This week, New York Governor Cuomo outlined his priorities for the year ahead in his State of the State address. Among his top initiatives for a building a better New York? More solar!

Touting the state’s successful development of other renewable resources, Cuomo remarked that,

“Now it is time to focus more attention on exploiting our solar potential.”

With rising electricity needs, plenty of sunshine, and a local workforce primed for solar jobs, that potential is tremendous indeed. To harness it, the Governor suggests increasing large, commercial solar projects while also supporting small and medium residential and commercial systems. With an emphasis on much needed job growth, Cuomo has set his sights on quadrupling NY solar capacity by 2013 and beyond. And along with those leaders from the business community, environmental advocates and organized labor, Vote Solar stood up and applauded the Governor’s solar vision.

The Governor’s proposal directly in line with the early years of the solar growth path included as part of last year’s New York Power Act. Passed by the legislature and signed by Cuomo himself, that legislation included a cost-benefit study for a more aggressive 5,000 megawatts of solar. (The results of that study are due out later this month, so stay tuned).

The New York Solar Jobs Act would make good on that promise, providing the necessary blueprint for 5,000 MW of solar development of all sized by 2026. In doing so it would stimulate immediate investment in solar jobs and infrastructure and lay the foundation for long-term solar leadership. Building a solar market that is comprehensive, robust and stable will mean quality jobs, clean air, reliable electricity and a bright economic future for generations of New Yorkers.

First the 5,000 MW study. Now the State of the State. It’s clear that New York plans to make a solar move in 2012. Let’s make that move worthy of the Empire State.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• California Governor Jerry Brown Urges Action on Clean Energy
• Arizona Lands Major Solar Power Plant
• Ohio Tax Reform Clears Path For Solar
• Industry Leaders Share their Recipe for Achieving Brown’s 12 GW Renewable Vision
• NJ Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan

The US Department of Energy’s reputation is now enshrined as the agency that Republican presidential contender Rick Perry wants to dismantle – if only he could remember its name. But a recent report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences offers a different direction for the federal agency, one that may not make it more memorable, but a bit more people-centered.

The academy tackles a problem that beguiles the energy industry. Now that we have the technology that lets householders take more control of their energy destiny, how do we inspire them to do so?

The question is central to energy efficiency efforts because smart technologies, such as home energy displays and cell-phone controlled thermostats, offer new ways to save energy. A lot of energy – and therefore money – is at stake. Homes account for about 30–40 percent of US energy consumption. So cutting household energy use by just 20 percent would reduce total national energy use 7.5 percent, according to the report.

We can blame the energy industry for our lack of interest in home energy management, or credit the industry, depending on how you look at it. Utilities have done their job too well. Energy flows invisibly into our homes. Or as Steven Koonin, DOE undersecretary for science, says in the report: “One of the great triumphs of modern society is that we’ve hidden the infrastructure. Nobody really understands where electricity, gas, or water come from.”

Now that we want people to be aware, how do we make energy infrastructure visible, at least psychologically?

The academy says it’s time for the energy industry to seek answers within the social sciences, a realm it’s rarely delved into. Drawing from a two-day workshop the academy held in May, the report highlights several places were human nature and energy realities collide.

* People don’t trust government or institutions. In fact, trust in almost every major American institution has declined since the 1960s. But our trust can be re-won, albeit not easily, if we’re invited to participate in the creation of policy and programs.
* Humans are not rational. We make decisions based on incomplete information or the advice of trusted acquaintances who may not know much. Arguments by industry experts won’t win us over, but we may start saving energy if we think it will enhance our social status.
* An energy efficiency paradox exists. Even if people can save money, they may not pursue energy savings. Part of the problem is a perception that energy savings technologies lack quality, as in misconceptions that efficient lighting must be hard on the eyes.
* Making our homes more energy efficient needs to be easy, and is often not. “Poor marketing, delayed incentives, burdensome paperwork, and uncertain product quality” characterize too many home retrofit programs, says the report.
* Even if energy efficiency produces long-term savings, people often will avoid spending the money on retrofits or new appliances if upfront costs are high.

There are no easy answers here. The report recommends that the DOE’s number crunching arm, the Energy Information Administration, begin gathering data that will help social scientists figure out why and how we consume energy. The report acknowledges, though, that any attempt to expand the DOE to do this work may be met with political resistance at this time.

For those interested in the topic of energy and human behavior, look to more information likely to emerge later this month from the annual Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference that will be held in Washington, DC.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Federal Agencies Plan for Sustainability
• Instructions for Implementing Sustainable Locations for Federal Facilities
• Greening the Supply Chain
• Pickens Plan & Energy Policy Act Challenged By Earthjustice Suit
• Energy Savings?! Knock, knock…any CleanTechie at home?

I wrote back in January about how more private sector jobs had been created in 2010 than in Bush’s entire 8 years in office. I think this was a significant accomplishment. But there were and are a number of things hindering continued growth, some more complicated than others. But knowing how American voters vote (i.e. with the economy), Obama’s got to find a way to address everything he can to get his job groove back and get re-elected in 2012.

Environmental Regulations are Good for the Economy & Jobs

First things first, environmental regulations create jobs. Of course, the Tea Party won’t tell you this, as its whole (stated) agenda is to limit government efforts to clean up industry.

Numerous macro-scale and micro-sale studies have shown that environmental regulations over the last 10+ years have spurred great economic growth and created numerous jobs. And why wouldn’t they? They make industry develop cleaner technologies (which creates jobs). They make industry do more to take care of the environment we all rely on (which creates jobs). A report by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) found, last year, that clean air and clean water regulations cost the U.S. about $26 to $29 billion from 1999-2009, but their benefits ranged from $82 to $533 billion.

Furthermore, if you think about the thousands and thousands of endangered plants and animals and maintaining healthy biodiversity in the world, it takes people to monitor these endangered species and ensure that they survive.

Larger, Macro-scale Job Issues

Next, it’s worth pointing out that we’re facing job trends far beyond the realm of the Obama administration, and have been for a long time. As Fareed Zakaria of the Chicago Times nicely summarizes,

… for 20 years, America has had huge difficulties creating jobs. After every recession since the Second World War, once gross domestic product recovered to pre-recession levels, employment also returned to pre-recession levels within about six months.

Wow, right? But that’s not all. A lot of our previous job growth was in government and healthcare, which can’t keep growing at the rates they were.

While the causes for these long-term trends are not certain, two big factors are widely considered to be a large factor:

1. the tremendous growth of IT over the past couple decades has reduced the need for human employees in many businesses and sectors;

2. globalization and relaxing of trade regulations has made it very easy and financially logical for U.S. businesses to relocate many of their jobs overseas to countries where they can pay much less for the work.

How could Obama tackle such phenomena? That’s a hard question.

The Tea Party

I think it’s clear to anyone who has looked into the matter at all that two of our best options for creating good, long-term jobs in the U.S. are by 1. making the U.S. a clean energy research, development, and manufacturing center and 2. investing in large, long-term infrastructure projects (which are sorely needed anyway).

These are probably two of our best hopes for job creation. Cutting taxes for large businesses and the richest of the rich is not going to help. They are already raking in record-breaking profits. If they wanted to spend more money and create jobs in the process, they could now. They’re not.

While Obama has had some success in creating jobs through clean energy investment and environmental regulations, it has been a central goal of the Tea-Party-led Republican party from day one of his presidency (or before that) to make sure he does not succeed, to make Obama a one-term president. That does seem to override it’s supposed interest in creating U.S. jobs and it has held numerous job-creation policies of the Obama administration hostage or trimmed them down so much that the were less than effective.

The fact that making Obama a failure is in line with letting industry pollute at an unprecedented rate makes it that much easier for the Tea Party to block Obama’s best hopes for economic success. Global citizens, Tea Party leaders are not. Solar and wind power pioneers, Tea Party leaders are not. U.S. job creators, Tea Party leaders are not. Protecters of the wealthiest of the wealthy, Tea Party leaders seem to be. And, for now, Obama can’t get much done with them controlling so much of Congress.

But, if he doesn’t find a way to have more influence, exert more power, he could be out of a job in 2012 as well. Peter Nicholas of the LATimes reports:

Pollster Stanley B. Greenberg, who polled for Clinton’s White House, said voters had little patience for political leaders who limited policy proposals to what the opposition would support. “White House officials can “get trapped in ‘what can get through Congress’ and the constraints of that debate,” Greenberg said, recalling similar arguments in the Clinton years. “Voters want you to break out of that” and answer the question, “What are you battling for?” he said.

Article by Zachary Shahan, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?
• Fox News Tries to Link Obama to Carter via White House Solar Panels
• Waxman-Markey: DOA (Dead on Arrival)?
• Obama’s Energy Programs: New Polll Shows Broad Public Support
• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill

The U.S. stands at an energy crossroads. With or without new direction from policymakers, huge sums will be invested in the electricity system as aging infrastructure is replaced and new infrastructure is built to meet our country’s growing energy needs. In the 11 states that comprise the Western Interconnect, that amounts to more than $200 billion over the next two decades.

We know that this money will be spent. The remaining question is: how do we spend it? We can maintain a business-as-usual approach or intentionally invest those dollars in a new clean energy economy. Decisions made today will have economic and environmental consequences for decades to come, so we’d better choose wisely. A new report we helped release with Western Grid Group — Western Grid 2050: Contrasting Futures, Contrasting Fortunes — is intended to inform that choice. In addition to our 25 esteemed industry and conservation compadres in the WCEA, the launch got some extra wattage from former Colorado Governor and our own Solar Champion award winner Bill Ritter.

Ritter called Western Grid 2050 “one of the best and most comprehensive things I’ve seen that tells a region of the U.S. this is how we can move and do it in a fashion that will make a meaningful difference in the quality of life in the West.” He’s not kidding when he calls it comprehensive. The report provides a detailed analysis of what the Business As Usual and Clean Energy Vision cases look like for the 11 western states in 2030 and 2050 — and the first comprehensive overview of the job, economic, environmental, energy security and public health implications of two very different futures. It’s a big report. (For those wanting the cliffs notes version – check out the very helpful summary fact sheet).

Needless to say, we think the Clean Energy Vision and its many benefits is the right choice for the West. The report goes further to demonstrate that the CEV cases are absolutely achievable, but they’ll require more than the isolated examples of state leadership we’re already (happily) seeing on clean energy. It requires region-wide changes to system infrastructure, policy, and operations in order to reliably and cost-effectively meet the West’s growing power needs. That means implementing distributed renewables like rooftop solar, efficiency, demand response & smart grid capabilities at scale. It means resource planning that includes large-scale wind and solar as a non-negotiable piece of our energy mix rather than outliers that require more natural gas development. It means regional cooperation and resource sharing across the now-balkanized Balancing Areas. And it means a true transition away from centralized fossil generation.

It’s not technology or cost or resource adequacy that could stand between the West and a clean energy future. It’s inertia. Without intentional policymaking and planning, the Western electricity grid of 2030 and 2050 will instead look very much like the grid of the last century. Leadership from state regulators, lawmakers and grid planners will make all the difference. The good news is that the states already have a proud tradition of driving progress on clean power in this country.

Ritter said it best: “In my time as Governor, Colorado saw tremendous benefit from our commitment to clean energy. I call on Western state policymakers to similarly prioritize clean energy and to reach across state lines to help build a stronger energy future for the West. We can’t afford to wait for Washington, nor should we. The West is the land of frontiers, of pioneers and innovation. Let’s make good on that heritage. Let’s break with business-as-usual and build a more prosperous, safe, and sustainable energy future.”

Bill Ritter Introduces the Clean Energy Vision from Western Grid Group on Vimeo.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• What’s the Return on Investment on Solar Thermal?
• Geothermal Power Could Change Energy and Emissions Landscape in West Virginia
• Solar-Powered Window Shutters – As Seen at West Coast Green
• China Versus US in Commitment to Renewables — How Much is a Trillion?
• What Brings Sustainable Transport in Urban Centers?

A new study says the explosive growth of urban areas worldwide over the next two decades poses significant risks to human populations and the global environment, from the loss of agricultural land and wildlife habitat to increased vulnerability to the effects of climate change.

Using satellite data on urban growth, the study calculates that the world’s total urban area quadrupled in size from 1970 to 2000 — an increase of about 22,400 square miles.

By 2030, that urban footprint will expand by another 590,000 square miles to accommodate the more than 1.47 billion additional people expected to be living in the world’s cities, according to the study, conducted by researchers from four U.S universities — Yale, Arizona State, Texas A&M, and Stanford.

“[Cities are] going to be growing and expanding into forests, biological hotspots, savannas, coastlines — sensitive and vulnerable places,” said Karen Seto, an associate professor of urban development at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and lead author of the study, published in the online journal PLoS ONE.

According to the study, urban areas have been developing most rapidly along coasts, where people and infrastructure are vulnerable to flooding, tsunamis, and other natural disasters.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• What Brings Sustainable Transport in Urban Centers?
• Cool Roofs Could Offset Two Years of CO2 Emissions
• How will Regionalized Global Growth Affect Sustainability Planning?
• Over-Consumption Causes More Emissions Than Population Growth?
• China’s CO2 Emissions Growth Mainly Driven By Construction

The plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) arena will soon get more crowded as automakers Mitsubishi and Toyota are in the final stages of preparing to compete head on with the Nissan Leaf and the Chevrolet Volt in North America. While the new entrants are agreed that there is great enthusiasm for PEVs, their contrary views on fast charging of vehicles reinforces the split that is complicating investment in infrastructure.

Mitsubishi will begin delivering the 2012 Mitsubishi i battery electric vehicle in November to dealerships on the West Coast as well as in Hawaii, according to David Patterson, the company’s chief engineer for mobile emissions. Sales of the vehicle in Japan (sold there as the i-MiEV) have been brisk, Patterson said, stating that “we can’t build enough of them.” The car was recently rated at 112 MPGe by the EPA, and is estimated to be able to travel 98 miles in all electric. Both numbers surpass that of the competing Nissan Leaf.

Like the Leaf, Mitsubishi’s BEV has an optional DC fast charging port that utilizes the CHAdeMO technology originally developed in Japan. Support for CHAdeMO is divided in the PEV industry, with many automakers waiting for the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to determine a DC standard before offering fast charging capabilities. Patterson said he wishes there were global agreement on a standard, but the company moved forward because the CHAdeMO was the best available option when the vehicle went into production.

Mitsubishi is planning a line of PEVs, including a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) for model year 2014. Patterson said the company expects that 20 percent of vehicles produced by Mitsubishi would feature an electric drive in 2020.

Meanwhile, Toyota is gearing up for the release of two PEVs in 2012, the Prius Plug-in Hybrid, and the RAV4 EV. The Prius PHEV will be available for sale in the first quarter of 2012. Toyota has been testing the vehicle with 160 consumers across the U.S. and has had positive feedback from consumers, according to Geri Yoza, the National Business Planning Manager of Advanced Vehicle Marketing. Yoza said consumers charged the vehicle more frequently than anticipated (about 10x per week), and yet the electricity cost was lower than they thought at about $150 for the entire six-week trial.

The Toyota RAV4 EV will make its comeback after first being sold 15 years ago. The vehicle won’t be made available to consumers, Yoza said, instead they are focusing on “very strategic applications” such as fleets and car sharing programs. Despite being a BEV that could benefit from fast charging, the RAV4 EV will not include a CHAdeMO charging port. Yoza said Toyota will not offer fast charging on any vehicles until the SAE determines a standard.

CHAdeMO chargers are being installed in several cities in the U.S. thanks to stimulus funding provided by the Department of Energy. Private industry companies such as retail store operators and real estate companies considering installing charging equipment have to weigh the pros of being able to attract Nissan and Mitsubishi BEV owners today versus the consequences of the SAE and many other automakers adopting a different standard. Retrofits of DC charging equipment to add a second port are possible, but the added expense may dissuade some potential customers.

Mitsubishi’s Patterson will be participating in a panel discussion of DC fast charging at the Plug-in 2011 conference in Raleigh, NC, beginning on July 18.

Article by John Gartner, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• Electric Car Charging Stations Coming to Heart of Oil Country in Texas
• Electric Vehicle Charging Network in London Nearly Doubled
• Study Projects 4.7 Million Electric Vehicle Charging Stations by 2015
• EV Charging Stations Being Built by Major U.S. Retailers
• Vermont Gets Surge of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

As a parent, I don’t expect world changing results when I gripe at my kids. I’m happy if they at least leave a path through the dirty clothes on their bedroom floors.

If you’re like that too, you’ll be a little sheepish when you hear the story of inventor and journalist Pierce Hoover. His 13-year-old son, Nash, kept forgetting to shut off the lights, so Hoover made a very big deal about it, the kind that changes the world.

Hoover took Nash to a local gym to ride an exercise bike that measures energy output in watts. He challenged his son to pedal hard enough to generate enough power to light a 100-watt bulb. Nash found that it took a lot of sweat.

“I wanted to instill in him the awareness that electric power, while inexpensive, doesn’t just flow effortlessly from a socket. Electric energy is the product of a complex infrastructure that runs back through the grid to places where big wheels labor and massive boilers consume natural resources, create heat, and emit waste gasses,” said Hoover in his blog at PopSci.com

Then Hoover and Nash got an idea. Would it be possible to cross the country peddling their way on just a light bulb worth of energy each day?

With a team of engineer friends, the father-son duo built a human-electric hybrid vehicle with a motor fueled by a battery and kinetic energy generated through pedaling. They leave Virginia June 2 to cross the country to Oregon, a 4,500 mile trip, in the cart-like two-seater, which is powered by a 100-watt battery.

It’s going to be a slow, but scenic trip, reports Hoover who works for PopSci’s parent, Bonnier Corporation. Since the vehicle only travels 25 miles per hour at top speed, they cannot use major throughways. Instead, they’ll follow the TransAmerica Bike Trail, which will add about 1,200 extra miles to their journey.

Rationed at 2,400 watts a day, the father and son will take a three hour rest each day as they recharge their batteries and that of the car, which only holds 1,400 watts. They expect to travel about 60 miles per day.

What kind of mileage does the cart get? As much as 1,000 miles per gallon, according to a news release issued by Popular Science Magazine, which is sponsoring the trip along with GE. The father and son have dubbed the trip the “Eco Tour” and say they will spread a message of conservation.

“The Eco Tour is a fantastic example of technological ingenuity combined with personal conviction, and we’re thrilled to bring our readers along for the journey,” said Mark Jannot, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Science.

Okay, so maybe the Saudis aren’t quaking at the sight of Hoover and Nash pedaling down the road. But still, Hoover is likely to make not only his son, but a lot of other people, think in a more meaningful way about producing and using energy.

You can follow their journey at www.popsci.com/ecotour or twitter.com/popsciecotour.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Dow Chemical and Saudi Arabia’s KAUST University Vow To Clean Up Environment
• As Saudi Crude Flows to China, U.S. Need for Biofuels Grows
• Policy Efficacy: Feed-in Tariff vs. Competitive Bidding
• Gulf Nations’ Social Policies Playing Role in Oil Price Rises, Report Says
• Green University: Saudi Arabia’s KAUST With Eco-friendly Environment

More than 50 percent of the 64,000 new transit buses expected to arrive on roadways worldwide by 2015 will be fueled by alternative sources of energy, compared with 28 percent of new bus deliveries in 2010, according to a report by U.S.-based Pike Research.

The most significant growth will occur in North America and Asia, where more than 60 percent of all new buses will be powered with alternative fuels within five years.

“Of the various options available for making mass transit cleaner, buses are the easiest to implement because changes can be completed without significant new or upgraded infrastructure,” said Dave Hurst, a senior analyst at Pike.

According to the report, hybrid electric buses will have the smallest impact on infrastructure since they usually use diesel fuel; while natural gas buses are less expensive, they require fueling stations. While the number of hydrogen fuel cell buses will continue to increase, their growth will be small compared with other alternative fuels because they require hydrogen refueling points.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Developing World Fights Pollution & Traffic With Low-Emission Buses
• School Bus Pollution
• The ‘B’ Factor: Use of Biodiesel Expands
• DOE Transportation Budget Is All About EVs
• EU Must Fully Switch to Renewable Energy by 2050, Experts Say

As the first non-Japanese head of a Japanese automaker, Carlos Ghosn shook up the Nissan Motor Co. with his blunt, aggressive style. Now he’s made perhaps his boldest move yet: committing his company’s future — and his own considerable reputation — to the success of the new all-electric Leaf.

The Leaf, which last month was named 2011 World Car of the Year, is now being sold in the U.S. and Japan, with plans to expand to other global markets next year, and Nissan has invested $5 billion — more than half of its 2007-2012 research budget — in the development of electric vehicles. But Ghosn says he has no doubt that the electric car’s moment has arrived.

“For people who are really interested in zero-emission mobility, with a reasonable performance, the electric car is the best solution,” he says, noting that after years of false starts, “the necessary technology is now ready.”

In an interview with Yale Environment 360 editor Roger Cohn, Ghosn discussed why he believes electric cars will represent 10 percent of the world market by 2020; how private businesses, not governments, will provide the necessary network of public charging stations; and how China will soon become the biggest new market for electric vehicles.

“The first cars in the industry were electric cars,” Ghosn said. “So when people say you’re pioneering electric cars, we’re going to say that electric cars always existed. What we’re pioneering is affordable electric cars — that’s where the revolution is taking place.”

Yale Environment 360: In the new film, Revenge of the Electric Car, Dan Neil of the Wall Street Journal says you’re putting your career and Nissan’s future on the line by going for the electric car and the Leaf. You’re known as a strong-willed and bottom line-oriented executive. What made you decide to make the leap to the Leaf?

Carlos Ghosn: I think obviously the media exaggerated a little bit the risk and the stakes and everything, which is normal. But one of the reasons that we are undertaking this investment is the fact that it makes a lot of sense. We have the technology ready not only to develop the products but all the components that lead to the products — like the battery, the motor, the inverter, et cetera. We have this technology, and we think that the performance that we reach is the performance that makes the product attractive to the consumer.

We have an analysis as a corporation that zero-emission cars are part of the future, no matter what. We can discuss about when and how much, but nobody today can seriously say there is no place for zero-emission mobility in the panorama of the car industry. So all of this led to an obvious decision, that if we have the technology and we can produce an affordable car that will have good performance, well, we’re going to need to launch a product.

e360: Why the decision to go to an electric car instead of a hybrid?

Ghosn: These are two completely different products, it’s not either/or. We have hybrids and we are marketing hybrids in our lineup, and we have electric cars. I don’t think it’s either/or. I think there are some uses for hybrids that make a lot of sense, and there are some uses for zero-emission mobility that make perfect sense. And I think the challenge that many car manufacturers are facing is to make sure that they have a long list of technologies being implemented in different products and for different uses that are absolutely tailored for the need of the consumer. And the electric car is one of them.

e360: Psychologically, Americans, in particular, who are used to the freedom of their wheels, are going to think about the Leaf’s range of 100 miles or less, and are going to think, ‘Is that going to be enough for me?’

Obviously, for a lot of consumers, the range of 100 miles is not enough.”

Ghosn: Obviously, for a lot of consumers, the range of 100 miles is not enough. It’s obvious. That’s why we’re not saying the electric car is going to represent 50 percent of the marketplace. We’re talking about 10 percent of the marketplace in 10 years. Even 10 percent of the global marketplace is about 7 million cars. Coming out of 20,000, which were sold last year, that is a tremendous margin of progress. I don’t dispute the fact that for many people in the public, the range for electric cars may represent a reason for hesitating or saying, ‘It’s not for me now.’ But for all the people who are really interested in zero-emission mobility, with a reasonable performance, the electric car is the best solution. And my opinion is this represents more than 10 percent of the market. That’s our first step. Within the next 10 years, 10 percent of the marketplace will be made by electric cars. And this will increase as a function of the performance of the electric car.

e360: And so, 10 years, 10 percent. What about in 25 years? Do you see electric cars making up a larger share of the market?

Ghosn: Without any doubt. But it doesn’t make sense to make forecast 25 years down the road, knowing that the performance of the product is going to change a lot. The range is going to get bigger, the battery is going to get smaller, cheaper, the car is going to have much better performance. So I think trying to guess today what’s going to be the performance of the car three or four years down the road is useless. I think we will revise the forecast with the revision of the performance of the car. But there is no doubt for me that the bottom line now is 10 percent of the global market 10 years down the road.

e360: It was interesting to me what you said this morning, which I hadn’t expected you to say, about not being that concerned about cities and governments doing the infrastructure for charging stations, and looking more to the marketplace to do that. Could you explain that a little?

Ghosn: The government’s responsibility is to create the condition for the market to perform — to initiate technology, or to offer the basic conditions for this technology to flourish, or to serve as a catalyst for something to happen. That’s where I see government cannot be replaced. But then after this, the faster you move to market forces, the better it is. That’s what needs to happen in terms of infrastructure. That’s what I meant by saying the faster we move toward private enterprises and market forces, where the electric car is considered an opportunity, where businesses can bring people to their store or people to their business or people to their fuel station. The faster we get there the better.

e360: Are there models for that now that are doing that, or prototypes or places that are doing that? Are there private businesses in the marketplace that have built recharging stations?

Ghosn: It is too early, but what I can tell you is that we have a partnership in Germany with a utility company, RWE. And the CEO of RWE told me that he is very interested in making investment in some cities in terms of infrastructure in order to be able to sell his electricity. So this is a great example about how markets and entrepreneurship are going to do the job.

e360: It takes right now to charge the Leaf, how long? I guess it depends on the charging station itself?

Ghosn: Yes, if you are on a slow normal charge, it takes eight hours.

e360: That would be for home use?

Ghosn: Yes, but if you go for a fast-charging device, 30 minutes.

e360: And that’s what you would envision for the supermarket or the movie theater that might put in a charging station?

Ghosn: Exactly. The fast-charging station should develop in many areas because it will make sense for malls or fuel stations or trading places to have the user of the electric car stopping by, fast charge their car, shop your shop, or buy whatever they want.

e360: Which could also be an image builder for some companies that want to present themselves as green businesses. You were saying that about rental companies, but would also be an image builder for retail operations.

Ghosn: Exactly. On top of the business that you’re driving, you have also a question of image.

e360: You mentioned this morning hydrogen fuel cell cars. Nissan has some in development?

Ghosn: We have prototype. We are testing fuel cell cars today. We are developing fuel cell cars.

e360: Do you have any projections about when you would have one?

Fuel cell technology is probably five years behind electric cars.”

Ghosn: No, today, no. Today we don’t have any projection. But the fuel cell technology is probably five years behind electric cars. Five years behind not in terms of technological knowledge, but in terms of cost reduction and affordability.

e360: You mentioned this morning you’ve been getting good feedback on the Leaf from users. Is the U.S. the first place you’re introducing it?

Ghosn: No. Japan and the U.S. are the two places.

e360: I think it was mentioned 5,000 are on order in the U.S. How many in Japan? Do you think you’ll be able to fill those orders for the Leaf this year.

Ghosn: Yes. This year, yes.

e360: In Japan, they’re on order as well, or they’re actually on the road now?

Ghosn: There are a lot of cars on the road. Production is going up. As you know, in the U.S. we reopened order-taking for the Leaf after closing it for a while.

e360: For the consumer, what do you see the prime selling point or attractiveness? Is it the green aspect or saving money?

Ghosn: Objectively, you have plenty of advantages for the consumer. Depending on the consumer, he’ll weigh some aspects more than others. There is an economic advantage. When you make your calculation about the cost of the car, plus the cost of electricity, plus the cost of gasoline, et cetera, today it’s a great buy. Particularly with the price of oil moving on, and the price of gasoline being more than four dollars on the gallon. So it’s a great buy. Second, it’s a good environmental decision. A lot of people want to be driving or be driven in a car that is neutral to the environment. No emission, no gasoline, no noise, nothing. That’s number two.

And then number three, is the driving pleasure of the electric car, which is unique. You get into this car, there is no vibration, there is no noise, there is no smell, it’s great acceleration, so the driving performance of the car itself can be also a reason why some consumers would say, ‘I like this car.’

It’s a great buy, it’s a unique driving experience, and at the same time for those people who are conscious about the environment, it’s a good thing to do. Some consumers are more attuned to consider the environment, others more attuned to consider the economy. But objectively, the zero-emission technology and the electric car offer a lot of advantages.

e360: You’ve noted that you were surprised and somewhat embarrassed to be considered a pioneer in all this, because it seemed like such an obvious thing that should have been done already. Can you explain that a little bit?

Ghosn: Well, the first cars in the industry were electric. So when people say you’re pioneering electric cars, we’re going to say electric cars always existed. What we’re pioneering is affordable electric cars. This is where the revolution is taking place…

e360: Why do you think it took this long?

Ghosn: Because at a certain point in time, when the necessary technology is ready, and you make your own analysis, and you know that you need to move into this direction, someone’s going to have to say, ‘OK, we’re going to bite the bullet, and we’re going to move forward.’ In every technology, somebody’s going to have to move first. It’s us, and we’re proud of moving first because we think it’s going to bring a lot of benefit. It’s going to be a great investment. But on top of that it’s going to bring a lot to the image of the company and to the image of the brand.

e360: Do you see China as your number one market in terms of size?

Ghosn: For the future, without any doubt. I think it’s going to be between China and the United States. It’s difficult to give you any information because we don’t know yet what is the official policy that the Chinese government wants for electric cars. When we get that policy, then we can make a much clearer statement. But it looks like they’re going to be extremely forceful in promoting electric car technology.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Nissan’s Leaf Named Car of the Year at Tokyo Motor Show
• Nissan Spends $3.5 Billion On Solar EV Chargers In Tennessee
• Going Electric at the Paris Motor Show
• Nissan Highlights New Electric Vehicle Plans with the New Mobility
• Catching up with the Nissan Leaf in San Francisco

Two major U.S. retail companies began installing electric car charging stations outside stores in two states this month, adding privately financed infrastructure that analysts say will be critical for the growth of the electric vehicle market in the U.S.

In Texas, Walgreens, working with NRG Energy, began installing the first of 18 rapid charging stations outside stores in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. According to company officials, the stations will offer a high-speed charger that can add 30 miles of range after just 10 minutes of charging time, and so-called Level 2 chargers that can add 25 miles of range per hour of charging time. NRG, which is installing the systems, will offer charging packages from $49 to $89 per month.

Earlier this month, Simon Property Group, Inc., the largest owner and manager of retail property space in the U.S., added its first self-serve electric charging station outside a shopping mall in Orlando, Fla., and is currently adding another at the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, Calif.

President Obama said earlier this year that he wants to see 1 million electric cars on U.S. roadways by 2015, and experts say the growth of the market depends on a network of charging stations nationwide.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Vermont Gets Surge of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
• Electric Vehicle Charging Network in London Nearly Doubled
• Study Projects 4.7 Million Electric Vehicle Charging Stations by 2015
• Electric Car Charging Stations Coming to Heart of Oil Country in Texas
• Eeny Miny Moe: Where Should the EV Charging Stations Go?