One of the big contributors to rising food prices over the past year has been the cost of getting food from the field to the grocer. Truck drivers across Europe and especially in the UK have been protesting increasing fuel costs for months. The U.S. Department of Energy is partnering with the Swedish government and one of the largest manufacturers of heavy trucks - the Volvo group - to find ways to reduce the fuel consumption of those trucks. The two governments and Volvo have already previously committed $12 million to the joint development program and this week announced an additional $36 million dollars. The two governments will each contribute $9 million of the new funds with the rest coming from Volvo. The goal is to reduce fuel consumption of the truck engines by 10 percent. The program will evaluate biofuels in heavy truck engines as well as develop advanced transmissions, new engines and hybrid drive systems.

[Source: Department of Energy]

The average cost for Detroit's Big Three automakers to meet the proposed fuel efficiency targets of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015 has been pegged at $30.6 billion. In contrast, the average cost for the Japanese automakers sits at less than half that amount at "only" $14.85 billion. These numbers come courtesy of a recent study by Global Insight. In a real shocker, General Motors alone is expected to pay out $15 billion alone. Why the disparity? Simple: the Japanese brands already offer more fuel efficient models. With that reasoning, it seems unlikely that the U.S. companies will get much sympathy from the buying public.

Global Insight also predicts that many new technologies which are just beginning to make a dent in sales today will make up a huger percentage of sales by 2015. These new developments include direct injection, turbocharging and diesel engines. Hybrids, the current darling of the fuel efficient crowd, will continue to gain market share, especially as more new models are rolled out which feature the hybrid drivetrain as an option or as standard equipment.

There is a glimmer of hope out there for automakers which are finding it tough to move vehicles in today's troubled climate. Global Insight predicts that there will be a pent-up demand for the replacement of aging models which owners have clung to in the face of high gas prices and a poor U.S. economy sometime around the year 2015.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

Hyundai is already far closer to meeting the new corporate average fuel economy standards than most automakers thanks to their current fleet averages of 32.4mpg for cars and 25.5 for trucks. Under the new footprint-based formula that sets individual standards for manufacturers based on the size of the vehicles they sell, Hyundai will have to reach a higher than average threshold. By 2015, Hyundai's car fleet will have to average 37.5mpg and the trucks will have to hit 31mpg. According to Timothy White, senior manager of the powertrain department at the Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center near Ann Arbor, the company expects to get about half that improvement from improvements in engines and transmissions. The company will be shifting from five to six speed transmissions over the next few years and adding direct fuel injection. Hyundai is also developing alternative powertrains like hybrids and diesel engines for vehicles like the Veracruz and Kia Borrego.

The rest of the improvement will come from a variety of other technologies including the obvious ones like improved aerodynamics, lower rolling resistance tires and reductions in vehicle mass. Other improvements will come from reductions in parasitic losses in less obvious areas. Shifting to electric power steering which uses power only when needed instead of driving a hydraulic pump continuously is one area targeted for improvement. Another is using LED lighting to reduce the electrical load on the alternator.

[Source: AutoWeek]

Apparently, China hasn't learned from the policies of the United States when it comes to petroleum prices. For decades, the price of gasoline has not reflected its true cost because prices have not factored in the cost of military expenditures required to maintain "friendly" governments in countries that supply large amounts of our oil. As a result Americans have long favored larger, more powerful vehicles - and they could afford them because gasoline was cheap and plentiful. China has gone from being a net exporter of oil to the world's largest consumer since 1994. China now imports half its oil needs and subsidizes the retail price to less than $3/gallon.

As a result Chinese drivers with increasing disposable incomes are opting for bigger, more powerful and thirstier vehicles, just like Americans. SUV sales jumped 38 percent and luxury car sales jumped 30 percent in the first two months of this year, bucking the trend in the U.S. Those segments are outpacing the overall sales increase of 16 percent in the fast growing market. Just as in the U.S., the Chinese government is pushing automakers to build more efficient vehicles but so far consumers aren't buying. It seems that just as in the U.S. and elsewhere only higher fuel prices will prompt drivers to go for more efficient vehicles. The Chinese government is certainly in a better position to determine what fuel prices will be than in other countries and with a market that is still evolving they could make a push for alternatives like battery and fuel cell electric vehicles. Given the pollution that plagues cities like Beijing and the increasing dependence on imported oil, they need to do something.

[Source: New York Times]

The video above, "The Energy Debate: Just the Facts," is from the Heritage Foundation and includes the results of a study on CAFE and safety that I think may have been misstated. The video starts out by asking the loaded question "why will raising CAFE standards hurt Americans?" to which Ben Lieberman, a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, answers:

Raising CAFE standards will make cars less safe. In order to meet these standards cars have to be made smaller which makes them less safe in crashes. The National Academy of Sciences have confirmed this effect. Past CAFE standards have caused an estimate 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year. So, tightening these standards will only add to the death toll on the highways.

Now, let's take a look at how the study was presented to the Congress:

There have been adverse consequences as well. Safety is most important. The majority of the committee concludes that the downsizing and downweighting that occurred in the 1970s and 80s (partially in response to CAFE) resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities in 1993. While fatalities were declining in this period, most committee members believe that they would have declined much more had the downweighting and downsizing not occurred. Two members of the committee dissent from this view. They believe that the data does not support this conclusion, and that the net effect on highway fatalities of the increases in fuel economy may have been zero. David Greene, one of the authors of the dissent in the report, may elaborate on that conclusion.

So, the study concludes CAFE was "partially" responsible. Maybe. In 1993, fatalities were actually going down at the time and not everyone on the committee agreed with the conclusion. What are some of the dissenting views from the National Academies? David Greene found "higher mpg is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities." I think the Heritage Foundation misstates the conclusions but we want to know what do you think. Did they cross the line? Do you think higher CAFE mpg requirements increases fatalities?

[Source: YouTube]

We all make mistakes, but if I told you an article written by a Boston Globe editor (and then a correction by Toyota's Communications Vice President to that article) on something as simple as a car's MPG rating did not tell the whole truth, you might be surprised. That is the case and lets start with associate editor Derrick Jackson's article which says the the 2008 Toyota Sequoia "gets a reported 14 miles per gallon on streets and 14 mpg on highways." Communications VP Irv Miller writes on the Toyota blog that, "Actually, the 2008 Sequoia's EPA estimated city/highway fuel economy rating is 14/19 mpg" and "we're greatly surprised that Mr. Jackson and his editors at the Globe haven't checked their facts, and their biases." Who's right?

The truth is they are both right. If you go to the EPA website you will see there are four ratings for the 2008 Sequoia because of differences in things like speed, drive train, etc. The 4 wheel drive, 5 speed Sequoia gets 13 city, 16 highway but has a combined rating of 14. It's quite common to see the combined rating used in a way to imply higher or lower number for city or highway i.e "14 city, highway" or even "14 city and 14 highway" as the Boston Globe wrote. In fact, I wrote specifically about Toyota's abuse of the system in August and also Hummer's use of an early MPG rating after the switch to a better system. Irv repeats this tactic at the blog by pointing to the car with the highest rating of all four vehicles at the website; 14 city and 19 highway.

Derrick's 14 MPG rating backs up the thesis on this Op Ed, which has a good point; the Sequoia is not exactly what you would expect from a green car company. Irv's incomplete 14/19 corrected rating is just Irv defending the Toyota brand because that's his job. The system is broken and the EPA needs better enforcement, a single number for a brand and even the corporate twin, as I have suggested before. The EPA's fuel efficiency rating was wrong in the past and can vary by as much as +-5 MPG but it is probably the most important information in an ad, after price, for consumers. There should be much better rules in place so we don't have incidents like this one again.

[Source: Toyota's blog, Boston Globe]

There are many people that say you can get better mileage with ethanol and you can even use blends higher than E10 in non flex-fuel cars. While controversial and only proven in tests done by mechanics or culled from impressions from truckers, there are finally some government and university studies to back up these amazing claims. The American Coalition of Ethanol has details and results from a study co-sponsored by themselves and the U.S. Department of Energy and conducted by The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (MnCAR).

They study was done with four 2007 model vehicles: a Toyota Camry, a Ford Fusion, and two Chevrolet Impalas (flex-fuel and non). The cars took the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET) on ethanol-gasoline blends and normal gasoline. The results found "fuel mixtures with more ethanol than E10 but less than E85 - can in some cases provide better fuel economy than regular unleaded gasoline, even in standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles." In fact, along with three out of four actually traveling further on ethanol, "all of the vehicles got better mileage with ethanol blends than the ethanol's energy content would predict." The study even showed there was no engine fault signs when normal cars used blends up to 65 percent.

These are initial results and there will be more studies but can you imagine a day when ethanol blended fuels (cellulosic, naturally) actually get better mileage than regular gas? Not in special flex-fuel cars but normal every day cars on the street right now? Imagine reducing the pollution levels in all cars by simply changing the fuel blends while saving money in the process? Dare I hope?

[Source: The American Coalition of Ethanol via Green Car Congress and tipster Nathan]

Bush rarely takes questions and even when he does, it's never about green transportation. Unbelievably, on Monday, Bush was asked about the impact of fuel efficiency on the gas tax and the impact of ethanol on feed costs. Bush admits we have to move away from the gas tax because of higher fuel efficiency and he seemed to support any new user fee. Here is the full quote of the fuel efficiency question and the answer:

"Q I have a transportation question for you -- Raymond Burns with the Rogers-Lowell Chamber. For business to continue to grow in Northwest Arkansas we're going to have to help with our transportation infrastructure. (Applause.) Apparently, that's our number-one issue. Given that we collect taxes on gasoline by the gallon, and fuel efficiency means there will be less taxes collected, going forward, what will the priority for transportation help be, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: The -- step one, in order to make sure that that which we collect gets spent equitably, is to make sure that the committees in the House and Senate that appropriate the monies don't take a lot of the money as special projects. In other words, what happens is, is that the Public Works Committee is the largest committee in the House -- are you on Public Works, Boozeman? Yes. (Laughter.) It sounds like I better be diplomatic in the answer. (Laughter.) So what happens is these members say, okay, I want this for my district, I want this for my district, I want this for my district, so they get a unanimous vote out of the committee -- was it unanimous last time? Yes, that's what I thought.

And then so the money isn't equitably distributed. So step one is to make sure that the committees do their jobs the right way. Step two is to give states flexibility so that if they so choose -- which I think exists today -- that if you decide to have a highway for truckers paid for by fees, that you're encouraged to do so.

I mean, you're right, fuel efficiency is going to make it harder to collect gasoline taxes. Therefore, the next question is, what's the next best user fee. Gasoline tax is a user fee. Is there a better way to collect money, a better user fee system? And one thing I think is that if you've got a freeway, you ought to be able to parallel that freeway with a way to collect user fees, a toll way, and so people have a choice. You know, a trucker, if he's interested in moving through Northwest Arkansas in expedition [sic] fashion will pay a little extra money to be able to do so.

My attitude is, so long as the taxpayer has got a free alternative, I don't see why it makes -- why it's a problem to have the paying option available as a way to collect user fees to modernize the highway system. And so that's an idea for you right there."

Go below the fold to see Bush's response on ethanol.

[Source: The White House]

Bush sent a letter telling Congress what changes they can make to the energy bill so he does not veto it. Allan Hubbard wrote the letter that the White House sent to Congressional leaders (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner) with a list of "deal-makers and deal-breakers." The energy bill does not have enough votes to make the bill veto-proof, so Congress will probably read this letter very carefully.

Bush says Congress can "reform and strengthen" CAFE but such actions should be "based on sound science, safety and cost-benefit analysis." Also, Bush does not want to see anti-trust violations against OPEC or price controls during energy emergencies. Capiche Congress?

Related:

• Bush might veto the energy bill

[Source: Bloomberg]

I am starting to feel sorry for Detroit. Leading Presidential candidate Barack Obama's new TV ad, titled "Quiet," tells a joke about going to Detroit and calling for a higher fuel efficiency standard. You can watch the video for yourself below the fold. Speaking to an audience, Barack explains he cannot accept sending 800 million dollars a day to hostile nations and in the bargain, melt the ice caps. Barack continues, saying, "I went to Detroit to insist we had to increase fuel efficiency standards. I admit, the room got kinda QUIET" (hence the title of the ad). The audience laughs. We need to tell them the truth they need to hear says Obama, the crowd applauds and the 30-second ad ends.

In August, I was shocked to hear CAFE mentioned in a TV ad at all. A few days ago I wrote about how John McCain went to Detroit and said we should "increase CAFE" and got "no applause." Yesterday, I wrote about a shift in the GOP debate to vehicle energy solutions, which included Sam Brownback saying, "I think one of the key answers is right here in Detroit." Why the sudden interest in Detroit, candidates? Is Detroit-bashing playing to the politics of the primary states or newspaper headlines? Maybe it's the energy bill debate, which includes a new CAFE standard, brewing in Congress?

Whatever the reason, Detroit, the political wind is not blowing your way. I suggest a little bending. Give Hill and Terry a call or something. You are the punch line to a joke in a TV ad. That can't be a good sign.

[Source: YouTube]

The fact that Americans are getting heavier is not breaking news. Nor is the fact that the same thing is happening to our cars. However, amidst the global, peak-oil climate it's a matter that Kevin Reale, an automotive analyst at AMR Research, believes is worth bringing to the forefront of discussion.

It's easy to point a quick finger at the popularity of SUVs, yet while they have undoubtedly had a large impact they are not the only cause for concern. With each successive model, our cars are getting longer, wider and heavier. The 2006 Honda Civic, for example, which continues to fall under the compact classification, is about the same size and weight as the 1986 Honda Accord which even at the time was considered a mid-size sedan. Even the next iteration of the new Mini whose name defines its class will grow by 74mm in length over its predecessor.

MSNBC reports that according to the latest EPA data, the average weight of an American manufactured car has grown by over 500 pounds to tip a whopping 4,142 on the scale. Reale notes that the two largest issues to overcome are the public's desire for more horsepower and the false notion that size and weight increase safety.

He acknowledges that car manufacturers are continuously looking for ways to reduce the weight of their cars by using lighter materials as well as asking their suppliers to reduce the weight of their parts. However, their efforts have fallen short in the battle against overall weight gain.

We've already seen the seeds of a change in attitude by the surging popularity of smaller vehicles like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Chevy Aveo, but it will be interesting to see just how small the American consumer is willing go. Perhaps, the 2008 introduction of the Daimler-Chrysler's diminutive Smart car to American shores will in fact be well-timed.

[Source: MSNBC]

As posted by sibling Autoblog, Suzuki plans to expand its operations world-wide to meet the demand for its smaller vehicles, the bulk being the fuel-efficient Swift compact (pictured) and SX4 Grand Vitara.

The automaker, the fourth largest in Japan (after Toyota, Nissan, and Honda) will be building its first compact car factory in Japan. The factory is also Suzuki's first in 25 years. The demand for smaller cars follows on the heels of continued high gas prices since Hurricane Katrina and may continue with the closure of the Alaskan pipeline in the U.S. as well as increased demand for vehicles in growing markets such as India and China. Fuel-efficiency plays an important role in these markets and Suzuki's small vehicles are able to capitalize on this demand, which we at AutoblogGreen hope will continued to be recognized by other automakers.

Related:

• GM to co-develop and sell hybrids with Suzuki in North America?

[Source: Motoring]

If you're planning to move sometime in the future and want to know which cities will accept your Toyota Prius/HUMMER H2, MapInfo Corporation may have just the information for you. The "location intelligence" provider, working with data provided by various sources including R. L. Polk & Co., determined which cities have the largest number of most and least fuel efficient vehicles.

Cities with least-fuel efficient vehicles per population are:

1. GILLETTE, WY
2. MARSHALL, MN
3. SNYDER, TX
4. ROCK SPRINGS, WY
5. ELK CITY, OK
6. HURON, SD
7. PAMPA, TX
8. NEW ULM, MN
9. WATERTOWN, SD
10. ABERDEEN, SD

The cities with the most fuel-efficient vehicles per population include:

1. KAPAA, HI
2. KAHULUI-WAILUKU, HI
3. HILO, HI
4. HONOLULU, HI
5. EUREKA-ARCATA-FORTUNA, CA
6. BARRE, VT
7. ATHENS, OH
8. WILLIMANTIC, CT
9. FAIRMONT, WV
10. AK HILL, WV

The company also determined which cities whose populations are spending the largest amount of their income towards fuel costs. Interestingly, those cities do not correspond to those with large number of sports cars, SUVs, and other low fuel-efficient vehicles.

[Source: The Auto Channel]

A German company, Loremo, is developing a concept vehicle that promises to deliver 157 mpg (1.5l/100km), by using a very small, two cylinder diesel engine, in combination with a light-weight steel structure and a low drag coefficient. The total weight of the car is 450kg (992 lbs), and has a number of interesting design aspects, all focused on what is essentially needed for driving, and doing away with extravagant equipment. Obviously, everyone’s definition of extravagant is different, and some might call this car Spartan. For example, the usual set of two or four doors is replaced by a single front gate, which swings forward. Getting in to the car is compared to getting in to a bathtub. The website lacks details, and many of the ideas will require significant refinement, but I applaud the effort to try and get back to the essence of transportation, and the focus on reducing weight to improve efficiency. The company believes they will have the cars available by 2009, at an affordable cost of about 11,000 Euro.

[Source: Loremo website]