Here’s Sian from We Are Futureproof, guest driving at the Revolve Eco-Rally 2010.
Assigned to the 103 g/km petrol-driven Suzuki Alto (What Green Car rating 28) Sian italked to Book of Green news about her trip and the need for the government to continue to support the development of super-clean electric vehicles.
We were delighted to read today that the electric car company, NICE, have resumed trading as the London sales arm of AIXAM-MEGA Ltd. NICE, who had some of their vehicles at last year’s ‘Green Motoring Pavilion’ at the British Motor Show, went into administration in November. ‘Where was their bailout?’ we asked at the time. So much for the Government rescuing the ailing car industry. Here was a company who were trying to solve the problems we have with cars and the pollution they create, rather than burying their heads in the sand, like some (most) manufacturers I could mention.
So it’s good news that they’re trading again. Electric cars certainly face a tough challenge when it comes to gaining street cred, but there are signs that things are starting to go in the right direction.
I think of the furore last year over the G-Wiz, built by the Reva electric car company based in India. With their limited range (40 - 75 miles) and limited speed (51 mph), they seemed an option for only a few people (or perhaps that should be one or two relatively slim people – their size being a perceived problem too). But the average speed of traffic in London is 9 miles per hour. Do we really need a car that goes 120 mph?
When the motoring journos started harping on about safety: ‘You’d be safer crouching in a wheelbarrow!’ one screeched like an over-zealous health and safety inspector, I actually bought in to the worries. Being a mother, I figured you’d never catch me in one with my family. But then I looked at the figures and found that there have been NO serious accidents reported with G-Wizes. A bit of spin to scare people off, methinks… New ideas are so scary, after all.
It’s interesting to see that there are going to be subsidies available for those who are wanting to buy a cleaner car. There are some problems with the scheme but that’s no reason to dismiss it out of hand. Let’s see what the uptake is and the outcome – we may be pleasantly surprised.
Sarah, for We Are Futureproof
“We don’t want to re-invent the wheel, but in an era when car manufacturers have to totally re-think their engineering perhaps even wheels are in question.” - Futerra
I’ve been wondering over the past few months how best to write about the hefty financial bailout loans and various scrappage schemes that have been dished out to save car makers amidst the financial implosion of the auto industries across the US and Europe.
It’s hard to miss the news. The car manufacturers across the planet have been on the ropes for a while now. Things were bad before the ‘recession’ hit, but since late last year the poo really hit the proverbial fan, and all of them have been going down the tubes. Car sales in the UK are down 50% compared to the previous year.
For months the car unions and the car makers in the UK pushed repeatedly for some fiscal incentive package to help bring in much needed car sales, and for a long time the government resisted. But these are tough times, and by now all member states have caved in to the tremendous pressure from the car maker lobby groups.
As one example, our beloved (or behated) Jaguar Land Rover [JLR], owned by Indian-based Tata Motors, received a grant worth 27 million pounds to mass-produce a “green” crossover vehicle. And according to Candace Lombardi, the model would be a street version of their LRX concept car - a hybrid 2-liter turbo diesel crossover vehicle, combining features of a car and an SUV. The concept reportedly can get 50 mpg on average.
The £27 million grant specifically requires that the car be made at JLR’s plant in Merseyside, England, in order to protect jobs. But is this the future for UK manufacturing, and will it save JLR? Even if they do build it, what assurance is there that consumers will flock to this new crossover vehicle? More importantly, why commission a new car cobbled from old ideas at a time when we really need new ideas from the ground up?
“We believe that there will be some benefits for the environment as old cars are replaced by newer, more fuel efficient models.”
In January this year, Germany put a scrappage scheme in place, paying €2,500 towards the purchase of a new car in exchange for cars over 9 years old, in hopes of stimulating the struggling German car industry. Due to its overwhelming popularity, they renewed this scheme twice. Unfortunately most of the new car purchases went towards smaller, more efficient foreign models and not for homemade German models as they hoped. The UK followed suit in April, hoping to stimulate new car sales here. The UK government provides a £1,000 incentive, to be matched by either the car maker or dealer, for consumers to replace their 10 year old+ car or light van for a brand new one. The scheme runs until 2010, or when the money runs out.
Sadly there is no green incentive tied to the new scheme. According to DBERR (our UK government business / industry department): “There are no environmental criteria for the new vehicles the motorist chooses to buy. The scheme is primarily designed to boost the automotive industry and restore consumer confidence; it was not designed as a green measure. However, we believe that there will be some benefits for the environment as old cars are replaced by newer, more fuel efficient models.”
So why do we think this is a pointelss excercise and a waste of tax payers money? And what is wrong with the major car companies? Quite frankly, the industry is dominated by big players who all very conservative. Their scale is way too large, they are weighed down by investments in old systems and all of them are struggling to survive financially.
At a recent talk by Riversimple, a new emerging car maker based in the UK, Patrick Andrews suggested that the cars of the future would be vastly different than what we have built to date. They have a new production car freshly designed from the ground up. Ultra capacitors allow for very fast acceleration, while the hydrogen allows a good range (200miles+). Without a heavy internal combustion engine the car is much lighter, and with a carbon composite body and environmentally friendly resins and epoxies the car can be recycled again and again.
So what are the 6 criteria for the cars of the future, according to Riversimple?
Riversimple will be unveiling their new hydrogen-powered urban vehicle in June 2009 in London.
Blake, for We Are Futureproof
In a lead up to today’s budget report, the Telegraph reports that “the SMMT is bracing itself for an announcement on cash-for-bangers scheme, which it believes is crucial for the future of UK vehicle manufacturing.”
The FT reports: “Britain’s car industry is to be forced to share the costs of a £2,000 “cash for bangers” scheme in Wednesday’s Budget, a move dismissed in advance by manufacturers as a disaster for the sector. Alistair Darling, chancellor, has reluctantly agreed to fund the scheme to boost demand for new cars, following France, Germany and Italy in introducing a so-called scrappage plan to persuade motorists to trade in their old cars vehicles.”
The industry believes this would be a disaster. Paul Everitt, the SMMT chief executive, said last week: “Bluntly, I don’t want to be standing up and saying: ‘It’s sort of all right’. I want to say: ‘This is fantastic, this is the best possible time for you to buy a car’.”
Today we expect that the UK budget announcement will include an incentive for electric cars. We asked Stephen Tindale, from Climate Answers, and former Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, as well as adviser to then Environmental Minister Michael Meacher MP, to write his thoughts about electric cars.
Those concerned about climate change too often take an overly anti-car position. Of course cars should not be used unnecessarily, and many current car journeys are wasteful, and stupid for other reasons: the daily drive to work when the train would be quicker; the school run which makes children unfit; the drive to the gym to pedal the same equivalent distance on an exercise bike. But not all car journeys should be condemned. People in many rural areas need cars. People who holiday in the UK may want to drive. And not everyone is physically able to ‘walk, cycle or use public transport’.
The rise of electric vehicles means that, however well we do on energy efficiency, there will be an increase in the demand for electricity. Clearly, the lower carbon the generation mix the better electric vehicle will be. But whatever the mix of generation, they are a step forward (see treehugger.com). A conventional petrol vehicles emits about 450 grams per mile. A plug-in hybrid, if the generation mix was 100% coal, would emit about 360. This is actually higher than a non-plug-in hybrid, which is about 300. But luckily the generation mix isn’t 100% coal. CCGT would emit 225, nuclear 152, renewables 150 (which is obviously from when it’s running on petrol - when running on renewable electricity it is zero).
Renewables, apart from biomas/biogas, are intermittent. This is regularly used by opponents to attack them, although until the generation mix is about 30% renewable intermittence won’t be a problem, and the UK level is currently 5%. But before we become 100% renewable, we will have to address the storage issue, and electric vehicles are a good option. Vehicle batteries should be charged during the night, when demand is low. And they should be reversible, so that electricity can be fed back into the grid when not needed to drive the vehicle.
Some opponents have criticised the Government for “exporting the pollution”. Carbon emissions are equally damaging wherever they occur geographically (although altitude maters, which is why flying is about three times as harmful than the carbon figures suggest). So going electric is ‘exporting’ carbon emissions - though also reducing them. But other pollutants are more damaging if emitted in areas of high concentrations: particulates (ie. soot) and nitrogen dioxide. The UK has major problems with both. Running black cabs on electricity rather than diesel would be excellent for both air quality and the climate.
Electric vehicles also have the advantage of being very quiet. This would increase improve life in both cities and the countryside. Cyclists and visually impaired people have legitimate concerns about completely silent vehicles. But this isn’t a reason not to go electric. You don’t need oil to make a noise.
Stephen Tindale is the co-founder of Climate Answers (www.climateanswers.info), which tries to spread the message that tackling climate change can make us healthier, happier and richer, as well as more secure.
 |
© Copyright 2009 | we are Futureproof | All Rights Reserved |  |