Lt. Governor Becky Skillman this week announced that funds are being made available to the public and private sectors to help pay for conversion of fleet vehicles to alternative fuels.

The Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) program opened on Tuesday (September 6) and applications will be accepted until September 30, 2011. Applicants are not required to match any award with local funds, but any leveraged funds will earn an applicant additional points in the competitive grant scoring process. The program uses federal funds that are administered by the Indiana Office of Energy Development.

“These grants are meant to increase our energy efficiency, reduce energy costs and reduce fossil fuel emissions,” said Lt. Governor Skillman. “In the process we can create new jobs, and increase productivity, which is all part of healthy economic development.”

AFV grants will be available to government entities, businesses, school corporations, institutions of higher education, health care facilities and not-for-profit agencies in Indiana. The grants, which range from $40,000 to $500,000, will be available for on-road fleet vehicles only.

The money can be used to cover the difference between the cost of purchasing an alternative energy vehicle and a traditional fuel vehicle. It can also be used to defray the cost of retrofitting an existing vehicle. It does not cover infrastructure costs, though.

There are a number of criteria any proposed project must meet. Among those criteria, the project must demonstrate measurable improvements in fuel efficiency, result in a reduction in fuel demand, and result in a reduction in fuel costs. A “fleet” is defined as five or more company vehicles.

The applicant must own the vehicles, and they must be used for business primarily in Indiana. The application process is also conducted online.

For more information visit the website of the Office of Energy Development (OED)

photo: RambergMediaImages

Related posts:

• Automotive Accessibility and Efficiency Meet in the Innovative MV-1
• First Pipeline-Fed Hydrogen Refueling Station Opens in the United States
• Dow Unveils Solar Roof Shingles
• Alternative Fuels on the Fly
• Leading by Example: GSA Electrifies the Fleet; Delivers First Electric Vehicle to Navy

Scrap your car and fuel the future: how donating your end-of-life vehicle can help pave the way for greener alternatives and raise money for a good cause.

According to recent statistical reports undertaken by the Department of Energy & Climate Change, road transport accounts for around 25% of the UK’s carbon emissions. And, amongst the heaviest polluters of all are old, fuel-inefficient vehicles.

As Malcolm Gladwell once argued in The New Yorker, the fastest road to clean air is to target the worst polluters, aggressively.

At the same time, in recent years, membership of car clubs in the UK has seen a huge increase – rising from 64,679 in 2009 to 112,928 in 2010.

Though it’s probably still too early to hope for a dramatic reduction in our current car-reliance, one thing is for sure: there are other ways to make and use cars that will help us minimize our future dependency on oil.

Whether you opt to take the ultimate test and try living a car-free life, or invest in a more environmentally viable vehicle, if your vehicle is nearing the end of its working life, the best thing you can do is to scrap the car.

Over in the UK, Giveacar founder Tom Chance was inspired by several US initiatives that promote car donation. Recognizing a need to encourage people to dispose of their end-of-life vehicles, and to do so in an environmentally responsible manner, he also realized that there was a potential to diversify revenue streams for charities by directing the proceeds from scrapping to good causes on the vehicle owner’s behalf. It’s a cost-free service for the customer that allows them to give something back in a hassle-free way.

Every year, over 2 million vehicles come off the roads in Britain yet approximately 50% of these are not disposed of with due environmental consideration. Instead, many are abandoned, left to seep toxins and heavy metals into the soil, while oils and fluids are poured down the drains. Many too are illegally brought back onto the roads (after being supposedly junked for a quick cash fee), causing significant air pollution, not to mention safety, concerns.

Some 90% of the motor donations Giveacar receives are scrapped. This is carried out to the highest environmental standards at authorized scrap yards, where vehicles are safely de-polluted before recycling. Taking these heavy-polluting cars off the roads forever is opening up the path to greener possibilities.

Article by Daniel Frank

Related posts:

• E-Waste Dump in Africa Contaminating Community
• Waste Issue Hurting Nuclear Revival, Panel Says
• With Ohio’s Help, Creating Clean Electricity and Jobs
• Pickens Plan & Energy Policy Act Challenged By Earthjustice Suit
• Toyota Benefits From Relationship With Tesla

Municipal fleets, including buses and other forms of city transportation, use a heavy amount of energy every year.  Much like the military, we’ve seen a steady decline in the rate at which they consume. Factors include:

As part of a systematic attempt to increase fuel efficiency through technology, the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) has partnered with ESRI and NAVTEQ to decrease our carbon footprint.

Brainchild of Doug Band, the CGI is a large collaborative unit of corporations,  non-profits, and political figures that are aiding in the process of route optimization. Route optimization can be clearly be defined as the fastest route from point A to B; the algorithm used be these companies (ESRI and NAVTEQ) is similar to that of consumer GPS systems.

In a partnership with the city of San Francisco,  the CGI and Doug Band provide a call to action approach at incorporating plans to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from fleets in the San Francisco Bay Area through Fleet Route Optimization Software. This includes anything from public transportation to work-force vehicles. NAVTEQ actually distributes digital maps and content that drives navigation- and location-based services solutions worldwide, including:

Congruently, ESRI utilizes GIS mapping software – this helps the user interpret data, further aiding in transportation-based decision-making, reliant on the best information and analysis. Much of this is similar to what the average consumer finds on his/her portable GPS. Furthermore, it’s important to note that this technology has been around and is widely used.

Most of the time, these feature will be labeled as “alternate routes,” and will allow the user to view multiple paths, along with other elements like fuel cost, distance, time and gas station stops. Similarly, developers incorporate mechanisms that permit users to view weather/traffic in their area. This is greatly beneficial for travelers as nobody likes to get in bad weather, or a traffic jam for that matter! Typically, users will have to pay a little extra for these features, and may even have to attend to a monthly fee for traffic/weather updates.

Both forces hope to provide powerful solutions for cities like San Fran. Once a seamless integration of communication and navigation has been implemented, transportation will become much more efficient. Again, this is something that has already taken effect and will continue to improve energy efficiency in regards to transportation fuel costs. As we technology progresses and becomes more affordable, individual consumers will begin seeing GPS as longer just an option, but rather a integral part of any vehicle.

Article by Jack Lundee, appearing courtesy 2GreenEnergy.

Related posts:

• Indiana Unveils Alternative Fuel Vehicle Initiative
• BrightView Systems and EPFL announce thin-film solar collaboration
• Leading by Example: GSA Electrifies the Fleet; Delivers First Electric Vehicle to Navy
• ‘Generals’ Devise Tactics for Grid-EV Collision
• iPhone App Simulates Electric Car Experience

To those who drive behind diesel trucks, they know that these vehicles tend to be more slower moving and potentially smellier than other vehicles. Those who drive trucks know they are gasoline hogs (after all look at the weight they are hauling). They are a vital necessity for the U.S. economy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation earlier this week announced the first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. This comprehensive proposed national program is projected to reduce GHG emissions by nearly 250 million metric tons and save 500 million barrels of oil over the lives of the vehicles produced within the program’s first five years. Truck emissions have been going down for years but this is a major step forward.

Some of the older emission reduction standards include:

• January 2001 – EPA sets new emission standards for trucks

• October 2000 – EPA requires on board air emission diagnostic systems for vehicles under 14,000 pounds

• October 2008 – EPA requires on board air emission diagnostic systems for vehicles over 14,000 pounds

“Through new fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and buses, we will not only reduce transportation’s environmental impact, we’ll reduce the cost of transporting freight,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “This is a win-win-win for the environment, businesses and the American consumer.”

EPA and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing new standards for three categories of heavy trucks: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles. The categories were established to address specific challenges for manufacturers in each area. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the 2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 2018 model year.

With the potential for significant fuel efficiency gains, ranging from seven to 20 percent, drivers and operators could expect to net significant savings over the long-term. For example, it is estimated an operator of a semi truck could pay for the technology upgrades in under a year, and save as much as $74,000 over the truck’s useful life. Vehicles with lower annual miles would typically experience longer payback periods, up to four or five years, but would still reap cost-savings.

EPA and NHTSA are providing a 60-day comment period that begins when the proposal is published in the Federal Register. The proposal and information about how to submit comments is at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.

As part of the process of developing this proposed rulemaking, NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its proposed fuel efficiency standards. The Draft EIS compares the environmental impacts of the agency’s proposal with those of a number of regulatory alternatives. Comments may be submitted on the Draft EIS through January 3, 2011.

The regulatory proposal is the result of President Obama’s memorandum earlier this year directing EPA and DOT to address both issues through a single, coordinated national program. The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) encouraged and supported the President’s efforts to assure that the two federal agencies coordinate efforts to propose a single national GHG reduction and fuel efficiency improvement program.

“As the primary manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty engines and vehicles in the United States, EMA and TMA members have always focused on improving fuel efficiency and have made significant advances in reducing fuel use in medium and heavy-duty engines and vehicles”, stated Jed Mandel, EMA President. “Better fuel efficiency is a key customer demand in the commercial vehicle sector, and our members continuously work to introduce better and more efficient technologies and systems into the marketplace. Because improved efficiency also results in lower greenhouse gas emissions, engine and truck manufacturers’ efforts to improve fuel efficiency for our customers align well with the overall goals of the regulation proposed today.”

For further information: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot18

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy ENN.

Related posts:

• President Obama Announces First Ever Fuel Economy Standards for Commercial Vehicles
• New Solar-Powered “Idling-Stop” Air-Conditioning for Trucks
• US Agencies Move to Green Heavy Vehicles
• The Future of Trucking is Electric
• Export Opportunity for US Energy Efficiency?

Related posts:

• Corn-based ethanol takes a hit
• European Biofuel Targets Spurring Grabs of African Farmland
• New Map Reignites Food Versus Biofuel Debate
• Cheaper ethanol = business opportunities
• Biofuel Enzyme Breakthrough Promises Greener Bioenergy

Between 1950 and 2008 more cars were added to our roads virtually every year as the total fleet expanded steadily from 49 million to 250 million vehicles. In 2009, however, 14 million cars were scrapped while only 10 million cars were sold, shrinking the fleet by 4 million vehicles, or nearly 2 percent. With record numbers of cars set to reach retirement age between now and 2020, the fleet could shrink by some 10 percent, dropping from the all-time high of 250 million in 2008 to 225 million in 2020.

The United States, with 246 million motor vehicles and 209 million licensed drivers, is facing market saturation. With 5 vehicles for every 4 drivers, the 4-million-vehicle contraction in the U.S. fleet in 2009 does not come as a great surprise. In a largely rural society, more cars provided mobility, but in a society that is now over 80 percent urban, more cars provide immobility.

A combination of driver frustration and the soaring congestion costs associated with wasted time and fuel are leading to a cultural shift that is reducing the role of the automobile as people turn to alternatives. Almost every major U.S. city is either building new light rail or express bus systems, or expanding and upgrading existing ones to reduce dependence on cars. The peak fleet may now be behind us.

The number of U.S. teenage drivers has declined from a peak of 12 million in 1978 to 10 million today, dropping the share of driving-age teenagers with licenses from 69 percent to 56 percent. An increasing number of Americans are growing up in urban environments in families without a car. This trend, combined with a shift in socialization habits among young people away from cars to the Internet and smart phones, means that the car no longer holds the allure of years past.

For background data and further discussion of these trends, see the January 2010 Plan B Update by Lester R. Brown, “U.S. Car Fleet Shrank by Four Million in 2009 .” Additional information is in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (W.W. Norton, 2009), on-line for free downloading at www.earthpolicy.org .

Article by Lester Brown, appearing courtesy of Celsias; via Earth Policy

Related posts:

• High-Speed Rail: So Much Track, So Little Money
• British High Speed Rail Ushers In a New Era of Travel
• Deepwater Horizon – A Love Canal Moment
• Sending a Valentine for Planet Earth
• Getting Serious About Green Building Materials

Highway barriers erected along roadways can be perceived as massive monuments to the future and were intended to block the sound and sight of traffic for the adjacent neighborhoods. They may do a bit more in terms of air borne pollution. In a study by NOAA and the US Environmental Protection Agency, researchers released harmless “tracers” to measure the potential movement of pollutants such as carbon monoxide and heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds such as benzene. The results showed a significant reduction for those neighborhoods in pollutants as a result of the barriers.

Highway barriers were originally designed to help block highway noise as well as to improve the view for nearby residents. At first the barriers were somewhat ugly but many now have vines and other vegetation softening the aesthetic effects.

The NOAA study is the first designed to scientifically study and evaluate the effects and role of the movement of air borne pollutants near highway barriers. The full report is to be on line in a January 2010 print edition of Atmospheric Environment.

“While the barriers block the noise and view of hundreds of vehicles whizzing by, we found that they also reduce high concentrations of pollutants from those vehicles by lifting and channeling them away from the adjoining areas, often a residential area,” said Dennis Finn, lead author and a research meteorologist at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho.

A large body of research shows a variety of potential human health effects such as respiratory illness, cardiovascular effects, and cancer in individuals living or working near heavily traffic. Reduction in air borne pollution will have a positive effect on nearby residential neighborhoods.

Researchers were able to conduct studies in unstable, neutral and stable atmospheric conditions to quantify the effects of roadside barriers on pollutant dispersion. Atmospheric stability is a measure of how much atmospheric mixing is happening. Unstable (such as a windy day) cause maximum mixing and reduction in pollution levels while stable (a day with low or no wind) produces minimal mixing and pollution concentrations stay higher longer.

“We also found that the barriers tended to trap pollutants in the area of the roadway itself, especially at night in low wind speed conditions,” Finn said. “The amount of pollutants was much higher on roadway areas flanked by barriers than in areas without them.”

The study ultimately concluded that the barriers concentrate pollutants on the highway side especially when atmospheric conditions were stable.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy of ENN

Related posts:

• 22 Regions Across America Race to the Rooftop for Solar Power
• E Turbines Concept Seeks to Combine Wind Energy with the Open Road
• Are LEDs the Solution for Light Pollution?
• Air Pollution Costs Billions to the European Union
• Air Pollution in China Contributing to Drought — Food Shortages Possible

The number of cars on U.S. roads dropped by 4 million in 2009, the only large decline in the nation’s car fleet since the government began keeping records in 1960. While consumers bought 10 million cars during the year, another 14 million vehicles were scrapped, dropping the total to 246 million vehicles, despite the government’s “cash for clunkers” program that gave individuals as much as $4,500 to exchange older cars for more fuel-efficient models.

Analysts cited numerous factors for the decline, including high gasoline prices, improved public transportation, and the popularity of online social networking, which for many teens has replaced the automobile as a way to socialize. In a report analyzing the decline, the Earth Policy Institute says the decrease is not merely a temporary phenomenon caused by the recession.

The group says U.S. car ownership has reached a point of saturation, and the nation’s car fleet could drop another 25 percent by 2020. Currently, there are 117 vehicles for every 100 licensed Americans, but high debt and other costs of car ownership will make consumers less likely to keep more cars than they use, said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. Many families with three cars will likely cut back to two, he predicts, and those with two may cut back to one or none.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: EA]

Related posts:

• L.A. Air Force Base Will Deploy 100% Electric Vehicle Fleet
• America’s Love Affair With the Car May be Coming to an End
• The Future of Trucking is Electric
• Daimler’s car2go Rental Program to Go Green
• Leading by Example: GSA Electrifies the Fleet; Delivers First Electric Vehicle to Navy

Some heavyweights who know a thing or two about transportation are having a pointed online debate about whether or not electric vehicles should receive support from the federal government.

Terry Tamminen, who was Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency under Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, threw down the gauntlet last month in an editorial in which he stated that “it’s time to dump the battery-powered car in the same policy landfill as corn-based ethanol.”

Tamminen went on to make several arguments as to why batteries are not the answer for clean transportation. This elicited a point by point response from CalCars founder Felix Kramer.

Here, we put their arguments back to back to contrast their opposing positions.

TT: First, (Energy Secretary) Chu admitted to Congress that it would take billions of R&D funding and many years to develop batteries that are practical for cars in everyday use. He was being optimistic, given the laws of physics – - there’s only so much you can reduce the weight and charging times for batteries, not to mention the scarce and toxic materials needed to produce them. And car engineers spend lifetimes taking a few pounds out of a car to make it more fuel efficient, regardless of how it is powered. Why would we want a fleet of inefficient cars that carry around half a ton of excess luggage?

FK: 1. Batteries will always be too heavy; materials are scarce and toxic. This sounds like a comment from before 2006. Batteries are improving steadily in “energy density” and cost — by 7-15% a year, with occasional faster leaps as technologies shift. Automaker and battery makers have concluded that the supposed “lithium shortage” doesn’t exist. Nickel-metal hydride and lithium batteries are approved for landfill (not toxic) and can be recycled. The battery and motor of an EV is not always heavier than the larger engine and gas tank while you benefit from up to four times greater efficiency of an electric motor over and internal combustion engine.

TT: Second, this notion that battery cars require no new infrastructure is nonsense. A recent article in Science magazine highlighted the need for more powerplants, transmission lines, and home/office chargers to serve even a small % of the transportation fleet, if it was dependent on battery recharging. As an example, the Tesla battery sports car takes 37 hours to recharge with normal household current and 8 hours if you install a special high-voltage charger that costs thousands of dollars. Moreover, on a hot July day in California, if even a few hundred thousand of the state’s 30 million vehicles were attached to the grid, the overloaded system would routinely blackout unless it was upgraded at the cost of billions. Battery car enthusiast Shai Agassi announced he intends to bring his battery cars to San Francisco and would build 250,000 charging stations around the Bay Area alone – - does that sound like new infrastructure to you?

2. We’ll need a giant new infrastructure; charging takes too long; we’ll get overloads and blackouts unless we spend billions of dollars to upgrade the power grid. Plug-in hybrids need no new infrastructure. According to a study from the Pacific National Lab, today’s grid has capacity to recharge 84% of today’s cars if they all plugged at night. This applies to all-electric vehicles charging at night as well, which will be true for most vehicles used as families’ second cars. Price signals will disincentivize daytime charging on late summer afternoons when the grid is at capacity. And the Tesla Roadster’s high-power charger takes under four, not eight hours to recharge (see http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/faqs.php).

TT: Third, range matters. Yes the average commuter may only need 30 or 40 miles a day, something they can get from batteries today, but many people live in multi-family apartments and have no access to a charger on a daily basis. Many more can only afford one car and want one that can go longer distances when needed. I recently drove 150 miles to Palm Springs from Los Angeles in my hydrogen powered electric car (the hydrogen is converted to electricity by the fuel cell, which powers the same electric motor as a Tesla or any other electric car). I refueled in 7 minutes and was ready to return that afternoon. The Tesla or any other battery car available today would still be at the recharging station 30 miles short of Palm Springs, not to mention the problem of getting back in the same day.

Battery enthusiasts say we will have swapping stations, so in a few minutes you can drop off discharged batteries and pick up full charged ones. Maybe, but then every car will essentially have to have multiple sets of batteries made for it, so there are enough to go around at swapping stations awaiting the need. What does that take in terms of resources and greenhouse gas pollution in the manufacture (and ultimate disposal) of all of those batteries?

FK: 3. Range matters: yes, most average commutes are 30-40 miles/day, but cars need to be able to drive 300 miles between refills. And people who live in apartments don’t have access to a charger. PHEVS l have that range by definition: when the battery is depleted the engine powers the car for hundreds of miles. The forthcoming Chevy Volt 40-mile electric range matches the drive cycle of 78% of vehicles. Tamminen has forgotten his approving quotation (page 152 of Lives Per Gallon) of Ed Begley, Jr. saying “The detractors of electric vehicles are right. Given their limited range, they can only meet the needs of 90 percent of the population.” The first buyers of plug-in cars may be drivers with garages, but the charging infrastructure is starting to arrive: The New York Times Real Estate Section reports that building management company executives say they want to be ready for the coming wave of customer demand to charge in their high-rise apartments: (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/realestate/30posting.html).

TT: Fourth, size matters. There’s a reason that battery cars so far are all small. Tesla chose the sports car because it was cool and would brand their company, but also because it is small and light which helps with range (even so, the range is far less than 200 miles). Other car companies toying with battery cars are focused on very small sedans for the same reason. Anyone who needs a larger car or truck will have a very long wait to get one powered by batteries.

FK: 4. Only small, light cars can be battery powered. While it is true that until recently, most EVs were small and underpowered, the coming wave of luxury sports cars has proven that EVs can outperform gasoline cars. The vehicles continue to be designed to be as aerodynamic as possible because that makes sense for any vehicle however it’s powered. And Tamminen gets the size issue exactly wrong. The larger vehicles have plenty of room for batteries and, and they’re the gas-gulpers. IF you switch around the usual way of looking at miles per gallon into gallons per mile, this becomes obvious. Our 50 MPG Priuses converted to 100 MPG PHEVS use 1 gallon per hundred miles instead of 2–saving 1 gallon. A 15 MPG truck that becomes a 45 MPG PHEV saves over 5 gallons per hundred miles. That’s why CalCars is now focusing largely on pickups, SUVs and trucks, including conversions of already-built vehicles.

TT: Finally, how the electricity is produced will determine how clean battery power is, which is also true of hydrogen production. The need to build all of the new infrastructure, batteries (maybe multiple sets), and charging stations has to be added into that lifecycle analysis, otherwise we’re making the same mistakes we made with ethanol – - a mirage of sustainability by looking only at the end use.

FK: 5. Plug-in cars are only as clean as the electricity they run on. This is true, but on today’s national grid (50% coal), an electric mile produces only half the CO2 of a gasoline mile. Tamminen acknowledges this is true for hydrogen as well…not entirely, since some hydrogen (an energy carrier, not a source) comes from reforming natural gas, which is still high in CO2. For hydrogen made electrically from water, multiple studies have shown the original electricity used to make the fuel carries a vehicle three to four times further if it’s put directly into a battery rather than cycled through hydrolysis, fuel transportation, compression, and fuel cells before they get to the electric motor that powers the car. If we ever get hydrogen created directly from the sun and algae, we’ll still be decades away from having a full infrastructure for its use.6. Plug-in advocates aren’t looking at the cost of the entire infrastructure, just at the end use. Tamminen forgets about the ability of PHEVs and many EVs to come to the market with no new infrastructure. In contrast to this, all the hydrogen vehicles he so strongly supports need a new infrastructure, and it’s largely because of that fact that Energy Secretary Steve Chu and may others have concluded that even if multiple technical and cost issues involving hydrogen and fuel cells are solved, other solutions that are much closer are more deserving of support and incentives. Some day we might have hydrogen providing the range extension fuel for PHEVs, but even cellulosic ethanol is generally seen as arriving far sooner than hydrogen.The biggest refutation of Tamminen comes from the growing stampede among national governments and automakers to bring plug-in cars to market. They are starting with substantial tax incentives until costs decline with economies of scale — but the gap needed to bridge is in the $5-$10,000 range, one-tenth or less the amount needed to subsidize Tamminen’s preferred hydrogen cars.

You can read more about CalCars’ new ICE conversion initiative. For more on the pro-EV side of the argument, check out the response of Paul Scott of Plug-in America.

Article appearing courtesy of the Matter Network.

[photo credit: Elsa Wenzel, jurvetson]

Related posts:

• China Makes Green Cars a Priority; UK Firm Eyes Wireless Car-Charging
• Imagine If All Cars Were Electric Cars
• Electric Cars and National Security – Are They Inextricably Linked?
• China Readies 10 Million EV Parking Spots by 2020
• China Most Likely Country to Fund Renewables

Ford Motor Company has developed an intelligent charging system that previews how its production vehicles will interact with the grid. The unnamed system enables all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle owners to restrict charging to when electricity prices fall below a certain threshold, or even “when the grid is using only renewable energy such as wind or solar power,” according to Ford.

Being able to drive “emissions free” could be a huge selling point for the upscale and eco-minded early adopters who will be buying EVs and plug-in hybrids during the next few years. There’s a natural synergy for customers to put solar on their homes and buy hybrids/EVs, who can then drive free of fossil fuel guilt.

In its ongoing testing of converted PHEV Ford Escapes, the company is leveraging communications systems it designed including SYNC, SmartGauge, and Ford Work Solutions. The vehicles are communicating with the grid through smart meters over a wireless network using the Zigbee protocol, but Ford hasn’t committed to a network platform for its production vehicles.

Ford said its final communications system will be designed to work with a variety of smart meters. The first generation of EVs is likely to use a mix of proprietary and “open” standards that are still in development. Each company will likely offer some part of their charge management technology to others in hopes that it would become industry standard.

The batteries in the 21 test vehicles are from Johnson Controls-Saft, which will also be supplying the batteries for its production PHEV. Ford will spend $14 billion over 7 years to retool to manufacture advanced vehicles.

Ford has lined up some impressive utilities to help with the tests, including Southern California Edison, American Electric Power, Progress Energy, and 10 others, which will each receive some of the test fleet. The agreement is to continue testing for three years, which is interesting because the company plans to have a commercial PHEV for sale in 2012 — you might think that testing of PHEV grid interaction would be moot at that point. Ford received $30 million in DOE grant money to pay for part of the testing.

Ford is rigorously testing PHEVs now, but the all-electric Ford Focus (due out a year earlier) is not being tested in a similar broad fashion. Is developing an EV easier than a plug-in hybrid (with its two systems for locomotion)?

Appearing courtesy of Matter Network.

Related posts:

• Electric Vehicles and Renewed Energy Steal the Show in Detroit
• Ford Making All the Right Moves To Lead in Plug-in Cars
• Ford Transit Connect To Become All-Electric Van in 2010
• EV Consultants Speak on the Ford Focus Electric and the Nissan LEAF
• Microsoft Wants to Be the Google of Utility Data