|
|
November 30, 2009
Do Diesel-based Farmers Dream of Electric Tractors?
Writer George Monbiot's recent Peak Oil article entitled "If Nothing Else, Save Farming" included this comment: There are no obvious barriers to the mass production of electric tractors and combine harvesters: the weight of the batteries and an electric vehicle's low-end torque are both advantages for tractors.
I read this and immediately tweeted the question "Where are the electric tractors?" Well, scientist-turned-farmer John Hewson has responded to Monbiot's assertion with an explanation that lacks Monbiot's, shall we say, sanguinary spirit: [T]o anyone who has worked with farm machinery, especially on smaller and poorer farms, the idea of electric tractors will seem ridiculous. So far, electric traction has been developed only for transport, and most successfully in railway trains. The development of batteries and control systems has been directed at the needs of passenger cars, which do not have to pull heavy loads at low speeds for long periods. Electric tractors do exist, but are light machines similar to ride-on lawn mowers, with power outputs of around 40kW. Typical farm tractors have outputs of 100kW-200kW, and no currently available batteries could provide anything like this amount of energy, or anything approaching the working life of a diesel engine. The best lithium-ion electric car batteries and motors work at high voltages (500V for example). As an engineer, I would blench at the idea of maintaining a 100KW, 500V system in a damp and muddy farmyard, let alone carrying out running repairs in the middle of a 50-hectare field, in the rain. As far as I know, electric traction for farm machines has not yet been even considered as an option. If it ever reaches the stage of production, it will be very expensive indeed -- far beyond the budgets of even large farms.
But here's the good news. Hewson appears to be, to a large extent, wrong! READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG
Labels: energy, farming, transport
November 10, 2009
Europe Tries Turning Cars into "Trains"
While "smart highways" that will do the driving for you still appear to be a pipe dream, Europe is now experimenting with a cheaper alternative: Road Trains. Fast Company explains: Here's how a road train works: the convoy is controlled by a lead vehicle with a professional driver at the helm--one day, this is where all Formula 1 retirees will end up. The other cars communicate with the leader to join and leave the train when they want, thanks to wireless sensors and their existing sat nav systems. Once on the convoy, the drivers behind the leader are able to take their hands off the wheel to read a book, watch TV, or check company sales figures and decide which poor minion is for the chop this month. Sounds... intriguing. The tests will take place in the UK, Sweden and Spain (and oddly, it's the Spanish who get to test it out on public roads). Shifting traffic to a computer network style "packet-based" system where small groups of cars move in carefully orchestrated batches has always been the holy grail of traffic management. Achieving this through the use of "smartened up" lead vehicles certainly seems more practical than re-engineering millions of miles of roads. One issue that arises, of course, is the need to retrain drivers to handle the transition from being a "member" of a road train back to being an independent vehicle. As any airline pilot will tell you, the smooth switchover from a passive to an active awareness mode takes training, a bit of time and has horrible consequences if done poorly. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what these tests come up with. Image courtesy Fast CompanyLabels: transport
July 21, 2009
For Obesity, Try Soda Gas Taxes
 When I mentioned the fact that many and varied changes in policy will likely be required to address the obesity epidemic, I wasn't specifically thinking about gas taxes. But clearly, I should have been. Matt Yglesias points to this news from Forbes of research indicating that increasing gas taxes could have a significant effect on obesity rates: Charles Courtemanche, an economist at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, has produced a study suggesting that permanent hikes in gas prices may slash obesity rates. The amount is hardly nominal: A sustained $1 increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline equals a 10% dip in the nation’s obesity rate--that's about 9 million fewer obese people clogging up health care systems and costing society (and themselves) money. "The price of gas is a powerful lever when it comes to medical expenses and mortality rates," Courtemanche says. "There’s a savings in this for all of us." Americans' sedentary lifestyle has long been known as a major contributing factor to the obesity crisis -- but the policy focus has of late been almost entirely on food, e.g. junk food taxes, health food subsidies and calorie labeling. Courtemanche offers compelling evidence that transportation and energy policy deserves its place in the mix. He provides a fairly complete mechanism as well: Courtemanche found evidence in his data that rising gas prices resulted in more Americans walking and more Americans bicycling. Perhaps just as important, he noticed that, as gas prices increase, people eat out at restaurants less. In addition to more strolling and cycling, people use public transportation more, Courtemanche says, and that, too, burns far more calories than sitting in a bucket driver’s seat, sipping coffee, and flipping through radio channels. People who use subways, buses, trolleys or commuter rail services need to get to and from mass transit stops, and that probably means more walking on both ends. A $1 rise in gas means 11,000 fewer lives lost to obesity-related causes and $11 billion per year saved on health costs, Courtemanche says. Good stuff. The connection to rising gas prices and reduced restaurant visits is fascinating and one that I certainly would not have immediately recognized. The same goes for the fact that public transportation use burns more calories than driving -- obvious in retrospect but still easy to overlook. And once gas gets up north of $6 a gallon, according to Courtemanche anyway, that's when you'd start to see a transformation away from a car-centric culture as gas prices start to affect housing and relocation decisions. Of course, we may not need gas taxes for all that -- economic recovery plus peak oil may yet get us to the same place. It's just a further indication that our policy choices for addressing obesity need to include "all of the above." Photo by caseyhelbling used under a CC licenseLabels: energy, health, transport
June 3, 2009
Humm-dinger
 Tough enough to drive over the Great Wall? Photo credit: GM.comI can't say as I know exactly what's going through the minds of the top executives at Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd. who have reportedly just purchased the Hummer brand from GM. I'll say one thing, though. I'm pretty sure they're not Peak Oilers. Still, give them credit for some much-needed greenwashing:
[Hummer spokesman Nick] Richards said the buyer planned to continue selling Hummer's current lineup as it developed "more efficient" vehicles. The brand will eventually sell trucks fueled by diesel, ethanol and other alternative fuels, he said.
That's the spirit! Although getting 10 miles/gallon running on anything will start to pinch when that anything costs $5 a gallon again. CONTINUE READING THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG... Labels: energy, pollution, transport
April 16, 2009
Sorry, Vegas
Just to close the loop on the riveting debate over whether or not Las Vegas will get high speed rail: the answer is no. Obama spoke on HSR today and, according to Matt Yglesias, in an accompanying press release listed the rail corridors eligible for funding: —California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego) —Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC) —South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock) —Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, , Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta) —Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville,) —Florida Corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami) —Southeast Corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville) —Keystone Corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh) —Empire Corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo) —Northern New England Corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany) Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor (Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, New Haven, Providence, Boston) to compete for funds for improvements to the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service, and for establishment and upgrades to passenger rail services in other parts of the country.
You mean all that GOP noise over Sen. Harry Reid inserting an $8 billion earmark in the stimulus for HSR to Vegas was utter balderdash? How unexpected. Labels: politics, transport
March 30, 2009
For GM's Volt Too Much is Too Much
Much has been made of this quote from President Obama's auto restructuring team regarding GM's Chevy Volt: In an attempt to leapfrog Toyota, GM has devoted significant resources to the Chevy Volt. While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable. Now, it's true that betting the company on a non-existent market segment (i.e. plug-in hybrids) when even plain-vanilla hybrid sales represent only a fraction of the auto market seems questionable. And the restructuring that GM needs goes far beyond its failure to have a competitor to the Toyota Prius. But then again this was the company that previously centered its business and environmental strategy on the fantasy of the so-called "hydrogen economy" -- a transformation that was as far-off as it was unlikely. There's always been a haze of unreality hovering over GM's "green" initiatives (probably because global warming is a " crock of sh*t"). With the Volt, GM seems to have come asymptotically close to coming up with a winner. At best, GM appeared to recognize that it couldn't compete in today's car market, so why not make a car that might compete (eventually) in tomorrow's. GM certainly couldn't have imagined it would sell too many $40,000 sedans -- which is how much the Volt will(?) would have(?) cost (while a Prius costs about $24,000). You'd think that affordability would've been an issue during the design phase. Given that the car carried its own recharger (in the form of a gasoline engine that kicked in when the battery charge was low), you have to wonder why they insisted on a battery with a 40 mile range -- way beyond what anyone else was attempting with plug-ins. Sadly, it appears that GM, seeking a game-changer, may have fatally over-reached. Because if there's a fatal flaw in the Volt (especially as GM's silver bullet), it's that darn battery. A Bloomberg article (via Joe Romm) that came out early this month sums it up: General Motors Corp.'s Volt electric car may be too expensive to buy and operate to displace Toyota Motor Corp.'s Prius hybrid as the industry benchmark for cutting fuel use and cutting carbon exhaust. A rechargeable auto with the Volt's target range of 40 miles on electricity is "not cost effective in any scenario," a study by Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh found. Plug-in cars with smaller batteries may be a better value, according to the study, which doesn't cite the Volt by name. "Forty miles might be a sweet spot for making sure a lot of people get to work without using gasoline, but you're doing it at a cost that will never be repaid in fuel savings," Jeremy Michalek, an engineering professor who led the study, said in an interview. The study is an attempt to test how prices and driving habits may shape consumer choices among current hybrids and new models such as the Volt and a Prius able to be recharged at a household outlet. With lighter, cheaper batteries, a plug-in with 7 to 10 miles (11 to 16 kilometers) of electric range or a conventional hybrid may provide the best mix of price, faster charge times and efficiency, Michalek said.
In case you're wondering, the researchers based their numbers on $6 a gallon gas. Meanwhile, the battery alone is thought oto cst $16,000 -- you can get a decent small car for that. It's also the difference in cost between a Toyota Prius and (as estimated) the Volt itself. The Volt is a second generation plug-in hybrid when all GM needed was a first. It will be interesting to see if the new management tries to save the Volt by downsizing the battery -- assuming the company's still around to build it. Labels: energy, transport
March 11, 2009
"Mr. President, Tear Down This Blend Wall!"
 So says USDA Chief Tom Vilsack. What he's referring to is the so-called Blend Wall for ethanol in gasoline. The EPA currently sets a limit of how much ethanol can be mixed into gas and then sold at your local gas station -- 10%. That limit is effectively the sales ceiling for ethanol -- once ethanol producers hit that "wall," refiners won't buy another drop. With fuel consumption and oil prices both tanking which has led to a cratering of demand for ethanol, ethanol producers and their main suppliers -- corn farmers -- are desperate for a government handout. At first they asked for some of that stimulus money in the form of a direct bailout -- Vilsack didn't bite. No loans, no grants, no nothing. At the same time, Vilsack has said he wants to "maintain the infrastructure" of ethanol production while moving away from corn as the primary feedstock. The problem is that you can't do that without supporting the current ethanol industry, which is fueled by lots and lots (and lots) of that selfsame primary feedstock -- corn. It's hard to imagine just how much corn is required to make a usable amount of ethanol. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute has a great quote that sums it up: "The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year." A year of food for a fill-up? In 2007, the US produced 6.5 BILLION gallons of the stuff. Do I really need to go on? Fine, I will. Let's look at those 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol. That's a lot of gallons. It must be a big chunk of our annual gasoline use, right? Wrong. We used 142 billion gallons of gasoline last year. We grew all that corn -- corn that could have fed over two hundred million people for a year -- and all we got was less than 5% of the fuel we need. There's a t-shirt in there somewhere -- I just know it. Meanwhile the climate impact from corn ethanol is staggering. Any study that attempts to take factors into account other than the energy content of corn vs. the energy content of gasoline shows corn ethanol to be a lousy option that offers no climate benefits. That's because you simply can't look at corn ethanol in isolation (which is how the corn farms and the ethanol lobby do it). Corn requires lots of fossil fuel-based fertilizer, pesticides, and diesel fuel to grow and harvest. Ethanol is also moved around by truck (rather than pipeline) so you need to take transportation into account - transport from the field to the factory and from the factory to the distributor and from the distributor to the gas station. That's a lot of trucking. According to a new study out of Duke, the greenhouse gas contributions of just farming the corn entirely offset any carbon advantage from burning ethanol instead of gasoline in cars. Their conclusion: you're better off leaving the soil fallow. But you can't fully estimate the full effect of corn ethanol unless you take land use into account. Let me repeat that in All Caps: YOU HAVE TO TAKE LAND USE INTO ACCOUNT. And the land use issues are huge. It's not just a question of using food for fuel. You have to calculate how many farmers will switch to corn from other less-profitable crops. You have to determine how much ecologically fragile land will be plowed under in the demand for corn. You have to look at how countries like Brazil will respond to US increases in corn production. Answer: they will burn down their rainforests so that they can grow the food crops we're not growing. A team from Woods Hole Research Center determined that expanding corn ethanol production will thus cause a big jump in greenhouse gas emissions. And Lester Brown points out the same may be true for non-food crops like switchgrass (a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol), "if it is that profitable on marginal land, imagine how profitable it would be on prime crop land." So here we are with our backs to the blend wall. I should note that Vilsack and industry shills like retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who now works for the new ethanol lobby group Growth Energy, are not in fact asking the President to change the blend wall. They are asking the EPA. In the past, the EPA has evaluated the "safety" of mixing ethanol in gasoline based on damage the ethanol might do to a car engine and/or its catalytic converter. And that's why, as Ob Fo noted yesterday, Vilsack thinks "that this is something that can be done within existing regulations without a great deal of time spent reviewing the science." Indeed, Reuters reports that "many believe the EPA has the authority to allow a temporary jump to 12 or 13 percent" without any meaningful review. That "authority" flows entirely from the EPA's past car engine research. And there's the rub. Is it possible that EPA scientists will ignore the carbon issue in the course of considering a change in the blend wall? The controversy over corn ethanol's climate impact is fairly well recognized. For all the lobbying (with even climate-friendly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supporting the change), the EPA could still punt and say that the new data on climate impacts require them to look at the blend wall more closely. The EPA is, after all, on the verge of making its official "endangerment" finding, as required by a recent Supreme Court case, that carbon dioxide must be regulated as a pollutant. Any blend wall decision could be mooted by that finding. This whole ethanol mishegas is what happens when a shortsighted energy policy based on "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" (rather than reducing our dependence on carbon period) meets one of the all-time greatest government giveaways (in this case to industrial agriculture) - aka the corn ethanol boondoggle. As Ezra Klein memorably put it, corn ethanol "is agribusiness's get-rich-quick scheme masquerading as an energy policy." And boy, are we paying for that profligacy now. Photo by natjoschock used under a CC license
Labels: energy, farming, food, politics, transport
February 26, 2009
Bicycles on Broadway
NYC's Mayor Bloomberg just announced that several large sections of Broadway - including Times Square and Herald Square - will be closed to vehicle traffic for the rest of the year. If the experiment works, the closure will be permanent. In the Bush years, we might have wondered if it was for security purposes. But no: The plan calls for Broadway to be closed to vehicles from 47th Street to 42nd Street. Traffic would continue to flow through on crossing streets, but the areas between the streets would become pedestrian malls, with chairs, benches and cafe tables with umbrellas. Seventh Avenue would be widened slightly within Times Square to accommodate the extra traffic diverted from Broadway. Below 42nd Street, Broadway would be open to traffic, but then would shut down again at Herald Square, from 35th Street to 33rd Street. Then, below 33rd, it would open again.
The plan is the latest move by Mr. Bloomberg to change the way the city thinks of its streets, making them more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists and chipping away at the dominance of the automobile.
It comes on the heels of the "Broadway Boulevard" plan that expanded bike lanes and pedestrian areas in Times Square, pictured below. But getting rid of cars entirely? That's just awesome. Next up - the 42nd St. surface rail - if Vision42 gets its way! How cool would that be? "Broadway Boulevard" photo by John Niedermeyer used under CC license
42nd St. tram photo courtesy Vision42Labels: smart_growth, transport
February 25, 2009
Train-hating B@stards
This drives me nuts. In an article by the AP on the House's omnibus budget bill comes a reference to: the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system Come on! How about the money-losing Interstate Highway System? Or the money-losing national parks? Or our money-losing VA Hospitals? Or the Mother of All Money-losers: the US Military? I know this is a leftover from 30 years of effective Republican privatization messaging, but still. Just because a bunch of market-crazed freaks decided one day that our interstate rail system should make money doesn't mean we all have to drink the Kool-Aid. Just stop it, AP! Good thing Amtrak Joe has our backs.
Photo by reivax used under a CC licenseLabels: infrastructure, transport
February 10, 2009
Bye, Bob
Bob "climate change is a crock of sh*t" Lutz is retiring from GM. He designed nice cars, I guess. And yes, he was Mr. Volt. But I guess the "triumph of science" in the new administration was too much for him. Now if GM would just drop their anti-environmental lawsuits and their love affair with ethanol, I wouldn't feel so bad about bailing them out. Photo courtesy GMLabels: pollution, transport
February 3, 2009
SUPERTRAIN, Is That You?
Anyone else notice this line buried in the Senate stimulus bill summary? $3.1 billion for investments in rail transportation, including High Speed Rail I wonder what that's all about. Labels: infrastructure, transport
January 6, 2009
Tour de News
Strap in for a whirlwind tour of recent articles that caught my attention. They point to all the moving parts involved with addressing climate change, from cap-and-trade to climate treaties to investment to regulation. First we've got news via Joe Romm that cap-and-trade legislation may have to wait until 2010. According to Environment and Energy Daily (sub req'd): ...Pelosi said she has sufficient backing in the Democratic-controlled House to move a cap-and-trade bill, but will not force the issue. "I'm not sure this year, because I don’t know if we'll be ready," Pelosi said. "We won't go before we're ready." This somewhat complicates the latest round of negotiations for a new international climate treaty which requires countries to have domestic cap-and-trade deals in place in advance of a meeting in Copenhagen later this year. Of course, no one really expected the US to manage it and, given the last eight years, serious progress on the legislation will likely be enough to satisfy most negotiating partners. Next we move to Dot Earth, where Andy Revkin reports that China's power generation growth and associated carbon emissions fell off a cliff in 2008 due to the world financial and credit crisis. Romm observes that this may help the international situation since it presents Obama with an opportunity to get China on board the emissions-cutting bus. It's easier when a lousy economy does some of the work for you. Which brings us to the UK, where the Transportation Minister Lord Adonis (really. Lord Adonis. Could there have been a better nom de plume for me? Ah well.) announced plans for a British SUPERTRAIN. Via Business Green. The plans... would see new 200mph rail lines built linking the existing channel tunnel rail link with new high speed lines heading north to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Scotland, and West to Bristol. The new lines would centre on a new 12 platform rail hub at Heathrow, allowing travellers to easily reach the airport by car and also cutting rail journey times to the continent. A trip from Birmingham to Paris for example would be almost three hours quicker than it is now.
Clearly, we need one of those here in the US. The bad news for the Brits is that their supertrain may be used as a carrot to cram a much-maligned Heathrow expansion down UK environmentalists' throats (or is that not how you use a carrot?). Anyway, it's an awfully big, sweet, tasty carrot. It's all part of the UK's stimulus package, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown is touting as a way "to take the next step towards building a far more environmentally sustainable economy." The opposition Tories, of course, think that's a load of hogwash because the ruling Labor Party's plans DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH. In a recent speech, opposition leader David Cameron, again via Business Green, denied: Brown's claims that the UK had established itself as a genuine leader in the emerging clean tech market, arguing that the government had not done enough to encourage investment in low carbon initiatives. You mean it's not normal to have the opposition be foot-dragging, anti-science climate deniers? Who knew? Finally, we see an example of how regulation can beat the pants off a tax. California is planning to limit power consumption of flat panel tvs, effectively banning power-hogging plasma tvs. From the LA Times: LCD -- liquid crystal display -- sets use 43% more electricity, on average, than conventional tube TVs; larger models use proportionately more. Plasma TVs, which command a relatively small share of the market, need more than three times as much power as bulky, old-style sets. If you just added some kind of powerhog tax on those tvs, they'd still sell like hotcakes - people who spend that much on a tv aren't sensitive to a tax. Sometimes the government needs to step in and just say no. What kind of difference would it make? Try this on for size: During a peak viewing time when most sets are on, such as the Super Bowl, TVs in the state collectively suck up the equivalent of 40% of the power generated by the San Onofre nuclear power station running at full capacity. Televisions account for about 10% of the average Californian's monthly household electricity bill. Second only to refrigerators as the single most power hungry daily-use item in most people's homes. So it's no coincidence that refrigerators are the regulatory model for the new tv plan. Interestingly, some California utilities like PG&E are getting behind the proposed regulations since it would take so much stress off the grid. There you have it. This disparate collection of news provides a good demonstration that, when presented with the various choices for addressing climate change, the answer is all of the above. Labels: carbon, climate, infrastructure, politics, transport
December 6, 2008
Mr. Fix It
I think it's worth taking a moment to let the impact of Obama's weekend announcement of the details of his stimulus package sink in by reviewing the NYT's writeup from Sunday. What stunned me was not so much the dollar figure (which is still up in the air anyway) but rather the breadth of what he's talking about. The favored comparison has been to Eisenhower's federal interstate highway program. But even on the low end of the dollar estimate - $400 billion - it would be about double what was spent (in today's dollars) to build the entire interstate highway system. So it should come as no surprise that the list of projects under consideration goes way beyond building roads: Although Mr. Obama put no price tag on his plan, he said he would invest record amounts of money in the vast infrastructure program, which also includes work on schools, sewer systems, mass transit, electrical grids, dams and other public utilities. The green jobs would include various categories, including jobs dedicated to creating alternative fuels, windmills and solar panels; building energy efficient appliances, or installing fuel-efficient heating or cooling systems. Those projects directly or indirectly impact every aspect of the economy. Part of this, of course, is the need to find ways to spend $400+ billion - not so easy to do as it turns out. But the scope of this plan is still staggering - we're talking about addressing in a single shot infrastructure shortcomings (if not outright crises) that have been festering for decades. We all knew that Obama represented change - but this is more like an outright transformation of the country. I'd also take issue with the NYT's "green jobs" category in the above list. Money spent on "mass transit, electrical grids, dams and other public utilities" (and probably investment in our broadband infrastructure, which is also being discussed) should certainly be considered green investments given the outlook of the incoming administration. It's fair to say that the country will be almost unrecognizably greener at the end of this buildout. In fact, along with funding for winterizing homes and making government buildings more energy efficient (whose importance you can read more about here and here), investing in the national grid may be, from a green perspective, the most significant aspect of the entire stimulus plan. Modernizing and expanding the grid to, among other things, bring it closer to the where our sun and wind resources are is the number two priority of Al Gore's climate plan. For a while, it seemed like the grid improvements would be something that flew under the radar, invisible to congressional appropriators in the competition for limited funding. Now it's just another tick mark on Obama's list. From a political perspective, that's the most notable thing to me about the stimulus plan. It literally cuts off debate on whole areas of investment that have represented fairly significant conflict over the last decade or so. And this doesn't just apply to new projects - fully funding chronically underfunded existing programs and likely allowing the government to properly staff its departments (hello, new food inspectors!) are some pretty nice fringe benefits to this plan. I guess it's a lot easier to find the money for things when you can just print more of it. And if he does indeed sign it on January 20th, I'd say it would represent a pretty good first day's work. Photo by jphilipg used under CC license.Labels: energy, infrastructure, politics, transport
December 5, 2008
Auto Destruct
Well. That happened. The Three Amigos appeared before Congress this week and went over like a lead Edsel. As Ben Mack at Wired's Autopia blog put it, "the Big Three have rarely missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." And this past week was no exception. Honestly, it's probably even overly generous to refer to them as the Big Three at this point. Indeed, Robert Nardelli, CEO of Chrysler, which tried to merge itself into oblivion right before this whole process started, could barely justify his presence at the table. Meanwhile, as Joe Romm observed, GM's announced "plan" is a bunch of warmed over boilerplate that includes paeans to ethanol and hydrogen. While they do feature their own potential potential gamechanger, the Chevy Volt, it's disheartening to see GM flogging hydrogen-powered cars so prominently. Hydrogen is that permanent gleam in George W. Bush's eye and the anchor of the sine qua non of greenwashing campaigns (the coal industry learned a lot from the Big Three if "clean coal" is any indication). Let it go, guys. Only today's horrific jobs report provided congressfolks with any incentive to open their/our wallets. All indications are that while, as Rep. Barney Frank put, Congress will "do something" - probably bridge loans with various strings attached - they will punt anything more significant to the new administration. And why shouldn't they? Saving these companies is hard! I suppose this whole fiasco was predictable. If the Big Three's management was truly visionary they wouldn't be in this pickle in the first place. That said, Romm did find the silverish lining in Ford's plan, which included some promising tidbits such as a focus on cutting hybrid costs by 30%, on a return to profitability on small cars and on revamping supplier relationships - all crucial elements of any auto industry recovery according to analysts. After all this, though, I think I'll just reformulate my original assertion into a nifty metaphor. Congress, and ultimately the Obama administration, should worry less about fixing the Big Three's house and more on transforming the landscape around it. With US car sales (not to mention employment and consumer spending) in freefall, it's incumbent upon the government to offer the bridge loans to get the companies past this roughest of economic rough patches. But we shouldn't delude ourselves - the Big Three will shed thousands of jobs even in the best-case scenario if only because the car market itself continues to shrink. The real energy for reform, however, should go towards new requirements and consumer incentives surrounding fuel efficient cars and transforming the car into a [mostly] electric vehicle that is powered by renewable fuel. There's lots to be done in that regard that has nothing to do with the car companies themselves. The sudden success of A Better Place's car charging system demonstrates that the ball has started rolling. Let's spend our billions on pushing it along and see if any of the Big Three can it pick it up and run with it. If we don't make that the goal, then our aid to the automakers will simply have been a bridge loan to nowhere. [Updated 10:30pm:] Looks like they'll get their bailout after all. Labels: transport
December 2, 2008
The Three Amigos
 No, not those guys. I'm referring, of course, to Rick, Bob and Al - the CEOs of GM, Chrysler and Ford. They've got shiny new recovery plans in their tin cups this time, which they're bringing to Congress today this week in hybrid cars instead of on corporate jets. And they're all prepared to take a 99.99999% pay cut, if that's what it takes to get government money. I'm sure it will be a bumpy ride. As I said earlier, I don't have a particular prescription for the auto industry. Presumably some combination of building better, greener cars, getting smaller and improving management strategies will result from all this sturm und drang. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly has a good run-down on the best of the expert analysis on this subject. But frankly, I think the best ideas for the car companies are the ones that consider radical new business plans - something that seems to be anathema to the US car companies. I learned early on during my time in the technology startup biz that some of the best innovation coming out of Silicon Valley, for example, wasn't technology per se, but rather in the development of alternative business methods and business plans - heck, in the case of Microsoft, that's the only kind of innovation they've ever had. Which is to say that it's a shame there's isn't a greater willingness on the part of the Big Three to embrace radical change. After all, the status quo isn't going so well for them. What would a radical new business plan look like? Maybe like Shai Agassi's Better Place. Agassi is a tech wunderkind who left a top job at business software company SAP to try and remake the auto business. Wired Magazine explains: Agassi reimagined the entire automotive ecosystem by proposing a new concept he called the Electric Recharge Grid Operator. It was an unorthodox mashup of the automotive and mobile phone industries. Instead of gas stations on every corner, the ERGO would blanket a country with a network of "smart" charge spots. Drivers could plug in anywhere, anytime, and would subscribe to a specific plan--unlimited miles, a maximum number of miles each month, or pay as you go--all for less than the equivalent cost for gas. They'd buy their car from the operator, who would offer steep discounts, perhaps even give the cars away. The profit would come from selling electricity--the minutes. He has since partnered with Nissan to build the cars, is launching trials in Israel, Denmark, California [ updated: and announced a statewide trial in Hawaii] - and just landed a $667 million deal to create a system of car charging stations in Australia. Gee, someone's having success in the auto business. Meanwhile, the NYT points out that one of the biggest obstacles for the success of the Chevy Volt is the $15,000 battery that runs the car. Which begs the question: why should you have to buy the battery? Why not riff on Agassi such that you own the car but rent the battery? Could that be an answer? I haven't the foggiest. But why isn't anyone else asking these sorts of questions? If we're going to remake the auto industry, I say we remake it. Let one hundred flowers bloom. Obviously, the Big Three make aircraft carriers look small - they're more like space stations the size of small moons - and turning them is beyond hard. But turn they must. And if you ask me, if they want to turn into something other than industrial roadkill, they better think not just outside the box, but in, through and beyond it. Labels: politics, transport
November 21, 2008
Full Power to the Diesels
I will leave to others the details of the auto bailout. Whether it's extra special super-secret let's-not-call-it-bankruptcy debt refinancing or loans or tax credits, I don't have much to contribute. My only question for the Big Three now is: Where are the diesels? I know what you're thinking. Dirty diesel? Surely, I must be joking. It thus bears repeating that diesel fuel was - until the advent of hybrids - the sine qua non of fuel efficiency. A 1990 diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta can go 39 highway miles on a gallon of the sticky stuff. It takes a Prius to get that kind of mileage out of a similarly sized car that burns gasoline. Of course, diesel engines were also the sine qua non of foul clouds of odoriferous soot, which was a problem. That never bothered Europeans, who have a long history of embracing diesel cars - to this day American car makers introduce diesel models there and not here. It also helps that European fuel taxes don't discriminate against diesel, as they do in the US, which is why diesel is so much more expensive here. But "clean diesel" has at last arrived. And unlike it's linguistic sibling "clean coal", clean diesel is very clean and very real. It actually refers both to the fuel and the engine. First came Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel thanks to EPA rules initiated during the Clinton Administration. Removing the sulfur, which interferes with various chemical reactions, allows for catalytic converter-like systems that can take out just about everything else: nitrogen oxides, soot, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides. And to top it all off, clean diesels actually have lower carbon emissions than even hybrids. Popular Mechanics tested a European Prius against a (smaller) VW Polo clean diesel. At 5% fewer greenhouse emissions and over 70mpg on the highway (yes, miles not kilometers), the Polo was impressive to say the least. And what happens when you throw a clean diesel engine into a hybrid electric motor? You get scads of fuel efficiency goodness. The problem right now is that diesel-electric hybrids are too expensive. Treehugger recounts the tragic tale of the VW Golf diesel hybrid: announced in Febrary 2008 and withdrawn two months later. Meanwhile European automakers are showing off their clean diesel wares. At the recent Los Angeles auto show, there were diesel press conferences and new model showcases from Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes. And as for US carmakers presumably poised to exploit this growing market? Quiet, was the watchword apparently. In fairness, GM did show a concept version of the Volt built for Opel, its European division. This car, called the Flexstreme, works the same way as the Volt, except a small diesel engine charges the battery instead of the Volt's gas engine. Given the Opel badge, the possibility exists that GM will once again deny American drivers the diesel option, but according to Green Car Congress, GM plans to release a version of the Flexstreme under its Saturn line. All this to say that if US car companies wanted to immediately improve their fuel efficiency, it wouldn't take years of innovation - just the right kind of incentives. Thanks to the EPA for forcing industry to clean up diesel's act, there's a market for the taking. Sure there are issues to work out, but we're on the verge of trying to save the auto industry. Perhaps the bailout legislation could give things a push. The US car companies, having once dismissed hybrids as a fad, might then want to consider taking advantage of the coming diesel revolution. You know, maybe they could sell some cars. [ Updated 10:45pm Sunday] And if you need more evidence, just check out this rave review from Sunday's NYT of the new clean diesel VW Jetta. Ulrich, the reviewer, managed to get 48mpg during 150 miles of highway driving just by sticking to 60mph (he claims over 50mpg is possible if you hypermile). Either way, that beats the Prius - on the highway at least... Labels: energy, transport
November 17, 2008
Brother, Can You Spare $25 Billion
What is it with this whole "GM MUST DIE!" meme propagating in the progressive/eco blogosphere? From Matt Yglesias still thinking that somehow it's okay if GM liquidates to the eco-bloggers who seem positively gleeful about GM's possible demise, it really is quite shocking. We just elected the most progressive president since LBJ and now we want him to preside over the mass layoffs of up to three million workers at a cost to the government of, according to Bloomberg, up to $200 billion? In the middle of a Depression?! Judas Priest!! WHAT is UP with THAT?! I do know this - somewhere Herbert Hoover is smiling. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, at least, is having none of it. Nor is Paul Krugman (and he's a Nobel Prizewinner!) Are the Big Three blameless? Far from it. Should some or all of GM senior management be shown the door. Yes: Mr. Lutz, here's your hat. But let them all burn? To say it's an over-reaction is an understatement. Things really are changing in Detriot. The unions have given concession after concession and restructured their labor contracts to reduce the impact of health and pension benefits. And Cohn explains how the improvements are in the showroom and on the factory floor as well: According to the most recent Harbour Report, the benchmark guide for manufacturing prowess, Chrysler's factories now match Toyota's for the most productive, while both Ford's and GM's are improving. (A Toledo Jeep factory was actually named the nation's most efficient.) Consumer Reports now says Ford's reliability is approaching that of perennial leaders Honda and Toyota, whose ratings actually slipped last year. In late 2010, GM will introduce the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid that can go 40 miles without gas, and the Chevrolet Cruze, a compact that relies solely on gas but that gets 45 miles to the gallon. The Volt would represent a rare leap ahead of the Japanese, who never embraced plug-in technology with the same enthusiasm. It's also typical of the better cars that observers say Detroit has in store. "There's a lot of accumulated negativity about these companies out there," says Wharton's John Paul MacDuffie, who directs the International Motor Vehicle Program. "U.S. consumers gave the Big Three the benefit of the doubt for a long time before turning away from them, and now their reputation is worse than their actual performance and progress toward needed reforms." The Chevy Volt, by the way, is a huge deal. Not only will it be the world's first commercially-produced plug-in hybrid, but it will use a lithium-ion battery. Today's hybrid's use nickel batteries. Nickel mining is highly competitive with coal as the worst, most environmentally devastating, carbon-intensive industry. As a result, every hybrid drives off the lot carrying a "carbon debt" which, according to Wired Magazine, takes over 45,000 of driving to "drive off." Lithium ion is the acknowledged future of battery technology, and GM would be first out of the gate. But better to spite our faces, right? But wait, there's more! After cheerleading for 3 million pink slips, most bloggers then say, "well, if we HAVE to bail those bastards out, at least attach some "green" strings," as if that's some meaningless little thrown bone. Um, hello? Has anyone been paying attention? Mileage standards have been stuck at around 27mpg for 20 years and will only need to go up another 8mpg over the next 12 years. In one swell foop we could revolutionize those standards, thus breaking a decades long political logjam. As Joe Romm (an eco-expert who supports a bailout) points out, greener cars will play a major role in lowering our carbon footprint. And here comes a once in a lifetime opportunity to show some fortitude and remake an industry. But, no, no. Better to make the "safe" decision and go with the pink slips. And let's not forget Democrat John Dingell, congressman from Michigan, who has "protected" the auto industry from reform since long before most readers of this blog were born, and would jump on any bailout bandwagon, no matter what the industry was forced to do. Heck, he'd probably eat his Energy and Commerce Committee chairman's gavel if an amendment that so required was attached to bailout legislation, rather than oversee the destruction of the industry. And I would also suggest that you turn your heads, oh you Big Three killers, and look whose shining face rests on the pillow next to you. It's none other than the GOP, which is honestly and truly gleeful at finally FINALLY destroying one of the last powerful unions left. There are strange bedfellows and there are toxic bedfellows. Just thinking about it makes me want to take a shower. So, let's stop debating the possibility of bailing on the bailout and start debating the best way to help an industry transform itself for a carbon-neutral future. Can I hear a "Yes, We Can!" [ Updated: 2:30pm] My Blogger Ethics Advisor informed me that in my rush to post this, I neglected to mention that I, like the TNR's Jonathan Cohn, have a family connection to GM. In the wake of an accounting scandal a couple years ago, my father was named to the GM board to help improve financial controls. But you only need to read the above post (especially the bit about Bob Lutz) to see that I am not exactly a mouthpiece for GM. I myself don't own a single share of the company and a GM default would have zero bearing on my finances. The fact that GM itself doesn't want to die and I don't think it's such a hot idea either are about the extent our common ground... That's blogging on an empty stomach for you! Photo by GM
Labels: jobs, politics, transport
November 3, 2008
Are you There, Sal?
Thanks to Atrios, we get a nice coda to my proximity post. It turns out that the Erie Canal is alive and well (and getting better). And not because of some nostalgic effort to turn the canal into some kind of frozen-in-time theme park. Hard nosed economics plus low-carbon goodness make for a beautiful friendship: The canal still remains the most fuel-efficient way to ship goods between the East Coast and the upper Midwest. One gallon of diesel pulls one ton of cargo 59 miles by truck, 202 miles by train and 514 miles by canal barge, Ms. Mantello said. A single barge can carry 3,000 tons, enough to replace 100 trucks. And because I love it when a plan comes together, we get this bit of grand unity: When a company called Auburn Biodiesel decided to convert an old factory in Montezuma into a biodiesel plant, the building's location beside the canal "was merely an incidental consideration," said David J. Colegrove, the company's president. But after watching the number of cargo shipments along the canal grow, Mr. Colegrove said he hoped to bring soybeans in by barge and use the canal to ship finished product to New York City. And the money quotes come fast and furious: "I've worked the East Coast, the West Coast and the Panama Canal, but up here is some of the most beautiful country you can ever see," said John Schwind, 62, the captain of the Margot, who first learned to pilot tugs here in the 1970s. It's enough to bring tears to the eye of this New York native. But the kicker comes from Colegrove: "The amount of money you can save is really eye-popping," he said. "I'm fascinated by the history of the canal, and I'm intrigued by how well it still works." Audacious hope, anyone? Chart by The New York TimesLabels: energy, transport
October 10, 2008
By the Sea
What with recent studies indicating that seafreight is one of the least carbon-intensive modes of transport it's important to keep in mind that carbon emissions aren't the only measure of environmental impact. Freighters burn what's called bunker fuel, also known as Residual Fuel Oil, which should tell you something about what's in it. It's practically a distillate byproduct of gasoline production and has high levels of sulphur dioxide, among other nasty pollutants. No wonder the ginormous Port of Long Beach in Southern California is nicknamed the "Diesel Death Zone."Now, given my post of yesterday, the cynics out there might assume I'm all in favor of burning bunker fuel to help cool the planet. But they would be wrong. So it's a good thing that we're one step closer to cleaner maritime fuel. The International Maritime Organization just announced stringent new limits on pollution from freighters. And though some writers have speculated that we'd be better off buying products shipped by sea rather than flown by air, it's also true that the international merchant fleet already accounts for 4.5% of worldwide carbon emissions - twice as much as airfreight according to a UN study. That's a lot of carbon. While we're on the subject of big boats and the damage they wreak, there was another bit of somewhat positive news. The NYT reported yesterday that the National Marine Fisheries Service has finally set speed limits in certain areas off the coast of the northeastern US in order to prevent collisions between ships and the endangered right whale (all 400 of them). Fun fact - it's called the right whale because it was the "right whale" to hunt back in the day given its enormous size and slow speed. Nice, huh? Anyway, the restrictions will expire in 5 years assuming President Obama doesn't extend them. Photo by jmmcdgll used under CC licenseLabels: carbon, endangered_species, transport
|
|
|
|
|
