The IBM Institute for Business Value polled some 125 automotive executives and "thought leaders." Their final report [via Green Car Congress] concludes that "sustainability concerns" will rule the industry's future. In fact, by 2020, they figure all new cars will incorporate some form of hybridization. Respondents were less bullish on hydrogen, daunted by "the added challenge of building an entirely new infrastructure." The study also predicts the rise of the two-car consumer, diving "a primary vehicle that best meets their daily needs… [with] the option to change to a different model, as needed." Telematics (e.g. remote vehicle prognostics and active safety), data downloads and streaming media; and powertrain innovations are all in the cards. The report tells industry types to embrace new mobility models, improve the retail experience, simplify complexity, build international partnerships and execute globally. Wow, huh. Meanwhile, I'm heading over to Tomorrowland to see yesterday's future today. 

Actually, we're not sure what number Tesla Roadster is chronicled here. But a private and likely very well off citizen in California has procured one and put a video of himself driving it on Ye Olde YouTube. What we can see from the video is: (1) The carbon fiber hood is very light and (2) mother of god, it's quick. A confidential source confirms that the customer paid sticker ($120k) for his lithium-ion-powered automotive trinket. No word on recharge time or range in the video. (As this guy's stable probably includes a fleet of slick cars, I doubt it's of very much consequence.) Now, if Tesla can just amp-up production, not "fad out," keep costs under control (have you seen that showroom?), raise more money, build a more profitable product and fend off competitors, we can take them off the Death Watch. [hat tip to Jonny Lieberman]

The ironically named Kevin Drum takes on once and former oil man T. Boone Pickens' plan for American energy independence. After CBS' Drum has his wicked way with Pickens' not-so-well publicized personal financial interests in the matter, there's hardly a shred of credibility left upon which the Texan can wipe his ass. So to speak. "So T. Boone Pickens has an energy plan he wants to sell us. The basic idea is simple: Build a bunch of windmills in Texas to generate electricity, and then use the electricity to power electric cars. Voila! Energy independence! No, wait. That's not it at all. What Pickens actually wants to do is use the windmills to replace the electricity from existing power plants that run on natural gas. Then we can use the natural gas to run our cars." Hmmm. "Along with being the country's biggest wind power developer, Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the sole backer of the stealthy Proposition 10 on California's November ballot…. But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs — from $200 million for a liquefied natural gas terminal to $2.5 billion for rebates of up to $50,000 for each natural gas vehicle. Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology." Is that why GM was talking up CNG cars recently? Hang on; one conspiracy at a time, please. 

Even Autoblog knows something's not right when GM announces a $15.5b second quarter hit. ("We're no industry analysts and we don't have any insights into the General's balance sheet, but a $15.5B Q2 loss and four strait [sic] quarters of red ink doesn't sound good at all.") Well, you don't have to be an industry analyst to know that GM's Attention Deficiency Disorder accounts for a large part of its misery. Representing our Best and Brightest armchair analysis semi-pro squad, I'd like to point out that Larry Burns, GM Veep R&D and planning (yes planning), does his employer no favors when he steps on the GM Fastlane Blog soapbox and declares "GM believes there is no single technology solution to displace petroleum." So compressed natural gas it is! "Natural gas, is enticing because it is abundant, affordable and relatively clean." Only… "We are not ready to commit to a future production plan." So, Larry, how do we get this party started? "If natural gas is to make a measurable impact, many vehicles need to use it, and it must be readily available. Collaboration with the energy industry and governments is key. Governments will likely need to provide incentives to encourage early adoption of the technology and to jump-start the fueling infrastructure." Will these guys EVER learn? Nope.

Survey takers Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research recently quizzed 800 registered voters about corn juice. They discovered the majority either favored or strongly favored "continuing to increase the use of ethanol, a renewable source of energy, in our nation's fuel supply." Hold on there, what's with the little caveat about "a renewable source of energy?" What would the results have been if they'd left that little gem out? Did the fact the The Renewable Fuels Association paid for this research have anything to do with the wording? Of course not. Anyway, "By a 71 to 17 percent margin, voters believe the rising cost of oil and gas is the primary reason food prices have been going up, rather than blaming the rising use of corn-based ethanol." Key word: "primary." The question asks what respondent blame "the most" for rising food prices. Eight percent blamed ethanol above increased demand in China and India and severe weather. And here's the kicker:  21 percent of those surveyed said they were less likely to support a candidate for president who supports ethanol, "a renewable source of energy." Go figure. 

Well, you can't accuse either side of the political spectrum of hanging around while gas prices have opened-up the debate on America's energy policy, or lack thereof. While President Bush has removed the executive order against off-shore drilling (over to you congress), former Vice President Al Gore has asked Americans to help foot the bill for a ten-year, three trillion dollar "moon shot" effort to switch to "clean" electricity from solar, wind and geothermal power. While this is an extremely inconvenient solution for coal mining states that leaves pro-nuclear partisans in the cold, I mention Al's plan here because it's implicit that the transition would enable a nation of plug-in hybrids or pure EVs. Hey, what about hydrogen? Big Al made no mention of water vaporware. But The Boston Herald reports that a group of scientists have priced-out a U.S. switch to hydrogen-powered vehicles at $200b. No mention was made of the energy source for the fuel, but apparently the the Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies have bigger fish to fry (deep freeze?). "The cost of platinum is approximately 57 percent of the fuel-cell stack costs and represents the greatest challenge to further cost reductions," the study said. "Future platinum supply is a critical issue in forward projections of fuel-cell costs." If it's not one thing, it's another.

With the traditional SUV well and truly toasted, automakers are going back to the drawing board to tempt consumers back into their AWD profitmobiles. Sales numbers indicate that two-mode hybrid SUVs do not return sufficient mileage to justify their high prices. Resurrecting the segment will require even more sophisticated technology. At least that's what Nissan reckons. The automaker's displaying its vision for THE SUV OF THE FUTURE! Yes, it's a fuel-cell-powered version of its X-Trail Ute. The Evening Standard reports that Nissan unveiled its alt power concept at London's Imperial College. The FCV X-Trail represents the pinnacle of Nissan's 12-year fuel cell development program. The fuel cell is 40 percent smaller than afore, motorvating the FCV X-Trail up to 300 miles on a tank of hydrogen. The hydrogen-battery electric drive is good for up to 93 mph in EV-like silence.Of course, the research model cost millions of dollars to develop and assemble. According to Nissan spokesfolks, "the cost of the system is still too high for mass production." Nissan engineers promise to sort all that shit out [paraphrasing] by 2015. Unless of course battery development outstrips hydrogen-based technology. Which it probably will.

Tesla Prez and CEO Ze'ev Drori has e-mailed customers with important news! "In large measure we deliberately limit the production until we install our own born and bred final transmission by mid-September, at which time production will start to ramp up leading toward a monthly rate of over 100 cars in December." Translation: Tesla owners at the front of the line will receive damaged goods. And the aspiring EV maker's got another promised production date for the rest of its "non-founders" customers, who were told Tesla went into "full production" on March 17 (of this year). Ze'ev also proudly touts Tesla's high-profile hire: 24-year Chrysler vet, ex-VP, and former chief engineer of future midsize products Mike Donoughe (out of the frying pan into the frialator?). Tesla's Prez highlights the fact that The Big D was tapped to head-up ChryCo's Project D. Uh, wasn't that the "emergency project" designed to rescue the craptastic Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger from being the worst new cars sold in America? Whatever happened to that, anyway? Was it ever finished?

As Autoblog (AB) didn't see fit to pick-up the gauntlet thrown down by TTAC on the Top Gear drink driving story, we'll blog one of theirs. And hey, wouldn't you know it? AB finally finds their inner snark and wastes it on an entirely sensible post on Toyota's Open Road blog. ToMoCo offers the above advise, including get on your bike (mate) and skip the drive-thru (unless you have a Toyota hybrid, of course). To which AB scribe Chris Shunk replies: "Automakers understand that the buying public is struggling with high gas prices, and the entire industry is working on new technologies to ease our financial burden. Unfortunately, new fuel efficient products are going to take a while to develop on a large scale, so for now we're just going to have to grin and bear it. That is unless you want to follow the wisdom of Toyota, which has dug deep into its core of corporate genius to give the car-driving public this little tidbit of advice: drive less. Wow, the solution was right under our noses the whole time, and we just didn't figure it out." Silly you.

Hey, why not create a national network of electric vehicle [EV] re-charge stations? OK, this video kinda exaggerates the all-important re-charge time. And if those mats recharge your EV in ten seconds, why do you need a car wash-style battery swap stations? These are not churlish questions (which is why we continue to ask Tesla about their Roadster's range and recharge times). They speak to the commercial viability of the entire project. Anyway, go for it Shai! What's that? You want MY tax dollars to pay for all this? AutoblogGreen tells the tale. "Speaking to the House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (we have one of those?), Agassi said, 'For the price of two months worth of oil, some $100 billion, we can put in place the infrastructure needed to power the nation's cars and end this oil dependence.' Ambitious, no? He then threw in the 'American jobs' angle with, 'Of that $100 billion, moreover, some $80 billion will go into jobs that, by their nature, can only be performed in the US – the construction of the infrastructure itself.'" Other than remarking on Agassi's chutzpah. AutoblogGreen lets the wisdom of federal tit-sucking go unchallenged. We call boondoggle. If it's such a good idea, let the electric companies pay for it. 

The Detroit News reports Los Angeles has a new hydrogen fuel pump. A commercial hydrogen pump, rather than a fenced-off hydrogen-only fueling station. LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl showed up in a GM-furnished Equinox Fuel Cell and announced it was "the most joyous moment I've had since being elected to office." Of course, even though it's a commercial fuel station, drivers of the approximate 100 fuel-cell vehicles won't have to pay for the hydrogen they pump. They're all part of "demonstration programs by the motor companies." So what happens when the owners start having to put their debit card in the pump to pay for their fuel like the rest of us? Good question. So far no one's saying how much it costs to produce or dispense the stuff. And apparantly no one cares. The California Air Resources Board is spending $7.7m of the taxpayers' money to open three more fueling stations so they can give away more free fuel to people driving cars they don't have to pay to operate so the anti-ICE crowd can get more propaganda free publicity.

Whenever we talk about alternative powertrains in development, some people (this writer included) inevitably say: gasoline and to a lesser extent diesel are past, present, and medium-term future. But a number of sources claim Mercedes Benz is thinking otherwise; they're dumping the need for petroleum-based fuels in their future products in favor of electric, fuel cell, and (yuck) biofuels. Apparently Benz has spent billions of Euros on a "sustainable mobility" plan. According to the UK's Sun, Mercedes plans to spend another $14b or so in the next seven years to further develop the petroleum-free lineup. Will Mercedes give up sales in all the parts of the world in which there is no infrastructure for electric or fuel cell cars? The hedging response: their cars would still be capable of running on gasoline or diesel– meaning that biofuel flex fuel cars would satisfy this wild claim from the British tabloid. Even still, huh?

A widely touted goal of the environmental movement: increasing American's percentage of renewable energy use to 25 percent by 2025. According to a report by the RAND corporation, meeting the so-called "25 by 25" goal without significant consumer cost will require "major technological developments." Green Car Congress reports that 9.5 percent of electricity and 1.6 percent of motor vehicle fuel currently comes from renewable energy sources. The RAND report identifies biomass and wind energy as the two greatest opportunities for meeting the 25 by 25 goal. But it also points out that both require significant improvement to make a low-cost impact on renewable energy usage. For motor vehicles in particular, biomass-based (non-foodstock) "second-gen" biofuels must become significantly cheaper and more prevalent. Reducing renewable fuel goals to 10 or 15 percent by 2025 would also disproportionately reduce consumer expenses. Then again, the higher the cost to consumers, the more competitive renewable fuels become. The preceeding was brought to you by the Energy Future Coalition of UAW Boss Ron Gettelfinger's "Marshall Plan" fame. Over to you, taxpayers. 

Toyota's dominance in hybrid technology has other OEM's straining to leapfrog on to The Next Big Thing. While GM tries to beat ToMoCo to the PHEV punch, Mazda decided to combine three imperfect technologies into one over-the-top rolling lab. By modifying a Wankel rotary engine to run on hydrogen, and then adding a hybrid system, Mazda's Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid wins the prize for the most complicated possible approach to high-efficiency motoring. But let's not condemn this franken-hybrid to the scrap heap of engineering excess just yet. Wards Auto has learned that the Japanese Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport has given the Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid permission to undergo testing on Japanese roads. Of the three systems, hybrid technology is clearly the most promising. But Mazda's blind technophilia has mated it to an immature fuel source and an inherently inefficient ICE. Who cares that it gets 124 miles from a tank of hydrogen and boosts power 40 percent over a "standard" hydrogen Wankel. Mazda plans on leasing these people-movers in Japan later this year. Here's hoping that the lease comes with an uncompromising warranty.