A Clean and Quiet Revolution

By Steve Heckeroth

Transportation Efficiency and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Most people don’t realize that they use more energy to power their cars then they use to power their homes. For comparison, a person living in an energy-efficient home uses an average of 10 kWh/day for lights and appliances and contributes < 200 lbs of CO2/year to the atmosphere from the California mix of power plants. The same person driving a SUV 50 miles/day uses about 200 kWh/day and contributes > 40,000 lbs of CO2/year to the atmosphere. Increasing transportation efficiency is clearly the best place to focus our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Experts suggest (please read Boiling Point by Ross Gelbspan) that in order to stabilize Climate Change the US population must reduce its total CO2 emissions to below 2.5 tons/person/year. Even this low number of 2.5 tons assumes that most developing countries will keep their CO2 emissions below 1 ton/person/year. PHEVs offer zero emission performance for every day commuting and the convenience of traveling 400 miles on one tank of fuel for trips over the battery's capacity. Long trips are relatively infrequent, so PHEVs can decrease fuel consumption by 90% which increases the feasibility of using fuels like ethanol and hydrogen (H2) produced from renewable sources. EVs charged from solar, wind or hydro are the best choice for short vehicle trips because no CO2 is generated and batteries have a very efficient charge / discharge cycle. Of course the best way to cut CO2 emissions is to build and redevelop energy-efficient communities for people instead of cars.

Humans can survive for about 3 weeks without food, 3 days without water but only 3 minutes without air (O2). Oxygen is arguably the most precious resource on Earth yet we think nothing of consuming it at a rate that reverses the process that made life possible. When an 8 lb gallon of gas is burned 18 lbs of oxygen is consumed and 24 lbs of CO2 plus many other more toxic emissions are created. People in the US represents about 4% of the world’s population and consume 30% of the annual world petroleum “production” (extraction) and are responsible for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It is time to ask a few questions: Is the luxury of driving an inefficient vehicle important enough to compromise the Earths ability to support life? Why does the US spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep its citizens gas tanks full yet almost nothing on developing clean renewable energy? What transportation choices do we have? What are the impacts of our choices?

As we approach the peak of world oil extraction and the first consequences of climate change are revealed it is important to reflect on how it came to pass that the developed world could base its entire economy on the burning of polluting finite resources. It is also important to recognize that corporations are not conscious beings and, for the most part, are incorporated for one reason… to make money. This gives us, the consumer, the ultimate power to be the corporate conscience by choosing how we spend money. It is also up to us to insure that laws and regulators protect essential resources like air, water and soil.

Sun to Wheel

Transportation efficiency has usually been measured with the assumption that the fuel some how magically appears in the gas tank. Recently efficiencies have been more accurately measured from well to wheel. As wells start to run dry it will be necessary to adopt a way to measure efficiency that considers the finite nature of the Earths stored energy resources and the effect burning fossil fuels is having on the planets ability to support life. Ultimately almost all energy on the Earth comes from the Sun so fuel efficiencies should be measured from the Sun.

Fossil fuels are inherently very inefficient because of the hundreds of millions of years of solar energy and the rare geologic events it took to produce them. About 350,000,000 trillion watt hours (TWh) of solar energy strikes the Earths surface every year. It took 3.5 billion years of photosynthesis to create world oil reserves that contain about 1,000,000 TWh of energy. If you do the math you will find that using direct solar radiation is about a quadrillion times more efficient then burning fossil fuel. Even more important, using direct solar energy doesn’t compromise the Earths ability to support life. Oxygen is another byproduct of photosynthesis and it took the same 3.5 billion years to create a thin layer of atmosphere that supports all the oxygen dependent life on the planet. The only other planets with free oxygen in their atmosphere were discovered on Star Trek. Scientist's have analyzed the content of the gases surrounding all the planets in the solar system and most of the closest planets in the galaxy and they have not found free oxygen on any of them much less enough oxygen to support life. If the driving public does not change their behavior there will not be enough fuel to get to the grocery store much less a planet that has not been discovered yet and is many light-years away. It is past time to make the transition from ancient solar energy to using the heat, light and energy that strikes the earth every day.

The History of EVs

The following pages will explore some of the history of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) and the barriers to their widespread use. My hope is that readers will use this information to take responsibility for the long term effects of their transportation choices and demand vehicles that can be fueled by unlimited clean renewable energy.

The Gas Guzzler Tax and the EV Renaissance

In 1978, the federal gas guzzler tax levied a fee on cars with poor fuel economy and rising gas prices made more efficient foreign cars increasingly popular. Japanese car sales increased dramatically and for the first time oil use and oil imports started decreasing in 1979 and through the early 80s. Just as it seemed a smooth transition to renewable energy might be possible the new president took the solar collectors off the White House and the nation that once prided itself on its independence went deeper and deeper in debt to pay for increasing dependence on foreign oil. When Reagan made statements like “Our oil in the Middle East” hopes for world peace also evaporated.

The only bright spots for clean transportation in the 80s were Stanford Ovshinsky, Paul MacCready and Professor Andrew Frank. Ovshinsky invented the Nickel Metal Hydride Battery, which is now used in almost all hybrid and pure electric vehicles. Ovshinsky’s accomplishments also include the Triple-Junction Thin-film Amorphous Solar Cell which can be used to charge the batteries in an EV. Paul MacCready engineered the Gossamer Albatross, a pedal powered flying machine and later the sun-powered Solar Challenger. Both successfully flew across the English Channel to capture prize money and the imaginations of a new generation of engineers. Professor Frank very quietly started working with his students at the University of California at Davis to build what we now call Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV). Ovshinsky was named a “Hero of the Planet” by Time Magazine and MacCready was named Engineer of the Century by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Andy Frank’s inventions have not yet received the national attention they deserve, but the idea that over 90% of vehicle miles could be zero emission while still allowing hybrid drive for long trips, will make him one of the heroes of this century.

In1988 Alec Brooks at AeroVironment, Paul MacCready’s small R&D firm, sold the idea of developing a prototype EV to middle management at GM. Bob Stempel, who would later take over as GM’s CEO and is now the CEO of ECD the company founded by Stan Ovshinsky, was the primary advocate of the EV project. Brooks headed the EV prototype team and pushed the GM designers to let styling be determined by aerodynamics, which was a very novel idea at the time. Alan Cocconi another talented young engineer at AeroVironment, who now makes the most advanced electric cars in the world, worked alone on the electronics. The inverters he built would take the car from 0 - 60 mph in 8 seconds and also provide regenerative braking, as well as act as a battery charger. The Delco Remy division of GM worked on an 850 pound advanced sealed lead-acid battery pack that would give the car a range of 124 miles at 55 mph. The prototype was completed in January of 1990 and got rave reviews at the opening of the LA auto show. It was easily the most efficient car ever built with funding from an American auto manufacture.

The California Zero Emission Mandate

After seeing that EVs were possible the California Air Resource Board (CARB) announced the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate late in 1990. The program, as originally conceived, required that at least 2 % of new car sales by the major manufacturers would be zero-emissions by 1998. The requirement would be 5 % by 2001and 10 % by 2003. The ZEV mandate provided a long term vision that spurred technology development around the world and started an epic battle between the State of California, the auto industry.

It took a while for opposition to get organized but hope for auto industry leadership on fuel efficiency and zero emissions dimmed when Bob Stempel’s term as CEO at GM was cut short in part because of his support for the EVs. The auto industry instead started heavily promoting passenger trucks (SUVs and Vans) for several reasons. 1. Passenger vehicles that qualified as trucks were not included in calculating the percentage of ZEVs manufacturers were supposed to build; 2. The 1978 Gas Guzzler tax did not apply to trucks; 3. Trucks did not have to qualify for the same fuel economy, safety or emission standards as cars; 4. If the passenger trucks were heavy enough there were almost no standards at all; and 5. These heavy trucks (Excursion, Hummer, etc) qualified for federal tax credits that would essentially make them free to anyone with a large enough tax burden.

Trucks were cheaper to build than cars because the fuel economy, safety or emission standards were low or non-existent, and it was relatively easy to make people think they were getting more for their money because they were huge. The average suggested mark-up over manufactured cost on cars is about $3000. On passenger trucks the mark-up is as much as $20,000. Once customers got used to the high prices the $5,000 cash back deals seemed too good to pass up. Only when the carnage from rollovers and high bumpers made front page news did people consider that bigger may not be better. The book “High and Mighty” gives statistics that suggest SUV drivers are 3 times more likely to die in single car accidents than mid-sized car drivers, because of rollovers. And in multi-car accidents between an SUV and a mid-sized car, fatalities are almost 3 times more likely than in accidents between two mid-sized cars, because the bumpers on SUVs are at the head height of people in mid-sized cars. Whenever sales sagged the federal government stepped in with ever bigger tax write-offs up to $110,000 for the biggest passenger trucks and luxury SUV’s.

In 1990, only 4% of the passenger vehicles sold in America were classified as trucks. By 2003, passenger trucks and vans made up over 50% of the new passenger vehicles sold. For the same period, passenger vehicle fuel economy had gone from nearly 30 mpg down to the low 20’s. As gas prices continue to rise, those who can afford to buy new, more efficient cars will dump their old SUV’s onto second hand buyers, likely also to be first time drivers. Driving defensively will take on a new meaning.

The 1994 bi-annual California ZEV Mandate hearing was attended by an overflow crowd evenly split between young environmental lawyers and well-spoken citizen advocates on one side and ‘good old boy’ corporate executives and high paid industry ‘consultants’ on the other. There was a lot of speculation that the newly appointed CARB chair was going to do his best to stop the Mandate. The politicians spoke first at length on both sides of the issue. Next, the industry testified, taking as much time as they needed, to point out the disastrous consequences of the Mandate. Representatives from every major auto manufacturer pointed out the shortcomings of batteries, EV technology in general, the huge costs that would have to be passed on to the consumer, the lack of customer support, and the importance of letting the free market work its magic unencumbered with mandates. The oil industry, through their slick hired guns, were much more threatening. Their long polished speeches were filled with the results of studies they had funded, which claimed everything from ‘there is no problem so why have a mandate, to, the ZEV Mandate would increase pollution’. They would usually close with something like ‘you mandate, we sue’.

By the time industry was through, it was late afternoon and the new CARB chairman instituted the 3 minute rule. The young lawyers from environmental organizations spoke next passionately about the risks from increased greenhouse gas emissions and threats to human health from car exhaust. The crowd was thinning and the press was gone by the time the environmental organizations were through speaking. The citizens who had missed a day of work were told to return the next day if they wanted to be heard. The next day the hearing continued with a bare quorum of the board members and no press -but a room full of citizens who came to speak from their heart about what many thought were the most critical issues facing humanity. Every citizen who testified supported the Mandate and was anxious to purchase an EV when they were available. That evening the board voted to uphold the Mandate to the cheers of those who stayed through the two days of testimony. Overnight it seemed like a dam had burst, new companies offering better EV components and conversion kits were popping up every day from all around the world. Michael Hackleman’s second book on EVs, “The New Electric Vehicles”, came out at the end of ’95 with hundreds of photos of exciting new products and projects.

The $30 Million Ad Campaign that kept America Addicted to Oil

It usually takes at least three years for an auto manufacturer to bring a completely new model from concept to production. If the auto manufacturers were to be ready with ZEVs to meet the 2% mandate in the 1998 model year they would have to start designing them at the very latest in 1995. In the spring of ’95 the Western States Petroleum Association and the California Manufacturers Association kicked off a well-funded media campaign to turn the public against electric vehicles. The first phase of the campaign had already started by identifying politicians, scientists and universities whose statements and research could be influenced by very large sums of money. In early spring cover stories started appearing in newspapers, magazines and even scientific journals. The articles quoted what looked like reputable studies to make the point that the EV Mandate would ruin California’s economy, raise the cost of every car sold in America by $5,000, and that batteries would cause terrible pollution and blow up and spew acid in an accident. It was later discovered that all the studies the articles referred to were as reliable as the WMDs in Iraq. For example, the battery study was based on statistics from lead-acid battery factories that operated at the turn of the last century and were totally unregulated. They also assumed that the batteries were going to be dumped in landfills. Never mind that 99% of car batteries are now recycled and new totally non-toxic Nickel Metal Hydride and lithium Ion batteries were already in use. The retractions were always buried in small print somewhere at the end of the publication.

Over a six-month period in the summer of ’95 every elected or appointed public official in California, from the local Chamber of Commerce to the State legislature, received anti-Mandate propaganda in official looking yellow envelopes filled with information from what appeared to be some concerned citizen groups. Inside the envelopes were letters from concerned citizens, clippings of the negative articles, pictures of people with acid burns and lists of civic organizations that were against EVs and the Mandate. There were special packets for fire, police and emergency workers that focused on the difficulties of dealing with hydrogen explosions, acid spills and toxic cleanup resulting from EV accidents.

As the 1996 CARB ZEV bi-annual review approached, the auto and oil (‘autoil’) industry media campaign went into high gear with new and even more effective techniques. Political campaign-style TV ads started appearing between sexy SUV commercials. The ads again appeared to be produced by concerned citizen groups and suggested that unnecessary government regulation was going to cost the California tax payer $28 billion and force everyone into cars that would leave people stranded on the road when their toxic batteries died. The industry even managed to turn EVs into a class and race issue. They convinced unsuspecting civic leaders in poor communities that the poor and people of color were going to bare the burden of higher bills so that rich white folks could drive expensive electric cars.

The over $30 million spent in the ad campaign only amounted to a few minutes of the ‘autoil’ industry annual revenue but had an effect that surpassed even their expectations. The hundreds of start-up companies that were gearing up to produce EV components and kit cars started going out of business.

At the ’96 ZEV Bi-annual Review Hearings, CARB eliminated the 2% requirement for ’98 and the 5% requirement for 2001 and tried to save face by leaving the 10% ZEV requirement in place for 2003. GM had chartered busses to bring activists from poor communities to testify against the Mandate creating a confrontational and chaotic atmosphere very different from previous hearings. CARB was characterized as the big bad government regulator taking money from the poor to pay for rich people’s toys. It was clear, however, that the results of the hearing had been determined months before by the unchallenged negative media campaign. It looked like the hoped-for clean transportation, charged from renewables, would have to remain a dream for a while longer.

Most of the auto manufactures had continued development on electric vehicles just in case their attempts to stop the mandate failed and at the end of ’96 GM captured some good PR by starting to lease production models of the EV1origionally put together primarily by Aerovironment in the late ‘80s. Toyota started leasing its RAV4 EVs in ’97 but only to large fleets. Honda, Ford, Nissan and Chrysler also offered a limited number of EVs in the following years but all of the manufactures maintained control of vehicles in several ways. 1. All the manufactures, with the exception of about 150 RAV4 EVs sold by Toyota in late 2002, maintained ownership by only leasing the EVs. 2. All the manufactures not only had there own plug or paddle but leased the necessary charging equipment under a different contract. 3. All the manufactures refused to renew leases and recalled and destroyed the vehicles.

At the 1998 Hearings, CARB continued to ask the auto makers to make a limited number of ZEVs available for lease to the public and fleet operators, but allowed partial ZEV (PZEV) credits for very low emission vehicles that were not pure ZEVs. Toyota started leasing the RAV4 EV to fleets and GM not to be outdone finished development on the EV-1. Soon after, Honda came out with the EV Plus.

By 2000, the auto industry was again in the position of having to start the design of vehicles to meet the 2003 10% Mandate. At the hearings that year there was a split in the auto industry. Ford had never been very outspoken at previous hearings, but now under the new leadership of Henry’s grandson Bill, Ford was willing to try to meet a revised 2003 requirement. GM on the other hand made a series of announcements that culminated in the recall and crushing of all the EV-1s and electric S10 trucks in California and the end of GM’s EV design and production program.At another hearing in January 2001, CARB reduced the requirement from 10% to 2% ZEV’s but maintained the 2003 deadline. Soon after the hearing, GM announced a lawsuit against the State of California.

The suit made the allegation that CARB could find more cost-effective ways to reduce air pollution than by imposing the burden of producing battery electric vehicles on the auto industry. The other auto manufacturers moved to comply with the reduced requirements, but Toyota was the only manufacturer to offer an EV for sale to the public. Unfortunately, it was only available for a very brief period to about 200 customers. We purchased our RAV4 EV at the beginning of 2002 and installed a 3 kW PV roof to offset the electricity used to charge our EV.

Toyota RAV4 EV in front of 3.5 kW PV roof Charging Station

The Law Suits that Increased the Pace of Global Climate Change

In April 2003, CARB abandoned the ZEV Mandate to eliminate the federal injunction and then adopted a hydrogen program that required manufacturers to build 250 fuel cell vehicles by 2008. Instead of hundreds of thousands of competitively priced zero-emission EVs by 2003, we now have a few dozen multi-million dollar fuel cell vehicles with less range than EVs and GM started recalling and crushing all the EV-1s

Recalled EV-1s waiting to be crushed

The end for best car ever built by GM

Last year, in response to increasing concerns about Green House Gas emissions and Global Warming, California passed limits on CO2 emissions from cars. Again the Bush administration and this time all auto makers including Toyota, thinking short-term profits are more important than long-term health, filed suit against the State of California. Seven Eastern States have also opted to adopt the new California standards. This move by States is part of a growing grass roots effort by local governments and citizen groups to deal with issues like ‘Peak Oil’ and Climate Change caused by human activity. When greed wins, everyone looses. It was greed that created the SUV profit bubble and now, as oil prices continue to rise, the bubble has burst causing plant closures and lay-offs.

The next phase of EV development is being assembled by Professor Andy Frank and his students at UC Davis. It’s called a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV). Hopefully this time around enough people will be able to see through the smoke and will demand transportation choices that can be fueled by unlimited clean renewable energy. Then the clean and quiet revolution can begin.