HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 5APart6 10/05/2009C:it~~- ~~f ~'e~t~lu~n~ GF`eel~~ouse~ Ci~ls Z:~l~issic~n IZedu~;tion .~~ct~io)~ I~'i~~n
7.10 Solar Electjric Production t~ssuan~tions
.Solar Eledrlc Syatem
In°uta Calculatlona
.Performance
Module Temp. (PTC) Rating (%) 89% in Blue in Black
Inverter Efficiency (%) 91%
CEC AC Rating(%) 81% (CEC Rating netAC watts/gross DC watts)
Dust & Dirt (%) 7%
Manufacturer Fudge (%) 3%
Mbdule M ismatch (%) 1%
Wiring (%) 3%
Real AC Performance / DC 68%
Rating
Inverter replacement cost 824 (S/kWac)
Output Degradation 0.5% (per year)
Size (DC) example 1234.720336 kW OC
Size (AC) 1,000.0 (Net CECAC Kilowatts)
CEC Performance 1,570 (CEC AC Ratino kWh/vr oer CEC AGkW installed)
Real Performance 1,318 (Real AC kWh/vr oer CEC AC kW installed)
Annual kWh (initial year) 1,317,994 k( Wh/vr)
Module Degradation 0.5% I% / Yr)
System Maintenance 0.25°h (% Gross system cost /vr)
Permit ;1, 200 1$l
TOU Meter ;1,643 ($~
Cost ;8.0 IS/netACwatt)
Rebate ;0.19 (SlnetAC kWh) '
Time of Use Factor 0.0 Ave. ($lkwhr) generation / (5/kwhr) use
Total Installed Costs ;8,002,843 ,($)
Rebate (example) ;190,000 ~
Final Net Cosl ;7,812,843
1E~..O
{_.~i~l'r1~tC c .?f~'~4t ~~ , -_ ~;is7z ~~ ( ,, 3 ~ ~~ tW t1,;_, " ti~?~ `°,s, ~..t~... ;?,:;
Litt- ~~~f 1?etalun~z~~ Grt:en_hoi~sc C~as l~rn~i~sior~r lZeduction Action I'la~n l O.5.v9
7.11 Vehicle Fuel Cost Trends
Petrofuel Price Trends and Future
Jim Housman, PE (refired)
11 /19/07
There are a number of factors that contribute to the cost of gasoline at the pump. According to
the U.S. Energy Information. Agency (EIA) the' prise of gasoline can be broken down as follows:
Crude Oil: 64%
Refining (including additives) 13%
Distribution and Marketing 9%
Taxes: 14%
It should be .clear from the attached graph that the major factor driving gasoline prices is the
price of crude oil. There have been two distinct issues driving the price of crude in the past five
years, geo-political issues and geological issues.
The geo-political issues driving oil prices are primarily the declining value of the dollar, the
rapid growth in demand, primarily in Asia, and the economic uncertainty caused by military
conflict: An additional ,geo-political factor is the shift in oil resources from the control
(primarily) of privately owned multinational oil companies to being owned and managed by
national oil companies: Themotivation of shareholder owned companies is largely short term
profits, driving the producers tb produce the maximum .amount of oil in the shortest time.
National oil_ companies, while .depending on oil revenue for investment capital, may be
motivated to invest a significant portion of their income in non-oil related programs decreasing
their ability to increase production as existing oil fields decline. Oil can also be used as a
diplomatic tool, punishing enemies and rewarding. .friends.. Short term decisions made by
national oil companies for political reasons may have long term economic effects on oil using
societies.
Geologically the oil. industry is shifting from an environment.where arelatively small number of
oil fields are each producing very large quantities of oil to one where a very large number of oil
fields are each producing a relatively small amount of oil. For example twenty years ago there
were t5 oil felds in the world. producing over one million barrels per day. Today there are only
.four, and at least one of those fields'(Cantarell in Mexico) is in significant decline. Two thirds:of
he fields i'n, the o'i'l producing nations in the world are in decline. Not.a single field "discovered in
the-past ten. years is capable of producing a million barrels per day. (reference 4)
In 1987, after the oil. industry recovered from the turmoil caused by the Iran revolution, the price
of gasoline i'n the United States averaged under 7.0 cents per gallon. In that same year the spot
price of crude oil (the price quoted in the news) was about $13.40. In November of 2007 those
prices were $3.40 for gasoline in California and $83..03 for crude oil.
In planning for future energy costs we can extrapolate these numbers to estimate gasoline cost in
2008 and future years.
L
!_ i31 Y..:S~l 1~1~(`S,.l i.-~I~i l s}--li~~'It~'.%7 3 d 15 ~ a!!,... 1 ~' .,.af .y;~t _.. ji': _..
Cit}~ of ~Pet~ilutt~ta Gree~thc~use ~i~t Enit~s.ic~n ~`e~fuc~oti :2e~tiott Plate
1.0.5.09
In the simplest terms the cost of gasoline has grown, on average, at about 8% a year over the past
twenty years. However if we look. at just the past five years, from 2002 to 2007, the; price of
_ gasoline has escalated more like 17% each year. I"n. 2012 the difference between those growth
rates will be the difference between .gasoline at $5.00 per gallon. or $7.45 per gallon. Given the
political and geological issues faced by the oit industry it would be prudent to assume that oil
prices will continue their upward momentum.
PRICES 2000 THRU NOV 07
Crude Oil (Spot)
-~-Calif, Gasoline Average
$90.00 - - _ - - - - - - ~_- --- - - $4.00
} 50
~ $3
$75.0.0 - - ~ - ..~ .
_ 3.00
$60.00 ~ ~t ~`=~ -
50
$2 ~,
~ .
~ ~
°'
v $45.00 ^
~~~ ~ - $2.00 N
V ~ ~ `-~'L ~ $1.50 ~
$30.00 ~
$15
00 .
~ L $1.00
. $0.50
OOrl,
OO~
ODp
OO~ ~~`O PQt ,J~
J~ O~~
~
~
~
~ P
2007
Sources:
1. http://publications.uu.se/abstract.xsgl?dbid=7625
2.http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet pri wco k w.htm
3.http%/tonto.eia.doe.pov/dnavJpet/pet pri and a eprti0 pte cpgal w.htm
4. http://tonto.eia.doe:gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
5. http:/hvv<ryvaimmonsco-intl.com/files/~iantoilfields.pdf
~. .fr.< N +~ ,.._'h~31 - ~.~~iGr-"1~.1,ii 3°~~~ 1i1~~1^ ~ t, ~ii., ..`is~.:c' lil:.
C:it~- cif I'c tG~iun7~ Ciree~~i~:~usc ~<ias .l--ntrswion Iteduct?Ur~ Arti~m l~lar~ I0,~.09
7.12. C~rlbon Credits
Carbon Offsets/Green, Tags
Prepared by~Peter Spencer
The David Suzuki Organization defines a carbon offset as "an emission .reduction. credit from
another organization's projecf~that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured iri tons of C02-
equivalents (or'C02e') and are bought and sold through a number of internationaTbrokers,
online retailers, and trading platforms."
http://www.davidsuzuki:org/Climate Change/What You Can Do/carbon offsets.asp
A green tag is a specific type. of carbon offset also referred to as Renewable Energy Certificates
(RECs). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, "Renewable Energy Certificates
represent the environmental, social, and other positive attributes of power generated by
renewable resources."
The carbon offset is a generic term for all types of purchasable GHG reduction programs sold in
the market. For example, C02 emissions can be offset by paying a group to plant trees anywhere
in the world. The green tag, a subset of carbon offsets, is specific to electricity generation. To
offset C02 emissions with a,green tag, a purchase. is made which supports renewable electricity
generation and consumption somewhere else. That green-generated electricity becomes part of
the total pool of power and thereby reduces emissions from overall electricity production.
Individuals and organizations can purchase .carbon, offsets to reduce climate impacts from their
activities. When carbon emissions are too difficult or costly to avoid, it's possible to pay
someone else to reduce GHG. Dozens of companies, both commercial and nonprofit, offer a
variety of offset types and prices.
The most common type of offset involves trees, either reforestation or avoided deforestation.
Other common. offsets are . ,renewable energy and energy conservation projects. Prices for
offsets/green tags vary widely from $3.56 to $30.00 per metric ton. (See survey in appendix)
These prices are low compared to many other mitigation measures.
Renewable energy offsets, sold as green. tags, fund wind, solar, .biomass,. and biodiesel projects
worldwide. For every megawatt of power produced. by a renewable source, one green tag is
issued to the producer. The green. tags. can be sold to raise profits from renewable. energy
.generation 'thus making it more competitive in the market. Energy conservation: offsets often
involve purchasing a GHG' emission .allowance from a company on the Chicago Climate
Exchange. This "retires" the allowance .preventing others from purchasing it.to emit GHG.
Verification .and :accounting systems for offsets differ and there are currently no accepted
standards. There is a wide variation of GHG baseline calculations for activities and also for the
calculations of GHG reductions from projects. However, many providers make a good effort to
ensure their ,product's value and provide documentation. The Green-e program is the most
accepted certification program and referenced by the EPA. (http://www.;;reen-e.or~~
E. a,t 1.',l' { ~ ~,'it. ~1 ~.'st j3<!~?'s= ~~ I:~~~ ~ ~`~" ; ;IE;i` ~~ :.., _ .. ~!'~.
(:;its- al~I'etalun~a Gr•een_ho~}se Gars 1-<nlissior~ R.eductiorr Action P1rn lli,5,0~)
Arguments in favor of Carbon Offsets:
® Supports growth of the renewable energy .industry
• .Compensates for GHG emissions which are too difficult or costly to avoid
• Lowers cost of GHG reductions
• Provides amarket=based system for GHG reduction
• Can benefit poor countries with investments
• Positive PR for organizations that reduce emissions
• Raises awareness and encourages public policy changes
Sources of supportive information:
An excellent resource for consumers with ratings for top providers:
A Consumer's Guide to Retail Offset Providers
Clean Air-Cool Planet:
http:/1www.cleanair-coolplanet.ore/ConsumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets.pdf
EPA description of various green purchasing options:
Guide to Purchasing guide for Green Power
Environmental Protection'A'gency:
http;//www.epa.gov/ rg eenpower/pdfLpurchasin~ guide for web:pdf
Realistic assessment: supportive of offsets with large number of links.:
How the Retail Carbon Offsets Market Can Further Global Warming Mitigation Goals
EM Market Insights:
http://conserveonline.or /g workspaces/climate.change/carbonmarkets/.em oin carbon neutral.p
df
Arguments against Carbon Offsets:
Trees:
® Trees store carbon, but don't reduce total biological carbon brought to the earth's surface
in fossil fuels
® Planting releases carbon from the soil
•~ An unrealistic amount of trees would need to be planted to be effective
® Most projects are planting. monocultures causing ecosystem problems
• Predicting the carbon performance of trees is not possible
• Increasingly challenged by scientists as unsuccessful strategy
All methods:
• Don't address. the fundamental problem of emissions
• Makes it easy to avoid measures reducing emissions
o Removes money from local economy
o Poor accountability
• No proof that there is an overall improvement in the cli-nate with offset system
• Short-term solution with little direct benefit to offset purchasing organization
• May ignore local problems such as air pollution or need for more power plants
!!I ;jam ~s .?Si: l.~ _~}l t... .. 7 171`?i ~ ~-I? +~ ~, `~t(a.. ~}!~.. ~i '~4'i` iG.k. €7:v.
C'it~ cs~. I'et~ai~,lnt~ C;reet~I>c~tlsc Citt;; ~_ ft3i:~sioll [2t:ciuc:tic~r~ ;lctic~t~ 1?lt3rt (;~.>.0~~
• Questionable future of unregulated and unproven strategies in new offset industry
• Doesn't create lasting benefit for organization
Eco businesslinics.com Carbon Offset Surve
Carbon';Offset Price Non- ~~Projects Types Protect Offset Product Certification/
'Provider US (Metric rofit ~ Choice T es 'Verification
AtmosClear $3:56a - No Methane No Car, Home Environmental Resources Trust
Climate Club $25.00
US
Carbonfund.org $4.306 - 5.50 Yes Renewables, Effi Yes Home, Car, Green-e, Chicago Climate
US ciency, Air, Events, Exchange; Environmental
Reforestation Business Resources Trust
e-BlueHorizons $5.00 No Renewables, No ,Home, Car, Chicago Climate Exchange,
US Reforestation Air Environmental Resources Trust
Terrapass $7.35° _ No Renewables, No Car, Air, Green-e, Chicago Climate
US ~ 7.Op Efficiency Events, Exchange, Center for Resource
Business Solutions
DriveNeutral:org $7.50,& up Yes Efficiency No Car Chicago Climate Exchange
US
Native Enerpy $13.20 No Renewables Yes Home, Car, Green-e
US .Air, Events,
Business
The $14'.00-18.00 No Renewables, 'Yes Business, KPMG,'Edinburgh Centre for
CarbonNeutral Efficiency, Home, Car, Carbon'Mariagement, Independent
Company Reforestation Air, Events Advisory Committee
UK
Climate Friendly $16.00-19.00 No Renewables No Home, Car, Office of the Renewable Energy
pus Air, Regulator, NSW Government,
Business Errist 8 Young.
Sustainable $78.00 Yes Renewables No Air, Car, See Myclimate.
travel Home,
International Hotel
US, Switzerland '
Bonneville $29.00 Yes Renewables No Home, Air, Green-e
Environmental Business,
Foundation Event
US
Myclimate $30.00 Yes Renewables No Air, Events, Designated Operational Entity
Switzerland Business
Global Cool £20.00 Yes Renewables, No n/a CDM
UK tS39.48) Efficiency
'Service s for which inde endent roduct certification or verification information not available
Carbon Offset Price Non- Projects Types Project Offset Product Certification/
Provider (USS/Metric profit Choice Types
ton C02) Verification
DrivirigGreeh $8.00 No Renewables No Car; Air, n/a
Ireland Events
Solar Electric $10.00 Yes Renewables No External n/a
Light Fund Calculators
US
Carbon Clear $17.00 No Reforestation No Home, Car, n/a
Air, Babies
UK
a:. Atmps Clear -,Low price for 25 Ton option at $89
b: Carbonfund.org -Low price for ZeroCarbon tags option: 18 Ton + 5 Ton match, pay 899 for 823 Ton
c: Terrapass -Low price when purchasing.204 metric ton of carbon offsets for $1,499.95
1. Offset Types:~There.:are hundreds of potential offseLtypes. We have limited our survey tojust the most common.
2. Verification: "nla" means we were unable to determine a.third-party verification body. The projects may, however, be verified.
3. Choice: refers to whether customers may choose between project types and/or specific projects.
4. Price: prices change andexchange rates 8uctuate.The data listed wasfrst gathered from the respective websites July 21, 2006
5. Other offset providers may exist. This survey provitles a cross section of the industry, projects may be added or removed over time.
6. Someinformationmay be incomplete or has changed. We welcome updates.
f. ~ i7:i1.- i}t(~.i~:?:!71j ~ ~3r~;'S<.;i~i7 ~®1~ i!Il~ .`1 ;7 t •.,t-:~f'C.i:=_ ~`:."I~.
C; itt- ofI'etaltt~ila GrcenJ~~;use C~as F~~iissic~n iZeduc;tion ;~ctian Plan I U.~i.C~)
Sources of Offset critical information:
The most complete, well-written analysis of climate science and offsets: Carbon Trading; A
Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatization and Power
Dag Harrimarskjold Centre:
http://wwvv.dlif.uu.se/pdffiler/DD2006 48 carbon tradin~Jcarbon trading web.pdf
Excellent analysis from a.sustainabilitypecspective:
The International Challenge of Climate Change
United Kingdom, Environmental Audit Committee:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/pubs/eac/pdf/cc- og vres.pdf
Scientific paper explaining why reforestation won't help climate change.:
Planting trees will not .cancel out climate change:
Nature:
http://www.scidev.net/pdffrles/nature/nature04486.pdf
Short negative view of green tags:
The wooly world of green tags
out of Kirby Mountain:
http://kirbymtn.blo~spot.com/2006/04/woolly-world-of- reen-ta sg html
In-depth assessment of trading systems and their limitations:
Is the US Experience with Pollution Markets Really an Argument for Global Carbon
Trading?
McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development, Law and Policy, fall 2005:
http://www.fern.org/media/doctaments/document 3657 3658.pdf
Good short summary of why offsets don't work:
Carbon `offset' - no magic. solutioin. to `neutralize' fossil fuel emissions
Forests and the European Union Resource Network:
http://www.fern.or~,/media/documents/document 884 885.pdf
Strong short letter opposing carbon. trading:
We must reduce fossil fuel, use, not trade carbon:
Financial Times:
http:/1www.fern.org/media/documents/document 3634 3635.pdf
(Source: http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon offset wind credits carbon reduction.htm)
For°the most complete and up to date. list of green tag products and marketers, visit the Green
Power Network, part of the U.S. Dept of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office.
http://www.eere.enert;v.~ov/~,reenpower/markets/certilicates.shtml?pa~e~0
For a detailed report on the status of green power marketing, check out the following publication
from .the National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
http a/www.eere.energy.~ov/greenpower/resources/pd fs/40904.pdf
{_l~l'',.ii ~'<_~i~..,,i~ t ,Yi~ i1i ~~~~5~~ t,:ll1?`.. ~~7~..~.:tl a....'I1 ~ l~?s:
C`.it~- o#'Peta#u~rta C; t~~~,t1hoeAsti C.;~a .#: rtai,sicart :IZec#u.ctiorz ~~ctic~ta 1'la~i 1(.~.0~i
7.13 Electric Vehicles
Electric Vehicle 'Current Status
Jim Housman, P.E. (retired)
May 7, 20.07
Battery powered electric vehicles pose. opportunities for cost savings and enhanced convenience
in an increasing number of applications where their unique properties can be used to advantage.
While gasoline as a motor fuel has significantly higher energy. density and lower cost per unit of
energy, when the overall "well=to-wheel efficiencies of electrical power are taken into account it
can be. advantageous to .operate electrical vehicles in place of their gasoline or diesel
counterparts.
The majority. of electric vehicles available today, not including hybrids, are classified. as
"Neighborhood Electric Vehicles". (NEV). In general these vehicles are limited to a top speed of
25 miles per hour and are only permitted on public roads with speed limits below 35 miles per
hour. They have minimal .requirements for lighting and passenger protection in keeping with
their low speed nature. Some of the larger manufacturers of NEVs are listed on the following
web site:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/afv/elec vehicles.html
In a recent study (2001) the .Department of Energy 103 evaluated the performance of 348 NEVs
operated in 15 automotive .fleets. The fleets included in the: study belonged to military,
commercial, least expensive NEVs, resembling golf carts can be purchased for less than $5000.
Used but functional vehicles are generally available under $100Q.104 Because of the simplicity of
the electric power train vehicle maintenance costs are a fraction~of that required for gasoline or
diesel engines. There is no .oil to change, no sparkplugs, flters or coolant issues. The light
weight of most electrical. vehicles also means that brakes, tires. and suspension components are
very durable.
Currently one of the most conventional appearing NEVs is the Zenn. While still relying on
traditional .lead-acid battery technology the Toronto Canada based company has. created an
unusually sophisticated NEV using a small urban vehicle built in France and converted in
Canada. to electric power. Because of the volume production already in place with the basic ;car
(originally diesel powered)"Zenn has managed to price the vehicle just above the. "golf cart"
market while delivering a vehicle with both the style and convenience of a small gasoline
powered vehicle:
The majority of NEVs currently on the market use technology that has not changed significantly
for the past half century. They use. lead-acid batteries, DC motors and simple control systems. A
new regime of electrical vehicles are appearing in the market in the very .near future, most likely
103 http://avt.inel.~ov/pdfInca/nevstud~pdf
104 http:!hvww.eaaev.or~/eaalinks.html
~; i'
C`:itt- oi:~I'e'talti.nr<t Greetihotr~e Ci<ts ll~tli~sic~n Reticicfion tlcti«t~ l:'Iar~ 10.5.t)t~
prompted by the rapidly increasing price of fossil' fuels and the .increased awareness of
Americans that our access to fossil fuels is becoming. prec"arious. One .of these new electrical
vehicles, the Tesla roadster, is a technological showcase in the form of a_high performance sports
car. Another, the Phoenix- SUT (sport utility truck), also uses state-of--the-art technology in a
practical utility vehicle.
Both vehicles. use sophisticated AC motors, Lithium ion batteries, heat pump HVAC systems,
regenerative braking. and computerized control systems. Both are advertising operating'ranges of
over .100 miles. on a single: charge and, based on the battery technology, charge times of under 30
minutes should be expected.. Early test data on both vehicles. describe performance equal to
comparable gasoline powered vehicles: In the case of°the Tesla roadster that means acceleration
to 60 miles per hour in less than. 6 seconds and a top speed of 130 miles per hour..105 The
Phoenix SUT boasts a 1000 pound payload, 90 mile per hour top speed and 60 mile an hour in
less than 10 seconds
and low energy density prevented the development of electric .vehicles even moderately
competitive with liquid fueled vehicles. In the late 1990s electric car and hybrid-electric car
developers began investigating. the advances made in battery technology for use in portable
computers and other electronic devices.
The first of these. technologies evaluated for vehicle use was the "Nickel-Metal Hydride battery.
This battery was. promising enough to be used in the second. generation EV 1 electric car
developed by General' Motors for compliance with the proposed California Zero Emissions
Standard. While not significantly lighter than the lead-acid battery it replaced, the increased
energy-to-size ratio allowed'for`a significantly increased range for the EV 1.
Since that time"electric ear enthusiasts have turned their attention to_ the Lithium ion battery.
These batteries have both signifcantly better energy-to-weight and energy-to-volume municipal,
rental and transportation organizations. The NEVs were found to be successful replacements for
gasoline powered vehicles in most circumstances. Success was indicated by satisfied users,
improved economy anal reliability' of the vehicles.
The study did fnd .some areas where improvements could be made. Higher speed capability and
improved range were listed as desirable.. In addition users would have liked improved passenger
protection, including solid doors and roll down windows. Both were lacking in the majority of
the fleet vehicles. While. the study found that 91 % of the vehicles had operated without
problems"there.. were some reliability issues. Fourteen vehicles had battery packs replaced, Five
.had problems with switches and four controllers were replaced.
By a large .majority the study found that fleet owners. were satisfied with the performance of their
vehicles. Some were'used only on public roads, some were never used on public roads and some
were used under both circumstances. Specific uses included police work, material handling,
towing, personnel transportation and community shopping uses.
A large market currently exists for this type of vehicle permitting competitive pricing. The most
sophisticated of'the NEVs retail in the $10~ to $15 thousand dollar range. At the higher end of
this range will be found vehicles with features and styling that compare favorably with
ios http://www.teslamotors.com/
City of Peralunaa Gi•een_house Gas F:missi«n Redttction Aetiatt flan 1 Q~.09
conventional automobiles but lacking only the gasoline engine performance.. The simplest and
characteristics. Early versions of these .batteries were sensitive to high discharge rates and to
certain manufacturing defects which resulted in a number of fires occurring in portable
computers using this technology. Since that time changes in the cathode material, manufacturing
improvements and the development. of external control ,methods have potentially eliminated the.
problem. As a result a riew wave of enthusiasm .for electric vehicles is developing. Both the
high performance- Testa .Roadster sports car. and the Phoenix Sport Utility Trucks (SUT) are
designed around the latest versions of the Lithium ion battery.106
Phoenix Motorcars plans to sell approximately 500 Sport Utility Trucks in 2007 to selected fleet
operators. One such operator is Pacific Gas and Electric, the northern California utility
company. Phoenix plans to begin selling. to indiv.idual_ users in 2008 and estimates that it will
sell 6000 vehicles in that year. Pricing for the 2008 model year should be in the $40 to $50
thousand range. a First shipments of the Tesla Roadster are scheduled for August 2007.
Technological changes are ,appearing rapidly. Recently EEStor, a Texas company has
announced a breakthrough battery/ultra-capacitor system that. may leapfrog the Lithium ion
battery technology with improved storage capacity, discharge rate and cost. Zenn motorcars has
signed an exclusive agreement with EEStor to provide storage systems for their next generation
of electric vehicles107. Regardless of the success of such efforts it is an indication of a growing
interest in non-fossil fueled power systems.
For short distance,. light load applications electric powered vehicle's are the right choice for a
large number of applications. The long charging times needed by lead-acid batteries limit the
application of these vehicles to under ffty miles per day in most cases. For those fleet
applications that can justify the high first cost Phoenix Motorcars 'SUTs are a practical vehicle
available this year. With the rapid changes taking place in battery, motor and motor controller
technologies look for.increased choices in the zero emission vehicle market.
While these vehicles are especially designed for specific audiences they represent logical entry
points for new technologies. into an existing, mature, market. The Tesla roadster is aimed at the
wealthy car enthusiast who is wi ing to pay above market price for the uniqueness of an electric
powered performance car. The ,Phoenix is marketed to fleet purchasers. who value their
envirotimental image above the short term ownership cost. Success in these two markets will
work as both test beds for these technologies in real operating environments and as bootstrapping
operations to bring down the cost of these technologies as production volumes increase.
For the past~one hundred years battery technology has been the limiting factor in :keeping. electric
powered vehicles from competing with fossil fuel powered. vehicles. For most of this time the
only ~practi`cal battery technology for use in electric cars was the same lead-acid battery used for
starting power in conventional automobiles. The combination of high weight, slow re-charging,
106 http:lLen.wikipedia.otglwiki!Altairnano
107 http:%hvww.technologyyreview:com/Biztech!18086/panel/
1. Stll ~"~~ 1'3C i_~'! il? t_..-71 ~l<Ii~:;ri ~s11~~ ~., +. ~v34it1 ` ..3±: ~IC_.. .,t.
C;itti- oi'1'etalu~laa Cii~ec;.rtho~~se (:as l~m~~s.ion 1Zec3uctif:»~ ,F1ci~~~~ 1?l~~r~ li3.S.0~~
Further Reading
The GM EV 1:
http.://wwwahejaffes:or /g gory/evl/ev .pdf
The French postal service plans to order 10,0:00 electric vehicles:
Nissan and NEC to produce electric-car batteries:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/UPDATE/704130433/1148/rss2
5
Electric car batteries might serve as reservoirs of green. power?:
http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=blot&blog_id=1470000147&blo~ post id=1170007917
Basic battery technology:
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/index.htm
Battery data:
http://en.wikipedia.or~/wiki/Nickel metal h ,dride battery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium ion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead acid
Specs on Altair nano~battery:
http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSafe Datasheet.pdf
Johnson Controls reveals new hybrid-electric car batteries:
http://wistechnolo~y.com/article.php?id=1485
Altairnano lithium ion battery system:
http: //www.azonano.com/news.as~?newsID=1967
Safety of lithium ion batteries:
http://www.technologyreview.cotnlread article.aspx?id=17250&ch=biztech
Lithum?ion battery improvements: .
http://wwwaechnologyreview.com/read article.aspx?id=16384&ch=biztech
~.. E -ikil?i~ ~i, ~j l:k .i1f ~.. ._ ~~~Z~3 ~' Ae~~ ~f.l~,,_. ,t: .. ,~ ., ~.:aii. t.: #!?L.
{.' ~~ t?1:1:' , ..t,';12~~~t'~.t'Stl`s4YL1:;~ fig,:, l<~V~iti;±lf:tE sry.~:C~Ut,sli/t1.~xC~!t`1 1'iFt:Cl iU,".`,~~~
7.14 C®>~ffiute_ Pr®~ra>~s
Q/®~~an;ute. Pr®gra>1>t.>ds: Ezamples of Success
6117/07
Jim Housffian;PE
The United. States ofAmerica consumes 9.2 million barrels of gasoline every day, approximately
25% of :all the gasoline consumed in the world.108 Yet the United States contains only 4.5% of
the world's population. We drive bigger vehicles and we drive. them farther each year than any
other society. We have the, cheapest gasoline of any nation that imports more petroleum than it
exports (excepting China and. Thailand)109. Americans are used to using their cars for virtually
100% of their transportation needs. We have built our cities, and even our small towns, around
the assumption that everyone who wants to go anywhere will drive:: Our driving has been cheap
and convenient. But in recent years "that has begun to unravel.. As our homes have become
farther away from our workplaces and as our need to import oil has increased driving has
become more and more expensive and more irksome. And in .spite 'of spectacular efforts to
reduce pollution our driving has continued to be a major factor in environmental degradation.
Slowly over time these factors have been at the root of a change in behavior that is taking place
all over the continent. In a11.50, states, and in Canada, programs are arising to limit the number of
automobiles on the road during, peak driving hours. A number of states have established
transportation demand management (TDM) legislation to reduce public road usage. In addition,
local governments have established regional traffic mitigation programs.. to assist local employers
in encouraging their workforce to stop driving to work alone. Often these programs enable
groups of employers to share incentives and facilities to enhance the commuter experience while
reducing costs for both. employer and employee. California has no .state wide traffic mitigation
program, however therecently passed AB1431 (Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions) will almost
certainly address the effects of commuting on greenhouse gases.
The US Department of Transportation has created a program dubbed "Best Workplaces for
Commuters" (BWC) to acknowledge those employers that have done the most to make alternate
commute options work the best for their employees. As of June 2007 the site has over 1,400
employers listed as meeting 'the department's stringent standard for inclusion on the list.
Typically to win acknowledgement employers must provide emergency ride home capabilities
for transit and car/van pool commuters, provide some kind of .subsidy or support for those not
driving to work alone and commit to having `14% of employees participate'in the program" within
18 months. In addition to the BWC. program. the Internal Revenue Service permits employers ao
pay for certain commute benefits with pre-tax dollars,. saving money for both employers and
employees.t ~0
108 http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
109 httpa/europe.theoildrum.cominode12b53
110 http://www.bwc.gov/
Cite of 7?etalutna C;ree.n_hatz4e Ua~ F:nl.issic~rt .1Z.ecluct~iorl <<=action I'Iat~ 10,x.09
Commute programs exist at the federal, state, county and jobsite levels. because they work. In a
survey funded by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) in 2004 found that: well designed
commute programs reduced vehicle trips by an average of 15:3%.t tt Tlat kind of reduction pays
off. It pays' off in savings to the employer, government at all levels and the. employee.
Most employers are probably so accustomed to providing parking spaces for employees that it is
not= considered to be a real cost of doing business. Yet some employers must set. aside more .land
for parking Phan 'is •used for generating income. The Victoria. (B.C.) Transport Policy Institute
estimated in 2000 that parking lot construction costs can vary between $1.500 (US) and $1..900
(US) per space. That cost is :in addition to the value of the unimproved land. When parking
structures become necessary per space costs can exceed $9000 per space. In addition there are
annual maintenance costs.tt2 One estimate of the value to U.S. employers of this unproductive
land placed the rental value nationwide at over 35 billion dollars.113
DOT estimates that current freeway construction costs exceed. one-quarter million dollars per
lane-mile with a continuing. cost of about one percent of that amount for annual maintenance.
While this cost is not apparent directly to the taxpayer it is there and as more roadways are
constructed to accommodate peak traffic loads for commuters both the capital costs of
construction and the annual maintenance costs are an increasing burden. on taxpayers and on the
local officials who must negotiate to find the funds.114
Commute costs to employees is more than the obvious. A UC ..Berkeley study in l 990 indicated
that the average Bay Area one-way commute distance increased between 1980 and 1990 from
10.6 miles to 1 l.8 and the average duration from 27.7 minutes to 29.0 minutes. Over a 50 week
working year that amounts to 5900 miles per year and 242 hours on the road. With per-mile
driving costs approaching 50 cents employees. are spending almost $3000 per year just to get to
work. Since employers do not pay for the time that commuters sit in their cars in heavy traffic it
is the individual worker whose time is wasted crawling through traffic. According to the Texas
Transportation Institute California commuters who have recently moved to a metropolitan area
spend, on average, 250 hours per year in commuter traffic.
There are great success stories in. communities developing programs to reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). Boulder, Colorado has a program called Ride- Arrangers that reports having
saved 28 million VMT in 2006. Ride Arrangers has 6,000 people in their carpool database, 380
people vanpooling with a waiting list to fill ] 0 more vans. There are 4,000 "teleworkers" and
11,0.00 families enrolled in the'"schoolpool" database. In the annual Bike to Work Day `in 2006
there: were 20,000 participants. ~ 15
"' Mitigating Traffic Congestion; Association for Commuter Transportation; PO Box 15542, Washington, DC
20003-0542;2004,
' 12 Todd Litman; Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning; Victoria Transport Policy Institute;
2006
13 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:biyCdgRbNHQJ:www.commuterchoice'.gov/pdf/sanfran/bwc-present-
sfa.ppt+sonoma+best+workplaces&h 1=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&lr=lang_en
114 http://www.publicpurpose:comLhwy-fy$.htm
Its Linda Dowlin, Denver-TDM Manager; personal communication; 6/11/07
~I ) ~.: I' _~:~ ~i ...'I~il)7ita3 ~~ ~~~ ..1..~'.if~i'~ ~t ~71 .,is i~ 41 L.i~~;t: :'k .:i`..
~~"s~~' f3~: 13t~~ix?LSIii~ ~il'C',: t, C, ~.Ititi ~ti;_1~4j{~1"iI~t:C~teC~t)iI t~i£'~iCll"t ~~~i3't l~),?,;'•%
In the Bay area Contra Costa county reports that their SchoolPool program has reduced VMT by
4 million miles in 20028. The San Mateo County Commute Alternatives Program has mailed
80,000 Commuter-'Checks to-employees of 3,200 employers in the county since 1991.iib C2HM
Hill reports a' 1.1 S,OQO mile reduction in VMT in 2002 at a single worksite in Denver. In Seattle
the University of Washington estimates that the UPASS' ..program .has eliminated 91' mihion
vehicle trips since if was established in 1991`¢. These examples show tthat in a large variety of
environments and over `long; periods of time.- employers, employees, taxpayers and the
environment are benef ting from well .designed commute programs.
Today, more thanever in the ::past,. it makes sense to create programs allowing commuters to get
out of their cars and find more appropriate ways to get to .and from work. The ability of the
modern passenger vehicle to take us anywhere we-want, when we want is at its .least beneficial
when we are traveling the same path at the same time of day over many months and years. The
.rising cost of operation,~the increasing time spent unproductively and the anger and frustration so
often connected with present' day commuting will continue to ,get worse in the future. We cannot
pave the entire nation to enable every person to drive effortlessly where ever they want to go at .
any time ~of. day. It follows that; community leaders in every -American community should be
emulating the examples of "those communities that have gained so much by instituting these
programs.
1 16 httpi//www.smccap.org/index.jsp
,_ -
i,.t~' c~E .1~+"cttLa.,11{~ ~71'k'd:'t li_'.l€.~,~. <x62~+ 1- t~3 E,:,3<i!I 1Z~:~1~IC:t:a.31"1 , t~,'tt;?il 1'~1{ti;t 1 ~.~.£J~
FURTHER READING
1. MASSRides;lVlassachusetts,Offce of'Transportation; http.:1/www:commtte.com/
2. Burby;. John; `The Great American Motion Sickness (or Why You Can't Get There From.
Here); Little;;Brown and Co.; New York; .1971
3. Yergn, Daniel; The Prize; Simon & Schuster; New York; .199''1
4,. 1Vleadows; Donella: et, al; The Limits to Growth; The New American Library, New York;
Y9.71
5. Commuter- Connections, Metropolitan Council of Governments; Washington DC;
http://www:mwcog.org/commuter/ccindex.html
6. Census Bureau Study of Commute Distances; http://www.census.gov/Press-
Rel ease/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001695.htm1
7. Santa Druz Commute Solutions; http://www.commutesolutions.org/
8. Commuter- Calculator; http//www.rideworks:com/rwcalc2:htm
9. Strategies for Increasing'the Benefits of Commuter Benefits Programs; TCRP Report 87;
Transportation Research B;oarcl; 2003
l0. Commuter Check; Section 132 (f) pre-tax transportation benefit program;
http:l/www.commuterchcckpremium :com/
1 l .Bay Area Commuter Comments; http;//www.ibabuzz:com/transportation/
12. Westchester County New York Commute Program:
http ://www.westchestergov:.com/smartcommute/programs_services.htm
l3. TDM Case Studies.and Commuter Testimonials; Transportation Demand Management
Institute of the Association, for Commuter Transportation
1518 K St., N.W„ #.503; Washington; DC 20005.; 1997
14. Washington State .Commute Trip Reduction Program;
http:~/www.pewclimate,.org/states:cfm?ID=14
15. Boulder, CO "GOBoulder program:
http://www.bouldercolorado:gov/index:php?option=com_eontent&task=view& id=705&It
~em i d=311
16.: Accordia,Northwest; Inc,,, Seatf'le WA; Commute Trip Reduction Program;
17. http_://www.commuterchallenge:org/cc/daw99acordia.html
1.8. Sustainable Transportation ,Success' Stories; Smart Communities Network;
http%/www.smartcommugities:neat:org/transprt/trsstoe.shtm L
19..Ride Solutions; M.id Ohio Regional Planning Commission;
http://ridesolutions.morpc.org/
20: City of Palo,Alto Way 2 Go Program; http://www.city;Palo-alto.ca.us/transportatiorr= ~ ; .
d'ivi sign/c'oinmute-index.html
21: 'Washington D.:C.; Capital Rideshare Program; http://capitolrideshare.com/index.htm
(. #. s ,.». I ., d`i~%;i {. ikE ~ ?1 ~m~~~~ ~if1 '~~ . -.ic`(~. ~ Eli s..
1
~~1~~' C}~ ~~£'fcl~illl?cl ~. `~:>~ , C}tl` t, lizf~ t l~tl:Sl<lii ~~l.t~Lti.:~lt)il ,~(~ICi"t1 i~~'~l
Examples of Successful Programs
~_~~.
:. °:. of Tfanslt Po u lationPart icl nthir. - ~ ' -
.
Van
Transit
~Car:Yan Guaran.
° 'Tele
.Work
Blcyder
WC
'
Control:
Ptogtonrname. - 'Location Demographla Carpool .
pool pass Patking RHIe! commmo week Shunle Walk Othel pay
B P.rtlcl~rating {1)
Horne Dextlme
Upass U. of Waehingtan 39,~Olstudents z z' .x Yes Unit:
SchoolPool. ConlraCosta~Ctg„CA ~ 157;,WOstudenl5' z ~ x~ No County
TranspohatiomOptidns Aspen„CO 15,000.residents x ~ z z Yes Blanket
TM/I'MA
Cake Tahoe Basin 56,000 Tesidentg,
~
.x
-
x
No
Govt
, tar
eabunstlnflux..
VanpgolPibgiam Bal Harbour Village; FL 3309 pop, k Yes Govt
Calibre Transportation Alaxandria,VA na ~ x x z y z yes Cory.
Benefts
C2HM Hill Telework 8 CO
Denver na 5:0% 3.0% 8.0% 0.5% No 16.5% Corp
Flaztime ,
GeorgiaPower quanta
GA SOOemployees
5 7.0% 6.0% z 20.0% Yes 33.0% Corp
Smartride , _
,
TransdPlah
HennepimCaunty~
,MN 13,000 county
15.0%
2.0%
15.0%
8.0%
Yes
40.0%
Blanket
, em loyees
Marnille tbp
Johns
Denier CO esP. 400 empl Denier'
x
0.5%
44.0%
x
D5%
Ves
45.0%
Corp
. only
Nike TRACAiogram Beaverton, OR S 000 employees 10.0% 5.0% x 5.0% 2.0 % Prizes Yes 22.0% Corp
Overtake-Christian Wash
Redmond 109 employees 26.0% 1.0% 12.0% f3.0% - 1 0% No 48.0% Corp
Church tb ,
Simmons College tbp Boston, MA 740 faculty &stafl 27.0% x x 32.0% Yes 59.0% Corp
Swedish Medical Seattle; WA 758 staR& dr ~ 19.0% 2.0% 23.0% x x 2.0% Ves 46.0% Corp
Center tb
Texas Children's TX
Hdustdm 758stafi$dr 16.0°!0 100% x z x Yes 20.0% Corp
Hospital tbp ,
King County TOD Seattle, WA metro Seattle x x x car share No Blanket
Acordia Northwest Inc. Seattle 118 employees x x x x No Corp
4100 bikers,
GO Boulder Bouldei, CO Cc'unty employees: x x x x x x walkers, No Blanket
- transit riders
Commue Agernathes
San Mateo, CA county City~and surrbunding
x
x
x
x
x.
Yes
Blanket
Pro ram area ~
Ride A+rangers
CO
Denier School, city&
x
x
x
x
x
No
Blanket
, business empld ees
GoGieeri VancbuverBC 906,000 pops ~ x. x x x No Blanket
Smad Commute . Westchester County
NY z x z x x x x Ves Blanket
Pro ram ,
CTR Redmond Wash 23;500 pop No Blanket
RideSolulions Mid-Ohio Regional 11 counties around
x
x
x
x
x
No
Blanket
plannin Comm. Columbus,-0H
EmployeeiCommute Palo AJtc x x x x x z No Blanket
Program
Ti`avelReductidq GreaterTucson area 486669 x a x No Blanket
Program
4,000'state~
Capital Rideshare Phoenix, AZ employees: plus'50 x x x x x x x x NO Blanket
companies.
Thisptogi.ari is an umbrella humtimr toi all Washstate pidgiams
~CommuteTrip Reuudii State of Wash
'This;P~^9~•am;Is au.umbr ells hinctinn Ini all Wash state progionis ~ ~~
;MassRides .State Of Mass.
"Note'coippartic pat b is voluntary sd~(nanciaf tiene(ts are at employer discretioh
S Controfrefersto the typeidf organization spbnsoringthe program.
' ~ Bla ke1 ete7s to a gmeinment sp s rstiip orgamzatiodthat helps other o ganrzations t f cdmmut progiams.
@. BWC= Listed omfederal program called!'Besl Workplace forCommuters
__ i, .. - : t~' _.'~; ~ it ~' .. ~to ~ ~~ S ... c.. :lc ., .. ~~il t' ~..,
:~'ktti' Cli'`I~f.:(c2~tfi7?ck ~!k`a:E,~2llvil:~;a ~_'c~~ `.f=C~GkC:bit~k3 ,"^,t,°,.~t'"s i~i~ti' IiI.'` ~?~~
7.15 Grease t® Gas Au~ffienta~on ®f Digester _G~s
"Grease to Gas"
Restaurant Trap .Grea"se Collection and Augmentation of Digester Gas
Excerpts,from Riverside "Project Description"Document dated 4/17/07
J.im'Housman, PE"(retired)
4/1'7/08
Summary:
1. Capital cost apparently -very low due to use of contracting company picking up and
delivering waste: to facility.. Totat expenditures for labor, equipment and laboratory
analysis were $85',000 at Mime of report minus. a potential $16k grant from the PUC.
2. Because the. city already ,operated a treatment facility with methane capture,. capital
investment was only required to adapt the existing system. to accept. the waste- grease.
3. The additional amount of rriethane gas generated by the addition of the grease wastewater
has -been as high as 493;000 cubic feet. This is "the same, as 4,930 therms of natural gas.
4. City receives $6500/mo. in disposal fees from delivery company ($2.1,000 in 2007)
5. .Sewage systems. overflows ;caused. by grease trap problems was. reduced
6. Biosolids.produ~tion. in the city's digesters was.reduced saving $48,000/month
7. Fuel savings obtained at the site were as high as $85,000/mo. .
8. Total savings were over $1N1 for 9 months.
The city of Riverside, California operates a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) capable of
handling 40 million gallons per day. The treatment process is" fully tertiary utilizing anaerobic
digestion and treats an average daily flow of 35 MGD. The City's POTW has a cogeneration
facility that has the capability of ,generating about 3 megawatts of power. This cogeneration
facility has three internal combustion (IC) engines that use the ..methane gas produced by the
digesters as a fuel source. In~ addition to the IC engines; the City will be installing a .one-
megawatt;fuel ce91 that will use digester. gas to produce electrical power.
The City's Public Utilities Department (PUD) was informed of the Grease to Gas project and
was quite interested due to the renewable energy source created by the processing of the grease
wastewater. The PUD also oversees a grant program for renewable energy resources. The
Grease ,to Gas project qualified .for a grant and the PUD prepared a report for the Uti"lities Board..
for approval of $'16;237 to cover the costs of laboratory services and analyses and equipment
purchases and ,installation,. The grant was approved :on June'29~; 20;05.. The ,total costs to date .for
labor, laboratory analyses, and equipment is approximately $85,00'0:
The company agreed to charge City .restaurants $0.10/gal'lon to pump, the grease interceptors
(underground tanks connected to the restaurant wastewater drains). Other vacuum companies
were charging $0.15 to .$0.20/gallon to pump the interceptors. The contracted company also
brings grease wastewater from other areas throughout southern California; from" Santa Barbara to
San Diego and from Los Angeles to Blythe. The City charges the company $O.OI/gallon
($0.03/gallon .in 2007) to receive the wastewater for disposal and. receives about $6,560/month in
disposal fees. The project currently receives about 30,000 gallons per day of grease wastewater
®~~~ r 3,,_ ,.~ .~~. ~;~~,ti
~y3~t: (l~_~~C1cil~li11~1 ~t'r;t'ItltC~t[~,~, ~i'slti 1 lti.'~~s( ,' ~ l(>Ii ~~'~~C1~3 ialt~7t lt).~.~)`~
from restaurants ~in the southern California and, since March 27, 2006 has processed 6,800,000
gallons of grease wastewater.
The additional amount of methane gas :generated by the addition of the grease wastewater has
been' as high. as 493,000 cubic feet. This is the same as 4,93.0 therms of natural gas (100 therms
per cubit foot). This -is enough. gas generated in one day to supply the winter needs of 1'01 homes
in Riverside sand the summer needs of 340. In one month, the gas generated at the treatment.
plant .can be as high as 17,898,961- cubic feet. or 178,989 therms. This is enough gas to supply
the winter needs of 3,674 homes in Riverside and' the summer -needs of 13,055 homes in
Riverside. The daily electrical generation of 1.5 megawatt=hours is enough electrical power to
supply the needs of 1,128 homes irr.Riverside.
The effects on the sewer system were equally favorable. The sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
caused by restaurant grease blockages were reduced from 30% of all calls to less than 1%.
An additional benefit of the project was the observed reduction in the amount of biosolids
created from the treatment process. Since the introduction of grease wastewater into the digester,
the number of methane forming bacteria has increased dramatically. These bacteria are also
better adapted to metabolize solid organic material in the digester. As a result of the increased
bacterial population, the overall biosolids production has been reduced by about 25%. This has
reduced the average-monthly wet tons produced from 5,000 to about 4,000. The disposal fee is
$48/ton and a reduction of 1,000 tons per month saves $48,000/month.
One goal of this ,project is to .achieve energy independence from natural gas. The project has
reduced the natural gas requirements of tfie cogeneration power plant by 80%. This yielded a
monthly savings ranging -from $80,000 to $85,000- per month. The energy costs savings, reduced
costs for biosolids disposal, .and wastewater..treatment charges created by this project have saved
the City over $1;000,000 in nine months.
- 3®I f~l ,