A Sustainable Auto Industry

AIR DATE: Monday, December 1st 2008
POSTED BY: CAT VASQUEZ
Photo credit: f-r-a-n-k / Flickr / Creative Commons

Would you drive an electric car?

Sustainable: it's a term we hear bandied around a lot. But do you always know what it means? Particularly, in this case, when it comes to the automobile industry? President-elect Obama has referred to the industry as the "backbone of America's manufacturing base" but says that significant reform needs to happen in exchange for government help. What are the big American car companies doing to prepare for the future? What does sustainable look like to them?

Here in Oregon, sustainable transportation means, in part, electric cars. Governor Kulongoski, PGE, and Nissan struck a deal last month making Oregon one of the first places to pioneer their Nissan's electric car (which will be released in 2010). PGE is busy building charging stations in Portland, Salem and Corvallis. And the state is busy preparing for a world of plug-in cars.

But how sustainable are electric cars? Can you go for any kind of extended road trip? Do they go fast enough for us to get to where we want -- let alone get a speeding ticket? And what about people who don't live in the city -- and likely rely on their cars even more. Can electric cars serve people outside a city where driving distances are longer and gas use is often greater?

What kind of car would you like to drive in the green future? And what lifestyle changes are you willing to give up to make a switch?

GUESTS:

  • John Viera: Director of Ford Sustainable Business strategies

Tagged as: bailout · car · sustainable oregon

Photo credit: f-r-a-n-k / Flickr / Creative Commons

Depends on what your definition of "sustainable" is. Sunlight is sustainable. Electric cars don't reproduce themselves. We mine expensive materials from the Earth, create cars, then toss or recycle the cars when they wear out. I want to drive a Sunlight, Hydrogen or [Nuke-e-lar] kit. (Just joking about the [Nuke-e-lar] rig unless I've got 43 on board with me and he's dressed in his flight suit.) Meanwhile I'll watch with bemusement the stop-gap electrical car fad. Electric cars are neat but they don't go far or fast enough on a charge. Until then I ride my bike to the grocery store and hack the Internet by candle light. Hey, baby, how you doin'?

Higgs boson
trurl9 —
I too see "sustainable" as a rather slippery word, but perhaps today we should be somewhat open-minded in our definition. If a technology offers a dramatic reduction in carbon footprint without major down sides, and relies on fuel sources that are abundant and renewable, I'm okay with calling it sustainable. But sustainability, though important, is not the only critical factor.

What I think is a much more important dimension to the energy question pertains to the sources of energy actually tapped, the time frame in which they can be brought to market, and the ubiquity of their presence in the short term. Though we need long-term solutions, focusing on those at the expense of short- and medium-term innovation is utterly foolish.

One of the most common follies I see frequently mentioned is the opening of offshore and other new sources of oil. At the very best, these offer a modest benefit to our energy dependency in the range of one or two decades from now. If we do all we can now and for the next several years, by the time these new wells are producing, we won't even need the oil.

In the last few years there have been several X-prizes offered for various innovations. The highest profile among these was the prize offered for the first commercial space flight, which was won by Paul Allen's team. The prize was only $10 million, but the results were achieved in a surprisingly short time. What's more, if the winners had not succeed when they did, there were others just a step or two behind them who would have. This was not a miracle. It was just a demonstration of the power of highly intelligent and motivated people on a mission.

Another example from the field of space travel was the Apollo missions. In less than a decade we put a man on the moon, and we did it while prosecuting a very expensive war in Viet Nam, and amid great civil unrest. In terms of the burden it placed on our national resources, it was little more than a hobby project.

As to more serious national priorities, we need only look at the way this country responded to the needs brought about by our entry into WWII. We totally reinvented our entire industrial, and to a large extent social, structure in a way that allowed us not only to wage and win wars on two fronts, but to also elevate America to the status of a super power in the bargain.

So there is no lack of evidence of what we can do when we commit ourselves to a high priority goal. We got an energy wakeup call in 1973 with the oil embargo, but we just hit the snooze alarm and kept doing so for another 35 years. Now we are picking up the tab for that extra dozing time. But it is far from too late to start making up for that foolishness.

Imagine the results of creating a set of concerted and serious national priorities devoted to one thing: developing energy alternatives that are devoid of dependency on petroleum and other high-carbon resources, and that can be available for use in the near future as well as having longer-term (sustainable) benefits.

What if we established a $10 million X-prize for a technology that could be retrofitted to existing vehicles, making them dramatically more efficient, and could be ready for market within two years? Or even one year? What if we did the same thing for other goals, like solar, fuel cells, fusion, and others? How about a dozen such prizes? Or a hundred? And if needed, make the prizes $20 million, or even more. And what if we did so with every energy-related priority we have, short-, medium-, and long-term? Compared to what has already been authorized toward the current economic bailouts and stimuli, it is chump change.

What is really required is a sea change in our basic thinking. Instead of looking at what already is and trying to incrementally improve it, we need to look at what we really want and need, and plot a course that will get us there as quickly, cheaply, and effectively as possible. Then establish a structure, such as prizes and tax incentives among others, that will spur the best minds available to buckle down and make it so.

If we do less, then we richly deserve the less pleasant effects we are certain to encounter otherwise.
RenaissanceGeek —
Doesn't "sustainable" mean sustainable? I don't think we should change the definition to meet our needs. Call electric cars something other than sustainable because they aren't. That's okay. You have truth when you call a thing what it really is.

Don't get too scared by the fear mongering of scientists and the media who are woefully short of being informed of the entire truth. Yes, we should reduce our carbon footprint, but we've got to do many things at once to get there.

Electric cars are relatively unimportant given that we haven't addressed the issue that we Americans use too much energy. Many of the new digital televisions consume more energy than what they replace. In February 2009 a lot of people are going to replace perfectly working analog televisions with digital counterparts and we'll throw away or recycle a lot of valuable resources that we shouldn't be spending the energy to convert in the first place.

Michael Pollan in [b]Defense of Food[/b] describes that people are getting less healthy and mentally sicker because we have taken to bad eating from the health, spirit and social perspectives. We eat in our cars as we hurry to get somewhere we've convinced ourselves we need to be. We eat processed foods. We eat things our great grandmothers wouldn't know as food.

Michael suggests we go through the hard work of growing our food or become better informed consumers of food so that we can appreciate what effort is truly required to maintain our personal infrastructures. Basically Michael is saying we need to reconnect to the Earth that nurtures us instead of paving it over to meet our perceived convenience.

What I'm saying is there is a lot we can do before we laud electric cars or any other new technologies as the way out of our energy dilemma. I'm surprised when I realize how many products I can unplug. I don't need the stereo. I don't need the television. If I want to conserve energy and reduce my carbon footprint I need to get serious about it.

There are lots of things I can do without new technology to reduce my footprint in this planet's back side. How much carbon would we remove if we didn't eat so much red meat? Deep down I know I don't need to eat meat to survive. Over time meat has become a convenience more than a necessity. If I want to get serious about being sustainable on this planet I need to make better decisions. I need to replace my lazy action and thinking with a more holistic, mindful and sensitive approach.

Humans must become more sensitive of their impact on Earth and on each other. We can't continue doing what we [i]want[/i] to do because our selfish interests have consequences beyond our immediate fulfilment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti technology, I am anti stupidity. Let's stop reacting and knee jerking by implementing poorly thought out solutions. Let's take a moment and re-evaluate what is really beneficial versus what is not. There is a lot we can do without re-inventing the wheel.
trurl9 —
I hope to be walking, riding my bike, and using public transportation in our "green future." It's a massive paradigm shift, but I truly believe that it's time to start planning to give up our cars, whatever sort of fuel they use. It's not difficult to imagine in a city like ours. Giving up your car takes a heck of a commitment, but folks all over the city ?? folks with kids and jobs and long commutes ?? are doing it with great success. I'm not suggesting that it would be easy to give up our vehicles ?? I don't think we have the physical or social infrastructure in place yet to support car-lessness. Yet.

MissJ9 —
That is what Zipcar is all about. My last car got rid of me in 1999 and I have not owned one of my own since then. But I have access to all kinds of cars, trucks, vans, etc. The longer I go, the less I need a vehicle of my own, but there is just no other way to pick up a yard of compost, or pick up someone at the airport at 2am. And there are always those times that you need it.
katied —
I am a bike commuter so I like this idea, however as Emily noted, not everybody lives in an urban area where cycling is a reality. If we assume that not everybody is going to cycle or take public transportation, then we need alternative methods to power vehicles.
neversummer —
My second dictum as Car Czar:

I would promote the manufacture of my ideal car/truck. ﾠMy new "Ideal" auto is a plug-in electric car/truck. ﾠThis is an all electric plug-in light weight vehicle - along with an accessory of a trailer that is a diesel generator. ﾠThe generator canﾠeither be a "rental" or a purchased trailer, depending on the owners use of the vehicle. ﾠ

That way, if you want to go on a vacation or visit your relatives that live more than the range of the batteries (and charging stations), you can hitch on the trailer and let it generate the electricity needed to power the batteries of the car. ﾠRentals much like U-Haul trailers can be created so that you ?rent? the generator trailers from charging stations. When not being trailed along with the car, it would be housed in a weather/security shelter, and plugged into the house to act as a back up to the grid for the house. ﾠCool or what?!? ﾠ

You'd lessen the weight of the car by having the engine & generator as a variable - included only when needed, and then by being trailed. ﾠThe generator would also serve double duty, acting as a back up for the house. ﾠAlso... as weﾠdevelopﾠ"smart grids" that can monitor and draw from local home generated power, these "trailer power" generators could be automatically started and furnish electricity for the grid when needed. ﾠThis would lessen the demand for new power generators and level the creation of electricity. ﾠ

Separate parts and standard connection specs on the trailer facilitates the ability to then later shift the engine part of the trailer power to any other form of power. Developement will continue with Natural Gas, High Efficiency Gasoline, Hydrogen, etc, but still maintain the value of the generator and parts without replacement. ﾠOne of the best ways to be green is to maintain assets and opposeﾠobsolescence! ﾠ

One of the many valuable aspects of this type of power is the level power demand of the engine - constant velocity. ﾠEngineers are thus able to design and manufacture efficient engines that are sized to the power need without having to oversize for the maximum power as auto engines are currently needed. ﾠCurrently Diesel is the most economical engine to fit that profile, but this model would allow invention by a large market of power trailers. ﾠ
KalamaEar —
I like this idea. Since the trailer is connected to the electric car's computer, it can have its own braking system, controlled by the car. It could have an oversized battery pack to optimize braking energy recovery. If you're just going to see Grandma, you use the standard trailer generator. If you're helping Grandma move, you rent a big trailer generator. And if you're going to the quarry for a load of gravel, you rent the reeeally big trailer, which has its own auxiliary propulsion system, again tied into the car's computer system.

As suggested, the trailer could also become part of the power grid, which would make the grid more robust- fewer chances for a disabling single point failure. The linemen would probably want a way to tell all the generators to disconnect from the grid at a certain time to allow for safe maintenance in emergencies.

Of course, the downside is that everyone has to learn to parallel park a trailer...
BobboMax —
I think electric cars are an important potential medium- to short-term solution to develop. But I consider it an intermediate solution. The reason I think it?s intermediate is that no matter what solution is developed for the current infrastructure, I?m not very inspired to support it. It?s tough to get excited about spending large sums of money to participate in a mode of transportation that can be so slow, inefficient and frustrating - and getting more that way every year. If I could see a way for that trend reversing, I might get more enthusiastic. Unfortunately, I don?t.

So for now, I ride my bike to work a good portion of the year - and it takes me about the same amount of time as driving - sometimes less. My wife and I haven?t bought a new car in many years and we plan to keep our current ones running as long as possible.

I would be much more excited in participating in the development of ?the next big thing? in transportation - a long-term solution. Because, ultimately, the current mode and infrastructure will reach a point where it will no longer work as a viable or desirable solution. I just happen to already be at the point where it?s not that desirable any more.

I?m sure that?s not what your guests John Viera and Mark Perry would like to hear. I certainly have great respect for the design, technology, and manufacturing skills that go into each of their company?s products. I don?t know how anyone can sit in a new Ford or Nissan and not be impressed with what they have accomplished. I just wish it was heading down a different road, um, or track - I mean, direction.
designGeek —
T. Boone Pickens had it right when he said that Detroit should build more cars that could run on compressed natural gas. Every vehicle fueled by natural gas can run on hydrogen and most every vehicle on the road today can be retrofit to be fueled by compressed natural gas. For about $25,000 a compressed natural gas car can be bought off the self from Honda.

T. Boone has bought a company called Fuelmaker. Fuelmaker manufactures two appliances: one takes natural gas from the gas line into ones house and compresses it to the point that it is dense enough to fuel a compressed natural gas vehicle; the other takes water, splits it into oxygen and hydrogen, compresses the hydrogen to 5,000 pounds per square inch, and puts that into a tank. Tanks that hold 10,000 pounds per square inch stand up to everything but the AK- 47 test. The Honda should have a range of about 150 miles on that and if one needs to go further, it will run on gasoline too.

T. Boone has sunk billions into wind energy. He has the sustainable power to produce and process hydrogen from water. You can too if you put solar panels on your roof.

Because there is no carbon or sulfur in hydrogen, an internal combustion engine fueled by hydrogen will have crankcase oil that will never have to be changed, just topped off. The filter will have to be changed.

The dominant environmental problem of a hydrogen internal combustion process is that at temperatures above 700 degrees Celsius, atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen combine to form nitrous oxides, which are greenhouse gases. This problem can be controlled.

I have heard it said that a fleet of electric cars is impossible because there aren?t enough copper resources to manufacture it. The State of Oregon should be covering its? garages with Energy Conversion Devices? solar roofing and fueling the Compressed Natural Gas vehicles it already has off of Hydrogen.

All of the pieces are in place that we can do this and maybe a more efficient hydrogen vehicle will evolve out of it, perhaps based on the Axial Vector internal combustion engine. Let?s keep it simple.


Link to Fuelmaker: http://www.fuelmaker.com/Products/HydrogenRefueling/

Link to Energy Conversion Devices: http://www.ovonic.com/

Link to Axial Vector: http://www.axialvectorengine.com/
jblair —
Sustainable Auto Industry is by any definition an oxymoron. Electric cars may reduce the use of fossil fuels, but in such a limited degree that it will not matter. The bigger issue needs to be a discussion about sustainable transportation, and highways are the least sustainable, economically and environmentally, of any transportation infrastructure. Electric cars, which will not pay gas taxes, will not reduce congestion, improve safety, or reduce the need for the hugely expensive highway system. More importantly, electric cars do nothing to reduce the huge fuel consumption of big trucks. Unfortunately, we have an economy that depends heavily on road construction--rather than construction of schools, parks , hospitals or other things we really need. Note that the Governor may be talking about "green cars," but he plans to put even more money into our obsolete highway system.
The real reason that the federal government has not pushed for more efficient autos is because the federal government, just like Oregon, depends on gas taxes to pay for highways. More efficient cars mean less money for highways, but as along as we all think we have to drive our own cars, rather than investing in public transportation and moving freight more efficiently, we will still need roads, and don't forget, asphalt is a petroleum product.
oldhack —
The following website, http://zeropollutionmotors.us/, promotes a car that runs on compressed air at lower speeds and uses fossil fuels at higher speeds. It recharges via a regular electrical outlet in 4 hours or in 3 minutes via a special filling station. The engine was developed by Frenchman Guy Negre. Compressed air seems to be greener than battery powered cars as it would not have the issues with mining lithium and then the disposal of spent batteries. To me this vehicle is one of the most exciting alternatives yet.
Please see the following is info from the above website:
At Lower Speeds: Since the Compressed Air Vehicle is running exclusively on compressed air, it emits only air - zero pollution. The air expelled from the tail pipe is actually cleaner than the air used to fill the tank. This is because before compression, the air is run through carbon filters to eliminate dirt, dust, humidity, and other urban air impurities that could hamper the engine?s performance.

At Higher Speeds: At speeds over 35mph the Compressed Air Vehicle uses small amounts of fuel?either gasoline, propane, ethanol or bio fuels?to heat air inside a heating chamber as it enters the engine. This process produces emissions of only 0.141lbs of CO2 per mile. That is up to 4 times less than the average vehicle and more than two times less than the cleanest vehicle available today.
2centsworth —
You folks may have noticed that the comma in the above URL disables the link. You can read general info here:
http://zeropollutionmotors.us

And see a few explanatory videos here:
http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=46
David Miller —
Being a retired automotive engineer, previously employed by a local truck manufacturer, I have enough experience and education to feel comfortable with my opinions, although I have to admit I HAVEN'T done the math on this compressed air car.

I checked out the ZPM site, specifically, http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=64. It's basically horsepucky- the diagram on that page is meaningless. It's the graphical equivalent of, "Well, stuff goes in here, and other stuff comes out here, and, well, everything really works good." I've worked w/ pneumatic equipment and I know that compressors are very inefficient, air motors are very inefficient and big high pressure air tanks are very heavy, and to work in this application, would have to be very well insulated. Not really a recipe for efficiency, safety or zero pollution.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to defend American automotive engineers, although not necessarily their employers. Believe it or not, we're not all a bunch of craven, bought-off, dull, uneducated idiots. Turn us loose and we can do wonders, just like the Japanese, Indian, German and Chinese automotive engineers. Unfortunately, management has often asked American engineers to focus on heated cupholders, power sliding doors and various Hummer wannabes. And in the opinion of many knowledgeable people, we have created many cars that are world class in quality, durability, low pollution, styling- you name it.

To quote the engineers who designed GM's EV1, ya gotta realize this IS rocket science- Ronald Reagan already answered all the easy questions- we're left with the hard ones now. It's not easy to design a car that's less polluting than the ones we have now and no one- I repeat, NO ONE- is going to do it in her garage. Do people really not believe that Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and VW are in a battle to the death? Do they not understand that every auto company on the planet is fighting for its life? And, of course, that, mostly because of mismanagement and foolish government policy, US companies are losing that battle?
BobboMax —
Hear, hear!
Tom D Ford —
Here's an interesting video from OPB's Field Guide about an Oregon man who made a record-breaking electric drag racer out of an old Datsun:
http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing

The full story page is here:
http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1686?q=electric%2Bdrag%2Bracing
David Miller —
thank you for posting this, people really need to see this, it's Awesome!!!!
shamus1970 —
Anyone who has been to Europe will see many vehicles that we cannot purchase here. Over 50% of new cars sold in Europe have high-mileage diesel engines. Even BMW's and Volvo's are available with turbo diesels that get great mileage and have plenty of power. But we cannot buy them here.
I drive a VW Jetta with a turbo diesel and get up to 50 mpg. using bio-diesel. Volkswagen is still the only company selling small diesel powered cars in the US. Ford and GM make diesel powered cars in Europe, why don't they import them?
We also power our nursery tractors and delivery van with bio-diesel.
I believe that Americans would like the option to buy small, diesel powered cars that get great mileage. That would save us money and reduce our carbon footprint, especially if using bio-diesel.
Best of all would be a diesel, plug-in hybrid!
Jim Gilbert —
I've been hearing good things about the compressed air engine. Zero pollution,good power and acceptable speeds and distances. India, France and Australia already have working models in progress, why not here?
Charles Brown —
I second your question. Why are they not exploring this technology? They are getting over 100 miles to a fill up in France ans Spain in taxis. It takes less than three min. to fill the tanks at a station. Why are we not making the change at the pumps here, we will never have change if we don't start at the pump. Don't believe anyone posting here saying they are an expert on air pressure, and defending the auto industry.

We should not bail them out. No one bailed out the timber industries in the 80's, or the steel industries.

The guy from Ford had ready made "talking points" saying that we need to buy new cars to get the older higher carbon producing cars off the road is Hog wash. We should as one of the callers said, stop making cars. Start fixing and retro-fitting the existing cars.
Thank for your post.
shamus1970 —
I second your question. Why are they not exploring this technology? They are getting over 100 miles to a fill up in France ans Spain in taxis. It takes less than three min. to fill the tanks at a station. Why are we not making the change at the pumps here, we will never have change if we don't start at the pump. Don't believe anyone posting here saying they are an expert on air pressure, and defending the auto industry.

We should not bail them out. No one bailed out the timber industries in the 80's, or the steel industries.

The guy from Ford had ready made "talking points" saying that we need to buy new cars to get the older higher carbon producing cars off the road is Hog wash. We should as one of the callers said, stop making cars. Start fixing and retro-fitting the existing cars.
Thank for your post.
shamus1970 —
I think that the answer to your question is American auto industries are more intrested in making money and they are too intrested in making bigger trucks that use more gas when the core of the problem is we need to get rid of gas-powered cars.
Jakeac —
Where do semi trucks and delivery trucks fall in this discussion? Personal cars, vans and trucks seem to be only be half of drivers on the road. What about new developments for the shipment of goods?
Kimberly Kay —
I agree this is an important question. I think that the train system needs more support so we can get more long-haul trucks off the road. We have friends who drive juice from California to the East coast, all of the time, and I really don't understand why that juice isn't on a train with a lot of other goods going cross-country.
JuliaMJK —
A lot of work is being done on pollution from long-haul trucks- EPA imposes a new set of requirements every 3 years. The 2007 EPA regs required rather complex catalytic converters to reduce emissions, especially particulates, which have always been problematic in diesels and the converters required ultra-low sulfur diesel (one of the reasons diesel fuel has become relatively expensive lately.)

Similarly, fuel economy is very important to truckers- fuel is a major portion of their costs. Reducing pollution motivates a lot of people- increasing profits motivates even more. If your truck is getting 7.34MPG and the next guy's is only getting 7.12MPG, your fuel costs are 2% less than his- that's an extra $40 in your pocket for every cross country run.

Hybrids aren't really very important for cross-country trucks- a hybrid only pays off in stop'n'go traffic, because it only recovers energy when it's braking. Your mailperson's little delivery truck is the optimum application- light loads, low speeds, short distances between stops, so the energy needed to get up to 5MPH between mailboxes is easy to recover and use to get to the next mailbox. A UPS delivery truck is less optimum because it's heavier and goes further between stops, so it needs a bigger, heavier, more expensive battery to hold enough energy to be useful. It still won't have the efficiency improvements of the mailtruck, because it spends more time just going and less time stopping.
BobboMax —
I'm wondering if there is any discussion in the auto industry about the economical conversion of the current fleet of gas powered American vehicles. From a sustainability standpoint, this seems like a valuable bridge toward the future acceptance of electric vehicles.
Geoffrey Halsey —
It's impossible to efficiently convert a a gas car to electric, either hybrid or plug-in. It can be done, but it's a labor of love, a hobby, an art form in a new medium, not something America will ever embrace- we're the people who will drive around a mall parking lot for five minutes to find a spot a hundred feet closer to the door.
BobboMax —
One problem I see with battery cars is the toxic heavy metals required in the batteries. Those will need a very good recycling program.
Tom D Ford —
Don't worry about it- they only place you can get a new battery is a dealership, and trust me, they're going to recycle the old one- the materials are too valuable to just throw away. Ordinary lead-acid car batteries already have a very high recycling rate, both because it's illegal to dump them and because the lead is valuable. Remember, we're profitably recycling something as cheap as newspaper, and people are stealing catalytic converters because the metals in them are so valuable and recyclable.
BobboMax —
The auto industry guy is just spouting spin. The auto industry made big vehicles that are just wasteful. I am tired of hearing how much they need money when they made huge mistakes. I think all of the executives should be fired if they are going to get public money, and that only vehicles that get made that get 30+ mpg, are flex-fuel, hybrid or electric vehicles. I don't think we should lose all of the union jobs in Detroit, but I do think that all of the upper management (maybe everyone who earns over $300K) should be fired and replaced.
JuliaMJK —
i don't know what the experts know. but i don't have much faith in them either.

it seems to me they are making a mistake. they are trying to build an electric car that will do everything a gas car will do. this will take a while and be expensive.

they could put a cheap "city car" on the road today that would cut gas (equivalent)consumption in the cities by fifty percent, as well as ease ground level pollution, and reduce CO2 production 10% over the whole economy.

people could keep their gas cars for the long trips.
coberly —
John is talking about Ethanol, but without explaining the tax implication and milage allowance of it he is being disingenuous. for $25 or so in parts, Ford and other manufacturers are allowed slippage in the milage requirements.

Go to Ford's England link and see the milage that they are selling vehicles in Europe. Please discuss the diesel some more. http://www.ford.co.uk

John is right in speaking about getting older cars and trucks off the road, that will yield the most reduction in pollution and CO2. Thus we need to focus in the business model. Tax high pollution, incentives low emission, support electric, bio-diesel and alternate fuels.
KalamaEar —
In this country we refuse to learn from the past.

The model T got 25 miles to the gallon, and the first Diesel fuel was distilled from peanut oil (bio).

Just like we learned nothing from the oil embargo of 1973 AND 1979, we will learn nothing from $148 a barrel oil now that its below $50.

You can check out 'Who Killed the Electric Car" from the Mult Co Library, btw.

Drives me nuts.
Chad Balcom —
I am from this camp too.
"Sustainable Auto Industry (as we know it) is by any definition an oxymoron."

I drive a 30 yr old car that gets 50 mpg and I bought it for $35.00. I get my "like new" tires every couple years at the junk yard for $5.00. I can make fuel from 'non-food based' sources for $1.00 / gallon and significantly reduce pollutants 80% below CARB standards. You can often find these cars in your neighbor's blackberry patch, They are VERY cheap to fix (usually unnecessary), and parts readily available. I have several with over 300,000 miles and have seen them reach 1,000,000 miles. My cost per mile is negligible - including the capital cost.

Electric cars are not a great answer, as there is a very unbalanced energy equation to build and maintain these. Electric technology should be directed toward bio-diesel/hybrid delivery trucks and buses that run 20 + hrs per day all over the world. That would allow rapid optimization of the technology and lower cost of development. It makes little sense to have a $30,000k electric car that gets used 20 min per day.

There needs to be a comprehensive solution that is for the betterment of society, manufacturers and environment. That does not fit well with a capitalist society.

'The Stealth Rabbit' - 50 mpg since 1976, Where have you been?...
jwswamp —
JW, I love those old diesel Wabbits too, but they're losers in the modern American market- no heated cup-holders and you have to wait 30 seconds for the glow plugs to do their job. And I KNOW you're a pretty good mechanic, because you don't maintain a car that old at the local VW dealer- again, the American market just isn't willing to put up with what you enjoy. And face it, even at 50mpg and used fry oil, those old diesels spew a lot of pollution.
BobboMax —
One of the reasons why the auto industry is historically important to the U.S. is because of its forward and backward linkages - it stimulates economic activity by using many inputs (including labor) and in delivering its cars to the market. For the auto industry to continue to be worth supporting, the industry must use more U.S. manufactured goods in its inputs. In my opinion, this should be a major part of the discussion of a bailout. Otherwise, we're merely nurturing an industry that provides jobs and little else to the U.S. Utilizing U.S. manufactured inputs would stimulate economic growth and provide jobs, as well as improve the U.S. trade balance. The benefits provided by the auto industry to the U.S. economy and society must receive more attention in the bailout debates.
AidenSanders —
I honestly believe that Biofuels are the way to go, however the industry is not being handled properly. The whole idea of a "carbon neutral" fuel source is contingent upon having active crops that can absorb the carbon emissions of the biofuel vehicles, which is not being done. If we were to start with crops that have a short production period, such as soybeans, we can really get the biofuel movement heading forward. Using existing corn crops etc... for biofuel production misses the whole point of this industry and the benefits of using this as a primary fuel source.
jasonbraaten —
Sustainable is not just what fuel is consumed or whether materials used can be recycled. Its also about how we relate to one another as human beings. Auto bosses in Detroit have been treating the rest of the world like a door mat for decades: exploiting workers as much as they possibly could, ignoring consumer trends and desires for greater safety and higher environmental quality and they have tried to turn government into their personal house servant instead of partnering or cooperating with the public good or basic regulation. Their arrogant culture was nakedly exposed in the press recently but that is a culture that goes back generations now. I say, if we really want a sustainable manufacturing industry in auto production, get new leadership first.
Rowdie —
Great topic, interesting discussion! Check out Zoom, The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future, by Lain Carson and Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran.

Question: Anyone know of anyone I could meet with in the Portland area to discuss the electric car and the prospects of marketing the industry in Portland. Thanks!
green geek —
What a day for Geeks! We've got Green, Renaissance, and Design!
David Miller —
frieght liner is leaving swan island why not use that plant to manufacture the new green car. I found a cheap solar power panel at Joes this weekend that will charge a 12v battery. WHY are these cars comapnies still stuck on GAS. I mean geesh I could make a car run off soloar panels, those panels would cost at most 1 grand and the motor etc.. is for sale right now on the net for under 5k. WHY are these cars not being made or something??? Get a grip plaese !!
oregon606 —
What I?d like to see in the future is a large scale conversion to small scale home sized hydrogen generation, storage, and fuel cell modular units that would enable the electric industries to ?time shift? electricity from when it is generated to when it is needed. Those units could run the home needs, refuel hydrogen cars, and store hydrogen for future emergency use.

I would like to see massive overbuilding of windmill farms to run those home units and computerization of the grid so that the home units would create and store hydrogen when the wind blows and then feed back into the grid when the time-shifted electricity is needed and the wind is not blowing.

The advantages? No toxic heavy metal batteries, less need for nuclear plants, less dirty coal burning, widely diversified and thus terrorist resistant generation and storage of both the electricity and the hydrogen, and burning hydrogen creates pure water instead of any carbon at all.

I see this as a hundred year plan, that is, it will probably take a hundred years to convert most of the energy generation, storage, and use to a hydrogen based and computerized system powered by non-polluting and no-fuel cost windmills.

Everything else pollutes horrendously, and ought to be seen as just steps towards the future and not as permanent solutions.

Windmills, hydrogen, and computers, that?s what I see.

Tom D Ford —
These last two posts are great examples of why we need new leadership within the auto industry, as well as illustrative of the ways our leaders in Washington are also stuck. It's ridiculous to think there is a panacea. That's one way in which the mainstream conversation is failing. Any one "solution" to sustainable energy and sustainable cars is, I think, bound to fail in that most, if not all, have serious negative environmental (and sometimes social) consequences. Many technologies need to be explored and developed, rather than focusing our energies on deciding which one is best and going full steam ahead with it until it fails. Kind of like ethanol - it was touted as the solution for the future. Ethanol has serious repercussions, however, and now the herd has switched track and is trying to find the one "true" direction to run in.
AidenSanders —
Your previous guest from Fords argument that we need to get old, less efficient, cars off the road to make room for new, more efficient cars fails to include in the equation the massive amount of pollution that is a byproduct of the manufacture of the new car. We aren't going to buy ourselves out of this hole.
ronmat —
Want I want is an affordable alternative fuel car or hybrid that has ALL WHEEL DRIVE. I need this to drive in the snow and ice. Surely this is necessary in much of the country.
dalles —
i wanted to convert my vehicle and researched it and was ready to go when i realized there was no pluggin for me at my apartment!

if you can not plug in you can not charge!

what is your answer?
joe-magner —
A couple of items.....How long does it take FORD to ship the cars already produced in Europe to the US?? This will show FORD they need to get going to produce then here. Retooling here is a lame excuse.DOT will need to help pass these cars here.
Smart is already producing a diesel car that gets 100 MPG and we can't get it here; only in Canada and elsewhere.
knoxxx —
Rocky Mountain Institute is very good on hydrogen.

http://www.rmi.org/
Tom D Ford —
The biggest thing is WHEN do we get to buy these electric cars????? 10 years from now?
oregon606 —
Sustainability is a very loaded word nowadays. We need to remember that we have a dying patient and the $25 billion request is primarily to sustain life through this economical chrisis. So, sustainability at this point must mean to be able to produse cars that the consumers want to buy and doing so profitably. In other words, come to terms with overproduction, a monstrous overhead, and the unions: Shrink down to the size that you can sustain! Learn to walk before starting to run.

Viking —
I think its wholly unrealistic to expect cars to just disappear altogether, that's a really idealist view. However it still blows my mind at how short-sighted US car manufacturers have been; It's not like this is a recent issue... and still as they are floundering and failing, they're putting out new models of the H3 (H3-T).. it goes to show how they're walking around with blinders on. And I wan't even go into the whole EV-1 story.
HerOdyssey —
I remember after Hurricane Katrina I saw a news story about the Detroit auto show. Instead of seeing any real innovation all I heard about was cars with MP3 players, GPS, and other gadgets. There are some areas where the car companies are good with such as navigating the legal landscape, a place that stymies the current innovators such as Tesla Motors. All the same, you can't say no one saw this coming. You can only hit "snooze" on so many wake up calls before it's too late.

ericj9 —
I think a couple of people who called in had good points, and the answers from John Viera, and Chris Warner are telling of just how little the auto industry wants to change. I was super glad to hear someone get the air car out there. It's a super little car, thats only emissions are air. here are links;

http://www.mdi.lu/english/

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_vehicle


The auto industry, to save it's self needs to read that book, "who moved my cheese?" if making cars is not profitable, then they need to make street cars. Or airships, light rail, and high speed rail systems. Cars and road have a place, but it need to be moved to the back seat of how we get around.
shamus1970 —
The big 3 are not interested in this becuase there are already tons of ideas out there. Look at the guy that made the electric car in CA that is sold for 100K. He knows what he is doing and he could of coarse if paid the right amount of money build a different type of car.
oregon606 —
There are no good reasons why US car companies are not providing today the same type of efficient cars they provide in Europe. US-made cars in Europe get much better gas mileage and this type of technology is much needed here in the US. The demand is here and it?s real here in the US. US consumers want 3 and 4 cylinder cars that get 40+ MPG, they want hybrids, they want electric cars, and they want them now. Why are US car companies so far behind the curve here in the US when the rest of the world is doing so much better at fuel efficient cars? Here?s a good example: the Citro�n C1 gets 52 MPG.
razvan6110 —
I drive a diesel which gets 45mpg and 35+ around town. I understand the pollution problems of diesel power, however diesels are cleaner now with the newest technology. In the short term diesels make a lot of sense and Europe uses a high percentage of diesel cars.
Electric is the future but I know that the coal industry wants to provide that electricity. Richard Osmun
Ozman63 —
can you comment on air on two points:
1 - Why call all-electric cars "carbon-free" when government data shows that 50 percent of electricity is generated with COAL as the fuel source (carbon-free hydro power at only about 8 percent)?
2 - If Detroit's unionized car makers appear "unsustainable", why is it that the non-unionized Toyota, Honda and BMW plants are profitable and expanding production?
bcymbala —
hi just another poster, but to comment on your post;
1. We need more wind, solar, a different style hydro-plants. every year in Portland we have millions of gallons of rain run off, why isn't anyone doing something with it besides letting it run away? Coal is huge lobbying group in DC that is why so much coal is used for electricity.
2. The auto industries unions have a lot of "pork barrel" fat to barrow from politics that need trimming. If car sells slump, then they need to made something else. Hopefully something that helps push green techno.
shamus1970 —
"2 - If Detroit's unionized car makers appear "unsustainable", why is it that the non-unionized Toyota, Honda and BMW plants are profitable and expanding production?"

The Union folks build what the companies leaders tell them to build, it is not the Unions but the Management, Board of Directors, and Stockholders that are the problems.

The US needs more and stronger Unions to fight for all workers rights.
Tom D Ford —
If you don't have the patience for Ford or Nissan to develop innovative vehicles such as a Hydrogen powered automobile and don't feel like waiting another 10 years, there are alternatives right now such as a Ford or Nissan Hydrogen automobile (retrofitted). There is a company in Salt Lake City named [url]www.intergalactichydrogen.com[/url] that sells flex fuel vehicles (gasoline, ethanol, CNG, AND/OR Hydrogen). It's not cheap by any stretch but if a two person shop can do it, my tolerance for the same auto industry excuses starts to wear thin. There is nothing that says H2 would not work with hybrid/electric technology other than the usual lack of will.

You don't need ANY research for H2 technology. H2 infrastructure development would not only get the country out of this economic mess, it would make the information technology boom pale in comparison. Sure it has its risks; everything does. Look what doing the same thing, expecting a different result is getting us...
ericj9 —
Air powered cars are real, they are safe, do a search on google or youtube, for more details.

Oregon and the nation need to make fueling stations start to offer alternative fuels. If we are serious about change, we need to start at the pumping stations.

Everyday on the roads of America people die, from auto accidents, this is wrong. We need to move away from cars as our principal means of transport.

The media need to change peoples perception's of hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, when it is burned water vapor is it's only emissions!

Airships and personal airships are a practical answer, they need no roads. We just need to change the way people see hydrogen for filling them to make it practical.

Thank you.
shamus1970 —
To see a web page on it, go to http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/312/air-powered-cars-in-america-by-2010.html
Jakeac —
Has anyone mentioned the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car"? I highly recommend it! GM had electric cars on the road in California several years ago and although I can't remember all the details, the distance and speed was fantastic, and customers were very pleased with the product. I would've bought one in a heartbeat. Instead I'm nuturing along my 92 toyota until a satisfactory electric car is on the market again. I'm so frustrated with the American car companies that I won't be buying an American car (probably) because I don't trust them with their short-sighted, technology resistant, slave to big oil CEOs. We had the technology out there, and they repossed all these cars and crushed them! We should be years ahead with this technology and I don't understand what's taking so long. It's unfortunate; I would prefer to support American workers because they shouldn't be made to suffer due to poor decisions by their CEOS. We shouldn't bail out these companies; they don't deserve it. Instead lets give the money to entrepreneurs designing new technology at home and start brand new companies. I know, not realistic.
Cynthia S —
The only reason why GM did what it did was because electric cars are a dead technology that will never catch on...ooops I guess not. There are companies/mechanics that retrofit vehicles to 100% electric power.

The big three are too big to fail and the implications are frightening to think about we should give them everything they ask for and more! Then we should seize control of the companies and replace the boards of directors and senior leadership with competent leadership. If I asked you for 100 grand to get me out of a jam, I can't expect you not to have lots of strings attached. This is unrealistic as well. $3.2 trillion (or whatever it is now) bailout dollars are at risk, The NSA can monitor our domestic communications at will, we have all the knowledge, money, technology, and need to get out of the climate/energy crisis and won't...but yes it is unrealistic...
ericj9 —
My hope is that the auto industry will expand the concept of flex fuel and hybrid vehicles to manufacture most vehicles with more on-the-road choices. For the foreseeable future we can?t and shouldn?t rely on a single energy source as a society or as individuals. Electric cars are great and an admirable industry for Oregon, IF we have clean and abundant electricity. I?ve wanted an electric car since a Harley-Davidson dealership sold them in Chicago in the 1970s; but unassisted electric is still for those who require and can afford two vehicles or don?t need hauling space. Owning two vehicles may not be an environmental choice when one flexible vehicle can do.

Hybrid vehicles, of course, should plug in, but should also be flex fuel, with ethanol enabled up to E85, at least, and perhaps other choices built in for the longer haul, as in the Salt Lake City conversion company mentioned above. People talk about cellulosic ethanol technology being the holy grail of the future, but cellulosic ethanol plants are being built now (not well known in the media but documented in industry publications such as Biomass Magazine).

The best news is that there are existing technologies (including one I represent) to convert the biomass part of garbage and other wastes to ethanol or other fuels?simultaneously saving landfill space and money without those troubling issues about using food crops and fertilizer and extra transportation fuel to produce our alternative fuels. Running our transportation on our throw-away problems?how sustainable can you get?

R. Lombard, Hillsboro
Rosemary Lombard —

150+mpg? Check. V2G capability? Check. Street Legal? Check. Made in Oregon? Yes.

We need to see more actual clean technology and less 2010 projections.

A combination electric/CAT/mico-engine vehicle that may utilize human power to net towards a zero balance is a reality, dubbed the Imagine_PS from an Oregon based HumanCar Inc. http://www.humancar.com/

What's important is this represents non-vaporware and actual practical scientific research in vehicle dynamics and alternative power methods. Right here in OR. Asia digs it.

CAT is yes
right now not 2010
Low Mass Vehicles - not 5k lb. cars
electric V2G PV mass-parking to grid to close zero net a must
let the form advance-let PRT & Syncguideway systems evolve

keep it street Oregon - keep riding your bikes





operator X —
The "Big 3" want to go bankrupt and are taking as much money on the way down as they can. They have blinders on for the simple reason that when (not if) they go down; they will be able to go non-union. They will produce the same crappy cars (smaller), put a higher profit in their pocket, and sell them for slightly less. Buy used, get a fresh motor from a crash when needed. It's called recycling.
knoxxx —

I bought an electric bike about 4 months ago. It's nice, but no panacea for all bike transportation. It's all about the batteries. I get about 10 miles on a charge and had to buy two new sealed lead acid batteries for $90 already.

Electric bikes can be carried on Max, even a Bus (if your Hercules). It works for me. I won't pay $800 for a battery pack that needs to be replaced every year ... or $3000 for a car battery that needs to be dumped every 3 years. Doesn't pencil out.

Realistically, the limitations of electric cars (and bikes) might be a niche -- perhaps 10-20% of the market -- for the near future. Still, I love my bike. It's fast, quiet and fun. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
Wireless —
Clean diesel technology is here now. We get close to 50 mpg with a CLEAN burning VW Jetta wagon. Similar cars are getting even better mileage in Europe..

Forget the idea that diesel is a dirty fuel. The exhaust from my car is not even noticeable.

And when we burn biodiesel it smells like hot french fries coming out of the tailpipe.


wagepeace —
Just because the exhaust is not noticeable, doesn't mean it's not there.
Jakeac —

Comments are now closed.



Become a sponsor