UCS has a CVD
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has come up with a Clean Vehicle Design (CVD) that could be applied more broadly to new vehicles sold in the US to reduce Global Warming Emissions. These are technologies already developed and in production and available on some vehicles. Combine them on any vehicle and UCS estimates a ~40% reduction in Global Warming gases. Cost would be hundreds of dollars per vehicle and while payback varies from 1.6 to 5 years.
The features are attractive. Look for yourself:
- Cylinder Deactivation for large displacement engines to improve cruise mileage.
- Variable Valve Lift and Timing – Would anyone say no to that?
- Direct Fuel Injection – Ditto
- Turbocharging – Ditto Ditto
- Flex Fuel technology to help use the ethanol that is coming from corn and then cellulosic sources.
- Advanced Transmissions – more gears in the automatics or automated manual transmissions
- Electric accessories such as power steering and air conditioning.
- Aerodynamics and low rolling resistance tires that retain good handling properties.
A lot of these features are performance items and they make money for the auto companies. However, UCS reports that those companies are resisting legislation in CA and 10 other states that pushes for lower greenhouse gas vehicles. Seems to me times are changing. I want my next car to perform well, to be efficient, and to be clean. Until the car companies sell cars with lifetime fuel included, I don't think I am alone.
Related:
[Source: UCS]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z 4:38PM (5/12/2007)
All they have is a vehicle that exists on paper. They need to put there money where their mouth is and build a prototype--otherwise they need to shut up.
Reply
jcwinnie 4:40PM (5/12/2007)
The Union of Concerned Scientists are going for changes achievable over a relatively short time that can make a difference.
They omitted a key recommendation made by the Rocky Mountain Institute a number of years ago, i.e., replacing steel bodies with stronger, lighter composites. Since this means significant retooling, the suggestion has been resisted by major car makers.
PeakVT, a commentator to the recent ABG story about the Michelin Hy-Lite, carped about the new design afforded by in-wheel motors, stating that for safety reasons cars need to have a large crumple zone in the front.
This is another example of being saddled with the ICE paradigm, like thinking bigger and heavier is automatically safer.
Not only does the Hypercar have a composite shell stronger than steel, the inner crashbox modeled after those used by formula race cars, plus it has lightweight crushable / shock-absorbing material plus front and side airbags.
Reply
small-wee-wee 7:13PM (5/12/2007)
Mike Z,
Right, you would never see an auto manufacturer show any kind of renderings or design concepts on paper, right? Of course, things on paper have no value whatsoever. Silly me.
Reply
Mike Z 8:06PM (5/12/2007)
There is a difference. UCS basically wrote a report and is demanding that auto makers spend their own money to validate UCS's hypothesis--and if auto makers disagree with UCS's findings (regarding the economic feasibility, or effectiveness) the UCS complains.
Its the perfect bait-and-switch: Create a proposal that is made by theoretical scientists not production enginners, refuse to prove it with your own money, demand automakers invest the money to test the feasibility's, and if they disagree that it will work---slam them and use the incident to raise more money. A perfect scam.
Of course, after I read UCS's report on Indian Point nuclear plant, I realized the group is a PR outfit. The report was one of the worse researched, unsubstantiated, and implausible assessment I've ever read. Basically UCS wrote a BS report on nuclear power, just so anti-nuclear activists could say 'According to a study by UCS xxx people may die' knowing that the media would never call them on it.
The funny thing is that UCS a few years ago argued that they could add 6 mpg to a Ford Explorer by implementing a weak-hybrid system for under $500. GM implemented such a system and we actually had real would results--such a system would likely only add 2.5 mpg and cost about $1000-$1500 to a Ford Explorer.
Funny how no one calls UCS on that. As far as I'm considered, if something is so easy, they need to put up or shut up.
Reply
PeakVT 9:17PM (5/12/2007)
"PeakVT, a commentator to the recent ABG story about the Michelin Hy-Lite, carped about the new design afforded by in-wheel motors, stating that for safety reasons cars need to have a large crumple zone in the front."
I didn't carp about it, I said for the forseeable future the small matter of safety - humans' fragile bodies don't fare well when suddenly decelerated - would create the need for large (large in my mind means the size of a typical B or C-class car, no idea what it means to you) crumple zones at the front of automobiles, and thus the tradeoffs of in-wheel motors were not attractive. Do you have an alternative design that doesn't use crumple zones to protect occupants during crashes that is likely to be in production in the forseeable future at a reasonable (less than a McLaren or Pagani) price point?
Reply