Kevin's Columns
DriveWiser's own Kevin Harrison writes in the Chronicle Herald. They are about anything and everything regarding fuel efficiency!
Latest Columns:
Is teaching fuel efficiency a religion?
By Kevin Harrison
Let's face it -gas prices are still high. Not as high as two summers ago when they hit as much as $1.50 per litre, but still high compared to over a decade ago when we were seeing prices in the 50 cent range.
The auto industry has felt the effects of these higher prices. Big SUVs and pick-ups are about as desirable as H1N1 these days and we're all looking for ways to squeeze those extra few kilometres out of our tanks.
This instability in pricing is especially bad news for the younger generation. When I was 16, like any other 16 year old, all I really cared about was getting my driver's license. That is the key to owning your first car.
But let's examine the costs of owning and operating a vehicle. You have the initial cost of the vehicle itself, regular and unscheduled maintenance, MVI fees, registration fees, summer and winter tire costs, gas and insurance. The latter is particularly damaging to your wallet if you are a young male. Quotes in the five to six thousand dollar range are not unheard of for cars that are barely worth that same amount. On average it costs about $8,000 a year to own and operate a car. Part-time jobs just don't cut it.
So what is a young 16 year old to do?
Programs like DriveWiser and Auto$mart help ease the cost of operating a vehicle through fuel efficient driving. These programs have been integrated into driving schools across Nova Scotia to help educate youth about fuel efficiency and how their choices can effect it.
(DriveWiser display at 2009 Digby Scallop Days Festival)
There are additional advantages for fuel efficient driving practices besides saving money. The less gas we burn, the less carbon dioxide (CO2) goes into the atmosphere. CO2 has been linked to climate change as it prevents the sun's rays from exiting the atmosphere.
In addition, the exhaust from the tailpipe can increase health risks to asthma, emphysema and even Alzheimer's disease.
But is teaching fuel efficiency, despite the three obvious benefits outlined above, the same as integrating religion into our driving schools? Manny Lopez, Auto Editor for The Detroit News, seems to think so.
"Since these courses aren't in the schools and parents have to pay for them out of their own pockets, they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's religion -- and trust me, environmental activism is a religion", says Lopez.
It's an interesting, but ultimately flawed argument.
In general, most religions tend to seek guidance from a higher power. Environmentalists have no such guidance other than that of science (unless someone considers Al Gore or David Suzuki to be Gods) so perhaps Lopez made a typo as environmental activism is based purely on science, not religion. Hard stops and starts, idling, speeding and infrequent maintenance have all been proven scientifically to increase fuel usage and CO2 levels-but as far as I know, do not qualify as one of the seven deadly sins just yet.
"Most young people don't have the resources to choose what they get to drive, never mind shop around for one that has the 'attributes of a fuel-efficient vehicle'. They're just happy to get behind the wheel of a car, any car. And they're certainly not going to pay much, if any attention, to someone telling them to take the bus when their only goal in life at that moment is driving."
This is Lopez's second nonsensical argument.
Just like how we had no choice as to what our parents fed us for supper each day when we were young, we eventually grew up to make those kinds of decisions for ourselves. So even if these young people have no say in the matter now, they will in the very near future. They cannot make informed decisions on what to buy and how to drive without good information.
Another thing Lopez may not realize is youth are already being taught about fuel efficiency indirectly. Most defensive driving techniques double as efficient driving techniques. So even if Lopez somehow gets his wish of abolishing fuel efficiency education the students will still be learning about fuel efficiency. Understanding how it affects their wallet and the environment is a bonus and might help motivate their behaviour along with the safety implications.
( A high school student learns how tire pressure can affect fuel efficiency)
But probably Lopez's greatest blunder is one that most adults tend to make. They don't actually speak with youth for their insight and opinions on issues that concern them. My job allows me to do just that.
Part of DriveWiser's mandate is to do exactly what Lopez feels is so wrong -teaching fuel efficiency to youth. The hope is to instil fuel efficient driving practices at a young age so that it will stick with them throughout their adult years.
DriveWiser has directly spoken to 826 youth across the province in the past two years. We asked 308 of them what their main interest is in fuel efficiency: climate change, air quality, saving money or no interest at all. 44% of them listed saving money as their main interest, 29% said climate change, and 25% listed air quality. Only six of those 308 youth indicated that they had no interest in fuel efficiency.
So regardless of what Lopez, myself or anyone else thinks about fuel efficiency, this is a generation that sees it as a high priority and it is their right to learn more about it.
Playing politics does nothing but hurt the future of our youth. I would strongly suggest that Mr. Lopez go out to speak with youth before deciding what is best for them. If he did, he would quickly find that today's youth know exactly what they want their future to be -a sustainable one.
Kevin Harrison is a DriveWIser Program Officer for Clean Nova Scotia
Electric Car on Road to Recovery
By Kevin Harrison
I love anything and everything to do with cars and have most of my life. My car addiction is probably nearing an unhealthy obsession and I should probably think about checking myself into AA (Autoholics Anonymous). Or maybe the Henry Ford Centre.
But as much as I love cars, there are a lot of things that car companies have done over the years that really makes me question their sanity.
I mean really, wood paneled doors? Chrome rims? Non-functional hood-scoops and spoilers? Seriously?
The latest ridiculous idea has to be cars that have an "auto-park" feature. It allows you to sit back and relax, while your car parallel parks itself. Forget all the impending lawsuits that will ensue when the device inevitably malfunctions, what the biggest concern should be is why this device is needed in the first place. If you can't parallel park your car, you shouldn't be driving. But I digress.
Probably the biggest flop of the automotive industry is the investment in inefficient SUVs and pick-up trucks. This was a lucrative market over a decade ago, but now not so much. There was obviously no long-term planning, just immediate greed.
Car companies all knew about our depleting oil resources, yet chose to ignore it. This was evident in the 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, which claimed that automakers and even the federal government managed to convince review boards that there was no demand for electric vehicles (EV's).
It's kind of like having ipod technology yet convincing the public that cassette players are still the way to go.
Today, Chevrolet, Ford, Dodge, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz and BMW all have partial or full electric vehicles coming within the next few years. Go figure. In fact, brand new car companies that produce exclusively electric cars are now emerging such as Tesla, Fisker and Canadian car company, Zenn.
(2011 Nissan LEAF)
If EV's could talk, I'm sure they'd pull a Mark Twain and say, "reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
Having a car that uses significantly less or no gas at all seems like a good idea. We'd surely save a lot of money. But EV's are illegal on Nova Scotia's roads -at least for now. EV's like the Zenn are considered low speed vehicles and are not safe for the highway. If an EV is able to handle both city and highway driving, then it would be allowed on our roads.
The Tesla roadster and Model S easily qualify (the former effortlessly achieves 201 kph) as well as the Chevy Volt, which is a reverse hybrid of sorts where the electric motor is the main method of propulsion and the gas engine is there to assist as needed.
(2009 Tesla Roadster)
The Volt is expected to start around $40,000 when it is introduced to our market in 2011. That's not exactly cheap, but Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has recently announced that his government plans on offering up generous rebates for plug-in vehicles like the Volt.
The rebate will be as much as 10 grand. That's about three grand more than the rebate offered in the US.
It seems as if the government is finally coming around to EV's. But apparently automakers still aren't. It's like it's 'Who killed the electric car?' all over again.
Toyota USA CEO Yoshimi Inaba recently said, "we don't see in the near future electric vehicles being mainstream... We don't see the major breakthrough in battery technology."
To be fair, Toyota has the most hybrids available of any automaker and they see this as a more realistic plan for the next five years.
But both Toyota and Honda have publicly criticized this rebate with Honda Canada executive Vice President Jerry Chenkin accusing the government of Ontario of "deciding winners and losers". Chenkin is referring to the size of the rebate, which is dependent on the size of the battery in EV's.
That's fair enough. If the public only gets four thousand back for a Honda Insight, but gets 10 thousand back for a Chevy Volt, I would likely feel a bit miffed if I was the CEO of the Volt's competition too. But rather than criticizing a plan that helps Canadians save gas and the environment, how about using that as drive (excuse the pun) to build a better car that qualifies for the higher rebate?
In other words, yelling at the referee will likely get you nowhere - changing your game will.
(2011 Chevrolet Volt)
It is the use of brand new technology which makes these vehicles costly to produce. Initial price will only decrease if EV's are bought and accepted by the public. Helping us to buy these vehicles in a recession through sizable rebates should not be condemned just because a company's product might be outdone by a newer product. The answer is to make more competitive vehicles.
But aggravated manufacturers aren't the only barrier that EV's face. Some are concerned that the amount of energy use it takes to charge EV's is actually just as harmful to the environment as gasoline engine cars. This is a common concern here in Nova Scotia, since we rely on coal to power electricity.
However, opposing EV's on this basis alone is counter-productive especially since evidence has shown that the amount of EV's it would take to have a noticeable difference to the power grid is quite substantial. Taking the absolute moral high ground does nothing but hinder the process of achieving sustainable transportation. Having more EV's on the road forces us to change to more renewable power sources, which should've been done a long time ago anyway. In the end, getting EV's to be more mainstream depends on a cycle that has potentially already started.
We now have the first step of car manufacturers moving away from gas guzzlers and are now investing in hybrids and EV's. The government has also seemingly changed its tune as well and is now encouraging EV's through rebates. And if we buy them, we will be the generation that revolutionizes the way we get from point A to point B.
So, how do we bring back the electric car? The last step is up to us.
(kharrison@clean.ns.ca)
Will that be fumes with your burger?
By KEVIN HARRISON
Thu. Aug 27 - 4:46 AM
|
|
Canadians rightly tend to be pretty patriotic about our culture and tradition. We are proud of all our achievements, from the invention of the telephone to the invention of hockey, both of which Nova Scotians are particularly proud to say hailed from Canada's Ocean Playground.
We like to consider ourselves to be a selfless, giving culture that's eager to help others.
It is true that Nova Scotians, and Canadians in general, have a lot to be proud of; but one aspect of our culture has become a bad habit that we can't seem to shake.
We are all guilty of participating in this habit from time to time; some of us even do it daily.
You know what I'm on about. A static-laced voice comes from a box and asks, "Can I take your order?"
"Yeah, I'll have a large double-double and a bagel with cream cheese, please"
"Is that everything?"
You know it should be everything, but...
"Uh, actually, I'll take a Boston cream doughnut, too."
"Drive through, please."
There's a problem with that last direction: There's very little driving going on at drive-thrus, just a lot of waiting. They tend to be like an American election - it takes forever to get to the end.
But surely customers inside are having the same back-ups, right? And on top of that, they all have to stand.
Actually, studies have shown that it's quicker to park your vehicle and go inside to place your order. I've noticed this from personal experience. Try it yourself.Choose a car in the drive-thru and see how far it's progressed when you are on your way out. Usually it only moves up a spot or two, and is still waiting.
Time is not the only thing we're losing by using drive-thrus, however. Gasoline is wasted when we idle our vehicles. Just 10 seconds of idling uses more gas than turning off your engine and starting it up again. In fact, only 45 seconds of idling uses roughly the same amount of fuel as driving a kilometre.
Tim Hortons says the average idling time in their drive-thrus is a minute and 40 seconds, but a University of Alberta study has shown the average to be five minutes and eight seconds.
On top of that, if you're waiting with the windows open, you're breathing in the toxic cocktail of chemicals that come out of the exhaust pipe That's something you didn't order.
This would only be a medium concern if just a few people were using this so-called convenient feature. But drive-thrus are reaching Beatles levels of popularity lately and, as a result, they have expanded beyond fast-food chains.
The Nova Scotia Liquor Corp. has a drive-thru at one location in HRM and another in Sydney. It's a pretty ridiculous sight to see the latter locations parking lot completely empty as the drive-thru line is a mile long, while every vehicle is idling.
Some drive-thru lines across the country can get so long that they even make their way onto the street, which causes unnecessary congestion.
One of the most bizarre things I've seen was a drive-in church. It was essentially a parking lot with a large stage that allowed people to drive in, park, listen to the word of God, all while idling the car to keep an ideal temperature inside the cabin. I had to wonder what the advantages were over traditional churches. Last time I checked, they still had pews, so the convenience of sitting down wasn't one. Drive-in churches are apparently becoming increasingly popular in the United States.
So, is it time to explore a ban on drive-thrus? Since they're no faster, and often slower than going inside, cause environmental harm and waste our hard-earned cash, what purpose do they serve?
It should be recognized that some drive-thrus are open 24 hours a day. Employees who work the overnight shift undoubtedly feel more secure than if the restaurant was completely open. It's a lot harder to rob a store from your car.
Also, those who are physically disabled likely find drive-thrus more convenient.
As well, parents with small children cannot leave them in the car while they go inside; and getting out the carriage, bags, toys and whatever else is needed is a hassle. I would argue that parents shouldn't be feeding their kids fast food to begin with, but we'll save the childhood obesity rant for another time.
So, what is the solution?
There are a few options. First, limit when drive-thrus are open. If they are open overnight, drive-thru employees retain a sense of safety, and the number of people getting a Big Mac at 4 a.m. would likely be minimal. At peak times, close them and it will reduce the large number of idling cars. Employees who normally work the drive-thru can concentrate on the line-ups inside during these hours.
Another option is making drive-thrus idle-free. There is minimal gas loss by starting and stopping your engine compared to idling, and starters in cars these days are built to withstand it. This would only work if the no-idle policy was enforced.
A third option is charging a premium to those who use drive-thrus, of course with exceptions for the disabled and parents with small children. A stunning number of single-occupancy vehicles operated by perfectly able-bodied people are idling in these line-ups. Consider the drive-thru a luxury, and people can pay the price if they so choose.
But probably the best way to deal with drive-thrus is to do things for ourselves. Making your coffee at home and bringing it in a reusable mug saves time, gas and the environment. There will be less exhaust put into our atmosphere and fewer disposable cups used. Instead of getting an unhealthy burger, why not make your own lunch at home, or support local delis and cafes?
If people choose to use drive-thrus less, the next time you treat yourself to a hamburger from a fast-food joint, you can have it with extra pickles instead of extra exhaust fumes.
What the hybrid is all the fuss about anyway?
By Kevin Harrison
“Hey, are those things really worth it?"
I looked up at the extremely tall gentleman in a business suit as I pumped gas into the car. He could've easily won a Michael Jordan lookalike contest.
After taking a few seconds to confirm that indeed, it was not Michael Jordan, I took a few more seconds to contemplate what exactly he was talking about. I took a stab in the dark.
“Probably not if you're trying to watch your health," I said with a smirk on my face, referring to the Kit Kat bar in my hand.
He chuckled and pointed to the company hybrid I was filling with gas. Before I could answer his original question, he shot back with another.
“I mean, how do they work anyway?"
I don't think he was prepared for the technical automotive verbal diarrea that then spewed from my mouth as an answer.
Then it dawned on me. How many people know how hybrids work? And are they actually worth it?
(2010 Lexus HS250 Hybrid)
Well, a hybrid is a vehicle that has two motors: a gas engine that works like any other engine, plus, typically, an electric motor. Plug in hybrids are not available in our market just yet, so the electric motor gets its power from a large battery pack, usually located at the rear of the car for even weight distribution. This battery pack actually gets charged through driving the car.
The friction caused by braking results in heat which is a form of energy. This energy is then used to charge the battery. So each time you brake, you are essentially recharging the battery pack.‚ It isn't lost energy like in regular vehicles.
Fast starts result in substantial fuel consumption. To ease this, the electric motor usually moves the car when you start off at a green light. After you reach a certain speed, the gas engine takes over, or the vehicle will use both gas and electric power together. Some hybrids are able to run solely on the electric motor if the driving conditions are right, generally at lower speeds.
(2009 Ford Fusion Hybrid)
Hybrids are usually more efficient in the city due to the lower average speed of city driving and more frequent stops and starts. This allows the electric motor to kick in more often than it would, say, on the highway.
Idling is another gas waster, so when stopped at a red light, usually the gas engine shuts itself off completely. It then restarts itself once you take the foot off the brake. A lot of people tend to think that starting and stopping frequently is hard on your engine, but the reality is, idling is actually worse on the engine.
So, back to Michael Jordan's doppleganger's original question: Are they worth it?
It depends.
If you are doing primarily highway driving, then perhaps not. As mentioned, hybrids are more efficient in the city than on the highway.
If your main concern is saving money, that also depends. There will be a noticeable difference in how much you pay at the pumps, but initial costs of hybrids are higher than most gas engined cars. How often you drive, and if you intend on keeping the hybrid long term are both factors on whether it's worth making up the difference in gas savings.
However, the more popular hybrids become, the more likely initial cost will decrease.The new Honda Insight is now the cheapest hybrid on the market.
(2010 Honda Insight Hybrid)
Despite the added technologies, most hybrids enjoy excellent reliability scores as well.
If your main concern is saving the environment, then they are definitely worth it. Most hybrids emit minimal CO2 into our atmosphere. Emissions from cars not only affect our environment, but they also affect our health.
Hybrids are definitely all the rage lately. But they are not the only kind of fuel sipping, environment and money saving kind of technology out there. Once you find what best for you, the money you save can help go towards things that make life more enjoyable. Like Kit Kat bars. Uh, I mean fruits and vegetables.
(kharrison@clean.ns.ca)
Are hybrids actually worse for the environment?
(2010 Toyota Prius)
We have overcome many problems in our automotive history, usually by conjuring up sensible solutions.
Too many people dying in car accidents? Simple, invent seat belts and airbags.
Not enough room to haul all your stuff? Turning the trunk into a hatch or wagon should do the trick.
Sick of your kids asking 'are we there yet?' every 5 minutes? A DVD player should keep them occupied.
But there is one problem we have yet to overcome and the potential solutions are as controversial as Michael Moore.
I'm of course referring to gasoline. More to the point, how much we pay for this ever depleting resource, and how it affects our environment is the problem.
We're all scratching our heads trying to figure out what the most sensible solution is.
Likely the most popular idea, judging on where car manufacturers are now investing their money, is hybrid vehicles.
Hybrids really make a noticeable impact on how often you find yourself at the pumps. They are quite efficient.
Recent stats have indicated that hybrid sales have been up for the sixth consecutive month, despite the industry continuing its nose dive.
In fact, according a recent survey conducted by JPMorgan, in the next decade one in five vehicles sold in the United States will be a hybrid.
So, it seems hybrids are gaining in popularity faster than Susan Boyle.
But there are a fair amount of people who are not in favour of these gas-electric vehicles.
They say they are too quiet or they're not powerful enough or that it's too expensive to replace the battery.
But a new argument has arisen against hybrids, one that supposedly has gained momentum thanks to Art Spinella's 2007 “Dust to Dust' research paper.
Spinella is a researcher in Oregon with CNW Marketing and he has been studying the environmental impact of certain vehicles.
Spinella took 300 vehicles and ranked their energy use over their entire life cycle including raw material extraction along with transportation, recycling and disposal of parts.
"The Hummer over the lifetime of the vehicle ends up being less of a drain of energy on society in general than does the Prius" concluded Spinella in his report.
That's a bold statement. The Hummer H2 has long been the whipping boy of environmental groups due to its overall excess, while the Toyota Prius is widely considered to be greener than Kermit the Frog.
(Hummer H2)
Spinella drew his conclusions from the amount of nickel extracted for the battery pack of a Prius, as well as the extra production costs associated with producing a car with two motors.
He didn't stop there. He also stated that it would be harder and more harmful to dispose of the battery pack, again mostly due to the amount of nickel.
These are all interesting 'findings', but unfortunately Spinella may have been a bit too eager in his assessment as there are flaws in his arguments.
Firstly, Spinella assumes that the lifespan of a Hummer is 300,000 miles (or approximately 482,000 kms ) and that of a Prius is 100,000 miles (approximately 161,000 kms).
Well, Toyotas average twice that amount. The first generation Prius has been on sale in Japan since 1997. It's probable that a 12 year old car would've passed this milestone by now.
For example, Andrew Grant, a taxi driver with Yellow Cab in Vancouver, has been running his second generation Prius since 2000. He now has approximately 386,000 kms and reports having no major repairs to date.
Toyota estimates the lifespan of their battery packs to be eight years. However since no battery has needed post warranty replacement to date, it would appear that these batteries have a longer lifespan than anticipated.
Secondly, the transport costs associated with making a Prius such as getting the nickel to Europe for refinement, then to China, then to Japan where it is assembled, is not exclusive to the Prius.
All manufacturers use parts from different suppliers located across the globe for their vehicles. Hummer is no exception. Transport around the world is necessary to build mostly any vehicle.
Thirdly, Spinella says the mine in Sudbury Ontario, which extracts the nickel, produces so much sulphur dioxide that acid rain has been shown to have an effect on forests in the area.
However that mine has actually been decreasing its pollution steadily since 1970. In fact it has reduced its pollution by 90% since then.
(Nickel mine in Sudbury, Ontario)
But perhaps Spinella's biggest faux-pas is his assumption that disposing the battery in hybrids is somehow more harmful to the environment.
Nickel is eminently recyclable. It can be recycled to make alloy and stainless steel and the process is not overly complicated.
Whereas the lead-acid found in the battery of a regular vehicle is actually more harmful than nickel.
Toyota has responded to these findings by publishing a rebuttal in the Washington Post.
Regarding the additional energy it takes to build both a regular combustion motor and an electric motor, Toyota said it "is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage."
A number of environmentalists have challenged the study as well.
Whether hybrids are a long or short term to our solution to our problem remains to be seen. They are certainly not the only solution out there.
Legitimate arguments against hybrids do indeed exist, but it's important for people to back up their claims and do proper research.
Like 'Dust to Dust', if something doesn't sound sensical, chances are it isn't.
(kharrison@clean.ns.ca)
Sign up for our Newsletter for a chance to WIN a $50 gift certificate!
