Study: Metropolitan Areas Contribute Less Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Than Suburbs

BERKELEY —According to a new study by UC Berkeley researchers, population-dense cities contribute less greenhouse-gas emissions per person than other areas of the country, but these cities’ extensive suburbs essentially wipe out the climate benefits.

A CoolClimate Map of Seattle’s carbon footprint by zipcode tabulation area shows a pattern typical of large metropolitan areas: a small footprint (green) in the urban core but a large footprint (orange and red) in surrounding suburbs.

Dominated by emissions from cars, trucks and other forms of transportation, suburbs account for about 50 percent of all household emissions – largely carbon dioxide – in the United States.

The study, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), uses local census, weather and other data – 37 variables in total – to approximate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the energy, transportation, food, goods and services consumed by U.S. households, so-called household carbon footprints.

“The goal of the project is to help cities better understand the primary drivers of household carbon footprints in each location,” said Daniel Kammen, Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy in the Energy and Resources Group and the Goldman School of Public Policy, and director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. “We hope cities will use this information to begin to create highly tailored climate action plans for their communities.”

A key finding of the UC Berkeley study is that suburbs account for half of all household greenhouse gas emissions, even though they account for less than half the U.S. population. The average carbon footprint of households living in the center of large, population-dense urban cities is about 50 percent below average, while households in distant suburbs are up to twice the average.

“Metropolitan areas look like carbon footprint hurricanes, with dark green, low-carbon urban cores surrounded by red, high-carbon suburbs,” said Christopher Jones, a doctoral student working with Kammen in the Energy and Resources Group. “Unfortunately, while the most populous metropolitan areas tend to have the lowest carbon footprint centers, they also tend to have the most extensive high-carbon footprint suburbs.”

Taking into account the impact of all urban and suburban residents, large metropolitan areas have a slightly higher average carbon footprint than smaller metro areas.

Developing sustainable cities
“A number of cities nationwide have developed exceptionally interesting and thoughtful sustainability plans, many of them very innovative,” Kammen said. “The challenge, however, is to reduce overall emissions. Chris and I wanted to determine analytically and present in a visually striking way the impacts and interactions of our energy, transportation, land use, shopping and other choices. Cities are not islands: they exist in a complex landscape that we need to understand better both theoretically and empirically.”

The UC Berkeley researchers found that the primary drivers of carbon footprints are household income, vehicle ownership and home size, all of which are considerably higher in suburbs. Other important factors include population density, the carbon intensity of electricity production, energy prices and weather.

“Cities need information about which actions have the highest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their communities,” explained Kammen. “There is no one-size-fits-all solution.”

Increasing population density alone, for example, appears not to be a very effective strategy for reducing emissions. A 10-fold increase in population density in central cities corresponds to only 25 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions, and “high carbon suburbanization results as an unintended side effect,” Jones said.

Increasing population density in suburbs is even more problematic, he said. Surprisingly, population dense suburbs have significantly higher carbon footprints than less dense suburbs, due largely to higher incomes and resulting consumption.

“Population dense suburbs also tend to create their own suburbs, which is bad news for the climate,” explains Jones.

So if increasing population density alone is not a one-size-fits-all solution, what urban design strategies may yield the greatest climate benefits? The project website includes a tool that calculates carbon footprints for essentially every populated U.S. zip code, city, county and U.S. state (31,531 zip codes, 10,093 cities and towns, 3,124 counties, 276 metropolitan regions and 50 states) as well as an interactive online map allowing users to zoom in and out of different locations. Households and cities can calculate their own carbon footprints to see how they compare to their neighbors and create customized climate action plan from over 40 mitigation options.

In some locations, motor vehicles are the largest source of emissions, while in other locations it might be electricity, food, or goods and services. California, for example, has relatively low emissions associated with household electricity, but large emissions from transportation. The opposite is true in parts of the Midwest, where electricity is produced largely from coal.

Tailored emission lowering strategies 
The real opportunity, say the authors, is tailoring climate solutions to demographically similar populations within locations.

“Suburbs are excellent candidates for a combination of solar photovoltaic systems, electric vehicles and energy-efficient technologies,” said Kammen. “When you package low-carbon technologies together you find real financial savings and big social and environmental benefits.”

The authors argue that cities need to step out of traditional roles in planning urban infrastructure and learn how to better understand the needs of residents in order to craft policies and programs that enable the adoption of energy and carbon-efficient technologies and practices.

One example of this is the Cool California Challenge, a statewide carbon footprint reduction competition to name the “Coolest California City.” The program, run by Jones and Kammen and sponsored by the California Air Resources Board and Energy Upgrade California, will be accepting applications for new cities in February. Each city creates its own, targeted strategy to reduce barriers and increase motivation to engage residents in climate action.

“People need to act within their own spheres of influence, where they feel they can make the most difference,” Jones said. “We hope the information provided in these tools will help individuals, organizations and cities understand what makes the most impact locally and to enable more tailored climate strategies.”

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the California Air Resources Board.

Source: US Berkely News Center. By Robert Sanders, Media Relations. January 6, 2014

Nissan Leaf Likely To Offer Larger Battery For Longer Range

Every electric-car owner wants more range; it's practically an immutable law.

Now Nissan executive Andy Palmer has come close to confirming that a longer-range Nissan Leaf is in the cards, though likely not until 2016 or even 2017.

In an interview at last week's New York Auto Show with Palmer, who is Nissan's product chief, he said offering multiple battery-pack options with different ranges in the Leaf was being debated internally.

In general, auto executives rarely discuss future powertrain offerings unless the technology being described is already on the way.

And it's notable that Nissan surveyed Leaf owners early this year, asking them how much more they would pay for a Leaf with a 150-mile range.

2014 Nissan Leaf

Multiple packs

Palmer noted that the Leaf electric car would be on a standard Nissan model cycle of updates every five or six years.

But he said the timing of updates was somewhat complicated by the significant updates made to the Leaf for 2013--just two years into its run--when production for the U.S. market shifted from Japan to Tennessee.

He called the idea of a longer-range Leaf the subject of "intense internal debate," with some parties feeling that the 2014 Leaf's rated range of 84 miles was enough for the vast majority of users--and others feeling that more U.S. buyers could be captured with a range in the triple digits.

In the end, Palmer suggested, there could be "two or even three" battery-pack options offered in future Leaf models--"varying by market" where the demand was strongest.

In the last several weeks, there's been much discussion of whether and when a Nissan Leaf with a longer-range battery option would hit the market.

Success for Nissan

The Leaf has done well for the company, Palmer said, with 85 percent of its buyers new to the Nissan brand (known as "conquests") and 80 percent of them retained within the brand for their next vehicle.

It is already the best-selling electric car in history, with 110,000 sold globally since December 2011.

And Nissan has aggressive goals for raising its sales--and adding more models.

In the market at large, lithium-ion cell prices are low due to overcapacity at the moment, with "intense price competition" among all cell makers.

But Palmer suggested that Nissan is seeing cost reductions greater than the 7-percent annual figure often proposed as the historic norm for small-format consumer cells over the past 20 years.

And that should lead to some exciting electric-car developments in next few years.

Source: Green Car Reports. John Voelcker. 4/21/14

EV – PV: An EV Owner’s Realization that Solar Makes Perfect Sense in Seattle

One of our clients, Steve Coram, wrote this great blog post!  It is wonderful to hear from a homeowner's experience and real world application.

EV = Goodbye Gas

EV

Why did you buy an electric car? Or, why would you buy an EV? Is it the ultra-ECO Nissan LEAF? Or are you into the totally chic Tesla Model S? Whatever your reasons, there is no hiding the fact that there are some very real monetary motivations to going EV too!

One’s decision to ultimately buy an EV also means that there will be an investment. An investment of time is necessary to fully understand and realize the financial benefits of the purchase. Here’s the short version:

The U.S. federal government subsidizes EV sales by providing owners an income tax rebate on their overall tax burden during the year the EV was purchased. It’s an awesome fringe benefit, but the buyer should do some tax prep to be sure that the full $7500 rebate will come back at tax time. This federal incentive is a use-it-or-lose-it affair. Otherwise, leasing is an excellent option, wherein the $7500 tax benefit applies immediately at the point-of-sale with a resulting low, low lease rate for the new EV driver.

In Washington state, where my family lives, EV adoption is also incentivized by forgoing state sales tax on the purchase of any new electric vehicle. Again, though, one needs to research this perk as some plug-in vehicles qualify (Nissan LEAF), and others do not (Chevy Volt).

The longer that an EV driver can keep the car in service, substantial long-term financial advantages will be realized too. With little to no maintenance costs to keep the vehicle on the road, EV drivers can benefit from the fantastic financial return for money not spent on their car. Windshield washer fluid and a new in-cabin air filter once a year is about it.

Lastly, there is so much money not spent on “fuel.” At 15,000 miles driven a year, an average medium-sized ICE (internal combustion engine) car costs about $0.15 per mile in gas. As compared to a Nissan LEAF, for example, that costs less than $0.03 per mile in electricity.

Made in Washington, Itek Energy Solar Panels

PV

Last summer, after trading in our Mazda CX-9 for a second Nissan LEAF, I started researching incentivized energy options. The next bang-for-the-buck “going green” play was the installation of photovoltaics (PVs) on our roof. Our new PV system will actually be more financially beneficial than our EVs!

The easiest way to explain the cash benefits is to show it on a simplified graph:

The above graph represents after-tax incentives and rebates. This is important to clarify because the cash rebates and incentives are provided at different times in that first year of a PV system being installed. Also, these incentives are a mixture of federal, state (Washington), and local (Snohomish County PUD) programs. Others’ cash benefits may differ, depending on location.

For those living in Washington and receiving electric service through the Snohomish County PUD, this is the breakdown:

Year One: Approximately $12,000 Cash

Federal Tax Rebate: 30% tax rebate*
State Incentive: Solar production cash incentive of $0.54 per kWh generated**
Local Incentive: Snohomish County PUD cash incentive of $2500***

Years Two Through Six: Approximately $3,100 Cash Annually

State Incentive: Solar production cash incentive of $0.54 per kWh generated

Now to explain all of those asterisks!

*The federal tax rebate is used at tax time for 30% of the PV installation cost. In our case, the $21,050 project will allow for a a tax rebate of just over $6,300 on our 2014 federal income taxes. And unlike the EV federal tax credit, if one does not have the tax burden to get the full rebate amount, the 30% rebate can be stretched over multiple years so that the whole amount is realized.

**Washington state is incentivizing PV solar production. The base incentive rate is $0.15 per kWh produced. This is if the solar panels and inverter(s) are made outside of Washington state. If Made in Washington panels and inverter(s) are used on the PV project, the state will reward those who buy local with a $0.54 per kWh cash incentive.

Estimating what the annual solar production will be requires the use of a sophisticated program (Not my brain, silly people!). We can expect the first year solar production to total about 5,800 kWh as measured by AC net output with the System Advisor Model. Our state production incentive will be about $3,100 annually, but our first year payout will be a bit less due to the PV installation happening partway into the calendar year.

The Washington state production incentive is accrued annually as a cash incentive. However, the state production incentive program will expire on June 30, 2020. Thus, the state production incentive in year seven is half of the preceding years.

***Snohomish County PUD incentivizes its electricity costumers to install PV by providing a $2500 cash incentive. This is a $500 per kWh installed incentive, up to $2500 total. Since our PV system has a DC rating of 5.4 kW (solar production measured at the solar panels), we’ll get the full $2500.

We have a 10-year loan for the PV system, therefore will have a negative net cashflow (approx. -$2,500/year) for years 8-10. However, once the system is paid off, we’ll benefit from lower utility bills for as long as we live in the house. And when it comes time to sell our house, we’ll benefit from increased property value from the PV system.

There it is…Eee-Vee (EV), Pee-Vee (PV), and one of the true pleasures of EV ownership: becoming savvy about all of the financial opportunities for going green.

This post originally appeared on Steve’s EV Road Trip Blog.  You can check it out by clicking here.

Source: http://insideevs.com/author/stevecoram/

A Japanese Company Is Building An Electric Car That Can Survive A Tsunami

A small tech firm in Japan says it has designed an electric car capable of tackling both land and sea.

Sort of.

If FOMM Corporation's claims pan out, consumers will be able to drive one of its Concept One electric cars off the showroom floor and straight into a flood, for $9,000.

FOMM says the car will be able to provide safe passage for four occupants in deep flood waters, all the while cocooned in a futuristic, water-tight cabin.

According to the Japanese tech start-up, the Concept One will be equipped with a pair of 5 kilowatt electric motors for road use and electric water-jets to power the car over flooded roads.

Unfortunately, the car is not a "true amphibious" vehicle, and its aquatic drivetrain an emergency safety feature, not a form of daily propulsion. In fact, the Concept One is good for only a single natural disaster before requiring maintenance on its water-jets.

According to the International Business Times, the company's founder Hideo Tsurumaki found the inspiration to build the Concept One after witnessing the devastation of his hometown by a tsunami in 2011.

Production of electric super mini is expected to commence in Thailand by the end of 2015, according to the BBC.

It's difficult to say whether this thing will actually do its job, but for the sake of drivers around the world who end up on the roofs of their flooded cars, let's hope it does.

FOMM

Source: Business Insider India. April 9, 2014. BENJAMIN ZHANG