Forget to mention the Saab Biopower 9-3

As I was clearing my memory stick for today's photos, I realized that I forgot to mention the Saab Biopower 9-3 hybrid concept yesterday.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of ethanol. I'd much rather see the future of ethanol as cellulosic ethanol power plants adding power to the electric grid, rather than being distributed for automobile fuel. Let this electricity power cars that plug-in to the grid.

As a result, flex-fuel vehicles are still on my very IFFY list. However, a vehicle like the Biopower is a flex-fuel vehicle that I can fully support. Not only can this vehicle utilize E85, it can also utilize E100. Still, that's not what I like best about this hybrid - that's what I like best about the Saab Biopower - it's a hybrid!

The Saab Biopower hybrid vehicle is essentially a production ready dual mode hybrid vehicle, that happens to offer the ability to run on ethanol. Quite possibly, this is the first 4 cylinder, convertible flex fuel hybrid vehicle anywhere near production.

I say, make it happen GM. Make it happen.

Stop the Madness: Hybrid Vehicles Not E85!!!!!!!

Last year ethanol producers received subsidies and tax incentives worth more than $5 billion dollars, and those subsidies will probably be much higher next year. Yet, even with those subsidies ethanol isn't cost effective unless gas prices are close to $3.00 per gallon.

So, is ethanol worth the price?

Supporters of ethanol claim that all this investment in ethanol for automobiles will eventually lead to better ways of producing ethanol, such as cellulosic ethanol.

I say it will simply lead to more flex-fuel Hummers and little decrease in foreign oil dependency. I say E85 is a feel-good way of accomplishing nothing, something both Democrats and Republicans love - talk, talk, talk, but do nothing.

Without raising the fuel efficiency of America's automobiles - significantly - America's demand for energy will continue to grow exponentially and it will outpace any reduction in foreign oil dependency produced by ethanol.

More important, even GM is now realizing the that the future of automobiles is probably electric. If this is true, then E85 simply becomes a distraction, even a boondoggle to those ends, at least for American automakers and the American economy.

Today, hybrid cars can increase fuel efficiency by 20 to 30 percent, which is a good start. Add advanced gasoline engines or clean diesel engines and fuel efficiency could be doubled - that's with just TODAY's technology.

But the real advantage of hybrids will be lithium batteries, and the ability to utilize electric power. Within 5 years it is quite possible that you could buy a $30,000 hybrid vehicle that might never have to be filled with fuel if you drive less than 40 miles per day, all it would need is a small electric charge at night.

Within 10 years a small fuel cell stack could be added to these plug-in hybrids and the majority of drivers might never need any other fuel than just a little occasional electricity. More important, all of this could happen much quicker if more incentives were provided for hybrid technology and lithium-ion technology.

Why not give those ethanol subsidies to consumers to purchase these vehicles? Ultimately, a change in consumer behavior is the quickest path to foreign oil dependence and a cleaner environment.

Yet, ethanol is the favored buzzword, the favored recipient of tax incentives and government subsidies.

In the past Honda has already claimed it believes electric cars are integral to the future, and Toyota's hybrid efforts make them a player in electric cars as well. Even GM says the future is electric. Consequently, it is imperative that American automakers lead the way into this automotive revolution, rather than sticking to flex-fuel Hummers and Mustangs.

America's focus should be that in 10 years every American vehicle produced is either fuel-free or that fuel is simply a backup. The technology will be there within 10 years. The Japanese will be there. Will America?

Still, I'm all for ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, as a fuel to produce electricity, just not as an automobile fuel. Ultimately, transporting ethanol simply makes no sense in a liquid form, but in an electric form it makes great sense.

Consequently, E85 could become a distraction, even a boondoggle if it takes the clean energy and foreign oil dependency spotlight, and early talk from many Democrats seems headed in that direction.

The future is now. If we don't dare to dream, we just might wake up to a nightmare. New automotive technology, not alternative fuels, should be the priority for America, and the majority of our tax incentives and subsidies should be given to consumers to buy this new technology.

Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Do you think foreign oil dependency makes America stronger? In today's world, isn't that a stupid question?

Yet, it seems many Americans either believe that cheap foreign oil is good for America or that it poses little threat to America's National Security. Otherwise, how can the continued purchasing of gas-guzzlers be justified? How can the lack of hybrid vehicles from 2 out of 3 of Detroit's automakers be explained?

I often criticize GM for its lack of leadership in fighting foreign oil dependency. Does my criticism stem from my perpetual hate of anything GM? Absolutely not. It stems from the immense power GM has to take a leadership role in fighting oil dependency coupled with GM's refusal to do so.

Ultimately, I would gladly buy a GM hybrid vehicle - as long as it was a full hybrid vehicle. Unfortunately, GM just doesn't have any full hybrid vehicles available yet.

Why?

Well, just a few years ago important GM executives, such as Bob Lutz, publicly ridiculed hybrid vehicles and those automakers investing in them, which is particularly offensive since billions of taxpayer dollars were given to Detroit to develop similar vehicles back in the 90s.

Sure, GM has been claiming the future will be fuel cell vehicles, but they've been saying this for decades and they might be saying it a few more decades before it is a reality. Still, everything that can be done to fight oil dependency today, needs to be done today.

Quite simply, today, the hybrid vehicle is the best course of action in the war on oil dependency. The hybrid powertrain by itself is already efficient and will become even far more efficient. More important, however, the hybrid powertrain enables the integration of clean diesel, flex-fuel, electricity, hydrogen and fuel cells into the same powertrain.

Today's technology, such as a clean diesel hybrid, could produce vehicles that are 50 percent more efficient than today's vehicles. What are we waiting for? Too expensive? No way! There are enough subsidies already being wasted on big oil and other pork barrel legislation to provide the tax incentives needed for consumers to make clean diesel hybrids cost effective.

But, clean diesel hybrids are just one slice of the potential hybrid pie. In areas where ethanol makes sense, flex-fuel hybrids could be built. Add plug-in technology to both diesel hybrids and flex-fuel hybrids and you might only have to fill up on trips greater than 40 miles.

Imagine only filling your vehicle up a couple of times per year.

In the Southwest, such plug-in hybrids could make solar power far more cost-effective, enabling homeowners the ability to power their homes and their automobiles. Imagine never paying an electricity bill nor to fuel your automobiles. How's that for fighting global warming?

Of course these vehicles could also eventually develop into hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, or fuel cell hybrid vehicles, but foreign oil dependency could be ended without either of these innovations. We don't have to wait for the holy grail, fuel cells. We just have to start demanding action right now.

To be fair, it's not as if GM is evil and Toyota is a saint. Neither automaker is doing enough. Nonetheless, considering the trends of the last few decades, such as previous oil embargoes, Katrina, global warming, and 9/11 isn't it finally time to say enough is enough?

And I say, it's especially time for GM, the most important automaker in America and one of the most important American companies, not to just act, but to take the lead. GM has the kind of loyal following to buy these war-effort vehicles and the political power to force the government to assist with subsidies and tax incentives for these war-effort vehicles.

Instead of using that billion dollar GM marketing budget to market gas-guzzlers, market the fight against the war on foreign oil dependency and global warming. It's our GM hybrid vehicle, it's our national security.

I don't think there is a company that could do more for America than GM if GM began to look at foreign oil dependency and global warming as a war, a war that GM was leading the battle against at ALL costs - even bankruptcy. That is simply a battle that GM would not and could not lose today.

Bob Lutz has admitted that GM could have taken a FRACTION of their YEARLY marketing budget to develop a hybrid to rival the Toyota Prius. Yet, they willfully continue to chose to spend that money marketing gas-guzzling - even AFTER 9/11. Stop!

Before 9/11 most Americans had their heads buried in the sand regarding the consequences of America's addiction to oil. Sometimes when something is so good, it's just better not to ask questions. After 9/11, however, there is no excuse not to act. Now America needs GM to do the right thing more than ever.

If 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and all the threats about global warming are not enough to get America to realize it is time to change, what will it take? Would the deaths of 10,000 or 100,000 citizens be enough? Do we need a third world war, or the loss of a major city, such as New York? Would that finally be enough?

Then again foreign oil dependency has nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq or global warming, right? Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Re: Direct Injection Ethanol Boosting

Yesterday, I briefly touched on a story about MIT's direct injection ethanol boosting system. I didn't cover the topic in any depth because I was annoyed by the anti-hybrid spin the article took. Anyway, if you want to check out an interesting discussion about direct injection ethanol boosting, check out Green Car Congress.

Flex-fuel? So what unless it's a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle?

"Injecting small quantities of ethanol into car engines at moments of peak demand -- such as accelerating sharply or climbing a steep hill -- could improve the fuel economy of gasoline engines by 20 percent to 30 percent, a scientist said on Wednesday." (more)

Such technology would probably cost about $1000.00 per vehicle and could be mass produced by 2011. The technology would also enable vehicles to use smaller engines.

Consequently, some are calling the technology a hybrid challenger. Why?

(Full Story)

Flex-fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits: Rate Congress

"A public advocacy group on Thursday said Ford Motor Co. has avoided as much as $135 million in fines by marketing vehicles that are supposed to run on the gas-ethanol mix E85 that don't work and accused the company of running misleading ads." (more)

Moreover, aside from the obvious, the fact is that for years the majority of flex-fuel vehicles sold by both Ford and GM have not ever filled up with E-85. Yet, each company has avoided millions and and millions in fines by selling these vehicles.

"Public Citizen and other environmental advocacy groups have long complained that automakers get credits to meet federal fuel economy regulations by building flexible-fuel vehicles that are hardly ever filled with E85, since it's available at just 900 of the country's 170,000 pumps."

So, Congress gives small business owners huge tax incentives to buy the worst gas-guzzlers, provides huge tax incentives to oil companies, enables the big three to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in fines for violating fuel economy regulations - increasing our foreign oil dependency, and limits tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles because they are too successful.

That sure sounds like the right path towards achieving energy independence.

Even the President says hybrids are possibly the most important way to change consumer behavior. Yet, Congress hasn't passed proposed legislation to provide small business tax incentives for buying hybrid cars or other fuel efficient vehicles, nor has Congress passed proposed legislation to extend hybrid vehicle tax credits.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen!

We live in a country that blames the President for quite a lot these days. Fair enough. Let's extend at least as much blame to the current - do nothing, partisanship is more important - Congress.

Flex fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits - Congress is failing America.

Who cares? Clinton and his hybrid vehicle

I'm sorry. I don't really care about Bill Clinton and his new Mercury Mariner hybrid (more). I say, it's long over due. I say the Clintons, and EVERY single member of Congress, should have been driving a hybrid vehicle for several years now. Instead, a few members drive flex-fuel vehicles - that rarely see a drop of E85. That is not a worthy statement.

Too many members of Congress and many other politicians make bold statements about the price of gasoline, foreign oil dependency and the environment - yet, they drive gas-guzzlers. These people cannot only afford hybrid vehicles, they have the greatest responsibility to drive them.

Hybrids, Flex-fuel guzzling and biodiesel

Well, who knows if we'll need hybrid cars for much longer. Since Chevron has apparently discovered a huge oil reserve, maybe we can go back to $1.00 gas! Of course, then we'll simply increase our demand, and eventually end up back in the same place.

Besides, I say technology can revolutionize the American auto industry, which is only going to survive if we take the automobile into the next generation, and that means the end of gasoline.

But the revolution extends beyond the auto industry.

One of my primary interests in plug-in hybrid vehicles is not just the end of foreign oil dependency, or cleaner energy, but the effect that plug-in technology could have on the solar industry. Imagine clean and green solar energy powering your house and vehicles, while paying for itself in less than 20 years? In the interim, monthly energy expenses will still probably be less than without solar power.

Now that's revolutionary. Besides, alternative fuels have limited potential.

"Even if all of the corn and soy being grown in the U.S. right now were used to make biodiesel in its 100% vegetable oil form, it would only satisfy about 15% of the current demand for diesel fuel," says Geeta Agashe, director of the Petroleum and Energy practice for Kline's research division. (more)

Anyway, don't we have better uses for food crops and all the water we'd need to make these fuels?

Let's face it, a 10 mpg flex fuel vehicle really isn't really going green by going yellow.

Ultimately, technology is the only way forward for America. That means hybrid vehicles and solar power.

10 MPG Flex-fuel 2007 Chevy Tahoe

According to a study done by Consumer Reports, the 2007 Flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe achieves 14 mpg when filled up with gasoline. If E85 is used, on the other hand, it will achieve 10 mpg. What a deal! Let's hope the Tahoe hybrid can do a little better. O.K., a LOT better! (more)

J.D. Power study finds growing interest in hybrid vehicles

According to J.D. Power, interest in hybrid cars is growing as consumers seek ways to offset the higher price of gasoline. Almost 60 percent of potential buyers would consider a hybrid - more than any other clean technology. For example, 49 percent would pick a flex-fuel vehicle. More interesting, for the 16-25 age group, 75 percent are interested in hybrids. (more)

E85 versus hybrid cars, AGAIN!

I have not been a big fan of E85 or Flex-fuel vehicles. If you are a consumer that has such a vehicle, and regularly fills up with E85, I applaud you. However, I DO NOT applaud either GM or Ford for flex fuel technology. For many years this technology was simply used to violate CAFE, and I seriously doubt that a line of Flex Fuel Hummers or Tahoes is really going to help the world.

If GM was installing this inexpensive technology in all vehicles, especially their small cars, I'd be a little more supportive. Nonetheless, the potential of ethanol driven from cellulose is definitely worth further investigation.

Still, I do not believe ethanol offers anywhere near a complete solution to America's oil and/or fuel problems.

For decades, the idea of a war for clean water has been gaining steam and even the Pentagon has alluded to such a possibility. Further, a new report by the WWF environmental organization, for example, warns that many First World cities are already facing serious water shortages and the problem is only expected to get worse -much worse - and significant blame belongs to agriculture. (more)

In the very near future, clean water could be worth more than oil, yet vast amounts of water will be required to irrigate and process our ethanol crops. And, what about the pollution from chemical fertilizers and other pesticides that will run off into our ever more important aquifers, lakes and rivers? Is it really worth it?

Certainly, ethanol is an interesting resource to explore, but if automotive companies only focus on fuel, rather than significantly better designed and significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars, ethanol addiction could easily lead to as many problems as foreign oil dependency.

Obama's gas guzzling hypocrisy

Illinois Senator Barack Obama told an audience that gas-guzzling was a major problem for the U.S. and that higher mileage hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies were the solution. Of course, Mr. Obama left in a GMC Envoy. According to his press secretary, "The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol. So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles." (more)

Keyword in that sentence is can. Since there are hardly any E85 stations in Chicago, where Mr. Obama resides in Illinois, are we to believe that Mr. Obama regularly fuels his flex fuel vehicle with E85? Without E85, isn't Mr. Obama gas guzzling? Also, since E85 is in such limited supply, isn't all fuel-guzzling bad?

More juice for plug-in hybrid vehicles

Recently, I was doing some research on the Tesla electric car. 0 - 60 in around 4 seconds, 250 miles per charge at a fueling cost of about 1 cent per gallon - how awesome is that? Sure the vehicle costs $100,000 and will probably only be an option for the Hollywood elite, but it still demonstrates that the days of gasoline are nearing an end and that we definitely don't have to wait for hydrogen to save the world.

Even better, especially in the short term, flex-fuel-plug-in hybrid vehicles could be made for less than half the cost of the Tesla. Such a vehicle would extend the range of the vehicle and make it easier to fuel on long distance trips. Additionally, it would allow owners to choose the fuel of their choice.

While gas-guzzlers and their producers consistently talk about consumer choice, wouldn't real choice include not just the size of the vehicle, but the choice of fuel? Let me decide if I want ethanol, gasoline or electricity. Now that's real choice.

Surprise, Surprise? Ford Breaks Hybrid Promises

Not long ago Ford stated that hybrid cars were an important technology for the company and that 250,000 Ford hybrids would be produced by 2010. While, Toyota has already far surpassed that number, less than a year after that historic and bold announcement, Ford has already given up on the plan.

Instead of hybrids, Ford is now promising 500,000 flex fuel vehicles by 2010. "What I didn't foresee at the time was how rapidly other technologies would evolve," he wrote. "Now, I am convinced that the objective we had set earlier to build capacity for 250,000 hybrids at the end of the decade is too narrow to achieve our larger goals of substantially improving fuel economy and CO2 performance." (MORE)

Is the end of Ford near? I say it is. By 2010 Toyota will probably be close to selling more than 1 million hybrid cars per year, more than twice the number of significantly cheaper flex-fuel vehicles that Ford will produce. Quite simply Ford can't compete.

Ethanol isn't enough, but ethanol hybrids could be just right

Over the last several months there has been a tremendous amount of hype around ethanol. In fact, GM's GoYellow campaign seems to imply that every American could drive a flex-fuel Hummer and America could still end foreign oil dependency. Yet, scientists don't agree, and they say corn-based ethanol will have little effect on foreign oil consumption.

Of course, ethanol supporters suggest other forms of biomass, such as cellulosic ethanol - which still requires undeveloped technologies - could possibly achieve a 30% drop in gasoline consumption by 2030. "There are many people who believe that biomass has the power to replace our appetite for gasoline," said Kimberly Gray, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University. "But that will only occur with significant improvements in energy efficiency and smart growth." (more)

In reality, despite GM's marketing deception, corn offers very little hope for America's fuel needs, especially if GM only produces Tahoes and Hummers. America needs smaller vehicles, and it needs millions and millions of hybrid cars. While smaller flex-fuel hybrid cars won't end gasoline consumption anytime soon, they could end foreign oil dependency - something flex-fuel gas guzzlers will NEVER accomplish.

Japan versus Detroit: Who acts more American?

Automobiles versus fuel?

When automakers have faced Congress over the last week, there has been a striking contrast in style. Toyota, for example, has focused on incentives for building more fuel efficient automobiles, such as hybrid cars. Detroit, on the other hand, has focused on new fuels, such as ethanol, for their gas-guzzlers.

While ethanol holds great promise as an alternative fuel, the automotive technology to utilize ethanol is already complete. What isn't complete are new vehicles, such as flex-fuel hybrids, for example, which could make inefficient burning ethanol much more efficient. Fortunately, Ford has at least proposed such a vehicle.

Still, shouldn't GM focus on being a better automaker? If they want to be an energy company, maybe its time to sell the auto business? For decades GM has used fuel cell vehicles as an excuse not to compete with Japanese efficiency, now they are using ethanol. At a time when foreign oil dependency is causing so many problems for America, why is it that Japanese companies are doing so much more to alleviate the problem? You make cars, Detroit, not energy. (Sources: AutomotiveNews)

How will the next Ford Escape hybrid be different?

Recently, Nancy Gioia told AutoWeek that while the new Ford Escape hybrid design wouldn't remind anybody of some crazy science experiment, it would be different. Gioia said, "there is going to be some differentiation. People who drive hybrids want to make a statement that they are driving a hybrid." Hmmm, a shot at the Prius, Mrs. Gioia? Perhaps taking sly swings at your competition is a good marketing tool, but sales are really all that matter, right? By that standard it is the Escape hybrid which seems ugly - at least according to buyers. Nonetheless, I like the hybrid Escape and hope the new design helps sales. More important, Mrs. Gioia, make it a flex-fuel hybrid.

Congress and CAFE: Two Peas in a Pod

Not long ago I referenced a story that ridiculed Congress and its conservationist policies. On a day members of Congress went to a gas station about a block from their offices to speak about high gas prices, almost every member was driven, spoke as their vehicles idled, and then was driven back one block to their offices. Even worse, most members were in gas-guzzlers. As if that were not enough, most members regularly drive gas-guzzlers.

This is Congressional leadership? Reminds me of what my old football coach used to say, "Anybody can talk the talk, but only champions walk the walk.

Apparently, there aren't many champions in either Congress or the White House these days, maybe there hasn't been in a long time. In today's world LEADERS would be driving hybrid cars, bio-diesel cars, or maybe flex-fuel vehicles fueled with E85, not Tahoes, Escalades, and BMW 760's. Maybe a REAL leader would even - dare I say - walk!?

Today, Congress is focused on CAFE, something they didn't act on just a year ago, but it's good politics now that Americans are angry about high gas prices. It seems success in Congress is driven by doing little and blaming someone else for the problem.

While I am an advocate for increasing CAFE, the plan is really going nowhere. The boldest move that has reasonable support - although probably not enough support - is to raise CAFE by 10 mpg in 10 years. In 10 years, with millions more Americans driving longer commutes while in more congestion, 10 mpg will basically accomplish, well, nothing.

The best case scenario for this plan is that we'll only be importing as much oil in the future as today. Whooohooo!

Nothing short of an automotive revolution is going to change America's oil addiction, and 10 mpg is far from a revolution. Unfortunately, only dire catastrophe will wake Americans up to such a realization, and without REAL leadership coming from Congress and the White House, such a catastrophe appears inevitable.

Fickle consumers underscore need for hybrid technology

Most Consumers Still Demand Performance and/or Size

Hybrid technology is just emerging and still evolving, but already there are mild hybrids, full hybrids, one-mode hybrids, two-mode hybrids, gasoline hybrids, diesel hybrids, hydrogen hybrids, plug-in hybrids, flex-fuel hybrids, etc.

Another class of hybrids, performance hybrids, have often been the source of much media ridicule because they are as much about performance as fuel efficiency. Such hybrids include the Lexus RX400h and the Honda Accord hybrid. Additionally, other hybrids, such as the Toyota Highlander hybrid, could have been made to be more fuel efficient, but Toyota figured Highlander drivers, and many SUV drivers, still favored a certain level of performance more than fuel efficiency. Much evidence seems to show that Toyota is right.

According to a CNN/Kelly Blue Book study, almost 25% of consumers are willing to give up performance and size for better fuel economy; however, 25% refuse to give up anything for better fuel economy. The other 50% will give up a little size, or a little performance, etc.

Along those same lines, an AutoWeek article notes, Loyalists won't quit big SUVs; hauling power, improved fuel economy help move vehicles . "Arguably, Americans insist on SUVs. It's unique to their lifestyle and utility."

Additionally, while Congress is going to finally address CAFE, it now appears that the new regulations will still protect Detroit's SUV domain. It is just too obvious in Congress that Detroit probably cannot survive if CAFE is pushed too high.

Unfortunately, performance and size are simply more important to most Americans than is fuel efficiency. Nonetheless, ever rising oil prices, ever more realizations of the connection between foreign oil, terrorism and American hate, will slowly force more and more Americans to take fuel efficiency seriously.

The technology behind hybrid cars enables automakers to continue to provide performance and size to Americans, while also significantly reducing foreign oil dependency. This isn't something that should be done, it is something that must be done. While Congress will probably be weak on CAFE, they should be overly aggressive in offering tax incentives to promote hybrid technology.

Join our Campaign to Make Congress Act On Hybrid Tax Incentives.

Are Detroit vehicles irrelevant?

Next month President Bush is going to meet with the Big 3 about energy and the environment, pensions and health care, and currency problems with Japan. Unfortunately, building more "relevant" vehicles probably isn't going to come up.

When Bush told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles, auto executives were not too happy. In their minds, huge gas-guzzling vehicles are relevant, which must explain why almost every flex-fuel vehicle - those that can run on ethanol-mixed fuels - are extreme gas guzzlers.

Without tax incentives and even with incentives, ethanol isn't always cheaper than gasoline, so flex-fuel vehicles aren't helping the consumer by offering cheaper fuel costs.

O.K., so is Detroit building flex-fuel vehicles to fight foreign oil dependency?

That doesn't make sense either. If you want to fight foreign oil dependency, then why not offer flex-fuel capabilities in all vehicles? Why just offer flex-fuel capabilities only in vehicles that might fail CAFE?

Today, their are just 600 ethanol pumps covering ALL of America, compared to about 180,000 gasoline pumps. Just a little over a year ago - when GM churned out most of it's flex-fuel vehicles - there were only about 300 pumps. This is why GM never told anyone about the flex-fuel capabilities they added to many gas-guzzlers for a number of years - there was NOWHERE to fill them up and in most states there still isn't.

Now GM is trying to take credit for such actions.

In today's world, flex-fuel gas guzzlers that receive CAFE credits can only be called one thing, irrelevant. Flex-fuel gas-guzzlers neither offer the far majority of Americans cheaper fuel nor do they help fight foreign oil dependency.

While ethanol offers tremendous potential, today's gas-guzzling flex-fuel vehicles do not.

Later this year or early next year, GM will start offering hybrid cars. Once again, most of them will also be gas-guzzlers.

With the unstable nature of gasoline and oil and the limited supply of ethanol and pumps, are any of these vehicles - whether hybrid or flex-fuel - really relevant?

First small riceburners, then hybrid cars

Hybrids will prove America wrong, again

I remember my parents picking me up from grade school one afternoon in the late '70's. Across the street from school, my father noticed my teacher's new Honda Civic. He laughed and said, "Who would ever want to drive a small riceburner like that? Honda is a motorcycle company, not a car company."

Well, needless to say, the rest is history. Not only did Honda do well selling cars no one "would ever want to drive", but so too did Toyota and Nissan. Just a few decades later, these 'riceburners' have knocked the American auto industry against the ropes and a TKO is very possible.

My father was a Union machinist and back in the '70's buying such a vehicle, regardless of how reliable it was or much gas it saved, was simply un-American. And it wasn't just my father, but most of America that felt that way.

Many Americans still feel that way today, which is why I think so many Americans are SO against hybrid cars. If hybrids take over much the same way riceburners did, it might just spell doom for American automakers.

According a Detroit News poll, the majority of Detroit-area readers don't believe hybrid vehicles will be around long. (See the Poll)

I say, get your head out of the sand. Don't make the same mistake twice.

The days of cheap oil appear to be over, and there probably isn't a windfall tax that can do anything to change that. A windfall tax can't stop problems in Iran or Nigeria. A windfall tax can't stop a billion new drivers from China and India.

The world has changed. Fuel efficiency and pollution will be the key drivers of not just automotive technology, but of all technology. In fact, clean and green technology is not only possible, as the Toyota Prius hybrid car so beautifully demonstrates, but it is destined to improve greatly, while getting significantly cheaper.

$3.00 gas is only the beginning, the beginning of the hybrid car revolution. Flex fuel hybrids, diesel hybrids, gasoline hybrids, hydrogen hybrids, and fuel cell hybrids - hybrids are THE future.

Automakers versus big oil: Who is to blame for high gas prices?

Gas prices are going up, and the potential for significantly higher gas prices is increasing regularly. Who is to blame? Big oil says, "the U.S. economy had become vastly more fuel-efficient since the first oil shock, 'so why is the average fuel economy of American cars unchanged in two decades?'"

Chrysler responds, "Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies." (Detroit News)

O.K., so oil hasn't done their job, but what has Chrysler, or any of the Big 3, done?

Nothing regarding fuel economy, that's for sure.

Oops, I forget, they put millions of Flex-fuel vehicles on the road, that's right. Instead of paying fines for missing CAFE requirements, automakers have added flex-fuel technology to gas-guzzlers. I guess that's enough!

Unfortunately, with only 600 ethanol stations out of 180,000 gas stations, most simply can't find ethanol.

Ultimately, big oil and the Big 3 have failed America and the world.

Of course Americans keep buying gas-guzzlers and performance that can't be utilized, but we look good! Well, that's another story...

Irresponsibility - it's always someone else's fault!!

Energy Secretary Disses Hybrids?

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman called on Americans to embrace ethanol, but did little to promote hybrid cars or clean diesel at the SAE conference in Detroit.

"It should be our common goal that E85 become a nationwide fueling option," Bodman said. "In the coming days, I will be asking that we do more to make consumers aware of the flex-fuel option both when they are considering a new car purchase and for existing owners of flex-fuel vehicles."(DetroitNews)

Additionally, the Secretary plugged electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells as the 'answer' to America's energy problems.

It's ironic that since GM, Ford and Toyota fuel cell vehicles will be hybrid vehicles, that the Secretary didn't promote hybrids, minimally, as a bridge to not just fuel cell vehicles, but electric vehicles as well. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, for example, can function as electric cars, while also providing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel or even hydrogen as a supplementary or primary fuel source.

On the other hand, there is a good chance that if someone buys a flex-fuel vehicle, especially if they live on either coast - they will never fill it up with E85, since they won't be able to find any gas stations that carry ethanol.

In fact, if you are worried about the environment, or foreign oil dependency, many flex fuel vehicles cause much more harm than good. Since many flex fuel vehicles are large trucks and SUVs, flex fuel capabilities were only added to avoid penalties for missing CAFE requirements. Consequently, flex-fuel technology is often only serving as a loop hole that increases foreign oil dependency and pollution.

And the government is good at loopholes. According to some, Bush's new CAFE requirements - intended to make more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs - might lead to bigger, more fuel inefficient trucks and SUVs thanks to another loophole. (AutoWeek)

Why should we be surprised since the government already gives unlimited, $25,000 tax deductions for small business owners to buy the most pollution and foreign oil dependency causing vehicles, yet gives much smaller, capped tax incentives for hybrids?

It seems the government and the Energy Secretary are either ignorant, incompetent, or too focused on protectionist legislation designed to protect American corporations, rather than to actually make America a safer place. Apparently, only gigantic, inefficient corporations can save America.

Yes, ethanol is important, but so to is clean diesel, biodiesel, and even clean gasoline. More important, hybrid technology can make any of these fuels much more efficient, while clearing the path to fully electric cars and/or fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Let's put the power in the hands of the people, not the corporations. Join the campaign for hybrid vehicle tax incentives.

Hybrid cars: Why Toyota is the Most Important Automaker in the World

I was reading an article this morning, Honda sees hybrid owners buying fuel cell cars, and it struck me how Toyota has become the most important automaker in the world.

It turns out Honda is looking to the drivers of its hybrid cars to drive Honda Fuel Cell Vehicles.

"Honda has a rough idea of who its first fuel-cell customers will be, people trading in their gasoline-electric hybrid cars," states this AP article.

"We already hear of people saying, 'gee I like my hybrid but what's next. I want to go beyond gasoline'," says Steve Ellis, manager of fuel-cell marketing for American Honda Motor Co.

Yet, Ellis also notes that, "fuel-cell cars will make up only a fraction of the auto market for two or more decades."

While it's great that Honda is looking beyond hybrid vehicles, is the status quo of the world's fleet of automobiles good enough for the next two or three decades?

What happens when millions and millions of new drivers from China and India demand more oil in the next decade? What happens if Iran cuts oil production to the West? What happens if 10 years of increased, severe hurricane activity batters oil refineries in the Gulf of Mexico? What happens if global warming is actually much more serious than believed?

Even worse, what happens if the 'hydrogen economy' is found to result in some unintended consequence that actually makes gasoline still a better a solution?

How Green is Green Enough?

Sure Honda is the greenest automaker in the world, but none of the world's automakers are green enough, and that's why Toyota is so important.

Toyota's aggressive push into hybrid cars has made the public realize that much better automobiles - in terms of fuel economy and pollution - are available now, not in decades.

Yet, the best thing about hybrids is that hybrid technology offers much more potential than is currently offered. For example, hybrid technology could be added to flex-fuel vehicles, to diesel vehicles, to bio-diesel vehicles, to hydrogen vehicles, etc. Moreover, more and more research will lead to significantly better hybrid batteries. Consequently, 100 mpg hybrid vehicles could easily be less than a decade away.

100 mpg vehicles aren't worth striving for along the way to fuel cell vehicles in today's world? The status quo is simply good enough for another few decades?

Inevitably, when America experiences sustained gas prices of more than $3.00 per gallon combined with the constant threat of gas spikes of more than $5.00 per gallon, automakers won't - at least those that want to survive - have any choice but to build as many hybrids as possible.

Thanks to Toyota, Americans and the world will know, automakers can do better, much better.

Can automakers do the right thing? Join the hybrid revolution

Talking 'bout a revolution

Recently, IBM held a think tank calling on business leaders to lead the green revolution, before the government forces them to do it with messy and expensive regulations.

Automakers need to heed this call.

Let's face it, can we really afford to wait much longer before taking oil dependency seriously? Political tensions in Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, the War in Iraq, bomb attacks on Saudi oil refineries and increased hurricane activity over the next decade are already great reasons to act, but they are only the beginning.

New evidence suggests that global warming is picking up fast. In less than 100 years, Miami could be a memory as oceans rise as much as 20 feet (NewScientist).

Additionally, yesterday I blogged about the potential of a billion new drivers from Asia and asked, "Where will the oil come from?"

Today, even China is beginning to tax SUVs and other gas guzzlers in an attempt to spur the sales and development of efficient automobiles.

Yet in America, we can only propose new fuel efficiency standards on large SUVs, but not on trucks - a huge source of gas-guzzling - because we wouldn't want to upset the American consumer or the American auto industry. (MORE)

We must do more, much more.

Even Flex fuel cars, hybrid cars, and plug-in hybrid cars are not enough. We need even better cars. We need to make automobiles smaller, and we need to make them flex fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicles. We need the best technology that the entire auto industry has to offer and we need it to be affordable. Most important, we need it NOW!

Yet, AutoWeek questions, "Do consumers even want plug-in hybrids?"

Since when did consumerism become more important than health or national security? So, what about smoking? What about seat belts? What about the Dubai port deal?

Ultimately, consumers will mostly do what is in their best interest, however, national security takes priority over consumer choice - ALWAYS. Still, if consumers know they can reduce fuel costs by 50%, they will gladly plug-in their vehicles.

Imagine the competition that could be created by flex-fuel plug-in hybrids for fuel choices. Ethanol, diesel, bio-diesel, gasoline, hydrogen, clean coal-powered electric, solar-powered electric, wind-powered electric, etc. all could play an important part in the new energy revolution that can fundamentally change the world. Ultimately, the green revolution and energy independence are not about protecting America, it's about liberating the people of the world.

The green revolution can be driven with the automobile. If the auto industry cannot focus on creating green choices for the world, then eventually the government will have to, and that won't be good for either consumers or businesses. Starting now might already be too late, but waiting any longer is simply suicidal.

Let's Revolt!

Congress doesn't need to build the green revolution, they need to inspire the green revolution with intelligent tax incentives. Let's keep the pressure on Congress and Business to do the right thing. Join the Hybrid Car Revolution Campaign.

GM showcases fuel efficiency efforts

GM's fuel efficiency claims; Much ado about nothing

Eric Kaufman, GM engineering group manager for energy and drive quality said that while the buzz around fuel efficiency has been focused on hybrid cars, GM has made other important gains. (MotorTrend)

For example, they have made gasoline engines more efficient through a number of achievements and they now have almost 2 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road.

Why is GM such a joke? Why don't they just shut up regarding fuel efficiency?

Let's just be clear, GM is not focused on fuel efficiency, PERIOD.

As for flex-fuel vehicles, how much is a flex-fuel vehicle worth if you can't find ethanol? GM flex-fuel vehicles cause more harm than good. Since no one can fill them up with ethanol because there aren't any pumps, or it's too expensive, the only thing GM's flex-fuel program achieves is CAFE credits.

GM's flex-fuel vehicles simply enable GM to avoid fines on their gas-guzzlers, that's it. If GM cares so much about flex-fuel, why not offer it on all vehicles and not just those vehicles that might miss their CAFE requirements?

Even doing that wouldn't have much effect any time soon, but at least it would demonstrate some sincerity.

GM isn't going to go green by going yellow, they need to get real if they want to go green.

New Energy Bill to include plug-in hybrid vehicles?

Plug-in hybrids, just like a regular hybrid, only better

Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado was on CNBC's Morning Call this morning to discuss a panel that had been convened to discuss America's energy situation. He indicated that there is broad bipartisan support in Congress for a new energy bill that further pushes the country towards energy independence. Congressman Salazar noted a two step approach to make this happen: 1.) Alternative fuels and 2.) A whole new generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles.

I say excellent idea, but make them flex-fuel plug-in hybrids. Click here to help.

Oil independence: Do Americans really care?

In order to achieve oil independence, Americans will have to make some tough decisions according to the article, Does America Want Oil Independence?. Still, hybrid cars and alternative fuels are a strong step in the right direction. While the article also plugs plug-in hybrid vehicles, I think it indirectly points out that flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles offer the best path towards beginning a real push for oil independence. Nonetheless, without a majority of Americans pushing for oil independence, many analysts think real change is almost impossible.

Thus, the question remains, "Do the majority of Americans really care about oil independence?"

Why I like the flex-fuel Ford Escape hybrid

Lately, there has been a lot of buzz around ethanol, and suddenly GM has gone green by going yellow. Yet, a closer look at the numbers highlights some serious issues.

There are 168,987 gasoline pumps in the United States and only 608 of them offer ethanol (AutoWeek). In a previous post, Help us Detroit, I called GM's ethanol campaign pure smoke and mirrors.

If GM has put millions of ethanol vehicles on the road, where are they filling up? Also, why are the far majority of ethanol vehicles large SUVs and trucks? Isn't it ironic that most buying this technology aren't using ethanol, yet GM still receives CAFE credits for using the technology? If GM cares so much about ethanol, why isn't the technology in all vehicles, rather than just vehicles near failing CAFE?

Yes, ethanol offers great potential as a fuel, but not today. In fact, some analysts suggest that it could take 15 years before ethanol could really start making a difference, which is why I like the flex-fuel Ford Escape hybrid.

The Escape hybrid is already a great vehicle, reducing the conventional Escape's fuel consumption by between 20 and 30 percent, while also significantly reducing pollution. The flex-fuel Escape hybrid vehicle offers these same gains, plus the ability to use ethanol.

In 10 years, both ethanol and the technology behind hybrid cars will advance, but neither will offer a real solution to oil dependence. In 10 years; however, a plug-in flex-fuel hybrid vehicle could easily and economically function without oil - not just foreign oil - while continuing to push the bar for fuel economy.

I like ethanol and I like hybrid vehicles, but I really like flex-fuel hybrids. And if plug-in technology is added to those flex-fuel hybrids we add even greater fuel economy, while sparking greater competition and variety in fuel choices.

Shouldn't something as important as energy be about choice, especially in today's world?

Help us, Detroit....

Yesterday, I read an article that bothered me a bit. Daniel Howes, an auto reporter for the Detroit News, wrote an article, Help us, Mr. President, that really got under my collar.

Now, I like Howes as a reporter because I think he's pretty fair, especially compared to some of the other auto writers at the same paper. Still, you can't blame Howes for trying to save Detroit. What other choice does he have? In many ways, his job is probably dependent on the success of Detroit automakers.

What really angers me, I've realized, is Detroit automakers, especially GM.

Mr. Howes notes the legacy healthcare and pension costs of GM and Ford, while also complaining that Asian automakers have enjoyed unfair trade barriers. While I have sympathy for these issues, it isn't much.

Then, Howes states, "Nearly 20 GM models deliver 30 mpg or more; the first gas-electric hybrid SUV is a Ford; and Chrysler's Jeep Liberty is the U.S. industry's first diesel-powered SUV."

"Did Toyota and Honda set the standard in hybrids? Absolutely, and more models are coming. Same with Ford, GM and Chrysler. And GM and Ford have millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road today, a precursor to the ethanol-powered fleet that you say would free us from Oil Sheikdom."

Smoke and Mirrors

These statements are pure Detroit - deception and lies and the art of advertising.

First, in real world driving, GM doesn't have 20 models that achieve 30 mpg. Sure hybrid cars don't achieve EPA estimated fuel economy, but in reality almost every car misses their EPA numbers. In fact, the Jeep Liberty Howes mentions actually achieves 50% less than what the EPA estimates in city driving according to Consumer Reports.

Second, these faulty EPA numbers are used by GM and Ford to deceive CAFE. Consequently, many Ford and GM SUVs would not pass their CAFE requirements, if not for the EPA's inefficiency. Since this fact is well known by the government and industry alike, I'd call that U.S. protectionism - especially since SUVs have been Detroit's savior the last few decades.

Third, America's ethanol fleet, please! This one is the one that really sets me off, especially since I've seen at least 20 ads promoting how green GM now is because it has more than a million ethanol vehicles on the road.

Go Yellow? Go to hell GM! It has been a long running joke that almost everyone who drives a flex-fuel vehicle - one that can run on ethanol - doesn't even know it.

Why?

Ethanol is expensive most places it's offered, and ethanol isn't offered in very many places. Thus, a flex fuel vehicle really isn't much of a benefit to most, except Detroit automakers.

Adding flex-fuel capabilities to a large SUV only costs a few hundred dollars, but it enables vehicles that wouldn't pass CAFE to pass CAFE - EVEN THOUGH NO ONE IS USING THE FUEL. Thus, GM spends a few extra hundred deceiving the government - whom enables this deception - on vehicles it makes thousands of extra dollars in profits.

Who wouldn't take that deal? Here, you give me $500.00 and I'll give you $5000.00.

Thus, I'm supposed to be proud of GM for lies and deceit? Lies and deceit that don't reduce foreign oil consumption at all, but instead increase foreign oil consumption - this is something GM is spending millions bragging about?

Disgraceful.

How many more loopholes does the government need to give Detroit? I mean there is already a $25,000 tax deduction for the most offensive, gas-guzzling and polluting SUVs - which was only just reduced and doesn't even include depreciation deductions.

How much more does Detroit need?

Ford used to anger me as much as GM, but at least Ford has admitted the error in its ways and has taken a step in the right direction. Still, Ford needs to do much more, but I'm a huge advocate of the Escape hybrid.

If GM, on the other hand, wants my sympathy or wants my money, then GM needs to come clean. Since 9/11 GM has continued to promote it's most fuel inefficient vehicles as its marquee product. This is irresponsible and un-American.

Get with the program GM. Take some real responsibility. Admit some mistakes and talk to the people about the effort it will take to change. Tahoes, Escalades and Chargers aren't the answer. Help America - lead America - towards ending not just foreign oil dependency, but oil dependency and global warming emissions - not in some mystical future world of fuel cells, but today!

Let's Dare to Dream!

When GM shows some vision and some real leadership - first by accepting its failures and then with new products - I'll be the first in line to buy a GM.

Ultimately, GM has no one to blame but themselves, and forgiveness cannot begin without first accepting responsibility. Until then, I'll hope for bankruptcy.

Is 'I don't care' America's mantra?

Democrats often complain that George Bush doesn't have a mandate. I agree, but if Al Gore had won because of the popular vote, would he have had a mandate? Since both Bush and Gore could only muster up about 25% of the vote, wasn't the real mandate of the 2000 election, "I don't care"? In fact, has not only 'I don't care' become the mandate of most modern elections, but the mantra of America?

Speaking of politics, how about those tax incentives? No, I don't mean tax credits for hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies. Shoot, $3400.00 is small change compared to the $25,000 tax deduction you can take for buying a Hummer.

But who cares? If I can afford to gas-guzzle why should you care?

Sure, Nigerian rebels are kidnapping American oil workers and threatening to bomb foreign oil ships, and Iran is signing huge oil deals with China as it builds nuclear bombs. But who cares?

I mean so what if China started copying American oil consumption? Just because there wouldn't be close to enough oil for the world, who cares?

And that global warming mumbo-jumbo melting ice caps agenda, maybe that's just a part of your 'evolution' theory?

I say God bless American politicians. We cap tax credits for hybrids because we don't want too many of them and we cap them by manufacturer so that we can protect GM. Yet we don't put any limits on tax deductions for Hummers and other gas-guzzlers - we don't even monitor how many are using the deduction. Now that's American!

We're saving GM - isn't that what is important? With flex-fuel technology no one uses, faulty CAFE testing, and tax deductions we can make sure that GM will never have to take fuel efficiency seriously.

This is America, monkey boy, we don't have to think about the future or take responsibility for our actions and consumer choices - that's bin Laden's logic, not American logic.

Pollution, global warming, terrorism - who cares? In America cupholders are more important than fuel efficiency - at least for real Americans.

Diesel versus ethanol versus hybrid: Why not Dare to Dream?

"Advocates for diesel -- a less refined fuel than gasoline that burns more completely in the engine, delivering more power -- say it can cut oil use, perhaps more quickly and cost effectively than alternatives such as hybrids and ethanol." (CNNMoney)

Wow, diesel can cut oil use. Holy cow, somebody call up the Nobel committee!! We're ready to end foreign oil dependence!!

O.K., maybe not. While clean diesel is an excellent technology, it will never go far enough.

Diesel advocate Dieter Zetsche, CEO of DaimlerChrysler, "estimated that if 30 per cent of the vehicle fleet were powered by diesels, the United States could reduce fuel consumption enough to cut oil imports by the equivalent of what it buys each year from Saudi Arabia." (MotorTrend)

But what about Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela, etc.? Why are we so content with such insignificant results and small goals?

Additionally, I disagree with the fuel efficiency of diesels. Advocates claim that clean diesel is 30% more fuel efficient - on the highway at least.

Yet new studies claim, "The worst traffic in the U.S. is getting even worse. It pollutes as the vehicles idle. It wastes the time of trucks and passenger cars. The annual delay per driver is in excess of 47 hours per year. It creates delayed shipments. It wastes more than 2.3 billion gallons of fuel each year." (Fortune)

In reality, diesel gas is going to have little effect on reducing fuel consumption in these conditions. Since census data suggests that the far majority of Americans are going to live around just a few large cities in the future, shouldn't congestion be the new standard for testing fuel efficiency?

In congestion - or the driving conditions of the future - full hybrid technology, such as that powering Toyota and Ford hybrid cars, is the best.

Then there is the cost of diesel fuel, and even if those costs are eventually reduced, Americans will simply drive more and then we'll need that Saudi Arabian oil anyway. So, where is the gain?

Dare to Dream

Why are we so afraid to shoot for the moon? Why do we accept such complacency from governments, oil barons, and automotive corporations? Why don't we demand the best, most innovative fuel efficient technology available? Why don't we demand choice?

For example, instead of diesel, why not diesel hybrids? Even better, flex-fuel diesel plug-in hybrids or flex-fuel gasoline plug-in hybrids blow every competitor away.

The only technology that can compare to or surpass flex plug-in hybrid technology is fuel cell technology, but the costs are just to high at this time, and fuel cell vehicles will probably be hybrid vehicles anyway.. Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids, on the other hand, can already achieve well over 100 mpg, while offering numerous fuel choices, such bio-diesel, diesel, gasoline, ethanol, electricity, solar-electricity, wind-electricity, etc.

More important, as hybrid battery technology advances, the fuel efficiency of hybrid batteries will increase significantly while reducing costs - think notebook computers and their batteries.

Besides isn't capitalism supposed to be about competition? Where is the competition in today's energy paradigm?

Don't question the lack of competition because energy is cheap?

How many trillions will oil politics and oil-driven pollution end up costing the world? Has cheap oil really been such a bargain?

Obviously, cheap oil has been great for oil companies. Entire countries are driven by oil profits alone, and oil conglomerates set unbelievable records for profits, yet continually ask for tax incentives as if they have somehow lost money over the history of oil.

We the People

Ultimately, most American simply haven't demanded more. Instead we complain about high gas prices, about Bush's oil connections, about Haliburton, about Iraq, about Iran, and then we go buy a gas-guzzler.

Americans should Dare to Dream for energy independence just as we dared to dream for the moon. If America could become energy independent, then any country could become energy independent, and what would be so wrong with that? Bankrupt oil companies?

I say let's start judging our politicians, corporations, and other capitalists by their ability make our dreams reality, not by their ability to maintain the status quo.

Let's DARE TO DREAM!!!

Re: Buy a Hybrid, and Save a Guzzler

Dear Mr. Leonhardt,

Regarding your article "Buy a hybrid, and save a guzzler".

Wow, I didn't realize that because of CAFE buying a hybrid gives auto manufacturers the right to sell more gas guzzlers. Thus, "The hybrid, then, is just about the perfect example of what's wrong with our energy policy."

Why didn't I realize that?

Oh, is it because hybrids aren't really enabling that many more gas-guzzlers, at least not Toyota hybrids - but they could? Is that your point?

Boy, I love talking about hypothetical situations, but let's talk about facts for a second.

Toyota is by far the hybrid sales leader. Honda doesn't really sell gas-guzzlers, and GM doesn't even have any hybrids. Thus, I guess you're talking about Ford's 20,000 hybrid sales?

But wait a minute, aren't Escape hybrid buyers buying a hybrid SUV instead of a gas-guzzling SUV? So, where is this extra gas-guzzler demand coming from?

Just out of curiosity, how many gas-guzzlers have passed CAFE because of flex-fuel in the last decade, Mr. Leonard? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Yet, you're focused on 20,000 hybrids?

How many SUVs actually achieve CAFE's 21.6 miles per gallon in real world driving? According to Consumer Reports, not too many.

So, how many millions of gas-guzzlers have benefited from inaccurate EPA numbers? Yet, the problem with the EPA is inaccurate hybrid fuel economy?

Is that why the new EPA fuel efficiency estimates are not going to be used to update CAFE?

But, let's get back to the problem, 20,000 hybrid SUVs.

So your answer is, "A substantial gas tax would be the simplest, with other taxes being cut to keep down the overall burden. Car buyers could drive whatever they wanted, as long as they were paying the full cost of their gas, and automakers would respond with creative products. If we're not capable of having a serious discussion about new taxes, the second-best option would be lavish incentives for companies to sell a fuel-efficient fleet."

Hybrids aren't fuel efficient?

Regarding your tax plan, which other taxes are going to be cut? Are we just going to leave that to the bureaucrats? I'm sure there won't be any loopholes created in that overhaul, and reducing enough taxes to offset the real cost of gasoline will be a very easy task.

Consequently, you are basically suggesting that until we can significantly change the American tax code, doing nothing is better than buying hybrid cars?

Better yet, you don't blame the EPA, automakers or the government for decades of inaction, you ridicule and belittle the buyers of hybrid cars instead?

Very few hybrid buyers think they are saving the world, Mr. Leonhardt, how dare you generalize their motives with your biased statements. Most hybrid buyers think they are sending a message that foreign oil dependency and/or pollution are important concerns, that's it.

That message isn't worth sending Mr. Leonhardt? Oh forgive us.

Anyway, hybrid car batteries could easily achieve the same kind of growth in performance and cost as what my laptop battery has achieved in the last decade. A hybrid battery that achieves twice the fuel efficiency at the same cost as today's hybrid batteries is definitely a stupid investment, huh?

Yeah, gas-guzzling until we overhaul America's tax code, that's the ticket.

Time to give Ford a little green credit?

I am typically pretty critical of Ford, but I think Ford might be heading in the right direction. Others; however, are not so impressed with Ford's new green movement. The Chicago Tribune stated, "Ford Long On Hype, Short on Detail" finding very little excitement in Ford's hybrid vehicles, even the flex-fuel Escape hybrid and the Reflex diesel hybrid.

While it is true that Ford's hybrid vehicles are more hype than reality in terms of pure business, don't they deserve a little hype? The Ford Escape hybrid is an excellent hybrid SUV, which is why it's going to be hyped during the SuperBowl.

Where are GM's hybrids?

If automakers are now in the golden age of automaking, as Toyota believes, then Ford has taken some solid steps toward the future. Yes, those steps might be small, but if they are just the beginning, then Ford could turn its fortunes around.

I think Ford deserves a little green credit - they've taken real action.

I wish I could say the same for GM.

Hemp and hybrid cars: A perfect marriage?

Tired of record oil profits, let's change America!

Tonight, when the President gives his State of the Union address, one of his main topics is expected to be energy. Oil and gasoline prices are rising and will continue to rise. Some have speculated that oil could even rise to $262 per barrel (more).

Thus many, such as Fortune, are speculating that the President is going to plug alternative fuels and energy, especially ethanol.

I've written about ethanol, diesel and biodiesel many times. I don't see them as the answer. I do; however, see them as an important part of the solution.

My solution, on the other hand, is flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles. The technology already exists today and will only become significantly better. Moreover, it is far cheaper than hydrogen. Additionally, such technology gives consumers the widest array of clean and efficient fueling choices - we don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket.

But, back to ethanol. If ethanol makes gasoline cheaper, then demand will simply increase, and much more ethanol will be needed. Where will all this ethanol come from? How many pesticides and fertilizers will be needed? What happens if there is a drought?

Couldn't hemp address many of these issues?

Hemp is not marijuana and the government has legalized hemp in the past to help fight wars. Why not legalize it again?

Hemp grows like a weed, doesn't need fertilizers, is drought resistant and helps enrich the soil. Thus, it could very efficiently provide a massive amount of material to convert into ethanol, while protecting the environment.

Ethanol and hybrid cars provide the tools to drastically change America in just a couple of decades to the benefit of everyone and America can start right now.

Will America care? Unfortunately, I doubt it, there just isn't enough bling in it.

Diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol not enough

Even hybrid cars, or plug-in hybrid vehicles do not push the envelope of auto technology far enough


Flex-fuel plug-in diesel/gasoline hybrid vehicles can completely change America's national energy paradigm - long before fuel cell vehicles become either cost-effective or technologically feasible.

Such vehicles could easily achieve well over 100 miles per gallon, utilizing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, or combinations, while completely ending foreign oil dependency. (more)

Flex-Fuel Ford Escape hybrid vehicle coming soon.

Soon the Ford Escape hybrid will run on gasoline or on any gasoline and E-85 combination. Ford is currently testing the Flex-Fuel Escape hybrid and plans to offer the technology in future models. According to Ford the technology only costs a few hundred dollars (Detroit News).

Hybrid technology poised for major evolution?

AutoWeek has posted a couple of intriguing articles regarding the future of the technology behind hybrid cars. First, Drive-by-wire braking technology could find a home on hybrid vehicles points to the possibility that one of the hybrid powertrain's key functions, regenerative braking, could possibly be significantly improved with drive-by-wire braking. Steve Brown, director of North America programs for SKF Automotive Division stated that such a "brake system would offer better regeneration of the vehicle's battery than a conventional hydraulic system because it is electronic."

Second, and even more significant, Japan's largest battery maker says lithium-ion will be hybrid battery standard of the future notes that one of the most critical hybrid components is about to be replaced. Currently, hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius or the Ford Escape hybrid, utilize NiMH, or Nickel-Metal Hydride, batteries to help power and store energy for their electric motors.

In the future; however, Lithium-ion batteries will be the standard and once those batteries become standardized the potential for significant gains in the fuel economy of hybrids will truly emerge. Each new generation of battery technology will become lighter, yet capacity will increase. This would enable a Toyota Highlander hybrid, for example, to make the daily commute of many city drivers utilizing mostly electric power.

Combined with more efficient regenerative braking, such as could be offered by drive-by-wire braking, the potential of what hybrid technology could achieve truly begins to emerge.

While today's hybrid vehicles can be very fuel efficient, critics counter that clean diesel can be just as efficient. While that might be true on the highway, it isn't true in the city, where a hybrid can simply shut off its gasoline engine and run on electric power only. Diesel vehicles must continue to burn fuel.

Still, as clean diesels become more popular, especially in Europe, the costs of that technology will become cheaper and that technology could then be utilized to make clean diesel hybrid vehicles. Such vehicles, combined with better and better hybrid batteries and other innovations, such as drive-by-wire breaking, demonstrate that amazingly efficient automobiles are within grasp as long as consumers demand them.

Imagine a flex-fuel-clean-diesel-plug-in hybrid vehicle. A highly fuel efficient vehicle that could use diesel, biodiesel, or even solar power as its fuel. A vehicle that could achieve 100 mpg, or even more, at a tiny fraction of the cost of fuel cells. A vehicle that could be a reality with just today's technology, while offering even better performance with tomorrow's technology.

Updated

I was sent an e-mail from A123Systems, a lithium battery maker that is also working with the government on hybrid vehicles. According to their representative, they have developed a lithium-ion battery that will offer 5 times the power of current batteries and 10 times the the life. Obviously, such increases could DRASTICALLY improve the performance of hybrids.

Exxon oil profits, Saudi oil supply questions: More reasons for hybrids

Hybrid cars are not the answer to today's oil problems. Sure, everyone could drive a Toyota Prius and America could end foreign oil dependency, but one vehicle isn't going to save America from foreign oil. Even if everyone wanted to drive a Prius it would still take years before that many hybrids could even be produced.

Thus, critics dismiss hybrids as hype, noting that today's hybrid technology costs do not justify the savings in fuel economy. As if investment never leads to cheaper costs and better technology - I mean look at computers, what a wasted investment!

Instead, America would rather rely on big energy, such as Exxon Mobil. That's right, the same Exxon Mobil that "said Thursday high oil and natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 percent to $9.92 billion" according to the AP. The same Exxon Mobil that is going to be given tax payer money to help alleviate the oil shortage in America.

Now, that's a plan!

And we're going to need more oil, a lot more oil, not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Unfortunately, that oil might not exist. According to an extremely interesting NYTIMES article, Doubts Raised on Saudi Vow for More Oil, Saudi Arabia might have far less oil than they have been proclaiming to the world, and a serious oil crunch could be just around the corner.

Don't worry, I'm sure Exxon will use some of its profits and tax payer incentives to help out the average American!

If oil supplies do stagnate, where is the oil going to come from to run all the diesels that are going to save America according to the Detroit News? Nothing like putting all your eggs in one basket.

Why not invest in technology?

Experimental hybrid vehicles have already been built that can achieve more than 100 mpg, some even achieve as much as 250 mpg, and others have claimed that a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid could achieve as much as 500 mpg. Additionally, flex fuel plug-in hybrids could utilize gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, electricity or even hydrogen. Is that too many options?

What the hell are we waiting for? Why does America continue to provide tax dollars to the oil industry? Why do we allow automakers, including Toyota, to continue to sell gas-guzzlers? Why not subsidize the cost of a fleet of Ford Escape hybrids and Toyota Highlander hybrids that achieve at least 50 mpg? That technology exists right now, yet instead we give billions to oil companies?

Oil, not technology, is the solution to America's problems, at least if you ask Congress. I guess almost 10 billion in profits provides a lot of favors.

So yeah, 100 mpg hybrids are too expensive and hybrids are just hype, but spending billions and billions on oil companies, oil refineries, the hydrogen highway, and fuel cells is a bargain - at least for Exxon Mobil it is.

The future of hybrid vehicles

I was recently interviewed for an article regarding hybrid cars and the question posed to me was, "Will the hybrid powertrain be the dominant powertrain by 2012?"

While I said that it would not, I noted that analysts currently predicting total hybrid sales achieving just 5% of the market by 2012, were just as wrong in that prediction as they were when they predicted the complete failure of the Toyota Prius.

Just today the article, Forget hybrids, America; diesels will provide economy, performance argues that America should focus on diesel, not hybrids, especially because Ford is a leading player.

So now diesel is the answer to America's oil problems? Please!

According to Ken Miller, an oil industry analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Houston, "New environmental rules for diesel will go into effect on Jan. 1 that are expected to add a few more cents per gallon to the cost of diesel. The day when diesel was cheaper than gasoline is probably over." (AutoWeek) Yet, diesel is the answer?

Others might say that bio-diesel can make diesel vehicles cheaper to run, but I doubt this to be true if a significant percentage of Americans begin to drive bio-diesel. Where will the fuel come from? What if severe weather causes drought or storm that destroys fuel crops? Bio-diesel can absolutely help end foreign oil dependency, but it cannot do it alone.

I say build flex-fuel hybrids because doing so could save America as much as a trillion dollars (more).

There was a time when technology was the strength of America, yet today, the strength of America seems controlled by whether oil is cheap or not. Additionally, many automotive writers, probably the ones who refused to use a computer for as long as possible, continue to wear blinders.

How many more conflicts in the Middle East, how much more evidence of pollution and global warming, how much more evidence that America is continually losing its technological stronghold, will it take before America embraces the future - a future that will be dominated by technology, not cheap oil?

America has for too long chosen the easy path, a path that has been enforced by military power and executed with a complete disregard for the environment. Suddenly, however, the easy path is neither so easy, nor cost-effective.

While hybrid cars might not dominate the future, hybrid technology is just an emerging technology that can lead to 100 mpg fuel efficiency within 10 years if automakers create bio-diesel hybrids, plug-in hybrids, or even solar-powered plug-in hybrids - while also helping hydrogen, electric, and fuel cell vehicle development.

Can diesel achieve that in a decade?

The future of the world, especially the automotive world, will not be driven by cheap oil, but by technology and that technological advancement needs to begin now. Sure America can wait, but the longer it waits, the more technologically obsolete America will become.

Besides, isn't it time America invests in America, rather than in filthy rich oil companies?

Flex fuel, biodiesel, or hybrids: Which is America's answer to oil dependency?

When the Iranian Revolution in 1979 caused massive gas lines in the United States, many Americans turned to small Japanese vehicles. Eventually, however, oil prices stabilized, gas prices dropped, and many Americans returned to gas-guzzling as SUVs became an expression of American freedom.

But the Iranian Revolution wasn't only felt in the U.S., and the problems of oil dependence, particularly foreign-oil dependence, pushed Brazil to do more than just buy a few small Japanese vehicles. By 1985 almost every vehicle produced in Brazil was designed for alcohol as fuel transportation and gasoline stations were updated to handle this new fuel.

So did Brazil kick the oil habit? Not exactly. According to an interesting article, Ethanol: Is it the answer?, a combination of cheap oil and droughts - which caused poor harvests and less ethanol - led Brazilians back to oil.

Today in Brazil, flex-fuel technology has changed everything. Able to run on both gasoline, ethanol, or a mixture of the two, flex fuel vehicles allow Brazilians to take advantage of which ever fuel they choose. Thus, drivers are hedged against either drought, or skyrocketing oil prices.

So should America just focus on flex-fuel vehicles as the solution to America's oil problems?

Absolutely not.

Flex-fuel vehicles definitely are part of the solution, but even Brazil hasn't been able to kick the oil habit. More important Brazil consumes SIGNIFICANTLY less fuel per year than the U.S.. Additionally, Brazil uses sugar to produce its ethanol fuel, the U.S. uses corn, which is far less efficient than sugar.

Of course new grains, etc., might offer better efficiency, but how long will it take to create enough fuel? Brazil produces only about 5 billion gallons of ethanol per year, U.S. demand is around 140 billion gallons per year. And what about drought, or another natural disaster?

The key to Brazil's struggles and successes boil down to one thing, flexibility. Flex-fuel vehicle technology should be the standard in America, but it shouldn't stop there. Hybrid technology, or even better, plug-in hybrid technology, offers even far more flexibility.

Hybrid cars, or better yet, flex-fuel hybrid cars, could significantly improve fuel efficiency, while opening up new fuel possibilities beyond oil. In reality; however, fuel competition alone won't be enough to handle the oil monster, and that's why hybrid technology is so important.

Plug-in flex-fuel advanced diesel hybrid vehicles could offer fuel efficiency of more than 100 mpg with today's technology - even for SUVs. Sure the technology is somewhat expensive today, but it is FAR less expensive than fuel cell technology. Additionally, a national fleet of 100 mpg vehicles would end the need for foreign oil in about 5 years, which I've argued could save America more than a TRILLION dollars (more).

Even better, plug-in power could lead to another revolution in the automotive world, the utilization of solar power. Already solar power is cost-effective to power a home - if you are going to live in that home for at least 15 years - but what if you could also help power your car with your home energy system, with totally clean energy? Even more interesting, garage mechanics have already created plug-in hybrids with solar panels and Mazda is now showing a solar hybrid concept vehicle that includes embedded solar panels in the roof of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the good old days of the U.S. auto industry are over. Constant innovation and the best technology are an absolute requirement, and the best technology requires fuel flexibility, as well as the best possible fuel economy. It isn't just about saving money at the fuel pump, or protecting the environment, it is about protecting the security and welfare of Americans and the American economy.

Neither ethanol, bio-diesel or hybrids alone are going to take the oil monkey off America's back quickly enough, but combined, these alternative choices could radically change America within a decade.

Instead of subsidizing the cost of a foreign-oil-dependency-ending fleet of vehicles, America is going to build more oil refineries, drill in Alaska, and give billions of tax payer dollars to filthy rich oil companies, as GM increases production on the Hummer.

Is that really an investment in the future? Isn't it time to start investing in real American freedom, instead of investing in companies that can profit as much as $23 billion in just one quarter?

I guess it is pretty clear who Congress represents, and it isn't the majority of Americans.