Recently in Transportation Fuel & Energy Solutions Category

New Study Shows Freight Rail Fuel Efficiency Up More Than 20 Percent Since 1999

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)  released a study showing vast improvements in freight rail fuel efficiency over the last two decades, approximately 22 percent between 1990 and 2006. 

Trends in rail and truck fuel efficiency include:

Locomotive: Improvements include locomotive technology improvements, fleet composition, non-locomotive technology improvements, operational and train control improvements, as well as impediments to the implementation of fuel-saving actions.

Trucks: Improvements include truck engine improvements and the effects of emission regulations, non-engine technology improvements and changes in fleet composition, operational improvements, and impediments to the implementation of fuel-saving actions.

"While all types of transportation are vital to the distribution of goods across the country, this study shows that utilizing America's freight rail system can lead to significant fuel savings," said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo.  "The environmental benefits of these positive changes over the last two decades are enormous.  We look forward to working with the freight rail industry to make sure these gains continue."

Several factors point to the reasons for rail's fuel efficiency, including the improvement in diesel-electric locomotives, the increased use of double stack trains, track and signal improvements, and longer trains. 

Finding 1: Rail is more fuel efficient than truck on all 23 movements.

For all movements, rail fuel efficiency is higher than truck fuel efficiency in terms of ton-miles per gallon. The ratio between rail and truck fuel efficiency indicates how much more fuel efficient rail is in comparison to trucks. As illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, rail fuel efficiency varies from 156 to 512 ton-miles per gallon, truck fuel efficiency ranges from 68 to 133 ton-miles per gallon, and rail-truck fuel efficiency ratios range from 1.9 to 5.5.

Finding 2: Double-stack trains and dry van trailers are the predominant equipment types in this study.
Double-stack trains account for 11 out of 23 rail movements, while dry van trailers are the equipment of choice for 12 truck movements. Double-stack service has become more predominant in the past two decades due to their fast and reliable transit times, while 53-foot dry vans provide large capacity while utilizing tractor aerodynamic aids that reduce fuel consumption.

Finding 3: There is a strong correlation between rail-truck fuel efficiency ratio and equipment type.
The tank car movement resulted in the highest ratio, followed by double-stack, covered hopper, and gondola movements. Auto rack movements resulted in the lowest ratios. The wide variation in rail-truck fuel efficiency ratios in double-stack movements is a result of the higher number of double-stack movements considered in this study.

Finding 4: The range of rail fuel efficiency is wider than the range of truck fuel efficiency.

Rail fuel efficiency has a much wider range, varying from 156 to 512 ton-miles/gallon, while truck fuel efficiency ranges from 68 to 133 ton-miles/gallon.

Finding 5: The variation in rail fuel efficiency is narrower if analyzed in terms of trailing ton-miles per gallon.
Rail fuel efficiency can be measured at the train level in trailing ton-miles per gallon. Double-stack trains tend to be more fuel efficient than other types of trains, despite their higher average speeds and poorer aerodynamic performance. The fact that intermodal operations do not require subsequent switching operations to classify rail cars contributes to the better performance of double-stack trains. The wide variation in fuel efficiency of double-stack and mixed trains as opposed to auto and TOFC trains is justified by the smaller number of movements analyzed in the latter trains.

Finding 6: Route circuity plays a role in the total fuel consumption and fuel efficiency associated with rail and truck movements.
Typically, distances by rail are greater than those over the road, but truck distance was longer in some movements due to the fact that truck routing minimized travel time rather than travel distance. In this study, truck routes are shorter in 17 out of 23 movements. Because the comparisons of rail and truck fuel efficiency reflect ton-miles per gallon, circuity is not taken into account, and consequently the fuel savings from using rail versus truck are not proportional to the ratio between rail and truck fuel efficiency. Rail resulted in fuel savings for all remaining movements, ranging from 18 to 1,108 gallons per carload.

Finding 7: Short branchline movements, switching operations, truck drayage, terminal operations and truck idling have very different impacts depending on the movement analyzed.
While truck idling accounts for less than 7% of total truck fuel consumption, short branchline movements, switching operations, truck drayage, and terminal operations represent a more sizeable share of total rail fuel consumption. Truck drayage and intermodal terminal operations account for 7-27% of total fuel consumed by intermodal trains, with the wide range justified by the fact that the analysis assumed a fixed distance for all drayage movements independently of the route distance. Therefore, the fuel share allocated to truck drayage was higher for shorter routes and lower for longer routes. Similar conclusions can be drawn for short branchline movements and yard switching operations, which combined make up 6-45% of fuel consumed by mixed trains.

Finding 8: Fuel savings from using rail can be significant.
Rail results in fuel savings when compared to their counterpart truck movement, ranging from 18 to 1,108 gallons per carload. Fuel savings can also be analyzed at the train level. For example, if trucks were to carry the equivalent payload included in the double-stack rail movements, fuel savings would evidently be much greater, varying from 1,549 to over 80,000 gallons per double-stack train.

Finding 9: The effects of empty mileage associated with rail and truck movements can be significant.
This study concludes that all intermodal movements (double-stack and TOFC) and gondola movements are even more fuel efficient than comparable truck movements when accounting for empty miles. In the case of box cars and covered hopper movements, the opposite is true. In those cases, rail is still more fuel efficient than trucks, but the gap between rail and truck narrows with the inclusion of empty miles. This analysis is inconclusive for auto movements.

The complete study can be found at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/Comparative_Evaluation_Rail_Truck_Fuel_Efficiency.pdf.

Green Airports - Concepts Airports are using to "Go Green"

Airports have always had to comply with certain environmental regulations arising out of their operations, as local governments require impact studies on new construction projects and soundproofing nearby homes. Landings and takeoffs, as well as the diesel shuttles that circle the terminal roads, leave thousands of tons of toxic emissions in a compact area of the city. And for years, many airports have been slow to adopt measures that go beyond the minimum requirements.

U.S. airlines emitted about 418 billion pounds of carbon dioxide in 2007, according to the Air Transport Association, the airline industry trade group.

Airports have been spending hundreds of millions in terminal facilities that are esthetically pleasing but are not configured to conserve energy. Because of the perilous situation in airlines, airports call for quick return on investment funds. Occasionally the return on investment on these (environmental) projects is not adequate enough for the airport.

However, similar to many other industries, airports are fast adopting the green zeitgeist,
led partly by better social consciousness and ameliorating engineering science, and made
more pressing by ascending fuel costs.

The "How Airports Go Green" report from Energy Business Reports covers the various concepts employed by airports in today's age to go "green." The report takes a look at this new trend through case studies. 

HHVs...learn a new solution for alternative energy. Hydraulic Hybrids are being road tested by UPS delivery trucks to reduce emissions and improve fuel savings. Get the details here...

Michigan Technological University and Wayne State Unviversity will be the first institutions to offer accelerated graduate courses for auto engineers on next-generation hybrid and battery technologies.

The Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth is partnering with the two universities to offer MAGM's first round of training that prepares automotive engineers for renewable energy jobs. The courses will be offered in the southeastern Michigan area.

"These courses are a terrific opportunity for engineers to learn about cutting edge hybrid and battery technology as part of the Green Jobs Initiative," said Granholm in a press release.

DELEG oversees the Michigan Green Jobs Initiative, which is designed to ensure the emerging industries and green economy have the trained workers they need. In response to the rapid growth in the renewable energy sector, DELEG collaborated with automotive manufacturing employers to establish the MAGM. This initial course offering is aimed at incumbent auto engineers, however unemployed workers who meet the pre-requisites may also be eligible.

MAGM is administered by a governing board made up of employers, education and training providers, the workforce development system, and state government. The academy's objective is to prepare individuals for emerging technologies in vehicle propulsion, component design, manufacturing and maintenance.

Workforce Investment for Emerging Industries

The Academy is offered under the Governor's No Worker Left Behind program, a plan to train 100,000 citizens in three years for jobs in high demand occupations and emerging industries. NWLB will provide up to two years of free tuition at any Michigan community college, university, or other approved training program for qualifying participants. As of June 30 more than 81,667 people have been put into NWLB training.

About the courses:

Advanced Propulsion for Hybrid Vehicles with Concentration in Battery Engineering. Sponsored by Michigan Technological University. A three-credit class offered in cooperation with the Engineering Society of Detroit and AVL, a developer of powertrains and vehicle simulation and test systems. The curriculum will focus on engineering skills that apply to next-generation hybrid and electric vehicles, with an emphasis on battery design and hands-on learning. Preference will be given to applications received by Aug. 19. The semester-long class begins Sept. 3. The course will be offered again in the spring semester. For more information, visit the training Web site or call 248-353-0735.

Advanced Battery Systems for Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Sponsored by Wayne State University. A four-credit graduate course level class team-taught by WSU engineering faculty, HEV engineers from Delphi and GM and battery scientists from Ovonic Battery. Bachelor of Science in Engineering or similar physical sciences area is required. Curriculum focuses in-vehicle electric energy storage systems, Battery system development and design for hybrid electric vehicles. Macomb Community College is also providing five HEVs for lab experiments.The class will begin meeting Sept.. The course will be also be offered for spring semester. For more information about this course, visit the Web site for the WSU College of Engineering or call CP Yeh, chair, Division of Engineering Technology, Wayne State University, at 313-577-0800.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to issue loan guarantees to eligible projects that "avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases" and "employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued".

Early Commercial Use

Title XVII of EPAct05 provides the basis of DOE's program. This title provides broad authority for DOE to guarantee loans that support early commercial use of advanced technologies, if "there is reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest on the obligation by the borrower." Loan guarantees will be another tool that DOE will use to promote commercial use of innovative technologies. This tool is targeted at early commercial use only, not energy research, development, and demonstration programs.

DOE believes that accelerated commercial use of new or improved technologies will help to sustain economic growth, yield environmental benefits, and produce a more stable and secure energy supply.

The US Department of Energy is expected to open the window in 2009 to apply for federal loan guarantees on loans to wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other renewable energy projects that use commercially proven technologies.

In the first round, the Department evaluated loan guarantee pre-applications for projects that employed technologies in the following areas:

1. Biomass
2. Hydrogen
3. Solar
4. Wind and Hydropower
5. Advanced Fossil Energy Coal
6. Carbon Sequestration practices and technologies
7. Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
8. Alternative Fuel Vehicles
9. Industry Energy Efficiency Projects
10. Pollution Control Equipment

Financial Institution Partnership Program (FIPP)

This new program--called the "Financial Institution Partnership Program" or "FIPP" because of the key role played by private lenders-- differs substantially from the prior program that guarantees repayment of loans to projects that use innovative technologies. It will use radically different processes than those used so far to apply, evaluate, rank and award guarantees for projects.

The department will release a set of rules for the loan guarantee program at the same time it opens the window--and anyone who wants to apply is expected to have negotiated his or her loan first with a bank or insurance company and then the lender will apply to DOE for a guarantee.

Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20585
www.lgprogram.energy.gov

Intelligent Charging System for EVs

Ford Motor Company has developed an intelligent charging system that previews how its production vehicles will interact with the grid. The unnamed system enables all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle owners to restrict charging to when electricity prices fall below a certain threshold, or even "when the grid is using only renewable energy such as wind or solar power," according to Ford.

There's a natural synergy for customers to put solar on their homes and buy hybrids/EVs, who can then drive free of fossil fuel guilt.

In its ongoing testing of converted PHEV Ford Escapes, the company is leveraging communications systems it designed including SYNC, SmartGauge, and Ford Work Solutions. The vehicles are communicating with the grid through smart meters over a wireless network using the Zigbee protocol, but Ford hasn't committed to a network platform for its production vehicles.

Open Source Design Comes to Green

I've been waiting for the advent of "open source" strategies in design to hit the green and climate change arena.  It's coming... I wonder if Obama's approach to greening faster, stronger, better had anything to do with this strategy.

Ford said its final communications system will be designed to work with a variety of smart meters.

The first generation of EVs is likely to use a mix of proprietary and "open" standards that are still in development. Each company will likely offer some part of their charge management technology to others in hopes that it would become industry standard.

The batteries in the 21 test vehicles are from Johnson Controls-Saft, which will also be supplying the batteries for its production PHEV.

Ford will spend $14 billion over 7 years to retool to manufacture advanced vehicles.

Ford has lined up some impressive utilities to help with the tests, including Southern California Edison, American Electric Power, Progress Energy, and 10 others, which will each receive some of the test fleet.

The agreement is to continue testing for three years, which is interesting because the company plans to have a commercial PHEV for sale in 2012 -- you might think that testing of PHEV grid interaction would be moot at that point. Ford received $30 million in DOE grant money to pay for part of the testing.

Ford is rigorously testing PHEVs now, but the all-electric Ford Focus (due out a year earlier) is not being tested in a similar broad fashion. Is developing an EV easier than a plug-in hybrid (with its two systems for locomotion)?

SOURCE: courtesy of Matter Network.

Clean energy is compared to the space race of a few decades ago.  The challenge is one of global leadership -- this time the opponent is China.  And the technology is clean energy rather than space transportation.  But the heart of both is jobs.  Technical jobs. Middle class, educated and jobs of brawn.  This is the retooling of American manufacturing -- the rescue of the 2.5 million supply chain jobs of the failing automotive companies.

It's "cap and invest".  The campaign is being led by three alliances between business, environmental and labor factions.  The Environmental Defense Fund, The Apollo Alliance and the Blue Green Alliance are building alliances, tackling the legislative process, and appealing to the Obama administration for legislative and financial assistance.  And a national fervor for retooling our manufacturing sector.

July 30, 2009 -- U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced  that the Department of Energy will provide up to $30 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects.   

The announcement corresponded with the release of two new loan guarantee solicitations funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and through 2009 appropriations. The long-awaited solicitations provide crucial details regarding the application process for both the legacy loan guarantee program for innovative projects (referred to as the section 1703 program) and a newly established program for projects using proven technologies (referred to as the section 1705 program).

"These investments will be used to create jobs, spur the development of innovative clean energy technologies, and help ensure a smart, strong and secure grid that will deliver renewable power more effectively and reliably," said Secretary Chu. "This administration has set a goal of doubling renewable electricity generation over the next three years.    To achieve that goal, we need to accelerate renewable project development by ensuring access to capital for advanced technology projects. We also need a grid that can move clean energy from the places it can be produced to the places where it can be used and that can integrate variable sources of power, like wind and solar."

The first solicitation is for projects that employ innovative energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced transmission and distribution technologies.   

Proposed projects must meet the requisite standards to qualify as "New or Significantly Improved Technologies" as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Chapter II, Part 609. The solicitation provides for a total of $8.5 billion in funding and is to remain open until that amount is fully obligated. The initial due date for applicants is September 14, 2009.    The full application is available at http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/2009-ren-energy-sol.pdf.

The second solicitation is for transmission infrastructure investment projects.    Proposed projects need not meet the innovative technology standards of section 1703 but must address the current economic conditions in the nation through the creation of jobs, investment in infrastructure, and facilitation of energy efficiency. The solicitation is designed to provide loan guarantees under section 1705 to support those transmission infrastructure investment projects that are most assured of commencing construction no later than September 30, 2011. This is consistent with ARRA's goal of rapid disbursement of funds to stimulate the economy and will favor transmission projects that are most "shovel-ready." Because transmission projects are typically highly complex with detailed planning and permitting requirements, this will be a crucial constraint for applicants. The solicitation references the approximately $6 billion made available under ARRA to pay the costs of loan guarantees without specifying how many actual guarantees will be made with these funds. The initial due date for applicants is also September 14, 2009.

The full solicitation is available at http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/2009-CPLX-TRANS-sol.pdf.

In the past, the federal loan guarantee program has been plagued by complexities and credit subsidy costs that frustrated its purpose of being an effective source of debt finance for energy projects. In today's credit constrained project finance environment, the program could serve a critical role in funding vital projects. President Obama and Secretary Chu have repeatedly expressed their goal of revamping the program so that it will become a valuable tool in the development of the new energy economy.

Stoel Rives attorneys have extensive experience in the development of energy projects and are already reviewing the solicitations in detail. This analysis of both the section 1703 and section 1705 programs will be included in the upcoming complimentary publication, Show Me the Money:   The Law of the Stimulus, second edition. The first edition is currently available for download at http://www.stoel.com/lawofseries.aspx, 

For all the talk about hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles...they are still only 2.1% of vehicles registered in the most enthusiastic state -- California.  Personal transportation is still talk more than walk! 
For all the impressive gains, alternative fuel vehicles in California have not yet made a major impact on the State's overall fuel economy.

Although increasing from 0.1% at the beginning of the decade, alternative fuel vehicles in 2007 accounted for 2.1% of all registered vehicles in California. The average fuel economy for California passenger vehicles in 2006 was less than 20 miles per gallon (19.9), a number that has not changed appreciably during the rapid rise in alternative fuel vehicle registrations and rising gas prices.

In fact, the United States as a whole has a higher average fuel economy of passenger vehicles (20.1 mpg) than California.

Californians are shifting to greener transportation options in many ways. According to Field Research Corporation,

• Two-thirds (67%) of registered voters are "using their more fuel- efficient vehicle more frequently."
• Almost three in ten (28%) surveyed report that they have "replaced a car or truck with a more fuel- efficient vehicle."
• Most of the new alternative fuel vehicle registrations are for hybrid automobiles.

In 2007, 3 of the top 10 hybrid metropolitan markets were in California; Los Angeles (#1), San Francisco (#2), and Sacramento (#9)

Metropolitan areas accounted for over 20% of new hybrid registrations in the United States.

In metropolitan areas as well as rural regions with high volumes of pass-through traffic, cleaner transportation options mean cleaner air.

REFERENCES:
California Air Resources Board. The EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy., Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. "Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27." June 30, 2008

Energy dissipates -- through burning or heat waves.  Heat is a "waste product" of many energy uses, even with tires.  So it is important to understand how to manage heat to extend the wearability of tires...and thus save money and energy use.  Well maintained tires give better gas mileage -- saving energy.  And well maintained tires last longer -- reducing the need for new or retreat tires to be manufactured, transported, installed and reclaimed at the end of their generational life.

This article explains some of the basic facts about tire longevity...and alternative energy savings.

THE TRUTH ABOUT HEAT AND RETREAD TIRES
By Scott C. Perschbacher

For many years I asked fleet managers and owner-operators what problems they had experienced with retreading concerning hot weather.

The answers that I got ranged from no problems at all to daily problems. I asked the ones that were having all of the success what was their secret. They would reply, "It's simple - checking air pressure and good tire maintenance."

With that frequently mentioned solution,  I then went back to those that were having all of the problems and studied their tire programs. I was amazed to see the results: fewer then 10% had a good program. And even the ones that did were not checking air pressure regularly.

But, those that did check air pressure regularly were money ahead and had very little tire failure. One of those fleets that really sticks in my mind is located in Riverton, Wl. This fleet has one of the best tire programs I've ever seen. They run 100 tractor-trailer pup units hauling soda ash 24 hours per day. They run multi - axle set-ups hauling extremely heavy loads at high speeds and in extreme weather conditions, which include 4 months of heat. This fleet also uses retreads at every position except the steer.


The positive effect that proper air pressure has on tires is endless.

When a radial truck tire has been inflated to its proper air pressure according to the weight it is carrying, the operating temperature should be around 150 degrees.

Let's assume that 100psi is the fleet standard. The rule of thumb is that for every loss in air pressure of 2psi the tire temperature will increase 5 degrees. In this fleet 85% of its tires have proper Inflation, which sounds pretty good.

The lowest tire in the fleet is 86psi. That means that the operating temperature of that tire is somewhere around 185 degrees, which is well above what the tire is normally designed to run. Combine this with extremely hot weather and you get down time. Notice I'm talking about a generic tire, not a retread, not a new tire.

Retreading a casing is a way to give a tire new life in order to reduce operating costs and promote recycling. A retreaded tire is only as good as the retread manufacturing and tire maintenance it receives throughout its entire life. If tires with low air pressure are left to run they will generate more heat and therefore have a greater chance for down time.

I believe that extremely hot temperatures make tire maintenance programs even more critical. To me the myths about running retreads in extreme heat with no success are excuses to downplay poor tire maintenance.

The facts all lead to a simple solution: go back to the basics with good solid tire maintenance!

For more information about retreading and tire repairing, including a great CD and DVD, please contact the Tire Retread & Repair Information Bureau toll free from anywhere in North America at 888-473-8732, or by email to: info@retread.org.