Ecobella Blog

“Necessity, the mother of invention” George Farquhar

Imagine a vehicle that runs on air, has zero to very low C02 emissions, achieves over 100 mpge, speed tops over 90 mph, has over 800 miles range, seats six, has plenty of space for luggage, cuts no safety corners, and costs no more than an average economy to mid-size vehicle.

This vehicle, designed by inventor Guy Negre, MDI CEO and former Formula One race car engineer. It is powered by his breakthrough Compressed Air Engine (CAE), proprietary technology protected by over 50 patents.

When driving under 35mph, the engine directly uses the compressed air stored in the tank and emits pure air. When driving above 35mph, an external heating chamber kicks in automatically and expands the volume of the compressed air before it enters the engine, resulting in increased range. This chamber uses a small amount of energy – fossil fuel or bio-fuel – to heat the compressed air. This process emits CO2 emissions 2-3 times less than today’s greenest hybrid vehicles. The CAE also recompresses air into the air tank while driving over 35mph to extend range. (Air can be compressed into the tank anytime at a regular electrical outlet.)

Tata Motors signed last year an agreement with MDI, to allow it to mass produce the vehicle.

Advantages of vehicles powered by compressed air:

• The costs involved to compress the air to be used in a vehicle are inferior to the costs involved with a normal combustion engine.
• Air is abundant, economical, transportable, storable and, most importantly, nonpolluting.
• The technology involved with compressed air reduces the production costs of vehicles with 20% because it is not necessary to assemble a refrigeration system, a fuel tank, spark plugs or silencers.
• Air itself is not flammable
• The mechanical design of the motor is simple and robust
• It does not suffer from corrosion damage resulting from the battery.
• Less manufacturing and maintenance costs.
• The tanks used in an air compressed motor can be discarded or recycled with less contamination than batteries.
• The tanks used in a compressed air motor have a longer lifespan in comparison with batteries, which, after a while suffer from a reduction in performance.

There is a prototype with 4 Door – 6 Seat available in various versions including but not limited to a Sedan, Station Wagon, and a Van with or without raised roof, and with or without windows, that is plan to sell between $18,000 to $20,000, and there is a compact 2 Door- 3 or 5 seat economy/utility vehicle that is designed to cost between $5,000 to $7,000

See the car:

Website of the Manufacturer: http://www.theaircar.com/acf/index.html

• A federal tax credit covering half the cost of retrofitting a vehicle, funded by licensing fees on all vehicles, boats and airplanes.
• Free electricity for plug-in hybrids for as long as two years.
• An open source approach (which some advocates already employ for home conversions) to developing the technology, and a new federal court to handle intellectual property issues stemming from the development of such vehicles.
• Greater investment by venture capitalists to spur innovation in the field.
• Support from the Small Business Administration and others to help launch the industry.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument the utilities, the automakers, the battery manufacturers, the growing number of plug-in conversion companies and everyone else with an interest in bringing about the inevitable electrification of the automobile can hammer out a plan in four months. And let’s assume the next president not only reads it, but enacts it. Then what?

Supporters of Grove’s idea suggest starting with the fleets — taxi cabs, delivery vans, municipal vehicles. They get lousy mileage, so the return on investment through reduced operating costs will come much faster, and economies of scale will reduce costs. And since a relatively small number of models – the Ford Crown Victoria, variants of Ford’s F-Series trucks, etc. — comprise the majority of fleet vehicles, it’ll minimize R&D costs. That’s the approach John Dabels, CEO of conversion start-up EV Power Systems, has taken.

“We are focusing on trucks because trucks consume more fuel and, frankly, no one else is doing this,” he says. The company is beta-testing a kit that bolts right on behind the transmission with no modification to the engine, emissions system or other major components. Dabels claims the $11,000 conversion delivers a 33 percent increase in fuel economy and “we’re reasonably comfortable with getting to 40.”

Once you’ve started that project, Grove’s acolytes say, expand the campaign to conventional hybrids — add a cord to your Prius and you’ll bump your fuel economy from 60 mph to about 100 mpg — because the job is relatively easy. (Advocates of the cars converted a Prius in the parking lot of the Los Angeles Auto Show last year. That’s them in the picture.) Google’s been testing a small fleet of converted plug-in Prius and Ford Escape hybrids for about a year now and seen a 50-percent increase in fuel economy over the standard versions. “We’ve put about 50,000 miles on them without any real problems,” says Alec Proudfoot, the guy running the program. “The cars have performed beautifully.”

Once the conversion of fleets and hybrids is underway, plug-in proponents say, you go after everyone else. “The low-hanging fruit is out there,” says Felix Kramer, founder of the plug-in advocacy group Cal Cars. “There are millions of battered vehicles out there to be converted.”

He and other conversion advocates say converted vehicles will hasten the day when automakers fill their showrooms with plug-in hybrids by providing them with a wealth of data regarding how the vehicles perform, how consumers use them and what’s needed to keep them going.

Recently found on the site of the EPA a list of “climate leaders”.

They are EPA partner companies that commit to reducing their impact on the global environment by completing a corporate-wide inventory of their greenhouse (GHG) gas emissions, setting long-term reduction goals, and annually reporting their progress to EPA. Through program participation, companies create a lasting record of their accomplishments and identify themselves as corporate environmental leaders.

For the comprehensive list visit: http://www.epa.gov/stateply/partners/index.html

Spech by US Senator Lamar Alexander at the Brookings Institute in 2008.

Part 1 (7 minutes):

Part 2 (4 minutes):

We are never going to run out of oil, Peak Oil only means we have reached the maximum production output and supplies will decline over time.

There is a direct correlation between energy use and economic development, therefore if we want to continue growing it means either we require additional energy or we need to change the way we have been using it.

The undelying problem of Peak Oil is not that there are not other alternatives to oil as a source of energy, its that the world currently consumes around 88 million barrels per day and when output starts declining, keeping supply its going to be the challenge of our time.

To better understand what/why/when/how Peak Oil may happen please watch the conference of Richard Heingberg in 2007

I advice to take a bit of time and see the conference of Matt Simmons at Boston University. It should be called “Peak Oil 102″.

In 28 minutes it explains the challenge/opportunity that we face, very well!

Cheers
Manfred

I invite everyone to look and suscribe to his YOUTUBE broadcast:
http://www.youtube.com/pickensplan

Find out more at:
http://www.pickensplan.com./

By Marianne Stigset

July 16 (Bloomberg) — Biofuels will get $25 billion in subsidies by 2015 in the U.S., Canada and European Union, with limited cuts in greenhouse gases and higher crop prices, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

Subsidies totaled $11 billion in 2006, according to a report prepared for the Paris-based organization. The industry is “highly” dependent on support such as tax breaks, financial aid, import tariffs or compulsory usage, according to the report.

Governments should “refocus policies to encourage lower energy consumption, particularly in the transport sector,” the OECD said.

The U.S. and EU are backing biofuels to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and reduce reliance on crude-oil imports. The EU wants 10 percent of its transport fuels to come from biofuels by 2020. According to the International Monetary Fund, alternative fuels have caused 20 to 30 percent of the recent gains in food prices.

The OECD expects 13 percent of global grain and 20 percent of vegetable oil to go into biofuels production in the next 10 years, up from 8 percent and 9 percent last year. That will mean a 5 percent gain in wheat prices and a 7 percent advance in corn costs, the group said.
Ethanol made from sugar cane is the most effective in reducing pollution, cutting emissions by at least 80 percent compared with fossil fuels, the OECD said.

Ethanol made from wheat, sugar beet and vegetable oil, the most common feedstock in Europe, provide 30 to 60 percent savings. Corn-based ethanol cuts emissions by less than 30 percent, according to the OECD.

To contact the reporter on this story: Marianne Stigset in Oslo at mstigset@bloomberg.net

July 8, 2008 Release
(Next Update: August 12, 2008)

The oil market remains tight, evidenced by rising prices, low surplus production capacity, and the concern that global supply growth may not keep pace with demand growth over the near term. Preliminary estimates indicate that higher oil consumption in the second quarter and a modest increase in production left Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) commercial inventories below the 5-year average at the end of June.

Saudi plans to raise production from 9.4 million bbl/d in June to 9.7 million bbl/d in July, a 27-year high for the nation, have not resulted in an easing of prices. Supply losses in Nigeria and heightened tensions between Iran and Israel raised new concerns about future supplies. Moreover, while the Saudi action adds supplies to the market, remaining available surplus production capacity during the third quarter is at the low level of about 1.2 million bbl/d, all concentrated in Saudi Arabia.

Consumption. World oil consumption continues to grow despite 7 consecutive years of rising prices. Preliminary data indicate that world oil consumption during the first half of 2008 rose by roughly 520,000 bbl/d compared with year-earlier levels. Compared to year-ago levels, this increase reflects a 170,000-bbl/d gain in the first quarter, followed by an 870,000-bbl/d increase in the second quarter. A 760,000-bbl/d decline in consumption in OECD countries during the first half of 2008, mainly concentrated in the United States, was more than offset by a 1.3-million-bbl/d increase in consumption in non-OECD nations led by China and the Middle East (World Oil Consumption). World oil consumption is projected to rise by almost 1.2 million bbl/d during the second half of the year, reflecting the impact of higher expected prices, lower economic growth, and growing pressure in some countries (such as India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and China) to ease price subsidies, which could dampen consumption growth. Global consumption in 2009 is expected to increase by 1.4 million bbl/d because of upward revisions in projected 2009 economic growth in some regions, such as Latin America. If financial strains in the United States spread to foreign nations, depressing economic growth, consumption growth would also slow.

Non-OPEC Supply. The pace of supply growth in non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is another key determinant of future market conditions. Despite higher prices and recent past projections of substantial growth in non-OPEC supplies that matched or exceeded consumption growth, actual non-OPEC production fell far short of both expectations and consumption growth. Faster declines in older fields and delays in expansion projects have limited supply growth. At the beginning of this year, non-OPEC supply growth was projected to rise by 860,000 bbl/d in 2008 and by over 1.5 million bbl/d in 2009. Production is now expected to rise by only 230,000 bbl/d in 2008 and by 830,000 bbl/d in 2009. Lower-than-expected production from Russia and the North Sea, along with lowered expectations for Brazil, are the principal reasons for lower non-OPEC supply levels. Second-half 2008 non-OPEC supply is expected to increase by about 700,000 bbl/d, driven by growth in Brazil and Azerbaijan (Non-OPEC Oil Production Growth). Given recent history, possible additional delays in key projects as well as accelerating production declines in some older fields cannot be ruled out. As a result, net non-OPEC production gains could be less than the current forecast, leading to both higher demand for OPEC oil and higher prices than currently projected.

OPEC Supply. OPEC crude production in the second quarter of 2008 averaged an estimated 32.3 million bbl/d, up only slightly from 32.2 million bbl/d in the first quarter. Higher production in Iraq and Angola more than offset lower production in Nigeria caused by security problems and worker strikes. Assuming that Saudi Arabia’s announcement of raising July output to 9.7 million bbl/d results in a higher sustained rate of production through at least September, OPEC crude production is projected to average 32.7 million bbl/d during the third quarter. At these production levels, available surplus production capacity during the third quarter would be only 1.2 million bbl/d, marking the third consecutive quarter that surplus capacity stood at or below 1.5 million bbl/d. All of this capacity is held by Saudi Arabia (OPEC Surplus Oil Production Capacity). Any industry operating at close to 99 percent of capacity will remain vulnerable to surprises that either boost consumption or disrupt production. Such surprises would place additional upward pressure on prices and contribute to oil price volatility. In this tight global oil market, OPEC countries have also faced delays in adding new production capacity, notably in Algeria and in Saudi Arabia, whose 500,000 bbl/d Khursaniyah project has been pushed back to the end of 2008.

Inventories. OECD commercial inventories declined during the first quarter of 2008 by 39 million barrels. During the second quarter, inventories increased by only 36 million barrels, well below the average build of 83 million barrels during this time of year. At the end of the second quarter, estimated OECD commercial inventories stood at 2.57 billion barrels, 26 million barrels below the 5-year average and equal to 53 days of forward consumption (Days of Supply of OECD Commercial Stocks).

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo