EnergySniff

BRT: Bus Rapid Transit

A recent Twitter posting from Andrew Weissman pointed me towards Bus Rapid Transport (BRT).

BRT is an somewhat hybrid approach to mass transit: it uses buses and a mixture of dedicated right of way and common use roads to move people around efficiently. BRT may sound like an odd concept to most Americans due to very few US Cities having modern and effective BRT systems. Let’s describe how a BRT system might work:

Passengers would board buses roadside and at dedicated bus stations, similar to common metro bus systems. Typically in a metro system, buses use the same roads as cars do and deal with the same traffic as well. In a BRT system, buses would have some dedicated lanes/roads open for buses only and would also use the same roads as cars do. In heavily congested areas, dedicated right of ways for buses would drastically reduce transit times and make bus transport more appealing to riders. These dedicated right of ways could be high occupancy lanes on highways or just one lane on a road in downtown areas of cities. During off peak traffic hours, the dedicated lanes could be opened up for all traffic.

Unlike light rail and subways, which require expensive additional infrastructure, BRT systems could utilize existing roads and buses to reduce capital investment required. In cities where immediate relief is needed for traffic congestion, BRT networks can be used as a rapid temporary fix until subways or light rail is constructed. Additionally, smaller and medium sized cities which are not large enough to support subways or light rail, can offer BRT networks as an attractive mass transit option.

My initial reaction to BRT networks was rather negative; I saw them as inferior to light rail and subways. However the world of mass transit is complicated and diverse. Different mass transit solutions (BRT, subways, light rail, high speed rail) are most effective in different areas. BRT systems can be used to effectively reduce the energy requirements to transport people.

23 Comments »

In Awe of China

In his book “Hot, Flat and Crowded”, Thomas Friedman has a chapter called “China For A Day”. Friedman says if he could be China for just one day, he could make the top down legislative changes that need to happen to ignite a clean energy revolution.  In a democracy, like the US, it takes Congressional debate, votes, etc to make legislative change. In a totalitarian regime, like China, it takes a simple order.

I would also like to be “China For A Day”, but for different reasons. If I was “China For A Day”, I would replace our current economic stimulus package with theirs.

The China Economic Stimulus Package ($586 Billion), passed Nov 2008, allocated $64Billion for Rail Projects (11%) vs. the US Economic Stimulus Package ($787 Billion), passed Feb 2008, allocated $13Billion for Rail Projects (1.65%). These facts are more compelling since China already has a very well built rail network vs. the US which does not.  The entire US Economic Stimulus Package allocated $50Billion towards clean energy programs including home weatherization, rail, etc. China allocated more for just rail than the US did for all of it’s energy programs.

Today, China announced it will invest $36.5Billion to upgrade it’s electric grid. The US Economic Stimulus Package allocated just $11Billion towards Smart Grid / Transmission improvements.

In the past when I would hear that the 21st Century was going to China’s Century, I would brush it off as ridiculous pessimism. I always thought that bottom up innovation from the masses would outperform any top down commands given by bureaucrats.

Now I think I am wrong. China has passed and enacted a far superior economic stimulus package. They will get a highly efficient rail network and electric grid. This will lower the cost of moving goods and generating electricity. They will be less depenedent upon fossil fuels and more in control of their economy.

I would like to be “China For A Day”. But only to change the Stimulus Package.

23 Comments »

The Scientific and Political Divergence Over Coal

Rarely is there ever a strong consensus among scientists and politicians on any debate: evolution vs. creationism, harvesting of embryonic stem cells for medical research, etc. The future of coal can be added to this list. There is an increasingly divergent set of beliefs among the scientists and politicians on which, if any, role coal will play in future energy systems.

In his latest blog post, James Hansen, arguably the worlds most respected climatologist and current head of NASA’s Goddard Institute For Space Studies, states that due to it’s high emissions “coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet.” According to Mr. Hansen, “the dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretense that they are working on ‘clean coal’ or that they will build power plants that are ‘capture ready’ in case technology”.

During the election cycle, now President Barack Obama, arguably the current political leader of the free world, stated that “the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion” and we need to “figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.”

James Hansen, the scientific leader of the climatology community, stating that coal needs to be eliminated and  carbon capture is a dirty trick played by the government. Barack Obama, the political leader of the United States, stating that coal will not be eliminated and we will work on carbon capture. Arguably, political reasons are most likely preventing Mr. Obama from calling for an elimination of coal.

Divergent viewpoints and debate on topics is often good. Many times the optimal solution is somewhere in the middle. However when it comes to the most serious crisis of all, the energy crisis, the public needs to hear the same message from it’s scientists and it’s politicians.  Uunfortunately, we are not there yet with coal.

10 Comments »

Rail, Rail and More Rail

The recently passed Economic Stimulus package allocates $13Billion towards rail investments, with $8Billion going towards high speed rail.

From an energy perspective, investments in rail infrastructure are supposed to reduce the amount of fossil fuels needed to transport people and freight. It takes less energy to transport 200 people on an Amtrak Train vs. having the 200 people drive 200 cars (additional fuel savings by way of reduced traffic). The same goes for freight. In an ideal world, dollars would be available to finance commuter rail, freight rail and high speed rail. In the real world, worries over debt financing require prudence on which rail projects receive funding.

The question that needs to be asked is: Investments in which rail types will yield the highest energy savings?

Rather than take the short term time horizon of less than 5 years, let’s assume a long term time horizon of 10+yrs (it takes time to build rail networks). Let’s also assume that in 10 years, plug-in hybrid vehicles / electric vehicles will be mass produced, coal is still the primary source for electricity, and diesel fuel still powers large transport. With these assumptions, which rail investments make the most sense?

Commuter rail or inter-city rail would reduce fossil fuel usage due to less coal required to recharge electric vehicles. High speed rail, which is long distance, would also reduce fossil fuel usage due to less jet fuel needed for air travel. The most fossil fuel savings though would come from freight rail.

A good freight rail network would greatly reduce the number of semi-trucks used to transport freight. These semi-trucks will still be powered by oil and will not achieve the energy efficiency of electric cars.

Even though there will be more electric cars on the road vs. semi-trucks, renewable solutions exist to recharge passenger cars (solar, wind, nuclear, etc). There are no fuel sources for semi-trucks that are both renewable and sustainable. High speed rail is prohibitively expensive and yields lower energy returns than commuter or freight trains. Additionally, due to it’s enormous cost, high speed rail is only financially feasible for a few high traffic routes. Because of this, high speed rail will only replace a modest number of airline flights. Hence a modest amount of aviation fuel.

The limited stimulus dollars available for rail infrastructure need to be spent where they will deliver the highest long term energy returns. Those dollars need to be spent of freight rail first.

7 Comments »

Social Media and The Energy Crisis

Social media is all the rage today; the entire world is now on Twitter (including me). Non-profits and for-profits alike have begun using social media to increase awareness of their products, improve customer service, and generate sales or donations.  

Can social media also be used to solve the energy crisis? Let’s look at three broad things that need to happen to solve the energy crisis and how social can or cannot help.

Increased Awareness Of The Crisis:
If people do not know there is a crisis, how can they be expected to respond? Awareness of the Energy Crisis in the form of Climate Change has increased greatly in the past few years. This is thanks to both ‘old’ and ‘new’ media. Climate Change however is just one of the three negative outcomes that will arise from not solving the energy crisis; economic stagnation and perpetual extreme poverty are the other two. Social Media has been and can continue to be used to raise awareness of these crises’. The effectiveness of Social Media on raising awareness may or may not be greater than other forms of media.

Increasing Energy Efficiency:
Simply put, there is not enough energy sources for everyone to use at current consumption rates. We need to use less energy for the same amount of work. Google recently announcedit’s PowerMeter program that will enable consumers to easily and transparently monitor their energy usage. An application like PowerMeter can be tied into Social Media to incentivize households and business to reduce their consumption. Increasing efficiency in households is a small part of overall energy efficiency; Social Media may not be able to help as much for increasing efficiency in large industries.

Developing Renewable Carbon-less Energy Sources:
Energy Efficiency can only get us so far; 100% efficiency is not possible so energy sources are still needed. In the future these sources need to be renewable and carbon-less: solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear. Even though social media can help gather donations for non-profits working on developing renewable energy it cannot directly help generate renewable energy. Developing renewable energy sources cannot be done from a keyboard; it requires real labor and real resources.

Conclusion:
Can Social Media be used to help solve the energy crisis? For a small part it can be used and can be very effective (raising awareness). For increasing efficiency and developing renewable energy sources, Social Media may provide slight benefits, but the majority will come from other sources.

7 Comments »

Stimulating Towns, Saving Energy

We often write how solving the energy crisis benefits not only the environment, but also economic growth and poverty alleviation. With many nations in the midst of economic recessions (or bankruptcy in the case of Iceland) and oil trading below $40 barrel, conversations are now almost entirely focused on increasing employment, preventing home foreclosures and unfreezing the credit markets.

National attention is being paid towards these problems with the proposed Economic Stimulus  Package. The Package, as it currently moves through Congress, has small provisions that will help the economy and help solve the energy crisis (light rail funding), but for the most part though, it’s full of pork and un-necessary tax cuts. In the absence of leadership from the federal government, local governments (towns and cities) need to develop their own methods to revitalize the economy.

Let’s look at one way towns and cities and help their local budgets and help solve the energy crisis. In some cities, primarily in the mid-west rust belt, more than 35% of homes are abandoned or are in foreclosure. Abandoned homes not only translate into lost property tax dollars, but also have a negative ripple by reducing the values of homes in their vicinity. Abandoned homes are not maintained and normally have boarded windows, etc.

Towns can offer partial ten year property tax abatements to entrepreneurs that buy foreclosed homes, refurbish them within a certain time frame and include a certain number of energy efficiency or renewable energy methods. These methods could be: solar or green roofs, triple pane windows, energy efficient appliances, etc. The number of abatementsoffered would be capped so that a scarcity mentality develops and entreprenerus rush to qualify.

Such a program would increase the amount of property tax a town recieves since a home paying reduced property tax is better than a foreclosed home paying no property tax. The negative ripple effect to neighboring homes would be reduced as renovated foreclosed homes would be properly kept. Additionally, these old ‘brown’ homes would now become ‘green’ homes using less energy. Also let’s not forget the temporary increase for local labor for home renovation.

Like any program, this is not a silver bullet. There is no guarantee entrepreneurs will rush in to be part of this program. Entrepreneurs may have a physiological fear that an economic recovery (and a return on their investments) may be a few years away.

It’s just a low risk idea that should be tried. If it works, it should be scaled to other cities. If it doesn’t work, it should be abandoned for another program.

10 Comments »

20% Reduction in 20 Weeks

Yesterday we wrote about Congressman Brian Baird calling for Americans to reduce their energy consumption by 20% in 20 weeks. Congressman Baird calls for this action based on the urgency to fight climate change today and not wait until 2050. Mr. Baird states that if such a disruption were to occur, the supply demand balance of energy would altered in such a way that the economic growth from collapsed energy prices would more than pay for the economic stimulus package.

Even though 20% in 20 weeks may sound like a typical soundbite from a politician it’s worth looking into. Most importantly is a 20% reduction possible?

For simplification, let’s look at only a 20% reduction for residential and transportation energy usage (not industrial commercial). According to the Department of Energy, almost 50% of the energy consumed in the United States is for the residential and transportation sectors, so a 20% decline in these sectors, would result in a 10% decline overall.

For residential energy, the consumption break down is: 32% space heating, 13% water heating, 12% lighting, 11% air conditioning, 8% refrigeration, 5% electronics,  5% wet-clean (clothing dryers). A few degree change in the thermostat (6% reduction), switching to CFL lightbulbs (6% reduction), and utilizing a clothes line vs. dryer (5% reduction), less warm water usage (3% reduction) would yield a 20% savings easily.

For the transportation sector, the consumption break down is: 61% for gasoline, 21% for diesel fuel and 12% aviation. Let’s assume that all diesel and aviation fuel is commercial usage and cannot be reduced. Can the 20% reduction still be achieved only from gasoline? Taking a simplified approach, let’s assume 2/3rds of gasoline usage is for personal transportation and 1/3rd is non-personal (police cars, commercial vehicles, etc). That would mean the gasoline used for personal transportation would have to be cut in half. People would have to drive half as much as they do today or get double the efficiency. Possible, but very difficult without adequate mass transportation systems.

A 20% in 20 weeks is very laudable and a worthwhile goal to achieve. So is no fossil fuels by 2018. A balance is needed between raising the bar with high expectations and not setting ourselves up for failure. Congressman Baird may contribute more to reducing emissions by expanding funding for mass transit (currently less than 10%) in the economic stimulus bill.

6 Comments »

World Economic Forum Discussion

This past week at The World Economic Forum, Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund, led a panel discussion on market based mechanisms for climate change solutions. Mr. Krupp is a strong proponent of market based solutions and was one of the architects of the Acid Rain Trading Program which part of 1990 Clean Air Act.

The panel, consisting of US Congressman Brian Baird, Nic Frances (Chairman Cool Nrg International), Lars G. Josefsson (CEO of Vattenfall) and Pierre Lagrange (Managing Partner, GLG Partners), discussed a wide range topics relating to market systems for emissions, climate change and legislation. The entire video is about 1hr long, and below we highlight some of the most interesting discussions.

@7:45:  When asked about learnings from the European Union’s carbon trading system, Lars Josefsson responds that the non-harmonization of the system led to over allocation carbon credits. Individual Union countries, in efforts to protect their industries, set their own rules. As a result the market price collapsed. For the United States, a federal system is required with strict uniform rules on allocation methods.

@14:00: When asked how the importance and urgency of the crisis, Congressman Baird states we need to change the language. Climate Change and Global Warming, the most common terms used to describe the crisis are too pleasant. Mr. Baird states that the real terms should be lethal overheating of our planet, de-oxygenation of the atmosphere, and acidification of the oceans. It’s similar to stating instead a thief is breaking into your home, you’re having some unexpected guests this evening.

@16:00mins: Mr. Baird says we need to accelerate the timing of a solution. If a doctor says you have cancer, but says he plans to wait until 2020 to treat you, the patient will say ‘Can we not start tomorrow?’ Mr. Baird believes the same should be done for climate change and the industrial world should set a goal of 20% reduction in energy used in 20 weeks. 20 in 20 weeks is a though provoking idea and one we’ll write more about in tomorrow’s post.

31 Comments »

Carbon Tax and Carbon Offsets

It is more likely than not, that in the near future there will be a price on carbon in the United States. It may be through a direct carbon tax or a cap and trade system. In the past few years, checkbook environmentalists who were concerned over their carbon footprints but were unwilling to make lifestyle changes began paying others to offset their carbon emissions.

Providers of carbon offsets, both for-profit and not-for-profit, have created a market for their services as high as $100million. Criticisms of carbon offset programs aside, can the carbon offset market survive when their is a price on carbon?

The main incentive to purchase carbon offsets is to become carbon neutral; an atonement for our polluting ways. A price on carbon may very well reduce the emissions produced, but will not directly lead to carbon neutrality. Offsets can still be purchased for the reduced footprints.

A price on carbon will however have a psychological impact on consumers; they will now be indirectly paying for their carbon production. Even though the per-capita cost may be small, it may be enough to dissuade consumers from purchasing offsets. Why pay to offset my carbon emissions when I am already being taxed for my carbon emissions?

The carbon offset market will most likely survive even with a carbon tax or cap and trade system. It’s growth may be stunted with a decline in individual purchases, but businesses will still purchase offsets to “green wash” consumers.

10 Comments »

Time To Resupply The Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

With oil trading below $50/barrel, it is time to consider expanding the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR was created in 1975 as a response to the Oil Embargo. Today the reserve has 703 million barrels and will increase it’s size to 1 billion barrels as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. At current consumption levels (20 million barrels per day), the US would have a 50 day supply if all domestic oil production and imports were to stop or 90 days if all imports were to stop.

Crude oil has been periodically drawn out of the reserve when domestic supply has been impacted (Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Gustav, etc). Inflows into the SPR have been suspended during periods of high oil prices; large outflows from the SPR could also occur during periods of high oil prices but have not yet.

Increasing the capacity and amount of oil of the SPR has both positive and negative ramifications.

Positives:
- With low oil prices, a cheap reserve of oil could be stockpiled for use during future hurricanes
- Increasing capacity requires constructing more storage locations translating into more jobs

Negatives:
- Purchasing crude oil at any price requires funds that can be currently better used elsewhere
- Without a complimentary increase in refining capacity additional stockpiles or crude oil may not help during natural disasters
- If the future is clean energy, building reserves of bio-diesel may be more appropriate then expanding reserves of oil

There are two ways to reduce the impact oil supply disruptions would have:
1) Increase the amount of backup capacity (SPR) - or -
2) Decrease the importance of oil by decreasing demand

The ~$40billion required to expand and fill the SPR to 1.5billion barrels (at today’s prices) would be better spent on reduce the demand for oil via intercity rail, tax credits for homes to switch from oil heat to electric heat, etc.

5 Comments »