What interests me about this scheme is that it hints at a possible solution to the problems currently associated with the electric car. The mass roll out of the electric car is dogged by several persistent problems. There’s the limited battery life, high maintenance costs for the battery, as well as charge times in the order of hours (by contrast one can refuel a petrol powered car in minutes and a LPG tank in under an hour). The idea of using electric cars plugged into the grid to even out the peaks and troughs in a renewables dominated electric grids is often touted, and this article here from the IMECHE suggests the basic concept is sound (given a few changes to how the grid is managed and power distributed of course!). However, the effect that such a proposal would have on the battery life of cars (given that they’ll be being charged and discharged much more frequently this leads to a slight increase in the wear out rate of batteries) has not been adequately addressed.

But to me the “problems” with the electric car, or indeed hydrogen fuel cell powered cars for that matter, is only a problem so long as we remain wedded to the idea that the global car fleet need to be privately owned by individuals. That is to say that we are expected to purchase and maintain a car for ones own personal use, even though it spends 80-90% of its life parked up by the side of the road gathering rust. By contrast if we all share our cars via some sort of city wide rental system (not unlike the proposed Paris system except potentially for longer periods), or rent them of off a private company, then many of the above problems simply disappear. The maintenance and replacement issues with batteries become an issue for the car leasing organisation not the user. While they will ultimately need to pass on such costs to the end user, such costs will be greatly reduced due to the benefits of improved economies of scale. In essence it becomes more of a long term business decision, and assuming that they keep the car in more regular use and hired out (than a privately owned car that again spends 80-90% of its working life idle) , that should reduce those costs to a reasonable level.

The problem often highlighted regarding the lengthy charge times for electric cars (in this article a BBC reporter takes 4 days to drive a electric car from London to Edinburgh, largely due to the amount of time the car had to spend charging up the battery) also becomes less of a problem if they’re merely being rented temporarily than it being one’s own personal vehicle, as presumably there will always be charged up cars available on every street corner (might get a bit harder at peak times, but you’d be a fool to assume you can get a car at such times if not booked in advance, much like you’d a fool to think you’ll get a taxi just by putting you’re hand up at peak rush hour). You simply pick the one nearest to you, tap your fob from the leasing company on special panel (which unlocks the car and charges you’re account) and hop in, and plug it back it when you’re done. The issue mentioned above with regard to an increased wear in batteries due to using the batteries to balance out the gird is also resolved. The leasing company hires out the car’s and their batteries to the power utilities, who would presumably compensate them for the increased battery wear in return, as well as this providing a useful revenue stream for the leasing company to further reduce the hiring costs to the customers. Similarly the customer is rewarded if he keeps the car he’s hired plugged in while its parked up with say a discount in the rental costs, or maybe free parking spaces. Suddenly the electric car sound like a much more viable idea when you look at it like this.

Also the other problem with electric cars, that being the current limited range of such vehicles, becomes less of an issue. The vast majority of journeys undertaken by people today are less than 25 miles (at least in Europe anyway, America’s a slightly different kettle of fish) easily within the range of an electric vehicle. But its this “threat” of the occasional long journey that enforces the purchase of petrol powered cars instead. Currently with electric vehicles via the private motoring option you would be required to own two cars, one electric and one IC engined, which isn’t really convenient for someone with limited funds (i.e. can barely afford one car!) or parking facilities. Now, with shared ownership, if you suddenly find yourself needing to go on a long journey one that cannot be performed either by public transport or an electric car, you simply opt instead to hire one of a small fleet of IC or hybrid engined cars instead.

Such a scheme of collective car ownership would also solve a number of other problems. For example, I highlighted in a prior post the issue of “planned obsolescence” where products, notably cars, are often specifically designed with short operating lives. This is done both in order to increase sales (shorter operating life means demand for more cars), but also because consumers by and large demand products that are cheap and which they don’t actually intend hanging onto for very long. Obviously for a car leasing firm the purchase cost of a car matters little, it’s the overall lifetime cost of ownership that’s important. They will thus purchase cars with longer operating lives, more fuel efficient engines, lower maintenance costs and ultimately lower disposal costs, in preference to cars with a lower initial purchase costs but shorter lives (and thus higher life time costs). Now if a large portion of the motor cars worldwide are being bought by such organisations, then obviously the manufacturers will quickly change they’re tune and start building cars with longer operating lives, that are easier to maintain and more fuel efficient. This will greatly reduce the amount of resources that needs to get put into building cars in the first place and the pollution this causes, nevermind the benefits of reduced air pollution and elimination of tailpipe emissions that electric cars already provide. Also given that leasing companies will be trying to keep their cars constantly in use (or parked up and charging), the end result is you will need substantially less cars to support a nation’s motorists, which brings all sorts of benefits (less parking space required, less road building, less accidents, less thefts, etc.)

Also there’s been much talk recently about redressing the imbalance that is the absurd subsidy society gives to private motoring (in terms of the government paying for building the roads, maintaining and policing them, providing fire and emergency services cover, paying for the costs of climate change, and securing oil resources, but getting only a fraction of all of this back in road and petrol taxes). Congestion charges or a system of road pricing is often raised as fair and egalitarian way of resolving this issue. However, the problem with both is always implementing it (who in their right mind is going to fit a government GPS tracker to their car just so “big brother” can track and tax you!). Obviously, if the majority of cars on the roads are leased from companies (or local councils) it’s a simple matter of fitting them all with GPS units from day one.

Perhaps more critically this idea of “national car sharing” also helps to square the circle as far as public transport. Let be realistic for a minute. Public transport is a very efficient way of moving lots of people from A to B, but what if you want to go to C and live at D? Consider, its possible to go from London (Kings Cross) to say, Achnasheen (a small rural railway station in the middle of the Scottish highlands) in 10 hrs and 15 minutes, including stops (according to national rail enquires). Driving that same distance (596 miles) is doable in 10 hrs 25 minutes, according to Google maps, excluding stops (and to be realistic driving that far in one day, nevermind non-stop wouldn’t be a good idea, not unless you want to risk falling asleep at the wheel!). However, the problem is what do you do when you get to Achnasheen? Suppose you’re ultimate destination is down some remote highland glen or say, Torridon, a small village about 15 miles away down a very scenic valley surrounded by mountains (some of the oldest exposed rocks in the British isles in fact). There is no direct bus from there to Torridon. And in any event the timetable says you’d be arriving at 19:15 at night. If you’re a keen cyclist (like me) you could try biking it (but its fairly hilly!) but that’s not much good if you’re 60 years old or with kids and have lots of luggage. Furthermore getting bikes on trains these days isn’t easy. A taxi would be difficult to arrange and likely expensive. And of course you need get back to the station for the return journey to London! And what happens if you get back to the station and find the train has been delayed or cancelled or you simply missed it? And suppose that rather than living in central London, you live in a small Cothswold’s village and you thus have the same sort of problems at the other end!

Consequently it’s no surprise why so many people choose to get in their cars and drive the entire length of such a journey, even though strictly speaking a car is only necessary for the first and last 5-10% of the journey distance. This is why even in situations where it’s cheaper to use the train than drive, many people still opt to drive. Indeed on that point I would note that the cheapest single ticket for that case study journey I mentioned above was £173.50 while Google quotes an estimated driving cost of £114.40! The reason why the car triumphs over public transport every time has nothing to do with anything you’ll hear Jeremy Clarkson fluster about (or faking on Top Gear), it has everything to do with convenience and the assurance that you have a car sitting there ready to take you wherever you want to go at the drop of a hat.

But car sharing would allow us to square this circle. Now when I get off the train at 19:15, I simply hop in a car, drive onwards to my final destination, and plug it back into the nearest charge point. When I’m done, I hop in a car drive back to the station, plug it back in, fall asleep on the train, and hop in another car the other side which takes me home. Now nevermind cost, that’s the sort of system with a level of convince that stands some chance of temping people into travelling more by public transport. And if the usage of public transport goes up, then ticket prices begin to fall substantially (look at Ryanair, ever wonder why they can offer flights for a euro? Its because they make sure their planes are constantly in the air and as fully loaded as possible…oh! and btw I’m not related to these guys, “Ryan” is a very common Irish name so don’t e-mail me complaining about the time they lost you’re bags!).

Now some people will inevitably say, wait give up my own personal car for some sort of “collectivised” car ownership system…sounds a bit commie! Nobody’s suggesting we ban private cars or anything like that (well, not immediately anyway!). Inevitably the above system will not suit everyone’s needs or tastes. A travelling salesman (in say solar panels) or a farmer in a remote rural area, or a doctor or a plumber (plus all his tools!) will all probably find that they need they’re own personal and privately owned vehicle. And indeed while we’re at it, building electric vehicles capable of meeting these people’s needs would be technically challenging, nevermind electrifying long distance trucks, aircraft or cargo ships. Inevitably quite a bit of our transport network will still have to remain fuelled by oil in the short term, then probably biofuels taking over later, possibility eventually being superseded by hydrogen vehicles longer term. No doubt some petrol heads with more money than sense will still want they’re boys toys and I’m quite sure Ferrari and Porsche will still be around to satisfy their needs (i.e. sell them over-priced “anatomical extensions”). Although they may find, given that the welfare rug of public subsidy has been pulled from underneath them, such private car ownership will now be somewhat more expensive. But for the vast majority of us such a car sharing system would offer numerous benefits and advantages.

I would finally point out that robotic car technology, that being cars that can drive themselves, is progressing at quite a pace. One could see a convergence in the future between improving electric car technology and artificial intelligence, which could ultimately us all permanently relegated to the passenger seats. Indeed the BBC has another video here about a scheme using driverless pods in Heathrow airport, although these run on dedicated tracks. I’ve been hearing about such PRT systems for quite sometime, and while I’m not entirely convinced about them yet, certainly they could figure quite significantly in the future. If the price could be reduced and these pods developed such that they could run on the road network (even if only for short distances) this would truly close the loop between public transport and personal automotive transport.

Robotic cars offer numerous advantages, notably the fact that they don’t get drunk or distracted by the kids fighting in the back and run over granny’s, they provide better fuel economy and increased engine life (robots aren’t constantly sitting on the brakes and then speeding up or forgetting to change gear, etc.), they don’t get lost and refuse to look at a map, plus you can run robotic cars in bumper to bumper traffic at 70 mph!

Obviously if machines are going to start driving cars it makes little sense for us as individuals to own them anymore, far better to delegate such responsibilities and the maintenance of such vehicles (to avoid some very literal blue screen of death moments!) to a suitable authority (private company or government backed leasing scheme).

Bottom line, if the automobile is to survive the end of the age of oil, we have to adapt our car ownership system to suit the needs of the technologies that replaces oil, not try to adapt the technology to our peculiar and outdated traditions.

“Our home—Earth—is in trouble. VW opposes key environmental laws we need if we’re going to stop our planet going the way of Alderaan (bye bye). But all is not lost. We feel the good in Volkswagen. All of us in the Rebellion are calling on Volkswagen to turn away from the Dark Side and give our planet a chance.”

According to Greenpeace the automaker “is spending millions of Euros every year funding lobby groups who are trying to stop Europe increasing its commitment to greenhouse gas reductions from 20% to 30% by 2020″. Volkswagen “can’t afford to be left behind” while more “progressive companies” like Google, Ikea, Sony, Unilever and Philips supports the tougher climate targets, Greenpeace writes on their new campaign website. They also call for Volkswagen to stop with its lobbying work and instead support stronger fuel efficiency targets that will benefit both consumers and our climate:

“More efficient cars are cheaper to run, use less oil and emit less CO2. Volkswagen has a history of lobbying against the strong European standards that we need to kick our oil addiction. As the biggest car company in Europe, with the biggest responsibility, VW must change and support strong standards from now on.”

Greenpeace also want to see that Volkswagen make their entire car fleet oil-free by the year 2040 saying the automaker should put their technology where their mouth is.

“Volkswagen says it wants to be “the most eco-friendly automaker in the world”, but only 6% of the cars it sold in 2010 were its most efficient models. It has the technology to do better. VW must set out its plan to make its entire fleet oil-free by 2040.”

Sign the “rebel manifesto” here and help put pressure on Volkswagen. You can also read Greenpeace’s report for a more detailed look on the Dark Side of Volkswagen. Watch the video:

You may laugh at him and his video, just like I did. But being a bicyclist, or even a pedestrian, in a car-centric world is dangerous and could easily get you killed. For example. In the UK cyclists made up only 0.5% of the total traffic but accounted for 5% of the entire number of road deaths and 11% of the serious injuries during 2009. The report, done by the road safety charity Brake, also concluded that “while road casualties overall had decreased, cyclist deaths and injuries had not”.

And a recently released report shows that between 2000 and 2009 more than 47000 pedestrians were killed in the USA. The study also shows that more than 668000 other pedestrians were injured because of accidents.

“The Transportation for America report asserts that transportation agencies across the country continue to design infrastructure with only vehicle traffic in mind. “It’s a serious problem that doesn’t get a lot of attention,” said Michelle Ernst, who wrote the report.

Most pedestrian deaths occur on “arterial” roadways, designed for traffic without sidewalks or bike lanes to accommodate walkers or cyclists, the report said.”

But luckily there are cities where they have bicycles and pedestrians in mind when they design their streets and transportation systems.

Photo credit: jurvetson

French cities such as Paris, Lyon, Grenoble, and Aix-en-Provence are planning to test a ban on gas guzzlers such as SUVs, according to John Voelcker over at Greencarreports.

Paris is set to be one of the first cities to experiment with such a car policy. In 2012 city officials will begin to set restrictions on dirty gas guzzlers that emit an high amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometer. It is still unclear what kind of specific details the French restrictions will have as they are still being debated.

"An official within the Parisian mayor’s office, Denis Baupin, identified older diesel-engined cars and sport-utility vehicles as specific targets of the emissions limit.

"I’m sorry," Baupin said on RTL Radio, "but having a sport utility vehicle in a city makes no sense." He suggested that Parisian SUV owners replace their sport utilities with vehicles that are "compatible with city life.""

Besides this ban on gas guzzlers in a number of French cities the European Union has issued several policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the European transport sector. These policies include a regulation on CO2 emissions from newly manufactured passenger cars that will take effect in 2012 as well.

In USA the state of California actually has a similar regulations on heavy SUVs on residential roads in effect. But as Andy Bowers points out the regulation is not being enforced by the authorities or city officials.

"And don’t expect to see stickers on new SUVs with warnings like "CAUTION: This Vehicle May Be Illegal On Many California Roads." At a GM dealership in Santa Monica, I asked a salesman (who declined to give his name) whether he informs buyers that the Tahoes and Suburbans he’s selling them are banned on most streets in the city. "I’m not aware of it," he said.

I suspect the biggest impediment to enforcing these bans is political will—SUVs are wildly popular, and it will take brave city and state officials to challenge the right of residents to use their own streets. (Of course, like a FedEx truck, heavy SUVs are allowed to use local roads for a few blocks if they have business there—like going to or from a house. But in general, they’re supposed to take the shortest possible path between designated truck routes.)"

Related reading: Politicians wants to ban gas cars in Norway after 2015

Here are two videos from Streetfilms and the BBC which shows two cities in Scandinavia where bicycles dominate. You have probably already heard about Copenhagen and the city’s great reputation as a bicycle city. But you might not have heard about Lund, a Swedish town where around 60% of the population use bicycles and public transportation.

"The Politics Show East has been to a town in Sweden where 60 per cent of people leave their car at home. In the town of Lund the majority of the population use bicycles and public transport."

The second video, from Streetfilms, shows Copenhagen "through North American eyes":

"While Streetfilms was in Copenhagen for the Velo-City 2010 conference, of course we wanted to showcase its biking greatness. But we were also looking to take a different perspective then all the myriad other videos out there. Since there were an abundance of advocates, planners, and city transportation officials attending from the U.S. and Canada, we thought it’d be awesome to get their reactions to the city’s built environment and compare to bicycling conditions in their own cities.

If you’ve never seen footage of the Copenhagen people riding bikes during rush hour – get ready – it’s quite a site, as nearly 38% of all transportation trips in Copenhagen are done by bike. With plenty of safe, bicycle infrastructure (including hundreds of miles of physically separated cycletracks) its no wonder that you see all kinds of people on bikes everywhere. 55% of all riders are female, and you see kids as young as 3 or 4 riding with packs of adults."

And while I am at it I might as well share some of my own favourite cycling blogs.

The first one out is Carbuster’s editorial blog where they discuss all topics related to the "carfree movement". If you are interested in transportation issues I can highly recommend you to start subscribing to both the blog feed and the actual Carbuster magazine.

The Guardian has a good biking blog where they post about “all things cycling – in the UK and around the world”.

Crap Cycling & Walking in Waltham Forest is a good cycling blog. Just beware, you can get really depressed from reading their posts. Another similar blog is Bristol Traffic. If you are even more interested in biking topics in and around London you should also check out Real Cycling.

If fashion is your thing you might want to check out Cycle Chic from Copenhagen.

Other cycling blogs worth subscribing to are A view from the cycle path, Bike Hugger, EcoVelo and Planka.nu which is a Swedish network of commuter organisations working for free public transport.

Do you know about other great cities where bicycles has a dominated role in the traffic? Do you know about any other interesting cycling blogs? If yes please share them with the rest of us in the comment section below. Thanks!

“This second eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere which led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe for six days from 15 April and in May 2010, including the closure of airspace over many parts of Europe,” Wikipedia writes.

And you also probably know that volcanic eruptions produces carbon dioxide. So what kind of effects did Eyjafjallajökull have on our climate? Well. Not much it seems.

“This is not the big climate changing eruption that some people seem to think it is,” said Mike Burton from Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology.

“At the moment, the eruption cloud reaches around 22,000 feet (7km),” says Anja Schmidt from the School of Earth and Environment at the UK’s Leeds University. “That’s high enough to affect aviation but is unlikely to be high enough to have a strong effect on the climate system.”

Because of the mass-grounding of flights in Europe the extra CO2 produced by the volcano actually helped to lower the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions during this period. The Guardian writes:

“A larger effect on the atmosphere, though still small in global terms, comes from the mass-grounding of European flights over the past few days. According to the Environmental Transport Association, by the end of today the flight ban will have prevented the emission of some 2.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide since the first flights were grounded.

The volcanic eruption has released carbon dioxide, but the amount is dwarfed by the savings. Based on readings taken by scientists during the first phase of Eyjafjallajokull activity last month, the website Information is Beautiful calculated the volcano has emitted about 150,000 tonnes of CO2 each day.”

Richard Black from the BBC News concludes that the “eruption would not have any effect on weather and climate” and that:

“[...]its daily CO2 output was only about one-thousandth of that produced by the sum total of humanity’s fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture and everything else. In fact, the extra CO2 produced from the volcano is probably less than the volume “saved” by having Europe’s aeroplanes grounded.”

So it seems the Icelandic volcano managed, if only for a few days, to reduce the impact aviation has on our climate – something which our politicians haven’t managed yet.

In the imagined green police state, checkpoints were set up to enforce strict environmental regulations. Predictably, the new car with the fuel efficient Audi “green” diesel engine was waved forward with a smile. On the other hand, violators were charged with throwing away batteries, using plastic credit cards, and overheating swimming pool water.

Some argued the ad had “fascist” overtones, both for its satirical characterization of the environmental movement and also for the not-so-subtle links to Germany’s fascist past. The Audi corporation apparently had strong ties to Hitler and the Nazi movement. “Green police” was also the name of the Nazi uniformed police force. Graham Jukes of San Francisco’s Brasscheck TV wrote: “Millions of dollars were spent conceiving, producing and running this ad during last Sunday’s Super Bowl. Did you find it funny? I sure didn’t. And when you consider that the advertiser helped itself to slave labor during the Nazi era, it’s a whole lot less funny.”

The New York Times commented: “This misguided spot put the ‘mental’ in ‘environmental’.”

San Francisco’s tough pro-environment Mayor Gavin Newsom, on the other hand, tweeted during the Super Bowl, “That ‘green police’ Audi commercial hits home.”

The mayor and many others saw the ad as simply a humorous effort to make an environmentally friendly point and sell cars at the same time.

The Plastics Division of the American Chemical Company took offense to the demonizing of plastic in the ad and immediately put up a web site promoting its eco-friendly attributes. “Many people,” they say, may be “surprised at the environmental benefits of plastics.”

Gregory Unruh, writing for the Huffington Post, says the ad cleverly points to an ongoing debate over the definition of sustainability: “In all seriousness, the ad captures a very real and ongoing struggle to define what exactly sustainability means for industry. It’s widely recognized that ‘sustainability’ is a term that can mean different things to everyone and every business.”

Audi’s goal, then, is to define the word on its own terms with respect to cars. He continues, “For decades, diesel cars in the U.S. have had reputations as polluters, conjuring images of black smoke billowing from the stacks of freight trucks on the highway. But Audi and other European manufactures are working to change the U.S. attitude and mindset toward diesels.”

The bottom line is that business is attempting to define the word on its own profit-friendly terms and, as Unruh concludes, given the huge sums spent on Super Bowl advertising, “the stakes are rising.”

And who cares if the ad conjures symbolism of Germany’s not-so-distant Nazi past: apparently not Audi, especially if it meets the corporate bottom line.

Author: Joe Sims, People’s World

Photo credit: lammersch

The car industry is currently undergoing a green revolution, with a number of exciting new technologies vying to challenge the predominance of petrol and diesel and put an end to the internal combustion engine’s negative effects on the environment.

For many years now, private cars have been a favourite target of environmental campaigners, mainly due to the harmful emissions that all internal-combustion engines release into the atmosphere. Their effect was illustrated starkly several times in the 1970s when ‘car-mad’ cities like Los Angeles and London were frequently shrouded in a thick, polluting smog. Car manufacturers have been working on improving their products’ environmental credentials for quite some time now. The most significant developments of the last quarter of a century include the rollout of unleaded fuel, as well as the mandatory fitment of catalytic converters, which remove many of the most harmful elements of vehicle exhaust fumes, to all new cars. But as the 21st century dawned, talk of diminishing oil supplies and the ongoing threat of global warming has incentivised both carmakers and governments to accelerate development of the technologies that will one day take over completely from those in the cars for sale today, which remain dependent on fossil fuels.

Hybrid cars, as the name suggests, represent a half-way house between traditional petrol- and diesel-engined models and the next generation of electrically propelled vehicles. Essentially, a hybrid car is one that combines an internal-combustion engine with an electric motor, powered by large batteries, to provide propulsion. There are two distinct forms of hybrid drivetrain: parallel and series. In a parallel hybrid, both the combustion engine and electric motor are connected to the transmission. Both engines are capable of powering the car, either at the same time or separately. In a series hybrid, only the electric motor is connected to the transmission, and it is solely responsible for propulsion. The combustion engine is connected to a generator to recharge the electric motor’s batteries; it is not responsible for any motion. There are already a number of hybrid cars for sale right now from various manufacturers, with the most popular and recognisable being Toyota’s Prius, now in its third generation. Japanese rival Honda has recently launched its second-generation Insight hybrid, and Toyota’s upmarket brand Lexus offers hybrid versions of its luxury SUVs and executive saloons. These are all parallel hybrids, but General Motors in the US is currently developing the Chevrolet Volt, which should be among the first series hybrid cars to go on sale to the general public.

In the longer term, however, it is likely that hybrids, which still require some fossil fuel, will be superseded by exclusively electric-powered cars. Many governments worldwide are undertaking initiatives to get electric cars for sale to the public as soon as possible. Indeed, a Norwegian minister has proposed banning the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars from 2015! The main obstacle to the growth of electric cars is the fact that their batteries need to be recharged with mains electricity, but seeing as they cannot yet store enough energy for long-distance travel, extensive recharging infrastructure will have to be put in place before the use of electric cars becomes widespread. This is something governments will have to make happen, while the manufacturers concentrate on prolonging the life of batteries and improving their recharging speed. Governments will also have to ensure that their national power grids produce electricity using environmentally friendly resources such as water, wind or the sun.

But electric cars won’t have the roads of the future all to themselves. A rival technology has emerged in the shape of hydrogen fuel cells, arguably the most groundbreaking method of alternative propulsion currently being developed. A hydrogen-powered car has a fuel tank that is filled with hydrogen in the same way a petrol-engined car’s tank is filled with petrol. The hydrogen reacts with oxygen inside the engine to produce electricity and water, which in turn power the car’s electric motor. The Honda FCX Clarity is probably the most widely known hydrogen fuel-cell-powered car, as it has been on limited trial sale in the United States and Japan since late last year. It’s powered by a 134hp, 57-litre hydrogen fuel-cell stack, and also uses a 288-volt lithium-ion battery. On a full tank of hydrogen, the Clarity can travel up to 280 miles, and, most importantly, the only waste product it produces is water. As with electric vehicles, the growth of hydrogen-fuelled cars is dependent on a network of suitable refuelling points being rolled out.

With development of all these innovative technologies currently proceeding at breakneck pace, it looks likely that it won’t be too long before none of the cars for sale on dealers’ forecourts have internal-combustion engines under the bonnet, something which will make a massive difference to the impact humans currently have on the planet’s environment.

Photo credit: Mike Babcock

Hybrid cars have well and truly entered the consciousness of the car-buying public in the last few years, as ‘greener motoring’ has become a hot topic. We have all heard that these cars are more eco-friendly than ‘normal’ vehicles and recently it has became trendy to own a hybrid. But how many of us know just what is under the bonnet of a hybrid car? Let’s take a look at exactly how a hybrid works and why it’s a greener option than a regular car.

Put simply, a hybrid car is one that combines an internal-combustion engine with an electric motor, powered by sizeable batteries, to propel the vehicle. There are two types of hybrid car: parallel and series (also known as serial). In the first case, both the combustion engine and electric motor are connected to the mechanical transmission, which means that both engines are capable of powering the car, at the same time or separately. In series hybrids, only the electric motor is linked to the transmission, and it alone propels the car. The combustion engine is connected to a generator and is used purely to recharge the electric motor’s batteries.

Nowadays, most hybrids use a combination of both systems, with power-split devices incorporated into the CVT transmission. The electric motor and the combustion engine are used to provide propulsion and the combustion engine is also connected to a generator that charges the batteries when needed. The device decides which motor to run and how to split the available power. The application of this system allows the use of an internal combustion engine with less power, which, in turn, reduces fuel consumption and emissions. So, when you’re driving at low speed, e.g. in heavy traffic, only the electric motor is used. As speed increases and the demand on the electric motor becomes too great, the combustion engine is started to not only aid in the propulsion of the car but also to recharge the batteries.

Another piece of technology that makes hybrids more efficient than regular vehicles is their ability to make use of the kinetic energy that would usually be lost while braking. When the brakes are applied in a hybrid car, the energy released is stored and used to recharge the electric motor’s batteries.

Today, there is a wide range of cars that incorporate these innovative systems. Last year, there were more hybrid launches than ever before as car manufacturers went head to head to try to meet the increased demand for these vehicles. The most popular and well-known hybrid model is the Toyota Prius; however, there are other models that are also worth attention. Honda offers a hybrid version of the popular Civic and there is also a brand-new original hybrid model from the firm, the Honda Insight. Meanwhile, more luxurious options are offered by Toyota’s upmarket Lexus division, in the shape of the GS450h, LS600h and RX400h.

Photo credit: Brave New Films

The well-known Oscar and Emmy-winning director Michael Moore says goodbye to GM today as the failed auto company files for bankruptcy. Moore says the “big three” auto companies in the USA are responsible for their own demise and that they have created “some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming”.

“We are now in a different kind of war — a war that we have conducted against the ecosystem and has been conducted by our very own corporate leaders. This current war has two fronts. One is headquartered in Detroit. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps. The things we call “cars” may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.”

But Moore says he feel “joy” about the fact that the American people now owns 60% of GM and that he is confident “we can do a better job”. He is also calling for a swift transformation of GM into a modern and environmentally-friendly company that produces cars for the future, and that the old GM factories start to produce windmills and solar panels. In short Moore is suggesting the following:

1. Convert the auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices.
2. Don’t lay off more workers. Instead use them to help build the new modes of the 21st century transportation.
3. Invest in high-speed railway across the nation.
4. Put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities, and build those trains in the GM factories.
5. Make GM produce clean and energy efficient buses for the rural areas of USA.
6. Have some factories build hybrid or all-electric cars (and batteries), it will only take a month to re-tool the factories.
7. Transform some of the empty GM factories to facilities that build windmills, solar panels and other means of alternate forms of energy.
8. Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus or train.
9. Help people switch to a more energy efficient car or use the public transportation system more by imposing a two-dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline.

Moore has loads of good ideas but somehow I doubt we will start seeing common sense in the US auto industry some day soon.

Also read:
- Let GM and the other failed auto giants go under
- “There is no need to spend a penny of public money on greening the motor industry”
- Uneven Development and Northern Imperialism in the making of Today’s Ecological Crisis
- Al Gore: The whole auto industry needs to be transformed
- Obama on 60 Minutes: “We go from shock to trance and that has to be broken”