If you’ve been watching the talking heads on TV, not only will hybrid autos and trucks help solve the problems of foreign oil but free of from the grips of global warming.  Politicians, business leaders and even environmentalists have joined together to sing the praises of Hybrid technology.  But it’s all a big lie!

Read for yourself on Toyota’s website:               http://www.toyota.com/about/news/product/2008/05/15-1-prius.html

I was watching the Olympics and heard/saw a Toyota ad saying they have sold and shipped over 1 million hybrids and reduced CO2 emissions by 4.5 Million tons.  According to my results at the Toyota “Build Your Own” site, the hybrid 2009 Camry is $26,569 while the base 4 cylinder gas model is: $19,640.  That is nearly a $7000 difference per car, for a 4.5 ton reduction of CO2 emmissions.  The simple point is that a hybrid cost of over $1,500 per ton of reduced CO2.  The market price of UN Certified Carbon offsets, in London (the most expensive offsets Dec 2013, required by law in EU) closed on August 15, 2008 at: $44, while US voluntary offset credits which sell for $3.80 a ton. 

If you do the math on the hybrid you are buying to fight global warming, you’ll see you are over paying.  In fact, you are paying 34 times more than the highest CO2 price in Europe and nearly 400 times the cost of the of CO2 in the US market for each ton not emitted by your hybrid.  Now i’m assuming that the car itself does emit much less CO2, but that Toyota also accounted for the CO2 that went into building the hybrids, which is an honest representation.  This doesn’t necessarily mean “Don’t buy a hybrid”, it means don’t buy a hybrid to fight global warming, it’s way too expensive

What would $7000 buy? A 1 kilowatt Solar cell system for your home, installed.  That’s about $5000 of cells and a $2000 for tying into grid.  if that system generated 1 kw just 4 hours a day (about 1500 kwh a year) you save 1.5 tons of CO2 (1 ton per megawatt of coal generated electricity) each year of about twice what the Prius saves over a 5 to 7 year lifetime of the car. Meanwhile solar panels have an expected lifetime of 20 to 30 years.

Buy solar power, a windmill or an electric car if you want to fight global warming and leave the hybrid for those who can’t do the math.

Andy Grove former chairman and CEO of Intel and one of the pioneers in the semiconducter industry spoke out today on the need for electric transportation and the widespread awareness of this coming up thru society.  Grove spoke recently with AP reporter Ken Thomas where he expressed his view of society needing to shift its focus to electric transport as a way of dealing with ever increasing oil prices.

Grove explained his goal. “The most important thing I would like to do is light that almost half-assumed truth up in neon lights: Electricity in transportation has to be done. It is urgent. It is important that everything else is secondary”.  Grove continued to explain, “The drumbeat of the electrical transportation is accelerating like nothing I’ve ever seen in my life”.  That is a pretty powerful statement by the man who helped intel control the CPU market much like microsoft has done with software.  Grove is banging the drum on the development of these new electric transport technologies as a way of rescuing our economy from the affects of oil price increases.

Grove pushes for government support/incentives to support the electric car movement, with a particular eye on retrofiting existing gasoline cars.  He continued to expand on his point when he compared the emergence of the PC with the current electrical transport industry.  “The personal computer … went to individuals first before it went to corporations. The conversion goes to individuals,” Grove said. “Electric cars … the corporations are sitting, wishing this whole friggin’ thing to go away. Which is exactly what the computer companies’ attitude was to personal computers.”

I’ll start this article with the disclosure that i own shares in Amerityre (AMTY) the company i feature in this article.  This company was suggested to me as a longshot, green investment by a friend out west who is into trading stocks (i’m into investing for a period of a year or two).

So, Amerityre manufacturers foam polyurathene tires, the sort that might be found on electric mobility devices and powered wheelchairs.  They make solid tires used in agriculture, they make “tire fill” to go into solid and “run flat” tires.  Most recently they’ve been working on pneumatic (air filled) tires to replace the traditional rubber tires used on cars and trucks.  So, why is this company suddenly on my Solar/Green blog?  Because this company fights global warming.

 Let’s start with the product that is still under development, the automotive, pneumatic tires.  The first test indicate that the Polyurathene tires were getting less traction than rubber tires, but also had a lower rolling resistance than rubber, enough to increase gas mileage by 5 to 10%.  So, if you just look at the final product, a tire on a car, this new concept can help reduce the use of gasoline and it’s CO2 output and is a greener product than rubber.  Yet the greatest value of the product is gained, not when it’s mounted a car, but during manufacturing.  To vulcanize rubber and create tires, you must use heat and pressure on the rubber to harden it.  In contrast the heat and pressure, which is a huge cost in terms of energy and CO2 is absent from the Amerityre process.

A second product, being shipped today, is a tire fill.  That is a material used to fill rubber tires that are used for construction or “run flat” and have a rubber outside and some solid form of fill. The “Amerifill” is a lightweight alternative to traditional fill, once again, helping remove weight from vehicles helping save fuel in the shipping and use of these tires.

 Is this a great investment? Will be soon driving on Polyurathene tires? I don’t really know, but it shows another business that is going to make money in the green revolution by causing the evolution of tires into to a product with a lower carbon and energy footprint.

Whenever oil prices are cheap, there is no discussion of oil being a limited resource or a cause of pollution or as a source of greenhouse gases.  As prices begin to climb, the voices of conservation, environment and technology, are once again heard.  This latest increase in the price of oil (the last several years) have, excuse the pun, fired the discussion right up.  Terms like $100 oil and Peak Oil, combined with projections of increasing scarcity do to politics around the world, has had the effect of increasing intrest and more importantly implementation, of alternate sources of energy.  In a world so committed to fossil fuels, price is likely to be the most important factor in leading to a switch to renewable energy. This is no suprise to dyed in the wool capitalists, but still hasn’t sunk in with the general public.

The solution to human generated Carbon Dioxide is in the marketplace, as it has always been.  When the price of oil, gas and coal are expensive enough, that alternate energy production becomes feasible, not just possible.  In so much of the industrialized world, there is a shortage of generation and distribution for extreme peak periods, threatening blackouts, somewhere, each summer.  In the industrializing world, read that India and China, there is a serious shortage of power.  Companies that need to work in the world markets, must provide backup power and communications, to prevent regular brown outs and black outs to overcome these obstacles. 

As the world economy and population grows, the need for oil rapidily increases. As demand increases, price increases unless there is additional supplies available to meet the demand.  So $70 a barrel oil is this expensive because of simple “Supply and Demand” models.  Well, not entirely, there are also bad news events that put future, expanded oil capacity online.  Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela’s revolution and a 35% drop in oil output, Iran’s production dropping.  When combined with violence in the middle east, nigeria and indonesia production capacity is dropping and the major international oil companies to have been force leave/sell assets to government monopolies in what was once a number of promising new sources.

Finally the last concept, the one that is most controverisal of all factors affecting the oil market specifically and the energy market generally, is the “Peak Oil” theory.  Simply stated, “Peak Oil” states, that 1) Oil is limited resource, it will run out someday.  2) The oil output is now peaking as all the oil that can possibly be pumped out of the ground is now being pumped out at maximum capacity.  I don’t necessarily believe that we have reached that point, but when we do, it should result in a steady, unstopple increase in prices, until demand drops below the production capacity at that time.

So, it summary, there are political worries,  increased demand and a decrease in new major oil fields that are combining to push up oil prices.  As these prices rise solar and wind solutions become increasing affordable.  So while petroleum prices are rising the cost of solar and wind generating deployments are decreasing, the world moves to alternate energy as a response to the marketplace.  Had someone told me back in 1980 capitalism would be the best way to spread the move to alternative power, the “socialist” me would have rolled my eyes in amazement.   And yet…..

In what has to be very painful to Detroit and Ontario, the new Canadian Budget, proposes to provide rebates of upto $2000 for the purchase of hybrid vehicles and to levy fees from $1000-$4000 on vehicles that don’t meet fuel standards.  There will be no levy on pick up trucks. 

While moves such as these should help reduce the production of greenhouse gas, the pale compared to zero emission solar and wind.  It was disappointed that a Conservative government that wants to look green would do more to promote wind power and even solar. Given the country’s huge oil reserves, using and creating clean, renewable energy and equipment, could eliminate most of Canada’s oil use.