c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
esc
cancel

Updates from March, 2012

  • Chevrolet Europe’s president Susan Doherty drives to work every day in an electric car, and thanks to a recharging station at work, she never worries about running out of power.

    For most other people, however, it remains a challenge to find electric charging stations to refuel.

    As a result, sales of electric cars have lagged, with most consumers going for hybrid options that at least offer the possibility of running on gasoline or diesel.

    But with interest in going green growing among consumers, and with tougher emissions standards to kick in from 2013 across the European Union, companies are beginning to introduce new solutions.

    Related

    At this year’s Geneva Motor Show, several car components firms exhibited portable chargers while others announced deals with major automakers to build more charging stations to ease refuelling headaches.

    After all, “electricity is the way to go in the future, especially if we want to have zero emission vehicles,” Doherty says.

    Swiss firm Alpiq E-Mobility AG announced an agreement with Toyota to fit charging infrastructure at its 250 dealers across Switzerland.

    In addition, it will also offer a charging station to go with each of Toyota’s best-selling hybrid car, the Prius.

    It is an “an important step toward establishing e-mobility in our country,” says Alpiq managing director Peter Arnet.

    Another Swiss company, Green Motion, exhibited several types of chargers at the show, ranging from a portable gadget that weighs just six kilograms to a 210-kg installation that looks much like a gas pump.

    “People will want to charge at home,” a spokeswoman for the firm says.

    British company Controlled Power Technologies, however, has another solution.

    Rather than offering chargers, it showcased an energy booster that would allow a car to run with the same power as a larger one even though it was using a smaller engine.

    “We offer the economy of a diesel, low C02 emissions and the performance of a two-litre engine at an affordable price,” says Nick Pascoe, the company’s chief executive.

    Despite substituting a 2.0-litre engine on a Volkswagen Passat with a 1.4L motor, the company’s booster gave the car greater pulling power while at the same time meeting tougher emission standards, he says.

    “Instead of adding thousands of euros to the cost, we add tens of euros,” Pascoe says.

    Manufacturers are progressively having to increase the percentage of cars they sell in the European Union with carbon emissions below 130 grams per kilometre, with passenger cars to meet this level by 2015.


    4:06 pm on March 12, 2012
     

  • There’s nothing like the angst of the truly offended to spur a dedicated columnist back to the keyboard and rumination. And none are more easily offended — at least judging by last week’s column — than the dedicated proponents of the electric vehicle. Loud is their outrage any time their anointed savior is castigated.

    Thankfully, among all the detritus (usually anonymous, by the way) was a gem from Tony Catterall, a reporter whose previous beats included covering the German auto industry in the 1980s and ’90s.

    Proving that there’s nothing new under the sun, Catterall sent along his “Electric cars may drive pollution levels higher” story that was published in London’s The Observer on Aug. 4, 1991 that predated — by 20 years (quite the scoop, Tony!) — my column detailing the University of Tennessee’s contention that EVs may actually result in more overall pollution than gasoline-fuelled automobiles.

    Related

    That report studied 34 Chinese cities and found that, because 75% of China’s electricity is fuelled by coal, the emissions associated with driving an EV actually caused more pollution than tooling around in a conventionally powered automobile.

    As contentious as the University of Tennessee’s study is, Catterall’s now-ancient missive proves its conclusion is hardly new. Indeed, 20 years ago, Catterall reported the same results from Germany’s Institute for Environmental Protection and Energy Technology. According to Dr. Hansgert Quadflieg, Catterall’s story noted, the institute had even then determined that, although electric cars “don’t themselves emit any harmful gases … if we’re going to introduce them on any large scale, we also have to look at overall emissions.”

    Catterall also reported that a Technical Control Board Rhineland (Germany’s sometimes-infamous TUV) computer simulation replacing all the internal-combustion-engine cars in Cologne — then a city of just less than one million — with electrically powered vehicles would have required an additional 7,000 to 9,000 megawatt/hours a day of electricity generation.

    Since about two-thirds of Germany’s electrical generation at the time was generated by fossil-fuelled power stations, Quadflieg told Catterall that overall carbon dioxide emissions “could rise by up to 20%.” He also noted that sulphur dioxide — a major cause of acid rain (my God, do you remember the kerfuffle that used to cause?) — would also increase.

    Of course, power-generating technology has advanced somewhat in the last two decades, although Germany still relies heavily on coal for electricity. As well, it must be pointed out that Canada’s reliance on coal for electricity generation is minimal, meaning that EVs driven here actually significantly decrease emissions compared with a gasoline-powered automobile.

    However, as I noted in last week’s Motor Mouth, the world’s two biggest consumers of automobiles, China (where, according to The New York Times, the increase in global warming gases from China will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years) and the United States (where coal plants are responsible for about one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions), still get the preponderance of their electricity from coal, with neither looking to phase it out.

    It’s also worth noting that, according to worldcoal.org, 42% of the world’s electricity generation stems from coal. The U.S. has approximately 540 generators, more than a third of which are 40 years or older, while China is reportedly building coal-fired plants at the rate of one a week.

    In perhaps worse news, a 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study revealed that the true problem with Chinese coal power generation was not its powerplants lacking cleaning technology but that the coal being used was of such poor quality. Even more perversely, numerous sources conjecture that the cooling effect of the enormous amount of sulphur the low-tech Chinese plants are pumping out is masking some of the climate-changing effects of its carbon dioxide emissions, something that may cause global temperatures to spike in the near future.

    All of this is just a long way of saying that moving Chinese and American drivers into EVs is far from the climate change panacea many imagine. But, then, if we had all read Catterall’s story 20 years ago, we’d already know that.

    While admitting that EVs have their place — “They can be very useful in niche areas such as local delivery and service rounds. And they help in the fight against local smog, for example in Los Angeles …” — Quadflieg concluded that “we have to keep in mind that with present electricity-generating technology, all [electric vehicles] do is transfer the pollution somewhere else.”

    Sadly, there’s another part of the EV phenomenon that remains equally consistent. One of the letters in response to Catterall’s story accused him of deliberately carrying out an “assault on batteries.”


    9:00 am on March 1, 2012
     

  • I think the enviroweenies are getting nervous. U.S. President Barack Obama recently tabled a budget for 2013 that bumped up the incentives for buying an electric car. Or, as they say in congressional legalese, any vehicle that “operates primarily on an alternative to petroleum,” which, with apologies to those shilling natural gas, really means anything that plugs in.

    Related

    The Democrats’ provisional budget — and, if you were shilling for Republicans Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, that adjective would be altered slightly to “delusional” — sees the maximum incentive for the purchase of EVs increased to $10,000 from $7,500.

    Dress it up any you want, but even the shallowest of car salespeople knows that you only put incentives on vehicles people don’t want to buy. And you only increase already substantial subsidies if the consuming public seems particularly reluctant.

    Ten big ones is extremely strong medicine, usually reserved for hard-selling luxury sedans long past their due date. Indeed, there’s no way to dress up $10,000 “on the hood” of a $35,200 Nissan Leaf as anything other than desperate measures.

    Unlike the tax credit, which ends after the automaker sells the first 200,000 alternatively fuelled vehicles, the proposed increase has no such limits, the credit diminishing after 2016, presumably after meeting President Obama’s ambitious target of “putting one million advanced-technology vehicles on the road by 2015.”
    Of course, with 17,345 Chevrolet Volts and Nissan Leafs sold in the United States last year, it’s little wonder the administration is a tad concerned. A skeptic might even go so far as to postulate that Americans seem a little reluctant to embrace the liberal left’s electrified future.

    There might be even worse news on the EV front. A University of Tennessee study recently concluded that electric vehicles in China might emit more pollution than gasoline-powered cars. Its conclusion is that, because 75% of Chinese electric power is coal fuelled, an EV operating in China is actually more harmful to the environment than a conventional gas-fuelled automobile. The study was conducted in 34 different cities. It measured everything from dust and metals to the acids produced during the coal-fired electricity production process.

    Naturally, any such hiccup has enormous repercussions as China has committed extensive resources to increasing the use of electric vehicles.

    “An implicit assumption has been that air quality and health impacts are lower for electric vehicles than for conventional vehicles,” Chris Cherry, assistant professor of civil and mechanical engineering at the University of Tennessee, said in a prepared statement online. “Our findings challenge that by comparing what is emitted by vehicle use to what people are actually exposed to. Prior studies have only examined environmental impacts by comparing emission factors or greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Of course, there are numerous other studies showing that, even in China, electric vehicles are cleaner and greener than the gasoline-fuelled variety. Nonetheless, it points to a great failing in the great pollution debate, namely that the world’s two greatest polluters — the one with the most cars and the other selling more cars per year than any other country (that would be the U.S. and China, in case you haven’t been paying attention) — both get the preponderance of their energy from the dirtiest of sources.

    According to the Canadian Press, another study by one of the world’s top climate scientists — Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria — found that coal is a far greater threat to our planet than burning fossil fuels. Weaver estimates that burning all the commercially available oil from the Alberta Tar Sands would only emit enough carbon dioxide to raise global temperatures by 0.03C,  but he adds that firing all the coal still readily accessible in the world would increase the temperature by a disastrous 15C. Yet, there is no public outrage against coal, no groundswell of protest against carbonized plant matter. Moviegoers are not flocking to documentaries lamenting the evils of coal-fed electrical plants.

    For the record, I have nothing against a cleaner Earth. Indeed, I believe the automotive industry should and must curb its emissions footprint. What I vehemently oppose, however, is the hypocrisy that sees the piously environmental willing to push us back to the transportation industry’s Stone Age — as in owners who are afraid to leave the city core for fear they will be stranded by their cars — simply because, every day, they can see the object of their ire, while coal-fired electric generators are far from their everyday commute. Out of sight, out of mind is not a justifiable defence for the puritanical rage of all those who see the automobile as the great evil, while virtually ignoring an equal or even greater issue.

    What scares me most about this devotion to anything electric is that if the great unwashed masses don’t get with this greener-than-thou program — if even the prospect of ludicrously large financial incentives is not enough to place us on the righteous path — then perhaps these same great minds will decide that, since consumers aren’t smart enough to determine on their own that the electric vehicle is our salvation, it will be perfectly justified to force people to buy them.

    Before you dismiss me as just another crackpot, consider the draconian laws being passed banning smoking from public parks based on the dangers of inhaling second-hand smoke in open fields. Those are also being done for our own good.


    9:00 am on February 23, 2012
     

  • BRUSSELS • A tiny revolutionary fold-up car designed in Spain’s Basque country as the answer to urban stress and pollution was unveiled Tuesday before hitting European cities in 2013.

    The “Hiriko,” the Basque word for “urban,” is an electric two-seater with no doors whose motor is located in the wheels and which folds up like a child’s collapsible stroller for easy parking.

    Geert Vanden Wijngaert/Getty Images

    The idea for the vehicle came from Boston’s MIT-Media lab; the concept was developed by a consortium of seven small Basque firms under the name Hiriko Driving Mobility, with a prototype unveiled by European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.

    The idea for the vehicle came from Boston’s MIT-Media lab; the concept was developed by a consortium of seven small Basque firms under the name Hiriko Driving Mobility, with a prototype unveiled by European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.

    Related

    Hiriko

    The Hiriko folded up and parked! The two-seater is Spain's answer to urban stress and pollution.

    Demonstrating for journalists, Barroso clambered in through the fold-up front windshield of the 1.5-metre-long car.

    Hiriko

    Hiriko on the road! The “Hiriko,” the Basque word for “urban,” is an electric two-seater with no doors whose motor is located in the wheels and which folds up like a child’s collapsible stroller for easy parking.

    “European ideas usually are developed in the United States. This time an American idea is being made in Europe,” says consortium spokesperson Gorka Espiau.

    Its makers are in talks with a number of European cities to assemble the tiny cars that can run 120 kilometres without a recharge and whose speed is electronically set to respect city limits.

    They envisage it as a city-owned vehicle, up for hire like the fleets of bicycles available in many European cities, or put up for sale privately at around 12,500 euros ($16,368).

    Francois Lenoir/Reuters

    European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, left, poses with Jesus Echabe, president of Hiriko who takes the wheel at the EU launch of the Hiriko.

    Several cities have shown interest, including Berlin, Barcelona, San Francisco and Hong Kong. Talks are underway with Paris, London, Boston, Dubai and Brussels.

    Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images

    No doors? Climb in and out of the Hiriko through the fold-up front windshield of the 1.5-metre-long car.

    The vehicle’s four wheels turn at right angles to facilitate sideways parking in tight spaces.

    The backers describe the Hiriko project as a “European social innovation initiative offering a systematic solution to major societal challenges: urban transportation, pollution and job creation.”


    1:49 pm on January 24, 2012
     

  • Wayne, Mich. • I don’t know if it’s a good thing or not — or even much of a surprise — but much of Ford’s focus (pardon the bad pun) on its new electric vehicle is all about range. I suspect that, like most things, all the customizable apps and navigational systems will prove a boon to some and anathema to others. At the very least, all those electronic widgets encourage a commitment to changing one’s driving habits common only to the dedicated enviro-weenie.

    Related

    For instance, there’s an app (these days, isn’t there always?) for your iPhone, BlackBerry or Android that lets you not only monitor your Focus’s battery level from anywhere (useful from an airport in, say, Spain, to check if you have enough juice to get home when landing back in Canada) but also schedule charging to minimize electricity costs.

    The same app will find local charging stations (presuming there are any) and even keep a running tab on your CO2 emissions and money saved by motoring so virtuously on electricity.

    You can even — and this is by far the coolest feature — pre-heat (or cool, if it’s summer) the Focus Electric’s cabin before you drive away. The MyFord app does this, because the Electric’s range is maximized if the interior has been acclimatized while plugged in rather than wasting precious battery charge to do it. Personally, I think it’s just cool to be able to climb into a nice, toasty-warm cabin for the morning commute.

    There’s even a braking “coach” on board. A display in the instrument cluster tells you when you’re maximizing regenerative braking. (As with all aspects of EV and hybrid optimization, easy does it. Longer, gentler braking periods are more effective at recharging the battery than short, abrupt stops.) Even the Focus EV’s navigational system gets in on this range-extending customization. With an EcoRoute function, you can choose an alternative path to your desired destination that wastes fewer electrons, extending the car’s range a smidgen.

    More prophetic, though, is the “Can I get there?” function. As useful as it may be, however, it may also be a constant reminder of the EV’s shortcomings. And, naturally, the Focus EV has to have a little display telling the driver how virtuously he or she is driving. In Ford’s case, it’s a series of blue butterflies — the more butterflies you have, the more of a “butterfly effect — in which a small change can have an enormous impact.” Or so it says in Ford’s press material.
    Of course, the Focus EV is more than just computerized gizmos. Underneath its more aggressive skin (the deep, shark-like front grille makes it look très sporty), there’s a 23-kilowatt hour lithium ion battery. Like the Chevrolet Volt — and unlike the Nissan Leaf — Ford uses a radiator-like system to heat or cool the battery to maintain a constant temperature, the company’s engineers finding the more consistent climate conducive to long battery life.

    Those 23 kWh are said to power the 107-kW (143-horsepower) electric motor for about 150 kilometres, about the median for current EV technology. Ford says the Focus can attain a 135-km-an-hour top speed, although exercising that performance frequently will dramatically drop its projected 160-km maximum range. Ford also says that the Focus’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency miles-per-gallon-e rating exceeds 100 miles per U.S. gallon (2.35 litres per 100 km), which is best in class.

    One aspect of the Focus EV that Ford is justifiably proud of is that the car’s 23-kWh lithium ion battery can be recharged in three to four hours on a 240-volt system compared with the six to eight hours the Nissan Leaf requires at the same voltage. Credit the larger onboard 6.6-kW charger compared with the Nissan’s 3.3-kW item.

    The 240-volt chargers for the Focus will cost about $1,500 to $2,000 (though British Columbia and Quebec are offering cost-offsetting subsidies for the chargers as they are on the EVs themselves). But the Focus can be recharged using a common 110-volt household outlet, though it will take much longer.
    As much as Ford will be trumpeting the miracle that is the Focus EV, the true strength of Ford’s new electrified lineup is the depth of its choices. Ford calls it its Power of Choice program.

    For instance, the soon to be introduced C-MAX will be available only in hybrid and plug-in hybrid guises, although both can be built on the same production line as the Focus EV, allowing Ford to easily adjust production volumes according to demand.

    Ford also promises the Energi plug-in version of the C-Max will offer better overall fuel economy than Toyota’s new plug-in Prius and, with an overall 800-km range, it can travel farther on a tank of gas than Chevrolet’s Volt, according to the automaker.

    Ford adds that the C-MAX Energi has a pure EV mode that allows it to travel up to 32 km on electric power alone. It, too, has a customizable app that monitors the lithium ion battery’s charge status and range. As for the basic C-MAX Hybrid, it also uses a new lithium ion battery and an electric motor in conjunction with its 2.0-litre four-cylinder Atkinson-cycle gasoline engine (the same as in the Energi’s).

    Ford of Canada is not releasing pricing on the new C-MAX lineup yet, but the automaker says the Focus EV will retail for $41,199. That’s a few thousand dollars more than Nissan’s base Leaf, but, according to Steve Ross, Ford’s product marketing manager, sustainability and electrification, it’s much better equipped. Indeed, Ross says the Focus EV is so well equipped in standard trim that there are only three options available — leather seats, metallic paint and a cargo management system.

    Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that the Volt extended-range electric vehicle has a retail price of $41,545 and has none of the range limitations of a pure electric vehicle.


    9:00 am on December 15, 2011