Hybrid SUVs Not So Silly: Practicality Trumps Green

July 31, 2009 No comments »

Inhabitat recent posted about the Top 5 Silliest Eco Inventions.  While I do agree with most of the list, like the PETaPOTTY for Dogs, Solar Powered Bra, the Eco Button for putting your computer to sleep, and the Solar Powered Fan Hat, I disagree that the hybrid SUV is a silly invention.  Not everyone needs an SUV, and one could convincingly argue that no one does.

One thing that’s harder to argue against is the need for All Wheel Drive.  I recently went through my first Boston winter in a while, and our only car was a Prius.  This winter was a particularly bad one, and for the most part we took public transportation when we could.  However, public transportation doesn’t go everywhere.  For those that have not driven in the snow, two things about the Prius that makes it a very bad choice for driving in the snow are the fact that it’s very light, and it’s got low rolling resistance tires (read: no traction in the snow).  To make matters worse, our city parking spot is such that we need to back out, then up a small hill.

Another fun thing about Prius traction control is that when one wheel slips, the other stops without any power to it.  There have been complaints about the behavior, and if you read the fine print, disabling traction control can be bad for your powertrain and you can void the warranty.  I absolutely recommend the Prius, and it’s been a great car.  However, it’s not the best choice if you live in a snowy area.  Our living situation will soon be changing, and it will be more practical (notice I didn’t say “need”) to have another car.

With 2WD hybrids failing spectacularly in the snow, and my primary concern being safety on the road, I recently did some comparison shopping to find a green(ish) AWD vehicle.  What I found was that the hybrid SUVs got better mileage than the other AWD vehicles available in the US.  I would have been happy to drive an Audi A4 Avant TDI, but unfortunately they are not sold in the US.  While Audi does sell diesel SUVs in the US, the mileage and reliability are not that impressive.  Mercedes and BMW both have diesel AWD vehicles, some having equally good mileage, but my wife will be going back to school soon, and the price was more than we were willing to pay.

Finally, the options were narrowed down to the Ford Escape Hybrid, and the Toyota Highlander Hybrid.  The Escape did get a few more mpg, but we thought the Highlander was nicer.  As of a few weeks ago, I am the driver of a hybrid SUV.  While it’s not the absolute greenest choice around, it still gets a combined 4 mpg better than the last sedan I owned.  Hybrid SUVs may not be the best for the environment, but they are still better than the other suitable alternatives.  Green is good, but in a lot of cases practicality takes priority.  If you design green products, keep in mind that they still need to be practical, or they will not be successful.

No comments »

Posted in Transportation

Interesting Site: GreenCar.com

July 29, 2009 No comments »

I was doing some browsing, and saw GreenCar.com.  If you’re about to buy a car with the Cash for Clunkers incentives, then it would be a good place to do research on, you guessed it, Green Cars.  It’s also got MPG information on all vehicles so you can make comparisons.  I’ve seen other sites that do the same thing, but the site is pretty clean and easy to use.

No comments »

Posted in Transportation

Green Does Not Always Mean Healthy

7 comments »

The prime example of how green doesn’t always mean healthy is that of energy efficiency in building.  In the 1970’s, when energy prices spiked, building practices in the United States changed drastically.  More insulation was used, and more attention was paid to the thermal envelope so that heating and air conditioning energy was not wasted by allowing air to leak out of the building.  While it did save energy, preventing the air from flowing out of the building also prevented airborn toxins, dust and particles from being let out.

The rate at which air was replaced indoors dropped drastically, and as a result indoor air quality got worse, resulting in a rise in asthma and respiratory problems.  In order to stay healthy, HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) systems need to fully replace the air after a given period of time.  Recommended rates may vary, but for residential buildings, replacing the air once an hour should be sufficient.  As replacement rates go up, so does energy usage, so the more efficient systems have heat exchangers allow the hot/cold air to transfer from the outgoing air to the incoming air.  To remain healthy and efficient, HVAC systems need to balance air transfer with energy usage.

Other common examples in building are insulation itself, and flooring.  Formaldehyde is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that can be found in a lot of building materials, including fiberglass insulation, and as a binding agent in wood flooring.  Insulation without formaldehyde can be used, and there are wood products with different binding agents.  When building green, you just need to be sure that what you are buying is also healthy.

7 comments »

Posted in Health

Direct Solar to Biofuels, is it More Hype?

July 27, 2009 1 comment »

A recent post in the Technology Review “A Biofuel Process to Replace All Fossil Fuels.” (Image Source: JouleBio.com)

Direct to Biofuel

Previous study by the US DOE Aquatic Species program found a few things that are relevant.  While the process and outputs differ, some of the limiting factors are the same.  I truly hope Joule Bio can deliver on their claims, but I am personally skeptical for a few reasons:

  • The theoretical maximum for open pond algae to biodiesel is around 15,000 gallons per acre
  • Anything but open pond is prohibitively expensive for mass production
  • As organisms excrete more fuel into the environment, excretion displaces nutrient sources
  • Organisms need energy to reproduce, and converting CO2 to hydrocarbons also takes a lot

Theoretical maximums can certainly be improved using new technologies and engineering the organisms so their metabolisms are on overdrive is one way to do it.  However, there are a number of limiting factors, including sunlight, CO2 and nutrients.  As closed systems become stacked higher, a lower percentage of the organisms receive sunlight at any given time.  The problem can be addressed by pumping fluids containing organisms to and from the surface.  However, growth is still limited by sunlight.  Additional light sources can be introduced, but they also require energy, and additional money to power.

There is nothing inherently expensive about closed bioreactors, but scaling them to large areas is much more expensive than an open pond.  Similar tests at Dow aim to produce up to 100k gallons of ethanol on 24 acres, which is still only a little over 4k gallons per acre, and less than the 5k gallons per acre the Aquatic Species progam actually achieved in open ponds.

A current technical barrier, which could possibly be overcome through genetic engineering, is that organism survival rate drops off as ethanol content goes up.  The concept can be observed in fermentation of wine and beer, as the alcohol content increases, yeast dies off and alcohol content peaks.  The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is working with some of these companies, is aware of the challenge (PDF, p5) and is working on producing “super-bugs” that can survive in harsh conditions.  The research is promising, but as the desired alcohol content is excreted by the organisms, it displaces nutrients in the environment and further limits growth.  The balance of inputs and outputs is one area still being studied, and the results will be dependant upon the organisms used.

One final reason for my pessimism about total output of the Joule Biotechnology approach is that creating hydrocarbons from CO2 is energy intensive.  Even with the abundance of solar energy, if an organism puts too much of its energy towards its output, then it will not have as much energy to reproduce.  Much of the reason algae has been investigated for biofuels is that it reproduces so quickly.  Scaling to large numbers is easier when organisms reproduce quickly.  In algae to biodiesel production, the oils from within the algae are extracted, which kills them off.  Without high growth rates, expansion would not be possible.  Fortunately, in the Joule Biotechnology approach, the products are extracted without killing off the organisms.  However, as more energy goes to production, less goes to reproduction, limiting how fast production can scale.

These companies all have ambitious goals, but it appears that the numbers and claims are still too inflated.  The most ambitious stated goal is by a company called Algenol that hopes to produce one billion gallons of ethanol a year.  Based on current consumption [updated] of gasoline, which would be displaced by the ethanol, that’s still less than two thirds of gasoline consumption in the United States.  Two thirds One third is certainly a significant proportion, but it will take years and major technology advances to come close to that, and global consumption will continue to increase.

I do believe that with government subsidy, and potentially without, that some of these will eventually be profitable.  However, I do not believe that any of these companies will come close to “replacing all fossil fuels.”

Update: New EIA numbers show consumption data was actually ~3.3 Billion gallons.

1 comment »

Posted in CO2

Video: The Awesome Power of the Word Clean

July 23, 2009 No comments »

This one has been around a while, but I thought it would be worth another post since the coal companies have brought out the “clean coal” greenwashing again because of the Climate Bill:

No comments »

Posted in Climate Change, Pollution

Lost Coal Jobs Mean Lives Saved, Congratulate the Unemployed for Saving Lives

2 comments »

In a recent House session, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) expressed her objections to the the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Climate Bill).   Her main objection is that by 2020, Wyoming would lose up to “15,000 high paying jobs” that can’t be replaced by green energy jobs if the bill were passed, as the nation moves away from coal fired power plants.  That’s an average of about 1500 jobs a year lost, and she apparently believes that the jobs in her district are more important than the health and lives of the rest of the country.

If the bill passes, Wyoming jobs would be particularly hit hard because there are a disproportionately large number of jobs dependent upon coal.  Coal mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana produce more coal than any other area of the country, even the entire Appalachian region. Compared to the rest of the country, Wyoming does not have to burn as much coal because it is not a population center, and that means health effects from emissions are disproportionately low.

In the rest of the country from power plant emissions *every year*, there are more than 23,000 deaths, 21,000 hospital admissions, 26,000 emergency room visits for asthma, 38,000 heart attacks, 16,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 554,000 asthma attacks, and 3,186,000 lost work days (Source: Harvard Environmental Management, pdf p23).

I have not heard Rep. Lummis speak about responsibility, but I did hear Steven Leer, Chairman and CEO of Arch Coal speak about their mining operations in the Powder River Basin. It was clear that the people that mine coal, but do not burn it, completely abdicate themselves of any responsibility for coal fired power plant emissions.  We cannot let the deliberate distortion of the truth and intentional omissions continue to cause problems for the rest of us.

Rep. Lummis wants you to feel bad for the 1500+ workers and their families that will lose their jobs each year because of the Climate bill.  Apparently, she does not want you to feel bad for the 23,000+ people that die every year, or their families, because she feels it’s not the mining that’s responsible.

2 comments »

Posted in CO2, Climate Change, Health, Politics, Pollution

Re-post: Biofuel Crops can Aid in Radioactive Soil Cleanup

July 21, 2009 No comments »

By way of gas2.0

When crops are planted in radioactive soil, near Chernobyl for example, the plants soak up radioactive material in the roots and stems. With traditional farming, the unused parts of the plant are plowed back into the soil, and the radioactive materials persist. When biofuels are planted, the same biological processes apply, but the plants are distilled. Distillation allows non-radioactive material to be separated and safely used, and the remaining concentrated material can be disposed of. This could dramatically increase the cleanup rate for radioactive soils.

No comments »

Posted in Biofuel

Cap and Trade is the Carrot, Carbon Tax is the Stick

July 20, 2009 No comments »

The last post about Cap and Trade got some comments on various sites asking if it’s a tax, then why not just impose a Carbon Tax?  I agree that a Carbon Tax is a better approach than Cap and Trade.  Unfortunately, messaging and political image can be more important than effectiveness when evaluating legislation.  Calling anything a tax is a surefire way of killing legislation.  No politician wants to be responsible for increasing taxes, they would rather be seen supporting capitalism and  ”letting the free market” solve the problem.

One of the major problems with Cap and Trade is that baselines need to be established, which are usually through political processes, not scientific processes.  With so much political support for coal and oil production, there is not much that can stop politicians from pushing for overly generous baseline emissions.  As the dirtiest emitters implement the cheapest fixes and drop below their artificially high baselines, they can sell their carbon credits for additional profit.  There is financial incentive to reduce emissions, but as the technology to reduce emissions gets more expensive than earned credits, the incentive goes away completely.

When a Carbon Tax is in place, there is always a financial incentive to reduce emissions, with no opportunity to profit from being a polluter.  Similarly, the incentives go away when the technology gets more expensive than emitting.  An additional argument against a Carbon Tax is that the money goes into the hands of the government, rather than the market.  I’m not a fan of government efficiency, but if legislation is structured properly, then it can go directly to environmental programs.  When the Superfund was first established, the tax on controlled chemicals went directly into the Superfund until legislation expired.  After it expired, taxes (and stimulus money) went to the cleanup.

With taxes on bad practices in place, which are directly paid by the ones emitting, the bill can still be passed onto consumers. However, they have the choice to reduce consumption or opt for other alternatives, and directly reduce what they pay. Without programs in place to tax bad practices, the same consumers are forced to pay through taxes and have no way to opt out.

I’m no fan of big government, but there are areas where the free market cannot succeed and government needs to step in. Carbon emissions, and general pollution, are areas where the financial impact is spread over thousands or millions of people, rather than the people responsible for the problems. Cap and Trade is the carrot because you get paid for doing good. Carbon Tax is the stick because you pay for doing bad. In this case, I believe the stick would be more effective than the carrot. However, if politicians continue to be too cowardly to implement a Carbon Tax, Cap and Trade is better than nothing at all.

No comments »

Posted in CO2, Climate Change, Pollution

So What if Cap and Trade is a Tax? Let the ones responsible for damage pay for it.

No comments »

Coal Fired Power Plant in Kentucky

There has at least been some progress from political conservatives wite regards to climate change.  Politicians now (reluctantly) agree that it’s happening, but do not yet publicly agree that it’s man made.  I’d like to seriously pose a question to skeptics: so what if we’re wrong?

As a “thought exercise,” let’s examine what would happen if humans are not actually causing climate change, but our actions were based on the assumption that we are responsible, or a “false positive.”  If we eliminate climate change from the list of harmful effects of burning fossil fuels, then we still have a long and serious list:

Burning Coal

Mining Coal

Oil Production

  • Groundwater Contamination during drilling
  • Refinery Emissions
  • Habitat Destruction
  • Pollution from Shipping
  • Toxic Pools from Refining Tar Sands

Oil Consumption

  • Local Air Quality Issues like Smog
  • Acid Rain
  • Major Price Fluctuations Disrupting the Economy

. . . . and MANY more.

Measures to curb the use of fossil fuels are worth taking, even without the climate change implications.  Opponents of proposed climate change legislation argue that if passed, it would cause the price of energy to skyrocket.  I do not believe that to be the case when taking into account other initiatives.  The price per unit will go up, but other factors like energy efficiency initiatives, subsidies and resulting decreased consumption will offset a lot of the costs to consumers.

While Cap and Trade does have its drawbacks, it serves to shift the actual costs to the producers.  Cap and Trade is a tax on energy, but again I say “so what?”  I am already taxed for energy, just indirectly.  Air quality issues alone cause asthma, hospitalizations, lost work days, and even death.  Since we do not have universal health care (discussion I will avoid), our taxes are covering treatment.  Since the expiration of the initial Superfund legislation, cleanup is paid for by tax dollars.

There are already hidden taxes.  It’s now time for the ones causing the problems to actually pay them.

No comments »

Posted in Climate Change

Consumer Education is Critical to the Success of the Smart Grid

July 17, 2009 No comments »

DOE Smart Grid Illustration
There are a lot of articles about the smart grid, smart appliances, connectivity with electric cars, and the systems necessary to use energy as efficiently as possible.  In order for these technologies to be effective, changes in consumer behavior will also be necessary.  Without educating the consumers on how sthe smart appliances help save energy, there will not be much benefit over traditional energy efficient appliances.

What makes an appliance “smart” is that it can takes queues from the grid to power up during off peak hours.  Using electricity at off peak hours when electricity is cheap will not only save the consumer money, but it is also cleaner.  Many people that already know how the appliances work do not truly understand why they are cleaner.  The reason off peak power is cleaner is that most power plants typically run at all hours at “base load.”  At night, these plants can easily keep up with demand, and can scale back production if power is not used.  Most of the plants that run at all hours use newer technology, both because of Clean Air Act emissions requirements and the newer technologies are more efficient.  Efficiency gains are not just good for environmental reasons, plants can produce more with less fuel, so they are cheaper.

During peak hours, demand for power is greater than the newer and cleaner plants can handle, so older coal fired power plants need to be brought online to add capacity.  Because the technology is older, emissions are dirtier and production is less efficient, which means added cost to the consumer.  By deferring power use to off peak times, consumers save money and reduce the need for dirtier power production.

Education is key to the success of the smart grid because consumer behavior will need to change.  Everyday actions like doing the  laundry will need to change.  For practical reasons, when people do laundry they typically put it in the dryer immediately after the washer.  The clothes can get moldy if left in the washer without drying, and the next load also needs to go in.  For tasks like laundry that require interaction, practicality may get in the way of deferring power usage.  To get over these hurdles, purchasing behavior must also change, which will only happen with education.

If consumers purchase combination washer and dryers, rather than standalone, they can drop laundry in at night and it will be cleaned and dry by the morning.  Doing laundry this way would even be more convenient because one wouldn’t have to wait for the wash to complete to start drying, or move wet clothes from one machine to another.  If throughput is more of a factor than cost, two can be used in the same space as traditional separate appliances.

What usually matters to people is that tasks like laundry get done, and in the easiest way possible.  Smart grid appliances that are inconvenient for people will generally not have success in the market.  In order to have both success in the market, and truly be “smart appliances” consumers will need to know how to use them properly.

No comments »

Posted in Electrical Grid