Oildummy.com

At the Detroit Auto Show earlier this year, Toyota announced that they will produce a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) by 2010.  The vehicles will be available first to commercial fleets such as government agencies and corporations.  This move pits Toyota in a direct race with GM, who hope to release the Chevy Volt around the same time.  The competition in this field will no doubt benefit the consumers as well as the auto industry. 

I can only imagine what GM is thinking.  Even if they beat Toyota in a release date, Toyota still has the advantage of being the current hybrid king, and the massive success that is the Prius will give consumers confidence in their vehicle.  I think there will be plenty of market share for both companies if they both deliver the goods, but I don’t know if either would be content with a tie.  GM would probably love nothing better than to at least temporarily knock Toyota off their high horse.  Whether Toyota is only counteracting GM’s move is beside the point.  There is now real competition. 

Toyota said that they will be studying consumer demand for a car that must be plugged in and powered off the grid.  Like I’ve said before, with rising gas prices and tighter demand for world oil supplies, I don’t think it will bother consumers too much.  With continued growth in wind, solar, and geothermal energy, as well as cleaner coal burning technology, plug-ins should be much greener than traditional hybrids.  It will be extremely interesting to watch this play out. 

In the movement away from fossil fuel burning vehicles, fuel cell cars powered by hydrogen could possibly be a fixture in our future transportation. With water as the only emission, they are a true zero emission vehicle. Fuel cell cars definitely have their advantages, but there are plenty of obstacles that currently loom.

While the vehicles themselves are zero emission, the process of producing hydrogen is far from it. Extracting hydrogen from sources such as water, natural gas, or coal burns fossil fuel, therefore much more technological progress is needed to produce hydrogen in an environmentally friendly way.

Another large issue is the infrastructure required for hydrogen to be available to the public. Thousands and thousands of refueling stations would be needed, and it wouldn’t be easy for them to be constructed fast enough to support the industry. There is also the problem of storing the hydrogen within the cars themselves. It must be stored as a gas, and it is posing challenges to engineers trying to produce a car with a respectable range between refueling.

The current price of buying and running a hydrogen vehicle is astronomical compared to current hybrid offerings. Automakers, many of which are working on getting a fuel cell car to market by decade’s end, must think that they will eventually be able to compete price-wise.

Unlike plug-in hybrids, fuel cell cars would not be dependent on the electric grid for power. Millions of plug-in cars charging every night would put more strain on the electric supply and ultimately burn more fossil fuels. However, if the renewable energy field continues its current explosion, plug-ins could be powered by completely clean energy, and would be a clear winner over hydrogen, in my opinion.

It’s easy to sit here and point out all the flaws in fuel cell cars and pick apart reasons why it won’t work, but that’s beside the point. We’re going to need an array of options and a diverse game plan to end this addiction, and we need to be studying anything with potential. With a few breakthroughs, fuel cell cars could be a vital part of our future.

(Note- 6/30/09- on my new site, Shultice Financial, I am incorporating sustainable economics and financial practices into my writing.  Feel free to check it out).

On December 18th, congress passed new legislation that commits to fighting our oil addiction.  Among other things, the bill’s main objective is to increase the minimum mileage standard on cars, light trucks, and SUVs from the current 25 mpg to 35 mpg in 2020. This marks the first time since 1975 that this standard has been increased.  It also requires increased efficiency in lighting, appliances, and commercial and government buildings.  Another major point of the bill calls for a 6-fold increase in US ethanol production to over 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.  With these changes, the average US driver will save approximately $700-1000 a year at the pump, according to lawmakers, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil sources.

This new law is not perfect though.  The massive increase in ethanol production will rely on technologies that we currently don’t have.  There is a lot of work left to be done to deliver the inputs needed for ethanol’s growth.  We can’t afford to budget any more corn into ethanol production, so this  increase is going to have to come from other sources, such as switchgrass and algae.  Then there is the issue of how energy efficient producing ethanol is.  If we can’t produce it in an energy-positive way, force feeding the industry for the next 15 years won’t lead us very far. 

Many automakers are opposed to the new standards.  They argue that their offerings could be limited to comply with the regulations, and the industry could suffer for it.  There’s also questions of vehicle safety, as automakers make sacrifices to improve efficiency in any way they can.  Those opposed to the law would rather see incentives for companies that improve the mileage of their cars, rather than an industry-wide mandate.  However, if the price of oil keeps going north, automakers will be forced to improve mileage much faster even than the bill requires.

I understand the points made by the auto industry, but I still think this is a very good move by congress.  Consumers will demand higher mileage vehicles on their own if gas prices are high enough, but this new bill will require it no matter what the gas prices are doing.  I’m not so optimistic about the ethanol portion of this bill, but it’s good to see the US government doing more than paying lip-service to our addiction. 

    DaimlerChrysler’s Mercedes Car Group hopes to revolutionize compact cars in the US with its smart fortwo. The smart car, which looks more like a decked out golf cart than a passenger vehicle, goes on sale here in the states in early 2008. These cars can sell overseas, but it’s unclear whether Americans are ready for some major downsizing.

    Picture a Mini Cooper; OK, now can you picture a car nearly four feet shorter? At about 8 feet 6 inches long, the smart will appeal to drivers looking for a nimble ride to zip around in. Being so small though, the obvious safety concerns are huge. The official site at smartusa.com claims that the car is designed to achieve four star crash ratings, and a steel composed tridion safety cell will keep occupants protected.

    No matter how revolutionary and advanced the safety features are, I would not feel safe driving down the highway in such a car. Considering how suburbanized and spread out our lives are in the US, it’s hard to perceive the average American commuter choosing the fortwo. Other than those who somehow feel comfortable with their slim chances of walking away from a highway crash in a pint-sized car, smart car buyers will mostly be urban dwellers or those who plan to use it solely to putt around town.

    The smart is expected to achieve about 33city/41highway mileage with the new EPA estimates. For a car so small, these numbers don’t seem very impressive. The current subcompacts sold here get about the same, even with the size difference. The price is relative to the current offerings as well, with the smart ranging from $11,590 to $16,590.

    The smart car will be unlike anything we have ever seen here, but it’s not really breaking much ground. I myself would be a much bigger fan if it were electric or if it got something like 100 mpg. That said, I wouldn’t put myself in a highway deathtrap no matter how efficient it was. Most Americans will be in the same boat; it just won’t fit their lifestyle. The smart will have its cult-like following for sure, and will suit some buyers, but will struggle to survive in this type of market.