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.

Safran Group and Honeywell announced that easyJet will begin testing the EGTS in 2013. The companies hope to begin providing the system for new airplanes and as a retrofit by 2016. As the UK’s biggest airline with 604 routes to 130 airports in 29 countries, easyJet will be able to give the system a thorough testing.

Due to the high frequency and short sector lengths of easyJet’s operations, around 4% of total fuel consumed annually is used when the airline’s aircraft are taxiing. easyJet’s aircraft average 20 minutes of taxi time per flight – the equivalent of 3.5 million miles a year.

The tests will make sure that the fuel savings are actually realized and will determine other benefits of the system. 

Each wheel is fitted not only with a motor but also with an electromechanical actuator and unique power electronics and system controllers. One benefits of this new system will be the increased maneuverability and control over speed, direction and braking of the plane as it approaches the docking area. Currently planes are tugged into the docks.  The new system should reduce or eliminate the need for the final assist.

Cutting down on fuel costs isn’t the only reason to look for innovative ways to incorporate electrical systems and and reduce fuel use.  The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) went into effect on January 1 of this year.  That scheme requires airlines using European airports to account for their greenhouse gases.  The idea behind the EU ETS is to speed up the adoption of green technologies, like this one, in aviation.

Although The New York Times has reported that the EU is willing to suspend some portions of the directive that doesn’t mean that this type of innovation will cease.  One of the conditions of suspending portions of the ETS is that a global system would need to be developed that would go beyond the ETS in achieving reductions of green house gases in aviation.

While the four percent reduction in fuel might not seem like a lot, it is one step of many, like the combination of weight reduction and more powerful batteries increases the distance that an electric vehicle can travel.  Safran, Honeywell and easyJet are testing a system that with the addition of other innovations like jet biofuels will reduce greenhouse gas emission and make breathing easier.

According to NASA the current fuel it uses is hydrazine.  It is a highly toxic and corrosive fuel.  It can be stored for long periods of time and provides the energy necessary for rocket launches but it is hazardous to the environment.  NASA wants a cleaner greener alternative.

Madsci.org has an article that describes the four types of fuel normally used for rocket launches – solid, cryogenic, petroleum and hypergolic.  The space shuttle used three of these types.  According to Starts with a Bang, the solid fuel rocket used a noxious fuel called ammonium pecholorate composite that creates hydrogen chloride which mixed with water makes hydrochloric acid.  The second fuel used was liquid hydrogen that expelled water vapor, by far the least toxic emission.  The shuttles engines use a small amount of hypergolic fuel, relatively speaking, for maneuvering. That only covers the space shuttle and not the numerous rockets used for launching satellites and other items into space.

According to Slate, one of the dangers of rocket propellants it that they emit reactive gases that destroy the ozone, as well as soot and aluminum oxide that add to the problem.  Crosslink commented that the build up of black soot in the stratosphere will last for years so multiple launches could accumulate more soot that absorbs sunlight.  Most man made pollutants do not reach the levels that rocket exhaust does which creates unique problems.

Even though the amount of propellant burned by rockets—and so, too, their carbon dioxide emissions—is small compared to the fuel burned each year by the aviation industry, the accumulation of stratospheric soot could represent a net additional heating, or radiative forcing, on the atmosphere comparable to all of aviation.

Now start adding in more launches coming from more countries like China and you begin to see the problem.  The fuels used for the ever increasing launches of GPS, defense, spy, and climate satellites is simply adding more stuff into parts of our atmosphere we previously had been unable to reach.  Add to the those launches what some hope will be a burgeoning space tourist industry and we simply compound our climate change issues.

Unfortunately, liquid hydrogen is unable to be the only fuel used to lift rockets into the air thus NASA’s need to find other fuels that won’t produce the dangerous byproducts of the fuels used today.

Photo from NASA.

Way back in 2008, we reported on Better Place’s partnership with France, Israel and Denmark to install battery swap and charging stations.  The company also partnered with Renault to create electric cars with easily swapped out batteries.  According to Technology Review the company just received the first 100 Renault Fluence Z E (Zero Emission) electric vehicles that will be used in Israel to demonstrate Better Place’s battery swap technology. 

The process works as follows:

1. 1.  A Renault Fluence Z E alerts its driver that the battery is low. 
2. 2.  The driver consults her navigation app that shows where to find the closest battery swap station.
3. 3.  The driver drives to the nearest station and pulls into the battery swap bay.
4. 4.  The used battery is removed and a fully charged battery is installed all from below the vehicle using a robotic process.  It takes about the same amount of time that it takes to fill up a gas tank.
5. 5.  The driver exits the bay and continues on her way.

The battery swap technology makes long trips much easier than having to plug into a charging station every so often for a fifteen minute to four hour charging process.  Instead you pull in for a matter of minutes and continue driving until you need another swap.  Of course there are charging stations available as well that allow for charging overnight and while shopping, working, sightseeing or dining.

The Renault Fluence Z E uses  “225-kilogram lithium-ion batteries with a range of 160 kilometers”(about 100 miles).  The cars will be initially leased only by Better Place employees.  Once the kinks have been worked out of the system, Better Place will offer others the option of leasing a Fluence  through another company and using battery swap technology and charging stations through a subscription service.

Better Place signed a leasing agreement with The Eldan Group, the largest car rental group in Israel, back in December.  Eldan will “acquire hundreds of Renault Fluence Z.E. electric cars from Better Place in 2012.”  Companies and private customers that sign up for electric cars will also sign for a membership subscription with Better Place for use of the charging infrastructure and Customer Care. Fossil Fuels are extremely expensive in Israel, as are taxes on fossil fuel vehicles. So switching to an electric vehicle will be an attractive option for many. 

Better Place is the only company that provides battery swap technology for its customers.  Coulomb, GE and other charging infrastructure companies are building charging stations in various parts of the world, but only Better Place gives you a quick way to simply “swap and go” when needed.

Above Photo from Better Place.

Influx studios has proposed an algae-green loop retrofit for Marina City.  While certain new features would be added to both towers, each tower would have its separate functions as well.  On top of both would be a a series of vertical wind turbines similar to those produced by Helix Wind.  The turbines would turn regardless of the direction of the wind.  The height of the buildings would place the turbines at an altitude where wind is plentiful.  Marina City is after all in Chicago, the Windy City.

Below the turbines would be CO2 scrubbers. Besides providing energy for the building, the wind turbines would work the ventilation system for the CO2 scrubbers. The scrubbers would absorb CO2 while releasing O2.  The CO2 would be used by the algae bioreactors to produce biofuel and excess carbon dioxide would be sold to pharmaceutical companies for use in their products.

Apartment balconies would be covered by photovoltaic panels which would also be used to provide power for the building.  The electricity generated would be used by individual apartments and to recharge electric vehicles.  Excess electricity would be sold to the electric grid.

Wastewater from the apartments flows down to a wet garden located on the spiral ramp of the west tower.  It’s purified and then used for grey water like the toilets and vegetable gardens of the apartments.  The east tower has closed loop algae bioreactors on its spiral ramp that manufacture biofuel. 

Vertical farming is also expected of the inhabitants of Marina City not just in the wet garden but also on apartment balconies.  The vegetables grown can be traded or sold among the tenants. The assumption is that only people with green thumbs would  live in the towers.  Those with black thumbs need not apply.

Overall, Influx Studio’s has a very complex, very green proposal for the Marina City retrofit.  It would definitely involve not only improving the structure with insulation and energy efficient window updates but would provide a model of the incorporation of green technology to not only improve the living conditions within the towers but also within the city.

Influx Studio has certainly submitted an ambitious proposal for the Marina City retrofit.  Let’s see if the proposal is adopted. 

Illustrations from Influx Studios.

Gordon Murray is known best for his design of the McLaren F1 formula one race car. He has his own company Gordon Murray Designs where he continues to design sports cars (now electric), and has branched out to commuter cars.  He has designed two, the gasoline powered T.25 and the electric T.27.

It is the latter car that just turned in the winning performance in London.  It actually captured three prizes: ‘Most Energy Efficient Small Car (Prototype)’, ‘Best Overall Pure Electric Vehicle’ and ‘Best Overall Entry – RAC Future Car Challenge Winner’. The T.27 drove the 57.13 miles on 64 pence (a little over one dollar) of electricity.  The T.27 could have continued on since the car’s range is over 100 miles on a full four hour charge.

Of course one of the big selling points of electric vehicles is their miles per gallon equivalency (MPGe) or how many miles you could go using the equivalent amount of energy.  The car turned in a respectable 350 MPGe which is not to be confused with the actual distance that the car will go.  As mentioned above, the car will travel over 100 miles per charge depending on terrain, temperature, and traffic conditions.

The car is a three seater that has been built to be light efficient, and safe.  The driver is seated in the middle of the car with the passengers in the back. The car passed the crash test at MIRA (Motor Industry Research Association). 

The crash test was the mandatory EEC 40% offset deformable barrier front high speed impact and the T.27 came through with flying colours with zero cabin intrusion and the measured results being extremely close to those predicted by computer simulation.

It is expected to reduce lifecycle emissions by 27 percent over other EVs.  Part of this reduction occurs by using a new manufacturing process that Gordon Murray calls iStream.  It is a completely different process for building cars that uses on 20 percent of the space needed by other car manufacturers and reduces overhead and “capital investment in the assembly plant by approximately 80percent.”

Right now Gordan Murray and his consortium partners include Zytek Automotive Limited, Vocis and Michelin are currently looking for a manufacturer who is willing to put the car in production.  So far three different manufacturers have expressed interest. 

The final car is expected to be easy to drive and park.  It’s size should let it park easily just about anywhere.  The expected price should be in the lower price range for UK cars.

Like so many new vehicles, it will be tested elsewhere before we get to see it in the US.  Of course, by that time all of the kinks and bugs should be worked out.

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 Science Daily researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, studied the impact in California of kicking hybrids with fewer than two occupants out of the HOV lane.  Back in 2005, the state allowed drivers of hybrid vehicles to drive in the HOV lane as a perk for driving an environmentally friendly car.  That perk ended this year on July 1st.  The results were not as expected.

California decided to eliminate the privilege because of critics complaints that hybrids with only one occupant were clogging up the HOV lane.  Since the number of hybrids being driven in California had reached 85,000, the state decided to heed the critics.

What resulted according to studies by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) is that rather than helping the situation, kicking solo driver hybrids out of the HOV lane only slowed down everyone.  Surely this was not the intended effect.

ITS used “traffic flow theories and six months of data from roadway sensors measuring speed and congestion along all freeway carpool lanes in the San Francisco Bay Area” in its analysis.  Rather than speeding up the HOV lane, all the lanes slowed down.  The critics who expected a speedier HOV lane actually got just the opposite.

Two factors account for the poor results in the HOV lane.

One factor is the presence of additional cars, including hybrids, which slow down traffic. One might think that moving vehicles out would allow the remaining cars in the lane to go faster.

But the data show that traffic speed in the carpool lane is also influenced by the speed of the adjacent lanes. Moving the hybrids into the neighboring lanes increases congestion in those lanes, which in turn slows down the carpoolers.

EVs, Low Emission Vehicles, or ILEVs, such as hydrogen fuel cell, and natural gas powered cars can still drive in the HOV lane with only one occupant.   If the feds allow it “40,000 super-clean plug-in-hybrids or hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine vehicles” will be allowed in the HOV lane even with just a solo driver.

Even with those 40,000 extra cars the ITS is saying that the 85,000 hybrids that lost their HOV solo driver privilege should be allowed back in.  According to the study, this would actually speed up the HOV lane by reducing congestion in nearby lanes.

On a non-scientific note, Atlanta has taken its HOV lanes and turned them into toll lanes.  You can enter the lanes with a Peachtree Pass and be charged for the distance you drive in the lane.  Supposedly this is to speed up traffic and raise revenue at the same time. 

While driving into Atlanta recently, I observed a total of six cars in the Peachtree Pass lane from it’s beginning in to downtown.  Normally, the lane would have had dozens of cars with multiple passengers speeding right along. 

While those willing to pay for the privilege of using the lane might have gotten there faster, the congestion and higher risk of accidents on the rest of the expressway are probably raising first responder costs.  By turning the HOV lane into the Peachtree Pass toll lane, the government is probably losing more money than it is gaining in revenues.

Governments need to rethink their elimination or restriction of HOV lanes.  The results of those decisions are not turning out as planned.

Ford’s 2012 Focus Electric base price is $39,200 which does not include tag, tax, title or destination fee.  From there it only goes up (not much) depending on the build that you want (limited choices).  The good news is that whatever the cost of your chosen model, you probably qualify for federal and state tax credits.  The federal tax credit will lower the price by $7,500.  You have to check with your own state to figure out what incentives are available.

Right now if you want to purchase any upgrade packages, you’ll have to stick with fancy paint, either Blue Candy for an additional $395 or White Platinum for $495 or moving from eco friendly cloth to leather seats for $995.  There is a mysterious Equipment Group 300A which is the only “package” that is offered. If you click on it it simply says coming soon.  The same thing when you click on Standard Features.  In other words you only have one package and that is standard. But standard isn’t shabby.

Focus Electric comes standard with: MyFord Touch with 8-inch touchscreen; two driver-configurable 4.2-inch color LCD displays in cluster for unique EV driving screens; MyFord™ Mobile App (for remotely monitoring and scheduling battery charging with owners’ smartphone as well as remote start); HID Headlamps; 17-inch aluminum wheels, ambient lighting, seats made from 100-percent recycled material; Rear Camera with Rear Parking Sensor; Intelligent Access with Push-Button Start; MyKey®; voice-activated Navigation System; Particulate Air Filter; hands-free SYNC® Bluetooth telephone connectivity with Traffic, Direction and Information Services; electronic traction control; Sony®-Branded audio with nine speakers; SIRIUS® Satellite Radio and HD Radio™

Why does Ford even offer the “Build & Price” feature when the extent of what you get to choose is the color or seat covering? Regardless, the standard features are quite good.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the press release or on the website that mentions distance per charge.  Electric cars have a limited distance per charge, usually around 100 miles. Right now the biggest fear that consumers have is finding themselves stranded when the batteries run out of juice. Leaving this information out of all Ford Focus Electric promos is not encouraging. 

One feature that Ford points out in it’s press release is that the charging time using a 240V outlet is only a little over 3 hours, half the time needed by the Nissan Leaf. Guess who Ford considers its top EV rival. 

The Nissan Leaf however does offer two different packages. The 2012 SV package costs $35,200 or the 2012 SL package for $37,200, again without tag, tax, title, or destination charge and before any federal or state incentives. 

Unless you live in California, New York or New Jersey it really won’t matter what you choose.  Those three states are the “preliminary markets” for the car.  An additional 15 markets will get the car next year.

So if you want to go ahead and order a 2012 Ford Focus Electric, the reservation page is now up and waiting. 

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.