Provocative NASA study puts road traffic ahead of power plants as cause of climate change near-term

(Picture of auto traffic from Flickr and photographer Lynac)

A new study from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says tailpipe emissions will cause the most global warming over the next decade. Next comes heating homes by burning wood and cow dung in poor countries. Third is methane from cows.

Electric power is further down the list, though it will be the prime source of warming by century’s end, the study predicts. The provocative study, by a team led by NASA’s Nadine Unger, was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Policy implications
Does this mean we should turn away from fighting the coal industry and focus more on electric cars, high-speed rail and aid to third-world countries? Possibly. We may have a little more time than we thought to shut off coal – as far as global warming is concerned.

But this is just one study. It will need to be confirmed by others.

And the reason behind the findings is troubling. It all has to do with the release of aerosols that block the incoming sunlight and have a temporary cooling effect. Tailpipe emissions don’t have much of those, while coal-fired plants do. Some aerosols, such as sulfates and organic carbon, have a very short-term cooling effect (they are rained down in just a few days), while greenhouse gases stay aloft for decades.

Of course this is a double-edged sword. Aerosols have a known harmful effect on human health and on the environment. That’s why industrialized countries have been phasing them out.

A choice we don’t want to make
Do we have to choose between climate change and our health? Unger says, “no,” that we need to phase out unhealthy aerosols, but that an immediate focus on transportation will give us the biggest bang for our buck in the next decade.

A sound way to proceed is by attacking all sources – tailpipes, burning of wood and dung, cattle-produced methane AND power plants. If we can remove many of the sources of greenhouse gases, we won’t need unhealthy particles in the air to block out the sun.

To read about the study and see graphs go to NASA’s Web site.

See Q&A with Unger. (Caution: Don’t be biased by her picture. She’s a pretty blonde.)

If you want to read the study abstract.

(Sources: NASA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fastcompany.com)

Better learn what EV is. You may be in one soon.

(Photo of Chevy Volt from Flickr and Passion84Photos/Robert Heese.)

EV … PHV … These terms may soon be as familiar as SUV. Also, Volt, Leaf, Tesla and Fisker. This is the fast-approaching world of electric cars and plug-in electric hybrids.

Just about every auto company is working on one … or two, including some entrepreneurs. With government incentives, they expect a surge in sales, perhaps enough to meet Obama’s campaign goal of 1 million on the road by 2015. A Berkeley study shows that with a nationwide battery lease and swap program, EVs and PHVs could be 86% of the new-car market by 2030.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $2.4B to develop plug-ins and advanced batteries. There will be a $7,500 tax credit for the first 200,000 sold. DOE so far has loaned $529M to U.S. entrepreneur Fisker to develop 2 plug-ins, and $8B to Tesla (also U.S.), Ford and Nissan North America.

Coming to market soon
* GM’s Chevy Volt, Fisker’s Karma, Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV and China’s BYD EV should be for sale here by late next year.
* Ford’s all-electric Focus and Tesla’s Model S are looking at 2011.
* Nissan-Renault’s Leaf, Toyota’s plug-in Prius and electric iQ, and all-electric Smart car are due in 2012.

Tesla has already sold 700 of its pricey 2-seater Roadster and is working on a 4-seat luxury car and a delivery van. India’s Reva NXR begins production next year but it’s unclear when it might be available here.

Problems to overcome
The main hurdles are cost, range and infrastructure. And they’re related. At this point the lithium-ion batteries make the cars expensive. Most of the cars include a battery though some are planning on a leasing process.

Chevy Volt, Karma and China’s BYD EV are priced at about $40,000. Renault says its Fluence will be the cheapest because its Better Place batteries will be separate (at a cost of about 250 euros a year). Tesla’s $100,000 Roadster is being driven by movie stars and the like. China’s BYD F3DM, already being mass produced, sells there for $22,000. American investor Warren Buffet has a stake in BYD. Most car-makers are being cagey about prices.

Charge it, please
Range is an issue to balance against cost. Nissan would like Leaf to have a 100-mile range, Volt can go 40 miles without gasoline kicking in, and Toyota sees a range of 10-15 miles for its Prius plug-in, to keep the size of the battery down and cut the cost.

While many of the cars can be plugged in at home overnight, people in apartment buildings don’t have the same access, so charging networks need to be set up. Better Place is leading that fledgling industry and setting up networks in the San Francisco Bay Area, Hawaii, Denmark, Israel and Australia.

Around the world
Iceland is putting up its own nationwide charging network, hoping its entire population (310,000) will go electric by 2012. France has the same aim and will invest $2.8B. They’ll buy 50,000 EV fleet cars by 2015, and expect 100,000 on the road that year.

Germany is investing $750M and wants to have a million cars on the road by 2020. And Denmark expects about 50 charging stations in Copenhagen in time for the climate summit this December. Delegates will have access to some Renault EVs. And not to worry. Electric cars park for free.


To see more of the cars and learn more about EVs see Plug In America and it’s electric vehicle tracker.

(Sources: ClimateWire, PlanetArk, Greenwire, Guardian, LA Times, dailygreen.com, Bloomberg, Business Week, E&E Daily.)

Is natural gas the right solution to getting off oil? See EarthlingAngst's answer to Pickens' plan

(Photo of metro bus in Washington, D.C., running on natural gas from Flickr and photographer Kathy Doucette)

Weekly Angst: You’ve no doubt heard a lot about natural gas lately. There’s a rush to drill in shale and T. Boone Pickens’ much publicized plan recommends wind energy to power 20% of electricity plants, freeing up the natural gas that runs them and using that gas to replace some gasoline. His goal is to cut oil imports by a third in 10 years (and to make some money in the process). Sounds good, but it's not the answer to global warming.

Natural gas does have several advantages, as Pickens points out:
* It’s plentiful
* It’s cheaper than gasoline
* It’s cleaner than oil or coal
* And it’s American.

Natural gas now powers 20% of the nation’s electricity. It’s also used for cooking, heating and the chemical industry. And some motor vehicles are beginning to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel.

It’s plentiful
Natural gas production peaked here in 1973. Reserves began to dry up in the ‘90s, and production declined until 2005. By then new technology allowed horizontal drilling into shale, and there are plentiful shale gas reserves in 33 states. Some reports say there are enough in North America to last a century.

A rush to drill has ensued. Pennsylvania, for example, is on its way to issuing 7,000 gas and oil drilling permits this year. Louisiana just had a record natural gas lease sale of $93.8 million. More than 4,400 miles of gas pipeline have been laid in the U.S. this year and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin just signed a bill to award TransCanada Corp. a license to build and operate a gas pipeline to run from the North Slope to a hub in Canada. Most of the reserves on the North Slope are leased by BP, Exxon and ConocoPhillips. So the oil companies are hedging their bets with gas.

Price encourages drilling but it’s cheap for autos
Another incentive to drill was the rising price. In 1999 natural gas was less than $2/thousand cubic feet. This summer it hit $13 before a sharp decline. Yet the end product, for automobiles, is much cheaper than gasoline derived from oil. In Utah, where compressed natural gas is plentiful and there is an infrastructure of filling stations, people with cars converted for CNG are paying less than $1 a gallon. To see prices and where CNG pumps are, go to cngprices.com.)

It emits less CO2
Natural gas emits 30% less carbon dioxide than gasoline, 23% less than diesel and 50% less than coal. It’s also more efficient than coal for power plants, as it loses less energy in the process.

It’s local
Nearly all (98%) of the natural gas used in the U.S. comes from North America. Very little needs to be imported, as long as supply here can keep up with demand.

The arguments against natural gas
Although natural gas is cleaner than oil and coal, it still emits 70% of the CO2 gasoline does and half what coal does. Pickens' plan, which shifts gas over to replace some oil but leaves most power plants running on coal is not going to get us to the needed reduction of greenhouse gases. And too much focus on natural gas will only delay progress in that direction.

Pickens touts natural gas as a “temporary” solution, a transition until everyone can drive electric cars in what he sees as 20-30 years. Well we're going to be driving plug-in cars way before that unless, of course, subsidies and infrastructure send auto companies in the direction of CNG instead of electric cars. And then we'll just be replacing oil with another -- though somewhat cleaner -- fossil fuel.

Some environmental leaders endorse Pickens' plan, in large part because it pushes a huge increase in wind power, from less than 2% to 20% in a decade. With "drill, baby, drill" ringing in our ears, that sounds like a pretty good program. Until you stop and think how close it will get us to our goal of stopping global warming. Not very. Not very at all.

EarthlingAngst’s plan
Pickens’ plan says nothing about solar energy, which is abundant in the West, or wave power or geothermal energy. Why not aim for 20% solar in 10 years as well? And instead of replacing natural gas, let wind, solar and geothermal replace the dirtier coal in producing electricity, and use cellulosic ethanol and electric cars or plug-in hybrids for transportation – and more mass transit. Also put a serious focus on efficiency. We waste as much energy as we use. Then perhaps we really could put a dent in both oil and coal in 10 years.

What a tragedy we have wasted so many crucial years arguing about this stuff. We need to take giant steps, not baby steps, to shift away from fossil fuels (not just foreign oil) to renewable energy sources, and we need an administration and Congress that realizes that.

Take action
Meanwhile, you can call your Senators and Congressman (212-224-3121) Tuesday during National Call-in Day and tell them to vote for renewable energy, green jobs and efficiency, not for more drilling. That’s the way to get more energy more quickly and help the economy and planet as well.
(Sources: ClimateWire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Greenwire, pickensplan.com, PlanetArk, American Gas Assn., New York Times)

All-electric car sells for $109,000; Governator and Clooney both plan to be in driver’s seat

(Photo of George Clooney from Flickr and photographer Martin de Witte.)

News Update 3: Tesla motors opened its first store in LA last week, to sell its sleek two-seat luxury Roadster. Despite the $109,000 price tag, orders are pouring in for the 600 electric cars planned this year and there’s now a 15-month wait. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and actors George Clooney and Kelsey Grammer are among the first to buy. The car, which operates on a lithium-ion battery and can go 200 miles on a charge, has sleek lines like a Porsche. More Tesla stores are expected next year in New York and Chicago. Watch a video of the car’s unveiling or learn more about it at the Tesla Web site. (Source: thestate.com and teslamotors.com.)

Tar sands oil disaster for planet

A top Canadian official has asked the U.S. to go slow in plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What’s THAT about?

It’s about the Alberta tar sands, and the desire to keep us buying their synthetic oil made by a filthy, messy process that:
• destroys thousands of miles of pristine forests and wetlands
• releases 3 times the carbon dioxide into the air as conventional oil
• digs up 2-4 tons of earth to produce each barrel of oil
• burns enough natural gas each day to heat a million homes
• takes 3 barrels of water from the shrinking Athabasca River for each barrel of oil
• generates 2 barrels of toxic waste for each barrel of oil, stored in holding lagoons so big they can be seen from space
• leaves the land spoiled instead of reclaiming it
• smells like rotten eggs.

Matthew Simmons, author of “Twilight in the Desert” calls the process “atrocious.” Al Gore says it’s “truly nuts.”

The tars sands are Canada’s fastest growing GHG emissions source and one reason it’s not meeting its Kyoto targets.

Show me the money
Why would anyone make such a mess to produce oil? Money, that’s why. Tar sands became economically viable in 2003. Investors are piling on ($52 billion with much more expected), and the Canadian government stands to make $51 billion in taxes by 2020, while Alberta province will get $44 billion. Not surprising they haven’t done an impact assessment.

And we’re the enabler because we’re buying almost all their exports, to the tune of $73 billion a year. Why? To reduce our reliance on Middle East oil. Canada is now our biggest supplier, at 16% of our total. They want to sell us much more, and together the countries plan to increase production 5-fold.

To make matters worse, refiners here at home are trying to expand to refine the stuff and build pipelines to bring it in. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have fought permits in several states, including Ill., Ind. (remember the row with Chicago over the Whiting plant?), Michigan, Ohio and Wis.

The basics
Tars sands, re-branded “oil sands” by the industry, is also found in Venezuela. About 20% is near the surface and mined in open pits by giant equipment. The remainder is far underground and recovered by injecting steam into the earth to melt the tar (or bitumen) so it’s thin enough to pump up. Then impurities are removed in an energy-intensive process. The Canadian government wants to replace the natural gas that powers the operation with 20 nuclear reactors.

Alberta is sitting on the second largest reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. It is producing 1.25 million barrels a day from its tar sands, an amount expected to triple by 2016. China, another likely market, has invested in two companies there.

But tars sands are not the only source of “unconventional” or synthetic oil. Oil shale and coal-to-liquid are other means to make a dirtier form of oil that produces more GHG and could tear up OUR landscape.

Why even mess with this stuff, when there are cleaner forms of energy like wind, solar, geothermal and cellulosic ethanol. We should be investing in those, as well as cutting waste and driving electric cars. But we’d better get busy. Because tar sands are clearly on a tear.

Note: "Highway to Hell" is a compelling account of work at the large Ft. McMurray tar sands in northern Alberta in OnEarth magazine online.
For more on tar sands, see Climate Progress

(Sources: Washington Post, OnEarth, PlanetArk, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Watch Institute, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Tar Sands Watch/Cleveland Plain Dealer and Oil Sands Truth)

(Photo of the Alberta tar sands courtesy of Flickr and photographer Gord McKenna)

Electric cars are just around the corner

Weekly angst: Cars are here to stay. We’ll never get everyone on the train or bus. And as the world population grows, and poor countries get richer, there’ll be many more cars on the road. So the only way to seriously cut greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions is to change the way cars are built and powered.

A real break with the past requires electric cars, eventually powered by zero-carbon hydrogen. That’s several years in the future – maybe a decade. But electric cars, the plug-in variety with batteries you plug in at night, will start hitting the road very soon (a few are already there.) And when they do, you can bet competition will heat up. It’s already simmering.

Two leaders are Israel and, yes, China.

Israel said last week it will support a large-scale project to put electric cars on the road as early as next year. An Israeli-American entrepreneur, Shai Agassi, is working with Renault/Nissan to test such a car (and supporting infrastructure) in the tiny country, where gasoline costs more than $6 a gallon. He sees small European countries like Denmark, where gas taxes are high, as ideal places to market the cars. Small is good, because these cars can run some distance on electricity alone, before they need recharging or a gasoline engine to kick in.

The Israeli cars will be able to go 124 miles on a charge. Usually the batteries will be recharged at home at night, when electricity is cheapest. But service stations will be able to recharge or change out the batteries. The cars – from Renault and Nissan – will be subsidized, with a monthly fee for service. Operating costs are expected to be half that of a gasoline-powered car.

The prediction is that several thousand will be on the road next year, with 100,000 by the end of 2010. (In Israel, about 10% of the cars are replaced each year.)

The company sees this concept as a money-maker and is eyeing the Chinese market as well. Chinese auto company Chery apparently is interested.

China has plans of its own
Shanghai, which may well become the Detroit of the 21st century, has a program to experiment with a variety of clean technologies, according to “Zoom: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future,” a new book by Iain Carson and Vijay Vaitheeswaran.

Gang Wan, head of the program, had worked at Audi and decided it didn’t make sense to try to catch up with foreigners’ head start on the combustion engine. Instead he is looking at electric, hybrid gasoline/diesel-electric, compressed natural gas and hydrogen fuel cells to power automobiles.

Hoping to have 1,000 clean cars and buses on the streets of Beijing for the Olympics, the project’s longer-range goal is for mass production of hydrogen fuel-cell cars by 2020. General Motors has signed on to help with both the fuel cells and the filling stations that will be needed.

China has many advantages in producing fuel cell technology, according to “Zoom.”
• It doesn't have the extensive investment in internal-combustion engines or the infrastructure of gas stations the West does, so there will be little resistance.
• Its giant dams produce enough excess hydropower to fuel 37 million cars by 2010 and 56 million by 2020.
• The potential market in China alone is huge.
• The government can mandate the changes.

Maybe you’ll drive one of these
Most auto companies have a plug-in in the works. A few will be ready in the next year or two. Here are a some examples:
• Chevrolet’s Volt is scheduled for a 2010 launch. GM will road-test it this year. The plug-in Volt goes 40 miles on a battery charge, with a gasoline engine as back-up.
• Toyoto says it too will build a plug-in hybrid by 2010, for use by governments and corporations. The general public will have to wait a bit longer. And Toyota is testing a fuel-cell car, which has traveled 350 miles on a tank in Japan. A newer version can go 466 miles, the company said.
• Fisker Automotive’s plug-in Karma is an $80,000 luxury car, which goes 50 miles before a small gasoline engine generates electricity to recharge it. Fisker says Karma is ready to be mass produced.
• Italy’s Pininfarina, aims for a 2009 launch of its small 4-seater electric car. It goes 155 miles before recharging and the company says it could produce up to 15,000 a year if the demand is there.
• Tata Motors in India is partnering with Chrysler to make an electric version of its mini-truck, Ace, for sale in the U.S. Tata is working with other foreign partners on hybrids and fuel cells. (Tata is the car-maker that just released a $2,500 car in India, putting car ownership within reach for millions.)
• Subaru’s G4e (Good4Earth) is a plug-in electric commuting car and can go 124 miles on an overnight charge. Quick-chargers, located at supermarkets and other public places, will give an 80% charge in 15 minutes. If the car is plugged in at night, the energy per mile could be 1/10th that of gasoline fueled cars.
• AFS Trinity has the Extreme Hybrid, a retrofitted Saturn Vue, which can go 40 miles on electricity and then on gas.
• General Motors is test-driving its Equinox fuel-cell cars in 3 cities. The car probably won’t reach mass production for 10 years, GM says.

Cutting GHG emissions
Switching to plug-ins could do a lot to help the environment. The Electric Power Research Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council say mass use of plug-in hybrids could cut greenhouse gases by more than 450 metric tons a year by 2050, the same as removing 82.5 million cars from the road.

But Honda CEO Takeo Fukui predicts the future for the auto industry is in fuel cells, which produce no carbon. He sees the plug-in hybrid as a battery-powered car with an unnecessary fuel engine and tank.

Fuel cells, which use hydrogen and oxygen to generate electric power, are 2-3 times more efficient than the internal combustion engine, according to the Society of Automotive Engineers. They have no moving parts and the only byproducts are heat and water. Of course, with new technologies, new companies can horn in on the majors' act.

And infrastructure is no small matter in the United States. About 12,000 of the country’s 170,000 filling stations will have to be converted to serve up hydrogen, GM says. No doubt there will be a lot of resistance.

For more on green autos, check out greenauto blog.

(Sources: “Zoom,” New York Times, E&E Daily, Greenwire, PlanetArk, AOL Auto, Chicago Sun-Times, Salon.com.
(Picture courtesy of Flickr and ourgreencommunity.org)

P.S. Debates silent on global warming

You may have noticed there have been virtually no questions about global warming in the presidential debates. The League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club helped end the drought with petitions from 200,000 of us. Tim Russert asked the first climate change question in the last debate. In fact he asked two. Now it’s time to call CNN and tell Wolf Blitzer to ask about global warming in this Thursday’s debate. Call (404)827-1700.