FedEx Express fleet exceeds 2020 fuel improvement goal of 20%; sets new goal of 30% improvement compared to 2005

FedEx Express alternative fuel fleet deployment as of August 2012. Source: FedEx. Click to enlarge.

FedEx Express has exceeded its original goal of a 20% improvement in global vehicle fleet fuel economy by 2020, as compared to 2005, with a more than 22% cumulative improvement in fuel economy for its vehicles. The unit of FedEx Corp has accordingly set a a new target of 30% improvement in fuel efficiency for its global vehicle fleet by 2020. This revision mirrors the company's 2012 announcement to increase its aircraft emissions goal from 20% to a 30% reduction in global aircraft emissions intensity by 2020.

By pursuing the most promising avenues of advanced technologies, enlisting a variety of experienced manufacturers and optimizing our vehicle operations, FedEx Express has been able to improve the fuel efficiency of its vehicle fleet at a faster rate than expected. FedEx Express has seen the biggest impact on overall fuel efficiency from its strategy of matching the right vehicle to each route.

The company's significant progress towards its fuel efficiency goal is the result of a number of initiatives:

• By the end of its fiscal year 2013, FedEx Express will have increased the size of its advanced alternative-energy vehicle fleet to include a total of 360 hybrid-electric vehicles and 200 electric vehicles. To date, these vehicles have traveled more than 15 million miles in revenue service.

• FedEx Express has accelerated its efforts in fuel conservation through the purchase of vehicles with right-sized engines such as the Sprinter vans manufactured by Mercedes-Benz. FedEx currently has more than 10,000 such vehicles in service, constituting more than 35% of its US pick-up and delivery fleet. Each Sprinter-type van is about 70 to 100% more fuel-efficient than the original truck it replaces.

• Since 2011, FedEx Express has incorporated almost 200 composite-body Reach vehicles into its global fleet; an additional 200 of these vehicles will be added to the fleet by the end of its fiscal year 2013. The lower weight design, along with the engine, allows for a 35% reduction in fuel usage over most conventional walk-in vans.

Approximately 35% of the FedEx Express diesel vehicle pickup and delivery fleet has already been converted to more efficient and cleaner emission models that comply with 2010 US Environmental Protection Agency diesel emission standards.

FedEx Express is not alone in its efforts to increase its overall vehicle fuel efficiency. FedEx Freight and FedEx Ground are currently testing new technologies, while also implementing vehicle innovations and modifications such as skirts and fairings to its trucks, tractors and trailers to improve the fuel efficiency of its fleet.

• In November 2012, FedEx Freight launched a beta test of two new tractors powered by cleaner-burning engines that use only liquefied natural gas (LNG). The pre-production engine used in the new tractors is slated for limited release later in 2013 and is currently the only all-natural gas engine that begins to meet the size and power needs of Class 8 trucks.

• FedEx Ground is currently testing hybrid hydraulic parcel delivery vehicles on local delivery routes across the US. These hydraulic hybrid vehicle systems leverage a computer-controlled system that eliminates unnecessary engine operation, which in turn saves fuel and reduces engine wear and tear by up to 50%.

This initiative has not only accelerated progress towards the fuel efficiency goal, but it has yielded substantial economic and environmental returns as well. FedEx Express expects to save approximately 20 million gallons of fuel this year through these efforts to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.

FedEx Express follows a three-tiered strategy to improve the fuel efficiency of its fleet: Reduce, Replace and Revolutionize. This holistic approach to fleet management allows us to develop vehicle technologies for the future while maximizing the conventional vehicles we operate today.

-Dennis Beal, vice president of Global Vehicles, FedEx Express

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/fedex-20130306.htm

NASA Develops Aircraft that Uses 50 Percent Less Fuel

NASA has developed a manufacturing method for wing-shaped aircraft. When combined with an uber-efficient jet engine called an "ultra-high bypass ratio engine", this new design promises to cut fuel consumptions by half.
http://theenergycollective.com/globalwarmingisreal/186091/nasa-develop

Consumer Reports testing finds many small turbo engines underperforming; fuel economy, acceleration no better than in larger conventional powertrains

Consumer Reports' own fuel economy tests of vehicles equipped with small turbocharged engines has found in many cases that the turbocharged cars tested by CR have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with larger conventional engines, the organization said.

Consumer Reports tests many cars with small, turbocharged engines, and many competitors with traditional, naturally aspirated engines, large and small. Based on the EPA fuel-economy estimates, many of the charged engines look better. However, CR testers found those results don't always map to real world driving and Consumer Reports' own fuel economy tests.

As another example, in December, Consumer Reports road testing found the fuel economy on the 2013 Fusion Hybrid sedan and new C-Max Hybrid falling far short below Ford (and EPA) triple 47 mpg (5.0 l/100 km) figures-i.e., 47 mpg for city, highway and combined-for both vehicles. (Earlier post.)

While these engines may look better on paper with impressive EPA numbers, in reality they are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines.

-Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports points to the collection of 2013 Ford Fusions with EcoBoost engines as the latest example of underperforming small turbocharged engines. The smaller engine-a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp-is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter Four on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails competitive family sedans, and it delivers just 25 mpg, placing it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans, according to CR.

The most direct comparison among the vehicles Consumer Reports has tested is the Chevrolet Cruze. CR tested both a Cruze with the base 1.8-liter conventional four-cylinder, and one with the smaller 1.4-liter turbocharged four. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and got the same fuel economy as the larger engine, CR said.

The Hyundai Sonata Turbo, Kia Sportage Turbo, and Ford Escape 2.0T are examples of cars with turbocharged four-cylinder engines that are less fuel efficient than V6 models in the same class, Consumer Reports found.

Consumer Reports has also found some turbocharged four-cylinder models that do deliver good fuel economy and acceleration: BMW's new 2.0-liter turbocharged four gets 28 mpg in the new 328i Sedan and delivered improved mileage in the 2012 X3 SUV by one mpg, with essentially identical power and acceleration.

Volkswagens using that company's 2.0-liter turbo also return what CR calls "impressive mileage", though CR hasn't tested any model variations with other engines that are directly comparable.

In contrast, BMW's turbocharged four-cylinder engines seem to deliver both good fuel economy and acceleration: The 2.0-liter turbocharged four cylinder contributes to 28 mpg overall in our last tested 328i sedan. It improved mileage only marginally in the 2013 X3 SUV compared to the six-cylinder 2011 X3 we tested, with essentially identical power and acceleration but somewhat comprised refinement. The 2.0-liter turbo four cylinder engine we've tested in Audis and Volkswagens usually return impressive mileage, though we haven't tested any identical model powered by two different engines for such a direct comparison.

Consumer Reports testing results (turbos in bold)
Model	Engine	0-60 mph	EPA mpg	CR mpg
Ford Fusion	1.6L Turbo 4	8.9	28	25
Hyundai Sonata	2.4L Four	8.2	26	27
Kia Optima	2.4L Four	8.6	27	25
Toyota Camry	2.4L Four	8.4	28	27
Honda Accord	2.4L Four	7.7	30	30
Nissan Altima	2.4L Four	8.2	27	31
Ford Fusion	2.0L Turbo 4	7.4	26	22
Hyundai Sonata	2.0L Turbo 4	6.6	26	25
Kia Optima	2.0L Turbo 4	6.6	26	24
Toyota Camry	3.5L V6	6.4	25	26
Honda Accord	3.5L V6	6.3	25	26
Nissan Altima	3.5L V6	6.3	23	24
Chevrolet Cruze	1.4L Turbo 4	9.8	28	26
Chevrolet Cruze	1.8L Four	10.5	27	26
Dodge Dart	1.4L Turbo 4	8.6	31	29
Dodge Dart	2.0L Four	11.0	27	27
Ford Escape	1.6L Turbo 4	9.9	25	22
Honda CR-V	2.4L Four	9.2	25	23
Kia Sportage	2.4L Four	10.3	23	22
Toyota RAV4	2.5L Four (2012)	10.0	24	23
Ford Escape	2.0L Turbo 4	8.2	24	22
Kia Sportage	2.0L Turbo 4	7.1	22	21
Toyota RAV4	3.5L V6 (2012)	6.7	22	22
BMW X3	2.0L Turbo 4	7.3	24	23
BMW X3	3.0L Six	7.2	21	22
Ford F-150	3.5 V6 Turbo	7.7	17	15
Ford F-150	5.0L V8	7.8	16	15

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/consumer-reports-testing-finds

ORNL researchers quantify the effect of increasing highway speed on fuel economy

John F. Thomas, Brian H. West and Shean P. Huff
Fuels, Engines and Emissions Research Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Figure 1. Vehicle installed on the chassis dynamometer in the ORNL vehicle research laboratory. Click to enlarge.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) staff have been performing vehicle research and testing in support of the fueleconomy.gov website. This website, jointly maintained by the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provides information such as official EPA "window label" fuel economy estimates for city, highway, and combined driving for all U.S.-legal light-duty vehicles from 1984 to present. It also offers consumer information and advice pertaining to vehicle fuel economy and energy-related issues such as driving tips. One tip is that drivers should obey the speed limit since the fuel economy of most vehicles decreases above 50 mph [80 km/h].

ORNL staff members John Thomas, Shean Huff and Brian West have worked to quantify this trend through analysis of dynamometer testing results for 74 vehicles at steady-state speeds from 50 to 80 mph [80 to 129 km/h].

Data has been collected for 23 light-duty vehicles at ORNL's vehicle research laboratory and a valuable data set for 51 vehicles was loaned to ORNL by Chrysler, LLC under a non-disclosure agreement. Vehicles were tested in dynamometer laboratories at steady speeds from 40 to 80 mph [64 to 129 km/h], with the proper road-load applied. Analysis has focused on speeds of 50, 60, 70 and 80 mph.^[1] The data resulting from these tests simulates steady highway cruising on flat roads at moderate temperatures (SAE J2263, J2264).

The study includes various sizes of sedans, wagons, and SUVs, as well as pickup trucks, minivans and a few "muscle" and sports cars. Vehicles from model years 2003 to 2012 with a wide variety of powertrains were represented and included two hybrid sedans and a diesel sedan. The combined data from the 74 vehicles gives insight into the effect of cruising speed on fuel economy.

Results are quantified in the summary table, showing the general effect of increased speed on fuel economy. For example, the last column in the table for the row with 70 to 80 mph results reveals that most vehicles will have 12.5-17.5% drop in fuel economy due to traveling 80 mph rather than 70 mph. No obvious pattern for specific vehicle types in terms of fuel economy percent change with speed has yet emerged (for example, results for SUVs were similar to small sedans or pickup trucks in terms of percent change in mpg).

Brief summary of vehicle data
Speed increase	Percent mpg decrease for a given 10 mph increase based on 74 vehicles.
	Average	Data range	Std. deviation	Middle 2/3s of vehicle data
50 to 60 mph	12.4	6.9-18.3	2.2	10.0-14.3
60 to 70 mph	14.0	8.8-19.5	2.6	11.2-16.1
70 to 80 mph	15.4	10.8-26.0	3.0	12.5-17.5
All three speed increments	13.9	6.9-26.0	2.9	N/A

The results are summarized in histogram form in Figure 2, which shows the distribution of fuel economy penalties for each 10-mph increase in speed from 50 mph to 80 mph. A comparison of the three histograms shows a slight shift toward higher mpg penalties for each 10-mph speed increase. In other words, the mph penalty for increasing your speed from 70 mph to 80 mph is slightly greater than the penalty for increasing from 60 mph to 70 mph, which is slightly greater than the penalty for increasing from 50 mph to 60 mph.

Figure 2. The fuel economy penalty (for a 10-mph increase in speed) becomes more severe at higher speeds.[2] Click to enlarge.

The bottom histogram highlights some further interesting observations that were made from the data. There are explanations for four of the five vehicles represented in the "warm" colored bars showing the high fuel economy drop values (> 21%) for the 70 to 80 mph case.

Three V8 sedans with cylinder deactivation were included in the vehicle set, and were responsible for some of the largest values seen in the table and Figure 2. These vehicles conserve fuel by only powering 4 cylinders at lower speeds, and then switch to 8 cylinders when needed to meet the power demand at higher speeds. The switch from 4 to 8 cylinders was seen to occur between 60 and 70 mph or 70 and 80 mph, and this change causes a large percent change in fuel economy over that speed increment.

An ORNL tested vehicle was observed to transition from stoichiometric operation to protective enrichment between 75 and 80 mph, and this change caused an unusually steep drop in fuel economy. Protective enrichment occurs when a vehicle's engine is at a high load point such that the exhaust temperatures may become great enough to damage the catalyst or other components: damage is avoided by injecting extra fuel (rich fueling) which produces lower temperature exhaust. The Chrysler data included a vehicle that appears to employ protective enrichment at 80 mph. These two vehicles are responsible for the two highest fuel economy drops in the data set (~25 and 26% when comparing 70 to 80 mph).

Testing was not conducted beyond 80 mph, but it is reasonable to think more vehicles would transition into protective enrichment operation at speeds above 80 mph. This may be a valid consideration for setting maximum speed limits.

Footnotes

• ^[1] Road-loads are determined by on-road coastdown testing, and are simulated by the chassis dynamometer according to SAE Standards J2263, J2264.

• ^[2] 68 vehicles are represented in the histogram for traveling 80 mph versus 70 mph. The other 2 histograms contain data for 74 vehicles. Six vehicles were tested only to 70 mph.

Resources

• J.F. Thomas, H-L. Hwang, B. West, S. Huff, Predicting Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy as a Function of Highway Speed, SAE technical paper 2013-01-1113, SAE 2013 World Congress, Detroit, MI, April, 2013 (in press)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/01/thomas-20130117.htm

EERE News: Recovery Act Announcement: Secretary Chu Announces $187 Million to Improve Vehicle Efficiency for Heavy-Duty Trucks and Passenger Vehicles

At an event today in Columbus, Indiana, Secretary Chu announced the selection of nine projects totaling more than $187 million to improve fuel efficiency for heavy-duty trucks and passenger vehicles. The funding includes more than $100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and with a private cost share of 50%, will support nearly $375 million in total research, development, and demonstration projects across the country. The nine winners have stated their projects will create over 500 jobs, primarily researchers, engineers, and managers who will develop these new technologies. By 2015, the projects expect to create over 6,000 jobs—many in manufacturing and assembly.

Currently, the transportation sector accounts for 28% of total U.S. energy use. As these vehicle technologies are adopted broadly across the country, they could save more than 100 million gallons of gasoline and diesel per day, and reduce carbon emissions from on-road vehicles by 20% by 2030.

"By investing Recovery dollars in next generation fuel efficient trucks here at home, we're not only creating new job opportunities now, but helping lay a new foundation to keep American auto manufacturers competitive in the 21st century global marketplace," said Vice President Biden. "Through strategic public-private investments like these, the Recovery Act is helping lay the groundwork for an expansion of our clean energy economy."

"Improving the efficiency of our vehicles is critical to reducing America's dependence on foreign oil and addressing climate change," said Secretary Chu. "Today's awards will help demonstrate the potential benefits for long-haul trucks and passenger vehicles and will play an important role in building a more sustainable transportation system for the country."

Three projects will focus on cost-effective measures to improve the efficiency of Class 8 long-haul freight trucks by 50%. These projects will receive more than $115 million in funding to develop and demonstrate systems-level fuel efficiency technologies by 2015, including improved aerodynamics, reducing engine idling technologies, waste heat recovery to increase engine efficiency, advanced combustion techniques, and powertrain hybridization.

The remaining six projects totaling more than $71 million will support efforts to increase the fuel economy for passenger vehicle engines and powertrain systems. The goal is to develop engine technologies that will improve the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by 25-40% by 2015 using an engine-only approach.

The following projects have been selected for awards under two topic areas:

Systems Level Technology Development, Integration, and Demonstration for Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTrucks)

• Cummins Inc. - $38,831,115 - Columbus, Indiana: Develop and demonstrate a highly efficient and clean diesel engine, an advanced waste heat recovery system, an aerodynamic Peterbilt tractor and trailer combination, and a fuel cell auxiliary power unit to reduce engine idling.
• Daimler Trucks North America, LLC - $39,559,868 - Portland, Oregon: Develop and demonstrate technologies including engine downsizing, electrification of auxiliary systems such as oil and water pumps, waste heat recovery, improved aerodynamics and hybridization.
• Navistar, Inc. - $37,328,933 - Fort Wayne, Indiana: Develop and demonstrate technologies to improve truck and trailer aerodynamics, combustion efficiency, waste heat recovery, hybridization, idle reduction, and reduced rolling resistance tires.

Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles (ATP-LD)

• Chrysler Group LLC - $14,458,572 - Auburn Hills, Michigan: Develop a flexible combustion system for their minivan platform based on a downsized, turbocharged engine that uses direct gasoline injection, recirculation of exhaust gases, and flexible intake air control to reduce emissions.
• Cummins Inc. - $15,000,000 - Columbus, Indiana: Develop a fuel-efficient, low emissions diesel engine that achieves a 40% fuel economy improvement over conventional gasoline technology and significantly exceeds 2010 EPA emissions requirements.
• Delphi Automotive Systems LLC - $7,480,572 - Troy, Michigan: Develop a novel low-temperature combustion system, coupled with technologies such as continuously variable valve control and engine downspeeding, to improve fuel economy by at least 25%.
• Ford Motor Company - $15,000,000 - Dearborn, Michigan: Achieve a 25% fuel economy improvement with a gasoline engine in a 2010 mid- to large-size sedan using technologies including engine downsizing, turbo-charging, direct injection, and a novel exhaust aftertreatment system.
• General Motors Co. - $7,705,862 - Pontiac, Michigan: Develop an engine that uses lean combustion and active heat management, as well as a novel emissions control system, to improve the fuel economy of a 2010 Malibu demonstration vehicle by 25%.
• Robert Bosch - $11,953,786 - Farmington Hills, Michigan: Demonstrate a high compression, turbo-charged engine based on homogenous charge compression ignition technology (a combustion technology that allows for lower emissions and higher efficiency) to achieve up to 30% fuel economy improvement in a gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicle.

The lead applicant on each proposal is listed above. The final details of each award contract will be finalized in negotiations between DOE and the grantee.

Article Reference: 

EERE News: Recovery Act Announcement: Secretary Chu Announces $187 Million to Improve Vehicle Efficiency for Heavy-Duty Trucks and Passenger Vehicles

Equating "fuel" efficiency between electric, hybrid, and gasoline vehicles

An earlier posting about Miles per gallon ratings with plug-in hybrid vehicles begs an interesting question. Just how does one measure "fuel efficiency" in a vehicle that runs on electricity and hence doesn't consume a fuel? The miles/gallon figure is what our society is accustomed to from over a hundred years of gasoline vehicle usage. An electric vehicle doesn't burn a fuel, it consumes electricity. Electricity has no weight and does not take up space in a container. Electricity is held in a battery but neither the size nor weight of the battery changes as the battery discharges. Yet a given battery can contain a given quantity of electricity, which determines the vehicle range and speed.

Electricity quantities are measured in kilowatt-hours. One watt is the electricity equal to one volt and one amp (watts = volts * amps). For example most handheld hair dryers use 750-1500 watts, and on a 120 volt circuit 750 watts requires 6.25 amps of current whereas 1500 watts requires 12.5 amps. Outside the U.S. where 220 volt circuits are more common the same 750 watt hair dryer requires 3.4 amps of current and at 1500 watts requires 6.8 amps. A kilowatt-hour is 1000 watts consumed over an hour of time. This is covered in more depth in: Overview of batteries and electric vehicles, Electrical Basics covering batteries in electric vehicles and Power Density in Batteries and Electric Vehicles

Why is this important? We are being asked to believe large miles/gallon efficiency claims for plug-in hybrid vehicles and we need to understand how to interpret those claims. If those claims are bogus then our society will have been fooled into a false solution to our transportation problems.

Miles/gallon to miles/kilowatt-hour are not directly comparable. My mind echo's with my high school science teachers yelling from across the room that you're comparing apples and oranges. What's going on is driving the vehicle down the road consumes energy. The different forms of energy are not directly comparable because one is gallons of gasoline, the other is kilowatt-hours of electricity, and the units are all different. In science class however the practice is to convert from one unit to another, leading my fellow classmates to convert all speeds to furlongs per fortnight. The U.S. Department of Energy has published a chart giving conversion factors and says that: Every fuel has different energy density. The most common way to measure how much petroleum is displaced through the use an alternative fuel is to convert the energy density of an alternative fuel unit to the energy density in a gasoline gallon. (Converting Alternative Fuel Units to Gasoline Gallon Equivalents (GGE))

Said chart shows one kilowatt-hour is convertible to .03 gallons of gasoline. Or 33.56 kilowatt-hours is convertible to 1 gallon of gasoline. Hence miles / 33.56 kilowatt-hours is equal to miles/gallon in this conversionary math system.

For example Tesla Motors publishes a chart showing Well-to-Wheel efficiency where they claim an energy efficiency of 177 W·h/mi. After a bit of calculation wikipedia converts this to 190 miles/gallon equivalent. Another interesting conversion is the cost per mile, assuming $.10 / kilowatt-hour to buy electricity, .177 kilowatt-hours consumed per mile is $.0177 per mile for the electricity.

I have a couple examples closer to home and more affordable than the Tesla Roadster (ahem). I talk of my electric motorcycle and electric bicycle. Last year I observed the electricity usage for my daily commute - 10 miles over very flat terrain in Silicon Valley. The motorcycle routinely consumed 3 kilowatt hours for the 10 mile trip while the bicycle routinely consumed 0.3 kilowatt hours for the same trip. Of course being a bicycle I pedaled to provide part of the power, meaning there is unmeasured energy input from my leg muscles, also meaning that it provided personal exercise benefits. In any case let's crunch these numbers a bit.

The motorcycle consumed 300 watt hours per mile (.3 kwh/mi), less efficient than the Tesla Roadster. However applying the same conversion derived by the wikipedia page, (1/300)*33705=112.35 meaning my motorcycle gives over 112 miles/gallon equivalent fuel efficiency.

The bicycle however consumed 30 watt hours per mile (.03 kwh/mi). Applying the same conversion, (1/30)*33705=1123.5, meaning my bicycle gives over 1120 miles per gallon fuel efficiency.

Getting back to my high school science teacher and apples and oranges. Saying my bicycle gets 1120 miles / gallon can be misleading, since it doesn't burn gasoline. Or putting it another way, to say a Tesla Roadster gets 190 miles/gallon fuel efficiency may keep the mind focused on improving miles/gallon and lead one to continue looking for high miles/gallon efficiency.

The problem here is not to achieve the most efficient burning of gasoline, instead the problem here is our need to transport our butts around town. The chosen popular transportation technology requires liquid fuels which are due to become in short supply soon, leaving us potentially unable to transport our butts around town. If we look at the problem purely through the lens of miles/gallon efficiency of burning gasoline, we remain stuck in the mindset of burning gasoline to solve the problem of transporting our butts around town. We need to focus on the energy efficiency of different forms of transportation, and we need to remain unattached to specific solutions of the need to transport our butts around town. This mathematical conversion technique simply helps us compare energy efficiency across different units of measurement.

Links: 

Converting Alternative Fuel Units to Gasoline Gallon Equivalents (GGE)

Links: 

Tables and Equivalents for Natural Gas and Propane for Motor Vehicle Fuels Tax Purposes

Links: 

Gasoline gallon equivalent

Links: 

Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent

Links: 

Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent

Links: 

Well-to-Wheel efficiency (Tesla Motors)

Links: 

http://www.cngprices.com

Links: 

http://www.altfuelprices.com/

External Media

What is a Hypercar Vehicle?

URL: 

What is a Hypercar Vehicle?

Description: 

A Hypercar® vehicle is designed to capture the synergies of: ultralight construction; low-drag design; hybrid-electric drive; and, efficient accessories to achieve 3 to 5-fold improvement in fuel economy, equal or better performance, safety, amenity and affordability, compared to today's vehicles.

The Hypercar® is a design by the Rocky Mountain Institute which relies on a highly aerodynamic vehicle body, advanced composite materials, and an efficient hybrid-electric drive train. In many ways the Honda Insight is an example of a Hypercar.

extvideo: 

A look at the Fuel Economy Guide

Do you want to know how to be more fuel efficient? The U.S. government, specifically the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), operates fueleconomy.gov to provide resources that help you choose more wisely and be more fuel efficient.

The top level navigation says a lot about this site:-

• Find and Compare Cars
• Gas Mileage Tips
• Gasoline Prices
• Your MPG Will Vary
• Why is Fuel Economy Important?
• Your MPG
• Hybrids, Diesels, Alt Fuels, Etc.
• Tax Incentives
• Extreme MPG

Clearly this site is focused on "cars".. and cars that burn a 'fuel'. Where are motorcycles (which are known to be more fuel efficient)? Where are electric vehicles? Where is information on mass transit? And what is the point of listing gasoline prices? Okay, gasoline prices are on a lot of peoples minds and perhaps are the driving factor behind a lot of people looking for fuel efficient vehicles.

Why be fuel efficient? Their suggestions are are pretty decent and hits all the right points.

a) Saves You Money: Using a fuel efficient vehicle means using less fuel to accomplish the same travel, which means buying less fuel, which means you spend less money to accomplish your travel. As fuel prices rise the cost is more noticeable than when fuel prices are low.

b) Strengthens National Energy Security: Here the argument is to look at oil production from domestic sources versus imported oil sources. There is a growing gap in the percentage of imported oil. Given the deep addiction the U.S. has to oil, foreign powers have an inordinate power over the financial stability of the U.S. Through controlling the price for oil they can deeply influence the U.S. But the fueleconomy.gov site doesn't describe this issue very clearly, instead they pussyfoot around it.

c) Protects the Environment: Their page on the environment only focuses on climate change. To the extent that burned fossil fuel affects climate change this is accurate, but what of the other negative effects from burning fossil fuels? The production and use of fossil fuels puts other poisonous chemicals into the environment, from well to wheel there are negative effects every step of the way.

d) Conserves Resources: Here's where they could explain more about the reality of available oil, such as the peak oil model. But they do not. They could connect the rising percentage of imported to domestic oil, but they do not.

Their Gas mileage tips are pretty good. Driving more efficiently is possible by keeping speed moderate, don't race around, etc. By keeping your car in shape it can operate more efficiently, such as keeping the tires properly inflated. Making better choices of when and where to drive is a good idea. Choosing a more efficient car will obviously save much more fuel than buying a humongo-SUV.

What they do not mention are non-Car choices. Like walking, mass transit, bicycling, motorcycles, etc. There are plenty of ways to transport your butt around town which do not involve a car and which are more energy efficient. Their focus here is on how to increase fuel efficiency of driving a car, but what about improving overall energy efficiency? To accomplish, for example, a daily commute which is more efficient? Being a solo driver driving a Prius to the office? Or walking to a train station, riding a train to the station near your office, and walking from the train to the office? Or maybe your office is only a couple miles away? Riding a bicycle is perfect for a short trip under five miles, so why not use a bicycle for something utilitarian like the daily commute?

Their Gas prices area offers a good set of statistics and resources to find better gas prices. To focus on gas prices is to miss many of the reasons to be fuel efficient (see the above).

Many factors affect miles/gallon explains various reasons why the efficiency you see with your car may differ from the official measurement. This is pretty good and can give you some ideas for further efficiency improvements.

They have a guide to 'alternative fueled' vehicles that covers hybrid, diesel, flex fuel, electric, fuel cell cars and more. Each of these has a selection guide among models available in the U.S. Well, this is true for those vehicles that are widely sold in the U.S. They do not have a selection guide for electric or fuel cell cars. And again they're ignoring non-Car alternatives.

They have a list of Energy efficient technologies which are aftermarket modifications you can make to a car to make it more efficient. It's useful to see this comparison.

What about the relative efficiency of an electric drive train versus an internal combustion drive train? Electric motors are highly efficient (90%) versus the extremely poor efficiency of internal combustion engines. Why is this information resource focusing on fuel burning cars when it's clear an electric vehicle would be more energy efficient?

Their Fuel economy guide is again focused on "cars" as the solution to transportation need, and specifically fuel burning cars. It is a useful summarization of the information on their site and does give a listing of fuel economy for several classifications of fuel burning cars.

Clearly the fuel economy guide is a useful resource to help you improve efficiency in your fuel burning car. But it does nothing to help you understand the alternatives outside that narrow range of transportation choices.

Links: 

http://fueleconomy.gov/

External Media

A look at the Fuel Economy Guide

Do you want to know how to be more fuel efficient? The U.S. government, specifically the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), operates fueleconomy.gov to provide resources that help you choose more wisely and be more fuel efficient.

The top level navigation says a lot about this site:-

• Find and Compare Cars
• Gas Mileage Tips
• Gasoline Prices
• Your MPG Will Vary
• Why is Fuel Economy Important?
• Your MPG
• Hybrids, Diesels, Alt Fuels, Etc.
• Tax Incentives
• Extreme MPG

Clearly this site is focused on "cars".. and cars that burn a 'fuel'. Where are motorcycles (which are known to be more fuel efficient)? Where are electric vehicles? Where is information on mass transit? And what is the point of listing gasoline prices? Okay, gasoline prices are on a lot of peoples minds and perhaps are the driving factor behind a lot of people looking for fuel efficient vehicles.

Why be fuel efficient? Their suggestions are are pretty decent and hits all the right points.

a) Saves You Money: Using a fuel efficient vehicle means using less fuel to accomplish the same travel, which means buying less fuel, which means you spend less money to accomplish your travel. As fuel prices rise the cost is more noticeable than when fuel prices are low.

b) Strengthens National Energy Security: Here the argument is to look at oil production from domestic sources versus imported oil sources. There is a growing gap in the percentage of imported oil. Given the deep addiction the U.S. has to oil, foreign powers have an inordinate power over the financial stability of the U.S. Through controlling the price for oil they can deeply influence the U.S. But the fueleconomy.gov site doesn't describe this issue very clearly, instead they pussyfoot around it.

c) Protects the Environment: Their page on the environment only focuses on climate change. To the extent that burned fossil fuel affects climate change this is accurate, but what of the other negative effects from burning fossil fuels? The production and use of fossil fuels puts other poisonous chemicals into the environment, from well to wheel there are negative effects every step of the way.

d) Conserves Resources: Here's where they could explain more about the reality of available oil, such as the peak oil model. But they do not. They could connect the rising percentage of imported to domestic oil, but they do not.

Their Gas mileage tips are pretty good. Driving more efficiently is possible by keeping speed moderate, don't race around, etc. By keeping your car in shape it can operate more efficiently, such as keeping the tires properly inflated. Making better choices of when and where to drive is a good idea. Choosing a more efficient car will obviously save much more fuel than buying a humongo-SUV.

What they do not mention are non-Car choices. Like walking, mass transit, bicycling, motorcycles, etc. There are plenty of ways to transport your butt around town which do not involve a car and which are more energy efficient. Their focus here is on how to increase fuel efficiency of driving a car, but what about improving overall energy efficiency? To accomplish, for example, a daily commute which is more efficient? Being a solo driver driving a Prius to the office? Or walking to a train station, riding a train to the station near your office, and walking from the train to the office? Or maybe your office is only a couple miles away? Riding a bicycle is perfect for a short trip under five miles, so why not use a bicycle for something utilitarian like the daily commute?

Their Gas prices area offers a good set of statistics and resources to find better gas prices. To focus on gas prices is to miss many of the reasons to be fuel efficient (see the above).

Many factors affect miles/gallon explains various reasons why the efficiency you see with your car may differ from the official measurement. This is pretty good and can give you some ideas for further efficiency improvements.

They have a guide to 'alternative fueled' vehicles that covers hybrid, diesel, flex fuel, electric, fuel cell cars and more. Each of these has a selection guide among models available in the U.S. Well, this is true for those vehicles that are widely sold in the U.S. They do not have a selection guide for electric or fuel cell cars. And again they're ignoring non-Car alternatives.

They have a list of Energy efficient technologies which are aftermarket modifications you can make to a car to make it more efficient. It's useful to see this comparison.

What about the relative efficiency of an electric drive train versus an internal combustion drive train? Electric motors are highly efficient (90%) versus the extremely poor efficiency of internal combustion engines. Why is this information resource focusing on fuel burning cars when it's clear an electric vehicle would be more energy efficient?

Their Fuel economy guide is again focused on "cars" as the solution to transportation need, and specifically fuel burning cars. It is a useful summarization of the information on their site and does give a listing of fuel economy for several classifications of fuel burning cars.

Clearly the fuel economy guide is a useful resource to help you improve efficiency in your fuel burning car. But it does nothing to help you understand the alternatives outside that narrow range of transportation choices.

Links: 

http://fueleconomy.gov/

External Media

My abnormal normality...

I went grocery shopping this evening and it struck me along the way how the way I do it is so normal to me, but so obviously out of normality to what I see people around me doing. The roads were filled with cars scurrying around, going to shopping or dinner or whatever, and there I was on my electric bicycle hauling a cargo trailer with a fine selection of cloth bags.

I've been doing this for several years and have gone through several iterations of bicycles. The practice has improved considerably but it could stand to be even better. And, no, "better" does not mean doing the shopping trip with a car. "Better" would mean finding a more convenient cargo bicycle combination, with a better electric motor, perhaps some turn signals and good quality rear view mirror and good quality horn, etc.

The current bike is an Electra Townie 21. Despite the name, the Electra brand bicycles are not electrified but I do think it's highly appropriate to electrify an Electra bicycle. The motor is an old Wilderness Energy 36 volt hub motor mounted in the front wheel. I have a lithium-iron-phosphate battery pack. I've constructed a really bright lighting system using LED lights meant to be used for car accent lights. And the bike has the Cycle Analyst monitoring system to help me know how much electricity is being used, the current voltage, current speed, etc.

I like the Electra Townie because of its relaxed seating, feet somewhat forward, my torso sits straight up so I can see the world, rather than leaning over the handlebars confining my view to the pavement. I think my next bike will be a Recumbent.

I use a trailer I found at a shop which specializes in roof racks, so I don't know why they had a trailer for a bicycle but there it was. It has a hitch that hooks to the bicycle frame, it has sides made of a wire mesh, and it's not exactly the sturdiest thing in the world but it does haul four bags of groceries. To help I attach over the top a mesh cargo net meant to be used on motorcycles. FYI I've collected a list of links about bicycle cargo trailers elsewhere on this web site.

The bicycle as configured travels at 15 miles/hr or so with modest pedaling, faster if I pedal hard. It's very silent and a very pleasant relaxed ride.

The trip to the grocery store is 1.5 miles, close enough that it's ridiculous to fire up the gas car for the trip. Except, there are a lot of people who do exactly that. 1.5 miles is close enough to walk.. though.. I can hear echo's of this scene from the movie American Beauty, "Walk? That's a whole mile!!". The real problem with walking to the grocery store that distance is, how would you carry the groceries home? But, I see some of my neighbors do this, as there are some who walk towards the grocery store and then an hour later I'll see them walking back carrying bags.

Somewhere between these two extremes, walking and driving the car, is where I operate. If I lived next door to the grocery store I'd walk, and in fact I did a couple times live next door to grocery stores, and I did walk to them. However given that bicycle cargo trailers exist then of course it makes sense to use them for shopping trips.

Riding my bicycle uses a miniscule amount of energy, yet allows me to do a full shopping trip. If I were to walk and carry the groceries by hand I'd feel the trip was tedious, and my arms would get tired. Riding my bicycle does give some small degree of exercise and as I said accomplishes the goal much more competently than if I were walking, and in a much more sustainable fashion than if I drove the car.

Links: 

http://visforvoltage.org

External Media

Manual Intervention Motor Assist

URL: 

Manual Intervention Motor Assist

Description: 

99MPG. com was started to support the MIMA modification to the Honda Insight, but has morphed into a site where creative individuals that have modified their hybrid cars to improve the efficiency can share their work with other like minded people.

We need to start now to save ourself s by working together.

They are a small group of people who are working on modifying their cars for higher efficiency.

extvideo: 

metrompg.com

URL: 

metrompg.com

Description: 

First, a source of info for anyone wondering whether to get one of the Suzuki-designed 3-cylinder fuel economy champs: Geo Metro / Chevrolet Metro, Sprint / Pontiac Firefly / Suzuki Swift, Cultus, Forsa. Second, a source of info about DIY efficiency mods, fuel-efficient driving, and fuel economy in general.

extvideo: 

Ecomodders make fuel good to the last drop

URL: 

Ecomodders make fuel good to the last drop

Description: 

A series of pictures showing 'ecomodding' which is a practice to make modifications to a vehicle to make it more efficient. It's possible with a small amount of work and with inexpensive materials to greatly improve fuel efficiency. Turner spent $400 on hardware store materials including aluminum bars and sheeting; polycarbonate, corrugated plastic; screws; and pop rivets. Now he says he gets up to 74 miles per gallon in the summer. A Civic from that era might normally achieve an average of 33 miles per gallon.

extvideo: 

HyperMiling

URL: 

HyperMiling

Description: 

Hypermiling is a method of increasing a cars gas mileage by making skillful changes in the way you drive. This should increase fuel efficiency.

extvideo: 

AFVI Show: Ways to save billions of gallons of fuel at the nation's airports

Airports are basically the epitome of using fuel as if it's abundant. Jet aircraft can only exist and be economically used when fuel is cheap and easily available. In any case airports are centers of air pollution due to all the vehicles flying in and out all day long, plus all the ground vehicles. There are service vehicles and a dizzying array of other vehicles running around, including those shuttling people around the airport, and to or from the airport.

While there isn't much which can be done to increase fuel efficiency for the aircraft, or reduce emissions due to the aircraft, the ground vehicles are another matter. The article goes into several programs meant to decrease emissions from the ground vehicles.

Article Reference: 

AFVI Show: Ways to save billions of gallons of fuel at the nation's airports

SMART USA

URL: 

SMART USA

Description: 

smart is a member of the Mercedes Car Group. smart vehicles are sold in 36 countries throughout the world. Over 750,000 fortwo vehicles have been sold since its introduction. When the United States starts selling the smart fortwo it will become the 37th country. The smart fortwo is scheduled to be available in the first quarter of 2008.

SMART car coming to the U.S. ... again

The SMART Car is coming to the U.S. ... of course, it's already been imported (legally) to the U.S. That effort was run by ZAP a company more famous for electric vehicles of all sizes (ZAP meaning Zero Air Pollution) who imported cars they commercially bought in Germany and had an American company revamp the cars to meet DOT compliance. The new plan is for Daimler Chrysler to import the cars themselves.

The author of the article spends the hole time in reaction to the small size. As usual the "different" gizmo meets with initial "eeew, that's so strange" reactions. Yes, it's a small car but so what? Why do we need huge vehicles to haul us around? If most of our driving is one person alone in a car, then why do they need a car designed for four people? Especially when the car designed for one or two people can get tremendously better gas mileage!!!

Then there's this little bit of eeeew that's so strange: the fact that it doesn't go very fast, capping out at 84 miles per hour ... I dunno about you, but 84 miles per hour is pretty darn speedy. That is unless you're in Montana or Idaho or Nevada. But very few people live in those states, and for most people, especially the city dwellers for whom this car is meant would find that speed very comfortable.

Article Reference: 

SMART USA home page

So small, even a caveman could parallel-park it

Bajaj Scooters, 120 miles/gallon?

Bajaj Scooters are made in India, and are driven with a 4-cycle 150cc engine. The importer claims a maximum speed of 50 miles/hr so this scooter would not be such a good fit for American highways. But that speed allows one to drive on expressways pretty readily, and technically one is allowed on the highways with a 50 miles/hr vehicle.

The importer cannot give a precise miles/gallon figure. Largely it varies widely based on driving habits. However they claim efficiencies starting at 70 miles/gallon upwards to 120 miles/gallon or thereabouts.

bajajscooter @ Yahoo Groups is a place to go for email discussion of these vehicles.

The also import three-wheelers to the U.S. Three-wheelers are ubiquitous in India. Most often they operate as taxi's, but they come as vans and trucks as well. I have never seen one driving an American road, but they can be imported and driven here.

40mpg.org

URL: 

40mpg.org

Description: 

We invite you to join us in working to make 40 miles per gallon the standard for all automobiles in the United States. The benefits are obvious: we reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil, making us more secure; we lower the carbon emissions into the atmosphere that contribute to global warming; and we put America's technology community to work on these important problems, creating jobs, ensuring that the U.S. leads in the development and sale of new technologies.

Greater fuel efficiency just makes sense. It is technologically possible. The benefits are obvious. The obstacles can be overcome. Politicians need to know voters want it. Automakers need to hear from consumers directly.

High mileage Suzuki

High mileage Suzuki is an inside look at what it takes to make a motorcycle run at over 200 miles/gallon efficiency in real world driving. The article covers the work of Matt Guzzetta who wanted to build the most fuel efficient motorcycle in the world.

At the same time a contest was being run: Craig Vetter, and how to achieve 470 miles/gallon ... the purpose of the contest? High fuel efficient motorcycles.

Matt Guzzetta used a Suzuki motorcycle with a 125cc engine, that was then modified heavily for fuel efficiency. The whole motorcycle was encased in a fairing. With all that he achieved around 250 miles/gallon efficiency, and at that only won third place in the contest. First place was won by a motorcycle that achieved over 450 miles/gallon. The driving course was along Highway 1 on the California Coast.