Congrats to Edison2 the Progressive Automotive x prize Winner!

Sorry

I am so sorry about the bad language (though hidden, still plainly viewed), of the previous post.
If there was anything I could do about it, I would. I guess I could delete the video. Once I figure out how to edit such things out, I will do it!

Anji

An energy independent future...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
An Energy-Independent Future
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

How Do We Use Energy in the United States?

Click on the following link to see a brochure visually depicting US energy use.

This is a brochure showing how the US uses energy.

Solar church buildings. I want one!

Who wouldn't be excited about seeing a building with solar panels on it? And then learning it is your church building? I wish I could be so lucky!

Click here to see the whole article.

SALT LAKE CITY 27 April 2010 The Presiding Bishopric of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints introduced the latest environmentally friendly construction efforts by the Church at its first solar powered meetinghouse in the Northern Hemisphere. The new building in Farmington, Utah symbolizes the continued innovative use of technology by the Church in its construction design. The roof-mounted solar panels are projected to generate enough electricity to completely power the structure, saving an estimated $6000 in energy costs annually.

“It’s about creating a place of worship that works in harmony with the environment,” said H. David Burton, Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and responsible for the physical facilities of the Church. “For decades we have looked for innovative ways to use natural resources in our meetinghouses that reflect our commitment as wise stewards of God’s creations.”

The solar panels are only part of the green building design. Some other construction alterations include tankless water heaters, lowered energy use during "peak" hours, and xeriscaping (less grass, more native plants that require less water).

Read it, it is exciting!

Iceland's Volcanic Eruption
Earthquake in Chile

Considering my love or solar power, the picture of the volcanic eruption struck a cord for me - a bad one. No sun due to overcast situation means no way to generate solar power!!!

It also got me thinking:

Recent MAJOR earthquakes around the world + volcanic eruptions = related movements of the earth.

Which brings up more questions: If these earth quakes are in any way related to the volcanic eruption in Iceland, how is the Earth going to move next? By the way, the Earth is not supposed to move. I like it to stay still underneath my feet. I guess I can't take that for granted anymore!

Just some food for thought.

Generate my own power

I really wish I knew how to build my own generator to use my elliptical, or the toys my kids play on, to generate electricity for my house. That would be a dream come true. I could buy a solar panel, or a wind generator, but what about these other things that I already use in my household?

On a positive note, I bought a solar oven a few months ago. I LOVE using it. I don't have to use any electricity whatsoever to cook my food (whenever the sky is clear)! Having an alternatively fueled... something...in my ownership has been one of my ambitions since 7th grade shop class with Mr. Hilliard. That is where I first learned about alternative energy, and absolutely fell in love. But up until this year, I hadn't fulfilled the dream!

I still won't be perfectly happy until I own my own solar/electric vehicle. My ideal solar/electric vehicle would be a Hummer. Someday maybe..., or maybe not.

For now, I have to be satisfied to use my awesome oven!

Nissan Leaf

I think the Nissan Leaf is the best thing to come to the market ever. It is about time an electric vehicle was almost available, rather than who knows how many years in the future. The Nissan Leaf is supposed to be available by December of this year!!!

Click here here for the Nissan Leaf website. I am so happy about this car!

Solar plane soars, slowly, on first flight
Swiss team's goal is to promote renewable energy over oil
The Associated Press
updated 12:58 p.m. ET, Wed., April 7, 2010

PAYERNE, Switzerland - A solar plane with wings as wide as a 747 and the power of a small motorboat took to the skies for the first time Wednesday, cruising a mile high at bicycle-like speeds for nearly 1½ hours in a step toward becoming the first sun-powered aircraft to circle the world.

In its maiden test flight, "Solar Impulse" — designed by Swiss adventurer Bertrand Piccard's team — completed a series of turns, slip maneuvers and bank angles reaching 5 degrees. Most importantly, it proved able to take off and land.

The team plans to fly it around the world in 2012, the goal being to show that renewable energy can replace fossil fuel.

"There has never been an airplane of that kind that could fly — never an airplane so big, so light, using so little energy," said Piccard, who in 1999 copiloted the first nonstop round-the-globe balloon flight. "So there were huge question marks for us."

At a military airport in the Swiss countryside, the plane lifted off at a speed no faster than 28 mph after only a short acceleration on the runway. It slowly gained altitude above the green and beige fields, and disappeared eventually into the horizon as villagers watched from the nearest hills.

The descent was even slower, as the sun-powered craft hovered ahead of the runway for a couple of minutes before touching down to cheers from spectators.

The weather for the maiden flight was sunny, and there was little wind.

Earlier hops
"Flea-hop" tests have been made since December, taking the plane no higher than 2 feet in altitude and 1,000 feet in distance. A night flight is planned before July, and then a new plane will be built based on the results of those tests.

"The goal is to fly day and night with no fuel, the goal is to demonstrate the importance of renewable energies, to show that with renewable energies we can achieve impossible things," said Piccard, who monitored but didn't pilot Wednesday's test run.

Test pilot Markus Scherdel said the plane isn't designed for maneuvers, but showed it was able to take off and land safely with handling like a passenger jet.

"Everything worked as it should," he said.

Using almost 12,000 solar cells, rechargeable lithium batteries and four electric motors, Piccard and co-pilot Andre Borschberg plan to take the plane around the world with stops to allow them to switch over and stretch after long periods in the cramped cockpit.

The entire aircraft weighs about 3,500 pounds, about the same as a midsized car.

The batteries allow the plane to fly day or night, but the circumnavigation will take time.

With the motors providing only 10 horsepower each, the plane will fly almost like a moped in the sky, at an average flight speed of 44 mph. The trip will be split up into five stages — keeping the plane in the air for up to five days at a time — with the stopovers also allowing the team to show off their creation.

Solar flight isn't new but Piccard's project is the most ambitious.

In 1980, the fragile Gossamer Penguin ultra-lightweight experimental solar plane flew short demonstration flights with one pilot on board. A more robust project called the Solar Challenger flew one pilot from France to England in a five-hour-plus trip in 1981.

Solar plane technology recalls the early days of manned flight, and the slow ascent of the Solar Impulse was somewhat reminiscent of the Wright brothers pioneering experiments over a century ago.

"The first crucial question was: Do we have enough power to fly?" said Borschberg. "The second crucial thing was: are we capable of landing this airplane, is it controllable?"

"It was two hours of deep emotion," he added, calling it the high point of seven years of work on the project. "The airplane has landed but we have not yet landed."

5,500 feet reached
Borschberg followed the flight in a helicopter; below waited numerous people involved with the project and Piccard, who comes from a long line of adventurers. His late father Jacques plunged deeper beneath the ocean than any other man, and grandfather Auguste was the first man to take a balloon into the stratosphere.

Solar Impulse said the flight reached an altitude of 5,500 feet. After landing, Scherdel emerged from the cockpit with his arms raised and the team broke open bottles of champagne.

"It went so silent, so soft," Piccard said.

He acknowledged the role of good weather, however.

Because the solar panels are needed for day flying and for charging the 880-pound lithium batteries that power the plane by night, it relies on sunshine, and Piccard said his team will have to scrupulously monitor conditions and divert routes to avoid storms.

Personnel on the ground will also have to be able to keep up with the plane as it follows the best weather to provide service at each stop, he said.

"Round-the-world will seem impossible until we do it." Piccard said. "Today is an absolutely incredible milestone."

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A little too brief

I think I was a little too brief in my last post on my anti-nuclear stance.
Yes, I am completely against nuclear energy, but not just because the waste is deadly for millions of years.
Just like the rest of our main energy sources, a lot of super-wealthy people get paid a lot of money to produce nuclear energy.
I would like to know how many lobbyists there are fighting for nuclear energy vs. how many lobbyists there are fighting for clean energy. I wish ther were people throwing millions of dollars at lawmakers to build clean energy plants. Nuclear plants cost a bundle, so much that new ones aren't being built very quickly, but clean energy plants have to cost less than a nuclear plant!

Nuclear energy is just so dangerous and deadly. I don't understand why anyone could be for something so deadly, even if it produces a lot of energy.

Not only is nuclear generation and waste deadly to us, it is also deadly to our land. This is our only planet to live on - for the foreseeable future at least. There is no where else to go. So why would we choose to ruin it?

I could ask similar questions about energy from oil, but at least the effects don't last for, well, forever.



http://www.aei.org/article/101759

Totally Anti Nuclear

I am completely anti nuclear power, just in case anyone was wondering. I just wanted to make that clear.

I think producing nuclear power is up there with people shooting at each other in boats or airplanes - suicidal. At least when people shoot at each other on the ground, they aren't going to fall out of the sky afterwards, or sink into the water.

I have been thinking about this because of the recent earthquake in Haiti, and all the costly damage it caused.
Earthquakes break things - it's just their nature- buildings, anything stationary that doesn't like to shake a lot, like nuclear waste containers for example.
Chances are good that the earth will experience a few serious earthquakes where nuclear waste is being stored - at least sometime in the next few million years. Too bad for anyone living around those sites whenever that happens, and then for the next millenia.

This is just one reason why I think producing nuclear energy is short sighted.
I just had to get that off my chest!

A Place Where Violence Against Women Has Doubled: On TV

Well, this is no surprise.

With Incidents Doubling In Five Years, It's Fair To Question Effect On Culture

November 29, 2009

By JEFFREY M. MCCALL

You might think any community would be outraged to discover that violence against its women had more than doubled during a five-year period. Our nation has seen such an increase in the on-air television community, but no outrage has yet materialized.

The results of a study by the Parents Television Council, which focused on the story lines of prime-time television and portrayals of victimization and violence against women, show a 120 percent increase in such portrayals in the past five years.

Stories about damsels in distress go way back in dramatic history, of course, but the council's study should give us pause for concern. Beyond the general jump in portrayals of violence against females is an even larger increase in violent story lines involving teenage girls. The big four networks all registered increases in violence against women. Much of the overall increase involved violence against women by intimate partners.

Moreover, the violent incidents portrayed against women on television are increasingly graphic.

ABC had the lowest increase and lowest total incidence of portrayals of violence against women. CBS had the most total violent acts, while NBC demonstrated the greatest percentage increase.

For years, media critics have described television as a cultural legitimizer. At some point, what is seen on television becomes normative. Studies consistently show that media consumers who view televised violence become desensitized to it. This trend is particularly evident for younger viewers.

While television is just one factor among many in the high incidence of violence in our society, it nonetheless is a factor that should be noted. Further, it is a factor that could be carefully monitored and managed by producers in the television industry.

Instead of viewing the council's data as a disturbing cultural trend, however, the media industry dismissed the study and blamed the messenger. TV Watch, a lobbying organization funded by big media corporations, accepted zero responsibility for mediated story lines involving violence toward women. Instead, TV Watch issued an official statement criticizing the council for "trying a new angle in its efforts to expand government control over what Americans choose to watch on television."

Translated, this means that a citizens organization should shut up about media content and leave big media corporations as the sole deciders of what is culturally acceptable. For an organization that supposedly promotes the First Amendment, TV Watch has little tolerance for opposing messages.

TV Watch went on to claim that some of the shows being criticized for graphic portrayals of violence against women are actually shows that "provide cautionary lessons." TV Watch would have us think that violent dramas involving women are similar to educational documentaries for a sociology class.

Apologists for big media helped explain away the networks' lack of concern.

Lisa de Moraes, a television writer for The Washington Post, pointed out that most violent acts on television are still directed toward males and mockingly asked, "Isn't half of the population of this country female?"

Essentially, this is saying that until women are beaten up or stabbed equally often as men, there is no need to worry about the increase. The Post writer went on to criticize the study because it focused only on major network programs and didn't research levels of similar violence on cable channels. Even though major network viewership is down in recent years, the big four networks are still quite relevant in establishing cultural standards. Besides, mediated violence in cable programming could well be even worse than that displayed on the networks.

Big corporate media outlets do not want to be second-guessed about cultural implications when they program whatever they think can make the most money with, with the cheapest programming. While posturing about free expression and "cautionary lessons," network executives think only about one thing: getting eyeballs in front of a television set and selling those eyeballs to advertisers.

How nice it would be if TV Watch expressed even the slightest concern for the cultural implications of television in our society. If TV Watch thinks mediated violence is of no consequence to our culture, then let's see its research studies or hear its arguments. To angrily dismiss the legitimate research and concerns of a citizens organization tells a lot about what the networks think of us, the viewing public.

•Jeffrey M. McCall is a professor of communication at DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., and author of "Viewer Discretion Advised: Taking Control of Mass Media Influences." Contact him at jeffmccall@depauw.edu.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

The Potential of Biofuels

I just decided that I really like this guy, and want to read more by him.
This is a great speech! I learned a lot of new things about algae biofuels, which I had heard of in the past, but only sketchy descriptions. I hope you enjoy!


Comments for the 2009 Energy Security Roundtable

By Kenneth P. Green | Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
(December 03, 2009)

Kenneth P. Green discusses the potential of biofuels to increase America's security and to protect our economy from oil price shocks. Ethanol is a losing proposition, but fuels from algae may be the path to cutting our dependence on imported oil.

Resident Scholar Kenneth P. Green

Good afternoon, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

I always like to start with a bit of background. I'm a biologist and environmental scientist by training, a policy analyst by occupation, and an economist by avocation, as well as contamination from working in economic policy institutions for 15 years.

I've long had an interest in renewable fuels. In fact, I wanted to distill my own in 1975, using surplus oranges and a solar still, but the BATF wouldn't license a 14 year old to distill his own hooch.

I think that any discussion of using government policy to dictate fuel composition has to start by acknowledging that such interventions have largely been disastrous.

To meet the Bush administration's target of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels production in the United States by 2017 with cellulosic ethanol would require as much water as flows in the Colorado River every year.

In order to fulfill air pollution reduction plans in states and localities across the country, gasoline sold in the United States has been fractionated into about seventeen different boutique fuels sold in dozens of discrete markets. With three grades of gasoline per fuel, refiners are producing over fifty separate blends. This market fractionation has raised the cost of fuels, made them more volatile, and has made our transportation fuel infrastructure more brittle: a breakdown in a refinery in one area can not be easily repaired by getting fuel from another area, as the local blending requirements can be different.

But that's trivial when compared to the absolute fiasco of corn ethanol, which has caused increases in air pollution, water pollution, freshwater consumption, coastal pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and food prices.

In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.

Making ethanol from cellulosic plants such as switch grass won't help. In fact, researcher Timothy Searchinger and colleagues calculated that ethanol from switch grass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to using regular gasoline.

Then there's local air pollution. The EPA says using more ethanol fuel would increase ozone-producing chemicals. Mark Jacobson, a researcher at Stanford University, recently estimated that widespread switching to a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline might increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization and asthma by about 9 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in the United States as a whole.

Now, let's talk about water consumption. Messrs. Kreider and Curtiss estimate that growing and refining corn for a gallon of corn ethanol today requires about 140 gallons of water. That would mean the 5.4 million gallons of corn ethanol used in America in 2006 required the use of 756 million gallons of fresh water.

Things do not look much better for ethanol made from cellulose crops, which require between 146 and 149 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol fuel, depending on the scale of production. To meet the Bush administration's target of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels production in the United States by 2017 with cellulosic ethanol would require as much water as flows in the Colorado River every year.

There's a water pollution issue, as well. The National Academy of Sciences points out that expanding corn-based ethanol production without new environmental protection policies would pose a "considerable" threat to water quality. Corn requires more fertilizers and pesticides than other food or biofuel crops. Pesticide contamination is already highest in the Corn Belt, and nitrogen fertilizer runoff from corn already produces the most serious agricultural impact on the Mississippi River.

Fertilizer runoff does not just pollute local waters. Each summer, the nitrogen fertilizers in the Mississippi hit the Gulf of Mexico, creating a large dead zone--a region of oxygen-deprived waters unable to support sea life that extends for more than 10,000 square kilometers. The same phenomenon occurs in Chesapeake Bay.

A recent study by researchers at the University of British Columbia shows that if the United States were to meet its proposed ethanol production goals of 15 billion to 36 billion gallons of corn and cellulosic ethanol by 2022, nitrogen flows to the Gulf of Mexico would increase by 10 percent to 34 percent.

Finally, there's land consumption and food prices to consider. In a February Science article, researchers calculated that projected corn ethanol production in 2016 would require 43 percent of the land harvested for corn in 2004 that otherwise was used to feed livestock. This represents an enormous change in land use--to either replace the grain lost to food production by vastly expanding corn fields--or a significant increase in food prices of the sort we've already seen due to scarcity of grain raised for human and livestock consumption.

There is little question that high gasoline and oil prices damage the national economy and the personal economies of individual Americans. But putting our hope in ethanol (whether from corn, switch grass or other cellulosic crops) or other crop-based fuels is not a rational policy response, however attractive it might be to the corn lobby.

There is one technology that I'm somewhat optimistic about, but it's not about electricity, it is liquid fuel made from algae. I'm optimistic about algae fuels because they have some really good attributes other renewables can't match, the challenges are mostly engineering at this point, or relatively simple science, and importantly, there's a lot of private money flowing in, from companies with a good track record for commercializing technology.

So why am I bullish on algae fuels?

First, algae fuels are less diffuse: the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that algae can produce up to 10,000 times more oil per acre than other biofuel crops, such as soybeans. That means, we can produce a significant amount of liquid fuel in a relatively small area. The Carbon Trust estimates that algae biofuels could displace 12% of annual global fuel consumption by 2030, if aggressively developed.

Second, they're less remote: you grow algae in long, oval race-track-like ponds or in enclosed growth systems, which can be sited just about anywhere there is a combination of flat land (non-arable land is fine) warmth, sunlight and surplus carbon dioxide.

Finally, algae fuels are estimated to be less pricey, estimated prices for algae fuels compare to oil at around $70 to $100 per barrel.

Additional benefits are numerous. Unlike ethanol (either corn or cellulosic), algae don't need to consume fresh water. They can grow on salty water, or even waste water, which they clean up as they grow.

The stuff left over after you squeeze all the oil out of algae is a mixture of protein and sugars that can be used in many different ways including animal feed, bio-plastics, and pharmaceuticals, or you can just chuck it into a furnace and generate electricity from steam.

Since algae-fuels are more akin to gasoline than to alcohols, there's no need to change the existing infrastructure that transports liquid fuels to our many millions of vehicles, nor is there a need to change the vehicles themselves. A jet has already flown using algae-based jet fuel.

Finally, there's the greenhouse gas connection. Algae fed on the carbon dioxide in regular air are carbon-neutral. They pull carbon dioxide out of the air when they grow, and it's released back into the air when they're used as a fuel. Even better, if they're fed on carbon dioxide from coal power plants, or other combustion sources, and they displace the use of a given volume of oil-based fuel, they're carbon negative, that is, they reduce the flow of greenhouse gases that would otherwise have been emitted.

Of course, there are plenty of challenges to be overcome before algae biofuels reach the pump. The best strains have to be identified for different growing conditions, and optimized for growth rate and fat content. Genetic engineering is out, as the algae-fuel industry feels it would just complicate the process of getting public and regulatory approvals. Algae grown in open ponds are susceptible to the weather, predation, and disease. If freshwater is used, evaporation becomes a significant problem, increasing freshwater use significantly. Algae grown in bio-reactors are more stable, but that technology is still considerably more expensive than open-pond systems. Harvesting and drying the algae prior to processing are energy intensive, unless you're in the desert where the problem is too much evaporation. Co-locating algae farms with greenhouse emitters may be challenging, and the oil extraction and chemical conversion processes have to be made more efficient.

The US military has already shown strong interest in algae fuels, and could contribute significantly to its development. Right now, the US military uses 130 million barrels of oil each year, which is about how much the entire country of Sweden uses. You can imagine how much energy the military could save if they could set up their own algae biofuel systems on US bases, foreign bases, and even in the field.

Now that's energy security!

Kenneth P. Green is a resident scholar at AEI.

America is no Longer Sovereign.

America is no longer a sovereign country. Our government sold it for money.

I understand our debt as a country is such that each man, woman, and child, in the country would be required to pay around forty thousand dollars each to pay it off.

That is a large sum. But is it actually feasible? Probably.

I have faith in our country. I think we have enough people who love, and feel a strong patriotism toward it, that we would support an administration that stopped run-away debt accrual and paid off what we owe, or at least most of it.

Not only would we proudly support such an administration, we would respect and honor it.

Forty thousand dollars in debt per person could multiply so quickly - just by a small jump in interest charged by our foreign creditors. Forty thousand to two hundred thousand would be a whole lot harder to pay off. What about a million per person? That is not an impossible number with raising interest rates.

I do not vilify our debtors - they were only investing in the greatest country ever. But now, when our ability to actually pay up is coming into doubt, what will they require us to do?

We have already done it - we are no longer sovereign.

Corn rows in New York

On our recent trip through New York, I was pleasantly surprised to see a whole bunch of corn growing everywhere. I was a little surprised because I don't remember seeing so many corn farms in the past, but I also haven't driven through New York much. This was our third time, and the first time during the Summer.

I thought, "Wow, New York must have a really great climate for growing corn."

My thoughts were all rosy as I continued to see corn patch after corn patch, that is, until I made a comment out loud about them, and Ken pointed out that they were probably being subsidized and would eventually be made into ethanol.

My thoughts turned acidic. Ethanol. One of the most foolish and least compassionate of all alternative fuels. It is bad enough that farmers are paid not to grow corn and wheat.

NOW, to add insult to injury, the government is not only encouraging farmers to grow corn with another subsidy, but it then gives tax incentives to farmers to turn it into a fuel to burn. Burning food has never been wise. Burning food that isn't even an efficient fuel, and produces more carbon monoxide than gasoline, is the insult.

Other countries (like Brazil) use sugarcane as their source for ethanol. I don't think that is as insulting as corn, because you can't really eat sugar - well it does not sustain life at least.

So why is there such a big push for corn ethanol in the United States? Could it be huge agriculture lobbyists? What else would promote such a silly fuel? Beats me.

And the final argument against corn ethanol. Food prices. Food prices rose at an unprecedented rate last year, thanks to the high demand of burning food as fuel. Poorer countries quickly found it difficult to pay the higher prices, and more people went hungry than would have if the government kept its nose out of foolish fuel production. The key word being foolish.

I am all for wise fuel production, as I have stated and restated several times before. But once again I have to resort to the same conclusion I have come to before; Until we find a way for the government to make a lot of money from the Sun, free energy - solar energy - will never be the erergy source being subsidized by the government.

Constitutional right to life

The United States Constitution states in the fifth ammendment that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law."

The fourteenth amendment restates once again: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

No one is going to argue that we all deserve the right to life. Until, that is, you start talking about the unborn.

I have no idea how so many people skipped that concept in their minds when they decided that a woman's right to privacy somehow trumped the baby's right to life. Where is compassion? Where is the respect of law?

I am not an idiot, I know there are certain circumstances that justify an abortion.

That said, I still don't understand how it is constitutionally legal to take a child's life even before they have a chance to make a case for themselves.

In my view, this is the ultimate form of oppression - whole generations have been denied the simplest, most basic right - to LIFE. Their cries can't ever be heard, so they are ignored, relegated to nonexistence because of their silence.

PIAXP April 2009 Registered Teams B-Roll Footage

I have been following the competition to build mass production ready vehicles that meet or exceed 100mpg. Last month the competitors were announced and here is a great youtube video about the competition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IpG5hbY4WI

Electric Ford Focus

Ford announced today that it will be transforming an existing plant in Michigan into an Electric Ford Focus plant. Here is the article I saw from the New York Times.

May 6, 2009, 3:41 pm

Ford Truck Plant to Build Electric Cars

By Nick Chambers

Amidst one of the auto industry’s largest wholesale shifts in modern history, the Ford Motor Company is investing $550 million to turn a factory that was dedicated to making large and fuel-hungry sport utility vehicles into a modern and scalable small-car plant that will eventually produce an all-electric version of the Focus.

The Michigan Assembly Plant, known as one of the world’s most profitable manufacturing sites during the S.U.V. boom of the 1990s, was once the hub for the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator. The plant is expected to begin building the new Ford Focus next year, followed by production of the all-electric Focus in 2011.

The electric Focus will be Ford’s first all-electric passenger car for the mass market. In addition to the electric Focus, the company plans to sell an electric version of its Transit Connect commercial vehicle in 2010.

Ford has previously promised that they will deliver four new electric vehicles to the American market by 2012.

“The transformation of the Michigan Assembly Plant embodies the larger transformation under way at Ford,” said Ford’s president and chief executive, Alan Mulally, in a statement. “This is about investing in modern, efficient and flexible American manufacturing. It is about fuel economy and the electrification of vehicles.”

The electric Focus is part of a larger strategy announced by Ford in January to develop electric vehicles for North America quickly using its global reach and capability to keep the cars affordable.

In addition to the Michigan Assembly Plant, Ford is retooling two other factories to build new cars in the face of global market changes. The company’s Cuautitlán Assembly plant in Mexico is slated to begin building the new Fiesta subcompact early next year, and its Louisville Assembly plant in Kentucky is also expected to begin producing small vehicles based on the Focus platform beginning in 2011.

“We’re changing from a company focused mainly on trucks and SUVs to a company with a balanced product lineup that includes even more high-quality, fuel-efficient small cars, hybrids and all-electric vehicles,” said Mark Fields, Ford’s president of the Americas. “As customers move to more fuel-efficient vehicles, we’ll be there with more of the products they really want.”



Is this really happening? Are my dreams since I was 12 finally coming true? There are still two or three years before Ford is promising these cars to customers, and that seems to have been the case for the last decade. Two years are better than ten.