The United States has implemented a variety of policies in the effort to cut back gasoline use. For example, the Obama Administration has invested federal dollars into GM’s electric vehicles. The EPA has introduced new fuel economy standards which are to be implemented over time, gradually becoming stricter. The government has also promoted the expansion of biofuels in automobile fuel. However, a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has shown that these policies are not only cost-effective, but do not sufficiently curb fuel usage. What is to be done to reduce fuel use and greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions?

Implementing a gasoline tax, by all measures, would be the most cost-effective way to reduce fuel use. Nothing influences a driver more than the effects on their wallet at the pump. In fact, the researchers found that a moderate tax could elicit the same reduction as all currently implemented policies at a sixth of the cost. Unfortunately, a new gas tax is highly unlikely to be adopted in the United States. It is simply politically unfeasible.

The MIT researchers found that implementing multiple policies to curb fuel use is not cost effective. They found that as the costs of the policies add up, the benefits do not. To come to this conclusion, they created a macroeconomic model which included information on advanced fuels and vehicles, ownership characteristics in different regions, and consumer investment in vehicle and fuel prices. It is an economic model in which advancements in technology is a major component.

The results show that the most politically possible solutions are also the most costly. This creates a great challenge for policy makers who must address this imbalance. It cannot be solved instantly, but instead must be a gradual process. MIT researcher, Valerie Karplus, explains:

“We need to find ways to get past the age-old debate, starting with what is possible today but with an eye to what might be possible tomorrow as today’s policies change underlying incentives. Right now, economists push for the most cost-effective measures, and the policy community responds that such measures are politically impossible.”

“Policies that are politically feasible now can be designed to maximize their cost-effectiveness, and every policy should include clear timelines for revisiting its impacts and for assessing the feasibility of moving to more cost-effective policies over time. That will help us achieve our critical energy security and climate goals.”

The study has been published in the Autumn 2011 edition of the journal, Energy Futures.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Is the Electric Car’s Tax-Free Ride Coming to an End?
• The New Breed of Cars
• Butanol as Gasoline Substitute from Bacteria
• Cane Ethanol Leader Brazil Considers Using Corn
• What Is The Real Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles?

Arguably, the most complicated piece of machinery in the automotive world is a transmission. Transmissions transmit the power from the motor to the wheels in a way that prevents the engine from damaging itself while maximizing the power of the engine. Some battery electric vehicles may be able to skip the transmission all together using just two or three simplified set of gears. However, in internal combustion engines (ICE), the transmissions provide the gears to best capitalize on the power curve of the engine (as well as provide the reverse function).

In the quest to snatch every last joule of energy from each drop of fuel, ICE vehicles have been undergoing a lot of interesting developments recently, including turbo charging, lighter weight materials, and revising pistons and fuel injectors. All of these contribute to better fuel economy, but most likely do not have the same impact as an improved transmission.

Transmissions have evolved over the years. When I first started to drive, manual transmissions were considered much more fuel efficient than automatic transmissions. That difference has diminished significantly and now we are seeing automatics that beat or match manual transmissions for fuel economy. In the mid 2000’s, the continuously variable transmission (CVT) emerged as the leader for fuel economy. These transmissions do not have the mechanical gears of a traditional transmission, instead using a chain on two v-shaped pulleys that move in and out making the chain rotate on a larger or smaller “gear.” This allows the transmission to operate at an infinite number of gear ratios, which keeps the engine running at its optimum speed.

However, in the last couple of years, in North America, the CVT transmission has been slipping in popularity. Why? One reason is because they are usually more expensive than comparable, traditionally geared transmissions. Another is that they lose the shifting feel that consumers are used to experiencing in vehicles. Some may view this as a positive, but many apparently do not. In fact, auto companies like Nissan are putting a shifting feel back into their CVTs with software. Finally, there tends to be a torque limit with CVT transmissions which lowers vehicle performance in comparison to geared transmissions making them better suited to small engines.

Meanwhile, transmission manufacturers like ZF Friedrichshafen have been adding additional gears to their transmissions while reducing the lag between shifting. This summer, ZF launched the first nine-speed automatic transmission for passenger cars with transverse mounted engines (typically used in front and all wheel drive cars). ZF’s nine-speed transmissions have very fast shifts with only two open clutch events, all but eliminating the fuel wasting time between shifts. The new transmission is expected to improve fuel economy 15% or more compared to a six-speed transmission and do so with fewer parts.

Dual clutch transmissions (popular in Europe) typically improve fuel economy 4% to 12% over comparable traditional automatics with torque converters according to transmission-builder, Getrag Corporate Group. Getrag explains dual clutch transmissions on their website as “one gear is engaged, the system has already preselected the next. Once the relevant rpm has been reached, one clutch is opened while the second is closed simultaneously, precluding any interruption in tractive force.” In addition, new torque converters and transmissions are being optimized to provide start/stop capabilities to automatic transmissions, all in the name of increased fuel economy.

Thanks to the relationship with Fiat, Chrysler is now going to be licensing ZF technology to manufacture eight-speed transmissions for its vehicles, replacing its current six-speed transmissions. While Ford’s 2012 Focus launched with Ford’s dual clutch six-speed transmission, in June the company announced two new transmissions, an eight-speed automatic aimed for Lincolns, initially, and a new CVT for its next generation of hybrid vehicles. This CVT allows the vehicle to share traction from two separate power plants, an electric motor and gas engine. At the same time, Hyundai has introduced a new CVT for its small cars and a dual clutch transmission that in essence automates manual transmissions.

Does all of this mean that to improve fuel economy we just need to add more gears or another clutch? Is there a 10-or 12-speed automatic transmission in your future? It seems the consensus at the moment is more gears probably won’t help in passenger cars, but perhaps in large engine light duty trucks in years to come. CVTs will continue to appear in various forms, and may have another day in the sun coming as fuel economy restrictions get tougher and the appeal of smaller, low-torque cars grows.

Dave Hurst is a senior analyst at market research and consulting firm Pike Research; article appearing courtesy Matter Network.

photo: worldtechguy

Related posts:

• Major Fuel Economy Boost Envisioned by Obama Administration
• Patent Suit Targets Smart Grid and Energy Management Solutions Developers
• U.S. Government, California Merge Timelines for Auto Standards
• Focus on Fuel Economy Would Boost Profits for U.S. Car Makers
• Coulomb and ECOtality Targeted as Sipco Enforcement Expands into EV Charging Systems

Last week, a team from the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Command in Warren, MI parked a unique vehicle in the Pentagon courtyard. Dubbed the Fuel Efficiency Demonstrator-Alpha (FED-Alpha), the vehicle has all the capability of an up-armored M1114 Humvee, but with modifications that can improve fuel economy by 70%.

Efforts such as the FED-Alpha are important, because each gallon of gas counts in a war. Every military capability, every mission, and every warfighter needs a steady, reliable supply of energy to keep the country safe, today and in the future.

What that means today in Afghanistan is hard work and high risks for DoD’s logisticians and contractors, as they travel some of the world’s most dangerous and difficult terrain to move and protect the fuel warfighters need. That’s why the Department of Defense is investing in efforts to use less fuel in the first place, such as the FED-Alpha. If we can cut the volume of fuel U.S. forces consume, whether on the battlefield, in ships afloat, or in the air, we can lower our risks and costs and improve our military capabilities.

To ensure our military forces will have the fuel they need for the future, the Department has to go beyond better fuel economy. Tomorrow’s soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are going to need a greater range of energy sources, and that’s why the Department supports the goals of Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Today, U.S. military operations rely heavily on petroleum, with the same unpredictable and high fuel bills all Americans experience. For the Department of Defense, for example, a $1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately $130 million over the course of a year. And DoD personnel are well aware of the security and economic consequences of U.S. and global dependence on oil, trends that will get worse with time.

For the future, the Department is pursuing a wide variety of fuel and energy alternatives to promote and maintain a strong national defense, including solar, wind, advanced batteries and energy storage technologies, biofuels, coal-biomass-to-liquids, geothermal, waste-to-energy, and marine energy. In looking at these alternatives, the top priority is that U.S. forces have the energy they need to get the job done, but the Department also considers the second and third order effects.

As we seek energy security and independence, we don’t want to trade one security challenge for another. In that regard, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review notes that climate change “may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.” In looking at alternative fuels, we must consider climate change and other resource issues.

Section 526 restricts Federal Agencies from entering into contracts to buy alternative fuels that are more polluting than conventional fuels. The provision has not hindered the Department from purchasing the fuel we need today, worldwide, to support military missions, and that’s critical. But it also sets an important baseline in developing the fuels we need for the future.

Repeal or exemption of Section 526, as is being discussed on Capitol Hill, is at best unnecessary. Although the Department will strive to make the right choices in any case, repeal could complicate the Department’s efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters and take advantage of the promising developments in homegrown biofuels.

The Department of Defense’s recently released Operational Energy Strategy guides our efforts to improve military energy security, focusing us on energy efficiency and demand reduction, promoting a range of alternatives, and building energy considerations into our force development processes. As we improve the energy security of our armed forces, the Department hopes to make an important contribution to energy security for the whole nation.

Article by Sharon E. Burke, ASD for Operational Energy at the Department of Defense.

Related posts:

• Empowering Defense Through Energy Security
• The Case for National Security: Clean Energy
• Leading the Military Toward a More Secure Energy Future
• U.S. Military Must End Oil Dependence Within 30 Years, Report Says
• The U.S. Military and Energy Innovation

The Obama administration is considering a new fuel economy standard that would require cars and light trucks to achieve an average of 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025, an ambitious target that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions but drive up the cost of automobiles.

While still a starting point in negotiations, the new target — which was proposed during separate meetings between U.S. officials and General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler — gives an early indication of administration goals as it begins to set fuel economy standards for 2017-2025.

Last year, the Transportation Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said they would look at a standard between 47 and 62 mpg; today’s fuel economy standard is 25 mpg and will change to 35.5 in 2016.

According to a government analysis, achieving the upper end of the 2025 target would require that half of the nation’s new vehicles be gas-electric hybrids and would add $2,100 to $2,600 to the price of a car.

Last week, a group of moderate Republicans — including four former EPA administrators — urged the administration to impose tougher emissions standards for cars and light trucks.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Focus on Fuel Economy Would Boost Profits for U.S. Car Makers
• Toward a Generation of Green Vehicles: 60 MPG is Next Step
• New Fuel Economy Standard Agreed to by White House, Automakers
• US Agencies Move to Green Heavy Vehicles
• FedEx, UPS Partner with U.S. in Push to Reduce Fossil Fuel Consumption

In recent weeks, I have either received questions or read articles about how gas prices impacts the fortunes of plug-in electric vehicles and PEV manufacturers. As gas prices stretch to $4 per gallon, many are trying to figure out if that’s the trigger to make PEVs mainstream, and with it, bring PEV companies like Tesla, CODA Automotive, Fisker Automotive, and Wheego into the mainstream as well. There is a lot that goes into the equation for trying to figure out how gas prices impact startup vehicle manufacturers, so I was surprised when Morgan Stanley came out with the bold declaration that a $1 increase in gas prices equates to about a 13 percent gain in Tesla’s stock price.

The explanation of the math behind Morgan Stanley’s calculation is a not exactly linear. They claim a $1 increase in gas prices results in a $3,500 additional cost (present value) in fuel for a 25 mpg vehicle over the life of the vehicle. This increase is about 25 percent-30 percent the cost of the battery in a BEV with a $12,000 pack cost. Now the non-linear thinking comes when they determine that this results in a 13 percent increase in the stock price because buying Tesla stock is a hedge against rising oil prices.

I find it very difficult to boil down the company’s products and market strategy into the assumption that gas prices have a direct link to the company’s value. Particularly since Tesla’s main products are all playing in a market segment where gas prices carry significantly less importance – those buying $100,000 sports cars or $60,000 luxury cars are not likely to be overly concerned with fuel costs. Add to this the fact that Tesla’s next generation products are still years away, their dealer strategy is progressing at a snail’s pace, and they are years from profitability. While I do appreciate that Tesla has made tremendous strides with their powertrain business and the Model S looks to be a low-volume winner, I find it difficult to subscribe to the theory that the value of a luxury automaker is going to be that closely tied to fuel costs – even an electric automaker.

If you compare the correlations of Tesla’s stock price to that of other traditional automobile manufacturers like Ford, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and Honda, they are much higher than the correlation with the price of fuel. Not surprisingly (to me anyway), Tesla’s stock price since its IPO is most highly correlated to BMW’s stock price, another luxury automaker. And BMW is not particularly well known for their fuel economy. Tesla may argue that they are the antithesis of the traditional automotive industry, but based solely on stock values, it’s pretty clear that their fate is very closely tied to the luxury car market.

Instead, the industry as a whole will see an impact from gasoline prices in their sales over the longer haul. Companies like Ford, Toyota, and Honda that have successful small cars, hybrids, and burgeoning plug-in vehicles will see their successful vehicle strategy reflected in their stock price. Companies like GM and Chrysler, whose sales are truck and large car heavy, will see their stock price struggle a bit more as demand falls for larger vehicles. I do recognize that both of these companies have small car programs and plug-in vehicles in GM’s case, but they are not yet as successful as others.

Tesla will likely land in the middle somewhere. They will benefit from lower fuel costs, but suffer from the marketing and business challenges enumerated above.

So, how do fuel prices impact Tesla? My opinion is that in the near term, they don’t, and they certainly won’t impact them in a neat little equation of $1 to 13 percent. Morgan Stanley’s prediction of a $70 stock price is based on a long-term (15 year) forecast with revenues jumping 150 times current revenue by 2025. This type of growth is not out of the realm of possibility, if they can manage their costs, continue to grow their drivetrain business, and keep new, competitive, products coming. However, higher fuel prices just open the door for Tesla, and I’m skeptical it will ultimately drive the stock price.

Article by Dave Hurst, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• Gulf Nations’ Social Policies Playing Role in Oil Price Rises, Report Says
• Obama Takes Long View on Rising Gas Prices
• Maryland Rejects Smart Meters Due to Concerns
• Going against the Trend: For one Locality the Price of Public Transit is not Increasing?
• Solar Stocks Suck but Solar Power Growth Rocks — What’s Up?

The year is 2015. One million electric vehicles whoosh along America’s highways and the noise is, well, not likely to inspire fist-pumping rock and roll anthems. But if we reach the goal President Obama has set of one million EVs in four years, it’s the start of a quiet revolution that can ultimately free us from Big Oil.

Cars and trucks are so much a part of the American culture that it’s hard to believe we’ve been behind the wheel for barely 100 years. Henry Ford’s first Model T’s rolled off the assembly line in late 1908 — a do-everything, go-anywhere vehicle that could get up to 25 mpg. Incredibly, just over a century later, the average fuel-efficiency for all American cars and trucks is worse than the Model T’s. That’s not progress (unless you’re an oil company).

Because more than 70 percent of the oil we consume goes to transportation, we can’t break our petroleum habit without rethinking how we get around. Cars and trucks that use little or no gas will be part of the solution. But we’ll also need high-speed rail, smart transit-oriented development, and, of course, much better mass transit. Like it or not, though, Americans won’t be ready to give up driving completely anytime in the foreseeable future. If we do electric vehicles right, they won’t have to.

For one thing, we must create new infrastructure to support those million EVs. Yes, that means charging stations, but it also means developing cutting-edge battery, electric motor, and solar-charging technologies right here in the U.S. If that seems daunting, remember that when the first Model T’s came along the vast majority of our roads weren’t even paved, and yet we managed to quickly develop the infrastructure that moved us from horse power to horsepower seemingly overnight.

And while we’re figuring out how to make it easy to charge our electric cars, we also need to make sure that we’re doing it with the cleanest energy possible. Replacing cars that run on energy from oil with cars that have run on energy from a coal-fired power plant, just replaces one problem with another.

The best way forward — solve both problems at once. Get those million cars on the road and aggressively move to cleaner sources of electricity. That’s why the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign is actually also an important part of moving Beyond Oil. (And with at least 150 proposed coal plants stopped so far, it’s a successful one, too!)

Finally, no matter what anyone says, the only realistic solution to the buffeting our economy takes from unpredictable gas-price hikes is to reduce demand at the pump. If there’s one thing the success of the first generation of hybrid cars showed, it’s that people are ready to adopt new technologies if it means they can use less gas. And when it comes to fuel economy, it’s hard to beat a car or truck that doesn’t need gas at all.

I’ve never met an EV owner who didn’t both love their ride and relish their freedom from the pump. Now if we can get a band like Arcade Fire or Gogol Bordello to crank out some electrifying new EV anthems, our quiet revolution will have a 21st-century soundtrack.

Want to tell President Obama that you’re eager to see the EV revolution get rolling? Send him a message in support of one million EVs by 2015.

Article by Michael Brune, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Nissan’s Leaf Named Car of the Year at Tokyo Motor Show
• Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Help the Motor City Get Back in Charge
• Toyota Tends Gardner with Hybrid Vehicle Patent Win
• Two New Electric Concept Cars You’ve Got To See
• Volvo Introduces a Diesel Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

(Reuters) – U.S. federal government and California regulators will coordinate announcements of proposed fuel economy and emissions requirements for 2017-2025, the agencies said on Monday.

California will now release its fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for 2017-2025 model year cars and light-duty trucks simultaneously with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department by September 1.

The California Air Resources Board had planned to issue its new standards by March, while the federal government had said it would release its standards by the end of September.

“Today’s announcement is a big step forward, but it is only the beginning,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

By working together, LaHood said the agencies will be able to set a standard that “works for automakers across the country.”

Automakers, represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, are pleased with the coordinated arrangement, said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the alliance.

The coordination makes planning easier for automakers who must make product decisions years in advance of production, the alliance has said.

“Only the federal government can balance nationwide the need to reduce oil consumption and emissions with the preservation of a vital manufacturing sector that is a cornerstone of a productive national economy,” said the alliance statement.

By 2016, U.S. average fuel economy is set to reach 35.5 miles per gallon. In the most recent year measured by the EPA, the U.S. average fuel economy was 22.5 mpg, up 3.1 mpg from six years earlier, the EPA said in November.

California can set its own vehicle emissions standards with federal approval and it received the go-ahead to do so from the Obama administration. But when the federal government announced a national vehicle fuel economy and emissions-cutting plan that was strong like California’s, the state agreed to harmonize its rules.

Article by Ayesha Rascoe and Bernie Woodall; Edited by Lisa Shumaker and Sofina Mirza-Reid; appearing courtesy Reuters.

Related posts:

• EPA Dips a Cautious Toe in the Tepid Waters of Carbon Dioxide Regulation
• Toward a Generation of Green Vehicles: 60 MPG is Next Step
• California’s Car Rules Help Remake U.S. Auto Industry
• LA Auto Show Crowns 2011 Green Car of the Year
• Breaking Light Bulb Myths

The French-American Electric Vehicle Technology Forum I attended yesterday in Long Beach, CA was absolutely delightful. The event focused on bringing together EV business interests that might foster the development of electric transportation in France – but let me tell you: they have a ton going on there, whether we Americans are involved or not.

I was particularly taken by their four “clusters” – geographically defined, joint technology-based initiatives that attempt to extract synergies from companies, research organizations, and educational institutions. Each of these clusters (Loire Valley, Paris-Normandy, Alsace/Rhine, and Rhone/Alps) is developing different types of solutions in electric transportation, from cable cars to trams to urban package delivery vans to buses and large trucks. Enormous sums of money and huge numbers of people from both the public and private sectors are coming together to work on electric vehicles from an amazing array of disciplines: sociology, public education, breakthrough components and battery technologies, innovative charging solutions, and so forth.

I was also fascinated to learn the breakdown of the EU 4.5 billion that goes into auto R&D in France, ordered as follows:

1) Alternative internal-combustion vehicle projects (e.g., biofuels)

2) Hybrid/electric power trains

3) Vehicle structure and materials

4) Intelligent transportation systems: ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems), traffic management, vehicle-to-grid, etc.

The R&D outlay here is led by Peugeot-Citroen and Renault (both of which have EV projects on a planetary scale), but one could not say that spending is dominated by those two; dozens of other organizations are investing mightily in making France the most advanced nation on Earth in terms of EV technology and deployment.

Of course, there was the occasional reminder of how Europeans and Americans differ in terms of their thinking about this subject in general. Where Europeans understand the imperative to deal with the threat that climate change represents to us all, it appears that Americans are one of few people on the planet who debate the subject – or simply don’t care. “Want to sell an American an EV?” several presenters asked. “Whatever you do, don’t mention the environment. Talk about fuel economy. Make sure they understand that it is less expensive to operate and represents very little inconvenience or threat to their mobility.”

I kind of lowered my head at these points and hoped no one would notice my penny-loafers or the cut of my lapels.

Related posts:

• High Speed Rail in France: Le TGV — C’est Cool.
• France First country to Ban Fracking, New Jersey First US State
• The Top Ten Highlights of the French Cleantech Cluster
• Clean Tech Event: Smart Grid Bilateral Trade and Investment Opportunities
• French Loan to Finance South African Eskom Wind Project

It looks like the debate on fuel economy for plug-in hybrids rages on unabated. General Motors just announced that its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid car will carry a better efficiency rating that the Toyota Prius (long been recognized as the industry leader in the category). The fact that this is like comparing apples with trombones doesn’t seem to be of any major concern to GM, the EPA, or anyone else.

According to Sharon Terlep, writing for the Wall Street Journal:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) handed down three different mileage ratings for the Volt, based on how it is driven. This marks the federal agency’s first attempt to hand down a miles per gallon equivalent or MPGe rating. The Volt sticker prominently displays 93 as the miles-per-gallon equivalent when the car is driving on the battery alone; 37 miles-per-gallon is the figure when the gas engine is delivering power to the electric drive system. In smaller letters, 60 miles per gallon is listed as the comparable to other compact cars.

93 miles per gallon – when driven in a mode that doesn’t use any gasoline? Doesn’t this require clarification?

If I were writing the charter for the EPA, it would include the notion of elucidating and to trying help consumers wrap their wits around a new area of technology — not further confusing them. Maybe that’s why I didn’t get the job.

Related posts:

• New U.S. Ratings System Proposed For Vehicle Emissions and Efficiency
• More Than 1 Million Electric Cars Projected to Be on Asian Roads by 2015
• Honda Civic Hybrid Lawsuit: Customers Get Rebate or Cash-Back Option
• Fuel Economy: How Traditional Car Models Compete With Hybrid Vehicles
• Hybrid Tech Expands, but the Name Fades

For those familiar with big cities, they are well aware of the ever present taxi sluggishly moving through the streets and making frequent stops. Obviously they generate plenty of gas emissions. Better Place, a leading electric vehicles service provider with the support of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is planning on bringing a switchable battery, electric taxi program to the San Francisco Bay Area.

San Francisco became in 2005 one of the first cities to introduce hybrid vehicles for taxi service, with a fleet of 15 Ford Escape Hybrids. The original Escape Hybrids were retired after 300,000 miles per vehicle.

Meanwhile, two electric taxi prototypes have recently debuted in London. They are vehicles from Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz, two of Europe’s largest producers of taxi cabs. There is a third demonstration project in Tokyo, a city that has some 60,000 taxis — more than London, Paris, and New York combined.

In 2000 North America’s first hybrid taxi was put into service in Vancouver, British Columbia, operating a 2001 Toyota Prius, which traveled over 206,000 miles before being retired.

Several major cities in the world are adding hybrid taxis to their taxicab fleets, led by San Francisco where hybrid represent almost 50% of its taxicab fleet as of March 2010, and New York City where hybrids taxis represent around 28% of the total fleet by mid 2010. Unlike conventional gasoline cars, hybrids get better fuel economy, do well at slow speeds or idling, and have cleaner emissions.

In August 2008 Boston mandated that all its 1,825 taxi fleet must be converted to hybrids by 2015. As of March 2009 about 10% of the taxicab fleet were already hybrids as owner voluntarily began using hybrids.

Denver and Seattle introduced their first hybrid taxis in 2007, as did Arlington; Virginia now has a fleet of 85 environmentally friendly hybrid cabs. Chicago is following New York City’s lead by proposing a mandate for Chicago’s entire fleet of 6,700 taxicabs to become hybrid by January 2014.

In October 2009, a fleet of 26 Toyota Prius began operating in Phoenix, Arizona, becoming the country’s second all-hybrid taxicab fleet after Arlington, Virginia.

Better Place, which plans to introduce its battery switching technology in Israel and Denmark in late 2011, is demonstrating the world’s first switchable battery electric taxi in Tokyo as well as its plans for San Francisco. For the Tokyo electric taxi project, Better Place and Nihon Kotsu, Tokyo’s largest taxi operator, are operating three switchable battery electric taxis.

These major cities are leading the trend towards low or no emission taxis by using environmental policies as its goal.

For further information: http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/11/san-francisco-see-electric-taxis.cfm or http://www.greencar.com/articles/electric-taxi-cabs-gaining-traction-multiple-continents.php

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy ENN.

Related posts:

• Electric Car Battery Switching to Compete With Fast Charging
• EV Manufacturers Got Government Money, Now They Need to Show Results
• Food Recycling Program A Major Success in San Francisco
• Inductive Charging Offers Advantages in Electric Transportation
• San Francisco Pledges Astounding 100% Green Energy by 2020