Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Energy conservation in transport sector

Expand Messages
  • ktsourl
    It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector makes much more sense, than conserving
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 8, 2006
      It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some study
      indicating that conserving energy in transport sector makes much more
      sense, than conserving energy in residential sector. Does anybody have
      any clue how to find this or some similar study?

      ------------------ Old Message ----------------------
      Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 09:25:38 -0400
      From: Lloyd Wright <LFWright@...>
      Subject: Lisbon project

      The following article outlines a new project near Lisbon, Portugal to
      develop a "sustainable" community for 30,000 people. Unfortunately,
      they have chosen a greenfield site in a nature reserve. Besides the
      obvious damage to the reserve, it would also seem that the development
      (about 20 km) from Lisbon is also going to increase sprawl and long
      commutes. I am surprised to see that WWF is behind the project.
      I recall a study a few years back comparing the overall environmental
      impact of highly energy-efficient homes in a suburban area to energy
      inefficient homes in the city centre. The study took place in San
      Francisco. The result was that the super efficient homes in a
      suburban area produced many more emissions than an inefficient home in
      the city centre. Basically, the extra energy consumed in the longer
      commute blew away any savings from having an energy-efficient home.

      It seems that the Lisbon project is repeating this mistake. Worse
      still is the fact that the whole concept is being touted as being
      "green" and "sustainable" by leading environmental organisations. It
      seems to me that it would be significantly better to invest their 1
      billion euros in a brownfield site in a low-income area of Lisbon.
    • Jym Dyer
      ... =v= This is a false dichotomy. Given the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing the energy use in *all*
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 8, 2006
        > It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some
        > study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector
        > makes much more sense, than conserving energy in residential
        > sector.

        =v= This is a false dichotomy. Given the amount of carbon being
        pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing
        the energy use in *all* sectors. Quibbling over which sector is
        worse is a distraction.

        =v= We see this all the time within a sector: Being able to run
        an electric, or hybrid, or biodiesel engine becomes an excuse to
        drive cars, drive SUVs, and drive them longer distances. That
        kind of thinking impedes real progress.

        =v= If you do find the type of studies you seek (including ones
        that come to the opposite conclusion), analyze them. It's easy
        for them to overlook variables. Also, consider the ways in
        which the two overlap:

        o What proportion of the building is being devoted to cars?

        o Is the building situated in a location (e.g. a sprawling
        suburb) dependent, by design, on car use?

        <_Jym_>
      • Todd Edelman
        Hi, ... (Dyer) I DISagree that this is a false dichotomy. I think everyone on this list ... and a few others ;-)... would agree that we need to reduce
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 9, 2006
          Hi,

          >> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some
          >> study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector
          >> makes much more sense, than conserving energy in residential
          >> sector.
          >
          > =v= This is a false dichotomy. Given the amount of carbon being
          > pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing
          > the energy use in *all* sectors. Quibbling over which sector is
          > worse is a distraction.
          <_Jym_> (Dyer)

          I DISagree that this is a false dichotomy. I think everyone on this list
          ... and a few others ;-)... would agree that we need to reduce energy use
          and its effects in *all* sectors. The point Lloyd makes (original message
          below) is quite right-on, and - though it is not clear if the Lisbon
          Ecoproject With Convenient Parking energy use estimate includes a high or
          decent percentage of public transport - I would argue that even public
          transport-dependent development is a problem, as when someone cant or
          doesnt want to take public transport their only option is a car. So,
          sprawl can induce car use, even it has plenty of public transport to
          another urban area.

          Of course, if it is difficult to take a car to the centre, or if the new
          site is relatively self-sufficient, things get improved. I think the best
          distance is tram-distance, which is also bike-distance, or closer of
          course.

          As some of you know I have been involved in the train/public transport
          industry sector for a couple of years now, and I am really so sick of
          sustainable transport this, sustainable mobility that... argghh!

          Leading industry manufacturers, so proud of their magnificent trains and
          such, say things like "cities are defined by the public transport systems"
          in industry magazines. They talk about cities expanding and the need for
          mobility and so on, and that trains are a solution. They want cities to
          expand, or at least dont care, and are there with some nice commuter
          trains and metros which make non-independent sprawl okay.

          But really, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot (feet). I
          would like to make an economic case for the industry for building public
          transport for closer distances. So trams (and buses) plus infrastructure
          making the industry more money than suburban trains and metros. Focusing
          on proximity, which means way less people get tempted (because, as I said
          above they live in long-distance transport dependent areas) to buy a car
          and drive. And if everyone who is not walking or taking the tram (bus)
          doesnt need a car, then you better bet they will have to take the train
          between cities, and this makes them more money in that sector anyway.

          - Todd
          >
          >
          >------------------ Old Message ----------------------
          Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 09:25:38 -0400
          From: Lloyd Wright <LFWright@...>
          Subject: Lisbon project

          The following article outlines a new project near Lisbon, Portugal to
          develop a "sustainable" community for 30,000 people. Unfortunately,
          they have chosen a greenfield site in a nature reserve. Besides the
          obvious damage to the reserve, it would also seem that the development
          (about 20 km) from Lisbon is also going to increase sprawl and long
          commutes. I am surprised to see that WWF is behind the project.
          I recall a study a few years back comparing the overall environmental
          impact of highly energy-efficient homes in a suburban area to energy
          inefficient homes in the city centre. The study took place in San
          Francisco. The result was that the super efficient homes in a
          suburban area produced many more emissions than an inefficient home in
          the city centre. Basically, the extra energy consumed in the longer
          commute blew away any savings from having an energy-efficient home.

          It seems that the Lisbon project is repeating this mistake. Worse
          still is the fact that the whole concept is being touted as being
          "green" and "sustainable" by leading environmental organisations. It
          seems to me that it would be significantly better to invest their 1
          billion euros in a brownfield site in a low-income area of Lisbon.

          ------------------------------------------------------

          Todd Edelman
          Director
          Green Idea Factory

          ++420 605 915 970

          edelman@...
          http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

          Green Idea Factory,
          a member of World Carfree Network
        • chbuckeye
          ... Here are some results of a study in the US. Energy used for transportation is significant. Also note that almost all energy for transportion in the US
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 11, 2006
            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "ktsourl" <ktsourl@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some study
            > indicating that conserving energy in transport sector makes much more
            > sense, than conserving energy in residential sector. Does anybody have
            > any clue how to find this or some similar study?

            Here are some results of a study in the US. Energy used for
            transportation is significant. Also note that almost all energy for
            transportion in the US comes from petroleum.

            http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.