Yellow: It's The New Green

According to John McKinney, president of IC Bus, the lowly yellow school bus can be a super-hero in the fight against everything from gridlock to greenhouse gas emissions. Especially if the bus happens to be IC Bus' hybrid school bus. The company is planning to give away one of these lovelies in May to one lucky school. The company is holding an essay contest for school children in grades K-12. Children who can describe their school's eco-friendly practices in 500 words or less may score one of company's hybrid buses.

McKinney says that IC Bus is the only company that makes hybrid buses, and says that the company's product reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent compared to a standard diesel model while improving fuel economy at the same time. The company makes two different parallel hybrid versions - one for school use and one for commercial/limousine transportation - that incorporate regenerative braking. The buses don't employ stop-start technology, a standard component of many hybrid vehicle designs, and also don't offer an all-electric drive. One hybrid model is powered by a lead-acid battery pack. The other uses Li-ion cells with a special cooling system to ensure vehicle safety. According to the company, operators can expect to see fuel economy improvements of between 20% and 70%, depending upon the hybrid model they choose, the route and the size of the engine installed in the vehicle.

The contest is open until April 30. After that, McKinney and author Terra Wellington will sift through the entries looking for that one essay that says it all. Entries can be posted at AmericasGreenestSchool.com. While they're there, students can also read about ways to conserve energy and inspire a more sustainable school environment. The author of the winning essay may not get to take the bus for a spin, but will receive a $5,000 scholarship and the company will throw in an extra $3,000 for educational materials for the winning school.

Photo Credit: Sam LeVan

Following that, the industry says, companies should turn to development of biofuels, and EV development should wait until those options have been completely explored. Based on the overall bottom-line of a conventional vehicle, the industry executives say that consumers will get a better deal by buying cars that are more efficient and cleaner-burning than they will by switching to an electric vehicle.

This debate makes Texas a state divided. On one hand, Texas is home to many local oil producers that would clearly suffer if oil consumption decreased. On the other hand, it also wants to be at the forefront of the alternative energy movement. Last week, Texas governor Rick Perry said that he would support a state tax credit of $5,000 for buyers of plug-in electric vehicles in certain Texas cities that have run afoul of the EPA's air quality regulations. Those tax credits could combine with federal tax credits on PHEVs that would slice another $7,500 off of the price tag.

The big concern in Texas (and other states) is that a large-scale switch to PHEVs would substantially increase the demand for electricity from the grid. Most electrical power plants are coal-fired, which means that gains made at the tailpipe in terms of emissions are offset by the added emissions from coal-fired electricity plants. Analysis shows that in this scenario, the CO2 reductions would be modest at best.

Texas also has a fledgling wind-power industry, but has no practical transmission system to take the converted power to the grid. Perry's plan would put the state's dollars into building a transmission system that could allow the state to make effective use of alternative energy generation, and potentially extend the emissions gains made by PHEVs.

In the short term, multiple alternative energy sources should be developed and considered. Competitive technologies often produce the best possible outcomes because they spur the development of newer, cleaner and more efficient methods of achieving the same end. The bottom-line cost of a new technology is only an immediate or intermediate concern. Once a technology is deemed reliable, and can be mass-produced or supported in sufficient quantity to meet demand, the issue of increased costs may drop out altogether.

US Must Cut CO2 Emissions By 800 Percent

Currently, automobiles deposit about 160 grams of carbon into the atmosphere every mile. To achieve the US greenhouse gas emission goal, vehicles can produce no more than 20 grams of carbon per mile. The study was authored by Greg Keoleian of the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and will appear in the Feb 1 issue of Environmental Sciences and Technology.

According to Keoleian, achieving those targets won't be easy and will take a number of strategies to accomplish. Simply improving fuel efficiency isn't enough, although cleaner, more efficient vehicles are part of the equation. In addition, Keoleian says that low-carbon fuel formulations and a reduction in the number of miles driven each year must also factor into the plan.

According to computer models developed at UM, a single-strategy approach is destined to fail. To achieve carbon emission goals by improving fuel economy alone would mean that vehicles in 2050 must achieve an average fuel economy of 136 miles per gallon. Reducing carbon emissions to acceptable levels strictly through the use of low-carbon ethanol would mean an almost exclusive use of the ethanol fuel formulation. Reducing overall miles traveled would require a cut of more than 50 % in the overall number of miles traveled each year.

Keleoian says that none of the single-strategy approaches are viable. Instead, the US must adopt an aggressive, multi-pronged approach to carbon emission reductions that includes the development of renewable, nonfossil-based fuels, and a sharp reduction in the number of miles traveled each year. Keleoian says that switching to electric and hybrid electric vehicles may not be enough. In many areas, power is generated by coal-fired plants. While a PHEV does reduce the tailpipe CO2 emissions, the net emissions reduction is much smaller if the electricity to charge the vehicle was generated at a coal-fired plant. Keleoian says that the country must look at solar, wind and nuclear energy sources to make the needed reductions in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Keleoian's study can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es801032b.

Photo Credit: http://www.camarasfotograficas.es

The Real Impact Of Stricter Emissions Regulations

For automakers - both foreign and domestic - the challenge is to meet more stringent emissions regulations in the timeframes that some states are proposing. The question of how to balance the inclusion of more fuel-efficient technologies into the automotive design cycle has long vexed the automakers. Most vehicles have a 3-5 year design cycle from concept to production.

Generally, technological advances are incorporated into vehicles gradually, allowing manufacturers and their suppliers to make the necessary investments to support newer production requirements. Newer technologies also typically come with higher production costs. Traditionally, vehicle makers have introduced the latest technology into their premium lines, where the cost of advancement is better borne by upscale purchasers.

With the slowdown in the economy, car makers are taking hits on many different fronts. Research and development dollars have been slashed from budgets, meaning that fewer technological advances are being put into production. Consumers and legislators are demanding smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, which have lower profit margins. The reduced income means that the manufacturers have less cash on hand to modernize production facilities, fund research and development, and push new technologies into less expensive product lines.

Further, technologies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions are very expensive, and while they may be attractive to consumers, 8 of 10 consumers aren't willing to pay more for environmentally friendly vehicles. In the near term, the automakers may be better served by concentrating on improving the efficiency of internal combustion engines as a quick way to reduce emissions.

Much of the gains in fuel efficiency are coming from reducing the weight of a vehicle. Currently, after the engine, the second heaviest component in a vehicle is the wiring harness. Automakers are looking into small scale electronic controls and multi-function chip controllers to reduce the weight of the harness, and still include the required and desired technologies that regulators and consumers are both looking for.

The intermediate term tradeoff for lower emissions may be fewer model choices. Carmakers may need to concentrate on technologies that will meet legislative requirements first and consumer preferences second. Initially, this may have a negative impact on vehicle sales, and may force consumers to keep older, less-efficient cars on the road for longer periods of time.

In the long term - perhaps as long as 20 years - automakers will develop more fuel-efficient, safer and more environmentally friendly vehicles, but they also need the cooperation of individual states to balance emissions targets with the realities of the technological developments that can make those targets a reality.

New Presidential Limousine Black, Not Green

The vehicle, built by General Motors, has some of the interior design elements of the Cadillac vehicle platform, like hand-cut and hand-sewn interior surfaces and other standard Cadillac features, although the company insists that the vehicle is completely unique and doesn't borrow too heavily from any of its commercially produced product lines. Other vehicle features, like eight inch-thick doors, are strictly presidential.

The vehicle uses a conventional diesel drive-train and the company won't say what the mileage estimates are, but analysts believe that the limousine has a very low fuel-economy rating. The tradition of a presidential limousine goes back years, but the Secret Service has been responsible for presidential transportation only since the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Lyndon Johnson was the first president to ride in an armored limousine, following the death of John F. Kennedy.

In the past, retired presidential limousines ended up in museums. The Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI has a large collection of presidential rides, including the Lincoln limousine in which President Kennedy was riding when he was assassinated. The museum also has the Lincoln limousine that transported President Reagan to the hospital after he was shot. That same vehicle was also used by Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter. In addition, the museum's collection includes a Lincoln limousine used by Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, a Lincoln built in 1939 for use by President Franklin Roosevelt, and a horse-drawn carriage, built in 1902 and used by President Theodore Roosevelt.

A museum retirement won't be waiting for the current presidential vehicle, however. The 1972 limousine was the last presidential car to be preserved. All presidential vehicles are now destroyed after retirement for security reasons. The image featured with this article is not the new presidential limousine. Sneak photos have been published in recent days, but the vehicle, in full presidential livery, won't be seen in the open until the inaugural parade.

Visit the Henry Ford Museum site to see more information about the presidential vehicle collection.

Photo: Ivaylo Georgiev

The researchers considered six different types of noise and three variations within each type, and asked 24 subjects to rate each noise type's overall acceptability. Noises were classified as engine, horn, hum, siren, whistle and white. According to the results, study subjects overwhelmingly preferred engine, hum and white noises over horn, siren and whistle noises, noting that the preferred noises were similar in character to the operational noises that conventional vehicles make now.

The researchers suggested that while automakers are constantly challenged to make their vehicles quieter, the addition of noise could contain a relative component that could adjust the sound the car makes based upon the ambient noise in the car's surroundings.

Several manufacturing and regulatory groups are researching the issue of electric vehicle noise as it relates to pedestrian and cyclist safety. Both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Society of Automotive Engineers are studying the issue of noise in vehicles with alternative propulsion systems, and Congress is currently considering whether to require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct additional research, make recommendations and oversee the implementation of regulations on minimum noise standards for vehicles on the road.

Bumpers are supposed to absorb energy in low-speed collisions, protecting internal components and body sheet metal from damage. Depending upon the vehicle design, bumpers on certain vehicles don't always line up with those of other vehicles, slide under the vehicles they collide with or don't have enough space to properly dissipate the energy of a low-speed collision.

According to the test results, the Prius sustained about $4,000 in damage on the rear-end test because its rear bumper is mounted too low to protect the rear body panel, taillights and tailgate. It sustained $1,200 in damage from the right corner test, but a left corner test at the same location will add $1,000 more to the bottom line because the bumper doesn't offer sufficient protection for a coolant tank that costs more than $1,000 to replace. The Prius has other high-cost replacement parts, including taillights which go for $205, compared to just $65 for the taillight on a Ford Focus.

The IIHS commissioned Tech-Cor, the research division of Allstate Insurance, to modify the front bumper of the Prius. WIth modifications that lengthened the reinforcement bar and foam absorber by 10 inches, the damage tally dropped from $1,200 to $254 for the same corner test.

In all, the Prius sustained nearly $9,100 in damages from the four low-speed tests conducted by the IIHS, virtually three times as much as the study's top overall performer, the Ford Focus.

Source: IIHS

Strong magnetic fields have been linked to an increased incidence of leukemia in children, as well as other effects. Some drivers have tested the strength of the magnetic field produced by their vehicles and have expressed concern. Honda and Toyota have both tested their vehicles and say that their internal test results show that there is no significant exposure to magnetic fields generated by the vehicles' motor or control apparatus. But some drivers are alarmed enough by the high EMF readings to purchase extra shielding for their vehicles, or to sell them.

Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) produced by vehicles isn't new. A Swedish magazine cited three Volvo models (powered by gasoline) that generated high EMF. Volvo claimed that the magazine used an inappropriately high standard in its tests.

Drivers have also reported anecdotal evidence that hybrids may be unhealthy. One driver in in the NY Times story reported that her blood pressure rose and she fell asleep at the wheel three times, something she'd never done before driving her hybrid Honda Civic.

There are no current safety standards for EMF exposure in vehicles, but according to Toyota, its own EMF readings on the Prius range between 50 Hz and 60 Hz, both inside and outside the vehicle. The company says that these figures are comparable to its gasoline-powered models, so the hybrid poses no significant danger in terms of EMF exposure.

Source: NY Times