how we get to work makes all the difference

While we try to improve the energy performance of buildings through design, efficient technologies, water re-use and various strategies that are recognised through auditing tools like BREEAM, LEED and Green Star, we can't lose sight of how people get to these buildings. A recent study in the UK starts to put some numbers to the role of transport in the overall performance of office buildings.

As reported on BSRIA, an evaluation of a range of buildings shows that the gains made in making buildings energy-efficient can be completely wiped out: among the case studies, the most efficient building had 80% of employees driving to work, while some less efficient buildings were better located or used by more environmentally-conscious occupants and showed better overall performance if the emissions from transport were considered. Which is why the South African pilot version of the Green Star - Office tool gives credit for locating close to high density residential areas so that there is a greater possibility of office workers living close and walking to work.

ecocabs popping up everywhere

Pedal-powered EcoCabs (and variations on the theme) are operating in a number of cities around the world, but what I find really exciting is that in places like Toronto they are providing free door-to-door transport, paid for entirely by corporate sponsors whose brands adorn the vehicles.

Toronto City Council paved the way for other Canadian cities to welcome the EcoCab program by choosing to support the initiative and recognizing the value it brings to both Torontonians and the environment. In keeping with the city's commitment, Toronto licensing officials have allowed the EcoCab vehicles to operate without the standard licenses normally associated with taxis, pedicabs or rickshaws.

And for shifting your products around the city, here's the cargo bike, built to carry up to 180 kg in its 1,400-litre cargo space.

commute by bike

The annual Cape Argus Pick 'n Pay Cycle Tour is now open for entries. Which means... time to get back on the road. The office where I work has just been renovated, with a new shower included, so I have no excuse not to cycle to work. Other than the bad patch of weather we're having. And just in time, Grist offers some tips on the cyclist's commute. Great for anyone who is thinking of taking the plunge for the first time.

hydrogen from biofuels, lithium from underground

I wrote in July that hydrogen as an energy storage medium uses more energy than you can get from it - using energy directly is more efficient than converting it to other forms. It took a commenter to remind me that this is a simple law of thermodynamics. Duh! The point of energy storage - whether in conventional batteries or hydrogen cells or fuel in your car tank - is to be able to use it when and where you want to. And that's key to most forms of transportation.

(One reason I like the suburban trains in South Africa and parts of Toronto's TTC public transit system is that they run on overhead electric cables, making it possible to use absolutely any energy source you care to pump into the grid. You can change the energy source without requiring an overhaul of the transport vehicles. But these are more the exception than the rule.)

So improving energy storage efficiency and cost is going to be important for transport, whether public or private. Last week it was reported at the American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia that a new, efficient catalyst has been discovered to convert biofuels into hydrogen with a 90% yield, at a lower cost than other methods being developed.

And for many vehicles, the obvious competitor to hydrogen is good ol' batteries. The Tesla Roadster, a high-performance electric sports car, uses lithium ion batteries, just like your cell phone. While car manufacturers are investing heavily in electric car technologies, AutoBlogGreen asks whether it's realistic to expect the price of lithium-based batteries to fall far enough to make them a viable storage medium for cars. As with nuclear energy, it's easy to forget that supplies of the mined raw material are sometimes limited. In the case of lithium, that doesn't appear to be the case, but with mining there are always other impacts to consider. We need to maintain a diversity of options.

is your car any better than the Airbus A380?

One of the challenges in meeting climate change objectives will be making changes without drastic economic cost. There will no doubt be some cost, and the longer we wait the worse it will be; but the Stern Report of October 2006 figured that meaningful change could be made at a cost of 1% of global GDP.

Without wanting to sound like the airline industry is a paragon of carbon virtuosity, one of the points to be made is that while aviation accounts for 2% of global CO2 emissions, it contributes 8% of the world's gross domestic product, according to an article in Engineering News (June 27 - July 3, 2008 edition). So while the impacts of high levels of air traffic growth will need to be mitigated, my question is: wouldn't it make sense to focus most strongly on industries that provide less economic benefit with higher carbon emissions?

Even within the transport industry itself, one can draw interesting comparisons. The fuel consumption of the new Airbus A380 is less than 3 litres per passenger per 100 km, while the average car currently marketed in Europe uses 6.5 litres per person per 10 100 km (9.6 litres in the US). The A380 produces less than 75 g of CO2 per passenger per km, while EU motor manufacturers are targeting 140 g this year. On the ground, airport infrastructure occupies only 1% of the land used for transport systems, while railways take 4% and roads 83%.

Wouldn't it make much more sense then to target automobile travel as the highest priority within the transport industry? Aircraft manufacturers are (and have been) working quite hard at improving fuel efficiency. Auto manufacturers are doing almost nothing of significance - the few hybrid cars on the roads achieve zilch benefit, and do nothing to address the bigger issues of travel impacts.

There is no real, economically viable, alternative to air travel for long-distance and intercontinental trips - ships take too long. One might argue that we should do less long-distance travel, thus reducing the need for air travel, but the impact on the economy would be enormous:

Airfreight carries 40% (by value) of interregional exports, while 25% of all companies' sales depend on airfreight, and 70% of all enterprises state the key benefit of using air transport is access to a larger market.

For surface transport, on the other hand, there are many alternatives to private vehicles, and the technical barriers to transformation of road-based vehicles to low- carbon technology are far fewer than for air transport.

And it's not only a question of "who killed the electric car?" but also of "who decided that cities should be such degrading, depressing and inhuman places for habitation and industry?" Cars are killing cities. Imagine a city where everyone didn't want to rush out to the cottage every weekend, but would be content to relax in an urban paradise. Imagine. Please.

having my cake and eating it too

We can't all have big private garderns and still expect walkable communities. This should be obvious, but one reason it isn't is demonstrated by the comments on this post from Eschaton [via kottke.org]: People give examples of how they have big plots of land and can still walk to the shops or schools or work. I could also point out that I walk to a train service that takes me to work every day, and I live in a low-density suburb. But that doesn't mean everyone else can walk and travel on safe, convenient public transport. I chose my house because it is near a station, but if everyone did that, then the prices of houses near stations would skyrocket, and eventually market forces would increase residential densities around stations.

So I consider myself fortunate in being able to make what I consider environmentally responsible travel choices; but if I am honest, I have to admit that while I am limiting my direct contribution to vehicle emissions, I am contributing to a city shape that forces others to drive. Something's got to give.

DIY electric cars

Ever wondered what it would take to convert your car to an electric-powered vehicle? A Finnish group is launching what it hopes will be the start of a global movement for retrofitting petrol-powered vehicles. eCars - Now is a forum for people wanting advice from experts, and to bring together buyers and sellers, and mechanics with the know-how to carry out electric car conversions.

And if you want to see what electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles can do over long distances, the Zero Rally Africa takes place in January 2009 from Victoria Falls to Cape Town, followed by a conference focusing on renewable energy and potential applications for development, especially in the context of Southern Africa.

gobsmacked

If we ever manage to reduce reliance on private cars to any appreciable degree, the benefit will extend beyond reduced emissions from driving and from making the car in the first place. There will also be less space dedicated to cars - on the roads, in parking lots and household driveways - and more for green lungs, play areas, community gardens or whatever tickles our fancy. Using that logic, conventional wisdom among progressive planners is that if we actually reduce the number of parking bays provided at offices, shopping malls and so on, we can encourage a reduction in driving.

But wait! North York, part of the City of Toronto, thinks paved driveways are a good thing. So good, in fact, that people have been stopped from ripping up driveways that they want to replace with greener alternatives. On their own private properties! Is this just plain dumb, or what?

Dabbawallas of Mumbai

Seth Godin wrote about the Dabbawalla phenomenon in Mumbai back in April 2007. This is a low-tech organisation that delivers food to hundreds of thousands of customers a day. The magic of this operation, and the reason that big western organisations are queuing up to hear about it, is that the employees deliver the right goods to the right destination with an error rate that is the envy of just about any other delivery organisation you can name: less than one error in 6 million transactions.

The 5,000 employees in the flat organisation build customer relationships, and also use a simple colour-coding system to maximize efficiency and minimize errors; but what really appeals to me is that they use a level of technology that suits who the employees are (largely illiterate) and where they work. There's more about it on the Dabbawalla website.

if you want to get somewhere - slowly

I'm not sure how this would work, but here's a post claiming that you can sail across the ocean on a wave powered boat: not wind power, wave power.

Hey, I'm back :-) no thanks to Telkom, the "dis"utility I have now ditched for leaving me without Internet access for a month :-( and blaming everyone but themselves ("Have you checked that the cable is plugged in?").