via Visual.ly
Here is a nice infographic that tries to answer one simple question reg. fossil fuels and their emissions..
What if we burned all the fossil fuels we have? infographic by OpenCanada.
This webinar will explore the findings of Transportation Research Board Special Report 298: Driving and the Built Environment: Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. This congressionally mandated study examines the relationship between land development patterns and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States to assess whether petroleum use, and by extension greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, could be reduced by changes in the design of development patterns. The study estimates the contributions that changes in residential and mixed-use development patterns and transit investments could make in reducing VMT by 2030 and 2050, and the impact this could have in meeting future transportation-related GHG reduction goals.
Commissioned papers used by the committee to help develop Special Report 298 are available online. A four page summary of and a press release on the report is also available online.
Image Courtesy: TRB - Click the image to access the report
The committee chair, José A. Gómez-Ibáñez, Derek C. Bok Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy of Harvard University, will present the study findings. The report estimates the contributions that changes in residential and mixed-use development patterns and transit investments could make in reducing VMT by 2030 and 2050, and the impact this could have in meeting future transportation-related GHG reduction goals.
Questions from the audience will be addressed by Dr. Gómez-Ibáñez and two committee members who also contributed to the report:
Questions may be posed any time during the webinar, and will be answered at the end of the session.
Registration: There is no fee to join this webinar. Space is limited, so we encourage participants to register 24 hours prior to the start of the webinar.
For questions about using this software, including webinar audio or visual complications, please contact Reggie Gillum at rgillum@nas.edu or 202-334-2382.
(Source: Green Car Congress) Sue Cischke, Ford group vice president, Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering, pointed to the “key role” government policies such as fuel standards and greenhouse gas emission regulations, play in the development and support of Ford’s product and technology pathways. Cischke was speaking at the Center of Automotive Research’s Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City last week.
Image Courtesy: Green Car Congress - Actual and projected greenhouse gas emissions for passenger vehicles by region/country through 2022. Adapted from ICCT. Click to enlarge.
Cischke cited the recent agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions regulations as an example of how the government, the auto industry and the environmental community can work together toward common goals. (Earlier post.) The agreement provides a framework to reach an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016.
The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) calculates that meeting the proposed Federal policy will require a 5.7% annual increase in average fuel economy through 2016. Meeting the California Pavley regulations will require about a 5.8% annual increase in average fuel economy, according to ICCT. By comparison, meeting Japan’s standards for 2004-2015 requires a 1.9% annual increase; meeting the EU targets for 2008-2015 requires a 2.5% annual increase to 2015; and meeting China’s 2004-2009 target requires a 5.3% annual increase.
To meet the demand for higher fuel efficiency, Ford will leverage and expand EcoBoost engine technology that will be available on 90% of the company’s nameplates by 2013. Other technologies such as six-speed transmissions and electric power assist steering, which yield additional fuel efficiencies, will also be widely applied across Ford’s vehicle lineup over the next several years. Ford has doubled the number and production of its hybrid vehicles and announced an aggressive strategy to bring four new electrified vehicles to market over the next three years.
They include a battery-electric Transit Connect commercial van in 2010, a battery-electric Ford Focus passenger car in 201l, and the next-generation hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicle in 2012.
Click here to read the entire article.
(Source: AFP via Yahoo & Science Daily)
Image Courtesy: IOP - Energy consumption and GHG emissions per PKT (The vehicle operation components are shown with gray patterns. Other vehicle components are shown in shades of blue. Infrastructure components are shown in shades of red and orange. The fuel production component is shown in green. All components appear in the order they are shown in the legend.)
Do you worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint? Are you the one who frets about tailpipe emissions, greenhouse gases and climate change?
If yes, you must be the one who prefers to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.
Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study published in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain’s Institute of Physics. Often unknown to the public, there are an array of hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple “tailpipe” tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip. Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at theUniversity of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels. By comparison, San Francisco‘s local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston’s. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the “tailpipe” quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure — railways, airport terminals, roads and so on — nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
The researchers also touch on the effect of low passenger occupancy and show that we are naïve to automatically assume one form of transport is more environmentally friendly than another. They conclude from their calculations that a half-full Boston light railway is only as environmentally friendly, per kilometre traveled, as a midsize aircraft at 38 per cent occupancy. From cataloguing the varied environmental costs the researchers come to some surprising conclusions. A comparison between light railways in both Boston and San Franciso show that despite Boston boasting a light railway with low operational energy use, their LRT is a far larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter because 82 per cent of the energy generated in Boston is fossil-fuel based, compared to only 49 per cent in San Francisco.
Total life-cycle energy inputs and GHG emissions contribute an additional 155 per cent for rail, 63 per cent for cars and buses, and 32 per cent for air systems over vehicle exhaust pipe operation.
So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), “we can ask questions as to whether it’s better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy,” said Chester. The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.
Journal reference:
(Source: The Detroit News & SFGate.com)
Supporters have dropped an attempt to add “cash for clunkers” legislation to a tobacco regulation bill now before the Senate, a setback in efforts to boost car sales with federal subsidies.
“There are technical details to work out and the senator continues to look for a vehicle to pass this very important piece of legislation,” said Brad Carroll, a spokesman for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a co-sponsor of the bill.
Two congressional aides said the measure was derailed by objections from the Senate Appropriations Committee to using money from the $787 billion economic stimulus package for the measure, which would offer up to $4,500 credits for consumers trading in older, low-gas-mileage vehicles.
In January, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a bill, S247, that would give vouchers to people who turn in a car or truck that gets 15 or fewer miles per gallon to a dealer that scraps it.
Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, introduced one in the House, HR1550. A compromise version was attached to the 900-page energy bill that was passed last month by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., introduced an almost identical one in the Senate. Her bill, S1135, would provide vouchers of $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference in gas mileage between the clunker and the new vehicle. The vouchers could only be used to buy or lease new vehicles, not for used vehicles or mass transit.
Environmentalists oppose the two industry-supported bills because they would provide vouchers to people who scrap more fuel-efficient vehicles (18 mpg or less) than under the Feinstein proposal (15 mpg or less).
Last month, Sen. Feinstein proposed an alternative that is less stringent than her original bill but stricter than Stabenow’s. For details, see links.sfgate.com/ZHHC.
It’s not clear whether the Senate will back the Stabenow bill, the new Feinstein approach or a compromise.
“Fiscal conservatives and environmentalists oppose the more permissive Stabenow bill as an expensive subsidy for the ailing auto industry, while union and manufacturing interests oppose the stricter Feinstein approach, which would likely favor fuel-efficient imported vehicles,” said Benjamin Salisbury, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets, in a report.
“The Senate could vote on both amendments and add the most popular one to unrelated legislation giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco products,” Salisbury wrote.
That didn’t happen Wednesday, as many expected. But with President Obama in favor of cash for clunkers, the idea is not likely to die.
Becker hopes Congress will not rush into passing a bill without enough research and debate to determine how much the program will cost and who will benefit most. “Somebody might come along and do clunker dating,” matching up people who want to buy new cars with people who have clunkers, he says.
He adds that Germany started a 1.5 billion euro cash-for-clunkers program this year and it has already swelled into a 5 billion euro program.
Consumers waiting to buy a new car until a bill passes should first figure out if their existing car would qualify under the scrapping plan. If so, the next question is whether the voucher would be worth more than the price they would get if they sold or traded in their car. If so, they should figure out whether the new car they want to buy would qualify. With so many unknowns remaining, it’s hard to reach a conclusion.
(Source: Green Car Congress & R744.com)
South Korea plans to raise the fuel economy of locally-made vehicles to surpass future requirements being by the US and Japan, according to the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE). Korea’s fuel efficiency standards are already slated to increase 16.5% in 2012 from the current levels.
New passenger cars sold within the country in 2008 ran an average of 11.47 kilometers per liter of fuel (27 mpg US, 8.7 L/100km)—up from 11.04 km/L (26 mpg US, 9.1 L/100km) recorded in 2007.
South Korea enacted fuel economy standards in 2006 for domestic cars and in 2009 for imported cars with sales of less than 10,000 vehicles. Companies manufacturing or importing more than 10,000 vehicles per year are subject to US CAFE standards. Standards as strict as those of advanced countries are likely to be in place by 2015 and 2020, MKE said.More importantly, a shift in purchasing habits to favor greener and more fuel-efficient vehicles will put Korea on the right path to the realization of its national vision—low carbon, green growth.
At present, Korean standards are at 12.4 km/l (29 mpg U.S.) for vehicles with engine displacements of 1.5 litres or less, and 9.6 km/l (22.6 mpg) for those above 1.5 litres. However, as a report from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found last year, South Korea is the only nation in the world where fleet average fuel economy is projected to decline over the next five years due to a sharp increase of large engine sized cars. A 15% increase would thus raise the standards to about 14.3 l/km (33.6 mpg) and 11 km/l (25.9 mpg) respectively by 2012. By comparison, the U.S. fuel economy standards have been raised to 35 mpg by 2020.
South Korea first developing country to set GHG emission targets under Kyoto
South Korea could become the first nation not obliged by the Kyoto Protocol to set a national GHG emissions target. The country will thus freeze its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at 2005 levels, or 591 million tons of carbon dioxide, over the next five years, Environment Minister Lee Maan-Ee announced on 21 March. Korea’s first governmental scheme to tackle global warming will encourage the development of environmentally friendly vehicles, and initiate nationwide energy-saving campaigns in non-manufacturing sectors including households and commercial buildings. The freeze of GHG emissions until 2012 will actually be a small reduction as South Korea’s emissions have increased by an average of 2.2 percent annually in recent years.
The unprecedented move follows the United Nations climate change conference in Bali last December, where South Korea pledged to take concrete steps to curb emissions along with 130 other countries. Currently, South Korea is classified as a developing country not facing any emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol. However, as it is likely to be given the status of a developed country in a post-Kyoto agreement after 2012, the latest plan is seen by many as a preparation for even tougher targets in the future.
(Source: The Brookings Institution)
The Obama administration’s move to increase vehicle fuel economy standards and reduce greenhouse gas emissions addresses the source of one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions—transportation. In this report, the authors analyze the current state of carbon emissions by metropolitan area, listing the places that emit the least per capita and proposing policy avenues to move the entire nation toward reduced climate impact.
America’s Challenge
The nation’s carbon footprint has a distinct geography not well understood or often discussed. This report quantifies transportation and residential carbon emissions for the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, finding that metro area residents have smaller carbon footprints than the average American, although metro footprints vary widely. Residential density and the availability of public transit are important to understanding carbon footprints, as are the carbon intensity of electricity generation, electricity prices, and weather.
Limitations of Existing Federal Policy
Numerous market and policy distortions inhibit metropolitan actors from more aggressively addressing the nation’s climate challenge. Economy-wide problems include underpriced energy, underfunded energy research, missing federal standards, distorted utility regulations, and inadequate information. Policy impediments include a bias against public transit, inadequate federal leadership on freight and land-use planning, failure to encourage energy- and location-efficient housing decisions, and the fragmentation of federal transportation, housing, energy, and environmental policies.
A New Federal Approach
Federal policy could play a powerful role in helping metropolitan areas—and so the nation—shrink their carbon footprint further. In addition to economy-wide policies to motivate action, five targeted policies are particularly important within metro areas and for the nation as a whole:
(Source: Autobloggreen)
Before you think we’ve gone crazy, let’s make clear that this is a post about a serious report published in Nature Geoscience. According to this report, lead that was expelled to the atmosphere through exhaust gases stimulated the growth of clouds. Larger clouds imply less solar radiation, which has a definitive cool effect. In this EU funded study, investigators from Switzerland, Germany and the U.S. “captured” clouds on some mountains and compared them to artificial ones created in laboratories. Their conclusion: if the air has some lead suspended in it, temperature and humidity didn’t pay as significant a role in cloud formation.
The Notre-Planete observed “the major part of atmospheric lead comes from human activities, the main sources are coal combustion, gasoline lead, small aircraft flying at the altitude where the clouds form and construction that release lead from ground.
Emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming, but the emission of small particles of substances such as lead may have the opposite effect by interacting with water vapor in the atmosphere to trigger the formation of clouds. Depending on their altitude and the thickness of the clouds can reflect sunlight into space or trap the heat radiated by the Earth.
What’s interesting is that their models show that between 1970 and 1980, before unleaded gasoline became common, most dust on the Earth’s suface had lead particles in it. This might have helped more clouds get created, and that reduced the impact of greenhouse gases accumulation in the atmosphere. Though research has proved time and again the ill effects of lead on human health, it is surprising to see the “side effect” that has helpedin guarding the environment.
(Source: National Transportation Operations Coalition)
A coalition of transportation and technology leaders – including state and local officials, industry and academic leaders and prominent stakeholder organizations – is calling on Congress to focus federal funding in the surface transportation authorization bill on the deployment of smart technologies and innovative solutions in order to create a performance-driven, intermodal transportation system that is safer, cleaner, more efficient and more financially sustainable for communities, businesses and the traveling public.
America’s transportation system is facing significant challenges that must be addressed in the next surface transportation authorization bill, from financing our transportation system and reducing traffic fatalities to combating congestion and CO2 emissions. Solving these challenges will require transportation agencies and private sector partners to use all of the tools at their disposal, including intelligent transportation systems (ITS), related technologies, and multimodal operational strategies that can help prevent accidents before they happen, reduce traffic congestion and freight bottlenecks, provide more effective incident and emergency response, reduce energy use and emissions, and enable innovative 21st century financing options.
“As a result of successful research initiatives and private sector innovation, technologies are here today which can help increase safety, reduce congestion and emissions, boost competitiveness, improve system performance, and create more livable and sustainable communities,” the coalition wrote today to House transportation leaders. “While a continued and strengthened research role is still needed, it is critical that state and local agencies and private sector partners make better use of technology to modernize today’s infrastructure and optimize existing capacity, while building smart and efficient roads, bridges, transit systems, and multimodal transportation options for tomorrow’s transportation users.”
(Source: Green Inc, NY Times)
According to a study by three California researchers, an acre planted with corn for ethanol will provide far fewer miles of transportation fuel as the same acre growing trees or switchgrass, which are then burned in power plants that provide the power to charge the batteries of electric cars.
In fact, even ethanol made from cellulose, a technology that does not now exist in commercial form, is not as efficient a use of biomass as burning it in a power plant would be, the researchers found.
In a paper published in the current issue of Science magazine, Chris Field, a professor of biology at Stanford and director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution, Elliott Campbell of the University of California, Merced, and David Lobell of Stanford’s Program on Food Security and the Environment, write that the size of the advantage would depend on many factors.
These include the number of miles per gallon any particular vehicle will go on ethanol, and what a battery weighs per kilowatt-hour of energy stored. As batteries get lighter, for example, it takes less energy to move them.
But the researchers estimated that a small battery-powered S.U.V. would go nearly 14,000 miles on the highway on the energy from an acre of switchgrass burned to make electricity, compared to about 9,000 miles on ethanol.
If one grows a tree or annual crop, for example, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air, burns it in a power plant that captures and stores escaping CO2, and then replaces it with another crop, which pulls yet more carbon dioxide out of the air, the process becomes carbon negative.
The “miles per acre” question, and the amount of farmland diverted for use in producing transportation fuel is a sensitive political question, with American use of corn for ethanol blamed in part for last year’s run-up in global grain prices.
