Green Car Congress

Ford Concept Micro Hybrid

Engineers from Ford’s Aachen Research Centre in Germany have developed a micro hybrid concept car based on the Ford Fiesta. Although it is currently a research project, the Fiesta micro hybrid potentially could be in production by 2006. Ford’s partner in the development of the system is Valeo, a French supplier for electrical car systems.

Micro hybrids augment the combustion engine with features such as feature stop/start functionality, an efficient generator, and regenerative braking, but provide no power for propulsion. (See A Short Field Guide to Hybrids.) The new GM Silverado is also a micro hybrid.

The Fiesta micro hybrid will improve fuel consumption by 5-15%, depending upon conditions and driving behavior, with a corresponding drop in emissions.

The Fiesta micro hybrid’s powertrain is based on a standard 1.4 liter 80 hp gasoline engine with a 5-speed manual transmission. The micro hybrid functions added on top of this include start-stop technology, regenerative braking and advanced battery management.

Ford Launches Production H2 Focus FCV-Hybrid

Ford today announced the first production of its new Focus hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the Focus FCV-Hybrid. (Earlier post on production of the demo fleet.)

This differs from prior demo cars in three ways. First, it’s the most sophisticated, according to Ford. Second, it came off a production line, not out of a lab. Ford intends to crank through 30 of the Focus FCVs initially for field testing. Also being tested and refined, though, will be the manufacturing techniques.

Third, unlike an earlier version of the Focus FCV, this model is a hybrid. Rather than combining a combustion engine with an electric motor, it uses an electric motor powered by two sources. A Ballard Power Systems hydrogen fuel cell provides the primary motive power, while a Sanyo nickel metal-hydride (NiMH) battery pack and a Continental Teves Electro-Hydraulic regenerative braking system provides the additional source of electric power. Continental Teves also supplies the regenerative braking system in the Escape Hybrid SUV.

“This Focus FCV combines our hybrid expertise with advanced fuel cell technology resulting in a vehicle that combines the improved range and performance of a hybrid with the overall benefits of a fuel cell,” said Dr. Gerhard Schmidt, Ford Motor Company vice president, Research and Advanced Engineering.

Here are a few points of comparison between the two.

	Focus FCV-Hybrid	Focus FCV
Output (kW and hp)	65 kW 87 hp	67 kW 90 hp
Torque (Nm and ft-lbs)	230 Nm 170 ft-lbs	190 Nm 140 ft-lbs
Curb weight (kg)	1,600	1,727
H2 Pressure (psi)	5,000	3,600
Fuel Cell Stack	Ballard Mark 902	Ballard Mark 900
Driving range (km and miles)	260-320 km 160-200 miles	160 km 100 miles
Top Speed (km/h, mph)	128+ km/h 80+ mph	128+ km/h 80+ mph

There is a clear difference in the driving range. While increasing the storage pressure of the hydrogen by 40% accounts for some of that (as does reducing the weight), it is the combined addition of the hybrid electric drive that allows the FCV-Hybrid to double the driving range of its FCV cousin under the appropriate conditions.

The new Focus FCVs will be deployed in fleet trials in Orlando, Fla., Sacramento, Calif., Taylor, Mich., Berlin, Germany and Vancouver, B.C.

Ford looks like it may be getting more aggressive with its hybrid systems. (See the post above.)

San Francisco Ups the GHG Ante

San Francisco Chronicle. Three days after California Governor Schwarzenegger signed the CA climate change bill regulating CO₂ emissions, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome announced a climate action plan designed to slash the city’s greenhouse emissions by 2012 to a target level set at 20 percent below 1990 emissions.

San Francisco—including city government, businesses and residents as well as commuters who work in the city—are responsible for an estimated 9. 1 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990, [...] mostly in the form of carbon dioxide from burning gasoline and other fossil fuels in cars, buildings and power plants.

The total was already up to 9.7 million tons in 2000, and will grow to about 10.8 million tons by 2012 if nothing is done. The new plan sets a goal of 7.2 million tons, a reduction of about 2.5 million tons from the current emissions level.

San Francisco is one of about 150 other U.S. cities and counties, including Oakland and Berkeley, and 600 local governments around the world, implementing such steps as part of their own climate action plans.

Congress Restores Hybrid and Alt Fuels Deduction

The Alliance to Save Energy. Congress has restored the alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicle federal income tax deduction to $2,000 for vehicles purchased in calendar years 2004 and 2005. Under current law, the deduction was to drop by 25% to $1,500 this year and then down another 25% in 2005.

Shanghai Automotive—Going for the Gold, but What About Green?

Fortune profiles the work and aspirations of Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. (SAIC): JV partner with both GM and VW, and a growing powerhouse in its own right.

The joint ventures have proved a bonanza for SAIC, which has more than doubled in size since 2000. Last year it produced 612,216 cars with VW and GM, a startling increase of 57% from 2002. That has catapulted SAIC onto FORTUNE’s list of the world’s largest companies at No. 461, with revenues last year of $11.8 billion and profits of $689 million.

There’s nothing shy about SAIC. It has an enormous appetite for growth and is already casting its eyes beyond China’s borders. Officials have immodestly declared their intention to become one of the world’s six largest automakers by 2020, joining GM, Toyota, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and VW. To get there, they expect to quadruple vehicle production. Analysts believe those ambitions are realistic. “SAIC will become one of the top ten car companies in the world within the next ten to 15 years,” says Graeme Maxton of Autopolis, an industry consultant in Britain. “It is likely that teenagers in Europe or the U.S. will be considering a Shanghai Auto car within the next decade.”

Last year SAIC was the biggest car seller in China. Earlier this year, it overtook FAW to become the largest vehicle seller in the country. This all begs the question: what will its vehicle mix be as it continues to grow? What is its Green strategy? China appears keenly aware of the knife-edge it is walking—or running—as the development of the economy drives energy usage, auto purchases and brings with that the attendant issues of emissions and energy supply.

Both Chinese auto makers and consumers are putting unprecedented importance on environment-friendly and fuel-saving vehicles as gasoline prices continue to rise. People’s Daily

But given that SAIC has yet to produce a model under its own marque, it’s still a bit of an unknown. Earlier this year (post) GM suggested that it might build its first hybrid passenger car with SAIC—but, as we’ve seen, “hybrid”could mean anything from power support to a full parallel drive.

We may get a better sense of this next month, as the annual Michelin Challenge Bibeundum is held in Shanghai. The Challenge Bibendum is an international competition for environmentally-friendly vehicles. This is the first time the Challenge (started in 1998) has been held in Asia, and the major Chinese automakers will all be there.

In 2003, SAIC and scientists from Tongju University showed China’s first hydrogen fuel cell car, the Chao Yue I. A second generation, the Chao Yue II appeared earlier this year. (Both cars used fuel cells from Shanghai ShenLi High Tech.) Chao Yue II will be in the Challenge next month.

Accordinto to the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, the Chao Yue II has dramatically reduced hydrogen consumption from Chao Yue I’s 1.39kg per 100 km to the current 1.03 kg per 100km. Acceleration from 0-60 mph has improved from 46.7 seconds to 26.7 seconds. The new prototype reaches a maximum speed of 118 km/h (73mph) with a cruising range of 197 km (122 miles). However, the new version uses a Chinese fuel cell, battery and engine, shaved 150 kg off the weight, and improved the output by 6kW (8 hp).

More to do? Of course. But one thing upon which everyone agrees: the size and impact of the Chinese market is worth it.

Opel’s New CNG Van—and Beyond

GM’s Opel used the 60^th International Show for Commercial Vehicles in Hanover, Germany (overlapping the Paris Motor Show) for the world premier of a natural-gas-powered production version of its Combo commercial van—Combo 1.6 CNG.

Opel currently is the CNG marketleader in Germany, and Opel Special Vehicles (OSV)—the offshoot of Opel that builds the CNG vehicles—the largest CNG manufacturer in Europe. The two CNG versions of the Astra station wagon and the Zafira (which is also the foundation for GM’s prototype HydroGen3 H₂ fuel cell vehicle) currently have a share of around 80% of the CNG market in Germany—currently at 21,000 vehicles, but which Opel thinks has tremendous upside potential.

The BGW (Bundesverbandes der deutschen Gas- und Wasserwirtschaft—the federal association of gas and water management agencies) estimates growth in the German CNG market to 95,000 vehicles by 2007, and 500,000 by 2011. Italy already has a CNG fleet of some 381,250. Worldwide there are currently some 3.1 million CNG vehicles, with Argentina and Brazil in the lead.

One reason for the upside optimism: new EU regulations for commercial fleet operators in 2005 forcing emissions standards.

Natural gas vehicles tend to come in two versions: bivalent or monovalent. Bivalent vehicles are designed to drive both with natural gas and with gasoline. If the natural gas supply is exhausted, the engine switches automatically while driving to gasoline drive. (This is the approach BMW is using with its hydrogen 7-Series vehicle.) Monovalent vehicles, on the other hand, operate only with natural gas, or with a small emergency tank for gasoline. The bivalent design produces longer driving ranges at the cost of a higher level of emissions and fuel consumption. The monovalent focus on natural gas allows for better fuel consumption and lower emissions, but a shorter driving range.

Opel’s CNG vehicles are monovalent; or monovalent^plus to use Opel’s marketing term. These engines feature dual injection banks for gas and gasoline operation, with sequential injections. Special pistons support high compression, and special valve, valve guides and valve seats support natural gas combustion.

The Combo 1.6-liter engine produces 97 hp, optimized for CNG. A 14-liter emergency gasoline tank provides the fuel for gasoline mode. CNG tanks are stored under the floor of the van (see diagram above). OSV has built a nicely performing engine. In the comparison below you can see some of the tradeoffs mentioned above between monovalent and bivalent design.

CNG Commercial Light Vans
	Opel Combo	Fiat Doblò	Citroën Berlingo
Mode	Monovalent	Bivalent	Bivalent
Displacement (liters)	1.6	1.6	1.4
Horsepower	97	92	65
Torque (Nm)	145	135	104
BMEP (psi)	165.1	154.2	135.4
Top speed (mph)	103	96	89
CNG Range (miles)	230	186	102
Total range (miles)	323	389	560
CO2 Emissions (g/km)	140	171	146
Fuel Consumption (kg CH4/100 km)	5.2	6.3	8.4

OSV has ambitious plans for further development of its CNG vehicles, all based on production models of Opel cars and vans. These plans fall into two areas. First is extending the driving range of the vehicles through developing improved storage tanks for the gas, and by incorporating turbocharging in the engine. OSV estimates that turbocharging could reduce fuel consumption by some 7%. The second is to further improve the emissions profile by supporting Biogas: gas derived from biomass to power the engine.

The chart below compares CNG, gasoline and diesel versions of the Opel Astra wagon—it’s a handy overview of some of the differences and tradeoffs between platforms.

Opel Astra Wagon
	Astra 1.6 CNG	Astra 1.6 16 valve	Astra 1.6 16 valve
Fuel	CNG	Gasoline	Diesel
Displacement (liters)	1.6	1.6	1.6
Horsepower	97	100	100
Torque (Nm)	140	150	230
BMEP (psi)	159.4	170.9	262.0
Top speed (mph)	110	114	114
CNG Range (miles)	242	–	–
Total range (miles)	354	455	548
CO2 Emissions (g/km)	125	170	159
Fuel Consumption (kg CH4 or liter fuel/100 km)	4.6 kg	7.1 l (33 mpg)	8.4 l (40 mpg)

What’s the Best, Continued...

As a follow-on to the post and discussion on What’s the “Best” Green Transportation Technology, I’m reproducing some summary charts from the Delucchi study as a view into the varying emissions impact of different fuels.

It’s important to remember that these are the results based on this particular model, and that there has yet to be a grand comprehensive model—at least not that I have found. This model goes into more detail on more greenhouse gases and more fuels, but does not examine hybrid electric vehicles, for example.

Nor are all possible combinations examined. Biodiesel use in this study falls under heavy duty vehicles, and is not considered under light duty. That sort of thing.

But with that in mind, take a look. (For those who downloaded the report, this is from table 58, page 413.) All percentages are relative to a baseline vehicle. Although most of the results produce lower emissions, a few do not. Those positive numbers—which in this table are bad—I have highlighted in red.

Again, consider this as directional, rather than definitive. Different processes produce different results, as you’ll see in the table. That, of course, leaves the door open for even newer processes with better results. (And for improvements in the models.) Following the two tables is a list of the abbreviations used in the charts.

Comparisons of Light Duty Vehicles (2015), vs. 26 mpg LDV–Gasoline
Fossil or Nuclear Feedstocks	Fuelcycle Only	Fuel + Materials
Baseline: Gasoline from crude oil (CO2-equivalent g/ml)	527.6	600.0
Gasoline (Reformulated-Ox10) from crude oil	-1.5%	-1.3%
Gasoline (CFG) made from synthetic oil from coal (F-T)	102.1%	89.8%
Diesel (ultra-low sulfur 0.001%S) from crude	6.9%	4.7%
Methanol (M85) made from NG100/CO	-10.4%	-9.1%
Natural Gas (CNG) made from NG100	-27.6%	-23.8%
Compressed Hydrogen (CH2) made from Natural gas	-15.5%	-13.0%
LPG (P95/BU5)made from NG57/LRG43	-25.7%	-22.7%
Biomass Feedstocks	Fuelcycle Only	Fuel + Materials
Ethanol (E90 (corn)) made using C36/NG52/B0/EL8	10.9%	9.6%
Ethanol (E90 (WO/G100)) made using C0/NG0/B99/EL0	-37.4%	-32.9%
Methanol (M85 (wood)) made using C0/NG0/B96/EL3	-47.8%	-42.0%
Natural Gas (CNG (wood) made using C0/NG0/B98/EL2	-65.0%	-56.6%
Battery Electric Vehicles	Fuelcycle Only	Fuel + Materials
All recharging from coal-fired power plants	-22.7%	-17.5%
All recharging from oil-fired power plants	-34.7%	-28.1%
All recharging from gas (boiler)-fired power plants	-62.9%	-52.8%
All recharging from nuclear power plants	-98.0%	-83.7%
All recharging from hydropower plants	-99.0%	-84.5%
National average generation mix: C64/F20/NG15/N1/B0/H0	-32.1%	-25.7%
Fuel-cell Electric Vehicles	Fuelcycle Only	Fuel + Materials
Gasoline (Reformulated-Ox10) from crude	-51.7%	-46.8%
Methanol (M100) made from NG100	-52.9%	-47.7%
Methanol (M100) made from wood	-83.1%	-74.2%
Ethanol (E100 (W0/G100)) made using C0/NG0/B99/EL0	-70.7%	-63.4%
Hydrogen (CH2 (water)) made from N0/H100/So0	-89.7%	-79.7%
Hydrogen (CH2 (NG)) made from F1/NG97/B0/EL2	-60.2%	-53.8%

Comparisons of Heavy Duty Vehicles (2015), vs. 6 mpg HDV–Diesel
Fossil or Nuclear Feedstocks	Fuelcycle Only	Fuel + Materials
Baseline: Diesel (0.001%S) from crude oil (CO2-equivalent g/ml)	2,746.6	2,872.8
Fischer Tropsch diesel (FTD100) made from NG	-0.3%	-0.3%
Diesel made from synthetic oil from coal	99.5%	95.1%
Gasoline (Reformulated-Ox10) made from crude	21.3%	21.0%
Methanol (M100) made from NG100/CO	-6.9%	-6.6%
Natural Gas (CNG) made from NG100	-22.5%	-21.6%
Compressed Hydrogen (CH2) made from Natural gas	-7.6%	-6.9%
LPG (P95/BU5)made from NG57/LRG43	-21.0%	-20.3%
Biomass Feedstocks	Fuelcycle Only	Fuel + Materials
Diesel mix (FTD0/SD0) made using oil, NG, soy	-0.0%	-0.1%
Biodiesel (SD100 (soy) made using C0/NG80/B0/EL17	180.0%	172.5%
Ethanol (E100 (corn)) made using C36/NG52/B0?EL8	21.5%	20.5%
Ethanol (E100 (WO/G100)) made using C0/NG0/B99/EL0	-39.1%	-37.4%
Methanol (M100 (wood)) made using C0/NG0/B96/EL3	-60.3%	-57.6%
Natural Gas (CNG (wood) made using C0/NG0/B98/EL2	-66.6%	-63.8%
Fuel-cell Electric Vehicles	Fuelcycle Only	Fuel + Materials
Gasoline (Reformulated-Ox10) from crude	-36.2%	-35.1%
Methanol (M100) made from NG100	-37.8%	-36.6%
Methanol (M100) made from wood	-77.6%	-74.7%
Ethanol (E100 (W0/G100)) made using C0/NG0/B99/EL0	-61.2%	-59.0%
Hydrogen (CH2 (water)) made from N0/H100/So0	-86.3%	-82.9%
Hydrogen (CH2 (NG)) made from F1/NG97/B0/EL2	-46.9%	-45.3%

Abbreviations:

In the table, an abbreviation combined with a number indicates the relative percentage composition. For example, LPG (P95/BU5) means LPG consisting of 95% propane and 5% butane.

CG = conventional gasoline

RFG = reformulated gasoline

Ox = oxygenate (ETBE, MTBE, ethanol, methanol) (volume % in active gasoline)

M = methanol (volume % in fuel for methanol vehicle; remainder is gasoline)

CNG = compressed natural gas

LNG = liquefied natural gas

CH2 = compressed hydrogen

E = ethanol (volume % in fuel for ethanol vehicle; remainder is gasoline)

P = propane (volume % in LPG)

BU = butane (volume % in LPG)

FTD = Fischer-Tropsch dieses (volume % in fuel; remainder is soy diesel or conventional diesel)

SD = soydiesel (volume % in fuel; remainder is petroleum diesel)

NG = natural gas (% as feedstock [methanol, hydrogen, NGVs], or % of electricity generation [EVs], or % EL = electricity, % of energy input to fuel production processes

C = coal (% as feedstock [methanol], or % of electricity generation [EVs], or % of energy input to fuel production F = fuel oil (% of electricity generation, % of energy input to fuel production process)

N = nuclear power (% of electricity generation [EVs, hydrogen vehicles])

B = biomass power (% of electricity generation [EVs], or % of energy input to fuel production process)

So = solar power (% of electricity generation [EVs, hydrogen vehicles])

H = Hydro power (% of electricity generation [EVs, hydrogen vehicles])

NGL = natural gas liquids (volume % as source of LPG)

LRG = liquid refinery gases (volume % as source of LPG)

S = sulfur

W = wood (trees) (% as feedstock [ethanol])

G = perennial grasses (% as feedstock [ethanol])

CARB Adopts CO2 Regulations

Reuters. After two days of hearings, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed unanimously the country’s first air-quality regulations to reduce car emissions linked to global warming. This now implements AB1493 (the Pavley Climate Change bill) passed in 2002. (Earlier post.)

The new rules require cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases in cars and trucks by as much as 25 percent beginning with the 2009 model year, with cuts accelerating as high as 34 percent in 2016.

The auto industry likely will respond with a legal challenge, while other states, especially in the Northeast, will follow with their own tougher pollution standards. This also comes when attorneys general in multiple states are suing power companies over their CO₂ emissions. (Earlier post.)

This would be an excellent opportunity for the auto industry to break a standard pattern of response. The science is clear on the need to reduce emissions. The engineering and technology actually exists to implement those required changes to new vehicles. The fuzzy area is consumer acceptance.

Rather than having more fighting between regulators and the auto industry, let’s agree that the problem needs to be solved, and then turn to a more productive resolution: educating consumers about the necessary changes. Ultimately, we (the consumers) are a significant part of the problem, and are also the implementers of the solution (when we buy and drive).

Belgium Offers Tax Breaks for Greener Cars

Xinhua. The Belgian government is providing owners of cars that emit less than 105g of CO₂ per kilometer a 15 percent tax reduction. The discount will be calculated on the price paid for the car and will see some drivers saving up to 3,280 euros (about US$4,030). Cars with emissions of between 105 and 115g of CO₂ will get a three percent tax break.

New light diesels would meet the requirements.

Diesel Hybrid Sprinter Vans

In addition to building and delivering hydrogen fuel cell versions of its Sprinter van (earlier post) DaimlerChrysler is also developing two different diesel hybrid versions: one with and one without a plug-in recharger. A plug-in hybrid is one in which the batteries can be recharged even when the engine is not operating, or the vehicle is not moving, simply by plugging it into a 110 or 220-volt socket.

Both models (plug-in and not) are parallel hybrids—the electric motors can contribute motive power, or they can drive the vehicles on their own in certain conditions. The motors are powered by NiMH (nickel/metal hydride) batteries which are constantly recharged by the engine (acting as a generator) and through regenerative braking. The basic vehicle is a Sprinter 311 CDI (diesel) with an automatic transmission.

Depending upon the operating conditions and driving patterns, the hybrid-drive Sprinters can achieve fuel savings of 10%-50%. When the accelerator is fully depressed for maximum performance, both motor and engine operate together. During normal operation the driver is able to select the required drive unit at the push of a button.

The plug-in version uses an electric motor with an output of 70 kW (93.87 hp) and an NiMH battery with a capacity of 14kWh. This supports an all-electric operating range of up to 30 kilometers (18 miles). The battery recharges from the plug-in to the main powersupply in approximately 6 hours—best done overnight.

Optional equipment allows the plug-in hybrid Sprinter to function as a generator to power tools and machinery in the field.

The hybrid drive Sprinter without a recharging socket has a smaller electric motor with an output of 30 kW (40.23 hp) and smaller batteries with a capacity of only 3 kWh. These allow purely electric operation with a range of 3 to 4 km (1.8 to 2.4 miles). This variant is much lighter weight than the first.

Customer trials of the hybrid Sprinters begin next year.

Although plug-in electric vehicles have been available on the market before, consumers, at least, do not seem to be wild about the concept. Toyota went to great pains in its marketing of the new Prius to affirm that no plug-in was necessary—or even possible. Commercial vehicles may be another story.