As the European Commission faces a court case over its failure to release 140 documents detailing the true environmental costs of its policy of biofuel use within the transport sector, ActionAid, a charity which aims to eradicate poverty around the world, has been tirelessly working to make international governments rethink policies that encourage the use of fuels they say amounts to ‘basically burning poor people’s food in our cars’.

Biofuels have been blamed for pushing up food prices and displacing food production, but according to the charity, the cost of biofuel use extends far beyond this, even endangering the livelihoods of the farmers who have been persuaded to ditch food production in favour of growing fuel crops, all the while failing to deliver the promised environmental benefits.

We spoke to ActionAid’s Biofuel Campaigner, Josie Cohen to find out more about the true cost of biofuels..

 Q: Just briefly, explain to us just how exactly does biofuel use in vehicles cause hunger for the world’s poorer people?

A: Biofuels are exacerbating global hunger in two main ways. Firstly, the rapidly rising demand for crops for fuel has put them into direct competition with those grown for food. Even where an inedible crop (such as jatropha or palm) is grown for biofuel it takes farmers, land and resources such as water and fertilizers away from food production. As local food production decreases food becomes scarcer and prices rise.

As well as pushing up food prices, government targets for biofuels are also encouraging foreign companies to scour the developing world looking for cheap land on which to grow energy crops. The scale of the current land grab is astonishing. EU companies have already acquired or requested over five million hectares of land for industrial biofuels in developing countries. This land grab is having a massive impact on food security. As local communities lose the land they have farmed for generations to foreign companies, they are no longer able to feed themselves and have to resort to spending the little money they have on overpriced food.

Secondly, biofuels are produced from some crops – such as wheat and maize – that are important staple foods in developing countries. As more and more of these crops are used for fuel so their global price will rise. In the developing world where the poorest will often spend up to 80 per cent of their income on food, even a small price rise affects the ability of millions of people to feed themselves and their families.

Q: Your own research, released back in February (see story) calculated that meeting the EU target for 10 per cent of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020 would leave an extra 100 million people hungry. What response did you get from the EU and UK government in light of the horrifying figure?

A: In fact, the global figure is even more shocking. If all global targets for biofuels are met, it is predicted that food prices could rise by up to 76 per cent, potentially pushing an extra 600 million people into hunger by 2020. ActionAid has presented these figures to both the UK government and the European Commission who attempt to play down the gravity of the situation. In fact, these hunger figures attributed to biofuels are not new – so it is difficult for the UK or the EC to now refute them.

Despite a great deal of evidence, the UK government denies that biofuels were a significant cause of the rise in food prices in 2007/8. What they fail to acknowledge is that even a 1 per cent rise in food prices could push an estimated 16 million more people into hunger. I suppose that it’s unsurprising that the response from politicians has not been more positive when you consider that 1 billion people are already going hungry and leaders, despite having the resources to solve this problem, still seem unwilling to act.

Q: As a consortium of charities takes the EC to court (see story), you must be watching closely for the results. What do you hope will be the result if the EC is indeed forced to release the documents?

A: The documents that the Commission is withholding contain studies done by various departments within the EC looking at Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC). ILUC is when land previously used to grow food is turned over to growing industrial biofuels. This displaces the original crop onto land in new areas. So while the biofuel crop itself may not directly cause new land to be cleared, it can still be held responsible for the greenhouse gasses (GHGs) that are emitted as a result.

If the Commission is forced to reveal the studies, we hope that they will argue that the emissions caused by Indirect Land Use Change are substantial. As the Commission is promoting biofuels because of their supposedly lower GHG emissions, this will call into question the environmental benefits of most biofuels and will even knock out the ‘worst’ industrial biofuels such as palm and soy. It all sounds very technical but that’s why we are campaigning for a high ILUC factor(s).

Q: Are there certain crops sources and certain countries of origin where biofuel becomes particularly problematic?

A: When biofuels are produced in huge plantations consisting of only one crop (monocultures) by big, foreign companies exclusively for export then they will usually lead to more people going hungry.

In environmental terms, biofuels that are grown on carbon rich land such as virgin rainforest and wetlands pose a serious problem as the carbon that is released when the land is cleared will often take hundreds of years of biofuel use to recoup. For example, in 2009, Indonesia was labeled the world’s third largest emitter of GHGs. In a country where much of the population still don’t have electricity, their high ranking is attributed to the amount of carbon they’re releasing by cutting down millions of hectares of rainforest in order to grow palm oil for biofuel, cosmetics and food.

In terms of problematic crops, it is too early to say because the scientific analysis (on ILUC for example) is still being researched. But initial analysis would suggest that the poorest crops, in terms of overall GHGs, are soy, palm, rapeseed and sunflower (all feedstocks for biodiesel) and wheat and maize. In fact, research released only this week (on 1^st July) shows that even ethanol from sugar, previously thought to be one of the best biofuels in terms of GHG savings, may also be problematic.

Q: President Obama recently said he wants the US to lead the world in biofuel production. As much of US biofuel use is already source from crops produced in the country, does this have a smaller impact than biofuel produced abroad? Do you think the EU could sustainably meet its 10 per cent target if it only used biofuel produced in Europe?

A: It actually doesn’t matter where industrial biofuels are grown – they are still unsustainable, both in terms of impacts on global food prices which will affect the world’s poorest people and their access to food and greenhouse gas emissions.

In terms of food, this happens because we live in a global market and, ultimately, what matters for food security is less where a crop is grown, although clearly where possible food should be grown locally, and more how much we use in total.

So, for example, more and more corn in the US is going to ethanol rather than to traditional uses. The food/animal feed industry will then have to look for a new supply so the corn is displaced to other land, usually on cheap, foreign soil. This then has all the effects on people and local communities described above – namely food price rises and land grabs.

In addition to this, many northern biofuels are unsustainable in and of themselves. US corn based ethanol is a great example of this as it is probably one of the worst biofuels in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Q: Supporters of the biofuel industry say that naysayers are damning a developing industry before it has the chance to prove its full environmental and social benefits. Is there any hope for the next generation of biofuels as a means of preventing an energy crisis?

A: So called second and third generation biofuels are not obtained from food crops but instead use various forms of waste and algae to produce energy. Sounds like a great idea I know! However, they are very much still in development and are unlikely to be available on the sort of scale needed to meet global biofuel targets until at least 2020 if ever.

Also, we are currently unaware of what the indirect impacts of producing second and third generation on a large-scale will be. Evidence is pointing to the fact that since some of them require land, fertilizers and other inputs, the negative consequences are likely to be similar as with first generation.

Either way, however, the reality is that governments are setting massive biofuel targets now. Since next generation biofuels aren’t ready, these targets will be met with biofuels that compete with food and come with all the disastrous implications for people in the developing world and the environment that we’ve been discussing. Let’s be real about what we have now and get rid of the targets.

Q: ActionAid reports that US and European support for biofuels has led to land grabbing by biofuel companies in order to grown fuel crops. Surely there is some legal protection for landowners to prevent this from happening?

A: Land grabs by rich countries seeking to gain control of commodities owned by poorer countries have gone on for centuries. But the recent rise in both food and fuel prices has turned land itself into a valuable commodity which investors and speculators are keen to exploit.

The problem is that access and tenure to land tends to be poorly protected in the developing world. This allows governments to sell off land to foreign companies without consulting local communities, let alone providing compensation for people who’ve lost land that they’ve used for generations.

The issue of land tends to hit women the hardest, and land grabbing for biofuels is no exception. Women produce 60-80% of food in developing countries but, for example, only own 1% of all titled land in Africa. Instead, women often use communal land to grow crops, graze animals or collect firewood. This so-called ‘marginal land’ is considered ‘non-productive’ and so is targeted by foreign biofuel companies leaving women with no way to feed their families. The lack of legal protection means that they have no voice with which to stand up for their right to land.

Q: Other than high carbon cost of using first generation biofuels, what other environmental impacts do these fuels have?

A: They are also having a major impact on biodiversity. This is because industrial biofuels are grown on massive monoculture plantations so, for example, it will just be corn or palm growing for thousands of hectares. Primary forests contain far more species compared to industrial plantations which only allow a few habitat-generalists to survive. In fact, studies show that primary forest converted to palm oil plantations cause up to an 83% loss in biodiversity.

Monocultures also lead to soil degradation, water depletion, deterioration of rivers and streams and air and water pollution due to the pesticides used.

Q: How has growing biofuel crops affected the farmers themselves who have switched from food production to growing fuel crops?

A: ActionAid has spoken to many small-scale farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America who were convinced to switch from growing food to growing biofuels and are now suffering the consequences.

They have told us that foreign biofuel companies have tried every trick in the book to get them to grow biofuels instead of food. These have included wildly optimistic promises about high yields which have failed to materialize. Farmers have also have been told that the crop they’re being encouraged to grow requires minimal water, no fertilizers and can be grown on low-quality soil which is usually not the case. Biofuel companies have even got local people to sign contracts in English that they can’t read, tricking them into agreeing to grow biofuels for them for many years to come.

Many farmers we’ve spoken to have also described how biofuel companies have guaranteed them that they would buy their yield from them at a good price only to find that the company either reneges on the deal or pays much less than originally agreed. These farmers are left stranded – no longer producing food to feed them and their families and without the income to buy food from their local market.

Q: The European Commission now wants to set up certification schemes for all types of biofuels including those imported into the EU. Are you confident that this will effectively tackle the issues surrounding biofuel use in Europe?

A: No. In fact we are positive that these certification schemes will not solve the negative impacts that industrial biofuels are having on hunger and the environment. For a start, these schemes are voluntary and are supposedly self-regulated by the biofuel industry itself. With billions of pounds at stake every year, we are not convinced that companies can be trusted to regulate their own behavior. Voluntary schemes such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) seem to be proving this theory right by allowing palm oil that has been grown on cleared rainforest to receive certification.

As well as these voluntary schemes, there are also sustainability criteria built into the EU legislation that sets biofuel targets. However, these are woefully inadequate and fail to protect either local communities where biofuels are grown or the environment. Raising our level of concern even further, the European Commission launched its sustainability criteria for biofuels last month in June without a single mention of any social criteria such as protecting people’s right to land.

Q: With a new Government in power, what is the first thing you would like to see our new Prime Minister do to tackle the problems caused by the UK’s current biofuel policy?

A: The new government needs to get rid of UK biofuel targets and start investing in real solutions to lowering transport emissions in the UK. These solutions must include improving public transport including lowering the cost of trains, promoting walking and cycling and, perhaps most importantly, working with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. Small changes such as lowering the speed limit by 5mph could also have a massive impact.

But ultimately it’s about lowering our energy consumption which means accepting that we are going to have to make real sacrifices to our lifestyles to ensure that we travel less and that, when we do travel, we do so in a sustainable way. When biofuels emerged as an idea it seemed like the ‘silver bullet’ to both our climate and energy crises. But now that we are starting to see the devastating impacts of this type of policy I think it’s time to stop looking for magic solutions and start to give real attention to a whole range of measures that will each have a small but vital impact.

Once the new government has sorted out the UK, we would also like to see them exert their influence at the EU level and encourage other countries to also drop their biofuel targets.

Q: Finally, what can our readers do to help your campaign against unsustainable biofuel use?

A: The new government is planning to hold a formal consultation on the UK’s biofuel policy in early 2011. This is a great opportunity for us to influence the direction they choose to take.

From this October, ActionAid will be providing plenty of opportunities for people to contact decision makers and let them know that they shouldn’t be increasing biofuel use in the UK. If you just have a few minutes, there will be chances to email the Secretary of State, Phillip Hammond, as well as ways to get in touch with your local MP and ask them to join the fight against industrial biofuels.

For those with more time, we’ll be providing training for opponents of biofuels and helping them to visit their MPs to talk to them about the issues. You’d be surprised how much power can be wielded by a handful of concerned constituents. If you’re interested in getting involved in the campaign please email josie.cohen@actionaid.org.

Finally, there is currently a massive debate going on about biofuels online, in newspapers, universities and political institutions. So do go out and talk to people about why biofuels are a bad idea, write to a newspaper, comment on blogs or join the debate on the ActionAid website at http://www.actionaid.org.uk/debate.

Share on Facebook

TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk caught up with Dr. Wolfgang Schneider at the Frankfurt Motor Show 2009. Dr. Schneider is Vice President, Legal, Governmental & Environmental Affairs of Ford of Europe, and with the blue oval announcing four major new green-themed advancements at the show, including the all-new EcoBoost petrol engine and the latest generation Ford Focus ECOnetic with Start/Stop technology he was the perfect candidate to answer questions on where the company was heading.

Question: Can you tell explain Ford’s strategy for introducing greener cars?

Answer: Ford’s broad general direction is less and less CO2 emissions, with the ultimate goal of zero emission vehicles. However we cannot provide an accurate timeframe when this ultimate goal will be achieved, it may take over 50 years, we cannot be certain at this current time. However at Ford we see three clear stages to achieve this.

The first stage is where we’re at right now. Using conventional technology in the main but that is optimised for maximum efficiency – that’s things likes the ECOnetic and EcoBoost. Ecoboost is a petrol engine technology that gets more out of the same engine. ECOnetic is similar, looking at friction reduction, weight and engine management, things such as camshaft timing and turbocharging.

Second stage is a transition stage, which is where the company is about to enter into. This stage is where alternative technology is introduced such as biofuels, LPG, and hybrid technology. Ford’s new Ford Focus ECOnetic is a partial hybrid, where the Start/Stop technology is used to stop the engine when stationary at lights or in heavy traffic. We will start to see electrification begin to creep into vehicles and ranges.

Finally the third stage is purely electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; however at Ford we don’t know which one will be prevalent in the future therefore we are working on both technologies. By announcing both the Ford Focus ECOnetic with Start/Stop technology and the Ford Focus BEV we are showing that the company is working on greener technology.

Q: What challenges do Ford face in launching “third stage” vehicles?

A: We have to be conscious that we cannot simply shift the emissions problem from the car to the power station, we need to develop renewable sources of energy and all this needs to come together at the same time, this is what will take time to achieve. Ford will be at the forefront of the movement, however unlike some manufacturers we don’t charge high prices for our vehicles so we have to consider our customers. While we want to achieve zero emissions one day we need to cater for our customers and at the moment it looks like electric vehicles will be double the price, we are talking perhaps £20,000 to £30,000 or £40,000 to £60,000, which is very expensive. Therefore we will continue to run trials, such as the Ford Focus BEV trial in London, until the price drops. In the meantime we will continue to provide our customers with affordable solutions – affordable sustainability. We may be a little later to introduce a production electric vehicle but we think more impact comes from a mass solution.

At Ford we have recently announced an electric Ford Focus will be available in the USA during 2011 and if all goes well I wouldn’t be surprised to see a similar announcement for Europe but we aren’t sure yet.

Q: Are Ford working on full hybrid technology?

A: Hybrids are also in the pipeline and this technology will come early in the next decade. Ford sees Hybrid technology mainly benefitting larger models. Small cars such as the Fiesta and Focus already achieve good CO2 figures thanks toECOnetic and the potential in the EcoBoost engine family.

Q: How efficient can diesel engines become?

A: Each time we launch a new generation of diesel engine we think we might be nearing the limit of reducing emissions however we continue to find new improvements. Right now we think that an overall product range average of 90 to 95g/km of CO2 is achievable and this is what the EU is asking all manufacturers to do by 2020. We believe that is about the limit we can reach using conventional technology from today’s perspective. To reduce overall emissions across a range of cars, both large and small, after that you need to introduce alternative powertrains.

Some of our competitors are saying that they will have large numbers of electric vehicles on the road early the next decade however we aren’t so sure about that and we are also not sure about the affordability of such cars at the current time.

Q: Can you tell us more about the new EcoMode system?

A: The new Ford Focus ECOnetic also introduces a new green technology that we are calling EcoMode. This system is purely to help the driver achieve greater fuel economy, in that it is a visualisation of a driver’s style on the road. Utilising 3 flowers on the dashboard all the family can get involved and we want to make green driving become an enjoyable pastime.

Q: EcoBoost is a new petrol engine platform, can you tell us more?

A: So far we’ve seen diesel engines gain big reductions for both fuel consumption and CO2 emissions however diesel is becoming more expensive and at some point it will become scarce therefore Ford’s idea with the EcoBoost engine is to achieve the same CO2 savings in a petrol engine as have been seen in diesels – and EcoBoost gets very close to that. 1.6 litre and 2.0 litre engines have been announced with a smaller version also in development.

Q: How is Ford interacting with other stakeholders in regard to electric car uptake?

A: Ford is playing a proactive part in trying to enable the introduction of electric infrastructure with discussions with key stakeholders and European governments, however the solution doesn’t sit with the motor industry rather with the energy providers and the local communities. To make electric vehicles succeed we need to see recharging points in cities, at work and at home – and we are currently trialling this in London in conjunction with Scottish and Southern Electric. Happily though we are running through open doors, everybody wants this to happen from government to energy providers. We need to solution to be a Europe wide, if not worldwide, there needs to be an accord on voltage types and plug types – right now the industry is all going in the right direction, just not in the same direction.

Times have changed as Ford released the TH!NK range of electric cars approximately 10 years ago, however we were too early and there wasn’t the motivation from society for such a product. It proves that if you do things too early it is as bad as doing things too late.

Share on Facebook

Riversimple shot to fame in June 2009 when they unveiled arguably the most exciting development for British green car technology yet; the two-seater Riversimple hydrogen prototype. As a small UK-based business aiming to produce highly energy-efficient vehicles for personal transport; Riversimple says its vision is of a world where our relationship with the car is dramatically changed for the better.

As the brainchild of Hugo Spowers, a former motorsport engineer and racing driver, Riversimple was formed in 1999 after Spowers left the glittering world of racing when he become concerned for the environmental impact of his chosen industry. He spoke to TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk to explain more about Riversimple’s plans for the prototype and his hopes for a hydrogen-driven future.

Q: You are inspired by work by Amory Lovins lightweight network electric vehicles, will hydrogen fuel cells remain your focus or will you look at other fuel sources like battery electric too?

A: We certainly will look at other fuels and prime movers; we are not a fuel cell or a hydrogen company.  Our vehicle architecture is not fuel cell-specific; it is based an electric platform anyway.  Our purpose is ‘to move people sustainably, and we will pursue our purpose by working systematically towards the elimination of the environmental impact of personal transport’, and we will not bang our heads against a brick wall championing hydrogen if something better comes along.  I certainly believe that in future there will be a much more complex mix of powertrains and fuels; hydrogen will never be as dominant as petrol, and fuel cells never as dominant as combustion engines.  Having said that, energy efficiency will become the dominant metric that dictates the choice between these options and for vehicles with a significant installed range, greater than about 150 miles, I do not believe that there is anything on the horizon that can be remotely as efficient as an efficient hydrogen FC vehicle, so that is where we are focussing our efforts.

Q: You have made the design plan for the Urban Car ‘open source’. Does this mean you don’t expect large-scale investment and production into the Urban Car?

A: No, but it is fair to say that we believe that the industry will look very different in the future. We are concentrating on the urban sector initially in order to crack the chicken and egg dilemma of refuelling infrastructure.  An urban car does not travel intercity and so one can launch in a city with only a city-wide infrastructure; reproducing this in multiple cities allows the incremental development of a nationwide network without ever taking a nationwide gamble.  However, we are not an urban car company and we regard this as a stepping stone to intercity capable family cars.  We have gone open source to accelerate the uptake of this technology and to accelerate the adoption of new standards for technology and the delivery of personal transport to customers.  It is absolutely not meant to imply that the vision is limited to niches.  However, we do believe that migration from steel to composites as the key structural material for automotive production leads to a much lower optimal scale of production for vehicles.  Open source allows multiple manufacturers to cooperate in developing not just the standards but critically the entire supply chain.

Q: You say that the Urban Car does an equivalent of 300 miles to the gallon, how is this calculated?

A: This is comparing the total energy consumed, based on the calorific equivalent energy content (Lower Heating Value or LHV) of the hydrogen compared to the volume of petrol consumed in a car running on petrol that uses the same amount of energy.

Q: Technically speaking, what do you see as the biggest obstacle to a hydrogen driven economy?

A: I’ve really scratched my head on this one because everything of which I can think is technically possible, even now.  The barriers are perceived to be fuel cell power density, fuel cell cost and hydrogen storage density.  I believe that all three barriers are very real for the auto industry but they are not true in any absolute sense.  They, necessarily and understandably, are pursuing an incremental path to adoption of fuel cells, cramming them into cars optimised for over 80 years around combustion engines, but this creates these barriers, so they are self-inflicted and we are just making it very difficult for ourselves!  Although I completely understand why they are doing what they are doing not what we are doing.  There are technical hurdles still to overcome if you want a Ferrari, but not for a Ford Focus.

Q:  You plan to lease Urban Car models. How much would we be looking at if you decided to sell them instead?

A: The blunt answer is that we would design a different car, so it is difficult to give a direct answer!  What we are doing must not be confused with leasing as currently practiced, which is a tool for managing demand and stimulating it in times of economic downturn.  We are designing a solution to providing a mobility service, in which all costs are fully bundled, so we have a direct financial interest in minimising maintenance and maximising vehicle longevity, reliability, vehicle lifespan and ownership cycles.  This is the opposite of the current situation and rewards resource minimisation rather than maximisation; if you sell cars, you make more money by selling more cars, more spare parts and more servicing (acknowledging the competitive market, but it is still true that all competitors are working within the same context).  Our service also bundles the fuel, so we have a direct interest in reducing consumption, whereas manufacturers who sell cars have no direct financial concern about this.

This all has a profound effect on vehicle design. We joke about built-in obsolescence but greater product churn increases sales and there is no escaping that fundamental reality!  Witness the huge decline in the lifespan of white goods; fridges used to be reliable for at least 3 decades, but won’t last for one now.  We also push this model upstream, leasing from our supply chain.  I first realised the necessity for this in about 2001 when considering the pitch to Shell to develop completely closed loop composite resin systems in which the resin could be 100 per cent recovered and recycled at end of vehicle life, with only an extra injection of energy, no raw material.  Putting steel out of business in the auto sector would be an attractive opportunity for an oil extractor!  But they would be mad to do so; after 20 years or so, enough would be going round in circles that their market would not just soften but completely collapse.  The only way this would make sense is if they leased the resin to the manufacturers; in this case, they would have ever increasing revenue streams with ever-decreasing oil inputs, great if you’re under pressure to reduce extraction!

The big lesson from this is that there is no possibility in a sale of product world of developing the technologies that are possible and that we need; in other words, there is no hope of a sustainable industrial society based on the sale of product – it rewards the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.  Sorry for such a long-winded non-answer!

Q: We understand that your car operates on minimal power compared other hydrogen cars (like the Honda FCX Clarity) thanks to the use of ultracapacitors to recapture the braking energy so that you have enough energy to accelerate again. But what happens when a car is charged-down; is there some way of topping up the electrical charge?

A: Yes, the fuel cell will be able to charge the ultracaps directly, and indeed does so regularly during the drive cycle, whenever the motor is demanding les than full power and the ultracap voltage is lower than the control system wants it to be (the desired voltage is related to vehicle speed; we want them full when stationary and fairly low at top speed).  However, the car does not need much in the ultracaps to start – just enough to fire up the control system and open the hydrogen valve – and then the fuel cell can charge the ultracaps, although you only need them for aggressive acceleration.  Also, the ultracaps hold their charge very well indeed and finally it is possible that there will be a tiny battery on the production version to power up the systems as described above.

Q:With 30 gms per km (well to wheel) predicted CO2 rating, the Urban Car sure sounds impressive, but is a on-board hydrogen tank really efficient? Will you be looking with assistance from your partners, to develop a system of on-board hydrogen production?

A: We don’t want to have onboard production of hydrogen.  There was in the early days a plan by many to use onboard reformation of hydrocarbons to power the fuel cell, but that was given up in almost all quarters as it involves carrying a huge chemical plant around with you.  The reason for it was that it was perceived to be difficult to store enough hydrogen and it is easier to carry a liquid fuel.  The popular answer now is generally to squeeze more hydrogen into a smaller volume, and there is great interest in a breakthrough in this.  However, our approach instead is to use less hydrogen, and we argue that in that case the ‘problem’ goes away [see self-inflicted barriers above] and we can store enough hydrogen for a sensible range using existing technology, although we will be delighted to see breakthroughs and better storage systems.

Q: When can we next expect to see you display the Urban Car to the public, for those that didn’t see it in June?

A: I am sure there will be other plans soon but it will be at the GreenMotorExpo in Triton Square, London, NW1 3HF, 24th September, and the British Inventions Show, Alexandria Palace, 14-17th October, [www.britishinventionshow.com]

Q: You hope to be in production by 2013, supplemented by you ‘open source’ approach. Tell us what readers need to do if they want to get involved with the Riversimple car?

A: The open source programme is starting up at the 40 Fires Foundation –www.40Fires.org . We are in the process of building the collaborative tools and environment and then will be gradually uploading elements of the design as resources allow, trialling the process with specific elements of the design first. No-one has yet done open source in the hardware world like it is done in the software world, and it is much harder!

Share on Facebook

Toyota has long been one of the leading carmakers in the world of green cars. The first manufacturer to produce a full production hybrid, in the form of the iconic Prius, Toyota has also made significant advancements in the development of electric, hydrogen and alternative fuel vehicles.

As the world’s largest passenger car producer, Toyota continues to lead the field in research and testing a number of new technology vehicles.

TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk spoke to Michael Valvo, UK Press Relations Manager for Toyota to find out what the Japanese carmaker has planned next and its vision for the future world of transportation.

Q: Toyota won TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk’s ‘Green Car Manufacturer’ award in 2008 as well as a host of others across the industry. What is it that makes Toyota, a leader in the field of green car technology?

A: Our philosophy is simple: whether you choose petrol, diesel or hybrid, each new vehicle should squeeze the best possible performance out of the least possible fuel.

In pursuit of the ultimate eco-car, we are developing a range of clean and green technologies, believing that different vehicle types with different energy sources will have to co-exist over the longer-term.

For the next few decades, petrol and diesel will continue to be the mainstream automotive fuels. Although we are focused on reducing the consumption of these fuels by pursuing technological innovation in our vehicles, we believe that, in the future, different vehicle types with different energy sources will have to co-exist.

For information, visit: http://www.toyota.eu/Environment/Pages/ultimate_eco-car.aspx

Q: Being the biggest carmaker in the world and trying to lead in green innovations is surely a big challenge. How does Toyota look to ensure that they consider the full environmental impact of its operations?

A: To achieve lower emissions and greener vehicles on the way towards the ultimate eco-car, it is essential to measure the impact that our vehicles have on the environment throughout our entire operations.

The recently launched new Prius is an example of how Toyota looks at the environmental impact from production, through use, to disposal.

Over its whole lifecycle, from production to disposal, a Prius has a lower impact on the environment than a conventional vehicle. The majority (~70 per cent) of the CO2 emissions produced during a cars dust-to-dust lifecycle come from the fuel it uses when it is driven. This means that the small amount of extra emissions produced when manufacturing a hybrid vehicle are quickly compensated for by the lower energy use of the vehicle itself.

Over its lifetime, a Prius emits 37 per cent less CO2 than a similarly sized, UK-built petrol vehicle (with a conventional 2-litre engine) and 47 per cent less NOx than a diesel vehicle.

The short video [see link] explains the environmental impact of Prius over its entire lifecycle. It also includes information about the eco-plant that manufactures the car, the materials used in our vehicles and the recycling of the battery:

http://blog.toyota.co.uk/prius-life-cycle-video

Q: The Prius has to be Toyota’s greatest green triumph yet. When can we hope to see a plug-in version in the UK?

A: Toyota is unveiling a new Prius Plug-in Hybrid Concept at the Frankfurt motor show, signalling further progress towards its ambition of building the ultimate eco-car.

Presentation of the new concept comes ahead of a test programme that will see more than 500 cars leased to customers worldwide, including the UK, for real-world evaluation of performance and monitoring of driver attitudes and experiences. This will commence from early 2010.

Using lithium-ion batteries, the Prius Plug-in Hybrid provides clean, fuel-efficient electric-powered running in urban areas for longer distances and at higher speeds than the conventional, third generation full hybrid Prius. Over longer distances, or when the limit of battery power is reached, the system automatically shifts to conventional petrol power. Advanced battery technology allows for full recharging in around an hour and a half and the extended EV capability brings CO2 emissions down to around 60g/km.

Q: Toyota focuses on hybrids with a few electric cars in the pipeline. But what about hydrogen fuel cells? Do you think it is right that the US and many European governments have switched funding focus onto electric cars over hydrogen?

A: Toyota’s policy is to invest in R&D across a wide front of areas; hybrid, EVs, fuel cell, but also biofuels and making petrol and diesel more efficient.

Hybrid is a core technology for the future at Toyota. It can be combined with petrol, diesel or any other alternative fuel and fuel cell technology. The evolution of hybrid technology can be utilised for hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Toyota has been working on fuel cells for almost 20 years and the technology is largely road ready, but the cost is very high (approx £6,000 per month to lease) and there is very limited infrastructure support. The high cost is linked to volume: if we build more cars the cost will come down. But until there is an infrastructure no one will buy cars, etc. Around the world we and other manufacturers are talking with Governments and energy industries on how we move forward on hydrogen infrastructure. The number of fuel cell vehicles will be gradually growing, triggered by such a limited scale introduction as Toyota has done since December 2002.

Hydrogen is one of the most promising energy carriers because it can be obtained from various sources and is able to greatly reduce CO2 emissions from cars. Until now, the penetration of hydrogen as a fuel for fuel cell cars still needs many challenges to overcome (manufacturing, transportation, storage technology, infrastructure and so on). So it will take some time for the hydrogen society to arrive.

Toyota also has a long experience in developing EVs. However, EVs have so far failed to gain wide support among customers due to issues such as limited cruising range, high (battery) cost and long charging times.  Therefore we believe that electric vehicles are best suited as short-trips urban commuter vehicles. We are accelerating R&D efforts (in particular regarding battery technology) with the aim to bring an electric vehicle to mass market by 2012.

We intend to start leasing our PHVs (Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle) with Lithium-ion batteries to fleet customers by early next year.

We are working towards commercialisation of PHV in the future, but no date has been fixed yet.

Q: There are many green concept vehicles in the pipeline for Toyota, but what is the next big development?

A: Toyota is confident that hybrid technology holds the key to the automobile’s future.  At the same time, though, we are aware that no one type of vehicle can meet all societies’ needs.  That’s why we are pushing ahead with research on a range of vehicle propulsion technologies.

• Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. Toyota offers several CNG-powered vehicles.
• Diesel engines are more energy-efficient than petrol engines, have therefore lower fuel consumption and hence emit less CO2  per km.  Toyota’s common rail diesel engines (D-4D) are among the most fuel-efficient on the market today.  The Toyota D-CAT (Diesel Clean Advanced Technology) system was the first diesel after-treatment system on the market, which simultaneously reduces nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM).
• With further assimilation of the fuel cell vehicle technology comes the fusing of the Toyota Fuel Cell stack and the hybrid technology, creating the Toyota Fuel Cell Hybrid Vehicle (FCHV).  This truly is the way forward towards the ultimate eco-car.  The FCHV achieves high vehicle efficiency, while offering a smooth and quiet drive.
• Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) offers environmental benefits very similar to those of CNG.  Toyota’s LPG-powered trucks offer an alternative to diesel.

Q: What can we expect from Toyota at the Frankfurt Motor Show this year?

A: The Toyota Auris HSD Full Hybrid Concept will take centre stage on the Toyota stand at the 2009 Frankfurt Motor show.

The concept represents a milestone in Toyota’s strategy: introducing Toyota’s full hybrid technology to a mainstream model, and the first step in the deployment of Hybrid Synergy Drive across the company’s model range.

The new Prius Plug-in Hybrid Concept will also make its world premiere in Frankfurt. Prius Plug-in Hybrid expands the capabilities of Toyota’s full hybrid technology, enabling pure electric operation for short-range day-to-day transportation. In early 2010, an extensive field trial in Europe will see over 150 units being leased to selected fleet customers.

Lexus will also unveil a new hybrid at Frankfurt with the full hybrid LF-Ch premium concept.  Reinforcing Lexus’ position as the only manufacturer to offer a range of hybrid vehicles, the LF-Ch concept will make its world premiere.

LF-Ch combines stylish design and full hybrid technology in a practical 5-door compact package to fulfil the needs of the most demanding premium compact segment customers.

Benefiting from an electric-only driving capability, a key feature of Lexus Hybrid Drive, LF-Ch will allow for virtually silent urban driving with zero emissions.

Q: In opting to produce the iQ with a petrol engine, Toyota missed out on the headline grabbing ‘lowest CO2 emitting car’ title. What made Toyota choose a petrol engine over diesel one and are there any plans to introduce a diesel option?

A: When developing the iQ, the primary target for this car was not to make it the CO2 champion – this is rather the Prius – the idea was more to build a car, that meets today’s urban challenges and is suitable for city life. It should be agile, easy to park, have a low consumption / CO2 emission and be fun to drive.
Furthermore the iQ’s 1.0-litre emits just 99g/km and is our feature model for the range, whereas some of our competitors present some their low-emission models as a niche in their line-up. These competitor diesel models emit higher values of NOx and Particulate Matters (particles that can adversely effect human health, damage materials and cause smog) than Toyota’s iQ petrol engine.

Q: The new Auris hybrid will feature the technology used in the Prius, but what can we expect in terms of CO2 emission ratings?

A: The exact details and numbers will be revealed closer to launch of the car. However, expect sub-100g/km CO2 emissions, class leading fuel consumption and 0-62mph acceleration in around 10 seconds.
Production of Auris hybrid will commence in mid-2010 at our manufacturing plant in Burnaston, Derbyshire and will be the UK’s first mass-market produced hybrid car.

Q: Which model can we expect next to get the hybrid makeover?

A: Toyota has committed to developing hybrid systems as a core technology, ensuring a wider choice of hybrid models to suit the needs of every customer. By the early 2010s, we plan to offer 10 different hybrid models. By early 2020s, we aim to offer a hybrid version across our entire model line-up range.

Unfortunately I cannot share with you exactly when we will introduce hybrid to our other models but will offer customers a variety of choices in the type of hybrid car they can have.

Q: What do you say to those who have accused Toyota of lagging behind carmakers like Nissan and Mitsubishi in the race to develop full electric and plug-in hybrid technology?

A: Toyota has a long experience in developing EVs. However, EVs have so far failed to gain wide support among customers due to issues such as limited cruising range, high (battery) cost and long charging times.

Therefore we believe that electric vehicles are best suited as short-trips urban commuter vehicles. We are accelerating R&D efforts (in particular regarding battery technology) with the aim to bring an electric vehicle to mass market by 2012.

We intend to start leasing our PHVs (Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle) with Lithium-ion batteries to fleet customers early next year.

We are working towards commercialisation of PHV in the future, but no date has been fixed yet.

Q: What about GM’s range-extended technology? Is this a form of hybridisation which Toyota will explore as well?

A: Toyota’s Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle uses our full hybrid technology but with the added benefit that its battery can be recharged using a standard electrical plug. Toyota’s PHV is “the best of both worlds”: for short distances, it can be driven as an electric vehicle, resulting in a silent, zero CO2 emissions drive. For longer distances, the PHV works as a conventional hybrid vehicle, providing all the benefits of hybrid technology, including low emissions and fuel consumption, and excellent driving performance.

Toyota expects the PHV to bring unsurpassed fuel efficiency and therefore record low emissions – as compared to any other mass-market vehicle on roads today.

With a PHV you won’t have the fear of being stranded with a flat battery back as you have the full hybrid system to back you up – it is basically an electric car without the worry.

Share on Facebook

TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk caught up with Paul Everitt, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) in August 2009 following the announcement in June of the formation of the Electric Vehicle Group – to promote a collaborative industry-wide approach to the development of ultra-low carbon technologies and to help place the UK at the forefront of the “green revolution” in the car industry.

Question: Following the recent announcement of Tesla Motors joining the SMMT, do you envisage other electric car producers joining?

Answer: SMMT has members from all across the industry including electric commercial vehicle manufacturers such as Tanfield and Modec. As electric vehicle technology develops, we envisage more companies joining. The development and manufacture of ultra low carbon technology will be key to the future of the automotive industry in the UK and around the world so it is important that SMMT membership reflects this changing dynamic in the industry. SMMT has already created a specific group within its membership to discuss and lobby on issues relating to electric vehicles and this will no doubt encourage more specialist companies to join.

Q: What new ideas do you think Tesla Motors can bring to your organisation?

A: They will play an active part, along with other companies in the Electric Vehicle Group. All our members have the opportunity to sit on various committees and to share experience and respond to issues accordingly. The discussion will feed straight into policy co-ordination at SMMT.

Q: Another recent announcement has been the formation of the Electric Vehicle Group – what are the goals of the group?

A: The Electric Vehicle Group will promote a collaborative industry-wide approach to the development of ultra-low carbon technologies and the diverse group of companies in the group will act to develop the UK’s role in this globally competitive field. It will address a wide range of issues including government policy and legislation, R&D, technical regulations as well as development of the market, supporting infrastructure and consumer incentives. It will also work closely with the newly-formed Office for Low Emission Vehicles.

Q: Do you think that the carmakers you represent are serious about developing electric-powered vehicles?

A: The motor industry is working on a portfolio of technologies to address the need to reduce emissions from vehicles. It includes further improvements in conventional petrol and diesel powertrains, as well as a variety of electric, hybrid and fuel cell capabilities. This range of technologies will help deliver low-carbon vehicles at affordable prices to consumers. The UK has a strong emerging electric vehicle industry. The recent Nissan announcement confirming that it will produce its lithium-ion battery in Sunderland and Toyota producing a hybrid Auris at its UK plants, confirms that the sector takes it seriously. The UK has the opportunity to be at the heart of the low-carbon agenda and to take the lead in ensuring that our manufacturing base is well placed to take advantage of the upturn when it comes. In the meantime a portfolio of technologies will help to lower emissions while sustaining UK manufacturing.

Q: How do you think the UK can position itself at the forefront of electric car production?

A: Manufacturing facilities in the UK are some of the most productive in the world with around 75% of what we produce exported, generating significant revenue for the country. Government has shown its commitment to developing a market for ultra-low carbon vehicles in Britain but we must now ensure that UK design, R&D as well as manufacturing are at the heart of this growing industry.

Q: There is some controversy surrounding electric quadricycles, with several manufacturers claiming of being left out in the cold, do you think there is a place at the SMMT for these companies?

A: Vehicles without Whole Vehicle Type Approval do not fall into the traditional scope of SMMT’s work. However, the future growth of the automotive industry in the UK relies on a cross-section of the industry working together, along with government, local authorities and energy suppliers and SMMT would support this co-ordinated approach.

Q: Currently only London can claim to have, in anyway, a widespread distribution of recharging points for electric vehicles – how do you envisage this problem to be solved? Should public money be used to help the supply of infrastructure?

A: The New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team (NAIGT) has recommended a large-scale pilot scheme called Test Bed UK to demonstrate, experiment and build the new low-carbon personal transportation system of the future, including its infrastructure. A co-ordinated approach across industry, government, stakeholders and energy suppliers is needed, along with bold financial support from government, if we are to send the right signals to consumers about the future use of new technology.

Q: A potential power alternative which appears to have dropped away in recent months in favour of electric batteries is Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, successfully trialled by Honda in California, where does this fit with the SMMT and the Electric Vehicle Group?

A: SMMT is committed to the development of a portfolio of ultra-low carbon technology that includes both electric vehicles and fuels such as hydrogen along with advances in the internal combustion engine. The New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team’s report sets out a clear roadmap to cut emissions from vehicles over the next 30 years, integrating all existing technology. In the near future, the traditional combustion engine can still be further improved. Manufacturers are bringing new technologies and more fuel-efficient vehicles to market using a portfolio approach to meet different consumer demands and needs.

Q: Regarding the London Congestion Charging Zone, do you believe that the criteria for vehicle exemption should be readdressed, currently the latest generation of super frugal diesel city cars and superminis are still charged the full rate, yet several SUV-style hybrids with higher CO2 output are exempt? Do you agree with Volvo that Boris Johnson should look to peg congestion charging with vehicle CO2 emissions, in much the same way as Vehicle Excise Duty?

A: Vehicle manufacturers have made huge progress in reducing the environmental impact of their products and will continue to do so. The congestion charge is fundamentally a charge to reduce congestion and any reassessment of the criteria for exemptions should aim to encourage take-up of the wide variety of low and ultra-low carbon choices already available to consumers.

Q: Where do you see the UK car industry in 10 years – do you think we will all be driving electric cars?

A: In the short to medium-term, the development of the electric engine will continue to make it a viable choice for not just city motoring, but this will work in tandem with the traditional combustion engine. There are many technologies available to aid the reduction in emissions from petrol and diesel engines such as stop-start technology and improved aerodynamics.

Share on Facebook

Founded in 2003, Elektromotive is a leading provider of electric vehicle charging points. Based in the City of Brighton and Hove, UK, Elektomotive consist of a small team dedicated to designing and installing cutting edge technology for recharging electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

The first four years saw Elektromotive develop its iconic Elektrobay, a recharging station for on-street or multistorey car park installations. Elektromotive now have a total of 169 charging points currently scattered around the UK from London to Glasgow. TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk spoke to Calvey Taylor-Haw, Elektromotive’s Managing Director to find out what the future held for the innovative young company and to find out why they believe the future is electric.

Read the full interview on TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk

Share on Facebook

The Car People is a successful car supermarket group with branches in Manchester, Sheffield and Wakefield. Since 2000, the group has held a prominent position in the North West, as a leading retailer of new and used cars. Sales Director, Jonathan Allbones speaks exclusively with TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk about why the car supermarket giant is now focusing on communicating the green credentials of the cars they sell.

Read the full interview here: TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Stuff2Send.com is a new on-line service that puts people with stuff to send somewhere in touch with people who plan to be driving there anyway. Empty vehicle space can be used to its full potential, as motorists carry goods as well as simply driving from A to B. Anyone with a vehicle can register to deliver stuff, softening the blow of ever-rising motoring costs for students, commuters, taxi drivers and commercial vehicle operators.

Colin Hay, founder of Stuff2Send.com kindly spoke to TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk in March 2009.

Share on Facebook

Our reporter, Simon McBride spoke exclusively with GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz about green technology, the economic dowturn and the future for General Motors.

To find out more read the full interview by following the link: Bob Lutz interview.

Share on Facebook

Since being elected into the Ontario legislature in 1995, Sandra Pupatello has established a reputation for introducing important new infrastructure and renovations across the province as well as attracting high-profile jobs and bringing in new opportunities and investments.

Now Ms Pupatello serves as the Minister of International Trade and Investment for Ontario and has been at the heart of the province’s action plan on climate change and most recently its relationship with California-based Better Place, which creates innovative infrastructure for electric cars.

Following the Better Place model already established in countries such as Israel and Denmark, electric car drivers enrol in a subscription plan to use the company’s open network of battery exchange stations and charge spots in homes, parking lots and businesses. Electricity will be supplied from local renewable sources by Canada based company Bullfrog Power.

On Thursday January 29, 2009, thegreencarwebsite.co.uk spoke exclusively to Minister Pupatello about how the Better Place agreement came about and what it signifies for the future of Ontario, the use of green cars in the area and the transport industry in general.

Read the full Sandra Pupatello interview

Share on Facebook