Jay Leno’s Top Gear-aping “Green Car Challenge” will pit guests on the new Jay Leno Show against each other in battery-powered Ford Focus EVs, according to The Ford Story. Not that Ford has a 2,305,476 MPG-rated battery-electric car ready for production or anything. The Focus EV “especially made for the show, foreshadows elements of the electric Focus that Ford will begin selling in North America in 2011.” But does putting whiny celebrities in a whining EV add up to great television? Too bad Tesla couldn’t come up with the product-placement cash.
Find Editorials by Category:
Category: Green
The Green Jobs Czar may be gone—asshole—but the taxpayer-supported environmental boondoggles continue unabated. Here’s one for pistonheads patrons, via physorg.com. The website somehow forgets to mention a $100,000 federal grant to the smiling man above. Or the fact that 5 billion panels times $6,900 is . . . a lot of money. Even for Uncle Sam. Hang on; does that include installation?
The 12- x 12-foot panels, which each cost $6,900, are designed to be embedded into roads. When shined upon, each panel generates an estimated 7.6 kilowatt hours of power each day. If this electricity could be pumped into the grid, the company predicts that a four-lane, one-mile stretch of road with panels could generate enough power for 500 homes. Although it would be expensive, covering the entire US interstate highway system with the panels could theoretically fulfill the country’s total energy needs. The company estimates that this would take 5 billion panels, but could “produce three times more power than we’ve ever used as a nation – almost enough to power the entire world.”
Huh. And there I was thinking that The New York Times was pro-Cash for Clunkers. Now that all’s said and done (well, done), the paper slates the government program as . . . wait for it . . . inefficient. (Well, they did call for a “well-designed” program.) Post-mortem, the Gray Lady does the math. “On average, cars are driven 12,000 miles per year, according to government statistics. Considering that the traded-in clunkers had an average fuel economy of 15.8 m.p.g. while the new ones deliver 24.9 m.p.g., a swap saved some 278 gallons of gas per year — which would have released almost 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide when burned. Assuming the clunkers would have been driven four more years, the $4,200 average rebate removed 11.2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere, at a cost of some $375 per ton. If they would have been driven five years, the carbon savings cost $300 per ton. And if drivers drive their sleek new wheels more than they drove their old clunkers, the cost of removing carbon from the atmosphere will be even higher.” So how does that compare with the Times’ new red-headed, planet-cooling stepchild?
The combination of bikinis and purported eco-friendliness is like catnip in Southern California, and Angry Green Girl knows it. Still, is a hybrid-only carwash “greener” than just going through the auto-wash? Maybe the minimal amounts of clothing help bring down the overall carbon footprint.
I’ve got to come clean: I use an automatic car wash. I’m WAY too OCD to start cleaning my whip at home. Thanks to a press release from the Splash Car Wash chain, I’ve got a cover story: environmentalism. The company whose name is begging for a spear wants us to know that it’s qualified for the International Carwash Association’s WaterSavers™ program. And you haven’t. Which makes you—and you know who you are—bad, bad people. “The Facts: Using a commercial car wash helps you go green because compared to driveway or parking lot car washing, effluent is routed to treatment facilities as opposed to the curb and storm drains. Once in storm drain systems, toxic wastewater can enter local lakes, streams, rivers and oceans where it becomes a threat to aquatic life. The contaminants found in car wash wastewater are twofold. Firstly, there are the residual chemicals and matter — more severe than run-of-the-mill dirt and dust — that are freed from a car’s exterior when washed. These substances can include oils, greases, rust, trace amounts of benzene and residues from brake pads and exhaust fumes. Secondly, the wastewater can include chemical residues originating from the cleaning agents (soaps, degreasers, sprays, wipes, etc.) used in the car washing process.” And then there’s the water . . .
We are proud to be the inaugural City to unveil the first of seven Floralscapes along one of our busiest highways. The commute for Angelenos will now be brightened by floral murals that embody the City’s progressive approach to solving environmental issues by merging beautification, sustainable design and reducing our carbon footprint. From the construction workers to the business team, this public-private partnership with Toyota and Greenroad Media has spurred local job creation across the board.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa in a press release (via PRNewswire) about Toyota’s L.A. “Harmony Floralscape” Prius promotion.
The Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) program is a car industry bailout dressed-up as a green initiative. The University of California has put some numbers to the boondoggle. According to a study by UC Davis transportation economist Christopher Knittel, Uncle Sam’s taxpayer reach-around is paying 10 times the “sticker price” to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. At least. “While carbon credits are projected to sell in the U.S. for about $28 per ton (today’s price in Europe was $20), even the best-case calculation of the cost of the clunkers rebate is $237 per ton. When burned, a gallon of gasoline creates roughly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. I combined that known value with an average rebate of $4,200 and a range of assumptions about the fuel economy of the new vehicles purchased and how long the clunkers would have been on the road if not for the program,” Knittel said. “I even assumed drivers didn’t change their habits, although some analysts have suggested that the owners of new vehicles will drive more than they would have with their old cars.”
The Detroit News reveals that GM has stopped paying dues to the End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corp., an industry group dedicated to the safe disposal of mercury switches in scrapped vehicles (some of the dangers of mercury pollution and toxicity here). GM had paid the group $700,000 to $1,000,000 annually to prevent mercury pollution from its switches, “a substantial portion of the program’s funding,” according to the DetN. But since declaring bankruptcy, the New GM seems to think that the approximately 18 million mercury switches in its pre-2000 vehicles are no longer its problem. New GM “has never produced vehicles with mercury switches and has no mercury switch responsibility under the terms of the bankruptcy court order,” say spokesfolks. And though technically the New GM is a not the same company that built cars with mercury switches, GM’s green image-building is radically at odds with this decision. With cash-for-clunkers keeping crushing yards humming, this is going to be one of the busiest years on record for the ELVSC. In short, the perfect time to lose a major funding source. You stay classy, GM!
Just as GM is prepping a green themed “230” Volt hype campaign, comes word from Automotive News [sub] that green is so 2003. “For all the talk about green vehicles,” intones the industry rag, “blue is the new color of choice to embody clean driving.” Did you think that Mercedes BlueTec and VW/Audi’s “AdBlue” names came from the blue tint of their diesel-emissions-treating urea fluids? Nope. “The color blue is associated with freshness, dynamism and lightness,” say VW flacks. And according to Hans Tempel, president of Mercedes-Benz Japan, “Blue perfectly encapsulates the cool, clear sky of a world unsullied by greenhouse gases.” Gagging yet? The best eco-chromatic marketing analysis awaits post-jump.
Folks are a bit confused by these mysterious ads. The giveaway is the music, which reveals the spot to be part of the Volt campaign, but what is 230? It would seem that 230 could well be the Volt’s EPA MPG rating, a number which will be useful only to GM’s relentless hype campaign. After all, no single portion of the EPA test cycle is longer than 11 miles, meaning EREVs get their own testing method (summarized after the jump). But as Ad Age puts it, “why run a teaser campaign for a car that doesn’t go on sale until next year — and one that’s been known about for some time? After all, the marketer has been beating the drum for the car for more than a year.” Because that’s the Volt Way. Meanwhile, 230 MPG? Really?
GM will receive some $241 million of the government’s $2.4 billion electric vehicle (EV) stimulus grants, most of it for the “on-time and under-budget” Chevy Volt program. Other grant recipients were Chrysler ($70m), Ford ($92.7m), JCI ($299m), A123 ($249m), Compact Power ($151.4m, on behalf of LG Chem, the South Korean supplier of Chevy Volt batteries), and the National Fire Protection Association ($4.4m). Full breakdown in PDF format here. But what makes this otherwise routine subsidizing of particular interest, it’s that GM is spending its non-Volt money on . . . get this . . .
1: Ford Focus
2: Toyota Corolla
3: Honda Civic
4: Toyota Prius
5: Toyota Camry
6: Ford Escape
7: Hyundai Elantra
8: Dodge Caliber
9: Honda Fit
10: Chevrolet Cobalt
[via CNN Money]
One takeaway: CARS is good because it gets people into more fuel efficient cars, but the highway fund is running out because people are driving more fuel efficient cars. Also, apparently bolstering Ford sales is a major rationale for extending C4C. Y’know, after the whole “taking CO2 out of the air” thing. Speaking of which, former clunker detractor Sen Dianne Feinstein is on board for an extension, telling Automotive News [sub] “the original intent of the clunkers program was to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the data so far tells us that’s exactly what’s happening,
We sounded the alarm on the cost of cleaning-up abandoned automotive manufacturing sites before the bailout began. We sounded the alarm after the feds instructed GM set aside $1.1 billion to clean its 14 closed plants (so far). Although $78,571,428.60 per plant seems more than merely adequate, it may not be so. Reporting on the clean-up of GM’s Mansfield-Ontario Stamping Center, The Mansfield NewsJournal does a little comparative analysis. “At Ohio Brass, which, at 10 acres, was a small fraction of the size of the 270-acre stamping plant, that number [for the cost of the cleanup] was $2 million.” Extrapolating, that would be a $54 million laundry bill. BUT, it’s dwarf apples to “Rainy with a Chance of Meatballs” sized oranges. Many of GM factories stretch back decades, before there was anything remotely resembling environmental awareness or, more to the point, an EPA. Of course, a description of the pollutants at the plant would be very helpful in making a cost assessment. New “transparent” GM says uh-uh.
Recent Comments