[Toshi]

The ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology just published a paper that's very relevant to my interests.

Borken-Kleefeld J, Berntsen T, Fuglestvedt J. Specific Climate Impact of Passenger and Freight Transport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010;44:5700. DOI: 10.1021/es9039693, or direct PDF link here.

This paper is interesting for a few reasons. First is that it doesn't limit its analysis to a simple counting of tons of CO2 per unit travel, as do many simplistic USA Today-article-style fluff pieces: instead it looks at CO2, sulfate aerosols, NOx effects including methane destruction, including the interaction of these elements with cloud formation. It sums up all of these effects in terms of net average global surface temperature change. Furthermore, it extends its analysis beyond the short term, looking at 5, 20, and 50 year time horizons. Due to its unique analysis it comes up with some results that I most definitely did not expect!

Although they graph out all manner of permutations of different possible emissions regulations on ships, planes, motorcycles, etc., most of that is boring even to transportation-and-climate-obsessed me. Instead I think the most pertinent figure is the passenger travel part of Figure 1: "Temperature change per transport work by mode for various years after the emissions". The units are in micro-Kelvin per passenger-kilometer, where passenger-kilometer is the product of number of passengers transported by the distance traveled. Error bars represent +/- 1 std. dev. The figure:

In the short term (5 year time horizon) these results line up with my preconceived notions: airline travel is far, far "dirtier" than driving a car, which is a bit dirtier than driving a motorcycle, which in turn has a greater environmental impact than riding the bus. What's this about riding the train actually leading to net global surface temperature cooling, though? It turns out the sulfur spewed out by all those coal-fired electrical generation plants driving electric trains and diesel generators onboard diesel-electrics leads to cooling through the secondary effect of methane destruction.

The results really get interesting at the 20-year and 50-year time horizons. Note that airline travel at these time horizons has less of an impact on temperatures than driving a car! I would not have anticipated this result at all.

In the authors' words:

For the passenger travel of the year 2000 [ed: odd grammar theirs, allowing for non-native English writers] the modes with clearly lower specific climate impact than car travel can be readily identified: Rail travel has at least a factor 4 lower specific impact and is cooling on shorter times, bus and coach travel has 2 to 5 times lower specific impact, while travel with two- or three-wheelers has up to a factor 2 lower specific climate impact than car travel. Air travel results in a lower temperature change per passenger-kilometer than car travel on the long run; the integrated radiative forcing of air travel is on short- to medium time horizons much higher than for car travel.

Also of note for the motorcycle and scooter apologists out there is that adopting stricter emissions controls (ie Euro 3) leads to near-parity of the effect of bus and powered-two-wheelers, whereas with year 2000 emissions the bus comes out strongly in the lead. The moral of this little sub-story: if you're running your motorcycle catless or if it's pre-Euro 3 emissions you're not doing the environment any favors, so go ahead and wipe that smug smile off your face and take off that "one less car" sticker.

 

[jimmydean]

Looks flexy:

http://bikemoto.wordpress.com

It is the ‘lightest’ a motorized vehicle/MTB can be build.
At 28 kg/ 62 lbs one can still ride most tricky MTB tracks just like on MTB without motor.
At 28 kg it can still be lifted easily over obstacles (fallen trees, gates&#8230…One would not want it any heavier.

Riding 150km/100 miles a day (on the road) with pedal assist is not a problem anymore.

I ride with pedal assist most the time…I don’t mind pedaling, but in my opinion ‘exhausting uphill pedaling sucks’ ( heaps done in the past) and spoils the whole ‘biking thing’ especially when riding a lot of hills.

 

[DaveW]

I think if I found anyone riding one of those on my local trails my first instinctive reaction would be to beat them senseless with it.

 

[jimmydean]

I think if I found anyone riding one of those on my local trails my first instinctive reaction would be to beat them senseless with it.

That was my first thought, too. If I saw them on a dirt bike trail, then fine. But if I had to push up this bitch, so do you!

 

[Pesqueeb]

Here's one for you TDI hounds:

Recycling Gone Wild: Turn your VW Jetta TDI into a Smyth Performance G3F. Video at link.

 

[dan-o]

My neighbor across the street just bought a 71 beetle that's been converted to electric. It's weird not hearing the vw clatter as he drives away.

 

[Toshi]

Consumer Reports blogs about the X-Tracer E-Tracer: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/08/automotive-x-prize-video-x-tracer-e-tracer-sweden-electric-motorcycle.html

It's basically a BMW K-bike (or K-bike with electric propulsion gear) with a streamliner tandem seating body and fancy hydraulically lowered/raised wheels. Think MP3 turned outside in. They're ridiculously expensive but I like the idea of a tilting streamliner nonetheless…

 

[Toshi]

The 2011 Nissan Juke, that's what. http://nissanusa.com/juke

It's so ugly that it's almost attractive, like a weird undersea fish. It's tiny for a SUV, with a length only 5 inches longer than our 1st-gen Fit, yet has decent packaging, with just shy of 100 cu ft. of interior room, on par with a Prius. It has torque-vectoring AWD, albeit only when mated with a non-interactive CVT gearbox. It has all the interior amenities expected by my generation: Bluetooth hookup to cell phones, iPod interface, aftermarket subwoofer, fancy color display on dash, option for built-in navi, keyless entry with a start button.

Best of all, it has some eco-cred: it's mill is a 1.6 liter 4-banger with direct injection and turbocharging. Think Ford's EcoBoost but only from Nissan-Renault, and in a mini, avant-garde SUV package.

I dig it.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/11/2011-nissan-juke-starts-at-19-000/

Buyers looking to scramble into the driver's seat can look forward to a base MSRP of $18,960 (*plus destination) for the Juke S when equipped with a CVT and front-wheel drive. Prices for the range-topping Juke SL with a CVT and all-wheel drive hit a ceiling of $24,550 before any options are added.

All models will come from the factory with a new direct-injection turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine with 188 horsepower and 177 lb-ft of torque. Nissan says that when bolted to the company's efficient CVT, the Juke should return 27 mpg city and 32 mpg highway. Meanwhile, six-speed manual-equipped models start at $20,260.

Buyers wanting to take advantage of the Juke's torque-vectoring all-wheel drive can hop into the Juke S AWD. That model, which is available only with a CVT, starts at $20,460

27/32 is damn close to what my Fit is rated at (27/34).

 

[jimmydean]

Hey, that's pretty slick right there. I test drove the Rogue and liked it, but it was WAY too much vehicle than we needed. I will have to keep an eye out for that one.

 

[IH8Rice]

Hey, that's pretty slick right there. I test drove the Rogue and liked it, but it was WAY too much vehicle than we needed. I will have to keep an eye out for that one.

i drove the Rogue when looking for another car, but why was it way too much for what you needed? the Rogue is super small.

 

[jimmydean]

i drove the Rogue when looking for another car, but why was it way too much for what you needed? the Rogue is super small.

Me, my wife and 9 year old don't need that much space. The Fit was enough but we got a killer deal on a used Corolla. Gets way better mileage than the Rogue and I hated the CVT, personally.

<edit> The Rogue is small inside, but not much smaller on the outside than the Murano (if at all). I wouldn't buy the Rogue when the Murano was WAY nicer. But I was looking for smaller, not larger than the POS Malibu. We just happened to be looking at the Versa at the Nissan dealer and ended up driving a bunch of stuff.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Methane as a source of automotive propulsion isn't exactly a new concept, but it's taken manufacturers a long time to figure out how to clean it up enough to let it power an engine long-term. GENeco thinks they have figured it out and has presented this Volkswagen Beetle as proof of concept. Dubbed the "Bio-Bug," it basically runs on human excrement – seriously.

This Beetle's 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine has been converted to run on methane gas produced by human excrement and can still top 183 kilometers per hour (about 114 miles per hour). We'll try to avoid any fährt jokes. Methane is essentially similar to compressed natural gas, but has some unique challenges. "Previously the gas hasn't been clean enough to fuel motor vehicles without it affecting performance," said Mohammed Saddiq, the head of GENeco. He added:

However, through using the latest technology our Bio-Bug drives like any conventional car and what's more it uses sustainable fuel. If you were to drive the car you wouldn't know it was powered by biogas as it performs just like any conventional car.

The Bio-Bug actually uses regular unleaded gas on start-up, but switches over to methane automatically once it's running. It was built by England's The Greenfuel Company for GENeco, a division of one of Bristol's largest sewage treatment plant. That plant, Wessex Water, claims that it will take but 70 toilets to power the Bio-Bug for a year.
http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2010/08/genecobio-bug.jpg

 

[Toshi]

The WWU X-Prize entry had a parallel Li-EV and Insight-derived NiMH-hybrid double drivetrain wherein the Insight's engine was converted to run on methane after being started on gasoline.

Here's a good NYT article on the subsidy of free parking spots that distorts the landscape: http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=643888&f=23

 

[valve bouncer]

A slight diversion from the main topic but I thought this was interesting.

AUSTRALIA could switch completely to renewable energy within a decade by building a dozen vast, new solar power stations and about 6500 wind turbines, according to a major new study.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/energy-smart/how-to-be-fully-renewable-in-10-years-20100812-121l0.html
And it'll only cost $37 billion. A year. For 10 years. Australia's GDP is around $1 trillion. It has to happen though. Has to.

 

[DaveW]

A slight diversion from the main topic but I thought this was interesting.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/energy-smart/how-to-be-fully-renewable-in-10-years-20100812-121l0.html
And it'll only cost $37 billion. A year. For 10 years. Australia's GDP is around $1 trillion. It has to happen though. Has to.

"Has to" usually means "won't" or "half assed attempt" when it comes to taking on oil or coal.

 

[IH8Rice]

the only hybrid i would ever consider buying

 

[Toshi]

A black eye for Honda:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-honda-20100815,0,4626507,full.story

Important points:

- Battery failure rate per CARB for Civic Hybrids of 4%, over CARB's internal threshold
- Honda policy to not replace the battery unless completely dead
- Software updates seem to make the already-mild hybrid even meeker, further reducing its marginal mileage gains over a standard hybrid, presumably to reduce battery warranty-replacement claims

Contrast this with Toyota, who (afaik) are still riding high in the saddle with regard to hybrid battery life, and clearly have the technological lead.

 

[DaveW]

This VW is the sh*t!
Or at least it kinda runs on sh*t.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10884539

After the short term cost of installing the dual fuel kits (costs about $2-3k in NZ do do this) into their fleet (400 vehicles) this would save that company megabucks in fuel costs!
But I'm a bit doubtful on his claim of saving 19,000,000 cubic meters of CO2 emissions for the company as they are still running the gas through an internal combustion engine??

 

[Toshi]

Video at link: PBS: Electric Car Dreams

A bit long as it was to air in a 30 minute TV block, but a very well done look at Denmark, its biking culture, its efforts at lowering carbon consumption, Project Better Place and Shai Agassi, and even a brief mention of Tesla, too.

There are places in the world that have policies that I favor. It's just that the US isn't one of those places.

 

[Toshi]

Peugeot 3008 Hybrid4.

DIESEL ELECTRIC HYBRID. Not for us: Euro market only for multiple reasons (Peugeot, diesel, particulate emissions rules, market pressure or lack thereof). Gah.

200 hp combined, maximum 500 N-m of torque (300 from diesel, 200 from electric), 99 gm/km of CO2, and just shy of 62 mpg (US gallons) in the Euro combined drive cycle testing regimen. The other weird thing is that it's a "through the road hybrid", which as far as I can gather means that the diesel setup is pretty standard with a normal, geared transmission, and the electric motor does its thing pretty much independently on the opposite axle.

Everything is controlled electronically ("by wire") and there are no mechanical links between the front and the rear drivetrains. This gives the system many advantages over a "traditional" mechanical system.
- No structural constraints affecting the layout and design within the passenger compartment
- 4x4 and environmental-friendliness are no longer contradicting terms

 

[Toshi]

291 mph EV from Ohio State. Batteries by A123.

Epic EV Torq. Still mostly vaporware except for this prototype of unknown specs other than what you can glean from the images (FWD, small discs, iPhone mount, no windscreen, 3 wheels so as to be classified as a motorcycle).

 

[Toshi]

I. A warning to readers

Advance warning: click "back" or "next" if you're not at all interested in electric vehicles or their energy use. This is another long, wonkish post, let the audience (as it were) be warned.

II. Introduction, Importance, and Scope

Still here? This post regards the charmingly named "Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles", just released in June 2010 by the Argonne National Laboratory. It's essentially an updated, more comprehensive version of the 2000 MIT Energy Lab study that I cited in my April 2009 post, "Do electric cars make environmental sense?"

What does this paper actually examine? From its executive summary (emphasis mine):

"PHEVs have been touted for their potential to reduce the U.S. transportation sector’s dependence on petroleum and cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions … . A well-to-wheels (WTW) analysis — which examines energy use and emissions from primary energy source through vehicle operation — can help researchers better understand the impact of the upstream mix of electricity generation technologies for PHEV recharging, as well as the powertrain technology and fuel sources for PHEVs. …

"Argonne employed detailed dispatch models to simulate the electric power systems in four major regions of the United States: … . Argonne also evaluated the U.S. average generation mix and renewable generation of electricity for PHEV and BEV recharging scenarios to show the effects of these generation mixes on PHEV WTW results.

"The primary conclusion is that electrification of transportation significantly reduces petroleum energy use, but GHG emissions strongly depend on the electricity generation mix for battery recharging."

III. Plug-to-Wheels Analysis

Now that we have established "why," onto "what," the data.

What does this graph mean? I first direct your eye towards the grey circle just about the 4000 mark on the y-axis: that's the energy consumption per mile of a baseline future gasoline engine automobile. Now take a gander at the blue circle at the bottom right of the graph marked "EV": that's the energy consumption per mile of a pure battery electric vehicle (aka BEV; imagine an evolved Nissan Leaf with a 150 mile range and you wouldn't be far off). Note that the energy consumption of the BEV is well under half of that of the conventional gasoline vehicle. Shift your eye to the magenta circle in the 40-mile range column and you can see that the efficiency of the Volt-like vehicle in its initial 40 miles of range is almost indistinguishable from that of the BEV, not terribly surprising. Another interesting data point on this graph is of the magenta square at the 40 mile-range mark on the x-axis, which corresponds to the efficiency of the Volt-like vehicle in charge-sustaining mode, that is, the mode that you'd run in after driving 40 miles. This point shows that the Volt-like vehicle after its initial 40 miles of range is about 15% better than that of a conventional gasoline vehicle. Also note, however, that the magenta square at 40 miles of all electric range is higher than the magenta square at 0 miles: in other words, a non-plug in gasoline electric hybrid like the Prius will be more efficient than a Volt after the 40 mile point.

We're not nearly done yet, even though these findings are interesting, because these relate vehicle miles to energy, which in turn is not equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions due to the sundry ways of generating that same energy in the first place. That is, this is a "power plug to the vehicle's wheels" analysis, whereas the more important question is of "well-to-wheels" energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. After all, why would we want to switch to BEVs if total CO2 production increased as a result?

IV. Energy Generation Variation by Region

In order to conduct a well-to-wheels analysis one must model or make assumptions about how the energy gets from the proverbial well to the power plug. One of the conclusions that I came to in my earlier post, and that this study comes to currently, is that it matters greatly where one lives, as the regional mix of power generation will have profound effects on the total system energy use and CO2 production. It also matters when the vehicles are charged, not just where, as the additional power generation capacity that would be brought on-line during the daytime is much dirtier than the power generation mix at nighttime, when loads are low and excess capacity is rife.

The study examines four regional areas in detail (WECC which encompasses California and the Pac NW/New England/NY/Illinois), looking at the mix (coal/natural gas/nucs/wind/nuclear/etc.) of power generation under a variety of vehicle charging scenarios. Suffice it to say that the increased demand of charging EVs will be met by various means in different regions, and that the mix of power differs by charging time.

What are these "various means" of generating the extra power? Here the answer is a bit complicated. For those following along in the text the data are in Table 6.1. My very shallow summary of this table is that if BEVs and PHEVs are charged at night then the extra power will be generated largely by coal in Illinois; mainly by clean natural gas with some input from coal in the WECC/Western states region; and almost entirely by clean and not so clean natural gas both in the Northeast and in NY state.

What does this mean in terms of well-to-wheels energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions, you ask? Read on for the conclusion of this riveting tale.

V. Well-To-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

To me, the first really surprising conclusions of this paper are from this following figure, excerpted from Figure 6.6:

The important lines to note are the one at top for the conventional/non-hybrid gasoline vehicle, the red dotted line for the gasoline hybrid-electric vehicle (e.g., Toyota Prius), and the various columns for GHG emissions of a Chevy Volt-type PHEV 40 used in charge-depleting mode (ie, in the first 40 miles of range). What can we conclude from this figure?

First off, if you're in coal-heavy Illinois you shouldn't drive a Chevy Volt, as your well-to-wheels GHG emissions will be almost that of a conventional gasoline car, and quite a bit above the non-plugin hybrid-electric gasoline car (say, Toyota Prius). In other states the Prius and the Volt-in-its-first-40-miles-of-range are essentially a wash except in California, where the Volt "wins" because California's electric power is cleaner than that found elsewhere.

However, the story doesn't end here, as real-world usage of the Volt won't just be in its first 40 miles of charge-depleting range. In combined use that is both charge-depleting (first 40 miles) and charge-sustaining (after 40 miles) usage one can see that PHEVs don't really offer any meaningful reduction in well-to-wheels GHG emissions when compared to a non-plugin Toyota Prius even when using the squeaky-clean California power mix:

How to interpret the above: the leftmost magenta square is a 0-EV-only-mile range gasoline-electric hybrid: a Prius, essentially. The rightmost magenta square is a PHEV 40: a Chevy Volt, more or less. The rightmost grey square with the dotted red circle around it is a pure BEV, a 150-mile range Nissan Leaf, if you will. Note that the slope of the magenta line across the various PHEV ranges is basically null: in other words in combined use the Volt has only a negligible reduction in well-to-wheels GHG emissions when compared to a Prius. Also note that the well-to-wheels GHG emissions of a pure BEV like the Leaf-on-steroids is about half that of either the Volt or the Prius.

VI. Conclusions

I'd say the results of this study are a pretty clear "win" for BEVs, and a pretty clear failure for the case of PHEVs. In the best case of California clean power generation and charge-depleting use in the first 40 miles of its range the 2015-spec Volt is as clean as a BEV in terms of well-to-wheels GHG emissions. In every other case (outside 40 miles of range, power less clean than that of California) the 2015-spec Prius at least matches the Volt and in some cases even beats it outright.

Given my interpretation I find it curious that the authors instead conclude that PHEVs can lead to reduced GHG emissions and energy usage… when compared to conventional gasoline vehicles. I find this conclusion of theirs disingenuous, as when comparing (rightly, in my opinion) to non-plugin gasoline electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius then one sees that the environmental case for PHEVs basically falls flat on its face. I can only speculate why the authors didn't emphasize this point more.

 

[Toshi]

The above post that I just made is a lot to digest, I know. It further cements in my mind that the Nissan Leaf is the way to go, not the Chevy Volt, and that's without taking the much higher price of the Volt into account! While the Volt does indeed act like an electric car in its first 40 miles of range on California electricity, it often loses to the Prius (let alone the Leaf) when outside of that 40 miles of range or when charged in a state with dirtier power.

 

[stevew]

fiats twin air 875 cc 57.4 mpg gas engine 500.

 

[jimmydean]

Sitting on the Empulse prototype tomorrow (8.0 model) at 12:45. Pictures will follow.

 

[CBJ]

First production ready hybrid diesel

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Search-Results/First-Official-Pictures/Peugeot-3008-Hybrid4-2010-first-details/

Was in Europe the last two weeks driving a Passat diesel - love how are diesel drives.

 

[Toshi]

First production ready hybrid diesel

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Search-Results/First-Official-Pictures/Peugeot-3008-Hybrid4-2010-first-details/

Was in Europe the last two weeks driving a Passat diesel - love how are diesel drives.

Check 6 posts above yours.

 

[CBJ]

I blame my jetlag.

 

[Toshi]

Finally, a hybrid Subaru!

Well, at least half of one... Story: http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-pruck-toyota-prius-and-subaru-baja.html

 

[jimmydean]

Finally, a hybrid Subaru!

Well, at least half of one... Story: http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-pruck-toyota-prius-and-subaru-baja.html

The worst of both cars?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

awesome car. the electro-hydraulic valvetrain sounds very intriguing.
that concept could effectively reduce the gap between hybrids and regular cars when mass manufactured.

thing is, most modern pseudo-econoboxes arent economical at all.
a fiat 500 goes for $27k here. twice as much as a basic toyota yaris.

its upfront price completely defies its low-cost purpose.
that is unless, a modest-wannabe tree-hugging image is part the new marketing black.

there should be more cars like the yaris, or tiida.

hybrids are way too expensive and complicated to be practical for most people. plus they are not meant to be repaired. they are pretty much disposable in the event or a low-speed crash or transaxle malfunction (assuming batteries covered by warranty).

disposable cars (try to replace just a ball joint or a steering tie end in a modern car, you cant, you have to replace half the suspension or steering) isnt the solution to the pollution problems, or oil consumption.

fiats twin air 875 cc 57.4 mpg gas engine 500.

 

[jimmydean]

I want.

Also got to see next years race bike with the new swing arm. Should be on the production bikes to replace the tube one on there now. Box from the same tubing as the frame and looks way nicer. Still a little shocked at how tiny the chain was.

<edit> I was not allowed to snap shots of the race bike without the fairings because of the exposed secret sauce.

 

[Toshi]

So when do you get to ride it?

 

[jimmydean]

So when do you get to ride it?

He said to call around Christmas. Yes, the weather will suck, but he said they should have test rides ready. The newer swing arm makes all the difference in the looks, too.

The prototype is using Vortex clip ons, but they are considering a riser instead or as an option. The bike fits near prefect. They are looking at making the pegs adjustable (I want them down a little) and they did some dyno runs today to further tweak the software. He said they are very close, but they are playing with some fairing changes and fine tuning. Projected for Q2 release.

I have my ticket and I am waiting in line. I also volunteered to do longevity tests for free, too.

<edit> The "tank" is weird because it's so skinny, but the grip pad things are sweet.

 

[DaveW]

Looks good (except for the tail styling.... Still think they could have done better there).

So you gonna buy it?

 

[jimmydean]

Looks good (except for the tail styling.... Still think they could have done better there).

So you gonna buy it?

Yes, yes I am. The 10.0 is sitting at about $13.5k and in Oregon after State and Fed tax incentives, it works out to be about $9800. With an average range of 120 miles per charge and a top speed of 100+mph, it is near perfect.

If you chop off the plate mount and replace the fender with a standard huger, the bike looks way better. The rear swing arm is slick, too.

 

[jimmydean]

And the seat was rather comfy, too. I just found myself reaching for a clutch lever to hang my finger on.

 

[DaveW]

Well, at least half of one... Story: http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-pruck-toyota-prius-and-subaru-baja.html

That's ugly!!!


Almost as ugly as this crash I found linked to on that web page.....
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2010/08/fail-general-lee-got-nothing-on-this.html

Odds against the driver surviving must have ben pretty high, amazing that he did!

 

[Toshi]

Preliminary Better Place battery swap program results from their Tokyo taxi trial: http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/27/better-place-expands-tokyo-battery-swap-trials-taxis-have-chang/

Key number: 59 seconds per battery swap! Not half bad. This could work yet...

 

[jimmydean]

Hippies rejoice!

Cannabis Car Powered by Electricity

A Canadian company called Motive is developing an electric, four-passenger vehicle with a shell made out of composite material from hemp mats. (Photos of it have not been officially released yet, but an indication of what it might look like can be found in a photo of one of their other car designs.)

Such a material is known as a bio-composite because it is plant-based. These materials are becoming more popular because they are light weight and low cost. Dr. John Wolodoko from Alberta Innovates Technology Futures who makes the material said, &#8220;Natural materials such as hemp can offer a green and sustainable alternative to conventional fibres used in composites.&#8221; The company is located in Edmonton, and the hemp they use is grown in Vegreville.

Growing industrial hemp is legal in Canada, but illegal in the United States. For a long time, it has been used as a material for textiles and products like rope. Hemp has been used in paper production for 2,000 years. Today it is used for a number of things, including biodegradable plastics. Industrial hemp contains almost no THC &#8211; the psychoactive substance found in marijuana &#8211; so it is not used to make recreational or medicinal drugs.