Ford shifts focus from hybrids to biofuels

Ford calls previous commitment too narrow and says it will explore multiple alternative energy options.

The story "Ford shifts focus from hybrids to biofuels" published June 29, 2006 at 3:14 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[bcsaxman]

Dumb move, Ford

I'm not saying that bio-fuels don't have their place, but if the goals are to reduce America's dependency on foriegn oil & reduce greenhouse gas emissions (as stated in the article), then diluting the push to hybrids in order to emphasize them is the least efficient approach.

First, ethanol fuels are less energy dense than regular gasoline. Making engines flex-fuel capable could simply drop Ford's fuel economy average even lower than it already is. And less MPGs means more emissions for sure, and certainly more fuel use for every Ford customer.

Second, the infrastructure for producing & distributing any biofuel (including biodiesel) is extremely immature at this point. So much so that even if Ford makes every vehicle in their fleet E85-100 capable, there won't be enough of the stuff around for anyone to use on any scale that will impact or oil dependency or emission problems. It will be at least 5 years, and probably 10, before bio-anything is found in quantity here, especially with no government mandate for it's sale (which seems certain for a while).

Last, when it comes to ethanol, the US still has a real problem insofar as determining what will be used to make it. The 'quick & easy' solution is corn, but corn requires more energy to make it INTO ethanol then it provides AS ethanol. That would seem to indicate that other solutions should be used - switchgrass, sugarcane, plant husks - but that idea can't ignore the longer timeframe it will take to develop them, as well as the realities of American politics. Regarding the latter, we could easily see the US go to corn regardless, due to more effective lobbying/campaign contributions from the agribusinesses, thus making some domestic energy problems even worse than they are!

No, the smarter strategy would be a different, two pronged assualt; one that pushes hard with hybrids (especialy the ones with xtra battery capacity that can be plugged in overnight), and the other that brings diesel engines (bio as well) back in force to the American marketplace. That would be the best strategy for both Ford AND GM, but Ford especially since it has a substantial investment already with hybrid technology. I think they've also just completed a tech overhaul of the only diesel they sell in quantity (the big one in the F-150-350 truck line), but I don't know if this is directly transferable to other engine sizes or passenger vehicles. On that note, I'd also suggest they start standardizing their engine designs across the entire line. In otherwords, one basic design that can be added to or subtracted from (4,6,8, or even 10 cylinders) as needed (modular), as well as swapped into the hybridized versions of products, would go a long way towards cutting costs. Just make it a good design, and the cost savings will be substantial (and the strategy would work for diesel engines as well).

So, if anyone from Ford is reading this, DON'T LET UP ON HYBRIDS. Toyota and Honda are showing the way, but they aren't so far ahead that they can't be caught. In the short term, push the Escape engine into every other model that utilizes a similar sized V6, and make sure they're all 'plug-in' capable as well. Then keep the ball rolling from there (with V6 hybrids particularly, but maybe even smaller versions for smaller cars). Get going concurrently with diesel (and perhaps someday hybridize them too) and you'll be putting your company and America on the best possible footing. Flex fuel capabilities can be integrated later, when the harder work is done.

Good Luck

[Blito]

I agree, and I understand Ford

Renewable energy is not a silver bullet but more an intelligent approach then just oil. You're ideas are pretty good. The point is that we can have this discussion at all with renewable energy instead of just letting Big Oil run the show. More options.

Basically solar and wind was useless on a large scale but now it could power the stations that create the energy to make hydrogen biofuels etc. You have a clean station and clean cars. Its the matter of placing the energy in the right places. Gosh maybe we could have a fan turbine hybrid on a car.

Nuclear power was the first but archaic step. With new cold water plants that don't produce the unwanted emissions and new fusion methods that helps.

[jeffhughes1]

Bigger picture here

Hybrids still run on gasoline, and thus their only contribution to reducing oil dependency is their MPG savings, which everyone knows by now is severely overhyped. Plug-in hybrids only help emissions if the power source to that plug is also low-emission. If it comes from a coal/oil fired plant, the only savings is in your pocket book.

Non-hybrid cars available in Europe get MUCH better mileage than the garbage sold here in the U.S. We need to combine the best features of all engine technologies out there today. I would bet that a plug-in hybrid turbo-biodiesel with cylinder deactivation in a compact car would easily get over 100mpg.

I know you didn't mention it, but I wanted to add that hydrogen for fuel cells is just a BAD idea all around. It's dangerous at every phase of production, and we have no economical way to produce it as of yet. It's far worse than ethanol in that respect.

Biofuel, primarily biodiesel, is definitely the way to go. First off it can obviously reduces foreign oil need to 0. Diesel engines get better mileage head-to-head than gasoline. And lastly from a scientific viewpoint, the growing and harvesting of biofuels has a net ecological emissions closer to Zero than any other solution.

But whatever your preference may be, most of these solutions are more economically feasible with oil prices where they are at this point, once the economies of scale kick in at full production. It will happen without government mandate or subsidies, but both will certainly help speed up the process.

[Blito]

Pollution stinks

Even if you don't totally understand Global Warming the point is that even if we could clean up the L.A. mountain passes of haze and acid rain it would beautiful to see a clear sky there; as well as when your stuck in traffic it would be nice to open the window and get fresh air or at least not have to be hermetically sealed.
It really helps because this type of accumulated pollution causes stress and health disorders and people taking allot of anti-depressants because of it.
Also urban runoff is a problem polluting 50% of our rivers and lakes. Unacceptable. I like to swim outdoors and fish...in the suburbs.

[TV James]

Underwhelmed and not at all surprised

Ah, it was all a big ruse.

Make a big splash and garner lots of publicity making some big goal for your company. Great press. People everywhere, even those like me who would never buy a Ford start thinking. Ford, huh? Maybe time to take another look. Slap a few hybrid green leaf logos on a few cars. Talk about all you want to do for the environment. Secretly do very little.

Wait for the next big "thing."

Say that the new big thing is actually even better for the world. Spin your last statement and try to get more publicity. Turn out a few cars with yellow Biofuel teardrop logos on a few cars. Talk about all you want to do for the environment. Secretly do very little.

Wait for the next big "thing."

Little cars with little red Tiny car logos. Windpowered cars with little blue windmill logos. Solar powered cars with shiny little solar panel logos.
Foot powered cars with a little picture of Fred Flintsone on the side.
Wind-up cars. Gravity powered cars (SF only - with tow hitches to attach to cable cars to get back up the hill).

But I'm just babbling. Read the post from the guy who says that it takes more energy to produce biodiesel from corn than biodiesel derived from corn produces.

Yay, crude!!!!!!

[juser_bogus]

electric is the way to go!

So what are the downsides, battery life, charging time? Come on 5 years ago you could get 150+ miles on an overnight charge! The fact that they require very little maintenance from your service shop is the only thing I can think of that now holds back our automakers. 3 different companies in the last 2 years made huge strides with new Lit-Ion battery technology. Last year Toshiba announced a battery that can charge to 100% in 10 minutes and 80% in 1 minute. Yes 80% in one minute! Toshiba said it plans to create batteries for electric cars within the next year or two but they said that last year and there hasn?t been any talk about it since. http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm


Think about it, all a gas station has to do is install a high capacity charger in place of a pump. Or just charge it at home for what I assume would be a few hours since houses usually don?t have that capacity. All that for $5-$10 a fill up? well, maybe that?s another reason too

I don?t get it?! It seems perfect? I?m a little interested in who killed the electric car but I think the most important question is ?why is it still dead??