Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Will We Have a 100-mpg Car Soon?

By Ron Scherer and Alexandra Marks, Christian Science Monitor. Posted March 28, 2008.


A $10 million contest may get us there quicker then you think.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Drivers often joke their car "is running on fumes," when the tank gets low. Well, how about an engine that actually gets its energy from gasoline fumes?

Or, tired of looking for parking space? Well, someone has dreamed up an all-electric car so thin it can compete with motorcycles for the gaps between SUVs.

And no need to fill up on expensive gasoline anymore -- one would-be Henry Ford wants to build an engine that runs on compressed air, the stuff that fills your tires. Naturally, it's called the Air Car.

All of these ideas -- some with actual tires on the ground -- are entered for the Progressive Automotive X Prize, an international competition that will award $10 million to the first team that can build and bring to market a car that gets the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. So far, no major auto company has said it'll compete, although some have said they are curious and might kick a few tires when no one is looking.

There will be a contest, scheduled to begin September next year, in which these ambitious prototypes will be driven about like regular cars. And since Americans like to race -- or at least go to NASCAR events -- these decidedly non-Detroit vehicles will hold a race of their own.

Last Thursday, the X Prize Foundation rolled out some of the contestants at the New York International Auto Show, an event where "concept cars" usually just mean futuristic styling, or technology that won't be ready for the public to use until colonies are established on the moon.

"We need a car that is not just a concept but can be made in mass quantities at a reasonable cost for the average American," says Jack Hidary, chairman of the Coalition Advocating for Smart Transportation and a donor to the X Prize's new effort. "Unfortunately, Detroit has not stepped up to the plate, they have fought CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards every step of the way."

But some automakers say the competition is passé. Volkswagen has chosen not to participate.

"In 2001, we put a European Lupo3L hypereconomy car through the now-archaic EPA testing and got 80 miles per gallon in the city and 100 on the highway," says Keith Price, the public relations manager. "So in terms of the X Prize, we wish them well but from our perspective, we've been there, done that."

The Lupo is no longer in production.

Another manufacturer, Honda, is quite pleased with the ecological virtues of its hydrogen fuel-cell car, which gets 62 miles per gallon. As he shows off the vehicle, company spokesman Todd Mittleman reveals that the seats are made of corn-based bio-fabric. "So, I guess if you are stuck in your car for a couple of days, you can eat the seats, although I wouldn't recommend it," he says.

What about the X Prize? Mr. Mittleman says he would like to be present when the winner is announced even though Honda so far hasn't indicated it would enter the contest. "The constraints and criteria are pretty tough," he says.

If the automakers won't take on the challenge, Todd Pratt and the other five partners of FuelVapor Technologies in Vancouver, British Columbia, are more than willing to try.

Their gas fume car -- conceived and built in spare hours outside full-time jobs -- has so far gotten up to 92 miles per gallon. Now, Mr. Pratt, who owns restaurants, and his cohorts (or is that carhorts?) are moving toward a combination of vapor technology and electric hybrid to get to the "magic" 100 miles per gallon.

Have they had any bites from automakers?

"No, we're very much under the radar," says Pratt, whose group has been working on their unusual-looking three-wheeled vehicle for two years. "We don't have any illusions, we want to be a small niche automaker, starting with 150 to 200 cars a year and then maybe working up to 5,000 or 10,000 cars a year while developing technology and licensing it out to others."

The 60 teams from nine countries that have entered the competition include a team from an inner city high school in Philadelphia, a group from Cornell University, and a company called "Psycho-Active" in Moore, S.C.

"The idea behind the name is about thinking, pushing the paradigm," says John Robitaille, the leader of the Moore team, which is working on an advanced rotary engine design.

But will people want to drive a Psycho-Active? "It doesn't roll off the tongue," admits Mr. Robitaille, who also has a day job in the telecom business.

The only car company that has signed on is Tesla Motors, which makes a 100 percent electric sports car that the company claims gets the equivalent of 135 miles per gallon. The base price for the 2008 model is $98,000.

The price alone may make it difficult to win not only the X Prize but also the hearts and minds of American drivers.

As he sits in a VW at the auto show, Christopher Hopson, an auto analyst at Global Insight, an economic forecasting firm in Lexington, Mass. says the X Prize could be good for the planet. But, he warns contenders to make their cars affordable. "If it's too expensive, that's a barrier," he says.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, fuel efficiency, cars

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We already had a a 376 MPG car in 1973
Posted by: Rune on Mar 28, 2008 12:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and it was based on a 1959 Opel. Why, oh why, are we still trying to learn this lesson? Heck, I had 40 MPG piece of crap when I was in high school several decades ago. And yet the big auto companies claim that they can't make such a car today? Nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not really Posted by: acidrain69
Ummm... how about a 9,000 mile per gallon vehicle?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 28, 2008 2:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shell Eco-Marathon championships:

"Last year saw a new world economy record set during the event when Team MicroJoule achieved an average fuel consumption of 10,705 mpg - to put that in perspective, that's the distance from London to Melbourne, Australia on less than one gallon of fuel!
The French team beat their own previous world fuel consumption record by nearly 500mpg, their previous record having been set during the 2001 Eco-Marathon UK.
This year the event was held over two days of intense competition at the Rockingham Motor Speedway, Corby, Northants, and the French Microjoule, team from St Sebastien, again took the top step on the podium with an average fuel consumption of 9737 mpg.
The team won despite many problems over the weekend, suffering a broken chain and then mechanical problems which necessitated an overnight engine rebuild, but they still managed to beat their nearest rival by over 2000mpg."

The issue is that if well all drove cars that got 100 mpg instead of 10 mpg SUVs, we'd only need 1/10th the petroleum - and pain would be felt by our Middle Eastern, Canadian, Mexican, Venezuelan, and Nigerian oil suppliers, by the IOC middlemen like Exxon and Chevron, and by the financiers and investors who rely on fossil fuels for their cream and caviar. If we run cars on renewable electricity or domestic biofuels, even more pain will be felt. Simple demand-supply, right?

The SUV was a gasoline demand-stoking marketing ploy if there ever was one - and the U.S. public bought into it wholeheartedly. Now, what we really need is a cheap, mass-produced, low-end version of the Tesla - will we ever see it? Or will corporate America decide that keeping the U.S. public addicted to fossil fuels is more important than energy independence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

*yawn*
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 28, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Detroit doesn't want to play?

They're going to lose.

By the way, this contest has already been won:

www.teslamoters.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: *yawn* Posted by: rickiey
» RE: *yawn* Posted by: AtomicNYC
» RE: *yawn* Posted by: factbased
» RE: *yawn* Posted by: AtomicNYC
» RE: *yawn* Posted by: ronavila
» RE: *yawn* Posted by: factbased
» RE: *yawn* Posted by: lenioui
Is there a Devil in the Details
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Mar 28, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not too hard to have a car achieve 9000 or even 100,000 miles per gallon of gasoline if that car is powered by electricity or perhaps by coal or corn or maybe by burning cherry pits. In fact such a car would get an infinite number of miles per gallon of gasoline.

Running our cars on coal would not seem to be a move in the right direction, though the other alternatives I suggested could be. Generally people assume that an electric car would be an improvement, but electric power as we now use it is quite inefficient. Among other problems, much of the power is lost in transmission lines.

If the power for a new generation of cars is generated by burning coal in power plants, as much electricity is generated today, the effect on greenhouse gases could be disastrous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is there a Devil in the Details Posted by: plantsareneat
» Efficiency Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: fficiency Posted by: rickiey
» nuclear power is stupid Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: nuclear power is stupid Posted by: rickiey
First the oil.
Posted by: master betty on Mar 28, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No car with a high MPG will be procuded in big numbers until most of the oil has been sold and converted to money. Technology today is good enough to manufacture a car having a high MPG but they, oil and car companies, don't want people to consume any less oil than today. Oil is energy, so has to be sold to people and rich guys want to make big money out of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AHAHA LIES!
Posted by: ericthefool on Mar 28, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had a '81 Subarau, yes '81 that got 45-50 mpg. That's almost 3x more then my '01 Jetta. It's about money, greed, and power! Don't let them fool ya.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all about mass
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Mar 28, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is simply impossible to extract enough energy out of a hydrocarbon chain to produce enough energy to get 100 mpg. IF the vehicle weighs 5 thousand pounds! Even if you had 100% efficiency in the gasoline-to-mechanical process, you'd still fall short of 100 mpg. It's just too much weight. With a 3 thousand pound car, you might be able to max out over 100 mpg. But with ethanol, you wouldn't. A car would have to weigh under 2000 lbs in order to get over 100mpg with ethanol. And that's at 100% efficiency, which of course is impossible.

The best we can hope for now is to improve efficiency and reduce weight. Neither of which has been happening at the rate it should.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

100 MPH CAR
Posted by: pfm on Mar 28, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The introduction of a 100 MPH car is just what we need especially in an era wherein fossil fuel and its current liquid replacement – ethanol – are as environmentally devastating as the fossil fuel itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

volkswagon concept car 2002?
Posted by: trock on Mar 28, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Volkswagon had a concept car around 2002 that weighted 600 lbs.
had a 15 Horsepower diesel engine.
2 people can ride in tandem (one behind the other)
Could 'swim with traffic' The CEO test drove it, as other people also test drove it, in regular traffic.
got 230 MPG.

They can design them and build them. Will that be built, bought and driven by the general population?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are "hybrid hackers" out there
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 28, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who've gotten hybrid cars to about 90 mpg already.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets be realistic!
Posted by: flapdoodle on Mar 28, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the extravagant claims posted here get a lot of mileage from our attention, but when push comes to shove. most are nothing but hot air. Check out the Second Law of thermodynamics, then do the math.
Many basic improvements can be made and we should focus on this approach rather than wild- eyed possibilities.
Making cars lighter and more aerodynamic; using them less by creating an extensive public transportation system, and various other approaches could have a major impact on our overall use, and on the environment as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Realism in action.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 28, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seem to be a lot of fossil fuel enthusiasts on this thread who don't want people to know that 100 mpg cars are easily achievable (considering that hyper-efficient small vehicles get 9000 mpg, 100 mpg for a small passenger car is not "thermodynamically impossible" as some posters here claim).

The fact is, such cars are already available - just a minor modification is needed: 100 MPG available now, Popular Mechanics

"Why can't the world's car companies make a vehicle that gets 100 mpg? Automotive technology keeps improving and people keep asking the question, but--as with fusion reactors and comprehensible phone bills--the reality always seems to be just a few years away. Sure, student engineers have achieved 2000 mpg in design contests, but those vehicles have been exercises in automotive minimalism, not practical everyday cars.

Steve Lapp, a professor from Ontario, says the moment has nearly arrived. "I've actually gotten over 100 mpg on some trips in my 2001 Toyota Prius," he says. The secret? He mounted solar panels on the car's roof to keep the batteries charged when the sun is shining. If Lapp, a backyard big thinker, can get triple-digit mileage occasionally, why can't the world's carmakers hit the mark on every drive?

Recently, they've come close--in Europe. The Volkswagen Lupo 3L turbodiesel and the Audi A2, which use the same engine, have both edged close to 80 mpg. That's better than a hybrid. On the downside, that amazing three-cylinder diesel doesn't meet U.S. emissions standards and the vehicles are Ringling Bros. size by American standards.

So the question remains: Could manufacturers deliver a practical car that a typical American family could use as daily transportation, getting 100 mpg or better on every single trip? We asked some of the most inventive engineering minds in the country. We looked at designs, materials and drivetrains. The answer? Yes, it can be done."


It's pretty obvious that fossil fuel interests, who are connected to the major U.S. auto manufacturers via shareholders and interlocking corporate boards, don't want to see fuel efficient autos in the U.S.

Let's do the math:

From 2000 to 2007 (projected), the US new fleet fuel economy has averaged 23.1 mpg (combined, adjusted). For the same period, the percentage of new vehicles sold that offer between 20-25 mpg has dropped 9 percentage points, from 43.3% to 34.3%, according to data published in Appendix C of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s report, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2007. (Earlier post.)

At the same time, sales of vehicles in the 15-20 mpg band have increased by 3.7 percentage points, from 38.1% to 41.8%. This band represents the largest percentage of projected new vehicle sales in the US for 2007.

The more fuel efficient bands have seen increases as well. Sales in the 25-30 mpg band climbed 5.1 percentage points from 10.5% in 2000 to 15.6% in 2007.


Now, currently all U.S. transportation demands consume an average of 388.6 million gallons per day (equivalent to 9.25 million barrels of oil), according to eia.gov At $3.50 a gallon, that works out to how much in sales?

$1.36 billion dollars a day. That's what we spend on gasoline in the U.S. Now, say we go from a 25 mpg fleet to a 100 mpg fleet, but drive the same amount. For every four gallons we use now, we'd use one gallon then. Instead of $1.36 billion in sales, you would have $340 million in sales - a whopping 75% reduction in sales. What would the Saudi Princes do for their allowances if that happened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ealism in action. Posted by: acidrain69
What's a Gallon, Anyway?
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Mar 28, 2008 2:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, if you drive an electric car, and you recharge it with solar panels, then the question is this: What exactly IS a gallon of sunshine?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ten mil, huh?
Posted by: willymack on Mar 28, 2008 4:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was enough to get the first private spacecraft going. Ought to work for a car, doantcha think? Of course, the inventor just might be bought off or bumped off by the oil/auto folks. In either case, the car will never see the light of day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ten mil, huh? Posted by: acidrain69
Gallon of Gasoline? Driving?
Posted by: PaulK on Mar 28, 2008 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A human-driven car can run on batteries just fine. Every hundred miles or so you'd need to drive the car into a service station and have a robotic arm swap the battery pack for a fresh battery pack. Human drivers need to stop and stretch their legs anyways.

Alternatively, compressed air cars can stop every 400 miles to get recompression in their air tanks.

However, a sane traveler will put their car onto something resembling an auto train for those longer trips, and will get out of the vehicle and go have a sit-down meal in the club car. A train with 100 cars on board should easily get 1 mpg, or 100 mpg per car.

Somehow I don't have much appreciation for a target of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lupo
Posted by: sirios on Mar 28, 2008 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i lived in germany for eight years,ending march last year. the lupo is still in production , but by another name. volkswagen has changed the name of this mini turbo deisel several times in the last ten or so years, but the engine remains the same. a friend of mine bought one last year and said the best highway mileage she got was about 70 miles to the gallon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

100 MPG is old news
Posted by: greatferm on Mar 28, 2008 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Volvo's LCP did that years ago, in the 70's, but they decided that there was no market for it. Not even in Europe, and certainly not in the US, where vehicles are sold on the basis of some sort of kick in the head.

The problem was, to get 100 MPG with the LCP (which was a light, 3 cylinder Diesel) you could only go about 40 MPH. Who would put up with that ?

I was in traffic tonight, Northern California, and we were in the carpool lane, alongside 4 lanes of traffic not eligible for the carpool lane, because they were all alone. That's half the problem there, nobody shares, MY car, why would I share it, and with some STRANGER, are you mad, sir, read the newspapers, there are all sorts of mad dogs out there...

And the hugeness, you are not safe without a BIG car, if you aren't homicidal, you're suicidal. Not that I mean you harm, but better crush you than me.

So, big, heavy cars, going fast, all alone, it's all math.

We do not have a problem. What we have in rejection of the obvious solutions. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.

You know what Pogo said.

Greatferm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take a look at the smart car Posted by: ReallyBearish
An easier solution...
Posted by: dirtycrumbs on Mar 28, 2008 11:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about we build walkable/transit-friendly communities that render the automobile irrelevant? The most fuel efficient vehicle has already been "invented" - it's called the bicycle and it's the transportation solution all "progressives" should rally around.

Dream all you want about running cars on whatever cockamamie, test-tube scheme you can think of, you'll never solve: congestion, road rage, pedestrian fatalities, collisions, urban sprawl, the onerous fees demanded of automobile ownership etc, etc, etc...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instead, we need 20mpg Semitrucks
Posted by: auntiegrav on Mar 29, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a semi to go 100 miles, it takes 10 gallons of fuel (on a good day). Getting that truck to 20 mpg would save 5 gallons of fuel.
Improving a car from 50 mpg to 100 mpg would only save 1 gallon.
People can easily do this by putting two people in the car, or riding in buses.
Truckers have no choice but to haul cargo.
We have built our system to be dependent upon trucks, but cars are expendable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mass deception
Posted by: tomkara on Mar 29, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice so many "green" technologies involve hyper-technology - fuel cells, lithium batteries, complex computer controlled drive trains - when in fact rather simple cars have been mass produced using gas engines which got well over 45 mpg (eg Geo Metro). I laugh when I see current models rated 'efficient' when they get 30mpg . Not only do the oil companies want us to buy expensive fuel, but the car companies want us to buy expensive technology. I think its great to aim for 100 mpg, but we need laws now requiring 40+ mpg using existing technology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mass deception Posted by: maxpayne
Save The Earth: Stop Driving!
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Mar 29, 2008 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Jerry Brown once said at a time when he considered himself "a recovering politician," the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is the pace of destruction. Well, that's the only difference between a car that gets high gas mileage and one that doesn't. Driving itself creates many environmental and ecological problems, even if no fuel at all were consumed or burned. For example, roads themselves are very ecologically destructive: they pave the Earth and compact the soil, and fragment wildlife habitat. And these cars don't claim to not consume gasoline, they just claim to not consume as much, which will still result in all the destructive effects of oil consumption that I'll just assume everyone reading this already knows.

Our serious environmental and ecological problems will not be solved by technology, which is itself a large part of the problem. (Yes, certain technologies are more harmful than others, but they're all ecologically harmful.) What will solve those problems are significant reductions in both consumption and population. What's relevant in this discussion is that people need to reorganize society so that they don't drive much or, better yet, at all. Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Study Ecology & Wildlife Biology Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Study Ecology & Wildlife Biology Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
People, people. The market has been RIGGED for decades. There was never a free market.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 29, 2008 10:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Big Oil and Auto don't want you to know is that they have relied on government to set the over-regulations designed to benefit them over you the consumer for decades and they're still at it. And don't expect either the Democrats or Republicans to lift a finger on it as they're both completely CORRUPT. We can get back our 100s or even 1000s MPG by first unrigging the market. A truly free market would not keep higher mpg cars out to solely benefit Big Oil/Auto.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Killed the Electric Car?
Posted by: motamanx on Apr 1, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and then gave himself a mega million dollar bonus? We were shafted by GM. No wonder they can't compete globally: they haven't the vision for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]