Sustainable Transportation Blog

Large fleets, particularly government operated, considering adopting advanced vehicle technologies, may benefit from a recent assessment.

The US has a goal for federal agencies to use plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) as they become available at a reasonable cost. PHEVs are vehicles that run on both gasoline and batteries charged by connecting a plug into an electric power source. This goal is on top of other requirements agencies must meet for conserving energy. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined the (1) potential benefits of plug-ins, (2) factors affecting the availability of plug-ins, and (3) challenges to incorporating plug-ins into the federal fleet.

The GAO report recommends a need to coordinate multiple goal objectives to support PHEVs. These objectives include reducing dependency on petroleum, reducing carbon dioxide emissions, managing costs, and acquiring advanced technology vehicles.

In terms of benefits the GAO found PHEVs can substantially reduce transportation emissions but there is a complementary need to require a shift to low-carbon electricity generation. Nuclear, solar, wind and hydro generation pathways are suggested. In Canada, Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec produce the majority of electricity from hydro resources. These jurisdictions offer the earliest and easiest opportunity to facilitate low-emission PHEVs in Canada.

The report comments that reduction on oil dependency from foreign countries may be replaced by dependence on imported lithium. The global reserve base of lithium is concentrated in Bolivia, Chile and China.

The GAO suggests that battery prices need to decline. They argue that for PHEVs to be cost effective there also needs to be a corresponding increase in gasoline prices.

Conversions kits are available. Installing these kits usually voids exiting warranties. They have not been crash tested and they constitute tampering of vehicle emission control systems. In addition there are challenges to battery manufacturing capacity and very limited recharging infrastructure.

Declining auto sales, eroding consumer confidence, and tight credit markets are identified as additional barriers to PHEV’s. Spikes in gasoline prices and cultural values towards vehicle style and image also influence purchase decisions. And there is a lot more to ponder.

An interesting observation in the GAO report is that by electrifying transportation the initiative may counter other existing federal policies to reduce electrical energy consumption for facilities. Finally the general lack of understanding and confusion about the range of issues calls for a managed and measured approach. This includes legislative changes and the development of guidelines designed to assist federal agencies procure PHEVs for the US federal fleet.

By Terry Zdan

Labels: electrcity, Lithium-ion, PHEV, Plug-in Hybrids

Recent American data on the economy is dismal news. On June 16, 2009 the US Federal Reserve reported:

“…Industrial production decreased 1.1 percent in May after having fallen a downward-revised 0.7 percent in April. The average decrease in industrial production during the first three months of the year was 1.6 percent. Manufacturing output moved down 1.0 percent in May with broad-based declines across industries. Outside of manufacturing, the output of mines dropped 2.1 percent, and the output of utilities fell 1.4 percent. At 95.8 percent of its 2002 average, overall industrial output in May was 13.4 percent below its year-earlier level. The rate of capacity utilization for total industry declined further in May to 68.3 percent, a level 12.6 percentage points below its average for 1972-2008. Prior to the current recession, the low over the history of this series, which begins in 1967, was 70.9 percent in December 1982.”

On an entirely different spectrum recent news out of Copenhagen on climate change isn’t very optimistic either. An urgently updated status report by the International Scientific Congress entitled Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions states that:

“…Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts…”


People are having a tough time keeping jobs, making mortgage payments, putting food on the table and putting fuel in the gas tank Governments and political leaders are facing similar tough challenges meeting social objectives and keeping peace order and good government. Current carbon dioxide concentration is about 394 ppm, compared to pre 1750 levels of 280 ppm, and are increasing.

On the sunnier side of the street a new report from the University of Michigan Transport Institute titled “Fixing Detroit, How Far How Fast How Fuel efficient?” models profitability of the Big 3 auto manufactures assuming fuel economy improvements of 30% to 50%. The study identifies the critical components of successful industry turnarounds and the model results are very promising and encouraging.

In 2009 the CST published its research findings about driving behaviour and feedback systems. The study participants overwhelmingly identified fuel cost and fuel economy as the most important information influencing their driving behaviour. The least significant factor was greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions.

The "reader’s digest" version of this long story is that if North America can do the things necessary to turn the automobile manufacturing sector around and produce more fuel efficient vehicles a ride of prosperity will follow. People will probably buy these fuel efficient cars. The Federal Reserve data will show growth instead of decline, more people will be employed; mortgage payments will be met, etc. And with improved fuel economy, tailpipe emissions decrease. Take this scenario to the highest and best technology possible, electrification of transportation systems can reduce carbon emission by a factor of 80%. This all adds up to saving the planet - one car at a time.

By Terry Zdan

Labels: climate change, ecomomy, electrification, fuel efficiency

Labels: Bicycles; Bike-Sharing

"Sustainability" has become something of a buzzword, and one sees it almost everywhere these days. Because of this, there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about what it actually means. Michael D. Lemonick, senior writer at the climate change think tank Climate Central has tackled this problem in the pages of the March 2009 issue of Scientific American, outlining (and debunking) what he believes are the Top Ten "myths' about sustainability. We here at the CST think there's a lot of merit to his arguments -- but that it would be worthwhile to take on these myths from a transportation perspective.  

Myth 1: Nobody knows what sustainability really means.

Lemonick says that this is "nowhere close to being true" --  that the definition dates back to the 1987 Brundtland Report and has been widely adopted and integrated. He translates this to mean simply, “don’t take more than your share.” 

This translates nicely for our purposes: Don't drive/fly/ship more than you need to; and travel by the least consumptive mode possible.

Myth 2: Sustainability is all about the environment.

Lemonick argues that sustainability initiatives not only make good economic sense, they can contribute to our overall psycho-social well-being. 

Sustainable transportation, too, makes excellent economic sense: after all, the movement of people and goods is essential to our economy, and in an energy-poor future such movement will not be possible if modes, efficiencies and renewable technologies are not adjusted and advanced. And there are huge benefits to our health and well-being when we are able to walk and bicycle to our everyday destinations.

Myth 3: “Sustainable” is a synonym for “green.”

Lemonick points out that "green" generally denotes natural, organic and non-technological. By contrast, if we are to share a sustainable future, this will involve a heavy reliance on advanced technologies -- including, argue some, nuclear power.    

This is certainly true when one considers sustainable transportation options. If the automobile is to have a future it will need to involve technologies far more advanced than the internal combustion engine. Even the humble bicycle, while the most efficient form of transport yet invented, is comprised of non-biodegradable parts and utilizes petroleum products. 

Myth 4: It’s all about recycling.

That is, if you use a blue box, all is well. Think again, says Lemonick. The most significant areas that people need to examine are their energy use and transportation habits. 

The equivalent here in terms of transportation might be the demonized SUV: that if you don't drive one -- or else traded one in for a smaller car -- then this would be sufficiently "green." Yet with the global automobile fleet estimated to reach 1 billion cars by 2010, it is certainly not only about switching to smaller cars. The absolute number of vehicles is also a problem.

Myth 5: Sustainability is too expensive.

Yes, admits Lemonick, transitioning to a more sustainable technology is often more expensive over the short term, but pays dividends in terms of efficiencies and long-term viability.

Sustainable transportation systems -- such as light rail -- do cost a considerable amount of public monies. But these costs need to be compared with the costs of business as usual, including the massive public subsidies for roads -- as well as gains in efficiencies and reduced pollution.  

Myth 6: Sustainability means lowering our standard of living.

This isn't true, argues Lemonick, because the efficiencies gained through sustainable technologies will allow us to do more with less. 

Advances in sustainable transportation will also allow us to move more using less energy. And when we re-consider what we mean by "standard of living" we can also see that modal shifts that see us reduce our driving and increase our walking and cycling have the potential bring about large improvements to our health and quality of life.

Myth 7: Consumer choices and grassroots activism, not government intervention, offer the fastest, most efficient routes to sustainability.

This is the preferred argument, says Lemonick, of "free market evangelicals" who loathe anything not left to the "free market." Yet the large-scale changes needed -- including correcting the erroneous assumption that emitting greenhouse gasses incurs no financial cost -- can only be undertaken (or at least led) by governments. 

Consumer choices mean little if there is no provision to allow consumers to make more sustainable choices. That is why governments are needed to mandate, fund and regulate sustainable transportation infrastructure such as light rail, and to require that industry supply sustainable transport modes, such as hybrid and other low-emission vehicles. 

Myth 8: New technology is always the answer.

Actually, Lemonick shows that using existing technology more appropriately (keeping your tires properly inflated) or adapting that technology (swapping car batteries rather than developing new ones) can be at least as effective as developing new technology. 

However, technologies old or new are not always the answer. That's why the CST’s focus is on the relationship between society and its institutions, transportation technologies, policy options and environment. Our applied research provides pragmatic solutions that guide social policy, human behaviour and technology roadmaps. For example, the CST has developed guidelines for land use and transportation policies to support active transportation for children. We have used technology to research and develop outreach proposals to address driving behaviour and improving efficiency by changing behaviour, and we have deployed GPS technology to cyclists to assess and advance the development of cycling infrastructure with the OttoCYCLE project.

Myth 9: Sustainability is ultimately a population problem

Lemonick calls this a "false solution" rather than a myth. It is true that we are consuming far more resources than the planet can offer, and disposing more waste than it can absorb -- and billions more people are expected before population trends reverse. However, unless we are prepared to adopt draconian measures or mass suicide, the only option, he says, is to reduce our rates of consumption.

Since transportation represents such a  52% of global oil consumption, and is equally such a large producer of greenhouse gas emissions, then sustainability may be seen to a large extent as a transportation problem. Solutions must include a vast reduction in the amount of energy needed to move people and goods locally and globally.

Myth 10: Once you understand the concept, living sustainably is a breeze to figure out.

Au contraire, writes Lemonick, 

"...You cannot really declare any practice 'sustainable' until you have done a complete life-cycle analysis of its environmental costs. Even then, technology and public policy keep evolving, and that evolution can lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. The admirable goal of living sustainably requires plenty of thought on an ongoing basis."

We concur: It isn't easy being sustainable and transportation solutions are still evolving. The CST proposes a hierarchy of modes for sustainable transportation practices, and is certainly committed to engaging in "plenty of thought on an ongoing basis" to the problem of sustainable transportation in particular and sustainability generally. 

Terry Zdan and Michael Dudley

Labels: Ottocycle, road pricing, Sustainable development, sustainable transportation