Hybrid News

Filed under: Transportation Alternatives, GM, Legislation and Policy, Green Daily

Surprise! General Motors has announced that it’s ceasing its dedicated Corporate Aviation Operations. This means that all of its jets, leased or owned, will be sold or transferred to another operator. Additionally, the automaker had been leasing a facility and space from Detroit Metro Airport for the use of its private jets, and The General will now need to work with airport officials to find a new tenant. The entire General Motors Air Transportation Services group will see its doors officially closed on January 1, 2009.

This announcement seems right on schedule considering how much brow-beating GM and its cross-town rivals took at the hands of Congress over its use of private jets for corporate travel. Of course, even without its own dedicated Aviation Operations, GM and the other Detroit automakers could easily charter private flights when it’s deemed necessary, which we would bet will be much less often in the future than it has in the past. Read the short and sweet press release after the break.

[Source: GM]

Continue reading No more private jets for GM

No more private jets for GM originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:12:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Jeremy Korzeniewski

Filed under: Legislation and Policy

We heard plenty about the results of some of the various races and ballot measures around the country over the past couple of days. However, there was one ballot proposal in California that didn’t get much attention outside of the state but might be of interest around these parts. Proposition 10 would have provided for the sale of $5 billion in bonds that would be used to invest in renewable energy projects in the state along with consumer incentives for alternative energy vehicles. With the interest that would have to be paid on those bonds the total cost to California taxpayers would have been nearly $10 billion.

It would have cost that much if the proposal passed. However, more than 60 percent of California voters cast their ballots to reject prop 10. It turns out the proposition was proposed and largely funded by one T. Boone Pickens who not surprisingly stood reap huge rewards if it passed. Pickens and his allies spent over $23 million on their campaign while opponents spent only $170,000. Opponents revealed that much of the money from the proposal would be used to pay for natural gas conversions for vehicles, part of the “Pickens Plan” that the billionaire has been promoting for months.

[Sources: The Auto Channel, California Progress Report]

California renewable energy Proposition 10 (and T. Boone Pickens) defeated originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:14:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Sam Abuelsamid

Filed under: Etc., MPG

It’s a common question these days: can you live with a tiny car? For a growing number of people, the answer is yes, but they’re not always ready to make the lifestyle adjustments to get the benefits of lower gas usage (and cost) of using the right tool for the job. According to an Omnibus Study recently conducted by Morpace, Inc., a full 62 percent of consumers think their next vehicle will be smaller than what they’re currently driving. Morpace Automotive Feature Content Practice VP Bill Pendry said, “While consumers may want a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle, they don′t want to compromise on the feature and option content. Nearly all consumers want the same or greater number of features and options in their next vehicle.”

Well, then, perhaps people aren’t really clear on their reasons for downsizing. As we know, the current situation is that most (though certainly not all) small cars are pretty bare bones when compared to larger versions. A smaller car has at least one reduced feature: less room. While I can certainly understand the lack of enthusiasm for losing something like airbags, letting go of heavy and space-consuming things like DVD players and a third row of seats is OK. Realizing that it is perfectly possible to live a full life with fewer features/things is something quite vital to adapting to our new global reality, I think. See more on this topic here and check out the Morpace press release after the jump.

[Source: Morpace Inc.]

Continue reading The trend continues: people want smaller cars, not compromises

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Sebastian Blanco

Filed under: Legislation and Policy, UK

So much has been written already regarding London Mayor Ken Livingstone′s new road tax that we never really spent too much time analyzing the plan itself. Fortunately, though, Clean Green Cars did it for us. As it stands, the road tax divides vehicles up into twelve “bands”, separated by how much CO₂ they emit. All of that seems to make some sense at first, until the numbers are crunched to reveal that the bands are divided up rather oddly. For instance, the eleventh band, labeled “L,” carries an increase of £120 over band “K”, while the next step up the ladder carries only an increase of £25. Why aren’t vehicles progressively punished based on their emissions?

If this data seems difficult to understand, take a look at the press release and accompanying press release pasted after the break. It may serve to clear things up a bit. Any thoughts regarding the makeup of these taxes are welcome in the comments.

Press Release:

Clean Green Cars’ Data Shows That New Road Tax Bands Lack Logic

www.cleangreencars.co.uk

The government’s plan to introduce 12 road tax (VED) bands instead of six is sensible, but the price of taxing a car in each band appears to have been generated at random.

The changes in road tax (technically known as Vehicle Excise Duty or VED) are intended to persuade consumers to buy less polluting cars, by making road tax progressively more expensive for higher polluting models. However, looking at the price jumps from one band to the next (the fourth column in the table) shows there is absolutely no consistent pattern to the increases - especially when EU emissions targets are taken into account.

Proportionately, the biggest tax increase is the &pound60 from Band C to D - yet Band D is exactly where the EU says most cars should be (the EU proposal is for an average of 130g/km for all cars by 2012). For the most polluting cars (Band M), there is only an additional &pound25 penalty, so a Porsche Cayenne Turbo with 358 g/km of C̘ will pay only fractionally more than a Band L Renault Espace 2.0 T Auto emitting 234 g/km of C̘.

The root of the problem seems to be that the budget makes the first year road tax highly variable - up to £950 for a Band M car. The assumption is that the first year road tax bill, which is different from the VED charged in subsequent years, will influence which cars are bought. Unfortunately for the government, its thinking is wrong-headed - the first year road tax bill is the one that matters least. Most new cars are bought with company money and the cost of the road tax is a negligible proportion of the overall cost - even £950 on the price of a £54,000 Range Rover V8 petrol is neither here nor there.

Most new car buyers are not paying for the price of the car - they are paying for the depreciation between the new price of the car and the value of it when they come to resell it. The most effective way of reducing sales of high-polluting vehicles would be to increase their rate of depreciation. £950 road tax on a five-year old Range Rover is a serious proportion of its value and would paradoxically have a much bigger impact on new car buyers as they would be faced with a far bigger loss of value.

While Clean Green cars can see the sense of placing a significant disincentive to buy cars that exceed the EU′s 2012 130g/km average target, the disincentive has been applied to the wrong band, and there appears little consistency in the scale of the steps from this point upwards. And there is still no grading between 256g/km and the worst CO2 producer which currently produces 495g/km.

[Source: Clean Green Cars]

&nbsp

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Original post by Jeremy Korzeniewski

Filed under: Legislation and Policy, UK

So much has been written already regarding London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s new road tax that we never really spent too much time analyzing the plan itself. Fortunately, though, Clean Green Cars did it for us. EDIT: The Vehicle Excise Duty is different than the new congestion charge that Ken Livingstone is implementing. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for the correction. As it stands, the road tax divides vehicles up into twelve “bands”, separated by how much CO₂ they emit. All of that seems to make some sense at first, until the numbers are crunched to reveal that the bands are divided up rather oddly. For instance, the eleventh band, labeled “L,” carries an increase of £120 over band “K”, while the next step up the ladder carries only an increase of £25. Why aren’t vehicles progressively punished based on their emissions?

If this data seems difficult to understand, take a look at the press release and accompanying press release pasted after the break. It may serve to clear things up a bit. Any thoughts regarding the makeup of these taxes are welcome in the comments.

UPDATE: Headline also changed.

Press Release:

Clean Green Cars’ Data Shows That New Road Tax Bands Lack Logic

www.cleangreencars.co.uk

The government’s plan to introduce 12 road tax (VED) bands instead of six is sensible, but the price of taxing a car in each band appears to have been generated at random.

The changes in road tax (technically known as Vehicle Excise Duty or VED) are intended to persuade consumers to buy less polluting cars, by making road tax progressively more expensive for higher polluting models. However, looking at the price jumps from one band to the next (the fourth column in the table) shows there is absolutely no consistent pattern to the increases - especially when EU emissions targets are taken into account.

Proportionately, the biggest tax increase is the £60 from Band C to D - yet Band D is exactly where the EU says most cars should be (the EU proposal is for an average of 130g/km for all cars by 2012). For the most polluting cars (Band M), there is only an additional £25 penalty, so a Porsche Cayenne Turbo with 358 g/km of CO2 will pay only fractionally more than a Band L Renault Espace 2.0 T Auto emitting 234 g/km of CO2.

The root of the problem seems to be that the budget makes the first year road tax highly variable - up to £950 for a Band M car. The assumption is that the first year road tax bill, which is different from the VED charged in subsequent years, will influence which cars are bought. Unfortunately for the government, its thinking is wrong-headed - the first year road tax bill is the one that matters least. Most new cars are bought with company money and the cost of the road tax is a negligible proportion of the overall cost - even £950 on the price of a £54,000 Range Rover V8 petrol is neither here nor there.

Most new car buyers are not paying for the price of the car - they are paying for the depreciation between the new price of the car and the value of it when they come to resell it. The most effective way of reducing sales of high-polluting vehicles would be to increase their rate of depreciation. £950 road tax on a five-year old Range Rover is a serious proportion of its value and would paradoxically have a much bigger impact on new car buyers as they would be faced with a far bigger loss of value.

While Clean Green cars can see the sense of placing a significant disincentive to buy cars that exceed the EU’s 2012 130g/km average target, the disincentive has been applied to the wrong band, and there appears little consistency in the scale of the steps from this point upwards. And there is still no grading between 256g/km and the worst CO2 producer which currently produces 495g/km.

[Source: Clean Green Cars]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Original post by Jeremy Korzeniewski

Filed under: EV/Plug-in, ZENN, NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle)

TechnoRide, ‘the car site for tech fans,’ has managed to score a Zenn electric car for review. They seem to have had a good time with the NEV, calling it “impressive.” They do, however, note a few issues with the vehicle, which are to be expected, including a lack of luxury features and excessive noise. The reviewer had no problem getting up to the Zenn’s max-speed of twenty-five miles per hour and mentions that it’s capable of more if it weren′t for that electrically-limited speed regulation system.

TechnoRide also makes mention of the solid state electrical storage system from EEStor, which we are all still waiting to hear more about. The review echoes news that the Zenn with EEStor system should be available in 2009, and we remain hopefully optimistic that this is indeed the case. We’re not forgetting that we’ve yet to see any demonstration of the capacitor-based system.

[Source: TechnoRide]

&nbsp

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Original post by Jeremy Korzeniewski