fuel_cell_cars
General Motors is going all electric.
After more than a century peddling vehicles that pollute the atmosphere, General Motors is ending its relationship with gasoline and diesel.
AFTER MORE THAN a century peddling vehicles that pollute the atmosphere, General Motors is ending its relationship with gasoline and diesel. This morning, the American automotive giant announced that it is working toward an all-electric, zero-emissions future. That starts with two new, fully electric models next year—then at least 18 more by 2023.
That product onslaught puts the company at the forefront of an increasingly large crowd of automakers proclaiming the age of electricity and promising to move away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. In recent months, Volvo, Aston Martin, and Jaguar Land Rover have announced similar moves. GM’s declaration, though, is particularly noteworthy because it’s among the very largest automakers on the planet. It sold 10 million cars last year, ranging from pickups to SUVs to urban runabouts.
“General Motors believes the future is all-electric,” says Mark Reuss, the company’s head of product. “We are far along in our plan to lead the way to that future world.”
Reuss did not give a date for the death knell of the GM gas- or diesel-powered car, saying the transition will happen at different speeds in different markets and regions. The new all-electric models will be a mix of battery electric cars and fuel cell-powered vehicles.
To be sure, GM’s sudden jolt of electricity is planned with its shareholders in mind. The Trump Administration may be moving to roll back fuel efficiency requirements in the US, but the rest of the world is insisting on an electric age. France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Norway have all said they plan to ban the sale of gas and diesel cars in the coming decades. More importantly, China—the world’s largest car market—and India, a rising star, plan to join them. No automaker can compete globally without a compelling stable of electric cars.
GM intends to grab as large a slice of the Chinese market as possible. It has previously announced plans to launch 10 electric or hybrid electric cars in the country by 2020. This summer, it started selling a two-seat EV there, for just $5,300. Last year, it sold more cars in China (3.6 million) than it did in the US (3 million).
The crucial question for the American automaker will be how, exactly, to make money from all these cars. By one report, GM loses $9,000 on each Chevy Bolt it sells. Reuss’ strategy hinges on bringing costs down thanks to steadily dropping battery prices, more efficient motors, and lighter cars. Massive scale and global supply chains helps, too. “This next generation will be profitable,” he says. “End of story.”
It's not impossible. “If they’ve really been laying this groundwork, they could be closer to not just having this tech but having a profitable and high volume way of supplying it," says Karl Brauer, an auto industry analyst with Kelley Blue Book.
General Motors’ history hasn’t been especially kind to electric mobility. Its invention of the automatic starter helped kill the first wave of electric cars at the start of the 20th century. This is the company that experimented with battery power in the EV-1, only to recall the two-seater from its owners, crush them all, and pile the carcasses up in a junkyard. In the first years of the 21st century, while Toyota was making hybrids popular with the Prius, GM was hawking the Hummer.
Over the past decade, the Detroit giant has positioned itself for a different sort of future. First came the hybrid electric Chevy Volt. Then came GM’s great coup, the Chevy Bolt, the 200-mile, $30,000 electric car that hit market long before Tesla’s Model 3. GM is seriously pursuing semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars. It offers the first car on US roads with vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability. Now, it talks about its plans to eliminate vehicle pollution, congestion, and traffic deaths.
“GM has the ability to get all of us to that future so much faster,” Reuss says. Now it just has to deliver—and make enough money doing it to stick around for that future.
Keep reading...Show less
US climate change policy: Made in California.
A peculiar confluence of history, legal precedent and defiance has set the stage for a regulatory mutiny in California that would reverberate throughout the country.
SACRAMENTO — The Trump administration may appear to control climate policy in Washington, but the nation’s most dynamic environmental regulator is here in California.
Mary D. Nichols, California’s electric-car-driving, hoodie-wearing, 72-year-old air quality regulator, is pressing ahead with a far-reaching agenda of environmental and climate actions. She says she will not let the Trump administration stand in her way.
As chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, Ms. Nichols is the de facto enforcer of the single biggest step the United States has taken to combat the effects of climate change: standards adopted under the Obama administration that mandate a deep cut in emissions from the 190 million passenger cars on America’s roads. Together, those vehicles regularly emit more earth-warming gases than the country’s power plants.
At the request of the major automakers, the Environmental Protection Agency officially opened a review of those standards last month. The move was seen as the prelude to a loosening of those targets, which require manufacturers to nearly double the average fuel economy of new cars and light trucks by 2025.
But a peculiar confluence of history, legal precedent and regulatory defiance has given California unique authority to write its own air pollution rules. And because 12 other states now follow California’s standards, the state finds itself in an extraordinary position to stage a regulatory mutiny of sorts — with much of the country’s car market in tow.
“We’re standing firm. We’re prepared to sue. We’re prepared to do what we need to do,” Ms. Nichols said in a recent interview. “We aren’t going anywhere.”
At stake in the dispute between officials in Sacramento, the state capital, and Washington is a measure that the Obama administration estimated would eliminate as much as six billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers more than $1 trillion at the pump over the lifetime of the cars affected.
For now, Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the E.P.A., has said that he will not seek to revoke the federal waiver that allows California to set auto emissions standards — an action that would likely propel the issue to court. Automakers, similarly, have not publicly asked for such a move.
Still, the auto industry has hardly conceded defeat, several industry officials said. The car companies are urging California to negotiate a loosening of the current standards.
“We all have a common stake in working together,” said Mitch Bainwol, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents 12 major automakers in the United States. Automakers, he said, want “the certainty of achievable targets.”
A Choking Haze
To understand why California has long blazed the trail for the rest of the country in air quality, gaze down from the hills above Turnbull Canyon at the Los Angeles haze.
Ringed by mountains that act as a pollution trap for the fumes from the valley’s cars and factories, the Los Angeles-Long Beach area consistently ranks among the nation’s worst areas for ozone and particle pollution.
But California’s smog was once much worse.
For much of the 20th century, swaths of Southern California were hit with smog outbreaks that turned the skies so dark that locals once mistook a particularly intense episode for a solar eclipse. Crops wilted; school events were canceled; Hollywood studios shut down their outdoor shoots.
The state moved quickly to regulate the obvious sources, like factory smoke stacks, steel mills and coal power plants. Yet the acrid smog persisted.
“You couldn’t see the mountains around L.A. on smoggy days,” said John R. Balmes, a physician, air pollution expert and a member of CARB’s board, who has lived in the region for almost four decades. “People’s eyes would burn. They’d have headaches. They’d have problems breathing.”
It took Arie J. Haagen-Smit, a Dutch biochemist at the California Institute of Technology, to link the smog to auto emissions. An avid gardener, he become alarmed in the late 1940s by the discolored leaves and flowers in his garden. He soon tracked down the culprit: the largely invisible exhaust from motor vehicles or factories was reacting with sunlight, forming ozone, or smog.
Major automakers disputed the chemist’s findings. But a determined Dr. Haagen-Smit pressed his case, recreating smog in flasks to release at public hearings — proving, beyond a doubt, that cars were the source. That fervor elevated him to a job as the first chairman of the state’s air resources board, set up by then Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1967.
When Congress established the E.P.A. in 1970 and passed the Clean Air Act later that year, California was granted a waiver to follow air pollution rules it had already established.
Automakers Cut a Deal
In facing off with the auto industry, Ms. Nichols has harnessed a similar passion.
At a March meeting of the CARB board — where she and her fellow board members resolved to push ahead with stricter emissions rules for cars and trucks, with or without the federal government — she stared down the auto industry representatives present.
No matter that Ms. Nichols, a former environmental lawyer and Wall Street Journal reporter who is known to keep a grueling schedule shuttling between CARB’s Sacramento headquarters and her Los Angeles home, was nursing a cold and “could barely croak.”
“What were you thinking when you threw yourselves upon the mercy of the Trump administration to try to solve your problems?” she scolded. “Let’s take action today, and let’s move on.”
Ms. Nichols is on her second tour as chairwoman of the air resources board; the current California governor, Jerry Brown, appointed her in 1979, during his first stint in office. She was again tapped to head the board in 2007, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked her to return.
A clean-car evangelist, she is often seen driving around Los Angeles, where she lives, in her zero-emissions Honda Fit in “electric violet blue.” (She recently leased a second vehicle, a Toyota Mirai, a zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cell car, also in blue.)
She initially lauded automakers for supporting an effort, started by President Obama in 2009, to harmonize a mishmash of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards set by the E.P.A., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and CARB. Having taken almost $80 billion in bailout money, General Motors and Chrysler, especially, were in no position to resist.
Still, the automakers soon balked at the ambitious pace of fuel efficiency improvements under the program, which requires automakers to progressively raise the fuel economy of their cars to an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, nearly double the average in 2012. That comes to about 36 miles per gallon in real-world driving.
That aggressive target would compel automakers to speed the development of hybrid and electric cars, and to improve the fuel efficiency of their conventional fleets. Automakers also argued that meeting that target would be prohibitively costly, forcing them to raise car prices or to make more battery-powered vehicles than Americans want to buy.
In a compromise, the automakers agreed to the program, provided that the standards for the later years — 2022-25 — would be subject to a midterm review.
That review was in full swing when Mr. Trump won the presidency in late 2016. Just a day after his electoral victory, the Auto Alliance reached out to the president-elect, urging him to rework the standards, calling them a “substantial challenge” for the auto industry.
In a similarly swift maneuver, the Obama administration cut short the review and finalized the rules, calling them “feasible, practical and appropriate,” just before leaving office.
The automakers doubled down. In a Feb. 21 letter, the auto industry alliance implored Mr. Pruitt, the E.P.A. head, to overturn President Obama’s 11th-hour decision. The standards, the alliance argued, “threaten to depress an industry that can ill afford spiraling regulatory costs.”
The E.P.A. has reversed President Obama’s decision. Last month, the agency officially called for comments on standards for model years 2021-25, widening the review’s scope. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which focuses mostly on auto safety, not emissions, is expected to lead the review.
“We’re going to work on the CAFE standards so you can make cars in America again,” Mr. Trump said in a speech in Detroit this year, referring to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which were first put in place in 1975.
For a meaningful reprieve, however, automakers need Ms. Nichols on board. If CARB does not sign onto the reopened review, the automakers face the prospect of separate rules for California and its follower states — a coalition that covers more than 130 million residents and more than a third of the vehicle market in the United States.
Ms. Nichols is not budging. At the first public hearing on the reopened midterm review last week, CARB’s emissions compliance chief, Annette Hebert, threatened to abandon the review if the E.P.A. took steps to weaken the emissions standards.
Should the agency try to curtail California’s ability to set its own rules — by challenging its Clean Air Act waiver, for example — the fight will more than likely end in court, said Kevin Poloncarz, a San Francisco lawyer focusing on air and climate change law.
“Pulling that waiver would be like declaring an all-out war on California,” he said.
Accusations of Overreach
Even in California, some critics challenge the expansive powers of a board of unelected officials with the authority to set environmental policy. All but two of the board’s 14 voting members are appointed by the governor, and today include a doctor, an almond farmer and a paint company executive.
Over the years, CARB has expanded its reach, regulating products as diverse as lawn mowers and bulldozers, air fresheners, paint thinners and even hair and bug spray. It has sent inspectors to Tokyo and Stuttgart, Germany, to monitor the testing of cars manufactured overseas. And it oversees a system of air-quality management districts across California that issue and enforce their own local regulations.
The agency is insulated even from state budgetary and legislative pressures. Its $956 million budget comes from user fees, like permits paid by polluters or the fees paid by car owners for smog certification, instead of from the state’s general fund.
Accusations of overreach exploded in 2015, when Mr. Brown made a push to require a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in motor vehicles by 2030, with CARB managing the reduction. Republicans and even some Democrats balked at the plan, and an oil industry campaign warned that the law would vastly expand CARB’s authority and could even lead to gas rationing.
The governor eventually abandoned his push. He also signed legislation allowing the state Senate and Assembly to appoint one member each to the CARB board, enhancing lawmakers’ control over the agency.
“What worries me is that they have unrestrained power,” said Mike Morrell, a Republican state senator who is one of CARB’s toughest critics. “They think they’re the masters of the universe.”
A Path to a Cleaner Future
CARB’s Arie Jan Haagen-Smit Laboratory in El Monte, Calif., is a reminder of the resources at the agency’s command.
At the lab, 120 technicians measure emissions on new engines before they can be used in cars sold in California. They also pull cars from the road to make sure older models stay compliant. A failed test can delay certification, or in the case of an older model, an expensive recall.
Engineers at the lab helped expose Volkswagen’s diesel emissions cheating, a scandal that affected about 600,000 cars in the United States. The lab is now strengthening its testing, and will move to a new state-of-the-art new facility in Riverside by 2020.
Even as CARB remains steadfast, however, Ms. Nichols is eager to persuade automakers that they ultimately stand to benefit from stricter fuel economy rules.
This year, Britain and France proposed to end the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars by 2040. Volvo recently said that the models it introduces starting in 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries.
Without an aggressive shift toward zero- and low-emissions cars, the American auto industry risks becoming a global laggard, Ms. Nichols said. It is no time, she said, to be meddling with standards already in place.
“We want to start conversations about post-2025,” Ms. Nichols said. “That’s what we’re getting ready for.”
Follow @NYTClimate on Twitter
Keep reading...Show less
Fuel-cell cars finally drive off the lot.
While consumers can now buy their own hydrogen-powered vehicles, industry looks to expand the refueling infrastructure and lower the cost of fuel-cell cars.
While consumers can now buy their own hydrogen-powered vehicles, industry looks to expand the refueling infrastructure and lower the cost of fuel-cell cars
By Mitch Jacoby
Credit: Toyota
In brief
The idea of powering a car with a fuel cell has been around for decades. In principle, these cars, which run on electricity generated on board by electrochemically combining hydrogen with oxygen from the air, could reduce global dependence on petroleum while emitting just water from their tailpipes. But despite extensive fleet testing, fuel-cell passenger cars have always seemed to be another five years away. No longer. Motorists can now buy or lease their very own fuel-cell cars. The numbers today are low, and the cars are available only in a few geographic regions equipped with public hydrogen-filling stations. But the industry is gearing up to manufacture more of these cars and expand refueling infrastructure. And researchers continue to look for ways to reduce fuel-cell costs and improve durability.
Raymond Lim, a psychology and statistics instructor, describes himself as an “automobile enthusiast who likes to try out new technology.” Celso Pierre also has a thing for cool gadgets. He’s a mechanical engineer who loves hiking and the great outdoors. Anytime Pierre hears about new technology, he rushes to learn about it. For both men, that excitement has long included electric vehicles and fuel-efficient cars. So Lim and Pierre jumped at the opportunity to join the small but growing number of motorists who zip around California’s roadways in their own fuel-cell vehicles. Lim drives a Toyota Mirai and Pierre motors around in a Hyundai Tucson.
These hydrogen-powered, all-electric cars have been in development for decades as alternatives to conventional cars; they do not depend on fossil fuels and do not pollute—they emit just water vapor. During that time of development, numerous prototypes and fleets of fuel-cell demonstration vehicles logged millions of miles, advancing the transportation technology far beyond the laboratory test stage. Yet industry watchers grew disheartened at the seemingly endless delays that kept fuel-cell vehicles from auto dealers’ showrooms. And upon hearing projections year after year that these cars would hit the market “five years down the road,” technology enthusiasts figured the automobile industry had largely given up on mass-producing fuel-cell cars.
That impression is just plain wrong. The industry continued working away on the technology, and those “five years down the road” projections finally came true in the past couple of years. Although the numbers of fuel-cell cars for sale or for lease today are relatively low and the vehicles are available only in select geographical areas, it is finally possible for a private motorist to drive one off the lot. Meanwhile, industry is expanding the hydrogen-refueling infrastructure in the U.S. and other countries and continuing to find ways to make the vehicles cheaper and more durable.
Rise of the fuel cell
The fuel-cell concept dates back to the 1800s. But it wasn’t until the past century that various types of demonstration units proved that these electrochemical devices could reliably produce electric current. They came to be recognized as reliable devices when the U.S. National Aeronautics & Space Administration used these power generators in the 1960s and 1970s in the Gemini and Apollo missions and other space programs.
Similar to their electrochemical cousin the battery, fuel cells contain electrodes that extract usable electricity from chemical reactions. In both batteries and fuel cells, redox reactions occur when a positive electrode is connected to a negative electrode through an external circuit. When oxidation reactions take place at an anode and reductions proceed at a cathode, electrons flow through the circuit, powering the device connected to it—an electric motor, in the case of a fuel-cell car.
Fuel-cell cars by the numbers
$57,500
Manufacturer’s suggested retail price for 2017 Toyota Mirai
370
Number of fuel
cells in Mirai’s
fuel-cell stack
~5
Mass in kilograms of hydrogen stored in Mirai’s fuel tanks
≥480 and
Driving range in kilometers on one tank of hydrogen and range for various battery-powered electric cars, respectively
Minutes for hydrogen refueling and electric-car battery recharging, respectively
But unlike batteries, which store the oxidant and reductant within the electrochemical package, fuel cells draw oxidizers and fuels from the outside. As a result, fuel cells don’t get used up or need to be recharged like batteries do. In principle, fuel cells can continue generating electricity as long as fresh reactants continue to flow into the devices.
Numerous types of fuel cells have made their way through research and development stages, and several versions have been commercialized. The devices differ principally in terms of the electrolyte, which is the medium that transports ions between the electrodes; the materials that make up the electrodes and other components; and the intended application.
Fuels also vary from device to device. In a basic fuel cell, hydrogen serves as the fuel and oxygen as the oxidant. But there are also systems that derive hydrogen from alcohols or hydrocarbons, as well as ones that use methanol directly, without first converting it to hydrogen.
Fuel cells in automobiles rely on a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM). The micrometers-thick film serves two functions: It’s a solid electrolyte that conducts hydrogen ions from the anode to the cathode, and it’s a gas separator that prevents direct, uncontrolled mixing of hydrogen and oxygen. Such mixing wastes fuel, causes the fuel cell to operate inefficiently, and leads to by-products that can degrade fuel-cell components.
The number of fuel-cell vehicles has been growing steadily since they entered the retail market in mid-2015, when Toyota began selling them in Japan and California. Hyundai and Honda have also moved into the retail market, and so the numbers are starting to climb.
In 2016, Toyota boosted production of its four-seat fuel-cell car, the Mirai, which means “future” in Japanese, from the 2015 level of 700 units to approximately 2,000 cars. This year the carmaker plans to produce about 3,000 of them.
According to Bo Ki Hong, a research fellow at Hyundai’s Fuel Cell Research Lab, the South Korean carmaker expects to produce about 1,000 of its Tucson Fuel Cell compact sport-utility vehicles by the end of this year and distribute them to 18 countries. Honda is producing similar numbers of its Clarity, a sporty five-passenger fuel-cell sedan. And all three automakers, which are currently the only companies selling or leasing fuel-cell passenger cars in the U.S., collectively aim to boost production levels to the tens of thousands by the end of the decade.
So what allowed fuel-cell cars to move from perpetually five years away from dealership lots to finally parking in people’s garages? To begin with, carmakers have continuously been gaining engineering and manufacturing experience, which has helped lower production costs. They have also steadily improved the efficiency of PEM fuel cells and learned how to significantly reduce the amount of costly platinum needed to make the devices work effectively. Those advances translate to less-expensive, smaller, and more-powerful devices that provide flexibility to design cars in a range of sizes and prices attractive to customers.
How hydrogen powers a car
Credit: Adapted from Toyota
Room for growth
But whether or not carmakers will reach their production goals will depend in large part on how satisfied owners are with their fuel-cell cars. “Customers expect the same level of performance and overall driving experience they get with gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles,” Hong says.
Lim raves about the handling and performance of his Mirai. “This car is wonderful,” he says. “The ride is smooth, quiet, and powerful.” And when it comes to refueling, the process is quick—“less than five minutes, and that gets me over 300 miles [about 480 km] of driving,” he says.
These similarities to gasoline-powered vehicles stand out as advantages for fuel-cell vehicles over battery-powered, all-electric cars. Many of those kinds of cars, which are also known as plug-in electrics, require from 30 minutes to 12 hours for a full charge, depending on the type of charger. And many of them travel less than 150 miles (about 240 km) per charge.
Those factors seem to make a strong case for fuel-cell vehicles. But fuel-cell cars need hydrogen, and currently there are only 29 retail hydrogen filling stations in the U.S., all in California.
“It’s a chicken-and-egg scenario,” says Joseph Cargnelli, chief technology officer at Hydrogenics, a Toronto-area fuel-cell manufacturer.
Fuel-cell carmakers hesitate to ramp up production if customers don’t have convenient access to hydrogen, he says. And gas suppliers are iffy about building hydrogen filling stations without ample demand for the fuel.
But the number of hydrogen stations is about to grow. California expects to see 36 more stations by 2018, half in the north and half in the south.
Hydrogen filling stations are also coming to the Northeast. According to Jana L. Hartline, a Toyota communications manager, Toyota, in partnership with Air Liquide, is supporting construction of 12 hydrogen fueling stations in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The first of those stations should be completed before the end of the year, she says. And in Japan, Air Liquide, Toyota, and nine other Japanese companies agreed to build 160 hydrogen stations and aim to put 40,000 fuel-cell vehicles on Japan’s roads by 2020.
Fuel-cell passenger cars massively outnumber other types of vehicles powered by this electrochemical technology, and as a result, they get the most attention. Yet other vehicle types have seen notable success. For example, nonpolluting, fuel-cell-powered transit buses have traversed congested city streets since the early 2000s. According to a U.S. Department of Energy report, worldwide, 370 fuel-cell buses were delivered or were on order in 2015.
Also, although 18-wheelers aren’t likely to be propelled down the highway by fuel cells anytime soon, Toyota earlier this year began experimenting with one prototype semitrailer at the Port of Los Angeles.
Fuel-cell forklifts rack up far larger numbers than higher road vehicles. Major warehouse operators in North America, including Amazon, Walmart, and FedEx, use some 15,000 of these indoor vehicles to shuttle products and equipment to and fro. Unlike standard battery-powered versions, these fuel-cell-powered versions don’t have to sit idle for 30 minutes or longer to recharge.
You may have issues viewing the animation below when using Internet Explorer. Please try another browser, or view it as a PDF here.
Keep reading...Show less
Better than a battery? Big energy backs hydrogen power storage.
The secret to switching the global energy system entirely to renewables may lay in the universe’s most abundant substance.
The secret to switching the global energy system entirely to renewables may lay in the universe’s most abundant substance.
Hydrogen has drawn backing from big energy companies from Royal Dutch Shell Plc to Uniper SE in addition to carmakers BMW AG and Audi AG. They’re supporting research into how the element can be used to store energy for weeks or even months beyond what lithium-ion batteries can manage.
While industry’s investment in hydrogen is small at just $2.5 billion over the last decade, the work offers an answer to the elusive question of how electricity could be kept for use in the future. Batteries increasingly are shifting power from day to night, but they tend to go flat after a few weeks. Hydrogen can be kept indefinitely in tanks. That would allow, for example, voltage collected from solar panels in the summer to be used in winter.
“The years 2020 to 2030 will be for hydrogen what the 1990s were for solar and wind,” said Pierre-Etienne Franc and vice president of advanced business and technologies at the French industrial gas maker Air Liquide SA and president of the Hydrogen Council, a trade group promoting the work. “It’s a real strategic shift.”
The technology to use hydrogen as energy storage is well known, although not yet demonstrated in a commercial setting.
Excess power from wind or photovoltaics would drive electrolysis, separating water into its component hydrogen and oxygen elements. The hydrogen captured by that process could, whenever needed, feed natural gas power plants or fuel cells to make electricity. Industrial plants like oil refineries can also use hydrogen for chemical processes.
To date, the energy industry has focused mainly on hydrogen’s potential in fuel cells, which use the element in a chemical reaction to generate electricity. On power-storage, most of the money is going into batteries like the lithium-ion cells widely used in mobile phones and laptop computers. But those tend to lose charge if not topped up and discharged frequently.
Hydrogen storage is attractive because it preserves energy for longer periods. The only real alternative at the moment is pumping water onto a hilltop reservoir, where it can dammed up until grid managers are ready to let it flow down through hydropower turbines. That so-called pumped storage requires the right geography.
If hydrogen could be made to store energy cheaply enough, it would allow utilities to scale back on fossil fuel plants by making it easier for the grid to handle intermittent power flows from wind and solar farms. For example, about $3.4 billion of revenue was lost in China last year because wind farms were forced to remain idle because of congested electric lines.
“If you want to get to 100 percent renewables, hydrogen could play a key role,” said Claire Curry, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “You could have natural gas plants, but that would, of course, not be 100 percent clean.”
The work on hydrogen is in its infancy, but support with big business is growing. The Hydrogen Council was formed at the last World Economic Forum in Davos, with 17 major companies looking for ways to integrate the gas into cleaner energy systems. Its members include Shell, Total SA, Engie SA, Toyota Motor Corp., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Audi and the Japanese industrial gas supplier Iwatani Corp. General Motors Co. is in the process of joining.
The council is considering a fund for technology demonstration projects and will meet again in November at the next United Nations climate talks in Bonn. A handful of projects are now operating, supported by the German utility Uniper, the European Union and a diverse collection of industrial and energy companies.
Hydrogen Energy Storage Projects:
Curry’s research at BNEF suggests a hydrogen storage system could work in an area like West Texas, where there’s abundant existing energy networks and customers to support transforming solar into the gas. She evaluated a theoretical 1 gigawatt solar farm feeding a unit that makes hydrogen and found that in the right circumstances a hydrogen storage unit could be profitable.
Hydrogen has drawbacks. Government incentives are required to create a market for storage capacity, Curry said. And for now, batteries are the alternative for many of the functions hydrogen would fulfill.
The whole idea of converting power into a gas and then back into power strikes some as convoluted. Erik Fairbairn, chief executive officer of Pod Point Ltd., an electric-car charging network in the U.K., believes that hydrogen’s role should be limited to allow more simple technologies to flourish, particularly when a battery could do the job.
“Generally speaking when you change energy from one form to another, you lose efficiency,” Fairbairn said. “You create hydrogen mainly by electrolyzing water, using electricity to split the hydrogen from oxygen and right off the bat, you lose a quarter of your energy to this.”
Still, the companies involved are optimistic about the technology and are prodding governments to back it.
For a list of hydrogen storage projects and their promoters, click here.
Uniper started its Falkenhagen plant in August 2013 to converts excess wind power into hydrogen, which is fed into a plant that combines it with carbon dioxide to make methane -- natural gas. That gas is transported and stored in the existing pipelines.
“Power to gas is a key technology,” said Eckhardt Ruemmler, a board member at Uniper responsible for innovation. “The use on a large technical scale is currently impeded by insufficient political framework.”
— With assistance by Chisaki Watanabe, Brian Parkin, and Tino Andresen
Keep reading...Show less
Tokyo to Paris: Could city waterways ease air pollution?
Waterways offer new transport options in some towns and cities, but there are still some challenges to overcome.
Waterways offer new transport options in some towns and cities, but there are still some challenges to overcome
A SeaBubbles prototype on the Seine in Paris.
A test run of an electric, lithium battery-powered water taxi on the Seine river in Paris. Photograph: Francis Demange/SeaBubbles
Supported by
Heathrow
About this content
Adam Forrest
Thursday 31 August 2017 02.00 EDT
Last modified on Thursday 31 August 2017 02.01 EDT
Once bustling thoroughfares for boats of all kinds, to some entrepreneurs the rivers in major cities are a source of untapped potential.
They envisage passenger vessels expanding beyond sightseeing trips and becoming a daily means of travel for residents.
If successful it could ease the pressure on congested roads and crowded public transport and help tackle air pollution.
But boat operators face some major challenges. They have to be able to scale up their services to carry larger numbers of passengers, as well as trying to reduce the environmental impact of boats dependent on high-polluting diesel fuel.
French company SeaBubbles shows the challenge faced on scale. It has been testing its electric water taxi, powered by lithium batteries, along the Seine in Paris this summer. CEO Anders Bringdal says he wants to make waterway transport easier, as well as reducing its associated noise and pollution levels.
He says the company plans to build multiple docking stations at several piers so dozens of boats can be zipping along the river at any one time. However, the craft can only accommodate four passengers.
Some of those trying to grow also face administrative battles to use waterways.
In Japan, Tokyo Water Taxi is hoping to have a fleet of 60 yellow vessels on the network of rivers and canals flowing into Tokyo Bay in time for the capital hosting the 2020 Olympic Games, having launched its first two diesel-powered boats last summer.
“The Odaiba area of downtown Tokyo in particular could benefit,” says CEO Hajime Tabata. “The volume of traffic for land transportation is often at maximum capacity, so waterways could be used to alleviate the congestion.”
Despite its ambitions, however, the biggest challenge for Tabata’s company is the lack of available landing piers, with more than 100 wharfs along Tokyo’s waterways subject to a complex web of regulations and ownership disputes.
In other cities, travelling by water is already more commonplace. In Hong Kong, the Star Ferry fleet carries more than 70,000 people over the bay between Hong Kong island and Kowloon each day. And in Istanbul, around 300,000 people a day use a variety of private ferries and water taxis to cross the Bosphorus, the river that divides the city in two.
But this is still only a fraction of the commuters and holidaymakers travelling in both cities. And ferries and water taxis have not prevented Istanbul being rated one of the most congested cities in the world.
These ferries and water taxis are also all running on diesel fuel, part of a maritime industry that contributes a growing amount of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particular matter alongside carbon dioxide emissions.
Uber for coaches: can these startups revolutionise intercity travel?
Read more
In London, MBNA Thames Clippers has been slowly building a service geared toward daily commuters as well as tourists, helped by Transport for London’s decision to integrate ticketing, allowing Londoners to hop on and off boats by swiping their Oyster and contactless cards. It carried 4 million passengers in 2016.
But while the company claims its retrofitted catamarans have cut particulate emissions by 50% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 40%, the boats are still powered by diesel.
There are examples of boat operators changing this. In Hamburg, one operator has added a hybrid-powered ferry to its fleet crossing the Elbe river, a prototype vessel that uses both diesel and electric power sources.
And in Southampton, a company called REAPsystems has developed a hybrid system for water taxi boats, one able to switch easily between a fuel engine and electric motor.
The company will take their hybrid water taxi boat to Venice next year, where a hotel operator will run it on a passenger route through the canals and out to the airport throughout the summer.
“We wanted to show that a more sustainable system is possible – hybridisation is a step toward getting rid of diesel,” said REAPsystems’ founder Dennis Doerffel. “Ultimately we have to replace existing transport technologies, if they pollute, with more sustainable ones.”
However, without a growth in passenger numbers, the major investments in cleaner river transport technology are unlikely to come to fruition, says Rupert Fausset, a transport and energy expert at Forum for the Future.
“It remains very challenging to scale up river transport and make it sustainable too,” says Fausset. “But I’m an optimist, so I would not rule out people developing more sustainable systems using new kinds of propulsion and new fuel cells in the future.”
Topics
Guardian sustainable business
Transport
Transport
Rivers
Water transport
features
Keep reading...Show less
Big Oil follows Silicon Valley into backing green energy firms.
Oil majors quietly investing into new technology start-ups.
By Anna Hirtenstein
From
Oil majors quietly investing into new technology start-ups
‘Disruptive power’ from small companies prompts Shell to move
Major oil companies are joining Silicon Valley in backing energy-technology start-ups, a signal that that those with the deepest pockets in the industry are casting around for a new strategy.
From Royal Dutch Shell Plc to Total SA and Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest investor-owned oil companies are dribbling money into ventures probing the edge of energy technologies. The investments go beyond wind and solar power into projects that improve electricity grids and brew new fuels from renewable resources.
While the money involved is small -- a fraction of the $7.5 billion that venture capital and private equity injected into the clean energy industry last year -- the funds support work that may evolve into major income streams in the decades ahead as governments work to limit fossil-fuel pollution and global warming.
“In the energy industry, small companies have quite a lot of disruptive power,” Geert van de Wouw, managing director of Shell Technology Ventures, said in an interview. “We always have to look over our shoulder to make sure that we stay ahead of the game.”
Following is a list of the projects the biggest oil companies are supporting:
Shell Technology Ventures
The unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc splits its spending between oil and gas technology and clean energy equally. The green share may increase to about 60 percent in the years ahead, according to van de Wouw, declining to detail his annual budget. The fund’s total size is “hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. It has put money into:
Kite Power Systems, a maker of a kite that flies on wind currents to generate renewable electricity.
Glasspoint Solar Inc, a company that has developed a way to make steam for enhanced oil recovery with solar energy.
Sense, a start-up that creates devices that monitor home power consumption.
Total Energy Ventures International SAS
The unit of the French oil major Total SA has invested $160 million to date with almost three quarters flowing into North America, according to the fund’s CEO Francois Badoual. It only takes minority stakes. It has invested in:
AutoGrid, a California-based company that designs smart-grid software
United Wind, a company that leases wind turbines to retail customers and small businesses.
Off Grid Electric, a Tanzania-based installer of rooftop solar panels that works in low energy-access areas in Sub-Saharan Africa.
“We try to detect and invest in innovation,” Badoual said. “The shift can accelerate at a pace which is difficult to really foresee, but you have to be ready and to adapt.”
BP Ventures Inc.
BP Plc’s VC fund has invested $325 million to date. It tends to skew more towards chemicals or fuels, rather than renewable electricity. It has funneled money into:
Tricoya Technologies, a maker of a technology that changes the chemical structure of wood chips to make a building material that’s more durable and energy efficient.
Fulcrum, a producer of bio-jet fuel made from municipal waste, which raised $30 million from BP.
Solidia, a company that is working on reducing the carbon footprint of concrete.
Exclusive insights on technology around the world.
Get Fully Charged, from Bloomberg Technology.
Sign Up
“BP Venture’s goal is to be both an investor and an end-user of the technologies in which we invest,” said Jonathan Tudor, managing director of the fund. “That requires a longer-term commitment because we look beyond a quick financial return. We take an active role in the evolution of these companies and want to see their new technologies commercialized and deployed into BP’s existing businesses.”
Exxon Mobil Corp.
Exxon has a different approach to frontier technology. It prefers to conduct research internally and with partners rather than buy minority stakes in start-ups. It’s studying biofuels, carbon capture and storage, energy-efficiency processes and energy-saving materials, according to spokesman William Holbrook, and is working with:
Synthetic Genomics Inc., which studies how to make biofuels from algae.
FuelCell Energy Inc., which is developing carbonate fuel cells to capture CO2 emissions from natural gas plants while also producing electricity.
“We conduct R&D; through in-house efforts, via partnerships with other industries and by funding academic and other nongovernmental research projects,” Holbrook said by email. “These studies help inform the company on emerging technologies, define our potential contribution to the science, and assess the future applicability of the technologies to our businesses.”
Chevron Corp.
Chevron has been investing in start-ups since 1999 and divides its portfolio between oil and gas, advanced materials, communications infrastructure and information technologies and emerging and alternative energy. On the latter, it has invested in the following:
Acumentrics, a fuel cell company that can make its products from ceramics.
Ensyn, a maker of fuels and chemicals from residue from forests and agriculture.
Inventys, a developer of carbon capture technology that traps CO2 from industrial gas streams.
The fund “serves as a window and an on-ramp” for emerging technologies, said Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson by email. The technologies are “well aligned with projected energy needs.”
Statoil Energy Ventures
The unit of Norway’s state oil company, Statoil ASA, has invested $20 million since February 2016. It only funds renewable start-ups, listing among its investment themes wind, solar, storage, transportation, energy efficiency and smart grids. To date, it has put money into:
ChargePoint Inc., an electric-vehicle charging point operator based in California.
Oxford Photovoltaics Ltd., a solar technology company that is developing panels with perovskite. The substance could make traditional photovoltaics as much as 30 percent more efficient.
Convergent, a large-scale energy storage developer working on projects with lead acid, lithium-ion and flywheel batteries in the U.S. and Canada.
“In the transition into clean energy, it’s not clear who would be the winners and losers,” said Bala Nagarajan, investment director at Statoil Energy Ventures. “So for us, the investment is a means to understand which business models and which technologies are likely to be more successful. These investments help us position ourselves in the right part of the value chain.”
Of course the oil companies have always dabbled in other forms of energy, backing solar after the 1973 oil crisis. Exxon backed nuclear power in the 1980s. Shell vowed to push into renewables ahead of the landmark Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 1997.
Those efforts fizzled when dips in the oil price sharpened the industry’s focus on costs. More recently, Shell has taken big stakes in offshore wind projects, BP revived its wind business and Total pressed into solar through an investment in SunPower Corp.
For a QuickTake on how the solar industry became a mainstream investment, click here.
Big Oil’s push into venture capital adds to the sense that technology is moving rapidly in the energy industry, leaving a question mark over what will dominate supply for the first time in almost a century.
“A lot of these companies are still figuring out how to get involved on a larger scale,” said Rick Wheatley, head of leadership and innovation at Xynteo Ltd., a consultant that advises Shell, Statoil and Eni SpA on sustainability and long-term planning. “They invest in start-ups to learn and to demonstrate intent. For the cost of a drilling campaign, they can invest in dozens of start-ups.”
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
Keep reading...Show less
It's critical to go 'all in' on climate optimism.
I've been thinking a lot recently about catastrophic climate risk, because, well, how can you not?
It's critical to go 'all in' on climate optimism
James Murray
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 1:20am
ShutterstockHarvepino
I've been thinking a lot recently about catastrophic climate risk, because, well, how can you not?
There are multiple reasons for this bout of introspection. My wife and I are expecting our second son later this month, which has simultaneously pulled our personal concern horizons towards the short term — "should we order newborn nappies this week?" — and pushed them a few years further into the next century.
Then there's the glaring inadequacy of so many of our political leaders in the face of escalating climate risks. It is impossible to shake the nagging feeling the best years of my generation's careers face a second lost decade, marred by irresolvable constitutional riddles, economic arguments that would shame a kindergarten class and the fear a nuclear arsenal resides in the hands of a reckless real estate mogul whose personal arrogance is only matched by his geopolitical ineptitude.
I've also been listening a bit too much to the nihilistic, yet strangely uplifting new album by Father John Misty, which deals with the agony of childbirth, gender inequality and the raw battle for survival — and that's just the first verse of the first song. Environmental apocalypse, religious absurdities, social media addiction, the vacuity of modern culture, and polluted air and water soon follow (sample lyric: "if you want ecstasy or birth control/ Just run the tap until the water's cold"). The lyrics are accompanied by gorgeous, California-infused piano melodies, and are all the more unsettling for that.
And, inevitably, there's this:
However, the main spark for some environmentalist soul-searching was David Wallace-Wells' sweeping New York magazine exploration of the plausible worst-case climate scenarios we could be facing and the deeply unsatisfactory response from much of the green community to this ear-splitting clarion call.
I'm not about to re-prosecute the arguments the article's dystopian vision ignited, not least because (as is the case with most things) Vox's David Roberts already has done a far better job than I ever could.
Suffice to say the widespread misunderstanding of the article's rationale (of course it is alarmist; it is deliberately exploring worst case scenarios, it is meant to be alarming), was, to borrow Robert's term, irksome.
The handful of factual flaws in the piece were both marginal to the overall argument and were corrected immediately in an updated annotated version that demonstrated a degree of journalistic integrity we can but wish those who fixate on the most staggeringly optimistic climate projections would emulate. The sound and fury contained in the attempts at debunking the article largely failed to engage with its central premise that while exploring low risk, high impact scenarios may not be "balanced," it is still a valid exercise when you consider that what is at stake is civilization itself. As such these critiques signified, if not nothing, then very little.
A world of fear
The unbending reality continues to intrude: 6 degrees C of warming within the lifetime of people alive today may be extremely unlikely, but nor is it inconceivable. At that level of warming, or anywhere close to it, all bets are off. We really don't know how the experiment we are playing on the atmosphere plays out. What we do know is that if 6C of warming is highly unlikely, 4C is entirely plausible; that is plenty bad enough.
The wider criticism that the article was too doom-laden and was therefore "unhelpful" deserves a simple response: Grow up.
There may be plenty of studies suggesting optimistic messages are more effective at stimulating action than pessimistic assessments of the future, but Roberts is right when he says this is a field where none of the research is conclusive.
Cataclysmic projections may prove stultifying for some, but motivating for others. #Climateoptimism may spur some into action, while lulling others into a false sense of security. Columnist Zoe Williams offered some sage advice recently, observing that we should be careful about calling things we want to discourage "high risk" as it only serves to encourage those who are risk-takers. We contain multitudes and effective messaging should recognize this complex fact.
Back when he was the first Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband did his bit for climate optimism with an anecdote about a Labour Party member who reminded him that Martin Luther King never said: "I have a nightmare"; it was the "dream" that motivated people. It's a nice line, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. Yes, the hope of a better world was critical to the success of the civil rights movement, but plenty of effort also was expended highlighting appalling injustice, the damage wrought by segregation and the growing risk of civil unrest. The dream was critical, but the nightmare already existed and would only worsen with inaction.
Faced with a threat of existential proportions, a strategy that centers on telling everyone everything will be fine is laughably insufficient (it's hollow laughter, obviously). Far better to acknowledge that we need both a full understanding of the risks we face and a healthy dose of optimism about how they can yet be overcome. It is an argument brilliantly expounded by Renee Lertzman in her response to the controversy sparked by the New Yorker article. It deserves quoting at length:
It's not about hope or despair or solutions versus warnings. It's about openly acknowledging that climate change is a classic both-and situation. Yes, things are very bad, and yes, things are likely to get worse; and yes, many people are working on mind-blowing innovative solutions; and yes, humans have tremendous capacities; and yes, it's also really hard and frustrating; and yes, you yourself as a citizen and an individual have a vital role to play in this unfolding mess. And yes, you may feel pretty bummed out at times. If climate change feels hopeless, that's a natural feeling to have. All the more reason to come join us. You matter…
The truth is, no one really knows the magic formula for motivating people.
But there are a few things we do know. Humans are motivated by love, belonging, meaning and mattering. People love good stories — even ones (or especially one) that have shame, fear, guilt and anxiety. To understand such stories, one has to have a conscience and care about the world.
There's no need to sugarcoat the situation we're in; let's put a rest to that argument. What we need is heaps of fierce compassion and bravery.
The crucial question, of course, is how to generate and then harness that "fierce compassion and bravery." How do we apply it at the political, the corporate and the individual level?
It is here that I found the response to Wallace-Wells' article from what Roberts accurately describes as the "Hope Police" reached its most, erm, irksome. Because if the primary criticism was that it is debilitating and counter-productive to be overly downbeat in the face of climate risk, where were the responses that hit back with a narrative of climate optimism? That provided a credible vision for delivering a world where warming is limited to less than 1.5 degrees C, a vision that is even more compelling than Wallace-Wells' apocalyptic scenarios?
I know you could argue this hope-filled vision is everywhere if you know where to look. It's an argument I've made plenty of times in the past. It is contained in the plummeting cost of renewables, the extended range of zero emission vehicles and the blueprints for smarter, greener cities. It is evident in pretty much everything we write about and thankfully, it is a vision that post-Paris Agreement has been adopted to varying extents by virtually every government on the planet and vast swathes of the business community (with one bright orange exception).
Cataclysmic projections may prove stultifying for some, but motivating for others. #Climateoptimism may spur some into action, while lulling others into a false sense of security.
And yet it too often feels like attempts to generate a hopeful narrative of global decarbonization remain badly underpowered, even after Paris. Our collective efforts are still not commensurate to the scale of the risk, nor fully cognizant of the scale of the opportunities. They are certainly not up to the task of mitigating the catastrophic risks we are facing.
What does an effective climate optimism strategy look like? How do you generate sufficient hope to balance out the despair triggered by the climate threat?
I am increasingly of the view that the only strategy left is one of full-spectrum prioritization, where pretty much every political and policy lever, every business decision, every economic strategy is put at the service of climate mitigation and resilience. That does not mean condemning every move that falls short of this level of prioritization, but it does mean acknowledging that it is far too late for half measures.
In a column penned in the midst of the 2014 floods crisis that briefly engulfed a coalition government that had overseen cuts to flood defense spending, columnist Matthew D'Ancona made a timeless observation that has stayed with me ever since:
[David] Cameron evaded questions about Cabinet unity on climate change, insisting only that his own views have not altered. But if that is the case — if the PM truly believes that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for potentially catastrophic changes in the weather — then it ought, logically, to be his priority, more important even than economic recovery. One cannot be 'pragmatic' or 'in favour of sensible compromise' about a threat to the survival of the human race. So what's it going to be, Mr Cameron?
The question still stands and all political and business leaders need to find an adequate answer.
What could such an answer look like? What does a commensurate response to the prospects of catastrophic climate change entail?
Let's take a look at three quick examples from the interlocking worlds of politics, business and campaigning.
In September, the U.K. government should publish its long-awaited Clean Growth Plan detailing how it plans to meet emissions reduction goals through to the early 2030s. The plan should contain bold new commitments covering the near complete decarbonization of the power system, the rapid expansion of ultra-low emission transport, a national energy efficiency program and a raft of other measures to curb emissions from industry, agriculture and waste. It should amount to nothing less than the most comprehensive economic and infrastructure transformation plan the U.K. has seen. It will touch all our lives, boost the U.K.'s competitiveness and modernize whole industries to make them fit for the 21st century. The open question is, will it be presented as such?
Judging by past experience, the plan is likely to be briefed to the Sunday papers, almost certainly with some triangulation to try to nullify the elements of it the climate sceptic press hate. Business Secretary Greg Clark then will give a speech, the plan will be published, green groups will criticize it for not being ambitious enough, business leaders will praise the potential for new investment, neo-con think tanks and rent-a-quote Ayn Rand fan-boys will slam the green takeover of the government, there will be a poorly informed debate on Radio 4, almost certainly featuring the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the mid-1980s, and then the whole circus will move on.
The crucial question, of course, is how to generate and then harness that 'fierce compassion and bravery.' How do we apply it at the political, the corporate and the individual level?
But if this is really meant to be a credible part of an international effort to stave off submerged cities and methane-belching plains, is this in any way adequate?
Here's what is required (leaving aside Theresa May's electorally hamstrung inability to deliver much of it): The entire cabinet and every business leader the government's black book can muster, on stage for the launch of the new strategy; an explicit declaration that this, full decarbonization of the economy, is the post-Brexit economic strategy; clear and attractive retail policies, such as a diesel scrappage scheme, tax breaks for green investment, new apprenticeships, a green home building program; an open invitation to all opposition party leaders to share a platform to support the plan with a declaration that while they may not agree on every component they fully endorse the over-arching goal; a willingness to shame those party leaders who play party politics and refuse to turn up; a fortnight-long program where each day sees a new cabinet member explain how the plan will transform parts of the economy; a Royal Commission on the flaws of GDP as an economic measure and the viability of alternative quality of life metrics; and, yes, a brave assertion that carbon intensive industries will have to transform or be scaled back, backed by a decarbonization adaptation fund to help affected communities respond to this global trend.
Stand with us
What happens if some cabinet members refuse to play ball? Simple: Sack them. This is non-negotiable. This is critical to the U.K.'s economic, infrastructure and national security strategy. You are either on board or you are not.
No government has tried this. No world leader has gone truly all-in on climate action, although it is worth noting that those who have gone furthest with this narrative — Obama, Merkel, Macron, Xi — have enjoyed considerable political dividends as a result. With over 70 percent of the British public voicing support for clean energy, making this one of the few areas where the country is united, why shouldn't the government present its strategy as the exciting, transformational and yes, hope-filled agenda that it is?
Environmental campaigner Bill McKibben has characterized such a strategy as a war effort, but it is actually even bigger than that. As David Powell of the New Economics Foundation observed recently, "fact is there's no historical analog for climate. So we need moonshot, WWII, suffrage, revolt, market diffusion, love. All of it. And more."
What is the business equivalent of this approach? It boils down to the simple question, what would Elon do?
The importance of Tesla boss Elon Musk extends far beyond the company's share price. For all the admirable positions taken by many business leaders on climate change, Musk is the only high-profile figure to publicly envisage the true scale of the transformation that is required over the next three decades. His brash style may not be to everyone's taste; some of his goals (hyperloops, Mars missions and the like) might prove overly ambitious; the whole endeavor could yet falter, but the sweeping vision contained in Tesla's master plan has to be the benchmark for any and all businesses seeking to prosper in a decarbonizing economy. If you are not delivering a strategy that enables zero emission operation within a few decades, you are not doing it right.
Consequently, incremental environmental improvement strategies look increasingly dated. Carbon-intensive operations need to be treated like the soon-to-be-stranded assets they must become. Corporate strategies need to begin with science-based emissions targets and 100 percent clean energy and build from there. They need to be embedded in every part of the organization, unveiled and led by the chief executive, and become a defining part of the company's DNA. Anything less is not worth the digital annual sustainability report it is written on. If this is too ambitious for many companies in their current form, then a public recognition of the scale of transformation that is required may suffice as a starting point, but it has to be that — a starting point to be swiftly followed by comprehensive and relentless action.
What does an effective climate optimism strategy look like? How do you generate sufficient hope to balance out the despair triggered by the climate threat?
Every business has to be able to answer the question that soon will be heading their way thanks to Mark Carney's Financial Stability Board climate disclosure recommendations: what is your plan for a scenario where full decarbonization occurs over the coming decades? What is your plan for coping with 4 to 6 degrees C of warming? Provide the right answer and we might be able to justify the last-ditch optimism attached to emerging clean technologies.
What of campaigners? There is no need to tell campaigners of the need to prioritize climate action, but here too the despair-hope dialectic needs tweaking. No one should demand campaigners temper their environmental warnings; if anything, they could do with taking a leaf out of Wallace-Wells' book and identifying more visceral ways of highlighting quite how bad things could get during the second half of the century. But equally they have a crucial role to play in more effectively throwing a spotlight on the sources of hope that are emerging.
I once shared a drink with a campaigner at one of the U.K.'s top environmental charities who confided that in the wake of the Climate Change Act nearly a decade ago, there had been a plan for a new high-profile campaign to decarbonize communities across the U.K. and publicly demonstrate the attractiveness of meeting the goals the law set out. But beyond the admirable but scattershot Transition Towns movement and the sterling work of 10:10, the idea never really went anywhere and the campaigning community returned to its default setting of attacking government at every turn.
This is a concept that urgently needs reviving. Every stunt that highlights the environmental crises we face needs to be matched by one that shines a light, perhaps literally, on the majestic wind turbines that are delivering much of our power. They need to help get people test driving electric and fuel cell cars, embracing new consumption patterns and welcoming positive policy developments at least as vigorously as they oppose policy failures. Hope is essential, but it won't generate itself, and in the face of continuing political, media and corporate communications failures civil society needs to move beyond sounding the alarm, important as that is.
We are in a world of trouble. We need to openly and honestly recognize that fact and then bring the optimistic power of business, technology, politics and society at large to bear in pursuit of the emissions cuts that might just avert catastrophe.
In order to do this, we must pose D'Ancona's old question to every political and business leader. No sensible compromise is to be found here; you need to go all-in. What's it to be? Are you compassionate and brave enough to recognise the true scale of the challenge and the opportunity we face?
The Father John Misty album closes with a repetition of the line "there's nothing to fear." Given the context, it is hard to tell whether it is ironic, nihilistic or reassuring. He's wrong, though; there is plenty to fear. But there are plenty sources of hope, too. We just need to throw everything we've got at nurturing them. The problem is that for all the progress we've made, we're not there yet. And that's why, in between the nappies, I keep thinking about catastrophic climate risk. Again, how can I not?
This story first appeared on:
BusinessGreen
Topics:
ClimateCommitments & GoalsMarketing & Communication
Tags:
climate change
share this article
James Murray
Editor
BusinessGreen
Related Content
Rethinking the language of environmentalism
ByJames Murray
Why the Paris Agreement ratification bodes ill for oil
ByJames Murray
Weekend read: Is this the beginning of the low-carbon economy?
ByJames Murray
Meet the Four Horsemen of the Climate Apocalypse
ByDavid Crane
Green car revolution: 10 lessons to accelerate progress
ByJames Murray
Trending
Chemical footprinting strides to become mainstream with Walmart
It's critical to go 'all in' on climate optimism
Episode 88: Salesforce opts into SuperGreen; RE100 surfs change
How far would you run to change a polluting industry?
The race to embrace ESG ratings
Featured Videos
Microsoft on the value of power purchase agreements
The versatile spirit of the Hawaiian ukelele
More from Video
Featured Whitepapers
Facility Managers: Putting Energy & Sustainability Practices to Work
14 Strategies to Save up to 70% in Energy Costs Using the Latest in Warehouse Lighting...and More
View Program & Speakers
Get your copy
Save the Date
Footer menu 1
About Us
GreenBiz Team
Editorial Team
Media Kit
Contact Us
Footer menu 2
Executive Network
Research Reports
White Papers
Webcasts
Footer menu 3
GreenBiz 350 Podcast
Career Resources
Jobs
Subscribe
Twitter Facebook Google+ LinkedIn This site (RSS)
Secondary Footer menu
Privacy Policy
© 2017 GreenBiz Group Inc. GREENBIZ® and GREENBIZ.COM® is a registered trademark of GreenBiz Group Inc.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
