Earth and Industry » Transportation & Logistics

EU Set to Charge International Airlines for Carbon Emissions

The Guardian — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:15:27 +0000

Europe's most senior court is expected to rule on Wednesday that airlines based outside the continent should have to pay for their carbon emissions on flights to or from EU member states, in a crucial test of climate change regulation.

At stake are millions of tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes, as airlines at present have little or no incentive to cut their greenhouse gases.

The signs are that the EU will be cleared to impose a system of carbon trading on all passenger flights taking off or landing in member states. In a preliminary ruling in October, the court backed the EU's plans. But whatever the 13 judges in Luxembourg decide on Wednesday, it is unlikely to be the end of the story as the long-running legal battle will open up on new fronts.

Already legislators in the US are attempting to make it illegal for their airlines to comply with EU rules on carbon, and it is understood that China is issuing similar guidance, in a serious escalation of hostilities.

The hard-fought battle pits the US and Chinese governments as well as numerous international airlines against EU legislators, who have insisted that airlines must pay for their share of the potential damage from climate change. The US and Chinese governments have threatened a trade war over the issue, and airlines have protested that if the EU rules are allowed to go ahead, they will be landed with billions of dollars of new costs in the next few years.

But the amount is likely to be small, according to analysts. Research carried out this year by the analyst company Thomson Reuters Point Carbon put the probable total cost to all airlines at about €1.1bn next year, but that was based on a carbon price of €12 per tonne – whereas prices have plunged to just over half of that in recent weeks. As a result, the true cost is likely to be much lower.

"The battle has been extraordinarily fierce, given the real implications of emissions trading, which are not really that big," said Andreas Arvanitakis, associate director of Point Carbon. "It's a minute incremental cost compared to the costs of jet fuel. This is certainly not a game-changer for aviation."

Airlines will also be treated equally on each route, in order to make competition between them fair.

On 6 October, an advocate general – a senior legal adviser appointed by the Court of Justice of the European Union – issued a formal recommendation to the court supporting the legality of the EU law. The 13-judge grand chamber has been deliberating the case since the advocate general's opinion was released.

Arvanitakis warned that if the judges ruled against the EU, it would be a "serious blow to political support" for the EU's emissions trading system. "If this entire sector is taken out, it would open the window for doubters within the EU to ask where this is going," he said.

Under the EU's proposals, all airlines operating flights taking off or landing in member states would be subjected to its emissions trading scheme – the system introduced in 2005 by which carbon-intensive industries are issued with permits to produce carbon dioxide. Cleaner companies can trade these permits with laggards, giving them an increasing incentive to cut carbon.

The US, China and numerous airlines argue that the system is in effect a tax on aviation, which would be banned by longstanding international agreement. However, the EU counters that the system is not a tax but represents fair regulation in order to tackle climate change. Airlines based within the EU will already be subject to the carbon trading rules from next year.

As a result of the system, passenger ticket prices are likely be pushed up, though some airlines may choose to absorb some of the costs.

Carbon prices within the European Union have fallen sharply as the euro crisis has taken hold, and are now close to their record lows.

Airlines also argue that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is preparing its own system of carbon trading, which could be operating from 2013. However, EU officials are doubtful that this would come up to the same standards as its scheme and could be open to manipulation by the airlines. Campaigners said the move to have ICAO bring in a scheme was merely a delaying tactic, and pointed out that ICAO has been talking about such a scheme for more than five years, without any concrete result as yet, with no guarantee of a future outcome.

Bill Hemmings, program manager at Brussels-based campaigning group Transport and Environment, said: "Let's allow the judges to decide whether it is legal or not [for the EU to draw aviation within emissions trading], but it is certainly not unfair. All airlines are being treated equally when they come into and leave Europe and that is fair."

He said studies of the cumulative effect of civil aviation since its inception showed it was responsible for about 4.9% of carbon and equivalents in the atmosphere. As that amount is growing, while emissions must be cut to avoid dangerous global warming, aviation would be an increasing part of the problem, he said.

The EU is also looking at ways to regulate the carbon output of international shipping. Proposals to curb greenhouse gas emissions from aviation and shipping have been under discussion since the negotiations leading up to the Kyoto protocol in 1997, and in recent years have focused on a levy on shipping. But that proposal was knocked back yet again at this month's UN climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa.

Emissions from international aviation and maritime transport are excluded from the Kyoto protocol and the 2009 Copenhagen accord, and there is no guarantee they will be included in any new international climate agreement to come into force from 2020. If aviation is included in the EU emissions trading scheme, it will be the first time carbon emissions from the sector have been regulated.

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Photo credit: Some rights reserved by ZeePack

Scaling Biofuels for Aviation ‘Not so difficult,’ Branson Says

Timothy Hurst — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:17:28 +0000

The commercial aviation industry could go from being one of the dirtiest to being one of the cleanest in ten years, according to one of the industry's best-known figures.

Richard Branson says the world's 7,000 airlines could switch to low-carbon jet fuels much faster than other forms of transportation because airplanes have very few "filling stations."

"Unlike cars where there are millions of filling stations, there are only about 1,700 aviation stations in the world. So if you can get the right fuel, like mass-produced algae, then getting it to 1,700 outlets is not so difficult," Branson said in an interview with The Guardian.

Branson's Virgin Group, which owns a majority stake in Virgin Atlantic Airways, said the industry should aim for 50% sustainable fuels by 2020.

"Aviation fuel is 25-40% of the running costs of airlines so the industry is open to new fuels," said Branson, who also heads up the Carbon War Room, an effort to work with and reward businesses that lead reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Some airlines are way ahead of others in the quest to make biofuels a regular part of the commercial aviation fuel mix. Several European airlines have tested or incorporated low-carbon fuels, as required by the EU program to reduce emissions from the aviation sector. But in North America, in the absence of such laws, progress is much slower.

Last month, Alaska Air chairman and CEO Bill Ayer lauded sustainable biofuels as "key to aviation’s future,” at the start of Alaska Air's biofuel trial period of 75 regularly-scheduled commercial flights running on a biofuel blend. Alaska was on course to be the first airline in the U.S. to fly a commercial flight powered by biofuel but two days before they were scheduled to do so, United edged out Alaska Air to take the honors.

Unlike Alaska Air, however, United has no immediate plans to procure a long-term supply of biofuels for use in their domestic aviation operations.

Photo credit: Some rights reserved by AirlinesAngel

Could Boats Plug In to the Electricity Grid?

Gavin Hudson — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:55:32 +0000

Plugging in an electric car is very well and environmentally good, but what about the emissions reductions of connecting a large yacht or even an entire cruise ship to the grid? Currently, ships must burn fuel to maintain onboard systems, even at port. Linking just one cruise ship at port to the electricity grid could prevent the equivalent CO2 emissions of 2,500 cars. [Infographic]

Over 90 percent of the world’s cargo is transported by ship. It’s no surprise then that thousands of cargo ships, cruise ships and private yachts arrive at ports every day. Once in port, these vessels burn fossil fuels to maintain essential operations or onboard services to their passengers. That’s a little bit like having to leave your car’s engine on, even when you’re parked in the driveway. During a 10-hour stay in port, the diesel engines of a single cruise ship (pdf) can burn 20 metric tons of fuel and produce 60 metric tons of CO2. Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particles and other in-port shipping emissions pose a suite of environmental problems and respiratory health risks.

One solution to this business as usual scenario is to connect vessels at port directly to the power grid using shore-to-ship technology. ABB*, a global power and automation company that provides shore-to-ship technology, helps the shipping industry to improve local harbor environments, prevent global carbon emissions and reduce costs. Ships adopting this technology will be able to leave the lights on without leaving the engine on.

View ABB’s infographic comparing shore-to-ship technology to business as usual.

*Full disclosure: In addition to blogging, I also work at ABB. The opinions in this article are mine and don’t necessarily represent ABB.

Brown Gets a Bit Greener: UPS Adds LNG-Fueled Trucks to Fleet

Timothy Hurst — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:01:30 +0000

If this news doesn't make T. Boone Pickens at least a little happy, then I don't know what will. The familiar brown-clad package carrier, United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS), has purchased 48 new liquified natural gas (LNG)-powered tractors to add to its long-haul fleet operating in the southwest U.S. The vehicles, which will replace older generation diesel vehicles, are expected to produce 25 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions and displace 95 percent of fuel used by conventional diesel vehicles – an impressive savings of approximately 4,000 gallon a day for these 48 vehicles.

“It’s the only long-term viable option to diesel," Michael G. Britt Sr., director of maintenance and engineering at United Parcel Service told the New York Times.

Of the 48 new LNGs, 38 will be deployed in Las Vegas and 10 will go to Ontario, Calif. to the join 11 LNG-fueled tractors that have been operating along the I-15 corridor since 2000. UPS has also contracted with Clean Air Fuels Corp. to build a publicly-accessible LNG fueling station in Las Vegas, where the bulk of the new tractors will make their home.

According to UPS, this purchase represents the next phase in UPS’s “rolling laboratory” approach to testing and adopting alternative fuel technologies for their fleets. UPS now has 1,914 alternative-fuel vehicles in its fleet, including electric, hybrid electric, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and propane-powered trucks.

And the continued investment in more fuel-efficient vehicles is paying off. In 2009, UPS drivers logged 77.3 million miles more than they did in 1999, yet used 3.2 million gallons less fuel, increasing fleetwide fuel-efficiency by 10 percent over the same period.

Oh, and for those of you who need a refresher, the Pickens Plan is an energy strategy put forth by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens that includes a large-scale transition to natural gas as a transportation fuel for the nation's long-haul tractor trailers.

Electric Van and Truck Fleets Key to Success of Electric Car Industry

Timothy Hurst — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:27:43 +0000

Sure we spend a lot of time here writing about the Nissan LEAF, the Chevy Volt, Tesla and developments in the passenger electric car industry, but that doesn't mean we think any less of electric vans and trucks. In fact, the stop-and-go nature of delivery driving combined with the standard practice of parking fleet vehicles on company property nightly make fleet deployment of electric trucks and vans one of the easiest and most cost-effective ways to electrify large portions of our transportation infrastructure.

But will these utility EV makers still be around after the grant money fades and the tax incentives subside? If battery costs continue to fall and technology continues to improve, all signs point to a healthy future for electric vans and trucks, particularly in the context of fleet ownership.

In the last year or so, three electric truck manufacturers in the U.S. — Navistar, Smith Electric Vehicles, and a joint effort between Ford Motor Co. and Canada's Azure Dynamics — have stepped in to fill that market niche, thanks in no small part to the U.S. Government.

In August 2009, Navistar was awarded a $39.2 million grant as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to develop and deploy electric trucks in the U.S.

Known mostly for its leadership with brands like International trucks, IC buses, and Holiday Rambler RVs, to name a few, jumped at the chance to break into the medium-duty electric truck market when the Obama administration launched a competitive grant program for manufacturers.

The result was the Navistar eStar, a 100-mile-per-charge, 2-ton payload electric van that is ideally suited as a delivery or service vehicle in urban settings.

Unlike other electric trucks that are reconfigured models of fossil-fuel trucks, the eStar truck has been purpose-built for electric power, creating an advantage with a low center of gravity (the heavy battery pack is located between the frame rails, not mounted on top) and a tight, 36-foot turning radius.

But creating an industry from a dead stop takes time. Less than 1 percent of the 135,000 medium-duty trucks that U.S. companies will buy this year will be electric, according to Americas Commercial Transportation Research.

Navistar, for one, has built just 78 eStars thus far.

But market penetration is forecast to increase as the cost of batteries, which currently accounts for roughly one-third of the cost of electric trucks like the eStar, is expected to drop substantially over the next 5 to 10 years, with the bulk of that savings transferred into a lower sticker price. And lower battery prices would be particularly advantageous for the eStar, which at $150,000, is much more expensive than its more established competitors, the Smith Newton ($100,000) and the smaller Ford Transit Connect ($57,000).

While U.S. Government is supplying seed money for manufacturers and financial incentives for buyers to stand up the electric truck niche, electric vehicle fleets will ultimately need to stand on their own financial merits and compete with gas-powered vehicles on an even playing field. And even if a price was put on tailpipe emissions tomorrow, making petroleum products more expensive to use, that day is still a few years away.

The good news is that improvements in advanced battery technologies made in utilitarian commercial trucks and vans today will trickle down to improve the efficiency of the passenger wagons, mini-vans and sedans of tomorrow.

Other sources: Inhabitat; Triple Pundit; Bloomberg

PBS NewsHour’s Two-Part Series on Electric Cars (Video)

Timothy Hurst — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:20:01 +0000

PBS NewsHour's second part of a two-part series about about where electric cars have been, where they are going and what they are up against aired last night. The program gives excellent context to a lot of the stuff we write about here and perhaps take for granted that our readers already know.

Part one of the two-part series, which aired two weeks ago, focused more on GM, Detroit and the macro-economics of electric cars.

via NewsHour

Tesla’s Closed Loop (and Profitable) Battery Recycling Hits Europe

Timothy Hurst — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:57:42 +0000

The darling of the electric car world, Tesla Motors (Nasdaq: TSLA), has just launched a closed-loop recycling program for its Lithium-Ion battery packs throughout Europe. And thanks to the unique technology employed by their recycling partners, Tesla says the process will actually be profitable.

At the end of their 7-10 year life, Tesla will recycle battery packs at a Umicore facility in Belgium where the Brussels-based materials technology company will break them down to be reused in batteries, plastics and specialized concrete.

"[T]he metals can be reused in the battery cells and any plastics can be reclaimed and used to mold new plastic parts for our vehicles," Tesla's Director of Energy Storage Systems Kurt Kelty wrote in a recent blog post about the process.

Because the program just started and there are few Tesla battery packs already at the end of their lifecycle, it will be a few years before this program gets into full swing and starts to capitalize on economies of scale. But that doesn't mean it's not already profitable.

And as the market for EVs expands and the demand for raw materials rises, the program should become increasingly profitable, all without government incentives.

"Working with Umicore has allowed us to completely recycle the Roadster battery packs profitably, without special financial incentives necessary to promote recycling," writes Kelty.

How is it profitable? Umicore will produce an alloy that will be further refined into cobalt, nickel and other metals. After that, they will transform the cobalt into high grade lithium cobalt oxide, which can be resold to battery manufacturers. Cobalt is the most expensive material in Tesla's batteries.

"We already reuse cobalt in the batteries," Kelty explains. "The overall closed loop recycling system becomes possible, and much more efficient, once the quantities rise to a level to justify the investment for recycling of the other components – especially the plastic."

Tesla says Umicore's recycling technology saves a minimum of 70 percent on CO2 emissions at the recovery and refining of these valuable metals, substantially reducing the carbon footprint for the manufacturing of Lithium-Ion batteries. One of the few byproducts of process is an inert slag containing calcium oxides and lithium which goes into the production of special concretes.

For now, Tesla's battery recycling program in the U.S. is nowhere near as advanced as it is in Europe, with Tesla recycling just 60 percent of material from expended batteries.