So Why is Ford Backing Away from Hybrid Commitment?
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO 
on 07. 3.06
David Roberts at Gristmill may have well summed up all of our responses to the news that Ford Motor Co. is moving away from recent "keen interests" in hybrid technology, and choosing to focus on "flex-fuel" vehicles: WTF? During the taping of the most recent theWatt Podcast today, host Ben Kenney came across a line in the New York Times' article on this development that may hold the key: "Car companies receive a credit for each vehicle they produce that is capable of running on ethanol or a similar bio-fuel." Did you know that? We certainly didn't.
It turns out that Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988, which was renewed as the Alternative Fueled Vehicles Rule of 2004, does just that. According to the US Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center, these laws create an incentive for auto makers to build cars capable of using alternative fuels by "[giving] a credit of up to 1.2 mpg toward an automobile manufacturer's average fuel economy which helps it avoid penalties of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards." The Union of Concerned Scientists calculates that this results in a "...roughly a 65 percent bonus in credited fuel economy" (see their table for exact figures). While Ford denies this credit played a role in its decision, it is clear that cars running on biofuels automatically raise the company's corporate average fuel economy. While hybrids would help here, too, almost any car in Ford's fleet can be made a flex-fuel model with relatively simple modifications, while hybrids would require major new investment in the manufacturer's infrastructure.
Of course, developing cars with flex-fuel capacity could be a major step towards reducing automobile emissions, but the key here is the "flex" part of the equation: if a driver has plain old gasoline available conveniently, but has to drive across town for E85 or other biofuels that might work in his/her car, which option do you suppose s/he'll choose? Yeah, exactly... UCS notes "More than a decade after the program was introduced, government data showed that dual-fuel vehicles used an alternative fuel less than one percent of the time." (my emphasis) Couldn't be a case of doing the same old thing and calling it a change, could it...?
Interestingly enough, Toyota's taking a different approach: while they'll also be working with flex-fuel technologies, their major initiatives involve a doubling of the number of hybrid models by the early 2010s, and a push for development of plug-in hybrids. Given the Japanese car maker's renowned track record for anticipating and responding to market developments, we'll bet that the US' Big Three will be wondering what hit it again in the next decade. :: The New York Times
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 7 Ways the Troubled Automotive Industry Could Change Your Car and Your Commute
- Increase the Life of Your Car, Gas Mileage by Using The Correct Motor Oil
- Focus on Focus Earth: Saving the Whales (Video)
- What is the Cheapest and Greenest Way to Travel?
- Focus on Focus Earth: New Fuel Standards
- Focus Earth: May 23, 2009: New Fuel Standards and Hurricane Forecast
It seems U.S. vehicle manufacturers keep making these choices that only enforce their status as a step behind their Japanese counterparts. They never anticipate or start trends and when they finally get with the progam, they do it poorly. Everyone I've talked to plans a hybrid to be their next vehicle. Is there a reason we can't have a hybrid with flex fuel capacity?
My thoughts exactly, Marsha. From what I understand, flex fuel hybrids are certainly possible, and seem like they might be the best of both worlds. Look to the Japanese to be the first to do this...;-)
I think the added expense of hybrid technology will be enough to keep American consumers away; I went with a TDI Golf over the hybrids, because the fuel economy difference wasn't big enough to justify the added cost of a Prius, and I get better mileagle than a hybrid Civic. Plus, the Golf is just a blast to drive :)
I think the hybrid thing is overblown- more expensive, new, unproven technology (at least compared to diesel or internal combustion, which is over a hundred years old), and I still wanna know what happens to the batteries and all the other fancy electronic junk when it gets old- more toxic landfill?
Biofuels create jobs here, in addition to reducing pollution and reliance on foreign oil- that's why the auto industry gets CAFE grants for going that direction. Compared to everything else that's come out of the federal government in the last several years, I think this is a pretty measured, sane thing to be doing.
Tangentially- I'm on public trans now; anyone wanna buy my Golf? :D
--
editor note: A Golf is a compact and a Prius a mid-size, though. A diesel and a hybrid of the same size (and luxury level) usually aren't that far apart in price, and from 2007 on diesels might get more expensive because with low-sulfur diesel (won't be phased in completely in N-A before 2010, though) new anti-pollution equipments can be used.
"Biofuels create jobs here, in addition to reducing pollution and reliance on foreign oil- that's why the auto industry gets CAFE grants for going that direction"
Actually, that's a loophole in the law to artificially reduce their CAFE average and allow make more high-profit SUVs. It's pretty well explained in Keith Bradsher's book. GM has exploited it to the max, and 99.9% of people with their flex fuel vehicles used them with regular gasoline and didn't even know they could use E85 (not that it was available most places). That might change slowly, but if ethanol is made from corn in the US (instead of waste cellulose), it won't help the environment much. The biggest winners are automakers who can keep making big polluting vehicles and farmers.
"and I still wanna know what happens to the batteries and all the other fancy electronic junk when it gets old- more toxic landfill?"
They actually pay you to recycle the batteries, and they last for the life of the vehicle. All vehicles have batteries, you know, not just hybrids. At least hybrid batteries keep tons of CO2 and emissions from the air..
Ah yes, biofuel credits.
Because of them, companies like GM and Ford can be made to look as good as Honda and Toyota on paper.
Too bad it doesn't translate to the real world and allows them to delay investments in technologies that make a bigger difference right now (biofuels have potential, but it's crazy to think they can replace oil directly - for them to scale, we'll have to have much more fuel efficient cars (think RMI.org's hypercar as a plug-in hybrid), a lot less of them and drive a lot less).
You know a multinational corporation is lying when you see a quote like "While Ford denies this credit played a role in its decision". If it truly did not have anything to do with their decision-making process I would imagine their shareholders would be asking the same thing as us environmentalists: wtf?
Hearing about this credit really bothers me - the fact that they can loosen their CAFE standards is the worst of all worlds. At this point efficiency is the key - hybrids use batteries which I imagine have quite an environmental footprint.
It's sad that Japan automakers haven't gotten on the ball with flexfuels. I have a 2005 Scion tC that I love, but it can't use anything more than 10% ethanol. I've talked to Scion (a division of Toyota) and they told me that they know of no changes that will be made, or conversion kits for my car. I'm sure there'll eventually be 3rd party manufacturers that will provide conversion kits, but it's something I would think that the auto makers would do themselves.
what's the difference between ethanol and biodiesel? which one is better, cheaper...
Treehugger, can you guys do a post to clarify this.
So their vehicles can be converted to use biofuels... Well, isn't E85 the only such fuel they can use? I mean, it's not like a gas engine can somehow use biodiesel.
Jacob, I think wikipedia.org has a pretty good explanation to your question.
In my opinion and from what I've read I prefer Biodiesel and think it has more potential, but that depends on if the current research into non soybean oil produces anything. Supposedly Algae is looking like a pretty good source, but we'll see...
Regarding "classes" of cars.
Sure a Prius is a "mid-size" and a Golf is a "compact". But they have interior volumes and sizes within 5% of one another.
A Jetta Wagon is bigger than a Prius and still considered a "compact".
Toyota makes some very fine diesel vehicles everywhere else in the world, but they refuse to bring them here. Even when they get equal or better mileage to a hybrid.
For instance a Toyota Tacoma is sold EVERYWHERE other than North America as the Hi-Lux. It's got a 4 cylinder common rail turbo diesel. It gets a respectable mid thirties mpg even hauling a load. That's a 25%+ increase over the base model 4 banger here.. and 30-35% over the V6!!!
As for diesels costing more in the future due to ULSD? Are you on crack?? ULSD has been the standard EVERYWHERE else int he world for more than 5 years. Every manufacturer already has diesel engines that run better and cleaner than the ones here in North America on ULSD. They've had them for years. Fully developed and ready to go. Cleaner and more powerfull, and more efficient.
Now I'd tend to agree that to meet new emissions regulations (such as CARB standards) the new diesel engines might be more expensive. But that increased cost is not attributable to the fuel cost, it's attributable to the emissions standards. To state your opinion as "due to ULSD" is extremely ignorant.
this is just another analogy in the long history of the ppl getting screwed by big biz.
ethanol is a junk technology that our gov is too stupid to understand. lol. if i couldnt laugh, id start shooting.
biodiesel is another story and i agree about the TDI/diesel technology.
Ford is researching hybrids in sweden with Volvo engineers.
They also have a research plant there looking into producing ethanol from waste.
As for good old toyota recycling your batteries, most waste for 'recycling' in america just gets shipped to poorer countries.
Anyone interested in algae biodiesel should read the University of New Hampshire article -> http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
The economic case for the hybrid vehicles does not exist in reality. It however exist big time in the marketing and public perceptions of these entities.
A basic energy analysis will shows that a modern smal capacity turbo-diesel has better energy efficiency than a hybrid, over the legislative drive cycle (EUDC in Europe and FTP in US).
The only place where the hybrid is king is in grid-lock type situations.
The extra expense of the hybrid architecture in terms of costs and material resource is only marginally recovered over the life of the vehicle. Cars like the Prius are 'loss-leaders', whereby the manufacterer is losing cash on each one sold in order to get some alternative benefit (image, market share etc)
I've worked on hybrids in the mid-90's when there was a turn ion fashion for them. Hence my 2 penny worth.
It is my belief if you wish to go green, get a small capacity turbo-diesel engined car and run it on bio-diesel.
Good luck to you all....
I cant wait for american car companies to finally die. America will be fine without them. And the world will be MUCH better off without those criminals. It's only unfortunate that the heads of those companies will probably be fine even if their companies drown.
"All I have to say is you are an idiot.... All companies want money, period."
Said without the slightest sense of irony.