Category Archives: transportation

Could Zipcar Actually Be Bad for the Environment?

Zipcar, the popular car sharing service, and others like it are often lauded for their environmental benefits. After all, if you can borrow a car when you need one, then maybe you won’t buy one. And if fewer people buy cars, that’s good for the environment, right?

It might be, but it depends. It depends on how car sharing affects driving behavior. Some studies have shown that just one quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with passenger vehicles are produced in the manufacturing process. Most of the emissions occur in the process of driving it. Even if Zipcar reduces vehicle ownership a bit, it might actually increase the amount of driving people do. After all, if you can borrow a car whenever you need to, you might drive more. If this is the case, the environmental impact of Zipcar could easily be negative.

I’ve not seen any really good research on what Zipcar’s impact has really been. Zipcar recently commissioned a survey in which it asked consumers about their attitudes about driving and the environment. For some reason, it completely missed the opportunity to ask the simple question: “With Zipcar, do you drive more or less than you did before?” The closest the survey came was a question worded this way:

To what extent have transportation apps (i.e. taxi apps, car rental reservations, public transportation info, car sharing, ride sharing, etc.) reduced your driving frequency?

That’s just too broad to reveal the impact of car sharing. An earlier study commissioned by Zipcar showed that 18 percent new Zipcar members sold their cars within a year of joining the service. That’s likely because most rarely used their cars to begin with: only 38 percent took five or more trips a month before they joined Zipcar. It did show that the already small number of frequent drivers dropped further, to 12 percent.

But these surveys don’t capture a potentially important effect of car sharing services: increasing demand for cars among non-car owners, because they are cheap and easy to borrow when needed.

It is quite possible that car sharing services like Zipcar actually increase driving, by making it easier for people who don’t own cars to drive one. Anecdotally, that seems to be the impact in New York City, at least among some people I know.

If you know of a proper study on the impact of car sharing on driving, please let me know. If you would like to commission one, I can get it done for you.

What do you think?

3 Comments

Filed under transportation, Uncategorized

Sustainability in the Auto Industry: BMW vs. Ford

Last week’s Sustainable Brands conference was stimulating and inspiring as usual. I hope I will come around to posting a series of observations from the conference, but I’ll  start with this one: the contrast between how BMW and Ford presented their green product strategies.

BMW was represented by Uwe Dreher, the global head of marketing for BMW i, the company’s new electric-vehicle sub-brand. Dreher opened his presentation by sharing some findings from BMW’s ethnographic research that the company found troubling. In the affluent neighborhoods around the San Francisco Bay Area it is not uncommon to find a Toyota Prius in the driveway of a $5 million home. If affluent consumers, who could afford a BMW, were buying the relatively affordable Prius instead because of its environmental caché, this presented a threat to BMW. Meanwhile, in Tokyo, the company found young people are no longer enthusiastic about getting a driver’s license and less keen to drive than youngsters of prior generations. (General Motors has found something similar in the U.S.) The streets of Tokyo are too congested, said Dreher; it’s no longer fun to drive there. And public transportation presents far less hassle. If the young no longer saw driving as fun, what did this say for the future of BMW in Japan?

These threats were an impetus behind BMW’s electric vehicle strategy, which is intended to appeal to the affluent and the young, by combining the sex appeal and prestige of a BMW with the superior environmental performance of a next-generation all-electric vehicle. The strategy is a sound response to what the company’s research turned up, except for one detail: the company’s green strategy is intended to increase consumption, from the moderately priced Prius to the luxury-priced BMW i8 and from parsimonious and efficient public transportation to the sexy BMW i3. Is this in fact a green strategy?

As a mass-market automaker, Ford has taken a different course, embracing a more populist and inclusive strategy. John Viera, Ford’s global director of sustainability and vehicle environmental matters, described the company’s broad line of electric and hybrid vehicles, which will include seven models by early 2013. Then Viera acknowledged that the migration to electric vehicles is not going to happen overnight. For quite some time people are going to buy internal combustion engine vehicles. Ford’s strategic response: a commitment to offer the most fuel-efficient vehicle (or one tied for most fuel efficient) in every automotive category. The idea being: no matter what kind of car you need, you can have the most fuel-efficient one if you buy a Ford. That’s an impressive brand promise, one that requires a significant commitment.

The paths chosen by BMW and Ford will be more significant for the impact they have on the industry today and in the future than for the vehicles that roll off their assembly lines over the next couple of years. BMW produced just 1.7 million cars in 2011, less than 3 percent of global car production; the BMW i brand will likely account for tiny fraction of its sales in 2013-14. But the BMW i series may help popularize the use of ultra-light-weight materials–such as the carbon composite to be used in the new line’s passenger cabs–in production vehicles, which will help the industry improve fuel efficiency over time. Ford, meanwhile, sold about 5.7 million vehicles in 2011. Its competitive positioning around fuel efficiency should help spur innovation among automakers as well.

What are your thoughts?

Leave a Comment

Filed under marketing, transportation

The Most Interesting Things Today

One of the most interesting things for me at today’s New York Times conference on the future of energy was a comment that U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu made.

Thomas Friedman asked Secretary Chu what he would want to work on if he were just coming out of school today, a freshly minted Ph.D. Rather than choose a particular scientific or technological focus, his choice was “systems.” He cited the Toyota Prius as innovative system created from existing technologies.

That’s a pretty interesting answer.

Systems thinking is the key to unraveling some of our toughest challenges, particularly those related to energy and environmental sustainability. Everyone from scientists and technologists to individuals to corporate managers to policy makers ought to beef up their systems thinking skills.

The other interesting thing was a brief, low-key but mind-blowing presentation by Mitja Hinderks in which he explained how his little organization is going to cut global CO2 emissions by 25% with an innovative new design for an uncooled internal combustion engine that, compared to today’s engines, will have a fraction of the parts, a multiple of the efficiency, and could be swapped in and out of vehicles like a cartridge.

Leave a Comment

Filed under carbon, efficiency, emissions, transportation

Is Clean Water Vs. Dirty Air a Good Trade-Off?

Do you need to put 5,000 more cars to the road to get clean drinking water?

I find the trade-offs that arise in energy development, environmental protection and human health fascinating. Over the years I’ve written on this topic a few times:

Energy Technologies and Unintended Consequences

Unintended Consequences, Part II: Air vs. Water

Unintended Consequences, Part III: Electricity vs. Water

Today I want to talk about a 160,000 square-foot new water treatment facility in New York that will be going online this year, and how it’s giving us safer water at the cost of a hefty increase in greenhouse gas emissions. I’m referring to the Catskill/Delaware Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Facility, which is in the final stages of construction just north of New York City. The facility will use ultraviolet light to disinfect an average of 1.3 billion gallons of water per day. It’s also going to use a lot of electricity and, as a result, increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection

The consequences of this project are neither unintended nor unforeseen. The project was required by Federal and State regulations to maintain the safety of New York City’s water supply, which is one of only a handful of major water supplies in the U.S. that remain unfiltered, according to civil engineer Robert Osborne, who is very into water. Having an unfiltered water supply is a kind of badge of honor. It means your water is exceptionally pure. But Federal and state regulations require water supplies to be protected by other means if filtration is not used. (The New York Times reported that a filtration system for this water supply would have cost up to $8 billion to build millions of dollars a year to operate.)

A project of this magnitude, whose costs are estimated at $1.6 billion, undergoes detailed analysis and planning, including an the creation of an environmental impact statement. The environmental impact statement says that the plant will draw an average of 4.45 megawatts of electric power. By my calculations (4.45MW X 24 hours X 365.25 days X 1000), that will equal about 39 million KWh of electricity annually.

You can calculate the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to provide 39M KWh of electricity in New York using EPA’s eGRID methodology (available via a cool tool on amee.com). Using my assumption, it comes to over 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Taking the EPA’s estimate of the average annual greenhouse gas emissions of an average automobile (5.1 metric tons of CO2E per year) you find that these emissions are the equivalent of putting about 5,000 more cars on the road.

I have no doubt that this particular trade-off (cleaner water for dirtier air) is worth it. The project protects over 8 million people who depend on this water supply from the risk of water-borne contaminants that could cause a significant public health crisis. I point it out not to criticize this project but rather to illustrate the kinds of trade-offs policy makers face all the time.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

5 Comments

Filed under climate change, emissions, grid, transportation, utilities, water

Is Your Company Ready to Go Zero Waste to Landfill?

By Anna Munie, CHMM

Companies that divert solid waste from landfills are not only protecting the environment. Many are saving substantial amounts of money. Subaru now reaps yearly savings in the millions from its waste diversion programs, for instance. Some are improving manufacturing efficiency. And others are even developing new products: Interface created its entire line of modular re-usable flooring out of a desire to keep waste carpet from landfills.

Getting to zero waste can be a long journey, however. Here are some key steps along the way.

First, a company must perform a detailed audit of its current processes and materials. This includes determining each type of waste that is currently being generated, and then researching alternative options for every single item (recycling, re-use, re-sale, etc.). This may require literal “Dumpster diving” to see first-hand what is going into landfill Dumpsters, as well as time spent performing detailed reviews of both material purchase and waste disposal records. If a material you are purchasing can only be thrown away, switch to a product that has recycling options. (For example, in areas where number 6 plastics cannot be recycled, recycling may be available for number 2 plastics.) Have departments such as purchasing, operations and R&D make a list of all the materials they currently throw away. Then explore alternative options for disposal for each.

Finding solutions by working with suppliers can help a company down the path to zero waste to landfill. Many of the most successful zero waste to landfill companies utilize supplier take-back programs as a significant part of their waste reduction tactics. For example, the Subaru plant in Lafayette, Indiana ships all of its pre-formed Styrofoam casings back to its Japanese supplier for re-use with new engine parts. These closed loop systems can have a huge impact on reducing solid waste to landfill, but they also require additional logistics on both ends, so a company must have a good working relationship with their suppliers. (More on zero-waste car plants here.)

Finally, going  100 percent zero waste to landfill is a long-term goal. It has taken Honda 10 years to achieve zero waste to landfill at its 14 North American manufacturing plants. Set realistic goals and deadlines for waste diversion, including taking into account the type of business you operate. Production and assembly based companies can often get to zero landfill goals faster because they already incorporate lean manufacturing and other structured processes. Retail and service organizations, on the other hand, may see a rougher road initially due to a larger number of locations, variety of goods, and wide range of operations. These companies may need to take more step-by-step reductions such as 25 percent or 50 percent before going for the ultimate goal of 100 percent diversion.

Whether your business is a manufacturer, fabricator, retailer, or service provider, zero waste to landfill is a lofty but worthwhile goal. Follow the right steps and you could see significant business and environmental benefits.

Do you have any waste management success stores or questions to share? Please consider leaving a comment.


Anna Munie is a freelance writer currently working within the fields of sustainability and environmental health and safety management. She has 10 years of experience in hazardous waste management and is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM). When not developing sustainability programs and making sure the Ph.D.’s in her research department don’t blow themselves up, she competes nationally with her horse Lucky in the sport of reining.

2 Comments

Filed under transportation, waste management

Technology Makes Bridge Simile Obsolete

A week’s holiday in the U.K. drew my attention to a recent news story over there: how a much-loved simile featuring a much-loved engineering marvel, is about to become obsolete.

Scotland’s Forth Railway Bridge, a 2.5 kilometer steel bridge, was completed in 1890. Because it is so big and so complicated to paint, it was said (not entirely accurately) that as soon as it was painted, painting needed to start all over again. This gave rise to the expression “like painting the Forth Bridge,” meaning a never-ending task.

But Network Rail announced last week that a new paint job may render that expression obsolete. A new paint job using glass flake epoxy paint is nearing completion. That type of paint is used in the offshore oil industry and is intended to last 25 years or more. Network Rail says, “After 10 years and an investment of over £130m, the bridge will finally be free of scaffolding, with a full paint job unlikely to be required again for over twenty years.”

This is good news for the many admirers of this early engineering marvel. But a conundrum for lovers of the “Forth Bridge” simile.

Leave a Comment

Filed under transportation

New-Vehicle Stickers and Nits

The U.S. federal government yesterday revealed the new window stickers that will be required on vehicles starting in the 2013 model year. The new labels provide more information about fuel economy, CO2 emissions and smog impacts and are intended help consumers consider those factors in their purchase decisions.  Coverage of the news by the New York Times cites some controversy over the selection of this label versus alternatives championed by NRDC and others. But what struck me was how the Times characterized the new label.

The Times said the new labels “for the first time include estimated annual fuel costs and the vehicle’s overall environmental impact.” (Italics mine.) But the labels only count emissions produced while driving, not during the entire vehicle life cycle. While it’s true that driving the vehicle accounts for the majority its CO2 emissions, other life cycle phases can account for well over 20 percent of them, as these results from a life cycle assessment published by automaker Nissan show.

I hope we can gradually raise public awareness of the concept of life cycle thinking by using more precise language when we talk about environmental impacts.

Leave a Comment

Filed under emissions, Life Cycle Assessment, transportation

How Finance Departments Do Sustainability

When your company makes sustainability a part of its strategy, it looks for ways to embed sustainability thinking through the organization. In some departments, it’s pretty clear what that entails.

  • Product development may seek sustainably sourced materials or designs that are energy efficient to operator or easier to recycle
  • Supply chain may set sustainability standards for suppliers
  • Manufacturing may focus on improving the energy and water efficiency of processes and the management of waste
  • Facilities and IT have a lot of low hanging fruit in energy efficiency
  • Transportation and fleet management groups may look at alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles and route optimization
  • Human resources may take on employee engagement programs
  • Marketing and public affairs groups will take on responsibility for engaging with external stakeholders and communicating about your company’s sustainability efforts

Where does your finance department fit in all of this? Finance can, of course, work to improve the efficiency of its own operations. The finance department at Yale University, for example, recently announced that it switched from paper to digitial distribution of its financial report to save paper and money. Some banks offer “green treasury” services to eliminate the paper involved through the treasury function.

But your finance department can play a much larger role in supporting your sustainability strategy than just improving its own operations. Finance creates leverage. And sustainability-minded finance can be a key ally to sustainability leaders.

We recently interviewed senior sustainability leaders at more than 30 major companies in North America and Europe. In that research we heard a few things about how finance departments are behaving at sustainability minded companies. (Our latest research report, based on those interviews, is available for purchase at an introductory price here.)

A few finance practices emerged that sustainability leaders should be aware of:

Allocate a pool of capital project money to the sustainability department. At most companies, central sustainability budgets are small. Capital projects, even those intended to to deliver sustainability benefits, are funded out of other departmental budgets. And sometimes sustainability projects get pushed aside by a department’s other priorities. To ensure that some worthy projects get done each year, one company we spoke with allocates a pool of money to be used for capital projects directly to the sustainability group. The sustainability department is able to use those funds to support a couple of capital projects of its choosing. And it also works  with other departments to influence their budgets to take on other worthwhile projects. You might want to see if your department can obtain a mini capital budget of its own in the next budget cycle.

Calculate risk-adjusted returns realistically. At some companies, sustainability projects have a hard time getting funded because they don’t appear to pass the company’s rate-of-return hurdle. The thinking goes like this: Why invest scarce capital in a lighting retrofit when a new product launch could deliver a rate of return many times greater? But the reality is that many sustainability projects–especially those centered on improving efficiency–have highly predictable rates of return and present almost no risk at all. Other projects they might compete with, such as new product launches or marketing campaigns, may be inherently riskier. Thus sustainaiblity initiatives can have a superior risk-adjusted rate of return. Make sure your finance department calculates risk-adjusted returns appropriately..

Sustainable 401K. Some companies tell us that their sustainability program is motivated in large part by a commitment to their own employees, who value a socially and environmentally responsible workplace. At such companies, it makes sense to look at financial benefits, such as 401K programs, through a sustainability lens. A growing number of 401K plans offer socially or environmentally responsible investment options. You finance department can help choose appropriate options for your company.

How is the finance department supporting sustainability at your company? Please leave a comment to discuss it with us.

Leave a Comment

Filed under efficiency, illumination, Supply chain, sustainability, transportation, water

Electric Vehicles: Lessons from Consumer Technology

A common critique of green products is that they require changes in consumer behavior to deliver environmental benefits or that they cost too much, or both. That critique fails to acknowledge that higher costs and changes in behavior are often the hallmark of technologically innovative products, many of which go on to become hugely successful and to reshape our society.

Consumer technology products, in particular, frequently require changes in consumer behavior. From the PC to the cell phone, they have required consumers to change they way they perform familiar tasks, and to perform new tasks–ranging from backing up disks to engaging in continuous communication streams. As far as costs are concerned, many technologies enjoy economies of scale later in their lifecyle that are not available in their early days. Deep pocketed corporations, sometimes with the support of venture backers, combined with passionate early adopters, come together to help such products across the chasm to widespread adoption.

The products of Apple Inc., to name one overused example, tend to combine the characteristics of requiring behavioral change and high cost. The iPhone and iPad are predicated on the idea that consumers will change their behavior to use them–typing without a keyboard, anyone? And they are substantially more expensive than traditional alternatives.

Edison and a 1914 Detroit Electric, model 47 (...
Image via Wikipedia

Electric vehicles also present a combination of the need to change behavior and high costs. Recharging a vehicle is a different process than refueling, for example. And electric cars need to be recharged more frequently than conventional cars need to be refueled.

But statistics indicate that most americans’ daily commute is less than the range offered by electric vehicles. While to be taken with a grain of statistical salt because of selection bias, a survey of early adopters of electric vehicles shows little concern over range limitations.

Meanwhile, the high costs of electric vehicles are due to the relatively miniscule scale of production and technological immaturity of electric cars compared to conventional vehicles.

The total cost of developing the market for electric vehicles includes creating an infrastructure to enable drivers to charge their vehicles conveniently. A charging infrastrucure is just starting to be created. One participant is ECOtality of North America, which will deploy some 15,000 charging stations over 36 months at a cost of $230 million, or about $16,000 per station. Half the funds are being supplied by the U.S. Department of Energy.

This pilot project has research objectives that could be important to the development of an infrastructure for charging electric vehicles. According to ECOtotality, project “will collect and analyze data to characterize vehicle use in diverse topographic and climatic conditions, evaluate the effectiveness of charge infrastructure, and conduct trials of various revenue systems for commercial and public charge infrastructure.” This kind of intelligence will be crucial to help guide the innovation in the emerging electric vehicle market.

Skepticism about the markets for green products and services is fine and healthy. But it should be articulated in the context of what we know about technology innovation in other markets.

What are your thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 Comments

Filed under transportation

Two Approaches to Cleaning up Dirty Ports

Can targeted economic incentives clean up an industry? Or does real change require a fundamental, government-backed restructuring? That’s the question raised by two different clean-up approaches being pursued by U.S. ports.

Ports are a vital link in international trade. But they are dirty. Diesel ships, locomotives and trucks, many of them old, poorly maintained and inefficient, spew vast amounts of pollutants into the air. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, large ports generate pollution emissions many times greater than average power plants.

A Focus on Cleaning up Ports

Shipping containers at a terminal in Port Eliz...
Image via Wikipedia

That’s why the question of how to clean them up has received a lot of attention in recent years. In 2007, for example, the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma convened a two-day workshop together with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the Rocky Mountain Institute to identify opportunities to dramatically clean up port operators. The workshop resulted in an 87-page report full of recommendations ranging from using lighter weight cranes to switching to electric tugboats.

A key source of pollution in port operations is drayage–the transportation of containerized cargo by specialized trucking companies the ports shipping docks. Many drayage trucks in use are old, ill maintained and highly polluting. Upgrading the truck fleet to cleaner vehicles is complicated by the fact that some 85% of the drivers are small, independent operators who own their own trucks. These independent owner operators (IOOs) tend to earn very little money–just $12 per hour after all costs are figured, according to one analysis. So they generally struggle to maintain their vehicles or to finance cleaner replacements.

Ports on both coasts of the United States have devised plans to clean up their air by focusing on the polluting drayage trucks. The West Coast plan looks very different from the East Coast one.

An East Coast Plan Uses a Light Touch

On the East Coast, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has developed a plan that offers subsidies and low-interest loans to encourage the owners of older, dirty trucks to replace them with newer, cleaner models. Details of this plan will be were released by the Port Authority this week on March 10, 2010.

The plan is a textbook case of using economic incentives to bring about a desired outcome, in this case, a reduction of approximately 120 tons of NOx, 14 tons of fine particulate matter, and 1,700 tons of greenhouse gases per year, according to the Port Authority.

A West Coast Plan Seeks to Reshape the Industry

The Port of Los Angeles, by contrast, has launched a program that seeks fundamentally to reorganize the drayage industry. To help devise its plan to reduce drayage pollution, the port hired the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to do an analysis and make recommendations. The BCG analysis found that a penalty/subsidy/financing plan would likely meet its pollution-reduction goals a few years’ time. BCG reasoned, however, that such a plan would not leave the industry on a sustainable footing and concluded that the very structure of the drayage industry should be changed.

The Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program follows the broad outlines recommended by BCG, including setting rules that would remake drayage into an asset-based and employee-based industry. By 2012, drayage trucking firms operating in the Port of Los Angeles need to own their own trucks and use drivers who are employees, not independent contractors. Such a structure, the BCG study concluded, would not only meet environmental goals but also broader industrial and social goals, including ensuring the stability of the drayage market and the availability of drayage capacity, while raising incomes for drivers.

Accounting for the Costs

The Port of Los Angeles/BCG plan is expected to raise drayage costs to shippers by more than 100% and cost some $500 million more annually than a non-asset and employee-based drayage model. The impact on total shipping costs should be modest, though. According to BCG, drayage costs generally account for only 10% of total shipping costs.

The Port of Los Angeles maintains that these costs are more than offset by avoiding externalized costs–borne by the public–of the current model, which include under-utilized trucks, traffic congestion, environmental damage and the degradation of public health. The Port puts these costs at $500 million to $1.7 billion annually.

Effectiveness of the Plans

In December 2009 the Port of Los Angeles announced that its program had already reduced truck emissions by 70% compared to 2007 levels and has eliminated some 30 tons of diesel particulate matter so far. Even tighter truck emissions restristrictions were phased in on January 1, 2010 and will be followed by ban in 2012 on any trucks with pre-2007 engines.

It’s too early to assess the effectiveness of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey plan, which will be launched officially on March 10. But its clear that its scope is far more modest. It aims to reduce diesel particulate emissions by 14 tons per year, less than half the reduction that Los Angeles is already trumpeting.

Vibrant Political Dynamics

As the New York Times recently reported, the case of Los Angeles illustrates a vibrant political dynamic at work, with Teamsters joining forces with environmentalists against the trucking industry to support sweeping change. As the Times reported last year, though, unions’ use of environmental regulations and support of environmental causes can seem opportunistic.

Questions Raised

The sweep of the West Coast plan, which will completely restructure the drayage business in the region, assuming legal challenes to it by the trucking industry are unsuccessful, is impressive. The Port of Los Angeles was presented with a simple plan option that would have achieved environmental goals at modest cost in a few years’ time but opted instead to introduce a costlier and more ambitious program in pursuit of broader social goals as well (such as raising the standard of living of drivers.) This raises several questions:

  1. Environmental goals are invariably interwined with economic and social ones. How can we make policy that weighs each strand appropriately?
  2. How much prominence should be given to the analysis of long-term versus short-term consequences in the development of policy?
  3. In light of the uncertainty inherent in long-term models, how ambititous should plans be? It’s worth noting that shipping is an industry of strategic importance. A glitch that impairs the functioning of the Port of Los Angeles can be felt across the United States.

If you have some thoughts on these questions, or other reactions to this piece, please consider leaving a comment  below.

Leave a Comment

Filed under emissions, incentives, transportation

Solar Powered Cars?

 I’ve been monkeying with energy statistics long enough to know that, as with any statistics, with enough ingenuity you can find some number somewhere to prove your point. My goal on this blog has not been to prove points but rather to learn and maybe to teach. Today I set out to learn a little about the future of electric vehicles.

It seems likely that a material portion of the automotive fleet in the U.S. will consist of electric vehicles in the next 20 to 30 years. I haven’t done a forecast of the electric vehicle market, but many others have (for example here and here).

Others have also shown that electric vehicles can be less polluting than internal combustion engine vehicles–even if the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels–because electric motors are more efficient than gasoline engine in converting stored energy to motion.

So I was wondering whether renewable energy sources like solar and wind might ever power a significant amount of our driving. My highly superficial analysis suggests that’s plausible but far in the future.

Consider this: it is estimated that today’s electric vehicles will travel a mile on between .2 and .4 kilowatt hours of electricity.

Last year, according to the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. residential vehicles travelled some 2,922 billion miles. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), some 843 MW hours of solar energy and some 52,000 MW hours of wind energy were generated in the U.S. last year. Together that’s enough to power about 176 billion miles of driving, or just about six percent of the total. Little to none of that electricity was actually used to power electric vehicles, though. The EIA says that in 2007, the most recent year for which I could find figures, all electric vehicles consumed just 168 MW hours of electricity.

Today, wind and solar account for a relatively small share of the country’s supply of renewable energy; hydropower is the largest source, and there will be very little hydropower capacity added in coming years. The EIA expects that our supply of renewable energy will nearly double by 2030 compared to 2007 levels, with growth led by solar and biomass. If half of that increase is used to power electric vehicles, assuming their efficiency doesn’t improve (a conservative assumption), that will be enough to power them for nearly 500 billion miles, a substantial share of the total.

It seems plausible, therefore, that renewably generated electricity could power a significant portion of the country’s driving needs over the next decades. Whether strong demand for plug-in electric vehicles will develop remains uncertain, of course. And like any analysis of the country’s energy needs, this one suggests that energy will continue to come from a broad mix of sources for the foreseeable future.

I welcome your perspective on the electric vehicle future and the role of renewables in it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Leave a Comment

Filed under biofuels, efficiency, solar, transportation

Buffett Buys Burlington Northern: The Green Dimension

Warren Buffet’s decision this week to acquire railroad freight company Burlington Northern Santa Fe highlights questions about the the business cycle in the U.S. and the prospects for rail transport.

It also shines a light on the influence of sustainability on corporate strategy. It is well established that rail transport is the most efficient form of surface transportation. (I looked at passenger rail transport in a previous blog post.) Beyond that, BNSF has for years been pursuing a green strategy.

The company has for years been working to improve the energy efficiency of its operations and has achieved a 7.7% increase in fuel efficiency since 1999. It has deployed a variety of clean and energy efficient technologies, some of them experimental, in its trains and in its cargo facilities. It claims, for example, to be the first rail carrier in North America to use zero-emissions electronic wide-span cranes at some of its intermodal facilities. In 2007, BNSF became the first railroad to pilot the use of low-emissions, natural-gas hostler trucks to move containers at their Los Angeles Hobart Intermodal facility. BNSF is the first railroad in the world to develop an experimental hydrogen fuel cell switch locomotive.

The company has also been assiduous about engaging with business groups and non-profits on issues of climate change and sustainability. It voluntarily reports its greenhouse case emissions to the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Business Round table. The Carbon Disclosure Project ranked the company second in the Global 500 industrials category of its Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index, with a score of 85 out of a possible 100.

 And Goldman Sachs singled the company out earlier this year in a report I wrote about that looked at the impact of climate changes on investment strategy and company performance. According to the Goldman report, BNSF ranks in the 90% percentile of the road and rail sector in return on capital, and gets the top climate change score. As Goldman Sachs has pointed out, while climate change may reduce demand for freight-intensive products it will increase the value of energy- and carbon-efficient transport.

Clearly many factors were behind Buffet’s decision to buy the railroad (including, he said, the fact that his father never got him a train set as a kid). But the company’s leadership position in climate change strategy and sustainability did not hurt.

What do you think?

4 Comments

Filed under efficiency, sustainability, transportation

Is a Near-Empty Train Worse than Driving?

Acela Express #2004

Image by cliff1066 via Flickr

Riding between New York and Boston last week on a comfortable and uncrowded Amtrak Acela train it dawned on me that my comfort came at a price. An uncrowded train meant Amtrak was not earning as much revenue as it might have from this run. Beyond that, I wondered, what of the environmental impact of my trip? Everyone knows that public transportation is greener than the private alternative. But what about a sparsely populated train? They are enormously heavy machines that consume most of their energy just moving themselves, before any passengers are added. When is a near-empty train worse for the environment than driving?
Transit Occupancy Sensitivity
Just in time, James Kanter of the New York Times blog Green Inc. wrote about a recent academic study out of the University of California, Berkley that compares the environmental footprint of public transit, air travel and private car travel.

The focus of the article is on the need to take a full life-cycle approach when comparing the costs and benefits of those modes of travel. You have to consider not just the energy it takes to move a passenger one kilometer (the standard measure used for comparison). You also need to look at the energy and environmental impact of building the vehicles and the support infrastructure (including airports, runways, train stations and tracks).

The study found that “total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63% for onroad, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation.” In a nut shell, there is a steep environmental cost incurred even before any travel occurs, especially for rail and air travel.

The implication of this, according to the study is that, while improving the energy efficiency of transport is important, for modes like rail and air its also especially important to explore ways of reducing the environmental impact of the non-operational components such as infrastructure construction.

It also means that improving the occupancy rate of trains and airplanes has a greater impact on the economics and environmental footprint than it does in car travel. Indeed, the study showed that while at average occupancy rates,

train travel is always more environmentally benign, a sparsely populated train can actually use more energy and emit more greenhouse gases per passenger-kilometer than full automobile.

To me the policy implications are clear: beyond supporting research in more energy efficient public and air transit infrastructure, continue to support the use of existing public transit systems, a large portion of whose environmental costs are already sunk.

Do you agree? What are your thoughts?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

7 Comments

Filed under transportation

My Clean, Green, Sustainable Reading List

Over the last few months I’ve been reading through the literature on clean tech, energy and sustainability. In case you are looking for suggestions, I can recommend any or all of these. If you have any reactions or suggestions for further reading, please consider leaving a comment.

Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry
Solar Revolution” provides an excellent overview of the spectrum of solar energy technologies and the prospects for the growth of solar energy. It is the

most thorough treatment I’ve ever read on the subject. Travis Bradford presents a holistic model comparing the total cost of solar energy with grid-based electricity alternatives and finds that solar is already more cost effective than many people realize. He also develops a sophisticated and persuasive model of the growth of the solar industry to show convincingly that solar is destined to become “the preferred energy choice for a large majority of locations and applications.”

Earth: The Sequel: The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming
Interesting and inspiring overview by Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, of the many technologies that are pointing the way to a carbon-free future and a chance of averting environmental catastrophe. Plenty of specific examples and some colorful characters as well. The book returns repeatedly to the importance of creating a cap and trade system in the U.S. It’s logic is as good as any I’ve seen, but it gives the carbon-tax approach short shrift (which is the author’s prerogative.) An engaging read for folks newly wondering how the world will get past fossil fuels.

Harvard Business Review on Green Business Strategy (Harvard Business Review Paperback Series)
Good collection of some classic and more recent articles on the topic of Green Business Strategy, including must-read “A Road Map for Natural Capitalism” by Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins and Paul Hawken.

Getting Green Done: Hard Truths from the Front Lines of the Sustainability Revolution
Charming and witty look at how sustainability happens–and doesn’t–at real companies. Real-world, nitty-gritty examples mixed with some punditry and policy, this book is a good complement to the literature about greening and sustainability. And author Auden Schendler is an engaging storyteller.

Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts (Business)
Dry but systematic and tailored to the needs of executives and corporate sustainability professionals. Recommended for those kicking off or managing corporate sustainability initiatives.

Strategies for the Green Economy : Opportunities and Challenges in the New World of Business
Nice, crisp and current overview of green/sustainability from corporate and corporate marketing perspective by long-time pundit and consultant Joel Makower.

Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage
Packed with light case studies and some handy frameworks. If you are doing corporate sustainability you should probably read it, but but I suspect it works best as a lead generator for the authors’ consulting business.

The Clean Tech Revolution: The Next Big Growth and Investment Opportunity
Good overview of the clean tech space.

The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
Liked it a lot. See my thoughts at elsewhere on this blog.

I welcome your comments on the above or your suggestions for other reading.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

3 Comments

Filed under biofuels, carbon, coal, efficiency, emissions, energy prices, energy storage, grid, illumination, natural gas, oil, solar, sustainability, transportation, water

Will the Surge in Natural Gas Reserves Change Our Energy Future?

LOS ANGELES, CA - JUNE 26:  Hydrogen is produc...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Coal reserves have plunged. And natural gas reserves have soared. It might seem like divine intervention by carbon-hating gods. But it raises some questions.  Reforming natural gas into hydrogen is one of the cheapest way of making hydrogen, and it’s a process that could be powered with by renewable energy. With natural gas supplies so plentiful, and prices bound to stay low for a long time, will the US reverse its decision to cut off funding for hydrogen fuel cells? (See my overview of fuel cell technology.) Will this give a boost to the Pickens plan?

The WSJ blog has a discussion of some of these topics.

I haven’t thought deeply about what this glut of natural gas might mean. If you have any thoughts about it, I’d love to read your comments.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Leave a Comment

Filed under coal, natural gas, transportation