A flex fuel carnival for GM in Brazil?

A good trip to profitability?

If GM is going to be successful in the future, it might just be foreign markets that take them there. Today, GM announced that they are going to spend $1 billion over the next few years developing cars for the Brazilian market. Considering that GM has pretty extensive flex fuel experience, it seems that this could be a perfect a match.

Diesel: Not part of America's future?

A Mercedes diesel hybrid at the LA Auto Show

A new survey indicates that most Americans believe advanced technology, especially hybrid cars and fuel cell cars are the future powertrains for American automobiles. Flex-fuel vehicles also made a strong showing.

Diesel vehicles, however, just didn't resonate with American consumers.

Most Americans not interested in alternative auto technologies

No serious changes until $4.00 gas?

A new survey by Consumer Reports shows that most people are interested in better fuel economy, but only about half are willing to sacrifice size or performance to achieve better fuel economy. Also, "47 percent of those currently shopping for a car said they would consider purchasing a hybrid, diesel or flex-fuel vehicles."

GM joins climate change battle?

"General Motors on Tuesday became the first automobile manufacturer to join the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of corporate executives that wants Congress to enact an economy-wide mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions."

Interesting. GM can both fight against climate change legislation and join a Climate Action Partnership? Perhaps the word partnership should be replaced with lobby?

How about if you increase your fleet fuel efficiency, stop using flex-fuel to violate CAFE, and stop fighting California's global warming legislation? How about a couple of hybrid cars, not just hybrid SUVs?

Walk the Walk, please.

(Source: AP)

Obama wants more U.S. hybrid vehicles

Maybe Barack should drive a more fuel efficient vehicle?

Barack Obama wants U.S. automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles, especially hybrid cars. To achieve this goal, Obama would like to provide healthcare assistance to U.S. automakers so that automakers could utilize half their healthcare savings to invest in producing hybrids.

"For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars," Obama has stated according to a text of the Illinois senator's remarks that were provided to The Associated Press (more).

And consumers, such as Mr. Obama, have been buying these vehicles. Do consumers not share some of this lack of vision?

Mr. Obama typically drives a gas-guzzling SUV. Of course Mr. Obama, when questioned about his inefficient vehicle, claims its a flex-fuel vehicle. Sadly, since Mr. Obama spends much of his Illinois time in the Chicago area, he can't utilize flex-fuel because there are simply so few E85 pumps in that area. So, Mr. Obama has been a part of the problem, not the solution.

Even worse, it's not just Obama, it's the far majority of politicians of both parties. Leadership?

Read Obama's plan in comments

Big 3 going to increase use of the flex-fuel CAFE loophole?

U.S. automakers to increase flex-fuel vehicle output

Perhaps it's the threats coming out of Congress warning Detroit that the flex-fuel credit that enables the Big 3 to violate CAFE might be ending, but the Big 3 are going to increase their flex-fuel fleets even though most of those vehicles will never utilize ethanol, at least not E85. Then again, perception is more important than reality. (Car&Driver)

Flex-fuel CAFE credits to expire?

No more CAFE credits for flex-fuel vehicles that don't use ethanol?

American automakers have been putting millions of vehicles on the road every year that offer flex-fuel technology. Yet, the far majority of those vehicles have never been filled with a tank of E85. Nonetheless, automakers have received CAFE credits enabling those automakers to avoid paying millions in fines for violating CAFE, not to mention increasing foreign oil dependency. Under new legislation in the Senate, however, that loophole could be closed in 2009 (more).

GM's Lutz says fuel efficiency too expensive

Are flex-fuel lies killing GM?

GM's Bob Lutz is claiming that President Bush's plans to increase automobile fuel efficiency could raise the cost of automobiles by $5000.00, according to the DetroitNews. Rather than increase fuel efficiency, Lutz claims increased availability of ethanol is a better solution.

I'm so tired of hearing about GM's ethanol plans. First, GM is using cheap flex-fuel technology as a loophole to violate CAFE. As a result GM can't even meet the CAFE laws created 20 years ago, let alone more stringent rules. Consequently, GM is using legal loopholes to avoid paying massive fines, while increasing America's foreign oil dependency more than should be allowed by law. Second, corn-based ethanol is not a good solution to resolving America's energy problems. Third, GM is an automaker, not an energy company, so focus on automotive technology.

While Toyota achieves record months of sales significantly helped by hybrid cars, such as the Prius, GM has yet to sell one full hybrid vehicle. Why? Why can't GM realize that fuel efficiency is becoming ever more a critical aspect of automobile manufacturing survival - possibly and probably the key to the automotive future?

The good 'ole days of gas-guzzling land yachts are over. Deal with it.

Even with Democrats, no Toyota hybrid tax credits. Does America suck?

Is leaving Iraq a solution or a distraction?

While Democrats keep beating the Leave Iraq drum, they continue to do little to resolve the problem that eventually pushed America into Iraq in the first place: oil. While there isn't anything that can be done to immediately end foreign oil dependency, there are small actions that create strong messages that could result in real action. Extending Toyota's tax credits is one such action.

Besides, Toyota deserves the extension. Hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles - these vehicles wouldn't even be on the world's radar if not for Toyota. Even today, the Big 3 - led by GM - can't get off the ethanol crazy train. Fortunately, even the mainstream media are finally starting to address the truth about flex-fuel vehicles and corn-based ethanol - its a scam (See BW).

--> Finish Democrats suck: Why no Toyota hybrid tax credits

Mazda to offer a flex-fuel hybrid - gasoline or hydrogen?

Is Mazda pulling a Ford?

At NAIAS Ford announced plans to develop hydrogen plug-in hybrid vehicles. Of course, such vehicles would still require some sort of hydrogen highway, even though the plug-in feature would minimize the need for regular hydrogen fueling.

Now Mazda, a part of the Ford family, is also developing a hydrogen hybrid, however, this hybrid is a bit different than the Ford concept. Unlike Ford's hydrogen hybrid, Mazda's hydrogen hybrid would use Mazda's rotary engine according to reports. Since Mazda has been developing a flex-fuel rotary engine - one that could use either gasoline or hydrogen - Mazda's hybrid could be much more consumer friendly.

Regardless, such a development seems to indicate that the evolution of hybrid cars could become quite interesting in the very near future.

Gas tax best path to fuel economy?

I was told that a bunch of economists expressed to the Wall Street Journal that a gas tax was probably the best way to increase America's fuel economy. I think the idea is very interesting, however, only if the tax revenue is used only for clean vehicle tax credits for consumers. Thus, those whom buy E85 would only have to pay 15% of the gas tax, but if they drove a flex-fuel hybrid they would also qualify for a tax credit, such as the one in place for hybrid vehicles today.

Hybrid notes from the Geneva Auto Show

Will this be the first Saab hybrid?

Without doubt the hottest hybrid news coming out of Geneva has been the Hybrid X concept. Unfortunately, much of the rest of Geneva's hybrid news isn't really new.

For example, Saab announced a future hybrid vehicle, though its plans are still sketchy. At NAIAS, Saab displayed the Biopower 9-3 flex-fuel hybrid, so the possibility of a Saab hybrid isn't really news. In addition, Mercedes reconfirmed plans to offer its first hybrid in 2009, but it did not clarify which model will be a hybrid nor whether the hybrid would be a full hybrid or a mild hybrid.

There was; however, one other interesting piece of news regarding hybrid cars coming out of Geneva: TATA, the Indian automaker, is seeking a hybrid partnership. Considering that India will drive much of the automotive market in the future, this is very interesting news.

Detroit's Hybrid Announcements: Myth or reality?

The Volt was a hype machine at NAIAS

With the Big 3 bleeding red, it wasn't very surprising that each of the Big 3 automakers made important hybrid debuts and/or announcements leading up to the first 100 hours of the new Democratic Congress and before the President's State of the Union Speech. Obviously, they had to show they were taking some action on fuel economy and global warming, or at least they had to create that perception.

GM was the hype machine king, launching the Chevy Volt electric hybrid at NAIAS. I believe GM is serious about the Volt, and I believe the Volt will one day be a sale's leader for GM. Still, at this point in time, I'm more concerned about GM's dual mode hybrids, such as the soon-to-be released Yukon hybrid. Where is it?

I don't just want to hear about the hybrid cars GM is going to develop, I want to see the hybrids GM has developed saving gas at gas stations in my neighborhood.

Similar to GM, both Ford and DaimlerChrysler made big announcements as well, such as Ford's plug-in hydrogen hybrids, flex-fuel hybrids and Chrysler's testing of plug-in hybrids. These were all great announcements, but announcements are not much more than PR hype. Hopefully, these PR efforts were not just hype campaigns to influence politicians.

Give the Big 3's credit to the Prius

Give the Prius some credit

In advance of the President's State of the Union speech, Big 3 automakers are using the Auto Show circuit to show Congress and the President that they can be fuel efficient. Ford announced 20 flex fuel hybrids and a $2,000,000 hydrogen plug-in hybrid. DaimlerChrysler showed off the most fuel efficient, clean diesel heavy duty Ram pickup truck, and GM debuted the Chevy Volt concept at NAIAS.

Wow, I guess Detroit gets it, huh?

Well, why then are the Big 3 sitting on more than 150,000 tax credits available for hybrid vehicles as Toyota's hybrid tax credits expire because they sold too many hybrids? Why do we punish Toyota's clean and fuel efficient success and protect Detroit's complacency? Is this really how you drive innovation? How about some good old American competition?

As I blogged earlier today, it's time to put tax incentives into the hands of the people rather than the corporations. Give the people the money to afford hybrid vehicles and other clean technologies and to reward whoever makes the hybrids consumers want.

While I desperately want the Big 3 to succeed, it's time for real world vehicles, not fancy concepts and $2 million one-offs.

A gas tax and clean vehicle tax credits: The path to energy independence?

What's the best path to energy independence?

Why not make gas more expensive while using the gas tax revenue to reward consumers whom buy more fuel efficient technologies? Also, make that tax 85% less for E85, for example - let consumers reap the benefit of buying a flex-fuel vehicle if it works for them. Why should automakers receive CAFE credits - a tax saving loophole - for selling E85 functionality that is never used by the majority of consumers? In addition, empower the flex-fuel user - via tax credits - to save even far more with a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle.

--> Read the rest of State of the Union and Energy Independence: Power to the People!

Ford to plug-in its hybrid vehicles as well?

My first thoughts of Ford's HySeries Drive - which debuted at NAIAS - were not great, particularly because this new plug-in platform requires hydrogen to power its fuel cell. The Chevy Volt and its E Flex Drive, on the other hand, provides a much more adaptable and flexible path to fuel cells, as does Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive (See my article on the Hybrid Synergy Drive versus the E Flex Drive). Most important, neither the E Flex Drive nor the Hybrid Synergy Drive are dependant upon either fuels cells or hydrogen - a significant advantage over the HySeries Drive.

It seems Ford is now also keenly aware of this fact. Today, Ford is going to display the Flexible Series Hybrid Edge at the Washington D.C. Auto Show. While it seems this new Edge is based upon the HySeries Drive, Ford has already made changes. "We could take the fuel cell power system out and replace it with a downsized diesel, gasoline engine or any other powertrain connected to a small electric generator to make electricity like the fuel cell does now," Gerhard Schmidt, Ford's vice president of research and advanced engineering. (more)

Was Ford influenced by the success of the Volt? Regardless, it seems the auto game is changing. Consumers aren't interested in what automakers are going to do tomorrow, they want to know what you are doing today, and that requires hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles - all of which can help develop a platform for fuel cells and hydrogen.

Of course, if lithium-ion batteries reduce the cost of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, while also providing at least 400 mile per day range, consumers might question whether fuel cells and hydrogen are even needed.

What's next for the Honda FCX?

Did Honda steal a few design cues from the Prius?

I believe Honda has the best hydrogen fuel cell concept vehicle in the world. Of course, as I was told by a Honda spokesperson, "You don't win any awards for being first to half way there."

As remarkable as the fully-functional Honda FCX Concept vehicle is, I wonder whether it really has any future. Aside from the extremely high cost of the vehicle, where is an owner going to fill up? There are not even 50 hydrogen pumps in the entire United States.

Will this force Honda to develop a new platform, similar to Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive or GM's new E-Flex Drive, which provide an adaptable, evolutionary path to fuel cells? Are plug-in hybrids the next big step to fuel cell vehicles?

Also, check out the front end of the FCX - looks eerily like the Prius.

Hybrid Synergy Drive Versus E Flex Drive: It's all about evolution

Several years ago I thought that automakers should do everything possible to develop hydrogen powered vehicles, especially fuel cell vehicles. Eventually, however, it became obvious that there were many, many technological hurdles - in addition to massive costs - to overcome and make this hydrogen future a reality. Yet, it seemed obvious, especially after 9/11, that America couldn't just wait for the hydrogen highway to deliver a road to energy security.

Fortunately, Honda launched the Insight hybrid and Toyota quickly followed with the Prius. For Honda, hybrid technology was a niche a technology, an experiment in fuel efficiency. By the second generation of the Prius, however, not only was the Prius a hit with consumers, it was the beginning of a foundation, an element of Toyota's kaizen.

The Prius had become a path to fuel cell vehicles.

--> Read the Full Story

Start selling the Yukon hybrid already

GM was able to electrify NAIAS this year thanks in large part to the debut of the Volt plug-in concept vehicle. While the Volt is probably at least five years away from reality, there is a progression of vehicles leading to the Volt and its E-Flex platform.

It starts with GM's dual mode hybrid powertrain, which debuted at the Los Angeles Auto Show in the Yukon hybrid vehicle. As soon as the battery technology is developed, the dual mode hybrid powertrain will evolve into a plug-in hybrid powertrain, starting in the Saturn Vue hybrid. This could happen in as few as three years.

Still, any vehicle at least 3 years away from reality is little more than fantasy today. While I am absolutely confident that both plug-in hybrids and the Volt will eventually be mass-produced vehicles, GM must take greater action today. For example, start selling the Yukon hybrid as soon as possible and roll out as many full hybrid vehicles immediately. Make the Saab flex-fuel hybrid, which also uses the dual mode hybrid powertrain, a production vehicle.

GM's green revelation would be far easier to believe with these two hybrids in dealerships throughout the country.

GM's Saab Flex-fuel Dual Mode Hybrid, and it's a convertible!

As I was clearing my memory stick for today's photos, I realized that I forgot to mention the Saab Biopower 9-3 hybrid concept yesterday.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of ethanol. I'd much rather see the future of ethanol as cellulosic ethanol power plants adding power to the electric grid, rather than being distributed for automobile fuel. Let this electricity power cars that plug-in to the grid.

As a result, flex-fuel vehicles are still on my very IFFY list. However, a vehicle like the Biopower is a flex-fuel vehicle that I can fully support. Not only can this vehicle utilize E85, it can also utilize E100. Still, that's not what I like best about this hybrid - that's what I like best about the Saab Biopower - it's a hybrid!

The Saab Biopower hybrid vehicle is essentially a production ready dual mode hybrid vehicle, that happens to offer the ability to run on ethanol. Quite possibly, this is the first 4 cylinder, convertible flex fuel hybrid vehicle anywhere near production.

I say, make it happen GM. Make it happen.

Congress: Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids not flex-fuel guzzlers

There has been much buzz in the media regarding how the Democratic control of Congress is going to help the green revolution. While there is no doubt that Democrats will pass more 'green' legislation than the previous Republican Congress, there is still much cause for concern. For example, "The politics surrounding environmental issues have proved hard to predict, largely because the potential economic impact of stronger regulation tends to scramble partisan loyalties. Democrats from auto-making states, for example, have fought efforts to mandate stricter miles-per-gallon rules for vehicles." (more)

Currently, the top buzz words coming from the Democratic agenda have largely been focused on global warming and alternative fuels, especially ethanol.

Obviously, global warming is an important issue, but when there are studies that indicate that far more global warming pollution is caused by the livestock industry than all the emissions from all forms of transportation combined, one has to take pause. Of course we should make cleaner automobiles; however, why is the smaller problem the center of all the global warming attention?

Even worse, it seems the Democratic preferred answer to global warming is ethanol. First, corn-based ethanol is not very environmentally friendly. Yes, it might be more environmentally friendly than petroleum, but is it enough more? Without doubt, I say no. Second, ethanol is also seen as a way to protect American automobile jobs, but at what cost? I simply don't see how E85 Hummers, Expeditions and Nitros are really an answer to global warming, foreign oil dependency or American jobs - at least in the long term.

Over the last several decades, almost every single advance in fuel efficiency has only produced heavier and more powerful vehicles - resulting in greater foreign oil dependency and pollution. In order for America to truly fight global warming and foreign oil dependency, while protecting American jobs, very advanced technology will be required - as fast as possible.

The entire American automobile psyche must evolve.

Of course, ethanol can help, particularly if it is used to top off a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle that only needs a few gallons of liquid fuel every month - if ever. Yet, I have heard very little coming out of the Democratic camp regarding hybrid cars and real world legislation.

If America takes the slow road to advanced hybrid technology, Toyota won't. Hyundai probably won't either. And if you make it profitable for American automakers to make E85 guzzlers, then you can expect to wait far longer for American automakers to focus on flex-fuel plug-in hybrids.

Ultimately, American automakers and American consumers have to change dramatically, and that change will require significant help from the government. Hopefully, Congress will focus on the the future, not just today's political pork and paybacks.

Global Warming: The main reason to OPPOSE ethanol?

O.K., global warming isn't the main reason to oppose ethanol, however, global warming is the main reason to oppose ethanol as the solution to both foreign oil dependency and global warming gases. How can we put all our eggs in the alternative fuels basket when the same scientists warning the world about global warming also claim that today's global warming is going to lead to extreme weather, such as mini-ice ages, extreme droughts, massive hurricanes, flooding, etc, etc.? All of these conditions could wipe out the entire grain belt of the U.S. - our energy supply (not to mention our food supply) - for a year, for a decade, for a millennium.

While there is nothing wrong with pursuing alternative fuels, they cannot be pursued at the expense of efficiency.

Today, hybrid cars offer the greatest tool for efficiency. In addition, hybrids can utilize any alternative fuel developed. Most important, however, creating lighter vehicles with plug-in hybrid technology could easily increase fuel efficiency by more than 50%, even as much as 75% if carbon fibers, instead of steel, were used to build automobiles.

In the short term, alternative fuels are a distraction - an excuse - enabling automakers to continue to build more and more inefficient vehicles. 'Yes, it's a 12 mpg Hummer, but it uses flex-fuel' is neither the answer to energy dependence nor to global warming.

Do you think automakers are turning green?

There has been a lot of buzz in the media about how automakers are going green and the Los Angeles Auto Show has been cited as an example. I say poppycock.

Sure GM debuted the Saturn Aura hybrid and the GMC Yukon hybrid in LA, but GM's real green buzz was really generated by GM's plug-in hybrid development announcement - even though the company gave no timeline for an arrival. Is it 3 years, five years, 10 years?

Anyway, at the LA Auto Show, GM put far more effort into marketing their massive lineup of huge Flex-fuel trucks and SUVs - not their hybrids. Saturn hybrids, for crying-out-loud, were practically hidden at the show.

While I would applaud flex-fuel hybrids, or very fuel efficient flex-fuel compact vehicles, I cannot call GM's flex fuel trucks and SUVs a huge green move. Flex-fuel guzzlers are little better than gas-guzzlers. Even worse, flex-fuel guzzlers seem too much like another excuse for GM not to focus on real fuel economy.

Aside from GM, Nissan did debut the Altima hybrid, and Ford displayed the newly designed 2008 Mercury Mariner hybrid and the 2008 Ford Escape hybrid, but Ford's real buzz was generated by the new Mustang more than anything. In reality hybrids were minor drivers for both Ford and Nissan at the LA Show.

Then there was a lot of talk about clean diesel and hydrogen. Blah, blah, blah.

Even Toyota, world leader in hybrid cars, was far more focused on promoting the Toyota Tundra, not its Hybrid Synergy Drive. Still, Toyota hybrids did drive significant buzz in LA and it was obvious many were checking out Toyota's hybrids as potential buyers, not just gawkers.

Ultimately, automakers have realized that Americans are interested in green issues, however, the keyword is interested. Most Americans are still unwilling to help fund the green revolution, and I think automakers are keenly aware of this fact. At this point in time, green marketing is possibly more important than green automobiles.

Americans might be interested in hearing and talking about the green revolution and energy independence, but they are definitely not yet willing to revolt against energy dependence by joining the green revolution.

Green GM at the LA Auto Show?

I spent the weekend at this year's LA Auto Show, and I have a lot to write on regarding that topic. I'll start with GM. There was a lot of pre-show hype regarding GM's new green revolution - as I've called it. Since I started my auto show tour on the GM side, I was very excited. Yet, I left the GM side of show unimpressed. Yes, I saw the Yukon hybrid and all of GM's Flex-fuel vehicles - every huge gas-guzzling one of them. Inevitably, a flex-fuel tank is still a tank.

The Yukon hybrid is, well, huge. Fine. Yet, the hybrid engine on display near the vehicle seemed to attract more attention than the hybrid itself. So, I went looking for GM's other hybrid debut, the Saturn Aura hybrid.

Saturn had a nice little hybrid section at the show that showcased a split Saturn Vue hybrid with lights demonstrating the different modes of its mild hybrid powertrain. It definitely caught people's attention - as they walked into the bathroom. Unfortunately, the display, just as with the Yukon hybrid, caught more attention than either the Vue hybrid or the Aura hybrid. And why did GM practically hide the Saturn hybrid display area?

Ultimately, I thought GM's green efforts were completely unimpressive, unless one believes flex-fuel is the solution to the world's energy problems. Unfortunately, I do not hold that view.

American automakers need to embrace change and adaptability - something E85 doesn't provide

Last week I questioned an editorial by the Detroit News regarding fuel economy because of its complacency, and it's inability to foresee and realize that change must be realized by American automakers. Today, however, Daniel Howes of the Detroit News is singing my tune, telling politicians to give up the blame game while also telling Michigan and the Big 3 that it's time to change.

"The only questions are how and how quickly. Not, why us? Nor who's to blame for tampering with what U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow likes to call "our way of life" -- as if Detroit's automakers, their unions and others are immune to the laws of supply and demand. They aren't, no matter how freely some politicians may be willing to manipulate reality to suggest otherwise."

"Apologies to Sen. Stabenow, but "our way of life" is strangling Michigan because it was never designed to adapt to a changing world, much less accept that the economy and competition would change."

Evolution is often driven by small constant changes. Toyota, for example, is driven by small constant changes focused on increasing efficiency. This process, or Kaizen, led Toyota to hybrid cars - a new platform to increase efficiency. Inevitably the efficiency potential of hybrids has barely been tapped. Moreover, hybrids are adaptable to flex-fuel, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, or even electricity, and they can lead to advanced batteries and fuel cell development.

Ultimately, hybrids exude change and flexibility. Today's hybrids are gasoline-electric, but tomorrow's might be flex-fuel plug-in hybrids and not long after that they might by hydrogen hybrids, or plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. Hybrid technology is changing rapidly, adapting to the future.

Today, Democrats and the Big 3 appear very close to becoming fixated upon ethanol, a fuel which requires little change for the Big 3. Ultimately, ethanol won't really make the Big 3 any more adaptable, and it just might lead to another decade of complacency. Alternative fuels can help America, but not enough. Only significantly more fuel efficient automobiles can lead to real change.

Detroit must "think anew", and ethanol just isn't new enough.

Plug-in hybrids are flex-fuel hybrids - Which is more important?

Last week, when I read that Toyota wasn't going to offer the Toyota Tundra hybrid until at least 2010, I posted the article Toyota's huge hybrid vehicle mistake. Essentially, I wondered why Toyota wouldn't offer a hybrid truck much sooner just to steal some truck buzz from GM.

Anyway, Autopia took the same news and spun it into the article flex-fuel hybrids gain speed and suggested that any smart automaker would display flex-fuel hybrids at the Detroit Auto Show in January.

Still, if Toyota isn't going to offer a gasoline-electric version of the Tundra until 2010, then a flex-fuel Tundra hybrid wouldn't be available until 2010 either. By 2010, however, I expect more than a flex-fuel hybrid Tundra, I expect a plug-in Toyota Tundra. Sure it would be nice if that plug-in Tundra hybrid were a flex-fuel hybrid, but I'll take a gasoline plug-in Tundra hybrid over a flex-fuel Tundra hybrid any day.

Consequently, if automakers are smart they will show off plug-in hybrids at the Detroit Auto Show. It already appears GM will be smart - at least from a PR standpoint.

The hybrid show stopper at the Detroit Auto Show, in my opinion, would be a Toyota plug-in hybrid vehicle. Having already produced several hundred thousand hybrid vehicles, Toyota could really kick it up a notch if they went hell-bent-for-leather on plug-in hybrid technology.

While GM has already picked up some positive PR for its potential plug-in hybrid showcase, Toyota could steal their thunder. Inevitably, whom does the world believe more when it comes to hybrid vehicles - Toyota or GM?

GM i-Car Campaign losing steam?

About two weeks ago I made a post about GM's i-Car, a car many believe will be some type of plug-in hybrid vehicle. According to unconfirmed sources at that time, the i-Car campaign would be launched some time before the end of the year as a challenge to Toyota and its hybrid cars. Then, earlier this week, Bob Lutz told the AutomotiveNews that the future was all electric vehicles powered by fuel cells. In the interim, Mr. Lutz claimed a plug-in hybrid would probably be the best solution, and the reality of the i-Car campaign seemed, well, real.

Suddenly, it seemed GM was preparing to completely reinvent itself. Finally, I thought, finally.

Perhaps, I got a little too excited a little too quickly.

While the LA Times is reporting that GM is going to launch an electric vehicle prototype next year, there are already questions about how serious GM actually is about the i-Car program, at least in the short term. Maybe, now that Democrats have control of Congress, GM believes it can rest on E85 and flex-fuel vehicles for several years rather than actually doing something great.

Could ethanol become a boondoggle?

Last year ethanol producers received subsidies and tax incentives worth more than $5 billion dollars, and those subsidies will probably be much higher next year. Yet, even with those subsidies ethanol isn't cost effective unless gas prices are close to $3.00 per gallon.

So, is ethanol worth the price?

Supporters of ethanol claim that all this investment in ethanol for automobiles will eventually lead to better ways of producing ethanol, such as cellulosic ethanol.

I say it will simply lead to more flex-fuel Hummers and little decrease in foreign oil dependency. I say E85 is a feel-good way of accomplishing nothing, something both Democrats and Republicans love - talk, talk, talk, but do nothing.

Without raising the fuel efficiency of America's automobiles - significantly - America's demand for energy will continue to grow exponentially and it will outpace any reduction in foreign oil dependency produced by ethanol.

More important, even GM is now realizing the that the future of automobiles is probably electric. If this is true, then E85 simply becomes a distraction, even a boondoggle to those ends, at least for American automakers and the American economy.

Today, hybrid cars can increase fuel efficiency by 20 to 30 percent, which is a good start. Add advanced gasoline engines or clean diesel engines and fuel efficiency could be doubled - that's with just TODAY's technology.

But the real advantage of hybrids will be lithium batteries, and the ability to utilize electric power. Within 5 years it is quite possible that you could buy a $30,000 hybrid vehicle that might never have to be filled with fuel if you drive less than 40 miles per day, all it would need is a small electric charge at night.

Within 10 years a small fuel cell stack could be added to these plug-in hybrids and the majority of drivers might never need any other fuel than just a little occasional electricity. More important, all of this could happen much quicker if more incentives were provided for hybrid technology and lithium-ion technology.

Why not give those ethanol subsidies to consumers to purchase these vehicles? Ultimately, a change in consumer behavior is the quickest path to foreign oil dependence and a cleaner environment.

Yet, ethanol is the favored buzzword, the favored recipient of tax incentives and government subsidies.

In the past Honda has already claimed it believes electric cars are integral to the future, and Toyota's hybrid efforts make them a player in electric cars as well. Even GM says the future is electric. Consequently, it is imperative that American automakers lead the way into this automotive revolution, rather than sticking to flex-fuel Hummers and Mustangs.

America's focus should be that in 10 years every American vehicle produced is either fuel-free or that fuel is simply a backup. The technology will be there within 10 years. The Japanese will be there. Will America?

Still, I'm all for ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, as a fuel to produce electricity, just not as an automobile fuel. Ultimately, transporting ethanol simply makes no sense in a liquid form, but in an electric form it makes great sense.

Consequently, E85 could become a distraction, even a boondoggle if it takes the clean energy and foreign oil dependency spotlight, and early talk from many Democrats seems headed in that direction.

The future is now. If we don't dare to dream, we just might wake up to a nightmare. New automotive technology, not alternative fuels, should be the priority for America, and the majority of our tax incentives and subsidies should be given to consumers to buy this new technology.

Is it time to kill the Kyoto Protocol? Prop. 87?

Has the Kyoto Protocol become a joke?

In the next 20 years, energy demand is supposed to rise significantly and most of that growth is expected to come from China and India - two countries largely unaffected by Kyoto. How can this make sense?

Global warming advocates, such as Al Gore, claim we have to act right now or it might be too late. Still, even if all of the world, except China and India, began to meet their Kyoto requirements, the world would still fail because China and India would more than cover the difference and global warming emissions would still be far too high.

China, already the 2nd largest contributor of global warming gases, is seeing massive increases in global warming pollution every year. Yet, China is building a new coal power plant on average EVERY 3 days. At this rate, China cannot be given a free pass for another decade if a Kyoto type plan is going to be effective.

Quite simply, Kyoto was a good P.R. campaign that helped raise awareness of the global warming problem, but it is already meaningless, and it is time to move on.

Even in Europe, where global warming is widely accepted, the majority of countries are failing to meet their emissions requirements. Unfortunately, at this point in time, carbon caps are seen as too expensive in the short term and too costly to economic growth.

Inevitably, the world will have to think beyond Kyoto. Carbon caps, while a great idea, simply won't be enough. Technology and innovation are not only integral, but the keys to success.

More important, greater appeal has to be made to the consumers of the world.

In places like California, Proposition 87 claims to fight some of these problems by blaming the oil companies and taxing them for the problem.

Please. I guarantee loophole after loophole in 87 will ultimately lead to nothing - not even cheaper fuel - just the waste of billions of dollars. Propositions are about politics. If Democrats so strongly believe in this campaign why not ask the Democrat-controlled California Congress to do something?

First and foremost consumers have to change. Driving flex-fuel guzzling SUVs instead of gas-guzzling SUVs isn't going to change anything, except for maybe the final destination of energy profits.

In California the focus should be on fuel efficiency and getting every day people to participate in that battle. Big oil might be a problem in California, but a bigger problem is all the big Hummers, Expeditions, Tahoes, etc. filled with only one occupant 90% of the time clogging the freeways.

How does 87 or Kyoto address that?

Giving people excuses and someone to blame is simply counter-productive. The problem with 87 and Kyoto is that they require no action from the people. The people simply aren't part of the solution. Yet, it is only by rallying the people that real change will be achieved.

Of course blame is always easier than responsibility, and it makes for better partisan politics.

Scientists say ethanol could boost gasoline engines

"Injecting small quantities of ethanol into car engines at moments of peak demand -- such as accelerating sharply or climbing a steep hill -- could improve the fuel economy of gasoline engines by 20 percent to 30 percent, a scientist said on Wednesday." (more)

Such technology would probably cost about $1000.00 per vehicle and could be mass produced by 2011. The technology would also enable vehicles to use smaller engines.

Consequently, some are calling the technology a hybrid challenger. Why?

By 2011, Toyota for example, believes its hybrid technology will not only be more sophisticated and half as heavy - making it significantly more fuel efficient - but half as expensive. Thus, by 2011 you can have a hybrid vehicle that increases fuel efficiency by 30 percent to 40 percent - at least - for $1500 more per vehicle, or you can have an ethanol vehicle that achieves 20 percent to 30 percent better fuel efficiency for $1000 more per vehicle (Of course, will ethanol be cost-effective versus gasoline and available?)

Or, why not have vision? Why not offer a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle that increases fuel efficiency by 50 percent to 60 percent for just $2500 more per vehicle? Geez, why not make it a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle and be 70 percent to 80 percent more fuel efficient.

But why shoot for the moon. Why dream the big dream when we can settle for complacency?

Instead we can stick with a 20 percent gain with ethanol and all of America can drive super-Hummers because they will be so damn fuel efficient. Suddenly, we'll realize we need just as much foreign oil as ever, plus as much as ethanol as we can find!! Then, not only will America be beholden to big oil and foreign governments, but big agri-business as well - a capitalist's dream!

Ford lies about flex-fuel and saves $135 million?

"A public advocacy group on Thursday said Ford Motor Co. has avoided as much as $135 million in fines by marketing vehicles that are supposed to run on the gas-ethanol mix E85 that don't work and accused the company of running misleading ads." (more)

Moreover, aside from the obvious, the fact is that for years the majority of flex-fuel vehicles sold by both Ford and GM have not ever filled up with E-85. Yet, each company has avoided millions and and millions in fines by selling these vehicles.

"Public Citizen and other environmental advocacy groups have long complained that automakers get credits to meet federal fuel economy regulations by building flexible-fuel vehicles that are hardly ever filled with E85, since it's available at just 900 of the country's 170,000 pumps."

So, Congress gives small business owners huge tax incentives to buy the worst gas-guzzlers, provides huge tax incentives to oil companies, enables the big three to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in fines for violating fuel economy regulations - increasing our foreign oil dependency, and limits tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles because they are too successful.

That sure sounds like the right path towards achieving energy independence.

Even the President says hybrids are possibly the most important way to change consumer behavior. Yet, Congress hasn't passed proposed legislation to provide small business tax incentives for buying hybrid cars or other fuel efficient vehicles, nor has Congress passed proposed legislation to extend hybrid vehicle tax credits.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen!

We live in a country that blames the President for quite a lot these days. Fair enough. Let's extend at least as much blame to the current - do nothing, partisanship is more important - Congress.

Flex fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits - Congress is failing America.

Honda to develop bioethanol cars for Brazil

Honda will become the first Japanese automaker to mass-produce flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on 100% pure bioethanol. Plans call for about 30,000 of the vehicles to be produced in Brazil - a bioethanol world leader. (more)

Bill Clinton's hybrid - About time!

I'm sorry. I don't really care about Bill Clinton and his new Mercury Mariner hybrid (more). I say, it's long over due. I say the Clintons, and EVERY single member of Congress, should have been driving a hybrid vehicle for several years now. Instead, a few members drive flex-fuel vehicles - that rarely see a drop of E85. That is not a worthy statement.

Too many members of Congress and many other politicians make bold statements about the price of gasoline, foreign oil dependency and the environment - yet, they drive gas-guzzlers. These people cannot only afford hybrid vehicles, they have the greatest responsibility to drive them.

Going green by going yellow in a flex-fuel SUV? Really?

According to a study done by Consumer Reports, the 2007 Flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe achieves 14 mpg when filled up with gasoline. If E85 is used, on the other hand, it will achieve 10 mpg. What a deal! Let's hope the Tahoe hybrid can do a little better. O.K., a LOT better! (more)

Younger drivers have stronger interest in hybrid cars

According to J.D. Power, interest in hybrid cars is growing as consumers seek ways to offset the higher price of gasoline. Almost 60 percent of potential buyers would consider a hybrid - more than any other clean technology. For example, 49 percent would pick a flex-fuel vehicle. More interesting, for the 16-25 age group, 75 percent are interested in hybrids. (more)

If clean water is scarce, is E85 a smart move?

I have not been a big fan of E85 or Flex-fuel vehicles. If you are a consumer that has such a vehicle, and regularly fills up with E85, I applaud you. However, I DO NOT applaud either GM or Ford for flex fuel technology. For many years this technology was simply used to violate CAFE, and I seriously doubt that a line of Flex Fuel Hummers or Tahoes is really going to help the world.

If GM was installing this inexpensive technology in all vehicles, especially their small cars, I'd be a little more supportive. Nonetheless, the potential of ethanol driven from cellulose is definitely worth further investigation.

Still, I do not believe ethanol offers anywhere near a complete solution to America's oil and/or fuel problems.

For decades, the idea of a war for clean water has been gaining steam and even the Pentagon has alluded to such a possibility. Further, a new report by the WWF environmental organization, for example, warns that many First World cities are already facing serious water shortages and the problem is only expected to get worse -much worse - and significant blame belongs to agriculture. (more)

In the very near future, clean water could be worth more than oil, yet vast amounts of water will be required to irrigate and process our ethanol crops. And, what about the pollution from chemical fertilizers and other pesticides that will run off into our ever more important aquifers, lakes and rivers? Is it really worth it?

Certainly, ethanol is an interesting resource to explore, but if automotive companies only focus on fuel, rather than significantly better designed and significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars, ethanol addiction could easily lead to as many problems as foreign oil dependency.

Barack Obama better buy a hybrid vehicle, soon

Illinois Senator Barack Obama told an audience that gas-guzzling was a major problem for the U.S. and that higher mileage hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies were the solution. Of course, Mr. Obama left in a GMC Envoy. According to his press secretary, "The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol. So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles." (more)

Keyword in that sentence is can. Since there are hardly any E85 stations in Chicago, where Mr. Obama resides in Illinois, are we to believe that Mr. Obama regularly fuels his flex fuel vehicle with E85? Without E85, isn't Mr. Obama gas guzzling? Also, since E85 is in such limited supply, isn't all fuel-guzzling bad?

Toyota juiced for plug-in hybrid vehicles?

Recently, I was doing some research on the Tesla electric car. 0 - 60 in around 4 seconds, 250 miles per charge at a fueling cost of about 1 cent per gallon - how awesome is that? Sure the vehicle costs $100,000 and will probably only be an option for the Hollywood elite, but it still demonstrates that the days of gasoline are nearing an end and that we definitely don't have to wait for hydrogen to save the world.

Even better, especially in the short term, flex-fuel-plug-in hybrid vehicles could be made for less than half the cost of the Tesla. Such a vehicle would extend the range of the vehicle and make it easier to fuel on long distance trips. Additionally, it would allow owners to choose the fuel of their choice.

While gas-guzzlers and their producers consistently talk about consumer choice, wouldn't real choice include not just the size of the vehicle, but the choice of fuel? Let me decide if I want ethanol, gasoline or electricity. Now that's real choice.

Ford's Broken Hybrid Promise

Not long ago Ford stated that hybrid cars were an important technology for the company and that 250,000 Ford hybrids would be produced by 2010. While, Toyota has already far surpassed that number, less than a year after that historic and bold announcement, Ford has already given up on the plan.

Instead of hybrids, Ford is now promising 500,000 flex fuel vehicles by 2010. "What I didn't foresee at the time was how rapidly other technologies would evolve," he wrote. "Now, I am convinced that the objective we had set earlier to build capacity for 250,000 hybrids at the end of the decade is too narrow to achieve our larger goals of substantially improving fuel economy and CO2 performance." (MORE)

Is the end of Ford near? I say it is. By 2010 Toyota will probably be close to selling more than 1 million hybrid cars per year, more than twice the number of significantly cheaper flex-fuel vehicles that Ford will produce. Quite simply Ford can't compete.

Michigan lawmakers push Bush on E85

"A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers wrote President Bush Monday urging him to twist the arms of oil company executives to make an alternative fuel available to drivers of the 6 million flexible-fuel vehicles on the roads." (More) Too bad most of those 6 million flex-fuel vehicles are gas-guzzlers! Why don't these lawmakers focus as much attention on getting more fuel efficient technologies out of Detroit as they do on blaming the oil companies for their problems? I guess blame is always easier than taking responsibility?!

France tests flex-fuel vehicles

"France on Thursday launched its first tests of so-called flex-fuel cars that can run on ethanol or conventional fuel in its latest push to promote wider use of renewable energy."(AutomotiveNews)

Flex-fuel hybrid cars COULD end foreign oil dependency, flex fuel Hummers and Tahoes NEVER will

Over the last several months there has been a tremendous amount of hype around ethanol. In fact, GM's GoYellow campaign seems to imply that every American could drive a flex-fuel Hummer and America could still end foreign oil dependency. Yet, scientists don't agree, and they say corn-based ethanol will have little effect on foreign oil consumption.

Of course, ethanol supporters suggest other forms of biomass, such as cellulosic ethanol - which still require undeveloped technologies - could possibly achieve a 30% drop in gasoline consumption by 2030. "There are many people who believe that biomass has the power to replace our appetite for gasoline," said Kimberly Gray, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University. "But that will only occur with significant improvements in energy efficiency and smart growth." (more)

In reality, despite GM's marketing deception, corn offers very little hope for America's fuel needs, especially if GM only produces Tahoes and Hummers. America needs smaller vehicles, and it needs millions and millions of hybrid cars. While smaller flex-fuel hybrid cars won't end gasoline consumption anytime soon, they could end foreign oil dependency - something flex-fuel gas guzzlers will NEVER accomplish.

GM versus Toyota: Fuel versus Automobiles

Automobiles versus fuel?

When automakers have faced Congress over the last week, there has been a striking contrast in style. Toyota, for example, has focused on incentives for building more fuel efficient automobiles, such as hybrid cars. Detroit, on the other hand, has focused on new fuels, such as ethanol, for their gas-guzzlers.

While ethanol holds great promise as an alternative fuel, the automotive technology to utilize ethanol is already complete. What isn't complete are new vehicles, such as flex-fuel hybrids, for example, which could make inefficient burning ethanol much more efficient. Fortunately, Ford has at least proposed such a vehicle.

Still, shouldn't GM focus on being a better automaker? If they want to be an energy company, maybe its time to sell the auto business? For decades GM has used fuel cell vehicles as an excuse not to compete with Japanese efficiency, now they are using ethanol. At a time when foreign oil dependency is causing so many problems for America, why is it that Japanese companies are doing so much more to alleviate the problem? You make cars, Detroit, not energy. (Sources: AutomotiveNews)

Next Gen. Ford Escape hybrid will have new look

Recently, Nancy Gioia told AutoWeek that while the new Ford Escape hybrid design wouldn't remind anybody of some crazy science experiment, it would be different. Gioia said, "there is going to be some differentiation. People who drive hybrids want to make a statement that they are driving a hybrid." Hmmm, a shot at the Prius, Mrs. Gioia? Perhaps taking sly swings at your competition is a good marketing tool, but sales are really all that matter, right? By that standard it is the Escape hybrid which seems ugly - at least according to buyers. Nonetheless, I like the hybrid Escape and hope the new design helps sales. More important, Mrs. Gioia, make it a flex-fuel hybrid.

CAFE and Congress: Much Ado About Nothing?

Not long ago I referenced a story that ridiculed Congress and its conservationist policies. On a day members of Congress went to a gas station about a block from their offices to speak about high gas prices, almost every member was driven, spoke as their vehicles idled, and then was driven back one block to their offices. Even worse, most members were in gas-guzzlers. As if that were not enough, most members regularly drive gas-guzzlers.

This is Congressional leadership? Reminds me of what my old football coach used to say, "Anybody can talk the talk, but only champions walk the walk.

Apparently, there aren't many champions in either Congress or the White House these days, maybe there hasn't been in a long time. In today's world LEADERS would be driving hybrid cars, bio-diesel cars, or maybe flex-fuel vehicles fueled with E85, not Tahoes, Escalades, and BMW 760's. Maybe a REAL leader would even - dare I say - walk!?

Today, Congress is focused on CAFE, something they didn't act on just a year ago, but it's good politics now that Americans are angry about high gas prices. It seems success in Congress is driven by doing little and blaming someone else for the problem.

While I am an advocate for increasing CAFE, the plan is really going nowhere. The boldest move that has reasonable support - although probably not enough support - is to raise CAFE by 10 mpg in 10 years. In 10 years, with millions more Americans driving longer commutes while in more congestion, 10 mpg will basically accomplish, well, nothing.

The best case scenario for this plan is that we'll only be importing as much oil in the future as today. Whooohooo!

Nothing short of an automotive revolution is going to change America's oil addiction, and 10 mpg is far from a revolution. Unfortunately, only dire catastrophe will wake Americans up to such a realization, and without REAL leadership coming from Congress and the White House, such a catastrophe appears inevitable.

Performance, Size and Fuel Efficiency? Only hybrid vehicles

Most Consumers Still Demand Performance and/or Size

Hybrid technology is just emerging and still evolving, but already there are mild hybrids, full hybrids, one-mode hybrids, two-mode hybrids, gasoline hybrids, diesel hybrids, hydrogen hybrids, plug-in hybrids, flex-fuel hybrids, etc.

Another class of hybrids, performance hybrids, have often been the source of much media ridicule because they are as much about performance as fuel efficiency. Such hybrids include the Lexus RX400h and the Honda Accord hybrid. Additionally, other hybrids, such as the Toyota Highlander hybrid, could have been made to be more fuel efficient, but Toyota figured Highlander drivers, and many SUV drivers, still favored a certain level of performance more than fuel efficiency. Much evidence seems to show that Toyota is right.

According to a CNN/Kelly Blue Book study, almost 25% of consumers are willing to give up performance and size for better fuel economy; however, 25% refuse to give up anything for better fuel economy. The other 50% will give up a little size, or a little performance, etc.

Along those same lines, an AutoWeek article notes, Loyalists won't quit big SUVs; hauling power, improved fuel economy help move vehicles . "Arguably, Americans insist on SUVs. It's unique to their lifestyle and utility."

Additionally, while Congress is going to finally address CAFE, it now appears that the new regulations will still protect Detroit's SUV domain. It is just too obvious in Congress that Detroit probably cannot survive if CAFE is pushed too high.

Unfortunately, performance and size are simply more important to most Americans than is fuel efficiency. Nonetheless, ever rising oil prices, ever more realizations of the connection between foreign oil, terrorism and American hate, will slowly force more and more Americans to take fuel efficiency seriously.

The technology behind hybrid cars enables automakers to continue to provide performance and size to Americans, while also significantly reducing foreign oil dependency. This isn't something that should be done, it is something that must be done. While Congress will probably be weak on CAFE, they should be overly aggressive in offering tax incentives to promote hybrid technology.

Join our Campaign to Make Congress Act On Hybrid Tax Incentives.

Are you driving a flex-fuel vehicle?

Do you live in the Midwest? If so, you should check into whether your vehicle is a flex-fuel vehicle. In order to obtain CAFE credits, many autos from GM and Ford have been outfitted with the technology for a number of years. In a few states, such as Minnesota, ethanol can be cheaper than gasoline. For many of us, unfortunately, ethanol doesn't offer much, since most states have few, if any, gas stations that offer high mixes of ethanol, such as E85. Additionally, you'll need to pay attention to price, according to the Department of Energy, a gallon of E85 only offers 72% as much energy as does a gallon of gas. (USATODAY) Nonetheless, it does burner cleaner and reduces foreign oil dependency.

Flex-fuel gas-guzzlers are irrelevant in today's ethanol world

Next month President Bush is going to meet with the Big 3 about energy and the environment, pensions and health care, and currency problems with Japan. Unfortunately, building more "relevant" vehicles probably isn't going to come up.

When Bush told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles, auto executives were not too happy. In their minds, huge gas-guzzling vehicles are relevant, which must explain why almost every flex-fuel vehicle - those that can run on ethanol-mixed fuels - are extreme gas guzzlers.

Without tax incentives and even with incentives, ethanol isn't always cheaper than gasoline, so flex-fuel vehicles aren't helping the consumer by offering cheaper fuel costs.

O.K., so is Detroit building flex-fuel vehicles to fight foreign oil dependency?

That doesn't make sense either. If you want to fight foreign oil dependency, then why not offer flex-fuel capabilities in all vehicles? Why just offer flex-fuel capabilities only in vehicles that might fail CAFE?

Today, their are just 600 ethanol pumps covering ALL of America, compared to about 180,000 gasoline pumps. Just a little over a year ago - when GM churned out most of it's flex-fuel vehicles - there were only about 300 pumps. This is why GM never told anyone about the flex-fuel capabilities they added to many gas-guzzlers for a number of years - there was NOWHERE to fill them up and in most states there still isn't.

Now GM is trying to take credit for such actions.

In today's world, flex-fuel gas guzzlers that receive CAFE credits can only be called one thing, irrelevant. Flex-fuel gas-guzzlers neither offer the far majority of Americans cheaper fuel nor do they help fight foreign oil dependency.

While ethanol offers tremendous potential, today's gas-guzzling flex-fuel vehicles do not.

In the '70's it was small cars, today it's hybrid cars

Hybrids will prove America wrong, again

I remember my parents picking me up from grade school one afternoon in the late '70's. Across the street from school, my father noticed my teacher's new Honda Civic. He laughed and said, "Who would ever want to drive a small riceburner like that? Honda is a motorcycle company, not a car company."

Well, needless to say, the rest is history. Not only did Honda do well selling cars no one "would ever want to drive", but so too did Toyota and Nissan. Just a few decades later, these 'riceburners' have knocked the American auto industry against the ropes and a TKO is very possible.

My father was a Union machinist and back in the '70's buying such a vehicle, regardless of how reliable it was or much gas it saved, was simply un-American. And it wasn't just my father, but most of America that felt that way.

Many Americans still feel that way today, which is why I think so many Americans are SO against hybrid cars. If hybrids take over much the same way riceburners did, it might just spell doom for American automakers.

According a Detroit News poll, the majority of Detroit-area readers don't believe hybrid vehicles will be around long. (See the Poll)

I say, get your head out of the sand. Don't make the same mistake twice.

The days of cheap oil appear to be over, and there probably isn't a windfall tax that can do anything to change that. A windfall tax can't stop problems in Iran or Nigeria. A windfall tax can't stop a billion new drivers from China and India.

The world has changed. Fuel efficiency and pollution will be the key drivers of not just automotive technology, but of all technology. In fact, clean and green technology is not only possible, as the Toyota Prius hybrid car so beautifully demonstrates, but it is destined to improve greatly, while getting significantly cheaper.

$3.00 gas is only the beginning, the beginning of the hybrid car revolution. Flex fuel hybrids, diesel hybrids, gasoline hybrids, hydrogen hybrids, and fuel cell hybrids - hybrids are THE future.

The blame game: High gas prices

Gas prices are going up, and the potential for significantly higher gas prices is increasing regularly. Who is to blame? Big oil says, "the U.S. economy had become vastly more fuel-efficient since the first oil shock, 'so why is the average fuel economy of American cars unchanged in two decades?'"

Chrysler responds, "Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies." (Detroit News)

O.K., so oil hasn't done their job, but what has Chrysler, or any of the Big 3, done?

Nothing regarding fuel economy, that's for sure.

Oops, I forget, they put millions of Flex-fuel vehicles on the road, that's right. Instead of paying fines for missing CAFE requirements, automakers have added flex-fuel technology to gas-guzzlers. I guess that's enough!

Unfortunately, with only 600 ethanol stations out of 180,000 gas stations, most simply can't find ethanol.

Ultimately, big oil and the Big 3 have failed America and the world.

Of course Americans keep buying gas-guzzlers and performance that can't be utilized, but we look good! Well, that's another story...

Irresponsibility - it's always someone else's fault!!

Energy Secretary likes ethanol, not hybrids?

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman called on Americans to embrace ethanol, but did little to promote hybrid cars or clean diesel at the SAE conference in Detroit.

"It should be our common goal that E85 become a nationwide fueling option," Bodman said. "In the coming days, I will be asking that we do more to make consumers aware of the flex-fuel option both when they are considering a new car purchase and for existing owners of flex-fuel vehicles."(DetroitNews)

Additionally, the Secretary plugged electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells as the 'answer' to America's energy problems.

It's ironic that since GM, Ford and Toyota fuel cell vehicles will be hybrid vehicles, that the Secretary didn't promote hybrids, minimally, as a bridge to not just fuel cell vehicles, but electric vehicles as well. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, for example, can function as electric cars, while also providing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel or even hydrogen as a supplementary or primary fuel source.

On the other hand, there is a good chance that if someone buys a flex-fuel vehicle, especially if they live on either coast - they will never fill it up with E85, since they won't be able to find any gas stations that carry ethanol.

In fact, if you are worried about the environment, or foreign oil dependency, many flex fuel vehicles cause much more harm than good. Since many flex fuel vehicles are large trucks and SUVs, flex fuel capabilities were only added to avoid penalties for missing CAFE requirements. Consequently, flex-fuel technology is often only serving as a loop hole that increases foreign oil dependency and pollution.

And the government is good at loopholes. According to some, Bush's new CAFE requirements - intended to make more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs - might lead to bigger, more fuel inefficient trucks and SUVs thanks to another loophole. (AutoWeek)

Why should we be surprised since the government already gives unlimited, $25,000 tax deductions for small business owners to buy the most pollution and foreign oil dependency causing vehicles, yet gives much smaller, capped tax incentives for hybrids?

It seems the government and the Energy Secretary are either ignorant, incompetent, or too focused on protectionist legislation designed to protect American corporations, rather than to actually make America a safer place. Apparently, only gigantic, inefficient corporations can save America.

Yes, ethanol is important, but so to is clean diesel, biodiesel, and even clean gasoline. More important, hybrid technology can make any of these fuels much more efficient, while clearing the path to fully electric cars and/or fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Let's put the power in the hands of the people, not the corporations. Join the campaign for hybrid vehicle tax incentives.

Toyota is the Most Important Automaker in the World

I was reading an article this morning, Honda sees hybrid owners buying fuel cell cars, and it struck me how Toyota has become the most important automaker in the world.

It turns out Honda is looking to the drivers of its hybrid cars to drive Honda Fuel Cell Vehicles.

"Honda has a rough idea of who its first fuel-cell customers will be, people trading in their gasoline-electric hybrid cars," states this AP article.

"We already hear of people saying, 'gee I like my hybrid but what's next. I want to go beyond gasoline'," says Steve Ellis, manager of fuel-cell marketing for American Honda Motor Co.

Yet, Ellis also notes that, "fuel-cell cars will make up only a fraction of the auto market for two or more decades."

While it's great that Honda is looking beyond hybrid vehicles, is the status quo of the world's fleet of automobiles good enough for the next two or three decades?

What happens when millions and millions of new drivers from China and India demand more oil in the next decade? What happens if Iran cuts oil production to the West? What happens if 10 years of increased, severe hurricane activity batters oil refineries in the Gulf of Mexico? What happens if global warming is actually much more serious than believed?

Even worse, what happens if the 'hydrogen economy' is found to result in some unintended consequence that actually makes gasoline still a better a solution?

How Green is Green Enough?

Sure Honda is the greenest automaker in the world, but none of the world's automakers are green enough, and that's why Toyota is so important.

Toyota's aggressive push into hybrid cars has made the public realize that much better automobiles - in terms of fuel economy and pollution - are available now, not in decades.

Yet, the best thing about hybrids is that hybrid technology offers much more potential than is currently offered. For example, hybrid technology could be added to flex-fuel vehicles, to diesel vehicles, to bio-diesel vehicles, to hydrogen vehicles, etc. Moreover, more and more research will lead to significantly better hybrid batteries. Consequently, 100 mpg hybrid vehicles could easily be less than a decade away.

100 mpg vehicles aren't worth striving for along the way to fuel cell vehicles in today's world? The status quo is simply good enough for another few decades?

Inevitably, when America experiences sustained gas prices of more than $3.00 per gallon combined with the constant threat of gas spikes of more than $5.00 per gallon, automakers won't - at least those that want to survive - have any choice but to build as many hybrids as possible.

Thanks to Toyota, Americans and the world will know, automakers can do better, much better.

Can automakers lead the green revolution?

Even Flex fuel cars, hybrid cars, and plug-in hybrid cars are not enough. We need even better cars. We need to make automobiles smaller, and we need to make them flex fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicles. We need the best technology that the entire auto industry has to offer and we need it to be affordable. Most important, we need it NOW!

Yet, AutoWeek questions, "Do consumers even want plug-in hybrids?"

Read the Full Story

Bi-partisan support for plug-in hybrid vehicles?

Plug-in hybrids, just like a regular hybrid, only better

Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado was on CNBC's Morning Call this morning to discuss a panel that had been convened to discuss America's energy situation. He indicated that there is broad bipartisan support in Congress for a new energy bill that further pushes the country towards energy independence. Congressman Salazar noted a two step approach to make this happen: 1.) Alternative fuels and 2.) A whole new generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles.

I say excellent idea, but make them flex-fuel plug-in hybrids. Click here to help.

Do Americans care enough to end oil dependence?

In order to achieve oil independence, Americans will have to make some tough decisions according to the article, Does America Want Oil Independence?. Still, hybrid cars and alternative fuels are a strong step in the right direction. While the article also plugs plug-in hybrid vehicles, I think it indirectly points out that flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles offer the best path towards beginning a real push for oil independence. Nonetheless, without a majority of Americans pushing for oil independence, many analysts think real change is almost impossible.

Thus, the question remains, "Do the majority of Americans really care about oil independence?"

Why GM makes me mad

Yesterday, I read an article that bothered me a bit. Daniel Howes, an auto reporter for the Detroit News, wrote an article, Help us, Mr. President, that really got under my collar.

Now, I like Howes as a reporter because I think he's pretty fair, especially compared to some of the other auto writers at the same paper. Still, you can't blame Howes for trying to save Detroit. What other choice does he have? In many ways, his job is probably dependent on the success of Detroit automakers.

What really angers me, I've realized, is Detroit automakers, especially GM.

Mr. Howes notes the legacy healthcare and pension costs of GM and Ford, while also complaining that Asian automakers have enjoyed unfair trade barriers. While I have sympathy for these issues, it isn't much.

Then, Howes states, "Nearly 20 GM models deliver 30 mpg or more; the first gas-electric hybrid SUV is a Ford; and Chrysler's Jeep Liberty is the U.S. industry's first diesel-powered SUV."

"Did Toyota and Honda set the standard in hybrids? Absolutely, and more models are coming. Same with Ford, GM and Chrysler. And GM and Ford have millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road today, a precursor to the ethanol-powered fleet that you say would free us from Oil Sheikdom."

Smoke and Mirrors

These statements are pure Detroit - deception and lies and the art of advertising.

First, in real world driving, GM doesn't have 20 models that achieve 30 mpg. Sure hybrid cars don't achieve EPA estimated fuel economy, but in reality almost every car misses their EPA numbers. In fact, the Jeep Liberty Howes mentions actually achieves 50% less than what the EPA estimates in city driving according to Consumer Reports.

Second, these faulty EPA numbers are used by GM and Ford to deceive CAFE. Consequently, many Ford and GM SUVs would not pass their CAFE requirements, if not for the EPA's inefficiency. Since this fact is well known by the government and industry alike, I'd call that U.S. protectionism - especially since SUVs have been Detroit's savior the last few decades.

Third, America's ethanol fleet, please! This one is the one that really sets me off, especially since I've seen at least 20 ads promoting how green GM now is because it has more than a million ethanol vehicles on the road.

Go Yellow? Go to hell GM! It has been a long running joke that almost everyone who drives a flex-fuel vehicle - one that can run on ethanol - doesn't even know it.

Why?

Ethanol is expensive most places it's offered, and ethanol isn't offered in very many places. Thus, a flex fuel vehicle really isn't much of a benefit to most, except Detroit automakers.

Adding flex-fuel capabilities to a large SUV only costs a few hundred dollars, but it enables vehicles that wouldn't pass CAFE to pass CAFE - EVEN THOUGH NO ONE IS USING THE FUEL. Thus, GM spends a few extra hundred deceiving the government - whom enables this deception - on vehicles it make thousands of extra dollars in profits.

Who wouldn't take that deal? Here, you give me $500.00 and I'll give you $5000.00.

Thus, I'm supposed to proud of GM for lies and deceit? Lies and deceit that don't reduce foreign oil consumption at all, but instead increase foreign oil consumption - this is something GM is spending millions bragging about?

Disgraceful.

How many more loopholes does the government need to give Detroit? I mean there is already a $25,000 tax deduction for the most offensive, gas-guzzling and polluting SUVs - which was only just reduced and doesn't even include depreciation deductions.

How much more does Detroit need?

Ford used to anger me as much as GM, but at least Ford has admitted the error in its ways and has taken a step in the right direction. Still, Ford needs to do much more, but I'm a huge advocate of the Escape hybrid.

If GM, on the other hand, wants my sympathy or wants my money, then GM needs to come clean. Since 9/11 GM has continued to promote it's most fuel inefficient vehicles as its marquee product. This is irresponsible and un-American.

Get with the program GM. Take some real responsibility. Admit some mistakes and talk to the people about the effort it will take to change. Help America - lead America - towards ending not just foreign oil dependency, but oil dependency and global warming emissions - not in some mystical future world of fuel cells, but today!

Let's Dare to Dream!

When GM shows some vision and some real leadership - first by accepting its failures and then with new products - I'll be the first in line to buy a GM.

Ultimately, GM has no one to blame but themselves, and forgiveness cannot begin without first accepting responsibility. Until then, I'll hope for bankruptcy.