Gene Network May Lead to Brain Cancer Breakthrough
Surveying Network of Genes Helps Doctors Predict Patient Survival, Attack Tumors
By MICHAEL SMITH
MedPage Today North American Correspondent
TORONTO, July 14, 2009
In what one expert called a "fantastic breakthrough," researchers have described a network of genetic changes involved in the development and progression of fatal brain tumors.
Researchers may have uncovered more genetic clues behind the development of brain cancers, such as the one for which Senator Ted Kennedy has received treatment.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)While research interest in brain tumors has always been high, the treatment of brain cancer has been the focus of heightened media interest since Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a tumor more than a year ago.
The details of Kennedy's condition have been closely guarded, but the senator has not been present in Congress for the latest healthcare reform debate.
In the new study, researchers led by Dr. Markus Bredel of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago analyzed tissue from almost 200 tumors and identified the same pattern of mutations occurring in the same area or territories on 10 chromosomes.
WATCH: The Artist's SanctuaryWant to Lose Weight? Have Brain Surgery By carefully tracking these so-called "landscape genes," the researchers were able to predict how long the patients would live, according Bredel's study, which was published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The National Cancer Institute estimates that about 51,000 new cases of brain and central nervous system tumors are diagnosed in the United States each year. That number includes both malignant and non-malignant tumors, but the researchers in this study concentrated on glioblastoma -- a type of tumor that is uniformly fatal.
Analysis of glioblastoma in several patient populations yielded persistent patterns of genetic alteration involving so-called "territories" on 10 chromosomes, according to Bredel and his colleagues.
According to NCI statistics, brain tumors are more likely and more deadly in whites than in other races, and men have a higher brain cancer rate than women.
The finding that landscape genes appear to predict survival may also have an implication for treatment of glioblastoma, since attempts to intervene with therapies targeting single genes have not been successful.
The complexity of the landscape model "helps explain the lack of therapeutic efficacy of strategies targeting single gene products," the authors said.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
MSN Money - Why health care reform matters
Why health care reform matters
If you want to see why health care is so high on the agenda in Washington, D.C., just read the story on "What's most likely to bankrupt you."
Medical problems accounted for 62% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007 (the most recent year studied), up from a mere 8% in 1981. Those busted, according to researchers, included many middle-class families, and more than three-quarters of those had health insurance when they ran into trouble.
No one knows exactly what shape the reform package coming out of the nation's capital will take, or even if one will pass. But the BusinessWeek article is a great look at one facet of the problem.
We've also served up a pair of guides that could help you cut your own costs. Kiplinger offers several ideas on how to "Save thousands on health care -- now." And SmartMoney's "Look abroad for cheaper health care" examines the boom in what's often referred to as medical tourism.
If you want to see why health care is so high on the agenda in Washington, D.C., just read the story on "What's most likely to bankrupt you."
Medical problems accounted for 62% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007 (the most recent year studied), up from a mere 8% in 1981. Those busted, according to researchers, included many middle-class families, and more than three-quarters of those had health insurance when they ran into trouble.
No one knows exactly what shape the reform package coming out of the nation's capital will take, or even if one will pass. But the BusinessWeek article is a great look at one facet of the problem.
We've also served up a pair of guides that could help you cut your own costs. Kiplinger offers several ideas on how to "Save thousands on health care -- now." And SmartMoney's "Look abroad for cheaper health care" examines the boom in what's often referred to as medical tourism.
U.S. Air Force cancels plans for coal to liquid fuel project
U.S. Air Force cancels plans for coal to liquid fuel project
by Sam Abuelsamid on Feb 2nd 2009 at 8:55AM
For a military forces, a steady reliable supply of fuel is critical to success. Given that, the U.S. Air Force has been investigating the idea of putting a coal-to-liquid facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Coal is readily available in the continental U.S. and being able to economically produce synthetic liquid fuel would be highly beneficial to the military.
The proposals that the Air Force looked at involved having a privately-funded and -operated fuel plant on the site. However, the investigators found that the proposals would have interfered with normal operations at the base and hurt security. There were also safety concerns because of the weapons stored on site. The Air Force has chosen to abandon the idea for now, but it hasn't said whether it will pursue other alternatives for synthetic fuel production.
[Source: U.S. Air Force]
Tags: coal to fuel, coal to liquid, CoalToFuel, CoalToLiquid, us air force, UsAirForce
(6)Share
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1jharlan
12:11PM (2/02/2009)
Using coal in any way increases atmospheric CO2. It's never going to be carbon neutral. The argument can be made that biofuels are carbon neutral.
Reply
↓↑report2BOB DOWELL
12:30PM (3/15/2009)
It will be if they use nuclear energy to develop the fuel
↓↑report3harlanx6
2:26PM (3/15/2009)
Why not use nuclear energy? Do we need to go any further than producing electricity with it?
I don't have all the answers, but I believe those who oppose nuclear energy are a group of subversives that want the US to fail. If the French can use it safely, COME ON!
↓↑report4simms
12:21PM (2/02/2009)
You don't mention that coal to liquid fuel pollutes twice as much as oil, a backwards idea!
Reply
↓↑report5Scott
11:35PM (3/12/2009)
Your brain forgot to think that we cannot produce enough oil to guarantee enough fuel supply, hence any additional fuel we can supply increases our National Security. How much carbon/green house gas is put in the air transporting oil from the Middle East or South America to the US Tree Hugger Commy Moron?
↓↑report6BOB DOWELL
1:57PM (3/15/2009)
None of you guys are willing to park your cars and go back to horse and buggy.
You are all idealistic dreamers and refuse to be realistic.
Here is what is happening. The rest of the world has already gone 50 to 70% diesel because they are at least 30% more efficient. Every foreign car manufacturer on the US streets has a diesel version of what they sell us that they sell in the rest of the world. (I rented a Toyota rav 5 diesel in Costa Rica last year that got 60 mpg) These diesel versions get 50 to 60 mpg while we are struggling with 30 mpg. That means Americans have less money to spend on food, clothing, consumables.
If you do a little investigating, you will find out that the end result fuel that is made from coal is the cleanest purest fuel that can be made. The pollution does not come from the fuel. The co2 comes from the fact that the process takes 2 high temperature firings to convert the coal. If conventional coal or natural gas is used to produce the firings, the process does create much co2. However there is an answer that gets around that. The latest break through in nuclear energy is what is called a pebble bed reactor. The whole world is going to these because they are extremely save and produce no co2.
Oil companies do not want to go down this street because of the nightmare of permits and EPA regulations. They don't have the money. They can barely stay afloat now.
If the Obama administration was smart, which they are not) they would buy up 100 acre tracks of land in strategic places that already have the EPA permits attached. They would give the oil companies a 30% subsidy to build the plants. If the government wanted to create jobs they could set up on site housing and training for workers. Then for extra motivation they should give the oil companies a 20% tax deduction on what is sold. They should also mandate that 10% of their net profits go into the general Social Security fund.
To fuel the plants, the government should build what ever number of nuclear plants around the country with tax payers money. The plants should be a non-profit organization that only services the coal to liquid projects. The cost could be added to the end cost of making the fuel. Similar housing and training could be set up to train and house workers. Excess power could be sold to the power companies.
Oil companies are racking up RECORD profits! Barely stay afloat? Dont have the money ????
by Sam Abuelsamid on Feb 2nd 2009 at 8:55AM
For a military forces, a steady reliable supply of fuel is critical to success. Given that, the U.S. Air Force has been investigating the idea of putting a coal-to-liquid facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Coal is readily available in the continental U.S. and being able to economically produce synthetic liquid fuel would be highly beneficial to the military.
The proposals that the Air Force looked at involved having a privately-funded and -operated fuel plant on the site. However, the investigators found that the proposals would have interfered with normal operations at the base and hurt security. There were also safety concerns because of the weapons stored on site. The Air Force has chosen to abandon the idea for now, but it hasn't said whether it will pursue other alternatives for synthetic fuel production.
[Source: U.S. Air Force]
Tags: coal to fuel, coal to liquid, CoalToFuel, CoalToLiquid, us air force, UsAirForce
(6)Share
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1jharlan
12:11PM (2/02/2009)
Using coal in any way increases atmospheric CO2. It's never going to be carbon neutral. The argument can be made that biofuels are carbon neutral.
Reply
↓↑report2BOB DOWELL
12:30PM (3/15/2009)
It will be if they use nuclear energy to develop the fuel
↓↑report3harlanx6
2:26PM (3/15/2009)
Why not use nuclear energy? Do we need to go any further than producing electricity with it?
I don't have all the answers, but I believe those who oppose nuclear energy are a group of subversives that want the US to fail. If the French can use it safely, COME ON!
↓↑report4simms
12:21PM (2/02/2009)
You don't mention that coal to liquid fuel pollutes twice as much as oil, a backwards idea!
Reply
↓↑report5Scott
11:35PM (3/12/2009)
Your brain forgot to think that we cannot produce enough oil to guarantee enough fuel supply, hence any additional fuel we can supply increases our National Security. How much carbon/green house gas is put in the air transporting oil from the Middle East or South America to the US Tree Hugger Commy Moron?
↓↑report6BOB DOWELL
1:57PM (3/15/2009)
None of you guys are willing to park your cars and go back to horse and buggy.
You are all idealistic dreamers and refuse to be realistic.
Here is what is happening. The rest of the world has already gone 50 to 70% diesel because they are at least 30% more efficient. Every foreign car manufacturer on the US streets has a diesel version of what they sell us that they sell in the rest of the world. (I rented a Toyota rav 5 diesel in Costa Rica last year that got 60 mpg) These diesel versions get 50 to 60 mpg while we are struggling with 30 mpg. That means Americans have less money to spend on food, clothing, consumables.
If you do a little investigating, you will find out that the end result fuel that is made from coal is the cleanest purest fuel that can be made. The pollution does not come from the fuel. The co2 comes from the fact that the process takes 2 high temperature firings to convert the coal. If conventional coal or natural gas is used to produce the firings, the process does create much co2. However there is an answer that gets around that. The latest break through in nuclear energy is what is called a pebble bed reactor. The whole world is going to these because they are extremely save and produce no co2.
Oil companies do not want to go down this street because of the nightmare of permits and EPA regulations. They don't have the money. They can barely stay afloat now.
If the Obama administration was smart, which they are not) they would buy up 100 acre tracks of land in strategic places that already have the EPA permits attached. They would give the oil companies a 30% subsidy to build the plants. If the government wanted to create jobs they could set up on site housing and training for workers. Then for extra motivation they should give the oil companies a 20% tax deduction on what is sold. They should also mandate that 10% of their net profits go into the general Social Security fund.
To fuel the plants, the government should build what ever number of nuclear plants around the country with tax payers money. The plants should be a non-profit organization that only services the coal to liquid projects. The cost could be added to the end cost of making the fuel. Similar housing and training could be set up to train and house workers. Excess power could be sold to the power companies.
Oil companies are racking up RECORD profits! Barely stay afloat? Dont have the money ????
Where is the government spending for plug-in hybrid conversions?
Where is the government spending for plug-in hybrid conversions?
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 2:35PM
Fact 1: Over the last few months, we've seen the federal government spend all sorts of money to try and reach the twin goals of economic resurrection and a cleaner/greener society. In the auto industry, we have the CARS program, the ending (or not?) of the DOE's hydrogen vehicle program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVMLP) – which gave $5.9 billion to Ford, $1.6 billion to Nissan and $465 million to Tesla – and, of course, the bailout of GM and Chrysler. This is a big pile of cash.
Fact 2: President Obama, when he was campaigning for his current job, said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. His proposal, at the time, was to give companies about $4 billion in loans and loan guarantees to develop the plug-ins and to offer consumers a $7,000 tax credit to purchase these vehicles.
Fact 3: 2015 is just over five years away, and there are currently zero production PHEVs available for purchase. The road to getting a million of them out the door in 60 months is not going to be easy.
We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology. We've put some details after the jump.
We're currently spending a week with a converted Prius from Hymotion, a vehicle similar to the one President Bush was shown in 2007. Sure, if you don't drive it like a plug-in, you're not going to get 100 mpg. But learning correct driving and recharging style will be paramount to any successful adoption of PHEVs. And, considering that the Hymotion Prius conversion packs (and others) are available now, why doesn't the government sink some money into making sure that anyone who wants to convert their hybrid to a plug-in vehicle can afford to do so?
The government has been helping to fund natural gas conversions for years, so there's a precedent for this, a precedent that should limit the number of people arguing that the plugs need to be installed at the factory or they won't be safe. Any conversion pack that would qualify for federal money would naturally be required to be safe, but this is a hurdle that has been and can again be cleared. If some money was diverted to a.) expanding the number of hybrid models that conversion packs were available for and b.) to giving consumers a rebate to buy those systems, wouldn't this be an affordable, fairly easy way to at least get a few hundred thousand PHEVs on the roads soon?
Let's play with some numbers. Since we're driving the Hymotion Prius, we'll use their dollar amounts, but all conversion options are pretty pricey right now. For $10,000, someone like Pat Cadam can turn your second-gen Prius into a PHEV in a few hours. For your money, you'll get a car that can go 40ish miles and has a top speed of 35 mph in EV mode. Go further or faster, of course, and the Prius behaves just like it did before the conversion happened. A price point this high is really only attractive to early adopters. What would it take to make getting a conversion done a no-brainer? How about a 30-mile pack for $5,000? Or a 20-mile pack for $3,500 (we're just throwing out numbers here, btw). And, let's say that instead of $4,500 for a new car that gets better than 28 mpg under the CARS program, how about $4,500 off the price of a PHEV conversion? Would people bite at that price? Or, what if the $7,500 plug-in credit that factory-produced PHEVs like the Volt (sorry, ER-EV) will get could be applied to conversions? If so, would $2,500 for a somewhat limited 40-mile range PHEV Prius be too sweet to pass up?
What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?
Tags: conversion, featured, phev, phev conversion, PhevConversion, plug-in hybrid, plug-in hybrid conversion, plug-in hybrids, plug-in prius, Plug-inHybrid, Plug-inHybridConversion, Plug-inHybrids, Plug-inPrius
PermalinkEmail thisPrint thisTweet thisComments (22)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Toyota to lease 200 PHEV Priuses in Japan starting in late 2009
46 days ago
eBay find of the day: Hymotion Plug-in Prius
157 days ago
CARB puts off plug-in hybrid conversion warranty, emissions decision
176 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog Green for 07.15.09
5 days ago
Toyota Prius plug-in tops 65 mpg
168 days ago
Maximum Bob: No plug-in hybrid race between GM, Toyota
325 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1Andrew
2:58PM (7/14/2009)
Here's what you're missing: not everyone drives a hybrid, and not every hybrid is designed for high mileage. Why waste money focusing on converting a small segment of the market into an even smaller segment of the market, when you could probably get a lot more bang for your buck investing in how to convert regular ICE vehicles to hybrids?? With millions of non-hybrid ICE vehicles on the road right now, THOSE are the vehicles you have to target.
Reply
↓↑report2meme
3:01PM (7/14/2009)
The primary constraint on the number of EVs we can produce is battery production capacity. Since conversions are based on vehicles that aren't necessarily uber-light/uber-aero, they tend to get fewer miles per watt hour. Thus you could actually *decrease* the amount of vehicles we could get on the road that way.
Conversions in general make for poor EVs. The weight distribution is wrong, the space available is wrong, and all sorts of components are driven by the gasoline engine. Even on a "professional", "factory" conversion like the Mini-E, you can see the compromises that went into it.
Reply
↓↑report3Serge
3:19PM (7/14/2009)
I'd rather see more money made available as low-cost loans to domestic advanced battery manufacturers. You have companies like Yardney Technical Products or Sion Power demonstrating and developing great product. Now let's get production capacity going and fill the market with lower-cost batteries.
Reply
↓↑report4LaughingTooHard
3:33PM (7/14/2009)
After reading the Title I was less than thrilled about this article.
After reading the content I was, as expected, fired up.
Let's take a look the Demographics of the Prius owner:
* 71 percent of respondents earned more than $100,000 per year.
* 73 percent were 40 years or older.
* 58 percent were men.
* 88 percent were “very happy” with their Prius; 12 percent were “somewhat happy.”
These are the people we need to reward with tax credits?
Laughable.
Show me a program is designed to puts some of unemployed 9.7% of this country's workforce BACK to work and I will be happy to sign off on it. . And don't give me that crap that R&D money wasted on "bridge technologies" like PHEV provide any return in employed workforce numbers. Tesla employs what 250? Wow, impressive.
We need the unemployed back to work so the whole country can recover so green technology can continue to thrive and evolve.
Oh I am sorry didn't you get the memo: unless the country recovers pronto, few people will care about Eco this or Green that - they will be too busy caring about food and shelter.
What we don't need is another tax credit for the working White Male 40+ $100K+ demographic.
Reply
↓↑report5sac
4:30PM (7/14/2009)
I agree that Prius or other hybrid conversions are too small of a market segment to really make a difference, but I do think it makes sense to offer incentives for conversions. It would help for one thing to stimulate addtional demand for batteries. However, I think that it would be really great to offer incentives for conversions of gas vehicles to electric vehicles. How many tired gas vehicles are out there serving as second (or lets face it, third) cars that get driven very little and and for short distances? If an electric conversion costs $10-12k for a 20-30 mile range, and the vehicle is already a second vehicle, there may well be plenty of people willing to invest money in a conversion. Now if there were a tax credit available for, say $2500 - $4500 towards a conversion from gas to BEV, I think alot of people would jump on it (myself included). This would make the cost of entry into electric vehicles (
Reply
↓↑report6sac
4:33PM (7/14/2009)
-continued from comment above-
(say under $10k) much more affordadable and less risky for alot of people and could really take off.
Reply
↓↑report7arw
4:40PM (7/14/2009)
How about just taxing fuel up to about $10 a gallon like in Europe then letting people and the markets decide what the best solution is?
Reply
↓↑report8Sebastian
4:46PM (7/14/2009)
you're right. $10 might be a bit high (at first), but it's hard to argue against a price floor ($5?) to really move things forward
↓↑report9paulwesterberg
5:24PM (7/14/2009)
Just pass a bill to raise fuel taxes by 25 cents every year. Then people will know that high prices will be coming in 10 years even if they don't have to pay them now.
↓↑report10falbhan
7:02PM (7/14/2009)
Yeah, definitely need to phase it in, but it seems it's the only
thing that accurately and fairly deal with the issues at hand.
Unfortunately there is a shortage of political will here in the US and
we'll likely never see this happen.
↓↑report11Throwback
4:47PM (7/14/2009)
"We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology"
I think we have borrowed and spent enough money already this year. Obama still does not know how we are going to pay for a healthcare overall, which I would give a higher prioirty than plugin cars.
Reply
↓↑report12locoyocal
5:12PM (7/14/2009)
Why are people still talking about hybrids.... Its like talking about a titanium bicycle.
Reply
↓↑report13paulwesterberg
5:30PM (7/14/2009)
Actually I think there are still interesting opportunities for titanium bicycles:
http://www.ttinet.com/tf/index.htm
Wind resistance eats up 80% of your cycling output. Bicycle weight has less impact on performance than aerodynamics.
↓↑report14kert
6:23PM (7/14/2009)
Up the fuel taxes, use the earned tax dollars to rebuild the roads.
Prescribing solutions ( PHEV, hydrogen, ethanol , whatever the next fad ) or picking winners at starting lines ends in disasters.
The problem is oil dependency ( to a lesser degree, pollution ) and to resolve this you have to start making oil less available ( meaning, increase its prices ), market will figure out the rest.
Reply
↓↑report15win39
7:38PM (7/14/2009)
I see no way way to solve this problem. The rational thing to do is to raise the gasoline tax and use a portion of it to fund research on alternative transportation technologies like batteries. The only problem is the politics in that it would be a completely visible tax and people would curse the current administration with every fill up, the Obama tax. They would be thrown out with the next election and everything would be reversed and the problem would not be approached until half the coastal cities are inundated,there are famines everywhere, population die off, and martial law declared to keep public order when people refuse to quietly starve to death. I pity the children of a generation unwilling to make sacrifices for the future.
Reply
↓↑report16jonwil2002
10:03PM (7/14/2009)
Don't tax the consumer, tax the oil companies. Tell the consumer that you are removing subsidies for the oil companies and making them pay more to fund solutions to make America less dependent on foriegn oil. Oil companies are big greedy corporations and the public wont complain if you tax a big greedy corporation. Also, any price increases can be attributed to the oil companies and not the government. And, the "lets make America less dependent on foriegn oil" mantra is popular with the public too.
Reply
↓↑report17GenWaylaid
11:58PM (7/14/2009)
"President Obama...said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015."
Obama's a politician. Politicians say a lot of things. What's your point?
Reply
↓↑report18Charles Whalen
12:16AM (7/15/2009)
You are behind the curve and behind the times. What you are missing -- (you must not have researched your article very carefully) -- is that your “idea” and “plan” have already been thought of a long time ago and are already being implemented. Many thousands of plug-in hybrid conversions are being funded by federal stimulus dollars, and states are also implementing consumer rebate programs for plug-in hybrid conversions, some of them funded through federal stimulus block grants to the states.
Reply
↓↑report19Jim
7:28AM (7/15/2009)
"What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?"
No. Problem is that it could lead to a lot of half-assed conversion kits which have been through minimal (if any) validation testing. Mucking with the control and charging systems on a hybrid is something you cannot screw up. A tax credit is all well and good until you need the car fixed every month 'cos of the conversion kit (which would void the warranty, mind you) or if a flaw in the charging system burns your house down.
Reply
↓↑report20steve
8:56AM (7/15/2009)
There are numerous problems with conversion kits, not the least of which is durability. Getting past five years of regular driving with a battery pack is a big deal. Combine this with the fact that there aren't many suitable cars to convert and the people who own them have more money than the average American - this is just a dumb transfer of money.
It would be much more cost effective to promote biking in some cities (like Portland has done). Make it safer and give people places to park. Not using a car for short trips has many practical consequences.
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 2:35PM
Fact 1: Over the last few months, we've seen the federal government spend all sorts of money to try and reach the twin goals of economic resurrection and a cleaner/greener society. In the auto industry, we have the CARS program, the ending (or not?) of the DOE's hydrogen vehicle program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVMLP) – which gave $5.9 billion to Ford, $1.6 billion to Nissan and $465 million to Tesla – and, of course, the bailout of GM and Chrysler. This is a big pile of cash.
Fact 2: President Obama, when he was campaigning for his current job, said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. His proposal, at the time, was to give companies about $4 billion in loans and loan guarantees to develop the plug-ins and to offer consumers a $7,000 tax credit to purchase these vehicles.
Fact 3: 2015 is just over five years away, and there are currently zero production PHEVs available for purchase. The road to getting a million of them out the door in 60 months is not going to be easy.
We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology. We've put some details after the jump.
We're currently spending a week with a converted Prius from Hymotion, a vehicle similar to the one President Bush was shown in 2007. Sure, if you don't drive it like a plug-in, you're not going to get 100 mpg. But learning correct driving and recharging style will be paramount to any successful adoption of PHEVs. And, considering that the Hymotion Prius conversion packs (and others) are available now, why doesn't the government sink some money into making sure that anyone who wants to convert their hybrid to a plug-in vehicle can afford to do so?
The government has been helping to fund natural gas conversions for years, so there's a precedent for this, a precedent that should limit the number of people arguing that the plugs need to be installed at the factory or they won't be safe. Any conversion pack that would qualify for federal money would naturally be required to be safe, but this is a hurdle that has been and can again be cleared. If some money was diverted to a.) expanding the number of hybrid models that conversion packs were available for and b.) to giving consumers a rebate to buy those systems, wouldn't this be an affordable, fairly easy way to at least get a few hundred thousand PHEVs on the roads soon?
Let's play with some numbers. Since we're driving the Hymotion Prius, we'll use their dollar amounts, but all conversion options are pretty pricey right now. For $10,000, someone like Pat Cadam can turn your second-gen Prius into a PHEV in a few hours. For your money, you'll get a car that can go 40ish miles and has a top speed of 35 mph in EV mode. Go further or faster, of course, and the Prius behaves just like it did before the conversion happened. A price point this high is really only attractive to early adopters. What would it take to make getting a conversion done a no-brainer? How about a 30-mile pack for $5,000? Or a 20-mile pack for $3,500 (we're just throwing out numbers here, btw). And, let's say that instead of $4,500 for a new car that gets better than 28 mpg under the CARS program, how about $4,500 off the price of a PHEV conversion? Would people bite at that price? Or, what if the $7,500 plug-in credit that factory-produced PHEVs like the Volt (sorry, ER-EV) will get could be applied to conversions? If so, would $2,500 for a somewhat limited 40-mile range PHEV Prius be too sweet to pass up?
What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?
Tags: conversion, featured, phev, phev conversion, PhevConversion, plug-in hybrid, plug-in hybrid conversion, plug-in hybrids, plug-in prius, Plug-inHybrid, Plug-inHybridConversion, Plug-inHybrids, Plug-inPrius
PermalinkEmail thisPrint thisTweet thisComments (22)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Toyota to lease 200 PHEV Priuses in Japan starting in late 2009
46 days ago
eBay find of the day: Hymotion Plug-in Prius
157 days ago
CARB puts off plug-in hybrid conversion warranty, emissions decision
176 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog Green for 07.15.09
5 days ago
Toyota Prius plug-in tops 65 mpg
168 days ago
Maximum Bob: No plug-in hybrid race between GM, Toyota
325 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1Andrew
2:58PM (7/14/2009)
Here's what you're missing: not everyone drives a hybrid, and not every hybrid is designed for high mileage. Why waste money focusing on converting a small segment of the market into an even smaller segment of the market, when you could probably get a lot more bang for your buck investing in how to convert regular ICE vehicles to hybrids?? With millions of non-hybrid ICE vehicles on the road right now, THOSE are the vehicles you have to target.
Reply
↓↑report2meme
3:01PM (7/14/2009)
The primary constraint on the number of EVs we can produce is battery production capacity. Since conversions are based on vehicles that aren't necessarily uber-light/uber-aero, they tend to get fewer miles per watt hour. Thus you could actually *decrease* the amount of vehicles we could get on the road that way.
Conversions in general make for poor EVs. The weight distribution is wrong, the space available is wrong, and all sorts of components are driven by the gasoline engine. Even on a "professional", "factory" conversion like the Mini-E, you can see the compromises that went into it.
Reply
↓↑report3Serge
3:19PM (7/14/2009)
I'd rather see more money made available as low-cost loans to domestic advanced battery manufacturers. You have companies like Yardney Technical Products or Sion Power demonstrating and developing great product. Now let's get production capacity going and fill the market with lower-cost batteries.
Reply
↓↑report4LaughingTooHard
3:33PM (7/14/2009)
After reading the Title I was less than thrilled about this article.
After reading the content I was, as expected, fired up.
Let's take a look the Demographics of the Prius owner:
* 71 percent of respondents earned more than $100,000 per year.
* 73 percent were 40 years or older.
* 58 percent were men.
* 88 percent were “very happy” with their Prius; 12 percent were “somewhat happy.”
These are the people we need to reward with tax credits?
Laughable.
Show me a program is designed to puts some of unemployed 9.7% of this country's workforce BACK to work and I will be happy to sign off on it. . And don't give me that crap that R&D money wasted on "bridge technologies" like PHEV provide any return in employed workforce numbers. Tesla employs what 250? Wow, impressive.
We need the unemployed back to work so the whole country can recover so green technology can continue to thrive and evolve.
Oh I am sorry didn't you get the memo: unless the country recovers pronto, few people will care about Eco this or Green that - they will be too busy caring about food and shelter.
What we don't need is another tax credit for the working White Male 40+ $100K+ demographic.
Reply
↓↑report5sac
4:30PM (7/14/2009)
I agree that Prius or other hybrid conversions are too small of a market segment to really make a difference, but I do think it makes sense to offer incentives for conversions. It would help for one thing to stimulate addtional demand for batteries. However, I think that it would be really great to offer incentives for conversions of gas vehicles to electric vehicles. How many tired gas vehicles are out there serving as second (or lets face it, third) cars that get driven very little and and for short distances? If an electric conversion costs $10-12k for a 20-30 mile range, and the vehicle is already a second vehicle, there may well be plenty of people willing to invest money in a conversion. Now if there were a tax credit available for, say $2500 - $4500 towards a conversion from gas to BEV, I think alot of people would jump on it (myself included). This would make the cost of entry into electric vehicles (
Reply
↓↑report6sac
4:33PM (7/14/2009)
-continued from comment above-
(say under $10k) much more affordadable and less risky for alot of people and could really take off.
Reply
↓↑report7arw
4:40PM (7/14/2009)
How about just taxing fuel up to about $10 a gallon like in Europe then letting people and the markets decide what the best solution is?
Reply
↓↑report8Sebastian
4:46PM (7/14/2009)
you're right. $10 might be a bit high (at first), but it's hard to argue against a price floor ($5?) to really move things forward
↓↑report9paulwesterberg
5:24PM (7/14/2009)
Just pass a bill to raise fuel taxes by 25 cents every year. Then people will know that high prices will be coming in 10 years even if they don't have to pay them now.
↓↑report10falbhan
7:02PM (7/14/2009)
Yeah, definitely need to phase it in, but it seems it's the only
thing that accurately and fairly deal with the issues at hand.
Unfortunately there is a shortage of political will here in the US and
we'll likely never see this happen.
↓↑report11Throwback
4:47PM (7/14/2009)
"We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology"
I think we have borrowed and spent enough money already this year. Obama still does not know how we are going to pay for a healthcare overall, which I would give a higher prioirty than plugin cars.
Reply
↓↑report12locoyocal
5:12PM (7/14/2009)
Why are people still talking about hybrids.... Its like talking about a titanium bicycle.
Reply
↓↑report13paulwesterberg
5:30PM (7/14/2009)
Actually I think there are still interesting opportunities for titanium bicycles:
http://www.ttinet.com/tf/index.htm
Wind resistance eats up 80% of your cycling output. Bicycle weight has less impact on performance than aerodynamics.
↓↑report14kert
6:23PM (7/14/2009)
Up the fuel taxes, use the earned tax dollars to rebuild the roads.
Prescribing solutions ( PHEV, hydrogen, ethanol , whatever the next fad ) or picking winners at starting lines ends in disasters.
The problem is oil dependency ( to a lesser degree, pollution ) and to resolve this you have to start making oil less available ( meaning, increase its prices ), market will figure out the rest.
Reply
↓↑report15win39
7:38PM (7/14/2009)
I see no way way to solve this problem. The rational thing to do is to raise the gasoline tax and use a portion of it to fund research on alternative transportation technologies like batteries. The only problem is the politics in that it would be a completely visible tax and people would curse the current administration with every fill up, the Obama tax. They would be thrown out with the next election and everything would be reversed and the problem would not be approached until half the coastal cities are inundated,there are famines everywhere, population die off, and martial law declared to keep public order when people refuse to quietly starve to death. I pity the children of a generation unwilling to make sacrifices for the future.
Reply
↓↑report16jonwil2002
10:03PM (7/14/2009)
Don't tax the consumer, tax the oil companies. Tell the consumer that you are removing subsidies for the oil companies and making them pay more to fund solutions to make America less dependent on foriegn oil. Oil companies are big greedy corporations and the public wont complain if you tax a big greedy corporation. Also, any price increases can be attributed to the oil companies and not the government. And, the "lets make America less dependent on foriegn oil" mantra is popular with the public too.
Reply
↓↑report17GenWaylaid
11:58PM (7/14/2009)
"President Obama...said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015."
Obama's a politician. Politicians say a lot of things. What's your point?
Reply
↓↑report18Charles Whalen
12:16AM (7/15/2009)
You are behind the curve and behind the times. What you are missing -- (you must not have researched your article very carefully) -- is that your “idea” and “plan” have already been thought of a long time ago and are already being implemented. Many thousands of plug-in hybrid conversions are being funded by federal stimulus dollars, and states are also implementing consumer rebate programs for plug-in hybrid conversions, some of them funded through federal stimulus block grants to the states.
Reply
↓↑report19Jim
7:28AM (7/15/2009)
"What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?"
No. Problem is that it could lead to a lot of half-assed conversion kits which have been through minimal (if any) validation testing. Mucking with the control and charging systems on a hybrid is something you cannot screw up. A tax credit is all well and good until you need the car fixed every month 'cos of the conversion kit (which would void the warranty, mind you) or if a flaw in the charging system burns your house down.
Reply
↓↑report20steve
8:56AM (7/15/2009)
There are numerous problems with conversion kits, not the least of which is durability. Getting past five years of regular driving with a battery pack is a big deal. Combine this with the fact that there aren't many suitable cars to convert and the people who own them have more money than the average American - this is just a dumb transfer of money.
It would be much more cost effective to promote biking in some cities (like Portland has done). Make it safer and give people places to park. Not using a car for short trips has many practical consequences.
Shell brings H2 fueling stations to NYC
Shell brings H2 fueling stations to NYC
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 7:56PM
Does Shell know something about the DOE's hydrogen funding plans that others don't? Or did it forget that the Shell CEO said recently that biofuels are the future? Whatever's going in internally, the energy giant is moving forward with plans to open a series of hydrogen refueling stations in New York. Today, the company opened a second NYC station – at JFK international airport – and will break the seal on another, this one in the Bronx, later this month. An H2 station in White Plains has been open since April 2008. Shell calls it their "first cluster of hydrogen filling stations," and the stations are all about 30 miles apart. The new JFK location can be used by "agreed vehicles only."
Last year, Shell opened a combined hydrogen and gasoline refueling station in Los Angeles (pictured) and also operates stations in Tokyo, Reykjavik, Shanghai, Washington, D.C. and New York..
[Source: Shell via Green Car Congress, GM]
GM Welcomes Shell Hydrogen Station Opening at JFK
Creates First Cluster of Hydrogen filling stations
JAMAICA, New York - Shell today opened its second hydrogen filling station in the greater New York City area, providing improved access to hydrogen for drivers of fuel cell Chevrolet Equinoxes participating in Project Driveway.
Project Driveway selects consumers who sign up on the Internet in the greater New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to participate for two months at a time in the demonstration. Chevy.com/fuelsolutions
Shell will open a third third station this summer in the Bronx in conjunction with the New York City Department of Sanitation.
Shell hydrogen station in White Plains has been operating there for more than a year, making up Shell's first cluster of hydrogen filling stations.
The station opening Tuesday at JFK International Airport is a partnership between Shell, General Motors Co., the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the US Department of Energy.
"These partnerships are critical to building the infrastructure that will make hydrogen a relevant alternative fuel in the future as well as a key to the ongoing success of Project Driveway," said Larry Burns, GM vice president of R&D and Strategic Planning.
The cluster of stations that will provide New York drivers of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with greater flexibility and convenience is a significant step on from stand-alone, demonstration stations and is part of Shell's strategy to build expertise in the distribution and dispensing of hydrogen.
"The prospects for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are strong in the longer-term", said Duncan Macleod, Shell vice president of Hydrogen. "This first cluster is an important step as we continue to build capability in retailing hydrogen fuel, in line with the auto makers' plans to develop hydrogen vehicles."
About General Motors: General Motors Company, one of the world's largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM's largest national market is the United States, followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Germany. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. General Motors Company acquired operations from General Motors Corporation on July 10, 2009, and references to prior periods in this and other press materials refer to operations of the old General Motors Corporation. More information on the new General Motors Company can be found at www.gm.com.
Tags: hydrogen, hydrogen new york, hydrogen nyc, HydrogenNewYork, HydrogenNyc, shell, shell hydrogen, shell new york, ShellHydrogen, ShellNewYork
(43)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Financial crisis delays Iceland's hydrogen transportation project
19 days ago
Baden-Württemberg, Germany gets its first public hydrogen filling station
31 days ago
CARB grants $6.8 billion for four hydrogen refueling stations
103 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog
Early obits attempt to analyze, make sense of General Motors bankruptcy
49 days ago
Malcolm Bricklin has hydrogen visions for displaced Chrysler and GM dealers...
53 days ago
Port Authority skittish over BMW Hydrogen 7
360 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1km
8:43PM (7/14/2009)
What the greater NYC area needs is natural gas stations not Hydrogen...
Reply
↓↑report2jjpro
12:05PM (7/15/2009)
I say, way to go GM & Shell. This program is very much needed. Hydrogen & fuel cells are an important component of the portfolio of technologies that will address our environmental concerns. Hydrogen used in a fuel-cell drivetrain is efficient: it is 3 times more efficient than the gasoline car you are now driving! Large trucks are not going to run on batteries alone anytime soon; they can on hydrogen. I will take my hydrogen car that can go 350 miles and refuel in 5 minutes over my battery-only car that can only go 100 miles and needs 8 hours to recharge.
↓↑report3Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
This is a very positive step for alternative fuels. Nice job GM and Shell to provide some leadership in another important metro area outside of LA!
These few stations will allow the people already driving hydrogen vehicles in the area to have more convenient fueling and to drive their emission-free fuel cell electric vehicles all over the NYC area.
↓↑report4ShaunneyCakes
8:52PM (7/14/2009)
Uh oh, here comes the stampede of Anti-Hydrogen Eco-Snob posts!
Reply
↓↑report5BillySharps
9:18PM (7/14/2009)
There are good reasons to oppose hydrogen. I'm not sure why that's snobbery.
↓↑report6ShaunneyCakes
9:52PM (7/14/2009)
@BillySharps
There are good reasons to oppose EVERY technology. Even EVs and Plug In Hybrids has many "good" reasons to oppose them. What makes someone a snob is they ignore all the good things because they prefer an alternative technology. I prefer EV's, but hydrogen has a lot of potential as well.
↓↑report7fnc
10:12PM (7/14/2009)
Considering the energy ROI of various ways to generate electricity makes one a snob?
↓↑report8jpm
2:04AM (7/15/2009)
stfu moron
↓↑report9guyledouche
8:58AM (7/15/2009)
Hey ShaunnyCakes,
You say tomato, I say tomaaato.
You call us "anti-hydrogen eco snobs", I call us informed, logical, intelligent, green vehicle tech advocates.
I, along with many other folks on this site, am no more an advocate of EV's as I am an advocate of CNG vehicles.
CNG makes a hell of a lot more sense as an interim fuel source in ICE cars and trucks than Hydrogen ever will, from every aspect. I am not going to go into detail about why H2 does not make sense because that horse has been beaten to death multiple times on this site as of late. It is getting old. The bottom line is that it doesn't make sense and the sooner you and guys like Glen Blencoe get that thru your thick skulls, the better. Do you think people promote EV's and CNG vehicles here because they are paid by some underground organization to pump our wares? NO Sherlocke, its because the aforementioned technologies make sense, work, can be made affordable, can be fairly easily adopted into our CURRENT refueling infrastructure, whether at home or at a station, and can and will be adopted my the US populous.
If anything, you are truly the closed-minded eco-snob here, promoting and defending one of the biggest wastes of time and money we have ever seen in green vehicle technology. H2 is a joke and just another way for large oil companies to keep a stronghold on our wallets. Enough is enough, we need to do things that make sense and not just listen to what ever you hear on the news.
EV's and CNG are the only CURRENT technologies that make sense and should be promoted as an alternative to petrol. H2 is a joke. Even our corrupt, oil industry funded government has seen the light at the end of the tunnel and slashed their spending on H2. To me, that means a lot! For them to make that kind of a move should make it very obvious to folks like you and Blencoe, that H2 is a waste of time and money.
Feel free to bash my comments, but I think I and others on this site make very good points to support these arguments.
↓↑report10gorr
10:42AM (7/15/2009)
Natural gas is the easiest green technology. If there is not available anywhere it's because goverment folks need to study how to suffocate the peoples like hitler did with the jews. Look at the career of al gore and g.w.b , they propose greenery tech all the time but it's just for public relations, on the real table only destructive gasoline and diesel are sold. It's them that constructed this petrol business worldwide and they are still protecting it and promoting it with goverment money. All their talks is to erase your awareness. All the greenery tech if we listen to them is coming soon, but strangelly they cannot recognise any green tech at all and despite billions of dollars of taxmoney given to many crooks, not a single greenery is on the market.
↓↑report11Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
Way to call it ShaunnyCakes. As predictable as a metronome. You're right of course. Hydrogen has a lot of potential. And so do other technologies.
That's why we need to be so open-minded to a variety of good technologies and help them all to market. Once they get to market (probably at different times), we can let the market decide which kinds of vehicles will be purchased.
↓↑report12Yanquetino
9:04PM (7/14/2009)
Questions:
* How many fuel cell "agreed vehicles" are there in the NY area?
* Who makes those FCVs and who drives them?
* Any idea how much one of these "agreed vehicles" costs?
* Since Shell opened this new station at the JFK airport, does this mean that some select rental car agencies will be renting them to travelers?
* How much is this new fueling station charging for the H2?
* Where is it getting its H2 from?
* How is it produced?
* How is it transferred and stored there?
* What is the maximum psi that the station can put into a vehicle's tanks?
* How long does a "fillup" take at that psi?
Thanks!
Reply
↓↑report13j
9:27PM (7/14/2009)
so they opened a covered parking lot?
Reply
↓↑report14Earthplane
9:46PM (7/14/2009)
Some followup questions! Did Shell fund these H2 facilities, or are they subsidized by Project Driveway or by GM, or maybe by DOE? If they just did it as part of a demonstration program, they get no credit for that - they have no risk. End of program, end of facility.
It's not for public use, only for participating vehicles, but still, what is Shell charging for the refueling, on a weight or gge basis? Of course, none of these H2 facilities will even approach economic feasibility at this point, but participating drivers should be expected to pay something toward the fuel they're using as part of the program.
Interesting story, how about more information from our writer?
Reply
↓↑report15PopSmith
12:47AM (7/15/2009)
I have these questions as well. If Shell put out the money for this station with no "help" from the government that is interesting and shows they are serious about it in my opinion. However, if Exxon and other oil companies jump on the Hydrogen bandwagon that means that eventual price fixing/price hikes such as what we have seen with gasoline is inevitable.
On the topic of Hydrogen, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is mainly generated (at least in America) from natural gas via natural gas reforming. This process separates methane (CH4) from natural gas which is then further separated so the Hydrogen can be used.
From energy.gov:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html
In steam-methane reforming, methane reacts with steam under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide.
This means that carbon monoxide (CO) is still being emitted, in ever-increasing numbers if Hydrogen takes off, and in the end the Hydrogen is ran though a fuel cell that combines Hydrogen with Oxygen making H2O (aka water) which then charges a battery to power the car.
I am not against Hydrogen, I think the idea is great but I prefer a pure-electric car. If the Hydrogen is used to charge a battery that means that, in the end, the car is an electric-hybrid that has had it's gasoline engine replaced with a Hydrogen generator.
For cars that need to go on road-trips that might be a good idea. However, for an "everyday driver" I still believe an all-electric vehicle would be a better choice.
↓↑report16Chris M
12:45AM (7/16/2009)
You got it almost right, PopSmith. A 2nd phase of that steam reforming process takes that carbon monoxide and reacts it with more steam at higher temperatures to get more H2 and CO2. It is necessary to remove carbon monoxide from the H2 fuel, as it can damage some types of fuel cells.
Most H2 production is from steam reformed fossil fuels, and the "Hydrogen Hyway" plans call for most of the H2 to be produced that way, as that is the cheapest source. The few H2 fuel stations using electrolysis are demo units for promotional use.
↓↑report17murc
10:35PM (7/14/2009)
Its obvious now, with electric cars coming fast....the hydrogen makers are realizing that the time for hydrogen is now or never...and they dont want to concede that all of the millions they sunk into hydrogen research wasn't wasted......but the truth is, it was.
Reply
↓↑report18Nozferat
4:17AM (7/15/2009)
Not really. It would be a mistake for them to do that when the technology out there hasn't fully matured. Same goes for EVs. Anyone pitching a cheap EV today that will do what a petrol car can do is committing suicide.
This shouldn't be a race. It should be a union of technologies.
↓↑report19Patrick
4:54PM (7/15/2009)
Guess where the most advanced automotive electric motors, batteries and controllers can be found on the road today? In hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells and batteries all work together.
↓↑report20Serge
5:22PM (7/15/2009)
Patrick, I believe you are mistaken. Those items you've mentioned can be found in a Tesla Roadster. It does not have a fuel cell.
There are more comments, and as usual, the comments are frequently more informative than the original article. I find it interesting that the federal government put fuel cells on the back burner and the oil companies are pushing it ! Fuel cells have been a great technology for at least the past ten years, and have potential, but arent close to being ready for production. Perhaps if people believe that fuel cells are right around the corner they will wait on buying a hybrid, plug-in, or electric vehicle. T Boone Pickens is pushing natural gas vehicles and trucks, with power from wind farms.
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 7:56PM
Does Shell know something about the DOE's hydrogen funding plans that others don't? Or did it forget that the Shell CEO said recently that biofuels are the future? Whatever's going in internally, the energy giant is moving forward with plans to open a series of hydrogen refueling stations in New York. Today, the company opened a second NYC station – at JFK international airport – and will break the seal on another, this one in the Bronx, later this month. An H2 station in White Plains has been open since April 2008. Shell calls it their "first cluster of hydrogen filling stations," and the stations are all about 30 miles apart. The new JFK location can be used by "agreed vehicles only."
Last year, Shell opened a combined hydrogen and gasoline refueling station in Los Angeles (pictured) and also operates stations in Tokyo, Reykjavik, Shanghai, Washington, D.C. and New York..
[Source: Shell via Green Car Congress, GM]
GM Welcomes Shell Hydrogen Station Opening at JFK
Creates First Cluster of Hydrogen filling stations
JAMAICA, New York - Shell today opened its second hydrogen filling station in the greater New York City area, providing improved access to hydrogen for drivers of fuel cell Chevrolet Equinoxes participating in Project Driveway.
Project Driveway selects consumers who sign up on the Internet in the greater New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to participate for two months at a time in the demonstration. Chevy.com/fuelsolutions
Shell will open a third third station this summer in the Bronx in conjunction with the New York City Department of Sanitation.
Shell hydrogen station in White Plains has been operating there for more than a year, making up Shell's first cluster of hydrogen filling stations.
The station opening Tuesday at JFK International Airport is a partnership between Shell, General Motors Co., the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the US Department of Energy.
"These partnerships are critical to building the infrastructure that will make hydrogen a relevant alternative fuel in the future as well as a key to the ongoing success of Project Driveway," said Larry Burns, GM vice president of R&D and Strategic Planning.
The cluster of stations that will provide New York drivers of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with greater flexibility and convenience is a significant step on from stand-alone, demonstration stations and is part of Shell's strategy to build expertise in the distribution and dispensing of hydrogen.
"The prospects for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are strong in the longer-term", said Duncan Macleod, Shell vice president of Hydrogen. "This first cluster is an important step as we continue to build capability in retailing hydrogen fuel, in line with the auto makers' plans to develop hydrogen vehicles."
About General Motors: General Motors Company, one of the world's largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM's largest national market is the United States, followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Germany. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. General Motors Company acquired operations from General Motors Corporation on July 10, 2009, and references to prior periods in this and other press materials refer to operations of the old General Motors Corporation. More information on the new General Motors Company can be found at www.gm.com.
Tags: hydrogen, hydrogen new york, hydrogen nyc, HydrogenNewYork, HydrogenNyc, shell, shell hydrogen, shell new york, ShellHydrogen, ShellNewYork
(43)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Financial crisis delays Iceland's hydrogen transportation project
19 days ago
Baden-Württemberg, Germany gets its first public hydrogen filling station
31 days ago
CARB grants $6.8 billion for four hydrogen refueling stations
103 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog
Early obits attempt to analyze, make sense of General Motors bankruptcy
49 days ago
Malcolm Bricklin has hydrogen visions for displaced Chrysler and GM dealers...
53 days ago
Port Authority skittish over BMW Hydrogen 7
360 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1km
8:43PM (7/14/2009)
What the greater NYC area needs is natural gas stations not Hydrogen...
Reply
↓↑report2jjpro
12:05PM (7/15/2009)
I say, way to go GM & Shell. This program is very much needed. Hydrogen & fuel cells are an important component of the portfolio of technologies that will address our environmental concerns. Hydrogen used in a fuel-cell drivetrain is efficient: it is 3 times more efficient than the gasoline car you are now driving! Large trucks are not going to run on batteries alone anytime soon; they can on hydrogen. I will take my hydrogen car that can go 350 miles and refuel in 5 minutes over my battery-only car that can only go 100 miles and needs 8 hours to recharge.
↓↑report3Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
This is a very positive step for alternative fuels. Nice job GM and Shell to provide some leadership in another important metro area outside of LA!
These few stations will allow the people already driving hydrogen vehicles in the area to have more convenient fueling and to drive their emission-free fuel cell electric vehicles all over the NYC area.
↓↑report4ShaunneyCakes
8:52PM (7/14/2009)
Uh oh, here comes the stampede of Anti-Hydrogen Eco-Snob posts!
Reply
↓↑report5BillySharps
9:18PM (7/14/2009)
There are good reasons to oppose hydrogen. I'm not sure why that's snobbery.
↓↑report6ShaunneyCakes
9:52PM (7/14/2009)
@BillySharps
There are good reasons to oppose EVERY technology. Even EVs and Plug In Hybrids has many "good" reasons to oppose them. What makes someone a snob is they ignore all the good things because they prefer an alternative technology. I prefer EV's, but hydrogen has a lot of potential as well.
↓↑report7fnc
10:12PM (7/14/2009)
Considering the energy ROI of various ways to generate electricity makes one a snob?
↓↑report8jpm
2:04AM (7/15/2009)
stfu moron
↓↑report9guyledouche
8:58AM (7/15/2009)
Hey ShaunnyCakes,
You say tomato, I say tomaaato.
You call us "anti-hydrogen eco snobs", I call us informed, logical, intelligent, green vehicle tech advocates.
I, along with many other folks on this site, am no more an advocate of EV's as I am an advocate of CNG vehicles.
CNG makes a hell of a lot more sense as an interim fuel source in ICE cars and trucks than Hydrogen ever will, from every aspect. I am not going to go into detail about why H2 does not make sense because that horse has been beaten to death multiple times on this site as of late. It is getting old. The bottom line is that it doesn't make sense and the sooner you and guys like Glen Blencoe get that thru your thick skulls, the better. Do you think people promote EV's and CNG vehicles here because they are paid by some underground organization to pump our wares? NO Sherlocke, its because the aforementioned technologies make sense, work, can be made affordable, can be fairly easily adopted into our CURRENT refueling infrastructure, whether at home or at a station, and can and will be adopted my the US populous.
If anything, you are truly the closed-minded eco-snob here, promoting and defending one of the biggest wastes of time and money we have ever seen in green vehicle technology. H2 is a joke and just another way for large oil companies to keep a stronghold on our wallets. Enough is enough, we need to do things that make sense and not just listen to what ever you hear on the news.
EV's and CNG are the only CURRENT technologies that make sense and should be promoted as an alternative to petrol. H2 is a joke. Even our corrupt, oil industry funded government has seen the light at the end of the tunnel and slashed their spending on H2. To me, that means a lot! For them to make that kind of a move should make it very obvious to folks like you and Blencoe, that H2 is a waste of time and money.
Feel free to bash my comments, but I think I and others on this site make very good points to support these arguments.
↓↑report10gorr
10:42AM (7/15/2009)
Natural gas is the easiest green technology. If there is not available anywhere it's because goverment folks need to study how to suffocate the peoples like hitler did with the jews. Look at the career of al gore and g.w.b , they propose greenery tech all the time but it's just for public relations, on the real table only destructive gasoline and diesel are sold. It's them that constructed this petrol business worldwide and they are still protecting it and promoting it with goverment money. All their talks is to erase your awareness. All the greenery tech if we listen to them is coming soon, but strangelly they cannot recognise any green tech at all and despite billions of dollars of taxmoney given to many crooks, not a single greenery is on the market.
↓↑report11Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
Way to call it ShaunnyCakes. As predictable as a metronome. You're right of course. Hydrogen has a lot of potential. And so do other technologies.
That's why we need to be so open-minded to a variety of good technologies and help them all to market. Once they get to market (probably at different times), we can let the market decide which kinds of vehicles will be purchased.
↓↑report12Yanquetino
9:04PM (7/14/2009)
Questions:
* How many fuel cell "agreed vehicles" are there in the NY area?
* Who makes those FCVs and who drives them?
* Any idea how much one of these "agreed vehicles" costs?
* Since Shell opened this new station at the JFK airport, does this mean that some select rental car agencies will be renting them to travelers?
* How much is this new fueling station charging for the H2?
* Where is it getting its H2 from?
* How is it produced?
* How is it transferred and stored there?
* What is the maximum psi that the station can put into a vehicle's tanks?
* How long does a "fillup" take at that psi?
Thanks!
Reply
↓↑report13j
9:27PM (7/14/2009)
so they opened a covered parking lot?
Reply
↓↑report14Earthplane
9:46PM (7/14/2009)
Some followup questions! Did Shell fund these H2 facilities, or are they subsidized by Project Driveway or by GM, or maybe by DOE? If they just did it as part of a demonstration program, they get no credit for that - they have no risk. End of program, end of facility.
It's not for public use, only for participating vehicles, but still, what is Shell charging for the refueling, on a weight or gge basis? Of course, none of these H2 facilities will even approach economic feasibility at this point, but participating drivers should be expected to pay something toward the fuel they're using as part of the program.
Interesting story, how about more information from our writer?
Reply
↓↑report15PopSmith
12:47AM (7/15/2009)
I have these questions as well. If Shell put out the money for this station with no "help" from the government that is interesting and shows they are serious about it in my opinion. However, if Exxon and other oil companies jump on the Hydrogen bandwagon that means that eventual price fixing/price hikes such as what we have seen with gasoline is inevitable.
On the topic of Hydrogen, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is mainly generated (at least in America) from natural gas via natural gas reforming. This process separates methane (CH4) from natural gas which is then further separated so the Hydrogen can be used.
From energy.gov:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html
In steam-methane reforming, methane reacts with steam under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide.
This means that carbon monoxide (CO) is still being emitted, in ever-increasing numbers if Hydrogen takes off, and in the end the Hydrogen is ran though a fuel cell that combines Hydrogen with Oxygen making H2O (aka water) which then charges a battery to power the car.
I am not against Hydrogen, I think the idea is great but I prefer a pure-electric car. If the Hydrogen is used to charge a battery that means that, in the end, the car is an electric-hybrid that has had it's gasoline engine replaced with a Hydrogen generator.
For cars that need to go on road-trips that might be a good idea. However, for an "everyday driver" I still believe an all-electric vehicle would be a better choice.
↓↑report16Chris M
12:45AM (7/16/2009)
You got it almost right, PopSmith. A 2nd phase of that steam reforming process takes that carbon monoxide and reacts it with more steam at higher temperatures to get more H2 and CO2. It is necessary to remove carbon monoxide from the H2 fuel, as it can damage some types of fuel cells.
Most H2 production is from steam reformed fossil fuels, and the "Hydrogen Hyway" plans call for most of the H2 to be produced that way, as that is the cheapest source. The few H2 fuel stations using electrolysis are demo units for promotional use.
↓↑report17murc
10:35PM (7/14/2009)
Its obvious now, with electric cars coming fast....the hydrogen makers are realizing that the time for hydrogen is now or never...and they dont want to concede that all of the millions they sunk into hydrogen research wasn't wasted......but the truth is, it was.
Reply
↓↑report18Nozferat
4:17AM (7/15/2009)
Not really. It would be a mistake for them to do that when the technology out there hasn't fully matured. Same goes for EVs. Anyone pitching a cheap EV today that will do what a petrol car can do is committing suicide.
This shouldn't be a race. It should be a union of technologies.
↓↑report19Patrick
4:54PM (7/15/2009)
Guess where the most advanced automotive electric motors, batteries and controllers can be found on the road today? In hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells and batteries all work together.
↓↑report20Serge
5:22PM (7/15/2009)
Patrick, I believe you are mistaken. Those items you've mentioned can be found in a Tesla Roadster. It does not have a fuel cell.
There are more comments, and as usual, the comments are frequently more informative than the original article. I find it interesting that the federal government put fuel cells on the back burner and the oil companies are pushing it ! Fuel cells have been a great technology for at least the past ten years, and have potential, but arent close to being ready for production. Perhaps if people believe that fuel cells are right around the corner they will wait on buying a hybrid, plug-in, or electric vehicle. T Boone Pickens is pushing natural gas vehicles and trucks, with power from wind farms.
Hybrid sales are taking off in Japan
Hybrid sales are taking off in Japan due to a perfect storm of newly available vehicles – namely the latest Toyota Prius and Honda Insight – and government-sponsored incentives. In Japan, gas is currently selling for about $4.50 a gallon, partly due to high fuel taxes in that country. In addition, the Japanese government has decreed that hybrid cars are exempt from taxes. Combine all of these factors and you end up with a seven-month waiting list for the new 2010 Toyota Prius.
In total, Toyota sold an impressive 22,292 Prius hybrids and Honda sold 8,782 Insights in Japan in the month of June, meaning that those two vehicles alone accounted for more sales than America's entire hybrid tally of 26,205 vehicles sold last month. Further breaking down the numbers reveals that one in every eight new cars sold in Japan is a hybrid, compared to one in three here in the United States.
Correction:
"US hybrid sales were up in June for the sixth consecutive month, exceeding 3 percent of the new car market. With the Japanese overall annual car market forecast at just below 5 million vehicles, this month’s tally of more than 30,000 hybrid sales means that approximately 8 percent of new car sales in Japan were hybrids in June."
For the "math challenged", this means 3 of every 100 cars sold in the U.S. is a hybrid; every 8 of 100 or 2 of 25 for Japan.
In total, Toyota sold an impressive 22,292 Prius hybrids and Honda sold 8,782 Insights in Japan in the month of June, meaning that those two vehicles alone accounted for more sales than America's entire hybrid tally of 26,205 vehicles sold last month. Further breaking down the numbers reveals that one in every eight new cars sold in Japan is a hybrid, compared to one in three here in the United States.
Correction:
"US hybrid sales were up in June for the sixth consecutive month, exceeding 3 percent of the new car market. With the Japanese overall annual car market forecast at just below 5 million vehicles, this month’s tally of more than 30,000 hybrid sales means that approximately 8 percent of new car sales in Japan were hybrids in June."
For the "math challenged", this means 3 of every 100 cars sold in the U.S. is a hybrid; every 8 of 100 or 2 of 25 for Japan.
REPORT: Toyota plans to manufacture up to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012
REPORT: Toyota plans to manufacture up to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012
by Michael Harley on Jul 5th 2009 at 1:05PM
Fanning competition against GM's upcoming 2011 Chevrolet Volt plug-in, the Nikkei business daily reports that Toyota Motor Corp. plans to manufacture 20,000 to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012. Toyota allegedly wants pricing comparable to Mitsubishi's all-electric car, which is set to debut this month to fleet customers in Japan (both vehicles are eligible for government subsidies).
Toyota's plug-in vehicles will be powered by lithium-ion batteries co-developed with Panasonic EV Energy Co. and are expected to offer a full-charge range between 20 to 30 km (12.4 to 18.6 miles) on battery power alone. According to the paper, Toyota would not comment on future product plans.
[Source: Automotive News, subs. req'd]
Tags: All-electric, Battery Power, BatteryPower, Electric, Hybrid, liion, liion batteries, LiionBatteries, Lithium ion, LithiumIon, Mitsubishi Electric, MitsubishiElectric, Panasonic battery, PanasonicBattery, Toyota
Toyota's hybrid Supra successor on track for 2011
28 days ago
Toyota denying supposed hybrid deal with GM?
55 days ago
Peugeot delaying launch of plug-in hybrid?
165 days ago
Related Articles From Autobloggreen.comToyota chafes at Ontario $10,000 EV rebate, calls it GM subsidy
3 days ago
Japan becomes world's largest market for hybrids in June
13 days ago
Toyota's push to build green cars may destroy 17th century Japanese rice pa...
28 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1why not the LS2LS7?
1:13PM (7/05/2009)
What's the max useful speed for these vehicles?
Although I'd love to see multiple companies enter the market with a hybrid with useful zero-emissions range, I don't really expect Toyota to develop one when they already have their excellent parallel hybrid drive and it's more efficient when running on gas than a series hybrid anyway.
Reply
↓↑report
2ShaunneyCakes
1:41PM (7/05/2009)
12.4 to 18.6 miles... wow ... way to half-a$$ it Toyota. I hate to say it... but if the price is as high as AutoBlogGreen is claiming... then this will be another PS3... an embarrassing Japanese failure.
I have a Prius, but Toyota is losing 6 billion of 18 billion in capital a quarter has sluggish market share rise with very little assets. They are another GM in the making.
Reply
↓↑report
3car industry expert
2:22PM (7/05/2009)
Does anyone care, Toyota is crap, Volkswagen group is incredible. The sooner VW Group overtake Toyota the better. If Ferdinand Piech stays at the top that is sure to happen.
Reply
↓↑report
4whofan
2:28PM (7/05/2009)
Agree,
At least the Germans buy cars from American companys too.
Volkswagon or any other European car is a better choice for an import.
↓↑report
5Raffi
5:27PM (7/05/2009)
Aren't most VWs sold in the US imported from Mexico?
↓↑report
6TigerMil
2:44PM (7/05/2009)
Isn't competition wonderful? Don't count T out.
Reply
↓↑report
7mesama
3:32PM (7/05/2009)
That 20-30 km range is deceiving in that it is not an all-electric range. If you reach high enough speed or accelerate fast enough, the gas motor will have to turn on. Their hybrid design is still a good design, especially for the next few years. But the distinction between it and an EV or extended-range EV should not be lost.
Reply
↓↑report
8xtasi
5:54PM (7/05/2009)
I have a 50mi commute each way, I can't get some EV love... unless I get a Tesla roadster. How about someone comes up with some electric panels on the roof that charges the battery (Prius has solar panels, but they only help run accessories when the car is in motion). I can park my car and get some charge out of the 10 hours i'm at work. I work in Los Angeles, we got plenty of sun year around. That will probably happen in 20 years.
9kcmurphy88
3:39PM (7/06/2009)
Solar charging? You're kidding, right? There is WAY not enough solar energy hitting a car roof, even if you got 100% of it which you can't, to charge a car battery in any meaningful way. One kilowatt per meter is all you have to work with. That's not anything like what a car needs.
↓↑report
10erik1080
6:21PM (7/05/2009)
I get so frustrated when I see car companies see electric vehicles as the "future". Electric vehicles have a short range, are unreliable, and take forever to charge. Hybrids are stupid too, with their minimal increase in mpg. Diesel is the way to go, people! Look at BMW's Efficient Dynamics and VW's TDI!!!
Reply
↓↑report
11PJ
7:39PM (7/05/2009)
Electric *is* the future because an electric car doesn't care where the juice on the grid comes from--coal, nuke, or wind/solar--and requires no adaptation as clean plants gradually replace dirty ones.
With diesel, the car will only ever be as efficient as its onboard engine, and today's combustion engines are about as squeaky-clean as a series of controlled explosions can get.
By contrast, we're nowhere near tapping out the efficiency of electric drive. Hybrids will be remembered as a relatively crude stepping-stone.
12Lad
8:17PM (7/05/2009)
Wow there is a lot of misinformation in the above comments: 1.) the current Prius is a small ICE with an electric battery boost when additional power is needed, i.e., when accelerating or pushing the wind at high speeds. its best mileage comes in city traffic and slow speed cruising. At fast highway speeds the car is no better than a high mileage ICE. 2.) The Volt uses its electric batteries for about 40 miles of light acceleration and speed limit cruising; then it uses the ICE to power the car. 3.) It appears that the next Prius will use the same mode of operation as the current model except it will have a larger battery pack and can accept some augmentation to its range from the grid.
If the first generation large format battery BEVs work as intended they will have about a 100 mile range when driven at legal highway speeds; but will be dependent on charging stations, either at home or at charging spots to recharge the batteries. They are range limited and will alway be dependent on access to charging stations unless there are provisions to change out the battery or quick charge the car. All the while the car companies will be bringing out new ICEs that will approach 40 mph.
Your choice of which car to buy will depend on you making a calculated decision based on the material facts of your driving needs and the cost factors. For example, if you commute long distances, some people drive over 100 miles a day, then perhaps a high mileage ICE would be your choice, provided the price of fuel is not too high over the life of the car.
Reply
↓↑report
13DasBoese
8:23PM (7/05/2009)
And I get frustrated when I see people like you spew opinions based on oudated conceptions and ignorance.
Saying electric vehicles have a short range is just plain wrong. Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles. The Tesla roadster has a range of 200miles a charge, their Model S will have up to 300miles. It can be quick charged in 45 minutes, or exchange its battery in 2 minutes. So much for "slow to recharge", which BTW isn't going to be an issue for 99% percent of the people since one of top selling points of EVs is that you can charge them at home instead of being at the whim of the oil companies.
Secondly, the notion that electric vehicles are less reliable clearly shows you know nothing at all. The opposite is the case, electric vehicles are far more durable than combustion-engined ones. Reasons? A modern 4-cylinder engine has at least a few hundred moving parts. An electric motor has exactly one. It also eliminates the need for a transmission, and regenerative braking massively reduces brake wear. Even battery wear isn't much of an issue any more, modern batteries like the Volt's wll easily last 10 years or longer without major performance impacts.
If you want proof how durable electric cars really are: Jay Leno owns a 1909 Baker Electric. It still runs on its original batteries, with nothing more than basic maintenance.
As for hybrids, the gain in fuel economy is mainly in urban driving. If you drive on the highway a lot, yeah, a diesel can be better, but in urban traffic the hybrid wins hands down, especially so if it's a plug-in. In any case it's not like hybrid and diesel are mutually exclusive technologies.
Reply
↓↑report
14Lad
11:09PM (7/05/2009)
There is nothing you have written that many of us who have been following the car industry don't already know. I am a believer in electric cars; however, from a practical stand point one must still face the facts; for example: TMC will initially build small format battery, 300-mile BEVs that are too expensive for most of us, perhaps even you. And because of their agreements with Daimler (Mercedes) a third generation low-cost sedan may never be produced. Some car companies, like Nissan/Renault are building cars to the "Better Place" specification in order to allow for robot replacement of the battery packs. The down side of "BP" is you will be chained to their rules and policies by renting their batteries. Whether that's good or bad depends on your costs and satisfied requirements. Woe to us all if "BP" is the only player in renting BEV batteries.
PHEVs and HEVs are lower-cost interim solutions until low-cost BEVs replace them. The down side of these cars is they still carry the weight and complexity of the ICE which deduces their efficiency.
My ideal car would be a BEV with the flexability to only carry the necessary battery size and weight needed for daily use; but, with the ability to add a rented trailered APU for long range travel, when required for long trips.
15keep the change
1:42AM (7/06/2009)
"Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles"
Not so fast. There are only two today that are not super expensive which get that range. Only the BMW MiniE and the Mitsubish iMiev have ranges barely reaching 100 miles. And they are small microcars not suitable for most people. And they are not cheap. In fact, the MiniE is not even for sale. It is an experimental car which BMW is leasing for a whopping $850/mth to few select individuals, like GM leased the EV. The iMiev is $30,000 in Japan after subsidies, so the the real cost of the car is not within the reach of the average car buyer. Not that the average car buyer would want to drive something that looks like an enlarged, canopy covered skateboard.
As it stands, there is no viable full-size affordable electric car available today that can get even a measly 100 miles before it conks out and needs a tow. The problem is not electric cars, but battery science.
16LesPaul1
7:05AM (7/06/2009)
... and the same toyota is crap, vw & ford is wonderful comments from awesome autobloggers.
Reply
↓↑report
17the4thheat
1:37PM (7/06/2009)
I think Toyota is actually right to go with a more stop-gap type approach until the charging infrastructure is available for pure electrics. Yes it might work great for people in suburban areas with their own garages, where each car gets it's own spot.
But for the millions and millions of people who live in big cities (which perhaps unsurprisingly includes much of the population of Japan) they literally have no place to charge the cars.
If/when there is the infrastructure then the cost/benefit would change enough that Toyota would probably launch and EV. It's not like they own the gasoline companies. And I'm pretty sure that they are indeed working on the EVs. Just not for 2012.
When people have figured out some way for all the EVs to use a standard charge port, and there are actually charge ports everywhere then it'll make more sense.
Anyways I wouldn't be so sure about the range on these, it's all rumors for now. But an 18 mile range would almost cover my daily commute, I think it'd end up being like 20 cents in gasoline a day.
Reply
↓↑report
18kcmurphy88
3:44PM (7/06/2009)
What is always missing from these articles are the facts that any hybrid owner looks for:
1. What is the top EV speed?
2. How fast is 0-30 on battery alone? Assuming it can.
Only then is the range on battery interesting. If I can go 50 miles, but the top speed is 25 MPH and acceleration to 25 takes a minute, it is no use at all.
OTOH, if the top EV speed is 50MPH and I can do 0-30 in 8 seconds, let's talk.
by Michael Harley on Jul 5th 2009 at 1:05PM
Fanning competition against GM's upcoming 2011 Chevrolet Volt plug-in, the Nikkei business daily reports that Toyota Motor Corp. plans to manufacture 20,000 to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012. Toyota allegedly wants pricing comparable to Mitsubishi's all-electric car, which is set to debut this month to fleet customers in Japan (both vehicles are eligible for government subsidies).
Toyota's plug-in vehicles will be powered by lithium-ion batteries co-developed with Panasonic EV Energy Co. and are expected to offer a full-charge range between 20 to 30 km (12.4 to 18.6 miles) on battery power alone. According to the paper, Toyota would not comment on future product plans.
[Source: Automotive News, subs. req'd]
Tags: All-electric, Battery Power, BatteryPower, Electric, Hybrid, liion, liion batteries, LiionBatteries, Lithium ion, LithiumIon, Mitsubishi Electric, MitsubishiElectric, Panasonic battery, PanasonicBattery, Toyota
Toyota's hybrid Supra successor on track for 2011
28 days ago
Toyota denying supposed hybrid deal with GM?
55 days ago
Peugeot delaying launch of plug-in hybrid?
165 days ago
Related Articles From Autobloggreen.comToyota chafes at Ontario $10,000 EV rebate, calls it GM subsidy
3 days ago
Japan becomes world's largest market for hybrids in June
13 days ago
Toyota's push to build green cars may destroy 17th century Japanese rice pa...
28 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1why not the LS2LS7?
1:13PM (7/05/2009)
What's the max useful speed for these vehicles?
Although I'd love to see multiple companies enter the market with a hybrid with useful zero-emissions range, I don't really expect Toyota to develop one when they already have their excellent parallel hybrid drive and it's more efficient when running on gas than a series hybrid anyway.
Reply
↓↑report
2ShaunneyCakes
1:41PM (7/05/2009)
12.4 to 18.6 miles... wow ... way to half-a$$ it Toyota. I hate to say it... but if the price is as high as AutoBlogGreen is claiming... then this will be another PS3... an embarrassing Japanese failure.
I have a Prius, but Toyota is losing 6 billion of 18 billion in capital a quarter has sluggish market share rise with very little assets. They are another GM in the making.
Reply
↓↑report
3car industry expert
2:22PM (7/05/2009)
Does anyone care, Toyota is crap, Volkswagen group is incredible. The sooner VW Group overtake Toyota the better. If Ferdinand Piech stays at the top that is sure to happen.
Reply
↓↑report
4whofan
2:28PM (7/05/2009)
Agree,
At least the Germans buy cars from American companys too.
Volkswagon or any other European car is a better choice for an import.
↓↑report
5Raffi
5:27PM (7/05/2009)
Aren't most VWs sold in the US imported from Mexico?
↓↑report
6TigerMil
2:44PM (7/05/2009)
Isn't competition wonderful? Don't count T out.
Reply
↓↑report
7mesama
3:32PM (7/05/2009)
That 20-30 km range is deceiving in that it is not an all-electric range. If you reach high enough speed or accelerate fast enough, the gas motor will have to turn on. Their hybrid design is still a good design, especially for the next few years. But the distinction between it and an EV or extended-range EV should not be lost.
Reply
↓↑report
8xtasi
5:54PM (7/05/2009)
I have a 50mi commute each way, I can't get some EV love... unless I get a Tesla roadster. How about someone comes up with some electric panels on the roof that charges the battery (Prius has solar panels, but they only help run accessories when the car is in motion). I can park my car and get some charge out of the 10 hours i'm at work. I work in Los Angeles, we got plenty of sun year around. That will probably happen in 20 years.
9kcmurphy88
3:39PM (7/06/2009)
Solar charging? You're kidding, right? There is WAY not enough solar energy hitting a car roof, even if you got 100% of it which you can't, to charge a car battery in any meaningful way. One kilowatt per meter is all you have to work with. That's not anything like what a car needs.
↓↑report
10erik1080
6:21PM (7/05/2009)
I get so frustrated when I see car companies see electric vehicles as the "future". Electric vehicles have a short range, are unreliable, and take forever to charge. Hybrids are stupid too, with their minimal increase in mpg. Diesel is the way to go, people! Look at BMW's Efficient Dynamics and VW's TDI!!!
Reply
↓↑report
11PJ
7:39PM (7/05/2009)
Electric *is* the future because an electric car doesn't care where the juice on the grid comes from--coal, nuke, or wind/solar--and requires no adaptation as clean plants gradually replace dirty ones.
With diesel, the car will only ever be as efficient as its onboard engine, and today's combustion engines are about as squeaky-clean as a series of controlled explosions can get.
By contrast, we're nowhere near tapping out the efficiency of electric drive. Hybrids will be remembered as a relatively crude stepping-stone.
12Lad
8:17PM (7/05/2009)
Wow there is a lot of misinformation in the above comments: 1.) the current Prius is a small ICE with an electric battery boost when additional power is needed, i.e., when accelerating or pushing the wind at high speeds. its best mileage comes in city traffic and slow speed cruising. At fast highway speeds the car is no better than a high mileage ICE. 2.) The Volt uses its electric batteries for about 40 miles of light acceleration and speed limit cruising; then it uses the ICE to power the car. 3.) It appears that the next Prius will use the same mode of operation as the current model except it will have a larger battery pack and can accept some augmentation to its range from the grid.
If the first generation large format battery BEVs work as intended they will have about a 100 mile range when driven at legal highway speeds; but will be dependent on charging stations, either at home or at charging spots to recharge the batteries. They are range limited and will alway be dependent on access to charging stations unless there are provisions to change out the battery or quick charge the car. All the while the car companies will be bringing out new ICEs that will approach 40 mph.
Your choice of which car to buy will depend on you making a calculated decision based on the material facts of your driving needs and the cost factors. For example, if you commute long distances, some people drive over 100 miles a day, then perhaps a high mileage ICE would be your choice, provided the price of fuel is not too high over the life of the car.
Reply
↓↑report
13DasBoese
8:23PM (7/05/2009)
And I get frustrated when I see people like you spew opinions based on oudated conceptions and ignorance.
Saying electric vehicles have a short range is just plain wrong. Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles. The Tesla roadster has a range of 200miles a charge, their Model S will have up to 300miles. It can be quick charged in 45 minutes, or exchange its battery in 2 minutes. So much for "slow to recharge", which BTW isn't going to be an issue for 99% percent of the people since one of top selling points of EVs is that you can charge them at home instead of being at the whim of the oil companies.
Secondly, the notion that electric vehicles are less reliable clearly shows you know nothing at all. The opposite is the case, electric vehicles are far more durable than combustion-engined ones. Reasons? A modern 4-cylinder engine has at least a few hundred moving parts. An electric motor has exactly one. It also eliminates the need for a transmission, and regenerative braking massively reduces brake wear. Even battery wear isn't much of an issue any more, modern batteries like the Volt's wll easily last 10 years or longer without major performance impacts.
If you want proof how durable electric cars really are: Jay Leno owns a 1909 Baker Electric. It still runs on its original batteries, with nothing more than basic maintenance.
As for hybrids, the gain in fuel economy is mainly in urban driving. If you drive on the highway a lot, yeah, a diesel can be better, but in urban traffic the hybrid wins hands down, especially so if it's a plug-in. In any case it's not like hybrid and diesel are mutually exclusive technologies.
Reply
↓↑report
14Lad
11:09PM (7/05/2009)
There is nothing you have written that many of us who have been following the car industry don't already know. I am a believer in electric cars; however, from a practical stand point one must still face the facts; for example: TMC will initially build small format battery, 300-mile BEVs that are too expensive for most of us, perhaps even you. And because of their agreements with Daimler (Mercedes) a third generation low-cost sedan may never be produced. Some car companies, like Nissan/Renault are building cars to the "Better Place" specification in order to allow for robot replacement of the battery packs. The down side of "BP" is you will be chained to their rules and policies by renting their batteries. Whether that's good or bad depends on your costs and satisfied requirements. Woe to us all if "BP" is the only player in renting BEV batteries.
PHEVs and HEVs are lower-cost interim solutions until low-cost BEVs replace them. The down side of these cars is they still carry the weight and complexity of the ICE which deduces their efficiency.
My ideal car would be a BEV with the flexability to only carry the necessary battery size and weight needed for daily use; but, with the ability to add a rented trailered APU for long range travel, when required for long trips.
15keep the change
1:42AM (7/06/2009)
"Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles"
Not so fast. There are only two today that are not super expensive which get that range. Only the BMW MiniE and the Mitsubish iMiev have ranges barely reaching 100 miles. And they are small microcars not suitable for most people. And they are not cheap. In fact, the MiniE is not even for sale. It is an experimental car which BMW is leasing for a whopping $850/mth to few select individuals, like GM leased the EV. The iMiev is $30,000 in Japan after subsidies, so the the real cost of the car is not within the reach of the average car buyer. Not that the average car buyer would want to drive something that looks like an enlarged, canopy covered skateboard.
As it stands, there is no viable full-size affordable electric car available today that can get even a measly 100 miles before it conks out and needs a tow. The problem is not electric cars, but battery science.
16LesPaul1
7:05AM (7/06/2009)
... and the same toyota is crap, vw & ford is wonderful comments from awesome autobloggers.
Reply
↓↑report
17the4thheat
1:37PM (7/06/2009)
I think Toyota is actually right to go with a more stop-gap type approach until the charging infrastructure is available for pure electrics. Yes it might work great for people in suburban areas with their own garages, where each car gets it's own spot.
But for the millions and millions of people who live in big cities (which perhaps unsurprisingly includes much of the population of Japan) they literally have no place to charge the cars.
If/when there is the infrastructure then the cost/benefit would change enough that Toyota would probably launch and EV. It's not like they own the gasoline companies. And I'm pretty sure that they are indeed working on the EVs. Just not for 2012.
When people have figured out some way for all the EVs to use a standard charge port, and there are actually charge ports everywhere then it'll make more sense.
Anyways I wouldn't be so sure about the range on these, it's all rumors for now. But an 18 mile range would almost cover my daily commute, I think it'd end up being like 20 cents in gasoline a day.
Reply
↓↑report
18kcmurphy88
3:44PM (7/06/2009)
What is always missing from these articles are the facts that any hybrid owner looks for:
1. What is the top EV speed?
2. How fast is 0-30 on battery alone? Assuming it can.
Only then is the range on battery interesting. If I can go 50 miles, but the top speed is 25 MPH and acceleration to 25 takes a minute, it is no use at all.
OTOH, if the top EV speed is 50MPH and I can do 0-30 in 8 seconds, let's talk.
Toyota's first fuel cell vehicle in 2015 will be priced "shockingly" low
REPORT: Toyota's first fuel cell vehicle will be priced "shockingly" low
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 20th 2009 at 7:56PM
How low is "shockingly" low?
According to an article in Ward's Auto (subs req'd), when Toyota puts its first production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle up for sale in 2015, the price will be so low it will "shock" the U.S. auto industry. Justin Ward, advanced powertrain program manager-Toyota Technical Center, said that economies of scale will be in place to drop the price down to something that is surprisingly low. Ward didn't name the shocking price, but did say that Toyota is pleased where its fuel cell technology is today. The automaker fully expects the next iterations of the fuel cell technology – currently used in the FCHV – to be ready to meet all customer demands of range and operating temperature, and it will bring the cars to market whether the refueling infrastructure is in place or not. Toyota is currenlty testing customer behavior with hydrogen cars by seeing how people adapt from a standard Prius to a plug-in Prius to a fuel-cell prototype vehicle.
Right now, customers can lease a Honda FCX Clarity in Southern California for $600 a month. How low will the 2015 price have to be to shock you?
[Source: Ward's Auto (subs req'd)]
Tags: featured, shockingly low, Shockingly Low, toyota fuel cell, toyota fuel cell hybrid vehicle, toyota hydrogen, Toyota Fuel Cell, Toyota Fuel Cell Hybrid Vehicle, Toyota Hydrogen
(3)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog GreenToyota reaffirms 2015 release of new hydrogen car
27 days ago
Toyota apparently not giving up on fuel cells, may move it up to 2014
68 days ago
VIDEO: U.S. Navy experimenting with fuel cell UAV
90 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog EDITORIAL: Attention Wall Street Journal - Ford does not use Toyota's hybri...
15 days ago
REPORT: Toyota plans to manufacture up to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012
15 days ago
Toyota reaffirms 2015 release of new hydrogen vehicle
27 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1unni
8:29PM (7/20/2009)
$15k for a 2010 prius equivalent one. I will be shocked if its below this price.
Till that i wont be shocked because its only electric motor, fuel cell stack,ultracapacitor , hydrogen storage/helper systems and a CPU.
Reply
↓↑report2Chris M
9:11PM (7/20/2009)
Considering that they are currently leasing the FCHV for $7,000 per month, I sincerely doubt the price will be all that low. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they announced a delay in 2014 "to solve some problems", like unaffordable prices.
I'd be surprised if they get the price below a quarter million, and truly shocked if they get the price below $100,000
Of course, they might try the "Riversimple" approach, making it a tiny underpowered limited range 2 seater! But in that case, the "shock" would be the underwhelming performance in an overpriced NEV.
This is just another attempt to spread FUD and discourage people from buying plug-ins now. But it could backfire badly, causing people to delay purchasing a new car and NOT purchase a Toyota hybrid, thinking a cheaper H2FC car was imminent. Of course, when the H2FC price turns out to still be "shockingly high" in 2015, it will be Toyota suffering from "shockingly low" sales.
Reply
↓↑report3Boxman
9:15PM (7/20/2009)
Even if Toyota could make an FCEV at an affordable price, you still have the problem of infrastructure. At least with an EV, you can be reasonably assured of finding an outlet somewhere, even if you have to strike a bargain with some local hotel owner or something. There's no city or town in this country that doesn't have electricity.
But with hydrogen, you'd better limit your driving to Dearborn, Michigan or Los Angeles unless you want to get stranded. And since hydrogen infrastructure is so complex and expensive, it won't be spreading across the United States anytime soon.
Worse still, the very limited ranges of fuel-cell vehicles (vs gasoline) makes an infrastructure even more critical (an infrastructure which I would remind everyone does not currently exist).
To say nothing of the wisdom of using a power-storage device with only 1/5 the efficiency of batteries...
So even excluding the cost factor, hydrogen is still a loser compared to every other alternative (including the old-fashioned internal combustion engine).
In any case, we all know Toyota's full of **** as their promises to dramatically reduce fuel-cell costs will be forgotten by 2015. Ain't gonna happen.
.
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 20th 2009 at 7:56PM
How low is "shockingly" low?
According to an article in Ward's Auto (subs req'd), when Toyota puts its first production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle up for sale in 2015, the price will be so low it will "shock" the U.S. auto industry. Justin Ward, advanced powertrain program manager-Toyota Technical Center, said that economies of scale will be in place to drop the price down to something that is surprisingly low. Ward didn't name the shocking price, but did say that Toyota is pleased where its fuel cell technology is today. The automaker fully expects the next iterations of the fuel cell technology – currently used in the FCHV – to be ready to meet all customer demands of range and operating temperature, and it will bring the cars to market whether the refueling infrastructure is in place or not. Toyota is currenlty testing customer behavior with hydrogen cars by seeing how people adapt from a standard Prius to a plug-in Prius to a fuel-cell prototype vehicle.
Right now, customers can lease a Honda FCX Clarity in Southern California for $600 a month. How low will the 2015 price have to be to shock you?
[Source: Ward's Auto (subs req'd)]
Tags: featured, shockingly low, Shockingly Low, toyota fuel cell, toyota fuel cell hybrid vehicle, toyota hydrogen, Toyota Fuel Cell, Toyota Fuel Cell Hybrid Vehicle, Toyota Hydrogen
(3)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog GreenToyota reaffirms 2015 release of new hydrogen car
27 days ago
Toyota apparently not giving up on fuel cells, may move it up to 2014
68 days ago
VIDEO: U.S. Navy experimenting with fuel cell UAV
90 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog EDITORIAL: Attention Wall Street Journal - Ford does not use Toyota's hybri...
15 days ago
REPORT: Toyota plans to manufacture up to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012
15 days ago
Toyota reaffirms 2015 release of new hydrogen vehicle
27 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1unni
8:29PM (7/20/2009)
$15k for a 2010 prius equivalent one. I will be shocked if its below this price.
Till that i wont be shocked because its only electric motor, fuel cell stack,ultracapacitor , hydrogen storage/helper systems and a CPU.
Reply
↓↑report2Chris M
9:11PM (7/20/2009)
Considering that they are currently leasing the FCHV for $7,000 per month, I sincerely doubt the price will be all that low. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they announced a delay in 2014 "to solve some problems", like unaffordable prices.
I'd be surprised if they get the price below a quarter million, and truly shocked if they get the price below $100,000
Of course, they might try the "Riversimple" approach, making it a tiny underpowered limited range 2 seater! But in that case, the "shock" would be the underwhelming performance in an overpriced NEV.
This is just another attempt to spread FUD and discourage people from buying plug-ins now. But it could backfire badly, causing people to delay purchasing a new car and NOT purchase a Toyota hybrid, thinking a cheaper H2FC car was imminent. Of course, when the H2FC price turns out to still be "shockingly high" in 2015, it will be Toyota suffering from "shockingly low" sales.
Reply
↓↑report3Boxman
9:15PM (7/20/2009)
Even if Toyota could make an FCEV at an affordable price, you still have the problem of infrastructure. At least with an EV, you can be reasonably assured of finding an outlet somewhere, even if you have to strike a bargain with some local hotel owner or something. There's no city or town in this country that doesn't have electricity.
But with hydrogen, you'd better limit your driving to Dearborn, Michigan or Los Angeles unless you want to get stranded. And since hydrogen infrastructure is so complex and expensive, it won't be spreading across the United States anytime soon.
Worse still, the very limited ranges of fuel-cell vehicles (vs gasoline) makes an infrastructure even more critical (an infrastructure which I would remind everyone does not currently exist).
To say nothing of the wisdom of using a power-storage device with only 1/5 the efficiency of batteries...
So even excluding the cost factor, hydrogen is still a loser compared to every other alternative (including the old-fashioned internal combustion engine).
In any case, we all know Toyota's full of **** as their promises to dramatically reduce fuel-cell costs will be forgotten by 2015. Ain't gonna happen.
.
Report: What was Hot in Cleantech in Q2? Smart Grid, Plug-Ins
Report: What was Hot in Cleantech in Q2? Smart Grid, Plug-Ins
Written by Michael Wolf1 Comment Posted July 20th, 2009 at 4:00 pm in Green IT,smart grid
Here at Earth2Tech, Katie, Josie and the rest of the contributing writers do their best to provide you with a daily glimpse into the big news and trends in the world of cleantech. But we know it can sometimes be hard to see the forest for the trees: Smart grid investment and continuing woes for the U.S. automakers were clearly headline news this quarter, but from the dozens of product launches, funding announcements, and policy shenanigans, what’s worth revisiting? Over at GigaOM Pro (subscription required), we’ve reviewed and compiled the important news and analysis of the last three months to help identify the big themes from second quarter 2009.
As the first federal stimulus funds began to make their way across the country, second quarter saw a slight thawing of investor pocketbooks when it came to cleantech.
Smart Grid
The smart grid, in particular, continued to attract both media buzz and venture capital investors (who couldn’t seem to contain their excitement over finding cleantech investments that looked just like traditional IT plays: low capital, quick return, little to no technology risk). In fact, there was so much interest in the consumer-facing software component of the smart grid — home energy management systems — that there is already talk of a “bubble” in that space. Which was not enough to keep software giant Microsoft from making noise in the home-energy realm.
On the networking and utility-facing software fronts, infotech leaders Cisco and Oracle also threw their sizeable hats into the smart-grid ring in second quarter, both with solutions aimed at utilities: Cisco on the networking and communications front and Oracle with a software package to help utilities integrate with smart meters, balance system loads, respond to outages, manage customer billing and offer time-of-use pricing.
The two primary issues hanging over the smart grid space continue to be energy storage and a lack of standards for interoperability. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is so far on-track to meet its ambitious September 2009 deadline to resolve the standards issue, and many industry watchers were relieved to see that the first batch of standards (released in second quarter) mirrored those that already dominate the industry. The energy storage problem is farther from a resolution, but a few promising startups emerged this quarter with potential solutions.
Plug-In Vehicles
Meanwhile, second quarter saw more leaps forward in the plug-in vehicle space, including several corporate fleet agreement announcements and a number of funding announcements for battery startups. Tesla also (finally) secured a much-needed Department of Energy loan plus a “double-digit million-dollar” investment from Daimler, while Ford and Nissan both banked DOE loans for electric vehicle programs, and Chrysler teamed up with A123 Systems after GM canceled its deal with the battery startup in favor of a deal with rival Sakti3.
Clean Power
Solar and wind picked up slightly from first quarter, and while both sectors continue to struggle in the face of massive decreases in capital investments, as well as valuations and deal volume, analysts predict a better year ahead in 2010. Biofuels are still on a downward spiral, with more bankruptcy announcements crossing the wire in second quarter as Congress debated the merits of holding biofuel producers accountable for their carbon emissions, but there may be light at the end of the tunnel for next-generation biofuels thanks to federal mandates.
Policy
On that note, the United States got closer than it ever has been to putting a price on carbon — a hugely important policy in terms of support for the cleantech industry — when the Waxman-Markey bill passed the House of Representatives late in second quarter. Though historic, the House passage doesn’t guarantee a U.S. carbon law or market — not by a long shot. There remains a Senate vote on that chamber’s version of the bill; passage there would be followed by discussion between the chambers on what the final bill will be, and then decisions from various federal organizations about how to interpret climate legislation.
The full report, which examines these themes in more depth, is available to subscribers of GigaOM Pro, along with Quarterly Wrap-ups in our other focus areas: Mobile, Connected Consumer and Infrastructure. GigaOM Pro subscribers also get access to dozens of detailed research briefings on specific topics.
Written by Michael Wolf1 Comment Posted July 20th, 2009 at 4:00 pm in Green IT,smart grid
Here at Earth2Tech, Katie, Josie and the rest of the contributing writers do their best to provide you with a daily glimpse into the big news and trends in the world of cleantech. But we know it can sometimes be hard to see the forest for the trees: Smart grid investment and continuing woes for the U.S. automakers were clearly headline news this quarter, but from the dozens of product launches, funding announcements, and policy shenanigans, what’s worth revisiting? Over at GigaOM Pro (subscription required), we’ve reviewed and compiled the important news and analysis of the last three months to help identify the big themes from second quarter 2009.
As the first federal stimulus funds began to make their way across the country, second quarter saw a slight thawing of investor pocketbooks when it came to cleantech.
Smart Grid
The smart grid, in particular, continued to attract both media buzz and venture capital investors (who couldn’t seem to contain their excitement over finding cleantech investments that looked just like traditional IT plays: low capital, quick return, little to no technology risk). In fact, there was so much interest in the consumer-facing software component of the smart grid — home energy management systems — that there is already talk of a “bubble” in that space. Which was not enough to keep software giant Microsoft from making noise in the home-energy realm.
On the networking and utility-facing software fronts, infotech leaders Cisco and Oracle also threw their sizeable hats into the smart-grid ring in second quarter, both with solutions aimed at utilities: Cisco on the networking and communications front and Oracle with a software package to help utilities integrate with smart meters, balance system loads, respond to outages, manage customer billing and offer time-of-use pricing.
The two primary issues hanging over the smart grid space continue to be energy storage and a lack of standards for interoperability. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is so far on-track to meet its ambitious September 2009 deadline to resolve the standards issue, and many industry watchers were relieved to see that the first batch of standards (released in second quarter) mirrored those that already dominate the industry. The energy storage problem is farther from a resolution, but a few promising startups emerged this quarter with potential solutions.
Plug-In Vehicles
Meanwhile, second quarter saw more leaps forward in the plug-in vehicle space, including several corporate fleet agreement announcements and a number of funding announcements for battery startups. Tesla also (finally) secured a much-needed Department of Energy loan plus a “double-digit million-dollar” investment from Daimler, while Ford and Nissan both banked DOE loans for electric vehicle programs, and Chrysler teamed up with A123 Systems after GM canceled its deal with the battery startup in favor of a deal with rival Sakti3.
Clean Power
Solar and wind picked up slightly from first quarter, and while both sectors continue to struggle in the face of massive decreases in capital investments, as well as valuations and deal volume, analysts predict a better year ahead in 2010. Biofuels are still on a downward spiral, with more bankruptcy announcements crossing the wire in second quarter as Congress debated the merits of holding biofuel producers accountable for their carbon emissions, but there may be light at the end of the tunnel for next-generation biofuels thanks to federal mandates.
Policy
On that note, the United States got closer than it ever has been to putting a price on carbon — a hugely important policy in terms of support for the cleantech industry — when the Waxman-Markey bill passed the House of Representatives late in second quarter. Though historic, the House passage doesn’t guarantee a U.S. carbon law or market — not by a long shot. There remains a Senate vote on that chamber’s version of the bill; passage there would be followed by discussion between the chambers on what the final bill will be, and then decisions from various federal organizations about how to interpret climate legislation.
The full report, which examines these themes in more depth, is available to subscribers of GigaOM Pro, along with Quarterly Wrap-ups in our other focus areas: Mobile, Connected Consumer and Infrastructure. GigaOM Pro subscribers also get access to dozens of detailed research briefings on specific topics.
Food For Thought
Comment of the Moment
“ I don't think solar will really have arrived until the 'solar installer' jobs start going away, and I can pick up a couple of panels and the necessary inverter at Home Depot.”
— James
Solar Cells, Automation and Green Jobs
“ I don't think solar will really have arrived until the 'solar installer' jobs start going away, and I can pick up a couple of panels and the necessary inverter at Home Depot.”
— James
Solar Cells, Automation and Green Jobs
Priority Parking for Hybrids?
July 14, 2009, 8:17 am
Priority Parking for Hybrids?
By Kate Galbraith
Thomas McDonald for The New York Times
A library in Connecticut caused a ruckus by setting aside “preferred” parking spots for hybrid vehicles.
In a post today on The New York Times’s new “You’re the Boss” small-business blog, Jay Goltz discusses how the Whole Foods grocery store near his home in Chicago has set aside several prime parking spots for hybrid vehicles.
Should stores earn points toward “green” certification simply by providing priority parking for hybrid car owners? Share your thoughts.
“Has Whole Foods become our mother?” Mr. Goltz asks.
Ashley Hawkins, a spokeswoman for Whole Foods, said that priority parking for hybrids is not a company wide policy.
But the concept is spreading — including at several other Whole Foods stores.
According to Ashley Katz, a spokeswoman for the United States Green Building Council, allowing alternative-fuel vehicles special parking privileges is an easy way to earn three points toward the total of 40 needed for basic LEED certification, the organization’s green-building stamp of approval.
“It’s a very popular practice,” Ms. Katz said.
It is also controversial.
In Connecticut, as The Times reported in May, the Darien library (a LEED “gold” building) retreated from its policy of reserving prime parking spots for hybrids after a backlash.
“I have no problem with parking spaces for the elderly or for a young parent with an infant or handicapped drivers,” said George Zengo, a 74-year-old local, according to the article. “But this is over the top.”
The Chicago Tribune reports that hybrids also get priority spots at a local Ikea and a Home Depot.
And several other Whole Foods stores also have reserved parking for fuel efficient vehicles (though it may not necessarily be up front), according to Ms. Hawkins. These include stores in Naperville, Ill.; Dallas; Toronto; and Boulder, Colo., with plans in the works for a store in Dedham, Mass.
A Whole Foods in Centennial, Colo., has four electric car plug-in spaces, and a Philadelphia store has spots for a car-sharing program.
From Green Inc.
Army Green: Not Just a Color Anymore?
‘Green’ Nightclub Trend Comes to New York
The Legal Risks of Building Green
Green Roofs: Are They Worth the Expense?
Coke Tests a Hybrid Truck in EuropeFrom Around the Web
Wheels
Should Hybrids Get Priority Parking?
What's This?
Powered by Blogrunner
Palin Slams Obama’s Energy Plan
From 1 to 25 of 55 Comments
1 2 3 Next »
1. July 14, 2009
9:14 am
Link
I can see how hybrid spots are out of place at a store like home depot - where many customers have to drive big trucks and SUVs so they can haul away their purchases. But this comes directly from the Whole Foods mission statement “reducing waste and consumption of non-renewable resources.” Reserving spots for hybrids encourages people to buy them, which fits in perfectly with their business plan.
In many states, hybrids have HOV privileges even if there is only one person in the car because the point of HOV lanes is the discourage wasteful use of resources.
— Another David
2. July 14, 2009
9:20 am
Link
Be careful not to drown in a cloud of excess smug emissions.
— Tom
3. July 14, 2009
10:08 am
Link
I am not sure I understand why this is even worth mentioning. I can see where conceptually someone would have an issue with priority spots being given to drivers by virtue of the car they drive rather then by something like physical disabilities or limitations; but maybe someone with a LEED certification could clarify just how many spots we are talking about here. If I was under the impression that priority spots translates to something like 1 spot for every 100 parking spaces or something along those lines. I know it’s certainly not a 1 to 1 trade-off. If home deport chooses to allocate 5 or even 10 parking spaces spread out across their parking lot is it really going to be that much of an inconvenience anyone who ends up walking the extra 10 feet that parking space is taking up? Even with something like a library, if it’s only 1 or 2 spots, assuming a small parking lot, how much of an inconvenience is this actually?
Also, lets be honest here - if someone who is handicapped, or has a legal right to a close parking space parks in one of these hybrid spots it’s not like anyone is calling a tow truck.
I feel like if your willing to spend a little extra to get the hybrid, and the building is willing to spend extra to get a third party building certification (which is what LEED is) then why is it a problem (other then “fairness”) to throw a hybrid driver a bone?
— Rich
4. July 14, 2009
10:24 am
Link
@Rich: The LEED requirement for providing preferred parking spaces for hybrid vehicles is 5% of total parking capacity. So you’re right, it’s obviously not an inconvenience to anyone. Buildings still have to comply with by-laws to provide preferred parking for the handicapped.
@Tom: Be careful not to get too happy in a state of ignorant bliss
— Mark
5. July 14, 2009
10:28 am
Link
I like this idea. I don’t own a hybrid, but I could easily create a little sticker that says “hybrid” and put it on the back of my car. It’s much easier than faking being pregnant or disabled.
— David
6. July 14, 2009
10:45 am
Link
Many want to go green theoretically, but we are way beyond needing talk. Whole Foods and others are turning to something that really matters to Americans … choice parking spots. Why else would there be a “backlash?” How ridiculous. As soon as gas prices plummeted, people were back to looking for gas guzzlers, because for many Americans it’s still all about them. Enough. Let’s reward the people who are really making the effort to go green. It’s called incentives. We give tax breaks to corporate America all the time and I’m still listening for the backlash. You want capitalism? Then all’s fair — advertising, perks, advantage cards … you name it. Our future depends on creative folks to lead the way in environmental concerns! You go, Whole Foods!
— Jeanette Baust
7. July 14, 2009
11:33 am
Link
Why not. The LIRR already has some stations with preferential parking for small cars…..and of course there are HOV lanes….so why not this.
— Shantanu Mukherjee
8. July 14, 2009
12:04 pm
Link
I drive a 2001 diesel VW New Beetle, and it gets 40-50 MPG (EPA says 44)–better than most hybrids. I haven’t driven to one of these places, but the idea bothers me that they’re privileging the new, hip, expensive fuel-efficient cars over more affordable ways to reduce fuel consumption.
— Andrew
9. July 14, 2009
12:22 pm
Link
I drive a Prius, but I don’t mind walking so I doubt I would use these spots.
I think that hybrid development has pretty much run its course, improvements have been made and the cars are pretty mainstream. If you really want to support efficient vehicles of the future then designate electric vehicle parking spots.
— paulwesterberg
10. July 14, 2009
12:51 pm
Link
I myself drive a Honda Insight, but I don’t support this notion of reserved parking for hybrids. It alienates those driving conventional cars, symbolizes that hybrids are essentially scarce in number (shouldn't the parking lot eventually be filled with hybrids?), and does nothing to actually influence someone to go out and get a new gas-saving car. When the tipping point eventually comes for hybrids and other clean technology cars, it will not be because of accessible parking spaces but instead it will probably come down to simple dollars and cents.
— Mike Wright
11. July 14, 2009
12:52 pm
Link
My new bumper sticker: Smug beats Smog.
— Leslie
12. July 14, 2009
12:55 pm
Link
The problem with this sort of rigid requirement, to me, is that the best hybrids are only slightly more fuel efficient than the best conventional motored cars. Simply driving a hybrid is no guarantee of having a virtuous carbon footprint.
So some guy in a Lexus hybrid SUV that struggles to get 25 mpg gets a spot by the door, while the person in the Jetta TDI that gets near 50mpg parks in the corner?
I think we need to be careful to remember that the energy you consume driving around isn’t the only energy to consider - there’s also the energy embedded in the production of your car. We don’t want to create incentives for people to ditch lightweight, efficient cars and replace them with production-energy-intensive, (occasionally) slightly more efficient cars, right? That sure doesn’t pencil out on my envelope.
Now, the plug-in spots make a lot of sense.
— Brian
13. July 14, 2009
1:32 pm
Link
I love the Hybrid/Eco-Friendly parking spots at the new Whole Foods — they are always open, right in front of the store, and the perfect size for my Tahoe. I use them every time I shop there.
— Tom L.
14. July 14, 2009
1:42 pm
Link
Wow! I actually think this is a good idea. Why not reward people for using cars that are better for the environment? This could really take off! For car dealers, this is another good incentive to add when helping customers decide which car to buy. Its a perk! And let’s face it, Americans LOVE perks!
— Lucas
15. July 14, 2009
1:52 pm
Link
I think most Fresh and Easy supermarkets here in the West have four or five hybrid preferred spots. They are placed, usually, in conjunction with their “family with kids” preferred parking spaces, always just a few spaces further than the handicapped spaces.
— Political Parent
16. July 14, 2009
3:00 pm
Link
I gotta say, there’s a lot of proud ignorance in these messages (yes, you Tom L.)… a sure sign of insecurity and a conflicted conscience.
— Mark
17. July 14, 2009
3:48 pm
Link
Mark,
GM offers a hybrid Tahoe. It has 25% better mileage than the conventional model. 35% in the city, 21 mpg city versus 14 for conventional Yukon.
Peter
— peter noordijk
18. July 14, 2009
3:48 pm
Link
For the sake of consistency, drivers of hybrids who take advantage of such spaces should be forbidden to buy groceries that have left any climate change footprint in their growth, preparation, or packaging.
However, I will cap my purchases of such items and trade them for their spot.
— germ killer
19. July 14, 2009
3:57 pm
Link
I know the idea behind this is to given an incentive to those who are trying to reduce their fuel consumption, but I see two things wrong with this. Maybe somebody who is driving a hybrid is willing to walk the extra few hundred feet. I usually associate those who are trying to save the environment with those who are also health conscious. The other problem is that what happens if somebody has a full electric vehicle or hydrogen car? Do you put a sign up for all these vehicles?
Patrick
http://www.paystolivegreen.com
— Patrick
20. July 14, 2009
4:03 pm
Link
Mike #10:
“It alienates those driving conventional cars,”
That's the whole point isn’t it? In a more generous paraphrase is ‘it is incentive to buy hybrids’. The only issue i see here is it prioritizes hybrids over electrics and other green cars, any one of which may or may not be better depending on infrastructure and how well the car companies design the specific models.
“symbolizes that hybrids are essentially scarce in number”
Yes it does, but it also puts hybrids in a superior position to conventional cars while they are scarce. The more hybrids there are, the less this policy matters - so this policy will fade naturally over time if the hybrid route is taken.
“does nothing to actually influence someone to go out and get a new gas-saving car”
That depends on how often the driver does the groceries. Gas saving cars just save money - this added on means you save time and money. Some people are insensitive to one incentive but rarely both. That said, as time saving incentives go, this is rather small.
“When the tipping point eventually comes for hybrids and other clean technology cars, it will not be because of accessible parking spaces but instead it will probably come down to simple dollars and cents.”
Untrue. Convenience is also a big factor, which is why this is a good (albeit small) incentive.
— Sean
21. July 14, 2009
4:08 pm
Link
I think it is fantastic how we are using renewable energy and going green in so many ways. I think we also need to do things like reducing our energy usage, like installing geothermal heat pumps (here is an example http://geothermalexperts.net/residential_systems.html ) to replace high energy heating and cooling systems.
— Nolan
22. July 14, 2009
4:17 pm
Link
I think this is a much better idea than the Mothers with Strollers parking…and Tom isn’t ignorant, that’s too kind…he’s the same lazy fool who parks in a handicapped spot or hangs out at the curb while his wife shops.
— good idea
23. July 14, 2009
5:25 pm
Link
Peter, a hybrid Tahoe that has “25% better mileage than the conventional model. 35% in the city, 21 mpg city versus 14 for conventional Yukon.” is still an SUV. Lauding the environmental benefits of a hybrid SUV is like lauding the health benefits of cigarettes made with organic tobacco. No matter how you try to cut it, it’s still like cutting through butter with a chainsaw.
— Mark
24. July 14, 2009
5:44 pm
Link
I wouldn’t buy a hybrid just so I could park closer to a store which a lengthy history of treating its employees like crap. Not to mention the carbon footprint they must have, importing all of that food.
— Cheryl
25. July 14, 2009
5:54 pm
Link
My favorite part about this idea is not necessarily getting to park closer if one drives a hybrid, but rather making all those who park energy-inefficient cars walk farther. Saving the environment and cutting down on obesity at the same time!
— Eric
Priority Parking for Hybrids?
By Kate Galbraith
Thomas McDonald for The New York Times
A library in Connecticut caused a ruckus by setting aside “preferred” parking spots for hybrid vehicles.
In a post today on The New York Times’s new “You’re the Boss” small-business blog, Jay Goltz discusses how the Whole Foods grocery store near his home in Chicago has set aside several prime parking spots for hybrid vehicles.
Should stores earn points toward “green” certification simply by providing priority parking for hybrid car owners? Share your thoughts.
“Has Whole Foods become our mother?” Mr. Goltz asks.
Ashley Hawkins, a spokeswoman for Whole Foods, said that priority parking for hybrids is not a company wide policy.
But the concept is spreading — including at several other Whole Foods stores.
According to Ashley Katz, a spokeswoman for the United States Green Building Council, allowing alternative-fuel vehicles special parking privileges is an easy way to earn three points toward the total of 40 needed for basic LEED certification, the organization’s green-building stamp of approval.
“It’s a very popular practice,” Ms. Katz said.
It is also controversial.
In Connecticut, as The Times reported in May, the Darien library (a LEED “gold” building) retreated from its policy of reserving prime parking spots for hybrids after a backlash.
“I have no problem with parking spaces for the elderly or for a young parent with an infant or handicapped drivers,” said George Zengo, a 74-year-old local, according to the article. “But this is over the top.”
The Chicago Tribune reports that hybrids also get priority spots at a local Ikea and a Home Depot.
And several other Whole Foods stores also have reserved parking for fuel efficient vehicles (though it may not necessarily be up front), according to Ms. Hawkins. These include stores in Naperville, Ill.; Dallas; Toronto; and Boulder, Colo., with plans in the works for a store in Dedham, Mass.
A Whole Foods in Centennial, Colo., has four electric car plug-in spaces, and a Philadelphia store has spots for a car-sharing program.
From Green Inc.
Army Green: Not Just a Color Anymore?
‘Green’ Nightclub Trend Comes to New York
The Legal Risks of Building Green
Green Roofs: Are They Worth the Expense?
Coke Tests a Hybrid Truck in EuropeFrom Around the Web
Wheels
Should Hybrids Get Priority Parking?
What's This?
Powered by Blogrunner
Palin Slams Obama’s Energy Plan
From 1 to 25 of 55 Comments
1 2 3 Next »
1. July 14, 2009
9:14 am
Link
I can see how hybrid spots are out of place at a store like home depot - where many customers have to drive big trucks and SUVs so they can haul away their purchases. But this comes directly from the Whole Foods mission statement “reducing waste and consumption of non-renewable resources.” Reserving spots for hybrids encourages people to buy them, which fits in perfectly with their business plan.
In many states, hybrids have HOV privileges even if there is only one person in the car because the point of HOV lanes is the discourage wasteful use of resources.
— Another David
2. July 14, 2009
9:20 am
Link
Be careful not to drown in a cloud of excess smug emissions.
— Tom
3. July 14, 2009
10:08 am
Link
I am not sure I understand why this is even worth mentioning. I can see where conceptually someone would have an issue with priority spots being given to drivers by virtue of the car they drive rather then by something like physical disabilities or limitations; but maybe someone with a LEED certification could clarify just how many spots we are talking about here. If I was under the impression that priority spots translates to something like 1 spot for every 100 parking spaces or something along those lines. I know it’s certainly not a 1 to 1 trade-off. If home deport chooses to allocate 5 or even 10 parking spaces spread out across their parking lot is it really going to be that much of an inconvenience anyone who ends up walking the extra 10 feet that parking space is taking up? Even with something like a library, if it’s only 1 or 2 spots, assuming a small parking lot, how much of an inconvenience is this actually?
Also, lets be honest here - if someone who is handicapped, or has a legal right to a close parking space parks in one of these hybrid spots it’s not like anyone is calling a tow truck.
I feel like if your willing to spend a little extra to get the hybrid, and the building is willing to spend extra to get a third party building certification (which is what LEED is) then why is it a problem (other then “fairness”) to throw a hybrid driver a bone?
— Rich
4. July 14, 2009
10:24 am
Link
@Rich: The LEED requirement for providing preferred parking spaces for hybrid vehicles is 5% of total parking capacity. So you’re right, it’s obviously not an inconvenience to anyone. Buildings still have to comply with by-laws to provide preferred parking for the handicapped.
@Tom: Be careful not to get too happy in a state of ignorant bliss
— Mark
5. July 14, 2009
10:28 am
Link
I like this idea. I don’t own a hybrid, but I could easily create a little sticker that says “hybrid” and put it on the back of my car. It’s much easier than faking being pregnant or disabled.
— David
6. July 14, 2009
10:45 am
Link
Many want to go green theoretically, but we are way beyond needing talk. Whole Foods and others are turning to something that really matters to Americans … choice parking spots. Why else would there be a “backlash?” How ridiculous. As soon as gas prices plummeted, people were back to looking for gas guzzlers, because for many Americans it’s still all about them. Enough. Let’s reward the people who are really making the effort to go green. It’s called incentives. We give tax breaks to corporate America all the time and I’m still listening for the backlash. You want capitalism? Then all’s fair — advertising, perks, advantage cards … you name it. Our future depends on creative folks to lead the way in environmental concerns! You go, Whole Foods!
— Jeanette Baust
7. July 14, 2009
11:33 am
Link
Why not. The LIRR already has some stations with preferential parking for small cars…..and of course there are HOV lanes….so why not this.
— Shantanu Mukherjee
8. July 14, 2009
12:04 pm
Link
I drive a 2001 diesel VW New Beetle, and it gets 40-50 MPG (EPA says 44)–better than most hybrids. I haven’t driven to one of these places, but the idea bothers me that they’re privileging the new, hip, expensive fuel-efficient cars over more affordable ways to reduce fuel consumption.
— Andrew
9. July 14, 2009
12:22 pm
Link
I drive a Prius, but I don’t mind walking so I doubt I would use these spots.
I think that hybrid development has pretty much run its course, improvements have been made and the cars are pretty mainstream. If you really want to support efficient vehicles of the future then designate electric vehicle parking spots.
— paulwesterberg
10. July 14, 2009
12:51 pm
Link
I myself drive a Honda Insight, but I don’t support this notion of reserved parking for hybrids. It alienates those driving conventional cars, symbolizes that hybrids are essentially scarce in number (shouldn't the parking lot eventually be filled with hybrids?), and does nothing to actually influence someone to go out and get a new gas-saving car. When the tipping point eventually comes for hybrids and other clean technology cars, it will not be because of accessible parking spaces but instead it will probably come down to simple dollars and cents.
— Mike Wright
11. July 14, 2009
12:52 pm
Link
My new bumper sticker: Smug beats Smog.
— Leslie
12. July 14, 2009
12:55 pm
Link
The problem with this sort of rigid requirement, to me, is that the best hybrids are only slightly more fuel efficient than the best conventional motored cars. Simply driving a hybrid is no guarantee of having a virtuous carbon footprint.
So some guy in a Lexus hybrid SUV that struggles to get 25 mpg gets a spot by the door, while the person in the Jetta TDI that gets near 50mpg parks in the corner?
I think we need to be careful to remember that the energy you consume driving around isn’t the only energy to consider - there’s also the energy embedded in the production of your car. We don’t want to create incentives for people to ditch lightweight, efficient cars and replace them with production-energy-intensive, (occasionally) slightly more efficient cars, right? That sure doesn’t pencil out on my envelope.
Now, the plug-in spots make a lot of sense.
— Brian
13. July 14, 2009
1:32 pm
Link
I love the Hybrid/Eco-Friendly parking spots at the new Whole Foods — they are always open, right in front of the store, and the perfect size for my Tahoe. I use them every time I shop there.
— Tom L.
14. July 14, 2009
1:42 pm
Link
Wow! I actually think this is a good idea. Why not reward people for using cars that are better for the environment? This could really take off! For car dealers, this is another good incentive to add when helping customers decide which car to buy. Its a perk! And let’s face it, Americans LOVE perks!
— Lucas
15. July 14, 2009
1:52 pm
Link
I think most Fresh and Easy supermarkets here in the West have four or five hybrid preferred spots. They are placed, usually, in conjunction with their “family with kids” preferred parking spaces, always just a few spaces further than the handicapped spaces.
— Political Parent
16. July 14, 2009
3:00 pm
Link
I gotta say, there’s a lot of proud ignorance in these messages (yes, you Tom L.)… a sure sign of insecurity and a conflicted conscience.
— Mark
17. July 14, 2009
3:48 pm
Link
Mark,
GM offers a hybrid Tahoe. It has 25% better mileage than the conventional model. 35% in the city, 21 mpg city versus 14 for conventional Yukon.
Peter
— peter noordijk
18. July 14, 2009
3:48 pm
Link
For the sake of consistency, drivers of hybrids who take advantage of such spaces should be forbidden to buy groceries that have left any climate change footprint in their growth, preparation, or packaging.
However, I will cap my purchases of such items and trade them for their spot.
— germ killer
19. July 14, 2009
3:57 pm
Link
I know the idea behind this is to given an incentive to those who are trying to reduce their fuel consumption, but I see two things wrong with this. Maybe somebody who is driving a hybrid is willing to walk the extra few hundred feet. I usually associate those who are trying to save the environment with those who are also health conscious. The other problem is that what happens if somebody has a full electric vehicle or hydrogen car? Do you put a sign up for all these vehicles?
Patrick
http://www.paystolivegreen.com
— Patrick
20. July 14, 2009
4:03 pm
Link
Mike #10:
“It alienates those driving conventional cars,”
That's the whole point isn’t it? In a more generous paraphrase is ‘it is incentive to buy hybrids’. The only issue i see here is it prioritizes hybrids over electrics and other green cars, any one of which may or may not be better depending on infrastructure and how well the car companies design the specific models.
“symbolizes that hybrids are essentially scarce in number”
Yes it does, but it also puts hybrids in a superior position to conventional cars while they are scarce. The more hybrids there are, the less this policy matters - so this policy will fade naturally over time if the hybrid route is taken.
“does nothing to actually influence someone to go out and get a new gas-saving car”
That depends on how often the driver does the groceries. Gas saving cars just save money - this added on means you save time and money. Some people are insensitive to one incentive but rarely both. That said, as time saving incentives go, this is rather small.
“When the tipping point eventually comes for hybrids and other clean technology cars, it will not be because of accessible parking spaces but instead it will probably come down to simple dollars and cents.”
Untrue. Convenience is also a big factor, which is why this is a good (albeit small) incentive.
— Sean
21. July 14, 2009
4:08 pm
Link
I think it is fantastic how we are using renewable energy and going green in so many ways. I think we also need to do things like reducing our energy usage, like installing geothermal heat pumps (here is an example http://geothermalexperts.net/residential_systems.html ) to replace high energy heating and cooling systems.
— Nolan
22. July 14, 2009
4:17 pm
Link
I think this is a much better idea than the Mothers with Strollers parking…and Tom isn’t ignorant, that’s too kind…he’s the same lazy fool who parks in a handicapped spot or hangs out at the curb while his wife shops.
— good idea
23. July 14, 2009
5:25 pm
Link
Peter, a hybrid Tahoe that has “25% better mileage than the conventional model. 35% in the city, 21 mpg city versus 14 for conventional Yukon.” is still an SUV. Lauding the environmental benefits of a hybrid SUV is like lauding the health benefits of cigarettes made with organic tobacco. No matter how you try to cut it, it’s still like cutting through butter with a chainsaw.
— Mark
24. July 14, 2009
5:44 pm
Link
I wouldn’t buy a hybrid just so I could park closer to a store which a lengthy history of treating its employees like crap. Not to mention the carbon footprint they must have, importing all of that food.
— Cheryl
25. July 14, 2009
5:54 pm
Link
My favorite part about this idea is not necessarily getting to park closer if one drives a hybrid, but rather making all those who park energy-inefficient cars walk farther. Saving the environment and cutting down on obesity at the same time!
— Eric
Farmers market season is in full swing
High season for Portland's farmers markets -
With over 15 farmers markets across the city offering a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, breads, and more throughout the summer, Portland is a farmers market enthusiast's dream.
These open air markets provide community gathering space; bring fresh, local foods to our neighborhoods; and offer a great way to spend a weekend morning.
Not only that, farmers markets are often cheaper than neighborhood grocery stores, and most Portland markets happily accept Oregon Trail, WIC, and FMNP vouchers.
Locations and times for many markets are detailed at the Portland Farmers Market website, and others are listed here. The New York Times also has a great slideshow of several New York markets and the St. Paul farmers market, over 150 years old!
Farmers market season is in full swing - we encourage you to visit your local market, support our region's farmers, and spend some time with your friends and neighbors!
With over 15 farmers markets across the city offering a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, breads, and more throughout the summer, Portland is a farmers market enthusiast's dream.
These open air markets provide community gathering space; bring fresh, local foods to our neighborhoods; and offer a great way to spend a weekend morning.
Not only that, farmers markets are often cheaper than neighborhood grocery stores, and most Portland markets happily accept Oregon Trail, WIC, and FMNP vouchers.
Locations and times for many markets are detailed at the Portland Farmers Market website, and others are listed here. The New York Times also has a great slideshow of several New York markets and the St. Paul farmers market, over 150 years old!
Farmers market season is in full swing - we encourage you to visit your local market, support our region's farmers, and spend some time with your friends and neighbors!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)