What’s up at UPS, the United Parcel Service, regarding going green?  Well the latest news from the company that likes to be know as “Brown” announced their order for the first 7 “Hydralic Hybrid” delivery trucks.  The “Hydralic Hybrid” stores power by pressurizing hydralic fluid, instead of sending electricity to a bank of batteries.  The early testing in metro Detroit have shown that these trucks can reduce fuel usage by 45 to 50% and CO2 emissions by 30%, when compared to conventional diesel engines. 

This new technology began development October 2001 a R&D project between Eaton Corp and the US EPA laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The vehicles that are delivered to UPS will be powered by a high efficiency diesel engine that periodically recharges pressure in the hydraulic store, rather than sending power to the wheels.  This technology is seen as a cost savings solution for large trucks, a way to reduce oil use and a way to reduce CO2 emissions from large vehicles.  It is estimated the the fuel savings will pay for the cost of this solution within 3 years.

The vehicles are being built by Navistar, using the Eaton technology.  Navistar’s participation is based on their ability to offer their customers “performance and reduced emissions with dramatic improvements in fuel economy,” said Steve Guillaume, Navistar General Manager, Medium Trucks.  UPS expects to take delivery of these vehicle in 2009 and 2010.  UPS noted in their press release that they are already the largest “green fleet” or more than 1600 vehicles growing to 2100 as the company ads another 600 vehicles this year.

Eaton’s press release:

http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/OurCompany/NewsandEvents/CT_190984

UPS’ press release:

http://www.ups.com/pressroom/us/press_releases/press_release/0,0,5052,00.html

If you watch television you’ve seen the ads with oilman Boone Pickens promoting switching our vehicles to run on natural gas/renewable fuels.  If not, the plan is based on 1 fundamental point: that relying on foreign oil is dangerous to the US economy and it’s position in the world.  In short, we should switch to natural guess to power vehicles instead of using oil.  The plan itself is under attack for substituting one carbon based fuel for another, when CO2 levels need to be reduced.  Further the is under attack because it’s creator/backer, 80 year old oilman T. Boone Pickens, has substantial investments in the various components of the plan.

The Good

The plan is about reducing dependence on oil and the transfer of wealth from the US to oil producing countries.  Keeping our energy spend at/near home is something that i support with my environmental, nationalist and capitalist values.  Environmentally the plan calls on substituting natural gas for gasoline that is mainly made from imported oil and substituting the electricity that is generated by natural gas, with wind power. This is a net gain for the environment. First, natural gas generates 30%+ less CO2, per mile than gasoline.  Further switching to wind from natural gas power plants eliminates the emissions from 16%+ of the power generation and about 11% of overall emissions for electrical generation (nat gas generates 33% of the CO2 of coal plants) due to it’s cleaner burn.

The Bad

The Pickens’ Plan encourage changing the entire US truck fleet to natural gas, since trucks use 25% of all gasoline.  Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels corp. a company that runs natural gas filling stations.  Pickens’ plan calls for wind power to replace natural gas generated power, to make the fuel available for transportation.  Pickens has ordered over $2 Billion worth of wind turbines to help produce that electricity.  The plan calls for the government allow emergency use of eminent domain to create right of ways for high voltage links between wind farms and electric users; Pickens is seeking to have power lines built to his wind farm.  While the plan may help the country, it is Pickens, more than any other individual, who will benefit from his plan.

The Ugly

Boone Pickens has been around for years and has acquired a number of friends and enemies.  Many enemies in the environmental movement base their stand on the effects of his business on the environment.  We all know about the environmental issues of an oil based economy and as a the ultimate Texas wildcatter, Mr. Pickens has made his fortune(and lost it and made it back) in the Oil and Gas industry.  More recently, Mr. Pickens has acquired the majority of water rights, for his Mesa Water, in his county in texas and intends to pump ground water for sale to Dallas, which is over 200 miles away.  Not only does he intend to pump water to sell, he intends to do so at a rate which empty the aquifer in 20 to 30 years.  In June he manage to get his ranch declared a public water district which gives him considerable power in using eminent domain to take property need for his 200+ mile pipeline.  Finally is you are a democrat and/or some one angry over the Swift Boat ads directed at John Kerry in 2004, it was Boone Pickens that spent over $7 million to bankroll the activity.

The Conclusion?

I think it’s a good idea to switch transportation to natural gas, from oil, but to put a bunch of government subsidies to make this switch when we are just a few years from plug-in rechargeables with reasonable cost and range isn’t wise.  Better we should subsidize, non-carbon technology with government money or tax credits.

Anthony Rubenstein discusses the plan and California Prop 10 at his site www.AnthonyRubenstein

I’ve been shocked by a recent Toyota commercial airing on Canadian TV. The ad, basically is trumpeting Toyota’s green credentials.  As in all Toyota commercials these days, it features their Hybrid vehicles and technology.  I wrote about the amazing cost of the CO2 displaced by a Toyota hybrid here: http://sunpowereddreams.com/2008/08/17/the-hybrid-hype-overpaying-for-co2/.  What shocked me was a statement at the end of this commercial - “Our goal? A car that actually cleans the air..”

Well it’s certainly a bold promise for a company that still doesn’t have an all electric vehicle.  What’s even funnier than the statement itself, is that Toyota USA is advertising about “striving for” zero emmissions and zero waste.  Frankly the Canadian ad reeks of an ad agency gone overboard.  What’s next? A car that prevents you from aging, or that cooks lunch?  Why would you put this “pipe dream” into your ad? It might not be green washing  but it’s way past a rational goal and very much on the way to the utopian thinking.

I think it’s way too much for a car company that still runs on the internal combustion engine.

Well they didn’t call me “Little Miss Sunshine” or link to any of my sites, but:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502518_2.html

“People still come to the site, but where you used to get people signing up [for offsets] every day, now you’d be lucky to get a few people a week,” said Fred Weiss, a small-time offset seller based in Ann Arbor, Mich., who sends customers stickers that say, “Carbon Neutral Vehicle.” Apparently that isn’t as important now.

“Who cares about the environment? Am I going to have a house next week?” he imagined would-be customers saying.

Not much, but at least they quoted me correctly and spelled my name right.

I recently had to the opportunity to be locked in an internet free location for a day or two which resulted in a lot more thinking than i would admit to.  A few thoughts came thru that were directly related to this blog and the Carbon Offsets business that i run.

First i’ve been worried about this “collapse” of the financial system due to bad mortgages for years and while i imagined this would happen, i guess i never believed it would get this bad, let alone the possibility that it could become even worse. 

Much as we’ve seen in the commodities market recently, there has sharp drop in carbon offset prices.  In the US carbon offset markets, these offsets have dropped in price from about $2.25 a ton in january to about $1.80 today.  That doesn’t sound too surprising or devastating, until i mention that during that time the price peaked at just under $7.50 a ton during the months in between.   While i’m sure this affects many carbon offsetters, we’re small enough and new enough that we can only benefit by these reduced cost of offsets.  The real story here isn’t the cost of the offsets, or the reason for the great swings in value. 

The real story is that Global Warming was controlling the mindspace of American consumers and voters in January and February and is all but an afterthought today.  The shift in society’s focus away from global warming to “Drill, Drill, Drill” (thank you larry kudlow) was prompted, not surprisingly by oil skyrocketing over $100 a barrel right to $150.  Nobody who is trying to afford the SUV they drive to work, doesn’t care about the earth getting hotter, because the night sweats are increasingly chilled as we worry about keeping our jobs, homes and feeding our families.  Unfortunately, much like the entreprenuers who burn the forest of brasil to grow soybeans, our thoughts toward the future have focused on the next few weeks instead of the next 10-20 years.  Until that focus shifts, complicated/abstract ideas like carbon offsets, will be of less interest than green actions that help to save money.  The next few years green needs to focus on helping the family budget to help change the world.