Mar 29, 2007 (From the CalCars-News archive)
CalCars-News
This posting originally appeared at CalCars-News, our newsletter of breaking CalCars and plug-in hybrid news.
View the original posting here.
sometimes find their comments bewildering. Here's an example, from
Ford's Executive Vice President, Lewis Booth, speaking in Amsterdam.
In three paragraphs about PHEVs, about 3/4 of the way through this
speech, he says:
Longer term, Plug-in hybrids are theoretically attractive and could
help limit city pollution. The Ford Edge with HySeries Drive Concept
is the world's first drivable fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle with
plug-in capability. Its drive technology is able to operate using a
fuel cell, or a small gasoline or diesel engine connected to an
electric generator to make the electricity. The car features a
lithium-ion battery pack which can be recharged overnight, and gives
the vehicle a range of 25 miles in battery-only mode. When the battery
is depleted, the car switches seamlessly to fuel cell mode, providing
a further 200 miles of range.
But batteries are not yet an economic or efficient way of storing
power, and the CO2 effect across the complete system must be
considered. For example, a plug-in hybrid charged via electricity
generated from a traditional coal-fired power station is quite a
different proposition than the same plug-in recharged from a renewable
source of electricity.
It's also been estimated that an electric vehicle needs to be able to
run unassisted for a minimum of 40 miles if it is to be regarded as a
viable personal transportation option for consumers. Today's plug-ins
don't achieve that minimum hurdle, and so we still need to achieve
considerably better battery performance before plug-ins become a truly
viable proposition. We'll certainly be careful not to announce
anything that we cannot deliver.
Thirteen months ago, Booth was one of the first Ford executives to
mention PHEVs in public
<http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/298.html>. But he seems to have
gotten a good bit of misinformation about them since then. Now he
manages multiple misunderstandings:
* PHEVs need to meet a "minimum hurdle" of 40-mile range. What's so
hard to understand about the idea that a PHEV can start with 20 miles
of all-electric range (or more or less)?
* He bewilderingly combines the characteristics of PHEVs and EVs in
one sentence.
* PHEVs have to have perfect batteries (in this, he more or less
echoes GM)./
* Ford is willing to devote substantial resources to hydrogen, which
make no sense in terms of well-to-wheel efficiency no matter what the
energy source.
* While the company is happy to begin to deploy hydrogen internal
combustion cars, he deems PHEVs not viable and therefore not announceable.
We're including the entire speech, because it is useful to understand
the company's perspective as Europe gets serious about CO2 and cars.
Lewis Booth
Executive Vice President
Ford of Europe and Premier Automotive Group
Ford Motor Company
At:
Automotive News Europe
New Powertrain Technologies Conference
Amsterdam RAI convention Centre, 28 March 2007
http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=artic\
le&sid=51425
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Imagine if there was a new environmental technology which would save
us substantial sums on our fuel bills… and make a massive contribution
to the reduction of global CO2 emissions: a technology which is widely
available and which has no major drawbacks. Yes, it would require
consumers to make a modest, upfront investment, but that investment
would be paid back many times during the product's life. Were such a
wonder technology to exist, you might think it would enjoy enormous
market success.
In fact, it already does exist. It's the low energy light bulb. It's
been estimated that if every American replaced just one light bulb
with a low energy bulb, it would result in CO2 savings equivalent to
taking nearly eight hundred thousand cars off the road.
But despite these advantages, the low energy light bulb has enjoyed
only modest success to date. Which is why government bodies around the
world are now taking serious steps to legislate for their introduction.
So what does this show? Simply, that it's going to take more than
technology to combat global warming: even when that technology is
affordable. Innovative technologies are vital but without customer
demand we will not make the required progress.
Global warming is one of the biggest challenges facing our planet.
It's essential for our future that we stabilise man-made CO2 levels to
around 550 parts per million. To tackle climate change effectively
requires a mindset change in virtually every area of human activity
that generates CO2.
It's also one of biggest challenges facing the car industry today.
Figures vary but - as a rule of thumb - cars and trucks contribute
around ten percent of man-made CO2 emissions, with another ten percent
coming from other forms of transportation. That means about 80 percent
of man-made CO2 emissions comes from non-transport sources, such as
power generation, household energy use, industry and other
CO2-intensive activities. However, I think you'll agree that we in the
auto industry seem to get more than 10 percent of the blame for
man-made CO2 emissions! So, while we undoubtedly have a responsibility
in the auto industry to play our part in reducing CO2 emissions, we
need to keep our contribution to the situation in context.
The good news is that the issue is firmly on the agenda… not just in
society in general but also in the auto industry. The seriousness of
the issue is gaining ground. Hardly a day goes by without some
reference to climate change in the media or in political circles. The
sense of urgency is growing around the need to address the issue in an
effective way.
For example, last July I suggested in a speech that one day we will
all know our individual carbon footprint. At the time, that sounded
like quite a radical proposition. Today, many policy-makers are
thinking about the possibility of using an individual's carbon
footprint as a basis for future legislation.
In the long term, the most efficient means of doing this is to treat
all CO2 molecules equally, and then create incentives and
disincentives for the carbon intensity of human activities. However,
this would require carbon trading - both cross-region and cross-sector
- which is unlikely to happen quickly enough. Even with the sense of
urgency we are now witnessing, I think it is still fair to state that
to create and implement such a mechanism will take time.
Therefore, the near-term approach by many governments focuses on
pro-rata reductions for different industrial sectors to deliver
overall targets. This does not provide the most efficient solution for
the planet in terms of technology development, speed of emissions
reduction, or investment efficiency. But we recognize that this is the
reality we face: at least for the next five, possibly 10 years.
The urgency of the challenge requires us to work within our sector;
but the scale of the challenge also requires an integrated response if
we are to maximise the opportunities to reduce CO2. In our sector that
means a partnership between the motor industry, fuel suppliers,
government and consumers.
In the auto industry, the truth is that climate change has already
affected the way we do business. As an industry, we have made
significant strides in fuel economy. Over the last decade, the
improvements in CO2 emissions from cars in Europe have largely come
through improved engine technology. In particular, continued
improvements in diesel technology - combined with the right market
conditions - have resulted in greater customer appeal and spawned a
significant shift in consumer buying behaviour.
But these improvements have come at a price. Since the 1970s, and
increasingly over the last decade, the auto industry has invested many
billions of euros to improve the environmental performance of our
products. That level of spend is growing. In fact, ACEA estimates it
to be around 20 billion euros a year: or roughly five percent of the
industry's turnover in Europe. Like many of our competitors, the
largest proportion of our R&D spend at Ford is now on environmental
matters. But as we continue to climb the mountain of CO2 reduction, so
the slopes become steeper and steeper.
Every additional gramme of CO2 saved is costing more in terms of
financial investment, and pushing the envelope of technological
capability to the limit. We already know that the existing near-term
target of 140 grammes per kilometre is very challenging. The
Commission's proposal for 130 / 120 grammes per kilometre represents a
very difficult goal, particularly if we are to maintain our
competitiveness in the European industry.
And we do have conflicting objectives. Let me take you through this
example of some of the advances and penalties we have experienced in
the market in recent years. The current Ford Focus 1.8-litre diesel
model has better performance, improved fuel economy, and produces 26
percent less CO2 than an equivalent model from 1998. This has been
achieved through actions such as: significantly improved diesel engine
performance; better transmission technology; improved ancillary
systems, like power steering units and alternators; and lower
resistance tyres.
But at the same time we've made improvements in vehicle technology,
we've also been affected by other factors which are detrimental to CO2
performance. We've faced more stringent emissions regulations, a
worsening of aerodynamic drag through legislated requirements, such as
larger frontal area mirrors, and additional weight as our customers -
who are becoming larger themselves! - want larger vehicles with more
customer-focused features, and not forgetting the weight penalties
associated with regulatory requirements.
Of course, we don't oppose safety requirements, nor do we want to
avoid giving our customers the larger vehicles and improved
feature-content they demand. But it must be understood that such
regulatory and customer demands have a negative impact on our ability
to reduce CO2 emissions from our vehicles. I think this "lesson
learnt" is something that legislators at the national and pan-European
level do not always comprehend.
Nevertheless, despite the often opposing customer and legislative
requirements, I think at Ford - and in the European auto industry in
general - we already have made significant progress in reducing CO2 to
date. It's also true that climate change is stimulating one of the
most exciting waves of creativity and innovation we've seen since the
earliest days of our business. And I won't deny that enlightened
self-interest plays a part. This is a major opportunity for companies
to seize competitive advantage: and there's everything to play for.
Which is why we at Ford are investing in a range of technologies to
reduce fuel consumption and emissions from our Ford and Premier
Automotive Group vehicles. Last year, we announced a 1.5 billion euro
investment in our environmental engineering in the UK, plus we also
announced the creation of a new hybrid centre of excellence to be led
by Volvo in Sweden, and we continue to develop new technologies though
the Ford R&D centre in Aachen in Germany. Many others in our industry
are also investing heavily in environmental technologies, not just the
OEMs but also our suppliers and in the fuel industry.
As I've said, the challenge of global warming requires a broad and
integrated response from many sectors. But let's now focus on what we
in the auto industry can do. We should recognise that the customer
will choose the solutions that best meet their needs. We do not exist
in a command economy and it won't be the European Union, national
governments, nor even OEMs that make the final decision. It will be
our customers.
So we have to ensure that any solutions are acceptable for the
customer. And first and foremost for the majority of customers, this
means making sure that solutions are affordable. We also must
recognise that iconic solutions do not address the overall CO2
problem. A few expensive hybrid cars with limited customer uptake
concentrated in a few metropolitan areas is, quite frankly, no answer.
That's a luxury neither we nor the environment can afford.
We need volume solutions that can be rapidly adopted. This remains
Ford's thinking when it comes to CO2 reduction. Our aim is to bring
environmental motoring into the mainstream and our product strategy
firmly supports this goal.
But, unfortunately, despite external comment to the contrary, the
there is no single solution: no "silver bullet" which alone will
deliver the environmental benefits we need. Different driving
conditions, different customer requirements, different fuel
infrastructures all demand that we offer a broad portfolio of
solutions. This is expensive but unavoidable.
To meet the CO2 challenge, we must move ahead with a range of
technologies simultaneously. Only in this way will we be able to offer
consumers around the world a range of products that meet their
specific needs and circumstances.
Ford's investment in environmental technologies means that we will be
offering customers more than 100 models and derivatives with improved
CO2 or fuel economy performance over the next six years. But make no
mistake. As I've just said, it will ultimately be our consumers who
decide what technologies are accepted in which markets.
So let me tell you how we see powertrain technology evolving in the
next three to five years as we set about even further reducing CO2
emissions. Where's our short-term focus?
When you look back, you see that the excellent improvements in CO2
emissions from cars in Europe over the last decade have largely come
through improved engine technology. We believe this trend will
continue to be the case for the foreseeable future, although the focus
will shift somewhat from diesels to advanced petrol engines.
Diesel has made major advances in refinement and power in recent
years, enabling them to be deployed in even the most luxurious cars,
such as our Jaguars. It was only when we made significant technology
improvements - combined with the right market conditions - that we
triggered a significant shift in consumer buying behaviour for diesel.
Superior fuel economy, low CO2 emissions, combined with high low-end
torque and good Noise, Vibration and Harshness characteristics: these
were the ingredients for customer acceptance of turbocharged direct
injection diesels. The question is can we now see similar scale of
revolution in petrol engine technology? We think the answer is "Yes!"
Within the next few years we plan to offer our customers a new
generation of advanced petrol engines featuring, selectively, direct
high pressure injection; efficient turbo charging; advanced valve
actuation; and stop-start technology, with re-start effected through
fuel injection. These will be petrol engines with low CO2 levels
similar to diesels, and which offer great driveability. They will be
fun to drive, with excellent torque over a wide rev band, and offer
exceptional refinement. Critical to their success, these engines will
be affordable, for both us, and even more importantly, for our
customers. And they are deliverable very shortly.
The power and efficiency of these new generation petrol engines will
mean we can downsize our engine families. Tomorrow's smaller, advanced
petrol engines will deliver equivalent power to today's conventional
petrol engines, but with significantly improved fuel economy and CO2
emissions. We believe we can see fuel economy and CO2 savings of
around 20 percent through the use of this technology, and we consider
that these new, advanced petrol engines will represent a completely
new family of powertrain technology.
We estimate that five years from now advanced petrol engines will
account for one-third of all European sales.
The other two-thirds will be accounted for by diesel engines and
existing, more conventional, petrol engines which are likely to find
their place as entry level derivatives.
Diesel will continue to benefit from further investment. At Ford, for
example, we see considerable growth potential for small diesel
engines. In fact, we plan to launch three advanced diesel engines in
the next few years with further CO2 improvements of five to 10
percent, probably more with the addition of additional powertrain
technologies, such as the Belt-Integrated Starter Generator system.
But the challenge for diesel remains how to control tail-pipe
emissions without ever-more expensive after-treatments which would
erode affordability. Failure to solve this challenge will lead to a
decline in diesel's market share.
So far I've talked about diesel and petrol. But where do bio-fuels and
hybrids fit into this picture?
Bio-fuels are, of course, complementary with all three of the
powertrain technologies I have mentioned. As an aside, it's
interesting how the recent growth in bio-fuels is at last helping to
fulfil the vision of some of the earliest pioneers of our industry.
When, in 1898, Rudolph Diesel demonstrated his first engine at the
Paris Exhibition, it ran on peanut oil. And let's not forget that
Henry Ford's Model T was designed to run on ethanol from crop waste.
So, if you'll forgive the pun, it looks as if we're returning to our
roots!
However, it seems certain that in most markets bio-fuels cannot
entirely displace fossil fuels. Even if demand was sufficient, we
don't have the agricultural capacity to produce the necessary amounts
of bio-fuel. At Ford we continue to work with partners, such as BP, to
explore how we can get the most out of bio-fuels and reap their CO2
benefit. We look forward to advanced, second-generation bio-fuels
which can be used in the existing car fleet without special
modification. Future bio-fuels will resolve many of the sustainability
questions by using feed stocks which can be grown non-intensively on
marginal land. But we recognize that these fuels are unlikely to be
commercially-available for some time.
In the short-term, we need to take advantage of existing bio-fuels -
such as ethanol - to gain better customer awareness and acceptance in
the market. Ford has already developed significant experience as a
leading provider of ethanol Flexi Fuel vehicles globally. In Europe,
the Ford brand is the volume FFV leader, and plans to offer an FFV
derivative for every carline in its range. We also offer an expanding
range of FFVs through our Volvo brand as well.
But we need the fuel industry to step up to the plate and implement
what is already targeted in the European Union's Bio-fuels Directive
which would provide a significant increase in the availability of low
carbon fuels, such as ethanol. Implementing the Directive could
deliver a CO2 saving equivalent to 20 grammes of CO2 per kilometre on
current vehicle technology.
The powertrain technologies and fuels I have discussed so far can have
a positive effect on the environment in the short term. But we also
need to keep focusing on new technologies for the longer term. We know
the benefits of hybrid technologies: indeed we were the first company
to launch a hybrid Sports Utility Vehicle in the shape of the Ford
Escape Hybrid. But hybrids are not suited to all driving conditions
and, in full hybrid form, they are expensive to produce and therefore
expensive for the consumer to purchase.
It only makes sense to apply hybrid technology to fuel-efficient
engines, and so the advanced petrol and diesel engines I have talked
of will provide a good platform for further hybrid development.
But we don't expect the mass uptake of petrol full hybrid systems, as
these are unaffordable, especially in Europe where the benefits of
modern diesels are already well understood by customers. Rather than
full hybrids in Europe, we expect to see the widespread adoption of
component parts of hybrid technologies. For example, stop-start
systems and regenerative braking will provide a cost-effective way of
better combating CO2.
Longer term, Plug-in hybrids are theoretically attractive and could
help limit city pollution. The Ford Edge with HySeries Drive Concept
is the world's first drivable fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle with
plug-in capability. Its drive technology is able to operate using a
fuel cell, or a small gasoline or diesel engine connected to an
electric generator to make the electricity. The car features a
lithium-ion battery pack which can be recharged overnight, and gives
the vehicle a range of 25 miles in battery-only mode. When the battery
is depleted, the car switches seamlessly to fuel cell mode, providing
a further 200 miles of range.
But batteries are not yet an economic or efficient way of storing
power, and the CO2 effect across the complete system must be
considered. For example, a plug-in hybrid charged via electricity
generated from a traditional coal-fired power station is quite a
different proposition than the same plug-in recharged from a renewable
source of electricity.
It's also been estimated that an electric vehicle needs to be able to
run unassisted for a minimum of 40 miles if it is to be regarded as a
viable personal transportation option for consumers. Today's plug-ins
don't achieve that minimum hurdle, and so we still need to achieve
considerably better battery performance before plug-ins become a truly
viable proposition. We'll certainly be careful not to announce
anything that we cannot deliver.
As you can see from the Ford Edge Concept, we're continuing to invest
in hydrogen and fuel cell technology. In North America, we were the
first to go into production with a hydrogen-based internal combustion
engine, the E-450: a V10 supercharged shuttle bus that's leased to
local authorities. It has a range of 180 miles and has undergone 7,000
hours of durability testing, so we know it works even if it's not yet
a great design statement!
But we have only scratched the surface in terms of what can be
achieved with hydrogen internal combustion engine technology, and Ford
is serious about maintaining our edge in this field. For example, we
have fleets of fuel cell Ford Focus cars operating around the world
undergoing testing. So you can see that we are learning how hydrogen
works in the real world, and we are ensuring we have the technologies
available for when hydrogen technology becomes feasible to implement.
But we believe that the hydrogen economy is a much longer term
proposition.
Let me repeat, we believe that the best way we can contribute to the
global priority of stabilising concentrations of CO2 in the immediate
future is through more efficient powertrain technologies, plus an
increasing contribution from bio-fuels as these fuels become more
widely available and even more CO2-efficient on a well-to-wheel basis.
This is where we need to focus our powertrain imagination, ingenuity,
and investment in the near term.
But powertrain and fuel technologies are not the only drivers of fuel
economy, albeit they are the most important. Reducing vehicle weight
also improves fuel efficiency. Jaguar is a world leader in lightweight
technologies, having introduced two of the world's first volume
all-aluminium road vehicles: the XJ and XK. We made a 40 percent
weight saving on the XJ's body shell by moving to aluminium, the
equivalent weight of a baby elephant!
We'll be introducing a new generation of lightweight aluminium
technologies in our premium brands in the future, plus taking action
to reduce weight in our volume brands through the use of more
intelligent design and advanced steel structure technologies.
Other technologies include advanced transmissions, such as the
Powershift System, developed jointly with Getrag-Ford Transmission.
This offers the driver the control of a conventional manual
transmission, whilst providing the smooth and effortless two-pedal
operation of an automatic, but with a 10 percent fuel economy saving
versus existing automatic transmissions. We will introduce four such
transmissions across our product ranges in the near future, and we'll
be looking at other areas of vehicle design and components to reduce
the amount of parasitic losses.
For example, we'll also be developing a range of other technologies to
improve driver behaviour, such as driver information systems and
selectable driving modes that will allow the driver to optimize the
operation of the vehicle to maximize the benefits of the fuel economy
technologies.
So what are the implications of all this for our industry? As I said
at the beginning, there is a limit to what we can achieve on our own.
We need to engage all stakeholders: the auto industry; fuel suppliers;
government; and consumers in the integrated approach, as outlined in
the European Commission-led CARS21 High Level Final Report.
I've talked about what we can do in the auto industry. I've also
spoken about what the fuel industry can do in terms of improving the
supply of bio-fuels.
But government also has responsibilities - and I'm speaking here about
policy-makers in general at the national and supranational levels. We
need to continue to engage with governments to achieve harmonisation
of standards. If each market is different, our efforts become
fragmented as we try to satisfy multiple niches with a series of
unique solutions. This increases costs and inhibits the introduction
of new technologies.
We also need policy-makers to focus on the outcome, not the technical
solution. Government should not try to second-guess the motor or fuel
industries as to specific technical solutions or customer preferences.
For government to promote one technology over another would lead to
market distortion and could stifle both innovation and customer
acceptance.
I know that this is a principle accepted by some EU Governments. But
other Member States do not seem to agree. Several countries have tax
incentives for specific technologies, regardless of CO2 performance.
For example, a hybrid vehicle with above average CO2 emissions in
Sweden, Greece and Ireland receives substantial tax breaks, whilst
non-hybrid vehicles but with lower CO2 emissions do not.
We also need greater clarity from policy-makers on whether their real
intention is to change consumer behaviour or to punish the consumer.
For example, the recent almost doubling of the Vehicle Excise Duty for
the highest CO2 emitters in the UK generates a great headline but will
do next to nothing to reduce CO2. Far more effective to encourage
improvement across the vehicle parc to deliver a greater overall CO2
reduction.
Finally, all of this comes down to what the consumer and we as an
industry can afford. Meeting the challenge of climate change is going
to require a great deal of investment. To innovate on such a broad
front as I have outlined today is inevitably expensive; and this at a
time when our industry has never been so competitive.
This is why I am convinced that within our industry we need to explore
new ways of working together for the benefit of our planet, our
customers and, indeed, our shareholders. We all need to adopt a
mindset change and put environmental concerns at the top of our
agenda. The size of the challenge requires all stakeholders to work
together like never before.
So let's all talk: the door is open. And the integrated approach must
become a reality: not a dream!
As an industry we have achieved much so far but we cannot be
complacent. The time to act is now and we must do it decisively and
collaboratively.
Our planet demands nothing less from us.
Thank you.
