I went to a presentation about green transportation around this time last year. It was put on by a local environmental action group. Not the sort of thing I normally do as I have always considered myself as having a moderate disposition towards life in general. It was presented in the dimly lit mezzanine of a well known outdoor retail store, after hours and in a posh Ottawa neighborhood. The small audience of 20 or so people were made up mostly of environmental activists, natural living store owners and I thought I remember seeing a local politician. Being none of these myself, I remember feeling somewhat out of place. The two-hour talk was about transportation with a particular focus on inner-city and intercity transportation. The better part of which was presented by a former green party leader whose name now escapes me. Surrounded by the irony of plastic kayaks and GORE-TEX® jackets we listened with intent and curiosity. He made some good qualitative points on the topic essentially prescribing that cities should accommodate slower modes of transportation over faster ones in a hierarchical manner. Walking would then be the method best support by the infrastructure, followed by slow wheeled devices (skate boards, roller skates), then bicycles all the way back to automobiles.
I would say that my sensibilities agreed that the conventional inner-city infrastructure is unaccommodating and can often be dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and the like. At the same time I could not accept the overall philosophy because there was no comparison made regarding the convenience that more conventional options provide, nor was there much quantitative data presented to support the overall concept. These reasons coupled with my own transport usage experiences have been my inspiration to kick off this blog with transportation as the opening topic. And what a large topic it is. So much so that this first installment will be a boiled down overview of the various types of motorized inner-city modes of personal transport.
But enough about me, let’s talk about a few reasons why you should be interested in transportation.
· The impact to your wallet; it turns out that the average American spends almost 20% of their household budget on vehicle related expenses(2). I can only assume that the case is similar in Canada.
· The air you breathe; the gasoline alone that is consumed by cars and small trucks accounts for 20% of the total US CO2 emissions(2). This means that a reduction of emissions in your life through transportation can translate to a big difference.
· Life, death and injury; in the US, highway accidents alone claimed the lives of 43,000 people in 2005 and injured around 2.7 million(2) (or about 1 in every 100). In that same year, Canadians saw about 2,900 deaths along with approximately 205,000 injured(12) (about 1 in 200).
But enough about the whys, let’s move onto what is available and the costs, benefits and trade-offs that come with each. Below I have put together a summary of estimated annual costs and energy use for various transportation methods. I chose energy (kWh) instead of CO2 emissions because those numbers are more concrete, easier to retrieve and are more or less proportional to CO2. The results themselves are really intended to be a comparison so that you can make up your own mind. I also invite you to challenge these figures as I would like to improve upon them republish this post a year from now with more accurate and complete information. In the meantime, every second month we will delve more deeply into specific areas of the transportation sector.
Transportation Method
|
Annual Cost* ($)
|
Annual Energy** (kWh)
| Gasoline per Annum***
(US Gallons) |
| Small Sedan(1)(3)(4)(gas) | $6,250 - $8,900 | 12,750 - 13,750 | 375 - 400 |
| Mid-Size Sedan(1)(3)(4) (gas) | $8,250 - $10,500 | 14,000 – 17,000 | 400 - 525 |
| Full Size Sedan(1)(3)(4) (gas) | $10,500 | 19,750 | 600 |
| SUV(1) (gas) | $10,500 - $12,000 | 15,500 - 22,500 | 450 - 650 |
| Minivan(1) (gas) | $8,750 - $12,000 | 18,750 - 19,500 | 550- 575 |
| Hybrid(3)(4) (Prius) | $9,750 | 6,250 | 184 |
| ElectricCar(3)(4)(6)(7)(9)(10)(EV) | $11,250 - $19,500 | 3,500 - 5,500 | 100 - 150 |
| Neighborhood Electric Vehicle(3)(4)(7)(8)(9)(10) (NEV) | $4,500 - $6,000 | 4,250 | 125 |
| Motorcycle(10)(11) (gas) | $3,000 - $3,750 | 4,000 – 6,750 | 125 - 200 |
| 49cc Scooter(11)(gas) | $1,250 - $ 2,250 | 4000 | 75 – 125 |
| Scooter(9)(11)(electric) | $850 - $900 | 450 – 675 | 15 |
| Mass Transit(5) | $950 | 3,500 - 29,000 | 350 |
Figures in chart are rounded appropriately
* As the Canadian dollar is near parity, estimated annual costs are reported simply as dollars ($)
** Denotes energy in kWh or its equivalent converted from gasoline to kWh
*** Denotes US gallons of gasoline or its equivalent converted from kWh
Now let’s look at the trade-offs starting with the conventional transportation mode.
Gas Powered Automobiles
The benefits of the automobile are well known to anyone who’s owned one. The convenience through all types of weather being one of the most talked about benefits. As far as trade-offs, owning an automobile is undeniably expensive for most people. As mentioned before, it typically accounts for 20% of a household’s budget.
Hybrid
All the conveniences of pure gas powered automobiles with about a 50% reduction in energy consumption. Though fuel costs are much lower, this is offset by the increased maintenance costs because the vehicle is running two systems in parallel.
Electric Car (EV)
Having almost all of the conveniences of a conventional automobile, this is increasingly becoming a real option for people. Many manufacturer’s have recently brought smaller car models to production including i-MiEV, Volt, Focus BEV and Leaf with Tesla heading up the sport and luxury markets with their Roadster, Model S and soon to be released Model X. Some of these models are offering even more room than their conventional counter-parts. The Model S for example has cargo space in the back with optional fold-up seats, and free space under the front hood as Tesla has integrated the motor into the axle. The energy consumed by these vehicles is only 1/4 that of gas powered automobiles. And though the power and maintenance costs are lower, the massive price tag of the inevitable battery replacement drives up the annual cost above most gas powered car classes. There is a silver lining to this story in that Li-ion battery prices are expected to drop rapidly over the next 5 to 10 years. If this price drop comes to fruition, those buying EVs today may have a pleasant surprise in the 5 or so years when they are in need of battery replacement. An aftermarket for old batteries may also develop in support of the growing renewable energy sector and would be used a energy storage as part of the smart grid strategy. This would further help the EV owner to offset their costs. Many analysts are expecting that within 5 years, the EV will truly become cost competitive with gas powered automobiles. Beyond the cost point, the other trade off is that, with the current technology, those in colder climates experience a reduction in battery performance which inevitably translates to having a shorter range due to reduced energy capacity and/or poorer acceleration due to lower power output. Though I have been unable to find reliable sources to know by how much the battery can be affected in say a Canadian February cold snap.
Neighborhood Electric Car (NEV)
These cars typically have a top speed of between 40 and 65 km/h (25 to 40 mph) and often have a range of 50 to 100 km (30 to 60 miles). The cost of buying a new NEV and maintaining it is typically about half the price of a conventional automobile and much less than the better known electric cars. Current manufacturers include Dynasty Electric Vehicles and Global Electric Motors. There is a trade off in convenience in that NEVs, though "street legal", cannot go on the highway and are typically used for inner city travel. Some are even used as special airport vehicles. Another thing to note is that the batteries will need replacing more often because they are typically Pb-acid, either flooded or dry. Unfortunately, with this battery type it is important to fully or near fully deplete the battery in order to prolong its life.
Motorcycle (gas)
The benefits of the motorcycle are a decrease in cost and reduction in energy consumption. The trade-off here clearly is convenience. Not everyone is willing to ride in the rain, people should not ride in the snow and there is only so much that a rider can carry with them. Needless to say, it isn’t the ideal vehicle for driving your kids to soccer practice. Nevertheless, for those people without children and in the right climates, this option may work well for them.
Small Scooter (49cc gas)
Similar draw backs to the motorcycle except that these are strictly for in town commuting. The annual cost estimate is about half that of a motorcycle, due to lower maintenance and fuel costs. Note that the figures in the table above were based on an averaging of people’s reported costs through mediums such as internet forums as there is a lack of available literature for this transportation mode.
Small Scooter (electric)
As pictured above, these have been gaining in popularity recently as their availability has increases and the purchase prices have decreased. This is an extremely cost effective mode of transport with a drastically low energy consumption. Yet it has all the same trade-offs of the small gas scooter. Furthermore, most states and provinces do not require these to be registered, licensed or insured which reduces costs even more. Note that the figures in the table above were based on an averaging of people’s reported costs through mediums such as internet forums as there is a lack of available literature for this transportation mode.
Mass Transit
It is very inexpensive, free of maintenance, insurance, and well virtually all vehicle costs as these get pushed back onto the taxpayer. Time however is the biggest trade-off when using this transportation option. And in some urban centres even safety is a consideration. The energy consumption can vary drastically on a per person basis. Typical rush hour commutes are quite efficient where as off-peak trips in sub-urban areas can be extremely energy inefficient. Hence the massive range in the annual energy consumption shown in the table above.
So there you have it, a quick and dirty summary of many options that are available to the majority of North Americans.
The Assumptions
To populate the table above, some serious assumptions were made.
- Energy used to produce and deliver both fuel and electricity were ignored.
- Energy consumed for the lifecycle of the product (e.g. manufacturing, delivery, maintenance and disposal) were ignored.
- An annual travelling distance of 19,000 kms (12,000 miles) was assumed for each mode of transport in order to put them on an even footing.
- Government incentive rebates were not taken into account as these vary from state to state and province to province.
Coming up …
… next month we will discuss commercially available lighting options. In October we’ll take a closer look at the electric car. Tune in on the 1st of every month.
Sources
(5) Chester, M. V. (2008). Life-cycle Environmental Inventory of Passenger Transportation in the United States (Dissertation, Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley). Retrieved July 2012 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7n29n303
(7) Cuenca, R.M.; Gaines, L.L.; Vyas, A.D. (1999). Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Production and Operating Costs. US Department of Energy, Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division. Retrieved July 2012 from http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/14.pdf
(13) U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy provides data and information on efficiency of various vehicular models (http://fueleconomy.gov)
