Thursday, June 30, 2005

Hybrid car lineup boosts Toyota's green image

By Ken Thomas / Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A new poll commissioned by General Motors Corp. backs up the need for American energy independence while offering the world's largest automaker a sobering assessment on its progress in developing energy-efficient vehicles.

The poll, conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates and released Wednesday, found that 43 percent of Americans believe the reduction of the nation's dependence on foreign oil should be its top energy policy priority.

It was followed by 20 percent who felt the nation should improve fuel efficiency of vehicles and 19 percent who want to reduce pollution and harmful emissions.

Asked which of the automakers do the worst job developing energy-efficient vehicles, 31 percent said GM, 29 percent said Ford Motor Co. and 20 percent said DaimlerChrysler AG.

When asked which automakers did the best job developing the efficient vehicles, 40 percent named Toyota Motor Co., and 37 percent named Honda Motor Co. Fourteen percent named GM.

The telephone survey of 1,004 adults nationwide was conducted from June 17-20. It had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

GM officials said the poll showed the need to tell the public about its work in developing fuel-efficient vehicles and research into vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

Elizabeth Lowery, GM's vice president for environment and energy, said the results were "somewhat humbling, obviously, to see the magnitude of our challenge at General Motors, and also the domestic industry, frankly, to change people's perceptions of what the automakers and the domestic industry are doing in this area."

"I think it's fair to say we haven't been as consistent and frankly as relentless in getting our message out there," Lowery said.

The survey found Toyota had a 65 percent favorable rating, Honda had 64 percent, GM 60 percent, Ford 56 percent and DaimlerChrysler 47 percent.

Among top priorities for automakers, 36 percent wanted them to improve gas mileage and safety features, and 32 percent urged the industry to find alternatives to gas engines. GM has attributed some of its recent problems to higher gasoline prices.

source : detnews

 

There are other paths to greater energy independence besides just higher-mileage vehicles alone. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for over 15 years. You can drill for crude oil all you want and it won't do you any good without a refinery to turn it into gasoline.
We can also start to mix gasoline nationwide with alcohol made from corn or other agricultural sources like they do inthe Midwest. Most vehicles can run up to a 10% gasohol mix without fuel system damage.
We can start to implement a domestic non-petroleum synthetic gasoline industry like we did with the rubber industry in World War II when the Japanese grabbed our (and the British) main source of rubber imports in Southeast Asia.
Much has already been discussed on CL about alternative fossil and non-fossil fuels.......I don't have to add anything more about that. It is no secret that I myself like the idea of 100% alcohol vehicles...for many reasons which I won't rehash.
And last, even with conventional gasoline vehicles, there are number of time-honored ways to incease mileage.....keeping tire pressures up (check them COLD) , consolidating trips, particularly in cold weather with long engine warm-ups, avoiding as much stop-and-go as possible, taking unnecessary weight out of the trunk, and, of course ......( I know, you guys don't want to hear this) ........just keeping RPM's down and not pressing that right pedal so hard.

 

Energy piracy
Alan Reynolds (archive)


June 30, 2005

The Senate voted 85 to 12 in favor of a 768-page grab-bag full of subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and mandates. They describe this, gratuitously, as an "energy bill." The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that "implementing the bill would cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006-2010 period."

Despite the bill's well-worn rationale of reducing energy imports, the senators obviously don't expect all that pork to make a dent in energy imports. They therefore pass the buck to the White House to somehow reduce U.S. oil imports by 1 million barrels per day from levels "projected" for 2015.

Imports are projected to rise from 10 million barrels a day to 13.3 million by 2015. The Senate's quixotic proclamation that someone else should trim that figure by 1 million amounts to a confession that it expects its bill to have even less effect than that, and that it expects imports to rise 22 percent in 10 years.

The actual objective of these new energy bills, like those that came before them, is to give away the maximum amount of taxpayer's money. President Bush is likewise eager to sign anything called an energy bill, so long as it has what it takes to placate those who contribute sufficient money to politicians to feel entitled to feed at this trough, such as ethanol producer Archer Daniels Midland. That is why the House bill required that 5 billion gallons of corn-derived ethanol be added to the gasoline supply annually by 2012, and why the Senate upped that to 8 billion.

The lobbying behind this ethanol crusade has been deceptive or delusional. A May 26 Associated Press story spoke of the ethanol industry "lobbying blitz arguing that 8 billion gallons of ethanol would replace 2 billion barrels of crude oil."

Well, there are 42 gallons in a barrel of crude oil, so we would need 84 billion gallons of ethanol -- not 8 billion -- to replace 2 billion barrels of crude. But we would actually need much more than 84 billion because there is much less energy in a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. A math whiz at www.reformclub.blogspot.com calculated it would take 156 billion gallons of ethanol to replace 2 billion barrels of crude.

Eight billion gallons of ethanol is a drop in the bucket, and that drop won't replace a drop of petroleum. Ethanol cannot be produced from corn without wasting huge amounts of petroleum. Petroleum is needed to fuel farm machinery, to produce fertilizer and insecticide, and to transport the corn and ethanol by diesel truck or train.

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey noted in congressional testimony this April that if ethanol is produced from corn, then "it takes about seven gallons of oil to produce eight of ethanol."

He went on to say, "(Alan) Reynolds clearly does not understand the comparatively small amount of fuel required to produce cellulosic ethanol" from farm waste.

What I understand is that hoping to get much fuel from farm waste is technically speculative and politically naive. The CBO says, "The technology that would be used to process ethanol from such sources (agricultural residue) is new and is not well-proven." Besides, the farm lobby would never allow much ethanol to be produced from anything except new crops of corn or sugar (or soybeans for biodiesel).

Ethanol already gets an indefensible tax break at the pump of 51 to 71 cents a gallon, but Congress now wants to compel everyone to add it to their tanks. But doing so would leave us with less fuel at higher prices. Why? Because there is much less energy in eight gallons of ethanol than in the seven gallons of gasoline it takes to produce it.

In his June 15 speech, President Bush said: "Ethanol comes from corn -- and we're pretty good about growing corn here in America; we've got a lot of good corn-growers. Therefore, it makes sense to promote ethanol as an alternative to foreign sources of oil. Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline to produce a clean, efficient fuel. In low concentrations, ethanol can be used in any vehicle. And with minor modifications, vehicles can run on a fuel blend that includes about 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol helps our farmers find new markets ..."

Efficient fuel? Check the official mileage estimates at www.fueleconomy.gov. A Dodge Stratus gets 20 miles to the gallon in city driving on gasoline, but that drops to 15 mpg on E85 (the 85 percent ethanol fuel) -- and highway mileage drops from 28 mpg to 20 mpg.

A Ford Explorer is rated at 16 mpg in the city and 21 on the highway, but those figures drop to 12 and 16 on E85. If gasoline were $2 a gallon, E85 would have to sell for about $1.40 to compete on a cents-per-mile basis. But E85 doesn't come close to being competitive even with huge subsidies. The Economist got that all wrong -- it didn't check the mileage.

Even the 10 percent ethanol blend Congress is so eager to force upon us would reduce fuel economy. People would notice. Do legislators imagine that pleasing a few corn farmers will bring them so many votes that it won't matter if they anger millions of drivers?

"We're trying to encourage people to make right choices in the marketplace," says the president. He believes those who can afford a 400 horsepower 2007 Lexus GS 450h (hybrid) should get a $4,000 tax credit because they made the "right choice." A hybrid Chevy Silverado truck is a right choice -- a Chevy Cobalt is not.

If the actual point of these energy-subsidy bills were to economize on motor fuel or reduce its cost, then the most obvious "right choice" for consumers is to never let anyone add even a drop of corn-based ethanol to your gasoline.

For Congress, the right choice would be to end all subsidies to producers of flexible fuel vehicles and end all tax subsidies for consumers of fuel containing corn-based ethanol. The people need to encourage politicians to make the right choices, not the other way around.

source HERE

 

Survey Finds Americans Support Energy Independence, Hydrogen-Based Economy
Perception Gap Exists on Domestic Record of Technology Accomplishments


Hart Research Attachment (PDF format)

WASHINGTON - Americans believe energy security should be the top priority of U.S. energy policy, voicing wide support for a "moon shot" effort to develop a hydrogen economy in a survey released today by Peter D. Hart Research Associates on behalf of General Motors.

The survey, presented by Peter Hart and Elizabeth Lowery, GM vice president for Environment and Energy, found that reducing dependence on foreign oil is a top priority for Americans, who give much less credit to domestic automakers versus their Japanese counterparts when it comes to meeting that challenge. The survey was released today at a meeting of the Washington Automotive Press Association.

"The survey shows broad support for continued partnership between government and industry in the development of a hydrogen economy, an effort that GM has been aggressively pursuing with the U.S. Department of Energy and numerous corporate and research partners," said Lowery, who addressed association members. "But while the survey shows that Americans support the same goals that are at the heart of GM's overall advanced technology strategy for improving efficiency, it's troubling what little credit we're getting. Clearly we've got our work cut out for us in communicating GM's accomplishments and our commitment to developing advanced technologies."

The nationwide telephone survey of a representative cross-section of 1,004 adults, conducted June 17-20, 2005, explored Americans' attitudes toward U.S. energy policy and emerging automotive technologies. The survey has an overall margin of error of +3.1%.

Key Survey Findings

The Importance of Energy Independence: The desire for U.S. energy independence ranked much higher than other considerations presented to survey respondents, including increasing fuel efficiency, reducing pollution and emissions, and keeping fuel costs low. Specifically:

When asked what the most important goal of U.S. energy policy should be, 43 percent said "reducing dependence on foreign oil" - much higher than "improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles" (20 percent), "reducing pollution and harmful emissions" (19 percent) and "keeping fuel costs low" (15 percent).
When asked the main reason why automakers need to develop alternative technologies, 49 percent cited "energy independence" compared to 29 percent who cited "environmental" reasons and 17 percent who cited "economic" reasons.
Support for Hydrogen: The public embraces the development of new technologies and alternative fuels that will produce more energy-efficient vehicles, and sees hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as the best solution to reducing gas consumption and emissions. For that reason, a majority favors government support of hydrogen development. Specifically:

79 percent of respondents described advances in automotive technology as "absolutely critical" or "very important."
A plurality (29 percent) described hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles as those with the best chance for long-term success, compared to 23 percent for hybrids and 18 percent for traditional gas-powered engines.
65 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. government should make a major funding commitment to transform the auto industry from a gasoline-based system to a hydrogen-based system.
Perceptions of GM: There is a major gap between public perceptions of GM's efforts to develop energy-efficient vehicles and its actual record and accomplishments in this area. However, people's favorable feelings toward GM increase dramatically once they learn what GM is doing, and their overall impression of GM is favorable. Specifically:

While a plurality of Americans (31 percent) felt GM has done the worst job in developing energy-efficient technologies, 14 percent felt that GM has done the best job of developing technologies, the third highest ranking of automakers in that category.
When informed of GM's fuel economy record, development of hybrid trucks and buses and investments in hydrogen research, 73 percent of respondents said they felt more favorable toward GM.
60 percent of respondents feel favorable toward GM, the highest ranking of any domestic automaker and on the same tier as Toyota and Honda.
"GM believes strongly in the global technology strategy we have laid out, and we are executing and delivering on that strategy across all technologies, from advanced gasoline engines and alternative fuels to hybrids and fuel cell vehicles," said Lowery. "GM is committed to driving the transformation of the auto industry, and confident in its ability to make our vision of a hydrogen economy a reality and deliver its many benefits to our consumers, economy and society."

General Motors Corp. , the world's largest vehicle manufacturer, employs about 323,000 people globally. Founded in 1908, GM has been the global automotive sales leader since 1931. GM today has manufacturing operations in 32 countries and its vehicles are sold in 192 countries. In 2004, GM sold nearly 9 million cars and trucks, up 4 percent and the second-highest total in the company's history. GM's global headquarters are at the GM Renaissance Center in Detroit. More information on GM, its advanced technologies and environmental initiatives can be found on the company's corporate website at www.gmability.com.

source : theautochannel

 

I agree that alcohol is not as efficient as gasoline, but it has many other advantages ( already discussed in numerous CL threads) which this CBO report, in my opinion, is overlooking.
Open-wheel racing....and the whole country of Brazil....converted long ago without problems.
http://www.tierramerica.net/2003/0825/iacentos.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...home-headlines

 

Yes, but as stated in the link you posted, is it even viable to duplicate what Brazil did here ? Most other countries find that there are too many hurdles . . .