big storage tanks, and the need for expensive compressors in every house. No sacrifices.
A possible solution: Bi-fuel natural gas/gasoline vehicles, with low pressure/low cost home refueling. The argument to create PHEVs (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) has already been convincingly made. Yet in a side-by-side comparison, home-fueled NGVs might be much cheaper, and much simpler, than home-charged electric vehicles.
Bi-fuel vehicles that run on both gasoline and natural gas can use a fairly simple parallel-injector architecture. Bi-fuel allows the use of a relatively small, inexpensive CNG tank designed for a driving range of 50 miles on natural gas (the average driver only drives 27 miles, so why make the tank any bigger?). A bi-fuel vehicle also has a gasoline tank, so range anxiety is not a problem. And there is no need to compress the gas to 3600 psi, because gas volume is no longer a concern – home compressors can be made both inexpensive and durable.
The solution to America’s oil dependency involves using a range of alternatives to replace gasoline. This means using every American advantage to reduce our use of petroleum. Adding natural gas to the arsenal of alternatives will do much to break our oil addiction and increase our energy independence.
Don Hillebrand is Director of the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory
