Muons and ADNA proposing using accelerator-driven subcritical reactor for heat for production of synthetic fuels and chemicals
Argentina’s YPF and Bridas, 50% owned by CNOOC, to invest $1.5B in Vaca Muerta shale oil development in Argentina

Ford Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid sedan EPA-rated at 108 MPGe city, 92 MPGe highway and 100 MPGe combined; Ford projects best hybrid sales quarter ever

2013 Fusion Energi. Click to enlarge.

The US Environmental Protection Agency has rated the new Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid (earlier post) at up to 108 MPGe city, 92 MPGe highway and 100 MPGe combined (2.2, 2.6 and 2.4 l/100km-equivalent, respectively).

Fusion Energi is the Ford brand’s fifth electrified vehicle to launch in the past year—and its second plug-in hybrid after the C-MAX Energi. Ford expects the Fusion Energi to accelerate its record hybrid sales pace, including its highest monthly hybrid sales month ever in November. Ford projects 19,000-plus hybrid/electric vehicle sales in the fourth quarter of this year, making it the company’s best quarter for hybrids ever and besting its own previous hybrid vehicle sales record by more than 50%; Ford expects more than half of hybrid sales this year to come in this quarter.

With Fusion Energi and Fusion Hybrid, the Fusion lineup brings the widest range of powertrain options to the US midsize segment. Fusion also is available in gasoline-fueled versions with a choice between a pair of fuel-efficient EcoBoost engines and a normally aspirated four-cylinder engine.

Like its cousin, the C-MAX Energi PHEV, the Fusion PHEV offers:

  • SmartGauge with EcoGuide to provide in-vehicle customizable displays, including instantaneous fuel economy readings and coaching functions to help drivers understand and optimize their fuel efficiency.

  • SYNC with MyFord Touch to manage and control phone, available navigation, entertainment and climate functions. Plug-in hybrids and all-electric models have additional options for monitoring information like battery state of charge.

  • EV+ combining the built-in GPS of Ford SYNC with proprietary software algorithms developed by Ford engineers to learn frequent destinations. As a result, vehicles give drivers more drive time in electric-only mode.

C-MAX became the fastest-selling hybrid ever at launch after 8,030 units were sold in October and November, the first two months C-MAX was on the market. The pace beat Toyota Camry Hybrid’s 7,300 sales in its first two full months of availability in May and June 2006.

The response to C-MAX really shows the amount of pent-up demand from a specific market for C-segment hybrids. Fusion Energi has a different audience in the midsize sedan market, but delivers many of the characteristics and technologies that make C-MAX Energi so great, which is why we’re anticipating a similar positive response.

—C.J. O’Donnell, marketing manager, Ford Electrified Vehicles

Ford differentiates between the two PHEVs by noting that C-MAX is geared toward those most concerned with fuel economy, but designed so that owners aren’t forced to sacrifice comfort and convenience. Fusion is designed with the driver’s sense of style in mind, delivering a midsize sedan that offers functional design elements that enhance its sleek exterior and promote fuel economy.

Many of the technologies of Fusion Energi are shared across Ford’s electrified vehicle lineup and draw from the automaker’s portfolio of about 500 patents related specifically to hybrid technology:

  • MyFord Mobile: Enables access via smartphone or Web-based interface to perform key tasks, such as monitoring a vehicle’s state of charge and current range or locating charge stations and planning routes to find them.

  • Eco cruise: Saves vehicle energy by relaxing acceleration compared to standard cruise control.

  • EV mode button: Conveniently mounted on the console to the right of the shifter—allows a driver to switch vehicle operation between three modes: all-electric, normal hybrid operation and conserve battery power for later use.

  • Regenerative braking is capable of capturing and reusing more than 90% of the braking energy normally lost during the braking process.

  • Hybrid transmission, designed by Ford engineers in-house, is capable of operating at high speeds and in a smooth, fuel-efficient manner at the same time. (Earlier post.)

  • Advanced lithium-ion batteries covered by an eight-year/100,000-mile component limited warranty.

  • Charge port with LED light ring, conveniently located on the driver’s side and near the front of the car, it features a light ring that illuminates to indicate charge status.


Kit P

E-P has so many misconceptions about nuclear power that one post will not cover it. The NRC does not control the layout of the control room. We deigned control rooms individually back then to meet the customer requirements.

“We would have been far better off if we'd never created the NRC and continued the original trajectory of the replacement of coal by uranium, even if we had 2-3 TMI-level events along the way. ”

I happen to be around at the time. We build new plants make electricity that we need based on projects of increased demand. Nuke plants were not built to replace coal. We stopped building new nuke plants because we did not need more.

Today some new nukes are being built to replace old coal-based generation. Sometimes new coal plants replace old coal plants. I new IGCC plant will replace a coal plant based in 1940. The 618 MWe plant just had a cost cap of $2.68 billion imposed because of about a billion in cost over runs. This illustrates that any new more efficient technologies can run into cost problems.

Another new coal plant came on line. The ultra super critical 600 MWe cost $1.8 billion.


Plug-in EVs complement and supplement the utility grid. Plug-in hybrids spread the benefit to 3x the number of households because a PHEV battery pack is roughly 1/3 the size of an all-battery BEV.

In an emergency grid failure, a plug-in EV can keep important household electric devices - communications, refridgeration - operating, supplementing grid power.

During off-peak demand hours, utility grid power stations generate a surplus that can be stored in a plug-in EV. During peak demand hours, plug-in EVs can supply the grid. Thus, PHEVs maximize grid efficiency and reduce need for grid expansion. Add a household rooftop photovoltiac solar array, made less expensive applied to PHEVs, and the efficiencies and benefits increase further.

Nuclear power systems are unecessary. All-battery BEVs have a niche market roughly 1/4 the need served best by PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

The NRC does not control the layout of the control room.
If that's the case, why does the NRC conduct control-room design reviews?  TMI Unit 2's control room passed that review, yet the layout played a major role in the meltdown.  Funny, that.
We stopped building new nuke plants because we did not need more.
If that's true, why did generation from coal continue to grow through the 1970's, 80's and 90's?  Somebody was using that electricity (some of which replaced oil).  All of the acid-rain controls and ash dumps would have been unnecessary if that capacity had been built out with nukes instead.
Nuke plants were not built to replace coal.
And that's the part that's a crying shame.
Kit P


Did you read the document you linked to refute that you have to misconceptions about nuclear power?

The 1986 document linked is a design review by the utility.

“Since the incident in 1979 at Three Mile Island Unit 2, much effort has been expended to ascertain whether the control room design at that unit contributed to the incident and its severity and whether the design of nuclear generation control rooms are designed and constructed to prevent and mitigate such incidents using accepted human factors standards.”

The reports sites in the first paragraph, NUREG-0737, Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements (NUREG-0737) issued in 1980.

The misconception that E-P h is that the NRC is a regulatory organization not a design organization. I suspect that there was very little difference between TMI 1 & 2. When problems are identified, it is up the the owners of the plant to design the fix.

“If that's true, why did generation from coal continue to grow through the 1970's, 80's and 90's?”

I explained why we stopped building nukes. The decision to not build a particular power is a decision made by each utility.

“The Pleasants power station on the Ohio River cost $777.1mn and its two supercritical units were among the last built in the USA during the 1970s construction cycle.”

“Most coal-fired plants were built before 1980”

The graph shows that both nuclear and coal additions trended to zero in the 90s from a peak of new plant construction in 1975. Just for the record nuclear generation continued to grow too because of improvements to existing plants equivalent to 26 new plants. While I do not follow improvements in coal-based generation, it is reasonable to think that segment of the power industry is standing still.


I'm merely talking from my armchair, but I was lead to believe that the cost of energy on a per Joule basis was much higher from nuclear than alternative fossil fuel like coal.

Renewables are a path to energy independence first(strange saying that when PVs come from Asia), lastly a path to separate us from removing carbon from the ground and placing it in the air.(probably 100-300 years from now we might achieve something)

people also need to see the benefit in all the strange facets of what ill call a renewable cocktail, it is a mixed bag and all of it can help when implemented properly.

I am not of the same belief as most would be here on a green site. So I'll probably catch tons of flak for saying this... I am not too concerned with CO2 at the present, we in this age have not the means or the ways yet available to completely come off of fossil fuels without radical and extreme changes. For example replacing the whole of Coal and Nat Gas with nuclear... yes, it could be done but at what cost? Not to mention where would we get all the raw materials to run the plants indefinitely? Russia?

We also do not have the infrastructure to place a BEV in every driveway in America. Nor will a BEV satiate most of our lifestyles. (until things greatly improve)

Studies and take large advantages of averages, in the world where there should be huge success in the field, there isn't (look to Europe... it makes sense to own a BEV there $9/gal for gas, shorter commutes, city driving ect...)

Using everything to the best of our ability, whether its throwing chaff or other unused biomass that would just sit fallow and be released into the atmosphere anyway into a reactor to produce a gasoline alternative, or using wind and solar to take the edge off of peak demand so new plants do not have to be constructed are just some of the many ways.

The US power grid is constrained, new construction, rising populations, and ever rising demand and consumption are driving wind and solar because of the logistics of it all. You cant simply build new large power plants to meet demand as it happens, but Solar and wind are great in providing a cheap quick solution to a new large coal/nat gas/ or nuclear solution.(which can take years to build and aren't as subsidized)

Like I said, I am not concerned with CO2 as much as most of you are. To say that we should avoid one solution because it isn't as good would be silly. The eventuality that the greenies and the not so greenies see are one in the same. One day, all of our power will come from by products of production (waste biomass ect) or the sun (wind / solar)... maybe a few nuclear power plants on standby.

Eventually we will hit a point where we will be able to sequester more CO2 than we dig up, that is probably a fact whether proven or not. It just takes time, radicalism in all forms will delay that eventuality. I don't see what all the fuss and urgency is about.

Energy is a business, it is in demand, and its very cutthroat. We cannot (whether by choice or otherwise) do without it. It has to come from somewhere, and it has to be competitive. Every person on this globe is somehow directly or indirectly affected by this monster of a thing. Sure we could dream solutions, even write them down on paper, even have governments intervene but still, at the end of the day all that "CAN" happen is what the market can bare.

Kit P


Let me clarify things for you.

“cost of energy on a per Joule basis was much higher from nuclear than alternative fossil fuel like coal.”

The cost of nuclear fuel is very low on a per BTU basis. All steam plants are expensive to build. The same pressure transmitter can be found to measure feed water flow. The nuke plant cost more because it has a piece of paper that certifies that it will keep working after an earthquake.

If you build a nuke plant you can expect to spend some time in court. Of course if you try to build a coal plant in the US these days you will expect to spend some time in court. Just because you are building a renewable energy project you still have the uncertainty of the crazy people taking you to court.

My point here is that uncertainty is a real cost for any power project. The bottom line is power is a very cheap commodity everyplace in the world while new power plants are expensive. Even if a country does not have a lot of layers (robust legal system), the risk is still there because some dictator can privatize your new power plant.

“The US power grid is constrained ”

It is not. The US grid functions very well.

“ever rising demand and consumption ”

Where have you been?

“You cant simply build new large power plants to meet demand as it happens, ”

That is why we plan ahead with 20 year resource management plans.

“Solar and wind are great in providing a cheap quick solution ”

Wind and solar is not cheap. The reason given for building then is to reduce ghg. There is nothing wrong with reducing fossil use but the fossil plants already exists. We did not need a solution for supplying power.

“One day, all of our power will come ”

Are you planning to become Amish?

My job is not to tell you how to live. However, unless you want to reject a modern life style and heat with wood and use a horse for transpiration; you are not going to do with renewable energy. Just for the record, when the Amish have to take their children to be big city medical center they call an 'English' neighbor is happy to help. Good neighbors are good neighbors even if they do not have all electric-houses.

“and its very cutthroat ”

The power industry is a regulated public service. Next time some journalists or jerk politician points a finger at the 'big' power company, ask when the last time they worked the back shift or were called out in a ice storm?

“this monster of a thing. ”

Really! CheeseEater88 should be able to give lots of examples of the power industry kicking down doors, kidnapping children, selling our children drugs, shooting up schools. All the things that monsters do.

I suspect that CheeseEater88 is unfamiliar with the power industry because power is invisible except for the monthly bill. That bill is not based on 'market can bare' but the cost of doing business. I think there are two reason why the power industry is demonized. First, we depend on it for everything. This makes us insecure because we have little control for losing it. The second is the bill comes once a month and we forgot what we used power for. The same person that thinks nothing of putting a dollar in vending machine would gladly do the same for a day of air-conditioning or heating.

I was lead to believe that the cost of energy on a per Joule basis was much higher from nuclear than alternative fossil fuel like coal.
No, uranium is the cheapest of all heat sources; it's the hardware and particularly the financing and regulatory costs which drive up the price of the power.  Nuclear electricity was cheaper than coal in the pre-NRC era, and if we developed a technology such as molten-salt reactors which did not even have the failure modes of water-cooled reactors which worry people so much, we could probably regulate them as little as wind farms.
Eventually we will hit a point where we will be able to sequester more CO2 than we dig up
By my calculations just capturing the current 30 billion tons/year would take a considerable number of terawatts (given the 40 kJ/mol figure I have).  Processing it would take extra.  YMMV.
Kit P

“No, uranium is the cheapest of all heat sources ”

Solar thermal, geothermal, waste biomass, and flared gas are cheaper. The problem is that they are limited.

The comments to this entry are closed.