Honda size matters: does the engine or engineering count more in mpg?

My comments about the mpg rating of Honda's FIT in the US and its European equivalent in a recent op-ed piece for the San Francisco Chronicle provoked some interesting responses.

The comparison I used was taken from an earlier posting on this blog:

In the US, the EPA's mileage rating is between 28 to 35mpg for a Honda FIT. But the UK equivalent does around 52mpg.

This is far from the most extreme example. Compared with most US passenger vehicles, the Toyota Prius is a shining example at 48-51mpg, but its EU counterpart runs at around 70mpg. But this site lists the MiniCooper as the UK's most fuel efficient car at 72mpg whereas the US equivalent is around 35mpg.

Perhaps there was too much shorthand in the SF Chronicle piece.

@mrwhirly

The whole climate change issue is filled with information that is spun up to support one side or the other, this article is a good example, it states that the Honda Fit gets 55mpg in Europe compared to the same model sold in the U.S. with 33mpg., it may look the same but these vehicles are are very different, first off the Euro model would never pass the Smog Test requirements in the U.S. which is the reason you fail to note both vehicles emission output.

Second, the vehicle would not pass our collision tests for safety, if I removed most of the smog equipment from my car and reduced its weight by 500-1000 pounds it would get better mileage to.

The truth is the cars sold in the U.S. have the lowest emissions of any other vehicle market and are the safest.

If your going to write an article, WRITE IT RIGHT!

I didn't omit a comparison of tailpipe emissions for any other reason than space and pace … the point I was trying to make was that the person selling this car didn't know what the tailpipe emissions were. He should have known - you think it might be of casual interest given his line of work even if the federal or state governments don't mandate him to do so? He didn't even offer to find out the information where its supply is mandatory.

 Automakers are so reluctant to provide their customers with this information. I have never seen a single TV auto ad with grammes of CO2 per mile.  Consumer access to information is much harder than it is in Europe.

Last year's Honda Jazz 1.4 VTEC EST has emissions of 125g/km. It is easy to find this information on the DVLC website even for used cars as it determines your road tax rate.

Its US equivalent the Honda FIT 1.5 has emissions of around 300g/mile which is a good 100g/m more than the UK version. Emissions of ozone, etc, maybe less thanks to catalytic requirements in the US where smog is a real issue in urban areas.

But I'd be very interested to hear how the contention that tailpipe emissions in the US are less can be substantiated.

I do concede however that weight does play an important role - American motorists prefer larger "tophats" because, well everyone else has one, so it's safer, right? At least I think that the logic behind the upward trend since 1980s. But American consumers have paid for this with mpg improvement rates that have remained pretty much static for 30 years.

It's almost fair to say that they are not the same car. Not even Ford makes the same Focus for the US as the UK markets, though I'm told the European-style Focus is becoming more popular here. I hired a Ford Focus in the UK recently it had a 1.2 VETEC engine - you can't even buy a Ford Focus in the US at that size the smallest is 1.6.

And yet American motorists have been sold the lie that size matters. Tell that to Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen who have tooled their engines to perform better with fewer litres.

The new Mercedes SLK 200 on sale in the UK does a smart 43.5mpg and spews out a modest 151g/km.

But it costs to get more out of less… and who in the US would pay $25k for a Honda FIT?

Margaret Thatcher's views on climate change astonish today's US sceptics

Earlier this month, I was lucky enough to be asked to write a short piece for the San Francisco Chronicle on the difference between Americans and Europeans in their attitudes to climate change.

You can read the original piece, An ocean apart on climate change. After the release of Meryl Steep's rendering of the Iron Lady, I thought it would be timely to reprise Margaret Thatcher's opinions on climate change in an effort to demonstrate that such issues are not defined by partisan bias in Europe as they are in the US. 

My citation elicited at least one incredulous response. The following email which arrived in my inbox on the day the article was published was considered and considerate, which is more than can be said for the rant that appeared a few days later.

You must be mistaken when you said that in 1988, Margaret Thatcher talked of human cause to global warming. The first mention of global warming was from a scientist from NASA and it occurred in 1989. He was hired by NASA in 1981 to study the temperature of Venus and soon concluded the earth was also getting warmer. He was called before congress to explain his "science" but never showed up. I can find no mention of global warming even in the 1990's. Al Gore was in the White House from 1993 to 2001 and never mentioned global warming. In 1997, he read a prepared text at the Kyoto Conference but he admitted it wasn't his words. It's all a fraud. So give me the citation, date, year and article when Thatcher said what you said she said. Give me one citation from anyone in the 1980's that mentioned global warming and its human cause.

Dear Mr C

Thank you for your response.

In answer to your query, full text from a Margaret Thatcher speech to the Second World Climate Conference in 1990 is available here:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Dr. Tolba and Professor Obasi deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, this is not the first time Lady Thatcher warned against the risks of climate change. In fact, she established the Hadley Centre on Climate Change in the UK.

Please refer to:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/resources/hadley

For the following text:

Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians:

A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada.

A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change.

The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options.

Thank you for your interest and I hope this provides you with the information you requested.

Felicity 

---

Thanks for the reply. Your data did contain an article in November 1990, not 1988. But that matters little. I am not a scientist but believe global warming is a contrivance by environmentalists to save the polar bear, seal, walruses and to keep oil drilling off the coast and disturb the views. Here's why I am not a believer. I am told and have read where global warming has been going on for 100 years. So why didn't someone tell us before 1990? That's 90 years into the problem. We put a man on the moon in July 1969, but no scientist knew about the earth warming. Now when I read about 100 years of climate warming I wonder where they got the data from 1940. Who measured the earth temperature in 1950? Who measured the temperature of Africa? Now also the seas have warmed a degree or so. Same question who measured the seas in 1940, 1950 and 1980? What instruments did they use. But more importantly there is no evidence of it in California or the US. I did research hurricanes for the last 100 years and there is no "trend" toward more violent or more of them. Same thing with tornados. The most people ever killed in one tornado season was in the 19th century when 8000 died in one season. We do have droughts in the southwest and rain torrents in the mid west and that is usual. I see no "global" weather or trend. I see no famine in America, Europe, Canada or South America. I do see famine in some underdeveloped countries but not in developed countries. I see no lack of water and last year we had 50 feet of snow in the Sierra, well above normal. But this year there is only 4 feet so far. But the climate change people change with the times. When there were many cold winters in the world,  global warming was changed to climate change. Now that there is no change, the new term is "harsher weather". It's all a lie. I live on the San Francisco bay and see no rise in the seas. But anyway thanks for the documents, I will use them next time I write to global warming "scientist".

Dear Mr C

Thanks very much for your email and I'm sorry that I have not had the chance to respond sooner. I have added links and citations to your comments below. I hope you find these resources useful. As you rightly mention, neither of us are scientists - we can only use the information we have access to.

Thanks for the reply. Your data did contain an article in November 1990, not 1988.

In September  1988 Margaret Thatcher did talk of concerns over climate change:

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some[fo 4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century.

 But that matters little. I am not a scientist but believe global warming is a contrivance by environmentalists to save the polar bear, seal, walruses and to keep oil drilling off the coast and disturb the views. Here's why I am not a believer. I am told and have read where global warming has been going on for 100 years. So why didn't someone tell us before 1990?

This should shed some light: My earliest citation of bothphrases is a report in The Hammond Times (of Indiana) dated Nov. 6, 1957, about California scientists “studying the possibility that this continued pouring forth of waste gases may upset the rather delicate carbon-dioxide balance in the earth’s general atmosphere and that a large-scale global warming, with radical climate changes, may result.”

 That's 90 years into the problem. We put a man on the moon in July 1969, but no scientist knew about the earth warming. Now when I read about 100 years of climate warming I wonder where they got the data from 1940. Who measured the earth temperature in 1950? Who measured the temperature of Africa? Now also the seas have warmed a degree or so. Same question who measured the seas in 1940, 1950 and 1980? What instruments did they use.

It's interesting that you mention Nasa here, as the agency carries out measurements of land and sea temperatures. This might be a useful link to find this data:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

NOAA also takes a lot of measurements:

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/

Historical temperature data dates back 150 years and I know that there is some controversy around historical global temperatures, but perhaps you could put your questions to the Global Historical Climatology Network also at NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/

This film also shows temperature patterns in a more accessible way:

http://climate.nasa.gov/ClimateReel/TemperaturePuzzle640360/

But more importantly there is no evidence of it in California or the US.

Try the EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

 I did research hurricanes for the last 100 years and there is no "trend" toward more violent or more of them. Same thing with tornados. The most people ever killed in one tornado season was in the 19th century when 8000 died in one season. We do have droughts in the southwest and rain torrents in the mid west and that is usual. I see no "global" weather or trend. I see no famine in America, Europe, Canada or South America. I do see famine in some underdeveloped countries but not in developed countries.

It is very difficult to pin extreme weather events to climate change and to link the two so closely in my view will only lead you into trouble. Climate risk is not very well discussed in the US. It basically boils down to this: you always insure your house, even though you would assess the chances of it burning to the ground are minimal, the consequences of it doing so would be devastating for you and your family. Reinsurers Swiss RE says this of climate risk:

Economic losses from climate-related disasters are already substantial, and they are on the rise. Insured losses alone have jumped from an annual USD 5 billion to 27 billion over the last 40 years. Without further investments in adaptation, climate risks could cost some countries up to 19 percent of annual GDP by 2030 and set back years of development gains.

Here's the link to the original document:

  I see no lack of water and last year we had 50 feet of snow in the Sierra, well above normal. But this year there is only 4 feet so far. But the climate change people change with the times. When there were many cold winters in the world,  global warming was changed to climate change.

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

Now that there is no change, the new term is "harsher weather". It's all a lie. I live on the San Francisco bay and see no rise in the seas. But anyway thanks for the documents, I will use them next time I write to global warming "scientist". 

I hope you find these resources useful.

Kindest regards

Felicity 

Geothermal - the long-lost favourite uncle of California's renewables

If cost were no barrier to renewable energy development, what would policymakers choose? Geothermal would come out top, without question. Geothermal is a perfect complement to intermittent renewable sources such as solar and wind and provides baseload power.

But geothermal is the long-lost favourite hippy uncle who dropped out before reaching his potential. At the GEA Geothermal Energy Finance and Development Forum 2012 earlier this month, it was clear why the technology had been left behind in the 1970s along with flared trousers, CND and tie-dye.

Thanks to the Geysers just north of the Napa valley, geothermal energy produces around 40% of the state's renewable energy in California. But that figure could be much higher. Nationally, geothermal provides 13% of non-hydro renewable electricity generation, or less than 1% of total US electricity.

According to a recent report from Pike Research, total US geothermal capacity will reach 4.2GW in 2020, a 36% increase from the 2010 level and significantly more than any other country. That represents almost 30% of total worldwide geothermal power capacity in 2020.

In the Philippines and Indonesia, most of their energy is geothermal. But in the US, geothermal is treated like the long, grey-haired hippy uncle who's never quite realised his potential.

Subsidies over the past 30 or 40 years have favoured the sun and wind. The entire industry received $368.2m from the Recovery Act 2009 - less than Solyndra's half billion. There are 24 ARRA projects which should bring online around 400 MW of new hydrothermal resources by 2014. The main driver for investors, however, is a tax credit hybrid from the wind industry which will expire next year.

The DoE's Geothermal Technologies Program has requested an unlikely $100m for 2012. But the real story of the rise and fall of geothermal's funding fortunes is on page 6 of this GTP presentation.

From 1976, the US geothermal industry enjoyed sustained government funding. For almost three decades the industry was lucky to receive $50m a year. It peaked thanks to ARRA again in 2009. But funding has now collapsed.

But given the resource in the US, geothermal should not be stuck in the 1970s and should be primed for technological breakthroughs.

Investment focus has in recent years turned from California to Nevada. But Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) which inject water into fractured rock would expand resource potential beyond the western states. More than 100,000 MWe of economically viable capacity may be available in the continental United States, representing a 40-fold increase over present geothermal power generating capacity, according to NREL.

But like all good ageing hippy uncles, the geothermal industry is full of fantastic apocryphal yarns. Salton Sea in Southern California's Imperial Valley now owned by Calpine was so rich in geothermal resource that its first developer used to crumple a cigarette packet and throw it on the ground telling his engineers to drill where it landed.

It's rarely that easy. Last September the US finalized a loan guarantee of up to $350 million for the Ormat project in Nevada with a nameplate capacity of 113MW. But whether the operators will achieve that capacity is difficult to determine.

And although some wells strike it lucky with more resource than was expected, many more come up dry - much more so than in the oil industry.

One industry analyst told me that this was because resources, ie boiling water, tend to be found under "angry" crushed rock which makes seismic surveying more difficult than exploration for oil which tends to be trapped between strata of rock.

This is only one of many technical reasons why geothermal is so expensive.

Conversion technology, depth, pressure, temperature and draw down all play a part. The capital cost of a geothermal plant can range from $1,600 to more than $5,000/kW of capacity, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

Mackinnon Lawrence, an analyst at Pike Research, described geothermal as the "workhorse of renewables" and the "tortoise that won the race". But acknowledged that geothermal can take 6-8 years to come to market, much longer than solar and wind.

He said that Pike forecast 16GW of global capacity by 2020, an increase from around 10.7GW today. But the market is too dense - 43 developers in the US alone - and Pike expects contraction among industry players.

Rick Rodgers at Montgomery St Financial said that typical drilling costs were an estimated $3m/MW - $6m/MW, 100% more expensive than oil and gas partly because drill heads are around three times more expensive in geothermal. He also pointed out that as solar costs were being driven down, it has received 30x more 1705 support than geothermal.

Jonathan Weisgall of CalEnergy and MidAmerican described geothermal as an art, not a science and a leading cleantech VC recently told me that two areas VCs weren't interested in: wind and geothermal…

But geothermal strikes me as an industry primed for technology innovation, but it won't come without investors, who won't dip their toes in the water without subsidies or longer term horizons for tax credits that more appropriately reflect the longer development period for projects.

As Lachlan Mclean from the US Renewables Group said: "Investors are waiting for catalytic events and industry leaders to emerge before investing."

But as a potential for baseload power to complement intermittent solar and wind as existing generation retires, policymakers need to revisit the ageing uncle of clean energy and bring the structure of subsidies up to date. 

Anne Simpson, senior portfolio manager at CalPERS, told the conference that $7bn had been allocated to the pension fund's clean tech investments. The CalPERS cleantech portfolio is very heavy on solar which makes sense when utilities agree 20-year long Power Purchase Agreements with developers. But Simpson could not say whether geothermal made it into the cleantech portfolio.

But its long-term horizon of valuable energy production (Geysers has been pumping power for 50 years) makes geothermal a perfect fit for pension funds - especially given Simpson's admission that even if the scheme ended tomorrow, they'd still need to manage funds for the next 70 years.