Electric vehicles have the potential to revolutionise how electricity is consumed, says David Porter, POWER-GEN Europe Advisory Board Member and a Senior Advisor to the London energy team of Navigant. But, the engineering challenges should be seen alongside the social and economic considerations
Electric vehicles are an exciting prospect. With smart grids, they may revolutionise how electricity is consumed across Europe – not least in the volume, timing and location of demand. However, people who are keen to see the switch to electric transport should not underestimate the scale of the other challenges that have to be addressed before the use of electric vehicles becomes the norm. Utilities are concerned with making networks robust enough to cope with new expectations and with having to manage them differently. Smarter grids go with smarter metering and data handling. All those things – already on the agenda – are demanding enough, but the challenges do not stop there.
Electric vehicles will be quieter and cleaner; they may even offer lower fuel costs and if climate change targets are to be met, sooner or later, a reduction in emissions from transport has to play a big part. But, electric vehicles will be judged by their users against what has served us so well for so long. We are used to being able to refuel in five minutes and to drive all day if we want to – in air-conditioned comfort. The car and battery manufacturers are trying hard to match that by breaking through today’s knowledge barriers. But already the alternative solution of a fuelling station where – rather than re-charge – we would swap a discharged battery for a charged one, is being considered. However, would muscle power become a requirement for working in those places? Or, would that challenge be met with battery standardisation and specialised handling gear?
Most of today’s cars run on petrol or diesel and we drive to petrol stations to fuel them. The stations where we fill up were not planned and built as part of a master plan, of course. They were built in response to growing demand and in more recent times, lots have closed because of the lack of it – many rural garages have become unprofitable. Even where population is dense, demand can be affected by the availability of good public transport. In rural areas, it is a particular problem because people rely so heavily on their cars and there is intense pressure on the subsidies that maintain the already limited public transport services.
Of course, as technology makes electric vehicles more viable, the electricity supply industry will play a huge part in providing and managing the power upon which they depend. Utilities and consultancies such as Navigant are already deeply involved in solving the issues that must be addressed.
However important those issues are, this is not just a series of engineering challenges. The transition needs to be considered from the point of view of the people that will use the new vehicles. In the UK, some have already taken the plunge. Subsidies on electric vehicles will have encouraged them, and so will measures like zero-rated vehicle taxation and exemption from London’s congestion charge. But, these people are an enthusiastic, mainly urban, minority who make only short trips and who can afford to be early-adopters. They are, of course, using today’s infrastructure and technology – which would be totally inadequate if the transition gathered pace.
What about the other 99 per cent? What would induce them to go electric? The new cars would have to become cheaper to buy of course and more convenient to use. New infrastructure would have to be built in advance of a mass take-up. But, what would finally induce a family to change their petrol- or diesel-fuelled car for an electric one? A law banning petrol- or diesel-powered cars? Or a tax that made them too expensive to run? This would probably make those vehicles worthless and voters would not take kindly to that. Even bigger subsidies for electric vehicles, perhaps? Government payments for scrapping older vehicles? But governments tend to be heavily-indebted and short of cash. Perhaps utilities would get involved, offering inducements to their customers. But, few utilities are awash with cash either. So, could this be the issue that will bring new names into electricity supply, perhaps investing not only in electric vehicles and their infrastructure, but also in the commodity that keeps them moving?
There are also big questions concerning government income. The British government currently receives approximately £27 billion (€37 billion) per year in fuel duty and London collects, net of facilities and running costs, £150 million (€210 million) from the Congestion Charge. Not only that, but in the UK, the annual taxation of vehicles is related directly to their CO2 emissions, with electric vehicles currently paying nothing. One way or another, government would have to maintain its revenue. Perhaps someone in the Treasury has calculated what VAT on ‘extra’ electricity sales might raise.
I have no doubt that the electricity supply industry can cope with the challenge of a transition of electric vehicles. But, as it develops its thoughts on smarter infrastructure, it will need to reassure itself that public policy is also as smart as it needs to be. Not only smart, but consistent in its application across Europe.
Electric Vehicles will be a key topic of discussion at the upcoming POWER-GEN Europe and Renewable Energy Europe conferences that are being held at the Amsterdam RAI from 9-11 June 2015. For further information go to http://www.powergeneurope.com/
Photo: Department for Communities and Local Government via flickr
We’re live on Crowdcube. To own a share in our tomorrow, click here.
2017 Was the Most Expensive Year Ever for U.S. Natural Disaster Damage
Devastating natural disasters dominated last year’s headlines and made many wonder how the affected areas could ever recover. According to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the storms and other weather events that caused the destruction were extremely costly.
Specifically, the natural disasters recorded last year caused so much damage that the associated losses made 2017 the most expensive year on record in the 38-year history of keeping such data. The following are several reasons that 2017 made headlines for this notorious distinction.
Over a Dozen Events With Losses Totalling More Than $1 Billion Each
The NOAA reports that in total, the recorded losses equaled $306 billion, which is $90 billion more than the amount associated with 2005, the previous record holder. One of the primary reasons the dollar amount climbed so high last year is that 16 individual events cost more than $1 billion each.
Global Warming Contributed to Hurricane Harvey
Hurricane Harvey, one of two Category-4 hurricanes that made landfall in 2017, was a particularly expensive natural disaster. Nearly 800,000 people needed assistance after the storm. Hurricane Harvey alone cost $125 billion, with some estimates even higher than that. So far, the only hurricane more expensive than Harvey was Katrina.
Before Hurricane Harvey hit, scientists speculated climate change could make it worse. They discussed how rising ocean temperatures make hurricanes more intense, and warmer atmospheres have higher amounts of water vapor, causing larger rainfall totals.
Since then, a new study published in “Environmental Research Letters” confirmed climate change was indeed a factor that gave Hurricane Harvey more power. It found environmental conditions associated with global warming made the storm more severe and increase the likelihood of similar events.
That same study also compared today’s storms with ones from 1900. It found that compared to those earlier weather phenomena, Hurricane Harvey’s rainfall was 15 percent more intense and three times as likely to happen now versus in 1900.
Warming oceans are one of the contributing factors. Specifically, the ocean’s surface temperature associated with the region where Hurricane Harvey quickly transformed from a tropical storm into a Category 4 hurricane has become about 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer over the past few decades.
Michael Mann, a climatologist from Penn State University, believes that due to a relationship known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, there was about 3-5 percent more moisture in the air, which caused more rain. To complicate matters even more, global warming made sea levels rise by more than 6 inches in the Houston area over the past few decades. Mann also believes global warming caused the stationery summer weather patterns that made Hurricane Harvey stop moving and saturate the area with rain. Mann clarifies although global warming didn’t cause Hurricane Harvey as a whole, it exacerbated several factors of the storm.
Also, statistics collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1901-2015 found the precipitation levels in the contiguous 48 states had gone up by 0.17 inches per decade. The EPA notes the increase is expected because rainfall totals tend to go up as the Earth’s surface temperatures rise and additional evaporation occurs.
The EPA’s measurements about surface temperature indicate for the same timespan mentioned above for precipitation, the temperatures have gotten 0.14 Fahrenheit hotter per decade. Also, although the global surface temperature went up by 0.15 Fahrenheit during the same period, the temperature rise has been faster in the United States compared to the rest of the world since the 1970s.
Severe Storms Cause a Loss of Productivity
Many people don’t immediately think of one important factor when discussing the aftermath of natural disasters: the adverse impact on productivity. Businesses and members of the workforce in Houston, Miami and other cities hit by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma suffered losses that may total between $150-200 billion when both damage and sacrificed productivity are accounted for, according to estimates from Moody’s Analytics.
Some workers who decide to leave their homes before storms arrive delay returning after the immediate danger has passed. As a result of their absences, a labor-force shortage may occur. News sources posted stories highlighting that the Houston area might not have enough construction workers to handle necessary rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Harvey.
It’s not hard to imagine the impact heavy storms could have on business operations. However, companies that offer goods to help people prepare for hurricanes and similar disasters often find the market wants what they provide. While watching the paths of current storms, people tend to recall storms that took place years ago and see them as reminders to get prepared for what could happen.
Longer and More Disastrous Wildfires Require More Resources to Fight
The wildfires that ripped through millions of acres in the western region of the United States this year also made substantial contributions to the 2017 disaster-related expenses. The U.S. Forest Service, which is within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, reported 2017 as its costliest year ever and saw total expenditures exceeding $2 billion.
The agency anticipates the costs will grow, especially when they take past data into account. In 1995, the U.S. Forest Service spent 16 percent of its annual budget for wildfire-fighting costs, but in 2015, the amount ballooned to 52 percent. The sheer number of wildfires last year didn’t help matters either. Between January 1 and November 24 last year, 54,858 fires broke out.
2017: Among the Three Hottest Years Recorded
People cause the majority of wildfires, but climate change acts as another notable contributor. In addition to affecting hurricane intensity, rising temperatures help fires spread and make them harder to extinguish.
Data collected by the National Interagency Fire Center and published by the EPA highlighted a correlation between the largest wildfires and the warmest years on record. The extent of damage caused by wildfires has gotten worse since the 1980s, but became particularly severe starting in 2000 during a period characterized by some of the warmest years the U.S. ever recorded.
Things haven’t changed for the better, either. In mid-December of 2017, the World Meteorological Organization released a statement announcing the year would likely end as one of the three warmest years ever recorded. A notable finding since the group looks at global land and ocean temperature, not just statistics associated with the United States.
Not all the most financially impactful weather events in 2017 were hurricanes and wildfires. Some of the other issues that cost over $1 billion included a hailstorm in Colorado, tornados in several regions of the U.S. and substantial flooding throughout Missouri and Arkansas.
Although numerous factors gave these natural disasters momentum, scientists know climate change was a defining force — a reality that should worry just about everyone.
How to be More eco-Responsible in 2018
Nowadays, more and more people are talking about being more eco-responsible. There is a constant growth of information regarding the importance of being aware of ecological issues and the methods of using eco-friendly necessities on daily basis.
Have you been considering becoming more eco-responsible after the New Year? If so, here are some useful tips that could help you make the difference in the following year:
1. Energy – produce it, save it
If you’re building a house or planning to expand your living space, think before deciding on the final square footage. Maybe you don’t really need that much space. Unnecessary square footage will force you to spend more building materials, but it will also result in having to use extra heating, air-conditioning, and electricity in it.
It’s even better if you seek professional help to reduce energy consumption. An energy audit can provide you some great piece of advice on how to save on your energy bills.
While buying appliances such as a refrigerator or a dishwasher, make sure they have “Energy Star” label on, as it means they are energy-efficient.
Regarding the production of energy, you can power your home with renewable energy. The most common way is to install rooftop solar panels. They can be used for producing electricity, as well as heat for the house. If powering the whole home is a big step for you, try with solar oven then – they trap the sunlight in order to heat food! Solar air conditioning is another interesting thing to try out – instead of providing you with heat, it cools your house!
2. Don’t be just another tourist
Think about the environment, as well your own enjoyment – try not to travel too far, as most forms of transport contribute to the climate change. Choose the most environmentally friendly means of transport that you can, as well as environmentally friendly accommodation. If you can go to a destination that is being recommended as an eco-travel destination – even better! Interesting countries such as Zambia, Vietnam or Nicaragua are among these destinations that are famous for its sustainability efforts.
3. Let your beauty be also eco-friendly
We all want to look beautiful. Unfortunately, sometimes (or very often) it comes with a price. Cruelty-free cosmetics are making its way on the world market but be careful with the labels – just because it says a product hasn’t been tested on animals, it doesn’t mean that some of the product’s ingredients haven’t been tested on some poor animal.
To be sure which companies definitely stay away from the cruel testing on animals, check PETA Bunny list of cosmetic companies just to make sure which ones are truly and completely cruelty-free.
It’s also important if a brand uses toxic ingredients. Brands such as Tata Harper Skincare or Dr Bronner’s use only organic ingredients and biodegradable packaging, as well as being cruelty-free. Of course, this list is longer, so you’ll have to do some online research.
4. Know thy recycling
People often make mistakes while wanting to do something good for the environment. For example, plastic grocery bags, take-out containers, paper coffee cups and shredded paper cannot be recycled in your curb for many reasons, so don’t throw them into recycling bins. The same applies to pizza boxes, household glass, ceramics, and pottery – whether they are contaminated by grease or difficult to recycle, they just can’t go through the usual recycling process.
People usually forget to do is to rinse plastic and metal containers – they always have some residue, so be thorough. Also, bottle caps are allowed, too, so don’t separate them from the bottles. However, yard waste isn’t recyclable, so any yard waste or junk you are unsure of – just contact rubbish removal services instead of piling it up in public containers or in your own yard.
5. Fashion can be both eco-friendly and cool
Believe it or not, there are actually places where you can buy clothes that are eco-friendly, sustainable, as well as ethical. And they look cool, too! Companies like Everlane are very transparent about where their clothes are manufactured and how the price is set. PACT is another great company that uses non-GMO, organic cotton and non-toxic dyes for their clothing, while simultaneously using renewable energy factories. Soko is a company that uses natural and recycled materials in making their clothes and jewelry.
All in all
The truth is – being eco-responsible can be done in many ways. There are tons of small things we could change when it comes to our habits that would make a positive influence on the environment. The point is to start doing research on things that can be done by every person and it can start with the only thing that person has the control of – their own household.
- Energy3 weeks ago
How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Use, Really?
- Environment4 weeks ago
Biggest Tip to Eco-Friendly Car Ownership (Which May Surprise You)
- Energy4 weeks ago
Top 5 Changes You can Make in Your Life to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
- Energy4 weeks ago
4 Energy Efficient Home Upgrades that You Can Install Yourself