(Source:  Time)

Q’Orianka Kilcher has never pumped a gallon of gasoline into her car. Never. Then again, she’s never owned a car that needed gasoline. You could say she is at ground zero of the ZE, or zero-emission, vehicle future.

A 19-year-old actress living in Santa Monica, Calif. (she played Pocahontas in the 2005 movie The New World), Q’Orianka (pronounced Quor-ee-anka) is on her second hydrogen-fuel-cell car, a Honda FCX Clarity, a four-door with a 200-mile range. “I don’t think I will ever buy a gas car,” she says. “I can go everywhere I want to go with this. Plus, it’s a guy magnet.”

Auto-marketing gurus take note: the brave new world of ZE cars is here, ready or not, and please make them sexy.

“ZEs are an entirely different paradigm,” says Stephen Ellis, manager of fuel-cell-vehicle marketing for American Honda Motor Co. in Torrance, Calif. Ellis manages the rare $600-a-month leases (including free hydrogen fill-ups) for the FCX Clarity. “Knowing how to integrate these new technologies into existing lifestyles and then building new infrastructures to make it work is the trick,” says Ellis. “It took a hundred years to create the gasoline infrastructure; this will be much faster.”

There are three types of zero, or near zero, emission cars: electric plug-ins, hybrid plug-ins and hydrogen fuel cells (which create power by having oxygen and hydrogen pass over electricity-generating electrodes). But each major automaker has its own take on which advanced technology will win 10 years down the road.

Nissan, for example, is pedal-to-the-metal with pure electric cars, having skipped fuel-cell technology altogether. It considers “interim hybrid technology,” like Toyota’s successful Prius, a mere passing phase. “The market-share winner will be the one that offers affordable, mass-market, zero-emission vehicles with a zero payback period for premium technologies,” says Mark Perry, director of the product planning and strategy group for Nissan North America.

In contrast to Nissan, Honda has passed up pure electrics, preferring instead to bank on lower-cost hybrids (Civic and Insight) and hydrogen fuel cells. Ellis, however, claims no distinction should be made between “FCs” and electrics, since a fuel-cell car is basically an electric car powered by hydrogen-created electricity.

Then there is Toyota, the 800-pound hybrid gorilla. Toyota has yet a third route to success: muscling up on its hybrid strength.

“We believe in not being first to market but being best to market,” says Mary Nickerson, who is in charge of advanced-vehicle marketing at Toyota Motor Sales, also in Torrance. Last year, Toyota reached the 1 million sales mark with its Prius hybrid (gas-powered with fuel-saving electric technology).

“Our strategy is to be the hybrid masters, no pure electrics, and to explore fuel-cell technology,” says Nickerson. “We feel it’s going to take a lot more than one technology to make this new market work.”

Some 21% of consumers will not consider a pure electric car because of the need to plug-in at home, according Nickerson. “We believe that 10 years out, the winners will be all new technologies, but hybrids will be the largest winner of them all.”

Then again, as Honda’s Ellis says, “It all depends on the price of gas.”

Click here to read the entire article.

(Sources: Seattle PI via Autobloggreen)

With more and more electric car makers ready to blitz the market with Plug-in Hybrids Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Electric Vehicles, it is time the local communities took a stock of the supporting infrastructure necessary for feed these voltage-hungry vehicles.  The Seattle PI takes a look at the readiness of Seattle to handle the surge of electric vehicle.   Here are some interesting excerpts from the article:

Is Seattle charged for electric cars? Local electric car boosters think so, event though electric cars — other than such hybrids as the Prius — have not captured the fancies of more than a few people in the past 20 years.

“There’s a perfect storm this time around,” said Steve Lough, president of the Seattle chapter of the Electric Vehicle Association, who drives a 2000 Honda insight gas-and-electric hybrid.

On Aug. 5, the federal government announced that it will provide almost $100 million to install roughly 2,500 electric vehicle chargers each in the greater metropolitan areas of Seattle, Phoenix, Nashville, Portland and San Diego.

Roughly $20 million will go to Seattle for 2,550 chargers, Read said.

About 40 firms, including Nissan and eTec, will match the federal appropriations. Local governments will not be required to provide matching money, Read said.

This experiment is timed with Nissan’s planning to sell a new electric car — the “LEAF” — in late 2010. It hopes to initially sell 5,000 cars evenly split among the five metro areas.

This timing roughly coincides with General Motors’ plans to put possibly 10,000 of its all-electric “Volt” cars on the market in late 2010.

By comparison, Seattle has the nation’s largest chapter of the Electric Vehicle Association — with 230 members.

Local owners said recharging electric cars lead to different habits from refueling conventional vehicles.

“You basically plug it in whenever you park it,” said Dan Davids, owner of a 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV and president of the nationwide Plug-In America organization.

Fulling charging a car with a conventional 220-volt installation could take four to eight hours. So-called “fast” chargers with extra oomph could take 15 to 30 minutes to do the same.

But local electric car owners said those figures are misleading.

These cars rarely need full charges with the accompanying long repowering times, they said.

Electric cars are usually charged nightly at their homes. If recharged at business locations, the new power mostly “tops off” a battery usually containing most of its original charge, they said. The same “topping off” would occur when cars would be recharged at businesses.

Between the small amounts of electricity and the lack of wear-and-tear on moving engine parts, they estimated it costs about 2 cents a mile to operate their vehicles.

The three are optimistic that a major hurdle to owning electric cars could be finally conquered — the initial price tag. The Tesla Roadster — with about 700 sold so far — goes for $109,000. Many models of electric cars have been in the $50,000 to $100,000-plus range. “You’re financing the research and development for the next generation of technology,” Morrison said.

The Volt’s expected price tag is about $40,000 with a federal tax credit of $7,500 earmarked for early buyers. The same tax credits will go to buyers of the first LEAFs, which are expected to go for $25,000 to $33,000.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: via Autoinsane)

Have you ever wondered while sitting inside your car at an automated car wash, what goes on behind the scenes to test and design a vehicle so that it doesn’t leak while your car is drenched with gallons of water?  Or have you pondered driving through that pouring rain about how to stop that annoying sound of rain drops hitting the sheetmetal roof and the windshield? Here is a glimpse into that world of designing and testing a car for its “water worthiness”, courtesy of our friends at Auto Insane.

Development on the Chevy Volt continues to progress at neck-break speed and GM has been sharing bits and pieces of the vehicle’s testing and engineering along the way. This new video caught our interest for the sheer fact that it combines the “electric” Volt undergoing leak testing in GM’s Universal Water Chamber.

(Source: Business Week)

NewDealDesign and Better Place teamed up to create a car recharging tower called the Charge Spot, and won themselves an IDEA gold award

One day, recharging stations for electric cars might be much more common than gas stations. If NewDealDesign has its way, they won’t look at all the same, however. The San Francisco design shop has teamed up with e-car venture Better Place to create the Charge Spot, an electricity outlet that received the gold medal in 2009’s International Design Excellence Awards (IDEA a.k.a. Industrial Designers Society of America). The slender and sleek column looks a bit like a sidewalk traffic barrier with a blue plastic top. Amit calls it a “mini-tower of electric power.”

NewDealDesign, founded and financed by Gadi Amit, its president, borrowed from its experience with consumer-electronics clients such as Dell , Fujitsu, Nokia, and Palm to create the Charge Spot.

Better Place’s goal is to have these electricity outlets built wherever people might park their cars for long stretches—parking lots, garages, and streets. Motorists would plug one end of a heavy-duty extension cord into the top of the Charge Spot and the other into a port on their vehicles. Within six hours, their cars would be fully juiced and good to go. Shown below is an awesome cool video, courtesy of YouTube, demonstrating how the technology works)

The tower also houses digital electronics for recording charges and billing motorists’ accounts. The Charge Spot team, drawn from NewDealDesign’s staff of 12 designers, removed hinges and doors from the first prototypes, simplified the display screen, and changed some internal components, reducing cost to about one-tenth of earlier designs, says Paluska. Each spot can also charge two cars at once.

Better Place, established by Shai Agassi in Palo Alto, Calif., in 2007, is trying to create the infrastructure for battery-powered cars. It is also working with Renault-Nissan to design a new electric vehicle. First-generation recharging fixtures were patterned after gasoline pumps, with a power cord instead of a hose. NewDealDesign chose a different model: chargers for portable devices such as laptops, cell phones, and iPods.

“We want to make the electric vehicle a normal, widespread car, not just for the ‘crazy’ green guy,” says Amit, 46, who started NewDealDesign in 2000. Better Place launched the Charge Spot last December in Israel, where 900 of a planned 100,000 have been deployed in preparation for the upcoming launch of its electric vehicle.  Plans are afoot for  massive, worldwide deployment of these charging stations in many car-huggng cultures, including the US, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Austrlia.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress & GreenTechMedia)

A plug-in parallel hybrid electric terminal tractor used to move shipping containers and cargo within the port will be tested at a Port of Long Beach shipping terminal. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is coordinating the project among several ports and will also compile and analyze project data related to the tractor’s performance, including emissions, charging, diesel fuel reduction and other aspects.

Terminal tractors – vehicles that move massive cargo loads at seaports around the world – spend up to four-fifths of their time sitting still with their engines running, waiting to be put to use. Given that fact, why not retrofit the prevalent diesel-burning versions to make them plug-in hybrids?

US Hybrid Corporation performed the conversion which uses a 33 kWh Li-ion battery pack from GAIA. The truck is equipped with a 6.6 kW charger. EPRI expects the plug-in to have about 4 hours of electric operation, depending upon the duty cycle, said Andra Rogers, senior project manager of Electric Transportation at EPRI.

The equipment will be tested at SSA Container Terminal on Pier A at the Port of Long Beach for 3 months.

As a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) the tractor will be able to move containers weighing up to 95,000 pounds as its diesel counterparts can, but unlike diesels will not idle its engine when inactive. Over a year of full-time operation it is expected that the PHEV tractor would use 3,000 gallons of fuel per year less than a similar diesel and significantly reduce emissions.

It costs about $80,000 to convert a diesel terminal tractor to a plug-in hybrid, but a converted tractor will save about 80 percent of its fuel usage, or about 3,000 gallons of diesel a year, giving it a payback of about six years, EPRI estimates.

Ports, and the shipping industry they serve, aren’t as publicly visible sources of pollution as on-road cars and trucks. But the global shipping industry accounts for a significant share of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions – about 4.5 percent, according to a U.N. study reported by the Guardian newspaper last year.

Only a fraction of that can be contributed to on-shore activity at ports. Still, ports have been linked to high levels of pollution and contamination of nearby communities, and that’s led to government and industry action to clean them up, such as a $28 million project at the Port of Oakland, Calif. aimed at cutting diesel truck emission by up to 85 percent, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last month.

The three-month Port of Long Beach demonstration project is part of a one-year demonstration, during which the tractor will also be tested and evaluated at ports in Savannah, Ga., Mobile, Ala., Houston, and New York City.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Sources: Autoblog Green , Green Car Congress, NY Times Wheels, Green Car Reports)

The internet as well as the automotive world has been abuzz with a lot of discussions since this morning after General Motors CEO Fritz Henderson revealed what the company’s mysterious ‘230’ ad campaign was about.  It turned out to be the official mileage rating for GM’s upcoming 2011 Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car.

GM must be basking in the new found glory (though it sounds more temporary as the intelligent folks around the web are starting to dig out the details behind this 230mpg claim). GM’s Twitter account was proudly re-tweeting a post that goes like this: 230 mpg city, great. More than 100 mpg combined, even better. Not being stranded after 300+ miles, priceless.   Mind you!  This is just a sample of what’s been such a flood of good PR for GM. after this 230 unveiling.

For many smart folks, a number like that seems outlandish, absurd. How can the US Environmental Protection Agency possibly measure fuel consumption that low? The answer, it turns out, is all in the assumptions.

Our friends at Autoblog says “Without access to the actual method that the EPA is tentatively going to apply to plug-in vehicles (we have requests for clarification out to the EPA), all that GM’s Dave Darovitz would tell us is that the number is “based on city cycles and we’re not really talking in detail yet.” Instead, the press release says that: Under the new methodology being developed, EPA weights plug-in electric vehicles as traveling more city miles than highway miles on only electricity. The EPA methodology uses kilowatt hours per 100 miles traveled to define the electrical efficiency of plug-ins. Applying EPA’s methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving. At the U.S. average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.

Which leads to the big question: What assumptions should the EPA make in its emissions and gas-mileage tests about how the Volt is used (also known as the car’s “duty cycle”)?

For decades, gasoline cars (and ) have been testing using two cycles: city and highway. That gives us the two quoted EPA mileage ratings, and the EPA also calculates a “blended” number for overall usage. The distance driven doesn’t really matter.

But for the Volt, mileage assumptions become much more political.  If the EPA tests a Volt over a cycle of less than 40 miles, it will never burn any gasoline, and it’ll get that “infinite” mileage. The daily distance matters much more for the Volt than for a gas engined car.

The answer appears to be the EPA has adopted a cycle described by GM-Volt.com, among others, that assumes the Volt is driven until the battery is discharged–and then slightly more on gasoline power.

A similar test routine proposed by Mike Duoba at Argonne National Laboratories repeatedly drives the car on four EPA highway test cycles until the battery is discharged, then drives one city cycle–totaling 51 miles. (The EPA city cycle is roughly 11 miles, the highway cycle about 10 miles.)

If the engine runs for 11 miles at 50 mpg, that will use 0.22 gallons of gasoline. But that amount is used over a total travel distance of 51 miles, which works out to 232 mpg. Sounds like 230 mpg to us!

Jim Motavalli wrote on his Wheels column on  New York Times : The problem with claiming 230 miles a gallon was that to get at numbers like that you can’t simply measure its fuel consumption. The plug-in hybrid’s small gas engine is there to provide power for the electric motors, not drive the wheels, and the first 40 miles are on the batteries alone.

G.M. can plug its numbers into the E.P.A. city driving cycle and get stellar results, but, as they say, actual results — and planetary impact — will vary quite a bit. How and where you drive the Volt will matter quite a bit, too. “If you’re heavy footed, you’re not going to get 230 miles per gallon,” said Roland Hwang, transportation program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In a detailed article published by Green Car Congress one can learn how this fuel economy rating is measured.  While the fuel economy (FE) for combustible fueled vehicles (such as gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, or an ethanol blend) can easily be expressed in mpg, and fuel economy for an all-electric vehicle can be expressed in miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge), the arrival of new technologies that can operate in all-electric mode, a conventional hybrid mode, or some combination of the two complicates the situation.

The EPA is revisiting the FE label provisions as they apply to those types of vehicles, and is working with automakers, the SAE, the State of California, the Department of Energy and others to address these issues. The EPA anticipates issuing guidance and/or a rule this year.

According to US Department of Transportation data, nearly eight of 10 Americans commute fewer than 40 miles a day. A Volt driver’s actual gas-free mileage will vary depending on how far he or she travels and other factors, such as how much cargo or how many passengers they carry and how much the air conditioner or other accessories are used. Tony Posawatz, Vehicle Line Director for the Volt, said that the Volt is delivering 40 miles all electric in both city and highway cycles.

However, Posawatz notes that since the Volt results are based on a single charge per day—and that given the recharge time of 6-8 hours on a standard 110V outlet or half that on a 240V charger, the Volt has the potential to deliver better than 230 mpg performance if it can charge multiple times per day.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Washington Post, Jalopnik, Autoblog)

Car can extend its range to more than 300 miles with its flex fuel-powered engine-generator.

Image Courtesy: Autoblog

In case you missed it this morning, General Motors CEO Fritz Henderson made some big news just one month after the “new” GM emerged from bankruptcy protection.

General Motors announced today that its forthcoming electric vehicle, the Chevrolet Volt, will achieve city fuel economy of 230 miles per gallon, under testing that used draft federal fuel economy methodology standards for plug-in cars.

The Volt will become the first mass-produced vehicle to obtain a triple-digit MPG rating, the company said.

“The Volt is becoming very real, very fast,” chief executive Fritz Henderson said. “The price of oil is going to go up.”

According to Frank Weber, vehicle chief engineer for the Volt, the number is based on combined electric only driving and charge sustaining mode with the engine running. He declined to get specific about the proportions, but did say that the urban cycle would be predominantly EV only. The EPA has been studying real world vehicle usage and is developing the formulas to try and provide a representative number of what most customers could expect to achieve. In addition to the composite number, the new EPA stickers will likely also get numbers for mileage in charge sustaining mode and electric efficiency in EV mode.

Initial prices for the car may be as much as $40,000, analysts said.

But company officials said the car’s price is expected to come down over time. They note, moreover, that gas prices will rise again, making fuel-efficient cars more valuable.

The Volt, which is scheduled to start production late next year, is expected to travel up to 40 miles on electricity from a single battery charge. The company says the car can extend its range to more han 300 miles with its flex fuel-powered engine-generator.

Assuming the average cost of electricity is approximately 11 cents per kilowatt-hour in the United States, a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.

This story’s still developing, but if our sources are correct, it would blow the Toyota Prius out of the water. Heck, it’d blow every other vehicle currently on the market out of the water with the exception of the Tesla roadster — and that’s no four-door mid-size sedan. So for GM this represents a huge marketing coup — the ability to claim the most fuel efficient vehicle in the world and a big blow to detractors who claim the big, sweaty ‘merican manufacturer can’t build quality products.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: DOE & Tree Hugger)

President Obama was in Indiana yesterday to announce how $2.4 billion dollars from the Recovery Act will be divided up between 48 different battery and electric vehicle projects.”If we want to reduce our dependence on oil, put Americans back to work and reassert our manufacturing sector as one of the greatest in the world, we must produce the advanced, efficient vehicles of the future,” said President Obama. “With these investments, we’re planting the seeds of progress for our country and good-paying, private-sector jobs for the American people,” he said.

Image Courtesy: Department of Energy - map of the award locations

“For our nation and our economy to recover, we must have a vision for what can be built here in the future – and then we need to invest in that vision,” said Vice President Biden. “That’s what we’re doing today and that’s what this Recovery Act is about.”

“These are incredibly effective investments that will come back to us many times over – by creating jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, cleaning up the air we breathe, and combating climate change,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “They will help achieve the President’s goal of putting one million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. And, most importantly, they will launch an advanced battery industry in America and make our auto industry cleaner and more competitive.”

The announcement marks the single largest investment in advanced battery technology for hybrid and electric-drive vehicles ever made. Industry officials expect that this $2.4 billion investment, coupled with another $2.4 billion in cost share from the award winners, will result directly in the creation tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. battery and auto industries.

So Where’s All That Money Going?

The money is going to three main categories of projects:

• $1.5 billion in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce batteries and their components and to expand battery recycling capacity;
• $500 million in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce electric drive components for vehicles, including electric motors, power electronics, and other drive train components; and
• $400 million in grants to purchase thousands of plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles for test demonstrations in several dozen locations; to deploy them and evaluate their performance; to install electric charging infrastructure; and to provide education and workforce training to support the transition to advanced electric transportation systems.

Most of the grant winners are familiar names, with Detroit firms getting a substantial share. But who’s the biggest winner? Here are some of the winners:

• Johnson Controls: $299.2 million for the production of nickel-cobalt-metal battery cells and packs, as well as production of battery separators (by partner Entek) for hybrid and electric vehicles.
• A123 Systems: $249.1 million for the manufacturing of nano-iron phosphate cathode powder and electrode coatings; fabrication of battery cells and modules; and assembly of complete battery pack systems for hybrid and electric vehicles.
• General Motors: $105.9 million for the production of high-volume battery packs for the GM Volt (the cells will be from LG Chem, Ltd. and other cell providers to be named), plus another $105 million for the construction of U.S. manufacturing capabilities to produce the second-generation GM global rear-wheel electric drive system. That’s not all. There’s also another $30.5 million to develop, analyze, and demonstrate hundreds of Chevrolet Volt Extended Range Electric Vehicles (EREVs) –125 Volt PHEVs for electric utilities and 500 Volt PHEVs to consumers. (for a total of $241.4 million)

The complete list of the 48 grants can be found here (pdf).

(Source: Examiner & Autobloggreen)

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

Image Courtesy: Apture - Hybrid electric vehicles at Argonne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Courtesy: AltCar.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read the entire article.