Alexander E. Farrell, one of the leading experts
on strategies and solutions for a low-carbon world, died last week at 46.

Alex was at the center of a vibrant scholarly
community of researchers and scientists and
policy experts with a global reach. He was
Professor at the University of California's
Energy and Resources Group (ERG) and was deeply
involved with the Renewable and Appropriate
Energy Lab, working closely with Prof. Daniel
Kammen and others at RAEL. For the State of
California, he was involved in the most central
research and analysis projects for the Low Carbon
Fuel Standard and AB32, and he wrote and spoke
frequently about plug-in hybrids.

He often came up with new ways of looking at
problems and results, challenging both his
colleagues and the broad advocacy community.  His
dedication inspired hundreds of students and many
more who followed his work. He style was always
to be open and to communicate complex ideas
simply and directly.  We wonder who will take on
the projects he was going to be doing.

His family has suggested that contributions be
directed to the Alex Farrell Memorial Scholarship
Fund, Energy and Resources Group, 310 Barrows
Hall, #3050, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050.


ALEX FARRELL'S HOME PAGE
http://erg.berkeley.edu/erg/people/faculty/farrell.shtml
includes a list of publications and links to his
work on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard

His most recent publication on PHEVs
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/1/014003/
was "An innovation and policy agenda for
commercially competitive plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles" by by D M Lemoine, D M Kammen and A E Farrell


MEDIA REPORTS
These give a clue to his profound impact on many people and institutions.

San Francisco Chronicle by Michael Taylor
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/19/BAOK1087DP.DTL

Michael O'Hare, a colleague and Professor at
Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/personal_moment_/2008/04/goodbyes.php

Greentechmedia blog includes comments by Felix Kramer, Daniel Sperling
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/biofuel-transportation-communities-mourn-\
uc-berkeley-researcher-814.html

Associated Press story in San Diego Union Tribune
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080418-1759-ca-obit-farrell.html


UNIVERSITY ANNOUNCEMENT & BIO
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/04/17_farrell.shtml
   Energy expert Alex Farrell has died
By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 17 April 2008

BERKELEY ­ Alexander E. Farrell, an associate
professor in the Energy and Resources Group at
the University of California, Berkeley, who
worked closely with state government over the
past year to chart a course to reduce
California's carbon emissions, died earlier this
week at his home in San Francisco. He was 46.

Alexander Farrell was a leading expert on
transportation fuels and the role of
transportation in climate change. (Jeffery Kahn/UC Berkeley photo)

Farrell, who joined the UC Berkeley faculty in
2003 and became director of the campus's
Transportation Sustainability Research Center in
2006, was recognized internationally as a leading
expert on transportation fuels and the role of
transportation in climate change. His research
interests included biofuels, hybrid electric
vehicles and hydrogen vehicles, the low-carbon
fuel standard and transportation sustainability.

"He was one of the leading lights in the area of
low-carbon fuels and energy systems, and his
career was on a dramatic rise," said colleague
Dan Kammen, a professor in the Energy and
Resources Group and of public policy who helped
recruit Farrell to UC Berkeley and co-authored
many papers with him, including a just-released
report on plug-in hybrid vehicles. "The
trajectory of his career and his contributions
were both impressive. Alex was a great mentor to
the graduate students in the group as well as to
students from across campus working on energy and sustainability."

As an example of the great demand for Farrell's
expertise, Farrell was due to testify at a
legislative hearing in Minnesota on April 15 on a
possible low-carbon fuel standard for that state, Kammen said.

Most recently, Farrell was the coordinating lead
author of a chapter on transportation for a major
study for the state on how California can
implement climate change policy through the use
of state and local policies, and on the role in
this effort of technological innovation in
transportation. This report from the state's
Economic and Technology Advancement and Advisory
Committee was submitted to the California Air Resources Board in February.

Last year, Farrell and Daniel Sperling, director
of UC Davis' Institute of Transportation Studies,
led two collaborative studies for the state
providing the first-ever blueprint for fighting
global warming by reducing the amount of carbon
emitted from transportation fuels.

"That report, commissioned by Governor
Schwarzenegger, has had a huge impact," Sperling
said. "It is being used as the basis for
California's low-carbon fuel standard and by an
expanding number of other states and countries, including the European Union."

During the preparation of those studies,
Farrell's management role, which included
consultation with constituencies ranging from
environmental and government organizations to
electricity and oil companies, was
"indispensable," Sperling said. "He was a
fabulous partner, collaborator, intellectual
leader and emerging superstar. His death is sad
and devastating personally, and professionally, it is a huge loss."

Last year, Farrell was asked to join The
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, a new
international panel of environmental, energy,
economic and cultural experts, to develop
standards by which nations and consumers can
judge biofuels and their impact on the
environment and society. According to Jason Mark,
program officer for The Energy Foundation in San
Francisco, Farrell was to be asked this week to
head a new group to develop national low-carbon
fuel standards similar to California's.

He also served on advisory committees for the
National Academy of Engineering and the National
Science Foundation and was a consultant for
various public and private organizations.

Born Jan. 1, 1962, in Miami, Fla., Farrell was
raised in New Jersey and graduated from the U.S.
Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1984 with a degree
in systems engineering. He served in the Navy as
an engineer aboard nuclear submarines from 1984
to 1989, and subsequently worked in private
industry before receiving his Ph.D. in energy
management and policy from the University of Pennsylvania in 1996.

After serving as a lecturer at the University of
Pennsylvania, he was appointed in 1997 as a
research fellow of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and then received a
year-long post-doctoral fellowship at Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government. In 1998, he joined Carnegie Mellon
University as a research engineer in the
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and
from 2001 to 2003 served as executive director of
the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center.
He became an assistant professor of engineering
and public policy at Carnegie Mellon before
joining the UC Berkeley faculty in 2003. At UC
Berkeley, Farrell also was co-director of the
Pacific Region Combined Heat and Power Applications Center.

Farrell published over two dozen peer-reviewed
papers on energy and environmental policy topics
in journals such as Science, Environmental
Science & Technology, Environmental Research Letters and Energy Policy.

"Alex was brilliant, energetic, supportive,
insightful and caring, and he had a way of
challenging his colleagues and students to think
more critically even when they thought they
already were," said Tim Lipman, a UC Berkeley
colleague and the founding research director of
the Transportation Sustainability Research
Center. "His career had reached a point where his
loss is an enormous one, not just for the Energy
and Resources Group and the transportation
center, but also for the global transportation and energy community."

Farrell is survived by his mother, Alice Farrell,
of Harrisburg, Penn.; brothers, Mark of Portland,
Ore., and Brian of Portland, Maine; his sister,
Beth Ann Connolly of Harrisburg; two nieces and a
nephew. His father, Edward R. Farrell, died in 2006.

In lieu of flowers, the family requests that
contributions in Farrell's memory be made to the
Alex Farrell Memorial Scholarship Fund, Energy
and Resources Group, 310 Barrows Hall, #3050,
Berkeley, CA 94720-3050. Please make checks out
to "Regents of the University of California."

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

In addition to the Google news below, see
http://www.calcars.org/events.html for a rundown of Earth Day-themed
and other related PHEV events, including:
Coyote Point Museum (San Mateo) April 19, Woodside Environment Fest
April 20, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business  April 26, Pacific
Coast Dream Machines Show (Half Moon Bay) April 27, 2008, Stanford
Energy Crosssroads May 1.



CalCars and a number of other nonprofit groups will benefit from the
global scope of Google to build awareness and get contributions from
people who want to do all they can to save the planet.

For Earth Day 2008, Google is encouraging its users to donate on
behalf of friends and family and support a variety of environmental
non-profit organizations -- including CalCars! Below we have the full
list of groups, and we also include below the short and longer
descriptions of CalCars that Google presents on our behalf. Funds we
receive from this program will be very welcome: CalCars remains a
largely volunteer organization because we are very short of the
resources we need to accomplish our ambitious goals. See this
donation program at http://checkout.google.com/earthday/

As you'll see, the campaign has a viral element, When you use Google
Checkout to donate on behalf of anyone you know, Google will create a
personal view of Google Maps that includes a marker representing your
donation. When the people you donate on behalf of follow your
example, their donation will be marked on the map and a line will be
drawn connecting you, showing you how your generosity spreads.

Participation requires signing up for Google Checkout. (Google also
explains: Because these non-profit organizations aren't charged fees
when receiving donations through Google Checkout, 100% of your
donation will directly to the non-profit organization.)


WHAT ELSE IS GOOGLE DOING TO SUPPORT EARTH DAY?
See Google's official blog posting, " We can't wait for Earth Day" at
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-cant-wait-for-earth-day.html
-- which also includes a link to this program and to the Google Earth
Day page at http://www.google.com/earthday08/ .



HERE'S HOW GOOGLE DESCRIBES THE PROGRAM:
See it and participate at http://checkout.google.com/earthday/
Team up with your friends and family this Earth Day

       * Use Google Checkout to donate to an environmental
organization on behalf of your friends and family.
       * We'll create a personal view of Google Maps that includes a
marker representing your donation.
       * When your friends and family follow your example and donate,
we'll mark them on your map and draw a line to connect you, showing
you how your generosity spreads.
       * Learn more.


THE GROUPS YOU CAN SUPPORT:
* Acterra * Arbor Day Foundation * California Cars Initiative * Clean
Air-Cool Planet * Earth Watch Institute * Keep America Beautiful *
The Nature Conservancy * Oceana * Rainforest Alliance * Seacology *
Trees, Water & People * Wildlife Conservation Society


SHORT DESCRIPTION OF CALCARS:
California Cars Initiative: A non-profit organization working to get
carmakers to build plug-in hybrid cars (PHEVs) in an effort to
displace fossil fuels with cleaner, cheaper electricity, using
today's technology and infrastructure.

MORE ABOUT CALIFORNIA CARS INITIATIVE
The California Cars Initiative (CalCars.org) is a Palo Alto-based
nonprofit startup of entrepreneurs, engineers, environmentalists and
consumers promoting 100+MPG plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
Somewhat uniquely, we're ourselves a hybrid, focusing both on public
policy and technology development, and harnessing buyer demand to
help commercialize PHEVs. We're building demand among highly
receptive markets to encourage auto makers to produce 100+MPG
"no-sacrifices" high-performance, clean hybrid cars. The initial goal
of CalCars was to increase awareness and support for PHEVs, to
convince major auto manufacturers to mass-produce them. Now, General
Motors has announced plans to sell PHEVs by the 2011 model year, with
Toyota and others considering that. Between now and then, CalCar's
mission is to educate consumers and policymakers to promote the broad
adoption of PHEVs, expand the number of vehicles being converted or
being built from the ground up as PHEVs, and take further steps to
motivate automakers to expand and accelerate their announce plans.
CalCars seeks your help to accomplish these goals.



WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE CONTRIBUTED TO CALCARS IN THE PAST
Your membership and donation will fund our efforts to accomplish our
goal to make PHEVs a near-term reality, thereby significantly
reducing our dependence on imported oil and reducing our nation's
greenhouse gas emissions. (See our end-of-2007 explanation of what
we'll do if with additional funds at
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/890.html ), we hope you'll go to
http://checkout.google.com/earthday/ and help now!

Thanks for all your help.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Below is news of a new milestone in the
commercilization of PHEVs: the first lawsuit
among carmmakers. As awareness of the future
market for PHEVs grows, the economic
opportunities are leading to competition -- not
only among large automakers. (For a few months in
summer '07, we had a race between GM and Toyota
about who hoped to be first, until Toyota backed
off slightly -- see http://www.calcars.org/carmakers.html )

Meanwhile, the small carmakers have an open
field. (The large carmakers make clear they're
watching closely --  GM's Bob Lutz attributes
part of his motivation to push for the Chevy Volt
to seeing his company outdistanced by Tesla.)
Before we get to the lawsuit, we note some European developments:


FISKER:  UK Auto Industry News has reported
http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/11-04-08_11
that Fisker intends to sell its Karma PHEV in
late 2009 in the US and in early 2010 in Europe.
Also see The Car Connection: http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=1150

BYD: MotorTrend reports that the Chinese BYD
(Build Your Dreams), which had previously
announced plans to deliver PHEVs to the Olympics
this summer and sell them this fall in China),
hopes to expand to Europe Here's an excerpt from
http://wot.motortrend.com/6237544/auto_news/byd_china_looking_to_build_euro_hybr\
ids_by_2010/index.html
:

       Chinese automaker Build Your Dreams (BYD)
is planning on using its experience in mobile
phone battery development to construct dual-mode,
gasoline-electric hybrid plug-in vehicles to be sold in Europe by 2010.
       Automotive News reports that company owner
Chuanfu Wang indicated at last month's Geneva
Motor Show that there is a strong potential
market for BYD's hybrid cars in Europe.  The
Chinese automaker is in negotiations with several
European car distributors for rights to the brand.
       BYD's gas-electric plug-in cars will use
ferrous battery technology that is said to allow
for an operating range of 110 kilometers, or
about 68 miles, versus the reported 20 kilometers
for the plug-in Toyota Prius, which uses lithium ion battery technology.
       This fall, BYD plans to sell their F6DM
gasoline-electric hybrid in China, followed by
the smaller F3DM hatchback hybrid.  Both cars
will carry a 5000 euro ($7800) premium over
regular gasoline versions and will have a
targeted production run of 2000 vehicles per month in 2009.
       Wang predicts the European market will
demand upwards of 2000 BYD hybrids per month and
is currently looking for locations to produce the
cars in Europe to cut production and shipping
costs.  BYD's parent group, the BYD Group,
already has battery production facilities in
Romania and Hungary and will supply ferrous batteries.


FISKER/TESLA is the big news:

At a time when Tesla has just begun shipping
small numbers of its first-generation
all-electric Roadster, some people may not know
that management has indicated it's likely the
second-generation 5-passenger vehicle, code-named
"Whitestar," will probably be a PHEV. (A "series
hybrid" -- what GM calls an EREV for electric
range extension vehicle -- in which, once the
battery is depleted, the engine runs at constant
speed to recharge the batteries, and only the
electric motor powers the wheels.)

The original reporting on Fisker's role in
designing Tesla's second generation vehicle seems
to have come from Street Import Online
http://streetimportonline.com/sio/tesla-motors-whitestar-body-originally-designe\
d-by-fisker.html
including the likelihood that the Whitestar would
come in two versions: all-electric and series PHEV, with AutoBlog Green
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/14/rumormill-fisker-designed-teslas-upcomin\
g-whitestar-sedan/
speculating that "The new sedan will start off as
a battery-only vehicle but it is being designed
to accommodate a range extended configuration as well."

Now The New York Times has details about Tesla's
lawsuit against Fisker -- the story is
below.  Earth2Tech's blog explains the Silicon
Valley alignment:
http://earth2tech.com/2008/04/15/valleys-green-car-feud-tesla-sues-fisker/
Tesla is backed by Elon Musk, VantagePoint
Venture Partners, Draper Fisher Jurvetson and
individual investors, including Jeff Skoll and
Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Fisker, on
the other hand, is backed by Kleiner Perkins
Caufield & Byers and has KP’s Ray Lane on its board.

Here's the NYT story, which may be somewhat
one-sided, since Fisker has chosen not to respond in the media.

Tesla Motors Files Suit Against Competitor Over Design Ideas
The New York Times April 15, 2008 By JOHN MARKOFF
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html

SAN FRANCISCO — Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley
maker of electric sports cars, filed suit in San
Mateo Superior Court on Monday against a
competing company and two of its employees,
saying they stole some of Tesla’s design ideas and trade secrets.

Tesla, which has generated much interest among
fans of cars and technology, recently started
shipping a two-seat electric sports car in
limited quantities. Last year it hired Henrik
Fisker, a Danish-born designer who is known for
his work on high-end exotic sports cars, to do
the body design for a four-seat sedan, code-named White Star.

The Tesla lawsuit contends that Mr. Fisker and
his chief operating officer, Bernhard Koehler,
doing business under the name Fisker Coachbuild,
fraudulently agreed to take on Tesla’s $875,000
design contract to gain access to confidential
design information and trade secrets, then
announced a competing vehicle. Last fall Mr.
Fisker founded Fisker Automotive, which is backed
by the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

The quarrel sheds a light on the insular world of
the Valley’s investors in environmentally
friendly technologies. Sergey Brin and Larry
Page, whose Google search engine was originally
backed by Kleiner Perkins, were both early Tesla investors.

Both the planned Tesla sedan and Mr. Fisker’s
recently announced Karma are meant to be hybrid
cars using a small gas engine to power a
generator that charges a battery, which in turn
powers an electric motor. The design, known as a
serial hybrid, is thought to greatly extend the
range and efficiency of hybrid vehicles.

The Tesla lawsuit states that before doing the
design work for Tesla, Mr. Fisker had no
experience with hybrid technology. It says that
he did substandard work for Tesla, essentially
sabotaging it, and then used the revenue from the
design contract to develop his company’s car.

“I think it’s ironic that Fisker chose to name
his car the Karma, when what he’s done is very
bad karma,” said Adam C. Belsky, a lawyer at
Gross, Belsky & Alonso who represents Tesla.

Calls to Fisker Automotive were not returned. A
person answering the phone at Finck & Dadras, the
San Francisco law firm representing Fisker
Coachbuild, said it was the firm’s policy not to comment on litigation.

Tesla executives said they decided not to use Mr.
Fisker’s design and were starting over on the
design for White Star when they discovered that
Mr. Fisker was going into competition with them.
The design switch caused a three- to six-month
delay in production of the car, which is now
scheduled to go on sale in 2010, the company
said. Tesla is building a factory in New Mexico to manufacture the sedan.

“It caused a slight delay in White Star because
we could not use the Fisker styling,” said Elon
Musk, chairman of Tesla. “The styling was
substandard compared to what he unveiled for his
product. He gave us an inferior work product, and it’s obvious why.”

Tesla has scrambled to come up with a new design
with some help from Lotus, the maker of the
bodies for the initial Tesla Roadster. Mr. Musk
said that he was leading the effort.

“‘I’m not really a car designer,” said Mr. Musk,
who was one of the founders of PayPal and started
SpaceX, a developer of spacecraft. “We’ll see
what people think of cars designed by me versus
Fisker; it’s the amateur versus the professional.”

The Tesla lawsuit seeks to stop Mr. Fisker from
using Tesla design documents, along with a return
of the money from the contract and unspecified punitive damages.

Having previously designed cars for BMW and Aston
Martin, more recently Mr. Fisker has modified BMW
and Mercedes-Benz luxury cars to create even more
expensive custom cars that cost as much as
$234,000. Tesla’s White Star is expected to cost
between $65,000 and $70,000. The Fisker Karma,
which is also planned for delivery in 2010, is expected to cost about $80,000.

At
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/1/8/tesla_motors_files_suit_against_competi\
tor_over_design_ideas/
you can see blogs and other reports linking to the Times story.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Coming up are three major conferences on plug-in hybrids. We have
partial details at http://www.calcars.org/events.html .
At our Events Page,  we'll also be updating our Earth Day events in
the coming days, including PHEVs participating in Santa Barbara Green
Car Show April 20
http://www.communityenvironmentalcouncil.org/events/earthday/earthdayGreenCar.cf\
m
).

WASHINGTON DC JUNE 11-12
The Brookings Institute/Google conference on Federal Plug-In Vehicles
Policy in Washington June 11-12 does not yet have a website or
agenda, so save the date.

WASHINGTON STATE MAY 8-9: REGISTER NOW
In Wenatchee (in the scenic middle of Washington State) May 8-9 is
the Fourth Annual Power UP! Electrifying Transportation Summit See
http://www.PluginCenter.com . This will include Dr. Andy Frank,
UC-Davis, Ewan Pritchard, Advanced Energy, Felix Kramer, CalCars,
Roger Slotkin, RS Management, Ltd., Victor Juarez, Electro Autos
Eficaces, Eric Leonhart, Vehicle Research Institute and
representative from Alten Energy Services and A123/HyMotion.

SAN JOSE JULY 22-24 REGISTRATION OPEN
Plug-In 2008 is the first international gathering of automotive
manufacturers, component suppliers, electric utilities, government
agencies and the environmental community. It's organized and
sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric, the Silicon Valley
Leadership Group, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Southern
California Edison and the University of California at Davis Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center.

The agenda is still in development; an early version is at
http://plugin2008.com/conf/?id=conf_agen -- check back in a week or
two for more details; CalCars will be involved both in the program
and the exposition. Registration is now open at
http://plugin2008.com/conf/?id=conf_reg and consider exhibiting at
http://plugin2008.com/expo/?id=expo_floor .

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

One of our ongoing objectives has been to position plug-in cars --
and the broad solution of electrifying transportation -- as key way
to globally reduce greenhouse gases. With some notable exceptions,
many climate crisis leaders have simply offered a laundry list of
steps that jumble together more efficient fossil fuel cars (hybrids),
impractical (hydrogen fuel cells) and misdirected (today's biofuels).
Often they justify presenting a hodge-podge by saying  "we're not
picking winners" -- at a time when existing incentives and policies
reinforce solutions that are big losers for climate change!

Below you'll find:
* What the organization Al Gore founded, The Alliance for Climate
Protection, has come up with
Related links to exchanges and comments from:
* Jeffrey Sachs, famed economist  of the Columbia University Earth Institute
* Andrew Revkin, reporter at The New York Times
* Joseph Romm of Climate Progress, energy veteran
* We end with a link to Time Magazine's devastating survey of the
unintended consequences of our nation's recent enchantment with
ethanol and a followup report in The New York Times.

BACKGROUND:
JAMES HANSEN ENDORSEMENT: Back in February 2006, we hoped recognition
of plug-ins' role would grow after PHEVs got strong backing from one
of the world's leading experts on global warming, James Hansen,
director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard
Institute for Space Studies: "The plug-in hybrid approach, as being
pursued by CalCars, seems to be our best bet for controlling vehicle
CO2 emissions in the near-term. Vehicle emissions are the greatest
challenge that we must overcome to stabilize climate."
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/282

Since then, automakers are coming around, though too slowly. Support
remains spotty among environmental groups. The CleanTech community
gets it, as do many elected officials and opinionmakers; we hope at
some point the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement
http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm will get more specific.

ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION REMAINED A QUESTION MARK: We wondered
what might emerge from the campaign Al Gore founded, the Alliance for
Climate Protection (to which he donated his Nobel Prize award). Gore
has mentioned PHEVs, and we got to talk with him about them back in
Oct 2006 http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/559.html . Since then,
we've been among those who've been waiting for the sequel to "An
Inconvenient Truth" -- solutions, beyond moderate individual steps
such as those proposed at the film's website
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_actionitems.asp .


WE CAN SOLVE IT: SO FAR STILL A QUESTION MARK
Last week, the Alliance launched http://www.wecansolveit.org , a
$300M/three-year effort to promote awareness of solutions. We welcome
the campaign and its inspiring messages, especially the ones that say
we can solve it with current technologies. Yet while recognizing it's
a work in progress, we continue to be disappointed.


GOOD PICKS: In a section called "Adoption of Renewables," the
campaign doesn't hesitate to identify the most consequential
technologies in three areas.
* POWER GENERATION: at
http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/solution/adoption_of_renewables/
we find good descriptions of a great group of solutions:
1. wind power 2. solar thermal, 3 solar photovoltaic, 4. geothermal
* ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY: at
http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/solution/enhanced_energy_efficiency/
we find:
1. Building for energy-efficiency   3. Making new appliances more
energy-efficient.

NO PICKS:
* CUTTING FUEL COSTS ON THE ROAD: Here's ACP's take:
CO2 emissions from cars and trucks account for about one-third of
all  energy-related global warming pollution in the United States.
Cars bought in the United States last year averaged only 20 miles per
gallon (mpg), which is less than half the gas mileage available on
the most efficient cars today and about the same as a 1908 Model T.
We can do better than a car introduced 100 years ago. With American
innovation and technology, we can offer all cars with much better
fuel economy and the same level of safety and features we expect. And
the opportunities are not just available for cars: heavy-duty trucks,
which transport about 60% of the goods we buy and use 39 billion
gallons of fuel every year, can also become more efficient. Effective
gas mileage standards and support for innovative technologies will
keep our transportation system moving while greatly decreasing our
environmental impact.


WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS? The subject line is about cost and the topic
is all about fuel economy. It assumes continued reliance on fossil
fuels and aims way too low. It doesn't connect with what it said
about those renewable fuels specifically described -- all of which
are electricity generators! The best way to use them is with plug-in
vehicles. What's so complicated about that? We hope that WeCanSolveIt
will take the next step and urge citizens to join the campaign to
fuel most transportation miles from electricity as soon as possible
and use car batteries to store intermittent renewable electricity.

We remain puzzled about why those who see the urgency of substantial
fossil fuel reductions in the next decade fail to make the mental
leap to promote and incentivize  transportation solutions that do
just that. Maybe the answer can be found in the following three
stories, that show illustrate the consequences of a mindset that
assumes it's just a slightly more efficient "business as usual" until
we get "breakthroughs" permitting quantum changes.


ADDITIONAL VALIDATION FOR PLUG-IN CARS & CLIMATE CHANGE:

ANDREW REVKIN: Last Sunday, Revkin, who has covered global warming
for more than two decades, wrote an "Ideas and Trends" story in The
New York Times Week in Review: "A Shift in the Debate Over Global
Warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html . The
story's four pie charts display energy losses by sector (from
Lawrence Berkeley Lab). The smaller two, industry and
residential/commercial buildings show 20% of energy lost. Electricity
generation shows 66% of energy lost -- mostly in heat from coal and
natural gas, and including up to 10% in transmission lines (refuting
common assumptions that "wheeling losses" are much higher).

The pie with the highest energy lost -- 71% -- is transportation. The
caption says it all: "Needed: lighter vehicles with more efficient
engines. Plug-in hybrids, using electricity generated from
carbon-free sources, could drastically reduce energy loss and emissions."

In the story, Revkin quotes economist Jeffrey Sachs on solutions,
including a survey of solutions and a call for "large-scale public
funding of research, development and demonstration programs." Here's
what Sachs says, followed by a rejoinder from Joseph Romm, former
Energy Department official, author of "The Hype about Hydrogen" and
"Hell and High Water."

JEFFREY D. SACHS, Earth Institute, Columbia University
Keys to Climate Protection Scientific America April, 2008
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=technological-keys-to-climate-protection-ext\
ended
Consider three potentially transformative low-emissions technologies:
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), plug-in hybrid automobiles
and concentrated solar-thermal electricity generation. Each will
require a combination of factors to succeed: more applied scientific
research, important regulatory changes, appropriate infrastructure,
public acceptance and early high-cost investments to "ride the
learning curve" to lower costs in the long term. A failure on one or
more of these points could kill the technologies.
<snip> Plug-in hybrid automobiles pose similar puzzles. Basic
questions remain about the safety, reliability and durability of the
batteries they require, as well as the need for extra investments in
the power grid to support them. Early models may have high costs,
lower convenience and uncertain performance.


JOSEPH ROMM, cited in Revkin's story, takes the opportunity in his a
must-read post at his Climate Progress blog
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/06/welcome-ny-times-readers-to-the-debate-of-\
the-decade-technology-development-vs-deployment/
to address head-on the approach implied by Revkin and Sachs, which he
says fails to recognize that today's technologies can have a major
near-term impact. (He doesn't directly respond to Sachs' "PHEV
puzzles," which have been addressed many times.) He explores the ways
those who call for breakthroughs perpetuate the status quo -- some
intentionally, most unintentionally.

Of course, the amount of Research and Development funds for renewable
energy is criminally small. Yet that's only part of the point. Romm's
posting and the comments that follow make clear that in particular,
PHEVs and solar-thermal can of course benefit from R&D -- but they
are now available for other Ds: Demonstration and Deployment. We have
only to look at the past year's contracts for solar thermal and the
announced plug-in plans of automakers to recognize that reality.

See also the many responses at Revkin's DOT EARTH blog: the first is
before the print story appeared, the second is after.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/the-technology-gap-in-the-climate-d\
ebate/#more-217
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/how-to-spark-an-energy-quest/#more-\
216


FINALLY, DON'T MISS LAST WEEK'S MAJOR DRUBBING OF ETHANOL: Time
Magazine's story spreads over the entire cover of its US and Asia
editions the headline: The Clean Energy Myth"
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080407,00.html . The title
inside is "The Clean Energy Scam: Hyped as an eco-friendly fuel,
ethanol increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food
prices. So why are we subsidizing it? The story by Michael Grunwald,
which goes beyond the conventional critique of corn ethanol to shows
how sugar ethanol leads to destructive deforestation and how
cellulosic ethanol may in some cases not be all that green, is at
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html .

Perhaps this view will become the new received wisdom -- it's quoted
in today's NYTimes column by economist Paul Krugman, "Grains Gone
Wild," who cites "the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels," and
points out, "Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining
presidential candidates are terrible on this issue." The article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html is currently
the second-most emailed story at NYTimes.com today.


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

CARB held its long-awaited meeting on the Zero
Emissions Vehicle Program on March 27. Hundreds
of advocates were there; many spoke and many more
submitted testimony. Having not been able to
attend personally, I've been piecing together the
reports and trying to understand what happened
there. Each person we talk to draws a different
conclusion: some plug-in advocates felt the
conclusion was pre-ordained, others see a gradual
recognition by the Board that we're heading for a
world of plug-in cars no matter what CARB rules.
To shortcut the process of going to the main
sources, below we're including a series of
reports and analyses, some colloquial, some
technical, to help you understand it.


BELOW:
1. CalCars Quick Take
2. CARB Board Summary (not including graphic)
3. Plug In America Statement and Legislative Proposals
4. California Electric Transportation Coalition analysis
5. Google RechargeIt Statement (not including graphic)
6. Wall Street Journal Analysis: implications for the industry
7. Links to other media reports and blogs


1. CALCARS' QUICK TAKE:
Before the event, the staff had proposed a sharp
revision downward for ZEVs from 25,000 to 2,500
during the 2012-2014 timeframe. It appeared from
media reports that most journalists did not
accept the "spin" of saying that the new 7,500
goal tripled the number of ZEVs required.
Instead, they recognized it as a 60% decrease in
the goal. In light of the volume of vehicles we
can expect well before then, from Tesla, Think
Global, Nissan, Mitsubishi and others, this was an inexcusable step backward.

PHEV advocates looked at the new "Silver Plus"
category for PHEV credits and saw this as helping
to give the message to carmakers that government
agencies would be incentivizing PHEvs.

On CalCars' behalf, Senior Adviser Randy
Reisinger delivered a short statement,
specifically saying that we support the positions
of Plug In America, urging a level playing field
rather than the continued unbalanced incentives;
retaining the 25,000 goal and accelerating the
schedule from 2012-2014, creating a separate
category for PHEVs, with credits taken from the
highest-emission vehicles in CARB's regulations,
rather than the cleanest ZEVs, and providing
higher incentives for vehicles that deliver more electric miles.


2. OFFICIAL SUMMARY BY AIR RESOURCES BOARD
The Board's summary and updated fact sheet are at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm

Preliminary Summary of Air Resources Board Action (3/27/08)
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program

- Keep unchanged the requirement that vehicle
manufacturers produce at least 25,000 ZEVs during
2012-14, and 50,000 ZEVs from 2015-17.
- Increase flexibility by providing a new option
to the above requirements.  The new option allows
manufacturers in 2012-14 to produce a greater
number of plug hybrid electric vehicles (58,000)
or similar vehicles if 7,500 pure ZEVs are also
produced. In 2015-17 25,000 pure ZEVs would be
required if this option is taken.
- Depending on which option is taken, the range
of vehicles expected to be produced in 2012-14
will be 25,000 to 66,000.  The previous requirement was 25,000.
- Increase the credit for long range FCVs from 5
to 7 credits and redefine long range to 300 miles.

[see PDF for numerical table and footnotes]

- Redesign the ZEV program by the end of 2009 so
it will affect the 2015+ model years.  The
redesign should place the bronze requirement
(super-clean conventional vehicles) in the LEV
program to further reduce smog emissions, the
silver requirement (regular hybrids such as the
Prius, and natural gas vehicles) in the Pavley
program to reduce GHG emissions in the near term,
and greatly strengthen the gold requirement to
meet the need of moving advanced, low GHG
technology vehicles from the laboratory and
demonstration phase to commercialization, where
they are critical to achieving the Governor's GHG emission reduction goals.
- Make the credit banks of manufacturers fully
transparent, including trades, beginning in model year 2010.
- Do not revise the Intermediate Volume
Manufacturer transition, which provides six years
lead time before becoming subject to the ZEV
requirements for a large volume manufacturer.

In the 15 day comment period,
o Consider additional credit for plug HEVs that
can drive the US06 cycle on electricity.  One to
three tenths of a credit is the possible change.
o Review the comments of the Union and Concerned
Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (March 26, 2008) regarding potential
changes to the regulations, and propose revisions
in the 15 day process if appropriate.
o Consider applying a multiplier to battery
electric vehicle credits earned in 2009-11 that
are used to meet non-gold obligations for
Intermediate Volume Manufacturers, in order to
assure there is not a disincentive to produce gold vehicles.

Other actions:
o Develop a program which would assure the
availability of alternative fuels needed by
ZEVs.  Return to the Board with regulations, as appropriate.
o Consider in the redesign of the program the
metric for determining performance of plug HEVs
(electric range vs usable battery energy).



3. PLUG IN AMERICA
PIA http://www.pluginamerica.com/ led the
campaign to strengthen the ZEV Mandate, You can
read its response to the staff recommendations
(which CalCars endorsed) at
http://www.pluginamerica.com/PIA_ISOR_Response.pdf
.  Below are its press statement and its policy
memo (both available at
http://www.pluginamerica.com/press.shtm in html and PDF):

PLUG IN AMERICA  PRESS STATEMENT
California Regulators Eviscerate Clean-Car Mandate Again -- a 70% Drop

March 27, 2008: Today the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) revised its Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) Program, eliminating 70% of
previous requirements to produce zero-emission vehicles in 2012-2014.

Plug In America calls on California legislators
to take over the charge of a pollution-free
future in the wake of air regulators' shameful
weakening of the ZEV Program. CARB voted to
require automakers to produce only 5,357
zero-emission vehicles in 2012-2014 while it
considers a major overhaul of all clean-car
regulations in the state. The new regulations
require less than an average of 297 zero-emission
vehicles per year per automaker, which is a 70%
drop from the previous regulations, and results
in a loss of at least 18,000 plug-in hybrids in the same period.

Plug In America's efforts over the past several
years to educate CARB staff and its members
produced several minor improvements in CARB's
revision of the ZEV Program. Plug In America
supporters added their influence in recent weeks,
during which citizens from all 50 U.S. states and
20 other countries contacted CARB and California
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, clamoring for cars that can run on electricity.

Highlights of today's revisions to the ZEV Program include:

* CARB rejected the staff's proposal to shrink
the number of ZEVs required of automakers in
2012-2014 from 25,000 down to 2,500 vehicles, and
instead set the target at 5,357 vehicles -- an
improvement from the low numbers staff proposed,
yet only 70% of current regulations.

* CARB continued its favoritism toward
million-dollar hydrogen vehicles over more
realistic battery electric vehicles. Under the
new regulations, automakers would have to make at
least two battery electric vehicles to get the
same credits as one hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle --
which dissuades automakers from producing the
battery-electric vehicles that consumers would
like to drive. CARB gives more credit for the
least viable technology -- hydrogen -- at the
expense of more affordable, technologically ready battery electric vehicles.

* CARB heard our demand for full transparency in
reporting how automakers meet the regulations, so
that the public can verify compliance.

Plug In America's campaign brought national
attention to the demand for vehicles that run on
cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity. At the
group's request, former CIA Director R. James
Woolsey testified at the CARB meeting on the
wastefulness of diverting resources to hydrogen
fuel-cell programs and the need to get plug-in
cars on the road soon in order to reduce U.S.
dependence on oil and to increase national
security. Former Secretary of State George Shultz
and former Deputy Under Secretary of Education
Peter R. Greer, both of whom served under
President Ronald Reagan, wrote to Gov.
Schwarzenegger imploring him to help get more electric vehicles on the market.

"As the only organization truly focused on
battery electric vehicles, we brought electric
cars back into the debate by bringing our
concerns to the CARB staff and board, and to the
press and the public," said Plug In America Executive Director Chelsea Sexton.

"We've got more to do," she added. Plug In
America will seek legislative assistance to close
the gaps in CARB's plan. "Judicious use of the
$120 million per year to be allocated under AB118
for the commercialization of alternative fuels
and efficient vehicle technologies could help
jump-start the drive toward plug-in vehicles that
stalled with CARB at the wheel today."

Plug In America, a non-profit, advocates the use
of plug-in vehicles powered by cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.

PLUG IN AMERICA  POLICY MEMO
Legislative Steps Needed Toward Zero-Emission Vehicles
Today the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
revised its Zero Emission Vehicle Program and
weakened the state's drive toward affordable, gasoline-free cars.

March 27, 2008: Plug In America today calls on
California legislators to take over the charge of
a pollution-free future in the wake of air
regulators' shameful weakening of the ZEV
Program. CARB voted to require automakers to
produce only 5,357 zero-emission vehicles in
2012-2014 (fewer than an average of 397
zero-emission vehicles per year per automaker,
and a 70% drop from the previous regulations)
while CARB considers a major overhaul of all
clean-car regulations in the state.

California State Legislators can help fill the
gap while CARB deliberates. Plug In America calls
on lawmakers to take the following actions:

* Fund creation of a Battery Electric Vehicle
Partnership, similar to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Partnership, to promote electric cars and plug-in hybrids.

"Electrification of the vehicle fleet is the only
way the state will meet its 2020 and 2050 goals
for greenhouse gas reduction," said Plug In
America Executive Director Chelsea Sexton. This
transition could be accelerated by providing
incentives for consumers and vehicle
manufacturers and by setting standards for
vehicle fleets. Both of these strategies can be
accomplished through judicious use of AB118
funds, which include $120 million/year to be
allocated toward commercialization of alternative
fuels and efficient vehicle technologies.

* Pass legislation to require both public and
private fleets to buy efficient vehicles that
save money in the long run. Like compact
fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), the up-front cost
is higher, but greater efficiency guarantees cost
savings in the long run. Push fleets to follow
the cost-efficient path, and offer financial
assistance in the early years, if needed, as
fleet owners adjust to the new regulation.

* Provide state assistance (perhaps some of the
AB118 funds) to partner with either consumers or
automakers and remove some of the risk associated
with state-of-the-art car batteries. State
regulations require a 15-year or 150,000-mile
warranty on hybrid batteries. Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles can get 100+ miles per gallon
using newer lithium-ion batteries, but these
batteries have not been on the market long enough
to meet the current 15-year warranty, which is
delaying introduction of plug-in hybrids. The
state could offer an "insurance" program for
batteries beyond the first 7 years of use at very
little financial risk to the state, giving
automakers and consumers the confidence to move
forward. The program could sunset in a few years
once the longevity of lithium batteries is established.

* Shift funding from programs to establish
hydrogen fueling stations to programs
incentivizing battery electric vehicles and
plug-in hybrids. Hydrogen fuel-cell cars will not
be commercialized for decades, if ever, and so
won't be ready in time to deal with global
warming, while plug-in vehicles could be
commercialized today. Funds currently being spent
on hydrogen are a waste in this regard,
especially in a period of state budget
limitations, because they weaken the state's
ability to move toward more-viable plug-in vehicles.

"Plug In America looks forward to working with
California legislators to support the development
of electric-drive vehicles" in order to help the
state meet its goals of reducing greenhouse
gases, reducing air pollution, and reducing petroleum use," Sexton said.

Plug In America, a non-profit, advocates the use
of plug-in vehicles powered by cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.


4.  CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION COALITION ANALYSIS
CalETC develops and analyzes policies for many of
the state's major utilities. It's been a
long-time supporter of PHEVs. This is a report by
its Executive Director, Dave Modisette, one of a
handful of people outside the Air Resources Board
who fully understands the "ZEV credits maze,"
gets very specifc and numerical quickly.

CALETC HIGHLIGHTS:
A.  Compliance flexibility so that major
automakers make small but significant numbers of
PHEVs by 2012 with incentives for them to make
them earlier.  There are also incentives for
"stronger" PHEVs that have more all-electric range.

B.  A re-design of the ZEV program next year,
with conventional hybrids and gasoline vehicles
moving out of the program, leaving only "Gold"
vehicles, which will be defined as BEV, FCV, and
PHEVs (note PHEVs into gold).  Direction from the
Board is that the re-designed program has to be
at least as stringent as proposed in the staff
report, which in the 2015-2017 timeframe was is
25,000 FCVs or BEVs (minimum) and 83,000 PHEVs.

C. Getting automakers to work on BEVs again and
produce small numbers.  Some companies have
already announced BEV product plans.

CALETC DETAIL:

What happened at the ARB hearing today on
ZEVs?  As with everything ZEV, it's complex.  So let me try to translate it:

The newspaper reports tomorrow will say that the
Board cut the pure-ZEVs by 70% in the 2012-2014
timeframe, from 25,000 FCVs down to 7,500 (or
lower for some FCVs).  This is technically
correct but there is much more too this.  And the
7,500 figure is about 3 times higher than the
staff proposal of 2,500 FCVs during this time period.

1.  The ARB Board agreed to a "complete overhaul"
of the ZEV program, going forward.  This probably
means beginning with the 2015 year.  They
directed staff to develop this proposal by the
end of next year.  This would incorporate the 3
goals of: GHG reduction; criterial pollutant
reduction; and petroleum reduction.  So this is
good for us because electricity gets large
reductions in all three of these categories.
Sperling proposed, and the Board adopted, the
general framework of: (1) Bronze (PZEV) vehicles
get spun out of ZEV and into the LEV III
proceeding dealing with general criterial
pollutant reduction standards for all
automobiles; (2) Silver (ATPZEV) vehicles get
spun out of ZEV and into the AB 1493 (Pavley)
regs for GHG reduction; and (3) what is left in
Gold (pure-ZEV) would be BEVs, FCVs, and
PHEVs.  Note that they have relented and are
agreeing to put PHEVs into Gold.  So the new ZEV
category would be just these 3 technologies. The
goal of the new ZEV program, according to the
Board,  would be to be as aggressive as in the
staff proposal, which in the 2015-2017 timeframe
was 25,000 FCVs or BEVs (minimum) and 83,000 PHEVs.

2.   As mentioned above, the ARB Board increased
the number of pure-ZEVs (gold) vehicles during
the 2012-2014 timeframe from the staff-proposed
number of 2,500 (FCVs) to 7,500, but the actual
number of vehicles varies by type (as explained
below).  The Board also agreed to increase
credits for FCVs that get 300+ miles range, up
from 4 credits for a FCV that gets less than 200
miles range (and probably now changed to less
than 300 miles range), to 7 credits (wow!) for an
FCV that gets 300 miles range or more.  So if
OEMs made all of their pure gold requirements
(7,500 vehicles) in FCVs with 300 miles range
they would only have to make 5,357 FCVs (still a
lot).  And if you want to know about the other
eligible vehicles in this category, if OEMs made
all Full Full Function BEVs (over 100 mile range;
Type 2) to meet this pure gold requirement it
would be about 12,500 BEVs.  If all BEVs with
75-99 range (Type 1.5) it would be 14,800
vehicles.  If all BEVs with 50-74 miles range
(type 1) it would be 18,750 vehicles.   And if
all FCVs will less than 300 miles range, the
number would probably be around 9,375.

So what does this all mean?  I think it probably
means that OEMs will try to figure out how many
FCVs they would have to make if they could make
ones that got over 300 miles range (and get the
large 7 credits per vehicle).  If these are too
expensive, then I think they might go to some or
all BEVs for compliance.  We have already heard
that Nissan will probably go all BEVs for
compliance.  So the upshot here may be that we
get some pure BEVs that we may not have been expecting.

3.  One consequence of the way the ARB staff has
proposed to treat the "Enhanced ATPZEV" vehicles
(which is assumed to be PHEV) is that they are
"backfill" to the pure ZEV numbers; so if pure
ZEV is increased as the Board directed, than
Enhanced ATPZEV is automatically decreased. And
this is what appears to be happening with the ARB
adopted proposal: Enhanced ATPZEV in 2012-2014
went from 75,000 PHEVs (approx blended 20 mile
EAER; 1.5 credits per vehicle) to 58,333.   So
this is a decrease of about 16,667 PHEVs over this 3 year period.

4.    The ARB Board also voted to increase
credits for PHEVs that can meet the federal US 06
driving cycle test using all electric range alone
(like the Chevy Volt).  The Board also voted to
leave the requirements intact for automakers that
are "Intermediate Volume Manufacturers", and not
give them any additional breaks.  And the Board
voted to include credit trading information in
the ZEV credit information to be made public in 2010.

5.  Where do things go from here?  ARB staff will
re-write the proposed regulations based upon the
Board's decision today, and issue the new draft
regulations for "15-day comment".  Just like it
sounds, parties will have 15 days to comment (in
writing) on the new draft regs.  Based upon these
comments, ARB will either modify the draft (and
then submit the modified regulations for another
15-day comment period), or finalize the regs and
submit them to the Office of Administrative Law for review.


5. GOOGLE.ORG'S RECHARGEIT ANALYSIS

California Air Resources Board Hearing on the ZEV Program
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 2:33 PM
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/04/california-air-resources-board-hearing.ht\
ml
Posted by Adam Borelli, Adam Smith, Alec
Proudfoot, and Rolf Schreiber, RechargeIT Team

On March 27th the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) met to discuss the Zero Emission Vehicle
(ZEV) Program. Prior to last Thursday's meeting,
members of our RechargeIT Team met with each
Board Member, submitted a public comment, and
posted a blog post to inform the public and key
stakeholders that we feel the ZEV Program is key
policy to the deployment of less polluting
vehicles and has a few areas where we recommend
some improvements. Adam Smith, our Steward for
Good Energy, also gave a presentation at the meeting on our position.

This post is just a first response to last week's
hearing - please look for more information as we
continue to sort out the details. Google.org is
largely supportive of CARB's decision. CARB was
right in increasing the floor of pure ZEVs --
battery electric and fuel cell vehicles --
compared to the Staff recommendations, by adding
plug-in hybrids to to mix, and by revamping the
entire ZEV Program. Next year CARB plans to vote
on simplifying the ZEV program to focus it on
pure ZEVs and plug-in hybrids for the 2015 model
year and beyond, while moving the maturing
technologies of regular hybrids and PZEVs to the
Pavley II and LEV III programs.

The Outcome (in brief)
1. Decrease number of ZEVs by 70% to 7,500
2. Create a new category for PHEVs with 10 mile
all electric range and require automakers sell 58,333
3. Create automaker credit transparency
4. Travel provision modifications made; we are not sure what they are yet
5. Overhaul ZEV Program after 2014

The following is an overview of the program, its
history and changes for the period under
discussion -- 2012 to 2014 -- at the CARB
hearing. We want to preface this table by saying
that we are not 100% clear on the precise
decision that CARB made on Thursday, but we will
clarify and comment on the exact decision once
the meeting transcript is available. Until then,
we wanted to be sure to share the outcome, as we
understood it, with you. It is challenging to
display all the information we want in this
table, especially with the "ZEV Program Prior to
March 27, 2008". In this column, the "Pure Zero
Emission Vehicles" only addresses what is called
the Alternative or Alt Path. This is a pathway
for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles, but not BEVs or PHEVs.

[See original URL for graphic table]

Dan Sperling, a Board Member, proposed that the
ZEV Program be broken into the three different
programs after 2014: LEV III for the current
bronze or PZEV vehicles, Pavley II for the PHEVs,
and the ZEV Program for FCVs and BEVs. This
structure will be proposed by Staff by the end of 2009.

[also see
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/03/californias-zev-program.html
for recommendations before the hearing]



6. WALL STREET JOURNAL
This report by one of the leading automotive
journalists, which we expect  will appear in the
Tuesday print edition of the newspaper, calls the
PHEV campaign "a victory for the technological
insurgents who pushed the plug-in concept over
Detroit and Nagoya's objections." Who could ask
for more recognition of the impact of the PHEV campaign on the auto industry.

EYES ON THE ROAD
By JOSEPH B. WHITE -- Senior Editor, Wall Street Journal April 7, 2008
Getting All the Carbon Out of Cars
California's Embrace of Plug-in Hybrids Shows How Hard Zero Emissions Really Is
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120733236876290335.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Plug-in hybrid cars, once the domain of tech
enthusiasts and tinkerers, just got a big boost
toward the mainstream from the State of California.

But the latest move by the state's regulators to
push plug-in hybrids into the market also
highlights the difficulty of taking all of the carbon out of cars.

CAPTION: A Toyota Prius modified to be a plug-in hybrid [by Hymotion]

Plug-in hybrids, essentially gas-electric cars
modified to run in all electric mode for a
significant portion of a daily commute, have made
the journey from the auto industry's fringes in
near record time. Just a couple of years ago,
Toyota Motor Corp. was discouraging people from
modifying its Prius hybrids so that the batteries
could be recharged from a wall outlet. Other car
makers dismissed plug-ins as the answer to the
question: "How could anyone make a gas-electric
hybrid more impractical and costly?"

Then, gas prices shot up, consumers began
clamoring for better fuel efficiency, and minds
began to open. General Motors Corp. got such an
enthusiastic response to a plug-in hybrid show
car called the Chevy Volt, that it decided to put
the car into production ­ and feature it heavily
in advertising. Toyota's engineers remain wary of
the potential technical problems of the
lithium-ion batteries needed to make a plug-in
hybrid go. But Toyota decided to go with the
flow, announcing it plans to field a test fleet
of plug-in hybrids by 2010 for tightly controlled use in fleets.

Readers, over to you: Has California made the
right decision in pushing for plug-in hybrids
instead of true zero-emission cars? Discuss.
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=2029&autoredirect=true&sid=71e58def09b\
d88ee4974b9b4e7a3702e
In addition to discussion, here's how the poll
looked from responses Sunday night-Monday morning:
POLL: Total Votes : 235
Has California made the right decision in pushing
for plug-in hybrids instead of true zero-emission cars?
110     (46%) Yes, plug-ins are good enough.
    79    (34%) No, they took a shortcut.
    46    (20%) Who cares? I'm not giving up on gasoline.


Last week, California's Air Resources Board,
which sets clean air and auto emissions rules for
the state, declared that by 2012-2014, they want
the "Big Six" car makers to produce at least
58,333 plug-in hybrid vehicles, along with up to
7,500 "pure zero-emission vehicles" --
essentially fuel-cell vehicles or hydrogen fueled
combustion cars such as the BMW Hydrogen 7 -- or
12,500 battery-electric vehicles with a range of
at least 100 miles. (Read summary PDF)

This decision to anoint plug-in hybrids as an
acceptable alternative to pure zero-emission
vehicles dismayed some environmental groups. But
it satisfied some car makers -- mainly GM and
Toyota -- because now they can concentrate on the
plug-in models they already have in development.
(Car makers such as Ford Motor Co., Honda Motor
Co. and Nissan Motor Corp. which haven't put much
focus on plug ins could face a challenge, or
could comply with fuel cell and all-electric vehicles.)

So mark down a victory for the technological
insurgents who pushed the plug-in concept over
Detroit and Nagoya's objections. But it's a long way from the end of the war.

Even if car makers produce nearly 66,000 advanced
technology vehicles by the 2012-14 deadline (and
they have blown all the previous deadlines) the
number of clean-technology cars on the road will
be a rounding error against California's total
population of vehicles, which is nearly 20 million cars and trucks.

There are more unanswered questions. Where will
car makers get hydrogen for fuel cell or hydrogen
internal-combustion vehicles? How will the state
manage the surge in electricity demand if plug-in
hybrid owners recharge their cars during the peak
daytime and evening hours? Will someone develop a
payment system that would allow someone to
plug-in a car at a friend's house without
sticking the friend with the tab? What if it
turns out that plug-in hybrids really aren't a
great idea -- because the battery technology
required doesn't get perfected, for instance?

California regulators acknowledged their own
uncertainty about how best to proceed in their
quest for clean cars by directing their staff to
consider a potentially wide-ranging revamp of
their zero-emission vehicle program by the end of next year.

California's drive for clean air has had an
enormous effect on the auto industry during the
past 30 to 40 years. Appalled by the thick smog
that enveloped the Los Angeles basin during the
1960s and 1970s, California effectively became a
sovereign nation when it comes to automotive
regulation. California demanded that auto makers
act to dramatically reduce the soot, oxides of
nitrogen and other pollutants that contributed to
the state's foul air. When auto makers complained
that they didn't have the technology to meet the
state's demands, California told them to quit whining and invent it.

Which the auto makers did, and they have
continued to do. The average new vehicle is now
98% cleaner, in terms of smog-forming emissions,
than it was in 1963, because of the broad
application of catalytic converters and more
efficient fuel and combustion management
technology. The transformation of cars into
four-wheeled computers is an evolution for which
you can largely thank (or blame) California's
refusal to take Detroit's no for an answer.

General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz introduces
the Chevrolet Volt electric concept at the North
American International Auto Show in January 2007.

The number of dangerous smog alerts in Southern
California has dropped to just one or two year,
compared to roughly 180 days a year in the
mid-1970s, says Gennet Paauwe, a spokeswoman for
the California Air Resources Board, the state's
main clean air regulator. California's
achievement has made it a model for environmental
policy around the world. Representatives of
China's big, smog-choked metropolises are
reaching out to California regulators for advice.

But now, California is wrestling with a far more
difficult challenge, somewhat akin to getting
that last 1% or 2% of caffeine out of a cup of coffee.

Last week's embrace of plug-in hybrids was, in
effect, part of a long retreat from the state's
original, 1990 goal that 10% of the cars sold in
California by 2003 would be zero emissions vehicles.

Scrubbing 98% of the noxious by-products out of a
car's stream of exhaust gases was tough.
Eliminating entirely the contribution cars make
to the load of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
requires far more than forcing the installation
of traps and filters and fuel injectors. It
requires a ground up transformation of the
concept of personal mobility, as well as
substantial investments in fueling infrastructure
and, perhaps, power generation that go well beyond America's big auto makers.



7. OTHER MEDIA REPORTS (WE MISSED MANY OTHERS)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/california-air.html
Green Car Congress provides an excellent overview

http://www.evworld.com/general.cfm?page=insider&title=INSIDER%20COMMENTARIES
EVWorld Insider Commentary by Bill Moore (subscription required)

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/the-california.html
California Cuts ZEV Mandate In Favor of Plug-In Hybrids
Wired Blog By Chuck Squatriglia

http://blogs.edmunds.com/GreenCarAdvisor/344?@151.2gVkcjVfxtu@
California ZEV Rule Revised, To Satisfaction of Few
Edmunds Green Car Advisor  By John O'Dell, Senior Editor

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aHghe3yr_lpU&refer=japan
California Auto-Emissions Plan Favors Plug-In Hybrids (Update1)
Bloomberg News By Alan Ohnsman

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/03/on_reducing_zer.html
On Reducing Zero Emission Vehicles in California, What's Up With This?
Callifornia Progress Report By Alan Kandel

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

The most global environmental group has just
released a milestone report, "Plugged-in: the End
of the Oil Age." It's written by an oil industry
insider who I see as having come over from the
"dark side." It concludes that the
electrification of transportation is a way out
from our 95 per cent reliance on liquid fossil fuels.

REPORT'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: We have long been
surprised that, compared to other constituencies,
much of the global environmental community has
been slow to recognize the benefits and near-term
practicality of plug-in cars. We hope this report
will help move them forward. We encourage our
readers to forward this email to organizations of which they are members.

ABOUT WWF: It's still known in the US and Canada
as the World Wildlife Fund, but since 1986
everywhere else it's The World Wide Fund for
Nature. With its panda logo, Wikipedia says it's
"the world's largest independent conservation
organization with over 5 million supporters
worldwide, working in more than 90 countries,
supporting 15,000 conservation and environmental
projects around the world."  WWF says it
"proposes solutions to stop the degradation of
planet’s natural environment and to build a
future in which humans live in harmony with
nature. Combatting climate change and reducing
threats to biodiversity on land and sea are among
the key priorities for WWF’s work." The
organization, headquartered in Switzerland, has a
decentralized structure, and works with
governments, corporations and non-governmental
organizations globally -- so its endorsement is
very significant. (If "environment" doesn't come
to mind when you hear "WWF," it now should: after
a legal battle several years ago, the Worldwide
Wrestling Federation changed its name to World Wrestling Entertainment -- WWE.)

ABOUT THE REPORT AND ITS AUTHOR: We encourage you
to download the entire 202-page report, not just
the summary and read most or all of it. (You'll
see why when you look at the full table of
contents at end end of this post.) It's a very
broad evaluation of the entire range of fuel and
societal options. It's illuminating and
entertainingly written. It doesn't read like a
study put together by a committee, but rather by
an expert who is not afraid to combine careful
analysis with entertaining color and real
emotion. Here's how the press release describes
the report's principal author, who held a range
of positions at Exxon-Mobile and now works out of the European Policy Office:
Dr Gary Kendall is Senior Energy Business and
Policy Analyst for the WWF Global Climate Change
and Energy Programme based in Brussels.  He
joined WWF in 2006 after nine years in the
petroleum industry in Europe and Asia.  He holds
a PhD in Physical Chemistry from the University of Liverpool.

SURPRISING/LITTLE KNOWN INFORMATION: In addition
to its analysis, it brings together much that
hasn't been broadly seen or understood. My
favorite example, which demonstrates the
challenge the world faces in evolving to
low-carbon solutions: report page 25 (PDF page
27) is a page I've printed out to show people anytime. Here's the caption:
Figure 5: The ranking of the top fifty global
corporations by revenue in 2006 shows the
economic dominance of petroleum-based automotive
transport. Nine of the top ten and nineteen of
the top fifty companies operate in either
"Petroleum Refining" or "Motor Vehicles,"
contributing 46% of revenue. (Data source: Fortune Magazine)


DOWNLOADS: The report is currently highlighted on
the WWF home page http://www.panda.org
* Plugged-in: The end of the oil age - Full report [pdf, 1.90 MB]
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/plugged_in_full_report___final.pdf
* Plugged-in: The end of the oil age - summary [pdf, 618 KB]
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/plugged_in_summary.pdf

WWF'S PAGE DESCRIBING THE REPORT: Cars should plug-in to a new future: WWF
http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=129321

CAPTIONS (third photo shows a CalCars 100+MPG PHEV):
-New analysis from WWF shows that the alternative
to a 95 per cent reliance on polluting, climate
damaging and insecure liquid fuels is already here
-The dirtier, more energy intensive and climate
damaging future of liquid fuels - extracting oil sands in Canada
-More efficient and more climate friendly -
hybrid electric vehicles win on both counts even
with majority fossil fuelled electricity grids
and will only get better as more renewable energy
sources are used for power generation.
-From electric cars to electric vehicles -
scooters, bicycles and personal transporters are adding new options to mobility

Gland, Switzerland / Brussels, Belgium:
Dramatically expanded use of plug-in electric and
hybrid vehicles would be a way to a transport
future that doesn't risk climate catastrophe,  a
major new WWF analysis has found.

Such a move would also reduce the risk of
conflict over less oil more and more concentrated
in relatively unstable areas of the world.

Plugged In: The End of the Oil Age considers the
future of a transport sector now 95 per cent
dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels and
examines the impacts and practicalities of
electric, coal-to-liquid, gas-to-liquid, natural
gas and hydrogen powered transport for the future

It finds that vehicles running solely or partly
on grid-connected electricity are more efficient
and less greenhouse gas intensive than all
alternatives, even with most power now being generated using fossil fuels.

The report also finds that cleaner power
generation and more use of renewable fuels in
power generation will make it certain that the
comparative efficiency and pollution advantages
of plug-in transport will improve into the
future, while the future of liquid fuels is one
of increasing resort to dirtier sources that will
take more energy to turn into fuels.

“We should all be relying more on walking and
biking, on buses and trains, to get to where we
need to go. But cars will inevitably remain a
major part of the transport equation," said James
Leape, Director General of WWF International.

"The cars of the future must be much more
efficient -- smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic
-- and they should, increasingly, be powered by electricity,”

As oil becomes more difficult to access,
techniques to create liquid fuels from coal are
now being vigorously pursued in the US, China,
India, Australia and South Africa.

“Coal-to-liquid fuels are costly, energy
intensive and extremely polluting, and have
previously only been used on any significant
scale in countries facing a state of emergency,”
said report author Dr Gary Kendall.

Other alternatives to traditional oil extraction
include exploitation of oil sands, which
generates three times the emissions of petroleum
processing and causes devastation to the local
environment.  Natural gas suffers from similar
looming supply uncertainties to oil and makes its
greatest beneficial climate impact by displacing
coal in heat and power generation.

The report also finds that the electric vehicles
can be three times more efficient than
hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.  More importantly
perhaps, electric vehicles can be widely
introduced using existing technologies and distribution infrastructure.

“Automotive transport is ripe for
transformation,” said Dr Kendall. “We need to
accelerate the commercialisation of vehicles with
diversified primary energy sources, high
efficiency and compatibility with a sustainable,
renewable energy future. The electrification of
automotive transport offers a promising way to achieve this objective.”

To do so, the report recommends dismantling
market barriers to superior technologies and
removing a host of hidden and overt subsidies to
liquid fuel use. Vehicles should be subject to
similar energy labelling and efficiency
improvement requirements as other
energy-consuming appliances. Liquid-based
measures of fuel economy (e.g. litres per 100km
or miles per gallon) and CO2 emissions targets
should be replaced with technology-neutral
indicators of energy consumed per kilometre.

“We cannot depend upon today’s dominant transport
solution providers to drive the shift away from
liquid hydrocarbon fuels,” Dr Kendall
said.  “Other business sectors – such as power
utilities for instance – will come to the fore in
recognizing the business opportunities of grid-connected transport.

“But ultimately, leadership on moving to the best
transport fuel mix will need to come from governments."


PLUGGED IN TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 6
PREFACE 7

PART I CONTEXT 15
Lessons from History 16
Wonderful Crude Oil 17
Transport Equals Oil 19
Oil Equals Power 24
Oil Security 27
High Oil Prices and Their Effects 29
Peak Oil 32
The Rise of National Oil Companies 33

PART II  OIL, TRANSPORT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 37
Structure of the Oil Industry 39
Oil versus Transport 41
A Boost for Renewables? 42
Core Business 47
Unconventional Oils 48
Oil Sands 50
Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) 55
Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) 58
The Convergence of Transport and Power 64

PART III  A DIFFERENT ROAD 67
The End of the ICE Age 67
Escaping Lock-in 68
Transformational Change 70
Disruptive Technologies 72
The Great American Streetcar Scandal 74
“Beyond Petroleum” 75
The China Factor 76
250 Million Vehicles 76

PART IV THE ELECTRIC POWERTRAIN 79
Life-cycle Analysis 79
Electrons versus Liquids 82
CO2 Emissions 86
Resource Efficiency 91
Stationary Emissions 97
Technology Options 98
Limitations of Battery Electric Vehicles 98
The Rise of the Hybrid 104
The Ultimate Flexible Fuel Vehicle 107
A Boost for Renewables? 110
Grid-Connected Vehicles in Practice 112
Battery Electric Vehicles 112
Plug-in Hybrids 116
Fuelling the Plug-in 120
Residual Liquid Demand 120
How Much New Electricity? 122
Electricity is Not Just for Cars 125
Electric Buses, Trucks, and Vans 125
Electric Two-wheelers 127

PART V OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUELS 129
Hydrocarbon Gases 130
Liquefied Petroleum Gas 130
Compressed Natural Gas 131
Growth and Dependency 132
Oil Companies and the Hydrogen Highway 133
Blinkered to the Range of Solutions 135
The Hydrogen Car is an Electric Car 136
The Hydrogen Economy 137
Hydrogen Production 138
Hydrogen Distribution and Storage 141
Hydrogen Fuel Cells 142
Well-to-Wheel Comparison of Fuel Cell and Plug-in Electric Vehicles 143
Hydrogen in Internal Combustion 147
The Hydrogen Future 147

PART VI HOW TO GET THERE 151
Policy Options 151
Picking winners? 152
An Integrated Approach 153
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards 154
CO2 Intensity of Energy 157
Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandates 159
Consumer Incentives 160
Infrastructure 162
Taxation 162
Government Research 163
Public Procurement 163
Emerging Business Models 164
Car Conversions 164
Car Sharing Clubs 165
Mass Transit Partnerships 167
Energy Services 167
International Oil Companies 168
Unintended Consequences 170
Battery Impacts 170
A Boost for Nukes? 171
Induced Demand 172
Geographical Focus 173
North America 174
European Union 175
Japan 175
Rapidly Emerging Economies 176

PART VII CONCLUSIONS 179

REFERENCES 184
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 197


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

We'll have postings on the Air Resources Board hearing and the Aspen
Environmental Forum in a few days. Meanwhile, here's a very
thoughtful and important article.

We've often cautioned people not to imagine that everything changes
the day experts conclude we've reached oil production peaks. The
world will always have oil -- at some  price, and with increasing
amounts of CO2 and other collateral devastation from extracting and
processing it. Now Joe Romm addresses the issue effectively and
points to policies and solutions for the next President. Here, from
his Climate Progresss blog, is his summary/short version (see also
posted comments there), and the full text from the version that
appears in Salon.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/27/peak-oil-global-warming
Peak Oil? Bring it on!

I have a new article in Salon on perhaps the most misunderstood
subject in energy -- peak oil.

Here is the short version:

     1. We are at or near the peak of cheap conventional oil production.
     2. There is no realistic prospect that the conventional oil
supply can keep up with current projected demand for much longer --
if the industrialized countries don't take strong action to sharply
reduce consumption, and if China and India don't take strong action
to sharply reduce consumption growth.
     3. Many people are expecting unconventional oil -- such as the
tar sands and liquid coal -- to make up the supply shortage. That
would be a climate catastrophe, and I (optimistically) believe
humanity is wise enough not to let that happen. More supply is not
the answer to either our oil or climate problem.
     4. Nonetheless, contrary to popular belief, the peak oil problem
will not "destroy suburbia" or the American way of life. Only
unrestrained emissions of greenhouse gases can do that.
     5. We have the two primary solutions to peak oil at hand: fuel
efficiency and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles run on zero-carbon
electricity. The only question is whether conservatives will let
progressives accelerate those solutions into the marketplace before
it is too late to prevent a devastating oil shock or, for that
matter, devastating climate change.

That last sentence has been a major focus of this blog. I discuss it
briefly in the article, but let me elaborate on it here. For more
than two decades, conservatives have put up almost every conceivable
roadblock to a sane energy policy. They have essentially said to peak
oil -- and catastrophic global warming, for that matter -- "Bring it on!"

That last sentence has been a major focus of this blog. I discuss it
briefly in the article, but let me elaborate on it here. For more
than two decades, conservatives have put up almost every conceivable
roadblock to a sane energy policy. They have essentially said to peak
oil -- and catastrophic global warming, for that matter -- "Bring it on!"

No one should be surprised we are now mired in a tar pit of growing
dependence on oil imported from unstable or undemocratic regions, oil
prices over $100 a barrel, a trade deficit in oil alone approaching
$500 billion a year, and, of course, the very serious threat of
catastrophic climate change from burning an ever-increasing amount of
fossil fuels.

Many of us have predicted for a very long time that a quarter century
of ignoring or underfunding the key solutions to our addiction to oil
would have consequences. For instance, an April 1996 article I
coauthored warned about what the Gingrich Congress was trying to do:

      "Congressional budget-cutters threaten to end America's
leadership in new energy technologies that could generate hundreds of
thousands of high-wage jobs, reduce damage to the environment, and
limit our costly, dangerous dependency on oil from the unstable
Persian Gulf region."

Now, absent an aggressive set of government-led policies, the oil
situation will only get worse, with oil and gasoline prices doubling
(or worse) in the next quarter century. Crucially, we must solve our
oil addiction and carbon addiction together. And soon. Fatih Birol,
chief economist of the International Energy Agency, said in November:

      These two things put together, the short term security, medium
term security of our oil markets, plus the climate change,
consequences of this energy use, my message is that, if we don't do
anything very quickly, and in a bold manner, the wheels may fall off.
Our energy system's wheels may fall off. This is the message that we
want to give.

The problem is urgent. And the solutions are known.

Clearly we now have only two realistic strategies -- indeed, we have
had only two realistic strategies for decades. We must greatly
increase the fuel economy of our vehicles and we must find one or
more alternative fuel sources that are abundant, low carbon, and
affordable. Both of these are strategies that conservatives have
strongly fought for a long time.

Just to be clear, let's just say we adopted the favorite strategy of
conservatives -- more supply -- and we opened the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and found enough to provide one million
barrels a day for 30 years. That would delay the peak in oil one
whole year! Catastrophe not averted. And of course, it would only
make global warming harder to fight. More domestic supply is not the solution.

Significantly, both Senators Clinton and Obama have announced plans
to sharply increase fuel economy standards. As for McCain, one of his
top economic advisors recently said that if his cap and trade system
worked well enough, he might take the new standards off the books.
That shows the McCain campaign does not understand what it will take
to solve either the global warming or the peak oil problem.

Let's optimistically assume we can get fuel economy standards for
cars and SUVs of 60 miles per gallon by 2030. We would still need
half their fuel to be zero carbon. And that's just the time-line for
dealing with global warming. If you want a motor fuel to deal with
peak oil, then you need something that can provide a substantial and
rapidly growing resource starting by 2020 at the latest
(optimistically assuming we have a decade before peak).

Only one alternative fuel is even remotely plausible -- carbon-free
electricity.

Hydrogen is a "multi-miracle" nonstarter that became
stake-through-the-heart dead this month when GM and Toyota told
everyone the obvious -- we won't have "hydrogen fuel cells for
mass-market production in the near term" but "electric cars will
prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe
emissions on a large scale." [Note to GM and Toyota: Duh!]

Corn ethanol is, as we've seen over and over again, a total loser
from an energy and climate -- and every other conceivable -- perspective.

Biomass-based cellulosic biofuels hold a lot of promise, maybe even
more promise than they held more than a decade ago when my office at
DOE was pushing hard to develop them in the face of opposition from
the Gingrich Congress. But we still don't have a single commercial
cellulosic biofuels plant in operation in this country. So it will
require massive government support for biofuels to be a major player
by 2030, let alone 2020. Moreover, electricity is not a fuel that can
be used for air travel and probably not for long-distance travel,
especially by big trucks. So, again optimistically, we should
probably assume every last drop of cellulosic biofuels will be set
aside to cut non-automotive transportation fuel sharply in the coming decades.

I have previously explained why I believe plug in hybrids and
electric cars are the cars of the future, especially as a climate
solution. The Salon article, "Peak oil? Consider it solved" talks
about how they are the ideal peak oil solution, too.

The bottom line is that if we solve the climate problem, we will
solve the peak oil problem. If we don't solve the climate problem,
peak oil will be a somewhat painful, but relatively short blip on the
history of humanity compared to the extremely painful, multi-century
tragedy our children and the next 50 generations after them will face.

Peak oil? Consider it solved
It won't be easy but we can fix our oil and climate problems at the same time.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/28/peak_oil_solutions/
By Joseph Romm Mar. 28, 2008

For more than a decade, a fierce debate about peak oil has been
raging between those who think a peak in global oil production is at
hand and those who think the world is not close to running out of
oil. The debate is moot for two reasons. First, the growing threat of
global warming requires deep reductions in national and global oil
consumption starting now, peak or no peak. Second, relying on
unconventional oil like tar sands and liquid coal to make up a supply
shortage, as the oilmen say we must, would be climate catastrophe.
More supply is not the answer to either our oil or our climate
problem -- reducing consumption of oil is. And right now we have two
feasible solutions: greatly increase our vehicle fuel economy and
find alternative fuel sources that are abundant, low-carbon and affordable.

Make no mistake about it: Soaring global oil consumption has brought
the nation and the world to a point of reckoning. Last year,
consumption was 86 million barrels a day, up from 78 million in 2002,
roughly a 2 percent annual rise. Where is all the demand coming from?
Hint: It's not just the rapidly developing countries. From 1995 to
2004, China's annual imports grew by 2.8 million barrels a day. Ours
grew 3.9 million. China now sucks up about 6 percent of all global
oil exports. We demand 25 percent. American's trade deficit in oil
alone is nearing $500 billion a year.

That said, if by 2050, the per capita energy consumption of China and
India were to approach that of South Korea, and if the Chinese and
Indian populations increase at currently projected rates, those two
super giant countries by themselves would consume more oil than the
entire world used last year.

This massive, unsustainable consumption has more than peak oil
doomsayers like James Kunstler worried. In January, Jeroen van der
Veer, chief executive officer of Royal Dutch/Shell, e-mailed his
staff that the world will peak in conventional oil and gas within the
decade. He wrote: "Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of
easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand." It
used to be unheard of for oil executives to talk about limits to oil
production. Now it happens all the time.

John Hess, chairman of Hess Corp., a global oil and mineral
exploration company, said recently, "An oil crisis is coming in the
next 10 years. It's not a matter of demand. It's not a matter of
supplies. It's both." In October, Christophe de Margerie, CEO of
French oil company Total S.A., said that production of even 100
million barrels a day by 2030 will be "difficult." In November, James
Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, the third biggest U.S. oil company,
told a Wall Street conference: "I don't think we are going to see the
supply going over 100 million barrels a day ... Where is all that
going to come from?"

The problem is graver than it appears for one simple reason:
Replacing oil in the transportation sector requires strong government
action two decades before a peak because of the time needed to
replace vehicles and fuel infrastructure. That was the conclusion of
a major study funded by the Department of Energy in 2005 -- yes, the
Bush DOE -- on "Peaking of World Oil Production." The report notes:
"The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive
mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be
pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions
(wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil
peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary."

Ouch! The same central point is true about global warming. If we want
global carbon dioxide emissions to peak and start declining, the
planet will need to start aggressive mitigation policies two decades
in advance. We're at about 30 billion tons of annual CO2 emissions
and rising 3 percent per year. By 2020, we'll be over 40 billion tons
annually. If we average more than 18 billion tons of CO2 a year this
century, we risk widespread desertification, sea level rise (of 80
feet or more) and the loss of up to 70 percent of all species.

To preserve the livability of the planet, we must cut liquid fossil
fuel use more than 50 percent by 2050. That is a central reason that
more supply is not the solution to peak oil. That is why it is
crucial we don't adopt the strategy that most in the oil industry
prefer for dealing with the peak in conventional oil -- ramping up
unconventional oil. Most of the major forms of unconventional oil
will make global warming worse -- and some would make a climate
catastrophe inevitable.

The world has a number of viscous oils called bitumen, heavy oil and
tar sands (or oil sands). There is more recoverable oil in Canada's
tar sands than there is conventional oil in Saudi Arabia. Tar sands
are pretty much the heavy gunk they sound like, and making liquid
fuels from them requires huge amounts of energy for steam injection
and refining. Canada is currently producing about 1 million barrels
of oil a day from the tar sands, and that is projected to triple over
the next two decades.

Tar sands are doubly dirty. On the one hand, the energy-intensive
conversion of tar sands generates two to four times the amount of
greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the production of
conventional oil. On the other hand, Canada's increasing use of
natural gas to exploit the tar sands is one reason that its exports
of natural gas to the U.S. are projected to shrink in the coming
years. So instead of selling clean-burning natural gas to the U.S.,
which we could use to stop the growth of carbon-intensive coal
generation, Canada will provide us with a more carbon-intensive oil
to burn in our cars. That's lose-lose.

Even more oil can probably be recovered from shale, a claylike rock,
than from the tar sands. Most of the world's shale is found in the
U.S., notably in Colorado and Utah. After the oil shocks of the
1970s, billions were spent exploring the possibility of shale oil,
but those efforts were abandoned in the 1980s when oil prices
collapsed. Shale does not contain much energy per pound: It has
one-tenth the energy of crude oil and one-fourth that of recycled
phone books. Converting shale to oil requires a huge amount of energy
-- possibly as much as 1,200 megawatts of generating capacity to
produce 100,000 barrels per day. What a waste of energy just to
create a fuel that would spew more greenhouse gases into the air when
burned in a car. We must leave the shale in the ground.

The recovery of conventional oil from a well can be enhanced by
injecting carbon dioxide into the reservoir. Estimates for potential
recovery are 300 billion barrels to 600 billion barrels. When carbon
capture and storage from coal generation becomes commonplace -- which
might occur as soon as two decades from now -- we may be awash in
carbon dioxide that could be diverted to enhanced oil recovery. It
would be a tragedy if that carbon dioxide was not put into deep
underground aquifers (permanently reducing the amount of
heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere), but instead used to extract
more fossil fuels from the ground (which would ultimately release
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when burned in internal combustion
engines). Again, more oil supply doesn't solve the climate problem.

Coal can be converted to diesel fuel using a chemical conversion
process called Fischer-Tropsch. During World War II, coal
gasification and liquefaction produced more than half of the liquid
fuel used by the German military. But the process is incredibly expensive.

You need to spend $5 billion just to build a plant capable of
producing 80,000 barrels of oil a day (the U.S. currently consumes
more than 21 million barrels a day). You need about five gallons of
water for every gallon of diesel fuel that's produced -- not a
particularly good long-term strategy in a world facing mega-droughts
and chronic water shortages. Worse, the total carbon dioxide
emissions from coal-to-diesel are about double that of conventional diesel.

You can capture the carbon dioxide from the process and store it
underground permanently. But that will make an expensive process even
more expensive, so it seems unlikely for the foreseeable future,
certainly not until carbon dioxide is regulated and has a high price
and we have a number of certified underground geologic repositories.
More important, even if you capture the CO2 from the Fischer-Tropsch
process, you are still left with diesel fuel, a carbon-intensive
liquid that will release CO2 into the atmosphere once it is burned in
an internal combustion engine.

Coal to diesel is a bad idea for the planet. If the U.S. or China
pursues it aggressively, catastrophic climate change will be all but
unavoidable.

A 2006 study by the University of California at Berkeley found that
meeting the future shortfall of conventional oil with unconventional
oil could increase annual emissions by more than 7 billion tons of
carbon dioxide for several decades. That would be fatal to any effort
to keep average annual emissions this century below 18 billion tons
of CO2. Indeed, it would probably drive us past dangerous tipping
points toward CO2 levels whose consequences have barely been imagined.

Thus we come to one of the biggest questions of our time: Is humanity
wise enough not to pursue carbon-intensive alternative fuels, even
though pretty much all of them are economically profitable at current
oil prices? Let me assume, optimistically, that we are. Let me also
assume that we have more than a decade before the peak in
conventional oil. We must act now. And by now I mean when we have a
new president who actually cares about these issues and believes in
government-led solutions to prevent economic losses from a major oil
shock and devastating climate change, each of which would cost the
U.S. trillions of dollars.

Clearly we now have only two realistic strategies: increase our
vehicle fuel economy and develop affordable alternative fuel sources
that are low in carbon. In 2050, the planet may well have 2 billion
cars on the road or more, three times the current number. To avoid
dramatic climate impacts, we must use at least 60 percent less total
liquid fossil fuels -- and that assumes we have essentially
eliminated carbon dioxide emissions in the electric sector. The
average car on the road will need to put out under one-fifth the
emissions of current cars, or the equivalent of five times the "miles
per gallon" of today.

If we achieve just half of that emissions cut through greater fuel
efficiency (and the other half through a low-carbon alternative
fuel), we'll need new cars and SUVs in 2040 to get at least 60 miles
per gallon. Of course, that assumes people don't drive greater
distances, even though they will be wealthier, and a nation's per
capita wealth has historically correlated with vehicle miles traveled.

Increased fuel economy can be achieved either by mandates, such as
the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, or by higher
prices achieved through higher taxes. Certainly new technology can
help. But no country has ever substantially increased its fuel
economy with new technology without relying on much tougher fuel
economy standards, higher prices or both. I have never been a big fan
of higher gasoline taxes, not just because they are a political
non-starter, but also because you would have to jack up taxes an
absurd amount to get the desired impact. So that leaves tougher
standards -- mandates. Even Europe, with much higher gasoline taxes
than us, uses mandates.

Late last year, after some two decades of trying, Congress passed a
new 35-mpg standard -- after tough fighting with conservatives in
both parties. That great achievement will take us in 2020 to where
the Chinese are now (but not to where Japan and Europe were six years
ago). It is worth noting that China has a minimum-allowable
efficiency standard, not a "fleet-average" standard like ours. As the
Toronto Star nicely explained: "No gasoline-powered car assembled in
North America would meet China's current fuel-efficiency standard."

Since we're being optimistic, let's assume we can get fuel economy
standards for cars and SUVs of 60 miles per gallon by 2030. We would
still need more than half of vehicle fuel to be zero carbon. And for
that only one alternative fuel is even remotely plausible --
carbon-free electricity. Plug-in hybrids and electric cars are the
cars of the future, especially as a climate solution. What's more,
with plug-ins and electric cars on the roads, oil peakers like
Kunstler -- who has claimed that when the oil runs dry, suburbia
"will become untenable" and "we will have to say farewell to easy
motoring" -- can relax.

Suppose that by 2020, oil blew past $300 a barrel and gasoline rose
to $9 dollars a gallon (still not much higher than current gasoline
prices in England). You could replace your car with a plug-in hybrid,
and trips less than 30 miles, which have made suburbia what it is
today, would actually cut your fuel bill by a factor of more than 10,
even if all the electricity were from zero-carbon sources like wind
and nuclear power. The extra cost of the vehicle would be paid for in
fuel savings in under five years.

The big question is how we accelerate plug-ins and E.V.s into the
marketplace to stave off the worst of the peak oil and climate
catastrophes. No country has ever introduced a mass-market consumer
alternative fuel vehicle without government mandates. So again we are
going to have to turn to progressive policies.

Clinton and Obama (but not McCain) have detailed policies to
jump-start the transition to plug-in hybrids. Clinton, for instance,
plans to offer consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing
a plug-in hybrid. I would offer the tax credit for the first 1
million plug-ins purchased. The effort would cost under $10 billion
over several years -- about what this country now spends on imported
oil in a single week! And of course we'll need a very aggressive push
toward efficiency and zero-carbon electricity, which both Democratic
candidates support. That is the very least we can do given the twin
multitrillion-dollar threats of peak oil and global warming.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Below is an accumulation of some of the most significant and
entertaining PHEV news stories of the past few weeks.

But before that, here's early news that shows how far the PHEV
campaign has come and how broad the interest is in PHEVs. Last June,
when Google.org's RechargeIT announced its support for CalCars and
others (see CalCars-News), it funded an effort at the Brookings
Institute led by David Sandalow, author of "Freedom From Oil." The
result is a very important conference in Washington in June -- here's
a preview; we'll have a fuller announcement in the future both by
email and at CalCars-Events (where you can also find links to other
events, including the preliminary program for "Plug-In 2008
Conference & Exposition: A Short Drive to Tomorrow July 22-24 in San Jose).

SAVE THE DATES: June 11/12 in Washington DC
Plug-In Electric Vehicles 2008: What Role for Washington?
Sponsored by the Brookings Institution and Google.org

Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 12:00 pm - 5:30 pm, banquet dinner 7:00pm-9:00pm
Thursday, June 12, 2008, 8:30 am - 12:00 pm
Hyatt Regency Capital Hill, 400 New Jersey Ave, NW, Washington, DC

On June 11 and 12, the Brookings Institution and Google.org will host
a conference on electric vehicles, their potential to reduce oil
dependence and the role of federal policy in promoting
them.  Confirmed panelists include:

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Troy Clarke, President, GM North America
Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars
Tom Kuhn, President, Edison Electric Institute
James Rogers, CEO, Duke Energy
Chelsea Sexton, Executive Director, Plug-In America
Vijay Vaitheeswaran, Energy and Environment Correspondent, Economist
Jim Woolsey, Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton


$5 MILLION RFP FOR PHEVS IN MICHIGAN
Michigan Public Service Commission Issues Request for Proposal for
Michigan Energy Efficiency Technology Grants
http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc Mar 21, 2008
Case No. U-13129 ... $5 million for a plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle (PHEV) pilot program related to integration of PHEVs
into the electricity grid; the deadline for proposals is 5 p.m. on
Friday, April 4.


FORBES.COM: PHEV BATTERY SURVEY
Includes excellent summary chart on key players, partners with automakers
Jump Start by Joann Muller and Andy Stone 04.07.08
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0407/068.html


ABC NEWS STORY QUOTES GIOIA/FRENETTE AT FORD
Plug-In Hybrid Cars Touted as 'Game-Changing Technology'
ABC News Test-Drives a Plug-In Ford Prototype
By NED POTTER
Dearborn, Mich., March 20, 2008
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4490108&page=1
Ford's Greg Frenette, chief engineer for advanced hybrids at Ford,
says of the Ford Escape PHEV prototype, "I think it's conceivable
within the next five years that we could put a vehicle like this into
our showrooms."


UPDATE ON A123SYSTEMS & GM
The Little Lab That's Charging Up the Volt Combats Time And Science
in Race for Battery
Company says its battery will change future of cars
By Justin Hyde, Detroit Free Press Washington Staff, March 7, 2008
http://www.freep.com
[search not currently working, but a good story...search for Fulop or
Hyde or A123]


ARCWIRE NEWS SERVICE ON SAN FRANCISCO & PHEVS
[Arcwire.org is a news site dedicated to sustainability. We like to
say our coverage is 'a deeper shade of green.']
Arcwire Interviews Jared Blumenfeld: Director of SF Environment. Part II
By Andy Mannle | Monday, 10 March 2008
http://arcwire.org/content/view/65/14/
In Part II of our interview about San Francisco's 2008 Environmental
Plan, Jared Blumenfeld explains why he's convincing Bay Area cities
to buy plug-in hybrids from local chop shops.


ATTACKERS AND DEFENDERS OF GOOGLE'S RECHARGEIT PHEV FLEET
Google's plug-in hybrids to increase Bay Area smug levels
http://valleywag.com/370887/googles-plug+in-hybrids-to-increase-bay-area-smug-le\
vels
In one of Silicon Valley's main gossip blogs, read many comments in
response to generally uninformed criticisms.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

LATEST ON AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Hearing Thurs/Rally Weds. Here are a range of reports, resources and
CalCars' statistical analysis of testimony to the Board.

* SEE OUR BACKGROUND POST at
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/931.html and follow links for
latest information:

* READ A GOOD UPDATE from John O'Dell, Edmunds' Green Car Advisor:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea5200

* PLUG IN AMERICA: Here's part of a report: PIA THANKS YOU for the
mountain of messages you have sent to the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) and Gov. Schwarzenegger, urging both to save the
electric car. The Governor's office has been deluged with faxes from
every state in the nation and 20 countries abroad. One missive came
from a city in Austria just an hour's drive from Schwarzenegger's
home town. We can only hope that one day sooner than later, he'll
make that kind of drive in his Tesla.

* A GENERALLY DOWNBEAT SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE STORY (in which we are
quoted, and which has accumulated many comments online), includes
hints from ARB Chair Mary Nichols that the board may be open to new approaches:
Air board may trim electric car mandate
Regulators could focus more on hybrid vehicles
By Michael Gardner
UNION-TRIBUNE U-T SACRAMENTO BUREAU
March 24, 2008
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080324-9999-1n24carrules.html
Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said any new approach
must reflect the limits of technology but at the same time steer
automakers toward adding electric and fuel-cell-powered cars to their
fleets. The staff proposal could be in for a rewrite. "It does not
indicate that's as far as the board is going to go. We may see some
changes," Nichols said.

* PERSPECTIVES OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, AUTOMAKERS
Clean-Car Tech May Suffer If Calif Relaxes Emissions Mandate
Dow Jones Newswire March 25, 2008
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200803251542DOWJONESDJONLINE\
000537_FORTUNE5.htm
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Environmentalists and some auto makers say a
California proposal to relax its mandate for sales of zero-emission
vehicles threatens the commercial success of cars powered by
electricity or hydrogen fuel cells....
While much cleaner than conventional gasoline engines, plug-in
hybrids still emit some pollutants and greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere. But Spencer Quong, senior vehicles analyst for the Union
of Concerned Scientists, said California's ZEV program should stick
closer to its mission of fostering true no-emission technologies.
"California should open the door wide for plug-in hybrids," Quong
said. "But if the ZEV program is going to get the job done, it still
needs to pave the way for millions of battery electric and fuel cell
vehicles on the road."...
"This is our constant struggle, nudging the auto makers into
investing in new technologies, but we want to be realistic in knowing
what to expect on California roadways," said Leo Kay, a CARB
spokesman. But the proposal to ease the mandate has even rattled some
automakers who have bet on fuel cell or electric technologies as the next wave.

* STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: CalCars' Webmaster Michael Bender undertook
an analysis of the testimony submitted to date to the Air Resources
Board. Here's his technical breakdown of 1350 entries:

2067 KEYWORDS USED
672: plug-in or plugin or plug in
468: dirtiest or replace the dirtiest
417: emissions
415: 2012-2014 or 2012-14
409: proposal or amendment or mandate
391: 25000 or 25,000
252: 1998 or 2001 or 2003
205: mary nichols or nichols
191: greenhouse or green house
170: 2500 or 2,500
148: tesla
131: global warming
109: fuel cell or fuelcell or fcv
83: nev
78: governor
73: phev
42: plug-in america or plugin america or plug in america
7: calcars
7: msev


DATE OF SUBMISSION
Mar 25: 66
Mar 24: 136
Mar 23: 47
Mar 22: 35
Mar 21: 116
Mar 20: 69
Mar 19: 84
Mar 18: 179
Mar 17: 152
Mar 16: 133
Mar 15: 172
Mar 14: 28
Mar 13: 21
Mar 12: 33
Mar 11: 10
Mar 10: 19
Mar 09: 3
Mar 08: 5
Mar 07: 4
Mar 06: 15
Mar 05: 3
Mar 04: 1
Mar 02: 1
Feb 25: 1
Feb 22: 1
Feb 20: 2
Feb 19: 2
Feb 16: 1

201 SELF-IDENTIFIIED AFFILIATIONS
AFM / SAG / AFTRA
All Power Investments
Alt Transpertation Club Vice Chair
Alternative Transportation Club, EAA
american
American / Human Being
American Citizen
American Society of Safety Engineers
American Solar Energy Society
American Songwriters Management
Ample World
Andy's Tee Shirts
APOLLO ENERGY SYSTEM, INC.
ASTHMAS & ALLERGY FOUNDATION OF AMERICA
Attorney at Law
Boating Buddy
CA Citizen
CA Smog Tech & Cruise Car Rep
Cabrillo College Student Senate
Cabrillo College, UCSC
Cal/EPA - DTSC
Calcars
CalCars
California resident
California Resident
California resident and taxpayer
California RN
California State University, Fullerton
California taxpayer
California Taxpayer
California Taxpayer and Driver
California taxpayer, voter and driver
California voter
CALSEIA
cell:   904-309-0317
Central Coast Interfaith Voices
Citizen of Riverside, CA
Citizen/Consumer
Citizens for Healthy Community
CLEAN AIR
clean air and good health for all
Clean Air Now
Clean Air Now
Clean Electric, Inc.
Cleantech Circle LLC
Concerned +  Informed  Citizen
CONCERNED AMERICAN
Concerned Citizen
concerned scientist
Concerned US Citizen
consultant
Consumer
Consumer's Union
Daimler AG
Daimler AG
Department of Navy
DUB Magazine
EAA
EAA
EAA
EAA member
EAA member
EAA NE regeon
EAA, EVAOSC
Earthling...
ElectraDrive
Electric Auto Assn.
Electric Auto Associaation
Electric Auto Associatio, North Bay chap
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Association
Electric Automobile Assoc.
Electric Car Advocate
Electric Vehicle Assoc. of So. Calif.
Electric Vehicle Association of So. Cal.
Electric Vehicle Association of So. Cal.
electric vehicle society of canada
Electrochimica Laboratories LLC
Energy Development Center EDC
Engineering Specialist Senior (software)
EV Association of So. Calif.
EV Clubs and OREG.ca
EV Group out of Richmond
EV owner
EV user
EVA
EVA
EVAofDC
EVAOSC,  inc.
EVAOSD
EVnut.com
FICA
First Source Solar Systems
First Unitarian Church
FLEAA
For The Future (www.forthefuture.org)
Former Resident of California
Fox Valley Electric Auto Association
Freedom Formula Foundation
Global Exchange
Global Exchange
Google.org
Green Earth Foundation, President
Green Earth Foundation, President
Green Gears, inc
Green MotorSport
Green Patriot
GreenWheels Sustainable Transportation
Honda
HPVA, IHPVA
Humanity
IATSE
independent
individual
Individual California Working Commuter
Inovateus Development
john crotty associates
Just a concerned consumer
KonoctiEAA.org
LA/OC Alternative Energy Meetup
Long Beach Greens
Long Beach Greens
Long-time member
Media
Medium Speed Electric Vehicle Group
Member of Plug In America
Member of the public
member Sierra Club
member, reno electric car club
Mendocino County Energy Task Force
MILES Electric Vehicles
Miles Electric Vehicles
Mill Valley Seniors for Peace
Minnesota Ev Auto Association
Moorpark College
MoveOn / PFAW / NRDC / VoteToImpeach.org
myself
NEV Owner
NJ eco- activist
no
no
NorCal ZENN Owners Group
North Thurston Public Schools
OC Interfaith Coalition for Environment
Office Manager
OKA AUTO USA
Oregon Electric Vehicle Association
owner or electrorides, inc
Panhandle EVA
Parent
Pasadena Global Warming Action Group
personal
PIA, EAA, EnVironmental Motors, etc.
Planning and Conservation League
Plug In America
Plug In America
Plug In America
Plug In America
Plug In America
Plug In America
Plug in America
Plug In America, EAA
Plugin America
Plug-In America
Plug-In America
pluginamerica.com
Plug-In America Member
Plug-In Hybrid Coalition
pluginolympia.com
President, Uptime Electronics, Inc.
Presidio School of Management
Presidio School of Management
Presidnet of Symbionics Inc.
Prius.Meetup.com
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
private homeowner in Illinois
Prof. of Biology, Bakersfield College
Professional Engineer
Republican
resident consumer
Resort Vehicles, Inc., Manufacturer
Retired
retired LA school teacher
retired Mechanical Engineer
Sacramento for Democracy
san francisco electric vehicle assn
Santa Cruz County Parks and Recreation
Schenectady City School District
Self
SEVA
SEVA (Seattle EVA)
Sierra Club
Sierra Club
Sierra Club
Sierra Club
Sierra Club
Sierra Club
Sierra Club !
Sierra Club, S. Nevada Group
Sierra Green Building Association
Solar electric industry
Solar industry
Solar Panel Owner
Solar Panel Owner
STAR Education
Student
Sun Light & Power Company
Sustainable Transport Club
Switzerland
Taxpayer
Tesla Motors Inc.
Tesla Motors, Inc.
TexomaEV
Tucson Electric Vehicle Association2
Tucson Electric Vehicle Association2
UC Irvine
UC Santa Barbara
UK based Consultant, ZEVs
University of California
University of California
University of Nevada, Reno
University of Pennsylvania
US Citizen
US Citizen
US Military
Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association
voter
voter, tax payer,
ZEV Large Volume Manufacturers


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

We're honored that our role in promoting PHEVs
and the electrification of transportation has
just been recognized in a major new award for
environmental innovation. Thanks to all those
who've believed in us and helped since CalCars was founded six years ago!

We're in the most eminent company -- details
follow. (We're travelling, so it's hard to keep
up with the news -- we'll be fully back next
Monday, after we travel to Aspen to receive the award described below.)

Along with this news, we're happy to pass along
two private reports from insiders in two key
domains that confirm the impact we and our partners have been having:

AUTO INDUSTRY: My contacts have told me that
there is much interest and even excitement within
some top-level engineering teams at Toyota, in
response to the work that CalCars’ partner
companies have been doing to design and install
PHEV conversions for Prius vehicles.

CLEANTECH: You should know that at the
conferences we attend on Cleantech/Greentech,
people are very aware and up-to-date about what
CalCars and the plug-in hybrid campaign are doing.


PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWED BY THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AWARDS PROGRAM

Aspen Institute Announces Winners of First Annual Energy and Environment Awards
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=huLWJeMRKpH&b=3818\
507&ct=5133855

Washington, DC, March 24, 2008––The Aspen
Institute proudly announces the winners of the
first annual Energy and Environment Awards, which
will be presented at a ceremony on March 29,
2008, during the inaugural Aspen Environment
Forum. Created by the Aspen Global Leadership
Network and Henry Crown Fellows, the Aspen
Institute Energy and Environment Awards recognize
and reward excellence for those making
significant contributions to innovation,
implementation, and communication of energy and
environmental solutions (visit
http://www.aspenenvironment.org/program/energy-and-environment-awards).

The winners—all organizations and people who are
making the biggest strides, acting as leaders,
catalysts, and educators, particularly at the
critical nexus between energy and environmental problems and solutions—are:

      * Corporate Energy Generation – SolarCity
      * Corporate Energy Conservation – Serious Materials
      * Innovation in Government – State of
California Energy Office’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative
      * Innovation in a Non-governmental
Organization – The California Cars Initiative
      * Individual Thought Leadership – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

The Energy and Environment Awards, which are
meant to celebrate success and provoke
conversations about ways to emulate and expand
upon the success stories honored, are part of the
Aspen Environment Forum, a gathering of more than
300 thought leaders that will take place from
March 26-30, 2008, at the Aspen Meadows Resort
and Conference Center in Colorado (visit
http://www.aspenenvironment.org for more
information). Designed to stimulate open-minded
dialogue, the forum is an innovative festival for
thought and conversation about the environment
across a broad array of topics. Environmental
experts, scientists, economists, business
leaders, journalists, authors, and interested
consumers will examine the state of the planet
and share their ideas for the future.

The Forum will conclude with the debut of the
Aspen Energy and Environment Awards for
excellence in communications, contributions to
innovation, and environmental solutions. The
Awards are proudly sponsored by CH2M HILL and
will be presented on March 29, 2008, at the Hotel
Jerome ballroom. "CH2M HILL is proud to sponsor
the first Energy and Environment Awards. The
spirit of these awards are directly linked to
CH2M HILL's commitment to offer our clients
sustainable long-term solutions that respond to
critical global issues, and the values important
to our stakeholders," said Lee McIntire, CH2M
HILL President and Chief Operating Officer. CH2M
HILL is a global full-service engineering,
procurement, construction, and operations firm,
with more than 24,000 employees world-wide.

To register for the forum, contact Deborah Murphy
at (970) 544-7960 or
deborah.murphy@..., or go to the
forum's Web site at http://www.aspenenvironment.org.

Sponsors for the Aspen Environment Forum 2008,
presented by the Aspen Institute and National
Geographic magazine, include Camco, Duke Energy,
General Motors, Goldman Sachs, and Shell.

The Aspen Institute, founded in 1950, is an
international nonprofit organization dedicated to
fostering enlightened leadership and open-minded
dialogue. Through seminars, policy programs,
conferences and leadership development
initiatives, the Institute and its international
partners seek to promote nonpartisan inquiry and
an appreciation for timeless values. The
Institute is headquartered in Washington, DC, and
has campuses in Aspen, CO, and on the Wye River
near the shores of the Chesapeake Bay in
Maryland. Its international network includes
partner Aspen Institutes in Berlin, Rome, Lyon,
Tokyo, New Delhi, and Bucharest, and leadership
initiatives in Africa, Central America, and India.


The Aspen Institute Energy and Environment Awards
http://www.energyandenvironmentawards.com/

Created by the Aspen Institute Global Leadership
Network, the Aspen Institute Energy and
Environment Awards recognize and reward
excellence for those making a real and concrete
contribution to innovation, implementation, and
communication of energy and environmental solutions.

Six awards, to be presented at this first Annual
Event, are designed to draw attention to the
organizations and people who are making the
biggest strides, acting as leaders, catalysts,
and educators, particularly at the critical nexus
between energy and environmental problems and
solutions. The object is to celebrate success and
provoke intellectually stimulating and productive
thinking and conversations about ways to emulate
and expand upon the success stories honored.

Corporate Energy Generation Award:
For disruptive solutions in the generation and distribution of renewable energy

Corporate Energy Conservation Award:
For conservation-oriented projects, which may
encompass efficiency based technologies, or
consumer products and services that have lower energy and environmental impact

Individual Thought Leadership Award:
For leadership contributions in energy and
environmental problem solving, with special
emphasis on disruptive and scalable solutions.

NGO Award:
For contributions in increasing renewable energy
generation, increasing efficiency, achieving
radical price reductions, or developing new green
markets in developing countries.

Government Award:
For innovative government initiatives that result
in increasing renewable energy generation,
increasing efficiency, or developing significant
new policies that benefit energy and environmental objectives.

Photojournalism:
Presented by National Geographic for imagery that
best conveys innovative solutions to
environmental or energy problems, and symbolizes excellence in photography.

Awards Dinner:
The winners will honored at the awards dinner at
the Aspen Environment Forum presented by the
Aspen Institute and National Geographic on March 29, 2008.

Energy and Environment Awards Board:
Neil Jacobstein - Chairman, and CEO, Teknowledge Corporation
Lucy P. Marcus - CEO, Marcus Venture Consulting
Sonal Shah - Google.org
Vishal Vasishth- CEO, Clean Partners

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

We've been generally positive about GM's intentions on plug-in
hybrids, and felt GM's Vice Chair Bob Lutz was effectively recruiting
more and more people wihtin the company to see electrification of
transportation as essential to its future viability. When Bob Lutz
called global warming "a crock" we both disagreed on that view and
felt that it was not correct for him and others to say "it doesn't
matter what he thinks," since a perspective that is motivated solely
by energy independence  in determining company strategies and
priorities will often look different than one that also factors in
the well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles.

In a recent joint Wall Street Journal interview with Daimler's Dieter
Zetsche (with whom GM partnered in developing the two-mode hybrid),
Lutz focuses entirely on ethanol as the fuel to substitute for
gasoline -- he doesn't mention electricity. He certainly doesn't
repeat what he's been saying: that commuter miles can be largely
fueled by electricity. Instead, he implies GM wants to fuel all miles
with E-85. While giving a nod to non-corn ethanol, he mostly focuses
on cost to the carmakers and how to meet CAFE standards with today's
vehicle types. And Zetsche mentions only diesel plus vehicle
efficiency. Both clearly have a long ways to go!

ENVIRONMENT
The Wheel World
Dieter Zetsche of Daimler and Robert Lutz of GM talk about how to
reduce the thirst for gasoline -- and how not to
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120612054133655211.html?mod=googlenews_wsj&apl=y\
&r=327350
March 24, 2008; Page R4

How much of a financial sacrifice will consumers make to buy
environmentally friendly, "green" cars? And why haven't diesel
engines caught on in the U.S. the way they have in Europe?

Daimler AG Chairman Dieter Zetsche and General Motors Corp. Vice
Chairman Robert A. Lutz discussed these and other issues with The
Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball. Here are edited excerpts from
that discussion.

Consumer Behavior

JEFFREY BALL: I remember talking to people at both your companies
[years ago] about fuel economy, and everyone said that it ranked far
below cup holders on the list of what mattered to people. I also
remember people saying that $2.50 gasoline would change that. Well,
we're now beyond $2.50 gasoline. Has it changed it? What are you
seeing in the market?

DIETER ZETSCHE: We are not seeing any significant changes of our mix
or of our engine types within one name plate. What we do see is the
tremendous success of the [small] Smart car, which we launched in the
U.S. in January and where the demand is really blowing all of our
expectations by far.

ROBERT A. LUTZ: What we're seeing is there is a portion, a very
narrow portion of the population, that will make a financial
sacrifice to be green. But I don't think we can count on the majority
of the American public to make a financial sacrifice, or make an
uneconomic decision. So I think even as gasoline goes to $4 a gallon,
you're still going to see people doing the calculation. How much more
do I have to pay for a hybrid system? Most people, not the
ecologically committed, but most normal people are going to take a
look at how much more am I paying for this fuel-saving technology and
will I be able to amortize it over the life of the vehicle?

Where we're seeing we have reached the pain threshold is with the
Duramax diesel engine, in the full-size pickup trucks. To meet the
latest emission regulations, we are now forced to charge $11,000 for
the diesel option, and that is putting a kink in diesel sales, and a
lot of people are opting for the gas engine again.

To provide an economic incentive to people to buy these much
higher-technology vehicles that are going to be required to meet the
CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] mandates, the customer has to
be put in the equation. That means that at some point, fuel prices
have to rise. I think that without an economic incentive, we are not
going to see a wholesale shift in demand of vehicles.

MR. BALL: There's been a long-running discussion in Detroit about the
safety of the small car, and the debate has always been essentially
blood versus oil. Do you have to sacrifice lives for the sake of fuel economy?

MR. ZETSCHE: Well, obviously, the Smart is in the market in Europe,
and there are no statistics that would support [the idea] that you
are less safe in the Smart than you are in any kind of vehicle. And
there is no evidence that you would trade fuel efficiency and space
efficiency against your health or your life.

MR. LUTZ: The days when some cars were safe, and other cars were not
safe, are long behind us. If a vehicle is registered for sale in any
developed market of the world, it is going to be an extremely safe
vehicle and it is going to be much, much harder to sustain a
life-threatening injury than it was, say, 10 years ago.

MR. BALL: In Europe, diesel accounts for, what, nearly half the
passenger-car market? In the U.S., it's a negligible percentage
except for in the truck market. There's all this discussion in this
country about saving oil and reducing carbon emissions, and diesel is
30% more efficient or so than a comparable gasoline engine typically.
Yet, we're talking about fuel cells and alternative fuels that
require new infrastructure.

Why is it such a tough sell for diesel in this country? And second of
all, despite that, why does Daimler feel like it's a good bet to roll
out a diesel car, even in California, now?

MR. ZETSCHE: This country should be ready for diesel, because you
have a lot of towns or you have speed limits and you have all these
SUVs. All of that calls for high torque at low RPM, and that's a
diesel. [As for why] diesel hasn't been popular here: For a period of
time, there were some diesels that were not too great. And on top of
that, diesel fuel is more expensive here than gasoline, which is not
because of production, but because of capacity. This could be changed
easily with some more capacity being installed for diesel.

The Government's Role

MR. BALL: What should government be doing that it's not doing?

MR. LUTZ: Well, to make the biggest environmental impact and displace
as much petroleum as quickly as possible, and drastically reduce CO2
creation in the operation of motor vehicles, and create the least
disruption to America's driving habits, there's only one technology
that will get all of that quickly and at very low cost per car. And
that is a conversion to basically bioethanol.

Better corn strains are being developed. They're developing corn with
a shorter growing season, which was going to permit shifting the Corn
Belt way to the north. I would point out that vast majority of corn
acreage in the United States is still not producing corn. It's
getting $500 a year per acre not to plant corn.

So I think that people who say, well, the ethanol industry is taking
food from the mouths of babies and it's driving tortilla prices up --
I think these are highly suspect conclusions. General Motors is the
world's largest producer of ethanol-capable vehicles. We produce over
one million a year. We've got 4.5 million on the road and constantly
growing. We've committed to doing 50% of our vehicles to be E-85 [85%
ethanol and 15% gasoline] capable, and it's only about $150 per car.

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, if that whole ethanol-capable
fleet were actually using ethanol by, say, 2012, 2015, we would save
about 18 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline a year. If all
producers ran on E-85, we'd save about 33 billion gallons of gasoline
per year, and of course, drastically reduce the imported portion.

And the $150 cost per vehicle is really trivial compared to the mild
hybrid systems, heavy hybrid systems, plug-in hybrid systems, clean
diesels and so forth that will be required to get to the 35 miles per
gallon using conventional gasoline technology.

Raising Fuel Mileage

MR. BALL: The oil industry is arguing for tougher CAFE standards,
although maybe not saying it explicitly all the time. And the auto
industry is arguing for a panoply of policies that would induce the
spread of alternative fuels. One could be forgiven perhaps for saying
that each industry is just trying to pass the buck, no?

MR. ZETSCHE: It's obvious that we are investing billions and billions
of dollars into those new technologies, and that's true for General Motors.

There are so many studies that are proving that the least-efficient
way -- the least CO2 you can save with the most money to be spent --
is doing it through the vehicle. And almost all other contributions
-- from infrastructure to driving behavior to the biofuel -- are more
efficient. And then when you go to housing and other areas, it's even
much more efficient, so you get more reduction for [fewer] dollars.

At the same time, we accept our responsibility. In 2010, for
instance, we will offer an S-class [large sedan] which goes 44 miles
per gallon. It's a diesel with a mild hybrid, which goes zero to 60
in less than eight seconds. This takes a lot of technology and it
costs a lot, but we are doing that.

MR. LUTZ: We have the 35-mile-per-gallon standard, and General Motors
obviously is confident that we can meet that standard
technologically, but when you add a diesel engine plus a hybrid, you
are adding thousands of dollars of cost.

Ever since CAFE legislation has been in effect, General Motors has
improved the efficiency of its truck fleet by 60%, the fuel
efficiency of its passenger-car fleet by 100%, and fuel use in the
United States has done nothing but go up. So the idea that by
legislating 35 miles per gallon, we're somehow going to use less
fuel, it would be the first time that it ever worked, because it
inevitably results in people taking their fuel budget and buying a
larger car. That's why if the customer is not in the equation in
terms of feeling pain in the wallet from paying the fuel bill, it's
destined not to work.

Now, technology costs money, so what is a better way to get at the
problem of getting the automobile out of the environmental equation,
or at least out of the petroleum and CO2 equation? I think the only
rational thing to do is put less technology in the car, which is the
conversion to making cars E-85 capable, and burn E-85, which is a
renewable fuel that could be done from biomass.

And if you can do that for $150 a car, as opposed to meeting a
35-mile-per-gallon standard at many thousands of dollars per car,
which one do you pick? It's not a question of passing the buck; it's
just look at what we have to do to the cars to attain CAFE, versus
the much less we'd have to do to cars, with much less pain on the
American driving public, if we had a concerted national E-85 effort.

The Automotive XPrize, first announced in March
2006 by the X PRIZE Foundation, best-known for
the $10M competition that led to the 2004 flights
of SpaceShip One, has announced its major
sponsors and the $10M bounty. Many of the
competitors registered to date are familiar to
those following the small PHEV startup world.

We've written about the prize in the past,
including the challenges inherent (some still
unresolved) in creating a spectacular prize that
could attract media attention with a
cross-country race, what amount would be needed
to attract attention, how to recognize the value
of cars used mainly for commuting, the need to
motivate designs that could actually be
mass-produced and the criteria for how to judge
"100+MPG." Following is the official press release.


X PRIZE Foundation & Progressive Insurance Join
Forces to Officially Announce the $10 Million
Progressive Automotive X PRIZE -- the Race to Develop Ultra Fuel-Efficient Cars
During Today's Launch, New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg Declared New York City as Host
of First Stage of Competition, Scheduled to Begin in September 2009


NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - March 20, 2008) Today
at the New York International Auto Show, the X
PRIZE Foundation and Progressive (NYSE: PGR)
jointly announced the company's Title Sponsorship
of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE
competition and its funding of the $10 million prize purse.

The newly renamed Progressive Automotive X PRIZE
is an international competition designed to
inspire a new generation of viable, super
fuel-efficient vehicles. The independent and
technology-neutral competition is open to teams
from around the world that can design, build and
bring to market 100 MPGe (miles per gallon energy
equivalent) vehicles that people want to buy, and
that meet market needs for price, size, capability, safety and performance.

To date, more than 60 teams from nine countries
have signed a Letter of Intent to compete for a
share of the prize purse and global publicity.

"The Progressive Automotive X PRIZE is a call to
action to promote and inspire innovation," said
Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X
PRIZE Foundation. "The environmentally friendly
cars created as a result of this competition will
affect everyone who drives in ways we can't even
imagine today. Let the race begin!"

"We've been working hard to make a difference in
car insurance for 70 years," said Progressive's
CEO, Glenn Renwick. "Now we have a chance to make
a difference by supporting the Progressive
Automotive X PRIZE. This competition will result
in more choices of more fuel-efficient vehicles
for drivers and will be a catalyst for moving
this technology forward, faster."

"This competition represents what we're all about
in name and spirit--new ideas, competition and
always working to do better," added Renwick.
"Being a part of this gives us a chance to make a real difference."

At today's New York International Auto Show, four
teams and their vehicles joined representatives
of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE. New York
City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was also on hand in support of the initiative.

"The Progressive Automotive X PRIZE is an
excellent example of how the private sector can
spur solutions to our most complex challenges,"
said Mayor Bloomberg. "Here in New York City, we
are also stepping up to the plate on energy
conservation, by transforming our taxi fleet into
hybrids and cutting the City's energy use by 30%
over the next ten years. It's all part of PlaNYC,
our plan to create a greener, greater New York."

The Mayor added, "Development of a
super-efficient car would be a major step forward
in the fight against global warming -- and it
would help us reach our goal of cutting
greenhouse gas emissions in New York City by 30%
by 2030. To maximize national and international
awareness of the X PRIZE, I am pleased to
announce that New York will be the starting point
for the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE race next year."

The X PRIZE Foundation, best known for the
successful $10 million Ansari X PRIZE for private
suborbital spaceflight, is an educational
nonprofit whose mission is to bring about radical
breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity by
holding $10 million dollar (or larger)
competitions to solve some of the world's greatest challenges.

Several teams in the Progressive Automotive X
PRIZE's Letter of Intent program will be on hand
to speak with the media throughout the show. A
complete list of teams that have already signed a
Letter of Intent to compete is included below.

The window for applications will be open until
mid 2008, when a thorough qualification process
will assess safety, cost, features and business
plans to ensure that only production-capable,
consumer-friendly cars compete. Those that
qualify will race their vehicles in rigorous
cross-country stage races in 2009 and 2010 that
combine speed, distance, urban driving and
overall performance. The winners will be the
vehicles that exceed 100 MPGe, meet strict
emissions standards and finish in the fastest
time. Host cities involved in the competition
route are to be announced shortly.

About the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE Competition:

The goal of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE is
to inspire a new generation of viable, super
fuel-efficient vehicles that offer more consumer
choices. Ten million dollars in prizes will be
awarded to the teams that win a stage race for
clean, production-capable vehicles that exceed 100 MPGe.

The Progressive Automotive X PRIZE will place a
major focus on affordability, safety, and the
environment. It is about developing real,
production-capable cars that consumers want to
buy, not science projects or concept cars. This
progress is needed because today's oil
consumption is unsustainable and because
automotive emissions significantly contribute to
global warming and climate change.

About the Competition:

Draft Guidelines that specify vehicle
requirements and other aspects of the competition
are available at
http://auto.xprize.org/auto/automotive-x-prize/draft-guidelines.
A summary of the current guidelines follows: The
competition will comprise two vehicle classes:
Mainstream and Alternative. Mainstream vehicles
will be required to carry four or more
passengers, have four or more wheels, and allow
for a 200-mile range. Alternative-class vehicles
will be required to carry two or more passengers,
have no constraints on the number of wheels, and
allow for a 100-mile range. All vehicles will
need to meet requirements for performance and
features to make the cars attractive to
consumers. The competition will culminate with
two dramatic, long-distance stage races in
2009-2010 -- a Qualifying Race and the Grand
Prize Final Race. Race courses will reflect
typical consumer driving patterns during numerous
stages, in varied terrain, communities, and
weather conditions. To win, vehicles must
complete both races with the lowest overall time
averaged over all scoring stages while still
meeting the requirements for 100 MPGe fuel
economy and low emissions of carbon dioxide and
other pollutants. The $10 million prize purse
will be split 3:1 between the winners of the
Mainstream and Alternative classes. Final
guidelines will be published shortly.

Support for the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE:

Support and encouragement has been received from
government agencies that will help the privately
funded organization conduct the competition and
test vehicle compliance, including the U.S.
Department of Energy and Argonne National
Laboratory; the U.S. Department of
Transportation's National Highway, Traffic and
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA); the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (OTAQ); and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

In addition, non-governmental organizations
supporting the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE
include the National Resources Defense Council,
The Sierra Club, the National Wildlife
Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, the
Apollo Alliance, the Consumer Federation of
America, Global Green USA and CALSTART, among others.

Sponsors and Donors of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE:
--  The prize's Title Sponsor is Progressive Insurance
--  The U.S. Department of Energy is the Sponsor of the Progressive
      Automotive X PRIZE Education Program, and Adobe® and Idealab® are
      Supporting Sponsors
--  Auto Research Center (ARC) is the Official Performance Simulation Provider
--  Ray Sidney of Big George Ventures is a prize benefactor, and the
      following people are patron donors: Gil & Elyssa Elbaz, Jack Hidary,
      Jeffery Shames, and Nadine Weil

Teams in the Letter of Intent Program:  As of
March 20, the following teams have signed a Letter of Intent to compete:

--  AirShip Technologies Group (Lake Oswego, OR, USA)
--  Alpha-Core/Poulsen Hybrid (Bridgeport, CT, USA)
--  Aptera Motors (Carlsbad, CA, USA)
--  Arkas Automotive (Istanbul, Turkey)
--  Avion Car Company (Bellingham, WA, USA)
--  Brilliant Automotive, (Fairfield, IA, USA)
--  Belloso Motor Company (Salisbury, MD, USA)
--  Brilliant Automotive (Southfield, IA, USA)
--  Commuter Cars Corp (Spokane, WA, USA)
--  Cornell University (Ithaca, NY, USA)
--  DEHyds (Tenino, WA, USA)
--  Delta Motorsport (Northamptonshire, UK)
--  Desert Fuel (Phoenix, AZ, USA)
--  Disruptech (Newhall, CA, USA)
--  Team Dragonfly (Northampton, UK)
--  Electric Truck Inc (Greenwich, CT, USA)
--  Energy Highway (Pleasanton, CA, USA)
--  Esterer Engineering Ltd. (Vancouver, BC, Canada)
--  FuelVapor Technologies BC, (Maple Ridge, BC, Canada)
--  Global-E (Mandeville, LA, USA)
--  Goodwin-Young "Linc Volt" (Wichita, KS, USA)
--  Greenhouse 2000 (Orlando, FL, USA)
--  Gunn Team (San Jose, CA, USA)
--  HerfDuo (Berlin, Germany)
--  Hybrid Technologies (Mooresville, NC, USA)
--  HyKinesys (Rolling Hills Estate, CA, USA)
--  ICEwave (Terre Haute, IN, USA)
--  Illuminati (Virden, IL, USA)
--  Kinetic Vehicles (Creswell, OR, USA)
--  Kuttner Doran Innovations (Charlottesville, VA, USA)
--  laeN'O (Marshall, NC, USA)
--  Loremo (Munich, Germany)
--  Lydell Industries (Frewsburg, NY, USA)
--  Maine Automotive X (Camden, ME, USA)
--  Mann Research & Development, (Benton, KY, USA)
--  MDI and Zero Pollution Motors, (Nice, France and New Paltz, NY, USA)
--  Michigan Vision (Ann Arbor, MI, USA)
--  Miles Electric Vehicles (Santa Monica, CA, USA)
--  Motive Industries, Inc. (Calgary, Alberta, Canada)
--  MotoTron Disrupt (Oshkosh, WI, USA)
--  Northwest Energy Research Association (Arlington, WA, USA)
--  Phoenix Motorcars (Ontario, CA, USA)
--  Physics Lab of Lake Havasu (Lake Havasu, AZ, USA)
--  Porteon Electric Vehicles, Inc. (Portland, OR, USA)
--  Prometheus Systems (Flagstaff, AZ, USA)
--  Psycho-Active (Moore, SC, USA)
--  RaceAbout Association (Helsinki Finland)
--  Red Light Racing (RLR) (Callaway, MD, USA)
--  Revolución Motors (Lawrence, KS, USA)
--  Society for Sustainable Mobility (Beverly Hills, CA, USA)
--  Spirit One (Alberta, CA, USA)
--  T3 Motion (Costa Mesa, CA, USA)
--  Team TWIKE IV (Germany)
--  Tesla Motors (San Carlos, CA, USA)
--  Tilting Vehicle Australia (Kilburn, Australia)
--  TriTrack (Georgetown, TX, USA)
--  USA Electric Cars, LLC (Cortland, NY, USA)
--  Valentin Technologies (Elm Grove, WI, USA)
--  Velozzi (Beverly Hills, CA, USA)
--  Venture Vehicles (Beverly Hills, CA, USA)
--  Visionary Vehicles (New York, NY, USA)
--  West Philly Hybrid X Team (Philadelphia, PA, USA)
--  Western Washington University/Vikings (Bellingham, WA, USA)
--  X Tracer Team Switzerland (Winterthur, Switzerland)
--  ZAP (Santa Rosa, CA, USA)

About the X PRIZE Foundation:

The X PRIZE Foundation is an educational
nonprofit prize institute whose mission is to
create radical breakthroughs for the benefit of
humanity. In 2004, the Foundation captured world
headlines when Burt Rutan, backed by Microsoft
co-founder Paul Allen, built and flew the world's
first private vehicle to space to win the $10
million Ansari X PRIZE. The Foundation has since
launched the $10 million Archon X PRIZE for
Genomics, the $30 million Google Lunar X PRIZE,
and the $10 million Progressive Automotive X
PRIZE. The Foundation is creating prizes in five
areas: Exploration (Space and Underwater), Life
Sciences, Energy & Environment, Education and
Global Development. The Foundation is widely
recognized as the leading model for fostering
innovation through competition. For more
information, please visit www.xprize.org or email prcontact@....

For more information about the Progressive
Automotive X PRIZE, please visit
www.progressiveautoxprize.org or email progressiveautopress@....

About Progressive:
Progressive, founded in 1937, is a leading
insurer of cars, motorcycles, recreation
vehicles, boats, personal watercraft and commercial vehicles.
The company offers competitive rates and products
that meet drivers' needs throughout their
lifetimes as well as 24/7 online and in-person customer and claims service.
Progressive's products and services are available
locally through more than 30,000 independent
insurance agencies in the U.S., online at
progressive.com and by phone at 1-800-PROGRESSIVE (1-800-776-4737).

Contact:
Automotive X PRIZE
progressiveautopress@...


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

At the New York Auto Show, GM's Vice Chairman Bob
Lutz reflects the emerging trend toward an end to
business as usual. Here are excerpts from a USA
Today story followed by a report and thoughtful
response to Lutz by John O'Dell (formely LA Times
auto editor, now at Edmunds), to which we've added our two cents.

Then reports by the Detroit Free Presss and
Consumer Reports on the unusual event that
reflects the new, more public style of many
automakers: "Volt Nation, organized by
GM-Volt.com with the support and participation of GM spokespeople.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-03-19-new-york-auto-show_N.htm
Move over, big trucks and SUVs: Here come the cars
By James R. Healey, Chris Woodyard and Sharon Silke Carty, USA TODAY
[excerpted from report on New York Auto Show]
Eco-friendly cars make strides

Along with cars that are fuel-stingy by virtue of
size, the auto show calendar that began in Los
Angeles last November also has, not surprisingly,
included plenty of environmentally friendly fuel-sippers.

"Our industry has relied on 95% oil to power our
vehicles. Obviously that is going to change,"
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner says.

"If oil prices continue the way they're going, I
think we jump from hybrids to the next generation
of plug-in hybrids much faster than the domestic
automakers are planning or have thought about,"
Tynan [Kevin Tynan, an industry analyst at Argus Research] says.

A fast shift to plug-ins, still in development
but some able to average 70 to 120 miles per
gallon, sounds like a dream. But they'll cost
more than today's hybrids, which in turn cost more than all-gasoline vehicles.

And the shift might be too sudden for Detroit,
Tynan says. Domestic automakers are "running to
catch up to a market that's gone by them by the
time they get there," he says. "If they're
working to make midsize sedans more competitive
with the import (cars), the import makers are
already focusing on the next generation of hybrids. … They're already behind."


EDMUNDS.COM
Lutz: GM May Be 80 Percent Hybrid by 2020
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea5350/0
John O'Dell, Senior Editor Mar 19, 2008

Lord knows what he'll be saying next year, but
right now GM's Battling Bob Lutz is telling
anyone who'll listen that the company's cars are
going to cost more and mostly have some sort of
hybrid powertrain with a downsized gas engine in
order to meet the recently approved 35 miles per
gallon federal fuel efficiency average for 2015.

On Tuesday, talking to reporters in Washington,
D.C., GM's vice chairman for global product said
that hybrids would account for as much as a third
of the company's U.S. sales by 2015.

"We're going to have to sell a ton of hybrids
whether people want them or not," he told
Bloomberg News, adding that the new fuel economy
standards are "basically going to result in the
quasi-disappearance of V-8 engines."

On Wednesday, Lutz was ratcheting up the rhetoric at the New York Auto Show.

"By 2020 we figure that 80 percent  of vehicles
will require some sort of hybridization," he said
after introducing three new Pontiac models. "We
cannot get to 35 miles per gallon with anything
resembling the current product portfolio with
anything resembling current technology."

Even with hybrids, he told the Detroit Free
Press, GM would still struggle. The company's
well-reviewed two-mode hybrid system, he said,
was only able to bring fuel economy in GM's
full-size sport-utility vehicles to 22 miles per gallon.

"How do you get those from 22 to 35? We don't
know," Lutz said. "We're open to ideas."

Here's one.

Build lots of  the Chevy Volt extended range
electric vehicles you've been touting. Volume
production of  the 50-60 mpg car with up to 40
miles of all-electric range will help bring down
the costs of the system. With gasoline and diesel
prices expected to remain in $4-$5 a gallon
territory, there will be wquite a few people interested in buying.

Economies of scale would make it possible to fit
the system into less expensive models that would
sell for more affordable prices than the $35,000
that's been the most recent estimate for the
Volt. And slipping it into upscale Escalades and
the like would improve profits.

Sales of several hundred thousand Volts and their
cousins each year would go a long way toward
bringing fleetwide average up to 35 miles per gallon.


felixkramer  - Mar 20, 2008:

This is good news from Mr. Lutz. Within GM, there
are many who wonder how this company can
transition its entire universe of offerings to
more efficient cars. The answer, as John O'Dell
so ably suggests, is full or partial
electrification, thereby displacing gasoline with
cleaner, cheaper, domestically-generated
electricity. It's almost a sure bet that any one
of the three candidates who become President will
support such efforts in the early days of their
new administrations as a way to reduce fossil
fuel dependency -- because it's the end of business as usual.
The benefits increase the larger the car, which
is more obvious if you look at gallons saved per
hundred miles, instead of miles per gallon.
-- Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars.org


DETROIT FREE PRESS REPORTS ON "VOLT NATION" EVENT
NEW YORK AUTO SHOW
Volt fans energized
GM execs mingle at gathering ignited by blogger
BY KATIE MERX • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • March 20, 2008
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/BUSINESS01/803200434/10\
14

NEW YORK -- Enthusiasts eager for General Motors
Corp. to bring its Chevrolet Volt plug-in
electric car to market got a major charge in New
York on Wednesday after hearing from the top
executives on the program, including a surprise
visit by Vice Chairman Bob Lutz.

More than 300 people from across the country
traveled to the New York Auto Show for an
opportunity to meet with and question some of the
top executives responsible for the fast-track
development of the car, which is to go into production by the end of 2010.

"We sense the energy from Volt Nation," Lutz
said, "and it propels us to get it to market as promised and on time."
[snip]
While the event, titled Volt Nation, took place
at the auto show's Chevrolet display, it was the
brainchild of Dr. Lyle Dennis, a 39-year-old New
York neurologist for whom the concept of the Volt
struck such a strong chord that he started a blog
in his spare time: www.gm-volt.com.

"I've always been interested in not burning oil
for all the reasons people talk about:
environment, financial, social, political,"
Dennis said. "I recognized right away that the
Volt was going to be very important for the
future of the country and the world. ... I wanted
to create a place for like-minded people to get
together and influence this car's development."

With the Volt Nation event, Dennis said earlier
in the day, the Web site, which is independent of
the automaker, has achieved a milestone.

"For the first time in history, a major U.S.
automaker will hold a conference not for the
press, not for the government ... but for the
consumer," said Dennis, who has become something
of a cult hero among those who frequent his Web site. .

The Web site has become so popular -- it averages
100,000 visitors per month -- that in November GM
agreed to participate in an in-person meeting with enthusiasts.

"My goal has been to connect people to GM,"
Dennis said. "At first, I would say, 'Give me
your questions and I'll be the guy that carries
them to the team.' After that, I realized:
Wouldn't it be cool if I could bring 250 people to meet the team?"

GM said yes and agreed to host 300 members of the so-called Volt Nation.

On Wednesday, several top executives, including
Lutz, vehicle line executive and chief engineer
Frank Weber, vehicle line director Tony Posawatz,
Chevrolet General Manager Ed Peper, and several
other top executives answered questions from a
room full of people who'd all like to be first to
own the electric vehicle when it comes out.
[snip]
Jon Lauckner, GM vice president of global program
management, called the automaker's interaction
with such a large group of potential consumers at
an auto show in advance of the production model unprecedented.

Posawatz said the one-on-one method of
communication is integral to the development of the Volt and GM's future.

"The very reason we are here is to get input and
learn from you," Posawatz told the crowd in
formal remarks before the team informally mingled
with the Volt Nation visitors.

Peper vowed to keep the lines of communication with the group open.

"We are absolutely thrilled to have so many
advocates out there for the Volt," said Peper.
"The word of mouth from the advocates we have for
this product is the No. 1 thing we can do to make it a success."


AT THE WEBSITE: http://www.gm-volt.com/ STORIES INCLUDE:

Volt Nation VIDEO: Bob Lutz Addresses the Crowd
Posted in: Volt Nation Video
This is the section of Volt Nation where GM vice
chairman Bob Lutz made some comments to the crowd about the car and the event.

Lutz: 94.5% Confident Chevy Volt in Production by November 2010
Soon after the Volt concept was first announced
in January 2007 GM vice chairman Bob Lutz told
the world he was 90% confident it would be built
by 2010. This has become my favorite question to
ask him each time I get the chance because it is
a good gauge of the programs development […]

Volt Nation Press Coverage: A Million Volts, GM expects to Lose Money at First
Another great outcome of the Volt Nation event is
that we are getting considerable press coverage.
This will help spread the word. It is interesting
to see how reporters describe our efforts.

Volt Nation a Success
We did it!
I just got back from the Volt Nation event at the
Jacob Javits Center and I believe it was a
smashing success. Over 200 people braved the
rains and traveled by car bus and plane from as
far away as Chicago, Arizona, Minnesota, and
California to take part in this historic event.

Volt Nation Has Arrived
This site has served as a public forum to analyze
and observe the production of the car that will
change the word. The first mass-produced
electrically-driven car built by a major
automaker with sufficient infrastructure to see
to it that a large proportion of the population will have access to it.

Lutz: Volt Battery Suppliers are in a Horse Race
and Expect 100,000 in sales by 2012
GM vice chairman Bob Lutz said GM initially
planned to choose between either CPI/LG Chem or
Conti/A123 to make the Volts pack by this April,
but that the plans have changed somewhat. He now
says GM wants to “run the two in parallel for a while longer”.
He calls the battle to be the Volt’s […]

CONSUMER REPORTS EDITOR'S BLOG REPORT
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/03/chevrolet-volt.html
March 20, 2008   -- Eric Evarts
Plugged in: Chevrolet Volt

General Motors' development of the Chevrolet Volt
has been conducted with unprecedented publicity
for the company. In fact, it has had so much
publicity that it has led some skeptics to
believe the program is a mere publicity stunt.
Given that the American industry needs more good
news for multiple reasons, this theory is
alluring. Either way, we keep learning more about
the GM program at almost every auto show and on many occasions in between.

At a "town hall" meeting with Volt enthusiasts in
New York, the company spelled out many more
details about its targets for the production car. Here's what we learned:

      * It will definitely be a small, four-door
hatchback based on GM's global small-car
architecture, as the concept car is, and it will
be built on an existing assembly line.
      * The car will likely be low-slung and
narrow, because aerodynamics will be important to
achieving the targeted fuel economy. Seats will
"fit like a tailored suit, not a bulky winter
coat," says the Volt's Chief Engineer Andrew Farah.
      * The car's lithium-ion battery pack will
have 16 kilowatt/hours of capacity - the amount
necessary to travel 40 miles on an electric charge.
      * The car will have an "intelligent"
on-board battery charger that can automatically
charge from any type of typical household
electric current - either 110-volt or 220-volt AC.
      * The battery pack will consist of 250
individual cells, wired in series. If any one of
them fails, the whole pack will be dead. The pack will be liquid-cooled.
      * Those batteries will use one of two
technologies: lithium-ion nano-phosphate
batteries from A123 systems in Massachusetts, or
lithium-ion magnesium batteries from LG Chem.
Neither technology was used in the lithium
batteries that exploded spontaneously in laptop
computers. Although lithium battery technology is
advancing, GM has frozen this technology for the
first-generation Volt to meet its November 2010 production target.
      * GM is targeting an acceleration time from
0 to 60 mph of between 7 and 9 seconds, similar
to the range of most family sedans today.
      * The Volt will initially be sold only in
certain states or cities, but will roll out
nationwide "within months" after that.
[snip]

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Google.org, which has thrilled so many people with its many
initiatives, of course most notably for us, the RechargeIT program
and RE<C (Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal). We've just noticed the
new slogan for RechargeIT:
"Recharge a car, recharge the grid, recharge the planet"
That's great shorthand for plug-in vehicles, the electrification of
transportation and the integration of vehicles and the power grid.

Now RechargeIT takes a further step with a new blog at
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/

The first posting gives Google's position that it intends to submit
to the Air Resources Board at the crucial hearing in Sacramento March 27.

Since we often hear that some people prefer reading email to clicking
on URLs, below we reprint both postings to ensure broad distribution.

Power On!
Introducing the RechargeIT Blog
Posted by the RechargeIT Team
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/03/power-on_19.html

Power on! Not that we have anything against the sound of exhaust
streaming out of a tailpipe, but electrified transportation is,
simply, cool and better for our health, the environment, and energy
security. Google.org's RechargeIT initiative (see below for more
information) is launching a blog. This blog will cover an array of
plug-in topics, including vehicle technology, battery technology,
RechargeIT's projects and data, policy, interviews, and interesting
snippets from newspaper articles and current events. Some posts will
be very technical, others less so, and some not technical at all. The
one binding characteristic is that we hope all posts will be interesting.

We would like to encourage you all to sign up for our discussion list
here. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our posts and the
ideas they provoke. We will be signed up to the discussion list and
can answer questions you have about our blog posts, but the
discussion list is mainly for you to discuss the posts further.

Not familiar with RechargeIT?

The RechargeIT initiative is a project of Google.org in which we
converted four Toyota Priuses and two Ford Escape hybrids to plug-in
cars using the Hymotion-A123 system. We use these vehicles as a test
fleet and track their data to better understand their capabilities
(we will discuss the particular data in a future post). We also
issued a $10 million RFP for plug-in and component technologies,
engage in policy debates as with the ZEV Mandate (we will discuss
this in a future post too!), we fund promising nonprofits and
researchers to continue their important work, and work with the
stakeholders to better understand this space and help them in any way we can.


California's ZEV Program
Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 9:00 AM Posted by Adam Borelli
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/03/californias-zev-program.html

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is considering changes to
the Zero Emission Vehicle Program (also commonly known as the "ZEV
Mandate") (see Appendix A) on March 27th at its Board meeting in
Sacramento. This is a big deal.

What is CARB?
The California Air Resources Board, or CARB, is a regulatory agency
that sits under the California Environmental Protection Agency and
regulates everything from air and water to transportation from an
emissions standpoint and climate change legislation implementation
like the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32 (text).

Quick History of ZEV Program
Shortly after GM launched the EV1 (GM page, Wikipedia, EV1 Club),
CARB passed the ZEV Program, requiring that 2% of sales by automakers
in California constitute zero emission vehicles by 1998, 5% by 2001,
and 10% by 2003. The other big car manufacturers also developed
electric vehicles in response to the ZEV Program. In 1998 CARB
decided to allow cars other than pure ZEVs to count for ZEVs. In 2003
the ZEV Program changed again to be more complicated and weaker,
delaying introduction of large numbers of ZEVs by until 2012 and
beyond, and putting an emphasis on fuel cell vehicles over battery
electric vehicles. Around the same time GM and all the other
manufacturers canceled their electric vehicle (EV) programs in favor
of fuel cell vehicles. In other words, the ZEV Program has had a
tough history and has evolved from an extremely simple program to a
very complicated one.

ZEV Program Today
Today the ZEV Program looks almost nothing like the original program.
It is now very complicated, classifying vehicles into three types,
allocating credits to each vehicle.

The ZEV Program, in short, is a regulation that requires major
automakers to produce a certain number of ZEVs [Footnote: 1 ZEVs are
fuel cell vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and neighborhood
electric vehicles] each model year in order to do business in
California. Some of the credits may be met with vehicles that are not
pure ZEVs, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids, that include some
advanced, low polluting components. The ZEV Program does not treat
all vehicles equally; it gives fuel cell vehicles the most credits,
then pure electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, followed by a host
of advanced vehicles like hybrids. The ultimate objective is to
improve California air quality.

You can see the proposed staff changes HERE (known as the "Initial
Statement of Reasons" or ISOR).

Our Recommendations
Google.org has been talking with Board Members, staff, and
stakeholder groups to understand their perspectives on the proposed
changes to the regulations. After meeting with them, we decided there
are five recommendations relating to the proposed changes that we
will submit to the Air Resources Board. Our hope is that when
approved and implemented, the ZEV Program will accelerate innovation
and reduce air pollution by getting large numbers of vehicles into
consumers hands and on the road. We ultimately see this as a
phenomenal business opportunity for the automakers. Californians are
ready for more advanced vehicles like battery electric vehicles and
plug-in hybrids. Once these vehicles become available, they expect
them to take off just like existing hybrids have and they will help
California simultaneously improve its air quality at a faster speed
than traditional hybrids.

The following are our five recommendations:

1. Strengthen the newly proposed "enhanced AT PZEV" category to
require a minimum capability to drive in pure electric mode for 25
miles, not the proposed 10 miles, to accommodate the commuting range
of a majority of drivers and make the vehicles more useful,
profitable, and marketable.

2. Require automakers produce at least 10,000 electric or fuel cell
vehicles total from 2012 to 2014, not the proposed 2,500 vehicles.

3. Do not allow the electric and fuel cell vehicles sold in other
states to count towards the credits for the California requirement
(known as the "travel provision"); placing vehicles in other states
will not result in the necessary net improvements in California air
quality. Each state's requirements should count only towards their
own state -- a larger total number of vehicles across the country
will result in improved economies of scale and lower prices for the
vehicles, and will result in a larger air quality improvement countrywide.

4. Maintain the credit sunset for less efficient, lower power hybrids
(known as Silver Type C); the current proposal asks to extend these
credits indefinitely.

5. Do not increase the credits for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
(low speed vehicles similar to electric golf carts); they are not
driven like full-function vehicles that are the focus of the ZEV Program.

The California Air Resources Board has a phenomenal opportunity to
improve the air quality in California by incentivizing the production
and sale of vehicles that pollute less and as a side benefit get
better fuel economy. Ten other states have signed on to the tougher
restrictions of California's ZEV Program and will follow California's lead.

We encourage the California Air Resources Board to consider our
recommendations. We believe these proposed changes to the staff
recommendations are pragmatic, realistic, and achievable.

Where You Fit In
You can have a say in this decision as well, by calling Board Members
and Staff, mailing, or e-mailing the Air Resources Board prior to the
final vote on March 27, 2008.



--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

If you've seen the movie, "Who Killed the
Electric Car," you know about the California Air
Resources Board's key role in regulating and
incentivizing plug-in cars. Now the ARB faces a
major turning point, and needs to hear from the
public, in person in Sacramento March 27, by
testimony and comments online, and by messages to
the Governor. We provide a range of background and ways to get involved below.

OUR OVERVIEW
Over the past few years, the Board's members and
staff have been gradually becoming more favorable
to plug-in hybrids. A key factor has been the
major review that led to the Zero Emissions Technology Symposium.

See http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html for:
11/10/07: California Leaps Ahead: PHEV Center:
100-Household Test; Early Driver Report; Air Resources Board Evolution
04/23/07: PHEVs Emerge as Nearest Technology in
Long-Awaited ZEV Tech Review by Air Resources Board of CA
10/05/06: Progress or Breakthroughs at California
Symposium on Zero Emission Vehicles
10/02/06: Toyota's Comments on PHEVs at Air Resources Board Hearing
10/02/06: Key Board Member Proposes "Plug-In California Initiative"
09/29/06: Experiences of 2 PHEV Early Drivers:
Testimony to Air Resources Board ZEV Technology Symposium
06/13/05: ARB last September: transcript of board responses

A month ago, the ISOR ("Initial Statement of
Reasons") by the ARB staff was released. On March
27, the Board will hear comments on this document
at a public hearing in Sacramento. This is the
culmination of "round two" of the Zero Emissions
Mandate. Some of this involves very complex
allocations of credits given to large carmakers for putting ZEVs on the road.

Some of the recommendations are favorable;
however, the proposals are tending to motivate
PHEVs at the expense of BEVs (battery-electric
vehicles), implying a choice that reflects the
Board's view that BEVs are significantly less
near-term than PHEVs. The response of plug-in
advocates has been that it's a major mistake to
pit these two complementary approaches against
each other, requiring that incentives for one
come from the allocations of the other. And the
perspective flies in the face of the reality that
several major carmakers have announced their
intentions to mass-produce BEVs within the next five years (along with PHEVs).

WHAT TO DO
CalCars is working closely with other
organizations to make our views known. Among
those leading the campaign is Plug In America and
the Electric Auto Association. Here's what PIA,
CalCars and other organizations are calling for:
* Require the full 25,000 ZEVs that automakers had promised for 2012-2014
* Create a separate requirement for plug-in
hybrids that lets them replace the dirtiest
vehicles in CARB's regulations, rather than the cleanest ZEVs
* Incentivize plug-in hybrids that have the most on-board electricity storage

We are in full agreement with PIA's points. (We
have one minor difference in perspective: while
the ARB's decisions are critical, we're not
saying that poor rules could "kill the electric
car again," since we believe the enormous
momentum and continued campaigns for
commercialization from many constituencies will
prevail even if ARB's incentives are counter-productive.)

We encourage our readers to join the hundreds of
citizens (not just from California, not just from
the 10+ other states that follow California's ZEV
Mandate regulations) in giving their views. Find out how below.


SEE THE DOCUMENTS:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/zev2008/zev2008.htm BASE PAGE
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/zev2008/zevisor.pdf  ISOR
http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2008/ma032708.htm AGENDA FOR MARCH 27

TESTIFY: Complete this form to submit your comment to zev2008
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcsubform.php?listname=zev2008&comm_period>ht\
tp://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcsubform.php?listname=zev2008&comm_period


BLOG POSTING GIVING BACKGROUND PLUS COMMENTS
Killing the electric car, again, Part 1: Is CARB up to its old tricks?
By Earl Killian, guest blogger at Climate
Progress, reposted by Joseph Romm to Gristmill (with different comments)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/13/143323/325
http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/13/killing-the-electric-car-again-part-1

BLOG PART TWO EXPLAINS: HOW TO GET OUT THE WORD
http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/14/killing-the-electric-car-again-part-ii/
Posting includes URLs.
First, the Air Resources Board (CARB) takes
comments at its website. These comments are
printed and given to each board member prior to
the meeting. You may also FAX or write to CARB. A
FAX, postcard, or letter addressed to Chairwoman
Mary Nichols will reach the entire board.
Second, a phone call to Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger helps, since the Governor appoints
many of the board members. The Governor’s phone
number is 916-445-2841. Press 1, then 5, and then
0 and you will be transferred to an operator to
leave your opinion about this “hot issue.”
Alternatively, FAX or write using the Governor’s
FAX and postal address, or use his web contact form.
Californians should also let their Assemblymember
and State Senator know their opinion.


THE GOVERNOR'S ROLE IS CRITICAL
Governor Schwarzenegger remains a missing piece
in the equation. Though he's awaiting a Tesla
vehicle, he has rarely spoken about plug-in cars.
(Most recently, at the LA Auto Show, we reported
on his comments at
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/881.html .)
PIA has organized a joint letter to the Governor
(and see immediately above for ways you can contact the Governor).

Plug In America's Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger
http://www.pluginamerica.org/pia-letter-gov-17mar08.shtm

March 17, 2008
Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger,

President George Bush called on Americans this
month to "get off oil" and start to drive
electric vehicles. With gas nearing $4 a gallon,
global warming threatening disaster, and our
national security at risk, the president got it right.

Unfortunately, powerful California regulators are
perilously close to killing the electric car all over again.

On March 27, the California Air Resources Board
will revise their history-making program that put
more than 5,000 highway-capable Zero Emission
Vehicles (ZEVs) on the road and reduced our
output of carbon dioxide--the main global warming
gas--by one million metric tons.

But new revisions by the Board’s staff will
profoundly weaken the program again instead of
propelling our country toward a pollution-free
future. This proposal would require each
automaker to produce only about 150 ZEVs per year through 2015.

That’s less than what consumers are demanding,
less than the number of ZEVs that can be produced
today--let alone three years from now--less than
what’s needed to meet state goals for emission
reductions, and less than what these regulators
required in 2003 when they helped kill the electric car the first time.
Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only
state allowed to set tougher limits on vehicle
emissions than federal regulators. Ten other
states have adopted California's emission limits.
The board's vote has national implications.

Consumers want cleaner cars. According to a
recent Harris Interactive poll, 80 percent of
respondents said fuel efficiency would affect their next new car purchase.
Take Norma Williamson, a public high school
teacher in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos.
Norma and her husband Alan have been driving a
fully electric Toyota RAV4 since 2002. They
charge the car with electricity generated by
their home's solar panels. They haven't purchased
gas in six years. They live—and propel—the promise of a pollution-free future.

Gov. Schwarzenegger, you showed true leadership
when you signed the nation's first global warming
law. You showed true leadership with your vow to
"turn back the clock on pollution" through your
Million Solar Roofs Plan, an initiative that is
the equivalent of taking one million gasoline cars off the road.
Now, how about putting one million electric cars on the road?

Please continue to lead our state by asking the
California Air Resources Board to strengthen
their staff proposal and get more electric cars on the road.
As you prepare to take delivery of your electric
Tesla, we ask you to support a stronger Zero
Emission Vehicle Program that will help us all
turn back the clock on pollution.

We ask you to save the electric car.

Chelsea Sexton
Executive Director, Plug In America

Plug In America is joined in this appeal to
Governor Schwarzenegger by the following supporters:

Ed Begley, Jr., Actor * Warren S. Gifford, Ph.D.
Executive Director (ret.) Bell Laboratories * Dr.
and Mrs. Peter R. Greer, former Deputy Under
Secretary of Education * Peter Horton,
Director/Producer * Chris Paine, Director, "Who
Killed the Electric Car?" * Bradley D. Turock,
Director (ret). Bell Communications Research *
Jon Wellinghoff, Commissioner, FERC * Jim
Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence
* Jerry Zucker, Director/Producer

As You Sow * CalCars * Central Coast EAA * Co-op
America * Desert Star, LLLP * Doublestone
Computing * Electric Auto Association * Electric
Vehicle Association of Southern California *
Energy Efficiency Solar * Enviro Plumbing *
Global Exchange * Jaguar Technologies * Lightning
Rod Foundation * Mainstreet Moms * Miles
Automotive * Northern Lights Foundation * Ocean
Defenders Alliance * Orange County Interfaith
Coalition for the Environment * Rainforest Action
Network * Ranch Air Transport Corporation *
Reclaim Democracy * San Francisco Electric
Vehicle Association * SBR Partners, LLC * Sea
Shepherd * Summit Green, Inc. * Sustainable
Transport Club * Telecom Internet, Ltd. * Tesla
Motors * Turock Family Foundation * V2Green *
Zenn Motors * Zero Motorcycles * 3121 Property Management Corp.


ELECTRIC AUTO ASSOCIATION GIVES MORE BACKGROUND
CalCars is a Special Interest Chapter of EAA,
along with about 50 regional and local chapters.
(Many EAA members have participated in CalCars'
technology demonstration and advocacy programs,
and we shared the organization's Keith Crock
Technical Achievement Award in 2006 for our work
in Prius conversions.) Here's the letter EAA sent to its members.

On March 27th, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) is scheduled to vote on a change to their
Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) program that could
delay production EVs from the major automakers
another decade. The Electric Auto Association
urges you to take action to make California aware
that you want production EVs back on the
roads.  We have set up a website to help.  The
ZEV goals were once 2% in 1998, 3% in 2001, and
10% in 2003, but later the program was put off a decade.

Now as the end of that decade draws near, CARB
staff proposes to delay another decade.  Staff
calls for 840 vehicles per year (0.04%) in 2012
through 2014.  The old 1998 target is fifty times
what is now being proposed for 16 years
later.  In 2015 CARB proposes only 0.4%.  The
2012 goals do not even approach the number of
vehicles previously shown to be possible.

The EAA does not normally use email except for
membership reminders.  Because of urgent upcoming
decision that may affect EVs to years to come, we
are sending this email to ask that you join a
low-traffic mailing list that the EAA will use to
alert you to developments where your emails,
letters, faxes, phone calls, etc. could make a
big difference.  Participation is optional, but
please do consider joining and help us advocate
for EVs in important battles, such the one that will be decided on 3/27.

For further information about what you can do to
let California know you want a meaningful ZEV program, please visit:
    http://www.eaaev.org/action/
This page also has details on how to join our
EV-advocacy mailing list to get future notices.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Three items about the auto industry and PHEVs:

* Ford-owned Volvo and GM-owned Saab join with
the Swedish government, Vatenfall, and ETC AB to develop PHEVs.

* We correct a misleading European media report
about the Toyota iQ, scheduled for mass
production in 2009: in fact it's not a PHEV.
Toyota's evident intention to mass-produce PHEVs
sometime around 2010 stands. (We've updated the
information at our popular page, How Carmakers
are Responding to the Plug-In Hybrid
Opportunity  http://www.calcars.org/carmakers.html .)

* GM's invitation to users to give their views on
data-collection and display for the GM Volt gets
an avalanche of user opinions overnight.


1. PHEVS IN SWEDEN
Many people, including our Icelandic colleagues
working to develop the second annual conference
"Driving Sustainability: Fueling the Future of
Transport," were very interested in the new
developments in Sweden (which participated
heavily in last September's conference). They
note that Vattenfall (Swedish word for water-fall
referring to hydropower) is the biggest energy
generator in Sweden. ETC AB is a battery and fuel
cell company in Sweden. Following are press
releases from Volvo and Vattenfall plus a report from CNET.

VOLVO PRESS RELEASE
Volvo Car Corporation launches unique cooperation
for the development of plug-in hybrid cars in Sweden
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/03/14/080949.html

GÖTEBORG, SWEDEN - Together with electricity
provider Vattenfall, Saab Automobile, ETC and the
Swedish state, Volvo Car Corporation is launching
a joint broad-based research venture to develop
spearhead technology in the area of plug-in
hybrid cars. Sweden will be the arena for the field tests.

"I see this project as a positive further
development of sustainable personal transport. We
have a unique opportunity to take the lead when
it comes to innovations for advanced green-car
technology", says Fredrik Arp, President and CEO of Volvo Car Corporation.

The aim of the project, which is being carried
out jointly by Volvo Car Corporation, Saab
Automobile, Vattenfall and ETC, is to develop and
demonstrate the next-generation hybrid cars. A
fleet of 10 plug-in hybrids will be produced that
can be recharged directly from the mains wall socket.

Volvo has long experience of cooperation with a
variety of society's actors and with this project
the company aims to participate in and shape
decisions and initiatives that are taken both
within and outside the car industry.

"We want to be involved in setting up the rules
for the future and to help build up broad-based
competence in Sweden in this vital area," says Fredrik Arp.

Over a five-year period, Volvo Cars will invest
just over 11 billion SEK in development aimed at
reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Volvo
already offers its customers one of the
industry's widest ranges of Flexifuel engines. In
parallel the company is continuing to enhance the
efficiency of its petrol- and diesel-powered
cars. 2008 will see the launch of car models that
release less than 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.

Volvo Cars is also focusing intensively on hybrid
technology. In the medium term the company will
introduce hybrid variants where an electric motor
supports the combustion engine. In the longer
term, plug-in hybrids will be introduced. One
example of this was presented in autumn 2007 with
the Volvo C30 ReCharge Concept. Used in the most
effective way, this concept car cuts emissions of
carbon dioxide by about 65 percent compared with
the hybrid cars available on the market today.
And if the electricity comes from CO2-sustainable
sources such as hydropower and windpower, this figure improves still further.

"Within the next decade, we will see more
electric vehicles on our roads," says Fredrik Arp.

VATTENFALL PRESS RELEASE
Vattenfall to develop technology for climate smart vehicles
http://www.vattenfall.com/www/vf_com/vf_com/370103press/558539press/index.jsp?pm\
id=90268

Plug-In hybrids can reduce the transport sector’s
dependence upon fossil fuels and its negative
effect on the climate. Vattenfall is part of a
Swedish industrial initiative to speed up the
development of next generation’s hybrid vehicles,
which may be charged with electricity directly
from the socket and driven longer distances on electricity.

"Running more vehicles on electricity is one way
of reducing transport sector emissions of the
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Vattenfall is
investing a billion Swedish Kronor in renewable
electricity production and implementing a wide
ranging of different measures to reduce climate
changing emissions. As such we see it as a
natural step to work with Volvo Cars and Saab
Automobile to lay the foundations for a combined
Swedish industry investment in Plug-In hybrids,”
says Lars G Josefsson, Group CEO Vattenfall.

The car industry and energy sector are both
convinced that Plug-In hybrid cars can be an
effective means of reducing the carbon footprint
of road traffic. Swedish electricity production
has low carbon dioxide emissions and electricity is a powerful propellant.

Electric vehicles will not require any extensive
infrastructure development, as Sweden’s power
grid has sufficient capacity and an ordinary
power point can be used to charge a
Plug-In-hybrid. Sweden also has enough production
capacity to meet the increased demand for
electricity that would arise, in both the short
and the long-term. For instance, Vattenfall’s
Lillgrund wind farm with 48 wind turbines could
supply enough electricity to power 147,000
vehicles that drive 15,000 kilometres a year
using electricity 75 percent of the time.

“Using electricity to power personal transport
vehicles is a very good example of how energy
resources can be used in an effective way. At the
same time, improving energy efficiency where
fossil fuels are also replaced by carbon dioxide
free power, is a major climate change
initiative,” says Lars G Josefsson. One initial
step in this investment in Plug-In hybrids is a
project to build, demonstrate and evaluate
vehicles and various charging alternatives, in
order to determine their potential for reducing
emissions and what the costs would be etc.

For Vattenfall, this project entails the
development and testing of electricity
infrastructure and various charging alternatives.
Solutions should be user friendly and flexible
enough to ensure charging a Plug-In hybrid is
easier than filling your car at a petrol station
today. The project partners are Vattenfall, Saab
Automobile, Volvo Cars and ETC AB. Funding is
also being provided by the Swedish Energy Agency.


CNET March 14, 2008
Volvo road tests ReCharge plug-in hybrid concept
Posted by Wayne Cunningham
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9894305-54.html

Volvo showed off its ReCharge plug-in hybrid
concept, based on the Volvo C30 model, at last
year's Frankfurt auto show. We were skeptical
when we saw it because even though it looked
cool, Volvo only had a cutaway demonstration
model to show off, and the company has no current
hybrid cars among its model lineup. But Volvo
reports today that it has a working concept on
the road as part of a larger program to develop
next generation powertrains. Volvo, in a
consortium with Saab, the Swedish government, and
energy company Vattenfall, announced a five-year
plan to develop plug-in hybrids. The consortium's
goal is to produce a fleet of 10 plug-in hybrid
cars, using Sweden as a testing field. We are a
little underwhelmed by this level of ambition, as
there are already companies in the U.S. offering
plug-in conversions of existing hybrids. As part
of this plan, Volvo announced it will offer a
hybrid variant of one or more existing models
within five years. At this time, Volvo isn't
saying what type of hybrid technology it will
use, but owner Ford already offers a hybrid
system similar to Toyota's on its Ford Escape and
Mercury Mariner. When the ReCharge concept was
introduced, Volvo specified lithium-polymer
batteries and in-wheel electric motors, with a
small flex-fuel generator onboard as a range extender.



2. CORRECTION ABOUT TOYOTA'S IQ; 2010 PHEV TARGET REMAINS

On March 8, we enthusiastically posted to
CalCars-News, "Toyota's Back in Race To Be First
Major Company on PHEVs" based on reports that
Toyota's 99 gram/kilometer ultra-lightweight IQ
car, to be mass-produced in 2009 in Europe, was a
plug-in hybrid. Something didn't sound right
about this, so we checked with Toyota's Group VP
for Corporate Communications, Irv Miller, who
confirmed that the iQ is super lightweight,
aerodynamic, low C02 emissions -- not a hybrid,
but has a gas or diesel option.

At the same time, we have not heard any
contradictions from the Wall Street Journal story
we linked to in that same posting at
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/924.html
where Toyota's President Katsuaki Watanab says
the company will sell a plug-in hybrid with a
lithium-ion battery by 2010 at the latest --
which means they could still get there before GM's Saturn Vue or Volt.


3. MORE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT GM VOLT
Finally, GM-Volt.com is a website focusing
exclusively on the Volt, with frequent news
reports and broad discussions. Dr. Lyle Dennis,
its volunteer physician editor/publisher, has
collected over 14,000 "pre-orders" for the Volt.
After an indirect invitation from a GM engineer
to give opinions about what kind of data the car
should make available to drivers, 300 people gave
their views in less than a day:
“Give Your Direct Input to GM’s Volt Engineering Team on Vehicle Data Options!”
<http://www.gm-volt.com/2008/03/16/give-your-direct-input-to-gms-volt-engineerin\
g-team-on-vehicle-data-options/>http://www.gm-volt.com/2008/03/16/give-your-dire\
ct-input-to-gms-volt-engineering-team-on-vehicle-data-options


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

First is a useful summary by the Detroit Free Press of the three
presidential candidates' positions on plug-in cars. (We're working to
get each of them to arrive at a campaign event in a PHEV -- who will be first?)

Second, in a high-profile development that follows the February
announcement of a new North Carolina Advanced Transportation Energy
Center  focused on PHEVs (see
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/914.html ), now Fortune 500
utility Duke Energy and Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (not Coca-Cola Corp,
but rather the second-largest Coke bottler in the US), are joining
together in a project to start replacing some of their cars with
PHEVs. We include the press release from Duke Energy


Political leaders offer support in push to make electric cars reality
BY JUSTIN HYDE, FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF
March 7, 2008
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/BUSINESS01/803070314

Battery technology may still be struggling to reach its goals, but it
can count on some high-profile support -- namely, the current and
future residents of the White House.

Political leaders of all stripes have embraced battery-powered
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids as an essential tool for
reducing U.S. oil demand and fighting global warming, despite the
technical challenges such vehicles face. And the battery industry has
lobbied hard for government funding to bolster itself.

What has been proposed so far:

# Congress approved -- but has yet to fund -- $295 million in annual
research on vehicle batteries, as well as a loan program to bolster
U.S. production, as part of last year's energy bill. The House
recently passed a bill to grant tax credits of $4,000-$6,000 on
plug-in hybrids, but the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate this year.

# Plug-in hybrids have been a pet cause of President George W. Bush,
who invited A123 Systems and other companies to the White House last
year. He has requested $50.9 million in the 2009 budget for vehicle
battery research. Last year, the Department of Energy contributed $14
million to a $28-million research fund from the U.S. Advanced Battery
Consortium, run by General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Corp. and
Chrysler LLC, which later gave grants to four companies.

# John McCain pledged to work with automakers and utilities to boost
plug-in hybrids, but has not offered specifics.

# Hillary Clinton pledged to spend $2 billion on battery research,
offer consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in
hybrid and add 100,000 plug-in hybrids to the federal fleet by 2015.

# Barack Obama has said plug-in hybrid promotion would be part of a
10-year, $150-billion plan toward energy independence. And he
introduced a Senate bill that would let electric utilities give
customers incentives for plug-in hybrids.



Coca-Cola Bottling Company Joins with Duke Energy to Test Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/sto\
ry/03-13-2008/0004773582&EDATE=THU+Mar+13+2008,+11:51+AM

CHARLOTTE, N.C., March 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Duke Energy
(NYSE: DUK) and Coca-Cola Bottling Company Consolidated have launched
a joint research initiative to promote plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV)
technology.

"Through this collaboration, we hope to increase the awareness of
plug-in hybrids, demonstrate the viability of the technology, and
evaluate performance parameters," said Mike Rowand, director of
advanced customer technology for Duke Energy.

As part of this initiative, both companies will convert some of the
hybrid vehicles in their transportation fleets to plug-in hybrids by
using aftermarket kits.

A PHEV kit extends the efficiency of a standard hybrid vehicle by
increasing the size of its battery, which can be charged through a
normal 120- volt electric outlet. PHEV technology has enabled
vehicles to travel 100 miles or more on a gallon of gas.

"We believe plug-in hybrid technology could play an important role in
further reducing our fleet costs while addressing environmental
concerns," said Lauren C.

Steele, vice president of corporate affairs for Coca-Cola
Consolidated. "We are excited about participating in this pilot program."

Charlotte-based Coca-Cola Consolidated currently operates more than
400 hybrid vehicles, one of the nation's largest corporate hybrid
fleets, and plans to convert three Toyota Prius hybrids into PHEVs.

"Plug-in hybrid technology offers real advantages in a number of
areas," Rowand said. "In addition to higher mileage in the face of
rising gasoline prices, plug-in hybrids produce much lower emissions
and can help our nation achieve greater energy security while
providing the overall performance drivers expect.

"This is really just the start for what we hope will be the broader
use of plug-in hybrids," he added. "Through this collaboration with
Coca-Cola and other Duke Energy initiatives, there will be more than
a dozen plug-in hybrids operating in the Charlotte region in early 2008.

"As more people begin to see the advantages of plug-in hybrids, we
believe market demand will increase, which will encourage automakers
to move forward with their plans to produce plug-in hybrids
commercially," added Rowand.

Duke Energy, one of the largest electric power companies in the
United States, supplies and delivers energy to approximately 4
million U.S. customers. The company has approximately 36,000
megawatts of electric generating capacity in the Midwest and the
Carolinas, and natural gas distribution services in Ohio and
Kentucky. In addition, Duke Energy has more than 4,000 megawatts of
electric generation in Latin America, and is a joint- venture partner
in a U.S. real estate company. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke
Energy is a Fortune 500 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol DUK. More information about the company is available
on the Internet at: http://www.duke-energy.com.

Coke Consolidated (NASDAQ:COKE), founded in 1902, is the
second-largest Coca-Cola bottler in the United States.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

The House of Representatives recently again passed "the parts that
were left out of the energy bill" -- including provisions that could
provide a $4-$6,000 tax credit for plug-in hybrids. (That would go
far in addressing the "first cost" issue of PHEVs. Much of the
attention in trying to get the bill passed by the Senate and signed
by the President involves the funding of the measure -- removing tax
credits given to oil companies at a time when their profits were a
fraction of what they are today. Here's a joint statement by
advocates, followed by an editorial in The New York Times.

http://blog.google.org/2008/03/googleorg-calls-on-us-congress-to.html

Google.org Calls on U.S. Congress to Support Renewable Energy
Wednesday 3/05/2008 10:02:00 AM

Posted by Michael Terrell, Program Manager, Google.org

Yesterday Google.org, along with representatives from the business
and venture capital community, called on the U.S. Congress and the
Bush Administration to work together to quickly approve extensions of
the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The
PTC and the ITC are tax incentives designed to spur the market for
renewable energy and are critical to financing a new renewable energy
generation. The credits are currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008.

Speaking at a news conference at the Washington International
Renewable Energy Conference, Dan Reicher, Google.org's Director of
Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, said: "We are at the dawn of a
green energy revolution that could fundamentally reshape the way the
world generates energy. It is critical that we get the policy right
in order to drive investment in clean energy and push these
technologies out of the lab and into the mainstream. Policy makers
can make or break this revolution."


The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), TechNet and the
National Venture Capital Association sponsored the press conference
which also included representatives of GE Energy Financial Services,
Credit Suisse, and the venture capital firm Nth Power.

In a recent ACORE letter to Congress, over 350 industry leaders
warned that a failure by Congress to immediately pass ITC/PTC
extensions could jeopardize U.S. job creation and over 42,000 MW of
planned renewable energy projects currently in development in 45
states. (That's an amount equivalent to 75 base load electricity
generation stations and enough to power 16 million homes.)


Here's a link to a February New York Times editorial on the subject,
"Clean Power or Dirty Coal,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10sun2.html and a more
recent and more succinct editorial:

Editorial: The Senate Shills for Big Oil
Published: March 3, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03mon4.html

The House had approved the credits but insisted -- under the
Democrats' pay-as-you-go rules -- that they be paid for by
eliminating the same amount in tax credits for oil and gas producers.
Industry (which is rolling in cash these days) howled, President Bush
lofted veto threats, and the Senate caved.

The damage was immediately apparent. New investment in clean,
non-fossil-fuel energy sources -- which need the help until they
become competitive with older, dirtier energy sources -- began to shrivel.

The Senate now has a chance to redeem itself. Last week, the House
approved a new $17 billion package of credits, spread over 10 years,
to encourage the development of renewable energy sources and to
promote energy-efficient buildings and appliances.

As before, the House insisted that the credits be paid for by
terminating an equivalent $17 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for
oil and gas companies. And right on schedule, Senate Republicans
began complaining that increasing industry's taxes would discourage
investment in domestic oil and gas production.

What will it take to wake the Senate up? It should be clear to even
the most obtuse members that a country that consumes one-fifth of the
world's oil but has only 3 percent of its reserves cannot possibly
drill its way to energy independence.

It should be equally clear that an industry whose five biggest
producers generated $145 billion in profits last year can easily
sacrifice $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks it does not need to help
develop the cleaner fuels the country does need.

If those arguments aren't enough, we offer the Senate some words from
President Bush. In a 2005 address to the American Society of
Newspaper Editors, Mr. Bush spoke forcefully of the need for an
energy strategy that looked to the long term and emphasized
conservation and renewable fuels.

Of the oil and gas industry, he said pointedly: "I will tell you with
$55 oil we don't need incentives to the oil and gas companies to
explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a
strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent."

The question for Mr. Bush and the Senate is clear: If that was true
at $55 a barrel, why isn't it even more valid and urgent at $100 a barrel?

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

As plug-in cars finally gain recognition as the
"cleaner/cheaper/domestic" solution requiring no new technology or
infrastructure, journalists aiming for controversy are looking
everywhere for critics and skeptics. On February 26 we saw USA Today
embellish an already-deficient article with a completely misleading
headline, "Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution"
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/918.html .

Now we learn electricity is fatally flawed because power plants use
substantial amounts of water for cooling (then return almost all of
it to its sources). The original story's lamentable headline,
"Thirsty electric cars threaten water resources," quickly evolved
into Popular Mechanics' over-the-top "Plug-in Cars Could Drain U.S.
Water Supply, Researcher Says"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4253590.html .

We wish we could respond broadly and rapidly enough so that these
misrepresentations don't achieve a broad life, but as we see in
electoral campaigns and online memes, "going negative" is often
effective. (In the past we've heard urban myths including: solar
photovoltaics require more energy to manufacture than they generate
during their lifetime; nickel-metal and lithium batteries are also
energy intensive to manufacture and are poison when recycled, and a
Hummer is cleaner than Prius.)

Here's the original report, followed by our brief rapid response,
then comments from Carey King, author of the cited study, who thinks
PHEVs make sense and calls the headline "unnecessarily alarmist."
Finally, we add in an unrelated hit on PHEVs by venture capitalist
Vinod Khosla.


http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13418-thirsty-electric-cars-threat\
en-water-resources.html
'Thirsty' electric cars threaten water resources
06 March 2008

They may not be gas-guzzlers, but electric cars have a raging thirst for water.

A comparison of the volume of coolant water used in the
thermoelectric power plants that provide most of our electricity and
that used in extracting and refining petroleum suggests that electric
vehicles require significantly more water per mile than those powered
by gasoline.

The findings could bode ill for drought stricken areas in the event
of a large scale switch to plug-in vehicles.

"I wouldn't sound the alarm that this is going to ruin the day," says
Carey King from the University of Texas, Austin, US, noting that no
mass-market electric vehicle is currently available. "But looking
into the future, this is something we should take into account."

Dry cooling

King and colleagues found that cars, light trucks, and SUVs running
off the electric grid consume three times more water and withdraw 17
times more water per mile than their equivalent gasoline-powered vehicles.

For electricity generation, "consumed" water is the amount of water
lost to evaporation whereas "withdrawn" water is the amount of
surface water a power plant uses and later returns to its source,
typically a nearby lake or river.

King says one way to mitigate water-use impacts of electric vehicles
is by switching to dry cooling - using forced air instead of water to
cool steam in power plants. The technology has been around for years
but remains more expensive than water cooling; something King says
could change as available surface water becomes more scarce.

Another alternative is to move away from thermoelectric energy
sources such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas, to renewable sources.
"If we use only wind or solar energy, water use would be essentially
zero," King says.

'Modest impact'

Paul Denholm of the US Department of Energy's National Renewable
Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado agrees that water scarcity will
become an increasing problem for utilities, but he doesn't think
electric vehicle usage will have much of an impact.

"As electricity demand increases in general, water requirements --
especially in drought prone areas -- will become increasingly
important," Denholm says. But "the overall impacts of plug-in
vehicles are modest in the larger scheme of things".

Denholm co-authored a 2007 study based on data from Colorado showing
that if 30% of gasoline-powered vehicles were replaced with plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles getting 39% of their energy from the grid,
the region would experience only a 3% increase in total electricity demand.

The current infrastructure could easily handle this increase because
most vehicles would be charged overnight during off peak hours.

"It's going to be several decades before we see enough plug-in
vehicles to have any kind of impact," Denholm says. "It's hard to say
if the grid we have now will be the same grid we have when we begin
to see a large number of plug-ins."

Journal Reference: ASAP Environmental Science and Technology (DOI:
10.1021/es0716195)


FELIX KRAMER'S RESPONSE AT NEW SCIENTIST:
Grid Impacts Of Plug-in Cars
Thu Mar 06 18:20:29 GMT 2008
Let's focus on the main impact: greenhouse gas emissions, which are
about half as high for an electric mile as a gasoline mile (even on
the national, half-coal, power grid). When we get to secondary
impacts, if we compare gasoline to electricity, the latter is also
cheaper (under $1/mile equivalent) and domestic (in the US, we don't
use imported oil to power our plants. If we look ahead to "dirtier"
gasoline that could provide additional supplies, analysts who look at
the amount of water and other resources used in processing/extracting
oil from shale and tar sands are horrified. And I've seen estimates
that each gallon of ethanol derived from corn uses 500-1500 gallons of water.
Looking ahead, electricity can come from increasingly clean,
renewable sources, while gasoline is stuck or goes backward.


CAREY KING'S RESPONSE AT NEW SCIENTIST:
By Carey King
Sat Mar 08 04:16:09 GMT 2008
Felix,
Thanks for your comments.
Personally, I love the idea of electric cars and PHEVs. I'm a member
of AustinEV, the local chapter of the Electric Auto Association. I
like PHEVs/EVs for the same reasons you mention.
Please look forward to our future work that does look at the water
impacts for other fuels like oil shale, tar sands, biofuels, etc.
This PHEV work was the beginning of an overall assessment.
See my blog (http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/) for some comments
related to this and another past article about our PHEV-water paper.
You'll see that I don't believe the water intensity is a hindrance
for PHEV/EVs.
Keep up the good work!


SCIENTIST CAREY KING'S RESPONSE ON HIS OWN BLOG
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Bureau of Economic Geology, University
of Texas at Austin

http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-article-this-time-in-new.html
Friday, March 7, 2008
Another article about my PHEV/EV and water usage - unneccesarily alarmist

Another article, this time in New Scientist, has been written about
my paper on "water of the plugged-in automotive economy". See a
recent post on water used while driving on electric miles for my
basic take on how to interpret the analysis. [he distinguishes
between water withdrawal and water consumption at
http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/water-for-transportation-publication-\
on.html
]

Phil McKenna, the journalist and writer of the article, chose the
title " 'Thirsty' electric cars threaten water resources". This is an
unfortunately alarmist title. The article prompted some to blog on
the New Scientist page that I was against plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEV) or electric vehicles (EV). This is certainly not
true. Some suggested I must be paid or work for some petroleum or
natural gas company. This is also certainly not true.

I gave Phil information to present the scope and scale of electric
driving upon the electricity grid and water resources, but he didn't
mention this.

For example:
* 1 million PHEV40s (PHEVs that have a 40 mile range) would drive
about 7.3 billion miles per year. This is about 0.3% of miles driven
by light duty vehicles.
* The resulting water consumption is 1.7 billion gallons, or ONLY
0.13% of water consumption already associated with power generation.
* The resulting water withdrawal is 76 billion gallons, or ONLY 0.11%
of water withdrawal already associated with power generation.

I, and my coauthor, chose to independently look at link between
energy and water. This work is a first foray into this area, and we
have also analyzed other fuels (biofuels, hydrogen, coal to liquids,
etc.) that is in the review process for publishing.

So ... NO ALARM. We have time to plan for 10s of millions of PHEVs,
let's get them on the road!


KHOSLA DISMISSES PHEVs
Meanwhile, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, while
backing some battery startups, is still betting mostly on ethanol,
now from corn, in the future from cellulose. He sees no alternative
to powering all of the miles driven by clean liquid fuels, while PHEV
advocates want to fuel most or all of the local miles electrically,
with an evolving mix of fuels providing the range extension. At the
Washington International Renewable Energy Conference conference in
Washington last week, CNET
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9885575-54.html reports him saying,

Expensive products like plug-in hybrid cars, which may be the
darlings of environmentalists, simply won't drive large-scale change,
he said. "Plug-in hybrids are irrelevant because they are too
expensive. Unless you can make 500 million or 800 million of those,
it won't matter," he said. His contention that plug-in hybrids are
irrelevant, or "toys," a case he made late last year at a conference,
brought fierce criticism from environmentalists.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Here's an accumulation of important resources on PHEVs from recent weeks:
* Earth The Sequel" book on low-carbon energy technologies
* Popular Mechanics story on development of PHEVs
* Tesla raises money for second generation car--a PHEV
* EnergyTechStocks.com's 3-part interview on PHEVs
* CNET Greentech Blog on Silicon Valley's future with plug-in cars
* Fortune Magazine articles on batteries and plug-in cars
* Detroit Free Press profile of GM's Frank Weber
* Salon.com's primer on PHEVs
* Google.org's videos of roundtable with Brilliant/Brin/Page/Friedman
* Former CIA Director James Woolsey finally gets a PHEV
* First Mayor to get a PHEV: Minneapolis's R.T. Ryback
* Raser and partners to build PHEVs
* Harvard Magazine's story on PHEVs and wind
* Tacoma News-Tribune op-ed on Washington State policies


NEW BOOK ON GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS:
"Earth: The Sequel -- The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global
Warming" goes on sale today. It's by Fred Krupp, President of
Environmental Defense Fund and EDF staffer Miriam Horn. The book
surveys the most promising solar photovoltaic, solar thermal,
biofuels, geothermal, ocean and other technologies: you're likely to
encounter something unfamiliar! On pages 216-228, included in the
race to develop and use low-carbon energy are trailblazing plug-in
solutions including including Tesla, Think, Chevy Volt, Zap-X and
Aptera, along with brief discussions of battery technologies and the
potential of vehicle to grid. For more, see www.earththesequel.com
and you can order the book at http://www.calcars.org/books.html


POPULAR MECHANICS:
Inside Plug-in Car Tech's Race to Production (and Top 10 Rides)
By Chuck Tannert  Published on: February 6, 2008
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4248082.html
Overview of battery technologies and car in developments.


TESLA MOTORS closes $40M bridge financing
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/02/18/daily18.html?jst=b_ln_hl
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Funds raised largely to continue development of its second generation
"White Start" four-door, five passenger sport sedan for 2010, which
is likely to be a PHEV.


ENERGYSTOCKS.COM three-part interview by Bill Paul, former Wall
Street Journal reporter and author of "Future Energy: How the New Oil
Industry Will Change People, Politics and Portfolios" with what he
grandly calls "Foremost Plug-in Car Expert Felix Kramer"
Explosion of Hybrid & Electric Cars Coming in 2010-2012
http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=898
New Technology May Cut Gas Use Up to 50% in EXISTING Cars
http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=907
How Next U.S. President Will End America's Oil Addiction
http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=909


CNET Green Tech Blog
Is Silicon Valley the new Detroit for electric cars?
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9877157-54.html?tag=nefd.top
February 22, 2008 2:24 PM PST
Posted by Stefanie Olsen
Report on Joint Venture Silicon Valley's "The State of the Valley"
panel on plug-in cars, featuring speakers from CalCars, GM and AC Propulsion


FORTUNE MAGAZINE: "Three Continents, Two Teams, One Goal," Fortune
March 3, 2008: three-page spread (not online) pages 32-34 showing 16
members of the LGChem/Compact Power and A123 Systems/Continental
teams developing batteries for the Chevy Volt, along with Bob
Boninface, Design Director for the Volt.

Also at FORTUNE:
The great battery race: Dramatic developments in stored-power
technology make electric cars more viable than ever.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/magazines/fortune/taylor_batteries.fortune/index\
.htm
March 5 2008 By Alex Taylor III, senior editor
Includes coverage of Chrysler's intention to build a hybrid version
of every Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep, and news of General Electric's
investment in Think and in A123Systems.


In charge of Chevy Volt
Do-it-yourselfer Weber oversees plug-in project
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080224/BUSINESS01/802240692
By Katie Merx, Detroit Free Press Business Writer,  February 24, 2008
Profile of Frank Weber, Global vehicle-line executive and chief
engineer for E-Flex systems


SALON.COM: In the online magazine's "How the World Works" series by
Andrew Leonard:
A primer in plug-in hybrid economics
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/03/04/plug_in_hybrid_economics/index.html
Summarizes the results of a ten-page academic study, by Dereke
Lemoine, Daniel Kammen and Alex Farrell from the Berkeley Energy
Research Group. "An innovation and policy agenda for commercially
competitive plug-in hybrid electric vehicles" appearing in the March
issue of Environmental Research Letters
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014003/erl8_1_014003.pdf
concluding that California's current power grid can support a million
PHEVs without new capacity if they charge at night. It also examines
the economics of PHEVs. See also the "Editors' Choices" letters in response.



GOOGLE.ORG: At its blog, if you have time to watch these videos,
they're most worthwhile. In the first half-hour or so, you'll find
great discussions of PHEVs and renewable energy:
http://blog.google.org/2008/01/googleorg-at-world-economic-forum-davos.html
Google.org at World Economic Forum, Davos
Wednesday 1/30/2008 04:40:00 PM
Posted by Jacquelline Fuller, Head of Advocacy and Communications, Google.org
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Larry Page, Sergey
Brin and Larry Brilliant held a spirited Conversation on Climate
Change and Google.org which was moderated by Tom Friedman. During the
question and answer session, audience members Al Gore and Van Jones
spoke on the need for a strategic persuasion campaign and green collar jobs.


JAMES WOOLSEY GETS HIS OWN PHEV (FINALLY)
Here's the report from Set America Free; see
http://www.setamericafree.org/wordpress for photos:
In a special ceremony at the Washington International Renewable
Energy Conference, Former CIA Director and Set America Free
co-founder Jim Woolsey got the keys to his newly converted Plug in
Hybrid Electric Vehicle. The Prius was upgraded by Watertown,
MA-based A123Systems using an advanced Lithium-Ion battery developed
at MIT. The conversion allows the Prius to achieve 100+ mpg and
travel up to 40 miles on predominantly electric drive from one
overnight charge.  Each charge takes about 4 hours and costs about 65
cents in suburban Maryland." "And if my Prius had an ethanol, other
alcohol, or bio-based diesel engine using 85 percent biofuels," said
Woolsey, "I would get close to 500 mpg on the petroleum fuel in the
engine." President Bush dropped by to take a look at Jim's newly
converted plug in hybrid vehicle and admired its "bin Laden Hates
This Car" bumper sticker


MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR: Four months after Mayor Rybak became the first
Mayor in the world to drive a PHEV
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/888.html , the city's new online
newspaper, MinnPost, has a story, "R.T. Rybak's plug-in car: It keeps
going and going" and a 4-minute video update.
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/03/07/1022/rt_rybaks_plug-in_car_it_keeps_g\
oing_and_going


RASER/PG&E/WHEEL TO WHEEL-TECSTAR/ELECTROVAYA
collaboration on building and selling a plug-in hybrid: Also see
articles at GreenCarCongress.org
http://www.rasertech.com/news/scripts/full-news.php?1204205280


HARVARD MAGAZINE: March-April 2008 issue has an article
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/03/saving-money-oil-and-the.html by
by Environmental Prof. Michael B. McElroy, "Forum: Saving Money, Oil,
and the Climate: Using non-fossil energy sources to power our
vehicles" that's very much worth reading. The downloadable PDF
version has very attractive graphics. The sidebar
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/03/running-on-wind.html explains the
benefits of connecting wind power and PHEVs.


TACOMA NEWS-TRIBUNE ran an op-ed on Feb. 24, "Washington should be
leader in push for all-electric cars"
www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/291414.html  by
Steve Marshall, a senior fellow with the Cascadia Center for Regional
Development and Bill Gaines, director of utilities at Tacoma Public
Utilities, arguing for state-level steps to promote plug-in cars.


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

After so much discussion of this subject, CalCars Technology Lead Ron
Gremban examines the issue. This is more technical than most things
we send around. It was first published at Green Car Congress, where
you can see a comparative table that doesn't transmit well by email,
as well as several dozen comments -- most of which, unfortunately,
are off-topic, but a few of which respond to the issues raised by Ron.

CalCars Weighs In on GM Series/Toyota Parallel PHEV Debate
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/calcars-weighs.html
7 March 2008
Guest piece by Ron Gremban, CalCars

GM and Toyota have been taking public shots at each other, each
claiming that their plug-in hybrid (PHEV) technology--not yet brought
to market--is the best, and implying that the other's plans are
poorly thought out, to say the least.

We at CalCars, if anything, are thrilled to see the two biggest
automakers in the world touting their upcoming PHEV wares and paying
significant attention to each other's. But what is the science behind
the dispute? What follows is a discussion that is aimed at engineers,
but we think will be quite informative also to non-technical
audiences. Thanks to Dr. Andy Frank of UC Davis and Efficient
Drivetrains Inc. for his helpful review and comments.

A preview of my conclusion: It turns out that different battery sizes
have different optimum PHEV architectures, and each company's claims
are basically accurate, but only for its vehicle's battery size.
Since each type of PHEV has its own advantages, disadvantages, costs,
and optimum driving regimes, our expectation is that during the first
few years--maybe a decade--of PHEV production, all types of PHEVs
will compete well in the marketplace.

Then, eventually--as batteries become a cheaper, longer-life,
commodity item, liquid fuels become more dear, renewable electricity
generation proliferates, and CO2 emissions are increasingly
targeted--the PHEVs with the most EV power and range will come to dominate.

First, let's establish what, in our opinion, are the most important
characteristics of a PHEV. Though PHEV technology can improve overall
powertrain efficiency, decrease criteria emissions, provide full
zero-emissions capabilities part of the time, etc.--and other
technologies can and ought to be used to significantly reduce vehicle
mass and drag--the most profound capability of any PHEV is its
ability to displace some of the vehicle's consumption of liquid fuel
(usually gasoline) with stored electricity from the grid, and to do
so without introducing new overall vehicle limitations (e.g. the high
cost, extra weight, and range limitations of pure EVs).

It is this fuel displacement from which all the most important
advantages of PHEVs arise: dramatically reduced oil consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions, low enough liquid fuel consumption that
biofuels may someday fully substitute for fossil fuels, and energy
storage that can eventually enable increased deployment of
intermittent renewable electric generation from sources such as wind.
Therefore, the very most important measure of a PHEV is the extent of
its ability to displace liquid fuels, to do so during normal US
driving cycles, and to do so cost effectively. All else is frosting
on the cake.

When we look at "normal US driving cycles", there are several areas
of general agreement. The average mileage driven per day is around 30
miles. There is a curve available showing percentage of daily driving
vs. distance. Though there is a continuum, driving is broken down
into city and highway driving; standard drive cycles, UDDS (a city
driving cycle) and HWY, have been designed to emulate each. These
standard cycles are obsolete and grossly underestimate required
vehicle energy and capabilities, but are used as the basis of all EPA
and CARB testing anyway. The US06 combined drive cycle is a much more
realistic standard cycle.

Since the first standards for testing and measurement of PHEV
performance are still being written, general references to these
three standard cycles that the upcoming SAE J1711 standards will
reference are our best bet for measuring and comparing PHEV
performance. Dr. Andy Frank suggests that a new "Annual Driving
Cycle" be designed to model annual electricity and gasoline usage,
but for now that doesn't exist.

There are series hybrids, where the internal combustion engine (ICE)
drives only a generator; parallel hybrids, where both the ICE and
electric motor are always connected to the wheels; and power-split or
series/parallel hybrids, where either the motor or the ICE or both
drive the wheels at various times.

Though the Chevy Volt is presented as a series PHEV, and the Toyota
Prius (as well as the 2-mode Saturn Vue, too!) is power-split, the
specific architecture is actually fairly irrelevant to the main issue
that GM and Toyota are addressing. Incidentally, my calculations lead
me to believe that the inherent efficiencies of each of the
architectures are close enough to each other that the quality of
engineering that goes into each vehicle is more likely than the
architecture chosen to determine overall vehicle efficiency.

Though the details can vary and/or the mode distinctions blur, all
plug-in hybrids basically have a charge-depletion mode and a
charge-sustaining mode. After a grid charge, the charge-depletion
mode is activated first, during which time as much of the vehicle's
propulsion energy as possible is pulled from the battery, while as
little liquid fuel as possible is used. If this charge-depletion mode
is 100% electric, the vehicle is considered a "pure-EV PHEV",
otherwise, it is a "blended-mode PHEV". Once the battery is
discharged to its target depth-of-discharge (DOD), the battery's
state-of-charge (SOC) is maintained at this level and the vehicle
functions in charge-sustaining mode, just as an ordinary hybrid.

A PHEV can either have some pure EV range, be "blended mode", or, of
course, employ some combination of the two. For example, a PHEV may
start out with some pure EV range. Near the end of that range, the
ICE may be started more and more often, providing some blended-mode
driving before full DOD, at which time the vehicle shifts to
charge-sustaining mode. Or charge-sustaining mode may consist of
alternating periods of pure EV driving and significant ICE power,
causing the SOC to vary rather than stay steady at maximum DOD.

Also, there are various kinds and degrees of power blending. A PHEV
may be able to drive purely electrically only up to a specific speed,
such as the 34 mph/55 kph limit imposed by the hybrid system on
converted Prii. Also, only limited electric propulsion power may be
available, like the 21 kW limit also imposed on converted Prii by the
hybrid system.

The extent of a blended-mode PHEV's blending is expressed as a
"Utility Factor" that is a percentage of the wheel energy that is not
supplied by the ICE. A vehicle's Utility Factor can be quantified
over each of the standard drive cycles talked about above. Its
"Effective EV Range" is its depletion-mode range multiplied by its
Utility Factor, which is conceptually the EV range it would have if
its depletion mode were pure EV.

A PHEV with pure EV range has a Utility Factor of 100% and an
Effective EV Range equal to its real EV range. Of course, this is
also complicated by the fact that Utility Factor and Effective EV
Range can each be very different when measured using each of the
three standard driving cycles. In general, both parameters will be
highest on the UDDS cycle and lowest on US06.

Another measure of a PHEV's capability&madsh;in some ways even more
useful than Effective EV Range--is the usable capacity of its battery
pack in kilowatt-hours or kWh, as this indicates how much energy is
available after each charge to displace liquid fuel. A 12.5 kWh
battery pack, allowed to charge fully but discharge only to 80% DOD,
will have 10 kWh usable capacity.

Since a gallon of gasoline holds about 33 kWh of heat energy and the
most efficient hybrid drivetrains approach 30% efficiency, 10 kWh of
usable battery capacity can potentially displace a gallon of gasoline
after each (often <$1.00) grid charge, or up to 365 gallons/year when
the vehicle is charged every night and driven to the end of depletion
mode every day. However, a PHEV whose battery is regularly not fully
depleted between charges is leaving money on the table (the battery
could have been smaller and less expensive), and a PHEV that is
regularly driven significantly beyond charge depletion mode into
charge sustaining mode could potentially gain from having a larger battery.

What we want, of course, is, on the average, the most displacement of
liquid fuels for the least incremental cost over that of a standard
ICE propulsion system. Motor, power electronics, and ICE costs are
all fairly proportional to maximum power output. Battery cost, which
for now dominates PHEV costs, is set by energy storage capacity,
maximum input/output power, and cycle life, which is itself dependent
on maximum DOD and other factors.

As everyone else does (but without acknowledging it), we will ignore
the fact that until PHEVs become ubiquitous, people who buy and drive
PHEVs will in general be those whose driving regimes are most suited
to them, meaning that generalizations based on average US driving
patterns will, possibly greatly, underestimate the amounts of liquid
fuels likely to actually be displaced by a particular model of PHEV.

Now we can finally get to the meat of the matter. GM's Volt is
reportedly capable of driving all three standard cycles, including
the US06, purely electrically. GM states, accurately no doubt, that a
PHEV that cannot do that is really a blended-mode PHEV, with one or
more engine starts during most people's normal driving. The company
goes on to say that only a PHEV with 40 miles of pure EV range (which
it calls an Extended Range EV or ER-EV) can obtain maximum PHEV
benefits. Toyota, who admits that its prototype Prius PHEVs are
blended-mode, does not disagree but says that pure EV PHEVs are too
expensive and not cost-effective.

Let's look at two PHEVs, as much like a Volt and a possible Prius
PHEV as I can estimate based on public data (but both, for ease of
calculation, with a 250 Wh/mile US06 power requirement at the wheels)
and estimate US06 performance. Note, as we explain below, that this
is not an apples-to-apples comparison, since the battery capacity is different:

[TABLE -- see http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/calcars-weighs.html ]

Note that, just as GM claims, the Volt-like PHEV's ICE remains unused
for average daily driving, making the PHEV's benefits very often
perfect: no cold ICE starts, no liquid fuel use, and no ICE emissions
when daily use does not exceed 32 mi. On the other hand, though it
never displaces liquid fuel 100%, the Prius-like PHEV provides
approximately as much fuel displacement per usable battery capacity
(88-117%) as the Volt-like PHEV.

A Volt-like PHEV with a Prius-sized battery could do a better on
daily driving distances up to 16 miles, but at a high cost of double
the relative battery power requirements: 12.5C vs. 6.25C. And
Prius-like PHEV with a Volt-sized battery would make poor use of the
battery capacity below a daily driving range of 48 miles, 160% of the
30 mile US average. This means that different battery sizes have
different optimum PHEV architectures, and each company's claims are
basically accurate, but only for its vehicle's battery size.

Toyota claims that blended PHEVs like its 2.5 kWh-capacity prototype
Prius PHEVs provide more liquid fuel displacement per battery
capacity and power than those like the Volt that have pure EV range,
that a blended-mode PHEV's motor and electronics can cost less, and
that the battery pack may see an easier and therefore a longer life.
What the chart above shows is that Toyota's claim of more
displacement per battery capacity is true only for PHEVs with EV
range less than the US daily average driving distance of 30 miles.
What a blended-mode system can do, with only proportional
disadvantage, is allow the proportional scaling down of battery and
electronics power requirements for vehicles, like Toyota's Prius PHEV
prototypes, with Effective EV Range of less than 30 miles.

Dr. Andy Frank states that the GM and Toyota cost arguments are not
very meaningful at this stage because of unsteady costs due to low
volume production of all parts, especially the batteries.

In conclusion, it is clear that PHEVs with pure EV range of at least
the average US daily driving range of 30 miles can displace the most
liquid fuel, as well as have other advantages like zero tailpipe
emissions in normal daily driving. However, these examples do bear
out Toyota's claims that the relative power requirements of
blended-mode PHEV batteries can be much less than for pure EV
PHEVs--but only for PHEVs with very short Effective EV Range. On the
other hand, Toyota's claim of better utilization of expensive battery
resources can be true, too.

What neither company has stated is that it is following its quickest
and least expensive way to build its first PHEVs by taking advantage
of its own existing hybrid and/or EV technologies and tooling. For
each to do this is highly desirable for all of us. Since each type of
PHEV has its own advantages, disadvantages, costs, and optimum
driving regimes, our expectation is that during the first few
years--maybe a decade--of PHEV production, all types of PHEVs will
compete well in the marketplace. Then, eventually--as batteries
become a cheaper, longer-life, commodity item, liquid fuels become
more dear, renewable electricity generation proliferates, and CO2
emissions are increasingly targeted--the PHEVs with the most EV power
and range will come to dominate.

Dr. Andy Frank:

      There is no doubt that it will be completely dominated by the
cost of oil. Remember that the cost of oil doubled in the last five
years and it will double again in less than five years and double
again in even less time! So we can reach $20/gallon in the time frame
that these guys are arguing over. At that time (6 to 8 years from
now) it means an SUV 30 gallon tank will cost $600! This costs will
make all this nit-picking costs argument seem insignificant! I agree
that at this time, let the big guys argue about who is better or more
cost effective, we need to focus on what is good for the people on
earth as the cost of fossil fuel rises.

      That is the main reason for the PHEV! To displace fossil fuel
with electricity that can be generated from a plethora of sources
including renewables at a very high efficiency with low to zero emissions!

      The Oil companies will eventually throw their wishes into the
pot as well soon. And I think they will be much more vocal because
they have the money! This may be where we should be bracing
ourselves! The [recent] USA today article [inaccurately claiming
PHEVs cause higher emissions] is an example!

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Europe may get a production plug-in hybrid before the U.S. Multiple
reports from the Geneva Auto Show quote Toyota's senior vice
president Andrea Formica saying it will sell its IQ Concept car
before the end of this year, and expects to build 100,000 in 2009,
apparently for sale only, or first, in Europe. (Two stories below.)
At the same time, the Wall Street Journal quotes President Katsuaki
Watanab saying the company will sell a plug-in hybrid with a
lithium-ion battery by 2010 at the latest.


Toyota shows production-ready iQ mini prototype at Geneva
6th March 2008
http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/06-03-08_8

A finished prototype of Toyota's iQ concept car first glimpsed at
Frankfurt last autumn was unveiled at Geneva this week, and
production models be on sale before the end of the year, according to
Toyota Motor Europe senior vice-president Andrea Formica, who
described it as "the world's smallest four-seater passenger car." Its
seating configuration takes three adults plus a child in a length of
less than three metres.

The iQ is expected to meet Euro NCAP's 5-star rating, while CO2
emissions from its 500cc plug-in hybrid powetrain are 99g per km.
Toyota will build the iQ in Japan, and expects to build 100,000 units
in 2009, its first full year of production.

Toyota is also reported to be working on another concept, the 1/X,
which combines plug-in hybrid and flex-fuel technologies, which
weighs 420kg, a third of the Prius' weight, but offers the same
interior space, according to Mr. Formica, while achieving up to 140 mpg.

Small iQ is proof of intelligent design for Toyota
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOKkMZ9PUwoVLbanh4q3GXQd0OGA
Agence France-Press March 4, 2008

GENEVA (AFP) -- Japanese carmaker Toyota on Tuesday unveiled its new
compact "iQ" passenger car to a packed crowd at the Geneva Auto Show
in a bid to appeal to environmentally-aware urban customers.

The iQ is "the world's smallest four-seater passenger car," Toyota
Europe senior vice-president Andrea Formica told journalists.

It can seat three adults and one child, and Toyota hopes its small
size will make it attractive to urban drivers.

The iQ will also have a CO2 emissions target of 99 grams per
kilometre and will thus play a key role in cutting Toyota's fleet
average emissions.

"We view this car as a major milestone in Toyota's vehicle
development," Formica said.

The iQ "will have a big impact on the market yet a small impact on
the environment, ... (and) will be on the roads of Paris, Rome,
Berlin, Madrid by the end of the year," Formica added.

In keeping with the dominant theme at this year's show, Toyota also
stressed its work in fuel hybrid technologies, energy efficiency and
other environmental measures.

The 1/X model, also on display here, is an example of "plug-in"
electricity technology and can cover 100 kilometres (62 miles) on
just over two litres of fuel, Toyota said.

Toyota Expects Rise in U.S. Sales
By CHRISTOPH RAUWALD -Yoshio Takahashi contributed to this article.
March 4, 2008 9:28 a.m.
Write to Christoph Rauwald at christoph.rauwald@...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120462912633710139.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

GENEVA -- Toyota Motor Corp. President Katsuaki Watanabe said the
company has made "significant progress" in the past 12 months on
developing a prototype for a new low-cost car and plans to make a
decision by the end of 2008 on whether it will start a series
production. Additionally, he said Toyota plans to launch a plug-in
hybrid model using a lithium-ion battery by 2010 at the latest. "I've
told the engineers to accelerate this process [of developing
lithium-ion technology] as much as possible," Mr. Watanabe said,
noting that "the quality for mass production has to be ensured. This
is key." Lithium-ion batteries are seen as a crucial technology for
future hybrid cars and purely electric vehicles.

Asked whether he sees General Motors Corp. or Volkswagen AG as the
biggest rival in terms of being the world's best-selling automaker in
the future, Watanabe said Toyota aims to be "number one in quality."
He said Toyota "isn't in the position to make any comments on other
automakers."

"I like to view other carmakers as good competitors, not as rivals," he said.

-


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

More automakers are moving toward using lithium batteries in their
standard hybrids. This week, GM said it will use lithium batteries
from Hitachi in its hybrids and Mercedes said it will use electronics
from Continental AG and lithium batteries from Johnson Controls-Saft
in an S-Class luxury sedan hybrid. (Standard hybrids need "power
batteries" that stay in the mid-range of charge. PHEVs need "energy
batteries" that discharge more deeply. Both optimizations are
possible with lithium and with nickel-metal hydride.)

These developments come at a time when carmakers are recognizing that
battery progress further undercuts the case for fuel cells as energy
storage systems, as seen by comments reported below by the Wall
Street Journal at the Geneva Auto Show from Toyota and GM. At the
same time as both companies continue to acknowledge the near-term
potential for PHEVs, they continue for strategic reasons to promote a
hydrogen future, but the case continues to weaken.

We haven't commented on the Lutz statements on global warming, but
his comments and the defenses made at the GM Fastlane blog don't
address the entire issue. If climate change is a key driving factor
for strategic planning by automakers, then the well-to-wheel CO2
emissions of different energy solutions moves to the center of future
decisionmaking.

March 5, 2008
GM, Toyota Doubtful on Fuel Cells' Mass Use
By EDWARD TAYLOR and MIKE SPECTOR
March 5, 2008; Page B2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468405514712501.html

GENEVA -- Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor
Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel
cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their
companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a
better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a
large scale.

Speaking at the Geneva auto show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told
reporters that recent advances in lithium-ion batteries indicate that
future electric cars might be able to travel 300 miles, or nearly 500
kilometers, before they need to recharge, making them much more
practical as a mass-market product.

"If we get lithium-ion to 300 miles, then you need to ask yourself,
Why do you need fuel cells?" Mr. Lutz told reporters. He added that
fuel-cell vehicles are still far too expensive to be considered for
the mass market. "We are nowhere [near] where we need to be on the
costs curve," he said.

At a separate event at the show, Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe
echoed the concern about the high costs of fuel cells and noted the
lack of an infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel to
a wide swath of consumers. These factors leave him with the
impression that "it will be difficult to see the spread of fuel cells
in 10 years' time," Mr. Watanabe said.

The comments indicate a shift in the auto industry's tone regarding
fuel cells, especially at GM, which has spent the past two years
highlighting its fuel-cell technologies as one of many initiatives it
is pursuing to reduce petroleum consumption.

Fuel cells use hydrogen to create electricity, and have been hailed
for years as the technology that will power no-emission cars of the
future. Several years ago, GM essentially dropped its work on
battery-powered cars to focus on fuel cells. Since then, Toyota has
taken the lead on gas-electric hybrids, although it is working on
fuel cells, too.

In the past two years, GM has been trying to improve its image with
increasingly green-minded consumers by playing up its work on green
vehicles, often with Mr. Lutz -- sometimes referred to in Detroit as
Mr. Horsepower for his love of big, powerful cars -- as its chief spokesman.

The centerpiece of the effort is an electric car called the Volt,
which includes a small gasoline engine to charge its battery on the
go. GM hopes to launch the first Volt by 2010. Future versions may
use fuel cells to charge the battery. The campaign has won fans among
environmentalists for GM, a company previously scorned by many in the
green crowd.

Mr. Lutz's comments in Geneva come at an awkward time for him. A few
weeks ago, he told a reporter that he thinks global warming is a
"crock of s -- ," raising questions about his commitment to GM's new
green path. After news of his global-warming position spread on the
Internet, he posted a response on GM's blog saying his personal views
don't affect the company's direction.

Not all auto makers are backing away from fuel cells. Daimler AG
expects to begin producing fuel-cell cars in limited quantities in
2010, Chief Executive Dieter Zetsche told reporters in Geneva. If
demand takes off, Daimler could get the technology "into the cost
range of conventional power trains," Mr. Zetsche said.

--John D. Stoll contributed to this article.
Write to Edward Taylor at edward.taylor@... and Mike Spector at
mike.spector@...

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

CalCars just got the opportunity to evangelize the concept of
electrification of transportation and offer a quick status report on
PHEVs to a very influential audience. Here's a bit of background on
the annual TED Conference in Monterey, followed by the story of the
event and our talk and a general note about events.

TED began in 1984, reflecting the "convergence" of three important
streams of social, artistic and business activity:
* TECHNOLOGY (the Macintosh had just launched; the laser printer was
on its way)
* ENTERTAINMENT (the digital world was incorporating audio, video and graphics)
* DESIGN (graphic arts, architecture and product designs were evolving rapidly)

Richard Saul Wurman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Saul_Wurman
, coiner of the term "information Architect" and creator of the
popular "Access" guidebooks, founded the event to create a venue for
him to hear his personal choice of thoughtful and creative people. In
2001, Chris Anderson,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Anderson_%28TED%29 , who had built
a technology/business magazine empire and left it all to create the
Sapling Foundation, bought TED and turned it into a non-profit. The
TED Conference includes talks by about 50 "thinkers and doers" giving
18-minute "talks of their lives" interspersed with provocative
three-minute talks. Since 2001, it's expanded in many ways, including
TEDGlobal (international locations), TED Prize (three per year since
2005; past winners include Larry Brilliant and EO Wilson), and
TEDTalks, sharing the best presentations online under a Creative
Commons license. More at http://www.ted.com/index.php/pages/view/id/5


CALCARS & TED:
Last year, a CalCars supporter encouraged me to attend and footed the
$5K registration fee. When I got there, given that GM had brought the
Chevy Volt, I suggested to the organizers that I tell the audience
about the exciting future that starts with PHEVs. They said I might
become a last-minute addition to the program, but it didn't
happen.  The event's content and the people were so stimulating I
decided to return. In the fall-winter 2007, my proposal for a
three-minute talk was accepted after many discussions with Chris
Anderson, self-titled "Archivist," and Tom Reilly, Partnership
Director and the event's court jester. I got very helpful
back-and-forth editorial input from Chris plus great messaging
consulting from "User Experience Strategist" Nancy Frishberg
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nfrishberg , boiling down the PHEV message
to seven images (see below).

My "leap-day" talk got a terrific reception from the approximately
1,100 people in Monterey, plus 400 at the simulcast event in Aspen.
Among those who heard the talk were representatives of GM, BMW, Shell
and Lexus (all event sponsors and exhibitors); leaders from companies
like IDEO and Autodesk with whom we've held events and hope to engage
in future projects; people currently or formerly at Google, Microsoft
and other high-tech and media companies, venture capitalists and
corporations that are potential sponsors of CalCars. Al Gore (who
premiered his solutions-oriented slide show, including many of
zero-carbon technologies) heard it, as did individuals ranging from
Project Better Place's Shai Agassi to ocean explorer Robert Ballard,
actress Cameron Diaz, the Simpson's Matt Groening, genetics pioneer
Craig Venter and mycologist Paul Stamets (both working on creating
zero-carbon fuels from biological processes).

Outside, while the conference's official ride-and-drive vehicles were
hydrogen cars from GM and BMW and high-end Lexus hybrids, many of the
attendees also stopped by to see our car and talk to CalCars Senior
Advisor Randy Reisiniger. Also outside for some time were Ian
Wright's electric race car and a vehicle fueled by algae biodiesel
from startup Solazyme.


CALCARS PRESENTATION TO TED FEB 29, 2008:
In a few months, we hope the video of the talk will stream from
http://www.ted.com . Meanwhile, the text is below; the slides are at
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-ted2008.pdf -- and many of the
improvements in this presentation have also migrated to the
22-slide-presentation at http://www.calcars.org/calcars-photos.pdf

HOPE IN THE CAR INDUSTRY (BY POPULAR DEMAND)

1. PHOTO OF PLUG: You've probably heard some  buzz about plug-in
hybrids -- but you may ask, why are they so important? They're not
just about switching from one flawed energy source to another.

2. BETTER IN 3 WAYS: After a century, cars can finally get off fossil
fuels. The big deal is that electricity has so much going for it:
it's cleaner, cheaper, and domestic. And plug-in cars of al types get
cleaner as they get older -- because the power grid is getting cleaner.

3. 2 DIAGRAMS: We can have plug-in hybrids now with no new technology
-- by extending today's popular hybrid design to its logical conclusion.
The main difference is the bigger battery. Add some electronics. Then
you ask, what about the fuel infrastructure? I brought it along. You
get an extension cord! (SHOW YELLOW DONGLE)
It's like adding a small second fuel tank you always use first. You
fill it at night from an ordinary 120-volt socket, and the next day
your local commute will be all-or-part electric. But if you want to
go to the mountains, you've still got gas.

4. MY 100+MPG CAR: CalCars' Open Source "hack" of the Prius by
engineers, environmentalists, entrepreneurs and drivers in 2004
started to show what's possible.
You're looking at my  "car of the future, " which I've been driving
for almost 2 years and 35,00 miles. You may have spotted it parked
near here, and I'll have it near the beach tomorrow.

5. QUOTE: A dozen carmakers now agree plugging in cars is a good
idea. But for them it's still business as usual. They're taking their
time. So a broad campaign, memorably described by James Woolsey, is
working to make it easier for them to evolve quickly.

6. VERSIONING: The planet can't wait for perfection...we need version
1 of all kinds of green products as soon as they're "good enough" to
be used safely and with measurable benefits.
We expect to succeed in this campaign to commercializing plug-in hybrids.
And this may be the first time a high-ticket consumer product will be
mass-produced and come to market by popular demand. Soon after, we'll
have many all-electric vehicles.

7. PHEV & VOLT: At the LA auto show we converted a car; here it is in
front of a building billboard for GM's concept Volt.
People tell me CalCars gives them hope that ordinary people can create change.
And surely extraordinary people -- like each of you -- can do a lot
to make cars -- and then many other things -- cleaner and cheaper.


GENERAL MOTORS BONUS
I had the chance to talk with many people from GM, continuing to
encourage them to "version" their car with an earlier preliminary
rollout in California and elsewhere. And following me on stage was
Larry Burns, VP of GM R&D and Planning, showing the "Boss," a
self-driving Chevy Tahoe developed with Carnegie-Mellon University
that won the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge. Burns used this car's
advanced navigation capabilities to connect safety issues and the
electrification of technology. He concluded,
"What Boss really represents is an example of the new DNA for
automobiles. This new DNA will transition from mechanically driven
cars to electric. It will transition from internal combustion engines
to electric motors, from petroleum to electricity and hydrogen, from
mechanical and hydraulic controls to electrical and digital controls
and from cars that today operate independently to cars that are
connected to everything around them. GM and other auto companies are
working very hard on this new DNA for the automobile, and we believe
it holds the key to bringing sustainable mobility to many more than
the 13% today that have a car."


FUTURE CALCARS EVENTS
See http://www.calcars.org/events.html for many upcoming programs,
including an all-star conference in Berkeley this Friday. If you want
a PHEV at an Earth Day event, we urge you to contact the owners of
the cars listed at http://www.calcars.org/where-phevs-are.html as
soon as possible. For Bay Area vehicles and talks by CalCars, write
to events@... .

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

A few days ago, at "PHEVs Analyzed/Debated at Society of Auto
Engineers Event" http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/916.html we
posted Jack Rosebro's report, "To PHEV or Not To PHEV (At Least in
the Near-Term)." Here are two followups:

* another report on the event, in Motor Trend Magazine,
* a response by CalCars' Tech Lead Ron Gremban.


Motor Trend Editorial
To Make The Volt Affordable, GM Needs Toyota
Sharing battery technology is the key
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0802_affordable_volt/index\
.html

By Kim Reynolds

When it comes to cars we'll be driving in the future, this much was
clear at the 2008 Society of Automotive Engineers' Hybrid Symposia in
San Diego last week: The future is far from clear.

There were some pretty sharp papers being delivered by such stars as
Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM and Chrysler at the event. But by far
the most thought-provoking presentation was given by Dr. Menahem
Anderman of Advanced Automotive Batteries. His paper, 'PHEV - A Step
Forward or a Detour?' took a cold-eyed view of the debate over
plug-in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) based upon his interviews
with over 40 companies, including all the major car manufacturers and
battery makers.

Dr. Anderman's analysis shows that, for one thing, when we talk about
hybrids, we're still effectively talking about one company - Toyota.
With an 83% hybrid market share in 2007, Toyota is the 900-pound
gorilla in the business of mass manufacturing and selling
nickel-metal hydride batteries for automobiles. Moreover, the
transition to lithium-ion batteries (as needed by GM for the Volt)
will be based less on particular chemistries and technical details
than their suitability for being mass manufactured in a reliable,
economic fashion.

At present, and in the near future, Dr. Anderman doubts PHEVs will be
very significant players, as the price of the battery packs - $4000
in the case of a PHEV-10 (one which can travel 10 miles on its
battery alone) or $10,000 for a PHEV- 40 (the Volt, for instance) -
is too high for them to be economically replaced during the vehicle's
service life. At present, Dr. Anderman contends that the longevity of
lithium-ion is just too sketchy.

The best way to restrain CO2 emissions, by Anderman's thinking, is to
as quickly as possible promote present hybrid technology (like
Toyota's) throughout the entire vehicle fleet, as it offers a bigger
efficiency jump over conventional gasoline cars than PHEVs do above
hybrids - and they're a ready-to-go technology. Then, as lithium ion
battery life is verified, the PHEV battery price problem can be
meaningfully hacked by riding on the back of the HEV big boys
(basically, Toyota) as they transition to the new chemistry. In other
words, Anderman says a vehicle like the Volt will be too expensive to
sell in meaningful numbers until Toyota is ready to move from
nickel-metal hydride to lithium-ion batteries and helps pull down the
price of the battery technology.

As for hydrogen fuel cell technology - forget it; the money would be
much better spent on PHEV development. Despite his frosty assessment
of the PHEV situation, Anderman nevertheless sprinkled in a few
intriguing tidbits regarding near-term lithium ion use - for
instance, the technology's employment in an upcoming Mercedes-Benz
S-Class hybrid and an unnamed Toyota/Lexus model. Hmmm.

  From GM came a presentation from Peter Savagian, Engineering
Director of Hybrid Powertrain Engineering. Title? 'Driving the Volt'.
Unfortunately, it really wasn't about driving the Volt, but a recap
of the rigorous analysis that's led them to the Volt's radical
powertrain architecture. Consider Mr. Savagian's facts: by 2020 there
will be more than 180,000,000 additional cars on the world's roads.
And by 2030, we're going to need 70% more energy than we are so
hard-pressed to crank-out now.

GM's energy answer is to diversify our transportation energy sources
beyond our current 96% dependence on oil. And GM's Hail-Mary
vehicular answer is the Volt's E-Flex platform which, they go to
great pains to explain, is an 'extended-range electric vehicle', not
a 'plug-in hybrid'. Whatever, you say? Well, there's actually a big
difference between the two. Operationally, a PHEV can be rigged to
function in two ways - either in blended mode where it's frequently
sipping from its battery, or in initial EV mode, where its battery is
relied on for a modest number of miles before the engine gets
involved and the sipping scenario starts. EREVs employ really big
batteries and moreover, stretch their battery-only reliance out to
the maximum of miles before a motor-generator intercedes full-bore.
With EREVs, most drivers would rarely see a gas station. PHEV drivers
would visit them occasionally.

Gary Oshnock, of Chrysler LLC's Environmental and Energy Planning
offered some interesting regulatory as well as technical insights. He
began with a run-through of 2007's dizzying string of legislative
events: in January was the President's '20 in 10' challenge to reduce
gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years. In April, the Supreme Court
ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. In May came a Presidential executive
order to "ensure effective coordination between agencies regulating
vehicle greenhouse gases". And, of course, on December 19th came the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - the now famous Energy
Bill, which requires by 2020 an industry average of 35 mpg, and after
that, the maximum feasible mpg through 2030. On the same day (just a
coincidence, mind you) the EPA denied California its waiver needed to
implement AB1493 which would have mandated a much stiffer 43.5 mpg
average for cars and light trucks by 2016. What a year.

He also offered a few interesting observations on fuel efficiency.
For instance, on a ton-mpg basis, fuel efficiency has actually been
climbing by a steady 1.2 % per year for the last 22 years. Trouble
is, our liking for added creature comforts, structural stiffness, and
crash-safety features - all of which add weight - has pretty much
nixed any actual fuel efficiency gains. What does 35 mpg by 2020
translate into on a year-by-year basis? 3.5% per year. In other
words, the new CAF standards are going to require three times the
recent historical annual rate of efficiency improvement - and
notably, that's after you factor-in any concomitant weight gain, not
before. We may be using sun-dials to measure zero-to-sixties before
this is done.

Sherif Marakby, Ford Sustainable Mobility Technology Chief Engineer,
spoke about the upcoming Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan Hybrids.
Basically, these two are slated to get the 2009 Escape and
Mountaineer's upgraded hybrid powertrain which is distinguished by
greater displacement (2.3 liters to 2.5), quieter operation, smoother
transition from electric to mixed mode, greater electric-only
operation during city driving, twice the frequency of engine
stop/starts, fuel shut off during deceleration, and better
regenerative braking feel. All told, the Fusion and Milan Hybrids
will offer over 60% better city mileage than a comparable,
conventional-tech, four-cylinder engine.

Tom Turrentine of UC Davis's PHEV Research Center argued that car
buyers don't really calculate the payback periods of advanced
technology offered by their improved fuel economy; lots and lots of
other reasons come first. And maybe he's right. The initial buyers of
hybrids were by in large 'greens'; they were followed by tech geeks,
then folks concerned about oil security, and now good old fashioned
cheapskates who just hate to waste money at the gas pump. Heaven
knows there's a lot of those. It was also stressed that clear and
instructive info displays which readily portray the vehicle's energy
use have been very important to the Prius's good results, and might
be even more significant for PHEV owners.

Dr. Mark Duvall of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) noted
that construction of coal-fired power plants is currently at a
standstill in the United States for fear of significant carbon
penalties and restrictions looming in the near future. Nonetheless,
he dismissed the sometimes-mentioned fear that a nation of PHEV
driver's would swamp the grid's capabilities. At most, the increased
demand would be something like 12%, and of course, the vast majority
of the charging would take place at night, when the utilities are
begging for customers. An interesting sidebar to this had to do with
what the industry calls the 'Smart Grid'. Basically, there's a battle
going on over the design and the operational protocol of future EV
and PHEV plugs. What the utility industry would dearly like is a
means by which, when you plug-in, information about your daily use is
first transmitted to the utility (say, the car needs to be ready to
go at 6:30 AM), and then your specific charging period would be
intelligently scheduled during the night instead of everybody trying
to simultaneously plug in at 12:01 AM.

Other Hybrid Symposia highlights included a nice review of Nissan's
progress, by Toshio Hirota, wherein the Altima Hybrid received due
attention. Honda offered two talks, one on the mathematical modeling
of electric motor controls which next to no one understood, the other
on a peculiar prototype which captures the heat normally lost through
the exhaust system to drive a small Rankine-cycle steam engine
instead. I guess this qualifies as a hybrid. And of personal interest
is the progress of an updated SAE standard for testing PHEVs - J1711
for those of you keeping score at home. Dr. Anderman's reservations
not withstanding, we're going to want to have our ducks in a row when
GM finally delivers on the Volt.




Posted by: Ron Gremban, CalCars' Tech Lead | Feb 25, 2008 9:19:05 PM
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/to-phev-or-not.html#more

This splash of cold water by Dr. Anderman appears to be the main
media take-out from the recent SAE Hybrid Symposium, which included
many other discussions and information, so I'll address it here:

1. Dr. Anderman accurately claimed that our standard U.S. measure of
mpg overstates the value of additional fuel savings to
already-thrifty vehicles. For example, the savings from an 80mpg
vehicle over that of a 40mpg vehicle (40mpg difference and 1/80
gallon per mile savings) is less than that of a 40mpg vehicle over
that of a 20mpg one (20mpg difference but 1/40 gallon per mile
savings). He then went on to use this point and various mpg figures
to indicate that there is a bigger difference between ICE and hybrid
fuel usage than between that of hybrids and PHEVs, and that
hybridization therefore has a higher incremental value than plug-in technology.

2. Dr. Anderman then pointed out that, due to their newness, there is
some uncertainty in the longevity of Li-ion batteries in automotive
applications. However, he immediately took that to the overblown
conclusion that the auto manufacturers would need to include the cost
of a warranty battery replacement -- at today's, not lower future,
prices -- in their cost calculations for production PHEVs.

3. As a result of these two assertions, Dr. Anderman placed PHEVs on
a graph where their incremental value is smaller than that of hybrids
but their incremental costs are much higher. From that, he asserted
that promoting further penetration of hybrids into new vehicle fleets
would do more to eventually bring about PHEVs than promoting the
production of of PHEVs themselves at this time.

Let's look at Dr. Anderman's assertions:

1. "Hybridization has a higher incremental value than PHEV
technology." Using fuel consumption rather than mpg figures to avoid
Dr. Anderman's overstatement issue, strong hybrids have generally
been able to reduce fuel consumption by 15-40%. Solid figures are
hard to obtain because performance also varies between hybrid and
non-hybrid versions of vehicles that have both. Let's use 30% as a
rule of thumb. PHEVs don't improve fuel economy so much as they
displace liquid fuels, by 30-90% in normal daily driving. Of course
this 30-90% is of the remaining 70% of ICE consumption still
occurring after hybridization, so it amounts to 21-63% of the
original consumption, potentially a significantly larger cut than for
mere hybridization.

Of course, CO2 emissions are not cut by as much, as electricity is
now consumed, too -- giving Dr. Anderman the chance to say the result
is less significant. But the switch to electricity gives us a chance
for future CO2 emissions decreases that continued complete reliance
on liquid fuels cannot, as well as flexibility not provided by
ordinary hybrids in the case that we really are seeing peak oil (see
below). Also, two things that no one has yet figured into ICE and
hybrid CO2 emissions figures are that real-world all-weather mileage
is significantly lower than EPA estimates (2008 sticker figures are
now better compensated for this, but the automaker CAFE requrements
are NOT!), and well-to-tank emissions are set to spike with increased
use (already begun) of both harder-to-pump deep, low-grade oil and
far more carbon-intensive substitutes from tar sand and even coal.

Of course, Dr. Anderman might say that the answer is then a
combination of hybrids and biofuels. I would agree that at little
more than $100/vehicle added cost, there is no excuse for all
vehicles manufactured today NOT being flex-fuel -- capable of running
on biofuels as well as gasoline or Diesel. However, two major studies
(one California state and one national) have concluded that the
biomass available without cutting into world food production or
cutting down forests, even with expected advances in cellulosic
technology, is capable of supplying no more than 1/3 of our current
transportation energy, without even allowing for growth of the
transportation sector. Therefore, I would submit that the value of
the leap from hybrid to PHEV is significantly LARGER, not smaller,
than that from ICE to hybrid.

2. "Auto manufacturers would need to include the cost of a warranty
battery replacement, at today's prices, in their cost calculations
for PHEVs." In spite of their newness, GM has stated that there are
Li-ion cells that meet their criteria, which means that must have
passed laboratory lifetime tests indicating an expected lifetime
matching or exceeding the expected life of a PHEV. Additionally, NiMH
batteries, now used in all hybrids, have a strong track record in EVs
and are fully capable of powering PHEVs with up to 20 miles EV range,
if not more. For now, battery prices are high -- e.g. $250 per mile
of EV range -- but Li-ion materials costs are low (and estimates of
world lithium reserves are enough for 2.5 billion PHEVs), so there is
plenty of room for eventual cost reductions of a factor of four with
automotive-scale mass production. Even if auto manufacturers did have
to replace some -- even all -- of the batteries in the first year or
two of PHEV production, the cost of the replacement packs would no
doubt be dramatically lower by the time the replacements were
actually needed, and many risk-sharing options and incentives have
been proposed to displace much of the early risks from the automakers.

On the other side of the cost equation,

3. "The incremental value of PHEVs is smaller than that of hybrids
but their incremental costs are much higher." To hybridize a
vehicle's powertrain requires a large amount of change, mechanical as
well as electrical and electronic. Large tooling is needed to produce
new mechanical powertrain components like motor/generators,
power-split transmissions, etc. And achieving 25-40% fuel economy
improvements also requires major redesign and re-tuning of the ICE
itself (check out what Toyota has done to improve the Prius'
Atkinson-Miller engine's efficiency over that of an ordinary
Otto-cycle ICE). Once the hybrid's electric propulsion system is
already in place, the changes required to turn it into a PHEV are
very minor, as proven by all the aftermarket hybrid conversions that
have proliferated since we at CalCars first converted my Prius into a
PHEV. The only big additional expense is that of the larger battery.

The other side of the cost equation is fuel savings. Electricity
costs the equivalent of $1.00 per gallon of gasoline or less. All
return-on-investment (ROI) calculations have been done with today's
$3.00, or yesterday's much cheaper, gasoline. Recent gasoline pricing
predictions have been consistently low, world production is now near
world capacity, new oil discovery has for years been 1/4 the rate of
extraction, and China and India's auto ownership is growing
exponentially. The probability is that the cost equation is going to
continue changing rapidly and consistently in PHEVs' favor.

Dr. Anderman also relies on two more unstated assumptions:

* "Advances in battery production and pricing cannot be hurried-up."
The availability of cells that can do the PHEV job -- which GM has
announced are available -- means that the biggest issues are further
testing, integration into packs, and high volume production. Although
there are limitations to how fast these things can proceed, rapid
ramp-up of high volume, low cost production is amazingly amenable to
infusions of large investment. With the right incentives, it could
happen far faster than the multi-decade process that Dr. Anderman predicts.

* "The changeover from ICE to hybrid, then PHEV powertrains will
happen in a business-as-usual way, as it has up to now." IPCC
scientists are indicating that we need to cut worldwide CO2 emissions
by 50% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 to avoid the worst consequences of
climate change and/or a tipping point that cannot be reversed; it is
possible that we have already hit peak oil; and China and India's
economies are expanding exponentially. At some point soon, when we
see a quantum leap environmental and economic urgency, not only will
new vehicles quickly need to use dramatically less fossil fuel,
especially since they will be burning fuel for at least a decade
after manufacture, but we will need to rapidly begin doing something
about the 820 million vehicles already on the world's roads.

Since PHEVs do have significant added value beyond that of ordinary
hybrids, and because the main extra cost is only for a larger
battery, immediate promotion and incentivization of of PHEVs does
make sense, as it will further speed up the mass production of PHEV
batteries, which require different tuning, testing, and field
experience from those for non-plug-in hybrids!

[Second posting]:
After all that I forgot to mention that immediate promotion and
incentivization of PHEVs is also needed to begin the education of the
public to the myriad social and personal values of automotive
electrification. Most of us don't fully "get it" until we have
actually experienced driving a PHEV. I myself was surprised and
excited by my first experience, and I have been a builder of and
advocate for electric vehicles since 1968!


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Following on the USA Today story (see
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/918.html ),
the Natural Resources Defense Council responded
in the form of a blog posting by Luke Tonachel,
one of the co-authors of the EPRI-NRDC report.
We're also including one of the media reports, by
John O'Dell at Edmunds.com Green Car Advisor.

  From the NRDC's Switchboard Blog
Plug In for Clean Air
February 26, 2008
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ltonachel/plug_in_for_clean_air.html
Posted by Luke Tonachel in Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming

As someone who has been enthusiastically watching
and promoting plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, I
was concerned that the headline of an article in
USA Today (“Plug-in cars could actually increase
air pollution,” Feb. 26) could lead to
misperceptions about the environmental benefits
of plug-in hybrid vehicles. The fact is that
plug-ins are an important opportunity for reducing pollution.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles, which run part time on
electricity supplied from power plants, are an
extremely promising technology for reducing
global warming pollution. Compared to
conventional vehicles and today’s non-pluggable
hybrids, they can run cleaner and use less
gasoline, which helps reduce global warming
pollution, slash oil dependence and save Americans money at the pump.

The environmental benefits of large-scale plug-in
hybrid deployment have been detailed in a
comprehensive study jointly authored by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and
NRDC. The EPRI-NRDC report is especially relevant
because it considers the evolution of the grid
toward cleaner generation due to carbon
constraints and existing regulations that tighten
select criteria pollutant controls in the future.
It evaluates the complex mix of generation
resources used for vehicle charging in concert
with rapid penetration of plug-ins into the
market, and the study shows that plug-in hybrids
reduce global warming pollution and provide
modest, widespread air quality benefits.

Like many technologies, you can use plug-ins in
the right way or the wrong way. Charging plug-ins
with dirty coal power is the wrong way; these
carbon-intensive sources make it harder for both
the electric sector and transportation sector to
meet our long-term global warming goals. Heavy
reliance on the dirtiest technologies can also
lead to localized increases in certain criteria
air pollutants, such as particulate matter, also
known as soot. Many of NRDC’s advocacy efforts
are focused on preventing the wrong path: we are
fighting against continued use of dirty coal
generation, and we promote policies that encourage a cleaner grid mix.

The USA Today article focuses on the worst-case
scenario where the oldest, dirty coal plants are
the sole source of electricity for vehicle
charging. Typically, this is not the case; the
electricity grid is a mix of generation
technologies that includes coal along with
cleaner energy sources. Overlaying the mix,
regulations cap the criteria pollutants that are
primary contributors to smog and acid rain
(including oxides of nitrogen and sulfur
dioxide), and therefore electricity producers
cannot increase these emissions in their efforts
to meet the increased energy demanded from
plug-in hybrids. Existing laws tighten these cap
levels over time forcing power plants to get cleaner.

We already have a road map for the right way to
deploy plug-in vehicles. As soon as the vehicles
are ready for the market, they should be
introduced in large numbers across the nation in
areas where the public is assured that plugging
in will not lead to localized air pollution
problems. We need to also keep improving the
efficiency of these and other vehicles, so we
continually reduce fuel demand by maximizing fuel
economy (both miles per gallon and miles per
kilowatt-hour). Simultaneously, we should follow
examples for controlling global warming pollution
from electric sector set by California (AB32
Global Warming Solutions Act and SB1368
Greenhouse Gas Performance Standard) and the
Northeast states (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative).

So let’s get started. It takes nearly fifteen
years to turnover the fleet of vehicles on the
road, and power plants can live for fifty years
or more. Deploying plug-in vehicles smartly will
put us on the path of clean, electrified transportation.

Comments (Add yours)
CHarlie Garlow — Feb 27 2008 01:56 PM
Will NRDC write a letter to the editor of USA
Today clarifying/responding to the
misinformation? And how can you say that there is
a "dirty way" of charging up on dirty coal, when
you admit that current Clean Air Act rules
prevent new coal plants from increasing the NOx
and SOx in our country? Are you thinking
Particulate matter or mercury? If so, look at the
requirements to reduce PM in PM non-attainment
areas and the current [lousy] rules and the near
term future rules, we hope, that will both reduce
mercury. So, new coal plants, meeting increasing
demand will not result in national increases in
these pollutants, when the national requirements are for less.


THIS FROM JOHN O'DELL, FORMERLY OF LA TIMES, NOW THE EDMUNDS GREEN CAR ADVISOR
Newspaper Poke At Plug-Ins Draws Fierce Fire
Posted by John O'Dell, Feb 26, 2008
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea4063/0

A report in USA Today has kicked off a firestorm
among plug-in hybrid supporters.

The story resurrects several previously published
studies to argue that in regions where
electricity is produced mainly in coal-fired
power plants, increased use of plug-ins could
increase greenhouse gas and sulfur dioxide pollution.

The key here is that the story says that "deadly
air pollution" could increase "in some regions."

The headline, however, simply states that
plug-ins "could actually create more air
pollution."  That could lead readers who skim
headlines and don't delve into the story to
believe – wrongly – that plug-in hybrids might be bad everywhere and always.

Chelsea Sexton, executive director of Plug In
America, an advocacy group for the technology,
has deeper concerns, though, maintaining that the
story "borders on the irresponsible, ignoring the
full picture and cherry-picking negative facts
from different studies in order to prove a point that doesn't exist."

The Electric Power Research Institute study cited
frequently in the article actually shows that
plug-in hybrids "remain one of the most promising
technologies to off-set petroleum use and
minimize negative environmental impact," she said.

Indeed, the EPRI study's summary clearly states
that annual and cumulative greenhouse gas
emissions in every one of the nine electricity
production and plug-in use scenarios considered
(lotsof coal to little or no coal, lots of PHEVs
to few of them) would be "reduced significantly."

Furthermore, the study found that in any
scenario,  "each region of the country will yield reductions in GHG emissions."

Accurate or not, the USA Today article certainly
touched a nerve, as more than 400 comments were
appended on the paper's Web site within a day of
its publication. Many have nothing to do with the
article and are instead rants for and against
various types of alternative power; calls for
invading oil-rich nations to grab their crude;
liberal-bashing and conservative-bashing
treatises; and all the other stuff that instant comment forums generate.

But some, such as this from CalCars President
Felix Kramer, do a pretty good job of putting things into perspective:

"The groundbreaking [study] that is the basis for
much of this journalist's report really amounted
to a series of models and projections for how the
US power generation industry will evolve and how
plug-in hybrids will come into the marketplace.
Under every realistic scenario, PHEVs will bring
substantial environmental benefits."

We have one criticism of Kramer's criticism,
though. He is presuming that continued use of
coal-fired power plants as plug-in hybrids come
into the market isn't a "realistic scenario."

Kramer, an early and vociferous booster of
plug-ins, says instead that the coal-fired power
plants that are the root of the evil reported in
the USA Today piece are on the way out.

They may be, but they account for almost half the
electrical production in the country today and it
likely will be decades before they are all gone
and replaced by clean, green (or at least greener) power production facilities.

Until then, it's better to discuss, and perhaps
come up with solutions for, the problems they
present rather than to ignore their presence in
anticipation of their disappearance.

Judging from the reaction the USA Today piece has
drawn, we'd suggest it did a pretty good job of stirring up discussion.

Now let's move on to the problem solving.

[TO WHICH I RESPONDED:]

Thanks, John, for pulling this piece apart. I
actually think we agree on the coal issue. I
said, "PHEVs won't arrive in volume for some
years, and by the time they are in widespread
use, there will be fewer and fewer dirty-coal
plants providing night-time power."

Cleaning the grid must go along with greening the
fleet; if we don't continue to make headway on
that, both in the US and internationally,
starting with the oldest, dirtiest coal plants,
cars will be the least of our worries.

-- Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars.org

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Finally, plug-in hybrid aftermarket conversions are becoming
available to individuals, not just fleets -- in the San Francisco Bay
Area from GreenGears, Luscious Garage, OEMtek and Plug-In Supply; in
the San Diego region from Plug-In Conversions; in Boulder, Colorado
from Hybrids-Plus; with additional availability expected from
Hymotion in Ontario in the second quarter of 2008.

Until the carmakers mass-produce PHEVs for $3-$5,000 more than HEVs,
customers will be those buying the "environmental feature" at very
high prices. We've reorganized and updated our page describing the
options and providing links to the converters' websites at
http://www.calcars.org/howtoget.html . Below is news from some of
these companies, as well as the activities of the Calcars/Electric
Auto Assocation PHEV project.

We're gradually adding vehicles to our list at
http://www.calcars.org/where-phevs-are.html but we're still missing
at least 50 of the approximately 150 vehicles we know about, and the
map is even further behind.


THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO held a ceremony to receive three Prius
conversions destined for the Public Library, the Department of Public
Health and a third vehicle for public events  by the Mayor's office,
the Department of Environment and Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. At the event were Mayor Gavin Newsom, Environment Director
Jared Blumenthal, BAAQMD Executive Officer Jack Broadbent and Pat
Cadam and Nick Rothman of GreenGears/Pat's Garage.
See the Mayor's press release and photos at
http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=75691 , the story in the
San Francisco Chronicle at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/22/BAASV6L1O.DTL
, and at
<http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/53423>http://www.californiachronicl\
e.com/articles/53423
read about Mayor Newsom's plans to organize Bay Area leaders and the
US Conference of Mayors to encourage carmakers to build PHEVs.


OEMTEK, BASED IN MILPITAS, CA, announced its offering of conversions
using Valence lithium-phosphate batteries. See the story in the San
Jose Mercury News at http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8280588 .


FIRST CONVERSION IN AUSTRALIA: People from all over the world are
starting to use the EAA-PHEV open-source designs we've helped produce
to convert cars.

  From the Open Source discussion group, a description of the work of
John Usher and Chriss Dunstan, from the University of Technology's
Institute of Sustainable Futures in Sidney, with Stan Baker of
Electrodata and Peter Szental:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/eaa-phev/message/2126
In a recent posting, John says "two weeks in Australia to do our
first one (most of which was talking about how to do the next step).
I think number 2 will be much faster!"
News report from the Sidney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/plugin-car-first-of-its-kind-in-australia\
/2008/01/31/1201714150496.html


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

USA Today automotive reporter Jim Healey was
quite positive about the test drives he took in
Ford and Toyota prototype PHEVs in January:
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/911.html

Now he's gone back to several reports released
months ago, including one by the Electric Power
Research Institute and the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and selectively cherry-picked
the most unlikely scenarios under which coal
could be the culprit for PHEVs resulting in
higher emissions. While eliciting worst-case
comments from NRDC, he failed to ask EPRI for its views.

This may be simply be a journalist's report, or
it could signal the beginning of a sustained
effort by a range of liquid fuel advocates to
attempt to slow the growing momentum of support
for the electrification of transportation.

Within 18 hours of the article appearing, over
350 responses appeared on the website. Below is
the story followed by our brief comments and some
posted to the site by Sherry Boschert, author of
Plug-In Hybrids. We expect to point our readers
to further responses from EPRI and NRDC.


Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
By James R. Healey, USA TODAY February 25, 2008
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2008-02-25-plug-in-hybrids-pol\
lution_N.htm

The expected introduction of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles could cut U.S. gasoline use but
could increase deadly air pollution in some areas, two reports say.

That's because a plug-in's lower tailpipe
emissions may be offset by smokestack emissions
from the utility generating plants supplying
electricity to recharge the big batteries that
allow plug-ins to run up to 40 miles without
kicking on their gasoline engines. Plug-ins,
called PHEVs, are partly powered, in effect, by
the fuel used to generate the electricity.

About 49% of U.S. electricity is generated using
coal, so in some regions a plug-in running on its
batteries is nearly the equivalent of a
coal-burning vehicle. The trade-off is one that
even plug-in backers acknowledge. It could
undercut the appeal of vehicles that appear
capable of using no gasoline in town and hitting
50 to 100 mpg overall fuel economy.

If large numbers of plug-in hybrids were being
recharged with power from the least-sophisticated
coal plants, "There is a possibility for
significant increases of soot and mercury," says
a report by environmental advocacy group Natural
Resources Defense Council. Soot particles can
make it hard to breathe, especially for asthmatics. Mercury is toxic.

"Plug-in hybrids are perhaps not good for all
areas," says Howard Learner, executive director
of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, a
Chicago-based advocacy group. In "states that are
heavily coal, that equation doesn't work out very well for the environment."

After PHEVs drain their stored energy, they
operate like conventional hybrids, triggering
their gasoline engines to help drive the wheels
and recharge the batteries. Conventionals can't
be plugged in; their batteries are recharged only while driving.

The longer a plug-in is designed to operate on
just the batteries, the less gasoline it uses,
but the more electricity it needs to recharge the larger batteries.

Thus, the better the PHEV — that is, the longer
it goes just on its batteries — the greater the
charge required and the more the pollution that
might result from an electric utility's power generation.

Learner calls PHEVs "really important emerging
technology — where the cleaner technologies are used to charge them."

Sulfur dioxide also may be an issue

A study by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
found plug-ins also could result in more sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emissions. SO2 is toxic in large
amounts and is a component of corrosive acid rain.

The Minnesota study found that use of PHEVs would
lower most emissions compared with other
vehicles, but that resulting SO2 emissions would
be more than double those from gasoline vehicles
and about three or four times greater than from
driving a regular hybrid. Exactly how much
depends on how far the PHEV can run on battery power alone.

The Minnesota study also found that PHEVs would
emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) than driving a
conventional hybrid. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
thought to contribute to global warming.

The Minnesota numbers are striking because they
predict the big jump in SO2 even if 40% of the
state's electricity were generated by wind power,
not coal or other polluting fuels. About 4% of
the state's electricity now is from wind, according to state officials.

The state's PHEV study concludes: "Alternative
vehicles offer benefits, but no single technology
currently stands out as a clear choice."

The NRDC calculus shows that a plug-in charged
from a power plant burning the dirtiest type of
coal still has an overall pollution level less
than a conventional gasoline car. But it would
produce 11% more greenhouse gas emissions than a
regular, non-plug-in hybrid, according to Luke
Tonachel, vehicles analyst at the NRDC and
co-author of the group's report on plug-ins. The
report was produced jointly with the non-profit
Electric Power Research Institute.

He says, however, that charging a plug-in with
electricity from renewable resources — wind or
water, for instance — cuts overall greenhouse gas
emissions to as low as a conventional gasoline
car getting 74 mpg. No current gasoline car does that.

The NRDC and Minnesota studies were published
last year but have yet to trigger alarms. PHEVs
still are experimental; their possible threat is distant.

"It seems a little premature to think of it being
a problem — but there are a lot of issues we
should have been thinking of sooner," says
Charles Griffith, auto project director at the
Ecology Center, an environmental non-profit based
in Michigan. He cites as an example debate over
use of land to grow crops for ethanol fuel vs. for food.

Even so, Griffith says, "The scenario where there
are so many plug-in hybrids plugged into the
(electric power) grid that you'll see a change in
air quality just doesn't sound true to me."

Plug-ins may be on streets soon

Automakers say PHEVs could be on the streets in
significant numbers within five years. Prototypes
being tested by car companies suggest they should
be able to go up to 40 miles on battery power,
which could enable them to deliver average
mileage in the neighborhood of 100 mpg in general driving.

The first plug-in vehicle in production, however,
is likely to be General Motors' Chevrolet Volt,
which is not a hybrid. Due in 2010 or 2011,Volt
runs entirely on battery power. Like PHEVs, its
battery pack can be recharged by plugging into a
normal outlet, using electricity from a utility
generating plant. A small gasoline engine
recharges Volt's batteries when an outlet isn't
handy, but unlike in a hybrid, that engine never
directly powers the car. GM could sell 60,000 or
more a year, forecasts consultant J.D. Power and
Associates, if the price is $30,000 or less.

GM said at the Detroit auto show in January that
it also will produce a plug-in hybrid version of
its Saturn Vue SUV near the same time Volt is to launch.

Toyota Motor and Ford Motor each showed a
prototype plug-in hybrid at auto shows this year
and will test the designs. "It will come," says
Toyota's Jaycie Chitwood, senior planner at the
automaker's advanced technologies unit in the
USA. "It's more a question of 'when' than 'if.' "

Ford's Greg Frenette, chief engineer of
zero-emission vehicles, says it should take no
more than five years to decide if plug-ins can be
made reliable and inexpensive enough.

The U.S. Energy Department is backing PHEVs.

In January it offered $30 million for projects to
"deliver up to 40 miles of electric range without
recharging" and to make plug-ins
"cost-competitive by 2014 and ready for commercialization by 2016."

"We look at plug-in hybrids as the next
generation of hybrids. They run cleaner, they
save oil and they can save consumers money at the
pump," NRDC's Tonachel says. But, he says, "Until
our oldest power plants are replaced or upgraded,
there could be increases in local particulate matter and ozone."


FELIX KRAMER'S BRIEF RESPONSE:

The groundbreaking EPRI-NRDC that is the basis
for much of this journalist's report really
amounted to a series of models and projections
for how the US power generation industry will
evolve and how plug-in hybrids will come into the
marketplace. Under every realistic scenario,
PHEVs will bring substantial environmental
benefits.  (See our summary and links to the
original report in our June 19, 2007 posting at
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/797.html .)

HERE'S A PARAPHRASE OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THAT REPORT:
Models of this system show greenhouse gas
improvements for PHEVs in every region of the
country, for every scenario reviewed, even the
ones that assumed the least progress in the
electric sector for improved technology, emissions, and efficiency.

The USA Today report in discussing non-greenhouse
gases doesn't recognize that the "dirty coal
plants" are on the way out, and that "criteria
pollutants" are already capped by the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

PHEVs won't arrive in volume for some years, and
by the time they are in widespread use, there
will be fewer and fewer dirty-coal plants providing night-time power.

That's why electric drive vehicles are the only
vehicles that can get cleaner as they get older
because the power grid gets cleaner.


RESPONSE BY SHERRY BOSCHERT:

I wonder if Mr. Healey bothered to read the NRDC
study, and if he's ever heard of the EPA. And I
wish the headline writer hadn't confused local results with national ones.

- The NRDC/EPRI study concluded that NATIONALLY,
all emissions (including carbon dioxide) will
decrease with plug-in hybrids, even though a few
small pockets of the country near old coal plants
could see a few increased emissions ASSUMING that
we increase our overall use of coal to 60% of
electricity (when in reality, we are moving away
from coal). For my summary of this and more than
40 other studies of emissions from plug-in vehicles, see
http://www.pluginamHerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf

- The Minnesota study (which I just read, and is
not yet in my summary) reports local emissions,
not national ones. It concludes that with heavy
coal use (60%), plug-in hybrids reduce all
emissions compared with today's cars except for
sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions. Lots of other
studies have found that same theoretical increase
in SOx with plug-in cars, but in the real world
(which the reporter ignored), the federal
Environmental Protection Agency has laws and
regulations that limit power-plant emissions. As
a result, as our energy-hungry society produced
more and more electricity between 1993 and 2004,
SOx emissions fell from 15 million down to 10
million metric tons per year. No matter how much
more electricity we produce, SOx emissions will
continue to decline if the regulations continue to be enforced.

- The Minnesota study also has a hypothetical
scenario in which the only cars out there are
hybrids. Compared with them, and using 60% coal
electricity, plug-in hybrids theoretically
increase SOx (but not really, see above), and
could increase carbon dioxide emissions by 0.5%
-- or 1/500th more than hybrids. Essentially, the
greenhouse gases would be the same, and that's
assuming that in the decades it will take for all
cars on the road in Minnesota to become either
hybrids or plug-in hybrids, we make no other
advances in limiting the use of dirty, nasty
coal. (If that happens, the planet is toast, no
matter what we drive.) The Minnesota study says
nothing about the greater reductions in carbon
dioxide on a NATIONAL scale if we had plug-in
hybrids, nor about the benefits of using far less
imported, expensive gasoline with plug-in hybrids
compared with conventional hybrids.

I'm sure the oil companies will spread this
unfortunate article far and wide. As a member of
the California Sierra Club's Climate-Energy
Committee, I'm going to have to do a lot of
re-education of any environmentalist friends who've read it.

Sherry Boschert, author
Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars That Will Recharge America


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

The New York Times, is reporting a possible
exciting breakthrough: zero carbon gasoline.
Since we're already getting inquiries from people
who wonder if this doesn't mean that all of those
promoting electrification of transportation are
wasting their time, in an effort to put some kind
of damper on the excitement, we're sending around
the original article and a highly entertaining
and informative explanation/critique by one of
our favorite energy experts, Joseph Romm, former
DOE official, author of "Hell and High Water,"
and an influential blogger on the climate crisis,
who explains why batteries remain better.


Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slog\
in&oref=slogin
By KENNETH CHANG, The New York Times, February 19, 2008

If two scientists at Los Alamos National
Laboratory are correct, people will still be
driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now,
churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere -- and yet that carbon dioxide
will not contribute to global warming.

The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L.
Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they
have patriotically named Green Freedom, for
removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.

The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a
liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which
would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon
dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to
chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel:
methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.

This process could transform carbon dioxide from
an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a
vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed
cycle -- equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted
and removed -- would mean that cars, trucks and
airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no
longer be contributing to global warming.

Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel
factory, or even a small prototype, the
scientists say it is all based on existing technology.

"Everything in the concept has been built, is
operating or has a close cousin that is operating," Dr. Martin said.

The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws
of physics, and other scientists, like George A.
Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the
University of Southern California, and Klaus
Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia
University, have independently suggested similar
ideas. Dr. Martin said he and Dr. Kubic had
worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals.

There is, however, a major caveat that explains
why no one has built a carbon-dioxide-to-gasoline
factory: it requires a great deal of energy.

To deal with that problem, the Los Alamos
scientists say they have developed a number of
innovations, including a new electrochemical
process for detaching the carbon dioxide after it
has been absorbed into the potassium carbonate
solution. The process has been tested in Dr.
Kubic's garage, in a simple apparatus that looks like mutant Tupperware.

Even with those improvements, providing the
energy to produce gasoline on a commercial scale
-- say, 750,000 gallons a day -- would require a
dedicated power plant, preferably a nuclear one, the scientists say.

According to their analysis, their concept, which
would cost about $5 billion to build, could
produce gasoline at an operating cost of $1.40 a
gallon and would turn economically viable when
the price at the pump hits $4.60 a gallon, taking
into account construction costs and other
expenses in getting the gas to the consumer. With
some additional technological advances, the
break-even price would drop to $3.40 a gallon, they said.

A nuclear reactor is not required
technologically. The same chemical processes
could also be powered by solar panels, for
instance, but the economics become far less favorable.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Kubic will present their Green
Freedom concept on Wednesday at the Alternative
Energy Now conference in Lake Buena Vista, Fla.
They plan a simple demonstration within a year
and a larger prototype within a couple of years after that.

A commercial nuclear-powered gasoline factory
would have to jump some high hurdles before it
could be built, and thousands of them would be
needed to fully replace petroleum, but this part
of the global warming problem has no easy solutions.

In the efforts to reduce humanity's emissions of
carbon dioxide, now nearing 30 billion metric
tons a year, most of the attention so far has
focused on large stationary sources, like power
plants where, conceptually at least, one could
imagine a shift from fuels that emit carbon
dioxide -- coal and natural gas -- to those that
do not -- nuclear, solar and wind. Another
strategy, known as carbon capture and storage,
would continue the use of fossil fuels but trap
the carbon dioxide and then pipe it underground
where it would not affect the climate.

But to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere would require drastic cuts in
emissions, and similar solutions do not exist for
small, mobile sources of carbon dioxide. Nuclear
and solar-powered cars do not seem plausible anytime soon.

Three solutions have been offered:
hydrogen-powered fuel cells, electric cars and
biofuels. Biofuels like ethanol are gasoline
substitutes produced from plants like corn, sugar
cane or switch grass, and the underlying idea is
the same as Green Freedom. Plants absorb carbon
dioxide as they grow, balancing out the carbon
dioxide emitted when they are burned. But growing
crops for fuel takes up wide swaths of land.

Hydrogen-powered cars emit no carbon dioxide, but
producing hydrogen, by splitting water or some
other chemical reaction, requires copious energy,
and if that energy comes from coal-fired power
plants, then the problem has not been solved.
Hydrogen is also harder to store and move than
gasoline and would require an overhaul of the world's energy infrastructure.

Electric cars also push the carbon dioxide
problem to the power plant. And electric cars
have typically been limited to a range of tens of
miles as opposed to the hundreds of miles that can be driven on a tank of gas.

Gasoline, it turns out, is an almost ideal fuel
(except that it produces 19.4 pounds of carbon
dioxide per gallon). It is easily transported,
and it generates more energy per volume than most
alternatives. If it can be made out of carbon
dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may
mean there is little reason to switch, after all.
The concept can also be adapted for jet fuel; for
jetliners, neither hydrogen nor batteries seem plausible alternatives.

"This is the only one that I have seen that
addresses all of the concerns that are out there right now," Dr. Martin said.

Other scientists said the Los Alamos proposal
perhaps looked promising but could not evaluate
it fully because the details had not been published.

"It's definitely worth pursuing," said Martin I.
Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York
University. "It's not that new an idea. It has a
couple of pieces to it that are interesting."


Turning CO2 into gasoline -- A new way to waste energy
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/19/turning-co2-into-gasoline-a-new-way-to-was\
te-energy/
Climate Progress  February 19, 2008
Tip o' that hat to Earl K. [That's EV advocate
Earl Killian, who has written for Climate Progress]

Last week, NYT climate Andy Revkin blogged about
a federal laboratory that says it can take
atmospheric carbon dioxide and turn it into gasoline:

>One selling point with Los Alamos's "Green
>Freedom" concept, and similar ones, is that
>reusing the carbon atoms in the captured CO2
>molecules as a fuel ingredient avoids the need
>to find huge repositories for the greenhouse gas.

The only problem with that exciting statement is
that it is almost certainly not true, a point I will come back to.

Now the NYT has published an article on the
subject that also overhypes the technology:

>There is, however, a major caveat that explains
>why no one has built a
>carbon-dioxide-to-gasoline factory: it requires a great deal of energy.
>
>To deal with that problem, the Los Alamos
>scientists say they have developed a number of innovations….
>
>Even with those improvements, providing the
>energy to produce gasoline on a commercial scale
>-- say, 750,000 gallons a day -- would require a
>dedicated power plant, preferably a nuclear one, the scientists say.

Hmm. Let's see. Problem one: Motor gasoline
consumption in this country is almost 400 million
gallons a day. So we would need more than 500
nuclear power plants … just in this country … and
just for gasoline (you'd have to more than double
that to displace all the other petroleum products
we consume, like diesel fuel). And that would
probably require another 5 Yucca mountains just
to store the waste, although I'm not sure the
word "another" is right 'cause this country can't
even agree on one friggin' storage site in the middle of nowhere.

Problem two: According to the Los Alamos
"Overview of Green Freedom," each 750,000 gallon
a day plant (with accompanying nuclear reactor)
costs $5 billion. So cutting under half of all
petroleum use in this country would cost over
$2.5 trillion (not counting this cost of uranium or disposal)!

This supposedly yields a gasoline price of $4.60
a gallon, though the authors say with a couple
more technological breakthroughs, that could drop
to $3.40. How about if instead of assuming more
breakthroughs, which hardly ever happen in the
energy sector, we apply Romm's Rule of Costs for
Future Energy Sources." Romm's Rule says that for
any new energy technology that is not yet
commercial (and in this case we have a "concept"
for which the patent was still pending in
November), take the inventor's highest projected
cost and double it. Also flip a coin and if it
comes up heads, the technology will never be
commercialized -- think fusion. And that's
generous -- in reality, if the coin comes up head
or tails (i.e. doesn't land and balance on its
edge) it will probably never be commercialized --
remember the fuel cell was invented in 1839 and
commercial fuel cells are just a tad more common
than time machines. [Please note this rule does
NOT apply to technologies that are already commercial.]

Problem three: Romm's Rule of Energy
Transformation. This rule, developed for
analyzing hydrogen cars, says: You can probably
make a sow's ear from a silk purse if you try
hard enough, but why would you do that?
Zero-carbon electricity is arguably the most
premium energy carrier you can make in a
carbon-constrained world in part because electric
motors are so efficient. Electricity can directly
run a motor to move your electric car or plug in
hybrid for under $1.00 a gallon, even using
expensive nuclear power. You lose maybe one-fifth
of the original electricity in the process. The
entire Green Freedom process is so inefficient it
probably throws away more than three-fourths of
the original nuclear power (if not much more).
Basically, after spending all that money and
wasting all that premier power you are stuck with
a low-grade (but conventional) fuel that has to
be run through an inefficient gasoline motor. Why would you do that?

[Yes, we don't quite yet have commercial plug
ins, but they are straightforward extension of
already commercial hybrids, we don't need any
technology breakthroughs, and multiple
manufactures will almost certainly be selling
them within three to five years. EVs will be
common in other countries within the same time
frame, as I've written. All of this will happen
decades before "Green Freedom," assuming it even proves feasible.]

Before coming to the last problem, let me
complain about the NYT article, which, while
skipping happily over the myriad problems with
Green Freedom, bizarrely says of other alt fuels:

>Hydrogen-powered cars emit no carbon dioxide,
>but producing hydrogen, by splitting water or
>some other chemical reaction, requires copious
>energy, and if that energy comes from coal-fired
>power plants, then the problem has not been
>solved. Hydrogen is also harder to store and
>move than gasoline and would require an overhaul
>of the world's energy infrastructure.
>
>Electric cars also push the carbon dioxide
>problem to the power plant. And electric cars
>have typically been limited to a range of tens
>of miles as opposed to the hundreds of miles
>that can be driven on a tank of gas.

Yes, if the energy comes from coal, neither
hydrogen or electric cars make sense. But the
same exact thing can be said of Green Freedom: It
makes no sense if you use coal plants, but the
NYT never mentions that fact. That's why the Los
Alamos inventors go the nuclear route. But if you
can assume, say, 500 nuclear plants for Green
Freedom, surely you can live with maybe 100 nukes
for electric cars, which brings us to ….

Problem four: We are going to need a vast
quantity of zero-carbon electricity in this
country just to reduce emissions 80% in the
electricity sector while supporting population
growth and increased living standards. In the
very unlikely event we would build 500 nukes and
5 Yucca-sized storage sites (and find the
necessary uranium, given that, presumably, ever
other country is going to be doing the same
thing) to make carbon-neutral gasoline, it is
safe to say that's all the nuclear power plants
we will be building this century. So the
electricity will have to come from renewable
power and … yes, coal power with carbon capture
and storage (CCS). And if we keep dawdling, we
are going to overshoot the safe level of carbon
dioxide concentrations, and need to pull carbon
out of the air and then NOT burn it. So Green
Freedom does not save us from "the need to find
huge repositories for the greenhouse gas." If
coal with CCS is practical and affordable, which
strikes me as much more likely than Green Freedom
achieving both of those goals, we are going to be
doing as much CCS as we possibly can.

The scale of the climate solution is enormous --
so great you would never contemplate it if the
result of doing nothing were not so irreversibly
catastrophic. That's why, in spite of all these
problems, in spite of the fact that it is
exceedingly unlikely we would choose to use much
Green Freedom by 2050 even in the equally
unlikely event it is actually feasible on a
large-scale in that time, it probably deserves
some exploratory funding. Although that assumes
we have a President who triples federal clean
tech funding -- no I wouldn't waste much money on
it at current federal R&D levels. It certainly
shouldn't be hyped by the media (or anyone else
-- this means you, Roger Pielke, Jr.), it is
certainly no silver bullet, it probably isn't
even one of the ten silver bullets we need -- but
we can't afford to ignore any solution that has
even some microscopic chance of working.



   While we're at on the subject, we also want to
point to a posting by The NYTimes' Andrew Revkin
at his "dot earth" blog, raising the issue of
what to call Global Warming/Climate Change. Some
of the more effective names, it seems to us, are
Al Gore's Climate Crisis and Planetary Emergency,
and John Holdren's Global Climate Disruption.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/global-heating-atmosphere-cancer-po\
llution-death-whats-in-a-name/


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
        http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --