Transportation in a Changing Climate Part 1

    

So for my first climate change-related post, I didn't want to rehash the arguments for human-caused climate change. My guess is that if you are reading this, you are already well informed on that subject. The evidence that our huge and continued release of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" are warming the planet has been confirmed by multiple disciplines based upon principles of chemistry and physics that we have understood for well over 100 years. The much more important subject is: what the hell are we going to do about it? As we've seen the climate warm and weather extremes get even more batshit crazy, it's becoming clear that we'd better hurry up. I'm pretty sure Canada isn't looking to get its own tornado alley or the Midwest its very own desert.

 

That said, what are our biggest problems? According to the EPA, the big 3 in the U.S. are transportation, electrical generation, and industry, in that order. Since transportation is the largest segment, I thought it best to start there. That, and producing carbon-free electricity, is a much easier problem to solve. Of the transportation emissions in the U.S., 83% come from cars and trucks, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Although globally, the majority of transportation emissions are from aircraft and ocean shipping.

 

    Let's start with those cars and trucks; they are not as difficult of a fix as the other two. First, if we are to make any significant headway on reducing CO2 emissions from cars and trucks, fuel efficiency isn't going to get us there. According to a paper published in the American Economic Review, from 1980 to 2004, the fleet average MPG in the U.S. only increased by 6.5%, despite large leaps in actual engine efficiency. The author points out that these efficiency gains have been wiped out by the weight and power of newer cars. From 1980 to 2004, the average weight of passenger cars increased by 12%, while horsepower increased by 80%. Light trucks saw a weight increase of 26% and a 99% increase in horsepower, all while sales of those vehicles went from 20% to 51%. Without these gains, fuel economy could have improved by as much as 60% during the period. Because of this, instead of a fleet average of more than 50 MPG by 2020, the actual number was just 25.7 MPG, according to the Department of Energy. It's become apparent that there is just no way to make significant headway with the ICE and still produce the cars that Americans want. So car makers face a conundrum. They are required to increase their fleet efficiency to 49 MPG by 2026. The only way to do this realistically is through electrification.

 

 This is a fairly simple solution. Maybe not simple in practice, but certainly in concept. Ok, first off, I know. You can't run electric vehicles on electricity that's generated by fossil fuels if you want net zero emissions, and building new cars and the materials that go into them have a carbon cost. However, even when all of this is considered, electric cars still produce fewer emissions than their ICE counterparts, even if the electricity they use is generated by burning fossil fuels. This is largely because of huge efficiency gains, both in the production and utilization of energy. A typical ICE engine wastes much of the energy in the fuel to heat and auxiliary attachments. According to Motor Trend, only about 20% of the fuel you use goes toward moving a car forward, an 80% energy loss. In an electric car, only about 30% of the energy that is put into the car is wasted. Electric motors are just way more efficient at converting energy into movement. This isn't, by any means, a new revelation. Electric cars have been around as long as their ICE counterparts. Many believe that if battery technology had been up to the task in the early days of automobiles, the ICE engine would have been dead on arrival. Electric motors have always been considered superior. The first electric train locomotives date all the way back to 1879. New York City started converting their subway to electric in 1893, and by the 1960s, nearly all of the locomotives used in the U.S. were diesel-electric. Why? Electric motors are simply cleaner, more powerful, and more efficient than steam locomotives. So much better that the diesel engines in a locomotive do nothing but generate electricity for the electric motors.

 

Not only is electrification of most of our ground transportation possible, but it's also doable. Yes, there will be growing pains. So what does this new electric future look like? Well, there are two paths. We may go one way or the other, or both. The first way to electrify cars and light trucks, as well as delivery trucks and buses, is batteries. This technology is already widely available and rapidly growing. Within the next several years, a wide variety of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will be available for personal and commercial use to fit nearly any need. Yes, there are still issues. Battery range and the time it takes to charge being two of the biggest. But keep in mind that, despite BEVs technically being around for a long time, we are still in the early stages of EVs. For commuter vehicles, delivery vehicles, and buses, they are already as good as they need to be. For long-range trips and hauling, they are not quite there. This may dramatically change in the next several years. Battery technology will improve, just like ICE cars did in the early days. In 1903, the most powerful production car in the world was the Mercedes-Simplex. It had a whopping 60 hp. A few years later, it was an Austro-Daimler that had 95 hp; by the 1920s, the Duesenberg model J had 265 hp, and engines from some race cars could produce 350 hp. My point? Technology will improve, likely rapidly, just like it did in the past.

    

There is the other electric route that also may make large improvements in batteries unnecessary. This is through the use of a hydrogen fuel cell. Here hydrogen gas is passed through an electrolyte material, resulting in the production of electricity and water. Fuel cells have been around for a long time. The first one was invented in 1838, but practical applications came much later, notably with NASA using them during the Apollo program. The idea of them in cars is also not new. GM built a fuel cell van back in 1966. Fuel cell vehicles (FCEV) are much like their BEV counterparts. They are essentially electric cars, but instead of large banks of batteries that are recharged, a small bank of batteries is continually maintained by power from the fuel cell. The advantage of FCEVs is that they can be refueled much like a traditional ICE vehicle, eliminating the charge and range issues of BEVs. These types of systems may be ideal where the issues of range and battery capacity are greatest, for example, when hauling heavy loads over long distances. Fuel cells are a proven technology. In fact, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai have all made FCEV cars available to the public. Despite their viability, FCEVs have yet to see a surge in popularity. This is primarily because there is almost no hydrogen infrastructure yet available. While BEV owners can install a DC quick charger in their garage, FCEV owners may have no option to refuel at all, depending on where they live. FCEVs, although niche players now, may eventually have a large role to play in the quest for net-zero transportation, but their adoption will be highly dependent on refueling infrastructure.

 

Like I said before, things like delivery trucks and buses should already work well as BEVs, but range may still be an issue. No one wants to have to take a bus or delivery vehicle out of service to charge. Many of these vehicles, like buses and mail trucks, follow the same routes each day, and there is a novel solution to keep them charged. Bury chargers right in the road along their route. As the vehicle moves along its route, it is wirelessly charged from below. There are already multiple companies working on this technology, and numerous demonstration projects are in the works. Not far in the future, many of our cities could have electric buses perpetually powered by the road they're driving on. This is not all that dissimilar from the electric trolleys that many cities once had, but without the tracks. This technology could also one day be expanded to our highways, providing any electric car with an unlimited range.

 

Of course, to really make these technologies work to fight climate change, we need green electricity. While both BEVs and FCEVs are cleaner and more efficient than ICE vehicles, the ultimate payoff will not come until we can charge our BEVs or produce hydrogen without fossil fuels (most of our hydrogen today comes from natural gas). The good news is that we are making headway in this regard. Solar, wind, and the improvement of storage technologies will continue to improve and have the potential to provide us with most, if not all, of our electrical needs. Of course, the ideal solution would be fusion energy. Nuclear fusion, unlike the fission technology now used in nuclear power plants, does not produce radioactive waste and produces a much greater amount of power. It harnesses the same reaction as the sun, fusing hydrogen into helium and releasing a huge amount of energy. Clean and carbon-free, it has the potential to revolutionize energy production. Recently, researchers at the Department of Energy's National Ignition Facility were, for the first time, able to produce a fusion reaction that generated more power than it took to power the reaction. Using a bank of high-powered lasers to produce the heat and pressure needed to cause this reaction, this breakthrough proves that nuclear fusion power generation is possible. So why, after decades of trying, are we just now making progress? Well, funding is a large issue. We have prioritized subsidies to oil companies over clean energy. For example, after this breakthrough, a record 624 million dollars in funding was approved to further the laser fusion program. While this is good news, the oil industry, in direct money alone, gets around 20 billion dollars each year in the U.S. Critics love to point out how slow fusion development has been, but many of them are the same people making sure that fusion research is vastly underfunded.

 

Ok, so a little off point there, but it's impossible to discuss energy consumption apart from its production. So, for much of our ground transportation, we have a lot of solutions for the future. Anyway you look at it, electrification is going to be key, but There is a big but. Electrification does nothing for the millions of cars and trucks that will continue to exist for years. It also will not be able, in most cases, to address emissions from aircraft and ships. Unless there is some physics-breaking advance in battery technology, there are never going to be electric jumbo jets or container ships. Hydrogen-powered planes may be a possibility; Airbus is working to have a hydrogen-fueled jet in the air by 2035, but there is a potentially carbon-neutral way to power all of these things without even modifying them. This technology could make all of our transportation carbon neutral right now. Stay tuned for part 2 and I'll discuss how our planes, ships, and even your classic car could be carbon neutral in just a few years.