Cooler Cars in California

I was just perusing the month-old press release for the new regulation from California's Air Resources Board requiring car makers and auto repair shops to reduce the amount of infrared light that windshields and other car glazing allow into a car's interior, beginning in 2012. On the surface this seems like an eminently sensible idea and one sure to appeal to drivers in a warm, sunny state who are tired of climbing into hot cars in the summer and waiting for the A/C to catch up. Living in another warm state, I'd be tempted to order this as an option on my next car, too. The problem is that CARB isn't requiring carmakers to offer low-transmittance glass as an option; they're mandating its use, in two successively stricter stages, and consumers must absorb the higher cost, whether they want to or not. Moreover, when the touted emissions reductions are compared to those costs this looks like a very pricey means of achieving them, compared to many other alternatives. Regulating car-window glazing as a way to reduce emissions epitomizes the pitfalls of applying the command-and-control approach from the regulation of local pollution to climate change.

When I couldn't quickly find enough information to unpack the assumptions behind the emissions numbers in the press release, I reverted to examining its implied cost/benefit by applying some very simple assumptions to the figures in the release itself. At a conservative average fuel price of $3 per gallon, CARB's estimate of annual fuel savings of $16 per car from reduced air-conditioner use implies a fuel saving of 5 1/3 gallons per year, resulting in cumulative avoided greenhouse gas emissions of under 0.6 tons of CO2 over 10 years. Applying the $70 per car estimated cost of the 2012 standard, it appears the cost of achieving these reductions comes in at around $120 per ton. That's more than double the expected cost of directly capturing and sequestering CO2 from power plants and ten times the federal government's expected price of emissions allowances under the Waxman-Markey climate bill in its early years--coincidentally beginning in 2012. Using the same logic, the equivalent emissions reduction cost of the tighter 2016 standard exceeds $300/ton of CO2.

I'm also skeptical about the need to apply such a standard to the entire state, ignoring the enormous geographic diversity it encompasses, unless that was simply intended to increase CARB's leverage with carmakers. I grew up on the Central California coast and didn't feel the need to purchase the A/C option until I moved to L.A. While I doubt many cars are sold in my native state without A/C today, the coastal concentration of California's population, particularly north of the Tehachapis, suggests much lower fuel savings and emissions benefits in important portions of the state. If anything, many car owners in cooler regions of the state will need to use their heaters more to compensate for less natural warming of the vehicle interior. That's not a big drain on conventional cars, but it represents a direct energy cost for EVs and plug-in hybrids.

Now, it seems clear that the new regulation would benefit some consumers directly through reduced fuel costs, though I wonder how many of them would find the agency's expected payout of five to twelve years on the required investment especially compelling, if they weren't already sold on the comfort aspects of this feature. Since CARB isn't constrained by cost/benefit analysis of its rules, car window glazing represents just another piece of the puzzle to an agency that is already under the gun to implement the state's AB32 emissions law--even if the contribution of the new regulation toward cutting the state's 480 million tons per year of net emissions looks relatively trivial. There is no disincentive to pursuing such prescriptive solutions, however incremental or inefficient they might be. As a result, CARB doesn't need to ask the more important question of how that $250 per car (after 2015) might better be spent to reduce more emissions. Anyone preferring national regulation of emissions by the EPA to cap and trade--assuming the excesses and distortions of Waxman-Markey can be reined in by the Senate--should consider this a cautionary tale.

Read More

Hybrids Today

Hybrids Today and Tomorrow

By Andi Bintang

Hybrid vehicles have gone through many changes over the years. Ever since the Toyota Prius came out, bigger and more equipped hybrids were released. The Ford Escape hybrid came out in 2004, which jumpstarted the production of luxury hybrid cars. Apart from Toyota, Honda and Ford other automobile companies such as Mazda, Nissan and recently Lexus and Chevrolet have manufactured their own hybrid creations.

Early hybrid vehicles were limited to manual transmissions and air-conditioning. The best thing that they could do at the time of Toyota Prius was add a multiple CD changer. Nowadays customers have more options with Sports Utility Vehicles and luxury car hybrids. Apart from comfort settings and additional accessories, more formidable propulsion management systems are used.

Hybridization in the present and what lies ahead.

Last year luxury sedans and Sport Utility Vehicles were released. These environment friendly cars were also fitted with all the trappings and perks of a luxury vehicle. Apart from having the latest technology from their manufacturers, such as the Hybrid Synergy System from Toyota, they are also decked out with touch navigational systems, surround sound with DVD and VCD supporting stereo systems, ventilation seats, and multiple CD changers on the dashboard.

Hybrid vehicles released last year have V6 engines such as the Lexus GS 450 and V8 such as the Chevrolet Tahoe. Gear-ratio steering, continuous variable transmission, variable suspension, and regenerative breaking are standard among luxury car hybrids.

Hybrids that will be released in 2008 feature the Cadillac Escalade. It is a two mode hybrid with 6 liter V8 engine with two motors. The Saturn Green Line Vue will also be in the line up that promises to 45% improvement in fuel efficiency. Ford will launch its first hybrid sedan with Mercury Milan Hybrid. Mercedes will also release the hybrid version of their S-class sedan. Porsche also plans to launch its four door coupe called the Panamera, using the same technology as the Cayenne SUV.

If your head is getting dizzy with all the prices of the luxury cars Hyundai will release a hybrid available at around $10,000. This will be the first full hybrid under $20,000. Honda will release a smaller and more affordable hybrid to compete with Toyota who dominates the market.

No matter which hybrid vehicle you will choose, expect more hybrids to come. In time as gas prices soar and the demand for higher emissions regulations are implemented, hybrids will eventually dominate the market.

Read More

Hybrid Plug-In Vehicles

Hybrid Plug-In Vehicles

By Andi Bintang

Vehicles are important tools for transportation. Unfortunately they have harmful effects on the environment, health and wallets of the people. The continuing rise of gas prices and campaigns on global warning make you want to ditch that SUV for a bike. Fortunately other power sources and fuels are being developed to serve as an alternative. Hybrid vehicles are a compromise between using a car and caring for the environment.

There are different types of hybrid vehicles. Each of them differs by what type of power source they are using. Although these cars may not run as fast as a conventional car on the highway, it's convenient for the suburban environment where traffic is normal.

Plug and play

Hybrid vehicles can be charged by using an external source. Although this was one of the earlier developments which made it one step ahead of conventional cars, it's not as practical as it sounds. Due to this plug-in hybrids were created. These vehicles have batteries which can be recharged through a standard wall socket.

Important developments weren't made until 2002. Plug-in hybrids were not sold commercially until 2003. The vehicles power source still operates the same way as a conventional hybrid but modified for the owner to be able to recharge it like an iPod.

These vehicles operate in 4 different modes. Charge depleting mode relies exclusively on electricity until the battery reaches a predetermined level. There is a predetermined level that automatically signals the car to stop running on electric power and switch to charge sustaining mode. The variation of this is the blended mode used by cars that cannot run at high speeds by using electric power alone and uses the diesel engine for help.

In charge sustaining mode it uses the combination of a diesel engine and its battery so that the vehicle will not exceed the predetermined level. This type of mode is used by conventional hybrids. In mixed, all of the modes mentioned are used and the vehicle switches between the four during the trip.

The disadvantage of the hybrid is the battery. Battery packs are expensive and can be large and heavy. Customers without garages will not be ale to recharge their cars because of the absence of an electric wall socket. Although emissions are reduced by the car it will be replaced by the plants that produce electricity. On the positive side pollution will be taken away from cities and the suburbs where it has a harmful effect on the health of the general public.

Read More

Big Algae?

In spare moments during the last week I've been mulling over the implications of ExxonMobil's announcement of a very large investment in research and development on producing biofuels from algae, in collaboration with a leading biotech firm, Synthetic Genomics, Inc. While the reported figure of $600 million wouldn't buy much in the way of actual deployment, it could sure pay for a heck of a lot of R&D. The joint conference call about the announcement emphasized that the companies will be pursuing several possible technological pathways, though all appear to be focused on producing biofuel from algae continuously, rather than in a batch mode more analogous to farming. That would certainly increase the attractiveness for Exxon, which after all operates some of the world's biggest continuous production processes, in the form of its oil & gas fields, refineries, and chemical plants. The timing of this announcement is also interesting, coming just a few weeks after the US House of Representatives passed the first cap & trade bill to make it through either chamber of Congress.

The fundamental question I've been pondering is "why"? Why algae, and why ExxonMobil? For all of algae's enormous potential to produce large quantities of useful fuel, skepticism that this could ever be done economically on a useful scale abounds. And until now, Exxon had made a virtue of avoiding investments in renewable energy, generally seeing them as delivering returns well below those of the large oil & gas projects that have earned Exxon a sterling reputation for capital discipline. The answer to both questions likely resides in a word that appears frequently in the press release, in news coverage of the announcement, and in the press conference: scale. Two aspects of scale are relevant, here. First, in order to contribute meaningfully to our energy and climate problems, an alternative energy technology must be capable of being scaled up rapidly to a level comparable to today's oil, gas and coal industries. Current biofuels, solar power and wind still don't come close to matching the energy delivery of conventional sources. Exxon's website indicates potential liquid yields from algae of 2,000 gallons per acre, presumably in the form of the hydrocarbon-based "biocrude" emphasized repeatedly in the press conference. Even that relatively conservative estimate--my own back-of-the-envelope upper-bound estimate was 6,000 gal./acre--is at least ten times the current US yield of corn ethanol, after adjusting for energy content. Simplistically, if the acreage currently devoted to growing corn for ethanol were devoted to oil-excreting algae, it could replace nearly 60% of our gasoline supply from crude oil, rather than the 5% or so we get from ethanol.

Scale is also crucial for a firm of Exxon's size. A report in today's Wall St. Journal caught my eye. Occidental Petroleum announced its discovery of a 200 million barrel onshore oilfield in the middle of one of the most mature oil provinces in the world, in the San Joaquin Valley of California. I know that territory very well from my oil trading days, and it's an exciting development. However, Exxon is so big that it must find the equivalent of 8 such fields every year, just to stay even with its production. When I listen to the way Exxon describes its algae investment, I get the distinct sense that it views this arrangement as analogous to a very large oil exploration project, one that would be material to the results of the largest oil SuperMajor--and perhaps with similar odds of success. Now, it would be meaningless and of no value to Exxon if algae could produce the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of barrels per day of oil, but at a cost of $1,200/bbl. Exxon appears to be convinced that algae can contribute at a price very close to today's hydrocarbons, and probably without subsidies, knowing the firm's distaste for them. That has implications beyond algae.

In the conference call, Exxon's VP of R&D indicated that the company had assessed all of the advanced biofuels technologies and concluded that algae offered the best hope for producing fuels that would compete economically, with acceptable environmental impacts. That says something very worrying about the near-term prospects for cellulosic ethanol and the other "second-generation" biofuels technologies on which companies such as BP, Shell, and many others have pinned their hopes. Indeed, the US Congress pinned the whole country's hopes on the prompt commercialization of these unproven technologies in the remarkably ambitious national Renewable Fuels Standard they enacted in late 2007. If Exxon has concluded correctly that algae--which faces many serious hurdles of its own--is the best bet, then the entire US alternative fuels strategy could be in trouble.

There is also another way to look at this announcement. Exxon has been under enormous pressure to take a big stake in renewable energy. I vividly recall a Congressional hearing last year when committee chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) berated and belittled the Exxon representative for doing so little in this area. More recently, an environmental group took out full page ads targeting Exxon's opposition to cap & trade. I can't find the ad on the internet, but it said something like, "Poor Exxon, all alone in opposing Waxman-Markey." That has to get old, even for Exxon.

Could the algae tie-up with Synthetic Genomics, with its impressive expenditures contingent on achieving a series of unspecified milestones, be intended mainly to get this particular monkey off their backs? I doubt it, even though all the other advanced biofuel technologies being touted by their promoters also involve a substantial element of PR, until they actually produce commercial outcomes. If Exxon merely wanted to create some "green cred", it could have taken the same money and bought a dozen bankrupt corn ethanol plants or a few medium-sized wind farms. If the Exxon/Synthetic Genomics collaboration is about making Exxon greener, then it is certainly doing it the Exxon way, investing in something that, if successful, would neatly and profitably slot into their existing business model--and by the way into the hundreds of existing refineries and hundreds of millions of internal combustion engine vehicles globally. It's probably too early to imagine Big Oil becoming Big Algae, but the possibilities have obvious appeal, apparently even for the world's most successful oil company.

Read More

Hybrid Engines

Hybrid Engines

By Andi Bintang

Hybrid vehicles were a concept of the past. Fortunately through the advancement of technology these vehicles are now available in the market. These vehicles were originally designed to help the environment. Nowadays due to rising gas prices, consumers are buying them instead of the conventional cars. The demand has prompted companies to design quality cars that also takes style and looks into consideration.

Hybrid vehicles are now available in compact sedans but also SUVs. The Ford Company has redesigned their Ford Escape to be able to please the environment conscious customer who also wants a stylish car. Hybrid technology is continually being developed so that it will be more accessible and affordable to the public.

What makes a hybrid work?

Hybrid vehicles work by using two different power sources. Although it runs on an electric motor for fuel efficiency and less emissions, it also has a diesel engine that works when needed for high speeds. It also serves as a back-up when the electric power has been used up.

The first hybrid vehicle that was sold commercially was the Toyota Prius. It was then followed by the Honda Insight. A breakthrough came when Ford released the Ford Escape. SUV's have been known to guzzle gas with high greenhouse emissions. This time the Ford Company was able to figure out a way to redesign their famous SUV to be able to cater a stylish, environment friendly and fuel efficient vehicle.

There are different types of hybrid vehicles by the engine that makes the work. Although they may differ in structure they all work by the same purpose, reduce emissions and fuel consumption.

Hybrid electric petroleum vehicles work by having two power sources. An internal combustion engine (usually a diesel engine) and a rechargeable energy storage system are used by the vehicle. The vehicle is run by electric power most of the time and recaptures energy when braking. The diesel engine helps when more power is needed for acceleration.

Battery electric vehicles rely on battery packs which can be recharged, motor rollers and an electric motor. Unfortunately this type of vehicle is limited to battery capacity. It also tends to be more expensive.

Hybrid vehicles also operate in dual mode. Other vehicles use different types of fuel and power source. Trolleybuses can switch between a diesel engine and an electrical power. Flexible fuel vehicles use a mixture of biofuels and petroleum.

Read More

How Much Per Gallon?

A book I recently received from a publisher makes an interesting contrast with last Friday's posting on how many cars our current oil production might eventually support. Its title of "$20 Per Gallon" demands attention, though the book proves to be less of an argument for how we might get there than for what things might be like if--the author would say when--we did. Rather than providing detailed arguments for the imminent arrival of Peak Oil, Mr. Steiner essentially accepts that premise and builds on it to offer a set of scenarios describing life in the US at gasoline prices escalating steadily in $2 increments between $4 and $20 per gallon. It makes for an entertaining and sobering set of "what ifs?" Unfortunately, despite a brief author's note dated from February of this year, the book is something of a victim of the collapse of oil prices late last year. While its premise might have been accepted eagerly and unquestioningly last summer, the world looks a bit different today. The challenges he describes appear somewhat less urgent, particularly after oil's recent surge past $70 per barrel was cut short when it turned out that all that talk of "green shoots" might have been a bit premature.

In a sense "$20 Per Gallon" seems like two books, one quite interesting and the other seriously flawed, at least as a document about our energy future. The interesting part lies in the author's exploration of what successively higher energy prices might mean for different aspects of the US economy and lifestyle. True to its subtitle, it's hardly a tale of uniform woe, unless you have the misfortune of working in one of the sectors he concludes is doomed, including anything connected to commercial air travel as we now know it. He points out the environmental, health and safety benefits that might ensue from our responses to progressively dearer petroleum-derived products. Many of these benefits sound quite appealing, though I would propose that they are neither as inevitable nor as neatly tied to oil use as Mr. Steiner suggests. The book is also filled with anecdotes accumulated from his travels researching its subject. I particularly liked his description of the airplane graveyard and his rides in various energy-efficient UPS trucks. If you come to this book already convinced that we are on the precipice of Peak Oil, I suspect you would find most of this not just entertaining, but riveting.

The book is less likely to appeal to anyone who is skeptical about the inevitability of Mr. Steiner's scenario assumptions. Start with his structural choice of using gasoline prices as a proxy for underlying oil prices, despite the fact that petroleum product markets experience supply and demand fluctuations that differ--sometimes markedly--from oil's. This choice also ignores the enormous influence of taxes and other government policies on gas prices. You don't need $300/bbl oil to reach $8 gasoline, as European drivers can attest. Last week the price of the average gallon of gas in the US fell to $2.46/gal., compared to the equivalent of $6.40/gal. in the UK and $6.77/gal. in Germany. The difference is almost entirely due to taxes. Despite this, daily life in those countries is not so far beyond the pale of recent American experience as to frighten small children. The implications of a world of high fuel prices resulting from the combination of moderate oil prices and high taxation look quite different from those arising from oil prices above last summer's peak of $145/bbl.

There's an even bigger issue lurking under the surface, and it relates to the author's conviction that in the long run oil prices can only go higher--much higher--due to Peak Oil. There's at least some truth to that, and I've posted periodically on the enormous difficulties involved in attempting to increase oil production in the face of constraints on access to resources--internationally and domestically--along with high interest rates, scarce capital, chronic project delays, and the inexorable depletion of mature oil fields. But oil prices are determined by more than supply, and while he eagerly describes all of the ways in which we would have to adjust our habits to a world of higher and higher gasoline prices, I don't get the sense that Mr. Steiner has considered the ways in which these responses would tend to retard the steady price advances he describes. We have only to look at the impact that a demand reduction of less than 4% since late 2007 has had on oil prices in the last 12 months. That responsiveness to lower demand is as inherent in a commodity with a steeply-sloped short-run supply curve as were the high prices that accompanied the steadily increasing demand we saw earlier. This behavior reflects two sides of the same coin.

The complexities of the various feedback mechanisms involved would also make some of the positive outcomes that Mr. Steiner sees more uncertain. Consider the drop in traffic fatalities that he posits as a consequence of higher gas prices. While you would generally expect people to drive less if gasoline were much more expensive, that response would probably be less pronounced in the long run than in the short run, because of the other ways in which consumers would react. $4 gasoline is painful if your current automobile gets 20 mpg. However, once you've traded it in on a 50 mpg hybrid, your cost per mile--and thus your monthly fuel bill--is lower even at $6/gal. than it was before at $3.

In addition to these concerns, I noticed a few basic errors and misleading comparisons along the way. Compared to the above, they are nit-picks, but anyone who reads the book ought to bear them in mind. First, Mr. Steiner suggests a pretty dramatic impact from high gasoline prices on all the plastics we consume, without delving deeply enough to determine that most of the ethylene- and propylene-derivative plastics in North America--including Saran Wrap--aren't sourced from oil but from the liquids produced with natural gas. That's a crucial distinction, with vast new gas resources available and with the prices of oil and gas having diverged rather dramatically, at least for now. He also makes several numerical comparisons between the response to last year's oil price spike and the aftermath of the oil crisis of the 1970s without taking into account the 42% increase in US population since 1974.

I have to believe that Mr. Steiner would have written a somewhat different book, had he begun the project this year rather than last. I don't doubt that some of the outcomes he describes are waiting on the sidelines until the economy climbs out of its current trough, even if oil prices don't quite reach the stratospheric heights he expects. For example, it wouldn't take the oil-price equivalent of $8/gal. to trigger a radical restructuring of the airline business, after what's it's been through. At the same time, though, I doubt we've seen the last oil price cycle, and the relationship between the prices of oil and alternative energy sources remains complex and dynamic. In some respects proposals such as cap & trade or a carbon tax are intended to evoke some of the same responses that Mr. Steiner imagines, but on a gradual basis and without having to pay an external supplier for the privilege of motivating us. I suggest reading "$20 Per Barrel" in that spirit, rather than as a firm prediction of the inevitable future of our oil-based world.

Read More

Knowledge about the car insurance in Thailand

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE He split the insurance is issued.

Car insurance compulsory.
Car insurance voluntary sector.
Car insurance compulsory.
The details are as follows:
Compulsory car insurance (Compulsory Motor Insurance) refers to the type of car insurance law, car owners who use or have a car to use. Must provide insurance for the damage. Victims by insurance companies with reinsurance law that allowed the assembly. Types of car insurance business. The government is intent to make the protection of life. Body of people affected is significant.

Type vehicles to Act
Car insurance by Act to include all types of vehicles of all types of cars under the law. Law of the Land Transport. Law of the military vehicle owners are using or have used it. Whether it will go by car is the engine power or other energy, such as automobile, motorcycle, Motor tricycle vehicle passenger locomotive tow truck trailer car steamroller, but e etc.
Therefore, the Department of Transportation vehicle for certain types of land are not registered. If a car is that engine power is with walking or other energy. Arranged for a car to the insurance Act

Cars do not have insurance Act
1 car only for the king his heir apparent and regent
2 Car palaces of the Bureau of Registration And the Secretary-General has formally palaces.
3 Car departmental Department of the Ministry of Government and various military vehicle.
4-car unit of the administrative organization established by the Constitution. Administrative agencies and independent of any organization listed in the Constitution.

Who are responsible for the Act guarantees
1st victims of car, including People from all the affected vehicles. Whether the driver. Passengers pedestrian If it is damaged for life due to physical health caused by car accidents. Will be protected by this Act.
2, heirs of victims above. Case victims died.

Replacement of the affected funds.
Replacement of the affected funds. Established Victims Protection Act of 2535 The car is responsible to pay damages to victims initially. If victims do not receive a refund from the insurance company. Or car owner that does not provide insurance. Or can not be called from anywhere and then escape as car accident or car owner that does not provide insurance do not pay damages, etc. The damage is paid to basic medical treatment cases injured as $ 15,000 less than actual treatment. and cremation costs $ 35,000 the number of death cases, but if victim was injured and later died later. Victims of death will be treated as medical treatment does not exceed actual costs and $ 15,000 $ 35,000 including the number of cremation, not exceeding a total of $ 50,000 initial filing obtain damages from the Fund. Victims or heirs must be filed within 180 days from the date the damage occurred.

You can learn more from http://www.doi.go.th/opmv/index.html.


Car insurance voluntary sector.
Car insurance is not a law enforcement. Depends on the satisfaction of the insured risk and the idea that they will spread out the risk to others is the insurance company assurer The insured can choose the protection assured by the desire The insurance company will issue insurance provided as evidence. The protection of the conditions and exceptions to the Registrar approval

Voluntary automobile insurance sector is divided into 3 main categories:

Insurance type 1 (Comprehensive) The Company will pay ค่าสินไหมทดแทน:

o protect the person liable to life outside the body. As well as passengers in car insurance.

o liability protection to property of third parties.

o damage the protected vehicle.

o fire protection and loss of the vehicle.

Only 2 types of insurance protection for third party liability. And loss of the car and fire by the 1, 2 and 4).

3 types of insurance protection only liable to third parties by the 1 and 2).

Read More