Filed under: Hydrogen, Toyota

Toyota is expanding their fuel cell vehicle development tests out of their own facilities into the real world. They have built some fuel cell-powered vehicles based on the previous generation Highlander and they are loaning one out to a Nagoya transport company. The FCHV uses a Toyota-built fuel cell stack and stores enough hydrogen compressed at 5,000 psi to go about 200 miles.

Toyota has tried to optimize the range by tweaking the aerodynamics to get a 0.326 coefficient of drag and reducing weight with changes like an aluminum hood and roof. The FCHV has been fully crash tested with emphasis on the the high voltage electrical system and hydrogen storage system. Toyota is using this program to collect real world performance data on the FCHV which will be fed into future fuel cell vehicle designs. One of the main areas of development besides improvements to the stack are the hydrogen storage system. Toyota is evaluating liquid hydrogen, solid state storage and 10,000 psi gaseous storage.

[Source: WorldCarFans]

 

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

---

BOLD MOVES: THE FUTURE OF FORD Step behind the curtain at Ford Motor. Experience the documentary first-hand.

Update: AutoblogGreen is not endorsing any of the companies in the article linked to below. The point of this post is to point out that there are many companies who are hoping to get a piece of the green automotive pie.

If you frequent our site, nothing in this article will come as groundbreaking to you. If not, you really should read our content! Then, if you want, check out the article. What you will find is that there are currently some pretty good choices for you next vehicle if you’d like to go green. You will also find that there are many more choices poised to grab some market share. Competing technologies such as plug-in electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles and even hydrogen vehicles will be attempting to make inroads on American roads soon enough. What that means is that this is an exciting time to be involved, as we are kinda at a “Genesis” in the technology. Where will things go from here? Time will tell, and consumers will vote with their pocketbooks.

If ZAP! can actually bring their exciting products to market, I’d expect them to become a major player. As it stands now, though, their three-wheeled electric vehicles are not going to be replacing too many internal combustion powered cars anytime soon. If their electric Lotus APX or their Obvio vehicles actually show up, watch out!

GM intends to produce the Volt, read about that here. If you don’t need a new car before, say, 2010… you may be in luck. We here at AutoblogGreen soundly believe that the Volt could be a market-changing vehicle for GM in the same way that the Prius was for Toyota. Don’t forget Honda, the most fuel efficient brand in America, either. Like I said, exciting times indeed!

[Source: Investor Ideas]

 

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

---

BOLD MOVES: THE FUTURE OF FORD Step behind the curtain at Ford Motor. Experience the documentary first-hand.

As I noted last week, General Motors new Chevy Volt concept vehicle has received quite a bit of fanfare around the green blogosphere; as we also saw from some of the comments that post [at Green Options] received, the company’s claim that it must develop an automotive lithium-ion battery to move the Volt to production has met with its share of skepticism. The media event I attended last Monday was aimed, in part, at skeptics — the company wanted to make its case for choosing this particular path, including the reasons for developing new battery technology instead of taking advantage of current nickel metal hydride batteries common to most hybrid vehicles.

While our breakfast meeting with Larry Burns was small and relatively casual, GM had a thorough formal presentation planned for the larger group of reporters and writers that gathered later in the morning. Joining Beth Lowery, GM’s VP of Energy and Environment, were Denise Gray, Director of Hybrid Energy Storage Systems for GM, and Joe LoGrasso, the Engineering Group Manager in that same division. Also present were representatives of the companies GM has contracted with in developing li-ion batteries for its “E-Flex” concept: Mary Ann Wright, CEO of Johnson Controls-Saft, Ed Bednarcik, VP and General Manager of A123Systems, and Scott Lindholm, VP of Systems Engineering for Cobasys. The presentations by all of these executives came together around two common themes: 1) the li-ion automotive battery is necessary for the E-Flex concept; 2) the combination of talent and experience GM had brought together can make it happen.

LoGrasso and Wright tackled the main question on everyone’s mind: why lithium-ion when nickel metal hydride is a battery technology that, according to LoGrasso, is “nearing maturity in cost and performance.” According to LoGrasso, GM had decided upon the following needs for a battery for the Volt:

• Energy: 40+ miles all-electric in city driving
• Recharge: While driving and with plug-in
• Power: EV driving full vehicle performance
• Life: 10 years/150k miles life

The advantages of li-ion batteries include:

• Superior specific discharge power & energy
  • ~40% less mass than NiMH
  • ~20% less volume than NiMH
• Excellent cycle life
• Long term cost potential
• Relatively low self-discharge
• Easier to control (determine SOC & power available)

To put this in terms that apply to most people’s driving, a NiMH battery in the space alloted for a battery in the Volt would provide a 25-30 mile range in electric-only mode, and not provide the power most consumers want — according to engineers that addressed this for me later by email, “The 0-60 would be unacceptable. The owner would also have issues with being able to drive up hills.” An li-ion battery, on the other hand, could provide a 40-mile electric-only range with the power most car owners expect. Wright also noted that lithium-ion batteries provide more power with less space and weight, which translates into cost savings. Challenges still exist, of course, including cold temperature performance (mentioned here), as well as life span, robustness & abuse tolerance, the more sophisticated electronics needed to maintain li-ion cells, and the initial costs of the batteries and battery packs before production can be ramped up to a scale that will bring prices down.

The questions asked by readers at Green Options also came up during the Q&A period — why not go with the technology currently available and upgrade as necessary? The company stuck to its story — li-ion is necessary to create a plug-in hybrid that meets the power and energy expectations of most consumers.

So, is it? GM and its partners made a complex case for this technology — we’d love to hear why you think they’re right or wrong.

For other takes on this presentation, visit Autoblog Green, Evolution Shift, and EcoWorld.

Cross posted at Green Options.

Categories: gm, automobile, car, chevyvolt, battery, detroit

For those of us old enough to remember Robert McFarlane‘s time in the Reagan administration as assistant to Secretary of State Alexander Haig and National Security Advisor, we’re likely to associate the man with one thing: Iran-Contra. McFarlane’s back in the spotlight these days, but rather than fighting communism, the senior statesman is hawking renewable energy as a smart choice for both environmental and national security challenges.

At a renewable energy summit hosted by Colorado Senator Ken Salazar on Friday, McFarlane warned that our “addiction to oil” creates a chink in our armor that, if exploited, could wreak economic havoc. According to the AP,

McFarlane… said an attack last year on a Saudi oil terminal was a warning of what could happen if terrorists carry out their threats to go after oil supplies.

He said a truck filled with explosives came within 100 yards of the oil terminal before it was stopped. Had the attack succeeded, it would have knocked out a terminal that supplies 6 million barrels of oil a day for a year, tripling the cost of a barrel of oil to $150 a barrel overnight.

“They came within 100 yards of taking 6 million barrels a day off the market for a year,” said McFarlane, who now runs an energy investment company.

McFarlane said Japan, which is heavily dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, would have been the first to see its economy collapse if the attack had succeeded. He said there are a dozen terminals at risk in Saudi Arabia alone.

Of course, oil comes from other regions of the world, but, as McFarlane noted, there are problems in those places, also: both Venezuela and Russia are exerting state control over oil supplies, for instance. The US places its energy and economic security at risk by not moving forcefully into renewable energy development… development which can occur fairly quickly with technology we already have.

McFarlane also mentioned climate change in his address, and there’s no doubt that there are real security and economic threats poised by the climate crisis. The strength of the “energy hawk” argument, though, lies in its ability to show that climate change skeptics still have good reason to be concerned about our reliance on oil and gas, and typical methods of increasing security won’t cut it — I can’t think of any form of military action that could stem this. We also can’t rely on the market in this case, because China and India have hit “superpower” status in terms of energy consumption, and they’ll continue to provide competition for dwindling supplies.

The flip side of this coin, though, is the economic potential that exists in building more renewable infrastructure. If you haven’t already, take a look at Clean Edge’s annual report on clean energy trends .

As I noted last week, General Motors new Chevy Volt concept vehicle has received quite a bit of fanfare around the green blogosphere; as we also saw from some of the comments that post [at Green Options] received, the company’s claim that it must develop an automotive lithium-ion battery to move the Volt to production has met with its share of skepticism. The media event I attended last Monday was aimed, in part, at skeptics — the company wanted to make its case for choosing this particular path, including the reasons for developing new battery technology instead of taking advantage of current nickel metal hydride batteries common to most hybrid vehicles.

While our breakfast meeting with Larry Burns was small and relatively casual, GM had a thorough formal presentation planned for the larger group of reporters and writers that gathered later in the morning. Joining Beth Lowery, GM’s VP of Energy and Environment, were Denise Gray, Director of Hybrid Energy Storage Systems for GM, and Joe LoGrasso, the Engineering Group Manager in that same division. Also present were representatives of the companies GM has contracted with in developing li-ion batteries for its “E-Flex” concept: Mary Ann Wright, CEO of Johnson Controls-Saft, Ed Bednarcik, VP and General Manager of A123Systems, and Scott Lindholm, VP of Systems Engineering for Cobasys. The presentations by all of these executives came together around two common themes: 1) the li-ion automotive battery is necessary for the E-Flex concept; 2) the combination of talent and experience GM had brought together can make it happen.

LoGrasso and Wright tackled the main question on everyone’s mind: why lithium-ion when nickel metal hydride is a battery technology that, according to LoGrasso, is “nearing maturity in cost and performance.” According to LoGrasso, GM had decided upon the following needs for a battery for the Volt:

• Energy: 40+ miles all-electric in city driving
• Recharge: While driving and with plug-in
• Power: EV driving full vehicle performance
• Life: 10 years/150k miles life

The advantages of li-ion batteries include:

• Superior specific discharge power & energy
  • ~40% less mass than NiMH
  • ~20% less volume than NiMH
• Excellent cycle life
• Long term cost potential
• Relatively low self-discharge
• Easier to control (determine SOC & power available)

To put this in terms that apply to most people’s driving, a NiMH battery in the space alloted for a battery in the Volt would provide a 25-30 mile range in electric-only mode, and not provide the power most consumers want — according to engineers that addressed this for me later by email, “The 0-60 would be unacceptable. The owner would also have issues with being able to drive up hills.” An li-ion battery, on the other hand, could provide a 40-mile electric-only range with the power most car owners expect. Wright also noted that lithium-ion batteries provide more power with less space and weight, which translates into cost savings. Challenges still exist, of course, including cold temperature performance (mentioned here), as well as life span, robustness & abuse tolerance, the more sophisticated electronics needed to maintain li-ion cells, and the initial costs of the batteries and battery packs before production can be ramped up to a scale that will bring prices down.

The questions asked by readers at Green Options also came up during the Q&A period — why not go with the technology currently available and upgrade as necessary? The company stuck to its story — li-ion is necessary to create a plug-in hybrid that meets the power and energy expectations of most consumers.

So, is it? GM and its partners made a complex case for this technology — we’d love to hear why you think they’re right or wrong.

For other takes on this presentation, visit Autoblog Green, Evolution Shift, and EcoWorld.

Cross posted at Green Options.

Categories: gm, automobile, car, chevyvolt, battery, detroit

As regular readers know, I left higher education professionally (well, mostly), but still try to keep a close eye on what’s happening at campuses around the country in terms of sustainable development. I’m in heaven now, as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) has released its AASHE Digest 2006: A Review of Campus Sustainability (in PDF). The digest is a compilation of all of the campus sustainability stories that appeared in the AASHE Bulletin during 2006, and provides a good look at the trends for the year. According to the “2006 in Review” section, last year was a watershed. Among the findings of the report:

• “From Slippery Rock University to the University of Texas at Austin, there are more than 175 four-year schools mentioned in the 2006 Digest that were not in last year’s Digest.” Given the close eye that AASHE keeps on such developments, that likely means that 175 schools are implementing sustainability initiatives that weren’t in ’05.
• “In 2005, LEED Silver certification was the standard (80% of certified campus buildings). In 2006, LEED Gold has replaced Silver as the standard. Twelve of the eighteen campus buildings certified were rated Gold.” So, not only is green building taking off on college campuses, but schools are making sure new buildings are even greener than those built in previous years.
• “The EPA’s list of the Top 10 green power purchasers in higher education saw a lot of jostling in 2006 as campuses upped their purchases (many to 100% of their campus’ usage). The combined green power purchases of the Top 10 purchasers tripled in 2006 to an amount equivalent to the annual usage of 51,000 average American homes.” This is in addition to an explosion of on-campus renewable energy production, which “exploded” in ’06.

This is just a handful of the milestones the Digest notes for last year. And, the pace continuing: according to AASHE’s Executive Director Tom Kimmerer, “If the first two months of 2007 are any indication, we are heading for another vigorous year.”

The Digest is categorized by specific impact areas, such as “Green Building,” “Food and Agriculture,” and “Transportation.” The PDF format makes it easily searchable, so you can find out how your alma mater did last year. I did that myself; unfortunately, the schools I’ve attended or taught at didn’t make the Bulletin last year. That doesn’t mean that they’re not implementing sustainability at some level, but, rather, they weren’t doing anything last year, or they did, and AASHE didn’t cover it (which I think is pretty unlikely).

Regardless of your own school’s efforts (or lack thereof), the bigger trends are looking very promising. And that’s good news, as it means more students are graduating with a clearer sense of their impact on the natural world, and what they can do to lighten it.

Thanks, as always, to Julian Dautremont-Smith of AASHE for passing along the news.

Categories: colleges, universities, sustainability, green, aashe, us

As regular readers know, I left higher education professionally (well, mostly), but still try to keep a close eye on what’s happening at campuses around the country in terms of sustainable development. I’m in heaven now, as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) has released its AASHE Digest 2006: A Review of Campus Sustainability (in PDF). The digest is a compilation of all of the campus sustainability stories that appeared in the AASHE Bulletin during 2006, and provides a good look at the trends for the year. According to the “2006 in Review” section, last year was a watershed. Among the findings of the report:

• “From Slippery Rock University to the University of Texas at Austin, there are more than 175 four-year schools mentioned in the 2006 Digest that were not in last year’s Digest.” Given the close eye that AASHE keeps on such developments, that likely means that 175 schools are implementing sustainability initiatives that weren’t in ’05.
• “In 2005, LEED Silver certification was the standard (80% of certified campus buildings). In 2006, LEED Gold has replaced Silver as the standard. Twelve of the eighteen campus buildings certified were rated Gold.” So, not only is green building taking off on college campuses, but schools are making sure new buildings are even greener than those built in previous years.
• “The EPA’s list of the Top 10 green power purchasers in higher education saw a lot of jostling in 2006 as campuses upped their purchases (many to 100% of their campus’ usage). The combined green power purchases of the Top 10 purchasers tripled in 2006 to an amount equivalent to the annual usage of 51,000 average American homes.” This is in addition to an explosion of on-campus renewable energy production, which “exploded” in ’06.

This is just a handful of the milestones the Digest notes for last year. And, the pace continuing: according to AASHE’s Executive Director Tom Kimmerer, “If the first two months of 2007 are any indication, we are heading for another vigorous year.”

The Digest is categorized by specific impact areas, such as “Green Building,” “Food and Agriculture,” and “Transportation.” The PDF format makes it easily searchable, so you can find out how your alma mater did last year. I did that myself; unfortunately, the schools I’ve attended or taught at didn’t make the Bulletin last year. That doesn’t mean that they’re not implementing sustainability at some level, but, rather, they weren’t doing anything last year, or they did, and AASHE didn’t cover it (which I think is pretty unlikely).

Regardless of your own school’s efforts (or lack thereof), the bigger trends are looking very promising. And that’s good news, as it means more students are graduating with a clearer sense of their impact on the natural world, and what they can do to lighten it.

Thanks, as always, to Julian Dautremont-Smith of AASHE for passing along the news.

Categories: colleges, universities, sustainability, green, aashe, us

I just returned from a whirlwind trip to Detroit to attend a really interesting (and pretty unique) event: General Motors brought bloggers and journalists to their Research and Development Center outside of Detroit yesterday not to make a big announcement, or roll out a new vehicle, but to simply provide an update on the development of battery technology for the Chevy Volt and other electric concept vehicles. As the PR rep who coordinated the event told us right before the big presentation, there was really no news; rather, GM really seem to want to keep the media posted on where things stand with these new concepts that received a ton of attention in January.

Now, if you’re a skeptic, you’re probably thinking something along the lines of “Wow! Who Killed the Electric Car? must’ve really got their attention!” I think that’s accurate — at the auto shows in LA and Chicago, as well as today, company execs. discussed the EV1 project openly and frankly. Their story (and I think it’s got some merit): a two-seater with an 80-mile battery range was only going to have limited appeal, and, ultimately, not serve the purpose of really greening the American auto fleet. And that’s their real push, they claim — they want to create greener cars that have mass appeal, and fundamentally change the vehicles we drive.

Enter the Volt, which was rolled out at the Detroit Auto Show, and is getting all sorts of attention. It’s a sweet car, no doubt, but it’s also a concept vehicle at this point. That’s another area of criticism: GM does well creating green concept vehicles, but they’re not rolling off the production lines. We heard a healthy dose of that in LA from the Rainforest Action Network and JumpStartFord (now Freedom From Oil). Larry Burns, VP of Research and Development, spoke to that criticism when I talked with him in Chicago, and the company continued to respond yesterday. In short, GM has more vehicles in its fleet that average over 30 mpg than any other American auto maker. Furthermore, as CEO Rick Waggoner said in LA, and Burns told us this morning at a bloggers-only breakfast meeting, GM is committed to “reinventing the automobile.”

OK… sounds like a good line from the PR department, right? I’ve got to admit, after talking to Burns one-on-one in Chicago, and then seeing his presentation yesterday, I think we’ve got to give the company some latitude: they’re definitely thinking very big. Burns held a breakfast meeting with four bloggers: Ed Ring of ecoworld, David Houle of Evolution Shift, Sam Abuelsamid of AutoblogGreen, and myself. The thrust of his talk: we’re facing big challenges in terms of energy security, climate change and global political instability, and that requires a fundamental rethinking of the automobile. Burns noted that the “DNA” of the car hasn’t really changed in 120 years: it contains an internal combustion engine powered by petroleum products, is driven by mechanical systems, and functions independent of other vehicles on the road. GM wants to change those factors: create a vehicle powered by electricity and/or renewable fuels, driven by electronic systems, and connected (via communications technologies) to other vehicles on the road (think accident avoidance, among other things).

This fundamental shift is encapsulated in a concept introduced by GM CEO Rick Waggoner at the Detroit Auto Show: E-Flex. According to Waggoner,

What exactly do we mean by E-Flex? Well, the “E” is no surprise – it stands for “electric,” because no matter how an E-Flex vehicle is configured, it will always be driven exclusively by electricity.

This is the major difference between E-Flex and hybrids. Hybrids can be driven by an internal combustion engine, or an electric drive, or both systems simultaneously. E-Flex vehicles will always be driven by electricity.

What about the second half of the name? Well, that’s the really interesting part of all this. E-Flex is “flexible” because the electricity it uses to drive the vehicle can come from a wide range of fuel sources. It can come from a hydrogen fuel cell; it can be generated by a small motor running on ethanol or bio-diesel or synthetic fuel; or it can come from the power grid, and be stored in a battery. And, when the electricity comes from the grid, it can be generated by natural gas, coal, nuclear power, wind, hydroelectric, and so on.

In short, E-Flex vehicles will enjoy one of the really outstanding benefits of electricity: the opportunity to diversify fuel sources for the vehicle.

E-Flex is also flexible because it offers flexibility around the globe. Europeans rely more on diesel fuel than North Americans, Brazil has gravitated to E-100 ethanol, and we see tremendous opportunities with bio-fuels here in the U.S. China, meanwhile, may well be the first country to develop a broad-based fuel cell infrastructure.

By setting up a propulsion system that allows us to power vehicles with any of these fuels, E-Flex provides us with a single elegant solution.

In short, E-Flex creates options. It’ll allow GM to leverage a range of electrically driven propulsion systems, as well as benefit from the inevitability and the promise of energy diversity.

The concept is really innovative: essentially, GM wants to take the concept of energy diversity, which we’ve heard much about in the context of electricity production by utilities, and adapt it to the automobile. Rather than creating vehicles based on the assumption that gasoline is the almost universal fuel of choice, E-Flex allows for diversity based on local and regional difference.

Of course, this thinking presents unique challenges. The biggest ones: development of next-generation battery technology, particularly lithium ion batteries for automobiles. This, the company claims, is the main challenge they’ll have to overcome before moving the Volt, as well as the Sequel, to production status. They say, though, that they’re fully committed to developing this technology, and that, while no firm dates were given, they foresee these vehicles on the road within a 3-5 year time frame.

Too good to be true? That claim was made, with at least one reporter in the battery briefing characterizing the company as having a history of overpromising and underdelivering. In my next post, I’ll get into the battery development plans, as well as alternatives that were suggested over and over.

I do think GM is very serious about reinventing the automobile, and that their ideas are much bigger than anything we’re hearing from the remaining two companies of the “Big 3.” They’ve provided a pretty specific blueprint for how they’ll do that. And, while they don’t have firm dates (that probably would be overpromising), they’ve argued that such developments can happen in a relatively quick time frame. The one question that remains to be answered (and the one that you can help with): how will the public react to this news? Are we willing to give the company the time it needs to make such dramatic changes? Or, has their moment passed? I’m tending towards the former: GM’s certainly made its mistakes, but if these plans succeed, we’re looking at a revolution in personal transportation…

Disclaimer: GM did cover my expenses for this trip. As with my trip to the Chicago Auto Show, this was done with the understanding that I was free to write (or not to write) whatever I chose…

Cross posted at Green Options

Categories: gm, automobile, car, chevyvolt, battery, detroit

I just returned from a whirlwind trip to Detroit to attend a really interesting (and pretty unique) event: General Motors brought bloggers and journalists to their Research and Development Center outside of Detroit yesterday not to make a big announcement, or roll out a new vehicle, but to simply provide an update on the development of battery technology for the Chevy Volt and other electric concept vehicles. As the PR rep who coordinated the event told us right before the big presentation, there was really no news; rather, GM really seem to want to keep the media posted on where things stand with these new concepts that received a ton of attention in January.

Now, if you’re a skeptic, you’re probably thinking something along the lines of “Wow! Who Killed the Electric Car? must’ve really got their attention!” I think that’s accurate — at the auto shows in LA and Chicago, as well as today, company execs. discussed the EV1 project openly and frankly. Their story (and I think it’s got some merit): a two-seater with an 80-mile battery range was only going to have limited appeal, and, ultimately, not serve the purpose of really greening the American auto fleet. And that’s their real push, they claim — they want to create greener cars that have mass appeal, and fundamentally change the vehicles we drive.

Enter the Volt, which was rolled out at the Detroit Auto Show, and is getting all sorts of attention. It’s a sweet car, no doubt, but it’s also a concept vehicle at this point. That’s another area of criticism: GM does well creating green concept vehicles, but they’re not rolling off the production lines. We heard a healthy dose of that in LA from the Rainforest Action Network and JumpStartFord (now Freedom From Oil). Larry Burns, VP of Research and Development, spoke to that criticism when I talked with him in Chicago, and the company continued to respond yesterday. In short, GM has more vehicles in its fleet that average over 30 mpg than any other American auto maker. Furthermore, as CEO Rick Waggoner said in LA, and Burns told us this morning at a bloggers-only breakfast meeting, GM is committed to “reinventing the automobile.”

OK… sounds like a good line from the PR department, right? I’ve got to admit, after talking to Burns one-on-one in Chicago, and then seeing his presentation yesterday, I think we’ve got to give the company some latitude: they’re definitely thinking very big. Burns held a breakfast meeting with four bloggers: Ed Ring of ecoworld, David Houle of Evolution Shift, Sam Abuelsamid of AutoblogGreen, and myself. The thrust of his talk: we’re facing big challenges in terms of energy security, climate change and global political instability, and that requires a fundamental rethinking of the automobile. Burns noted that the “DNA” of the car hasn’t really changed in 120 years: it contains an internal combustion engine powered by petroleum products, is driven by mechanical systems, and functions independent of other vehicles on the road. GM wants to change those factors: create a vehicle powered by electricity and/or renewable fuels, driven by electronic systems, and connected (via communications technologies) to other vehicles on the road (think accident avoidance, among other things).

This fundamental shift is encapsulated in a concept introduced by GM CEO Rick Waggoner at the Detroit Auto Show: E-Flex. According to Waggoner,

What exactly do we mean by E-Flex? Well, the “E” is no surprise – it stands for “electric,” because no matter how an E-Flex vehicle is configured, it will always be driven exclusively by electricity.

This is the major difference between E-Flex and hybrids. Hybrids can be driven by an internal combustion engine, or an electric drive, or both systems simultaneously. E-Flex vehicles will always be driven by electricity.

What about the second half of the name? Well, that’s the really interesting part of all this. E-Flex is “flexible” because the electricity it uses to drive the vehicle can come from a wide range of fuel sources. It can come from a hydrogen fuel cell; it can be generated by a small motor running on ethanol or bio-diesel or synthetic fuel; or it can come from the power grid, and be stored in a battery. And, when the electricity comes from the grid, it can be generated by natural gas, coal, nuclear power, wind, hydroelectric, and so on.

In short, E-Flex vehicles will enjoy one of the really outstanding benefits of electricity: the opportunity to diversify fuel sources for the vehicle.

E-Flex is also flexible because it offers flexibility around the globe. Europeans rely more on diesel fuel than North Americans, Brazil has gravitated to E-100 ethanol, and we see tremendous opportunities with bio-fuels here in the U.S. China, meanwhile, may well be the first country to develop a broad-based fuel cell infrastructure.

By setting up a propulsion system that allows us to power vehicles with any of these fuels, E-Flex provides us with a single elegant solution.

In short, E-Flex creates options. It’ll allow GM to leverage a range of electrically driven propulsion systems, as well as benefit from the inevitability and the promise of energy diversity.

The concept is really innovative: essentially, GM wants to take the concept of energy diversity, which we’ve heard much about in the context of electricity production by utilities, and adapt it to the automobile. Rather than creating vehicles based on the assumption that gasoline is the almost universal fuel of choice, E-Flex allows for diversity based on local and regional difference.

Of course, this thinking presents unique challenges. The biggest ones: development of next-generation battery technology, particularly lithium ion batteries for automobiles. This, the company claims, is the main challenge they’ll have to overcome before moving the Volt, as well as the Sequel, to production status. They say, though, that they’re fully committed to developing this technology, and that, while no firm dates were given, they foresee these vehicles on the road within a 3-5 year time frame.

Too good to be true? That claim was made, with at least one reporter in the battery briefing characterizing the company as having a history of overpromising and underdelivering. In my next post, I’ll get into the battery development plans, as well as alternatives that were suggested over and over.

I do think GM is very serious about reinventing the automobile, and that their ideas are much bigger than anything we’re hearing from the remaining two companies of the “Big 3.” They’ve provided a pretty specific blueprint for how they’ll do that. And, while they don’t have firm dates (that probably would be overpromising), they’ve argued that such developments can happen in a relatively quick time frame. The one question that remains to be answered (and the one that you can help with): how will the public react to this news? Are we willing to give the company the time it needs to make such dramatic changes? Or, has their moment passed? I’m tending towards the former: GM’s certainly made its mistakes, but if these plans succeed, we’re looking at a revolution in personal transportation…

Disclaimer: GM did cover my expenses for this trip. As with my trip to the Chicago Auto Show, this was done with the understanding that I was free to write (or not to write) whatever I chose…

Cross posted at Green Options

Categories: gm, automobile, car, chevyvolt, battery, detroit

Automobile marketing is pretty standard stuff, right? Newspaper ads, billboards, and the big, flashy exhibits at the auto shows — that about covers it. If you want to find out more, you go to a website or the dealership — right?

Toyota’s attempting to turn some of those conventions on there heads with the (literal) roll-out of its Highway to the Future: the Mobile Hybrid Experience tour. Begun in January at the San Jose International Auto Show, the tour consists of two rolling museums: 53-foot trailers that contain high-tech exhibits meant to bring hybrid technology to the masses. The feature exhibits of the Experience include:

• “Alternative Fuels: Fueling the Future” identifies the differences in various types of alternative fuels and how they are produced.
• “Environment and Resources: Small Steps, Big Difference” shows attendees what they can do to make a difference to the environment.
• “The Prius Driving Experience” simulates the current Hybrid Synergy Drive technology, allowing visitors to interact with the system while on-screen instructions offer driving tips.
• “Hybrid Technology: Not All Hybrids are Created Equal” gives visitors a better understanding of the various hybrid technology options on the market and how hybrids benefit the consumer and the environment.

Where’s the tour going? Auto shows, of course, but also to fairs, film festivals, and environmental gatherings — it’s also just making stops in various locations. All together, the Experience will make 150 different stops.

Is this marketing? Certainly. But it’s definitely a unique form of marketing for a car company. First, and most obvious, there’s a genuine educational effort here. Second, Toyota’s not only bringing its hybrid line-up to potential customers, but also using the tour to literally move into weaker markets: as LA’s Daily Breeze notes (sorry — looks like the actual article is unavailable on the site), Toyota pretty much owns the hybrid market in the US. The bulk of those sales, though, occur on the coasts. By taking the Prius, Camry and Highlander on the road, and into flyover country, the company can get people behind the wheel (or, at least, playing with an exhibit) and introduce them to these vehicles in a fun, non-threatening manner.

Of course, the big question someone’s bound to ask: what’s the environmental impact of taking these trailers trucks on the road for 18 months? Probably sizable, but Toyota has attempted to offset that impact in several ways. First, they’ve partnered with the National Arbor Day Foundation, and will be planting over 50,000 trees in honor of Experience visitors — that should offset some of the carbon emissions. They’ve also partnered with 3form in building the Experience: ceiling tiles, wall coverings and flooring are all made from recycled and/or eco-friendly materials. This could ultimately be a moot point: if the Tour gets more people driving hybrids, that in itself could offset this effort’s carbon footprint in fairly short order. A definite “win-win…”

The Experience hasn’t made it to St. Louis yet, but the folks at Toyota have promised to keep me in the loop. Has anyone been? What did you think?

Categories: toyota, hybrid, event, automobile, car