3. Alternatives to Driving

Livable communities with better transportation choices including transit and opportunities for bicycling and walking reduce the need to drive.


Los Angeles' Measure R and "30/10" – now "America Fast Forward" – will expand our transit network, including the Wilshire subway to Westwood (above).

Grid-connected electric transit – streetcars, light and heavy rail, and electric trolleybuses are quiet, energy-efficient, and proven. As Gilbert and Perl note, "Electricity is the ideal transport fuel for an uncertain future. Unlike other alternative energy transition paths for transport, only electric mobility can move people and goods using a wide range of energy sources."


New battery electric buses being tested on Foothill Transit may provide a good alternative to diesel and natural gas powered transit buses (Proterra photo; also MetroRiderLA). See George Karbowski's SCAQMD presentation (3 MB PDF) for technical details.


"Complete Streets" make communities more livable with inviting places to walk and bike, instead of driving (Charles Gandy, City of Long Beach image).


Urban parks importantly balance higher-density residential.


Ridesharing (via smart-phone apps) may be the fastest adjustment for an oil shock.


Intercity high speed rail will replace oil used by long-distance driving and intrastate plane flights (CHSRA image).


Moving freight to rail is much more efficient than trucks, and railroads can be electrified to become entirely oil-free.

NEXT: 4. Electric Vehicles BACK: 2. Global Warming

4. Electric Vehicles

Plug-in electric vehicles, now beginning to be available (such as the battery-electric Nissan Leaf, above, and plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt), are the most feasible alternative to oil-powered cars.


Vehicle fuel efficiency helps, but cannot get us off oil. EPA-NHTSA rulemaking – in conjunction with California ARB – is beginning for 2017-2025. A range of 3-6% annual improvement would result in 47-62 mpg in 2025, compared with 34.1 mpg in 2016 and 27.5 mpg of the old (1990-2010) CAFE.

In comparison, a 2004-9 Toyota Prius midsize car was rated at 46 mpg. A fleet averaging that would cut U.S. gasoline use in half and U.S. oil use by 1/4.

Cartoon (c) by Steve Nease, used with permission


Most U.S. personal trips are by car (U.S. Census, SF-3, QT-P23), although less so in dense cities with good public transit like San Francisco, where only 41% drove alone, 31% rode transit, and 9% walked – a strong reason to oppose new sprawl development.


Fifty percent of drivers travel less than 25 miles per day (EPRI PDF). There is ample off-peak grid capacity today for overnight charging, and vehicle batteries can become distributed storage for demand peaks and renewable supply.


From renewable solar, wind, and geothermal power, the core of our clean energy, green jobs economic future.


But even on U.S. average-mix electricity Argonne National Lab's June 2010 "Well-to-Wheels Analysis ..." documented that plug-ins have lower GHG emissions than equivalent ICE gasoline cars, about the same on a coal-intensive mix, and of course much better with renewables (Figure ES-1, page 3).

See also Michael Brune's Sierra Club blogs 10/6/10 and 3/10/11; California ARB on zero Emission Vehicles, advocate Plug In America, Top 11 Electric Car Myths, and lithium availability.


We will need to plan for charging stations in apartment garages, public street parkways, and retail and commercial locations.


Biofuels, conversely, fail the key criteria of scalability, net energy, and external impacts.

Ethanol from corn uses about as much fossil-fuel energy to grow and make as it yields. It consumes water and fertilizer and competes with food production. Ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil is more sustainable, but not scalable to replace any large portion of oil.

Cellulosic ethanol is not in large-scale production, and has poor net energy due to transporting biomass and distilling the alcohol.

Biodiesel from used french fry oil sounds great, but there's not very much used french fry oil! The most productive oil crops are palm oil and soybeans. Their expanded production threatens rainforest land, hardly a benefit to global warming emissions.

See also Robert Rapier on The Palm Oil Conundrum and Five Challenges of Next-Generation Biofuels.


Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not source. It is mostly created from natural gas today, just another fossil fuel.

Even if electrolyzed from renewable electricity, it is less efficient to make, compress, and run a fuel cell on hydrogen than to just charge a battery (page 5, Table 2 in Boschert).

We need a solution now, but fuel cell vehicles are extremely expensive, plus there is no hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

BACK: 3. Alternatives to Driving

Move LA, part 1

This is a web version of my presentation at Move LA's Transportation Conversation II, an environmental perspective on Los Angeles transportation.

The starting point always is our awful traffic.


Second are the impacts of our oil dependence. The U.S. imports 2/3 of what we use. U.S. production peaked in 1970 - despite all the new production in Alaska - and world production's high point was 2005 (US EIA data).


If one imagined what a divine message might be on the eve of Senate debate about national energy policy, it's hard to imagine a bigger one than the gulf oil catastrophe right now (US Coast Guard photo).


Third is Global Warming, documented here by continuing rise in world temperatures (NASA chart).

(Click any image to enlarge)


Transportation and electricity generation are over half the total greenhouse gas emissions (CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan data).


California's AB 32 goal is to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (more on AB 32 Scoping Plan).


The first solution is simple efficiency: if every car got the mileage of today's Prius, the U.S. would use half as much gasoline, one fourth less oil, as vividly illustrated in this cartoon by Steve Nease (used with permission).


The most cost-effective and scalable sources of renewable energy are wind ...


... and solar.


So sustainable transportation must transition to electricity. Measure R funding includes extending the electric Wilshire subway ...

(continue to part 2)

Move LA, part 2

(continued from part 1)

... and expanding L.A.'s light rail network.


We seek cities' use of local return funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, as the City of Los Angeles just approved 10% for.


This map from The Transit Coalition suggests a number of rail corridors beyond the Measure R map. I'd highlight (1) extending the Crenshaw line from the Expo line up to Hollywood and (2) north south corridors from Westwood to LAX along Lincoln and/or the 405.


California High Speed Rail is important to Los Angeles, that will replace many intra-state plane flights and long car drives with electric trains (earlier post on Prop. 1A; California High Speed Rail Blog).


A few cities like San Francisco still have electric trolley buses.


The new company Proterra will be testing battery-electric buses that fast-charge at the end of their routes on Foothill Transit this year.


Plug-in hybrid and battery-electric vehicles are very important for all the trips that do not fit biking, walking, or transit. The first two major auto company models are the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, due late this year (EVs and Energy Blog; Plug In America).


Finally, a major benefit of rail transit is enabling effective Transit Oriented Development within walking distance of stations, like here at Del Mar in Pasadena on the Gold Line. But will it live up to Smart Growth or just be auto-oriented "dumb density"?


Livable streets that encourage walking to neighborhood shops are very important. These two examples from Portland's Pearl District show the kind of amenities that make you feel at home.


Parks and open space for kids and older people are very important to balance increased density.

The Solution to ...

The right energy plan addresses all of Global Warming, Peak Oil, Energy Independence (2/3 of U.S. oil is imported), and Economic Stimulus spending (investing in green jobs and future economic sustainability).

Here's my summary in four images (click to enlarge).

Nearly half of U.S. oil is used for gasoline, and over half of California's global warming emissions come from passenger vehicles and electricity generation.

The greatest leverage is Efficiency in transportation and buildings' energy use.

The most practical renewable energy in large quantities is electricity from solar, wind, and geothermal.

The most sustainable transportation is electric - EVs and plug-in hybrids, transit, passenger and freight rail.

There is a growing consensus around these main policies, as recently noted by Adam Stein in Gristmill and the Post Carbon Institute's The Real New Deal.

Sources:
World Oil Production - ASPO Newsletter and OilPoster.org
Crude Oil and Products' sources - U.S. EIA Petroleum Supply Monthly, Tables 4, 38
Oil Uses - U.S. EIA Petroleum Supply Monthly, Table 4
Greenhouse Gas Emissions - California Air Resources Board

AB 32 Scoping Plan

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the AB 32 Scoping Plan Thursday (press release; LA Times).

AB 32 is California's landmark 2006 law to reduce global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, about 30% from business-as-usual projected for 2020, 15% from today’s levels.
The long-range goal is 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

The largest two sectors of greenhouse gas emissions (left) are transportation — 38% — and electricity generation — 23%.

(click to enlarge)

This timeline shows CARB's first milestones in 2007; developing the high-level Scoping Plan over the last year; and the upcoming detailed rulemaking through 2011 to implement it.

Following is the overview of how the Scoping Plan expects to reduce emissions.



Recommended Reduction Measures — Counted Towards 2020 Target (MMTCO₂E*)

---

ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS FROM CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM AND COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES — 146.7

California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards — 31.7
Energy Efficiency — 26.3
Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) — 21.3
Low Carbon Fuel Standard — 15
Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets — 5
Vehicle Efficiency Measures — 4.5
Goods Movement — 3.7
Million Solar Roofs — 2.1
Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles — 1.4
High Speed Rail — 1.0
Industrial Measures (cap-and-trade sources) — 0.3
Additional Reductions Necessary to Achieve the Cap — 34.4

---

ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS FROM UNCAPPED SOURCES — 27.3

High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures — 20.2
Sustainable Forests — 5.0
Industrial Measures (non-cap and trade sources) — 1.1
Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) — 1.0

---

TOTAL REDUCTIONS COUNTED TOWARDS 2020 TARGET — 174

---

*Million Metric Tons of CO₂ Equivalent emissions. Source (PDF), page 2, update to Proposed Scoping Plan (PDF), Table 2, page 17 (PDF page 37). Charts source (PDF).


CARB Chairman Mary Nichols (far left) and board members Barbara Riordan and Dr. Daniel Sperling at the December 2007 meeting in El Monte that set the 2020 emissions limit at 427 MMTCO₂E.

CARB's senior staff, led by Chuck Shulock (far left), at a July public workshop during development of the Scoping Plan.

Dr. Steven Chu

Another to bookmark: Dr. Steven Chu's presentation on climate change impacts, energy efficiency, and advanced renewable energy technologies — photovoltaics and biofuel grasses — at the National Energy Summit in Nevada last summer demonstrates what an excellent choice he is to be Obama's Energy Secretary (via Gristmill).

Election success!

Congratulations President-elect Obama! His presidency, combined with Democratic majorities in Congress, will make possible the energy, climate, and transportation policies we need.

For some very moving photos of last night's acceptance speech, see these Grant Park photos from the Chicago Tribune.

Amazingly, Los Angeles County Measure R transportation sales tax sqeaked past its needed 2/3 majority at 67.41% YES (100% reported)!

The LA Times Bottleneck Blog gave a good description of the joyful press conference this morning at Wilshire & Western. Left are two UCLA student campaigners, and lower left are Steve Hymon with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Metro CEO Roger Snoble (click to enlarge).

Proposition 1A for High Speed Rail finished at 52.2% YES. Now we'll have a lot of work ahead going from funding to completed plans to finished projects.

And the faux-clean-energy Propositions 7 and 10 were strongly defeated, 64.9% and 59.8% NO, respectively (100% reported). Four for four!

Proposition recommendations

NEW: I'm on KNBC TV supporting 1A and opposing 10.

On the four ballot measures next week about transportation and energy:

YES on 1A

Proposition 1A for California high-speed rail from San Francisco to Anaheim, with extensions to Sacramento and San Diego, would fund the state's $10B share to match private and federal money. Travel time from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be less than three hours.

Trains powered by domestic renewable electricity could reduce our oil dependence by 12.7 million barrels a year and eliminate 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gasses from many intra-state plane flights and long-distance car drives, using proven technology enjoyed in Europe and Asia.

This is the time to take high speed rail to its next step, investing in our infrastructure for California's economic future, like Governor Pat Brown's 1960s legacy. Is a $10 billion bond expensive? Not compared with highways and airport expansion, $6B to widen 99 to 6 lanes in the San Joaquin Valley, $20B to 8 lanes. And not compared with China's investment high speed rail for its place in the world economy.

Also see my earlier post on California High Speed Rail.

Links: Yes on 1A; Sierra Club on 1A; California High Speed Rail Blog; LA Times editorial


NO on 7

Proposition 7 has a laudable goal, but its critically flawed execution would set us back, the reason it's opposed by Sierra Club and other leading environmental groups – NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, California League of Conservation Voters; many in the renewable energy industry; the LA Times; and both political parties.

California already has a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for 2010, and 33% for 2020, plus the statewide AB-32 plan to reduce global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Prop. 7 does not address the real barriers to renewable energy – the need for reliable, predictable funding, such as a feed-in tariff – instead of creating rules for renewable contracts based on the unstable cost of baseload gas.

Its exclusion of less-than-30 MW providers (“solar and clean energy plant” is defined as a renewable energy generating “facility” with “a generating capacity of 30 Megawatts or more” in section 14) would cripple much of the renewables industry.

Its six-month “fast-track” provision would undermine environmental protections and existing collaboration on appropriate siting of renewable facilities and transmission corridors.

And it would be nearly impossible to correct these errors with its 2/3-majority legislative vote requirement.

Links: No on 7; Sierra Club on 7; LA Times editorial


NO on 10

Proposition 10 would spend $5B ($10B with bond interest) of state taxpayers’ money to subsidize natural gas vehicles and fueling infrastructure.

Mostly funded by T. Boone Pickens’ natural gas fueling station company Clean Energy Fuels Corp – $3.7M as of Sept. 30 – it is a wrong direction to a dead-end.

The right solutions to Global Warming and to reduce our oil dependence especially include efficiency, and electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) that can use renewable electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal. One-third (36%) of California's greenhouse gas emissions are from from cars and trucks, and half of U.S. oil is used for motor gasoline.

Natural gas is merely another depleting fossil fuel. It provides little benefit toward the goal of 80% reduction in Global Warming emissions by 2050. In fact, it is 40% more efficient to make electricity for electric cars from gas than burn it in cars.

Proposition 10 is opposed by major environmental groups – Sierra Club, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, California League of Conservation Voters – and over 30 newspapers. The LA Times called it a “reprehensible scam.”

Links: No on 10; Sierra Club on 10; LA Times editorial


YES on R

Measure R is a proposed half-cent 30-year Los Angeles County transportation sales tax.

Los Angeles County’s transportation needs far exceed existing local, state, and federal funding, and the political climate both in the state and in Washington DC is not likely to increase those levels any time soon. That is why this comprehensive countywide plan was developed, in consultation with a coalition of transit, environmental, labor, and business groups.

Two-thirds (65%) of Measure R will fund critical expansion of our rail transit network and transit operations. Bus riders will receive the benefits of a 70% annual increase over current bus operations funding, to reduce fare increases and improve service. And Local Return funds can support new bicycle and pedestrian projects.

See my earlier posts Metro's sales tax would fund... and Sales tax comments for more.

Links: Yes on Measure R; Metro on R; LA Times editorial