How bad is the National Research Council's report about climate change's potential impact on America's transportation system? NPR says it has warnings of "Biblical proportions." 60,000 miles of highways, major airports, railroads, low-lying tunnels and ports are at risk of damage from changes in the climate. Climate change will cause roads to buckle, bridge joints to be stressed, railroad tracks to be deformed and will keep planes grounded because of the heat. In the Arctic, permafrost, the solid ground that builders depend on, may even melt away.

Gerry Schwartz, head of the panel that issued the report, says "there's certainly the potential for severe damage to highways, pipelines [and] airports in the Arctic." Virginia Burkett, who co-authored the report, says "if sea level rises 4 feet, 24 percent of the interstate highways would be inundated." To avoid all of this, changes to the transportation system will need to be made and it "could cost hundreds of billions of dollars." Not doing anything the report warns, could cost us a lot more.

[Source: NPR]

Today's USA Today has an article that talks about two studies on plug-in hybrids, both published last year, that "have yet to trigger alarms." The studies, one by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the other by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, found plug-in hybrids and electric cars might increase certain types of air pollution in specific areas.

The NRDC study says that in regions heavily dependent on energy from coal, "there is a possibility for significant increases of soot and mercury" given an increase in PHEVs. The NRDC study also says that when charged with electricity produced by a coal plant, PHEVs have "higher global warming pollution compared to a non-pluggable hybrid electric vehicle." The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study found that "a PHEV has marginally lower emissions for all emittants, except CO₂ and SO₂." The increase in SO₂ emissions is 182 percent "due to the high sulfur content of the coal combusted to generate electricity."

When will the alarms trigger? Are PHEVs headed for the same U-turn of support from the green community that biofuels ran into?

[Source: USA Today]

Criticisms of biofuels just keep piling up. At a UN Assembly debate on Climate Change, New York Mayor Bloomberg framed the biofuel food vs. fuel debate starkly saying "people literally will starve to death in parts of the world, it always happens when food prices go up." At the same meeting, according to the BBC video above, billionaire Richard Branson, once a big proponent of biofuels (see links below) now says he regrets investing in ethanol for financial and environmental reasons.

All of that criticism comes just days after a Science magazine study says biofuels can be twice as harmful as gasoline (see video below). If you look closely at what the Science Magazine scientists, Richard Branson, Mayor Bloomberg and others have said about biofuels, they are not saying biofuels are all bad, they're just criticizing the way they are predominantly made today (see: corn ethanol in America). How do you support a fuel that can be worse than the gas you are trying to replace?

While the UN is trying several things, in a world where the U.S. can hardly tell what's in its toys, it's doubtful much can be done, in the short term, to assure the green production of the internationally. However, all of the market investment may not be for naught as if projects like Coskata get to market faster or if biofuels are given more research attention.

Related:

• Richard Branson promotes alternative fuel movement by driving a Saab 9-5 BioPower
• Soon at a pump near you: Virgin Fuels
• Boeing and Virgin Atlantic to work on biofuels for aircraft
• Branson looks towards Virgin territory: biofuel

[Source: Reuters, BBC, NBC Nightly News]

In seven years, how many plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will be sold worldwide? It's funny I ask that because there's a report by Frost & Sullivan predicting sales of 130,000 PHEVs worldwide by 2015. The report, titled Global Market Analysis of Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, includes strategic recommendations, technology roadmaps, adoption timescales, market size and forecasts, detailed breakdown by regions and OEMs for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles ... and it also costs a little under ten grand.

I did not buy it but I think I will take a shot at trying to figure out how they got to 130,000 PHEVs. GM will have sold the Volt for four years and they say tens of thousands a year (40,000). GM also say they will sell their Saturn Vue plug-ins which should be high volume as well (30,000). Five years after releasing only to fleets, Toyota should start to ramp up sales (30,000). Add in a few plug-ins hybrids from Ford and a few other major volume auto makers (30,000) and you get to that worldwide units PHEVs sold number of 130,000 in 2015.

[Source: Frost & Sullivan]

Recently, I told you about an episode of ABC's Boston Legal that mentions the Hummer, Prius "dust to dust" comparison study (i.e., the one that says a Hummer is greener than a Prius). The appearance of the discredited study in a top-rated, prime time, network TV show got some attention, so I thought you might like to know more about the episode.

The Green Christmas episode also includes references to studies that say walking is more polluting than driving and a tank fuel of ethanol is equal to food for a year. You can watch the mentions of these items in the closing arguments in the video above. The law firm, being sued for green washing, argues these studies are confusing and contradictory, which leads to feelings of futility and being overwhelmed.

Wondering how the story ends? SPOILER ALERT: The law firm wins the case.

[Source: ABC]

Boston Legal is an ABC TV series about a law firm. In the episode Green Christmas (first aired Dec. 18, 2007), the law firm, Crane Poole and Schmidt, is sued by a group called "Green People" for fraud because they said they were green but actually were not. In the court case, a board member of Green People is asked which car he drives? He says a hybrid, to which the Boston Legal firm's lawyer Katie responds saying a Hummer is greener because of the way batteries are made. On top of that, she says hybrids reduce the cost of driving which encourages more driving and in the end more pollution. You can watch the video above. Here's exactly what Katie says:

Hybrid batteries contain nickel that is mined and smelted in a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. A plant that has caused so much environmental damage and acid rain that NASA uses the so-called dead zone around the plant to test its moon rovers. ... That nickel then has to be shipped via massive containers to a refinery in Europe. Then off to China to be made into nickel foam, then to Japan to be manufactured, then finally all the way back to America. All that, just to put a single hybrid battery into a car. When you combine all the energy it takes to built and drive a hybrid it adds up to almost fifty percent more that it does to build and drive a Hummer.

A few comments to my posts on the hybrid in the Knight Rider TV movie, said things like like "spare me." Yes, the Knight Rider TV movie is a remake of a cheesy '80s TV show, but it might inspire Ford to make a hybrid Mustang. Boston Legal's 10 million viewers probably believed the statements about hybrid batteries. My point is: Culture matters. It's probably more important than things like politics, technology, brand or anything. It really does not matter that the hybrid Hummer/Prius study has been discredited (many, many times) or that this argument is just stupid for the simple reason that batteries are recycled by law. If it's repeated on shows like Boston Legal, it's "fact."

Related:

• Study commissioned by Land Rover finds small cars are bad for the environment
• Should we ban the catalytic converter?
• Paris Hilton: "I'm buying a hybrid car right now"
• Chevy describes its car as "vegetarian" in TV ad

[Source: ABC]

Vehicles in the UK are grouped into tax bands from A to G, depending on how much CO₂ they emit. Cars ranked A and B are the greenest (and least taxed) while cars ranked G are the ones that emit the most CO₂ (and drivers have to pay more). Since the tax bands were instituted, sales of A, B band cars have gone up while sales of G band cars have gone down. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders studied the trend in sales and predicts A and B will outsell G cars this year for the first time ever.

You don't have to worry about SUV tax turning up in your tax returns (if you live in the U.S.). If we get a carbon law at all, there won't be any taxes on cars according to a House white paper on the topic. Most of the American presidential candidate's energy policies call for tax incentives, but not penalties. If if could be implemented, how much of a tax would it take to change sales of SUVs? Canadians, for example, are taxed $4,000 for driving an un-green car. Would that stop you from buying an SUV?

Related:

• Gas guzzler tax coming to the Netherlands
• Israeli government passes "green tax" on cars

[Source: This is London]

The video above, "The Energy Debate: Just the Facts," is from the Heritage Foundation and includes the results of a study on CAFE and safety that I think may have been misstated. The video starts out by asking the loaded question "why will raising CAFE standards hurt Americans?" to which Ben Lieberman, a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, answers:

Raising CAFE standards will make cars less safe. In order to meet these standards cars have to be made smaller which makes them less safe in crashes. The National Academy of Sciences have confirmed this effect. Past CAFE standards have caused an estimate 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year. So, tightening these standards will only add to the death toll on the highways.

Now, let's take a look at how the study was presented to the Congress:

There have been adverse consequences as well. Safety is most important. The majority of the committee concludes that the downsizing and downweighting that occurred in the 1970s and 80s (partially in response to CAFE) resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities in 1993. While fatalities were declining in this period, most committee members believe that they would have declined much more had the downweighting and downsizing not occurred. Two members of the committee dissent from this view. They believe that the data does not support this conclusion, and that the net effect on highway fatalities of the increases in fuel economy may have been zero. David Greene, one of the authors of the dissent in the report, may elaborate on that conclusion.

So, the study concludes CAFE was "partially" responsible. Maybe. In 1993, fatalities were actually going down at the time and not everyone on the committee agreed with the conclusion. What are some of the dissenting views from the National Academies? David Greene found "higher mpg is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities." I think the Heritage Foundation misstates the conclusions but we want to know what do you think. Did they cross the line? Do you think higher CAFE mpg requirements increases fatalities?

[Source: YouTube]

Starting February, small cars will be exempt from the London congestion charge, a priviledge currently only accorded to electric, biofuel and hybrids. A study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research commissioned by Land Rover found this could result in more cars (up to 10,000 more) entering London and increased pollution in the city. You see, sales of small cars in the UK are increasing (up a third the last nine months) as people try to find ways to save the roughly £2,000 a year (£25 a day) it will cost to enter congestion zones. A Transport for London spokesman reminded everyone "one of the main aims behind the proposals is to encourage people to consider the effect of their car on the environment and to choose less-polluting vehicles." Dah!

[Source: This is London]

There are many people that say you can get better mileage with ethanol and you can even use blends higher than E10 in non flex-fuel cars. While controversial and only proven in tests done by mechanics or culled from impressions from truckers, there are finally some government and university studies to back up these amazing claims. The American Coalition of Ethanol has details and results from a study co-sponsored by themselves and the U.S. Department of Energy and conducted by The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (MnCAR).

They study was done with four 2007 model vehicles: a Toyota Camry, a Ford Fusion, and two Chevrolet Impalas (flex-fuel and non). The cars took the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET) on ethanol-gasoline blends and normal gasoline. The results found "fuel mixtures with more ethanol than E10 but less than E85 - can in some cases provide better fuel economy than regular unleaded gasoline, even in standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles." In fact, along with three out of four actually traveling further on ethanol, "all of the vehicles got better mileage with ethanol blends than the ethanol's energy content would predict." The study even showed there was no engine fault signs when normal cars used blends up to 65 percent.

These are initial results and there will be more studies but can you imagine a day when ethanol blended fuels (cellulosic, naturally) actually get better mileage than regular gas? Not in special flex-fuel cars but normal every day cars on the street right now? Imagine reducing the pollution levels in all cars by simply changing the fuel blends while saving money in the process? Dare I hope?

[Source: The American Coalition of Ethanol via Green Car Congress and tipster Nathan]

The Association of Oil Pipe Lines along with the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will study the effect of E10, E15 and E20 blends on corrosion and cracking of pipelines. The results of the $700,000 study is expected in 12 to 18 months and the goal of the study is to find out three main things: how much ethanol can be sent down existing pipelines, what changes need to be made to mitigate the damage from ethanol to the pipelines and what kinds of designs are needed to make a pipeline that can carry ethanol.

Brazil uses ethanol pipelines but the idea has not gained much traction in the US because of perceived problems with pipeline damage caused by ethanol. Plus, here in the U.S., there are plans for dedicated train lines that would transport ethanol, for example a $150 million project in Nebraska that could be complete in 2010 if it gets funding. The train pipeline would be made of three or four 95 to 125 car trains, could store 30 million gallons of ethanol and would shave about 9 cents a gallon off the cost ethanol for the plants. The price of ethanol has gone done 30 percent with an apparent glut in the market. How would an ethanol pipeline fare if the glut continues? "If there's no interest, that'll be the end of it," Kirk McClymont of Seminole Energy Services of Tulsa, the company behind the plan, told Businessweek.

[Source: Ethanol Producer Magazine, Associated Press]

Yesterday, I wrote about the cost of charging your PHEVs compared to gasing it up in a study commissioned by the state of California. I contacted one of the writers of that study and asked him about some concerns our readers raised in comments. He was kind enough to take my questions by e-mail and even send me a copy of the study (under review at Environmental Research Letters) which I will give you a little peak.

Daniel Kammen is Professor in the Energy and Resources Group Energy and Resources Group, Professor of Public Policy in the Goldman School of Public Policy and is Professor of Nuclear Engineering in the Department of Nuclear Engineering (Commenter Mike Z. must be happy to read that) at the University of California, Berkeley.

Lets get to it. Our readers wondered what assumptions were made about the car. Here are more details directly from the study.

"We adopt performance parameters for PHEVs with an all-electric range of 20 miles from EPRI (2002). The all-electric efficiency includes losses from charging (EPRI, 2001). A charging rate of 1 kWh/hr can be obtained by using ordinary 120 Volt technology with a charger efficiency of 82% and a charger size of 1.2 kW, and higher charging rates may be obtained by investing in infrastructure such as 240 Volt chargers. Each compact car PHEV will use 4.1 kWh of stored energy if it drives its entire all-electric range and will require 4.1 hours to recharge, and each full-size SUV PHEV will use 7.1 kWh of stored energy if it drives its entire all-electric range and will require 7.1 hours to recharge.2 The design of PHEVs is an area of great uncertainty; if PHEVs have all-electric ranges that are less than 20 miles so as to reduce initial costs, then each PHEV would require less electricity to fully charge but may charge more often."

Go below the fold for another quote from the study and the responses to your questions.

The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have published the results of the Biodiesel Lifecycle Inventory Study which looked at energy resources consumed and air, water and solid waste emissions generated by petroleum diesel fuel and biodiesel. The intention of the three-and-a-half-year study was to provide a comprehensive "cradle to grave" environmental comparison of the two fuels in order to compare the total "lifecycle" costs and benefits of each.

It was determined that biodiesel has a total fossil energy efficiency ratio (i.e., total fuel energy / total fossil energy used in production, manufacture, transportation and distribution) four times greater than that of petroleum diesel fuel making biodiesel far more efficient in its use of non-renewable fossil fuels.

Other key findings showed that in comparison to petroleum diesel, biodiesel had:

• 78 percent lower overall lifecycle carbon dioxide
• 35 percent lower overall lifecycle carbon monoxide
• 32 percent lower overall lifecycle particulate matter
• 68 percent lower overall bus exhaust-pipe emissions of PM10 (significant in relation to respiratory disease)
• 83.6 percent lower overall bus exhaust-pipe emissions of particulate matter soot
• 8 percent lower overall lifecycle sulphur oxides
• No bus exhaust-pipe emissions of sulphur oxides
• 3 percent lower overall lifecycle methane
• 37 percent lower overall lifecycle hydrocarbons
• 79 percent lower overall lifecycle production of wastewater
• 96 percent lower overall lifecycle production of hazardous solid wastes

Analysis: It's great that such a comprehensive study has been undertaken that no one will be able to argue with due to its thoroughness and due-diligence. I'm surprised that nitrogen oxides emissions weren't mentioned which are typically held to be higher for biodiesel than petroleum diesel, but even if they are, clearly biodiesel is miles in front of petroleum diesel in terms of environmental impact. The key findings read like a Top Ten list of emissions we would all like to see reduced to zero and should be reason enough to continue to push forward the introduction of the renewable fuel. Biodiesel, it's good stuff.

Related:

• New Mexico House passes B5 by 2012 bill with 47-8 vote
• British Columbia sees biofuels as part of 2025 energy self-sufficiency plan
• Interview with Emily Horgan, Director of the Greaseball Challenge, part one

[Source: The Independent]

With the Canadian government set to introduce their renewable fuels strategy, biodiesel blend testing is set to begin in early 2007 with the Alberta Biodiesel Demonstration Project. Multiple interested parties who support the initiative, including members of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, are involved in the investigation into key quality aspects of biodiesel use in Canada including the adoption of biodiesel, extreme cold weather operations and the introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD).

Long-haul fleet use with 2007 engines will follow lab testing of Canadian General Standards Board 3.520 specification biodiesel blends. Alberta was chosen in part for the project, which will run through to 2008, due to its extreme cold. Concerns over biodiesel's use in Canadian conditions has prompted the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) to call for comprehensive testing before mandates are introduced. The CTA has welcomed the study and says it looks forward to the results.

Related:

• Environmentalist chosen as new leader of Liberal Party in Canada
• Shell Canada to pursue carbon sequestration, wants Canadian government help
• Shell Canada expanding oil sands production

[Source: Todays Trucking]

A new study for the Department of Energy has identified massive idle "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity in the existing electric power system. So much so in fact that it could power 84 percent of the 220 million vehicles in the U.S. if they were plug-in electric vehicles. The study, undertaken by researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, is based on driving the 33 mile per day national average commute with drivers charging their vehicles up overnight.

Sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity already exists in the Midwest and East for all existing vehicles to run on batteries. But the Pacific Northwest may need to stick with biodiesel for the time being because their predominantly hydro-powered system has limited excess capacity.

Predictions resulting from the study into the impacts of very high market penetrations of PHEVs included falling electricity prices due to higher sales without increased investment, and lowered total greenhouse gas emissions. Estimates ranged from five to eight years for consumers to break even on the $6,000 to $10,000 premium PHEV currently command.