2008 Ford Escape Hybrid Credit: Ford Motor Company

Ford Motor Company has just released its plan for surviving in the current lousy economy--the report is part of an effort this week by the Big Three automakers to get massive loans from the government. They were rebuffed last month when they came to Washington begging for money and apparently not looking apologetic enough as they climbed into their private jets. This time at least two of the executives reportedly drove to Washington.

At the heart of the plan is the use of "advanced" technology to make cars with better fuel economy, including several hybrids and an electric van. From the report: "Half of our Ford, Lincoln and Mercury light duty nameplates qualify by 2010 as 'Advanced Technology Vehicles' under the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA]."

So, is this a big deal?

Here's what an advanced technology vehicle is, according to EISA:

(1) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE- The term `advanced technology vehicle' means a light duty vehicle that meets--

(A) the Bin 5 Tier II emission standard established in regulations issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(i)), or a lower-numbered Bin emission standard;

(B) any new emission standard in effect for fine particulate matter prescribed by the Administrator under that Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); and

(C) at least 125 percent of the average base year combined fuel economy for vehicles with substantially similar attributes.

The first two have to do with non-carbon dioxide emissions, things such as particulates and other emissions that lead to smog. Bin 5 Tier II is the middle-of-the-road level of emissions under relatively new, strict emissions standards. Car companies haven't had trouble meeting these requirements, according to an EPA report. Being able to meet these standards in the future isn't that impressive.

Having fuel economy 25 percent higher than other similar vehicles is more impressive. How is Ford doing this? Next year the company will sell many of its cars with "Ecoboost" engines. These use direct-injection and turbo-charging to extract more power from engines, allowing the company to use smaller, more efficient engines. (For a related technology being considered by Ford, see "The Incredible Shrinking Engine.") The technology can improve fuel economy by 20 percent. The company is also doing smaller things, like using electric power steering pumps and 6-speed transmissions, which can improve efficiency by a few percentage points. It's also adding two more hybrids to the two it already has (the Escape and Mariner).

None of this is earth-shattering stuff--it's basically adapting existing technologies in smart ways. But it's good to see Ford is actually doing it. More cutting edge is the company's plan to sell plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, starting with an electric van in 2010 and an electric sedan in 2011. More details will follow as Ford releases them, probably just before the North American International Auto Show in Detroit next month.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Honda, Nissan, and Renault are making the same arguments against hybrid vehicles that General Motors made several years ago to predict that hybrids would fail. (See "Hybrid or Electric: Car Makers Take Sides" and "Honda Won't Pursue Plug-in Hybrids.") The difference now is that the arguments are right this time--at least for some markets.

In the 1990s, U.S. automakers such as GM led the development of hybrid-vehicle technology. But GM elected to drop hybrids in favor of a much longer-term technology--hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles--arguing that hybrids were too expensive and didn't provide enough environmental benefit to be successful. Then Toyota's Prius proved GM wrong. And recently, GM has become a big promoter of hybrid technology, especially next-generation plug-in hybrids.

Not so Honda, Nissan, and Renault. According to the Journal report, Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of Renault and Nissan, complains that hybrids don't really do much to reduce petroleum consumption and pollution, arguing that it's better to build all-electric vehicles that have zero emissions. U.S. automakers such as GM made the same arguments, although they pushed for fuel-cell vehicles, not battery-powered vehicles. (GM, of course, already had a battery-electric vehicle, the EV1, which it scrapped.)

Honda currently sells hybrid vehicles, but the company's president and CEO, Takeo Fukui, is skeptical of next-generation plug-in hybrids. Such cars would still have both electric motors and a gasoline engine, but they could go much farther on electricity alone than today's hybrids can. GM has been touting its Volt concept, which would go 40 miles on electricity stored in lithium-ion batteries. For longer trips, a gas generator would kick on to recharge the battery, providing an additional 600 miles of range. Fukui's argument is that the gas engine in the Volt is unnecessary. Presumably, he is suggesting that it would be better, and cheaper, to use batteries alone, or to stick with gasoline.

His argument doesn't make sense in the United States, where there's probably not much of a market for a car that can only go 40 miles on a charge. But a couple of trends suggest that there may indeed be a growing market for relatively short-range electric cars. London has a congestion tax on vehicles driving in the city--and other cities are considering imposing similar fees--from which zero-emission vehicles are exempt. It's not unlikely that such regulations could evolve to keep non-zero-emission vehicles out of city centers entirely, Ghosn suggests. Meanwhile, the taxes make it more expensive to drive gas-powered cars. Climate-change legislation could also make it more expensive to drive conventional vehicles. As these costs rise, the people who will feel the pressure most are those who are likely unable to afford a car with both an engine and an electric motor. For them, a 40-mile, zero-emission, all-electric commuter could be appealing, especially considering the fact that (in the United States) most people drive less than 40 miles a day.

Today a small group of top scientists and engineers is gathering in an auditorium on the grounds of the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD, to brainstorm new ways to solve what's becoming a major challenge for soldiers: hauling around the hundreds of batteries needed to power an ever-expanding arsenal of electronic gadgetry. Yesterday the group convened to hear an outline of the problem and learn about a lineup of technologies that could help.

U.S. Army researchers estimate that soldiers today can sometimes carry 30 pounds of batteries with them for a three-day mission. That number could increase to more than 50 pounds as soldiers are equipped with gear for networking with other soldiers on the field and back at headquarters, as well as with a growing array of sensors and robots. Weapons systems, laser range finders, night-vision gear, and other devices add to a soldier's burden.

While the participants talked about long-term solutions, such as weaving uniforms from threads that act like batteries or photovoltaics (see my story appearing online next week), nearer-term solutions, which could be in the hands of soldiers in a few years, focused on a strategy that seems to be working with car companies: hybridization. Whereas hybrid vehicles run on gasoline and batteries, soldiers will power their devices using a combination of an energy-dense fuel, such as methanol, and batteries. The methanol is great for storing a lot of energy in a small, relatively light package. But methanol-powered fuel cells have trouble quickly delivering that energy, so they aren't useful for devices that draw a lot of power, or for when a lot of devices need to be used at once. Batteries can keep up with the power demand, but they store much less energy overall. Combining the two sources of energy makes it possible to take advantage of the strengths of both.

On a typical mission, fuel cells could be used to power devices during times of low power demand, such as on the way to a fight. They could also be used to keep batteries charged, cutting down on the number needed. Once the fight begins, soldiers can switch to the batteries to power all their devices at once.