Green Transport -1

Transport is a big problem area, consuming around 30% of world energy, nearly all via the use of fossil fuels. Whereas it’s relatively easy to see how green energy sources can meet power needs and even heating needs, mobility is a harder nut to crack, as we explore in this two part post.

In this first part we focus on road transport, which is responsible for around 15% of global emissions and around three quarters of total transport emissions, the first question to ask is – do we want to have private and commercial vehicles on roads as at present? Buses, trams, trains, bikes and walking may be better for many journeys- in environmental and also, compared to cars, in health terms: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/network/network-news/guest-blog-buses-bicycles-and-building-for-health.html But assuming we still need private and commercial road vehicles for at least some purposes, the most direct and least disruptive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to switch to lower carbon fuels- biofuels and synfuels.  However, even if the rate of use of biofuels is matched by the rate of replanting, there are still net carbon debts and eco-impacts- it takes energy to harvest and process the crops, CO2 remains in the atmosphere while the new plants grow, biodiversity may be undermined and there can be land-use conflicts with food growing. And with some low-yield biofuel crops the energy gains are marginal.   More productive advanced biofuel crops may improve on that, but the fuel cycle is still not carbon free, and the eco-impacts remain a big concern. Views differ, but it seems unlikely that we could grow enough biofuels to replace significant amounts of petrol and diesel use without having major eco-impacts.  

Synthetic fuels of various kinds may be better, but so far the costs are high. For example, it is possible to use electricity from wind or PV solar systems to electrolyse water to make 100% green hydrogen gas, for use either via combustion directly in car engines, or to run a fuel cell to make electricity for an electric motor drive. Unfortunately, these multiple ‘Power to Gas’ and ‘Gas to Power’ conversion steps each involve energy losses. If you have cheap electricity to start with that may not matter too much (and if its surplus wind or PV power, then it is in effect free), but even so, why not use it direct in a battery electric car? The conversion loses are then very low.

Certainly electric vehicles seem to be winning against hydrogen cars so far. Delivering electricity to car batteries is more straightforward than delivering liquid hydrogen to an on-board cryogenic tank. However, batteries are heavy and limit the car’s range. They are getting better, but in time some of the other options may win out in some sectors. For example, biofuels may have sourcing problems, but biogas, produced by anaerobic digestion of farm and food wastes, is a relatively cheap and quite widely available source and can be used in vehicles- although the volumes may not be very high. But in addition, liquified synthetic methane (CH4) can made from green hydrogen and CO2 captured from the air or from power station exhausts. That could be good for trucks and vans.  Some also look to synthetic methanol made from methane, or even ammonia as a new carbon molecule-free fuel.  But both are toxic…

For the moment most of the emphasis is on electric vehicles - and on stimulating up take.  They may cost less to run than conventional cars, but the battery pack adds to the cost and has to be replaced regularly. They also need charging!  EV owners can charge them at home, which may be fine for short commuting/shopping trips but for longer distance trips the UK is trying to get more public charging points established around the country. Ecotricity has already installed some at motorway services and there are some provided for example by local councils at other sites, in all around 11,000. The UK Department for Transport recently proposed plans to set common standards for all public charge points. But its also supporting hydrogen refuelling infrastructure.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘Our ambition is for nearly all new cars and vans to be zero emission by 2040.’ And subsequently Environment  Secretary Michael Grove announced a plan to halt all new petrol and diesel car sales by 2040. There is a way to go on that.  But the Government has a £4m programme to help businesses to switch their large trucks and vans to electric models through the Plug-In Van grant, as well as other grants and incentives for EV purchase. As a result, the number of new registered ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) has risen by 250% in just two years, with more than £600m pledged so far over this Parliament to boost the market. The UK has the EUs second highest level of EV sales: http://www.edie.net/news/6/Government-unveils-charging-plans-to-put-EVs-in-driving-seat/

However, it’s still pretty marginal, as is the uptake of biofuels. The UK had agreed with an EU plan to increase the proportion of biofuel included in fuel mixes sold but that has proved hard and caps have been set by the EU in response to concerns about eco-impacts. At present liquid biofuel contributes around 3% of the fuel used in UK road transport. Sustainable sourcing has been an issue. Initially most biofuels were imported, but, REA says that ‘UK biodiesel is now largely made from waste feedstocks, in particular used cooking oil’, with no palm oil now being imported, and UK feedstocks for bioethanol have risen, so overall 26% of biofuels are now UK sourced, up from 8% in 2008:

http://www.r-e-a.net/news/new-department-for-transport-data-shows-no-palm-oil-used-in-the-uk

The situation in the USA is a bit different. Biofuels, bioethanol especially, prospered initially, driven by subsidy schemes aimed to help the beleaguered agricultural sector. Whether that helped much in net energy and emission terms is debated. So too is the more recent boom in electric vehicles (EVs). The US only gets around 15% of its electricity from renewables (as opposed to 25% and growing in the UK), so most of the EVs aren’t really very green. But the market for EVs is expanding. The Rocky Mountain Institute says ‘During the last decade, the number of plug-in vehicle models available for sale has grown to more than 20, just as battery costs have decreased by 70%, and the number of EV charging stations across the U.S. has climbed to more than 16,000. And this growth trajectory for EVs is likely to continue, especially with the Obama administration’s announcement in July 2016 of actions to accelerate deployment of EV charging infrastructure’.

However, the RMI notes that ‘load growth from new EVs can pose challenges to the distribution system and to electricity customers—affecting grid reliability and increasing electricity costs’. That’s also clear in the UK- it could lead to a 20% extra peak power demand.  But there are also some potential energy benefits. For example, as RMI notes, ‘technologies available today allow EVs to act as demand response resources and to assist with the integration of renewable energy onto the grid by managing when and where they charge’. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) system need careful planning- no one will like it if they find their car batteries drained when they want to go somewhere or if the grid goes down if commuters all try to recharge their cars when they get home from work!  See the RMI’s report, Driving Integration: Regulatory responses to EV growth, for how these issue are being faced in the USA: http://www.rmi.org/ev_integration

So what’s the bottom line? Although public transport is by far the best environmentally, there are some green private road vehicle options and they are likely to expand. So we might hope to slow the rate of emissions in this sector.  EVs may come to the rescue, but it’s still pretty grim: road transport related emissions in the EU grew by 17% between 1990 and 2014: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-at

It’s even worse for ships and planes. See the next post in this series.

PCS union views: A Just Transition and Energy Democracy

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) has produced a booklet ‘Just Transition and Energy Democracy’ which says: ‘The real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope of building a much more enlightened economic system— one that closes deep inequalities, strengthens and transforms the public sphere, generates plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate power’.  

It calls for ‘an open and urgent discussion amongst workers is needed to develop an industrial strategy that gives real protection to workers’ jobs, pay and conditions through the economic transition. It means learning from various initiatives like the Lucas Plan, One Million Climate jobs and campaigns and projects taking place in many parts of the world. These are a good start point in formulating an alternative to the anti-worker and environmentally destructive role of the energy giants who wield such economic power; where from the dawn of the industrial age a mere 90 companies are responsible for over two thirds of global emissions.’

PCS says that to meet the UK climate targets as part of the Paris global commitment, ‘we need an energy transition to a zero carbon economy based on public ownership and democratic control of our energy system. A system of energy democracy that will underwrite a just transition for workers and communities across all sectors of the economy and re-vision our public services’.

It goes into some detail of what might be involved, based on the principle of Energy democracy – public ownership and democratic control. It notes that ‘community energy and cooperatives are posited as
an example of regaining control. With some success in Germany and Denmark there are certainly models to
learn from. However often these will be small scale, suit certain types of environment, and mostly those with some initial wealth to pool to make them happen. Therefore whilst there is an important place for different models of energy generation and certainly in rural
areas this may make more sense, to address the scale needed including to run our public services of schools, hospitals and transport, the focus for PCS is on the need to remunicipalise our energy system as part of a worker- public partnership’.

It notes that a shift to municipal energy is already happening. Nottingham City council set up Robin Hood Energy in 2015. Leeds City Council have partnered with Robin Hood Energy to establish White Rose Energy. Bristol Energy set up in early 2016, is like Nottingham wholly owned by the City Council on a not-for-profit basis. They are also going beyond a standard business model with wider social and economic aims such as tackling fuel poverty and promoting renewable energy generation. The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan has committed to a municipal energy company – Energy for Londoners – which would be by far the biggest and challenging yet. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) made up of ten councils  is also looking at establishing a publicly owned municipal energy company. Scotland has been developing its own energy democracy programmes through Our Power, a community benefit society owned by a number of local authorities and housing associations. It aims to supply 30% of its energy from renewable sources and equally tackle fuel poverty with a focus on social housing tenants.

These are good starting point, but PCS looks to a much more radical approach nationally. It notes that a key element of the ‘One Million Climate Jobs’ campaign is the creation of a National Climate Service (NCS) similar to the National Health Service (NHS), to ensure there is a body to create the jobs needed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But it also wants other radical government services, including a ‘Ministry for Climate Change’ (MforCC) that can oversee an energy democracy transition to a zero carbon economy. However as well as needing a body like this for centralised planning it says there is also a need for Commissions to support local democrat control and protect worker and community rights, with the civil service in these new bodies ‘working in the interest of a people service not just a government run public service’.

It’s a brave vision, based in part of work done by Prof. David Hall of the
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU).  It would involve breaking up much of what exist at present- the nationalisation and municipalisation of much of the power system, at a cost put at £24bn in compensation to the current owners: ‘Transmission and distribution companies would be brought back into the public sector with new legislation brought forward to enable the creation of regional and local supply companies’. But unlike previous nationalisations, it would be subject to meaningful local worker and community control- and with climate issues being central. That’s a big ask- not all workers or communities may see climate issues as central. However, PCS is convinced that it is both in their interests and necessary:  ‘climate change and the industrial struggle of unions against workers continued exploitation opens up the opportunity to think and develop a strategy and programme that puts workers at the centre of the economic transformation that will be needed’.

So PCS wants a new approach-very different from some of the others on offer. For example, the World Energy Council has looked to three possible futures, using ‘musical , analogies:

Modern Jazz – driven by markets, strong innovation and rapid deployment of new technologies.

Unfinished Symphony – strong states direction with energy policy priorities focused on security and climate change.

Hard Rock – a fragmented world with a weak economy and strong nationalism.

PCS believe there is a fourth scenario, the Brass Band – an energy transition based on real workers participation, public ownership and democratic control – a workers and public partnership.  It notes that ‘A Just Transition’ was a ‘topline’ priority for the trade union movement led by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) at the UN climate talks in Paris, and is recognised in the Preamble to the agreement by way of the following text:
“Taking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.” 


While PCS welcomes that, it says it means nothing ‘without action by trade unions and others involved in labour issues such as those working for social justice to make it happen’. It is certainly trying. It realises that it approach is radical, even maybe utopian, but seeks at the very least to challenge the economic orthodoxy of governments and financial institutions by:

 1.Questioning the claims that cost-cutting means greater efficiency

2.Arguing that civil and public services are vital to the economic, political and social well-being of the nation

3.Arguing for public ownership and control over all aspects of service delivery in the civil and public services

4. Making the case for accountable public services with staff involved through their trade unions building public services for the future, including in the energy transition.

https://www.pcs.org.uk/sites/default/files/site_assets/resources/green_workplaces/2017/Just Transition %26 Energy Democracy - a civil service trade union perspective.pdf

The PCS approach has a lot in common with Corbyn’s views, as reflected in the last Labour Manifesto, but with more details. It will be interesting to see if any of it get taken up by Labour, and by other progressive parties, who do share many of the same ideas about local control. In terms of technology, the PCS certainly backs renewables strongly, is critical of fracking and uncertain about nuclear- much like the Labour leadership, although it is constrained by the strong pro-nuclear position of the GMB, the big engineering union: see my last post in the series.   But the Greens are no so constrained and may want a stronger anti-nuclear line. However, Labour is pushing the ownership issue: https://labourenergy.org/2017/09/13/who-owns-offshore-wind/And the Unions, via the TUC, are are backing that: http://unionsforenergydemocracy.org/tued-bulletin-64-backing-corbyn-uks-tuc-votes-for-public-ownership-of-energy/