Electric Car Blogging

By Roland Hwang

Today, a consumer group, Consumer Federation of America, released a new study that clearly shows stronger pollution and fuel efficiency standards that result in 60 miles per gallon by 2025 is good for consumers’ pocketbooks. But not only do consumers win, it also means less pollution, less oil dependency, and a stronger, more competitive auto industry. It’s one of the best examples of why good environmental and clean energy policy goes hand-in-hand with lowering consumer fuel bills and restoring American industry to a leadership position.

Achieving 60 mpg by 2025 can be done by using and improving on technologies that already exist, such as hybrid electric cars and electric vehicles. In fact, according to a new study released yesterday by the University of Michigan, the technical potential is to triple fuel economy to 74 mpg, even before considering plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. We have learned from cell phones, microwaves, and computers that higher volumes can lead to dramatic improvement in innovation and drive down costs.

Raising standards to 60 mpg is good for consumers, good for the environment and good for jobs. Here are the top three reasons why we need stronger pollution and fuel efficiency standards:

Reason #1: Pays for itself. According to the consumer group Consumer Federation of America, cost of fuel savings technologies pays for itself in the first year of ownership.

read more

GM's 'revolutionary' HCCI engine

Embracing efficient and cost-effective change

A new study claims that by 2035 US light duty fleet fuel economy could be tripled to 74 mpg without plug-in or hydrogen technology, at a much cheaper cost than achieving the same goal through plug-in or or hydrogen technologies.

So, have plug-ins become an excuse – dare I say a greenwashing effort – by automakers to delay change as long as possible? Are plug-ins just like yesterday’s flex-fuel CAFE credits?

The study A Fuel Efficiency Horizon for US Automobiles doesn’t suggest that plug-ins are about greenwashing, that’s my suggestion based upon the history of the US auto industry. It’s just that in my opinion, selling 50,000 plug-in vehicles per year doesn’t justify selling 1 million 17 mpg pickup trucks, just as adding never-used flex fuel technology to gas guzzlers didn’t justify CAFE credits that enabled automakers to blatantly violate CAFE requirements , resulting in increased foreign oil dependence.

Unfortunately, good intentions resulted in bad results.

Fortunately, that’s not to say that plug-ins or hydrogen won’t offer the world a fantastic future. It’s just that both technologies are simply not cost-effectively mature, and betting the farm on them as THE solution is very inefficient and cost-ineffective. Sadly, the evidence supporting the fact that plug-ins simply are not cost-effective, and will almost certainly not be cost-effective for decades, is nothing short of overwhelming.

Of course, some Eureka moment in the basement of some college laboratory could instantly change that, but until that happens, shouldn’t we be doing everything else that we can as quickly as we can, especially when “projected fuel savings greatly exceed upfront costs”?

Plug-in vehicles are a technology that MUST be pursued; however, if its going to take decades for plug-ins to mature into the dominant mainstream solution, shouldn’t we be putting greater focus on what else can be done in the interim? How is achieving today, what automakers want to put off until tomorrow, so bad for America if “savings greatly exceed upfront costs”?

Minimally, isn’t it time for an honest, transparent national discussion on energy policy?

Ford Fusion Hybrid

The U.S. auto market experienced its weakest August sales since 1983. Overall sales dropped by 21 percent compared to last August, when the Cash for Clunkers programs gave an all-too-brief boost to car sales.

Gas-electric hybrids, which disproportionately benefited from Clunkers a year ago, took a harder fall in August, dropping by 38 percent compared to last year. In a rare bright spot, the Ford Fusion Hybrid—a vehicle that racked up numerous “Car of the Year” awards in 2010—saw big gains in sales in August. Ford sold 3,010 Fusion Hybrids—up from 1,226 a year ago and nearly double from last month’s sales.

As usual, any single month’s sales figures—whether way up or down—should not be taken as a long-term trend.

Yet, August once again proved that the fortunes of the hybrid market are dominated by the Toyota Prius. Sales of the iconic hybrid model fell by nearly 38 percent compared to a year ago—the same percentage drop as the overall hybrid market. Toyota sold 11,799 Priuses, well below the nearly 19,000 sales from August 2009, when the vehicle was one of the most popular models during Cash for Clunkers.

read more

Good for just 70 mpg?

An extra 20 mpg

What’s it like to drive a Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid? What kind of fuel economy does it achieve? What’s the EV range? Time to charge, etc?

MotorTrend answers those questions today in a great article on the plug-in Prius and, well, the plug-in Prius drives pretty much like a regular Toyota Prius, while achieving an extra 20 mpg in fuel economy.

Big deal? Just 20 mpg more? Well, what if the plug-in Prius costs less than a conventional Prius?

Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, but according to the MotorTrend article, the lithium-ion battery pack in the plug-in Toyota Prius actually costs less than the NiMH battery pack in the conventional Prius. MotorTrend writes, “lithium-ion batteries presently cost something like $600 per kW-hr, meaning the PPI’s (Prius Plug-In’s) battery alone could run about $2000, less the price of its displaced nickel-metal hydride pack (price: $2729).”

Even if true, there is a more sophisticated battery management system, for instance, that also has to be factored into the costs, as well as a ton of new software. So, there will be additional plug-in costs beyond the battery.

Nevertheless, I’m befuddled. Not long ago Toyota stopped plans to switch to lithium-ion batteries in the third generation Prius because of additional costs. If a conventional Prius only needs 1.3 kwh of battery, wouldn’t lithium be much cheaper than NiMH at $800 for 1.3 kwh’s for lithium verus $2729 for NiMH? So, why did Toyota claim costs would be higher?

Anyway, I wonder, how many more would buy a Prius if they could achieve an extra 20 mpg for the same cost as today’s Prius? Would sales double, triple, more? Would having to plug-in to achieve this extra 20 mpg be too much of a burden for most Prius buyers? And, as a bonus question, would the plug-in Prius outsell the conventional Prius if the conventional Prius was $1500 cheaper?