According to Gas2 the $10,000 would be applied to natural gas vehicles as well other green technology cars which presumably takes in hybrids as well as EVs.  The rebate as opposed to the tax credit would mean that more people would be able to purchase these green technology vehicles.

Right now the only people who can afford cars like the Tesla S car, Chevy Volt, or even Nissan Leaf have to have a fairly good income to shell out $36,000 to $60,000 for a car.  If the $10,000 is taken off the front end, it moves at least a couple of the cars like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt into the affordable range at $26,000 and $31,000 respectively.

If manufacturers can get more people buying these green tech vehicles than they can produce more of the cars which in turn lowers the price.  It’s simply that higher production means lower costs for all involved. 

While Obama may be trying to help the adoption of green vehicles, Congress is another matter.  The Republican majority in the House is rabidly pro-fossil fuels and anti-green anything.  Getting any part of Obama’s budget through is going to be difficult.  Getting this particular provision through may be just about impossible in this coming election year.

Too bad we have a Republican leadership whose stated goal is to make Obama a one term president.  If they were more interested in helping car manufacturers and in turn consumers, we might see this little piece of goodness passed.  Ford, Chevrolet, Tesla, GM and other American car companies would benefit from the passage of this provision. 

Maybe we’ll be lucky and this provision will actually sneak through on rider to prolong Exxon and BP’s gas subsidies.  Stranger things have happened.

According to Autobloggreen this is the tamest version of this concept car to arrive at an auto show.  The earliest versions the Pivo and Pivo2 were even stranger.  For instance the Pivo 2 had one door that opened not on the side, but the front of the car.  So you opened the door automatically which essentially held the dashboard, and pedals and backed into your seat.  The door automatically closed when the driver was properly seated. An annoying little robot head would monitor and interact with the driver.

If that wasn’t strange enough, the passenger “capsule” would swivel.  The whole thing would turn 360 degrees which eliminated reverse. You simply shifted the capsule so it faced the other direction making the need for a reverse gear obsolete. the wheels could change orientation as well.

The Pivot 3 with its unusual interior is actually tame compared to the previous versions.  Doors open on both sides of the car.  It has a reverse gear because the passenger cabin is oriented in only one direction.  The driver drives from the middle of the car which has in wheel motors and a very tight turning radius of two meters.  The tires will still swivel but not as wildly as those on the Privo 2.

But don’t let the relatively tame exterior fool you. This car still has some pretty amazing features. Like other cars on the road today, the Pivo 3 will automatically park itself.  In addition after parking, the car will recharge, but don’t try this at home because it requires a specially equipped parking garage. 

Like the Batmobile, the Pivo 3 will drive to pick you up using only your smartphone and the cars autonomous driving abilities.  Yes, there could indeed be an app for that in the future.

While this car is being considered for production with other concept models.  If the Pivo 3 does make it into production it won’t be until after the Nissan LEAF, NV200 EV and the Infiniti EV have hit the streets.  That means that the earliest this little guy would make it into production would be 2016-2017.

We can only wait and see.

You can see videos of the older Pivo’s here,here and here.  This video shows how the Pivo rides with two.

A video of the Pivo 3 and it’s story can be found here.

According to Smart Planet 3D printing is going to invade our lives in many different areas.  Our future home, meals, cars, candy, and replacement organs may all be products of this new technology.  More importantly, it is expected that 3D printing may bring jobs back to America.

When it was first introduced most people didn’t understand what 3D printing actually was and many people still don’t.  For an excellent explanation of various methods of 3D printing hop on over to 3D Printing.org. 

Since one of the primary aspects of this technology is the ability to change printing heads and materials as needed, 3D printing doesn’t require huge manufacturing plants and cheap labor.  In the future you may be able to walk into a car dealership, pick out your model and options and have it printed right there. 

More than likely each piece would need to be printed separately and then put together.  The process would produce a fully functional safe car without waste.  You could even mix and match body styles, interiors and engines.

Food printers would allow for the development of new tastes and textures.  You could have an all dark meat boneless turkey with lime flavored wings.  If you prefer chewy, just dial it in; crunchy, the same.  Candy would be printed the same way and seasonal and special event shapes would be easy to produce.

Just imagine your home (printed concrete or organic material) filled with printed furniture, appliances, electronics, solar panels, toys, food and anything else you can imagine.  Depending on how you decide to furnish your home, the furniture could be printed on sight.  Low cost miniatures can be produced so that you can test out different styles and materials before creating the final product.

One of the more unique 3D printing projects underway is Makerbot’s attempt to create shells for hermit crabs.  Shell shortages have reached the point that hermit crabs are using bottle tops, and other trash for shells.  The Makerbot community is experimenting with different shapes to develop something a hermit crab would actually choose and will then work out the best material to use so we don’t have plastic shells littering beaches and the oceans.

The initial designs are being created using plastic, but these are not the final product.  As mentioned before, creating prototypes from plastic makes more sense than using something more expensive. 

Not everyone is going to be happy with a 3D printed world, just like some people aren’t interested in having TVs or cell phones or computers.  But for others this just might be a innovative way to go green. 

Printing objects for whatever purpose uses less material, creates less waste and allows for more creativity in material choice.  Printing items locally also cuts down on shipping costs and pollution.  Different chemical combinations are under development for everything from food, to car frames.

Right now 3D printing hasn’t really entered the reality of most people, but within the next ten years, it may be as ubiquitous as the cell phone.

The Edison2 eVLC uses the same design and body as the Edison2 VLC that won the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize last fall.  The original Edison2 used a one-cylinder, 250cc internal combustion engine fueled by E85. The car got 110 MPGe combined city and highway and was able to go 600 miles on one tank of gas (6.5 gallons) during the X Prize competition.

The Edison2 eVLC battery powered car when driven under X Prize testing parameters achieved 341.8 MPGe and had a range of 71 miles based on the test.  The EPA numbers are quite different but then they figure things much differently.

EPA procedure is to determine range by averaging Urban and Highway mileage, weighted 55% Urban, 45% Highway and rounded to the nearest 10. Our 114.1 mile combined range therefore got rounded down to the 110 mile official number for Calculated Driving Range.

At the bottom is the number that really matters: MPG with 30% Cap (Combined) of 244.8 is the eVLC’s “sticker” energy mileage according to the current EPA methodology. It directly compares with the Leaf’s official 99 mpg and the Volt’s 93 when running on its battery. To restate this in different words, Edison2’s eVLC scores 245% and 261% of Nissan’s and Chevy’s energy mileage.

The Edison2 eVLC comparison to Nissan’s Leaf and the Chevy Volt are a bit misleading.  Both of the other cars will seat five while the Edison2 will only seat four.  While both cars are aimed at drivers wanting to save the environment by purchasing an electric car, the Edison2 while achieving a higher MPGe actually only has a range that is 10 miles longer than Nissan’s under EPA testing.  The Edison2 achieves higher numbers because it requires less electricity than the Leaf to go farther.

The Volt’s limited drive range of 35 miles on battery alone generates the Chevy’s 95 city/93 highway MPGe.  Unlike both of the other cars that have limited ranges at the end of their battery charge. The Volt also has a gas generator that will extend the range to 407 miles.

One issue that is covered nicely on Nissan’s Leaf site is the actual reality of those distance numbers under real driving conditions.  The same factors that affect the Leaf’s range will also affect the Edison2 eVLC.  Nissan estimates that its car will be able to travel 62 to 138 miles per charge depending on the following; speed, climate control, cargo weight and topography. 

Traveling 70 mph in 110 degree weather with the AC turned to 68, heavy equipment in the cargo area and driving up and down hills, will have you looking for a charging station well before  that 110 mile limit.  Conversely, driving on flat roads at a constant speed of 55 with no luggage and limited AC or heat will probably have you exceeding that 110 miles. 

Either way, the Edison2 eVLC looks as if it will be a nice little car when ever it makes it into production.  Currently, the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt are the only two of the three mentioned cars that you can actually buy.

Researchers at Monash University have been working with graphene which is known to be “strong, chemically stable, an excellent conductor of electricity and, importantly, has an extremely high surface area.”  Over the past several years graphene has been shown to be better than silicon for circuits, a great base for supercapacitors, and a method for saving Moore’s law. 

Now according to Dr Dan Li, of the Monash University Department of Materials Engineering, and his research team, graphene has the potential to create “energy storage” that is cheap and much quicker to recharge than current such systems.  According to them, a graphene and water battery would be “on par with lithium ion batteries, but recharge in a matter of seconds and have an almost indefinite lifespan.” Rather than spending an hour or more to charge your electronics, it could take mere seconds.

Still as simple as the idea sounds there are complications.  It is the thin one atom thick layers that are able to store energy in appreciable amounts, but when the layers are put into proximity with each other, they snap back together into graphite which is worthless unless you need a pencil. 

The scientists discovered that if you put the graphene layers in water as a gel, rather than snapping back together, the layers are actually repelled allowing the atom thin layers to hold energy. 

When used in energy devices, graphene gel significantly outperforms current carbon-based technology, both in terms of the amount of charge stored and how fast the charges can be delivered.

The materials are abundant and inexpensive and the process is easy to scale up meaning mass manufacture could be put in place quickly.

Li feels that once the process and materials are perfected, that this new type of storage system will be the key to making hybrids and electric vehicles more attractive than fossil fuel cars.  Right now it takes several hours to recharge a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.  A perfected graphene battery might take seconds or possibly a few minutes. 

He also sees graphene batteries as a better energy storage device for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.  While MIT has found a great way to store solar thermal energy, Monash may have found a better way to store solar energy as electricity.

Let’s hope that this technology can be perfected and make it to market soon.  We could use batteries that are quickly recharged for just about all of the portable electronics in our lives, including our cars.

Graphene sheets illustration above. Credit: Gengping Jiang

Nissan started delivering the LEAF to customers in December of 2010.  Ford and GM agreed to provide a limited number of home chargers to early adopters of their EV and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s EV Project agreed to provide free home chargers for the first 1,000 purchasers of the LEAF.

While the free home chargers and charging infrastructures being constructed by Better Place and Coulomb, among others, are providing incentives for electric vehicle ownership, Nissan is developing a “safety net” incase things go wrong.

According to Inside Line Nissan has teamed up with the Japanese Automobile Federation (JAF) to develop a vehicle that is capable of helping LEAF owners when their car goes dead.  Traffic jams can mean that already low batteries could run out of juice especially if the driver has the air conditioner, music and lights on.  Should that happen, Nissan’s rescue truck will be able to provide a badly needed charge to get the vehicle back on the road and home for overnight charging.

On Tuesday testing of the rescue vehicle began in Japan and as of now is not expected to be offered outside that region.  However, Nissan does expect roadside assistance companies like AAA to eventually be able to provide a similar service.

However, Autobloggreen has raised some valid questions:

How big a battery must the service vehicle carry around to provide enough energy for your car? Would it be better/easier to just tow the car to an outlet somewhere? How much sense does it make to send out a gasoline-burning truck to charge up an electric car?

When a fossil fuel car is out of gas, all that needs to be provided is a few gallons of gas to get the car to the nearest gas station.  An electric car can’t just be jumped with the expectation that it will be able to reach a charger.  Instead, it will probably require a significant charge from the rescue vehicle to provide enough juice to get the EV to a charging station.  Even fast charge charging stations require at least 30 minutes.

Hopefully improving battery technology will improve not only the range EVs but also a rescue truck’s ability to provide a decent charge in a short amount of time.

Photo from Nissan Motors Corporation Inc.

Last fall, the EPA unveiled two proposed designs for review by the public.  The main difference between the two was that one also offered a “grade” for different vehicles.  A+ was given to electric vehicles all the way to D for large SUVs and Trucks.  After much market research the EPA settled on one of the two designs.

Understand that these stickers had to fit a number of rules given to the EPA on the required content.  So the EPA came up with several proposed designs for the labels and using focus groups, surveys and an expert panel finally came up with the below designs for use with fossil fuel, hybrid and electric vehicles. The interactive versions that explain the numbers can be found here for Gasoline Vehicles, here for Plug-in Hybrids, and here for Electric Vehicles.

Included on all of the stickers is a MPG or MPGe estimate, a predicted cost of fuel for the year, fuel consumption, how this vehicle compares with other vehicles in this category and how much fuel you are “saving” by purchasing this vehicle.  Then the sticker gives you a “rating of “Fuel Economy and Green House Gases” as well as a “Smog Rating” on a scale of “1 to 10” where “10” is the best. 

You also get the website where you will find an explanation of the labels and interactive labels that explain each section.  Also on the label is a QR code that when scanned by a smartphone will give you even more information on the car.  It doesn’t give the designer’s shoe size but that just might be an oversight in the wealth of information you can now glean from these labels.

Don’t go running to your local dealership to view the new labels just yet.  The labels debut will be on 2013 models and so won’t be found until 2012 when the 2013 models arrive.  Until then check out the new designs, brush up on what all 12 to 14 sections mean, and then head out to purchase your new 2013 model.  Unless the world ends in 2012 when predicted by some.  Then all that work put in by the EPA will be for naught.

The prototype won in two categories:  “Gasoline Energy” and “Internal Combustion Engine”.  The car was only able to complete two of the three final possible runs on the fourth day due to a collision during the third run of the car.  During the first two runs the car was able to consume “only 8.5 ml of gasoline, out of the 6 miles of the track, resulting in a score of 2565 mpg” and on the next run, “8.8 ml were consumed this time, for a result of 2522 mpg.”

On the third run, the car was it by another vehicle and a “kill switch”  was activated shutting down the engine.  Although the team was able to shut off the switch, the car was not able to get back in position for another run before time ran out.  As it was their first run resulting in 2565 mpg was enough for them to win.

The team had shipped their car in pieces down to Houston before the competition.  The first day and night were spent finding the parts and assembling the car.  The engine arrived a day early and was shipped back to a distribution center.  Once retrieved, the team could complete the car and begin testing to make sure that the car would be able to pass the competition safety tests the next morning.  The car passed and so it was on to the next hurdle the actual recorded runs on the third day.

The car, which is driven by while reclining on ones back, was already turning in a good showing with three runs completed and two runs turning in a score of 2196 MPG and a score of 2557 MPG.  The higher mileage was due to tinkering with the engine, transmission chain and code.

The final runs the next day clenched the win in both categories.  The team will continue competing in Shell’s Eco-marathon series when they enter the European Shell Eco-marathon at the end of this month in Lausitz, Germany.

The mileage is great but these prototypes are similar to race cars, they look good on a track but you can’t drive home in one much less drive it to work and back.  Impractical, prototypes help engineers and scientists test out theories and new technology that do eventually show up in cars that we can drive around in. 

Here’s to Universite Laval and a continuation of their winning season in Europe!

According to iChauffeur, Kate the future Princess Catherine will be riding with her father in Queen Elizabeth’s Silver Jubilee Rolls Royce.  This Rolls Royce was a gift to celebrate the first 25 years of her rule.  This is also the same Rolls that Prince Charles and Camilla were riding in when they were attacked last December.  It has since been restored to pristine condition.

Whether it is Prince Charles and Camilla or the future Princess Catherine and her father, their rides are decidedly not green.  Besides the poor miles per gallon there is of course the CO2 that both of these older cars will be spewing into the crowds as they pass by. 

No what they need is the new EX102 Electric Phantom, although only a prototype it is still an elegant Rolls Royce.  It has the elegance and styling that is expected of a Rolls Royce but with the ecofriendly credentials that would improve the environmental impact of this wedding.

The Telegraph reports that the carbon footprint of this wedding is predicted to be “6,765 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), 12 times the annual emissions from the London palace or 1,230 times the annual emissions of the average UK household.” Although a lot of that will be generated by the arrival of guests, the Rolls Royces will be contributing.

Engadget reported that the EX102 Electric Phantom weighs 6,000 lbs and will travel 125 miles per charge.  The car has a 71kWh  battery that can be charged within eight hours.  The car has all of the inside amenities expected of an ultra luxury car with lots of room and lots of leather.

There are rumors that Prince William will be taking a green form of transportation to the wedding.  According to The Telegraph, speculation is that he will be arriving on horseback with “officers of the Household Cavalry’s Mounted Regiment.”  Except for the “biological” pollution that could result from his four legged transportation, it would definitely be the greener way to go.

The couple will be traveling after the wedding to Buckingham Palace by horse drawn carriage.  Well, we know that Kate’s something old will be her forms of transportation to and from the wedding.  To bad her something new won’t be a 21st century Rolls Royce EX102 Electric Phantom.

Rolls Royce EX102 Electric Phantom. Video from Rolls Royce.

According to EU Commission white paper, the changes will take place over the next 40 years in an effort to cut greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 60 percent by 2050.  The paper calls for major shifts in transportation within and between cities.

For instance, the commission recommends:

• cities to completely phase out petrol cars
• shifting to rail or water 50% of all passenger and freight road transport currently making intercity journeys of more than 300km (186 miles)
• airlines to increase their use of sustainable low-carbon fuels to 40%
• shipping to cut 40% off its carbon emissions

In order to accomplish these goals road, rail, air and water transport modes will need to be “seamlessly linked”.  Creating more efficient and coordinated modes of transportation.  Right now there are numerous regulations, requirements, and systems being used within the EU making transportation cumbersome, time consuming and expensive.

• Each EU country has its own safety certifications for train rolling stock that represent a major barrier to expanding international passenger and freight services.  Estimated cost of each national recertification is between €1-4 million, and can take up to two years.

  Source: European Railway Agency

• The Thalys high-speed train through France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands has to adapt to seven different signalling systems. The EU currently uses seven gauge sizes and seven types of electric currents (with different voltages and frequencies, and alternating or direct current, etc).

  Source: ERTMS

  Gauges and currents: Energy and Transport in Europe – Statistical Pocketbook 2010

• Today international hauliers need in their vehicle the Eurovignette, 5 different national vignettes and 8 different tags and tolling contracts if they wish to drive on all European tolled roads without stopping at tollbooths.

  Source: European Commission

• In 2008, close to 9 million flights crossed EU airspace, or an average 25 000 flights a day. In the EU, 27 air traffic management systems add an average 49 km to each journey.

  Source: Commission Communication on SES II, COM (2008) 389 final .

• Removing barriers in the EU and opening up markets to competition has had a profound impact. Air transport liberalisation has boosted the number of air passengers and routes served. The EU now has 20 low-cost carriers, representing 40.2% of the internal EU market – in 1990 there were none. Scheduled passenger carriers have risen from 135 to 152, and the average number of routes inside the Union has increased by 140% from 1 680 to 4 000.

  Source: Official Airline Guide database

• An EU-registered ship travelling from Antwerp to Rotterdam can require the same amount of paperwork as a ship travelling to Rotterdam from Panama.

  Source: ‘The European Union’s maritime transport policy for 2018’

• EU laws will bring the number of freight train tail lights and plates down from 18 to two, making it easier for trains to cross borders.

  Source: Draft Commission Decision concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘operation and traffic management’ subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system

• The trans-European transport networks (TEN-T), which represent 25 800 km of key European corridors, have nine north-south connections linking the continent, but only four east-west ones.

  Source: TENtec Information System

• Urban access policies have been introduced to many cities across the EU. However, the various authorities use their own criteria and enforcement means: out of 58 urban access schemes, 42.6% charge a daily rate, 25.9% charge per trip, while the others don’t charge anything at all.

  Source: ISIS, 2011, Study on Urban Access Restrictions.

Simplifying these systems and having one uniform system across all the countries would help move people and goods more efficiently and more cheaply across cities and countries.

All of this will require costly infrastructure changes.

A well-performing transport network requires substantial resources. The cost of EU infrastructure development to match transport demand has been estimated at over € 1.5 trillion for 2010-2030. An additional investment of a trillion euros in vehicles, equipment and charging infrastructure is needed to achieve emission reduction goals. The completion of the TEN-T network requires about €550 billion by 2020, out of which some € 215 billion are for the removal of the main bottlenecks.

Source: EC calculations based on TENtec Information System and the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper, SEC(2011) 358

The use of cars in and between cities also present challenges.

• Congestion costs Europe about 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every year.

  Sources: TREMOVE and PRIMES-TREMOVE transport models (Appendix 5 of the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper, SEC(2011) 358).

• In London, 20% of commuters spend more than two hours a day travelling to and from work, which adds up to one working day a week. In Germany, 37% spend one hour a day commuting.

  Sources: Transport for London, 2009, Travel in London ; Mobilität in Deutschland 2008

• EU sustainable transport solutions will increasingly need to be exported around the world: EU drivers currently own one third of the world’s 750 million cars. The IEA projects that by 2050 car numbers worldwide will increase to more than 2.2 billion, with the sharpest growth in emerging economies

While the white paper lays out an ambitious plan for improving transportation and reducing GHGs, not everyone is behind all the goals.  As Scientific American reported the United Kingdom’s transport minister, Norman Baker, told the BBC, “"We will not be banning cars from city centers any more than we will be having rectangular bananas.”

What Minister Baker may have forgotten is that it isn’t all cars that will be “banned” from cities, just those running on fossil fuels.  Indeed, with the expected increase in the number of electric vehicles on the roads, gas and diesel vehicles, may have long disappeared by 2050.

While many may fault parts of the plan or consider it too ambitious, the white paper does lay out a coherent and unified plan for reaching the EU’s environmental goals as well as improving all methods of transportation.

Illustration from the European Commission Mobility and Transport