A view of the Chevy Volt, which could be in showrooms in the next few years. (Photo courtesy of GM)
Close-up of the Volt's powertrain system. (Photo courtesy of GM)
General Motors killed their last electric car
in the 1990s. Now the automaker is working on a new
car that could go 40 miles on electricity alone. The
car could be in showrooms in two to three years.
Dustin Dwyer visited the shop where
the new Chevy Volt is being designed:
Transcript
General Motors killed their last electric car
in the 1990s. Now the automaker is working on a new
car that could go 40 miles on electricity alone. The
car could be in showrooms in two to three years.
Dustin Dwyer visited the shop where
the new Chevy Volt is being designed:
Inside the design studio, a milling machine grinds away at a clay model of the Volt.
GM first introduced a concept version of the car last year. Now, designers and engineers
are working on a production version.
The Volt would basically be a hybrid. But it’s different than hybrids on the road today,
because the gas engine would just be a backup. Much of the time, the electric motor
would power the car on its own.
People at GM hope the Volt can improve GM’s image on the environment.
Bob Boniface of GM says the Volt is the real deal:
“This is not just a PR stunt… this is a real program, it’s got real engineers, real designers and obviously a real
building dedicated just to this car.”
Boniface says development of the Volt has been more public than most projects, and that
puts the pressure on for the company to get it right.
Reporter Dustin Dwyer found all the ingredients for his Thanksgiving dinner within 100 miles of his house, including the turkey (poor thing). (Photo by Dustin Dwyer)
Turkey farmer Christine Roperti continues to farm near Detroit despite growing development pressures. (Photo by Dustin Dwyer)
Thanksgiving is about family, friends, and ridiculous amounts of food. But the food we buy can have a big impact on the environment. And a lot more people are starting to look for local ingredients to put in their meals. One movement encourages people to get all their food from within 100 miles of their home. Dustin Dwyer tried to find out how practical that could be for his Thanksgiving feast:
Transcript
Thanksgiving is about family, friends, and ridiculous amounts of food. But the food we buy can have a big impact on the environment. And a lot more people are starting to look for local ingredients to put in their meals. One movement encourages people to get all their food from within 100 miles of their home. Dustin Dwyer tried to find out how practical that could be for his Thanksgiving feast:
I like to look at labels on my food. I don’t care so much about the nutritional info, I just want to know where it came from.
But there’s a problem with that. Even if I know where something is packaged, I still have no idea where the actual ingredients come from. I mean, where the heck do they make partially hydrogenated soybean oil?
I have no idea. And so, for one meal, for the most important meal of the year, I decided to try to get all my food, and all the ingredients in my food, from within 100 miles of my apartment in Southeast Michigan.
If you’re impressed by my ingenious and creative idea, don’t be. I stole it from someone else. Alisa Smith and her partner James MacKinnon were on a 100 mile diet for a year, and they’re writing a book about it. I called up Alisa for some help.
Dwyer: “So my wife and I are going to do the 100 mile Thanksgiving, and I want to ask some advice.”
Smith: “Oh, great! For doing a single meal you picked a very good time to do it because it’s the harvest bounty, so that makes life a lot easier.”
I’m thinking, excellent, this could be a piece of cake. But I’m worried about a few tough ingredients, such as salt. Alisa says salt is a problem for a lot of people.
“I think in the end, you probably will find that salt isn’t available. And not being able t o make it yourself you might just say ‘okay salt is going to be an exception for us.'”
Ok, fine, but I still wanted to make as few exceptions as possible. I’ve got to have a challenge here, somehow.
That said, our menu would be simple: just turkey, mashed potatoes, stuffing and pumpkin pie. Turkey turned out to be easy.
“Roperti’s Turkey Farm.”
Christine Roperti has been living on her family’s turkey farm in suburban Detroit all her life. Farms like this one are getting crowded out more and more by suburban sprawl. There’s even a brand new subdivision next door to Christine’s place. There have been offers for her land too.
“Yeah, but I don’t want to go anywhere. I like the farm, and like raising my turkeys.”
I liked knowing that Christine actually enjoys this, and cares about it. It made me feel good. And that’s important, because I was also paying a lot more for her turkey than the store-bought stuff.
Anyway, I was flying high, and things were going really well. My list of exceptions was firming up, and it was mostly spices: salt plus all the spices for the pumpkin pie.
Then, while I was bragging at work about how I’d be able to get almost everything but salt for my local dinner, someone reminded me that there are actually salt mines under the city of Detroit.
Like a good journalist I looked into it, and ended up on the most absurd shopping trip of my life.
“Okay I’m headed over the Ambassador Bridge, going from Detroit to Windsor, Ontario. They do have salt mines in Detroit, but they don’t sell that salt as food salt in the US, they only sell road salt. So in order to get food salt that’s made within a hundred miles of my house, I have to go to Canada.”
Because of some trade regulation I don’t understand, table salt from this mine can’t be commercially shipped into the US. So I ended up in a city I barely know, looking for a grocery store. I went into the first, and then the second without finding the right brand of salt. Then an hour or so later, in the third store…
“Finally! Windsor salt.”
So, I wasted a lot of fuel putting this dinner together. It’s probably still an improvement over what the Sierra Club says is an average two thousand miles of driving that goes into each ingredient for my usual dinner.
But here’s the thing: if all this local stuff is available, I think I should be able to get it at the grocery store down the street. I should probably let them know that, and let them know I’m willing to pay more for it. I mean, that’s better than driving to Canada for salt, anyway.
But making that happen would take a lot more effort, a lot more voting with my pocketbook, and a lot more than just checking labels.
The Environmental Protection Agency says cars and trucks are starting to get better gas
mileage. That comes after a long period of worsening fuel economy.
Dustin Dwyer reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency says cars and trucks are starting to get better gas
mileage. That comes after a long period of worsening fuel economy.
Dustin Dwyer reports:
The EPA says over the past three years, average vehicle fuel economy has improved by
about five percent, but that’s a small reversal after 20 years in which gas mileage only got
worse.
Jim Kliesch is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says the problem is that
getting more miles per gallon has not been a priority for automakers:
“The industry has been improving their vehicles for years. It’s just that they’ve been
applying their technical innovations to performance and not to fuel economy.”
Automakers say they’re now working to make cars more fuel efficient. In part that’s
because they have to under new fuel economy rules for trucks. And lawmakers in
Washington are debating new rules that could force even higher fuel efficiency.
The GAO found distribution of biofuels is an obstacle to its wider use. (Photo by Lester Graham)
The federal government has no comprehensive plan to deal with an expected
increase in the production of biofuels. That’s according to a new study from
the Government Accountability Office. Dustin Dwyer reports that the lack of
a plan has some real consequences:
Transcript
The federal government has no comprehensive plan to deal with an expected
increase in the production of biofuels. That’s according to a new study from
the Government Accountability Office. Dustin Dwyer reports that the lack of
a plan has some real consequences:
Mark Gaffigan studies energy issues for the GAO. He says there are real problems
getting biofuel capable vehicles where they need to be. For example, when officials at the Post Office tried to buy these so-called flex-fuel vehicles, the only options available were trucks with a larger engine than it needed. On top of that, officials had trouble getting biofuel, so they just ran the vehicles on gasoline.
“So, in effect, what you had was the government with vehicles using more fuel, using
more oil because they weren’t as efficient, when the intent was to try to encourage people
to use flex-fuel vehicles and use some of this ethanol to displace oil.”
The GAO says the Secretary of Energy needs to develop a new strategy that considers
both the production and distribution of biofuels.
President Bush has called on federal
agencies to develop an energy plan. He wants
them to cut oil use and reduce vehicle emissions
before he leaves office. But as Dustin Dwyer
reports, some environmentalists are
not impressed:
Transcript
President Bush has called on federal
agencies to develop an energy plan. He wants
them to cut oil use and reduce vehicle emissions
before he leaves office. But as Dustin Dwyer
reports, some environmentalists are
not impressed:
The president says he wants to cut oil use 20% in the next ten years.
The question is how to get that done. He prefers that Congress pass
new laws to make the cut happen.
While they debate the issue, the president has ordered the
Environmental Protection Agency to work with the Departments of
Transportation, Energy and Agriculture to finalize their own approach
by the end of 2008.
But the Sierra Club says the president could get his plan done right
now by raising federal fuel economy standards. The President has
already called for raising the current standards by four percent per
year.
But right now, the standards are at the same level they’ve been at for
the past 17 years.
For their part, auto executives have opposed any plan to raise the
standards. They say the regulations could cost them billions of dollars
to implement.
A new poll says a majority of pickup owners
support higher federal fuel economy standards,
even though those higher standards could make
trucks more expensive and less available.
Dustin Dwyer reports:
Transcript
A new poll says a majority of pickup owners
support higher federal fuel economy standards,
even though those higher standards could make
trucks more expensive and less available.
Dustin Dwyer reports:
Kevin Curtis of the National Environmental Trust says 83%
of truck owners in the poll support stricter fuel standards.
“Pickup owners really, when faced with the arguments that my pickup will
be more expensive, or, heaven forbid, my pickup won’t even be
available to me, they just didn’t believe it.”
But it’s a different story when people reach the dealer show
floor.
There, Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers says more than half of all buyers still choose
trucks, SUVs and minivans that burn more gas.
“And until there’s a reason for consumers to make decisions other
than the decisions they’re making now on vehicle choice, it’s
going to be very hard to change the fleetwide fuel economy.”
New research out of Stanford University says ethanol-based fuels might
not be any better for the environment than gasoline. But as Dustin
Dwyer reports, that’s not expected to stop the drive to increase
ethanol use:
Transcript
New research out of Stanford University says ethanol-based fuels might
not be any better for the environment than gasoline. But as Dustin
Dwyer reports, that’s not expected to stop the drive to increase
ethanol use:
Researchers at Stanford University found that even while ethanol based
E85 fuel can reduce some harmful vehicle emissions, it increases
others.
The study shows that E85 can lead to higher ozone emissions, which
contribute to smog. And the study says that could cause up to 185 more
ozone-related deaths in the U.S. every year.
This isn’t the first study showing the possible hazards of ethanol.
Others have raised concerns about the impact corn-based ethanol could
have on the food supply, and how it could affect land use, but ethanol
supporters say it’s still the best available option to cut down on
foreign oil.
Ethanol remains politically popular, and Detroit automakers have
committed to making up to half of their annual vehicle fleets ethanol-
capable by 2012.
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Transcript
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Back in March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing
on how the auto industry could help fight global warming. All the
bigwigs in the U.S. auto industry were there: the heads of Ford,
General Motors and Chrysler, the North American president of Toyota and
the head of the United Auto Workers.
At the hearing, all of them agreed they would support a cap on CO2
emissions from vehicles, but they had a sort of caveat:
“We believe that there’s a lot of merit to it. And we believe if it’s
upstream…”
“For Cap and Trade, I think the further upstream you go, the more
efficient you’re going to be.”
“I’d just echo the upstream part.”
“The upstream as I stated earlier and the rest is absolutely critical.”
That was Ron Gettlefinger of the UAW, Jim Press of Toyota, Alan Mulally
of Ford, and Tom Lasorda of Chrysler.
So what do they mean by “upstream”? Here’s Ford spokesman Mike Moran:
“Lower carbon fuels, so that it’s just not what comes out of the
tailpipe, but you’re moving upstream and including the fuels that would
be included in the equation in the transportation sector.”
Basically the idea is, if you have less carbon in the fuel, you’ll pump
less carbon dioxide into the air.
But car companies really can’t take the carbon out of fuel. That’s
really more of a job for the oil industry. So are auto executives just
passing the buck?
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says yeah, they’re
dodging the issue:
“The auto companies are basically finding more creative ways to say,
‘No,’ they won’t do anything to improve their products.”
Auto executives would say they’re already working to improve their
products, with millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road, and a
growing number of gas-electric hybrids. And many in the auto industry feel that they’ve been singled out for
regulation in the past.
The carmakers main lobbying group, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers says that for the past 30 years, the auto industry has
been the only industry subject to carbon dioxide regulations. Though
most people try to avoid saying so in public, there is clearly some
tension between the auto industry and the oil industry.
Louis Burke is with Conoco Phillips. He says his company is willing to
do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the oil company just
came out in favor of setting up mandatory federal rules. Those include a
possible system that caps carbon dioxide emissions, and allows
companies to trade carbon credits as if they were commodities:
“You can cap and trade at some point down within the value chain,
whether it’s all the way upstream, or whether it’s pretty far downstream. You
can also apply a carbon tax throughout the whole value chain. The whole
idea is it’s gotta be transparent, it can’t penalize any one group.”
So upstream, downstream, the point is something needs to be done.
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says everyone can
do a little more:
“Everyone has to do their part. That means car companies have to
produce vehicles to get more miles to the gallon. Oil companies need to
have lower carbon fuels and yes, even consumers need to find ways to
drive less.”
It’s still not clear what exactly what approach Congress will take
toward cutting auto emissions, but while leaders in Washington try to
settle on a plan, local and state officials across the country are
coming up with their own plans.
California and 10 other states have their own plans to regulate
tailpipe emissions. Those plans are being challenged in court by the
auto industry. And California has also gone forward with the nation’s first low carbon
standard for fuels.
That “upstream” plan has the support of both auto and oil companies.
Fuel cell-powered cars will be much simpler and cheaper to build than internal combustion engine-powered vehicles. (Photo courtesy of Ford Motor Company)
Diagram of a fuel cell. (Image courtesy of Ford Motor Company)
Hydrogen fuel cells have been billed as the next big thing for cutting
down on vehicle emissions. Cars that run on these fuel cells emit only
water. Automakers are investing heavily in the technology, and there
are still some major obstacles. But as Dustin Dwyer reports, there is
at least one big advantage for automakers to push fuel cells:
Transcript
Hydrogen fuel cells have been billed as the next big thing for cutting
down on vehicle emissions. Cars that run on these fuel cells emit only
water. Automakers are investing heavily in the technology, and there
are still some major obstacles. But as Dustin Dwyer reports, there is
at least one big advantage for automakers to push fuel cells:
Of course, automakers want to be seen working on something that could
be good for the environment, and people in the industry will tell you
there are a number of reasons for pushing fuel cells. But there’s one
reason that might matter more than all the others.
(Sound of music…”money, money, money”)
Yep, money.
And if you don’t believe ABBA, you can just take it from Larry Burns.
He’s the head of research and development at General Motors. GM says
it’s spent more than a billion dollars developing fuel cell technology.
That’s money a company like GM can’t afford to waste.
At a recent energy symposium, Burns broke it all down, and talked about
the real reason GM is involved in the technology:
“First of all, we want to accelerate industry growth, for business
reasons. In fact, if I was up here telling you we were doing it for
reasons other than business reasons, you shouldn’t take me sincerely.”
So, what are those business reasons?
For Larry Burns it starts with the fact that today only 12 percent of
people worldwide own a car. To get the other 88 percent, Burns says
future vehicles need to be cheap and clean.
Some will debate whether hydrogen vehicles would truly be clean. They
say, at best, hydrogen just shifts the pollution upstream to the power
plant.
As for the cheap part, that’s also a problem. Right now, prototype fuel
cell cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. But fuel cells
have a few things going for them on the cost front. Take Ford’s new HySeries Drive Hybrid Edge prototype.
Engineer Mujeeb Ijaz looks under the hood:
“So I guess the first thing you’ll notice when you look under the hood
of the Edge is it doesn’t have a lot of equipment here. In fact, it’s
quite empty.”
It’s empty because all the important stuff, including the fuel cell, is
tucked in a sleek package hidden underneath the vehicle.
The fuel cell itself is only about six inches high, and about as big
around as a coffee table. That’s an incredibly simple design compared
to today’s complicated and clunky internal combustion engines:
“There’s a lot of technology that goes into it, but from a fundamental
standpoint, when you lay out a fuel cell and you lay out an engine,
we’re not dealing with a lot of unique parts.”
So, unlike an engine that has to be machined and assembled in different
ways for most vehicles around the world, a fuel cell only has a few
parts that get stacked together the same way every time. That means
once they ramp up to mass production, fuel cells could save automakers
a lot of, well…
(Sound of music…”money, it’s a gas”)
But before automakers can save all that fuel cell money, they still
have to answer all the questions about where the hydrogen itself comes
from, how to get it into gas stations, and how to store it in the
vehicle.
Automakers say they can make it work. But not everyone agrees. Joseph
Romm is an expert on energy issues, and he says, a lot of the problems
with hydrogen fuel cells might be out of automakers’ hands:
“Each of them probably requires a major technology breakthrough, and
you just don’t know. You might see a breakthrough in five years, you
might not see a breakthrough for fifty years.”
Romm wrote a book called The Hype About Hydrogen. He says fuel
cells have long been thought to be just over the horizon:
“Fuel cells are always just 10 or 20 years away, and so it allows the
car company to seem like they’re doing something for the environment,
without actually having to do anything.”
Romm says he’d bet on better battery technology and biofuels to cut
down on gas use.
Regardless of who’s right, what’s clear is that the auto industry could
be on the verge of a revolutionary change, one that could be good news
for the environment: the end of the internal combustion engine.
It won’t happen just to make people feel good, or to save the
environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
When you make aluminum for vehicles, there’s a leftover
sludge that can include some toxic chemicals. The EPA wants
to loosen regulations on that sludge.
It says that could encourage more auto manufacturers to use
aluminum instead of steel in vehicle bodies, and since
aluminum is lighter than steel, those vehicles would burn
less gas. Don McKenzie of the Union of Concerned Scientists
says he’s not sure it’s a good idea:
“Aluminum can help to get us more efficient vehicles. But we
shouldn’t need to be changing the rules around aluminum
production to get aluminum into vehicles.”
McKenzie says if the government imposed stricter fuel
economy standards, and kept the rules on aluminum sludge in
place, more automakers would be forced to use aluminum
anyway.
For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.
The fish and wildlife agency already has announced plans to
cut more than 250 jobs over the next three years. Further
cuts are expected soon.
The agency blames a flat budget and rising operational and
personnel costs, but Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility says visitors to the affected
refuges will find a less enjoyable experience at no real
savings in tax dollars:
“All the cutbacks in the refuge system are less than what
we’re spending in Iraq in a day. I mean to put it in some
perspective, we’re talking about literally millions of
dollars versus billions of dollars that are being
hemorrhaged out of other government operations.”
Democratic Congressman Ron Kind co-chairs a caucus on
wildlife refuges. He says he’ll try to address the job cuts
in the next federal budget.
A view of the Chevy Volt, which could be in showrooms in the next few years. (Photo courtesy of GM)
