What If We Would Switch to a Zero-Emission Transportation
Burning fossil fuels to move people and goods is highly pollutant but we didn’t have any other choice — until now. Zero-emission transportation is on its way. Here are three examples that showcase how close we are already.
There are numerous examples of how technology made our civilization better. Innovations in the medical field allowed us to live longer and more comfortably. Cars and planes let us move faster and to any place in the world. Electricity unlocked mass production. Food can grow on one side of the planet and be distributed anywhere just in time to be eaten. Humankind has never lived better. But at what cost?
The more we innovate, the worse the state of the world becomes. We have never emitted that much greenhouse gases (GHG) as nowadays and it is killing our planet. The transportation sector is one of the largest GHG emitters. Trucks, aircraft, and railroads, among other sources, all have a major role but it’s the car that contributes the most for it. Still, we want more people and goods to be able to travel, we want to make sure transportation remains affordable to everyone just like we do for products like gasoline and diesel but without the big carbon footprint.
We need clean and cheap energy to run all the transportation.
Automobiles: Shifting to electric
Fans of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV) will tell you there is no point investing in an electric vehicle (EV) to reduce GHG emissions if the energy used to charge it comes from the coal-powered grid. But there’s a misconception about how cleaner EVs are. Studies show that EVs emit fewer carbon emissions than ICEV. While the latter might emit around 69 metric tonnes of carbon during its lifetime, an EV emits around 66 of the same when powered by fossil fuel energy and it might be reduced to 6.30 tonnes of carbon emissions if it’s 100% fuelled by renewable energies. This is a huge reduction! And by the way, the world is shifting to cleaner energies at a fast pace.
Despite being cleaner, there’s still too much friction in moving to EVs. Drivers hesitate to buy EVs mainly because of the reasons below:
- EVs have short ranges for driving;
- Charging can take a lot of time;
- The initial investment is steep;
- Charging stations aren’t available everywhere;
- Low amount of choices;
To be honest, those reasons belong to the past. The truth is EV producers already solved those problems. They have made such progress that it’s already viable to buy and drive EVs in our daily lives.
The batteries that power EVs have seen an 85% price drop since 2010, so they’re getting more affordable to purchase. Increased competition in the market means there are more choices available to customers than ever before, from compact sedans to sleek sports cars. A lot of car companies are already selling an EV and almost all of them are investing huge amounts of money into electric R&D.
Also, charging infrastructure has been increasing. Just in Europe, Elli is an electric company that will provide up to 150.000 charging points soon, many are already Ionity superchargers. Superchargers enable charging a battery up to 80% in less than 30 minutes. Moreover, when in the past the charging experience was terrible, services like WeCharge from Volkswagen turned it into something as simple as it can get, drastically decreasing the fear of the e-cars running out of power. Given this, I believe that we will have access to low-cost EVs in a short time. I believe the commute emissions will drastically drop over the next years due to the EV transition.
Freight traffic: Long-distance shipping
I am happy to see that EVs are a great answer to the personal transportation sector problem in a short to medium distance. But what about long distances? How do we move goods for trading and commerce around? Nikola and Tesla are working on their trucks to fill this gap. Tesla Semi, powered by electricity, is almost out and it’s expected to travel up to 800 km with only a battery charge while the creator of this truck promises that the 170.000 € investment would be returned after two years due to fuel savings.
On the other side of the game, Nikola One truck uses hydrogen. It might travel up to 1200 km with a single tank. Hydrogen could become competitive in transportation, particularly for large vehicles with long ranges and forklifts. Why do you ask? Because it:
- Has a much better fuel efficiency/range;
- Re-fuels much faster vs EVs;
- Fits into the current gasoline infrastructure;
- Is way cleaner and emission-free.
Hydrogen can be up to twice as efficient as gasoline when generating electricity since hydrogen fuel cells are 40 to 60% efficient when compared to ICEV which are only 30 to 35% efficient. Coupled with the fact that re-fueling a hydrogen truck can take up to 15 minutes when electric trucks might take up to an hour or more (even using superchargers) makes it a viable choice to be used on long runs.
One of the potential issues with hydrogen is that it’s expensive to transport it on the roads or over the sea. However, transporting via pipelines is possible, hence the existing gasoline pipeline network could be repurposed and used for hydrogen instead. This speeds up a lot the transition from gasoline trucks to hydrogen since there is no need for additional transportation infrastructure.
Last but not least, hydrogen is much cleaner and emission-free when compared to gasoline vehicles. If we exclude its production, the lifecycle of hydrogen fuel is zero-emissions, it does not contribute to air pollution. The majority of greenhouse gases from hydrogen fuel cells give off during their production, not usage. The process of creating the fuel cell may require fossil fuels (Grey and Blue Hydrogen), but the use of hydrogen fuel cells as an alternative to gasoline could remove five metric tons of carbon dioxide over their lifetime. Still, there are alternative ways to produce it clean (Green Hydrogen). Although the production of green hydrogen is still small and expensive today, it’s growing rapidly. Hydrogen Council reported that its cost will decrease by 60% until 2030.
Airplanes: Powered by biofuels
Despite cars and trucks contribute to a big slice of the emissions pie in this sector, the aviation pie has been increasing in the last years. And unfortunately, electricity isn’t a viable choice to be used for long distances as batteries are big and heavy. The more weight you’re trying to move, the more batteries you need to power the vehicle (are we looking at a paradox?). Also, the aviation industry has committed to reducing all its carbon emissions by 50% from its 2005 values by 2050. Since the sector has increased a lot since 2005 and it has only a few decades left until the deadline, this is probably a Mission Impossible. Yet, biofuel might be the solution to the challenge above.
It’s no news that biofuels can be used in airplanes. Test flights and lab analysis started back in 2008 but this generation of biofuels (first-generation), such as biodiesel and ethanol, were not suitable fuels for powering commercial aircraft. Many of these fuels don’t meet the high performance, safety specifications, they were too costly to produce, or emitted even more CO2 than the hydrocarbon-based fuel (fossil jet kerosene) during its lifecycle (ethanol’s overall emissions are too high due to its production methods). However, researches on second-generation biofuels made it a really good energy source to be used in aviation.
Unlike the previous generation, the second-gen bio fuels:
- Are sustainably produced biofuels result in a reduction in CO2 emissions across their lifecycle (from feedstock growth to flights).
- Offer a viable alternative to fossil fuels and can substitute traditional jet fuel, with a more diverse geographical fuel supply through non-food crop sources.
- Provide a solution to the price fluctuations related to fuel cost volatility facing aviation. Biofuels can provide economic benefits to parts of the world, especially developing nations, that have unviable land for food crops that is suitable for second-generation biofuel crop growth.
Moreover, biofuel feedstocks absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow, so burning them for fuel simply releases that same carbon back into the atmosphere. The net CO2 level remains the same and they can replace conventional jet fuel without modifying existing engines and can be “drop-in” fuels.
Second-generation biofuels are already being used in the aviation industry. They are mixed with fossil jet kerosene in a very small percentage but it’s expected to increase up to 20% by 2040. After all, it might be the only way to meet the 2050 target in such a short time.
Companies like Virent are already producing jet fuel from plants (and even selling plastic 100% plant-based).
In the US, federal investment in Emerald Biofuels, Fulcrum BioEnergy, and Red Rock Biofuels set the runway for airlines to fly on clean energy. They produce military-grade biofuel that can be blended up to 50% with traditional fuels, emitting less than half the greenhouse gas emissions, at a price competitive with petroleum. It is not the perfect scenario for the zero-emissions target, but it’s an excellent start.
Even private flying companies are already investing in it. KLM, for instance, created its own biofuel distribution company, SkyNRG, to supply airlines around the world with biofuels.
In short, the transportation industry has already found encouraging solutions, but we still have a way to go until mass-adoption.
