An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Future of Eco-Friendly Automobiles

CarShow4.jpgThe 2009 New York International Auto Show is in full swing now, running through April 19th in Manhattan. This turned out to be an excellent opportunity to continue our ongoing discussion of CAFE standards, environmentally friendly engineering and the future of the automotive industry in the United States.

Before beginning we will need to offer up full disclosure. TMV was invited to the Auto Show as guests of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, who did not pay us any form of remuneration, but did provide travel and accommodation expenses. We are under no obligation to publish anything on behalf of the association and the opinions expressed are strictly my own, but you can take from that what you will.

During a tour of the show, I had the opportunity to interview A.A.M’s Senior Director of Communications, Charles Territo and get a feel for where we stand in 2009 and where we go from here. In terms of both CAFE standards and economy for the consumer, there were a number of encouraging offerings on display. There was a 3rd generation Prius, rated at 50 mpg highway for $28,000 and a Chevy Aveo (34 mpg) for just over $12,000 MSRP. (That was a surprisingly low price for a new car.)

Still, these numbers didn’t strike me as all that impressive in most cases and I took the opportunity to ask Mr. Territo about the apparently slow rate of progress in fuel efficiency. I pointed out that it was technically last century when certain presidential candidates assured us that, within ten years we would all be driving cars that got 75 mpg. What the hell happened?

He surprised me by answering, “We can manufacture cars today that get 75 miles per gallon.” Fortunately, before my head exploded, he went on to explain the statement. The technology exists to manufacture such vehicles, but they would cost a fortune to bring to the consumer today and wouldn’t really resemble the types of vehicles which Americans are accustomed to and willing to purchase. We can all feel great about purchasing a car that gets better gas mileage, but if we only save $5,000 in gas over the life of the vehicle and it costs $20,000 more to purchase, they won’t be flying off the lots in droves.

Carshow2.jpgIn addition to straight up, gasoline powered internal combustion engines, we also touched on the future of alternate fuels such as E85. In Mr. Territo’s opinion, corn based ethynol isn’t dead, but the technology certainly seems to be moving in other directions. The industry has been engaged in supplying such vehicles, but again, progress is driven by consumer demand. There are currently more than seven million flex fuel cars on the road, but that’s still a relatively minor part of the market share. The final solutions, he explained, were unlikely to come in the form of one silver bullet, but would be more regional in nature, depending on the needs and appetite of the consumer. Ethanol may take hold in some areas, while others might rely more heavily on electric cars or even hydrogen fuels.

Fully electric cars were also on display, with some models being available now, but many more remaining in the concept stage. We saw the Gem e4, which has a range of more than 40 miles on one charge and the all electric Mini E. On the plus side, assuming we can move our national power grid to more green energy sources, these types of vehicles seem like a great option in theory. Particularly since connections are available to recharge the cars with either 220 or 115 AC sources, they may be viable options for local transportation, both cheaply and cleanly. To be honest, though, the current state of some of these cars was a bit shaky in my view. We looked at one all electric concept model which, frankly, seemed like little more than a very fancy golf cart. Yes, it serves the stated purpose, but when you slam the door the entire vehicle seems to threaten to buckle. I wouldn’t be surprised if it could be totaled out by a motorcycle doing suburban speeds. Still, the technology is advancing and they may find a niche market even today.

CarShow3.jpgIn all of these scenarios, infrastructure presents a major challenge, much of which is beyond the scope of the manufacturers to address. In order for gas stations to aggressively carry flex fuels, the demand has to be there to justify it. In the case of hydrogen fueled cars, there is virtually nowhere in the country yet where you could refill your tank. These things will likely be coming, but it takes time. Mr. Territo compared the auto industry to an aircraft carrier in that regard. It takes a long time for the industry to change speed and direction. Some of the new, more fuel efficient cars on display at the show this year began on the drawing board as much as ten years ago.

So what does the future hold for America’s automobile manufacturers? We talked about the anger many Americans have expressed toward the Big Three, similar to the outrage expressed at the banking industry. The bottom line there was that it’s still too early to say what automobile manufacturing will look like in the years to come. Nobody wants to see their tax dollars wasted, and the industry is well aware of the need for fuel economy standards by the government. But by the same token, as Mr. Territo put it, “The technology is catching up, but you can’t mandate the laws of physics.”

Stay tuned for some more updates from our excursion to the show, including information on consumer fuel saving measures and other alternate energy sources for transportation.

(All photos are originals and the property of TMV. Click on thumbnails for full size pictures.)

  • Ricorun
    Juat curious, Jazz, but what do the folks there think about Amory Lovins' ideas about integrated engineering and lightweight carbon fiber body parts? Also, is AFS Trinity there?
  • Ricorun, didn't see Trinity, but we're going to be doing a radio interview with some of the principals on Thursday and I'll bring up the Amory Lovin concept and get back to you. Thanks for the link.
  • Good post Jazz and congrats on TMV being invited to blog the show.

    I'm very curious if anyone there is looking at developing the fascinating hydrogen from starch technology developed at Virginia Tech. The fuel, a starch and water slurry, is easy to pump with existing technology and is non flammable and not held under pressure, overcoming all the pitfalls of a national hydrogen fuel system and produces cars with nothing to leak and burn in the event the fuel tank is ruptured. Enzymes, which are not used up in the process, convert the starch to hydrogen in the vehicle at ambient temperature and pressure, and a typical auto fuel tank could power the car 300 miles. The starch used need not be from edible plants (Kudzu power?). Is anyone exploring this?
    http://greendreams.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/hyd...
  • Wow! I hadn't even heard about that one. I'll bring it up on Thursday. Thanks, Green.
  • Ricorun
    I hadn't heard of that one either, Greendreams. However, after reading the article I am given to wonder how practical "re-fueling" is -- i.e., how long does it take for the reaction to produce hydrogen? The way the article is worded, that appears to be the achilles heel of the whole process. They correctly identify four concerns that need to be effectively tackled for hydrogen (actually, anything) to become a viable alternative: (1) production, (2) storage (let me call that "warehousing" to distinguish it from "on-vehicle" storage), (3) distribution, and (4) fuel cells. I can see where they've addressed the first three. It's the last one I question. And frankly, I think it is more appropriate to break that down into (4a) on-board storage, and; (4b) re-fueling of the on-board storage. And specifically, I question (4b) more than anything else.

    However, if it is just a time constraint, then perhaps it might be possible to compartmentalize the process into a "swappable" battery cartridge, ala what Project Better Place envisions for more traditional chemical batteries.
  • Not all the details are in the PLOS article, a bit more in the patent, which I read when it was first issued. Since pressurized hydrogen would never be stored in the vehicle, the starch would be fed to a reaction chamber as needed by the fuel cell. The fuel cell charges the battery, which drives the car. Refueling is faster than with gaseous hydrogen, as the article notes. You're just putting more starch in the tank, not starting the reaction from scratch. It appears that it takes about 2 hours to reach peak production when first started, but theoretically this need only be done once (assuming the car recharges itself when not in use, keeping the reaction going). The key is the battery. The starch and enzymes make hydrogen as needed to keep it charged. As the motor depletes the battery, more starch would be fed to the reaction chamber to recharge it. Battery reserves would have to be sufficient to account for the reaction time to make hydrogen and supply charge to the battery. The authors project that it will take 6-8 years from discovery to application. By the way, the research completely ignores the other source of energy. Solid starch yielding hydrogen and CO2 gas provides pressure too, which could be used.
  • Ricorun
    A few things, Greendreams...

    (1) You say, "Not all the details are in the PLOS article, a bit more in the patent, which I read when it was first issued."

    Can you direct me to the patent? I'd say that would go a long way to ameliorating my skepiticism. Or not.

    I dunno how to most effectively answer your post. Should I be detailed in my skepticism, or should I be more pithy? Before anything, I think I should point out that I'm a big fan of alternative energy sources. I've read extensively about them. I want them to happen. More importantly, I truly believe they have to happen. The only question remaining in my mind is... what are the best alternatives?

    I am ready, willing, and able to invest, at least to some degree, in technologies that I think are worth while. But I am nowhere near super-rich or anything, which is to say I cannot leverage any alternative. Thus, I am unable to do anything other than address their intrinsic qualities -- and hope that some super-rich someone (or some collection of super-rich someones) doesn't alter the playing field too much and quash their potential in the mean time. I guess you could say that nothing more focuses the mind on economic issues (and makes you less partisan) than plunking your money down. And that, I think (even if you don't actually have the money to spend) -- is the best way to focus one's mind on such matters.

    That being said, I wish I had a nickel for every time some company claimed they were "2-4 years from being economically viable". That to me is the very outside of the envelope -- specifically, that is the area where an idea which has proven itself in the lab may or may not be able to cross the last first few hurdles from being, in Jazz's words, "technically possible" to "economically feasible". The fact is, the two concepts are often miles apart. Not always, but often (typically, only 2 out of every 10 make it past that point). Consequently, I view your comment, "The authors project that it will take 6-8 years from discovery to application," as not exactly comforting.
  • I agree Ricorun. I want these technologies to help us solve some big problems, but frankly, it's not where I'd invest either. No one has licensed the technology and research continues, so I don't expecting to be driving a starch car anytime soon. I am very interested in how different technologies are progressing, including Lovins' carbon fiber lightweights. I'll see if I saved a link to the patent, and guess we'll both stay tuned to see what works and what doesn't in making our transportation systems work more sustainably.
  • anita1
    Cheap new cars - We can now find you the best deals for the new car you are looking for by searching across our panel of manufacturer dealers across the whole of the UK.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC