I am from Waipahu High School. May I ask you a question about hydropower for my science project? In your opinion, will hydropower energy be a successful alternative energy in the future? Will it prevent global warming?
Donnalynn Agpaoa
Donnalynn's question is important and almost universal. Its generic version is: Will Technological Option X be a successful alternative? I'll get to the generic form later, but first, here is my answer to her.
Hydro-power can be very powerful. Its electricity generation is clean, and reliable for 100+ years, if designed properly. Kauai has a small but successful hydro-power generator.
Now lets take account of the negatives.
Hydro-power can destroy ecosystems, and in some cases villages, cities and regional cultures may disappear, as they become submerged in the reservoir (lake) behind the dam.
The dam itself may be viewed as an eyesore. Also it is somewhat risky. If it fails, there will be catastrophe downstream.
One important consideration in the total picture is the amount of steel and concrete that's needed to build the dam. The amount is massive and the manufacture of the necessary steel and concrete will create a lot of pollution. Similarly, the machinery that will build the dam will pollute as it works to build the dam, and the machinery itself created pollution when it was built.
So, say, a Caterpillar front-loader has a life of 30 years and will work at the dam site for 1.5 years. Therefore 5% of the resources and pollution that went to manufacture the front-loader need to be "billed" to the dam project.
We have to take into consideration all these cradle-to-grave sustainability impacts in order to correctly derive the total impact of the proposed hydro-power infrastructure.
As for your hydro-power question, the correct answer is that it can be green but not necessarily. We need to evaluate each and every proposed project, add all its pluses and minuses, and then decide if it is a good project.
=====
In general now, in several cases what appears "green" or "good" is the opposite when all its impacts are accounted for. For example, electricity produced by coal or oil is neither clean nor green.
That's one of the reasons that I oppose the city's elevated heavy rail plan. The promoters call it green, the engineering calls it dark black!
And that's one of the reasons environmentalists dislike the new EPA ratings for electric cars. For example, the Nissan Leaf gets 106 mpge (or MPG-equivalent). Quoting the LA Times:
"Things got hairy with the Leaf. The EPA worked out a formula in which an electric car using 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity was considered equivalent to a standard vehicle using a gallon of gasoline.
[On the other hand, a better] process would consider all the greenhouse gases released from the time the electricity is first generated until it is sent through transmission lines to charging units. Based on such measurements, the Leaf would rack up more than 250 grams of CO2 and other emissions every mile, according to data from the Energy Department's Argonne National Lab. Gasoline-fueled cars on average release 450 grams a mile.
The fact that the emissions came from a coal plant producing electricity in Utah is just as bad as if they came out of the tailpipe."
Sustainability is often misused for marketing purposes but in the right hands it provides a mindset and tools to get a holistic view of the impacts of a technological option as small as a solar panel or a household appliance, and as large as a hydro-power dam or a transportation system.
Showing posts with label Sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sustainability. Show all posts
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tourism Industry: Fact, Action, and Possible Destruction
Fact: Tourism is important to all of us on Oahu but the grim reality is that since the 1996-1998 high, tourism has been at a fairly constant slide, as DBEDT monthly statistics since 1990 show.
The graph above of international arrivals shows that 9/11 and SARS and Iraq war had strong negative impacts. Add to this the weak national economy since 2008 and domestic arrivals also have dropped sharply. See below.
Today's visitors observe a congested, aging and increasingly unappealing Oahu with potholed roads, tired looking parks, and hordes of homeless.
Action is needed now. My vision is to restore the postcard image of Oahu as a great tourist destination by focusing on fixing the infrastructure and maintaining our parks, beaches and tourist attractions. That is real value to the tourist industry and all of us.
The more attractive we are as a visitor destination, the more the hotels can get higher rates and higher quality jobs in the hospitality industry can be had.
Destruction. My opponents in the mayor race will significantly harm Oahu's tourist industry in three ways:
(1) Both advocate rail which is a giant project that will involve 10 years of messy construction to deliver a system that very few will use, according to the city's forecasts. The construction mess and the very ugly all-elevated rail line will be tourism killers for Oahu.
(2) The rail is gigantically expensive so other needs such as dilapidated parks and beaches, homelessness and potholed roads will be under-funded. Thus they will get worse and Oahu's tourist appeal will worsen.
(3) The taxes needed to construct and maintain rail and the sewers add up to $10 billion which means heavy extra taxes. How heavy? The typical sewer bill 15 years from now will be about $2,500 per year plus another $1,000 for rail for each taxpayer.
People in the hospitality industry will find it increasingly difficult to afford to live in Hawaii. Hotels may increase wages and will have to pay higher city taxes. So hotels will have to charge much more for their rooms to offset the costs, thus making a visitation to Hawaii more costly and less competitive.
My competitors' model for "rail jobs" is a long term disaster.
The graph above of international arrivals shows that 9/11 and SARS and Iraq war had strong negative impacts. Add to this the weak national economy since 2008 and domestic arrivals also have dropped sharply. See below.
Today's visitors observe a congested, aging and increasingly unappealing Oahu with potholed roads, tired looking parks, and hordes of homeless.
Action is needed now. My vision is to restore the postcard image of Oahu as a great tourist destination by focusing on fixing the infrastructure and maintaining our parks, beaches and tourist attractions. That is real value to the tourist industry and all of us.
The more attractive we are as a visitor destination, the more the hotels can get higher rates and higher quality jobs in the hospitality industry can be had.
Destruction. My opponents in the mayor race will significantly harm Oahu's tourist industry in three ways:
(1) Both advocate rail which is a giant project that will involve 10 years of messy construction to deliver a system that very few will use, according to the city's forecasts. The construction mess and the very ugly all-elevated rail line will be tourism killers for Oahu.
(2) The rail is gigantically expensive so other needs such as dilapidated parks and beaches, homelessness and potholed roads will be under-funded. Thus they will get worse and Oahu's tourist appeal will worsen.
(3) The taxes needed to construct and maintain rail and the sewers add up to $10 billion which means heavy extra taxes. How heavy? The typical sewer bill 15 years from now will be about $2,500 per year plus another $1,000 for rail for each taxpayer.
People in the hospitality industry will find it increasingly difficult to afford to live in Hawaii. Hotels may increase wages and will have to pay higher city taxes. So hotels will have to charge much more for their rooms to offset the costs, thus making a visitation to Hawaii more costly and less competitive.
My competitors' model for "rail jobs" is a long term disaster.
Hawaii's Energy Options
Status quo, Part 1: oil and coal -- Coal will remain affordable for decades (excluding made up carbon taxes). Oil prices will reach $150/barrel again in the future and at anything over $200/barrel using 2010 as a base (barrel under $80) will stress transportation budgets on Oahu, cost of goods, and price of flights.
Status quo, Part 2: burn trash is profitable now and probably still doable at $150 per barrel of oil. Oil is essential to mix with trash for the incineration process. The downside is that about 20% of the trash volume is converted into trash so every five years the pile that needs to be land-filled is as big as one year's worth of land-filled trash.
Other energy from trash: Collect methane from decommissioned trash land fills. This is a remote possibility for the Waimanalo Gulch and the power gain will likely be small.
Geothermal is a great option, very clean, but for the Big Island only. With all the volcanic activity, it makes little sense to burn oil on the Big Island for electricity generation or for other renewable energy installations.
Then there is a host of renewable energy technologies some of which have known risks, costs, reliability and effectiveness. Others are heavily dependent on subsidies to make their cost per mega-Watt (MW) competitive when oil costs less than $150/barrel. The mix that is worth investigating for feasibility, planning and costing in producing electric power includes:
Status quo, Part 2: burn trash is profitable now and probably still doable at $150 per barrel of oil. Oil is essential to mix with trash for the incineration process. The downside is that about 20% of the trash volume is converted into trash so every five years the pile that needs to be land-filled is as big as one year's worth of land-filled trash.
Other energy from trash: Collect methane from decommissioned trash land fills. This is a remote possibility for the Waimanalo Gulch and the power gain will likely be small.
Geothermal is a great option, very clean, but for the Big Island only. With all the volcanic activity, it makes little sense to burn oil on the Big Island for electricity generation or for other renewable energy installations.
Then there is a host of renewable energy technologies some of which have known risks, costs, reliability and effectiveness. Others are heavily dependent on subsidies to make their cost per mega-Watt (MW) competitive when oil costs less than $150/barrel. The mix that is worth investigating for feasibility, planning and costing in producing electric power includes:
- photovoltaic (PV) or solar,
- wind, various technologies,
- wave, various technologies,
- biomass, various technologies,
- nuclear, various sizes, configurations and location options,
- other less known technologies, some of which appropriate for small scale deployments.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Nuclear Power in Oahu's Future?
My statement at a recent mayoral debate that Hawaii should consider a nuclear plant for electricity stirred up some interest and apprehension.
Nuclear power for electricity in Oahu's future?
The likely answer is yes in order to sustain one million people and six million annual visitors 2,000 miles away from most resources, given that over 90% of the electricity is now fueled by oil. Planning for it, including a senate vote by over 2/3 in the affirmative, will take well over 10 years. So nuclear power is possible perhaps in 20 years, about 20 miles off-shore, for one 1,000 MW power plant.
The fact is that at the present time Oahu has nuclear reactors totaling over 1,000 MW just 6 miles from Aloha Tower. See picture below.
Earlier this year,
The scarcity and cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a cost-effective if not essential proposition. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with minimal ill effects. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%.
As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.
Click link to READ MORE and see the list of our Pearl Harbor nuclear submarines.
Nuclear power for electricity in Oahu's future?
The likely answer is yes in order to sustain one million people and six million annual visitors 2,000 miles away from most resources, given that over 90% of the electricity is now fueled by oil. Planning for it, including a senate vote by over 2/3 in the affirmative, will take well over 10 years. So nuclear power is possible perhaps in 20 years, about 20 miles off-shore, for one 1,000 MW power plant.
The fact is that at the present time Oahu has nuclear reactors totaling over 1,000 MW just 6 miles from Aloha Tower. See picture below.
- 15 nuclear submarines are home-ported in Pearl Harbor
- 440 nuclear power plants are on the planet now
Earlier this year,
- Bill Gates proposed mini nuclear reactors as the essential means for the future of the human race on the planet.
- President Obama released over $8 Billion in loan guarantees for a new nuclear power plant in Georgia.
- Hawaii Legislature proposed a bill to study nuclear power for Hawaii.
The scarcity and cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a cost-effective if not essential proposition. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with minimal ill effects. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%.
As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.
Click link to READ MORE and see the list of our Pearl Harbor nuclear submarines.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
America's Energy Policy...
... managed by politicians.
A brilliant 7-minute summary by Jon Stewart.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future
Politicians anyone?
A brilliant 7-minute summary by Jon Stewart.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Politicians anyone?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Sustainability: Key Measures and Comparisons
Sustainability is important. But how do we measure it? How can we tell if an island is sustainable or not? There are no easy answers but there are some indicators, and the higher the ranking the better the sustainability level. Basically all islands are net importers, which means that they depend on external sources, so they are less sustainable compared with a self-sufficient continent.
Read the full article on page 6 of the Filipino Chronicle. For improved clarity, the printed table is included below in color.
Read the full article on page 6 of the Filipino Chronicle. For improved clarity, the printed table is included below in color.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
The late George Carlin and his reality-based views on sustainability ... from bike lanes to plastic bags ... seven minutes well spent (some vulgarity.)
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sustainability: What It Is and What It Means For Hawaii
Please look for this article in the April 17, 2010 issue of the Filipino Chronicle.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Island Sustainability Primer: Trends on Income, Energy, Tourism*
The goal of this on-going research project is to collect and summarize rich data sets and data sources for world’s islands. Fifty islands for which complete data could be collected are currently in the database. Islands may be part of a country or a country. Islands with population of less than 50,000 people were excluded.
Nine major variables were used for each island: Population , Area (km2), Density (citizens/km2), Political Status (independent country or part of a country), Gross Domestic Product or GDP (million U.S. dollars in 2008), Annual Electricity Consumption (Terra Watt hours), Carbon Dioxide or CO2 Emissions (million metric tons), Annual Tourist Arrivals, and Combined Road and Rail length (km per 1000 people). Some of the early results are highlighted below.
For developed islands the incremental cost and needs to serve large numbers of tourists are relatively small, thus tourism can be quite cost effective. But for small and less developed islands the cost to provide for tourism is high in terms of energy and pollution.
In general, the higher the GDP per capita is the higher the electricity consumption. For electricity consumption higher than 6,000 kWh per person, the relationship curve flattens. Also, electricity consumption per person is proportional to CO2 emissions per person.
When electricity consumption is in the range of 6,000 to 11,000 kWh per person the CO2 emissions appear to be low for a group of islands (9 to 11 metric tons per person) and higher for another group (16 to 19 metric tons per person). The islands in the low group of carbon emissions have approximately equal GDP with the islands in the high group of carbon emissions. The high group of islands consists of the Hawaiian Islands (Oahu, Maui, Big Island), Bahamas and Australia whereas the low group consists of European islands (Ireland, Iceland, UK, Cyprus) as well as Japan and New Zealand. Availability of hydro and nuclear power is likely what makes this large difference in carbon footprint.
Japan, with the highest population of all islands, has the 9th highest GDP per capita; however, it is 44th in tourists per capita, 12th in infrastructure per capita 10th in electricity consumption and 13th in CO2 emissions.
New Zealand is 16th in GDP per capita, 30th in tourists per capita, 4th in infrastructure per capita, 8th in electricity consumption and 16th in CO2 emissions per capita. As shown below, Oahu has woefully inadequate infrastructure when compared with Japan and New Zealand.
Similar to both New Zealand and Japan, our extremely large Pacific Ocean “neighbor,” Australia, is the largest island in the list, is in 7th place in GDP per capita, 37th in tourists per capita, 3rd in infrastructure per capita, 4th in electricity consumption and 5th in CO2 emissions per capita.
Table 1 summarizes the Hawaiian Islands rankings out of 50 islands with population over 50,000 people. Oahu, Maui and Big Island make the population cut, but Kauai does not.
In terms of GDP, Oahu ranks very high at 5th highest, with Maui and Big Inland in 17th and 18th position, respectively. In terms of income, Hawaiian Inland residents fare much better than average compared to other island populations. The Hawaiian Islands are major international tourism destinations: Tourists per capita shows that Maui is in the top spot, followed by Big Island on 5th and Oahu on 8th.
When it comes to road and rail infrastructure to accommodate residents and tourists, the Hawaiian Islands fall far short of their island counterparts. Only the Big Island makes it to the top 10 in the 7th place, Maui is another seven spots down at 14th and Oahu is near the bottom at 41st having too little land transportation infrastructure for its population. The result is its abundant congestion that threatens its long term quality of life and tourist attractiveness, which, in turn, degrade its sustainability.
The advanced quality of life in the Hawaiian Islands and the fact that they host over six million tourists per year results in a large consumption of electric power. Both Maui (3rd highest) and Oahu (9th highest) make it in the top 10 and Big Island is close to them at 13th. Hawaiian island dependence on oil is worrisome and the presence of fairly large population of residents and tourists does not bode well for low productivity sources like solar and wind energy. The latter has some potential but its visual impact is usually too large for Hawaii’s scenic landscapes.
Wave and tidal energy is difficult to harness and requires large shore structures, which again render then unappealing although some deployments may be feasible. This leaves nuclear as a major sustainability choice, either with small power plants (like the seven to twelve 110 megawatt nuclear units in large Navy submarines stationed in Pearl Harbor on any given day) or a largely invisible large floating platform 10 to 12 miles offshore.
As expected, an advanced life style and energy generation from coal and oil translate into a high environmental impact in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. All three Hawaiian Islands examined are in the top ten among this set of 50 islands. However, due to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the strong prevailing winds, local air pollution is not a problem in the Hawaiian Islands.
Two future changes can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in Hawaii: Electric vehicles charged overnight by large scale wind farms or smaller neighborhood wind turbines, and nuclear power for the bulk of daytime power needs.
(*) Based on Research by Lambros Mitropoulos, Panos Prevedouros, and Michelle Coskey at University of Hawaii, Civil Engineering, Traffic and Transportation Laboratory
Nine major variables were used for each island: Population , Area (km2), Density (citizens/km2), Political Status (independent country or part of a country), Gross Domestic Product or GDP (million U.S. dollars in 2008), Annual Electricity Consumption (Terra Watt hours), Carbon Dioxide or CO2 Emissions (million metric tons), Annual Tourist Arrivals, and Combined Road and Rail length (km per 1000 people). Some of the early results are highlighted below.
For developed islands the incremental cost and needs to serve large numbers of tourists are relatively small, thus tourism can be quite cost effective. But for small and less developed islands the cost to provide for tourism is high in terms of energy and pollution.
In general, the higher the GDP per capita is the higher the electricity consumption. For electricity consumption higher than 6,000 kWh per person, the relationship curve flattens. Also, electricity consumption per person is proportional to CO2 emissions per person.
When electricity consumption is in the range of 6,000 to 11,000 kWh per person the CO2 emissions appear to be low for a group of islands (9 to 11 metric tons per person) and higher for another group (16 to 19 metric tons per person). The islands in the low group of carbon emissions have approximately equal GDP with the islands in the high group of carbon emissions. The high group of islands consists of the Hawaiian Islands (Oahu, Maui, Big Island), Bahamas and Australia whereas the low group consists of European islands (Ireland, Iceland, UK, Cyprus) as well as Japan and New Zealand. Availability of hydro and nuclear power is likely what makes this large difference in carbon footprint.
Japan, with the highest population of all islands, has the 9th highest GDP per capita; however, it is 44th in tourists per capita, 12th in infrastructure per capita 10th in electricity consumption and 13th in CO2 emissions.
New Zealand is 16th in GDP per capita, 30th in tourists per capita, 4th in infrastructure per capita, 8th in electricity consumption and 16th in CO2 emissions per capita. As shown below, Oahu has woefully inadequate infrastructure when compared with Japan and New Zealand.
Similar to both New Zealand and Japan, our extremely large Pacific Ocean “neighbor,” Australia, is the largest island in the list, is in 7th place in GDP per capita, 37th in tourists per capita, 3rd in infrastructure per capita, 4th in electricity consumption and 5th in CO2 emissions per capita.
Table 1 summarizes the Hawaiian Islands rankings out of 50 islands with population over 50,000 people. Oahu, Maui and Big Island make the population cut, but Kauai does not.
In terms of GDP, Oahu ranks very high at 5th highest, with Maui and Big Inland in 17th and 18th position, respectively. In terms of income, Hawaiian Inland residents fare much better than average compared to other island populations. The Hawaiian Islands are major international tourism destinations: Tourists per capita shows that Maui is in the top spot, followed by Big Island on 5th and Oahu on 8th.
When it comes to road and rail infrastructure to accommodate residents and tourists, the Hawaiian Islands fall far short of their island counterparts. Only the Big Island makes it to the top 10 in the 7th place, Maui is another seven spots down at 14th and Oahu is near the bottom at 41st having too little land transportation infrastructure for its population. The result is its abundant congestion that threatens its long term quality of life and tourist attractiveness, which, in turn, degrade its sustainability.
The advanced quality of life in the Hawaiian Islands and the fact that they host over six million tourists per year results in a large consumption of electric power. Both Maui (3rd highest) and Oahu (9th highest) make it in the top 10 and Big Island is close to them at 13th. Hawaiian island dependence on oil is worrisome and the presence of fairly large population of residents and tourists does not bode well for low productivity sources like solar and wind energy. The latter has some potential but its visual impact is usually too large for Hawaii’s scenic landscapes.
Wave and tidal energy is difficult to harness and requires large shore structures, which again render then unappealing although some deployments may be feasible. This leaves nuclear as a major sustainability choice, either with small power plants (like the seven to twelve 110 megawatt nuclear units in large Navy submarines stationed in Pearl Harbor on any given day) or a largely invisible large floating platform 10 to 12 miles offshore.
As expected, an advanced life style and energy generation from coal and oil translate into a high environmental impact in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. All three Hawaiian Islands examined are in the top ten among this set of 50 islands. However, due to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the strong prevailing winds, local air pollution is not a problem in the Hawaiian Islands.
Two future changes can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in Hawaii: Electric vehicles charged overnight by large scale wind farms or smaller neighborhood wind turbines, and nuclear power for the bulk of daytime power needs.
(*) Based on Research by Lambros Mitropoulos, Panos Prevedouros, and Michelle Coskey at University of Hawaii, Civil Engineering, Traffic and Transportation Laboratory
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Panos Prevedouros on the Rick Hamada Program
For nearly three years now and on 40 or so Mondays per year I join political columnist and radio host Richard Hamada, III on KHVH 830 AM The Rick Hamada Program for a humorous, interesting and if I may say so, insightful, discussion on Honolulu city's issues and challenges relating to traffic and infrastructure, as well as on cost-effective ideas to mitigate these problems.
Here is a sample of the first four shows in 2010. Visit HonoluluTownPodcast.Com for more, including the "dark side", that is, Mayor Mufi's rail propaganda on the Mike Buck Show on KHVH.
Here is a sample of the first four shows in 2010. Visit HonoluluTownPodcast.Com for more, including the "dark side", that is, Mayor Mufi's rail propaganda on the Mike Buck Show on KHVH.
- January 18, 2010
- January 25, 2010
- February 1, 2010(with Steve Boleyn)
- February 8, 2010
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
4 x 10 Workweek Does Wonders for Utah
I quote from TIME magazine:
Given Hawaii's oversized government and the underutilized potential of telecommuting for some of Hawaii's private sector (i.e., telecommute for one day per week for a large portion of white collar labor), traffic congestion can be drastically reduced with compressed work week and telecommuting while realizing huge energy savings. Tight budgets and high energy prices (or fossil fuel dependency reductions) lead smart governments to effective solutions.
But that's Utah. In Hawaii real solutions are brushed off. Here most politicians are prepared to sink $5.3 billion on a useless rail system instead.
- Utah state was the first in the U.S. to mandate a four-day workweek for most state employees, closing offices on Fridays in an effort to reduce energy costs.
- Not a furlough. Salaries were not cut; nor was the total amount of time employees work... (5 x 8 = 4 x 10)
- The compressed workweek resulted in a 13% reduction in energy use.
- Employees saved as much as $6 million in gasoline costs.
- Fears that working 10-hour days would lead to burnout turned out to be unfounded — workers took fewer sick days and reported exercising more on Fridays.
- 82% of state workers say they want to keep the new schedule.
- Unexpected benefits for people who aren't state employees: Utah's government offices have become accessible to people who in the past had to miss work to get there in time. With the new 4-10 policy, lines at the department of motor vehicles actually got shorter.
Given Hawaii's oversized government and the underutilized potential of telecommuting for some of Hawaii's private sector (i.e., telecommute for one day per week for a large portion of white collar labor), traffic congestion can be drastically reduced with compressed work week and telecommuting while realizing huge energy savings. Tight budgets and high energy prices (or fossil fuel dependency reductions) lead smart governments to effective solutions.
But that's Utah. In Hawaii real solutions are brushed off. Here most politicians are prepared to sink $5.3 billion on a useless rail system instead.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
How Much Did Cash-For-Clunkers Improve Fuel Efficiency? Quite A Lot!
The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute conducted research supported by Sustainable Worldwide Transportation to estimate the vehicle fuel economy improvement from the 2009 vehicle scrappage program, CARS, popularly known as “Cash-for-Clunkers” program. (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64025/1/102323.pdf)
About 690,000 vehicles were purchased (and traded in) under the CARS program and this was part of the total of about 2,260,000 vehicles sold in July and August 2009. (http://www.cars.gov) "Generally, the trade-in vehicles must have had fuel economy of 18 mpg or less and be less than 25 years old. The rebate was either $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference between the fuel economy of the new and the trade-in vehicles."
They found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and 0.7 mpg in August 2009. The program's outcome is plotted below:
The government's conclusion is similar and is posted at the end. Basic statistics of the CARS program are copied below.
Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased
1. Toyota Corolla
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Camry
4. Ford Focus FWD
5. Hyundai Elantra
6. Nissan Versa
7. Toyota Prius
8. Honda Accord
9. Honda Fit
10. Ford Escape FWD
New Vehicles Manufacturers
Toyota 19.4%
General Motors 17.6%
Ford 14.4%
Honda 13.0%
Nissan 8.7%
Hyundai 7.2%
Chrysler 6.6%
Kia 4.3%
Subaru 2.5%
Mazda 2.4%
Volkswagen 2.0%
Suzuki 0.6%
Mitsubishi 0.5%
MINI 0.4%
Smart 0.2%
Volvo 0.1%
All Other <0.1%
Top 10 Traded-in Vehicles
1.Ford Explorer 4WD
2.Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3.Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4.Ford Explorer 2WD
5.Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6.Jeep Cherokee 4WD
7.Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8.Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
9.Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
10.Ford Windstar FWD Van
Average Fuel Economy
New vehicles Mileage: 24.9 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG
Overall increase: 9.2 MPG
84% of trade-ins under the program are trucks, and 59% of new vehicles purchased are cars. The fuel efficiency improved by 58% for 690,000 in the U.S fleet of private cars.
About 690,000 vehicles were purchased (and traded in) under the CARS program and this was part of the total of about 2,260,000 vehicles sold in July and August 2009. (http://www.cars.gov) "Generally, the trade-in vehicles must have had fuel economy of 18 mpg or less and be less than 25 years old. The rebate was either $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference between the fuel economy of the new and the trade-in vehicles."
They found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and 0.7 mpg in August 2009. The program's outcome is plotted below:
The government's conclusion is similar and is posted at the end. Basic statistics of the CARS program are copied below.Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased
1. Toyota Corolla
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Camry
4. Ford Focus FWD
5. Hyundai Elantra
6. Nissan Versa
7. Toyota Prius
8. Honda Accord
9. Honda Fit
10. Ford Escape FWD
New Vehicles Manufacturers
Toyota 19.4%
General Motors 17.6%
Ford 14.4%
Honda 13.0%
Nissan 8.7%
Hyundai 7.2%
Chrysler 6.6%
Kia 4.3%
Subaru 2.5%
Mazda 2.4%
Volkswagen 2.0%
Suzuki 0.6%
Mitsubishi 0.5%
MINI 0.4%
Smart 0.2%
Volvo 0.1%
All Other <0.1%
Top 10 Traded-in Vehicles
1.Ford Explorer 4WD
2.Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3.Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4.Ford Explorer 2WD
5.Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6.Jeep Cherokee 4WD
7.Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8.Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
9.Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
10.Ford Windstar FWD Van
Average Fuel Economy
New vehicles Mileage: 24.9 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG
Overall increase: 9.2 MPG
84% of trade-ins under the program are trucks, and 59% of new vehicles purchased are cars. The fuel efficiency improved by 58% for 690,000 in the U.S fleet of private cars.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The National Debate on High Speed Rail Reveals Pitfalls of Old Steel-on-Steel Rail Technology
The International Maglev Board has published an series of short and informative articles of the advantages of magnetically levitated train and questions USA’s inertia and conservatism in thinking about steel-on-steel medium speed rail. They begin by asking: Why is America embarking on a high-speed rail initiative that is so prejudiced against maglev and so weighted in favor of 45-year-old “proven” technology? With minor edits I include below several important highlights of their positions that point to the direction that America is poised to make a bad choice. My own comments are in [brackets].
For the record, maglev is not traditional train technology. It is basically a long electric motor when accelerating and cruising, and a generator when decelerating. The 267 mph system in Shanghai has been running for over five years with 99.97% on time reliability.
Traditional high speed rail has very high annual operating and maintenance costs associated with a system subjected to repeated pounding and vibrations. [Expensive maintenance is required of all steel-on-steel systems to avoid excessive noise and derailments, particularly for systems like the one proposed in Honolulu which includes sharp turns that apply large lateral forces on rails and ties.] The yearly maintenance costs of the proposed DesertXpress would be 3 to 4 times higher than a maglev system and make economic sustainability problematic; e.g., desert sands sticking to oil-lubricated moving train parts, windblown sand damaging steel rails in.
“Steel wheel on steel rail” means wet and slick steel tracks. This is why trains typically do not travel on grades much more than 2%. [This is why Honolulu’s proposed steel on steel rail cannot go to Mililani.] To build a rail line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles through the mountains would require extensive tunneling and/or extensive use of switchbacks for a train to climb through mountainous terrain. Maglev is capable of climbing 10% grades regardless of how slick the surface conditions.
Why build a slow, noisy, polluting, and expensive to maintain train – a throwback to the 19th century – when we can build a sustainable high-tech bridge to the 22nd century? [Why indeed do so in Honolulu when a 10-mile HOT lane reversible expressway combined with an extensive Bus Rapid Transit system can offer much shorter travel times to many more people, reach twice as many riders and cost roughly half of the 20 mile steel-on-steel elevated rail?]
America is still trying to figure out what high-speed rail really means. For the record, the internationally recognized standard for high-speed rail is a cruising speed above 150 mph. [The current proposals for U.S. consider speeds around 100 mph.]
The CJR’s Tokaido Shinkansen or “bullet train” that runs between Tokyo and Osaka is not only the world’s oldest high speed rail line, but also the busiest, carrying over 150 million passengers per year. In operation since 1964, the 317-mile Tokaido line now operates 309 trains per day with sustained cruising speeds of 168 mph.
Shinkansen’s stellar safety record is not a happy accident, but the result of excellent civil, electrical and mechanical engineering, painstakingly thorough and dedicated maintenance. [It’s worth repeating that stellar infrastructure performance requires excellent engineering and consistent maintenance. Honolulu’s engineers pass muster, but "consistent maintenance" in not in the local government’s vocabulary.]
In 1987, CJR purchased its fixed facilities from the Japanese government for $38 billion, which netted the government a tidy profit from the 1964 construction costs of about $1 billion. CJR, which is one of six rail operators in Japan, refutes American conventional wisdom that no passenger railroad in the world makes a profit. Each year CJR has a ~10% rate of return. [This is all good but it takes 150 million passengers a year and a steep ticket price to reach this level of financial performance.]
The latest technology CJR will use on their newest Shinkansen line from Tokyo to Nagoya is the MLX01 superconducting magnetic levitation train. Tokyo and Nagoya are approximately the same distance as New York City and Washington, DC. The MLX01 will make the trip in only 40 minutes. CJR is funding this entire line without Japanese government participation. [The Boston to Philadelphia corridor is probably the only place where the U.S. should invest in true high speed rail. The population is so high, the airports are so crowded,and the competition from Amstrak's Acela is so minor that a public-private partnership is also likely.]
Could it be that America’s transportation “experts” are not really experts in HSR or maglev, and are themselves “unproven” in deploying such systems? [Case in point is the transit technology expert panel of Honolulu in which 4 of the 5 members were experts in steel-on-steel technology and the technology vote was 4-1 in favor of steel-on-steel technology!]
Source: http://magnetbahnforum.de/index.php?current-editorial
UPDATE: On August 24, Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post wrote A Rail Boondoggle, Moving at High Speed, in which he quotes Harvard University economics professor Edward Glaeser's analyses (Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?) and CATO Institute analysis (A High-Speed Rail Mirage). Also of great interest is the summary of The Guardian of analysis done by Booz Allen about high speed rail proposals for the UK. The conclusion is the article's title: "High-speed rail strategy not so green, report says." When construction energy impacts are factored in, high speed rail proposals become boondoggles.
For the record, maglev is not traditional train technology. It is basically a long electric motor when accelerating and cruising, and a generator when decelerating. The 267 mph system in Shanghai has been running for over five years with 99.97% on time reliability.
Traditional high speed rail has very high annual operating and maintenance costs associated with a system subjected to repeated pounding and vibrations. [Expensive maintenance is required of all steel-on-steel systems to avoid excessive noise and derailments, particularly for systems like the one proposed in Honolulu which includes sharp turns that apply large lateral forces on rails and ties.] The yearly maintenance costs of the proposed DesertXpress would be 3 to 4 times higher than a maglev system and make economic sustainability problematic; e.g., desert sands sticking to oil-lubricated moving train parts, windblown sand damaging steel rails in.
“Steel wheel on steel rail” means wet and slick steel tracks. This is why trains typically do not travel on grades much more than 2%. [This is why Honolulu’s proposed steel on steel rail cannot go to Mililani.] To build a rail line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles through the mountains would require extensive tunneling and/or extensive use of switchbacks for a train to climb through mountainous terrain. Maglev is capable of climbing 10% grades regardless of how slick the surface conditions.
Why build a slow, noisy, polluting, and expensive to maintain train – a throwback to the 19th century – when we can build a sustainable high-tech bridge to the 22nd century? [Why indeed do so in Honolulu when a 10-mile HOT lane reversible expressway combined with an extensive Bus Rapid Transit system can offer much shorter travel times to many more people, reach twice as many riders and cost roughly half of the 20 mile steel-on-steel elevated rail?]
America is still trying to figure out what high-speed rail really means. For the record, the internationally recognized standard for high-speed rail is a cruising speed above 150 mph. [The current proposals for U.S. consider speeds around 100 mph.]
The CJR’s Tokaido Shinkansen or “bullet train” that runs between Tokyo and Osaka is not only the world’s oldest high speed rail line, but also the busiest, carrying over 150 million passengers per year. In operation since 1964, the 317-mile Tokaido line now operates 309 trains per day with sustained cruising speeds of 168 mph.
Shinkansen’s stellar safety record is not a happy accident, but the result of excellent civil, electrical and mechanical engineering, painstakingly thorough and dedicated maintenance. [It’s worth repeating that stellar infrastructure performance requires excellent engineering and consistent maintenance. Honolulu’s engineers pass muster, but "consistent maintenance" in not in the local government’s vocabulary.]
In 1987, CJR purchased its fixed facilities from the Japanese government for $38 billion, which netted the government a tidy profit from the 1964 construction costs of about $1 billion. CJR, which is one of six rail operators in Japan, refutes American conventional wisdom that no passenger railroad in the world makes a profit. Each year CJR has a ~10% rate of return. [This is all good but it takes 150 million passengers a year and a steep ticket price to reach this level of financial performance.]
The latest technology CJR will use on their newest Shinkansen line from Tokyo to Nagoya is the MLX01 superconducting magnetic levitation train. Tokyo and Nagoya are approximately the same distance as New York City and Washington, DC. The MLX01 will make the trip in only 40 minutes. CJR is funding this entire line without Japanese government participation. [The Boston to Philadelphia corridor is probably the only place where the U.S. should invest in true high speed rail. The population is so high, the airports are so crowded,and the competition from Amstrak's Acela is so minor that a public-private partnership is also likely.]
Could it be that America’s transportation “experts” are not really experts in HSR or maglev, and are themselves “unproven” in deploying such systems? [Case in point is the transit technology expert panel of Honolulu in which 4 of the 5 members were experts in steel-on-steel technology and the technology vote was 4-1 in favor of steel-on-steel technology!]
Source: http://magnetbahnforum.de/index.php?current-editorial
UPDATE: On August 24, Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post wrote A Rail Boondoggle, Moving at High Speed, in which he quotes Harvard University economics professor Edward Glaeser's analyses (Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?) and CATO Institute analysis (A High-Speed Rail Mirage). Also of great interest is the summary of The Guardian of analysis done by Booz Allen about high speed rail proposals for the UK. The conclusion is the article's title: "High-speed rail strategy not so green, report says." When construction energy impacts are factored in, high speed rail proposals become boondoggles.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Car Technology Works to Protect Us and the Planet
I would like to provide a couple of examples to demonstrate how technology works in beneficial ways, and how vehicle functionality, safety and economy can improve over time. The examples below are the result of natural evolution in the absence of a major energy crisis. These vehicles were finalized in design between 2005 and 2007, well before the 2008 oil pricing crisis and the current recession were in effect. In other words, the improvements highlighted by these four sample vehicles can be realized in 10 instead of 20 to 25 years in response to strong pressures for fuel efficiency dictated by market prices or regulations.
First we look at the evolution of Honda gas misers, the very economic 1985 Honda CRX HF and the advanced hybrid 2009 Honda Insight which also have comparable pricing in terms of purchasing parity with the 2009 Insight priced at about $20,000 now and the CRX priced at $6,500 almost 25 years ago.
The 2009 Honda has much more room for people, it is 24% larger, and 59% heavier. Part of the latter has a lot to do with safety features which make a 2009 Insight a very safe car to be in a collision, whereas the consequences from a rear angle (T-bone) accident in a compact 1985 vehicle are rather dire even at moderate speeds. Despite all the increases in size and functionality, the 2009 Honda delivers a 5% improvement in fuel consumption and it runs on a less expensive fuel. Also the Insight has a convenient Continuously Variable Transmission or CVT, which is a state-of-the-art "infinite gear" automatic gearbox.
Then we take a look at relatively popular performance vehicles made by BMW: the notoriously square best seller 1989 325i, and its modern re-incarnation the 2009 128i, both with similar six cylinder inline engines and manual gearboxes. In terms of pricing the 128i at about $30,000 is a relative bargain now compared to the $25,000 sticker price of the 325i about 20 years ago.
The above comparisons show that the 2009 car is 9% larger and 16% heavier, but 28% faster and 13% more fuel efficient!
As I concluded in my previous post, the outlook on future vehicle technologies is bright and many improvements will come from developments that do not even exist today. The two examples above show that progress is constant and in the right direction.
This progress is not possible or probable; it is certain. The worldwide auto industry is a giant part of technological, industrial and economic significance. For example, vehicle production during 2008 was 66,000,000 units. Here is a breakdown of vehicle production from some non-U.S. brands which also depicts the significance of these industries to regional economies and countries, and indeed the wrold as a whole. (Worldwide data do not include production from China and India, both of which have booming car markets.) The table below represents about 50% of world production:
(Base country shown but all manufacturers have plants in multiple countries.)
First we look at the evolution of Honda gas misers, the very economic 1985 Honda CRX HF and the advanced hybrid 2009 Honda Insight which also have comparable pricing in terms of purchasing parity with the 2009 Insight priced at about $20,000 now and the CRX priced at $6,500 almost 25 years ago.
| Units | 1985 Honda CRX HF | 2009 Honda Insight | Change | |
| Seats | number | 2 | 5 | 150% |
| Footprint | sq.ft. | 64.2 | 79.8 | 24% |
| Cargo | sq.ft. | 13.0 | 15.9 | 22% |
| Weight | lbs | 1713 | 2723 | 59% |
| Transmission | type | 5-speed manual | CVT | Easier |
| Fuel | octane | 91 | 87 | -7% |
| EPA City | mpg | 38 | 40 | -5% |
| Safety | estimate | Basic | Very Good | Much Better |
The 2009 Honda has much more room for people, it is 24% larger, and 59% heavier. Part of the latter has a lot to do with safety features which make a 2009 Insight a very safe car to be in a collision, whereas the consequences from a rear angle (T-bone) accident in a compact 1985 vehicle are rather dire even at moderate speeds. Despite all the increases in size and functionality, the 2009 Honda delivers a 5% improvement in fuel consumption and it runs on a less expensive fuel. Also the Insight has a convenient Continuously Variable Transmission or CVT, which is a state-of-the-art "infinite gear" automatic gearbox.
Then we take a look at relatively popular performance vehicles made by BMW: the notoriously square best seller 1989 325i, and its modern re-incarnation the 2009 128i, both with similar six cylinder inline engines and manual gearboxes. In terms of pricing the 128i at about $30,000 is a relative bargain now compared to the $25,000 sticker price of the 325i about 20 years ago.
| Units | 1989 325i | 2008 128i | Change | |
| Seats | number | 4 | 4 | 0% |
| Footprint | sq.ft. | 76.6 | 83.3 | 9% |
| Weight | lbs | 2811 | 3252 | 16% |
| 0-60 mph | sec | 8.5 | 6.1 | -28% |
| EPA City | mpg | 16 | 18 | -13% |
| Safety | estimate | Good | Very Good | Better |
The above comparisons show that the 2009 car is 9% larger and 16% heavier, but 28% faster and 13% more fuel efficient!
As I concluded in my previous post, the outlook on future vehicle technologies is bright and many improvements will come from developments that do not even exist today. The two examples above show that progress is constant and in the right direction.
This progress is not possible or probable; it is certain. The worldwide auto industry is a giant part of technological, industrial and economic significance. For example, vehicle production during 2008 was 66,000,000 units. Here is a breakdown of vehicle production from some non-U.S. brands which also depicts the significance of these industries to regional economies and countries, and indeed the wrold as a whole. (Worldwide data do not include production from China and India, both of which have booming car markets.) The table below represents about 50% of world production:
| Manufacturer | Country | 2008 production |
| BMW | Germany | 1.4 million |
| Opel | Germany | 1.5 |
| Mercedes | Germany | 1.9 |
| FIAT | Italy | 2.2 |
| Peugeot + Citroen | France | 3.3 |
| Honda | Japan | 3.8 |
| Hundai + Kia | Korea | 4.2 |
| VW | Germany | 6.2 |
| Toyota | Japan | 9.0 |
(Base country shown but all manufacturers have plants in multiple countries.)
Friday, June 12, 2009
Technological Solutions for Improving Fuel Efficiency Now
There are several technologies that improve light duty vehicle miles per gallon (mpg) and in piecemeal fashion all of them are applied in today's cars and minivans, and some SUVs and light trucks.
They include lower rolling restistantance tires, cylinder deactivation (must have at least 6 cylinders), a start-stop system that kills the engine during idle times, electric power steering so that idt does not load the engine via a hydraulic pump, 6 speed automatic gearbox which can be found in some affordable cars such as the 2009 Chevy Malibu, smaller engine with a supercharger and direct gasoline injection inot the cylinders, in the same way that diesel engines work for nearly 100 years now.
Here is a table that summarizes all these and provides a listing on the basis of bang for the buck.
Some interesting observations are as follows: All these technologies are affordable and even if all are combined together the total cost addition to a $25,000 vehicle is relatively small. For example, applying all solutions from 1 to 7 except for 5 yield a total estimate of about $3,000 and an MPG gain of 18%.
However, some of them are not necessarily compatible with each other. For example, changing from a 3 liter V6 to a 2 liter turbocharged engine no longer enables cylinder deactivation.
So if we take a 2009 Ford Fusion that delivers 23 mpg overall, an 18% improvement in fuel efficiency yields 28 mpg. If its user clocks 12,000 per year, he or she will realize a savings of roughly 470 galons of gasoline or $1,400 for a price per gallon of $3.00
The lesson here appears to be that a paradigm shift is necessary to make light duty vehicles both affordable and energy efficient. This paradigm shift includes two major components:
(1) massive reduction in vehicle mass (what we popularly call weight) which will likely bring a reduction in size as well and as an added benefit, there will be normal use for parking stalls labelled "compact."
(2) replacement of high displacement gasoline motors with diesel motors, electric drives or both.
A combination of (1) and (2) can result in susbtantial energy economy at an affodable price. Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are the current and largely convincing proof of this, but the future is bright and promissing.
They include lower rolling restistantance tires, cylinder deactivation (must have at least 6 cylinders), a start-stop system that kills the engine during idle times, electric power steering so that idt does not load the engine via a hydraulic pump, 6 speed automatic gearbox which can be found in some affordable cars such as the 2009 Chevy Malibu, smaller engine with a supercharger and direct gasoline injection inot the cylinders, in the same way that diesel engines work for nearly 100 years now.
Here is a table that summarizes all these and provides a listing on the basis of bang for the buck.
| U.S. $ Cost/Car | MPG Reduction (%) | Bang / Buck | ||
| 1 | Low rolling resistance tires | 6 | 1 | 167 |
| 2 | Cylinder deactivation | 225 | 4.5 | 20 |
| 3 | 6 speed auto transmission | 260 | 5 | 19 |
| 4 | Electric power assist steering | 180 | 1.5 | 8 |
| 5 | Smaller engine with turbocharger | 750 | 5 | 7 |
| 6 | Start-stop system (kill engine at idle) | 1900 | 5 | 3 |
| 7 | Direct gasoline injection (like diesel engines) | 400 | 1 | 3 |
| 3721 | 18 |
Some interesting observations are as follows: All these technologies are affordable and even if all are combined together the total cost addition to a $25,000 vehicle is relatively small. For example, applying all solutions from 1 to 7 except for 5 yield a total estimate of about $3,000 and an MPG gain of 18%.
However, some of them are not necessarily compatible with each other. For example, changing from a 3 liter V6 to a 2 liter turbocharged engine no longer enables cylinder deactivation.
So if we take a 2009 Ford Fusion that delivers 23 mpg overall, an 18% improvement in fuel efficiency yields 28 mpg. If its user clocks 12,000 per year, he or she will realize a savings of roughly 470 galons of gasoline or $1,400 for a price per gallon of $3.00
The lesson here appears to be that a paradigm shift is necessary to make light duty vehicles both affordable and energy efficient. This paradigm shift includes two major components:
(1) massive reduction in vehicle mass (what we popularly call weight) which will likely bring a reduction in size as well and as an added benefit, there will be normal use for parking stalls labelled "compact."
(2) replacement of high displacement gasoline motors with diesel motors, electric drives or both.
A combination of (1) and (2) can result in susbtantial energy economy at an affodable price. Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are the current and largely convincing proof of this, but the future is bright and promissing.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sustainability Q&A
Recently I gave a presentation on sustainability to the Graduate Seminar course in civil engineering (CEE 691). Along with it I was given a list of questions and asked to answer them in brief. The presentation can be found h e r e. The Q+A is shown below.
1. What is sustainable development?
Sustainability is still not uniquely and comprehensively defined – sustainable development may be an oxymoron: For example, if Oahu is not sustainable as is, any additional development is a move in the wrong direction. Sustainable “anything” likely means minimized impact to Earth.
2. Give specific ideas on how civil engineers can contribute to sustainable development.
Recycle demolition materials, tires, pavements and all used materials that can be reused. Build only highly cost effective and necessary infrastructure and structures. Develop synthetic substitutes from waste. Treat and reuse water. Find low impact substitute for Portland Cement Concrete.
3. What does “sustainability” mean for the state of Hawaii?
Minimize energy dependence. Manage population growth and suburban sprawl. Make recycling and intelligent technologies a top priority. Produce methanol from biomass. Widespread usage of solar roofs. Facilitate electric vehicles.
4. What new policies of President Obama are related to sustainable development? Which of his ideas will benefit civil engineering specifically?
He seems to be putting too much emphasis on renewables and some of them are terribly cost ineffective. For the needs of this county, only nuclear energy is a clean substitute. I have yet to see any major policies that lead to sustainable engineering and development. On the contrary, his intercity high speed rail initiative is a mistake. (See previous blog poist, part 3.)
5. What new policies of Governor Lingle are related to sustainable development?
The agreement with Better Place for enabling electric vehicles is a major one. Better Place works like a gas station. It's an electric vehicle battery station. You buy the car, they supply the batteries. The more you drive, the more frequently you need charged batteries, the more you visit them to exchange spent batteries with charged ones. It's like buying gas with frequent user discounts similar to cell phone minutes. Better Place will install battery swap stations at selected gas stations. A battery swap will take only a few minutes; similar or shorter than a gas fill-up. The concept takes the fear out of running out of batteries, having to reach home for a charge, and having to replace expensive battery arrays.
6. Were communities 1000 years ago more sustainable than modern society is?
The pre-medieval hunger, disease and murder put strong pressures on population, and low population is one way to keep resource consumption low, but we are way past those times. Besides, the open fires of that age created much more pollution (per capita) than the current industrialization.
7. When we look at the human history, each individual has become more specialized and different countries also become more dependent on each other through trade and “globalization”. Is this a good trend? Shall we reverse it?
From the ancient times, trade among tribes was widespread. We now see the modern evolution of it. The globalization of trade is accelerating with more people, companies and countries involved in it every day. It is a natural flow impeded only by artificial protectionist policies. What many people resent is the globalization of culture. This is a less desirable byproduct of a rapidly interconnecting human race. It is up to individual regions to keep traditions of their cultures alive.
8. Some in America consider our dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue. Please explain the reasons behind their thinking. Do you agree with them?
For most any county, national energy production and consumption characteristics and the national energy policy are key inputs its nation's sustainability and by integration, to international sustainability. Energy supply from abroad is a vulnerability (e.g., U.S. dependency on Saudi Arabia for oil, EU dependency on natural gas from Russia, etc.) It is a major political and economic challenge but it is debatable whether it rises to the level of national security. On the other hand, France and Japan seem to think so since the former is 80% and the latter aims to 50% of nuclear energy, which makes them much less dependent on fossil fuel supply and pricing.
9. Some countries in the world do not produce their own food, cars or airplanes. Their main resources are oil. They sell oil and then import all other goods that they need. Is their dependence on other countries’ food, cars and airplanes also a national security issue for them? What are your thoughts?
The oil cartel is an established oligopoly with major power and a corresponding ability to destabilize international markets. The provision of cars, food and other consumables is neither an oligopoly nor a cartel. They can be obtained from several competing sources. Thus, oil producing nations are (currently) at a major advantage.
1. What is sustainable development?
Sustainability is still not uniquely and comprehensively defined – sustainable development may be an oxymoron: For example, if Oahu is not sustainable as is, any additional development is a move in the wrong direction. Sustainable “anything” likely means minimized impact to Earth.
2. Give specific ideas on how civil engineers can contribute to sustainable development.
Recycle demolition materials, tires, pavements and all used materials that can be reused. Build only highly cost effective and necessary infrastructure and structures. Develop synthetic substitutes from waste. Treat and reuse water. Find low impact substitute for Portland Cement Concrete.
3. What does “sustainability” mean for the state of Hawaii?
Minimize energy dependence. Manage population growth and suburban sprawl. Make recycling and intelligent technologies a top priority. Produce methanol from biomass. Widespread usage of solar roofs. Facilitate electric vehicles.
4. What new policies of President Obama are related to sustainable development? Which of his ideas will benefit civil engineering specifically?
He seems to be putting too much emphasis on renewables and some of them are terribly cost ineffective. For the needs of this county, only nuclear energy is a clean substitute. I have yet to see any major policies that lead to sustainable engineering and development. On the contrary, his intercity high speed rail initiative is a mistake. (See previous blog poist, part 3.)
5. What new policies of Governor Lingle are related to sustainable development?
The agreement with Better Place for enabling electric vehicles is a major one. Better Place works like a gas station. It's an electric vehicle battery station. You buy the car, they supply the batteries. The more you drive, the more frequently you need charged batteries, the more you visit them to exchange spent batteries with charged ones. It's like buying gas with frequent user discounts similar to cell phone minutes. Better Place will install battery swap stations at selected gas stations. A battery swap will take only a few minutes; similar or shorter than a gas fill-up. The concept takes the fear out of running out of batteries, having to reach home for a charge, and having to replace expensive battery arrays.
6. Were communities 1000 years ago more sustainable than modern society is?
The pre-medieval hunger, disease and murder put strong pressures on population, and low population is one way to keep resource consumption low, but we are way past those times. Besides, the open fires of that age created much more pollution (per capita) than the current industrialization.
7. When we look at the human history, each individual has become more specialized and different countries also become more dependent on each other through trade and “globalization”. Is this a good trend? Shall we reverse it?
From the ancient times, trade among tribes was widespread. We now see the modern evolution of it. The globalization of trade is accelerating with more people, companies and countries involved in it every day. It is a natural flow impeded only by artificial protectionist policies. What many people resent is the globalization of culture. This is a less desirable byproduct of a rapidly interconnecting human race. It is up to individual regions to keep traditions of their cultures alive.
8. Some in America consider our dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue. Please explain the reasons behind their thinking. Do you agree with them?
For most any county, national energy production and consumption characteristics and the national energy policy are key inputs its nation's sustainability and by integration, to international sustainability. Energy supply from abroad is a vulnerability (e.g., U.S. dependency on Saudi Arabia for oil, EU dependency on natural gas from Russia, etc.) It is a major political and economic challenge but it is debatable whether it rises to the level of national security. On the other hand, France and Japan seem to think so since the former is 80% and the latter aims to 50% of nuclear energy, which makes them much less dependent on fossil fuel supply and pricing.
9. Some countries in the world do not produce their own food, cars or airplanes. Their main resources are oil. They sell oil and then import all other goods that they need. Is their dependence on other countries’ food, cars and airplanes also a national security issue for them? What are your thoughts?
The oil cartel is an established oligopoly with major power and a corresponding ability to destabilize international markets. The provision of cars, food and other consumables is neither an oligopoly nor a cartel. They can be obtained from several competing sources. Thus, oil producing nations are (currently) at a major advantage.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Bill Tasking DBEDT with Developing Permitting Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants
Hawaii's State Legislature House Bill 1 proposes to task the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism with creating a framework for permitting nuclear power plant installations in Hawaii. By State Constitution, nuclear power plants are prohibited in Hawaii --although there are at least a handful of nuclear powered U.S. Navy vessels in Pearl Harbor at any time.(**) A two thirds vote by the Legislature can amend the Constitution. The following text is my testimony in favor of this bill.
The scarcity and cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a cost-effective if not essential proposition. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with minimal ill effects. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%. As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.
The advantage of nuclear power is that it produces large amounts of dependable and easily controlled electric power like hydroelectric, coal-fired or oil-fired power plants. Solar, wind and wave energy have huge limitations in terms of capacity and reliability; practically all deployments are still experimental and heavily subsidized. No question that solar, wind and wave energy will be partners for the long-term energy sustainability in Hawaii, but they are unlikely to be the providers of the majority of the needed power.
They too have their environmental downsides such as requirements of very large areas for deployment, major susceptibility to hurricanes and/or tsunamis, large construction costs and all the noxious shortcomings of building, maintaining and disposing of expansive and expensive arrays of batteries which have a rather short life span.
One advantage of compact power plants is that since they are largely self sufficient (i.e., they do not need a tanker to anchor by regularly to refuel the plant) they can be placed off shore in what ocean engineers call “large floating structures.” Thus, a nuclear power plant can be 20 miles away into the ocean (still easily accessible) and provide electricity to Oahu with a cable. There are undersea power plant transmission lines in excess of 40 miles.
However, this bill is not about building nuclear power plants. This bill simply provides a way for us to take the blindfolds off and begin to address the real issues of Hawaii sustainability, twenty or more years into the future. This bill will allow us to begin assessing the potential and work towards answers to questions, issues and challenges of nuclear energy in Hawaii.
(**) I received some interesting feedback since this opinion was published in Hawaii Reporter.
Firstly, there are 15 nuclear submarines stationed at Pearl Harbor and at any time roughly about half are in port:
The scarcity and cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a cost-effective if not essential proposition. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with minimal ill effects. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%. As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.
The advantage of nuclear power is that it produces large amounts of dependable and easily controlled electric power like hydroelectric, coal-fired or oil-fired power plants. Solar, wind and wave energy have huge limitations in terms of capacity and reliability; practically all deployments are still experimental and heavily subsidized. No question that solar, wind and wave energy will be partners for the long-term energy sustainability in Hawaii, but they are unlikely to be the providers of the majority of the needed power.
They too have their environmental downsides such as requirements of very large areas for deployment, major susceptibility to hurricanes and/or tsunamis, large construction costs and all the noxious shortcomings of building, maintaining and disposing of expansive and expensive arrays of batteries which have a rather short life span.
One advantage of compact power plants is that since they are largely self sufficient (i.e., they do not need a tanker to anchor by regularly to refuel the plant) they can be placed off shore in what ocean engineers call “large floating structures.” Thus, a nuclear power plant can be 20 miles away into the ocean (still easily accessible) and provide electricity to Oahu with a cable. There are undersea power plant transmission lines in excess of 40 miles.
However, this bill is not about building nuclear power plants. This bill simply provides a way for us to take the blindfolds off and begin to address the real issues of Hawaii sustainability, twenty or more years into the future. This bill will allow us to begin assessing the potential and work towards answers to questions, issues and challenges of nuclear energy in Hawaii.
(**) I received some interesting feedback since this opinion was published in Hawaii Reporter.
Firstly, there are 15 nuclear submarines stationed at Pearl Harbor and at any time roughly about half are in port:
- USS Los Angeles (SSN 688), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Bremerton (SSN 698), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS La Jolla (SSN 701), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Olympia (SSN 717), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Chicago (SSN 721), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Key West (SSN 722), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Louisville (SSN 724), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Pasadena (SSN 752), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Columbus (SSN 762), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Santa Fe (SSN 763), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Charlotte (SSN 766), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Tucson (SSN 770), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Columbia (SSN 771), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Greeneville (SSN 772), Pearl Harbor, HI
- USS Cheyenne (SSN 773), Pearl Harbor, HI
Friday, January 2, 2009
Highlights and Lessons for Hawaii from "Global Trends 2025"
The Global Trends 2025 report is a must-read for all policy makers, company executives, regional planners, long-term strategists and concerned global citizens. Some of the expectations expressed in the report are quite relevant to Hawaii as they present likely challenges or opportunities. Here is a list of my highlights:
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
The United States will remain the single most powerful country but will be less dominant.
Growth projections for Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRICs) indicate they will collectively match the original G-7’s share of global GDP by 2040 to 2050.
A global multipolar system is emerging with the rise of BRIC. Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey are likely to be large regional players.
Shift in relative wealth and economic power is occurring from West to East.
Global markets are expected to recede.
Regionalism may solidify in three blocks: North America, Europe and East Asia. This, among other things, may undermine the goals of World Trade Organization (WTO) or international agreements (Kyoto protocol.) Regionalism may lead to regional product standards for information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, intellectual property rights, and other aspects of the “new economy”.
Resource issues will gain prominence on the international agenda. Strategic resources, energy, food, water. This gives rise to local, regional, national and global sustainability.
SUSTAINABILITY
1.2 billion more people by 2025 will put pressure on energy, food, and water resources.
Climate change likely occurs but the locations and severity of its impacts are highly uncertain. Largest near term threat is drought or limited water supply in some regions.
Demography (low birth rate and fewer young paying the pensions of many old people) are major challenges for Europe and Japan. Will they have a sufficient number of workers to support robust economies?
Increase in oil and commodity prices have generated windfall profits for the Gulf states and Russia, but it is hard to predict the long term outlook of fossil energy use and pricing because…
…. energy transition away from oil is occurring rapidly to national gas, coal and solar, and more slowly in other areas such as improved energy storage, biofuels, hydrogen, clean coal and other alternatives. New energy technologies probably will not be commercially viable and widespread by 2025.
All current technologies are inadequate for replacing the traditional energy architecture on the scale needed.
Photovoltaic and wind energy, and improvements in battery technology are the most likely platforms for quick and inexpensive energy transitions.
Large scale solutions may come from individual projects enabling many small economic entities to develop their own energy transformation projects, such as fuel cells powering homes and office.
An energy transition is inevitable; the only questions are when and how abruptly or smoothly such a transition occurs.
New technologies provide solutions to overcome food and water constrains.
Lack of access to stable supplies of water is reaching critical proportions in some areas. The problem will worsen because of rapid urbanization. China is a prime example.
LESSONS FOR HAWAII
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
The United States will remain the single most powerful country but will be less dominant.
Growth projections for Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRICs) indicate they will collectively match the original G-7’s share of global GDP by 2040 to 2050.
A global multipolar system is emerging with the rise of BRIC. Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey are likely to be large regional players.
Shift in relative wealth and economic power is occurring from West to East.
Global markets are expected to recede.
Regionalism may solidify in three blocks: North America, Europe and East Asia. This, among other things, may undermine the goals of World Trade Organization (WTO) or international agreements (Kyoto protocol.) Regionalism may lead to regional product standards for information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, intellectual property rights, and other aspects of the “new economy”.
Resource issues will gain prominence on the international agenda. Strategic resources, energy, food, water. This gives rise to local, regional, national and global sustainability.
SUSTAINABILITY
1.2 billion more people by 2025 will put pressure on energy, food, and water resources.
Climate change likely occurs but the locations and severity of its impacts are highly uncertain. Largest near term threat is drought or limited water supply in some regions.
Demography (low birth rate and fewer young paying the pensions of many old people) are major challenges for Europe and Japan. Will they have a sufficient number of workers to support robust economies?
Increase in oil and commodity prices have generated windfall profits for the Gulf states and Russia, but it is hard to predict the long term outlook of fossil energy use and pricing because…
…. energy transition away from oil is occurring rapidly to national gas, coal and solar, and more slowly in other areas such as improved energy storage, biofuels, hydrogen, clean coal and other alternatives. New energy technologies probably will not be commercially viable and widespread by 2025.
All current technologies are inadequate for replacing the traditional energy architecture on the scale needed.
Photovoltaic and wind energy, and improvements in battery technology are the most likely platforms for quick and inexpensive energy transitions.
Large scale solutions may come from individual projects enabling many small economic entities to develop their own energy transformation projects, such as fuel cells powering homes and office.
An energy transition is inevitable; the only questions are when and how abruptly or smoothly such a transition occurs.
New technologies provide solutions to overcome food and water constrains.
Lack of access to stable supplies of water is reaching critical proportions in some areas. The problem will worsen because of rapid urbanization. China is a prime example.
LESSONS FOR HAWAII
- Brazil, Russia, India, and China are new and largely untapped markets for Hawaii, for tourism and other alliances. Initiatives to these markets are necessary to counter Japan’s likely shrinking economy.
- Climate change maybe less of a threat to Hawaii as its primary short term effect, drought, is not a likely issue for Hawaii. Sea level change, if confirmed in magnitudes of a few feet above high tide, has the potential to devastate Hawaii’s beaches, shorelines, areas such as Kakaako and Mapunapuna, and some critical highways.
- Hawaii is a near perfect test bed for solar and wind energy research and development, in addition to ocean and geothermal. Through the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute and other efforts, Hawaii has a rich knowledge base and experience on biofuels, clean carbon and other renewable alternatives. (By the way, there is wide agreement among experts that ethanol from corn is a counterproductive endeavor. It is time to repeal the state law that forces Hawaii to import corn ethanol from the mainland.)
- Production of adequate food supply for our local demand is a long lost battle in Hawaii, so sustainable transpacific transportation of foods, staples and industrial products is a priority in order to sustain life for 1.3 million residents and roughly 100,000 tourists (per day.)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Operationalizing Sustainability
In a practical sense, sustainability may be defined as a process that supports a standard of living or quality or life forever given the known availability of natural resources and population trends. Wikipedia has a comprehensive definition.
As chair of the Freeway Operations Simulation Committee of the Transportation Research Board I intend to steer national discussion in this direction. Sustainability is the overarching principle that is engulfing most types of engineering and operations practice and research.
Congestion and energy consumption reductions are large components of sustainability. These, in turn, are affected by freeway and traffic operations. Our committee is embarking on an effort to establish sustainability parameters and requirements for freeway and traffic simulation models including vehicle fleet parameters, fuel consumption parameters, and modules capturing real time pricing and demand shifts in response to fuel, toll and congestion levels.
So far, my understanding of the status quo is roughly as follows:
As chair of the Freeway Operations Simulation Committee of the Transportation Research Board I intend to steer national discussion in this direction. Sustainability is the overarching principle that is engulfing most types of engineering and operations practice and research.
Congestion and energy consumption reductions are large components of sustainability. These, in turn, are affected by freeway and traffic operations. Our committee is embarking on an effort to establish sustainability parameters and requirements for freeway and traffic simulation models including vehicle fleet parameters, fuel consumption parameters, and modules capturing real time pricing and demand shifts in response to fuel, toll and congestion levels.
So far, my understanding of the status quo is roughly as follows:
- Green mobility policies and incentives: HOT lanes, tax credits for electric vehicles, light rail lite, etc.
- Green management options: Signal coordination, corridor-wide ramp metering, variable speed limits, peak hour shoulder lanes, etc.
- Green travel choices: hybrid car, parking cash out, locate close to work or school, etc.
- Green trip decisions: carpooling, 4X10 work schedule, telecommuting, etc.
- Green parameters for traffic simulation: __________________________?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Upside of High Oil Prices: Part 2, Long-term Effects
The U.S. and several other countries are in an economic recession which was caused in part by the extraordinary increase of crude oil prices from $16 in 1999 and several years afterward, to $147 in July, 2008. This 1,000% spike was followed by a precipitous fall of crude oil prices to about $55 in November 2008 and still falling.
High oil prices despite their obvious high cost disadvantages have several benefits and long term advantages. Some effects are realized almost immediately and others take several years to develop. This part covers the longer term effects, the majority of which are likely to be observed after five years of high crude oil prices.
GLOBALIZATION REVERSAL: High oil costs take a toll on unit production, distribution and delivery cost. Therefore some local industries may be better off near large cities in the developed nations instead of relocating at a region or country with a low labor cost. This is good news for local economies at developed nations but it reduces employment opportunities at developing and underdeveloped countries. Some see the slowing down of globalization as a good thing (e.g., less exploitation of cheap labor, lesser loss of local jobs.)
NUCLEAR ENERGY: The scarcity or cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a more cost-effective proposition. High electric bills for residences, businesses and industry may decrease the emotional opposition to nuclear power plants. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with no or minimal safety concerns. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%. As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.
AGRICULTURE: A lot of low-priced agriculture products are less affordable when processing, transportation and distribution costs are high. This improves the chances of local agriculture for profitability and long term survival. On the other hand, the benefits for third world from exporting agricultural products are reduced.
UNAFFORDABLE LIFE IN THE SUBURBS: The high cost of energy makes the low density living in the suburbs and its corresponding demand for long trips less attractive and less affordable particularly for young couples with children and retired seniors. As a result, central city apartments become attractive and office and apartment development in central city follows the market demand. In the same vein, office and retail development in the suburbs softens the impact of long, expensive commutes.
BIOTECHONOLOGY: High energy prices are also a strong incentive to develop alternative fuels as well as processes to convert trash, biomass, used oils and other lubricants into combustible fuels or other forms of fuel that can be converted into electricity.
RECYCLING AND REMANUFACTURE: The expensive production, transportation and distribution of goods makes the effort of recycling and remanufacture more worthwhile. Remanufacture is the developing industry of creating useful products out of wastes. Economies of size are important. For example, one or more used-aluminum processing factories can be profitable in the greater Los Angeles area, but none can break even in Honolulu. However, remanufacture of oils, refrigerants, other chemicals and plastic products can be profitable in small markets.
CHEMISTRY AND MATERIAL SCIENCE: The development of ultra light and low friction materials so that machinery does more work with less energy is an advancing field. Nanotechnology also contributes in this arena. High fossil fuel prices make research and development in such specialized sciences more urgent and better funded.
BLUE PLANET SENSITIVITY: Over time, the high cost of energy make people re-think of their decisions in home, work and school locations, local and long distance travel, and consumption of goods and services. They look for ways to downsize, optimize and economize. All these have a large aggregate reduction in resource consumption and pollution on Earth.
High oil prices despite their obvious high cost disadvantages have several benefits and long term advantages. Some effects are realized almost immediately and others take several years to develop. This part covers the longer term effects, the majority of which are likely to be observed after five years of high crude oil prices.
GLOBALIZATION REVERSAL: High oil costs take a toll on unit production, distribution and delivery cost. Therefore some local industries may be better off near large cities in the developed nations instead of relocating at a region or country with a low labor cost. This is good news for local economies at developed nations but it reduces employment opportunities at developing and underdeveloped countries. Some see the slowing down of globalization as a good thing (e.g., less exploitation of cheap labor, lesser loss of local jobs.)
NUCLEAR ENERGY: The scarcity or cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a more cost-effective proposition. High electric bills for residences, businesses and industry may decrease the emotional opposition to nuclear power plants. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with no or minimal safety concerns. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%. As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.
AGRICULTURE: A lot of low-priced agriculture products are less affordable when processing, transportation and distribution costs are high. This improves the chances of local agriculture for profitability and long term survival. On the other hand, the benefits for third world from exporting agricultural products are reduced.
UNAFFORDABLE LIFE IN THE SUBURBS: The high cost of energy makes the low density living in the suburbs and its corresponding demand for long trips less attractive and less affordable particularly for young couples with children and retired seniors. As a result, central city apartments become attractive and office and apartment development in central city follows the market demand. In the same vein, office and retail development in the suburbs softens the impact of long, expensive commutes.
BIOTECHONOLOGY: High energy prices are also a strong incentive to develop alternative fuels as well as processes to convert trash, biomass, used oils and other lubricants into combustible fuels or other forms of fuel that can be converted into electricity.
RECYCLING AND REMANUFACTURE: The expensive production, transportation and distribution of goods makes the effort of recycling and remanufacture more worthwhile. Remanufacture is the developing industry of creating useful products out of wastes. Economies of size are important. For example, one or more used-aluminum processing factories can be profitable in the greater Los Angeles area, but none can break even in Honolulu. However, remanufacture of oils, refrigerants, other chemicals and plastic products can be profitable in small markets.
CHEMISTRY AND MATERIAL SCIENCE: The development of ultra light and low friction materials so that machinery does more work with less energy is an advancing field. Nanotechnology also contributes in this arena. High fossil fuel prices make research and development in such specialized sciences more urgent and better funded.
BLUE PLANET SENSITIVITY: Over time, the high cost of energy make people re-think of their decisions in home, work and school locations, local and long distance travel, and consumption of goods and services. They look for ways to downsize, optimize and economize. All these have a large aggregate reduction in resource consumption and pollution on Earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
