Moving On

Electric Car Maker Moving to Indiana

Friday, January 08, 2010 Associated Press

An electric car maker plans to open a factory in a northern Indiana plant that once made parts for recreational vehicles.

State and local officials planned to join executives from Think North America for an official announcement Tuesday. The plant in Elkhart will be Think North America's first in the U.S. and provide much-needed jobs in a city that has been struggling since the RV industry collapsed during the recession.

Think North America, a subsidiary of Norwegian-based Think Global, projects its new factory could have 415 full-time jobs by 2013. Think Global currently makes its compact, two-door electric passenger cars at a plant in Finland.

The company began looking in Elkhart after negotiations broke down last week with the owner of a property in the nearby town of Middlebury, said Tom Kemeny, Think North America's chief financial officer.

The Elkhart City Council gave initial approval Monday night to a 10-year tax abatement plan for the company.

Gov. Mitch Daniels was to take part in the formal announcement Tuesday afternoon at the former facility for Philips Products, which made doors and windows for the RV industry. That plant, which had about 250 workers, closed last summer.

Barkley Garrett, the city's economic development director, said city officials worked through the weekend to complete the deal with the company after it ended talks for the Middlebury site.

"We're not poaching other communities' projects," Garrett said. "We knew our site was a backup site. We were not involved in negotiations until they contacted us."

Two other companies are working on plans to make electric vehicles in nearby Wakarusa.

Navistar International Corp. plans to build all-electric delivery trucks this year with a $39 million federal grant. Startup Electric Motors Corp. intends to make electric-hybrid drive trains to be installed in various vehicles, starting with a joint venture with Gulf Stream that would make light-duty electric trucks.

Elkhart County's unemployment rate peaked in March at 18.9 percent but has fallen steadily since, hitting 14.5 percent in November.

"I don't think it makes any difference who gets this company or where they go as long as they go in Elkhart County," County Council President John Leatherman said. "What we're trying to build here is an electric car cluster, which is really a new diversification for this economy."

Read More

Need to Control a Car? There's an App for that!

Jan. 7, 2010 Drivers of the new Chevy Volt will be able to control some of the car's functions through an OnStar mobile-phone application. Gary Gastelu has more in the Fox Car Report.

Read More

Car Buying Do's & Don't's

Whether it’s your first time or you’re a seasoned pro, you should never buy a car on impulse. The buying process takes time, research, careful thought and even some strategy.

Truth be told, it can be overwhelming. In addition to finding the best car for the right price, you have to navigate through confusing payment options and deal with salespeople. One mistake -- no matter how small -- can cost you hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.

Under such pressure, it’s easy to understand why so many car shoppers get in over their heads. However, it doesn’t have to be that way. By learning from past mistakes, you can find the right car and get a good deal too. Take a look at eight of the most common car buying mistakes and how to avoid them.

1. Confusing Wants with Needs
Convertible two-seaters are really cool. But if you’re lugging a load of hockey equipment every day, chances are you’d do better with a Honda Fit than a Mazda Miata. Unfortunately, car shoppers often make the mistake of confusing their wants with their needs. After all, who wouldn’t want a car that’s faster, sexier or more luxurious? However, such choices aren’t always practical…or even affordable.
Avoid making the same mistake by putting together a list of regular activities that would require using your car. When car shopping, reference the list to make sure that the car you’re considering will serve those functions well.

2. Test-Driving the Wrong Trim
You know those weird letter-number combinations that follow your car’s badge -- LS, GLS, LX, LP560-4? In most cases, they denote significant performance, interior and even exterior differences between trims of the same model. The Dodge Challenger SRT8, for example, performs like a true American muscle car. The Challenger SE? Not so much.
Be wary of dealers who give you the highest trim level of a car to test drive and then proceed to sell you a trim that better fits your budget. Car shoppers who fall for this trick usually end up sorely disappointed with the car's performance and features. To avoid making this mistake, test drive the exact trim you plan to buy before signing any papers.

3. Sacrificing Reliability for Appeal
Don’t let a car's curb appeal or features sway you. Buying a pretty car with funky features and a poor history of reliability can prove to be a major drain on your wallet. Just ask anyone who has purchased a Volkswagen Jetta. Shoppers love the Jetta for its small size, cute design and sprightly performance. However, the vehicle has a so-so record of dependability -- receiving a J.D. Power rating of only 2.5 out of five power circles for predicted reliability.
Before you allow a car’s emotional statement to overpower your ability to think rationally, research its reliability. J.D. Power and Associates is a good source for determining whether your car is doomed to be a lemon. If you’re buying a used car, hire a mechanic to conduct a pre-purchase inspection.

4. Not Knowing What Others Paid
Saving $500 on the sticker price of a 2010 Toyota Land Cruiser is great, but not if the average buyer is saving thousands more. In the past, it was almost impossible to know whether the price you negotiated at the dealership was a good one. However, with the dawn of the internet, that information is now readily available. The Land Cruiser, for instance, has an MSRP of $65,970, but the average price paid is only $63,645.

5. Underestimating the Value of Your Trade-In
A smart way to save money on the price of a new car is to trade in your old one. But a dumb way to miss out on potential savings is by taking the dealer’s word for how much your car is worth or announcing that you intend to trade in your ride too early in the game. After all, a dealer’s primary job is to maximize his profits -- not your savings. By failing to prepare or showing your cards too early, you could be making a costly mistake.
Before stepping foot on a dealer lot, consult Kelley Blue Book or NADA Guides to determine your car’s trade-in value. At the dealership, use that knowledge to negotiate a fair price. However, don’t mention anything about wanting to trade in your car until you’ve already negotiated a suitable deal on a new one. Waiting until the very end to mention your trade-in will ensure that its value gets factored into the final price. Also, remember that you can negotiate the value of your trade-in. If you don't like what the dealer is offering for your trade, find a dealership that will give you what your car is worth.

6. Buying Options You Don’t Need
If you’re shopping for a 2010 Lexus IS, an optional navigation system is going to run you an additional $2,465. It’s a great system that features the latest in voice command and Bluetooth technology. But if you don’t need all those bells and whistles, you can buy a TomTom portable GPS for only $150 and still get where you need to go. Shoppers who make the mistake of opting for unnecessary extras will quickly inflate the price of their new cars.
Avoid wasting money on optional features that you don’t need by researching their prices first. Most manufacturers will list the price of individual and package options right on their websites. If you come across a feature that you really want, try to find an aftermarket store that sells a comparable version for less. You’ll be surprised at how much you can save.

7. Not Cross-Shopping Car Deals
One of the costliest mistakes car shoppers can make is forgetting to cross-shop car deals just as they would competing vehicles -- though doing so can help save them bundles. Take, for example, the similarly-priced Nissan Versa a Chevrolet Aveo.
Recently, the Aveo was offered with zero-percent financing for up to 72 months. Nissan, on the other hand, was only offering 1.9 percent financing for up to 60 months plus $500 cash on the Versa. At first glance, the Aveo appears to be the better deal. However, a simple crunching of the numbers reveals that the Versa’s monthly payment would actually turn out to be a bit less than the Aveo -- assuming an equal down payment of course.
Don’t let carefully-crafted sales promotions mislead you into thinking that you’re getting the best deal around. Be meticulous in comparing car deals for competing vehicles, and remember that these deals change monthly. U.S. News’ best car deals will keep you in the loop.

8. Only Thinking in Terms of Monthly Payments
For most people, it’s easier to think in terms of affordable monthly payments than a daunting end price. However, such short-sightedness has led many car shoppers to overpay. Sure, a $250 per month car payment is easier to swallow than a $350 payment, but getting that lower price often means taking out a loan over a longer period. In the end, that means paying more interest and fees.To avoid overpaying, don’t just calculate what your monthly payment will be. Add up those payments to determine whether the total price paid still makes economic sense.

Read More

The World is getting Hotter

From the noughties to hot and wild – the world is just getting hotter.

Visit http://www.wasea.com.au for further information

Latest analysis from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology shows Australia has experienced the warmest decade since records started in 1910 reaffirms the solid evidence on climate change and a warming planet.

Submitted on 01/08/10, 02:14 AM

From the noughties to hot and wild – the world is just getting hotter.


The latest analysis from the Bureau of Meteorology, showing Australia has experienced the warmest decade since records started in 1910, reaffirms the solid evidence on climate change and a warming planet, and the political game playing and delays that overshadows the reason for action on climate change needs to stop, says Prof. Ray Wills, Chief Executive of the Western Australian Sustainable Energy Association Inc. (WA SEA), and Adjunct Professor with The University of Western Australia.

‘Global temperatures are rising – its been measured, it is a fact. Science has established that the cause of rising global temperatures is human-induced climate change.’

The inconvenient truth is now an undeniable truth.

‘'Strong and immediate action is required to stop the growth in world emissions and rapidly start the process of reducing emissions to a scientifically established level. Science tells us that we must quickly bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back below 350 ppm if we are to avoid dangerous climate change,’ says Prof Wills.

‘Fixing climate change and acting on greenhouse gas emissions fuelling the increasing pace of global warming is essential for the health of the planet, the welfare of the community, and in the best interests of the world economy,’ says Prof Wills.

‘In other words, climate change is real, the impacts are already proving dire and will only get worse, humans are causing it, and we need to stop,’ says Prof Wills.

WA Sustainable Energy Association Inc. (WA SEA) Media Release – 5 January 2010

Read More

Automakers Post Second Best Month of 2009

By Shawn Langlois, MarketWatch

Ford, Asian manufacturers shine while Chrysler, GM post declines

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - Automakers slammed the books Tuesday on one of their worst years in decades while eagerly touting December's 15% surge in U.S. car sales as evidence that 2010 is going to be far better.

Ford Motor Co. /quotes/comstock/13*!f/quotes/nls/f (F 11.69, +0.03, +0.26%) led the charge, breaking further away from still-struggling Detroit rivals.

George Pipas, Ford's top sales analyst, said the double-digit improvement represents the best year-over-over performance for the group since the employee-pricing promotion sent sales soaring back in July 2005.

/quotes/comstock/13*!f/quotes/nls/f
F 11.69, +0.03, +0.26%


151050MMJSNThe closely watched seasonally adjusted annual rate of sales, or SAAR, came to 11.25 million cars and trucks last month, according to Autodata. That tops every month in 2009 except August, which got a huge boost from the U.S. government's cash-for-clunkers rebate program.

Specifically, Ford Motor Co. said its U.S. sales jumped 33%, while rivals General Motors Co. and Chrysler, both recovering from stints in bankruptcy, said they sold even fewer cars in December than they did a year ago, when the market appeared to be in freefall.

"Ford's plan is working," said Ken Czubay, the company's head of sales and marketing. "It was a challenging and very volatile year. ... For 2010, I'm leaving my seat belt on, because I think that volatility is still an element of the 'new norm.'"

Ford sales totaled 184,655 cars and trucks, up from 139,067 vehicles a year earlier, easily topping Wall Street's targets for the month.

Sales of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury branded cars rose 42% to 61,195 vehicles. Volvo, which Ford is in the process of selling, registered a 13.8% rise to 5,638 vehicles.

The truck side, boosted by big gains from the top-selling F-Series pickup, jumped 29.4% to 117,822 vehicles.

Ford said it likely garnered about 15% of the market, up 1 percentage point from 2008 -- marking the first year-on-year increase in the company's market share since 1995.


Ford reports a rally in U.S. salesFord ends 2009 with a sales rally, reporting a 33% surge in December.
Dearborn, Mich.-based Ford has benefited from a relatively fresh lineup along with goodwill garnered from avoiding bankruptcy and declining to take money in a federal bailout, unlike Chrysler and GM.

Investors embraced Ford's report, running the company's shares up as high as $11.24 to touch levels not seen since 2005. The stock finished the session up 6.6% at $10.96 and has now added 325% in the past year.

GM, Chrysler slip
GM handed in a 6.1% sales decline to 208,511 from 221,983 a year ago, blaming a drop in sales of rental cars and brands not considered to be part of GM's future.

The company said it expects sales for the industry to tally about 10.6 million vehicles for the entire year, marking the lowest level since 1982.

Read More

Hydrogen Fuel

Why is hydrogen used as a fuel?

Hydrogen has the highest energy content per unit weight of any known fuel-52,000 Btu/lb (120.7 kJ/g). It burns cleanly. When hydrogen is burned with oxygen, the only by products are heat and water. When burned with air, which is about 68% nitrogen, some oxides of nitrogen are formed. The process of converting hydrogen to energy using engines or fuel cells is much more efficient than the comparable gasoline counterparts.

How much hydrogen is consumed to produce 1 kWh of electricity using a PEM fuel cell?

In general, to produce 1 kilowatt (kW) of electricity for 1 hour (one kilowatt-hour, kWh) from a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell requires about 25-27 standard cubic feet (scf) of hydrogen. A standard cubic foot (scf) is the amount of hydrogen that occupies one cubic foot of space when it is not pressurized (in other words, at regular atmospheric pressure) and at 60 degrees F (a little cooler than room temperature).

How does hydrogen compare with other fuels like gasoline and diesel?

• Hydrogen can be totally nonpolluting (water is the exhaust).
• Hydrogen can be economically competitive with gasoline or diesel.
• Hydrogen can be as safe as gasoline, diesel, or natural gas.
• Hydrogen can help reduce our dependence on imported fuels.
• Hydrogen can be produced in any country or locale from a variety of energy sources.

What is the octane rating of hydrogen?
Short answer: "130+" according to a study done by the College of the Desert and Sunline Transit Agency

Longer answer: The octane rating of gasoline tells you how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes "knocking" in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine, so it is not something you want to have happening. Lower-octane gas (like "regular" 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting compared to higher octane grades (like "super" 93-octane gasoline).

The compression ratio of your engine determines the octane rating of the gas you must use in the car. One way to increase the horsepower of an engine of a given displacement is to increase its compression ratio. So a "high-performance engine" has a higher compression ratio and requires higher-octane fuel. The advantage of a high compression ratio is that it gives your engine a higher horsepower rating for a given engine weight -- that is what makes the engine "high performance." The disadvantage is that for gasoline, it costs more.

Hydrogen has an octane rating of 130 because it can be compressed more than gasoline and 100% octane before the fuel automatically ignites in the engine. (Gasoline with 87-octane has 87% octane, a special kind of hydrocarbon that makes up gasoline and other fuels).

Here are some other octane ratings:
• Methane: 125
• Propane: 105
• Octane: 100
• Gasoline: 87
• Diesel: 30

How is hydrogen produced?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. However it is always bonded with something else like oxygen (to make water) or carbon (to make all plants). Hydrogen is all around us, but to use it, we must first separate the hydrogen from the other things bonded to it. One of hydrogen's advantages is that it can be made from a variety of local resources like water, plants, coal, natural gas and even algae. Although having so many choices sounds complicated, it's a great advantage because no one region or country has to be dependant on one resource. This means you can choose whichever resources make the most sense to make hydrogen, environmentally and economically.

Another choice that you have when making hydrogen is how much you make. When we make most fuels today, it's best to make very large quantities in refineries. However, with hydrogen you can just as easily make very small amounts, enough for one camera or cell phone, or very large amounts that could supply an entire town.

Today, in the U.S., over 95% of the hydrogen is made in very large quantities from natural gas, mostly to make fertilizer and to help make gasoline cleaner by removing impurities like sulphur. As hydrogen moves from these large industrial uses to something that you and I commonly use to fuel our businesses, homes, electronics and vehicles, we expect other resources besides natural gas to be used and that it will be made in a variety of amounts depending on how much is needed.

Read More

The Dependence of Renewables on Government

As I was catching up on a large backlog of articles from December, I ran across one from the New York Times that dovetailed with my thoughts about trends to watch this year. It concerned the difficulties being experienced by US green energy companies, particularly relative to competitors operating in countries with more generous subsidies for renewable energy manufacturing and deployment. Instead of becoming progressively less dependent on help from the government, many of these firms are even more reliant on aid as a result of the financial crisis, which disrupted their access to credit and capital from the market. This is a worrying development, because it tends to shift the focus of management away from the attainment of operational excellence and profitable innovation, and toward the task of lining up a steady pipeline of government grants and tax credits. This might be necessary for the moment, but it undermines long-term competitiveness.

As I read the article, I was struck by some of the comments from industry executives, which included a complaint from the US arm of a Spanish wind turbine manufacturer about the lack of necessary legislative support for the industry, and this astonishing remark from a director of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group, "But if we don't have the policies in place to make investment here a sure thing, then we could potentially lose to other countries." I wasn't aware that it has ever been the proper role of government to ensure that any business is a "sure thing." And then there was a comment from the head of the Solar Energy Industries Association to the effect that the US would have a bigger solar sector if our incentives were more like those in China, where "80 percent of the entire cost of a factory and worker training is paid for by the government." No doubt.

There's something deeply corrosive about such attitudes, and they put anyone investing in renewable energy in a difficult position. Now, there's a strong argument that some level of government support is necessary to help renewable energy compete with traditional energy sources that operate in a market that doesn't account for significant externalities such as environmental and energy-security effects. That's one of the main arguments for establishing a cap & trade system for greenhouse gases, or a carbon tax. Yet we now see government not only helping to level the playing field by means of renewable energy tax credits for investment or production and mandates requiring a set percentage of energy to come from renewable sources, but also playing the role of venture capitalist and banker. These are roles for which government is ill-equipped, not least because the necessary Darwinian feedback mechanisms don't exist. A VC that consistently invests in impractical ideas or start-up firms with incompetent management will eventually run out of capital and close its doors; a government agency with a similarly poor track record will continue to be funded, and its employees will enjoy their customary job security.

Of course, renewable energy firms aren't the only ones to have enjoyed generous government support as a result of the stimulus and other measures put in place to address the recession and financial crisis. The key difference is that while the government has poured billions of dollars into banks and carmakers, no one doubts that well-run banks can function without government aid and that it's possible to make and sell cars at a profit in the US--Ford and several foreign carmakers with US factories prove that every day. Unfortunately, we don't know that it's possible to produce renewable energy or the hardware it requires without government support for users, producers, developers, manufacturers, or all of the above. That acts as a deterrent to established energy companies that have, through painful experience, acquired a jaundiced view of the long-term dependability of such support. Anyone questioning that view need only ask someone in the US biodiesel industry, which just lost its $1-per-gallon subsidy and now faces oblivion.

As necessary as the continued expansion of renewable energy sources is for our long-term transition away from fossil fuels and for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I worry that the green energy sector has become caught up in an industrial policy fad that has little to do with either emissions or energy security, and that hinges on exaggerated expectations of cleantech as the next hugely-profitable global industry and massive provider of stable, high-income employment. Yet if that profitability is merely the result of a government-mediated transfer of wealth from consumers and taxpayers to a group of fortunate firms, rather than of improvements in productivity or pervasive new consumer values, then neither those profits nor the jobs that go with them will be sustainable. And sooner or later a government less committed to these subsidies, or more focused on reducing unmanageable deficits, will take office and the gravy train will end quite suddenly.

I'm not advocating abandoning the renewable energy sector to the tender mercies of the market overnight, or ceding this important sector entirely to non-US firms, nor am I ignoring the lessons of the last two years about markets. However, I'm also recalling the lessons of the Tech Bubble. At least until we have cap & trade or a carbon tax, some level of support will be necessary. However, it should be uniform, picking no winners and treating all low-emission BTUs and kWhs equally. It should also phase out on a reasonable but firmly-established timetable, so that companies know they must become truly competitive. And instead of extending the Treasury's renewable energy grant program beyond its current October 2011 deadline, the government should focus on enabling the restoration of the flows of private capital for which the grants are filling in--and inadvertently stifling in the meantime. Nor should we seek to emulate the foolishness of Germany's extravagantly-generous feed-in tariffs for solar power, which created a market for German manufacturers that is now being lost to foreign competitors with lower costs.

Our goal ought to be a renewable energy sector that can stand on its own, rather than one that, like the US ethanol industry, has been tethered to federal life-support since the precursor of today's Volumetric Excise Tax Credit was established in 1978. The result would likely yield fewer US renewable energy companies, but also stronger ones better able to survive the turbulent energy transition that lies ahead.

Read More