Green Blog - automotive Archives

A Practical Way To Use Electric Vehicles: Commute/Reverse Commute Station Cars

2010-07-21T15:47:04Z

Electric vehicles (EV) presently and will continue to suffer one crippling flaw for most applications: the lack of range. Note the words 'most applications' for there is an imaginative and practical means of using them that is discussed later on.

A recent National Post 'Motor Mouth' article by David Booth points out that the batteries required to move EVs generate electrical energy far less efficiently than do gasoline or other fuels. Gasoline produces about 6,000 watt-hours/pound whereas the "most optimistic numbers" he has seen for advanced lithium-ion batteries is 110 watt-hours/pound.

"That means good old- fashioned gasoline punches 54 times harder for the same amount of weight, the fundamental reason electric cars' ranges are so pitiful compared with those fossil fuelled," writes Booth.

Simply put: there is no way you can pack that much battery power to match what gasoline, or even less efficient fuels like compressed natural gas (used in fleet vehicles, like taxis) can produce for your typical trips.

What about the vaunted greater efficiency of electric motors?

"In the electric vehicles' defence, electric motors transmit that energy more efficiently to the road," says Booth. "Some electric motors boast 90% efficiency, while internal-combustion engines can transmit as little as 15% of their energy into vehicular motivation. However, even being generous, that means EVs face a nine- times deficit versus traditional cars."

And that doesn't take into account driving on hilly terrain. My city is noted for just that. I sit on the city council's transportation advisory committee and had my vote recorded against the majority that supported endorsing allowing small EV maintenance vehicles on local streets as they would have to crawl up the grades, blocking traffic; they are not fitted with the cumbersome flywheels or heavy gasoline engines that would have given them the needed oomph.

Moreover, re-energizing EVs are just as inefficient compared with filling up the tank even with the latest technology. GE has come out with GE WattStation that it says on average decreases electric vehicle charging time from 12-18 hours to as little as four to eight hours compared to standard charging "level 1", assuming a full-cycle charge for a 24 kWh battery.

In contrast it takes me about 5 to 7 minutes including payment time to fill up my-recreational/occasional-trip-only (I work from home) Subaru Forester.

For that reason EVs are limited to about 80 miles-90 miles per day. This may seem a lot but not when the typical urban or more accurately sprawl-to-sprawl commutes run in the range of 20 miles or 30 miles or more: less in stop-and-go traffic as well on grades. The real crippler though is the personal trips e.g. picking up/dropping off kids, food shopping, stopping by the hardware store, going out for lunch, meeting the gang after work, or having to take Aunt Millie to the airport.

So does that relegate EVs to the realm of jetpacks and other cool if ultimately impractical means of getting around?

No, because there is a way to use them that minimizes their downsides i.e. range and charging time and maximizes their benefits: zero-direct-emission mobility and that is as a bidirectional "station cars".

In this app EVs would bring commuters from their suburban homes to bus, ferry or train park-and-ride lots in the AM, take those coming off these modes that are going to suburban workplaces or other destinations e.g. conference centers, institutions, back to the transit terminals in the PM, and finally transport commuters on their last legs back to their domiciles. Next-(ahem)-gen chargers like GE's WattStation would be installed at residences, offices, institutions, which would permit morning, evening and work-time errand journeys. EVs can be deployed single-occupancy or better yet in shared-ride configurations.

As with vanpools, those who drive get to use EVs on weekends. This for all practical purposes would favor the suburban residents but there are many instances where both can benefit i.e. trip to the city on the train for a ball game, ride out to the country to a resort or beach or see some friends, depending on the frequency of transit service.

This use of EVs will help to not only reduce emissions in general but it affordably manages the air-killing matter of reaching suburban destinations that are at present impractical i.e. very costly to reach by mass transit because they are laid out to exclusively favor auto access. It also maximizes the use of this investment. Recharging at home and work gives the range needed for both sets of users' personal trips, which makes EVs practical for them.

So how do you employ EVs in this fashion? In much the same fashion as vanpools, with the use of computerized booking, plus with new-gen password vehicle access and starting. Transit agencies either independently or preferably (as they are cash-strapped) in partnership with the power companies would buy them and the chargers at fleet rates and in turn charge drivers, much like car renting or leasing. The renters/lessors and their employers would pay for the power to juice up their vehicles.

This is a multi-win application of this technology. Commuters will not have to own (and gas up) a second vehicle, thereby saving them thousands of dollars a year. Transit agencies will not have to extend routes to office parks or can conserve resources by pulling back poor performing ones if EVs are used instead while the ridership and revenue on bus, ferry or train reverse commute runs will grow because there will now be a viable option for such commuters. There will be fewer vehicles-miles travelled and resulting less pollution and congestion and accidents.

Yes, the markets that EVs can be used in this fashion are limited, but they are the ones with the biggest pollution and sprawl problems and with long transit spines e.g. Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, L-A basin, New York /Tri-State, Philly, San Francisco Bay area (including Silicon Valley), Seattle/Bellevue, Washington, D.C and in Canada: Montreal and Toronto.

How about it? Who wants to climb aboard?

Wealthy Biggest Driving Polluters? No, Really?

2010-05-18T16:44:00Z

The wealthy have the means to become the earliest adopters of the latest and greatest home and office green tech devices, methods and solutions. Yet it appears that too many of them are acting otherwise when it comes to mobility, if Canada's elite are any indication.

A Canwest New Service article printed last Friday in The Province revealed, citing new Statistics Canada figures, that "wealthy Canadians were the worst polluting drivers in 2007. While the rich, defined as having annual incomes of $100,000+ were responsible for spewing out the most air pollution per person, at 5,737 kilograms or 12,621 lbs in 2007.

"'People in this income group were more likely to own vehicles that use more fuel, such as trucks and SUVs,'" the article cites the report.

Along with that StatsCan reported an increase of new 466,472 vehicles on the road in 2007 compared with 2006, with more than half the additional fleet made up of (you guessed it) SUVs, trucks and vans.

Disturbingly if not surprisingly the same report said that individual vehicle pollution was up by one-third in 2007 compared to 15 years or so earlier. So much for fuel effiencies...

And if you add that up to additional driving, road wear-and-tear and resulting maintenance costs which also lead to higher pollution, it appears that any green gains in automotive technology--like the building of roads to alleviate traffic congestion--are eventually wiped out by the users.

One example that I hope doesn't go this way is increased recycling in car construction. The same issue of the paper reports in a story "Working toward the Earth-friendly car" that more manufacturers want to use additional recyclable components, besides the long-recycled aluminum, copper, iron and steel that are the stuff of junkyards, shredders, dirty old railroad gondola cars and melt shops.

"Typically, the plastics being used by manufacturers have been reinforced with materials such as glass, carbon or polyethylene fibres combined with petroleum-based resins," says the story. "Now, however, researchers are finding those materials can be replaced with bioplastics and fibres derived from plants without sacrificing critical requirements such as strength and durability. And, with oil prices continuing to rise, these green alternatives are cost effective, too."

The article pointed to a European study which "predicts that by 2020, bio-based plastics could replace up to 90 per cent of the total amount of petroleum-derived plastics consumed globally in 2007.

"The auto industry consumes an average of about 135 kilograms (297 lbs) of plastic in every car it builds, so it's no surprise automakers are looking down this road with enthusiasm, especially with the current push to make components either recyclable or biodegradable."

The piece cites Deborah Mielewski, technical leader of plastics research in Ford Motor Company's materials research and advanced engineering department, says the dream is to see those 135 kg of petroleum-based plastics "replaced by what we can grow. It just makes sense."

Ford is already using natural fiber-based plastic in its Ford Flex crossover. This reportedly industry-first production-line application uses plastic reinforced with environmentally friendly wheat straw to create the Flex's third-row interior storage bins. Using the wheat straw as a bio-filler, this application alone, says the Province story " is reducing petroleum usage by more than 9,000 kg (19,800 lbs) per year and cutting CO2 emissions by more than 13,600 kg (29,920 lbs.) annually. It also has better dimensional integrity than non-reinforced plastic and weighs up to 10 per cent less than plastic reinforced with talc or glass.

The story adds that applications already under consideration by the Ford team include centre console bins and trays, interior air register and door trim panel components and armrest liners.

One would hope that these materials would make fully electric vehicles more viable with the wealthy being the early and fashion-leading adopters, thereby creating the market for more affordable and practical mass market versions to sell to the hoi polloi.

Then again, if the experience of SUVs and trucks are any indication--and I've written about automotive metals in the 1990s when these vehicles started to become popular people movers in the 'burbs'--the savings will go into bulkier, feature-loaded craft that take up more road space and leaving us in the same choking mess or probably worse than we're now in...

Commuting A Pain In More Ways Than One

2009-08-21T21:23:42Z

Commuting is bad for the environment. Emissions from vehicles both directly and indirectly through fossil-fueled and river-befouling power plants, and from construction and maintenance combined with open space land grabs combine to form a toxic stew that is slowly killing us. Something to keep in mind as a reality check during the insane U.S. healthcare debate and the endless go-rounds what to do about the costs and doctor shortages in Canada.

Transportation typically accounts for 1/3 of emissions, and motor vehicles at 2/3rds of that. Commuting trips are about 20 percent of all travel.

The Canadians have done great work in assessing the health impacts from air pollution and accidents. A landmark study by the Canadian Medical Association, No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution pegs the pricetag at $8 billion in 2008, killing some 21,000 Canadians per year.

A fair estimate is $35 million in costs and 915 fatalities from commuting in Canada per year . Or $350 million and 9,150 deaths annually in the U.S. which has roughly 10 times the population.

Now a new study by Smartrisk, The Economic Burden of Injury in Canada shows much those so-called 'accidents' add to the pricetag of commuting. It estimates that transportation-related injuries cost $3.7 billion resulting in 3,067 deaths and 30,932 hospitalizations; transportation is the leading cause of unintentional injury deaths.

"Motor vehicle incidents were the most common cause of transport related injuries, accounting for 1,331 or 43% of transport related deaths and over half of all other transport related injuries," said the report.

Calculating the literal impacts for car commuting comes up with 266 deaths and 3,300 hospitalized injuries and at a cost of $270 million in Canada. And over 2,600 in fatalities, and 33,000 injuries costing $2.7 billion in the U.S.

And who pays the pricetags? The persons in the mirror either through pain and suffering, more bills, higher premiums, and tax hikes. What can that individual in front can do about it? Go telecommute, locate on busy transit routes, and end free staff parking.

Why EVs (etc.) are NG

2009-01-15T15:10:16Z

I have long been skeptical about electric or other alternative-fueled vehicles as truly green technologies because they all consume vast amounts of life-giving open space to transport comparatively few people and goods, drives more sprawl, which does likewise, and incurs air-killing construction and upkeep and requires hydrocarbon-based paving materials.

Peter Foster, a columnist in Canada's National Post, along with associated commentators have come up with a few more points to consider, in his column Wednesday subtitled 'Today's alternative vehicles are all profit graveyards or subsidy pits'.

Mr. Foster correctly pointed out one of the fallacies behind assuming that people will buy electric vehicles (EVs) and that is it isn't the average amount of driving per day that matters but the farthest that one usually wants to go.

"Apparently, Americans on average drive their cars less than 35 miles a day, but to suggest that this supports the viability of short-range electric cars is like suggesting that a five-foot tall person should be in no trouble if forced to spend alternate one hour periods in water six feet deep and two feet deep. After all, the average depth is only four feet. What is critical is not the average but the farthest distance you want to travel.

"With gasoline-powered cars or hybrids there is no distance limit, since there is a vast network of gasoline stations at which you can fill up in minutes. With electric cars, you have to plug in for a matter of hours. Battery exchange depots are an obvious idea but likely an impractical one.

I can attest to Mr. Foster's point. I work from home and the farthest I drive is 15 miles and that is on those days when I have to pick up my wife late at night from her part-time job, when the buses stop running. Yet we live in a small city in a rural area, so when we need to do shopping or conduct other business in a larger metro, or to just get out of town for something to do, our journeys are 100 miles to 150 miles round trip.

Mr. Foster's column also points out about controversy over ethanol whose fuel-driven demand has sparked starvation and food riots. And one of the commentators said that they had once read that a Prius has 37 pounds of copper wiring. A standard gas powered vehicle has 25 pounds of copper. "Did copper start growing on trees or is it ok for us to feel green while some guy works in a hole in South America?" asked the respondent.

What would be handy is to have a reasonably objective report from a well-respected organization (by environmentalists and industry alike) that cuts through the greenwash and the charges and PR and compares the total direct and indirect green impacts of transportation and transportation alternatives: i.e. private vehicles, transit, and telework. That way consumers and government decisionmakers spending their money would have a fair basis on which to choose the greenest option, weighing that factor against cost, need, and convenience.

Subaru: the truly green automaker

2008-11-25T21:29:41Z

It is rare that I mention green and cars in a positive light given the huge amount of emissions private vehicles produce--and the planet-damaging sprawl the overplanning for them engenders--but in the case I will make the rare exception and praise.

That goes to Japanese-owned carmaker Subaru. Not because it is a leader in bleeding-edge technology like hybrids, or that it makes tiny gas-miserly vehicles like its larger competitors, though its vehicles are very fuel efficient through using advanced proven technology.

Instead Subaru gets the accolade because they have built a low-environmental-footprint plant in Indiana that it is proudly advertising on TV that is a far cry from the creaking and wheezing factories belonging to the dying Big 3. And because their cars and compact SUVs, such as the popular Outbacks and Foresters are so well made they last near-forever (300K-400K is not uncommon)--which means less resources needed to build new and to repair existing ones.

Long-lasting vehicles are an environmental virtue. Anyone who has worked at or toured a car factory or for that matter a steel mill or aluminum plant knows and can appreciate just how much energy: electricity, coal/coke that goes into making vehicles and sees and senses the resulting pollutants from the entire auto-building process. That also goes for the trains and trucks that haul the materials, finished products to the dealers, and the vehicles back for scrapping.

The Subaru dealerships are truly dedicated to keeping the vehicles going as are their owners. Their higher-than-average pricetags encourages you to do just that. Then again, a used Subaru beats most other similar new vehicles hands down in reliability, longevity, and ROI.

There's also another benefit: fanatical customer loyalty. Subarus have 'built-in CRM'. Once you own one you never want to drive another make.

I can testify to the above. I own a secondhand 2001 Subaru Forester that I've driven everywhere from Vancouver Island logging roads to equally cratered Staten Island residential streets, swerving around both bears and bearish pedestrians with ease. It has just over 150,000 miles, which means it has easily 150,000 or more to go. The all-wheel-drive makes even New York City parking a no-brainer and takes the edge off coping with icy hilly roads like through the Poconos in Pennsylvania. It isn't coincidence that Vermont and New Hampshire have long been Subaru country.

The key to keeping Subarus or any other vehicle truly green is minimizing the mileage-killing start-and-stop commuting trips as well as regular maintenance including tune-ups. I work from home and when I have to travel to a large city or airport I take the bus, train, or park-and-ride at a commuter rail station. This also keeps my rolling investment free of damage, thereby extending its lifespan and value.

--BR

Goodbye, GM, Chrysler, Hello Green Alternatives

2008-11-17T22:00:32Z

I live in a part of North America that is dependent on the auto industry and I am seeing it break down around me.

Every day it seems the local media has a story on another layoff, if not of the Big 3 but of the many hundreds of firms that supply them. Every day it appears that one more factory has a For Sale or For Lease sign up. Every day one more track in the local railroad yard is taken up by a string of empty auto-rack railcars.

So I am not without sympathy to the families, indeed neighbors who are being hurt by what is happening in that industry.

Yet at the same time I have no pity for the companies themselves, Chrysler and especially GM. And should they end up in the scrap heap so be it. They the espousers of 'planned obsolescence': that philosophy of producing crap, gas-guzzling, air-killing products (I used to own a Dodge Intrepid, 'nough said) are now obsolete.

GM deserves such a fate and more. The tech 'evil empires' are benign when compared with this outfit. In 1949 GM, along with Firestone (now Bridgestone) and what is now Chevron were convicted of conspiring to rip up clean, efficient, electric streetcar lines and replace them with polluting, traffic-prone, and less attractive buses. GM handicapped the market for its now-sold Electro-Motive division that produced (and still does, under its present owners) fine, rugged diesel railroad locomotives that was largely responsible for displacing the romantic if comparatively inefficient and very labor-intensive steam engines. GM's locomotives continue to growl away on freight and passenger trains long after similar-vintage bus, car, and truck counterparts had become scrap metal; its designs are being used in ultramodern commuter rail and freight engines.

The growth in the auto industry, aided by taxpayer-financed roads, led to the near destruction of the rail and transit industries, and the demise of those jobs. But back then it was called 'progress'...

There is now a coming of minds to a solution to the dilemma of putting highly-skilled people back to work and at the same time cleaning up our air and relieving congested highways: investing in the green alternatives of high-speed rail and getting moving on telework. While green vehicles are nice they eat up much more land than rail or fiber optics: land that is used to replenish oxygen and water supplies, and to grow food on.

California is getting into the act by passing its high-speed rail measure. My sources tell me that has sparked renewed interest in the Pacific Northwest, which has, under the branding Amtrak Cascades, a nascent intercity rail network supported by Oregon, Washington, and the province of British Columbia. The premiers of Ontario--which has been especially hard hit because Canada's auto industry is centered there--and Quebec have been pressuring the Canadian government for high-speed rail. Bombardier, which built the now de-bugged Acela trains, has plants, conveniently enough, in both provinces. California, the Pacific Northwest, and Ontario and Quebec plan to power their trains eventually with mostly non-carbon-emiting energy: hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind. Ontario has a couple of nuclear power stations near the proposed right of way, where today's VIA Rail intercity passenger trains 'speed' by at no more than 95 mph on regular railroad tracks that are shared by freight trains.

And one can be sure that should the California plan progress to the stage where bids will be going out that the savvy manufacturers will promise to locate assembly plants there. Just as Siemens had done when orders began pouring in for its light rail cars from across the Western US and Canada; it was ironically, Edmonton, Alberta, the province's capital and the so-called center of the Canadian oil industry, that kicked off the light rail boom when its first line opened in April 1978.

The other part of the equation is telework (including conferencing or 'telepresence). For no matter how good high-speed rail systems and mass transit networks are and can be they cannot substitute for the many commuting trips and intercity business travel that are now taken by car and air.

The Telework Coalition has been invited by the Province of Ontario to make a submission to its pre-budget consultation. The organization plans to make some policy recommendations aimed at encouraging virtual work which too would put people to work, such as those at embattled tech firm Nortel that is headquartered there.

The pieces supporting telework is already there. What is needed is putting them together. On Thursday Nov.20, IEX is sponsoring a TMC Webinar on this topic. I'll be moderating the session, and I encourage anyone who is interested in telework to register, take part, and ask questions.

--BR

The Green Side of Ontario's Proposed Handheld Device Law

2008-10-28T22:34:36Z

There is an interesting side to the Province of Ontario's just tabled legislation that would restrict using handheld devices while driving: a provision that would allow informal carpools.

The bill is actually called the 'Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act of 2008'. The Ministry of Transportation says it will, if passed (that's assured-the ruling Ontario Liberal party has a majority) update the Public Vehicles Act that will promote carpooling in Ontario by removing the barriers and red tape associated with forming carpools. This will include amending the definition of a carpool vehicle to recognize informal, irregular carpools that operate between municipalities for purposes other than just home-to-work and work-to-home trips.

The big benefit here is that these informal carpools will be able to use the province's small but growing network of HOV lanes. Ontario also has many carpooling lots located just off its 400-series expressways.

Also, if you're in a carpool and you're driving you can ask someone else to take the calls for you...

--BR

Here's How To Make Airports Really Green...

2008-09-23T14:33:01Z

I applaud the airports for taking steps to use less energy, generate fewer emissions, and recycle more, as reported in a USA Today story last week that I had perused while at ITEXPO West.

Yet if these facilities, and their airline masters truly want to go green they should:

* Invest in European-styled electric high-speed rail links to replace short-haul flights.

A Hydro-Quebec report published in 2006 revealed that such air travel can release as much as 340 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometre as compared with zero for a passenger in a high-speed electric train, powered from hydroelectric dams. In contrast, long-haul flights, for which there is no competition (other than the ultraclean choice of conferencing) release as little as 102 grams.

Short haul flights also eat up runway space, whose expansion chews up life-giving greenspace. More runway wear-and-tear also means more pollution-adding construction and maintenance.

*Shift access to mass transit and shared-ride away from private vehicles. Invest in rapid transit and subsidize off-site airport buses to transit centers, like existing commuter rail/bus stations near where users live. Pay for this by hiking parking fees to discourage single occupancy vehicle access.

Green Ideas Overheard At ITEXPO West

2008-09-22T12:14:26Z

Several ideas/observations overheard at ITEXPO West last week in Los Angeles...

1. Get rid of the ethanol subsidy

Ethanol production--from grains as opposed to biowaste--is being criticized for generating more pollution than it solves through processing and transportation.

Kind of like LEED buildings being erected in car-oriented office parks, gouged out of what had been environmentally-beneficial fields, wetlands, forests...

2. Go nuclear, like France has done. Get away from coal, heavy oil, natural gas, hydro...

There is some logic here. The big question with nuclear is what to do with the spent fuel. Those costs must be factored into the price.

Then again, compared with bird-killing tailing ponds from tar sands production, blowing up mountaintops and gouging craters for coal, the refining process for oil and natural gas, damming up rivers for hydro...

3. Invest in electric high-speed rail, again like France

Makes sense. Electric rail transportation emits far fewer total emissions than driving and flying and requires much less greenspace.

Air and road travel have long had free rides--including on the environment--thanks to enormous direct and indirect subsidies that had put private rail passenger transportation out of business.

The transportation picture, and the environment and energy, not to mention urban development, would have looked much different, had there been a true free market competitive level playing field between modes.

To redress this balance there needs to be heavy government investment--like which was made on the Interstates and in airports that had nearly eliminated passenger and urban rail.

There is a high-speed rail vote going to the California electors this fall. There are also other transit funding measures on or will likely be on the ballot (a future entry in the Green Blog will look at them but this article in the July issue of the transit trade magazine Metro gives a good primer.

3. Look at shale and other oil sources

There is nothing evil about oil per se from any source, but the final costs from them must include all the direct and indirect environmental expenses incurred.
Anything less is a subsidy...

Going Green To L-A...To ITEXPO West

2008-09-10T20:20:45Z

The headline above sounds like an oxymoron, given that Los Angeles has for 60 years come to represent everything brown and ugly as opposed green and bright in the environment. For "L-A" was the first city--and far from the last--to buy into the 1930s urbanist vision of dispersed sprawling communities linked by car-occupied freeways, popularized at the 1939 World's Fair in New York City.

The car and the wide, fast roads to accommodate it represented individual freedom, the escape from dirty, fetid cities into fresh countryside and wide open spaces, once the province of farmers and the elite. Unfortunately like most visions it overlooked the consequences, like smog, which began to be inflicted by cars on Los Angeles as early as the late 1940s, and traffic congestion that has proven to be impossible to build out of.

There is a plaque in the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal, (also known as Union Station used by Amtrak and the Metrolink commuter rail that discusses the deliberate freewayization of Los Angeles that destroyed what was the world's greatest mass transit network, the Pacific Electric interurbans or 'Red Cars'. This figured as a subplot in the hit animated/real action comedy film 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' The city also had an extensive narrow gauge urban streetcar system, which shared tracks with the Red Cars with inside rails for the trolleys.

Since the early 1990s "L-A" has been pouring money if by fits and starts into returning the 'Red Cars' now known as light rail transit or LRT, plus in subways, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit that have proven popular especially with high gas prices. Thanks to this investment you can get around without a car, to places like Hollywood, Pasadena, and Long Beach. The Los Angeles County MTA's site will show you how. There is a new 'Red Car' line being built to the south west of the Los Angeles convention center that will reach Culver City by 2010 and eventually Santa Monica.

At the same time "L-A" has become the hub of a slowish but attractive, convenient, frequent, reliable, and affordable intercity rail and bus network that connects it with Santa Barbara, San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley (Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, Sacramento) and the San Francisco Bay area. Amtrak, the State of California, and bus partners have teamed up to provide a coordinated network known as Amtrak California.

LAX doesn't have a rail link, through there are bus shuttle connections to the Green Line light rail that in turn connects with the Blue Line for the downtown. Instead it offers excellent shared-ride shuttle vans from the terminals plus transit buses via frequent connections to an off-site transit station. So yes, you don't need to drive there either. "L-A" is also gradually returning to walkable, cycle-friendly downtowns and neighborhoods.

ITEXPO West is taking place at the Los Angeles Convention Center, which is in the downtown and not far from the subway and LRT/'Red Car' lines. ITEXPO West has exhibits along with sessions that can help you go green such as through teleworking and to employ technologies that use less energy. An excellent Show Guide via TMC President and Group Editor-in-Chief Rich Tehrani's blog will help you navigate the event.

At ITEXPO West there is also an opportunity to win a Toyota Prius hybrid: a worthwhile vehicle to own for no matter how good mass transit and alternatives like teleworking are, there will always be a big place and need for private cars. The key (literally) is to minimize their environmental footprint by hybrid and pure electric technologies and by unclogging the roads through transit and teleworking so that driving can truly be fast, convenient, and free.

Land Rover Unveils Green Concept

2008-01-14T13:40:02Z

Green is a major theme of this year’s North American International Auto Show and Land Rover is bringing something to the party. The automaker unveiled the LRX hybrid concept, a three-door Rover, showcasing compact size, lighter weight and sustainability-focused technologies.

“The LRX concept delivers the powerful message that we are as serious about sustainability as we are confident about the continuing relevance and desirability of our vehicles,” says Phil Popham, Land Rover’s managing director. “LRX is in every respect a Land Rover, but it’s a very different Land Rover.

LRX is designed to be a highly fuel-efficient, turbodiesel hybrid, capable of running on bio-diesel. In combination with other Land Rover technologies, this powertrain could reduce fuel consumption by as much as 30 percent compared with other SUVs of comparable size, and reduce emissions as well.

Click for more details.

Honda Stays on Green Message in Detroit

2008-01-14T13:28:24Z

Yesterday, at the North American International Auto Show, Honda announced the debut of the company’s CR-Z, a lightweight hybrid concept car, and the FCX Clarity, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle set to begin marketing by summer.

The FCX Clarity is classified as a ‘zero-emissions’ hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle based on the Honda V Flow fuel cell platform, and powered by the highly compact, efficient and powerful Honda V Flow fuel cell stack.

Honda plans to lease the FCX Clarity to a limited number of retail consumers in Southern California by this summer. Early estimates call for a three-year lease term with a price of $600 per month.

GM, Coskata in Ethanol Deal

2008-01-14T13:09:19Z

General Motors has entered into a partnership with Coskata in a bid to promote a unique process for turning biomass into ethanol.

The Coskata partnership also builds on GM’s longstanding leadership in automotive fuels development and testing that included research and development of unleaded fuels in conjunction with the development of the catalytic converter, and early formulations of ethanol.

According to Beth Lowery, GM vice president, Environment, Energy and Safety Policy, “We believe ethanol used as a fuel, not just as a gasoline additive, is the best near-term alternative to the surging global demand for oil because ethanol is renewable and it significantly reduces CO2 emissions compared to gasoline.”

GM has already enabled its U.S. fleet to operate on E10, a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol.

According to General Motors, the company has about 3.5 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Brazil. About 2.5 million are capable of operating on any percentage of gasoline and ethanol, up to 85 percent ethanol (E85). Another 1 million are in Brazil, where more than 90 percent of the vehicles GM sells run on 100-percent ethanol, known as E100.

Coskata is a renewable energy company promoting technology that uses proprietary microorganisms and transformative bioreactor designs, with the goal of producing ethanol for under $1 per gallon (USD) almost anywhere in the world, from a wide variety of input materials.

According to a company news release, Coskata uses patented microorganisms and transformative bioreactor designs, and a unique three-step conversion process to produce ethanol. The solution turns virtually any carbon-based feedstock, including biomass, municipal solid waste, bagasse and other agricultural waste into ethanol, making production a possibility in almost any geography.

GM Greens Up CES, Unveils New Caddy

2008-01-09T15:13:10Z

In a keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show, General Motors chief executive Rick Wagoner promised that by 2012 half the car maker's U.S. production line will be devoted to vehicles powered by "Flexfuel," an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional petroleum-based gasoline.

Wagoner put the emphasis on his presentation by unveiling a prototype Cadillac Provoq sedan.

“The Cadillac Provoq is the latest example of GM’s E-Flex propulsion system combining our new fifth-generation fuel cell with a lithium-ion battery to produce an electrically driven vehicle that uses no petroleum, and has no emission other than water,” he told the CES audience.

Wagner described some of the Provoq’s other intriguing features:

A solar panel integrated into the roof to help power onboard accessories, such as interior lights and a high-performance audio system.
An active front grille with louvers that close at highway speed to enhance aerodynamics and open at low speed to provide maximum cooling to the fuel cell stack.
Both brake-by-wire and shift-by-wire technology which minimize the concept’s need for mechanical systems reduce the vehicle’s overall weight and provide for greater interior storage space.
And, left and right, fender-mounted charging ports to allow for overnight, plug-in charging of the lithium-ion battery pack.

According to Wagoner, “the Cadillac Provoq represents another important step in GM’s commitment to energy-wise, environmentally conscious, electrically driven vehicles and the promise of truly sustainable transportation.”

Green Technology and IP Communications

2007-09-11T14:35:24Z

If you ever wondered how IP communications and green technology are similar, take a look at this blog post explaining how it all works. We hope to see you at Green Technology World conference very soon. The show kicks off in a few hors and we can’t wait to host you.