How to Sell an Electric Car
January 4, 2011
The long-awaited semi-affordable electric cars are finally here! Almost three years after the introduction of the Tesla Roadster, both the Chevy Volt and the Nissan LEAF were delivered to dealers in the United States the week of December 20, 2010.
What makes these cars appealing is their lack of emissions and noise, smooth ride, low maintenance and economic operation, the same things that gave electric cars their enormous popularity in the early 1900s. What doesn’t appeal to consumers is their lack of range, lack of speed, and their higher cost, the same things that sank electric cars in the early 1900s.
So, how to attract buyers.
From the car names, it’s obvious that GM and Nissan have taken different roads. GM seems to be aiming at the power/performance crowd. Volt evokes images of lighting bolts and arcs of electricity – pure energy in the driving experience. And the Volt has more horsepower (150 vs. 110), a larger motor (111 kW vs. 80), and a higher top speed (161 kilometres per hour vs. 145).
Nissan, on the other hand, is looking to the green crowd. In fact LEAF stands for Leading, Environmentally friendly, Affordable, Family car, hence the capitalized name. It has a larger battery pack (24 kW-h vs. 16) and a larger range (161 kilometres vs. 64). So green that it doesn’t come with a 1.4 litre, four-cylinder, gasoline-powered, internal combustion engine, such as the one that does come with the Volt.
The Tesla is named in honour of Nikola Tesla, the Serbian-American physicist who invented alternating current. Maybe not as evocative a name as Volt or LEAF, but the Tesla roadster has a top speed of 201 kilometres per hour, a range of 393 kilometres and is styled after the Lotus Elise. Too bad it’s three times the price the other two.
Injecting Gas, Cash and Controversy
December 20, 2010
Fuel injection’s a great way to improve the efficiency of an engine, but a cash injection’s nothing to sneeze at either. UBC researcher Steven Rogak is going to be getting the latter to do the former, with a five-year, $499,824 grant from the federal government in support of his natural-gas-injected-engine research.
The project’s goal is to develop a fuel injector that will make natural gas engines competitive with equivalent diesel engines. And while natural gas is currently a relatively niche fuel — the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance (CNGVA) says that Canada has only 12,000 natural-gas-powered vehicles — that might not always be the case.
Canada’s transportation industry currently accounts for the largest share of our CO2 emissions — more than 35 per cent — and natural gas emits less carbon than oil. According to the CNGVA (1.1 MB PDF), for example, a comparable diesel-powered heavy-duty truck would save 23 per cent in GHG emissions, while rail transport could save 19 per cent. And supply is no issue, even if the supply has issues.
Unconventional reserves are now being accessed across the country, with shale, natural gas from coal and tight sands constituting a potential boom in production. However, drawing all that extra natural gas from unconventional isn’t a done deal yet. In Quebec, for example, which currently has no natural gas production infrastructure, Questerre Energy and Talisman Energy recently pushed back the start of test wells by six months because of public opposition based on another kind of injection — fracking. In freeing trapped gas with chemically infused water, the industry is confronting fears of contamination and the use of our limited water reserves. Federally, the government says that shale gas rules are still a work in progress, but it’s certain that these issues will continue to inform any future discussion on unconventional natural gas, even if it’s destined for our engines.
Body heat, en francaise
October 8, 2010
When it comes to public transit, Canadians are no strangers to using body heat to keep warm. Hey, it’s a cold climate, our buses don’t always run on time and sharing is just good manners. But if the occasional bus shelter cuddle seems low tech, Parisians are preparing to take the concept into the 21st century with a heating system powered by the bodies of Metro passengers.
Supplemented by existing heating, and fuelled by the heat generated by the trains’ movements, the system would pump body heat from the underground station platforms into an apartment building above. And though the system is currently only designed to heat 17 apartments, and while it’s only been installed because there was already a connecting stairway that could be used to install the event, it’s certainly not taking place in isolation.
Other urban energy projects have been designed to take advantage of the energy we already expend, like plates that absorb the kinetic energy of cars driving through a fast food drive-through, or a hydro generator that draws its power from falling wastewater. And when it comes to energy use, heating is no small matter for a country with its northern half dangling into the Arctic Circle: upwards of 40 per cent of all power consumed in the country goes to our heating needs.
Besides, anyone who’s ever packed themselves into a station in the Montreal Metro has already encountered the powerful combination of body heat and train exhaust. Why shouldn’t we keep our Canuck parts warm with the energy we’ve already got? It definitely beats huddling together for warmth in a bus shelter.
Or does it…?
DIY fuel efficiency
August 13, 2010
Sometimes, when it comes to fuel efficiency, you can’t wait for companies to provide the solutions: you just have to seize the bull by the horns. And then you have to bend those horns into a more aerodynamic shape.
Right?
If you’re not into bull bending, though, there are still unique ways of environmentally tricking out your ride. Take this photo gallery of DIY efficiency modifications made to a variety of vehicles. From a motorcycle with an aerodynamic shell to a minivan with a plastic tail, these street-legal creations go to show that even existing products can be turned into energy-efficient ones.
Of course, if you’re not willing to commit the time and engineering expertise required for completely modifying your vehicle, you can still improve your fuel efficiency just by changing your driving habits. There are a host of sources for energy-saving tips in the car, including the Office of Energy Efficiency; provincial government websites, like the BC’s Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; and of course our own Canadian Centre for Energy Information.
Still, if you find yourself seized by the urge to seize your own proverbial bull by the horns, and you’ve got the wherewithal to make it happen, why not take a stab at it?
Image: Technological University of Malaysia vehicle competes in the Shell Eco-marathon fuel efficiency challenge at Sepang.
A good ride, eh?
August 11, 2010
If your daily commute starts with a double double, and if the only rims you’re worried about are the kind that roll up, then you’ll be happy to know that the a pair of microbiologists at the University of Manitoba have been trying to fuel your car with Tim Horton’s coffee cups.
Unfortunately, technology still hasn’t progressed to the point that your morning coffee can also be used to fuel your morning commute, but Tim’s disposal coffee cups themselves can be broken down into a shredded mass that resembles cotton candy. With the cups in a form that provides ample surface area for ethanol-producing bacteria to consume, the researchers were about to provides about 1.3 litres of ethanol from 100 Tim Hortons cups. (Assuming you’re just drinking regulars, at $1.39, you’d have to put up $139 for your 1.3 litres, leaving you with the non-too-appealing price of $106.92 per litre.)
Given the fact that edible crops have fallen out of favour as a source of biofuel because we’d rather fuel our stomachs than our cars, it makes sense to begin looking in our trash for alternative sources. Certainly, we’ve already looked to cellulosic materials and other kinds of (smellier) waste. More than proving that one of our national pastimes is also an energy source, these repurposed coffee cups show that there are innovative approaches to energy that are often sitting right under our noses.
But, hey, why not keep it Canadian while we’re at it, eh?
Flying the friendly (but taxed) skies
August 9, 2010
In Canada, it’s common wisdom that declaring support for an environmental tax can be political suicide. Stephane Dion’s support of a carbon tax certainly didn’t help him hold onto the leadership of the federal Liberal Party, and BC’s carbon tax originally raised the expected howls of opposition (and its recent increase in tandem with the provincial HST could raise them again). But in a country with one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emission rates in the world, it seems likely that Canadians will eventually see something along the lines of a price on carbon. Across the Atlantic, it’s already becoming a reality.
Germany, along with other struggling European economies, recently passed a slate of austerity measures to bring deficits down. In this case, it included an eco-tax on air travel designed to bring up to a billion Euros in revenue.
Following on the heels of the UK’s own air travel duties, instituted in 2007, the German tax is stirring controversy as opponents accuse the government of using environmental concerns as an excuse to draw more tax revenue. As the Tree Hugger article linked above notes, other European countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have already dropped taxes on air travel in response to this kind of opposition, which is hardly surprising — with the world still concerned about recession, environmental concerns are usually trumped. A Canwest poll in March, for example, found that 36 per cent of Canadians listed the economy as their primary concern, versus 17 per cent for the environment.
Money talks, which is why Alberta requires companies who exceed their carbon intensity targets to pay $15 per tonne of CO2 emissions into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which recently paid out a total of $28.1 million to 30 Alberta companies. We all incur an environmental cost with emissions, and if Germany is any indication, we might also eventually incur a financial one to boot.
Getting Somewhere With Flying Fish
June 14, 2010
In Canada, transportation accounts for a full 36 per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions. Cars, trucks, airplanes and freight trains — they all take Canadians and Canadian goods where they need to go, and almost all consume some form of refined petroleum, which is responsible for 49 per cent of Canada’s emissions.
But there are unconventional ideas on the horizon that could change the way we move around, from natural gas-powered vehicles to jet engines powered by garbage. But some of the future’s vehicles are bound to be weirder than others.
Take, for example, a flying fish being developed by Swiss scientists. Built to mimic the contraction of muscle tissue, this floating, fish-like dirigible would be capable of moving through the air without the aid of a propeller, or the heavy mechanical components of an engine. Quiet and manoeuvrable, it uses electrodes installed along the polymer that makes up the fish’s “skin” to attract one side to the other. The result: a gentle, swimming motion.
At the moment, the 8-metre prototype is only able to move at a slow walking speed, and there are serious real-world considerations of to be taken into account, like sudden winds or other inclement weather. But there’s definite potential in any design that can reduce air and noise pollution at the same time.
The trout-like airship also isn’t the only prototype to suggest an entirely different approach to motion in the vehicles we’re already used to seeing. Kinetic road plates are already being used to capture the impact of passing cars to generate electricity, and vehicles like smart bikes and so-called EcoCabs are adding human locomotion to the power of an electric engine.
While the world waits for its skies to fill with enormous airborne fish to carry us away, though, Canadians already have a broad selection of fuel efficient cars to improve the way they get around. But now that you know that the future has flying fish in it, it might be a little harder to get excited about excellent fuel mileage.
Would a trout have a higher km/l ratio than a salmon? Only the future will tell.
Image: IOP/EMPA
Scooter commuter
April 23, 2010
There are lots of different makes and models of electric motorbikes, scooters, bikes and even skateboards the city commuter can choose from these days. But this bike and battery are made to go.
James South took a gamble and created the Yogo – the UK’s only full production electric scooter with portable battery. The lithium battery is easy to remove (weights about 11 kilograms) and take home for charging. It’s ready to go again, in about an hour. The bike has a range of 35 kilometers between battery charges and tops out at 61 kilometers an hour.
OK, it’s not the fastest or the cheapest scooter out there and styling-wise it’s not a Vespa. But at least you don’t have to find a plug in on the street or run a cord out the window from your apartment. And as Bibi demos, it will put a smile on your face.
Waste not, want not – carbon dioxide as fuel
April 6, 2010
Transportation accounts for over 35 per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, so it’s not surprising that when we start talking about reducing emissions, we start talking about our cars. But imagine: what if the cars we drove were actually using the CO2 we put into the atmosphere instead of releasing more? That’s the question that a team of scientists and engineers from a trio of UK universities are asking, and they think they might well find an answer.
Collaborating with the University of the West of England, the University of Bath and the University of Bristol, a team of scientists and engineers are trying to create nanomaterials capable of trapping some of the thousands of megatonnes of GHG released into the atmosphere every year. (Globally, Canada accounts for two per cent of consumption-related emissions.) Once captured, this carbon dioxide could be split into its constituent elements, which could then theoretically be converted into fuel.
Similar to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies that aim to capture carbon at its point of release, the goal of this research would be to create porous materials capable of lining factory chimneys and trapping carbon dioxide for later use. And while the team’s efforts are currently focused on the nanomaterials capable of trapping the suspect carbon dioxide, it isn’t the first attempt to create make our wasted emissions into useful energy either.
In 2007, scientists at the University of California, San Diego demonstrated a prototype capable of “splitting” carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen. And while carbon dioxide is toxic, it can be converted into fuel. With other applications including detergent and plastics, making more of wasted emissions simply makes sense.
Turning unwanted emissions into useful products belongs to an entire area of technological development that sees scientists looking for “fresh” applications of waste. And with consumers increasingly concerned about the costs of energy, both financial and environmental, it’s not hard to imagine a market for fuel made from the same emissions we’re trying to reduce. Waste not, want not.
Federal government suspends ecoEnergy program
April 5, 2010
The Federal Government announced March 31 that it has suspended the ecoEnergy Retrofit – Homes program. The program was designed to encourage homeowners to undertake energy efficiency improvements on existing homes to increase energy savings and reduce greenhouse gases. It consisted of grants up to $5,000 and involved pre-retrofit assessments, retrofits and post-retrofit assessments.
The entire program was originally set to run until March 31, 2011. The government will now only process grant applications from homeowners who have scheduled or completed a pre-retrofit evaluation and who will be completing energy efficiency improvements and post-retrofit assessments prior to March 31, 2011. Such participants must apply for grants prior to that date. However, the pre-retrofit phase is now closed to new applicants.
The suspension of the program came as a surprise. In its March 2010 budget, the government announced an additional $80 million (2.2MB PDF) to support retrofits by Canadian homeowners due to “unprecedented demand”. In total, the Government provided $585 million to the program under the Economic Action Plan.
In a Frequently Asked Questions section on the Office for Energy Efficiency website, the government justified the cancellation by saying “the program is confident that all eligible homeowners who previously entered the program by scheduling or completing a pre-retrofit evaluation will still have the opportunity to apply for and receive a grant.”
The Federal Government will continue to support provincial and territorial energy efficiency for homes.
