I am doing some work for Leeds Paper Recycling. In order to capture more contracts to process waste they are actively seeking to understand their carbon footprint and how to significantly minimise the environmental impact of the processing.
They are working hard finely sorting the waste and dealing with each aspect in the best way. They recycle what they can and are looking to produce usable energy from the rest rather than send it to landfill. It's quite an operation.
Measuring their carbon footprint it struck me that despite all their hard work one aspect of the business is a very major contributor to their greenhouse gas emissions which they have limited control over. Not only that but it's a very large source of global emissions that seems to get little focus. Ninety percent of L.P.R.'s operational footprint is from transport, driving their wagons around.
In the World of cars the industry is in crisis, sales of petrol slurping monster utility vehicles have plummeted and all the research and focus is on fuel efficiency and fuel alternatives.
So what of the trucks, the juggernauts and wagons and lorries that rattle past my house 24/7?
Heavy wagons are shifting somewhere in the order of 70% of all freight in the U.K. . With a recession on, high fuel costs and tighter emission laws you might think that manufacturers and operators alike would be driving full tilt towards low-carbon. You'd be wrong. The average fuel efficiency of cars has doubled in the last 40 years, today's lorries guzzle the same amount of fuel as they did in 1969.
Compared to other forms of freight transport trucks are responsible for the most carbon emissions and the largest percentage increase. Since 1990 road transport has increased by 77.8% in contrast to an air freight increase of 4.5%, rail 33% and water 9%. More and more trucks on our congested roads and their fuel economy is not improving.
What to do..... only 6.5% of the energy in a big wagon's fuel is used to shift the cargo inside it. 11% moves the vehicle, 6.5% accelerates the cargo and 4.5% accelerates the vehicle. The rest is wasted; 50% as waste heat, 19% battling against aerodynamic forces, 12% simply idling, 11% tyre roll resistance and 2% transmission drag.
There's much work to do, some petrol-electric hybrid, a Prius truck, would help if available, as would a system to capture some of the waste heat and using it to help power the truck. Aerodynamics has a way to go, square ends on trucks leave trails of drag inducing turbulence in their wake which simple redesign can offer up to 11% fuel saving.
There are the beginnings of improvements. "E-Traction" a company based in Holland has developed an electric motor for trucks and buses that fits inside each wheel, putting the power down right where it is needed and eliminating the need for heavy transmission and gearing that soaks up a significant portion of the engine's power.
Other ideas are coming through too.... modified shock absorbers that stop the vehicle bouncing after going over a pothole or bump and absorbing the motion in a piston filled with viscous fluid and driving this through a small turbine to drive an electrical generator.
My favourite? In the U.S. one shipping giant uses routeing software that seeks to avoid left turns, that is turns across the flow of oncoming traffic (that would be right turns here). This cuts down the time spent idling and the company claims that this, along with other tweaks has saved it 11 million litres of fuel in 2007 alone.
C'mon truckers! Wise up, there's money to be saved, there's carbon to reduce! Or, better than that.... stick it on a train.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Train connections
Continental Europe has had a far stronger commitment to high speed rail over the past few decades than the U.K.. Where once Great Britain led the way, opening the World's first, fast intercity railway between London and Birmingham in 1837, it now boasts a rail system in shambles following years of a make do and mend approach to rail infrastructure by successive governments.
There has never been a better time to invest in rail. The technology already exists to operate fast, efficient, low carbon trains. The U.K. currently has 113 Km of high speed track and no more currently under construction or planned, the lowest of all European countries (well nearly, Switzerland will have 107Km). Built, under construction and planned track across Europe has: Belgium 209Km, France 4787Km, Germany 2333KM, Italy 1271, Portugal 1006Km, Spain 5515 to name but just 6.
Here's the good news; the government has made the demise of domestic air travel an explicit policy target by aiming to replace short haul flights with a new 250mph high speed rail network.
The transport secretary Lord Adonis (yes, Lord Adonis, bronzed I am sure) has put the switching of 46 million domestic air passengers per year to a multi billion pound north - south high speed rail alternative at the top of his agenda.
It makes a great deal of sense, rail uses one third of the land that motorways use and can move far more people/hour than air or car, carbon emissions are a quarter of those for car or aeroplane per passenger and the technology already exists to be able to get on with something that works and will continue to do so well into the future. Cost? High, but not that high... and would save £5 billion/year current rail subsidy (one would hope!).
Connected thinking is what we need here. Why do people travel in their cars rather than on the train? Is one good reason because in a car they have their own private space unimpeded by others while they travel? On the 13th July my blog mentioned "Riversimple" a company producing new hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. What if we were greatly encouraged to travel in these (and similar)? Local journeys would be a joy, long journeys..... ah, long journeys.... we stick our little car onto the high speed train (Eurotunnel style) zoom across to the city or town we want to be in sitting in our car, drive out of the train and whizz about in our little car. That would work.
There has never been a better time to invest in rail. The technology already exists to operate fast, efficient, low carbon trains. The U.K. currently has 113 Km of high speed track and no more currently under construction or planned, the lowest of all European countries (well nearly, Switzerland will have 107Km). Built, under construction and planned track across Europe has: Belgium 209Km, France 4787Km, Germany 2333KM, Italy 1271, Portugal 1006Km, Spain 5515 to name but just 6.
Here's the good news; the government has made the demise of domestic air travel an explicit policy target by aiming to replace short haul flights with a new 250mph high speed rail network.
The transport secretary Lord Adonis (yes, Lord Adonis, bronzed I am sure) has put the switching of 46 million domestic air passengers per year to a multi billion pound north - south high speed rail alternative at the top of his agenda.
It makes a great deal of sense, rail uses one third of the land that motorways use and can move far more people/hour than air or car, carbon emissions are a quarter of those for car or aeroplane per passenger and the technology already exists to be able to get on with something that works and will continue to do so well into the future. Cost? High, but not that high... and would save £5 billion/year current rail subsidy (one would hope!).
Connected thinking is what we need here. Why do people travel in their cars rather than on the train? Is one good reason because in a car they have their own private space unimpeded by others while they travel? On the 13th July my blog mentioned "Riversimple" a company producing new hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. What if we were greatly encouraged to travel in these (and similar)? Local journeys would be a joy, long journeys..... ah, long journeys.... we stick our little car onto the high speed train (Eurotunnel style) zoom across to the city or town we want to be in sitting in our car, drive out of the train and whizz about in our little car. That would work.
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Little Porritt - What the Dickens.....
Mr Porritt has long been in the Westminster prison for debtors, "Weshallsee"and has had the dubious task to be chair of the Sustainable Development Commission. His lot has been alleviated by his devotion to his "Little Dorrits" his commissioners and Secretariat whom he praises for their experience, passion and commitment. Their work balancing advisory and capacity building work on the one hand and watchdog work on the other, he says is nothing short of an "art form".
He steps down from Chair of the SDC having moved from a situation where there was "little understanding across government that sustainable development was anything other than environmentalism by another name", to one where there is now a low carbon transition plan backed by active steps to make sure firms in the U.K. grab the greater opportunities in nuclear, renewable energy production, in low to no CO2 car production and others.
He goes with a few parting shots of course. Lord Merdle of Hartlepool (to keep the Little Dorrit analogy going.... sorry) is noted as particularly hostile to the concept of sustainable development.
He criticises ministers on the environment and social justice for failing to protect U.K. prosperity, with the biggest problems (very worryingly) in the treasury, business and transport departments. He goes on; that for years the treasury has dogmatically defended the Thatherite model of consumption driven economic growth, regardless of the costs that growth generates.
I hope the SDC moves forward effectively without him and I wish him well and thank him for the tremendous amount of work for sustainable issues he has done so far. Certainly it's time that people, company CEOs, department heads.... well, everybody, "got it", that we must leave unbridled profit growth as a past goal, embrace sustainable development as the very best and only way forward.
He steps down from Chair of the SDC having moved from a situation where there was "little understanding across government that sustainable development was anything other than environmentalism by another name", to one where there is now a low carbon transition plan backed by active steps to make sure firms in the U.K. grab the greater opportunities in nuclear, renewable energy production, in low to no CO2 car production and others.
He goes with a few parting shots of course. Lord Merdle of Hartlepool (to keep the Little Dorrit analogy going.... sorry) is noted as particularly hostile to the concept of sustainable development.
He criticises ministers on the environment and social justice for failing to protect U.K. prosperity, with the biggest problems (very worryingly) in the treasury, business and transport departments. He goes on; that for years the treasury has dogmatically defended the Thatherite model of consumption driven economic growth, regardless of the costs that growth generates.
I hope the SDC moves forward effectively without him and I wish him well and thank him for the tremendous amount of work for sustainable issues he has done so far. Certainly it's time that people, company CEOs, department heads.... well, everybody, "got it", that we must leave unbridled profit growth as a past goal, embrace sustainable development as the very best and only way forward.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Man as God
Climate change has been a hot topic (sorry) for decades now and along with many others I see that the huge problem of Global Warming is accelerating but that it is not beyond the wit of mankind to find a solution. Actually, that has to be the case. Irreversible and accelerating warming is doubtless happening now, and the inertia of that change will take more than changing a few light bulbs to stop.
At best all we can each do, however meagre it might seem, to slow the process is essential. Drive less, walk more. Turn your heating down. Insulate your loft and walls. Turn things off when you are not using them etc etc. Do all these things and more to buy us more time. More time to find the real solution.
Well, the elephant in the room is geo-engineering, tampering with the Earth's atmosphere to halt and even reverse global warming. We have the ability to do it now, and cheaply. It could be localised to affect those areas that require most change, e.g. seeding the atmosphere with particulates above the poles to encourage rapid reversal of warming, leaving temperate and middle latitudes maintaining status-quo. Scary isn't it?
Should we do serious research into this topic? How would you draw up a treaty to agree who had control of the process? What's to stop one group just getting on with it for their best advantage? Certainly China or India for example could easily undertake geo-engineering without recourse to western morals.
Not only scary but it draws down the following moral hazard. Knowledge that geo-engineering is possible makes climate impacts look less fearsome and thereby weakens the commitment to cut emissions now.
I think this is a worrying topic but one that needs bringing out into the open and looking at very very carefully.
Talking elephants take a look at this ... grand prize winning, 50 seconds,excellent "the Sky is Falling"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bak50U6HiRk
At best all we can each do, however meagre it might seem, to slow the process is essential. Drive less, walk more. Turn your heating down. Insulate your loft and walls. Turn things off when you are not using them etc etc. Do all these things and more to buy us more time. More time to find the real solution.
Well, the elephant in the room is geo-engineering, tampering with the Earth's atmosphere to halt and even reverse global warming. We have the ability to do it now, and cheaply. It could be localised to affect those areas that require most change, e.g. seeding the atmosphere with particulates above the poles to encourage rapid reversal of warming, leaving temperate and middle latitudes maintaining status-quo. Scary isn't it?
Should we do serious research into this topic? How would you draw up a treaty to agree who had control of the process? What's to stop one group just getting on with it for their best advantage? Certainly China or India for example could easily undertake geo-engineering without recourse to western morals.
Not only scary but it draws down the following moral hazard. Knowledge that geo-engineering is possible makes climate impacts look less fearsome and thereby weakens the commitment to cut emissions now.
I think this is a worrying topic but one that needs bringing out into the open and looking at very very carefully.
Talking elephants take a look at this ... grand prize winning, 50 seconds,excellent "the Sky is Falling"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bak50U6HiRk
Friday, 17 July 2009
Curing The Mischiefs Of Faction
Hoorah for the DECC (sorry, the Department of Energy and Climate Change....Ed Milliband and his lot)! I must admit to being reasonably impressed by the announcements on Wednesday outlining the government plan to move the U.K onto a permanent low carbon footing.
It sets out the targets to achieve and shows how it will "transform the country into a cleaner, greener and more prosperous place to live" and puts it at the heart of our economic plans for "Building Britain's Future".
Over the next 10years it sets out how we will; have more than 1.2 million people in "green jobs", have 7 million homes benefit from whole house makeovers and 1.5 million households supported to produce their own energy.
40% of energy will be delivered from a basket of low carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal. We will be importing half the amount of gas we would otherwise and cars will emit 40% less carbon than now.
All this (and lots more) to achieve a 34% reduction in carbon emissions on 1990 levels by 2020.
And it here that I have concerns. As the press release says itself, we have already delivered a 21% reduction ("equivalent to cutting emissions entirely from 4 cities the size of London"), so that leaves us a target of a further 13% reduction over the next 11years. Laudable reductions so far (maybe, maybe not!) but is the remainder enough? Should we have moved the base (1990 levels) to more recent (and more accurate measures) of emission levels? Is it enough to do what needs to be done?
Here are 10 things to worry you on the situation taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report update, June 2009;
1. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are responsible for most of the increase in global temperature with greater than 90% certainty. Many aspects of climate change explicitly link them to human activity.
2. Human induced climate change is already affecting multiple systems, both physical and biological.
3. Changes in polar temperatures are attributed "conclusively" to human activity. A detectable human influence on sea ice melt extends back to the early 1990s, even before (and including) "the recent and rapid increase in melting".
4. Global precipitation trends across all areas of the World are larger than model predictions and may already be impacting ecosystems, agriculture and human health.
5. Satellites show an increase in total atmospheric moisture content over the oceans since 1998 attributable to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses.
6. New research finds a significant chance (84%) that human activities are responsible for most of the observed increase in sea surface temperature which contributes to more intense hurricanes.
Ocean acidification (by absorption of CO2 forming carbonic acid) is occurring threatening the World's coral reefs, shellfish and marine ecosystems leading to a direct threat to food security, biodiversity, tourism and coastal protection.
7. A better understanding of the behaviour of large ice sheets and of rapid melting has raised projections of 21 century global sea level rise (see my posting 7th July).
8. Surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is accelerating... satellite observations indicate that 2007 was a record year for Greenland surface melt - 60% more melt than the previous record of 1998. A similar story for the Antarctic ice shelves and for the Arctic sea ice.
9. Permafrost is thawing more rapidly than previously thought. The permafrost (the Arctic land mass) contains significantly more CO2 than currently exists in the Earth's atmosphere. Release of both CO2 and CH4 (methane) occurs with the thawing of these areas. Methane emissions from Siberian thaw lakes "may be more than 5 times higher than previous estimates" and expansion of thaw lakes in response to Arctic warming has led to a 58% increase in methane emissions (remember, methane is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2).
10. The impacts of climate change may persist more than 1000 years, even after human-induced emissions of CO2 have stopped completely.
Well, I didn't mean to scare you, but it does beg the question that despite the fact that the U.K. is at the "forefront of a low carbon economic revolution" with the excellent Department of Energy and Climate Change plan, is it enough, and is it enough, soon enough?
If you'd like to read the full, terrifying report go to; http://www.pewclimate.org/brief/science-developments/June2009
Good news today though..... leading retailers have only just missed their target to reduce the number of plastic carrier bags given to their customers. The scheme aimed for reduction of 50% and has achieved.... 48%. I wonder what their monetary savings have been as a result, what their income from "bags for life" is and what they have done with that money. Still, we mustn't be too mean in our thoughts for the 7 supermarkets' brave attempts to save the World. They have reduced the number by 372 million bags in the last year compared to the number handed out in 2006.
Oh, and the title of today's missive.... comes from U.S president, philosopher and generally regarded master of the bon mot, James Madison in 1788.... "There are two methods of curing the mischief's of faction: the one by removing it's causes, the other by controlling it's effects"
It sets out the targets to achieve and shows how it will "transform the country into a cleaner, greener and more prosperous place to live" and puts it at the heart of our economic plans for "Building Britain's Future".
Over the next 10years it sets out how we will; have more than 1.2 million people in "green jobs", have 7 million homes benefit from whole house makeovers and 1.5 million households supported to produce their own energy.
40% of energy will be delivered from a basket of low carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal. We will be importing half the amount of gas we would otherwise and cars will emit 40% less carbon than now.
All this (and lots more) to achieve a 34% reduction in carbon emissions on 1990 levels by 2020.
And it here that I have concerns. As the press release says itself, we have already delivered a 21% reduction ("equivalent to cutting emissions entirely from 4 cities the size of London"), so that leaves us a target of a further 13% reduction over the next 11years. Laudable reductions so far (maybe, maybe not!) but is the remainder enough? Should we have moved the base (1990 levels) to more recent (and more accurate measures) of emission levels? Is it enough to do what needs to be done?
Here are 10 things to worry you on the situation taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report update, June 2009;
1. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are responsible for most of the increase in global temperature with greater than 90% certainty. Many aspects of climate change explicitly link them to human activity.
2. Human induced climate change is already affecting multiple systems, both physical and biological.
3. Changes in polar temperatures are attributed "conclusively" to human activity. A detectable human influence on sea ice melt extends back to the early 1990s, even before (and including) "the recent and rapid increase in melting".
4. Global precipitation trends across all areas of the World are larger than model predictions and may already be impacting ecosystems, agriculture and human health.
5. Satellites show an increase in total atmospheric moisture content over the oceans since 1998 attributable to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses.
6. New research finds a significant chance (84%) that human activities are responsible for most of the observed increase in sea surface temperature which contributes to more intense hurricanes.
Ocean acidification (by absorption of CO2 forming carbonic acid) is occurring threatening the World's coral reefs, shellfish and marine ecosystems leading to a direct threat to food security, biodiversity, tourism and coastal protection.
7. A better understanding of the behaviour of large ice sheets and of rapid melting has raised projections of 21 century global sea level rise (see my posting 7th July).
8. Surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is accelerating... satellite observations indicate that 2007 was a record year for Greenland surface melt - 60% more melt than the previous record of 1998. A similar story for the Antarctic ice shelves and for the Arctic sea ice.
9. Permafrost is thawing more rapidly than previously thought. The permafrost (the Arctic land mass) contains significantly more CO2 than currently exists in the Earth's atmosphere. Release of both CO2 and CH4 (methane) occurs with the thawing of these areas. Methane emissions from Siberian thaw lakes "may be more than 5 times higher than previous estimates" and expansion of thaw lakes in response to Arctic warming has led to a 58% increase in methane emissions (remember, methane is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2).
10. The impacts of climate change may persist more than 1000 years, even after human-induced emissions of CO2 have stopped completely.
Well, I didn't mean to scare you, but it does beg the question that despite the fact that the U.K. is at the "forefront of a low carbon economic revolution" with the excellent Department of Energy and Climate Change plan, is it enough, and is it enough, soon enough?
If you'd like to read the full, terrifying report go to; http://www.pewclimate.org/brief/science-developments/June2009
Good news today though..... leading retailers have only just missed their target to reduce the number of plastic carrier bags given to their customers. The scheme aimed for reduction of 50% and has achieved.... 48%. I wonder what their monetary savings have been as a result, what their income from "bags for life" is and what they have done with that money. Still, we mustn't be too mean in our thoughts for the 7 supermarkets' brave attempts to save the World. They have reduced the number by 372 million bags in the last year compared to the number handed out in 2006.
Oh, and the title of today's missive.... comes from U.S president, philosopher and generally regarded master of the bon mot, James Madison in 1788.... "There are two methods of curing the mischief's of faction: the one by removing it's causes, the other by controlling it's effects"
Monday, 13 July 2009
Sheffield Business School
I thoroughly enjoyed my meeting today with Jane, a senior lecturer at Hallam University business school. Jane specialises in supply chain management and is looking for potential company partners to help 3rd year undergraduates complete their "capstone" project. Projects designed to help students recognise the implications of decisions made in business.
Jane is particularly interested in sustainability and carbon issues associated along all or any parts of supply chain. Fascinating stuff believe it or not.
We talked and talked .... future trends and what to do now to prepare, how to engage suppliers, what initiatives work, hidden environmental costs, supply chain visibility, challenges and opportunities up and down the supply chain, branding, value led markets, root value of things and on and on. You may not believe me but it's riveting stuff with so many implications for all.
A sustainability strategy may have a number of objectives; social issues, environmental issues, economical issues etc. often these may well be in conflict. How do we manage these? Where in the supply chain do we put our influence to best effect, for example, Ikea concentrate greatly on forestry and raw materials, they actually buy finished (or rather packs of finished bits and -1 screws) products but get huge benefit from working with supply chain one step removed. They add their clever efficiencies and ensure the best sustainable forestry with the woodmen , who can then provide cheaper and "greener" material to Ikea's suppliers who will then though have to share the savings with Ikea. All have (probably) benefited.
Talking of business and new business models take a look at the new car company "Riversimple" at www.riversimple.com What a great business model. These guys have produced a lightweight electric vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cells, but that's not the best thing. Best of all is how it will all work. Complete and comprehensive plans on how to build these excellent little cars will be available, free, on the www. so anyone can set up and produce them. £200 per month will lease you a car built locally using local workforce. The price includes everything even the fuel you use. What is also so clever is that it takes away the car manafacturers in-built strategy to build in obsolescence, there will never be a time you need to buy a new car, just swap it, no charge for another.
Jane is particularly interested in sustainability and carbon issues associated along all or any parts of supply chain. Fascinating stuff believe it or not.
We talked and talked .... future trends and what to do now to prepare, how to engage suppliers, what initiatives work, hidden environmental costs, supply chain visibility, challenges and opportunities up and down the supply chain, branding, value led markets, root value of things and on and on. You may not believe me but it's riveting stuff with so many implications for all.
A sustainability strategy may have a number of objectives; social issues, environmental issues, economical issues etc. often these may well be in conflict. How do we manage these? Where in the supply chain do we put our influence to best effect, for example, Ikea concentrate greatly on forestry and raw materials, they actually buy finished (or rather packs of finished bits and -1 screws) products but get huge benefit from working with supply chain one step removed. They add their clever efficiencies and ensure the best sustainable forestry with the woodmen , who can then provide cheaper and "greener" material to Ikea's suppliers who will then though have to share the savings with Ikea. All have (probably) benefited.
Talking of business and new business models take a look at the new car company "Riversimple" at www.riversimple.com What a great business model. These guys have produced a lightweight electric vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cells, but that's not the best thing. Best of all is how it will all work. Complete and comprehensive plans on how to build these excellent little cars will be available, free, on the www. so anyone can set up and produce them. £200 per month will lease you a car built locally using local workforce. The price includes everything even the fuel you use. What is also so clever is that it takes away the car manafacturers in-built strategy to build in obsolescence, there will never be a time you need to buy a new car, just swap it, no charge for another.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Damned if you do...........
I work hard to reduce my carbon footprint. When I do so I save money. With that money I buy things............ that creates carbon, arrgggh! Hard is'nt it? The other thing we are all, I think guilty of is picking and choosing; I will, say, install low energy light bulbs, I won't stop driving too quickly, or I will put on a jumper and turn down the heating, but I will also stand too long under the shower. So, how about having a go at this? Make a list of things you know are green house gas expensive but are reluctant to give up on and of those that you find easy to forego. Now you can manage that list, hang on perhaps I can stop doing this or that carbon expensive action, perhaps I can increase the amount I do of this or that carbon saving action... a simple review. I bet you you can easily make big carbon savings (and money savings) just by doing this.
I enjoyed the HRH Prince Charles' Dimbleby lecture the other day, bumbling as it was it typically contained "joined up thinking" and important views of the way forward from the mess we find ourselves in. I liked his phrase, "...what sustains us must itself be sustained" so that we protect and encourage the environment and count sustainability as part of bottom line profit rather than continue hell for leather to drive for unbridled growth.
I enjoyed the HRH Prince Charles' Dimbleby lecture the other day, bumbling as it was it typically contained "joined up thinking" and important views of the way forward from the mess we find ourselves in. I liked his phrase, "...what sustains us must itself be sustained" so that we protect and encourage the environment and count sustainability as part of bottom line profit rather than continue hell for leather to drive for unbridled growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
